Musharraf Walked a Tightrope
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A commando at heart, and a man of often impetuous decisions, Pervez Musharraf ended Pakistan's support of the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan after 9/11 and pledged to help the United States, becoming one of Washington's most crucial allies in the campaign against terrorism.
It was a bold stroke that boosted the Bush administration in its immediate war against Al Qaeda, and allowed the United States to work with Pakistani intelligence to arrest senior Qaeda operatives inside Pakistan. Mr. Musharraf also gave Washington permission to strike at Qaeda targets in his nation's lawless tribal areas.
But the assurances turned out to be less than promised, and though Mr. Musharraf forged a personal bond with President Bush, the Pakistani general proved to be a tough, frustrating customer for the United States.
Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency never severed ties with the Taliban.
Nine years later, the Taliban are putting up a ferocious fight against the United States in Afghanistan, and are providing shelter to Al Qaeda in the tribal areas. The rejuvenated Taliban now virtually control Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan, and are pressing into the rest of the country, threatening the stability of the nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people.
"Musharraf continued to provide cover to the Taliban, but still managed to convince the Americans for many years that it was not a double game," said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani expert on the Taliban and the author of "Descent into Chaos," a book that details the relationship between Mr. Musharraf and Washington. "It was a remarkable feat of balancing on the tightrope."
The feat was so skilful that Mr. Musharraf won more than $10 billion in American military assistance for his army, as well as unannounced covert aid. About half the military aid was supposed to be spent on bolstering the counter-insurgency skills of the Pakistani army.
Much of that money never reached the military and was allocated instead to Pakistan's general budget, but the Bush administration was so anxious to keep Mr. Musharraf as an ally it chose not to complain, according to a congressional investigation this year.
Washington finally lost patience last month. In a diplomatic showdown, the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency confronted the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, with evidence that the Pakistani intelligence service helped plan the July 7 terror attack against the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
But by that time, Mr. Musharraf's power was eclipsed, and the Bush administration acknowledged that Mr. Musharraf's usefulness was past.
Mr. Musharraf stepped down as chief of the army last November, handing the post to Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani , who has kept above the fray in the effort to impeach the president.
After grabbing power from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in October 1999, Mr. Musharraf began his tenure as president with a wave of support from a public weary of a decade of weak and corrupt civilian government.
In the beginning, he attracted competent people to his cabinet, and promised to tackle longstanding problems, including the spread of madrassas, the religious schools that had become breeding grounds of Islamic extremists.
But the madrassas remained untouched, mainly because Mr. Musharraf handed the task to the Ministry of Religious Affairs which was opposed to the plan, according to Jehangir Tareen, a former minister of industries and special projects in the Musharraf cabinet.
Mr. Musharraf backed some important reforms in the news media and the rights of women, according to his supporters and his critics. Now, dozens of private television stations exist, many of them with rambunctious political talk shows. He also moved to improve the status of women by pushing for the amendment of strict Islamic laws.
"Musharraf tried to construct a modern enlightened state," said Mr. Tareen. "But he proved you cannot do this on the structure of a patronage-riven and police-oriented political machine."
One of his greatest shortcomings, Mr. Tareen said, was his disdain of democratic methods, and civilian politicians.
In 2002, Mr. Musharraf ordered a referendum to be held, a yes or no vote on his legitimacy as president. No opposition candidates were permitted to stand and rallies by opposition political parties were banned.
After parliamentary elections six months later, Mr. Musharraf engineered political support from the Chaudhry clan, a powerful group of politicians in Punjab Province who were seen as anti-reformist. They created a political party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, as a vehicle for Mr. Musharraf. When conservative religious parties swept those parliamentary elections in the North-West Frontier Province, Mr. Musharraf sought their support too.
In March 2007, facing elections in a few months time, Mr. Musharraf fired the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry , apparently out of fear that the judiciary might undermine his re-election.
A tidal wave of support for Mr. Chaudhry from lawyers across the country turned into a vibrant anti-Musharraf campaign.
In November, Mr. Musharraf declared a state of emergency and fired 60 judges. By the time he lifted the decree in December, he was seen as an unpopular dictator, and by then, his main political opponents, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, had returned to Pakistan to run in elections.
Ms. Bhutto was assassinated at the end of December, postponing elections that were scheduled for the beginning of January. But Ms. Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, picked up the reins of the Pakistan Peoples Party, and in February elections, the two parties swept into power. They formed an uneasy coalition that left Mr. Musharraf's political party flailing for support.
In the end, his failure to manage his double game of keeping the Americans on his side and keep allowing the religious extremists to thrive may have proved his undoing, and left Pakistan in a more precarious position, Mr. Rashid said.
Last year, there were 56 suicide attacks in Pakistan, many of them carried out by the Taliban ensconced in the tribal areas. The Taliban were pouring out of the tribal areas into more settled regions, striking anxiety into an army unaccustomed to fighting an insurgency.
"The Taliban are not only an external problem for Pakistan, they have now become an internal problem for Pakistan," said Mr. Rashid.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
24 Comments so far
Show All"Wolf Daniel Pipe's campus watch is calling they want your number."
LOL !!!
Wolf Daniel Pipe's campus watch is calling they want your number.
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Muslim
And YOU chide me for using wikipedia!!
"... radical Islamic Jihadism. Its an idealogy that threatens both Muslims and Non-Muslims. Often the first victims of this are Muslims..something you fail to get"
Just read the article and you can not "fail" to get it. Who are being killed in market places in Iraq or mosques in Pakistan by car bombs and suicide bombers? Not Buddhist.
"Last year, there were 56 suicide attacks in Pakistan, many of them carried out by the Taliban ensconced in the tribal areas. The Taliban were pouring out of the tribal areas into more settled regions",
"The Taliban are not only an external problem for Pakistan, they have now become an internal problem for Pakistan," said Mr. Rashid."
As I said before in 2 maybe 3 years tops the Taliban, a nuclear armed Taliban will rule Pakistan.
"You sound like a neocon."
You, sound like a moslem wantabe who reads too much into what CSID says.
Most of CSID's Muslim personnel are radicals. One example, Kamran Bokhari is a fellow at CSID; as such, he is someone CSID's board of directors deems an expert "with high integrity and a good reputation." As a fellow, Mr. Bokhari may participate in the election of CSID's board of directors. He is, in short, integral to the CSID.
Mr. Bokhari also happens to have served for years as the North American spokesman for Al-Muhajiroun, perhaps the most extreme Islamist group operating in the West. For example, it celebrated the first anniversary of 9/11 with a conference titled," Towering Day in History." It celebrated the second anniversary by hailing "The Magnificent 19." Its Web site currently features a picture of the U.S. Capitol building exploding.
Is Mr. Bokhari now promoting moderate Islamic perspectives, advocating democracy within the Muslim world, and opposing terrorism?
Google Kamran Bokhari and the answer is all over the place, but in Bokhari own words from
http://media.www.the-standard.org/media/storage/paper1059/news/1999/02/24/Features/Kamran.Bokhari.Advo...
"We are an Islamic group trying to re-establish the Islamic State (the Caliphate) through intellectual, ideological, political and revolutionary means," Bokhari said.
Now we have come far afield from what this article is all about, Musharraf and what the future holds for Pakistan. I suggest that is where we should direct our posts.
riddimboy that's true as Pakistana and India were once the same country.
I've been too many.
I do condemn radical Islamic Jihadism. Its an idealogy that threatens both Muslims and Non-Muslims. Often the first victims of this are Muslims..something you fail to get. But you on the other hand paint all Muslims with that broad brush. Hence why I call you Islamophobic. You sound like a neocon.
Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.[1] The term itself dates back to the 1980s,[2] but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[3] In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.[4] Professor Anne Sophie Roald writes that steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the "Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance", where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.[5]
The Runnymede report identified eight perceptions related to Islamophobia:
Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.[20]
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Muslim
dcbeltway August 19th, 2008 12:03 pm
It is clear you are trying to burry me under a ton of al-Taqiyya. You ignore all the points in my post that prove you wrong and say, "Secondly plenty of men beat their wives all over the world." A true point but it is illegal in non moslem countries, you really need to read Quran 4-34 on beating wives and read the hadiths.
The hadith collection Sunan Abu Dawud is also considered reliable. This passage records Muhammad first saying that husbands should not beat their wives (vol. 2, nos. 2139 and 2141), but Umar, one of his chief companions, informed him that the wives were becoming "emboldened towards their husbands." So now Muhammad changed his mind: ... "[H]e (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." However, the women complained to Muhammad's family, but he retorted: "Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you" (vol. 2, no. 2141).
Then you take out the cheep shots that those who are loosing an argument always use and call me "an Islamophone" What ever that is. If you were trying to call me an Islamophobe then my answer to you:
In calling one an "Islamophobe" the implication is that "Islamophobes" have some irrational prejudice against Muslims, a prejudice which is probably racially motivated (which is wrong because Islam is not a race)-- so in other words, in calling someone an "Islamophobe" you are inferring their resistance to Islamic jihad activity cannot be characterized as a legitimate stand in defense of human rights, but is rather simply an expression of "hate." Of course, if Muslims would stop committing violence and justifying it according to Islamic teachings, and stop pursuing a supremacist agenda to replace Western pluralistic systems with Sharia, "Islamophobia," both as an intellectual critique of Islam and of an expression of resistance to that agenda as opposed to an expression of hate, and also as any actual victimization of innocent Muslims, would melt away.
Lastly, "I am willing to bet you have never been to a Muslim country."
You loose.
dc -- " Deobandism has its origins wholly in Pakistan."
You are right on many levels. However the Deobandhi school has its origins in India and was originally pretty localised. Like any other sect, the Deobandhi practitioners used it to gain political advantage in the vaccuum that is Pakistan. Why Pakistan exists ofcourse is beyond me. The Paksitani Military has used that country as a personal fiefdom ever since its creation.
Again you are putting words in my mouth, I never said the US was a democracy and wikipedia's definition of democracy was better than my online dictionarys.
A few google searches show:
Sharia Alert: "Tunisia: Home Violence, 1 of 5 Married Women Abused," from ANSAmed, August 12 (thanks to Insubria) sharia law states a man can beat his wife.
Malaysia: Court denies woman's appeal to leave Islam," from Compass Direct News, August 15
In Malaysia, sharia laws are binding on Muslims in personal, religious and family matters while civil laws apply to all citizens.
Mauritania Law and Crime
http://www.photius.com/countries/mauritania/economy/mauritania_economy_law_and_crime.html
Sources: The Library of Congress Country Studies; CIA World Factbook
In 1980 the government declared sharia (Islamic law) to be the official legal code.
9 December 2004 AZERBAIJAN: "OUR CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES US FREEDOM OF RELIGION, BUT IN REALITY WE DON'T HAVE IT"
Baptists in north-west Azerbaijan face being prevented from working by the authorities, intimidation, and refusal to register their children's births with Christian names, Forum 18 has found. The birth registration ban stops children going to kindergarten or to school, getting treatment in a hospital, or travelling abroad.
Lebanon as you should know is a multi-religious country. Its president Suleiman hails from the Maronite Christian community. Thus except in southern Lebanon where Hezbollah more or less rules sharia law is not followed.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080301012529AAwBHmR
Are there any Islamic countries that do NOT practice sharia law ?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
No.
All islamic countries practice sharia law. Many muslims are also trying to force western governments to allow them to practice sharia law. Canada, germany, norway, are some examples.
Sharia law is part and parcel of islam. It is based on the koran and hadith. You cannot be a muslim and not practice it.
Dear CD staff:
He's gone, and now the NYT is onboard. Great!!!
The tightly editorialized articles from the NYT support elite's spin. Rarely is there an article from them worthy of CD.
Dustbin, basura, delete should be your standard.
Musharraf's fall from power began when he attacked the legal class of his country. It would appear that the lawyers of Pakistan have more respect for their country's laws than their brethren in the USA. If American lawyers had the same level of respect for their legal system as the Pakistanis have for their, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached by now.
To name a few that don't follow Sharia law:
Turkey, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mauritania, Tunisia, Kosovo, Bosnia Azerbaijan, Morocco, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Krygzistan, and Uzbekistan.
Joya is a good woman and the war lords are evil you are correct there sl63.
Wolf I do not need your wikipedia definition of democracy I am well aware of what one is. America how ever is a republic not a democracy. Hopefully you know that. Not all Muslim countries follow Sharia law.
Next it should be the corrupt Karzai's turn to end up in the dustbin of history. It could even be a true gain for Americans if his ouster also spells good riddance to a nutty Neocon.
"... history of the region before making ugly sweeping generalizations on Islam and the cultures."
Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the people have a voice through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek δημοκÏατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δήμος (dÄ“mos), "people" and κÏάτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.[2]
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[4][5][6]
Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[14][15]
Dogmatically, Sharia is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of God. This is clear from what we read in the Koran:
KORAN
Chapter 45: The Chaper of the Kneeling
17 ...then we gave you a Sharia in religion, follow it, and do not follow the lust of those who do not know...
Sharia (Arabic: شريعة transliteration: Šarīʿah) is the body of Islamic religious law. The term means "way" or "path to the water source"; it is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.
The comprehensive nature of Sharia law is due to the belief that the law must provide all that is necessary for a person's spiritual and physical well-being. All possible actions of a Muslim are divided (in principle) into five categories
* obligatory
* meritorious
* permissible
* reprehensible
* forbidden
Perhaps you have misunderstood my statement, Sharia law to some extent (some more saudi arabia or iran, some less turkey) is followed in all islamic countries, democracy is the law of man, made by man. Sharia law is the law of allah, which no law of man can oppose.
Thus in theory islam is 100% against democracy. If parliament can not make a law that goes against the law of allah then there is a theocracy not a democracy.
In virtually all democracies there is freedom of speech (there are some exceptions, libel and slander laws, and you can't yell fire in a crowed movie house), BUT I can ask critical questions about any religion. Try asking critical questions about islam in an islamic country and see how long your head remains on your shoulders, BUT you can ask critical questions or even make fun of any other religion in an Islamic country.
"Afghans also do not support the Deobandi sect of Islam.
Did you read my post? I never said Afghans support the Deobandi sect of Islam, I said, "fundamentalists Deobandi and Wahhabis rule all the provinces bordering Afghanistan and are making inroads into the rest of the country."
This article is on Pakistan not Afghanistan and the fundamentalist are making inroads into Pakistan, sorry if I was not specific enough.
If Pakistan can get rid of an arguably corrupt president with the threat of impeachment, why can't we? Must be that Pakistan is a greater democracy . . . . Or Musharraf is more concerned about the welfare of his country than our president is . . . . Or, Musharraf thinks justice might actually get carried out, and has taken the path to survival . . . . Whatever the answer, Pakistan has clearly got a more effective opposition party.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
Pakistan's support of the Taliban movement from its inception.
Pakistan is behind the Taliban movement not the Afghans. Pakistan created this nasty frankenstein monster to form a pro-Islamabad puppet government in Kabul. Afghans also do not support the Deobandi sect of Islam. Sufism for instance had its orgins in Afghanistan and back in the day you could find Afghan sikhs, Afghan jews, Afghans Hindus and Afghan Christians in twentieth century Afghanistan. There are also many Afghan Shia'a particularily the Tajik and Hazara communities. The Uzbeki Afghans are also mainstream Sunnis. Deobandism has its origins wholly in Pakistan. As far as the Pushtuns there are alot of Pushtuns against the Taliban and many Pushtuns are mainstream Sunni Muslims though traditionally conservative people.
The Wahhabi or Salafi movement has its origins in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban are an off shoot of this movement and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are behind the Taliban.
Finally no religion is pro or against Democracy there are aspects of each religion that compliment and at the same time reject democracy. Many of the dictatorships in the MENA region are also western backed and Mossadeq's democracy movement in Iran for instance was forcefully overthrown. One has to look at the history of the region before making ugly sweeping generalizations on Islam and the cultures. Google the Center for Islam and Democracy or CSID to learn more about this debate and articles from Muslims.
BEWARE of change in an islamic country, Musharraf may not have been your DREAM politician, and he undoubtedly had many faults, BUT can YOU guarantee me the next leader of Pakistan will be better? don't give me that "He has to be", bullshit.
The Pakistan ISI is in bed with the taliban, fundamentalists Deobandi and Wahhabis rule all the provinces bordering Afghanistan and are making inroads into the rest of the country.
The Deobandi interpretation holds that a Muslim's first loyalty is to his religion and only then to the country of which he is a citizen or a resident; 2) that Muslims recognise only the religious frontiers of their Ummah and not the national frontiers; 3) that they have a sacred right and obligation to go to any country to wage jihad to protect the Muslims of that country. That's why so many Pakistanis went to Afghanistan to fight the US. The majority of the Islamic population (Sunni) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, belong to the (Deobandi) Hanafi sect, these theologians have pushed Pakistan towards Islamic Radicalism for decades, and these were the ones who were the founders of the Taliban which espoused most Wahabi rhetoric and ideals.
I give it 2 years 3 tops and Pakistan and Afghanistan will be ruled by the taliban, a nuclear armed taliban. I think bushie boy confused his gods, it wasn't his born again christian god that told him to spread democracy but rather allah, allah knowing that islam is 100% against democracy and that bushie boy would fail miserably and islam would triumph in the end.
You know if this was happening in the late 1500's I'm sure a guy by the name of Shakespeare would have written a play about this folly.
It would seem that one mistake Mr. Musharraf made was tying his fortunes too closely to the US administration. Other puppets around the world should note carefully the line that reads
"by that time, Mr. Musharraf's power was eclipsed, and the Bush administration acknowledged that Mr. Musharraf's usefulness was past."
Beyond that, I love some of the build-in assumptions from the NY Times. Particularly the one where it wasn't until American support was waning that he was regarded as 'an unpopular dictator.' I have a suspicion that many Pakistanis would have viewed him that way long before the Bush administration and the NY Times changed their view.
Note also the lack of cited sources in this article. One reference to an author of a book in the early paragraphs. But then everything else is pretty much unsourced. Then just note that it all matches perfectly with Washington's view of the world, so you can guess that this comes from DC insiders talking 'on background'.
Hey Georgie: Try to learn from your friend Pervez Musharaff. Follow his example– why not? Get yourself and Dick and Condi to resign immediately, for the good of the country, for the good of the world.
Does anyone question my words? If so, I'll tell them my reasoning. These three individuals have done many reprehensible things. At the top of the list of their impeachable offenses, however, is their illegal adventurism, sometime with no doubt whatsoever crossing the line into treason.
I believe the rare American teller of truth Gore Vidal when he says that we language-limited Americans are just not good at adventurism, colonization, occupations, spywork, and promotion of a flawed, half-baked, half-learned, slow schoolboy's vision of democracy.
i guess that giant sucking sound you hear is the turd musharraf being sucked down the toilet bowl of life
let's wipe our collective asses and get on with life
musharraf can now take his rightful place in the wax museum right beside the other former cia assets: manual noriega, saddaam hussein, lee harvey oswald, sirhan sirhan and let's not forget the club's newest member mr saakashvili
these guys should get together for a group photo - sort of like the cover of sergeant pepper
in its own twisted absurd way it is funny as all get out
what a sap
This clipping from the NY Times Editorial speaks volumes about the Times' commitment to peace and security around the globe. Empire, it seems, is deeply ingrained in its very existence ...
"Pakistan should not be modernizing the F-16's at all, but that deal was made long ago. Congress should hold its nose and approve this year's F-16 money, plus additional emergency funds for the helicopters and goggles."
A nice little gift for our friends in Pakistan. Never mind that these F-16's can only further complicate the situation in South Asia. When will these idiots pull their collective heads out of the Administrations ass is a million-dollar question.
One of his greatest shortcomings, Mr. Tareen said, was his disdain of democratic methods, and civilian politicians.
-no wonder Bush liked him so much!
According to article:
- - -
"Musharraf continued to provide cover to the Taliban, but still managed to convince the Americans for many years that it was not a double game," said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani expert on the Taliban and the author of "Descent into Chaos," a book that details the relationship between Mr. Musharraf and Washington. "It was a remarkable feat of balancing on the tightrope."
The feat was so skilful that Mr. Musharraf won more than $10 billion in American military assistance for his army, as well as unannounced covert aid.
- - -
Why should we assume that Musharraf was SUPPOSED TO (according to the US) sever ties with the Taliban -- and Al Qaeda? Why should we not assume that duplicity is often the game -- for the US (Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran, Pearl Harbor, Remember the Maine, War with Mexico....)? Why should we not assume that "unannouced covert aid" is about readiness and preparations for a false flag op?
Not that every enemy of the US has to be a conspiracy by the US. And not that the only enemies foolish enough to take on the mighty US would be covert ops arranged by someone on our own side. No. We have (and will long have) plenty of real enemies who got the idea on their own.
The point: In such a context of covert ops, false flags and duplicity (on Musharraf's part and our own), it's very hard to know who believe. It's like shadow-boxing, but where all the shadows are potentially lethal.
wolf123 I am willing to bet you have never been to a Muslim country.
Secondly plenty of men beat their wives all over the world.
From your comments its clear you are an Islamophone. I don't debate those types of trolls because their comments stem from both hate and ignorance.
CIAO