from the book “Descent into Chaos: The U.S. and the Disaster in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia,” by Ahmed Rashid
quote:
Musharraf heard about the attack on the Twin Towers while attending a military briefing in Karachi. He immediately ordered a meeting of his generals and a few key civilian cabinet members. Musharraf’s first words were ominous: “The U.S. will react like a wounded bear and attack Afghanistan,” he said. He told those assembled that Pakistan could not oppose American demands and could no longer support the Taliban, but it would not take part in any U.S. attack on Afghanistan. Bush had already said that the United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attack but also any states that harbored terrorists.
Musharraf asked for other views, but there was no disagreement. “We agreed that we would unequivocally accept all U.S. demands, but then later we would express our private reservations to the U.S. and we would not necessarily agree with all the details,” said Abdul Sattar, who as foreign minister recorded the meeting. That night the policy that Pakistan would adopt toward Washington was summed up in the phrase “First say yes and later say . . .” It was a policy Musharaff was to follow consistently for the next few years.
The Bush administration did not question Musharaff as long as the Pakistani army cooperated with the principal U.S. objective to catch al Qaeda leaders. Many Pakistanis saw it as a continuation of U.S. policies since the 1950s, with Washington always preferring to deak with a single military dictator who made all the decisions and was unencumbered by parliaments, elections, or politicians.
Washington’s limited aims suited the Pakistani army perfectly because they allowed for a new strategic alliance with the United States with minimum risk to the army’s concept of national security, which rested on three pillars. These were resisting Indian hegemony in the region, and promoting the Kashmir cause; protecting and developing the nuclear program; and promoting a pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan. All three interests rested on unquestioned support from the Islamic fundamentalist parties and their extremist wings. Even though Islamabad had “lost” Afghanistan for the time being, the military was convinced that U.S. staying power in Afghanistan would be short-lived and that their opportunities to reshape the government in Kabul would return.
Picture this! We negotiate with (fill in a country) . I’m thinking Pakistan at the moment, because we need their support if we are going to have any kind of success in Afghanistan. They promise the world and tell us exactly what we want to hear. We, in turn, give them tons of money, weapons and aid. But in the end, they wind up doing exactly what they want anyway. We “crack down,” have some more “TALKS” and make some more demands. They make some more promises. We declare that “THE TALKS” have been successful and give them some more “stuff” and make some more concessions - think Paris Peace Talks from the Vietnam era. (I’d prefer to think of the Japanese signing an unconditional surrender on the deck of the great battleship USS Missouri.) And on and on it goes. I think you get the picture. Meanwhile back in the fields and mountains of Afghanistan, our brave soldiers and Marines continue to die, while our politicians do this ridiculous “dance” with our enemies and those who support them. When will we realize that “TALKING” and killing have been ways of life in the Middle East for thousands of years? This is what they do, and they do it very well. We pat ourselves on the back and tell each other how clever we are, but they have nothing but contempt for us as they return to their caves to make some more IEDs and prepare for another round of “TALKS.” After all, they have nothing but time; it is not like they invented the light bulb, or are worried about sending their kids to college.
I say we cancel the “TALKING” and take the money we might have given them and invest in manufacturing the biggest and best non-atomic bombs we can develop. Then we introduce them to The B-52s, and I don’t mean the late ‘70s rock group. America talks big about sending messages, so how about we send them a high-altitude special delivery message. A single B-52 can carry 60,000 pounds of bombs and drop them from 50,000 feet. This should give them plenty to talk about amongst themselves as they hide in their caves trembling in fear. Seal up the Khyber Pass if that’s what it takes. After all, it’s not as if the Taliban air force is going to stop us. They hate us anyway, so why not give them something they can really hate us for. Counter-insurgency my a$$.
