Bush’s GWOT depends entirely upon one Dictator

By now it ought to be clear that George Bush doesn’t have a foreign policy; instead he has a GWOT around which everything else is ‘organized’. By the same token, Bush has no Pakistan-policy; he has a Musharraf-policy.

The Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte—who already in the 1980s had a record of cozying up to “friendly” dictators—assured the House Foreign Affairs Committee today that Musharraf is in fact “indispensable” to the United States.

So there it is.

From Negroponte’s opening remarks:

[On November 5] President Bush called for democracy to be restored quickly, for elections to be held as scheduled and for President Musharraf to resign his position as Chief of Army Staff. But the President also pointed out that President Musharraf has been indispensable in the global War on Terror, so indispensable that extremists and radicals have tried to assassinate him multiple times.

…the Government of Pakistan has been an indispensable leader in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

That’s quite stunning as an admission of foreign policy failure: George Bush’s entire GWOT revolves around one man—a brutal and devious dictator at that. As long as Musharraf pretends to “help” in the GWOT, then he remains “indispensable”. That’s been true for a long time, of course. It’s just that Musharraf’s imposition of martial law has forced the ugly truth out into plain sight.

Here is Bush waxing eloquent last year during a state visit by Musharraf:

This President is a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan…

He understands that we are in a struggle against extremists who will use terror as a weapon. He understands it just about as good as anybody in the world -- after all, they've tried to take his life. These extremists who can't stand the thought of a moderate leader leading an important country like Pakistan want to kill the President. That should say things to the people of Pakistan and the people of America, that because he has been a strong, forceful leader, he has become a target of those who can't stand the thought of moderation prevailing…

The first time I ever met President Musharraf, he talked about the need to make sure that school systems in Pakistan worked well. I was impressed then, and I'm impressed now, by your commitment to an education system that prepares students for the -- and gives students the skills necessary to compete in a global economy.

We talked about democracy. The last time I was with the President, he assured me, and assured the people that were listening to the news conference, that there would be free and fair elections in Pakistan in 2007. He renewed that commitment, because he understands that the best way to defeat radicalism and extremism is to give people a chance to participate in the political process of a nation.

You’d have thought, given that this one man is indispensable to the GWOT, that George Bush would have checked in immediately with him as soon as it became clear that all the aforementioned sweetness and light was not breaking out in Pakistan. But as I’ve been saying from the first day of martial law, Bush has remained eerily silent and passive.

He was waiting for day five of the crisis before acting (as we now learn):

PRESIDENT BUSH: I spoke to President Musharraf right before I came over here to visit with President Sarkozy. And my message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform. You can't be the President and the head of the military at the same time. So I had a very frank discussion with him.

That’s it. That’s all we learn about the long-awaited day when Bush would spring into action. He told us nothing about what Musharraf said, what he promised to do, or what Bush’s own plans were.

The White House would not disclose details of the call or Musharraf's response.

"President Musharraf listened carefully and heard what President Bush had to say," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. He said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had talked with Musharraf on Monday. "The president felt like he should give him a call today and reiterate his position," Johndroe said.

He just felt he should give him a call today. Why today?

Might it be, perhaps, because Bush had just given a couple of rather awkward television interviews with French and German stations? These foreign journalists don’t always realize that they’re supposed to behave like potted palms.

Q So to a certain extent, you did contribute to giving greater power to Iran, because it no longer is facing its hated enemy on the other side. So now is there a true threat in Iran, and are you ready now to invade Iran as you did with Afghanistan and Iraq? So it is indeed true that Vice President -- is it true that Vice President Cheney has a plan for that?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know where you're getting all these rumors -- there must be some weird things going on in Europe these days -- because I have made it abundantly clear, now is the time to deal with a true threat to world peace -- that's Iran -- and to do it diplomatically and peacefully. And that's what I'm going to spend a lot of time on with President Sarkozy. But of course we want to solve these problems peacefully.

Q But if it doesn't work, if the sanctions and the threats do not work, what happens?

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to -- as I said, all options are on the table. But the objective is to make them work. I'm not so sure I agree with your hypothesis, that "if they don't work." I'm the kind of guy that says, let's make sure they do work. And that's what I intend to talk to President Sarkozy about, and Angela Merkel about, and that is to keep the international pressure and to keep the focus on the ambitions of an Iranian regime that has publicly declared its intention to destroy Israel, for example, and have defied the demands of the IAEA. And so they're not trusted -- to be trusted with a enrichment program. We made that abundantly clear to them. And I believe we can solve this problem diplomatically.

