Should the U.S. give up on Musharraf?

Here's the New York Times' analysis of the situation:

...as a National Intelligence Estimate released last week makes clear, the Bush White House finds itself in a similar predicament. Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself in the wild west tribal areas of Pakistan. It is stronger than at any time in years, and it is actively plotting new attacks.

Putting aside for the moment that this NIE is a CIA work product and therefore may not be reliable (see post below), assume for a moment things are as it says they are in Pakistan. This poses the obvious question: is the General cum President Pervez Musharraf part of the problem or part of the solution?

Here is what The Times says:

[E]vents in Pakistan in recent weeks have at last presented the opportunity for a serious campaign against Islamic radicals in Pakistan, if it’s not already too late. The breakdown of a cease-fire between elders in the tribal lands of Pakistan and the government of President Pervez Musharraf, combined with the determination that General Musharraf showed earlier this month when he ordered an assault on the Red Mosque complex in Islamabad, may have finally given President Bush something his predecessor never had: a partner who may at long last be persuaded to go after an entrenched terrorist haven.

As the Times goes on to report, "Pakistan experts" seem to think that the upcoming presidential elections may be just the "impetus for action" Musharraf needs to muster up the courage to take control of these historically tribal lands. If he succeeds, this would be the first time these areas would fall under control of Islamabad.

But the challenges General Musharraf faces are not trivial, the Times goes on to suggest:

[Pakistan's army is] designed, trained and equipped to fight India in Kashmir and deter New Dehli with nuclear weapons. That requires a dramatically different kind of strategy from what is needed in the tribal areas, whose leaders do not consider themselves part of Pakistan.

As far as what the U.S.'s immediate options are - covert action, airstrikes, or a massive ground invasion - they all seem lousy. As the Times concludes:

Yet, when asked how the United States would respond if Al Qaeda were to plot a successful attack on the United States from the tribal areas, the answer from one intelligence officials was direct: “We’d go in and flatten it.”

More on the presidential campaign in Pakistan

Just as I suspected, all this violence in Pakistan is, well, serving some people's political ends. As the Financial Times reports:

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's US-backed military ruler, faced calls to resign yesterday after attacks by Islamist militants claimed at least 54 more lives, bringing the death toll since Saturday to 184.

Pakistan has been torn by extremist violence since Gen Musharraf ordered commandos to storm a mosque in Islamabad on July 10, a move that led to the death of at least 75 Islamists and promises of revenge from al-Qaeda and militant groups.

Farhatullah Babar, spokesman for the Pakistan People's party, said: "The military government has failed to contain militancy and should resign to pave the way for a democratically-elected government that has the consent of the people behind it."

As a leading Pakistani pundit opined:

"We are getting increasingly sucked in to the fallout from the Afghan war," said Ayaz Amir, a leading Pakistani political commentator. "The solution lies in restoring full civilian rule. Only then will we be able to unite Pakistanis for fighting for this cause."

In other words, this is presidential campaigning, Pakistani style.