Posted on 08/07/2008 1:12:12 AM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Pakistan's ruling coalition has agreed to launch impeachment proceedings against President Pervez Musharraf, party sources told AFP on Thursday.~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at afp.google.com ...
The Mullahs attack?
This doesn’t sound good.
President Perv was hardly our ally.He took all the billions of dollars we gave hive and provided little in return.
So, President Bush and Condi, how did that election thing work out in Pakistan?
See it doesn’t pay to be a nice dictator. He should have gone the Saddam route with internal problems.
Previously, we had no choice when Musharraf gave just enough cooperation to us but shielded the ISI jihadists and nuclear proliferators. There was no other number to call in our Pakistan rolodex.
Unlike Musharraf, the new democratically elected government has to answer to the people's basic needs - food, electricity etc. rather than try to pursue dangerous pan-Islamic goals or trigger wars with India.
For a change now, the Pakistani government actually tried to shut down the ISI's jihadist wing. They failed in that attempt because Musharraf blocked it. The current ISI chief is the nephew of Musharraf's wife. Musharraf's own nephew is also a senior figure in the intelligence establishment.
Musharraf needs to go because he still figures that Pakistan can have us wrapped around his finger by giving us an Al Qaeda "#3" every few months while the ISI keeps the terror enabling infrastructure intact in Pakistan. That is too dangerous going forward because the jihadists are spreading into Pakistani cities as far south as Karachi.
Also, there's no incremental risk of loose nukes due to Musharraf's ouster. If we had felt a mortal threat from it, we probably have most of them under our control already. If we don't then we are screwed regardless of Musharraf's fate because Pakistan has never had a managed transfer of power. It's either chaos now (with some oversight by us) or chaos when we least expect it.
For all its previous mistakes the Bush admin finally has decided to take some bold steps in Pakistan. The Pakistani ambassador here is very pro-US. I've met him a few times when he was an academic in exile. The Pakistani National Security Adviser Gen. Durrani is also pro-US. He was the back channel point man for US-Pakistani nuclear security discussions. Reports also suggest that the current army chief Gen. Kayani has promised not to back a coup attempt by Musharraf.
The best thing for Musharraf to do is to quietly fly to an exile in Turkey. Musharraf's dad was a diplomat for British India in Turkey and Musharraf speaks fluent Turkish and has reportedly made some investments there. Given his past record, the most likely scenario is that Musharraf will back down if a face saving option is given. He should take the chance.
I predict he puts the uniform back on, declares martial law, and has them all arrested.
Precursor to Kiyani taking charge in a coup?
What does Mushie care? He’s got some nice properties in the Virginia area.
This might be one of the shorter lived civilian govts. of Pakistan.
As it is, infiltrations and attacks in Kashmir have increased, a safety valve oft used by both civilian govts and the military.
That country is in a world of chaos - i don’t think they even know who the good guys or the bad guys are anymore.
Thanks for a most informative post.
Just wondering, how likely is it that Condi the Piano Player will find a way to totally screw things up in this sitation?
Only Maddy Albright would make me worry more.
Bad news if it come to fruition.
We use overflight to get to Afghanistan.
comes
This was the brainchild of Amin Business.
To The Hague with him.... </sarcasm>
Condi Rice has had no big say in our Pakistan policy since the beginning of this year. The key drivers seem to be our commanders in Afghanistan.
This is just a hunch but I think the biggest turning point was when returning NATO commander of ISAF forces, US Army Gen. Dan McNeill met Bush a few months back and essentially told him that if Pakistan’s two-faced policy is not tackled at the highest level, meaning by Bush, then we can forget about winning the Afghan war. Within a day or two, Gen. David Petraeus met the new Pakistani ambassador and things started churning. I know Gen. McNeill was essentially blunt with Bush because the White House press release used those words and Gen. McNeill himself said at his retirement press conference that even if he gets to be “as old as Methuselah”, he will not stop regretting the cold blooded murder of two of our fine officers by Pakistani army people both during border meetings. He also said that the State Department’s idea to give advanced weapons and training to the Pakistani Frontier Corps is dangerous without ascertaining on whose side those guys will fight.
BTW, Musharraf and the current Pakistan army chief have been avoiding setting up a formal meeting with Gen. Petraeus for some reason. The general theory is that they don’t want to hear what he will definitely tell them - that he has the authority of the President of the US to destroy the FATA sanctuaries with or without their support.
The only logical conclusion I can make is that our Pakistan policy is directly set by President Bush of late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.