AJC.com > Talk of the town > Archives > 2008 > August > 18 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMusharraf’s resignation: Your view?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a major partner in the war on terror, said he will resign, just ahead of impeachment charges in that country’s parliament.
An emotional Musharraf, 65, said he wanted to spare the nation from a perilous impeachment battle and that he was satisfied that all he had done “was for the people and for the country,” according to an AP story. Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, had attempted to further increase his power, drawing intense criticism and protests.
“I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes,” Musharraf said in a televised address, according to the article. His resignation drew celebrations across the capitol.
Musharraf’s resignation is of concern in Washington because the Pakistani president has been a key Western ally in the war on terror and the U.S-led war in Afghanistan. Additionally, the U.S. has funneled billions in military aid to Pakistan, although it has never been able to control militants in its remote border regions.
Pakistan also has nuclear weapons and the U.S. worries that those nukes could fall into the wrong hands.
What’s your view of Musharraf’s resignation? What impact will it have on U.S.-Pakistan relations and the war on terror? Will it mean more instability in the nation and region? Can the coalition government successfully form a new government?
Comments
By kelly
August 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Musharaff’s time has passed. It’s time for Pakistan to really clamp down on military in its border towns and the present government seem unable or unwilling to do what it needed to do. The military not defending Musharaff was a clear sign it was time to go or risk a bloody overthrow
By Scott
August 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
We can only hope that whoever relpaces Musharraf will continue down the path to end terrorism and fight for democracy. Peace - in the middle east!
By LJ
August 18, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
This could turn out to be good or bad. Too many varibles here to know how it will go. I am not so sure the nukes they have will stay secured like they are now. That country and India are still a powder keg just waiting to explode. The leaders or leader taking his place might not be so strong and keep these people under control on the India issues. As far as the terrorist go I think he could have gotten Bin Laden for us but has been paid off not to find him by the terrorist. We don’t really know what happens over there about the terrorist groups. They are totally lawless about that. Bush administration paid billions of dollars and got nothing out of it.
By mikky
August 18, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Hie, this is mikky from pakistan, I respect my friend LJ’s views but I would only like to say that we have a democratic government now and I guess they can take care of nukes better than the past government because they have support of pakistani people. Well, Its a good news that Musharraf has resigned but there is still a big question whether it was the right time or not. Musharraf resigned because he wants to save the country from deeper consequences but the point is that present government has not shown any change in their policies yet, pakistanis are still facing crisis. I hope in the coming future present democratic government would take some initiatives which are in the best interest of pakistan, people would come out of the crisis (internal and external both) and they have a sigh of relief.
By JOYCE
August 18, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
This can turn out to be a plus for the terrorist and a negative for democratic countries. Like LJ, just hoping for some strong leadership who will actually try to rid the country of terrorist activity.
By ButlerDawg
August 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
There was a clear need for a change of leadership. Pakistan is what Cambodia was during the Vietnam war…a safe haven for the enemy. Until they show that they truly back us in our efforts of thwarting terrorism then they should be watched very carefully.
By Randy
August 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
If only Bush would follow his lead! This country would be so much better off!
By Norbert
August 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
This is probably not a good thing, not so much relative to the war on terror, but for Pakistan itself. It seems to me just a matter of time before the radical elements in Pakistan exploit the democratic elective process to take control and then suppress freedoms. Without a strongman like MUsharraf, this is likely to occur. They’re probably going to end up with an Islamic theocracy, which is exactly the opposite of what the people of Pakistan really want
By Oscar
August 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
As Americans, there is not a thing we can do right now but hope the “democratically” elected Pakastani gov’t. see that long term it is in their best interests to come down on the side of law and order with as little religious interference within the gov’t as possible. As in western countries, if right wing religious hacks get a stranglehold on gov’t policy, a) nothing of value gets accomplished b) repression, fear, intimidation, and eventually violence will be the result.
By PakiDog
August 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
Mush is a dictator! He will be replaced by another dictator soon. The country lacks the attitude and infrastructure to sustain democracy over a sustained period. Besides, the dictators are always up for sale and will support the policies of the highest bidder. The more we get rid of the likes of Mush, and the dictators in the Middle East, the better we are as a society.
OUr biggest mistake was that Bush paid Mush to stay in power. The same holds true for our so called “allies” in the Middle East. Inspite of other flaws, we should look to democratic powers in the region such as India to be our true allies.