I think Bush felt that Musharraf was a puppet but that Musharraf was playing him for a fool. Up until recently Musharraf gave Bush what Bush wanted: democracy (or that path to democracy that Bush loves to talk about) in Pakistan, a firm hand on the military and (Bush’s own game) saying that he (Mush) would clamp down on terrorists.

Of course when Musharraf’s interests in Pakistan started to collide with Bush’s interest Musharraf did what he needed to do to survive, which meant turning his back on Bush.

Money influences… but when Mush suspended the Pak constitution and declared the state of emergency the Bush administration totally blew their hand at even that simple tactic when Bush announced that he was behind Musharraf and had no intention of withdrawing his support- as long as Mush. would promise to hold democratic elections soon. There’s that word game again…. So Mush said he would hold elections sometime in the future, finally (after enough pressure) settling on January… And amazingly Bush actually said last week that he would take Musharrat at his word, that he trusted him. But Bush actually doesn’t believe Mush for a minute- after all it’s the same tactic Bush is employing with the Iraq war… delay and push off the deadline… Bush just needed to hear that from Mush to appease his detractors here in the US. (I mean what can anyone do? Bush’s detractors can say they don’t really believe Mush, but at the end of the day they have to go along with the game Mush is playing- just like the Democratic Congress has been forced to go along with Bush’s delaying tactics over the Iraq war.) Mush has learned from the best at this – Bush.

And who says that Bush is irrelevant when his example is being followed all over the world…?

So yeah, a puppet/master relationship is complicated and whether Mush is really a puppet of Bush can be debated (LOL… hahaha) but Bush felt he was the master over Mush, but Mush was playing Bush for a fool. I mean look at all the money Mush has gotten over the years by saying and doing just enough to appease Bush’s demands. Mush knew he was never the puppet of Bush.

The sad part about it is that if Mush had totally given into Bush’s demands… fight the Taliban/al-Qaeda, promote democracy, etc. then Mush would be in a stronger position today (not as many of those pesky terrorists running around, controlling the border regoins). But Mush took the easy way out, the Taliban and terrorists have increased their influence and now Mush feels he has to revert to his true dictatorial self. Now having just said that, I also admit it sounds a lot easier than it is to accomplish (especially when certain elements in your own govenrment are controlled by the Taliban/terrorists) and I’m not suggesting that Pakistan would be a perfect place now. All I’m saying is that Mush should have been more aggressive in fighting the terrorists within his own borders so they would not have the influence they have today. Instead of giving the terrorists safe haven in certain tribal and border areas, he should have at least made their existence harder.

In fact I’ll remind everyone that Obama in one of the debates (he got a lot of flack for this) said that if Pakistan was not willing to play ball and take out the terrorists within their own borders then as Prez. he would go into Pakistan (and this is the part Obama took a lot of heat on) and fight the terrorists with Pak’s support. If Bush were willing to do this (or even say it) then the world would be a much better place. Instead Bush and Cheney are doing their saber-rattling on Iran, which is years away from developing a nuke weapon.

At any rate, what Obama said makes sense- and if Mush did not have the political ability to attack the terrorists in his own country then Mush could come to a “secret agreement” with the US that could come in and fight the terrorists. After all, as Bush has said all along, terrorists do not fight for any country. Mush could play both sides- tell the unscrupulous elements in his gov’t that he was against the US fighting the terrorists in the tribal/border areas while letting the US come in and exterminate the problem.

This is becoming like the arguments about when and what deserves to be called genocide.

It is what it is.
I just don’t place much importance in what tag is put on it.

I would if an important policy decision depended on the tag. But it doesn’t, so I don’t.

Nothing is uncomplicated these days.
Even robots think for themselves enough to make decisions.
I would deny absolutely that a master-puppet relationahip is always uncompliated. In fact, I’d bet money on the assertion that it rately is.

If a word offends you, pick another to replace it.
Labeling does not change the essence of the, yes, complicated relationship.

I think getting hung up on terminology rather than accepting the complicated relationship is a waste of effort.

You’re right, particularly when a master-puppet relationship is inherently uncomplicated…

According to Mushraff and Armitage, he didn’t ‘know’ it until the US told him to know it.

I think getting hung up on terminology rather than accepting the complicated relationship is a waste of effort.

Musharraf saw the strategic writing on the wall after 9/11 and knew he couldn’t stand by and do nothing. But neither could he go nearly as far as the US wished and the US exercises limited control over him. The latest “emergency powers” declaration is only the latest example. There are many others – independence for the tribal areas, the failure to reign in ISI, etc. etc. etc.

In short, the idea that Musharraf is a puppet is ludicrous. Puppets are PUT into power by the US. For real examples, one only has to look at many central american countries or Iran under the Shah.

As long as the money keeps flowing, the US still retains considerable pressure power, and Musharaff can not ignore that. There are strings running from Washington to Musharaff. They just aren’t as strong or compelling as the US would like.

Whether Musharaff is a puppet in rebelliion or a free agent with strings attached, is open to interpretation. Either way, he has a riveting role to play out, and the US has no option but to pull on the strings to have as much influence as possible.
The dangers in Pakistan are dangers to the world.

Bhutto, BTW, is not emerging as the angel of democracy, either, as far as I can tell.
It looks like a pure and simple power struggle for unclear ultimate goals.

I would think it pretty obvious that Musharraf, and pretty much all of his predecessors, have never been “puppets” of the United States. Musharraf certainly wasn’t before 9/11 and since then he’s not exactly been the best ally, now has he? Come to think of it neither was Bhutto when there was “democracy” in Pakistan.

I really wish you’d give up this fantasy of a puppet relationship between the US and Pakistan.