Pakistani Military To End Musharraf's Rule?
Analysts have begun warning that Pervez Musharraf may not remain in power much longer, and that the American effort against Islamist terror groups may suffer as a result. The Pakistani strongman looks decidedly less strong at this point, and some question whether the Pakistani Army remains loyal at the moment, let alone in the future:
As a political crisis boils in Pakistan, American analysts both inside and outside the government are expressing new doubts that President Musharraf will be able to hold onto power through the summer.Over the past month, the military regime in Islamabad has faced a rising threat of violent jihadis in its capital, as well as the struggle between the president and the suspended chief justice of the country, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The twin challenges have led some analysts in the American intelligence community to begin questioning whether Pakistan's military, traditionally General Musharraf's most reliable ally, will support the current regime for much longer.
A Musharraf exit could deal a stinging blow to America in the war on terrorism. President Bush has lavished the Pakistani leader with arms sales and low-interest loans while keeping mum on his spotty human rights record. The logic has been that the former general, who himself came to power in a 1999 military coup, had dismantled his pre-September 11, 2001, policy of supporting the Taliban and would be the best possible option for American interests in Pakistan.
But the strongman's grip on power appears to be loosening, with a number of analysts citing as evidence last month's showdown inside Islamabad's Red Mosque, also known as Lal Masjid. On May 22, thousands of Pakistani police amassed on the outskirts of the mosque after a pro-Taliban group took four police officers hostage inside.
The hostage crisis was eventually resolved, but only after General Musharraf tried and failed to launch a military strike on the building.
Word has it that Musharraf's orders got countermanded by Army brass, which did not want to conduct the operation at all. They've made it clear that they do not want to fight the border tribes of Waziristan in the efforts to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The refusal to engage at Lal Masjid -- if it was that -- sends a big message to Musharraf: Get out.
That will be a problem for the US. Pakistan has a natural affiliation with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The nation was founded by Muslim separatists and has usually had sympathies for like-minded groups. Musharraf himself allied with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar before the 9/11 attacks, a very popular position in Pakistan, and only moved away from that alliance under threat of American attack.
A return to that policy under new leadership would be disastrous to the war effort. In the first place, it would leave the Taliban and AQ as a permanent threat to Afghanistan. Much more worrisome, however, is that it leaves at least a theoretical path for terrorists to get nuclear weapons for their efforts. A sympathetic military regime may not have qualms about helping Omar off the floor by giving him weapons that have no real defense, especially if they felt they could hide the provenance of the nukes.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 12, 2007 6:27 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (18)
Posted by Joe Doe | June 12, 2007 7:19 AM
I do not get the surprise element - especially coming from the "analysts" - sooner or later the "nation building" efforts will show the Americans why History is a really important subject. On the other hand, it bring to the front the conventional conflict that at some point will be fought - because it will be started by Islamists United.
The thing that bothers me - why not let the Chinese, Indians, Russian and Europeans feel the pain first - rather than trying to implicitly protect them. In the islamists playbook, the first strike is against the weak(part of the ROP grand strategy). That would be the Europeans. US is just going weak now "building nations" so that the grand Bush family can have a ... legacy of sorts. Still, better than the immigration legacy that the same royals have cooked up - way better, as the nation building is just a waste of resources, while open immigration / amnesty is a one-way road to the top of the cliff.
Posted by Cybrludite![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| June 12, 2007 7:30 AM
I really hope we're keeping close track on where Pakistan's nukes are, and have a reliable means of taking them out should Musharraf find himself suddenly taking a dirt-nap.
Posted by naftali | June 12, 2007 8:28 AM
John Doe: I think there are bigger things on the president's plate than his legacy. This isn't a war about legacy.
On a related note: Strange combination on the left, on the one hand there is this multicultural everyone is more or less equal, combined with this Hollywood John Wayne mindset where any war should be over with in two shakes because we're Americans. I think the history of the last 50 years has shown--it should be that culturally we are Americans, militarily, everyone might be more or less equal, others making up in determination and strategy what they lack in equipment.
