Pakistan's voters dealt him a crushing defeat, his party is in disarray, the victorious opposition have called for his resignation, Taliban terrorists are waging war with the military in its borders with Afghanistan, his US support all but dissipated; President Pervez Musharraf can no longer see the vision and yearning he once held for Pakistan when he ousted then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999. What he sees is a blur, the result of a series of blunders and mishaps that have given his rule an image of authoritarianism and incompetence.
Estimates point to a resounding victory for Bhutto's Pakistan
People's Party with 92 seats so far, Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League -N Party has 67, and Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League-Q with only 38. A coalition between these 2 opposition groups and other minor democratic oriented parties could give them 2/3 majority, enough to oust Musharraf. The strongest voice is that of Sharif, boldly calling on the President to stand by his word on resigning should the electoral verdict be unfavorable to his regime. The verdict, coming from an unprecedented 45.69% of Pakistan's 81 million eligible voters validate Sharif's call. However, the 
PPP is less explicit. Party Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari (Benazir Bhutto's widower) wants to move slowly and transitionally to change the system from within.
Musharraf expressed willingness to work with any coalition and called for an end to "confrontationist" politics, for the benefit of Pakistan. But he speaks from a position of weakness, and the feeble plea to end confrontations is a far cry from the man whose government received billions of dollars from the US to combat Al Qaeda. The momentum created by the Taliban along Pakistan's borders and the rise of Islamic fundamentalists inside the country have raised suspicions within the US State Department of Musharraf's secret support for the terrorist groups. For his part, Musharraf may also have a lingering suspicion that the US support for the assassinated Benazir Bhutto was not meant to share power with his rule, but to eliminate him.
The elections may have succeeded in placing a secret ally (Musharraf's or the US) from among the winners. Musharraf has been accused of mishandling Bhutto's security requests leading to her death. He is suspected of being indirectly responsible, at least by his incompetence, for the successful assassination. But Bhutto may have been a sacrifice to pave the way for the secret ally. To date, none of the winners have the stature of Benazir Bhutto, but the coalition government to be formed will have a powerful democratic mandate.
The Pakistanis voted for change, with only a small interest in anti-terrorism. This will not push the war versus Al Qaeda as much as the US would like, hence they need an ally to put a stronger emphasis on this issue. Pakistan has a state of insurgency in two of the four provinces. There is discontent, and outrage. Disappointments after 6 months could lead to disintefration of the country. Rising instability persists in this nuclear-armed nation, and the people are looking to the winners to give them a fresh start. At this point, they only have hope to start with.
Haaarrrrwwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
In about 22 hours, we will be saying goodbye to the Year of the Boar. Like other years, there were events that were positive as well as events that remained a bitter memory; the effects of which were felt in specific regions of the world. This particular year of the Boar however, has left major unresolved issues that would impact on the entire planet and its growing population.
Foremost among this is the unresolved issue of reductions in toxic emissions that closed the year with only an agreement to hold more talks. The United States refuses to commit to specific target reductions as well as to provide the technology for the developing nations to reduce their respective CO2 emissions. The State of California was denied by the US Environmental Protection Agency of its request for a waiver, normally an automatic grant, for the state to set its own standards of toxic emissions for cars and trucks. The State's standards are even greater than those set in Bali, since California's air quality is at dangerous levels. The EPA cited a national strategy of reductions rather than a patchwork of standards set by individual states as a better alternative. California will sue the government for its refusal.
The other unresolved issue is the War in Iraq, a war with no end in sight and no clear victory to claim. Soldiers fighting in that country are increasingly anxious about home. Some were even mandated to extend their tour of duty. This puts the future of these young men in harms way physically and mentally, as in Vietnam. George Bernard Shaw once said "We learn from history that men never learn from history".
The continuous rise in the price of oil, affecting all nations, remains a hurdle for many economies that find difficulty in coping with its inflationary impact and reduces its capability to support social programs. The price increases, logically, should spur development of alternatives; but this is too slow in coming as it gets inadequate support.
Poverty, disease, and hunger that stalk the regions in Asia, Africa, even parts of Europe and the Americas remain unresolved. Eight (8) years into the new Millennium and the world still fails to provide adequate food for its population. Science and technology offer genetically modified substitutes from bio-engineered products, but its safety and fitness for human consumption remains questionable amidst contradicting claims.
