So – now what? Bush came out strong against the Burmese junta’s crackdown on democracy protestors last month. He’ll look pretty silly or worse if he doesn’t react the same way to this. OTOH, the U.S. still needs Pakistan as an ally; Afghanistan is hardly accessible otherwise. (Condi Rice has threatened to “review” America’s $150 million a month assistance program to Pakistan, but so far no more than that) And if a civil war breaks out in Pakistan, will we intervene? And on which side?
He’s a military dictator, how is this surprising? Moral issues aside Musharraf is a US ally and better him than some unknown devil. Sure a democratic Pakistan would be nice, but the status quo is better than some Taliban-style regime. Our biggest worry is whether or not he can keep control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Because up to now he was appearing to move in a more democratic direction. Now he’s made it clear he won’t accept democracy in any form that might threaten his hold on power.
This is what comes of backing dictators, a lesson the US has consistently failed to learn. It seems that every single time they take the realpolitik/enemy-of-my-enemy option and it comes back to bite them. There are slow learners, and there are no learners … as Churchill said: “You can rely on America to do the right thing, as soon as all other alternatives are exhausted”.
Well, this isn’t exactly coming back to bite us, except in terms of political credibility. I mean, Musharraf’s state of emergency does not directly threaten American strategic interests in the region. How we are forced by political considerations to respond to it might.
And political considerations do matter. If there is a civil war in Pakistan – then the democratic reformers might be forced to make temporary common cause with the Islamic extremists, since both are opposed to Musharraf’s regime. (And then, if they defeat it, perhaps fight a second civil war with each other.) But the latter are “terrorists” according to the neocon playbook. So which side does America (under the Bush Admin) support?
Why do we have it in our minds that a democratic form of government would bring forth sunshine and flowers in the region? Democracies can be pretty darn belligerent.
Though in this region, it is not impossible for democratic India and democratic Pakistan to go to war with each other – and both countries have the bomb. Of course, that’s not inevitable: just one of the possibilities you have to put into the equation.
This seems like a desperate move on his part to avoid the SCOTUS (of Pakistan) declaring the last election invalid-- they were set to rule on it shortly. At issue, of course, is whether he can be both president and still a member of the military. Frankly, I don’t see why that’s an issue. The US president isn’t “in the military”, but he’s the CiC, and they do what he tells them to do.
Does anyone know why he doesn’t just step down from his military position and keep his civilian one?
I don’t know whether the president of Pakistan, like the POTUS, is CinC of the armed forces constitutionally (while nevertheless remaining a civilian in his capacity as president) – according to this article he “chairs the National Security Council and appoints the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force” – but in Musharraf’s case, he does hold two separate offices: President, and Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistani Army (the latter being the position he already held at the time of his 1999 coup).
Perhaps because he sees nobody around him he can appoint as a reliable puppet Chief of Staff, so doing that might lose him effective control of the army? Musharraf cannot help but remember how he came to power.
)