9/11 - Could we have decided otherwise? - Pervez Musharraf

[Geek]

Posted on June 6, 2011

Pervez Musharraf

Pakistans decision to join the US and the Coalition in Afghanistan in their attack on the Taliban remains a subject of intense debate. This is the decision we took after a thorough, deliberate and realistic appraisal of the obtaining geo-strategic realities, but it has drawn criticism and praise alike. With the latest upsurge in terrorist activity in Pakistan, the debate on the post-9/11 response of Pakistan has intensified. I, therefore, thought it my duty to lay bare facts in front of the people of Pakistan, so that with all the necessary information they could judge the situation more accurately. The decision of my government was indeed based on, and in conformity with, my slogan of Pakistan First.
Some people suggested that we should oppose the United States and favour the Taliban. Was this, in any way, beneficial for Pakistan? Certainly not! Even if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda emerged victorious, it would not be in Pakistans interest to embrace obscurantist Talibanisation. That would have meant a society where women had no rights, minorities lived in fear and semi-literate clerics set themselves up as custodians of justice. I could have never accepted this kind of society for Pakistan. In any case, judging by military realities one was sure that the Taliban would be defeated. It would have been even more detrimental for Pakistan to be standing on the defeated side.
The United States, the sole superpower, was wounded and humiliated by the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack. A strong retaliatory response against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was imminent.
I was angrily told, by the US, that Pakistan had to be either with us or against us. The message was also conveyed to me that if Pakistan was against the United States then it should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.
This was the environment within which we had to take a critical decision for Pakistan. My sole focus was to make a decision that would benefit Pakistan in the long run, and also guard it against negative effects.
What options did the US have to attack Afghanistan? Not possible from the north, through Russia and the Central Asian Republics. Not from the west, through Iran. The only viable direction was from the east, through Pakistan. if we did not agree, India was ever ready to afford all support. A US-India collusion would obviously have to trample Pakistan to reach Afghanistan. Our airspace and land would have been violated. Should we then have pitched our forces, especially Pakistan Air Force, against the combined might of the US and Indian forces? India would have been delighted with such a response from us. This would surely have been a foolhardy, rash and most unwise decision. Our strategic interests our nuclear capability and the Kashmir cause would both have been irreparably compromised. We might even have put our very territorial integrity at stake.
The economic dimension of confronting the United States and the West also needed serious analysis. Pakistans major export and investment is to and from the United States and the European Union. Our textiles, which form 60 percent of our export and earnings, go to the West. Any sanctions on these would have crippled our industry and choked our economy. Workers would lose their jobs. The poor masses of Pakistan would have been the greatest sufferers.
China, our great friend, also has serious apprehensions about Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The upsurge of religious extremism emboldening the East Turkistan Islamic Movement in China is due to events in Afghanistan and the tribal agencies of Pakistan. China would certainly not be too happy with Pakistan on the side of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Even the Islamic Ummah had no sympathy for the Taliban regime; countries like Turkey and Iran were certainly against the Taliban. The UAE and Saudi Arabia the only two countries other than Pakistan that had recognised the Taliban regime had become so disenchanted with the Taliban that they had closed their missions in Kabul.
Here, I would also like to clear the notion that we accepted all the demands put forward by USA. On September 13th 2001, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, brought me a set of seven demands. These demands had also been communicated to our Foreign Office by the US State Department.

1. Stop Al-Qaeda operatives at your borders, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan, and end all logistical support for bin Laden.

2. Provide the United States with blanket overflight and landing rights to conduct all necessary military and intelligence operations.

3. Provide territorial access to the United States and allied military intelligence as needed, and other personnel to conduct all necessary operations against the perpetrators of terrorism and those that harbour them, including the use of Pakistans naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders.

4. Provide the United States immediately with intelligence, immigration information and databases, and internal security information, to help prevent and respond to terrorist acts perpetrated against the United States, its friends, or its allies.

