 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
US Backs Musharraf On Terror
UPI Correspondent Washington (UPI) July 27, 2007 Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is still America's best bet to deal with Taliban insurgents operating along the Pakistani-Afghan border, an expert said this week. Pakistan under Musharraf has been unstable and is battling a rebellion by the leaders of the Red Mosque, an extremist Islamic group wishing to implement Taliban-style rule in Pakistan, Daniel Markey, a former State Department official, told reporters Wednesday. Musharraf remains head of the Pakistani army but is struggling to control it, Markey said. But the Pakistani leader remains America's most reliable ally to weed Taliban militia out of Pakistan's northern Waziristan province, the analyst said. "Musharraf is the only barrier to the Islamic peril that would take over the whole country if he left," Markey said in a conference call. "I think we have a better chance of dealing with the Taliban in Waziristan if we pull Pakistan towards us." Musharraf has been under fire for trying to sack Pakistani Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, but when Chaudhry appealed against being fired, Musharraf was rebuked by Pakistan's Supreme Court. It called the firing "illegal" on July 13. Since the Red Mosque in Islamabad's rebellion started on July 3, some 300 people have been killed in battles with the army. Musharraf might not be in power for much longer, and the United States must make an effort to reach out to the Pakistani military, Markey said. "Musharraf has definitely taken a hit, but I think he could ride it out. The military stands at the center of the political game. We cannot afford to ignore whoever sits at the top of it," he said. Since Pakistan's creation in 1947 it has been ruled by the head of the army for 32 out of 60 years. Musharraf, who gained power through a military coup in 1999, would only be the latest in a line of military autocrats who eventually had to give up power and permit the holding of democratic elections. "It's quite possible that Musharraf is on his last legs. He can't constitutionally run for president -- the courts would throw it out -- and the army could decide that they've had enough of him," Markey said. "He could only run (if he declared a state of a national emergency, but it would bring the people out on the streets. There's a chance the army even without him will come to some sort of agreement with the people and come up with some sort of martial law." Markey predicted that if Musharraf's unpopularity with the people did not bring him down, he could be betrayed by his own army. "When the army gets enough of him, they could toss him overboard and do it alone. I would give that about (a) 30 percent (chance)," the analyst said. "Although he could hold on to power for as long as another year, his successor would most likely be someone very similar," Markey said. Whoever controls Pakistan, the U.S. approach would be the same, the analyst said. "Musharraf losing power wouldn't be a tragedy for us. We would learn how to work with his successor. It would merely be a hiccup," he said. The United States wants to promote democracy in Pakistan and has been frustrated by the country's inability to regulate its long border with Afghanistan. However, Markey said working closely with Musharraf was still a worthwhile endeavor in the war on terror. "We should coerce them through greater engagement. Through intelligence sharing, training and providing them with the resources that will allow them to be more effective partners. We could also assist with indirect military action from afar," he said. "Balancing supporting Musharraf against extremist Islam and promoting democracy is tough," Markey said. But it remains the best way to drive the Taliban out of Pakistan and into Afghanistan, where U.S. forces could operate freely in fighting it, he said. Markey also advised against U.S. action inside Pakistan. "I'm not convinced that Americans entering the country to take out some targets and then withdraw is advisable. We have to build trust and then you can expect cooperation," he said. "It is much better to coerce, even threaten privately if you must. But you can't threaten publicly because they'll look weak and under the influence of America."
Source: United Press International Community Email This Article Comment On This Article Related Links News From Across The Stans
The Afghan Body Count
Washington DC (UPI) Jul 25, 2007Almost six years ago U.S. and allied forces toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, paving the way for a pro-Western, interim government and the country's first post-Taliban presidential elections. Throughout the war, however, there has been little focus -- whether from government or watchdog groups -- on its toll on the civilian population of Afghanistan. Very few attempts at compiling annual estimates of insurgency-related civilian deaths have been made. The nature of the conflict makes data collection difficult and verification even more so. |
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2007 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement |
