Nice Government You've Got There, Be A Shame If Something Happened To It

The Pakistani Army, rousted from their slumber and their preoccupation with India, have finally started moving against the internal threat of the Taliban, with battles continuing to rage. One would think this represents a turning of the corner in Pakistan, a show that the government can be responsive to pressure. Nevertheless, the US has cast about for new options, which is interesting, given that Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

As American confidence in the Pakistani government wanes, the Obama administration is reaching out more directly than before to Nawaz Sharif, the chief rival of Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, administration officials said Friday.

American officials have long held Mr. Sharif at arm’s length because of his close ties to Islamists in Pakistan, but some Obama administration officials now say those ties could be useful in helping Mr. Zardari’s government to confront the stiffening challenge by Taliban insurgents.

The move reflects the heightened concern in the Obama administration about the survivability of the Zardari government. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of the United States Central Command, has said in private meetings in Washington that Pakistan’s government is increasingly vulnerable, according to administration officials.

It's an improvement to consider the views of people who may have the support of the local population, and not reject them because "we don't negotiate with terrorists" or whatever. But Pakistan does have a right to self-determination, last I checked. I agree with the President that the country will not collapse but the government is fragile, and the situation bears watching. If Zardari and Sharif can work together, brokered perhaps by American influence, all to the good. What does seem dangerous to me is the wishful thinking in certain segments, particularly from Petraeus and leaders in the Pentagon, of a military coup and another dictatorship to further radicalize the Pakistani people.

It would be naive to think that the Pakistani military, which ruled Pakistan for the past ten years until Pervez Musharraf resigned from the Army in November 2007 and formally relinquished power last August, doesn’t believe it could do a better job of governing than Asif Ali Zardari. And it would also be naive to think that the Obama administration is closed off to the prospect, whatever it might say about democracy. Andrew Exum wonders why the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a “weird man crush” on Kayani. He might merely be prepared to bet on what he considers the stronger horse — not a strong horse, as the Pakistani army has been repeatedly beaten by the Pakistani Taliban and its allies, but a stronger one. It might also explain why Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy objects to making aid to Pakistan receivable to “civilian authorities of a government of Pakistan constituted through a free and fair election,” among other provisions of conditionalized funding.

The American frustration with the Zardari government stems from the inability of the military, to this point, to deal with Taliban attacks in the tribal areas. I think Matt Yglesias has a point - that could be a function of the military underperforming so that the government looks bad, with an eye toward returning the military to power in the government to make everything all better. But isn't this the military's problem, to begin with? And specifically, the relationship between the military and the Taliban fighters?

Sharif, at this point clearly has more popularity inside Pakistan. His influence could offer greater support to the fight against militants. And throwing money down a hole toward a leader with a history of corruption won't solve the problem. But our ability to manage that political conflict is limited. And our credibility should we actually return the military to power would be even lower in Pakistan that it currently is, if that's possible.

Charles Lemos has more.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

If I were the Obama Administration I'd be nervous about Pakistan myself.

The Obama administration reacted with increasing alarm yesterday to ongoing Taliban advances in Pakistan, warning the Pakistani government that failure to take action against the extremists could endanger its partnership with the United States as well as American strategy in neighboring Afghanistan.

"The news over the past several days is very disturbing," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, adding that the administration "is extremely concerned" and that the issue was taking "a lot" of President Obama's time.

Obama held a White House meeting on the subject with Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative to the region, officials said, and also brought it up in a separate session with congressional leaders. Holbrooke spoke by telephone to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Secretary of State Clinton publicly expressed her frustration during Congressional testimony, accusing the Pakistani government of "basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists.” I think this is an overly simplistic view of the situation. Prime Minister Zardari has no legitimacy inside the country due to the sparring with Nawaz Sharif and his initial refusal to reinstate the Supreme Court Justice. His approval ratings are in the low double digits, and Sharif is at around 83%. Zardari is less concerned with following the dictates of the Administration with respect to the Taliban than saving his own government from ruin. Obviously the White House has money to dangle, but Congress has yet to appropriate it. The Administration wanted to hold a 2-day summit with Zardari and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, but Zardari is concerned that, if he leaves the country, he won't be Prime Minister when he returns - perhaps because of a military coup.

Pakistan will not fall to Islamists or extremists anytime soon - that's alarmist rhetoric. It is unstable, however, without a handle on much of the countryside, and that spells danger for a good bit of the region. The military has moved into the area near Islamabad that has been taken over by Taliban forces, so perhaps they've gotten the message. But they cannot snap their fingers and achieve legitimacy over all the people.

