The world's largest collection of mummies is in Pakistan, not Egypt. This is what the latest findings reveal. Tellingly, they also reveal something more: most of these mummies are alive and well. They just won't speak. That is, not on any issue unconnected with self-interest.

The leafy and upscale housing areas of Pakistan's major cities contain perhaps the highest density of retired generals, air marshals, admirals and mandarins anywhere on the planet. In Islamabad and Rawalpindi alone, entire suburbs are given over to these retired worthies who've had their hour on the national stage and about whom you could be forgiven for thinking they would have something to say on national issues.

But to entertain this hope is to court disillusion. For a class more struck by paralysis when it comes to national issues is hard to find. Which is not to say they lack a social and political conscience. The only problem is that they keep it well covered most of the time.

Compare this to the behaviour of ex mandarins and generals in societies we love to berate and this advanced mummification is thrown into bolder relief. In the UK 52 former British ambassadors and senior diplomats, many of them old Middle East hands, have criticized Tony Blair for toeing the US line on Iraq and the Arab-Israeli problem.

Following their example, a group of 58 former US ambassadors and diplomats have criticized George Bush for blindly endorsing Ariel Sharon's policies. A course of action, they say, which "defies" and "flouts" UN resolutions on the Palestinian conflict and costs the US "credibility, prestige and friends."

Established opinion is powerful in western countries and breaking the mould of received wisdom at any given time is not easy. But in moments of crisis, like Suez (1956), Vietnam ('68 onwards) or Iraq (now), consensus can break down, allowing other voices to be heard. As we are hearing other voices now in relation to Iraq.

Even the photos of torture and humiliation in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison have come not from outside but from Americans within the security system whose sense of outrage at what they saw prompted them to blow the whistle.

The images received are powerful, sending shock waves around the world and reducing even the Bush administration, not otherwise noted for squeamishness in such matters, to visible embarrassment.

Arab and Muslim opinion is outraged. But so, it is important to note, is American and British opinion. If an Anglo-American conspiracy was behind the invasion of Iraq, a surge in Anglo-American anti-war sentiment is making life difficult for Bush and Blair.

It is not easy getting at the truth in America, American administrations being as dedicated to lies and the art of spin as governments elsewhere. The difference is that if something comes out into the open, like Daniel Ellsburg's Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, or the Abu Ghraib photos now, there is hell to pay, as Nixon discovered then and Bush and his Cheney/Rumsfeld war party are finding out now.

Skullduggery of sorts is a feature of most governments - democratic or dictatorial. The paradox is that dictators, contrary to what one might suppose, are under no obligation to lie because they are asked no questions and are accountable to no one. Democracies, on the other hand, encourage spin because if a lie is found out or skeletons discovered, there's a price to pay.

The art of the cover-up, therefore, is more advanced in democracies than in dictatorships. Stalin never needed to disguise his concentration camps. Nixon had to cover his tracks during the Watergate break-in and when he couldn't, he had to let go of his presidency.

Israel is one glaring exception to the democratic rule. Israel doesn't need to put much spin on its atrocities against the Palestinians because the US does that job for it. Israel just gives an Orwellian other-name to its actions, labelling anyone killed by its tanks and helicopters, even if women and children, as terrorists.

Justification follows from the US, from the White House, State Department and the entire spectrum of the media. That Israel can do no wrong is the first commandment of the modern American republic.

Israel has a stranglehold on American politics. If you think George Bush is a friend of Israel, read John Kerry on the subject and you'll have a hard time deciding who makes you puke the more. And then you find Americans genuinely perplexed why they can't win hearts and minds in the Middle East.

Even so, the letter to Bush from 58 American former diplomats is about American policy towards Israel. And the plea they make is for some form of even-handedness. You could dismiss this as an aberration. Yet there it is: an example of former public servants expressing a viewpoint not fitting in all that neatly with mainstream American public opinion.

You won't catch Pakistan's retired sages doing anything of the sort. Do they have an opinion on national issues? On social occasions they'll pull long faces and nod enigmatically, conveying the impression of great pain over the national condition.

On Kashmir, India and the Bomb - the three staples of conventional muscle flexing - they'll huff and puff. But expressing an opinion collectively which goes against the tide of official wisdom, is something they are just not psychologically attuned to consider. Let alone do something about.

Two questions are at the forefront of national concern today. (1) The army high command's refusal or reluctance to vacate political space and allow the Constitution and political institutions to take root. (2) The harmful effects of becoming an American satellite.

Both these trends are a throwback to the past, running through Pakistani history. Thanks to its size, the weakness of political institutions and the disarray of political forces, the military is now Pakistan's leading political party, in power overtly or wielding influence from the sidelines.

As for foreign policy, the military mind seems sold on the idea that the highest expression of diplomacy is a dependent relationship with the US. If a military ruler has access to the White House, with a visit to Camp David thrown in as extra bonus, he considers himself invulnerable.

This approach has cost Pakistan dear in the past. It continues to cloud Pakistan's future. For the military's dominance of politics means that when the Musharraf era is over, as sadly it must be one day, the country will be back to square one, starting out on the quest for a stable and predictable political order all over again.

And when America is finished with its Taliban wars Pakistan will be left to clean up the mess, a repeat of what happened the last time the Americans were interested in Afghanistan: the 1980s.

Who is to tell the high command about the difference between its short-term interests and the long-term interests of the country? Who'll play slaves to Pakistan's Caesars by whispering into their ear, "Remember Caesar, thou art mortal?"

Political forces try but the high command, having little respect for anything to do with politics, has no time for anything from that quarter. The Americans are not interested in democracy. Let's rid ourselves of this delusion. Their aim is remarkable for its simplicity: wanting to employ the Pakistan army as dutiful sepoys in its Taliban wars.

In any society a little more advanced or mature than ours, there would be outrage at this situation. There is none here, no doubt because mummification suits us fine.