Musharraf Spilling the Beans—Why Now?

I believe all Pakistani rulers should leave after three years. That is the average waiting time the public tolerates them for. After that, there is either a coup or a movement or the ruler has to make some deal with the USA to survive...........Does Australia have elections after three years?

Musharraf should have left after three years.......

Musharraf is in thick soup right now. No where to turn. I don`t think he has any plans of leaving for at least five more years. And I don`t think that he is going to give up the uniform for five more years, unless forced to do so by USA...........In addition, being President is a hell of a power trip. He gets treated like a king wherever he goes, including in the western world..........

The good thing for him is that the people are fed up with his two main opponents...NS and BB......And he has the third most powerful guy, Altaf, on his side. In addition, as long as the USA backs him, he is safe. And at the moment, he is their key guy in the Muslim world. He has delivered more for them than anyone............

For those who think that Pakistan should have stood up to USA, in bravado, I would suggest they take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam etc. When the USA attacks a country, it does eventually lose out to the resistance. However, in the process it decimates the whole country and puts it behind by a generation. And kills tens of thousands to millions of people........

Having said that, one cannot completely sell out one`s country to a foreign power. Especially when one knows that the foreign power is only interested in the leader and in his pro-USA policies. That is where people power and political statesmanship comes in.......

Waziristan is going to be Musharraf`s waterloo. The Pakistani public isn`t too fed up with Baluchistan but they are definitely fed up with what is going on in Waziristan. This includes officers and soldiers of the military also. The reason being that in Baluchistan it is Pakistanis fighting Pakistanis. In Waziristan the understanding seems to be that everything is being done on US direction........

On the other hand, the USA is putting pressure on Musharraf to do more........

He will be a wise man if he quitely rides off into the sunset, in the 2007 elections. But, then, who in Pakistan ever gives up power. NS and BB still want it, even after having it twice each...........So nobody goes voluntarily..............Either the economy goes below 4-5% growth or USA dumps Musharraf.........Neither seems on the horizon, hence Musharraf is not going anywhere..........

Elections after three years, with one-term term limits on Prime Minister and President. And two-term term limits on all MNAs and Senators.........should be tried out.........

Re:pseudointellect#13

[...Being aware of one`s size and abilities is called ``situation awareness`` and a good decision by President choosing to be an ally than victim in this war on terror....]

This is the exact problem. Musharraf has no strategic vision or core beliefs on which direction he wants Pakistan to go. He is a ``thaali ka baingaan`` or even better a ``dhobi ka kutta - na ghar ka na ghat ka``!! When the wind favors the Taliban, he becomes a jihadi who supports Taliban. When the wind favors the US, the man does a U-turn and becomes a moderate. What is his own inherent belief system?

If he really thinks that Pakistan ought to be moderate, then he should have done that irrespective of US pressure. If he thinks that Pakistan should be a jihadi paradise, he should work for that objective. Right now he is all over the place and is basically just trying to hold on to the staus quo (his own position) for as long as possible. That is a pathetic way to run a country.

#17 by bulleya on September 26, 2006 2:18pm PT

Still wearing that t-shirt with the Pakistani flag?

#13 by pseudointellect on September 26, 2006 1:22pm PT

Regarding mushy`s revelation that the US threatened to bomb Pakistan to the stone age and that Pakiland joined the war because doing so was in Pakiland`s interests, mushy is right...It`s definitely not in Pakiland`s interest to get bombed to the stone age..so he made the right choice..

The part about the stone age comment has been public knowledge for some time now..People thought it was Powell who made that threat..

What`s hilarious is Pakistanis deluding themselves into thinking that they somehow joined the WoT of their own volition, expecting a payola and then acting shocked when Pakistanis are among the first people being required to register with the INS and get fingerprinted..

Urstruly #10

`` If there were no consequences for telling the truth, no body would have ever lied. Thta is the situation that can describe Mushraf`s relationship with Pakistan. IN proverbial language this situation can be described in Musharaf`s words is ``yeh ghanta hay, iss ko ukhaar sakte ho to ukhaar lo``. This shameless a-whole has no fear of God or His people. ``

Talking about the truth -
Pakistan insisted it never provided material support for the Taliban or Al Qaeda

Maybe that is the reason Musharaf had to make a shameless U-turn ?

bulleya #17

`` I believe all Pakistani rulers should leave after three years. That is the average waiting time the public tolerates them for. After that, there is either a coup or a movement or the ruler has to make some deal with the USA to survive...........Does Australia have elections after three years?

Musharraf should have left after three years....... ``

You could setup a democracy with a hard 3 year term limit :-)

`` The good thing for him is that the people are fed up with his two main opponents...NS and BB......And he has the third most powerful guy, Altaf, on his side. In addition, as long as the USA backs him, he is safe. And at the moment, he is their key guy in the Muslim world. He has delivered more for them than anyone............ ``

Deliver what ? Terrorists he has been sheltering ??

You can watch musharraf on the Jon Stewart show at 11 pm tonight on Comedy Central. Mush will no doubt have lots of Ben Laden jokes to tell.

Of course, chowk discussions are vastly more entertaining than Comedy Central.

Dear Author:

You say,``..It would be interesting to see if the General shares any of his rumoured million-dollar fee...``.
That is incorrect . The advance fee was $100,000 and the total fee would be 5 times that according to CBS reporter.
You must believe these rumours with a pinch of salt! Wa Salaam.


Kamath

Musharraf might rake it in big..........

His book is fifth on Amazon, right now...... http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=pd_ts_h/002-7737860-7247208

Ahead of John Grisham, Bill O`Rielly, U2, Richard Clarke....

He is 13 places ahead of Thomas Friedman..........

