Redstate

Semi-secular dictatorships throughout the Middle East sometimes are embraced for the very reasons you set forth. The Palestinian police state that was supplanted by HAMAS, for example, didn't have to worry nearly as much about whether the United States would provide it material and political support.

National interest requires such nuance. Public relations perhaps requires hypocritical doublespeak. If the Musharraf regime falls to a popular Islamist movement tonight, the same Administration officials who have encouraged "restraint" will break into a cold sweat as they well should.

The question here is larger than whether Islam and democracy are incompatible. No, the immediate question is much more provocative: do we really want Muslim-majority nations to have democratic processes that could present a clear and present danger to the United States? Of course we don't. But how we package that denial is more important than our candor about it. As you point out, the lunatic jihadist fringes always seem poised to pounce at any opening.

So, yes, we are in a pickle.

There are some countries that just simply aren't ready for democracy yet. Iraq was one of them up to last year or so; Pakistan is one currently. Even more important than democracy is basic law and order and control over the country's territorial boundaries, both of which have been threatened in Pakistan for a while now. I had thought that in the long run, Pakistan would be more problematic than Iraq, Iran, or Syria, I just didn't expect things there to start coming to a head this quickly.

The consequences of a nuclear-armed country devolving into anarchy is too great to take any chances.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Nuclear weapons constrain us. They always have, and they always will. During the Cold War, the Soviets' nuclear arsenal constrained us quite a bit. Since then, we've been less constrained, but in a case like Pakistan, we still have to be aware of the dangers.

Of course in this case, it's not of a third party nuking us for intervening, but rather because if we intervene, and there's any slip up at all (which there always is in war), then terrorists get nukes and millions die. Perhaps tens of millions if nuclear retalition is involved.

To me, the embarassment of our policy in that greater region, the anomaly, isn't Pakistan. It's the "Palestinian Authority." Our trend has been to pick the weakest rogue states, the ones that were the most practical to take down and end as threats. So we did Afghanistan and Iraq, not Iran or North Korea. But the PA is weaker than ANY of those, and what do we do? Give them money. It's sickening.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

This current situation is no doubt a blow to the expansion of democracy and any response we take will undermine American credibility in someones eyes. But the time comes for realpolitik. We must support Musharraf because the alternative is much worse- Radical Islamists with nuclear weapons at their disposal. What Musharraf is doing is reprehensible, but the creation of an Islamic state, hostile to America, that has posession of nuclear warheads is simply unacceptable to us.

SIPAH-E-SAHABA: FOMENTING SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IN PAKISTAN
TERRORISM MONITOR (Jamestown Foundation)
Volume 3, Issue 2 (January 27, 2005)

Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (Corp of the Prophet's Companions), a militant Islamist organization and the largest sectarian outfit in the country, was outlawed by President Pervez Musharraf on January 12, 2002 for its alleged involvement in terrorist related activities.

...It is widely believed that the SSP has received considerable financial and logistical assistance from Saudi intelligence. The Pakistani authorities are well aware of these connections but turn a blind eye to them, not least because the Pakistani state maintains historical ties with the House of Saud. A report in the mid 1990's disclosed that the Saudi government had consistently backed the Deobandi school of thought in Pakistan (which has many similarities to the Wahhabi version of Islam), especially after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. The report also claimed that the United States and some other western countries supported the SSP to counter the growing Shi'a and Iranian influence in the region.

The SSP exercises considerable influence on various political parties, in particular the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and the Jamaat-Ulema-e-Islam (JuI), which tried to negotiate Osama bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the 9/11 attacks. Moreover the SSP is believed to have strong operational ties with other Deobandi/Wahhabi organizations in Pakistan and also with some international outfits.

I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com

Pakistan is a real problem. Musharraf is better than the alternatives, and there is a real threat that Pakistan could end up as a failed state. I thus favor the current Administration policy (condemn the takeover but continue to give aid) as the best of a series of bad options, but remain open to alternatives.

Mr. Cella is not proposing a better alternative, however. Nor are Mr. Cella's factual claims supported -- there is not a single link in his piece supporting his view that the typical Pakistani voter is unready for democracy or would seek to elect an extremist government. The evidence is, in fact, to the contrary.

Recent polling in Pakistan is available here (PDF): http://www.iri.org/mena/pakistan/pdfs/2007-10-11-pakistan-SR.pdf). The sample size is relatively large, at more than 4,000. As you can see for yourself, the polling reflects deep and growing dissatisfaction with Musharraf, strong support for elections, as well as some (troubling) support for a long-term restoration of Sharia law. By implication, of course, this means that Paul errs when he asserts, as a "Meanwhile the rule of law is simply sharia, in other words, a particularly rigid form of theocracy." But it needs to be noted that, although Paul's claim is inaccurate, a substantial portion of the population would like aspects of Sharia law to supplant, in part if not whole, the current secular law.

