Wednesday, June 06, 2007

End of the Line for Musharraf?

A reputable journalist revealed this week that in his recent meetings with senior Islamabad-based diplomats (including those from the UK, US, and France)– he came across an unusual commonality of view; they all seemed to be convinced that “Musharraf had lost it completely”.

In view of this newly emerging reality it is not surprising that Ahmed Rashid, the well known Lahore-based writer and journalist, also forecasts the end of Musharraf in a brief piece he wrote for Newsweek/Washington Post which was published yesterday.


Musharraf = Military Rule, Cannot Survive

Musharraf cannot survive the year. His actions over the past few months have pitted the armed forces against the Pakistani public and a section of the establishment that includes the judiciary and civil society. If Musharraf continues along this present path in defiance of public and judicial demands, he may plunge the country into civil war.

In 1971 the army was responsible for separating the country and it may now do immeasurable damage to what is left of Pakistan. Moreover, Musharraf's policies since 9/11 of subduing one group of Islamic extremists while cozying up to another has proved devastating for a country already beset with too many political and social cleavages.

Cooperation with the U.S. is not the problem and the next elected government is likely to do much the same, as long as it has the army's support. The problem is that Pakistan’s people want an end to military rule and the symbol of that has unfortunately become Musharraf."


میرا پاکستان said...

I agree with you and that's why I wrote an article on my blog on same topic.

MHRQ said...

I guess AT LEAST the Jamia claimed should (or rather completely not) decide to tell the truth. LAL mosque is an actual conception of QADIAN followers. Their true intention is distortion of Islam.....of course you don't believe me...but this message is not for the non reader.....but for those...well. I am now assuredly adding THE LETTER "FIRST CONTACT" known to so many REDS if not all. Yes the one with the numbers and drawings at its back is connected to a STOLEN item. If not ITSELF (First contact...letter) BEING STOLEN. Yes, yes,,,,,,they told you the PHENOMENON of crop formation (designs in crop fields) belong to red...i think it might JUST BE THE OPPOSITE.....Yes yes Nabi and Rasul Muhammad (PBUH)(medina saudi Arabia) is the TRUE SOURCE OF First Contact (as you name) Information. Ask yourself........much to say
9:49 AM
MHRQ said...

9:50 AM
MHRQ said...

Ohh yes......I am in G-10/1....and ohh yes the myblog.....mhrq-universe or something like it...anything else uuummm what can i say
10:06 AM

AAS said...

I have never liked Ahmed Rashid. He states that cooperation with America is not a problem.

It is a funny statement to make. But i am not surprised since his ridiculous and unwavering love for the West.

Let's not forget that Pakistan has allowed the US to subvert its soverignty in pursuing the so called war on terrorism. Onlooker even posted several incidents regarding this which led to the death of many civilians.

Let's not forget that they are supporting a dictator who slowly but surely has gone power mad.

Let's not forget our long and complicated history with the US where we have been let down on many occasions.

I am not saying all our problems happened because of the US...all i am saying is to just dismiss their role in our backwardness is purely dillusional....good job you bloody hack(Rasid).

Remember if Mush and company come and try to silence you like much of the media i will celebrate.

Ahsan said...

mhrq: that was enlightening, thank you.

aas: to be fair to rashid, i think he was trying to make a different point than what you seem to take issue with. i think rashid was trying to say the protests and rallies and anti-government movement is neither aimed at nor provoked by pakistan's alliance with the US. i could be wrong, but that's the sense i got from that sentence. of course it's hard to say what he means because it's a little three paragraph blog post rather than properly developed article.

i too tend to have problems with rashid at times. for one thing, he does an awful lot of asserting with very little evidence-giving in his arguments. for another, this is about the 14th time he's predicted the "end of musharraf". he may well be right this time, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say.

David Ackers said...

We have linked to your commentary: "End of the Line for Musharraf", and the blog in general, in our daily "security briefs" (today's are available at is the branch of openDemocracy (the leading online magazine of international affairs to do with terrorism and global security.

If you are interested in what you see at (soon to become, please feel free to link to the site or the daily security briefing, or to submit your own opinions and comments on security issues.

Thank you,
David Ackers

Anonymous said...

Shame on you MHRQ.

These ridiculous and inflammatory anti-Ahmedi rumours - which is what they are - are everywhere....Let's stop attacking minority communities who have enough problems living in the Land of the Pure and focus on reality...

BTW Isloo is full of these blantant lies these days// Mush is a Ahmadi, Sehba is a Ahmadi, Shaukat Aziz is one etc etc.

Cannot stand these peope but what sort of Fundo reasoning is this to blame their faults on a 'false' religious affiliation? MAHI

Anonymous said...

The West?! It keeps being referred to like its America. The Western Ideologies are not a demograph! They are 30 centuries of philosophies and ideologies that trace back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The activities and formation of a civilized world driven to a barbarian madness. You did nit wanlk the road from Athens to Rome without the fear of becoming someones dinner. Yet, it is Alexander the Great, educated by Aristotle, that we pay homage to, but you must ask yourself "why"? For it is Alexander that takes all that he conquers and he does not cast them into fields of labour for the rest of their lives, nor does he dispatch them into unwinnable battle scenarios to assuredly meet their deaths. Nor does he pitt them against one another for the mere amusement of his ranks. Alexander treats them like his sons! Like his own blood! He treats them better than they have ever been treated, and slightly better than those already in his keep! And much to the dismay of most of his generals. It is this immaculate wisdom, this unmatchable bravery, and uncanny courage by which Alexander single handedly tames a barbaric world. You WANTED Alexander to conquer you. You WANTED to prove your worth to him by fighting, but there was NO REASON for Alexander to loose. He couldn't lose. Yet it is Gaius Julius Caesar that cries like a little boy at the age of thirty-two. For he will never match the prowess of Alexander and Caesar doesn't understand why! Caesar doesn't get it! And it is Caesar that, for the first time in civilized Roman society, a direct orderf rom the emporer becomes a request. Pompey orders Caesar back to Rome, but Caesar has not conquered enough riches for Rome and he needs to impress. He rallies his men who, of course, support him. Upon his eventual return to Rome, he has planted a seed of confusion in the publics eye, who now think he is vying for the emporacy. The causes confusion, notto mention ideas, that force Pompey to flee for Alexandria. Upon his arrival, he is, slain by a eunich. The fall of Rome begins. The more Rome strays away from the ideologies of Socrates' teachings, echoed by Plato. The more they stray from Aristotle's works, the more powerfull they tell themselves they are. But Rome was never powerful. She was civilised, and it is that, that made her what she was. Arguably the greatest civilization that ever existed.

Today we look around and we see that it is not the X republic of the Dialogues of Plato, neither the VI, IV, nor III but the very first where Socrates dismisses power as justice from adhering to the ideologies of Western civilization as without a war there is no need of justice. The current American administrations inability to justify its preccupation with Iraq, in a society that does not measue justice by power, nor derive it by imposition, but delegates it by ethics. Then if the Americans are rooting and touting justice and demcracy for all now, what were they doing then?

It is as Aristotle once said, a superior power would imply SOME type of excellence.

It must also be said that democracy is not a philosophy, but an attribute of Western Ideology. In other words, Western Ideology without democracy, would, in fact, create a brand new, pure, democracy. Democracy, without Western Ideology, doesn't exist.

This is but a master/slave relation, the demograph that was, so many times, traversed by the likes of Alexandar, that now looks out to at the long end of a gun.