As anti-Musharraf protesters take to the streets, the media have
been featuring articles critical of our support for the Pakastani
leader.
In Sunday's Washington Post Ahmed Rashid
wrote:
Pakistan is on the brink of disaster, and the Bush
administration is continuing to back the man who dragged it there.
As President Pervez Musharraf fights off the most serious challenge
to his eight-year dictatorship, the United States is supporting him
to the hilt. The message to the Pakistani public is clear: To the
Bush White House, the war on terrorism tops everything, and that
includes democracy.
He went on to describe the oppressive nature of the regime and
Musharraf's unwillingness to crack down on the Taliban and al Qaeda
in western Pakistan. Rashid closes by comparing our policy of
supporting Musharraf to Carter's support for the Shah of Iran.
The NY Times, also examined the issue of democracy in Pakistan.
The article cites Pakistani moderates who believe that they can do
a better job than Musharraf of fighting extremists:
They, like some Americans, argue that countering
militants is not just a military task. It is also important to use
political and economic programs, they contend, to prevent
extremism's spread. A civilian government, the argument goes, can
do that more effectively than a military one.
The big danger with Pakistan, of course, is that if you democratize
and an Islamist government takes hold, then we instantly get what
we've been trying to avoid in Iran--a radical government, hostile
to the United States, with the mentality of a suicide bomber, in
possession of nuclear weapons that they could either use or hand
off to terrorist groups.
The experiences of Iraq and Pakistan are the perfect
illustration of a concept that I've long considered. If we take a
step back from our partisan or ideological leanings, we have to
recognize that the world is a complicated, messed up, dangerous
place. We can all argue over what type of actions America should
(or shouldn't) take to improve things, but in the end, it's likely
to remain complicated, messed up, and dangerous. For decades we had
a policy of propping up dictators, or at least leaving them in
place, to maintain stability in the Middle East. This policy of
enabling regimes that were oppressing their people, asside from
being ethically dubious, fostered extremism and fomented hatred of
the U.S. With Iraq, the Bush administration sought to reverse this
policy by knocking out a dictator and trying to build a democracy
in its place. We all know how well that experiment has gone.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, we are pursuing a traditional policy of
supporting a military dictator who is relatively friendly to the
U.S. to maintain stability and avoid a worst case scenario. And as
the articles I linked to illustrate, that strategy is not without
its problems.
While, like everybody else, I'll continue to advocate foreign
policy positions that I believe are best, every once in awhile it's
worth taking a step back to realize that there are likely to be
problems with whatever options we choose. Some would see this as an
argument for Ron Paul-type isolationism. But minding our own
business is still a policy, and one that is not without its
significant pitfalls.
topics:
Business, Islam, Military, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Nuclear Weapons
