Musharraf stepping down as head of the army

[letsgetfree]

Do you think President Musharraf stepping down as head of the Army improve the situation in Pakistan and how?

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:14 pm
Do you think President Musharraf stepping down as head of the Army improve the situation in Pakistan and how?
im no politcial scientist but i believe this really wont improve much. he now doesnt have direct control of the army but certainly much influence. im sure the person taking over was one of his close officers. What we really have to wait and see is the elections in january. hopefully bhutto will be voted and hold her stand although i am skeptic. i somehow feel she is gong to water down her pOSition once the people elect her.

[Tower of Bebel]

He's a Bonapartist. In theory he is no longer the chief of the army. In practice you'll see he still remains the chief of the army.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:01 pm
He's a Bonapartist. In theory he is no longer the chief of the army. In practice you'll see he still remains the chief of the army.
well there you go.

[Guerrilla22]

No. He's still a dictator, regardless of whether or not he relinquishes his army post.

[Red October]

He'll just place a puppet in charge of the army so he can retain control of it. This is basically just an empty concession to try to appease the opposition forces.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:14 am
Do you think President Musharraf stepping down as head of the Army improve the situation in Pakistan and how?
No I don't think so. All of the sudden the West has done a complete 180 on Musharraf, and they love Bhutto. I think they want someone in there they can control, and they've picked Bhutto.

[Red October]

If Musharraf becomes too big of a liability for the imperialists, they may even try to remove him themselves (or at least not prevent it), similar to what they did to Diem in Vietnam. A liberal bourgeois democratic state would also serve America's interests as long as they can keep their military bases and business interests intact.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30, 2007 12:02 am
If Musharraf becomes too big of a liability for the imperialists, they may even try to remove him themselves (or at least not prevent it), similar to what they did to Diem in Vietnam. A liberal bourgeois democratic state would also serve America's interests as long as they can keep their military bases and business interests intact.
what do you meanby liability? lik hed be causing way 2 much shit>?

[Red October]

Originally posted by Ender+November 29, 2007 07:11 pm--> (Ender @ November 29, 2007 07:11 pm)
Red [email protected] 30, 2007 12:02 am
If Musharraf becomes too big of a liability for the imperialists, they may even try to remove him themselves (or at least not prevent it), similar to what they did to Diem in Vietnam. A liberal bourgeois democratic state would also serve America's interests as long as they can keep their military bases and business interests intact.
what do you meanby liability? lik hed be causing way 2 much shit>? [/b]
Yes. If he continues to stir up controversy and makes America look like it's sponsoring an evil dictator, they may move to get rid of him. Of course that's just pure speculation and the imperialists may just say "fuck it" and keep supporting him. But the American military has already expressed a lot of impatience and disappointment with Musharraf's performance in the "War on Terror", so they may decide it's time to get rid of him. It certainly wouldn't be the first time they've done it.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Red October+November 30, 2007 12:14 am--> (Red October @ November 30, 2007 12:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:11 pm

Red [email protected] 30, 2007 12:02 am
If Musharraf becomes too big of a liability for the imperialists, they may even try to remove him themselves (or at least not prevent it), similar to what they did to Diem in Vietnam. A liberal bourgeois democratic state would also serve America's interests as long as they can keep their military bases and business interests intact.
what do you meanby liability? lik hed be causing way 2 much shit>?
Yes. If he continues to stir up controversy and makes America look like it's sponsoring an evil dictator, they may move to get rid of him. Of course that's just pure speculation and the imperialists may just say "fuck it" and keep supporting him. But the American military has already expressed a lot of impatience and disappointment with Musharraf's performance in the "War on Terror", so they may decide it's time to get rid of him. It certainly wouldn't be the first time they've done it.[/b]
Right now the US requires as much stability as possible in the mid-east nations under it's control in order to continue it's campaign of imperialist expansion in the region. So it's pretty much a safe bet that whoever can offer the greatest control and stability in Pakistan will be who the imperialists ultimately back.

[Intifada]

The fact that Busharraf, sorry Musharraf has given up his "uniform" means nothing in practical terms - He is still the same dictator he always has been.

He replaced the judiciary in order to maintain control of the country.

That is the behaviour of a dictator.

I wouldn't trust Bhutto either.