The Pakistan problem

Iraq was supposed to have been the leading foreign policy issue of the 2008 presidential campaign. But that dubious distinction now goes to Pakistan, the subject of an extended debate among the major Democratic candidates this week.

Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state under attack by increasingly muscular Al Qaeda forces. But it’s not a failed state, at least not yet, and the United States has spent five years insisting on the legitimacy of President Pervez Musharraf’s government. Increasingly, Pakistan does not appear to share U.S. perceptions or objectives, and that poses a terrible dilemma for U.S. policy: What rights do weak states have when they are infested with terrorists who seek to attack the United States? What about the sovereign right to refuse American help?

A new survey shows that, by large margins, Pakistanis do not agree that cooperation with the United States since 9/11 on security and military issues has benefited their country. On the contrary, 68% said U.S. troops in Afghanistan pose a “critical threat” to their national security -- a higher percentage than is worried about the threat to Pakistan from Al Qaeda or even from its traditional enemy, India. Moreover, there is overwhelming opposition to allowing U.S. troops into Pakistan for any reason. In the survey of urban adults by WorldPublicOpinion.org and the United States Institute of Peace, only 5% of Pakistanis thought their government should allow foreign troops into Pakistan to capture Al Qaeda fighters, and only 9% thought it should permit foreigners to pursue Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan.

Finally, the pollsters asked the question that the Democratic candidates have tussled over: If Pakistan learned that Osama bin Laden was in the tribal areas and found his exact location, should it attempt his capture? An astounding 39% of those surveyed said no. Only 24% wanted their own troops to try to capture him.

Yet in Sunday’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Barack Obama repeated his position that the U.S. should do everything possible to push Musharraf to act against Bin Laden, and if the Pakistani leader wouldn’t or couldn’t do it, Obama would. John Edwards agreed. Most of the Republican candidates have defended Musharraf while also pledging to do whatever it takes to fight Al Qaeda. But Musharraf this week responded to news reports that Washington was considering covert action against Al Qaeda inside Pakistan by saying that he would not permit it.

The United States can assert that its right to self-protection trumps the sovereign rights of Pakistan if that nation is harboring an enemy, such as Al Qaeda, that has attacked the U.S. and vows to do so again. But no U.S. president can plausibly argue that he or she seeks to promote democracy and self-determination around the world as a bulwark against Islamic extremism while at the same time violating the express wishes and legal sovereignty of a Muslim ally. We can’t have it both ways.