Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Cole in Salon: The Fall of Bush's Man in Pakistan;
Dawn: Bush was Last Holdout

My column is out in Salon.com:

"The fall of Bush's man in Pakistan:" (Despite Pervez Musharraf's despotism and double-dealing with U.S. enemies, George W. Bush, John McCain and the GOP embraced him to the bitter end.)

Excerpt:

' It is a measure of the Bush administration's broken foreign policy that the departure of Pervez Musharraf, the corrupt, longtime military dictator of Pakistan, is provoking fears in Washington of "instability." Despite Bush's warm embrace, Musharraf gutted the rule of law in Pakistan over the previous year and a half, including sacking its Supreme Court. He attempted to do away with press freedom, failed to provide security for campaigning politicians and strove to postpone elections indefinitely.

The Bush administration has made a regular practice of undermining democracy in places where local politics don't play out to its liking, and in that, at least, Musharraf was a true partner. But stability derives not from a tyrannical brake on popular aspirations; it derives from the free play of the political process. Musharraf's resignation from office, in fact, marks Pakistan's first chance for a decent political future since 1977. '


Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, Dawn (Karachi) explains how George W. Bush was convinced to let Musharraf go. The article says:

  • Bush was the last holdout supporting Musharraf in Washington, long after Rice and Cheney had concluded he was not viable

  • PM Yousef Raza Gilani's recent trip to Washington was in large part aimed at convincing Bush and others that the dictator had to go. "The prime minister took a team of 'Musharraf experts' with him to the luncheon and they played a key role in persuading Mr Bush to stop supporting the Pakistani leader."

  • U.S. Ambassador Anne W. Patterson "argued that if Washington continued supporting Mr Musharraf it would end up stoking massive anti-American feelings in Pakistan."

  • Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen made three trips to Pakistan and engaged in intensive discussions with his opposite number, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, receiving assurances that without Musharraf the Pakistani military would remain committed to the fight against the neo-Taliban and al-Qaeda.

  • Pakistani Ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, expertly worked Congress and the Senate, as well as think tanks, trying to convince them that Pakistan would not be "unstable" without Musharraf.

    (People in Washington are so funny. Musharraf has been like a one man hurricane in Pakistan for the last year and a half; he was the source of most of its instability.)

  • But Bush wanted assurances that Musharraf would be granted legal immunity and be secure, either staying in Pakistan or going abroad. He enlisted the help of Britain and Saudi Arabia: "The British sent their former ambassador in Islamabad, Mark Lyall Grant, to Pakistan and the Saudis sent their intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz to negotiate the terms for Mr Musharraf's departure." The Saudis also put pressure on former PM Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Muslim League (N), to tone down his rhetoric (Sharif was in exile in Saudi Arabia for years and is close to its elite).

  • Once Bush was convinced Musharraf had to step down, the super-majority in the Pakistani parliament began moving against him.

    I am a little surprised to discover that Bush was the last holdout, not Cheney. If the man really does have no common sense and is the ultimate decision-maker, that would clarify what has gone wrong for the last 7 years!

  • 13 Comments:

    At 6:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Musharraf has been like a one man hurricane in Pakistan for the last year and a half; he was the source of most of its instability.

    They have the same problem with Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine; they are the source of most of the instability, and have been so for a long, long time, not just five plus years.

    But of course they like it that way.

     
    At 6:59 AM, Blogger Dan said...

    It's remarkable that, in the eyes of the neocons, Saddam's despotism necessitated his ouster, while Musharraf's despotism made him irreplaceable.

     
    At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Ditto Saakashvilli. While most of the world is disgusted by this would-be dictator's attack on his own people using OUR military support, Bush is heaping praise on him.

    Is Congress looking into this issue at all? If we are supposedly spreading freedom, who-all are we ACTUALLY supporting around the world?

    If Mussharaf and Saakashvilli (and Saudi Arabia and Egypt...) are any indication...

     
    At 8:54 AM, Blogger Jaraparilla said...

    I am a little surprised to discover that Bush was the last holdout, not Cheney.

    I am not. Cheney has of course been manipulating Bush for years, but Bush is a petulant child who still holds the office of President, so Cheney sometimes has to defer when Junior has fits of pique. It's all about maintaining the Special Relationship!

    Did you see Suskind's claims that Bush asked Cheney not to be so dominant in meetings, because it made Bush look like a fool? LOL

     
    At 10:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "Did you see Suskind's claims that Bush asked Cheney not to be so dominant in meetings, because it made Bush look like a fool?"

    This sort of stuff is the kind of rubbish that makes me dismiss Suskind before bothering to read him.

     
    At 11:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "I am a little surprised to discover that Bush was the last holdout, not Cheney. If the man really does have no common sense and is the ultimate decision-maker, that would clarify what has gone wrong for the last 7 years!"

    I have no idea how you could ever know such a thing, but you claim you know it anyway.

     
    At 11:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-is-big-deal-about-resignation-of.html

    August 19, 2008

    What is the big deal about the resignation of Musharraf? I mean, a pro-U.S., "democratically-elected" dictator will be replaced by a pro-U.S., "democratically-elected" dictator.

    -- As'ad Abukhalil

     
    At 2:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Does anyone have a count and a source for the number of US troops "embedded" in Georgia with its army prior to the hostilities breaking out? Someone gave me the number 140 or so but couldn't remember the source. With this kind of presence it is hard to believe Cheney's Bush had no advance knowledge.

     
    At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I am a little surprised to discover that Bush was the last holdout, not Cheney.

    I am not at all surprised. The guy is so intellectually inept, he thinks that loyalty is the most important quality he can display. That he insisted that this guy be treated with "dignity" shows that he has absolute contempt for accountability or the rule of law or the will of the people or any other principles of true democracy that he espouses.
    I sent an email to Nancy Pelosi the other day and encourage everyone else to do the same, to AmericanVoices@ mail.house.gov, insisting that she actually read Kusinich's impeachment counts, (and maybe the Constitution, too) and to consider this nation's role in international destability that is a direct result of the actions of President Bush's horrible foreign policy blunders, the situation in Georgia, and what Ron Suskind has revealed, etc etc etc. and IMPEACH already.

     
    At 4:24 PM, Blogger Jeff Crook said...

    For Bush, Musharraf's situation is a "there but for the grace of God go I" deal. His main concern was to make sure a fellow member of the world royalty didn't end up with his neck on the chopping block. You can't let the rabble get all uppity, because that sort of thing tends to spread beyond borders.

    He probably also asked someone if they knew if Perv has access to a Bible, but that wouldn't have been reported.

     
    At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Bush is far off the standard of "has no common sense." There's something supernatural about Bush's instinct for causing trouble. One wonders...

     
    At 7:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Just cleaning house. Mush knew too much, and was inconvenient for what is to come.

    Ariel Sharon is gone, as is Blair. Putin has been minimized by bringing back the Cold War with our puppets in Georgia invasion of South Ossetia. I wonder what might be going down in the House of Saud before the year is out. Voices that may speak truth must be removed from power, or discredited.

    Those knowing too much about what his Daddy did in the 80's, like Saddam and the Ayatollahs have been removed or minimized as a enemy.

    Sets the stage for Obama to make Pakistan an enemy for the next step in the Great Game as well, which is what his Soros and Brzezinski bosses want. The torch on foreign policy has already passed on, no need to wait for the elections.

    Mission Accomplished GWB, a job well done, and now you are setting the table for your sucessor. Maybe you will get knighted by the Queen as a reward, just like your Daddy.

     
    At 10:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    A question and a comment

    First, the question. Why did Bush need to be convinced? How would he be able to exercise a veto on Musharraf leaving or not? Does the Pakistani miltary take orders from Bush, so that if he didn't agree to Musharraf leaving, then the miltary would be ordered by Bush to either arrest the lawmakers trying to impeach Musharraf, or threaten credibly enough to do so that they decide not to impeach? Or does the CIA have little files on enough Pakistani legislators that they can't get the votes for impeachment if the CIA is against it?

    The comment. Notice the tender concern Bush displays to Musharraf's personal fate. Apparently there is professional courtesy among elected dictators. He wouldn't want the precedent of Musharraf ending his days in prison, or on the gallows, giving people in this country ideas of how Bush should end his days.

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home