Stuff I Don't Get

|
Why so many people who were sure Saddam had to stay for the sake of "stability" are equally certain Musharraf has to go. Mark Steyn from yesterday at least makes me feel I'm not crazy.
Everyone's an expert on Pakistan, a faraway country of which we know everything: It seems to me a certain humility is appropriate when offering advice to Islamabad. Gen. Musharraf is — as George S. Kaufman remarked when the Germans invaded Russia — shooting without a script. But that's because he presides over a country that defies the neatness of scripted narratives. In the days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, President Bush told the world you're either with us or against us. Gen. Musharraf said he was with us, which was jolly decent of him considering that 99.9999 percent of his people are against us. In the teeth of that glum reality, he has ridden a difficult tightrope with some skill.

As John Negroponte, U.S. deputy secretary of state, put it, aside from America, "No country has done more in terms of inflicting damage and punishment on the Taliban and al-Qaeda since September 11" — which, given the proportion of Pakistanis that loathe America and actively supports the Taliban and al Qaeda, is not unimpressive.

Moreover:

It may well be that a Bhutto restoration will be the happy ending foreign-policy "realists" predict. But it's more likely that a return to traditional levels of democratic corruption will cramp the economic interests of much of the military and result in key factions making common cause with the Islamists — as Pakistan's intelligence service did with the Taliban. I don't know for sure, and nor does anyone else. But sometimes it helps to bet on form.
The Weekly Standard's taking a different line, however. And Brett Stephens thinks Musharraf's not in as much trouble as we think. I don't know. I'm searching for a story I read shortly before Pakistan blew up indicating that the Pakistan army was about to launch a major offensive on the Taliban in Waziristan, relying on intelligence gotten from Allied sources (Pakistan's intelligence service being allied with the Taliban as Steyn indicates). I can't find it now, of course. But it would put a certain spin on what's happening.

Update: Ah, here's at least a similar story from October 19th, the day after the attack on Bhutto's life.
An all-out battle for control of Pakistan's restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.

According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.