Nadeem Malik

Thursday, January 17, 2008

DMO On Swat Operation

Election-army Over 35,000 troops to be employed during elections

ISLAMABAD, Jan 16 (APP): Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Major Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha on Wednesday said that over 35,000 troops of Pakistan Army would be employed to ensure law and order situation in parts of the country during elections.

The troops employment would be made to assist the civil administration in case any law and order situation arises, he said while briefing media at GHQ.

He said that the Election Commission of Pakistan has set up around 72,000 polling stations for 342 National Assembly and 728 provincial assemblies seats for February 18 polls, thus adequate number of troops have been specified for the purpose in accordance with the requisition by the civil administration.

He dispelled the impression that law and order situation was a deliberate attempt to achieve certain motives in parts of the country and said, there is no substance in such allegations as Pakistan Army is purely working in accordance to the orders given by the Government.

"Pakistan Army does not speak language of bullet but it works in accordance to the need of the government," he said in firm tone.

He said there is no such directive to army troops to be deployed during elections to "shoot at sight" the miscreants. "The troops would be there to assist the civil administration and would act only in case the police and civil administration fails to maintain the law and order," he said

 

Muharram-Army Around 17,000 troops deployed in sensitive areas during Muharram: DGMO

ISLAMABAD, Jan 16 (APP): Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Pakistan Army Major General Ahmed Shuja Pasha on Wednesday said that 17,000 troops of Pakistan Army have been deployed to maintain law and order in sensitive parts of the country during Muharram.

The troops deployed in the four provinces would assist the civil administration to maintain law and order and would be active in case the police or civil administration fails to control the situation, he said while briefing media persons at GHQ.

Maj-Gen Pasha said a total of 159 companies of Pakistan Army have been deployed in 29 districts of Punjab, 11 districts of Sindh, seven districts of NWFP and one district of Balochistan.

He said, in addition to the army troops, 54 companies of Rangers and Frontier Corps have also been engaged in these sensitive districts of the four provinces.

He said that this year the employment of troops in NWFP has been increased as compared to the last year. During 2007, he said 97 companies of Pakistan Army were employed during Muharram.

He said the troop deployment was made following request by the civil administration

 

 

Operation 'Rah E Haq' in Swat accomplished: DGMO

ISLAMABAD, Jan 16 (APP): Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Pakistan Army Major General Ahmed Shuja Pasha on Wednesday said that operation "Rah E Haq" in Swat to re-establish the writ of the government and clean the area from miscreants has been successfully accomplished.

Giving a detailed briefing on the subject at the General headquarters, the DGMO said during the operation, spread over around three months, 36 security personnel embraced shahadat while 9 civilians were killed.

More than 615 miscreants were arrested while over 100 of them were still under investigations while the rest have been released, Maj-Gen Pasha said.

He said ten notorious miscreants including close allies of Maulana Fazal Ullah identified as Fazale Ahad (brother of Fazal Ullah), Liaqat, Fazalur Rehman, Mahboob ur Rehman, Iqbal Khan, Inam Ur rehman, Waheed Khan and Maulana Shakoor had been killed during the operation.

"Pakistan Army troops have pushed out the miscreants from the Swat valley to an adjoining isolated area having mountain peaks fully covered with snow," he said

DGMO Maj Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha said during the operation an utmost care had been exercised by the troop to avoid any collateral damage to the life, due to the dense population in the area. He said that the law and order situation in the area had arisen back in 1990 and due to slackness in matching attention to the problem in the past it kept rising.

He said the situation had worsen to the level that the police stations and civil administration were simply non-existent as the police stations were under the complete command of Taliban. The local populace was being subjected to brutal tortures and killings. Seeing the worst situation the provincial government of NWFP requested Pakistan Army to deploy troops in the area which successfully carried out operation.

Answering a question he said the lasting peace in the area could be achieved through steps to empower the civil administration and police which may keep strict vigil on law and order. He pointed out that the trends of miscreants could be checked with the help of people who should stop their support besides paying them donations.

He said that the affected people are presently being provided relief

by the troops under "Quick Impact Project" costing Rs one billion while a compensation package for them has also been recommended. He said the injured in the area were provided free medical care while the families of the deceased were also given proper care and attention.

He said the local populace is extending all cooperation to the troops as they had welcomed them with open arms and took a sigh of relief seeing their presence in the area.

He said the confidence of miscreants has been badly shattered.

DGMO said election activity in the area is visibly seen while 12 FM stations have re-started their transmissions.

He said the pull out plan of troops from the area would be considered in the due course of time.

He said to launch operation in the area was the most difficult decision to be implemented however, it was initiated to check the curse.

He thanked the media for their pragmatic and optimistic reporting of the happenings. However, he was critical about some specific tv channels for showing bloody scenes and bodies of the dead on the screen. He said " As a common citizen of the country I want to ask the TV channels that what service are they extending to the society by showing such gory scenes."

Answering to a question he said that Baitullah Mehsood had been hiding in some hide out in Waziristan and some reports have revealed that he is critically ill

 

 

 

DGMO-Foreign No foreign force to be allowed to carry out operation in Pakistan: DGMO

ISLAMABAD, Jan 16 (APP): Director General Military Operation Pakistan Army Major General Ahmed Shuja Pasha on Wednesday stated in firm tone that no foreign force would be allowed to carry out operation in Pakistan.

