Musharraf resigns
posted at 10:05 am on August 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
As I noted last week, Pervez Musharraf resigned as president of Pakistan today, ending the potentially divisive effort to impeach him. The Yousef Gilani government won’t pursue prosecution, allowing Musharraf to retire quietly and the army to accept the expulsion of its former commander. The Pakistani parliament now has to decide how to undo Musharraf’s greatest mistake:
Musharraf’s resignation Monday signaled the end of a long and important relationship with the U.S. Musharraf was one of the first Muslim leaders to declare allegiance to the U.S. after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. With his support the U.S. was allowed to use several military bases in Pakistan while Pakistani army troops were deployed to pursue Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents sheltering in the country’s rugged tribal areas near the border of Afghanistan. It was a tremendously risky stance for the leader of one of the world’s most populous and politically divided Muslim nations — one that provoked ire from al-Qaeda leaders in particular. But the alliance earned Pakistan important political dividends and more than $10 billion in U.S. aid, transforming the impoverished country from a political pariah to a regional economic powerhouse.
Signs that the strength of Musharraf’s alliance with the U.S. was on the wane emerged this spring, however. U.S. officials expressed increasing frustration with Pakistan’s faltering efforts to blunt the threat from Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents inside Pakistan. As progress stalled on the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, now in its seventh year, U.S. officials became more vocal about their suspicions that intelligence agencies under Musharraf’s regime had been complicit in supporting a resurgent Taliban. Last month, top CIA officials confronted the Pakistani government with evidence that Pakistani intelligence agents had assisted in a suicide bombing attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. …
Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup in 1999, stepped down after reaching an agreement with the coalition government that granted him indemnity from prosecution and provided for his safe passage out of Pakistan, according to government officials with knowledge of the talks. The officials were not authorized to speak publicly about the terms of the resignation because they have not yet been made public. The agreement was reached after marathon negotiations between the president’s aides and top members of the coalition government.
The most pressing issue for the parliament isn’t the war on terror but the reversal of Musharraf’s war on the judiciary. His abrupt dismissal of judges last year and his appointment of his cronies to the bench precipitated the crisis of his presidency, and remains the most animating feature of parliamentary politics. Nawaz Sharif wants Musharraf’s appointments invalidated and the dismissed jurists reinstated. Gilani’s party wants a more moderate approach of reinstating the dismissed without firing the Musharraf appointments outright.
On the war, though, Musharraf’s departure probably won’t have much effect, because the parliament’s initial approach has already failed. Gilani has adopted the Musharraf approach after watching his appeasement attempts backfire:
The outgoing Pakistani president — who abandoned Pakistan’s support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and sided with Washington after the Sept. 11 attacks — has been largely sidelined since February elections brought his foes to power.
But the new civilian government has done surprisingly little to change his policies in the militant-infested northwest regions bordering Afghanistan and wants to retain close ties with the U.S., supporting the international fight against Islamic extremism. …
The coalition government’s efforts to strike peace deals with militants are in tatters, and — like Musharraf — it is back to relying on the military to try to root out the extremists.
“I think they don’t have any option,” Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a politics professor at Lahore’s University of Management Sciences. “The terrorists are not going to surrender. They have long-term objectives in the region.”
In fact, the departure of Musharraf could have a salutary effect on the war. The civilian government has been distracted since its inception in February with the question of Musharraf, keeping the army on edge and generally undermining any hope for a coordinated effort against extremists and terrorists. Now that the Gilani government has reached its accommodation with the army regarding Musharraf, the two sides can form a more effective partnership in addressing the issues in the FATA with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Another specter looms on the horizon, however. The government in Islamabad has to start any effort against the terrorists by cleaning house in the ISI. Pakistan’s intelligence service has been thoroughly corrupted by Islamist extremists and has assisted in their terrorist attacks, including the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. The parliament and the army have to address this cancer within their government before they can effectively fight the extremists in the border territories, and that could prove fatal if the ISI goes completely rogue.










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
Awesome. Our one completely corrupt, untrustworthy ally has buggered off.
Confidence is high.
LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Bad news.
Prepare for a prolonged period of political infighting, until the next military takeover of course.
Gaurav on August 18, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Consult the Magic Eight Ball.
rockhauler on August 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM
No Bueno….
We’ve lost one of our only allies in the region, just as Russia once more starts to throw its weight around… and we did it to ourselves with our blind faith in Democracy.
Expect to see more appeasement with Al Q, and infighting in the government. Pakistan is now ripe for a fundamentalist Islamic takeover.
Romeo13 on August 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Musharaf in his position as President, had the authoritty to select, appoint, and fire justices, according to the Pakistani Constitution.
His major error was that he seized power. From that point onward, his other options were limited. He certainly was no Ayub Khan. Thank God for that. He was no Bhutto, either, thank God for that, too.
So, the Pakistani’s got their wish. All things righted. Stability will break out all across Pakistan like a million flowers blooming.
The now-unified government of Pakistan will be able to aptly deal with their internal terrorist threat. They will be able to satisfy the political demands of the electorate. They will be able to come to peaceful settlements with India, with Afghanistan, with Taliban remnants on their soil, with irredentism all across Pakistan, come to peaceful arrangements with al-Qaeda.
I sincerely hope that Pakistan survives.
I sincerely doubt they will without wholesale bloodshed, or yet another coup.
coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Awww…like that’s a bad thing? Where’s your sense of sportsmanship?
;-)
LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
backwoods conservative on August 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM
backwoods conservative on August 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM –
In the context of my satire:
“…Pakistani’s got their wish. All things righted. Stability will break out all across Pakistan like a million flowers blooming.
“The now-unified government of Pakistan will be able to aptly deal with their internal terrorist threat. They will be able to satisfy the political demands of the electorate. They will be able to come to peaceful settlements with India, with Afghanistan, with Taliban remnants on their soil, with irredentism all across Pakistan, come to peaceful arrangements with al-Qaeda.”
It makes perfect sense.
coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM
A nuclear armed country going through a power struggle and add to that a Islamic extremist element to the equation. This could get ugly. I hope to God it doesn’t of course but I can’t help but expect the worst.
Yakko77 on August 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Oh, I recognized the satire, and a fine job of it you did. Sounds like things will be just as hunky-dory over there as things will over here just as soon as we put liberals in charge of all three branches of government. :)
backwoods conservative on August 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM
backwoods conservative on August 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM –
Ain’t that the truth. Ain’t that the scary Kattie-bar-the-door truth.
On a more serious note…anything heard from Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani since the Musharaf resignation came out?
coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Exactly. It seems that in Pakistan, we have shades of bad and worse. Musharraf rose to power from a coup. The people who tried to kill him repeatedly were islamic terrorists. While people like LimeyGeek are happy that he’s gone, I worry who is going to take his place.
wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I actually think that restoring the judiciary that Musharraf sacked is the right thing to do. I think that the judiciary is the most trustworthy part of the government in Pakistan. Musharraf dismissed them because they were going to (rightly) rule against him. He wouldn’t have been in power now had they done that.
I actually trust the (old) judiciary to do the right thing. How much power they have will depend on the government.
But to say Musharraf took a ‘risky stance’ by allying with the US after 9/11 is ridiculous. That was the ‘for us or against us’ day. If they decided to side with the Taliban, we’d have fought them through India (which we should have anyway). His decision spared him the wrath of the full force of the entire US arsenal. Not so much of a ‘risky stance’ when you also realize that we gave him 10 billion dollars.
But you make the call. On the one hand, complete destruction and obliteration of your military and the end to your rule (possibly at the end of a rope). On the other hand, money, expertise, and military might on your side.
Hardly a risky choice. All he had to do was shoot off some fireworks whenever a dignitary came into town and collect a check from the US. He’d pick from his least favorite Taliban to arrest from time to time to ‘prove’ he’s tough on terror and America would continue to give him a pass and money. For Musharraf, it was all about the power and the money. . . he never took a ‘risky’ stance on anything except sacking the judiciary that would have ended his rule.
ThackerAgency on August 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Hmmmm…..I wouldn’t throw a party just yet.
Don’t all our supply lines to the troops in Afghanistan run through Pakistan? The only other way in is through those various -stans to the north, which are quite close to Russia. Military guys care to weigh in on this?
dhimwit on August 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM
now Pakistan will be our enemy… before they were just barely an Ally… the fit is getting ready to hit the shan.
Kaptain Amerika on August 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
“I think that the judiciary is the most trustworthy part of the government in Pakistan?”
Are you serious? Based on what? A feeling?
The cronyism of the judiciary in Pakistan is legendary as is the corruption. One case in point. There are hundreds of others, going down all the way to the local district level.
This cronyism and corruption along with Nawiz Sharif’s close ties to the Taliban, the same Nawiz Sharif who the Chief Justice of the Court tried to have removed for corruption and interference with the Constitution, and previously with Bhutto and her husband’s using the Pakistani Treasury as their personal ATM, with a sympathetic court, is what compelled Musharaf to act in 1999 when he took power,before Bhutto could unseat Sharif and open a new ATM account. All of this is documented. All of it.
Under the 1981 interim constitution, the one Pakistan operates under today (the Constitution those who forced Musharaf from office rely on) stipulated that an oath to the President be imposed on all supreme court, high court, and Shari’ah court judges, and all laws promulgated by a martial law regime were exempted from judicial review.
Further, as just about any Pakistani can tell you…the Pakistani judicial system is full of corruption and based on nepotism. And, Pakistan, operating under its Constitution, was in a state of martial law for many periods of Musharaf’s rule. Martial law imposed when the lawyers rioted, or when Islamists and Taliban supporters blew up market places and buses, and trains full of innocents all over Pakistan. Martial law imposed when the open political process was not up to the task of managing Pakistan’s best interests…but certainly managed the personal interests of dozens and dozens of Pakistani judicial and legislative felons.
It’s their Constitution. If they don’t like it. Let them write another. But neither Nawaz Sharif nor Bhutto chose to do so. Had ample time, Certainly had the graft and grease to make it happen.
The only trustworthy part of the Pakistani government is the professional officer corps of the armed forces. Where they go so goes Pakistan.
Which is why I asked a prior poster if anyone had heard from Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani.
The Pakistani’s got their wish…one should be very careful what one wishes for.
coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM
The US is very unpopular in Pakistan, one major reason being the widespread belief that the US screwed up in Afghanistan, turning its attention to Iraq while allowing their neighbor to become the world’s largest narco state, overrun by bandits and warlords.
Ignoring demands from the Bush or any other US President will be very easy for the new Pakistani government. There’s limited internal will to help the US outside of the upper levels of the professional military.
bayam on August 18, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Let’s review events during Truman’s (D) era:
- creation of Islamic state of Pakistan in 1947 (now nuclear)
- expansion of Soviet Union
- start of the Cold War that lasted 50 years
- handover to USSR and creation of North Korea (now nuclear)
What a guy.
faraway on August 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM
forgot to add:
- expansion of Soviet Union (now nuclear)
faraway on August 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM
As “Mr. Ten Percent” gets ready for his solo…
mojo on August 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM
We lost an ally??? Not really, at best maybe 30% of it’s citizens were PRO-AMERICA… Soon a PRO-TALIBAN government will emerge, and these CLOWNS are not AFGHANISTAN, they have NUKES… We sat by idle, and let them obtain them, now the consequences… The WORLD had better get TOGETHER on this one… We won’t have a lot of time to spend in the UN negotiating how to word SANCTIONS…
pueblo1032 on August 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM
…and the hits just keep on comin’!
ugh.
leftnomore on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM
My feelings are that this resignation will pave the way for a more hostile Pakistani Government, one that begins moving away from the U.S. and siding with their enemies instead. I’ll be very suprised if the American-Pakistan relationship strengthens from here on out.
apacalyps on August 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
The operative part of that sentence is ‘IN PAKISTAN’. That opinion is mostly based on my opinion of the entire governmental apparatus that our ‘friendship’ with Pakistan is based around.
It is my opinion that every aspect of Pakistan is completely corrupt. It’s sort of like the thinnest person in a fat camp. . . they are still fat. It’s up to the highest bidder. Whoever pays the most has the power.
It is for this reason that I have felt that from the beginning of this ‘war on terror’, we needed to go into Pakistan and clean house like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq and set up a government that was accountable.
I appreciate your information. Basically my statement is based on a feeling. That feeling that there has to be some entity that can maintain control over the country. I never liked Bhutto or her husband. Many posters here and our government thought that they were going to help Pakistan. I didn’t. I would also believe that they were influenced heavily and forcefully by Bhutto and Sharif (speculation).
But you are correct that it is mostly a feeling. Not that I trust any of them. . . but of the ones that are there now, I’d trust judiciary more than any without guns.
ThackerAgency on August 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM