URGENT FUNDRAISING REQUEST: Our fiscal year ends on June 30, and we have a $260,000-plus gap in our online fundraising budget. If you value the nonprofit journalism you get from Mother Jones, and you can, right now is an important time to help us keep charging hard with a much-needed and much-appreciated donation.
URGENT FUNDRAISING REQUEST: We have a $260,000-plus gap in our online fundraising budget to fill by June 30. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, and you can, right now is an important time to help us keep charging hard with a donation.
Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the main US ally in the war on terror, resigned today under threat of impeachment. The news has Washington’s nerves on end for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed country in a volatile neighborhood, plagued by Islamic militants, and which has in the wings no obvious successor to Musharraf to help keep everything from unraveling.
Pakistan has long been the center of US attention when it comes to fighting Al Qaeda. Now, with Musharraf gone, the strategic alliance between the two will become all the more delicate and uncertain. It’s one that Washington must not allow to go sour. According to a survey released today by Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress, 69 percent of foreign policy experts polled now believe that Pakistan is the nation most likely to transfer nuclear weapons technology to terrorists; just 35 percent thought so last year. (Thanks to A.Q. Khan, it’s already the world’s leading distributor of the stuff to states seeking nuclear weapons, like Iran and North Korea.)
That said, all is not doom and gloom. For the first time in its (albeit short) history, the Foreign Policy survey finds that experts are feeling positive about recent developments in the war on terror. From a press release announcing the survey’s results:
Can you pitch in a few bucks to help fund Mother Jones' investigative journalism? We're a nonprofit (so it's tax-deductible), and reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget.
We noticed you have an ad blocker on. Can you pitch in a few bucks to help fund Mother Jones' investigative journalism?