What's new

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

batmannow

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 28, 2008
18,877
-19
8,067
Country
Pakistan
Location
Thailand
Pakistan army staying 'hands-off' amid Musharraf crisis
Military leaders say they are determined to remain apolitical to help their formal general make a graceful exit.[/B
]By Laura King, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
11:13 AM PDT, August 16, 2008


ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- This country's impeachment crisis has once again thrust the powerful Pakistani military into the political spotlight. But unlike in decades past, when any show of disarray within a civilian government practically guaranteed that a coup would follow, the army has stayed firmly on the sidelines.

Pakistan has spent half of its 61-year history under military rule, including eight under former Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the civilian president who is under concerted attack by foes who want to drive him from office.


High-stakes talks continued today aimed at reaching an accord under which Musharraf would agree to step down voluntarily in exchange for various guarantees, including a promise that he would not face prosecution for acts while in office. But Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the man Musharraf handpicked to succeed him at the helm of the military late last year, has made it clear that he will not intervene to preserve the presidential tenure of his onetime superior officer and mentor.

"Let us rededicate ourselves to the military tradition of sacrifice," a solemn-faced Kayani told an Independence Day gathering Thursday in a speech widely interpreted as closing the door to any army effort to stave off the impeachment process.

"The constitutional role of the army is what it is, a nonpolitical one," said Shaukat Qadir, a retired brigadier general turned analyst. "And the position of the army in all this has emerged with perfect clarity -- they are saying, 'We are hands-off.' "


If the army had lent him its support, Musharraf could theoretically have used his constitutional authority as president to dissolve the ruling coalition, which last week declared it would launch an impeachment drive against him. But Kayani and senior generals decided almost immediately against helping him preserve his power through military means, a step that would have been tantamount to a coup.

Ranking generals feared that propping up the widely loathed Musharraf, or once again ushering in military rule after only five months of civilian leadership, would irreparably damage the army's standing in the eyes of the public, said analysts and a senior officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Although it remains a highly respected institution, the military's reputation has suffered in recent years. Many ordinary Pakistanis were angry that senior generals acquiesced when Musharraf, then still the army chief, declared emergency rule, suspended the constitution and threw thousands of opponents into jail.

Now, army leaders appear determined to preserve an apolitical stance in the current crisis. "They haven't come this far in order to turn back," said Ikram Sehgal, a journalist and commentator who was once a senior officer.
As the crisis drags on, the army does have one powerful interest to protect. Analysts and news reports say senior generals have signaled to the civilian leadership that they have no wish to see their former chief humiliated -- or, in the most drastic scenario, put on trial, imprisoned or even executed.
"That would cast a cloud over the entire institution. The army itself would be seen as being in the dock," Sehgal said. "Soldiers are taught to look up to the army chief as an example."
The main instigator of putting Musharraf on trial for treason is Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister who heads the junior party in the ruling coalition. Sharif has very personal reasons for resisting a graceful exit; in 1999, Musharraf overthrew him, imprisoned him and threatened him with execution before sending him into nearly a decade of exile.

Sharif insists he is not motivated by a desire for revenge, but he has nonetheless kept up the fiery anti-Musharraf rhetoric even while sensitive negotiations have gone on in recent days, aimed at striking terms of a deal for Musharraf's voluntary departure.

"How can safe passage be given to someone who has done this to Pakistan?" Sharif demanded in a speech this week in the eastern city of Lahore in which he excoriated Musharraf for what he called high crimes against the state.
The president's camp, according to those involved in the talks, has demanded full legal immunity in exchange for his resignation. If the negotiations aimed at securing Musharraf's resignation drag on, news reports have suggested the civilian government might look to Kayani to deliver the news to Musharraf that his continued presence is untenable.
Sehgal said he thought that asking the army chief to give Musharraf a final push to resign would set a bad precedent for a civilian government that wants to preserve its independence. And in any event, he said, the time for such a gesture had probably passed.
"As for Musharraf and Kayani," he said, "I suspect the two of them have already had this conversation."

laura.king@latimes.com


If Musharraf Steps Down, Will Pakistan Step Up?
By Haider Ali Hussein Mullick

Expecting Pakistan to step up to its responsibilities to its people and the international community if Musharraf steps down is wishful thinking.

Further still, Pakistan's bombastic democrats, surprisingly united against Musharraf and equally incompetent in dealing with staggering oil and food prices, and a rising militancy, should expect little with Musharraf's ouster. Al-Qaeda or the Taliban will not lay down their weapons, the budget deficit will not magically disappear, and the thousands protesting high food and energy prices, and rein of Supreme Court justices will not return home happily. For all of that to happen Islamabad's political leaders will have to set their priorities straight and work simultaneously, effectively and strategically toward policies to eradicate terrorism, poverty and a collapsing educational and health system. Without an effective multifaceted approach Islamabad will face failure and so will Kabul, Delhi and Washington.
Principally, the impeachment of an unconstitutional (albeit quasi-effective) president via an elected parliament would be a first in the country's ravaged constitutional and political history. The last military dictator was killed in a mysterious plane crash. Musharraf's constitutional ouster would set an important precedent, possibly deterring future military takeovers. After his exit, however, the civilian government's longevity and stability will depend on its ability to weather the gathering storm of rising inflation, unemployment, and terrorism.

A Pakistan with a recalcitrant and autocratic Musharraf would impede its constitutional and democratic growth, but a Pakistan with a worsening economic and security situation could make it the perfect threat for the entire civilized world: a nuclear-armed military state with a weakening economy and fading central authority. In that situation, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq would have a hard time competing for the headlines.

While more work is needed, Pakistan is changing. First, al-Qaeda has successfully relocated its base of operations in Pakistan's tribal border lands; however, the limited network of logistics and training camps in Pakistan is a sharp contrast from resources available in pre-9/11 Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and affiliates are constantly interdicted by U.S.-trained and recently well-equipped Pakistani forces using highly successful air and ground search-and-destroy tactics. Most areas lost to the militants have been regained, and recent operations show more signs of reliable intelligence, creativity and better success rates. Strikes by unmanned U.S. drones, however, have inflamed local denizens, and weakened Islamabad's fledging coalition government despite some success in interdicting high profile terrorists.

Second, propping up militant organizations as proxies to weaken India's conventional war advantage in Afghanistan and the disputed region of Kashmir is losing currency. A significant number of military and political leaders are realizing that stabilizing Afghanistan, increasing trade with India and Afghanistan, and improving collaboration between security forces across the Afghan-Pakistan and India-Pakistan border are the best ways to provide stability and reach Pakistani national interests.

Third, steering the economy out of present recession is not impossible. In the past, when Musharraf was exercising direct control, the economy experienced inconsistent growth that pivoted on a steady flow of foreign aid and investment. But no one considered what would happen if that investment stopped. Today the real estate, capital and stock markets are in decline, made worse by rising food and energy prices and a weakening rupee. The recent Biden-Lugar U.S. Senate legislation committing $15 billion in development aid to Pakistan might be a good move - but it also might just be pushing drugs to a recovering addict. In other words, the new government must channel incoming funds and loans toward creating a stable economic system not chronically dependent on an intravenous drip of foreign aid and investment. Such reforms will also bring socio-economic opportunities to militancy-infected areas. If the economy takes off, along with political reforms and military action, al-Qaeda will have a very hard time recruiting and educating the disenfranchised.

In conclusion, Pakistan faces a plethora of problems that require political compromises, geopolitical negotiations, and a united civil-military front against militants. The United States, in turn, will have to find a middle ground between micromanaging Islamabad's politics and continuing to give the Pakistanis a carte blanche on the war on terror. The political parties must come together on these issues as they have on impeaching Musharraf. The Pakistani military must clean house by eliminating competing power centers, such as elements of its intelligence establishment. A unified sovereign and effective foreign policy equally independent of American aid and homegrown militant groups will bring domestic and international stability. If political and military leaders show the will and tenacity to bring such a strategic shift in national and foreign policy, then we can certainly hope that when Musharraf steps down, Pakistan will step up.


Haider Ali Hussein Mullick, is a Senior Fellow at the Joint Special Operations University, focusing on US-South Asia Relations. He can be reached at haider.mullick@gmail.com

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
 

batmannow

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 28, 2008
18,877
-19
8,067
Country
Pakistan
Location
Thailand
^^^the heading of your post says "graceful exit" - exactly my point.
Pakistan: Now or Never?Perspectives on Pakistan

August 16th, 2008

Looking past Musharraf and the role of the Pakistan Army
Posted by: Myra MacDonald

Amid the feverish speculation about when, how and where President Pervez Musharraf will go, analysts are already looking beyond to the future of Pakistan in a post-Musharraf era. One theme stands out: while the consensus appears to be that the Pakistan Army will not step in to save Musharraf, it might well intervene in the not so distant future if it believes it needs to save the country.
“Musharraf’s departure will highlight the problems that confront the country, which is in the grips of a food and energy crisis. Inflation is out of control,” writes Tariq Ali in the Los Angeles Times. ”The price of natural gas, used for cooking in many homes, has risen by 30%. Wheat, a staple, has seen a 20% price hike since November 2007 … According to a June survey, 86% of Pakistanis find it increasingly difficult to afford flour on a daily basis, for which they blame their new government.”
He adds that over the last 50 years the United States has preferred to work with the Pakistan Army rather than civilian rulers. ”Nothing has changed. The question being asked is, how long before the military is back at the helm?”

Shuja Nawaz, who has just published a book about the Pakistan Army, writes in the Washington Post that the military “would rather not be drawn into the current political squabble. They want to give the civilians the ‘time and space’ to operate government as best as they can.”

But he says the civilian government must take action quickly to restore stability in Pakistan. ”If it fails, there is talk in Pakistan of another cycle of military intervention in the offing, this time on the Bangladesh model: of a longer duration, and using a civilian facade to restore the country’s economic health.”

“With inflation running at 25 per cent, the economy is a shambles,” says an editorial in the TimesOnline. “Investors are fleeing Pakistan, and the rupee has fallen to a record low against the dollar. Separatists, Islamists and extremists are gaining ground in the restless border areas, and Islamabad now seems incapable of imposing its authority. Twenty years after the suspicious death of Zia ul-Haq, the former military ruler, feuding politicians are again set to squander their chances. A restless army is waiting.”:tup::agree:
 

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
30,699
85
36,369
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
^^^batmannow - u r hell-bent on persuading me to agree with you - i appreciate that and whereas i dont dis-agree with the content of the aforementioned post, i feel the politicians need some space to thrash things out. bear in mind the army will be a interested spectator as this mess unfolds.
i am sure we r on the same side - the side of pakistan!
 

Proud to be Pakistani

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 26, 2007
1,282
0
57
^^^batmannow - u r hell-bent on persuading me to agree with you - i appreciate that and whereas i dont dis-agree with the content of the aforementioned post, i feel the politicians need some space to thrash things out. bear in mind the army will be a interested spectator as this mess unfolds.
i am sure we r on the same side - the side of pakistan!
Every one on this forum is on Pakistan's Side Fatman. Neither on Politians side nor on Musharaf's Side... But!

Its the Will of the people they say!... Which people?... God knows!

Having bashed for decades by Nawaz and Zardari if one can Trust them again then i should say they deserve to get bashed again!
 

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
30,699
85
36,369
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Every one on this forum is on Pakistan's Side Fatman. Neither on Politians side nor on Musharaf's Side... But!

Its the Will of the people they say!... Which people?... God knows!

Having bashed for decades by Nawaz and Zardari if one can Trust them again then i should say they deserve to get bashed again!
the will of the 75% illitrate people of pakistan!.
 

dr.umer

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 11, 2008
1,460
0
369
I think the title of the post should now be Does Gen. Kiyani Have To Decide Between Corrupt Politicians or Pakistan? .

There is no check & balance system in the country now. Gen Kiyani will be committing a crime to get this country derailed by the hands of corrupt politicians like Mr. 10% (may be the next president) stories of whom have started to appear in International Press.
 

araz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 14, 2006
8,340
71
13,804
I think the title of the post should now be Does Gen. Kiyani Have To Decide Between Corrupt Politicians or Pakistan? .

