Mumbai, Pakistan, Pakistan, and Pakistan

CNN: Mumbai: Hostages freed as PM blames 'outsiders'

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about this. Attacks like this have occurred many times over the past couple of years in India - this one just involves Westerners. This wikipedia article has a nice list of attacks since 2001. I count 24, with 8 attacks with over 50 deaths (not casualties, deaths).

Now, the fact that this specifically targeted Westerners is an important development. But the fact that this was so coordinated, yet likely not al-Qaeda, leads me personally to suspect Pakistani, or more likely ISI involvement.

P.S. Sorry for my (severe) lack of articles. I hope to be back now.
Image credit:d ha rm e sh on flickr

What Musharraf's Resignation Means for India

IHT: Musharraf quits as Pakistan’s president

I wrote last week about what a resignation by Musharraf would mean for the U.S. and our Afghanistan policy. This week, from a different perspective: the perspective of India.

Background
India has recently seen an upturn in the amount of violence in Jammu and Kashmir. The territory is disputed between Pakistan and India – three wars have been fought over it, as well as both sides gaining nuclear weapons in the 60 year conflict. Some in the India-administered Kashmir would like to secede from India and join Pakistan, and vice versa. Recently, Muslims in Indian administrated Kashmir have increased protests. During some of these protests, a handful of protestors have been killed by Indian police. The protests rage on today.

A power vacuum
India worries that with the resignation of Musharraf, there will be a power vacuum in Pakistan. That is very legitimate concern. It is likely the next elected president will be weak, at least temporarily if not permanently, and the Pakistani parliament is likely to break down into its feuding factions: the PPP (the party of Benazir Bhutto), the PML-N (the party of Nawaz Sharif), the Islamists, and everyone else.

None of these parties is particularly competent; most all are corrupt. Corruption, however, is not India’s worry. India’s worry in the executive and legislative branch is Islamic fundamentalists. They could very much endanger stability and the peace process. As well, India has no one to talk to that would be in complete control.

Yet, there is one larger worry: the powerful army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. The army helped fund militants in Kashmir that sparked the 1998 almost-all-out war between Pakistan and India. The ISI has always trained militants as well, and is believed to have been involved in the recent bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

The last comment I have is this: the U.S. and India still have ongoing talks about a nuclear power deal for India.

Musharraf Impeached: A New U.S. Policy for Pakistan

Note: this article was written semi-in a rush, because of the fact that in the middle of writing the article, news of war in South Ossetia broke out

Reuters: Pakistan coalition to move to impeach Musharraf

Background
Pakistan is split between four factions:
1. The ISI (the Pakistani CIA)
2. The army/President Musharraf
3. The PPP (the party of Benazir Bhutto)
4. The PML-N (the party of Nawaz Sharif)

The army, the PPP, and the PML-N have all been in control at one time or another in the past 20 years. All have been relatively ineffective and corrupt. The current alliance is the populist PPP and PML-N in the parliament against the U.S. supported President Musharraf. The parliament made a truce with terrorists who live in the largely unregulated North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The truce was what the majority of Pakistanis wanted, but neither the U.S. nor Musharraf supported it. The truce has since broken down almost completely.

Now, the PPP and the PML-N in parliament is trying to impeach Musharraf.

Consequences
The first, most obvious consequence of the impeachment will be further destabilization of the region. With the situation in Afghanistan at the point that it is, the impeachment should be of grave concern to the West, and America especially. Furthermore, the destabilization will not be limited to just Pakistan and Afghanistan: it will affect the Middle East as well.

Other than destabilization, the other (more) serious consequence of the impeachment is the affect on the War on Terror. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban already operate out of the NWFP in Afghanistan at will. If Musharraf is taken out of office, it can be assured that the new president will be softer on terror, which is exactly what we DON’T need right now.

Luckily, it is unlikely the impeachment will be successful. However, Musharraf has said before that he would step down if impeached. Hopefully he will not follow through with that statement.