Meanwhile, there was a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about Afghanistan yesterday, and it almost felt like an afterthought. Might as well change that nickname to "Pak-Af."

Zardari Blinks

I didn't think it would turn out this cleanly, and it probably hasn't. But the Pakistan crisis has at least been delayed, as the government decided to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This led Nawaz Sharif to call off the "Long March," as this was its goal. Some reports are calling this the first triumph of diplomacy for one Hillary Clinton.

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appears to have succeeded in persuading warring political leaders in Pakistan to soften their attitudes towards each other, the US media reported on Saturday.

Various US television and radio networks noted that soon after Secretary Clinton called President Asif Ali Zardari, a presidential spokesman announced in Islamabad that the government will restore the deposed judges in the light of Charter of Democracy and will file a review petition in the Supreme Court to undo the disqualification of Sharif brothers.

A spokesman for opposition leader Nawaz Sharif later described these decisions as ‘a corrective measure,’ the US media noted.

If true, that would be great, and another sign of a positive foreign policy from the Obama Administration. However, the fact that local police in Punjab apparently refused to honor the house arrest for Sharif forced Zardari to recalculate and give in to demands to save his political skin. Plus, as Juan Cole notes, Pakistan's political strife is not over.

The Punjabi population resents Zardari's imposition of 'governor's rule" or a Federal take-over of the province, which has an elected provincial legislature in which the PMLN is the leading party. And, the Sharifs are not going to put up with being excluded from politics, and Zardari and his courts tried to do.

Those issues have to be resolved before the political situation can calm down. Moreover, Iftikhar Chaudhry is himself an iconoclast, and what if he indicts Musharraf or even Zardari? Or maybe Dick Cheney. If Chaudhry is worried about Pakistanis who were made to disappear without habeas corpus or formal legal proceedings, as part of a 'war on terror,' I have suggestions for perpetrators he should look into, who now live in Texas.

So, good news, but not an end by any means.

Chaos In Pakistan

Sorry to harp on Pakistan, but when a nuclear-armed country experiences this kind of political unrest, I take notice. There was hope going into the weekend that Prime Minister Zardari would make enough concessions to satisfy the opposition. However, despite pressure from the Obama Administration and the world community to allow the peaceful protests, Zardari rejected reconciliation and placed Nawaz Sharif under house arrest. However, Sharif defied that house arrest and participated in a massive demonstration in Lahore which grew violent.

Pakistan's opposition leader defied house arrest on Sunday to lead anti-government protests that briefly turned violent before becoming a jubilant show of force against the country's pro-Western president.

Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif called the mass rally a "prelude to a revolution."

The power struggle between the former prime minister and President Asif Ali Zardari threatens to paralyze the government and, alarmingly for the U.S., distract the nuclear-armed country from its fight against Taliban militants operating along the Afghan border.

Hundreds of police surrounded Sharif's residence in Lahore, carrying an order for his house arrest, party spokesman Pervaiz Rasheed said. But Sharif, who denounced the order as illegal, later left the house in a convoy of vehicles and headed into town.

Riot police had earlier fought running battles with stone-throwing protesters, turning the downtown into a battle zone littered with rocks and clouded with tear gas and smoke. A mob smashed windows of buses parked along the route of Sharif's convoy.

Eventually, the police did draw back, no doubt because of the negative publicity. But this is truly terrible. Sharif is speaking the language of revolution, and will probably continue on to tomorrow's proposed mass sit-in at the Parliament. And there are signs of ethnic conflict between Sharif's base in Punjab and the Sindhi forces throughout the rest of the country. This is all happening while the government still needs to battle extremist militia in sections of the country, and the political strife is unquestionably a distraction.

I don't see how this ends well. Zardari believes, not without cause, that reinstating judges will lead to them bringing back up his corruption cases, leading to his arrest. Sharif clearly believes his revolutionary rhetoric that he can force his way into power. While Pakistan may not be a failed state, it's certainly an unstable one, with seemingly intractable problems. And thanks to the Bush years, we have a dearth of influence in the region. The Taliban is not going to topple the government and control a nuclear arsenal anytime soon, but there is a danger that extremism could rise when freed from battles with a distracted government. And this kind of uncertainty is very nerve-wracking.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

This is actually good news. The US and the UK have been leading hard on the Zardari government to arrive at a deal in their increasingly boisterous political standoff, and there are tentative signs that such a deal is being made.

