Musharraf: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death ( Shi’ra Law )
Musharraf has suspended the Constitution of Pakistan in order to establish military law this week. Was this due to a rise in the power of the Taliban? No. Increases in al-Quaeda sponsored bombings in Islamabad? No. The biggest threat to President Musharraf has come from the Pakistani Chief Supreme Count Justice who has been weak on anti radical islamic policy and is challenging Musharuff’s running for another term as President during an election. Musharuff has wide support, but not having his party on the ballot would give a big edge to Islamic Fundamentalists in the country. Apparently feeling that he had no recourse, President Musharraf has decided to enact emergency measures in an attempt to bring stability back to Islamabad and quell the radical islamic uprising in the streets led Taliban sympathizers. In order to do this he was forced to “suspend the Consititution of Pakistan”. An action that is not going over well within the U.S. State Department.
Hot Air:
We didn’t blog much about it but the biggest blow to Musharraf’s authority this year didn’t come from the Taliban, it came from his political standoff with the country’s chief justice, whom he dismissed on an apparently trumped-up corruption charge in an earlier bid to intimidate the Court — and saw it blow up in his face when mass protests were held and the Court reinstated the chief justice. I thought between that, the return of Benazir Bhutto from exile, and the disaffection within the Pakistani army at the campaign against the Taliban that Musharraf would have to keep his nose clean from now on. Instead he’s doubled down. And since he’s relying entirely now on the military for his authority, he’ll have to address that disaffection by scaling back the campaign in the tribal areas. Which means we might as well finally turn off the tap of that military funding that’s brought us jack squat for the past 4-5 years. — [Hat Tip: HotAir]
Reuters:
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan’s government is committed to holding national elections but is undecided when, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said on Sunday, a day after it imposed emergency rule to deal with rising militancy and a hostile judiciary.
Pakistan had been due to hold a general election by January, but military ruler President Pervez Musharraf’s decision to impose emergency rule and suspend the constitution has left Pakistan in limbo and drawn criticism from the international community.
Captain’s Quarters:
“The West will not find this to their liking. They had pressed Musharraf to cut a deal with Benazir Bhutto to transition back to democratic processes, hoping that the deal would give them both a stronger political position and marginalize the Islamists. The radicals have their own agenda, however, and have worked to destabilize the political situation before the alliance between Bhutto and Musharraf could have any effect.”
This does not bode well and we have to wonder just what specific position the Democratic Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton in particular, will be taking after they are done bashing Bush as the cause of this. Will they support President Musharruf in his declaration of Marshall Law to preempt a change in power? Or will they indirectly be supporting the conversion of Pakistan to yet another Islamic State rulled by the Mullah’s (with a Nuke) which is the risk if Musharruf or Bhuto loose control of the Pakistani military?
What a potential prize for radical Islam! A state with nukes already at their disposal! The new end game in Pakistan, a much bigger prize for al-Quaeda than Iraq, may have them conceding Iraq to the U.S. and refocusing themselves to win the NEW WAR that’s brewing in Pakistan. Will Uncle Sam now begin to re-deploy more heavily on the Afghan front to stay close to this situation now that it appears that the surge has taken hold and Osama himself seems to be admitting defeat in Iraq? How will this turn of events change the rhetoric in the political discussion in the U.S.? Anyone taking any bets?
Share This
You can follow any discussion by checking the eMail notification box below the grey comment area or by linking our RSS 2.0 comment feed. Trackbacks and Pingbacks have been turned off because of spamming morons. -- Thanks -- ZZ N&S Staff
|
Permalink URL: http://zardozz.com/zz/2007/11/musharraf-give-me-liberty-or-give-you-shaira-law.html |
Loading ...
