What's new

Don’t mess with Pakistan —By Pervez Musharraf

And that's what feeds the mistrust of the US in Pakistan - See it should be a no-brainer, right? I mean really, how can US interests and investments be secure if Pakistan and India continue to be at each others throat not just across the border but in the whole region, right??

And yet, it's difficult to get the US to see sense -- and that, my friend confounds Pakistanis, they really can't get their heads around that - it should be a no-brainer.

As for the Indians, you know on the internet, it's all huff and puff, in real life, the diplomats talk to each other, they socialize with each other and they already have the contours of a deal. But again, when Obama does not come through and says unhelpful things about Kashmir, well, that only works to feed the idea that the US is duplicitous, it says one thing to Pakistanis and another to Indians, as if it did not want stability.
 
i think after Afghanistan, U.S. will be too cynical and fed up and will do a facepalm when Saudi asks them to do something about the crisis brewing in Yemen
 
Musharaff is being prepared in Washington to take the reigns of power once again.Like Benazir was being propped up by washinghton to return to pakistan and rule again.Thats different matter that she got shaheed after her return.If Musharaff returns now then pakistan can soon see change in govt.
 
seems that majority of his support comes from outside the country; though surely there are Pakistanis who would prefer him over the inept, unpatriotic, inefficient, spineless lot sitting in Islamabad at the moment
 
Perhaps it would be wise for both India and the US to ensure their interests and those of Pakistan do not conflict - this will be best for everybody, don't you think?

After all, US will leave, it has to leave but it will still have interests and those interests need to be secured and that will leave Pakistan and India - and if they are at odds, what are the chances that US interests and investments will be safe??

How can you ensure that interests do not conflict? Its in India's interest to get part of Kashmir with Pakistan and China back from them and keep its part with itself and have peace in Kashmir.How will Pakistan ensure it can change itself to align with this Indian interest from an economic, political & strategic perspective?

For Pakistan, its even tougher because its Military rulers and politicians have a vested interest in the Kashmir issue and animosity with India...I do not understand how can a country change its core political arguement...The only party that has 'least' to lose in this is China; who can choose to change stance per their immediate thinking.

The point Im making is deeper; lets assume Kashmir issue is discussed and some progress made...what will happen to the people trained to kill?
What will happen even more to the system of creating terrorists? They either have to be given a different target or eliminated..and Pak has be wary, unable or unwilling to eliminate them. In this case, they have to be given a different target in the short term and terror system changed over time.

The only alternate target that makes sense from a logistical and socio-economic-political is China. Ofcourse, this is easier said than done.

India does not see this as a win-win. Resolve Kashmir to Pak's satisfaction and then the threat from terror will be stopped..Thats not a good cost benefit solution. Instead, if the terror factory is aimed at China and Pakistan shuns all Anti-India works than yes..the Cost-Benefit might entice India.Pakistan has only played a survival game. It should up the stakes to aim for more than that.
 
seems that majority of his support comes from outside the country; though surely there are Pakistanis who would prefer him over the inept, unpatriotic, inefficient, spineless lot sitting in Islamabad at the moment

I always had my doubts about him and his doublespeak.It seems to me that Musharaf was always playing a double game..ie right from 9/12 onwards..promising to fight USs WOT and on the other hand allowing/marinating the terror machine to stay afloat.

Mumbai: The Plot Unfolds, Lashkar Strikes and Investigators Scramble - ProPublica

Its also shocking that he never meant to clamp down on terror. Mir - the new Osama..travelled to India during 2005 cricket series as a fan..this is shameful..personally I thought India-Pak had become friends at that time...but it seems Pak was only bidding time for the US admin to change to a more pro-pak regime.
 
When America decided to retaliate, we joined the international coalition against Kabul by choice so we could safeguard and promote our own national interests. Nobody in Islamabad was in favor of the religious and governmental philosophy of the Taliban.

liar liar.... wasn't he the person who told that they were forced to go against afghanistan... goes like... bomb... blah blah.. stone ages.... blah blah...
 
I always had my doubts about him and his doublespeak.It seems to me that Musharaf was always playing a double game..ie right from 9/12 onwards..promising to fight USs WOT and on the other hand allowing/marinating the terror machine to stay afloat.

Mumbai: The Plot Unfolds, Lashkar Strikes and Investigators Scramble - ProPublica

Its also shocking that he never meant to clamp down on terror. Mir - the new Osama..travelled to India during 2005 cricket series as a fan..this is shameful..personally I thought India-Pak had become friends at that time...but it seems Pak was only bidding time for the US admin to change to a more pro-pak regime.


of course you indians have your doubts over everything even remotely related to Pakistan or Pakistanis; nothing new with that --though your views are of course your own views which you are free to hold


the standard line of ''terror machine'' gets kinda old though......set aside some time and come up with some new ones for next time

good luck
 
I
ndia does not see this as a win-win. Resolve Kashmir to Pak's satisfaction and then the threat from terror will be stopped..Thats not a good cost benefit solution. Instead, if the terror factory is aimed at China and Pakistan shuns all Anti-India works than yes..the Cost-Benefit might entice India.Pakistan has only played a survival game. It should up the stakes to aim for more than that.

Well, I don't think you speak for India, there is some diversity of opinion in India, right? But of course the point of view you are articulating is not something Pakistanis are unfamiliar with -- I myself am persuaded that US seeks a realignment of Pakistan towards exactly the position you have articulated.

Thus far, India have been less than enthusiastic about the possibility that it may have peace with Pakistan -- and Pakistan are not yet persuaded, it would seem from the overtures they continue to make to India, that India's continued refusal make it a candidate for long term destabilization - however, our focus was the exact opposite, without a win win, Pakistan, India and the US lose.
 
And that's what feeds the mistrust of the US in Pakistan - See it should be a no-brainer, right? I mean really, how can US interests and investments be secure if Pakistan and India continue to be at each others throat not just across the border but in the whole region, right??

And yet, it's difficult to get the US to see sense -- and that, my friend confounds Pakistanis, they really can't get their heads around that - it should be a no-brainer.

As for the Indians, you know on the internet, it's all huff and puff, in real life, the diplomats talk to each other, they socialize with each other and they already have the contours of a deal. But again, when Obama does not come through and says unhelpful things about Kashmir, well, that only works to feed the idea that the US is duplicitous, it says one thing to Pakistanis and another to Indians, as if it did not want stability.[/QUOTE]

For one I agree US is duplicitious.But more because it still refrains from calling Pakistan a terror state. The reason is not far to seek. It needs Pakistan in Afghanistan and against India and also wants to keep China out.

The fact is and a difficult fact for Indians to appreciate that there are multiple power centres in Pakistan and also in the US. Pentagon would rather stay in ******, while US admin will want out. CIA would rather keep militants engaged in borders rather than fight in cities.

This multipicity of power centers is difficult for India to deal with as it exists even in China. Its a shame military in India never got its power. Hope at some point they will take it by force.Once, India has multiple power centers the situation will unravel fast.

US friendship with India need not dilute the new game of G-2.For next 10 yrs, India will remain a bit player in this region.If it was not for the US financial bust up...G-2 would have been a much bigger reality...but now US is unable to fund consumers to buy Chinese goods and both feel the pinch.

In 10 years time, situation will be entirely different and power diffusion in India could change the game totally.

Pakistan needs to be smart and not get caught up as a pawn in this game.In all scenarios you can conjure up..a close India-Pak equation provides the best case from an economic, political & military standpoint.

Last point I want to make is that I sense India and Pakistan have reached an accord to keep jabbing at each other in public when in presence of media or Chinese/American leaders while try resolving issues in the background....to show them we are doing as they want us to do...this sums up the reality.
 
I think you may have misunderstood a key element - I think a majority of Pakistanis will agree with the notion that extremism in society has to be countered forcefully and effectively.

US can't do this neither can India, Pakistan can, what I was pointing towards was Musharraf's call to orient US policy such that it enables Pakistan to do just that.

As for India in 10 years, well, again, I think a majority of Pakistanis would not have a problem with India creating lives of dignity for it's citizens - that's what states are supposed to do, or at least enable their citizens to do for themselves.
 
I think you may have misunderstood a key element - I think a majority of Pakistanis will agree with the notion that extremism in society has to be countered forcefully and effectively.
US can't do this neither can India, Pakistan can, what I was pointing towards was Musharraf's call to orient US policy such that it enables Pakistan to do just that.

As for India in 10 years, well, again, I think a majority of Pakistanis would not have a problem with India creating lives of dignity for it's citizens - that's what states are supposed to do, or at least enable their citizens to do for themselves.

