Pervez Musharaff resigned today after feeling the heat from impeachment charges ( Who knew Pakistan had more courage than our Congress ).

Musharaf being the selfish man I knew he was stated that....... The honor and dignity of the Country would be affected in his view..

Officials stated that Musharaff had sought immunity from prosecution ( I guess he could do like our President and excuse himself ).

In my oppinion this man was a fraud from day one and he used the excuse of the war on terror to crack down on his enemies ( Because he won't touch Al Queda that is within his borders ). We knew he was a crook but when you're desperate for allies you'll use anybody.

I also believe that he was responsible for the death of Benazir Bhutto, in which he blamed the terrorist.

Hopefully Pakistan can also put their dark chapter behind them also, just as we ( The U.S.) will this coming election.

For further info, check this out..... http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080807/NEWS-PAKISTAN-POLITICS-DC/

I said this in some other threads about Pakistan but will repeat it here. When Mushareff leaves Pakistan, Pakistan will start its total collapse. I will be surprised if Pakistan still has a functional central government two years from the day Mushareff relinquishes all power. If he sticks around and pulls strings from behind the curtain, he might buy Pakistan another year. If he is forced to leave Pakistan, either as an explicit exile or to avoid arrest, I suspect the breakdown will come even faster. The only thing likely to prevent that breakdown is yet another military coup in Pakistan. However, the Army is increasingly subject to ISI control and the ISI is increasingly riddled with Islamic extremists and those sympathetic to the viewpoint of those extremists. Such a coup, with the increased influence of the ISI, is rather likely to result in sharply increased Pakistani conflict with India over the Kashmir region and even greater resurgence of the Taliban-Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as old ties with the ISI come into the open again. The US is likely to need significant build ups in Afghanistan to retain its position, the Pakistanis are likely to cut cooperation with the US (even more blatantly than they have already done), India and Pakistan are liekly to move into open warfare. In such a conflict, the US is almost certain to side with the Indians.

Mushareff's departure is not a good thing for Pakistan, the region, or the United States.

Honestly LM, do you believe that if Musharaf goes Pakistan will collapse? In my oppinion, I don't believe Pakistan will collapse, I think they will become more like Turkey , but that's just my oppinion.

Lawmage seems to think dictators who support the USA are better that democratic elected leaders who may not be so pro American. How has this help the USA in South America.If you want to export democracy to the rest of the world you will have to accept the results.

nothing will chamge only poor nation suffered , are suffering and will suffer.

Aus, of course I think dictators who support the US are better than democratically elected governments who oppose it. I am an American and I have America's interests in mind. I know, I know, it is currently fashionable, at least among the American left and among all non-Americans, to oppose American interests everywhere in the world no matter how slight they might be. You are merely a victim of fashion, Aus.

Here is the thing, Aus. I do not think America has much strategic interest in Pakistan (beyond its status as a hotbed of terrorist recruiting and training) and consequently I do not care all that much Pakistan. I was simply offering observations as to the probably future of Pakistan absent Mushareff. Honestly, Aus, I see nothing inherently sacred in democracy. It is merely one among many systems of governmental organization that works reasonably well most of the time. Democracy is, as has been said before, not a suicide pact. If the democratic process results in a government unwilling or unable to preserve the unity and stability of the nation then it is foolishness to allow the results of the process to stand. Do you mean to suggest democracy means all should follow like lemmings in a suicidal dash from some high cliff? I personally think the democratic process in Pakistan has been subverted and is not working in the county's long term interests. As a result, the democraticly elected government of Pakistan is likely going to preside over the collapse of the country.

SPM, Pakistan is rather unlikely to follow the Turkish model. It is however rather interesting that you think so. It exposes your continued historical and political ignorance. Were you aware that Turkey is subject to repeated military coups designed to remove democraticly elected governments when they veer too far into radical religiosity? Were you aware the Turkish military views itself as the protector of Turkish secularism and rather clearly indicates it believes it has not only the right but the duty to remove those governments and "reset" as it were the democratic process? Were you aware Turkey has a rather extreme policy of quashing ethnic dissent and imposing "Tuskishness" on all citizens? If Pakistan actually followed the Turkish model, as you seem to think it will, Mushareff would still be in power, still be Chief of Staff of the Army, and the democraticly elected government would be in jail or exile.

I think what Aus is getting at, Law, is that this administration wants to "spread democracy" -- as long as the leaders who are democratically elected in those countries favor the USA.

That isn't really "spreading democracy" of course, it is spreading one's best interest.

Nothing wrong with that, I just wish they wouldn't couch it in patriotic terms like "democracy" when what they mean is getting their own people in place by "democratic" elections.

It doesn't surprise me, but I do want them to be up front about what they're doing, a desire I have long since realized will never come to pass with this gang currently in power.

Lets not drift into yet another Bush Bashing thread, Dax. WHat the current US administration says about democracy is not relevant to a discussion of Pakistan's fate absent Mushareff.

To be candid, democracy is probably NOT the best form of government for Pakistan. It has a problem with Islamic extremists who will distort the democratic process to impose their world view on the rest of the country. It has a problem with fractious ethnic minorities who do not desire to be a part of Pakistan. It has problems with a military and intelligence apparatus that foments foreign conflict. Pakistan needs strong leaders with a certain amount of freedom of action, the sort of freedom of action not available in a democratic system. Either that or Pakistan needs to accept its fate is dissolution and Islamic radicalism a la Afghanistan under the Taliban. Given Pakistan's complicity in creating and empowering the Taliban such a fate might be ironic but it is not something we ought to encourage...even passively. Our goals in the region really ought not revolve around the spread of democracy but rather around the spread of stability and general rule of law.

Meanwhile, back at the front in the War on Terror:


So the Taliban now have an open door to replace Afghanistan with Pakistan as their state sponsor. Won't that be peachy. But at least that should please all those who have been so upset that the U.S. might be friendly toward a "strong man."

The India-Pakistan hostility bears watching. I think it was said in a message here that if Pakistan gets belligerent with India, and India responds, a conflict is in the offing.

Since both of these countries have nukes, the outcome of such a conflict will be interesting, to say the least.

Pakistan, our former apparent ally, may become our enemy. I'm not familiar enough with the current Pakistan-India situation to discuss it further, but perhaps Lawmage, or someone else who knows, will.