U.S. policy
None of this should have happened. We should never have relied so heavily on an ineffective dictatorship. This is the price we have to pay. Lessoned learned: don’t cozy up with dictatorships.

The good news is that this could be helpful in the long term. It could stop a lot of potential terrorists from becoming terrorists by (a) defusing anti-American sentiment and (b) having the potential terrorists feel like they have a say in their government. Alternatively, it could not. The brief spike in terrorist activity could outlast the long term effects mentioned above.

Non-military aid
So, what should U.S. policy be? No matter who is in power, there is one simple effective step that can be taken: reorganizing aid to Pakistan. Islamabad has squandered billions in military aid. Over $7 billion in aid has been ineffectively used in the fight against terrorists and the rest has been spent on buying next-gen fighter planes for use against India.

A better use for aid would be in infrastructure: building roads, schools, hospitals, electrical lines and water lines. Of course, military aid would still most definitely be necessary. However, American aid to Pakistan needs to be more for the people of Pakistan, rather than the Pakistani military.

Being Proactive in Pakistan - A Plan for Pakistan

Our troops are sitting on the Afghan-Pakistan border, staring across from the Afghan side. They can practically see Taliban strongholds. Why don’t they attack?

That was my opinion only yesterday. The only other option, as I saw it, was to sit back and watch.

Sitting back and watching isn't the only option other than attacking: we can be proactive. We can build alliances with tribal leaders, help the average Pakistani, promote democracy, etc.

Going into Pakistan and targeting high value targets might seem smart in the short run, but in the long run, the consequences would be disastrous. Number one, we might not even get the target; number two, we would enrage local leaders, who would distrust us for years to come; and three, we would create new terrorists by giving current terrorists easy propaganda.

On the other hand, we could make alliances with local leaders, promote democracy, or in other words, gain the support of the Pakistani people. With the Pakistani people supporting us, support for the terrorists would ebb. Over many years, we could successfully defeat the terrorists ideologically – and that is the true goal.

"Patience is a virtue". Though this could take years, in the long run, it will be worth. Politicians in the U.S. must look past their careers and do what is best for the U.S., for Pakistan, and for the region as a whole.

Nawaz Sharif to Boycott January Elections

This is just breaking news, I don't have a link yet, but here's what I have so far: Sharif says his party to boycott Jan. 8 election.

This could help him take the lead in Pakistani democracy movement by taking such a hardline, but it makes you wonder, who will take over on the political front? I see two viable candidates: Bhutto's husband, and one of Bhutto's political rivals that I still cannot remember the name of.

More importantly though, you can see why this complicates the U.S.'s anti-terrorism interests there. Sharif's boycott will totally undermine the elections unless a new, strong leader emerges from the PPP, Bhutto's party. Undermined elections = undermined Musharraf, and Musharraf will be weaker than ever.

On Benazir Bhutto's Assassination

The details are still emerging of this horrific event, but we can make some significant conclusions.

How will this effect the PPP, Bhutto's political party? They no longer have a leader. There are leaders within the party who could take over (their names escape me), but I don't know if they have international democratic recognition.

What about Nawaz Sharif, the other internationally recognized democracy activist and political candidate? This will certainly boost his popularity. Also, this is likely to fracture voters in Pakistan, who were mostly united behind Bhutto.

Will this boost the chance of democracy? Bhutto's been martyred, and is likely, at least for the short term, to boost the calls for reform in Pakistan

Then again, one could look at this the opposite way. The attack could give President Musharraf an excuse to call for martial law.

The other question to ask: Who carried out the assassination?
Was it Islamists?
Was it the Pakistani Intelligence Service?
Was it one of her political rivals?
Was it Musharraf?

We can definitely say this: This will complicate the U.S.'s work in the Middle East.

Nawaz Sharif to Return to Pakistan Sunday - Will Musharraf Let Him?

Nawaz Sharif has announced that he will return to Pakistan on Sunday, begging the question: will General Musharraf allow him to stay?

Last time Sharif attempted to return, he was promptly shipped back out. Then, Musharraf had not declared martial law, was on good terms with Benazir Bhutto, and was not politically isolated.

Does that make Musharraf more likely to kick out Sharif once again? On one hand, Musharraf seems increasingly desperate to hold onto power. On the other hand, the General needs to placate the West in order to continue receiving our support. What will Musharraf do?

Decisions, decisions…

Does ANYONE Agree With Me?

On Friday, I wrote that the current situation in Pakistan is a Bhutto-Musharraf power play. More famous pundits have not been discussing this theory as much, but there is a growing number of blogs that are stating the fact that Bhutto isn't the democratic savior she is made out to be.

The Boston Globe, as well, essentially agrees with the theory I described, as does fellow blogger Frank Hagan.

Pakistan State of Emergency -- A Bhutto-Musharraf Power Play

While Pervez Musharraf attempts to calm Pakistan after his declaration of emergency rule (effectively a declaration of martial law), Benazir Bhutto waits eagerly and the U.S. waits nervously.

That just about sums up Pakistan’s most recent conflict. But we need more detail.

Musharraf
If you aren’t living under a rock, you know that this is at its most basic level an attempt to hold on to power by President Musharraf.

Musharraf has been in a continuous power struggle with the Pakistani judiciary ever since the 1999 coup which brought him into power. The issue at the forefront of the confrontation has been the fact that Musharraf holds both the office of President and of Chief of the Army, constitutionally illegal. This struggle escalated this year, with the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry being suspended, reinstated, and suspended again during the current crisis.

The motive of the suspension was widely (if not universally) seen as a move to hold on to power by Musharraf. Elections were coming up in October, and it was essentially assured that the Supreme Court would not allow the Pakistani President to hold on to both his military and political posts.

The elections in October overwhelming went to Musharraf, though the election has yet to be certified by the Supreme Court. That decision was expected to come Monday, and was also projected to not be in favor of the President.

This led Musharraf to make the decision to declare martial law.

Bhutto
Benazir Bhutto has been cast as the democratic savior of Pakistan by hopeful analysts in the U.S. and hopeful citizens in Pakistan. But Bhutto is still a politician, and a corrupt one at that. She presided over two administrations overflowing with corruption and human rights abuses.

She is hoping to gain a third term as Prime Minister in the recently delayed parliamentary elections, though laws created by Musharraf block her and other former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from seeking third terms. This forced Bhutto to try to cut a power sharing deal with Musharraf to secure her position as prime minister, which appears to have been successful.

While the full details have yet to emerge, a consensus among analysts has emerged: the deal has hurt Bhutto’s image as a democratic leader and threatened her credibility.

This was the setting for the current power play. Rumors were swirling that Bhutto was aware of Musharraf’s emergency plans, and this was only the next step in their plan. They are both losing power and popularity, and know it. They had to take this step in order to have a chance at staying in power.

In fact, Bhutto knew well enough last week that there was a possibility of martial law being declared. But she left for Dubai anyway, after ‘delaying’ her trip temporarily.

Yes, Bhutto has been leading protests. But that is all to put on her democratic public face. Though she leads protests, she is still in league with the General.

Expect to see Bhutto in power next year, alongside Musharraf.

The U.S.
This is a military and diplomatic nightmare for the U.S. After months of diplomatic pressure, in Pakistan, a nuclear armed state teeming with Islamic terrorists, the President effectively declares martial law solely in order to hold on to power. Anything elections Musharraf’s government holds, any attempt to reconcile with political opponents, the sincerity of anything he does will be questioned.

Nevertheless, the U.S. must continue to rely on Musharraf. Even if Pakistan was not the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, withdrawing the support of General Musharraf would send the country and its multiple nuclear missiles into total anarchy.