But to say that to enhance a free society on Iran's border strengthens the Iranians is just not true. I simply don't buy into that logic -- or illogic, in this case. I think a free society on Iran's border is going to be -- make their life more difficult. I think that, ultimately, they're going to feel pressure about the type of government they have when their people look across the border and see a flourishing, free society.

You can’t have the next day’s headlines saying “Bush calls Iraq a flourishing society”, now can you?

crossposted from unbossed.com

Bush still dodging questions about martial law

More than two days after the coup in Pakistan, George Bush finally speaks about it. Trouble is, he’s still saying nothing.

At a photo-op/press-availability this afternoon with Turkish PM Erdogan, Bush barely acknowledged the crisis. All he would say is that Musharraf needs to hold elections as soon as possible, and ought to take his uniform off (meaning presumably that the dictator should not parade around quite so openly as a military dictator).

No word from Bush about the major issues at stake: Whether Musharraf should be permitted to hold onto power; whether he should release political prisoners; whether he should respect the Pakistani supreme court; whether he should end martial law. He didn’t even use the expression “martial law”. Nor was Bush willing to discuss whether the US should withhold any aid from Musharraf or impose any sanctions at all.

In fact, Bush still hasn't spoken yet to Musharraf!

Here in this short compass is just about everything Bush has said to date about the imposition of martial law in Pakistan:

I briefed the Prime Minister on Secretary Rice's recent phone call with President Musharraf. I asked the Secretary to call him to convey this message: that we expect there to be elections as soon as possible, and that the President should remove his military uniform. Previous to his decision we made it clear that these emergency measures were -- would undermine democracy. Having said that, I did remind the Prime Minister that President Musharraf has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals, that he understands the dangers posed by radicals and extremists. After all, they tried to kill him three or four times.

...

As I said earlier in my statement, that we made it clear to the President that we would hope he wouldn't have declared the emergency powers he declared. Now that he's made that decision, I hope now that he hurry back to elections. And at the same time, we want to continue working with him to fight these terrorists and extremists, who not only have tried to kill him, but have used parts of his country from which to launch attacks into Afghanistan, and/or are plotting attacks on America.

And consider the series of questions Bush just doesn't answer in this brief press availability:

What will be the consequences if [Musharraf] doesn't take your advice, and how seriously are you weighing a cut in U.S. aid? ...

Q Do you have any leverage, though? ...

Q Mr. President, did you misjudge President Musharraf?

Meanwhile, this afternoon Dana Perino's opening remarks at the daily press briefing omitted any mention of Pakistan! When reporters began asking questions, she tried to convince them to wait until later in the day when Bush would have his little press-availability with the Turkish PM. Pathetic...

Q Why hasn't the President called Musharraf, who is, after all, a key ally, personally? Is he reserving that, is there a lack --

MS. PERINO: The President has directed his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to have that direct contact. And if there's more to update later today we will.

Matt.

Q But, Dana, the President does take great pride in his personal diplomacy. He's met numerous times with General Musharraf. He stood shoulder to shoulder with him here and in other places. Why doesn't he just get on the phone and say, back down from this?

MS. PERINO: I'll just repeat what I just said, which is he has directed Secretary Rice to deliver the message on his behalf, and if there's more to update you on later we will....

Q Has the President, indeed, already spoken with Musharraf today?

MS. PERINO: No.

Ken.

Q Dana, should we take it as significant that he has not spoken directly to --

MS. PERINO: No, no. Obviously the President got briefings over the weekend; he had Secretary Rice in touch with him last week. Our Ambassador, Anne Patterson, has been in contact with Musharraf and the -- Musharraf's officials in his government. And we've been getting regular updates from the Director of National Intelligence, as well as our national security team, and of course from Secretary Rice, who has been in the region.

Q But it does seem a departure from the way he deals with other world leaders that he claims to have good relationships with.

MS. PERINO: If there's a phone call, we'll let you know.

Q Did Musharraf decline calls? Have you attempted a call?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't believe so. ...

Q Was the Pakistani ambassador called in?

MS. PERINO: Not that I know of, but we can check. ...

Q Dana, in addition to this situation, the President has delegated authority for the management of the Middle East summit to the Secretary of State. And here, two days into this crisis, he hasn't picked up the phone and called the guy who he stood here and called his "good friend." Is it fair to assume that the President is reluctant to personally invest himself in a situation that possesses a high risk of failure?

