Charles Krauthammer sees the situation much like I do.

[W]we need to make clear our choices. The best among the awful ones Musharraf has presented to us is to try to broker a truce between the two forces before the blood starts to flow, keep Musharraf to his promise of holding early parliamentary elections -- which Bhutto will win -- and then guarantee him a dignified and gradual exit that ensures his protection while Bhutto and her allies claim legitimate authority and try to reach an accommodation with Musharraf's successor as military chief.

It's a long downfield pass. But Musharraf never consulted us on the choice of plays.

Indeed, given that this recent declaration of emergency went strongly against US urgings. We have been trying quite hard to heal the Musharraf/Bhutto breach and aid in restoring democracy in Pakistan. Ultimately, Musharraf decided to ignore US appeals, and even his decision to leave the army and hold elections seem to be on his terms. Unless Condi Rice and George Bush can prevail upon Musharraf to release the political prisoners currently under arrest (including Bhutto herself), the currently scheduled elections are a farce and the outcome as ham. I'm beginning to get the answers I need to make a conclusion on this point from last weekend.

So for me, a key question will be how long these opposition leaders are held, and how long elections are delayed. Indeed, I'd argue the legitimacy of the entire Pakistani political system -- and the government of a nation with nuclear arms -- depends upon those very issues.

I think the latest course of actions in Pakistan are clearly undermining the legitimacy of the whole enterprise -- and that Musharraf has only a limited time in which to turn loose his opponents before being permanently relegated to international pariah status.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.