What's new

Musharraf tells why he wants another five years

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Sunday, March 11, 2007

Musharraf tells why he wants another five years

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: President Gen Pervez Musharraf told a US-based South Asia expert that he intended to stay in office for another five years in order to roll back religious extremism, ensure political stability and sustain economic growth.

In an interview given earlier this year, but printed on Friday, to Stratfor writer and expert Kamran Asghar Bokhari, the Pakistani military leader described the upcoming legislative polls as a pivotal contest between extremist and moderate forces. He said he wanted to see those who supported moderation prevailing at the federal and provincial levels. He stressed that a key concern was preventing the Talibanisation of his country, especially the Pashtun areas along the Afghan border.

Though he acknowledged that the Afghan Taliban were receiving support from within Pakistan, he strongly denied allegations that the country’s intelligence agency and other state institutions were aiding the Pashtun jihadist movement. He argued that it would be “ridiculous” for his government to support such forces when his goal was to transform Pakistan into a regional energy and trade corridor, which required a stable Afghanistan.

President Musharraf admitted that there were no quick solutions to the problem of Islamist extremism, but offered some insights on the efforts of his government towards tackling the menace of religious radicalism. He emphasised the need to deal with the issue politically, which would complement ongoing military operations.

Bokhari wrote that the unprecedented wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan and conversations with Gen Musharraf as well as other senior military and political leaders had suggested to him that Islamabad had finally decided that it could no longer afford to avoid confronting Islamist radicalism. “It appears that the Pakistani military is in the initial stages of revising its historical relations with the mullahs. Whether this process can reach fruition remains to be seen,” he added.

According to Bokhari, “In his eighth year of rule, Musharraf remains very much secure in his position; no domestic political force has been able to oust him from power. However, Musharraf does face a grave situation regarding militant Islamists who not only utilise Pakistani soil to stage attacks in other countries, but also have begun to strike within Pakistan. The terrorism problem in Pakistan coupled with international counter-terrorism efforts could create a dynamic that could be exploited by Musharraf’s political opponents, especially since he faces a controversial re-election bid this year, which will be followed by parliamentary polls.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\11\story_11-3-2007_pg7_1
 
.
ah!!!!!!!!! why am I not surprised.

Neo

This is why I have problem with economic indicators, cuz this man has an agenda, if he looses power it is most likely the firing squad for him,
 
.
I'd say if he can deliver the job, why not!
He has my vote!

But it would be better for Pakistan to go for a new face, a civilian.
 
. .
I'd say if he can deliver the job, why not!
He has my vote!

But it would be better for Pakistan to go for a new face, a civilian.

Actually i agree, Mushraff is better for India and US, rather than someone, who has to really look into vote-bank politics. Americans will bank roll Mushy as they did with gen zia
I have been follwing the Chief Justice Removal very very closely, Mushraff is destroying the very structures which hold Pakistan as a country, for his personal survival.
 
.
Imran Khan is not a bad option.

I have heard conflicting views on that, But then again i read all that in You Know What Forum. I like him, he maybe good. But isnt he really a small political entity
 
. . . . .
Explain please.

Dictator :dic·ta·tor (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.
1.
a. An absolute ruler.
b. A tyrant; a despot.
2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
3. One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.
 
. .
If you think this is a kindergarten then you are wrong.

Please tell me, assuming that Mushraff does something wrong, How will you proscute him, Does he have any checks or balances or even have consequences to his actions, Where and when did he get elected by the people. How can the Pakistani People tell him to step down, if they wanted him to, tommrow. They cant.
The Fundamentals of The constitution of Pakistan is being tampered with, The Chief Justice of Pakistan is not answerable to President or the Prime Minister, but only to the council of Judges. The Man wears Chief Of Army Staff, as well as the President of Pakistan. How many brilliant men must have been sidelined for the that coveted post, to a guy who is just a media boy.

We all can harp how great Mushraff is, Trust me He is the best thing that has happened to India. We have the US which has moreover complete control over of Pakistan, playing Pakistan to India's interest so they can get closer to the next economic powerhouse as well as be their Regional Player against China. Is it so hard for you guys to see it.
 
.
Main problem with military strong men is that they don't have an exit strategy. Ayub Khan was forced out. Yahya Khan had no choice because of the defeat. Zia-ul-Haq was killed. No one can deny that Pakistan has seen better economic progress during the rule by strong men than during the elected leaders. Some, such as ZA Bhutto, actually pushed the economy back 30 years thru nationalization.

This is also true that elected governments in Pakistan; if strong such ZAB and Nawaz Sharif ( second term) behave worse than dictators and tolerate no criticism or opposition. 7 ammendments by ZAB and 14th ammendment by NS ( with an attempt for the 15th) are a testament to this.

If weak, such as BB, are willing to compromise at every thing to stay in power. For example BB had Tariq Azam of SSP as one of the coalition ministers. ( Not to speak of Mr 10 prercent, her erstwhile husband, who thought that a cut in all Govt contract was his Right).

What Pakistanis have to decide is whether they would prefer a strong man such as Musharraf or a weak BB at their helm. For all practical purposes, there doesnt appear to be another choice. I am counting out NS because Muslim League vote is split and it is highly unlikely that Nawaz Sharif League has enough of a vote bank to win an election. I had high hopes of Imran Khan however, his recent discussions on TV make him out to be a confused man. He can't seem to decide whether to support Mullahs or not. I was also disappointed by him opposing the Womens Rights Bill. Also with only one seat (his own) him winning an election will tentamount to more than a miracle. Qazi Sahib's broken promises of long marches and resignations must have hurt MMA's credibility every where except their strong hold in the NWFP.

As a Pakistani, I would like Musharraf to continue because, as he says that he can reign in the fanatics to some extent. However, I would like truly fair elections and would accept whatever Pakistani people at large decide.
 
.
Sir,

The amount of poverty faced by both our nations was so depressing, I do think in that era nationalization was quite needed, As much as nationalization is a curse now a days it was that much of a boon in those days.

Things happen faster in a Dictatorship, than a democracy. If corruption was there, then i suggest strenghthenin our checks and balances rather than having a dictator. Mushraff though doing good in an Indian and western prespective, is doing more harm to the idea and the wishes of pakistan in general. He has been cowing too much to pressure from outside, which i wouldnt like to see in the leader of my nation
 
.
Back
Top Bottom