Posted on 09/25/2002 8:03:33 AM PDT by atc
Buying off Musharraf
WASHINGTON The recent capture of the Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh in a shoot-out in Karachi has dramatized the critical choices that face the United States in dealing with Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf.
As evidence mounts that Pakistan is now the global hub of Qaeda operations, Musharraf is raising his price for cooperation with Washington, demanding large-scale military aid, including F-16 fighter jets, on top of the bonanza of economic aid already showered on Islamabad since Sept. 11.
Equally important, he made clear during his U.S. visit last week that he plans to perpetuate his military regime indefinitely and expects Washington to look the other way when he rigs the Pakistani elections next month.
So far the Bush administration has allowed Musharraf to call the tune. The Pentagon has just approved $230 million in subsidized military sales to Pakistan and has opened a dialogue with Islamabad on its military needs in a newly reactivated Defense Consultative Committee.
At the same time, the White House has been craven in its tacit approval of Musharraf's steady assumption of dictatorial powers during recent months, climaxed by his promulgation of 29 constitutional amendments that allow him to dissolve an elected National Assembly at will and to make all important appointments to the armed forces, the judiciary and provincial governorships without legislative approval.
The Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid has predicted "an inevitable political crisis, either before or after the elections," pointing to increasingly bitter opposition to the military regime from all political parties, outraged by election rules that bar most established political figures from running for office.
At best, Pakistan is likely to be engulfed in growing instability in the months ahead that will make it easier for Islamic extremists to operate. In the worst-case scenario, Musharraf's fellow generals will decide that he is more of a liability that an asset, opening the way for a series of military coups in which a hard-line Islamic extremist sympathizer such as General Mohammed Aziz, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could well come out on top.
As a top official of Inter-Services Intelligence, General Aziz helped organize the Harekat-ul-Mujahidin, which has spawned a profusion of Islamic militant groups, linked to Al Qaeda, that Pakistan has used to destabilize Kashmir.
It is not new for Pakistan to be ruled by a U.S.-supported military regime. But there is a basic difference between Musharraf and the three military autocrats who preceded him - a difference that explains why his position is shakier than past military regimes and why it is so risky for the United States to give him unconditional support.
Although Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia Ul-Haq were also generals who distrusted politicians, they recognized that the armed forces alone could not govern Pakistan. All of them shared power with the entrenched civil service that was bequeathed by the British Raj. It is the civil service that has given Pakistan cohesive and efficient administration despite periodic political turmoil. By contrast, Musharraf has elbowed aside the bureaucracy, installing 76 generals and 600 brigadiers and colonels in a variety of key civil service posts.
Significantly, military officers are now running most of the powerful government agencies that oversee the Pakistani economy. Among the dozens of such agencies under military control are the Karachi Port Authority, the National Shipping Corporation, the National Fertilizer Corporation, the Pakistani Steel Corporation, the Oil and Gas Development Corporation and the Minerals Development Corporation. Six university vice-chancellors are also military officers.
This grab for economic power is linked in the public mind with the fact that the armed forces run a sprawling industrial, commercial and real estate empire with assets and investments totaling at least $5 billion.
The nucleus of the military business empire is a network of four foundations that were initially set up to help retired servicemen but now manage money-making ventures headed by 18,000 serving and retired military officers. The operations of these foundations are not subject to legislative supervision.
In contrast to earlier years when the Pakistani armed forces were viewed as paragons of selfless dedication to the nation, suspicions of military corruption are spreading, fueled by the resentment of ousted civil servants.
As opposition to the armed forces grows, so does anti-American sentiment. To safeguard their long-term interest in a stable Pakistan, the United States and other aid donors should continue economic aid to Pakistan only on condition that fair elections are held, accompanied by a clear timetable for a gradual return to civilian rule.
This would not upset cooperation in combating Al Qaeda because the military regime desperately needs sustained foreign economic support to survive in the transition period ahead.
By the same token, it is not necessary to buy off Musharraf with military aid. The Bush administration should limit military cooperation with Pakistan to supplying spare parts for military equipment already supplied. New military hardware for Islamabad would not only add to the danger of a new war between India and Pakistan but would also embitter relations between India and the United States once again as it did throughout the cold war.
The writer, director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy in Washington, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.
Good point. You could say the same thing about how the U.S. ought to be dealing with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
What are you talking about? Musharraf is just as Islamic as the rest of their military...which is why he is still in power.
http://www.dawn.com/events/speech/20010919/index.htm
Additionally, we've manuevered Musharraf into a position where he is at war with these terrorists. They've already tried to assassinate him twice that we know of. Now, it's personal with him.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has always been an iconoclast! He strives to follow what he believes is right even though it is not social propriety nor decorum to do so. For example it is reported his key role model is Kemal Ataturk (to those who do not know who this person is: Ataturk is a famous Turkish guy who founded Turkey's secualr society). Musharraf also speaks fluent Turkish. He choses Ataturk, a secularist, to be his role model! The reason is Musharraf would like to see Pakistan take an avenue to becoming just like Turkey....meaning although having an Islamic majority it is a secular country with freedoms and rights not found in theocracies. Obviously this does not go well with many in Pakistan.
Musharraf also lists another guy as a role model: this guy is Ali Jinnah! Ali Jinnah is the founder of Pakistan ....and this is a person who also envisaged a modern secular Pakistan.
Musharraf tried by the way to negate several insanely draconian blasphemy laws (he could not do this because of resistance from the Islamic front). He has managed to allow non-Muslims in Pakistan full voting rights (for the first time since 1978). He has overturned many of the changes done in 1981 by Mohammad Zia ul-Haq who turned Pakistan into an Ilsmaic nation with shariah law. He has also banned all extremist and terrorist groups and arrested over 2000 activists! Plus he has actually tried to make peace with India (although Pakistani zealots always manage to mess up talks and i personally think Musharraf lets some terrorism against India to continue in a bid to maintain influence over the terror hawks in Pakistan).
However these are some of the reasons why i think Musharraf will not be around for a long time! Pakistan is rife with dissidents. Furthermore it is a melting pot for virtually all the terrorist organizations in the world (i would not be surprised to even find the South American FARC there, and the IRA uses Pakistan as a base when going to train PLO Fatwah in Israel). The brand of Islam in Pakistan is harsh and does not take liberal moderates like Musharraf very well (Pakistani Conservatives are a bunch of people your average American Conservative would NOT want to meet for dinner to put it midly). The Pakistani secret service (the ISI) is a kingdom within a country, it has strong terrorist links, and Musharraf has no control whatsoever over it(the ISI by the way has provided logistical assistance to botht he Taliban and Al Queda). Also when Musharraf took power in the bloodless coup he immediately fired several of his generals (5 of the top 13 Generals) and each of these fired generals has the ability to turn the military against him. Also there are hawks in Pakistani echelons that want a war against India (and the fact is that a war with India would destroy Pakistan).
By the way, Musharraf is a virtual prisoner in Pakistan. His son (his name is Bilal) is currently (according to the last info i got) an Actuary in Boston USA! Musharraf has elite military commandos in every corridor of his house (the name i believe is Army House or Military house) to ensure that usurpers do not snuff him in the middle of the night. When he travels out of the house (rarely) he does this in three separate motorcades to try and disorient would be attackers!
In essence this is a guy sitting on a powder keg with a lit fuse streaking towards the powder! He is a good guy ...actually he is a great fellow! He just decided to rule against a nation ranked by the British Government as the biggest terrorist threat in the world today!
Their is dissent building against Musharraf, an the demagogues in Pakistan are powerful men! The killing of Christians yesterday is just a symptom of this! The most Musharraf can do is try to keep things from boiling over ...but even that is an up hill task. Basically he has the sword of Damocles hanging over his head ....ad in my opinion it may fall at any moment.
Parliamentary elections are supposed to take place this October in Pakistan ...i pray he makes it until then and then hightails it out of dodge once he hands over power. Staying in Pakistan is a death sentence for him.
And this is frightening because whatever will take power after Musharraf is gone one way or the other, which will be soon, will be a monster! (Notice i said 'Whatever' not Whomever': This is because the person who takes power will only be a figure head for funadamental Islam). Finally Usama Bin Laden's dream of an Islamic nation with the nuclear bomb will be realized. During Musharraf's reign (and his predecessors Bhutto and Sharif) the nuclear genie was contained. What do you think will happen once Mohamedian Zealots take control of Pakistan? And they have the bomb? And they believe it is their religious duty to use it? And when a Pakistani military commander said that they would be willing to see all Pakistani cities destoyed for a chance to destroy two Indian cities? And when they could leak vital knowhow to terrorist groups (remember the ISI has strong terrorist links)?
I love Musharraf since whatever faults he has he is a buffer. But once Musharraf goes Pakisstan will make Saddam Hussein's Iraq seem like a HUGE joke. If there is ever a nuclear strike against US interests it will not come from Red China, or some crazy Russian commander with jaded dreams of the USSR, nor from North Korea or Iraq, not even from an enhanced Iran. Not even from V.E.N.O.M (to those who watched cartoons in the 80s) or S.P.E.C.T.R.E (to James Bond fans).
If there is a strike (and this is an if so i do not get arrested) it will come from a Pakistani source through proxy to some Jehadi group.
Fin.
I'd add that Bush is supplying India with state of the art radars, and Israel is about to supply it's version of Arrow. Also, Russia and India are working on their version of "star wars."
And furthermore this person will be a figurehead for Islamic fundamentalism (meaning getting rid of the next guy in a JDAM attack is not going to help much).
The volatility in the region would surge to levels unknown. Hence i would rather have the devil i know (Musharraf) over the Devil i don't (the next guy ...although i think the appropraite title for the next guy is not Devil but Baron of Hell)!
I understand why you say that. You think it's the prerequisite for India to conquer Pakistan and bring civilized rule to the region.
But you really need to take a hard look at the words you wrote. The people we are hunting down worldwide are trying to cause exactly the same thing you are calling for, except toward India and to the US.
US foreign policy has stability as its primary goal. And I think it's the responsible approach.
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.