The Quiet Rumblings in Pakistan

This week people will pour into Denver by the thousands, to celebrate the ascension of Sen. Barack Obama to the head of his party. On August 28, 2008 he will accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The very next week Sen. John McCain will be in St. Paul, Minnesota to accept his party’s nomination. Despite all of this, major occurrences are happening in the world around us. Recently controversial and United States supported Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf resigned. This happening in the midst of convention celebrations should not mean it gets lost on us.

This issue is paramount to many in the United States. The first reason this is paramount is because Pakistan has been a supposed ally to the United States. This relationship has seemed to be more in word than deed as many in the Taliban have taken refuge and regrouped along the Pakistani border. The United States has been unhappy with the way that Pakistani officials have not vigorously pursued United States enemy combatants. President Musharraf has gone on record in interviews and in his memoir “In the Line of Fire: A Memoir” saying that the United States essentially bully-ed Pakistan into being an ally. Musharraf claimed that both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell drew a clear line in the sand, and in the case of Armitage even threatened Pakistan if they did not side with the United States.

These are accusations from Musharraf’s point of view. Armitage has categorically denied this and President Bush won’t even address it. But if you look at the behavior of Pakistan it doesn’t seem to be very ally-like, which would lend credence to Musharraf’s claims. Furthermore with Musharraf stepping down, that leaves open a place for a new president, and that process has been a great deal of controversy thus far. A coalition that was a significant portion of the governing body there has split, and now confusion and potential chaos is on the brink. For the first time in recent memory, in a place where the United States has an immense interest, they have vowed to stay hands off and allow the people of Pakistan to work their way through the potential governing issues. Although the United States has said publicly that they will not intervene (diplomatically or otherwise) a casual observer would note that as being inconsistent with recent United States foreign policy.

This comes full circle when you think of the two men vying for the presidency of the United States. McCain has made no qualms about continuing a hawkish foreign policy and going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban. Obama has not been as aggressive but has not ruled out going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban should he feel the Pakistani government is not doing enough. What this could mean is that we could see a situation similar to Iraq playing itself out in Pakistan. There will be a sizable disgruntled population that does not want to see the Unites States there and will take offense to occupation. Despite the United States noblest attempts to justify its presence, it will be seen on a world stage as more invasion even if it is sanctioned by the “candidate of change”.

Pakistan has demonstrated that it is not a state to be taken lightly as they have the same willingness to assassinate their leading political figures just as the United States does (see Benazir Bhutto). What’s more is that Pakistan (unlike Iraq, and probably Iran) actually has nuclear weapons. This is not a state that would take United States intrusion lightly. This issue demands that regardless who the next United States president is, we hold them accountable for their actions and policies, to be sure that we avoid military imperialism in the name of “fighting terrorism”. As the Pakistani people determine their new leadership, the United States should pay close attention. Who they choose as their leader can tell us much about their attitudes and the best way to treat them as partners in the global community.