5. Continue to publicly condemn the terrorist acts of September 11 and any other terrorist acts against the United States or its friends and allies, and curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, or its allies.

6. Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and any other items and recruits, including volunteers, en route to Afghanistan, who can be used in a military offensive capacity or to abet a terrorist threat.

7. Should the evidence strongly implicate Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbour him and his network, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, end support for the Taliban, and assist the United States in the afore-mentioned ways to destroy Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

Some of these demands were ludicrous, such as curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, and its allies. How could my government suppress public debate, when I had been trying to encourage freedom of expression?
I also thought that asking us to break off diplomatic relations with Afghanistan if it continued to harbour Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was not realistic, because not only would the United States need us to have access to Afghanistan, at least until the Taliban fell, but such decisions are the internal affair of a country and cannot be dictated by anyone. But we had no problem with curbing terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We had been itching to do so before the United States became its victim.
We just could not accept demands two and three. How could we allow the United States blanket overflight and landing rights without jeopardising our strategic assets? I offered only a narrow flight corridor that was far from any sensitive areas. Neither could we give the United States use of Pakistans naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders. We refused to give any naval ports or fighter aircraft bases. We allowed the United States only two bases Shamsi in Balochistan and Jacobabad in Sindh and only for logistics and aircraft recovery. No attack could be launched from there. We gave no blanket permission for anything.
The rest of the demands we could live with. I am happy that the US government accepted our counterproposal without any fuss. I am shocked at the aspersion being cast on me: that I readily accepted all preconditions of the United States during the telephone call from Colin Powell. He did not give any conditions to me. These were brought by the US ambassador on the third day.
Having made my decision, I took it to the Cabinet. Then I began meeting with a cross section of society. Between September 18 and October 3, I met with intellectuals, top editors, leading columnists, academics, tribal chiefs, students, and the leaders of labour unions. On October 18, I also met a delegation from China and discussed the decision with them. Then I went to army garrisons all over the country and talked to the soldiers. I thus developed a broad consensus on my decision.
This was an analysis of all the losses/harms we would have suffered. if we had taken an anti-US stand. At the same time, I obviously analysed the socio-economic and military gains that would accrue from an alliance with the West. I have laid down the rationale for my decision in all its details. Even with hindsight, now, I do not repent it. It was correct in the larger interest of Pakistan. I am confident that the majority of Pakistanis agree with it.

The writer is a former President of Pakistan and Founding President of the All Pakistan Muslim League.
-The Nation

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-...Jun-2011/911--Could-we-have-decided-otherwise

 

[Mullah Omar]

When U.S. told Musharraf they'll bomb Pakistan back to stone age, Musharraf should have told them that they'll take India and Israel with them to stone age but unfortunatley Musharraf became a complete coward at that moment and because of that Pakistan is in a complete mess today.

 

[maksyed]

When U.S. told Musharraf they'll bomb Pakistan back to stone age, Musharraf should have told them that they'll take India and Israel with them to stone age but unfortunatley Musharraf became a complete coward at that moment and because of that Pakistan is in a complete mess today.

I agree .....

 

[fahid_asif]

