Professor Juan Cole has an extraordinarily useful breakdown and analysis of the latest political developments in Pakistan. Parties opposed to President Musharraf won a significant victory in recent Parliamentary elections, and multiple disparate parties are now coalescing to form a legislative coalition that should reach roughly a 2/3 majority, which would be enough to amend Pakistan's constitution, among other things. As Cole explains,
The strong two-thirds majority that the new coalition enjoys in the lower house gives the victors the ability to move steadily and swiftly to accomplish their goal of restoring the rule of law and marginalizing Musharraf or even force him to step down. The military, now led by Ashfaq Kiyani, who had been Benazir Bhutto's military secretary, is an important player here but it has not spoken. If Kiyani stays out of civilian politics, Musharraf is likely in trouble. If the army moves again, there is a question of whether the public will stand for it.
One of the reasons I'll never be a good (or perhaps "good") pundit it because I often predict continuation of the status quo while other people are in hysterics about some possible mayhem in another country's domestic situation. Predicting that something will be the same in six or twelve months as it is now doesn't fill airtime very well, but it's often correct. In Pakistan, however, I think there's a very real possibility of significant confrontation between Parliament and President Musharraf. I think, right now, it's still likely that he'll stay in power, but the situation continues to be fluid and very much worth watching.
And to think many find Bush's democratic ideas to be rubbish. Why bother to even hold elections if you are not prepared to live with the results? Musharraf was routed but in the Bush world, that doesn't matter.
Bush's policy of hanging on to Musharraf has caused friction between the White House and the State Department, with some career diplomats and other specialists arguing that the administration is trying to buck the political tides in Pakistan, U.S. officials said.
Officials in the White House and the intelligence community fear that the longer Pakistan remains without a new government, the deeper the gridlock, threatening the progress made in the elections toward greater stability and helping the country's Islamic extremists.
One Western diplomat said, however, that the strategy could backfire if Pakistanis feel betrayed after voting to kick Musharraf from office.
Senator McCain trotted out a truly weird attack against Senator Obama last night, accusing him of wanting to invade Pakistan and thereby undermine our good buddy President Musharraf. What Obama said, of course, if he had actionable intelligence on al Qaeda leaders, he would drop a bomb on them. Yay! Not only is McCain apparently criticizing Obama for believing we should go after terrorists, what he's objecting to isn't even particularly controversial. We've notified nations of military operations as they occurred for a while, perhaps most notably in strikes against terrorist targets under Clinton but also with increasing frequency and aggressiveness after 9/11.
Spencer Ackerman, who is truly a national treasure, in writing for the new -- and excellent -- Washington Independent, rightly shreds McCain on this issue:
Good to know that John McCain, who allegedly knows something about defending America in the course of advocating a war that has made America drastically less secure, would do absolutely nothing. Good to know that John McCain doesn’t care that those people murdered 3,000 Americans. Good to know that John McCain doesn’t think those souls demand justice. Good to know that John McCain would read an intelligence report about al-Qaeda in Pakistan planning to murder more Americans and say LOL HAI LOOK IRAN KTHXBAI.
In 2004, the BBC released a powerful series called The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear. It is about the parallel rise of radical Islam and the radical neocon right since the 1950s. (View online here.) One issue that the three part documentary covered was the rise and then hard fall of radicals in places such as Algeria. Indiscriminate killing and a steady blood bath in the name of the cause has lowered support for the movement time after time. The documentary is well worth viewing.
The poll suggests Pakistanis are looking to peaceful opposition groups after months of political turmoil and a wave of suicide attacks.
In the latest bloodshed, a bomber blew himself up at an opposition rally in the northwestern town of Charsadda on Saturday, killing 27 people and injuring 50.
According to the poll results only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August.
Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I strongly believe in giving a bigger megaphone to those who deserve it but perhaps aren't yet very well known, especially because that's the kind of perspective that allowed me to come on board here in the first place. So I'm making an effort to highlight and recommend emerging voices every few weeks or so, mostly on foreign policy but sometimes other topics as well. The first was Matt Duss, and today I'd like to introduce y'all to Alex Thurston, another young foreign policy observer whose insights and expertise make his writing essential reading.