The chief of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, met Friday with Mr. Zardari, and with the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, in what politicians said was an imminent decision to lift executive rule in Punjab Province, one of Mr. Sharif’s demands for stepping back from confrontation.

Mr. Zardari placed the Punjab, the most populous province in Pakistan and the stronghold of Mr. Sharif, under the rule of the governor on Feb. 25, and effectively dismissed the provincial assembly, where Mr. Sharif’s party predominates.

Pakistani leaders were also discussing a Feb. 25 Supreme Court decision that disqualified Mr. Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz, from elective office, politicians from both the ruling and opposition parties said.

That decision has been widely criticized in the Pakistani press and among politicians as a political ruling carried out at Mr. Zardari’s behest.

It's a good start, but considering that the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, was what sparked mass protests both against Pervez Musharraf and Zardari, and that is not to be found in this deal, I wonder how successful it would be in stopping the marches. This may appease Nawaz Sharif, who Juan Cole thinks is not respecting democracy by threatening open rebellion against the elected government, but it doesn't address the larger question.

This report from Middle East Progress gets at many of the thornier issues, which are complex. One thing is clear, however; this situation, no matter how unstable, is better than another military coup. An excerpt:

Mr. Sharif’s PML-N lost out to the PPP in the 2008 elections due to a sympathy vote after Ms. Bhutto’s assassination. Unable to digest the prospect of sitting out in the cold for another four years (Musharraf had exiled him earlier for nine years), Mr. Sharif desperately wants the restoration of the deposed chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, in the fair expectation that the latter would hold all Musharraf acts illegal – including the reprieve from corruption granted to Mr. Zardari and several PPP leaders – and thereby compel a mid-term election later this year or next. Mr. Sharif is capitalizing on his rising nation-wide popularity in the wake of the plunging fortunes of the ruling PPP and its coalition partners, the results of a run of bad political decisions by Mr. Zardari, including retaining the chairmanship of the PPP while serving as president of Pakistan and having a party loyalist acting as prime minister. Mr. Zardari’s refusal to reinstate Mr. Chaudhry has led Mr. Sharif to join hands with a simmering country-wide lawyers’ movement in support of Mr. Chaudhry. The joint opposition has launched a “Long March” on Islamabad from all over the country, starting March 12 and reaching its destination for an interminable “sit-in” outside parliament in Islamabad on March 16 [...]

Pakistan is unraveling. The only recipe is more democracy, not less, so that civilian support for, and ownership of, the war on terror can be manufactured and strengthened. Western efforts must be focused on strengthening the economy (there is no substitute for jobs, well-being and upward mobility in ensuring a political stake in the system rather than Long Marches and terrorism) and retraining and re-equipping the Pakistani military to cope with insurgency. Above all, greater intervention is needed in discreetly but firmly knocking political heads together in Pakistan. The last thing the United States should consider is a wink and a nod to another army general to seize power. The war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban will eventually be won in the hearts and minds of the people.

Read the whole thing.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

The Vice President gave a speech to NATO yesterday, basically urging the membership to get involved in Afghanistan. I don't think it will be very successful, though he is right that there is a shared national security interest to deny a regional safe haven for extremists. The problem, of course, is that there already is one, in Pakistan and in the FATA areas. Pakistan is currently in the throes of a political crisis, that would cause instability and allow extremist forces to operate more freely. The fear is not that the Taliban takes over Pakistan, but that the political wrangling between Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif will predominate, and leave the leadership up for grabs. It's basically an old-fashioned political squabble

A conflict developed between Nawaz Sharif and PPP leader Asaf Ali Zardari over the deposed chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhury. Dictator Musharraf had dismissed Chaudhury in spring of 2007 for opposing some of his policies. Pakistan's massive legal establishment began holding rallies and demanding that the chief justice be reinstated, which he was in summer 2007. Musharraf was under pressure from Washington to become a civilian president. But he found out that fall that the supreme court would not allow this transition because the constitution requires that a military man have been out of the service for 2 years before becoming president. So Musharraf just dismissed the whole supreme court, including the recently reinstated Chaudhury, and appointed a new court, which sycophantically recognized him as president.

When he was allowed to come back to Pakistan from exile in Saudi Arabia, Nawaz Sharif, who had been overthrown as prime minister in 1999 by Musharraf, began demanding that Iftikhar Chaudhury and the old, dismissed, supreme court be reinstated.

After the PPP won the parliamentary elections, its leader, Zardari, declined to reinstate Chaudhury. Zardari was afraid that the chief justice might reinstate the corruption charges against him, which had been amnestied by Musharraf [...]