Posted on June 6, 2011

Pervez Musharraf

Pakistan’s decision to join the US and the Coalition in Afghanistan in their attack on the Taliban remains a subject of intense debate. This is the decision we took after a thorough, deliberate and realistic appraisal of the obtaining geo-strategic realities, but it has drawn criticism and praise alike. With the latest upsurge in terrorist activity in Pakistan, the debate on the post-9/11 response of Pakistan has intensified. I, therefore, thought it my duty to lay bare facts in front of the people of Pakistan, so that with all the necessary information they could judge the situation more accurately. The decision of my government was indeed based on, and in conformity with, my slogan of ‘Pakistan First’.
Some people suggested that we should oppose the United States and favour the Taliban. Was this, in any way, beneficial for Pakistan? Certainly not! Even if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda emerged victorious, it would not be in Pakistan’s interest to embrace obscurantist Talibanisation. That would have meant a society where women had no rights, minorities lived in fear and semi-literate clerics set themselves up as custodians of justice. I could have never accepted this kind of society for Pakistan. In any case, judging by military realities one was sure that the Taliban would be defeated. It would have been even more detrimental for Pakistan to be standing on the defeated side.
The United States, the sole superpower, was wounded and humiliated by the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack. A strong retaliatory response against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was imminent.
I was angrily told, by the US, that Pakistan had to be ‘either with us or against us’. The message was also conveyed to me that ‘if Pakistan was against the United States then it should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.’
This was the environment within which we had to take a critical decision for Pakistan. My sole focus was to make a decision that would benefit Pakistan in the long run, and also guard it against negative effects.
What options did the US have to attack Afghanistan? Not possible from the north, through Russia and the Central Asian Republics. Not from the west, through Iran. The only viable direction was from the east, through Pakistan. if we did not agree, India was ever ready to afford all support. A US-India collusion would obviously have to trample Pakistan to reach Afghanistan. Our airspace and land would have been violated. Should we then have pitched our forces, especially Pakistan Air Force, against the combined might of the US and Indian forces? India would have been delighted with such a response from us. This would surely have been a foolhardy, rash and most unwise decision. Our strategic interests – our nuclear capability and the Kashmir cause – would both have been irreparably compromised. We might even have put our very territorial integrity at stake.
The economic dimension of confronting the United States and the West also needed serious analysis. Pakistan’s major export and investment is to and from the United States and the European Union. Our textiles, which form 60 percent of our export and earnings, go to the West. Any sanctions on these would have crippled our industry and choked our economy. Workers would lose their jobs. The poor masses of Pakistan would have been the greatest sufferers.
China, our great friend, also has serious apprehensions about Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The upsurge of religious extremism emboldening the East Turkistan Islamic Movement in China is due to events in Afghanistan and the tribal agencies of Pakistan. China would certainly not be too happy with Pakistan on the side of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Even the Islamic Ummah had no sympathy for the Taliban regime; countries like Turkey and Iran were certainly against the Taliban. The UAE and Saudi Arabia – the only two countries other than Pakistan that had recognised the Taliban regime – had become so disenchanted with the Taliban that they had closed their missions in Kabul.
Here, I would also like to clear the notion that we accepted all the demands put forward by USA. On September 13th 2001, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, brought me a set of seven demands. These demands had also been communicated to our Foreign Office by the US State Department.

1. Stop Al-Qaeda operatives at your borders, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan, and end all logistical support for bin Laden.

2. Provide the United States with blanket overflight and landing rights to conduct all necessary military and intelligence operations.

3. Provide territorial access to the United States and allied military intelligence as needed, and other personnel to conduct all necessary operations against the perpetrators of terrorism and those that harbour them, including the use of Pakistan’s naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders.

4. Provide the United States immediately with intelligence, immigration information and databases, and internal security information, to help prevent and respond to terrorist acts perpetrated against the United States, its friends, or its allies.

5. Continue to publicly condemn the terrorist acts of September 11 and any other terrorist acts against the United States or its friends and allies, and curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, or its allies.

6. Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and any other items and recruits, including volunteers, en route to Afghanistan, who can be used in a military offensive capacity or to abet a terrorist threat.

7. Should the evidence strongly implicate Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbour him and his network, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, end support for the Taliban, and assist the United States in the afore-mentioned ways to destroy Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

Some of these demands were ludicrous, such as “curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, and its allies.” How could my government suppress public debate, when I had been trying to encourage freedom of expression?
I also thought that asking us to break off diplomatic relations with Afghanistan if it continued to harbour Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was not realistic, because not only would the United States need us to have access to Afghanistan, at least until the Taliban fell, but such decisions are the internal affair of a country and cannot be dictated by anyone. But we had no problem with curbing terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We had been itching to do so before the United States became its victim.
We just could not accept demands two and three. How could we allow the United States “blanket overflight and landing rights” without jeopardising our strategic assets? I offered only a narrow flight corridor that was far from any sensitive areas. Neither could we give the United States “use of Pakistan’s naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders.” We refused to give any naval ports or fighter aircraft bases. We allowed the United States only two bases – Shamsi in Balochistan and Jacobabad in Sindh – and only for logistics and aircraft recovery. No attack could be launched from there. We gave no “blanket permission” for anything.
The rest of the demands we could live with. I am happy that the US government accepted our counterproposal without any fuss. I am shocked at the aspersion being cast on me: that I readily accepted all preconditions of the United States during the telephone call from Colin Powell. He did not give any conditions to me. These were brought by the US ambassador on the third day.
Having made my decision, I took it to the Cabinet. Then I began meeting with a cross section of society. Between September 18 and October 3, I met with intellectuals, top editors, leading columnists, academics, tribal chiefs, students, and the leaders of labour unions. On October 18, I also met a delegation from China and discussed the decision with them. Then I went to army garrisons all over the country and talked to the soldiers. I thus developed a broad consensus on my decision.
This was an analysis of all the losses/harms we would have suffered. if we had taken an anti-US stand. At the same time, I obviously analysed the socio-economic and military gains that would accrue from an alliance with the West. I have laid down the rationale for my decision in all its details. Even with hindsight, now, I do not repent it. It was correct in the larger interest of Pakistan. I am confident that the majority of Pakistanis agree with it.

The writer is a former President of Pakistan and Founding President of the All Pakistan Muslim League.
-The Nation

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-...Jun-2011/911--Could-we-have-decided-otherwise

jung e qudsia ka waqya ha. Hazrat Umer R.A apni army ko lecture de rhay the. Logo kufaar aur ap k dermyan qowat ka muazna nhi. wo aslihay aur taqat main ap se mazboot hain. lakin aap k paas jo un se mumtaaz kerti ha wo Allah ka saath ha. Ager aap Allah k saath hain to kufaar ap ko hara nhi saktey. lakin ager ap na Allah ko choor diya to chon k kufaar taqat main tum se zyada hain, lehaza tum haar jao gay. aur tareekh gwah ha k Muslims na kuch na hotay howay b FARAS ko neet o nabood ker diya. Hazrat Umer R.A k is lecture se kya andaza nhi hota k us waqt ki GEO STRATEGICAL postion kya thi?


Aur doosri baat, us shakhs ki door andeshi ki kya baat kehye jis na party k vice ka intekhab kya aur usay itna na pata chala k wo character main kaisi ha? Sharab jis ko Quran main HARAM kaha gya ha. Kya nhi kaha gya? koi daleel ha is ko justified kernay ki? Jo shakhs 1 ko nhi pehchaan sakta wo itni baree war game ko kaisay pehchan sakta ha?


Amrica maar hi deta na aur kya ker sakta tha? Is waqt kounsa zinda hain? Itnay to shayed Amrica k khilaf jung ker k na mertay jitnay is jung main shareek ho ker marey hain.

 

[yasir1981]

jung e qudsia ka waqya ha. Hazrat Umer R.A apni army ko lecture de rhay the. Logo kufaar aur ap k dermyan qowat ka muazna nhi. wo aslihay aur taqat main ap se mazboot hain. lakin aap k paas jo un se mumtaaz kerti ha wo Allah ka saath ha. Ager aap Allah k saath hain to kufaar ap ko hara nhi saktey. lakin ager ap na Allah ko choor diya to chon k kufaar taqat main tum se zyada hain, lehaza tum haar jao gay. aur tareekh gwah ha k Muslims na kuch na hotay howay b FARAS ko neet o nabood ker diya. Hazrat Umer R.A k is lecture se kya andaza nhi hota k us waqt ki GEO STRATEGICAL postion kya thi?


Aur doosri baat, us shakhs ki door andeshi ki kya baat kehye jis na party k vice ka intekhab kya aur usay itna na pata chala k wo character main kaisi ha? Sharab jis ko Quran main HARAM kaha gya ha. Kya nhi kaha gya? koi daleel ha is ko justified kernay ki? Jo shakhs 1 ko nhi pehchaan sakta wo itni baree war game ko kaisay pehchan sakta ha?


Amrica maar hi deta na aur kya ker sakta tha? Is waqt kounsa zinda hain? Itnay to shayed Amrica k khilaf jung ker k na mertay jitnay is jung main shareek ho ker marey hain.

Hazrat umer ki baat bilkul thek hai lekin Kufar se muqabla kro jab appke deen ko khatra ho mit jane ka......Jo deen taliban le kr aa rhe hain jis mein bas sab ko zibah krna ho woh islam nhi hai, Nabi kareem (P.B.UH) ne kuffar ke sath agreements kiye magher kabhi nhi torha isko chahe kuch bi ho magher in taliban ne khud agreements 3 baar torhe.....Konsa islam hai inke paas jo hamen btana hai inhon ne.......Ab suno doosri baat Musharraf ki party ki Vice ke paas se sharab nikli...Jis shakhs ki poojha tm kr rhe ho usne zna kiya hai.....Pta hai na kabeera ghunnah hai or yahoodi se shadi ki.....Is se zyada kuch nhi kehna chahta is liye pehle apne leader k character pe nazer dalo phr kisi pe kuch kehna.......

 

[Nice2MU]

Again Musharaf making fool of the people by saying US-India coalition and we couldn't afford this coalition. He is stupid himself & considers everyone like him. India couldn't help US in any mean. If it could so, US would definitely avail it, why US wanted to be in so much difficult relations.

 

[haqiqat]

U uncle Mushy SOB biggest lier of the history of pakistan he is fooling pakistan people nothing more
richard armiratge never said anything like that to uncle mushy

Here is the proof

Armitage denies threatening Pakistan after 9/11

Former deputy secretary of state clarifies exchange with Musharraf

WASHINGTON — Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage denied on Friday that he told a Pakistani official the U.S. would bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if it did not cooperate with Washington in the war on terror following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Armitage, in an interview with NBC News, said his remarks during the conversation were misrepresented. “I wouldn’t threaten the use of military force if I couldn’t come through with it,” he said.
Earlier Friday, with Musharraf standing at his side at the White House, President Bush said he was surprised by Musharraf's claim.
“The first I heard of it was when I read about it in the newspaper today,” Bush said. “I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words.”
“I don’t know of any (such) conversation,” he added.
Musharraf said he could not comment because of a contract for a book to be published on Monday.
'Be prepared to be bombed'
Within days of the Sept. 11 attacks, Armitage met with Pakistan’s intelligence director, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, seeking cooperation.
Advertise | AdChoices







Musharraf, in an interview with CBS News’ magazine show “60 Minutes,” to air on Sunday, said Armitage told Ahmad that without cooperation: “Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age."
Armitage told NBC the conversation was a “strong, factual” exchange, but said he made no military threats. He said he told Ahmad “Pakistan would need to be with us or against us. For Americans, this was seen as black or white.”
What did Armitage say?
The Pakistani leader said in the interview with CBS, which distributed the Pakistani leader's comments, that he felt insulted.
“I think it was a very rude remark,” he told reporter Steve Kroft. But Musharraf said he reacted responsibly. “One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation and that is what I did,” he said.
White House spokesperson Tony Snow said Friday that he did not know what Musharraf had been told by his intelligence chief after the talk with Armitage, but “U.S. policy was not to issue bombing threats. U.S. policy was to say to President Musharraf: ’We need you to make a choice.’”
“I don’t know,” Snow said. “This could have been a classic failure to communicate. I just don’t know.”

