| 05 March 2004 | Friday | 13 Muharram 1425 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
|
What's there to choose?
Three weeks ago I gleefully suggested that Bush might slip on the way to November. This was the price he'd have to pay for taking America into a war justified by outright lies and cheap propaganda.
Behind that prediction was not love for the Democratic frontrunner, John Kerry, or the rest of the weasel pack in the Democratic race. It was subjectivity, pure and simple.
George Bush and the neo-con gang around him had concocted the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Since hubris should take a fall, he had no business being re-elected. And the American electorate would have to be dumber than usual to vote him into the White House again.
But as the presidential race gets into high gear, an uncomfortable truth is becoming clearer: that on the Iraq war there is really nothing to choose between Bush and Kerry.
Kerry supported the war all the way, voicing not the slightest doubts about its wisdom. Even now, about the only criticism of the war he allows himself is that Bush went ahead without taking America's allies along.
In the run-up to the war Kerry was a card-carrying member of the war party. "Iraq," he said, "has chemical and biological weapons" and even claimed it was "attempting to develop nuclear weapons."
On October 11 2002 he voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. When the war started he co-sponsored a Senate resolution stating that the invasion was "lawful and fully authorized by the Congress" and that he "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President...in the conflict with Iraq."
Any backtracking or apology for the stand he took then? Not the least bit. The Democrats are not touching the Iraq war or facing up to it. Nor is Kerry. There seems to be a bipartisan consensus to simply fudge the issue and get on with other things.
The only person who had fire in his belly was Howard Dean. And look how he was squeezed out of the race, his views too radical for what is dubbed as "the American mainstream". Strange country, the U.S.: if you oppose the thuggery visited on Iraq, as Dean did, you are a radical.
Which reminds me of a seminar I attended in Doha, Qatar, this January. Called "U.S.-Islamic World Forum", it was billed as an attempt to heal the rift between Islam and the West, to create new bridges of understanding between the two.
Attending the seminar from the American side were quite a few Democratic think-tankers, including some who had held jobs in the Clinton administration. And not a few, it appeared, hopeful of nailing jobs in a future administration, including, as seemed to be the impression, a secretary of state-in-waiting (Richard Holbrooke). Not one of those luminaries said an angry word about the Iraq war.
They talked passionately of extremism and of the necessity of "marginalising" it. But they couldn't bring themselves to admit that there might be extremists driving American policy in Washington.
Holbrooke's prescription for creating understanding: we shouldn't talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nor any other divisive issue (Iraq?). The focus instead should be on common problems, like healthcare and AIDs. If he becomes foreign policy czar in a Kerry administration (I hope not) we'll have reason enough to remember Colin Powell with nostalgia.
The only American who came close to criticising the Iraq war was Bill Clinton (yes, he was there and gave a superb speech, quite dazzling really). And even he spoke about it obliquely, saying quite correctly that he wouldn't like to dilate on this issue in a foreign country. For the rest the Democrats and the Republicans could have been speaking from the same side of the aisle.
Having wrapped up Super Tuesday, Kerry is now effectively the Democratic candidate. His major campaign slogan is, "change is coming to the US". It may on other issues but not Iraq.
Indeed, as the campaign heats up, one of Kerry's problems will be to show where precisely he differs from Bush on Iraq. His views may evolve and that would be a welcome development. But for now, on this issue at least, there is little to choose between him and Bush.
Not that Iraq looms large in this election. It does not. Americans are more interested in the economy: taxes, jobs, healthcare. Iraq has successfully been turned into a side show by the political class. But the rest of the world is understandably more interested in the twin arenas where the U.S. is playing out the Bush doctrine (which, on current reckoning, may also turn out to be the Kerry doctrine) of pre-emptive war: Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pakistan is a frontline state in this game, working closely with the U.S. as it tries to root out the Taliban threat and impose a semblance of peace on Afghanistan. While Pakistan's leader, General Musharraf, has a close personal rapport with Bush and the rest of his team.
Indeed, you never know, Pakistan could be the key to Bush's re-election provided - and this is a big proviso - between now and November Osama bin Laden is somehow caught. Kerry will have to do some smart footwork to dodge what may well be a knockout blow. At least that's the current wisdom.
Hence the intense American pressure on Pakistan to do more. Pakistan is already doing a lot, its army courting internal unrest by carrying out "get Al Qaeda" operations in the traditionally sensitive and easily-inflamed tribal areas. But the Americans are working to a deadline and couldn't care less about Pakistan's problems as long as they get Osama's scalp.
With the situation in Iraq chaotic and not about to improve any time soon, there are no easy election trophies in its killing fields. Afghanistan is a different matter. It is not straining American resources the way Iraq is. Nor does it have the kind of national resistance there is in Iraq. A big catch in Afghanistan and it would immediately tell on the U.S. election. Would it prove decisive? It's too early to say.
Which explains the interest sparked by Seymour Hersh's write-up in the New Yorker. Quoting administration sources, he says that elite U.S. special forces (a group identified as Task Force 121) have moved from Iraq to the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to intensify the search for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar.
Who'd be better for Pakistan, Bush or Kerry? With nothing to choose between them on the issue that concerns us the most, war and peace, we are perhaps better off with the devil we know than the one we don't. There's also history to consider.
Traditionally, Pakistan's military rulers have got along better with Republicans than Democrats. So no marks for guessing which horse General Headquarters would be betting on.
A pawn in a bigger game: Pakistan has been here before, most notably in the 1980s when it was the linchpin of the CIA's war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It's traversing familiar territory again.
This effort would be worthwhile if accompanied by a serious effort at putting Pakistan's internal house in order. Specifically, moving towards democracy (the real kind, please) and putting an end to the army's meddling in politics. But nothing of the sort looms on the horizon.
In the 1980s General Zia used the Afghan enterprise to win friends abroad and strengthen his grip at home. The same thing has happened again, almost an action replay of that earlier drama. Alliance with the U.S. has made Gen Musharraf an acceptable, even popular, figure abroad and given him breathing space within.
Zia left a dark legacy - stunted political institutions, religious hypocrisy, sectarian frenzy and a retrogressive social code, problems Pakistan is still grappling with. What will be Musharraf's legacy?There's one difference, however.
Zia was a consciously reactionary figure, pushing Pakistan into the dark ages. Musharraf is different, presiding over a remarkably open political society. Which makes for a startling paradox: a military dispensation tolerant of debate and criticism.
Openness, however, is not enough. To mean something more lasting than the occasional round of applause, it must be supplemented by a stable political system. A goal, alas, Pakistan is still a long way from achieving.
