Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

what is wrong with Musharref being in charge of the army ?

The President of the United States is the Head of State. He is constitutionally empowered to be the Commander in Chief - the highest ranking officer in the military. The only limitation is that he requires congressional approval to declare war (but the Korean War started without approval).

General Musharref is Pakistan's head of state. He is also in charge of the military.

The executive branch is demanding that Musharref step down as head of the military. Can anyone see the contradiction in that ?

Sure - General Musharref is an evil dictator, he was not democratically elected in free elections. He took power in a military coup & the only elections held since then have NOT been free by any measure of the term "free".

But haven't W & his cronies pushed the envelope demanding action of other countries, that they will not take themselves ?

Update:

Since Truman fought the Korean war entirely without Congressional approval, The War Powers Resolution has changed things. But the president did not SEEK congressional approval for the following (even though congress did give approval) -

Grenada, Panama, Somalia & both Gulf Wars.

Nevertheless - W is the head of state (or occupies the office of, at any rate) AND he has the power to commit certain troops WITHOUT congressional approval. He doesn't want Musharref to have the same.

I want a democratic Pakistan, but I still see POT, KETTLE & BLACK coming up in the same sentence.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    well i think you answered your own question but Musharref is like George Bush, infact they probably have a sort of alliance, both just care about money, Pervez is evil and thats why people dont want him to be a President or, but as for him being in charge of the army, he'll use them for his own needs not the country's. He'll choose the quickest method to end something, but that method will kill many soldiers, that's why.

  • 1 decade ago

    The President of the United States is a civilian ensuring civilian control over the Armed Forces of the United States, he is not a serving officer in the military even though he is referred to as the Commander in Chief.

    General Musharref is a serving member of his nation's military and attempting to assume the office of chief executive of his country. He needs to surrender one office to assume another, not try to hold two offices at one time.

    Your suggestion that the President of the United States is asking General Musharref to do something that he himself won't do is wholly nonsense. You clearly don't understand how the United States Government operates, the President is 'Commander in Chief' in name only having delegated the authority to direct the military forces to the Secretary of Defence again ensuring the civilian control of the military.

    The United Nations issued the authority to conduct a 'Police Action' to halt North Korean agression against the South Koreans, as a member of the United Nations, the United States provided the majority of fighting forces. Congress in this case surrendered its authority to declare war in this situation however retained control over all U.S. Forces so deployed.

    Source(s): Peak strength for the United Nations Command was 932,964 on July 27, 1953 -- the day the Armistice Agreement was signed: Republic of Korea 590,911, Columbia 1,068, United States 302,483, Belgium 900, United Kingdom 14,198, South Africa 826, Canada 6,146, The Netherlands 819, Turkey 5,453, Luxembourg 44, Australia 2,282, Philippines 1,496, New Zealand 1,385, Thailand 1,204, Ethiopia 1,271, Greece 1,263 and France 1,119
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Musharref wears the military uniform (think Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein). He has recently acted as a dictator.

    That's why Bush has requested that he "take off his uniform".

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    even blindly loyal bush-o-philes would think there was something strange about the enactment of marshal law....

    the first thing i heard about this was that the lawyers took to the streets to protest.. in america it's usually the unwashed and unemployed amongst us who do the protesting.. when people with respectable educations and careers begin throwing rocks at riot police, i take it as a sign that there is something seriously wrong, whether i know what it is or not

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    in fact there is nothing wrong in that , but the problem is General Musharraf is a new Dictator , willing to carry on till the end of his life, as if he has inherited the country he rules .............

    and in my opinion , any Dictator at all and anywhere should be "Pulled off " and buried in a garbage area of the history.

    but yet , there is some specific countries helping these Dictators to carry on , just to keep them as slaves serving this certain country's benefits ....

    the history told us of what happen to any Dictator ......as we all know..

    So Musharraf should listen to the voice of his people and to quit giving some one else to have a chance to improve the future of Pakistan...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    call for "general" bush to step down as head of us military.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.