Give Musharraf a Chance

Though it seems like the President of Pakistan is shoring up his power by cracking down on democratic institutions, from what I'm reading in the Long War Journal, it looks like he may be saving his country once again from falling into radicalism:

In a move to limit criticism of the government, judiciary, and the military, Musharraf amended the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance. If followed to the letter of the law, the new amendments will have a chilling effect on the flow of information on the spread of Islamist extremism in the tribal areas, the greater Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and in the heart of Pakistan.

The new regulations prevent the airing of Taliban and al Qaeda propaganda and images of the victims of suicide attacks. The regulations also prevent "any programme inciting violence or hatred or any action prejudicial to maintenance of law and order." Discussions of current court cases are now prohibited.

We all understand how damaging loose talk is in wartime, and the constant negativity from our press has hurt America's own war effort. Musharraf seems to be conducting what any responsible leader would do during wartime or national emergency. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and the Media was stringently censured during both of our World Wars. Here's more:

Broadcasters cannot "broadcast anything which is known to be false or baseless or is malafide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or malafide.”

CBS News, The New Republic, Newsweek, and so on, guilty on all accounts. Can you say "Rathergate"? And finally:

Perhaps the most damaging of the regulations prevents the media from broadcasting "anything which defames or brings into ridicule the Head of State, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state."

Wonder why Bush's poll numbers are so low? Could it be the constant negativity emanating from a liberal dominated MSM, which sees its role as not supporting the commander in chief (even when it is their freedoms he is defending), but playing gotcha politics at any given opportunity?

Bill Roggio also states that "Musharraf's usurpation has weakened, not strengthened his ability to fight the dramatic rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and elsewhere." But later tells us the Pakistani "Soldiers have been captured by the hundreds and surrendered or deserted by the dozens. The Taliban has beheaded well over a dozen soldiers and policemen." This is a shocking revelation about one of the Middle East's most potent and skilled militaries, and it's seems obvious that drastic measures are called for.

Glenn Reynolds asks WHY IS THE WORLD MORE CONCERNED with Musharraf's coup than with Hugo Chavez's emerging dicatatorship? Because enemies of the United States, like Chavez, get a pass.