Posted on 06/03/2002 5:34:10 PM PDT by RJCogburn
Then when the Jews saw that Islam was getting stronger they started to conspire against the muslims. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw this happening he signed a no war pact with his enemies in Mecca. I want to remind you of that pact. At the end of the pact, where his signature was required, the Meccans demanded that he cannot sign it as Prophet Mohammed. The Prophet (PBUH) agreed.
Muslims might view the Meccans as the pact-breakers. In that case Musharraf hasn't cited precedent for treachery, but rather asserted that Pakistan will prevail, as did Mohammed, against the enemy should he attempt a stab in the back. I don't know the history, so I can only speculate,, but equally can't agree with you that Musharraf reserves the backstab option here.
As to whom Musharraf refers to as the enemy, India or the U.S., read this excerpt:
“Lets look at our neighbors. They have promised US all cooperation. They want to isolate us, get us declared a terrorist state.
“They have met in Dushanbe with some other countries and plan to try and install anti Pakistani government in Afghanistan. So our neighbor is busy trying to harm us. If you see their television they are busy with propaganda against us.
Musharraf refers to India, not the U.S. As opposed to this, I see no allegation in his speech that the U.S. wants to harm Pakistan.
Pakistan and India have fought continuously and India has looms as the preminent enemy. Musharraf has said he wants a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir conflict, and I see it as most likely he would prepare his nation for a pact with India before signing one, hence the mention in the speech.
In contrast, Pakistan and the U.S. have had many agreements and alliances over the years without a single shot fired between them, as far as I know. Without a war we don't have a "no war pact" to break, at least not analogous to the Mohommed-Meccans example.
I see him as a practical politician with secularist savior ambitions. As a practical military man, he doesn't see winning against the U.S. at any time in the future (and doesn't want to - the U.S. can help him and has helped him), so the two-front analogy doesn't work here, except perhaps as face-saving cover for clerics he'd like to cull from the herd.
As for "preparing a dagger", it would be for the US, if you took the analogy strictly. But only after successfully blitzing India, removing it forever as a threat, and incorporating its territory. So the parallel sort of breaks down at that point. Because the fact is, India will still be there and still be a threat in six years or in sixty, let alone in six months. So the occasion for switching after winning on one front is postponed to the indefinite future. Making it far less tactical than in the original the hadith is based on.
Or, otherwise put, it would read like this - "if we could blitz India in six months and eliminate it forever as a threat, and had already done so successfully without any disaster falling on our heads as a result, then it might begin to make sense to think about siding with our Islamic brothers in Afghanistan against the infidel westerners. But barring that sort of miracle, it is insane to take on the US while India is right there ready to pounce the moment we become isolated." And in reality, the Indian threat isn't going anywhere. So there will not be occasion for a "dagger" for the US for the foreseeable future. The same logic that dictated siding with the US to avoid isolation last year, will apply five years from now.
He is probably perfectly happy to let Islamicists dream about eventual switching of priorities and alliances. No skin off his nose. He knows India will be there and the argument against taking Pakistani "eyes" off of her will still be sound. Let the fantasizers fantasize, but not make security policy.
'Cause he ran and continues to run the Pakistani heroin industry which fuels ISI and other terrorist operations.
Highlights of General Pervez Musharraf's Address to the Nation, 19 September 2001. President General Pervez Musharraf addressed the nation at 20:30 PST (11:30 EST). His address was broadcasted over Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan.
“I am here to talk about the episode of terrorism that we have all witnessed in New York which involved 45 countries and people of all ages were killed. These were capable Pakistanis and I would like to convey my deep sympathy to their family members.
“America has 3 targets:
Osama Bin Laden (Al-Quaida Movement)
Taliban
International terrorism
“Now I shall share with you the kind of support that they expect from us.
1.Intelligence - Information exchange
2.Use of Air Space
3.logistic Support
“No operations plans are ready or available at the moment.”
