Posted on 07/14/2005 7:27:49 AM PDT by Srirangan
13 July 2005: It is not quite the end of the road for Pakistan, but it is getting there. More than seventy US senators have already questioned president George W.Bush about the benefits of the continued alliance with Pakistan, because after nearly four years after 9/ 11, disbursed aid totaling more that $3 billion, an MNNA ally status, and promised goodies like F-16s, General Parvez Musharraf has not delivered on the Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership. Osama Bin Laden, his number two, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and the Taliban chief, Mullah Omar, continue to be at large in Pakistan, reportedly under the protection of the Pakistan army and intelligence.
Diplomats and US officials openly express disenchantment with Pakistan. President Bush is being taunted if he has been able to convince Musharraf to hand over the Al-Qaeda leadership after more than one term in office. Diplomats say the US wants to cut its losses in Pakistan and quit. It is through with dealing with dictators, because while they promise much and occasionally deliver, often they run rings around you. The US’s best bet is if Nawaz Sharief can be coaxed to take up interim primeministership, with Musharraf a stopgap president, until the full transition to democracy, but if that does not work, Musharraf and the army resisting, then America would likely leave the dictator and Pakistan to their own devices. That is bad news for a country that is politically and economically crippled, and divided on sectarian lines between Shias and Sunnis, with each sect bombing one another during Friday prayers.
But the United States is not the only country to be angry and upset with Pakistan. The UK, which is now emerging from the shock of the London blasts last week, is slowly gearing up to target Pakistan. The UK police have already identified three of the four London bombers as being of Pakistani origin, and India could be in a position to pinpoint terror groups in Pakistan connected with the blasts. Besides this, it is likely that India will share with the British government details on the new terror camps that have come up in Pakistan since May. “Now the British are serious about confronting Pakistani terror,” said an official.
On the other hand, India is also going to raise concerns about the new terror camps internationally, because Pakistan denies their existence. Pakistan’s Herald magazine reported on-the-spot from the Mansehra region in the North Front Frontier Province on the terror camps which have come up in Sufaida, Ogi, Khewari, Naradoga, Batrasi, Jallo, Pano Dheri, Jabba, Akherilla, Achherian, Tangali, Boe, and Hisari. The Indian government’s information is that the terror camps have sprung up in more places, and foreign minister Natwar Singh offered to present “photographic evidence” about them to Pakistan.
Despite Pakistani denials, it is clear that General Musharraf has accepted the need for these terror camps directed against India and Afghanistan, to put jihadi pressure on Jammu and Kashmir and the perceived anti-Pakistan government of Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The other reason for tolerating these camps is to buy off the anger in the Pakistan army with regard to the anti-Al Qaeda operations in South Waziristan under US pressure.
Diplomatic sources said that more than twenty Pakistani army major-generals and brigadiers refused to participate in the operations, the first time that the army entered the tribal-controlled FATA areas since 1954. These officers, either from Punjab or Baluchistan, were relocated, but ultimately, neither did the South Waziristan operations yield top quarries for the US, nor was the army sufficiently convinced about yielding to American pressure to target the tribal sympathisers of the Al-Qaeda.
To staunch the anger, Musharraf convinced the US to sell F-16s, and he has told the army that MNNA ally status guarantees that India can never again attack Pakistan, but the officers remain unconvinced that his pro-America line is very beneficial. Coming under pressure, therefore, Musharraf consented to setting up an Islamic accountability committee (IAC) within the army (Intelligence, “Pakistan army sets up Islamic committee,” 12 July 2005), and diplomats said the US came to know of it afterwards.
Musharraf’s take on the IAC is that it will permit the army to curb the abuse and misrepresentation of Islam in cases like the Mukhtar Mai rape case, which brought Pakistan international notoriety, but the more realistic assessment is that the jihadis and fundamentalists will gain control over the military establishment and thereby the people. The fear is also that Musharraf would have to abandon his Western-style generalship and follow in Islamist General Zia-ul-Haq’s footsteps. At least three of the country’s nine corps commanders have a jihadi mindset, and while they do not all control important commands, their dominant personalities could influence the others, especially if it comes to choosing between a jihadi course and Musharraf. While the Pakistan army is not vertically split on embracing jihad, there are very few who put stakes on a moderate military.
Internationally, Pakistan’s image is mud. For any explosion in the Indian sub-continent, in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, the instinctive reaction of the US is to look for a Pakistani connection. Security experts were convinced that the London explosions would also lead a trail to Pakistan, and they have. Diplomats confirmed that the US was mildly weary of nursing Pakistan out of terrorism, and would prefer to exit sooner than later. It is Britain’s turn to focus on Pakistan, and officials warn its experience won’t be happy either. Pakistan needs a multinational effort to return the military to the barracks, neutralise the jihadis, change school syllabuses against the preaching of violence and idealisation of jihadis, and put the jihadi youth through a massive reeducation programme with some job guarantees in the end. “Pakistan is at a crossroads, and it can no longer take cosmetic measures and tactical steps against the jihadis,” an official said.
India’s options are few at this stage. Air strikes against terror camps are ruled out, although the US knows about them, because Pakistan is America’s MNNA ally. Nor can India wind down the peace talks with Pakistan, because it would give an opportunity to Pakistan to blame India as a wrecker. But officials who were previously loathe to admit that the talks with Pakistan were floundering now say so openly, and the consensus is to keep talking, while expecting nothing, and giving away nothing. “Musharraf is just about managing Pakistan,” said an official, “and he is getting over his clever ideas.”
It does not look good for Pakistan any longer.
ping
Unfortunately we have two options in Pakistan. Support Musharraf or we end up with the Taliban with nukes.
If we wind up having to choose between Pakistan and India, shouldn't be much of a choice.
Reports from early 2002, Pakistani nukes under American "safeguards".
Maybe we should "safeguard" those nukes the heck out of there?
Pakistan is a nest of snakes. At the bottom of this mess are the Saudis, who have spent the last 20 years and more building up a network of poisonous madrassahs. Now those brainwashed children are of fighting age, and a lot more are in the pipeline. There can be no peace as long as tiny children are taught to hate the west.
I hope you're happy. You're ruining a perfectly good bash Pakistan thread for everyone. :-)
IMO Musharraf is doing what he can, given the situation he has to deal with.
They are well aware, being the second largest muslem nation, what a powder-keg they will become if Pakistan becomes a nation of jihadi fuses. They see Britain, America and other Western nations as a valuable ally and trading partner. It's no coincidence an India-Israeli partnership has been growing.
I would imagine jihadism isn't growing very well in India because of the growing wealth of the nation.
The best strategy with Pakistan may be to relieve them of their nukes, give Musharef a place on the Gulf of Mexico then instigate a simultaneous war between Iran and Pakistan and India and Pakistan.
'Pakistan is a nest of snakes. At the bottom of this mess are the Saudis, who have spent the last 20 years and more building up a network of poisonous madrassahs. Now those brainwashed children are of fighting age, and a lot more are in the pipeline. There can be no peace as long as tiny children are taught to hate the west.'
Agreed. The best solution is to let India re-unite (i.e., absorb Pakistan) and restore the unity of the Indian subcontinent.
Then, India can replace the madrassas with schools that
actually concentrate on reading and writing (as opposed to being hate factories).
If you don't close the madrassas, you'll never see an end to the suicide bombers.
we have a third option - if the government falls, we destroy their nuclear depots, turn India loose, and bomb the border region to attack AQ.
The problem is that the Indians are a bunch of pu**ys, and they won't do what needs to be done.
I thought I was being fairly supportive of Mushareff.
Wow, what a post, it will take me the rest of the day to sort all that out.
Yeah, I guess as far as military-style dictators go, he's one of the better ones, huh?
I was being sarcastic.
On the contrary, it is America that has protected Pakistan from India so far. India is not dumb enough to attack Pak while US troops are stationed there. Pak must thank Armitage and Powell for convincing India not to attack Pak.
In the long run (and the long run keeps getting shorter) the USA and India are natural allies - against Islamic terrorism and eventually against Chinese aggression.
If US foreign policy were to change so as to support the re-unification of India, is there any chance that India would take on the project?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.