| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Scheuer sez not to push Pakistan too far |
| 2006-04-08 |
| A former head of CIA’s Al Qaeda unit, and now a political analyst, has warned the Bush administration not to push Pakistan too much to do things that are against its national interests as it can lead to the collapse of a major US ally in South Asia. In a hard-hitting opinion piece published in the Washington Times on Friday, Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran, describes Pakistan as an ally that did far more and took more lethal risks to accomplish America’s ‘dirty work’ than any other of its allies, including all of Nato, in the war against al Qaedaism. Mr Scheuer, who created and served as CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit head, says that while Pakistan’s internal political contradictions, economic problems and the Homeric venality of its politicians have (also) long caused a steady downward spiral, America’s shabby treatment of this close ally also had done a great harm. “US officials believe they can add untold pressures to the Pakistani leader’s burden and still find him eager to do America’s most important dirty work: Killing Osama bin Laden. Well, think again,” warns Mr Scheuer. The CIA veteran says that since 9/11, Washington has often forced Pakistani leaders to take steps that run counter to Pakistan’s national interests. “Pakistan, for example, had no enemies in the Taliban or al Qaeda until (Pakistani leaders) made them such at our behest. Likewise, there could have been no better Afghan government for Pakistan than the Taliban regime, and yet (Pakistani leaders) helped America destroy it and replace it with the Karzai regime, a government that has allowed an enormous increase in the Indian presence in Afghanistan.” The author recalls that for the first time Pakistan has sent the regular army into the largely autonomous tribal areas to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “To date, Pakistan has lost more soldiers killed and wounded than the US-led coalition in Afghanistan. More dangerously, the offensives … are stoking the fires of a potential civil war between Islamabad and the Pashtun tribes that dominate much of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.” This situation, he says, is heaven-sent for Pakistan’s enemies, “the Karzai regime and India, to fuel Pashtun irredentism.” If successful, this people could lead to the creation of a country ungovernable without Western bayonets, reducing Islamabad’s domain to an indefensible sliver of territory, faced by angry warlike tribes to the west and a billion-plus, nuclear-armed Indians to the east. For New Delhi, this would be nirvana on earth. “What have (Pakistan’s) US allies done to help lighten the load of an ally Washington describes as indispensable,” asks the author. “President Bush visited India before Islamabad and there again declared New Delhi a strategic US partner. Then, as if to ensure Pakistanis did not miss the snub, the president signed a nuclear deal with India that however non-weapons-related its content will be seen by Mr Musharraf’s fellow generals, Islamist political parties, and most Pakistanis as giving their enemy a WMD leg-up over Pakistan.” “On arriving for a hurried visit to Pakistan, the president spoke the usual boiler plate describing Pakistan as a major ally in the war on terrorism, and then asked Mr Musharraf what all US leaders ask their Pakistani counterparts: What have you done for me lately? Mr Musharraf, reeling from what he has done, was told he must do more to eliminate al Qaeda and the Taliban, help the anti-Pakistan Karzai regime, and to forget the idea of a US-Pakistan nuclear deal like that America signed with India.” Such measures, he believes, would provoke the Pashtun tribes, endanger Pakistan’s western border and force it to do India’s bidding, Mr Scheuer said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #9 If Pakistan's heroic efforts have gone largely unhearlded, they must be some absolutely incredible undercover enterprises. That said, since the ISI does all the undercover work, it sort of brings us back to square one, since the ISI cannot be trusted with even so much as a ball point pen. Our alliance with Pakistan compares well with attempting to use a highly toxic poison. It is just as easy to harm oneself as to kill your opponent when using such fatal measures. This has been the exact case with Pakistan. Any actual successes enjoyed at their behest have been accompanied by so many compromises and outright betrayals that little headway is the most likely result. When you add to this meager balance sheet the fact that Pakistan continues to churn out countless thousands of potential taleban and jihadis on a daily basis, the degree of betrayal assumes true proportion. Pakistan must eventually experience regime change and forever be steered away from the theocratic cesspool it has always been since its very inception. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-04-08 13:39 |
| #8 If they had listened to LBJ, Pak would not be in the hole it is in now... |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-08 12:24 |
| #7 #5 Three cheers for LBJ sahib. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-04-08 12:14 |
| #6 I'm beginning to see why he's "former head". |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-04-08 12:13 |
| #5 When President Ayub Khan visited Washington around 40 years ago, to meet the American president from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson, the latter told him: “We give India food or anything else we want. Our India policy is our business.” Ayub Khan described the treatment meted to him by President Johnson: “I had barely sat down when President Johnson started speaking. He didn’t even address me as ‘President’, and thus spoke: ‘Go and patch up with India.’ I said: ‘Please listen to me...’ He stopped me right in the middle of the sentence and retorted: ‘I have told you, go and patch up with India or shut up.’” Ayub Khan hadn’t revealed this incident to his cabinet, but only to the Working Committee (Munir Ahmed Munir. 1985. Aatish Fishan Publications, pg337). |
| Posted by: john 2006-04-08 12:02 |
| #4 On the other hand beeing too good buds with Perv could be the kiss of death in the eyes of the ISI. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And Pakistan needs to take a kinetic enema before the GWOT is over. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-08 10:56 |
| #3 Homeric venality ? Where the hell did you get this guy? |
| Posted by: Clutle Floluling8554 2006-04-08 10:45 |
| #2 I think we have a fine balancing act in our relations with Pakistan. The Pakistanis have done more recently than most in the US know or care to acknowledge. In the end, however, we will not be able to achieve or goals in the region without the support of Pakistan. |
| Posted by: H8_UBL 2006-04-08 08:41 |
| #1 If Sheurer doesn't like the way we are handling India and Pakistan, then I most certainly do. |
| Posted by: Jaick Elmith7223 2006-04-08 04:06 |