But just last week, the supreme court dismissed Shahbaz Sharif as chief minister of Punjab, and barred him and Nawaz Sharif from running for office. Some suspect the court of acting at President Zardari's behest.

The Sharif brothers say that this court is anyway illegitimate and refuse to recognize its rulings, since it is the fruit of a poisoned tree, i.e. the arbitrary creature of a desperate military dictator 18 months ago.

The attorneys are also still angry over the failure of Zardari to reinstate Chaudhury and the others.

So on March 15, the Muslim League (which is more conservative landlord than religious fundamentalist, despite the name) is organizing a "long march" on parliament to protest the current supreme court and the recent decisions it issued against the Sharifs.

On the hustings, Nawaz Sharif said that the only thing that could save Pakistan now was a revolution, and announced that he had "raised the standard of rebellion."

Pakistan is a young nation. These political struggles could easily break the country apart, with secession, a partition between areas, and perhaps a military coup to stop the factional fighting, with a return to dictatorship. And remember, this is a nuclear-armed state. It seems to me that Afghanistan is almost an afterthought compared to the dangers here.

It's not that Biden and the Administration aren't doing some things right in the region - they are realistically looking at folding certain Taliban elements into the state, which may or may not be successful but it at least inventive, and they are halting some raids, mindful of the deleterious effect of civilian casualties on the battle for hearts and minds.

But Pakistan is a far more dire situation, one that requires immediate attention.

World Report

Because I'm almost out of here, I'll just mash these together, but they're all important, and would all merit a post of their own.

• So the ruling party in Pakistan chose Benazir Bhutto's widow, Asif Ali Zardari, to be their President. Of course, when Bhutto was Prime Minister, she and Zardari bilked the country for millions upon millions. Zardari doesn't want to reinstate Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the head of the Supreme Court, because Chaudhry might then arrest him. So this is cutting a wedge through the fragile coalition. The former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, wants to slash the Presidential power before Zardari accedes to the position. Sharif's Muslim League also wants Chaudhry back on the bench. Pakistan is a mess, and a mess we can't afford right now.

• While George Bush finally came around on a withdrawal timeline, he's still not all the way where Muqtada al-Sadr needs him to be:

The debate over a deal that would chart the future of U.S. troops in Iraq has reignited the rhetoric coming from Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr, who denounced the plan Friday for not setting a firm date for American withdrawal [...]

Iraq's government spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, reiterated Friday that any departure of U.S. troops was "subject to Iraqi national security" and that the dates were hypothetical. The final departure date "will be jointly set" by Iraq and the United States, he said, downplaying suggestions that the draft was the final deal.

At the weekly prayer service in Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, chants of "No to the agreement!" rang out through loudspeakers positioned along the street. Worshipers responded with applause and repeated the chant as the service ended and people drifted away [...]

At prayer services across the country, Sadrist preachers said any deal struck with the Americans was a blow to Iraq's sovereignty. In Sadr City, listeners agreed.

"Everyone is talking about how it will really serve the interests of the Americans, not the Iraqis," said Mohammed Fadim, whose well-stocked grocery store overlooks the wide avenue where worshipers knelt side by side in prayer. "Everyone knows the U.S. administration. Once they occupy a country, if they want to make an agreement to stay, 80% of the terms will fulfill their interests."

This is bad news. Sadr leads a cultural movement regardless of who holds the guns, and Maliki was pushed to a timeline in the first place because of pressure from the Sadrists. If Sadr turns against a deal pushed by the Parliament, Maliki's team will be crushed in the provincial elections. Just the act of getting this ratified (Maliki is going through the Parliament) could rip the country to shreds. Not good.

• In a neglected corner of the "war on terror," Somalia is going to crap.

Islamic militants said Saturday they had seized control of Somalia's third largest city after three days of fighting that left about 70 people dead and saw thousands flee Kismayo.

The Islamic courts movement, which controlled the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south for six months in 2006, said it wrested control of the southern port city of Kismayo from clan militias.

The ICU never really stopped fighting, as the US paid little or no attention, despite the fact that Somalia, with almost no real government and extreme poverty, is a hotbed for extremism. This goes down as another failure of Bush-era foreign policy.

• Russia is leaving Georgia. Mostly leaving. Georgia is apparently disputing the checkpoints Russia has set up in Georgian territory. It's a bit dodgy, but to characterize it as the greatest crisis since the Cold War is king of nuts.

