But if it's "our son of a bitch", then Washington maintains silence in public, and hopes for a palace coup in private. Better that a dictator is replaced by another, than allow the mob on the streets to cause a new regime to be installed.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this more or less how Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba - by deposing "our son of a bitch" Fulgencio Batista with tacit US approval, because the Eisenhower administration deemed Batista more trouble than he was worth? We all know how that turned out. Why cling to a diplomatic tactic with such a dubious track record?

Regarding the above, keep in mind that Castro did not declare his allegiance to Communism or the Soviet bloc until shortly after he came to power.

This is just more of "why do they hate us?" with the usual answer "because we've got it coming" and the policy recommendation, "America must empower America-haters."

American support for democracy in the Muslim world used to be weak because it was feared that the people, if empowered to institute whatever they liked, would institute virulent anti-Americanism. Passive support for "stability" was thought to be a better policy.

On and after 11 September, 2001, George W. Bush did not believe that, so he ran a bold-high-cost, high-risk policy to support Islamic democracy, a policy that has ended in fiasco. It turned out that the Muslim people are indeed invincibly prejudiced, and we can't fight in the Muslim world without creating more enemies. No amount or money or blood is ever enough. Muslims have an infinite capacity to decide that they have good reason to hate the Great Satan.

It turned out on 11 September, 2001 that we can't live with the self-created anti-democratic status quo, but it has turned out ever since that we also can't live with more Islam. When leaving the dial where it is is harmful, and dialing up the cause of harm, that is Islamic empowerment, turns out to be a fiasco, as George W. Bush's well-intended policy has, what's to be done?

Nobody in Washington DC with any power appears to be able to imagine any alternative answer. So for the time being there are no answers. There is no notion of what to do about Pakistan.

"US policy towards Pakistan is in rigor mortis."

Just so.

Yet it could be even worse. We could be following a deftly suicidal policy of empowering our implacable enemies.

"Better that a dictator is replaced by another, than allow the mob on the streets to cause a new regime to be installed. There is some merit in this approach, especially if it can achieved along with a democratic veneer, but it is also one which America will be unable to take credit for."

But of course a policy of doing whatever we think our prejudiced enemies will give us credit for is a suicidal one anyway.

And futile. Our enemies don't give us credit. And any temporary goodwill, as earned in the wake of the South Pacific Tsunami, is culturally rootless within Islam.

"You won't, for instance, find too many Pakistanis thankful to America for the elections in 1988 that brought Benazir Bhutto to power, would you?"

Or many Egyptians overwhelmed with gratitude for billions in American tribute either, or pretty much for anything. Where Islam rises, there also rises hate for the Jews, and their main protectors the Americans, and for Christians, and for polytheists, and in general for those who are the designated targets of the intractable, aggressive and violent hatred built into the Islamic system.

You wouldn't have found too many Klansmen grateful to Negroes for [fill-in-the-blank], would you? So if American Negroes had wanted to be loved more and hated less, should they have focused on earning good will by empowering a popular movement, specifically the Ku Klux Klan? That would have been the reverse of sensible. What was needed was not more of the Klan, but less, and in the same way what we need, if we want to be hated less, is not to do more for Islam but less of it.

We gain nothing, and less than nothing, by feeding the beast. We should recognize its true nature, and aim at making it smaller, or letting it grow as little as possible, or having as little as possible to do with it, depending on what circumstances make possible. That is all.

