| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| How much more can Pakistan do? |
| 2006-07-06 |
| By Eric S. Margolis AS far as the Bush administration is concerned, Pakistan may be a “key strategic ally”, but it is also a hotbed of Islamic militancy, an enemy of Israel, and a nation that barely disguises its hostility to the US. Even worse, Pakistan just never seems to “get with the programme,” as they say in Washington. This unflattering viewpoint was underlined for all to see during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit to Pakistan. Secretary Rice reportedly demanded President Pervez Musharraf inflict more punishment on the tribes of North Waziristan and clamp down on Taliban supporters in Balochistan. She demanded Pakistan intensify efforts to root out Al Qaeda supporters and curb its Islamic parties. One really wonders how much more Pakistan is expected to give. Since coming to power, President Musharraf has been forced by Washington to first abandon, then declare war on its creation, the Taliban, and give up Pakistan’s historic strategic interests in Afghanistan. Then, Musharraf was forced to purge Pakistan’s ablest generals, who had put him into power. They were replaced by officers approved by Washington. ISI was transformed from one of the world’s finest intelligence agencies into a compliant servant of the government that, like CIA, abandoned its professionalism and duty to the nation by allowing itself to become politicised. The struggle for freedom in Kashmir was abandoned and reclassified as “Islamic terrorism”, handing a huge victory to the Indians, who gleefully crowed they were getting revenge for Kargil. To the outside world, Pakistan seemed to admit it had indeed been a hotbed and sponsor of terrorism. There are persistent reports that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, its key to survival against mighty India, has been put under some degree of US “supervision”. Just how much remains uncertain. Britain’s nuclear weapons cannot be used without US approval. Have Pakistan’s nuclear weapons been similarly put under joint control? We don’t know, but we do know that the Bush administration wants to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush even told Britain’s Tony Blair in 2003 that once he finished off Iraq he would “go on” to deal with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. On top of all this, Islamabad has been forced to wage war against its own people as part of the so-called war on terrorism. Washington’s insistence that Pakistan break its traditional autonomy agreement with the tribes of the NWFP destabilises Pakistan and undermines its national integrity. Each step along this painful route of submission has increasingly angered and dismayed Pakistanis. President Musharraf has bent over so far backwards that his head is almost touching the ground. It’s hard to think what more he can do to meet Washington’s never-ending demands. As Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri pointedly observed, the government now has 90,000 troops in Waziristan battling its own tribesmen. Pakistan’s reward for obeying Washington’s requests is three billion to four billion dollars. But this amount is not enough to make up for forcing Pakistan to repeatedly violate its own national self-interest. If Pakistan is truly America’s “most important ally in the war on terrorism”, as Washington claims, then the price for this cooperation should be much higher. The US is spending $6.1 billion a week alone in Iraq, and another $1.5 billion to $2 billion weekly in Afghanistan. To quote the late President Ziaul Haq, three to four billion dollars per annum is “peanuts.” Even hints from Washington that it may finally supply modern F-16 models hardly compensates for what Pakistan has been through. Nor does it seriously alter the dangerous military imbalance between Pakistan and India. The US just announced it will provide $2 billion of arms and trucks to its Afghan sepoys. Surely, Pakistan deserves better? Perhaps it’s time for President Musharraf to start demanding a change. |
| Posted by:john |
| #11 I guess all those assassination attempts didn't "persuade" Mushy our way, either, eh Mr. Margolis? Just like Chechnya/Beslan didn't persuade Putty more in our camp. Geez, what a maroon. One of the few articles where I don't even know where to begin shredding it apart. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-07-06 23:07 |
| #10 We get what we paided for, if Pakistan wants more money, maybe they should return the investment. Their surrounded by US Afghanistan, India, and Shite Iran, they better take what they can get. |
| Posted by: Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-07-06 22:54 |
| #9 I call bullshit: "The US is spending $6.1 billion a week alone in Iraq, and another $1.5 billion to $2 billion weekly in Afghanistan. To quote the late President Ziaul Haq, three to four billion dollars per annum is “peanuts.”" Let's see. $6.1 billion per week would be $312 billion per year. That would be most of the Defense budget on Iraq alone. Add in another $78-$104 billion on Afghanistan and you're talking serious money. Sounds like fuzzy math to me. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2006-07-06 21:21 |
| #8 Margolis is the former proprietor and chairman of Jamieson Laboratories, a leading manufacturer of vitamins and herbal supplements |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-06 21:03 |
| #7 Eric Margolis...wasn't that the guy who played Angel Martin on the Rockford Files? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-06 20:45 |
| #6 Nuggets from the Urdu Press came in early this week I guess? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-07-06 20:42 |
| #5 i can't believe what i just read. i |
| Posted by: Greamp Elmavinter1163 2006-07-06 20:36 |
| #4 This is the clincher... ISI was transformed from one of the worldÂ’s finest intelligence agencies into a compliant servant of the government So the ISI was just fine when it was unopposed in formenting jihad ? |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-06 19:39 |
| #3 Pakistan has done more than enough. Who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-07-06 19:36 |
| #2 handing a huge victory to the Indians, who gleefully crowed they were getting revenge for Kargil. Bizarre reading of history. Kargil was not a Pak victory. They lost. From http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1039940 The Pakistan Army lost 2,700 military personnel in the Kargil conflict, far higher than its casualties during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said in his memoirs. Sharif said the casualties suffered by the Army were so extensive that an entire brigade of the Northern Light Infantry based in the Pakistan-controlled Northern Areas was wiped out Sharif said adding he was told the Indian artillery bombardment was so extensive that it blew off the heads of Pakistan soldiers hiding in trenches. Musharraf told Sharif that because the trenches did not have covers, the soldiers were directly exposed to artillery fire. "Let me tell you by the time when the Washington deal took place, the Indians had already recaptured half of the peaks and were advancing further. I protected the Pakistan Army's honour or they would have been left with nothing," Sharif said. . |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-06 19:34 |
| #1 I'm just speechless at this nonsense.. |
| Posted by: john 2006-07-06 19:25 |