Arguably the greatest threat facing the West in the near term is the situation in Pakistan. For several years Pervez Musharaf has been balancing the competing demands of Islamic extremists, both within and without his government and military, with pro-Democracy forces; failure by Musharaf risks chaos and the move of Pakistan from a reasonably, if ambivalent, rational actor and ally in the war on terror toward an extremist Islamic state. Since Pakistan already possesses as many as 50 nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them via missile or terrorist, this is a rather alarming prospect. Last weekend Musharaf introduced martial law and suspended the Constitution. The proximate causes of the emergency declaration are two-fold. The Supreme Court, acting in accord with what seems to be the prevailing wisdom among Western trained and influenced legal absolutists that the form of the law should trump reason and reality, attempted to circumvent Musharaf's election for another term as President, which incurred his objections; further, the courts were reportedly making an already difficult struggle with Islamists, in the Northwest of the country as well as in the major cities, more problematic. The United States has been placed in a difficult position by Musharaf's behavior. Following a time tested pattern, Musharaf takes an increasingly authoritarian position and then claims only he stands between stability and chaos; since chaos implies a very good likelihood of nuclear technology finding its way into the hands of those most inimical to America and our allies, this is a powerful argument.
As with so many issues in the last several years, our response to the recent developments in Pakistan have evoked some partisan responses.
Joe Biden is widely considered (at least by himself and the MSM) one of the leading lights of the Democratic party when it comes to foreign affairs, and his article suggesting A New Approach to Pakistan is in keeping with his typical wisdom. Note that as with most Biden pronouncements, the self-referential first person point of view is inescapable:
I’ve been saying for some time that Pakistan is the most complex country we deal with – and that a crisis was just waiting to happen. On Saturday night, it did.
President Musharraf staged a coup against his own government. He suspended the constitution, imposed de-facto martial law, postponed elections indefinitely, and arrested hundreds of lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists. He took these steps the day after Secretary Rice and the commander of all American forces in the region appealed to Musharraf not to take them.
America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis – and in the path Pakistan follows in the months and years to come. Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah’s opponents did in Iran three decades ago. [Emphasis mien-SW]
Biden's prescriptions follow from his assessment of the moderate nature of Pakistan's Muslims:
... I believe we need to do three things:
First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis.
Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed.
And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.
I actually have no idea what Biden means by any of these three points, but that is not the key factor here since his proposals, whatever they actually would entail, depend completely on his assessment being correct, ie that Pakistan truly has a moderate majority who seek democracy. I wonder what he bases this on beyond wishful thinking.
I have written several times about the question of Moderate Muslims. I have no doubt there is a sizable majority of Muslims who remain isolated and insular and give little thought to America and the West. Most would be quite happy to leave us alone. Yet at the same time there is evidence that Muslims increasingly feel under assault by the West. This can be attributed to several factors, not least the constant repetition of the meme by the MSM. However, an even more powerful cause of the quasi-paranoid state of the Muslim world reflects the collision between modernity and fundamentalist Islam, a political culture that may have worked well in the 12th century but is spectacularly incompatible with the modern world. Islam is actually under assault by the modern world, and the West is the vector which transmits the infection of modernity; as a result of modern communications and interconnectivity, Islam's failings can no longer be ignored or avoided and it is this more than anything else that has fueled the anti-Western animus from the world of Islam.
Which brings up the question of the Moderate Muslim and whether or not the term can be considered operationally valid. Jeffrey Imm at the Counterterrorism blog reports on some recent data from Pakistan which raises questions:
Pakistan Polls and Growing Support for Islamism
Two recent polls of Pakistanis show that between 60 and 76 percent of those polled seek the growth of Sharia throughout Pakistan, which is a key principle in political Islamism. The enforcement of Sharia throughout Pakistan is the stated goal of the Taliban in Pakistan.
The Islamist aspects of these poll findings are not news headlines because America lacks a policy and a coherent position on Islamism. However, these polls are not only informative to American taxpayers funding the Pakistan efforts in the "war on terror", but also should be a red flag to American policy makers regarding its long-term relationship with Pakistan as well as the underlying ideological disconnects between U.S. policy and Pakistani public opinion.
In the most recent World Public Opinion poll of Pakistanis, it was found that 60 percent of Pakistanis believe that "Sharia should play a larger role in Pakistan law" than it does now. Per this recent World Public Opinion poll, only 26 percent say Sharia should play the same role (15 percent) or a smaller role (11 percent) and 15 percent do not answer.
Jeffrey Imm gets to the heart of the problem:
If America seeks to fight Jihad, which is very different than simply fighting undefined "terrorism", America must develop a policy on political Islamism to measure the validity of any nation as an "ally" when it comes to its willingness to fight Jihad. We have a dual problem: (1) America's current leadership is ambivalent on a policy regarding political Islamism in its own nation, and (2) America's current leadership is willing to ignore Islamist views of the people or governments of so-called "ally" nations in a "war on terror".
When a majority of Muslim support Sharia as a religious/political basis for law and governance, the question of a moderate majority becomes acute. We must either define moderate downward until it is a meaningless adjective (ie, any Muslim who does not actively seek to kill us is a moderate) or we must recognize that a population that supports such quaint measures as death for apostasy and the second class status for woman and non-Muslims can not be considered moderate by any reasonable measure.
The Bush administration and much of the West have resisted calling Sharia an extremist ideology. Yet Sharia is incompatible with freedom and incompatible with any concept of human rights beyond those that require brutal contortions on the part of our language. Thus far, this diffidence could be considered a reasonable approach made in an effort to avoid the regression to Manichean distinctions sought by al Qaeda and other Islamists, yet if the confusion over terminology (and thinking) exemplified by Joe Biden causes us to support an illusion of democracy in the service of Islamist extremism (consider Iran, 1979) the war on Islamic fascism will soon take an extremely troubling turn.
Addendum: Soccer Dad takes a close look at Charles Krauthammer's article on Pakistan today, (which attempts to find reasons for optimism in the recent past) and notes the key question that no one seems eager to address:
Still Musharraf has gone ahead and placed Bhutto under house arrest, it's reasonable to conclude that he will not willingly cede power in February. That makes the status quo that much less palatable.
On the other hand what's worse? Pakistan ruled by an authoritarian Musharraf or by a theocratic, terrorist Taliban? If forcing Musharraf out without making sure the country is strong enough, the world could face the second choice, which is much less desirable. The possibility that the Taliban could run Pakistan is going to effect the leverage the United States has.
Recent Comments