ISLAMABAD – The U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden gave
Pakistan's weak civilian government a rare chance to wrest some power
away from an influential military establishment that suddenly faced
unusual public criticism over its failure to detect the al-Qaida leader
and prevent the foreign incursion.
Instead, the
ruling party is defending the army and allowing it to investigate its
own intelligence fiasco, undermining the notion that Pakistan's elected
leaders will ever be able to assert their full authority in a country
prone to military coups. The civilians' timidity doesn't bode well for
U.S. and Pakistani hopes that the nuclear-armed nation will evolve into
a stable democracy.
"The civilian-military
imbalance is the greatest threat to Pakistani democracy. It is also the
issue the civilian politicians are least capable of tackling," said
Cyril Almeida, a prominent Pakistani commentator.
It's
not easy for the ruling Pakistan People's Party to take on the army,
even as the military brass reel from the humiliation of the U.S. raid.
The
May 2 Navy SEALs operation in Abbottabad left bin Laden and at least
four others dead, giving the U.S. a huge victory against al-Qaida.
Pakistan's military said it had no warning of the raid, disappointing
many citizens, some of whom said the army and intelligence chiefs
should resign.
The popular uproar was extraordinary in a country where many live in fear of the security forces.
But
the civilian government itself is deeply unpopular. It is generally
regarded as less competent than — and at least as corrupt as — the
military. Its failure to address the pressing problems in Pakistan — a
struggling economy, chronic power shortages, deteriorating security —
has disillusioned many Pakistanis who were thrilled to see it take
power three years ago after nearly a decade of military rule.
At
this point, the government's sole focus appears to be surviving for a
full five-year term. That would be a historic achievement for a
democratically elected government in the nation's 63 years of
existence, but one which apparently has left the current administration
too nervous to challenge the generals.
The
wariness showed in the changing messages that have emanated from
Islamabad since the raid on bin Laden's compound north of the capital.
At first, the country's civilian leaders declared bin Laden's killing a
great victory. But within days, the Foreign Ministry had issued a
statement that slammed the U.S. for violating Pakistan's sovereignty
and warned against any future raids. The army issued a similar warning.
At the same time, the military appeared to launch a subtle campaign to shift the blame to the civilians.
Former
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, a People's Party member who has
tangled with the party leadership and is believed to be close to the
military, publicly called on President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to resign. That raised many eyebrows
considering Gilani and Zardari have essentially no control over
security issues, and have ceded to the army much of the country's
foreign policy as well.
On Monday, Gilani
addressed Pakistan's parliament in a speech that appeared heavily
influenced by the military and the army-run spy network. Although he
said bin Laden's death was "indeed justice done," he also heaped praise
on his nation's armed forces and its Inter-Services Intelligence
agency. He said "all the intelligence agencies of the world" failed in
allowing bin Laden to hide in a garrison town Pakistan.
Instead
of appointing an independent, or at least civilian-led, panel to probe
the debacle, he said the military would handle the investigation.
That
drew criticism from some Pakistanis, who noted that the military does
not have much of a history of holding its leadership accountable for
mistakes.
For instance, in 1999, then-army
chief Pervez Musharraf masterminded an operation at Kargil, a Pakistani
push into the Indian-held part of Kashmir. The offensive nearly brought
the nuclear-armed neighbors to war, but Musharraf kept his job, and
later that year ousted the civilian government.
"The
history of heads rolling and the history of people being held to
account is not a very bright one in Pakistan," said Ayaz Amir, an
opposition lawmaker.
Some were hoping Gilani
would push for a rethink of Pakistan's entire security policy, which
many critics say is too focused on archrival India instead of the
threat from Islamist insurgents threatening the Pakistani state.
Pakistan's army has fought three wars with India, including one in 1971
that saw Pakistan's eastern flank break off and become Bangladesh.
"Gilani
did not take this opportunity to launch a kind of transformation or
sort of commission that this country desperately requires," said
Mosharraf Zaidi, a Pakistani columnist. "So I think Pakistanis, in
general, continue to be confused and continue to want real answers
instead of rhetoric."
In many ways, the most frustrating thing for many Pakistanis is
watching the one institution that seemed all-powerful in their
downtrodden, struggling country, be so spectacularly hoodwinked by the
United States. But it's also tough to watch the men and women they
elect flounder.
"The common man is really pissed off. They've lost faith," said
Khawaja Asif, an opposition lawmaker. "You can't imagine how sad they
are feeling." AFP
