What will fill the vacuum in Pakistan?

maria stanley

Tricky one this. What is not an option is to sit back and do nothing - then complain (no doubt loudly) that we - the UK -are not being consulted over any long term peace plans between warring factions (arms and drugs being the sticks & carrots used). She may not have been popular, she may not have been right but it is the fundamental right of any political however objectionable to be able to canvas freely and without fear of violence.

Stan, UK

We must stay shoulder to shoulder with Musharraf he's all weve got now. A lesser of two evils, better the devil you know than the devil you dont, whatever cliche you want to put on it.

Herbert Thornton

James Forsyth advises us to - "Think how much more strategic flexibility Britain and America would have now if they had not put all their eggs in Musharraf’s basket from 2002 to 2006."

It isn't at all clear to me what he means. Who had a basket worth putting any eggs in it? Suppose Britain and America had given less support to Musharraf and much more to Miss Bhutto, what possible difference would it have made, other than producing her assassination on a different day? Or suppose Britain and the U.S. had withheld all military aid from Musharraf during that period - I should have thought it that it would have accelerated a seizure of power by Islamist extremists.

Nor do I discern what sort of 'strategic flexibility' he has in mind. The fundamental strategic problem, it seems to me, is the potential combination of militant Islam and nuclear weapons. And to that strategic problem there is only one rational strategic answer, which is to ally Britain and the U.S. even more closely with India, to ensure that the U.S., British, Indian alliance is better armed than is Pakistan, and that the alliance possesses the will to respond to Pakistani actions in kind.

Seasurfer1

Life in Pakistani Politics will go just the same as it did before Bhuttos return. Perhaps just slightly less excitable and turbulent but typical as that, since 1948.

George Steiner

My suspicion is that if Pakistam was taken over by an Islamist government, declaring Sharia law, renaming itself as an Islamic Republic, a remarkable thing would happen. Rioting would stop, order will be imposed. Of course blod would flow but that is to be expected. This Western fiction about democracy in a country with a literacy rate of 50%, a GDP per head of $610, strong Islamist support, thousands of Madrassas, premedieval tribal divisions is, infantile delusion. The problem is not with Pakistan. Pakistan is as it is. To bring a 160 million mostly wery poor, mostly illiterate Muslims into modernity can't be done. Too bad the Western liberals don't understand it in spite of their claim to be ever so smart.

Charles Letterman

I hope Benazir Bhutto enjoyed life. I hope that she had plenty of private vices, and overindulged whenever possible. I hope that her riches, gained through fair means or foul, were used for her own pleasure, with no regard for her future health. I wish this for her as she was obviously never going to live until old age. Her determination to be a martyr was clear for all to see, an ambition she finally realised last Thursday at the hands of either al-Qaeda or a more sinister assassin. She must have known that her frequent public appearances were inviting attempts on her life, and that the odds against her survival were diminishing with every rally. Brave or stupid, or both? Brave to face the gunmen and bombers maybe. But otherwise stupid. Really stupid. Stupid to believe that her martyrdom would help the country and people that she constantly proclaimed to love. Stupid to believe that the democratic cause would be furthered by her death. To die for a cause may be noble, but in Bhutto's case it was a selfish act - an act from which no one will benefit. www.charlesletterman.com

Max kaye

George Steiner is right. Unfortunately Pakistan is a 'nuclear power'. Our main concerns should be the possible transfer of knowledge and/or nuclear devices and the development of long-range delivery systems.

It's a shame these toys don't come with 'self-destruct' buttons. Perhaps we can bribe someone high enough in the Pakistani military to destroy them for us.

Herbert Thornton

The question of what will happen to Pakistan if the Islamists are able to seize power is interesting in the sense that the Chinese have in mind when they speak of 'interesting times'.

Another Coffee House thread mentions the possibility of Pakistan becoming not just a failed state, but one with nuclear weapons. If it means one without central government, as seems to be the case in Somalia, then the question of who may have control of the nuclear weapons will be very interesting indeed.

However, I think that George Steiner's description of Pakistan and his suspicion of its future if the Islamists seize power is nearer the mark. The Islamists will form a central government, of sorts, very much along the lines that he describes. But the fact that such a government will possess Pakistan's nuclear weapons carries implications that are no less interesting.

I should think that the country the most likely to be immediately affected will be Afghanistan because the cross-border ties with the Taliban are so strong. Will the second most cause for concern be Kashmir?

The only cheerful aspect of the situation is the fact that Jimmy Carter isn't President of the U.S.