Referring to President Pervez Musharraf's recent press statement on the issue, Gen. Pasha said, the President had already given a clear statement and this is the country's policy.

Giving briefing to media in General Headquarters, he said as far as the matter of intelligence sharing with the US is concerned, liaison is there -Pakistan Army is continuing its support.

Over 120,000 troops of Pakistan Army have been deployed on the country's western border and in Waziristan area to keep vigil on the situation as well as to check cross border movements, he said.

He said that the country's armed forces are vigilant and if any such situation arises to deploy troops on eastern borders it could easily be done.

He said Pakistan being major contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations abroad has earned laurels due to their professional and proficient approach to deal with the untoward situations.

 
Military operation not meant to save president Musharraf regime operation: DGMO 
ISLAMABAD, January 18 (Online): Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Maj Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha has said military operation in Swat or Waziristan has not been launched to save President Musharraf's or some one else government.
"Military operation has not been initiated to save government of president Musharraf's regime or some one else government. Government sought army help and we have come here under the directive of government. We have no eagerness to conduct operation against our own country men; It is very difficult decision and there is tremendous pressure on us in this respect", he said this during a press briefing here Wednesday in GHQ.
Responding to a question DGMO said he couldn't give any guarantee about re-emergence of militants. People should not extend donations to them and not to be intimidated by them. "We have pushed them into an area of Swat wherefrom they can not browbeat people. Some have fled to Afghanistan, while some have mingled with general public", he indicated.
He acknowledged that local Taliban were citizens of Pakistan. Extending support to Taliban in 1990 was policy of the then government and not of the army, he pointed out.
He told 120000 troops were deployed in Swat and Waziristan. "We will however focus fully on our borders with India if situation worsens there. We moved to Swat at the behest of government", he remarked.
"Language of bullet is not language of army, "he stressed. It is government, which decides to use army. "However dialogue process is still underway in Swat", he maintained.
"Our cooperation with US is very clear. However we will not allow any one including US to conduct any operation inside our borders", he announced in unequivocal terms.
"No one can wage armed struggle against one's own country", he said adding, and "if they will take up arms then some one has to stop them."
Responding to a question he said president had talked of opening fire on those found involved in disrupting electoral process in some other perspective. Such decision will be taken by respective field commander after taking into consideration the situation", he remarked
"We know it well army is no solution to Swat issue", he said adding civil administration and next government should address their demands. If police discharges its duty honestly then there will be peace otherwise not.
He told Fazlullah could not be arrested so far.. He escaped narrowly once. He can be in Peo Char or Chaprial, DGMO hinted.
To another question he said there was no reality in the reports about escalation of military operation after arrival of new army chief. "Army chief's vision is very clear in this connection", he underlined.
"We are sharing intelligence with US but there is no US intelligence office operating in Pakistan. Contact is made through a liaison officer, " he informed.
Responding to a question he said whereabouts of Baitullah Mehsud were unknown, but he could be living among his Mehsud tribe.
No decision has been taken to set up any garrison in Swat, Maj Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha pointed out.
Tremendous achievement has been made in Swat Operation so far, he said adding 36 soldiers have embraced martyrdom and 72 have been injured so far. Operation Swat was started on November 13. Presence of Police and local administration was next to nil in Swat at that time. Taliban were spilling into all areas, he told. Fazlullah war the real ruler there. " We started taking control of the areas from the possession of Taliban. All the areas barring two or three have been retracted and their control has been handed over to local administration, he indicated.
Fazal Ahad, brother of Maulana Fazlullah has been arrested in addition to his 8 key commanders, he told.
617 people were arrested during the operation and 517 were released after investigation, he informed.
People of these areas welcomed military operation, he said adding no Taliban police station is left in the area and writ of the government has been restored. Police have returned to their duties. Schools and trade centers have been opened.
Government has set up 12 FM radio stations to counter propaganda blitz of Maulana Fazlullah, he held. Government will soon announce relief package for Swat and Shangla Hill.
He indicated troops had been deployed in 48 districts across the country to assist civil administration during Muharram ul Harram.
Ends/Online
RT/TR/ZK


-----------------------------------------------------------
N A D E E M M A L I K
CNBC PAKISTAN
BUREAU CHIEF
ISLAMABAD

0321-5117511

nadeem.malik@hotmail.com
16th Floor, Saudi Pak Tower, 61-A Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad. 051-2800113-14, Fax: 051-2800118
 



Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Musharraf's Last Stand

Musharraf's Last Stand

By clinging to power, the president is making Pakistan fight the wrong battle—against him, rather than the extremists destabilizing the nuclear-armed nation.

 

The Newsweek

By Fareed Zakaria

Updated: 2:22 PM ET Jan 12, 2008

 

This was supposed to be a foreign-policy election. Iraq, Iran, North Korea were going to be prominent on the campaign agenda in 2008. In fact, over the past few months, the wider world has been receding. Violence in Iraq is down. The threat from Iran seems less urgent. We're negotiating with North Korea. But one country has been all over the news and is being debated on the campaign trail—Pakistan. Pakistan worries everyone. Commentators talk of rising instability and national peril. Proliferation experts like Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warn that the country's nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Presidential contenders threaten to get tough with Islamabad. And to add urgency to these discussions come periodic terror attacks, including one last Thursday, outside the Lahore High Court, that killed 19 policemen and bystanders.

