Hillary was wrong of her assessment of Pakistan last night

[TeamJordan23]

Just as Newsweek's Jonathen Alter expressed on Tucker today, I think Hillary was wrong on her assessment of Pakistan in last night's debate. Hillary, during the Obama-foreign policy exchange, said these three simultaneous points:

1. That she feared that Obama 'telegraphing' his policy towards Pakistan might destabilize Musharraf regime
2. The last thing we want in Pakistan is Al Qeada-like people running a country that has nuclear weapons.
3. We shouldn't say everything we think when running for president because it might have consequences.

Putting those three statements together, I can infer that she believes that Obama's speech and stance on Pakistan (which really is not different than her or Edwards) might have consequences of Musharref's regime being destabilized and the country being taken over by Al Qaeda-like people.

Well, this is false. While it is true that Musharraf is being protested and gets occasional assassination attempts by terrorists (and terrorist sympathizers), the only way that any Al-Qaeda-like person taking over Pakistan would have to be through (1) elections or (2) coup.

As far as elections, the religious parties only have maximum support of 10-15% in the country, and much of that is in the North-West Frontier Province. Musharref's support has largely, in areas other than the NWFP, have declined because of the suspension of Pakistan's Chief Justice and Musharref's inability to stop suicide bombings (and crime). In the NWFP, the recent Red Mosque seize has caused outrage. But many of the religious parties calling for the ousting of Musharref do not have much power outside this region.

Politically, the biggest threat to Musharraf is the ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (not any religious party), who is the current opposition leader and higher poll numbers than Musharraf. Currently, Musharraf does not have enough support to be elected. This is why we may see Musharraf work out an arrangement with Bhutto that will likely bring Bhutto (who has been a USA ally) back as PM while Musharraf stays President but giving up his military head duties.

As far as a coup, the religious parties do not have enough of a force to organize a successful coup. After all, the army is under Musharraf.

The chance of any Al-Qaeda-like person taking over Pakistan is very minimal at best. So I think Hillary's comments suggesting that Obama's comments might lead to instability in Pakistan and cause Al Qaeda-like people to take power is a bit misleading.

[Mojorabbit]

1. He has not survived this long by being stupid

With * and Obama banging war drums what better way to unite the population behind you especiallly when your position is so precarious in your own country. Nothing like,"See they are planning to attack us". Kind of like a shrub terra speech in the news.

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Following the Bloodless Coup, He Forced Military Rule

Here's Wikipedia:

Shortly after Musharraf's takeover, several people filed court petitions challenging his assumption of power. However he got The Oath of Judges Order 2000 issued. It required the judges to take a fresh oath of office swearing allegiance to military rule. Judges must swear that they will make no decisions against the military rule. Many judges refused and resigned in protest. Subsequently on May 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of Pakistan now filled with judges of the General's pleasing and who had now taken oath not to take any decisions against the Military Junta, ordered Musharraf to hold general elections by October 12, 2002.

Musharraf has refused to give up his position as the head of the army, a move that has been criticized from all sides inside and outside the country. No pressure has ever been applied by the United States to force a change in his stance. Pakistan is ranked 142nd in the world for fighting corruption.

Musharraf has been considerably weakened after he suspended the Chief Justice of Pakistan - not by extremists, but by the moderates in the majority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the Chief Justice.

His position on Al-Qaeda has always been mixed at best as we offer him all carrot and no stick. That policy has failed. I don't suggest replacing the carrot with a stick, but the judicious use of the stick is a necessary component of dealing with, at best, a half-hearted ally.

[HeraldSquare212]

2. coup?

I think he cancelled on the Afghanistan conference because he's afraid to leave for fear of a coup.