Alex is currently a student in the Master's program of Arab Studies at Georgetown, and studied religion as an undergrad at Northwestern. Unlike many pundits, he has actually lived abroad, spending much of 2006 and 2007 in Senegal as part of the Fulbright exchange program, studying Muslim youth movements. His understanding of the Middle East and Africa is comprehensive, and he's one of a growing group that understand internationalism *and* politics -- an intersection that was less necessary before the entire foreign policy apparatus was politicized but is absolutely vital now.
His recent post on continued escalation of tensions in Pakistan rightly warns against any rash moves by the US; moving east, his excellent analysis of the latest in Darfur helps keep focus on a still-overlooked tragedy. So you know the drill: Add The Seminal to your RSS feed or your daily reading list, and know that when you read Thurston, you're reading a progressive who knows his stuff and can be trusted. It's important.
Basically just a degree away from my explanation of why Bhutto has attracted such a media crush -- shorter version: she was Westernized, female, and attractive -- is this darkly funny parody piece by Tim Noah. Since apparently every pundit east of the Mississippi knew her from Harvard, Oxford, or a cocktail party, we've been subjected to a never-ending barrage of Bhutto nostalgia pieces, and this is (farcically) an addition to the genre.
In all seriousness, though, it really does point to a serious problem in foreign policy coverage and thinking. From the American perspective, generally speaking, analysis of foreign leaders too often goes something like this: Speaks English? Sophisticated. Speaks language of country of origin? Backwater. Went to an Ivy League school? Moderate. Educated anywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere? Extremist. Appreciates single malt? A partner for peace. Eschews the party circuit? Untrustworthy.
And through these heuristics, you get things like people predicting electoral victories of, for example, Iraq's Allawi and Chalabi the day before Sadr and Hakim sweep the polls. It's very frustrating.
I was talking with a friend this weekend about the Bhutto situation. He knows a little about foreign policy, though it's neither his vocation nor his avocation, and he asked, roughly, This isn't going to have any effect on the primaries, right? Probably not. And it ruins our Pakistan policy, but that policy was terrible to begin with? Right. Pakistan isn't going to fall apart? No. It's not going to affect the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan are disasters when it comes to counter-terror? Might make it a little worse, but essentially that's accurate. So why, he asked, why the wall-to-wall coverage and focus? The answer after the jump . . .
It's primarily because Bhutto hits the trifecta for media attention paid to a foreigner: Westernized (attended Harvard, no less), attractive (was once named one of People's 50 most beautiful), and female (self-evident). The media has a habit of focusing on Westernized, charming foreign leaders -- and the US has a habit of backing them despite evidence that maybe we shouldn't -- and especially so when the subject is telegenic. Now, I'm not one to complain about media focus on foreign affairs, not *at all*; still, it's worth noting the particular reasons and inclinations behind this kind of media crush. It's interesting that now there's some real coverage of the events in Pakistan, beyond just Bhutto herself, and that's great -- though the actual situation apparently continues to deteriorate.
If US foreign policy for a particular country or topic depends on an *individual* rather than a system or structure or process, odds are it's a crummy policy. The very idea that our foreign policy for Pakistan could be utterly destroyed by the death of a single person, however tragically and unexpectedly, shows you how bad a policy it was in the first place.
The British press has been increasingly critical of the position-for-life politics of the Bhutto family. In France, Eva Joly (famous and brilliant anti-corruption judge) referred to Asif Zardari (Bhutto's husband) as "Mr. 40%" referring to his cut on deals passing through the office of his wife during her term in office. There is no shortage of talk about democracy within the family. However, there has been little sign of actual democracy including the recent transition from student to leader of the largest political party in Pakistan, without a democratic vote.
Pakistan political commentator Tariq Ali is much more critical, calling it a "medieval charade." More from Tariq Ali including Bhutto-Kennedy comparisons, after the jump.
A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.
Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.
Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.
How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince and his future.
That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.
"Dammit! Who put a question mark on the prompter? How many times do I have to tell you that he will read anything put on that prompter!"
Huckabee said 660 Pakistanis entered the country illegally last year. When asked by a reporter the source for that statistic, Huckabee appeared unsure, saying, "Those are numbers that I got today from a briefing, and I believe they are CIA and immigration numbers." The Huckabee campaign later said the figure came from a March 2006 report by The Denver Post. But the Border Patrol told CNN on Friday that it apprehended only "a handful" of illegal immigrants from Pakistan in 2007.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Iowa front-runner, Mike "Ron Burgandy" Huckabee!
You stay classy, Little Rock.
Remember way back when, how we decided nobody without extensive experience in (or at least understanding of) foreign affairs could ever be elected president? Riiiiiight . . .
The two threads of analysis from Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan yesterday are, generally, the geopolitical impact and the effects (if any) on the US primaries. Some commentators are lamenting the latter; I think it's a natural and unavoidable response, especially because it's not like a unilateral refusal to engage in politics following tragedy has served Dems very well in the past.
That said, I continue to think that the domestic political impact of this event will be minimal. Given how little people pay attention to the specifics of international events, especially in countries that aren't named Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, any interpretation of this is likely to be either (1) meta (i.e. focused on broad issues of judgment or crisis-handling or whatever), or (2) by foreign policy nerds. The meta angle tends to have an impact when it's terrorism (see: bin Laden, 2004), but not much else -- does everybody remember the huge impact of the assassination of Indira Gandhi (India's prime minister) the week before the 1984 presidential election? I didn't think so. More after the jump...
The only way this really breaks into the primaries is if somebody really screws it up, and Huckabee is (rightfully) taking flak for being completely uninformed about the situation (or, more specifically, committing the sin of revealing his lack of knowledge), and then there's the flap over Obama advisor David Axelrod. He made a point yesterday that's absolutely true and worth discussing, that Iraq has taken our focus off of Pakistan and Afghanistan (and terrorism in general); unfortunately, he did it in a way that made it sound like he was, in part, blaming Hillary for Bhutto's death. Bad choice. Fortunately for Obama, only about 300 people have ever heard of Axelrod, and most of them live in D.C.
Which brings us to the actual foreign policy impact. Pakistan is most definitely in flux right now: Bhutto's party is in disarray, as she dominated it, and there's no certain successor; the other major "moderate" party has already decided to boycott the Jan. 8 elections (if they're even held then); and violence has erupted in various parts of the country. Ironically, Musharraf may solidify his hold on power by *keeping* the elections in January since both opposition parties will either boycott or be totally disorganized in the wake of these events, and he could claim a victory for democracy even as he decimates the parties that would likely have won a plurality in the elections.
It remains to be seen whether the international community will encourage Musharraf to postpone the elections, but for the moment there's been immediate reaction toward a domestic crack-down. Any smart leader knows when to loosen control a little to let emotions run their course, and Musharraf, whatever his other failings, isn't stupid. But on a broader level, it really is quite a setback for democracy, and as I said yesterday, a huge blow to US policy, which was bad to begin with and is now essentially eviscerated.
A reader emailed to remind me what I wrote just three weeks ago:
Musharraf claims the declaration of a "state of emergency" in Pakistan -- which is for all intents and purposes an imposition of martial law -- is due to terrorist threat. This, by all credible accounts, is false. Musharraf is reacting to approaching elections, an impending supreme court decision on his role in the government, and the ascension of opposing political groups, highlighted by the return of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. [...] [T]he idea that this was some big, out-of-nowhere surprise is also totally false. Foreign policy observers have been worrying about this for a while.
Unfortunately, according to WaPo, there's literally no one at the wheel with this issue:
"The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan. Retired American officials say that, for the first time in U.S. history, nobody with serious Pakistan experience is working in the South Asia bureau of the State Department, on State's policy planning staff, on the National Security Council staff or even in Vice President Cheney's office."
The article says "even in" the VP's office, of course, because that's where US foreign policy is run, so apparently it's the most important place to have experts.
More after the jump... If you thought it was bad that the US government had a "dramatic drop-off" in expertise three weeks ago, it's now a full-blown disaster. A few commenters were unhappy that I said the Bush administration deserves some blame for this deterioration, that the US has no responsibility for this kind of thing, but *we do.* And the Bush administration does. And nothing from today gives me any confidence that the next year will contain anything but continued foreign policy blunders.
And some -- many, perhaps -- will end in tragedy, however remote or disconnected from our direct foreign policy actions.
(NOTE FROM AJ: I said in my post earlier that I was skeptical about any impact this would have on the primaries, but I've been very impressed by how well the Edwards camp has responded to the unfolding events. In his initial statement, along with the appropriate and requisite lamentations, he reminded voters that he had dealt "firsthand" with Pakistan and had "meetings with" Bhutto and Musharraf. Bringing it to an entirely new level, though, Musharraf called him today, demonstrating a level of connection between Musharraf and Edwards that I, for one, was certainly unaware of. There's occasionally criticism of Edwards for having a thin resume on foreign affairs, but this reminds people that he's player on the world stage, which can only be a plus for him.)
