Bush tells Musharraf to hold elections
posted at 5:40 pm on November 7, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
President Bush personally told Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf Wednesday that he must hold parliamentary elections and relinquish his post as head of his country’s army.
“You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time,” Bush said, describing a telephone call with Musharraf. “I had a very frank discussion with him.”
Bush revealed the call to Musharraf during an appearance at Mount Vernon, the Virginia home of George Washington, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Since Musharraf declared emergency rule on Saturday, the White House has faced repeated questions about why Bush was taking a relatively soft line against the crackdown and had not spoken directly to the Pakistani leader, a man he has previously called a friend he trusts.
“My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform,” Bush said.
Has this administration learned nothing from the past few years? Does it not read the opinion polls in Pakistan?
The Bushies backed elections in the Palestinian territories and Hamas came to power. We held elections prematurely in Iraq and got sectarians like Maliki and SCIRI dominating the government.
In Pakistan, currently about half the country thinks more highly of Osama bin Laden than of Musharraf and Bush combined. Do we really expect people holding those views to vote for Musharraf or Bhutto or any other moderates or democrats? Want some more horror?
In the most recent World Public Opinion poll of Pakistanis, it was found that 60 percent of Pakistanis believe that “Sharia should play a larger role in Pakistan law” than it does now. Per this recent World Public Opinion poll, only 26 percent say Sharia should play the same role (15 percent) or a smaller role (11 percent) and 15 percent do not answer.
Sharia. Islamic law of the type that stifles freedom and human rights across the board. The majority of Pakistanis support it.
Not enough? How about this?
Citing a recent opinion poll showing that Musharraf is significantly less popular than Osama bin Laden, Ahsan points out that 80% of Pakistan’s population has strong views against Musharraf. “The challenge now is who gets to reap this anti-Musharraf sentiment. The extremists are delighted. They are getting a large chunk of this anti-Musharraf group for free.”
If Musharraf holds elections in the near term, the chances of an Islamist group gaining at least a large share of power are high. About 21% support him, and about 27% support Bhutto. Add them together and you don’t have a majority. The chances of a semi-repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution are too high to risk. But Bush is evidently hell bent on risking it.
Now, I am not saying that Pakistan can never have democracy. I’m also not voicing any support for Musharraf’s crackdown on the Pakistani democrats, which is a grave and counterproductive mistake. I’m not saying that he’s perfect. He may have sparked the crackdown to stave off a court ruling that would have effectively ended his rule, but who or what would have replaced him? Who or what would replace him now if we push for elections too soon?
Pakistan has had democracy in the past, with mixed results. There is a moderate, secular populace there that Musharraf would be wise to leave in peace, and he’s not doing that. But. There’s also a moderate, secular populace in Iraq but sectarians still managed to take power by democratic means there. There’s also a moderate, secular populace in Turkey, yet the Islamists keep on increasing their power. If we ought to have learned one lesson from Iraq and the PA, it’s that fostering democracy in turbulent Islamic countries takes time. It can’t and shouldn’t be done prematurely. If it is, the tendency is for people in those countries to vote their religion more than their politics or notions of freedom. Elections are not a panacea and they’re unlikely to fix Pakistan’s problems. Elections in the current environment may make matters infinitely worse.
In a nuclear armed country with a population that thinks highly of Osama bin Laden and sharia law, the risks are just too great. By pushing on Musharraf too hard, we’re running the risk of morphing him into the Shah of Iran and turning Pakistan into the new Afghanistan.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
““You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time,””
uhh…
Skywise on November 7, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Heh. He means as army chief of staff, not a civilian CINC. A typically poorly worded sound bite from Bush.
Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I don’t mean to be critical, but as President, you’re Commander-In-Chief…
amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 5:44 PM
I need to refresh before posting. :)
amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Tell Mushy he can do whatever he wants, as long as he hands over Osama in the next week.
Iblis on November 7, 2007 at 5:45 PM
What does Commander in Chief mean? Am I missing something?
And if they don’t hold elections we will do what? We can send Jimmy over to watch the election…and he will get rid of any stray cats.
right2bright on November 7, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I know… But I just hate it when he does that!
I keep hearing the line from Back to the Future 2 where Older Biff is chiding younger Biff: “It’s make like a tree and LEAVE.. you sound like a friggin’ idiot when you say it wrong!”
Skywise on November 7, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I sure hope we have plans for taking out those weapons if the islamonuts take over P-stan.
This is why we should never sell our best fighter planes to ANY muslim country. The Pakis fly the F-16, the Iranians fly the F-14, soon the Turks will be flying the F-35 … the freakin’ F-35!!!
Tony737 on November 7, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Seconded…
Skywise on November 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM
OK, suppose Musharref announces that elections will be held in one year. He then proceeds to drop the hammer, with our help ,on every extremist holdout throughout the country. Clean up the swamp a bit before the elections.
Might that be an acceptable position for Bush?
redshirt on November 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM
HA! Biff! I LOVE that guy! “You wouldn’t want to get FIRED would ya … would ya?
