Poor Pervez. Too much pressure!
Two or three of the four London bombers may have visited Pakistan last year. Musharraf’s response? Blame the UK and tell it to get it’s own house in order. Problem solved!
But the Little General didn’t get even one moment to rest. After Saturday’s bombings, the Egyptians started to look for six Pakistanis and things got uncomfortable again. Even after the Egyptians stated that the Pakistanis are not suspected of the bomb attack (it’s a “routine security check”) it still left a bad taste.
So “Our Man in Pakistan” decided to settle the matter once and for all. He called a press conference and told the world that “Al-Qaeda does not exist in Pakistan any more.”
Got that? Stop blaming Pakistan! No more hatin’!
Pakistan has destroyed al-Qaeda’s ability to operate on its soil, President Pervez Musharraf has said. He said the network could not have orchestrated deadly bombings in London, Egypt or elsewhere from his country. President Musharraf said al-Qaeda “sanctuaries” in Pakistan had been over-run, and that Pakistani security forces had arrested 700 of the movement’s fighters.“We have shattered and eliminated their command system there,” he said. Al-Qaeda’s communications system had been reduced to a “courier network”.
“Is it possible in this situation that an al-Qaeda man sitting here, no matter who he is, may control things in London, Sharm al-Sheikh, Istanbul or Africa? This is absolutely wrong,” the president said. [cite]
I feel so much safer now that he’s clarified all of this. Don’t you?
UPDATE: Radio Open Source has a show “at bat” on this subject, so you should check out their entry …
Oh good grief. Perhaps this statement’s complete fancifulness will jog the rest of the world into realising that Pakistan is not the strong ally in the War on Terror™ that they long it to be.
I ranted on a British site all about how Mr Musharraf has been enjoying himself since 9/11, the benefits he has reaped, but I think it’s all been said on here far more eloquently already.
You’re right ennis, this statement does smack of desperation – up against the wall and suddenly the General comes out with a corker. He was better off saying “we’re tackling the problem, send us a few more F-16s and we’ll do it better”. What bargaining chip does he have if Al Qaeda are no more?
Where is Captain Renault when you need him?
You know, I see a million and one posts on this site that indict Musharraf for not doing enough on terrorism (and also for rights abuses and other things), but, to my recollection, I have yet to see a single post condemning the War on Terror as it’s been conducted or the Iraq War as a central theme of the post–both of which have probably done far more–whatever Tony Blair says and however inadvertantly–in promoting the global jihad. I can’t deny that he’s rightly criticized, but I wish there were a bit more balance ot it.
*I’m focusing here on the kind of terrorism that would affect me, and not what’s going on in Kashmir–which is an altogether different issue wrapped up in different interests and politics and trends.
/end cranky rant
Musharraf complains that Britain is soft on terrorists:
Yet MusharrafÂ’s hosting the party:
“I have yet to see a single post condemning the War on Terror as it’s been conducted or the Iraq War as a central theme of the post–both of which have probably done far more–whatever Tony Blair says and however inadvertantly–in promoting the global jihad. I can’t deny that he’s rightly criticized, but I wish there were a bit more balance ot it.”
OK, is there another Sepiamutiny out there that you are frequenting? Because it seems to me that almost every third post is about how the WOT is not being handled properly. Most of the criticism is from the left, but occasionally from the right as well.
Besides, “balance” is not a virtue. There was no need to discuss “balance” when opposing the Nazis or Communists, nor should there be a “balance” when we wish to eliminate the Islamists.
For the past 20 years, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, it has been American policy to bend over backward for Muslim (more specifically Arab) interests. Reagan saved Arafat’s skin, and arranged for safe passage out of the occupied territories, just when the Israelis were about to put a bullet in his head. Over Israeli objections, Reagan sold AWACs planes to Saudi Arabia and upgraded Egypt’s military, and even layed a wreath at a wreath at a Nazi grave, exhibiting the Christian forgiveness that many on the religious right have forgotten.
Bush I got Iraq out of Kuwait, forced the Israelis to the bargaining table in Madrid to deal with Palestinians, and started brokering the Israeli-Jordanian peace talks.
Clinton was the most sympathetic of any president towards the Palestinians. Arafat got more visits to the White House than any head of state. He increased American aid to the Palestinian Authority, and got Arafat back into the West Bank. After two years of European thumb-twiddling and 200,000 dead – Clinton decided to bomb Serbian positions and save what was left of the Bosnian Muslims. In 1999, Clinton decided not to leave it to Europe and the UN to prevent the explusion of Albanian Muslims from Kosovo.
And what do we cosntantly hear? America is not sensitive to Muslim concerns. That’s a big steaming pile of…
Correction – that should be Reagan arranged for Arafat’s safe passage out of Lebanon.
Iraq is discussed ad nauseum all over the political blogs. SM’s mission is to focus on things with a desi hook.
Well Al Qeuda may not be in Pak but Jaish-e-Mohhamad definately is. Check out this on Juan Cole’s blog about London bombers trip to Pakistan. It was facilitated by Jaish-e-Muhhamad.
The Indians have been saying/yelling for a long time that Pakistan is the epicenter of global terrorism. But only after a few “goras” are dead the west is opening its eyes.
Jaish is the same group who did Indian Airlines hijacking, Attack on the Parilament of India, and on and on and on.
Pakistan’s political establishment is in deep with Jaish-e-Mohhamad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Recently Yasin Malik (of JKLF) admitted that a guy by the name Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who is presently a minister in Pak govt. actively trained 3500 terrorists.
The list goes on. Its time for the world to wake up. This is more about Pakistan govt. not about people of Pakistan.
Did Musharraf just hire Comical Ali as his PR director?
Seriously, this “Al Qaida” doesn’t exist anymore is as stupid as Comical Ali saying the Americans had been defeated and were retreating from Baghdad as live pictures were being streamed to the world that showed the contrary.
Musharraf swings with the chickens 🙂 (warning: sound).
These imaginary militants are planting real bombs. Fascinating. Someone call Fermilab.
Oh! The same people who continue to shelter OBL and his bnd of cowards. Please. it might not be PC to say this but the people of Pakistan are as guilty. Truth will set you free.
now what can anyone do about this??? from what i gather the pakistani gov. doesn’t even control large parts of its own country….
More gora-bashing at Sepia? How about just saying the West wasn’t concerned until Westerners were killed or Country A wasn’t concerned until Country A’s citizens were killed? Your criticism will be just as valid and it won’t sound as unnecessarily divisive.
Saurav:
I also have to agree with KXB, most of the posting on Sepia has a snarky, sneering view that absolutely nothing is being done correctly in the WoT, but then my bias in on the other side.
I’m focusing here on the kind of terrorism that would affect me, and not what’s going on in Kashmir–which is an altogether different issue wrapped up in different interests and politics and trends. – Saurav, July 26, 2005.
“But when the victim starts to take revenge for those innocent children in Palestine, Iraq, southern Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir and the Philippines, the rulers’ ulema (Islamic leaders) and the hypocrites come to defend the clear blasphemy. It suffices me to seek God’s help against them.” – Osama Bin Laden, November 3, 2001. Part of the statement claiming responsibility for and “explaining” 9/11 attacks.
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1636782.stm
Reminds me of the memorable quote: “just because you are not a schizophrenic does not mean that they are not out to get you.” So you think that terrorism in Kashmir does not affect you because it’s not happening in your backyard? Think again, my friend : just because you think that you have nothing to do with Kashmir does not mean that they will stop looking at you as a Hindu infidel worthy of blowing apart on the next assignment of a jihadi from Kashmir that may happen to be strapping a few pounds of dynamite on his vest and taking a ride on a subway in NYC. In fact, the NIMBYist attitudes towards terrorism is exactly what has gotten us to where we are today because the world did nothing as fundies became increasingly powerful in Pakistan, and created the whole terrorism infrastructure for the jihad in Kashmir. Today, random Pakistanis and other middle easterners from all around the world go to the Oxbridge of jihad U in Pakistan and then graduate to blowing up infidels everywhere in civilized world. This could’ve been stopped a lot earlier if the world had considered brown Hindu lives just as valuable as the white ones and pressurized Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in early nineties to stop their export of jihad into India.
Rather the devil I know than the devil I don’t.
Say what you want about Musharraf, but I’m rooting for him to stay alive.
If he goes, so does the rest of Pakistan, kit and kaboodle with Afghanistan.
Life’s all about tough choices, and so long as there is no other reasonable alternative leadership to Perv (other than the fundies) I’ll stick to him.
You know, the soft bigotry of low expectations is exactly why dictators like Saddam Hussein survived.
Gujjubhai writes:
To the point. Something that’s completely missed by a large section of NIMBY folks.
As I mentioned on another thread ad nauseum, things are different now, and will continue to change rapidly in the decades to come. It is best to adapt to change(as a majority of the population is doing) or fret-and-fume about perceived encrochments on civil liberties.
And buy gold as a hedge against geopolitical risk. But desis need not be told to do that!
M. Nam
Well that is because the west weren’t silent on this issue. Indians had to listen to countless lectures from ‘goras’ about engaging in ‘dialogues’, listening to the disenfranchised etc. when this was a problem. Indians had to put up with remote control terrorism when the west took in terrorist thugs as asylum seekers allowing them to fund and operate violent, ethnic cleansing activities. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, all western liberal dialogue is out the window. Only fair to point this out.
Say what you want about Musharraf, but I’m rooting for him to stay alive. Life’s all about tough choices, and so long as there is no other reasonable alternative leadership to Perv (other than the fundies) I’ll stick to him.
Tony Blair and Bush are probably thinking the same thing. . . However, this is a short-sighted policy that might not pay off in the end. Haven’t they learned not to support dictators that oppress their own people while paying lip-service to the West?
Who said India had to listen? If someone asked you to jump in the well, and you did so breaking a bunch of bones on the way down and almost drowning, it was still YOUR decision to follow through on that.
Saying “Goras” are to blame is chucking away responsibility. India had opportunities, but in order to not ‘look’ bad, it decided to take a defensive stance from the get go. There is plenty of blame to go around, you can’t just point to the west. Even in the west, each nation operated in its own interests. India is finally waking up and realizing: No one really has your back, and no one will until you start looking after your own six first. That is reality.
Well said bdeshini, it would be history repeating itself once again. Besides, perhaps it’s not quite how people make out…?
They keep capturing Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. So obviously Musharraf is helping at some level otherwise none of these people would have been caught. There’s no guarantee that Mushrarraf’s replacement will do a better job. A democratically elected head of state will have to deal with a populace which is not exactly pro American (polls consistently show the mood in Pakistan to be Anti-American) With both Nawaz Sharif (Muslim League – Center Right) and Benazir ( PPP – Center Left) in exile an election will lead to gains for the MMA (Religious nuts) as Musharraf has completely disrupted the ability of both PPP and Muslim League to function as responsible political parties. Unless the elections result in a massive mandate for PPP almost any alternative will have a strong influence of the religious parties and a slowing down on the war on terror. Pakistan has an elaborate Jihad infrastructure because of the Afghanistan war and the Kashmir conflict. These structures are not going to go away overnight and people who had full time employment in Jihad Inc. are not going to seek employment selling peanuts outside the bus station. It will take time and a lot of political courage to completely dismantle these structures and absorb the radicals in the folds of civil society. Musharraf for now is the best bet to fix these problems. I am not endorsing Musharraf but endorsing real politik.
You know, the soft bigotry of low expectations is exactly why dictators like Saddam Hussein survived.
? sorry, i do have low expectations for pakistan. am i the only one?
The Epicentre of terrorism is a gross exaggeration….Pakistan has deployed more troops on the Pak Afghan border than the US has in Iraq and has lost something like 700 troops over the last year alone.
On the other hand most of the radical web sites and organisations that helped groom these individuals were British for all intents and purposes..using the events in london as a pakistan bashing is in poor taste.
Saurav: Do you have any other alternatives?
I mean either you’re advocating some sort of pre-emptive strike regime change a la Iraq, or you’re thinking that there is a viable “democratic” option…
Pakistan is monumentally unstable and while yes, Pervez is a dictator, I’d take stability in a pseduo-dictatorship (PLEASE don’t compare Pervez to Saddam) over Islamic fundamental anarchy any day.
No, this is the only Sepia Mutiny I read 🙂 I haven’t seen a focus in the posts on the overall War in Iraq as a failure and its role in promoting this kind of global jihadiism (even if it’s not neccessasrily morally responsible). Most of the posts divide neatly into criticizing terrorists for killing people and criticizing the government and private sector for “backlash” (which is important!–but not the only thing we’re worried about). Maybe Manish is right that I’m coming to the wrong place looking for something like that.
There’s something that goes beyond left and right here, imperialism, jihadiism and self-serving local elites–and that’s that we’re all being put in danger–wait, make that–we’ve all been put in danger by some of the major policies that have been pursued in the past four years–by both “sides.” They are ineffective, dangerous, and have probably created more long-term problems than they have solved. Moreover–there isn’t much time to play around like this–particularly as the U.S. accelerates the capacity of global jihadis to recruit. If there’s one result of all this that links most desis (and other people in the world) right now, it’s that we’re totally f@#ked on multiple fronts.
I’m more and more coming to believe that there’s really only one side in this to be on–and that’s on the side of the people that are interested in stopping this cycle of violence somehow and getting outside of these idiotic constructs that Washington and London and global jihadis are gradually drawing us into. Musharraf is a minor player in all this.
Here’s your hook and another and another . But (and I mean this as constructive criticism): presumably, we’re not that one dimsensional and as a community strong enough that we can withstand an occasional post about other things that affect us besides just what we can stick a brown face at the top of?
I understand your point and happily engage in conversations in other places; but I think this blog is a valuable space that could be even better.
War on Terror as it’s been conducted or the Iraq War as a central theme of the post–both of which have probably done far more–whatever Tony Blair says and however inadvertantly–in promoting the global jihad.
Sorry, Saurav totally gotta disagree with you on this one. I will bash our incompetent admins to the ends of the earth, but they’re no where near as complicit as Pakistani civi society. Sure, Mussharraf is better than a Wahabbist demogaugue (and, I hazard to guess, better than the Wahabbist courting Imran Khan who’s the only alternative who gets much press in the west, even without his English ex-wife). Sure it’s some of the Pakistani people and not all of the Pakistani people. I think Pakistan is probably one of the most fractured and tumultuos nation states out tere. But the combined efforts of a civil society that has steadily degraded over the years, wahabbist madrasas, policitians who exploit the Kashmiri-jihadi cause to distract the masses while they completely pillage them, and the like has generated plenty of blame to be shared in all fractions of society. I’d still rank the actual source of Wahabbism—the not so dark corners of the Saudi Royal family–as a leading cause, but Pakistan’s being a HUGE MESS is right up there with it. Not recognizing that is simply hiding one’s head in the sand.
This isn’t being one dimensional or “just brown.” The fact is the ENTIRE COUNTRY should be thinking about our relationship with Pakistan. Unfortunately, most people don’t even know where Pakistan is. We do. So it behooves us to pay attention to it.
Musharraf is a minor player in all this.
I’m sorry, but considering as he’s the dictator of the state where all road, reads, I just have to disagree. Read Ghost Wars, Against All Enemies, anything on the subject. . .Pakistan is absolutely central.
I’d like to reiterate that I’m not anti-Pakistan the people at all. I think the vast majority of Pakistanis are either helpless or misled or both. And what affection I feel for India only feeds my desire that Pakistan get cleaned up and prosper. Until Pakistan is a stable and prosperous, India and the rest of the region will never be able to truly prosper. But more importantly (since I’m an American), until Pakistan is a stable, prosperous, open society, our War on Terror will remain a pit of quick sand.
BTW, where does the “Nobody here but us Chickens” reference come from? And does it have anything to do with the classic Sesame Street “There are Chickens in the Trees!” skit?
Saheli, see Manish’s linked comment above- it’s a classic swing tune. 🙂
I disagree. You need balance when you are talking of Islamic Extermists or Liberator’s Torcher Squad. The lack of it, will only reinforce our demonization one side much more so that we can conviniently discount their idealogy and actions as “evil” with out an ounce of introspection about our own action.
I assume most of you are brainwashed with the idealogy of equality, human rights, and yearn to establish democratic ‘utopias’ (like in your own countries) everywhere, I presume. These are probably your non-negotiable principles which form the framework with which you judge action of friends and foes. It is a very convinient position – criticize anybody who dies regardless of which side of the war they are on, lament upon the tyranny of war, and criticize them (Pakistan et al.) more than US/UK, because perhaps, you agree with Tony, “Nothing can justify the killing of innocents, not even our occupation of Iraq.”
I am not one of you. You are imperialist in your assumptions, that you can send your troops come and kill my family and friends (perhaps, ‘inadvertantly’, but when you get a taste of you own medicine, somehow the perpetuators become demons you cannot understand (You need qualitative anlysis, a million scholarly journals and arguments to look at it as sociological phenomenon to reinforce the idea that you really do not understand them), but are they really so out of your experience? Can you truly be so oblivious to the personal anguish that can drive me to seek revenge against everyone of you?
Well, then let me articulate that which you know, but refuse to acknowledge –
Your side:
Do you realize that each and every one of you is personally responsible for every dead Iraqi child, mother, father and brother. You live in a democracy, which means that your presidents and your armies are merely representatives of your popular will. You pay your taxes to buy the guns and bombs used by your soldiers to come an kill my family. Yes, the soldier pulls the trigger, do you all sleep well at night knowing that you paid for the bullet that put was put in mother’s head; do you sleep well knowing that the bomb that that broke my 11 year old nephew’s body into a million pieces was personally paid by you; do you sleep well knowing that your messengers of death are doing your bidding well?
My side:
Personally, they are not innocent to me. You are not innocent to me. Just like you kill my living to accomplish your goals, the Islamic Extremists kill your living to accomplish their goals If anything, I am more innocent to you because I had no role in appointing the suicide bombers, or financing their bombs, unlike you who finance their mercenaries and weapons.
Are your side and my side that different? Do you still not understand my anguish? You call mine “terroist masterminds” and “Salafi financiers” but you call your innocents! Would not more balance help you see things more clearly? Is it so hard to realize that I wish onto you, what you do onto me ?
Perhaps, you want to retain your skewed balance to be able to live with yourself which is understandable. But, please realize that you have these vapid discussions that subtly reinforce your superiority over me
Of course, you want to “react” to my seemingly questioning of your integrity. However, I think it will be more productive if you honeslty ask yourself if there is any truth in my premises, and then, articulate coherent arguments – perhaps, then I can see a difference in my sides and your side, if there is any.
This should have been: unlike you who finance your mercenaries and weapons.
Whilst I completely sympathise with your sentiment (and I’m not going to feed you a superficial I-feel-your-pain, because I can’t – Iraqis have gone through something horrific that we can’t begin to comprehend), your theory falls down at one crucial point:
We didn’t ALL vote for our leaders. Yes we live in democracies, where a majority decides. But I didn’t vote for Blair, why should I get blown up? Just as I know there are many Americans who don’t support Bush. It is just by happenstance that we find ourselves living in these countries. I have a great deal of British Iraqi friends – were they too willing financiers of the invasion?
<
blockquote>”We didn’t ALL vote for our leaders.”
The same way the innocent Iraqis who got killed didnt work for Saddam. As far as Iraq is concerned… like Pat Buchanan (right wing commentator) says , they are here because we are over there.
Aslam_bagdadi,
Verrrry interesting!!
What was 911 for? Revenge of occupied holy lands! What were previous attacks for? Revenge for Palestine. What were pre-Palestine attacks for? Revenge for the Crusaders taking Europe back from us a thousand years ago.
Is there any debate possible with this logic?
M. Nam
have you banned me? Oh why can’t I post comments?
Aslam_bagdadi,
Your position falters in one major area – it is other Arabs that are blowing up Iraqi civlians as they stand in line for gas, as they go shopping, or as they sign up to become police officiers. If politics were all that mattered, then Bush would be pulling the troops out now, since this war is increasingly unpopular in the U.S. Do you believe that if every American soldier were to leave tomorrow, that peace would just occur naturally?
Or would we more likely see an attempt by the Sunni minority to re-establish its dictatorship over the majority Shia? This is not a resistance movement – this is an attempt to start a civil war. Americans are no longer the chief target.
It was Sunnis that are driving car bombs into Shia mosques. Notice that the Sunnis terrorists are limiting their attempts into Kurdish areas – since the Kurds have their own well-trained militias, that do not answer to the Americans, and will not hesitate to shoot a Sunni, no questions asked? The Shia, having no experience in security, make a much easier target.
The biggest concern for the Sunni despots in the region is not just that Iraqi democracy might work, but that a nation of Shias can determine their own future. Since Shias rank about as low as dogs in many Sunni eyes, this cannot be allowed to happen, so they will slaughter and maim as many men, women, and children as it takes.
Saheli, you asked about chickens?
M.Nam: “What were pre-Palestine attacks for? Revenge for the Crusaders taking Europe back from us a thousand years ago.”
What pre-Palestine attacks?
indomitus:
All Christian-Islam battles and wars from 1200AD – at least 17th century AD.
M. Nam
Without addressing any other causality or political responsibility issues, it seems to me there is a distinct lack of moral equivalence between “revenge” and “spreading democracy” or even “attaining security” as a goal.
Ennis–Thanks! That rocks. Explains many inside jokes from over the years. 🙂
Aslam,
You are not going to find too many supporters of the war in Iraq on this blog : personally, I think it was a morally represhnsible thing to do. However, to support Bong Breaker’s point, you must recognize that the fundamental premise of a democracy is diversity of opinions and dissent. While an elected government acts in the name of its constituents, it does not necessarily mean that each and every citizen supports it. If anything, as the public opinion turns against them when monumental blunders like the War in Iraq are made, you will find that those governments quickly lose power or support.See, for example, how much harder it was for Blair to be re-elected and how the majority of Britons do not support the war in a number of polls.
Having said that, I think you are just beating up a straw man by pointing to Iraq war as a justification for other acts of Islamist terrorism. Turn back the clock to 9/11 when there was no Iraq war. Why was that done? How would you justify other acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists all around the world, from India and Indonesia to Russia and Africa? You are selectively picking up on how your side has been wronged, but there is a historical context to Islamic extremism. If you choose to ally with them, then you must be prepared to be held accountable for their actions.
There is another danger inherent in your logic too : if you can justify killing innocent civilians even in democratic countries where there are a lot of fair-minded people that do not support war, think about how much more hard-edged those same people will become after such killings. Already there is backlash against brown-skinned folks in London. It will not remained confined to Britain itself, some of it will certainly spill over into more violence against muslim countries that “our side” is at war with, including Iraq. You may just succeed in losing the support of the anti-war people, which will then be used by Bush and Blair to be even more brutal in Iraq.
Be careful about choosing who is on your side and what they do, brother. You will be held equially responsible for their actions too : after all, revenge is a two way street and rationalization is a slippery slope. Don’t give the pro-war side an opportunity to justify brutality and even more killings on Iraq on the same kind of faulty post-hoc justifications that you are using in your argument. Don’t create an association been the anti-war people on “your side” and the Al Qaeda type extremists when you’ve never had it in the past. They may kill a few civilians in the west, but invite even more retribution from the soldiers of the west in your own backyards. Eventually, this will only lead to death and destruction all around.
