ImPervious to criticism

I have never been particularly enraptured by the Pakistani military, and this was before reading a few volumes off the shelf of St. Martin’s Press. I profess to not having to read Sadigga’s piece prior to riding my post, but in hindsight I’m not sure my opinion changes that much.

The mechanisms for Musharraf’s usurpation are in plain sight. There is no doubt that a dictator of his wavering nature can’t last in perpetuity. But as homobavaricus argues in typical circular logic, a US-installed head of state in this part of the world is almost always a bad choice. This is the path we’re heading, though, and if the next Nishan-i-Haider comes is autonomous, and not an automaton, then I will be pleasantly surprised. It’s not clear for instance, that if Bhutto, Sharif, or one of the lawyers throwing rocks in the middle Peshawar rises to prominence that the pattern of coddling fundamentalists while playing patsies to the West won’t continue.

It could well get better, but the landscape has inexorably changed, so my guess is that’ll get worse.

I won’t speak to the nonproliferation issues, because clearly homo’s got my card on those.
I think that this shadow boxing is somewhat useless, though, so I’ll call homo out: who is a better choice to govern Pakistan? What are we looking for, prototypically or incarnate? This is not a logical fallacy, where lack of proof of a viable leader is proof of lack. I’m honestly interested. I think that would be a better way to continue this dialog.

Hardly Perv-ect!

In a groundbreaking first for Unknown Knowns, homobavaricus (me) would like to pick a public bone with perdixperdix. You will have to wait a while for his rejoinder, though. He is currently sitting in an auditorium, no doubt being riveted by the Honorable Alberto Gonzalez’ rhetorical stylings. Let’s hope Fredo can recall something!

I’ve been an agnostic on the Great Musharraf Debate that’s been raging in the think tanks on Massachusetts Ave. and the blogosphere for quite some time. Like the other grand foreign policy challenges we’re facing in the starting years of what is promising to be a pretty screwed up century (I’m thinking of Iraq, Darfur, and EU expansion), I’ve been following it with great interest, but have yet to commit myself to one position or another.

Until perdixperdix went too far. (Hey, the cable news channels made a business model out of contrived outrage.)

The corruption issue first. I’ll admit it’s pretty tough to beat Sharif and Bhutto at the corruption game, even for some of New York’s finest. But there’s one entity that leaches more off Pakistani society than the two ex-PMs put together: the military. I’ve heard great things about Ayisha Siddiga’s Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy. In a nutshell, the military owns vast amounts of real estate and runs businesses from dairy farms to steel factories. And to state the obvious, they can do whatever they want with it and are known to expand their economic empire by force and coercion. Somehow I think a few kickbacks to a PM’s husband will have a more benign effect on the economy and society.

Second, the “lack of alternatives” argument. Take the statement “Mr. President, we don’t like everything X is doing, but if we don’t support him the extremists will take over.” Replace “X” with the Shah, Idi Amin, Diem, Pinochet, Marcos, etc. etc. Rinse and repeat. Observe magnificent results.

I agree that it may not be the greatest idea to hold a free and fair election in Saudi Arabia because most Saudis are not terribly interesting in creating a pluralistic and open society. In Pakistan that’s not the case. The crazies already get a small share of the vote in elections rigged in their favor (by our splendid Perv). Supporting Musharraf’s coup can only embitter the Pious Plurality (get it? like Moral Majority!) and turn the part of society that matters against the West.

I’ll add some more thoughts (and proofread this) later.