"On my recent trip to Pakistan, every conversation veered toward one of four issues. These topics also fill most news broadcasts and top the headlines in every newspaper. Pakistanis talk about these issues on the streets, in the markets, and at the masjids.

These issues – the economy, the electricity load sharing, the water shortage, and the political instability – cut across social class, gender, and geography. Hardly anyone talks about extremism. You might catch a mention of extremist actions in the last few minutes of a news broadcast – if you have electricity to watch the news, that is.

"The greatest threat Pakistan faces is perhaps economic. The rather miniscule – and shrinking – Pakistani middle class makes perhaps 20-30% of its counterpart in the United States. Most Pakistanis live on much less – the annual GDP per capita is under $3,000. In spite of this, over the past few months, prices for seemingly everything except pirated DVDs have risen sharply. I paid the exact same for meat and vegetables in Karachi as I do in Washington, DC. Consumer products, clothing, apartment rental fees, cars – everything costs virtually the same as it does in the United States.

"On top of the economic woes, there is a shortage of both electricity and water. While always an issue in Pakistan, these shortages are substantially worse now. Usually, electricity would be out for an hour or two in some areas, at most once a day...

"In addition, water shortages are quite severe right now. Numerous sections of Karachi are getting by with no water at all. Residents of these water-less areas go to nearby neighborhoods in the early morning to steal water...

"...They have also made everyday functioning exponentially harder. Additionally, the scale of these problems and the lack of any long-term solutions and short-term relief have greatly increased the population’s frustration with the government.

"Finally, there is the political instability. This unstable climate is scaring away foreign investment and hurting the economy. The inability of the political parties to work together is also adversely affecting the government handling of the economic, water, and electricity crises. Most Pakistanis I spoke with believed the coalition government would soon collapse, necessitating new elections. Indeed, the two opposition parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Although party leaders Nawaz Sharif (PML-N) and AsifZardari (PPP) have met frequently to discuss a wide range of issues, their main point of cohesion has been their opposition to President Musharraf. They have been unable to resolve the status of the judges Musharraf dismissed last November. The president’s fate in office is also still up in the air. Sharif has threatened that the PML-N will quit the government if the judges aren’t immediately reinstated. He has also been far more adamant about impeaching Musharraf.

"Because of the close relationship, currently and historically, between the United States and Pakistan, most Pakistanis hold America somewhat accountable for the current situation. They are all aware that Washington supported military dictators who shunned democracy, freedom, and investment in civil institutions for much of Pakistan’s history, just as it does today. While the United States gained a staunch ally to thwart communism and its current cousin, religious extremism, the people of Pakistan gained little, if anything. They view the U.S. focus on extremism in the northwest, as opposed to the four real crises directly affecting all Pakistanis, as myopic and ill-conceived. Current U.S. policy will not stabilize Pakistan. Increased U.S. military aggression will likely have the opposite effect, sweeping Pakistanis already angry at Musharraf and the government into a nationalist, anti-American wave.

"Washington could also take a step back from Musharraf, and support instead the rule of law and the process of democracy in Pakistan. For such efforts to be credible, the United States must also pull back on military operations and vastly increase its non-military aid to Pakistan. The United States bears some responsibility for Pakistan’s appalling lack of institutions and infrastructure, for it supported a chain of dictators who neglected building civil institutions in favor of military spending. Such non-military aid could help mitigate the abject poverty that has been exacerbated by the four crises currently crippling the country. A functional welfare system would give Pakistani families some relief, reducing the incentives driving child labor. Aid should also be directed at building a functional national public school system. A quality education in Pakistan requires a lot of money. Schooling in the radical madrasas, which certainly are not all the madrasas, thrives because they are the only place where poor children can receive a free education. An effective public school system would draw children away from these radical madrasas."

So, the Bush administration put all its eggs in one basket, the basket of the haves and have mores, in Pakistan and backed the dictator, Pervez Musharraf, with millions in military funding.  Instead of assisting Pakistan with a public school system that would help poor children and decrease recruits to the Taliban, Bushites decided that money for a dictator, weapons, and warmongering were the answer.  It was an answer alright, but the wrong one. 

Again, another Bush foreign policy blunder which has had awful consequences across the border in Afghanistan