Im not sure Pakistan Govt agrees with this even if people in general do...ie they wouldnt want to roll back all extremism of which terrorism is one offshoot simply because the military would be wary of losing one of its strategic element that in its view keeps its eastern border peaceful and a pro-pak Afghan govt plausible.So to this extent I can understand why they are demanding something in return (ie Kashmir or Taliban in Af) for rolling back years of expansion of extremism.

But I dont understand whats their Plan B or Plan C...if they dont have any backup plans they will eventually buckle under.
 
Were Pakistan in a more secure situation, I can't see what the need for the kind of asset you suggest extremism is. Can you ? That's what I meant by the geo-political space. I realize there are many Indian forum members who think Kashmir will wait - it may and it may not - I think the longer it waits the more extremists in both societies will use nationalistic sentiment to justify themselves and that's bad for Pakistan, Inida and US.
 

20101116_27.jpg



Sporadic and superficial global support has made Pakistanis feel dangerously betrayed

The world is watching Pakistan, and rightly so. It’s a happening place. Pakistan is at the center of geostrategic revolution and realignments. The economic, social and political aspirations of China, Afghanistan, Iran, and India turn on securing peace, prosperity, and stability in Pakistan. Our country can be an agent of positive change, one that creates unique economic interdependencies between central, west and south Asian countries and the Middle East through trade and energy partnerships. Or there’s the other option: the borderless militancy Pakistan is battling could take down the whole region.

Recently, terrorists on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border have plotted, unsuccessfully, to unleash terror as far away as Copenhagen and New York City. Pakistan’s role in a safe, secure world cannot be overemphasized. To appreciate the complex history of Pakistan’s internal and external challenges is to understand how the 21st century could well play out for the world.

Our country was born of violence, in August 1947. Just months after the partition of the subcontinent and the creation of the Dominion of Pakistan, we were at war with India over Kashmir. Pakistan and India’s mutual animosity and history of confrontation remain powerful forces in South Asia to this day. Because of its sense of having been wronged by India—and feeling that it faced an existential threat from that country—Pakistan cast its lot with the West. We became a strategic partner of the U.S. during the Cold War, signing on to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in the 1950s, while India tilted toward the Soviet Union. As part of our inalienable right to self-preservation, we formulated a “minimum defensive deterrence” strategy to maintain Army, Navy and Air Force numbers at levels proportional to India’s.

In 1965 we again went to war over Kashmir, and in 1971 over East Pakistan (I fought in both). Our suspicions about India were proved right when it became clear that the creation of Bangladesh was only made possible through Indian military and intelligence support. Among Pakistanis in general, and the Army in particular, attitudes against India hardened. The adversarial relationship between our Inter Services Intelligence and their Research and Analysis Wing worsened, both exploiting any opportunity to inflict harm on the other.

India’s “Smiling Buddha” nuclear tests in 1974 changed everything. Pakistan was forced to resort to unconventional means to compensate for the new imbalance of power. Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto initiated Pakistan’s atomic program, and thus began the nuclearization of the subcontinent. India’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was an effort to project power beyond its borders; Pakistan’s was an existential and defensive imperative.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 presented Pakistan with a security threat from two directions: Soviets to the west, who wanted access to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan, and Indians to the east. Once again Pakistan joined hands with the United States to fight Moscow.

We called it jihad by design, this effort to attract mujahideen from all over the Muslim world. And from Morocco to Indonesia, some 25,000 of them came. We trained and armed Taliban from the madrassahs of the then North West Frontier Province, and pushed them into Afghanistan. By this time, the liberal and intellectual Afghan elite had left for the safer climes of Europe and the U.S., leaving behind a largely poor, religious-minded population to fight the 10-year jihad. We—Pakistan, the U.S., the West, and Saudi Arabia—are equally responsible for nourishing the militancy that defeated the Soviet Union in 1989, and which seeks now to defeat us all.