There is no check & balance system in the country now. Gen Kiyani will be committing a crime to get this country derailed by the hands of corrupt politicians like Mr. 10% (may be the next president) stories of whom have started to appear in International Press.
As someone said on one of the forums, all this means is that the next intervention is likely to be a bloody one. However, I think we need to give the politicians some time. The Army will sit by and let them get on or otherwise. However, to intervene now would be wrong and perhaps fatal for Pakistan.
Araz
 

batmannow

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 28, 2008
18,877
-19
8,067
Country
Pakistan
Location
Thailand
the will of the 75% illitrate people of pakistan!.
Dear fatman17, sir...
Surly, not the will of the 75% of illitrate people of pakistan, but the will of 25% educated masses of pakistan.From now on, GEN. KIYANI will be responsible for anything, which is going to hurt pakistan anyway, any time now and in the future.
GEN. KIYANI isnt a democrcy lover , instead he is in love with CIA, which made him COAS last year!!!
This year, he retruned the favour to let MUSHARAF bow to CIA backed politicians?:tsk::disagree:
 

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
30,699
85
36,369
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Dear fatman17, sir...
Surly, not the will of the 75% of illitrate people of pakistan, but the will of 25% educated masses of pakistan.From now on, GEN. KIYANI will be responsible for anything, which is going to hurt pakistan anyway, any time now and in the future.
GEN. KIYANI isnt a democrcy lover , instead he is in love with CIA, which made him COAS last year!!!
This year, he retruned the favour to let MUSHARAF bow to CIA backed politicians?:tsk::disagree:
do u know that except for Zia and Musharraf, every other C-in-C / CoAS had to get the tacit approval of the US admin of that time. this does not mean that they are CIA agents as u continue to suggest!
 

batmannow

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 28, 2008
18,877
-19
8,067
Country
Pakistan
Location
Thailand
do u know that except for Zia and Musharraf, every other C-in-C / CoAS had to get the tacit approval of the US admin of that time. this does not mean that they are CIA agents as u continue to suggest!
Dear sir, fatman17..
ohh god, so that means we, were virtuly ruled by USA?:cry:
Dear, sir... whatever it was , it was then , i mean now! our COAS was being the man, who was publicly asked by the US admin , ( sec. of state).:tsk::disagree:
I , guss it never happened in the history of PAKISTAN , before? & now its the time for us(PAKISTANIS) to just stop of being a remote state of USA.

I , am very much affraid , that our hounrable new COAS would be pleasing US admin by doing whatever they want, with the toxical combination in the form , of ASIF ZARDARI as our new president of pakistan?

I, guss we, have to look forward , how much these two guys can go further in accepting the agenda of USA.:confused::angry::cry:
 

AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADVISORS
Jul 11, 2007
24,414
77
32,480
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
The Army should only interfere when the people hate the politicians so much that they will welcome the Army.

That sentiment does not exist currently, nor will it in the near future. The military intervening now will be disastrous for Pakistan, as Araz said above.
 

batmannow

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 28, 2008
18,877
-19
8,067
Country
Pakistan
Location
Thailand
The Army should only interfere when the people hate the politicians so much that they will welcome the Army.

That sentiment does not exist currently, nor will it in the near future. The military intervening now will be disastrous for Pakistan, as Araz said above.
Dear AgNoStIc MuSliM,sir
I, guss the world is moving fast these days, and the sentiments couldbe changed quickly, i guss frist time in the history of pakistan and the history of PAKARMY, we are facing a dangerous situation.

it coudbe either side, not all the crops commanders are ready to accept all!!! from our COAS, & belive it ,there are important people withn the PAKARMY itself watching the situation very closely!!! what is being feared is a coup against COAS, if he tries to much for USAs agenda!!!:cry::agree::angry:
 

Interceptor

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 9, 2007
2,005
0
138
the will of the 75% illitrate people of pakistan!.
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.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom