'Popeye' on DVD: It's Strong to the Finich

DATE September 20, 2007 ACCOUNT NUMBER N/A
TIME 12:00 Noon-1:00 PM AUDIENCE N/A
NETWORK NPR
PROGRAM Fresh Air

Interview: Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid on the upcoming
October 6th presidential election in Pakistan
TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

"Pakistan is on the brink of disaster," writes my guest Ahmed Rashid. He's a
Pakistani journalist who has written extensively about Islamic extremism, and
is the author of the best-selling book "Taliban." He's contributed to The
Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph of London.

Rashid says, after eight years as president, General Pervez Musharraf is
unable to keep the peace at home or root out Islamic extremists along the
border with Afghanistan. Musharraf took power in a 1999 coup. Now he's
running for president in an election by the national assembly which has just
been scheduled for October 6th. Musharraf is not only president, he's the
head of the army. But he's just made the promise that if he wins the
election, he'll step down from the military. He's opposed by people in
Pakistan who are calling for a more democratic government. He's also opposed
by extremists. The new al-Qaeda video condemns the military for its assault
on Islamic militants who took over the Red Mosque in Islamabad over the
summer. And in a new recording on an Islamist Web site, bin Laden has
declared war on Musharraf.

Ahmed Rashid, welcome back to FRESH AIR. Before we get into talking about the
Pakistan elections, just, I'd like to start with, since it's mostly Americans
listening to our show, what do Americans have at stake in this election?

Mr. AHMED RASHID: Well, I think there's an enormous amount at stake here.
Pakistan is the only nuclear power in the Muslim world; it is on the front
line against al-Qaeda; Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership
are now believed by American intelligence to be in Pakistan, rather than in
Afghanistan. There's a whole issue of democracy and the promises by the Bush
administration that they would support democracy in the Muslim world, and
Pakistan is critical to the Middle East, to the Arab nations. It has a
long-running conflict with India, and nobody wants that to erupt again. So
all in all, there's a great deal at stake.

GROSS: Well, let's get to the latest news about the election. It's going to
be held October 6th. And a few days ago President Musharraf said that if he's
elected as president, that he would step down as head of the military. Would
you interpret what's going on with that?

Mr. RASHID: Well, Musharraf says that he will stand for president, another
five-year term as president on October the 6th, but he will stand in uniform;
that is, he will stand as army chief. Now, that has resulted in a huge furor
from the opposition, who've said that he should take off his uniform before he
stands, and stand as a civilian president, which he's refusing to do. And the
opposition have said that they may boycott the proceedings, they may even
resign their seats, and they may launch a street movement against him. Now,
all this poses enormous risk to him. He has one card to play, which is that
he could declare martial law, and in fact some of his ministers have been
threatening that over the last 24 hours.

The other issue at stake is that there are several petitions in the supreme
court, which is now hearing these petitions, and these petitions are demanding
that Musharraf take off his uniform before he stands for president. Now, if
the supreme court rules in the next few days that he has to take off his
uniform, that will prompt another crisis. Because either Musharraf then
agrees with the supreme court and takes off his uniform, or, again, he
declares martial law and dismisses the supreme court altogether.

GROSS: Why does he want to stay in uniform? Why does he want to stay the
head of the military until he's elected?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think it's all a question of power and clout and
prestige. The fact is that he's been army chief for the last eight years, and
given that he is now so unpopular, he commands very little loyalty in the
country from any of the political forces, it's incredibly important for him to
be seen as all powerful and as army chief while he stands for president,
because, in a sense, that is what he's going to use to cower the opposition
and even those who are going to vote for him.

GROSS: So as long as he's the head of the military, he can declare basically
martial law and then do what he pleases, so he can--can he change the outcome
of the election as long as he's in uniform?

Mr. RASHID: Well, you know, if he declares martial law, it would just be a
terrible downward slide, because, you know, after eight years of being in
power, the fact that an army general has to go back or revert back to imposing
martial law, it would be a setback to democracy, it would lead to a furor in
the streets, in parliament, and even amongst the international community, I
think. The Americans would find it very difficult to continue supporting
Musharraf if he ruled in a martial law regime. So I think, you know, he would
like to avoid that, but at the same time he would like a smooth passage to his
presidency.

Now what the opposition is saying is basically that, `Mr. Musharraf, you are
blackmailing us and the nation. What you are actually saying is, "Elect me as
president and then I will drop the uniform."' And that is being seen by the
media, by the opposition as blackmail, as a threat.

