The Nation.



Our Man in Pakistan

truthdig

By Robert Scheer

November 7, 2007

Write a Web letter about this article.

What's a Web Letter?

Web Letters are continuously published e-mails from real people, signed with their real names. No registration is required. Each article page on The Nation includes a Web Letters link.

Read the best Web Letters on this page.

We're committed to publishing your comments as they are received. We place a red star () on the best submissions and may edit your e-mail for length or content. Your e-mail address will not be published or shared with any third party without your consent.

If you prefer, you may submit a letter to the print edition only.

We look forward to hearing from you.

  • The situation in Pakistan is far more unstable and volatile than has been portrayed. The US/Musharraf/Bhutto deal that allowed her return was a capitulation by Musharraf that indicated that his political situation was quickly eroding. Why else would he agree to this arrangement, unless he had concluded that sharing power was preferrable to losing it altogether?

    This arrangement to share power with Bhutto was intended to avoid declaring martial law and the unrest it would cause. My guess is that Musharraf discovered a potential coup d'état by a section of the military and moved to squash it. Otherwise, it seems that the plan for elections and shared power with Bhutto would have been allowed to proceed. The consequences of political schisms within Pakistan's military and secret service have a potential to reach a level of chaos that could quickly become uncontrollable. The scenarios are scary.

    As to the US/Musharraf/Bhutto deal, what a combination to offer the Pakistani people. If the political situation was destablizing under Musharraf, this arrangement was sure to raise the bar. The high regard that the Western media holds for Bhutto is not shared by over 70 percent of Pakistanis, who see her as the embodiment of aristocratic arrogance and corruption.

    Ultimately, the instability in Pakistan is the result of Musharraf's association with Bush and the American war on Islam. Thinking that a US-brokered deal to unite Bhutto and Musharraf would somehow pacify this unrest is a stunning miscalculation.

    Keith Chudzik

    Columbus, OH

    11/08/2007 @ 12:57pm


  • Talk about unforeseen consequences! There are no good options in Pakistan, and they have real nuclear weapons. While Bush may be cool toward the idea of cutting off aid, Senator Leahy, whose committee controls the aid, may push for cuts if the emergency situation continues.

    I think we have to be leery of a US-backed regime change, but if it occurs naturally by moderate elements in society, we would naturally have to work with any new government. This is a can of worms!

    Pervis J. Casey

    Riverside, CA

    11/07/2007 @ 1:34pm


Popular Topics
Most Searched

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Blogs

» Campaign 08

How Obama Would Govern | How a President Obama might tackle Iraq, energy, healthcare and the economy.
Ari Berman

» Capitolism

"Back It Up, Bitch!" | A policeman assaults a protester.
Christopher Hayes

» And Another Thing

I Heart Michelle Obama | Will her Monday-night speech reassure white voters?
Katha Pollitt

» The Notion

Don't Make Afghanistan the Democrats' War | Memo to Obama/Biden: Drop the mantra that it's "the good war"
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Beat

It Looks a Lot Like Unity | Overcoming internal divisions--and a century of tortured political history-Democrats chose Barack Obama as their presidential nominee.
John Nichols

» ActNow!

Leave No Soldier Behind | Can we talk about Iraq now?
Peter Rothberg

» Editor's Cut

Taking On Poverty and Inequality | Unless (and until) we tackle the gap between the very rich and the rest of America--it will be increasingly difficult to confront the major challenges of our time.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Dreyfuss Report

US Massacres Afghan Kids | So much for Obama's "right war."
Robert Dreyfuss