While the idea of a state of emergency for most Americans involves being unable to watch new episodes of "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" during the writers' strike, in Pakistan things are a bit different. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, leading to violent protests and placing the United States in a difficult diplomatic position. Even though Musharraf has promised that parliamentary elections will be held by February 15 things remain chaotic in one of the world's most dangerous countries.

Why should we be concerned? What exactly is happening over there? Find out more with our 23/6 FAQ.

Q: What a crappy week. I couldn't log on to my porn sites without constantly seeing these headlines, "Pakistan" this and "Pakistan" that. What the hell's going on over there?

A: It's complicated, but here are the basics: Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency last Saturday and suspended the constitution.

Q: Hasn't that pretty much been done here?

A: Okay, that's not a constructive way to start off an FAQ.

Q: Jeez, touchy. So that was all that happened?

A: Well, all state-run television went off the air at 5 p.m. Pakistan time.

Q: Punk ass, overpaid writers. Isn't it totally unfair that this ridiculous writers' strike led to the shutdown of a Pakistan's entire broadcasting system? How can the Writers Guild get away with this?

A: The Writers Guild has nothing to do with Musharraf shutting down state-run television. He did it to make sure that he controlled the messages going out to the public.

Q: Like what FEMA did when it used FEMA employees to pose as reporters at a "news conference" during last month's California wildfires?

A: I think you're misreading that event.

Q: Misreading? Do you work for the Bush administration?

A: Next question, please.

Q: Fine. So how does a state of emergency differ from martial law?

A: It doesn't, really. Musharraf prefers the term "state of emergency" because he says that his country is in danger of being taken over by Islamic extremists.

Q: So he was right to declare a state of emergency? It's bad for a president to lose control of his country, right?

A: Yes it's bad, especially given that Musharraf was re-elected...

Q: Re-elected? So he's a popular president?

A: You didn't let me finish. He was re-elected by a wide margin, but many people thought the election was unfair.

Q: Sounds familiar doesn't it?

A: Enough with the editorializing. Musharraf was re-elected but part of the deal he struck with the Pakistani people was that he would relinquish his control of the military.

Q: What does it matter if the leader of some country a million miles away rounds up innocent people, jailing or killing them?

A: Normally, it might not be such a big deal, but the United States has given Pakistan $10 billion and has pledged support to Musharraf's government in their fight against al-Qaeda.

Q: Wait a minute. Doesn't the U.S. enjoy exporting democracy to countries throughout the world, whether the countries want it or not?

A: Not sure I'd say "enjoy," but yeah, that's basically been the Bush doctrine.

Q: So...since Musharraf seems to be an authoritarian dictator who couldn't care less about democracy, why would the U.S. support him?

A: You know, of all the FAQs you and I have done together that was by far the best question you've ever asked. And you're right, the U.S. does ram democracy down the throats of just about every country it can, but in this case, the idea of democracy isn't as important as fighting the "War on Terror" and finding Osama bin Laden, who we know without a doubt is hiding in the remote mountains of Pakistan.

Q: So what's going to happen? What's the U.S. going to do?

A: Well, they have suspended annual defense talks with Pakistan.

Q: Thousands jailed, the country's in total lock-down mode, hundreds of thousands of people rioting in the streets, and all the U.S. can do is cancel a meeting? Kind of screwed up isn't it?

A: The U.S. considers Musharraf a big-time ally. Defense Secretary Robert Gates did go on the record and called the events "disturbing."

Q: Disturbing? "Saw IV," that's disturbing. This is something else. What are the latest developments?

A: Musharraf tried to ease the country's tension by ensuring elections will be held by mid-February, and, more importantly, agreeing to step down as head of the military by that date.

Q: Why would anyone trust a dictator when he says he's stepping down as head of the military?

A: Well, an uppity public can cause problems for Musharraf. As it stands now, the country's lawyers have banded together and are now the face and conscience of the opposition.

Q: "Lawyers" and "conscience." That's funny.

A: Yeah, a real riot. Seriously now, just as Pakistan's Supreme Court was about to rule on the constitutionality of Musharraf's re-election victory, the judges were fired. New judges were put in place who would be more friendly to Musharraf.

Q: Isn't that kind of like President Bush's ex–Attorney General Gonzales firing all those U.S. attorneys who weren't shilling properly for the administration?

A: What did I tell you about editorializing?

Posted by: David Bourgeois      I’m a fan of David Bourgeois