CIA Versus Musharraf

[dr.umer]

It was President Musharraf who was most annoyed over PPP decision to weaken ISI. It was after this disagreement with the U.S. that it was decided in Washington that he must be removed and, suddenly, we find Mr. Zardari changing tone, demeanor and language to join hands with PML (N) to impeach the besieged President. First priority is therefore to remove the man who is now finally and formally betrayed by all those internal and external allies who had scavenged around him for the last 8 years. U.S. and Britain have given tacit approval and support for the coup and are not coming for the support of their ‘trusted ally.’ There is no doubt that both U.S. and Britain are closely monitoring the moves of the army as the Army Chief is also a major hurdle in U.S. plans to weaken the ISI. With all political parties in U.S. pocket, the army and the ISI are the next targets once the President is annihilated. It is now a direct head-on clash between CIA and him. If he survives somehow, he will become a strong President and may turn the tables against U.S. and PPP.

This week we will focus on dramatic developments in Islamabad which will very soon decide the fate of President Musharraf and the political future of the country. The CIA-sponsored, PPP-executed, and U.S.-backed attempted coup against ISI has begun to unfold with a new ruthless cutthroat political strategy and a new target designation which has following landmarks to be achieved in rapid succession.

1. Removal of President Musharraf.
2. Appointment of Mr. Zardari or his man as President
3. Bringing ISI again under Ministry of Interior
4. Complete takeover of Pakistan’s security establishment by CIA

Before we initiate our detailed analysis of this ruthless high risk game, let us review what we had written last week about CIA’s plan to control ISI.

We had written:

In the past two weeks, a stunning axis of threat has emerged for Pakistan’s national security. U.S. and India have joined hands in a coordinated media blitz, psy-ops and diplomatic attack to target the centre of gravity of Pakistani armed forces and to weaken the powerful institution which so far remains out of U.S. influence and control -- the Inter Services Intelligence, ISI.

There is no doubt that U.S. has been heavily involved lately with the ‘democratic’ U.S.-installed and backed PPP government in Islamabad to find ways and means to bring ISI under its tighter control through those players in the PPP government who are un-elected and un-accountable but are placed at strategic locations in the national security apparatus.

The reason to target ISI remains that it is now believed in the U.S. administration that while Pakistan army remains the most powerful institution in the country, it is the ISI which is the source of that strength for the armed forces. Hence by attacking, subduing, controlling and thus destroying ISI, U.S. and by extension India can permanently solve the problem of not having enough leverage on Pakistani armed forces. ISI remains the eyes and ears of Pakistan’s national security establishment and its Director General is appointed by the army chief, hence the influence and control as well as loyalties of the ISI remains with the armed forces despite reporting to the Prime Minister.

So if the ISI can be penetrated and destroyed by U.S. appointed elements from the PPP government, it would be a stunning coup to take over Pakistan which US has been dreaming to achieve for decades. ISI has always out of US control and total influence despite very close relationship between CIA and ISI in the past and in the present.

After the failed coup against ISI and hence against army, the levels of trust between Pakistani armed forces and Pentagon are at their lowest at the moment despite apparent cordial relations. ISI and GHQ are definitely angry at the aims and objectives of the U.S. planners and the role the PPP government is playing in the process. The way orders of putting ISI under Rehman Malik were forcibly reversed at 3 am is in itself a complete commentary on the state of affairs after the botched CIA coup against ISI. Now the daggers are drawn. Each side will have to watch their backs, Indians too.”

The daggers are indeed out. After the failed coup against ISI, CIA changed tactics this time and asked Mr. Zardari to target the powerful trio which had resisted the initial coup – President, army chief and the DG ISI. Zardari knows that he cannot challenge and take on ISI without the full and powerful backing of the U.S. and CIA.

U.S. government made it very clear that they do not want ISI to be bothering their allies and should be tamed and brought under their control. This U.S. perception is turning into obsession and paranoia that ISI is having its own agenda and is out of control of PPP government and U.S. designs. U.S. has even forced the PPP government not to cancel the earlier orders to bring ISI under Ministry of Interior, an absolute and total insult to the premier spy agency if not a total sell out of national security.

