Musharraf 'war-gamed' U.S., concluded Pakistan would lose

[tl_boy]

Interesting read from the so-called ally. Its stupid to label an opportunist an ally or friend. As you can read, Pakistan still favors having some Taliban representation in Afghanistan.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...national/Asia/

[SoCalS2k]

Its no secret the US is the world's superpower. If any of us were the decision maker in any of these third world countries would you have decided a different course? Of course anyone would have come to the same conclusion as Musharraf, no fault in that.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by tl_boy

Interesting read from the so-called ally. Its stupid to label an opportunist an ally or friend. As you can read, Pakistan still favors having some Taliban representation in Afghanistan.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...national/Asia/

Hmmmn - pledge allegience to the USA of be 'bombed back to the stone age'.

What would you choose?

[ward]

I also ran some simulations and found that if a 3 year old didn't want to give me his lollypop, I could take it from him anyways if I wanted to.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by ward

I also ran some simulations and found that if a 3 year old didn't want to give me his lollypop, I could take it from him anyways if I wanted to.

A perfect analogy

[tl_boy]

agreed, common sense. but that doesn't make bushy look too smart does it, when he continues to call them allies....

i wouldn't call someone who's head i would rip off if they don't listen to me an ally for listening to me.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by tl_boy

agreed, common sense. but that doesn't make bushy look too smart does it, when he continues to call them allies....

i wouldn't call someone who's head i would rip off if they don't listen to me an ally for listening to me.

Unless of course you are planning a war against a muslim state and the so called 'ally' is also a muslim state.

In which case having that ally (even if he is only your friend because you put a gun to his head) is a political necessity if you want to convice the world that you are fighting terror rather than Islam.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only other islamic ally is Libya. A country which has been badly kicked for anti american terrorism and would probably prefer not to be kicked again.

[tl_boy]

Jordan is far more balanced than either Libya or Pakistan from what I understand.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Unless of course you are planning a war against a muslim state and the so called 'ally' is also a muslim state.

In which case having that ally (even if he is only your friend because you put a gun to his head) is a political necessity if you want to convice the world that you are fighting terror rather than Islam.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only other islamic ally is Libya. A country which has been badly kicked for anti american terrorism and would probably prefer not to be kicked again.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by tl_boy

Jordan is far more balanced than either Libya or Pakistan from what I understand.

Good point, but Jordan has had close affiliations with the west for a long time. I think it was important for Bush to have support from more radical islamic states, in order to reduce the impression that this was an anti-islamic action. Hence he made Pakistan and Libya an 'offer they couldn't refuse'.

Remember the 'you are either with me or against me' line?

[hks786]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

A perfect analogy

+1 !

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Good point, but Jordan has had close affiliations with the west for a long time. I think it was important for Bush to have support from more radical islamic states, in order to reduce the impression that this was an anti-islamic action. Hence he made Pakistan and Libya an 'offer they couldn't refuse'.

Remember the 'you are either with me or against me' line?

I don't think you could consider Pakistan to have been a radical Islamic state before 9/11. While the Taliban in Afghanistan is often considered a creation of Pakistan's intelligence service (ISS) and there are plenty of people in Pakistan who sympathized with the Taliban's imposition of strict sharia, the Musharraf government was often at odds with the Islamic parties in Pakistan.

The bottom line was Afghanistan presented a challenge to US military planners and we needed Pakistan to allow US forces to use their facilities and airspace. Pakistan's historic support for the Taliban was based more on regional political considerations rather than religious and the US altered those considerations. It became more politically advantageous to support us than the Taliban.

[ksfrogman]

Originally Posted by tl_boy

Interesting read from the so-called ally. Its stupid to label an opportunist an ally or friend. As you can read, Pakistan still favors having some Taliban representation in Afghanistan.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...national/Asia/

One additional thought to consider is that Musharraf's decision to ally the U.S. had to be done in a way that would not make him public enemy #1 with his own people. The idea that he 'war-gamed' the U.S. helps him win favor within his country.

[infamous335i]

This post was brought back from the dead, its ancient

[NFS]

Originally Posted by ganeil

The bottom line was Afghanistan presented a challenge to US military planners and we needed Pakistan to allow US forces to use their facilities and airspace. Pakistan's historic support for the Taliban was based more on regional political considerations rather than religious and the US altered those considerations. It became more politically advantageous to support us than the Taliban.

That's part of it, but 'the battle for hearts and minds' was another part.

It would have been obvious even to Bush (who clearly does not have much time for statesmanlike diplomacy in the international arena) that the invasion of Afghanistan might be seen as an attack on Islam.

On a purely PR basis Bush knew an international alliance would be essential, so he cobbled together a long list of 'allies' who would stand behind him. He made sure that some of those allies were Islamic States (e.g. Libya and Pakistan).

There was certainly a tactical military argument for the alliance, but that was not it's entireity.

This IS a really old thread. When Musharraf talked about 'war games' he was actually publising his book of memoirs. So he was being deliberately controversial to win media attention, but also making a point that he was in control of Pakistan - not the USA.

There is a subtext to everything.

[DesiGUY]

IMO, Pak agreed to cooperate with the US cuz if they dint, India (a natural ally) would have, and the war-of-terror would have continued regardless of PAKs support.

Musahraff is a smart SOB.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by DesiGUY

IMO, Pak agreed to cooperate with the US cuz if they dint, India (a natural ally) would have, and the war-of-terror would have continued regardless of PAKs support.

Musahraff is a smart SOB.

Why do you think Estonia, Kazahstan, Albania, Romania and others joined us in Iraq??? Because they believed it was right? Because their people believed that way? It is all about interests...

[DesiGUY]

i agree with u dr325i... its all about interests

Paks support to US was from the war with afganistan... just wait and see
once musahraff falls, US will be in Pak.