Democracy Arsenal

« Campaign Songs from Coldplay | Main | Summer Reading List »

August 09, 2007

Musharraf, the Shah and Total Paralysis in Washington
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

With the entire mess going on in Pakistan I can’t help but get a sense that the American reaction to what is going on there today is very similar to what we did with Iran in 1979. 

In the 1970s the U.S. armed Iran to the teeth, and counted on it to keep the peace in the Persian Gulf, guarantee shipping lanes for oil and balance the Soviets in the region.  All of our eggs were in that basket and when the Shah started to teeter Washington went into full policy paralysis.  Some in the Carter Administration, most notably Zbig Brzezinski, argued that the consequences of the Shah’s fall were so detrimental to American interests that we had to buck him up and encourage him to take firm steps to quell the rebellion.  Meanwhile, the State Department argued for engaging the Iranian opposition so that we would be well positioned if the Shah fell.  Carter did neither.  Supporting a crackdown was too morally reprehensible, but talking to the opposition was seen as giving up on the Shah and making him look even weaker.  In the end, the U.S. did nothing:  slowly watching the situation deteriorate; giving the Shah its official support; doing little to actually keep him in power; and doing even less to prepare for the possibility that his government would collapse.  Worst of both worlds.

The situation today in Pakistan is eerily similar.  The Administration is completely dependent on the Musharraf government to contain extremism in Pakistan and act as a central ally in the “war on terror.”  If the government were to fall you could see massive instability in a nuclear armed state and the possible rise of an Islamist government.  Nobody wants to advocate for a violent crackdown, which may not even be possible and would certainly be awful, but nobody has any idea what to do if the Musharraf government were to fall.

As a result the current policy consensus seems to be “don’t rock the boat and hope for the best.”  So for example, Barack Obama makes a very rational statement that if the opportunity presents itself we should carefully take out senior Al Qaeda operatives in the tribal areas of Northwest Pakistan if the opportunity presents itself.  Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd respond that somehow his statements are destabilizing the Pakistani government.  Their reaction is just another indicator of the total paralysis on this issue.  Outside of not rocking a boat that might be about to capsize anyway, does anyone have any idea what we are supposed to do?

Side note:  I’d also point out that what people forget about the Iranian revolution is that it wasn’t originally just Khomeini and the Islamists.  It was a broad coalition that included leftists, liberal democrats, student activists, religious moderates and radicals who all came together to overthrow the government.  It took roughly a year from the time that protests began to the actual abdication of the Shah and another year before it became fully apparent that the government would be dominated by radical clerics, who weren’t necessarily the most popular but were the best organized and most able to step into the breach.  Similarly today we see a fractured society and tenuous dictatorship in Pakistan where pro democracy and Islamist forces are putting pressure on Musharraf whose hold on power is slowly weakening.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e200e3982544ec8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Musharraf, the Shah and Total Paralysis in Washington:

Comments

"Supporting a crackdown was too morally reprehensible, but talking to the opposition was seen as giving up on the Shah and making him look even weaker. In the end, the U.S. did nothing..."

Most Iranians at this point might mention "Nojeh Coup." After the fall of the Shah, the US perhaps had a window through which to fly Diplomat Air, but the Carter administration decided to instead foment with Jordanians and a certain Baath Party in Iraq a military putsch that had no chance of success but set the stage for the maudlin hostage takings, bungled rescue attempts and vain military and non-military efforts at containing Iran ever since.

my brother says priston tale Money is his favorite games gold he likes,

I am so happy to get some Tales Of Pirates gold and the Tales Of Pirates money is given by my close friend who tells me that the cheap Tales Of Pirates gold is the basis to enter into the game.

I hope i can get kamas in low price.
Ibuy dofus kamas for you.


I hope i can get GuildWars Gold in low price.
i buy Guild Wars Gold for you.

Try your best and then you can get it. I buy cheap aoc gold, just because I like it. So simple the aoc money is.

I buy aion kina with my spare money. It makes me happy that I can still earn some cheap aion kina.

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

I would like to say only one thing that the worst thing we could do it involve Pakistan in a war against their Muslim brother in Afghanistan. This will only energise Anti Mucharraf forces in Afghanistan.If we push Musharraf into an election with Bhutto, he might lose causing more instability.We tried to bribe Turkey into supporting our war in Iraq.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Emeritus Contributors
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use