Musharraf is the only option?
The RUSI analysis alas reflects more of the Whitehall - Westminster "village" (London, UK) thinking than a hard look at the options. The final sentence is telling:
'In real terms, however, no one other than Musharraf will have the power to take decisions that will affect the future of this struggle'.
Since Pakistan has consistently followed a "stop & go" policy since 2001 over GWOT and internal militancy - led by the man at the top, Musharraf, this is hardly encouraging. Yes, he is a brave man; yes, he has the power and has he taken the decisions? Yes, consistently *stop & go". I leave aside incompetence of junior ranks, Rashid Rauf's escape for example, and the suspect divided loyalties of ISI.
What happens when Musharraf goes, peacefully rather a violent departure (which cannot be excluded)?
Sorry RUSI analyst the time is past for comfortable words.
davidbfpo
Chaudhry bites back
The RUSI have repaired their link to Musharraf's speech, but it was not all that interesting. He seemed bent on using the time to try and justify his position, and past actions, while offering assurances that nobody would tamper with the elections on his watch. I was not entirely convinced and it appears he may not have convinced ex Chief Justice Chaudhry either.
Musharraf lambasted by ex-judge
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7196482.stm
I think the fundamental issue with US policy re: Pakistan is the country's geopolitical location, right on the fault line dividing policy towards the Middle East, GWOT, and particularly AQ and Afghanistan, and on the other side US policy towards India and Asia. As India rises and we try to strengthen our ties with them, that inherently strengthens the anti-Western factions in ISI and elsewhere in Pakistan who are convinced we're going to drop them in favor of India. Too much support for Pakistan, particularly military aid and direct support of Musharraf damages our growing relationship with India.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
I think that's why there truly isn't an option other than Musharraf at this point. Musharraf, while I think regarded warily by the Indians, at least had done enough to combat the extremism that India does not object too heartily to him, and I think both the US and India believe that a true democratic process in Pakistan would be very anti-Indian, if not (given the attitudes and public opinions listed above) pro-extremism.
Matt
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
Pakistan has never had a true democracy or had a truly democratic govt. A check of its history from independence will bear witness. The military has always been the final arbiter. Musharraf's book leaves no doubt regarding this fact. Thus, if the US has backed the military govts, it was but only giving way to realpolitik and to ground realities!
With the Pakistani Army filling top and middle order bureaucratic slots with serving and retired Army officers as "baksheesh" (reward), the influence of the Army was ensured in all departments and institutions of democracy. Therefore, there was hardly any scope for building democratic institutions and traditions, though the current Chief of the Army has given instructions that all Army personnel in civil organisations should be reverted to the Army.
Even if the elections are held free and fair, the shadow of the Army will remain, no matter who forms the govt.
None of the Pakistani politicians are clean and none have statesmanlike capabilities. They are merely local feudal satraps and petty lotus eaters with "national appeal". And all are anti US, and those who appear to be pro US, including Musharraf, are merely living up a façade.
The Pakistanis are anti US because they are Moslems and even the moderate Moslem is very devoted to the injunctions of the Quran and the Hadiths. Rare is the Moslem, who looks at the world events without seeing it, even if slightly, from the Moslem point of view. Therefore, to expect any Pakistani govt to have a free flow action against the terrorists, or assist without reservation against the Taliban, would be asking for something that is not feasible in its true form. Islam does not permit Moslems killing Moslems. It is haram. That is the reason why Musharraf, even though he appears to be pro US, is puss-yfooting with actions in FATA.
The elite in Pakistan are secular, so long as the interest of Islam does not clash. Secular education will tone down the fundamentalist bent of mind, but it can never churn up totally secular thinking people.
Pumping massive aid and increasing employment will not change the mindset and wean away the people from Islamic causes. There are enough studies to the effect that indicate that poverty is not the sole reason that encourages people to be wedded to the fundamentalist ideology.