Just a small observation. This piece is written by Nitin Pai who quotes Manjeet Kripalani and Rohit Pradhan.....all Indians.
Now should US have a policy for Turkey scripted by Greeks? Or an Indian policy conjured by first generation Chinese Americans? Why are 'they' so eager to get rid of Musharraf?Hmmm..
The ONLY pontification we can take to the bank is US must encourage slow, measured steps towards a more representative system of governance over time in tandem with economic and education reforms. It must absolutely NOT intervene prematurely and publicly to undermine its friend Musharraf and help instal a sham democracy a la Bhutto/Sharief. For such an upheaval will ultimately not work as it did not in 1990s and the people of Pakistan will suffer under such inept and corrupt leaders again and tire of US and be driven into the arms of Islamists proclaiming to know the way to heaven with 70 virgins per. I mean we have seen this movie before. And it is NOT entirely secular movement; mobs do have equal participation from Islamists.
Right now US must observe closely and encourage Musharraf to move in the right direction and help Pakistan calm down. In all fairness the Army is in control of the situation and there is peace in Karachi. There is NO severe political instability in nuclear Pakistan. If allowed the situation will resolve itself.

If one is concerned about bringing Pakistan into the world of functioning democracies, the issue is one of tractability. I.e., the dictator -->> democracy route is unknown and not that well tested.

This is especially so in the Moslem world - please note that democracies or representative democracies are foreign to the culture.

So, Nitin Pai, if you are going to criticize what the current US policy is, please give us an outline of how Pakistan can transition to stable democracy.

Nitin Pai: "America must show greater sympathy and support for the mass movement against Musharraf."

Marc: America "must absolutely NOT intervene prematurely and publicly to undermine its friend Musharraf and help instal a sham democracy a la Bhutto/Sharief. For such an upheaval will ultimately not work as it did not in 1990s and the people of Pakistan will suffer under such inept and corrupt leaders again and tire of US and be driven into the arms of Islamists proclaiming to know the way to heaven with 70 virgins per. I mean we have seen this movie before."

When I first saw this movie it was called "The Fall of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi". It was morally incumbent on us to "show greater sympathy and support for the mass movement against [the Shah]." President Jimmy Carter made "deft corrections" to our policies. And how well it all worked out.

Not.

If we hadn't been so wise...

"if it's "our son of a bitch", then Washington maintains silence in public, and hopes for a palace coup in private. Better that a dictator is replaced by another, than allow the mob on the streets to cause a new regime to be installed. There is some merit in this approach, especially if it can achieved along with a democratic veneer, but it is also one which America will be unable to take credit for."

And we've been getting so much credit and goodwill from the Islamic Republic of Iran ever since, haven't we?

Sarcasm isn't much of an argument, I admit. But the moral demand that we empower our evil, merciless and unappeasable enemies in the hope of getting "credit" from them doesn't deserve much of an argument. This is a stupid, counterproductive idea.

We've done this before. We know how it works out. We should never do it again.

Marc

This piece is written by Nitin Pai who quotes Manjeet Kripalani and Rohit Pradhan.....all Indians.You are making several assumptions here. Not everyone with an Indian name is an Indian national. (And I'm assuming that a person with a nickname Marc is not necessarily a white American male).

And the fact that a particular argument comes from an Indian national should not come in the way of reading it for what it is. And FYI, they, just like Washington, are not too keen to get rid of Musharraf. From an Indian realist position, who rules Pakistan is not as important as to how stable the balance of power is.

InJapan,

There are some very smart people in the State Department and think-tanks who can give you the transition plan. In fact there might even be a template...that's been used in the colour revolutions in Eastern Europe in recent times.

But yes, it's a nice topic for a subsequent post.

"Stupid" is too harsh, because I want this to be about the wisdom of policies and not the nous of individuals. And we can't edit our posts.

So I'm posting again to take back "stupid" and instead to say: I think a policy of buying into fights like this is unwise, imprudent, and a proven loser. The people we would be backing are not our buddies, and we should not think that we have to be their buddies. We are up against a system inimical to us, and if we don't act accordingly, consequences will follow, regardless of how well-intended our mistaken actions were.

Re: Nitin Pai's name: I don't care if he, she, it or they is or are Indian, Romulan, Dalek or Drow. This is not about individuals.

Nitin -- the State Dept. is profoundly stupid. Stupid beyond measure. Stupid because war is seen as a failure and peace at any price even one guaranteeing war at far greater cost is seen as a success.

