[Peace-discuss] USG policy in the Mideast war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Tariq Ali's article on the new president of Pakistan, "Asif Ali Zardari: the 
godfather as president," appeared in the Guardian (UK) on Sunday 7 September and 
is probably the best short summary; his latest book, "The Duel: Pakistan on the 
Flightpath of American Power," is to be published next week. In the article he 
explains how the neocon/realist fight within the US executive is forming policy 
in re Pakistan, the explosive center of the US war against the Mideast.  We 
discussed this matter at the AWARE meeting and on UPTV two weeks ago. --CGE]


...Why did the US suddenly withdraw support from General Musharraf? An answer 
was provided on August 26 by Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti in the New York 
Times. The State Department, according to this report, was not in favour of an 
undignified and hasty departure, but unknown to them a hardcore neocon faction 
led by Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to the Security Council, was busy 
advising Asif Zardari in secret and helping him plan the campaign to oust the 
general:

     "Mr Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr Zardari, the leader of the 
Pakistan Peoples party, several times a week for the past month until he was 
confronted about the unauthorised contacts, a senior United States official 
said, "Can I ask what sort of 'advice and help' you are providing?" ... Mr. 
Boucher wrote in an angry email message to Mr Khalilzad. "What sort of channel 
is this? Governmental, private, personal?" Copies of the message were sent to 
others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided 
to the New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy."

Khalilzad is an inveterate factionalist and a master of intrigue. Having 
implanted Hamid Karzai in Kabul (with dire results as many in Washington now 
admit), he had been livid with Musharraf for refusing to give 100% support to 
his Afghan protege. Khalilzad now saw an opportunity to punish Musharraf and 
simultaneously try and create a Pakistani equivalent of Karzai.

Zardari fitted the bill. He is perfectly suited to being a total creature of 
Washington. The Swiss government helpfully decided to release millions of 
dollars from Zardari's bank accounts that had, till now, been frozen due to the 
pending corruption cases. Like his late wife, Zardari, too, is now being 
laundered, just like the money he made when last in office as minister for 
investment. This weakness will make him a pliant president of Pakistan.

The majority of the population is deeply hostile to the US/Nato presence in 
Afghanistan. Almost 80% favour a negotiated settlement and withdrawal of all 
foreign troops. Three days ago, a team of US commandos entered Pakistan "in 
search of terrorists" and 20 innocents were killed. Zardari was being tested. 
But if he permits US troops to enter the frontier province on 
"search-and-destroy" missions his career will be short-lived and the military 
will return in some shape or form. The High Command cannot afford to ignore the 
growing anger within its junior ranks at being forced to kill their own people.

The president of Pakistan was designed in the 1972 constitution as an ornamental 
figure. Military dictators subverted and altered the constitution to their 
advantage. Will Zardari revert to his late father-in-law's constitution or 
preserve its existing powers?

The country desperately needs a president capable of exercizing some moral 
authority and serving as the conscience of the country. The banished chief 
justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, automatically comes to mind, as do the figures of 
Imran Khan and IA Rehman (the chairman of the Human Rights Commission), but the 
governing elite and its self-serving backers in Washington have always been 
blind to the real needs of this country. They should be careful. The sparks 
flying across the Afghan border might ignite a fire that is difficult to control.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/pakistan.usa