Skip to main content

Endgame for Musharraf?

Harper's Magazine distils and discusses the rather extraordinary situation of Pakistani President Musharraf and events in his country. It is hard to reconcile Musharraf's actions - bear in mind that he seized power in a military coup - and the West's happy "adoption" of him. George Bush and PM John Howard have spoken of Musharraf in glowing terms. Is he any better than any dictator? No! Should he remain in power? Certainly Not!

"When was the last time you read about an effort to overthrow a government by the nation’s legal profession under the leadership of an improperly dismissed Supreme Court chief justice? The idea sounds absurd. But this is exactly what is happening in Pakistan today. Pakistan never ceases to produce curious tales, and indeed it has long furnished a case study for some of the most absurd propositions in American foreign policy. A nation which is the single most troubling breeding grounds on earth for Islamic militancy, but is described by a U.S. secretary of state as America’s “most important non-NATO ally.” Its leader is hailed as a “strong leader,” whom Bush “admires” and is invited as a state guest to Washington, even as American commanders in Afghanistan accuse him of giving the Taliban and al Qaeda a safe camp for operations in Baluchistan province and in the homeland of Gunga Din – the Northwestern Frontier Province. Moreover, while U.S. foreign policy promises to promote democracy in the Muslim world, in Pakistan, once a vibrant democracy – it has done just the opposite: promoting military dictatorship and oppressing groups which are committed to restoration of the nation’s democracy. U.S. policy towards Pakistan is an incoherent muddle, and it may be about to get a shake up.

The likelihood that Pervez Musharraf will be Pakistan’s president this time next year are slim, but exactly how he will be pried from his perch is as uncertain as the face of his successor."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...