Pakistan: The al-Qaeda striptease

Asia Times ^ | 08/31/04 | B Raman

[TigerLikesRooster]

The al-Qaeda striptease

By B Raman

Act 1: March 2002. Abu Zubaidah, a Palestinian member of al-Qaeda, was arrested in Faislabad in Pakistani Punjab by the Pakistani authorities and handed over to the US's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He was the operational chief of al-Qaeda; his arrest was a major breakthrough, we were told. This is hardly supported by the report of the 9-11 Commission.

Act 2: September 2002. Ramzi Binalshibh was arrested in Karachi and handed over to the FBI. He was the man, we were told. Not Abu Zubaidah. A real breakthrough, it was claimed. He figures frequently in the commission's report, but one does not get the impression that he was as great a cat's whiskers as made out to be.

Act 3: March 2003. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was arrested in Rawalpindi and handed over to the FBI. What a breakthrough, it was said. The real mastermind of September 11. The evil genius of al-Qaeda. Of all the jihadi terrorists, he figures the most frequently in the report. Almost as frequently as Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf. The report does give the impression that KSM was the brain who conceived of the plans for September 11, and orchestrated their execution. He is a Pakistani from Balochistan, who grew up in Kuwait. The plans, which led to the destruction of the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York and to the attack on the Pentagon and which caused the deaths of 3,500 innocent men, women and children, were conceived not by the brain of Osama bin Laden or a Muslim of any other nationality.

They were conceived and executed by the mind of a Pakistani. If KSM was the mastermind and he was the real evil genius, how about those in Pakistan who sheltered and protected him in Karachi from 1998 until September 2002, when he ran away to Quetta when the FBI came to know of his presence in Karachi? How about those who sheltered him in Quetta? How about those in Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) and army who sheltered him in Rawalpindi, right under the nose of Musharraf, when he fled there from Quetta, when the FBI established his presence in Quetta? Are they any the less evil? The commission, which goes into great detail on his activities from Karachi before September 11, is strangely silent on his activities there between September 11 and March, 2003. An American journalist of Indian sub-continental origin, who is a good personal friend of Marianne Pearl, the widow of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist kidnapped and beheaded in Karachi in February, 2002, mentioned in an article in the online journal Salon in October last year that the US intelligence had informed Marianne that it was KSM who had her husband killed. That means, KSM is a good friend of Omar Sheikh, who organized the trap for Daniel. That means, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which was operating Omar Sheikh as a source, must have known of this friendship. That means, the ISI must have known of KSM's presence in Karachi even in 2002, if not before. Why did it not act against him?

The biggest deficiency in the 9-11 Commission's report is that it has restricted its enquiries to what happened before September 11. It has not gone into what happened after September 11 - the kidnapping and beheading of Pearl, the grenade attack in an Islamabad church in March 2002 which killed the wife and daughter of an American diplomat, the attack on French submarine engineers in Karachi thereafter and the car bomb explosion outside the US consulate in Karachi in June 2002. Without going into them, how can one assess what is the threat today and what will be the threat tomorrow?

The reason why the commission did not go into post-September 11 happenings is not difficult to understand. The US intelligence did not want it to. From the sanitized summaries of the interrogation reports shared with the commission, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the FBI excluded all references to post-September 11 developments. If they had shared them too, US public opinion would have been wiser about the continued collusion of the Pakistani intelligence, or at least sections of it, with Omar Sheikh, KSM and others after September 11 too. And if it had become wiser, it might have questioned the wisdom of the trust placed in Musharraf, widely known in Pakistan army circles as Tricky Mush, by the Bush administration. KSM also mentioned one Issa al-Brittani, whom he had sent to the US before September 11 at bin Laden's instance to case possible economic and Jewish targets in the US. The commission did not know anything about the identity of this al-Brittani. At least did the CIA and the FBI know about it?

Act 4: April, 2003. A man projected as a principal suspect in the case relating to the attack on the USS Cole, the US naval ship, at Aden in October, 2002, was arrested in Karachi. His name was initially given as Khalid bin Attash. It was subsequently changed to Walid bin Attash. It hardly matters whether you call him Khalid or Walid. You will be none the wiser. The choice is yours. A great catch, we were told. Musharraf got another pat in the back. From the commission's report, he does not appear to have been such a great catch. Another person was arrested along with bin Attash. A nephew of KSM, we were told. Handed over to the Americans. Disappeared from press headlines. Nobody knows whether he was identified and what happened to him.

Act 5: October 2003. Musharraf sent his troops into South Waziristan, much to the applause of the Americans. To smoke out bin Laden and other dregs of al-Qaeda. For the first time since Pakistan's creation in 1947, its army had ventured into this God forsaken area, we were told. Pakistan television reported the exploits of the army day after day, hour after hour. Al-Qaeda's camps destroyed. Dozens killed and arrested. So we were told. The only confirmed killing so far is that of Hassan Mahsun, an Uighur terrorist. What happened to those arrested? Innocent Pakistani tribals or Arabs? Al-Qaeda or something else? When you are watching a striptease show, you should not ask questions. Just watch.

Act 6: February-March, 2004. The Pakistan army ventured back into South Waziristan. A high-value target surrounded, we were told. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian No 2 to bin Laden, Musharraf told the US officials and media, which lap up whatever he says just as they lapped up everything Ahmed Chalabi told them about Iraq. It turned out to be an Uzbek. Tohir Yuldeshev, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There would have been some saving grace at least if he had been caught. No. He managed to just drive through a Pakistani army cordon and escape to fight another day. Doesn't matter, said Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan's Information Minister. The army had caught or killed dozens of other al-Qaeda dregs, he claimed.

Act 7: June. Within a few days of an abortive attempt to kill the Corps Commander of Karachi, Faisal Saleh Hyat, Pakistan's Interior Minister, proudly announced the case had been solved and those responsible arrested. They belonged to an organization called Jundullah (Army of Allah), he said. A new organization, of which the ISI was not aware till then, we were told. Trained in South Waziristan by al-Qaeda, we were further told. South Waziristan had been swarming with Pakistani troops, helicopter gunships and 007s of the US since October, 2003. How come al-Qaeda managed to run training camps right under the nose of the Pakistan army and American 007s just as KSM had managed to live right under the nose of Musharraf in Rawalpindi? Don't ask inconvenient questions. Just watch the show. You have no idea what more is to come. Along with the Jundullah members, one more guy was arrested. A nephew of KSM, we were told. How many nephews does KSM have? As many as the bras that a striptease dancer has. A woman of Karachi filed a habeas corpus in a Karachi court that the man arrested was her husband and not a nephew of KSM. In Pakistan, such fine distinctions are irrelevant. What matters is what Musharraf says. If he says he is a nephew of KSM, so he is.

Act 8: July 25. After an encounter lasting over 12 hours during which no one was killed and not many bullet marks were left anywhere, the ISI announced the arrest of a group of al-Qaeda members at Gujrat in Pakistani Punjab. The leader was a Kenyan national, we were told.

Act 9: July 29. Sorry. He was actually a Tanzanian. That, too, a famous Tanzanian. None other than Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani wanted by the US for his involvement in the explosions outside the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. When was his identity established and announced? Three hours before Senator John Kerry was to make his acceptance speech at the Democratic presidential convention. Investigation revealed that Ghailani had been living at Gujrat for some months. Many local police officers were suspended for not detecting his presence. It is learnt that in their explanations they admitted they were aware of his presence in Gujrat, but said that they had not acted against him because the ISI had brought and kept him there. Ghailani had escaped to Pakistan immediately after the explosions of 1998. How come the ISI was not aware of this all these years and became aware of it only just before the Democratic Party's convention?

Act 10: August. Tom Ridge, the US homeland secretary, announced with great fanfare that US intelligence had come to know of plans of al-Qaeda to blow up US and international economic targets in New York, New Jersey and Washington DC. It had cased those buildings. Heavily armed US security forces personnel took up positions around all these buildings. Barricades were put up. All staff and visitors were checked. Obliging TV channel crews beamed visuals of these all over the world. Many watched it. Including bin Laden, presuming he is still alive, and his boys. They now know the buildings which were not guarded. Someone in the US intelligence tipped off the press that the information was three years old. Sheepishly Ridge and his officers admitted that this was so. They said that this does not mean the danger is any the less. Al-Qaeda plans its operations years in advance. Nobody drew the attention of Ridge to the fact that KSM had reported about the casing of the economic targets by al-Brittani in his interrogation report. Why was the US public not informed of it at that time and why were no security precautions taken? Was it because no Republican Party presidential convention was due last year? Don't ask stupid questions. Watch the show.

