Going All In?
It looks as if Pervez Musharraf has decided to go all in against the extremists in Pakistan. After the assassination attempt and the siege at the Red Mosque, Musharraf told his nation that he would fight the extremists madrassa by madrassa if necessary:
President Pervez Musharraf pledged to combat Muslim extremists across Pakistan yesterday as furious crowds demonstrated against the storming of the Red Mosque and two suicide bomb attacks left six dead.In a televised address to the nation, Gen Musharraf said that those inside the mosque and its adjacent madrassa, or Muslim college, were "terrorists" who directly threatened Pakistan's security. They had also tarnished Islam's reputation as a tolerant and peaceful religion.
"What do we as a nation want?" he asked. "What kind of Islam do these people represent? In the garb of Islamic teaching they have been training for terrorism. They prepared the madrassa as a fortress for war and housed other terrorists in there."
Gen Musharraf praised the army for wresting the mosque and its madrassa "from the hands of terrorists" and said: "I will not allow any madrassa to be used for extremism."
This prompted protests by extremists throughout Pakistan. However, the protests took place in venues known to support extremism anyway, and it appears as if Musharraf may have gained more support from moderates previously unhappy with him over his seizure of power. It also distracted Pakistan from his greatest political crisis, firing Chief Justice Mohammed Iftikhar Chaudhry.
Musharraf still finds himself in a tough spot, and his next moves may have to be towards the secular moderates he aced out of power. He will eventually need the support of the Pakistan People's Party, led by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, if he wants to marginalize the extremists that he originally relied on for power. That would mean re-opening the political process, a move which the US has pushed, but which comes with its own dangers.
Would that mean that extremists could get elected in Pakistan? Not likely, according to the Afghanistan Ambassador Said T. Jawad. I asked the Ambassador on Monday whether he feared a radical-Islamist takeover of Pakistan. He replied that the extremists only comprised less than 10% of Pakistan's population -- which would still put them in the millions, but not anywhere near enough to win a popular election. Jawad also expressed his confidence in the Pakistani military, which prefers secular rule and has a great deal of political influence.
Musharraf has talked about reinstituting democratic rule, but has conveniently pushed off the date for its return. He may need to rethink his reluctance if he wants to survive, and especially if he wants the support of the moderates in fighting the extremists who want his blood.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 13, 2007 6:03 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (15)
Posted by bayam | July 13, 2007 6:50 AM
Captain- very good points. The main draw of extreme Islam in Pakistan is that it's the most vocal way for individuals to respond to Musharraf's dictatorship. Return Pakistan to democracy, and suddenly extremism isn't as effective a participating in the system.
Posted by Lightwave | July 13, 2007 6:51 AM
I'm hoping these comments are followed by action, Ed. Military action. I'm also hoping that this means the US has made it clear that the reconstitution of AQ in Pakistan will not be tolerated any longer, and that if Musharraf doesn't clean house, we will.
I understand that the man has to walk a fine line, Ed. But it's long past time to do something about AQ in Pakistan. We know they are there. We know they are going to try to kill US citizens. It's time to take them out of the picture.
Posted by Michael Smith | July 13, 2007 7:30 AM
Return Pakistan to democracy, and suddenly extremism isn't as effective a participating in the system.
Yes, democracy -- the holding of elections to select one's leaders -- has been a very effective way of marginalizing Islamic extemists. Just look at how elections marginalized Ahmadinejad in Iran, marginalized Hizbullah in Lebanon, marginalized the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, marginalized Hamas in the Palestinian Authority and -- best of all -- just look at how elections have marginalized all of the Islamic extremists in Iraq.
Posted by TomB | July 13, 2007 7:39 AM
I am not getting the connection between extreme Islam as a result of lack of democracy. If so, why then they hate us, and not their "oppressors".
If Mussaraf means what he says (and will survive long enough), I'd say give him a chance. It doesn't matter what the color the cat is, as long as he catches mice...
Posted by rbj | July 13, 2007 7:45 AM
Michael, you aren't seriously considering the "elections" in Egypt and Iran to be real democracy are you?
As for Lebanon, they are still trying to heal that nation after a long and bitter civil war -- meanwhile Hezbollah is armed by Iran & Syria. Lebanon is starting to make moves against the militias, you've got to give them a lot more time.
And Hamas, well Fatah is thoroughly corrupt & Hamas was the only real counter -- and they blew their opportunity to be a responsible government.
Posted by Michael Smith | July 13, 2007 7:55 AM
Jawad replied that the extremists only comprised less than 10% of Pakistan's population -- which would still put them in the millions, but not anywhere near enough to win a popular election.
In a 2005 survey by the Pew Group, 54% of Pakistanis said that suicide bombings against civilians are at least sometimes justified.
Only 43% said "Democracy can work here".
58% hold an unfavorable view of Christians.
78% hold an unfavorable view of Jews.
94% hold a favorable view of Muslims.
51% express "confidence" in bin Laden.
79% view themselves as Muslims first, not Pakistanis.
94% say that Islam should play a larger role in the politics of Pakistan.
70% say it is important for Islam to have an influential role in the world.
It sounds to me like the “extremists” are a lot more than “less than 10%”. Of course, if “extremist” means someone actually willing to carry out a suicide bombing, I’d agree with Jawad. But if “extremist” means those willing to give sanctuary to the Taliban, al Qaeda and bin Laden, these survey numbers indicate such people can indeed be elected in Pakistan.
Posted by mrlynn | July 13, 2007 8:04 AM
Let's assume that Musharraf is perfectly content to eschew elections for a while. That would be gravy, and as Michael Smith points out, might easily yield toxic results. The real question is this:
Will Musharraf allow, or at least not oppose, US military action in Waziristan, aimed at destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban once and for all?
It would be helpful if he could wink and look the other way, because we're going in there sooner or later anyway.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by richard mcenroe | July 13, 2007 8:38 AM
So Musharraf told the rioting mobs and suicide bomber that the terrorists were tarnishing Islam's image as a religion of peace.
Irony aside, this is why the Islamic world has made so little progress since the siege of Vienna: it's always someone else's fault. No Muslim would consider looking at the rock in his own hand; there's always someone to make an excuse for him...
Posted by Clyde | July 13, 2007 8:58 AM
There are too many Muslim extremists, anyway. I don't have any problem if Pervy decides to thin the herd.
Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out.
Posted by LarryD | July 13, 2007 9:00 AM
Islamic theology subscribes to the dogma of volunteerism "which holds that rather than created objects having inherent existence, Allah constantly recreates each atom anew at every moment according to his arbitrary will."
Of course it's not their fault, Allah created the rock in their hand only a moment ago.
Now you understand why they're so irrational, Islamic theology has no room for reason. Philosophy, Science, and Engineering are all blasphemous heresy to them.
Posted by TomB | July 13, 2007 9:11 AM
Mr Lynn,
First we have to realize, what "destroying of the Taliban" really means.
It is an Islamic tribe with overpopulation of young men, with no chance to marry, ever (women are taken by the rich, to be sex slaves and produce babes), so they go to war to rape women from outside of the tribe, or get their virgins in paradise. This social structure will produce young determined fighters forever, unless we'll go after the nurseries.
So here goes my Question:
Are we ready for Genocide?
Posted by Michael Smith | July 13, 2007 9:14 AM
Michael, you aren't seriously considering the "elections" in Egypt and Iran to be real democracy are you?
What's not "real" about them? The point is that given the choice, a significant percentage of Muslims in Egypt want the militant, theocratic Muslim Brotherhood in power.
As for Lebanon, they are still trying to heal that nation after a long and bitter civil war -- meanwhile Hezbollah is armed by Iran & Syria. Lebanon is starting to make moves against the militias, you've got to give them a lot more time.
The point, again, is that given a chance to choose, the Shia Muslims in Lebanon heavily favor Hizbullah, the party dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of Islamic dictatorship over the globe.
