Saturday, December 29, 2007
From Pajamas Media
Why is it that Pakistan’s extremists (who purportedly hate Musharraf and democracy) are not consistent in targeting pro-Musharraf and pro-democracy people? Why do they pick and choose?
I think the answer is apparent: in Pakistan, if you do not criticize the Islamists, you will not be targeted. Musharraf and Bhutto did criticize the Islamists and that is why they tend to end up in the jihadi cross-hairs. Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, has long pandered to Jamat e Islami (and in the early 90’s even Bin Laden), while Mullah Diesel heads the main pro-Taliban party. There is no reason for extremists to attack these people; they are already on the same side.
The fact is that Musharraf has choked Pakistan’s political process for nearly a decade now, which has contributed significantly to the expansion of extremism.
To top it all off, the U.S. has absolutely no leverage in Pakistan...
...The second, more realistic solution is for the U.S. to openly dump Musharraf and pull itself out of any semblance of involvement in Pakistan’s internal political affairs. The U.S. needs to be in a position where it has not been in a long time with Pakistan: objective...
more realistic solution is for the U.S. to openly dump Musharraf and pull itself out of any semblance of involvement in Pakistan’s internal political affairs. The U.S. needs to be in a position where it has not been in a long time with Pakistan: objective.
As Mansoor Ijaz suggests at the National Review, the U.S. should call for Musharraf to set up an independent international investigation surrounding the killing of Ms. Bhutto.
An independent panel will likely conclude that it was the terrorists that killed Ms. Bhutto and not any elements associated with Musharraf himself.
I agree that an international investigation would be a good idea, but I don't agree that the US has "absolutely no leverage in Pakistan" or that the US should "openly dump Musharraf and pull itself out of any semblance of involvement in Pakistan’s internal political affairs"
First, we do have leverage in Pakistan; second, removing our influence from Pakistan's internal political affairs would put the world in more danger, not less, since we are, as reported here in the New York Times, "secretly" aiding Pakistan in guarding their nuclear arms.
The term "secretly guarding" as used in the New York Times is, of course, a relative term. If Ali meant the the US should "'openly' remove itself from Pakistan's affairs" in the same way, this could be a good idea.