Jane Perlez writes for The New York Times about the behind-the-scenes wrangling in Pakistan over who will succeed Pervez Musharraf as President. The current uncertainty over the future of Pakistani politics — both the question of who will become president, and also the question of how long the current coalition can stick together without a common enemy — underscores the point Caroline Wadhams and Brian Katulis make about the need for a less personalized Pakistan policy. Instead of a relationship with a particular leader or institution, Musharraf or some “new Musharraf” figure, we need a deep relationship with Pakistan that speaks to Pakistani interests in a full-spectrum way.

Just like everyone else, John McCain’s had statements out today praising Pervez Musharraf’s decision to step down as President of Pakistan. But it’s worth noting that back in December when Pakistan was in the news because of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, McCain distinguished himself for taking a much more pro-Musharraf line than most other prominent U.S. politicians. Here he is talking to Anderson Cooper:

COOPER: Is there any other option but Musharraf?

MCCAIN: I think that the new chief of staff of the army is a person who’s clearly going to be a player, because the army will play a role in whatever and however any unrest is addressed. But I think Musharraf, as the president of the country, is probably — and he has stepped down from his military position, as you know. Is probably also a key element.

Alex MacGillis reported for The Washington Post that McCain was “outspoken in defense of Musharraf,” saying “I continue to believe Musharraf has done a pretty good job” whereas “Benazir Bhutto and [former prime minister Nawaz] Sharif presided over failed states, there was corruption, there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf took charge.” By contrast, as Jason Zengerle points out, Barack Obama issued a clear call for Pakistani democracy.

It’s also worth reading the December 2007 coverage in the last of last week’s Georgia coverage just as a reminder of how much McCain relished a crisis mentality. He thinks that scary things happening in the world are good for him politically notwithstanding the fact that he’s associated with the policy approach that leads to the scary happenings.

Today’s big news is that Pakistan’s president-slash-dictator Pervez Musharraf is going to resign. The whole issue has gotten a bit obscured by the Olympics, the campaign, and Russia-Georgia but to recap the last time Pakistan was in the headlines they held parliamentary elections that Musharraf’s allies badly lost, leaving the legislature in the hands of a civilian coalition. More recently, they moved to impeach Musharraf. And today he’s announcing that rather than fight the charges, he’ll bow to pressure and resign for the good of the country.

In a proximate sense, this seems unambiguously good — Musharraf is right to think that fighting the impeachment drive would be a disaster for Pakistan. And in a long-term sense, it would serve the United States well to shift from too much of a reliance on a relationship with Musharraf specifically to a broader engagement with Pakistani society. In the medium-term, however, what I’m hearing from people is that the problem now is that the governing coalition will have to actually do something. Thus far, their post-election agenda has mainly been focused on sidelining Musharraf and moving back to full civilian rule. That’s understandable, but during this period long-festering problems with the economy and in the frontier regions have deteriorated. The focus on Musharraf was, among other things, a way to avoid taking full responsibility for dealing with Pakistan’s considerable problems.