What's new

Musharraf turned Pakistan from international pariah to key Western ally

HAIDER

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
33,771
Reaction score
14
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
(The most interesting line are about Kargil conflict, how West see the PA retreat from Kargil, which proves retreat was not from any unexpected big offensive move from India)

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf ended a tumultuous army career Wednesday that saw him go to the brink of war with India and seize power in a dramatic coup, then find a lifeline in the calamity of Sept. 11, 2001, to turn Pakistan from a pariah state into a vital Muslim ally of the West.

Musharraf's image has taken a beating at home and abroad since he declared a state of emergency on Nov. 3. Pakistan's revitalized opposition could yet wreck his plan to stay on as a civilian president.

Islamic militants entrenched along the Afghan border, where Osama bin Laden may still be hiding, have defied his U.S.-urged efforts to dislodge them.

But Musharraf, 64, who stepped down as chief of army staff on Thursday, threw Pakistan behind a superpower enraged by al-Qaida's audacious 2001 attacks and used Western patronage to revitalize both its economy and army, an institution which sees itself as the glue holding the troubled nation together.

"What Gen. Musharraf did after 9/11 was an act of extreme daring," the liberal Daily Times newspaper said in an editorial Wednesday.
Less flexible generals would have struggled to abandon Pakistan's long promotion of Islamic militants as an auxiliary force against regional rivals, it said.

Musharraf owed his rise to the top of one of the world's largest armies to the former prime minister now gunning hardest for his removal from power.

Nawaz Sharif promoted him over a more senior general to the top military job in October 1998.

But the two men became bitter enemies the following year over the ill-fated Kargil maneuver, in which Pakistani troops joined forces with militant irregulars in a surprise attack aimed at seizing ground from their Indian adversaries in the frozen mountains of Kashmir.

Under pressure from then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, Sharif ordered a humiliating retreat, easing international fears that the conflict could escalate into a nuclear conflict.


When Sharif tried to fire Musharraf just a year after appointing him, the army took revenge.

Sharif was arrested and jailed for his frantic efforts to prevent a plane bringing Musharraf back from a foreign trip from landing at Karachi airport. A year later, he was released into exile in Saudi Arabia, from where he returned last week.

Musharraf, who was born in Delhi in 1943, four years before the independence and partition of India, joined the Pakistan Military Academy in 1961.

He was commissioned to an artillery regiment three years later and saw action in the 1965 war against India and again in 1971 as commander of a company of elite Special Service Group commandos. His training included a spell at Britain's Royal College of Defense Studies.

Despite disciplinary problems as a young officer, he rose through the ranks to become a major general in 1991 in charge of an infantry division and held a variety of staff positions before becoming army chief of staff.

The 1999 coup pushed Pakistan deeper into the political isolation stemming from the Kargil debacle and its first test detonations of atomic bombs in 1998.

Then came Sept. 11 and intense U.S. pressure from Washington for Pakistan to turn against its former Taliban clients, who had seized Afghanistan and made it into a safe haven for al-Qaida.

America was sure to react "like a wounded bear," Musharraf wrote in his 2006 memoir. "If the perpetrator turned out to be al-Qaida, that wounded bear would come charging straight towards us."

Musharraf braved the wrath of his country's religious fundamentalists and swung firmly behind Washington, granting overflight rights and the use of Pakistani air bases to support the attack on Afghanistan.

In the following years, and with help from the CIA, Pakistan captured hundreds of al-Qaida suspects, including key leaders such as Abu Zubayda and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the attack that felled New York's World Trade Center.

With Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar still on the loose, some observers have doubted Pakistan's commitment to the cause of battling extremists.

Musharraf, piqued, threatened earlier this year to quit the coalition altogether.

But the militant groups' enmity toward him had been brutally demonstrated in December 2003, when the general narrowly escaped two massive bomb attacks in 11 days, both a short distance from the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, where he stepped down on Tuesday.

Under Musharraf, Pakistan army troops entered the semiautonomous tribal belt along the Afghan border for the first time.

The region, never subdued under British colonial rule, had become a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism during the U.S.-backed mujahedeen war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

After a series of bloody operations begun in 2004, the army pulled back under a series of peace agreements with tribal leaders and militants.

U.S. officials complained that the deals, instead of allowing moderate tribal leaders to reassert their authority, only let extremists consolidate their hold, and the pact in the critical North Waziristan region broke down this past summer.

This year, fighting has spread to the Swat valley, a formerly quiet and scenic valley that drew rising numbers of tourists, just a two-hour drive from the capital.

Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a prominent Pakistani political and military analyst, said Musharraf leaves the military in good shape, thanks to billions of dollars in American military aid and the army's burgeoning role in the Pakistan economy.

"He devoted whatever was possible to make the army a professional and well-equipped force and the American weapons supply played an important role," Rizvi said.

But he said the army's involvement in politics had inflicted the worst damage to its public image since a bloody military intervention in East Pakistan in 1971 failed to prevent it from breaking away to form Bangladesh.

A senior commander told reporters earlier this month that the army would try harder to avoid inflicting civilian casualties inside its own borders.

In his last speech in uniform on Tuesday, Musharraf said the army was now "stretched to the limit."
Musharraf turned Pakistan from international pariah to key Western ally - International Herald Tribune
 
...and the International Herald Tribune whatever is the ultimate expert on the issue?

Don't you guys blast the western media whenever you don't agree with its stories? Now why have they suddenly regained their credibility?
 
It depends on what the Western media is commenting on. Usually "blasting the Western Media for bias" is accompanied with some reasoning as to why we think they are being biased.

But that doesn't mean that every single story they do is biased (not suggesting anything about this one in particular). You just have to shift through and analyze to determine what is hogwash and what isn't.
 
But that doesn't mean that every single story they do is biased (not suggesting anything about this one in particular). You just have to shift through and analyze to determine what is hogwash and what isn't.

Basically whatever is kind to your POV is credible, and the rest isn't.
 
Basically whatever is kind to your POV is credible, and the rest isn't.

Did you miss the part about justifying criticism of the media?

Apparently you did, since you chose to only quote half my post.

If you think an article is biased, it is your responsibility to show how and why it is biased.
 
Did you miss the part about justifying criticism of the media?

Apparently you did, since you chose to only quote half my post.

If you think an article is biased, it is your responsibility to show how and why it is biased.

Never mind...I was just being a prick there.

Point is, that such things are very difficult to prove either way, because multiple media sources say multiple things.
So one ends up sticking to the sources that agree with what one wants to believe.....

Thats all...I'm not interested in proving this article wrong, if any other indian here wants to do so then please do...I"m not expert on Kargil war.
 
Under pressure from then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, Sharif ordered a humiliating retreat, easing international fears that the conflict could escalate into a nuclear conflict.
At the time of Kargil US had no influence over Pakistan. Infect it was long time before US had abandoned Pakistan. Pakistan's political rulers lacked the ability to lead Pakistan on international level; hence Pakistan was in a state of international isolation and economical crisis.
When Indian premier approached Clinton and asked to force Pakistan for cease fire and already concerned US immediately contacted Pakistan. Where Mr. N. Sharif acted selfishly and ceded to the request unconditionally in anticipation to see his picture with the popular US president in international news.
Indian Prime minister approached US upon the request of IA, who was in extremely awkward position in Kargil conflict and had no tools in there arsenal to turn the situation in their favor.
IA lost their personals at such a high rate that they ran short of coffins. I used this reference just to point out the situation which forced IA to turn to their political leadership to find political alternate of Kargil.
Whereas the incompetent political leadership of Pakistan lost the golden opportunity of negotiation, with both India and US. So Mr. N. Sharif had his photo session and came back home and ordered immediate withdrawal, against the wishes of Pak Military leadership.
Exactly, this was the time when the Musharraf argued with Sharif over his tedious demands and interference in Military operations.
This was also the time when India realizes how to tame Pakistan military and extend its imperialism over Pakistan markets and resources (incl. talented human resources). Since that day they started to work on these lines.
Hence unofficial soft contacts started among both countries, initiated by various HR groups of Pakistan and popular cultural personalities from Indian side and in all these meetups, both governments were always missing. This people to people contact was pushed so fast in the name of CBM that Pakistan govt. failed to smell the *** partially due to its occupation with challenging foreign affairs and partially due to one man army situation.
Where as in parallel to the so called CBM, India launched media campaign blaming ISI for running training camps of al/Qaeda in a drive to halt Musharraf’s growing popularity in west. This resulted in tough relations with US and EU, which also engaged Musharraf, at the same time on various foreign and domestic fronts and this was 2007.
India used Mullahs and PPP to rise against Military, who used key words the Islam and democracy to spread anarchy. Mullahs are generally thick head people who have history to fall prey to conspiracies in their ignorance, when they fought USSR they were part of conspiracy and now when they are trying to destabilize an Islamic state still they are acting on a conspiracy plot.
PPP leadership is bunch of traitors and they are for sale in open bidding. They’ll do anything for money. They are like Mir Jeffers of present Pakistan.
Today, with the declared retirement of Musharraf, we are back to point of 1987. Only difference is today our society is even more polarized in political sense where as Military and civil management has lot of challenges to keep check on extremist elements.
Today, we have some positive outlook as well like rising economy, advancement in military technology, rise in education and very demanding society.
 
