that was the headline that wrote itself, several days ago. And Wed. I had read this AP article where Bush wants the opposition party (opposition of Musharraf, that is) to allow Musharraf to retain his current position. Well, for some reason, the article didn’t grow legs, until this morning, where Memorandum is picking it up. And it’s just as well, because I just cannot bring myself to discuss the American Idolization of the US Presidency.
The Bush administration is pressing the opposition leaders who defeated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow the former general to retain his position, a move that Western diplomats and U.S. officials say could trigger the very turmoil the United States seeks to avoid.
U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, said this week that they think Musharraf, a longtime U.S. ally, should continue to play a role, despite his party’s rout in parliamentary elections Monday and his unpopularity in the volatile, nuclear-armed nation.
The U.S. is urging the Pakistani political leaders who won the elections to form a new government quickly and not press to reinstate the judges whom Musharraf ousted last year, Western diplomats and U.S. officials said Wednesday. If reinstated, the jurists likely would try to remove Musharraf from office.
The story is interesting for a couple of reasons — we know that Musharraf is Bush’s lap-hound (poodle-boy was reserved for Tony Blair). Even though Musharraf didn’t always bow to Bush’s wishes, we could say that Musharraf was more like a naughty puppy that hasn’t been properly trained, sometimes listening and sometimes digging in the garbage. And this support from Bush validates Musharraf’s lap-dogginess.
The second, more important reason this is interesting, and should be watched is that Bush’s one-fingered salute to the people of Pakistan, could promote civil war in Pakistan.
The people no longer want Musharraf. That was the message from the Pakistani people. And Bush is crossing the line in supporting a tyrannical leader rather than democracy.
The effort to persuade Pakistan’s newly elected parliament not to reinstate the judges could be perceived in Pakistan as a U.S. attempt to keep Musharraf in power after voters overwhelmingly rejected his Pakistan Muslim League-Q political party.
“There is going to be an uprising against the people who were elected” should opposition parties agree to the plan, warned Athar Minallah, the lawyer of ousted Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry , whom Musharraf has under house arrest.
Now, since Bush’s statement, the two opposition parties have created an alliance.
Pakistan’s two biggest opposition parties sought to thrash out their choice for premier Friday after agreeing to form a coalition government that could drive President Pervez Musharraf from power.
And, yes, this alliance could right the wrongs of Musharraf’s rule.
The proposed alliance between the parties brings them nearer the two-thirds majority they would need to seek Musharraf’s impeachment, leaving the US ally in the most precarious position since he seized power in a 1999 coup, analysts say.
Does removing Musharraf automatically mean the new Pakistani government won’t take fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda seriously? Of course not. That’s patently absurd to even suggest. The Pakistani people aren’t stupid and neither are their elected leaders. (note, I specifically said ELECTED leaders). Which leaves us with this remaining question:
Why would Bush support continued turmoil in Pakistan?
