What's at Stake in Pakistan

The news coming out of Pakistan reminds us of what's at stake in our relationship with that nation -- which possesses nuclear weapons and serves as a base camp for al Qaeda -- and how our Iraq-centric policies are undermining our national security interests in the region. As the administration struggles to respond to General Pervez Musharraf's imposition of martial law, it's important for us to step back and reassess our national security priorities in the region.

The leading threat to our own national security from this region is al Qaeda. We took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq, instead of sustaining a robust military initiative and effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. While the Administration continues to focus on Iraq, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains one of the most troubled regions in the world, home to both widespread poverty and al Qaeda operatives. Musharraf has been an unreliable ally in our efforts to prevent the border region from becoming an al Qaeda safe haven. Musharraf has also been a roadblock to democracy, and while he claims emergency rule is needed to combat extremism and instability, it is the lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists he's thrown in jail.

Indeed, recent events in Pakistan highlight the administration's failure to carry through on its stated commitment to promoting democratic reforms and basic human rights. In March 2000, just prior to President Clinton's visit in Pakistan with General Musharraf, I urged him to press Musharraf to act on his stated intentions to return Pakistan to civilian rule, democratic governance and respect for human rights. I made it clear that the U.S. could never enjoy a stable partnership with Pakistan until those critical issues were addressed. When I visited Musharraf in Pakistan two years ago, I again made it clear that he had to take off his uniform -- not just symbolically -- and move towards democracy.

But that hasn't happened and by continuing to bet on Musharraf to shore up stability in the short term, this Administration has further eroded our credibility and commitment to freedom in the long run. Instead of a policy based on one man, we need to work on building Pakistan's infrastructure and supporting democracy. Ultimately, this emphasis is good not only for the people of Pakistan but for our own national security as well. If we are truly to protect our own national interests, we must commit ourselves to promoting and supporting the rule of law and institutions that seek to eliminate corruption, poor governance, endemic poverty, and the historic marginalization that, along with the lack of basic freedoms and political rights, has allowed and will continue to allow terrorist threats to fester and grow in Pakistan and elsewhere.

With these priorities in mind, we should refocus U.S. assistance to Pakistan so it is more aligned with the needs of the Pakistani people and less with a military leader who has undermined democracy. Counter-terrorism operations against al Qaeda in and along the Afghan border are an important element of our relationship, but that alone will not make for a more secure, stable Pakistan. Only a comprehensive foreign policy -- one that moves beyond the administration's myopic, country-by-country approach -- will make Pakistan, and in turn the U.S., more secure. If we fail to take that approach, we will have failed to learn the painful lessons of history and will be bound to repeat them -- this time in a region that is home to the greatest threat to our national security, al Qaeda.

Comments

[darker]

What's at Stake in Pakistan??

BURNT TOAST.

Enjoy gov't by Bush-Cheney & Co.
And highway robbery by Big Oil.

[rwe2late]

(1) The discontent in Pakistan has spread BECAUSE the US military continues to occupy neighboring countries AND supports and finances a military dictatorship in Pakistan AND attempts to use that military dictatorship to draw Pakistan into the so-called "war on terror". The "insurgents" don't win adherents with their great theological arguments. They win adherents by pointing out the corrupt, despotic governments the US supports, and the misery brought by those governments, by US invasions, and US occupations.
(2) The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis do NOT want a fundamentalist Taliban style regime. Despite the chauvinist fears and hype promulgated by the US government, the Taliban will not "take over", ESPECIALLY if the US stops financing the military dictatorship. But wait, isn't that the opposite of what Bush/Cheney et al have been advocating? That's right, despite what they would like you to believe, the BEST chance for an anti-US government to take over in Pakistan is for the US to continue supporting the dictatorship, and to continue occupying neighboring countries!

[IzaakSzerman]

I would be very interested in the results from an opinion poll that contained the following question:

Would you be in favor of replacing the current government of the US with a monarchy?

Seriously, I predict that about 50% WOULD be in favor of this. About this many 'citizens' of the US would make very obedient Royalists!

[fedupnburnin]

The Democrat and Republican parties need to redeem themselves. The only way to that is to impeach Bush and Cheney. The country needs to be saved from these mass-murderers. Impeach Bush-Cheney, bring justice down on their greedy, lying, looting, murdering heads. That would prove to the American people that Congress really cares and that the American people really matter after all.

[meokie]

Senator please help create a viable 3rd Party, or as I see it, a viable opposition party. I know you know better, pull back the curtain and expose the Great and Powerful Oz for the snake oil salesman he really is. Please.

[ljlu]

What about the US tax payer dollars Bush gave him? ..and WHY do we allow giving our money away like that.
For "whatever he wants to spend it on"..Think of how many kids could have food in this country or heating assistance this winter. Maybe instead of giving these people money, we should give them a choice. We'll support you, or we won't, period., No money, not one more dime until he takes off the Dictator costume, but then Bush hasn't taken off his crown has he.

[gateley]

I feel compelled to point out that Feingold is essentially
parroting what Biden has said in recent days.

Whether you support Biden or not, listen to his take on what the real situation is in Pakistan. He lays it on the line (natch) and gives us an accurate picture of what solutions are possible.

[Historybuff]

Well, well, Mr. Feingold. You Democrats have held Congress for 10 months now. And, all you can do is more of the samo samo, Bush Hate.

