Our man in Rawalpindi

Posted By Blake Hounshell Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 6:46 AM Share

Your must-read of the day is David Ignatius's column on how U.S. officials helped defuse last month's political crisis in Pakistan. According to Ignatius and his anonymous sources, "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, joined by [Af-Pak envoy Richard] Holbrooke and [Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike] Mullen, helped coax the Pakistani officials back from the brink."

I wonder, though, if Ignatius is making too much of the U.S. role and too little of that of Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, Pakistan's Army chief of staff. Consider this bit:

The lawyers' movement began its march on March 12, pledging to occupy Islamabad until the government restored [ousted Chief Justice Iftikhar] Chaudhry to his post. [Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari sent a police force known as the Rangers into the streets of Lahore, apparently hoping to intimidate [former Prime Minister Nawaz] Sharif and the marchers. But Sharif evaded the police and joined the protesters as they headed north toward Islamabad.

Kiyani then faced the moment of decision. According to U.S. and Pakistani sources, Zardari asked the army chief to stop the march and protect Islamabad. Kiyani refused, after discussing the dilemma with his friend Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Meanwhile, Kiyani called Sharif and told him to return home to Lahore, according to one source. And he called the leader of the lawyers' movement, Aitzaz Ahsan, and told him to halt in the city of Gujranwala and wait for a government announcement.

On the one hand, Kiyani appears to have handled the crisis with wisdom and aplomb. On the other, I think the incident makes it clear once and for all just who the real power broker in Pakistan really is.

If the country continues to deteriorate, it's not too hard to imagine a scenario in which Kiyani pulls a Musharraf and seizes formal power -- but not before calling "his friend Mullen" to explain how he has the situation under control and will be working to restore democracy as soon as possible, etc. Many in Washington would probably welcome this development.

EXPLORE:SOUTH ASIA, PAKISTAN, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

KIDZIB

8:09 AM ET

April 16, 2009

There will be no Kiyani coup

The great thing about Kiyani is that he has no desire for political power or fame. He has spoken extensively about the need for military figures to not hold on to the reigns of power.

That said, I am disappointed by his decision to intervene so actively in this political crisis. Zardari is a complete idiot, but he is still president. In a democracy, the military obeys the government. If the government tells the military to jump off a cliff, the military jumps (think: Iraq war). That's just how it works.

Clearly, Pakistan has a ways to go before it can call itself a democracy. In the meantime, you really shouldn't be praising military dominance by saying that "Kiyani appears to have handled the crisis with wisdom and aplomb." He disobeyed his president's direct orders, and that is unacceptable.

Rather than back slap a general for insubordination, try criticizing Zardari for his pathetic governance...

B. ELLI COSE

9:25 AM ET

April 16, 2009

Our man in Rawalpindi

Disappointingly, the thinking in D.C. once again comes around to: "He [Kiyani] may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch."

When will we learn that it's better to deal with fractious democracies than with seemingly pliant autocracies? What did the U.S. really gain from nine years of Musharraf?

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.