Posted by Cousin Dave | June 12, 2007 8:45 AM
So how does India react to this? If an Islamist government takes back over in Pakistan, it almost certainly ramps back up the tensions there. Does India attempt a pre-emptive strike against Islambad (something they were seriously considering prior to 9/11)?
Posted by jmcnulty | June 12, 2007 10:17 AM
If Pakistan wakes up with an Islamic govermnent, you will have Islamists in control of 60 nukes. How easy will it be to slip a few to Al Queda, as long as Pakistan can either (1) deny the provenance of the nukes (they will have plenty of help from liberals here who will demand courtroom proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is probaby impossible or (2) claim that the nukes are from a small, "radical" faction, and anything we do in response will just make the radicals madder. Meanwhile, New York goes up in smoke. "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker? Wait until an American city goes up, There will be media voices wondering "why they hate us" and Alan Colmes will be pleading to "give diplomacy a chance," when our response should be Roman -- that is, if we really want to survive, which is an open question these days.
Posted by jmcnulty | June 12, 2007 10:22 AM
If Pakistan wakes up with an Islamic govermnent, you will have Islamists in control of 60 nukes. How easy will it be to slip a few to Al Queda, as long as Pakistan can either (1) deny the provenance of the nukes (they will have plenty of help from liberals here who will demand courtroom proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is probaby impossible or (2) claim that the nukes are from a small, "radical" faction, and anything we do in response will just make the radicals madder. Meanwhile, New York goes up in smoke. "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker? Wait until an American city goes up, There will be media voices wondering "why they hate us" and Alan Colmes will be pleading to "give diplomacy a chance," when our response should be Roman -- that is, if we really want to survive, which is an open question these days.
Posted by Eg | June 12, 2007 12:14 PM
Let's see...there are conflicts raging to various degree in the Pal Terrortory® of Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Niger, Algeria - the magreb - Kenya, Afghanistan; Pakistan is undergoing Talibanization, Bangladesh is its usual disaster, Thailand; who the hell knows what's going-on(but I can guarantee it ain't good) in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Latin and South American, the 'Stan's'...and this is some 'bumper sticker' War?
Given the very diminutive and dilutive role the Euro's, our Democrat's, the Left and the media have taken downplaying the extent and nature of this War; the level of human directed destruction has even yet to begin its ascent; I dare say, American's are even worse prepared psychologically for War than they were prior to the attack on 9-11.
Boy are we ever in one helluva fix.
Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | June 12, 2007 1:55 PM
A sympathetic military regime may not have qualms about helping Omar off the floor by giving him weapons that have no real defense, especially if they felt they could hide the provenance of the nukes.
Before it ever got to that stage, the Indians would intervene. There's no way they could tolerate an Islamist or Islamist-sympathizing regime in Pakistan that might give terrorists --who strike India as well-- WMDs.
Posted by Nick Byram | June 12, 2007 5:12 PM
If this happens, would it form (and ultimately cement) an Indo-American alliance? Neither country likes the Moon-god Murderers, and both countries worry about Red China.
In the 21st century, a combination of Anglo-American / Judeo-Christian technology and Indian / Hindu manpower might just be what keeps the peace at best, and assures victory at worst.
Posted by lexhamfox | June 12, 2007 6:34 PM
The serious threat to Musharraf is not merely from militant Islamists. Democratic forces are also arrayed against him since the dismissal of a chief justice earlier this year. I don't think his passing would be such a bad thing for the US. Pakistan has limited choices with or without Musharraf.
Posted by The Yell | June 12, 2007 6:40 PM
This should quell the mumbling about setting up a reliable US strongman in Iraq instead of all the bother with democracy.
If Pakistan denies us transit we're out of Afghanistan. Putin won't let us ship troops through his airspace--and NATO will faint with relief. Further, if Pakistan comes to an anti-American understanding, then there's one less barrier to securing its own border with Iran--and with good relations with an actual nuclear power, Iran is free to pressure Arab states to revert the Gulf back to 1985, when we weren't there at all.
