Pervez Musharraf resigned Monday as the president of Pakistan, avoiding a power struggle with rivals vowing to impeach him that would have deepened the country's political crisis.
At the beginning of the year, I worried about Musharraf leaving the scene with unknown civilians taking over in Pakistan. Yes, in the long run Pakistan needs to have honest democratic rule. Otherwise, the jihadis will be able to appeal to Paksitanis eager for better government. But in the short run, we have the war in Afghanistan to fight and Pakistan is key territory for our enemies.
But the civilian-led Pakistani government seem to be fighting the local jihadis.
So perhaps this is the moment to bridge long term needs with our short term horizon. We don't appear alarmed (from the AP article):
Underlining how the West has already moved on, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered "deep gratitude" for Musharraf's decision to join the U.S.-led fight against extremists following the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he "served as a good ally of the United States."
But she was careful to signal strong support for the civilian government that pushed him aside.
"We believe that respect for the democratic and constitutional processes in that country is fundamental to Pakistan's future and its fight against terrorism," Rice said.
Still, Musharraf's demise throws up a string of critical questions, including whether the ruling coalition will hold together without its common foe and whether the main parties will maintain Musharraf's close alliance with the U.S.
Or maybe Pakistan is too screwed up to ever work well enough to help us defeat the jihadis.
