A Diary Wherein the Author Muses Hypothetically and Unsubstantiatedly on the Existence of Vague and Shadowy Forces Within the US Government that Are Competent.
America has a rich history of influencing politics in other nations. And coups and revolutions are way cheaper than wars. They're also much more discrete. They make good tactical sense. And I have to admit, I really liked Georgia and Ukraine's Color Revolutions. There was a great dramatic buildup, made-for-tv visuals of crowds holding candles, brave and exultant, a clear and stirring sense of courage and justice. And not too many people got hurt.
Here's
Wikipedia's definition of a "Color Revolution":
Color revolutions or Flower revolutions are the names given collectively to a series of related movements that developed in post-communist societies in Central and Eastern Europe and are possibly spreading elsewhere including some places in the Middle East. Some observers have called the events a revolutionary wave.
Participants in the Color Revolutions have used mostly nonviolent resistance to protest against governments seen as entrenched and authoritarian, and to advocate democracy, liberalism, and national independence. They usually also adopt a specific color or flower as their symbol, and the protests are notable for the important role of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activist organizations in organizing creative nonviolent resistance.
So far these movements have been successful in Serbia (the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution), Georgia (the 2003 Rose Revolution), Ukraine (the 2004 Orange Revolution), and (though more violent than the previous ones) Kyrgyzstan (the 2005 Tulip Revolution). Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.
Without undermining the courage and wit, the solidarity and determination, of those who participated in these actions, those who risked their lives in defense of principles, I'm pretty sure that all of these revolutions were significantly assisted or directed, by individuals or groups working for the US government. Somewhere, squirrelled away within Washington DC's sprawling archipelago of nondescript federal office buildings, there is at least one "Department of Coups and Revolutions", supported by generically named think tanks, with excellent, but discrete, connections to the Pentagon and the White House. And somewhere within that Department is an individual or group that is expert at color revolutions, that is constantly refining the templates, evaluating the fault lines within governments, the utility of social and political groups, that is indirectly providing funding and scholarships to promising young revolutionaries around the world.
I'm no expert on revolutions, but I imagine that it's damnably hard to keep a revolution on track, to keep a swelling mass of empowered humanity on-message and manageable. There's a lot of planning and logistics and coordination involved, and there needs to be excellent communication and trust between the various factions participating in an action. And the Color Revolutions have been too consistent, too well-organized, for me not to suspect a coherent thread of outside influence. The fact that all of these revolutions swung one way (to the benefit of US interests) is enough for me to lazily conclude that US influence is that coherent thread.
Which is fine by me. Granted, Star Trek has their code of Non-Intervention or whatever. And I personally would prefer that international relations adhere to higher ethical standards. But I really admire the architects of the Color Revolutions. Compared to the bluster and swaggering of the Bush Administration, the Orwellian absurdities of the neocons, the lives and billions wasted on wars, the Color Revolutions are bright shining stars of accomplishment: well-planned and well-implemented, at minimal cost.
So what does this have to do with Pakistan? I don't expect a revolution there, mostly because America was at least tacitly complicit in Musharraf's coup, and have remained generously faithful and supportive through some very problematic events and non-events. However, while following the recent movements concerning Waziristan, I caught myself wondering, "What if this actually works? What if the US has been involved in the discussions concerning Waziristan? What if this is actually part of a competent plan?".
I know, hard to imagine. But Waziristan is a bit of a remarkable place. The most likely hiding place of Bin Laden, and an operational base for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, used for staging destabilizing attacks on Afghanistan for years, has remained relatively undisturbed. Musharraf (America's staunch and expensive ally) refuses to allow foreign forces to invade, and when he sends in the Pakistani army, they achieve some modest accomplishments in the War on Terror, but mostly get their asses handed to them.
And suddenly an agreement develops, wherein Waziristan
-gets their weapons back
-is granted semi-autonomy
-is promised millions of dollars in funding from the US
And what do they concede in return? Apparently, foreign fighters are free to stay, as long as they "live peaceable lives". And now Musharraf is off to meet with Karzai, which is significant, given Karzai's accusations that Pakistan has not been doing enough to prevent destabilizing influences from crossing the border into Afghanistan. Why would Karzai suddenly be so hospitable?
Well, what if it works? What if the tribal leaders of Waziristan have committed to an honorable agreement, wherein their guests (the foreign fighters) lose the protection of their hospitality, if they participate in war or violence? What if Al Qaeda and the Taliban are willing to suspend activities in Afghanistan, in exchange for a safe haven, and a few years to plan and consolidate? And what if the US has decided that this is the best deal that they can get, in terms of temporarily stabilizing Afghanistan, and maintaining good relations with Pakistan (the war in Waziristan has certainly required some very expensive arm-twisting, and has been erosovie to Musharraf's power base)? And what if there's a clause that, given clear proof of non-peaceable activities by their guests, Waziristan will hand over any foreign fighters who have violated the pact?
Not an ideal resolution, and definitely not a Color Revolution, but possibly a well-designed agreement, consistent with US interests in the area, and resulting in minimal loss of life. It's easy for me to view the Bush Adminstration as a nefarious swarm of malice and incompetence. But I also believe that there are individuals and groups within the US Government who are gracefully adept at manipulations and negotiations, who are capable of enabling Color Revolutions. And capable of arranging optimal resolutions in sub-optimal situations, like Waziristan. Which is why I'm wondering, "What if it works?".