Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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. 


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Pakistan's former President Pervez Musharraf. (stocklight/shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.