Every well informed foreign policy expert, including Senator Obama, is in agreement. The largest, and most dangerous, nation to pose a threat to world peace is Pakistan. And, the lid has just come off.
Possessing nuclear weapons, involved in a decades long simmering war with India, barely controlling vicious religious violence, and with a lengthy history of bad political leadership, Pakistan is now in the hands of two political factions that will barely acknowledge each others existence.
The departure of Pervez Musharraf has left Pakistan adrift, and giddy with its newly found freedoms. Freedoms that may pose a danger to the entire world if solutions to the looming economic and political crisis can not be found.
Time devotes a long article to the pending crisis.
"He may be an S.O.B.," President Franklin Roosevelt said about then-Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza. "But he's our S.O.B." That lesser-evil outlook might just as easily have described the U.S. attitude to Pakistan's General-turned-President Pervez Musharraf, who resigned on Aug. 18 in the face of looming impeachment. Nor was it only the West that saw Musharraf as preferable to the chaos and venality of the political system he overturned to seize power in 1999. He carried the support of the urban middle classes desperately looking for stability and modernity that had eluded a political system dominated by competing feudal baronies.
When Musharraf turned on those middle classes, in an attempt to maintain his role as President, by firing judges he sealed his own fate.
Long dependent on the military to control the fractious groups that comprise the political and religious powers in the country, Musharraf, in his role as a General, was seen as bringing order to the chaos. When his popularity waned however, and when Musharraf resigned his role in the military, he cut himself off from much of the support he needed to remain in power. The military responded by stepping back.
The military has opted to retreat from running the government in the face of overwhelming public opposition to Musharraf, amid economic turbulence and mounting pressure from the West over Pakistan's role in enabling the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. It leaves the job of governance to a cast of political leaders for whom the military brass holds a well-established contempt, but nobody doubts that if the military's red lines are crossed, it always has the option of installing a new man in khaki. The military may have already signaled the limits on acceptable civilian authority last month, when prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was forced to hastily backpedal from a plan to put the controversial Inter-Services Intelligence organization under direct civilian oversight via the Interior Ministry.
The Christian Science Monitor discusses the implications of the resignation, as well. They continue the meme that Musharraf was a stalwart ally in the fight against terrorists, but note:
The Bush administration has distanced itself from Pakistan amid Musharraf's political decline and concerns that he wasn't doing enough to prevent the northwest region bordering Afghanistan from becoming a stronghold for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Bush abandoned his former ally for political expediency.
The United States lost a stalwart ally in its war on terror Monday when Pervez Musharraf resigned as president to avoid a looming impeachment battle.
After seizing power nine years ago, the once-popular leader initially supported Afghanistan's Taliban, only to turn his back on them to support the US after Sept. 11, 2001. He survived several assassination attempts and watched his support plunge as he stalled on democratic reforms and suspended independent-minded judges.
Pakistan's divided government must now pick a successor while also tackling a growing threat from militants and a sputtering economy.
McClatchy has, as is their wont, summarized the terrorism issue quite well.
...Musharraf bowed to domestic and international pressure and quit Monday, but his departure could trigger further instability for the nuclear-armed U.S. ally if the country's fractious coalition government can't hold together without its common enemy.
Washington benefited from having former Army chief Musharraf as a one-stop-shop since Sept. 11 for winning Pakistan's co-operation in the fight against al Qaida and the Taliban. After the restoration of democracy with elections in February, however, the new civilian government began to negotiate with Islamic extremists and moved to impeaching Musharraf.
These democratic elections were strongly encouraged by Washington. And, as usual, with little understanding of the complex dynamics in the region, this Administration's foreign policy has suffered as a moderate force has been replaced by warring factions. I personally find it frustrating that Washington does not seem to be able to keep their hands to themselves.
The failure of Musharraf's regime to hold elections, and to follow the Constitutional precepts of his country was a major element in his downfall. He truly brought this on himself. But meddling by Britain and DC contributed to this impending mess.
