Posted on 09/19/2001 1:06:17 PM PDT by tallhappy
Monday September 17, 2:18 PM
PARIS (Reuters) - Pakistan could erupt in popular protest, and India could be destabilised, if Karachi lets U.S. troops in to attack Afghanistan, the ex-head of Pakistani military intelligence said in remarks published on Monday.
General Hameed Gul, a staunch Muslim deeply involved in helping Afghan Mujahideen fight the Soviet Union in the 1980s, told the newspaper Le Figaro that any plan to use Pakistan to help catch Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden would backfire.
The United States has identified Afghanistan-based bin Laden as prime suspect in last week's terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and Pentagon near Washington, in which more than 5,000 people are dead or missing.
Gul also voiced serious doubts about U.S. intentions in the region, saying Washington wanted to exploit the crisis to establish a military presence east of the Gulf to counterbalance China.
"The Pakistani people would never accept an American presence on their soil," he said, reacting to reports that Washington wanted Islamabad to let its troops in to prepare a strike against bin Laden and his network.
"The price to pay would be high for everybody," Gul said of any retaliatory attack from Pakistani soil. "Pakistan would be completely destabilised and that would have grave repercussions, especially for the United States."
"As for India, it would be wrong to welcome this situation, because it would end up being destabilised in turn. All that would end in a vast war of religions. There are 160 million Muslims in India and many minorities struggling for independence."
WIDESPREAD ANTI-AMERICANISM
Gul, who was head of the Pakistani military's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence when Moscow pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, said anti-American feelings were widespread in Pakistan, "except for some very Westernised pseudo-intellectuals who only represent a handful of people."
"The real Pakistani nation, whether it is religious or not or involved in the jihad (holy war) or not, will be horrified to see Americans land in Pakistan, especially if it is to attack Afghanistan, which is a friendly Islamic state that has never done us any harm."
U.S. military action would also hurt the government of President Pervez Musharraf, Gul predicted.
"The first victim would be Musharraf's government," he said, arguing that Musharraf would have to call on the army to put down popular protests but that his troops would not crack down on fellow Pakistanis.
"If the Americans arrive, the elections will be buried," he said, referring to polls that Musharraf, a general who came to power in a coup d'etat in 1998, has promised next year.
"If Musharraf really wants to continue along the path of democracy, he'd better keep the Americans away," he said.
Gul argued that Washington had far more wide-ranging plans in the region than just going into Afghanistan to nab bin Laden.
"The Americans want to establish a presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan to protect the eastern flank of the Gulf," he said.
"This is part of their new strategy to contain Chinese power," he said, referring to Pakistan's other main military ally. "The United States control the western flank of the Gulf but in the east, Iran is not their ally and the Taliban aren't anymore."
"The United States are asking Pakistan to choose between America and Afghanistan," he said. "What they want to know is whether Pakistan is on their side or China's."
"...But they must know there will be enormous loss of human life, both in their ranks and in ours. It's easy to enter Afghanistan and hard to leave. Nobody has ever succeeded in suppressing the Afghans."
Sounds like something got lost in the translation.
That's what's bothering me about this whole thing. Don't get me wrong. I want Bin Laden 'dead or alive' as President Bush said. But there's something nagging at me about the deals the Chinese signed with the Taliban and with Russia a few months ago that this whole deal is a nasty setup and could turn into something much much larger
Afganistan is landlocked, 500 miles from the sea, and surrounded by regimes and peoples unfriendly to the US. It has thousands of mountains above 10,000 feet. If you think catching Apaches was tough....
We gave Pakistan a choice. Either they are with us, or we will consider them to be harboring terrorists, because some of bin Laden's camps are in the wilds of Pakistan. We offered them aid and an improved relationship with us if they helped, and we promised them a terrible cost if they refused.
This has nothing to do with a position against China. That's not even remotely a possibility for the long term. This is about logistical support for a search and destroy mission in Afghanistan.
If the US simply goes to hunt some terrorits, the operation has no strategic value. The 9/11 tragedy has given the US an oppotunity to sever the Sino-Pakistan alliance and encircle China from its west. The stability in sounth Asia may not serve the US's interets. An all-out war in China's backyard may shift China's focus on Taiwan.
The goal is to use whatever force is necessary to destroy the organized terrorist networks which have been plagueing civilization since the 1970's.
If this results in better relations with Pakistan and an end to cooperation between those two countries, terrific.
"For that which we are about to receive, we thank Thee oh Lord".
Shortly before shooting indians atempting to cross the rio grande river.
OOOoohhh oooooo booo woooo wooooo woooo.............thank you kindly...thank you kindly......
The region will definately be hot if Pakistan doesn't support our play.
The Chinese wouldn't like a large American presence in Afghanistan, except that they'd probably welcome our inability to conquer it. They'd probably supply the bands of Afghans who would make our stay miserable.
But I don't think they'd have to worry about us having a permanent presence there because nobody in their right mind wants to be there.
I think our strategic goal should be to seek and destroy terrorist networks there, capture and preferably kill bin Laden, destroy the Taliban, and then let the Afghans fight over the spoils while we get out of there. And I'd tell that to China up front.
The border is about 65 miles long and China does trade with Afghanistan for about 30 million US dollars a year here. I believe there must be a highway, since this used to be the "silk-road" linking the east and west in ancient times.
The Taliban seems to have done a good job of it.
I have another thread going showing the Panjshir Valley where the rebels are, its relationship to the linking narrow of land that extends to the Chinese Border, its relationship to Pakistan and thirdly, to Kabul and the Taliban. Panjshir is in the middle of them....not North of them. See this map and then go to the thread on Panjshir stronghold by going to that thread on Panjshir
I don't know. This is Chinese offical figures (in thousand US dollars):
| Year | Total | Expot | Import |
| 1994 | 39,140 | 27,370 | 11,770 |
| 1995 | 33,080 | 31,600 | 1,664 |
| 1996 | 34,760 | 31,300 | 345 |
| 1997 | 33,080 | 32,470 | 61 |
The figures show about 10,000 US dollars worth of goods going from China to Afghanistan everyday. That's why I believe there must be a road.
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.