Walter Russell Mead
I am not acquainted with Walter Russell Mead. I wish I were. I do not read his blog Via Meadia on the website maintained by The American Interest religiously, but I do read it with great frequency. I am not always in agreement with what he says, but I nearly always find his remarks provocative and thoughtful. His latest contribution, entitled High Noon in Pakistan, reveals him as one of the finest strategic thinkers operating today. Here is how it begins:
The taking of Osama was a defeat for Al Qaeda. It was a disaster for Pakistan.
The Assassination in Abbottabad was a strategic catastrophe for the military rulers of this slowly and painfully failing state. On the one hand, it leaves the reputation of Pakistan as an effective partner against fanatical terror groups in ruins. The debate in Washington and around the world now is whether the Pakistani state is in league with Al Qaeda or whether it is so weak, divided and incompetent that rogue factions within the state have escaped all control. The rich intelligence haul the US gathered in Osama’s lair will help the US learn more about Osama’s protectors in Pakistan; in the meantime it is transparently clear that whether incompetence or malfeasance is more to blame, the government of Pakistan cannot safely be trusted — by anyone, on anything.
The argument for a continued US-Pakistani alliance took a body blow. If Pakistan can’t or won’t help us with the capture of Osama bin Laden, what possible justification does the alliance have? Arguably, the two people who have done the greatest damage to American interests in the last twenty years have been A. Q. Khan, ringmaster of the nuclear proliferation circus that helped countries like North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran advance their nuclear ambitions, and Osama bin Laden. What country produced one and sheltered both?
Read the rest of it. It only gets better. Mead thinks that we have to press the issue with the military elite that runs Pakistan now before it is too late. He is surely right.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
I too read Mead with some frequency. I don't always agree with him, but when he writes on foreign policy, his opinions are well-grounded and lucid.
May '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
I'll go out on a limb and predict that we will feign shock! Shock! at Pakistan's treachery and then, business as usual.
May '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Step one: The intelligence we gain from the Osama raid should prompt and facilitate the mother of all purges of Islamist elements from the ranks of the ISI and the military. The more ruthless, the better. Further aid should be contingent upon it, in fact.
Aug '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Wow.
I especially found interesting his thoughts on the Saudis and Chinese in this equation and how the Pakistanis may have alienated its other potential strategic partners as well. This is crucially important because exchange theory (which is a cross between game theory and social networks) says that power in a relationship is related to potential defection partners. Thus to the extent that we can convince the Chinese and the Saudis that the Pakistanis can't be trusted it gives us more leverage over Pakistan.
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Maybe. But, as Mead makes clear, Pakistan needs to have a great power as a patron. It is outclassed by India. It is riven by linguistic and cultural differences. Its populations hate one another. Only Islam unites them. India has already split Pakistan once. It could do so again, and that gives us leverage . . . if we are willing to use it.
May '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Hey! Mead's my beat, pal. Especially liked how he tied the study of Machiavelli and Elizabeth I together under the concept of playing a weak hand well.
Sigh. Is there some reason we don't just side with India? Afghanistan, of course, which sounds important except we seem to have no objective.
May '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Paul A. Rahe
Maybe. But, as Mead makes clear, Pakistan needs to have a great power as a patron. It is outclassed by India. It is riven by linguistic and cultural differences. Its populations hate one another. Only Islam unites them. India has already split Pakistan once. It could do so again, and that gives us leverage . . . if we are willing to use it. · May 9 at 6:46pm
Pretty poor form for the Pakistanis to play their patron so shamelessly. One would have thought that all our monetary aid would by now have purchased a little more loyalty.
I also feel that Mr. Obama is much more comfortable pushing around his fellow countrymen he would be showing some muscle to some hallowed third-world post-colonial basket case. I hope I'm wrong but, that leverage is as good as squandered.
Oct '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Walter Russell Mead makes some important and insightful points in his post. Our policy towards Pakistan in the last few years has been an enigma to me. It’s clear with our raid into Pakistan to kill bin Laden that our current policy must change.
I’ve always thought that two of our foreign policy objectives should be to prevent China from exerting influence in Asia (including Southeast Asia) analogous to the influence of the old Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, and to control or eliminate Islamist terrorism worldwide. Our current policy towards Pakistan does neither.
Is the enmity between India and Pakistan at root a religious dispute? Mead did not mention this, but should we begin to side with India in regard to Kashmir as part of a new policy towards Pakistan? If the Obama administration does not create a new Pakistan policy, will this be an issue in the 2012 presidential election?
Jun '10
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Is Pakistan a "nation" in any meaningful sense of the word? The government doesn't have control over much of its sovereign territory. The tribal nature of the culture precludes any real national identity. The ruling elites are foreign educated and share little in common with average "citizens." By my best estimation the place is some sort of malpais, but a nation it is not.
Mar '11
Re: Walter Russell Mead
Paul A. Rahe
Maybe. But, as Mead makes clear, Pakistan needs to have a great power as a patron. It is outclassed by India. It is riven by linguistic and cultural differences. Its populations hate one another. Only Islam unites them. India has already split Pakistan once. It could do so again, and that gives us leverage . . . if we are willing to use it.
Um, lemme ask Mr Obama - nope - India is a Capitalist country (why it outclasses Pakistan, and even the USA, under Mr Obama).