[meteeratymn]

It was the first thing that came to my mind. I would be dishonest if I didn't point it out.

[Agehoobionibe]

Musharraf arrests Bhutto

It would have been better if he arrested Bin Ladin

[whatisthebluepill]

Originally posted by Lorizael
So then, who can overthrow our government? It was just a quick and dirty comparison to the US. But in Pakistan, this is all tempered by the fact that Musharraf HAS overthrown the government before, as head of the army.

[Quigoxito]

Should he follow through on the Democratic call to invade the country?

He already has authorized covert ops against the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. And there's nothing in principle wrong with that...

What he shouldn't do is say that the coup-within-a-coup doesn't affect the $10 billion annually we're giving to a Pakistani military that's crushing the (overwhelmingly secular) pro-democracy movement (as Bob Gates has said).

[laperuzdfhami]

But as far as I know, what Bush critized is exactely the international standard, namely that the head of state is the commander in chief of the military.

I'm pretty sure the Head of State of Pakistan is also the CiC of their military, but the problem is that Musharraf is also the highest-ranking military officer. He's not a civilian.

[BILBONDER]

Originally posted by dannubis
But as far as I know, what Bush critized is exactely the international standard, namely that the head of state is the commander in chief of the military. No.

Also, there is context here. Teh Pakistani Chief of Army Staff is a powerful position, and teh issue of whether Musharraf can keep both positions has been intensely debated in Pakistan for years. Teh Supreme Court ruled that he had to give up one position by a certain deadline, and part of teh deal with Bhutto also stipulated that. That is what Bush was referring to.

[LillyPlay]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But as far as I know, what Bush critized is exactely the international standard, namely that the head of state is the commander in chief of the military.

I'm pretty sure the Head of State of Pakistan is also the CiC of their military, but the problem is that Musharraf is also the highest-ranking military officer. He's not a civilian. Yep, that's put better than how I said it. Think of, during World War II, for instance, if you had one person in the US doing both Franklin Roosevelt's job and Dwight Eisenhower's job. That's kind of like what Musharraf is now as President and Army Chief of Staff.

[Kiariitf]

I bet Tibet is jealous

[poispanna]

Yep, that's put better than how I said it. Think of, during World War II, for instance, if you had one person in the US doing both Franklin Roosevelt's job and Dwight Eisenhower's job. That's kind of like what Musharraf is now as President and Army Chief of Staff. Nah, Eisenhower's job was small potatoes next to the power Musharraf is currently hanging onto.

[clapsoewmred]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Christina Kirchner FTW.

Yulia Tymoshenko comes 2nd. babe thread

[leoto5Fm]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you ever stop digging a hole? Apparently you slept through civics class when they went over the role of the Commander-in-Chief, so here's the Wiki article to help you get started filling in some blanks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command...#United_States
Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield

As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer and so has the inherent right to assume command on the battlefield. However, because presidents are rarely present in war zones, and often have less military experience than the military commanders, only two presidents, George Washington and James Madison, have so far done so. Washington personally led a federalised militia force of approximately 70,000 troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion during his second term, although he was not present during any of the skirmishing in the relatively bloodless conflict.

During the War of 1812, President Madison was under enemy fire on August 24, 1814, when American forces were routed by British troops in Bladensburg, Maryland. Madison, incensed by the American commanding general's incompetence, was on the scene and personally assumed command of the only remaining American force, a naval battery commanded by Commodore Joshua Barney. He did so to stall the British invasion of the American capital, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the British burned Washington over the next two days.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals. He actually came under enemy fire in 1864 during the Confederate attack on Fort Stevens in the District of Columbia, but did not exercise battlefield authority as commander-in-chief at any time. President Bush is at both times civilian president and highest authority of the US military hierarchy. He has the authority to make any and all decisions, be they occasional or be they daily, overruling even the generals. This isn't a difficult concept nor is it a particularly new one either.

And I love how you're ignoring the fact that Bush DID say something stupid, claiming that he didn't even though he very clearly did.

[PVaQlNaP]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
togglecaps, you don't want to accuse people of sleeping through civics class, given your posting history. And yet I still knew that "you [CAN] be the President and the head of the military at the same time."

Also, Bush's statement makes perfect sense in context. In context it's a ridiculous statement for a US president to make given that he himself can, in fact, be "the President and head of the military at the same time."

[secondmortgages]

If you want to play semantics without actually explaining you meaning, that's your business, but the fact remains that a civilian US president IS the "head of the [US] military". There have been instances of US presidents having military background (it's not a requirement, though perhaps it ought to be), there have been instances of US presidents getting into the nitty-gritty of military command instead of leaving most of it to the generals. Who exactly are you or Bush to say "Military command for me, not for thee" to anyone, including Musharraf? Why is it OK for the US to have a head of state be also the head of the military, but not anyone else?

[aaaaaaaabbbby]

Jesus christ, togglecaps, it's really simple. To restate again: Musharraf currently holds two distinct positions, President of Pakistan (which probably entails being Commander-in-Chief), and the separate post of Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army, which is a military position. That is the problem.

[genna]

In addition to Kuciwalker's points, I'd point out that Pakistan's Constitution (which was freaking ENACTED by Musharraf) forbids the Army Chief of Staff from being President. I believe it also forces military leaders to take an oath saying they won't participate in politics.