Tony737 on November 7, 2007 at 5:53 PM
It’s all so meaningless. If Hillary wins the election and liberals control the House and Senate … we’re all finished anyway. The only question becomes which comes first; Sharia or Aztlan?
Eventually, we’ll all be living under Sharia law regardless.
Look at the bright side …
We won’t have to put up with Gay
Prideno self esteem Parades or Folsom StreetFairesFairies any longer.Gregor on November 7, 2007 at 5:54 PM
What are you saying? Hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way?
Ortzinator on November 7, 2007 at 5:54 PM
No, just stabilize things a while first.
Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 8:36 PM
By stabilize you mean ‘wait until the populace changes their opinions/votes for the right person.’
Because that sure sounds exactly like “hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way”
Nonfactor on November 7, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Fine, you want elections over there with things the way they are right now, have at it. But don’t blame me when I come back and whack you with the I Told You So bat.
Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I’m constantly reminded of voting for Bush only because Gore and Kerry were so much worse. Never again.
Buzzy on November 7, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Not really. It’s had sporadic elections but no continuous democracy in its history. As far as I can remember there hasn’t been a handover from one democratic country to another in the history of the state and that’s being generous in giving luminaries like Minister Sharif the benefit of the doubt when he claims he’s held legitimate elections.
If democracy meant nothing more than voting in your tribal loyalties and self-interest then the democracies of the West would not exist. There’s a bit more to it than head counting. You and Bush seem to have trouble grasping this.
aengus on November 7, 2007 at 9:16 PM
He’s not running for office again so its not an issue.
aengus on November 7, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Great post Bryan. I was going to pull a quote but I agreed with pretty much all of it.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 9:17 PM
democratic country=democratic government
aengus on November 7, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Oh hell yes, this is not woosies on parade this is the big fish eat the little fish.
A Pakistan Democracy at all cost to soon, will be at the cost of all, we’ve tried to achieve.
We may not have had a choice which cards we’ve been dealt but we do have a good play or a bad play to make and that play has to be what benefits US in the WOT not an ideologues soft and fuzzy George Washington visits Jihadistan fantasy.
I hope Bush was just blustering political platitudes today and behind the scenes he’s scrambling to send the Al-Queda in Waziristan straight to El Ack Allah because isolating Pervez Musharraf politically and even worse financially is incredibly stupid and short sighted.
Musharraf is at a disadvantage and at our disposal we damn well should take the opportunity to go after bad guys, big time.
Speakup on November 7, 2007 at 9:24 PM
The ideal time to hold elections in Pakistan is shortly after most of the jihadis and their support networks have been destroyed, and if necessary, Pakistan has surrendered unconditionally. Their nukes make this scenario difficult if not impossible presently, but unfortunately, the longer we wait the more dangerous a resolution to the Pakistan dilemma becomes. Pakistan is already a safe haven for jihadis and eventually, if it isn’t too late already, there will be absolutely nothing we can do about it short of Mutual Assured Destruction.
That’s why I hope the rumor out of Russia that we’ve increased spending on missile defense is true a dozen times over. While an affective missile defense will, at best, only prevent rogue nuclear states from staying our hand in the WOT through a MAD policy and that it won’t prevent terrorists from sneaking nukes into the USA; it will allow us to take action within rogue nuke states to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nukes in the first place.
But unless the capabilities of our missile defense are increasing faster than Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, we will only be loosing ground while the threat of nuclear terrorism continues to grow..
FloatingRock on November 7, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Right in the middle of chaos and anarchy and where there is a possibility that Osama Bin Laden may currently be the most popular figure in Pakistan–let’s stop the war and hold an election. Brilliant idea.
MaiDee on November 7, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Our lives depend on it.
FloatingRock on November 7, 2007 at 9:47 PM
I agree in principle, but the problem is that if Musharraf does anything that actually hinders the jihad, his regime and his control over his military will come to a crashing end. A crash would be more dangerous than elections.
Militarily I think we have two options in regard to Pakistan.
1 – Musharraf gathers all of the intelligence we need regarding the locations of all of his nukes, nuclear facilities and jihad targets. He hands it over to us and waits while we draw up plans. When we’re ready, we evacuate Musharraf and strike immediately. We would have to deal with India to make sure they don’t take advantage of the situation, but we would have to be very clever about it because no doubt Pakistan has spies and sympathizers in India.
2 – We develop an impenetrable missile defense and install it in the vicinity of Pakistan. This would free our hand and allow us to target Islamist targets within Pakistan with or without Musharraf’s help. Our first order of business would be to locate and secure Pakistan’s nukes and related facilities.
FloatingRock on November 7, 2007 at 10:07 PM
You wait until things are stabilized because the Sharia/Osama crowd will be out in force blowing up, shooting, beheading and generally terrorizing the opposition so they don’t vote, or that they vote the right way.
It would be a bloodbath pre and post election and a catastrophe post election.
reaganaut on November 7, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Interestingly, all of the people who are railing against Musharraf seem to be the same folks who love to point to Turkey as the great islamic democracy, even though Turkey has it in its very constitution that the military is charged with taking over the government whenever they think that the islamists have gained too much power.
