| Let's see if I got this right. The vision of President Bush and the Neo-Cons was that the key to securing long-term U.S. interests in the Middle East lays in cultivating relationships with key allies that would bring Democracy and secularism to one of the most politically volatile regions of the world. President Bush was somehow hopeful and optimistic that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, his number one ally in the war on terrorism who has been propped-up with more than $10 Billion in U.S. Military Aid since 9/11, would somehow be able to transcend his dictatorial rise to power and morph into the role of being a major leader for democracy and democratic values in his country and the broader region. Unfortunately, Musharraf has moved in the opposite direction by recently taking actions to suspend the constitution, freedom of speech and association, while firing all of the Justices of the nations Supreme Court just before they called for his ouster as President of the Nation while also serving as head of the Military. Sounding very much like his benefactor President Bush, Musharraf said he issued the "State of Emergency" because he was the only one who could "save" his "country from the terrorists." Musharraf, in a statement prepared for the American people, even went as far as comparing his actions to those of President Abraham Lincoln who, he posited, like him, had no choice but to suspend or overrule the U.S. Constitution during the American Civil War. The events being played out in Pakistan today do not represent any sort of departure from what has become a terrible tradition in U.S. foreign policy. What we are doing with Musharraf differs very little from what we did with the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and what we are currently doing with President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. While we spout the political rhetoric of democracy and democratic values, we offer diplomatic recognition and military support to prop-up cruel dictators that suppress their people with murder and intimidation. We as a nation bear a large part of the responsibility for the anger and hate we are experiencing from an increasing number of Islamic fundamentalists. When we supported Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's ruthless rule in Iran, we turned a nation of people who liked us against us. By doing so, we helped generate support for Ayatollah Khomeini who led the opposition and replaced the Shah as the leader of that nation. The current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not exist in a vacuum. He represents nothing more than a continuation of the policies set forth by Ayatollah Khomeini grounded in opposition to the U.S. The roots of Islamic radicalism in the Philippines today, can be, in part, traced to our support for Ferdinand Marcos who pillaged the national treasury while exploiting the masses. The situation in Egypt is also similar. President Mubarak has limited freedom of speech and association and he has put many who are in political opposition in jail while being propped-up with billions in U.S. military and foreign aid. In all of these endeavors, we have not won the hearts and minds of the masses of the people or the middle classes. On the contrary, our actions have resulted in a widespread increase in Islamic radicalism throughout a very troubled region of the world. Pakistan is a particularly dangerous situation for U.S. interests. If we continue to support Musharraf, it is predictable that there will be a further rise in Islamic fundamentalism. If free and fair elections are established, as Musharraf has promised for this coming January, then he will most likely be roundly defeated by a coalition of religious conservatives who have no love for the U.S. If he reneges on his promise for free elections -- or if he, as most would suggest, tampers with the political process to gain his desired outcome, then the political opposition will continue to rally against him and there will be increasing destabilization. Two of Musharraf's leading opponents have recently returned to Pakistan. Last month, Benazir Bhutto returned from exile, promising to run against Musharraf in the next election proclaiming that the state of emergency was illegal and that she would in no way cooperate with Musharraf. Last week, the man whom Musharraf overthrew in a U.S.-supported coup in 1999, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, returned from exile to the cheers of thousands of his supporters. Sharif has also made it clear that there is no room for negotiating with Musharraf. With all of the talk about the threat of a nuclear Iran, the Pentagon and Pakistan's neighbor and erstwhile enemy India, shiver at the possibility that Pakistani's nuclear arsenal might eventually be under the control of a hostile regime. With all of the givens in this situation, we are in between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." We are there not because we promulgated the high ideals of democracy and failed, which would have been more enlightened. We are there because we supported bad people with bad policies and now the chickens are coming home to roost. It is by no coincidence that we find ourselves experiencing the same situation in Iraq. |
| The Literary Divide/Dr. Paul Barrows Pakistan's Musharaff makes mockery of Bush's Middle East doctrine |
 |