Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf yesterday ordered his country into virtual lockdown in a bid to restore calm, as rioting by supporters of his slain rival, Benazir Bhutto, spread rapidly following her burial.
On government orders, train and airline services were shut down, gas stations and roads closed and Internet service curtailed. But the unrest continued, killing dozens around the country.
Though officials insisted that the Taliban and al Qaeda – which had vowed to kill the former prime minister – were behind the attack, her supporters blamed Musharraf, prompting the unrest and threatening to destabilize the country.
If left unchecked, that would plunge the world’s only nuclear-armed Muslim state – where Islamist fundamentalists are becoming increasingly influential – into a state of chaos.
Which is precisely why Musharraf swiftly moved to curb the violence – and why he may yet impose a return to martial law, which he lifted only recently under pressure from Washington.
That’s hardly a desirable course of action – especially given the Bush administration’s hopes that Pakistan would embrace full Western-style democracy.
But the alternative – unrestrained anarchy on the streets, which al Qaeda already is fomenting – is far worse. It’s a legitimate threat not only to US interests, but also to the stability of the entire Middle East.
Again, Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation. And Islamic fundamentalists, particularly al Qaeda and the Taliban, have re-established themselves, thanks to their penetration of the nation’s military and security services.
Yes, Musharraf has been a disappointment to Washington; his commitment to fighting the War on Terror has been half-hearted, at best. But no one else in Pakistan’s leadership will go even that far.
The first order of business for Pakistan now has to be a restoration of civil order.
And martial law, however unpleasant, may be the only way to bring that about.
The alternative, sad to say, is too frightening to contemplate.