Why Am I Not Surprised?

Guess who's behind the Bush administration's uncritical embrace of Musharraf? That's right: "Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him." Also -- bonus incompetence!

The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan. Retired American officials say that, for the first time in U.S. history, nobody with serious Pakistan experience is working in the South Asia bureau of the State Department, on State's policy planning staff, on the National Security Council staff or even in Vice President Cheney's office. Anne W. Patterson, the new U.S. ambassador to Islamabad, is an expert on Latin American "drugs and thugs"; Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, is a former department spokesman who served three tours in Hong Kong and China but never was posted in South Asia.

Excellent.

Comments

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Le président américain George Bush a exhorté lundi son homologue pakistanais Pervez Musharraf à lever l'état d'urgence dans les meilleurs délais, à organiser des élections et à quitter ses fonctions militaires.

Posted by nur al-Cubicle | November 5, 2007 5:19 PM

I think Musharraf has friends all over the US power structure. I've heard Gen. Zinni make a STRONG case in Musharraf's favor, says he's a thoughtful man that's just in a very difficult job. Says Pakistan's junta knows which direction it needs to head in, but has to move a bit more slowly than many would like to see.

What I don't understand is that with all this talk, what are the better options? We're lucky to have Musharraf putting that place on lockdown and staying in control, I think operative cliche in this instance is "the devil we know".

Posted by Sleepy Floyd | November 5, 2007 5:25 PM

May I imagine that excellent Matt typed in a Mr. Burns voice?

Posted by freddiemac | November 5, 2007 5:38 PM

But Musharref is arresting the Westernized intellectuals and professionals....not the "Beards".

Posted by Nur al-Cubicle | November 5, 2007 5:57 PM

Who's the pundit, me or you?

Posted by jerry | November 5, 2007 6:10 PM

Reality-Based Community: "the Bush administration's uncritical embrace of Musharraf."

News today:

"Bush said Monday he recognized the threat Musharraf faces from extremists, citing past attempts on Musharraf's life, but said the emergency measures "undermine democracy."
"We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the president should remove his military uniform," Bush said.
Musharraf is also Pakistan's military chief. Pakistan is a nuclear power and a key U.S. ally in the war on terror.
Senior U.S. officials said U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson and other senior ambassadors -- including Britain's -- met with Musharraf on Monday to raise Washington's concerns with the "heavy-handed" measures taken in Lahore, where police, wielding batons, clashed with lawyers and journalists Monday outside the courthouse."

Always gotta love when the Reality-Based Community is so out of step with... reality.

Posted by Al | November 5, 2007 6:26 PM

Powerline's "Deacon" approvingly quotes David Frum

What is happening in Pakistan underscores the dangerously symbiotic relationship between authoritarianism and extremism in the Islamic world. Musharraf needs extremists to justify his authoritarianism - and the extremists in turn need him to crowd out more rational alternatives. It's a relationship visible in Egypt and the Gulf as well. Which is why - out of fashion though it may be, neglected even by the president who articulated it - the Bush doctrine will be back. In the long run, free institutions are the only antidote to ideological and religious fanaticism.

Frum doesn't seem to realize that the dude whom the doctrine is named after is actively pursuing the policy that he criticises.

Posted by P O'Neill | November 5, 2007 6:35 PM

The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan.

No one with the least bit of professional self-respect would work for this administration now. I really hope we luck our way through the next year and a half, but I'm not feeling very optimistic.

Posted by Antid Oto | November 5, 2007 6:38 PM

Second-hand slurs at career foreign service officers are expected from the right. MY's innovation is offering them from the left.

Posted by Thomas | November 5, 2007 6:41 PM

Frum is exactly right - the Bush doctrine is the only way to go.

Good thing the person who the doctrine is named after is actively pursuing... the Bush doctrine. As is easily seen by anyone who reads what Bush actually said: "we expect there to be elections as soon as possible".

Posted by Al | November 5, 2007 6:41 PM

The whole point, Al -- as described at length in that article, which was written in late June -- is that Cheney was preventing the Administration from trying to establish any ties whatsoever to Musharraf's secular and (at least mostly) democratic opponents in Pakistan, and that this could lead to serious trouble. Now that it's too late, Bush has finally become aware of the dangers of coddling the man unqualifiedly. (Whether Cheney has also done so yet remains to be seen; he doesn't change his mind, or what passes for it, easily.)

Posted by BruceMoomaw | November 5, 2007 6:42 PM

But Musharref is arresting the Westernized intellectuals and professionals....not the "Beards".

I just think Pakistan can go a LONG way down from here. Arrests in the name of stability pale in comparison to the potential consequences of a weak Pakistani regime. Too many demons being held in check in that place, and while the military seems greedy and self-serving you should see their competition.

Posted by Sleepy Floyd | November 5, 2007 6:43 PM

"Frum doesn't seem to realize that the dude whom the doctrine is named after is actively pursuing the policy that he criticises."

Oh, really? I think dear David's ingenuousness is open to question: "Frum's the name; irony's the game."

Posted by Henderstock | November 5, 2007 6:46 PM

Second-hand slurs at career foreign service officers are expected from the right. MY's innovation is offering them from the left.

I've heard foreign service officers themselves complaining about the severe loss of experience in their ranks. Something like half of all U.S. foreign service officers today were hired after 2001. It's not a slur to point out that that's a problem when complicated problems arise and there's no one on hand with country expertise.

Posted by Antid Oto | November 5, 2007 7:06 PM

Problem...problem...problem...gah!...edit!