GROSS: So, I mean, he's the head of the military. Does the military support
him?

Mr. RASHID: Well, it's very uncertain exactly, you know, where the military
stands right now. The military has been in the front line against al-Qaeda,
along the Afghan border, it's been taking very high casualties. There have
been large-scale desertions in the military, on the border, and certainly his
generals are supporting him.

But all the indications are that I think there's growing resentment in the
rank and file of the army, the soldiers, some of whom have been influenced by
the extremists and extremist Islamic propaganda, and some of them who are just
kind of fed up of being the target of abuse by a public which is increasingly
fed up with the military and the army. Every day in the media, every day on
TV you're getting politicians heaping abuse at the army. And I think, you
know, some of those professional junior officers, soldiers, would like to see
the army go back to the barracks and get out of the limelight.

GROSS: Well, but you say that, you know, hundreds of Pakistani soldiers
recently surrendered to the Taliban without firing a shot, that soldiers in
that badlands territory between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where there's a lot
of al-Qaeda and Taliban, soldiers there are sometimes refusing to open fire on
extremists. Is this because they're sympathizing with them, or because
they're afraid? What's going on?

Mr. RASHID: I think it's a mixture of things. First of all, the Pakistan
army has been deployed in these tribal areas for the last four years, and they
have utterly failed to subdue the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And, in fact, what
we're seeing is an expansion of the Pakistani Taliban expanding right across
the tribal areas and now into what we call the settled areas of the northwest
frontier province. So in a sense the army has really failed.

Secondly, a lot of the army up there, especially the paramilitary forces, are
Pashtuns. That is, they belong to the same ethnic group and often the same
tribes who are living up there, and they are very loathe to fire and kill
their fellow Pashtuns.

And thirdly, I think the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been using really extreme
terrorist tactics. I mean, we've seen, you know, soldiers' bodies have come
back which have been mutilated, their tongues have been chopped off, their
heads have been chopped off. The Taliban in al-Qaeda are using frightening
techniques, which are literally not only terrorizing the civilian population,
but also terrorizing the army.

GROSS: So the United States has been supporting Musharraf in the hopes that
Musharraf will keep the lid on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and of course he'd be
doing that through the military, but the military is failing to do that. But
the Bush administration is still supporting Musharraf.

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, this is one of the really enormous
mistakes which is going to have a very big repercussions down the road. The
Bush administration is supporting Musharraf 110 percent and has shown little
inclination to back the movement by the democratic parties, the movement by
the lawyers and the supreme court to bring about the rule of law and
constitutional rule.

And this has led to enormous anti-Americanism. There was already, of course,
a great deal of anti-Americanism in Pakistan because of sympathies for the
Islamic forces and even bin Laden. But right now, you've got people in the
middle class--you've got professional people, lawyers, engineers, doctors--who
just see the Americans as backing a military dictatorship when alternatives
have now emerged, that is elections, the supreme court becoming so active in
trying to decipher the law. And the Americans are seeing, as they were 30, 40
years ago during the Cold War, as backing military dictator, especially when
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been pushing for democratization in
the Arab world and other parts of the Muslim world. Here is a case of a
country, you know, yearning for democracy, and the Americans are backing the
dictator. So I think this is leading to enormous frustration and anger, which
is not doing the Bush administration any good.

GROSS: What is the supreme court's role in this upcoming election? What's
the movement that they are leading now?

Mr. RASHID: Well, a bit of history here. You know, we've had four martial
laws in Pakistan, and, traditionally, the supreme court has been very pliant
and it has always condoned military rule; it has never opposed military rule.
Now, for the first time, you have a very activist supreme court, which started
off opposing actions by the military, for example, demanding that the military
reveal how many prisoners it was holding in its secret jails, much like the
CIA has been holding these disappeared prisoners. And this kind of activism
annoyed President Musharraf greatly. He then decided to suspend the chief
justice, thinking that, you know, the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry would
just kind of go away quietly.

Instead, what happened, there was a huge reaction amongst the lawyers and the
judiciaries, and a movement was launched. For four months, lawyers took to
the streets, they boycotted the courts. All legal work came to a standstill,
and until a panel of the supreme court reinstated the chief justice. Now,
once that happened, it is clear that there's a complete stand-off between
Musharraf and the chief justice right now. And of course this panel of the
supreme court, hearing whether Musharraf should stay in uniform or take off
his uniform before elections, is riveting the nation right now. Because if
the supreme court rules against Musharraf, then of course he could well then
re-impose some kind of military rule.

GROSS: There's no way you think he's going to back down?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think it'll be very difficult for him to back down,
because he has said one thing. If he's seen to back down, it may well affect
his election. Even those who are willing to vote for him would say he's now
too weak, too unpopular to be voted in as president.

GROSS: My guest is Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. He's reported
extensively on Islamic extremism in his books and newspaper articles. We'll
talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is journalist Ahmed Rashid. He
lives in Pakistan and has been reporting from Pakistan and from the larger
region for many years. He's the author of the best-selling book "Taliban,"
and also contributes to The Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph of London.
We're talking about the upcoming elections in Pakistan, what's at stake in
Pakistan and also what's at stake for the United States.

Musharraf has a couple of strong members of the opposition who want to run for
prime minister, both of whom have been living in exile. One of them, Nawaz
Sharif, is the person who Musharraf deposed in the 1999 bloodless coup.
Sharif returns to Pakistan, and hours later Musharraf forced him back into
exile, even though the supreme court said that Sharif could stay. Let's look
at Sharif for a second. What does his party represent?

Mr. RASHID: Well, Sharif is basically popular in the largest province of the
country, Punjab, which has something like 60 percent of the population, and,
most significantly, 80 percent of the army is recruited from the Punjab. He
represents, really, if you like, middle class business interests, but his
regime--he was prime minister twice in the 1990s. And like Benazir Bhutto,
who was also prime minister twice, his governments were repeatedly accused of
corruption and incompetence. But nevertheless, his years in exile, the fact
that he took the bold decision to come back and then to be deported again, all
this is raised an image enormously in Pakistan, and he's a very serious
political contender now for prime ministership if he's allowed to contest.

GROSS: You know, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is planning to return
in mid-October to run for prime minister. She's not on good terms with
Musharraf, but he apparently will allow her to come back. What does she stand
for politically?

Mr. RASHID: Well, historically the Pakistan People's Party, which she leads,
has been the party which has been anti-army and anti-mullah. They are very
much against extremism, and very much against continued military rule. And
they are, by far, I think, the largest and most popular national political
party in the country. We should remember Pakistan is four provinces, and a
lot of the politics in Pakistan is regional and ethnic-based rather than on a
national level. So Bhutto represents that. But her two governments in the
1990s were also accused of widespread corruption and incompetence. Her
husband has been under a cloud ever since. She and her husband have faced
numerous corruption charges, which are still pending.

Now, the controversy around Benazir Bhutto is being that, over the last six
months or so, she has been pushed by the Americans and by the British to work
out a deal with Musharraf, in the sense that Musharraf would allow her to come
back, she would contest the election. And if elected, she would work with
Musharraf against extremism.

GROSS: Let me quote something that you recently wrote. You wrote, "The West
is desperate to bring Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf into a loveless
marriage so the general can combat terrorists and the lady can play
democracy." Very skeptical way of looking at this.

Mr. RASHID: Yes, well, I mean, it's skeptical because, frankly, her own
party is very skeptical and been very cynical of her response. Because her
own party, its roots lie in anti-militarism. And they don't want to see their
party, you know, linking up with the military and becoming a partner of
Musharraf. So what she risks doing, if there is such a deal--and so far no
deal has been cemented. What she risks doing is actually alienating her own
vote bank, which could mean that she may not get the kind of votes she's
hoping to get. So it's a very difficult balancing act that she has to play.

GROSS: So tell us a little bit more about the alliance you think the West
wants to create between Musharraf and Bhutto and what role the West is willing
to play to try to create that alliance.

Mr. RASHID: Well, ideally, I think, you know, what the Americans and British
were hoping for about two years ago was that this upcoming election right now
would be a kind of transition, where Musharraf would genuinely surrender some
of his powers to a more powerful parliament and civilian prime minister, and
the war on extremism and terrorism could then be run with a former army chief
as president and a bunch of politicians working closely with him.

Now, the problem here has been twofold. First, on the Musharraf side, he's
shown no inclination to give up any power to parliament or a newly-elected
prime minister, and that's been why, you know, partly why the deal with Bhutto
is not being done, because he's refused to give up any power, and Bhutto's
demanding that, `Look, you're--for my own credibility within my own party,
within the country, you have to be seen to be giving up some of your powers.'
So Musharraf has not been willing to do that.

