Welcome Home, Pervez Musharraf The Great Leader Of Pakistan

[ashok321]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/w...ormer-president-returns-to-pakistan.html?_r=0

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s onetime military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, ended four years of self-imposed exile on Sunday in hopes of carving out a political future, but he received an unremarkable welcome as he landed at the airport in Karachi.

 

[A.Rafay]

Musharraf should be the new President- -

With Imran Khan as New Prime Minister

 

[BATMAN]

With Imran Khan as New Prime Minister

Why we need a system with 2 head of states?

We can have national security council back and its head be equivalent to President!

This way army's fear of foreign takeover of politicians will also be settled!

 

[Argus Panoptes]

I have to disagree.

Unlike most people, Musharraf had the political maturity and insight to see that the WoT was only part of the American agenda and that the wider regional calculus of installing India as the local chaudhry was part of the picture. He also knew that, in the new American strategy, Pakistan was on the wrong side of their equation.

Musharraf did exactly the right thing in thwarting American designs to install a pro-Indian puppet in Afghanistan. The Mayor of Kabul is just that -- thanks to Musharraf's counter-strategy. In a rare moment of lucidity, Pakistan planned its strategy ten moves ahead of the Americans. Where Musharraf went wrong was in not paying attention to the extremist cauldron within Pakistan itself, but that is a separate subject from the Afghan war itself.

This is not the first time he lost sight of the bigger picture. In Kargil, he focused so much on the military victory that he totally overlooked the inevitable political fallout. In Afghanistan, he ignored the spillover from Afghanistan into Pakistan and look where we are now. These are signs of a brilliant military mind but an exceedingly poor politician. Military minds can run wars, but only politicians can run a country. Now, after retirement, Musharraf is neither.

I would disagree that Pakistan was on the wrong side of US strategy from the start. Pakistan worked itself into this disadvantageous position by "walking both sides of the street" as Hillary Clinton put it. Another big mistake.

Finally, if Pakistan worked out its strategy in Afghanistan ten moves ahead, then please rest assured USA planned out the next one hundred.

 

[Developereo]

I would disagree that Pakistan was on the wrong side of US strategy from the start. Pakistan worked itself into this disadvantageous position by "walking both sides of the street" as Hillary Clinton put it. Another big mistake.

Not really. The US calculation is as follows:

Contain China => Promote India => Weaken Pakistan

It has nothing to do with Pakistan's actions in the WoT; this equation goes way beyond the WoT itself.

Finally, if Pakistan worked out its strategy in Afghanistan ten moves ahead, then please rest assured USA planned out the next one hundred.

Again, no. The US has failed to install a sufficiently pliable yet potent government in Afghanistan. Karzai turned out to be a double-triple-quadruple agent to all concerned to the point that no one trusts him any more. India also failed to install a puppet regime in Afghanistan, despite 11 years of American cover.

However, it is true that, given its resources, the US always has a Plan B, and Plan C, and Plan D. We are already seeing Plan B kicking into action with increasingly vocal support for Baluch separatists. The question now becomes how Pakistan will counter these Plans. It goes without saying that neither Zardari nor Ganja are remotely qualified to address the issues. Imran Khan, as much as I like him, seems a bit naive about how to deal with superpowers.

P.S. I do agree that Musharraf has a lot of other negative baggage, especially concerning the NRO and actions against the Judiciary.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Not really. The US calculation is as follows:

Contain China => Promote India => Weaken Pakistan

It has nothing to do with Pakistan's actions in the WoT; this equation goes way beyond the WoT itself.



Again, no. The US has failed to install a sufficiently pliable yet potent government in Afghanistan. Karzai turned out to be a double-triple-quadruple agent to all concerned to the point that no one trusts him any more. India also failed to install a puppet regime in Afghanistan, despite 11 years of American cover.

P.S. I do agree that Musharraf has a lot of other negative baggage, especially concerning the NRO and actions against the Judiciary.

I would like to discuss the US calculation as you describe in another thread, so as not to take this thread off topic.

Given Musharraf's negative baggage that you agree with, I can foresee him being an election failure. His chances are abysmal, and perhaps do not justify the risk to his well-being that he seems to be taking. I wonder who his advisers/sycophants are and how are they managing to mislead him so much.

 

[Vinod2070]

This is not the first time he lost sight of the bigger picture. In Kargil, he focused so much on the military victory that he totally overlooked the inevitable political fallout. In Afghanistan, he ignored the spillover from Afghanistan into Pakistan and look where we are now. These are signs of a brilliant military mind but an exceedingly poor politician. Military minds can run wars, but only politicians can run a country. Now, after retirement, Musharraf is neither.

There are many in Pakistan itself who would doubt even that. Musharraf never factored India's military response at all. It was no different from the 1965 operation Gibraltar in terms of the lack of any appreciation of what the other side will do.

I would disagree that Pakistan was on the wrong side of US strategy from the start. Pakistan worked itself into this disadvantageous position by "walking both sides of the street" as Hillary Clinton put it. Another big mistake.

Pakistan in fact had an excellent chance to be on the right side. Musharraf made some smart moves as well but couldn't carry it through in milking the situation to the maximum. He did get that debt relief and military weapons etc. but failed to take it to the next level because he had to play the "double game".

Finally, if Pakistan worked out its strategy in Afghanistan ten moves ahead, then please rest assured USA planned out the next one hundred.

Pakistan was handicapped by the fact that the USA held all the cards. In the given situation, it had much less wiggle room than the USA. It tried but there is only so much a much weaker party can do.

 

[blain2]

So let me understand this: You admit that the Army has acted illegally without parliamentary approval many times before, so it should be given a pass for doing it yet again? All those who have acted illegally should be charged with treason, including those those responsible for the actions you mention too. What happened in Turkey needs to happen in Pakistan too.

I gave a parallel knowing that the elected PM was not in the dark in 1999 as many suggest and to make a point that we are selective in our condemnation for something which I do not even consider a wrong in the first place. Not all military actions have to be approved by the parliament.

There was no way Musharraf's foolhardy action in Kargil would have been successful. Kashmir's LoC may not be an international border, but any changes on the ground will not be through a military action but political. In fact, our Army's leadership would do well to get this through their heads once and for all: The situation in Kashmir will not be changed by direct military action or by covert non-state actors. It will be resolved, whenever it is, politically, and politically alone.

You may believe that, but it has never stopped the other side from acting across the LoC when it has made sense for them. Pakistan has and will try to the do the same as and when it suits her needs.

Like Oscar has summarized, Musharraf may be the lesser of the evil choices available, but an evil nonetheless. Talking about hypothetical situations after 9/11 is pointless in the present thread which deals with Musharraf's return, so I will concede to your point that no leader in Pakistan could have done better under the circumstances right after 9/11, just for the sake of not derailing this thread.

What is this "evil" connotation about? What is so evil about this whole situation? Lets remove the idealistic notions about how things ought to work and face the reality. Pakistan is changing but not changing overnight. You are not going to be able to send a former CoAS and President to the gallows for holding the constitution in abeyance when the counter argument is that the entire foundation/stability of the Country was at stake. You want to stop the military from taking the reigns of power then ensure your judiciary never accedes to or acquiesces with their take over and then ensure the military has a voice in formulating policies that impact all aspects of Pakistan. Idiotic economic policies, lack of internal security jeopardize foreign policy and this is something that the armed forces will not take lightly and this is something that our politicians need to understand. If they shut the military out (disbandment of the NSC), you will have other military officers doing the same as what Ayub and his successors have done.

How can Musharraf possible put together a coalition that has a chance of forming the next government? What are his likely partners, and what common platform can they cobble up that the voters will accept?

Hey may not be able to do any of the above, but the fact is that you have more options available than the usual ping pong between PML and PPP that we are all disgusted by. Let Musharraf make his case. Let him sell his plan and story to you and if you don't buy it, then fair enough. He is taking the same road at IK and PTI. He will have to deal with the garmi/sardi of politicking so a learning process for him as well.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

..................
Hey may not be able to do any of the above, but the fact is that you have more options available than the usual ping pong between PML and PPP that we are all disgusted by. Let Musharraf make his case. Let him sell his plan and story to you and if you don't buy it, then fair enough. He is taking the same road at IK and PTI. He will have to deal with the garmi/sardi of politicking so a learning process for him as well.

Fair enough. Let's see how Musharraf makes his case that he is a better alternative to the same old system, and better than IK/PTI. The public can decide in the election.

(The rest of your post would make for a great discussion, but not in this thread. I look forward to discussing those points with you elsewhere, Sir, specially this part:

"You are not going to be able to send a former CoAS and President to the gallows for holding the constitution in abeyance when the entire foundation of the Country is at stake. You want to stop the military from taking the reigns of power then ensure your judiciary never accedes to their demands and that the military has a voice in the formulating policies that impact all aspects of Pakistan.")

 

[blain2]

This is not the first time he lost sight of the bigger picture. In Kargil, he focused so much on the military victory that he totally overlooked the inevitable political fallout. In Afghanistan, he ignored the spillover from Afghanistan into Pakistan and look where we are now. These are signs of a brilliant military mind but an exceedingly poor politician. Military minds can run wars, but only politicians can run a country. Now, after retirement, Musharraf is neither.

Kargil was a tactical military operation. BB, as the PM, had shot down a plan in the past, NS as the PM did not! Political fallout was NS' responsibility to handle, Musharraf's job was to handle the military aspects. Lets say both did not come up to our expectations but I am not sure you cam dump the entire responsibility on one person's head for this.

What Afghan spillover did he ignore? Did he not tell the Americans to reach out to the Taliban first to talk? Do you think anyone in the Pakistani military hierarchy was eager to set the Americans on Taliban or Afghanistan? We are where we are in Afghanistan not because of Musharraf's policies with regards to Afghanistan, rather due to the impact of the longest running war in American military history in the 19th/20th century. Pakistan was not going to go unscathed regardless of what Musharraf or any other Pakistani leader could have done because a part of our own population is directly involved in this war.

By the way, this double game that you are referring to, its not an option for Pakistan, rather a necessity as such I don't even like calling it a "game", rather a dual track policy. Pakistan has to maintain its relations with the US and at the same time cannot alienate 65 million Pashtuns given that the war in Afghanistan has decidedly turned into an anti-Pashtun war (or at least its perceived this way in Pakistan's Pashtun belt). Its just not possible for Pakistan to pick one side clearly without getting harmed in a serious way so the decisions made were coloured by this reality.

Now a self correction, given you are very nicely suggesting we all stay on topic, I too will refrain from posting about Kargil etc. here on this thread.

I like Musharraf because he clearly shows that he is not without faults. Does he have a chance in the upcoming elections, not really beyond a seat or two, but the point is Pakistan cannot be allowed to be held hostage to the two families that have sucked this country dry.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

......................

I like Musharraf because he clearly shows that he is not without faults. Does he have a chance in the upcoming elections, not really beyond a seat or two, but the point is Pakistan cannot be allowed to be held hostage to the two families that have sucked this country dry.

I respect your liking for Musharraf without sharing it of course, but how can his winning a seat or two prevent the same old feudal setup getting into power once again?

Gen Musharraf needs to create political alliances that will win enough seats to be able to challenge the status quo. What do you suggest he can do that will give him those chances?

I gave a parallel knowing that the elected PM was not in the dark in 1999 as many suggest and to make a point that we are selective in our condemnation for something which I do not even consider a wrong in the first place. Not all military actions have to be approved by the parliament..............

BTW Sir, this quote in bold will make for a great discussion elsewhere, as I believe that Parliament is the correct body to decide military action, for civilian oversight is what defines a proper Army. Otherwise, it is just a rogue militia.

 

[blain2]

I respect your liking for Musharraf without sharing it of course, but how can his winning a seat or two prevent the same old feudal setup getting into power once again?

Gen Musharraf needs to create political alliances that will win enough seats to be able to challenge the status quo. What do you suggest he can do that will give him those chances?

Agreed. If I had met him overseas when he was in UAE or London, I would have told him to stay put. Yet its his calling so I respect him for this. Pakistan cannot be sorted out by one or two leaders and this is the biggest "ghalat fahmi" in the minds of our public. They have been waiting for this one great leader who will sort it all out and it just does not work this way. A little bit of good from one needs to be picked up and continued by others. Unfortunately in Pakistan, the politics are so poisonous that with every new government, there is a complete reset of policies and priorities.

In my mind, Musharraf can do some good, he has experience, he will have oversight now because he is willing to work under a framework which did not exist before. I can tell you one thing, if he is elected even as an MNA, he will perform better than average for the people in his constituency. I do not think he has any grand visions of becoming the PM through these elections and is aware that he faces a hard and long slog.

The feudal party will stick around till parties from the urban centers have enough clout to beat these folks in their own constituencies and their own constituents are fed up with their high handedness. Its a long process. Doubt even this so called "Iranian style revolution" in Pakistan can fix our problems given we are so ethnically different (which is a good and a bad thing). Good like Afghanistan where the Taliban can never dominate because their way of life is so alien to Tajiks, Hazaras and others. I cannot imagine a mullah from TTP dominating people in Sind and the change in our urban vs. rural demographics (in favor of urbanization) makes this "revolution" talk a non-option.

 

[Windjammer]

I'm proud of Kargil operation, says former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf

 

[Jango]

Somebody saw the press conference of Musharraf? He said that "if the other guy gives bounty of 1 crore on me, I give 2 crore on him. If you really want something, come man to man!!! Those same people can't even go into Dera Bugti and then they say things."

The last point is really valid, these same old Bugtis and Marris and Mengals haven't gone into Balochistan for a long time, yet they say of independence. Living in posh atmospheres in London or Switzerland and then talking independence, no game.

Hamid Mir in full propaganda mode right now on his TV show. I have closed it now.

 

[saiyan0321]

He is also making statements in media that I did not help in the abduction of DR.AFIA ..... He vigorously defends the lal masjid operation saying the destruction of mosque and the children in there were not present and it was full of only terrorist whereas the 18 crore awam denies this.....

Musharraf is doing his best to make himself look good but all he is doing is making himself look even more bad. He stands no chance against imran khan and nawaz shareef ... heck he couldnt even beat abdul qadeer in elections.