You know certain impressions of your country have hit rock-bottom when the elected head of state’s assurances on a matter are brushed away. The head of the US Homeland Security delegation that met with the president recently, Congressman Michael McCaul, said doubted, publicly, whether President Zardari can live up to his promises to “eradicate” the Haqqanis. “The real question,” said the American lawmaker, “is how much the president controls the military.”
The Republican is a US politician and is not in government. He can say out loud what everyone in the Obama administration ostensibly also believes. The foreign office is going to issue statements. Schoolboy’s copy: the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and all that. And in practical terms, through his position as leader of the ruling party, he can direct the prime minister, who is the chief executive authority in the country.
But there is no use for the indignant amongst us, especially those in uniform, to huff and puff a little too much. The military has given the world much evidence to assume this scheme of things. This is, of course, not to talk about the years where the military has been overtly in power. Under discussion are the years of supposed civilian rule when, at least on certain important issues, all but the pathologically pedantic knew where the buck stopped. Have things changed all too much? The west knows how to measure the difference between what the elected government makes a policy to do and what actually plays out in the great outdoors. It is not aloof. Yes, it is the lot of the diplomatic corps to tilt at those windmills. But the rest of the world, and us, know better.