Relations with the Taliban
Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pakistan was one of the only countries in the world to maintain relations with the Taliban, which was harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, and many Pakistanis were sympathetic with the neighboring Islamic state.
But within days of the attacks Musharraf cut his government’s ties to the Taliban regime and cooperated with U.S. efforts to track and capture al-Qaida and Taliban forces that sought refuge in Pakistan.
The official 9/11 commission report on the attacks and their aftermath, based largely on government documents, said U.S. national security officials focused immediately on securing Pakistani cooperation as they planned a response.
Documents showed Armitage met the Pakistani ambassador and the visiting head of Pakistan’s military intelligence service in Washington on Sept. 13 and asked Pakistan to take seven steps.
They included ending logistical support for bin Laden and giving the United States blanket overflight and landing rights for military and intelligence flights.
The report did not discuss any threat the United States may have made, but it said Musharraf agreed to all seven U.S. requests the same day.
Advertise | AdChoices







In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that “we gave them a list of things we wanted Pakistan to do, which essentially required Pakistan to completely reverse its policy with respect to the Taliban.”
Musharraf “saw the wisdom in the decision he took,” Powell said.
'Ludicrous' demands
Musharraf said in the CBS interview he was irked by U.S. demands that Pakistan turn over its border posts and bases for the U.S. military to use.
He said some demands were “ludicrous,” including one insisting he suppress domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States. “If somebody’s expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views,” Musharraf said.
With Taliban fighters still fighting in Afghanistan and statements by the Afghan government that Pakistan must do more to crack down on militants in its rugged border area, the issue is again a sensitive one between Islamabad and Washington.
Musharraf reacted with displeasure to comments by Bush on Wednesday that if he had firm intelligence bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would issue the order to go into that country.
“We wouldn’t like to allow that. We’d like to do that ourselves,” Musharraf told a news conference.
Musharraf’s comments came days ahead of the publication by New York-based Free Press of his memoir “In the Line of Fire.” Advance copies of the memoir have not been released to the media for review before its Monday publication.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14943975/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

 

[haqiqat]

General Hamid Gul ( EXPOSING Musharraf and his So called PAKISTAN FIRST Slogan)

someone has posted on youtube below this clip which is exactly true

(Musharraf the worlds most worst ***** seller.
Shariat ko badnaam is ne karwaya, un logon ko dehshat gard dikha ker, un logon ko jaan boojh ker bandooq se muqabla karwa ker unko askariat pasand dikhaya, aur Shariat pasand logon ko shiddat pasand dikhaya. is shakhs ki kabar me jo scene ho ga. wo nakabile bardasht ho ga. General Musharraf,,, jo naam hai duniya ke sab se ghaleez zehniat wale shakhs ka.!)

 

[crankthskunk]

Musharaf "the traitor" gave up too early and too cheap, result is the destruction of Pakistani Economy.

Option: 1 No land or sea rights by Pakistan

1- If he stood firm and refused America had to use Mumbai for logistic by the sea and then Air passage to Afghanistan.

2- His excuse that Indian would have offered and America would have attacked us is a smoke screen.

A- Iran didn't offer anything what did America do to Iran?

B- Iran was in the similar situation, if not worst. Americans were sitting in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states it came in to Iraq too.

3- In case America using Air Passage from India the cost of operation would have been anything from 6 to 10 times higher.

4- America could have not continued the operations for a considerable period of time, without facing Economic ruins, and would have gone long time ago from Afghanistan.

5- Alternative for Americans through Northern States and Russia is even more costly. They have those routes available even now, but not used extensively due to the costs.

6- America attacking Pakistan with India is a myth created by Musharaf. America couldnt do that without starting a WIII, same scenario still exists. Apart from China, look at the Russians attitudes towards India now, it is changing. Russia also knows it has been circled by America, through Afghanistan and through the European states which have joins the west now. America trying to place missile shields in these countries to the annoyance of Russians.

