While we've all been focusing on the Russia-Georgia conflict, another Bush foreign policy failure is about to leave a nuclear power in a very unstable state:
Faced with desertions by his political supporters and the neutrality of the Pakistani military, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, an important ally of the United States, is expected to resign in the next few days rather than face impeachment charges, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats said Thursday.
His departure from office would be likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockeyed for the division of power. New York Times today
Bush, of course, has been Musharraf's main backer, doing everything he could to keep him in power in spire of Democratic opposition to him, although it seems the Bush administration is now, finally, reading the writing on the wall:
The Bush administration’s continued support of Mr. Musharraf, anchored by the personal relationship between the two presidents, has infuriated the four-month-old civilian coalition, which routed the president’s party in February elections. "Now the reaction from the American friends is positive," [Nisar Ali] Khan [, a senior official in the Pakistani Muslim League-N] said.
While Mr. Bush has kept up his relationship with Mr. Musharraf — including regular telephone conversations — the administration has also been trying to build its relations with the new Pakistani government, as it demands greater action against militants based in Pakistan.
McCain's position on Musharraf, last December:
Seeking to present the face of a steady leader in a time of crisis, John McCain today rebuffed some of the calls for immediate U.S. action regarding Pakistan in the wake of the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and expressed confidence in the government of General Pervez Musharraf. ...
"Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Second of all, some of the lessons of recent [American experience] argue that we have a complete plan and know what our objective is," he said, invoking the "Powell doctrine" that calls for going to war only when one has overwhelming force available. "If you've ever been to Waziristan, which I have been to, it's very rugged country that has not been governed by anyone going back to Alexander the Great. It presents an enormous military challenge alone, much less that it would the alienate people and government of Pakistan if we decided to initiate unilateral action." WaPo 28 Dec 2007
To which, Juan Cole wrote in the begunning of August:
Musharraf's 'successful state' involved dismissing the Supreme Court, provoking massive and repeated demonstrations, violating the constitution, interfering with free and fair elections, and presiding over a virtual national meltdown on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto late last December. McCain appears to value nothing beyond sheer military might-- even if it has shady contacts to al-Qaeda! Juan Cole 1 Aug 2008
Obama, on the other hand, made it clear a long time ago he has little faith in Musharraf:
"I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." USA Today (blog) 1 Aug 2007
and just two days ago:
The United States cannot offer a blank cheque to Pakistan’s "undemocratic president," says the US Democratic Party, signalling clearly that if Barack Obama is elected in November, the beleaguered Pakistani leader will not have an ally in the White House. Pakistan Dawn 13 Aug
Looks like, once again, Obama reads the world correctly, while the "more experienced" McCain blew it.