Intelligence? He has provided very little useful intelligence. Airspace? Yes. Logistics support? Airbases only. Beyond this he has provided very little other than lip service. He promised that his troops would prevent taliban and Al-queda from escaping into Pakistan. Not only were his troops unable or unwilling to do this, the evidence seems to suggest they actually assisted them. Many are now hiding in the Western region of Pakistan where is has refused to send his troops to look for them and has refused us permission to do so. Whether he is unwilling to or simply unable to, the end result is the same.
“Their target from the beginning has been Osama bin Laden, and his movement. Their second target is the Taliban. This has been their demand for many years - to bring Osama to trial. Now they have also announced a war against terrorism.”
yes. For years we have been after Bin Laden for terrorism. He has known that. He could have provided us with help finding and locating Bin Laden - something we should have been able to expect from a country that came to us for support during the bad old days of the cold war and asked us to sell them F-16’s so they could defend themselves from India and the Soviet Union. Instead, he and his generals provided intelligence, use of airspace, and logistical support to Bin Laden in addition to the Taliban.
“We do not have any details from the U.S of the exact nature of the support from us. But we do know that they have the support of the UN Security Council. The UN resolution specifies punishment for those committing terrorism. This has been supported by all the Islamic countries.”
To be read: “Unless we want to be on the receiving team we need to go along.”
“We in Pakistan are facing a very critical situation. Perhaps as critical as the events in 1971. If we make the wrong decisions our vital interests will be harmed.”
YOU SAID: Shows that he is focused on international security position of the state of Pakistan.
As well he should be. And what is this reference to 1971? That would be when Pakistan dissolved into civil war (between east and west Pakistan) and took the land away from Hindus living in east Pakistan (Bengal), which resulted in 8 million hindu refugee that were sent packing to the Indian border (we won’t discuss here the atrocities committed in Bangladesh). Appeals to the Muslim Pakistani leadership fell on deaf ears, so the Indian Government of Indira Ghandi decided to assist those in East Pakistan. In response, the PAF attacked Indian Airfields and started the 71 war. One of the reason they felt comfortable in doing this was because India had most of her troops on her border with China (Pakistan’s ally). In any case all out war ensued, complete with large infantry, armor, and air engagements. In spite of help from China, mostly in the form of material and securing Indian troops on the Chinese border through threats of action, Pakistan failed to achieve its objectives. Pakistan used India’s support of a dissident faction to launch an all out war against India. But they don't want the same rules applied to them. And now, of course, they have nukes.
“I have discussed all this with my corps commanders, politicians and prominent Pakistanis. Tomorrow I am meeting the tribal chiefs. I have to say that opinions are divided, but the vast majority supports us. I would say that about 15% are tending towards emotional reactions.”
YOU SAID: “That [15% ] is his estimate of the portion of the population controlled by the Islamicists. Not your 70 to 90%.”
First of all, the figures are not mine but the estimates, based on national and international poling data, of those in muslim, world wide, that support the actions of Bin-Laden, or other Islamic terrorist organizations. Since the madrasas in Pakistan were virtual training grounds for Al-queda and Taliban soldiers as well as many other Pakistanis, I think is safe to assume those figures hold.
But lets say you are right. What does that mean? That only 15% support the Taliban, Bin Laden, or terrorism against the west and India? If that is true, then why all the talk about how he can’t do more to fight terrorism without risking overthrow? If he has 85% percent support at home (heck, even 60% would do nicely); and he supports the war against terrorism; and his troops reflect the political views of the people; then there should be no problem ordering the army into any area of his country he wishes so as to bring us the heads of those “terrorists” he so despises. Or stopping the incursions and attacks against India. Heck, he might even have caught a few a few terrorists running away from Afghanistan.
Since he hasn’t, that means there are a lot more Paks under control of the “Islamacists” that 15%, that he is one of the 15% percent himself, or both. You can’t have it both ways.
