The screen shows a mass of faceless Muslim men angrily raising their fists in protest, while in the background a woman sings in Arabic in a passionate, ethereal voice. Just as you can almost feel the hot desert wind and taste the sand, an ominous narration comes on to tell you of “an enemy without border”, “a people perverted”, and “a nuclear power in chaos.” Angry men in turbans yell into microphones, launch rockets, and blow up roads. The message is clear: America must be prepare for whatever radical Islam has to throw at it, which apparently includes everything but the kitchen sink.
The ad for former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani entitled “Ready” illustrates how American political discourse has detached the “Islamic world” from reality, presenting it as a nebulous force that directly connotes danger. There is no better example of this than the national discussion about Pakistan, the nameless “nuclear power in chaos” alluded to in the Giuliani ad. The December assassination of Pro-democracy leader Benazir Bhutto sent shockwaves throughout Pakistan, postponing parliamentary elections scheduled for January and turning many against strongman president Pervez Musharraf, who is accused of not protecting Bhutto sufficiently. It did not, however, send the nation into anarchy.
Pakistan is down, but defiantly not out. The movement that Bhutto personified did not die with her. The New American reports her Pakistani People Party is still positioned to deliver a resounding defeat to Islamists in the rescheduled February 18th elections (even if , as many fear, the vote may be not entirely free and open).
It certainly did not put their nuclear weapons on a silver platter for any militant with a hankering to kill some infidels. As the L.A Times reported on January 27th, Pakistani nuclear weapons are subject to several levels of safeguards, including a 10,000 person strong security force. While Pakistan has refused an American offer of Permissive Action Links, devices designed to protect nuclear weapons from unauthorized use, they have a similar system that requires three upper levels officials to enter security codes to arm a warhead. Any stolen warhead would be useless without this secret information.
Yet the American discussion around Pakistan continues to center around threat projections that are not only inaccurate, but also have potentially serious political consequences. There has been increasing talk about America needing a contingency plan in the case of an Islamist coup, where by American military forces would enter Pakistan to protect their nuclear weapons. This type of worst case scenario planning does nothing to abate Pakistani fears about having the American military on its door- step in Afghanistan, and feeds anti-American sentiment in a nation almost universally seen as American’s most important ally in the War on Terror.
Other policies being discussed also carry dangers. The most likely scenario for an American military intervention in Pakistan is the one posited by Presidential candidate Barack Obama, where America chases Al-Qaeda and/or Taliban rebels from neighboring Afghanistan into Pakistan. This disrespect of a nations sovereign rights is the kind of thing perpetrated only against perceived “failed states,” and risks monumental backlash from the rank and file Pakistani, the long term negative results of which would almost certainly outweigh any short-term benefits from eliminating a few radicals. Thus, the rhetoric around Pakistan risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, where American foreign policy begins to treat Pakistan as a threat, as, in response, Pakistan becomes one.
America’s stance toward Pakistan ignores the golden rule of counter-terrorism; force alone is not enough. Only by engaging moderates in the Islamic world can America soften its image and dry up the pool of potential militant recruits. America should change its policy toward Pakistan to reflect this reality. This would include tempering our support for Musharraf and demanding he stop his anti-democratic policies, such as arresting protesters. This change would also involve supporting not just the Pakistani military establishment in its counter terrorism campaign, but also Pakistani civil society. By funding things like education, America could show that this relationship actually helps the average Pakistani, increasing support for America and its actions. It is only within this kind of environment that Pakistani officials will feel no need to do things like reject American help safeguarding weapons to show “national pride”, and politicians could support America and its ideals with less threat of popular backlash (and for that matter, assassination).
Fighting Islamic extremism is a difficult task that will inevitably involve errors, but it is time America starts learning from its mistakes and stops repeating them. Actions that imply American superiority, such as telling a proud nation that they have somehow “failed”, are certainly not part of the solution. Until American politics reflects a sensitivity to these types of concerns, we had better be “Ready” for new generations of terrorist responding to our myopic hubris.