With friends like Musharraf...

No doubt many prominent politicians - some of them lurking here in Illinois, perhaps even in Peoria - have been tempted on occasion to pull a Pervez Musharraf: Silence the opposition, lock up the lawyers, muzzle the media, make 'ridicule' of them illegal and compare themselves to Abraham Lincoln.

Most don't dare, of course, because this is America and, by golly, we just don't do things of the sort we're now seeing in Pakistan under its current president. Some will push the envelope, but by and large they instinctually refrain from going the full 100 yards, constrained by a constitution and a couple of centuries of democracy. Americans have been conditioned not to tolerate such transgressions for any length of time. It usually ends badly for those who go too far.

Gen. Musharraf, new to this whole democracy thing after initially taking power in Pakistan by military coup in 1999, obviously has no feel for when to put the brakes on such behaviors. Over the weekend he arrested hundreds of perceived political foes without specific charge, deposed the nation's chief judge, cut phone lines, suspended elections indefinitely and neutered his nation's constitution, as if it was ever much more than a piece of paper to him. Essentially he has declared martial law, though he prefers the euphemism "state emergency." If it quacks like a duck ...

In any event, Musharraf's conduct is opposed to everything for which this nation stands.

Just one thing: He's an ally.

Call it one more quandary in the New World Order that some American power brokers actually expressed a desire for a few years back, before the planet began to explode in ways that, well, just hadn't materialized in their crystal balls.

Musharraf would never be an ally under normal circumstances. But because of the familiar proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," we find ourselves in an uncomfortable dalliance with a military dictator who may instead be living out the final gasps of an unpopular regime with one last stab at self-preservation. Indeed, Musharraf's stated reason for this effort is to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban forces that threaten the peace and stability of his country - and ours.

And so we need him - or at least think we do. A legitimate fear is that the nuclear weapons Musharraf controls could fall into the really wrong hands, not that Musharraf's grip is so trustworthy.

That's why Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is walking on eggshells, why she uses the term "extra-constitutional" to describe Musharraf's unconstitutional actions, why we're "reviewing" the aid we give Pakistan - now at $150 million a month, some $11 billion since 2001 - rather than reclaiming it altogether. Consider it one more compromise of principle that seeks short-term gain at the expense of a long-term solution on a part of the planet that we know too little about, and which appreciates us and our view of democracy even less.

We are in so deep with Musharraf that the Bush administration may have little choice but to grimace and try to coax him back to the ranch, while hoping the lid on Pakistan doesn't blow in the meantime. We've had our share of regrettable bedfellows across the globe over the decades, and Musharraf seems headed in that direction. Sometimes, supporting the enemy of our enemies just makes us more enemies. Sure hope we're exploring the alternatives.