Option 2:

Even (this is just for analysis, I am certainly against it) if he offered the land passage, instead of aid, he should have asked for the fees for using Pakistan infrastructure from Ports to the Roads.

1- Fees for handling of the goods and supplies at the ports, storage facilities etc.

2- Fees for usage of the Roads to carry goods and supplies to Afghanistan.


3- 100% Costs for the extra Security provided to the NATO supplies during the transit and movement through the Roads. Including Insurance and compensations for the Pakistanis families who loose their lives performing these duties. Payments for the trucks and other equipment get destroyed from time to time.

4- Americans should have been asked to fit the bill for a Motorway from Karachi to Quetta and then to Chaman, and from Quetta to Peshawar and torkham for the movement of supplies. This way at least Pakistan would have benefited and gained economically from faster movements of goods and supplies to more deprived areas of Pakistan. It would have given a second back bone to Pakistans road network on the western side and reduce the traffic on existing road network through the eastern side of the country.


5- By charging the full costs for handling, storage, movement of the supplies Pakistan would not needed any aid. Saving Pakistan from Americans dictate and constant meddling in Pakistani internal affairs and shaping of its policies.

6- Pakistan would have received far more in charges than what it receives in aid, and still get the bad name and false charges of beggars by its enemies.

Third Mistake,

Musharaf made another blunder which has cost Pakistan over $70 billion in Economic loss during last 10 years.

He should have demanded that for Pakistan to take part in war on Terror with Americans and does their dirty work, Americans have to pay for the operations in advance. No money no work. As soon as the money stops, we stop the operation. It would have saved the humiliation Pakistan faces when Americans refuses to pay the bills and keep the payments to blackmail Pakistan in their quest to do more.

He should have also asked for full compensation on Economic loss suffered by Pakistan as a result of War on Terror in investment and slowing down of the Economic activities. He should have asked for extra economic foreign investment by the American companies to not only offset the losses but the stimulate the economy and not let it go in to Economic grind, which it is now.


This is a snap shot, but there is no doubt, Musharaf is a traitor he didnt look after Pakistans interests and all the problems Pakistan has faced and still facing is due to the treachery of Musharaf. He should have refused to take part in Americans dirty war, and should have said to Americans, we are not with you or against you, we are neutral. Do your dirty work yourself.

 

[Truth-seeker]

If musharraff had'nt chickened out pakistan would'nt have been in this mess.

 

[smalltimepro]

This is a snap shot, but there is no doubt, Musharaf is a traitor he didnt look after Pakistans interests and all the problems Pakistan has faced and still facing is due to the treachery of Musharaf. He should have refused to take part in Americans dirty war, and should have said to Americans, we are not with you or against you, we are neutral. Do your dirty work yourself.

I adore your analysis. You saved me the trouble of writing one myself :).. thank you...
Indeed the correct path would have been to assume nuetrality.

I was angrily told, by the US, that Pakistan had to be either with us or against us. The message was also conveyed to me that if Pakistan was against the United States then it should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Aur main dar gia... jaisa ke meri aadat the... phir kuch dair baad kursi ke neechay se nikal ker, main apnay hi saathioon per chilaaya... 'main darta nai hoo'[hilar][hilar]

 

[ahmed107]

I have always thought this cowardly capitulation was wrong and counter productive ,
you don't have to be anti-american , you can be neutral.

and i have been proved right, cuz worst come to worst they could have bombed some areas but most of the world would have been against american action,
today they are bombing at will and world is with them , cuz they have created scenario by meddling in pakistan .

on the other hand we could have made life very difficult for the americans with NO supply root and also helping afghan fighters (that is IF americans were bombing pakistani areas)

most likely the war would have ended by now, with pakistani head held high !