Never mind...I was just being a prick there.

Point is, that such things are very difficult to prove either way, because multiple media sources say multiple things.
So one ends up sticking to the sources that agree with what one wants to believe.....

Thats all...I'm not interested in proving this article wrong, if any other indian here wants to do so then please do...I"m not expert on Kargil war.


attaboy!
neither are we. our views or for that matter your views are based on our own experiences with people who were either in the conflict or were close to it plus whatever articles/books one can get their hands on.

U see as things get de-classified (as the conflict/war period gets old) news comes out about what really happened in a particular battle etc, not only in Kargil but in 48,65 and 71 and because the news (which comes out) does not jolt/impact our emotions any more (being old news) we then tend to take a nostalgic view of the good with the bad.

kargil is still emotional for all of us. 48,65 and probably 71 not so much. a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

i hope i am making some sense of this
 
Indian Prime minister approached US upon the request of IA, who was in extremely awkward position in Kargil conflict

So, you were in the Indian govt to know all this?

Let your imagination not become a Coney Island roller coaster!

I was in Kargil. Nothing was awkward.
 
Infect during the war time an Indian colleague of mine told me all this, he mentioned to me that planes full of dead bodies were comming back to Dehli and all about coffins and panic among IA. According to him, he learned all this from his relatives who were officers in IA.
Any way, this is beside the point if some one has told me or not. What I meant, is that it was technically awkward position for IA not that I questioned there will to fight.
 
At the time of Kargil US had no influence over Pakistan. Infect it was long time before US had abandoned Pakistan. Pakistan's political rulers lacked the ability to lead Pakistan on international level; hence Pakistan was in a state of international isolation and economical crisis.
America may have abandoned Pakistan at the time since it's day to day operations were no longer of any value. But Pakistan was still surviving on American aid and make no mistake the donor state always had a lot of influence with its rental state.

When Indian premier approached Clinton and asked to force Pakistan for cease fire and already concerned US immediately contacted Pakistan. Where Mr. N. Sharif acted selfishly and ceded to the request unconditionally in anticipation to see his picture with the popular US president in international news.
This is incorrect. It was Nawaz Sharif who was begging for the cease fire in the face of a military and diplomatic defeat. It was the Indians who were offering him "an out."

Indian Prime minister approached US upon the request of IA, who was in extremely awkward position in Kargil conflict and had no tools in there arsenal to turn the situation in their favor.
This is also incorrect. The first person to approach the USA was Nawaz Sharif through his brother Shahbaz. The latter was rushed to Washington DC. after the Indian Army started counter advancing and retaking one peak after the next.
Shaukat Qadir said:
Nawaz Sharif, who had been gloating
over the drubbing that the Indians were
getting, began to feel uncomfortable. In
all fairness to him, the military
leadership had failed to apprise him of
the politico-diplomatic fallout and he
characteristically made no effort to
analyze this aspect. The international
pressure was becoming unbearable and,
when the posts at Dras fell, he began
looking for an escape route
, notappreciating the military causes of
battle, which the army made no effort
to explain. Sharif was very worried about
the reaction of the military leadership,
realizing that a withdrawal might result
in his untimely ouster. He responded by
dispatching his brother, Shahbaz Sharif
to Washington
, where he succeeded in
getting the US administration to issue a
warning that it would regard a military
coup in Pakistan as unacceptable. Not
only did this serve to warn the military
leadership of the prime minister’s fears,
it also shed some light on the possible
course he might pursue later. The Indian
leadership had been offering Sharif an
‘out’
–

IA lost their personals at such a high rate that they ran short of coffins. I used this reference just to point out the situation which forced IA to turn to their political leadership to find political alternate of Kargil.
The Indian army's doctrine up to that point was based on its practically limitless human resource. Even mass casualties and fatalities meant nothing to them once open hostilities were initiated.. certainly not enough to push for a diplomatic route. After these initial losses they kept on egging on, got the IAF involved and started recovering all their ground one peak after the next starting with the Rajputana Rifles' victory atTololing.

Based on independent sources, it is clear that militarily the Kargil War was a victory for the Indian armed forces and a defeat for their Pakistani counterparts since the former were able to achieve their intended objective "removal of all hostile eliments from Indian soil" while the latter failed at theirs 'to 'keep Indian land occupied and while forcing them to the negotiation table.' In fact, the only thing that kept the conflict from escalating into an open war was the success of the Indian Armed forces in the mountains surrounding Kargil.
Peter Lavoy said:
However, full-scale India-Pakistan war was prevented in 1999 through a combination of factors such as India's eventual battlefield successes, Pakistan's decision not to support its fighters (or perhaps they were not in a position to provide this support), official and back channel diplomacy, and international mediation through the aegis of the United States.
The only question is what was the key factor in India's victory. Most believe that it was the IAF's modified Mirage2000s dropping Israeli made LGBs; but Shaukat Qadir, the Pakistani military analyst believes that it was actually the IA's Bofor guns and the terrain that resulted in India's eventual victory.

Here is a collated credible and independent resource with input from Pakistan, India as well as Western military and diplomatic experts:
International Kargil Conference Report.
Please make sure you read all the reference material as well, especially Shaukat Qadir's "Analysis of the Kargil war 1999"
 
Was there really any significant American aid to Pakistan in 1999? The sanctions of the 1990's wiped out the majority of the aid, and the nuclear tests took care of any "normalization" of assistance that had occurred.

India's decision to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998 and Pakistan's matching response set back U.S. relations in the region, which had seen renewed U.S. Government interest during the second Clinton Administration. A presidential visit scheduled for the first quarter of 1998 was postponed and, under the Glenn Amendment, sanctions restricted the provision of credits, military sales, economic assistance, and loans to the government.

I don't see how American aid could have had any influence - the Arab states were helping out a lot more at that point.
 
I would add comment from one of top US govt official (Don't remember his name, a clown from Clinton Administration), when journalist ask him for comments on Pak nuclear detonation. He said, Pakistan is economically independent compared to last few years,when we use to be biggest donor and we use to have big influence on Pak govt. Now we have "non"......
Remember one of my friend came back from Pakistan, after Kargil operation(doing his residency here and son of Maj Gen, stationed in Rawalpindi). I ask him how Pak army morale after this retreat, His comments were: when they announce the retreat majority of JCOs were crying and senior officers were controlling their emotion and hate against Nawaz was clearly visible. Pak army was fully controlling all supply lines of Siachin.
 
Infect during the war time an Indian colleague of mine told me all this, he mentioned to me that planes full of dead bodies were comming back to Dehli and all about coffins and panic among IA. According to him, he learned all this from his relatives who were officers in IA.
Any way, this is beside the point if some one has told me or not. What I meant, is that it was technically awkward position for IA not that I questioned there will to fight.

It is people like you who live in fond delusions that leads to the state in which Pakistan is. Typical of such fond delusion is the stuff that is being pandered that with Musharraf's going, milk and honey will flow. If it could have been so, then it would have come a long time ago, since the same leaders who are today's the awam's noor were there earlier also!

I presume those who were here are bogus chaps:
CCC - Kargil Conference Report

or that this Pakistani is a talking through his hat!
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf

You must realise that bogus stuff that you via imagined "Indian colleagues" makes your credibility zero. especially when articles by Pakistani sources indicate the stupendous humbug that you try to perpetuate with third party imagined sources.


Planeloads, your Indian colleague. his relatives in the IA.

Open up your eyes, indulge in less of delusions and and less of gossip and rumours and the world will be a better place!

You forget I was there out there.
 

Back
Top Bottom