Posted on 05/30/2007 10:43:22 AM PDT by Gengis Khan
The Bush administration has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the administration has also missed the chance to maintain a stable nuclear-armed Pakistan. Like the U.S. policy toward the Shah’s Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bush administration, despite a rhetorical commitment to spread democracy around the world, has put all of its eggs in the basket of an autocrat unlikely to survive—in this case, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Although Musharraf has used the U.S. war on terror to play the United States like a fiddle, the Bush administration believes there is no better alternative. Unfortunately, backing Musharraf could create a nuclear-armed Pakistan controlled by radical Islamists.
Unfortunately, Pakistan probably has already been “lost,” and U.S. policy has played an important role in its demise. U.S. policymakers have repeatedly underestimated the consequences of the deep unpopularity engendered by profligate U.S. government meddling in the affairs of other countries. In Iran, although the Shah’s government was brutal, the regime also became so identified with its unpopular U.S. benefactor that the United States became a major contributing factor in its collapse and replacement with a militant and enduring Islamist substitute.
The Bush administration, with its macho bravado, has had a tin ear for the ramifications of anti-U.S hatred. After 9/11, instead of using the attacks as a justification to go after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Bush administration had the opportunity to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, take full advantage of Musharraf’s limited-time offer to give the U.S. military free reign in Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda, and then withdraw from the region.
Instead, the Bush administration allowed mission creep to take its eyes off the prize of taking down al Qaeda. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan turned to nation-building, counterinsurgency, and cutting off the drug trade. The continued occupation of Afghanistan by non-Muslim forces and the close U.S. support for the dictator Musharraf in neighboring Pakistan, predictably revved up Pakistani Islamic militants and gradually turned them against his regime. In an attempt to discreetly court these militants to support his government and to maintain the flow of U.S. military aid to ostensibly fight them, Musharraf allowed these groups to operate in the wild tribal regions of western Pakistan on the Afghan border and even reached a truce with them to withdraw the Pakistani government’s military forces from these areas. This wink and nod policy has allowed both al Qaeda and the militant Taliban to recover and step up attacks from these safe havens.
Given Musharraf’s unenthusiastic pursuit of al Qaeda in Pakistan, why does the United States continue to support him? The answer is mainly a fear of “instability”—read, any change of leadership in a nuclear weapons state. The United States fears that the only alternative to Musharraf in a nuclear-armed Pakistan is the Islamic militants; but this outcome is actually more likely if the unpopular United States continues to zealously back Musharraf. At the same time Musharraf’s popularity has faded. He has faced mass protests across Pakistan for his increased despotism and his suspension of the country’s chief justice. Musharraf feared that the judge, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, might issue rulings that would interfere with his attempt to have the parliament elect him to another five-year term. In addition, several former Pakistani generals have talked openly about overthrowing him in a coup. But it may be too late to control a coup and reestablish military rule. The Islamists have been strengthened by Musharraf’s suppression of alternative non-Islamic opposition parties; Musharraf has said that their leaders—exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawa Sharif—will not be allowed to return for upcoming parliamentary elections.
The Bush administration should change policy and end the occupation of Afghanistan, which would cool the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and the Islamic militancy in Pakistan. In addition, the United States should threaten to cut off aid to Pakistan unless Musharraf and his intelligence services make a genuine attempt to capture or kill bin Laden. With a cooling of militant Islam in the region, Musharraf should have more leeway to pursue bin Laden without an Islamist backlash. Finally, the United States should press Musharraf to genuinely open Pakistani elections to non-Islamist parties and allow their leaders to return from exile. These actions would further erode support from the Islamist radicals.
Unfortunately, keeping the Islamists around, but contained, has been good for the autocratic Musharraf regime. The problem is that the instability caused by this policy can no longer be contained. Like the Shah of Iran, Musharraf must use increased violence to put down popular protests, thus further fueling the spreading uprisings. The Shah’s Iran and Pakistan have one important difference, however: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Tragically, the Bush administration may eventually give the world an Islamist bomb. Ivan Eland Send email
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books, The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com
I’d like to dig up the body from that big funeral last year and see if wily old Osama is taking a Dirt Nap. I can think of no other person in Al Queda meriting that large attendance.
It will if America elects another Jimmy Carter..........
Everyone has an opinion.
How about public exposure of the lawyer(s) who
stop those terrorists from receiving justice at that
moment?
Why is there no accountability? ever? EVER?
There is a lot of liberal blame-Bush nonsense in the article, such as the idiotic notion to leave Afghanistan,
but a core point is essentially right: the question when al-Qaeda will obtain a nuke is connected with the life of Musharraf. I sure hope we have contigency plans with India to destroy a nuclear Taliban-Pakistan, should there be no Musharrafesque heir.
BTW there are speculations in Pakistan that Musharraf has replaced the warheads with dummies. I sure hope such provisions have been made.
Tragically, the Bush administration may eventually give the world an Islamist bomb. ............ Here we go again,its Bush’s fault.
*Sigh*. Where do they get these guys?
The Shah was America’s ally and the appeasenik dhimmi Carter helped jihadists overthrow him. The comparison with Pakistan is apt. The traitors in the democrat party also want Musharraf to be overthrown by jihadists.
This is beginning to warp into a very scary scenario. We could end up have 2 nuclear capable Islamic states (Iran and Pakistan). It would be the worst of scenarios for India and Israel. The odds are very good that a regional nuclear war will break out.
Good job outsourcing all those jobs to India and Pakistan.
Pakistan going down the Iran road is not simply an “opinion”. The argument over who exactly is responsible for it may be an “opinion”.
After the "regional nuclear war" those jobs will be right back here again!............
WRONG!
These actions would further embolden radical Jihadists into thinking their actions were the cause of American retreat.
I dont care how many MBAs this twit has he is clueless in understanding the fanatism and evil we face in this jihad.
Playing nice with the Islamic radicals will eventually get more American civilians killed.
If and when Pakistan goes down the Iranian road it will have little to do with any Jimmy Carter America elects, trust me.
This stupid moron of a moonbat writer doesn’t understand we had no choice with Pakistan.
They already HAVE nuclear weapons.
One need only look at where this person operates out of to get the drift: “The Center on Peace & Liberty”.
Idiot.
Right now, keeping Musharraf in power is definitely in America’s best interest, as well as India’s and Isreal’s. Allowing their nuclear technology to fall into the hands of any terrorist organization is unthinkable. But if America elects another weak, limp-wristed democrat as POTUS, then support for Musharraf will literally be pulled from under him like a Persian rug...............
#1 He kept India aways from Afghanistan on Pakistan’s insistence.
#2 He chose Musharraf as an ally over Hamid Karzai. Showed Musharraf with billions of dollars. Had Hamid Karzai been given those dollars and weaponry, Taliban would have been completely wiped out by now.
Oh. And it all was so easy.
Wow. Amazing show of humanity! You are thinking about outsourced jobs when there will be loss of millions of lives! And you think US is shielded from a nuclear attack if Pakistan is overrun by jihadis?? You so shortsighted! Please read up current events and come back here with some common sense!
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.