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?
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.