Decision ‘08

Crisis In Pakistan

It’s been quite clear for quite some time that Musharraf is not the type to go quietly into that good night. The administration has reacted to today’s declaration of a state of emergency:

The Bush administration said Saturday it was deeply disturbed by the state of emergency in Pakistan and urged a swift return to a democratic and civilian government. The Pentagon said Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, however.

The stakes are high and Defense Secretary Robert Gates is monitoring the fast-developing situation, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

“Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror and he is closely following the developments there,” Morrell told reporters aboard Gates’ plane as he traveled to China.

The emergency declaration “does not impact our military support of Pakistan” or its efforts in the war on terror, Morrell said of the country that’s a key U.S. partner in the fight against al-Qaida militants.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is taking the U.S. lead in dealing with the situation, Morrell said, and Gates had not spoken to Musharraf and had no plans to during his 17-hour flight to Beijing.

Rice said that, to her knowledge, Bush administration officials had yet to hear from Musharraf since his declaration Saturday, although U.S. leaders had privately and publicly urged him against such a move.

“The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule,” Rice said after attending an Iraq neighbors conference in Istanbul. “Whatever happens we will be urging a quick return to civilian rule.”

Adm. William J. Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, met with Musharraf and other top generals on Friday to discuss the security situation in northwest Pakistan. But Fallon did not threaten to cut off U.S. military aid to the Pakistani government, Morrell said. And he said he has “no sense at this point that there is an imminent review” planned to look at whether aid should be affected.

In Washington, a White House spokesman said, “All parties involved should move along the democratic path peacefully and quickly.” Britain’s foreign secretary said Pakistan’s future “rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism.”

Musharraf suspended the constitution ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on his future as president. He also replaced the chief justice. His government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several Pakistani cities. Telephone services in the capital were cut.

Pakistan is, of course, a mess: a hiding place for Osama bin Laden and the remnants of al-Qaida, with a tradition of military rule and corruption, and a strong minority of hardcore Islamists who hold inordinate sway among the younger military officers (though the ranking, older officers appear to be quite content to get rich through the military’s dominance of the country’s economy).

Add to that the return of Benazir Bhutto, seen by many as a harbinger of a return to democracy, yet the target of corruption allegations herself, and the extreme reluctance of General Musharraf to relinquish power, as typified by his recent struggles against the Pakistan Supreme Court, and you’ve got a powder keg…a powder keg in a nuclear state with a large contingency of terrorists and their supporters and enablers.

Not a pretty picture, and no easy answers present themselves…

27 Responses to “Crisis In Pakistan”

1 Peter Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
It’s all fine to throw up your hands and claim that Pakistan is a mess — which it is — but the more important question is what to do from here. After some wrist-slapping, the administration is staying the course: “The Pentagon said Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, however.” Is this the right thing to do?

We have told the Arab world that we stand for democracy, yet we have backed a military dictator who has consistently renegged on his promises to transfer power and to democratize Pakistan. His increasing unpopularity in Pakistan has further damaged our interests within and outside Pakistan. We poured over $10 billion in aid to fight the “war on terror,” with no discernable results: bin Laden and al Qaeda operate with impunity inside Pakistani borders. In doing so, we have given further arms to a nuclear nation with a history of conflict with its Southern neighbor. To equalize things, we offered Inida nuclear technology on favorable terms. In my view, our policy has made us appear hypocritical, turned friends into enemies, cost untold billions, destabilized the region, and produced no results.

In your view, was this a responsible policy? If so, why? If not, why should the administration keep to the same path?
2 Mark Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
No discernable results? How quickly you have forgotten the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan…and what would you have us do? Turn our backs on Pakistan and throw it to the Islamist extremists?

Is that responsible?
3 Peter Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
We overthrew the Taliban because we supported the Musharraf government?

I would suggest a policy which is driven by what works best for the long-term interests of the Pakistani people. Over the long run, if we have broad popular support, we will be successful. If we put all of our chips on one man — and it appears that we backed the wrong horse — then we’re you-know-where without a paddle.

The policy which works best for the Pakistanis is a firm commitment to democracy. This means dialogue with all factions — not just the current government of Pakistan — and a cessation of aid when Musharraf abandons his promises to democratize his country, as he did yesterday.

I don’t see much difference between our support of Musharraf and our support of the Shah of Iran. We all know where that got us.
4 Mark Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Peter, have you not heard the stories about how, in the aftermath of 9/11, we called Musharraf in and told him we were going to take out the Taliban, and we needed his territory to operate in, and we were going to get it one way or another? It’s one of the most oft-told stories, and no one has ever denied it.

How could we have taken out Afghanistan without any operational bases in the area, do you think?

And how could we possibly fight the remnants of the Taliban if we alienate Pakistan completely?

The reason the Taliban and al-Queda operate with impunity in the north is because, if the relatively pro-Western head honchos at the top of the brass move too agressively, they risk a revolt from the junior officers, much more sympathetic to Islamic radicalism.

Musharraf is not anyone’s idea of a perfect democrat, but neither are the Saudis, and we’ve managed to come to peace with that.

Or are you an idealist neoconservative now? Surely this is not the same Peter, who pushes for negotiations with Iran and North Korea, who is now pushing for a break with our ally Pakistan because it is not a perfect democracy? There is no consistency anywhere in sight here…
5 Mark Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The exact quote was that we would ‘bomb Pakistan back to the stone age’ if it didn’t cooperate:

The US threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the stone age” unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda, President Pervez Musharraf has said.

General Musharraf said the warning was delivered by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan’s intelligence director.

“I think it was a very rude remark,” Gen Musharraf told CBS television.

Pakistan agreed to side with the US, but Gen Musharraf said it did so based on his country’s national interest.

“One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did,” he said.
6 Ryan Bonneville Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I think I am with Mark on this one. Musharraf may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch, right? In the world of Middle Eastern politics, which clearly includes Pakistan even if Pakistan isn’t technically part of the Middle East, keeping our heads on straight and taking the victories we can get is the order of the day (week, month, year, decade). We have undoubtedly created half of the problems we are now trying to solve in the region precisely because of our habit of acting in contradictory, hypocritical, and irrational ways - but we don’t do ourselves any favors by suddenly changing course and demanding democracy everywhere. Clearly we should support the spread of democracy through the means available to us, but the neoconservatives are still wrong for all the same reasons they have always, consistently been wrong about every single thing they have ever said: you can’t create democracy just because you want to see more of it. We’ve already seen the consequences of trying to mold the world into our own aesthetic ideal of what it should look like. Trying to talk Musharraf down is the right thing to do; completely withdrawing our support would be insane.
7 Andy Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
See Ryan? It’s not hard for us to agree sometimes.

I’ve always wondered what our world would look like today if we haven’t made pacts w/the devil, as it were, by making alliances with repugnant dictatorships and kingdoms time and time again. To wit, I wish that we could have won WWII w/o Stalin, but the reality was that he was a useful enemy of our enemy and the toll in American blood & treasure would have been much, much higher w/o Uncle Joe’s cannon fodder.

And so it is that too often, there are no good and perfect solution, just the lesser of two evils.
8 peter Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
After years of receiving American military aid, we should expect nothing less than use of Pakistani air space and support. Moreover, it’s in their interest to defeat the Taliban and have a stable government in Afghanistan. You make it sound as though it was a huge coup to have them on board in our effort to defeat their enemy.

With Musharraf, as with the Shah of Iran, we are supporting an increasingly unpopular dictator who maintains control through use of the military. Musharraf has jailed opponents, closed the Supreme Court, and declared martial law. We know from hindsight that supporting the Shah was a mistake, and we would have done better if we had used our leverage instead to work for a democratic Iran. I think we are making the same mistake in Pakistan.

While the government has not fallen – thus far – you can shake a bottle only so much before the cap comes off and it all explodes. If Musharraf’s enemies end up seizing control of Pakistan, we will be in the unenviable position of trying to curry favor with people who know we supported the government which jailed them. I don’t think you can build a sustainable foreign policy if it is both morally indefensible and on the wrong side of history.
9 Aaron Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Well, Pakistan was one of three governments that had relations with the Taliban (along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE). Musharraaf was largely dependent upon the ISI for power — or at least dependent upon them not launching a coup against him — and the ISI’s ties to and use of the mujahideen was a strong reason for Pakistani-Taliban relations.

“we would have done better if we had used our leverage instead to work for a democratic Iran. I think we are making the same mistake in Pakistan.”

We are working for a democratic Pakistan, calling for Musharaaf to hold a free and fair election or at the very least adopt a power-sharing scheme with Benazir Bhutto as a transition to democracy. A month or two ago, Secretary Rice talked Musharaaf out of declaring another state of emergency and suspending the elections. Hopefully the people of Pakistan will see that the US is trying to help them acheive democracy. And I think that helping to facilitate a peaceful transition to democracy through diplomacy would be better than just cutting off funding to Pakistan, thus virtually ensuring a violent revolution which would do nothing to endear the US to the Pakistanis and almost certainly end with an extremist government — not because the extremists are the majority in Pakistan, but because in revolutions, the extremists often out-shout the moderates.
10 Aaron Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Bush Urges Musharraf to Hold Elections, Drop Army Post
Need I say more?
11 peter Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Well, talk is cheap. “Calling for Musharaaf to hold a free and fair election” in public while continuing the flow of money is a pretty flaccid way to push for democracy.

