Fascism implies, with the other stuff, a sort of racist, nationalist attitude. Musharraf's aversion to the Islamic extremists in his country does not fall in this category in my opinion. Therefore I don't know that Musharraf's government conforms to this racist standard enough for him to be labeled fascist.

The United States has had within its power for several decades to take over large parts of the world by military force and it has not done so, so I suspect that the labeling of the US as imperialist also misses the mark.

Musharraf, by his action is protecting the future of democracy in Pakistan for the likes of the secular former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. While she opposes his move as dictatorial, his action might just be the thing that keeps extremists from taking over the country. Keep in mind that it was extremists in his country who tried to explode her when she returned to Pakistan to try to gain a third term as a prime minister. If she were elected, as a freely elected leadership, would she be able to rule in such an environment?

For an interesting take on Bhutto's position, for those of you who actually click links (I usually do not) you might like this take. its a CNN thing. sorry about the length of the link name.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/03/bhutto.pakistan/index.html#cnnSTCText