Musharraf On The Way Out?

[Hissyspit]

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah

June 12, 2007
Musharraf on the Way Out?
by emptywheel

Josh has finally added Spencer Ackerman to the masthead at TPM, so I guess we can assume that Ackerman is there permanently and not just as a sub while Paul Kiel goes on vacation. If so, I couldn't be happier that Ackerman found some good digs for himself.

Not least, because he brings a story that could be critically important--that Pervez Musharraf may be on the way out in Pakistan.

It may be time for the U.S. to face what it's long feared in the nuclear state: the prospect of chaos, rising Islamism or anti-Americanism that follows Musharraf.

But the hope -- among Pakistani military officers and politicians, to say nothing of U.S. diplomats -- is that the increasingly inept and unpopular Musharraf can be eased out of power while the U.S. slowly distances itself from him, allowing for as smooth a transition as is possible in the turbulent South Asian country. Some see the Pakistani Army remaining powerful enough to prevent a chaotic transition or an Islamist takeover. "This is going to be a Pinochet-like transition, instead of a Marcos-like one," one former Pakistani official tells TPMmuckraker. In other words, according to the ex-official, the U.S. may not stand foursquare behind its ally Musharraf until he's ultimately forced from power, as President Ronald Reagan chose with doomed Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

- snip -

The former Pakistani official says that the message that the possible successors are trying to send to the U.S. is that "continuity in policy can be ensured without the continuity of an individual, while at the same time, a democratic process can proceed." In other words, the U.S. can wean itself off of Musharraf without fear that the U.S.-Pakistani alliance is at risk, and will likely have some kind of election to point to that blesses the result. Not many see the Islamists as able to take control. "One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

I point to this because, as I've harped on repeatedly, until we get Pakistan right, any effort to influence Iran is just gravy. Pakistan is just as destabilizing, actually funds the terrorists who attacked us rather than a close ally, and already has nukes.

That said, I'm curious about the sources for Ackerman's story. He cites intelligence and State Department sources for those convinced Musharraf is on the way out. Which leads me to question: is this discussion, about Musharraf's future, happening outside of the internecine battle between Condi and Cheney we know to hang over the Iran policy? Perhaps a transition from Musharraf's rule, if it is indeed viewed as something that affects a person but not a policy, is viewed to be uncontroversial.

MORE

[closeupready]

1. Unlike other destabilizing nuclear powers, Pakistan has not been involved in a war outside its borde

for a long time. And pro-India media portrayals to the contrary, I personally doubt that Pakistan is all that unstable. As to the laughable claim that it's this huge threat, it's a relatively poor Third World country in a remote area of the world. Hard to see how, for example, a country which is unable to provide adequate medical care for its population and endures power outages on a daily basis, how such a country is supposed to threaten the entire world?

Pakistan would be better off if Musharraf pushed on to other things, and as the economy improves, that may happen.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. "unable to provide adequate medical care for its population"

You just described the United States ...

[closeupready]

8. Right? :-D

Scary, in a way, how many similarities there are between the two countries. And as I've said before, the answer to the question, "which country is scariest?" would probably be topped by any number of different countries, depending upon who you ask. :D

[On the Road]

2. Very Very Disturbing

As much as I dislike military coups, things could have been much worse if Musharraf was not the one in charge.

Pakistan has one of the strongest Muslim populations and they do not shy away from conflict. There is the distinct possibility of civil unrest of an internal power struggle. The possibilites are not good even without considering their nuclear weapons.

[SoonerPride]

3. A Radical Islamic State with Nukes

That currently harbors Osama bin Laden.

Great.

[Blackhatjack]

4. I've wondered if the 'Pakistan Problem' is not speeding up the NeoCon attack plan for Iran....

If Musharraf were to be forced from office('Pakistan Problem') and power vacuum would be filled at least intially by the military, but the stability of that situation would be affected by any kind of military conflict between US/Israeli v. Iran.

NeoCons have wanted a confrontation with Iran for a long time, but they realize that even as 'weak' as Musharraf is right now, he could prevent the immediate use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan against US/Israel if Iran were attacked with tactical nuclear weapons.

IF there is a substantial delay in attacking Iran, the NeoCons know that Musharraf will likely be gone and a new leader and his government would be substantially 'weaker.'

Pakistan is the 'loose cannon' in the bunch since they already have nuclear weapons.

[Hidden Stillness]

5. ...And Musharraf is Desirable as a Leader--Why??

Musharraf has been increasingly oppressive over the past several years, runs a totally corrupt military dictatorship, and has a country, Pakistan, that used to be listed as an official State sponsor of terrorism, until the oracle that is Bush/Cheney, Inc., told us that Pakistan is really our wonderful friend. Remember that during all the years of the India-Pakistan conflict and threat of war, we have always tried to stay neutral with public statements but preferred India, as the lesser of two evils. Pakistan was always considered a terrorist State as bad as Syria, etc., which was why I was so horrified that Bush made an alliance with--of all possible choices of countries--Pakistan, in the nebulous, morphing, "war on terra"-something/whatever. This is like being business partners with Saudi Arabia, or some crazy thing--kind of defeats the whole purpose.

I live in Michigan, and so watch a lot of CBC (Canadian) TV, which has real news, etc., (so I can feel like I am living in the real world), and they have done a great job following the situation with Pakistan. Musarraf has been severely oppressing women for years--there have been Nationalk scandals on the corrupt Pakistani police, guard, and military, raping and even murdering women, and Musharraf having the charges killed, on "honor killings" (Middle Eastern/Islamic male practice of horrificaly violent attacks on women family members, on made-up "charges" that they cannot defend), etc. There is at least one famous woman feminist lawyer who fights for victims of these attacks, who has described the complete corruption of the Musharraf legal system, and how the male attackers always go free. CBC recently had a "National Geographic Explorer" program on this bleak situation, with a woman who had had her eyes gouged out, jaw broken, etc., who needed extensive surgery in the U.S., then sent back, and how the women are always treated as at fault. Musharraf recently made some joking, dismissive remarks during a speaking visit to the U.S., about women, these rape and murder cases, the lack of prosecutions, etc. Now, recently, there is a judge who has been removed by Musharraf for being independent (who does that remind you of?), with huge protests against it, by thousands of people in Pakistan.

Of course, with all of the pro-Bush/"Pakistan is 'our' dear friend"/Islamic threat/lack of critical coverage by the corporations--or, the "media"--the fact that Pakistan has always been an anti-American horror, a Hell for women and girls as bad as the Taliban that Bush and Cheney have now allowed back into Afghanistan, and a completely corrupt dictatorship, I don't know what it is that people think is worth saving there, and also this shows yet again, that what people think is "the U.S." will align itself with the most horrible oppressor, no morals or democracy at all, just to advance its own commercial ends--and this is how we will be known, that "we" propped this bastard Musharraf up, at all.

[cliss]

6. Some comments here -

the comments from these analysts give us an "insider's view" on how they think, and how they think they're going to rescue their asses from this upcoming holocaust.

Please note: I believe Pakistan is THE most dangerous place on earth, right now. reason: the instability + the nukes.
======================

the U.S. may not stand foursquare behind its ally Musharraf until he's ultimately forced from power".
Always meddling, aren't we? Always trying to force the outcome, and things have a way of exploding in our faces that we least expect.


"continuity in policy can be ensured without the continuity of an individual, while at the same time, a democratic process can proceed."
Democratic?

U.S.-Pakistani alliance is at risk, and will likely have some kind of election to point to that blesses the result."
Rigged elections, anyone?