Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Because it blames George Bush for the situation in Pakistan? Not exactly interesting. More interesting is that a piece about Pakistan could discuss problems there without mentioning Kashmir, Bangladesh, India, corruption and looting by Bhutto and her family and the country's dumb ass decision to test nukes. I also like how an article on Pakistan's "power puzzle" doesn't mention China.
|
If you're going to insist that every post be this thorough, you probably should also insist that there be some discussion of Britain's role during partition.
It is an interesting post, and doesn't excessively dwell on Bush (or the US in general). It is hard for Americans to understand the role of the military in Pakistan, because it is a role that really relates to the military as a separate, deeply entrenched and hereditary institution. There is nothing like it here. But during partition the country was really constructed around the military, which the British had made the most central and privileged local institution and which they counted on, post-independence, as a bulwark against Russia. Just as the American elites have multi-generational ties to Harvard or Yale, the Pakistani elites have multi-generational ties to a particular military unit. What unit your grandfather served in is more important to a Pakistani than what public school their family is associated with is to a City Barrister.
But because it's hard for Americans to understand the role of the military and what Bhutto represents (a family not tied to the military for its prestige - a family that breaks traditional molds in a very modern and non-Pakistani way), when Americans meddle in Pakistani politics, the law of unintended consequences applies. But as the only remaining superpower, they will meddle. The article did a decent job of highlighting how that played into the battle between the Bhuttos of the world and the traditional forces. And Musharif is just as much a part of the traditional landscape as the Islamicists.
