The killing of Osama bin Laden spotlighted Pakistan’s unpredictable political dynamics, which are often driven by conspiracy theory, paranoia, and a sense of betrayal. In Pakistan, the late prime minister Benazir Bhutto famously declared, there is “always the story behind the story.” In The Pakistan Cauldron , James P. Farwell explains what makes Pakistani politics tick. Farwell has advised the Department of Defense on terrorism, sovereignty, and the political issues in the Middle East, Africa, and Pakistan. Here he reveals how key Pakistani political players have inconsistently employed the principles of strategic communication to advance their agendas and undercut their enemies. Pakistan is an enigma to many. Only by understanding the complex forces that shape Pakistani leaders can we uncover their shifting political agendas and how they affect America and the West. Farwell explains how and why former president Pervez Musharraf clamped down on nuclear scientist A. Q. Kahn and isolated him. He assesses Benazir Bhutto’s unique legacy and analyzes how Musharraf handled the aftermath of her assassination. He explains Pakistan’s current instability and demonstrates how the country’s emotional reaction to bin Laden’s death is best understood as the outcome of long-standing political dynamics. The Pakistan Cauldron is for anyone who needs to know why Pakistan continues to pose increasingly difficult challenges for the United States and the West.
The author has no direct experience of Pakistan.He has quite obviously relied on media reports,books and even youtube videos to write this book.
The analysis is pretty superficial and slanted.Musharraf and the military are projected very negatively,Benazir Bhutto is presented very positively.
Condoleeza Rice has acknowledged that the US had manufactured a deal with Musharraf for Benazir's return to Pakistan.I didn't see that in the book,as far as I read.Benazir is projected as some great hope !
The author contends that the 1965 war was a military defeat for Pakistan.It certainly wasn't.It was a stalemate.
Given the author's limited understanding of Pakistan and his heavy reliance on secondary sources,not much point continuing to read this one.
The Pakistan Cauldron: Conspiracy, Assassination and Instability (Potomac Books)by James Farwell really explains the convoluted political culture of conspiracy. For the first time, I began to understand the underpinnings of the U.S./Pakistan relationship. The book explains the post bin Laden era by examining its past leaders, A.O. Kahn, the “rock star” popular engineer of Pakistan’s nuclear program; Pervez Musharraf, the general turned politician, who skillfully deflected criticism from the secretive military in regard to nuclear proliferation; and Benazir Bhutto, the charismatic politician, whose promise for a stable enlightened country was cut short by assassination.
These leaders, despite their differences, put Pakistan first, a fact misjudged by the American perception of Pakistan as a strategic ally. Farwell shows the dynamic of the U.S. Pakistani relationship, within the context of a political culture that breeds conspiracy theory, assassination, and a sense of betrayal. And he shows how that relationship has fared in fighting terrorism, al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is the only place that explains the difference between domestic and foreign Taliban and why Pakistan might care. He also shows how our objectives would be met or not, depending on the results of Pakistan’s volatile political process.
I enjoyed the portrait of Benazir Bhutto as a champion for the democratic process and religious tolerance. Musharraf, her competitor, mishandled the aftermath of her assassination creating an autocrat’s “playbook” for blunders in a time of crisis. This is a great story of intrigue told with high drama and wit.
This book is not just an astute political analysis. It is as entertaining as it is mind-opening. It is at once an historical account of moderns Pakistan’s most important players, a strategic tutorial on their struggles and achievements and a political thriller as Farwell takes us on an insider’s ride through Pakistan’s most important modern history. Farwell’s book is a great read and now is the perfect time to read it. It not only provides a new and perhaps more personal view of the fascinating political background of the past five decades in Pakistan but illustrates how its leaders manipulated the country’s dysfunctional politics to their advantage –due in large part to their astute understanding of their country’s complex consciousness and their skill in framing the dialogue to their advantage. This week’s unfortunate NATO strike plays right into the psyche of the Pakistanis’ weak national identity and their culture of conspiracy and betrayal and is only the latest in what Pakistan sees as the treacherous workings of a duplicitous US. They have countered with a powerful play. Is there a real conference in Bonne without Pakistan? As heard on BBC, “there is no Hamlet without the Prince.” With what strategic rhetoric will NATO counter? As Farwell discusses how the players have ingeniously controlled the messages to hold their adversaries back, we can only watch to see who will win this – the latest crisis in a region rife with rancor. Playing a deadly game of chess with a nation of 180 million people, 100 nuclear warheads and violent extremists is a dangerous game of lethal proportions. This book provides most of us a better understanding of this game. It will not, however, help us sleep better contemplating a safe and peaceful world.
Most everyone turns to fiction to read about intrigue, conspiracy, and the goings-on behind the scenes. The reader can get all this AND the benefits of learning about a nation that is, at once, both one of America's allies and greatest challenges from reading The Pakistan Cauldron by James Farwell. It's a great read; at the top of the list of non-fiction books for the year.
Albeit, the book provided some useful insights about Pakistani politics but the year of Murtaza Bhutto's death is incorrect on page number 90. The correct year of his death was 1996.... not 2006.