Dan Rather

In terms of potential repercussions, there may be no more important international story than that of the ongoing unrest in Pakistan, but indications are that very few Americans are paying attention. So why should we all care about the embattled government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf?

For one thing, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

For another, Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless 1999 coup and has survived several assassination attempts, has no clear successor.

Finally, among Musharraf's fiercest enemies are Islamic militants and supporters of the Taliban. Because Pakistan was the Taliban's biggest supporter before 9/11 - and played a key role in creating this armed political group - pro-Taliban elements are thought to maintain a presence in Pakistan's intelligence forces.

What should go without saying is that Pakistan also plays a central, if at times ambiguous, role in the war in neighbouring Afghanistan. Musharraf's decision to disavow the Taliban after the attacks on the World Trade Centre preserved Pakistan's relationship with the United States (and made his government the recipient of well over a billion dollars in United States aid), but put him on perilous footing within his own country. His approach to fighting the Taliban has often reflected the difficulty of his position.

Perhaps the best example of this is the treaty he forged last year with the semi-autonomous border region of North Waziristan, suspected by the U.S. and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to be a stronghold and staging area for the Taliban. This treaty has kept government troops out in exchange for promises that the region would police the Taliban itself.

Professional fighting force

A coup against Musharraf that might put Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists is a worst-case scenario and, thankfully, a remote one at that. Pakistan's army is a professional fighting force that, religious sentiment in the ranks notwithstanding, retains a strong sense of national loyalty. If something did happen to Musharraf, this institution would likely provide much-needed stability and keep Pakistan's nuclear arsenal locked up safely.

But even if one puts aside the potential for what would be the ultimate foreign-policy nightmare, it should be clear that we have enough invested in Musharraf that his domestic crises are our serious international problems. And a domestic crisis is exactly what Musharraf has on his hands, with Karachi - a port and business centre that is in some ways Pakistan's equivalent of New York - all but shut down this past week by deadly street clashes and a general strike. The suicide bombing that killed dozens Tuesday in the city of Peshawar, in apparent retaliation for a high-profile Taliban arrest, could not have come at a worse time - while Musharraf faces one of the most difficult tests of his rule, this incident reminds Pakistanis of their president's unpopular alliance with the U.S. and brings Afghanistan's violence to Pakistan's streets.

Many years ago, just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the journalist Edward R. Murrow, returned from his legendary reporting on the London Blitz, was honoured in New York. Poet and then-Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish said to Murrow: "You burned the city of London in our houses and we felt the flames ... You have destroyed the superstition that what is done beyond 3,000 miles of water is not really done at all."

It's a superstition that we cannot allow ourselves to fall into again. If what is happening in Pakistan were taking place in, say, Cuba, one could imagine the news coverage and interest that would follow. In this case, though, the dateline is far away, and the story remains of critical importance.