- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Was when the candidates were discussing the current crisis in Pakistan, and the debate revolved around what to do with Musharraf and whether or not we should allow elections and if so, whether or not we'd be able to "control" the outcome. Not influence, not shape...CONTROL. Considering that the political system of a sovereign nation on the other side of the globe was being discussed, Clinton's choice of words at that moment was very, very telling indeed.
Richardson essentially called for the US to depose Musharraf and hold free and fair elections, saying that we had the "influence" required to get it done (none of the other candidates disputed that point.) Translation: Pakistan is a client state and Musharraf our vassal. We're the boss, and he's in our employment, and although he has served a useful purpose up to now, it's time to fire him, just like we've fired so many of our employees in the past (Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega are merely two recent examples.)
The other candidates argued that deposing Musharraf would be counterproductive and that the genie of "democracy" in Pakistan, if unleashed from its bottle, could well be detrimental to US interests, if say radical Islamists were to gain control of the country. An arguably prudent and sensible position, but one that shows that this country doesn't actually care one bit about the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We merely care about preserving our power and influence in the region, and one of the linchpins in our strategy has been the carefully-cultivated ties with Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus that we've developed over decades. These ties, and the dark activities of Pakistan's military-intelligence establishment in everything from the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, to Kashmir, to the drug trade, to nuclear proliferation, to 9/11, to sheltering and shielding Bin Laden and al-Quaeda, to the resurgent Taliban, all deserve major coverage in the US media and a major place in the consciousness of the American voter. But, of course, no such thing will ever happen.
After the exchange over Pakistan last night, could there be any further doubt that Musharraf is our guy, and has been since he seized power in a coup in 1999? He decapitated the Pakistani democracy that we're afraid to unleash and that was pushing Pakistan in some uncomfortable and unacceptable directions in the mid-late 90s. Could there be any further doubt that Benazir Bhutto's assassination was quietly and secretly welcomed by many in Washington? Does anyone really buy the official line that Bhutto was knocked off by Islamist radicals, and not by the military or ISI at the behest of Musharraf?
There is so much that needs to be discussed about Pakistan that is ignored or glossed over by the media that it's almost depressing. There's way more going on there than meets the eye, that's for sure. But the exchange during the debate last night, if parsed intelligently, was very enlightening and revealing. I wish more Americans were paying attention to this type of stuff.
