Article

2005-09-07 Afghanistan/South Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-09-07 00:11|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 More vindication for the Bush Doctrine. Has there ever been a president who was so successful who has been so reviled? Lincoln before Atlanta and Savannah?

Posted by 11A5S 2005-09-07 00:22|| 2005-09-07 00:22|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't see what it has to do with Bush. The Islamists have never been popular in Pakistan. The elections before last was the best ever showing, and even then they only got 11% of the vote - meaning they came equal forth. And this was immediately after the invasion of Afghanistan and all the anger in Pakistan that went along with it.

It was only due to careful rigging that the Islamists were able to do as well as they did, and since the Musharraf regime did not rig in their favour this time, the Islamists received their usual crushing defeat.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-09-07 01:39|| 2005-09-07 01:39|| Front Page Top

#3 Makes a lot of sense. A party whose platform is all sharia all the time is not one that can improve living conditions. And in this world, being able to deliver material improvements is what wins votes.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-07 01:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-07 01:57|| Front Page Top

#4 The Muslim parties seem to poll around the same level as the Greens in the West and the similarities don't end there. There is a law of political behaviour here - In any population, 10% will support an extremist ideology promising future salvation through current sacrifice.

Posted by phil_b 2005-09-07 02:06|| 2005-09-07 02:06|| Front Page Top

#5 I dunno, Paul. Muslims like to bet on the strongest horse. At least that's what some Arab guy told me.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-09-07 09:01|| 2005-09-07 09:01|| Front Page Top

#6 The Islamists have never been popular in Pakistan.

Nope. Never popular in the "land of the pure", in which after the constitution was revoked by one of the juntas, they immediately restored the bits making sharia and Islam the law of the land.

Never popular at all.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-09-07 09:41|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-07 09:41|| Front Page Top

#7 11A5S is right to a large degree. Most arabs back the winner, who is usually the strongest and badest. This pattern dates back from Alexander's time for self survival. Osama was huge, until he lost Afganistan and hasn't launched a large successful attack on the west since then. Sadam was huge, until he lost Iraq and was videoed cowering like a dog. Sadar was popular, until his forces got their asses kicked and bowed to US pressure. Arafat was hudge, because he stood up to the west and his successor is on crumbling ground since he doesn't. Al-Qada was big, until it lost Falluja and keeps getting its own people killed and it attacks the civilian population.
The arab man on the street is watching the previously powerful getting stomped, on a regular basis and is looking at the new powerhouse in the region. Plus, now that free thought is coming into vogue in the arab world, who really wants to be ruled over and told what to think and do anyway?

Posted by mmurray821 2005-09-07 09:53|| 2005-09-07 09:53|| Front Page Top

#8 Never popular at all.

So how many elections have the Islamists won in Pakistan? Are they not usually the forth of fifth most popular party even when they are in an alliance that crosses sectarian divides?

Don't their rallies usually gather a few hundred or a few thousand people, whereas other political parties like the MQM and PPP can summon hundreds of thousands of supporters?

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-09-07 17:31|| 2005-09-07 17:31|| Front Page Top

#9 RC: Nope. Never popular in the "land of the pure", in which after the constitution was revoked by one of the juntas, they immediately restored the bits making sharia and Islam the law of the land. Never popular at all.

It's not clear that this is an indicator of national-level popularity. Islamists are determined, well-armed and violent. A military dictatorship may reflexively move to appease a minority of potentially violent rebels. Or it may choose to completely crush them. Pakistan's military leadership may have felt that the Islamists' influence was beyond their capability to crush. They may have sympathized personally with the Islamists. But the primary indicator of the Islamists' popularity is not what generals do, for reasons of survival or sympathy, but the number of votes the Islamists get. And that has generally fallen short of a majority.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-07 19:23|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-07 19:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Folks, it's called Pakistan -- "land of the pure" -- because it was founded as an Islamist state, not because it's peopled by virgins. How many people were murdered to make it the "land of the pure"?

We're talking about a country in which "holy men" decree women should be gang-raped because they were seen with the wrong neighbor. A country that hands out the death penalty for saying Mo's momma and poppa weren't born Muslim. Where mobs attack a house cleaner because of a rumor she tossed a page from the Koran in the trash!

Maybe the Islamists can't win at the ballot box, but, damn, maybe that's because they already won in the culture. Why vote for an Islamist when you effectively already have an Islamist government?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-09-07 21:50|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-07 21:50|| Front Page Top

#11 I know of everything you mentioned, and dispute none of it, however the article I was commenting on was about the reversal in fortunes of the MMA and political Islamists in Pakistan - which I stated was no suprise given the lack of success the Jamaat-e-Islami, JUI and other groups have met with.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-09-07 21:57|| 2005-09-07 21:57|| Front Page Top

#12 I trust PM's take - he's not disagreeing with youze guys. But....I'd like to see a Perv crackdown on the assholes if they really are so weak.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-09-07 22:32|| 2005-09-07 22:32|| Front Page Top

23:53 Jan
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:51 RWV
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:45 Red Dog
23:43 RWV
23:39 Frank G
23:39 Alaska Paul
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:32 RWV
23:32 Jan
23:28 Frank G
23:27 Red Dog
23:25 CrazyFool
23:22 Red Dog
23:20 RWV
23:19 CrazyFool
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:12 mojo
23:07 DMFD
23:05 Jan
23:03 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 CrazyFool
22:55 Anonymoose