Mr Musharraf said that Washington should blame its own ‘inconsistent’ policies

[HAIDER]

WASHINGTON, Nov 30 President Pervez Musharraf said on Friday that if the coming elections created a situation that was ‘unacceptable’ to him, he would step down. In an interview with ABC television, Mr Musharraf also said that the United States and other western powers were partly responsible for the current political crisis in Pakistan.

Asked if he would enter into a power-sharing arrangement with Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto, Mr Musharraf replied: “I’m not into any deal with anyone.… We are in a stage where we have to have free, fair and transparent elections. We have to see, after the election, how things develop.”

He paused, and then said: “If the situation develops in a manner which is absolutely unacceptable to me, I have a choice of leaving.”

Mr Musharraf insisted that measures like the imposition of emergency were taken in response to the ‘opposition’s tactics’.

“The opposition, they have all along these five years tried to destabilise me and the government. You have to understand, we don’t want agitation here... Agitation means breaking down everything, burning things. That cannot be allowed.”

The president he would not allow political protests even after withdrawing some of the restrictions imposed on Nov 3. “So, therefore, if anyone is trying to do that, we will stop it. That is the way it is in Pakistan.”

Mr Musharraf said that Washington should blame its own ‘inconsistent’ policies for failing to achieve the desired results in this war.

“If there’s a failure, it’s not Pakistan’s failure,” the president replied when asked why his government failed to root out Al Qaeda and Taliban militants from the tribal region.

Pakistan, he said, had been struggling against radicalism and terror for 30 years. “We are fighting terrorism everywhere,” he told ABC television. “We have gone through 30 years of turmoil. We cooperate very well. So if there’s a failure, it’s not Pakistan’s failure. Please don’t accuse us.”

The United States, he said, turned a blind eye to terrorism until Sept 11, 2001. “We handled the situation alone for 12 years,” he added.

Mr Musharraf refused to say what he would do with if Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was captured in Pakistan.
Musharraf to quit if ‘situation worsens’ -DAWN - Top Stories; December 01, 2007

 

[Sana Sheikh]

“If the situation develops in a manner which is absolutely unacceptable to me, I have a choice of leaving.”

i really doubt his statement, this guy never keeps his words....back in 200? the same mushy made a statement that he would doff his uniform in 2004 and see he doffed his unifrom in 2007...he probably acts on his words after 3 years... and why should he leave....he has plenty of options in his hands....he shouldnt be sounding disappointed..he can do whatever he desires to ...so such kind of statements coming from mushy is totally unacceptable to me

 

[Black Stone]

Sure, blame America Busharraf.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

“If the situation develops in a manner which is absolutely unacceptable to me, I have a choice of leaving.”

i really doubt his statement, this guy never keeps his words....back in 200? the same mushy made a statement that he would doff his uniform in 2004 and see he doffed his unifrom in 2007...he probably acts on his words after 3 years... and why should he leave....he has plenty of options in his hands....he shouldnt be sounding disappointed..he can do whatever he desires to ...so such kind of statements coming from mushy is totally unacceptable to me

Having the "choice" of leaving means he can either stay or leave - he isn't committing to either.

Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you have to put a warped twist to everything he says. So far the only thing you can legitimately criticize him for on not keeping his word, is removing his uniform 3 years ago - and compared to the flaws his opponents have, about whom I haven't heard a single word of criticism from you, he still comes out a saint.

 

[Awesome]

Having the "choice" of leaving means he can either stay or leave - he isn't committing to either.

Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you have to put a warped twist to everything he says. So far the only thing you can legitimately criticize him for on not keeping his word, is removing his uniform 3 years ago - and compared to the flaws his opponents have, about whom I haven't heard a single word of criticism from you, he still comes out a saint.

He made that promise to MMA and it was with a catch and it wasn't binding.

Musharraf has fooled MMA 2-3 times in his time as the leader of Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sure, blame America Busharraf.

Why not?

The US bankrolled the Afghan Jihad and abandoned the country after its interests were met, leaving behind a vacuum in which drug lords and war lords operated mini fiefdoms.

