US found Zia ‘most patriotic liar’ on nukes, reveal declassified memos

Jaanbaz said:

Your marde momin swore an oath on Quran. But I guess being typical Pakistanis use religion when its in their interests but they throw it away when its not.

Click to expand...

How did Zia lie?

Zia held a referendum on December 19, 1984 regarding his amendments to the countries laws and won with 98.5% of the vote. Then he held general elections on February 28, 1985 which was largely in his favor resulting in an extension of his term for another 5 years.

@Thorough Pro
@salman108

Secur said:

What I disagree with of course , is what was done and what did it result into - manifest today in , the consequences .

Click to expand...

If the war was strictly an internal conflict and the USSR did not have a presence in Afghanistan then an argument could be made to step back and let it play out but obviously that was never the case. The USSR was involved and considering the soviets already confirmed their presence in Afghanistan would eventually lead to a two front war (read over my previous post regarding their directly military intervention during the '71 war on the side of India and the “Indo-Soviet treaty of Friendship and Cooperation”) they had to be destroyed. Pakistan has a strong army but we were already up against an enemy (i.e. India) that has a military force at least 4 times larger than ours with a defence budget 6 times the size. We can beat India but you'd have to be a complete idiot to think being flanked on both borders by large hostile forces was good for Pakistan particularly considering, at the the time, we did not have a nuclear deterrent.


1.5 million Afghans were killed during a war that lasted over 10 years even with our assistance alongside a coordinated effort with other countries that included the US, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc... Even if you think the Afghans could have taken out the soviet allied government and ended the USSR invasion on their own are you honestly suggesting we sit back and watch as possibly millions more Muslims were slaughtered right next door? Furthermore, without our assistance the war would have gone on for a lot longer than it did and the longer the fighting lasted the larger the refugee crisis would become and the more our own trade would have been impacted.


The resistance loosing to the USSR was never an acceptable option and Zia made the right decision.

Secur said:

Look at the current situation of the country , look at the blunders done and the catastrophic consequences that we have to endure today , all because of fighting a superpower's war and short term benefits . At least , the Zia-ul-Haq had a choice , Musharraf didn't enjoy the same luxury .

Click to expand...

Secur said:

have resulted in increased sectarianism , radicalization , extremism and subsequent terrorism

Click to expand...

How did Musharraf not have a choice?

Turkey didn't allow the US or NATO (which it is a part of) transit to wage war on Iraq, Iran didn't allow the US/NATO transit to wage war on Afghanistan even Russia, from what I have read, hasn't allowed the use of its territory to transport ammo/weapons into Afghanistan.

Allowing NATO transit over our territory so they could engage in a war on a neighbouring Muslim nation which they've turned into a narco state (resulting in increased crime and addiction within Pakistan) headed by a government we regularly have problems with was never good for Pakistan and transit routes should have been cut off long ago. When over 90% of Pakistan was angry at the thought of the US invading a Muslim state let alone allowing NATO transit through and over our territory what did you think was going to happen? Furthermore, in any war supply routes are also targeted so it was obvious there would be attacks in Pakistan. There are some wars and battles, like those against the USSR and India, which are good for the country because they're about defending our people and lands from occupation and/or threats of invasion but the US' war in Afghanistan was not one of them.

In terms of violence if you think Pakistan or Afghanistan are bad move to Mexico. Not only is the Mexican-US border very likely the most dangerous on the planet but during the 6 years former Pres. Calderon was in office it's estimated about 120,000 people have died there in the US' failed “war on drugs”. Now ask yourself how much of the violence in Pakistan is actually attributed to criminal organizations that pedal opium/heroin from Afghanistan and committed by addicts who are regularly known, even in the US, to engage in kidnapping, political corruption, extortion, etc...? This was only made possible by the occupation of Afghanistan and current Afghan government thanks to the transit routes through Pakistan.

What "blunders" of Zia does Pakistan have to deal with today?

The energy crisis, stagnant economy, drugs and violence are all the result of poor policies almost exclusively taken by civilian governments particularly since the 90's. I've covered all these aspects in previous posts on PDF with solutions to the problems many in great technical detail so if you or anyone is interested in the posts let me know and I'll link them for you or you and I'll be more than happy to debate anyone on this topic.

As for “extremism” there is nothing better than an extreme Muslim. Islam demands of its adherents fairness, charity, honesty, cooperation, unity, strength, courage, etc... I don't know about you but these are the qualities I want Pakistani's to have. Muslims aren't just chemists, doctors, physicists, etc... we're warriors and I'm proud of that fact as it is a trait that helped us overcome the most daunting of obstacles throughout history.

Sectarianism is the byproduct of poor or rather the lack of leadership and shouldn't even exist especially considering the Quran itself specificity demands that Muslims not engage in it and divide themselves. Pakistan needs strong, knowledgeable and religious leaders controlling the country. Men and women who can act as role models for society, provide clear guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable by utilizing the Quran and Sunnah (ex. lashing/cutting yourself during Ashura festivities isn't acceptable and should not be tolerated just as attacking people during or after prayers isn't acceptable), transition the legal system completely to Sharia (especially considering this is what the large majority in Pakistan want as per independent public opinion polls), promote our own culture (ex. no more English within the government or education system and a complete block of all Indian media) and defend the country and its peoples at all costs (no backroom deals which involves sacrificing our own for others) which leads to trust, unity and prosperity.

Secur said:

On March 17-19, 1979 - The Soviet Politburo met in three extended sessions during the height of the Herat crisis to discuss pleas from Taraki and Amin to send troops. The next day, however, even though the situation in Herat has worsened, Kosygin, Andropov and others still advocated staying away from a commitment of troops. Gromyko delivered a detailed rundown of the reasons why such a commitment would be a mistake . He also pointed out that the conflict is an internal Afghan affair. A verbatim transcript of the politburo discussion has become available in the public domain . Yuri Andropov : Comrades , I have thought this issue over very thoroughly since yesterday and have concluded that we should consider very, very seriously whether it would make sense to send troops into Afghanistan . The economy is backward , the Islamic religion predominates , and nearly all of the rural population is illiterate . I do not think we can uphold the revolution in Afghanistan with the help of our bayonets. The idea is intolerable and we can not risk it.

Andrei Gromyko in the Politburo told the committee " I fully support Comrade Andropov;s view that we should exclude the dispatch of troops to Afghanistan . The Afghan army is unreliable and our army would become an aggressor. With whom will it fight? With the Afghan people! Our Army would have to shoot them! To be blunt, the Afghan [communist] leaders have made many mistakes and haven't got the support of their own people . Andrei Kirilenko : Tanks and armored vehicles cannot rescue them [the PDPA]. I think that we must frankly tell them that. We must say that we will support them to the hilt, we shall give them all of the aid that we have promised to give , but we cannot send troops . In Late September 1979 - The Politburo commission on Afghanistan summoned the chief of the military advisory group, Gorelov, and KGB representative Ivanov to Moscow on short notice. Questioned separately, Gorelov again strongly contended that it would not be a good idea to increase the Soviet military presence in the country .

Click to expand...

Secur said:

The opposition for " entering forces in Afghanistan " came from the top brass itself

Click to expand...

Secur said:

Militarily , Pakistan was no pushover , it wasn't the submissive Govt of Kabul and had a fairly strong conventional military . The Soviet Union which didn't want to face the public in Afghanistan couldn't have dared to face the resistance in this country , there was simply no way at all to come to warm waters

Click to expand...

Have you read the source material you quoted from and the related documentation which was released?

The top brass, in fact the actual leaders themselves (Andrapov and Brezhnev), were the ones who orchestrated the assassination of Amin and invasion of Afghanistan.

As per the March 17, 1979 Politburo meeting you referenced Yuri Andrapov was already aware that at some point they were going to wind up needing to send troops by stating:



Do you honestly think an empire built on the corpses of tens of millions, particularly within Russia itself, and the millions more they forcibly displaced long before they invaded Afghanistan were apprehensive about invading because they wanted to avoid fighting the people of the country?

There were a number of reasons for Andrapov's, and some members of the Politburo's, reluctance to initially commit troops in Afghanistan which included the fear they'd lose support from non-aligned nations, it'd make Taraki's government look even weaker than it was bolstering Muslim resistance as well as inciting Muslims globally to fight them and they'd be seen as the very “imperialists” they regularly berated Western nations to be resulting in them eventually facing off against the world.

The Afghan people increasingly did not support the soviet allied government and they wanted those elements of their society out of power. However, as Yuri Andrapov himself confirmed in the meeting:


Andrei Gromyko reiterates the same position during the meeting stating:


There wasn't any doubt they'd eventually invade since it was obvious, if you read the related documentation, even they acknowledged anger towards the soviets was growing and the soviets didn't intend on backing off and leaving peacefully.

During that same meeting Ponomarev recommended that the USSR:


Kirilenko approved of the move by stating:


Eventually the proposition was agreed to and signed off by both Andrapov and Soviet General Staff Ogarkov
Wilson Center Digital Archive

This was the beginning of their invasion.

These very troops sent to “protect” Amin were the ones that carried out his assassination as orchestrated by the USSR. This is confirmed by a personal memorandum Andropov (who would become the next Secretary General of the CPSU) wrote to Brezhnev (the Secretary General of the CPSU at the time) in December 1979 where he outlines the plot to overthrow Hafizullah Amin who he stated had become a danger to Soviet influence in Afghanistan citing that things were getting worse for them since the death of Nur Muhammed Taraki and they'd been in contact with anti-Amin Afghan Communists who were going to setup a “new party” and “state organs” (i.e. a puppet government) but required direct Soviet military involvement which Andropov approved of stating that the USSR had:

Secur said:

Contrary to the popular belief , even for the Soviets , the Afghanistan wasn't the much hyped strategic prize , it was always thought to be .

Click to expand...

In that case why did Yuri Andrapov, the man who became the General Secretary of the CPSU (i.e. the leader of the Soviet Union), so adamantly state in the March 17, 1979 Politburo meeting that “under no circumstances can we lose Afghanistan” if it wasn't a “strategic prize”?


Why did the USSR's own leadership orchestrate the assassination of Hafizullah Amin and subsequent invasion if Afghanistan wasn't a “strategic prize”?

Also look over my previous post where I demonstrated that Afghanistan wasn't the ultimate target Pakistan was as was Iran and Turkey (both countries the USSR had worked to destroy and fought directly or indirectly against and both who participated on various levels during the USSR-Afghanistan war to bring the soviets down).


Zia is a hero as is every Pakistani that worked tirelessly to bring the USSR down and I'm proud of him for fighting the good fight.

pursuit of happiness said:

then pleas tell pak not to commet on indian issue..

Click to expand...

This is the Pakistani Defence Forum.

If you have a problem with Pakistani's discussing issues regarding India on a forum intended for Pakistani's then f*ck off in "pursuit of happiness" somewhere else.

PakPrinciples said:

As for “extremism” there is nothing better than an extreme Muslim. Islam demands of its adherents fairness, charity, honesty, cooperation, unity, strength, courage, etc... I don't know about you but these are the qualities I want Pakistani's to have. Muslims aren't just chemists, doctors, physicists, etc... we're warriors and I'm proud of that fact as it is a trait that helped us overcome the most daunting of obstacles throughout history.

Click to expand...

I can assure you specially for this part that if you land in this country again and start to live amongst your kind , you will find nothing beautiful , excellent and poetic about the radicalism and extremism that haunts the country today . Think of it , all Mujahids of the Afghan so called Jihad turned against the state of Pakistan , something which has resulted in the deaths of 60,000+ of our countrymen today and destroyed the peace and stability of this nation and all that we stand for . An ideology brought during the same 80's which has resulted in ready-made recruits from Madarsas for Mullah Jihadis is nothing to write praises of , leave these " perfect " rationalizations of extremism for the naive and gullible to believe . All done by OUR VERY OWN COUNTRYMEN with the same training and weapons from that era who are now trying to free Pakistan from evil infidel Govt and Army just as they did in Afghanistan once , with little outside help if any . One can allege and point fingers on third hands and foreign agencies all day long and find solace in conspiracy theories ranging from CIA to Martians , but at the end of the day it wont change the reality on ground as to who these people are , the Govt of Pakistan knows it and so do many Pakistanis deep within . There is nothing better than a moderate Muslim , not the one going haywire and trying to enforce " what he thinks is right on others on gun point " and " blowing himself " off - the extreme one . I will write a detailed reply for other parts later .

PakPrinciples said:

If the war was strictly an internal conflict and the USSR did not have a presence in Afghanistan then an argument could be made to step back and let it play out but obviously that was never the case. The USSR was involved and considering the soviets already confirmed their presence in Afghanistan would eventually lead to a two front war (read over my previous post regarding their directly military intervention during the '71 war on the side of India and the “Indo-Soviet treaty of Friendship and Cooperation”) they had to be destroyed. Pakistan has a strong army but we were already up against an enemy (i.e. India) that has a military force at least 4 times larger than ours with a defence budget 6 times the size. We can beat India but you'd have to be a complete idiot to think being flanked on both borders by large hostile forces was good for Pakistan particularly considering, at the the time, we did not have a nuclear deterrent.
1.5 million Afghans were killed during a war that lasted over 10 years even with our assistance alongside a coordinated effort with other countries that included the US, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc... Even if you think the Afghans could have taken out the soviet allied government and ended the USSR invasion on their own are you honestly suggesting we sit back and watch as possibly millions more Muslims were slaughtered right next door? Furthermore, without our assistance the war would have gone on for a lot longer than it did and the longer the fighting lasted the larger the refugee crisis would become and the more our own trade would have been impacted.
The resistance loosing to the USSR was never an acceptable option and Zia made the right decision

Click to expand...

The war had both internal and external elements with the latter arising from the former . I made it clear that I am not suggesting leaving the events to play out without interference - not suggesting we shouldn't have done anything , its more than obvious that Afghanistan being our neighbor couldn't be left alone . The problem is with forced extremism and Islamization on the population which is the root cause of most of the problems we face today , the problem is with such whole-hearted participation in a war that could have fought otherwise with a better exit strategy than engaging the Jihadis whose sole " profession " was to fight , elsewhere on Earth after their job in Afghanistan was done , not of course feasible for a long time , until the plan ultimately backfired on us . The problem again is with indoctrinating the people of Pakistan with an ideology alien to them , to try to change the image and system of the country and to involve its whole population in one way or the other with the Afghan war . The problem is with importing fighters from all over the world to train in this country and fight in Afghanistan back then . The problem could have been solved by training Afghans only on their own soil or certain areas in F.A.T.A. and providing weapons , monetary and moral help to fight in their own country - not involving anyone else . The problem could have been solved by limiting our footprint in the war . The problem could have been solved by not accelerating the process dramatically and letting the Afghan insurgency simmer slowly . The problem could have been solved if our participation in the war wasn't so extensive and thorough , the problem could have been solved by thinking an exit strategy and Plan B first , either for when the war ended or if it didn't yield desired results and not looking for mere short term gains . The condition of Afghanistan as it has always been in the past would have remained the same - a lawless , unstable , divided and insane country as it were to soon happen once again after the Soviets departed , the same Mujahideen once fighting against the foreign invaders , slit the throats of one another to sit on the throne and a bloody power struggle ensued between the once trained in Pakistan Mujahids . If we chose minimal participation in the war and let the events take their due course , the Afghanistan would have turned out pretty much the same as it always had but without destroying our country as we have done , the outcome wouldn't have been much different you see . The Soviets couldn't have still won and the Communists would have still been unpopular in the country , the population fighting with the invaders and with not having Afghanistan under control , the Reds wouldn't have posed any danger to Pakistan . An extended guerrilla war would have continued like the civil war in that country happened after withdrawal and we would had have to deal with the former just like we dealt with the latter . Think of the further burden on already going downwards in a spiral Soviet economy , could the weakened Red Army then be expected to come down to warm waters or fight with Islamabad ? No . The simple point is that there were others far better ways to deal with the threat . You see the foreign policy of a country isn't run black and white , there is little room for emotions and no brotherhood or fraternity exists in the real world and the whole of it is directed by the interest and security of a country , such sadly doesn't seem to be the case with us despite the Muslim Ummah proving it from time to time . I really could care less about the number of Afghans killed looking at their historic hate and actions against my country and the damage suffered by my country in that war and in this war which is a continuity of the one fought in the 80's , for me my country comes first and foremost above everything and other's are not our problem .

Shahmir....you are a stupid fellow

Well said desert falcon

His status to me is best made clear by the way he wrote his own name in St Stephen's college in Dehli.. it was written "Zai-ul-Haq" (waste of truth/good). The man ruined Pakistani society and introduced extremist and intolerant mindset as is prevalent in his supporters, created massive corruption in the military and made billionaires out of his friends.

Oscar said:

His status to me is best made clear by the way he wrote his own name in St Stephen's college in Dehli.. it was written "Zai-ul-Haq" (waste of truth/good). The man ruined Pakistani society and introduced extremist and intolerant mindset as is prevalent in his supporters, created massive corruption in the military and made billionaires out of his friends.

Click to expand...

Sir no he didn't ruined it first Aghan Jihad it was started by Bhutto than Zia took over if Bhutto had continued to be in power he would have followed same policy. Now as for Islamization if he hadn't done it one day somebody else would have done it. Muslims passion of Islam had to grow it was natural the mistake state made was they never did their duty of sincerely implementing Islamic laws the result was Mullah taking over and filling the gap. Whenever state will leave a vacuum it would be filled weather people like it or not.

Zarvan said:

Sir no he didn't ruined it first Aghan Jihad it was started by Bhutto than Zia took over if Bhutto had continued to be in power he would have followed same policy. Now as for Islamization if he hadn't done it one day somebody else would have done it. Muslims passion of Islam had to grow it was natural the mistake state made was they never did their duty of sincerely implementing Islamic laws the result was Mullah taking over and filling the gap. Whenever state will leave a vacuum it would be filled weather people like it or not.

Click to expand...

You are only being an example of what he did. Misinterpretations of Islamic ideals and Misplaced priorities in life.
Bhutto did not start it,he surrendered to the animals.

Oscar said:

You are only being an example of what he did. Misinterpretations of Islamic ideals and Misplaced priorities in life.
Bhutto did not start it,he surrendered to the animals.

Click to expand...

Sorry Sir Bhutto started it. Hekmatyar and few other leader came and he started providing support and weapons. As for misplaced Islamic ideals we can have a long debate on whose ideals are misplaced but this forum is not the place Sir.

Oscar said:

it was written "Zai-ul-Haq" (waste of truth/good).

Click to expand...

now that's what i call Creativity with a name LOL

Anyone who reads my posts will know that I abhor Zia ul Haq and call him ‘Bigot Zia’. In my opinion Zia has done more harm to the fabric of Pakistan society than anyone else alive or dead.

Nevertheless I admit that the bigot Zia also had some good qualities. Zia ul Haq never forgot anyone who treated him kindly and would return the favour if he were able. Nearly all who knew him beyond little more than a handshake has confirmed that Zia always treated his guests with courtesy.

Unlike an extremely vain ZA Bhutto who loved sycophants and publically insulted senior public officials who disagreed with him; Zia ul Haq was expert in disguising his feelings and could lie with a straight face.

Without denying that Zia had a ruthless & vindictive streak and extremely bigoted; I would say that the Zia ul Haq was also very good actor and was far better in governance than the political leaders of the time.

Oscar said:

His status to me is best made clear by the way he wrote his own name in St Stephen's college in Dehli.. it was written "Zai-ul-Haq" (waste of truth/good). The man ruined Pakistani society and introduced extremist and intolerant mindset as is prevalent in his supporters, created massive corruption in the military and made billionaires out of his friends.

Click to expand...

Oscar,

What kind of corruption in the military? His supporters in the military claim he was an honest and clean general.....which i always found amusing.

Desertfalcon said:

He was also considered by Reagan to be a stalwart ally and friend. It was the Zia-Reagan relationship that ended President Carter's arms embargo against Pakistan and began a vast increase in economic credit and aid.
Toasts of President Reagan and President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan at the State Dinner

Click to expand...

Just like Mush & Bush were also good friends.

Sure he had good qualities, but also very bad ones.
He was pathological liar. ruthless, cruel, was the cause of major corruption and extremism in our country, had political opponents killed and tortured among many other things.....All for which he will be paying for in his grave. Plus what ever is wrong in Pakistan due to him today and people who die as a result of his ideology today and in the future, he will have to pay for that too. Being a leader and an autocratic leader, God will exact every possible ounce of justice from what ever he did and there future consequences! Its is why its best not

Zarvan said:

The documents included an account of a secret mission in June 1982 by a US envoy who confronted Pakistani military ruler Mohammed Zia ul-Haq with a letter from Reagan and said the United States had “incontrovertible” proof that Pakistan was seeking nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

He was a great visionary and loved Islam. He had big plans for IOK and Central Asia and they murdered him. Khair, the matter is with Allah. I went to his kabar at the grounds of Faisal Masjid. He was the best we had and we yearn for his loss! May Allah forgive him for any of his mistakes. Amin!