Paul's primary claim, however, is the following -- and it too is in error. Paul writes: "Consider the question: should it even be our long-term policy to open a place like Pakistan to the wild winds of popular opinion, in other words, to push it toward democracy? The country is not, in fact, teeming with responsible liberals and democrats. There are some of these brave and heroic souls, yes; but what Pakistan really teems with is various lunatic factions of the Jihad. Factions that are a heartbeat or two away from a nuclear arsenal."

This is a factual claim that can be tested. And it has, in fact, been tested. On page 49 of the PDF are the current tracking numbers for the factions that make up Pakistan's democracy. MMA, the Islamic coalition, has been polling at 5% for the last year. It is far outweighed by the secular parties, including Bhutto's (polling at 28%), Musharraf's coalition (combined, about the same), and Nawaz Sharif's (the conservative candidate, who is currently in the lead).

There is a great danger that Islamist forces will destabilize Pakistan -- and remotely likely that an Islamist force would gain control by coup, for instance, with the assistance of an disgruntled general or spy. There is absolutely no basis in the evidence to claim, as Paul does, that they would gain control by an election held today -- or tomorrow, or a year ago, or years before that. (Recall that Pakistan was a democracy for some time, and that the reason why it is no longer has to do with high-level corruption among the Bhutto and Sharif, not primarily religious tension.*)

There are many reasons to have concern regarding democracy promotion around the world, and Paul's suggestion that we be careful what we wish for is sound as a general principle. Paul's specific factual claims, however, are false.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has more, whom I cite because these basic facts (such as the above) are not partisan: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/11/islamic-extremi.ht.... (Hilzoy is, of course, to the left.) We can draw different conclusions from the facts, of course.

*Admittedly Sharif annoyed many when he canceled Friday holidays, which were religious observances. But I'm

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

DISMEMBERMENT OF PAKISTAN

Few days back I read somewhere a remark, which was supposed to be sarcastic, that by declaring State of Emergency in Pakistan, what GENERAL Parvez Musharraf has done is pulled off a coup against PRESIDENT Parvez Musharraf.
What Parvez Musharraf has done is most probably the result of very in-depth thinking and I believe that he had the following in mind.
• Parallel to the success of Public Private Partnership in Commerce and Industry, he is initiating a Military / Political Partnership in the Governance of Pakistan. Due to his exposure to Turkish culture in the formative years of his life, Parvez Musharraf is a great admirer of Turkish system.
• His first public address after the imposition of Emergency was in Civilian Clothes which is his Political face.
• His imposition of the Emergency is in his capacity of General Parvez Musharraf, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Pakistan. This is a message saying that according to him the next in line of succession is General Kiyani representing the Army, and not Shaukat Aziz representing the Political setup.
• Parvez Musharraf is also saying that from now onwards the Presidents shall be from the Armed Forces and the Prime Minister from Civil Society.
• He is also seeking extension in his tenure for the specific purpose of incorporating the Military / Political Partnership concept in the Constitution of Pakistan.
• Although apparently it seems that he wishes to stay for five more years for personal reasons, I believe that he would stay only as long as it takes to formalize and institutionalize the above concept.
• I am also very sure that Parvez Musharraf has very valid reasons for not making the above public.
As regards the assumption of absolute powers, it has to be looked at in the following context.
SWAT REGION
• Taliban have taken over police stations in Matta, Khawazkhela and Charbagh and have replaced the Pakistan’s flag with their own after more than 120 soldiers surrendered.
• Taliban leader Maulvi Fazlullah is moving around half of the Swat area like a ruler with full protocol. He has appointed his own ‘Governors’ in Kabal, Matta and Khawazkhela. He has also ordered setting up of Islamic courts for providing justice in areas under his control.
• The Saidu Sharif airport is closed, though it is still under government control but Taliban have surrounded it from two sides.
• For all intent and purposes Swat region is practically out of Government control.
BALUCHISTAN
• Quetta – this is from where much of the Taliban insurgency is being directed. Because it’s close to the Afghan border, it is a launching point for cross-border attacks. Afghan intelligence believes Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader, is here.
• South Waziristan – Intelligence analysts call South Waziristan the new headquarters for Al-Qaeda’s global operations. Pakistani military operations have been focused here because terror plots and assassination attempts on President Musharraf have been traced to this area. The Taliban have killed more than a hundred tribal elders (ideological cleansing) in this area because they were suspected of cooperating with Americans or the Pakistan Government.
• Shikai Valley – Home to the charismatic Taliban leader Nek Mohammad, this area has seen some of the fiercest fighting between Militants and Pakistani soldiers, as well as the brokering of a 2004 peace deal. Nek Mohammad and several pro-government tribal elders who had brokered the deal were killed in the following months.
• North Waziristan – Pakistani soldiers stationed here have faced nightly attacks from the Taliban. North Waziristan is also the base of Jalaluddin Haqqani, an architect of Taliban attacks in Southern Afghanistan.
BAJAUR AGENCY
• This area is believed to be a new base for Al-Qaeda and the most likely location for Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri, but the Pakistan Army has almost no troops deployed here. Damadola village was the site of a January 2006 U.S. missile strike targeting Zawahiri. He escaped, but 18 people were killed, including four Al-Qaeda operatives. Zawahiri appeared in a video two weeks later, taunting, “Bush, do you want to know where I am?”.
MIRAM SHAH
• In the summer of 2006 the Taliban took over this city, and held it for three days. Pakistani officials say hundreds of Al-Qaeda militants are also harbored here.
PESHAWAR
• Peshawar was the birthplace of Al-Qaeda in the 1980s and today it is a new base of operations for the Taliban.

