Musharraf either 'very scared or very stupid'

THE TIMES OF INDIA ^ | TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 9:31:47 PM | CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA

[psywarrior]

Time to annex pakistan and make it a slum

[Kermit]

Too late, it's all ready a slum.;^)

[mhking]

I vote the latter...

[Dog Gone]

WASHINGTON: The United States has been left searching for some positive strands in Pakistani military leader Pervez Musharraf’s defiant, in-your-face address, widely seen here as having further aggravated the situation in South Asia.

By maintaining that there is no infiltration across the Line of Control, Musharraf has boldly contested remarks and advice by world leaders, including President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the Prime Ministers of Britain and Japan, that he has to check cross-border terrorism.

The audacity has startled officials and analysts here, and although the administration did offer any immediate public reaction to his speech, there is a palpable sense here that Musharraf is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship while trying to wear a brave face for his domestic audience.

Why he chose to dispute the widely recorded and reported infiltration in the face of US, Indian, and even domestic accounts when he could have steered clear of it, is something that has baffled observers.

“He must think the US is either naïve or blind to take that position,” says Harold Gould, a South Asia scholar at the University of Virginia. “On the other hand, he has a record of compulsively lying and deceiving from the time of the Kargil incursion.”

Gould said Musharraf’s “belligerent posturing” arose from his being “either very scared or very stupid.” But it would now force the US to take a deep hard look at the region, including the historic reasons for the animosity in the region, an exercise that would not augur well for Pakistan.

Gould is working on a book tracing the roots of the communal problem in the region.

Other analysts suggested Musharraf’s posturing was understandable given the domestic pressure he was under to show that he had not lost face or buckled to Indian pressure.

“I would look more at what he is doing rather than what he is saying,” said Teresita Schaffer, a former ambassador to the region now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “His actions deserve more scrutiny than his words.”

Musharraf’s decision to challenge reports about infiltration and cross-border terrorism comes amid widespread acknowledgment even in the domestic Pakistani media about the fallacy of having pursued such a policy.

“Today, in spite of General Musharraf's soothing statements, there is little doubt that militant camps shelter under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella….Whatever Pakistanis might choose to think, the rest of the world remains incredulous of the continuing official Pakistani position that it provides ‘only diplomatic and moral support’ to the people of Kashmir,” Pervez Hoodbuoy, a respected commentator with Islamabad’s Quaid e-Azam University, wrote in The Dawn newspaper on Sunday.

Several other analysts are beginning to believe that Musharraf’s speech signals a new Pakistani approach of “nuclear terrorism,” holding a nuclear gun to India’s head to force a resolution of the Kashmir issue on its terms. Privately, Indian officials blame Washington for emboldening Pakistan with its “soft approach.”

Despite the precipitous slide in the region’s mood, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is still in schedule to travel to the region on June 4, mainly because of the absense from town of Secretary of State Powell. The two are rarely out at the same time.

But Washington is closely coordinating its policy with London, and if remarks by the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are any indication, Musharraf can expect to get an earful from Armitage, of whom it is said that he bench-presses envoys to practice weight-lifting

[AM2000]

doh! Admin Moderator, please delete post # 5

[Dog Gone]

Beat ya by three seconds ;-)

[AM2000]

...says Harold Gould, a South Asia scholar at the University of Virginia. “On the other hand, he has a record of compulsively lying and deceiving from the time of the Kargil incursion.”

Precisely what I (and many others) have been saying about Mush all along. I was actually browsing some of the user forums on http://www.pak.org yesterday, and there seems to be a lot of buzz about 6 Generals who are waiting in the wings to depose him, with atleast two of them having US backing.

[CaptRon]

The United States has been left searching for some positive strands in Pakistani military leader Pervez Musharraf’s defiant, in-your-face address, widely seen here as having further aggravated the situation in South Asia.

Stop searching. I am convinced that the entire world deserves neither our help nor our sympathy. The only thing they are really good at is staying in the iron age and killing each other. Leave them to their own devices and protect America.

[Dog Gone]

I wouldn't mind if Musharraf was replaced by another general, so long as he was someone of whom the US approved. The Indians do have some incredible reservations about Musharraf, and it doesn't look like they are ever going to get over them.

What I don't know is whether the Indians would ever approve of any Pakistani general, or any Pakistani at all, for that matter.

[AM2000]

What I don't know is whether the Indians would ever approve of any Pakistani general, or any Pakistani at all, for that matter.

Of course they would. India initiated the first major peace effort since the Simla Agreement of 1971, with the Prime Minister who Musharraf deposed - Nawaz Sharif. Sharif came to power (partly) on a plank of creating peace with India. Yes, he actually said he would pursue peace with India and won a respectable electoral victory. But that's exactly why the Pakistani Generals had to get rid of him.

[sheik yerbouty]

probably both. He's shi'iting green!

[malakhi]

Musharraf either 'very scared or very stupid'

Who says this is an either/or proposition?

[Dog Gone]

Well, then it seems to me that the ideal Pakistani leader to make peace with India would be a general, someone like Musharraf. That leader needs to have command of the entity, the Army, which effectively runs foreign policy in that nation, and has throughout Pakistan's entire history.

That would be fine, except Indians don't trust anyone in the Pakistani Army. They wouldn't be too keen on anyone with an ISI background either, I imagine. It's quite a dilemma.

[AM2000]

...the Army, which effectively runs foreign policy in that nation

Instead of accepting that as a fait accompli, I suspect the Indians seek to change that by rendering the Pakistani Army incapable of negotiating an acceptable peace. Once it becomes apparent that the only path to peace has a democratically elected leader (like Sharif) on it, I'm sure the Generals will give in.

[Dog Gone]

There certainly isn't going to be peace between India and Pakistan as long as the Indians refuse to even meet Pakistani officials.

If the gameplan is to be poised for a massive military strike until an acceptable Pakistani leader is in place, it may be a long wait. Elections in Pakistan take place in October, and whoever the new Prime Minister is will almost certainly be a Musharraf puppet. Whether India will even consider the new Prime Minister as someone to negotiate with remains to be seen, but it's hard to be hopeful.

One problem, as I see it, is that India has taken every step I can think of short of launching a war. There are not any further diplomatic steps to take, and when the next terrorist incident occurs, which it will, India will either have to launch an assault or prove itself a paper tiger.

That's not a good position to be in as the Indian elections approach.