on Sunday - Nov 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am scotty777 wrote:
Interesting article. It may actually pan out that way if things come unglued in Pakistan. Al Qaeda and Taliban will try and seize on the opportunity to promote Islamo-fascist leaders to take control of the government. It just seems like it just a matter of time before we have a thermo nuclear “accident” somewhere on the planet within our lifetimes unless these radical forces are stopped in their tracks, madrases preaching death and destruction to Israel and the U.S. are eradicated. and the U.S. develops a strong coalition with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the former “Soviet - stans” in the Region. To help establish Democracy and not Theocracy as the form of government in these countries. Organized Religion (man made religion not spiritual religion) is turning out to be the bane of civilization. We never did learn the difference between the two even after 2000 years.
on Sunday - Nov 4th, 2007 at 11:55 am zzb wrote:
Very insightful Scotty. One might ask. Aren’t all religions “man made”? I get the sense of what you are saying. There can be a corruption of the spirituality that is a personal part of any religion that becomes transformed formed by “man” for the purposes of emassing power and control. That is a perversion of religion in all it’s forms and has been a problem for mankind since the Dark Ages right up into the present.
Radial Christians who commit acts of murder in the name of Jesus - to foster their own beliefs - fall into the same camp of a religion “hijacked”. It’s a complicated subject rooted in anthropology and sociology that is ofter difficult to unravel. — Thanks for your comment — ZZ
on Sunday - Nov 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm Mark Kraft wrote:
Martial law won’t stabilize Pakistan. Rather, it will lead to tyranny and a radicalization of the Pakistani opposition, as all legitimate democratic systems that could oppose Musharraf have now been outlawed.
A look at the history of Middle East makes it clear — corrupt military governments that deny their people legitimate means of self-determination give rise to armed, radical Islamist uprisings,which are seen as popular reformers by a public demanding an end to corruption and state violence and repression. That’s what led to the Taleban uprising against the corrupt warlords of Afghanistan, and the Iranian revolution against the U.S. supported Shah of Iran.
If Pakistan’s Supreme Court decided that Musharraf could not legally run for office, all hell would not break loose. Rather, one of Pakistan’s two prior leaders would be elected to office. The one prior to Musharraf’s coup was actually a legitimately elected leader who wasn’t transparently stealing from the state, like Bhutto did.
It’s time that U.S. foriegn policy started thinking about what’s best for the people of Pakistan and their longterm democratic government, as opposed to maintaining a dysfunctional alliance with a dictator. Isn’t that how we got into a mess with Saddam in the first place?
In response to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of martial law and illegal dismissal of a Pakistani Supreme Court Justice, I am encouraging all bloggers out there who want true democratic rule for Pakistan’s 165 million people to unite in opposition.
From now on, I am asking bloggers to consistantly refer to Musharraf as “Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf” consistantly linking back to a post I made explaining this idea in greater detail.
The post allows threaded comments, so that those opposed to Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf can start discussing ways that we can organize and unite in opposition to his dictatorial actions.
My hope is that a consistant message of opposition to martial law and support for democracy in Pakistan can help to influence the media away from legitimizing the Musharraf regime by referring to him as a President. By definition, he cannot be a President if he refuses the right for his government’s Supreme Court to decide whether his running for office is legal or not.
Please drop by the post, leave a comment as to what ideas you have on how we can best unite in opposition to martial law, and please do consider using the phrase “Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf”, linking back to the post.
Thanks,
Mark Kraft
on Sunday - Nov 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pm zzb wrote:
Thanks Mark for rounding out the perspective and discussion. War makes for some strange bedfellows. Clearly the Musharruf regime is closer to a dictatorship and becoming “Chavez like” as time goes by. One does have to wonder about these counter balancing forces and it is not indirectly an indictment of the FAILURE of the world community to unite to promote freedom and liberty. His actions yesterday clearly seem out of desperation which is ominous in itself !!
on Sunday - Nov 4th, 2007 at 10:33 pm Blue Star Chronicles wrote:
Trouble in Pakistan…
The situation in Pakistan is very unsettling. President Pervez Musharraf is caught between a rock and a hard place and is holding onto power by the end of his fingernails….