Musharraf resigns as Pakistan's president

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/18/musharraf.address/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Why should you care? Pakistan is not only a nuclear power, but the 6th most populous country in the world. Musharraf has also been something of a crony to Bush, receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid in exchange for being an "ally" in the war on terror.

 

Musharraf was effectively forced out of office amid a faltering economy, a growing Taliban insurgency, and political pressure from Pakistan's coalition government, who united under the common cause of kicking his ass out of office.

 

Does he deserve it? Hard to say... the situation in Pakistan seems eerily similar to the one in the US with failing economy and low approval rates for the government. However, the Pakistani National Assembly apparently has the balls to do what the US Congress could not: impeach the president.

 

It will be interesting to see if this gives a boost to the National Assembly's approval ratings. If so, perhaps Congress could learn a lesson from Pakistan...

[CDarwin]

Now the Army has no investment in the system or incentive to cooperate with the civilian government. There'll be another coup, within the decade, I would wager you any number or rupees you'd like.

[bascule]

Now the Army has no investment in the system or incentive to cooperate with the civilian government. There'll be another coup, within the decade, I would wager you any number or rupees you'd like.

 

Considering they have nukes, that would f*cking blow

[Pangloss]

Cronies come and go. Maybe they'll put in someone more effective in dealing with the fundamentalists.

 

 

(I mean in Pakistan.) <bonk>

[CDarwin]

Considering they have nukes, that would f*cking blow

 

Well, most precisely the army has nukes. Since control of them never really shifts, them being in power or not being in power doesn't seem to change the threat Pakistan's nuclear arsenal poses to anyone.

 

Cronies come and go. Maybe they'll put in someone more effective in dealing with the fundamentalists.

 

Musharraf wasn't just a Bush cronie, though. He was a reasonably effective leader, especially economically, who instigated some important liberal reforms as well. But most importantly, he had the enormous loyalty of the army. With him out of the government, well, like I said, the army is suddenly disenfranchised from power. That's not going to help anyone deal with the fundamentalists.

[Pangloss]

Well then they'll have to put aside their differences with the democratic types and share power, at least until they can do something about the fundamentalists.

 

I care two things about Pakistan, in this order:

1) Keeping nukes out of the hands of the fundies.

2) Gradual progress toward democracy.

 

Frankly anything that makes progress on these issues, in this order, is fine with me. And I'm the one paying for it, so that's probably a good thing.

[bascule]

Well, most precisely the army has nukes. Since control of them never really shifts, them being in power or not being in power doesn't seem to change the threat Pakistan's nuclear arsenal poses to anyone.

 

Civil war in a country with nuclear weapons is a bad time no matter how you slice it...

[CDarwin]

Civil war in a country with nuclear weapons is a bad time no matter how you slice it...

 

There's never been a civil war before, though. The army just takes over. And, as I said, the control over the nuclear arsenal never really shifts. The army always maintains that. Fears about unsecured nuclear weapons in Pakistan have always seemed a bit overblown to me. The army isn't giving those up, Pakistan doesn't have many anyway. It'd be much easier to get one in say, Russia. Now, nuclear knowledge is a different issue, obviously.

[bascule]

There's never been a civil war before, though. The army just takes over.

 

Well then, call me paranoid for being worried about the safety of nuclear weapons during a military coup.

 

I mean... suppose the coup fails? What happens if there's a public uprising against the military?

 

Forgive me, but I have the utmost concern for the safety and security of nuclear weapons.

 

Regarding Russian weapons: they were manufactured by a superpower. They're protected by access codes, and short of extracting the implosion lens and building your own control circuitry for the detonation, which is one of the most difficult aspects of constructing a nuclear weapon in the first place, they aren't going to be detonated except by someone who knows those codes.

 

I don't know what safeguards are in place preventing the detonation of Pakistani nukes (or for that matter the design: are they using an implosion lens, or are they simple "gun" designs?), but I seriously doubt they have the same protections as Russian nukes.

[ChemSiddiqui]

I would first of all say that Musharraf's leaving or resign if you will is a positive step for the country. But, as I understand by the news in the media, Asif Ali Zadari is being touted to become the next president...if that happens I would rather wish that Musharrad stayed. Asif is the biggest trator to the country!. As per pakistan possing nukes is all but a safety measure and Pak army is never ever ever going to let it taken up by some clan that would use it for their agenda.

 

O yeh, also pak army never supported Musharraf that much to be honest, They are simply the most disciplined army in the world in my opinion and just obeyed their leader.