Pakistan <3 martial law

[ScruU2wice]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04cnd-pakistan.html?bl&ex=1194325200&en=348706ccda3156b4 &ei=5087%0A


Now I'll admit that the only reason this has rattled my otherwise apolitical cage is because my parents are from this country and I have family there. That being said it still seems like some elaborate joke. Like every time you hear someone say that someplace is built on a indian burial ground you snicker a little. That's how I feel when I hear someone is working on doing a reenactment of V for Vendetta or 1984 with a real country.

[mburbank]

It's pretty bad news, and Mushariff knows the US won't do anything more about it than make noise.

Who would have thought the military dictator would prove such an unreliable ally in our efforts to spread democracy?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's not that simple, Max.

The Left cries on and on about realism based foreign policy...well how would abandoning Musharraf be that? If we lose Pakistan, we lose military capabilities in Afghnistan. Which post-bloc, undemocratic regime would you like to make nice with in their place? Uzbekistan (they soured on us after we denounced some of their past behavior)? Kazakhstan? China???

Abandon Pakistan, and you abandon a legitimate focal point in the war on terrorism.

And who should we instead support in Pakistan? Ali Eteraz recently put it best:

Musharraf is not Enlightened, its true; how can he be when he is a dictator? However, is there an alternative? Perhaps the reign of extra-judicial police killings and smuggler’s nepotism that electing Benazir Bhutto assures? How about the Islamist overlordship of former Zia ul Haq protege Nawaz Sharif? Better yet, perhaps the assuring democracy of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the aspirant Caliph from the Jamat e Islami? If you were a Pakistani citizen, what would you choose? Suffer and fight in order to bring feudal lords and mullahs into power, or just go back to work and let the chips fall where they may? Idealism or pessimism?

Of course none of this is preferable. Watching a junta arrest lawyers and suspend elections is terrible, but what precisely should we do?

[mburbank]

I'm not advocating abandoning Mushariff. We have little choice but to stick by him, which he knows, which is why he acts so freely.

My objection was getting so chummy with him in the first place, but like everything else, it's far too late now.

Did we need his support to route the Taliban? It was helpful, but that first step was mostly bombing. We could have used him as a wall at Tora Bora, we tried, it didn't work. After that we absolutely needed whatever he cared to give us since we took the war to Iraq.

It's ironic that weapons of mass destruction, and passing nuclear knowledge to terrorist regimes, the supposed reasons we had to invade Iraq, are things we looked the other way for with Pakistan, because they were our allies.

Realistically, we have about zero levarage with Pakistan. They can do whatever they want.

However, I don't think we should beg for table scraps we're not going to get anyway. Mushariff has his own reasons to fear Al Quaeda. He's got a pretty narrow choice to make right now. Either go up against the tribal areas in a very ugly way he hasn't been willing to do this far, or make a deal with them. If he makes a deal, we are so in the shit it costs us little to cut off his cash. If he doesn't, we finance a nuclear military dictatorship in the cause of spreading democracy. But those were almost certainly the choices we'd end up with from the moment we chose to make Mushariff a lynchpin of our foreign policy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Did we need his support to route the Taliban? It was helpful, but that first step was mostly bombing. We could have used him as a wall at Tora Bora, we tried, it didn't work. After that we absolutely needed whatever he cared to give us since we took the war to Iraq.

You are mistaken. We pay this regime nearly $100 million every month for logistical support, which includes rights to various air fields, bases, etc.

If we never had that, the invasion (and bombing) of Afghanistan would've been different. Not happen? No, we still would've attacked. But the point is pull out a map, and check out the despots and failed states surrounding Afghanistan.

We needed Pakistan.

It's ironic that weapons of mass destruction, and passing nuclear knowledge to terrorist regimes, the supposed reasons we had to invade Iraq, are things we looked the other way for with Pakistan, because they were our allies.

Ok, and despite doing it for the sake of being contrarian, I don't see any solutions or suggestions here. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we should've invaded a country with double the population, and arguably a more militant muslim community? With the Taliban right there? Does that make sense?

We didn't "look the other way," either. We can compel that regime in ways we can't do to others. We certainly wouldn't be able to do so with an Islamic regime.

Realistically, we have about zero levarage with Pakistan. They can do whatever they want.

}If you believe this to be true, than why do you think we have no choice but to support Musharraf? Why not move on, start from the drawing board? Pay off some "national front" to topple him, appease the lunatic mullahs and help us out?

There's a balancing act to just how much Musharraf can do for us, lest he come across as he is coming across right now. When a dictator acts, people tend to notice. Motives be damned.

Either go up against the tribal areas in a very ugly way he hasn't been willing to do this far, or make a deal with them. If he makes a deal, we are so in the shit it costs us little to cut off his cash. If he doesn't, we finance a nuclear military dictatorship in the cause of spreading democracy. But those were almost certainly the choices we'd end up with from the moment we chose to make Mushariff a lynchpin of our foreign policy.

Welcome to foreign policy. You don't want to "spread democracy," yet you are appalled when we allign with dictators? What's the third way, isolation?
Musharraf can crush the radicals militarily, but then he loses a political battle. I believe the actions over the last two days are the result of a neurotic and besieged military ruler...albeit a basically secular one, who snubs the religious courts and the radical Islamists.

None of this is pretty, and none of it is easy. But our government has taken the correct position here--dismay and discretion. It has been a few days, and we need to see how it plays out.

[Preechr]

Hmmm... I'll defer to Kevin on this one. lol

What exactly IS our alternative here, Max? Anybody?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

NY Times

November 7, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Musharraf’s Martial Plan

By BENAZIR BHUTTO
Islamabad, Pakistan

NOV. 3, 2007, will be remembered as the blackest day in the history of Pakistan. Let us be perfectly clear: Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Last Saturday, Gen. Pervez Musharraf removed all pretense of a transition to democracy by conducting what was in effect yet another extraconstitutional coup.

In doing so he endangered the viability of Pakistan as an independent state. He presented the country’s democratic forces with a tough decision — acquiesce to the brutality of the dictatorship or take over the streets and show the world where the people of Pakistan really stand.

General Musharraf also presented the democratic world — and especially the countries of the West — with a question. Will they back up their democratic rhetoric with concrete action, or will they once again back down in the face of his bluff?

In my view, General Musharraf’s ruling party understood that it would be trounced in any free elections and, together with its allies within the intelligence services, contrived to have the Constitution suspended and elections indefinitely postponed. Very conveniently, the assassination attempt against me last month that resulted in the deaths of at least 140 people is being used as the rationale to stop the democratic process by which my party would most likely have swept parliamentary elections. Maybe this explains why the government refuses to allow the F.B.I. and Scotland Yard to assist in a forensic investigation of the bombings.
As I write, demonstrations are taking place across Pakistan. Opposition party members, lawyers, judges, human rights advocates and journalists have been rounded up by the police without charge. The press has been seriously constrained. The chief justice of the Supreme Court and many other judges are believed to be under house arrest.

The United States, Britain and much of the West have always said the right things about democracy in Pakistan and around the world. I recall the words of President Bush in his second inaugural address when he said: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

The United States alone has given the Musharraf government more than $10 billion in aid since 2001. We do not know exactly where or how this money has been spent, but it is clear that it has not brought about the defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, nor succeeded in capturing Osama bin Laden, nor has it broken the opium trade. It certainly has not succeeded in improving the quality of life of the children and families of Pakistan.

The United States can promote democracy — which is the only way to truly contain extremism and terrorism — by telling General Musharraf that it does not accept martial law, and that it expects him to conduct free, fair, impartial and internationally monitored elections within 60 days under a reconstituted election commission. He should be given that choice: democracy or dictatorship with isolation.

While the world must do its part to confront tyranny, the primary responsibility rests in the hands of the people of Pakistan. It is incumbent on Pakistanis to tell General Musharraf that martial law will not stand. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are moderate; it is my hope that they will unite in a coalition of moderation to marginalize both the dictators and the extremists, to restore civilian rule to the presidency and to shut down political madrassas, the Islamic schools that stock weapons and preach violence.

It is dangerous to stand up to a military dictatorship, but more dangerous not to. The moment has come for the Western democracies to show us in their actions, and not just in their rhetoric, which side they are on.

Benazir Bhutto, the prime minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and from 1993 to 1996, is the leader of the Pakistan People’s Party.

[ScruU2wice]

yeah I didn't really give a shit what america needs to or is doing. No matter how fucked up our government is getting I can praise the lord that Bush isn't arresting people for political dissent.

This situation is fucking ridiculous. There is absolutely no event that provoked this besides that cunt face losing a grip hold on his power. Maybe I'm just being a loud angry youth but I can't see how you can justify this or even sugar coat it like these lawyers and peace advocates are thugs and brutes trying to disrupt the ice cream social that is Pakistan

[mburbank]

It does seem ironic that the way to fight fanatical extremism is by locking up pro democracy Lawyers and Judges and shutting down the press.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Once again, there are two different discussions here. Max, if you're content to abandon the effort in Afghanistan, or at least suspend it, then you have an argument. But I have to listen every day to Leftists telling me about how we need to utilize more "realism" in our foreign policy...well this is realism. We have a strategic need in the region, and we're using an ally in the area to achieve it.

