AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Musharraf's government was already crumbling on account of internal strife, (primarily the CJ issue) the US had nothing to do with that. Supporting BB (the only other serious contender in the Pakistani democratic process) in light of the impending implosion of the Musharraf government was the most responsible thing to do. I don't think either her untimely assassination or Zardari's accidental ascent to power was expected, and the US certainly didn't play a role in any of that. Favoring BB or rigging elections would have been worthy of censure; but that clearly wasn't the case.
You can't fault the US for supporting a democratic process in Pakistan when that is what most of its people seemed to desire at the time; and the fact that the current dictator general had managed to shoot himself in the foot. The problem isn't American support, but rather a qualitatively poor cohort of leaders and a disheveled political establishment that hasn't been able to sustain itself for a very, very long time.
In order to support BB her sins had to be white washed - that is essentially the root of the problem, since it perpetuated the internal Pakistani tensions over the judiciary. What the US did by pushing BB was to merely extend Musharraf's mistakes on the judiciary. BB would be in the same position as Zardari now, since allowing the judiciary to be restored would be just as much of an anathema to her.
What the US should have done was to engage with the political parties, and not individuals. The political parties would have had to decide whether both the Sharifs and Bhutto's should be given a clean state, and given that unlikelihood of any side winning a large enough majority to ramrod through a one sided proposal, a compromise would have been made.