Pakistani Update

The New York Times publishes an article about a new hope for stability in Pakistan - General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who replaced President Musharraf in late November when Musharraf resigned to become the civilian President of Pakstan.  In Pakistan, the commanding general seems to have a great deal of power, perhaps even more than the President since he controls the army.  In a few weeks, Pakistan will hold elections.  Parties opposing Musharrf have already charged that the elections will be fixed, and have promised mass demonstrations.  The army will likely be called in to control things.

So, Kayani faces a decision on which side he will take.  American and Pakistani analysts believe his decision will essentially dictate who will run the country.

Though Kayani is a protege of Musharraf, the U.S. thinks he is a professional, pro-Western moderate with few political ambitions.  Then again, so was Musharraf.  But, Kayani seems to be very popular with the army, has a solid background with the U.S., and has made it a practice to avoid political entanglement.  In short, he could be just what is needed to help settle the chaos that is today's Pakistan.

Bill O'Reilly also posts an article about how American presidential candidates are addressing the Pakistani problems .  He rips members of both parties for having an elementary (and insufficient) understanding of the situation on the ground, and proposes the following:

Pervez Musharraf remains in power because he controls most of the guns. He retains that control because the United States sends him billions to buy military support and weaponry. If we stop sending the cash, Musharraf will go down—fast.

Thus, the U.S. government must demand that the strongman aggressively attack the Taliban and al-Qaeda with help on the ground from NATO and America. Yes, this will tee off the radical Islamists, and that is risky. But that's the price Musharraf will have to pay.

It's either throw in with the good guys, us, or you're on your own.

I kind of like this idea.  I think it's time the U.S. begins to exert itself on the world stage once again, proving we're serious about our own national security ( i.e. the War on Terror) by forcing other nations to take a side.  Our friends will be revealed, and we'll help them generously.  Our enemies will also be revealed, and we can then deal with them.  It won't be easy, but isn't it better to know who your friends are than to stumble about blindly in the dark?

There's my two cents.