As you’ve probably heard by now, Pervez Musharraf, facing an impeachment crisis, is stepping down as president of Pakistan after nine years of generally-undemocratic rule. My friend Adam Serwer raises the compelling point that U.S. policy in recent years “made it seem like the United States was more committed to keeping Musharraf in power than pursuing a functioning democracy,” so today’s announcement, at a minimum, points to an opportunity, albeit one in which the U.S. will have minimal influence.
Not surprisingly, both candidates issued statements in response to the news, and pretty much took similar lines. Here’s Obama’s:
“President Musharraf has made the right decision to step down as President of Pakistan. It is in the interests of his country and the Pakistani people to end the political crisis that has immobilized the coalition government for too long. I have long said that the central terrorist threat to the United States lies in northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan, and not Iraq. US policy must focus on assuring that all elements of Pakistan’s government are resolute in shutting down the safe havens for al Qaeda and the Taliban. There can be no safehaven for terrorists who threaten the American people.
“A year ago
, I advocated that the US move from a ‘Musharraf policy’ to a ‘Pakistan policy.’ I hope all of Pakistan’s friends will now seize the opportunity created by Musharraf’s exit to focus on the urgent issues of today: confronting the threat of extremist violence, dealing with food and energy shortages, and helping the Pakistani people build a stable, secure, democratic future, ” said Senator Obama.
And here’s McCain’s:
“The resignation of President Pervez Musharraf is a step toward moving Pakistan onto a more stable political footing. Pakistan is a critical theater in countering the threat of al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism
, and I look forward to the government increasing its future cooperation.
“There are serious problems that must be addressed. The situation in Pakistan’s frontier regions requires immediate and continued attention, and I hope that the elections for President Musharraf’s successor will serve to reconcile the Pakistani people behind a leader who can solidify their government internally. It is critical that the United States continue to work in partnership with the Pakistani people and their democratically elected government to tackle the many challenges we both face.”
And while both agreed that Musharraf’s departure is a positive development
, it’s worth noting that one of them took a circuitous route to get to this point.
Yglesias argued that McCain was “for Musharraf before he was against him,” and noted McCain, even in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, took “a much more pro-Musharraf line than most other prominent U.S. politicians.”
Jason Zengerle fleshed this out in more detail.
McCain has put out an utterly banal and perfectly appropriate statement describing Musharraf’s resignation as “a step toward moving Pakistan onto a more stable political footing.” But it’s worth remembering that, until recently, McCain was as resolute — and as mistaken — in his support of Musharraf as the Bush administration.
Most notably, in December, after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto prompted numerous calls for the Bush administration to rethink its relationship with Musharraf, McCain (alone among the presidential candidates) rose to Musharraf’s defense, hailing him for having “done a pretty good job” and lauding him as “personally scrupulously honest.”
Contrast that with what Obama was saying about Musharraf then — “a president who has acted in an anti-democratic fashion” — and even before Bhutto’s assassination , and it’s pretty clear which candidate has shown better judgment when it comes to Pakistan.
One of the great secrets of the presidential campaign is that Obama’s greatest strength and McCain’s greatest weakness is the same thing: foreign policy judgment. It’s frustrating that the conventional wisdom (and public perceptions) has this almost exactly backwards.