I avoid commenting on Mr. Ghori’s article for one simple reason that despite his claims of being a former diplomat, he is unable to maintain a professional writing style. It is okay for interactors here to call Bush dubya or by any other name but a former diplomat should maintain some semblance of professionalism in his writings to be taken seriously by the readers.

“The fact that Musharaf has taken 5 long years to level with the people of Pakistan on the exact backdrop to his crass ‘capitulation’ to American arm-twisting isn’t guaranteed to atone his ‘sins’ in the eyes of the Pakistanis.”

The whole premise is absolutely ridiculous here. Musharaf was not trying to level with the people of Pakistan. He was just trying to sell his book. He wrote that particular incident on his publisher’s recommendation and repeated it on his publisher’s recommendation. One has to be a complete idiot to not figure this out from the way the whole thing was presented to the US audience on a primetime show. The publisher had fairly good idea what would sell the book and how to market the book, Musharaf just followed marketing manager’s advice. So Musharaf never entertained any thought of leveling with people because he does not need to on this issue.

What is the big deal about Musharaf coming out with a story which had NO significance whatsoever in the whole scheme of things? If any one believes that Pakistan would not have sided with the US after the 9/11, threat or no threat by Armitage, he probably lives in a fool’s paradise and should be hanged and mercilessly punished for being a dunce of the highest order.

Pakistan and the Pak army have a long history of working with the US and especially with the US DOD. Show me one incident in the last 60 years when Pakistan was on the wrong side of the US. Now let me put my neck out and say this here: show me incidents real or fake when the US DID NOT side with Pak or the Pak army in the last 60 years. Even in AQK`s case the US actually helped Pakistan.

Musharaf is NO trailblazer, he did what any army chief, any civilian PM or any other mai ka lal would have done in Pakistan.

Pakistan support for the Mujahideen was well known and Pak had US blessings. The US looked the other way when Pakistan was promoting Taliban as the US saw no reason to deny its best ally a reward for help in defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

However, Pakistan’s commitment to the US is much bigger than its commitment to anything else. Taliban or no Taliban, Pakistan was never going to be on the wrong side of the US. In fact, people who pay attention to these matters have known all along that after 9/11 the whole drama was created to get some PR and media value out of it. Powell, Tennet, Armitage, Rummsfeld and Cheney knew that already. Only person who probably had no clue was perhaps President Bush himself as he had no active understanding of Pakistan’s and especially Pakistan army’s longstanding relationship with the US.

Re: HP #26

Well said, HP!

It is an annoying habit of retired diplomats and generals and bureaucrats in Pakistan to re-discover the noton of ``public service`` once they leave office. While in office, these honorable men are the guardians of power and status quo and once out of it; they start to sermonize about democracy and the public`s right to know everything under the sun, which they themselves had denied the public in the first place, while they were in office.

If one were only to judge the reaction to Musharraf`s comments by comparing the best seller lists of New York Times and Amazon.com, before and after the ``infamous`` CBS interview, one would immediately realize the genius of the PR/marketing ploy of the comment.

Ciao

Re: # 26

There have been exceptions.
the Kargil war was one where Pakistan did not get any support from US. In fact, the US posture had a lot to do with ending the conflict.

Musharraf may be an opportunist out to sell his book, he may have lied outrightly on many occasions, conducted about turns and volte faces on many issues under US Pressure, but he cannnot ever be accused of having pout his own interests over his country`s interests. Is he still not much better than all the previous rulers??

A man who has consistently acted in the best national interests must be applauded as a true patriot. Findiing fault and pointing out trivialities is not going to get us anywhere...

HP writes <<< In fact, people who pay attention to these matters have known all along that after 9/11 the whole drama was created to get some PR and media value out of it. >>>

What they fail to note however is that such ``revelations`` might have unintended consequences in Pakistan, which I hope will be for the better. Not everyone in the Pak military is as `bey ghairat` as musharraf and previously they have felt the need to fakely present themselves as vanguards of the nation, as far as I can remember they have never before come out so openly as capitulating cowards, even though as you note their actions were more or less the same. Such incidents multiplied might lead eventually to the political authority of this `occupation force of the Americans in Pakistan`i.e. the Pak Army to erode, which would be a step in the right direction.

okhla99 writes <<< There have been exceptions.
the Kargil war was one where Pakistan did not get any support from US. In fact, the US posture had a lot to do with ending the conflict. >>>

Nothing in this goes against what HP wrote. The US is not interested in Pakistan`s tiny regional adventures except when it involves its own desires (all peons are given some autonomy when they dont interfere with the master`s estate), it is quite indifferent to them. Pakistan capitulated to the US demands, because India happens to be more important to the US than Pakistan, which they use often enough as a convenient whore, so what was so different in this?

Looking out for ``best national interest`` does not mean you make decisions that surrender national sovereignity (granted there wasnt any before, thanks to the Pakistan military). If you do that then there is no ``national interest`` since there is no ``nation``. Very simple concept, and the person who does that is not a ``national leader`` but a ``foreign occupying force``.

Feroz writes <<< If one were only to judge the reaction to Musharraf`s comments by comparing the best seller lists of New York Times and Amazon.com, before and after the ``infamous`` CBS interview, one would immediately realize the genius of the PR/marketing ploy of the comment. >>>

It might be a marketing ploy for those wanting to make money off the book no doubt but hidden behind it is an explicit rendition of the slave-master relationship between the US and Pakistan, which to people in Pakistan should mean more than the money Musharraf makes off his book.

Dear masadi:

Why are you, once again, hyperventilating? Three posts one after the other, eh! You would not lose any chance to deflect the Musharraf bashing on this site to the US bashing, uh!
Could you ever maintain the parameters and boundaries of your arguments?

Respectfully submitted,