 

I watched this debate from Pakistan, leaving Lahore one day before the bombing. Pakistanis—somewhat dazed in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination—are not quite sure how to take in all the attention. Most are intrigued by their newfound prominence, defensive about the gloomy picture painted of their country and hopeful that their problems will lead to international help. But all are genuinely worried. Things have rarely looked as bad.

 

In the past year Pakistan has suffered its worst violence since the riots that followed its founding in 1947. And in the past six months it has careered from one political and constitutional crisis to another, none of which has been resolved, or is likely to be resolved by parliamentary elections scheduled for Feb. 18. "We have all these problems coming together at the same time," says Jehangir Karamat, the former chief of staff of the armed forces. "The suicide bombings in our cities and towns, the insurgency in the western regions, the lawyers' protests, the challenge to the regime's legitimacy." In fact, Pakistan is facing two crises—one political and the other security-related. It might have been more convenient to tackle them sequentially, but that is no longer an option. The country will face them simultaneously over the next few months, and how well it does will determine whether this nuclear-armed nation veers badly off course.

 

Pakistan is a messy place, with only unpalatable choices, which is why many believe that in this land of the blind, Pervez Musharraf is king. George W. Bush, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy—all have bet on Musharraf. He's not perfect, in their view, but he is a bold leader who fights terrorism and has the competence to move this complex country in a modern direction. Until recently it was a good bet. When Musharraf took control of the government in 1999, Pakistan was spiraling downward, its economy a shambles, its military intertwined with jihadists in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and its politics deeply corrupt. Musharraf was forced to make a choice after 9/11 and acted decisively. Once the principal sponsor of the Taliban government, Pakistan quickly helped the United States topple it. Over the next two years, Musharraf weakened support for something much closer to his military's heart— the jihad in Kashmir, which kept a third of the Indian Army tied down in that state. To understand the magnitude of these shifts, bear in mind that the Pakistani military has had only two policy successes over the past three decades—installing a friendly regime in Afghanistan and bleeding India at low cost over Kashmir.

 

In a wide-ranging conversation at his Camp Office in Rawalpindi on Jan. 7, Musharraf came across, as always, as smart and thoroughly modern. In the past he has spoken admiringly of Turkey's founder, Kemal Ataturk, and denounced Islamic extremism. He's instituted economic reforms, and embraced science and secular education. By all accounts, he has not been tarred by the personal corruption that had become routine for Pakistani leaders, though of course he is part of a broader structure of military power and privilege that is massive, arbitrary and accountable only to itself.

 

One year ago, if Pervez Musharraf had ceded power (there were many different ways to do so) and allowed for a transition to democratic rule, he would, over time, have been remembered as Pakistan's most significant leader since Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, perhaps even since its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. There are many caveats and qualifications to this characterization—I can hear the shrieks from Pakistan's urban liberals—but on balance, I believe that it holds. While intellectuals and activists in Lahore and Islamabad had many complaints, in September 2006—after Musharraf had been in office seven years—average income had risen 55 percent, TV and print media were flourishing, and his approval rating hovered above 60 percent.

 

But over the past year, Musharraf has embarked on a series of moves that have destroyed his claims to being a modernizer, his reputation as a statesman and his popularity with his own people. Many outside Pakistan do not quite realize the sea change that has taken place. Musharraf is now deeply unpopular; significant majorities distrust anything he says. He is routinely accused of masterminding Bhutto's death, rigging the elections in advance and being in cahoots with terrorists. His approval rating was 30 percent in November 2007, in the latest of five national surveys conducted by the International Republican Institute over the previous 18 months. It has almost certainly gone down significantly since then, in the wake of Bhutto's assassination. When asked what they thought of his (engineered) re-election as president in October 2007, a stunning 61 percent said that they "strongly disagreed," and an additional 11 percent said they "disagreed." And polls in Pakistan are likely to overstate the level of support for a military ruler.

 

Why has this happened? Musharraf realized last year that Pakistan's laws and courts were obstacles to his central aspiration—to remain in power—and he responded by cutting them down. When it became clear that the Supreme Court stood in his way, he fired its chief justice. When the charges he brought against the chief justice were unanimously dismissed by a 13-judge panel (including five hand-picked ones), he declared an emergency and fired the chief justice and 60 other judges of various superior courts, placing most of them under house arrest. When lawyers protested, he arrested their leaders, including the highly respected head of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Aitzaz Ahsan. Musharraf shut down TV stations, then reopened some after they were forced to sign a "code of conduct."

 

Musharraf has explained his actions—all wildly unpopular—as necessary to fight terror, and banked on foreign reporters' not checking the details of a complex saga. For example, Musharraf claims the judges had gone soft on terror, releasing jihadists arrested during the siege of Islamabad's Red Mosque last year. It's true that three judges had acquitted the Islamists, but Musharraf has retained all three. "The principle by which he fired judges is clear," says Asma Jahangir, the courageous chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and a respected lawyer. "Those who were relatively independent were sacked. Only the scum remain."

 

Musharraf's struggle to stay in power has also reinforced his alliance with thoroughly illiberal forces. Having packed the courts, amended the Constitution, muzzled the media and battled with the major political parties, Musharraf has alienated all the modern, secular and liberal forces in Pakistan, with the exception of some businessmen and his own community of "mohajirs" (refugees from India) in Sindh. He now relies for his support on the military, an assortment of feudal politicians and some friendly fundamentalists. In Rawalpindi he spoke of other politicians, including the late Benazir, with undisguised hostility. Although he is an intelligent, well-meaning man whose vision for Pakistan remains moderate and secular, he has become a deeply polarizing force in Pakistan. Musharraf's selling point has always been that even though he was not elected, he has been a liberalizing dictator. Over the past year, he has lost claim to the adjective.

 

Does that mean Musharraf's days are numbered? Not exactly. Mushahid Hussain, secretary-general of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party aligned with the president (often described as the "king's party"), says, "He's a cat with nine lives, and he still has two left." It may not be his feline qualities that keep him in office, though, but the support of the armed forces. Whatever happens at the polls, Pakistan's military, allied with elements of the country's traditional, quasi-feudal establishment, will still wield immense power. Its control of the Pakistani state is deep and has actually increased over the past decade, as Musharraf has placed retired generals in key positions of authority.

 

But Musharraf could also face a powerful political opposition in the National Assembly. Unless the elections are rigged, every independent expert predicts that the king's party will do badly. Opposition leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari (Benazir's widower and the new co-head of her Pakistan Peoples Party) are united in their basic agenda. "Our No. 1 demand is the restoration of the judiciary," Sharif told me. "Nothing is more important than that." Zardari said, "The whole structure of power must change in this country. The military must get out of politics."

 

At a political and constitutional level, the crisis in Pakistan is actually good news. Civil society has mobilized. The print media have been utterly fearless in its criticism of the president. Musharraf's actions have given the parties an agenda to get passionate about, and so far they have not succumbed to the infighting that often destroyed them in the past. It would be a mistake to romanticize Pakistan's democrats. Many are feudal, corrupt and pliant. But increasingly there are some young and talented ones emerging as well. The polls may be rigged, though there are fewer opportunities than before for massive illegalities. The king's party may be able to buy allegiances after the elections. But it is also possible that Pakistan's political class might surprise us with its maturity.

 

There is a solution to Pakistan's political crisis, one that will allow Musharraf to leave on a high note. First, he must hold free and fair elections. Musharraf's current plan is to wield power as part of a troika—the Army chief, the prime minister and himself as president. This will work only if he is the weakest leg of that stool. He has already appointed a decent man as head of the Army, and he can allow a stable parliamentary coalition to elect a prime minister who can run the country. Musharraf should recognize that he has become far too controversial to be able to lead his nation and should instead recede from power. The example to follow is Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, now universally feted for bringing democracy to that country. Musharraf is said to be convinced that he is indispensable to Pakistan's future. He should remember the words of another general turned politician, Charles de Gaulle, who, when told he was indispensable to France, is said to have replied, "The graveyards are filled with indispensable people."

 

That still leaves Pakistan's other, more dangerous, crisis—the new jihad. Once nestled within the tribal areas of Pakistan and in neighboring Afghanistan, groups of militants have now begun to move freely into the settled towns and cities of the east. In the past year there have been 46 suicide bombings, killing more than 1,000 people. Attacks have taken place almost everywhere in the country. Most major political figures have been targeted, as have the police. In the past six months Army cantonments have been repeatedly attacked, and last fall two buses filled with officers from the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency were blown up. And, of course, in December, the country's most popular leader was killed.

 

The most troubling aspect of this wave of terror is that no one in Pakistan seems to understand why it's happening. Everyone I spoke to, from President Musharraf on down, was taken aback by the violence. When I asked the president about it, he began a long, rambling answer that decried blowback from the Afghan jihad in the late 1980s. But those fighters are now 50 years old. The ones blowing up Pakistanis are a new generation of young jihadists, motivated, networked and competent. If Musharraf has few answers, the political parties have largely ignored the problem, as have most journalists and commentators (with some important exceptions).

 

Theories abound. The Pakistani military was never fully committed to battling jihadists. Having spent decades training fighters for Kashmir and Afghanistan, the Army withdrew support but would not kill or arrest its former charges. While true at first, things appear to have changed in the past year. The armed forces are taking the battle to the militants, which explains why the jihadists are now targeting the Army in return. There remain some defense experts, like Talat Masood, a retired general, who argue that even now, the Army is softer on Afghan and Kashmiri jihadists, believing that keeping those places somewhat unstable is in Pakistan's long-term interests. (The Army assumes that the United States will eventually tire of the war and leave, and India will benefit from a stronger Afghanistan.) "The idea that a stable Afghanistan and India mean peace and development—that's something that the Pakistani Army doesn't really believe in its heart," says Masood.

 

Washington itself bears a significant part of the blame. The Taliban were never really defeated after the fall of Kabul. They simply went into hiding and regrouped, and yet the American Army declared victory and left. "You outsourced the most important battlefield of the War on Terror to NATO troops that did not have the mission, training or will to actually fight it," says PML leader Hussain. (The Pentagon is now considering sending an additional 3,000 Marines to southern Afghanistan.) The rise of the Taliban in Pakistan's tribal areas was also ignored. The first military operation there took place in 2004, two and a half years after the jihadists had retreated there, largely because the Pakistani Army didn't want to get bogged down in an area marked by disputed borders and fiercely independent people.

 

It's easier to diagnose what went wrong than say what should be done to put it right. Some have argued for stronger military measures, but the Pakistani military (with U.S. assistance) has been fighting these forces with mixed success. Others argue for greater political efforts at reconciliation and rehabilitation, a view Musharraf himself shares. But these measures so far have not worked. Musharraf's deal with the tribal leaders in 2005 and 2006 have failed—by his own admission. Some critics argue that these were hasty arrangements, designed out of desperation. What is needed, they say, is a much broader effort to revive the politics of the tribal regions and Baluchistan (the other danger zone) and to integrate them more fully into Pakistan.

 

Counterinsurgency and nation-building, which is what we're talking about, is a long, hard slog. The Pakistani state has limited capacity, especially in regions that have been "no go" zones for hundreds of years. Even its much-vaunted Army isn't really up to the job, having been designed to fight the Indian Army, not small gangs of Pashtun warriors. But if there is a missing component to the battle against the new jihadists it is that throughout Pakistan, this is seen as America's war, or Musharraf's war, but not as Pakistan's war. No one has been able to enlist the Pakistani people in the effort to marginalize the militants and at the same time provide political and economic development, as well as an ideological alternative to tales of jihad and martyrdom. Right now Pakistan's politics are focused on an entirely different battle—over the president and his illegal power grabs. Very few are willing to join a struggle that he will spearhead. Unless he can find a way to take himself out of the spotlight, Musharraf and his fate will eclipse the serious security issues facing Pakistan.

 

The American debate has been, as is often the case, largely removed from reality. The two scenarios that obsess Western politicians—loose nukes and empowered mullahs—are overhyped. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is, by all accounts, firmly embedded in the command-and-control structure of its military, with multiple supervisors and ultimate oversight by the prime minister and president. The second, related worry—that Islamic militants will take over the country—is even less plausible. For better or worse, Pakistan is run by a military that is disciplined and (mostly) secular, especially in its current leadership. The country's politics are dominated by parties that are mainstream and moderate in their interpretation of Islam. Fundamentalists have never done well in Pakistan's elections, gaining just over 11 percent of the vote in the 2002 elections, held in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Public-opinion polls all concur that these parties will be routed in February's elections.

 

The U.S. candidates' policy proposals have been depressing in their lack of seriousness. Does anyone believe that Pakistan would allow Washington and London to secure its nuclear arsenal? Or that it would meekly let the U.S. Army invade its territory to fight terrorists? The real question we face in Pakistan is what to do about the upcoming elections to ensure that they are free and fair. We need to walk Musharraf back from a power struggle in which he is pitted against an independent judiciary and democratically elected politicians. And above all we must find a way to work with the Pakistani people and not a handful of generals. Otherwise the intense anti-Americanism in Pakistan—fast rising because of our support for Musharraf—will produce a new wave of jihadists, born in the mountains of the frontier, tested in battle against the Pakistani Army and thirsting to fight the ultimate enemy, thousands of miles away.

 

####

 

 

'Pakistanis Know I Can Be Tough'

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf talks about fair elections, Benazir Bhutto's assassination and security in the region.

 

THE NEWSWEEK

By Fareed Zakaria

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Updated: 12:28 PM ET Jan 12, 2008

 

Since Benazir Bhutto's assassination weeks ago, Pakistan has been plunged into one of the worst crises in its history. President Pervez Musharraf, having recently given up control of the nation's army, remains firmly in charge and as reluctant as ever to share power, despite a rising tide of criticism. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria from his camp office in Rawalpindi. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What do you make of reports that the United States is thinking about launching CIA operations in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's approval?

Pervez Musharraf: We are totally in cooperation on the intelligence side. But we are totally against [a military operation]. We are a sovereign country. We will ask for assistance from outsiders. They won't impose their will on us.

 

How do you take Hillary Clinton's suggestion that the United States and Britain help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons?

Does she know how secure [the weapons] are and what we are doing to keep them so? They are very secure. We will ask if we need assistance. Nobody should tell us what to do. And I'd ask anyone who says such things, do you know how our strategic assets are handled, stored and developed--do you know it?

 

Have you told the American government that?

No, why should we? We have said we are totally under control.

 

Graham Allison of Harvard says that these weapons must be disbursed for them to have survivability, which means that they could also fall into the wrong hands, because there might be a local command structure that is weak.

He doesn't know anything--how disbursed they are, and he shouldn't think that we don't know these things. We are from the military, we understand how to handle things, whether they need to be disbursed or concentrated.

 

But you understand that due to past episodes there is concern.

Yes, the past has [caused] some concern, but we must understand the difference between past and now. Before we were a declared and overt nuclear state, we had to hide everything. Everything was covert. Only the scientists and the president of Pakistan knew what was going on. Now there is a national command authority. It is the top body, headed by the president and the prime minister, and there are members from the military and the civilian side. And there's a huge strategic planning division, a full secretariat headed by now-retired [Lt. General Khalid] Kidwai. He is in charge of this Strategic Planning Division that is the secretarial arm of the National Command, responsible for development and employment. Then we have army, navy, air force, the strategic force command. If anything happens, indeed it's a failure of everyone from myself to SPD to the Army Strategic Force Command.