Posted by LenS | June 12, 2007 9:24 PM
Personally, I think this will be a good thing in the long run. The current situation will never last. A single sane strongman is not enough to keep a nation of Islamic loonies from going back to an active foreign policy of attacking the West and the Hindus. With their American jets, Pakistan has the capability to nuke India at will. India's air force of old Soviet tech is hopelessly outclassed. The Pakistani military knows this. Eventually, they will attack India in vengeance for the prior lost wars. Musharaff himself came to power riding that need for vengeance. He was just sane enough to realize that 9-11 put Pakistan in the cross hairs of the US.
But one sane strongman will eventually lose power. Better that it happens soon while the Pakistani nuclear force is still primitive and while we have a huge presence in the region ready to destroy that force. Wait too long and it will grow and probably attack once we have another Democratic Jimmy Carter in the White House.
It's a pity that Bush didn't stick to his first instinct that this war was a crusade. In the end, that is what it will be -- a jihad of slavery and repression against a crusade of free will.
Posted by Shaban Malik | June 13, 2007 6:48 AM
Let me say this one thing... We Pakistanis dare you all to try and tell us what to do or attack us.... try and you shall find out what we will do to anyone who tries to invade us or "neutralize" us. This was the main reason why Pakistan got nukes in the first place and all the more reason why all Muslim countries should get nukes... Might is right and we are seeing that in todays world.
Posted by lexhamfox | June 13, 2007 4:38 PM
Shaban, I think many people would understand Pakistan's need to have a nuclear weapon given the nuclear capabilities and relationship it has with some of its neighbors. What many take exception to, and reasonably so, was the proliferation of that technology to many regimes who do not need those weapons and the fact that Pakistan sponsored many paramilitary groups outside of Pakistan. The US never had any intention of attacking Pakistan and never did. Pakistan's proxies in Afghanistan attacked the United States. You seem to suggest that Pakistan has a right to defend itself from attack and I would suggest that the United States has the same right and obligation. As on Sept 12th a few years ago, Pakistan will need to make some decisions about what matters most and what its real security issues are.
Posted by Shaban Malik | June 14, 2007 7:46 AM
Lex
We take exception to the fact that nothing is ever said about the proliferation that was done by the Indians to help Saddam's nuclear program or the fact that Israel is allowed a nuclear arsenal larger and modern than probably any one other than USA and Russia. In fact Israel is the biggest billigerent in the world occupying an entire nation for over 40 years just because of Biblical (historical) reasons...how do we suppose we Americans would feel if the American Indians do the same to us in the next few hundred years...
Wars are planned against Iran's perfectly legal nuclear program just because the US is afraid Iran might get a working nuke whereas there is no evidence to support that.
Pakistan supported only the Afghan mujahideen or the Kashmiri groups (which is perfectly legal in the face of Indian occupation of Kashmir which goes against the grain of the entire principle of partition 1947 -- (Muslims majority areas go to Pakistan). With regards to the Afghan groups, it happened with the backing of the US and the Saudis plus Europe... so it is highly unfair to blame Pakistan for all that went wrong there. If the US had allowed a fair victory in Afghanistan everything would have been okay... the denial of the ultimate victory in Kabul in 1988 prompted the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Pakistan has and still is bearing the brunt of being the tool of American imperialism in this part of the world. If it weren't for Pakistan, the Soviets would not have lost... whatever is shown on the history channel is skewed so most Americans do not know that the reality is that the CIA was not even allowed near the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s... it was only the backoffice management of the entire war... the front was manned by the Pakistanis and the Afghans.... who are never appreciated for their role in ultimate demise of the Soviet Empire... Talk of historical grievances....
Posted by Shaban Malik | June 14, 2007 7:52 AM
Lex
We take exception to the fact that nothing is ever said about the proliferation that was done by the Indians to help Saddam's nuclear program or the fact that Israel is allowed a nuclear arsenal larger and modern than probably any one other than USA and Russia. In fact Israel is the biggest billigerent in the world occupying an entire nation for over 40 years just because of Biblical (historical) reasons...how do we suppose we Americans would feel if the American Indians do the same to us in the next few hundred years...
Wars are planned against Iran's perfectly legal nuclear program just because the US is afraid Iran might get a working nuke whereas there is no evidence to support that.
