Pervez Musharraf Declares Emergency in Pakistan

BB is dead right when she says that the mullah take over is on cards.
The ISI and the jehadi corp commanders are plotting the take over. Musharaff is under grave threat. He could be assasinated any time.
US MUST get hands at the nukes before they fall in the hands of Jehadi corp commanders who are going to coup with the support of MMA mullahs.
It is not only Pakistan , bu the entire world whose security is at stake from Islamists.
US must deploy troops along Pakistan and get the game plan in order before the nukes fall in the hands of the ISI Jehadi corp commanders.
With Paki nukes in hand, the mullahs can black mail US and the entire world for ever.

#105 Posted by bubba,

What's this got to do with 'faith wars' yaar? The Supreme Court and the media weren't fighting any faith wars while this coup is solely to tame those two institutions, and NOT the Jihadis whom this admin was fighting anyway. Martial-Law will not change anything in that respect.

I suggest you read musharraf's speech of last night to see who his beef is with.

Re: # 105

Mian Bubba,

The entire world is under a war and a Fatwa declared by the mullah Islam.
Pakistan is embroiled because the immediate object of hatred for mullah Islam are the munafiqoons.They are the closest in physical proximity and hence are the immediate target.
Musharaff and the rest of munafiqoons are going to face the sword of hate first.
We idolators know that ultimately we are going to some day confront this cult of hate up front.
So, the "munafiqoons" like musharaff are our first line of defence. That is why we support the "munafiqoons" as a strategy because their success in controlling this cult of hatred guarantees our future survival from this fascistic ideology of Islam.

#106 Posted by bjkumar,

Good article. I read it on WSJ.

Particularly following para is right on the dot:

The Bush administration must now start "from the premise that he's gone, whether the people chuck him out or the military chucks him out," said Xenia Dormandy, who until last year was the National Security Council's director for South Asia. "I would be very surprised if he lasts even six months."

Is this the beginning of the end of the (limited) US leverage over Pakistan?

As Crisis Deepens, White House Endures Diminished Power to Influence Events

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 4, 2007; A01

In August, a 2 a.m. phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped pull Gen. Pervez Musharraf from the brink of declaring a state of emergency in Pakistan. Two days ago, Rice made a similar plea. This time, the Pakistani president was not swayed.

Musharraf's decision to suspend his nation's constitution and declare emergency rule yesterday poses a sharp setback for U.S. efforts to push Pakistan toward democracy, and it calls into question President Bush's unstinting support for Musharraf despite the general's growing unpopularity and inability to counter hard-line militants, analysts said.

The United States now finds itself with few good options and dwindling power to influence events in the nuclear-armed state, particularly because experts believe Musharraf's actions may have ensured his demise as a national leader. The Bush administration has given Pakistan $10 billion in aid since 2001 -- much of it military assistance -- and U.S. officials had warned that Congress may balk at continuing aid if emergency powers were invoked. But some analysts cautioned that if the United States is perceived as withdrawing support for Musharraf, it may increase the risk of a civil war and the shattering of Pakistan.

Rice, who called Musharraf on Friday and warned him against taking this step, said yesterday that Musharraf's actions are "highly regrettable," telling reporters traveling with her that "the United States has made clear it does not support extra-constitutional measures, because those measures would take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule."

U.S. officials appeared taken aback by Musharraf's move but quickly shifted yesterday from expressions of dismay to resignation, insisting that any "extra-constitutional measures" be brief. There was no suggestion of immediate cuts in aid, and Rice indicated that she had told Musharraf that, even if he imposed emergency rule, he nonetheless should move quickly to elections.

The Bush administration must now start "from the premise that he's gone, whether the people chuck him out or the military chucks him out," said Xenia Dormandy, who until last year was the National Security Council's director for South Asia. "I would be very surprised if he lasts even six months."

Dormandy faulted the Bush administration for sending "mixed messages" to Musharraf in recent months, allowing him to believe he could weather the fallout from a declaration of emergency powers. She emphasized the State Department's statement yesterday that the United States stands "with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism," and noted that it did not mention support for Musharraf.

"The train is derailed and off the tracks," said Stephen P. Cohen, author of "The Idea of Pakistan." "We have to give ourselves a share of the responsibility for this. We placed all of our chips on Musharraf."

At this point, Cohen added: "I don't think there is anything we can do. We are not big players in this anymore."

Bush has long been a firm supporter of Musharraf, believing he was a "strong partner" in the fight against terrorism who put his life at risk after he dramatically switched sides and opposed the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Musharraf's democratic credentials have been less than ideal for an administration that publicly champions the cause of freedom. He seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and has never fulfilled a pledge to give up his position as army chief while serving as president. But the administration rarely challenged him openly to support more rapid democratization.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said Musharraf's action requires the United States "to move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy," building "a new relationship with the Pakistani people, with more nonmilitary aid, sustained over a long period of time, so that the moderate majority in Pakistan has a chance to succeed."

Even on countering terrorism, Musharraf has proven to be a disappointment. Despite years of effort, only a handful of top al-Qaeda figures have been captured in the unruly border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Negotiated settlements Musharraf reached last year with armed Islamic groups and tribal leaders in North and South Waziristan, in which he pledged to pull back troops from the border areas if the tribes kept al-Qaeda and foreign fighters out, turned into a bad bet that instead allowed insurgents to gather strength and to begin challenging the government in other parts of the country.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called Musharraf's declaration "unfortunate" but said "close coordination with the Pakistani military on operations continues."

