The Abbottabad affair has united the doves and hawks in the west, with the latter gaining ground lost in the aftermath of the mismanagement of the Bush years. It is a strange confluence, with the Democrats getting some much needed popularity and the Republicans feeling a certain sense of vindication. The problem with moments of national unity – in the US or elsewhere – is that they more often than not lead to jingoism. And that leads to adventurism. The US magazines, papers, blogs, the airwaves, one finds the same choir: there should be an immense increase in military engagement with Pakistan, even with its army itself. Though the politicians have been more measured than the press and academia, even they are not putting up with a shy approach; there is, after all, political mileage to be milked out of this situation.
It is heartening to know, then, that there are some voices of restraint. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been unequivocal in stating that the cooperation with Pakistan is set to continue. And to calls by many to cut off aid to Pakistan, Senator John Kerry, who is also the chair of the foreign relations committee, has said the move would be “extremely dangerous and unwise.” Similar words from the EU. God knows what might happen, say the peaceniks, if we were to leave them to their own devices.
A sad state of affairs. Are we the only country in the world whose instability is its best defence? Have we resigned ourselves to being content with the description of the drunk with the car keys as long as it guarantees us some security and aid?
Would it that this shame becomes the impetus for change? With this monumental embarrassment of the powers that be, comes an opportunity for the political class to finally be in control. Nothing is more powerful, mused Victor Hugo, than an idea whose time has come. Will the representatives of our teeming millions seize the day?
