US turns against Musharraf

[carlitos]

Bogeyman#1..

Pakistan's Musharraf: Bin Laden probably dead

January 18, 2002 Posted: 10:34 PM EST (0334 GMT)
Musharraf: I would give the first priority that he is dead
Musharraf: I would give the first priority that he is dead
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com
Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article

Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article
View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.

"I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient," Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Friday in an interview with CNN.

Musharraf said Pakistan knew bin Laden took two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. "One was specifically for his own personal use," he said.

"I don't know if he has been getting all that treatment in Afghanistan now. And the photographs that have been shown of him on television show him extremely weak. ... I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan."
U.S. officials skeptical
VIDEO
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf gives an exclusive interview with CNN's Tom Mintier

Part 1 | 2 | 3
(QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)


In Washington, a senior Bush administration official said Musharraf reached "reasonable conclusion" but warned it is only a guess.

"He is using very reasonable deductive reasoning, (but) we don't know (bin Laden) is dead," said the official, who requested anonymity. "We don't have remains or evidence of his death. So it is a decent and reasonable conclusion -- a good guess but it is a guess."

The official said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and "it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout."

Other U.S. officials contradicted the reports of bin Laden's health problems, saying there is "no evidence" the suspected terrorist mastermind has ever suffered kidney failure or required kidney dialysis. The officials called such suggestions a "recurrent rumor."

Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in central and southwest Asia, said Friday that he had not seen any intelligence confirming or denying Musharraf's statements on bin Laden's condition.

The United States has said that bin Laden is the prime suspect in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed about 3,000 people.
Hunt for bin Laden

The United States launched its campaign in Afghanistan after the country's ruling Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

Earlier this week U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he believed bin Laden and Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Mohammed Omar were inside Afghanistan but "we are looking at some other places as well from time to time."

Rumsfeld noted there were dozens of conflicting intelligence reports each day and said most of them were wrong. Most of the reports are based on sightings by local Afghans that cannot be verified.

There are reports that bin Laden and his convoys have been sighted recently by a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle.

A senior Defense Department source said the lack of credible information about the two was so severe that many officials believe the U.S. would catch bin Laden or Omar only through pure luck, or an "intelligence break" -- essentially one of their associates turning them in.

Top CIA analysts who track bin Laden and Omar have been asked for their best assessment on the two men's whereabouts. That has led to a variety of thoughts, placing bin Laden in Afghanistan, in Pakistan or Iran, on the open ocean onboard a ship, or headed north through Tajikistan or Uzbekistan -- if he is still alive.

The videotape seen worldwide several weeks ago of bin Laden talking about the September 11 attacks was made in Kandahar. He then apparently disappeared -- possibly going north to Tora Bora.

Franks said there was evidence bin Laden was in Tora Bora but he gave no indication of when that might have been. In October, intelligence officials thought they had bin Laden pinned down to a 10-square-mile area in the eastern central mountains of Afghanistan.

Two senior military officers told CNN it would not have been hard for bin Laden to change location several times because vast areas of Afghanistan are virtually unseen by the U.S. military, and he would have been even harder to spot if he moved without his telltale large security contingent.

Even before the war, bin Laden moved around frequently, making it difficult for the United States to determine his location and launch an attack against him.



Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis

Renal dialysis -- talking about hemodialysis -- is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down.

The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're separated from your dialysis machine -- and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they're going to require clean water, they're going to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge risk with that. If you don't have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at the most. [CNN]

 

[carlitos]

Re: Bogeyman#1..

Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead

Monday, October 7, 2002 Posted: 2:34 AM EDT (0634 GMT)
Karzai says the Taliban poses a minimal threat to his government
Karzai says the Taliban poses a minimal threat to his government



KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead, but former Taliban leader Mullah Omar is alive, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said.

Karzai's comments came on the eve of the anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan as part of the war on terrorism.

The campaign ousted the Taliban regime, which the United States said harbored bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorism network, the group blamed for the September 11 attacks.

"I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead," Karzai said on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.

"But still, you never know. He might be alive. Five months ago, six months ago, I was thinking that he was alive.

"The more we don't hear of him, and the more time passes, there is the likelihood that he probably is either dead or seriously wounded somewhere."

But he said Omar is certainly alive. "We know of that," he said. "And we have come close to arresting him several times, but he's been able to escape."

U.S. forces also have searched for Omar.

Karzai, leader of Afghanistan's interim government, said Omar is a difficult man to track down "because nobody knows him by face. Nobody can recognize him. If you came across him today, somewhere in Afghanistan or in the rest of the world, you wouldn't recognize him. So that's part of the problem with him.

"I believe he is most of the time inside Afghanistan. He could go, from time to time, toward our borders, but he stays around the Afghan area, sometimes close to the borders," Karzai said.
No threat

He contended the Taliban, which the United States designated a "terrorist" group, is a minimal threat to his government.

"They are now a group on the run. They are no longer a government. They are no longer a political movement. They are no longer a reality in Afghanistan," Karzai said.

"We don't see them as a danger in any way, of course. As a terrorist organization, as terrorist individuals, they may try to strike and they may try to assassinate or shoot people or lob bombs. That kind of activity they can do, but not a political or military threat anymore."

Karzai, who was the target of an assassination attempt September 5, said the perpetrator has been identified and is "someone very, very close to the Taliban."

He insisted he is not afraid for his life: "I trust God's keeping, and when he decides I'll not be here anymore, that will be the moment. Before that, I have no fears."

Karzai said U.S. and allied forces are helping to stabilize and keep Afghanistan "away from dangers," partly by training Afghan security forces.

But "there are other areas in which the international community has not delivered the promises that they made, especially in the reconstruction of the basic infrastructure of Afghanistan."

Karzai said his country has not received the economic support it expected from the international community for rebuilding efforts.

It is not clear how much longer the United States and its allies will need to keep a military presence in Afghanistan, Karzai said. But "at this point, I think it will be very, very unwise to think that Afghanistan can be left alone."

In the midst of a U.S. debate over possible military action against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, Karzai said he is unconcerned that the United States might shift its attention from Afghanistan to that country.

President Bush's administration has threatened Iraq with military action, accusing it of expanding and developing weapons of mass destruction.

"But I would like to remind our friends in the United States and in the international community that we have to really finish the job in Afghanistan completely," Karzai said.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Bogeyman#1..