 

But it would need the collusion of several people, up and down the chain.

Absolutely. It's like an army unit. Can one rifle be taken away from an army unit? Can the bullet of a rifle be taken away from an army unit? I challenge anyone to take a bullet, a weapon, away from an army unit.

 

You've said that Benazir Bhutto took risks. Surely it's normal for a politician to stand in a car's sunroof. If this is taking a risk, then politics is impossible in Pakistan.

This gathering she addressed was maybe 25,000-to-30,000 people. I have addressed gatherings of hundreds of thousands. She was given security. [But] you have to be conscious of security. The man in charge of security should be conscious. The man in charge of her security was her own handpicked superintendent of police. This area was known to be dangerous. There was a death threat, intelligence that there would be an attack, and we told her, yet she wanted to go, she was intent about it. She went into a dangerous place, and if you get out of the vehicle, you are responsible. All the others sitting inside the vehicle were safe.

 

But there is a widespread view in the country--and I've talked to many, many people, including supporters of yours--that in some way the government was complicit.

I refuse to listen to such accusations. I refuse to. I am the government, OK? I am not feudal, and I am not tribal. May I ask you, would you, if you were at the head of affairs, ever think of killing somebody like that? It didn't appear in our minds. Would it appear in your mind that you could get rid of a person through a bomb blast?

 

What do you do to give credibility to the government at this point? Do you think your investigation will be enough? Do you think they should exhume the body and do a post-mortem?

Yes, exhume it. A hundred percent. I would like it to be exhumed. Because I know for sure there is no bullet wound other than on the right side. Whether it was a bullet or a strike, I don't want to comment, I don't know.

 

But you've seen the x-rays…

Yes, I've seen the x-rays.

 

Does it appear there was a bullet entering and exiting?

I am a soldier, I've seen a lot of bullet wounds. A bullet wound is a small hole, and if the bullet goes through it makes a big hole on the other side. Now that is what I understand to be a bullet wound. This was not that, although I'm not an expert. But how does it absolve the government if it was a bullet or not? If you or anyone else were to accuse the government, the issue of the bullet [versus] explosives is not significant. The media and everyone are involved in an issue that is not very pertinent. Why would we be hiding [the cause of death]? It's ridiculous, and when I read these comments, I laugh at them.

 

Why not order a post-mortem? You can do it; you're the chief executive.

Everything is not black and white here. It would have very big political ramifications. If I just ordered the body exhumed, that would be careless, unless [Bhutto's] people agreed. But they will not.

 

Why?

Because they know it's a fact there is nothing wrong.

 

So you think Mr. Zardari [Bhutto's husband] is playing a political game?

Everybody is trying to gain political advantage; the entire opposition is trying to take political advantage. I know what [Bhutto's opponents] used to say about her, but all of a sudden ... it makes me laugh, actually. And then there's the cultural factor. Somehow, in our culture, a post-mortem of a woman is not done. When the body was at the hospital, Zardari himself said it could not be done; he didn't want the post-mortem done.

 

Now he says if there were a United Nations investigation he would allow a post-mortem.

There cannot be a U.N. investigation. There are not two or three countries involved. Why should there be a U.N. investigation? This is ridiculous.

 

You said in one of your comments afterwards, "I told [her] to be careful and I told her that this was not the Pakistan that you left. It's a different country." Is it fair to point out that for most of that period you have been in charge of Pakistan? Why has Pakistan gotten so much less safe under your presidency?

Because of terrorism and extremism, which we have been facing since 1979, for 30 years. We fought a war in Afghanistan in coalition with the Americans against the Soviets for 10 years. We trained the Taliban and armed them and sent them in [to Afghanistan]. Was I doing this? The West was doing it, the United States was doing it. Then what happened between 1989 and 2001? Mayhem and destruction. Did I do this?

 

But in the late '90s a politician in Pakistan could have addressed a rally without fear for her life. Within Pakistan there has been a rise of militancy and suicide bombings under your presidency.

You have to see it in context. How did suicide bombing [start]? Who started it? The LTTE [the militant group in Sri Lanka], and then it was taken up by the Palestinians. And then Iraq. I would say we were the last to adopt it. Even your own [ U.S.] intelligence says that Al Qaeda or the Taliban--whatever you want to call them--are now moving east into settled populations. Why?

 

It doesn't seem that your effort to control extremists is working.

It is working on the Taliban. Now the issue is the locals  and extremists. The extremists are Pakistanis, and I think many do come from South Punjab. They have a lot of madrassas. They are hiding, but they are there. But there are some foreigners. Al Qaeda is using these people. I can't say [with certainty] that every act of theirs is Al Qaeda-guided--I 'm not sure. But we know that a person like Baitullah Mehsud [the Taliban commander in Waziristan] is training suicide bombers. And we know that they were sending suicide bombers for me, against Benazir and other political leaders. We have caught many people in the last two weeks. These people had explosives--many, many caches of explosives.

 

Who would they target?

Politicians who [make up] the political system, the democratic system.

 

Why have they turned to Pakistan now?

They are turning against Pakistan because they are against me. They are against anyone who is supporting me. So therefore, they want to weaken the government, they want to weaken me. [Perhaps] they think they can take over Pakistan.

 

Your tribal agreements didn't solve the problem?

No, they didn't.

 

Do you think they were a mistake? There are some who think that the government didn't follow through on them, that you didn't keep your word.

We have to try everything. We have started dealing with everyone, including religious people, who we think are not jihadis. Now, if they turn out to be double-crossers, and it is possible, and you ask me, "Have you succeeded?" I'll say, "No." Maybe we'll succeed 25 percent. But if you say then we should stop it: no, we should not stop it. We must persevere.

 

There are people who say though, that on the political side that you suppress the political parties, and so only the religious parties and the extremists have gained as a consequence.

No, we have not suppressed political parties. Nobody is allowed to go into tribal agencies. Tribal agencies have a different structure. They have their own system. In fact, we have introduced elections to them. These political parties never used to go into the tribal agencies. They come directly under the governor and the president.

 

But that's almost a colonial system. Shouldn't there be real politics?

Yes, I agree. And that is what we tried in '99. But then, all hell broke loose with 9/11. Every tribe had its own armory of machine guns and mortars and rocket launchers. Whenever a tribe fought another tribe, they would dish out weapons from the armory and fight, and then make some kind of truce, and the weapons went back to the armory. With the emergence of the Taliban, this whole system has been disturbed. We, in our political management, are trying to bring the [tribal authorities] back again. [But this puts us] in a fix. To fight the mullahs we need the old structure. But to modernize we need to get rid of the old structure.

 

Do the Americans want to undertake some operations that you are reluctant to undertake in these areas?

No.  If the American troops came into the mountains, they would curse the day they came here. I know these areas, and I know American troops. I know our troops. This is not easy. American troops don't have any magic wands. Our troops, who are the locals, who understand groups and customs, are very hardy. Our troops can go on roti and water. American troops would need chocolate. And logistic support to them would be very difficult. Military men won't say it. The politicians don't have the complete information. President Bush gets the information and intelligence every morning. I don't think Hillary Clinton or anyone else gets the intelligence every morning. When one of them is the president, whoever it is, when they get the intelligence every morning, then I will see what they say.

 

Do you think you're the right person to fight this war against the jihadis?

The United States thought Benazir was the right person to fight terrorists. Who is the best person to fight? You need three qualities today if you want to fight the extremists and the terrorists. Number one, you must have the military with you. Well, she was very unpopular with the military. Very unpopular. Number two, you shouldn't be seen by the entire religious lobby to be alien--a nonreligious person. The third element: don't be seen as an extension of the United States. Now I am branded as an extension, but not to the extent she was. Pakistanis know that I can be tough. I can speak out against Hillary Clinton. I can speak out against anyone. These are the elements. You be the judge.

 

Could you work with the Pakistan Peoples Party in a post-election scenario?

I can work with anyone. I am hoping and praying that [the election] is fair and transparent and is seen to be fair and transparent.

 

Many people think it will not be.

That's because you people are writing that way [laughs].

 

No, it's not us. Every political party is making that accusation. How could we not report that?

On what basis?

 

You've seen Benazir's document?

Should you believe that? That's the question. It's always the opposition who is talking of unfair [elections]. Why do they do that? When you lose you're going to [say] that the polls were rigged.

 

In the past, has there been any manipulation of elections? Is there a history here?

I would like to talk of 2002 because this election was fair. Although I know nobody believes it. It was fair. If we were manipulating [ballots], would we have manipulated them in such a stupid way that we elected a parliament where we couldn't form a government?  Am I that stupid? No sir. There was no arrangement with anybody.

 

Do you know that your personal credibility is on the line with this election?

Yes. But at the same time the media is saying that I am going to rig the polls. What kind of logic is this? Why should I do this? Whoever says this, I would like to say, prove that I am going to rig it.

 

What did you think of Benazir's document?

She sat in a drawing room making this document. I would like to make a document against her and give it to someone. This is just not proof.

 

Who is your preferred prime minister?

I can't say, I'm not going to say that at all.

 

But you must have some preference.

No.

 

But are you willing to accept a kind of diminished role as part of a troika?

My constitutional powers have been the same since 2002. But what I am fortunate to have is my influence over everyone, over the political leaders, over the coalition. My influence is not [the result of] constitutional powers I have. If somebody listens to what I am saying, don't grudge me that. I am not using any force.

 

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91693



-----------------------------------------------------------
N A D E E M M A L I K
CNBC PAKISTAN
BUREAU CHIEF
ISLAMABAD

0321-5117511

nadeem.malik@hotmail.com
16th Floor, Saudi Pak Tower, 61-A Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad. 051-2800113-14, Fax: 051-2800118
 



Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

News Guru External Threats & Political Stability

External Threats

&

Political Stability

 

 

 

Allies Feel Strain of Afghan War- WP

 

Troop Levels among Issues Dividing U.S., NATO Countries- WP

 

US plans to send additional 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan-

 

US supplies about half of 54,000 troops in Afghanistan

 

Pakistan Opposition Attacks Musharraf- WP

 

Nawaz accuses Musharraf of blindly following America's orders-

 

Troops to shoot anyone attempting to disrupt elections- Musharraf

 

Militants ambushed military convoy in Mohmand agency, leaving 7 dead

 

Militants Escape Control of Pakistan- NYT

 

