Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- Apocalypse Fairly Soon: The Moment of Truth in Europe
- NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- Associated Press Calls Out Romney's Lies in 'Prairie Fire' Speech
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pakistan Turns Scary for Bush's War on Terror
The unraveling of Pervez Musharraf's presidency has dealt a severe blow to Bush's fatally flawed policy in the region.
The party that slavishly supported Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf went down to a humiliating defeat in Monday's election, and took the failing fortunes of the Bush administration to a new nadir. Musharraf's main political rivals, the Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan Muslim League 1-N, together gained a solid majority of seats. Amid a chorus of calls for Musharraf to step down, the two major victors are scheduled to begin talks Thursday on forming a new government. Although George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have built their war on terrorism on a close alliance with Musharraf, that entire hollow pillar of Bush administration policy has been dealt a severe, perhaps fatal, blow.
The new civilian Pakistani government on the verge of forming may be far less amenable to the hard-line, militaristic policies of the Bush-Cheney war on terror. That remains to be seen. But what is clear is that the administration's coddling of Musharraf -- lavishing him with billions of dollars in aid while turning a blind eye to his egregious assault on nascent Pakistani democracy -- has achieved precious little in the way of U.S. national security goals. Vietnam-style search-and-destroy missions, whether carried out at U.S. insistence by the Pakistani military in that country's northwest frontier, or by U.S. troops across the border in Afghanistan, appear only to have grown a new militant Taliban movement on both sides of the border. In the midst of this fundamentalist resurgence in the Pushtun tribal areas, Osama bin Laden remains at large.
The full dimensions of the election catastrophe for Musharraf were clear by Tuesday afternoon. With almost all the results in, Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League 1-Q, or "king's party," had only 14 percent of the 272 seats in the National Assembly, or lower house of Parliament, for which the public votes directly. The party chairman and former prime minister, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, could not even get elected to Parliament, nor could some of Musharraf's Cabinet ministers. The party, now a small minority, admitted that it will have to sit in the opposition as its rivals form a government.
Musharraf's approval rating in polls spiraled down to 15 percent recently, having been in free fall during the past year as he made a series of severe political miscalculations. Chief among them was his conflict with the chief justice of the supreme court, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, whom he sacked. Some 70 percent of Pakistanis say Musharraf should step down.
Ironically, Musharraf, who came to power in a 1999 military coup, had presided over six years of strong economic growth, adding millions to the urban middle classes. Armed with access to international cable news and feisty new local channels, and wielding some 60 million cellphones, the new middle class vigorously protested the dictator's assault on the rule of law. Last June, Chaudhry addressed a rally of some 50,000 protesters who braved the wrath of the ruling military. Musharraf was forced to reinstate him in July, but then in early November dismissed the entire court and replaced it with his toadies when it became clear the justices would contest his election, while he was still a serving general, to the post of civilian president.
Musharraf's struggle with the judiciary was only one of his missteps. He was also heavy-handed in having his military assault a cultlike group holed up at the Red Mosque seminary in the capital of Islamabad, with much loss of life. The general Pakistani public showed no sympathy with these Pakistani Taliban, who had begun terrorizing video-shop owners and had kidnapped Chinese acupuncturists, accusing them of prostitution. Nevertheless, the images of the attack on the mosque reminded the public of Musharraf's iron fist, which he had earlier been careful to hide behind the velvet glove of political reform and the struggle against corruption and terrorism. Militants in Pakistan's northwest frontier responded violently to the crushing of the Red Mosque movement, unleashing a wave of suicide bombings and attacks on police checkpoints -- suggesting that Musharraf was unable to provide security.
With both the supreme court and the Red Mosque scandals raising questions about his judgment and increasing arrogance, Musharraf faced strong pressure from the Bush administration and from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to find a way of shoring up his government's legitimacy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was reported by the New York Times to have developed the idea of having Musharraf resign from the military and become a civilian president, and of having former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto return to contest parliamentary elections.
Rice apparently hoped that a political cohabitation of Musharraf with Bhutto would restore stability to the country, viewed by Washington as a crucial bulwark against the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida based along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Washington hoped that Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, among the longest-established grassroots parties in the country, would be willing to cooperate with the PMLQ, loyalists to Musharraf, in a sort of national unity government.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia -- an oil-rich country that nonetheless needs Sunni Pakistan for military defense, for guest workers and for support against Shiite Iran -- sent back to Pakistan former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf had overthrown in the 1999 coup, and who had been in exile in the Saudi kingdom. In November, Sharif explored an alliance with Bhutto and demanded that the supreme court be reinstated. Saudi Arabia may have been afraid of an unadulterated Bhutto prime ministership, which would support left-of-center secular policies that were anathema to the religious leaders in Riyadh. Sharif and his PMLN, which leaned right of center and were more sympathetic to political Islam, might halt a slide of the Pakistani public toward secular liberalism.