The US's weak approach in getting the Israelis to accept concessions and stop settlement etc. has contribute to more settlement building, more inflammation of the Palestinian sentiment towards radicalism.

Even now its policy in Afghanistan is to simply continue bombing away - and after 6 years what are the results?

Poppy comprises 54 percent of the Afghan GDP - the Taliban get the majority of their funds from this drug trade and a little over half of the Pashtun's of Afghanistan trust the Taliban over the US. This in a country that is pretty much run by the US. The US deserves a lot of that criticism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

He made that promise to MMA and it was with a catch and it wasn't binding.

Musharraf has fooled MMA 2-3 times in his time as the leader of Pakistan.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Energon]

Why not?

The US bankrolled the Afghan Jihad and abandoned the country after its interests were met, leaving behind a vacuum in which drug lords and war lords operated mini fiefdoms.

The US's weak approach in getting the Israelis to accept concessions and stop settlement etc. has contribute to more settlement building, more inflammation of the Palestinian sentiment towards radicalism.

Even now its policy in Afghanistan is to simply continue bombing away - and after 6 years what are the results?

Poppy comprises 54 percent of the Afghan GDP - the Taliban get the majority of their funds from this drug trade and a little over half of the Pashtun's of Afghanistan trust the Taliban over the US. This in a country that is pretty much run by the US. The US deserves a lot of that criticism.

This is only half the story. The other half is that Pakistan under Zia succeeded in entrenching radicalism throughout the fabric of the society in hopes to unleash it upon India since open military conflict was not an option given the disproportionate sizes of military might and prior history on the battlefield. He knew that Islamism was the only way to combat the enemy and through the USA he got a golden opportunity to make his dream come true. The Saudis and other nation-bankrollers are also to blame. Just look into how much money Saudi was pouring in through the GID (Saudi Arabia "intelligence"). There was also a pan-Arab movement to establish madrassas and other institutions dispensing fundamentalism which was even deemed as a negative influence by their own governments. Zia embraced all of these characters with open arms since it was the power source to his new weapon. The only problem is that this weapon went out of control and metastasized throughout the region.

You're right about America's quick departure from Afghanistan leaving a power vacuum, but you fail to mention that Pakistan selectively supported its own cadre of drug kingpins and warlords including animals like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar while ensuring suppression of someone like Ahmad Shah Massoud who might have been Afghanistan's best choice for leader.

Pakistan didn't remain a logistical hotbed of Sunni terrorism without any concerted support from within. How many Jihadi groups have popped up inside Pakistan after the end of the Soviet-Afghan war? And what did the USA have to do with Pakistan offering support and nurturing these groups?

Let us not forget that every successive government after Zia has continued to coddle the Islamists. Benazir was more than happy to mobilize them during the 1989 Kashmir insurgency and then again in the 1994 Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan. Nawaz was also gung-ho about the Kargil insurgency until it blew up in his face. But there is ample evidence of his initial support to the fundie jihadists.

My point is that blaming everything on the USA is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Internal policies of Pakistan are more to blame. Subsequently the solution should also come from within and not from outside.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is only half the story. The other half is that Pakistan under Zia succeeded in entrenching radicalism throughout the fabric of the society in hopes to unleash it upon India since open military conflict was not an option given the disproportionate sizes of military might and prior history on the battlefield. He knew that Islamism was the only way to combat the enemy and through the USA he got a golden opportunity to make his dream come true. The Saudis and other nation-bankrollers are also to blame. Just look into how much money Saudi was pouring in through the GID (Saudi Arabia "intelligence"). There was also a pan-Arab movement to establish madrassas and other institutions dispensing fundamentalism which was even deemed as a negative influence by their own governments. Zia embraced all of these characters with open arms since it was the power source to his new weapon. The only problem is that this weapon went out of control and metastasized throughout the region.

You're right about America's quick departure from Afghanistan leaving a power vacuum, but you fail to mention that Pakistan selectively supported its own cadre of drug kingpins and warlords including animals like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar while ensuring suppression of someone like Ahmad Shah Massoud who might have been Afghanistan's best choice for leader.

Pakistan didn't remain a logistical hotbed of Sunni terrorism without any concerted support from within. How many Jihadi groups have popped up inside Pakistan after the end of the Soviet-Afghan war? And what did the USA have to do with Pakistan offering support and nurturing these groups?

Let us not forget that every successive government after Zia has continued to coddle the Islamists. Benazir was more than happy to mobilize them during the 1989 Kashmir insurgency and then again in the 1994 Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan. Nawaz was also gung-ho about the Kargil insurgency until it blew up in his face. But there is ample evidence of his initial support to the fundie jihadists.

My point is that blaming everything on the USA is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Internal policies of Pakistan are more to blame. Subsequently the solution should also come from within and not from outside.

It is only half the story, and I do not deny at all the complicity of the Pakistani's in supporting various groups, but the fact is that a devastated Afghanistan was left to the dogs and it was right next door to us - so Pakistan took whatever steps were necessary to safeguard its own interests.

The situation in Afghanistan now is a direct ramification of the US abandoning the region. Had it/NATO stayed and actually tried to help the country rise out of the ashes of war (like it is trying to do now) Pakistan may perhaps not have had to support one actor or another, and eventually the Taliban, which the US also had an interest in promoting (anti Iranian sentiment and Iranian support for the NA etc.), in a bid to find some security and stability in its Western neighbor. Would Pakistan's actions have been different had the US followed a policy of engagement in the region? I think so.

The rise of the Sunni terrorist groups is a complex phenomenon - associated with the Afghan Jihad, the Saudi bankrolled Madrassas, the Kashmir Jihad and sectarian tensions, and it is incorrect to simply suggest that the rise of these groups after the Afghan Jihad was Pakistan's fault. Pakistan was a country beset with problems - sanctioned, almost bankrupt, and with a hostile enemy to its east, and potentially gaining a foothold in its West. Once again, had the US chosen to stay engaged in the region, things might have turned out differently.

 

[Sana Sheikh]

Having the "choice" of leaving means he can either stay or leave - he isn't committing to either.

Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you have to put a warped twist to everything he says. So far the only thing you can legitimately criticize him for on not keeping his word, is removing his uniform 3 years ago - and compared to the flaws his opponents have, about whom I haven't heard a single word of criticism from you, he still comes out a saint.

It is not about distorting the fact...it's more about understanding the fact...Is that what you think i can criticize him for...i can sense your loyalty towards mushy....hehe...but do i need to point out his hunger for power which seems to be never ending, the changes he brought in the constitution just for his own sake, his respect for the law and what not....most important of all how can i trust a person who is so called our president but he has this little bad habit of going back on his words????

 

[jantobanto]

MUSAHARAF, was very right in his statment about USAs careless ness about the post 9/11 situation in AFGHANISTAN.

BY the way i am , not a supporter of MUSHARF.

BUT , i dont find any one in pakistan, truly fare for pakistan.

surly MUSHARAF, has become better choice than, our dirty and undemocratic politicians.

even, musharaf is power hungry, i never mind because at least he is not croupt and he didnt took a single peny out of pakistan.


USA , has to accept the blame that systamaticly , it was involved in the situationS in AFGHANISTAN in pakistan , and in IRAN.


ONE thing should be cleared from the minds of americans, when ever they needed PAKISTAN, PAKISTAN was there for them.

it wasnt PAKISTAN , which SHOUGHTED the help of USA . even in the eara of gen. zia ul haq , it was USA which wanted PAKISTANs help against SOVIET RUSSIA?

PAKISTANs needs were different then of american needs, and at least pakistan doesnt have any hidden agenda like usa.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is not about distorting the fact...it's more about understanding the fact...Is that what you think i can criticize him for...i can sense your loyalty towards mushy....hehe...but do i need to point out his hunger for power which seems to be never ending, the changes he brought in the constitution just for his own sake, his respect for the law and what not....most important of all how can i trust a person who is so called our president but he has this little bad habit of going back on his words????

The only think I would suggest is that you be equal in the application of your "principles" - if you cannot trust someone who "went back on his words" then you cannot trust the majority of the politicians in Pakistan and that includes BB and NS. So please take time out to criticize them as well - especially because if they get elected, they will be running the country and not Musahrraf.

Every one has been criticizing his "hunger for power" but even if that were to be assumed true, what exactly does it do? The country will be run by the PM and his/her cabinet. Musharaf does not have any greater powers than the presidents before NS took away the power to dissolve assemblies.

Isn't it in fact good to have a President who will not be affiliated with the PPP and PML-N so that he can keep a neutral watch over these parties? I think so.

Musharraf is trying to ensure that hs Local bodies reforms and economic reforms stay intact. What is wrong with that?

 

[Spring Onion]

He made that promise to MMA and it was with a catch and it wasn't binding.

Musharraf has fooled MMA 2-3 times in his time as the leader of Pakistan.

being fooled by someone is one thing and become one willingly is another.
As Agno said
" YOu cheat me shame on you; you cheat me again shame on me."

 

[Energon]

Once again, had the US chosen to stay engaged in the region, things might have turned out differently.

I've given this matter a lot of thought and I don't think I totally ascribe to this theory. Here's why:
1. The USA didn't really have a clear idea of what they were doing in the first place. Their knowledge about the Afghans and the region in general in the 80s was abysmal (at best). Their only intention was to get back at the Russians. Hence I don't know how good any "reconstruction" project run by the Americans would have really been.

2. It is illogical to compare America's efforts today to those before since the latter was conducted at the height of the cold war (priorities were very different) while the former is being carried out after a tough lesson learnt. Usually hindsight is 20/20, (except for the current administration who has managed to screw things up even this time around. But that is a separate rant-thread I need to start at some other time.)

3. In the USA's defense, we were putting in a LOT of money (appropriated and unappropriated) in hard currency under the complete control of Pakistan.

If Pakistan truly desired the stability and the well being of Afghanistan and the tribal areas, they could have used these excess funds in a benevolent manner so as to create a decent infrastructure, promote literacy (secular education) and economic reform. But that didn't happen. In fact the plan that was followed was scripted by Zia which specifically made sure that the funds were used in a different manner altogether with India in mind. That is the core issue here. Pakistan deliberately made all decisions for the sake of malevolence which has now come back to bite the region and the entire world at large in the rump.

 

[Energon]

The only think I would suggest is that you be equal in the application of your "principles" - if you cannot trust someone who "went back on his words" then you cannot trust the majority of the politicians in Pakistan and that includes BB and NS. So please take time out to criticize them as well - especially because if they get elected, they will be running the country and not Musahrraf.

Every one has been criticizing his "hunger for power" but even if that were to be assumed true, what exactly does it do? The country will be run by the PM and his/her cabinet. Musharaf does not have any greater powers than the presidents before NS took away the power to dissolve assemblies.

Isn't it in fact good to have a President who will not be affiliated with the PPP and PML-N so that he can keep a neutral watch over these parties? I think so.

Musharraf is trying to ensure that hs Local bodies reforms and economic reforms stay intact. What is wrong with that?

I completely agree.
We should also realize that the reason he has "gone back on his word" and the issue of his "hunger for power" is actually more of an external imposition than anything else.
Musharraf came to power via a coup as the chief of the military. He was in fact a dictator general. Subsequently, his word was law. Had the world just accepted him for what he was in the light of his actions actually being beneficial for Pakistan, we would have all been better off.

But no... the west had to try and pass him off as a pseudo democratic leader by constantly referring to him as "president" and pushing the whole democracy dogma down Pakistan's throat knowing very well the turbulent history of said phenomenon.

Was power important for Musharraf? Yes. Is he an egomaniacal individual? Of course, the first two chapters of his autobiography clearly indicates this.

But for all the nay sayers, please provide any evidence suggesting that Nawaz and/or Benazir are devoid of the same faults. The only difference is that Musharraf has proven that he can do a good job for Pakistan while his adversaries have time and time proven the exact opposite.