Tragedies In Asia

These natural disasters in nearby nations in Asia continue to have worse and worse effects. In Burma the death toll has risen to over 125,000 and the fear is that aid is trickling in so slowly, thanks to the paranoid military government, that a "second wave" of deaths from disease and starvation is imminent. In China, earthquake victims continue to be found, the death toll is approaching 15,000, and Chinese troops are desperately attempting to fill a crack in a large dam that, if breached, would overwhelm yet another city.

Amazingly enough, the quietest disaster happening in Asia could be the most far-reaching, as the second most-powerful party in the Pakistani government, Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League, has vowed to quit the cabinet, which could lead to instability in the most dangerous trouble spot in the world. Sharif's issue is that the Pakistan People's Party has not yet moved to reinstate the judges fired by Pervez Musharraf, and that the ruling party is making poor use of their power. This could blow up in a hurry. And right now, it has to be on the back burner due to the mass loss of life to its north.

Pakistan Update

Before I go all Iowa caucus all the time, I do want to look at the situation in Pakistan, where things are getting so bad that refugees are fleeing to... Afghanistan. Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The government has quit with the fiction that Benazir Bhutto died from hitting the sunroof of her car, after video evidence emerged to totally contradict that. They even brought in Scotland Yard to help with the investigation (which is still being run out of Pakistan and is not independent). But they did, as expected, delay the election for at least six weeks, a move that angered opposition party leaders.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The main opposition parties denounced the government’s decision on Wednesday to postpone parliamentary elections for six weeks after the assassination of the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, but they said they would abide by the ruling.

The Election Commission set Feb. 18 as the date for the elections, citing the time needed to recover from the violence that followed Ms. Bhutto’s death last week. Nearly 60 people were killed, election offices were damaged and parts of Ms. Bhutto’s home province, Sindh, were paralyzed.

“It is risky,” said one Western diplomat, who would speak only anonymously, following diplomatic protocols. “Anything could happen, because any straw or incident could ignite more violence or reaction against the government.”

Nawaz Sharif has called on President Musharraf to resign and a caretaker government to be installed. And The Washington Post has more about possible street actions that may be taken as a result of this decision. Obviously things could go from bad to worse at any moment. And if this is true, they will:

The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.

Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.

Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf.

It's clear that this focus on elections is misplaced. Without an independent judiciary and a free press there is simply too many ways for the Musharraf government to cheat. They don't want a fair election. And the fact that Bhutto felt like she had to hide the information from the Bush Administration because they're not honest brokers is amazingly sad.

The must-read on all of this is from Barnett Rubin.

I called a friend in Lahore this morning. The obstacles are not just that electoral materials (possibly including those prepared for rigging) were destroyed in the rioting. The country's infrastructure is under severe stress. In Lahore there are only 7 hours of electricity a day, and water pressure is also reported to be unreliable (I know those of you in Kabul may not feel their pain). Optic fiber lines were cut in Sindh, blacking out telecommunications for a while. The front page of Dawn online yields the following: There has been massive damage to the country's rail network. Fuel is in short supply, and the shortages are likely to get worse. The stock market and the currency are both crashing. Government ministers are charging "foreign elements" (i.e. India) with organizing the riots, a useful excuse for martial law.

In Pakistan there is a massive outburst of rage against Musharraf and everything associated with his government, including the government's claim that it has evidence that the Pakistani Taliban, led by Baitullah Mahsud, carried out the assassination. I still lean toward the hypothesis that the operation was carried out by organizations connected to al-Qaida. Given the relationship of the Pakistani military to jihadi organizations that by no means absolves the Musharraf regime of responsibility.

But what recent events demonstrate even more clearly is that the Bush administration's policy of relying on a personal relationship with a megalomaniac manipulator like Musharraf to fight al-Qaida has strengthened that organization immeasurably and perhaps fatally damaged the U.S.'s ability to form the coalition it needs to isolate and destroy that organization.

We make the mistake in this country of creating a linear line of opposition, where there are "moderates" and "terrorists" in Pakistan. In that scenario, Musharraf is a "moderate" and therefore on our side. But that is not how he's perceived in the country, and it's frankly offensive that we label every foreign entity based on how we think they perceive us. The "pro-American" forces don't want to work together; indeed, they're competing for power. It's worth reading Rubin's entire piece.

Still Playing The Great Game

The major news accounts of Benazir Bhutto's death are numerous, but I really like this account of how US policy was so staked on Bhutto's return to Pakistan.

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism [...]

"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

But the diplomacy that ended abruptly with Bhutto's assassination yesterday was always an enormous gamble, according to current and former U.S. policymakers, intelligence officials and outside analysts. By entering into the legendary "Great Game" of South Asia, the United States also made its goals and allies more vulnerable -- in a country in which more than 70 percent of the population already looked unfavorably upon Washington.

Don't worry, though, we've got a plan B: that other former Prime Minister who was almost killed yesterday:

On Thursday, officials at the American Embassy in Islamabad reached out to members of the political party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, according to a senior administration official. The very fact that officials are even talking to backers of Mr. Sharif, who they believe has too many ties to Islamists, suggests how hard it will be to find a partner the United States fully trusts [...]

The administration official said American Embassy officials were trying to reach out to Pakistani political players across the board in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination.

“Look, most of the people in Musharraf’s party came out of Nawaz’s party,” the official said, referring to Mr. Sharif and speaking on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. While he acknowledged that an alliance between Mr. Sharif and Mr. Musharraf was unlikely given the long enmity between the men, he added, “I wouldn’t predict anything in politics.”

Of course, the big question is who is that senior Administration official? Does he perhaps believe he exists in a fourth branch of government?

The idea that we can find someone, anyone, acceptable to Musharraf to put an imprimatur on democracy there is, in the words of this Pakistan analyst:

“...insane,” said Teresita Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, of the proposed alliance. “I don’t think Musharraf ever wanted to share power.”

Elections weren't likely to be all that fair anyway, given that the entire judiciary was installed by the dictator. I think a military coup is likelier than just sliding over to some other national politician and expecting democracy to flourish.

The answer to that depends in part on his successor as army chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who, although a protege of the president, must consider whether his mentor has become an impediment to stability.

"He will listen carefully to what Musharraf has to say, but his decision will be geared to security interests of the army, and the country," (analyst Faranza) Shaikh said.

We're not going to be able to snap our fingers and come up with a magic solution in a country of 164 million where our presence is increasingly reviled.

Was Moe Green Hit At The Tropicana Too?

I had seen this earlier in the day, and forgot about it, and then a Kos diarist reminded me that Benazir Bhutto wasn't the only former Pakistani Prime Minister marked for death today.

At least four supporters of former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were killed Thursday when unidentified gunmen fired at his party's procession in the outskirts of Islamabad, local press reports said.

Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N), was due to address election rallies in the eastern Pakistani city of Rawalpindi, some 30 kms south from Islamabad.

A procession was taken out to welcome Sharif when unidentified gunmen opened fire from a house at Karal Chowk on the main Islamabad airport road, the PML-N said.

Let's add these facts into the mix as well:

• In an email that was only revealed after her death, Bhutto blamed the Pakistani government for their failure to adequately protect her on the campaign trail, going so far as to say she would hold Musharraf responsible for anything that happened to her.

• Nawaz Sharif said the same thing.

• The Bhutto attack occurred in Rawalpindi, home of a large military garrison, described by Peter Bergen today as akin to having an assassination occur right next to the Pentagon.

• The ties between the Pakistani military, the ISI (intelligence services) and radical Islamist groups like the Taliban are legion.

• Obviously, knocking off the top opposition leaders makes it easier to consolidate rule, as does a terror attack that could postpone elections or lead to a restoration of martial law.

So, while you can't exactly say Musharraf pulled the trigger on Bhutto, you might be able to make a case that he was at a family baptism at the time and may have smiled a bit hearing the news from Tom Hagen.

This, by the way, is our major ally in South Asia in the war on terror, someone who stood to benefit this much from a terrorist attack.

World's Most Dangerous Trouble Spot Update

So over the weekend, Dictator-General Pervez Musharraf lifted the state of emergency in Pakistan, despite continued attacks from Islamists. He took the opportunity to mark up the Constitution to his liking, and permanently swear in handpicked Supreme Court judges, to resist any challenges in the courts. Nevertheless he claimed that this lifting of the state of emergency would pave the way for democracy:

“Today I am feeling very happy that all the promises that I have made to the people, to the country, have been fulfilled,” he said. The removal of the state of emergency restores fundamental rights like the right of assembly and freedom of movement three weeks before parliamentary elections, and it would ensure that elections are free and fair, said the acting law minister, Afzal Haider.

Only Nawaz Sharif, head of the largest opposition party, won't be on the ballot due to a court decision, and if he appealed to the Supreme Court, he would be facing Musharraf-installed judges to restore the right for him to run against Musharraf-picked legislators.

Democracy!