And on the other hand, what she has been expecting is that the government end
all the various corruption cases against her. Now, the army is actually
saying, `No, but we'll suspend them, but we won't end them.' In a way, the
army is saying to her, `We will keep these corruption cases hanging over your
head so that if you don't behave, you know, we can bring them back again,' as
it were. So she's not agreeing to that part of the deal, either. And she has
also, of course, been backtracking because she's seen the very strong
anti-army feeling that is in the country and in her party.

GROSS: What do you think the odds are that everyone in this upcoming Pakistan
election will play by the rules and respect the outcome?

Mr. RASHID: Well, Terry, this has been, actually, one of the main demands of
the opposition and the media. What people have said is that a long time ago
Musharraf should have attempted some kind of national reconciliation. He
should have perhaps called a roundtable conference. He should have invited
back all the politicians in exile and released all the political prisoners and
attempted a genuine national reconciliation on the grounds that what is needed
is a national unity to combat extremism and terrorism. Now if he'd done this
six months ago or even three months ago, I think he would not be in such a
mess as he is in now.

The fact is that, you know, his actions over the last few months have really
created such enormous mistrust: nobody believes him, nobody believes what he
promises. Even today when he says that, `Elect me as president and then I'll
drop my uniform,' the fact of the matter is the media is skeptical, the
opposition is skeptical, nobody believes what he's saying! So I think not all
of the problems, but a lot of the problems could've been resolved if he'd been
magnanimous, if he'd been less stubborn, less egotistical, less arrogant, if
he had been more of a--kinder, if he'd been more humble, and perhaps more
humiliated by the fact that he'd now become so unpopular, and if he'd reached
out to the political parties and said to them, `Come, let's talk. Let's set
the rules of the game for the next election, and, you know, we should be able
to work out something.' That is not the case. There are no rules of the game.
And you're very right, there's every likelihood that one side or the other is
not going to respect any rule of the game.

GROSS: Ahmed Rashid is a journalist based in Pakistan. He's contributed to
The Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph of London, and is the author of
the best-seller "Taliban." He'll be back in the second half of the show. I'm
Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with journalist Ahmed
Rashid, who's based in Pakistan and has reported extensively on Islamic
extremism. Rashid is best known in the US for his best-selling book
"Taliban." We're talking about the upcoming presidential election in Pakistan
and what's at stake for Pakistan and for the US in the war on terrorism. The
election is scheduled for October 6th and will be followed by elections for
parliament and prime minister. General Pervez Musharraf, the president and
head of the military, is running for re-election.

Well, we've talked a little bit about Musharraf, the opposition, the supreme
court and the military. Let's look at the extremists for a second, the
Taliban and al-Qaeda. What role might they play in the upcoming election?

Mr. RASHID: Well, clearly a very strong, disruptionist role. I mean, I
think the al-Qaeda and what are now called the Pakistani Taliban--that is,
those Taliban who are on the Pakistan side of the border--are really looking
now to try and expand their base areas, to be able to bring more people under
their control, under their rule, and they're expanding from the mountains now
into the towns and villages that make up the northwest frontier province which
borders Afghanistan.

Now, this is proving to be extremely dangerous because, first of all,
Musharraf and the army are far too busy with the political crisis in Islamabad
to perhaps been giving the necessary attention to what is happening on the
border. And what we are seeing is hundreds, if not thousands of armed Taliban
are going into towns and villages, burning video shops, imposing the veil on
girls, forcing people to go to the mosque five times a day. In other words,
imposing the same kind of regime that the Taliban in Afghanistan imposed back
in 1994-'95.

So, now, what this is leading to, of course, is that it's terrifying people.
I mean, many people who've been opposing the Taliban have been shot. That
includes tribal elders who've been executed by the Taliban for daring to
oppose the Taliban. All, you know, ordinary people, school teachers,
shopkeepers, people who've got things at stake have actually had to flee their
towns and villages and gone to the larger cities outside the region.

GROSS: Well, this is some election. I mean, on the one hand you have
Musharraf's implicit threat of martial law if he doesn't get his way; on the
other hand, legislators in the parliamentary elections are being threatened by
al-Qaeda and the Taliban that they'll be killed if they vote for Musharraf.

