Musharraf may now be the last best hope of Pakistan

Herbert Thornton

Con Coughlin writes - "....however chaotic circumstances are, and however porous Pakistan’s borders, Islamabad’s active support for the Coalition cause is deemed essential if the war against terrorism is to stand any chance of success. That is why Britain and America were so desperate to sign up Mr Musharraf as an ally after 9/11. At first the Pakistani dictator appeared reluctant to commit himself, but he was encouraged to do so by President George W. Bush’s threat to bomb Pakistan back to the dark ages if he did not."

That may be the basis for Britain and America's policy towards Pakistan, but has not their faith in Musharraf - and the Pakistani armed forces - been misplaced?

Surely the war against Islamic terrorism can have no hope of success until - at the very least - Pakistan's north west frontier and adjacent areas have been completely subdued? And is that not a cause that Musharraf and his army have been, and will go on being, very half-hearted about, and even obstructive? Indeed, is it not also a cause that most Pakistanis have no enthusiasm for?

reid

As ever shallow articles in the spectator are killing its reputation! Musharraf will help in continuing colonial wars - the war on terror being little more than new wars on keeping the lid on indigenous people who see freedom and independence through the application of their values and religion - regardless of the dictator he is and how out of touch and favour he is with his society... So much for slogans such as democracy... no wonder the world does not trust or believe in such claptrap...

Fati

22 feudal families (institutionalised by british colonialsim) control over 80% of Pakistan's wealth. Bhutto and Sharif are from these backward bunch - their failure leaves the west with 2 choices - dictatorship or choice of the people... Guess which they are going to go for?

Jeffrey Lockman

I wonder what made Con Coughlin ptronise the Asia-Pacific Foundation as “highly respected.” While APF claims to be supported by donations and grants, no information appears to have ever been published detailing the Foundation's funding sources. The Foundation does not appear to publish accounts. Although, the Foundation claims that it "...maintains a Board of Patrons as well as an Advisory Board, whose members originate from many countries across the globe. It does not appear to have ever published a concise list of members of either board. Attempting to ascertain whether and how the organization has been formally registered is not made easier by the fact it has never published a postal address. http://tinyurl.com/yu7nlh Essentially, the Asia-Pacific Foundation is a family business led by MJ Gohel and supported by his son, Sajjan. It is surprising that Coughlin has consulted Gohel on nuclear safety, despite a rather sparse CV. But U.S. military and defense officials have said Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain securely under the control of the Pakistani military. Those officials have repeatedly called the Pakistani military a responsible steward of the arsenal and said it would remain out of country's political conflict. We do not know what Gohel’s background was prior to his founding of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, nor what his credentials are to take his words against the assessment of Pentagon officials.

Grahame

Salaam and shukran for your posts, Reid and Fati. I would respectfully point out some problems with your position. Both of you make reference to (and blame) 'colonialism' for the current plight of Pakistan, but this is a lamentable obfuscation. Mountbatten's partition agreement may have been rushed through quicker than everyone would have liked, but it's generally accepted he had little choice faced with increasing levels of religious strife threatening to break out into all out civil war. Notwithstanding this, many ex-colonial states have gone on to achieve great things with their independence, India not least. Ethnically and culturally, there are great similarities and shared history between the peoples of Pakistan and India. However, we should recall that Pakistan is a country created, at least in part, as a result of pressure from the Muslim League, who sought partition along religious lines born out of enmity towards Hindu India. Nearly 70 years after the creation of the state of Pakistan, we should perhaps be a little more honest about it's reasons for relative failure as a country vis-a-vis it's neighboring cousin, and consider the one great cultural difference – religion. By the way – 'democracy' is not a slogan any more than 'Bengali' is a religion. Mind you, depending on which side of the partition you stood, you could well be extremely thankful you're now living in a stable country with reasonable levels of security, increasing prosperity, and broad respect for other religious traditions. And a democracy. On the other hand – if you're living in Pakistan, you shouldn't blame others for the cultural failure and endemic religiously inspired violence of your country. That's just perpetuating the victim mentality. Instead consider whether you are simply reaping what you've historically sowed. Wassalam

Richard Lacy

Mr Coughlin makes a small error when he writes of: " the Pakistani military — and in particular its intelligence wing, the ISI". It would be more accurate to write of: "the ISI in particular, and its military wing."

Herbert Thornton

In my first posting, I mentioned the need for the complete subjugation of Pakistan's North-west frontier and adjacent areas, and the failure of Musharraf and his army to do much about it.

I have just re-read Winston Churchill's 'My Early Life'. Chapter XI, describing his participation in what turned into a punitive expedition in the Mamund Valley in 1897, is wonderfully instructive.

It gives a very vivid impression of the terrain and of character of the inhabitants of Pakistan's tribal areas, and how difficult it was - and no doubt still is - to subjugate them. It illustrates why the extremists - both Pakistani and foreign - find it such a safe refuge.

This does not of course mean that subjugation should not be attempted on the grounds that it is difficult, or costly - only that it will require force much more overwhelming and ruthless than anybody seems ready to use at present.