Musharraf Loses Credibility with America Also

#1
Having played games over terrorism for several years, Pakistan's military establishment now faces a crisis of credibility with the United States, despite their close military and political bonds.

The gap between Gen. Pervez Musharraf's promises and his refusal to deliver has widened to an extent that his long-time benefactor feels compelled to warn him to behave, or else, suffer the consequences of playing a double game, including stoppage of military and economic aid.

While Vice-President Dick Cheney bluntly told him to cooperate with NATO forces in flushing out Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who have infiltrated southern Afghanistan, both Houses of the US Congress have passed resolutions pressing Islamabad to do more than it was doing in the fight against Islamist extremists, who have crossed over in hundreds from sanctuaries inside Pakistan and are trying to destabilize the country.

Nobody believes that the so-called peace deal entered into by Gen. Musharraf with Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders and their tribal sympathizers has the remotest chance of success. In fact, Al Qaeda and Taliban training and related facilities have increased as a result of the "surrender" deal.

Washington now seems to be considering reducing its dependence on the ability of Musharraf to fight terrorism and taking recourse to alternative strategies. It has replaced the commander of its forces in Afghanistan and the appointment of Gen. K. M. McNeili has been welcomed by the Afghan Government. "We will quit neither post, nor mission until the job is done," he said on the eve of launching the much-awaited Spring offensive against Taliban in Helmand and other southern provinces.

With President Hamid Karzai having gone to town condemning Pakistan for promoting terrorism to destabilize his government, his Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta publicly accuses Islamabad of "using terror as its foreign policy. Under Taliban, Pakistan virtually controlled 80 per cent of Afghanistan's territory," and it is trying hard to establish its hold once again. He regrets that some countries are "rewarding" Pakistan with economic and military aid even after getting solid proof of its active involvement with Al Qaeda and Taliban.

At any rate, Musharraf has been put on notice by the United States which is unprepared to stand any more nonsense about his involvement in promoting Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is time for him to change to prevent Pakistan from sliding into mayhem and anarchy.
http://www.businessportal24.com/en/Musharraf_Loses_Credibility_America_Also_152140.html
 
#2
He may have lost some credibility, but as far as the Bush regime is concerned, he is the only thing stopping Pakistan falling into the hands of islamic extremists and nuclear bombs going missing on the black market.
 
#4
Right Musharraf goes and the alternatives are what exactly ?

A) A coalition between Bhutto/Sharif and the religious parties.
B) A government led by either Bhutto or Sharif with other and the religious lobby sniping from the onset
C) A government led by religious parties (hahahahahahaha)
D) New pro-western dictator
E) Islamist Dictator.

None of the scenario would promote stability and nor would they be more western orientated. In the case of another pro-western general taking over - not going to happen, it would split the lower officer corp and cause much division in the armed forces over policy direction.
 
#5
Musharraf vs Bush in credibilty?

Bush loses hands down. They are both fighting for credibility. Bush lost his, around the time he lost his virginity. Musharraf lost his... wait a minute. I don't think he has.
 
#6
It is certainly an interesting article - posted by DMA, an Indian PR Company.
It tells us in its website that - ''DMA specializes in issues management which range from creating public debates to policy changes, from influencer outreach programmes to opinion modifications. This is a critical public relations function. DMA does this through a programme of close monitoring of media opinion and trends, government proceedings, trade & business groups, special interest groups, professional associations, and competitor activities, followed by a strategic action plan. ''

Now, I wonder why an Indian Company would want to publish this article?
 
#7
''DMA specializes in issues management which range from creating public debates to policy changes, from influencer outreach programmes to opinion modifications.
Propogandists, then. Shoot them.
 
#10
castlereagh said:
Right Musharraf goes and the alternatives are what exactly ?

A) A coalition between Bhutto/Sharif and the religious parties.
B) A government led by either Bhutto or Sharif with other and the religious lobby sniping from the onset
C) A government led by religious parties (hahahahahahaha)
D) New pro-western dictator
E) Islamist Dictator.

None of the scenario would promote stability and nor would they be more western orientated. In the case of another pro-western general taking over - not going to happen, it would split the lower officer corp and cause much division in the armed forces over policy direction.
Castlereagh, you haven't mentioned a variant F - 'Freedom' (a 'liberation' of Pakistan). Btw, Pakistan has real not imaginary WMD. Moreover, gen.Musharraf 'forget' his promis about 'free elections'.

So we have: a brutal dictator, WMD and almost open support for Taliban (terrorists for American point of view).
 
#11
KGB_resident said:
castlereagh said:
Right Musharraf goes and the alternatives are what exactly ?

A) A coalition between Bhutto/Sharif and the religious parties.
B) A government led by either Bhutto or Sharif with other and the religious lobby sniping from the onset
C) A government led by religious parties (hahahahahahaha)
D) New pro-western dictator
E) Islamist Dictator.

None of the scenario would promote stability and nor would they be more western orientated. In the case of another pro-western general taking over - not going to happen, it would split the lower officer corp and cause much division in the armed forces over policy direction.
Castlereagh, you haven't mentioned a variant F - 'Freedom' (a 'liberation' of Pakistan). Btw, Pakistan has real not imaginary WMD. Moreover, gen.Musharraf 'forget' his promis about 'free elections'.

So we have: a brutal dictator, WMD and almost open support for Taliban (terrorists for American point of view).
We could give the 'contract' for just such a task to the Indian military, the West can just write the cheques.

They'd also have an unbeatable cricket team at wars end.
 
#12
KGB_resident said:
castlereagh said:
Right Musharraf goes and the alternatives are what exactly ?

A) A coalition between Bhutto/Sharif and the religious parties.
B) A government led by either Bhutto or Sharif with other and the religious lobby sniping from the onset
C) A government led by religious parties (hahahahahahaha)
D) New pro-western dictator
E) Islamist Dictator.

None of the scenario would promote stability and nor would they be more western orientated. In the case of another pro-western general taking over - not going to happen, it would split the lower officer corp and cause much division in the armed forces over policy direction.
Castlereagh, you haven't mentioned a variant F - 'Freedom' (a 'liberation' of Pakistan). Btw, Pakistan has real not imaginary WMD. Moreover, gen.Musharraf 'forget' his promis about 'free elections'.

So we have: a brutal dictator, WMD and almost open support for Taliban (terrorists for American point of view).
But he has WMD so we can't attack. He is merely our new replacement for the Shah/Saddam/Muhijideen warlords that we sponsor to do our bidding in the middle east and get peed off when we dump them to the curb.

For some reason we seem to give dictators wmds and sponsor their regimes for access to business rights and then pray they are our friends forever after.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top