Posted on 09/13/2009 8:51:06 AM PDT by OldSpice
ISLAMABAD: Former President Pervez Musharraf has said that military aid provided by the US to Pakistan for the war against terror during his tenure had been used to strengthen defences against India, the first such admission by any top Pakistani leader.
Musharraf admitted that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, and justified his actions by saying he had "acted in the best interest of Pakistan."
In an interview with a news channel, he said he "did not care" whether the US would be angered by his disclosure.
The former military ruler, who resigned as President in August last year to avoid impeachment, said he was not ready to compromise on Pakistan's interests.
India and several influential lawmakers in the US have been saying that Pakistan had used funds given to it by the US to take on militants to strengthen its defences against India. However, Pakistan had been denying the charges.
Musharraf said that if he had not supported the US in the war against terror after the 9/11 attacks, American forces could have entered Pakistan to capture its nuclear assets. He said it was also possible that the US and India could have jointly attacked the country.
Musharraf said Pakistan's nuclear programme was so advanced during his tenure that scientists had not only begun enriching uranium but had also developed plutonium-based weapons.
Asked about scientist A Q Khan's claim that he had been forced to make a confession about running a nuclear proliferation network, Musharraf said Khan "had done a lot but he was lying that he was forced to apologise before the nation".
Lol. Of course, just like the Tens of billions we gave to ‘help’ Africa, with Aids.
It never ends.
I suspect Perv’s deep motive was a legitimate one—to unify Pakistan under the central government. When the US first became interested in Pak, it was not a real nation, just a bunch of enclaves, and Perv was just in charge of the most powerful minority power in the government, most of the military. The security service, the ISI, was radical.
There was no unity, only backstabbing and continual vying for power at the expense of everyone else. So much of what the US did was to strengthen Perv politically. This was not easy, as he had the sword of Damocles over his head. One non-recoverable mistake, and he was out.
For at least six years, a piece at a time, we helped Perv smite his enemies, purge his military and ISI, establish increasing control over the enclaves, and likewise weaken his enemies with political gamesmanship. For example, he severely nailed a radical religious party by painting them into the corner of supporting abusing women, just before an election.
“Women are unimportant farm animals, who can be sold, beaten or murdered at will” is not a good campaign slogan when women can vote. So score one for Perv, introducing a civil rights bill for women.
At the same time, Perv could not look like a “puppet” of the US, so had to publicly disagree with us at intervals. And finally, perhaps his best decision of all, he discovered that he had become the biggest obstacle to his goals, so he stepped down. That took a lot of guts.
So all told, he did a heck of a lot for his country of 111 million people, established a lot more order where there had only been chaos, smote a lot of al-Qaeda and Taliban, and made a supremely wise decision when he had to.
All told, he did a good job.
Yeah, we kinda threw him under the bus, so that's a fairly non-surprising reaction.
Another failed government program. The “throwing money at it, without any oversight” solution, still Washington’s favorite. We better learn the strategic value of an alliance with the world’s largest democracy, an English-speaking, majority non-muslim India, or we’re making a terrible mistake. Pakistan is a problem we have to contain, and we need their grudging assistance in fighting the terrorists they harbor and helped to create, but India is the long-term relationship worth having.
The Pentagon should have a good idea where Pakistan’s warheads are stored and the location of its nuclear weapons research and production sites. With U.S. support India might do a preemptive strike. The rationale being Pak funding of anti-Indian terrorism. I’m not advocating this course but I’m sure it has been considered. Eventually Pakistan may ally itself with Russia or China and then such an operation becomes more difficult.
It was worth it all, though, just to have a logistical bridge through the Kiber Pass to Afghanistan. Barry no longer has that bridge, because Pakistan’s collapsing back into its natural disorder, the Kiber Pass along with it, and yet he’s upping the troop presence. Madness. Dubya kept our commitment small there for a good reason.
Oh c’mon really? This siphoning of money has been going on for years...we do the same thing with Turkey. What a joke..we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction in the yards of our “friends”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece
Yeah, getting yourself tossed out on your ear and allowing huge swaths of your country to be overrun by the Taliban was REALLY better for Pakistan than admitting maybe the hostile takeover of Kashmir was a BIT wrong, and coming to some kid of diplomatic agreement with one of the largest democracies on the planet. Sure it was.
Yes, overall he did do a good job. I’m not sure how much good misappropriating funds did for his country though.
Nationalism is one of the tools of nation building. For better or worse, the typical Pakistani sees India as their main enemy, after several wars. So if Perv didn’t improve defenses against them somehow, his political opponents would have used it as just another weapon to attack him.
For the same reason, he wouldn’t attack AQ Khan, because he is a national hero, even if he did spread nuclear technology hither and yon.
There were several times there when he did overextend, and had to retreat in a hurry. One was trying to remove some national judges who were being pestiferous. Imagine a riot of lawyers, which is what happened.
Other times he committed his military and their loyalty proved questionable. An entire military unit surrendered to the Taliban at one point without firing a shot. And the ISI was littered with enemy sympathizers. So it was carrot and stick the whole way. The carrot provided by the US, with better arms and equipment.
Then Perv had to move offensively with the MacArthur(PBUH) technique of hitting them where they weren’t. And then he got nailed with the Red Mosque revolt right in the capital.
At times it must have been like sweeping millions of fire ants into a pile.
The results may be the same.
I see a broader comparison between Japan then and Iran now. In both cases, they realized that they *should* be far more powerful in world affairs then they were, and both think militarism is the way to achieve those ends.
And in both cases, they see US aircraft carriers as the big barrier to their goals.
That's a good way of putting it. I used to spend a lot of time defending him. On the other hand, I'm also aware of the position of the Indian government. I KNOW Musharraf couldn't last forever. The problem with leaders like him in a country like that though, is that unless he's followed by leaders of equal savvy, he's...Alexander the Great. The empire lasts only as long as he does. I know he hoped to create something more permanent, but it does not appear to have worked. Maybe he can do a heroic comeback on the brink of Pakistan's darkest hour, sweeping in and saving it from it's enemies. Maybe he's waiting for that. Maybe he's planning on it. I don't know. I know the US situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan has degenerated under Obama's tender ministration and it really worries me.
We have yet to deal with this leg of the "axis of evil."
I prefer GW Bush's approach of a pre-emptive strike.
I don't want to have several thousand sailors meet their deaths before we hit them.
Shocking, simply shocking!
Whowouldathunk!
I’m gobsmacked...:-)
Actually Bush’s style was more pre-emptive rhetoric and Obama’s style is more pre-emptive apology.
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.