David Ignatius is making a lot of sense on Pakistan. As he says, we really don't understand Pakistan well enough to know what to bet on, much less who, and we can no more take a gamble on an opposition leader than we can prop up Musharraf. There's also the danger -- which America's democracy-promoters don't seem to understand -- that forcefully advocating for the civil leaders we like could very well discredit them. Being seen as a puppet of the Americans is not, in the current global moment, an effective electoral strategy. Indeed, it's one that can both undermine an otherwise decent leader and give a regime the rhetorical justification for further crackdowns. Here, for instance, is how one reformer explains what's happened in Iran:
Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government. It has shut down all independent domestic media and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush administration, for its part, has approved a fund for democracy assistance in Iran. That this fund is, in fact, being largely spent on official US institutions and media affiliated with the US government has made it easy for the Iranian authorities to describe the regime's opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about "the possibility" of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran.
If we flip from Musharraf and begin supporting other candidates, Musharraf will flip on us. If we stick with Musharraf and he's ousted in a revolution, we will be identified as allies of the dictator. This isn't a situation where we must pick the best of two bad options. Rather, it's a situation where we should show some humility, let the Pakistanis make their own decisions, and pledge to deal openly with whomever emerges.