“Lets look at our neighbors. They have promised US all cooperation. They want to isolate us, get us declared a terrorist state.”
YOU SAID: “Just like you do. He sees India using the situation as an excuse for war, and avoiding isolation by allying with the US as the way to counter this. His eye is on India, and Pakistani security. While the hotheads were focusing on the US-Bin Laden conflict exclusively, and wanted an emotional anti-US stance based on Islamic solidarity. The primary purpose of the speech is to explain why that would be foolish - why the Islamicists are in fact fools therefore, unable to see and act for the security interests of the state of Pakistan.”
If the shoe fits, wear it. They have sponsored terror against India. They created a “terrorist state” in neighboring Afghanistan. They have given aid and comfort to international terrorists. That qualifies you as a terrorists state. And even they gave no direct aid to terrorists operating within their borders, they certainly knew about it and did nothing to stop it, which means they are still culpable.
YOU SAID: “Subsequent events have shown him to be entirely correct is this assessment of Pakistan's real interests. He is just showing the foresight required of a statesmen to navigate his country through international dangers. He is effectively saying, we have to ally with the US over Afghanistan and abandon the Taliban, because it is far more important to watch India than to indulge sentiments of Islamic solidarity. Which would only wreck Pakistan's international security position, give India everything it needs to go to war, and leave Pakistan isolated to face that war. In other words, everything that you want to see happen (India attacking Pakistan, us letting it happen), he saw coming and stepped out of the way of it, by allying with the US instead of with the Taliban.”
Yes, indeed. Musharaff may have stepped out of the way, but somehow managed to leave foot sticking out for us to trip on. Mushi’s “government” has done little or nothing to stop terrorists inside Pakistan itself, and the available evidence shows that it has continued to give aid and comfort to those attacking India. If he does not get fully with the program and start keeping ALL of his promises, very soon, I am quite willing to step aside and Let India deal with him personally in whatever way they see fit.
“They have met in Dushanbe with some other countries and plan to try and install anti Pakistani government in Afghanistan. So our neighbor is busy trying to harm us. If you see their television they are busy with propaganda against us.”
Well, what did he think they were going to do? Start a damn fan club? And just what propaganda would he be referring to? Reporting of Pakistans role in creating the Taliban, whose soldier terrorize their own people, blow up irreplaceable antiquities with RPG’s, and shelter Bin Laden? Reporting on Pakistan’s support of “extremists” perpetrating acts of terrorism against India? Durn all that nasty propaganda....
“I want to tell them to ‘lay off’. Our forces are on full alert and ready for a do or die mission.”
I bet he does. Just like he told us to when we tried put pressure on him not to crank things up in Kashmir after he took power in 1999. Just like he has told the India every time they have complained about terrorists operating with impunity from his country. With all those forces on alert and ready for “do or die” mission, you’d think he would of made more progress hunting down those embarrassing “terrorists”.
“In this situation if we make the wrong decisions it can be very bad for us. Our critical concerns are our sovereignty, second our economy, third our strategic assets (nuclear and missiles), and fourth our Kashmir cause. All four will be harmed if we make the wrong decision. When we make these decisions they must be according to Islam.”
YOU SAID: “Conspicuously absent are the Taliban, or the Pakistani position in Afghanistan. Which is what he was about to give up, to secure things for these other four. He is explaining to the emotional man in the street why it would be foolish to listen to the Islamicists, who wanted to remain allied to the Taliban and come out against the US - and indeed, to send men into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, provide sanctuaries, keep the border open, and deny the US use of bases inside Pakistan. The first, "our sovereignty", is meant to blunt criticism of him as letting foreigners rule the country. The second, the economy, is a hint at the dramatic economic damage that would result from US sanctions if they took the Taliban's side. The third is explaining the military basis of independence, preserving them for deterrence of India. It is a reference to the likelihood that the US would destroy Pakistani strategic forces by air attack if they allied with the Taliban. The fourth - less important than each of the above - is a reminder that even Islamic solidarity concerns council paying more attention to India than to Afghanistan. The purpose of the whole litany of explanation is to show that Pakistan's interests lie with a US alliance directed against India, not with a Taliban alliance that leave Pakistan alone to face both India and the US, without a prayer.
