3 posts tagged “pervez musharraf”
I just finished reading a Symposium on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at the National Review Online. Those invited to write an analysis about the assassination were Jonathan Foreman, Sumit Ganguly, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Victor Davis Hanson, Mansoor Ijaz, Stanley Kurtz, James S. Robbins, Bill Roggio and Henry Sokolski.
As of this writing there is only guessing who is directly responsible for the assassination from the region of the world in which the Religion of Peace is the dominant religion.
The consensus of the Symposium was really mixed. The mentioned culprits: al Qaeda and allied Islamists, Taliban and allied Islamists, Infiltrating terrorist Islamists in the Pakistan Military, Infiltrating terrorist Islamist in the Pakistan version of a Secret Service, sympathizing Pakistan Secret Service of Islamists itself, Pervez Musharraf and a sympathetic element of the Pakistan military.
The only agreeing link is Islamism, the apparent dominant voice of Mohammedanism of the modern Mohammedan dominated lands.
My guess is that Bhutto caused a temporary alliance of all of the above to cause Bhutto’s death.
Despite a checkered past in past Pakistani politics, her current presence was rallying an opposition that rejected both Islamism and the pro-Western ruling oligarch dictatorship within the Pakistani military. A successful Bhutto would be a huge challenge to the death cult idealism of the Islamist terrorists and a huge challenge to ruling by semi-military fiat by the later.
In essence all Pakistani factions opposing Bhutto’s rise stood to gain with her death.
America is in the uncomfortable Machiavellian position of being forced to choose between two repressive elements in Pakistan: The Pakistan military and Islamist terrorists. Of course it would be global suicide to choose America’s primary enemies thus America will be forced to put its strength behind Musharraf and the military.
I have the impression that Musharraf and the pro-Western elements of the military are becoming more and more unpopular with the Pakistani people. Thus the people that are not happy with Musharraf are being driven to the Islamists even though they may not be Islamists themselves.
This portends a Sunni version of the Shia inspired Iranian Revolution. If an Islamist revolution triumphs over a pro-Western Pakistani military, then Islamists would control Pakistan’s already established nuclear arsenal.
The Shah of Iran overthrown by Khomeini was extremely solid behind America. The Shah even tried to Westernize Iran with a bit of success even though the regime was repressive. The Shah was deserted by a deluded President Carter who felt the end of the Shah would bring democracy to Iran. Oops! Selling out the Shah brought Sharia Law and a repressive regime that made the Shah look like a Western Saint.
Bhutto’s death sets America up for the dreaded repetition of history. Oh yes, a Democratic Party Presidential victory will guarantee handing a nuclear arsenal over to Islamist terrorists just as Carter did in the ‘70’s.
Possible Outcomes of Pakistani Crisis Might Even Change a Democrat’s Mind
Pervez Musharraf has imposed martial law in Pakistan. The official reason is because radical murdering Islamist terrorists are trying to bring their Theo-Political ideology as the rule of law and depose Musharraf.
I am certain there is an element of truth to the official reason; however I am betting the actual reason is elements outside of the military within the regime are trying to depose Musharraf, specifically Pakistan’s version of the Supreme Court.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court was about to rule on the legality of Musharraf’s election as President while retaining his spot as the head of the Pakistani military. The talk was the Court ruling was not going to happen to Musharraf’s benefit.
Although I am certain Musharraf would have used the military to brush off such a judicial ruling it would have angered the people in such a way that rioting might lead to sympathy to the radical Islamists followed by a Khomeini style people’s revolution.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and eight other judges refused to support Musharraf’s “emergency order.” Musharraf’s response was to depose the Chief Justice and rename another to replace him – Abdul Hameed Dogar.
Then there is the position of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who returned to Pakistan recently under a deal with Musharraf to bring back democracy to Pakistan while siding with her families old military enemies to draw the people away from radical Islamism. Bhutto is a secular Socialist Muslim.
Bhutto officially complained about the Martial Law order; however I sense she understands her future in Pakistan will only occur with the military’s support combined with a hoped for elective support from the Pakistani people. Bhutto would be executed summarily if the likes of al Qaeda or the Taliban got their hands on her.
What was America’s official reaction? This from BBC News:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the declaration of emergency rule was "highly regrettable" and called upon Pakistan to have free and fair elections.
In essence the US response was the politically correct response; a deposed Musharraf would be a huge hit on America’s war effort in the Middle East. It would be tough for America to lose an ally in Pakistan which could happen if Musharraf was deposed. There is the possibility that the Pakistan military might simply replace Musharraf with another top dog general and continue the policy of Musharraf under a different military political Administration.
Again though, a deposed Musharraf would pour prestige and allegiance of the Pakistani people to the radical Islamists. This could lead to a similar scenario of a Khomeini style revolution in Pakistan that the military could not stop without outright butchery and genocide.
What is the worst that could happen? O not much, a nuclear armed Wahhabi-Sunni-Taliban-al-Qaeda Islamist nation that hates America. The only plus would be incredible Sunni power probably would end the friendship with Shi’ite Iran who has no doubt been aiding the Waziristan Sunni radicals. I also suspect the old socialists in India will change their minds in rejecting America’s proffered hand of friendship and join in with American against radical Islamists in Pakistan and Iran.
Muslim Pakistan and Hindi India are nearly blood enemies and I suspect India could not stand for Mohammedan nuclear proliferation in the Middle East than America or Europe (although for different reasons).
Thus what Musharraf has done may be reported with media calm of just another dictatorial move in Pakistan; however I suspect the American military and policy strategists are scrambling to develop multiple alternative measures to choose from depending on which way the Pakistani crisis swings.
Well have you heard the latest Islamofascist tiff? Usama bin Laden is calling President Musharraf of Pakistan an infidel thereby reasoning that Pakistan should rise up and revolt against him.
Now here is the thing. I can just imagine all the pro-Arab experts saying I told so, Musharraf’s regime as an ally to America is hanging by a thread and it may collapse placing nuclear arms into Islamofascist hands.
Maybe; however that is a worse case scenario. There is another extreme possibility. The other Arab Kingdoms and Dictatorships fearing a UBL led nuclear armed Wahhabi Pakistan and a nuclear arming radical Twelver Shia Iran might be the card played that may topple their autocratic gigs.
I can see the Saudi’s, Jordanians, the more capitalistic oil Saudi Peninsula Sheikdoms and Egypt (O yes Egypt) taking a cooperative stand against internal Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood factions and weighing in with support for Musharraf.
Again Iraq becomes the wild card. Why? The reason is because of its divided nature of Sunni, Kurd and Shia not piecing together as a hoped for uniform puzzle.
A not much talked about is a still powerful Turkey, the remnant of the last Muslim Empire to terrorize the globe with Mohammedanism.
Turkey figures in because Ataturk’s secular revolution that booted out its last Emperor and terminated the Caliphate will have to choose sides. You would think it would be a no-brainer that Turkey would line up with an American led Arab coalition against Islamofascists; however Turkey has two considerations:
1. The hated Kurds trying to establish an independent nation of the current Northern Iraq.
2. The modern electoral process has placed an Islamist head of government in secular Turkey. If he calls the shots on foreign relations, at best Turkey would stay out the conflict at worst Turkey would help the coalescing Sunni/Shia (i.e. a Wahhabi-Taliban ruled Pakistan if Musharraf cannot hold on and the Twelver Shias of Iran).
To complicate the reading of Turkey’s direction further, the Turkish generals have not hesitated in the past to boot out an elected leader if he did not comply to the beloved Ataturk secular revolution.
You might say a Wahhabi-Taliban terrorist will not get along with an Iranian radical Shia nation because the hatred between the two sects has existed since the assassination of Mohammed’s nephew (and I think son-in-law by marriage). The irony is Iran has been playing the enemy of my enemy is my friend game.
Iran has openly aided al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (even protecting some al Qaeda elites and UBL’s family). Plus Iran has been training Sunni Hamas the official offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.
Here is another chaotic scenario to add: Certainly the Saudi royals will line up with America because the West pays them the money for their oil to make the royals ridiculously wealthy. However a significant amount of the royals and wealthy Saudi elites only give lip service to the Wahhabi dominating school of the Saudi Peninsula by providing money for the Wahhabi leadership. BUT the Saudi government leadership is socially Western outside the borders of Saudi Arabia.
A prince of a Saudi bloodline that has totally conformed to the Wahhabi way may be developed as a usurper of the throne by the typical Mohammedan way of securing power: killing all the rivals to power.
If that scenario was permitted to occur then a huge mess could begin that might last years or seconds depending if a button pushing Islamist finds a nuclear arsenal.
And that is just the intra-regional conflict.
Due to the entire world running on oil; I guarantee China and Russia will decide what benefits their respective national interests and may line up with the Islamists for a trade guarantee of oil for weaponry.
O did I mention that Hindu dominated India is a nuclear power as well. India has been cozy with Russia and contemptuous of China; however I strongly suspect Hindu India will align with the faction (i.e. Western coalition led Arabs) that prevents the hated Muslims from gaining a toe hold on India’s land. There is much bad blood between Hindus and Muslims that actually may make the Jewish/Muslim conflict look like a picnic.
Conquering Mohammedans would slaughter and torture Hindus until they realized it was more profitable to enslave them with humiliation (contrary to their Quran). Thus the Muslim Mughal Empire of Northern India humiliated Hindus until the British came along. That was a long time!
Jews and Christians humiliated for their faith under conquering Muslims; however in the Quran they were named as people of the book. That meant according to the Muslim Scriptures Jews and Christians had three choices of lifestyle after conquest: Conversion to Islam, substandard humiliating no rights as dhimmi paying a jizya tax, or death.
The Hindus are considered polytheists; therefore their only (initial) choices were conversion or death.
Now this has been a very simplistic run down of what the fuse lit by UBL could do calling for a revolution in Pakistan and naming U.S. ally Musharraf an apostate. I am certain someone with more expertise could add to the complexity of developing scenarios in the Middle East and the interconnectedness of a globalized economy; nonetheless I am also certain you get the picture of what is impending. And take note: As the Middle East conflagrates in conflict, who lines up with whom is far from etched in stone. The National Interests of the moment will form the puzzle of who sides with whom in the greater scheme of the clear mutual enemies.
