Pakistan defeating Taliban not possible under Musharraf

[mhughes]

I am a writer for Examiner.com and I have written critical pieces on Pakistan's militant history before. I received great feedback from readers of this forum in the past and thought you might be interested in my latest article about Musharaff.

Pakistan defeating Taliban not possible under Musharraf
http://www.examiner.com/x-4454-Chicago- ... iner-email

EXCERPT:
Pakistan has gained the upper hand against the Taliban by reducing Islamic extremism, reforming its intelligence services and working with U.S. forces to take out high-value targets – progress that would have been impossible under Musharraf.

Thank you,

Michael Hughes
Chicago Geopolitics Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-4454-Chicago- ... s-Examiner
mhughes3500@gmail.com

[Gagan]

Musharraf???
Musharraf is practically in exile now.
Now that Gen. Asfaq Pervez Kiyani is in power now, surely you mean
'Pakistan defeating Taliban not possible under Kiyani'

[Patni]

well you should have your title as wouldn't have been possible under Musharrat! beside are you claiming paki taliban already defeated?

[Hiten]

Michael Hughesji, this forum observes a slightly different approach for conducting discussions.

Thread evolving out of discussing a single article, though allowed is rare. Threads are usually always started to discuss a particular issue/subject [& on occasion some extremely poignant thoughts]

In your case, the forum has a very active relevant thread, into which your article must go
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=5011

Regards & Welcome

reporting for merger with TSP thread

[pgbhat]

Pakistan’s war against the jihadists will never truly be “won”, that’s like trying to eliminate drive-by shootings in Chicago, L.A., Philly or Detroit, but the Pakistani government does have an opportunity to break the back and downsize the Taliban to the nuisance level of a street gang. But if Musharraf were still in office none of this would have been possible.

This pales in comparison to the relationship when Musharraf was the President. The new regime has changed their approach and attitude towards not only extremism, but working more effectively with the U.S. Seib continues:

huh?

Welcome to brf mhughes.
IB4TL .

[John Snow]

first time doing this but moved to do so.

IB4TL

[Anujan]

Maybe not *under* pakistan's musharraf, but they can certainly defeat them *inside* their musharraf.

They tried to do that with amrikhans by taking them inside their musharraf, and have nearly succeeded in defeating them. Its called strat-e-gic GUPO.

Jokes aside - welcome to BRF

Hughes-ji

Maybe we should visit the basic question ? What is in it for Pakistan to defeat the taliban ? Do they *want* to defeat taliban ?

If they keep the taliban problem alive, they get money and arms from the US, influence in Afghanistan, canon fodder for terrorism in India, leverage in domestic politics and foot soldiers for the army. Add to that a culture that glorifies Jihad. Please see this to understand the relationship between the Pakistani army and the Jihadis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cbKOsg9l58

Lets not even talk about "defeating" the Jihadis. Lets see if the Pakistani government wants to estabilish a state based on principles of rule of law. Take for example, the blasphemy issue -- as you probably know, recently a few Christians were burned alive for "desecrating the koran". Now the official penalty for blasphemy is death under Pakistan criminal code. This is usually abused to take over properties of non-muslims by their neighbors etc. The government makes a few noises from time to time about "reforming" this law. Followed by a hasty backtracking 2 days later. Same case with the hudood ordinance (women can be stoned for adultry if they cant prove rape charges. You need 4 women witnesses against 1 male witness etc etc) which even Musharraf, a military dictator, could not do anything about. This is an indicator of the strong support from the society and vested interests towards maintaining the status quo which sees the world through the prism of believers/infidels.

Now, you want to know "when the exact turn around" was. Please note that the ideology and forces which refuse a change in status quo vis-a-vis legal reform, is 100 times stronger in the context of the support to the taliban/jihadis. The Jihadis take their strength from the madrassas (by the way, what happened to Madrassa reform ?) and their ideology is subscribed to by the society, state and armed forces.

Why would anyone in Pakistan (want to) defeat them ? At the best you would get a few "military actions" here and there. A few drone attacks here and there. Fast forward 25 years. Everyone gets fed up and leaves.

[Sriman]

Musharraf???
Musharraf is practically in exile now.
Now that Gen. Asfaq Pervez Kiyani is in power now, surely you mean
'Pakistan defeating Taliban not possible under Kiyani'

The title is misleading, Gagan. The gist of the article is in the excerpt he has posted. But the claim of 'Pakistan having gained the upper hand against the Taliban by reducing Islamic extremism, reforming its intelligence services' will certainly be met with skepticism here. Would be interested to see if Mr.Hughes can qualify that claims with something other than Pakistani claims of success. +1 for a merge.

[harbans]

Can we pinpoint the exact moment when the tide turned against the Paki Taliban? I think we can, but I don’t think it was at the beginning of this year as U.S. military analysts have indicated. I think one has to go all the way back to last August - to Monday, August 18, 2008 to be precise – because that was the day Musharraf resigned.

Well written article Mr Hughes. But i think Kiyani was ridiculed into taking action just 2 months ago. Before that there was no willingness to act. Too much media coverage on downhill skiing etc and subsequent "loss of face" for the Army was going around for them to handle. So they decided on engagement with full artillery, tanks and F-16s. They did'nt know what they hit, but in that region if you hit something, you're likely taking out AQ # 3.14159 or a Talib/ sympathizer..someone certainly detrimental to the interests of the free world.

So despite most of Swat emptying up pretty fast and creating an IDP problem, there was praise in the media, Wesern media for Kiyani. Thats what turned the tide. Redemption of 'loss of face' of the Army.

Not that the Jihadi's are going to be eliminated. No wa thats goingg to happen..simpl because the PA motto is the same as that of the Al Qaeda. Ditto. You can check that up.

Anyways welcome to BRF..and to know Pakistan really well you must visit the Bositive Newj thread..

[RayC]

mhughes

Good article.

However, Musharraf is a non person in Pakistan and has a number of cases against him.

He is in London.

[ramana]

Ok folks he is asking for comments on his article and not the TSP thread. So if you have some please post here or else the mods know what to do about merging verging etc.

Mike, In one sense your article is right for Mushy ensured the nexus between the ISI and hardliners in Pak Army and the Taliban remained and even fostered it. However the exeunt of the Taliban from the Afganistan to the FATA/WANA bad landsled to the rise of Pakiban that is the pakistan origin Taliban eg. TTP led by Baitullah Mehsud et al., who are jeopardising the Karazai regime and negate the GOAT (Global Offensive Against Terrorism) of 2001. And this Pakiban-TSPA nexus could even take over the country west of the Indus and lead to fractures.

But you need to make the points in this manner to be effective.

[Gagan]

wrt Musharraf per se:
He likely to cool his heels off in London, and then elsewhere most likely in Saudi Arabia if that human rights abuse case gets on in London. He is not returning to Pakistan for the near foreseeable future at least, that means something like 2-3 years minimum. As long as Nawaz Sharif's star is on the ascendant, Iftikar Chaudhary is the CJ, and Zardari is the president-protected by the US of A.

Wrt the Taliban and Pakistan.
If you ever get a chance to see what Afghanistan was like in the days before the soviet invasion and the mujaheddin action by US-Pakistan, you will cry out at how that nation has been destroyed. The pictures speak for themselves, you had well dressed women going to their jobs in the early 80s to the shuttle-cock burqa wearing persecuted lot now.

It is very important that if that nation has to ever have any chance of going back to a semblance of reality, from the nightmare that its lived, Pakistan and the Taliban have to be kept away.
The taliban are essentially pakistan's special forces on its western borders, in charge of its policy of strategic depth, just as the Jamat-Ud-Dawa and its constituent groups, the LeT, JEM etc are pakistan's special forces for their eastern border with India. These groups were all set up by the ISI, they continue to be mentored, advised, funded, trained by the Pakistan Army. The Pakistanis remain in close contact with every major Taliban and Al quaida worth his salt, and could probably produce just about everyone in the most wanted list if they wanted to.

