Meh. Musharraf would've turned Pakistan into another totalitarian dictatorship if he could've. And to call the elected government of Pakistan a bunch of lunatics is, to put it shortly, stupid. They're no more a bunch of lunatics than the US congress. (Which I think many will agree is not the hightest standard you could compare to.)
The Musharraf regime was a disaster for war against terrorism, simply because it turned the country much wealthier (through US aid) and similarly much more militantly anti-American. He couldn't control the borders, stop the training camps (funnily enough funded indirectly in part by US aid), calm down the religious strife, stop assassinations or actually do nothing much that could be seen as truly useful. I really never got why the US was so high on him. Other than the above he's mostly known for talks with India (good thing) and attacking the basics of democracy in Pakistan by rigging elections, giving himself sweeping powers through constitutional changes and sacking a chief justice he thought was against him.
In short, Musharraf was the embodiment of what many see as the best anti-US arguments: "The US wants to turn the rest of the world into military satellite states, end the rule of law and rule of people so that they can shove their own views and values (not to mention corporate interests) down people's throats at gunpoint." Yes, this is one of the cases the other side makes. It's also for a large part true. The US has a terrible record for backing democracies of any sort, but a solid record for backing pro-west dictators.
|