« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Some in U.S. Intelligence See Musharraf on His Way Out
Since September 11, 2001, the U.S.'s Pakistan policy can be summed up in two words: Pervez Musharraf. But within the U.S. intelligence community, and in Pakistan, there's a growing belief that the U.S.-friendly military dictator's days are drawing to a close -- and possibly within the next few months. It may be time for the U.S. to face what it's long feared in the nuclear state: the prospect of chaos, rising Islamism or anti-Americanism that follows Musharraf.
But the hope -- among Pakistani military officers and politicians, to say nothing of U.S. diplomats -- is that the increasingly inept and unpopular Musharraf can be eased out of power while the U.S. slowly distances itself from him, allowing for as smooth a transition as is possible in the turbulent South Asian country. Some see the Pakistani Army remaining powerful enough to prevent a chaotic transition or an Islamist takeover. "This is going to be a Pinochet-like transition, instead of a Marcos-like one," one former Pakistani official tells TPMmuckraker. In other words, according to the ex-official, the U.S. may not stand foursquare behind its ally Musharraf until he's ultimately forced from power, as President Ronald Reagan chose with doomed Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
Over the past few weeks, U.S. intelligence have started to conclude that Musharraf is on his way out. "It is the sense people have, and it's been out there," says Rob Richer, a former deputy head of CIA operations who has met with Musharraf personally and long worked with the Pakistanis on intelligence issues. "This is the view of both senior (U.S. intelligence) officials and people who follow the issue closely." What's more, Richer tells TPMmuckraker, Musharraf himself knows his time is up, and is "looking for an exit strategy":
"He believes his successor has got to be someone who supports the military but it won't necessarily be someone in uniform. There's no obvious candidate … At this point, he's looking for the right person, a right-winger, someone who understands the Army."
Musharraf's vision is to make Pakistan like Turkey, where Islamic currents ebb and flow with popular sentiment, "but who enforces what they call democracy? The military." Adds Frederic Grare, a former French diplomat in Pakistan, the military could "withdraw behind the scenes but keep the levers of power," while a civilian takes charge after elections that Musharraf has called for in the fall.
Musharraf, whose alliance with the U.S. on counterterrorism has been the subject of fierce controversy within Pakistan, has made error after error since March, when he ousted a leading critic, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, a move of dubious legality. Chaudhry's Supreme Court was set to hear a case on the constitutionality of Musharraf retaining the post of Army Chief of Staff while holding the presidency, and Musharraf cited unspecified allegations of corruption in removing him. Since then, Pakistan has been rocked by popular protest, uniting many of Musharraf's enemies. On May 12, over 40 people were killed when members of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, which supports Musharraf, attacked a pro-Chaudhry demonstration in Karachi, an incident that has become a national scandal.
Making matters worse, just days later, Musharraf was confronted with another crisis: the pro-Taliban Red Mosque, located in the heart of the capitol city of Islamabad, denounced Pakistan's female tourism minister and then captured the policemen who came to arrest the mosque's leaders. On May 22, Musharraf defused the crisis without invading the mosque -- defying the wishes of many in his security apparatus -- but the militants were allowed to keep their weapons. The incident was a reminder that Pakistani jihadists have gained strength since September 2006, when Musharraf agreed to a truce with Islamist militants in the lawless Waziristan province, where Osama bin Laden and his coterie are believed to be hiding.
Within three months, Musharraf has grown steadily weaker in the eyes of the security services, the Islamists, and the general public, compounding the doubts that some in the U.S. have over his commitment to taking on al-Qaeda. The mistakes expose a regime "imploding" under the weight of its contradictions, according to Grere, and unable to mollify the multifaceted discontent that has taken root since Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup.
Neither Richer nor Grare believes that there's an obvious candidate to succeed Musharraf, the ex-Pakistani official cited two prominent generals who could emerge as successors if the Army opts to retain formal rule, or alternatively, serve as crucial behind-the-scenes power brokers. The two are Ehsan Saleem Hayat, the army's vice chief of staff, and Ehsan ul-Haq, the chairman of the joint chiefs and a former head of Pakistan's powerful intelligence apparatus, known as the ISI. According to the ex-Pakistani official, both men were recently in Washington, sounding out senior officials: "They didn't come to Washington for a Burger King meal." A State Department official confirms that ul-Haq met in May with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, but could not say the same for Hayat.
