Follow us on social

Shutterstock_4146418

Pakistan's Musharraf, a GWOT figure whose death brings mixed eulogies

To many he was a double-dealing figure: providing assistance to NATO on one hand, offering sanctuary to the Taliban on the other.

Analysis | Middle East

Pervez Musharraf, a key figure in Pakistan and the U.S. War on Terror, passed away in Dubai last Sunday due to a terminal illness at the age of 79. This week, he returned to Pakistan from self-imposed exile in a casket. While some Pakistanis have a nostalgic view of Gen. Musharraf as a secular leader who implemented progressive policies, such as liberalizing the media and building infrastructure and at least aspiring to achieve peace with India, others view him as an authoritarian figure who abused his power and suspended the Constitution, leading to an era of violence and terrorism from which Pakistan has yet to recover.

In 1998, Gen. Musharraf was appointed as Pakistan's Army Chief by then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Subsequently, in 1999, he staged a coup, declaring a state of emergency, thus taking over the role of chief executive. In June 2001, he assumed the title of President of Pakistan. Shortly thereafter, the 9/11 attacks occurred, redefining the relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

During his tenure, Musharraf implemented a number of infrastructure initiatives in Pakistan, including a number of public transportation projects including constructing  major motorways, expanding airports, and building up the Gwadar Port on the Indian Ocean. There is still a widely-held view among some quarters of Pakistan’s urban middle-class and elites in cities like Karachi that Musharraf’s rule was a boon for the economy. But his March 2007 decision to suspend the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, sparked widespread protests and spurred the Lawyer’s Movement which quickly gained momentum. In order to maintain his position, the United States pushed Musharraf to come to a mutually beneficial power-sharing agreement with opposition leader Benazir Bhutto of the Pakistan Peoples Party, thus transitioning to a more democratic arrangement. This process ultimately failed, and it has been alleged by critics that Musharraf was involved in Bhutto’s assassination in 2007, as well as  the death of Baloch nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti in 2006.

Musharraf ultimately resigned as president in 2008 to avoid impeachment, while the U.S. found its hands tied as it lost a familiar, albeit sometimes disappointing partner, in the War on Terror. His political career never recovered.

In 2016, Musharraf left Pakistan for the last time to live in self-imposed exile in Dubai. In 2019, a special court found Musharraf guilty of high treason for suspending the Constitution in 2007 and given a death sentence. A month later, however, the Lahore High Court overturned the ruling. Musharraf spent the remainder of his life in Dubai. 

Pakistanis will ultimately determine Musharraf’s legacy in their country. From Washington’s perspective, Musharraf is most widely understood as a reluctant participant in the U.S.-led “War on Terror.” In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration gave Musharraf an ultimatum to support its  fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda or risk Washington’s wrath, while Musharraf urged the United States to include some Taliban leaders in its political plans for Afghanistan to avoid a drawn-out war. Nevertheless, the two countries developed a security partnership when it came to terrorist groups of mutual concern, such as al-Qaeda. As a result, Pakistan was designated a major non-NATO ally in 2004.

As the war progressed, Musharraf lost favor in the Beltway because he was viewed by many in Washington as a double-dealing figure, providing assistance to NATO forces on one hand, and offering sanctuary to the Taliban on the other. But, under Musharraf, Washington also was often afforded direct access to Pakistan's generals during its war in Afghanistan without the hold up of dealing with civilian rule, public debate, or politics. Washington became accustomed to this expedience. This is the part of the story that is often left out. Would the early concessions extracted from Pakistan, such as use of its airspace, ground routes, and in some cases its bases, have occurred under civilian leadership, and with such speed? Perhaps not. Musharraf’s reign marked the beginning of one of the most tumultuous periods for Pakistan and U.S.-Pakistan relations. His legacy, both good and bad, will likely be felt for years to come. 


Pakistan's former President Pervez Musharraf. (stocklight/shutterstock)
Analysis | Middle East
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS

Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Middle East

Europe appears set to move from threats to action. According to reports, the E3 — Britain, France, and Germany — will likely trigger the United Nations “snapback” process this week. Created under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), this mechanism allows any participant to restore pre-2015 U.N. sanctions if Iran is judged to be in violation of its commitments.

The mechanism contains a twist that makes it so potent. Normally, the Security Council operates on the assumption that sanctions need affirmative consensus to pass. But under snapback, the logic is reversed. Once invoked, a 30-day clock begins. Sanctions automatically return unless the Security Council votes to keep them suspended, meaning any permanent member can force their reimposition with a single veto.

keep readingShow less
Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Russia Vladimir Putin, during the World Cup Champion Trophy Award Ceremony in 2018 (shutterstock/A.RICARDO)

Why Putin is winning

Europe

After a furious week of diplomacy in Alaska and Washington D.C., U.S. President Donald Trump signaled on Friday that he would be pausing his intensive push to end war in Ukraine. His frustration was obvious. “I’m not happy about anything about that war. Nothing. Not happy at all,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

To be sure, Trump’s high-profile engagements fell short of his own promises. But almost two weeks after Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and European leaders in Washington, it is clear that there were real winners and losers from Trump’s back-to-back summits, and while neither meeting resolved the conflict, they offered important insights into where things may be headed in the months ahead.

keep readingShow less
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.