The administration continued to back Musharraf, even as he began to hint at invoking emergency powers after a confrontation with Pakistan's Supreme Court. In August, during a late-night phone call, Rice managed to deter the Pakistani president from suspending the constitution. In the intervening weeks, the United States, along with Britain, worked out a deal that allowed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, to return to Pakistan last month for the first time in eight years. Under the arrangement, Musharraf was to remain president, but Bhutto could take part in parliamentary elections planned for early next year. But the U.S. efforts to support opposition parties came too late, experts said.

"The coup in Pakistan is a body blow to the administration's efforts to arrange a shotgun marriage between Musharraf and Bhutto that would have given the appearance of a broadening of Pakistani politics," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center. "Instead of a more democratic Pakistan, we will have a more authoritarian Pakistan. Instead of a more stable Pakistan fighting al-Qaeda, we will have a military regime fighting for its survival."

A number of Pakistan experts said the situation is too fluid for predictions. "I don't know what's going to happen," Cohen said. "I don't think any Pakistan expert knows what will happen even tomorrow."

Rice was in Istanbul, Turkey, attending an international conference on Iraq when her attention was shifted to the upheaval in Pakistan. One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. "Thank heavens for small favors," the official said. Compared to Pakistan, "Iraq looks pretty good."

Re: # 100 Posted by laddu on November 3, 2007 9:41:00 pm

[- Iran would be the next.] And the whole world could only imagine of what comes next. Any idea?

Re: #103 Posted by zeemax on November 3, 2007 9:48:31 pm

[And amidst all the destruction and chaos in the region, bharat will sit pretty - right?] Of course not. Bharat will have her hands full trying to figure out toilets for her population.

me personally think that faith wars are here to stay for a long time, and that region is just too explosive.

Re: # 102

Mian , remember we idolators are merciful and instead of killing men we used smaller "Kirpan" to cut your covenant with that blood thirsty moon god.
We cut your covenant and deliver it to your haram so that the women folk rejoice out of freedom from that piece of nasty flesh that is used to impose slavery upon them.
Remember , even till date every sikh carries a kirpan that comes handy to cut that covenant.

#101 Posted by bubba,

And amidst all the destruction and chaos in the region, bharat will sit pretty - right?

#100 Posted by laddu,

Laddu Mian, have you arranged for a head donor yet? You might need one :)

me personally think this war is beyond this regime's grasp. regime is a gonner, west punjab will lose. pashtoons are not alone and small in numbers like baluchis. the two will be killer for punjabi army, plus the east punjab sikhs have already schemes to get all of punjab. unless pak army plays the shia army card against the sunni pushtoons. nobody likes pakistan disintegration, us to send centcom to control nuclear assets. hence iran gets surrounded, and all those 29 spots of iran nuclear sites are easy targets for some bombing. only spot in total control for center is the mafiasos hangout of Karachi.

Re: # 99

The game is already set.
The fight is between the Islamists, the so called 'moderate' supporters of these Islamists in west and Pakistan and the rest of guys who love their razors and merlots.
The battle is between the resurgent cult of hatred embodied by the likes of Fazloo, Moududi, JI and the latest political wing called MMA versus the rest of the munafiqoons, kafirs and idolators.
The battle is between those who consider their Islam to be the purest and the best and those consider that the Prophet was only a charlatan and there is true knowledge and understanding of the universe beyond that stupid Bedouin's book.
The battle is indeed for the terror cult of Islam in the heart of Pakistan. The war on terror has reached the last end game in the doors of Pakistan. Once the battle is won - Iran would be the next.

#98 Posted by bubba,

So what's gonna happen you think?

Frankly, I don't know. These situations have their own dynamics and these may take any shape.

Re: # 96 Posted by zeemax on November 3, 2007 9:02:55 pm

[I don't think we will see Pakistan in its present form by the end of this particular episode.]

So what's gonna happen you think? Pakistan implodes? Is West Punjab waiting to join East Punjab? The actual war on terror: will it be fought in Punjab, between east and west punjabis or between the Pushtoons and the Punjabis?

Re: # 18

"unless you somehow kill all of us--which isn't gonna happen either because even if you kill us we still win! we're in a win-win situation!"

Hi wolfy, we do not believe in killing men - we only want the cult of hatred to be removed from the heart of Pakistan.
Even now Musharaff has admitted that "Terrorism (== Islam) has entered the heart of Pakistan"
Unless and until the hatred embodied in mullah Islam is replaced by some Pir Baba cult of "munafiqoons" there is no hope for Pakistan.

It is Martial-Law and not Emergency.

Emergency is constitutional and proclaimed by the President, but this order is issued by Musharraf in his Army Chief's capacity and not as President. Further, the order suspends the constitution in the first place so how can it be issued under it? It also gives powers to the army chief to 'amend' the constitution, so constitution of 1973 is as good as abrogated.

Terming it as 'emergency' is classic 'Mind Fcking' and an insult to intelligence of people.

This is the last nail in the coffin of status-quo. I don't think we will see Pakistan in its present form by the end of this particular episode.

... contd #94

Oh wait a sec. I just noticed Bilal Musharraf does not have to say 'He had no choice' this time around. MQM has said it for him:

"People should understand the reasons behind the necessity of imposition of emergency"

(Altaf Hussain speaking from London)