In Perspective

The Center for American Progress' Brian Katulis is one of our key actually serious experts rising on the scene, and conveniently enough he's just been in Pakistan for three weeks talking to a wide variety of players. His commentary on the current situation is worth paying attention to:

All too often in recent years the United States has looked to elections in other countries as the primary indication for success or failure in a country's progress toward political reform. The US has also become singularly focused on individual leaders like Bhutto. Her murder is a tragedy, and Musharraf has called for a three-day mourning period. As the world remembers her contributions, it should also keep her record in perspective. Under Bhutto, Pakistan provided support to the Taliban in the 1990s. Some observers note that Bhutto was not the saviour of democracy she claimed to be, including Bhutto's niece in a recent, biting op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. And it was also in part on Bhutto's watch that Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father Pakistan's nuclear programme, built an international network that led to dangerous transfers of nuclear technology.

As Pakistan enters an even more complicated period, US policymakers should resist the temptation to see the situation in simplistic, black-and-white, freedom-versus-terror terms. Past experience in Pakistan and elsewhere demonstrates that putting our hopes on a single leader or a single election rarely makes Americans safer or advances stability and prosperity in other countries.

I think that's well-said. You can find more Katulis here and also here: "Earlier this month in Lahore, an official in a leading opposition party complained to me about U.S. policy's almost singular approach and obsession with individual leaders rather than institutions and the whole society: 'Why does President Bush say, "Mr. Musharraf is my friend?" Why doesn't he say, "Pakistan is our friend"?'" To put that question in a non-rhetorical context, I think it reflects the legacy of imperialism -- it's an effort to approximate the concept of "indirect rule" by cultivating mutually beneficial relationships between the US and individual foreign political leaders rather than mutually beneficial relationships between peoples.

Comments

One should note that our failed Russia policy (failed insofar as Russia became a basket-case in the 90s, that is) came about as a result of placing too much stake in the personal relationship that the US and the west had with Yeltsin, rather than thinking about how the interests of the Russian people lined up with the interests of the west.

Posted by Tyro | December 28, 2007 2:03 PM

"Why does President Bush say, "Mr. Musharraf is my friend?" Why doesn't he say, "Pakistan is our friend"?'"

President Bush is an alcoholic without benefit of recovery. This 'tic' is another symptom.

Posted by rickhavoc | December 28, 2007 2:14 PM

Bhuttos record is definetly mixed. Many would argue downright bad. I think it is correct that we should not view this tragedy in terms of Bhutto being a bright new hope for Pakistan.

But I believe that her candidacy was a sucessful nudge in the direction of democratic rule in Pakistan, and this was a blow to momentum in that direction. I had always thought that the best outcome of the current political battles in Pakistan would have been for Musharoff to win an election fair and square; the Bhutto candidacy playing the role of driving the population to demand that the elections be a little more transparent. It wouldn't be perfect, but maybe the right baby steps.

Posted by damonjay | December 28, 2007 2:57 PM

There is no doubt that without Bhutto, democracy will suffer.

Al Queda has claimed responsibility for this attack. But instead, the blogosphere is Blaming Bush. I just don't get it.

Posted by litbrit | December 28, 2007 3:56 PM

I think it reflects the legacy of imperialism

More to the point, it reflects Bush's personality. Good-old-boy networks and personal loyalties are how he thinks, exclusively. It's how he runs his administration, and it's how he's attempted to run the world. Anything on a larger scale than the personal -- like nation-states or democratic institutions or geopolitics -- is simply beyond his grasp.

Posted by urbino | December 28, 2007 4:28 PM

Re "it's an effort to approximate the concept of "indirect rule" by cultivating mutually beneficial relationships between the US and individual foreign political leaders "
--------
More truthfully, by cultivating "mutually beneficial relationships" between the US government and "docile obedient puppets".

We push democracy because it's hard to rig an
election if one isn't held. We favor foreign politicians who resemble our own Members of Congress -- i.e, docile whores whose personal survival depends upon betraying their constituents for wealthy interests.

Posted by Don Williams | December 28, 2007 5:16 PM

litbrit: "I just don't get it."

Now you do. You acknowledge that you "don't get it."

That's a first step in the right direction.

There's no evidence other than a purported Pakistani intelligence intercept to prove that Al Qaeda had anything to do with it.

Certainly they could have. Equally certainly, so could either Islamist or anti-Islamist factions in the military or the ISI.

Just about everybody in Pakistan benefits from Bhutto's death - even some people think her own party will benefit by reforming itself around someone less controversial.

The issue with Bush is that his Pakistan policy is as brain dead as the rest of his foreign policy. This goes back to the stupidity of supporting Pakistan during the Afghan Soviet war, supporting it after 9/11 during the run up to the attack on Afghanistan, attacking Afghanistan itself which merely dumped the problem next door in Pakistan, then supporting a ruthless dictator in Pakistan on the grounds that he was "against terrorism" - which he demonstratively was not and could not be, given his background in the Pakistani military.

Then Bush tried to micromanage the Pakistani political scene by forcing Bhutto on Musharraf, thus forcing Musharraf to take more extreme measures to hang onto his power, thus further damaging democracy in Pakistan.

It's very likely the latter measures included killing Bhutto altogether - which in turn will increase the crisis in Pakistan and make it even MORE likely that nothing will be done about Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or that whatever IS done will simply increase their influence.

It's brain dead from day one - the entire concept of a military response to terrorism is simply stupid.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 28, 2007 10:03 PM

it's an effort to approximate the concept of "indirect rule" by cultivating mutually beneficial relationships between the US and individual foreign political leaders rather than mutually beneficial relationships between peoples.

That's right. But given US policies of dominating these countries militarily, requiring oil rents for US firms, and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian arabs, there can be no social basis for support of US policies. So it's easier to pay off prominent families of the local landlord classes.

Posted by otto | December 29, 2007 6:45 AM

Richard Steven Hack and everyone else--

Please be aware that the above comment, made at 3:56pm, WAS NOT MADE BY ME, LITBRIT.

I am the victim of a sockpuppet troll who followed me from Ezra's blog to our new group blog and is now posting offensive and stupid comments around the blogosphere, using my name. I apologize profusely and ask that you please ignore or remove any posts with my name and blog address that appear rightwing-slanted, obscene, or otherwise suspect.

You may email me for confirmation of this: litbrit at gmail dot com

Thank you.

Posted by litbrit | December 29, 2007 12:36 PM

Acknowledged, litbrit. It happens.

Anyway, anybody posting using a handle is subject to having problems. Anybody can trace my posts on any subject using Google easily, and I use my real name, so my credibility is rarely in question (if not my sanity.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 29, 2007 8:19 PM