Mr. RASHID: Well, absolutely, and many people are very skeptical as to how
Pakistan is going to be able to have a general election in three or four
months time. Now, the presidential election on October 6th, that is
Musharraf's election, will be carried out by the national assembly, the main
parliament and the four provincial assemblies. So that's just a question of
about 1500 legislators voting for Musharraf or not voting for him. But a
general election--that is, a parliamentary election--which has to be carried
out by January of 2008 and could well take place in December, would have to be
nationwide, and there would have to be a campaign. All the parties would be
able to campaign in it. And, in fact, Benazir Bhutto, who's now said that she
will come back in the middle of October, has ordered an armored limousine from
Mercedes-Benz to precede her. She's very worried that she will be
assassinated or that there will be attempts to assassinate her by the
extremists.

GROSS: Let me read something that you wrote. You wrote, "After September
11th, the US made a deal with the Musharraf regime, which had been the
Taliban's main patron. And the deal was: ignore Musharraf's despotism in
return for his promises to crack down on al-Qaeda and cut loose the Taliban.
But that bargain is in tatters." In what sense is that bargain in tatters now?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I mean, what we are seeing right now in the tribal areas
on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The fact is that the al-Qaeda and the
Taliban have expanded their influence, their areas of operation, you know,
since 9/11 rather than be reduced. Although, initially, Pakistan did capture
many al-Qaeda leaders, no significant al-Qaeda leader has been caught for the
last three years. Osama bin Laden is believed to be living obviously quite at
ease on the Pakistan side of the border, as is his number two. Mullah Omar,
the leader of the Taliban, is also believed to be in Pakistan. So I think,
you know, there's been enormous frustration by the Afghans, by the American
military based in Afghanistan, and now increasingly in Washington also at the
military's inability to really rein in al-Qaeda.

And I think the reason, simply, is that although there have been, you know,
70, 80,000 troops, according to the army, based in the tribal areas, they
haven't really been taking the offensive. And they haven't, in the past two
or three years, been going up against, you know, launching attacks, putting
commandoes and special forces, etc., up against the al-Qaeda strongholds. And
that has resulted in people in Washington now saying, `Well, if you won't do
the job, then let us Americans come in and do the job.' Now, that, of course,
would be extremely dangerous to my mind, because if the Americans really carry
out, for example, carpet bombing of al-Qaeda strongholds or in the Pakistan
part of the tribal areas, or actually invade or, you know, send in special
forces or something like that, I think there would be a huge upturn in
anti-Americanism right across Pakistan. And of course it would inflame the
tribesmen.

GROSS: Is there a belief that Musharraf's opposition could do a better job
than Musharraf at fighting back against the Taliban and al-Qaeda?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think clearly not. I mean, first of all, many people
are disillusioned that the only two major opposition choices that Pakistanis
have are two, you know, failed prime ministers, as it were. And two prime
ministers who are both charged with corruption. But what I think, you know,
people were hoping before this present political crisis erupted was that there
would be some kind of partnership between the military and civilians, you
know, something that you quoted me writing before, that the politicians would
look after the domestic situation, they would carry out, you know, development
and the economy and all the rest of it, and the military would be in
partnership with the civilian government in opposing and fighting extremism
and terrorism, you know, along the borders.

Now, such a partnership hasn't happened before. In the '90s, for example,
where there were four civilian governments, one after another, each time the
army threw out the elected prime minister and his or her government. That
happened to Benazir Bhutto twice and to Nawaz Sharif twice. And there was a
complete lack of trust between the politicians and the army. What we are
asking for now is that the army and the politicians strike up a trust and work
together in order to combat extremism. Is that likely to happen? Well, it's
still very much, I think, the top, you know, unanswered question. Only a free
and fair election is going to demonstrate that. Will the army respect and
carry out a free and fair election and then work with the newly-elected prime
minister.

GROSS: You know, getting back to the Bush administration, you say that Vice
President Cheney has also been close to Musharraf. How did they get close?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, Vice President Cheney has always been a
very hard-line supporter of the war on terrorism, and I think for a very long
time, he interpreted Musharraf's actions with far more sympathy than perhaps
other people did in the Bush administration. And I think what we have seen
also is that a lot of the war on terrorism and the relationship with these
leaders who are front line--President Karzai of Afghanistan, Musharraf in
Pakistan, President Islom Karimov up in Uzbekistan and a lot of the Arabs--the
real personal relationship has not been between Bush and these leaders, but
has been between Cheney and these leaders. And it's Cheney's aides who've set
up a sort of mini-State Department in the vice president's office. They've
been running a lot of the policies related to the war on terror and dealing
with these leaders in the Muslim world who are allied to America.

