# Musharraf declares state of emergency in Pakistan, cancels elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2007, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230 "2007-11-05T00:48:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/21 "2007-11-06T13:44:56Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Does it help if you remember that he launched the coup that brought him to power from his position as Chief of Staff? [/QUOTE] Not really. If he’s popular with the military (ie, the generals), they’ll back him whether he’s in the military or out of it. If he’s not popular, they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/22 "2007-11-06T14:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > SCOTUS (of Pakistan) I believe that would either be SCOP or SCOTIROP. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/23 "2007-11-06T15:59:53Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I believe that would either be SCOP or SCOTIROP. [/QUOTE] You mean it’s not the United States of Pakistan? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/24 "2007-11-06T17:05:41Z")
I remember reading (not sure where, so no cite) that a military officer must wait some period of time (five years?) before running for civilian office. So if he resigned, he would basically be admitting that the law is valid and would then have to step down and wait. The gambit he was taking (before this latest power grab) was that the law didn’t apply to him for whatever reason. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/25 "2007-11-06T18:17:32Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Not really. If he’s popular with the military (ie, the generals), they’ll back him whether he’s in the military or out of it. If he’s not popular, they won’t. [/QUOTE] Except that he is at this moment very unpopular with the **public,** probably more so than at any time since 1999. Any ambitious general, even if he admires Musharraf, might, if appointed to the Chief of Staff post, see that as an opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/26 "2007-11-06T18:22:44Z")
Meanwhile, [Bush is sitting on the fence, more or less:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500309.html?hpid=topnews) > [@](#): > > President Bush called on Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, yesterday to hold elections and resign his military position as soon as possible, while his administration faced a looming battle with lawmakers on Capitol Hill pushing to limit aid until Musharraf restores constitutional rule. > > The comments were the first from Bush since Musharraf declared emergency rule and suspended constitutional rule on Saturday. They underscored how the administration is struggling to balance a drive for democracy in the Muslim world with what it considers Musharraf’s support in the fight against al-Qaeda. > > Even as Bush said Musharraf’s actions “would undermine democracy,” he also emphasized that the Pakistani president “has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals.” > > Bush refused to speculate about the future of U.S. assistance for Pakistan, which has totaled more than $10 billion since 2001. Administration officials said they are beginning to review the various elements of the aid package but made clear that they hope to coax Musharraf on a democratic path without a dramatic reduction in assistance that they consider crucial in fighting terrorism. Don’t think Musharraf has much to fear from that direction. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/27 "2007-11-06T18:30:58Z")
What do you suppose Bush/US should do about this situation BG? Send in the marines? Use the CIA too direct the outcome? Use harsh language? Maybe point out Pakistani genocide that occurred during the Ottoman empire or something? You are Bush (gods help you)…what would YOU do? -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/28 "2007-11-06T18:43:53Z")
Thought [this](http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071106/ts_csm/aoptions) article might help in the discussion: > [@](#): > > Why U.S. sticks by Musharraf > > WASHINGTON - America’s safety and the demands of the war on terror trump immediate concerns about democracy in Pakistan. > > That Bush administration perspective explains why the US – as disturbed as it may be by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of a state of emergency – is expected to refrain from steps that could weaken Pakistan’s leader. President Bush has regarded Mr. Musharraf as a major ally in the fight against Islamic extremism. > > So while US officials talk about reviewing the billions of dollars in mostly military assistance Pakistan receives from the US, a break with Musharraf over his authoritarian turn is seen as improbable. Anything more than intensified diplomacy – calling for a restoration of rights and for holding scheduled elections as soon as possible – is unlikely, at least over the short term. > > Although most analysts agree that the US options for influencing Musharraf are limited, they also say the time has come for a new Pakistan policy that is less Musharraf-centric. The military ruler, they say, may not last long at the helm of a nuclear power in a volatile region. In addition, it is increasingly clear that US interests in a stable Pakistan, free of Al Qaeda’s influence, have not advanced under Musharraf. > > “We have to start by acknowledging that we don’t have that many options in this relationship. And we should take our history with Pakistan into account, which shows that any sticks we’ve wielded or sanctions we’ve imposed haven’t had direct impact on Pakistan’s actions,” says Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary for South Asian affairs who is now at George Washington University. “But we need to be engaged with the Pakistanis in this time of crisis. Our action should be nuanced and broad-based, and we should be consulting the international community on this.” This is one of those ‘lesser of two evils’ kind of thing that the US often finds itself embroiled in. I know it’s hard for some people too grasp, but sometimes when you are a superpower you have too hold your nose and work some folks who are in power in other countries who you wouldn’t normally associate with. This seems too be one of those cases. We can work with Musharraf, who is a dictator…or we can take the chance that someone better might come up if Musharraf gets the axe (literally). Of course, chances are that we would simply get a situation like Iran. Bad as the Shah was, our relations with Iran haven’t exactly been great since he was ousted. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/29 "2007-11-06T18:44:13Z")
