Crisis in Pakistan
posted at 9:19 am on November 5, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
A nuclear-armed state with a large, restive population of apocalyptic radicals is in chaos. It’s the kind of scenario that makes for a great computer game, but it’s not so great when it springs up in real life.
The latest from Pakistan is that army troops have clashed with lawyers protesting Pervez Musharraf’s move toward martial law Saturday.
Security forces were reported to have rounded up about 500 opposition party figures, lawyers and human rights advocates Sunday, and about a dozen privately television news stations remained off the air. International broadcasters, including the BBC and CNN, were also cut.
The crackdown, announced late Saturday night after General Musharraf suspended the Constitution, was clearly aimed at preventing public demonstrations that political parties and lawyers were organizing for Monday.
Pajamas Media has a round-up on the situation; good news is in short supply. Stanley Kurtz has a thorough look at all of the possible outcomes, if Musharraf hangs on to power, if he falls, who might replace him, what his various opposition forces might do either in reaction to him or to each other. Read all the way to the last line.
The problem as I see it boils down to the problem that plagues the Islamic world as a whole. In Musharraf and the Pakistani army we have a mostly secular, mostly Westernized force for stability if not open democracy. But the army is riven with Islamists who are helping the radicals who stand to one side of the country’s polity. Those radicals constitute a real threat both to the Musharraf regime and to any notions of liberal democracy in the country. In Pakistan the radicals may be outnumbered by the liberals and moderates, but they have determination and the willingness to kill anyone who stands in their way, on their side. To Musharraf’s left are the democrats, the moderates and liberals who are demanding a restoration of Pakistan’s democracy and the rule of its constitution. An alliance between Musharraf and the moderates and liberals needs to happen to stave off the real threat from the Islamists, but for all kinds of reasons it may not: The moderates and liberals no longer trust Musharraf (with some good reasons), and Musharraf probably sees that giving in to the liberals now stands a good chance of either handing power to the Islamists in the medium future or of sparking civil war in the near future. And there’s the possibility that malevolent forces like the Iranian regime will exploit the situation either to weaken the Pakistani democrats or even to try to put its own allies into power. The fact that the Pakistani army is nearly broken by its ongoing conflict with the armed tribes and Islamists in Waziristan doesn’t help matters.
So what’s next? Right now it’s tough to see a positive outcome, though one is certainly possible. I only see things stabilizing if the Musharraf regime and the democrats can temporarily put their differences aside and unite to fight the Islamists, but even that is fraught with danger given the Islamist influence on both the army and the ISI.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I say make a deal with Mushaaraf, let us have all of your nukes and the knowledge/people that can make them, in exchange for living a life of luxury anywhere in the world you would like, protected by the United States.
/wishful thinking
jp on November 5, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I think this one is going to leave a mark…
Dr. Gecko on November 5, 2007 at 9:27 AM
We’ll all look back at this as the official beginning of World War III.
Griz on November 5, 2007 at 9:32 AM
If Musharraf or even Bhutto can control the government then there is hope. If some nutjob General ends up with the button then India is going to come unglued. India has put her all her hopes on the U.S. controlling Mushy and Mushy controlling the PAK arsenal. PAK goes radical, India goes knocking heads.
Scary times……very scary times.
Limerick on November 5, 2007 at 9:34 AM
The Islamic world is one giant Kobayashi Maru.
VinceP1974 on November 5, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Agreed, but this is what is supposed to happen. India is a balance to Pakistan. This can be India’s play, with US assist. Same with Saudi offer to Iran re. enrichment. We can’t always stop evil, so balance of power is often best we can hope for.
JiangxiDad on November 5, 2007 at 9:42 AM
If Musharraf asks for troops to support what looks like his dictatorship how do we respond?
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 9:42 AM
A frank, open discussion with Obama, including all sides seems to be our only option.
Hening on November 5, 2007 at 9:49 AM
I seem to remember, during the weeks after 9/11, a discussion about our Special Forces who are assigned to take over or eliminate Pakistan’s nukes in such a scenario.
If this is correct, wish them luck!
fred5678 on November 5, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Is there no other way to ensure the safety of Pakistan’s nukes without Am. forces on the ground??
JiangxiDad on November 5, 2007 at 9:57 AM
I dunno……I would think we would be left with only two choices……our nuke or India’s nuke? Their targeting or ours? I question if we have the will to drop one.
Limerick on November 5, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Oh gawd. Nothing unites the Pakistanis like the invitation of India to mediate their domestic political disturbance. Let’s table this idea sooner rather than later.
Musharraf can’t push the same old “we need a strongman” political message. It doesn’t work anymore because it’s seen for what it always was, a permanent hold on power regardless of the state of conflict.
Most Pakistanis want the rebels and radicals brought to justice. But this is quite the task. It’s like asking the Alabama National Guard to suppress the Henry Wallace nomination for the Democrat Party in ‘64. The Pakistani Army is pretty good, but it’s not trained to fight a guerrilla war with foreign jihadis that will target women and children FIRST. They can fight an organized Indian Army, but they’re not really pumped for deployment into Waziristan.
