^ well its a very contraversial issue. you'll find nearly all political parties will have helped in someway with regards to the capture of OBL. i personally dont like the idea of the greater war in afghanistan and its very hard for pakistanis to keep hush of their views.
certainly any of the top 4 political parties would have done exactly what musharraf has.
the role of opposition is such that every move by the ruling party is critised. this is their job.
pakistans prosperous outlook is not linked to war on terror other then lifting of sanctions. president musharraf and prime minister s aziz have brought in some much needed strength to the finance industry, other similar base level initiatves to encourage business and investment on a secure footing. now at least we are inviting growth. the sanctions have to be looked at as done by an enemy, who was it again?
pakistans politics has alot more to it then war on terror. war on terror is not our main priority, infact killing in neighbouring countries just makes pakistan more volatile. other parties have alot to offer pakistan. nawaz started the motorway project and certainly has vision and serious allegations against him!
same with benzir.
the best musharraf can do now is convince us that hes still working for the betterment of pakistan just like he was when he took over. keep the pressure on
Not all Pakistanis were pro-Taliban before 9/11. As a matter of fact, Taliban had become a liability for Pakistan long before 9/11. They were sheltering people involved in sectarian killings in Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan was never a supporter of Al-Qaida. Most Pakistanis had never heard of Al-Qaida before 9/11. Pakistan just didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They tried to bring some moderation to Taliban policies, bring them closer to the West and get them to give up the terrorists. They wanted a friendly government in Kabul, not a government that allied itself with their adversaries.
It was Mullah Omar, not the US, who left Pak with no choice. Had Taliban shown some moderation and complied with the demands to give up terrorists, the history of Afghanistan would've been different.
The volte-face after 9/11 simply represented the acceptance of new realities. The decision was not taken to gain some economic advantage, or solicit American help. It was simply the right thing to do, and was in our national interest. Major political parties like PML and PPP would've done the same. But I do believe that Musharraf's position was weaker because he was a military ruler, and because military itself had been involved in supporting Taliban previously. Conversely, Americans would probably have loved dealing with the soldier directly. They didn't have to talk to a PM, who would first go to his cabinet, then parliament, and then army to get approval for a major policy shift. A phone conversation between Powell and Musharraf did the trick.
You obviously don’t know much about Pakistans so called civilian rule..the 2002 elections have been described by the US state department as “fatally flawed”.