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.

Follow Sen. Russ Feingold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/U.S. Senator fr

Comments

[Observer1]

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."

We can only talk about democracy. How can we assume to know what is good for the people of Pakistan, when we put everything under the umbrella of National Security. So we create these problems and then say we know how to solve them.

Taliban,Al-Quaeda,Iraq,Iran. These problems are all traceable to the US in some way having a hand in its creation.

The Pakistanis will turn on the US if America continues to interfere in their domestic problems.

America must stay the hell out. I have always predicted that in the New Year, the big news will be the hunt for Osama. Look if the US does not try to use this crisis to send troops into Pakistan/Afghan mountains to look for OBL.

And watch Bush's ratings soar.

[thegulliblecitizen]

Thank you Senator Feingold for walking point to defend our liberties, and for proposing a sane foreigh policy. When you make that decision to lead our nation, keep us informed!

[Levittown]

It is time to do what Bush and Cheney have always strived for. A base ( or 10 or 20 ) in every allied country in the middle east. It will only require a dozen men on each base and SAC overhead 24/7. Bush looked into the eyes of Putin and saw his soul. He looked into soul of
Musherraf and saw bloodshot eyes. We don't have the manpower or desire to go on trusting Bush. It is time for serious people to step in and end this 7 year very painful itch. If impeachment is reqired, the sooner the better.

[frappe]

Well said, Sen. Feingold. I couldn't agree with you more. Why the U.S. continues to support dictators who rule with a heavy hand is a mystery. Clearly, history has taught us that it will ultimately lead to a total collapse and failure of the desired security and overall objectives.

We claim to be a country that embraces and promotes freedom but our actions seem to indicate otherwise. As you suggest, we need a renaissance of thought and action that promotes a foreign policy that elicits the trust and respect of the overall population to which it applies.

[rwe2late]

How the “war on terror” results in “spreading democracy” and good will.

Musharraf was seen to have difficulties with rising discontent and a court about to declare his rule unconstitutional. The Bush plan was to put Bhutto in a powerless figurehead role with Musharraf still in control. However, Musharraf was never too keen on the idea, and when he saw that the court ruling might allow Bhutto to take over, he wanted to declare martial law. Admiral Fallon, in Pakistan at the time of the coup, met with top army leaders, including Musharraf. Cheney is Musharraf’s strongest supporter, and did not want to risk his “reliable ally” losing power. Fallon was told to let Musharraf know he had the green light to do whatever he thought necessary to hold onto power. It was quickly announced that the multi-billion dollar military support for the Musharraf regime would continue. For PR purposes, Musharraf was said to be “pressured” by Bush to hold [what would have to be farcial] elections.

(1) The situation in Afghanistan is worsening for the occupation forces.

Cheney believes harsher measures by the Pakistan army against Pakistani citizens in border areas will help achieve administration objectives in Afghanistan. He has been constantly pressing Musharraf to “do more”. (Actually, the occupation of Afghanistan by foreign troops is the primary reason for increasing insurgency. With Cheney’s urging, Musharraf has obligingly arrested local leaders, set up secret prisons, employed torture, and used US-supplied jets to bomb Pakistani towns. Unsurprisingly, disaffection with the US and Musharraf’s dictatorship has only increased, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

(2) Logistically, Pakistan is needed as a supply route and base for US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(3) Cheney also certainly wants to muffle the predicted popular Pakistani reaction against his planned massive attack on Iran (which will most likely have to be initiated by Israel).

[PeaceAtAllCosts]

The majority of Pakistan's citizens hate America because she is a democracy and is secular. You kid yourself if you think that there is any other outcome other than Islamic rule and Sharia.
My dear friends, no matter what you do-the juggernaut is coming our way. The Republicans can't use the carrot or stick-and the the Democrats can't appease their way out.
It is hard to support a country when they are only interested in your death, and the erradication of your culture. I'm sure Feingold's solution is to prop up an Islamic Caliphate. That'll help.

[CSE]

So, you're in favor of more IMF direction in what the CIA Fact Book calls generous support? More free markets, privatization and other implementable economic measures that have suspect success when mandated elsewhere?

Pakistan is 97% Muslim and of that the Sunni have an overwhelming majority. The history of discontent is long and the public desire of the masses there has not been for an American styled democracy.

When you go to visit Saudi Arabia, do you propose more democratic reform there? How about Egypt?

[Macready]

You are so right Senator Feingold . . .thank you for posting .. . the biggest problem of course is that our neo-con regime is seems totally committed to war and to constantly undermining democracy not only abroad but domestically as they have proven over and over again. Rule of law means nothing to them . . . it seems as though the bush regime has a particular intolerance to judges, lawyers and human rights activists.

Yes, Iraq was never the problem . . . the US should have focused on Afghanistan now I fear it is too late . . .

The other stumbling block to world peace is, of course, the US position regarding Israel.

All these conflicts require a complete change in direction in American foreign policy . . .one that most of our presidential candidates seem to be ignoring. They also require a loud dissenting voice from Congress . . . at the moment with few exceptions -- you are one of those voices -- it seems as though our legislators are willing to allow the chimp to further his neo con nightmare.

[Janus]

The Cheney-Bush Neocon/Neofascist cabal in the White House must be salivating uncontrollably over their pal Musharaff's active suppression of dissent and other forms of opposition: Disbanding the Pakistani Supreme court, seizing and imprisoning judges,lawyers and street demonstrators, closing newspapers, prohibiting political speech concerning upcoming elections (which may be cancelled),and shutting down non-government television stations.

Musharriff says this is all very necessary, requiring the suspension of democracy in Pakistan. Um, by the way, is he the Commander-in-Chief there under that democracy?

If Mushariff, like our Iranian Stooge, the Shah, and our dictator sycophants of yore in Central America, needs to flee, there likely will be room for him in the boneyard reserved for these characters in Florida.

[vippy]

Musharef is still in power because he is also the military commander. His people hate him.
Remember, he allowed the US to bomb his country
a few months back. His people are smarter than that. I would not doubt for a minite that he got into power via the CIA. If anyone doubts it they can check the timeline of the CIA and see how many billions of dollars get spent overseas trying to influence the elections.
I believe Pakistan is a dead goose. They see us for what we are, bullies around the globe.

[amorando]

A Taliban leader was released from custody shortly after Marshall law was instituted. That tell you anything?

[janmB]

When Americans elected the ones annointed with OIL to lead us then Americans have to live with the sludge they will leave us with.
Either the Administration & their supporters were just incompetent or just too greedy to be competent.
When you have a huge problem you aren't quite finished with in one area why would you create another problem and that's what was done in jumping from Afghanistan to IRAQ.

[Observer1]

"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."

We can only talk about democracy. How can we assume to know what is good for the people of Pakistan, when we put everything under the umbrella of National Security. So we create these problems and then say we know how to solve them.

Taliban,Al-Quaeda,Iraq,Iran. These problems are all traceable to the US in some way having a hand in its creation.

The Pakistanis will turn on the US if America continues to interfere in their domestic problems.

America must stay the hell out. I have always predicted that in the New Year, the big news will be the hunt for Osama. Look if the US does not try to use this crisis to send troops into Pakistan/Afghan mountains to look for OBL.

And watch Bush's ratings soar.

[Chocolate2008]

You are absolutely correct Sen. Feingold. Thank you speaking your mind and following what's in your heart. I am so proud to have you as my senator. You have always been right about our foreign policy and I appreciate that you have the b*lls to speak up and stand for what's right.

Obama/Feingold 2008!

Dude, seriously , think about it.

;p

[FogBelter]

I think we have a big problem, Senator Feingold. We have been empowering the Dictator Musharraf for the myopic needs of the Bush Adminstration, and because of that Musharraf is in the same position now as the Shah of Iran was in the late 70's. To put a fine point on it, his people hate him. He is now associated with George Bush and the Americans, and under his Iron Fist the people have moved closer to Islamic Fundamentalism, and a Taliban mentality.

We should have thought long term in our dealings with Pakistan and recognized that a leader that is so reviled his own Army told him he could no longer transit the road between the Presidential Palace and his Army Headquarters because they couldn't ensure his safety either by convoy or helicopter, was not the best solution.

I heard an expert (whose name escapes me) on CNN say we may be seeing a repeat of the Shah's Fate in 1979 ... Musharaff purged and replaced by an Islamic Fundamentalist Government. I doubt the US has a fallback solution for that ... and that is a far greater problem than if Iran winds up with Nuclear Weapons in 5 to 10 years.

You are an optimist, Senator, if you think the Pakistani People, saddled with Musharraf because of expedience on the Bush Adminstration's part, will come rushing to the US for suggestions of how to run their nation once they dispense with him. I think you are right, that Bush has damaged our reputation and muted our influence.

This is the worst of all possible situations, and if India takes the opportunity of making a move while the Pakistanis are otherwise engaged ... all bets are off.