People, including Bush, need to realize what is actually possible to build on the foundations of an islamic culture/society. Ataturk understood islam much better than any Westerners ever will and he understood where self-rule by the people in islamic societies must be limited. That’s just how it is.
progressoverpeace on November 7, 2007 at 10:18 PM
At this point I see Pakistan as a race for control and Musharraf is the player with the most to lose and the most to gain, in one lane is Al-Qaeda in the next lane is America and the next lanes could be Russia or India or Iran or?
Musharraf has a lot of friends, not so moderate Islamists among them, do we want him to get cornered and forced into a 50-50 alliance with them or us or?
Speakup on November 7, 2007 at 10:56 PM
So you admit you want to “hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way,” not “just stabilize things,” if that’s the case just say so the at first.
I think the slogan “Democracy only for those we agree with,” sounds nice too.
Nonfactor on November 7, 2007 at 11:20 PM
How ’bout “Democracy for those who aren’t trying to kill us”? Would that be OK with you?
FloatingRock on November 7, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Stop putting words in my mouth, ya tiresome crank. Your conspiratorial approach would have that I’m waiting on a neocon junta to take over. It’s not about getting people that we agree with. It’s about preventing unmitigated disaster. I just happen to think, based on recent history, that it’s probably a good idea to let things develop a bit before rushing off to an election that’s likely to empower terrorists. Is that really so unreasonable? Please explain your objection instead of just waging your own little intifada against this post.
Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 11:59 PM
“Democracy” is a meaningless concept without a pre-existing Constitution that guarantees inalieanble rights, an educated populace who respects this Constitutional absolute, and a military strong enough to resist fanatical influences from any end of the ideological spectrum, whether Islamofascist or anarcho-communist/socialist.
Pakistan has none of the groundwork for such a gamble.
Secure the nukes secretly, destroy the jihadis in country at top speed, and then try to breing in “monitors” and NGO;s to spread the foundational concepts of a stable Constitutional Bill of Rights.
Or it will be a Nil of Rights.
And end up bringing the fanatics to nuclear status.
“One man one vote, one time.”
Better a stable stongman than an unstable one.
profitsbeard on November 8, 2007 at 12:13 AM
errata- “strongman”.
profitsbeard on November 8, 2007 at 12:13 AM
My objection is your saying “No, just stabilize things a while first” when it’s obvious by your post that you mean “Hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way,” I’m curious why you aren’t willing to admit it.
Nonfactor on November 8, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Nonfactor, my objection is your saying, “Hold off democracy until you know they’re going to vote the right way,” when it’s obvious by your post that you mean “Why won’t you support democracy even if Bin Laden wins and takes over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal,” I’m curious why you aren’t willing to admit it.
FloatingRock on November 8, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Nonfactor, when you meant to ask, “Why won’t you support democracy even if Bin Laden wins and takes over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?” it becomes obvious from your post that you meant that you would support Bin Laden if he were elected president of Pakistan.
The problem with your true intentions, of course, is that this implies you are an Al Qaeda supporter, and I’m just curious why you won’t admit it.
How long have you been a member of Al Qaeda, Nonfactor?
BTW, if you don’t like people putting words in your mouth you should refrain from doing the same.
FloatingRock on November 8, 2007 at 2:34 AM
Excellent, FloatingRock…!
If ever there was a country that deserved to be considered an exception to the rules…, it’s Pakistan. They may be a wannabe Turkey…, but couldn’t we use a few more Turkeys…?
Rugged Individual on November 8, 2007 at 9:22 AM
but couldn’t we use a few more Turkeys…?
Especially with Turkey day coming up soon.
boris on November 8, 2007 at 9:41 AM
IIRC the people of the Confederacy were not allowed to vote in Lincoln’s reelection or he might have lost. At the time that was a significant and large fraction of “US citizens” therefore Lincoln’s reelection was illegimate and “undemocratic”.
Of course that would be an absurd way to look at it.
boris on November 8, 2007 at 9:49 AM
I think Nonfactor’s point is that you are now taking the position that democracy doesn’t work, at least not for Muslims. Frankly, I think that’s a legitimate and defensible position, but I imagine a lot of folks that comment here don’t want to come right out and say “Democracy doesn’t work.”
But c’mon, isn’t it pretty obvious by this point democracy doesn’t work? I mean, totalitarianism doesn’t work either, but I think we tend to put the rose-colored glasses on when we talk about democracy. The truth is, the obvious downfall of democracy is that it allows the majority to impose its will on the minority, and I think this post is really highlighting that particular shortcoming.
Enrique on November 8, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Skywise writes:
““You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time,””
Yes you can but it’s called a dictatorship aka, North Korea, Cuba, and several others.
MSGTAS on November 8, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Isn’t W both president and commander in chief?
boris on November 8, 2007 at 1:52 PM
More or less correct.
Nonfactor on November 9, 2007 at 3:21 AM