U.S. Options for a Post-Bhutto Pakistan

As Pakistan mourns the loss of its opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, let's face the facts: The opposition looks now likely to boycott elections, which will then probably get pushed off. Street violence is likely to erupt nationwide, which could require greater emergency rule. And Islamic terrorists scattered throughout Pakistan's tribal regions will no doubt feel emboldened. Slaying Bhutto--a potential civilian ruler who despite her flaws enjoyed widespread support--was one of their 2007 New Years resolutions.

So what should American foreign policymakers do now? Pushing for immediate elections is not really on the table, especially if the opposition boycotts them. Plus, I don't buy the idea that we somehow care about the political rights of the dispossessed in Pakistan, only insofar as that dispossessed Pakistani doesn't turn toward Islamic fundamentalism. Second, there are not sufficient civilian institutions in place yet to ensure that democracy can flourish there. As Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "The real problem with pushing for a rapid democratic transition is that genuine civilian democracy in Pakistan is an unrealistic aspiration in the near term." That said, contrary to many Muslim states, if genuine elections were held and everyone participated, Islamists would not necessarily be swept into power. Thus, eventual democracy should be part of our policy toward Pakistan. On the other hand, Bhutto's opposition party, the PPP, has no obvious candidates to take over the mantle of leadership. It was always a dynastic organization, and history proves that as potential opposition leaders jockey for position, unity unravels, thus strengthening the party in power.

Another main snag is this: The military remains the most powerful institution in Pakistan. Whoever rules Pakistan in a post-Musharraf era will still have to deal with a powerful army, which also happens to control Pakistan's nuclear stockpile. That also means that Washington will have to deal with top army and intelligence officials, who don't always like American diplomats meddling in their affairs. That said, the bulk of the $10 billion in U.S. assistance supplied to Pakistan since 9/11 has gone toward the Pakistani army, not civil society groups. The average Pakistani who might not think twice about spitting on an American flag doesn't see a dime of that aid.

How can the United States curry favor with the army, which it needs for counterterrorism purposes, while simultaneously not alienating the average Pakistani, who increasingly sees us as the Great Satan? First, the United States does not have the leverage it thinks it has to control domestic political events inside Pakistan. That said, Washington should speak up when its leadership makes bone-headed moves, as it did last year when Musharraf signed a deal with tribal elders in the frontier areas that essentially handed over the region to the Taliban (if you remember, Washington was preoccupied by Musharraf's book tour, especially supposed comments made by Richard Armitage that we would bomb Pakistan back to the "stone age" if it did not cooperate with us after 9/11). Second, aid to Pakistan should be conditional on institutional reform. That doesn't mean Washington should impose timelines for elections. What it does mean is that we should not be blindly giving Musharraf military aid, when I would argue that his counterterrorism achievements are not what he hypes them to be. For ten billion bucks, we should be getting greater bang for our buck.

Looking ahead much will depend on next year's elections--not Pakistan's but our own. And that also frightens me. None of the U.S. presidential contenders has a clue what to do about Pakistan, a nuclear power that is a ticking time bomb with Islamic terrorism, uneasy relations with its neighbors, and a population that wears its anti-Americanism as a badge of honor. No one has formulated a foreign policy toward Islamabad beyond the simple observation of: Musharraf (sort of) bad, democracy (sort of) good. In his Foreign Affairs article, Mitt Romney mentions Pakistan not once. Ditto Rudy Giuliani. John Edwards drops the P bomb just twice, while Hillary Clinton calls for "redoubling our efforts" in Pakistan's tribal regions, whatever that means.

The next leader of the free world needs to think more specifically and clearly about how best to use American influence to keep Pakistan from becoming the next Afghanistan or Sudan circa late-1990s. The first serious American politician to propose a radical realignment of U.S. policy toward Pakistan was Barack Obama. Last summer, he proposed unilateral military action if the United States was supplied with "actionable intelligence" on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan. He was pounced on by the punditry, his statements taken as further evidence he is a foreign policy lightweight. How dare a presidential candidate jeopardize one of America's most prized partnerships and impinge Pakistani sovereignty! Or, even if Republicans might agree with Obama, it's best not to say such things in public, pundits said.