[QUOTE=Pleonast] I remember reading (not sure where, so no cite) that a military officer must wait some period of time (five years?) before running for civilian office. So if he resigned, he would basically be admitting that the law is valid and would then have to step down and wait. [/quote] Ah, that might explain it, then. > [@](#): > > The gambit he was taking (before this latest power grab) was that the law didn’t apply to him for whatever reason. Fortunately no president in the US ever thinks that. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/30 "2007-11-06T18:48:33Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] What do you suppose Bush/US should do about this situation BG? Send in the marines? Use the CIA too direct the outcome? Use harsh language? Maybe point out Pakistani genocide that occurred during the Ottoman empire or something? [/quote] Cut all aid to Pakistan while still demanding the right to use their airspace (not land routes) to reach Afghanistan. If they balk at that . . . we’ll cross that when we come to it. [QUOTE=xtisme] You are Bush (gods help you)…what would YOU do? -XT [/QUOTE] Ah, very different question. Have the CIA assassinate Musharraf and frame the Taliban. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/31 "2007-11-06T19:33:47Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] This is one of those ‘lesser of two evils’ kind of thing that the US often finds itself embroiled in. I know it’s hard for some people too grasp, but sometimes when you are a superpower you have too hold your nose and work some folks who are in power in other countries who you wouldn’t normally associate with. This seems too be one of those cases. We can work with Musharraf, who is a dictator…or we can take the chance that someone better might come up if Musharraf gets the axe (literally). Of course, chances are that we would simply get a situation like Iran. Bad as the Shah was, our relations with Iran haven’t exactly been great since he was ousted. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Our relations aren’t good in large part **because** “realistic” people like you decided that the Shah was the lesser evil. And, predictably, in the long run that hurt us more than we gained. These deals with the devil almost never work, and are almost never justified; I don’t see this as one of the exceptions. We’ll just end up with yet another regime that rises to power largely based on the hatred of America and the dictator we propped up. Collaborating with or supporting a dictator just means that we share the blame for his evils, and that when he loses power the hate the people had for him will largely transfer to us, justly. America is widely hated around the world for perfectly good reasons, and this sort of thing is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/32 "2007-11-07T05:41:55Z")
We didn’t decide to back the thug because we thought it would be good for Pakistan, so why would anyone expect us to stop backing him because he turned out not to be good for Pakistan? So far he did what we paid him to do. He let us bomb his neighbors without squawking about it. This is about American interests, as defined by the American President, or his avatar. Democracy never entered into the decision. I am unable to consider shock and outrage to be genuine coming from anyone on this turn of events. Tris ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/33 "2007-11-08T15:59:51Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Thought [this](http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071106/ts_csm/aoptions) article might help in the discussion: [/QUOTE] [This](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/truthdig) one should help considerably more: > [@](#): > > . . . But he was our dictator, kind of a modern, even westernized one who could stand up to all those bearded Islamic terrorists. > > Well, not exactly. Not that anyone bothered to remember, but Musharraf seized power in Pakistan, ending democratic rule, two years before the 9/11 attacks and did nothing to end his nation’s support of the Taliban rulers next door, who were harboring Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Before that he was part of a military elite that had, as the 9/11 Commission report would later conclude, been one of the main sponsors of the Taliban. Nor did Musharraf as dictator-president do anything to undermine the nut cases that he continued to diplomatically recognize as the legitimate rulers of the neighboring country. “On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban,” the 9/11 Commission reported, adding: “Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists. Musharraf agreed that Bin Laden was bad. But before 9/11, preserving good relations with the Taliban took precedence.” > > True, after 9/11 Musharraf did provide minimal support for the US invasion of Afghanistan in return for considerable aid and the lifting of the sanctions that had been imposed on his nation for developing nuclear weapons. Odd that a nation that had nuclear weapons and that had actively supported the terrorist haven in Afghanistan was welcomed back into America’s good graces only three weeks after 9/11–at the very same time that the Bush Administration was drawing up plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who was bin Laden’s sworn enemy. > > \ > > As for nukes (the real WMD), although Iraq didn’t have them, Pakistan did–at least seventy ready to explode–as well as the airplanes and missiles that could deliver them. Worse, the “father of the Islamic bomb,” Abdul Qadeer Khan, whom the 9/11 Commission called Pakistan’s most revered nuclear weapons expert, “was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed.” It was Khan who provided the key technology, uranium enrichment materials crucial to the nuke programs of Libya, Iran and North Korea. And it was Musharraf who pardoned him, made him to this day unavailable to US intelligence agents and, after a very loose form of house arrest, recently announced that he was now, as in the slogan of Southwest Airlines, free to move about the country. > > No problem – why hold a little nuclear proliferation against our favored dictator when he’s doing such a good job denying Al Qaeda and other religious fanatics a base of operations in Pakistan? Except that he did nothing of the sort. The all-important Pakistan border territory adjoining Afghanistan is more hospitable now to terrorists than ever before. As for bin Laden and the others Bush was going to get “dead or alive,” US experts routinely concede that those terrorists have found a haven on Musharraf’s side of the border. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/34 "2007-11-08T16:42:29Z")
**Brainglutton** , as usual, you cite articles which ignore the fact that reality sometimes makes unpleasant facts. We had **no** possibility of removing Musharraf, even if he was a jerk. Without any militarized domestic opposition (what the Taliban faced) and no way to reach it with troops, _and_ the fact that he had the nukes from some time ago, there was not slightest option of pushing against Musharraf. He doesn’t even have a coastline. We paid little attention to him, which would have been happy all around, until we took out the Taliban. Many of them fled and are trying to same in Pakistan’s backcountry, and they were already making attempts on Musharraf’s life. Not that our diplomacy has been ineffective. So far, he has been forced to allow Bhutto back, and is already [retreating](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110800421.html?nav=rss_world) on the current declaration. The progress isn’t always successful, and it’s slower than I’m sure you’d like, but I get the distinct feeling that nothig less than the Earth becoming Happy Kitty Puppy Ice Cream Land would ever satisfy you, and you’d still find a way to say that America was screwing things up. Sometimes, things don’t happen on the schedules you dream up. It might take, y’know time, and the fact that Musharraf ever let things get this far _at all_ is amazing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/35 "2007-11-08T16:48:55Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] **Brainglutton** , as usual, you cite articles which ignore the fact that reality sometimes makes unpleasant facts. We had **no** possibility of removing Musharraf, even if he was a jerk. [/QUOTE] No, of course not, but we had no reason to support him either, except for the necessity of crossing Pakistan to reach Afghanistan. And at this point, that venture has been fucked up so badly (owing to the drain Iraq put on our strength and resources) that we might as well write it off as an unrecoverable loss. So, really, why keep sending Musharraf **any** aid? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/36 "2007-11-09T01:15:54Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] … there was not slightest option of pushing against Musharraf. He doesn’t even have a coastline. [/QUOTE] Where do you think Pakistan is, exactly? Just to [remind you](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationPakistan.svg). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/37 "2007-11-09T01:37:45Z")
Musharraf now says [he will hold parliamentary elections on February 15, but he won’t resign his military rank until the new Supreme Court (composed only of judges who have sworn loyalty to him) affirms the legality of his October 6 re-election to the presidency.](http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrbnPz2UrDbF18u_yj9nbtfSNNBA) Bhutto demands he “hang up his uniform by November 15.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/38 "2007-11-09T16:39:54Z")
[Bhutto is now under what amounts to house arrest, behind barricades and barbed wire.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110900564.html?hpid=topnews) ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/39 "2007-11-10T05:22:38Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Bhutto is now under what amounts to house arrest, behind barricades and barbed wire.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110900564.html?hpid=topnews) [/QUOTE] So, now, referring back to post #8 from **Quartz** , Musharraf was denying that Bhotto was under house arrest, not that he was. He has shut down the TV and radio stations, but he didn’t count on the internet. The Pakis know exactly what is happening, and they are pisto. Unless somebody persuades him to flee, things will get uglier. The thing that had my head spinning was reading that Mr. Bush called up Pervy to say he couldn’t be president and head of the military, too. This, from a guy who is president and C in C of his own military. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230/40 "2007-11-10T05:29:50Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] The thing that had my head spinning was reading that Mr. Bush called up Pervy to say he couldn’t be president and head of the military, too. This, from a guy who is president and C in C of his own military. [/QUOTE] Yes, but the POTUS remains a **civilian.** Musharraf is a general and would not be president if he were not. And that is not because, like Eisenhower, his military record made him electable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musharraf-declares-state-of-emergency-in-pakistan-cancels-elections/425230.md?page=3)