Say it ain't so!

Vote-rigging by the criminal enterprise that is the Russian State apparatus? Who'da thunk?

Crisis Overseas Is Sudden Test for Candidates - New York Times

I think this is, as the article describes, a key test for the candidates - and (possibly) a coup for the likes of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

The key question will probably be this: how much does the general American electorate (or, more specifically, that portion of the electorate that tends to show up during the primary season) really understand the importance of events in Pakistan? The fact that folks like Richardson and Biden have gained absolutely zero traction in the race so far would seem to indicate a distinct lack of desire among the electorate to immerse themselves in the details of foreign policy. The polling strength of Obama, Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee is, I think, built upon a general belief that international affairs - outside of one's position on Iraq - really aren't all that important.

The Clinton campaign's efforts to emphasize her "proven" ability to govern based on experience and an understanding of international issues (as questionable as I believe that experience to actually be...) looks a lot more appealing in a time of international crisis. That being said, she doesn't really say a whole lot about what she would DO other than push for an international investigation of the incident (not a bad idea...but unlikely to do much more than spur more angst in Pakistan...much as the international investigation did little to settle the political tension in Lebanon).

Of course, she frowns upon the Administration's handling of Pakistan (without offering specific examples of her approach) and trots out some brief factoids on Pakistan history. It makes her appear well-informed but, as usual, avoids specifics. Then again, I'd argue her short description of Pakistan's political history completely ignores the instability Pakistan suffered under previous democratic governments - to include Bhutto's. I would argue that Pakistan likely needs the steady hand of a strong ruler (with the firm backing of the military) similar to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey if they hope to reach the level of stability necessary to create a self-sustaining democracy. I would also argue that Musharraf SEEMED to be a possible candidate for such a role up until the events of the last year or two. Viewed from that perspective, American conditional support for his rule made more sense than pushing too hard for premature elections - or providing him unconditional support. The dynamics have changed, the situation is much more difficult, and Hillary Clinton is not reflecting that complexity in her current posturing.

On the other side of the Democratic candidates, we have Joe Biden...much more well-informed, much more specific, but also caught up in a number of inconsistencies. I just finished listening to his take on Pakistan (voiced prior to the death of Bhutto) and...I was disappointed. He is:

1. Too dismissive of Iran
2. Contradictory regarding how the US should take action against states that either explicitly or implicitly support terrorism (incursions into Pakistan but ignore Iran? How does that make sense?)
3. Overly optimistic regarding what an increased US presence in Afghanistan could affect (NATO ain't coming if we add more troops. They're leaving)
4. Flat wrong on the current distribution of Special Operations Forces (which are already crawling all over Afghanistan)
5. And airily dismissive of the difficulties involved in operating in the Northwest Territories.

If we REALLY want to give Islamists and extremists within Pakistan a rallying cry that will echo across a broad swath of the population, let's attempt unilateral actions in Pakistan. Hear that Obama?

Between Obama and Huckabee, we have the two most detached perspectives. From Obama, we get empty "I understand better than all those guys in there now" rhetoric, a reminder that he'd feel free to attack Pakistan (but not Iran...?) to root out terrorists, and more talk of Musharraf's "anti-democratic" actions. If you're gonna say that, you need to follow up with the beginning of a solution, buddy. Who would we support instead? How? Considering much of the opposition uses Musharraf's ties to Washington as a rallying point, how would they accept US support? All things considered, Bhutto was about the only powerful opposition leader the US could leverage to change the political scene for the better...and we did that. A fact that seems to get shoved conveniently under the table as the debate over Pakistan continues.

From Huckabee? Concern that Pakistanis might cross the US border if we don't hurry up with immigration reform (huh?). An argument could be made that both positions are politically savvy in terms of the campaign. Obama distances himself from a situation that has few right answers (without providing anything of his own) while Huckabee ties it directly back to immigration reform - a key issue for Republicans in this election season. My growing concern with Huckabee is that his strength is built upon his ability to appeal to the least informed among the Republican electorate.

I like McCain's measured words on Pakistan. He understands this is not a time for American grandstanding - and not necessarily a time for overly politicizing a dangerous situation. No, we can't expect to (and shouldn't want to) stick with the status quo...but a long term solution to Pakistan's ongoing crisis won't come from sound bites or harsh denunciations for Musharraf.