Getting our priorities right in Pakistan
Henry Kissinger, writing in the Washington Post, looks at the situation in Pakistan from the perspective of our twin goals of security and democracy. He concludes that “both are important objectives but may be achievable only on different time scales.”
Dr. Kissinger’s piece is written in nuanced and diplomatic language. He is clear, however, that in the context of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons, security is the overriding objective and the only one we are in a position substantially to advance now. Accordingly:
In dealing with the emerging Pakistani leadership, American policy should focus on national security objectives (control of nuclear weapons, counterterrorism cooperation and resistance to Islamist radicalism). Our democratic principles should be clearly conveyed, but we should have learned by now that the evolution of the immediate political process is beyond our reach.
JOHN adds: These comments are in line with the talk that Kissinger gave at our event in New York in honor of Norman Podhoretz, which we commemorated here. Kissinger, the original "realist," has considerable sympathy for the "neocon" perspective, but thinks that Muslim democracies will have to develop on a longer time line than the one that dictates our immediate security interests.
PAUL adds: I've always thought that the calculus varies somewhat from Muslim country to Muslim country. In Pakistan, the consequences of insecurity are more dire, I think, than anywhere else in the region. Kissinger's piece does not seem inconsistent with this thinking.