The former Pakistani official says that the message that the possible successors are trying to send to the U.S. is that "continuity in policy can be ensured without the continuity of an individual, while at the same time, a democratic process can proceed." In other words, the U.S. can wean itself off of Musharraf without fear that the U.S.-Pakistani alliance is at risk, and will likely have some kind of election to point to that blesses the result. Not many see the Islamists as able to take control. "One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."
This week, Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, will visit Pakistan as part of region-wide trip. A State Department official denies that Boucher would send any particular message to Musharraf, and says he's there to "follow up on (previous) discussions," especially about counterterrorism cooperation.
Comments (45)
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 11, 2007 7:29 PM:Another interesting and well-written article, Mr. Ackerman, but what does it have to do with muckraking?
Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 11, 2007 7:47 PM:The US policy vis a vis Pakistan is remarkable in its stupidity and shortsightedness. And that cuts across party lines.
Obviously, fear governs. And that fear--which stifles imagination--will come to haunt all of us, I am afraid.
Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 8:00 PM:SUMMER BUDGET REVIEW: OSD/NSC FIRMING UP FUNDS FOR OVERSEAS PLAY TOYS; INCITE DNC RUBBER STAMPING
Isn't this convenient: Just as the instability in Iraq and Afghanistan is spreading, and the US is talking about creating chaos in Iran, the US isn't giving enough donuts to "their man" in Pakistan: "It may be time for the U.S. to face what it's long feared in the nuclear state: the prospect of chaos, rising Islamism or anti-Americanism that follows Musharraf."
Sounds like the Pakistanis are pretending there will be instability to convince the CIA-goons to run to the Senate-House intelligence committees, "Hay we really need to send more money, other wise there will be chaos. Just don't look at the chaos that followed all the money that disappeared in Afghanistan, Iraq, and . . ."
Nope, this sounds like the beginning of a long relationship between the manipulators on OSD-NSC and the pawns inside the intelligence committee: "If you cut off funding for our illegal programs, chaos will ensue..."
So much for Congressional oversight. Let Pakistan call their bluff. If there's chaos because the US won't "play along," what's keeping the US government together, not to mention the White House? Must be more War Crimes Super Glue: "If you need it quick, press Congress, they'll support more dictators. Change means pressing the DNC harder and making them believe they're still the minority."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003408.php#comments
When is Congress going to review publicly the non-sense it's been getting form the intelligence Community/President on Iran? Look to the OSD General Counsel's office and ask them about their attendance at the planning cells for the propaganda efforts; then ask about the Smith Act; and the leaks to the Iranian-Pakistani news designed to be consumed by Congress.
EOP/OSD drivel through overseas outlets, then into the mouths of Congressional babes. Toto, if we keep this up, Congress will believe this is a Republic and do nothing about war crimes. Look at the contractors involved with the media messaging placement and ask yourself, Why would the Pakistani President openly talk about something that he should be keeping quiet and privately coordinate; how much money will they hide in the Pakistani line items in the State Dept?
Woof!
Joe Buck wrote on June 11, 2007 8:19 PM:I wouldn't say that "inept" is the right word to describe Musharraf; a man in his position has to be extremely clever to stay alive. He's survived who knows how many assassination attempts, and he's tried to bridge unbridgeable gulfs, thoroughly snowing everyone just to hang onto power. That crap he pulled about being shocked, shocked at the actions of AQ Khan? Right. But the way he played it preserved his own power; he could not really move against a national hero, or admit that Khan acted in concert with the state, not as a free-lancer.
Pakistan is hardly Turkey; the Taliban is the creation of the Pakistani security services, which have many Islamists. Yes, it's true that the Pakistani military doesn't want to bow down before the mullahs, but they've taken a very different approach than the Turks to maintain their power. Islam is fundamental to Pakistan; without it, there would have been no reason to separate from India.
Ohio Patriot wrote on June 11, 2007 8:43 PM:Remember that Pakistan now is one of the top recipients of U.S. aid, getting about $900 million last year. About one-third of that is military aid that will soon include F-16 fighter planes. That's really not much expense since there's an oil pipeline to be protected. My bet is that POTUS will keep the General secure in his job so long as we can have our way with his country.
tsh wrote on June 11, 2007 8:44 PM:I don't think Pakistan is ready for Democracy. Musharraf assuming Musharraf's time in power is short has to find someone of the elite with noblesse oblige. Someone acceptable to the masses but with no mass appeal is ideal. A weak civilian that leaves the military the behind the scenes power broker has some merit but only if Musharraf can moderate the military and intelligence service, wean the military and intelligence services from support for OBL et al. Pakistan really requires an aristocracy at this time that rules for the welfare of the people. There is really no point in coming to Washington and asking what to do. There is no point in coming to Washington so Bush can share geopolitical wisdom as Rice would have it. Bush and Cheney are total incompetents. I think the rest of Washington is quite willing to accept any Pakistan that is moderate, stable and an ally.
rapier wrote on June 11, 2007 8:53 PM:The command and control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest nuclear arms issue in the world today. A million times more important that Iran's theoretical weapons.
