U.S. Republican party will maintain ties with Musharraf

[Neo]

Republicans to maintain ties with Musharraf​

WASHINGTON, Jan 11: Five out of six Republican presidential candidates told a television debate on Thursday night that if elected they would like to see Pervez Musharraf continue as president although they would also back more democratic reforms in Pakistan.

The tenor and the content of the debate contrasted sharply with a similar discussion among Democratic contenders of the White House last week when only Hillary Clinton backed Mr Musharraf while all others stressed the need for a change in Pakistan.

The difference between the two debates seems to endorse the traditional Pakistani wisdom that a Republican administration in Washington tends to back the Pakistani establishment, particularly the military.

Among the Republicans, Arizona Senator John McCain is President Musharraf’s strongest supporter. Given a choice to negotiate with President Musharraf or Al Qaeda, Senator McCain said: “I am not interested in trading with Al Qaeda; all they want to trade is Burqas. I don’t want to travel with them, they like one-way tickets.”

His remarks earned him a warm applause from the audience.

In an earlier debate, Mr McCain reminded Americans that “Musharraf has done most of the things we wanted him to do.” He claimed that Pakistan “was a failed state before Musharraf came to power.”

Asked if he would trade Osama bin Laden for Mr Musharraf as president, Senator McCain said: “I would never have that situation arise, because Musharraf and I have an, a relationship that goes back a number of years. I would be in constant communication with him, and I'm sure that maybe publicly or privately he would be working very closely.”Could he be trusted, he was asked. “Sure he could be trusted,” said the senator.

The question put to all six candidates was: Whether the United States should continue to support President Musharraf based on recent events in that country?

“Polls are irrelevant in regard to our policies there,” said Fred Thompson, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, while referring to recent opinion surveys showing that a vast majority of Pakistanis dislike President Musharraf.

“Musharraf’s leadership in Pakistan is in our overriding interest. Stability in Pakistan is necessary but we need to encourage him to democratise the country, press Al Qaeda in the mountains, and keep the nuclear weapons secure,” he said.

Mr Thompson said that President Musharraf may not behave exactly as some in the US would like, “but it would be irresponsible to call for his resignation or cut off aid to that nuclear nation.”

The United States, he said, needs to make sure that there’s stability in Pakistan.

Mr Thompson also noted that it was in US national interests to know “in whose hands (Pakistans) nuclear weapons are going to be” and if “that involves supporting Musharraf,” the United States should support him.

“We need to put the pressure on him, keep the pressure on him, but let’s not ever kid ourselves,” said Mr Thompson while explaining why the US needs to support Mr Musharraf.

“Money sent to Pakistan and used by their military is a good thing because that is who will fight the terrorists for us,” he added.

“Ditto,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney when asked how he would deal with Pakistan if elected.

But he argued that even while supporting Mr Musharraf, the US should be looking for other allies too who can help convince the Islamic nation to reject extremism.

He noted that the new army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, is also a friend of the United States. “If Musharraf won’t get Al Qaeda, Kayani will. What we need, is a comprehensive strategy for helping Muslims reject Islamic extremism.”

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and a leading presidential candidate for 2008, was critical of President Musharraf’s policies and blamed him for not catching senior Al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden but acknowledged Washington needs the Pakistani leader.

“We cannot push Musharraf out because of the vacuum that would result but he cannot take our money and not hunt down Al Qaeda,” he said.

Ronald Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, was the only 2008 Republican candidate who did not speak of the need to support President Musharraf. Instead, he criticised the Bush government for continuing to support Musharraf.

“We have Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons, and we're giving them money,” he said.

“Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator who overthrew an elected government,” he observed.

Congressman Paul noted that Israel was Americas only true friend in the greater Middle East, which includes Pakistan.

Former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, who is also a leading Republican contender for the White House, was brief but frank. While he also would continue to back the Musharraf government, Mr Guiliani said if elected he would “apply more pressure on him to capture Osama bin Laden.”

http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/12/top20.htmhttp://www.dawn.com/2008/01/12/top20.htm

 

[mujahideen]

The U.S. politicians can bark all they want they have no opportunity but to maintain good ties with Pakistan no matter who is leading the country and besides foreign U.S. policy is made by the Pentagon not Congress.

 

[fatman17]

The U.S. politicians can bark all they want they have no opportunity but to maintain good ties with Pakistan no matter who is leading the country and besides foreign U.S. policy is made by the Pentagon not Congress.

as long as the US military is involved in iraq and afghanistan, they will have the upper hand over the state deptt on US policy for south-west asia. at the moment pentagon / PA relations are very good and should remain so for the near term (3-5 years)

 

[IceCold]

Pressure, pressure and more pressure. I think americans have forgotton all laws of physics as to what happens pressure applied gets greater? They need to realize the facts before coming up with applying more pressure. But someone here stated that these people will never know the exact situation unless they get into the whitehouse and briefed by both the pentagon and the CIA. So i guess we'll have to wait and see who gets elected but i sure hope that Ronald Paul doesnt get elected. I hope that pakistanies in the US can play a better role in protaying the better image of the country and to also vote for someone who favours pakistan.

 

[Neo]

The U.S. politicians can bark all they want they have no opportunity but to maintain good ties with Pakistan no matter who is leading the country and besides foreign U.S. policy is made by the Pentagon not Congress.

Not entirely true, policies may be dictated from Pentagon it makes a difference who's sitting on the Chair in the White House. US will continue to support Pakistani defence requirements no matter if the Reps or Dems are in power, its the strings attached to their support.

US nor Pakistan at this moment can afford to lose eachother, its in our mutual interest to cooperate in a workable manner that benefits both countries.

 

[mujahideen]

Not entirely true, policies may be dictated from Pentagon it makes a difference who's sitting on the Chair in the White House. US will continue to support Pakistani defence requirements no matter if the Reps or Dems are in power, its the strings attached to their support.

US nor Pakistan at this moment can afford to lose eachother, its in our mutual interest to cooperate in a workable manner that benefits both countries.

I doubt that it makes a difference about who is in the White House. If we observe U.S. foreign policy over the years it has been dictated by what the Pentagon sees in its interest. But this is a subject in which all sides have good points, but I personally think the Pentagon calls the shots.
Now you also mentioned how the U.S. and Pakistan both need each other. I definitely think the U.S. needs Pakistan, but I think Pakistan has a choice. I think Russia and China are our alternatives. China we know about, but Russia is on the verge on losing India to the U.S, so I think Russia can use Pakistan for its interest in South Asia. This is exactly why the U.S. must continue to show Pakistan money and if the money is not shown they know the potential dangers.

 

[fatman17]

Republicans to maintain ties with Musharraf​

WASHINGTON, Jan 11: Five out of six Republican presidential candidates told a television debate on Thursday night that if elected they would like to see Pervez Musharraf continue as president although they would also back more democratic reforms in Pakistan.

The tenor and the content of the debate contrasted sharply with a similar discussion among Democratic contenders of the White House last week when only Hillary Clinton backed Mr Musharraf while all others stressed the need for a change in Pakistan.

The difference between the two debates seems to endorse the traditional Pakistani wisdom that a Republican administration in Washington tends to back the Pakistani establishment, particularly the military.

Among the Republicans, Arizona Senator John McCain is President Musharraf’s strongest supporter. Given a choice to negotiate with President Musharraf or Al Qaeda, Senator McCain said: “I am not interested in trading with Al Qaeda; all they want to trade is Burqas. I don’t want to travel with them, they like one-way tickets.”

His remarks earned him a warm applause from the audience.

In an earlier debate, Mr McCain reminded Americans that “Musharraf has done most of the things we wanted him to do.” He claimed that Pakistan “was a failed state before Musharraf came to power.”

Asked if he would trade Osama bin Laden for Mr Musharraf as president, Senator McCain said: “I would never have that situation arise, because Musharraf and I have an, a relationship that goes back a number of years. I would be in constant communication with him, and I'm sure that maybe publicly or privately he would be working very closely.”Could he be trusted, he was asked. “Sure he could be trusted,” said the senator.

The question put to all six candidates was: Whether the United States should continue to support President Musharraf based on recent events in that country?

“Polls are irrelevant in regard to our policies there,” said Fred Thompson, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, while referring to recent opinion surveys showing that a vast majority of Pakistanis dislike President Musharraf.

“Musharraf’s leadership in Pakistan is in our overriding interest. Stability in Pakistan is necessary but we need to encourage him to democratise the country, press Al Qaeda in the mountains, and keep the nuclear weapons secure,” he said.

Mr Thompson said that President Musharraf may not behave exactly as some in the US would like, “but it would be irresponsible to call for his resignation or cut off aid to that nuclear nation.”

The United States, he said, needs to make sure that there’s stability in Pakistan.

Mr Thompson also noted that it was in US national interests to know “in whose hands (Pakistans) nuclear weapons are going to be” and if “that involves supporting Musharraf,” the United States should support him.

“We need to put the pressure on him, keep the pressure on him, but let’s not ever kid ourselves,” said Mr Thompson while explaining why the US needs to support Mr Musharraf.

“Money sent to Pakistan and used by their military is a good thing because that is who will fight the terrorists for us,” he added.

“Ditto,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney when asked how he would deal with Pakistan if elected.

But he argued that even while supporting Mr Musharraf, the US should be looking for other allies too who can help convince the Islamic nation to reject extremism.

He noted that the new army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, is also a friend of the United States. “If Musharraf won’t get Al Qaeda, Kayani will. What we need, is a comprehensive strategy for helping Muslims reject Islamic extremism.”

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and a leading presidential candidate for 2008, was critical of President Musharraf’s policies and blamed him for not catching senior Al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden but acknowledged Washington needs the Pakistani leader.

“We cannot push Musharraf out because of the vacuum that would result but he cannot take our money and not hunt down Al Qaeda,” he said.

Ronald Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, was the only 2008 Republican candidate who did not speak of the need to support President Musharraf. Instead, he criticised the Bush government for continuing to support Musharraf.

“We have Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons, and we're giving them money,” he said.

“Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator who overthrew an elected government,” he observed.

Congressman Paul noted that Israel was Americas only true friend in the greater Middle East, which includes Pakistan.

Former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, who is also a leading Republican contender for the White House, was brief but frank. While he also would continue to back the Musharraf government, Mr Guiliani said if elected he would “apply more pressure on him to capture Osama bin Laden.”

http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/12/top20.htmhttp://www.dawn.com/2008/01/12/top20.htm

best-case scenario - all pak-americans should vote for J.McCain on the rep side.
worst-case scenario - vote for H.Clinton on the dem side.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm with Neo on this one.

Regardless of who is in the White House, the advice of the US military will be listened to in terms of what is required for successful operations in Afghanistan. If the US military believes that it can handle the Taliban without the PA doing anything in FATA and without infringing on Pakistani sovereignty, great!

We can pull our troops out and let ISAF deal with it on the Afghan side. However that is not in Pakistan's interest in the long run because it will create instability and allow extremism to spread in FATA and the NWFP, as those attacked in Afghanistan seek refuge and build networks on our side. It is not in the interests of the US because the current complaints regarding Pakistani inaction actually come true and increase instability in Afghanistan.

The worst case scenario will be "extra strings" attached to our aid (which may happen regardless of who gets elected since the legislature will still be controlled by the democrats) - but if these strings are to better focus the aid received by Pakistan on capacity building of the FC and development in FATA, then it really is nothing to complain about.

Such "strings" are better than the restrictions on some of the equipment that Pakistan uses, such as turning in the NVG's for inventorying every six months, and the logistical bottlenecks that end up grounding the Cobra's due to delays in the provision of spares.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Anyone who understand military operations would know that unless the terrorists are 'surrounded', there will be no outcome.

Pushing from one side, with total freedom on the other side, can never solve the problem!

Therefore, it has to be a Joint Offensive.

Gunship and artillery is no answer. It has to be clearing the area by boots on the ground.

Overkill will only harden the people, whose relatives, especially who are genuinely innocent and fed up, will join the rebels.

It is time Pakistan forget the US way of fighting with overkill. It has won them no insurgencies so far.

Imagine your own brother being killed and who is really not a terrorist. First time, you may be good enough to take it that it was an error of judgement. But if it become a repeated show and you start losing relatives one by one, you too will get disgusted and rebel!

Terminating insurgencies is not an easy affair and there are no quick fixes except by changing the mindset!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Anyone who understand military operations would know that unless the terrorists are 'surrounded', there will be no outcome.

Pushing from one side, with total freedom on the other side, can never solve the problem!

Therefore, it has to be a Joint Offensive.

Agreed!

That is why I doubt the next POTUS, regardless of party affiliation, will discontinue the cooperation with Pakistan (with or without strings), unless they choose to completely disregard their military's advice - and Afghanistan is one cause that both the US military and people believe is still worth fighting for. Therefore it would be highly unlikely that any POTUS would jeopardize success in that theater.

Gunship and artillery is no answer. It has to be clearing the area by boots on the ground.

Overkill will only harden the people, whose relatives, especially who are genuinely innocent and fed up, will join the rebels.

It is time Pakistan forget the US way of fighting with overkill. It has won them no insurgencies so far.

Imagine your own brother being killed and who is really not a terrorist. First time, you may be good enough to take it that it was an error of judgement. But if it become a repeated show and you start losing relatives one by one, you too will get disgusted and rebel!

Salim, the army has had success in Swat, and "Boots" are on the ground "mopping up". The majority of the arrests have been because of "boots on the ground".

I think the problem in FATA is that the PA is going for neither boots on the ground, nor the US method.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

There is no doubts about that!

However, it is also important to remember that the US presence is to be always in these areas of Iraq and Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan in pursuit of their geostrategic requirements.