And Hamas, well Fatah is thoroughly corrupt & Hamas was the only real counter -- and they blew their opportunity to be a responsible government.
Had Hamas run on the platform of ending corruption, but also ending the resistance to Israel and the establishment of normal relations, they would have been trounced in a landslide of historic proportions.
What all of these elections refute is the notion that democracy will change these people into peaceful, tolerant, freedom-loving individuals willing to coexist as equals with those who do not share their religious beliefs.
This fallacy is based on the belief that the underlying culture and beliefs of a given population are a function of the nature of the regime under which they live. According to this view, if one removes the tyrannical regime and offers freedom, the people will change accordingly and agree to live as free individuals fully respecting the rights of their fellow citizens and of other countries.
But this is exactly backwards. It is the underlying culture and philosophy of the people that determine the type of regime that develops. The people of the middle east are predominantly tribal and superstitious, with a strong belief that some individuals are entitled to dominate other individuals. Tribal leaders are allowed to set the rules of the tribe as long as they conform to the demands of the superstitions of Islam. Women, Christians, Jews etc. are sub-humans subject to the arbitrary rules imposed by Muslim males. Such a mentality is ripe for dictatorship, with the only issue to be settled being which tribe gets to rule.
Tear off the existing dictator and they will simply fight over who gets to be the next dictator. Given a chance with the freest elections ever seen in the middle east, the people of Iraq voted to make Islam the supreme law of the land, thereby guaranteeing a long term movement toward sharia and the elimination of the freedom that thousands of Americans died to give them. (The same thing happened in Afghanistan). Their elected leaders are openly sympathetic to Iran and to people like Sadr.
The promotion of democracy in the middle east is a failure. We should be promoting the concepts of individual rights, constitutionally limited government and -- above all -- the absolute separation of church and state. The people of the middle east are overwhelmingly opposed to all of those concepts. But until and unless they learn to endorse them, they cannot and will not live in free societies, no matter how many elections we help them stage.
Posted by mrlynn | July 13, 2007 1:07 PM
Writes Michael Smith, "The promotion of democracy in the middle east is a failure. We should be promoting the concepts of individual rights, constitutionally limited government and -- above all -- the absolute separation of church and state. The people of the middle east are overwhelmingly opposed to all of those concepts. But until and unless they learn to endorse them, they cannot and will not live in free societies, no matter how many elections we help them stage.
I think he is right. It is possible, even likely, that encouraging the free election of leaders can help promote the ideas on which representative democracy depends, but in the Middle East especially you run the risk that those elections will quickly elevate theocratic dictators to power.
President Bush's intentions were noble, but by ignoring this reality he helped engineer the problems we face in Iraq today. What the situation called for was a military governor and a 'colonial' regime that could gradually instill the ideals that inform American democracy. There may still be time to revert to that model, the Congress notwithstanding.
Same goes for Afghanistan.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by lexhamfox | July 13, 2007 3:52 PM
It would be wrong to assume that Musharraf is only opposed by radical islamacists. There are many democratic Pakistanis who are natural allies in the opposing militant islamofascism who are also opposed to the dictator and the Americans need to be careful not to ignore them or their goals of restoring democracy and rule of law in Pakistan.
Posted by grognard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 14, 2007 10:01 AM
Michael Smith, excellent comment, you are absolutely right, the problem is culture. Our Democracy did not start from scratch, we had a history of tolerant and limited self rule many years before our revolution. One additional problem for Pakistan is that any action against the Taliban/AQ elements in Waziristan is that they will not stay and fight. They know that they will loose any pitched battle against the US Army so about the only choice for them is to find another province, or even another country to destabilize. If civilians or elements of the military are sympathetic to the plight of the terrorists [and I think they are] then safe passage to other parts of the country are assured. This is not to say that an attack by our forces would have no effect, there would be a sever disruption of their organization that would take time to repair, but I don’t think total elimination will be the outcome.