Back to Gideon RachmanLord Salisbury, a British prime minister of the imperial age, once remarked that a great deal of strategic confusion can be caused by "using maps with too small a scale". This warning should be remembered when comparing Turkey and Pakistan - two very different countries, thousands of miles apart.
But the fact remains that - viewed from Washington or London - Turkey and Pakistan do present similar problems. They are both pro-western, non-Arab, Muslim countries. They are both front-line states, bordering countries where the US and its allies are fighting a war. (Turkey borders Iraq and Pakistan borders Afghanistan, in case you had forgotten.) In both countries, the nightmare scenario for the west is a takeover by Muslim fundamentalists. And in both Turkey and Pakistan, the military has traditionally presented itself as the bulwark against extremism.
Turkey and Pakistan are also both going through periods of real political turmoil. But that is where the comparison stops. Viewed from the west events in Turkey - although cause for anxiety - look a great deal more promising than the goings-on in Pakistan.
If it is inevitable that Islam will be a force in politics in Muslim societies then the AKP - which has just won a smashing victory in the Turkish elections - looks about as good as it gets. There are those who still worry that a radical agenda lurks beneath the apparent moderation of the Erdogan government; the attempt to make adultery illegal a couple of years ago was a bit of a shocker. But basically the Erdogan government has pursued a pro-European, democratic, tolerant and economically liberal agenda, which has delivered rapid economic growth. The biggest current concern for the Americans is that the Turks will invade northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. But it is secular nationalists in the army who are pushing hardest for that course of action. It is also the threat of a military coup, aimed at the AKP, which currently looks the biggest menace to one of the few successful democracies in the Muslim world.
By contrast, things are looking distinctly dodgy in Pakistan. At least in theory, Pakistan is a better ally in the war on terror than Turkey. The Turkish parliament famously refused to allow America to invade Iraq from Turkish soil. But Pakistan under General Musharraf (and also under enormous American pressure) offered staunch support for the overthrow of the Taliban. And yet in which country is al-Qaeda re-establishing its bases? Pakistan. And in which country are the intelligence services suspected of maintaining ties with the very people that the US is fighting next door? Yes, Pakistan again.
There are also few signs of the emergence of a Pakistani equivalent of the moderate Islamists of the AKP. Islamism in Pakistan is a much more frightening prospect - featuring Taliban-style fundamentalists and regular suicide bombings. The military are also still much more deeply entrenched in politics than they are in Turkey. Pakistan still has a general in charge - who justifies his presence partly because of the threat of militant Islam. Pakistan’s democrats, too, look much less promising than their Turkish equivalents. One of the great successes of the AKP is that it has offered a path to the top for ambitious members of the Turkish middle class. But Pakistan’s main democratic parties are still very feudal in nature.
It is at this point that one has to return to Salisbury’s remarks about maps and remember that - for all the intriuging similarities - Pakistan and Turkey are very different places. But I wonder whether - looking at the political situations in both countries - there are any general lessons for western policymakers?
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.
