Posted on 11/18/2007 7:35:52 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Musharraf feels the heat
As turmoil spreads in Pakistan, Musharraf's grip on power weakens
By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN
Henry Kissinger once quipped that being America's ally is more dangerous than being its enemy. The latest example: Washington is abuzz with leaks the Bush administration plans to dump its faithful but embattled Pakistani retainer, Gen. Pervez Musarraf, and replace him with a new general or a co-operative civilian-led government.
This column already reported Washington's "regime change" plans a week ago, citing vice chief of staff Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani as Musharraf's most likely replacement. As turmoil spreads across Pakistan, Musharraf's grip on power daily grows weaker.
White House efforts to broker a shotgun marriage between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto seem to have failed. She just told me there would be no deal with Musharraf, period. But one never knows. Bhutto also told me she was wisely reaching out to Pakistan's leading Islamic Party, Jamiat Islami.
For the first time, I hear Pakistanis calling Musharraf, "pharaoh." This is a storm warning signal. "Pharoah" is what Iranians called their hated, U.S.-backed Shah, and Egyptians the equally hated U.S.-installed dictator, Anwar Sadat. They now use the same epithet for Egypt's current military ruler, Hosni Mubarak. The Shah was overthrown by a popular revolution; Sadat was assassinated to national joy; and Mubarak is in deepening trouble.
America's profoundly counter-productive policy in the Muslim World has been to support dictators and monarchs who follow Washington's orders, no matter how unpopular or bitterly opposed, rather than nurturing genuinely popular, democratic governments.
Musharraf's nasty dictatorship is the latest example. Washington forced him to wage war against his own Pashtun tribal citizens who support nationalist and religious forces in Afghanistan fighting western occupation. "Pharoah" Musharraf now appears headed for the same fate as the Shah and Sadat. Either the army will overthrow him or, his usefulness at an end, Washington may simply discard him.
NUCLEAR ARSENAL
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is again studying military strikes against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The Pentagon worries they could fall into the hands of al-Qaida. Neoconservatives, who have hijacked U.S. foreign policy, fear Pakistan's nuclear weapons -- that number up to 50 -- could be seized by anti-government forces if the nation were plunged into chaos, and somehow be used against Israel. Therefore, neocons urge air strikes and ground attacks by U.S. special forces to seize or destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Pakistan's nukes are heavily guarded by special army units and military intelligence, ISI. They are kept in components, with nuclear cores apart from the rest of the bombs. Benazir Bhutto told me that when she was prime minister, she asked to inspect Pakistan's main reactor at Kahuta and its nuclear arsenal -- but was refused entry by the army.
It is highly unlikely Pakistan's nukes could fall into the hands of mobs or al-Qaida -- unless the army splinters in a power struggle. But the weapon's precise locations are not fully known to CIA or DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). Chances are they are also being moved to thwart detection. Any U.S. attack would be bloody, dangerous, and might easily go terribly wrong.
INDIA AND ISRAEL
Adding danger, a U.S. attack on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could quickly be joined by Pakistan's old foe, nuclear-armed India, and/or even Israel.
Both reportedly drew up plans for a "decapitating" strike against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in 1991 and again 1999.
President George Bush recently claimed Iran was intent on starting World War III. Or "World War IV," as the crazies who now advise presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani call it.
We are looking at an apocalyptic war all right, but not started by Iran. An American attack on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, or an all-out attack on Iran, could amply fill the bill.
Three things restrain Bush and mentor Dick Cheney from unleashing war against Iran: Need to use three secret U.S. bases in Pakistan to attack eastern Iran; Pentagon opposition; and growing warnings from Russia's Vladimir Putin. Political chaos in Pakistan has thrown a spanner into neocon plans for World War IV.
Another case of an America basher portraying the US as all powerful when it convenient. If only we could actually install leaders of other countries at will.
The United States has a history of forming relations with countries that are not hostile to the United States. As much of the world is not free, many of these countries are authoritarian.
Long relationships with the United States also tend to result in freer societies, e.g. Taiwan, South Korea, and even Pakistan.
It is funny that the left is only in favor of engagement foreign policy when the foreign state is hostile to the United States.
I don’t think you can put Margolis in the left camp-he’s known to be very anti-communist,which helped him build up contacts with the Paki army in the 80s.
Never-the-less he is repeating the same line.
How is the U.S. supposed to influence countries toward democracy? Certainly if the U.S. shunned foreign leaders who were friendly and dictated that they must first become Jeffersonian democrats before we could talk, we would be condemned as ruining promising ties.
