Musharraf on the Way Out?

by emptywheel

Josh has finally added Spencer Ackerman to the masthead at TPM, so I guess we can assume that Ackerman is there permanently and not just as a sub while Paul Kiel goes on vacation. If so, I couldn't be happier that Ackerman found some good digs for himself.

Not least, because he brings a story that could be critically important--that Pervez Musharraf may be on the way out in Pakistan.

It may be time for the U.S. to face what it's long feared in the nuclear state: the prospect of chaos, rising Islamism or anti-Americanism that follows Musharraf.

But the hope -- among Pakistani military officers and politicians, to say nothing of U.S. diplomats -- is that the increasingly inept and unpopular Musharraf can be eased out of power while the U.S. slowly distances itself from him, allowing for as smooth a transition as is possible in the turbulent South Asian country. Some see the Pakistani Army remaining powerful enough to prevent a chaotic transition or an Islamist takeover. "This is going to be a Pinochet-like transition, instead of a Marcos-like one," one former Pakistani official tells TPMmuckraker. In other words, according to the ex-official, the U.S. may not stand foursquare behind its ally Musharraf until he's ultimately forced from power, as President Ronald Reagan chose with doomed Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

[snip]

The former Pakistani official says that the message that the possible successors are trying to send to the U.S. is that "continuity in policy can be ensured without the continuity of an individual, while at the same time, a democratic process can proceed." In other words, the U.S. can wean itself off of Musharraf without fear that the U.S.-Pakistani alliance is at risk, and will likely have some kind of election to point to that blesses the result. Not many see the Islamists as able to take control. "One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

I point to this because, as I've harped on repeatedly, until we get Pakistan right, any effort to influence Iran is just gravy. Pakistan is just as destabilizing, actually funds the terrorists who attacked us rather than a close ally, and already has nukes.

That said, I'm curious about the sources for Ackerman's story. He cites intelligence and State Department sources for those convinced Musharraf is on the way out. Which leads me to question: is this discussion, about Musharraf's future, happening outside of the internecine battle between Condi and Cheney we know to hang over the Iran policy? Perhaps a transition from Musharraf's rule, if it is indeed viewed as something that affects a person but not a policy, is viewed to be uncontroversial.

Which would be interesting. There seems to be a lot of faith that such a transition would go smoothly (and therefore wouldn't affect the fundamental policy). I do wonder if folks have overestimated their ability to pull such transitions off.

Comments

[William Ockham]

I'll second the feelings about Ackerman, TPM is a much better place than his last publisher. I will quibble with the following characterization, "the increasingly inept and unpopular Musharraf". I could say a lot of bad things about Musharraf, but increasingly inept wouldn't be one of them. I seriously doubt that any of the people that are indirectly tied to that opinion could have lasted as long as Musharraf has in a very dicey situation. Let's face it, increasingly inept and unpopular applies far more to our President that Pakistan's. At least Musharraf is brave enough to face Jon Stewart. Can anybody imagine Bush going on the equivalent show in Pakistan, or even on The Daily Show for that matter?

[janinsanfran]

Last week I heard Ahmed Rashid, author of a good book on the Taliban, on the BBC asserting that Musharraf would be gone within a year. He's been a good observer of reality in that part of the world and lives in Pakistan.

[dotsright]

One of the generals being touted as a putative successor to Musharraf is head of the intelligence branch of the Pakistani army. Those are the very guys most involved with the Taliban and even Al Qaida. Don't see how this is supposed to make anyone feel better about Musharraf being gone.

[Ishmael]

EW - thanks for focussing on the extreme danger that Pakistan poses to the world, instead of the pseudo-threat of Iran. I could say, with tongue only partly in cheek, that if only Pakistan would call for the destruction of Israel, perhaps everyone would start paying attention to them instead of Iran. Pakistan is in many ways as artificial a country as Iraq, both being constructs of post-British colonialism and having proved equally unstable, and only really maintained by periodic military dictatorships such as those of Saddam or Zia ul Haq. The Two Nation theory of Jinnah, that a homogenous Muslim society would be more stable and that preservation of Muslim minority rights would be impossible in a majority Hindu state, was the basis of the post-British division but it was subsequently disproved by the Bangladesh secession and the relative success that many Muslims have had in integrating into modern India. The divisions on the surface between Hindus and Muslims are far greater than those among Sunni and Shia, and yet they manage in India to avoid civil war and have elections in a profoundly poor and hugely populous country. In other words, the political solutions reached in Indian society, while far from perfect, are far better than the military brutality and ethnic divisions that are the glue holding Pakistan together, along with American military aid, and which seem to be what America is thinking will be the case for the next 50 years or so in Irag. I think that the neocons would like to imagine that Pakistan is like Turkey, and that as long as the military stays in the background, the transition from Musharraf to some candidate acceptable to the military and Washington, everything will be fine. Again, as Josh Marshall says, history only repeats itself for people who don't know the details. Turkey is a secular country, with generally good relations with its neigbours, is a member of NATO and its populations is generally well disposed towards Europe, if not the US, and aside from unhappy Kurdish and Armenian minorities, is stable and not expansionary or meddlesome with its neighbours. On the other hand, Pakistan has longstanding problems with India, with China, and with Baluchistani and Waziristani secessionists, it is provoking Iran with the Baluchis, it is worsening the situation in Afghanistan by providing the Taliban with a safe harbour from which they retreat from NATO forces in Afghanistan, there are periodic blow-ups with India that may yet get out of hand, and I haven't even begun to address the problems that they created with their nuclear proliferation. The idea that Bush and Cheney can manage this tiger ride without a disaster is laughable, except for the horrible consequences that may result.

