Does Gen. Kiyani Have To Decide Between Corrupt Politicians or Musharraf?

[JK!]

I don't think COAS General Kiani is a CIA stooge.

Its insulting to call him so when he removed the army fully from politics and said you get on with your business and I will get on with the army's.

He has done just that especially when he called 2008 the year of the soldier and made efforts to look after his troops.

 

[fatman17]

You never posted your qualifications man, how literate are you?

This is fantastic all the Generals are literate, you know what fatman we should do what the Germans did make concentration camps and put the illiterate in their because they are illiterate mass extermination, yupee and we wont have them anymore, you sound like those who called the Bangladeshis second class citizens and one day the majority wing left Pakistan, your a shame to this forum what nonsense.

dont worry about my qualifications! the point is that this is the reality and it bites!
as far as me shaming the forum, let the others speak their mind!

i couldnt care less what you say!

 

[araz]

Interceptor.
It is against forum rules to insult a senior member. You will do well to remember that. Fatman is a senior and respected member who deserves respect. Although we do not pull our weight as senior members, and try and interact with all as equals I will not see this forum degraded to the level of other forums where members throw dirt at each other. I think you should apologize to Fatman and bear this in mind when you post slanderous posts against other members.
Mods please take note
Araz

 

[araz]

We cant change the fact that 75 % of our public and the same no of politicians are illiterates(one way or another).However, political process rdemands people being politically savvy. Education and street wisdom are 2 diverse things and I dont think people are not street wise.What we need to do is to let the political process go on. For instance, even in 99 if Musharaf had held polls in 90 days and handed over power, with a stern warning to Gunja , we would have gotten rid of this lot of scum by now and the country would now be on the path to recovery.
People applaud Musharafs role , but I think there were glaring omissions and follies of mammoth proportions. The total capitulation post 9/11 was a stark example. Why does a nuclear nation have to be so spineless? surely we would have ended up doing the US bidding but any politician worth his salt would have gotten a much better deal than what Musharaf got. This has been highlighted by none other than Colin Powell.
So it is not just politicians that make mistakes Army makes mistakes as well. The point is we need to rely on institution building rather than individuals.Army has also had its share of corrupt officials.
Araz

 

[Neo]

You never posted your qualifications man, how literate are you?

This is fantastic all the Generals are literate, you know what fatman we should do what the Germans did make concentration camps and put the illiterate in their because they are illiterate mass extermination, yupee and we wont have them anymore, you sound like those who called the Bangladeshis second class citizens and one day the majority wing left Pakistan, your a shame to this forum what nonsense.

Comon Interceptor, honorable Sir Fatman raised a valid point and I endorsed it that illteracy is a curse. Do you question my qualifications too??

Sir Fatman has an impeccable reputation, one that earned him a respectable place in the Think Tank Group and his views are valueable to this forum.

You have other views and visions about the illiterate mass, you're welcome to share them..but refrain from getting personal or rude, its unacceptable!

Consider this a warning.
Neo

 

[Interceptor]

^^^^

My view has been put in my poets words Habib Jalib. I know those who call others illiterate, in Britain a criminal in jail has the vote even if he is illiterate, James Charles Fox was called a illiterate bagger for democracy, now he is one the worlds most outstanding politicians, because of him there was more schooling institute runned by the states money, I'm illiterate, you know Neo I didn't ask for your qualifications, I was trying to justify the ignorance, to call 75-80-85 percent of the population a nick name illiterate. We are perfect arent we, what dum laws were put by Musharraf you must be BA pass to take part in elections, not even Musharraf passed his BA, not even the UK has such a dracononian law for its parliamentarian.

 

[Interceptor]

This what CoAS Kiyani read when joined the Army,

Army Act.

"I (name), do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law."

If he is loyal,

even the constitution of Pakistan cleary out lines who is in charge.

243. Command of Armed Forces.
(1) The Federal Government shall have control and command of the Armed Forces.

[258A] [(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces shall vest in the President.]

(2) The President shall, subject to law, have power-
(a) to raise and maintain the Military, Naval and Air Forces of Pakistan; and the Reserves of such Forces; [258B] [and]
(b) to grant Commissions in such Forces [258C] [.]
[258D]
[258E] [(3) The President shall, [258F] [in consultation with the Prime Minister], appoint- (a) the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee;
(b) the Chief of the Army Staff;
(c) the Chief of the Naval Staff; and
(d) the Chief of the Air Staff,
and shall also determine their salaries and allowances.]



244. Oath of Armed Forces.
Every member of the Armed Forces shall make oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule.


