RSS
 

Musharraf’s Martial Law Endangers the War on Terror

04 Nov

When General/President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan, ended freedom of speech, freedom of the press, overturned the authority of the Supreme Court, and postponed elections by at least a year, he not only reminded everyone that he is, indeed, a military dictator, but he also seriously endangered America’s War on Terror.

The War on Terror, or the Long War, as some have come to call the current world war the U.S. is waging on Islamic extremists, has relied on Pakistan’s relative stability as a bulwark against the Taliban and al-Qaida.  The War in Afghanistan, which has entered its sixth year, has put a great deal of pressure on neighboring Pakistan.  The Taliban and al-Qaida use the mountainous border region for bases and for recruitment of new fighters.  Keeping Pakistan in the fight against the terrorists is vital for American strategy, yet Musharraf has made American support for his regime all the more difficult with his heavy-handed repression of political dissent.

This state of emergency will only embolden the Islamic militants in Pakistan, giving them more legitimacy as "freedom fighters" against an American-supported military dictatorship.  Meanwhile, by suppressing the free press and the legitimate non-violent political opposition, he weakens the democratic institutions that form the natural bulwark to the extremists. 

The Bush Administration is caught between a rock and a hard place in deciding how to respond to this unwelcome development.  Too much pressure on Musharraf to reverse course could drive Pakistan out of the anti-Taliban alliance.  Too little pressure will expose the cynicism and hypocrisy of America’s claim to support democracy in Iraq and elsewhere while tolerating or supporting dictatorships when convenient.  And of course, if Pakistan devolves into a spiral of violence, the militants win and at the best Pakistan is unable to control its own borders, while at the worst, an anti-Western, pro-Taliban, pro-bin Laden government takes over.  And let us not forget that Pakistan is a nuclear power.  If chaos reigns, who watches the nuclear arsenal?  Thinking people in Washington, London, Tehran, New Delhi, Kabul and elsewhere should be very worried on that point.   

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1. Tom

    November 9, 2007 at 10:03 am

    I think you omit some very important issues here. Recently, wasn’t a Taliban party elected in one of the Waziristan provinces? Democracy is the quickest way to fundamentalism at this juncture: see Hamas in Palestine and Egyptian Islamic Jihad in the recent Egyptian elections. Note how respectful the American government is toward the democratically elected government in Palestine. I think democracy is America’s worst nightmare in these countries as we know the possible projection of the will of the people.

    Of course we know that Musharraf was heavily involved with the Pakistani ISI. In fact, Sharif was ousted as he was getting too close to terrorist elements supported by the ISI in Kashmir. Now he is the bulwark and protector of democratic institutions?

     
  2. History Guy

    November 10, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    I did not mean to imply that Sharif’s return to power was the best option, actually, I had Benazir Bhutto in mind as a possible “democratic” alternative to Musharaff’s dictatorship.

    Among Muslim nations, Pakistan has, despite repeated turns at military rule, a stronger democratic tradition than most other Muslim nations. Egypt has never had a true democratic election or tradition. Egypt’s three latest presidents were all generals (Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak), and Nasser took power in a coup, and Sadat and Mubarak both became Egypt’s leader upon the death of the previous president. The problem in Egypt is that Mubarak has no apparant interest in nurturing a true democracy in part because he wants his son to succeed him.

    The Palestinians are a unique situation partly because they still are not a truly independent country, and the political role models for Palestinian politicians begins and ends with Yasser Arafat, a bloody-handed terrorist.

    Pakistan, like Egypt and the Palestinians, has parties based on religious fundamentalism and a violent anti-American and anti-Israeli philosophy. This type of extremism flourishes when the ruling poltical body, in Pakistan’s case the army and its leader, Musharraf, quell the more moderate, secular poltical elements in society. Musharraf’s emergency/martial rule is dangerous in that it is suppressing the most likely parties and factions that, if in power, would be most likely to work well with American interests in the region.

    Some commentators make the point that the current situation in Pakistan is similar to our support for the late Shah of Iran as he confronted the more radical fundamentalist elements in his country. The Shah had effectively emasculated any sort of moderate, secular opposition through his decades of tyranny. I do not think Musharraf will last much longer, but my fear is that he will take the more moderate and secular opposition down with him, opening the gates for the fundamentalist barbarians to rush on through.