[didrexx]

Communist Muslims?

[Zvssxstw]

Originally posted by BeBro
Any idea what this Chinese "strong message" would have been? "We'll take back our nuke blueprints"

[CaseyFronczekHomie]

Yay, another round of Musharraf is teh glorious savior talk from DC, regardless of how repressive he is, and how small an Islamist constituency actually is in Pakistan.

[cakaeroryrere]

BBC and other sites that cover the Pakistani press show that while the English language press was strongly in favor of the op, the Urdu press was strongly hostile. Many other repressive regimes could stand to have so much dissent in the press. It's pretty ironic that you're writing this, given that Musharraf recently shut down two major TV stations for covering the crisis regarding the dismissal of Chief Justice Chaudhry. And it's telling that this suppression was directed against the secular opposition.

The Islamist constituency got less than 25% of the vote in the last parliamentary election. Of course I also heard that was low, cause of vote fraud,etc. OTOH maybe there was no significant vote fraud. Odd for such a repressive regime. Huh? Seeing as how Musharraf was allied to the MMA during the last Parliamentary elections, exactly why would the electoral fraud widely accepted to have hurt the secular parties have much of an effect on the MMA? And they only got 11.3% according to Wiki...

And you realize that Pakistan is a military dictatorship, right?

It does raise, in DC, the real question of whether making Musharaf give up his uniform will lessen his control over the Pakistani military, and whether the civilian politicians can control Gul. Even if you accept the premise that Gul will try to pull off a coup the minute Musharraf's gone, legitimizing Musharraf's defiance of democratic will only foster militant anti-Western sentiment, making the problem worse whenever he does happen to step down.

[MzTT]

Originally posted by Ramo

And they only got 11.3% according to Wiki...

I guess I was thinking of the 2003 Senate elections.

Since MMA is now in opposition, its not like the MMA has been a reliable partner for Musharaff.

[Overlord]

well he shouldnt have done that. The Chaudry thing is obviously a hot button. He IS a military dictator, I havent denied it. But Pakistan still has a more vibrant press than some countries which do not have military rule, and which are said by some to be no more repressive than Pakistan is. Yeah, Perv only does minor things like, last month, rounding up over a thousand of opposition partisans and tossing 'em in prison indefinitely. He's really a democrat at heart.

But I'm still not sure why un-named other regimes that I probably don't support have any bearing on whether we should be legitimizing this one.

My reading has been that he wanted more seats for his own party and definitely not for MMA. He has made tactical parliamentary alliances with MMA, and has flirted with deals with the secular opposition as well. No, there was an explicit alliance between Perv and the MMA before the election. Electoral fraud was specifically directed against the secular opposition, i.e. in terms of disqualifications of candidates.

I said so in my first post. Musharraf holds office due to a coup, and has not held an election for the Presidency. I realize that you know. The unstated question was, then why would lack of fraud in these largely irrelevant elections be a particularly redeeming feature?

What Im not willing to do is to pretend that this is an easy decision, or that the Islamists arent already strong enough to make themselves a significant factor. No, the question is pretty simple. Do we stick with Musharraf while the Islamists are a fairly minor force in Pakistan, or do we wait an indefinite amount of time during which they're not likely to get weaker, till we drop him, he dies, etc.

I guess I was thinking of the 2003 Senate elections. Senators are elected from provincial legislatures. The same ones that Musharraf restocked in the 2002 elections.

[reiruviartugs]

Originally posted by Ramo

No, the question is pretty simple. Do we stick with Musharraf while the Islamists are a fairly minor force in Pakistan, They dominate the prov assembly of the NWFP, and they control most of NWFP on the ground, and AFAICT that was true under Bhutto and Sharif as well. And Hamid Gul remains, IIUC, a popular figure. The Islamist, AFAICT, are not weak, even if MMA doesnt threaten to get a parliamentary majority.

Note:

NYT

"Hinting at how the mosque standoff could alter the political calculus, Benazir Bhutto, the exiled leader of the country’s largest opposition party, also offered an unusual endorsement of the government’s action. "

[Rexaviennatutr]

Pakistan is a great country to invade.

[Agitoligflise]

Which kinda gets back to the Muslims-aren't-ready-for-democracy line of thought.

[STYWOMBORGOSY]

Which kinda gets back to the Muslims-aren't-ready-for-democracy line of thought. Exactly, if you take that one ridiculously ignorant path...