The death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan has placed that region in chaos, impacting on America's war on terror. The tattered foreign policy of the US here would affect its operations in Afghanistan as well. America could find itself fighting in 3 fronts, including Pakistan.
Security of all nations against terrorism cannot be contained since the acquisition of fake documents, or, authentic documents with different names and faces, is still beyond control. Terrorism is an effect, the cause is oppression and inequality. Religious beliefs are merely the medium by which the act of terrorism is carried out.
A way of life cannot be destroyed by terrorism, neither can obliteration of the terrorists prevent the rise of new warriors. A global system of equitable distribution of the world's wealth and the right of people to live free and exercise their choice of religion, without suppressing individual choices of faith, is a means of ending terrorism. My only question is why is it called War on Terror? Just like War on Corruption, War on Drugs, War Against Illegals, or War on Environmental Destruction, why is it that nations are so enamored with war. Its good if those that make these declarations are the actual people who go to battle, but its always the young men that get maimed, killed or go nuts that fight. Is it because the economy is dependent on war. The classic military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower asked America to guard against decades ago, has it grown more pervasively? Don't they realize that the words 
of Benjamin Franklin "There never was a good war, or a bad peace", ring true to this day?
Its good that the Boar goes tonight. If he remains a minute longer, I'm going to roast that fat pig and serve the resulting dish among neighbors and friends for New Year. That will definitely resolve a major issue.
Haaarrrrrwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
Piece #1
President Pervez Musharraf- He shot into the global arena after 9/11, providing invaluable assistance to the US and its allies for the war on terror. Vowed to fight terrorism. The only Muslim country under an Authoritarian leader to support the effort. Yet he gave the Taliban leadership permission to resettle in Quetta and entered into peace deals with the extremist tribal bands on the border, while allowing Islamic extremists to go unabated in their propagation of jihad and Sharia law inside Pakistan. He agreed to shift to Democracy but bargained and secured the nod of the US for a "localized" Democracy, a version in which he will retain power. He could not get a confirmation of his election in November from the Supreme Court; declared a state of emergency, replaced the justices with his handpicked people, and got the confirmation. Under US pressure, he relinquished his post as concurrent head of the military but handpicked his successor too. He acceded to a brokered truce by Condoleezza Rice with Benazir Bhutto, allowing her return and dropping corruption charges , and was seen working towards sharing power with her as Prime Minister. Yet he had Bhutto arrested, then placed under house arrest after the bombing in her initial campaign rally. Following this, he continued to ignore requests for additional police vehicles and security arrangements for Bhutto's sorties. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto took place near a military installation.
Questions: Is President Musharraf playing both sides? If so, is it because he does not trust the US to keep him in power as proven time and again in recent history? Now that Pakistan is threatened by various extremist elements running wild plus the rampaging riots courtesy of Bhutto's supporters, can President Musharraf hold on to power?
Piece #2
Benazir Ali Bhutto- Undoubtedly an intelligent, charismatic and populist political figure and leader with a long history of violent deaths in the family because of politics. Possesses strong grassroots support and is fully committed to a return to meaningful democratic processes for Pakistan. Vowed to uplift the lives of Pakistanis and institute tougher measures against extremists and Al Qaeda in particular; in contrast to Musharraf's coddling of jihadists and purveyors of the ultra conservative Sharia Law. Agreed to share power with the President on the truce brokered by Rice, but contradicts Musharraf's decisions in her speeches. Apparently possesses a weakness for corruption and a lavish lifestyle as against the poverty ridden countrymen she supposedly speaks for.
Questions: Did Benazir Bhutto demand, and eventually secure, a secret agreement from the US about taking full power after winning the election in January as part of the brokered truce? Are the conflicts with Musharraf's actions and decisions in her policy statements a prelude for this purpose? Knowing the dangers she was to be exposed to, were her efforts to unite her party and subsequent sorties meant to seek redemption, more for her countrymen; or for herself, the family's name and status?
Piece #3
The US Involvement - Uncomfortable with the growing anti-US sentiment in Pakistan affecting its efforts in the war on terror, and the chaotic situation in its political structure; plus the emerging influence of extremists and jihadists in the country, the US sought to balance the hostility by engaging Pakistan's most popular political figure, Benazir Bhutto. Expressing full support for the US efforts, Bhutto's return and outpouring of acceptance by the Pakistanis, allowed her to regain a considerable amount of respectability and influence, and a more positive view of the US as a supporter of Pakistan's development; in addition to creating a sense of renewed power within her grasp. The US saw the power sharing arrangement with Musharraf as the best of both worlds they could get to win the war on terror. The CIA and the Defense department are, ironically, the ones encouraging more participation and involvement for civilian politicians.
Questions: Does the US sense some duplicity in the actions and/or intentions of Musharraf? Was the negotiation with Bhutto meant to check this duplicity? Was Bhutto made the pawn to see the true nature and intent of Musharraf? Did the US fail to see a successful assassination of Bhutto despite knowing the "many enemies" that threatened her life? Is the US prepared for, and capable of, repairing its tattered foreign policy in this region?
Piece #4
Three Versions of the Cause of Death- The Ministry of Interior, through Minister Hamid Nawaz stated that the assassination was done by Al Qaeda through a militant leader named Baitullah Mehsud, based on obtained transcripts. The attack as reported by Italian News Agency, was planned by Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri in October. However, the cause of death was given last Thursday as bullet wounds from the assassin's gun. By Friday, the declaration was "the impact of shrapnel on her skull" caused the death. Then later on the same day, it was changed to Bhutto banging her head against the metal support of the sunroof in her car as she ducked, that fractured her skull and caused her death.
Questions: Without a message claiming ownership of the assassination, was the Interior Ministry acting too fast in laying blame on Al Qaeda? Are those they named mere fall guys and usual suspects? Was the assassination carried out by "enemies" of Bhutto and laid on the lap of Al Qaeda to divert the investigations away from the real killers? And, is Al Qaeda quietly accepting this act to enhance its influential image to the west and the rest of the Islamic world? Are the three versions of the cause of death a ruse to deflect the investigations and negate other evidence to hide the real perpetrators?
Piece # 5
Nawaz Sharif - The former Prime Minister and only remaining populist political figure in Pakistan, who was once the most powerful man in the country prior to being deposed by Musharraf; returned in September from Saudi Arabia. He was subsequently deported. The amnesty signed by Musharraf that paved the return of Bhutto did not include Sharif. How he managed to return without arrest was purportedly at the request of his host, Saudi Arabia. The former PM was spared a jail sentence together with his family, at the request of the Saudis. Sharif has also vowed to oppose President Musharraf's government in the January elections. He has been making attempts to align himself with Bhutto's forces.
Questions: Did Sharif's avoidance of jail terms for himself and his family via the Saudi request include a strong "suggestion" from the US to the Saudis? Is his return and apparent acceptance by Musharraf's government hinged on the same "request and suggestion"? Will Sharif become the standard bearer of Bhutto's party and eventually be Prime Minister? Is this the counter-request of Musharraf to his perceived intentions of Bhutto? Is he Musharraf's secret candidate or is he the secret candidate of the US? If he is some interest group's secret candidate, could that interest group have complicity in the murder of Benazir Bhutto?
Now, you put the pieces together and you will see the picture. Of course, this is purely conjecture on my part, especially the questions for each piece of the puzzle, but the facts of each piece are accurate. I simply put myself in the shoes of each puzzle piece. You can ask your own questions too after reading the piece facts, the picture may still come out the same. Same dog, different collar.
Haaarrrwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
Sources: CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Newsweek
People's Party with 92 seats so far, Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League -N Party has 67, and Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League-Q with only 38. A coalition between these 2 opposition groups and other minor democratic oriented parties could give them 2/3 majority, enough to oust Musharraf. The strongest voice is that of Sharif, boldly calling on the President to stand by his word on resigning should the electoral verdict be unfavorable to his regime. The verdict, coming from an unprecedented 45.69% of Pakistan's 81 million eligible voters validate Sharif's call. However, the 
PPP is less explicit. Party Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari (Benazir Bhutto's widower) wants to move slowly and transitionally to change the system from within.
The Pakistanis voted for change, with only a small interest in anti-terrorism. This will not push the war versus Al Qaeda as much as the US would like, hence they need an ally to put a stronger emphasis on this issue. Pakistan has a state of insurgency in two of the four provinces. There is discontent, and outrage. Disappointments after 6 months could lead to disintefration of the country. Rising instability persists in this nuclear-armed nation, and the people are looking to the winners to give them a fresh start. At this point, they only have hope to start with.
