Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US

Peter Beinart recently wrote an insightful and cautionary comment in TIME on the relationship between US and Saudi Arabia – especially in the light of the current situation in the Middle East. Read some excerpts below….and after that, substitute Saudi Arabia with Pakistan and read the section at th e section:

From “The Devil We Know” Feb 22 ’07 (TIME Magazine)

“How low have America’s fortune in the Middle East sunk? So low that we’re staking our hopes for the region on … Saudi Arabia. …
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. For many Americans, one of the key lessons of Sept. 11 was that the U.S.-Saudi alliance had become an extremely dangerous affair. The 9/11 commission called Riyadh “a problematic ally.” Congress tried to impose sanctions, and President George W. Bush demanded that the monarchy embrace political reform.

…On the surface, this all seems fairly benign. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told TIME recently, the Middle East is “really splitting, with extremists on one side and what I call responsible [governments] on the other side.” But how “responsible” is Riyadh? For decades, it has been exporting its intolerant brand of Islam. And part of that intolerance is a deep bigotry toward Shi’ites, a bigotry Riyadh is fomenting as part of its campaign to restrain Iran.

…Once again, the Saudis are playing with fire, and the U.S. may get burned. In the 1980s, Riyadh served as proxy in our struggle against the Soviet Union. And in the process, it funded the network that became al-Qaeda. Today it is serving as our proxy against Iran, but in the process it may pour kerosene on the Sunni-Shi’ite war that has consumed Iraq, threatens to erupt in Lebanon and could spread to Pakistan and the gulf. The U.S. can’t completely distance itself from the Saudis–in our weakened position, we need their help. But neither should we let them enmesh us in a Middle Eastern cold war, fought along religious lines. That’s why Washington needs to make its own overtures toward Iran, so that our relationship with the region’s biggest Shi’ite power doesn’t go through Riyadh. Turning U.S. foreign policy over to the Saudis is perilous. We should know that by now”.

Now read below and notice the italics where I have made changes*:

…It wasn’t supposed to be this way. For many Americans, one of the key lessons of FILL IN THE BLANKS was that the U.S.-Pakistan alliance had become an extremely dangerous affair. The XYZ commission called Islamabad “a problematic ally.” Congress tried to impose sanctions, and President George W. Bush demanded that the country embrace democratic reform.

…On the surface, this all seems fairly benign. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told TIME recently, Asia is “really splitting, with extremists on one side and what I call responsible [governments] on the other side.” But how “responsible” is Islamabad? For decades, it has been exporting terror across its borders.

…Once again, the Pakistanis are playing with fire, and the U.S. may get burned. In the 1980s, Islamabad served as proxy in our struggle against the Soviet Union. And in the process, it funded the network that became al-Qaeda. Today it is serving as our proxy against ABC, but in the process it may pour kerosene on the problem in Kashmir. The U.S. can’t completely distance itself from the Pakistanis–in our weakened position, we need their help. But neither should we let them enmesh us in a cold war with India, fought along religious lines. That’s why Washington needs to make its own overtures toward India, so that our relationship with the world’s largest democracy doesn’t go through Islamabad.

* with sincere apologies to Peter Beinart and TIME Magazine

UPDATE: This is worth reading as a follow up: http://saag.org/papers22/paper2159.html