The Pakistan Army can never be weaned away from meddling into every democratic institution of Pakistan because a tiger which has tasted human blood cannot stop being a maneater. Given a chance, it will revert to its ways.
Bangladesh is an example where it was formed to uphold democracy since the tenets of democracy was trampled, but Bangladesh's Pakistani Army stalwarts grabbed power at the first instance it presented itself to the Bangladesh Army!
Musharraf is the only choice since a known devil is better than an unknown friend.
Last edited by Ray; 01-30-2008 at 05:43 PM.
Good post and
I think, quite accurate. Thanks.
The Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, 7 Feb 08:
The Impact of Pashtun Tribal Differences on the Pakistani Taliban
....There is no denying the fact that tribal affiliations play a major role in the formation of Taliban groups and the choice of commanders. The Taliban and other jihad advocates often claim that they believe in the concept of a common Muslim ummah (community) and reject the division of their religion into groups based on ethnicity, language, geographical borders and tribes. In practice this is easier said than done. In tribal societies such as that of the Pashtuns inhabiting Pakistan and Afghanistan, even ideologically-driven radical Taliban and jihadist fighters gravitate toward their own tribe and local commander whether fighting U.S.-led Coalition forces or the armed forces of Pakistan.
No surprise for us Pakistan watchers:
In Tribal Pakistan, Religious Parties Founder - NYTIMES, 14 Feb.
...
The religious parties that for the last five years have governed the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan Province, which border Afghanistan and the tribal areas, are foundering.
Since being swept to power in 2002 on a wave of anti-Americanism and sympathy for the Taliban after the American invasion of Afghanistan, the mullahs here have found that the public mood has shifted against them.
People complain that they have failed to deliver on their promises, that they have proved just as corrupt as other politicians and that they have presided over a worsening of security, demonstrated most vividly in a rising number of suicide attacks carried out by militants based in the nearby tribal areas.
“They did not serve the people,” said Faiz Muhammad, 47, a farmer whose son was killed in the bomb blast on an Awami political gathering on Saturday.
The shift in mood here may be a bellwether of larger trends nationwide. The religious parties held 59 seats in the 342-member Parliament, making them a kingmaker at critical times, like helping President Pervez Musharraf to extend his military rule. But this time their number may fall to single digits, according to some estimates ...
CEIP, 13 Feb 08 (event transcript): The Pakistani Army and Post-Election Scenarios
....the subject that we are going to explore this morning is the changes that are taking place within Pakistan, particularly in its political fortunes, and the role that we expect the Pakistani military to play.
For those of you who follow Pakistan, you know clearly that the military is probably the most important institution in Pakistani society because it has been the most organized institution, the most stable institution for many years. And that is both a source of strength and weakness. It’s a source of strength because it holds the country together in uncertain times and makes the military a particularly attractive partner for foreign nations, especially the United States. But it’s also a source of weakness because an overly strong military can, in a sense, choke out civilian institutions that require space to flourish. And we are at a moment in Pakistan’s history where the Pakistan military really has to make some fundamental choices about its own role in the state and its willingness to allow the state to, in a sense, function as we expect modern states to.
The jury is still out on whether the Pakistan military will, in a sense, choose what the international community expects of it. But those are the issues that we will explore in some detail this morning.....
Initial returns show a major victory for PML-N and the PPP - Musharraf's party, the PML-Q, looks to have been utterly routed.
If the results hold up, this is the end for Musharraf and of the Army's involvement in politics, at least for this particular cycle, especially if Gen. Kiyani continues the trend removing the officer class from government and the economy. The next major test will be the struggle for power between Sharif and the PPP --- can they cooperate and form some sort of effective accomodation, or will they operate true to form and squabble ineffectively while the country burns?
Pakistanis Deal Severe Defeat to Musharraf in Election - NYTIMES, 19 Feb.
Added:Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections on Monday, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.
Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers.
Official results are expected Tuesday, but early returns indicated that the vote would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a Parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him.
Early results showed equal gains for the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose leader, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated on Dec. 27, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N, the faction led by Nawaz Sharif, like Ms. Bhutto a former prime minister. Each party may be in a position to form the next government.
The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed him for more than six years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote ...
PML-Q concedes defeat.
Pakistan's ruling party conceded defeat Tuesday after opposition parties routed allies of President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections that could threaten the rule of America's close ally in the war on terror.
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, head of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, told AP Television News that "we accept the results with an open heart" and "will sit on opposition benches" in the new parliament."
"All the King's men, gone!" proclaimed a banner headline in the Daily Times. "Heavyweights knocked out," read the Dawn newspaper ...
Last edited by tequila; 02-19-2008 at 11:17 AM.
Watch Pakistan closely
From the CEIP transcript and the chair's final comments:
'Both speakers, I think, made a very compelling case that Pakistani politics is going to remain uncertain and possibly unsettled irrespective of how these elections come out. And if that is the case - and I believe that to be true – then I think General Kayani is going to be faced with some very interesting dilemmas, which is to what degree can he implement his vision for a gradual Pakistani military disengagement from matters of governance and matters of state because the argument has always been that the incentives for the military to intervene are either formally or informally in Pakistani politics always rise with the degree of confusion or the degree of excessive competition. And so, this is one thought that I think is worth pondering.
The second is that there also seems to be a general sense that Pakistan is – at least, the Pakistani people seem to be tiring of the counterterrorism operations that are currently underway. And this is obviously a complex business and whether they believe that this is Pakistan’s war is still, in a sense, an open question. And again, I think this points to a second
set of dilemmas. That is, at a time when the U.S. is leaning hard on the Pakistan army and particularly General Kayani to do more as the phrase often goes, how does General Kayani navigate between these competing pressures of exhaustion, tiredness, a desire for disengagement from within and continuing pressures from above?
I suspect these wil be the issues on which we will have many more opportunities to reflect, particularly after the election results are out'.
davidbfpo
Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-19-2008 at 11:51 AM. Reason: Add quote marks
Who was it?
Can't remember who it was Plato, Aristotle, or one of those guys talked about societies going through phases (dictatorships, autocracies, democracies, etc)
Which one do we see Pakistan in and will it follow the patterns he spoke of?
Pakistan - a new start?
There are numerous threads on Pakistan, especially since President Musharraf declared a State of Emergency and Ms Bhutto was murdered. I thought it time to start a new thread whether the national parliamentary elections mark a new start for Pakistan.
There have been many editorials and analytical pieces on Pakistan, some of which have appeared on SWJ Blog.
No-one doubts the crucial role of Pakistan and yesterday a retired Pakistan Air Force officer stated 'Pakistan is the eye of the storm in international terrorism'.
I am no expert on Pakistan, but I do watch it closely. For the UK Pakistan is very much the "eye".
davidbfpo
Elections mark a new beginning
The International Crisis Group's resident analyst in Islamabad, at a meeting in London recently took an optimistic view.
Militancy has been spreading since 2002, as space was ceded to them by the state and the absence of active secular parties. The "Mullah" parties lost support, note some stood and otehrs boycotted the election, as unlike recent elections this was free and fair on the day. Observers had noted pre-vote rigging and ex-ISI officers now admit the '98 & '02 elections were rigged.
Note whilst the election had a low turnout (32% is the figure I recall), in NW Frontier Province there was a 46% turnout (where a "Mullah" party had been in power and lost control of the provincial government).
The crisis of governance in Pakistan, with the State of Emergency and rising political violence, had been contained by the election and the militants had been defeated at the ballot box. I especially liked the phrase "Suicide attcaks do not win hearts and minds".
Poloitical agreement was needed (still undecided today) on the supremacy of parliament, constitutional democracy - with the Presidents power to dismiss governments removed and resoring judicial independence.
There was no a clear national will - shared by the public and parties - and a legitimacy to tackle extremism; all parties recognised the need for stability.
The role of the US & UK post-election was being criticised in the local press as de-stabilising and interfering with the political process. The same people, I expect this meant diplomats, had only weeks ago been working with President Musharraf and the army - who had not supported democracy till the very end.
The transition to democracy would be a "bumpy ride".
A different view from Pakistan
Yesterday in London a retired senior Pakistani Air Force spoke to a small meeting on The Talibanisation of Pakistan. He had a different view compared to the ICG analyst, but was also optimistic.
Pakistan had a pluralist tradition since independence and 99% of the population is "moderate" who reject extremism. 'A nation makes war and the election is a good sign. We cannot alone foot the bill'.
It was vital to drop the phrase 'Islamic terrorism', this phrase infuriates many and assist AQ's ideology. To identify and reduce the root causes, there was no military soloution - that does not win minds. 'The Army is not short of resolve, it is ready to do it's job and is doing it' (numerous threads comment on this and would be sceptical on this). Grasping history and language was necessary.
The blame for extremism could be attributed to the Afghan War, against the Soviets, when the USA 'created the monster of extremism and then walked away' (a point few outside Pakistan I'd expect to agree with).
There were 100 AQ leaders in Pakistan and 5000 Taliban fighters who crossed the porous boder into Afghanistan' by implication from sanctuaries in Pakistan.
Six steps were outlined:
1) The US / UK must not send troops across the border
2) Appreciate the Pakistan Army is involved in a bloody conflict, with 1k dead
3) The collateral damage from bombing no longer just had a local impact
4) Pluralism is needed by Pakistan (as envisaged by it's founders)
5) Pre-emption is only a tactic
6) The roots causes include resolving the Palestine question
davidbfpo
Pakistani Taliban - NEFA report
Eight page open sourced report on militancy in NWFP and FATA on this link:
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscel...alysis0308.pdf
(Not sure about NEFA's bona fides, although some contributors are credible).
davidbfpo
What next? A lady writes
Taken from http://counterterrorismblog.org and by a respected analyst, Farhana Ali, under the headline Congressional Briefing: Where is Pakistan Heading?
Excellent review and challenges spending US$ millions on development and military aid in NWFP. Interestingly advocates, if not reveals, the work of a US NGO in the area.
davidbfpo
US diplomats get the cold shoulder
Under the headline A Balancing Act in Pakistan
The new government in Islamabad has wasted little time making clear its disapproval of Washington's policy toward Pakistan and its strategy on counterterrorism. The visit by two top U.S. State Department officials on the same day the new Pakistani prime minister was sworn in was widely criticized in Pakistan. New York Times correspondent Jane Perlez writes that the three-day trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte "turned out to be [a] series of indignities and chilly, almost hostile, receptions," signaling challenges ahead in engaging Pakistan's newly elected government.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._pakistan.html
davidbfpo
Good work!
Thanks for keeping us updated on this stuff.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
If one goes by the events and news, it is too early to know exactly how things will pan out.
The visit of Negroponte on the day the Prime Minister was being sworn in has not gone down well with the Pakistan people of the media. It appeared as if the US was there to dictate terms and was in the 'driver's seat'.
The PM, Gilani said, after a gap of some days, that terrorists will be taken to task, but had a rider that he would be ready to talk to them!
Musharraf was more categorical and uncompromising.
Nawaz Sharif is known to be with the Islamists and more so, having lived in exile in Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahaabism!!
Therefore, the power centres are in contradictory voices.
Musharraf's position is shaky.
Gilani cannot survive without Nawaz Sharif's Support.
And Nawaz Sharif is no friend of the WoT.
Therefore, one has to wait and watch.
I find this one dubious. I think Musharraf and the ISI viewed the militants with a discriminating eye - some had to be killed, but others could still be useful. Certainly many in Baluchistan and the NWFP believed that the ISI still maintained relationships with several violent Islamist groups in those areas.Musharraf was more categorical and uncompromising.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks