Obviously, there is a difference between an opinion from an american and an opinion which reflects US nationalism and national interests. Abhi’s opinion belongs to the second class.

What is unfortunate, is that he titles his piece “victory for the pakistani people?” whereas his real title should be “Who will best help US achieve its goals in Pakistan?”. This is the hypocrisy I am referring to – talking about democracy, liberalism, other fancy words, while actually reaching conclusions based on hard-nosed real-politik.

And, yes, I am aware that our current US administration specializes in this kind of stuff…

Al Beruni, you frame this issue all wrong. This isn’t a post reflecting “US concerns,” it’s a post reflecting “Abhi’s concerns.” Of course, Abhi is an American, and so his concerns obviously reflect his perspective and experience as an American. And certainly there are Americans who agree with him. Especially in the Bush administration. But there are also many other Americans who don’t, and their concerns also reflect their perspectives and experiences as Americans. We’re not a monolith.

Al Beruni, where do you spot hypocrisy? This has ALWAYS been an American blog. I think we have only ever had a single non-American as a guest blogger even. I am sure there are plenty of other blogs (and I linked to a summary of some above) written by non-Americans with differing viewpoints that you can find to agree with your viewpoint.

You are absolutely right – but we should all be honest and aim for less hypocrisy. What is dissapointing is the pretense of universalism – the idea that US concerns are naturally universal concerns etc – clothing it in abstract discussion of liberty/democracy and other fancy words. This what I have objected to in Abhi’s posting.

But you have to understand this kind of brainwashing goes deep into the culture. American culture is so self-absorbed that it is difficult for many people to even realize this – they are genuinely puzzled by the idea that the whole world doesnt resolve around american self-interest. This is also typified by Abhi’s responses to comments..

This discounts the HUNDREDS of billions that have been consumed by the pakistani army. There are whole books that have now been written that analyze the scale and magnitude of this stealing, which must be some kind of world record.

Aren’t indian politicans corrupt? Should indians also be ruled by their military?

Here is a Boston Globe article that basically echoes Abhi’s US-national-interest-is-the-only-important-issue viewpoint. You can clearly see the impact of narrow american nationalism on the writers thought process.

The inconvenient, painful truth is that a truly democratic Pakistan would be, at least in the foreseeable future, less inclined to act in ways that advance urgent American interests.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/21/reading_the_tea_leaves_in_pakistan/

Hardly. Your logic is a bit fallacious, if you’ll pardon the phrasing. Being predicated on a particular notion or idea has nothing to do with where political parties currently stand.

No political party in Pakistan stands for separating Islam from the state or the nation, or changing the role of the military from being a defender of Islam to being a defender of the nation and its state. Gallantry awards in the Pakistan military are still conferred for having sacrificed one’s life for Islam (which is one becomes a shaheed, not just a mohib) and dispatching the infidel to jahannum.

…but isn’t this statement akin to saying that because Puritans came to the US originally, all American political parties are therefore Puritanical?

No, because the founders of the US categorically delinked faith from the state.

In the absence of great luck, you need the tug of success and failures of democracy and electoral politics for these great leaders to fall out. If there is tacit or overt encouragement of military strongmen who crush all dissent taking over every ten years, where is the healthy process that will nurture these leaders?

Except you fail to mention the obvious which is that a weak central government ALWAYS feeds extremism even more. A strong central government can at the very least usually provide security.

It might be that the wave of Islamic extremism in the northwest combined with separatist forces will lead to Pakistan splintering because of a weak central government. But the blame for that rests in a 40 year tradition of periodically having one-man shows based on myopic agendas, not on the fact that the current government is weak. The use of force might create the illusion of stability for a few more years, but it can hardly put a stop to these forces if they are indeed as inexorable as you fear. On the other hand, if they are not, it is very possible that a functional representative government emerges from this crucible of violence provided there is adequate and reasoned international support.

The army will see that with this election loss Musharraf has become weakened. Having recognized that maybe they’ll just take over in the coming months.

Kayani has known for a while that Musharraf is weak. He has explicitly enforced regulations that prevent army officers from meeting with politicians, and also relinquished responsibility for actually running the election because he did not want to have any suspicion of doctored results on the army. The cycle seems to be in the mode of separating army and politics, but again, that is not a new development in Pakistani politics. The question is what the US response will be when the next strongman wants to play his cards.

You’re absolutely right as far as I’m concerned. I’m Pakistani, and I didn’t vote precisely because I don’t believe that my exercise of a faux-democratic action will actually do anything. All the elections have accomplished, near as I can tell what with being in PK and all that, is a regurgitation of the same corrupt, incompetent personalities who’ve spent the last four decades kicking the shit out of the country. The change has to mandated and achieved by the military, and by integration of the military back into civil society. To scream “Oh, the Army people are gone, elections have been held, yay democracy” is to be myopic.

all political parties in Pakistan are religious parties.

Hardly. Your logic is a bit fallacious, if you’ll pardon the phrasing. Being predicated on a particular notion or idea has nothing to do with where political parties currently stand. I’m not great on US history, but isn’t this statement akin to saying that because Puritans came to the US originally, all American political parties are therefore Puritanical? That sort of sweeping generalisation ignores the distinction between parties urging a religious transformation and those that are working from a more secular perspective, not to mention the gradations of opinion and approach that each individual member of a party has. If anything, the parties here tend towards being ethnic in nature.