... January 18, 2002 ... Musharraf: I would give the first priority that he is dead

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.

.
<font size="3">June 25, 2003</font size>

[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/25/wbr.musharraf/[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

Re: Bogeyman#1..

<font size="3">October 10, 2005</font size>

<font size="5"><center>No Evidence Bin Laden Hurt or Killed<font size></center>

Katherine Shrader, Associated Press

WASHINGTON, 10 October 2005 — No evidence suggests that the deadly earthquake that rocked Pakistan on Saturday injured or killed the world’s top terror leader, Osama Bin Laden.

The quake shook the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Bin Laden is believed to be hiding. However, authorities at this point have no information indicating he’s been injured or killed, said a US official.

Bin Laden guided the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks aimed at New York City and Washington.

US hopes for Bin Laden’s death or capture were high in December 2001, when US and Afghan troops surrounded a cave complex sheltering Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora region. But Bin Laden escaped and is now believed to be living a relatively isolated existence to evade capture.

He was last seen publicly on a videotaped message before the November 2004 elections.

Meanwhile, scores of activists from an Islamist charity linked to a banned Pakistani militant organization died in the devastating earthquake.

The militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, was outlawed by Pakistan in January 2002, a month after its fighters were accused of taking part in an attack on India’s Parliament in New Delhi.

A spokesman for Jamat-ud-Dawa, a group drawn from the ranks of Lashkar, said the charity’s mosques, hospitals, schools and seminaries were obliterated in Saturday’s earthquake. “Many of our members have been killed. They are in scores while several others are still trapped under the rubble,” the spokesman said yesterday.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sec...d=10&m=10&y=2005&pix=world.jpg&category=World

 

[QueEx]

Re: Bogeyman#1..

<font size="3"> ... now what ?</font size>

QueEx

 

[carlitos]

Re: Bogeyman#1..

World Tribune.com

Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, October 16, 2002

TEL AVIV — Osama Bin Laden appears to be dead but his colleagues have decided that Al Qaida and its insurgency campaign against the United States will continue, Israeli intelligence sources said.

Al Qaida terrorists have launched a new campaign of economic warfare and are targeting shipping in the Middle East, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported.

But Bin Laden's heir has been chosen and his colleagues have decided to resume Al Qaida's offensive against the United States and Western allies, the sources said.
Health insurance for the self-employed: Special offer
They said the organization regards the United States as the main target followed by Israel.

"In this case, it doesn't matter whether Bin Laden is alive or not," a senior Israeli intelligence source said. "The organization goes on with help from key people."

The sources said Al Qaida has already determined Bin Laden's heir. They said the heir has not been identified, but is probably not Bin Laden's son, Saad. Saad is said to be in his 20s and ranked within the top 20 members of Al Qaida.

Earlier this week, Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, was said to have released a videotape in which he claims that the Al Qaida leader is alive and functioning. Bin Laden's voice was not heard on the tape.

A senior Bush administration economic official said last week that another major Al Qaida attack anywhere in the world could have devastating economic repercussions.

The FBI warned last week that Al Qaida may be preparing for a major attack. The warning followed the release of an audio tape featuring the voice of Zawahiri.

Bombings in Bali aimed at tourists, an attack on U.S. soldiers training in Kuwait and the bombing of a French tanker in Yemen are signs of the new campaign, Geostrategy-Direct.com reported in its Oct. 22 edition.

The first attack was carried out last week with the Al Qaida terrorist attack on the French tanker Limburg, a 157,000-ton ultra large crude oil carrier, that was bombed as it picked up a pilot before mooring at the Yemeni port of al Shihr.

One crew member was killed and others were injured in the blast.

According to intelligence officials, a small boat approached at high speed from the starboard side of the ship and detonated a large explosive device.

A week earlier, the Office of Naval Intelligence issued an alert to ships in the Middle East to be alert for Al Qaida terrorist attacks.

Print this Article Print this Article Email this article Email this article Subscribe to this Feature Free Headline Alerts
Google
Search Worldwide Web Search WorldTribune.com Search WorldTrib Archives
See current edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com
Return to World Tribune.com Front Cover

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA12Df01.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HA12Df01.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>

[hide]Jan 12, 2006

US turns against Musharraf
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a military coup in 1999 and, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, still in effect rules as a military dictator.

Musharraf's firm grip on the affairs of state has until now served Washington's interests well, as he has been able to steer the country into the US camp as an ally in the "war on terror".

However, with the Taliban nowhere near defeated in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda still unbroken (the two major reasons that the US solicited Pakistan's assistance in the first place), the US is looking at its allies in Islamabad in a new light:

Musharraf may be more the problem than the solution.

An indication of how things have slipped in the region is news that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has openly called for a truce with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. This was not how events were supposed to play out.

According to sources close to the power corridors in Washington who spoke to Asia Times Online, the administration of US President George W Bush is now convinced that a weaker Pakistani army is as necessary now as a powerful one was when Islamabad did a U-turn on its support for the Taliban soon after September 11, 2001.

This realization has taken root over the past few months, and developments since last November have been enough to set alarm bells ringing among the military leadership of Pakistan.

Goings-on in Balochistan
Rebellious tribesmen in the restive but resource-rich province of Balochistan have for decades challenged the writ of the central government in Islamabad. The Baloch insurgents have traditionally received weapons via Kandahar in Afghanistan, and via sea smuggling routes.

The Pakistani army has engaged in a number of operations in Balochistan over the years, and the most recent is continuing. The involvement of the military is highly unpopular not only among Balochis, but also among many segments of Pakistani society.

What is new in Balochistan, and which is causing concern in Islamabad, is the emergence of two sons of insurgent tribal chief Nawab Khair Bux Muri as organizers of a strong financial network to fund the insurgency.

"The whole operation of financing the Baloch insurgency is directed from Qatar, although this is a very unlikely place. One of the sons of Khair Bux Muri - Gazn Muri - has been shuttling between Qatar and the UAE [United Arab Emirates] and is the main financial link between the insurgents in Balochistan, where command is in the hands of a brother, Balaach Muri," a top Pakistani security official told Asia Times Online.

"The real question, though, is not the transmission of money, but from where Gazn Muri is getting this kind of huge money. The answer lies in the activities of another brother, Harbayar Muri, who is based in London."

Although the official would not spell it out in as many words, he was questioning how Harbayar Muri could raise funds in Britain, where there is a negligible Balochi expatriate community. It was a clear hint at the involvement of Western intelligence agencies, which have strong centers of operations in Qatar-UAE and London.

Political maneuvering
The US is also making some backroom political moves in relation to Pakistan's interests in the region.

According to a contact who spoke to Asia Times Online, a person close to the US Central Intelligence Agency paid a low-profile visit to New Delhi in the third week of December and briefed strategic planners on Washington's plan to try to curtail the role of the Pakistani army, while at the same time renewing support for democratic forces in Pakistan.

India's cold shoulder on the diplomatic front toward Pakistan and a policy statement against the military operation in Balochistan was an immediate outcome. Islamabad promptly responded by accusing India of meddling in Balochistan, charges that Delhi strenuously denied.

The same person then visited Islamabad and held high-level meetings with political personalities. On his return to the US he stopped over in Dubai in the UAE and held detailed meetings with former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto, who lives there.

A sudden upsurge in the activities in Pakistan of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy - which Bhutto supports - followed.

Musharraf's mystique
The US first made contact with Musharraf in a meaningful way when he was still Corps Commander Mangla and he approached the Americans through a Pakistani mediator. Musharraf had no particular request, but the move was seen as "unusual and meaningful".

The US concluded first that he was ambitious and only wanted power, and that he had a flawed, "split" vision.

US officials noted that to build a constituency in the Pakistani Army, Musharraf embraced the Kashmir issue and enthusiastically supported the liberation movement there.

Last year's earthquake in Kashmir, in which the extensive jihadi influence in Pakistan-administered Kashmir was made clear (they played a significant part in relief operations), convinced the Americans that the Pakistani army would never back out from its strategic activities in Kashmir through supporting the armed struggle in the Indian-administered part of the Valley.

Musharraf, who derives much of his legitimacy from the army, simply cannot afford to abandon this cause. The militancy will continue.

In this regard, the US noted the ill-fated Pakistani army venture into Kargil in Kashmir in 1999, which was conceived by Musharraf shortly before he took power. Pakistan believed that India would respond to the aggression by going to the peace table, but instead it launched its troops in a full-out assault, quite ready to go to all-out war. Pakistan pulled back its troops from the ill-conceived operation.

On the domestic front, the Musharraf administration in essence facilitated the formation of the the six-party alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), which made impressive political gains in the general elections of 2002.

The aim was to scare the Americans by pointing to the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism in order to garner US support for Musharraf's uniform.

Similarly, the sweeping defeat of the MMA in local elections late last year amid widespread claims of fraud was to show the Americans that Musharraf had the ability to outwit fundamentalism. In this game, Musharraf's split vision does not allow him to visualize what kind of a message he is really passing on to Washington.

According to Asia Times Online information, Washington has now decided that the best outcome would be for a new man to replace Musharraf, 64, as chief of army staff, and at the same time to encourage liberal democratic forces to take over parliament.

As for Musharraf, the ideal way out for him is to become a civilian constitutional head of the country.

Syed Saleem Shahzadis Bureau Chief, Pakistan Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
[/hide]

 

[Fuckallyall]

Very interesting. Very, very interesting. I had always wondered when the US would put pressure on Pakistan to hold elections. I see now that maybe we were hedging our bet.

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/March/subcontinent_March310.xml&section=subcontinent&col=" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/March/subcontinent_March310.xml&section=subcontinent&col=">link</A>

</IFRAME>

[hide]Musharraf moving towards independent foreign policy
From Afzal Khan (Our correspondent)

9 March 2006



ISLAMABAD — President General Pervez Musharraf has begun charting an independent foreign policy with indications of defiance of the United States on various issues, according to a new study.


It cited Musharraf's resolve to pursue talks with Iran on the construction of a pipeline to allow the export of gas to India and Pakistan as one of several instances in this contest. This is one of the conclusions reached by the study completed by Owen Bennett Jones of the BBC and Dr Farzana Shaikh of the Pakistan Study Group, which works under the aegis of the Asia Programme at Chatham House, London.

The authors maintain that since 9/11 Gen. Musharraf has been caught between the Bush "war on terror" and Pakistan's pro-Islamic parties. Despite an improving economy with American help, the country faces difficult choices. Continuing unrest in Afghanistan and the slow pace of the composite dialogue with India could result in growing opposition from groups unwilling to accept any weakening of Pakistan's influence in the region or shift in the conduct of its regional policy. The Pakistani military leader, mindful of these risks, has broadened his foreign policy options. "Despite the improving relations between Beijing and Delhi, Musharraf is determined to keep Pakistan's status as China's closest ally in the region. This is partly an attempt to recast Pakistan's relations with the United States along more independent lines," the two authors write. They also consider the decision to reach out to Israel as part of that drive.

Jones and Shaikh argue that Gen. Musharraf's tough choices in the wake of major international developments and shifts within the South Asian region since 9/11 could determine the very survival of his regime. While it is clear that his staying in power depends upon a close alliance with the United States in the "war on terror," he cannot afford to abandon his support for militant groups in Kashmir without risking his political credibility and possibly his personal safety at home.

However, attempts by the United States to strengthen India's position as the main regional power in South Asia have prompted Gen. Musharraf to try to steer a more independent foreign policy predicated on strengthening ties with other major powers, especially China, refusing to surrender influence in Afghanistan and boldly initiating contacts with Israel. The aim is to pacify critics at home without endangering his international standing as the champion of "enlightened moderation."

The two authors take the view that Gen. Musharraf's problems are more complex than those faced by Gen. Zia-ul-Haq in that India is now an ally of the United States, unlike those days when it leaned towards Moscow. India's growing economic might has regional implications.

China's long-standing hostility to India is being transformed by Beijing's and Delhi's mutual interest in improving their trading and wider bilateral relations. The rising costs of the Kashmir dispute have induced Pakistan to try to reach an agreement on its solution. However, India has shown no sign of reciprocating the various options initiated by General Musharraf. Consequently, the chances of the peace process succeeding are slim.

An economically more stable Pakistan, Jones and Shaikh believe, has increased the international legitimacy of the Musharraf regime. He has projected his government as the only reliable defence against a militant takeover in Pakistan.

[/hide]

 

[carlitos]

Good read Q..
I think Musharaf just realized his a$$ got played after the very hard work his secret service did to assist in 911 n is very pissed off
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26249

NEW REVELATIONS ON 9-11

Was it an ‘intelligence failure’ to give red carpet treatment to the ‘money man’ behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply ‘routine’?

On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
"When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.

(...)

Mahmoud Ahmad, director general of Pakistan's intelligence service, was "very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States," Graham said.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Bush Seeks Increased Pakistani Cooperation</font size>
<font size="4">Musharraf Vows Fight Against 'Talibanization'</font size></center>

Washington Post
By Michael Abramowitz and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 23, 2006; Page A02

President Bush yesterday launched a new round of personal diplomacy aimed at patching up the tense relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban insurgency is posing new challenges for an administration already struggling to pacify Iraq.

Bush met at the White House with Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who assured the U.S. president of his desire to root out the Taliban and other extremists. The visit came amid controversy over Musharraf's claims in a forthcoming memoir that the Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "to the Stone Age" if it failed to cooperate with the United States against al-Qaeda and the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Bush is scheduled to meet Tuesday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has complained repeatedly about Pakistan offering a haven to Taliban militants conducting armed attacks inside his country.

And in a twist from Bush's normal practice, the three leaders are then planning to dine together at the White House on Wednesday, part of what White House aides described yesterday as an effort to build a better long-term relationship between two key allies in the U.S. battle against al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups.

Outside experts also saw the meetings as part of heightened administration concern over rising violence in Afghanistan and the increasing sway of the Taliban over swaths of the country only five years after they were rousted from power by a U.S.-led invasion. The number of U.S. troops there has swelled in recent years to 20,000, most of them stationed along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan. An additional 20,000 NATO troops are battling the Taliban in the south.

White House aides said a chunk of yesterday's hour-long meeting was devoted to Musharraf explaining to Bush the recent pact he reached with Islamic militants in Pakistan's border region. The pact requires foreign militants to leave the tribal area of North Waziristan or take up a peaceable life, and it forbids imposing draconian religious edicts. But it has been greeted skeptically by many human rights activists and regional experts as a concession to Islamic extremists that will be impossible to enforce.

Appearing with Bush at an East Room news conference after their session, Musharraf said he assured the U.S. president that the pact was intended to rein in extremist violence. "There will be no al-Qaeda activity in our tribal [area] or across the border in Afghanistan," Musharraf said. "There will be no Taliban activity. . . . There will be no Talibanization."

Bush said he was satisfied with those assurances. "When the president looks me in the eye and says the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won't be a Taliban and won't be al-Qaeda, I believe him," he said.

Both presidents were asked about Musharraf's claim -- to be aired Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" -- that former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage had issued a "Stone Age" bombing threat in the days after Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush said he was "taken aback by the harshness of the words" attributed to Armitage but had no knowledge of such a threat. He said the first he heard of it was in the newspaper Friday.

Armitage categorically denied it. "I've never made a threat in my life that I couldn't back up," he told CNN, "and since I wasn't authorized to say such a thing and hence couldn't back up that threat, I never said it." Asked separately to comment on the report, Armitage's then-boss, former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, said there was "no such bombing threat."

The CBS interview is part of Musharraf's own promotion for U.S. publication of his memoirs next week. Musharraf said at the news conference that he could reveal no more because he was "honor-bound" to his publisher, Simon & Schuster, to keep the book under wraps until next week -- an assertion that seemed to amuse President Bush.

As he shook hands with Musharraf after the news conference, Bush smiled and told reporters, "Buy the book."

In the "60 Minutes" interview, Musharraf said that Armitage made the threat to Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, Pakistan's intelligence chief, the day after the Sept. 11 attacks by al-Qaeda. Pakistan was one of only three nations that maintained diplomatic relations with the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda members were known to move freely in the mountainous border area between the two countries.

As was publicly reported shortly after their meeting, Armitage told Mahmood that Pakistan would have to choose sides between the Taliban and the United States, which wanted it to cut all ties with the Afghans and cooperate with planned retaliation for the attacks. Armitage described it yesterday as "a very straightforward conversation" held in his State Department office. "I told him that for Americans this was black or white, that Pakistan was either with us fully or not. It wasn't a matter of being able to negotiate it."

Musharraf's promise yesterday of greater cooperation in fighting the Taliban drew mixed reaction from outside experts on the region, who noted that militia commanders continue to operate in the Pakistani provincial capital Quetta -- with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government. "The problem is Musharraf is proving to be an incredibly grudging ally," said Robert Templer, director of the Asia program for the International Crisis Group, which closely monitors events in Pakistan and Afghanistan. "He has received a lot of U.S. aid, and he is simply not delivering on the really critical security issues."

But Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, said he thinks the administration is on the right track in prodding the two South Asian leaders. "Both Musharraf and Karzai need to recognize . . that they are on the same side of the battle and need to stop sniping at one another," he said. But he voiced concern that "we are in danger of losing Afghanistan a second time," urging greater U.S. and allied attention to the problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092200105.html?referrer=email

 

[muckraker10021]

<img src="http://online.wsj.com/img/wsj_header_408_62.gif">

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Musharrafistan</font><font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
by Mansoor Ijaz
September 19, 2006; Page A20</b>

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users2&url=http://online.wsj.com/home/us?mod=PQPPV

Gen. Pervez Musharraf will speak tomorrow at the Clinton Global Initiative's plenary session on "Urgent Issues and Innovative Solutions" -- an apt title for a talk by the Pakistani ruler given the urgency and array of problems he faces at home. Pakistan needs not just innovative solutions for its difficulties, but a leader with ideas to frame them and the guts to implement them. Increasingly, Gen. Musharraf does not appear to be that man.<div align="right"><table border="3" width="19%" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#660066" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" bordercolordark="#800080" align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td width="140"><img src="http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/images/musharraf.jpg"></td><td>
<img src="http://www.libertaddigital.com/fotos/noticias/sumusharrafbush.jpg" width="153" height="170"></td></tr></table></div>
His Pakistan has become a sad story of contradictions. Islamabad is propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars to be the frontline ally in America's war against extremists, yet Gen. Musharraf has repeatedly appeased radicals for political gain while al Qaeda leaders actively use his soil to plan attacks around the world. The British transatlantic jumbo-jet terror plot last month was a case in point -- Pakistan's arrests of militants in Karachi, Lahore and along the Afghan border may have helped expose the plan, but British nationals of Pakistani origin visited the country to meet al Qaeda co-conspirators and allegedly issued the "Go" instruction from Pakistani soil.