I know every issue has to have a Bush angle with you, but I'm still waiting on an alternative strategic idea from you on how to properly arm and supply our forces in Afghanistan. It's not just a "bombing campaign" like you suggested. Would you rather get cozy again with Uzbekistan? How about our friends the Chinese? There's civil unrest brewing in both of those nations too, so which would you like? Coke or Pepsi?

Musharraf has gone way too far. People are drawing the Shah of Iran parallel, but there are problems with that. Regardless, We should suspend his cash and threaten to cut him off entirely until he releases Bhutto. It's unacceptable that he is making these arrests. He gave in to rescheduling elections again, but he needs to remove the uniform and be kept away from the country's elections. (Which, btw, the Bush administration has been pushing for).

[mburbank]

Wait, you're ujnwilling to suspend our efforst in afghanistan, but you are willing to cut off his cash? Where to we disagree?

And Kevin, pure curiosity here, what are you talking about when you talk about listening to 'leftists'. This isn't the 1950's. If all you mean is left of center, okay, but whenever you say 'leftists' you sound like some old gaurd McCarthyite to me.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I use Leftist to differentiate people from Left-of-center types and Liberals. I don't think some of the activist/blogger-type elements we're seeing today are genuinely Liberals, and I think they should be separated. For consistency, let's call them "progressives" so that you not think me a McCarthyite or something.

We disagree because you want to harp on and on about how wrong our policy is in Pakistan in the first place. It isn't. Foreign Policy is a collection of unfun choices, something a lot of presidents in the 20th Century, be them Democrats or Republicans, often learned the hard way. Strategically, if you supported the operation in Afghanistan (which I believe you did), it required a situation like this. Musharraf is abusing our partnership, and it's time to rein him in.

I think Musharraf has gone too far. But with all due respect to Scru, the main reason anybody here in the States cares about this issue is because of our strategic relationship with Musharraf. There are Russian forces in Georgia right now beating the shit out of anti-government protestors, and their government is also considering a state of emergency. How much press does that get? Not a whole lot.

So the lens we look through with Pakistan is how it alters our own goals. If the alliance with Musharraf was bad, well what would've been better? I've seen some advocating elections there, arguing that the Islamists are rather unpopular. I'm not so sure about that, perhaps Scru could enlighten us a bit. But to turn this into "omg, some war on terror! ha! Bush am i right!" seems silly to me.

[ScruU2wice]

I've probably read as much as you guys have, so I'm not any type of beacon for information on pakistani politics. I've actually completely ignored the workings of the "old country" until this mess started.

[Geggy]

Sorry Geggy, no more spam posts. - Kevin

[Geggy]

What are you talking about? How can it be spam if the link i posted was related to the matter? If we get clear answers as of what had happened on that day when the jihad movement who have allegedy performed terror attacks in attempt to assassinate bhutto, who is pro-democracy as well as pro-war on terror, we would get better understanding of musharraf's motives for declaring state of emergency in pakistan and throwing bhutto in jail. The investigation continues to be inadeguate because the pakistan government have continously blocked inquiry into the terro attacks. Its no surprise that its widely suspected that pakistan government and their security angency had involvement because of the sour relationship between bhutto and musharraf. musharraf is probably nothing but a hypocrite who use terror as a tool to expand power to imprison those deemed a threat to his throne.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

There ya go, try that more often.

[Preechr]

Let's try to keep in mind the limb the uniformed dictator wanna-be Musharraf stepped out on when he coerced his government into supporting our raids into Afghanistan, shall we?

Remember that?

Remember how we abandoned Pakistan altogether after the Iron Curtain fell and we no longer needed those listening posts? Do you recall how that allowed the Western Region to fall under the reign of the Taliban waaaaaaay back then?

We were lucky to retain Pakistan's support at all. We barely edged in under the door of what happens when we abandon a country to Islamist extremism. If anything, you guys really need to be watching this through the filter of what happens if we ditch Iraq and Iran. We already did ditch Pakistan, and do you like what you see?

Sure it's messy, but it's our mess. What we need is an America united on the task of straightening this mess out, not one divided against itself. It's obvious now that The Surge® is working, which means we actually do have a chance at succeeding with this crazy plan of Democratizing that entire armpit. Why NOT work together on further progress? Huh?

[Geggy]

I find it hard to believe the bush administration didnt see this one coming with what...their unconstitutional spying program...?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

See, you were doing so well, and then you had to ruin it.