The New York Times today has an article by Carlotta Gall basically saying that no one is in charge in Pakistan. It is somewhere behind the first page of the print edition, although it is the right-hand headline story in today's International Herald Tribune. It seems that American officials are concerned that means no one is fighting terrorism. My concern is that Pakistan is a country that actually has an atomic bomb, and the means to deliver it; contrast this with Iran, which not only doesn't have a bomb but according to intelligence estimates has suspended its efforts to get one.
So if no one is in charge in Pakistan, who's got their fingers on the nuclear buttons?
And why are we hearing so much about Iran?
By the way, "rogue" countries would not be so eager to get their hands on atomic weapons were it not for the fact that all of the nuclear powers are in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which required them to do a lot more than they have to reduce and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons. Pakistan is one of the few countries, along with India, Israel, and North Korea, that have not signed it.
News Backdate: I've just come across a McClatchy story from last week about Guantanamo detainees, suggesting that the U.S. has created more terrorists by imprisoning people there for flimsy reasons. Check it out.
Update (June 30): Apparently even some veteran Cold Warriors, including Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, see the need to finally get rid of the world's nuclear arsenals (perhaps prompted by the fact that they are no longer only in "safe hands.") Read more about it here.