Comments on: One step forward, two steps back

By: sukaina ali

sukaina ali — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:40:21 +0000

musharraf’s war on terror is extremely popular with the educated minority who are unfortunately just a little over 20 percent of the entire 150 million as well as the shia muslims who again form a minority of the population.

By: Al Mujahid for Debauchery

Al Mujahid for Debauchery — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:02:27 +0000

Ikram, I think the 11% figure is not a good indicator of the public mood regarding the war on terror. We are not talking here about the ability of the MMA to get itself elected in a national election. We are talking here of the war on terror and specifically the ability of the Pakistani government to prosecute this ‘war on terror’ in Pakistan. The numerous polls which have been taken in Pakistan show over and over again that Musharraf’s war on terror in Pakistan is not that popular. Its not just 11% of the people in Pakistan who idolize Bin Laden. The figures are over 50%. Any elected government which has to face elections will have to take into consideration the mood of the public. If more than a majority of the Pakistanis consider Bin Laden to be a great hero, I am not sure how the PPP or Muslim league could prosecute the war on terror as efficiently as Musharraf especially when they will have to face the electorate in an election which Musharraf does not have to.

By: razib_the_atheist

razib_the_atheist — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:44:06 +0000

ikram, do you think pakistan would look more like bangladesh if it was democratic?

By: Ikram

Ikram — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:55:46 +0000

It’s possible that a democratically elected leader would be more worried about keeping powerful religious leaders happy, since they can influence part of the voter base.

Part. 11% of the vote in a rigged election is a small part. In a first-past-the post system, that’s not much influence.

And often, the MMA gets votess for bread and butter reasons. The Jamaat-i-Islami mayor fo Karachi has made the shortlist for the World mayor award, partly for his success at solving Karachi’s Traffic problems. See the comments at the site below.

http://www.worldmayor.com/voting05/comments_karachi.html

By: Yamini

Yamini — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:43:18 +0000

"The effect -- a fully legitimate Pk gvt that can fight off the unpopular but militant religious groups. Musharraf has no legitimacy in fighint those who claim, like Jim Belushi, to be on a mission from God. A democractically elected leader would."

It's possible that a democratically elected leader would be more worried about keeping powerful religious leaders happy, since they can influence part of the voter base.

By: Lovin

Lovin — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:33:06 +0000

it’s true that simply ‘installing’ democracy in Pakistan won’t work, but to invade Iraq on the pretext of terror and then look the other way when Pakistan does as it wants is hypocritical and makes the US look even worse. Although democracy and free markets are closely tied, if there was a way to help Pakistan implement these markets I’m sure it would be a much stronger modernizing force over the nation than trying to strongarm democracy into yet another hostile territory

By: GujuDude

GujuDude — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:14:27 +0000

Folks, we can talk all the military options and other "Bush and Musharraf are in cahoots" naive theories, but dealing with Pakistan is far more complicated in that for the following reasons.

1) Large untamed population, Mushie doesn't have control of large areas. Just think of the mini-insurgency HE is facing in Balochistan.

2) Nuclear Weapons and capable delivery platforms

3) A VERY capbable intelligence service. The ISI is pretty damn good at what they do. They initially trained up the Taliban, they are their current suppliers, and they are a renegade organization within the Pakistan Govt. Think of ISI a loose umbrella organization under which mob cartels operate.

The United States went the only way IT COULD when Afghanistan was initially de-talibanized. After that its been a wait and see approach. The US military will tell you in a heart beat (as reports do) they are right over the border. US Special Ops set up ambushes to get these guys, when the bad guys do escape, the go right over the border.

By the way, Mushie and Bush aren't buddy buddy, as a matter of fact they never were. Bush wanted bad guys, Mushie wants to survive so he said what Bush wanted to hear.

Has ANYONE noticed in the past year how far US-Indian ties are "rocketing"? The noose is tightening and the United States isn't worried about China right now (nor is India). THey are worried about Pakistan collapsing.

If Musharraf is assasinated, both India and United States have the most to lose. Despite the fact that its Musharraf's hand that is stained with Indian blood from Kargil, even INDIA needs Musharraf right now. It is American pressure that has been credited with the decrease in cross border infiltration. It is with Musharraf that 'peace' deals are being struck with.

Only two ways Musharraf is going to be out of power: By force or by his choice and democracy. Only route that wouldn't produce more war and chaos is phasing in democracy again. He was supposed to do this, but delayed it again. He is dancing on the fine line, but time is running out.

With India clearly becoming a MAJOR economic partner, with US forces on the other side with Afghanistan, Musharraf WILL have to walk the walk and produce RESULTS. Logically, all his other choices are pretty darn bad.

Phasing in democracy makes more sense too, if Musharraf dies, his successor will be a hardliner with access to Nukes, and that aint good. Jihadists with nukes aint a good proposition either. Even though the NWFP have a strong Islamist base, most of Paki population is Punjab and Sindh. I am pretty sure they can outvote Jihadists.

Again, look at the hints though, Bush is NOT happy with Pakistan and hasn't been happy from the get go. They've been trying to work around it and it hasnt worked. Strategy IS changing, but this game is being played in the shadows.

By: Ikram

Ikram — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:00:25 +0000

AlMujahid — OBL will not be runnign to become the National assembly member from Dera Ghazi Khan or Gulshan-i-Iqbal. Yes, the MMA does well in Sarhad and Baluchistan, but not that much better that the old JUI used to do. The real difference is that, for a variety of reasons, the up-to-now fractious religious parties have been able to unite, amplifying their influence in a first-past-the-post electoral system.

The MMA received a whoppin 11% of the votes in the (somewhat rigged) 2002 election. In a truly free election, they would do worse. Why be scared fo this?

http://www.electionguide.org/resultsum/pakistan_par02.htm

In Punjab and Sindh, the PPP, PML (whatever) and the MQM (whatever) will continue to be the big vote getters.

Musharraf needs Islamic militants to succeed to convicne the US to continue sporting him. Says MQM candidate Nasreen Jalil

The government gifted NWFP to the MMA to check American influence.

A democratic gvt wouldn’t need to do that.

By: sukaina ali

sukaina ali — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:32:32 +0000

exactly…there are no leadership alternatives but i think musharraf is ‘comparatively’ the best for pakistan currently……..don’t forget he’s become quite unpopular with the fanatical religious leaders,leading to an assassination attempt, due to his pro-American policy regarding terrorism and realistically speaking ,does Pakistan have any choice other than to do America’s bidding. He may not be legitimately elected but he world sure treats him like one in addition to the fact that he’s hugely popular with the moderates in Pakistan.

By: IreneFingIrene

IreneFingIrene — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:19:05 +0000

this is the reason why Bush's War on Terror is a farce, bcuz he's trying to appease the public by catching middlemen and no-namers while the big guns like Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are free to do as they please.

Yes, this is all too nuanced for me. Bring back an action man with a straightforward plan. Kerry in '08.