Act 11: August. Faced with increasing skepticism, US officials leaked to the media that the information was from a so-called computer wizard of al-Qaeda, a Pakistani by the name of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, arrested in Lahore. The Pakistanis hit the ceiling. They accused the US of blowing a sensitive ongoing operation by revealing the identity of a collaborating detainee. They admitted such an arrest now that the US had blown his cover. It was he who led them to Ghailani, they claimed.

Act 12: August. The British got into the act. They arrested 12 persons - Dhiren Bharot alias Bilal, a Hindu convert to Islam, and 11 others, seven of them of Pakistani origin. Hey presto. Dhiren is none other than al-Brittani. Or, rather, al-Brittani was none other than Dhiren. A key al-Qaeda operative, said some. In fact, the leader of the local al-Qaeda cell, said others. The information came from the Pakistanis, admitted the British, but they had been keeping a watch on Dhiren even earlier. Dhiren and others were planning a terrorist strike against Heathrow airport, said the Pakistanis. No such information, said the British. Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda are very security conscious. How come they trusted Dhiren, a Hindu convert to Islam? Dhiren was known to KSM as al-Brittani and to Noor Khan as al-Hindi. Was he known to anyone else as al-Pakistani or al-Kenyan? His family had migrated to the United Kingdom from Kenya in 1973.

Act 13: August. The so-called nephew of KSM arrested in June back in the headlines. It was he who led the Pakistanis to Noor Khan and it was Noor Khan who led them to Ghailani, we were told.

Act 14: August. Like a magician taking rabbits out of his hat, as the Republican presidential convention and his visit to New York during which he is to meet Bush for another pat in the back approached, Musharraf started finding al-Qaeda dregs all over Pakistan - Arabs, Uzbeks, South Africans and Pakistanis. A plot for simultaneous attacks on Musharraf's palace and the US Embassy in Islamabad, general headquarters in Rawalpindi and other places discovered and foiled. Many more dregs arrested. Al-Qaeda penetrated. The days of its dregs numbered. Claims galore from the interior and information ministers. Pakistani backers of al-Qaeda identified and under watch. Do you know who is the principal backer, according to these ministers? Musharraf? No. Lieutenant-General Ehsanul-Haq, director general of the ISI? No. He is none other than Javed Ibrahim Paracha , a close associate of Nawaz Sharif and a member of Nawaz's faction of the Pakistan Muslim League. Yes sir. You now know how al-Qaeda had remained undetected all these years in Pakistan. Because of the support from Nawaz's Muslim League.

Should one laugh or cry? Don't do either. Keep watching the show. There are more striptease acts to come as the US presidential elections and the deadline for Musharraf to resign as the chief of the army staff (COAS) approaches. Bush and Tricky Mush need each other. And they both need bin Laden. Bush for winning re-election. Mush for getting US support for his planned violation of the Pakistani constitution in order to be able to continue as the COAS after December 31.

There is another striptease going on in Iraq.

Another show, another day.

B Raman is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi, and, presently, director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. Email: corde@vsnl.com

[TigerLikesRooster]

An interesting characterization.

[Garuda82]

Musharraf fakes an attack on himself once in a while when the U.S. starts pressuring him to crack down on Jihadis.

Musharraf is an Islamist in Secularist's clothing.

The guy in a turban whose foaming at the mouth and swinging a sword over his head while shouting "Allahu Akbar, Die Infidel" is less dangerous, because you know he's a nut, and you kill him right then and there.

But Musharraf is duplicitous. He throws America a bone once in a while, but fully supports the terrorist apparatus that's breeding in his country. He's a lot more dangerous than the Bush administration realizes.

[jeffers]

If you enjoy spin and distortion from those who support Al Qaeda (Asia Times) and those who fear a US-Pak alliance (the author from India), take this sludge to heart.

If you want accurate data, go here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155685/posts

[nuconvert]

"The reason why the commission did not go into post-September 11 happenings ......"

Because they were investigating the events that LED UP TO 9-11.....NOT After.

[nuconvert]

LoL

[nuconvert]

"An interesting characterization."

That's one way of putting it.

[WOSG]

Welcome to FR newbie...

We are winning in Pakistan now because we have finally got the intelligence goods and ISI cant cover for their former clients. Our FBI and CIA are on the ground Pakistan eavesdropping on all electronic communication, and that is bmaking the difference.

Musharraf is our friend. Read Tommy Franks and others' books, and they make clear Musharraf is trying to defeat the Islamicists, even though they have supporters in some communities and within the ISI.

[WOSG]

Welcome to FR newbie...

We are winning in Pakistan now because we have finally got the intelligence goods and ISI cant cover for their former clients. Our FBI and CIA are on the ground Pakistan eavesdropping on all electronic communication, and that is bmaking the difference.

Musharraf is our friend. Read Tommy Franks and others' books, and they make clear Musharraf is trying to defeat the Islamicists, even though they have supporters in some communities and within the ISI.

[Garuda82]

Uh huh. Where's Osama Bin Laden? Where's Mullah Omar?

[Saberwielder]

Sure. Anyone who raises questions on the weird happenings in Pakistan is afraid of the wonderful U.S-Pak alliance.

To all Newbies - You cannot be serious unless you assume the following:

1. You cannot question Musharraf's commitment to the war on terror

2. Having access to a GPS database and the co-ordinates of locations in Pakistan trumps facts.

3. Publications that say otherwise support Al Qaeda

4. Any facts that are uncomfortable to admit will not be discussed.

5. It's a wonderful world

[jeffers]

Also from The Asia Times:


In God, and terror, we trust.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
That is the essence of the Republican platform
for "four more years" of the president of
permanent war. Oh, but don't ask how the "war on
terra" is actually going, with the 1,000th US
soldier about to die in Iraq, which along with
Afghanistan is in chaos; because God, and Karl
Rove's dirty tricks, are on George Bush's side.



Don't look closely, just swallow.

As
with the complementary macaroni and cheese
dinner included in the press kit, what matters
at the Republican National Convention is not the
unpalatable ingredients but the package itself.
The Republicans do indeed have a program for
their next term in office, but they are hoping
moderate American swing voters won't read the
fine print.



From the quoted article:

"How come the ISI was not aware of this all these years and became aware of
it only just before the Democratic Party's convention? "


"Why was the US public not
informed of it at that time and why were no security precautions taken? Was it because no Republican Party presidential convention was due last year? Don't ask stupid questions.
Watch the show. "

Sure you want to push this here, chief?

You stand dangerously close to exposing your true agenda.

Again.

[Saberwielder]

Sure you want to push this here, chief? You stand dangerously close to exposing your true agenda. Again.

And what agenda would that be "chief?"

If I have an agenda, it is too see my country protected from Islamofascist terrorism. Now, has Asia Times published material from uber-Leftists and anti-American agitprop artists? Sure. But does that mean that one must reflexively discard every piece that gets published there? Most definitely not.

On a personal level, I'm a loyal Republican and have been ever since I can remember. There's nothing I'd like to see happen more than 4 more years of Dubya. But does that mean that I'm going to swallow every piece of news coming out on the war on terror without questioning? You can bet your ass I won't.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, I'll respond to this article in detail below.

[Garuda82]

The Pakis were distributing nukes around the globe to all the "Axis of Evil" countries. When British intelligence uncovered it, the Pakis put all the blame on one domestic scientist, and then put him under house arrest. What a joke.

The Pakistanis created the Taliban. No one in Pakistan cares if Americans get hacked to pieces by Islamic fundamentalists. The Pakis could turn over Mullah Omar and OBL anytime they want, but there's no reason for them to do so.

You can bitch at me all you want, but the fact remains that the failure to apprehend top Al Qaeda leaders is a major failure of Bush's WOT, and something he will have to answer for in the debates.

[Garuda82]

You're also out of touch if you think the Asia Times is the only news source out there that's puzzled at America's continued support of and reluctance to crack down on Pakistan. Just about everyone else in the world is puzzled by it, including a lot of folks living here right in the good ol' US of A.

[Saberwielder]

Coming to this article. If you read this as a thiunly weiled assertion that somehow the Bush administration is in cahoots with Musharraf to use the war on terror for political gains by timing "arrests" then I must disagree. I do not believe that the Bush administration would play with American lives for political gains. That would be unimaginable. The closest we got to such a thing was the Clinton Chinagate situation.

But I see clear evidence of massive and shameless manipulation by Musharraf's regime in Pakistan by using well timed arrests, military operations and intelligence leaks to make it appear as though Pakistan is making big progress in the war on terror.

Musharraf has made a calculation that given that this is an election year and the fact that the war on terror is the main pillar of Bush's re-election platform, no American official would dare publicly question Pakistan's assertions regarding arrests of "top" terrorists or thwarting of "major attacks." I suggest you compare notes with the media reports now and in early 2002 during the Daniel Pearl murder saga. In the Pearl case, if the Paks gave out a bogus sounding report, it was immediately repudiated by American officials. Now, anything and everything the Paks are saying is taken as gospel.

