http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm
Well this is going to throw Pakistan into even more chaos. Musharraf has no good choices left.
Wow, what the fuck. So much for the chance at a democratic election. Who would run now after seeing her killed (attempted before but finished the job this time.) Who’s left now in the race?
I also noticed NPR ran a story this week about U.S. political figures calling for pulling the money we give Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda. I took it that meant a significant sum, but who knows. I assumed the underlying story involved our dissatisfaction with the recent problems related to the election.
That is really bad. She was just as corrupt as the next guy but she was well loved by certain people. I can see that country tearing itself apart. At least quickier than it has.
We need to figure out how to blame Bush for this.
I do requests! And this one goes out to the perennially wrong but ever plucky Bob Cherub!
Last month, Rice persuaded Musharraf to let exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back in the country—and persuaded Bhutto to go back—as part of a power-sharing deal. The idea was that Musharraf, who doubles as army chief of staff, would retain control of the military in the fight against terrorism, while Bhutto would attract the loyalty of Pakistan’s increasingly discontented democrats. That ploy, too, turned out to be illusory: Bhutto was attacked the moment she got back; Musharraf showed no interest in sharing power.
The fact is, the United States needs Musharraf more than Musharraf needs the United States. And the fact that he’s rubbing our noses in it doesn’t make it any less true.
We can’t do much about this now, but we might have been able to do something about it two years ago or six months ago. The fact that we didn’t is a grave indictment of Bush’s foreign policy, both its practices and its principles.
For instance, nearly all of the $10 billion in U.S. military aid to Pakistan has gone to its military. Bush could have at least tried to funnel a larger portion of the aid to democratic institutions.
This crisis was triggered last March when Musharraf fired the chief justice of the Supreme Court for criticizing his rule. That set off the unprecedented street rallies by the nation’s lawyers. That emboldened the Supreme Court, which started to take its duties seriously. That gave rise to the near-certainty that the court would rule Musharraf’s reign illegal. That tipped Musharraf to suspend the constitution—and, with it, the courts.
Since Bush officials stay in touch with Musharraf quite frequently, and since they are known to pay at least lip service to democracy, someone could have at least advised Musharraf to get off this track. No one could have expected him to turn democrat, but he could have taken palliative measures—or cynical ones: for instance, paying off the justices—to ward off a crisis.
The Bush foreign policy was neither shrewd enough to play self-interested power politics nor truly principled enough to enforce its ideals.
One consequence of this crisis is that Bush’s “freedom agenda” is finally bankrupt. He will never again be able to invoke it, even as a rhetorical ploy, without evoking winces or laughter.
In his second inaugural address, where Bush first declared that the main aim of his foreign policy would be to spread democracy and topple tyranny all around the world, he warned dictators that good relations with America “would require the decent treatment of their own people.”
Musharraf’s proclamation is the definitive proof that no dictator takes—or ever will again take—that warning seriously.
In the same address, Bush spun an appealing but specious syllogism: Tyranny breeds discontent; discontent breeds hatred and terrorism; terrorism threatens U.S. security; therefore, promoting democracy enhances U.S. security. Or, as he put it, “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.”
Musharraf’s proclamation, and Bush’s muted response to it, proves that interests and ideals, alas, still sometimes clash.
But the most dismaying contradiction appears in the 2006 edition of the official document titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” In his introduction, Bush wrote, “We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy.”
Musharraf’s proclamation reveals that we are not the “sole superpower” that Bush and his associates thought we were; that sometimes the combination of vital interests and mediocre diplomacy put us all too desperately at the mercy of events.
Let’s hope Musharraf installed PAL systems on his nukes. :|
whew, man I knew that wouldn’t take long.
Cmon Bob, it’s christmas and you made a request. QT3 is very giving at christmas.
I would really like a new Dell laptop.
No? Meh, worth a shot. Back to the topic, Musharraf is now in an emergency meeting and calling on Pakistanis to stay at home and expect more rioting.
The question is: can the world afford a civil war in a nuclear state? I vote no.
I can give you an old Dell laptop with no HD, includes case.
On topic, I get the feeling based on not enough research that Musharraf’s henchmen were probably behind this. SIS has a lot of influence with the extremists and could have set this up. Mind you no one has claimed responsibility yet so mebbe it was a straight hit from one of her opponents.
BTW our votes don’t count so brace for impact (of some undefined sort).
Good thing we invaded Iraq before this sort of thing happened.
H.
I’m ahead of you sir, two older Dell laptops already, I even have an extra hard drive. Problem is, Dell needs some sort of trade-in program to get an extra discount for repeat customers. :/
I agree. This will not end up well and will further destabilize that area, one we were counting on to help against the Taliban and probably the closest one to actually knowing where bin Laden is.
Yes, thank heavens.
I’m sure finishing the job in Afganistan, eliminating the Taliban and kicking the shit out of Al Queda and stabilizing the region were much less important than killing an isolated and powerless crazy dude, with a mustache.
That does it! Back to the mountain compound I go!
Bush implies it’s terrorists or something.
`The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy,‘’ he said. ``Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice.‘’
Based on our leader’s track record, I’m going to say it’s almost a foregone conclusion that the ISS was behind it.
Everyone knows moustache = evil.
I understand Al Qaeda is taking credit for the bombing that killed Benazir. I thought we were taking the Al Qaeda terra-rists down. Don’t they have moustaches?
You fool! It isn’t mustaches, it’s goatees!
You fool! It isn’t mustaches, it’s goatse.ck!!
Fixed.
And this is the point where I play the 100MT card I’ve been hoarding through the entire game, just to get everything over with already.
QED.