 

Military Intelligence has lost control of some of the networks of militants it has nurtured since the 1980s, and is now suffering the violent blowback of that policy, two former senior intelligence officials say- NYT

 

 "It is quite illogical if you think those people who have suffered 1,000 people dead, and I who have been attacked thrice or four or five times, that I would be supportive towards Taliban, towards Al Qaeda," Mr. Musharraf said- NYT

 

US Army Chief in Europe to Run NATO Afghan Unit- NYT

 

Pakistan Election Fueling Cynicism- WT

 

PML (Q) discussing feasibility of national-unity government, PML-Q spokesman Tariq Azeem

 

Pakistan's Terror Inc.- WT

 

Pitting Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda worked in Iraq. Will it work against Taliban in Pakistan- CSM

 

Pakistan's tribal belt emerging as test bed of this counterterrorism strategy- CSM

 

Government could further delay elections in response to violence- LAT

 

Musharraf rules out delay in elections

 

Afghan intelligence names Pakistan-based Siraj Haqqani  as the mastermind behind Kabul's Serena Hotel attack

 

Shots Either Hit You or They Do Not- Spiegel

 

President Musharraf describes US President Bush as a friend

 

I do not deny the fact that al-Qaida is operating here- Musharraf

 

Al-Qaeda is mastermind behind suicide bombings

 

Fanatics can never take over Pakistan- Musharraf

 

I would never allow American forces to operate on Pakistan's soil- Musharraf

 

ElBaradei's impression is totally misplaced- Musharraf

 

ISI does not handle any nuclear issue at all- Musharraf

 

I am ready to work with whomever wins- Musharraf

 

Benazir was waving and turned a little right and that angle may have been enough for a bullet to hit- Musharraf

 

Kiyani and I share vision on Pakistan, on Taliban, on al-Qaida, on politics, on human rights and on media. We are two of a kind- Musharraf tells SPIEGEL

 

Following the developments of the last seven or eight months, to resign would be the easiest thing. On the day I think the people, the majority, dont want me any more and the day I think I have no contribution to make to this country, I will not wait a second. I will leave- Musharraf

 

3 Sentenced in Musharraf Murder Plot- AP
 
Anti-terrorism court sentenced three militants to life in prison for attempting to kill President Musharraf in 2002


-----------------------------------------------------------
N A D E E M M A L I K
CNBC PAKISTAN
BUREAU CHIEF
ISLAMABAD

0321-5117511

nadeem.malik@hotmail.com
16th Floor, Saudi Pak Tower, 61-A Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad. 051-2800113-14, Fax: 051-2800118
 



Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger

Scotland Yard working arrrangements regarding Bhutto assassination

BENAZIR BHUTTO INVESTIGATION: WORKING ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN SCOTLAND YARD TEAM AND PAKISTANI AUTHORITIES PUBLISHED

 

The British High Commission, and Pakistan's Interior Ministry, today released the working arrangements agreed between the Pakistani law enforcement agencies and the Metropolitan Police Service team assisting with the investigation into the death of Benazir Bhutto.

 

The text of the agreement reads as follows:

 

"At the request of the Pakistan Government, New Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is deploying a team of investigators to support the Pakistan Law Enforcement Agencies responsible for investigating the death of Benazir Bhutto.  The principal purpose of the SO15 deployment is to assist the local authorities in providing clarity regarding the precise cause of Ms Bhutto's death.

 

"The team will provide forensic expertise and other investigative assistance as appears appropriate to the senior officer Detective Superintendent MacBrayne who will lead the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) team.  The MPS officers will assist and report to the Pakistan senior investigators.  The primacy and responsibility for the investigation remains with the Pakistan authorities.

 

"The MPS team will consist of experts in the areas of crime scene investigation, forensics, and evidence analysis."

 

 

ENDS

 

Notes to the Editor

§         Five officers of the UK's Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) deployed to Pakistan on Friday 4 January 2008, following a request by President Musharraf to assist in the investigation of the death of Benazir Bhutto, following a rally in Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007.

§         The officers belong to the Counter Terrorism Command, known as SO15, of the MPS.  The MPS is often informally called 'Scotland Yard' after the name of their headquarters building, New Scotland Yard, in central London.

§         The agreement on working arrangements is being published following the UK Foreign Secretary's commitment in the House of Commons on Monday 7 January 2008 to publish the team's terms of reference.  It was agreed in principle before the team's deployment, and signed off by the team and the Pakistani Interior Ministry at a meeting shortly after they arrived.



-----------------------------------------------------------
N A D E E M M A L I K
CNBC PAKISTAN
BUREAU CHIEF
ISLAMABAD

0321-5117511

nadeem.malik@hotmail.com
16th Floor, Saudi Pak Tower, 61-A Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad. 051-2800113-14, Fax: 051-2800118
 



Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger

NADEEM MALIK LIVE

NADEEM MALIK LIVE

Nadeem Malik Live is the flagship current affairs programme of Pakistan. The programme gives independent news analysis of the key events shaping future of Pakistan. A fast paced, well rounded programme covers almost every aspect, which should be a core element of a current affairs programme. Discussion with the most influential personalities in the federal capital and other leading lights of the country provides something to audience to help them come out with their own hard hitting opinions.

http://youtube.com/NadeemMalikLive