I Feel Their Pain

A public opinion poll in the world's most dangerous trouble spot, Pakistan, shows that most people want Pervez Musharraf to resign, and practically everyone expects massive vote rigging.

And yet, Musharraf is still President, and the election will be held, and that will be that.

The only difference between the despair in Pakistan and the despair stateside is that the Pakistanis might actually act on it.

Pakistan’s two main opposition leaders, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, each a former prime minister, are already accusing Mr. Musharraf of fixing the vote in advance and vowing protests if he prevails.

“If elections are rigged, we are going to need to be in a position like the people of Ukraine were, to protest those elections,” Ms. Bhutto said at a news conference last week. “A plan is under way to rig the elections, and to stop progress towards democracy.”

Speaking of Dictators

Hugo Chavez is a "dictator" who loses elections. Pervez Musharraf is a "strong civilian leader" who bars chief rivals from competing in elections.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been barred from running in January’s parliamentary elections because of a prior conviction, Pakistan’s election commission announced today.

A spokesman for Mr. Sharif, Ahsan Iqbal, said the barring of Mr. Sharif was part of a plan by President Pervez Musharraf and his supporters to rig the elections, and that Mr. Sharif’s lawyers would contest the decision.

Mr. Sharif, a leading opposition figure who was overthrown in a military coup in 1999, was allowed to return from exile last week, and filed nomination papers to represent a district of his home city of Lahore in the parliamentary elections scheduled for Jan. 8. But other candidates in the district challenged his nomination on the grounds that he was convicted in 2000 of hijacking a plane carrying Mr. Musharraf, who was then head of the army, an act that precipitated the bloodless coup.

Just the idea that Sharif could get a fair hearing from a commission that's part of the government of the guy who OVERTHREW HIM AT GUNPOINT is madness.

American coverage of foreign political affairs is very corrupted by official government biases.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

Pervez Musharraf gave up his uniform today, setting the stage to become a civilian President. But if the country is still under martial law, what is the meaning of "civilian President"? And if a handpicked Musharraf loyalist runs the Army, is the government really all that separate?

Meanwhile, opposition leader Nawaz Sharif is back, and he doesn't sound too thrilled with the prospect of serving under Musharraf:

Mr. Sharif, a former prime minister who was tossed out of power by General Musharraf in a 1999 coup, condemned his old nemesis for imposing emergency rule on Nov. 3. He said he would not serve as prime minister under a Musharraf presidency, demanded an end to the state of emergency and called for the reinstatement of fired Supreme Court justices.

Such a forceful stand contrasts in many respects to Mr. Sharif’s own time as prime minister. He is best remembered here and in Washington as the leader who brought the world a nuclear Pakistan, flirted with war with India and forged strong ties with religious conservatives. His tenure was marred by charges of rampant corruption and by confrontations with the courts and the media as well.

Sharif is a more religious leader, in contrast to the secular Benazir Bhutto. But neither of them are publicly agreeing to serve under Musharraf. Behind the scenes and through back channels, they may be fighting one another to make a deal. The idea that you can have a legitimate election with the judiciary in jail, opposition rallies broken up and the Constitution suspended is lunacy. I think both of them are prepared to either grudgingly serve in the government or cry fraud when they lose. Either way, the end result will still leave a fairly powerful opposition on the streets, with Islamists lurking in the background willing to lend a hand.

UPDATE: Funny:

Pervez Musharraf has stepped down as head of the Pakistani army. Now he's merely a civilian dictator.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

It's true that this whole depressing scenario of martial law in Pakistan endangers the whole region by threatening a collaboration between Islamist militants and pro-democracy reformers, as we saw during the Iranian revolution. Pervez Musharraf's main enemy is democracy, as can be seen by his aborting the plan to kill bin Laden after deposing Nawaz Sharif in a coup, and using Islamist parties to forestall any efforts by Sharif or Benazir Bhutto to return to prominence.

Washington is more concerned with Islamic extremism than Musharraf, who as military chief in 1999 sent jihadi fighters into Kashmir to challenge Indian troops. He pays lip service to democracy but views the Constitution as an impediment and elections as a threatening menace. Little wonder that while presenting a secular image to the West, Musharraf has looked to Islamic parties to upend democracy and keep former prime ministers Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of politics. Musharraf engineered the unexpected electoral success of Islamic parties in the 2002 elections and helped them form governments in two provinces.

As a price for their cooperation, Islamic parties got protection for their Taliban and extremist allies and a free hand to impose more Islamic laws on Pakistanis. Since 2001, Musharraf has selectively cooperated in the war on terror but resisted cutting all ties with extremists.

