Adil Najam
Even though much of the U.S. and world media seems to have already decided who will win the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, the fact remains that the elections are determined by votes, not by polls.
Much can happen between now and Tuesday. Including the (re-)discovery that the opinion polling is not an exact science. I doubt if that will be the case, but part of me is now fed-up with the over-polling in this election.
That means that maybe we should do an ATP poll of our own :-)
As has been evidenced in other posts of this blog there are Pakistanis who strongly feel that a President Barack Obama will be be more dangerous for Pakistan than a President John McCain. 
There are also many who think the exact opposite. And as the question in the poll suggest there may also be those who feel that no matter who wins things will get worse or, maybe, will become better for Pakistan.
Without losing sight of the fact that Americans will, and should, elect the President they think is best for America, not for Pakistan - and not withstanding my own expressed view that Pakistani-Americans will also be voting this time on their own domestic policy concerns and not on Pakistan’s foreign policy preferences - one does wonder how a new administrtaion in Washington (now that there is already a new administration in Islamabad) might impact Pakistan.
So, please do tell us what you think. And why.
@YLH:
Right again. Thank you for a great post!
@Shayan,
Bold words. Whether one agrees with you or not–you are going against the grain of ‘national honor’–yet your words help establish the other end of the spectrum of argument. ‘Truth’ always lies somewhere in between.
So thank you!
Meengla
I think a shift of focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan under an Obama presidency will probably be for the best. Our government and military clearly cannot be trusted to deal with the militants without a lot of international pressure and assistance. So be it. We need to regain control over FATA and Swat and crush the TTP as soon as is humanly possible. Many of us think that American interference is counterproductive but without its pressure our military would never have fought the militants as earnestly as it is fighting them today. And while the drone attacks are very much counterproductive, America can help us a lot by stabilizing the Afghan provinces on our border, stopping infiltration into Bajaur and other areas where the army is trying to rout the Taiban and keeping our government from getting distracted.
http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/obama- presidency-is-better-for-pakistan/
Obama is better for Jinnah’s Pakistan
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Between rock and a hard place, between devil and the deep blue sea- there are countless ways of describing how stark a catch 22, we in Pakistan are forced to see the current US election. On the one hand we have the charismatic and eloquent Obama, who most Pakistanis have taken a strong liking to because he promises a break with what are generally conceived by the common people here as pro-military dictatorship policies of the Grand Old Party. But Obama has also engaged in rhetoric that scares most Pakistanis. The idea of a US attack on NWFP isn’t so much an issue of sovereignty as of repercussions. Already Pakistan is facing the brunt of terrorism in the world with our lives and property insecure and our future uncertain. Added to our misery are the economic woes which have been exacerbated by the war on terror. Most Pakistanis also fear that the Democrat Party, at least since Bill Clinton’s second term in office has been moving decidedly closer to India, Pakistan’s principal rival. This fear is only partially true and in the long run inconsequential.
The GOP on the other hand has been perceived as pro-Pakistan by Pakistani policy makers since Eisenhower’s term in office. Even though the Democrat administration that was in power in Washington at the time of Pakistan’s inception was perhaps the warmest towards Pakistan in the history of Pakistan-US relations, it was Eisenhower and the GOP that enlisted Pakistan in the Cold War as the US’ most allied ally. The next Republican president Richard Nixon was a true friend of Pakistan and had the vision to truly realize that Pakistan as a modernist Muslim democracy would be in the US’ best interest. However Nixon was an exception. The problem with the Republican Party is that it is always willing to support a military ruler so long as the military ruler toes the US line. Ronald Reagan’s administration supported and propped up our worst military dictator who created a plethora of problems for this country which we are still trying to get over i.e. one of which is militant Islamism of Deobandi kind (ironic because Deobandi Islamism was the biggest opponent of the creation of this country). In an ironic twist of fate, it was again a Republican president who backed an unpopular military dictator… again. It seems that the only group of people in Pakistan that benefits from a Republican administration is the group of people that sides with and encourages military coups in Pakistan. If the GOP is a friend of Pakistan, it certainly isn’t the kind of friend that is interested in allowing democracy to flourish in Pakistan.