245. Functions of Armed Forces.
[259] [(1)] The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

[259A] (2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any court.

(3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forces of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245:

Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power.

(4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3) instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting.]

[Chapter 2. Armed Forces] of [Part XII: Miscellaneous]

That should nail the coffin closed for any conspiracy of the Army getting involved.

 

[fatman17]

interceptor
the east is east and west is west, neither the twain shall meet.
you have your view-point, i have mine, lets leave it at that.

 

[fatman17]

Q. what is Democracy?

A. B(U)Y THE DEALS,
FOR THE DEALS.
OF THE DEALS.

there is no mention of the "awam"

 

[batmannow]

Q. what is Democracy?

A. B(U)Y THE DEALS,
FOR THE DEALS.
OF THE DEALS.

there is no mention of the "awam"

Dear fatman17, sir..
I, surly... agree with you sir! but isnt, its a perfect
time for redifining the word "DEMOCRACY". it could have different meanings in different situations.. in different, countries and for different nations.

 

[fatman17]

Dear fatman17, sir..
I, surly... agree with you sir! but isnt, its a perfect
time for redifining the word "DEMOCRACY". it could have different meanings in different situations.. in different, countries and for different nations.

this is the pakistani defination!

 

[fatman17]

This what CoAS Kiyani read when joined the Army,

Army Act.

"I (name), do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law."

If he is loyal,

even the constitution of Pakistan cleary out lines who is in charge.



That should nail the coffin closed for any conspiracy of the Army getting involved.

so did ayub, yayha, zia and musharraf and the hundreds of thousands of army, navy and airforce men and women including me.....so!

 

[dr.umer]

Musharraf was defeated by a failed, corrupt system. This system is unstable and represents family and clan interests. Parties need to be democratized by force, more administrative provinces should be created, and Pakistani nationalism strengthened. This should be a ‘controlled system’ like the American system. No ‘wild cards’ should be allowed, people like Mr. Nawaz Sharif who are ready to burn the house on everyone. Pakistanis need to get busy in making money and not politics. They should be shown how to create wealth and enjoy the good life. Politics is not everything. We will destroy our country because of politics. But the question is: Who will bring this change? Musharraf failed. It can’t happen through elections because politicians won’t allow it. Can the military do it?

By AHMED QURAISHI

Triumph Of A Failed System, Can Kayani Do It?

Saturday, 23 August 2008.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The events of the past six years leave no doubt that Pakistan’s real problem is not democracy or dictatorship. It is a failed political system that discourages the emergence of new leaders, keeps democracy hostage to family and clan interests and perpetuates conflict between power centers at the top. The best proof – if sixty years of domestic political upheaval is not enough – is Mr. Musharraf’s reign itself. He did well on the economy and foreign policy but his downfall resulted from ignoring the real problem: domestic political reform.

Pakistan is often accused of obsession with national security issues. But the last decade proved Pakistan can be a rising economy and a militarily strong country at the same time. Mr. Musharraf’s experience also proves that our politics can destroy within months the hard work of several years of economic rise.

Does this mean democracy is bad for Pakistan? No, it means the instability inherent in the existing political system is bad for Pakistan. To strengthen democracy on permanent basis, the political system will have to be changed eventually. The only question is: who will do it? Can it be done through elections or will it have to be done through extra-constitutional measures, like a military government?

The Pakistani system has transformed into a monster with three heads: the president, the prime minister and the military chief. This is the reality despite all good intentions, and will continue to be. Almost all Pakistani governments eventually see conflict between the three power centers. This would not happen in a stable system. But in our case, decades of alternating civilian and military governments have destabilized the entire system. Political governments are weak because of the inability of political parties to evolve into institutions that create leaders instead of acting as family operations. Military governments may manage to bring some stability but military rulers end up getting busy in their own survival instead of reforming the system. This is not about apportioning blame. This is the system we have today. To let this system continue and hope that it will evolve and improve itself is to ignore a festering wound that is sapping the energies of an otherwise vibrant nation.

At the edge of the second decade of the 21st century, we in Pakistan don’t have the luxury of time. We can’t waste time in trials and errors. A system must be put in place at the earliest, serving the interests of Pakistan and not the interests of western democracy. All political players must be forced to adhere to that system and play within the assigned rules of the game.

Without this, the current instability will continue and will result in incessant bickering and palace intrigues. It provides the perfect opening for interference by outside powers that play sides and create unnatural situations. This instability had allowed outside powers to intervene hastening President Ayub Khan’s downfall in the 1960s, and the renewed instability last year helped a superpower intervene this time around and hasten Mr. Musharraf’s demise. There is no question that the outgoing president attracted some lethal enemies who saw him – and the Pakistani military behind him – as insincere in implementing foreign agendas. There is also no question that Washington and London weakened Mr. Musharraf by supporting his opponents – especially Benazir Bhutto - and indirectly increased pressure on our western regions. A weak political system was the tool that was used to destabilize Pakistan from the inside.

What is the alternative? A strong Pakistani political system is one that should eliminate the prospects of ‘wild cards’. It should be predictable. Political parties should be democratized by force. Educated and ordinary Pakistanis should be able to hold senior party office through a transparent internal ballot. Multiple provinces and local governments should emerge on administrative and not ethnic lines, devolving power and making all politics local. This is the best way to end ethnicity- and religion-based politics. The localization of all politics will help in achieving another important objective: ending the extreme politicization of Pakistani society. We have become too focused on politics at the expense of culture, education and the pursuit of good life. By getting people busy in improving their lives, creating wealth and finding avenues to spend this wealth, Pakistanis can find the stability that has eluded them so far.

What many Pakistanis don’t know is that, in 2000, as the Chief Executive, Gen. Musharraf did commission work on reforming the political system along those lines. However, the events of 9/11 and the subsequent turn of events, especially his decision to partially restore democracy in 2002 as a way of securing his own survival, derailed the reform plan.

Mr. Musharraf’s opponents have a right to celebrate. But let us not forget the other side of the coin. Today we are marking a continuation of the instability of the Pakistani system.

Mr. Musharraf’s resignation was a graceful way of helping Pakistan stabilize. It also shows the triumph of a failed system over one visionary man’s failed attempt at change.

 

[batmannow]

Dear dr.umer sir,
I, would like to thanks to you sir ,for your vital contributions to the fourm. & also , i would like to salute our hounrable senior member fatman17 sir, for his patience of my angerly posted posts.

Today, i was reading daily dawn , and thre was a articale by a very senior columst of pakistan, sir Ardeshir Cowasjee. that was indeed he best artical, i had red scince the departure of MUSHARAF. i would like to post that artical so, here it is!!!

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth

By Ardeshir Cowasjee
August 24, 2008 Sunday Sha'aban 21, 1429
The DAWN

YUSUF Abdullah Haroon, a dexterous man, an elusive friend I have known ever since I can remember, and his charming supportive wife Pasha, came for lunch. We have both seen the ‘leadership’ lot enter and exit, from Mohammad Ali Jinnah all the way down to Gen Pervez Musharraf.
We could hear Musharraf, who we both consider to be the best of the worst lot, blaring away on the television upstairs. We heard him resign — we understood immediately that it was, of course, in the larger national interest of the Republic of Pakistan.
We recalled a meeting back in 1946 when Jinnah visited Karachi, and stayed at Seafield, the old colonial house which Yusuf’s father Abdullah had resurrected in the early 1930s and where the Haroon clan was living and still lives.
Present, sitting on the veranda, were Jinnah, Yusuf, my father Rustom and I (who had tagged along). An assistant broke our talks to announce the arrival of four mullahs led by Maulvi Ehtesham. Why, growled Jinnah who was told that they were calling at ‘the appointed hour’. Then, I must hear them (meaning, I will tell them what I have to).
They had come to request Jinnah to lead the Friday prayers the next day. There was consternation when he politely refused as they had already announced his presence. They pleaded — were he to refuse their honour would be at stake. Jinnah looked around at us, seeking help. None was forthcoming.
All right, he eventually said, I will come. I will not lead the prayers but I will stand in line and pray with you. Satisfied, they left. He turned to Yusuf. You better stand next to me in the sixth row from the front to ensure that I make no wrong move. It was agreed. As we left, my father told Yusuf to be sure not to let the side down. An apprehensive Yusuf promised to rehearse.

Neither Yusuf nor I ‘rejoiced’ at the news that day, nor did we stuff each other’s mouths with ludoos. We have seen too many come and then leave, biting the bullet, victims of power-seekers, in disgrace, sent to the gallows, blown to smithereens, dismissed ignominiously. And we have seen what came after each exit — a steady, dangerous decline in moral probity and in the aptitude to govern and provide the law and order necessary for progress of any kind.
We know the reaction within the country, we know how the nation stands, we know why and how Musharraf has left us — merely because he did not know, like all good generals must know, when it is time to retreat. But how has the world reacted to the political passing of a man who strode the international scene since 2001? A cursory glance at just some of the headlines over editorials and columns gives us a good idea, and provides a fair commentary on how things are likely to pan out.
‘Zardari on the hot seat — corruption allegations still haunt Pakistan’s new power’, ‘Musharraf not the problem, or solution’, ‘India frustrated by a rudderless Pakistan’, ‘Another Bushman down’, ‘Exit the president — the troubled era of Pervez Musharraf comes to an end. New troubles begin’, ‘Musharraf’s mess’, ‘Pakistan is still not safe’, ‘A vacuum in Islamabad’, ‘Celebrations premature’, ‘Pak-style democracy’, ‘Musharraf’s departure creates pivotal moment in terror war’, ‘Zardari-Sharif-Kayani troika pivotal’, ‘Departure will not bring peace’, ‘High cost of vainglory’, ‘Fledgling government needs help now’, ‘Hopes and fears after Musharraf’, ‘Pakistan’s deadly vendetta’, ‘We may yet miss Pervez Musharraf’, ‘Musharraf leaves a fractured Pakistan’, ‘Dream of a secular Pakistan is dead’.
There is a cartoon from the American press floating around in cyber space. It is entitled ‘Disasters around the world’. The first box is labelled Sudan and shows the skeleton of a cow in a desert; then Indonesia and a destructive storm, followed by Chile and an exploding volcano. Myanmar has a tsunami, China its latest terrible earthquake, and lastly, Pakistan. What is our image — a grinning Asif Zardari showing us the two-fingered sign.
Is he the most deadly legacy left to us by default by Musharraf and George W. Bush? But for the tragic event of Dec 27 he would not be with us. His gain and profit from that day’s loss is immense in every way. But perhaps, discounting fate, chance, purpose or design, it is the grossly illegal and unconstitutional National Reconciliation Ordinance that will be the worst thing bequeathed by the Musharraf regime.
In yesterday’s issue of this newspaper, on the opposite page was printed a letter from I. Ahmed under the heading ‘Safe exit’. It deserves the reproduction of certain passages.
“Mr Sharif and his party [are] forgetting that the PML-N, which used to be the PML in those days, supported the most conniving dictator Pakistan has ever seen, i.e. General Ziaul Haq. In fact, if it were not for Zia, nobody in Pakistan would have known the Sharif family as a force today.” Indeed, such is the fact. He goes on to remind us “that the key coalition partners are the ones who benefited from the ‘safe exit’ strategy and indemnity from prosecution through NROs and conditional exile.”
But the crux and thrust of his letter comes at the end: “Looking at the status of the Zardari-Sharif nexus, it seems that before his retirement [General Ashfaq Pervez] Kayani will have to become Musharraf, whether he wants it or not. Hopefully, this time Kayani will not make the same mistake (at the behest of the US and Saudis), one big mistake that Musharraf made, of providing them a safe passage out of the country and not prosecuting them....”
These views are shared by a fair number of the non-rejoicing citizenry who worry about the future of their country and what they are leaving for the generations to come.

It has to be said that Musharraf failed miserably to learn from history. We are luckily well out of the old days of the 1970s when a dictator was a true dictator and an army general was able to finish him off.
When the pious praying Mard-i-Momeen Mard-i-Haq Ziaul Haq overthrew the confident brash dictator Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he initially incarcerated him in Murree. Still bending and bowing, Zia called on him. We saw front-page photographs of a gloating Zia sitting subserviently before the fallen man, the man having just told him that he intended to hang Zia and his generals from the nearest lamp-post. Zia’s eyes depicted his thinking: I will hang you before you hang me.
arfc@cyber.net.pk

 

[batmannow]

News Analysis
After Musharraf, U.S. Struggles to Find New Pakistan Ally Against Taliban

By JANE PERLEZ
Published: August 22, 2008
NYTimes.com
Pakistan Defense Plant Attacked
Back Story With The Times's Jane Perlez
World Briefing | Asia: Pakistan: At Least 6 Die in Attack on Police (August 23, 2008)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Now that Washington’s close friend, President Pervez Musharraf, is gone, the question is this: who among the array of characters in the political firmament here will America turn to in the messy fight against an emboldened Taliban?
Mr. Musharraf, president and army chief for almost all of his nine-year tenure before he resigned Monday under threat of impeachment, served as a convenient one-stop shopping window.
The Bush administration relied on him for military support to suppress the Taliban in the tribal regions, and for intelligence in rounding up people suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda. In the end, it did not reap much of what it wanted. But Mr. Musharraf, the seemingly amenable autocrat, offered Washington a sense of leverage.
With Mr. Musharraf out of power, recent visitors to the United States Embassy here say American officials have been at a loss — one used the word “struggling” — to figure out who America should throw its weight behind.
On Friday, the country’s biggest party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, said it was nominating its leader, Asif Ali Zardari, for president, a post he may end up winning in an electoral college vote scheduled for Sept. 6.

That could make Mr. Zardari America’s default ally, though the next president’s full range of powers, and his commitment and ability to fight the Taliban insurgency, as Washington would like, are far from clear.

In its first four months, the civilian government that Mr. Zardari effectively leads has been immobilized by infighting over whether and how to remove Mr. Musharraf — and now over who should replace him.
So consuming has that battle been, the coalition has paid almost no attention to governing, even as the economy has tumbled and the Taliban have shown mounting grit in their goal of taking over the nuclear-armed state.

Then there are the fights over the Musharraf legacy, the most bitter being whether to restore some 60 judges he dismissed last year.
Nawaz Sharif, chairman of the junior member of the coalition, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, on Friday gave Mr. Zardari until next week to reinstate the judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice.

A resolution would be drafted over the weekend, Mr. Sharif said at a news briefing, and introduced in Parliament on Monday. “After debate,” he said, “it should be passed on Wednesday and judges should be restored.” If not, he threatened to pull out of the government.
The political sniping has heightened jitters among American officials that no one is actually in charge as the Taliban insurgency gains steam. The death toll from the worst of the Taliban’s suicide bombings, outside a munitions factory on Thursday, rose to 78, officials said, with 103 wounded.
What is more, doubts are growing among American officials over the level of cooperation they can expect from the new army chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a former head of intelligence who took over the post from Mr. Musharraf last November.
After glowing initial reviews by the Americans, General Kayani has appeared less interested in how to deal with the Taliban than with the sagging morale of his undertrained, underequipped troops.
“In my view they won’t do aggressive counterinsurgency because they can’t,” said Christine Fair, senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, of the Pakistani Army.
In the post-Musharraf era, she said, the army wants to concentrate on rehabilitating its morale and reputation, which were sullied by Mr. Musharraf’s unpopular political decisions. “This means they are less likely to cooperate, not more,” she added. “Right now, they care about what’s in their own institution’s interests.”
That does not include getting their noses bloodied in a fight with the Taliban. But more important, perhaps, over the longer term, the Taliban remain an important tool for Pakistan to influence events over the border if the Americans leave Afghanistan, as they did after the departure of the Soviets, she said.
Meanwhile, the trio of civilian leaders — Mr. Zardari; Mr. Sharif, and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani — are all less than ideal to become the go-to figure for the United States in Pakistan.

Mr. Gilani, a novice front man plucked out of obscurity by Mr. Zardari to be prime minister, made a poor public impression on his first visit to Washington last month, and was not much better behind the scenes, officials said.

At a gathering of the Council on Foreign Relations, he stumbled through basic questions about the Pakistan-United States relationship from a knowledgeable crowd of experts.

In private meetings with the Bush administration, according to an official who attended, Mr. Gilani could offer only a simple mantra for defeating the Taliban: “Let’s work together.
Mr. Sharif enjoyed a good relationship with President Clinton when he was prime minister in the 1990s, but the former prime minister is regarded warily by Washington policy makers as being too close to conservative Islamic forces in Pakistan.
The fact that Mr. Sharif is riding a tide of popularity because of his staunch anti-Musharraf stance does not impress the Bush administration, said Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
To the surprise of many here, the civilian with the trump card, then, may be Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, who took up the mantle of her party after she was assassinated in December.
Mr. Zardari did not run for election, and lacks ample experience in government, but he manages the largest bloc in Parliament from behind the scenes. He is the power behind Mr. Gilani, making day-to-day decisions over government policy and appointments to senior positions that have included friends who have spent time in jail on corruption charges.
Mr. Zardari spent more than eight years in jail on corruption charges, but he was never convicted and says they amounted to a vendetta by his political enemies.
The charges were dropped, finally, as part of an amnesty accord with Mr. Musharraf when he and Ms. Bhutto returned to Pakistan.
That background makes Mr. Zardari a divisive figure in Pakistani politics, even as he moves steadily toward sewing up the presidency. But after Mr. Gilani’s weak performance in Washington, Bush administration officials may be tilting toward Mr. Zardari as their likely alternative ally.

As president, he could end up being one of the most powerful figures Pakistan has ever seen. He would no doubt continue to effectively control the prime minister.
The big question is whether as president he would hold the ultimate power that Mr. Musharraf enjoyed:
the ability under a constitutional amendment to dissolve the Parliament. The coalition has pledged to abolish that provision.

But if Mr. Zardari manages to keep that power, the United States could be back to its one-stop shopping window, though with a different character behind the counter.