Newsweek's Prescient Pakistan Cover

Huffington Post   |  Rachel Sklar   |   December 28, 2007 07:06 AM


stumbleupon :<em>Newsweek</em>'s Prescient Pakistan Cover   digg: <em>Newsweek</em>'s Prescient Pakistan Cover   reddit: <em>Newsweek</em>'s Prescient Pakistan Cover   del.icio.us: <em>Newsweek</em>'s Prescient Pakistan Cover

On October 18, 2007, former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was the target of a violent assassination attempt by a suicide bomber who blew himself up and killed at least 134 people. Three days later, on Oct. 21, 2007, Newsweek came out with a cover story asserting that Pakistan was the most dangerous country in the world, topping both Iraq and Afghanistan — the result of a two-month old investigative story that went to print pegged on the attack. Two weeks later, the rest of the world began to agree: On Nov. 3, 2007, Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency that effectively suspended the Constitution, established martial law, and rounded up hundreds of lawyers, judges and activists, throwing his country into disarray and straining the delicate balance of power in that nuclear-enabled country, throwing the upcoming January elections into doubt and becoming more vulnerable to Taliban extremists who, presumably, would be even more dicey to have hovering over that red button. That, incidentally, was the focus of Newsweek's piece: The resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan and the establishment within the country of jihadist bases for Taliban and al Qaeda extremists, along with that burgeoning — and not all that secure — nuclear program. The most dangerous country in the world, indeed — back in November, Newsweek was looking pretty prescient as Pakistan led newscasts, made headlines, and was uppermost in mind. Musharraf even got a nod as a possible Time "Person of the Year"contender on par with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin as part of an "unstable dictator" triumvirate. But by the third week of December, Pakistan had stabilized somewhat and receded from view, and Putin took the POY prize without so much as a nod in Musharraf's direction (well, he got a mention in a Joel Stein column, if that counts).

All that changed yesterday, of course, with Bhutto's assassination. Now the country is in turmoil, the elections seem in doubt, Musharraf seems guilty (helped along by Bhutto's posthumous accusation), and everyone seems nervous — mostly because of those jihadists and those nukes. Oh, and also, Osama might be hiding there, because apparently it's super easy for terrorists to come and go. For him, and his friends. And did we mention those nukes? Far be it for Newsweek to say "I told you so," but let the record reflect that roughly two and a half months ago, it did.

Comments for this post are now closed


 
 

Comments
22
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

I will not point my finger so easily. Pakistan most dangerous now , my finger will point to Bush for giving Billions to make them so.
I kind of agree what Dodd said a couple of days ago, Mussaraff is not the best answer but it is better if they postpond the election for a while to stabilize.
So far Mussaraff is keeping the "BUTTON" under guard !
Be very scared !!!

Rachel the biggest BUSH mistake besides starting the WAR is giving rest of the billions to Pakistan, He is the real war criminal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 AM on 12/30/2007

Great news for me, all the money I could save in 2008, that I could use for better cause, giving me goose bumps already !
My new year resolution could be the saved money from the self cancelled NYT, Newsweek, WSJ cancellation, means more money going to NPR and PBS.

Wow !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 12/30/2007

Prescient? Maybe if People magazine is what normally graces your coffee table.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 12/29/2007

And Obama called it even before Newsweek did-in the debates. (The one where HRC laughed at Obama and ridiculed him for even suggesting the US needs to take action in Pakistan).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 12/29/2007

I don't get it. For years now, Democrats have been pointing to the undeniable fact that the occupation of Iraq is a diversion from the real war which exists on both sides of the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It has also been pointed out repeatedly that it is vital to capture Osama bin Laden, despite the Bush administration's claim that it's not so important. Before you give Newsweek the Pulitzer, perhaps someone should ask them, Where have they been for the past five or six years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 12/29/2007

It's the nature of reality that most things that happen are less predictable than they seem in hindsight. The problem with the grand schemes of the neo-cons is that in their myopia concentration of their manufactured axis of evil they are caught gazing in the wrong direction when real threats emerge. Iran is actually a fairly stable country and in many respects a westernized country. Iraq was run by a vicious dictator but we had his number and him under control. South Korea has been ably handled by the Chinese. In contrast, those countries where we took the eye off the ball are now the ones that potentially could really threaten the world. In addition, the next great threat or attack is liable to come from a place that we are not paying too much attention too right now.

It's incumbent that we not engage in wars of choice to further a neo-con agenda of US hegemony over the world but that we survey the landscape, see what is really happening out there, intervene wisely, and preserve our military for the most dire of circumstances.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 AM on 12/29/2007

I think every person that had knowledge of her return could have predicted this outcome. Pakistan has been a problem for most of the world for years It took 9/11/2001 for the rest of the world to catch on. They have been funding terrorists for years but of course no one in the U.S. Government knew anything about that. Or did they? Was the U.S. warned this was going to happen? I feel certain some in our government knew this would happen and were perhaps involved more than we will ever know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 12/28/2007

It started with occupation of Afghanistan, then Iraq then it helps the breeding and widespread of terrorist in Middle East. So America, see your face in the mirror. U Ass Of A is the most dangerous country in the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 PM on 12/28/2007

"The most dangerous country in the world, indeed..."

Indeed.

Oh, well.
A madman, a button, and, a buffoon. . .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 12/28/2007

Sorry, but National Geographic beat Newsweek with it's Sept. cover story "Pakistan: Islam's Flashpoint" (hit the street early Aug.).

And in the "me too" world of today's media, the timing suggests that the NG story may well have planted the seed for the Newsweek piece.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 PM on 12/28/2007

PAKISTAN IS DEFINITELY THE MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRY..................UNFORTUNATELY , WE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT THE EXTREMIST RADICAL TERRORIST AND SUICIDE BOMBERS. NEITHER COULD HAVE BHUTTO.
HER COURAGE HAS HAD SAD OUTCOME AND ABOUT 170 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED WITH HER IN 2 ATTACKS.
MODERATE MOSLEMS ALL OVER THE WORLD KNOW WE CAN NO LONGER DO ANYTHING TO STOP THESE ATTACKS.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 PM on 12/28/2007

They're a little slow at Newsweek, huh? Maybe they should have paid attention and drawn this conclusion about 5 years ago. What was the headline then?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 AM on 12/28/2007
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

 

 Site  Web ask.com