Now, fast-forward a few months--after a state of martial law, the most deadly terrorist attack in Pakistani history, and the assassination of the country's top opposition figure--most Americans would probably agree that Washington's backing of Musharraf makes for bad policy. Even Republicans like Mike Huckabee have echoed Obama's sentiments to take out terrorist camps in Pakistan without Islamabad's permission.

The United States should not severe relations with Pakistan's military but nor should it blindly prop up a president who has shown dictatorial leanings. With elections likely to be called off for the time being, Washington should encourage the civilian opposition to organize itself and participate in the next elections, while stepping up its own pressure against Islamist militants who are no doubt rejoicing that their slaying of Bhutto. Her assassination may be the impetus for real reform inside Pakistan. Only then can Pakistan really be considered a U.S. ally in its so-called war on terrorism.

Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination

Comments

[deminmo]

Locally in my area, people have called in to a
radio talk show suggesting that Bush nuke
military and nuclear sites in Iran. Nuke all
the area of the mountains in Afghanastan that
Osama might have fled to. Well, basically nuke
any country with a Dictator. Then the "world"
will see America as a world power again.
All I get from that is a series of mushroom
clouds and millions of fried people.
Trouble is, Pakistan is sitting on nukes in a
very violatile situation. What does Bush, not
the next President, do?

[Observer1]

Obama made a stupid mistake by implying the US would send troops and missiles to Pakistan.

The fight against Bin Laden was always supposed to be Bush's last hurrah. But that fight will be in Afghanistan. Pakistan (and Musharraf) are supposed to lend local troop support on the Pakistani border.

So nothing has changed except now Bhutto's assasination gives Bush a reason to send the troops in. When it comes to war and planning for war, Bush and his advisors know exactly what they are doing.

These were the guys pushing Bhutto back into Pakistan, and they got exactly what they wanted: an assasination, an incentive to promote Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan as the next US-led surge.So here comes the fireworks.

[antirepublocrat]

So, the arrogance we have displayed throughout the world and especially in the Middle East has increased the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of political Islam. What's Beehner's solution? He seems to be justifying Obama's advocacy of unilateral military action against Islamists -- ie, more of the same arrogance. The fact is, the Bush Administration did bomb some villages in Waziristan, killing a number of civilians in the process. Musharaff disclaimed any prior knowledge or approval of these attacks. The result has been increased anti-American feeling among Pakistanis and increased Islamist influence.

Thus, Beehner advocates continuing the same failed policy of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, expecting different results.

Not all problems can be solved, especially by US. We can not control the entire world, and the more we've tried, the worse the results have become.

Time to elect someone like Paul, Kucinich or Gravel.

[live by the golden rule]

So Beehner says that none of the candidates have a clue [but he seems not to know the names of all of the candidates-- Biden? Richardson? Dodd? ]. Then he unveils his no-brainer solution:
"The United States should not severe relations with Pakistan's military but nor should it blindly prop up a president who has shown dictatorial leanings. With elections likely to be called off for the time being, Washington should encourage the civilian opposition to organize itself and participate in the next elections, while stepping up its own pressure against Islamist militants who are no doubt rejoicing that their slaying of Bhutto. "
How is this more insightful than e.g. Clinton? [well, more insightful than the small quote Beehner selected, but that was not all she had to say].

[deminmo]

Does anyone believe that Bush has any real
control over what happens in Pakistan? Money
did not go to troops fighting, but to goverment
use. But still money is coming from America.
Osama may or may not be in the mountains of
Pakistan, but Bush has not found him.
Pakistan did not sign anything regulating its
nukes.
When news came out of the assination of Ms.
Bhutto, it was reported she was shot twice.
Even the doctors originally confirmed it. But
today Musharraf and the doctors recounted that
report. She had a skull fracture from hitting
something in the vehicle when the bomb went
off.
Huh? Sorry, something smells about all this.

