(Lt.Gen. Rtd. Hamid Gul)
Not that it proves anything but seems an unguarded quote sometime in the Sept/Oct 2001 timeframe. Here's the link
Gul on US soldiers.
Seemed a good place for this too--
Posted on 06/03/2002 5:34:10 PM PDT by RJCogburn
The Bush administration seems to be twisting itself into a knot of confusion over the nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan, dispatching an array of diplomats to try to "ease the tensions" between the two countries — without doing anything to eliminate the cause of those "tensions."
The actual solution is quite simple. Bush has the means to prevent this war, and he is probably the only person in the world who can do so. All he needs to do is what he should have done nine months ago.
He needs to take over Pakistan.
After September 11, as part of the so-called "Bush Doctrine," the president declared to the nations of the world: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." But Pakistan has been with the terrorists for more than a decade — and it has not given up that allegiance.
Remember that Pakistan's intelligence agency helped create the Taliban and put it in power in Afghanistan. Under American threats, Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf made a halfhearted about-face and cooperated with the United States in the war in Afghanistan. But Musharraf has been playing a double game. While he nominally cooperates against al-Qaeda, Musharraf's government has supported the same kind of terrorists — including some members of al-Qaeda — as they wage a terrorist war against India.
That war started in earnest less than a month after September 11, when Pakistan-backed rebels set off a bomb outside the Kashmir-Jammu state assembly building. In December — finding that the world did not care about terrorist attacks on India — the rebels got more ambitious, staging a shooting attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi. Imagine if Osama bin Laden's operatives stormed the capitol building in Washington, D.C., and you will get some idea of the seriousness of this attack.
Under U.S. pressure, Musharraf announced a "crackdown" on the terrorist groups he sponsored, and he rounded up 200 Islamic militants. This proved every bit as effective as the occasional crackdown Yasser Arafat announces against his terrorist friends. Musharraf kept the militants in jail until the world's attention wandered — which doesn't take long — then let them out again. Since then, they have bombed a bus full of women and children and attacked an Indian army outpost.
If you wonder what makes Musharraf think he can get away with this, consider President Bush's most recent statement on the issue: "He must stop the incursions across the Line of Control. He must do so. He said he would do so. We and others are making it clear to him that he must live up to his word." This is exactly how the administration has talked about Yasser Arafat — who, despite his continued support of terrorism, still gets U.S. funding and political support.
Like the war in Israel, the coming war between India and Pakistan is deeply connected to America's interests. For example, how did the sponsor of Kashmir's terrorism, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, react when an Afghan warlord declared holy war against the United States on Thursday? Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, told reporters: "There is certainly a lot of sympathy for him in ISI, but that doesn't necessarily translate into material assistance." How reassuring.
A dictatorship whose powerful intelligence service is sympathetic to a holy war against the United States is not an ally in the War on Terrorism. To think that they are an illusion, and like all foreign policy illusions, this one has deadly consequences. Millions of people may die in a nuclear war that America can prevent.
America must come off the fence and take India's side in this conflict. Pakistan's leaders may delude themselves that they can survive India's superior conventional and nuclear capabilities. But they will not dare to oppose the United States, especially now that American troops are stationed in Pakistan and American planes fly freely through its airspace. As former ISI chief Gul puts it, "The Americans are everywhere here right now."
Pakistan's time is up. It can no longer be trusted to fight against terrorism. The country should be thoroughly garrisoned with American troops; our military and intelligence apparatus should direct all efforts toward gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons; we must subject the country to a de facto occupation. We must stop being "allies" and start giving orders.
The Bush administration launched its War on Terrorism by abandoning Israel to a massive wave of suicide bombings. America should not continue this policy by abandoning another victim of terrorism, India, to a brutal nuclear war.
Are you saying that Gul has ABSOLUTELY no ties/contacts in the ISI?
And the erstwhile Pakistan becomes another check in addition to Afghanistan on the terror list.
The most important factor holding back the subcontinent economically right now (not for the last halfcentury) is pakistan. Musharraf took over after the KargilWar and after N. Sharif's (former PM) meetings with India where they even discussed a 'rupee' zone with eurostyle borders. Musharraf is too tied to the 50 year old pakistani dreams of leading the islamic world by proving their islamicness to the saudis.
The presence of indian muslims into pakistan would show them the value of a democratic, secular society (i know, gujarat riots and killings) - hey One Billion people. A hundred people a day probably die in autoaccidents.
I have no way of knowing, of course, although I assume he probably knows people in that organization. But it is a distortion to portray this rabidly pro-Taliban retiree as a spokesman for the ISI today. He might be accurately reporting what some folks in the ISI might still think, but that's as far as you can possibly stretch these statements.
It's like quoting Jocelyn Elders as a reliable source for the Bush Administration because she still knows some people in Washington.
Not that it proves anything but seems an unguarded quote sometime in the Sept/Oct 2001 timeframe. Here's the link
Gul on US soldiers.
Seemed a good place for this too--
That's ignoring the fact that Gul's army intel. These guys retired or not, with that seniority exert a lot of influence and stay in touch with their former colleagues. Easpecially in a state such as Pakistan where the army is the state. He was not an political appointee; pakistan democracy is on the spectrum of shaky and corrupt to non-existent; over the past 20 years, they've had 'democracy' for 5-6 years.
Mushariff is an opportunist. He cooperated with us because he recognized that it was the ONLY way he would still be in power 6 months later. Meanwhile, he and his forces have aided and abetted the Taliban and Al Qeuda while supposedly working with us. Most of what he has done has been show. Meanwhile, he and/or his military (doesn't really matter which) haver used the cover provided by US troops to attack India - under the mostly correct assumption that they would not dare start anything that might drag the U.S. in on the side of pakistan.
Mushariff has played both ends against the middle. If we let him, then we have no credibility. As for all the so-called "terrorist" suspects he has rounded up.... so what?! What did you expect he was going to do? The same thing Arafat did. Have we been allowed to interogate more than just a handful? No. In fact, 200 or 2000, the bulk of them are most likely his political opponents. Has he started arresting ISI officers who are supposed to keep the terrorists from crossing the LOC? No. Remember that big batch of taliban and al-queda we just brought back? We had to do that without telling the Pakistani's what we were doing until it was already done so Mushariffs boys wouldn't warn them.
Mushariff cooperates because he has no choice if he wants to keep his seat at the table. His Army goes along becuase they know what we can do to them if they don't. and because right now were the only thing standing between them and a nuclear holocaust. They picked a fight with India and now they're hiding behind us thinking we'll protect them becasue we need their cooperation. We should step aside and let them know they can't do that. That the two equations are mutually exclusive. That if the Indians nuke the Paks from existence, that we will no longer need their "cooperation."
And as for all those Muslims that will not "be our friends" anynmore - they are not our friends now. But they will fear us, and that is the only thing they have ever shown any repsect for.
As for not respecting the opinions of those who haven't worn the uniform, that's not it at all. I respect the opinions of quite a few people who have never been in the military, but never-the-less understand the the proper use of force. Throughout history it has been soldiers that have paid the price of politicians who refused to deal with a problem until it was too late.
Its like when people criticise the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. You'll never find a soldier who will criticize that decision. It Saved American lives. Letting the Indians take the Pakis to task will save American lives too. And that is what I am talking about, not trying to occupy pakistan ourselves - at least not until the population has been significantly reduced.
Interesting thoughts with which I completely agree. Mush has been playing both sides against the middle for months now. He mouths support for our war against terror and sends troops to the border with Afghanistan, but all the Al-Queda bigwigs we're after seem to get by his troops. Just like the Kashmiri terrorists get by his border patrols to attack India.
Well...not completely. Let India occupy Pakistan, not the US.
What an effin' stupid idea!
Makes much more sense for us to just nuke the whole region off the face of the globe.
Not that I actually advocate doing that, but it sure is better than getting our military bogged down trying to occupy that godforsaken hellhole.
Sheesh, these Ayn Rand lunatics are dumber than I thought.
Wake up and look at the *strategy* of our enemies. They *want* us - and India - flying off at every Muslim and every Muslim country, regardless of how reasonable they act or how much they try to side with us instead of the terrorists. That is what gives Muslims no choice. Our strategy has to be to give Muslims a choice. Instead of treating all Muslims as our enemies, we must distinguish between those who *act* against us, and those who favor us and support reason and peace. Pakistan is clearly in the latter category. If it is treated as an enemy anyway, then we are telling the Muslim world they cannot make peace with us and are all with Bin Laden. Which is exactly what Bin Laden's recruiters want.
The ISI apparently didn't tip him off, and Pakistan didn't insist on any formal extradition proceedings. He just disappeared into US custody.
Where is he? Nobody is saying. It sure ain't some country like France. Jordan is my guess, because we know we've taken other Pakistanis there where they seem to disappear.
Other Islamic countries have frozen terrorist bank accounts, offered bases for our military, and worked with our intelligence agencies. Bush himself has said on several occasions that not all the assistance we are receiving is public, although the US Department of Defense said that 68 countries were directly aiding the military in the war on terrorism, including such countries as the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt.
You're somehow under the impression that the Indians could nuke the Pakistanis out of existence. That's a fantasy. It's not true. At most they could eliminate 10% of the country, leaving about 125 million people with guns who are pissed off. The idea that India could then go in and be warmly received and teach them the wonders of democracy is laughable.
This article and its conclusions are a joke.
Yes, but you can't win a war against an ideology if you don't let potential enemies change their minds and take your side. Your analysis is rather like saying the way to win in Vietnam would be to just give up and decide all ARVN were really VC and just decide to dust all the gooks, perhaps starting by nuking Saigon. Which is mindless and stupid.
The enemy *claims to represent* all Muslims. The enemy does not *in fact* represent all Muslims. Pretending the enemy already does is called *conceeding* the war. Yes, ARVN had double agents in it, and yes Pakistan has Islamicists in the apparatus. But you don't solve that by attacking the entire apparatus. Because the message that sends is that one *cannot* ally with the United States, no matter what, whether you want to or not. You'll just be dusted as a gook whatever you do.
What you have to do instead is make it possible to side with the US. While also going after the actual known bad guys, as in Phoenix. Not guys whose hair style reminds you of bad guys, or who you suspect are opportunists. The enemy ideology is not opportunism. The enemy ideology is outright war with the US. Opportunists are exactly the political "swing vote" the two sides are fighting over, and you want them on *your* side, not driven into the camp of the enemy.
Guerilla style war is all about *aim*, about discrimination, about getting the intel to hit the real baddies, instead of flailing mindlessly at whole sociological groups the baddies belong to and swim among and are trying to mobilize against you. You can't win a guerilla style war by throwing out the distinction between friendly and enemy members of that population at the first step. And you can't win a guerilla style war by making it impossible to become your friend.
Musharaf is bending over backwards trying to ally with us, taking enourmous heat domestically for it. If we spurn him anyway because he is a Muslim, then no Muslim can take our side, and they are all in Bin Laden's camp. And we aren't going to exterminate 1 billion people, or 100 million people for that matter. If you drive them all into Bin Laden's camp, he's got exactly what he wants.
In the present situation, it is not Pakistan or Musharaf that are fomenting war with India. It is the Islamic guerillas in Pakistan. They want India and the US at war with Pakistan, because that drives all of Pakistan into their camp. Bringing nuclear know-how along with it. Driving all of Pakistan into their camp is playing into their hands, not fighting them. If they already had control of Pakistan, as some seem to pretend (incoherently), they wouldn't need any of this monkey business.
They wouldn't need to goad the Indians into attacking. They'd just pack up some Pakistani-supplied nukes, put them on freighters, sail to New York, and incinerate us. They haven't already done this because Musharaf is not one of them, and they do not yet control Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. He is in their way. They are trying to remove him, by either forcing him to make face-losing concessions and then leading a revolt against him as "the man who lost Kashmir", or by Pakistan losing a war. In either case they will try to overthrow his government and reverse his pro-US policy. The fact that they are trying to remove him ought to be a hint that keeping him around is in our interest not theirs.
We don't need a war between India and Pakistan. Which, incidentally, would not end in any occupation because India is not willing to get nuked over the affair. They want just a limited conventional war in Kashmir, contained, to let them sweep guerilla bases across the line of control, a la Sharon on the west bank. They aren't going to run Pakistan. They can barely rule the 100 million plus Muslims they have now. Their transparent inability to keep the peace in Kashmir against guerilla resistence is after all the cause of all of this in the first place. They don't want to (1) get nuked in order to (2) have the privilege of running a super-Kashmir 20 times as large as the problem they've already got.
Which means a lost war is not going to eradicate the Islamicist fifth column from Pakistan. It isn't even going to try, except right along the border and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and even there only temporarily. But such a war could certainly topple Musharaf's government. What *can* eradicate the Islamicist fifth column from Pakistan? A non-Islamicist government with outside support going after that fifth column, and absolutely nothing else. It must be possible for Pakistanis to take our side and fight against the Islamicists, and they must have an indigenous-rule, political option that takes that line.
Musharaf is providing one. That is why they are after his head. Why the Indians and some on this board are after is head is another matter - it starts with exactly the same sentiment that screamed "just dust all the gooks" in Nam. *Manipulating* that passion is *exactly* what the whole Islamicist strategy is based on. Stoking it is how they intend to recruit for themselves, and also to *split* political support for war against them, over here.
They want you and me fighting over this, instead of fighting them. As you can see, it is working like a charm with the Indians, and with all too many right here.
Dog Gone gives one example of Paki action on our side:
I'm not going to pretend that we are getting all the cooperation we could from many countries. But you're saying they we are getting none, and that's not true. Where's that obnoxious Taliban amabassador to Pakistan that we used to see on TV all the time? He went into hiding but the Paks found him and gave him to us.
The ISI apparently didn't tip him off, and Pakistan didn't insist on any formal extradition proceedings. He just disappeared into US custody.
I think this from JasonC's #36 also applies:
In the present situation, it is not Pakistan or Musharaf that are fomenting war with India. It is the Islamic guerillas in Pakistan. They want India and the US at war with Pakistan, because that drives all of Pakistan into their camp. Bringing nuclear know-how along with it. Driving all of Pakistan into their camp is playing into their hands, not fighting them. If they already had control of Pakistan, as some seem to pretend (incoherently), they wouldn't need any of this monkey business.
They wouldn't need to goad the Indians into attacking. They'd just pack up some Pakistani-supplied nukes, put them on freighters, sail to New York, and incinerate us. They haven't already done this because Musharaf is not one of them, and they do not yet control Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. He is in their way. They are trying to remove him, by either forcing him to make face-losing concessions and then leading a revolt against him as "the man who lost Kashmir", or by Pakistan losing a war. In either case they will try to overthrow his government and reverse his pro-US policy. The fact that they are trying to remove him ought to be a hint that keeping him around is in our interest not theirs.
Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that the U.S. has yet to get hit with nukes means Musharraf and his co-secularists have, so far, prevented it.
Give me a break.
Fortunately for the war on terror, the Bush Administration understands perfectly what you have said. The "nuke them all" crowd doesn't accept that, and maintains that Bush is being duped by Musharraf, when the reality is that they are the ones being manipulated by bin Laden and his ilk.
It makes for interesting reading around here, but it can get rather frustrating.
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.