SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: BigBull who wrote (1953)11/2/2002 11:43:49 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6901
 
Good rundown on the Political races from Brooks and Shield on PBS Friday.

WARNER: Now, Shields and Brooks on the president's impact and other matters political in this final pre-election week. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and David Brooks of the "Weekly Standard."

So, Mark, how much of a difference can a President really make in these kinds of races?

MARK SHIELDS: The president makes enormous difference, Margaret, in several respects. First of all, president--local television news in the last decade has stopped covering state politics. President comes into town and they put him on live. I mean he's the president. It's a big thing in South Bend or any place else. There's the candidate with him and you put the president on in the middle of the news. It generates excitement, it generates interest, it generates big money as you can see. I mean, George W. Bush went from being global leader, commander in chief, into Clark Kent's telephone booth and came out on the other side as fund raiser in chief and campaigner in chief. He makes Bill Clinton look like he took a vow of poverty when it comes to raising money. And so it makes a big, big difference.

One little negative, and that is in the last two weeks of the campaign, a presidential visit - believe me -- is the most disruptive thing that can happen to a campaign because all the attention you get and all the-- what you are trying to do for Election Day is get people to the polls, make sure that everybody is covered, that they're home; instead, this disruption, the secret service, the national press corps and the president's own staff and it is really one major pain in the neck but it does get great coverage.

MARGARET WARNER: Can it turn a close race?

DAVID BROOKS: It can turn a close race. I agree with everything Mark said, though I'm not sure it can really transform a race. You know, the President can't move the immovable. And over the past six or seven years, we've learned that people's political views are pretty close to immovable. They change jobs, they change religions, sex change operations. They don't change politics. It's still 49-49.

I looked at the latest generic poll, the latest Republican versus Democratic poll, 45-44 was the poll. It's still a tied country. And no President can change that. So there are sort of flutters on the eyelash of the body politic but nothing-that's kind of poetic--

MARK SHIELDS: You make words live.

DAVID BROOKS: But can't fundamentally really change anything.

MARGARET WARNER: Is the President putting his sort of reputation on the line if he can't deliver? I remember in '86 Ronald Reagan going all around to all these Senate races and in the end, the Republicans lost the Senate.

DAVID BROOKS: I think a little but I think people understand that it's, you know, people are essentially, they get an adrenaline rush when the President comes. He will be heard. He will be slightly humiliated maybe if Jeb Bush loses, if his brother loses, more than these Senate races, but people understand they're voting for the two individuals. Reagan lost a lot of seats in his first mid-term. Other Presidents have and they go on.

MARK SHIELDS: One thing, Margaret, to just add to David's point. I have not seen a single race where the President has been in where there has been a four point drop off in the polls for the Democratic candidate. There isn't a real change in voter sentiment. And I would say one of the reasons that we found in Gwen's piece that the President's going to House races now -- the. Republicans are going to take massive losses next Tuesday in the governorships.

I think they'll lose Senate seats as well. I think the President wants to be able to say on Wednesday morning, for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt in 1934, we picked up seats in the House. I'm not sure he will, but I think that's the reason for the effort.

MARGARET WARNER: One of the Senate races, one of the states he is going to is Minnesota, as Gwen reported, to help Norm Coleman against Walter Mondale, who just got into the race this week. How do you see that race now with Walter Mondale in place of Paul Wellstone who died last Friday?

DAVID BROOKS: Two contradictory things are happening there. The first one is the Democrats are energized. That's obvious. And Mondale has a solid lead. The second thing that's happening though, and this is because of the rally the other night is that independents--.

MARGARET WARNER: The Wellstone memorial service which turned into this state-wide televised rally.

DAVID BROOKS: Which Jesse Ventura walked out on feeling it was too partisan. That mobilized, it seems a lot of independents. It mobilized a lot of Republicans who are angry but independents who don't like excessive partisanship, party loyalty, self-righteousness, and apparently there has been up-tick in the tracking polls helping the Republicans a little.

I don't think too many people think the Republicans can pull this out but it's introduced politics back into what could have been a procession for Mondale. And so now there's this debate, one debate, and that will be a crucial event.

