Exposing Bush's Weakness

"The general, Pakistan's president, justified his crackdown as a defense against Islamic militants, but his desperate and reprehensible actions -- suspending the constitution, rounding up judges, beating and jailing lawyers and journalists -- will embolden extremists. They will also fuel anger and mistrust among Pakistani moderates."

The Washington Post editorial board writes: "The choice the United States and other Western governments now face is not between Mr. Musharraf and the terrorist forces he has sporadically combated since 2001. It is between a deeply unpopular, ineffective and politically exhausted military ruler who is trying to extend his tenure by force and one of the Muslim world's largest and most liberal civil societies. . . .

"There should be no question as to which side the United States is on. Yet so far the administration has hedged its bets. It has called Mr. Musharraf's measures 'extreme' and said it 'cannot support emergency rule.' But Mr. Bush said yesterday that 'we want to continue working with him' on counterterrorism, and officials have made clear that aid directed at that collaboration -- which is most of the U.S. aid Pakistan receives -- will not be affected. The general probably will regard that stance as an acquiescence to his coup -- as will most Pakistanis and the millions of other Muslims around the world who are watching the U.S. response."

Juan Cole writes for Salon: "Tantamount to a coup, Musharraf's actions on Saturday have not only thrown Pakistan into turmoil but have also revealed the hypocrisy of Bush's foreign policy, including the proclaimed goal of fostering freedom and the rule of law in the Muslim world."

Fred Kaplan writes for Slate: "The state of emergency in Pakistan signals yet another low point in President George W. Bush's foreign policy -- a stark demonstration of his paltry influence and his bankrupt principles. . . .

"One consequence of this crisis is that Bush's 'freedom agenda' is finally bankrupt. He will never again be able to invoke it, even as a rhetorical ploy, without evoking winces or laughter.

"In his second inaugural address, where Bush first declared that the main aim of his foreign policy would be to spread democracy and topple tyranny all around the world, he warned dictators that good relations with America 'would require the decent treatment of their own people.'

"Musharraf's proclamation is the definitive proof that no dictator takes -- or ever will again take -- that warning seriously. . . .

"Musharraf's proclamation reveals that we are not the 'sole superpower' that Bush and his associates thought we were; that sometimes the combination of vital interests and mediocre diplomacy put us all too desperately at the mercy of events."

Andrew J. Bacevich writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed: "Don't expect to hear this from the White House any time soon, but the global war on terrorism conceived in the wake of 9/11 has effectively ended. As President Bush travels from one military post to the next giving pep talks to soldiers, he manfully sustains the pretense that V-T Day is just around the corner. Yet events have shredded the strategy that his administration was counting on to produce its victory over terrorism. . . .

"The Bush administration is no longer engaged in a principled effort to address the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism. In lieu of principles, the administration now engages in crisis management, reacting to problems as they pop up. Last week, it was Turkey's threat to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. This week, it's Pervez Musharraf, key ally and beneficiary of $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001, imposing naked military rule on Pakistan. Next week, who knows what surprises await? . . .

"As the clock runs down on the Bush era, the administration preoccupies itself with damage control."