Complacency about the nukes, many of which are mounted on probably reliable and accurate medium range missiles seems universal. Article after article and report after report are coming out about the demise of Musharraf and never will you see mention of these nukes.
Go figure.
PwapVt wrote on June 11, 2007 9:12 PM:What a f***ing mess.
Aamir Ali wrote on June 11, 2007 9:47 PM:this is what Musharraf gets for supporting the Americans whole-heartedly? abandonment at the first real crisis? Perhaps Musharraf should have never supported the US as firmly as he has, what good did it do to him and his country?
joejoejoe wrote on June 11, 2007 9:55 PM:The developments surrounding Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry are positive and derive from a homegrown desire for honest open government, not dictatorship.
If I was President I'd take a hands-off approach publicly and try to prop up Chaudhry by proxy. Chaudrhry seems like a real leader of Pakistani interests, not a self-interested power player like the military dictator that is George W. Bush's BFF.
modmom wrote on June 11, 2007 10:21 PM:"It may be time for the U.S. to face what it's long feared in the nuclear state"
Great! So the powers that be allowed the most inept pResident in history to go forward with a radical policy that caused an epic proliferation of hatred and terrorism toward the US, all the while backing a short term military dictator. Let me guess, they just wanted rampant instability so the military industrial complex could continue their profit taking from endless wars. This sounds like one dangerous future ahead of us thanks to bu$h and his enablers.
Austin Cooper wrote on June 11, 2007 10:50 PM:'Another interesting and well-written article, Mr. Ackerman, but what does it have to do with muckraking?'
Mrs Panstreppon
I'd say modmom might have answered that question, a bit.
Code = screw
HP wrote on June 11, 2007 11:10 PM:Nothing moves in Pakistan w/o the US approval, especially of Pentagon.
CIA and the State dept are going after Musharaf for sometime now but he always had Pentagon’s support and that is what matters in the current Pakistan. CIA or the State dept, no matter what they say about Musharaf, will not be able to remove him.
Musharaf lost his biggest ally Rumsfeld. Cheney is still there but it seems that Gates is not really interested in Musharaf. So we may see some change.
However, they still have to find a solution as to how to transfer power. Obvious solutions appear to be thru the elections or thru the military.
I would like to correct something in the write up above. Ehsan ul-Haq, the chairman of the joint chiefs is unimportant. He cannot replace Musharaf. Number 2 man in Pakistan is Ehsan Saleem Hayat, the army's vice chief of staff. But as long as he is the deputy, he will not be able to remove Musharaf.
The best option is to force Musharaf to not to run for the post of President again and resign his Chief of the Army Staff position thus allowing the current Vice Chief to strike a deal with the politicians, especially Benazir Bhutto and her allies.
HP wrote on June 11, 2007 11:27 PM:Mr.Ackerman writes,
“Musharraf, whose alliance with the U.S. on counterterrorism has been the subject of fierce controversy within Pakistan, has made error after error since March, when he ousted a leading critic, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, a move of dubious legality.”
Just think about this. He made no errors in the last seven or eight years but all of a sudden he started making mistakes and he continues do that.
In January-February this year, Musharaf was organizing Gulf States on Saudi Arabia’s behalf against the expected US army action against Iran. In March, all of a sudden Musharaf started making mistakes. Sounds fishy, isn’t it?
It is now reported that the Chief Justice had extensive contacts with the intelligence community in Pakistan. The US intelligence agencies have extensive network in Pakistan intelligence community. Intersting!
Mrs P wrote on June 11, 2007 11:33 PM:Austin, What does modmom's comment have to do with muckraking? She called the Bush administration corrupt but is that muckraking?
The definition of muckraking is "exposure of scandal, especially public figures." Ackerman's posts are ordinary news items and not about scandals.
If Josh Marshall wants to turn the TPM MR into a ordinary news site, that's his business and maybe it would be the right one financially. But as a reader, I'm not happy about it.
