"The War on Terror": FRONTLINE PAKISTAN.

[Shahed]

Greetings Everyone !

There have been many important events in Pakistan over the past few months.

In summary, Taliban have staged a near complete resurgence in the North West Frontier province, bordering Afghanistan. The Taliban influence and control has now spread further north past the initial hotbed of South Waziristan, into the Swat valley.

The political situation is precarious with an ex Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, deported from the country to Saudi Arabia, as he attempted to return from exile. Another ex PM, Benazir Bhutto was allowed to return, but no power sharing agreement has been made with the Army.

Insurgent attacks on civilians, the police and the military have been mounting. The Pakistan Air Force has regularly attacked insurgent & Taliban positions in the border areas near Afghanistan, sometimes resulting in heavy civillian casualties. The Army has suffered defeats and setbacks in the fight against the Taliban, with the most recent defeat resulting in surrender of approximately 200 men from the para-military Frontier Constabulary (essentially a local Taliban intimidated border guard) to the Taliban.

General Musharraf has gone on TV and declared a long expected, and long awaited (at least by me) state of emergency which essentially means martial law.

I'd like to get your opinions and thoughts on the imposition of martial law in Pakistan.

The military has tried deal after deal with the Taliban, and all negotiations have failed. The Taliban have used every ceasefire to strengthen themselves and have no intention of putting their arms down. The military must use all means necessary to put military pressure on the Taliban, to eliminate their leadership and/or force a conditional or unconditional surrender of all or most of their elements in Pakistan. The Taliban have also abducted foreign nationals in Pakistan, people who have absolutely nothing to do with any war or anything. Beheading some, ransoming others.

Naturally there is also a direct threat to General Musharraf from the judiciary who wants him out. I am of the opinion that Musharraf has failed to do his job as a soldier, a very capable soldier and commander that he is, that he has proved to be in the past. He has failed to contain extremism in Pakistan.

However there is currently no other pro Western alternative, which is capable of doing what the army can do, if given CLEAR and DIRECT orders.

Pakistan has been and is, more and more, the frontline in the war on terror.

With this post I also make an appeal to all fellow orgahs here, to support and to lobby their respective governments, to support the people of Pakistan and the Pakistan Military, in any way possible, to aid their struggle against Islamic extremism.

SALUTE !

[Husar]

I find it funny how you make a poll and present it with your own, very biased view on the topic, actively trying to sway us into a certain direction. ~;)

However, I still do agree that the Taliban have to go, if that means killing them all, then so be it.

[CountArach]

Yes on the grounds that it is the only part of the War on Terror that is actually a War on Terror...

[Tribesman]

Now if the qurestion had been do you support the Pakistani people against the Taliban then its an easy yes .
But since its do you support the Pakistani military against the Taliban then its a definate no since the military is against the Taliban about as much as it is against the extremists in other provinces .

[Husar]

Interesting that you mentioned that, Tribesman, it's what I heard before as well, but judging by Sinan's post I thought things might have changed. Wouldn't really have surprised me if the Taliban had managed to make the Pakistani military angry.

Could this maybe explain why 200 soldiers surrendered(as in joined) to the Taliban?
In that case one might want to change my vote to no, I voted yes based on what Sinan wrote, thinking he had some more or less neutral insight(despite his biased presentation). :shrug:

[CountArach]

Now if the qurestion had been do you support the Pakistani people against the Taliban then its an easy yes .
But since its do you support the Pakistani military against the Taliban then its a definate no since the military is against the Taliban about as much as it is against the extremists in other provinces .
Ahhh, chalk me up for a 'no' then.

[KrooK]

Why are we talking about Pakistan when into Afghanistan NATO units are into retreat. Looks like polish companies will have to take part into fight.

[CountArach]

Why are we talking about Pakistan when into Afghanistan NATO units are into retreat. Looks like polish companies will have to take part into fight.
Source?

[Tribesman]

Count and Husar , don't go on what I wrote (or alternately on what Sinian wrote ), find out for yourselves .
What I put down is very general , the military/security services and different departments in different provinces have very differing agendas , its very factional (I suppose thats what you get with a military take over and a country with territorial/regional/ethnic wars) .

So points of contention from sinians post .....

General Musharraf has gone on TV and declared a long expected, and long awaited (at least by me) state of emergency which essentially means martial law.

I don't welcome any general who siezed power through a coup declaring martial law .

Naturally there is also a direct threat to General Musharraf from the judiciary who wants him out.
Would that threat be in any way linked to him still being in though changes he made to the constitution that were unconstitutional ?


Pakistan has been and is, more and more, the frontline in the war on terror.

When elements within the government and military support terrorism it is bound to be on the frontline , the question is which side of the frontline is it on ?

[Papewaio]

This is not a black and white situation. So many shades of grey you have to add extra colours just to get more understanding.

The Pakistan military is hardly a single concise force. Particularly if you add the Pakistan Intelligence units.

Afghanistan is a verision of war by proxy except more like a civil war by proxy for Pakistan. The Pakistan Intelligence is heavily credited with being fundamenalist supporters in time gone past (and probably still so) and potentially the primary supporters of the Taliban.

The regular military might be fighting the Taliban, but the internal struggles in Pakistan are overshadowing issues.

The current issues with the judge highlight some of the problems. A lot of the 'anti-terrorism' intiatives are showing what dictators will do and say to stay in power. A turd wrapped in gold foil is still a turd. And a pro-democracy dictator who is getting rid of judicial oversight is still a dictator.

[Tribesman]

With this post I also make an appeal to all fellow orgahs here, to support and to lobby their respective governments, to support the people of Pakistan and the Pakistan Military, in any way possible, to aid their struggle against Islamic extremism.

Well Sinian it appears that the respective governments have said what they want to say , and that is bollox to Musharraf and his martial law , apparently its something to do with sacking the judiciary , arresting them and their lawyers , shutting down the media and arresting journalists, then arresting any politician he can get hold of who he doesn't like .:shrug:
I suppose when it followed his statements that he wouldn't shut down the ISI who were shipping weapons and fighters from Quetta to Afghanistan and that he was 200% certain that he wouldn't follow deadlines this was just the final straw . Lets hope they stick to it .

[LittleGrizzly]

think im voting yes

The thing about musharraf is he talks a good game, i have heard he wants to clamp down on extremism which he seems to be doing in pakistan, but if we help keep this guy in power won't we just help make more extremists in the long run...?

[Xiahou]

His administration may not be an ideal government, but it's better than the alternative should he fall.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
An absolute no to martial law and military dicta, what N. Shariff Musherref also is, anywhere, anytime. :rtwno:

Experience speaks. I'm from a country floating on fire. Martial law (1980 - 83), literally smoothened ("state of emergency") but practically multiplied martial law in Kurdistan (1984 to late 90's) and the military cast filling their purse every year with ~25% of the nation's money. Untriable (by civil courts), unquestionable, unformidable. :knight:
.

[Tribesman]

His administration may not be an ideal government, but it's better than the alternative should he fall.

It depends which way he falls, the way he is setting himself up for the fall is almost guaranteed to strengthen the nutters . This declaration has very little to do with the extremists and their actions , it has everything to do with the constitutional deadline on the 15th .
The alternative you talk about is not actually an alternative , it is part of his regime and it is part of what keeps him in power .

[Geoffrey S]

Yes. Much as I dislike Musharraf and his kind in principle, who else is going to prevent Pakistan from descending into complete anarchy? It's always been a major disappointment to me that US focused more on the relatively minor problem Iraq, culminating in the invasion and ensuing diversion of most resources, rather than their far more dangerous and unstable ally Pakistan. Pakistan is the nation facing the greatest threat of an Islamist revolution, arguably is a breeding ground for terrorists, and to boot is a highly unstable 'nation' with nuclear weapons. It's worrying, and it's failing.

[Tribesman]

Yes. Much as I dislike Musharraf and his kind in principle, who else is going to prevent Pakistan from descending into complete anarchy?
The thing is Geoffrey is Musharraf making it descend into anarchy ?
Has he and his military at every step of the way speeded and aided the descent ?

[Geoffrey S]

Also, yes. But for the moment I see no other reasonable alternative; at least Musharraf and the armed forces (not certain if they're really his now, adding to problems) have the means to conceivably contain the anarchy, something I don't think can be said of anyone else right now. As you say their track record however is dismal, so if you've got any better candidates to keep the country in one piece I'd be glad to hear of them.

[Kralizec]

I think it has a lot more to do with preventing the judiciary from ruling that his presidency is illegal, than making it easier to crack down on terrorists. While it may be the only way for him to retain power it's not necessarily good for the rest of us. Musharraff may be pro-western, but less so then he is pro-himself.

That said, now that he has declared martial law I grudgingly hope he'll prevail.

[Tribesman]

As you say their track record however is dismal, so if you've got any better candidates to keep the country in one piece I'd be glad to hear of them.
Perhaps a better question is should it be kept in one piece . After all half the Pakistani population already formed their own seperate state in the 70s ,of the remaining provinces Baluch , Sindh and Punjab all have their own large independance movements , the frontier and provincial administered territories have never been controlled by the central government ...but then comes the sticky issue , Jammu/Kashmir..a nice little problem where poeple were supposed to have their democratic choice on their future , but are instead the subject of claims by 3 countries all of which are now nuclear powers .


That said, now that he has declared martial law I grudgingly hope he'll prevail.
Prevail in what ? His only aim is to keep himself as head of state and head of the military .

[Geoffrey S]

Perhaps a better question is should it be kept in one piece .
Considering the difficulties in splitting a country peacefully I doubt that's a better question, but it certainly does dodge the original one.

[Prodigal]

I'm not sure on this one, as far as I can tell, the whole bloody lot of them are corrupt, some more than others, some major players paid large sums to the people involved in 9/11. Very little has been done to sort out the border regions, the military must have known about the sale of nuke info to iran & n.korea.

So to sum up, I'd like to see the whole place sorted out, who or how that can be achieved I have no idea, currently I guess that Musharraf is the lesser of the mind boogling evils that are rampant in that country, but that is not saying a very great deal in his favour.

[macsen rufus]

I'm not totally convinced by the "who else can hold Pakistan together" argument. A look at the successful and stable countries of the world show that stability does not come from the individuals but the institutions. For instance, the USA is not held together by the force of personality of its President, but the institutions of democracy, the judiciary, the constitution etc, likewise in Britain it is down to the parliamentary system and the various branches of executive power that ultimately rest in the institutions, not the individuals that fill the posts in them.

Given that, then, what Pakistan needs is not a "strongman" able to "hold it all together", but functional institutions of democracy and the rule of law. Musharaff right now appears to be going in the opposite direction. This whole martial law clampdown seems more about the stability of his own reign that that of the country, and as such he is weakening those very institutions which need to be strengthened in the long run. If the government cannot abide by the rule of law, then what hope for everyone else?


So, I guess that's a 'no', then....

[Tribesman]

Considering the difficulties in splitting a country peacefully I doubt that's a better question, but it certainly does dodge the original one.
Well the problem with that view is that it already isn't peaceful and hasn't been since the country was created , it is already split and has been since it was created .
Though to your original question , the main arguement against alternative leaders is that they abuse power, are corrupt and/or had corrupt regimes ...all of which apply equaly to the General and his regime , so there is no preferencial choice for Musharraf on those grounds .
The other grounds on which he could be viewed as preferencial is as an ally in the "war on terror" which is bollox given his record , his backers and his power base .
So the only reason people can out forward for supporting the current leadership is the old "he may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch" , which is rubbish , he puts on a display of wagging his tail occasionly but only bites what he wants to bite , including the hands that feeds him .

[Fragony]

They can't control that part they never could and they tried. It's Talibanistan, they can send what they want but they will be butchered by the beards.

[Tribesman]

They can't control that part they never could and they tried It's Talibanistan, they can send what they want but they will be butchered by the beards.
Nope , its Pashtunwali , they will be fought by the tribes same as they always have , it existed before the Taliban and will exist after the Taliban .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well the problem with that view is that it already isn't peaceful and hasn't been since the country was created , it is already split and has been since it was created.

On a general level, however, dear Tribesman, if we collectively accede to all of the strident calls for independence and separtism, we'll end up with nothing but balkanized warlordism from Peshawar to Sarajevo/from the headwaters of the Nile to the mouth of the Volga. At what point do we not throw up our hands and give up, letting barbarianism win? I suspect that warlordism is the normal human condition and Western democracy the abberation, but is it mete to "write off" the whole region? I realize that I am extrapolating a general premise from your specific argument, but I would assert that you trend this way in many of your comments, not simply in this thread, so I believe the larger issue is a valid point of inquiry.


Though to your original question , the main arguement against alternative leaders is that they abuse power, are corrupt and/or had corrupt regimes ...all of which apply equaly to the General and his regime , so there is no preferencial choice for Musharraf on those grounds.
The other grounds on which he could be viewed as preferencial is as an ally in the "war on terror" which is bollox given his record , his backers and his power base.
So the only reason people can out forward for supporting the current leadership is the old "he may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch" , which is rubbish , he puts on a display of wagging his tail occasionly but only bites what he wants to bite , including the hands that feeds him .

Granted: None of the recent regimes are paragons of virtue, and Musharraf's represents nothing morally "better" as a choice. His record in the War on Terror is mixed, at best, with his continuance in power motivating far more of his/Pakistan's efforts than any real sense of a need to oppose Al Queda et. al.

