The Pakistani Paradox

There was a disconcerting common thread in Moshin Hamid's rather reluctant celebration of Pakistan's 60th birthday on the editorial pages of the August 15th New York Times. It turns out that Pakistan has been “a steadfast American ally” whenever it happened to be under military rule as was true with Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan in the 1960s, Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf in the 2000s. Ironically, General Musharraf was also quite the American media darling when he was peddling his book last year – even making a coveted appearance on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show.” However, given all the recent negative press, it has become rather apparent that the General has long since fallen out of favor.

As the reluctant fundamentalist’s article implies, and those of us who grew up in the Indian subcontinent are keenly aware, military dictators have never ever been as good for Pakistan as they have been for the United States. In keeping with this tradition, General Musharraf has had his illicit turn but now his time is up. The purported power-sharing agreement that he has been trying to finalize with ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would be bad for both Pakistan and the United States – ipso facto, the idea having emanated out of the Bush Administration, it would surely be unpalatable to the larger Pakistani population.

Since 9/11 General Musharraf has been consistently accused of having it both ways in trying to balance his covert support for the Taliban versus his overt allegiance to the Bush Administration in hunting down Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. One could infer that President Bush has also been trying to play it both ways with Pakistan, given his bold pronouncement following 9/11 to be resolute against “any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism.” Despite knowing for a long time now that “Taliban and Qaeda fighters continue to find shelter and support on Pakistan’s side of the Afghan border,” President Bush has not acted decisively against them. The New York Times reported recently that the Bush Administration scrubbed “a 2005 American attempt to capture Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil.”

Pakistan is and has always been the “Rodney Dangerfield” of nations – unable to command any respect. In fact, General Musharraf's confession to 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft during his book promotion interview last September confirms this viewpoint. Per the General’s own account, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage made a very blunt threat to Pakistan’s Director of Intelligence:

“Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.”

Herein lies the Pakistani paradox, which appears to be a dilemma that actually confronts most Muslim nations – how to reconcile the requirements for a functioning liberal democracy against the seemingly conflicting demands of an orthodox Muslim theology? Democracy did not seem to be the perfect solution for India in 1947, but both democracy and a secular India have managed to survive and prosper through some tumultuous times. Pakistan could yet become a shining example of a Muslim democracy, provided its military stops stepping in every time it foresees or fakes a “crisis.” And, more importantly, the next time a military officer dares to overthrow an elected government in Pakistan, the United States should use whatever means necessary to force him back into his barracks.

Gore's Karmic Cycle

Democrats are not going to like this comparison but there seems to be an uncanny parallel thus far between the political careers of Richard M. Nixon and Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Nixon served as a reserve officer in the US Navy during World War II, as a Congressman in the US House of Representatives (1947-1950), as a US Senator (1951-52), and as Vice President of the United States (1952-1960).

Gore served as a journalist in the US Army during the Vietnam War, as a Congressman in the US House of Representatives (1977-1984), as a US Senator (1985-92), and as Vice President of the United States (1993-2000).

In 1960 Nixon narrowly lost the presidency to Kennedy by a 0.2% margin in the popular vote and there were allegations of voter fraud in Illinois where a few thousand votes separated the two candidates.

In 2000 Gore lost the presidency to Bush despite winning the popular vote by a 0.5% margin and there were allegations of voter fraud in Florida where a few hundred votes separated the two candidates.

Two years after losing the presidency, Nixon made his famous declaration, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference" while acknowledging defeat in the 1962 California governor's race.

Two years after losing the presidency, Gore revealed his position regarding a 2004 rerun, "I've decided that I will not be a candidate," in an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes." This announcement came the day after Gore became the first former Vice President to host NBC's "Saturday Night Live."

In the six years that followed Nixon's "last press conference", the United States got involved in Vietnam in what began as a noble attempt at preventing Southeast Asia from succumbing to communist influence (under the auspices of the Communist Domino theory). By 1968, popular opinion had turned against the Vietnam War.

In the four years to-date after Gore's "SNL" and "60 Minutes" appearances, the United States got involved in Iraq in what began as a convoluted attempt at linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, to stockpiles of WMD, and to the broader war on terror (under the auspices of the Bush Doctrine). By 2007, popular opinion had turned against the Iraq War.

Nearly eight years after losing his first run for president, Richard Nixon won the Republican Party's nomination once again in 1968 by defeating challenges from Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, and George Romney. Nixon appealed to his conservative base by promising that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific." On November 5, 1968 Nixon, in his second attempt, was successfully elected 37th president of the United States.

My comparison stops at this point, but with Gore's recent resurgence with the American public and in the media, speculation is ripe that he will emulate his karmic equivalent and enter the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Given his winning positions on contemporary issues of the day ranging from the environment to the country's broader foreign policy problems, it shouldn't be hard for Gore to neutralize Senator Clinton's current front runner status in the Democratic slate of presidential candidates. Gore could do this more effectively by co-opting Senator Obama early on to provide Democrats with the winning ticket in 2008. It could very well launch the start of "GoreObamania" and hopefully close the loop on Gore's karmic cycle on November 4, 2008.