And I question whether we are “helping to facilitate a peaceful transition to democracy through diplomacy” — it seems to me that with the Court disbanded, opponents in jail, and martial law declared, we’re moving away from peace and democracy, not towards them.
12 Mark Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
And you assume that hard pressure is not taking place behind the scenes? Come on, Peter…if we were willing to tell Musharraf we would bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age, we’re certainly not just issuing some flaccid public statements….or did you not notice that Musharraf has already, in the space of 48 hours, backed off and said elections will take place in the very near future?…
13 Mark Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Let’s be clear, though, Peter - your position is we should withdraw aid from Pakistan, the home to the remnants of al-Queda and the Taliban, immediately? This is responsible? This is smart? Or this is ‘noble’ idealism that is harmful to U.S. interests, and packs a partisan punch, as well?…
14 Aaron Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
What course of action do you suggest?

Are we to place economic sanctions on Pakistan, but not Iran?

As I mentioned earlier, treating Musharraf with hostility is not the right course of action. It will only lead to chaos and radical rule as happened in Iran 30 years ago.

“it seems to me that with the Court disbanded, opponents in jail, and martial law declared, we’re moving away from peace and democracy, not towards them”

We aren’t doing anything in Pakistan. I suppose this is the manifestation of the liberal fantasy that Pakistan (among other states) is just a puppet of the US. We do not exert any direct control over Pakistan. Are you now supporting Barack Obama and his insane scheme to invade Pakistan?
15 Peter Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Mark:

1) Do I think there is “hard bargaining” going on “behind the scenes?” Of course not. Rice warned Musharraf publicly and privately before martial law was declared that it would be a major problem for us, and he ignored her. The only leverage we have is money, and if reporting is accurate, the spigots will stay open. We’ve given away our leverage: what could we possibly negotiate about?

2) My position is that we should not prop up dictatorships. Period. American aid should be contingent on some sort of path to democracy.

This is not only because it is morally unsupportable to support oppressive regimes. I do not want my tax dollars to pay for jailing dissidents overseas. It is also because in the long run, we are much safer if we are perceived to be a strong advocate for democracy and liberty, rather than a rich country which bankrolls corrupt and oppressive regimes when it suits our interest.

3) To state that cutting off aid to Pakistan would be “harmful to U.S. interests,” you have to show why the ten billion dollars we have given them has been helpful to U.S. interests. bin Laden and his gang operate with impunity within Pakistani borders. Can you tell me what U. S. interests have been served, why it is worth ten billion dollars, and why it is worth the further diminution of our prestige from propping up a dictator?

Aaron:

1) There is a difference between not giving foreign aid (Pakistan) and imposing economic sanctions (Iran). Nobody is suggesting that we impose economic sanctions on Pakistan.

2) Pakistan is not a puppet of the U.S. However, it is very unlikely that the Musharraf regime would be in power absent American aid. Hence, while it is not a client state, we have enormous leverage to bear on the country.
16 Aaron Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
True, but we feel that what we are getting in return for that aid, just as in Egypt, is a friendly regime. Musharraf, like Mobarack, would suggest that absent US support and brutal methods, their countries would be overrun by extremists, a threat that is not at all invalid.

Aiding Musharraf may not be winning us any friends in Pakistan, but cutting him off would play into our enemies hands. And by “enemies” I don’t mean supporters of democracy with whom we may, from time to time, disagree, but people who would attack us.

What’s worse: bin-Laden having free reign in Pakistan or bin-Laden reigning over Pakistan, nuclear weapons and all?
17 Aaron Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“There is a difference between not giving foreign aid (Pakistan) and imposing economic sanctions (Iran). Nobody is suggesting that we impose economic sanctions on Pakistan.”

With regard to this, the net effect would be the same (sanctioning Iran and cutting off Pakistan).
18 Jacques Distler Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Musharraf, like Mobarack, would suggest that absent US support and brutal methods, their countries would be overrun by extremists,

Just because he says it, doesn’t make it true.

Pakistan had a thriving, secular democracy from 1972-79, and again from 1988-1999.

It was during the periods of military dictatorship (under General Zia, from 1979-1988, and under General Musharaf, from 1999-present) that the Islamists gained ground.

It was General Zia who introduced Sharia Law in Pakistan.
And, before 9/11, General Musharaf was an enthusiastic ally and sponsor of the Taliban.

I don’t see why you think that, even going back to the status quo ante, with Benazir Bhuto and Nawaz Sharif facing off for the presidency, would lead to the country being “overrun by extremists.”

What evidence is there for that?
19 Mark Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Peter, you bring up the $10 billion in aid again, like we got nothing for it, but I answered you once…we got operational bases to take out the Taliban from it, among other things…and that alone was worth far, far more than $10 billion.