The Soviets quit Kabul, and the Americans abandoned Islamabad. Washington rewarded its once indispensable ally by invoking the Pressler Amendment and imposing military sanctions, and by choosing to foster a strategic relationship with India. Pakistan was left alone to deal with the nearly 4 million Afghans who had streamed into our country and became the world’s largest refugee population. The people of Pakistan felt betrayed and used. For Pakistan, the decade of disaster had begun. No efforts were made to deprogram, rehabilitate, and resettle the mujahideen or redevelop and build back war-ravaged Afghanistan. This shortsightedness led to ethnic fighting, warlordism, and Afghanistan’s dive into darkness. The mujahideen coagulated into Al Qaeda. The Taliban, who would emerge as a force in 1996, eventually would occupy 90 percent of the country, ramming through their obscurantist medievalism. It was also in 1989 that the freedom struggle reignited in India-administered Kashmir. This started out as a purely indigenous and peaceful uprising against Indian state repression. The people who led this first intifada were radicalized by the Indian Army’s fierce and indiscriminate crackdowns on locals. The Kashmir cause is a rallying cry for Muslims around the world. It is more so for Pakistanis. The plight of Kashmiri Muslims inspired the creation of new mujahideen groups within Pakistan who then sent thousands of volunteer fighters to the troubled territory. In terms of identity politics, the boundaries were clearer: the mujahideen set their sights on India; Al Qaeda and the Taliban were focused largely on Afghanistan. With the Taliban to our west and the mujahideen in the north, this arc of anger rent our social fabric. Pakistan found itself awash in guns and drugs.

Nine years later, there was bad news from Pokhran. In May 1998, India again tested its bomb. Almost two weeks later, Pakistan responded by “turning the mountain white” at Chaghai. For Pakistanis, our own tests became a symbol of our power in the world, a testament to our resolve and innovation in the face of adversity, and a source of unmitigated pride in our streets. We became a nuclear power and an international pariah at the same time, but furthering and harnessing our nuclear potential remains and must remain our singular national interest. Of course, the U.S. views India’s nuclear program differently from Pakistan’s. Even our pursuit of nuclear power for civilian purposes, for electricity generation, is viewed negatively. India’s pursuit is assisted by the U.S. In Pakistan, people see this as yet another instance of American partiality, even hostility. Many even believe that the U.S. wants to denuclearize Pakistan—by force if necessary—because it fears the weapons could come into the hands of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or any of the myriad militant organizations who have loosed mayhem in Pakistan. Our nuclear weapons are secure.

Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We did this because of our ethnic, historical, and geographical affinity with Afghan Pashtuns who comprised the Taliban. In 2000, when I led Pakistan, I had suggested to the U.S. and other countries that they, too, should recognize the Taliban government and collectively engage Kabul in order to achieve moderation there through exposure and exchange. This was shot down. Continued diplomatic isolation of the Taliban regime pushed it into the embrace of the Arab-peopled Al Qaeda. Had the Taliban government been recognized, the world could have saved the Bamiyan Buddhas, and unknotted the Osama bin Laden problem thereby preventing the spate of Al Qaeda-orchestrated attacks around the world including on September 11, 2001, in the U.S.

When America decided to retaliate, we joined the international coalition against Kabul by choice so we could safeguard and promote our own national interests. Nobody in Islamabad was in favor of the religious and governmental philosophy of the Taliban. By joining the coalition, we also prevented India from gaining an upper hand in Afghanistan from where it could then machinate against Pakistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were defeated in 2001 with the help of the Northern Alliance, which was composed of Uzbeks, Hazarans, and Tajiks—all ethnic minorities. The Pashtuns and Arabs of Afghanistan fled to the mountains and fanned out across Pakistan. This was the serious downside of joining the global coalition: the mujahideen who were fighting for Kashmir formed an unholy nexus with the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban—and turned their guns on us. While I was president, they made at least four attempts on my life.

In 2002, the allies installed a largely Pashtun-free government in Afghanistan that lacked legitimacy because it did not represent 50 percent of the Afghan population, Pashtuns. This should not have happened. All Taliban are Pashtun, but not all Pashtuns are Taliban. Pashtuns were thus isolated, blocked from the mainstream, and pushed toward the Taliban, who made a resurgence in 2004.

Today, the Taliban rule the roost in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are ensconced in our tribal agencies, plotting and launching attacks against us and others. The twin scourge of radicalism and militarism has infected settled districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and beyond. Mujahideen groups are operating in India-administered Kashmir and seem to have public support in Pakistan.

After nine long years, and a longer war for the U.S. than Vietnam, the world wants to negotiate with “moderate” elements in the Taliban—and from a position of apparent weakness. Before the coalition abandons Afghanistan again, it must at least ensure the election of a legitimate Pashtun-led government. Pakistan, which has lost at least 30,000 of its citizens in the war on terror, should be forgiven for wondering whether it was all worth it. Pakistanis should not be left to feel that it was not.

The writer is former president and army chief of Pakistan

Real Thougth provoking Article. Thank you Mr. Musharraf.

He's not Only a Pakistani, but a World Leader.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom