Musharraf:
How Good an Ally?
By Dr Khan Dawood L.
Khan
Chicago, IL
Questions are often
raised as to how good and reliable is President
Musharraf as a US ally?
The Atlantic Monthly has published in its December
2006 issue the results of a survey it took of
some 40 foreign-policy experts in the US, including
Ken Adelman, Samuel Berger, Daniel Blumenthal,
Stephen Bosworth, Warren Christopher, Richard
Clarke, William Cohen, Jay Garner, Leslie Gelb,
Marc Grossman, Gary Hart, Joseph Nye, Ken Pollack,
Wendy Sherman and Anthony Zinni, to name some
of the more prominent. They were asked just two
questions, and though not all of them answered
both, the results didn’t come as a surprise.
1. How should Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
be viewed in the US?
A great majority (68%) of them thought of him
“as a partner who is not always helpful,
but is at least as good as the likely alternatives.”
Around this consensus, opinion varied. Some of
these people recognize that he is “walking
a tight rope,” keeping a balance between
co-operating with the US in anti-terrorism efforts
without undermining his own position and the stability
of his government. He faces tremendous internal
pressure and threats from many local sources,
including Islamist extremists, and the military
that may be “sympathetic” to these
groups. Others thought he is “deeply flawed,”
but his successor is “unlikely to be Thomas
Jefferson.” There was also a feeling that,
though better than the alternatives, he needs
to be pressed on opening up the political process,
or else “our alternatives will get worse
and worse.”
About a quarter (23%) of those polled thought
he is “unwilling to crack down on the militants”
unless US pressure is ‘stepped up’.
Some thought Pakistan has made the world “a
distinctly less safe,” given the soft-glove
treatment to the nuclear scientist Dr. A. Q. Khan’s
role in spreading nuclear technology to other
countries. The fact that Osama bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri
are still at large is believed to be a result
of ‘lack of co-operation’. There is
also a belief that he is “no Ataturk”
and that Islamists are getting stronger in his
regime, despite his claims.
Less than one-tenth polled (9%) see him as “an
active and indispensable ally” in the US
anti-terrorism efforts. They acknowledge he is
“not perfect,” but appreciate “how
much he has delivered” so far even though
“the US has a history of walking away from
Pakistan” afterwards. This history, they
believe, is “always in the Pakistani mind.”
2. What type of Government is most likely to eventually
replace Musharraf’s?
Again, a strong majority (63%) think it would
be a military dictatorship – one that may
be “far more tolerant of jihadists,”
“too deeply entrenched” to allow a
civilian rule, and would “[listen] even
less to the US.” Some feel that many in
the military are “Islamists themselves,”
with less allied with the US or the West. This,
they also feel, would make the region “far
more dangerous.”
Less than quarter (22%) of those surveyed think
that there might be a ‘democratic governance’,
but existing “at the pleasure of the military,”
with its constraints, and democracy with “significant
Islamist representation.”
Just one in six experts (15%) thinks it would
be an “Islamist theocracy,” because,
unlike the government, Islamists have been promising
“salvation” to the public. Military
may “suppress” the extremists, but
could also easily join them.
Overall, to the extent that the consensus among
these experts reflects the opinion in the US,
the cooperation offered by Musharraf’s Pakistan
to the US anti-terrorism efforts seems to be in
considerable doubt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
