In Human Events today I discuss what might come after Mushy:
Pakistan’s Musharraf has resigned, and everyone seems happy. Pakistanis danced in the streets and fired guns in the air, and one retired soldier in Peshawar even declared: “The root cause of all problems has gone.”Yet Pakistan’s future doesn’t look to be problem-free. Pakistan is rapidly becoming the most dangerous nation on earth -- if it isn’t that already. As one senior White House advisor recently told HUMAN EVENTS editor Jed Babbin, the “safe havens” for more than one million jihad terrorists that exist in Western Pakistan constitute the most severe terrorism-related problem the world faces today.
And that problem is not going to improve with the departure of Musharraf, for it is rooted in the power of Pakistan’s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). General David D. McKiernan just last week accused the ISI of aiding the jihadists who have grown increasingly assertive in the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as in Afghanistan itself: “There certainly is a level of ISI complicity,” said McKiernan, “in the militant areas in Pakistan and organizations such as the Taliban.” He said that the ISI was “facilitating these militant groups that come out of the tribal areas in Pakistan.” Likewise, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai has for quite some time charged Pakistan with fomenting the jihad against his regime.All of this is likely true: it’s entirely consistent with ISI’s record. The ISI, we must remember, was behind the formation of the Taliban government in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union withdrew its invasion force.
Musharraf, of course, defended the ISI against such charges. Just two weeks ago he reiterated that the ISI was “the first defense line of Pakistan,” and that “weakening the ISI would also weaken the war on terror.” He claimed that “conspiracies against the ISI were aimed at defaming Pakistan,” and insisted that “ISI is a patriotic institution, which is working for the stability of the country.” It was emblematic of the double game Musharraf appears to have played since the beginning of his regime, paying lip service to his alliance with the West and his commitment to anti-terror efforts while doing little or nothing to root out sympathizers with the global jihad at the highest levels of the Pakistani government, and acquiescing to the establishment of a Taliban-like regime in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province.
But what else could he have done? Terror Free Tomorrow polls conducted in August 2007 and January 2008 both found that a consistent level of about 75% of Pakistanis consider “implementing strict Sharia law throughout Pakistan” an “important” priority for the Pakistani government. Since the strict implementation of Sharia is the goal of the Taliban and groups allied to it within Pakistan itself, if Musharraf had acted energetically against the pro-Taliban elements within the ISI and the government in general, he probably would not have lasted in power as long as he did.
At the same time, one of the reasons why Musharraf was so widely hated in Pakistan was because he did at times act against the expanding influence of Islamic law -- as when he moved decisively against the militant Lal Masjid (Red Mosque), a center of jihadist and pro-Sharia agitation. He also drew the opprobrium of hardline clerics when he supported a bill that mandated that crimes of rape be judged by the standards of modern forensic evidence, rather than by the traditional Islamic stipulation that it could only be established by the word of four male Muslim witnesses who saw the act.
Whatever regime that follows Musharraf is unlikely to have enough popular support to be able to chart a significantly different course. Any attempt to reduce the ISI’s enormous power will certainly fail. Pakistan’s leading exponent of political Islam, Maulana Sufi Muhammad, who was released from prison in May as a gesture of good will from the Pakistani regime, has announced that he will dedicate his efforts henceforth to implementing the fullness of Islamic law in the country. He may not find this a difficult task: one of the leading candidates to succeed Musharraf, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has supported legislation increasing the scope of Sharia law in Pakistan.
Sharif met Monday with Asif Ali Zardari, husband of the late Benazir Bhutto and leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the nation’s largest party, to discuss Pakistan’s future. But however Sharif’s political fortunes may change in the coming days, the strong popular support for Islamic law in Pakistan is not going to disappear, and it will leave its mark on the next government. And that, in turn, will continue to strain the U.S./Pakistan alliance, as the imperatives of political Islam lead Pakistani officials to continue to obstruct and obfuscate anti-terror efforts -- or maybe even to aid them actively and openly. Before too long, American officials may be looking back on the corrupt and duplicitous Musharraf regime as the good old days.
If the Taliban seizes control of Pakistan, and the US is governed by a president Obama, the only "Hope" that will matter is the hope that Israel can neutralize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
the land of the pure islam will be a murdering fields that made Cambodia look like a walk in the park.
There is such a thing as "Putting off the inevitable" and Musharraf was an expert at this. Ultimately those Pakistani nukes will be in the hands of terrorists, if they are not already, and we had better make plans for it.
The only good news is that the nukes weigh too much for a suicide bomber to carry. The bad news is that Pakistan has cruise missiles to carry them.
Yeah but, you fail to mention the most important thing -- the pakies work cheap!
We need to import more pakies to do the engineering, medical, and scientific jobs that Americans don't want; and to export more of our banking and manufacturing services to Pakistan.
Otherwise, how can America compete in the "global market? /sarc_off
Why is the American government funding Pakistan? Why are not our true-blue allies, Saudi Arabia and those sheikdoms (the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, et al.), dripping in gold, not paying to keep Pakistan free from "extremism" by relieving its "poverty"? Why is this apparently, always and everywhere, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Jordan, among the Gazan Arabs and the "West Bank" Arabs, a task for Infidels? Should it not be taken care of by the fabulously rich beneficiaries of the most fantastic transfer of wealth in human history, the Arab and Muslim members of OPEC? After all, is there not supposed to be loyalty, and sharing, among the members of the Umma, the Community of Believers?
Where's that Muslim sharing? Where's that Muslim caring? Why should the American taxpayers, whose government now has obligations (see Peter Peterson's Committee) amounting to more than $50 trillion dollars, have to pay to keep Muslims in Pakistan or Iraq or Afghanistan sufficiently "prosperous" so that, in the view of the innnocents who presume to protect and instruct us, they will not give rise to those "extremists" who, some devoutly believe, are the only ones we need worry about, in that colossally misleading "war on terror" we hear so much about.
Why our money? Why Infidel money? Why not some of the more than ten trillion dollars that the Saudis and other Muslim oil states, most of those tiny sheikdoms with populations of less than a million, have raked in, without the slightest effort on their part, since 1973 alone? Where's that Umma fellow-feeling? Or is it only a loyalty to members of the Umma when they are fighting against, or perceived to be fighting against, Infidels?
Why has the American government not moved heaven and earth to make the Saudis pay and pay and pay?
Good analysis by Robert Spencer.
Here are some interesting thoughts.
Nuclear regulation of jihad as the first step toward liberating Muslims from a repressive political ideology of conquest.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5C2AF0F9-9FDD-4595-89BA-308CC5C8549A
“The conundrum of Pakistan is understandable; any limited offensive military measure directed at punishing it will most likely destabilize it and persuade Pakistani military leadership to retaliate with nuclear strikes. However, under the current western policy of "engaging" Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have only grown stronger due to internal support.
India could be the missing link in neutralizing the threat Pakistan poses in Afghanistan and through its procession of "Islamic" nuclear bombs.
If Indians feel that they have to hit back at Pakistan due to extensive internal terror attacks attributable as genocide or crimes against humanity, an option worth backing by the western powers is a full-scale Indian offensive that may involve massive pre-emptive strategic nuclear strikes to first soften up Pakistan, followed by over running Pakistan's territory with Indian troops and liberate its population to Hindu way of life (which culturally Pakistanis belong to), by comprehensively neutralizing its Islamic roots. The West can follow it up by aiding nation-building to be utilized wisely for the first time in Pakistan (until now, the well-meaning western aid has gone into jihad-building there, much to the discomfort of the givers). Such a Pakistan will not only have a negative memory of its Islamic past, but importantly, will be a much less likely terror sponsor.”
Why has the American government not moved heaven and earth to make the Saudis pay and pay and pay?
Posted by: Hugh
Could it be the overwehlming wealth of the Saudi family, Washington lobbyists, Presidential libraries, Washington pet projects, etc., etc., etc.
Hypotheses concerning the consequences of Musharraf's resignation should focus on India. Pakistan and India are already involved in a small war over Kashmir. Furthermore, India has a large Muslim minority, India too has The Bomb, and Hindu sites in India have recently been targets of Muslim terrorism. India has a fast-growing high tech industry, whereas Pakistan is incapable of inventing anything whatever. I'm sure that policy mavens in India are at this very moment formulating appropriate policies to implement if zealots come to power right next door in Pakistan.
@spot on,
After Mushi Nawaz Sharif will line up with the Taliban in an effort to use successfully use sharia in that region of the world.
Soon then TV, radio, internet in that region will be de-scaling, prayer will be a hugh factor for adaption.
Subsequently in this mix either through external factors or internal struggle whether the PAK nucleur missiles get carried or destroyed by Pak itself or America....all is the will of Allah SWT.
Spot, however you need to have more faith in him ...Allah SWT will not allow the beauty of his earth to be unnecessarily destroyed.
I think though that Allah SWT perhaps may not be so happy with modern electronic goods that sweep our young away from him.
Even in America I think we need to praise Allah SWT and start to de-scale on this aspect... before we lose the respect of our children...
Mushi did what he could, he too will spend time in Saudi for prayer and reflection...and then spend time in my beloved Turkey.
India has a fast-growing high tech industry, whereas Pakistan is incapable of inventing anything whatever
India invented chess; the transistor (and everything that sprung from that) was born in the US.
Hat's off to Mr. Fitzgerald -- again.
Not that it isn't obvious, but an IP comparison shows Hindenberg is indeed Naseem (Naseem, Naseem, Dawa-machine, took a flag and painted it green...), whom we banned back in May.
Buh-bye, Hindenberg.
"I'm sure that policy mavens in India are at this very moment formulating appropriate policies to implement if zealots come to power right next door in Pakistan."
While most Pakistanis respect their clerics, they do not especially see them as their leaders (this is particularly true in Punjab and Sindh). However the clerical influence is very strong in Pakistan - and this explains Pakistan's passion for jihad.
It is therefore very unlikely that leaders of religious parties (whom many associate as zealots) will take over the reigns of power.
But the above point, in my view, is not particularly relevant.
Pakistan has become a grave threat because it has lots and lots of moderate looking zealots (with passion for jihad) in positions of power and influence.
Yo Hidalberg,
You still hanging around? It's ironic that you have taken the screen name of one of those gas bag blimps the Nazis used.
If Allah created Islam, it's proof that he didn't like man.
Posted by: MarisolJW at August 19, 2008 9:09 AM
Thank you, Marisol.
Marisol,
Of course it's Naseem. I'd recognize that lack of style and false dawa, which is nothing more than thinly disguised provocation, anywhere.
I liked "Naseem" better than "hindenberg", though. Hindenberg has a better grasp of English, but nothing to say.
The White house has got the numbers wrong. Every other person in Pakistan is a Jihadi, given that the population is about 160 million, this would mean there are atleast 80 million jihadis
Thank you, Marisol.
@ hindenberg
The hindenberg had the very safest and state of the art reliable diesel engines, the proudest of the proud Nazis to fly it, and guess what, it was just a bag of gas that went down in flames.
Another troll, khokar, used to sign off "love for all, hatred for none". Today I found out that it is the "sign off" of ahmaddiyas. This particular community, apprehensive of a backlash from the majority community, is holding "outreach meetings" over here. Some time back, they held an all ahmaddiya get-together, and the shias and the sunnis petitioned the local administration not to give these "heretics" any meeting space that is owned by the city. They (the shias and the sunnis) held press meetings, the end result being favourable for us Infidels because the MSM people got curious about "heretics", and "last prophet" and "uswa hasana" (all these words were part of the matter given out to press) ; quite a lot of people woke up. Yesterday, the ahmaddiyas held an "outreach meeting" in which they went to great pains to distinguish themselves from the shias and the sunnis. Every speech by an ahmaddiya imam ended with "muhabbat sabke liye, nafrat kisi ke liye nahi" (love for all, hatred for none). So we can safely say that khokar is an ahmaddiya too.
Not seemziez trolling under a phony identity? Say it isn't true.
nabi ZK
Terror Free Tomorrow thinks the jihadist groups should be criminalized and that the people need to reject them. Sound familiar?
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=IN
US policy needs to be perceived as on the side of ordinary Pakistanis. For only when Pakistanis see al Qaeda as their enemy, too, and the United States as, if not their friend then at least not their enemy, will al Qaeda’s days inside Pakistan finally be numbered.”
And (of course!) it is up to the US to buy the goodwill of Muslims around the world with various humanitarian projects.
Oh yeah...forgot...(pbum)
Time for a treaty with India?
What's the story about the Islamists getting only 5 % of the vote?
Not that I ever took it seriously, for whatever 'voting' means in the these parts of the world. We all know that Pakistan is build on Islam and nothing but Islam, so its only a matter of time before it self-destructs....
With "undaunted" and "awake" in thanking you, Marisol, but won't this turkey be back under yet another name?
Given its history, how is it that India let Muslims stay in the wake of the partition? Did the Hindus think all would be right, that the jihad wouldn't happen within India?
Posted by: PMK
Very good question, PMK. I and other true Hindus (not the pseudo-secular variety) have been asking the same question. The answer: sheer stupidity of Nehru and Gandhi. The "father" of Pakistan, Jinnah, had correctly said, in essence, that "Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist. We have different religions, we are separate civilizations". When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned on the basis of religion, the ONLY logical solution would have been complete population exchange (all Hindus in India and all Muslims in Pakistan). Instead, the traitors Nehru and Gandhi indulged in the fantasy of Hindu-Muslim unity and allowed those Muslims who wanted to stay remain in India. This allowed the Muslims to have their cake and eat it too, due to sheer stupidity of Nehru and Gandhi. For the Muslim problem in India, I don't blame the Muslims. Sadly, Hindus have brought the problem on themselves. Hindus still have not learnt the lesson that you can't be tolerant towards the intolerant. Muslim ass kissing by politicians continues unabated. Hopefully, there is some awakening amongst Hindus, as shown by the agitation in Jammu against Muslim intolerance in Kashmir.
Another Hindenburg goes up in flames! That didn't last anywhere near as long as the original Naseem saga.
Marisol, thanks for 'de-scaling' Hindenburg from at least this part of the internets. Hopefully, s/he can spend more time praying to Allah, instead of being tempted away from him by the wicked us.
My thanks to Marisol regarding hindenberg.
Pakistan belongs to the club of anti-Russian Muslim states,that is the reason it is funded and supported.
Only pro-Russian or neutral Muslim states like Iran,Saddam' s Iraq or Syria enter the "axis-of evil" club.
The problem is that the attacks of 11/9 came from "allied" Muslims (15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians,their leader from Egypt,others from Yemen)and that disoriented the whole system.
Now with the new US - Russia crisis,Pakistan will get more.
Not that it isn't obvious, but an IP comparison shows Hindenberg is indeed Naseem (Naseem, Naseem, Dawa-machine, took a flag and painted it green...), whom we banned back in May.
Buh-bye, Hindenberg.
Posted by: MarisolJW
Nice piece of forensics work, Marisol.
While I fully agree with the comments of IndianTiger, about the inability and unwillingness of Hindus (exemplified by the views of Nehru & Gandhi) to understand (let alone tackle effectively) the political nature of Islam; I find that this trait is sadly mirrored in the West as well.
IndianTiger,
Thanks for your input. I have just read something on Islam Watch. It's an interview with someone from Jamaat-e-Islami, a Pakistani Islamist party, from February, 1999.
Any idea what the state of this party is today? With Musharraf out of the way, what are its electoral chances?
I read the interview and it just seemed so ridiculous but now I take nothing for granted. I'm sure I would have dismissed it pre 9/11. The following statement made me laugh but I couldn't help it.
Whatever man needs to know is in the Quran and Hadiths. Knowing more will create problems like the Atom bomb and Television.
I don't know if this talk is just talk - the idea of what would be done to India was scary. This seemed like the Taliban in spades. That it was reprinted after all this time makes me ask if this party has any real chance of taking over Pakistan, now that Musharraf is out of the way. They have dreams that would seem grandiose but our biggest enemy is our own complacency.
http://islam-watch.org/JihadiUmmah/What-Islam-Wants-Nabiullah-Khan.htm
PMK, I am sorry I don't know anything about the electoral chances of this Paki Islamist party. However, if the Indian politicians continue on this Muslim ass kissing, this moron's threats can become reality. I see a glimmer of hope in the current agitation in Jammu and the 2002 response to Muslim barbarism in Gujarat. Hindus must stand up to Islamic thugs, else the Indic civilization will be over.
Marisol wrote:
Not that it isn't obvious, but an IP comparison shows Hindenberg is indeed Naseem . . . whom we banned back in May.
Buh-bye, Hindenberg.
.........................
Oh, no! Surely Allah SWT will not let Hindenberg go down in flames?