What's new

Pakistani president urges 'holistic' approach to fighting terrorism

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Pakistani president urges 'holistic' approach to fighting terrorism

By Diana Samuels

DAILY News Staff Writer

Posted: 01/16/2009 11:14:42 PM PST

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf staunchly defended his country's reputation and said the fight against terrorism needs to focus on eliminating its root causes, in a speech at Stanford on Friday afternoon.

Terrorism is often caused by poverty and illiteracy, he said. But many of the terrorists responsible for major events such as 9/11 were neither poor nor illiterate. Their anger came from hopelessness and powerlessness in the face of unresolved political disputes, he said.

"The anger and frustration among Muslim youths is exploited by groups following misrepresented views of Islam, and they indoctrinate them," he said.

The international community needs to fight those root causes "with sincerity and a lot of vigor," he said, by helping developing nations fix socioeconomic problems while allowing them to govern themselves.

Using military force in the short term is essential, Musharraf said. But "military only brings you time," he said. "It cannot give you the final solutions."

Musharraf frequently defended his country's efforts in fighting al-Qaida.

"They are Pakistan's enemies as much as they are your enemies," he said. "Don't have any doubts on that."

Musharaff described a "malicious campaign" against the reputation of his country's army and intelligence operations.

"You do so much, yet there are claims of not doing enough," he said.

To defend his country, he described Pakistan's long struggle with terrorism, beginning with its U.S.-aided fight against the Soviet Union with Afghanistan in the '80s. After the Soviets were defeated, the region was left "all alone" by the West, he said. The armed, trained fighters from the war coalesced and formed al-Qaida, he said. Then, when the Taliban emerged in the mid-'90s, they pushed 4 million refugees into Pakistan, he said.

"Pakistan's social fabric got torn," he said. "And all this had to be handled by the army, the government and the intelligence organizations of Pakistan. No help from anyone."

And finally, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaida hid in the hills of Pakistan.

"Please support us," Musharraf said. "Please understand our problem. And please encourage us."

Following his speech, Musharraf answered questions from the audience. The session was punctuated by a few angry questions that were often followed by applause.

After one woman asked critically how much control Pakistan's government has over the country, Musharraf asked where the audience member was from. When she answered India, he laughed, saying, "I knew that."

Musharraf addressed the conflict between India and Pakistan, urging India to handle the situation with "magnamity."

"Let India not be a big country with a small heart," he said.

Stanford freshman Jeff Gerson said he was surprised by the passion of his fellow students when they asked Musharraf questions. The audience, many of whom were from South Asia, seemed very polarized, he said.

"Almost more interesting than the speech was to see how the students reacted," he said.

Alok Bhide, a Stanford master's student, said after the speech that while he thought Musharraf generalized and twisted some facts, he was impressed by the president's candidness.

"I thought it was pretty good," he said. "He was pretty honest, he wasn't controlled when he spoke."

E-mail Diana Samuels at dsamuels@dailynewsgroup.com.
 
.
He is a fascinating man.

He is not physically imposing. He's not necessarily handsome. His command of english is good but not exceptional nor is he particularly polished as a public speaker.

I watched some serious comments of his at a presentation and Q&A he made a year or so ago at the IISS in London. He was still president. What caught me was a matter-of-fact frankness and sincerity to all that he said.

He was immensely believable.

There's probably a really interesting biography there for anybody who can get close to him. Thing is, I'm not sure that the final chapters have been written yet on his public life. He doesn't appear "used up" and hardly carries the caricature of an "old war horse". So there may yet be political viability in him.

How and by whom that's harnessed I'm unsure and would welcome comments.

He spoke just a few days ago in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I'd sorta hoped that A.M. took the drive over to see him but I think tickets were $125. That's Rolling Stones steep to me. Raking in the bucks, I'd guess as I imagine there'd be real interest to see him
 
Last edited:
. .
Apart from his cool temper, we need to credit him for the economic success. He had a vision and managed to attract FDI on a scale never witnessed before in Pakistan. Of course leaving out the record high deficit levels. At the same time, we need to be sceptical about his blatant pro US stance and handing over our own nationals in exchange for cash. After 9/11 the fuming Americans were obviously smelling blood. He took the right steps by allying with them. However, in the aftermath the Americans were demanding more and more due to his soft handling. I think he could have taken a more resolute and critical stance. Pakistan isn't for sale should have been the message. Today Pakistan is facing quite a critical situation partly due to his legacy.
 
Last edited:
.
Although Musharraf did his fair share of mistakes which were quite costly, but in the end he once served as a commando for the Pakistan army, and deep down inside he was patriotic. He would never sell the nation like the bhuttos and zardaris.
 
.
That's Rolling Stones steep to me.

frankly i'd rather see the stones! but seriously, he is a interesting personality but he has damaged his resume by taking on the judges during his last year in power. pakistan would have been in deeper trouble, had he not been at the helm of things right after 9/11 and i can assure everyone that the mumbai incident would not have taken place under his watch!

watch the bullets fly! i am taking cover already!
 
Last edited:
.
Apart from his cool temper, we need to credit him for the economic success. He had a vision and managed to attract FDI on a scale never witnessed before in Pakistan. Of course leaving out the record high deficit levels. At the same time, we need to be sceptical about his blatant pro US stance and handing over our own nationals in exchange for cash. After 9/11 the fuming Americans were obviously smelling blood. He took the right steps by allying with them. However, in the aftermath the Americans were demanding more and more due to his soft handling. I think he could have taken a more resolute and critical stance. Pakistan isn't for sale should have been the message. Today Pakistan is facing quite a critical situation partly due to his legacy.

u are right and u are also wrong!
 
.
...and i can assure everyone that the mumbai incident would not have taken place under his watch!...

I agree...when he grabbed power in '99, in India the right-wing BJP govt and public alike were alarmed. The mastermind of Kargil was now dictator! Media went nuts with doomsday predictions of more terror attacks, more Kargils, more risk of nuclear war, etc...What happened? The exact opposite...Vajpayee the poet found that he could do business with Musharraf the general. For once, there was someone in power in Pakistan who fully controlled the Army/ISI as well as the executive branches. Both parties started a what-looked-like promising dialogue on Kashmir but then everything unravelled for the general post-9/11.
Today, nobody knows who is in charge so these non-state actors have taken advantage of the power vaccum there. IMO there is a very real danger of more Mumbai-like attacks, and what can follow is anyone's guess!
 
Last edited:
.
He is a fascinating man.

He is not physically imposing. He's not necessarily handsome. His command of english is good but not exceptional nor is he particularly polished as a public speaker.

I watched some serious comments of his at a presentation and Q&A he made a year or so ago at the IISS in London. He was still president. What caught me was a matter-of-fact frankness and sincerity to all that he said.

He was immensely believable.

There's probably a really interesting biography there for anybody who can get close to him. Thing is, I'm not sure that the final chapters have been written yet on his public life. He doesn't appear "used up" and hardly carries the caricature of an "old war horse". So there may yet be political viability in him.

How and by whom that's harnessed I'm unsure and would welcome comments.

He spoke just a few days ago in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I'd sorta hoped that A.M. took the drive over to see him but I think tickets were $125. That's Rolling Stones steep to me. Raking in the bucks, I'd guess as I imagine there'd be real interest to see him


Amazing,

Who ever say yes to western world is fascinating and believable.

You dont know service history of that guy once court martial by PA but his charges wave off due to 71 war.He has taken lot of wrong steps in WOT including Kargil war and also in political front ,his most cruel step was to wave off charges against Zardari .
 
. .
Well, where am I wrong? perhaps I can shed some light...

However, in the aftermath the Americans were demanding more and more due to his soft handling. I think he could have taken a more resolute and critical stance. Pakistan isn't for sale should have been the message.
 
.
Musharraf's story so far is that of heavy and painful irony. He hated Zardari, hated him. He called him a traitor and expressed his disgust on numberous occasions (don't ask me how I know this). But in the end, he ended up helping those very people grab power.

He lost sight of his goal as things became bitter. Same thing happened to Ayub. People like him were never designed for politics. What politics compels them to become is ugly. But I'd still choose him over Zardari or Nawaz any day.

One thing I'd like to say though, some idiots like Obama like to think that America is unpopular in Pakistan because they trusted and befriend Musharraf. They are retarded. The reality is the other way round. The cause for America's unpopularity in Pakistan always has been America itself. (According to a BBC survey more than 70% of Pakistanis supported the Taliban in the initial stages of the US invasion of Afghanistan, and this is despite what the Al-Qaeda did on September 11th. 70% of Pakistanis said they rather Taliban win!)

But Musharraf, oh yes he was popular when he came in. We were so happy to have been rid of the incompetent dictatorship of Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf's biggest liability throughout his whole political life has been the War on Terror and the consequent alliance with the US. People like Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain, Fazrul Rehman, ANP folks, Nawaz Sharif and yes even the PPP exploited people's insecurities and confusion in relation to the WoT. According to everyone of them it was America's war, not ours. The Pakistan Military was to blame they said, not Al-Qaeda or their friends or what ever anti-Pakistani elements that had taken root and thrived during both NS and BBs time.. Musharraf the soldier though, expected the whole country to stay firm in spirit and back him in what was after all a war. He didn't realize he wasn't commanding an army anymore with indoctrinated soldiers and a unbreakable chain of command. He was in command of a country with insecure, irresolute, scared, uneducated, essentially selfish population and snakes who knew this and would have exploited this. He was out maneuvered by snakes at home and snakes abroad, and the result and his biggest mistake was that he got the Pakistan Army in the firing line. Everyone was having a go at us, the Americans, the right religious wingers, the so called 'seculars', the terrorists, the secessionists, the Indians, you name it. Now I'm glad the PA is out of the firing line for now, but I also worry about what people like Zardari might do now that they're back.
 
.
Musharraf didn't have much of a choice in saying 'yes' to america, right ('we'll bomb you back to the stone age')? Didn't he do the next best thing, i.e., to say 'yes' and then do what was in Pakistan's interest (limited support to taliban)?

Not too much choice for a President right now. Is there any reason to believe that Sharif will do better than Zardari?
 
.
However, in the aftermath the Americans were demanding more and more due to his soft handling. I think he could have taken a more resolute and critical stance. Pakistan isn't for sale should have been the message.

I believe that he has been showing leniency on occasions when an iron fist was required. The Americans started to take everything for granted. Some more guts would have made them think twice before making ridiculous demands. I, however, fully understand that it's a difficult situation that Pakistan still is in and was at the time. It's easy to be judgemental.
 
Last edited:
.
Musharraf didn't have much of a choice in saying 'yes' to america, right ('we'll bomb you back to the stone age')? Didn't he do the next best thing, i.e., to say 'yes' and then do what was in Pakistan's interest (limited support to taliban)?

That is a primitive take on the situation that perhaps the Indians would like to believe. Musharraf was hardly one to be intimidated. He just did what was best for his country as he was trained to do. Despite what he might have had said to ease the ridiculous amount of criticism he was getting for not supporting Al-Qaeda, I seriously doubt the Americans would have threatened us in this way if they seriously needed our friendship (which they did).
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom