Posted on 08/31/2004 6:56:32 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the ISI / KSM link? I think the story of General Ahmad Mahmoud goes a long way towards the answer to that question.
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
The answer to this question is simple. Were Musharraf to be killed, the following things will likely happen in Pakistan:
"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.
the mastermind of 9/11 was Khalid Sheik Muhammed.
where is he?
what city was he captured in?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
| “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)
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?
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.
Why you pinging me....
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:
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.
I apologize. It was in response to a previous personal attack post by Boot Hill where you were copied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.