My point is that the blame America game has it both ways. If we try pulling a friendly country toward democracy we are criticized for dealing with the devil. If we don’t deal with a hostile country we are blamed for giving them the cold shoulder.
White House efforts to broker a shotgun marriage between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto seem to have failed. She just told me there would be no deal with Musharraf, period. But one never knows. Bhutto also told me she was wisely reaching out to Pakistan’s leading Islamic Party, Jamiat Islami.
http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper699.html
JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI, HIZBUL MUJAHIDEEN & AL QAEDA
South Asia Analysis Group
“Bhutto also told me she was wisely reaching out to Pakistan’s leading Islamic Party, Jamiat”
Wisely?
Don’t do to this country what Jimmy Carter did to Iran. Pakistan is essentially in a state of civil war. Not shooting yet but the lid is barely being held on. I do not get our Government’s action in regard to this situation.
The Jamaat-e-Islami has always had close,if covert ties to the Pakistani army,despite all their chest thumping-It’s a backdoor route for Benazir to talk to the army.Afterall,both she & the army,use the mullahs.
But even I can’t blame some of the people in these countries for putting the following two facts together: Ruler of country ‘A’ is a nasty tyrant and Ruler of country ‘A’ is supported by the United States.
To us, sitting here in freedom with ample access to all kinds of opinions and information it’s easy to see we are generally pursuing the least possible evil.
Given the ‘big picture’ any of us here can see why we overthrew Mohammed Mosaddeq, but looking at it from the point of view of an Iranian ‘student’ - I might dislike Clinton but I wouldn’t care for someone from outside overthrowing him (or her) because it was in their national self interest.
Often the lesser of all possible evils still has some nasty blowback. Musharraf is a nasty tyrant, as were many folks we supported because they were more hospitable to our national interests (and thus to the eventual triumph of freedom and democracy, one should hope), It doesn’t make one unpatriotic to point out that there *IS* blowback, that might well catch up with us generations later, and that every American should know the degree to which we are, and the possible costs of, ‘holding our noses’.
“If we try pulling a friendly country toward democracy we are criticized for dealing with the devil. If we don’t deal with a hostile country we are blamed for giving them the cold shoulder”.
IMHO it’s a game that takes more skill than we usually bring to the table; the British sometimes managed this, but it took generations of consistent effort.
Just my .02
We've done pretty well if you look at the successes. But our negatives and our influence are highly overstated.
It is like Spanish vs. the Aztecs. The story is that a hundred Spanish took out the entire Aztec empire. The fact is that 40,000 non-Aztec indians marched with the Spanish, and the Aztecs could not have been beaten if that were not the case.
Our successes will always be ignored by our enemies, while our failures will be trumpeted. This comes with the territory.
“We’ve done pretty well if you look at the successes.”
I would like to think so, but OTOH we’ve got Russia resurgent under one of the sharpest and most ruthless leaders it has ever had, China eating our lunch in economic terms and our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, although tangible and strategically important, are precarious. Venezuela has been badly handled, too.
It’s not saying “we are bad, we are evil” and being un American to point out that our foreign policy since Truman may have staved off soviet communism but at a cost we will be paying for more than our life-spans. Not to flame, but to learn for the future what we’ve done wrong, or just poorly must be hauled into the open and discussed.
It’s much easier to simply substitute “Islamofacism” for “Communism” and keep using the same strategies and tactics, but I expect more of our leaders than that, and we, on the right are, IMHO better qualified than the America Haters to do so.
Especially with the primaries coming up, I want the dirty and uncomfortable things hauled into the light of day so that the people who want to lead our party and nation have to go on record saying what they would do differently in the future.
The assumption is that we could have done something to bring about a better outcome. That is not in evidence.
Likewise, we will never know what wars and famine we have prevented.
Is China a failure? It has not had another famine killing 20 million people, nor entered into war, communism appears less and less likely to win out in a country throwing itself into modernity with capitalism requiring more and more freedom and rule of law. If I were a Marxist, I'd feel totally defeated. How long will it take China to follow South Korea into democracy? If it takes another forty years is that a failure? I'd say not.
I'm all for discussing our failures, but it must be understood that we do not operate in a vacuum and that we are not omnipotent. Generally, the domestic politics of foreign countries are driven by much stronger undercurrents than anything we can affect. We are predisposed to think we have the power to do things which we do not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.