GROSS: It's been reported that bin Laden has threatened to wage war on
Musharraf and the Pakistan army. What do you know about that, and how do you
interpret it?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, certainly bin Laden and Ayman
al-Zawahiri, his number two, they had tried to assassinate Musharraf back in
2004, and ever since then they have, in many of their statements, you know,
been declaring war against Musharraf. Now, of course, what is happening in
the tribal areas and this huge expansion of influence by the Pakistani
Taliban, has obviously encouraged al-Qaeda enormously, and it's probably led
to this kind of statement coming, you know, alongside these threats being
issued by the Pakistani Taliban. Now we have a, you know, a major threat by
al-Qaeda also that they will stand by the Taliban and fight the army and
obviously try and destabilize Pakistan. But clearly what al-Qaeda wants is,
just as it wants in Iraq, it wants a very highly destabilized polity and
country, people who are in fear, people where no political government can
succeed. Because only then can al-Qaeda expand its influence.

GROSS: My guest is Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. He's reported
extensively on Islamic extremism in his books and newspaper articles. We'll
talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: My guest is Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. He's best known in the
US for his best-selling book "Taliban." He's written extensively about Islamic
extremism.

How do you think the war in Iraq is affecting the strength of the Taliban and
al-Qaeda in the region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where a lot of the
Taliban and al-Qaeda live now, have their bases and are training people?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think the war in Iraq is having a huge impact. I mean,
first of all, the fact that American military power is seen to be on the verge
of some kind of withdrawal or even defeat, according to al-Qaeda, has been an
enormous encouragement to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. But secondly, now, of course, there is enormous traffic between
Iraq and the Taliban. What we've seen over the last couple of years is that
Taliban commanders have been traveling to Iraq, they've been training there,
they've been learning new techniques, especially all the new techniques of
roadside bombing and putting together explosives, which the Iraqi al-Qaeda
have been using against the Americans. And they've been bringing back these
techniques to Afghanistan. And what we've seen, of course, is much more
sophisticated Taliban attacks in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Secondly, we've seen the escalation of suicide bombings. Now, this was
something that was unheard of in Afghanistan just three years ago. Now we are
seeing about three or four suicide bombings a week in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. So this, too, has been imported, if you like. And secondly now,
there seems to be a lot of traffic of Arabs and Africans traveling between
Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously carrying messages and perhaps money and
information between bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Iraq.

And the same trail has also been used by Europeans. We had this extraordinary
capture by German police a week ago of something like six extremists, and the
Germans then said that 11 Germans had been training in Pakistan with al-Qaeda.
Now, part of that--you know, partly, the Germans can access Pakistan quite
easily by linking up with the Pakistani extremists living in Germany who would
then redirect them to mosques and madrassas--that is, religious schools--in
Pakistan. But another trail actually leads through Iran. Because you have
had Europeans traveling to Iraq to become suicide bombers, and some of them
have been diverted to Afghanistan.

So what we are seeing now is this, you know, not just separate actions by
al-Qaeda, but this enormous web of links and communication and money and
training and equipment and explosives which is taking place, all much more
than ever existed before 9/11.

GROSS: You talked earlier about how the Pakistani Taliban are extending their
reach beyond that no man's land border region into the towns of Pakistan in
the northwest region, and that they're threatening men who don't have long
beards, they're threatening women, they're burning down stores that sell DVDs
and stuff like that. What about in big cities, like where you live, do you
feel the influence of the Taliban there?

Mr. RASHID: Well, you know, I live in Punjab, which is quite far away. But
certainly what we're seeing is, we're seeing not these kinds of terror tactics
in the big cities, but we're seeing much greater Islamitization. So, for
example, what is happening is that students in colleges and universities are
demanding that the girl students go around fully veiled. We are seeing if
girls try and come out in jeans and, you know, short tops, we're seeing
Islamic students perhaps hurling bottles at their cars or trying to stop them.
So there is, if you like, not quite the kind of terror tactics that have been
used by the Taliban in the border regions, but there's much greater fear, I
think, in the cities than there was perhaps two or three years ago, and
certainly much greater fear than existed in Pakistani cities before 9/11. So
there is indeed an impact.

GROSS: If you were advising the Bush administration, what would you tell the
Bush administration to do?

Mr. RASHID: Well, I think, you know, I think the Bush administration has to
be much more forceful in publicly insisting that Musharraf not impose martial
law, that the rule of law is sustained, the rulings of the supreme court, that
he works out some kind of national reconciliation with the opposition, he
brings back the opposition leaders back into the country and holds some kind
of roundtable conference or some kind of meeting with them, sets down some
kind of rules of the game so that free and fair elections can be held. It's
not good enough.

I mean, all the Bush administration is saying, `We want free and fair
elections.' Well, fine. I mean, so does everyone want free and fair
elections. But, you know, how do you get there? First of all, how do you
convince Musharraf to have free and fair elections? After all, he is the
leader who rigged the 2002 elections. He's just thrown out one of the main
contenders for the elections, Nawaz Sharif, and there's very little indication
that he will hold a free and fair election. So I think, you know, it's
terribly important that the West, the Americans, the Europeans, sit down some
kind of line, draw a line in the sand and say, you know, there has to be, you
know, `We want stability. We support stability. But the army has to do
certain things.'

GROSS: It sounds to me like you're really worried about your country, that
this kind of goes way beyond journalism.

Mr. RASHID: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think, you know, most Pakistanis are.
I mean, I think, you know, what people are saying is that this is, by far--by
far--the worst political crisis that Pakistan has been through in 60 years.
And that includes the war in 1971, when East Pakistan, now Bangladesh,
separated from West Pakistan, which was considered, you know, obviously a
trauma for the whole country. This crisis is far worse, because the
implications are just staggering.

You asked right at the beginning, you know, well, why is this important for
America? Well, why is this important for Pakistanis? Frankly, I mean, so
much is at stake. We don't want to go down the road of Iraq. We don't want
to go down the road of Afghanistan under the Taliban. And there's so many
other fissures and polarities in society right now. There's the ethnic
question. There's enormous gulf between rich and poor. There's an enormous
gulf between the provinces, anti-Punjab feeling. There are just so many
fissures in society right now, and what people are despairing of is can any
future leader really heal the rifts that have emerged. Clearly Musharraf has
failed to do so. Can a future leader heal the rifts?

GROSS: Ahmed Rashid, thank you so much for talking with us again.

Mr. RASHID: Thank you very much indeed.

GROSS: Ahmed Rashid is a journalist based in Pakistan. His books include
"Taliban" and "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia."

Coming up, classic "Popeye" cartoons from the 1930s have been released on DVD,
and critic Milo Miles has a review. This is FRESH AIR.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Review: Milo Miles looks at a collection of "Popeye" cartoons from
the 1930s just released on DVD, "Popeye the Sailor 1933-1938"
TERRY GROSS, host:

In the 1930s, the Disney studios had only one serious animation competitor,
the Fleischer Brothers studio in New York. The Fleishers had already
established a hit character with Betty Boop when they licensed a superstar
from newspaper comics. Back in 1929, E.C. Segar had introduced a bit player
into his "Thimble Theatre" strip, Popeye the sailor. Popeye quickly came to
dominate the newspaper comic and, through Fleischer cartoons, became a pop
culture icon. Music critic Milo Miles, who's a big animation fan, says the
Fleischer "Popeye"s have finally been given their due on a new first-rate DVD
set.

Mr. MILO MILES: There have been many, many Popeyes since he first appeared
in E.C. Segar's "Thimble Theatre." I met Popeye, Olive Oyl, Bluto and company
through television reruns of the Fleischer Brothers' 1930s cartoons. I didn't
read Segar's newspaper comics until I was an adult. They're absolutely
wonderful, but very different. The Popeye closest to my heart is the
Fleischer animated one. During a documentary about Segar's strip in the new
DVD set, TV screenwriter Dan O'Shannon underscores what a long shot "Popeye"
was.

(Soundbite of "Popeye" documentary)

Mr. DAN O'SHANNON: Segar apparently created the character as this kind of
one-off little side character in this one adventure, and then it just sort of
hit with readers, and he moved center stage and essentially took over the
comic strip. And I think that's how Popeye would have to become popular, as
an accident, because who in a room is going to sit down and go, `I've got it!
He's a sailor, he's about 40, can't speak English very well, missing an eye,
no teeth. People are going to go, "Yes!" People are going to love it!' No.
It--that's one of those things you have to find out by accident, because no
one can predict that kind of success for this character.

(End of soundbite)

Mr. MILES: It's routine these days to note that Fleischer Studios used urban
settings, vaudeville humor and characters and objects that underwent surreal
shape shifts. Also, that Popeye starred in a Depression era, if not as an
everyman, as a working man, an ordinary guy with exceptional pluck and
extraordinary spinach. I would argue that Popeye works as a figure from many
folk tales: the trickster, the sly transformer who appears in many shapes to
outwit his opponents. After all, Popeye is not just a sailor swab but a
sculptor, an engineer, a pilot, a professional dancer, and often a kind of
Indiana Jones adventurer. But he was never an operator, a slick dude. No
matter what his guise, this trickster sticks up for the little guy.

(Soundbite of "Popeye the Sailor")

Mr. WILLIAM COSTELLO: (As Popeye, singing) I'm Popeye the sailor man!

(Soundbite of whistle tooting twice)

Mr. COSTELLO: (As Popeye, singing) I'm Popeye the sailor man!

Ms. BONNIE POE: (As Olive Oyl) Oh, my little Poppy.

Mr. COSTELLO: (As Popeye, singing) Now, just 'cause you're taller,
Don't hit someone smaller
Says Popeye the sailor man

(Soundbite of whistle tooting twice)

(End of soundbite)

Mr. MILES: "Popeye the Sailor" volume one includes hours of additional
features. Animation historians Jerry Beck and Michael Barrier, as well as
director Greg Ford, provide the best commentaries. Film supplements include
many pre-1930s cartoons associated with the Fleischers, but they're only of
historical interest. But documentaries about Segar's "Thimble Theatre" and
the earliest years of animation are superb. All the major characters get
little bios, with Olive Oyl faring best as the world's least likely sex
symbol. But hey, she just starred in a commercial for Prego tomato sauce, so
you got to admit, she's aged well.

A constant theme throughout the commentaries is how much the Fleischers' work
focused on music and action rather than words and realism. Almost all the
"Popeye" shorts are rough and tumble musicals with heaps of mindless violence
thrown in. Perfect! Oddly enough, one of the most adroit musical passages
belongs to Bluto as Sinbad the sailor.

(Soundbite of "Popeye the Sailor")

Mr. WILLIAM PENNELL: (As Bluto, singing) Who's the most phenomenal,
extra special kind of fellow?

(Soundbite of scream)

Mr. PENNELL: (As Bluto, singing) Sinbad the sailor!
I'm a ray of nobody under the sun
All I say is `Boo' and my enemies run
Who's the most remarkable,
extraordinary fellow?

Mr. COSTELLO: (As Popeye, singing) I's Popeye the sailor man

Mr. PENNELL: (As Bluto) Who?

Mr. COSTELLO: (As Popeye) Ah-ta-ta-ta-ta
I's Popeye the sailor man
I'm strong to the finish
'Cause I eats me spinach
I'm Popeye the sailor man
Ah-ta-ta-ta-ta

(End of soundbite)

Mr. MILES: Seymour Kneitel probably animated more "Popeye" shorts than
anyone else, and his best are certainly time capsule worthy. However, I would
like to offer a personal salute to the leader of another animation unit,
Willard Bowsky, whose "Popeye" cartoons are more visually clever, technically
adroit and outrageously funny than any others.

As an adult animation fan, I took comfort that most of the classic cartoon
animators were around to see their work revived and celebrated through
television. But the first time I saw a Willard Bowsky drawing, he was long
gone. He had joined the Army in 1942 and was killed in action during the
Battle of the Bulge. Of all the hands that helped create Popeye, I suspect he
would be proudest of Bowsky.

(Soundbite of "Popeye the Sailor")

Mr. COSTELLO: (As Popeye) I saw my duty and done it
(Singing) 'Cause I'm Popeye the sailor man

(Soundbite of whistle tooting twice)

(Soundbite of music swelling)

(End of soundbite)

Mr. MILES: On a consumer note, it's unfortunate that "Popeye" volume one
ends on 1938. It includes almost all the cartoons you need. There were a
dozen or so snappy, hilarious shorts made after that date equal to any earlier
ones, but when the Fleischer Brothers lost their studio to Paramount at the
end of 1941, a notable decline in quality began to overtake the previously
invincible sailor. Few even entertaining "Popeye" cartoons were made after
World War II. In the end, magical spinach was no match for the effects of
time and change.

GROSS: Milo Miles lives in Boston. The new four-disc DVD set, "Popeye the
Sailor, 1933-1938," is on Warner Home Video.

If you'd like to catch up on interviews you've missed, you can download
podcasts of our show by going to our Web site, freshair.npr.org.

(Credits)

GROSS: I'm Terry Gross.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.