U.S. and British officials worked behind the scenes to bolster the Pakistani president, who seized power in a 1999 military coup but removed his Army uniform late last year. They abandoned that effort in recent weeks in the hope that heading off Musharraf's impeachment would encourage the coalition to address Pakistan's mounting security and economic problems.
Imperialism and Colonialism have long roots that are not easily dislodged.
Despite the administration's bet on Musharraf, Islamabad's role in the war on terror has been ambivalent at best, with evidence that members of the country's security and intelligence forces have been secretly backing Taliban militants. The Army decides the country's policy toward its tribal areas, which border Afghanistan and have become a refuge for Taliban and al Qaida militants, and its broader security policies.
"If this continues, I strongly suspect that Pakistan will move from the ally category to the foe category," said Christine Fair , a senior political scientist at the RAND Corp , a private U.S. research organization.
The Pentagon is downplaying the seriousness of the resignation. Overstretched, and badly outplayed, they have every reason to dismiss the danger and potential for disaster.
Instability in Pakistan always has the Pentagon worried about two things above all -- the country's nuclear arsenal and the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in areas bordering Afghanistan.
But U.S. officials are playing down the impact the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, long seen as a key U.S. ally, will have on either issue.
As Musharraf's position has weakened in recent months, U.S. officials have strengthened relations with both Pakistan's military leadership, in particular Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, and the government elected earlier this year.
By backing the Army over the elected government the US may, once again, be setting the stage for a coup if the political factions can not reach accord. This military is the same one whose loyalties are suspect, and whose control of the Intelligence Services is thin.
Once again, the CSM:
In the seven years since Sept. 11, President Bush has relied heavily on dictators in Muslim nations to keep a lid on Al Qaeda. It was a quick and easy way to prevent another attack on his watch. But with Monday's resignation of Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Bush must now deal with an angry democracy in a land that still harbors Al Qaeda.
But even though he built a thriving economy and was never seen as corrupt, he was forced to legitimize his rule by increasingly harsh measures. His mistakes created a backlash leading to parliamentary elections in February, then a threat of impeachment from a new anti-Musharaff government, and finally his forced resignation.
He was forced out by civilians using a constitution, with a nod of approval from an army that seems to prefer staying out of politics for now, and with probable mediation by Saudi Arabia and the United States.
All of the linked sources are in relative agreement on their reporting of this story. The CSM has the most succinct summary:
A vast majority of Pakistanis do not support militant Islam but they do resent the way the US pushed Musharraf to target militants and reform the military. Only as Musharraf's rule weakened did Bush begin to help the transition to civilian rule, such as aiding the return of Benazir Bhutto (who was later assassinated, most likely by Islamic militants).
Now the US role is left in limbo as two elected leaders, Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League and Asil Asif Zardari of Pakistan People's Party, compete for supremacy after Musharraf.
Either leader – or a coalition of the two – must move quickly to restore the judiciary, civil service, and an economy in decline. Civilian rule over the military also must be strengthened.
The US must offer to assist this healing process and bolster democracy in Pakistan as the best bulwark against terrorists. Elected civilian leaders, without American pressure, will see it as in their country's interest not to let Islamic militants jeopardize Pakistani democracy.
The best allies for the US, during the cold war and now in a war on terror, have been leaders elected in a fair manner. A heavy US hand in Pakistan only plays into the militants' agenda.
Eager to buff his antiquated "Russia Hate" John McCain has been bellicose and reckless in responding to the Georgian conflict. That is his bid for support among we older folks who still remember "Duck and Cover". It has little place in this new world, however.
The political instability in a region wracked with Islamic militants, armed with nuclear weapons, and unable to put forth political leaders who are not drowning in corruption and indifference to the economic plight of its millions of suffering people, should be of much more concern than Vladimir Putin flexing his muscles.
Only Barack Obama has stepped forward and placed the fate of Pakistan front and center. This is judgment. This shows a grasp of foreign affairs that McCain lacks.
We should pay attention to this crisis, regardless of attempts downplay its significance. This is where The War will start if we are not very careful.