The world continues to struggle. The crisis in Pakistan is as great as ever, with President Pervez Musharraf declaring that parliamentary elections will be held, early in the new year. He also has said that he may well drop his role as army commander in chief and leave the army itself. It seems clear that both decisions were made under American pressure. In the meantime, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has called on Musharraf to resign, saying that his suspension of the constitution is clear evidence that free and fair elections cannot be held as long as he remains president. Throughout last week, she remained under virtual house arrest in Lahore, the beautiful old capital of the Punjab, setting for much of Rudyard Kipling's Kim.

The trouble is that neither Musharraf nor Bhutto represent genuinely democratic institutions. The army is Pakistan's most important organization, impervious to the demands of democratization. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, founded by her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was later hanged by the army, has never had an internal election. Thus the PPP's democratic credentials are open to question. When in power, its hands were far from clean.

But then Pakistan is a developing country whose institutions lag behind the aspirations of its middle class, liberal elite. This is why so much of Pakistan heaved a quiet sigh of relief when Musharraf took over in a coup in 1999. He was a quiet, bespectacled senior army officer who seemed to speak common sense when he took over from a corrupt civilian government that seemed out of control. Musharraf seemed to be the man to put things right in a nuclear-armed nation of
160 million people.

The U.S. welcomed the plain spoken general in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the soon to be launched war in Afghanistan. But that view began to fade as Musharraf continued to put off the restoration of civilian rule. The difficulty now is that Pakistan is an essential ally for the U.S. in the war in Afghanistan. Some 70 percent of the supplies for the 40,000 strong NATO force passes through Pakistan. If Washington threatens Musharraf by withholding critical aid, it runs the risk of bringing down the whole house of cards. Musharraf, of course, knows this and is banking on his importance to the White House to prevent any such move. But failure to challenge Musharraf to restore constitutional rule only means putting off the day of reckoning, when the consequences might be too great for anyone to contain. As long as us Musharraf continues to behave as he does, the situation will not get any better. Indeed, it will only get worse.

Across the deserts of the Middle East, the war in Iraq continues to evolve. There now seems little doubt that the 30,000-man "surge" in U.S. forces has made a significant difference in Baghdad, which earlier this year seemed to be on the verge of self-destruction. The number of suicide bombings has dropped dramatically, as have U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths. Obviously the surge has had a beneficial impact in Iraq's biggest city. Civilians are said to be returning to their old homes in the city, surely a good sign.

But the recent improvement in Baghdad must be seen in a larger context. This year will be the bloodiest yet for U.S. forces, more Iraqis are leaving Iraq than returning, and there is still little prospect for political reconciliation. We just don't know if al-Qaida is a spent force in the country or one that is regrouping. Or if the forces of international jihadism have given up Iraq as a lost cause. Or if the competing Sunni and Shia militia groups are fed up with their mutual blood lust. The war is, and will remain, a disaster, though the decline in violence in Baghdad is a genuinely welcome development.

The U.S. has been sorely wounded by the Bush administration. Our international reputation is in tatters, and that in turn affects our ability to work with friends and allies against the forces of terrorism. But we remain the world's indispensable nation. Foreign-policy decisions made by this country affect the foreign-policy decisions of every other country. France's President Nicolas Sarkozy recognizes this truth, and so he came to Washington the other week to mend a relationship that had gone sour under his predecessor.

But the unilateralist days so beloved by the Bush White House are over. The U.S. may be the world's indispensable power but that power is no longer sufficient unto itself. We need our friends, which is why Sarkozy was invited to address a joint session of Congress.

In the meantime, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, as we look for new and better ways to exercise the indispensable power that can so easily go wrong.

This week we celebrate Thanksgiving. So I find it appropriate to thank The Santa Fe New Mexican for publishing my column for the past seven years. I have found that time extremely worthwhile, and hope that the readers of The Santa Fe New Mexican share that view. Alas, nothing lasts forever, and the paper, for its own reasons, has decided to drop the column. My last article will be on Jan. 6. Nevertheless, I look forward to the New Year with great anticipation and hope that you will bear with me as I search for a new publishing home.

But for now, Happy Thanksgiving!

Bill Stewart, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Time magazine correspondent, lives in Santa Fe. He writes weekly on foreign affairs.