Pakistan, India at risk if US loses Afghan war: Musharraf

[waraich66]

Pakistan, India at risk if US loses Afghan war: Musharraf
Friday, 25 Sep, 2009 In an interview with a US news channel, the former president urged Obama to send more troops and labelled Nawaz a ‘closet Taliban.’ Above: Screenshot from ABC News of Chris Cuomo interviewing former President Pervez Musharraf. World
US to engage militants near Pakistan border Musharraf willing to return to the helm of power KARACHI: The US has to achieve victory in Afghanistan or risk the establishment of al-Qaeda sanctuaries there that could threaten Pakistan and even India, former president Pervez Musharraf said on Thursday.

Speaking to ABC News in an exclusive interview, Musharraf warned that a US pullout would destabilise Afghanistan and the wider region.

‘The country (Afghanistan) will become the centre of all al-Qaeda sanctuaries and consequently could extend its influence into Pakistan and possibly even India,’ he warned.

Musharraf urged the President Obama to comply with US General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.

‘I think you should take it immediately. You should have taken it yesterday,’ he told the US news channel.

The former Pakistan president was commenting on leaked reports in which the chief US commander warned that Western countries risked ‘failure’ in Afghanistan if more troops were not sent.

Musharraf agreed with the assessment, saying he ‘absolutely’ believes there need to be more troops in Afghanistan. ‘The space is too large and your troop level is low,’ he said.

He also said that the US needs to be prepared to face higher casualties in order to achieve victory.

‘We must avoid, as much as possible, casualties. But when soldiers move and armies act, casualties will be there, and we should accept casualties,’ Musharraf said.

‘We have to win,’ the former general said. ‘And quitting is not an option.’

US victory possible

Musharraf also rubbished the idea that Afghanistan was a ‘graveyard of empires’ and the US was doomed to face defeat there.

‘There’s always a first time and we are better equipped,’ he said.

He also pointed out that the Afghan resistance was not being supported by ‘the whole world’ as it was under when the Soviets invaded the country.

Mining the Pak-Afghan border

Calling the situation in Afghanistan ‘an unusual war,’ the former general recommended the mining of Pakistan’s border in Afghanistan, an idea he had earlier proposed while in power.

‘As far as I’m concerned, we should mine it so that people can’t go across,’ Musharraf said.

Return to Pakistan

Musharraf was evasive when asked by the interviewer if he planned to return to Pakistan.

‘Well, I give thought to what is happening in Pakistan. And I give thought to what the people of Pakistan are desiring, and I also give thought to whether I can do anything for Pakistan,’ Musharraf said. ‘Collectively, I have to make a decision based on all these three elements.’

On Nawaz Sharif

The former general was very critical of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, calling him both ‘abrasive and confrontational.’

‘He has never been on good terms with any president of Pakistan, so I don’t know what kind of a mental make-up he has. But the man is abrasive against the other power brokers of Pakistan,’ Musharraf said.

He called Sharif a ‘closet Taliban,’ and pointed to his failure to speak out against extremism.

‘Even on Pakistan television these days, talk shows are going on saying that he has met Osama bin Laden five times — five times before 9/11 — and he has been financed by Osama bin Laden,’ Musharraf said. ‘Then the other element is that he never speaks against terrorism and extremism.’



Minning of boarder is most stupid idea , he supported US Gen demand of increase of forces but question is why US cammand could not estimated right numbers in last eight years?.

His comment about OBL and Nawaz meeting is another loose ball , why he is black mailing two times ex prime minister of Pakistan and creating doubts in western media that leaders of Pakistan are supporting terrorism.

 

[courageneverdies]

Not only Pakistan and India, I personally think if US losses this war than the whole world's peace will be at stake. But they can't win anyhow whatsoever they do because of their wrong policies.

And at that time all blame will be on US and co.

I dont what the dilema is with US that the open a new front without finishing the first one.

KIT Out.

 

[Nomad]

The US cannot win the war in Afghanistan unless the same issues in Pakistan are resolved. Safe haven on both sides must be eliminated.

What did he do when he had the power in Pakistan? He was given a lot of money to solve the problems in the FATA and tribal areas. Instead he spent the money equipping the Pakistan army against India. Half the problems in Pakistan would not be there if he had taken decisive action. So he can take his opinions and kiss my a$$.

 

[Patriot]

The US cannot win the war in Afghanistan unless the same issues in Pakistan are resolved. Safe haven on both sides must be eliminated.

What did he do when he had the power in Pakistan? He was given a lot of money to solve the problems in the FATA and tribal areas. Instead he spent the money equipping the Pakistan army against India. Half the problems in Pakistan would not be there if he had taken decisive action. So he can take his opinions and kiss my a$$.

He did take actions and the money given to him..Half of it was logistical payments for Pakistan.As Pakistan provided supply lines, logistics, air bases etc for your OP.If it was not for Pakistan you would not be able to conduct your war in Afghanistan at all.You can't have a cake and eat it too.The fact is you cant win in Afghanistan with little amount of troops you have there.US must send more troops to Afghanistan.Unlike Afghanistan, we can't take without thinking about the future consequences.In Afghanistan, NATO can do anything becasue at best Afghanistan is a village ruled by different warlords.Also, the insurgency is not merely religious but also ethnic problem.

 

[Patriot]

Ah never mind.Just found out that you're American of Indian descent so i can understand your bias.

 

[BATMAN]

This is why it is important to be on correct track.
We Pakistanis clearly see that US is on wrong track...... a track which is shown to them by indians....... US is destined to loose this war despite increasing the troops because the house of terroism is Afghan parliament, indian embassies in Afghanistan.
Every day terrorists go to india by air from Kabul and get there training and objectives from RAW head quarters. All terrorists from Balauchistan and Afghanistan use Pakistan airspace to go to india.

‘As far as I’m concerned, we should mine it so that people can’t go across,’ Musharraf said.

indians will never allow it because it will make it difficult for there operatives to go back to Afghanistan..... any such efforts are seen as making grave yard for thousands of indians migrated to Pakistani cities in last 3 years.

In shape of kerry logger bill we clearly see that india is comanding US policies.
US is clearly going towards another failure.

 

[Rajkumar]

This is why it is important to be on correct track.
We Pakistanis clearly see that US is on wrong track...... a track which is shown to them by indians....... US is destined to loose this war despite increasing the troops because the house of terroism is Afghan parliament, indian embassies in Afghanistan.
Every day terrorists go to india by air from Kabul and get there training and objectives from RAW head quarters. All terrorists from Balauchistan and Afghanistan use Pakistan airspace to go to india.



indians will never allow it because it will make it difficult for there operatives to go back to Afghanistan..... any such efforts are seen as making grave yard for thousands of indians migrated to Pakistani cities in last 3 years.

In shape of kerry logger bill we clearly see that india is comanding US policies.
US is clearly going towards another failure.

man you are really funny.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

This is why it is important to be on correct track.
We Pakistanis clearly see that US is on wrong track...... a track which is shown to them by indians....... US is destined to loose this war despite increasing the troops because the house of terroism is Afghan parliament, indian embassies in Afghanistan.
Every day terrorists go to india by air from Kabul and get there training and objectives from RAW head quarters. All terrorists from Balauchistan and Afghanistan use Pakistan airspace to go to india.



indians will never allow it because it will make it difficult for there operatives to go back to Afghanistan..... any such efforts are seen as making grave yard for thousands of indians migrated to Pakistani cities in last 3 years.

In shape of kerry logger bill we clearly see that india is comanding US policies.
US is clearly going towards another failure.

All true , USA is thinking from Indian brain , looking the region from Indian eyes.
every month US pay millions to Indian intelligence in Afghanistan for nothing and world thinks it Pakistan alone who gets money for services from US.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

LINK I LINK I DODDLE.

 

[Nomad]

He did take actions and the money given to him..Half of it was logistical payments for Pakistan.As Pakistan provided supply lines, logistics, air bases etc for your OP.If it was not for Pakistan you would not be able to conduct your war in Afghanistan at all.You can't have a cake and eat it too.The fact is you cant win in Afghanistan with little amount of troops you have there.US must send more troops to Afghanistan.Unlike Afghanistan, we can't take without thinking about the future consequences.In Afghanistan, NATO can do anything becasue at best Afghanistan is a village ruled by different warlords.Also, the insurgency is not merely religious but also ethnic problem.

I was not talking about the money paid to Pakistan for logistical support for the war in Afghanistan. That was earned by Pakistan as per the agreements we had with the GOP. I am talking about the monies paid to the Musharaf govt specifically to deal with the Taliban and the foreign fighters in Pakistan. We did not have any mandate to enter any of Pakistan's territory even with drones at that time. Instead Musharaf made deals with the exact people you are going to fight know. Musharaf himself admitted that he diverted that money to your eastern sector with India. He said something like "I did it for the ultimate or highest interest of Pakistan. So now, years later the PA has to go into Waziristan, who knows how many lives this is going to cost.

Now as far as your personal attacks as to my background. I am in the import business in the US. I import products from around the world and also Pakistan. I have some very good suppliers from Pakistan, and I consider them my friends. If I hated Pakistanis do you think I would do that? I am well aware how these 18 hour power cuts brutalize their businesses.

Your avatar is "Patriot", and as a patriot think in the best interest of your country. The future for Pakistan or any country is trade, it is how nations prosper. No business will happen if all you see are paranoid conspiracies about India and the US. Everything wrong is because of India and the US.
Few foreign businesses will invest in Pakistan in any meaningful way because there is always a risk in investing, you add social instability on top of that and all of a sudden even less promising markets begin to look better.

Most of the Pakistani forum members think that trade with China and maybe the trade links to Turkey or the CAR's will solve your problems, it won't. I am not going to go off topic with a lecture in international trade.

I personally would like to see Pakistan successful and stable. So please, personal attack do not solve problems or contribute to any meaningful discussion.

 

[sonicboom]

The head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards, has issued a wake-up call to the public by warning of the "terrifying prospect" of a defeat in Afghanistan. In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam. In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David said that if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable". He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them.

The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up." The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban. At home, the Government has come under increasing pressure for the way it has handled the war, with critics saying the armed forces have been under-resourced.

Yesterday The Daily Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister believes that he has been "let down" over the running of the Afghan War by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the chief of the defence staff. Suggestions that Sir Jock may be forced to step down, however, have been denied by senior defence sources. The increasing tensions come against a background of rising British casualties. Yesterday the Ministry of Defence named a 24-year-old member of the Royal Air Force Regiment who died in a blast near Camp Bastion in Helmand on Thursday. Aircraftman Marcin Wojtak is the 219th member of the armed forces to have died in Afghanistan since the conflict began in 2001.

Sir David has issued his unprecedented warning because he believed the public and even members of the government had not "woken up" to the "enormous risks" which would result if the war was lost. He said: "Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

Sir David, who succeeded Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as head of the Army, said that a failure by the public to back the war would ultimately "delete" troop morale – an effect which, he said, would be far more damaging than a lack of resources. The Army chief declared that Britain was ready to send more troops to Afghanistan if called on to do so in the wake of the revised strategy which has been drawn up by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato troops in southern Afghanistan. He said that more troops would result in fewer casualties and would allow British and Nato troops to deliver greater security more quickly. Sir David also warned that the "drumbeat" of casualties in Helmand would continue for another three to five years, while the war raged on, but added that the Army was ready to bear the sacrifice. Sir David said that sending extra troops would allow Nato to begin winning the psychological battle against the Taliban who, he said, were masters of propaganda and were "outstanding at psychological warfare".

He continued: "If you put in more troops we can achieve the objectives laid upon us more quickly and with less casualties. We can start winning the psychological battle which is broadly wrapped around the Taliban saying "the west and the Afghan government is doing very little for you" – we (the Taliban) will offer you an austere future but at least it will be secure". What we need to demonstrate is that we, Nato and the Afghan government, offer a much brighter future which is more secure, with jobs, and education and better health."

In a wide-ranging interview, Sir David denied that success in Afghanistan amounted to "mission impossible" but admitted that it was "certainly difficult", adding: "Having spent the last five years more focused on Afghanistan than anything else, I'm convinced it is most certainly doable. We all know if we get this wrong there are all sort of implications not just for this generation but for our children's generation."

The general criticised plans put forward by some members of President Obama's administration – notably those of Vice-president Joe Biden, who is believed to support the view that Nato should reduce troop number in Afghanistan and concentrate on counter-terrorist operations using special forces. Sir David said this was a strategy which would not work.

The general's comments follow those of Gen McChrystal, who last week said that the campaign had been under-resourced in the past to meet the objectives set by the international community. He added that the coalition of 42 nations serving in Afghanistan had "underperformed" in some areas. He said: "The situation is serious and I choose that word very, very carefully. Neither success nor failure in our endeavour in support of the Afghan people and government can be taken for granted." On other military matters Sir David said that he would like better pay for soldiers and added that he believed that the review of compensation for wounded soldiers would lead to "improvements" in future payouts. (The Sunday Telegraph)

Pakistan is clearly a tempting target: General David Richards | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am talking about the monies paid to the Musharaf govt specifically to deal with the Taliban and the foreign fighters in Pakistan.

What money was that and how much, specifically?

According to this article, this is the closest thing to 'money for dealing with the Taliban' I can come up with:

When former president Pervez Musharraf visited Camp David in June 2003, then-president George Bush agreed to provide $3 billion economic assistance spreading over five years. This assistance was equally divided into economic and military assistance. In other words, Pakistan was to receive $600 million annually with $300 million as budgetary support and the remaining $300 million as military assistance. Pakistan received military assistance in cash after adjusting the purchase of any equipment from the United States. The total military assistance received by Pakistan in cash over the seven-and-a-half years (that include military assistance under Camp David) amounted to $1,514 million. If we adjust the total military assistance the remaining amount to be explained reduced to $1,210 million.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/30821-where-did-10-billion-us-aid-pakistan-go.html

So $1.5 billion in 'military assitance' - it does not specify whether that was mandated to be for COIN alone. Assume it was, do the Cobra gunships and transport choppers that have been acquired by Pakistan apply to that?

What about the artillery that has been used, or the LBG's, TOW (anti-tank, but also used against insurgent tunnels and hideouts)?

What about all the sorties by the Air Force? Do you see how all this equipment is pretty much dual use?

So did Musharraf really just equip the Pakistani military to fight India with 1.5 billion, or is it just that most things used to fight the insurgency can also be used to fight India, and this is just an excuse to malign Pakistan (by the media and various governments, not you specifically)?

I do agree that Musharraf should have spent more on the FC - training and capacity building took far too long to start, but I am not sure that was by malicious intent rather than underestimating the threat from the TTP and the efficacy of the 'peace deals'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

SB,

I am merging this, General Sir David Richards warning, with the thread on Musharraf's warning of dire consequences in case of a NATO failure in Afghanistan because it appears the same message.

I can reverse it later if there is a good reason for it.

 

[BATMAN]

man you are really funny.

Look who is talking?
An indian who day dream to nuke Pakistan while it has yet to buy one.

Musharaf himself admitted that he diverted that money to your eastern sector with India.

Every thing written by Times of Indian is not true, infect there is hardly any truth when they tell tales about Pakistan.
I hope you do not belon gto US senate as their foreign policy already based on reports from Times of Indian and in this case it will be matter of larger shame to know that it is not true what you believed!!!!!

here is one TOI news:
US camp just 30km from Islamabad?
Would you believe that? or you are another indian American who only belive selective news?

 

[Kasrkin]

He said something like "I did it for the ultimate or highest interest of Pakistan. So now, years later the PA has to go into Waziristan, who knows how many lives this is going to cost.

Inaccurate sir. What you're referring to is crude Indian propaganda that has been debunked here.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/33987-diversion-us-aid-indian-propaganda-exposed.html