Head Strong | Why are candidates silent on Pakistan

Head Strong | Why are candidates silent on Pakistan?

They - and President Bush - need to provide answers and to hold Pakistan accountable on the hunt for bin Laden.

By Michael Smerconish

June 3, 2007

Tonight, the Democratic presidential candidates will gather in Manchester, N.H., to debate. If the pattern mirrors that of previous debates, both Democratic and Republican, not a single question will be put to any candidate about one of the most important areas of American foreign policy: Pakistan.

The only mention of Pakistan in the first three debates came in the form of gratuitous, passing references from the candidates themselves. Moreover, there has been no mention of the Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf - not in any question, answer or rebuttal - even though our war against al-Qaeda is intertwined with his leadership.

It's not just the presidential candidates who have been left unchallenged on our relationship with Pakistan. It's President Bush, too. The May 24 White House news conference was typical, there being no mention of Pakistan or Musharraf by Bush or those questioning him. The closest anyone came was in asking about one of Pakistan's presumed inhabitants.

Unfortunately, when the president was asked why Osama bin Laden was still at large, his answer was the usual, superficial refrain: "Why is he still at large? Because we haven't got him yet. . . . That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice."

That bin Laden is hiding, I have no doubt. Less certain is whether we are actively looking for him. At this rate, he will more likely be brought to justice by natural causes than by the American military. This is why we need public discourse regarding our approach to Pakistan.

Since he fled from Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001, bin Laden has presumed to be hiding on the Pakistani side of the border. The United States has no known military presence searching for the al-Qaeda leader there, choosing instead to entrust the Musharraf government with that responsibility. Last week, the New York Times reported that our government pays $80 million a month in military reimbursements to Pakistan for its supposed counter-terrorism efforts. Payments total $5.6 billion already.

So far, these payments have not been tied to any performance benchmarks or goals - meaning we pay Pakistan regardless of its commitment to finding bin Laden and its effectiveness in hunting al-Qaeda.

So what do we know of that commitment? For one thing, that Musharraf struck an accord with tribal warlords last September wherein he agreed to remove the Pakistani army from the northwest part of the country (where bin Laden is believed to have crossed from Afghanistan) and cede all control to them.

To the extent there is any policy debate on our continued support for Musharraf, the argument advanced for the status quo is that we could do a lot worse. Better him than religious fanaticism, some say, forgetting that the last time Pakistanis voted (in 2002), religious political parties received only 11 percent of the vote.

Another canard is that bin Laden is an irrelevance. In February, the U.S. Army's highest ranking officer and chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said that he didn't know whether we would find bin Laden, and "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

Yet, that same month, there were reports that a band of al-Qaeda training camps had resurfaced throughout that region. Bin Laden and right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri were said to be building an operations hub in North Waziristan, precisely the area governed by warlords who reached an accord with Musharraf.

Unconscionably, it has become unimportant to find and kill the man responsible for murdering 3,000 innocent Americans, regardless of his present posture, or to question the foreign policy that supports the leader of the nation where he is presumed to be hiding.

Musharraf is now under political attack in his own country since suspending his nation's chief justice in March. He may not survive his next election, all the more reason it is time to demand answers of our president and his would-be successors about what we should do with Pakistan.

Tonight, someone can get the discussion started by asking the candidates any one of the following questions:

Will you continue the Bush administration's policy of out-sourcing the hunt for bin Laden in Pakistan to Gen. Musharraf?

If the Pakistanis won't hunt bin Laden in North Waziristan, will you?

Will you tie continued military reimbursement for Pakistan to performance benchmarks or goals regarding its effectiveness in hunting al-Qaeda?

One final thought. The candidates haven't been asked about Pakistan, Musharraf and bin Laden, but that should not excuse them from advancing this subject. Their conspicuous silence cannot simply reflect their reluctance to make a pledge they cannot keep. (Since when has that prevented any candidate from making a campaign promise?) Perhaps their polls suggest that bin Laden's capture is not an issue on which to run. Maybe the electorate, worn down by the relentlessly depressing daily images from Iraq, would prefer not to be reminded that bin Laden is still at large.

Out of sight, out of mind? I hope not.

Michael Smerconish's column appears on Thursdays in The Daily News and on Sundays in Currents. He can be heard from 5:30 to 9 a.m. weekdays on "The Big Talker," WPHT-AM (1210). Contact him via the Web at http://www.mastalk.com.