Progress Report, which is daily published by Benjamin Banneker Center for Economic Justice and Progress, has an interesting column on Why Bush should NO LONGER support and aid a military dictator in Pakistan. It denotes that aiding a Pakistani Dictator makes Bush look stupid, and fans the flames of regional hatred against the dictator. Is that the way to achieve happy stability?

Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland, the author, is an American defense analyst and author as well as an ex- director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. I don’t think I fully agree with Mr. Eland but he’s mostly right on many points. He writes:

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.

While Eland is right on many fronts esp. the immoral and self-contradictory policy of supporting a dictator, I think he too is falsely fearful of the growing pressure and support of Islamic-cum-Political Parties (namely MMA et al.) as well as resurgents in Waziristan and NWFP. While I don’t think I could highlight and defend this at great lengths now but would like to add that today’s Pakistan is not very much like 70’s Iran. I think Pakistan has a lot bigger and better social and economic infrastructure as compared with yesteryears’ Iran. The almost indifferent elite business and industrialist class is only too powerful to control the political Nazims and MNAs in Pakistan. Much like the growth of suicide bombers and islamic militancy, there has been a silent but gradual growth of anti-religious sentiments and more importantly a strong need of more social and religious freedom not only among urban corners of the big cities but quietly among the other factions as well. Right now, NWFP and some parts of Punjab and Sindh are populated with these extremist factions (Sunni-Shia militants) but largely they remain cut-off from the mainstream life’s happening and have little to no knowledge about anything but the basic Prayer and more of the other fundamental religious issues.

Even if Musharraf is removed either through a coup or by political parties’ pressure, Army still can and would defend its territorial boundaries. To this day, I believe one of the biggest flaws and shortcomings of Pakistan Army and Armed Forces remain the ineffectiveness and traditional military hierarchy needs of ISPR (Inter Services Public Relations department of Armed Forces). More on that in a separate post, hopefully. Even though there are quiet elements of distaste and discomfort among military officers of lesser ranks, the top brass and even red-stripe officers remain focused on supporting Musharraf through thick and thin. The reach of these fewer militant groups to the country’s sensitive installations is not only very limited but their approach towards creating the so-called better islamic regime is only too naive,IMHO. I have met few of my neighbors who came from Waziristan after Taliban penetrated in the region and started talibanizing the folks, the contempt and disgust these original inhabitants of Waziristan and NWFP Province feel against these so-called warriors of islam can be easily felt.

Yes, as Mr Eland suggest that Bush must immediately stop support of Musharraf in a fashion that would only help instability and lack of democracy in Pakistan, the US policy makers and defence planners must re-think of their evaluations of continued support of a military leader who should leave the throne while he’s alive.

Mr Eland further goes on:
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 Nawaz Sharif—will not be allowed to return for upcoming parliamentary elections.

I am not too sure how his comment on if Bush stop and remove its forces from Afghanistan will cool Taliban is valid or not. Historically and much more importantly in the recent times, Afghanistan is only too weak (economically and politically) with growing hatred and abundance of social unrest. Taliban has never been or ever will be a peaceful faction and with the Northern alliance and other distasteful groups ready to kill each other on the name of same islam they are trying to promote. So much for the one god.

Yes, a continued moral and financial support and a UN peacekeeping forces deployment until things start getting better in Afghanistan will rather be something, I believe, USA and Pakistan should be looking forward. Only a financially and socially prospering Afghanistan will ensure a safe and peaceful evacuation of Afghan Immigrants who’re ready to live miserable lives in the biggest city of the country as long as it’s not worse than Afghanistan right now. This peaceful and safe place will not only ensure less problems inside Pakistan but also better democracies than the allies of Bush will have you believe.