Personally I think that the 'strategic depth' against India is bullshit. Pakistan is Pakistan-Punjab, right on the border with India. With Pakistan-Punjab lost, all is lost - no strategic depth is going to come to their rescue here. Pakistan is looking to control Afghanistan more for its location astride central asia. The pakistanis know that any oil in there has to go via afghanistan, pakistan in control there gives them a bargaining chip wrt the US and they can play the US vs China game. Which is why the US is here to stay in afghanistan. The pakistanis also see their policy as a means to drive Indian influence out of afghanistan, because they fear being encircled and they don't want India to be within reach of central asia.

India is the second largest aid donor to afghanistan, to date has spent over $ 1.1 Billion there. India's been building roads, hospitals, the Afghan Parliament, repairing the power grid, training the afghan police and armed forces - generally speaking helping get that country get back on its feet. And yet there are people who look at India's actions with suspicion. India has been very supportive of the Northern Alliance in the past. Abdulla abdulla, Ahmed shah masood's deputy, is supposedly a frontrunner in the upcoming afghan elections, which gives india another strong ally there.

The bottom line is:

Pakistan Army = the ISI = The Taliban = Jamat-Ud-Dawa (including the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad).

Also,

the ISI = the Al quaida.

The fountain head is the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agency the ISI. The war or terror will never be won in afghanistan unless pakistan is solved first, there is no point chopping off the heads of this multiheaded hydra monster, they will continue to be replaced (like the countless Al-quaida No.3s that Pakistan seems to kill each time some dignitary visits from the US). This war will never be over until the Pakistan Army's (excuse the profanity) ball$ are squeezed until there is nothing left.

The deeper question is, that the fact that the US has not done so uptil now is not because the US doesn't understand this equation. This then leads to only one logical conclusion - the US doesn't want to see this end.

[Gagan]

Remember that equation detailed above. That is the param satya (the eternal truth).

Rest is all maya onlee.

And lest we forget :

Give Peace A Chance - Destroy Pakistan or Dismantle it.

[Anujan]

Gagan-ji
Many of the western commentators make three mistaken assumptions (no offense meant to Hughes)


1. Pakistan wants to fight the taliban and pakistanis perceive that it is in their interest to fight the taliban
Ofcourse supporting evidence to this "obvious" conclusion is the way women get treated under the taliban, the harshness of taliban rule, people getting arbitrarily murdered, schools getting bombed etc.

2. An individual (Say the president like Musharraf or Gilani or Zardari) is capable of reversing pakistani support to the taliban and initiating military action to disown the taliban.

3. A reversal of the support to taliban can be seen when Al-Q no 3 is captured, terrorists a killed, army division is mobilized. etc.

Michael Hughes' article, though well intentioned, is written with such a view point. He is able to see Musharraf's (the darling boy of the west, Bush's "trustworthy" ally of the "frontline against terrorism" and the leader of US's "Major Non-NATO Ally") perfidy of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, and his machinations to use american compulsions vis-a-vis GOAT and their support to steam roll his legitimate political opponents to further his dictatorial rule. Take for example his dismissal of CJP iftikhar chaudhry under the pretext that the CJP was letting terrorists go loose (ofcourse the real reason was that the case which would have determined of Mushy could stay on, would come up for hearing and Mushy knew that the CJP had grown too big for his shoes).

And it took the americans a full 7 years to realize this perfidy. What can we learn from history ?

A) It was assumed then that Mushy, having almost all of his adult life in an institution that believed in the proxy-jihadi-mujaheddin strategy had truly turned around and taken his country towards "enlightened moderation" and progress. US bought this story for 7 years. It was a complete BS. He was consolidating his power against PPP and PML by co-opting the political jihadis (MMA), crushing the judiciary, offering selective co-operation in exchange for money, support to his regime and arms.

Conclusion no 1: Do not look to the next army general to ride up in a white horse and "reform" Pakistan. Kayani (the current jernail) is 400% worse than Mushy. Atleast Mushy was fond of the media and being the darling boy of the west and made some progressive noises. Kayani doesnt even want that.

