Pakistan and the American Presidency

JPod, on Bhutto and the American presidential election:

American politics would dearly love to take a holiday from history, just as it did in the 1990s. But our enemies are not going to allow us to do so. The murder of Bhutto moves foreign policy, the war on terror, and the threat of Islamofascism back into the center of the 2008 campaign. How candidates respond to it, and issues like it that will come up in the next 10 months, will determine whether they are fit for the presidency.

This seems to be the conventional wisdom on the domestic political fallout of Bhutto's assassination, with the obvious corollary being that the turmoil in Pakistan helps those candidates running on foreign-policy experience (i.e. McCain and Hillary, and possibly even Biden) and hurts the candidates running on domestic-policy change (Obama, Huckabee, and arguably Romney). This view of the situation is probably right, but it seems worth airing an alternative possibility: That yesterday's tragedy, which leaves the Bush Administration's delicate plans for stabilizing to Pakistan in fragments, will prompt at least some voters to view America's attempts at managing the affairs of complex, chaotic, and far-off nations - places about which even the McCains and Bidens of the D.C. community presumably know relatively little - not as a hard duty that requires toughness and experience, but as a folly to be avoided.

"How candidates respond" to Bhutto's assassination, JPod suggests, should determine their fitness for the Oval Office. Well, all the leading contenders have responded, and all of them have dodged, in one fashion or another, any strategic question about where U.S. policy should go from here, beyond platitudinous references to supporting democracy and opposing terror. Not that I blame them: Our Pakistan problem is a vexatious question, ill-suited to being addressed in sound bites and press releases. But it's precisely because it's so impossibly vexatious, and likely to remain so no matter who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania, that the news from Rawalpindi fleetingly inspired me to greater sympathy not for "ready to lead" politicians like John McCain or Hillary Clinton, but for the "come home, America" candidacy of one Dr. Ron Paul.

Comments

Precisely, Ross.

Every one of the experienced old foreign policy hands would have got us into the same position re Pakistan we are in now: Hopelessly attempting to "stabilize" an inherently unstable country.

Yesterday's tragedy further illustrates the fact that the United States cannot and should not try to manage regimes half way around the world. Neither should tens of thousands of American troops be committed permanently to the defense of Germany, South Korea or the Potemkin government of Iraq.

Posted by Simon | December 28, 2007 10:34 AM

Precisely, Ross.

Every one of the experienced old foreign policy hands would have got us into the same position re Pakistan we are in now: Hopelessly attempting to "stabilize" an inherently unstable country.

Yesterday's tragedy further illustrates the fact that the United States cannot and should not try to manage regimes half way around the world. Neither should tens of thousands of American troops be committed permanently to the defense of Germany, South Korea or the Potemkin government of Iraq.

Posted by Simon | December 28, 2007 10:34 AM

Thanks for the kind words!

Posted by bbartlog | December 28, 2007 10:36 AM

We have lurched from crisis to crisis trying to "stabilize the situation" for so long that it's starting to look pretty certain that it's our "stabilization" efforts themselves which are creating the problem.

We continue to view any change in any society that we do not orchestrate from the Oval Office as a threat to our interests. This leads us in practice to pursue not stability, but stasis. And stasis is impossible, and in seeking it we destroy more than we help.

Would a non-interventionist foreign policy always be the right choice? Maybe not. Maybe we can look at history and find moments and places where we say, "Whew, glad we were interventionists that time!" But it's not looking like 2007 in the Middle East is one of those moments and places. It may very well be that we have to pull back, if only to allow ourselves and the region a catharsis.

Posted by Fluffy | December 28, 2007 10:45 AM

I have a question. When we elect the President of the United States, are we also electing the President of the World?

Posted by Jeffrey Shakoor | December 28, 2007 10:59 AM

Wow! That's a really great question, Jeffrey! Very deep and insightful!

Posted by wow! | December 28, 2007 11:10 AM

Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is the only policy that will stabilize the Middle East. Clinton and the warmongering Republicans (except Paul of course) are hoping and praying that the sheeple will rush into their arms to be protected against "the terrorists". And so the great WAR MACHINE will continue to control American policy until we are bankrupt...oh wait..we already are!

Posted by mildred carlson | December 28, 2007 11:12 AM

The media seems more concerned with "what do we do now", than with "how did we get here?" $10 billion in foreign aid and this is what we have to show for it. The US backs an unelected military dictator and then we wonder why muslims hate us. Go Ron Paul!

Posted by John Campbell | December 28, 2007 11:13 AM

The murder of Bhutto moves foreign policy, the war on terror, and the threat of Islamofascism back into the center of the 2008 campaign.

Giving, and failing to account for, $5 billion to a military dictator might have something to do with the current situation.

Not that Pakistan would be Switzerland were it not for us.

But doing what Podhoretz fils counsels-- focusing only on what threatens us, imagining that it's omnipotent, and fantasizing that we are little Churchills-- seems not to be working.

If the US were omnipotent and omniscient, I'd be a neoconservative. But some stuff that Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Burke said a long while ago might still be relevant to governance and the human condition.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 28, 2007 11:46 AM

Obama's only my #3 choice among Democrats, and I think that libertarianism is fit only for small children and obsessive-compulsives. But AFAIK, of all the candidates you mention, only Paul and Obama opposed the Iraq invasion. Being right in the past is an indication that a person might be right in the future. (I supported the invasion, but I should have known better at the time, and I've been proven wrong by subsequent events).

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 28, 2007 11:51 AM

Ross:

It's striking to me, in this regard, the difference in the reaction to two posts I put up yesterday, one on Pakistan and one on conservatism and irrational prejudice.

The Pakistan piece got one comment, and it was not a substantive response to the piece.

The piece about irrational prejudice has (so far) garnered 18 comments, more than half of them substantive responses to the piece (the remainder being jokes about Reihan and cheese).

Now, TAS is not representative of, well, anything. And maybe the Pakistan piece wasn't very good, and that's why it didn't garner much reaction (though I usually hear negative feedback when I post something lousy, rather than no feedback).

So, those caveats notwithstanding, I'm inclined to believe that part of the reason for the difference is that people like to talk about what they like to talk about, and don't like to talk about what they don't like to talk about. And they don't like to talk about Pakistan (probably because they have no idea what to do about it).

Which means that having the media talking about Pakistan doesn't help any candidate - and that joining the discussion about Pakistan probably hurts any candidate who does so. Hence the universal dodge of the issue by all the candidates.

Posted by Noah Millman | December 28, 2007 11:58 AM

When considering foreign policy questions determining where "JPod" stands and then taking the opposite position probably works about as well as any method can.

Finding out that the US brokered Bhutto's return to Pakistan reminds us that morons are still in charge of US foreign policy, and that they can still do incalculable damage in the time they have left.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq in large part because of the stunning stupidity of the people in charge. Nothing they have done since has even hinted at the possibility that I was wrong.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 28, 2007 11:58 AM

Excellent description of the current situation with one small correction:
"all the leading contenders have responded, and all but one of them have dodged, in one fashion or another, any strategic question about where U.S. policy should go from here, beyond platitudinous references to supporting democracy and opposing terror."
Ron Paul didn't dodge the question.
Inviting the perils of paraphrase:
'How tragic, but we have no business interfering with their country, which is precisely what led to this event in the first place.'(just a crude summary of his response, not his words)
In other words, our best policy is to let the Pakistan people sort this out on their own without any U.S. policy involvement.

Posted by TheOneLaw | December 28, 2007 11:59 AM

Noah Millman is probably right that Pakistan just isn't going to the salient electoral issue that some of the commentariat expect it to be.

But really, events such as this do underscore the need for a President capable of initiating a ground-up strategic re-think of American foreign policy (which surely cannot lead to the conclusion that we currently need large permanent military establishments in Western Europe, for example).

What's truly irrelevant today is a candidate's past experience of having sat down for tea with the late Mrs. Bhutto.

Posted by Simon | December 28, 2007 12:12 PM

This tragedy may very well boost Hillary or McCain, but there's no good reason why it should. The "toughness" or "foreign policy experience" points the media give out are totally nebulous. (Heck Rudy is considered to have "foreign policy experience" because...um...9/11!). Hillary and McCain have experience, but it's experience pushing BAD POLICY. Removing resources from Afghanistan to Iraq in 02-03 and letting AQ and the Taliban slip into Pakistan and destabilize that much more stretegically important country led to this current crisis (although it's true, Pakistan wasn't Switzarland, or even India, before). It drives me nuts to see the media constantly asserting that the leaders we should trust to lead us through crises are the same clowns who got us into this mess.

Obama's been out front in opposition to the Iraq war and calling for a recommitment to the Afghan-Pakistan theater. That's worth more to me than "experience."

Posted by Justin K. | December 28, 2007 1:13 PM

"The media seems more concerned with "what do we do now", than with "how did we get here?" $10 billion in foreign aid and this is what we have to show for it. The US backs an unelected military dictator and then we wonder why muslims hate us. Go Ron Paul!"

Posted by John Campbell

That's because the people in charge of our foreign policy for the past six years have screwed it up like they were paid foreign agents, and the elite MSM has backed them far more often than not.

Posted by Barry | December 28, 2007 1:16 PM

Very good post Ross.

Posted by LarryM | December 28, 2007 1:16 PM

shameless way to milk the technorati Ron Paul obsessives for traffic, Ross.

Posted by Chris | December 28, 2007 1:23 PM

Ah yes, let's come home to America with Ron Paul and the other heartland fellers; let the Pakistani folk stew in their own juices and become a failed nuclear state. We'll have peace in our time with moral lectures to all those evil nations out there. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan will deliver marvelous paeans to the wisdom of the American rubes.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | December 28, 2007 2:26 PM

It would seem to me that Bhutto's death is not so much an excuse to disengage from the rest of the world, but a reminder that the President of the United States has far less power to influence foreign affairs than anyone in Washington wants to admit.

There's this magazine called the Atlantic... you may have heard of it. It's got a pretty good article about Pakistan on the front page right now. The point is that political trends we don't like in other countries don't go away by ignoring them, and they don't go away by bombing them. Nine times out of ten, the best move is to increase the amount of non-confrontational contact between our nations.

That would point to Obama.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 28, 2007 2:50 PM

Peter Leavitt wrote
Ah yes, let's come home to America with Ron Paul and the other heartland fellers; let the Pakistani folk stew in their own juices and become a failed nuclear state. We'll have peace in our time with moral lectures to all those evil nations out there. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan will deliver marvelous paeans to the wisdom of the American rubes.

I love it when people defend the status-quo with bald declarations of their own prejudice. Obviously I'm totally floored by his brilliance. So, Mr. Leavitt, what do you and the other non-Heartlanders have planned for Pakistan? And every other troublesome nation? We're waiting for our marching orders.

Posted by Michael | December 28, 2007 3:19 PM

Michael writes: "So, Mr. Leavitt, what do you and the other non-Heartlanders have planned for Pakistan? And every other troublesome nation? We're waiting for our marching orders."

So is Peter Leavitt. And whatever they are, he'll march.

By the way, there's only one proven "failed nuclear state" in this world, and that would be the only one that has used nukes to kill human beings. But of course Peter Leavitt counts that use as a success and probably two of the happiest events of his lifetime.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 28, 2007 3:33 PM

Michael, now that you've conferred this power, my first marching order would be to exile Larry, Moe, and Jesus to Pakistan where among the rabble he could "advocate" for limitless social welfare programs and expound upon the evils of American foreign policy.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | December 28, 2007 3:46 PM

Peter:

LarryCurlyandMoe is the kind of guy my grandmother would have called a "real jerk." In earlier threads I have speculated that he is one of two things: a) a sophomore at Oberlin or; b) one of those guys with a white beard, pony tail, and beret that you see cruising anti-war demonstrations. Let's put it this way, he uses "rethuglican" and thinks he's being clever.

Posted by Aaron | December 28, 2007 4:53 PM

Aaron writes: "LarryCurlyandMoe is the kind of guy my grandmother would have called a "real jerk." In earlier threads I have speculated that he is one of two things: a) a sophomore at Oberlin or; b) one of those guys with a white beard, pony tail, and beret that you see cruising anti-war demonstrations. Let's put it this way, he uses "rethuglican" and thinks he's being clever."

I'm 46 and I don't have a white beard and I've never owned a beret or had a pony tail. I've never even had hair that long. I can't recall anything Aaron has ever said here, but from the above comment I suspect he spends as much time as possible jamming his tongue up the ass of every available authority figure as far as he possibly can - all without losing his toady smile.

I don't use "rethuglican." I use "Repiglican." And I don't think it's clever, I think it's apt.

One last point - I've never attended an anti-war demonstration. Not my style, and I'm quite sure they affect nothing.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 28, 2007 7:25 PM

LarryCurlyandMoe:

YOU ARE 46 YEARS OLD??!!! And you use expressions like "jamming his tongue up the ass of every available authority figure as far as he possibly can?" Wow. Larry, you are a middle-age man. "Authority figures??" You sound like Dylan Klebold . . . except younger. So much adolescent anger.

I Googled your handle and saw that you were banned from Wikipedia for trolling. Are you lonely? Are you sad? What's going on with you, man? You need to take a swim in Lake Me. Look in the mirror. Grow up an act like the man that you are.

You are the same age as Barak Obama. Do you think he uses "repiglican?" Come on, Larry. You're better than that.

Posted by Aaron | December 28, 2007 11:37 PM

Aaron takes his tongue out of its holster long enough to type: "YOU ARE 46 YEARS OLD??!!! And you use expressions like "jamming his tongue up the ass of every available authority figure as far as he possibly can?" Wow. Larry, you are a middle-age man. "Authority figures??" You sound like Dylan Klebold . . . except younger. So much adolescent anger."

I guess you've never read Hunter Thompson. I admired him very much, and he was also accused of being "angry" by morons like you.

His anger was justified, and so was his contempt for the cheap hustlers he vilified. I suggest to you that if the Repiglicans don't piss you off you're just not worthy of your next breath. So don't take it. I don't think you'll be missed much, and the oxygen would be better utilized by actual toads.

"You are the same age as Barak Obama. Do you think he uses "repiglican?""

I hope he uses much stronger words when he's referring to them in private.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 29, 2007 12:01 AM

Larry:

Yes, but HST was talented and funny. He was also 11 years younger than you when he wrote Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. You are almost fifty, Larry. You need an annual colonoscopy. Prostate issues are around the corner. You should have outgrown the potty-mouthed name calling.

Wikipedia tossed you. When you find hours in your day to piss off Wikipedia, I think it's time to admit you have a problem with anger. Did you really try and make "Bushpigs" your user name? That's pretty weird. Admit it, that's a bit weird for a guy your age . . . right?

Try and add a little mirth to you're repertoire. It will serve you better than the seething teenage angst.

Posted by Aaron | December 29, 2007 12:41 AM

Aaron replies: "Yes, but HST was talented and funny. He was also 11 years younger than you when he wrote Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. You are almost fifty, Larry. You need an annual colonoscopy. Prostate issues are around the corner. You should have outgrown the potty-mouthed name calling."

HST kept it up through the rest of his life - take a look at his "Generation of Swine," the real root of the Repiglican term. That you swim in the same river of shit with these people shouldn't blind you to the humor of it all. Meanwhile I haven't seen a doctor in 25 years.

"Wikipedia tossed you. When you find hours in your day to piss off Wikipedia, I think it's time to admit you have a problem with anger. Did you really try and make "Bushpigs" your user name? That's pretty weird. Admit it, that's a bit weird for a guy your age . . . right?"

It was "NoMoreBushpigs," I think. That was a reaction to them banning "MoeLarryAndJesus." They also wanted to ban "TortureIsWrong." Wikipedia allows morons to make policy decisions, much like you do.

"Try and add a little mirth to you're repertoire."

It's "your." Try adding a little intelligence to your repertoire, though I suspect genetics bars you from doing so. Meanwhile keep on gobbling those GOP fundamentals. It suits you somehow.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 29, 2007 1:04 AM

I think you have a sadness inside of you that makes you lash out at people. I also find it interesting that you assume I am a conservative when nothing I have written is even vaguely political. Is your father a conservative? Did you guys have a tough relationship? I assume that you aren't married. Why not? Why do you have a hard time interacting with people? Is your strange anger toward "repiglicans" a way of venting some of your frustrations or disappointments? There are ways to feel happy.

Posted by Aaron | December 29, 2007 1:30 AM

Aaron makes more stupid assumptions: "I think you have a sadness inside of you that makes you lash out at people. I also find it interesting that you assume I am a conservative when nothing I have written is even vaguely political. Is your father a conservative? Did you guys have a tough relationship? I assume that you aren't married. Why not? Why do you have a hard time interacting with people? Is your strange anger toward "repiglicans" a way of venting some of your frustrations or disappointments? There are ways to feel happy."