Pakistan supported only the Afghan mujahideen or the Kashmiri groups (which is perfectly legal in the face of Indian occupation of Kashmir which goes against the grain of the entire principle of partition 1947 -- (Muslims majority areas go to Pakistan). With regards to the Afghan groups, it happened with the backing of the US and the Saudis plus Europe... so it is highly unfair to blame Pakistan for all that went wrong there. If the US had allowed a fair victory in Afghanistan everything would have been okay... the denial of the ultimate victory in Kabul in 1988 prompted the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Pakistan has and still is bearing the brunt of being the tool of American imperialism in this part of the world. If it weren't for Pakistan, the Soviets would not have lost... whatever is shown on the history channel is skewed so most Americans do not know that the reality is that the CIA was not even allowed near the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s... it was only the backoffice management of the entire war... the front was manned by the Pakistanis and the Afghans.... who are never appreciated for their role in ultimate demise of the Soviet Empire... Talk of historical grievances....
Posted by Shaban Malik | June 14, 2007 7:54 AM
Lex
We take exception to the fact that nothing is ever said about the proliferation that was done by the Indians to help Saddam's nuclear program or the fact that Israel is allowed a nuclear arsenal larger and modern than probably any one other than USA and Russia. In fact Israel is the biggest billigerent in the world occupying an entire nation for over 40 years just because of Biblical (historical) reasons...how do we suppose we Americans would feel if the American Indians do the same to us in the next few hundred years...
Wars are planned against Iran's perfectly legal nuclear program just because the US is afraid Iran might get a working nuke whereas there is no evidence to support that.
Pakistan supported only the Afghan mujahideen or the Kashmiri groups (which is perfectly legal in the face of Indian occupation of Kashmir which goes against the grain of the entire principle of partition 1947 -- (Muslims majority areas go to Pakistan). With regards to the Afghan groups, it happened with the backing of the US and the Saudis plus Europe... so it is highly unfair to blame Pakistan for all that went wrong there. If the US had allowed a fair victory in Afghanistan everything would have been okay... the denial of the ultimate victory in Kabul in 1988 prompted the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Pakistan has and still is bearing the brunt of being the tool of American imperialism in this part of the world. If it weren't for Pakistan, the Soviets would not have lost... whatever is shown on the history channel is skewed so most Americans do not know that the reality is that the CIA was not even allowed near the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s... it was only the backoffice management of the entire war... the front was manned by the Pakistanis and the Afghans.... who are never appreciated for their role in ultimate demise of the Soviet Empire... Talk of historical grievances....
Posted by Shaban Malik | June 14, 2007 7:56 AM
Lex
We take exception to the fact that nothing is ever said about the proliferation that was done by the Indians to help Saddam's nuclear program or the fact that Israel is allowed a nuclear arsenal larger and modern than probably any one other than USA and Russia. In fact Israel is the biggest billigerent in the world occupying an entire nation for over 40 years just because of Biblical (historical) reasons...how do we suppose we Americans would feel if the American Indians do the same to us in the next few hundred years...
Wars are planned against Iran's perfectly legal nuclear program just because the US is afraid Iran might get a working nuke whereas there is no evidence to support that.
Pakistan supported only the Afghan mujahideen or the Kashmiri groups (which is perfectly legal in the face of Indian occupation of Kashmir which goes against the grain of the entire principle of partition 1947 -- (Muslims majority areas go to Pakistan). With regards to the Afghan groups, it happened with the backing of the US and the Saudis plus Europe... so it is highly unfair to blame Pakistan for all that went wrong there. If the US had allowed a fair victory in Afghanistan everything would have been okay... the denial of the ultimate victory in Kabul in 1988 prompted the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Pakistan has and still is bearing the brunt of being the tool of American imperialism in this part of the world. If it weren't for Pakistan, the Soviets would not have lost... whatever is shown on the history channel is skewed so most Americans do not know that the reality is that the CIA was not even allowed near the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s... it was only the backoffice management of the entire war... the front was manned by the Pakistanis and the Afghans.... who are never appreciated for their role in ultimate demise of the Soviet Empire... Talk of historical grievances....