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

[CitizenYid]

Bush is leading our nation off a cliff. Why do Americans just follow?

Bush and Cheney conduct themselves as though they are above the law...the Constitution. Why haven't American citizens taken to the streets to protest the undermining of our Constitution by the Bush Administration?

Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster. Do we have to reinstitute the draft to get Americans to demand an end to Bush's War?

What will it take? I wonder...

[Dap]

Dear Senator Feingold,

Would you please consider holding some type of remedial classes for your colleagues on critical thinking and ethics? Agape.

[stellanoir]

Gee Senator,

And one would have thought 9 billion bucks might have bought a smidgen of blind obedience and devout loyalty.

I guess petty tyrants don't come as cheaply as they used to anymore. It maybe might not be the wisest of investments.

Kind of like the 4 billion we gave to the Taliban in May of '01 to not grow opium. That was money well spent. . .not. Such ingenious stupidity is truly astonishing.

May true diplomacy eclipse bellicosity and short sighted and ineffectually wasteful bribery in our time.

The ruse of this "misadministration" making us any safer is completely mind numbing while they are fomenting such intense International loathing.

In the short attention span theatre people forget that he ascended to power through a military coup and if memory serves, extended his "pResidency," sans elections a few years ago, and never prosecuted the nuclear WalMart exporting secrets.

This goon hasn't passed the litmus test for a very long while.

Thanks for your intrepid efforts and sharing your insights here.

Synchronously, this interview is just coming up on my radio.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16251052

It'll be archived and available on demand shortly.

Thanks again.

[pigsatthetrough]

Sorry sir, credibility? The only place that exists is in the futile minds of the broadcasters at Fox and CNN. No longer in the streets of the world.

[NABNYC]

Granted the U.S. should never have attacked Iraq, and should have followed bin Laden wherever he was. I never understood this whole nonsense that everyone knew bin Laden was in Pakistan, but we could not go in and get him because Musharraf was our friend. If he's a friend, he would want us to get rid of bin Laden. If he's a friend, why does he invite bin Laden to live in his country?

Beyond that, I agree that the leaders of a government in a real democracy should not be parading around in public covering themselves with military uniforms and titles. Like Bush, for example, who no longer is President but is always Commander In Chief. When did this become a military dictatorship? And when did the leader of the U.S. assume a military title and completely destroy the civil aspects of our society while bankrupting the country by waging wars for oil?

I don't agree that the U.S. should be building up the infrastructure in Pakistan. Let them build it themselves. Let's get our own house in order before we so generously start building homes and schools in other countries. The politicians seem to assume that 90% of our entire country's budget should be devoted to military and/or foreign bribes, with nothing left for the working people, citizens, and taxpayers of this country.

We have the Democrats accepting the basic Bush regime premise and fighting over pennies for the public. Just this morning we have Bush vetoeing even the most crumbs-from-the-table Democratic proposal for health and education.

I reject the entire premise that we have a responsibility from birth to death to support, bribe, arm, invade, attack, direct and supervise every other country in the world. Manifest Destiny is so yesterday. Bring the troops home, bring the money home.

And finally, you are my favorite Senator and if we could get corruption out of politics I think you'd be our next President.

[rwe2late]

Senator Feingold

"leading threat"?
I am sorry to read that you accept the neocon myth about what threatens "America".

As I have posted before, genocidal or near genocidal actions may allow the US military some measure of control. The Iraqi economy has been destroyed. Cities have been destroyed. Millions of Iraqis are homeless, exiled, dead, or maimed. They have gone over 5 years without proper water, electricity, medical care, or schooling for their children. Thousands have been rounded up, imprisoned, and tortured without cause. Dare we call it genocidal?

Some may believe the invasion and conquest is justified under the banner of combating “terrorism”. If so, they have been deceived by a jingoist lie, arrogantly if not hypocritically promoted for public consumption.
The real purpose, as Cheney and others have clearly stated in their less public, more academic writings and discourses is quite different. Convinced they know what is best for “America”, they have set out to militarily “secure” control of world resources so that their “America” will be protected against what they consider will be the main threats in this century. Unfortunately, their “America” consists of corporate and military institutions that are anti-democratic in their methods, and anti-humanistic in their mad beliefs and values. Their neo-world consists of power, greed, secrecy, collateral damage, and the like, all which they are willing to protect by any means.

[Sundialsvc4]

Sometimes, what you do NOT say at the right time... speaks volumes.

If someone in the world seizes power in a "state of emergency," and issues national proclamations that sound eerily like the Patriot Act, and the United States says ... nothing ... it speaks volumes.

The hundreds of millions of people on this planet who do NOT live in America are nonetheless reasonably-intelligent and observant and they can easily put two and two together.

So, for that matter, can many millions of "your fellow Americans."

We don't like what we see. We don't like what we don't hear.