Benazir's new book has some startling revelations

[ironman]

I don't understand why it is so hard for you guys to understand simple things, which i am saying post after post.

DGMO is never a Lt General on our side never has been, its a Maj General rank post, while in 96 he was Corps Commander Mangla, which had nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with Kargil or its planning as it is an elite strike corps just like your RAPID formations, plus i said some other thought for things too which make it impossible to be his plan alone. And DGMO do NOT plan such operations, it is not their job to plan such kind of operations.

BB is making it up and thinking from her imagination.

I think you are wrong in this statement too. Musharraf, in his autobiography, himself describes...

"In 1993 I was appointed director general of military operations (DGMO), the most highly coveted post for a major general. This was the first time that I got involved in almost everything having to do with the nation in which the army is involved. The Military Operations Directorate is the core think tank of the army and is involved in what- ever is on the army chief's mind, be it military or political....."

Taimikhan,

Most indian members are talking because they think by talking intelligent they know what they are talking about---you need to be talking to someone on the indian side with actual millitary background to make them understand what the discussion is all about.

To an ordinary computer programmer, a major general is a big thing you need to understand that.

Yes, I have little knowledge about the Pakistan army and their system. All I have from various sources like reading, reading and reading... just like you.... Is that considered as a source ?

 

[TaimiKhan]

I think you are wrong in this statement too. Musharraf, in his autobiography, himself describes...

"In 1993 I was appointed director general of military operations (DGMO), the most highly coveted post for a major general. This was the first time that I got involved in almost everything having to do with the nation in which the army is involved. The Military Operations Directorate is the core think tank of the army and is involved in what- ever is on the army chief's mind, be it military or political....."

read the last line, army chief's mind, meaning they are not the brains, they are told something, which they evaluate and make arrangements and final plan and approval is still by COAS or combined with other generals.

Take an example, in 2001 when war was about to broke out and IA had mobilized its army, Maj Gen Kiyano now COAS was DGMO, he looked after the whole mobilization of the Army, so they get orders which they refine and coordinate. They are mostly involved in the coordination of plans and how to make happen that plan happen. Pros and Cons and other stuff. But they are not the brains to come up with plans itself and present it without getting approved.

 

[ironman]

read the last line, army chief's mind, meaning they are not the brains, they are told something, which they evaluate and make arrangements and final plan and approval is still by COAS or combined with other generals.

Take an example, in 2001 when war was about to broke out and IA had mobilized its army, Maj Gen Kiyano now COAS was DGMO, he looked after the whole mobilization of the Army, so they get orders which they refine and coordinate. They are mostly involved in the coordination of plans and how to make happen that plan happen. Pros and Cons and other stuff. But they are not the brains to come up with plans itself and present it without getting approved.

Yes, that was exactly in chief's mind. Read this with first post.

Then army chief General Aslam Beg had, she said, asked her to approve a new policy. "He said that if Islamabad went on 'offensive defence', it could capture Srinagar...General Beg told me, 'Prime Minister, you just give the order and your men will take Srinagar and you will wear the crown of victory and of glory.' I thought he had lost all sense of reality."

 

[pak-marine]

i wish BB was more straight with Pakistani masses and told them this instead of writing in a book to attract western sympathies.. Too late again

 

[FireFighter]

Hypocrisy of the PPP in general and Benazir never fail to amuse me.


She accuses Nawaz Sharif of being brought in by Zia, a dictator, yet she fails to acknowledge the fact that her father was also "brought in" by another dictator namely Ayub Khan.


Bhutto became the youngest Pakistani cabinet minister when he was given charge of the energy ministry by President Muhammad Ayub Khan


She wanted to bring "democracy" to Pakistan on one hand but her party has effectively turned into a family dynasty on the other.


PPP has become like clever vultures who pray on largely ignorant public to achieve personal political milestones and then rob them of their tax money.

A minor factual inconsistency or mistake doesnt make her statements false. She was speaking as the ex-head of the state and obviously was in a position to hold such meetings. Whats telling is that the thooght process of the millitary is once again brought to the fore-that is their need for glory.
Not that its a new find-Gibraltar, Kargil etc. are too obvious examples of rash minded decisions Pakistan army is known for.

Benazir's Book has become a Geeta? Full of truth and revelations as it highlights negatively the role of "Pak Military and the ISI" that the Indians so frequently see in Bollywood, no wonder the Indians here apparently love quoting because they serve their preconceived and already established biased notions and beliefs about the Pak army.


Now that her words spoke the so called "truth" I guess you guys can make a Beynazir Idol and start worshipping it in India

 

[toxic_pus]

The entire issue has come down to, whether Musharraf was DGMO when he met BB and whether a DGMO can brief the PM. Argument has been made that since Musharraf couldn’t have been DGMO during ‘1996’, and even if he had been one, since a DGMO doesn’t ‘plan’ and brief a PM, the conversation is a figment of BB’s imagination. Indian posters, on the other hand, have maintained that even if there is any error in identifying Musharraf’s exact designation at the time of conversation, it is inconsequential because it doesn’t prove that the conversation hadn’t taken place.

It turns out that we were not entirely wrong. Below, is Musharraf’s version of same conversation. Although it is indeed different from what BB claimed (duh!), it proves that BB indeed had a similar conversation with Musharraf.

Bhutto told the author that in her second term, Musharraf, then head of military operations at army headquarters, while presenting a war game on Kashmir, recommended a military incursion into the Indian-held state and the taking over of Srinagar. Bhutto, however, reminded him that Pakistan would not be able to sustain the gains and would be forced to withdraw.[…] Musharraf’s recollection is different.

He said, […] “I told her that with time, the differential is increasing and the window will close. Therefore, if at all, we have to do anything, we should be planning to do it in a short while. Otherwise we lose the opportunity ... It was just that I had a more proactive view on what we should be doing in Kashmir and she did not like that. She held totally defensive : ‘let’s sideline the issue altogether. Don’t bother about it.’ ... So she took offense to it. And I did reply again, I said, ‘I personally think that time is not on our side. Time is in the favour of India.’ There was no Kargil type of situation discussed ... I said only that the Mujahideen were doing something over there. My view was if we are bringing about qualitative enhancement and quantitative is all in our hands, in the government’s hands, as far as Mujahideen are concerned. You can send them arms etc. whenever you like. Qualitatively, that is all that I said, but I didn’t give her ... give any kind of a plan of action, military action.”

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

(Before anybody starts hopping around with ‘no Kargil type situation discussed’ do visit the link and read Gen Jehangir Karamat’s version.)

On another note, here is the relevant excerpt of the original interview that Solomon2 had linked earlier.

Rediff: General Musharraf is a pretty bright man, isn't he?

Benazir: That's what people say, but from what I remember of him, I was quite disappointed by his analytical skills. He was my Director General Military Operations and he presented me with his plan in front of 50 officers about how the mujahideen would infiltrate an area similar to Kargil. How they would bring about a war and the Indians wouldn't be able to dislocate us and they would be forced to start a second front at which point the international community would intervene and we would take Srinagar.

I said to him, 'General, what would happen on the day after you took Srinagar.' He replied, 'I don't know what you mean, I don't understand your question.'

I think he personally doesn't like me because of that confrontation we had in GHQ on the Kargil issue. But believe me I had to have that confrontation because if I did not, the blood of 3,000 soldiers would be on my hands.
After I was overthrown they went ahead with their folly and 3,000 of our young boys, the best in our army, died, so many on the Indian side died, there was so much bitterness. The whole world had to intervene to stop it escalating into a nuclear war.

Benazir interview which Pakistan finds treasonous!

I would take BB’s word over our resident military analysts, any day of the week and thrice on weekend. It is inconceivable that BB, being a PM wouldn’t know who was briefing her.

It appears, that it was the author of the article who made a goof up, not with the rank of Musharraf but with the timing of the conversation. It was in all probability sometime in 1995 and not 1996.

 

[Awesome]

The entire issue has come down to, whether Musharraf was DGMO when he met BB and whether a DGMO can brief the PM. Argument has been made that since Musharraf couldn’t have been DGMO during ‘1996’, and even if he had been one, since a DGMO doesn’t ‘plan’ and brief a PM, the conversation is a figment of BB’s imagination. Indian posters, on the other hand, have maintained that even if there is any error in identifying Musharraf’s exact designation at the time of conversation, it is inconsequential because it doesn’t prove that the conversation hadn’t taken place.

It turns out that we were not entirely wrong. Below, is Musharraf’s version of same conversation. Although it is indeed different from what BB claimed (duh!), it proves that BB indeed had a similar conversation with Musharraf.

(Before anybody starts hopping around with ‘no Kargil type situation discussed’ do visit the link and read Gen Jehangir Karamat’s version.)

On another note, here is the relevant excerpt of the original interview that Solomon2 had linked earlier.

I would take BB’s word over our resident military analysts, any day of the week and thrice on weekend. It is inconceivable that BB, being a PM wouldn’t know who was briefing her.

It appears, that it was the author of the article who made a goof up, not with the rank of Musharraf but with the timing of the conversation. It was in all probability sometime in 1995 and not 1996.

You're ignoring the fact that when BB was alive she CHOSE to not include this event in her book, but perhaps the President decided lets add this in.

We all know the difference in the levels of intellect between BB and her husband. Thats what people are pointing out that there is probably some major gaffe around here, which terms the entire incident suspect. I would like to think that Musharraf was indeed planning major operations for several years before he went ahead with them and didn't cook one up out of the blue.

But the version you all are quoting may just not be BB's version at all.

 

[toxic_pus]

You're ignoring the fact that when BB was alive she CHOSE to not include this event in her book, but perhaps the President decided lets add this in.

We all know the difference in the levels of intellect between BB and her husband. Thats what people are pointing out that there is probably some major gaffe around here, which terms the entire incident suspect. I would like to think that Musharraf was indeed planning major operations for several years before he went ahead with them and didn't cook one up out of the blue.

But the version you all are quoting may just not be BB's version at all.

I understand what you are trying to say. The book was originally written 1989, well before the narrated event. It was revised, in 2007 (or was it 2008?).

Please visit the links provided, to see how BB had come out in the open right after Kargil. The Rediff interview was in 2003 though.

 

[MastanKhan]

I think you are wrong in this statement too. Musharraf, in his autobiography, himself describes...


Yes, I have little knowledge about the Pakistan army and their system. All I have from various sources like reading, reading and reading... just like you.... Is that considered as a source ?

Hi,

It is not a matter of reading and sources---it a matter of understanding millitary operational doctrine and how the system works---there is a strict heirarchy maintained in the millitary and a junior general cannot approach the PM or president at that directly, bypassing his superiors.

It is the same with indian millitary or any other force.

An outsider can only AS S U ME what the roles were, but unless one doesnot have the insider information, it is pure speculation.

Now once this speculation is being corrected by someone who is in knowledge of how it works---it is better to leave it at that---because that person has more legitimacy than one, who nowhere near.

Now funny thing that I missed---did she ever mention and talk about his favourite general Hamid Gul---and what he did and how he failed. Would love to get some more details on that failure.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

So is Benazir (Sheed, Repect must be given where due)

is editing the book from after life? How does this works

Western media has habbit of altering books, most books by western scholors are easily found , and most by the atlernative views are lost , are out dated or never printed again, and this after 30-40 years when someone researches , he only finds one distorted view in univertsities and thus that creates illusions on what happened 30-40 years ago

This is another example how the few books that come out of east are altered over time

 

[croptikal]

i wish BB was more straight with Pakistani masses and told them this instead of writing in a book to attract western sympathies.. Too late again

hmm...never thought of this angle. Yes, the book seems to be aimed at international audience. If she wanted to come clean, she should have done so in public fora in Pakistan with pakistani masses. Obviously, if BB is telling the truth, then one has to deduce that army Gen.s were warmongering. This truth should be known to the masses who want to live in peace and prosperity.

 

[ironman]

Hi,

It is not a matter of reading and sources---it a matter of understanding millitary operational doctrine and how the system works---there is a strict heirarchy maintained in the millitary and a junior general cannot approach the PM or president at that directly, bypassing his superiors.

It is the same with indian millitary or any other force.

An outsider can only AS S U ME what the roles were, but unless one doesnot have the insider information, it is pure speculation.

Now once this speculation is being corrected by someone who is in knowledge of how it works---it is better to leave it at that---because that person has more legitimacy than one, who nowhere near.

Now funny thing that I missed---did she ever mention and talk about his favourite general Hamid Gul---and what he did and how he failed. Would love to get some more details on that failure.

This is not the first time I'm hearing this news, in 2007 San Francisco Chronicle has also been reported it quoting BB . Thats the point I stick with.


FRIEND OR FOE? / Washington hails Musharraf as an ally in the war on terror, but critics make a case that Pakistani leader is a terrorist

 

[MastanKhan]

This is not the first time I'm hearing this news, in 2007 San Francisco Chronicle has also been reported it quoting BB . Thats the point I stick with.


FRIEND OR FOE? / Washington hails Musharraf as an ally in the war on terror, but critics make a case that Pakistani leader is a terrorist

Hi,

Guess what---he is the only man that the indian leadership was ready to make peace with---so what do you think about that. How about some in the indian news media--they still show more respect for him than any other pakistani leader.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Hi,

Guess what---he is the only man that the indian leadership was ready to make peace with---so what do you think about that. How about some in the indian news media--they still show more respect for him than any other pakistani leader.

What does it mean?
Musharaf is full of lies??
I think he is...

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Musharraf is a good man as he stands himself---the character of the support staff and political team leadership was very poor and he knew that up front.

For that reason he invited Shahbaz sharif for coalition govt---Shahbaz failed the PROTECT MOTHERLAND FIRST test and opted for the sharif family first---.

Then he asken Amin Fahim for assistance---the son of Talib ul Maula had no guts either and he opted for the Bhutto family first---.

Then Musharraf turned to our hero Imran Khan---who when he got the ultimate chance of serving the nation and put the money where his mouth is---he also turned turkey and ran away---the mand had no ballz when it counted the most---he stuck his tail between his legs and sauntered off.

In the end---Musharraf was left with gutless and spineless people like the Chaudhry brothers----.

These three are the true traitors of the nation---would the scenario be different if Sultan Tippu didnot have the likes of Mir Qasim or Siraj ud Daulah didnot have Mir Jaffar---those three stand on the same padestal as these two.

Remember no man is a nation in himself---it takes a team of hardworking pro active individuals with a vision of the future and selfless sacrifice to build a nation.