But the Rice plan had already begun to unravel. Bhutto was reluctant to cohabit politically with Musharraf once he had high-handedly replaced the entire supreme court and so violated the rule of law. Then, on Dec. 27, calamity struck when the Bhutto was assassinated. In the aftermath, the PPP stronghold of Sindh Province in the south erupted in an orgy of anti-government violence, with government buildings and banks attacked and rails torn up. Polling showed that 60 percent of Pakistanis blamed Musharraf for Bhutto's death. Musharraf toyed with the idea of canceling the elections -- but backed off under severe pressure from the Bush administration, which was horrified by the thought that he might end up another shah of Iran (overthrown in Khomeini's 1979 revolution).
The campaign season leading up to the Feb. 18 elections was marred by several bombings and sporadic violence. Benazir Bhutto was succeeded as party head in theory by her young son, in college abroad, but in practice by her widower, Asaf Ali Zardari. Zardari, who gained a reputation for corruption in the 1990s, was too unsympathetic a figure to capture a sympathy vote of any significance for the PPP, and it was mainly the Sindhi ethnic group that remained loyal to the party, along with a few districts in Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province. Only 45 percent of the electorate came out to vote, a slightly higher proportion than the past two elections. As of late Tuesday, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn was reporting that the Pakistan People's Party had gained 88 seats of the 272 in contention, only a slight gain over its 2002 performance, when it won 81.
There are three big changes in the shape of Parliament in this election. First, the PMLQ, Musharraf's supporters, dropped from 117 seats to as few as 38. Second, the rival branch of the Muslim League, loyal to Nawaz Sharif, increased its proportion of seats from 7 percent to nearly a quarter. The PMLN also emerged as the biggest party in Punjab Province, giving it a key position in Pakistan's most populous and powerful region.
Third, the coalition of fundamentalist religious parties, the United Action Council (the Urdu acronym is MMA), fell apart because its largest component, the Jama'at-i Islami, refused to participate in the elections unless the supreme court was reinstated and a rule of law restored. Only a much smaller faction ran, gaining only five seats. In 2002, the MMA had been a major force in Parliament, with 17 percent of the seats. The fundamentalists not only lost their position in the federal Parliament, but also lost control of the North-West Frontier Province, where the Pathans, or Pushtun ethnic group, turned against their hard-line religious policies and migrated instead to a secular nationalist party, the Awami National Party, which champions Pushtun rights.
Nawaz Sharif is now in a prime position to ally with the PPP against his old nemesis, Musharraf, and to push for the reinstatement of the supreme court and ultimately for Musharraf's ouster. That outcome would be sweet revenge for Sharif, whom Musharraf overthrew and accused of attempted murder. (Sharif had denied Musharraf's plane, which was running out of fuel, permission to land in Karachi in the course of the general's attempted coup. Local military units rebelled and took control of the airport, averting a crash and allowing Musharraf to come to power.) Musharraf is also a target for Benazir's widower, Zardari, who clearly blames the president for his wife's assassination.
It's possible that the new civilian Pakistani government about to be formed will foster a more stable country, which is ultimately in the interest of Pakistan and of the United States. Meanwhile, President Bush the Wilsonian, who said he wanted to spread democracy across the Muslim world, and President Bush the militarist, who favored invasions and occupations, have been at war with each other for some time now. In Pakistan, the spreading of democracy -- regardless of whether the outcome is in line with U.S. expectations -- may be the only path left for the Bush administration now.
Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His most recent book is Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). He has appeared widely on television, radio and on op-ed pages as a commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has authored 60 journal articles. His weblog on the contemporary Middle East is Informed Comment.
Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

20 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps Perverse Musharraf has a NSPD 51 in his back pocket.
Well, if Pakistan pushes Musharraf out of power and we soon need to deal with a new guy there, who in America is that new guy hoping to find here? A Bush-clone on foreign affairs in the person of John McCain? Is this a place where having a less "experienced" new president would be advantageous to us?
There is a misprint in that headline.
It should read, "Bush's War OF Terror"
The big mystery is now this: will Musharraf accept a fellowship position at AEI, an executive position with the Carlyle Group, or a guest professor spot at GW?
Either or, he'll always be welcomed at the eagerly awaited George W. Bush Freedom Institute.
My vote goes for AEI. Just look how he treated non-proliferation.
>Is this a place where having a less "experienced" new president would be advantageous to us?<
It's not a matter of experience. It's a matter of a new paradigm, of recognizing that the U.S. can no longer afford its vast military empire in the face of changing world economic circumstances. Wasteful use of natural resources, debt-inducing mass consumption and the bankrupting of the U.S. Treasury to keep large numbers of military bases operating around the world are no longer tenable. I don't know where Obama stands on this new reality, but the fact that he's even broaching the idea of change would seem to me to provide an opening for an honest discussion of the matter, as opposed to McCain's "1000 year war" or Clinton's insistence that she too can be tough on national security. Anyhow, regardless of who wins, events will continue to take their course, with diminishing U.S. influence abroad and economic meltdown here at home. Whatever the neocons say, the empire is over.