Posted by Antid Oto | November 5, 2007 7:07 PM

Call me old an old fashion realist, but I would rather have a stable military dictatorship with strong CIA ties, than a chaotic society on the verge of anarchy and unpredictable revolution— especially if they are controlling scores of nukes.

What the MSM will never cover: the biggest failure of the reckless Bush/Neocon adventures in focusing all our military assets on and in Iraq (a completely non-strategic, stupid endeavor for the US), is that the US is now completely unable to respond to a serious strategic threat in Pakistan… like sending in thousands of troops immediately to secure nukes in danger of being removed and disappear.

Aside from all the unnecessary tangible costs for the US in Iraq, the most colossal, catastrophic consequences of Bush, Cheney and the Neocons is the years of the missed opportunities to pursue policies that would have enhanced the US and world security, not squander it post end of Cold War. How we doing with China? Ask Bush and he will recite his bike ride and his unintentional slapstick gag at leaving from the wrong door-- the metaphor for the reign of George the Small.

Posted by erict | November 5, 2007 7:18 PM

You tell 'em, Al! He's not -uncritically- embracing Musharraf -- he's embracing Musharraf with a mild rebuke!

Posted by neil | November 5, 2007 7:26 PM

A receptionist in the Bureau of Land Management is the point person for the State Department handling joint U.S.-Pakistan nuclear proliferation talks.

Posted by steve duncan | November 5, 2007 7:46 PM

Musharaf is doing a good job though, it's not his fault pakistan is a backwards tribal country. 5-year-olds shouldn't be allowed nukes.

Posted by Haha | November 5, 2007 7:51 PM

Anne Patterson is about the most competent Foreign Service Officer I met in my 20-year career in the FS. Also a damn nice person, which is saying a lot about people who get to her rank. I'd be less worried about her than I would if the DCM and political officers were all without South Asian experience.

Posted by Traven | November 5, 2007 7:58 PM

The idiots posting that "Musharraf is doing a good job" should read the article more closely.

While he's been "doing a good job" holding onto his power, he's "allowed" (not having any significant choice in the matter, I agree) the Taliban to radicalize his tribal areas, allowed Al Qaeda to reform and regroup in his country, and squandered offered US assistance on $10 billion worth of weapons system to threaten India with.

The real fault, however, can be laid directly at Bush's door. Invading Afghanistan - and incompetently at that - allowed the Taliban to escape into Pakistan. That resulted in the radicalization of Pakistan, which in turn resulted in the demoralization of the Army, which in turn resulted in Musharraf's problems, which in turn resulted in Bush getting Bhutto back, which in turn threatened Musharraf's power, which in turn led to this coup.

It's been a neat step by step, all caused by Bush's stupidity. Pakistan might - I emphasize might - have been a "stable dictatorship" - although that is usually an oxymoron eventually, although Saddam didn't do too badly (unless you count the Iraq-Iran war, which most people do). Bush's actions made sure that will not be the case.

Meanwhile, the moron is getting ready to attack Iran, which will bog the US forces down even more than in Iraq. Thus, when Pakistan finally collapses and the nukes are at risk, in a year or two or five, Bush - or whoever follows him - will have no ability to deal with that crisis at all.

You couldn't make up a more perfect history of utter incompetence and failure motivated by the pursuit of greed and power.

The future of Pakistan is now virtually guaranteed to be Islamist OR civil war OR another military dictatorship - the latter will merely delay those first two results by a few years. If we're lucky, the result will be "moderate Islamist" - like Turkey. The odds are against that, however.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 5, 2007 8:30 PM

The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off in U.S. expertise on Pakistan.

Not surprising, of course, when Bush openly declares his contempt for anyone with any sort of expertise at every opportunity.

This development of the loss of expertise on South Asia is sort of fascinating in a perverse way because the right, when faced with the rank dim-wittedness of their standard bearer in 2000 was reduced to whining that he'd make a good president because he'd surround himself with smart people.

Posted by Tyro | November 5, 2007 10:10 PM

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 5, 2007 8:30 PM

Not sure how you can blame him......problems managing the northern regions predate Musharraf's policies, and radical Islam is a force growing independent of him or Pakistan government. Taliban freak-diversion project went horribly wrong and ended up increasing radicalization, but no doubt US moves are the true driving force behind his problems.

I just think there are no good alternatives to the Pakistan situation, while the military will never lose control their posture and international relations depend to an extent on the internal situation, and whether or not they have to answer to zealot freaks. A scenario where the military disposes Musharraf and adopts a surlier orientation, to placate the unmanageables, is certainly in the cards.

Posted by Pink Floyd | November 5, 2007 11:30 PM

"I would rather have a stable military dictatorship with strong CIA ties, than a chaotic society on the verge of anarchy "

Democracy is good for me, not so much for you. The continuing bigotry and exceptionalism among so called liberals and neocons is disgusting.

Posted by An Outhouse | November 6, 2007 10:39 AM

By the way, can we stop using the term "Bush Doctrine"? There is no Bush Doctrine. Ever since 9/11, conservatives whose partisan interests were served by promoting Bush's alleged intelligence have called various policies the "Bush Doctrine", including:

1) Terrorist harboring states will be treated the same as terrorists;
2) Preemptive war;
3) Military force to contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction;
4) Democracy promotion.
Etc.

This was obviously nothing more than a typical, dictated from on high Republican talking point to make Bush seem the equal of Monroe and Theodore Roosevelt and Truman.

There is no Bush Doctrine. To have a doctrine, you have to be a sophisiticated foreign policy thinker. Bush is many things; he is not that.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 6, 2007 3:35 PM