I can read about goings on in Iraq or Pakistan on dozens of sites. Ackerman isn't offering anything especially unique here.
I learned a lot about Musharraf when I visited a couple of Indian military websites a few years ago. Musharraf has always been a bit of bumbler, according to the Indians.
I read one funny story about Musharraf in China using an unsecured phone in his hotel room to call home during the coup that brought him to power. Apparently, almost every intelligence agency in the world knew what he was up to in Pakistan.
I don't know of any other site other than the TPM Muckraker that has been covering and, in the case of the USA8 scandal, exposing public corruption and that is my primary interest for visiting here.
If Josh Marshall is going to an ordinary news format, he might have mentioned it to his readers.
Mrs P wrote on June 11, 2007 11:54 PM:And if he is going to an ordinary news format, Josh Marshall should change the name of this site. The TPM Daily News sounds about right.
I was trying to be polite in my first comment here but Ackerman's story is full of meaningless b.s. like this bit:
"Over the past few weeks, U.S. intelligence have started to conclude that Musharraf is on his way out. "It is the sense people have, and it's been out there," says Rob Richer, a former deputy head of CIA operations who has met with Musharraf personally and long worked with the Pakistanis on intelligence issues. "This is the view of both senior (U.S. intelligence) officials and people who follow the issue closely."...
What does "started to conclude" mean? Am I supposed to waste my time reading about a "sense" that people have? My "sense" is that this story is that the people quoted here know as much about Musharraf stepping down as I do.
Ackerman could have distilled the key points down to a few sentences. Allow me - Some Paki bigshots want to overthrow Musharraf but want to make sure if they do, they will still get the billions in annual US aid. To garner US support for a de facto coup, the Paki bigshots are holding out the possibility of free elections.
When did we last here about pending free elections in Pakistan? IIRC, it was in the fall of 2001 when the Bush administration felt the need to explain why it was propping up Musharraf, a military dictator.
HP wrote on June 12, 2007 12:36 AM:“I learned a lot about Musharraf when I visited a couple of Indian military websites a few years ago. Musharraf has always been a bit of bumbler, according to the Indians.
I read one funny story about Musharraf in China using an unsecured phone in his hotel room to call home during the coup that brought him to power. Apparently, almost every intelligence agency in the world knew what he was up to in Pakistan." -Mrs P
So you read one story in some Indian military site and you believed every word of it. How the person who wrote the story on Indian military website knew about the phone call? Is this some official Indian intelligence web site where they discuss Musharaf’s phone calls? Link please.
Btw, Musharaf was coming back from Sri Lanka and was not in China when he called for the coup from his plane.
Some muckraking!
Adina Levin wrote on June 12, 2007 1:17 AM:Ouf. This a kremlinology piece worthy of the Washington Post (not a compliment). Which spook is talking to TPM now? Which audiences are they trying to reach through the pixels here? Do they think that dem and moderate career staff are reading this, and what message do they want readers to take away? What insider dynamic are they trying, not to report on, but to change by tossing this bit of gossip our way?
featherfamily wrote on June 12, 2007 2:59 AM:tsh wrote above about how Washington would "accept any Pakistan that is moderate, stable and an ally."
Well sure they would, but doesn't that say more about our imperialist assumptions than about the state of Pakistan? Out of how many possible political outcomes for Pakistan on any given tomorrow, few are moderate, few are stable, and very few would see most Pakistanis clamoring for an American alliance (altho remember it's not impossible, IIRC both Eisenhower and LBJ had triumphal visits there).
Even if we give each variable a 1/8th probability, or 12.5% chance, my calculator gets the probability of all three happening at once at a 0.195% chance, about twice in a thousand statistics or 500 to 1 odds.
They don't live their lives to please us, and the journalism I've seen suggests that ordinary life in Karachi or Quetta is rather more challenging than most of us experience here in America.
Mrs. P has earned her right to bitch about not enough hard-core muckraking here at home, nevertheless I'd like to hear about these fifteen websites that have great high-quality stuff on Pakistan. I ran across a lot of Pakistani journalism on the web post 9-11, but in recent years few links I've found.
Most of us have no idea of the whole story of American imperialism and 60 years of secret military-intelligence relations with Pakistan, altho those deeply interested have always found a lot of leaks to inform them of the latest details in this crucial relationship in the American neo-empire. Washington spymaster mutterings do need to be taken with a grain of salt, but I'd still like to hear them. And I've been expecting Musharaff's deposition forever.
Security code is crime: what we would see a lot of if that 60-year history of secret Washington-Islamabad goings-on was ever revealed.
Jon Jost wrote on June 12, 2007 7:05 AM:Excepting the last item, most of the posts whatever their quibbles with US policy, accept the idea that it is up to the US to decide who should run Pakistan. This is a chronic American mindset, imperialism plain and simple, but of course denied by those employing it. If you wish a fuller exposition of this, maybe read Chalmers Johnson, or check June 14 issue of New York Review of Books for article "Bush's Amazing Achievement."
This imperialist mindset is so deeply embedded in the American mindscape that hardly anyone blinks when passing through a small town and sees the inevitable VFW sign: Veterans of Foreign Wars. We have 'em all the time. Most the time we start 'em.
rapt wrote on June 12, 2007 9:17 AM:My thought is that you are getting very close to the point Jon Jost, with the line "Most of the time we start 'em."
Behind and in spite of all the detailed politics, it boils down to - we want all war all the time - . And coming along after that is - we want to control you especially if you have valuable resources - .
If you will allow me a bit of leeway here to just suppose...The war thing is essential to this certain class of beings because it gives them energy and of course power. Something like an addiction. ALL the justification, like national security etc is nothing but a ruse. If oil or titanium or zirconium are so important to control there is always the old reliable $ exchange method available. But war is much more fun and keeps the masses busy with fear.
Horatius wrote on June 12, 2007 9:51 AM:Remember "Paki" is a racist term used by the British while referring to Pakistanis.
Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 9:53 AM:I think that Joe Buck's comments are probably the most accurate, the sense that Musharraf is caught between competing interests and especially nationalists like AQ Khan, fundamentalists, and other pluralistic factions that have one thing in common a disatisfaction with Musharraf. To be sure the IIS has an interest in the outcome and as a supposition, 'intelligent.' But what cannot be denied irrespective of any input from 'spooks' is that an election is scheduled and that change is likely. To what degree that change affects US national security interests is to be seen. I will say this, it was convenient that AQ Khan's actions were disclosed AFTER the decision to invade Iraq and not before, and further that the assertion that Musharraf was an alliance in the 'war on terror' (a term hardly appropo) to nuclear proliferation a reason for the DOS to downplay the event. I have to wonder in the absence of fact if there was not a small cadre of professionals in the INTEL community and ISI iteself whom saw the differences between the claims of WMD in Iran and the fact that Kahn was spreading that technology and had a 'policy dispute' with the VP's office? And inconclusion, nuclear blackmail is profitable, the assertion hey we are not exactly without blemish but these other guys are really screwed up and crazy the cornerstone of politics around the globe.
At least we do not have a plan to liberate or democratize Pakistan like Iraq, at least there seems to be a concensus that backdoor diplomacy and good old fashioned US policy and strategy is at work, we can work things out with anyone as long as we can find some commonality under the rationality: Hey the US has blemishes, but these Mullahs will really cut the funding of the ISI....
Not a bad article at all~~~
Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 10:17 AM:featherfamily, How do you HP is right and I am wrong about Musharraf being in China? I am supposed to take his word that Musharraf was in Sri Lanka during the coup?
HP demanded that I link to the Indian military websites I referred but he didn't give any links to support his claim. IIRC, the Southeast Asia Analysis Group at SAAG.org was one of the sites but, as I said, it has been a few years.
I was relaying an anecdote, not muckraking. My impression was that the Indians liked "Mushie" which I thought was a good thing.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 12, 2007 10:21 AM:Of course, the last anonynous comment was me.
Horatius, I think I used the term "Paki". I didn't know it was derogatory and won't do it again,
morris minor wrote on June 12, 2007 10:50 AM:Mrs P--please note that the "Indian military websites" you rely on for information have their own agendas and are not always accurate. For example, you "read one funny story about Musharraf in China using an unsecured phone in his hotel room to call home during the coup that brought him to power." Well, Musharraf wasn't in China during the coup that brought him to power. He wasn't in a hotel room calling home, either. He and his wife were both on a Pakistan International Airways flight from Sri Lanka that had been denied landing rights in Pakistan.
AJ wrote on June 12, 2007 10:55 AM:Amir Ali posits - "this is what Musharraf gets for supporting the Americans whole-heartedly? abandonment at the first real crisis? Perhaps Musharraf should have never supported the US as firmly as he has, what good did it do to him and his country?"
In that case Pakistan would have ceased to be a Nation [sic] State. It would have, with help from, too eager to help India, been dismembered.
modmom wrote on June 12, 2007 11:42 AM:Check out the riot act Armitage read to Mushy in September 2001.
I was glad to see TPM cover this story. Is it muckraking? Well it does look into the corrupt policies and agendas of the current administration. Why would an administration, who claims to be supporting the spread of democracy and combating terrorism, back a military dictator from a country that hosted terrorists directly involved in 911? Surely, there must have been some experts skeptical of this short sighted policy who had warned that this action was the antithesis of what we, as a nation, were purporting to the world.
I have read little since 911 on Pakistan. I believe this is a frightening article which needs to be discussed. It would certainly help if folks here delved into these corrupt policies (best guess has to do with protecting oil interests) and help exposing the back stories to the people.
my 2 cents. ;)
btw doesn't the "possibly within the next few months" scare the begeebies out of folks here considering the fact there are nukes involved already?
Mrs P wrote on June 12, 2007 11:50 AM:Morris M., Enough already! I confess that I threw in the bit about the coup going on when Mushie was in China. All I remember for sure about the article is that Musharraf used an unsecured phone in a Chinese hotel. I only think it was around the time of the coup.
Note that I said "around the time of the coup." Do you happen to know if Mushie was in China shortly before the coup?
I don't "rely" on Indian websites for anything but the sites are certainly worth visiting if you are interested in world affairs. After 9/11, I scoured sites such as SAAG to try to expand my knowledge of what was going on in the world.
As we all know now, relying solely on the US government and media for information is not a smart idea.
SAAG has an extensive and easily accessible archive of articles dating back to 1999 including ones about Osama bin Laden. Pick out a few and see if you don't find them as interesting as I did.
Larry C Ford wrote on June 12, 2007 12:00 PM:Guess we'll see how effective the
nuclear weapons controls are without
our (bought) man in charge.
Severe sphincter tightening in
Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 2:28 PM:certain parts of DC.
transcript of tapes released by the indian ministry of external affairs, 11 june 1999
http://vsubhash.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#111849541154827353
http://vsubhash.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#111849479063462499
Buzz KIll wrote on June 12, 2007 2:31 PM:General Ehsan ul-Haq: The only public official in Pakistan who has a worse dye-job than Musharraf.
They can build a nuclear bomb but hair dye technology is still in the "oompa loompa" stages.
Buzz Kill wrote on June 12, 2007 2:34 PM:General Ehsan ul-Haq: The only public official in Pakistan who has a worse dye-job than Musharraf.
They can build a nuclear bomb but hair dye technology is still in the "oompa loompa" stages.
Mrs P wrote on June 12, 2007 3:43 PM:@June 12, 2007 02:28 PM - Thank you! I feel vindicated. Not that I felt I needed it, mind you.
Isn't likely that Musharraf was telling the Chinese about his planned coup in June 1999?
The coup occurred in October 1999 so US intelligence knew about it at least three months before it happened unless US intelligence was asleep at the wheel.
Everybody in the US government and media always act suprised when these sorts of events happen. I'd say "act" is the key word here.
You don't think intelligence agencies swap gossip? As I first said here, almost every intelligence agency in the world knew ahead of time that Musharraf was going to stage a coup.
Mrs P wrote on June 12, 2007 4:29 PM:I found SAAG's 6/14/99 funny story about Musharraf in China (link below). As I said, musharraf comes off as kind of dopey.
"PAK ARMY CHIEF CAUGHT YAPPING"
The transcripts of the taped conversations of Gen.Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), who was then in Beijing, with Lt.Gen.Mohd. Aziz, Chief of the General Staff (CGS), in Rawalpindi on May 26 and 29 speak poorly of the security consciousness of the Pakistani COAS.
Generally, when public servants, holding sensitive charges, travel abroad, they go to their Embassy in the host country whenever they have to hold sensitive discussions with their entourage or make or receive telephone calls. Even in the Embassy, they take precautions such as keeping a T.V. or radio on at high volume while holding discussions with their entourage and using a scrambler while talking on telephone.
Surprisingly, Gen.Musharraf had been using the telephone of the room of the hotel in which he had been put up for receiving situation reports from his CGS on the Pakistan Army's activities in the Kargil sector and for giving instructions on further action to be taken. This is evident from the fact that the CGS rings up the hotel exchange and asks for his chief's room. Apparently, he was not even using a scrambler.
From this, it follows inevitably that the Pakistani Army chief's telephone conversations with his CGS must have been recorded by the Chinese intelligence too through hidden recording devices in his room and by the agencies of the US and other Western countries which have very comprehensive arrangements for monitoring all international telephone conversations through satellites.
Thus, all these agencies would now be having recordings of the COAS' admission that the proxy invasion of India through the foreign mercenaries, officered by Pakistanis, was being orchestrated by the Pakistan Army and of his advice to his Foreign Office as to how it should cover up the violation of the Line of Control (LoC) by taking up the stand that the LoC was not clearly demarcated in this area.
Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 4:38 PM:During his Press conference at the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi on June 12, Mr.Sartaj Aziz, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, belittled the evidentiary value of these tapes, but the Pakistani authorities must be greatly worried over the possibility of the Governments of China, the US and other Western countries having their own independent recordings of these highly incriminating telephone conversations...
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Islamists- scary thought. India and Paksitan would destroy each other.
Al Swearengen wrote on June 12, 2007 11:33 PM:So the country goes into a frantic tailspin the second this figurehead is gone?
ISI is the real force within Pakistan. ISI is the REAL government. Whose influence is worthy of bribes today and the next time? None of them.
For the amount of years that Pakistan has played both sides, with the state supposedly representing legitimacy to the west, while the military and intelligence factions represented legitimacy to the Taliban and alQaeda...if our CIA has not solved this riddle, then I suspect they have been meddled with quite severely. And with Rumsfeld's machinations while in charge of the Pentagon, I'd imagine a lot of the CIA's budget is missing also.
If we walk away from Pakistan, whose loss will it truly be? I would have hoped that we'd have learned after the years leading up to 9/11, that having Pakistan existing as a filter between our money and the interests it is supposed to be looking after, is not a safe way to go. We lost too much time counting on Pakistan before finally dealing with Massoud (Northern Alliance general not in favor with Pakistan, assassinated by alQaeda prior to 9/11) directly...
kremlinologist wrote on June 22, 2007 10:56 AM:re: kremlinology
Ok, here's a snippet from emptywheel on The Next Hurrah saying that Dick Cheney is running Pakistan policy:
Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah
That's more context. Dick Cheney is protecting Musharraf, and the leakers are striving to discredit Dick Cheney's policy by revealing that Musharraf is on his last legs.
A reasonable thing to do, to be sure (this, too is anonymous, are there any public second sources for it?). Whenever there is anonymous sourcing, more sleuthing please about who and why.
Khanzada Emran (www.khanzadaemran.net) wrote on June 29, 2007 2:03 AM:Please let me have your e-mail address and fax number. I wish to send you my latest article
Khanzada Emran (www.khanzadaemran.net) wrote on June 29, 2007 2:06 AM:"Press Freedom ?"
Please may I have your e-mail address and fax number. I wish to send you my article on "Press Freedom ?"
emran khan wrote on July 26, 2007 4:55 AM:This general Pervez Musharaf is similar/better than any other general from the extended militaries of UK and USA.Thats the first point.
Second point is,he is 'better' and appears to be honest in comparison to our "democratic" governments of the past.They were so corrupt that it was difficult to admit to our nationality when travelling abroad!
Thirdly,on democracy,I will comment that the 5 most democratic countries could be : India,Finland,Sweden,Norway,Britain. Thats the democratic lot. If there was plenty more space here, one could fit in USA too.
Thererfore ,for the good of its citizens ,Musharaf should stay though with some very strong guide-lines from our benefactor USA on 'how to lock up his corrupt political backers' and throw away the keys. Plus bring back also the crooked Pakistani politicians with the loot,from UK and USA and do the same.
This is not rocket science. Thanks K.Emran Karachi- Pakistan
Khanzada Emran H.Khan wrote on July 26, 2007 6:19 AM:Pakistan and “ Press Freedom ? ?”
PEMRA (Pakistan Electronic & Media Regulatory Authority) gave a lot of new found liberty to the media and this week took some back, and there is a lot of heartburn.
Surely, press freedom should be there. We all know that.
Specially when we debate such matters as this, in our drawing rooms and / or our associations, collectively or in groups, we scream for more press freedom. Do we really know why we do this ? Can somebody explain in depth ? Is it to strengthen democracy and give power to the people ?
If so, the Western World claims to be the big democratic champions but still, anyone liberal enough, can tell you, that there is not much press freedom in some of the Western countries either because if they had they would also bring in the T.V. channel of CNN, BBC or Fox etc., people for direct LIVE debate on major world issues with people like A.) Muqtada Al Sadr from Iraq, or B.) Fidel Castro from Cuba, or C.) Ahmedi Nejad from Iran, or D.) Bashar Al Assad from Syria, or E.), Kim Il Jong of North Korea or F.) Vladamir Putin of Russia, or G.) Osama Bin Ladin from his sanctuary wherever that is. etc.
No ! In the West, the press supports largely the policies of the Government of the day (unless towing a line against the Establishment). The critics voices are drowned in the otherwise massive mega media institutions and hence their own people do not have access to opposing ideas / opinions as much as we suddenly witnessed in the last few years in Pakistan.
The Western Governments (after WW 11), if you remember, would accuse anybody of airing the views of opposition , of being “Communist” and would put them behind bars.
How many Journalists , Cameramen and Crew are behind bars for reasons like this in Pakistan ? Take the cause of Palestine. Which Western press gives them a fair and honest coverage or hearing in the so called democratic countries ?Not many and surely not the big ones . Why do majority of their press toe the Government line of action ? We all know also that Governments, all Governments, come and go, but the Establishments go on forever ! A Handful of people run all the Establishments worldwide, rightly or wrongly, that is another matter.
In Pakistan we are under threat. Maybe we the people don’t know but at least we can add two and two and can see that Pakistan is in danger. A new map of Pakistan was floated some months ago (by some big international Media/News group) and some areas of our country are missing there. Our special and heightened Defence capabilities are considered unacceptable by many(look east here) and hence the enemies will want to dismantle it. Perhaps the army and the military as a whole are aware of certain things that cannot be divulged openly but we all know and feel there is a threat to our national integrity and cohesiveness and to our very survival indeed. Is there a dispute on this point ? No.
On the other hand, elections are not a means to a successful governance but an election victory is largely seen by some candidates on the sub-continent as a "“shortcut to riches and wealth."” . We have had so many elections and still so many martial laws and army rules, but why do we always come back to the same spot ? Always back to square one.
This period and the present President of Pakistan is at least more promising to begin with.
Coming back to the subject of Press Freedom I also support it but there should be certain limits to “freedom”, though such use of limitations have been misused by different Governments in the past to further their governance and corruptions. Many people in this present government too, could also be corrupt and I call upon the highest office in this land to keep an eye on that.Big-brother also has a responsibilty here.
Can the press e.g. in USA, show the bad side of USA ? Like the poor wretched people in the ghettos ? Or will they just show only the good side of Washington D.C. or the scantly clad women of Hollywood ? Will they show to the fullest extent,the tax-payers money wastage when it comes to defence contracts, as a headline and as live coverage on T.V. ? No. They wont and indeed perhaps nobody should show the bad side of society. Indeed the concept of religous ‘purdah’ ( veil ) over somethings that needs it, has to be there.
Similarly, everything cannot be shown on a T.V. screen specially when it is distasteful, gory, or embarrassing e.g. If Pakistan (or any country) is at war with a enemy- country will only the enemy's victory be shown defeating our soldiers, even if true.? No. Never. All our journalists and media get united under the patriotic feelings that it is a delight to see,war's the progress in the daily Newspapers. That’s the upper values that I am trying to express here and I hope that I am defending a right cause.
After all certain matters should also be taken care of by the Judges, Courts and Police i.e. the three pillars of State. The Executive, The Judiciary and The Legislative. These offices cannot be replaced by the 'Media'. That’s impossible.
So I request our Pakistani friends in the press / media to look at the larger interest and to debate the pros and cons of both a.) the act of the government as well as b.) the act of open live coverage and I am sure when sensible men sit, a sensible outcome is guaranteed.
I don’t know if I can say everything in this short space but it is difficult to swallow one sided Injustice.
Khanzada Emran H. Khan.
Martell wrote on September 24, 2007 3:14 PM:Karachi.
Work from home, earn decent income and forget about your money worries forever. The Canadian marketer tells you how to build your online empire on a tight budget.
Gehl wrote on October 1, 2007 4:34 AM:What is email marketing? The effective method of getting new leads for your business.
Jack wrote on October 11, 2007 4:16 PM:How do you think about passing a drug test. Is it easy or not?