Consider the case of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan the Al Qaeda "computer genius." First the Pakistan information minister said that this guy was arrested a few days ago. The Pakistan Interior minister denied that they ever had this guy or even the existence, when it was even acknowledged by Condi Rice. Then we find out that his name was leaked not by Americans but by the Paks. I'm told reliably that the Military Spokesman Shaukat Sultan was the "leaker." Sure this guy had loads of data in posession, but how is it that he operated for years under Pakistani noses?

Consider what Raman says about KSM. How in the heck was this guy able to hide in Pakistan, that too in Rawalpindi where every other house is that of an Army officer. If KSM killed Daniel Pearl, then what were his ties to Omar Sheikh, the man in jail for Pearl's killing. Everyone knows Omar Sheikh was an ISI "asset," so what does that make KSM? What are his ties to the ISI? If KSM was the main planner of 9/11, then what role did the ISI have in that plan?

These are serious questions that need to be answered. Do I believe that Raman went over the board in insinuating that the Bush administration is in league with Musharraf? Yes. But are there questions about Musharraf, ISI, 9/11 and ties to Al Qaeda that need to be ansewered? Yes to that as well.

Listen, we know that the bad guys are planning attacks on American soil and they most likely have some plans in operation for a while. But relying on this IV drip style of periodic and episodic release of AQ terrorists from the ISI kitty is foolhardy. AQ leaders are not in the mythical tribal ares but in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Faisalabad and Gujrat. To that end we need to remove the velvet gloves and squeeze the Paks harder - much harder. If not, we may pay a big price.

[Garuda82]

Totally agree with everything you posted.

[dead]

Musharraf is interested only in what's best for Musharraf.

For now, what's best for Musharraf is keeping his administration in the good graces of the Bush administration.

The situation is fluid, but at this moment, our interests compliment each other. We have the carrots and the sticks to keep it that way for quite a while.

He's an ally in that limited way, and its a workable situation for the time being. I don't particularly care what his personal motivations are as long as he delivers.

[dead]

The Pakis could turn over Mullah Omar and OBL anytime they want, but there's no reason for them to do so.

You have not one shred of evidence to back this statement up. We don’t even know that either of them are in Pakistan.

Personally, I think OBL exhaled his last stinky breath in a cave in Tora Bora around December, 2001. Of course, I’ll admit I’m speculating here.

[Saberwielder]

The situation is fluid, but at this moment, our interests compliment each other. We have the carrots and the sticks to keep it that way for quite a while.

I think you mean "our interests complement each other" - in which case you are not correct. Our interests are two-fold - a) To prevent attacks on American soil as well our and allied interests abroad and b) To degrade and destroy the global Islamofascist terror infrastructure and discourage the formation of new terrorists.

Of these Musharraf only concurs with (a) in order to keep himself in our good graces. But Muharraf wants the threat of (a) to be ever-present so that his utility to us never diminishes. To that end he will do everything to discourage and deter our efforts to degrade the terror infrastructure that is now headquartered in Pakistan. It serves him well that we accept him handing over an Abdul bin terrorist once in a few weeks. He knows fully well that as long as the Pakistani madrassas, their wealthy sheikh patrons, friendly ISI members and an overall climate of jihad thrives in Pakistan, Abdul bin Terrorist will soon be replaced by Khalid bin Terroris whom he can use down the line?

Has anyone stopped to question why is it that every time an Al Qaeda #3 man is arrested in Pakistan, he gets replaced by another #3 who is arrested a few months later?

Has anyone stopped to think about why not one person who enabled these AQ leaders to thrive in Pakistan has been brought to books?

If we keep playing this "Musharraf is our ally for now" game, the Pakistanis will keep milking us dry till the cows come home (sorry for the bad pun.) They have an endless supply of Al Qaeda #3s and #4s to keep us occupied. He's an ally in that limited way, and its a workable situation for the time being. I don't particularly care what his personal motivations are as long as he delivers.

[Saberwielder]

The last two sentences in my previous post were quotes from "dead" which got inadvertently attached to my message. I apologize for the confusion.

[dead]

How exactly does the brilliantly Machiavellian Musharraf keep finding all these volunteers willing to spend the last fifty years of their miserable lives in isolation in an American prison?

Do you think next week's #3 might object before his staged arrest?

I don't think AQ's Numero Uno is still drawing breath. And I don't have any confirmation that number two is even in Pakistan. Neither do you.

[farsighted]

Dang, I'm gonna vote for Kerry. Pressure Pakistan? Are you talking invasion? The Dems would bite off on that. I believe Pakistan is the most dangerous Muslim country since they have nukes. Getting them on our side was a major accomplishment. Are you saying they should be cooperating with us even more? Like France?

[Saberwielder]

How exactly does the brilliantly Machiavellian Musharraf keep finding all these volunteers willing to spend the last fifty years of their miserable lives in isolation in an American prison?

Good question. There are three reasons.

• A significant number of mid-level AQ folks have always been living in Pakistan. Remember that Karachi was the planning hub for most AQ attacks before, after and including 9/11. These guys use safe houses and underground networks created by Pakistani jihadist groups and Islamists with the help of the ISI.
• Another groups of AQ elements escaped the siege of Tora Bora and Op. Anaconda and spread out in Pakistan through the Quetta-Karachi axis. This group is likely made up of low to mid level elements - the foot soliders and their commanders
• A HUGE group of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders were airlifted from Kunduz in late 2001. This is the now infamous "Kunduz Airlift" when we allowed the Paks to airlift their senior Army officers trapped by Northern Alliance siege of Kunduz. Rumsfeld was dead against it but the State department prevailed as it wopuld have been embarassing if the NA captured Pakistani Generals along with Al Qaeda. But as was reported later, many *top* Al Qaeda folks escaped with the Pak army. It is very much possible that these guys are under ISI's close watch to be delivered when necessary

There is no question in my mind that if Musharraf gives the green signal, the ISI can produce a "Al Qaeda #3" within hours. Of course, setting the stage like the Ghailani "arrest" drama takes a bit more time. First you have to move them from the safehouse to another city and then stage the arrest in a reasonably convincing manner.

Do you think next week's #3 might object before his staged arrest?

What other choice does he have? Call 911?

I don't think AQ's Numero Uno is still drawing breath. And I don't have any confirmation that number two is even in Pakistan. Neither do you.

It's probably 50-50 that OBL is alive. But Al Zawahiri isprobably in Pakistan, but as you said we don't know. But what I do know is that the Paks have enough #3s in their kitty to keep us occupied for a long time. If not, they will just invent him - like the Abu Farj Al-Libi guy who they are touting as the next KSM.

[Saberwielder]

Dang, I'm gonna vote for Kerry. Pressure Pakistan? Are you talking invasion? The Dems would bite off on that.

Bad idea, to be honest. The Dems have and will institutionalize appeasement towards Islamofascists. It was 8 years of dilly-dallying by Clinton that led to 9/11. While I have some serious questions on Bush's post-9/11 alliances, I'd still say that he has perhaps handled the Islamic terror threat with the right overall policy.

[dead]

That seems to be where the relationship stands for now. You seem to think we should be doing something else at this time, but what?

Invade a nuclear armed Muslim country?

Work for the overthrow of Musharraf or put a bullet in his head? Then who's to follow?

Musharraf is certainly duplicitious, but he's the best option for now. As I said, the situation is always fluid, but, to me, our best option is smile and pat him on the back, while working to build up our own independent intelligence infrastructure in the country, in preparation for his eventual and inevitable downfall. I don't think he'll even last as long as we'd like to get that job done.

Pakistan's a bomb that this Administration inherited. It's going to be a tricky one to diffuse. Bush can't just close his eyes and start snipping wires.

[wagoneer]

What is the ISI / KSM link? I think the story of General Ahmad Mahmoud goes a long way towards the answer to that question.

[Saberwielder]

That seems to be where the relationship stands for now. You seem to think we should be doing something else at this time, but what? Invade a nuclear armed Muslim country? Work for the overthrow of Musharraf or put a bullet in his head? Then who's to follow?

What should we do? That's a good question. Far too often the issue boils down to - "We cannot invade Pakistan - so let's just do our best by working with Musharraf." I fully agree that invading Pakistan or threatening them militarily is counterproductive.

But boy do we have other levers to push. Firstly it is all about diplomacy and global standing for Pakistan's leaders as it is for every tinpot dictator. The only thing Musharraf fears more than losing his job is loss of face. Why do you think Musharraf invaded Waziristan - because we asked him nicely? Nope. Because we threatened to go public with his role in the nuclear scandal. Similarly, we must keep telling Musharraf publicly that these camps still exist and the terror infrastrucutre still survives in Pakistan.