I've been married to my wife since 1988 and we're quite happy, chuckles. My father has voted mostly Democratic in his life and he despises Dumbya Bush. I admire and love my father and think that for a guy who had to leave school when he was 13 (on the west coast of Ireland) he's done incredibly well for himself, and he's always been well informed on the issues of the day. When I was a kid he read 2-3 newspapers a day and I followed his example.

It's possible you're not a conservative - maybe you're just an unaligned moron. I don't really see the difference.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 29, 2007 1:56 AM

I'm reluctant to dive into the middle of a good dogfight but I just want to ask MLJ a question... You were banned from Wikipedia for trolling. Isn't that like being declared too fat to live in New Orleans?

And one hopes your emulation of the sainted Thompson will be taken to its logical conclusion... but of course you're probably too much a left-winger to own a gun, aren't you?

Posted by Fred S. | December 29, 2007 5:04 AM

Well, I'm glad I elicited such a heartfelt response, Larry. It sounds like you really love your father. I really connected to your sentiments. I am skeptical about this alleged "marriage." Do you talk about tongues in nasty places in front of your wife? Hmmm.

What about Mom? Do you guys get along? Did she breastfeed you? I feel that we are making real progress. In your last post you limited you immature language choices to "Dumbya" and "moron." That is a real step forward for you. Tell me a bit about mom in our next session and we'll see where we can take this.

I'm sorry, our time is up. See you next post.

Posted by Aaron | December 29, 2007 10:40 AM

Sorry to interrupt the trollfight, but isn't this a thread about Pakistan? LaFollette Progressive (On Wisconsin!) makes the key point that talking about how Pakistan's crisis would affect candidates' standings tends to elide the fact that there's often little the US can actually do in these situations. We have some leverage in Pakistan and I thing using it to demand more accountability and power-sharing fro the Musharaff regime, as well as more effective anti-terror tactics, is the way to go, but who the hell know whether it will actually work? The outcome will be shaped more by Pakistan's various internal actors than us, and that's the scary part.

Posted by Justin K. | December 29, 2007 1:07 PM

You left out the part where JPod admits that Pakistan, as an unstable Islamic nation with The Bomb, is a far greater concern than Iran, a stable Islamic nation which may have it some day, and that the Iraq war has been a tragically stupid diversion from the necessary work of stabilizing Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Posted by Mike | December 29, 2007 1:28 PM

Fred S. says: " I'm reluctant to dive into the middle of a good dogfight but I just want to ask MLJ a question... You were banned from Wikipedia for trolling. Isn't that like being declared too fat to live in New Orleans?

And one hopes your emulation of the sainted Thompson will be taken to its logical conclusion... but of course you're probably too much a left-winger to own a gun, aren't you?"

I was banned from Wikipedia for being a pain in the ass. I think it's an honor. Of course I have continued to do whatever I want there because their hall monitors are especially incompetent.

Hunter took his own life because he was disabled and in pain and unable to continue life as he wanted to. I wish he could have held on longer, but I won't joke about his death. He certainly was worth 1000 Cheneys or Bushes.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 30, 2007 12:49 AM

MLJ I was banned from Wikipedia for being a pain in the ass. How surprising.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | December 31, 2007 7:22 PM

Peter Leavitt quotes and says: "MLJ I was banned from Wikipedia for being a pain in the ass. How surprising."

Actually they just banned this username because they decided it would upset idiots. After that I most definitely became a pain in the ass. The ban came when I was using TortureIsWrong as a username.

Since Peter Leavitt is an enthusiastic supporter of torture, I'm no more surprised than he is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 1, 2008 1:04 AM

A few too many of these posts read like dialog from "The Mouse that Roared", Pakistan being our Grand Fenwick. The British made some very funny movies about rascally, roguish wogs manipulating those buffoonish imperialists - until they started opening a few too many restaurants in London.
No one's laughing now. A few too many. Demographics is our destiny. Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and people who share their views are out of touch? Please, let's get as out of touch as we can before we "in touch" our way into oblivion.

Posted by fougasseu | January 1, 2008 11:46 PM