This from APP, on the scheduled talks today between Pakistan’s Prime Mister Gilan and President Bush;
“WASHINGTON, July 27 (APP): Urging Washington to be patient with the elected government’s anti-terrorism strategy, Pakistan’s envoy in the United States Husain Haqqani Sunday hoped that Congress would be receptive to Pakistan’s views on security in the region.”
He reaffirmed Islamabad’s commitment to address extremism through a multifaceted approach along its Afghan border and said the U.S. legislators “should be patient with the new government for a year or so and see if it is able to translate its ideas into actions,”.
As has been noted in the news, Ambassador Haqqani is well known here in the states. His book on the Pakistan Military (“Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military”) is a good example of his strengths and weaknesses. Amb. Haqqani is very well connected and intimately involved with the security issues that plague Pakistan. He is also charismatic, writes well, and is a prolific speaker. But the book also displays an agenda that threatens the objectivity of everything he does: he is a PR man first, and a historian/political scientist second. His combination of skills are perfect for an ambassador, but that has not been his primary role until quite recently, and I am afraid too many people have accepted his work at face value.
Now he is defending the same sort of “multi-faceted” policies that his political nemisis, President Musharraf, has been pursuing against terrorists for the past seven years. I think this is wonderful because I happen to believe that their approach (close the border, rely more on paramilitaries, precision strikes, economic, political, and informational development) is generally sound but that they need lots more of it.
To give Amb. Haqqani credit, he has long made the point that one of the greatest problems in Pakistan is the crisis of legitimacy. Using his logic, similar policies, when pursued by a civilian government, may be more effective than when pursued by a military dictatorship. It will also make it easier for us to support them, given our stated preference for democratization and working with democratic regimes.
But will a fragile political coalition have the legitimacy and the strength of will to take the concrete steps necessary to undermine militant Islamism in Pakistan? In addition to improving security in the FATA, it must also open the area up to political competition (as Dictator, Musharraf was ideally suited to do this, but he balked – possibly – due to the popularity of the Islamists). Even more difficult, they have to do a better job than Musharraf at challenging the ideology of militant Islamism. His program of “Enlightened Moderation” was headed in the right direction, but this IO campaign needs both a better spokesman and a more resonant message.
At present, “hope springs eternal”, but the increasing chorus calling for more aggressive action will not be sated by calls for patience. U.S. election and rotation cycles do not really allow for patience.
