General Musharraf and War On Terror : An Assessment
The Economist of London in its latest issue presents a virtual three-dimensional view of Pakistan. It is the strongest indictment of General Pervez Musharraf’s seven-year rule on almost all fronts.
First, a hard-hitting editorial. “The West has invested a huge amount in Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in October 1999. This newspaper was prepared to give him a chance on condition that he acted swiftly and firmly to rein in extremism and sort out the economy, and then returned to barracks. He failed to do any of that.
“After September 11th 2001, however, he was recast as a provider of relative stability in a dangerous neighbourhood, and an essential ally in the “war on terrorâ€?. Money was showered upon him; he was feted in Washington, DC, and London. Only gradually has it started to dawn on his admirers that, in the past five years, he has not done very much to make Pakistan a less dangerous place.”
The second is a survey of Pakistan by James Astill,Defence and Terrorism Correspondent of The Economist, under the heading “Pakistan needs more democracy to make it a less dangerous place”. “It’s fair to say that General Musharraf has turned Pakistan round to a degree on its India diplomacy. He’s brought the official line [on Kashmir] far closer to India’s then had previously been the case…
“However, close though this may now seem to peace, the hurdles to peace are still very significant and greatest of these is that India is still extremely suspicious of General Musharraf and of his proposals.â€?
The third is an audio interview with James Astill.
8 Responses to “General Musharraf and War On Terror : An Assessment”
Well we all know that India and Pakistan are enemies. So I will consider this a biased post and ignore it accordingly. We will not forget that Pakistan helped us greatly in Somalia while India did squat.
One question Swaraaj, when will India leave Kashmir and stop trying ti pick a fight?
Please ignore everything I write. I would be delighted!
So why are you forgetting Taleban, and want their blood, who were once the dearest friends of America in Afghanistan?
The day Salmineo provides a proof that he has learnt his history lessons well (as also knows something about the world famous “The Economist” magazine!!!)
No No No…YOU made these silly assertions, so YOU provide the proof. You can’t, because it don’t exist. India should give back Pakistani land NOW. Consider it a “Gandhi-esque” gesture. COME ON, lets see some sign of a “peace loving” people here! Your getting world ending technology from us!
Taleban? What the hell does Taleban have to do with India? Why should anyone entertain this irrelevant and out of context statement? WTF?
No Ignoring. This is a public forum. You are subject to public scrutiny. Besides, you invited me to “bash away”…your words not mine.
One more “ting”…What did we get for giving away our jobs and our ADVANCED technology to India? MANGOES Frigging MANGOES! You should be on your knees licking my arse for this Indian and you know it!
Might as well give Nukes to the Somalies for all we get out of the deal.
Musharraf has 2 things going for him from the US perspective:
1. By Pakistani standards he’s a stable, loyal US ally. There’s just no credible alternative, and we do need Pakistan in our camp, no matter how nominally.
2. He’s the devil we know.
Salmineo, as much as we need Pakistani cooperation, we need Indian cooperation even more. There are other threats in the world besides islamic extremism.
So far, I consider that we’ve received good value for what we’ve traded to the Indians. Besides, India is a natural ally of the US. Why shouldn’t we treat them as a friend rather than as a potential enemy?
BrianOfAtlanta
We don’t need anything from India except nuclear disarmament. India is NOT a “natural” ally of anybodies! No nation is allied “naturally”. Where did you get that crap? What is this, whole wheat geopolitics?
We get Mangoes for ADVANCED technology. What a deal! Sure, we can treat India as a friend, no problem. What they don’t want to be our friend “Naturally”?? NO, rather we have to BUY THEIR friendship??
So how much “friendship” do we get for our ADVANCED technology anyway? AND WHAT IS THE INFLATION RATE?!
Friggen jackass Bush and his ignoramus foreign policy BS!!
Swaraaj
And futhermore…
Senator Biden said gives us our Duncan Doughnuts back.
So there.
I, personally, don’t see much difference in our policy during the Cold War- supporting various right-wing dictators to hold off the spread of Communism, and our support of Musharaff. Pakistan is just as dangerous and unstable as any country in the world, and is a breeding ground for terrorism, as well as a haven for the Taliban. A.Q. Khan has been able to spread nuclear technology to states that support terrorism, and Musharraf has, at best, a tenuous hold on his presidency. Given how dangerous Pakistan is, however, I’m not sure that Bush had any choice but to befriend Musharaff.
India, by contrast, is a stable democracy that does not support terrorism. Right now they are one of the few countries in that region that don’t present a threat to us.