Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

India-Pakistan

Bush to Perv: Take my advice, end emergency!

2007-11-06

President George W Bush on Monday exhorted President Pervez Musharraf to hold elections and relinquish his army post as soon as possible. Our hope is that he will restore democracy as quickly as possible, he said, reported AP.

However, the president made a point of praising Pakistans cooperation in the war on terror and seemed resigned that there is little concrete action he can take to influence Musharrafs behavior.
Take off uniform: Earlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on General Pervez Musharraf to stick to his word and take off his uniform. She sought to underscore US opposition to the emergency, a senior US official said. According to CNN, she had told reporters that it would be best for Pakistan to return to a constitutional path.

US reviewing aid: Defence Secretary Robert Gates, on a visit to China, called the events of the past few days in Pakistan disturbing. He said the US is reviewing its aid to Pakistan as a result of Musharrafs actions but would be mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counter-terrorism efforts.

Posted by:Fred

#9 The best result would be if Pakistan divides, somewhat peacefully, and the nukes are secured. The nation has always been somewhat of a fiction and barely stable at the best of times.

Yeah Baluchistan areas might be absorbed by Iran, and Pashton by Afghanistan and Punjab by India but I can live with that. Dividing ethnic groups has always led to friction anyway.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-11-06 15:25

#8 "The best bet is the military,"

Its not at all clear to me that a military govt has a better chance of keeping the necessary degree of order in Pakistan than a civilian govt (and note, our needs are for military action against AQ in NWFP, and maintaining govt control of the nukes - we (the US) DONT need "order" in the sense of preventing lawyers from rioting in Karachi)

" and the reason they are more important is they have the nukes."

More important, or the best bet for maintaining order. yes, the most important thing is to keep the nukes from being misused. If pakistan had a civilian govt, would the military decide to let the nuke loose in response?

"They also tend to be more secular than the sectarians in the civilian side."

There is intense Islamism in the military, IIUC, the whole campaign to Islamize Pakistan is largely a legacy of Gen Zia al Haq. Many of the civilian pols, like Bhuttos PPP are as secularist as any force in Pakistan. Now of course the military is more secular than the Islamists in MMA, but so is everyone. And the military is willing to work with the MMA - while Perv is arresing Qazi, hes apparently working with some of Qazis rivals in the MMA.

"Yet State and CENTCOM (Fallon) actions to date have done nothing but threaten to weaken the military, and promote a weak, ineffective civilian government - one that will allow the ISI a free hand due to its weakness, and will demoralize the Pak military - causign defections, and rendering it incapable of doing even minor things against the Taliban and tribe in Pakistan."

We've supported military rule in Pakistan since 2001, and the military has failed to crush the Islamists, and has managed to alienate most of the population. ISTM that its wise of Centcom and State, and whomever else in the admin, to finally unchain us, at least a little bit, from Perv.

Its also not clear to me how exactly we've been weakening the military. We've encouraged a deal between Perv and Bhutto, which was probably the best opportunity for a smooth transition.

Posted by: Liberalhawk 2007-11-06 14:08

#7 The problem is that this has been obvious for a couple of years now. And state dawdled. Now the bill for inaction is coming due.

And the problem is that there is neither civilian nor military government at the moment that is capable of controlling Pakistan. The best bet is the military, and the reason they are more important is they have the nukes. They also tend to be more secular than the sectarians in the civilian side. Yet State and CENTCOM (Fallon) actions to date have done nothing but threaten to weaken the military, and promote a weak, ineffective civilian government - one that will allow the ISI a free hand due to its weakness, and will demoralize the Pak military - causign defections, and rendering it incapable of doing even minor things against the Taliban and tribe in Pakistan.

Thats the bill tats coming due, and as usual, Bush refuses to fire someones butt for setting up this mistake, nor does he change the direction. He leaves a butcher's bill that will be paid in blood by US troops in Afghanistan who have to deal with the increasing support of the Taliban from the unchallenged safety of Pakistan (and covertly, the support of the ISI).

We need decisive leadership, not a managerial approach.

Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-06 13:30

#6 the state of emergency has nothing to do with securing the borders. Its Perv arresting the judges who said he couldnt run for Prez again while remaining a military officer, and closing newspapers he doesnt like.

Maybe thats a good idea, but lets be clear about what is happening.

Posted by: Liberalhawk 2007-11-06 09:56

#5 SHerry, the military is quite capable. And indeed had plans etc for this. But the State Department and the old-time Eastern Elite have Bush's ear now. And thats why he has gotten so badly stuck on stupid recently. He truly is just an Ivy League frat-boy with a Harvard MBA who depends far too much on management instead of leadership - and thats whats hurting him now (and has hurt him before - look at his appointments, his awarding Tenet a medal instead of firing him, immigration, the utter lack of any work on the border, allowign cronies to stay far too long after they should have left, his inept and completely wimpy handling of nearly open rebellion at CIA, non-prosecution of constant leaks that damage the nation, etc).

He is depending on the opinion of people in his staff, Washington insiders, and self-entitled public officials whose vested interest are not the best interests of the nation. All that instead of governing strongly from principles.

He truly has become what I was hoping he would not be when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004: a bad choice surrounded by worse choices. His only advantage is that his opponents would have stunk far worse than he.

Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-06 09:12

#4 Oi vey.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2007-11-06 05:54

#3 OS, do you know for a fact, that Bush isn't interested in securing those nukes, and that he has done absolutely nothing now, or even in the past to secure them?

Seems, I remember, some "leaked" reports several years ago, that SEALs had those nukes secured.

I gather from your words Bush should be more concerned with securing the nukes the Pakistanis have, securing logistics line for our fores in Afghanistan, and pursuing terrorists and Taliban that are harbored in PAkistan under the support of Pakistan's ISI that none of that is being done?

You have your sources. But, Bush may be that dumb (I don't think he is) but our military is far too smart and capable to not be doing this.

Posted by: Sherry 2007-11-06 01:11

#2 Bush should be more concerned with securing the nukes the Pakistanis have, securing logistics line for our fores in Afghanistan, and pursuing terrorists and Taliban that are harbored in PAkistan under the support of Pakistan's ISI.

Time to pay the butchers bill will be nasty if you dont fix things George, you idiot. You're only making it worse letting Fallon at DoD and Rice with State screw things up further. IMHO.

Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-06 00:18

#1 Take Bush's advice - open y9our borders, let peopel cross them freely like we do with Mexico.

Oh nevermind, Perv already does that with the Taliban.

Bush == idiot anymore.

Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-06 00:16

00:00