Successes such as the non-existent plan to reign in North Korea's nukes: they keep making them for sale to the highest bidder and we keep pretending we are "engaging them." State Dept. Stupidity at it's highest but hey they got their required outcome: diplomacy, i.e. "peace in our time."

Successes such as the "roadmap to peace" er constant war between Israel and the Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians (Hezbollah). Successes such as the "engagement" of Iran which amounts to they attack us and we pretend not to notice.

Pakistan is a threat. It is a threat because it's a Muslim society, that gets a lot of help making nuclear weapons married to ICBMS from hostile nations like China and nasty, greedy western nations such as Sweden and Germany (two of the world's biggest arms exporters and nuclear proliferators per capita).

It doesn't really matter who's running Pakistan, if it's Musharraf, the Red Mosque, the Taliban, sooner or later it will all end up in the hands of the Taliban and bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Because the people of Pakistan themselves want this.

If Pakistan was say, Sudan, well it wouldn't matter much. Just another Muslim failure among all the others. But because Pakistan has nukes it matters very much. Given that nearly everyone in Pakistan can agree that nuking America would be a very great thing to do, and would sacrifice much to bring it about.

Our problem is a refusal to recognize that the people of Pakistan themselves are our enemy. To realize the truth and fashion policies and actions accordingly that will minimize the danger that the people of Pakistan pose to us. Yes they are not very wealthy, poor and uneducated, but they are also religious fanatics with nuclear weapons.

State Dept stupidity is not realizing there is no diplomatic solution that will work on this enemy, only absolute and total force.

David Blue,

You are taking the wrong lesson from Iran...I've not seen the movie so I can't comment on what it said. But the point is that Khomeini received so much popular support because American policy prevented non-Islamist (read Iranian nationalist) opposition from gaining strength. Nationalists, of course, would not have been as pro-American as the Shah was, but would have been less of a problem than Khomeini became.

Iran should point out the costs of rigor mortis. Unless the United States makes those deft corrections in time, it'll be too late to make them.

(Aside: The NYT has a report (no quotes at all from Indian names) on the money that's going to Musharraf's pocket. It suggests that Washington remains solidly behind Musharraf. But the fact that the article appeared might indicate someone is scratching his head, thinking about what to do now)

Jim,

While the people of Pakistan look at themselves and the world in their own way, we should'nt conclude that they want Islamist/Taliban rule.

This is not to say that the constituency for radical Islam does not exist or has waned. But there is a struggle on there between the moderate 'silent majority' and the more extremist elements. The international media did not report it, but before that country got caught up in the political crisis over the sacking of the chief justice, there were countrywide rallies organised to protest Musharraf's abdication to the Islamists of Lal Masjid and the encroaching Taliban in the Pashtun belt.

Thanks to US policy on supporting Musharraf, there's little reporting of the nuances of the politics in Pakistan. The current conflict between the pro- and the anti-Musharraf, and the pro- and the anti-Islamist are not one and the same.

As I pointed out in my previous comment: if the anti-Musharraf, anti-Islamist middle is not strengthened (by the United States), then we could well be looking at some Very Bad Outcomes.

Nitin: "David Blue,

You are taking the wrong lesson from Iran...I've not seen the movie so I can't comment on what it said."

Sorry on "seen this movie before" - it's a figure of speech indicating "I have (or we have) seen a similar scenario play out before." The point is, you know how the movie ends, and if it ends unhappily you may not want to do it again, even if the early part looks promising. I didn't mean to cause confusion by echoing this expression.

Nitin: "Iran should point out the costs of rigor mortis. Unless the United States makes those deft corrections in time, it'll be too late to make them."

I think it will never be too late for people to say that we should show more sympathy for the Islamic masses, and that the previous failures of the policy were because we did not do enough for our enemies, early enough, before.

"Now is the time, tomorrow will be too late!" can always be replaced by "now is the time, and not the day after!"

The reality is that all our actions, whether well or badly intended, are liable to be defined within communities swayed by the system of Islam as offenses requiring further restitution on our part.