While it's too soon to fully gauge the effects here of Bhutto's assassination, it could well work most to Giuliani's benefit by enabling him to thrust himself back into the daily political conversation after steadily losing ground to McCain and Huckabee. With his decision to all but skip Iowa and play only at the margins in the New Hampshire primary, Giuliani has watched as the campaign in its final stages has largely passed him by.
But, with the Bhutto's death and the broader implications of the fight against terrorism worldwide likely to dominate the coverage for the next day or two (at a minimum), Giuliani immediately becomes relevant again.
The assassination coincides with Giuliani's decision to directly invoke the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in a new commercial that is running on broadcast channels in New Hampshire and Florida as well on cable nationally.
The key line? "Islamic terrorists would make a terrible mistake if they would confuse our democracy with weakness."
Giuliani must hope that the Bhutto assassination will remind voters that terrorists can strike anywhere, any time, and that with his experience as mayor of New York at the time of the 9-11 attack, he would be best qualified among all the presidential candidates to navigate those dangerous waters.
Oil was already high and facing bad economic news on Thursday, so it is very likely to increase once again. Investors are eager to find safe havens for the time being as they see what happens in the nuclear armed Pakistan. All of this is happening on top of an already faltering economy and softening banking industry.
Statements from the big three Dems and quick-hit commentary:
Obama: "I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world." - Pretty tame, straightforward. He'll likely frame this as an issue demonstrating the importance of judgment in foreign policy, along the lines of his current themes.
Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden after the jump...
Clinton: "I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile. [...] Let us pray that her legacy will be a brighter, more hopeful future for the people she loved and the country she served." - I expected something a little more impassioned, as she apparently knew Bhutto pretty well, but she too hits the important notes. She'll frame this as demonstrating the importance of experience.
Edwards: "Benazir Bhutto was a brave and historic leader for Pakistan. Her assassination is a sad and solemn event, and our hearts go out to her family and to the Pakistani people . . . I have seen firsthand in Pakistan, and in meetings with Prime Minister Bhutto and President Musharraf, the instability of the country and the complexity of the challenges they face. At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle." - This is a pretty savvy statement from Edwards, as it includes the appropriate mentions of sorrow but also includes his "firsthand" experience with Pakistan including "meetings with" Bhutto and Musharraf. A gentle reminder that his foreign policy resume perhaps isn't quite so thin as sometimes alleged.
Dodd and Biden both had solid statements as well, with the only outlier being Richardson, who called for Musharraf to step down. That is, of course, a terrible idea -- the last thing you want is a leaderless nuclear nation in a time of crisis during the lead up to likely-postponed elections. But everybody else handled this well.
A final note: the people on my teevee are already telling me this will help Hillary and Giuliani. I think that's totally ridiculous, and it's time we stop assuming that any crisis benefits the (perceived) most hawkish candidates. Plus, as I said earlier today, ultimately I'm pretty skeptical about the impact of this on the primaries. But we'll see.
The first thing to say about Bhutto's assassination is that any kind of rush to judgment, especially along the lines of impending doom, is probably imprudent.
In terms of policy implications, this is reflective of a massive US foreign policy blunder, in that the Bush administration, in a monumentally stupid move, shoved Bhutto down the throat of Musharraf (and the rest of Pakistan) as a savior, despite her lack of broad popular support and general reputation as corrupt. In making someone who didn't necessarily have the ability to deliver the savior for democracy in Pakistan, we simultaneously set up our own policy to fail and offered Musharraf a return to (or continued) total power in the event that our little power-sharing arrangement didn't work. We also -- though not only us -- painted a big fat target on her back. Really a debacle all the way around.
I'm not sure how much today's tragedy can be pinned on Musharraf, or even "the military" in general, other than to the extent that some military figures are working with al Qaeda and/or other extremist elements in Pakistan. There have been attacks on several of the major candidates running for office in Pakistan over the past few months, and it was really only a matter of time before one succeeded. It does appear evident that Musharraf has not helped create the proper security environment, though, obviously.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced this will have as large of an impact as many might initially think. I'm curious to see how it plays out, but rarely does one lose money betting on a quick show of power followed by domestic clampdown followed by renewed centralized authority in a military dictatorship in crisis.
Just initial impressions, though; I'll have more as this develops. Tragic, disastrous, sad . . .
No wonder George Bush loves Musharraf so much. They both cheat using their Supreme Courts to win:
Pakistan's Supreme Court, stacked with judges friendly to President Pervez Musharraf, on Thursday threw out a final challenge to his re-election and paved the way for him to quit as army chief.
The president says, "[F]reedom fighters, struggling for liberty and independence, inspire the West with their courage in the face of a powerful enemy. . . . And let no one mistake this for a conflict between the Western Democracies and the Arab world. Those who condone making war by cowardly attacks on unarmed third parties, including women and children, are but a tiny minority. Arab nations themselves have been forced to endure savage terrorist attacks from this minority. We hope and pray the Arab world will join with us to eliminate this scourage of civilization."
A leading Democratic expert on foreign policy warns that the administration "wants to resume covert military aid . . . To its proponents, the [] approach represents an unusual fusion of power politics and morality. To doubters, it is neither practical nor proper. . . . [I]n this case, top Administration officials do not seem to want to be tied down to a specific label and commitment. Nonetheless, other lower-level Administration officials and . . . neo-conservatives or neo-internationalists have embraced it and elevated the words and actions to doctrinal status . . . To many of the critics, more aid to these forces is not likely to force compromises out of their adversaries at the negotiating table. Rather, as they see it, it could end up spurring further . . . aid to their allies and getting many more people killed in the process."
But the New York Times reports that according to Charles Krauthammer, "who is a foremost defender of the doctrine and who is widely credited with its christening, there should be no apologies for its 'universalism and moralism.' That, he argues, is the way to combat the ideological underpinnings . . ."
A Heritage Foundation analyst further argues that we need to give more than just monetary support: "Washington must do more than increase its aid . . . A more creative policy would include: Modern weapons: [Our allies] need more modern air defense weapons, accurate 'standoff' weapons, mine detectors, radio communications equipment and field hospitals staffed by trained medical personnel. Training: Military training is needed to enhance the effectiveness [], conserve ammunition and improve operational planning. [...] Improving organizational abilities: [G]roups should be encouraged to organize and mobilize the people of the areas where they are strongest.
So is it a good idea to give a bunch of money and arms to Pakistani tribal groups in the mountains of Waziristan? The above statements won't help you decide, since they were all about giving a bunch of money and arms to resistance fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That would be President Reagan at the top; the Democratic warnings come from Les Gelb. Irritatingly, Heritage is still Heritage and Krauthammer is very much still Krauthammer. This debate played out over twenty years ago.
Heritage, Krauthammer, and the rest carried the day, of course, funding a resistance made up of militant religious fundamentalists who we decided to take onto our side for the War on Terror Cold War. One of the people for whom the Heritage analyst recommended more modern weapons, training, and improved organizational abilities was, of course, Osama bin Laden (who is, it's worth noting, as alive and well after killing thousands of Americans as he was 20 years ago when conservatives were all for funding and armies his ideological compatriots because they were the enemy of our enemy).
I'm no isolationist. I like foreign policy, and I like foreign engagement. But when I read that "A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy," I want to light myself on fire. Haven't we seen this movie before? I mean, it's even some of the same actors (literally!). And it's not even like we're talking about the Pakistani army -- these are tribal groups. Are they even friendlies? NYT says, "The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for some. NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents mounting cross-border attacks."
Well, then. Emulating a policy that helped create the most significant global terrorist group currently in operation seems like a bad idea to me, but I'm just a stoopid blogger. Still, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that blowback might be a slight possibility.
[Note: The above quotes are behind the Times pay wall (research is expensive!) but the original articles are here, here, and here.]
Bhutto is under house arrest -- again. She upped the ante against Musharraf today saying he needs to quit:
"It is time for him to go. He must quit as president," Bhutto, who has for months held power-sharing negotiations with Musharraf, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
Oh, and according to the Washington Post's front page, that whole thing about Musharraf needing emergency powers to crack down on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That's not happening:
President Pervez Musharraf's army did not have any more control than it did when the military-led government imposed emergency rule nine days ago. In some areas, it had less.
Good to know George Bush and his crack foreign policy team are on top of this one.
