[ALOCHONA] COmedy Article: Tap Dancing according to Musharraf

Enjoy the article written by the eminent tap dancer cum part-time Kommano Gen (Retd) Musharraf

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: omar ali
Sent: Jun 7, 2011 9:03 AM
To: asiapeace , abdalian@yahoogroups.com, crdp@yahoogroups.com 

 

He forgot to mention his "sulah e hudaybiya" speech (citing the peace agreement at Hudaybia may indicate that he felt he was making a deal with the "enemy" to obtain temporary peace in which we could grow to the point where we fight again...not exactly an "alliance" with the US). He also forgot to shed any light on why and how we differentiated good jihadis from bad ones and saved the Afghan Taliban and their support network within Pakistan. Was there a long term plan to use these assets in the future or was it a way to gradually kill off our jihadi pets instead of doing it all in one go...and how well has that scheme gone after 10 years of effort, most of it under his watch? Oh well.. Omar --- On Tue, 6/7/11, Syed Ehtisham <> wrote: From: Syed Ehtisham <syedmae@yahoo.com> Subject: [CRDP] According to Musharraf To: "apna chat" <apnachat@yahoogroups.com> Cc: "globe medic" <globemedic@yahoogroups.com>, "dow @yahoo" <THEDOWITES@yahoogroups.com>, "crdp crdp" <crdp@yahoogroups.com>, "nsf pakistan" <National-Students-Federation-Pakistan@yahoogroups.com>, "writers forum" <Writers_Forum@yahoogroups.com>, "pakistan futures" <pakistan_futures@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 8:34 AM 7. 9/11 - Could we have decided otherwise? June 6, 2011 Pervez Musharraf Pakistan's decision to join the US and the Coalition in Afghanistan in their attack on the Taliban remains a subject of intense debate. This is the decision we took after a thorough, deliberate and realistic appraisal of the obtaining geo-strategic realities, but it has drawn criticism and praise alike. With the latest upsurge in terrorist activity in Pakistan, the debate on the post-9/11 response of Pakistan has intensified. I, therefore, thought it my duty to lay bare facts in front of the people of Pakistan, so that with all the necessary information they could judge the situation more accurately. The decision of my government was indeed based on, and in conformity with, my slogan of 'Pakistan First'. Some people suggested that we should oppose the United States and favour the Taliban. Was this, in any way, beneficial for Pakistan? Certainly not! Even if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda emerged victorious, it would not be in Pakistan's interest to embrace obscurantist Talibanisation. That would have meant a society where women had no rights, minorities lived in fear and semi-literate clerics set themselves up as custodians of justice. I could have never accepted this kind of society for Pakistan. In any case, judging by military realities one was sure that the Taliban would be defeated. It would have been even more detrimental for Pakistan to be standing on the defeated side. The United States, the sole superpower, was wounded and humiliated by the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack. A strong retaliatory response against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was imminent. I was angrily told, by the US, that Pakistan had to be 'either with us or against us'. The message was also conveyed to me that 'if Pakistan was against the United States then it should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.' This was the environment within which we had to take a critical decision for Pakistan. My sole focus was to make a decision that would benefit Pakistan in the long run, and also guard it against negative effects. What options did the US have to attack Afghanistan? Not possible from the north, through Russia and the Central Asian Republics. Not from the west, through Iran. The only viable direction was from the east, through Pakistan. If we did not agree, India was ever ready to afford all support. A US-India collusion would obviously have to trample Pakistan to reach Afghanistan. Our airspace and land would have been violated. Should we then have pitched our forces, especially Pakistan Air Force, against the combined might of the US and Indian forces? India would have been delighted with such a response from us. This would surely have been a foolhardy, rash and most unwise decision. Our strategic interests - our nuclear capability and the Kashmir cause - would both have been irreparably compromised. We might even have put our very territorial integrity at stake. The economic dimension of confronting the United States and the West also needed serious analysis. Pakistan's major export and investment is to and from the United States and the European Union. Our textiles, which form 60 percent of our export and earnings, go to the West. Any sanctions on these would have crippled our industry and choked our economy. Workers would lose their jobs. The poor masses of Pakistan would have been the greatest sufferers. China, our great friend, also has serious apprehensions about Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The upsurge of religious extremism emboldening the East Turkistan Islamic Movement in China is due to events in Afghanistan and the tribal agencies of Pakistan. China would certainly not be too happy with Pakistan on the side of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Even the Islamic Ummah had no sympathy for the Taliban regime; countries like Turkey and Iran were certainly against the Taliban. The UAE and Saudi Arabia - the only two countries other than Pakistan that had recognised the Taliban regime - had become so disenchanted with the Taliban that they had closed their missions in Kabul. Here, I would also like to clear the notion that we accepted all the demands put forward by USA. On September 13th 2001, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, brought me a set of seven demands. These demands had also been communicated to our Foreign Office by the US State Department. 1. Stop Al-Qaeda operatives at your borders, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan, and end all logistical support for bin Laden. 2. Provide the United States with blanket overflight and landing rights to conduct all necessary military and intelligence operations. 3. Provide territorial access to the United States and allied military intelligence as needed, and other personnel to conduct all necessary operations against the perpetrators of terrorism and those that harbour them, including the use of Pakistan's naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders. 4. Provide the United States immediately with intelligence, immigration information and databases, and internal security information, to help prevent and respond to terrorist acts perpetrated against the United States, its friends, or its allies. 5. Continue to publicly condemn the terrorist acts of September 11 and any other terrorist acts against the United States or its friends and allies, and curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, or its allies. 6. Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and any other items and recruits, including volunteers, en route to Afghanistan, who can be used in a military offensive capacity or to abet a terrorist threat. 7. Should the evidence strongly implicate Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbour him and his network, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, end support for the Taliban, and assist the United States in the afore-mentioned ways to destroy Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. Some of these demands were ludicrous, such as "curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, and its allies." How could my government suppress public debate, when I had been trying to encourage freedom of expression? I also thought that asking us to break off diplomatic relations with Afghanistan if it continued to harbour Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was not realistic, because not only would the United States need us to have access to Afghanistan, at least until the Taliban fell, but such decisions are the internal affair of a country and cannot be dictated by anyone. But we had no problem with curbing terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We had been itching to do so before the United States became its victim. We just could not accept demands two and three. How could we allow the United States "blanket overflight and landing rights" without jeopardising our strategic assets? I offered only a narrow flight corridor that was far from any sensitive areas. Neither could we give the United States "use of Pakistan's naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders." We refused to give any naval ports or fighter aircraft bases. We allowed the United States only two bases - Shamsi in Balochistan and Jacobabad in Sindh - and only for logistics and aircraft recovery. No attack could be launched from there. We gave no "blanket permission" for anything. The rest of the demands we could live with. I am happy that the US government accepted our counterproposal without any fuss. I am shocked at the aspersion being cast on me: that I readily accepted all preconditions of the United States during the telephone call from Colin Powell. He did not give any conditions to me. These were brought by the US ambassador on the third day. Having made my decision, I took it to the Cabinet. Then I began meeting with a cross section of society. Between September 18 and October 3, I met with intellectuals, top editors, leading columnists, academics, tribal chiefs, students, and the leaders of labour unions. On October 18, I also met a delegation from China and discussed the decision with them. Then I went to army garrisons all over the country and talked to the soldiers. I thus developed a broad consensus on my decision. This was an analysis of all the losses/harms we would have suffered. if we had taken an anti-US stand. At the same time, I obviously analysed the socio-economic and military gains that would accrue from an alliance with the West. I have laid down the rationale for my decision in all its details. Even with hindsight, now, I do not repent it. It was correct in the larger interest of Pakistan. I am confident that the majority of Pakistanis agree with it. Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham (607) 776-3336 P.O. Box 469, Bath NY 14810 USA Blog syedehtisham.blogspot.com All religions try to take over the establishment and if they fail, they collaborate with it, be it feudal or capitalist.

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___