Great article, as always from Juan Cole.
While I know that it is popular and convenient, as with Iraq, to blame it all on Bush, have the Democrats in Congress ever even suggested a different strategy in Pakistan? Did any of them ever suggest that coddling a military dictator might not be the best path to freedom and democracy?
And didn't Congress, including the current Democratically-controlled one, have to actually approve and appropriate the $11 billion of mostly military aid that we have sent Musharraf since 2001? Does anyone know the answer to that?
Since when was our country about spreading freedom and democracy. Our history of the last 50 years, democrats and republicans alike, has been about installing and supporting dictators of one form or another, so long as they would be willing to act in our national (corporate) interests. Pakistan has nukes, and democracies are unstable and lead to tyranny (look at ours), so no way we want Democracy in Pakistan.
Mush is our man in Pakistan, democracy or not. And keep an eye out for Turkey. Turkey, despite being a close friend of Israel in the past has been giving Israel a hard time of it over Gaza, and Israel is not too happy about it. The AKP crypto-Islamist party is in power and making efforts to change the constitution. Turkeys government and military are officially a secular government, and the military has a history of intervening to maintain this and prevent Islamism from taking roots. Israel might like to see a Bhutto style assasination and a Musharaff like military coup.
Mukasey recently warned Turkey during his visit of an AQ presence in Turkey (right) who could be blamed if anything happened (like they would assasinate an Islamist leaning government leader and pave the way for a rigidly secular military takeover), and Cheney is headed to Turkey for an important high level meeting soon. WTF Mukasey was doing in Turkey is beyond me, getting tips on waterboarding, or giving them? Mukasey is a Zionist lackey, so something smells, and you can be sure the MSCM will not keep you informed.
Both Democrats and Republicans have generously 'aided' Pakistan over the years regardless of who has been in charge. As usual it is the Military Industrial Complex who persuades our elected officials to give aid (always in the form of weapons and ammunition) to whomever is in charge using the standard excuse of 'The War on Terror' to justify the expense. This is in spite of the fact that not only Musharraf, but all of his successors have asked for anything BUT military aid only to be told that America can't help out in that way.
A real leader would discuss non-military aid with Pakistan while refusing to arm various nutbars in the region (like the Taliban when they were our ally against the Russians) in return for promises by China, Russia, Europe and Israel to follow suit. Instead though we can expect McCain, Hillary or Obama to pretty much guarantee the status quo.
Perhaps Perverse Musharraf has a NSPD 51 in his back pocket.
- no he has a US green card.
If Rice, Bush and Cheney played poker the way they play politics, they'd get their "clocks cleaned" in no time at all! ILMAO
What do you think Bush thinks when he looks in the mirror?
Does he still look in the mirror?
DiabloRojo February 21st, 2008 6:25 am - Quote: If Rice, Bush and Cheney played poker the way they play politics, they'd get their "clocks cleaned" in no time at all! ILMAO
You mean WE'LL get our clocks cleaned!!!
The great Pak electorate has come up trumping Bush's aggression vs. Afghanis & Iraqis & Busharraf's bombing Pakistanis & put paid to miltary dictatorship in favour of the rule of law. How about that?
The demise of Musharraf, another staunch ally in our global war on terror, another heck of a job GWB!!! W's midas touch strikes again. 01/20/09, end of an error.
>Is this a place where having a less "experienced" new president would be advantageous to us?<
Lord Trigo, this is DD-speak for 'elect Obama'
Fortunately I am fluent and can translate for you.
More of the same - Clinton or McCain. More weapons and bombs, maybe a fresh new way of doing things, new cabinet members, sound backgrounds, Bill Moyers and Morris Dees types. It's quite possible, the rest of the world is weary if not wary of the US, no more religous types, no more 100 yrs of occupation, no more retreads to rewards those who voted in favor of war and funding; unlike the GOP voters, DEMs will hold our elected leaders to a higher standard. Pelosi and Reid, spine up and end this war with or without DEM president.
>>Pakistan Turns Scary for Bush's War on Terror<<
War on terror and democracy are empty slogans expressed by Bush. Democracy has been reduced to rigged voting and capitalism. His way of democracy has no resemblance of law and order, freedom, justice, or individual rights. In fact, the US government has contracted with business to spy on citizens...(INFRAGARD). If that's not a police state, I don't know what is.
When free and fair election are conducted, e.g.[Iran,Lebanon, palestine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Haiti...]the Bush administration try to overthrow them or shuts off all aide, or impose sanctions and refuse to speak to them.
Bush, as well as previous US Presidents, certainly doesn't want democracy; he want puppets who will be agents for the USA instead agents for their people.
sakhan said "The great Pak electorate has come up trumping Bush's aggression vs. Afghanis & Iraqis & Busharraf's bombing Pakistanis & put paid to miltary dictatorship in favour of the rule of law. How about that?"
If only we could do the same!