MS. PERINO: No, Mark, I think -- look, that's apples and oranges. The President has asked Secretary Rice to work on the Middle East peace summit. She's the Secretary of State, that is what she does. And she is the person that the President entrusts to carry his messages for him. That's not unusual. We are working towards a summit on Middle East peace which the President would attend. So I just -- I don't think that follows.

Q We have a couple of situations which hold in them a high risk of failure. Is it fair to consider -- is it fair to perceive him as not being interested in personally investing himself in the situation?

MS. PERINO: I resent that, because the President is personally engaged, and it is because of his engagement and his desire to see this succeed that he has Secretary Rice, one of his closest and most trusted advisors, carrying out this action for him.

Amidst all the haziness and confusion, there was this one moment of lucidity from Perino--rather ironic, given that she represents an administration that has eroded personal liberty to an unprecedented extent in the name of a "Global War on Terror".

Q But what he says what he's doing is against the terrorists, that is necessary to preserve stability there against terrorist organizations?

MS. PERINO: We do not believe that any extra-constitutional means were necessary in order to help prevent terrorism in the region. And that's why we are deeply disappointed with the actions, and we asked them to not do it.

Q Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

Bush continues his silence on Musharraf's coup

On Saturday I commented that the American news media were pretending to themselves that the Bush administration had taken a strong stance against the imposition of martial law in Pakistan. The opposite was true: Bush had gone completely silent, while the Pentagon had let it be known that it wouldn't let a little coup stand in the way of their close cooperation with General Musharraf. It was left to a State Dept. spokesman to issue a tepid expression of chagrin about the "state of emergency". Condoleezza Rice managed to weaken that even further while showing that she was barely cognizant of who was in touch with Musharraf.

The harvest of shame continues today. Bush is still ducking questions and Rice remains mealy-mouthed. What has changed, however, is that a few in the media have discovered that American journalists were fibbing yesterday when they credited the administration with a strong response to the coup.

Why the sudden about-face? Several prominent politicians today decried the Bush administration's failure to take a clear stance against the coup, making it acceptable (evidently) for journalists to tell the truth on Bush.

Here for example is an AP report by Anne Gearan, who notes in passing that Bush has been "silent so far":

"This administration has a Musharraf policy, not a Pakistani policy. It's tied to Musharraf. ... Its hands are pretty well tied right now. And it's put itself in a very difficult position, and in turn us in a difficult position," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Bush should speak out forcefully. "We have bolstered Musharraf with billions of dollars in recent years, and military support, and we ought to be specific that it's not going to continue," the senator said.

"I wouldn't support Pakistan with U.S. aid here. He's doing everything which is against democracy. Seizing the Supreme Court is just outlandish. What he's done is declared himself the dictator," Specter said. "And he hasn't been helping us enough on terrorism, so that I think we ought to get very tough with him and try to drive him into line."...

Fred Thompson, said the U.S. must "play hardball" with Musharraf, including a potential aid cutoff.

When even the somnolent Fred Thompson wakes up from his nap and declares that your foreign policy is adrift, there can't be any denying that you've got troubles.

So what has the Bush administration done today in response to bipartisan demands for action?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday the U.S. will review aid to Pakistan...

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Rice told reporters traveling with her. "We just have to review the situation. But I would be very surprised if anyone wants the president to ignore or set aside our concerns about terrorism."

Bush, who has received steady updates on developments in Pakistan, is likely to make his first public comments Monday. He had not spoken directly with Musharraf as of Sunday afternoon, said national security adviser Gordon Johndroe.

"The Pakistanis and President Musharraf know well our position, and the president's position," he said. "And they are hearing it from all different levels of the U.S. government."

Returning to the White House from Camp David, Md., Bush did not respond to shouted questions about Musharraf. "We're obviously not going to do anything that will undermine the war on terror. That's not in our best interests," Johndroe said.

Well there's a tough stance if ever there were: (i) a review of aid, some of which you guarantee in advance will continue to flow to the dictator, and (ii) a total lack of communication between Bush and Musharraf. Because what's the big rush to pick up the phone?

The operative excuse principle for doing nothing, though so far only hinted at, is that the Bush administration has all but given up on the idea of spreading democracy in the region. Bush will be satisfied instead with a stable regime as long as it's headed up by a strongman who can act as a bulwark against religious extremists.

It occurs to me to ask, however: Isn't that the role Saddam Hussein was playing in Iraq until not long ago?

crossposted from unbossed.com