Posted on 11/17/2007 1:42:09 PM PST by Graybeard58
U.S. politicians and media are wasting no opportunities to lower the boom on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, an important U.S. ally in the war on terror, aka Gen. Musharraf, human-rights violator, enemy of democracy and untrustworthy helpmate against Islamofascism. Maybe President Musharraf's Western critics should revisit comparatively recent events in Pakistan's unruly neighborhood.
U.S. leaders and the public spent most of the 1970s acquiring a strong distaste for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. No small-d democrat, he maintained rigid control over his subjects by means of a cruel, repressive secret police force called SAVAK. Many in the United States were not the least bit troubled to see him deposed in 1979 favor of an exiled "Islamic holy man," Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. We know how well that turned out.
Now President Musharraf is facing abandonment by the West even as he confronts his greatest challenge from within. Should his regime fall, its replacement promises to be far worse for the West and the Pakistani people. And unlike Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Pervez Musharraf will leave behind nuclear weapons.
Yet bastions of Western thought such as The New York Times are ready to throw him under the bus. "General Musharraf must lift martial law, reinstate constitutional processes, release political detainees, unfetter the media, give up his army post and accept whatever ruling the Supreme Court makes on his eligibility to be president," the Times declared in an editorial Wednesday. The paper didn't call for him to put a loaded gun to his head and pull the trigger, though that would be much the same thing.
To President Musharraf must go much of the credit for America's successes in the war on terror, including the capture of numerous al-Qaida and Taliban leaders, the absence of terrorist strikes on the U.S. homeland since 9/11, and the preservation of stability in a restless corner of the Islamic world. Those who wish him ill should think long and hard about what Iran has become in the 28 years since the Shah fell, and imagine what a post-Musharraf, nuclear-armed, fundamentalist-ruled Pakistan might look like.
Right Whale - you are right on.
I say we give Pervez a little more time. People are getting all up in arms about his declaring a state of emergency, well, people are forgetting:
a.) That the Supreme Court was seriously undermining the prosecution of the Islamists. This all started unwinding because of the clean out of that Islamist rat’s nest - the Red Mosque.
b.) The Islamists were kicking the a$$ of the Frontier Guide (a sort of homeboy militia rife with corruption and sloth) in Swat. It was out of control. Desertions were wholesale and the Islamists had managed to get within 100 miles of Islamabad and it’s nukes. Couple that with the bombing of Benazir Bhutto’s welcome home parade...Something had to be done.
c.) The Pakistani merchant class is firmly behind Musharraf. The economy of Pakistan has improved every year that he has been in power.
I say let’s give this thing some more time.
About Benazir Bhutto - Beware. She’s the Pakistani Pelosi, people. Her govt was 1 of 4 in the whole wide world that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. And her corruption? I wouldn’t want to touch that with a 10 foot pole.
(P.S I’m no expert on Pakistan but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.)
You make good sense...so why are we trying to broker a power sharing deal with Bhutto?
Thanks for the tip, GB58!
Helped my eyes out!
One more thing about Benazir:
You call house arrest a bad thing? I don’t know. Within 12 hours of arriving back in the country you are bombed and a bunch of people are killed. But there you are sitting in your villa, protected by security and receiving a US Envoy for tea. After that you are able to give interviews on the veranda with every major media outlet in the WORLD.
And the house arrest only lasted what - 48 hrs?
Please.
I wish to he[[ I could figure that out!
I'm still working on it. It's almost like a chess move on a chess board - but I'm not seeing all the pieces yet!
Umm-first of all,ever since General Ayub Khan came to power in the late 1950s,the Pakistani army has always controlled critical policy decisions-like those relating to India,China,nukes,radical Islam... & in later years,the Taliban/Afghanistan.Benazir recognised the Taliban,because if she wouldn’t the Army would ensure she would.
About her corruption-ofcourse she is very corrupt.But only as corrupt as the largest industrial & welfare organisation in Pakistan-which happens to be the Pakistani army,headed by a General Pervez Musharraf.
About the economy,well it usually grows big time,when you have Uncle Sam pouring in tons of civil & military aid & when the Japanese had also lifted their aid ban(after Sept.11).You really don’t need to do much.The same was witnessed after the US sewed up alliances with Ayub Khan & Zia Ul Haq-though both would lead their country to later disaster-where Musharraf is headed.
About the Supreme Court-umm what’s the purpose of a judiciary if it can’t ask the government for accountability????Might as well wind it up-which Musharraf has done.All it did was ask the government for an explanation on people who had disappeared in connection with anti-terror operations.As well as question the legitimacy of privatisation/sale of government assets to people who were close to Musharraf & his cronies.
Same goes for the Swat valley-the Paki army has adopted a 2 handed approach.Use some heavy force to put up a show,while concentrating on appeasing the insurgents-didn’t work out well.But don’t expect them to stay down if you think Islamabad is in sight.These insurgents are localised with ethnic/sectarian characteristics-much like other Islamists in Pakistan.They will fight with each other as much as they fight against Uncle Sam or the Paki army.
Bhutto is sponsored by the US government to form a power-sharing agreement with Musharraf.She’d take over the prime ministership,while Mush would hand up his fatigues take over as President-So the army would supposedly go back to barracks & Pakistan would be “democratic” again.This pathetic charade has happened more than once since Pakistan’s birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.