Captain's Quarters -

I didn't see this one coming.

Losing Musharraf could mean losing Pakistan as a partner against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, if the elections go badly.

If "the elections go badly" -- i.e., Taliban-types get elected -- that would mean that Paki's are even dumber than Iraqi's. Iraq's have had four years of being blowed up and otherwise murderized and terrorized by Al-Queda before it dawned on them that these people are not really good partners in creating a nice life. Likewise, Pakistani's have been having tastes of the explosive lifestyle Al-Queda, the Taliban, and other Islamist terrorists bring to the table. How many car bombs have one off in Pakistan in the past year. Would a Paki voter *really* think that if he (can she's vote in enlightened progressive Pakistan?) were to vote for an Islamist terrorist-supporter, they would quit blowing up innocent civilians?

ummm, has anyone noticed that Pakistani's really love the Taliban types? Not as in Sally Field love, but willing to put their money, fidelity and lives to Osama and mullah Omar.

Listen, I am all for democracy, even the PA kind. Shows exactly who are friends are. And not. The election results will not be to our liking, of that I have no doubts. And with a President Hillary or Obama things will unravel quickly in that part of the world.

Think of the strategic alliance that a nuclear Pakistan AND nuclear Iran will be able to conjure up, With leaders like Ahmedinajad and the Paki's new Osama worshipper Israel will be forced to use the Samson option as they are wiped off the map. Or alternately, if the new best buddies have the patience (of that I doubt) to wait a few years to take on the Great Satan.

Hey, if we get lucky they will only wipe out a few million Americans before we turn them into glass. Or maybe we dont get lucky.

Hillary/Obama '08 a strategic threat to the US

It could be a very strong example of what an Islamic Democracy in the Middle East would look like.

But you don't have very far to go to see what that democracy could be...Turkey, anyone? The Islamists in that country were swept into power overwhelmingly by playing the moderate card. Demonizing the Islamists backfired in Turkey, which up until now was a secular democracy.

Pakistan is nowhere near secular. Should Pakistan's elections turn the country into an Islamist state with a strong AQ presence and nuclear weapons, all bets are off.

I don't think things will quite be as bad as kingronjo says, but I think they will not be pleasant.

Well, it's interesting news to follow.

There are lots of Pakistani people who've migrated away from Pakistan. And, they live in lots of communities, now, around the world.

While I'm not sure; I do believe that it's the Saud's who exported the extremists. By taking over mosques.

Now, in Pakistan, the Red Mosque is no more than a block or so away from Musharraf's home. And, what happened first, was that some idiot fired on Musharraf's helicopter as it was landing. Or taking off. That's what caused the fire fight at the Red Mosque.

I also happen to believe that when people migrate to America; or Australia, that coming in are talented people. Engineers. Doctors. I'm not so sure that they can be labelled "radicals," even though the idiots in London and Glasgow, this summer, were.

We don't see the counter-revolution. But I'm betting that it's there. And, that the anger against the Wahabbist/Saudi ticket holders is growing.

Even in iran, I'm not so sure the people, themselves, go with the radial imams. And, it's just a matter of time before things "shift."

Just because the Saudis paid for all this crap, doesn't mean they're gonna be successful.

And, yes, Musharraf has to do a tightrope walk.

My guess is that if Musharraf gives up the army, he's all done. He might become a ceremonial president, but that's all. The real question is whom will the army and the ISI support—the Islamists, or Miz Bhutto. The Islamofascists have a way of convincing the ignorant peasantry that they are on God's side, and that's all it may take.

In which case, I sure as hell hope that GWB and Co. have a plan all set to dive in and confiscate all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. If not, they'll be on trucks across Europe and ships across the Atlantic before long.

/Mr Lynn

This is good news. It is important for the future of Pakistan, and for the efforts to contain and liquidate Pakistani jihadism, that pro-democracy and pragmatic political elements be able to unite and prevail in free elections over the reactionary jihadis and radical clerics. Pakistan has been and remains the center of the war on terror... Iraq is not. As much as this will upset many CQ readers, the fact is that political, economic, and cultural efforts are as important if not more important that straight out military efforts in our quest to combat militant, radical Islam. Let's hope that these early indications lead to some tangible progress toward reforming the original Islamic Republic. It is a small but vital step. The tug of war over the future of jihadism in Pakistan, which received official support since Zia's regime, is in the balance. Ending that policy was started under the current dictatorship but a democratic mandate with teh support of the army could make a real difference in bringing that policy to a timely end.

This is not good news. I was discussing Pakistan the other day with someone who was there when Bhutto was in power.

Bhutto, or her family, was so corrupt that those involved in helping the country said they didn't mind some graft but enough was enough.

I wouldn't mind betting that this is being pushed by the ratbags at state or at the very least the British Foreign Office.

This is not good news. I was discussing Pakistan the other day with someone who was there when Bhutto was in power.

Bhutto, or her family, was so corrupt that those involved in helping the country said they didn't mind some graft but enough was enough.

I wouldn't mind betting that this is being pushed by the ratbags at state or at the very least the British Foreign Office.

mrlynn,

Your absolutely correct. As the article states,

'...Gen Musharraf would step down as commander in chief of the country’s armed forces but would be able to retain the presidency.'

'....the pair had decided that presidential elections should be held in September, during the current parliament....'

As for whether or not Pakistan would return to any form of democracy, my personal opinion is that it's about as likely as Catholic's building church’s and a Southern Vatican in Mecca.

Ugh.

davod,

I certainly wouldn't bet against you. As our genius's in Congress just tied Pakistan's aid to American 'benchmarks' which absolutely thrilled the Paki's, Islamabad condemns US bill tying aid to anti-militant efforts, I'd hazard the guess that Mush was aware of this coming, rammed in the stick and just broke-it-off.

Mush, the armed services and the ISI were in large support of the Islamist's, the Taliban, for the very reason that they were strong enough to help keep Bhutto away. Now Congress will be tickled-pink, support Bhutto - who may/may not last very long(I honestly don't have any idea) - give the Paki's their military aid which, in all likelihood, will end-up getting used against us.

He said the pair had decided that presidential elections should be held in September, during the current parliament, and that if Mrs Bhutto’s party won the subsequent parliamentary elections due in November, she would become prime minister.

This looks like a reasonable resolution to the power struggle between Musharraf and Bhutto. I have reservations about Bhutto's insistence on an amendment allowing her to run for a third term though. That seems a little excessive. Why doesn't she just ask for an amendment that will allow a Prime Minister to serve for life (kinda like President For Life Idi Amin)? It would almost serve the same purpose.

I wonder how the rest of parliament feels about this, especially minority members? Will they accept this compromise? Will it help or hurt Bhutto's party?

Also, It looks like there will be two elections, one for the Presidency in September, and one for parliament in November. It will be interesting to see what happens between those to elections.

Here's a interesting hypothetical situation: Bhutto runs for President and wins in September. Her party wins the majority in November. The agreement states that if her party wins the majority of the November elections she would become Prime Minister. Would this mean she would be both President and Prime Minister? Some would consider that a coup.

Is it just me or does anyone else see shades of Jimmy Carter and the Shah of Iran in this one?

Musharraf/Pakistan has been and will be a problem. But this kind of meddling has led to disasterous results before.

dfmjhg kcrfsm jrgzpwqei auxnfl qpecv upyxfrvlh namlgvxfc

dfmjhg kcrfsm jrgzpwqei auxnfl qpecv upyxfrvlh namlgvxfc

dfmjhg kcrfsm jrgzpwqei auxnfl qpecv upyxfrvlh namlgvxfc