Would it mean that Pakistan should say goodbye to its Western Border provinces sitting on the Durand Line. What implications it would have on the National boundaries of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Would it mean the creation of a new Al-Qaeda / Taliban controlled State which Al-Qaeda has been aspiring for a long time, the objective being to make it the launching pad of their International operations.
This would also mean that we have comeback to square one and Iraq and Afghan Wars were a waste of precious life.
In the event Pakistan is split into two parts, what would happen to Punjab and Sind. Would they not become the target of separatists.
The Media is full of advice to the United States in particular and to the West in general.
I believe the question before President Bush is as to whether he wants to handover the management of Pakistan to Benazir or to let it rest with Armed Forces of Pakistan.
If U.S.A after due arm twisting, forces Benazir into Power, since she has no love lost between the Army and herself, both of them would be in conflict with each other.
Who would then, on behalf of President Bush fight the battle to eradicate Al-Qaeda and Taliban from this region.
Is truncated Pakistan serves the interests of United States.
Pakistan is at the moment successfully blocking the infiltration of Al-Qaeda and Taliban into India. The cross border movement within Kashmir is of no International consequence.
The creation of a separate Al-Qaeda / Taliban State would create an opportunity to make India the next Target. Because of eternal animosity between Pakistan and India, Pakistan, like the Sikh movement would gladly provide such passage through their territory.
India has a very large Muslim population which is at the moment being marginalized and therefore would be a easy target for radicalization.
India would be so heavily engaged in internal disorder, it would have a very serious and adverse affect on the Balance of Power between China and India on which President Bush has based his South Asian Foreign Policy.
This Radical Islamic State would be sitting at a stone’s throw from oil rich Gulf States and practically on top of the oil shipping lanes. Osama Bin Laden is a fierce enemy of Saudi Royal Family and of the American influence on them.
What a sad situation that could turn out to be.

There is no shortage of differences between Islamic Fundamentalist organizations. They belong to different beliefs, they hail from different populations and societies, and they have different aims and different names. However, they find common ground in their strategy of muqawama, the Arabic term for “resistance.”
The notion of Islamic resistance draws from the perception that Islam and its values are under severe attack. It therefore aspires to be a world wide religious struggle for ensuring the supremacy of Allah and his believers.
These organizations therefore go for territorial control on their respective areas of influence.
In the context of Pakistan we see an infusion of Al-Qaeda and Taliban with a major similarity of being Sunni. Al-Qaeda is anti Saudi establishment and Taliban is against the Pakistan Government. However Pakistan initially being a Taliban territory, Al-Qaeda has been hosted by them with a seemingly common objective of defeating Pakistani Security Forces.
In Pakistan we were having these problems with Taliban/ Al-Qaeda in Baluchistan area for a long time. We all know its background, its history and who controls what in that area geographically.
It is a very popular question these days being asked by every Pakistani as to why President Musharraf declared Emergency in the country and why now.
We were told that the crisis was provoked by the growing strength of the extremists. It was their new offensive in Swat valley which was especially troubling to the Government of Pakistan because it marks the first time the Governments authority has been challenged in the North West Frontier Province out side the ungovernable tribal areas.
What these Fundamentalists forces want is a territory from where they can operate at the global level (Already most of the bombers in Europe are trained in Waziristan).
The Militia of Fazllulah, the warlord of Swat, has defeated the paramilitary forces sent in to “bring peace to the people of the valley” effectively passing on the control of the area to the Taliban-Al-Qaeda.
In the Swat region one added complication is the Durand Line, the International border between Pakistan and Afghanistan which is from time to time being challenged by the Afghan Government.
Taliban / Al-Qaeda now have a credible sanctuary among Fellow-Pushtoon tribesman which can be found on both sides of the border. The commonality and the ethnic dimensions of the Pushtoon area increase their resistance to International Forces operating in Afghanistan as well as to the Pakistani Security Forces.
Taken together, these trends point to Pakistan’s dangerous loss of territorial control over its tribal frontiers to the West.
For the first time since Independence, Pakistan faces an existential threat to its security from its western borders rather than the eastern frontier with India.
If the Pakistani army fails to regain control over its western borderlands, the entire subcontinent will pay for a region-wide surge of religious extremism and terrorism.
Hence the declaration of the Emergency now.