Secondly, use our massive economic leverage with Pakistan. The Pakistan economy will collapse in weeks if we withdraw support. They were on the verge of default on September 14, 2001. You can say that 9/11 happened at a very propitious time for them. We have helped Pakistan reschedule $12 billion in loans with the Paris club and have written off 50% of their debt to us. Our aid to them is equivalent to their annual defense budget. Without our good influence, their "arrangements" with IMF, ADB, and the World Bank may be "rearranged." Japan and the EU are generous to Pakistan thanks to our influence. Given this, we must tell Musharraf to tell us when he will implement the promises he made in 2002 on Madrassa reforms and jihadi infrastructure. He promised to do so by March 2002 but reneged. If he reneges again, let's just withhold payments blaming Congress or our bureaucracy - "You know Pervez, the aid file takes a bit of time to move in Washington, just like your Madrassa reform package in Islamabad."

We must do everything we can to encourage the non-Islamist Pak politicians. These guys have nothing against us except that we support their tormentor Musharraf without question.

WE must stop effusively praising Musharraf and be more circumspect.

This would be a good start, IMO

[Saberwielder]

One more thing that I forgot to address in my post #27. This has to do with the common misconception exploited by Musharraf - "What will happen if Musharraf were killed/overthrown?"

The answer to this question is simple. Were Musharraf to be killed, the following things will likely happen in Pakistan:

1. Another pro-US General, Mohammed Yousaf Khan, the current Army vice chief will replace Musharraf as army chief.
2. A rubber stamp guy, Mohammadean Soomro (Chairman of Pakistan Senate) would replace him as President, albeit a figurehead one.
3. Yousaf, who is known as General Joe in the Pentagon, will immediately convene a meeting of the nine Pakistan Army Corps Commanders. The Corps commanders will discuss the leadership issue and either endorse Gen. Yousaf or support another consensus candidate as Army chief.
4. It will be up to the new Army chief to either declare himself President or conduct fresh elections in his own time.
5. As long as the Corps Commanders feel that taking on America is not in their interest, Pakistan's support for Operation Enduring Freedom would still remain as before.

[jeffers]

"If you read this as a thiunly weiled assertion that somehow the Bush administration
is in cahoots with Musharraf to use the war on terror for political gains by timing "arrests" then I must
disagree."

That's precisely what it is. Anyone with more than a passing interest in the Pakistani and SE Asian press knows where Asia Times stands, from their preponderance of articles with the same slant.

Same goes for the Balochistan Post. http://www.balochistanpost.com/

If you want a good, balanced, wide angle view of Pak politics, hit a combination of middle of the road publications like Dawn, Hi Pakistan and the Daily Times. All publish from a wide variety of sources, left, right, middle of the road. Once you have a solid foundation of multi-source, corrorated understanding then use Asia Times for an enemy perspective and occasional valuable intelligence.

When you begin by paying any credence to Asia Times, you end up with a skewed viewpoint, which is demonstrated in your perception of Musharraf. Yes, Musharraf will work the political angle and time arrests to coincide with the US political process. Yes, his actions often appear duplicitous. There are reasons for this, very good reasons, reasons the Bush Administration understands and supports. Straight from a three letter source, "Musharraf probably won't survive the year." (As in dead.) You clearly aren't taking into account what will happen, vis-a-vis the precise concerns you state regarding Pak involvement with terrorism, when Musharraf is deposed. Think you got problems now?

Heh.

You also clearly haven't done enough research to understand who Musharraf is, where he came from, how he came to be in power, who and what he was before he came to power, why he came to power, why his predecessor was ousted, why that person came to power, why Bhutto was ousted, why she came to power, why her predecessor was ousted, why her father came to power, none of it.

There is a split down the middle power struggle going on in Pakistan, very similar to what's happening in Saudi Arabia. Play high-school hardball and you throw away a glass half full, just spilling it on the ground, wasted. Make ill-informed judgements based on slanted sources and you achieve the same result.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, you do this in Pakistan and you cut off 23,000 US troops in Afghanistan. After you help depose our real ally Musharraf, you planning to feed our Afghan troops how, airdrops using Iranian airspace? The Moscow to Tajikstan to Kabul express? It took literally months to get 12 (twelve) SpecOps guys in using that route after 9/11, but you're going to feed 23k soldiers that way?

Get real.

Bottom line, Musharraf is a good guy, and nobody in the know in the US doubts it. The body of fact is too large to dispute and going against the grain on this issue only demonstrates ignorance. Want to bark at shadows of the old ISI, and other Pak factions loyal to AQT?

Look elsewhere.

Your portrayal of the events prior to and subsequent to Khan's arrest also demonstrate a superficial and largely inaccurate view of what actually happened. Khan is not the "computer genius". That person's name has never been released, though there are strong indications as to his identity available in open source reports. There were two captures involving persons with ties to Al Qaeda's computer network. The western media, and you, mixed them up.

You have the time of his arrest wrong, off by weeks. The release of his name was an unfortunate occurrance. He broke and turned after the Paks told us they had him. We released his name publicly, roughly coincident with his decision to turn. In a perfect world, with universal instantaneous communication, it wouldn't have happened. But it did. If you want to fix blame, jump on Leeza for not knowing Khan had turned, and jump on the Paks for not telling us the very instant Khan turned.

We keep catching the AQ number three for a variety of reasons which are pretty obvious if you think a little bit, using a decent body of background information.

The reasons fall naturally into one of two categories. One is that the AQ number 3 is the AQ director of military operations. That person represents the most immediate threat to America, and we give that office high priority attention.

Just like any corporation, AQ promotes from within. They don't take a guy from the financial or propaganda ministries and stick them in charge of terrorist training and attacks. The top dog has ties to his subordinates, the same pool of subordinates eligible for promotion to replace him if he's killed or captured. Simply by catching one, we have predisposed advantage towards catching the next.

Zubaida was...induced...into thinking he was in Saudi captivity. The "Saudis" broke him by pretending to carry his release requests to his buddy Nayaf. When he realized it was all a ruse, he played his ace, yielding all kinds oif false information. Yes, it'd be nice if all the bad guys rolled over for us when captured, but in this mean old world, some don't.

The AT article even fails to use all the available real facts to make it's skewed point in this regard. What about Abu Hafs? What about Banshiri? What about Al-Iraqi? There's three more AQ number 3's to bolster their attempted spin, doubling the "chain" of "improbabilities" they managed to convince you with, but they didn't even mention them. Do they even know of them? Do you? I suspect not.

There's a common thread here.

It appears you didn't realize that AT was a player for the enemy.

It appears you didn't realize that Musharraf is a good guy.

It appears that you lump the ISI, the Pak Army, the Pak government, and the Pak population all into one shady bowl of terrorists and terrorist supporters.

The solution is obvious.

Get of AT as a primary source. Build a wider pool of background data from a wide array of point sources, and then ask your questions.

All of a sudden, things will make a lot more sense.

[WOSG]

the mastermind of 9/11 was Khalid Sheik Muhammed.
where is he?
what city was he captured in?

[WOSG]

"arrests, military operations and intelligence leaks to make it appear as though Pakistan is making big progress in the war on terror."

100s of terrorists arrested this summer, one of them the IT guy for Al Qaeda, opening up the whole Al Qaeda network ... more 'pretending' like this and we'll have nothing more than a pretend Al Qaeda left.

[Saberwielder]

Jeffers,

Asia Times is one of the zillion internet-based publications that people can choose to ignore or read. I know that the author of this article, Raman, has been an anti-terrorism expert witness before Congress, you know the lawmaking body, which meets in that white domed building in Washington, multiple times and has more credibility than any armchair analyst. I have attended a 2003 seminar in Washington where Raman made a presentation. It was so prescient that it's not even funny.

Your first assumption is that I gather all my news from Asia Times. I read Daily Times, Dawn, The News, The Nation, The Pakistan Observer, Newsline, The Herald, The Friday Times, The Weekly Independent (before Musharraf dropped the kibosh), Nawa-i-waqt, Jang, Khabrain, Jasarat, Pakistan daily and even Islamist and jihadi publications. I speak /exchange emails with regional experts on a daily basis. I attend conferences and workshops in Washington-based thinktanks regularly, as my schedule permits. I have attended at least a dozen such events in 2004 alone. A firm that I do consulting work for subscribes to Courcy's Intelligence Review and Jane's International Terrorism Review as well; giving me a well rounded view of the goings on in Pakistan.

You also clearly haven't done enough research to understand who Musharraf is, where he came from, how he came to be in power, who and what he was before he came to power, why he came to power, why his predecessor was ousted, why that person came to power, why Bhutto was ousted, why she came to power, why her predecessor was ousted, why her father came to power, none of it.

You should know who to pick up such tiffs with. I have been a South Asia/Middle East analyst for over 25 years with 20 years alone on South Asia. I have stayed in Islamabad, Murree, and Karachi. I have traveled to Peshawar and Lahore. I can speak Urdu and a smattering of Punjabi and Seriaki. I can tell which part of the country a Pakistani is from by his accent and the way he speaks English. I can tell you the entire history of Pakistan, starting from the Pakistan movement in British India to Musharraf in my sleep. I can tell you about US-Pakistan relations from the days of John Foster Dulles to Colin Powell. I have read works by authors such as Ian Talbot, Christophe Jaffrelot, Stephen Cohen, Akbar Ahmed, Dennis Kux, Ahmed Rashid, Sherbaz Mazari, Emma Duncan, Christina Lamb, Owen Bennett-Jones, Stanley Wolpert and others - many times. There isn't a half-decent book on Pakistan that I have NOT read. I even review the manuscripts for authors including one on Pakistan and India by a senior, recently retired State Department official whose work I'm currently reviewing. It will be published in the Fall and I'll give a link then. You are so clueless on Pakistan - I don't even know where to begin with you.

You want to talk about Musharraf. I'll tell you this. In the late 1980s, Musharraf as a one star General personally supervised the extermination of Shias from the Pakistani city of Gilgit by armed Sunni terrorists under the tutelage of a Saudi Sheikh named Osama Bin Laden - you might have heard of him. In 1998, Musharraf personally intervened to thwart multiple US attempts to nab Bin Laden by using Pakistani territory after then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif granted his green light. Do you know that before he became Army chief in 1998, he was the Army’s Director General of Military Operations? Do you know what a DGMO does? He is the man who makes go/no-go decisions on the Pak Army’s day to day as well as long-term operations. Musharraf knew and cut checks for ISI operations with the Taliban, the safe-houses, the training camps for Kashmir jihadis and the liaisons that the ISI had with militants. You want to question me about Musharraf. Do you know the operation where Musharraf cut his teeth in terms of war experience? Do you know the number of times he has led troops to battle and what happened those times? Here's a little homework for you - Name one place where Musharraf studied and one military operation that Musharraf led. Go ahead - Use Google.

If you want to talk about Musharraf as some sort of a heroic figure waging a brutal war within his army to support us, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Musharraf is the head of a corporation known as the Pakistan army. The Corporation makes decisions based on the consensus among its board of directors, which are the Army’s nine Corps Commanders, headed by the Army chief . If Musharraf goes, another General will take his place and business will continue as usual. There is no chance of a “Islamist” coup. Four Corps Commanders today are Musharraf’s relatives. Just like the Sultans who ruled that part of the world centuries ago, the Pak army has a system by which you only appoint your cousins/brothers to senior posts. Those who are not cousins, you give your daughter or son to their son or daughter by marriage. At least one Corps Commander is related to Musharraf by marriage. Now you want to dream about a Tom Clancy novel like scenario with bare knuckle inside struggle between the “evil Islamists” and “our man Musharraf,” then that’s what it is – a dream. The reality is that Musharraf represents the human face of the corporation known as the army of Pakistan. He is eminently replaceable.

Anyway, let’s forget Musharraf. Let's talk about your other erudite sounding hollow prose.

Abu Zubaida you say. He was arrested from the house of Hamidullah Khan Niazi, the Faisalabad chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Yet Mr. Niazi was openly giving speeches as late as March 2004, from Pakstani Urdu press accounts. Do you know that Niazi has even met Musharraf? Tell me what a person harboring AQ #3 is doing out of prison, meeting our top ally? Discussing the latest trends in Pakistani music?

It appears that you lump the ISI, the Pak Army, the Pak government, and the Pak population all into one shady bowl of terrorists and terrorist supporters.

What is the ISI? It is Inter Services Intelligence. All its members are Pakistan military offers on secondment. Over 90% are from the Pakistani army. Ergo ISI = Pak Army. What is the Pakistan government today? It is led by a General. The Governors of most provinces are Generals. The administrators of the tribal area and Northern Areas are Generals. The chief of Azad Kashmir is a General. Retired Generals lead 80% of the bureaucracy. The country's biggest firms are military owned. Even the largest farm is military owned. Pakistan government = Pakistan army! Finally, the Pakistani people do not matter. They have no say towards their military's policies - Their views did not count towards anything then and do not now.

Let me point out some more inconsistencies in your arguments. Do you know who Naeem Khan is? He was a small time member of a Sunni extremist group called Sipahi Sahaba in Karachi. He then went on to join Jaish-e-Mohammed. If as per your claim:

Just like any corporation, AQ promotes from within.

If this is true hotshot, then why the heck would AQ leave communications at the hands of a low level jihadi like Naeem Khan, who is not even an Arab. The fact is that Naeem Khan was and is a Walter Mitty. He is a low level thug who sold the weekly Zarb-e-Momin, a publication of the banned Islamic "charity" Al-Rashid Trust at the college where he was studying and thereby got to know the names of people in AQ. He is virtual nobody that the Paks have foisted on us a "big catch." Can you find a few reports quoting top American officials that say that Khan was "turned" or that he was a "top catch." As usual, the Paks played the American public and armchair Sherlocks like yourself. What a joke! Talk about superficial knowledge...

Unlike Saudi Arabia, you do this in Pakistan and you cut off 23,000 US troops in Afghanistan. After you help depose our real ally Musharraf, you planning to feed our Afghan troops how, airdrops using Iranian airspace? The Moscow to Tajikstan to Kabul express? It took literally months to get 12 (twelve) SpecOps guys in using that route after 9/11, but you're going to feed 23k soldiers that way?

Another display of half-knowledge. This was true only from Fall 2001 to the Summer of 2002 when the only way to get to southern Afghanistan was over or through Pakistan. That has changed since fall 2002 when the air bridge to Bagram via Uzbekistan and Germany was established. Pakistan does remain an important but secondary logistical route to Afghanistan.

And BTW, who the hell called for “deposing” Musharraf. All I say is that we must squeeze him much harder and not let him get away with murder. He owes us big time for getting a free pass for the A.Q.Khan business. He needs us a billion times more than we need him. He knows full well that any General who replaces him will be just as servile to America publicly. All we need to do is let him know that we believe that we see other alternatives for Pakistani leadership than him and you will see a more determined action from him.

One final bit of advice. I know you mean well. But wishing that the Bush administration’s alliance with Pakistan is going great guns does not make it a reality. There are serious problems. Stop taking Pakistan government utterances at face value. Treat anonymous Pakistani quotes with the way you treat John Kerry’s words. And please stop focusing on the messenger. Look at the message. That will serve you well in any line of work. Also, please read some books about Pakistan – I suggest the books by Owen Bennett-Jones and Ian Talbot. Jones’ is a first person account and Talbot’s work is scholarly. Between them you should get a good grounding on Pakistan.

[Saberwielder]

100s of terrorists arrested this summer, one of them the IT guy for Al Qaeda, opening up the whole Al Qaeda network ... more 'pretending' like this and we'll have nothing more than a pretend Al Qaeda left.

Al Qaeda is a movement. It will not disappear by arresting "100s" of bearded men. It has a few people capable of leading and many thousands from which it can pick and choose volunteers. So far few of the "100s" of people arrested in Pakistan amount to anything. Of the people they arrested, there are many like them where they came from.

The "IT guy opening up the whole Al Qaeda network" is mostly convenient and self-serving hype peddled by the Pakistanis. That guy was a Walter Mitty.

The real question is - Have we degraded the infrastructure of terror in Pakistan beyond a point where it poses a manageable threat to us? The answer is a resounding no.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Thanks for leading a great discussion. I only have cursory knowledge on Pakistan. Your comments helped furthering my understanding of what is really going on.

[Boot Hill]

“I'm sorry to see that none of you guys know what you're talking about.”   -- Saberwielder (aka JimBr)*

This is pretty much all you need to know about Saberwielder before you waste time trying to engage him in discussions about Pakistan. He is a legend in his own mind.

Apart from that display of arrogance and overblown sense of self-importance Saberwielder's only other shortcoming seems to be his inability to grasp why you, the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff don't fall over backwards, in stunned awe at his self-proclaimed military and foreign affairs brilliance.

Please be patient with him while he struggles to deal with lesser mortals.
Betcha Saberwhiner labels the posting of his quote at the top, as an ad hominem attack!
--Boot Hill
(source for quote)

[jeffers]

Do you mean study as in student, like at St. Patrick's High School, Foreman's Christian School, and the Royal College of Defense Studies, or study as in research conducted while on staff as at the Command and Staff College and the National Defense College?

I think his first command was in the Khem Karan in 1965 during the second war with India. I also believe he was decorated for his service in that war but I don't recall the award he recieved.

Something tells me you are just dying to mention Kargil, so I'll save you the trouble.

Now it's your turn.

If so many of the people you note as experts on Pakistan agree with your premise that Musharraf's duplicity represents a threat to US interests, why do you only post and support articles from slagheaps like Asia Times?

Surely in the myriad of think tanks you claim to inhabit, there is at least one open source research paper you could quote to support these allegations.

I can find you several, indeed, many directly from the very...colleagues...you cite.

For example, Barnett Rubin, is quite a prolific author, both online and in print, yet I can't seem to locate any of his works that quite match the hostility of the Asia Times articles and the others you have posted or supported.

Nor can I find the hysteria that you claimed was present in Peter Rodman's testimony in this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201731/posts?page=7#7

...to wit:

"I suggest you take a look at the testimony of Peter Rodman, assistant
secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, to a couple of House committees as well as the recent Senate hearing on Pakistan in July, where it was made clear that Afgahnistan is in a precarious
state."

I will take it for granted that a scholar with your qualifications no doubt knows how to spell "Afgahnistan" that that is only a typo mase in haste or indifference, but in all of Rodman's testimony to the House Armed Service Committee less than two months prior to your claim, there is not one incidence of the word "precarious" nor even any similar intent.

I quote:

"Finally, some ask: Do we have enough troops in Afghanistan? The answer is: Our commanders have the
troops they need.

Numbers are misleading. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, eventually had an occupying force of
several hundred thousand troops, but failed to rule large areas of the country. Of course, we are not
the Soviets. We are fighting a different kind of war, as a partner of the Afghanistan government and
people against a die-hard minority.

The Coalition is, as I noted earlier, on offense, not defense -- keeping up the offensive in the porous
border areas. Effective cooperation with Pakistan is improving. Approximately 17,000 U.S. forces are
currently in Afghanistan, successfully conducting counter-terrorist missions in key areas, primarily in
the South and East. Eighteen other nations have forces on the ground, in the Coalition or in ISAF.
Over 6,000 ISAF troops support Afghan police and security forces in Kabul. NATO/ISAF has
expanded to Kunduz, and will expand further in the coming months.

Conclusion

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by acknowledging the seriousness of the challenges that we and the
Afghans face in rebuilding a country devastated by a generation of war and tyranny. But we are
pursuing the strategy I have outlined, and we have accelerated our efforts. Congress’s solid support
has made possible the gains we can point to. There is no doubt that the Administration and the
Congress have much to do together to complete what we have begun.

Thank you."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040429-rodman.htm



Frankly, Saberwielder, something smells here. Your claims of supporting America's efforts in the War on Terror are not supported by the tone of the articles you cite.

Nor are your claims that you support the Bush Administration.

If these were true, then the very authors you reference would more than suffice in supporting your assertions that some of Musharraf's activities appear suspicious, without all the anti-Bush and anti-American spin which you profess to disavow.

Of course they would also note the political pressure Musharraf is under and in many cases, concur with Administration policy. Is this why you prefer the tabloid accounts over the experts you claim to respect?

I must ask these questions, because the pattern established in the short time you have been posting here as Saberwielder appears clear to me, and judging from the posts in this thread, to others as well.

In fact, in light of allegations that you have posted previously at Free Republic under the name JimBr, the pattern appears set in concrete if these allegations are true, since that nom-de-guere posted articles such as:

Pakistan Lets Taliban Train, Prisoner Says
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184487/posts
New York Times

The real culprit of 9/11?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178281/posts
UPI

Pakistan produces the goods, again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184495/posts
Asia Times

Given the similarities, I must ask the question, did you post these articles under the name JimBr?

Do you know why JimBr's profile shows that that person was banned or suspended from posting on this website?

You claim to have superior knowlege, but the experts you cite do not share the rabid anti American fervor of the articles you post, either as JimBr, if in fact, that person was you, or as Saberwielder.

You claim that Musharraf is essentially an enemy, not to be trusted, but the best your "expert" Raman, as quoted in Asia Times, can come up with is that Musharraf knows a guy who knows a guy who knew Abu Zubaida.

Frankly, that is nowhere near enough proof for me. This is a serious issue, and if Musharraf really is, as you claim, selling us down the river, I think the readers here at Free Republic deserve much more than innuendo, name-dropping, and spin.

Your behavior raises serious questions as to your credibility, sir.

Would you care to address these matters?

[Saberwielder]

Ahh. I figured where Boot Hill was after he ran with his tail between his legs refusing to address my pointed questions to him.

I have patiently addressed every single question or comment posted here.

I should have known better than to try and engage people who use GPS databases as their main source of information on Pakistan or those who do not have the intellectual honesty to answer questions addressed to them. When people run away or indulge in personal attacks after faced with questions, it says a lot about their knowledge or lack of it. After all, why would a GPS guy want to expose his lack of knowledge discussing a topic with someone who actually knows something for a change? Doesn't make sense, does it? I mean, why waste time with facts when you can let your wishful thinking lead you down the garden path?

'Nuff said.

[Dog]

Why you pinging me....

[Saberwielder]

About the nick "JimBr." I used that nick but forgot the password. I was in a hurry to post and could not locate the link to where it emails you the new password. So I registered under a new nick. I figure FR uses cookies or IP or some method to track multiple registrations, so it banned the "JimBr" profile. Nothing malicious intended, for I would not have revealed my previous identity otherwise.

As to Musharraf, the operation I asked for was his leadership role in an attempt to recapture a key Indian post in the Siachen Glacier in 1987. That was his first and only lead role in an operation not counting the Kargil war. He was a Brigdier then.

Now to your points:

If so many of the people you note as experts on Pakistan agree with your premise that Musharraf's duplicity represents a threat to US interests, why do you only post and support articles from slagheaps like Asia Times?

Firstly, I did not post this thread. Secondly, this article was sent to me by the author himself and that's why I chose to participate in this discussion.

Surely in the myriad of think tanks you claim to inhabit, there is at least one open source research paper you could quote to support these allegations.

If you can point out specifically which allegations you want a reference to, I'll try and get you the papers/articles/testimony that you seek. Also, I do not claim to "inhabit" think-tanks but rather that I regularly attend events on South Asia or the Middle East hosted by many of the Washington based organizations.

I'll be at traveling for work today, so I may take until tomorrow to respond. In the meanwhile, you might want to think about why many people who recently retired from the Bush administration and dealt with Pakistan are unanimously critical of the appeasement policy towards Musharraf. Look at Marvin Weinbaum and Richard Haass both with the State Department.

I can find you several, indeed, many directly from the very...colleagues...you cite.

I can sense a bit of sarcasm here. Why don't we do this. Let me email you a document that I'm reviewing for a senior State Dept figure who is writing for a book on South Asian affairs. I can do so if you promise me not to give it to anyone. This book will be published in a couple of months.

As to Peter Rodman, I referred to him not as a critic of Pakistan but commenting on the increase in violence in Afghanistan by the Taliban remnants.

As to Barnett Rubin, he is an Afghanistan expert and is unlikely to have written anything on Pakistan's internal situation or in detail about our ties with Musharraf. What he did say was that the Taliban are NOT in the tribal areas and that they are in populated zones such as Quetta in Baluchistan.

If these were true, then the very authors you reference would more than suffice in supporting your assertions that some of Musharraf's activities appear suspicious, without all the anti-Bush and anti-American spin which you profess to disavow.

Note again that I did NOT post this piece but made it quite clear that I disavow any suggestions of collusion within the Bush administration.

You claim that Musharraf is essentially an enemy, not to be trusted, but the best your "expert" Raman, as quoted in Asia Times, can come up with is that Musharraf knows a guy who knows a guy who knew Abu Zubaida.

Wrong. What I said was - Musharraf did NOT arrest a guy who was housing Abu Zubaida and lets him operate freely. That was what I posted. Please do not attempt to misquote me. Also, if Congress, especially the Republican led House International Relations committee considers Mr.Raman as an expert good enough to be called multiple times to testify on terrorism in Asia, I think that is good enough as compared to your derisive innuendos.

While I have addressed every question/poser you had, You have chosen not to not to address some of the important points that I made, namely:

• Musharraf is replaceable and that the danger of an "Islamist coup" you refer to is virtually non-existent, refer to my detailed explanation of the above
• I refuted your point on the primary necessity of Pakistan as a base and logistical route towards Afghanistan. You have chosen to overlook it.
• I made some pertinent notes about how the ISI,Pak Army and Pak govt are essentially under the same control - that of Musharraf. You have chosen to ignore it.
• I made it clear the Naeem Noor Khan was a Walter Mitty like character and not a "top" catch and asked you for American sources that claim otherwise. You ignored it.

I request that you address those pertinent points. In the meanwhile I'll work on getting you the open source material from the various think-tanks in DC that deal with South Asia.

[Saberwielder]

I apologize. It was in response to a previous personal attack post by Boot Hill where you were copied.

[jeffers]

"Musharraf is replaceable and that the danger of an "Islamist coup" you refer to is virtually
non-existent, refer to my detailed explanation of the above."

Islamist Coup? Are you keeping track of who you are discussing what with?

Benazir's making noise, and she's not the only one. I'll agree that in the end the Army will probably prevail, but it won't be near as clean or as quick as you imply. The pressure in the tribal regions will drop during the interim, and if you understand the military situation on the ground, you understand that such defeats the purpose of the operation to begin with.

Of course, the author says there aren't any terrorists in the Shawal, so I'm guessing you feel that all the rockets and IEDs are coming from...tribesmen?


"I refuted your point on the primary necessity of Pakistan as a base and logistical route towards
Afghanistan. You have chosen to overlook it."

Ordinance travels on ships. We're already hurting having to fly it in over Pakistan, and you want to increase the airleg by orders of magnitude?

"I made some pertinent notes about how the ISI,Pak Army and Pak govt are essentially under the
same control - that of Musharraf. You have chosen to ignore it."

Al Qaeda's primary supporters are retired military and ISI. Musharraf running them too? Busy guy.

"I made it clear the Naeem Noor Khan was a Walter Mitty like character and not a "top" catch and
asked you for American sources that claim otherwise. You ignored it."

Ok, you don't type well and you don't read well. Check your premise and get back to me if you need additional clarification.

I don't "ignore" anything I read. If I don't respond, I'm telling you something. In the case of these four items, that something was that the questions as posed indicate ignorance, flat out inacxcuracy as to my position, or attempts to deceive.

However, you asked again, and I answered, all except the last one, which I simply can't, because it bears no resemblance to anything I've said.

Again, it's your turn, and I only have one more for you this round.

If Musharraf is doing such a crappy job, why has Al Qaeda tried to kill him at least three times?

I'll even throw you a bone. Don't go for the obvious response because there is a landmine in there. Take your time and do it right or don't answer at all.

If you can substantiate your claim to be reviewing a book by a SecState retiree, then I will honor your request not to publish any such material sent.

As far as any open source stuff goes, I'm good, and you can save the effort.

[Saberwielder]

If Musharraf is doing such a crappy job, why has Al Qaeda tried to kill him at least three times?

Wrong assumption. We do not know for sure that "Al Qaeda tried to kill him at least three times." We know of one serious attempt on Christmas day, 2003. That was not by Al Qaeda per se but Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistani jihadi group that Musharraf had anatagonized. Note that Jaish has made no more attempts on Musharraf since then. Why? Because he has made his peace with them by allowing its leaders to escape. The leader of Jaish, Masood Azhar was kept safe by a Musharraf confidante in the Punjab government. That has definitely been Musharraf's tack. He makes peace with local terrorists, appeases the Taliban but tries to calibrate the arrest of Arab Al Qaeda men. If the pressure gets more, Musharraf pulls out some Arabs out of his hat. Even Barnett Rubin says so:

Rubin agrees with authorities in Islamabad who argue that Pakistan's military does not control many parts of the tribal regions near the border. But Rubin said there are other reasons Taliban militants are not being arrested in Pakistan.

"The Pakistani military is moving against Al-Qaeda, [but] they're not doing anything against the Taliban. Most of the Taliban activities are not in the tribal territories," Rubin said. "They are in the city of Quetta. They are in Balochistan. They are in areas that are firmly under the control of the Pakistan government. Therefore, Pakistan has no credibility. They've been supplied with information about the exact location of various major Taliban leaders. And they have done nothing. Instead, whenever there is pressure on [Pakistan] about the Taliban, they arrest more Al-Qaeda people -- meaning people from Arab countries or from small extremist groups. But they do not move against the Taliban."

Now, the first two "attempts" on Musharraf's life were likely bogus. The Karachi plot was never independently verified and the first December attack reeked of stage management. The terrorists were able to line the entire length of a frequently used and well sureveiled bridge with explosives but no one noticed? Please. Of course Musharraf wants you to believe that Al Qaeda is after him. Sure Zawahiri called for a coup against him, for Musharraf is definitely impeding their operations, but that doesn't mean that Musharraf is NOT manipulating us.

Listen, I never said that Musharraf is the enemy or even an enemy. What he is is a cunning manipulator who seeks to always keep the AQ threat on America intact so that he can be a hero again and again by thwarting "terror plots." He is like a firefighter who moonlights as an arsonist. He also has not abandoned the use of terrorist groups to destabilize neighboring countries as well as keep his country in a boil. If Pakistan were stable, they would not need a strongman. He will not reform the madrassas nor clean up the ISI. Waiting for a mythical "Musharraf versus the big bad Pak ISI" fight will be futile. By not pressing him hard now, we are making it difficult for ourselves down the line.

[Saberwielder]

More in response.

Islamist Coup? Are you keeping track of who you are discussing what with? Benazir's making noise, and she's not the only one. I'll agree that in the end the Army will probably prevail, but it won't be near as clean or as quick as you imply. The pressure in the tribal regions will drop during the interim, and if you understand the military situation on the ground, you understand that such defeats the purpose of the operation to begin with.

IIRC, you brought up a suggestion that I was asking for Musharraf to be "deposed" when I was asking for more pressure of the sustained, hardball variety with him. What else could you have meant by that were you not talking about Musharraf being possibly deposed by the army/ISI?

Secondly, if you know your Pakistan history, you'd know that the chances that a civilian like Benazir Bhutto overthrows an army strongman like Musharraf are less than zero. She cannot even enter Pakistan now. The reverse is often true though. If Musharraf gets replaced, it will most likely be by his army subordinates who feel that he has been army chief for far too long for them to move up. The events in the tribal areas has very little to do with Musharraf's survival or longevity.

Of course, the author says there aren't any terrorists in the Shawal, so I'm guessing you feel that all the rockets and IEDs are coming from...tribesmen?

Firstly, I don't see where the author of this article claims that there are no terrorists in Shawal or elsewhere in the tribal zone. The point he is making is that there is little evidence of the presence of the mainly Arab Al Qaeda who are the main ones who seek to do us harm. I must note that there has been less than satisfactory evidence presented by the Paks that the "terrorists" they killed were "foreigners." Eve if there were a few "foreigners" - they have been Uzbeks, Chechens or uighurs who are of marginal threat to us. What Raman correctly points out is that the Paks have been brazenly exaggerating their "successes" in the tribal areas by passing off local tribesmen as Al Qaeda. See this report on how the Pak army killed a bunch of locals and passed them off as "foreigners." Let me give you more examples. Remember the "100s" of "foreign terrorists in the March sweep by the Pak army in South Waziristan? That was pack of lies. Read a report in The Friday Times dated April 7 titled "Captured foreign fighters and Pakistan's credibility" where the Pakistanis refused to present the fighters to the media, the Chinese, Uzbek and Russian governments who wanted to verify claims that Chechen, Uzebk and Uighurs were arrested. Soon after that, the Pakistanis quietly released them and it turns out that the arrested were almost all local tribesmen.

You have to realize that a significant part of the force resisting the Pak army in Waziristan is local in nature. The tribesmen do not want the Pak army presence there for its disturbs their bootleg commerce, kidnap business and drug movement. You'll be surprised to see how many sophisticated heavy weaponry the tribesmen have in their possession, including heavy mortars, anti-aircraft artillery, RPGs, arty shells, SAMs and the kitchen sink. They even make a business selling this stuff to anyone that can pay in dollars. Heard of Darra Adamkhel?

Given the track record of serial falsehoods perpetuated by the Pak military and government spokesmen regarding the operations in the tribal areas, we would all do well to treat any claims by them with a truckload of salt. There is little independent evidence or mention by American or Western sources that the folks like Ghailani or Zubaida were ever based in the tribal areas. All the AQ bigwigs have been found in big cities. The more we focus on the tribal zone, the less attention we pay to the cities, which suits the Pak government just fine.

Ordinance travels on ships. We're already hurting having to fly it in over Pakistan, and you want to increase the airleg by orders of magnitude?

It is not something that I want but something that is currently happening. Ask anyone who knows about CENTCOM ops. The primary logistics route is Germany-Uzbekistan-Bagram and Pakistani bases are used mainly for surveillance and bombing operations as well as to move out prisoners.

Al Qaeda's primary supporters are retired military and ISI. Musharraf running them too? Busy guy.

I never said that Musharraf is "running them" - "them" being the Al Qaeda supporters within the Pakistan establishment. Musharraf treats Al Qaeda as an asset. As long as they are around, he feels that he holds value to us. To that end, he is trying to "manage" the anti-terror effort by calibrating the arrest of Al Qaeda members and thereby allowing the organization to survive. With the number of people we have in our custody, AQ should already be a goner, but clearly isn't. Why? Because the infrastructure of terror still exists intact within Pakistan. The safehouses, the money supply chain, the local sympathizers, friendly neighborhood ISI agents and cops -they have been left untouched. If you think that Musharraf is going to do anything about the infrastructure because "he is good guy," you got another thing coming. Unless we pressure Musharraf hard, he is not going to move against his source of livelihood. No AQ base in Pakistan = No role for Musharraf.

Remember Gen. Mahmood Ahmad of the ISI? Musharraf fired him after we pressed him to but Gen. Ahmad is now back in black. Musharraf even attended Mahmoud's daughter's wedding recently. The ISI, the army and Musharraf play good cop-bad cop with us. Every bad act Musharraf can palm off on the "ISI rogues" while he basks in the glory of his "stellar" support to us. This game was passable in 2001, but not now. The ISI is led by his man. The Corps commanders are virtually family, the DG of Military Intelligence and Intel bureau and FIA are all his own men. There is absolutely no excuse now. If you want to keep buying the "Good Musharraf versus Bad ISI" snake oil, that is exactly what Musharraf wants.

[jeffers]

Ok, we can discuss details 27/4 for decades, and in all considered likelyhood, at the end of the argument, I'm simply not going to agree that there's a necessity for any significant change in current US policy with respect to Pakistan and President Musharraf.

I have examined your credentials and areas of expertise, and for the most part will now withdraw any questions regarding your credibility in these matters.

In fact, now that we have distilled the discussion down to its foundational elements, for the most part I choose not to contest your basic premise, regarding the reliability and intent on the part of Musharraf, and even its significance with respect to our ultimate objectives in Pakistan.

I will further grant your professed support for America and President Bush in the general sense, but I must confess, concerns remain regarding your additional influences, most especially those regarding apparant sympathy for an Indian take on current events.

I confess that much of this doubt may be in part due to the manner in which you have chosen to present your point of view. I must caution you that regardless of your intent and possible additional obligations, you would be more successful in selling improved walking sticks to hikers by hitting them over the head to demonstrate ther structural integrity than you have been or will be, in raising doubts about Musharraf, through the support of strongly anti-American or anti Bush references in this venue.

Further, there is no...valid...benefit in doing so as there are countless open source examples of corroborating evidence that raise this kind of doubt without the anti-American, anti-Bush, or anti-Pak/US coalition timbre of the efforts to date.

Having made these concessions, I am still 100% comfortable with the current US policy in the matter, both on a regional and on a global scale.

Not only can I make your case for you, indisputably, using more recent and pinpointed anecdotal evidence, without any disparagement except that focused directly on Musharraf, I can do the same, for example, Prince Nayaf in Saudi Arabia, and even raise similar doubts regarding Prince Abdullah in that country.

However, I also am of the considered opinion that neither of these situations is any more indicative of a need for policy change, either diplomatic or military, than are the doubts you attempt to raise.

I am not prepared to go into more detail in this matter, either privatly with you, in light of the remaining questions concerning your intent as outlined above, or in this venue, due to implications involving security.

If the day ever comes when America's primary, overriding terrorist and security concerns devolve to center on Pakistan and General Musharraf, I may revisit and quite likely even share your doubts, but for now, larger considerations demand a set of priorities and objectives which render the question of Musharraf's true intent both irrelevent and ultimately impossible to determine with any real confidence.

I further believe and wish to re-emphasize that in attempting to make your point, the choice of materials used in support of your point of view negatively affect our position in light of these larger considerations.

The key element in the future of the war on terrorism right now and for the forseeable future, is the question of who will formulate US global policy for the next four years.

Clearly the use or propagation of materials hostile to an Administration you say you favor, in support of what is curretly a sideshow in the strategic picture, is counter-productive.

By your own repeated admissions, the WMD threat level from Pakistan is unlikely to change, regardless of who runs that country, and I am sure that both you and I are aware of situations where this isn't
the case.

In order to meet the now minimal objectives vis-a-vis Pakistan, I believe we have ample resources in that country to verify that which we need to verify. The country's electronic communications systems are transparent to us, and I am more than satisfied with the organic elements of US oversight we have managed to place, at this time.

Unless you manage to raise unexpected dimensions in your final rebuttal here, I am reasonably convinced that further discussion on this subject will result in exponentially diminishing returns, and this is about as far as I'm willing to pursue this for now.

[Boot Hill]

The gapping hole in Saberwielder's argument can be seen when you string his assertions together.

According to Saberwielder...

1. Pakistan is rife with Islamists that permeate every segment of society and government. (no news there)
2. Mushi could clean up this mess, but he's won't.
3. Instead, he just jerking us around and stalling us.
4. We have the means to push him harder to do much more.
5. And if we do push him harder, Mushi is unlikely to fall, but...
6. If he does fall, all that will happen is another Mushi clone from the Army will take his place. No harm, not foul.
7. But in any event, "there is no chance of a Islamist coup", to fear as a consequence of pushing Mushi too hard.

1. Pakistan is rife with Islamists that permeate every segment of society and government.
REBUTTLE: Duh!

2. Mushi could clean up this mess, but he's won't.
REBUTTLE: Mushi may be a "strong man" leader, but he is not omnipotent, i.e., he can't just go ahead and do anything that he damn well pleases without any repercussion. As Saberwielder himself has pointed out, Mushi serves at the pleasure of the nine Army corps commanders, and, of course we know, the army is riddled with Islamists who hate America.

3. Instead, he just jerking us around and stalling us.
REBUTTLE: Passion, fervor and hot blood are no substitute for patient, thoughtful strategic planning and follow through.

4. We have the means to push him harder to do much more.
REBUTTLE: I don't believe that Pakistan is in as financially precarious a position as Saberwielder characterizes. And even if it were, I don't think that this is the kind of ace-in-the-hole leverage that he claims. Pakistan has their own leverage to use against us. (a.)It's a sellers market and they've got something we want, more than what they want from us. (b.)They can cut off our access to Afghanistan (see below).

5. And if we do push him harder, Mushi is unlikely to fall...
REBUTTLE: From your lips to God's ear.

6. If he does fall, all that will happen is another Mushi clone from the Army will take his place. No harm, no foul.
REBUTTLE: If as the result of a coup, Pakistan cuts off our access to Afghanistan, we're dead. Despite the BS that Saberwielder lays down, his laughable "air bridge to Bagram via Uzbekistan and Germany" would have great difficulty supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan, much less supporting ongoing operations. And that's giving the Russians and the former Soviet republics (not to mention Europe) the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't take political advantage of the situation by denying further over-flights.

7. But in any event, "there is no chance of a Islamist coup", to fear as a consequence of pushing Mushi too hard.
REBUTTLE: But how can there be NO chance (not "virtually" no chance) of an Islamist coup if, as Saberwielder asserts, the Army, the ISI and virtually every other organ of government is overrun with Islamists? Now ask yourself what would be the worst possible scenario would be, for a nuclear armed country to fall into the hands of Islamists?

Saberwielder's cavalier disclaimer of any possibility of an Islamist coup may someday have to be paid for with the lives of 10 million New Yorkers. Would a person whose allegiance was solely to America, be that blasé about such a possibility?

--Boot Hill

[Saberwielder]

Fair enough. I concur that we have reached a point where the law of diminishing marginal utility tells us that further back and forth may not be worth both our time. Let's agree to disagree on this topic. I'd like to make a few comments before I set this to rest however.

1. I'd like to apologize for the angry tone and any personal attack appearance in my posts. I was ticked off by something that I thought were questioning my integrity. I should have handled it calmly but did not.
2. In retrospect, I regret posting articles from people with whom I share some views with, nevertheless displayed overt or sly anti-Americanism. Henceforth I'll be more careful when endorsing the views of analysts such as Raman or Kapisthalam. I'll also strive to pay close attention to the media outlets. After some research, Asia Times appears to have much more of an overt agenda than what I thought it had.
3. I fully agree with you that disagreements on the treatment of dubious allies in the war on terror pales in comparison with who sets the grand policy table for the next four years. I'd hate to do anything to help Kerry become President just because I'm not satisfied with Bush on this issue. That is like the proverbial cutting of your nose to spite your face.
4. The one thing I urge you to look deeper into as time goes on is at the claims made by the Paks. I for one would treat any word coming out of a Pak official's mouth as untrue unless endorsed by an American official, when it comes to the war on terror or nuclear proliferation. My main gripe here is that people far too often take the Pakistani claims at face value. Some Pakistanis I know tell me privately that they laugh when they see how it is so easy to manipulate the American media from Islamabad as every reporter seems eager to lap up any press briefing where "terror" or "jihad" is mentioned.
5. Finally, I'll continue to strive to post my views on this topic, while taking care to look at the sources I present.