Never underestimate the importance of careerism
Matthew Yglesias repeatedly and correctly banging his head against the general tendency of the USA to get played in its dealings with Pakistan, among other savvy client states:
"After all, United States pressure played an important role in easing the military out of power recently. But the American security establishment seems to have hit upon the slightly bizarre notion that the appropriate response to the Pakistan military’s unwillingness or inability to effectively provide security for the country is that we should welcome them taking over all government responsibilities. Call me skeptical.
Whatever you think of that, recall that our relationship with Pakistan is shot through with paradoxes. Rising Islamic radicalism helped convince Americans that we should keep Pervez Musharraf in power. The more the territory the Taliban seizes, the more money we give to the Pakistan government. And the background context is that there are many more Pakistani elites who speak English than there are American elites who speak Urdu or Punjabi; and many more Pakistani elites who have western educations than there are American elites who went to school in Pakistan. The United States is rich and strong, Pakistan is poor and weak. But Pakistani officials have a much greater ability to manipulate American officials than vice versa."
or to put it succinctly, as is my tendency:
Shorter Matthew Yglesias: The Pakistan desk in the US State Department is something of a career graveyard for people who aren't really headed for the top. On the other hand, in the Pakistani government, the Pakistan desk is one of the most important postings there is.
Do you mean that the U.S. desk is one of the most important postings in the Pakistani government?
ReplyDeleteIt's important, but it's not as important as the Pakistan desk. That would be making the point that the Pakistan/US relationship is more important to one party than the other - I think the more fundamental point is that the interests of the Pakistan ruling elite are one priority among many for the US ruling elite - but for the Pakistan ruling elite they're the whole dang show.
ReplyDeleteOne of my long-standing observations about the Cold War is how often both superpowers were played for complete fucking chumps by powerful people/interests in the countries they intervened in.
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much that they were evil Machiavellian genii, just sodding thick...
and of course, this outcome is exactly what public choice economics would have predicted - it's the general theory of dispersed costs, concentrated benefits which is the basis of regulatory capture. I still think my joke that the security/military complex actually does work in the way in which public choice theorists think the whole government does, deserved more widespread popularity.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but judging by the kind of stupid stuff the foreign policy elites generally come out with (e.g. the typical contents of their house mag), the wider problem might be that the US foreign policy elites just don't understand the world. Or rather they operate as if the world works the way they'd like it to be, rather than the way it actually is. Which I guess if you're a superpower you can do, because really what's the worst that can happen...
ReplyDeleteI mean when an idiot like Fareed Zakaria is taken seriously you do rather have to wonder.
I guess if you're a superpower you can do, because really what's the worst that can happen...Whoops, there goes another Hind helicopter...
ReplyDeletecompletely OT, and re your pre-publication review of Aaro's book, have you read Mark Sedgwick's book on the traditionalist movement:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Against-Modern-World-Traditionalism-Intellectual/dp/0195152972
In a related point, the absolute top security issue for the Pakistani Pakistan desk is of course India, but the Americans insist on ignoring this.
ReplyDelete