What's Really Going on in Pakistan?
In the WashPost, Pakistani reporter Ahmed Rashid says that panic moves in Pakistan is a bad omen:
But, Rashid adds, America's involvement (or lack thereof) partially attributed to the situation:
So in retrospect, Barack Obama's claim that military action may be necessary in Pakistan (assuming that there is clear evidence that bin Laden is there, and that the leaders are doing nothing about that) had little to do with Musharraf's panic move. If anything, it's helping to highlight the problems in the country:
So what's Rashid's solution?
In other words: back to the drawing board.
Declaring a state of emergency would have suspended fundamental rights, placed restrictions on the Supreme Court and delayed this year's elections. It is unlikely that an already angry and mobilized public would have accepted new restrictions, even those imposed by the army, which Musharraf heads. Massive street protests and further mayhem might have ensued.
After eight years as president, Musharraf is battling for survival, refusing to yield power to civilians yet unable to exert the authority he needs to keep the peace at home and still be a useful ally to the West in rooting out Islamic extremists along the border with Afghanistan.
But, Rashid adds, America's involvement (or lack thereof) partially attributed to the situation:
Since 2001 the Bush administration has refused to understand that political stability in Pakistan requires a modicum of democracy, a political consensus among the country's various liberal forces and a working relationship among the four provinces before any battle against extremism can succeed.
Washington presumed that because Musharraf wielded the army's power there was no need to push for democracy or bother with civilian politicians. As a result, the Bush administration has lost the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people. (They have become further alienated while watching Pakistan become a whipping boy in debates between U.S. presidential candidates.)
The Bush administration looked away when the army rigged presidential and parliamentary elections in 2002 and ignored the exiling or sidelining of mainstream politicians and political parties by Musharraf.
So in retrospect, Barack Obama's claim that military action may be necessary in Pakistan (assuming that there is clear evidence that bin Laden is there, and that the leaders are doing nothing about that) had little to do with Musharraf's panic move. If anything, it's helping to highlight the problems in the country:
Today, Pakistan faces immense problems. There is a full-blown tribal insurgency backed by al-Qaeda in the North-West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan in which more than 200 soldiers have been killed since mid-July, while suicide bombers have twice penetrated Islamabad.
The army, facing civil revolt and plagued by differences of opinion, cannot effectively go after extremists, while Pakistanis have yet to be convinced that this is their war against extremism and not one dictated by Washington.
So what's Rashid's solution?
The United States needs to help bring about a peaceful and fair political transition in Islamabad before it again insists that the army battle al-Qaeda. Musharraf needs to shed his uniform, hold elections and declare that he is not a candidate for the presidency. Washington then needs to help ensure that the new elected leadership works with the army to mobilize public support for the struggle against extremism.
In other words: back to the drawing board.
Comments