I should have qualified “minor player”; my point was that he has limited control over what he can do compared to other players (like Al Qaeda or the United States government). My gut instinct is that he’s constrained by pressure from the West and pressure from Islamists–not to mention pressure to democratize and the constant danger that he’s going to get shot–he’s not exactly Louis XIV over there. In contrast to this, the range of options available to the United States after 9-11 was virtually limitless in geopolitical terms and this is what we got. And Blair still argues that Iraq and the bombings in London have no connection.
My contention was not to avoid recognizing that Pakistan has been a dysfunctionally governed state. I just felt that, in the posts (as opposed to the comments) on this blog, this recognition happens far more frequently, while there’s much less attention paid to profound failure of imagination and intelligence that led to the Iraq War. Given the vehemence with which people objected, maybe I’m wrong.
What I’m talking about are the bigger strokes to the global salafist jihad–the dependence of the salafists in provoking an overreaction by Western governments to bolster their recruitment and propagadizing efforts to expand what were terrorist attacks into an actual war. To me, this overreaction (the unilateral Iraq War) is the single most important geopolitical development in relation to global jihadi terrorism in the past four years, because it escalates things, bolsters claims about a Western crusade, and creates a staging ground for them to try new things and eventually declare victory.
Anyway, I haven’t read the sources you cited, so perhaps I’ll end up agreeing with you that, functionally speaking and given the constraints on all parties involved, what’s happening in Pakistan is of more relevance than the choices that the U.S. government and its allies made in how to respond to the attacks in 2001.
Musharraf is dancing like a sucker at a western saloon as shots are fired at his feet. But that’s how he’s stayed in power for the past six years — dancing to the US tune.
And that’s why he holds all the cards. What credible leverage does the US hold? Yes, Benazir can make a Congressmen cry. But she can’t win enough seats in Punjab to become PM. And fat baldy Nawaz is in no shape to get an invitation to Crawford Ranch.
The US is not interested in democracy in Pakistan. They prefer dictators. And the only dictator they are going to get is Musharraf. That’s why, depiste all the whinging on right-wing and India-friendly message boards, US policy to PK is not going to change one whit. Suck it up.
Ikram,
Sadly, no one in the world community at large is really interested in Pakistani democracy, including huge chunks of ‘elite’ Pakistani society. How is it that Pakistan went this way after Partition and India a different way?
I know the US is afraid of what will happen if Musharraf falls, and they need to let their troops run around in the NWP, but still, couldn’t we push them just a bit more?
I know, how about a UN resolution? That should do it…..ok, cheap shot. We should have let them sell their textiles in the West and by we, I mean all of the developed world.
By selling textiles, I meant the hindrances to selling them freely in EU countries and the US. Trade is good, ultimately.
MD — you ask me this question on an internet message board? A question that hundreds of scholars have written on in journals and countless grumpy old Desi uncles pontificate on at parties (Beta, let me tell you, it is all ayub/yahya/Bhutto/Zia’s fault. Also, when are you getting married?).
I don’t know when I’m getting married. I don’t know the answer to the other question either.
Ikram, sorry, it was rhetorical, really! It is a huge question and leaves me wondering how fragile the path to at least some version of democracy really is…..it is headache inducing.
*I head of the marriage question by being completely painful in desi-uncle conversations. I never answer a question, I just stare and ask them why they want to know, and then they get uncomfortable and go away. Needless to say, I am very popular in my desi community,
WHat were the Crusades for? “Guys, lookee – isnt those places where Jesus is supposed to have walked? Let’s go save em from the Moslems !! nudge,nudge we split the gold and jewels equally, cool?”
What was the formation of Israel for? ” boo hoo, the whole of Europe calls us stingy. I hate tem, I wanna go somewhere else !!!. Oh wow, lookee, the Moslems have a lot of land, and no army. Lets bully it out of them and have ourselves a country !! “