Another example emerged in late August, when the Musharraf regime signed a peace treaty with restless tribal chieftains in the northern frontiers along the border with Afghanistan that effectively ended the hunt for Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man. The northern tribal areas are now left unattended to become a state within the state that offers haven to the civilized world's worst enemies. The irony could not be more complete -- America's staunchest ally presides over the breeding grounds of the very people who seek to kill as many Americans as they can, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

* * *
There are other disturbing hypocrisies. Gen. Musharraf's regime manages to pour billions into plutonium processing plants and, soon, into Chinese nuclear reactors, but cannot find enough money to feed or educate Pakistan's children -- many of whom are growing up to be tomorrow's extremists. Rogue elements inside Islamabad's nuclear program are permitted to arm dangerously unstable governments with nuclear technology and know-how in pursuit of ill-gotten gains -- and some misguided notion of an Islamist panacea. But science and math are off the curriculum at the nation's radicalized, Saudi-funded madrassahs. And Pakistan's economic potential remains locked in a feudal past, where land and labor are the bane of corrupt barons who pander to an army that no longer acts as guardian of the state, but as if it is the state.


Neighborly relations are equally dismal despite recent attempts to shore them up. Gen. Musharraf continues to court Tehran's mullahs, raising Washington's ire, in hopes of building an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could fund a revival of the Kashmiris' militant insurgency against India, and keep his restive Inter-Services Intelligence minders happy. His peace overtures to New Delhi, including his recent commitment to restart stalled peace talks at a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Cuba, ring hollow after evidence seems to prove time and again that Pakistani soil -- and resources made available from Pakistan -- are being used to back terrorist attacks against India.

Gen. Musharraf's recent trip to Kabul, made under heavy pressure from Washington, was little more than an exercise in damage control. A resurgent Taliban has successfully used its northern Pakistani sanctuary to launch attacks on Hamid Karzai's government while bringing down U.S. helicopters with shoulder-fired missiles. Anywhere else, such actions would be sufficient to disqualify a head of state from remaining in government.

Pakistan has lost its identity. It is a client state for sale to the highest bidder for the purpose that suits the moment: to the U.S. after 9/11 as the staging grounds for hunting down terrorists; to Saudi Arabia since the Iranian revolution so that Wahhabist Islam could flourish next door to Shiite Iran; and to China as a strategic counterbalance to India's growing power. While this short-sighted strategy may help ward off complete state failure, it does not provide fertile ground for imaginative plans to realize the country's potential. Gen. Musharraf must stop being all things to all people, and gather the resolve to tackle what is wrong with Pakistan -- or step down from power. He, or his successor, needs to do the following, and fast:

End the hypocritical alliance with jihadist parties and Islamist activists. Pakistan in the 1970s tolerated student-protest movements, trade unions and serf cooperatives. Political thinking thrived. But Gen. Musharraf's power grab in October 1999 resulted in the death of Pakistan's political class and the institutions that sustain democratic rule. Political necessity and the realities of a post-9/11 world forced him to make a devil's bargain with religious zealots that destroyed what was left of Pakistan's polity. Islamists, however, want the "one man, one vote, one time" version of democracy, not constitutionally assured electoral continuity.

Pakistan's next leader needs to rebuild the foundations of self-rule by bringing back debate, permitting protest and reviving analytical thinking as the cornerstones of a functioning polity. Democratic institutions and protections are rights and privileges no single man has the authority to deprive a nation of.

Change the direction of the nuclear program. Pakistan's next leader needs to radically rethink its nuclear policy. The army has enough bombs in storage to blow up the world, so why build expensive plutonium plants that only churn out less detectable, easily transportable bomb-making material that will force the world to spend excessive resources in policing an indeterminate threat? Why not make the nuclear program transparent -- and remote from fanatics -- by inviting international teams to man its nuclear facilities? That way, Pakistan could soon serve as a global processing center to handle nuclear materials for a wide array of countries under a new non-proliferation regime. That is the path India is likely to choose when its reactors are refurbished under the new U.S.-India nuclear pact. Safe, civilian nuclear energy available to Pakistan's citizenry and one day, to the rest of the world, is the best use of Pakistan's nuclear talents.

Build a real economy that integrates Pakistan into the world. Pakistanis are a most industrious and intelligent workforce; expatriate income is a cornerstone of Pakistan's economy. Just witness Dubai's construction-boom riches flowing into the country unabated. Yet Pakistan's feudal class has stifled domestic growth and crippled the economy at home by manipulating industrial output, failing to reinvest in business and indulging corruption on the grandest of scales.

The next leader needs to formulate an imaginative proposal to wean the country off the dependencies that define feudal politics, and give the landowning class a stake in a modern, industrial economy. Land barons can profit from letting land to large, agrarian multinational businesses with modern technology that improves productivity, as opposed to taxing their serfs into oblivion.

Construct real peace, not mirages that mask tension. Pakistan's neighbors no longer have cause to want to destabilize it, and, in fact, would prefer a strong and stable country on their borders. India is busy building a world-class economy; making peace with Pakistan over disputed Kashmir is an important priority in that effort. Meetings and dialogue between the leaders of both countries are important, but it's time to end the talk and walk the walk. Jihadists are not the solution for Kashmir, a fact that Pakistan's next leader must recognize from the outset. Wresting Kashmir from India by force is not possible, and militarily not prudent. Furthermore, a Pakistan at peace with India would no longer require "strategic depth" by controlling or manipulating affairs in Afghanistan.

The leader of Pakistan will speak tomorrow about innovative solutions for urgent issues. Indeed, Pakistan needs imaginative leaders to formulate creative solutions for its many problems. The world needs a strong Pakistan that puts its brilliant minds to good use for the betterment of its people so the country can fulfill its promise. It's time for Pervez Musharraf to either deliver on that promise -- or step aside, and let those who can take on the job.

<i>Mr. Ijaz is a New York financier of Pakistani ancestry.</i>

</font>

 

[muckraker10021]

<img src="http://online.wsj.com/img/wsj_header_408_62.gif">

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Musharrafistan</font><font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
by Mansoor Ijaz
September 19, 2006; Page A20</b>

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users2&url=http://online.wsj.com/home/us?mod=PQPPV

Gen. Pervez Musharraf will speak tomorrow at the Clinton Global Initiative's plenary session on "Urgent Issues and Innovative Solutions" -- an apt title for a talk by the Pakistani ruler given the urgency and array of problems he faces at home. Pakistan needs not just innovative solutions for its difficulties, but a leader with ideas to frame them and the guts to implement them. Increasingly, Gen. Musharraf does not appear to be that man.<div align="right"><table border="3" width="19%" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#660066" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" bordercolordark="#800080" align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td width="140"><img src="http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/images/musharraf.jpg"></td><td>
<img src="http://www.libertaddigital.com/fotos/noticias/sumusharrafbush.jpg" width="153" height="170"></td></tr></table></div>
His Pakistan has become a sad story of contradictions. Islamabad is propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars to be the frontline ally in America's war against extremists, yet Gen. Musharraf has repeatedly appeased radicals for political gain while al Qaeda leaders actively use his soil to plan attacks around the world. The British transatlantic jumbo-jet terror plot last month was a case in point -- Pakistan's arrests of militants in Karachi, Lahore and along the Afghan border may have helped expose the plan, but British nationals of Pakistani origin visited the country to meet al Qaeda co-conspirators and allegedly issued the "Go" instruction from Pakistani soil.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
Another example emerged in late August, when the Musharraf regime signed a peace treaty with restless tribal chieftains in the northern frontiers along the border with Afghanistan that effectively ended the hunt for Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man.</b></span> The northern tribal areas are now left unattended to become a state within the state that offers haven to the civilized world's worst enemies. The irony could not be more complete -- America's staunchest ally presides over the breeding grounds of the very people who seek to kill as many Americans as they can, while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

* * *
There are other disturbing hypocrisies. Gen. Musharraf's regime manages to pour billions into plutonium processing plants and, soon, into Chinese nuclear reactors, but cannot find enough money to feed or educate Pakistan's children -- many of whom are growing up to be tomorrow's extremists. Rogue elements inside Islamabad's nuclear program are permitted to arm dangerously unstable governments with nuclear technology and know-how in pursuit of ill-gotten gains -- and some misguided notion of an Islamist panacea. But science and math are off the curriculum at the nation's radicalized, Saudi-funded madrassahs. And Pakistan's economic potential remains locked in a feudal past, where land and labor are the bane of corrupt barons who pander to an army that no longer acts as guardian of the state, but as if it is the state.


Neighborly relations are equally dismal despite recent attempts to shore them up. Gen. Musharraf continues to court Tehran's mullahs, raising Washington's ire, in hopes of building an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could fund a revival of the Kashmiris' militant insurgency against India, and keep his restive Inter-Services Intelligence minders happy. His peace overtures to New Delhi, including his recent commitment to restart stalled peace talks at a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Cuba, ring hollow after evidence seems to prove time and again that Pakistani soil -- and resources made available from Pakistan -- are being used to back terrorist attacks against India.

Gen. Musharraf's recent trip to Kabul, made under heavy pressure from Washington, was little more than an exercise in damage control. A resurgent Taliban has successfully used its northern Pakistani sanctuary to launch attacks on Hamid Karzai's government while bringing down U.S. helicopters with shoulder-fired missiles. Anywhere else, such actions would be sufficient to disqualify a head of state from remaining in government.

Pakistan has lost its identity. It is a client state for sale to the highest bidder for the purpose that suits the moment: to the U.S. after 9/11 as the staging grounds for hunting down terrorists; to Saudi Arabia since the Iranian revolution so that Wahhabist Islam could flourish next door to Shiite Iran; and to China as a strategic counterbalance to India's growing power. While this short-sighted strategy may help ward off complete state failure, it does not provide fertile ground for imaginative plans to realize the country's potential. Gen. Musharraf must stop being all things to all people, and gather the resolve to tackle what is wrong with Pakistan -- or step down from power. He, or his successor, needs to do the following, and fast:

End the hypocritical alliance with jihadist parties and Islamist activists. Pakistan in the 1970s tolerated student-protest movements, trade unions and serf cooperatives. Political thinking thrived. But Gen. Musharraf's power grab in October 1999 resulted in the death of Pakistan's political class and the institutions that sustain democratic rule. Political necessity and the realities of a post-9/11 world forced him to make a devil's bargain with religious zealots that destroyed what was left of Pakistan's polity. Islamists, however, want the "one man, one vote, one time" version of democracy, not constitutionally assured electoral continuity.

Pakistan's next leader needs to rebuild the foundations of self-rule by bringing back debate, permitting protest and reviving analytical thinking as the cornerstones of a functioning polity. Democratic institutions and protections are rights and privileges no single man has the authority to deprive a nation of.

Change the direction of the nuclear program. Pakistan's next leader needs to radically rethink its nuclear policy. The army has enough bombs in storage to blow up the world, so why build expensive plutonium plants that only churn out less detectable, easily transportable bomb-making material that will force the world to spend excessive resources in policing an indeterminate threat? Why not make the nuclear program transparent -- and remote from fanatics -- by inviting international teams to man its nuclear facilities? That way, Pakistan could soon serve as a global processing center to handle nuclear materials for a wide array of countries under a new non-proliferation regime. That is the path India is likely to choose when its reactors are refurbished under the new U.S.-India nuclear pact. Safe, civilian nuclear energy available to Pakistan's citizenry and one day, to the rest of the world, is the best use of Pakistan's nuclear talents.

Build a real economy that integrates Pakistan into the world. Pakistanis are a most industrious and intelligent workforce; expatriate income is a cornerstone of Pakistan's economy. Just witness Dubai's construction-boom riches flowing into the country unabated. Yet Pakistan's feudal class has stifled domestic growth and crippled the economy at home by manipulating industrial output, failing to reinvest in business and indulging corruption on the grandest of scales.

The next leader needs to formulate an imaginative proposal to wean the country off the dependencies that define feudal politics, and give the landowning class a stake in a modern, industrial economy. Land barons can profit from letting land to large, agrarian multinational businesses with modern technology that improves productivity, as opposed to taxing their serfs into oblivion.

Construct real peace, not mirages that mask tension. Pakistan's neighbors no longer have cause to want to destabilize it, and, in fact, would prefer a strong and stable country on their borders. India is busy building a world-class economy; making peace with Pakistan over disputed Kashmir is an important priority in that effort. Meetings and dialogue between the leaders of both countries are important, but it's time to end the talk and walk the walk. Jihadists are not the solution for Kashmir, a fact that Pakistan's next leader must recognize from the outset. Wresting Kashmir from India by force is not possible, and militarily not prudent. Furthermore, a Pakistan at peace with India would no longer require "strategic depth" by controlling or manipulating affairs in Afghanistan.

The leader of Pakistan will speak tomorrow about innovative solutions for urgent issues. Indeed, Pakistan needs imaginative leaders to formulate creative solutions for its many problems. The world needs a strong Pakistan that puts its brilliant minds to good use for the betterment of its people so the country can fulfill its promise. It's time for Pervez Musharraf to either deliver on that promise -- or step aside, and let those who can take on the job.

<i>Mr. Ijaz is a New York financier of Pakistani ancestry.</i>

</font>

 

[gene cisco]

What pisses me off is the fact that the taliban and this cat are one in the same!!!!!!

I mean the americans were cool with the taliban up until 9/11.

They told the taliban the same shit they told this cat, the only difference is the taliban asked what proof do you have against binny laidem/ As everybody knows the US has no hard evidence to put binny on trial for 9/11, therefore the taliban did not cooperate.

Somehow the media turned afghanistan in to the center for the war on terror, which is bullshit cause the same people could have kissed bush ass then what, taliban are our friends.

Why didnt bush run up in saudi arabia who openly push anti american shit, suppurt terrorism with their money AND where UBL and the people who did 9/11 were from!!!

All this is bullshit. All the taliban wanted was evidence, not lies to prove UBL's guilt, america didnt have and still doesnt.

AS you know you dont question fearless leader, friend today, victim of us media propaganda blitz tomorrow.

They all ready working hard on this pakistan cat, all he trying to do is live, if I were him i'd just resign and come live here. Fuck, everybody in his country want to kill him now the US is turning against him after he kissed their ass to save his people who do not even appreciate his slickness.

He didnt even help america that much, just avoided his country turning into iraq or afghanistan, that smooth muthafucka should take boltens job!!!!!!!!

He one bush speech away and fox media week long blitz from the serious trouble.

 

[nittie]

What concerns is this guy standing next to the President of the U.S. and saying he was forced to cooperate and then going on to say if you want to know more buy his book. Bush played it off but he was blind-sided and when you add that to what Chavez and the punk from Iran said, plus Israel's defeat in Lebanon and the way the wars in Iraq and Afganistan are going it seems like the tide is turning against America.

 

[QueEx]

U.S. Ally? .. Musharraf's Dilemma

<font size="5"><center>Musharraf’s Madrasa Muddle</font size></center>


Foreign Policy in Focus
Editor: John Feffer
Najum Mushtaq | July 13, 2007


The storming of the Red Mosque is not the victory that General Pervez Musharraf and his supporters in Washington proclaim. Rather, it represents the abject failure of the Pakistani president’s policies. The shaky military junta seems to have few answers to the central question of containing religious extremism in the sect-ridden Pakistani society. With a growing number of citizens challenging the authoritarian system, U.S. support for Musharraf is more and more out of touch with Pakistani reality.

The Red Mosque problem developed right under Musharraf’s nose. Under the leadership of two brothers and their brand of Islamic fundamentalism, the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) in the capital city of Islamabad launched a campaign to establish theocracy in Pakistan and impose Islamic law (sharia). The mullahs established a private sharia court in the mosque. Madrasa students forcibly occupied a children’s library. They raided suspected brothels, including a Chinese massage parlor, and brought hostages to the mosque to confess and repent. Zealous students kidnapped policemen and government officials. They gave ultimatums to music and video shops to close business, and burned down one of them.

After six months of trying to appease the mullahs and ignoring their criminal vigilante action, Musharraf eventually ordered a siege against the well-armed vigilante madrasa. On July 10, Musharraf gave the go-ahead to a commando operation that left dozens dead, including Abdul Rashid Ghazi, one of the two brothers.

While there has been little sympathy for the cause of the Red Mosque, hundreds and thousands of citizens have rallied in the streets against Musharraf over the last four months. The spontaneous outpourings of people’s emotions and a massive display of support for the defiant Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, suspended by Musharraf for his refusal to resign under duress, is in stark contrast to their response to the mullahs’ call. The people who refuse to follow the mullah have reacted passionately in support of a beardless judge and, more to the point, against the overbearing yet incompetent Musharraf administration.

The Red Mosque tragedy highlighted one particularly incompetent aspect of the Pakistani government: the failure of the religious education reforms. More than 15,000 madrasas of five mutually exclusive sects comprise the religious education sector in Pakistan. Reforming this sector has been the centerpiece of the military regime’s post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy. A plan was announced in June 2002 to regulate, modernize, and integrate madrasas into mainstream education. The failure of this roughly $100 million project could not have been more spectacular, or the government’s lack of will to implement madrasa reform more evident, than in the six-month drama staged by the mullahs of the Red Mosque and its affiliate madrasas. The repercussions of Musharraf’s inability or unwillingness to enforce any substantive, meaningful change in the archaic but widespread system of religious education would be grave.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, remains a generous supporter of Pakistan’s education reform. The U.S. Agency for International Development is providing $83 million for education sector reform, which is part of the $1.5 billion, five-year aid program to address health, education, and governance issues in the country. A key target of this support is “religious education” which, as the madrasa tragedy in Islamabad shows, is a contradiction in terms. When the goal is not to promote secular education but to reform and upgrade religious schools, the results could hardly be different from what happened at the Red Mosque.

A Surreal Setting
The scene of the action was a state-run mosque and its adjacent madrasa for girls that had been built on state land. It is inconceivable that a madrasa smack in the middle of the country’s capital, whose administrators had been on government payroll, should remain outside of the much-hyped and well-financed reform programs. What makes the episode all the more surreal is that the Red Mosque’s call for sharia had elicited no legal action by the government. Also, other than a few pockets in the already Talibanized Pashtun areas, the vigilantism of the madrasa force garnered virtually no support in any quarter of Pakistani society. No mainstream religious party or madrasa union had backed the two brothers’ cause.

Leaders of the Deobandi sect, also the Red Mosque’s creed, had almost unanimously condemned its proclamation of sharia by force. Fazlur Rahman and Samiul Haq, the main patrons of the Taliban in Pakistan, were quick to repudiate the renegade mullahs. Madrasas of other Sunni and Shia sects distanced themselves from the Red Mosque, and its radical ideology did not spread to any of the hundreds of other madrasas in the capital city itself. The Red Mosque mullah, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, was not a rabble-rousing orator. Nor did he lead a mainstream religious organization. No significant section of citizens or clergy of any sect in the capital joined him.

Given the limited influence of the Red Mosque, the timing of the recent actions was suspicious. It coincided with and eventually overshadowed an impassioned movement of lawyers against Musharraf’s decision to fire the chief justice. Now, cynicism is rife in Pakistan. The heavy loss of human life adds to it an air of gloom. The delayed decision to tackle the renegade mullahs, after months of velvet-glove treatment, undercuts the general’s anti-extremism rhetoric. What could have been nipped in the bud by resolute civil administrative action was inexplicably allowed to linger on long enough to turn into a full-blown armed conflict.

The Red Mosque lies in rubble, and so does the government’s madrasa reform. None of the major international commitments the regime had made to meet the demands of the UN Security Council’s anti-extremism resolutions has been fulfilled. A review of its performance reveals the hollowness of the regime’s claim to be a bulwark against extremism. In fact, the violence instigated by the Red Mosque was a direct result of the gap between this regime's words and action.

Failed Reform
The list of failed reform plans is long. Disarming the radical madrasas was on top of the government’s agenda. As the Red Mosque standoff showed, however, the disarmament did not go very far. Even in Islamabad’s madrasas, arms and explosives flow freely. Arms have become a part of the madrasa culture across the sectarian divide. In fact, government officials have encouraged the mullahs embroiled in Sunni-Shia sectarian feuds to keep weapons since the state doesn’t have the funds to provide them all with police protection. Most of the radical madrasas have direct or indirect links with banned militant organisations. If the government eventually decided to disarm the madrasas, there would be stiff resistance. In any case, the Musharraf regime lacks the resolve as well as the political credibility to achieve this critical policy goal.

Another component of the proposed reform was a monitoring and regulatory regime. The registration and financial audit of madrasas under a proposed new law was the starting point. For about five years the government has been negotiating the fine print of the registration law with madrasa administrators. The law supposed to be in force now is toothless and non-intrusive. Even under this meek mechanism, the task of registration is far from complete. Pakistan has also yet to fully and formally accede to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. In the wake of the Red Mosque fiasco the Musharraf government should publicize the names of the donors of this rebellious madrasa and then extend the net to all donors to make madrasa financing transparent.

The core of the reform project was a new madrasa curriculum. The government had pledged to modernize the curriculum by adding new courses in English, mathematics, Pakistan studies, social studies, and general science at various levels. The professed aim was to bring madrasas closer to formal education. The government had also promised to cover the costs of books and additional teachers for non-religious subjects, teacher training, library materials, computers, and other supplies. Any madrasa properly registered with the government could apply for assistance. In June last year, however, the education minister announced that no further government money would be given to madrasas for curricular reforms and related supplies until the madrasa boards signed an agreement with the government to abide by the stipulated terms of registration and regulation. Madrasa union leaders refused to do so and the program failed before it could take off. In any case, secular educational courses would only be of value if there were also fundamental changes in the religious curriculum of all sects to end the promotion of sectarianism and religious intolerance, which is the original rationale of madrasas.

Finally, madrasas have proliferated in part because many have illegally occupied public land. The Council of Islamic Ideology, an official advisory body on religious matters, and advocacy groups such as the International Crisis Group have repeatedly urged the government to remove those mosques and madrasas built on occupied land. It is only after much blood has been shed that the Red Mosque’s illegal madrasa for girls may be razed. Given Musharraf’s past performance, it is highly unlikely that this policy will be extended to thousands of other such unauthorized mosques and madrasas throughout the country.

Lessons for U.S. Policy
The military government’s performance on madrasa reforms makes it clear that it lacks the vision, the will and the political legitimacy to put in place a process of long-term change. More concessions to the madrasas without making them comply with the demands of reform will further encourage the forces of religious extremism. The desperate measures taken to flush out the Red Mosque militants would amount to little if the thousands of other madrasas continue to preach arcane versions of rival Islams. Even if not all of them are militant, the potential for violence will continue to grow unless the madrasas are subjected to a rigorous regulatory regime and made to adjust to the demands of modern education -- a task that has so far proved beyond the grasp of the generals.

Neither the military nor the mullahs have ever won a popular mandate in Pakistan. The reaction of the general public in Islamabad and elsewhere in the country to the campaign for Talibanization is also instructive in this regard. By shunning the mullahs of Islamabad and not extending any support whatsoever to their sharia plans, Pakistani people have once again dispelled the notion it is a society prone to religious radicalism, as the Bush administration and most of the rest of the West tend to believe.

Indeed, this fear of an extremist Muslim country motivates the U.S. policy of supporting Musharraf at all costs. The Bush administration has no objection to the general’s Machiavellian plan to prolong his military rule through manipulation of the political system, intimidation of the judiciary, and suppression of democratic forces. The Pakistani president’s failure to use U.S. aid to address extremism at the roots only reinforces this Machiavellianism for it encourages the use of the military as a last resort. Washington might like to see a few more Red Mosque-like incidents as proof of Musharraf’s determination to battle extremists. But the patience of the Pakistani people, tired of religious fundamentalism from the mullahs and military fundamentalism from their president, is wearing thin.


Najum Mushtaq is a journalist and contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org).

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4381

 

[QueEx]

Re: U.S. Ally? .. Musharraf's Dilemma

Lessons for U.S. Policy
The military government’s performance on madrasa reforms makes it clear that it lacks the vision, the will and the political legitimacy to put in place a process of long-term change. More concessions to the madrasas without making them comply with the demands of reform will further encourage the forces of religious extremism. The desperate measures taken to flush out the Red Mosque militants would amount to little if the thousands of other madrasas continue to preach arcane versions of rival Islams. Even if not all of them are militant, the potential for violence will continue to grow unless the madrasas are subjected to a rigorous regulatory regime and made to adjust to the demands of modern education -- a task that has so far proved beyond the grasp of the generals.

Didn't those doctors who attempted to bomb places
in the U.K. last week have a "modern education" ???

Or, is there something more than "modern education"
required ???

QueEx