#11 from Nitin: "As I pointed out in my previous comment: if the anti-Musharraf, anti-Islamist middle is not strengthened (by the United States), then we could well be looking at some Very Bad Outcomes."

Which is a lot like saying that when very bad outcomes arrive, it will be the fault of the United States of America. People will say that whatever America did or didn't do.

#9 I think it goes much too far to say that Pakistan wants radicalism, wants Talibanism, wants Al Qaeda. No mass population would want that. It's shown over and over again to result in anarchy, starvation terrorism, bully boys with AKs, and do it yourself Sharia. Not to mention getting your village in line to be hit by one of our missiles because we think Zawahiri's visiting.

It's gotta be true though that there is no critical mass for democratic pluralism and that the militaristic secularism has been much more dysfunctional at least in this short run than what Turkey has progressed to (but remember where it started (Ottoman to Ataturk to a Muslim neo-Stalinism with millions of Armenians and others oppressed, killed, and expelled)

Who is it that we in the West should favor? Bhutto or the Supreme Court chief or who?? It has to be a faction led by a strong and reasonable person - both for Western identification and that we could possibly track who loves Baluchistan vs Kashmir vs Karachi vs Islamabad and who is who in NW tribal. 4 years of our GIs dying and most American don't know or care the difference between Basra and Kirkuk, Moqtada or Maliki (though I do) !!!!

It seems to me that it's quite insane to give much of a damn what the chattering / middle classes in Islamabad/Karachi/Lahore are thinking about President M. The simple fact is that the vast majority of the population of Pakistan does not belong to this small group of self-regarding chatterboxes and is far more prone to hating America and espousing islamic fundamentalism. Dictator M is necessary to keep these fellaheen down and stop the corrupt Pakistani middle class and elite from further messing things up (evidence: almost entire history of Pakistan since independence).

Of course, M is a far from perfect individual. Short of the neutron bomb, he's probably our best hope for Pakistan right now though.

One mistake the USA has made in Iran (1970s), Iraq (early 2000s) and possibily is in the process of making in Turkey now is ignoring the fellaheen.

(Turkey despite being fairly civilized is undergoing some kind of demographic change where the backward and much less secular (i.e. not at all) peasantry of anatolia is outbreeding the more citified types of the turkey we are told will be a model EU addition.)

In these countries, the urban middle classes and elites are tiny fractions of the overall populace. The more smarmy civilized ones who have gone to Yale or Harvard on the backs of the family serfs are the ones who get on CNN or go to international talking shops.

Then suddenly everybody is surprised when an army of peasants with pitchforks and an imam/ayatollah at the head turns up in front of the palace as the government of Martha's Vineyard syposium droids bolts for the airport.

The State Department, so chirpy in the past on Pakistan and the president’s “tight” friend, has recently taken a vow of silence in relation to its “frontline ally in the global war against terrorism”.

Phone calls made to the Foggy Bottom defoggers, in other words, the officers dealing with our patch of South Asia find them on voicemail. The press relations unit has nothing to say. Nine out of ten times, you don’t get to talk to anyone. And when you do, he or she tells you to call later. When you do, all you get is a couple of measly, meaningless, hypocritical clichés. The moral of the story: this is what comes of placing all your eggs in one basket.

...

Is it any wonder then that the State Department and even the White House are so reticent about Pakistan. The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, when asked the other day about the situation in Pakistan, said he was not going to get into it. On another occasion, he mouthed some meaningless cliché, as did the State Department spokesman. A former American diplomat told some people a couple of days ago that the parlour game now underway in Washington is called “After Musharraf who?’ To which I add ‘and how’.

Is it possible that the US may at long last is going to learn a lesson it has so far refused to learn, namely that doing business with one-man governments is far easier, except when they begin to totter.

Nitin, being Spaniard I have a quite good prespective of the results of the "support the tyrant" French and American policy in Morocco.

However, I might have also a good prespective of what a "foreign directed" change means. Both yield poor results.