Now, having stipulated all that, I want your assessment of what to do. If we cannot support M. with any legitimacy, what do we do? Do we say, "you should be more democratic" -- I believe Rice already mouthed that platitude. Do we withdraw support from the M. junta -- gives us a chance of losing all of the gains made in Afghanistan as well as seeing Pakistan end up running under the aegis of someone who loathes the USA and the West even more than M does. Do we simply let them fight it out among themselves -- knowing that the eventual result must be warlordism and balkanization and that one or more of the balkanized despots will end up controlling weapons that can kill a city?

What do you DO, Tribes? Not deplore, not decry, not label as bollox all around, what should be DONE?

[Fragony]

Nope , its Pashtunwali , they will be fought by the tribes same as they always have , it existed before the Taliban and will exist after the Taliban .

Fair enough but the army simply has no control there. This discussion is based on the false belief that Pakistan can actually do something over there.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm not totally convinced by the "who else can hold Pakistan together" argument. A look at the successful and stable countries of the world show that stability does not come from the individuals but the institutions. For instance, the USA is not held together by the force of personality of its President, but the institutions of democracy, the judiciary, the constitution etc, likewise in Britain it is down to the parliamentary system and the various branches of executive power that ultimately rest in the institutions, not the individuals that fill the posts in them.

Given that, then, what Pakistan needs is not a "strongman" able to "hold it all together", but functional institutions of democracy and the rule of law. Musharaff right now appears to be going in the opposite direction. This whole martial law clampdown seems more about the stability of his own reign that that of the country, and as such he is weakening those very institutions which need to be strengthened in the long run. If the government cannot abide by the rule of law, then what hope for everyone else?
That's more like it. I'm not particularly bothered at this stage what kind of institutions are established, be they democratic or dictatorial, but there needs to be some kind of hierarchy and rulebook. Musharraf made the mistake of throwing that out of the window ages ago whilst still claiming to be supporting institutions other than himself; these latest actions seem to be more of a new attempt at consolidating his personal power, something I don't see anyone capable of doing right now.

Institutions either come from the bottom up or top down. The first can't imagine occuring in Pakistan, the second requires a strongman to take power and hold it firmly first; the only person I can imagine achieving that is still Musharraf, whatever his trackrecord. Musharraf in the longer term failed to keep that power mainly because he put off creating reliable institutions and abiding by them himself, and I hope he or his supporters don't make the same mistake again. We work with what we've got, and that is Musharraf; not that means that in the longer term there shouldn't be a very thorough search for alternatives.

[Tribesman]

What do you DO, Tribes? Not deplore, not decry, not label as bollox all around, what should be DONE?

Do the opposite of what is usually done , when the military take over cut all funding , when democracy takes over increase funding .
It funny you mention gains in Afghanistan , the Afghan government and the British Dutch Polish Canadian military all say that the military regime led by Musharraf is working against them and any gains in Afghanistan . Do the American military say the same or are they constrained for political reasons to maintain the illusion that their "friend" really is a friend ?


This discussion is based on the false belief that Pakistan can actually do something over there.
Parts of this discussion are based on the false belief that the " emergency + " proclaimation is in some way related to curbing extremism and fighting the war on terror .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do the opposite of what is usually done , when the military take over cut all funding , when democracy takes over increase funding.

I'll assume you mean foreign "aid" and other such monetary support, since economic sanctions (in practice) seldom have the desired effect.

Carot or No Carot depending on behavior of a given regime is a legitimate means of support. Fair enough on a macro level. As to the particulars here....

This would help destabilize the M. regime, possibly resulting in a power vacuum as that regime (certainly not a beloved one) collapses. As a corrective to a stable regime, this strategy would work, but the M. regime is more fragile. So is this still valid if we hand half of Pakistan over to Taliban control thereby? That is the risk, you know. At what level do you conclude -- however reluctantly -- that a top down institution effort under such a strong man is justified.


It funny you mention gains in Afghanistan , the Afghan government and the British Dutch Polish Canadian military all say that the military regime led by Musharraf is working against them and any gains in Afghanistan . Do the American military say the same or are they constrained for political reasons to maintain the illusion that their "friend" really is a friend?

Well, M.'s regime is contributing to the war on terror mostly by being there. If they were absent, the Taliban (and Al Queda?) would end up in overt control of a big chunk of Pakistan and a slice of Afghanistan and we'd be, in many ways, back to 10/2001 again. This was the spirit of my point. I do not mean very much that is flattering when I suggest that I prefer M.'s regime to a power vacuum.

That said, I acknowledge that the regions is question are only tenuosly controlled by their nominal governments at present, and that M.'s military is functionally counter-productive as an ally on the ground (I've heard some suggest that there are Pakistani units actually fighting for both sides of the War on Terror depending on who's watching at a given moment, though I have seen no specific proof for this).

How about my larger question on balkanization and warlordism in general? Can we, should we attempt to stem barbarianism?

[LittleGrizzly]

If we left the ahh talibanastan (as fragony called it) be ruled by who they want would that really be such a bad thing ? (only the extremist areas)

of course without thier own nukes... they'd have nothing to fight then unless the cross into afghanastan but surely that would be better than them destabilising pakistan...

[Tribesman]

I'll assume you mean foreign "aid" and other such monetary support, since economic sanctions (in practice) seldom have the desired effect.

Its just that I find it strange that every time the military take over Pakistan gets flooded with foriegn money , every time its a civilian government that money is cut .


So is this still valid if we hand half of Pakistan over to Taliban control thereby? That is the risk, you know.
Would it though , the Taliban were on the way out in both Pakistan and Pakistan , nutcase movements tend to have that effect on the population and in this case on also the tribal councils , Musharafs actions against the people and the tribes strengthen the nutcases , not weakens them .


At what level do you conclude -- however reluctantly -- that a top down institution effort under such a strong man is justified.

At what point do you conclude that that is the same arguement that was put forward for supporting every tin pot dictator in recent history .


Well, M.'s regime is contributing to the war on terror mostly by being there. If they were absent, the Taliban (and Al Queda?) would end up in overt control of a big chunk of Pakistan and a slice of Afghanistan and we'd be, in many ways, back to 10/2001 again.
You are back to 10/01 , the people who are keeping musharraf in power are the same people that are aiding the nutters .

(I've heard some suggest that there are Pakistani units actually fighting for both sides of the War on Terror depending on who's watching at a given moment, though I have seen no specific proof for this).

Well the coilition delegation that was ambushed after the conference in the tribalbelt was attacked by the government paramilitaries wasn't it , the Taliban offensive in Khandahar was supported with fighters and weapons straight from two military bases in Quetta , senior generals have gone on record saying they would not arrest Osama Bin-laden .


How about my larger question on balkanization and warlordism in general? Can we, should we attempt to stem barbarianism?
Is it easier to stem or contain smaller warlord states or a big fragmenting state with lots of warlords playing double games and the main warlord playing you for a sucker ?

But hey try this one for size Seamus .... if you had a president who wanted to maintain his position , the courts were saying that his time was up and under the constitution he had to go .
Would you support that president abolishing the constitution , dismissing the courts , banning the media , arresting the opposition , lawyers , journalists , human rights activists , religeous leaders , making it an imprisonable offence to say anything against him or his regime ......if he dressed it up as a fight against extremists rather than a move to keep himself in power ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its just that I find it strange that every time the military take over Pakistan gets flooded with foriegn money , every time its a civilian government that money is cut.

All of the juntas keep promising stability -- the holy grail of state departments everywhere. Why we keep buying into it.....meh?


Would it though , the Taliban were on the way out in both Pakistan and Pakistan , nutcase movements tend to have that effect on the population and in this case on also the tribal councils , Musharafs actions against the people and the tribes strengthen the nutcases , not weakens them .

Possibly so. Certainly M. hasn't won the love and respect of all of the tribes by any stretch. But if something doesn't take them out of the "tribal" mode, the cycle will repeat regardless of the current Musharref. That's the incipient trap of warlordism.


At what point do you conclude that that is the same arguement that was put forward for supporting every tin pot dictator in recent history .

Not just recent history, my friend. That's why the Herodian line of kings held their seats as well. Nor did Europe launch a Crusade to rid the world of Vlad Tepes -- he was a useful foil against the Crescent. Carter tried to set the USA on the noble path of never supporting tin-pot idiot dictators -- and got us modern Iran, the Khmer Rouge (started under Ford, to be fair)...


Well the coilition delegation that was ambushed after the conference in the tribalbelt was attacked by the government paramilitaries wasn't it , the Taliban offensive in Khandahar was supported with fighters and weapons straight from two military bases in Quetta , senior generals have gone on record saying they would not arrest Osama Bin-laden .

Even my earlier posts weren't arguing that M. was an effective coalition partner. Some clearly malfed up stuff going on there.


Is it easier to stem or contain smaller warlord states or a big fragmenting state with lots of warlords playing double games and the main warlord playing you for a sucker ?

The former, of course, by playing them off against one another and letting the blood-feuds keep them in squalid, despotic poverty. Of course, you blight the future of all concerned.....


But hey try this one for size Seamus .... if you had a president who wanted to maintain his position , the courts were saying that his time was up and under the constitution he had to go .
Would you support that president abolishing the constitution , dismissing the courts , banning the media , arresting the opposition , lawyers , journalists , human rights activists , religeous leaders , making it an imprisonable offence to say anything against him or his regime ......if he dressed it up as a fight against extremists rather than a move to keep himself in power ?

Best argument you've made. The result in the USA would be a popular revolt, a dead would-be dictator, and probably a new constitutional convention. If such a thing happens in Pakistan, there is little M. -- or we -- could do to prevent such a sea-change. I don't know if Pakistani culture lends itself to the kind of rapid, near-universal uprising such an attempt would lead to here.

[econ21]

Where are you currently based, Sinan? Are you able to watch the demonstrations by the lawyers etc on TV that the rest of the world is watching? It really does not look good. When a government's main enemy is the chief justice and the men being batoned and rounded up into trucks are black jacketted lawyers, surely all legitimacy has been lost?

If it were Taliban or AQ fighters being rounded up into trucks, I might stomach martial law, but not this. Seeing people like Imran Khan being forced underground, learning that the state of emergency has been to forestall the Supreme Court ruling Musharraf's Preisdency illegal and listening to the meally mouthed apologists of the military, I can't help but be strongly opposed.

It reminds me of the South Vietnamese regimes in the 1960s - when the Buddhist monks were burning themselves in protest. When a regime has alienated the moderate middle of society - the lawyers, the journalists, the democrats, the educated - then it makes itself terribly vulnerable to being toppled by more extreme elements. The people Musharraf is rounding up in detention now are precisely those people that the Taliban or AQ would put up against the wall if they came to power. The President is weakening the very forces of civil society that might allow Pakistan to develop.

Military regimes almost always turn out to be bad at running countries. Military men can blow things up; they can even build things like bridges. But running a country - let alone managing its domestic politics - is too subtle a job for them and they almost always fail. Ironically, they often seem to fail even at the seemingly military aspects - like dealing with insurgencies and terrorism. Perhaps they need the threat of violent opposition to legitimise their military rule. Or perhaps they are unable to perform the political compromises that might end insurgencies.

I'd rather see a civilian democratically elected government any day of the week. Even if it proved corrupt. Even if it was anti-Western. The key thing is that any elected government be constrained by law, by elections, by free speech and by free opposition parties - precisely those constraints that Musharraf is smashing away now.

[Shahed]

Thanks everyone, for voting and for your responses !

That is good post econ, a very good post, I appreciate it & respect your views, and everyone else's too of course.
Will post back in more detail once I get another free minute, suffice to say I know exactly what those lawyers feel like. And let me tell you, as you rightly guessed, it's bad. They are hurting, that's for sure.

The following are rhetorical but take a minute to think over these questions.

What about the 100 plus people that died in the Red Mosque ? What about the Chinese masseuses (sp) that were abducted and abused ? What about Daniel Pearl ? What about the 50 plus people who died last week (or week before) in a suicide attack on one of Benazir's rallyes ? What about the hundreds of people who have died by suicide bombs, IEDs, or remote devices since last year ? What about the 2 squads of Special Forces who were blown up couple of months ago ? What about the HUNDREDS of SOLDIERS who have died fighting the Taliban & Al Qaeda since 9/11 ? What about all those families who are afraid to go about doing their grocery shopping for fear they may be blown up by some suicide bomber ? What about the freedom of women in Pakistan ? HOT HOT babes I can tell you that. Do they not deserve a rightful place in society equal to that of a man ? What about the rights of minorities ? What about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal & weapon making knowledge, what would that be like in Taliban hands ? What about a TALIBAN PAKISTAN ? How would we feel about that ?

Did'nt all this look bad ?

What about all those people who just want to live their lives, eat drink be merry, and progress in their lives. Are they not hurting ? Did they not hurt ?

In brief, my view is rather simple, there is no alternative to Musharraf's regime. If he wanted to the Taliban & Al-Q would be dust, but of course eliminating the enemy of his powerful US ally is not wise for him, because then Pakistan loses all it's importance and goes back to being "that country that hosted the Soviet expulsion party and everyone forgot about much like Afghanistan". I'm not looking at this ethically, I'm looking at this with a view that the Taliban are seeking to expand their influence in Pakistan, and then abroad. This is unacceptable and an option which excludes this eventuality is preferable.

Husar, I'm not making any undertone comments, my request for support is quite clear and transparent. My statement of views is clear, Musharraf, or any other pro Western and hardline against extreme Islamists governement over Taliban government or massively corrupt and completely lacking in any authority Benazir government. I'm not pretending that I'm hiding some ulterior motive. My statement is clear: we should support Pakistan because they need it as our allies in the TWOT, just like they needed it and the Afghans needed it after the Soviet withdrawal (which would not have been possible without Pakistan). There's no hidden message.

[Tribesman]

Sinan , wiyh that post you managed to completely undermine yourself in very short order .:thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

If he wanted the Taliban would be dust? No way :inquisitive:

[Prodigal]

Sorry to get off the main topic, but listening to the world service this morning a Pakistani journalist was being interviewed, I managed to miss a big chunk of it, but it did involve her saying that the black flag had been hoisted over a number of government buildings, in area's outside the "border regions". Also she said that nobody was mentioning this & that was why she had been writing about it.

I'm pretty certain this is in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan, & was wondering if anyone else heard this, or knows more? I've looked but am drawing a blank.

[Tribesman]

Prodigal , thats Swat in the frontier provinces , the main sparks there seem to have been the 30 locals amongst those killed in the mosque siege , the assasinations of nationalist/tribal politicians and general bad feeling over the new form of government that they got given .

Basicly the police , paramilitaries and army are surrendering , handing over their weapons and walking away from it .

[Shahed]

The Taliban have indeed taken control of the Swat valley, as I mentioned in the 1st post. Obviously something needs to be done about this, and if it's not the army that's going to do something then who is. Allowing the Taliban to spread across Pakistan is not in anyone's benefit.

The para-militaries, police etc have surrenderred to the Taliban. Only Musharraf & the Army have the force to deal with them, and that too is certainly in question.

[Fragony]

Well isn't that great, a Taliban with nuclair capacity.

[Tribesman]

The para-militaries, police etc have surrenderred to the Taliban. Only Musharraf & the Army have the force to deal with them, and that too is certainly in question.
Theres that problem with your position yet again .

[Shahed]

LOL

[Tribesman]

LOL
Yeah hilarious isn't it .~:rolleyes:

[Tribesman]

Just wondering Sinan , with your call for support of the military and the dictatorship , of the thousands of detainees under these unconstitutional measures have they actually detained any of these extremists or is it all just politicians , lawyers , judges , journalists and human rights people they have rounded up ?

[Papewaio]

The Taliban have indeed taken control of the Swat valley, as I mentioned in the 1st post. Obviously something needs to be done about this, and if it's not the army that's going to do something then who is. Allowing the Taliban to spread across Pakistan is not in anyone's benefit.

The para-militaries, police etc have surrenderred to the Taliban. Only Musharraf & the Army have the force to deal with them, and that too is certainly in question.

There is no point in defending from the Taliban with a force that is identically in outcome.

Musharraf has torn apart the consitution. Put the judges and lawyers under house arrest and has canceled elections. I think with Saddam we should have learnt that our bastard is our bastard to take out not to take care of.

Musharraf is another strongman creating a dictatorship. Pakistan has had a history of democracy.

While the Pakistan military (intelligence) helped form the Taliaban. So giving them more power is rank stupidity.

Its like going up to Sein Fein 30 years ago and putting them in charge of the military in Ireland so that they can stop the IRA. :wall:

[Shahed]

The Pakistani military helped form the majority of guerilla groups in Afghanistan during and after the Russian occupation. All that with the approval, direct monetary, material and advisory support, of the White House & 10 Downing Street.

The Afghan guerilla groups were formed to combat the Russian occupation, and the extension of Soviet influence in the Persian Gulf and South Asia in the Cold War. There was a clear military & political goal: Defeat the Soviet military in Afghanistan, give them their Vietnam. This goal was achieved directly through the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence bureau, and through the direct participation in combat of Pakistani civillians. Without these two elements this goal could never have been achieved.

These civillians left their normal lives to go and train to take on the Soviet military, and fight with the Tajiks, Hazaras, Pashtuns and all other Afghans. Many of them never to return, KIA in the line of duty serving the goals of foreign powers, who pretend to this day to be ignorant but they do not pretend to be thankless, of their sacrifice.

There is no alternative to Musharraf IF exliminating the Al Qaeda & Taliban are military & political objectives of Pakistan and her allies in the TWOT. Nobody else has done as much as Musharraf & as much as Pakistan has in supporting the United States, Britain and NATO in this conflict. No one. More Al-Q & associates (Ansar, Taliban, etc) have been arrested by Pakistan than any other nation.

No other nation has rounded up and jailed, extradited to the United States (namely Guantanamo), or killed in action, as many Al Qaeda operatives & their associates as Pakistan, and her military has.

The Pakistani military is not the Taliban. There remain elements of the military which support the Taliban ideologically and for religious reasons do not want to oppose fellow "Muslims" (which I don't believe the Taliban are). These elements are underground, if they still exist at all. The common Pashtun soldier may share an ethnicity with the Taliban, but not much more.

I spoke to a Pashtun couple of months ago, from South Waziristan. I asked him what he thought of the Taliban. He said "You cannot talk to a wall can you ? In the same manner it's difficult to talk to these people. These people don't want to listen to anyone, they want control and they don't care what you think, feel or care about." He was referring to the Talibans clear objective of overthrowing the Pakistani government and installing their own. he was obviously very frustrated with their tactics, ideology and everything else.

I completely agree that the steps taken by Musharraf to crack down on his opponents are ethically wrong. I do not agree that there is no need for a severe, concentrated and cohesive military campaign to eliminate or force conditional or unconditional surrender of the Taliban in Pakistan.

I was of the view that they cannot expand their influence militarily, but they are.

I do not see any feasible alternative to what Musharraf can achieve. Bhutto cannot achieve anything, she has proved that in 2 previous tenures which resulted in the country's complete disintegration into every conceivable form of anarchy. Her croonies did much, much worse than what you are seeing on TV now. Her husband was convicted of money laundering in Switzerland and sentenced to 4 years in jail. She tortured & executed many political opponents. The police became her personal vendetta force. She has 1.5 Billion US Dollars or more in cash. Most of this amount has been embezzeled from the state treasury and until recently was frozen under the request of the Pakistani government. These assets have now been unfrozen, most probably at the request of the allies of the Pakistani military in Washington. Nawaz Sharif himself ordered the military to achieve "strategic depth" In Afghanistan, through the use of the Taliban. Imran Khan does not have the popular support necessary.

That leaves us with no other option but to support the military IF defeating the Taliban & Al-Q are stated military & political objectives of the alliance in the TWOT.

[Tribesman]

Unbelievable:dizzy2:

Such a denial of reality it is really astounding .
So now Sinian , this war on terror crap and the dictatorships supposed hostility towards the islamic fundamentalists , could you explain who were the Generals allies when he went to war with India ? its quite important since it was the catalyst inevents that led to him siezing power .
Which parties now still support the General and his imposition of martial law ? Is it not the same parties whose aim is a fundamentalist Islamic state ? Is it not the same parties that you are saying that he is fighting against ? Is it not the same parties that work with the Taliban ?
Corruption , embezzlement and using the police as a personal vendetta force , you are talking about the current regime aren't you :yes:
The US State Department reports certainly back that up , especially when linked with the militarys industrial/commertial empire ...but no you are saying that it is better than the earlier regimes not worse:dizzy2:



These elements are underground, if they still exist at all.
Well bugger me sideways , a senior general publicly states that he would not arrest Osama bin Laden , he keeps his job yet you question the existance of these elements ?????


No other nation has rounded up and jailed, extradited to the United States
Ah yes , how many of those people turned out to be completely innocent , big numbers , big headlines ..but what does it actually show . Of those who were not innocent were there many major players handed over or were they just scapegoats as windowdressing ?
Now fair enough they did hand over someone relatively important , someone who managed to admit to every possible act of terrorism that was put to him ...even those that it is alledged were carried out by the Pakistani military (Daniel Pearls murder for example) .

You put it that supporting the current leadership despite its links to the extremists is the only option , you put it that supporting the military with its links to the extremists is the only option ...if you want to fight the extremists in the WOT .
I say that if you want to fight the extremists then backing the people that support and are supported by the extremists is not an option in any way whatsoever

[LittleGrizzly]

just out of interest, what would be your plan for pakistan tribesman ?

i have been thinking on this for a while and whilst mush aint a nice guy he's at least doing a good impression of a friend. Restoration of democracy is the best answer but i don't think the list of candidiates (or ones who could win anyway) would be that appealing.... saying that long term democracy is usually the best answer even if the short term isn't so nice..

[Tribesman]

just out of interest, what would be your plan for pakistan tribesman ?


Withdraw all support and leave them to it .


i have been thinking on this for a while and whilst mush aint a nice guy he's at least doing a good impression of a friend.
Well the general is doing an impression and that is all it is , and it isn't a very good one.

[Geoffrey S]

Withdraw all support and leave them to it .
You know, I might completely and thoroughly disagree with your views on Pakistan, but that one line I find myself agreeing with to the fullest. Strange world.