"Musharraf assured the military that no one would be able to foment instability."
Sounds like famous last words. In a revolution, often the dictator is the last to know. He didn't bother to address the people, he primarily made an attempt to convince the military, that his authority was undiminished, without saying that the military IS his authority. As with many dictators, without military support, he can be executed as the scapegoat for any problems that may be facing a new regime, If he can survive long enough to have a trial. It may not be a question of Justice, but an attempt to quell a the anger of a population that has been oppressed. A country with Pakistan's population, contains ...

"Musharraf assured the military that no one would be able to foment instability."
Sounds like famous last words. In a revolution, often the dictator is the last to know. He didn't bother to address the people, he primarily made an attempt to convince the military, that his authority was undiminished, without saying that the military IS his authority. As with many dictators, without military support, he can be executed as the scapegoat for any problems that may be facing a new regime, If he can survive long enough to have a trial. It may not be a question of Justice, but an attempt to quell a the anger of a population that has been oppressed. A country with Pakistan's population, contains a staggering number of people that are oppressed for the sake of the appearance of stability. There was something once said, I'm sure it was by Stalin "You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long."

Pokkets: Actually this is Musharraf's Achilles heel. He's balancing the US vs Al Qaeda equation, but losing the support of his generals with their own agendas. Historically, dictatorships do very poorly at multi-tasking. The whole point of being a dictator is that you don't have to please everyone, so when he starts trying to convince or persuade, all he is doing is showing weakness. And military coups love weakness...

Cniq-Cniq: The comment was off the cuff, but I'll propose a couple of foreign policy goals that the administration could set for dealing with Pakistan...

(stable and progressive generally would describe our ideal allies, but towards what?)

1. First and foremost, a stable go...

Pokkets: Actually this is Musharraf's Achilles heel. He's balancing the US vs Al Qaeda equation, but losing the support of his generals with their own agendas. Historically, dictatorships do very poorly at multi-tasking. The whole point of being a dictator is that you don't have to please everyone, so when he starts trying to convince or persuade, all he is doing is showing weakness. And military coups love weakness...

Cniq-Cniq: The comment was off the cuff, but I'll propose a couple of foreign policy goals that the administration could set for dealing with Pakistan...

(stable and progressive generally would describe our ideal allies, but towards what?)

1. First and foremost, a stable government. If Musharraf goes, we want the next guy (or gal) to stick around. We can't work with a country if its laws and leaders change by the week.

2. Progress towards... the decentralization of power. I won't say "Democracy" because a democracy that elects Jihadists, Al Qaeda and the Taliban isn't really making progress towards that goal. A government that empowers its people and promotes equality among them should be our value, democracy is just a means of achieving that value.

3. Progress towards diplomacy and away from militarization. A country that solves all it problems militarily is a risk to us, even if they attack our enemies today, they might attack us tomorrow. If they commit to the international diplomatic comunity, then they necessarily moderate their radical views and this helps goal No. 1 of Stability.

4. Progress towards equality and human rights. Giving its citizens equal protection means not exploiting the poor, the minorities, and women. It also means protecting people's different beliefs. A government that makes no attempt to protect the under-privlidged members of its society is nothing more than a mob, and can't be trusted.

5. Progress towards globalization and away from isolation. A nation connected to the world makes more friends than enemies.

Well, since we're talking about progress, I would grade Pakistan in terms of forward motion. (Now in physics they might tell you that all motion is forward motion, but I'd like to think in politics we can definitely see some things as moving backwards.)

One of the reasons I'll be sad to see Musharraf go is because for all his short commings, he has not let the country slip too far back. (And considering that it is the neighbor of Afghanistan where most of Al Qaeda and the Taliban relocated to, then there is a long way back for it to slip!)

So if an F means invade now, and if an A is "Mission Accomplished" I would give Pakistan a C+

Early Musharraf gets a B- from me for holding back the ti...

Well, since we're talking about progress, I would grade Pakistan in terms of forward motion. (Now in physics they might tell you that all motion is forward motion, but I'd like to think in politics we can definitely see some things as moving backwards.)

One of the reasons I'll be sad to see Musharraf go is because for all his short commings, he has not let the country slip too far back. (And considering that it is the neighbor of Afghanistan where most of Al Qaeda and the Taliban relocated to, then there is a long way back for it to slip!)

So if an F means invade now, and if an A is "Mission Accomplished" I would give Pakistan a C+

Early Musharraf gets a B- from me for holding back the tide of Islamic Fundamentalism that swept over the country in the wake of the US invasion of Afghanistan. But as he becomes more desparate, and loses his control, he becomes less effective at doing the things that we (and everyone else) need him to do.

What we should be talking about now is not how to save Musharraf, you can stick a fork in him - he's done! What we should be thinking about is what the next government of Pakistan needs to be like, and how we can make sure it ends up that way.

A foreign policy initiative with the objective of creating a stable new government to fill Musharraf's power vacuum with a government that fits 1-5 should might be the most important thing that Bush could do right now, and I think its something everyone can agree on!