Thus, I think there is no simple solution to such a problem, even if nukes are not a term in the equation. In the end I think what is done is the easiest, to support the tyrant, and leave to the future what could happen when his regime collapses.

#5 InJapan -

"...the dictator -->> democracy route is unknown..."

No, it is well known. See Germany and Japan from the last century. The unfortunate part is it took millions dead to accomplish the task. I am not sure we want to go there again, are you? Is there a better way? We know the denizens of Turtle Bay cannot do it. We know the US Dept of State are also useless nitwits and cannot help. But, I took a walk to the store here (just got into town tonight and needed coffee etc for the AM) and thought about this.

The only societies that ever made the transition into Democracy did it themselves. Outside actors cannot do it for them (which makes Iraq all the more difficult). So, for Pakistan, if they go Sharia then we should just contain them to mitigate the effects in the region or if they stay as they are but choose a different top dog, then we can make nice or at least make it obvious they need to behave. If they go Democratic then we support the fledglings as best we may.

BTW, Kurdistan cannot be abandoned again. We must back up the promise there. They seem to be the best choice for the region.

J Aguilar (#18)

Yes I agree. But in the Pakistani context we are talking about a foreign actions preventing an indigenous change. Once the 'support the tyrant' phase is over, and I argue that it has now, stalling the change will be counterproductive.

Nitin --

IMHO there are no "moderate muslims" any more than there are unicorns, elves, and other fairy tale creatures. There are Muslims, and they have a remarkable consensus on what ails them and the cure. The points made above about the city-bred elite being a thin layer at best are pretty wise IMHO.

There is no "deal" no bargain no way to avoid anything other than War, and a pretty ugly one at that, with the people of Paksitan. Pakistan pumps out hate-filled Madrassa grads who provide the foot soldiers for terror. With the overwhelming approval of nearly 95% of Pakistanis. The Pakistani People are indeed our enemies, and ought to be treated as such. The Muslims of say, Mali are our enemies but not very dangerous since they lack both will and ability to hurt us. Not so the people of Pakistan who are very dangerous if left un-addressed and IMHO have been left dangerously un-addressed for some time.

For most people in Pakistan (and most Muslim nations) there is no state. No nation. Neither exists in idea or form. Instead there is a gang of thieves and thugs, who impose their will on the people. Often from a tribe or class. The Taliban or Al Qaeda offer something better, not the least of which is the ability to move up into a new gang of thugs (something Napoleon understood).

It's strange to me that people think it is up to us to choose for the long term the government of a tremendously populous nuclear-armed territorially aggressive Muslim military dictatorship.

The Americans have direct military occupation of Iraq, and even so we can't choose what the government will be there in four years time.

We are weak in relation to the growing power of Islam. We have proven unable to reliably and successfully intervene in its internal affairs. We should be thinking about survival, not talking as though we were gods.

Nitin quoting Khalid:

"Is it possible that the US may at long last is going to learn a lesson it has so far refused to learn, namely that doing business with one-man governments is far easier, except when they begin to totter."

Could one of the enlightened please explain to me who exactly the US was/is supposed to deal with in Pakistan? Musharraf was/is in charge, and therefore we have to do business with him. What was the alternative? Regime change? Imagine your squawking then!

b,

There are always alternatives. But everytime the world (this includes the US, the Commonwealth and India) turned a blind eye to Musharraf's doings, the alternatives became weaker.

You may recall he took power as Chief Executive, then became President, then rigged a poll that gave him five more years, and then failed to keep his promise to step down as army chief etc etc. Don't you think each of those steps involved left at least one potential alternative disappointed?

How do you know he rigged a poll?

India went through a long period of being a Soviet client state pseudo-democracy, to near-'elected theocracy' to increasingly viable and sane and constructive democratic ally. According to Barnett's Core and Gap prognostications, globalized economic power will bring about a China-India-US Inner Core, and the military challenge is to minimize the disruption and destruction as the Edges (states in the process of exiting the Gap) go through Hell and High Water as they struggle with reactionary forces. Pakistan, the ME, and maybe even Eurostan will convulse and thrash and suffer for some time before straggling into the globalized economy.