John McCain has long been the grand old man of the Grand Old Party. Sadly age has not been kind to the senator. Gone is a rugged and charismatic fighter pilot and war hero that he once was. 30 years younger and he would have given Obama a run for his money. Today, however, he looks like Crusty the Clown desperately trying to impugn Obama’s reputation by appealing to “Americanism” and “country first”. McCain and Palin have gone so far as to imply that Obama is a terrorist and anti-American. This strategy has backfired and it seems all but certain that come November 4th,Obama will be elected president with a thumping majority. This means that policy makers in Islamabad need to quickly adjust to a new approach to an old game. They must realize that Obama means business and he will probably go down in history as not just the first black president of the US but one of its finest in a long time. Instead of playing the geo-political role to the hilt it is time Islamabad seeks to establish a relationship with the US based on shared values of democracy and freedom- in the right sense of the word. This means abandoning delusions of grandeur, limiting the role of the military, putting an end to extremism and working towards a stable democracy. For long Pakistan-US ties have been used by people in Pakistan implementing their own narrow agendas. Under Obama, perhaps the US will finally endeavor to create a partnership with the people of Pakistan instead of its military and civil bureaucracy.
To keep a long story short, another Republican president in the White House, now very unlikely, is on the face of it better for Pakistan but under the surface is only good for those who wish to continue with things as at present. These are the people who have kept Pakistan bogged down in crises and have let us down terribly. For those of us however who are still wedded to the idea of Pakistan as envisaged by Mahomed Ali Jinnah i.e. a secular democratic and social welfare state wholly and solely concerned with the welfare of its people, there is hope – albeit a faint one- that President Obama will prove to be the right kind of ally to help along a nascent democracy and keep it honest and on the right track.
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer in Islamabad, Pakistan
Beware, Pakistan. Neither McCain nor Obama will be good for you. They’re both owned by the same interests that wish to expand the Great Game in Asia and Pakistan happens to be in the way.
While no Pakistani-American voter likes Obama’s rhetoric on attacking inside Pakistan, most of them seem willing to give him a pass for other reasons unrelated to Obama’s Pakistan stance. After eight disastrous years of Bush-Cheney administration which have seen perpetual war, shredding of the US constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the recent financial crisis, Pakistani-American voters are joining forces with the mainstream voters to punish all Republicans. Even John McCain, a moderate and maverick Republican, is being tarred and feathered as another George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. While John McCain did vote for the Iraq war (as did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden), he has been very critical of the extreme Bush policies including Americans’ surveillance, prisoner torture and the conduct of Iraq war.
I think Pakistani-Americans are making a serious mistake by choosing Obama over McCain as far as US Pakistan policy is concerned. This choice does have negative consequences that could be potentially disastrous for US and Pakistan by sparking a regional war if Obama persists in his attacking Pakistan rather than work together with Pakistanis to deal with the real terror threat carefully and patiently. A heavy handed approach will almost certainly make the situation far worse than it is already.
Over time, I have grown a disliking for overly religious people. Evangelical christians mostly support McCain, and that is one reason I will like Obama to be in charge. This might sound pretty childish, but at times I feel that people with strong religious convictions (particularly those following an Abrahamic faith) are more prone to starting wars than others. Most abrahamic religions talk about the doom and gloom when the end is near, and if you cannot dream of a better future, I find it hard to believe that you can actually work for it. You are biased against people of other faith and are prone to making the ghastly predictions of the future in to a living dreadful reality.
I am aware that my analysis is rather simplistic, but still wanted to float it around.
I think today we should have been talking about emergency and how things have changed (or not) under this “democratic” government of Pakistan. Showing solidarity with the people who are working for the rule of law and respect for constitution in Pakistan. Instead we are more interested in US election. Whoever wins in US is good or bad for USA and we should care more about what is relevant to Pakistan.