Musharraf on the way out?
posted at 9:35 am on August 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The new civilian government in Pakistan has considered how to rid itself of the former military dictator Pervez Musharraf ever since it took control in February. Until now, the ruling coalition’s internal divisions have kept the president safe in office — but that may have changed. Reports that Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Yousef Gilani’s party leader may have reached an agreement on reinstating judges Musharraf sacked and on impeachment proceedings have caused Musharraf to cancel a visit to China for the Beijing Olympics:
Local newspapers citing unnamed sources reported Wednesday that the ruling party leaders — who have fallen out among themselves in recent months — had reached a consensus Tuesday on what steps to take to oust Musharraf.
Dawn, one of Pakistan’s leading English-language papers, reported that the two main parties had agreed to formally request that Musharraf step down and impeach him through parliamentary measures “if he did not oblige.”
Party officials declined to comment on the reports about the meeting between Asif Ali Zardari, head of the largest coalition party, and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the second biggest party.
“Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif at Tuesday’s meeting discussed the issue of restoration of judges and other political matters, but I cannot go into details,” said Farhatullah Babar, a Zardari party spokesman.
For many Pakistanis, the coalition government will be seen as a failure if they don’t rid themselves of Musharraf. The former dictator is deeply unpopular in Pakistan, and his political party paid the price in the last parliamentary elections. They can offer him no protection from impeachment if the PPP and PML-N combine to force him out. Musharraf has insisted he will not resign the post which he sacked the judges to gain, but he may have no choice.
What will that mean for the war? It will put the military in further disarray, and it might unleash elements within the ISI that Parliament will find difficult to control. Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan told me in our interview that he believes the Gilani government wants to fight terrorism but doesn’t have the capability to do so, and removing Musharraf would at least temporarily make it even more difficult.
In the long run, though, the civilian government has to take control of both the military and the intelligence services if Pakistan is to survive and to fight against terrorism. This could be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, Sharif’s connections to radical Islamists and his pro-appeasement policies don’t give a great deal of confidence that the government will move rapidly towards control of their own sovereign territory.
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
Comment pages:
Some one smarter tell me – is this good news or bad news?
jake-the-goose on August 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM
jake-the-goose:
It means Pakistan is moving in the direction of sovereignty. Bad news for the US. The switch from a puppet government to a sovereign government goes hand in hand with Pakistan’s change in status from “good” to “evil.”
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 9:43 AM
You all should have seen the interview with his successor on PBS last month. Losing Musharraf is VERY BAD for any non-Islamic theocracy. Pakistan is falling into Iran’s hands via free wheeling terrorists in the mountains. Any reference to terrorists abuse of the mountain tribes is rebutted as “disinformation: there are no terrorists in Pakistan.”
maverick muse on August 6, 2008 at 9:48 AM
it doesn’t matter. Musharraf has been irrelevant for a while. He was their ‘useful idiot’ because America ‘liked him’. So long as he could convince America to give him money, arms, and intelligence, he was valuable to them. Now that America is finally wising up, Musharraf is worthless to them.
Musharraf never did anything for America. Americans only think ’short term’. Pakistanis knew America would tire eventually and allow the Taliban to grow strong again. They just needed someone to stall American scrutiny long enough. . . that man was Musharraf.
I’m telling you guys they are doing the same thing in the FATA region that Musharraf championed in Kashmir. They claim not to actually be fighting or giving weapons or intelligence. . . but they support ‘independence’. It is a farce. Pakistan is a den of thieves and a pack of lies. Everything is up to the highest bidder.
Musharraf held the power only as long as he could hold back the American tiger and rape America of her money and resources. Now, FINALLY America is deciding to fight its own wars so Musharraf is irrelevant. Musharraf has been on his way out for at least a year.
He was never a friend of America. Pakistan was never a friend of America. This is good news because now at least we won’t have an excuse for being Pakistan’s patsy. . . for the past couple of years we were their patsy ‘to keep Musharraf in power’. . . now maybe we can actually be effective in the region. Thank God we will be allowed to see our enemies for who they are now. Musharraf was the ultimate smokescreen. . . just ask AQ Khan.
ThackerAgency on August 6, 2008 at 9:49 AM
So far – I am reading and learning.
Thank you posters…
jake-the-goose on August 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM
would be nice if any sane minds exist over there, they turn over all their nukes to us before the crazies take over
jp on August 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Ed,
Not happening. Military is an independent institution in Pakistan, and in most matters dominate over civilian government.
I don’t think that particular individual matter, any representative system in Pakistan will be beholden to Jihadis.
Gaurav on August 6, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Musharaff had the ability to hold the loyalty of the Pakistani Armed Forces officer corps, and through some pretty difficult times. There is only a handful of officers in the Pakistani armed forces that can similarly do the same. Current army chief of staff, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (American trained, a Command and General Staff College graduate) is one such officer. He has little desire to get involved in politics.
The Pakistani officer corps is the only segment of Pakistan that transcends social castes in Pakistan, and is generally free from family, religious, party or tribal connections. They are appointed from service academies and direct appointment from both civilian status and the enlisted ranks. Thus, they are the only non-political entity in Pakistan. They are the only thing holding Pakistan together.
After Musharaff, then what? Gilani or Sharif appoints a Party loyalist to the higher ranks of the armed forces to replace Musharaff? Great idea. I predict a military coup within months after that. Unless Gilani or Sharif allows the military to allow promotion to higher grades to be based on merit and not “loyalties” chosing instead to appoint party loyalists or friends…we’ve been down this road many many times. The Pakistani politicians just don’t seem to get it.
Bhutto, and Bhutto’s father, learned this the hard way, which did Pakistan very little good at all.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 10:24 AM
You can’t always have the friends you want, though you should be smart enough to take them when you get them. Sometimes you have to work with allies of convenience.
njcommuter on August 6, 2008 at 10:28 AM
From the above posts, it would seem that an army coup would be in our best interests, would it not?
OldEnglish on August 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 10:24 AM
If America had treated Pakistan like Afghanistan or Iraq, Pakistan would look more like Iraq than Iran today.
The problem that ‘they have nuclear weapons’ is a non-starter. Their nuclear weapons are for one reason and one reason only – India. Just because a country has a nuclear bomb does not mean that we automatically can NOT fight a war with them. Our having nuclear weapons certainly did not keep Al Qaeda from starting a war with us.
The problems in Pakistan today are a direct result of how we handled Pakistan since 9/11. You can’t win a war by making friends. Somehow that’s the only war tactic the pentagon seems to know these days. If we treated Pakistan like Afghanistan, Pakistan and their nuclear weapons would be stable now. At this point, we have to hope that India can help us in the region after we mucked it all up with ZERO to show for it. Heck-uv-a job Bushie. Heckuva job.
ThackerAgency on August 6, 2008 at 10:44 AM
From the above posts, it would seem that an army coup would be in our best interests, would it not?
Not necessarily so. But, it should be something with which we should not be surprised.
It is in Gilani’s hands.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Jake, the 500 lb. gorilla in the corner of the room is Pakistan’s nukes.
The U.S. has spent over $100MIL in “helping” Pakistan protect its nuclear weapons [snark] fortunately for us, the NYT was willing to compromise that program in the interest of “news” [/snark] So Pakistan and the Islamic world are now aware of that.
I’ve been there enough times to learn that outsiders viewpoints are not all that accurate but I have to tell you that this “outsider” is convinced that the Pakistani people WANT an Islamic Theocracy. Musharaff might have been a despot but he was our despot.
I am disquieted over the prospects of a nuclear armed Islamic Theocracy; we should all be.
E9RET on August 6, 2008 at 10:48 AM
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 10:24 AM –
So, you are suggesting that after 9-11 we attacked Pakistan?
Iraq, despite the Moslem on the street outcry, was a country most in the region were glad to see attacked. Saddam was no friend to anyone in the region. Afghanistan? Outside of the Tribal Areas and AQ, there wasn’t a lot of love for the Taliban in the region either. But, Pakistan? The only joy one would hear would have been from New Delhi, and guarded joy at that.
There is no one size fits all solution to anything in the Middle East and South and Central Asia…save capitalism. And one needs a stable government for that to be applied.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 10:52 AM
cold warrior. . .
Yes, I am suggesting we attack the country that supported the entity that ACTUALLY ATTACKED US.
Pakistan harbors and aides terrorists. If ‘you are for us or against us’ meant anything after 9/11 it would be people for the Taliban. There was only ONE country that recognized the Taliban on 9/11. That country was PAKISTAN. So what did we decide to do? We decided to give them money, make them our ‘friend’.
That’s stupid, that’s what we did. . . look where we are now.
Yes, we should have attacked Pakistan from India after 9/11 and gotten the Taliban from the ROOT. Instead we went into Afghanistan and plucked off some of the leaves of the weed but left the root because we didn’t want to upset our ‘friend’ Pakistan in the FATA.
That’s the problem, people like yourself don’t understand why we should have attacked the only country that supported the terrorists who attacked us. That’s why we are failing now.
ThackerAgency on August 6, 2008 at 11:02 AM
It worked from 1945 until today.
Our problems with Pakistan has nothing to do with how we treated them after 9/11, our problems with Pakistan have always been with the ISI and its freewheeling support of Islamic terrorism in the region and the influential
Madrassas.
THAT makes me sleep better at nights, a nuclear exchange on the border of a third nuclear armed country.
Thacker,
a nuclear armed country has other nuclear responses short of a nuclear detonation; for instance, a 7th century style theocracy eager to share the deadliest substance in the world, plutonium dust, with Islam’s holy warriors in a global jihad.
E9RET on August 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I’m sure it’ll work out as well as the Shah’s ouster.
andycanuck on August 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM
so basically we have nuclear weapons not to use them. . . so you all support Obama’s position that we need to get rid of our nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons around the world.
I don’t like war. Interesting that you say it worked from 1945 until today. Why not 1944? Because the nuclear bomb we DID use ENDED A WAR and PREVENTED a lot of dead American soldiers.
At that time the world did what we said because they were afraid of us. Now the world does what they want because they KNOW we won’t ever detonate another one. That’s why America is weak. What good is being able to lift 1000 pounds if you aren’t willing to do it?
Iran does what they want, Pakistan does what they want, the world does what they want because they KNOW America won’t do anything about it. We need to show the world that we aren’t afraid to use our nuclear arsenal. . . then we can use diplomacy the way we used it right after 1945.
ThackerAgency on August 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Name one nation that does not do what they want?
Simplistic solutions make things terribly un-simplistic almost always immediately.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Coldwarrior:
You’re just a hopeless liberal. The attitude of the US should be: “do what we say or we will kill tens of millions of your citizens.” That’s the only way to show the moral superiority of the US and of Christianity.
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Yeah, right.
Anyone in this present world who actually believes that this Nation should with impunity tell other nations “do what we say or we will kill tens of millions of your citizens.” is neither a liberal nor a Conservative…but insane.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Including my father who was a combat infantry officer training for the invasion and who was in the Army of Occupation, but I digress, you are moving the goal posts. You initially said;
We attacked relatively secure in our beliefs that Japan didn’t have a “nuclear bomb” to retaliate with. If we suspected they did would we still have used ours? Probably, but that’s a question left for philosophers.
We are not a despotic country bent on bending the world to our desires despite what most Europeans believe. I’ll leave that task to McDonalds and KFC who are much more efficient in that arena than our military.
As a country we do not lightly make war against our enemies. I do believe that once we are in a war, as we are now with radical Islam the only way to win that war is to kill so many of our enemies that that begin to fear for their survival and their way of life. That’s how we won WWII and that’s how we will win this war. There will be setback, probably significant setback, say a naïve, inexperience president who believes that talking will win us a peace.
Pakistan’s arsenal is very, very troubling. The forces of Islamic evil are looking for devastating weapons and I can’t help but feel that Pakistan is at the top of their list of shopping malls.
E9RET on August 6, 2008 at 11:48 AM
BTW, I have never in my lifetime of nearly three-score years been called a liberal.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 11:48 AM
coldwarrior:
It’s a relative scale. Compared to ThackerAgency, you are Che Guevara.
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
It’s a relative scale. Compared to ThackerAgency, you are Che Guevara.
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Back handed compliment if there ever was one. /s/
What do I do with my “Che’s Dead! Get Over it!” T-shirt?
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM
coldwarrior:
Cross out “Che” and write in “Reagan.”
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Said just that re: Reagan in a now archived HA post a few days ago.
coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Colwarrior:
liberal…
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Ah Jeez! now I gotta clean up all that Fresca I snorted on the new flat panel.
E9RET on August 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Comment pages: