"U.S. officials, often conflating the small number of Islamic radicals with the entire Pakistani population, fear that fair, free, and democratic elections in Pakistan might put the Islamic radicals in power."
I think US officials aren't conflating Islamic radicalism with the entire population, but rather are correctly judging the radicalism as institutionalized in Pakistan's ISI, which is heavily involved in the domestic politics of Pakistan (and probably rigged elections for rightist Islami Jamhoori Ittehad). They (the ISI) supported the Taliban right up until the US was about to invade Afghanistan; were on the US terror watch list as recently as 1993; they arm and train militants fighting in Kashmir; the British seem convinced they had a hand in 7/7/; they seem to lack any real commitment for rooting Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants out of Pakistani border areas (e.g. Waziristan Accord) unless the US pays them millions to do so. To say nothing of American hypocrisy (it would fill terabytes) American statesmen probably fear another Palestinian election situation where democratic elections in countries where radicalism is institutionalized end poorly for US interests.

'Would it not be ridiculous if we sought to dismantle democracy in America for fear that the powerful Christian fundamentalist movement might influence the elections?'

Um ... I do fear that. Dismantling democracy in the U.S. is not the answer. However, I really do fear that. The Christian fundamentalist minority has gained power way beyond their numbers and have implemented many policies based on their beliefs that are truly abhorrent to me. I have even come up with a new name for our once-great nation for the time when they win, The Democratic People's Republic of the Christian States of America. Doesn't that have about the right ring to it?

Ashfaq and MS,

Thank you for your comments. I'd like to add a few things to this discussion.

Ashfaq:

"I think US officials aren't conflating Islamic radicalism with the entire population, but rather are correctly judging the radicalism as institutionalized in Pakistan's ISI..."

I do agree with you that the military has strong ties to Islamic radical groups, as well as the ISI (ISI probably more so, as a legacy inherited during the Afghan Soviet war whereby the CIA used the ISI the middlemen to wage a proxy war against the Russians). My post was not downplaying or suggesting that Islamic radicals do not exist in Pakistan- the Lal Masjid episode provides ample support for that. And I would go further in saying that there is a symbiotic relationship between the military and these hardline groups. They are interdependent, and they really cannot exist without one another (there are numerous examples of this, of which I will outline in the future as they will be too long to elaborate here). Many Pakistani writers, journalists, and human rights activists have pointed out that the Pakistani military regime has openly supported and fostered these groups, and then turns around and uses this to its advantage. Musharraf has been milking the misconception that Pakistan will fall to the Islamists if not for his rule(and hence, the US should continue pumping billions of dollars into Pakistan to keep him in his uniform),which the curiously long,drawn out response to the Lal Masjid siege arguably demonstrates.

However, I believe that the either the US mass media's coverage certainly gives this impression by conflating the actions of a small, militant group with the rest of Pakistan's population, which is close to 165 million people (to be fair, many also reported on the Chief Justice saga), or the American public's reception is this. There are numerous movements, organizations, and activists in Pakistan who are pushing for democracy, reforms, and a society where there is a rule of law, checks and balance, and civil liberties- a society and political culture that is not ruled by the military's iron fist (see my previous MoJo posts on Pakistan, where I talk about women's rights in Pakistan, Pakistani journalists, lawyers, and activists).

Whether the US government and US officials know that these Islamic individuals/groups in Pakistan are comparatively small to the rest of the Pakistani population, are intentionally misleading the public, and/or purposely conflating the two segments of the population for foreign policy objectives is unclear.

MS:

"I do fear that. Dismantling democracy in the U.S. is not the answer. However, I really do fear that. The Christian fundamentalist minority has gained power way beyond their numbers and have implemented many policies based on their beliefs that are truly abhorrent to me."

Absolutely. I was in no way insinuating that the grip of the Christian right in the US is not problematic.

But as you point out, dismantling democracy based on the above is not the answer. And I strongly believe in consistency: if it's permissible for the US to have democracy, even if it produces undesirable results, then it is permissible for other nations as well. It is not okay to select who can exercise democracy and who cannot. And the US all too often picks and chooses who gets democracy and who doesn't, which democratically elected governments are credible and not. Whether or not the outcome of democratic elections fits the US' "interests" is besides the point- other nations and states have the right to self determination and sovereignty, just as the US does (at least in name, though it is more important to look at the practice- are there democratic practices, regardless of whether it's a democracy in name? That is another post).

Consider this analogy: the last US election was heavily influenced by the Christian right (and the Christian right has its grip in other arenas that are not high profile positions, but nonetheless are powerful stations). In addition, many governments and people around the globe dislike the current administration and find them unacceptable. These criticisms are not relegated to the "Muslim" world (I've heard more searing commentary from unexpected quarters/allies when I lived abroad and traveled). Shall we stop having fair elections in the US (arguably, there are some who contend that the 2000 elections were not a result of the "will of the US people")? And would other governments have the right to interfere in the political culture of the US?

I'd also like to anticipate what I have heard some say: the US is different. But if a country like Pakistan fell to the religious fundamentalists via democratic elections, then we're all in big trouble, because with Pakistan being a nuclear state, the fundamentalists will get their hands on them. Two things:

1. The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons- not Pakistan, not India, and other countries. In which case, if we were to use the above argument, there's a lot more reason for people to use the above pretext- that a Christian fundamentalist influenced US administration might have power over nuclear weapons, and as such, present a global threat. Therefore, there should be no elections.

2.Possession of nuclear arms and a religous fundamentalist group in power does not necessarily mean that those weapons will be used. The perfect example of this is the BJP in India, a right wing Hindu fundamentalist party known for its fascist ideologies, (and the BJP led state government sponsored genocide of Gujarati Muslims in the state of Gujarat in 2002. No government and "law and order" exponents have been tried in light of the glaring evidence of having spearheaded and organized a pogrom which killed nearly 2000 Gujarati Muslims [there are various estimates]. Many have dubbed the BJP Gujarat government's actions as "state terrorism".) Of course, the example of India does not mean that nukes will NEVER be used. But I think that these criticisms should not apply to only the "Muslim" world and the governments there, but that they should be applied across the board. And as always, these things should be put into perspective: there are reasons- whether wrong, misguided, true or legitimate- why people in the world are not afraid of Pakistan, but of the US and its nuclear arsenal, military might,and governments which come into power.

thanks