----------------------------------------------------------------
US wants ‘focused’ intelligence services
----------------------------------------------------------------
COLOMBO, Aug 3: The United States has said it will like to see ‘focussed and good’ intelligence services in Pakistan working on the agenda of reining in terrorism that has become a cause of concern for the country’s neighbours. US Under-Secretary of State Richard Boucher said at a press conference here on Sunday that his government would want Pakistan to have a ‘good intelligence service’ that worked single-mindedly and in ‘close step’ with other institutions of the country, implying that the current mechanisms could be pursuing an agenda different from that of the government.

Dawn

----------------------------------------------------------------
ISI notification held ‘in abeyance’
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISLAMABAD, Aug 5: Instead of withdrawing its July 26 notification which had placed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) under the direct control of the interior division, the federal government decided on Tuesday to hold it ‘in abeyance till further deliberations’. “The prime minister is pleased to direct that the federal government will carry out further deliberations on coordinating the intelligence efforts. Till the completion of these deliberations, the Cabinet Division’s memorandum of even number, dated July 26, 2008, is held in abeyance,” says an official announcement called ‘Memorandum’ issued by the Cabinet Secretariat.

Dawn

Ironically, it was President Musharraf who was most annoyed over the decision of PPP government to place ISI under MoI control. Hence, it was after this disagreement with the U.S. that it was decided in Washington that he must be removed and suddenly, we find Mr. Zardari changing tone, demeanor and language to join hands with PML (N) to impeach the besieged President. Zardari does not want to re-instate the judges but has found a way out that if he can have his own in the Presidency or he himself ideally, then he can deal with the judges as he wish. First priority is therefore to remove the man who is now finally and formally betrayed by all those internal and external allies who had scavenged around him for the last 8 years. U.S. and Britain has given tacit approval and support for the coup and are not coming for the support of their “trusted ally”. There is no doubt that both U.S. and Britain are closely monitoring the moves of the army as the Army Chief is also a major hurdle in U.S. plans to bring ISI under MOI. With all political parties in U.S. pocket, the army and the ISI are the next targets once the President is annihilated.

COUNTDOWN BEGINS: Asif, Nawaz shrug off 58(2)b threat; Musharraf to be asked by national and provincial assemblies to seek vote of confidence; impeachment to be followed by reinstatement of judges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISLAMABAD, Aug 7: Leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) have agreed to begin impeachment proceedings against President Pervez Musharraf,

COUNTDOWN BEGINS: Asif, Nawaz shrug off 58(2)b threat; Musharraf to be asked by national and provincial assemblies to seek vote of confidence; impeachment to be followed by reinstatement of judges -DAWN - Top Stories; August 08, 2008

----------------------------------------------------------------
Britain calls impeachment internal issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON, Aug 7: The British government regards the move by the PPP-led coalition government to impeach President Musharraf as an internal matter of Pakistan.
Britain calls impeachment internal issue -DAWN - Top Stories; August 08, 2008

----------------------------------------------------------------
Impeachment process must be consistent with rule of law, Constitution: US
----------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, Aug 7: Spokesman Gonzalo R. Gallegos indicated at a regular briefing that the US was distancing himself from President Musharraf when he declared: “We will continue our close ties with the democratically elected government of Pakistan.”... Impeachment process must be consistent with rule of law, Constitution: US -DAWN - Top Stories; August 08, 2008

There is still disagreement in U.S. policy makers over the deployed CIA strategy to remove President Musharraf so humiliatingly. The argument is that if the plan is to “tame” the ISI, is it better to work through Musharraf or work without him? The focus in any case remains on the ISI.

But it seems that the lobby which insists on removing President is gaining upper hand and now with total and complete betrayal by his allies and friends, President Musharraf is only left with extremely limited options to fight for his survival. In his entire career, he has never come so close to losing his grip on power. He was a sidelined man for the last six months in any case but still had the potential of becoming serious threat for the PPP government due to the powers vested in him to dissolve the assemblies.

Now he has the following options left:

1. Use his powers and dissolve the assemblies over non-performance, law and order crisis, bad governance and corruption. With U.S., Britain and his own political allies abandoning him, the only source of strength for President Musharraf to take such a drastic step could be the armed forces. But it seems that despite the obvious CIA plan to take over ISI, army wants to watch the developments more closely before making any move. President Musharraf does not control the army now and the GHQ would resist all temptations to interfere in the political process unless it becomes extremely necessary or the PPP government again tries to bring ISI under Mr. Zardari. President Musharraf it seems will have to fight this battle solo and he does not seem to be poised to take the radical step of pre-emptive counter attacking at this stage. He is losing precious moments and once the impeachment proceedings begin from Monday, he will lose even this option.
2. Face the impeachment process. He may or may not survive. It is now a direct head-on clash between CIA and him. If he survives somehow, he will become a strong President and may turn the tables against U.S. and PPP as well as against PML (N) and lawyers. Else, he will be a jobless man with a high probability of facing charges for ‘crimes’ of his government. This is a disaster scenario for him and the Saddam trial would be haunting him now.
3. He can resign and quit under a bargain that he will not be put on trial for his actions. This seems a low probability unless the army interferes to protect their former Chief from further humiliation.

In the next few days, President Musharraf’s fate will be sealed, for good or bad. He is reaping what he has sowed by trusting the Americans, allying with corrupt PML (Q) and worst of all laundering Zardari through the infamous NRO to make him so powerful that today Musharraf’s own throne is threatened by the man. Whatever is befalling President Musharraf today, he is totally and completely responsible for it. He chose his own advisors and allies and trusted the most unscrupulous and corrupt people this nation could throw up. Now when the crunch time has come, he stands alone, abandoned and betrayed by all his allies. His previous constituency, army, can perhaps step in to save him the humiliation of trial, jail and perhaps gallows, but is so far not willing to rescue him from impeachment or to consolidate his hold to power. The moment of truth has arrived for President Musharraf and now he has to face it alone. In the past he has survived both political crises as well as assassination bids. But somehow, this time it seems different. We shall know in a few days. But one thing is for sure, he will not go down without a fight.

This column is extracted from a situation report released by BRASSTACKS, a security and defense analysis think tank based in Islamabad. Mr. Zaid Hamid is its Founding Consultant. He can be reached at [email protected]

Ahmed Quraishi

 

[BATMAN]

US congressman says President Musharraf should accept people’s mandate, step down

WASHINGTON, Aug 16 (APP) :U.S. Congressman Steve Israel Friday joined calls, asking President Pervez Musharraf to accept the mandate of the Pakistani nation for democratic change and step down in the interest of his country. “The people of Pakistan have spoken clearly and decisively for a transition from a decade of dictatorship to democracy in the February 18 elections. It is time for Musharraf to accept the mandate of the people for democratic change, and step down for the sake of his nation,” he said in a statement.

He said “free from the threat of a president without legitimacy and popular support, the new democratically-elected government of Pakistan can devote its full attention to the economic, energy and food crises facing the nation, and the growing threat of extremism.”

“As a member of the State and Foreign Operations Sub-committee of the House Appropriations Committee, I believe it is critical for Pakistan to turn the page toward democracy, good governance and effective anti-terrorism,” the Democratic lawmaker from New York added.

The immediate step after Musharraf’s departure, he suggested, should be the restoration of the old independent judiciary.

“Without getting the judges back on the Supreme Court and high court benches, Pakistan cannot move forward and make the progress it needs.”

Arn't they all speaking same language and in some cases even the words are same. Same damn democracy crap. There is nothing democratic about a man who killed his wife to get the throne and later killed the shooter, in a typical fashion.

 

[muse]

All kinds of pieces blaming CIA, INida, Israel, Martians, Daleks etc; for the resignation of Mr. Musharraf.

Fact is as stated by Mr. Musharraf, regardless of whether the impeachment was going to be successful or not, Pakistan would have suffered.

Now, all those who had not a kind word for the achievements of Mr. Musharraf and who preached "democracy" and practiced anything but, will have only themselves to blame for their failures.

Pakistan will unfortunately continue to suffer, not because of the CIA or the Indians and the Ever green Israeli "enemy", but because of the failure of the political elite to put the interests of Pakistan before theior own personal interests.

 

[ejaz007]

analysis: The fall of Musharraf —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

The real credit for causing Musharraf’s fall goes to civil society and the media, both new actors on Pakistan’s social and political scene. In all new democracies, where the transition from military to civilian rule has taken place, these two actors have proved catalysts of political change

President Pervez Musharraf has departed, having resigned to escape the humiliation of impeachment. Yet another painful chapter of Pakistan’s political history has been closed, ending the political uncertainty the country has been facing for the past five months.

Why painful? It may be considered a polite expression for an era when the General-President overthrew an elected government to save his position as the Chief of Army Staff. At least in previous military interventions there was a political crisis and some kind of government breakdown. That was not the case on October 12, 1999.

The ruling party had a comfortable two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and all political parties with remarkable consensus had passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Pakistan was on the road to democratic recovery but with the usual traits of autocracy that are embedded in the country’s political culture.

Musharraf came to power and ruled the country only as COAS, like his three predecessors. His uniform was his first line of defence and the army an instrument of self-empowerment and control. The day he doffed his uniform, he was no longer the master of his or the country’s fate.

The loss of the army’s institutional power was effectively the beginning of the end. Musharraf kept the uniform as long as he could, given the simmering resentment inside the army and outside, there was no option but to let go of that office.

Like Ayub Khan and Zia-ul Haq, Musharraf did three things to ensure his political survival: strengthened the power of the presidency through amendments (Ayub wrote a new presidential constitution); attempted to gain popular legitimacy through a rigged referendum; and created a political party — the PMLQ. As we can see from the unfolding of political events since his stepping down as COAS, and also in light of what happened to former military rulers, the manufactured political arrangements did not lost very long.

With the fall of Musharraf, Pakistan will be reverting back to a parliamentary form of government for the third time. It is remarkable that Pakistan’s democratic forces have a national consensus on three structural aspects of the political system: sovereignty of parliament, federalism and representative democracy. All these aspects have suffered greatly and our growth as a democratic polity has been stunted during the three long spells of military rule.

Disruption of democratic politics prevented the formation of a natural balance among institutions and the firming up of constitutional politics. The rise of ethnic conflict, sectarianism, militancy and extremism are some of the troubling legacies of military rule in Pakistan.

It bears repeating at this point what I have mentioned quite often in these pages: military rulers have left Pakistan in worse shape than when they took over.

So what really pulled Musharraf down from his throne? Perhaps his own follies are responsible for his ignoble exit, as he begged foreign powers to help him get an honourable way out.

One constant theme in human history is that arrogant rulers always underestimate their opponents and have unwavering belief in their power to destroy anyone who crosses them or stands in their way. History is replete with many examples how the weak and the ordinary finally threw the tyrants out, with some meeting more humiliating ends than others. Our own history contains many lessons; but who really cares when everything is bent to the will of the ruler, including the Constitution, the courts and all state institutions.

The threat of brute force, political manipulation, use of for-sale political opportunists, and manufactured consent have proven temporary and weak instruments of power. In our culture, we often blame the victim — when military rulers capture the state, we unfairly find faults with the Pakistani society.

All military regimes have been a common enterprise between an ambitious COAS and political opportunists willing play along to enjoy privileges of power.

It is true that civil society, democratic forces and the media in the past have been weak, and the opportunist syndicate faced little and fragmented opposition. Only the political and civil society groups of the smaller provinces put up consistent and tough resistance to the military regime. They faced a double peril: loss of constitutional rights and provincial autonomy.

There will be debate in Pakistan on who really defeated Musharraf and his regime. The two major political parties of course will stake a bigger claim than others for the mandate they received in the elections and the political oppression their leaders and workers faced during the Musharraf years.

The real credit for causing Musharraf’s fall goes to civil society and the media, both new actors on Pakistan’s social and political scene. In all new democracies, where the transition from military to civilian rule has taken place, these two actors have proved catalysts of political change, and the agenda-setters and messengers of political forces.

The birth of issue-based civil society activism goes back to the rule of another military dictator, Zia-ul Haq when urban, middle-class women organised protests and changed the women’s movement forever.

This time around, removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and his detention along with his family members ignited the protests and demands for his restoration. Unlike the past, the lawyers and civil society groups had no provincial or urban-rural boundaries. It was a truly national movement, driven by the demand for an independent judiciary.

The dream of democracy and constitutional rule is as old as the Pakistan Movement. What Ayub Khan and his followers, right down to Musharraf, did was to rob the nation of its original ideals. Taking the dreams of nations and peoples and substituting them with personal interests is perhaps a greater offence than even their legal and constitutional crimes.

Pakistanis have consistently attempted to take their ideals and their country back by launching democratic movements; a fact frequently ignored by students of politics and history.

The current movement, the fourth in our history, has finally succeeded with two remarkable positive gains: power has been passed on directly to parliament and elected political parties; and this transfer has taken place through the agency of peaceful protest, legal and constitutional battles, and under the eye of an open and free media. With success and confidence, these are the factors that will refine and develop democracy in Pakistan.

Dr Rasul Baksh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected]

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[ejaz007]

If Musharaf had strong internal support than there is nothing much CIA could have done. We all must remember that peoples support is vital to survival and Musharaf had lost much of that support.

 

[BATMAN]

August 26, 2008
U.N. Envoy’s Ties to Pakistani Are Questioned
By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is facing angry questions from other senior Bush administration officials over what they describe as unauthorized contacts with Asif Ali Zardari, a contender to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan.

Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing “advice and help.”

“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.

Mr. Khalilzad also had a close relationship with Ms. Bhutto, flying with her last summer on a private jet to a policy gathering in Aspen, Colo. Ms. Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan in December.

The conduct by Mr. Khalilzad, who is Afghan by birth, has also raised hackles because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad, who was the Bush administration’s first ambassador to Afghanistan, has also kept in close contact with Afghan officials, angering William Wood, the current American ambassador, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter of Mr. Khalilzad’s contacts. Mr. Khalilzad has said he has no plans to seek the Afghan presidency.

Through his spokesman, he said he had been friends with Mr. Zardari for years. “Ambassador Khalilzad had planned to meet socially with Zardari during his personal vacation,” said Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations. “But because Zardari is now a presidential candidate, Ambassador Khalilzad postponed the meeting, after consulting with senior State Department officials and Zardari himself.”

A senior American official said that Mr. Khalilzad had been advised to “stop speaking freely” to Mr. Zardari, and that it was not clear whether he would face any disciplinary action.

In 1979, Andrew Young was forced to resign as the American ambassador to the United Nations over his unauthorized contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Administration officials described John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Mr. Boucher as angry over the conduct of Mr. Khalilzad because as United Nations ambassador he has no direct responsibility for American relations with Pakistan. Those dealings have been handled principally by Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher and Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Negroponte previously was the United Nations ambassador, and Ms. Patterson the acting ambassador.

“Why do I have to learn about this from Asif after it’s all set up?” Mr. Boucher wrote in the Aug. 18 message, referring to the planned Dubai meeting with Mr. Zardari. “We have maintained a public line that we are not involved in the politics or the details. We are merely keeping in touch with the parties. Can I say that honestly if you’re providing ‘advice and help’? Please advise and help me so that I understand what’s going on here.”

This is not the first time Mr. Khalilzad has gotten into trouble for unauthorized contacts. In January, White House officials expressed anger about an unauthorized appearance in which Mr. Khalilzad sat beside the Iranian foreign minister at a panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and a request from Mr. Khalilzad to be part of the United States delegation to Davos had been turned down by officials at the State Department and the White House, a senior administration official said.

Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said the administration was sending conflicting signals. “It is not possible to conduct coherent foreign policy if senior officials are freelancing,” he said.

It has long been known that Mr. Zardari, who has been locked in a power struggle with Mr. Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister whose party left the governing coalition on Monday, planned to run for president, administration officials and foreign policy experts said.

“I know that Zardari’s interest in becoming president has been clear for quite some time,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The Bush administration has long been uneasy with the idea of Mr. Sharif as a potential leader of Pakistan, and now that Mr. Musharraf is out of the picture, the administration, despite public protestation of neutrality, is seeking another ally.

“It distresses me that the U.S. government has not learned yet that having ‘our guy’ is not a winning strategy in Pakistan,” Ms. Schaffer said. “Whoever ‘our guy’ is isn’t going to be the only guy in town, and if we go into it with that view, we’ll bump up against a lot of other guys in Pakistan.”

A senior Pakistani official said that the relationship between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari went back several years, and that the men developed a friendship while Mr. Zardari was spending time in New York with Ms. Bhutto.

The Pakistani official said the consultations between the men were an open exchange of information, with each one giving insight into the political landscape in his capital.

“Mr. Khalilzad, being a political animal, understood the value of reaching out to Pakistan’s political leadership long before the bureaucrats at the State Department realized this would be useful at a future date,” the official said. The ambassador “did not make policy or change policy, he just became an alternate channel,” the official said.

Of Mr. Khalilzad’s Pakistan contacts, Sean I. McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “Our very clear policy is that the Pakistanis have to work out any domestic political questions for themselves.” Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said, “The Pakistani elections are an internal matter for the Pakistani people.” Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Mark Mazzetti from New York.

Just look at the attempt of media to keep the news in low profile and blame the stooge game and even the subject is cleverly described 'UN envoy's' but envoy of whom? name of 'US' is no where.