Except for the last sentence, I couldn’t agree more. Drop support for the Taliban (their creation) or become the first target on the list. As for that last part, I wonder what mad him think we would support “Pakistan’s” war against India. In any case he and his generals do think that, otherwise they would have stopped the incursion into India. That fits with his Kashmir is “Pakistan’s” cause and not Kashmir’s cause. By saying what he does, he admits that they are engaged in a war with India through the use of terrorism and that course of action will be harmed if he does not have us there acting as a shield instead of anvil.
“Its not a question of bravery or cowardice. But bravery without thinking is stupidity. Allah has said that he who has ‘hikmat’ has a huge blessing. We have to save our interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary.”
YOU SAID: A direct attack on the Islamicists as emotional idiots. They think that being brave enough and strident enough and hating the west enough, is the key to political virtue. He points out that this leads to mindless folly in international security decisions, and would destroy Pakistan's strategic position. He is a military man and a general, calling the Islamicists a bunch of privates. He is claiming to be not inferior to them in bravery, as they say when they call him a lackey of the west, but superior to them in intellect. Which is a perfectly believable "pitch" to the man in the street, trying to decide whether to support Musharraf or the Islamicists.
.....Another dig at the Islamicists. They are not nationalists and do not have the true interests of Pakistan at heart. They are internationalists who want to merely use Pakistan as ammo in their wider war for Islam as a whole. Everything else is secondary means Islamic solidarity is secondary. The security position of Pakistan, especially in relation to India, is more important than Bin Laden's mad dreams of a world-wide Islamicist uprising. Pakistan should not commit national suicide to favor the interests of an international ideology. This is the traditional nationalist appeal the army has always made in Pakistani politics, and the man on the street gets the point of it loud and clear. The Ladenists are foreigners on their own crusades who just want to manipulate and use Pakistani sentiment. Musharraf and the army are true Pakistani patriots who put their country first. That is the message.
Sound more like an appeal than a dig. If it was only a dig aimed at a mere 15% why make such a careful distinction and quote Allah for support? He seems to be playing to a larger audience than that, and doing so without sarcasm (unless this is a bad translation). And who really comes first here, Pakistan or the generals in charge? I have no doubt that they value their own skins.
“Some ‘ulema’ are trying to react on pure emotions. I want to remind them of Islam’s early history. The moved from Mecca to Medina (hijrat). Was this (God forbid) cowardice? This was wisdom to save Islam.”
YOU SAID: “Ulema means learned, the clergy, Islamicist religious leaders in particular. He is criticizing their lack of strategic sense and calculation. In doing so, he is appealing to an old Islamic tradition going back to the middle ages, of separation between the political rulers of the state - sultans - and Islamic law. The traditional division of duties is that political leaders have discretion over alliances and day to day political matters, while the learned interpret the law. As in our division between executive vs. judicial authorities. He is putting on the mantle of sultan, lecturing the clergy on stepping out of line.
.....He refers to a case of such political calculation in the time of the prophet, to show its legitimacy even on their own terms. The political leader alone can make such decisions. That is Islamic, it is not against their traditions. He casts the Islamicists in the role of hot-head critics of the prophet, and nearly claims that they only call him (Musharraf) a coward as they would have called the prophet a coward. He claims to be imitating the prophet. This move is important, because many Islamicists acknowledge the legitimacy only of actions that can be defended either by the text of the Koran or by hadith, sayings and actions of the prophet. Like original intent legalists here, a precedent for the meaning of something must be traced to the founding period to be seen as legitimate by these types. He provides such a trace. He presents his hadith, as a credential. It is like claiming that his action is "constitutional".