I don't know that I buy it all, but it gives a different look at some things. There seems to be little hope of sane evolution in Islam-dom; the Iraq experiment is a brave attempt to salvage something and establish a safehold before the feces hits the fan.

There is one peculiar and quirky and unexpected trend or factor that may mitigate or salvage much. Tribal authority, outside of the core Bedou cultures, has never been entirely submissive to the rule of the mosque and the imam. When push came to shove in Anbar, the sheiks didn't much appreciate the claim of total authority by the Islamic Republic of Islam -- and are leveraging the military might of the US to exterminate the AQI wannabe theocrats. There are signs of similar attitudes even in Waziristan in Pakistan. Strange bedfellows, but Arab tribalism is not globally ambitious like Salafi/Wahabbist Islam.

Sorry, "Islamic Republic of Iraq", of course.

It's also interesting that Russia seems to have opted for Gap-revanchist spoiler-imperialist ambitions. Foolish and potentially very destructive, but ultimately futile. The Oil Economy's days are numbered, and all Russia's bets and cards are hanging on its persistence. And Russia has no friends -- not Islam, not China, not India, not Europe, and not the West. The $64 quadrillion-dollar question is, of course, whether it will pull the rest of us down with it by becoming the first and last suicide-H-Bomber.

Davod (#25),

I'll take your question literally, and give you a serious answer.

Official results for the referendum, held on April 30, showed a 97.5 percent vote in favor of Musharraf. However, independent observers, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and Pakistani journalists, found evidence of widespread fraud and coerced voting. Electoral rolls and national identification cards were dispensed with, ballots were routinely stamped in the presence of, or even by, polling officials, and observers reported cases of repeat voting. Police and local government officials in all four provinces transported busloads of voters to polling stations. Both public and private sector employees reportedly said that they had cast "yes" votes on the orders of their supervisors; polling stations had been established in many places of employment, including factories.

In referendum that many observers claim was marked by “excessive fraud and coercion”, General Musharraf’s term as president is extended for another five years. Government announces Musharraf was endorsed by 98 percent of voters. (New York Times, 1 May 2002, A7; Financial Times, 2 May 2002, 6; CRS 2003, 3)

And man, what is going on in Lebanon? Thank god Michael Totten is safe in Iraq...

#29 Heh.

Our governemnts foreign policy is now and ha slong been, delusional. Most of the so-called debate or discussion revolves around a basic logical fallacy that undermine any prospect of serious achievement.

Something has changed in the Matrix.

That's the THIRD time I've seen that cat pass by. In as many seconds. Weeeeird.

It is an amazing thing to see, when people put politics into the realm of belief, and become impervious to reason and rationality. Good luck with that.

Jim Rockford,
This whole "Muslims are all 1 dimensional villains" thing is so tiresome. It strikes me as a way out of doing any real thinking.

Please stop passing off hysterical war mongering as insight.

mullah cimoc say iraki having the two gonad. just for this never to stop fighting.

also, all iraki woman tell him husband: 'omar, you needing for to kill three ameriki for be influence and position in new iraq". in new irak only one kind vote them counting. this the body bag. no body bag credits equal no for vote in new irak.

ameriki obedient slave of israeli masters. for this ameriki society so destroy. remember the vietnam. what am punishment for vietnam war. you remember: the lesbian, the homosexual, the woman power, the man degrade, the children cry, the grandparent not have in usa for so many baby him killing.

now aztec and maya take land for punish. ameriki to lose all him land and be destroy jut like the ancient time. before the fall, goeth the pride. this from bible. someday ameriki waking up and learn true. then israeli spy and neocon (same thing) he receive the true punish.

mullah:

Someday the hellfire that your so-called prophet is burning in will consume you and all your brothers in Islam, while you are still on Earth. Someday soon.