Taking pot-shots at the Bush Admin is not Governing; Granted, You Dems do not have a Veto proof majority, but you have solid majorities. You could be changing things, if your ideas made sense.... so?

When Hillary wins in 2008, what are you going to do then? You can continue to whine about Bush, but I doubt many people will give you much sympathy (except the hate, and leftist, crowd). You will be expected to actually do something... ya think?

[bolderdash]

Senator Feingold is correct about the mistake of the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq, instead of not concentrating upon the 'nuclear' supplied nation of Pakistan, and its Al Quaida Terroist's strong-holds in this territory.

President/General Musharraf's Martial Law is a desperate move to stop the democracy coalition of the Intelligentsia from pushing the Al Quaida to more terroist violent attacks in Pakistan. It might completely back-fire, but the extremist militant fragments of their society would cause more un-rest if Musharraf's centrist coalition of military-civilian rule collapses.

whether you agree or disagree with his actions of Martial Law, 'complete democracy' has never happened in Pakistan before, as military rule by militant means to take over their country, is as common as American apple pie and vanilla ice creem topping!

maybe the bottom line is this: What political faction would feel the safest in Pakistan to gurard and protect the availability of nuclear weapons, president/General Musharraf or Osama Bin Laden/Al Quaida Terroist's?

[aroundthewaygirl]

Listen I am a little irritated with America always insisting that other country's adopt democracy, when will we have it here. Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch of government because it is closest to the people and yet the president does what he wants through veto. Let's say what it is we don't democracy we want capitalism so that we can get in there and obtain a new market to sell our goods to. We want in on the oil and Pakistan is necessary to the pipeline, stop feeding us the demcracy = security crap. This is the same thing that got Castro in Cuba and the Shah in Iran. If it is the oil say it, stop selling democratic pipe dreams to Americans when the real issue is money and control

[bertisbert]

My take is that Bush/Cheney are allowing this Pakistan experiment to play out in order to figure how to most effectively use martial law to limit democratic participation. Mr. Feingold observes correctly that martial law is not really intended to reign in terrorism, but rather to silence the opposition. Just as the Patriot Act and other attacks on our liberties in this country are not really going to help us "fight terrorism", but rather allow the powerful greater control over the masses. If you think privacy and other civil liberties are a fair sacrifice to feel "safer", then you are both blind and a coward - undeserving to call yourself an American. Pakistan's current situation is where it will all lead.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

With just another 60 or so Russ Feingolds, Senator, OUR Senate and OUR country would be headed in the correct direction.

As it is, when one sees the current dems of CONgress helping to obfuscate the crimes of THIS TYPE administratiion, one realizes there's little left of OUR Constitutional checks and balances - for which to hold out hope.



Thank you, sir, for trying to show other members what principles and integrity look like.

[ljsfolly]

Sir you are so right about what this administration has done as far as the world view and where this country stands. The idea that bush and cheney think they can get tough and make war talk toward Iran just compounds the problems we have in the middle east. Unlike Iraq Iran and the rest of the middle east have stronger ties outside of the region and if bombs fly they will fly beyond the region. Why is it that the republicans in congress have not hog tied bush to keep him from the world war III he likes to smirk about? In whole why hasn't congress acted with the citizens instead with bush?

[Archie1955]

The U.S. has caused many of the terrible political and military problems we have today. There has to be an interim period of U.S. withdrawal from the hotspots created through meddling during which, perhaps through diplomacy, some of the anguish the U. S. is responsible for can be ameliorated so that the people of the various regions can work out their problems internally without the U.S. or anyone else stepping in .

[RSOlive]

In 1945, the U.S. helped arm and train an elite cadre for Ho Chi Minh to resist the Japanese in Indochina. After the war, the popular Ho ruled briefly before the French returned to their colony in the South. China occupied the North. Fearing the Chinese, Ho negotiated a "temporary" French presence that recognized his government, and the Chinese left. He offered the radical Catholic, Ngo Dinh Diem, a position to retain Catholic support in the Buddhist country. Diem refused, studying in exile at Harvard and among American Catholic monks while making political connections.

The French stayed. Ho begged Truman to help expel the French. Ignored because he was a communist, in 1953 Ho echoed our Declaration of Independence in his own. His armies crushed the French in the north despite massive American military aid to the French. In 1954 at Geneva, the Russians and Chinese forced him into a truce that promised free national elections in 1956. Ike and then Kennedy supported the French and their installed puppet government in the South under Emperor Bao, who on Kennedy’s recommendation appointed Ngo Dinh Diem, despite earlier French warnings that he was "mad," as president.

With our support Diem cancelled the unification elections in 1956. We financed him militarily and economically in his lethal, brutal, politically and religiously repressive regime that led to armed revolution in the South supported by Ho Chi Minh. Only when student riots and Buddhist self-immolations and world opinion finally outweighed our fear of the domino theory did we promote a military coup in which Diem was assassinated, as another anti-communist was installed to continue the war.

Our meddling in a civil war in which a popular nationalist finally prevailed against installed regimes had only cemented an alliance of necessity among ancient enemies.

We lost Iran by installing an appointed King.

We created Al Q'ueda in order to fight the Russians through proxy.

We killed Hussein and end up with the mess in Iraq.

Why should we be so surprised that here we go again in Pakistan?