In other words, politics of convenience trump principle - who have we heard that from before. He doesn't sound like an ally that can be trusted. And again, why bother if the Islamicists and those that listen to them are a mere 15%. When was the last time you ever heard of a politician or a world leader care what a 15% minority thought. That number you are hanging your original argument on doesn't add up.
“Then when the Jews saw that Islam was getting stronger they started to conspire against the muslims. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw this happening he signed a no war pact with his enemies in Mecca. I want to remind you of that pact. At the end of the pact, where his signature was required, the Meccans demanded that he cannot sign it as “Prophet Mohammed”. The Prophet (PBUH) agreed.”
YOU SAID: “It is just the paradigm of political calculation, making alliances in order to deal with threats in sequence. The two enemies in the early-Islam example were the pagan faction in Mecca and the Jewish faction in Medina. The Muslims were faced with a war on two fronts with both. The prophet wanted to make a truce, a non-aggression pact in effect, with the pagans of Mecca.
“Diehards within the early movement were opposed to this, because it was making peace with infidels and idolaters, and seemed to go against what they understood the teachings of Islam to be. Moreover, the order was not based on which was more odious from the standpoint of Islamic theory, which ranks "peoples of the book", including the Jews, above "idolaters", including the pagans of Mecca at the time.
“Muhammad made peace with idolaters when it suited the strategic interests of the movement, of the nascent state he was leading. That is the message. Such decisions must be made on the basis of political calculation, including "move order" (which potential enemy one can handle first). They cannot be made on the basis of ideological purity. That is meant to be the meaning of the hadith.”
“It is just the paradigm of political calculation, making alliances in order to deal with threats in sequence. The two enemies in the early-Islam example were the pagan faction in Mecca and the Jewish faction in Medina. The Muslims were faced with a war on two fronts with both. The prophet wanted to make a truce, a non-aggression pact in effect, with the pagans of Mecca.
“Diehards within the early movement were opposed to this, because it was making peace with infidels and idolaters, and seemed to go against what they understood the teachings of Islam to be. Moreover, the order was not based on which was more odious from the standpoint of Islamic theory, which ranks "peoples of the book", including the Jews, above "idolaters", including the pagans of Mecca at the time.
“Muhammad made peace with idolaters when it suited the strategic interests of the movement, of the nascent state he was leading. That is the message. Such decisions must be made on the basis of political calculation, including "move order" (which potential enemy one can handle first). They cannot be made on the basis of ideological purity. That is meant to be the meaning of the hadith.
“He has to make such an argument to the Islamicists and their potential supporters because they regularly attack his decision to side with the US against the Taliban as un-islamic. They condemn any peace made with infidels. He responds in effect "the prophet made peace with infidels, it is not forbidden. If the interests of the state require peace with infidels to avoid fighting on two fronts, then I may make peace with infidels." Strategy trumps ideological purity, even in terms the ideological purists demand (hadith, fundamentalist justifications).
“Does he mean to insinuate to some of them that it is a tactic? Undoubtedly. Alliance with the US will keep us from being defeated by India. So we should do it. It doesn't mean we've converted to Christianity or renounced Islam. In the long run, in some ultimate religious or civilizational sense, the US too may be a rival. But we cannot possibly take on India and the US simultaneously. And Islamic legitimacy does not require us to try.
That would be the movement during which Mohammed was “peacefully” running around the Middle East telling people about his new religion and slitting their throats if they didn’t want to convert - even If they happened to be “peoples of the book” like the Jews. “Tactics” of this sort are the signature calling card of totalitarians and despotic conquerors throughout history. This is a tactic that Mohammed used quite frequently and which often praised by the religions adherents.
When people use the phrase “What would Jesus do?” the answer is usually something peaceable and full of tolerance and understanding, and built on a framework of just actions known as the Ten Commandments.
Switch that to What would Mohammed do? Well, first he’d tell you had to convert to Islam and have you killed if you refused. If not in a position to kill you, he’d tell you a lie and bide his time till he could.
"It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad's most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and he attack upon Qurayzah. Allah's conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures." - Wensinck, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina."
A little to elastic for me. Devout Muslims, as I understand the religion are supposed to follow not just the Koran, but the personal examples of the Prophet. This doesn't make me real comfortable when I am asked to trust a man who runs a country with some of the most radicalized madrasas in all of Islam.
“The Prophet explained later that its best for Islam, and it’s the right thing to do. And time proved him right. Six months later there was a war with the Jews and the Meccans did not support the Jews and the Muslim forces won. And some time after that Mecca also fell to Islamic mujahideen.”
Lets see... Where’s my box of terrifically convenient Koran quotes.... Ah here it is: [17.64] “And beguile whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect against them your forces riding and on foot, and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and the Shaitan makes not promises to them but to deceive.”
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: “A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.
“He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
“He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
“Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.” - Hadith of Abu Dawud. Book 38, Number 4348.
That gives me the warm-fuzzies all over. Can’t you feel the love? I wouldn’t trust this man further than a Carrier catapult could fling him into the shark-infested waters of the Indian ocean. And since he has proved that he can’t or won’t keep his promises to us - we better assume he is not acting in good faith with us.
A study of Muhammad's life reveals that anyone who crossed him ended up dead. He had many people killed for the most trivial of reasons, including a mother in her sleep. He spread his religion through the use of terrorism the same way it is being spread today. Muhammad was, in fact, a terrorist Trusting a devout muslim, as Musharraff says he is, is foolish.
“Let me say that I am concerned about Afghanistan and the Taliban. I have tried to convince world leaders not to impose sanctions on them in the past. I have tried my best, but sadly without much success.”
YOU SAID: Since he is abandoning them, after Pakistan supported them, he has to show that he knows there is something distasteful involved in it. He refers to past actions trying to show his "heart is in the right place", as far as Islamic solidarity is concerned. But it is quite clear from the whole speech that he is abandoning them in favor of a US alliance because he regards that decision as absolutely necessary for the security interests of Pakistan, especially with respect to India. And the main thrust of the speech is to defend this decision against criticisms of it by the Islamicists. He calls their alternative emotional, stupid, and against the national interest. He defends his course as wise, nationalistic, and Islamically legitimate. He is transparently debating them, precisely because they lead the opposition to the policy he is embarking on, by abandoning the Taliban in favor of a US alliance.
His heart is still planted there. While he was opening the back door for them. As for the sanctions, well hell, last thing he wanted was a reduction in opium production. How else was he going to finance his Islamic Junta and fatten his rainy-day Swiss bank account for the inevitable day when some young buck general or wild-eyed mullah asked him to turn in his meal ticket. Pakistan didn’t just support the Taliban, they all but created it. Perhaps, if he had not stymied attempts by the international community to do something about this little band of fanatics, things would be a lot different today (as in the WTC might still be there). Also, he sure wastes a lot of ink convincing an insignificant 15% of the people to let him do things his way.... I always thought totalitarian military dictators that strutted around in uniform with pistols on their hips were a little tougher than that.
“In the present situation we have been trying to convince the Taliban to be wise. We have also asked the US for evidence about Osama bin Laden. Also how do we best serve Afghanistan’s interests? By going against the world community or by working with the international community. I am sure you will agree with me that we can only do the later.”
Serve Afghanistan's interests! Does this guy have a huge pair of Matzah Balls, or what? The only interest they had in Afghanistan was opium and fresh, well-trained bodies for the “Cause” in Kashmir.
“I also know that [1.] there are people who are using this to promote their personal agendas. At this time, [2.] we have to be make sure that our enemies do not succeed in their designs to harm us. Pakistan is regarded as a fort of Islam. If this fort is damaged, islam will be damaged.”
YOU SAID: [1.] “This is a reference to ambitious self-promoters within the Pakistani apparatus, and would be rival generals, who might be tempted to use his change of policy to make their own bid for power or support, by offering themselves as leaders less willing to do the bidding of the US, or with greater Islamic solidarity. He warns them against doing so, and others against following them.”
Any general that had a TV that could pick up CNN during the Gulf War would know better than that, specially since many of them have been guests of our military while they learned how to use the equipment we gave them. The conversation behind the scenes probably went something like this: “I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is: they’re pissed, were partially responsible for what happened over there, and you all know they can and will squash us like bugs if we get in the way. The good news is that as long as they’re here we can stir up as much s**t as we want in India, and India’s hands will be tied, and we can blame it all on Bin Laden and Taliban. Who's in? Show of hands.....”
That statement was for external consumption to make it look like he was sticking out his neck.
YOU SAID: [2.] “The reference is to India. He ends as the army usually does, by appealing to the need for internal political unity, especially in the army itself, as absolutely required by the external threat posed by India. We can't afford to snipe at each other while India plots against us all - that is the message. It is tied to the previous point, and so combined becomes a dig at the nationalist credentials of any would-be ambitious rivals tempted to use his shift to make their own power-bid. Doing so would be treasonous, because it would play into the hands of the Indians, trying to isolate us - that is the message.
....Then he asks the common man in the street, and the rest of the army, to trust him, as they did when he first took power from the previous corrupt civilian government.
Dictators always point to external threats to justify their continuation in power. But as I recall, he immediately started turning up the heat in Kashmir. So it would appear that the people of Pakistan would rather have dictator who doesn't mind sending terrorist into India, than one who is too busy stealing from the treasury to provoke a war with India. Smart bunch of people.
YOU SAID: “That is my analysis of the speech. It is directed toward potential critics of his pro-US line to his political right. Including some in the army and intelligence apparatus, and especially against the Islamicists. And any who would support them, against his pro-US policy. He paints them as shallow and thoughtless, not able to be trusted with the security interests of the nation. He presents himself as a forward-looking nationalist with his eye on the security ball, meaning on India and what is happening right about now, when everybody else was looking north at Afghanistan and reacting emotionally.”
“Incidentally, I read the speech when it was first given. I've also followed reports on Musharraf since he took power.
“I ask you to trust me, like you trusted me when I went to Agra.
I don't think so. When tendered the rant that started this discussion, I will grant you that it was a bit strident, but rhetoric aside, I meant it then and I still do. You are willing to take Musharaff at face value and are willing keep cutting him slack. I do not take him at face value, and think he has had all the chances he deserves.
I think he is playing games with us just like the Koran and his prophet instruct him to. If he cannot or will not make an effort to stop the terrorists operating against India out of Pakistan, or to help us find the Taliban and Bin Laden followers taking sanctuary in his country, then its time to put him on notice. If he does not make good on his promises, NOW, then we end our “alliance” with him and give India the Green Light.
You seem to think that we should cultivate the “moderate” voices of Islam. Well, we’ve been trying to do that for quite some time, in fact. The problem is that those voices are outnumbered about 8 or 9 to one. Many people say that islam needs to go through a reformation like Christianity did. I think that’s right. But as I recall, that reformation took a couple hundred years and a couple of very bloody wars. I’m not willing to wait until half of the islamic countries in the middle east have nukes for that to happen. Better to let India make an example of Pakistan so the rest of Mohammed’s peaceful followers get the message sooner rather than later. “The history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too Late. Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in realizing a mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance; too late in standing with ones friends.” - General Douglas MacArthur.
Well, we weren't forced into a "war on terrorism" after 9-11, either, then. I suppose we should sit and calmly wait to be murdered, as you seem to believe the Indians ought to?
Your alternative to war is ridiculous. No country can do what you suggest...wire and mine everything and deport all the troublemakers??
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.