Reply With QuoteYeah, surrounding the Supreme Court with troops and expelling the Chief Justice, after the Supreme Court denied the state of emergency and ordered troops and government workers not to comply does not sound good.
Just reading a variety of news this morning, looks like the Army is starting to take over the media, communications are going down, etc.
Yeah, surrounding the Supreme Court with troops and expelling the Chief Justice, after the Supreme Court denied the state of emergency and ordered troops and government workers not to comply does not sound good.
Islamist miltancy my ass. Just trying to hold on to power.Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf Saturday imposed a state of emergency ahead of a key Supreme Court ruling on the validity of his re-election and a recent surge in Islamist militancy.
One does not preclude the other. Radical islamists are a problem in Pakistan and regularly shoot up the place and set off large explosions. Still this was prompted by the Supreme Court (led by an anti-Musharraf justice) about to toss him out of office.
The real kicker will be whether the February(?) elections there go off as scheduled, or if they just go back to a military junta. Pakistan's alternated between corrupt civilian rulers and corrupt military rulers throughout its history, so it's not like this is new or anything.
I have a very close friend who returned to Pakistan months ago. From what he tells me (he is Muslim, but not in the extremist category) militant Islamist are indeed a growing and threatening force in Pakistan right now. Musharraf may be a jerk, but it's likely two bad things are working in Pakistan right now.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
Oh I know the radicals are a serious problem, just that they're a ridiculous excuse for Musharraf pulling this. It's the new communism.
Yes. It strikes me that most Americans would not be so sanguine about, say, the citizens of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota simply ignoring the government and declaring their own tribal government.
Well, okay, that's actually a bit like those states, but not as bad as Pakistan. :) Of course, that's also not just radical Islamists.
I think everyone can pretty much agree with this.
No, in fact, I strongly disagree.
Musharraf is not a communist. Dictator? Sure. Communist? No.
Chavez = new communism.
Musharraf = military dictator.
2+2=5.
Musharraf has survived the past few years by splitting the difference with the extremists and fighting as hard as he can to keep the old ruling parties out of power. The primary threat to his goverment is civilian rule not bombers from Peshawar.
Jakub, I was referring to "radical Islamist militancy" as the new catch-all excuse to be a dictator, take away democratic freedoms, crack down on labor unions, explain away shooting civilians, etc. Communism was the previous boogeyman used to get the US to prop you up.
Musharraf is just trying to prop up his dictatorship.
Keep in mind, too, that Bush & Cheney consider this clown a close ally in the "war on terror". Spreading democracy, hearts and minds, God's gift to mankind, all that.
And they think Arabs "on the street" are too stupid to see this.
Which country hasn't the Bush Administration fucked over?
Who's tried to assassinate him several times?
It's ok, the US military support continues uninterrupted.
Pakistan is our most important ally in the War on Terror (tm).
Could we be any more screwed? Pakistan is supposedly our ally in this whole mess, and the guy running things is (apparently) an idiot despot. If Pakistan implodes, no one is going to WANT to be president in 08.
Everyone has tried to kill him. Islamic radicals, the miltiary, other political parties - it's like a mafia war over there.
So ideally, Musharraf should let the reigns of power go and permit an all-out melee to begin in fine democratic fashion to elect, through gunfire, the new regime?
And then the U.S. gets blamed, and bombed, for it.
Would you rather a country screw itself over (and thus have only itself to blame) or that it be screwed over with the involvement of a some outsider who irregardless of motive then becomes someone to blame for it?
Being the "global policeman" is a thankless task. If the US decides to get involved (Iraq) it's "imperialism" but if we don't decide to get involved it's "lack of compassion" (Bosnia) or "racism" (Africa). If we resign from that position, parts of the world go to hell really fast because no one (including most Americans) want to give the UN the power it would need to replace us (and their track record is arguably worse in some ways anyway.)
Uh what?
Where am I advocating American intervention?
I'm mocking Jason's entire stance and philosophy of life.
"Musharraf is an ebil diktator because he's maintaining control. He should let go of power and permit the natural bloodbath of democracy determine who should lead Pakistan in an enlightened fashion."
It would be odd if the worlds most influential and powerful political and economic entity did not draw criticism from all angles. And the US will keep drawing criticism as long as it remains as singularily influential as it is. This is as it should be, the foreign policies of Sri Lanka and Luxembourg is not a global concern, but most everyone can be affected in some way by shifts of US policy.
Democracy = natural bloodbath? A false dilemma. You seem to be suggesting that the first move in establishing democracy is removing all protection from the populace, yet the populace needs that very protection to engage in nonviolent deliberation. It doesn't make sense, and I haven't seen Jason make any such claims. Can the population can reduce or control the violence within it for a nonviolent democratic overthrow? I honestly don't know enough about Pakistan to have a smart answer, but given what little I've seen, seems like the answer will be "no" for quite a while.
With all the quotation marks I can't tell how accurate you think some of these descriptors are. You seem to be suggesting the US military IS a global police force, but then you also seem to be suggesting we're NOT imperialist.
This just seems very apologist despite very consistent and obvious US militarism. It's not to say any other country, somehow in this position, would be sunshine and roses, but it's no reason to suggest our position and policies are ok because they're somehow the lesser of evils. If that's what you're suggesting.
I'm not making a comment about what US motives actually are or what I think they are, I'm pointing out that it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't position to be in whenever you intervene, no matter what your intentions are.
This was in response to those suggesting that the US was supporting a bad guy in Pakistan and those who replied by suggesting that leaving the Pakistani's alone to sort things out would be a mistake.
Perhaps one of the problems we have is assuming democracy will always yield things we like.
What if the populace wants an expansionist, conservative Islamic government that will choose war with India over Kashmir, for example?
I struggled to find a response to this, came up with several versions, but ultimately I don't think I can improve on letting it speak for itself. I guess as long as a government keeps order, all other concerns are immaterial.
Of course that's not ideal, but Pakistan isn't an ideal circumstance.
Exchange of power doesn't happen smoothly there.
OK, you're misunderstanding me.
What I'm saying is that for Musharraf to relinquish power will create a power vacuum. Pakistan is not a country in which power can be exchanged easily between various parties (political or otherwise). Internal stability is not a strong point there and a power vacuum will create a conflict.
The Supreme Court in Pakistan questioned Musharraf's legitimacy (with very good legalese reason), thus creating unrest. Musharraf simply retaliated - to maintain power, yes, but that will also extend stability if the country if he's capable of demonstrating effective superiority over his opposition.
I think it's questionable whether or not the Pakistani SC was acting in the country's best interests or if it's politically motivated. There's a lot of evidence pointing to the latter position. Doubtless Musharraf doesn't have the unequivocal support of the populace, but no legitimate candidate for leadership does. He is simply the existing pillar of stability.
Jason's naive belief that Musharraf should step aside simply because the court told him to completely ignores the implications of a power vacuum there. Musharraf's party, if not he himself, would contest for power, as would Nawaz Sharif's faction and radical muslims and so on. That would create significant instability at a time where it's critical that Pakistan be stable.
And no, I don't advocate military intervention of any kind.
Posting Permissions