Being, well, extremists, the jihadis have not seen this as enough of a concession and began to strike at Musharraf and particularly the Army. Musharraf responded by sacking the judiciary and jailing reformers. He's not even trying to hide it much by claiming that this is being done in the name of fighting extremism. And the danger is what comes next.

Musharraf's interests are no longer those of his military, and the two are now on a collision course. Generals can still end this crisis by going back to the deal Washington brokered with Ms. Bhutto, but only if it does not include Musharraf. Removing Musharraf will send demonstrators home and the Army to its barracks.

The longer Musharraf stays in power the more Pakistan will look like Iran in 1979: an isolated and unpopular ruler hanging on to power only to inflame passions and bring together his Islamic and pro-democracy opposition into a dangerous alliance.

A disastrous outcome in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with weak institutions and rife with extremist ideologies, violence, and deep ethnic and social divisions, will be far worse than what followed the Iranian revolution.

Our leverage over Pakistan is in the form of foreign aid, which US lobbying groups paid by Musharraf are fighting to protect. We obviously ought to come down on the side of democracy, but even that is hard to figure. Benazir Bhutto may write op-eds in US media and threaten large-scale protests in Islamabad, but it's unclear whether she has a megaphone to the West because of her American education or because she has a legitimate role in a post-Musharraf Pakistan. As Matt Yglesias notes, Bhutto lost to Nawaz Sharif the last time there were legitimate elections in Pakistan. It was Sharif who was deposed. It's Sharif who has been barred from the country. It's unclear whether Bhutto has power or influence inside the country, other than the fact that she says so on CNN. And of course, she was the handpicked successor by the Bush Administration in a unity government with Musharraf, which doesn't inspire confidence.

It's important that the West gets this right, and doesn't leave behind a caretaker government that's ripe for a subsequent takeover They should be pushing for new elections with full access for all participants, including Sharif. The Pakistani people need to decide the future of their democracy.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

It really looks like Pervez Musharraf is back on his heels, with the Supreme Court in Pakistan now letting a chief rival back into the country.

...the Supreme Court, headed by the recently restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, has cleared the way for the immediate return to Pakistan of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom Gen. Pervez Musharraf removed in 1999 in a bloodless coup. Musharraf had forced Sharif into a 10-year exile, which he's been taking in Saudi Arabia. In elections widely believed to have been rigged, Musharraf "won" Pakistan's presidency in 2002.

Sharif is a rival not only to Musharraf, but also to former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who is said to be the U.S. choice for a power-sharing arrangement with Musharraf. Already compromised by his alliance with the U.S. in the so-called "War on Terror," Musharraf was recently weakened further by the unrest that followed his removal of Chaudhry from the Supreme Court; clashes spread across the country, forcing him to return the chief justice to the bench. Word was that Musharraf wanted Chaudhry out ahead of the coming national elections in order to allow the general to carry on as head of the armed forces while also serving as the head of state -- a violation of Pakistan's constitution. Apparently, Chaudhry has some fondness for the rule of law.

The US was trying to broker this power-sharing deal between Bhutto and Musharraf, and Sharif would be an impediment to that. Manan Ahmed notes that Sharif and Bhutto aren't exactly saints, as both have pending corruption investigations in the Pakistani courts. But clearly this is a blow to the autocracy of Musharraf and a gain for the democracy movements in the country. It was assumed that Musharraf was the only thing holding Pakistan back from Islamic rule; that doesn't appear to be the case. Bhutto and Sharif head revitalized democracy movements, which if they are allowed to participate will transform Pakistani society:

Some certainties do exist: any civil government will continue to fully cooperate with the US efforts. In fact, the efforts in Waziristan would be strengthened by the participation of Baluchistani leaders at the Federal level [Baluchistan has always been a Federal/State controversy]. The elections will not result in any rise-to-power of Mullah Omar in Islamabad. And a democratic Pakistan will surely be a far more valuable ally within the Muslim world. The uncertainties largely hinge on the nature of the elections - the participation of various groups and their freedoms to do so. It will also be a chaotic period which can make Pakistan vulnerable to further attacks and incursions.

Yes, it is still very dangerous in Pakistan, as today's filming of the murder of a Pakistani soldier is evidence. But this is a problem of Musharraf's doing, his coddling and signing of peace treaties with terrorists in the northern highlands region. The new leader of Pakistan must go through some growing pains to deal with this. But the people would appear to be on their side.