SOME eight years ago, when Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush was asked to name the military officer behind
Bush has, in the interim, become considerably better acquainted with Pervez Musharraf, and has even mastered the art of pronouncing the latter’s name reasonably well, by his standards. In fact, the two of them have learned to depend on each other to an extraordinary extent: Musharraf because he feels he has little choice, Bush on account of a myopia based on ignorance and ideologically inspired malfeasance. But now Bush’s days, at long last, are numbered: eleven months from now, he will be obliged to hand over power to his successor.
It won’t be known until November who that successor is going to be, and the field may narrow down considerably next week, after Super Tuesday. Unfortunately, however, there may not be a huge difference between Bush and the next president in the context of
Despite the Bush administration’s abysmal record internationally as well as in the domestic arena, there is no guarantee that he will be succeeded by a Democrat. But although the Republican field – wide open at the time of writing – inevitably offers greater cause for concern, the leading Democrats can hardly be construed as guarantors of a less destructive
International affairs generally don’t feature as a primary concern in US presidential contests, but the events of recent years have made a difference.
In the present context, the leading Democratic hopefuls have broadly been inclined towards a progressive (albeit less than complete) Oatley pullout from Iraq, whereas their Republican counterparts have generally held out the prospect of continued occupation, with John McCain taking credit for last year’s “surge” on account of having advocated a larger troop presence all along.
The only exception is Ron Paul, a traditional Republican isolationist, who would withdraw US troops not only from
Presidential candidates tend to rely on opinion polls and focus groups before formulating expressible opinions, but in the case of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, there was little time for such niceties. That may explain why Hillary Clinton expressed herself in generalities before latching on to the context of empathy as a mother and a female politician. “I have known Benazir Bhutto for more than 12 years, she’s someone whom I was honoured to visit as first lady when she was prime minister,” she eventually noted. “Certainly on a personal level, for those of us who knew her, who were impressed by her commitment, her dedication, her willingness to pick up the mantle of her father, who was also assassinated, it is a terrible, terrible tragedy.”
She also cited “the failure of the Musharraf regime either to deal with terrorism or to build democracy”, adding that “it’s time that the
The Washington Post slapped down Obama for capitalising on the tragedy, although the point he and his aides made wasn’t really out of context. It did, however, tend to reinforce a couple of fallacies. For instance, the widespread notion that the
Obama also noted that Americans “stand with [Pakistanis] in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world”. He spoke to the
Going by the early episodes in the nomination process, however, Edwards – who also comes across as more progressive on most domestic issues than Clinton and Obama – could at best aspire to a vice-presidential slot on the ticket, and that too only if the latter succeeds in stalling the formidable Clinton machine.
Yet, however wanting one might find the contenders on the side of the Democrats, their Republican counterparts provide considerably greater cause for concern. Mike Huckabee, for instance, reacted to Benazir’s murder by saying the American response should include “very clear monitoring of our borders … to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into our country”. That non-sequitur points to the kind of philistinism that Bush brought to the White House. But Huckabee – who was running out of funds at the time of writing, and therefore was considered unlikely to be a serious contender despite the attention he has attracted in recent months – was by no means the most reprehensible of the lot.
Arguably the leading contender for that category is former
His advisers include some of the direst neoconservatives – including Norman Podhoretz and Michael Rubin – and it was Giuliani who effectively prodded fellow Republican Mitt Romney into making a television ad in which he announced: “It is this century’s nightmare – jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. Their goal is to unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us.” Romney’s response was triggered by being taken to task for suggesting that an American assault on
He and Giuliani also have no problems with the torture by organs of the
Following Benazir’s assassination, he pointed out that, unlike any of his rivals, he had actually visited Waziristan and therefore had a better idea of the conditions in that part of
McCain, who was flattened by the Bush machine in earlier bids for the White House, is the likeliest contender among the Republicans, and his reputation as a pragmatist may well afford him an advantage in a one-on-one contest against Hillary Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, evidently exercises bipartisan appeal that would boost his standing in November, were he to be picked as the Democratic candidate. His relative youth is probably an advantage against McCain’s seniority, although some voters construe it as inexperience.
The problem with
It would be ideal for the moron in the White House to be replaced by a genius, but that is beyond the realm of possibility: someone with a clear-eyed view of recent events would have recognised, for instance, that Benazir’s martyrdom was facilitated by the Bush administration’s disastrous post-9/11 policies. The best one can hope for, in the interim, is a a knowledgeable and reasonably intelligent incumbent who realises not only that the occupation of Iraq is an unforgivable travesty, but also that firepower alone cannot offer a solution to the travails of Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Beyond that, we have to tackle our problems ourselves. But the Bush administration’s shortsighted support for Musharraf clearly hinders the prospects of a brighter future. The kind of assistance Pakistan requires was summed up by a letter to Bush signed by eight senators, in which they asked him to use his influence on the ex-military dictator to push for a UN inquiry into Bhutto murder plot, secure the reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed Supreme Court injustice and the release of all those arrested during the emergency, and arrange for a reconstituted election commission that meets the approval of the main political parties. Their appeal is likely to fall on deaf ears, and perhaps that’s all for the best: notwithstanding the harm caused by American intervention, the ideal solution to
That holds true regardless of who replaces George Bush: no dramatic changes can be expected in
What
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate