Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MUSHARRAF RESIGNING.
By Dylan Matthews
It seems that he's taking the ruling parliamentary coalition's threat of impeachment seriously:
Faced with desertions by his political supporters and the neutrality of the Pakistani military, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, an important ally of the United States, is expected to resign in the next few days rather than face impeachment charges, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats said Thursday.
[…]
Mr. Musharraf was expected to resign before the coalition presented charges for impeachment to the Parliament early next week, said Nisar Ali Khan, a senior official in the Pakistani Muslim League-N, the minority partner in the coalition government.
Similarly, Sheikh Mansoor Ahmed, a senior official of the Pakistan People’s Party, the major party in the coalition, said on Thursday that the president would probably leave in the “next 72 hours.”
Be sure to read the whole piece; the Times has done a great job summarizing the milieu inside Pakistan.
Here's hoping Musharraf follows through. The idea that American national security necessitated he stay in power was always a crock, and while the Pakistani People's Party and the Pakistani Muslim League (the two parties making up the current coalition government) each have their flaws, they still represent a step toward democratization and a decline in the military's influence. Musharraf has shown himself patently incompetent in protecting his country's nuclear supply, and a regime with broad popular support is likelier to handle that problem effectively than a unstable military dictatorship. American national security and human rights don't always coincide in foreign policy decision-making, but here they do, and the Bush administration would do well to give Musharraf the nudge he needs.
COMMENTS (8)
Important event. Pakistan is a nukular power and who fills the power vacuum is an issue to US security.
If a government hostile to the West gets in power, will we simply trust them that they will not pass WMD to terrorist groups they are sympathetic to?
Will we do nothing?
Posted by: El Viajero | August 14, 2008 1:00 PM
If a government hostile to the West gets in power, will we simply trust them that they will not pass WMD to terrorist groups they are sympathetic to?
Considering it is the army, not the government, who controls Pakistan's nuclear stockpile, probably not.
Posted by: mc_masterchef | August 14, 2008 1:10 PM
Shorter mc_masterchef: "La, la, la, la, la......."(with hands over ears shaking his head).
Posted by: El Viajero | August 14, 2008 1:27 PM
Boy, what does it say when they can get rid of their incompetent leader so fast...
Posted by: christian | August 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Shorter El Viajero: I don't really understand who controls what in Pakistan; or who the members of the current or any likely future Pakistani governments are and their attitudes towards the US; or the fact that it has been the military, rather than the elected civilian governments, who have historically maintained and continue to maintain ties to militant groups hostile to the US, Afghanistan, and India... but I'd like to cast some vague fearful aspersions about potential civilian successor governments anyways.
Seriously, yes yes yes Pakistan has nukes. Got it. That it is a reason to be concerned about its stability but realistically no-one in the Pakistani military or in any likely civilian government is going to hand those over to militant forces. It's all too frequently distraction from the many other serious intern problems facing the country, and Musharraf's profound illegitimacy is one of them.
Posted by: mc_masterchef | August 14, 2008 2:11 PM
We don't have to worry about Pakistan's nukes even if or especially if they fall into the hands of Muslim wackjobs. India is watching the whole situation extremely carefully. If necessary India will nuke the living hell out of Pakistan which is already such a rotten place that a few dozen nukes won't make it any worse. Except for millions of dead and dying civilians.
Posted by: Samantrai | August 14, 2008 2:17 PM
Does this mean the Bush team will stop the 20+ million dollar monthly no-questions-asked payments they send to Pakistan? Musharraf was their BFF after all.
Posted by: chowchowchow | August 14, 2008 4:26 PM
Say, when are we gonna stop those huge no-questions-asked payoffs to that other middle eastern outlaw state with tons of illegal nukes? Maybe when its corrupt strongman finally leaves office this fall?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:01 AM