US turns against Musharraf

[tocqueville]

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a military coup in 1999 and, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, still in effect rules as a military dictator.

Musharraf's firm grip on the affairs of state has until now served Washington's interests well, as he has been able to steer the country into the US camp as an ally in the "war on terror".

However, with the Taliban nowhere near defeated in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda still unbroken (the two major reasons that the US solicited Pakistan's assistance in the first place), the US is looking at its allies in Islamabad in a new light: Musharraf may be more the problem than the solution.

An indication of how things have slipped in the region is news that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has openly called for a truce with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. This was not how events were supposed to play out.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA12Df01.html

[savemefromdumbya]

1. rent-a-dictator

oh dear is Musharraf being naughty.

Now he DOES have WMDs:nuke:

[blm]

2. Musharraf was doing his job for the BFEE when he led that coup.

The ELECTED Pakistani president was cooperating with Clinton to coordinate the seizure of Bin Laden.

Musharraf seized power and CANCELLED the joint operation tio capture Bin Laden.

When Bush was asked to name world leaders in 2000, he could only recall the "General" in Pakistan and inexplicably added that he would be good for the region - a man who just overthrew the democratically elected president and cancelled efforts with US to grab Bin Laden was being praised by Bush in 2000?

I believe that Musharraf was working for the Bush AND Bin Laden family when he led his coup in 1999.

[Joe for Clark]

3. Interesting/disturbing

I am curious, what exactly does it take to get "W" to shit in his pants???

[PWRinNY]

9. Remove his diaper. nt

[warrens]

4. Musharraf wants to live

His army is filled with Taliban types. He missed assassination by about six feet last time. For a dictator, he's actually a fairly decent guy, but for an ally in our war for democracy in the middle east, he's about as good an ad for our intentions as the House of Saud.

[Joe for Clark]

5. It is interesting to me

How our country might define one dictator as good and another bad. How do we decide this???

There is no moral logic, and I am not saying there should be. Clearly, at least at the time, we thought Stalin a worthy ally (in 1941). And B*sh thinks Saddam worth an invasion. Stalin killed, what - 20,000,0000 of his own people???

Very strange in retrospect. I wonder how one could even imagine this little third world dictator (Saddam) be worth even one American life. Certainly, his father did not make this mistake.

I think democracy at the point of a bayonet is worse yet. How does this guy sleep at night?

Joe

[tocqueville]

7. the Stalin option was a war option

the war was going between the Allies and fascism in different shapes. To back up Stalin with equipment was the logical solution and probably the decision that sealed the fate of Hitler.

If Bush had been president he'd probably had done the contrary : back up Hitler against Stalin in the name of "freedom" and "fight against the evil communist empire..."

but America was sane at that time...

[Joe for Clark]

8. It was a war option.

I really think, if B*sh was president in 1941 he would have attacked Mexico instead of Japan after Pearl Harbor. He seems not the best geography (or spelling) president!

After all, what is the difference? Lunatics attacked us on 9/11 from Saudi Arabia and he attacks Iraq - no logic in that, either. I think he needs to repeat basic geography alright.

The sick thing to me is, I think if B*sh was president in 1941, we'd all be speaking German right now.

I think America is still sane. We sure better hope so, anyway.

Joe

[dusmcj]

6. different reads

Musharraf has a fundamental problem, in that Pakistan is a powderkeg, with the relevant parties including the jihadis, and those wild and crazy tribesmen on the NW frontier (pashtuns like the Talibs IIRC). Push liberalization/westernization/modernization too hard and they will treat him the way they treated British troops who made the mistake of getting lost or not arriving in sufficient numbers.

Of course, he may not just be at the mercy of this, but may have his own vested interests in the tribal status quo there.

The Americans, on the other hand, seem to have this hardon for "conquering" the "foreigners". It's this horribly amateurish conception of empire where the whiteman arrives with Freedom Fries and if the natives don't bend over immediately, he decides he has to destroy the village in order to save it.

The more experienced imperialists, by contrast, made nice with every poobah and village clown who they thought they could sway into being an underling - this was unification under the big tent if at all possible, and only the most recalcitrant natives were consistently abused as a matter of policy. The rest got the benefits of British civilization, such as it was, and in fact emerged with a grafted British colonial culture layered atop their own, which has stood them in good stead in various ways since then (e.g. in education, civil service and government organization, etc.). The Brits, being nefarious and clever, knew that they had to give in order to receive, even with superior firepower, and rubbed the heads of whoever was willing to work with them. This resulted in a significant amount of stability over a long period of time in a potentially explosive and far flung (long supply lines) empire.

So if the administration is thinking of getting harder on Musharraf, it makes you wonder - are they preparing to welcome Iran as the new power player in the region ? Do they have specific dirt on him showing that he's effectively aiding the Talibs (maybe by incompetence) or similar crews ? Or is he just not being hardcore enough for the neocon evangelists, not being Pos'tive enough ?

He's a clown, although he's a better clown than some of the alternatives there. If we're exercising a legitimate beef with his clowndom, fine. If we're the bigger clowns and are expecting him to defy his reality in doing exactly what we tell him, well, we're already paying for the administration's stupidity - why stop now ?