I disagree with
John F Weldon
Greg F
in comparing Musharraf to the Shah of Iran. The shah was unquestionably a tyrant and a western stooge.

Musharraf was the country's top soldier and his rebellion against
Nawaz Sharif was a Pakistani affair not a CIA coup.

Later on, at the time of 9/11 he was told that he had two choices - to support either the US or the islamists. He chose the west. Would you have preferred he went with al Qaeda, or do you think that an Islamic state leader shouldn't also be totally opposd to Islamic terrorism, - just as much a threat to him as to the west?

Look at it another way. worldaudit.org lists the 150 biggest countries in the world in a democracy league table. Only 38 of those are full democracies. Another 38 are partly democratic. That leaves 74 which are not democratic at all. But they all are sovereign states and all have leaders. Do you think that any of those leaders who are friendly to the US are no better than the Shah? How would YOU deal with tbese unsatisfactory leaders and undemocratic states?

In that context, Musharraf who DID submit himself to election and took off his uniform to be a civilian, may not be as cleanly elected as say George W Bush in Florida 2000, but on checking the FACTS (those boring things) doesn't look at all bad. In this hour of need for his country he is probably all that stands between some kind of future and a complete breakdown (and this is a nuclear armed state). So dont shrug off the world's current best hope for these weapons remaining under firm control, by invalid parallels to the unlamented Shah.

By the way, leaving aside the Shah's unforgivable tyranny, don't you think the world might be a safer and a better place if IRAN had indeed become a secular state, like Turkey?