Jacques, I guess my problem with ‘going back to the status quo ante’ of Benazir Bhuto is that I’m not convinced that there is a popular demand for her return. I am convinced that the U.S. would like to see her back in power, but I’m not convinced the same is true of the Pakistani populace.

That’s not to say I endorse what Musharraf has done here…he needs to go, and the measures he is taking right now are truly appalling…
20 Mark Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 12:27 am
However, just to be clear, that is a matter for the Pakistanis to decide in elections (re: Bhuto)…I’m certainly not suggesting we install a puppet…
21 Jacques Distler Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Jacques, I guess my problem with ‘going back to the status quo ante’ of Benazir Bhuto is that I’m not convinced that there is a popular demand for her return. I am convinced that the U.S. would like to see her back in power, but I’m not convinced the same is true of the Pakistani populace.

From the reception she got upon her return from exile, one might conclude differently.

But whatever…. That’s why — as you said — there are these things called elections.

And, just to be clear, by “status quo ante” I was not referring to “Benazir Bhuto as president.” I was referring to a period when free elections were regularly held, and power alternated between Bhuto and Sharif, the leaders of the two major parties.
22 peter Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Mark: granted that you think Pakistani help in the Afghan war was worth “far, far more than $10 billion” – my point is that we should have received it for nothing (post eight), both because we’ve been supporting them for many administrations, and the support should be reciprocal. Moreover, it was in their interest for us to fight their enemy.

The cost to us in propping up a dictator is far more than the money involved. One of the chief failings of the Bush administration is its reliance on fighting terror through military means alone. In my view, the only way to defeat terrorism in the long run is to win hearts and minds, which will not only reduce the number of potential terrorists but also provide us with allies who will help us with intelligence, troops, and leverage. You don’t win hearts and minds by preaching about democracy while you support dictatorships.

Yesterday, there was a group of lawyers which protested the martial law, and they were beaten and jailed. We’re on the side of the jailers. It’s as though it’s the Revolutionary War again and we’re on the side of the British. Doesn’t this bother you?
23 Aaron Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“I don’t see why you think that, even going back to the status quo ante, with Benazir Bhuto and Nawaz Sharif facing off for the presidency, would lead to the country being “overrun by extremists.”

What evidence is there for that?”

That’s not what I’m suggesting. If you read all that I’ve posted above carefully — actually you don’t need to be all that careful as I don’t think it’s particularly cryptic — you’ll see that I’ve said the best strategy for the US to undertake is to cajole Musharraf into holding free elections. Meanwhile, I object to Peter’s suggestion that Pakistan should simply be cut off from US aid, essentially throwing Musharraf to the dogs in a likely eventual coup/revolution.

Even if there is a majority of moderates in Pakistan, and I believe that there is, extremists almost always dominate during revolutions — just as they did in Iran. By reaching out to Ms. Bhutto, we are emphatically not making the same mistakes that we did in 1979, firing tear gas at Iranian protesters in DC for instance.
24 peter Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
1) And how do you suppose we “cajole Musharraf into holding free elections” when a) they have ignored us thus far and b) we will continue to fully fund them?

2) I didn’t say that we should withdraw aid to Pakistan. I said that “American aid should be contingent on some sort of path to democracy.” (post 15, for those keeping score at home.) If Musharraf continues to jail dissidents, shut the Supreme Court, and continue martial law, then at that point we should withdraw aid.
25 Aaron Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Based upon post #3, it seems that Musharraf has already fulfilled the preconditions you would set for de-funding him, so I fail to see the distinction.
26 Peter Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I think you have to issue an ultimatum first before cutting off aid — there is at least some likelihood that the credible threat of withdrawing support will achieve the desired result, so the prudent thing would be to find out first before pulling the plug.
27 Mark Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Jacques - understood…I think we are all in agreement here on at least one principle. Pakistan needs to hold free elections, and quickly. We have some disagreement among the different commenters on how to get there, and what our policy should be.

For myself, I don’t think we cut off aid - yet. I’ll meet Peter this far - we should issue an ultimatum - privately, at first (and such an ultimatum may very well have been issued). The next step is to take the ultimatum public. If Musharraf still won’t play ball, then we have to start looking at the ugly, messy options available - one of which (distasteful is this may seem), is lending support to those who would despose him (not doing the deposing, mind you, lending support). I’m not saying we do such a thing, understand, just saying it is an option that would have to be considered.

Of course, those people might not be willing to hold elections, either…

Regardless, we must tread cautiously and not do anthing that would irrevocably alienate Pakistan; we need her as an ally. There is still the matter of al-Qaeda and a somewhat reenergized Taliban that makes its support, no matter how tepid, essential…