Sorry, this is naive stuff.
Although a dictator, Musharraf is an intelligent and enlightened man, one dedicated to his country's best interests and advance.
The comparison that comes to mind is Ataturk.
Pakistan is barely a country in certain respects. It is an explosion of extremes, religious, political, and economic.
"Democratic" governments of the past, as the Bhuttos, have been extremely corrupt and achieved little.
Musharraf bravely stood up to America's demands to spread its war on terror into Pakistan. What America wants to do in Pakistan will likely have the kind of results America induced in Cambodia during its pointless bloodbath in Vietnam.
First, just after 9/11, Musharraf was threatened in private by the Americans. He actually told us about it. After all, the British at the time feared America was ready to use atomic weapons on Afghanistan, although you did not read that in the headlines.
Then when Musharraf cooperated about intelligence and in other ways as the Americans demanded, suddenly he was magically transformed into America's priceless ally. But behind the scenes, there were tremendous tensions, against which Musharraf stood bravely.
When America had all that was useful from him, they played an old dirty game: they quietly dumped him and encouraged others, like Ms Bhutto, to get involved, doing it all with fake claims about democracy. America’s hand was even strengthened by their having called him such an ally before. You can play on themes like that nicely with propaganda.
America has no interest in democracy anywhere, so long as they get the support for their demands and policies abroad. Nothing else matters, and only the politically naive believe otherwise. Pinochet was just fine, as was Ceausescu, as was Marcos, as was Park of South Korea, as was seventy years of one-party rule in Mexico, as was the Shah, as was Saddam Hussein until he strayed.
There is very little to be optimistic over with Musharraf’s going and the U.S. getting what it wants.