MARK SHIELDS: I don't argue with that. The event for Paul Wellstone was not only tasteless in the sense that it turned into a political rally -- it was totally counterproductive politically because one of the things Walter Mondale had going for him beyond a distinguished public career, unblemished personal record and almost a possibility of restoring some sense of Minnesota's importance as a national supplier of national leadership, was the fact that -- this great outpouring of emotion. That ended, they ended it with the rally. In other words, what would have been, if they had gone out in the evening after two hours and said gee, let's win this one for Paul. It became my God Almighty, this is nothing but a Democrat get out the vote effort.

MARGARET WARNER: Especially because Mondale was saying, his whole theme he wanted in the campaign is we are not going to have any more dog fighting. I don't want this to be partisan - and it ran counter to that.

MARK SHIELDS: It did, Margaret, and to the point where Chris Dodd, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut actually apologized to Senator Pete Domenici, the Republican Senator from New Mexico, who had worked intimately with Paul Wellstone on, including mental health coverage under insurance. And he said I'm sorry it turned into a partisan rally.

DAVID BROOKS: You know Minnesota is a weird state because we think of it as Prairie Home Companion, nice Scandinavians, ice fishing, very nice people.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: My wife is a Minnesotan and that's all true but it's also a weird state in that you get sometimes very conservative candidates, Rod Grahams was a Senator from there, a very conservative guy; Paul Wellstone, a very liberal guy. Very politically charged state and always has been. I remember a story, Hubert Humphrey, when he was purging the DFL, the Democratic Federal Labor Party, of sort of left-wing elements going into the convention in the 40's, people spiting on him as he walked up to the podium, gave a speech sopping wet.

And that's a lot of passion, which really hasn't faded. It's a polarized and passionate state. And this -- because of what has happened in the past two weeks, I don't know if they have touchtone screens there, but people are just going to put their fists through the things because they're so -- people are energized.

MARGARET WARNER: Charged up. All right. Mark, of course, we can say with any of these close races the Senate could turn on this, because of the 51-49 breakdown, but if you had you to pick one, that you're really watching, you think is really going to be key.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, New Hampshire. I mean, New Hampshire is a state that is a Republican state. Has not elected a Democratic Senator in 30 years, and that was a fluke. And Jean Shaheen, a battle scarred Democratic governor is running against the first name of New Hampshire politics, young John Sununu, a bright able congressman who represents one-half of the state, who beat the sitting Senator Bob Smith in a bruising primary. Every number I've seen the last week has shown Jean Shaheen with a small but nevertheless a continuing lead.

If the Democrats pick up New Hampshire early on Tuesday night and Jean Shaheen wins the Senate seat, then I think hopes and prospects of Republican returning to the majority in the Senate will go with those results.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see New Hampshire?

DAVID BROOKS: I basically in the last two polls, I saw she was up. I would say there is one bit of comfort for Republicans, which is she has moved a bit to the right on some inheritance tax issues and some other issues and you see this around several of the seats that Democrats will probably win, that the Democratic candidate is bragging that I support the Bush tax cut, I support the Bush military.

So while Democrats may keep control of the Senate and if I had to guess, I would think they would, there would be a lot of the big issues where Bush will have a majority on tax cuts, on defense spending, things like that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Give us a race you're really watching.

DAVID BROOKS: I'm looking at one that actually is not that close. It's slightly close and it's in Georgia where Max Cleland is defending the seat. This is interesting to me because if he wins and if Democrats like him win throughout the South, that means there are a lot of Democratic voters or a lot of voters who say I'm pro-life, anti-taxes, I'm pro-gun, but I'm not a Republican, I'm a Democrat, because maybe they're too corporate for me.

And if there are a lot of conservative Democrats out there, that's tremendously good news for the Democratic Party. If that voter block really does exist, won't move over to the Republican Party even though they have all the conservative views, that means the Democrats really have a chance of becoming equal or taking over the South again and that really would be the one sort of transformative group that is emerging in this race.

MARGARET WARNER: Isn't Chambliss supposedly really threatening Cleland now?

MARK SHIELDS: The race has closed, it's tightened. There's no doubt about it.

MARGARET WARNER: Why?

MARK SHIELDS: It's interesting. If 1992 was the year of the woman and 1994 was the year of the angry male, 1998 was the year of impeachment when Bill Clinton and the Democrats won seats. This is an election with-- it's a themeless pudding. It really is. Jean Shaheen if she does win in New Hampshire will win not simply, David's right. She is not for repeal of George Bush's tax cut but she has banged young John Sununu over the head with privatization of Social Security and on offshore companies moving to Bermuda to avoid taxes. I mean, those are two traditional Democratic populist themes.