The nuke issue is a concern, but I’d be looking for every opportunity to send covert ops into Pakistani tribal territory to flush out any radicals you can find.
gabriel sutherland on November 5, 2007 at 10:01 AM
And we are surprised?
Like, nobody saw this coming?
Musharraf, if not Pakistan, has been (and still is) a solid ally against the Taliban. And now that he is trying to save the disintigration of his country to Taliban insurrection the U.S. is ready to throw him under the bus because his actions appear a bit too heavy handed.
What goes around, comes around. We need to start treating our allies as allies instead of making them just another enemy. Thanks State Department. Thanks Condi Rice. You’re doing a Heck’uva Job.
Lawrence on November 5, 2007 at 10:01 AM
So we need to change the rules. This is how Kirk solved it.
Lawrence on November 5, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Actually the Pakistanis have never been able to fight the Indian army.
They’re pretty fierce when it comes to slaughtering Bangladeshis en masse though.
Mike Honcho on November 5, 2007 at 10:12 AM
The nukes aren’t a problem. The military has total control of them and they won’t let anything go nuts on that front. You can take those out of the equation.
One point I never see anyone talk about is the fact that the military owns a third of the businesses in Pakistan. Musharraf has been buying their loyalty for years with huge contracts expanding their control of the economy. They’re on their way to a Burma/Myanmar situation if they’re not careful.
I say dump Musharraf, hold elections in January (as planned), and then elect a new President. The Vice-chair of the Army can become the new head of the Army and we can work out a new arrangement with the new government. The problem is how to get to that point without sparking a civil war.
The Apologist on November 5, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Wasn’t that George Wallace in ‘64? Henry was back in the ’40s, wasn’t he?
Grantman on November 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM
hillbillyjim on November 5, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Chrissakes! The boneheads at Foggy Bottom are once again spouting platitudes while doing absolutely nothing to improve the situation.
The dysfunctional State Dep’t. should be about the business of furthering reality-based policy, not wishful thinking which is useless at best and potentially dangerous to our national security.
hillbillyjim on November 5, 2007 at 11:01 AM
HECK NO! NO WAY, NO HOW, NEVER NOT GONNA HAPPEN! If we go in it will be to the NW territories to clean house. We don’t need Musharraf. Musharraf was the ONLY LEADER IN THE WORLD who recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan before 9/11.
Lawrence, we usually agree. But I don’t see how signing a treaty a year ago giving the Taliban free reign over the NW territory without fear of the Pakistani military enforcing law there constitutes a ’solid ally against the Taliban’. I also don’t see how demanding that the US forces don’t go into the area to do the job that the Pakistani military won’t constitutes a ’solid ally against the Taliban’. I also don’t see how letting Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora (we used Pakistani forces instead of our own to be PC at that battle where we should have stopped him) equates to them being ‘an ally’.
Musharraf is not an ally. Musharraf is an ally to Musharraf. He gave AQ Khan a pass. He gave the Taliban a pass. He gave Al Qaeda (AQ) a pass.
He’s not the ‘hero’ that people here seem to think he is. We can handle a Pakistan without him. We need to ally ourselves with India and just forget Pakistan.
Pakistan is not a threat to us. They are only a threat to India. That will be where the first nuclear war in the world will be within 10 years anyway. I don’t understand why the US wants to be friends with Pakistan (who gives us nothing internationally) instead of India (who gives us a balance of power against China and Pakistan extremists – and could be a bridge b/t us and Russia).
But I’m not in the state department.
ThackerAgency on November 5, 2007 at 11:13 AM
???
Pakistan has the potential to be a threat to the entire world if the Islamists manage to wrest control from Musharraf or gain more influence with the generals.
Pakistan is an open powder keg to the nth degree.
hillbillyjim on November 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Deploy a battalion of our newly drafted diplomats.
sonnyspats1 on November 5, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Nothing good ever comes out of that part of the world. That’s probably why we have millions from Pakistan
here in the US.
I sure wish more of the non-anglo countries could get it together and learn how to properly govern themselves at a reasononable standard.
saiga on November 5, 2007 at 1:23 PM
..on the bright side, the world has 500 fewer lawyers.
Alden Pyle on November 5, 2007 at 2:26 PM
But..But GWB says; “Islam is the Religion of Peace”.
When are we going to get it?
ScottyDog on November 5, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Pakistan is no friend or ally in anything. Pakistan is Islam in action. They are the enemy. Who do you think created and nurtured the Taliban in Afghanistan? Who gave them international recognition?
BL@KBIRD on November 5, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I hate to say this but it beginning to feel a little like Iran just before the Shaw got kicked out. I keep hearing on the radio that the Dems want to stop any money going to Pakistan to force Musharraf to behave. First there was Turkey, now this. Don’t they ever learn their lessons?
Sultry Beauty on November 6, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Comment pages: