Daily Revolt

November 05, 2007

Bush Behind Pakistan Martial Law

It would be in keeping with the Bush foreign policy history: solve everything by using force. The question is will they get away with this one as well? Will Congress demand that we stop aid to that country? So far there has been silence on Capitol Hill and from the Presidential candidates. It is obvious why it was done. The military is being beaten by militants, including al Qaeda, in the tribal areas of Pakistan. In addition, the Bushies don't want Musharraf to step down, as he is required under law. The administration is afraid they will no longer be able to control the policies of that country. They want to keep their puppet in power.

The Financial Times got it right:
[...]Gen Musharraf is not acting to protect his country - or even as an effective subcontractor in the US administration's "war on terror". This move is to protect his power from judicial and political challenge.

[...]Despite its formal expression of dismay, Washington may have given Gen Musharraf the green light for his power grab: Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which runs the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, met him in Islamabad just before the emergency was proclaimed.

What is the proof the White House promoted the imposition of Martial Law, look no further:
The Bush administration signaled Sunday that it would probably keep billions of dollars flowing to Pakistan’s military, despite the detention of human rights advocates and leaders of the political opposition by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the country’s president.

President Bush has called one of his most critical allies, the officials argued that it would be counterproductive to let Pakistan’s political turmoil interfere with their best hope of ousting Al Qaeda’s central leadership and the Taliban from the country’s mountainous tribal areas.

Curious language from Rice:
Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that while the United States would “have to review the situation with aid,” she said three times that President Bush’s first concern was “to protect America and protect American citizens by continuing to fight against terrorists.”

A wink and a nod:
In Islamabad, aides to General Musharraf — who had dismissed pleas on Friday from Ms. Rice and Adm. William J. Fallon, the senior military commander in the Middle East, to avoid the state-of-emergency declaration — said they had anticipated that there would be few real consequences.

They called the American reaction “muted,” saying General Musharraf had not received phone calls of protest from Mr. Bush or other senior American officials. In unusually candid terms, they said American officials supported stability over democracy.

“They would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” said Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information. “Given the choice, I know what our friends would choose.”

Lets not forget all the money invested in Musharraf:
Pakistan has received at least US$10bn from the US since it became a close ally in President George W Bush's "war on terror" in 2001.

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counter-terrorism mission," Ms Rice, who is visiting the Middle East, told reporters.

[...]Benazir Bhutto, a political rival of Gen Musharraf, told US TV channel ABC News that many people believed the emergency was aimed at "stopping a court verdict that was coming against him".

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home