[sakthi]

I guess its time to go for Musharraf,Unlike anytime since he becomes the president of Pakistan,the agitation against him becomes high..From the media to high court and from Imran Khan to Benazir, Nawaz all are joining together to throw out Musharraf from the position...
AA Breakdown Cover

[MarkH]

Hmmm, interesting. Why now? What is precipitating this?

Events around the world are too often inspired by personalities and events here in America. What here would relate to that change?

Qui bono?

[ab initio]

Ishmael - insightful comment.

I have traveled extensively in India on business over the past decade. What I have found is a remarkable comity between Muslims and Hindus among the business leaders despite the bloody history of post-colonial partition (over a million killed) and the use of religion by sectarian political parties for electoral gain. The wealthiest person in India is Muslim (Azim Premji the Chairman of Wipro), the President(titular) who happens to have led the Indian space program that is now launching satelites on a commercial basis is also Muslim. Among the post-colonial national formations India has been a standout success with regular transitions of power as a result of elections. Although Muslims are a significant minority they have successfully used the political process to gain representation. There is something to be said for an extremely poor, populous and diverse country with so many competing interests to have survived democratically let alone thrive.

Pakistan on the other hand is rather unstable when one looks at the numerous military coups. How can a military function when it is so enmeshed in politics? Pakistan's military intelligency agency, ISI, has been at the forefront of "jihad" - from creating and funding the Taliban to the AQ types. Let's not forget that Pakistan was used by us through the CIA and Pentagon to arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan including OBL. They were the conduit for arms and money. The blowback was AQ. In fact 9/11 was plotted and orchestrated from Pakistan with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed located there. The "truce" in the tribal areas has only provided respite to AQ. If Musharraf had the will and the strength he could have decimated AQ and the jihadists. But how can he when he played a major role in using them to cause pain to India in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. Pakistan is also the only country to have been openly engaged in nuclear proliferation - selling weapon designs and material to North Korea, Libya and I am sure others. Our government has been intimately involved in Paksistan from the Nixon era. With the exception of Clinton who tried to get them to behave, we have been using Pakistan to play out our proxy role in the region with enormous military aid and financing. Due to the numerous fracture lines in Pakistan it is also conceivable that their military could split with hardliners supportive of the jihadists coming into power. The corporate media here clearly does not pay attention to the enormous risks there that could spin out of control and nuclear weapons get into the wrong hands. Pakistan represents one of the gravest threats out there currently and we think we can control it?

[On the Clock]

Great diary, great thread. One of the ironies of this situation is India's interest in facilitating a strong role in the next government for the current Pakistani military leadership, as now headed by Musharraf. These are known players, and the past several of years have been reliably stable in the Indian-Pakistani relationship. Beyond supporting efforts to replace Musharraf with an analogue, I can imagine India working against forces trying to unseat Musharraf at all, especially if it means shuffling the army leadership.

Meanwhile, any thinking that a Musharraf transition will be more like Marcos or Pinochet's sounds silly to me. Neither had nukes. Apples and oranges, I think.

[emptywheel]

On the Clock

I agree about the apples to oranges thing--for a lot of reasons. Not least the relative influence the United States had in the relevant country. Or should I say the counterposed influence that would really destabilize the country.

[Sara]

I agree it is rather apparent Musharraf is on his way out. I think the visits by leading Generals that Ackermann reports probably are about arranging "soft landings" all around. And one part of that would be to put some daylight between Bush and Musharraf.

What's interesting in the current situation in Pakistan is that it is the middle class groups, Journalists and private media owners and the Judiciary and Legal Community that are leading the protests. In some ways these have common interests with the Military -- in other ways they conflict, but it appears the basis for return to civilian control may be common. And it isn't just a Civilian in Islamabad -- it is about making legitimate political parties in the next election (the majority in Pakistan actually identify with semi secular parties). So few really recognize some of the detail here, and what it means. In the last election, Musharraf made it illegal for candidates to run under the banner of these major parties -- and he excluded from the ballot all who did not have higher education, but he then classified finishing at a religious school as equal to a secular college -- a ballot qualification system that essentially excluded the parties and much of the middle class. This overly empowered the religious coalition, and it went from less than 5% to approaching 20% representation. Who knows, in the current environment, what a reasonably fair, parties have ballot access, election would produce.

Pakistan really needs an internal debate about national interests so as to change or revise policy that is much influenced by the situation Pakistan faced during the Cold War. Those verities, in many ways, are actually gone. For instance, while I don't expect Pakistan and India to become buddies in the near future the analysis that ascribed to India a near ally of the Soviet Union given its non-alligned status, is a very dead doornail today. No Soviet Union, and India is pushing to join the World Economy. Likewise, the traditional Pakistani analysis of its interests in a weak and disordered Afghanistan needs fundamental questioning. Each of these policy doctrine questions raises self interest ones for the Pakistani military establishment -- for it is only with India as dangerous permenant enemy that the power of the military establishment in Pakistan makes sense. The question is whether a true elected civilian government could first, make continuous progress in normalizing relations with India, and second, whether the Military would allow the emergence of other institutions that would potentially mitigate and change their key role in sustaining any government. As we well know, Military-Industrial Complexes do not willingly give up power easily.

From our point of view, in the short term we might be successful in pointing out the danger of US short term fixes, and single issue diplomacy and economic engagement. We should have a significant agreement in the US that the blank check approach to "Russians in Afghanistan" came back to haunt us, as we handed over to Haq and the ISI the use of US resources in the 1980's. (Rather like giving the Sunni tribals who have been shooting us up for 5 years in Iraq, a new infusion of arms -- or letting Bandar run policy supporting Islamists in Lebanon.) We too have a problem focusing on long term national interests -- and it is going to be difficult to execute change, particularly given the attention defecit disorder we seem to have regarding foreign policy.