Pakistan <3 martial law

[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.