We have a different set of issues in Georgia. Max Cleland, an authentic, established, genuine American hero, is being challenged essentially on cultural issues. David's right. And that's what it would be. It's not a sense that he is has gone national on the Democratic policies of taxes nearly as much as that he may not share Georgia values. You hear more things about values: South Carolina values, Georgia values, Colorado values, District of Columbia values.

MARGARET WARNER: We all have values.

DAVID BROOKS: The unpopular values.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. One more race.

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I would have to pick, well, let's see Missouri where Jean Carnahan is running against Jim Talent. This is a case I link it with Colorado where have you two sitting Senators who, in Colorado Wayne Allard and Carnahan who are not exactly Henry Clay in the first few years and they're facing very talented candidates running against them, Jim Talent is a very intelligent young man, very committed, has been basically running for four years. I don't think there are big issues there, no transforming issues but it's a case of sort of medium quality Senators facing talented opponents.

MARK SHIELDS: Other race that I think or comment on Missouri.

MARGARET WARNER: Comment on Missouri.

MARK SHIELDS: I think Jean Carnahan, it's a difficult situation. Politics is a tough business. She came into her first race at the age of 68 years old. She was very close, she had been an alter ego to her husband Mel. But it's tough to go for the first time at the age of 68; it is no accident that people first run for the state Senate or state legislature, House and move up. And it is a tough business. Tom Strickland, the Democrat David mentioned in Colorado -- ran the last time and ran through a tough campaign.

MARGARET WARNER: And so do you have one more race to nominate?

MARK SHIELDS: Arkansas the most intriguing state. The only state in the union to have voted 1968 for George Wallace for President, for Bill Fulbright, Democrat, for the Senate and for Winthrop Rockefeller, Republican, for governor.

I mean, it's just a bizarre state politically. You have Tim Hutchinson, a Baptist minister, a family values fellow, who was elected in 1996 on family values heavily, and then dropped his wife of 28 years and married a former staffer. And it sort of robbed him of what had been his credential. He is running against Mark Pryor - of a great political family. His dad David was governor, congressman, and senator from that state, enormously popular. I think the Democrats are going to pick it up.

DAVID BROOKS: Could be. Pryor is a case of somebody who moved to the right to try to get elected. Used to be pro-choice now says abortion is too complicated to have a label. So that's a case where you are getting really, really conservative Democrats, Pryor posing with guns, posing as a hunter.

MARGARET WARNER: I think I read somewhere he is wearing enough camouflage to be in the LL Bean Catalog.

DAVID BROOKS: He may invade Iraq all by himself.


MARGARET WARNER: Finally, it is possible, is it not, Mark, that we could end up Wednesday morning not knowing who controls the Senate?

MARK SHIELDS: We could. I doubt it. But is it a possibility? Certainly in Louisiana, under bayou state's bizarre laws, everybody is in the first race, which is not a primary. It's everybody is in on November 5. And so Mary Landry, the Democratic incumbent, the only way you avoid a runoff with the leading Republican in the race of where there are four, is to get 50 percent plus in a five-person race. It is entirely possible you might wake up not knowing if she got what 45 percent, expected to lead the field, will have to run off in December.

Second in Missouri, Jim Talent, if he were to win and beat Jean Carnahan, that was a temporary appointment for that seat, and in fact the Republican secretary of state was the son of the Republican House whip Roy Blunt, has said that he cannot certify for the special session on November 12, the winner of that Senate race in Missouri so maybe we won't get a new Senator.

MARGARET WARNER: Isn't there a danger, David, that with so many close races and so many states have new voting machines and all these lawyers primed for recounts and challenges, that could you see a couple of those, if you have very close races?

DAVID BROOKS: Are you suggesting the American electoral system may not be perfect.

MARGARET WARNER: The ghost of Florida - may still linger --

DAVID BROOKS: I was down in New Orleans last week and we could all be decamping there because that would be the race that determines who controls the Senate and it would be a great race because we would get to be in New Orleans and also--.

MARGARET WARNER: For three whole weeks.

DAVID BROOKS: Trent Lott versus Tom Daschle. The local candidates would not matter. It would be generic Republican versus generic Democrat.

MARGARET WARNER: Absolutely. Well, more next week. Thank you both



To: BigBull who wrote (1953)11/3/2002 12:02:50 AM
From: BigBull  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6901
 
More interesting news from the Axis - Iran:

Iran's long power struggle nears climax
By Guy Dinmore
Published: November 1 2002 20:41 | Last Updated: November 1 2002 20:41

news.ft.com

Iran's military commanders are giving public warnings of the external US threat, but internally their focus is on the danger of civil unrest as the Islamic republic's domestic power struggle approaches what both sides are calling the end-game.


"General preparedness must be raised, everyone must sense that they are in danger," Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the defence minister, was quoted as saying this week by a state news agency. "We should base our assumptions on the idea that America will attack us."

Iran's inclusion in what President George W. Bush called the "axis of evil", alongside Iraq and North Korea, makes it logical for many Iranians that Tehran will follow Baghdad in a domino pattern of US-inspired regime change.

The ruling clerics recognise, however, that the main danger comes not from a direct US assault but from the ranks of their own people, increasingly disaffected with economic hardship, social restrictions and corruption at all levels.

Government insiders say the Revolutionary Guards and hardline Basij militia are being prepared to deal with the civil strife that is expected to erupt if the conservative establishment rejects two important pieces of legislation proposed by Mohammad Khatami, the pro-reform president. Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, hinted at such during manoeuvres this week in Mashad, Iran's second city. "Basijis should have the necessary readiness for all-out defence in different cultural, security and defence sectors to safeguard the country," he warned.

Iran's ruling conservatives - mostly non-elected, some with vested financial interests, others driven by religious fervour - are sure to block the proposed legislation as it stands, arguing that it contains the seeds of a future secular state.

One of the bills would give President Khatami greater power to warn and sanction hardline judges who have muzzled scores of newspapers and jailed dozens of journalists and intellectuals. The other would curb the veto power used by the conservative-controlled Guardian Council to bar many reformists from running for office.

Mr Khatami insists he is determined to have the two laws passed, and has hinted that he may resign if they are blocked. His radical supporters have threatened to quit parliamentary and state posts, tired of scores of trials of political activists, closures of newspapers and stalled legislation, including a bill that would have defined and banned torture.

There is open talk of an end-game within months, the conclusion of a struggle that dates back to the 1979 revolution between the left, which has evolved towards a mix of reforms and demagoguery, and conservatives who believe they have a divine mandate to rule.

Alireza Alavitabar, a radical reformist and academic, recently spoke of a "turning point" in Iran's history within three months. Amir Mohebbian, a conservative commentator, responded fiercely. He warned the radicals not to count on divisions within the Revolutionary Guards that would prevent a military move to forestall them.

"This is a finale that will break with the first strike," he wrote in the Resalaat daily. "We are waiting for the near future. Here is the ball and here is the field."

For the moment, President Khatami shows little sign of yielding to the pressure of his opponents, even though he is openly pilloried at Friday prayers. However, his loose coalition in parliament is divided over the idea of collective resignation.

"Khatami is determined," commented one veteran analyst. "He does not want to go down in history as a loser. He wants honour, to be remembered as the man who paved the way for the true marriage of religion and democracy."

Mr Khatami is well into his second and final term, and internal opinion polls indicate that, while he is still Iran's most respected politician by far, his popularity is plummeting on the back of unkept promises.

Diplomats in Tehran tend to believe, however, that Mr Khatami would not quit and risk bringing the entire Islamic system down when it feels under threat from the US. The immediate outcome may depend on the skills of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in brokering a compromise on the controversial legislation acceptable to both sides. He and Mr Khatami would then have to test their own authority in bringing their radical supporters to heel and averting popular unrest. It is far from certain they would succeed.

Hardliners believe the confluence of external and internal developments - pressure from Mr Bush and a desperate attempt by Mr Khatami to assert his authority - are not entirely coincidental. Radical reformists are publicly branded as a US "fifth column".

Masumeh Ebtekar, now vice-president but in 1979 among the Iranian revolutionaries who held US diplomats hostage in their Tehran embassy, said that once again Washington was miscalculating in the Middle East.

A close associate of Mr Khatami, she told reporters that US policy was fanning the flames of religious extremism, while endangering the new shoots of democracy in Iran that could act as a moderating influence or serve as a model in the region.



'Great Satan' Scares Few in Modern Iran
Fri Nov 1,11:07 AM ET
By Paul Hughes
story.news.yahoo.com

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) - The gentle music piped around the Iranian capital's latest cultural exhibition sounds innocent enough, until you listen to the lyrics.

"America, death to you. The blood of our youth is dripping from your nails."

But the anti-U.S. rhetoric echoing through the halls of the "First Perspective Exhibition on How to Avoid the Great Satan" appears to be falling on deaf ears.

As Iran prepares to mark on Monday the 23rd anniversary of the day when radical students turned hostage takers overpowered guards at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, few Iranians can muster much enthusiasm for bashing the Islamic Republic's arch-foe.

"We don't hate the Americans," whispered Shafii, 33, one of seven guides who accompanied two Reuters reporters around the "Great Satan" exhibition in a Defense Ministry warehouse in northern Tehran. There were no other visitors.

"We want peace between America and Iran, not war," he said, while one of his colleagues explained a colorful mural depicting Uncle Sam standing behind Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to portray Washington's perceived support for the Iraqi president during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Worshipers at Friday prayer meetings across Iran still chant "Death to Israel! Death to America!" at specific points during the weekly sermons.

And thousands will gather at an official demonstration on Monday at the gates of the vast former U.S. diplomatic compound to heap scorn on the "den of spies."

The embassy siege, in which 52 Americans were held for 444 days, prompted then President Jimmy Carter to freeze Iranian assets and sever all diplomatic ties with Tehran.

"Never did we imagine that our act of protest would have a far-reaching impact on the political history of our country, and of the region," former hostage taker Massoumeh Ebtekar, now Iran's vice president, said in her 2000 account of the siege "Takeover in Tehran."

THE SECOND REVOLUTION

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founding father of the 1979 Islamic revolution, was reported to be initially unsure about the students' action but changed his mind when he saw the crowds of demonstrators gathering in front of the embassy compound to voice their support for the takeover.

He hailed the students for launching "a second revolution, greater than the first."

But as a recent opinion poll revealed, 23 years later most Iranians are tired of the hardline establishment's determination to keep Iran isolated from the world superpower.

The survey showed almost three-quarters of Iranians want a resumption of some kind of dialogue with Washington. Moreover, despite Iran being lumped together with Iraq and North Korea (news - web sites) in President Bush (news - web sites)'s "axis of evil," the poll showed nearly half thought U.S. policy on Iran was "to some extent correct."

It was a like a red rag to a bull for Iran's hard-line clerical establishment which considers any mention of talks with Washington an anathema.

Despite protestations by President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites)'s moderate government, the head of the polling institute that carried out the survey has been thrown in jail awaiting trial on charges of fabricating the poll and espionage.

But the conservatives who draw moral support from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and control Iran's military, judiciary, broadcast media and powerful constitutional watchdogs are fighting a losing battle, analysts say.

"The incident over the poll is a classic example of the conservatives in denial," said Ali Ansari, a lecturer in Middle East history at Durham University, England.

Unlike other countries in the region, "the people on the street in Iran are not anti-American. The anti-U.S. slogans are totally out of tune with the people."

COKE AND CDS

Thanks to the Internet and illegal satellite television U.S. popular culture is king among young Iranians who are a vital constituency in a country where 70 percent of the population is under 30 and has no real memory of the 1979 Islamic revolution or the U.S. Embassy siege.

Teen-age boys sport baseball caps of U.S. teams and eagerly swap illegal CDs of the latest music from the Billboard charts. Despite the international acclaim accorded to Iran's burgeoning film makers, Hollywood movies are the top sellers in the thriving black market in video rentals.

And while hard-liners tried to ban the sale of Barbie dolls earlier this year because of their potential corrupting influence on young girls, the icons of American culture, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are now widely available and recording growing sales.

Khatami's government may have been furious to be branded on a par with Saddam in Bush's "axis of evil" speech, particularly after the important behind-the-scenes cooperation it provided Washington in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Despite persistent accusations by Washington that Iran has given safe haven to fleeing al Qaeda fighters and is developing its own weapons of mass destruction -- allegations which Tehran flatly denies -- Iranian officials have recently spoken of a softer tone emerging from the United States.

Diplomats in Tehran have told Reuters that Washington has sent a message to Iran, by way of a third country, reassuring the government that Iran is not next on its war on terror list.

"America is not going to bomb a country where the people wear baseball caps and drink Coca-Cola," one local analyst said. "You don't bomb people who like you."

SLOGANS APLENTY

Many of the radical students who stormed the U.S. Embassy 23 years ago are now Iran's most vocal reformists and fully support Khatami's policy of engagement with the West.

"The slogans that carried us forward as revolutionary students in 1980 might no longer hold all the answers to the problems of today," said Ebtekar.

Back at the "Great Satan" exhibition there are slogans aplenty.

"Negotiations and talks with America are betrayal and foolish" reads one quotation attributed to current Supreme Leader Khamenei.

The exhibition contains a series of scenes "to show the new generation what crimes America has carried out in Iran and the rest of the world," said Ali Mirzaei, one of the guides.

A mock-up of the U.S. Embassy, complete with copies of the "secret" documents allegedly uncovered, is presented as are innovative recreations of the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the Vietnam war and U.S. support for Israel.

Another room attacks the symbols of Western cultural depravity such as CDs, gambling, drugs and even pet dogs.

In the room a male mannequin, wearing a baseball cap and engrossed in a glossy magazine, is about to fall off a precipice.

"When young people are busy with the cultural distractions of the West, they don't have time to move with the (Islamic) revolution," Mirzaei said.



To: BigBull who wrote (1953)11/3/2002 5:12:32 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6901
 
Good rundown on the situation in Pakistan, by way of a NYT Book Review.

November 3, 2002
'Pakistan': A Nuclear Yugoslavia
By ROBERT D. KAPLAN

[T] he central drama affecting the future of South Asia is not the hunt for remaining elements of Al Qaeda or even the struggle over the fate of Kashmir, it is the continuing institutional decline of Pakistan, the world's seventh most populous country and a potential nuclear version of Yugoslavia. Islam in Pakistan has had no more success in quelling ethnic and tribal animosities than Communism had in Yugoslavia. The Punjabis, through the military and the civil service, run the other provinces in imperial fashion much as the Serbs ran other parts of what was once Yugoslavia.

In ''Pakistan: Eye of the Storm,'' Owen Bennett Jones, a BBC correspondent formerly stationed there, writes: ''No elected government has ever completed its term in office. It has had three wars with India and has lost around half of its territory. Its economy has never flourished. Nearly half its vast population is illiterate and 20 percent is undernourished.'' In ''Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan,'' Mary Anne Weaver, a correspondent for The New Yorker, observes that this vast and arid frontier zone of the Indian subcontinent is where ''angry students cling to a vision of an Islamist utopia, and equally angry mullahs chant prayers from the country's countless mosques.'' There is so little sense of authentic nationhood that when the Baluchi inhabitants of the country's southwestern desert venture elsewhere in Pakistan, they say they are going to ''Hindustan,'' which for most people means India. As a consequence, Weaver says, Pakistan's ruling aristocracy -- once a triumvirate of military officers, tribal chiefs and the feudal landowners who bankroll the political parties -- clings to the British legacy of empire as the only available defense against anarchy. Since independence, the only addition to this triumvirate has been the Islamic clerics.

Though Weaver and Bennett Jones are both journalists, Weaver presents more of a descriptive, traveler's-eye view, exploring subjects like falconry and desert fortresses in addition to politics, while Bennett Jones has produced a more comprehensive, scholarly work, in which everything from the Seraiki national movement in southern Punjab to Pakistani nuclear doctrine is covered. Both books, however -- each the product of impressive expertise -- agree on a fundamental point: the differences between democratically elected leaders and military dictators in Pakistan may be less than the differences between one military leader and another, and prodding Pakistan toward stability and individual freedom is less a matter of the immediate return of democracy than of a sustained and nuanced American commitment to the country.

Together, these books provide an excruciatingly precise account of how in October 1999, Pakistan's last democratically elected leader, Nawas Sharif -- a Punjabi religious conservative who through the bribing of parliamentarians and the intimidation of judges and journalists was erecting a theocratic dictatorship under the guise of democracy -- denied landing rights to a civilian airliner packed with schoolchildren, in order to kill one of the passengers. The passenger was Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the military chief of staff. Musharraf's fellow officers removed Sharif from power literally minutes before the plane's fuel ran out, and installed Musharraf as the country's new leader. Musharraf is described by both Weaver and Bennett Jones as the country's last credible Westernizer: a man who admits to a penchant for whiskey and casinos, and whose greatest concern is that ''75 percent of my officers have never been out of Pakistan.''

Musharraf emerges in these books as the philosophical opposite of another Pakistani general, Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. According to Bennett Jones, Zia is ''perhaps the only one of Pakistan's four military rulers to deserve the epithet 'dictator.' '' Zia took power in a coup in 1977 and ruled until 1988, when he was killed in a still unexplained plane crash. He was a courteous middle-class man with a common touch, but uncomfortable as a public speaker and lacking the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the civilian politician he had toppled. Weak politically, Zia aligned himself with Muslim extremists, institutionalizing radical Islam in almost every branch of the state. Zia's democratic successors, Bennett Jones notes, ''did little to dismantle his legacy.''

Undoing Zia's Islamization program has proved a thankless task for Musharraf, who despite his failure thus far has at least tried: challenging the clerics by denouncing religious practices like ''honor killings'' and blasphemy laws, and speaking out in support of human rights in a way that previous Pakistani leaders rarely did. As Bennett Jones asserts, Musharraf, unlike his democratic predecessors, ''does at least have an agenda. . . . He wants a modernist, liberal Pakistan in which there is religious tolerance and respect for the law.'' Musharraf, a dashing former commando with tons of the self-confidence that Zia lacked, reversed Pakistan's longstanding policy of support for the Taliban, and has assisted the United States in hunting down Al Qaeda to a degree that would have been inconceivable for any previous government. ''It is impossible to avoid the conclusion,'' Bennett Jones writes, ''that the military stand a much better chance of delivering radical change in Pakistan than the civilians.''

The reality is that Pakistan's experience with democracy has so far been unfortunate, beginning in essence with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a slick demagogue who in 1965 played a leading role in instigating Pakistan's disastrous war with India and later, as prime minister in the 1970's, imposed a ban on drinking, gambling and nightclubs even though he was a regular drinker himself. ''He repeatedly pandered to the Islamic radicals in the hope of securing short-term political advantage,'' Bennett Jones reports. Weaver writes of how, in an effort to subdue Baluchi separatism, Bhutto ''bombed and strafed'' the Baluchi ''at random''; 3,300 Pakistani soldiers and over 6,000 Baloch died. It was only after Bhutto's 1977 re-election was marred by fraud and riots broke out that the military, under Zia, took power.

Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, ruled twice, in the late 1980's and 90's, after Zia's death returned the country to democracy. In an affecting profile, Weaver shows how a hostile military and a feudal party apparatus were partly responsible for the gross mismanagement and disastrous decisions that characterized her first turn as prime minister. But, Weaver goes on, when Bhutto returned to power in 1993 and the country began to fall apart, ''she had only herself to blame.'' She and Asif Ali Zardari, her husband as well as the investment minister, ran Pakistan as though it were a ''commercial enterprise.''

As in Turkey, the military has periodically rescued Pakistan from political anarchy. But the Pakistani military, by constituting a state within a state, is itself a fundamental part of the problem, Bennett Jones concludes. Turkey has functioned reasonably well in recent decades because of an implicit division of power between the generals and the civilian leadership. The former, through a national security council, make the key decisions in security and foreign affairs, while the prime minister and parliament are sovereign domestically. One closes these two books thinking that if it is not to go on oscillating between military tyranny and democratic anarchy, Pakistan desperately needs a hybrid regime akin to the Turkish model.

Although the sheer variety of social and economic problems in the world cannot always be solved simply by instituting Western-style democracy, international elites have persistently demanded that Musharraf hold elections. So he did. Last month, Pakistan held its first nationwide election in seven years. With the reported connivance of the military, there were major gains for the hard-line religious parties and other opponents of working with the United States in the fight against terrorism. In two provinces bordering Afghanistan, crucial to American military operations, the religious parties are now dominant.

Near the end of her book, Weaver quotes Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the former commander in chief of Central Command, the headquarters for Middle East operations, who tells her: ''It's so important that we work with Musharraf: not so much because of what Musharraf is or is not, but because what would come after him would be a disaster.'' Sadly, Zinni may still be right.

Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, is the author of ''Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.''



To: BigBull who wrote (1953)11/4/2002 11:34:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 6901
 
The number of unemployed individuals seeking employment at job centers rose by 87.79% in the first ten months of 2001 -- the last period for which data are available -- compared to the same period the previous year

Very bad news for the Ayatollahs.. especially given what the analyst stated in the other article.. "you don't bomb people who wear baseball caps and drink coke"...

The US won't attack, and the youth of Iran know their only chance for prosperity is with the West, and primarily, the US..

Hawk