[Artos]

My feeling is that all of this is a direct result of our meddling in the middle east in the first place. All we've done is to make a mountain into a very deep canyon. You could say we've dug our own grave. Instead of things getting simpler things have gotten even more complicated. I could see King George using a grave situation in Pakistan as a convenient excuse to suspend elections or create a martial law situation. Think of it, Pakistan erupts in revolution and then a nation that in fact does have nukes will now allow them to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists. This idiot President of ours has really screwed things up. How many more times will we support right wing dictators against the will of the people before we realize it's a mistake. We seem to go against all that this country ever stood for. What hypocrisy.

[Artos]

I think it's a bit hasty to assume that the origins of the assassination were Islamic fundamentalists. I think that the Musharaf camp has just as much interest in doing her in. They seem pretty eager to prove that she died from other than the assassins bomb or the shots. Why? Does it ease the minds of her supporters to make them believe that she died accidentally. What difference would that make. The reason she died even if accidental would still have been caused by the attempt on her life. Talk about trying to divert attention.

[ladogna]

Act now to stop violence in Pakistan after Benazir Bhutto's death. Tell President Musharraf the world is watching. Urge him to start an investigation into Ms. Bhutto’s death, and do everything in his power to protect the people of Pakistan. Sign this petition now!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/503288150

[ljsfolly]

Bush has been really lighthanded with Musharraff and with Pakistan's promises to protect Bhutto have been largely ignored. If she was protected by their version of sercret service he would have been dead years ago as not all like Musharraff. She is dead due to his desire she be dead. Anyone of the presidential candidates WILL have to deal with the nuked up country and if cival war is coming for them we all should be concerned about the region and who will be targets. That does give us pause for thought when the republicans have all played hawkish since her death while others blame each other or the way they voted. This is just a small piece of what faces the next president as bush will continue to whip up insanity until he is gone about the rest of the world coming after us.

[RusStyles]

A president is not supposed to be a foreigh policy expert; in fact, he/she doesn't need to be an expert in any specific area except one: Judgement. That's it...and clearly he needs to be able to grasp a myriad of facts quickly, and make decisions based on the best possible information and consultation from the so-called experts. Further, he needs to inspire confidence. Instill trust. Out of all the candidates Obama is clearly best equipped, best suited for this role. The last place his skills are needed is the senate, where people like Dodd/Biden are well-suited, which one of the reasons why they keep getting re-elected. Let's put prejudices aside, and do what's best for the country.

[wrabbitt]

We need a president who is capable of pulling the country together, Enough with the Smoke, and mirrors, we have watched candidates, talk about election reform, with one hand out for lobbyists money, Foreign policy has changed! and we need to change with it, we all know why Ms. Bhutto was killed, change can come hard,or business as usual protected at all costs,Pakistan, is going to be a testing ground for world opinion. Which ever candidate wins the election needs to be a world leader! Not a Washington insider. Business as usual just ain't going to cut it any more!

[bleek]

Roll that monkey bar footage !

Get Musharaff back on Late Night for the Top Ten Reasons why Pakistan's Nukes are nothing to be worried over.

Compartmentalize the entire problem by imagining it as a small Texas oil startup with unlimited Saudi money or maybe a professional baseball team. Then there's no way we could screw it up.

Double bin Laden's end of year bonus! Send Jenna to buy more land in Paraguay. Execute some people of color somewhere. Cheney hasn't shot anyone in the face lately !?

How 'bout I get lost in a canyon somewhere on my mountain bike? Candlelight prayer vigils. My daddy pleads for my safe return. Cheney shoots some illegal in the face !! World rallies around us just like after nineleven !!

Monkey bars. We need monkey bars. Scary stuff.

[wmike100]

Puh-leeze. Musharraf killed Bhutto. Supporting the dictatorship in Pakistan is THE problem not the solution.

[Rocku]

I might add that if Bush is looking for a "legacy" then this is his greatest opportunity to succeed or fail. How he and his cabinet now react will make or break Pakistan.

[Rocku]

How did this thread get hijacked into a candidate preference when it's supposed to be about immediate and long term options that ANY President would have to deal with, including the present regime? This whole thing will most likely play out BEFORE the next elections in this country, so sayiing this or that candidate will do such and so is just ridiculous! The future of Pakistan and that of its army and nuclear materials and bombs will have to be handled by the CURRENT adminstration... good luck with that! Any anaylisis or proposals that do not include, say, the next six months as critcal are going to miss the turning point by far.