B) It was assumed that Pakistan truly wants to become enlightened and moderate (along the lines of Turkey). Where is the evidence for this ? In fact all evidence is to the contrary. There are "civilized" and "uncivilized" set of evidences to show that the western assumption that Pakistan *wants* to co-operate is patently false.

First the "civilized" evidence: Read the english press in Pakistan - the articles by Analysts (Ejaz Haider/Mazari/Sethi/Ahmed Rashid/) are either (i) How americans are mean and making the Pakis fight their war for their interests, how americans are friendly with their arch-enemy India, how american and Indian conspiracy is what is causing taliban unrest or (ii) How currently pakistan is so f'ed up that the short term strategy is to offer cooperation and earn as much money and arms as they can, wait it out till the americans get tired and then its party as usual. These are articles which makes sense. I am not even going to comment on articles (from a mainstream pakistani english newspaper) which claim that Baitullah Mehsud was a zionist !

Now the "uncivilized" evidence: Mullahs inciting people to kill the infidels (as the Christians sadly found out), the government unable to do anything about the blasphemy laws or the hudood ordiance or madrassa reform (because of support from a powerful section of the society) and numerous others.

Conclusion no 2: Pakistani society does not want to become either "enlightened" or "moderate"

C) Pakistani armed forces, government, institutions of power think that it is in their best interest to fight the taliban.
The less said about this, the better.

I am 400% sure that Hughes-ji will write an article in 2012 that paki turn around started on Aug 8, 2012 when Kayani resigned.

[mhughes]

Great comments, and this is a great site.

My apologies for not following protocol, I am a rookie and deserved to get slapped a bit. Now I know.

I first of all do concede that the title of my piece really, well for lack of a more precise term... sucked. I meant to communicate that the progress that has been achieved to date against the Taliban would not have been possible if Musharraf were still in power. Of course that would become apparent once reading the article - but the headline alone could make someone cringe, and deter one from wasting time reading the damn thing, and think the Yank doesn't know his arse from his elbow, which, on certain days may not be an inaccurate portrayal.

==

Correct - Musharraf is in London, but I thought I read that police in Islamabad were still going through the process of filing for a search warrant, and then would determine how to apprehend him when he did enter the country.

==

"They did'nt know what they hit, but in that region if you hit something, you're likely taking out AQ # 3.14159 or a Talib/ sympathizer..someone certainly detrimental to the interests of the free world." - Bravo- this is a great point. I admire the wording.

==

Maybe we should visit the basic question ? What is in it for Pakistan to defeat the taliban ? Do they *want* to defeat taliban ?

I agree- the problem with Musharaff is that there was zero incentive for him to overthrow the Taliban. The question is does the current regime want to do it? Are they really more moderate? That I cannot answer and we'll have to wait and see.

===

Great point about rule of law and burning Christians for blasphemy too

[Virupaksha]

==

Maybe we should visit the basic question ? What is in it for Pakistan to defeat the taliban ? Do they *want* to defeat taliban ?

I agree- the problem with Musharaff is that there was zero incentive for him to overthrow the Taliban. The question is does the current regime want to do it? Are they really more moderate? That I cannot answer and we'll have to wait and see.

MHughes,

Your article basically states, things have changed since Mushy left. Now in the above statement, you are saying that to check we need to wait for some time. Better decide on it

Also, this may be Pak's first recent military action in Swat. But just go through the last 7 years of history in GWOT. There have been atleast 3-4 instances of Pak's military action in various places. They go there, inform before hand that they are going to attack, give the dates of the operation, destroy some empty buildings, catch 4-5 alqaeda #3.14562s , declare victory and come back. During the operation they will use artillery, airforce and everything, so that internally displaced persons are created to give a sense to westerners, that tough fighting is going on.

We are seeing all this with a sense of deja vu, every time the military action starts, we get reams and reams of western news print saying Pakistan has started taking taliban seriously

Baitullah Mehsud, the taliban leader who was recently supposed to have been killed, differed from rest of taliban on a small issue. He said lets fight in Pakistan and not in Afghan - which is why Pakistan Army hated him to the utmost. Now it is your choice of how you see him.......

