Zardari Or The Generals?

Kaplan weighs in on Pakistan:

Now backed by the United States, Zardari must get the Taliban rebellion in Pakistan’s tribal areas under control, calm the fires of separatism and insurgency in the province of Baluchistan, and work with the prime minister to get Pakistan’s economy moving again. A life spent getting rich quick provides him little experience in these affairs. Does he even have the emotional will and strength of character to work seriously on matters that would challenge even the best and most well-meaning of politicians?

If Zardari fails, the military might once again step in to fill the power vacuum — but in a manner different from previous military coups.

In Pakistan’s muddled history, generals and politicians have taken turns in power, and both have failed. But the West would condemn another coup, and Baluch and Sindhi minorities — who see the military as a Punjabi conspiracy — would erupt in nationalist fury if the military seized power. What we might watch for in the months ahead are signs of a creeping, undeclared coup, in which Zardari and opposition leader Sharif engage in a soap opera of political machinations against each other, while the tribal areas and other parts of the country slip into partial anarchy. The military would quietly assert itself, filling the gap in governance. Military rule would prevail, in all but name. That scenario is what the former playboy Zardari threatens to unleash.

The Emerging Iraq

Reihan admits "victory", whatever that means, is not yet at hand:

Advocates of a continued American presence have much to answer for as well. Why is it that Maliki hasn’t made the necessary concessions? What can the U.S. do to encourage reconciliation that hasn’t been done? Has the economic strategy of the Iraqi government been adequate to the task of rebuilding the country? It was fair and reasonable to neglect these considerations during the struggle to bring Iraq back from the brink. But that neglect has proved very costly indeed.

Man Of War

Mccainalexwonggetty

Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic cover story on McCain is now online. It’s must reading. A teaser:

John McCain has been said to have neoconservative inclinations; to critics, this suggests a commitment to the unilateral deployment of military force to bring about a democratic transformation in once-hostile countries. The question of whether he’s a neocon, however, is not entirely relevant; McCain has advisers from both the neocon and realist camps, and he’s too inconsistent to be easily labeled. In one area, though, he has been more or less constant: his belief in the power of war to solve otherwise insoluble problems.

This ideology of action has not been undermined by his horrific experience as a tortured POW during the Vietnam War, or by the Bush administration’s disastrous execution of the Iraq War. All this is not to suggest that McCain is heedlessly bellicose or reflexively willing to send U.S. soldiers into danger; he is the father of a marine and a Naval Academy midshipman, James McCain and John S. McCain IV, whose service he rarely mentions. And he opposed, presciently, keeping the Marines in Beirut in 1993, just before their barracks were bombed. But his willingness to speak frankly about the utility of military intervention sets him apart from his opponent. Senator Obama, though certainly no pacifist, envisions a world of cooperation and diplomacy; McCain sees a world of organic conflict and zero-sum competition.

He is a nineteenth century man angling for conflict in the 21st. About as terrifying a combination as you can imagine.

(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.)