[Anujan]

Well, thats the welcome we accord to newbies
Seriously, there are two points

Correct - Musharraf is in London, but I thought I read that police in Islamabad were still going through the process of filing for a search warrant, and then would determine how to apprehend him when he did enter the country.

Nothing is going to happen to our favorite jernail Mushy. Rumors are (dont ask how we know this, we wear dhotis, cower in dark places and hear such things) that two things happened

1. Mushy in promulgating his ordinances, attached a comment at the bottom that the entire army hierarchy was consulted, and he acted on their advice and support. Now, if mushy were to be booked in any court, the entire hierarchy needs to be hauled up in court. The minor problem with that is that 95% of them are still serving, with a few promoted and one of them heading the army right now. A challenge to Mushy is a challenge to the army itself

2. This was pointed out by none other than Kayani himself to the representative of the "lawyer's movement". (Again you wont find this in the mainstream press).

Expect the police to make noises, the politicians to make noises and various quarters in Pakistan to use the Mushy issue to club one another and grapple for power. Nawaz, if he wants to bring the government down, will press the issue. Gilani, if he wants to cut Nawaz to size will work out a deal with the army. Gilani and Nawaz if they want to get rid of the lawyers and CJP will use the army to crush them. Somehow the most likely scenario I feel, is that Zardari will meet his 72 due to this issue or avail himself of the hospitality of the Saudis (all pakistani people avail themselves of the hospitality there to avoid the noose). All in all, beer and popcorn time for us.

Maybe we should visit the basic question ? What is in it for Pakistan to defeat the taliban ? Do they *want* to defeat taliban ?

I agree- the problem with Musharaff is that there was zero incentive for him to overthrow the Taliban. The question is does the current regime want to do it? Are they really more moderate? That I cannot answer and we'll have to wait and see.

Well the question is more basic than that. You are again making the mistake in assuming two things (1) An individual can change the policy of pakistan, which has strong backing from the army/political parties/religious leaders/society. (2) Such an individual who wants change, exists in Pakistan---if you think Mushy was bad, wait till you meet some of the other beards which roam the town.

The questions that one should be thinking about is

1. Does it benefit anyone in Pakistan if they are really more moderate ?
2. Forgetting the regime, does the Pakistani society want to overthrow the taliban ?
3. Forgetting the regime, do the other power centers (Army, Religious leaders, Leaders of PML-N, Leaders of MMA) want to overthrow the taliban ?
4. Does the regime want to take on a fight in which it has no dog ? (Why is the taliban a threat to the current regime ? they are a threat to the army, the people, but are not a threat to the regime itself)
5. Does the regime have a capability to take on the taliban ?
6. Will any regime survive the social and political upheaval if they genuinely take on the taliban ?
7. Name one person in the regime who does not have a Jihadi past ?
8. Name one person in any power center of Pakistan, who pre 2001 (before pocketing greenbacks or being shown a stick) said that terrorism was a bad thing ? -- if anyone had cared to check Mushy's statements pre-greenback (like his famous "Pakistani brand of Jihad is not terrorism" --- please note the date, it is dated december 2000---would have easily guessed his sincerity and where his brilliant idea of "enlightened moderation" came from---rumor is, it came from his backside after Richard Amritraj paid him a visit)
9. Name one person in any power center in Pakistan, who will personally benefit by siding with the Americans and taking on the taliban ?

Note that none of the questions above are based on noble virtues like "moderation" or "progress". I am not even injecting things like idealogical affinity or religious identity or hate of the Kafirs.

The answer is simple: For pakistan, taking on the taliban (in their view and in the context of the current dispensation) does not make any business sense whatsoever.

[RajeshA]

Mr. Hughes ji,

The basic calculation that needs to be done is

a) What have the Pakistanis really done to hurt the capacity of Taliban groups, that are attacking the Afghan Govt. or the ISAF troops?

b) How have the Pakistanis been helping those Taliban groups active in Afghanistan?

Should you do a dispassionate analysis of the above questions you will find out that the answers are

a) Zilch
b) Maximum Possible

The Taliban groups against which the Pakistani Army moved against were only indirectly involved in Afghanistan. Their main presence and activity was in Pakistan itself. Baitullah Mehsud in Waziristan or Maulana Fazlullah in Swat were leading Taliban groups which were in a tussle with Pakistan itself. So if Pakistan moves against them, it is in Pakistan's own interest, but those Taliban groups active in Afghanistan are proxies of Pakistan, and these groups would be nurtured and supported.

So if America is giving money to Pakistan, then America is financing its own enemies, the Afghan Taliban, indirectly through Pakistan.

Pakistan discriminates between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan Taliban. This is reality that American policy makers are fudging.

The whole region can be pacified if America decides to divide Pakistan between its various ethnicities, much on the lines of Yugoslavia or that of the Soviet Union. As Soviet Union disintegrated so did Communism. As Pakistan will disintegrate so would Jihadism.

You don't have to take my word or our word for it. You should do your own studies and analysis. The Obama Administration have found a certain dialectic for AfPak region, but this dialectic is a fabrication which hides both the reality and the solutions. There are reasons why the Americans have chosen this road, but this road does not lead to the defeat of Jihadism or to the dangers of Terrorism.

Feel free to study the material on this forum. There is much more in the archives. You will be a wiser man, and so would be your readers.

[pgbhat]

Pakistan discriminates between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan Taliban. This is reality that American policy makers are fudging.

This is something which has to be repeated a billion times in the news media even in India..... especially Amirkhan part.

[ramana]

There was the famous cartoon from gupshup.org which showed the trail of aid from Uncle Sam to jihadis!

Anujan and RajeshA Please both of you should write up this subject for SRR.

[Gagan]

Well I couldn't find the 'Sam(e) to you' cartoon on the net how ever I put in the search string. If anyone has that cartoon please post it here. I would also request the admins to save that cartoon here at BRF, if possibly on the TIRP first page.

But I did find this LET image. Would anyone care to translate the urdu?

[shiv]

IB4TL

With in house Pakistan experts among the mod panel how the fk has this thread survived nearly 24 hours.

One stupid article claiming that Pakistan has become moderate just because Musharraf has gone and we have a whole frigging thread dedicated to that? Ho sakta hai ki gora aadmi ka naam padke iss thread ko tala nahin lagaya gaya hai. Woh to Paki bhi ho sakta hai na

Recall that a decade ago Pakistan was described as moderate because of Musharraf.

Please throw this shameful and pontless thread where it belongs - the the fricking trash can.

[Gagan]

Hai re, mera post

[JwalaMukhi]

Maybe we should visit the basic question ? What is in it for Pakistan to defeat the taliban ? Do they *want* to defeat taliban ?

I agree- the problem with Musharaff is that there was zero incentive for him to overthrow the Taliban. The question is does the current regime want to do it? Are they really more moderate? That I cannot answer and we'll have to wait and see.

===

Great point about rule of law and burning Christians for blasphemy too

If onlee SLIME and DIE could take notes, about where the concern by the esteemed writer is unbashfully displayed. Well, well SLIME and DIE will be interested in wining and dining the butcher of Kargil, while judiciously avoiding using the term to express concern about hapless yindoos. It can't be neutral onlee no..

[John Snow]

Why our own Dr. Tim founder of US Pakistani fora, certified TSPakistan as rational peace loving and India the proliferator needs to be punished in proportion to size.

I miss good ol Doctored views

Musharaff tho Musafir bangaya
Geeth gata chela gaya
Maifil Maifil ye shama Phir bhi tu Kahan

{Musharf has become traveler (aka vagabond)
Nothing to do but sing along
eventhough the scene is set for him
only to be found nowhere}

In BR Lexicon Mushy is the orifice de posterior ( for the new comer)

[ramana]

Now that most of the comments have already been made am locking up the thread. Thanks everyone for all the comments.

ramana