U.S. aid was used on defence against India, says Musharraf

[Antimony]

I never said that the interests of the neighboring states are more important than that of the Afghans. However, Afghanistan (or any other country for that matter) cannot live in isolation. Peace and prosperity in Afghanistan is tightly linked to its relations with its neighbors. American’s presence is not welcomed by any of the Afghanistan’s neighbor hence any government in Kabul relying heavily on Washington and ignoring the concerns of its neighbors will not last for long.

Can you elaborate what concerns Afghanistan's neighbours have?
Ok, let's be more objective in this discussion.

First, a few facts on the ground. All of the neighbours would like to see a situation where Afghan refugees spill over to their countries. Also, the majority of Afghan are Sunni, which puts them somewhat at odd with Iran

Here are the neighbours of Afghanistan

1. Tajikistan: they seem to be getting along pretty well with Afghanistan. They now have joint investments and would hate to lose it all in a taliban resurgence
2. Uzbekistan: I really, really doubt if they would want a Taliban resurgence, given the treatment meted out to Uzbek rebels by the Taliban.
3. Turkmenistan: Same as Tajikistan
4. Iran: After 9/11, Iran had signalled to the US that it would not oppose a US military intervention in Afghanistan. I agree that it would not like a US controlled govt. either, but I don't think they really want the Sunni Taliban
5. China: China had so far supported the US war, if only by not raising issues against it. Recently though, China has openly come out in support for a solution which would include India. In other words, China has endorsed Pakistan's stand to put pressure on India. However China would be wary of a hardcore Islamist govt. in Afghanistan, due to its concerns about linkages with the Uighur problem. you would note that they have recently started engaing the Karzai government.
6. Russia: I am sure Russi does not appreciate the US operating in its backyard, especially where she has failed decades ago, But I doubt they would want the Taliban to come back. You would have noted that they have started promising mmilitary help to the current Afghan government.
7. Pakistan: The one country that would clearly prefer a "Good" Taliban to about everything else.

So to sum up

1. The CAR nations (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) have a lot to,lose and little to gain if the Taliban take over. Currently a stable Afghanistan with whom they can do business seems to be their best bet. Of course, they are also relatively lower in importance
2. The big guys (Iran, Russia, China Pakistan) would really prefer not to have a US backed govt. However, Iran and Russia would like to avoid the Taliban too.
3. China is in for Pakistan. But she would prefer not to have a strict islamist govt. due to the implications for Uighurs
4. Pakistan is the only country which would like to see democracy fail in Afghanistan and the Taliban take over. It also is the only one (apart from China, which has the same objective anyway) likely to have onging "concerns" with the current govt. due to its closeness with India.

To shorten this even further, a democratic Afghanistan, backed by the Us and friendly with India is a concern for Pakistan and cannot be allowed to happen

Type of the battle American are fighting in Afghanistan can only be won if the masses of Afghans support them. Contrary to the surveys, masses of Afghan do not support the NATO/ISAF forces. Taliban might be their enemy, but the NATO/ISAF are also not taken as the liberators.

I am sure that you have the sources to back this up but are not doing so due to OPSEC reasons.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Musharraf denies diverting U.S. aid - UPI.com

Musharraf denies diverting U.S. aid



Published: Sept. 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM


PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- U.S. military assistance to Pakistan was not used to strengthen the national deterrent capability against nuclear-armed India, said Pervez Musharraf.

Indian media outlets reported Monday that Musharraf admitted to using U.S. military aid meant to fight regional extremists instead to counter the threat from India.

The U.S. State Department said it took the allegations "seriously" regarding the claims of the misuse of military aid to Pakistan.

Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan, told an audience in the United States where he is on a lecture tour that the allegations were false, Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reports.

The former president and retired military general said Pakistan "never violated any agreement or mis-utilized U.S. funds for strengthening its defenses against India."

He said military equipment purchased with U.S. assistance moved where his national troops were deployed, adding Washington was aware of all Pakistani military activity.

"The United States at the time was aware of what we were doing," he said.

 

[Energon]

Did Musharraf actually admit to aid being diverted or was it the Indian media clowns who just spun his statement?

As far as the actual issue of aid diversion is concerned, this was addressed in 2007 when the intelligence community confirmed this matter which led to the heightened involvement of the US congress in the first place.

What is happening now seems to be largely a circus show by members of the Indian media.

 

[Daredevil]

Did Musharraf actually admit to aid being diverted or was it the Indian media clowns who just spun his statement?

It also came in BBC.

Musharraf admits US aid diverted

 

[qsaark]

Antimony,

You have an excellent post there. My analysis is based on the news I get from the media. I have never been to Afghanistan nor do I have first hand experience of the situation on the ground. However, in my flawed understanding, there is a difference between a US-backed Afghan Government and a puppet Afghan Government. As long as NATO/ISAF will maintain their physical presence on the Afghan soil, there will not be peace in that region. I wish my analysis proves wrong and Afghanistan becomes a progressive and modern state.

 

[Antimony]

Antimony,

You have an excellent post there. My analysis is based on the news I get from the media. I have never been to Afghanistan nor do I have first hand experience of the situation on the ground. However, in my flawed understanding, there is a difference between a US-backed Afghan Government and a puppet Afghan Government. As long as NATO/ISAF will maintain their physical presence on the Afghan soil, there will not be peace in that region. I wish my analysis proves wrong and Afghanistan becomes a progressive and modern state.

Qsaark,

One reason why I personally feel that Allied forces are really more beneficial than anyone is the civilan efforts they are putting in, from creating infrastructure to making an effort to sustainably replace poppy cultivation. For e.g., a lot of USAID effort is expended on replacing poppy with wheat and pomegranate, which fetch much more than opium does.

Here are some links for reference

http://www.sarahchayes.net/images/Afghanistan_policy_action_plan_0109.pdf
Afghanistan Promotes Crop More Profitable Than Poppy

 

[tiger usa]

No one gets anything for free in this world. Yes, Pakistan is doing militarily that none of the 42 Nato countries have been able to consistently do on the ground against Taliban/Al-Qaeda, so why not get aid to replenish the used ammo. It is not aid but incurring and reimbursement of expenses.

 

[Yusuf]

Lol. F-16s are a replenishment? That apart how many bullets have been spent by Pakistan? Worth 1 billion dollars a year?

Seriously where did all the funds come from to make the two new plutonium reactors when Pakistan was going to default?

 

[qsaark]

Seriously where did all the funds come from to make the two new plutonium reactors when Pakistan was going to default?

F-16s are not being paid through the US aid and the reactors are being constructed through the soft loans from China.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Qsaark while on the topic -Aren't Chinese hypocrites for pushing NPT on India during the US-India nuke deal and building reactors in Pakistan? I know you may answer they are civilian reactors but that is debatable??

 

[qsaark]

Qsaark while on the topic -Aren't Chinese hypocrites for pushing NPT on India during the US-India nuke deal and building reactors in Pakistan? I know you may answer they are civilian reactors but that is debatable??

In my opinion, YES, the Chinese are hypocrites for pushing NPT on India while at the same time not asking Pakistan to sign the same treaty.

However, to be honest with you, China knows as well as India and Pakistan that India is not going to sign the NPT. So these kinds of talks largely remain talks with nothing gained at the end of the day.

 

[qsaark]

PPP not bothered about US aid pre-conditions

Thursday, September 17, 2009
Dilshad Azeem

Islamabad

The PPP-led financial managers are not bothered about the recent American announcement not to give aid money directly to the present government under the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

“The announcement is insignificant for us as we will give projects and other heads, for which the money is to be obtained, for utilization through this bill,” Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin told The News.

In a chat with The News during an iftar-dinner Dr Asim Hussain hosted here Monday, the finance minister was clear to say that there was no change in the aid provision to Pakistan in practical terms.

Asked whether it was not an American no confidence on the PPP government, the finance minister said, “They have full confidence in our government and on our policies and that is why the US aid is increasing from previously just $300 million.”

Tarin responded to a question that the government would inject the funds in various projects under Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP), obviously the schemes of mass welfare.

“The money, to be received, will be allocated for the heads for which it is provided or for the provincial governments,” the finance minister said.

The minister was of the view that the same exercise was being carried out for so many years. “This is not a sort of no confidence or no trust against the policies of the sitting government.”

Last Friday, the US clearly stated that the bulk of the money it would provide under the Kerry-Lugar Bill would not go directly to the PPP government, but to specific projects and purposes for which it was intended.

“We do not feel any kind of problem,” was his response when asked about the indication to provide money directly to the provinces where the US programmes are going-on and the federating units are presently engaged in chalking out a mechanism for Federal Divisible Pool (FDP).

The minister said the Pakistan government needed an amount to prepare the budget apart from the assistance to be given to the non-governmental agencies.

The US in its statement said, “We made clear that we’re looking at a variety of approaches, that we certainly intend to be supportive of Pakistani ministries where the programmes are ready to accept that support effectively, but that we also needed to look at the provincial level and to work with the traditional NGO community, and it wouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all approach.”

The US State Department said it would look at the ministry projects, which were ready on a case-to-case basis and also provided direct aid to provinces and NGOs. That was what he meant by saying that it would not be a one-size-fits-all approach.

The American statement is being taken in and outside Pakistan as an indication of a trust deficit as the US, commanding country in the war on terror, is not willing to give the funds directly to government at a time when Pakistan is a declared frontline state.

Source: PPP not bothered about US aid pre-conditions

 

[Vladimir79]

Why are these countries stake holders? Why should it matter what these countries think anyway? What about the Afghanis themselves?

Russia has quite a bit at stake in the country. We forgave $10 billion in debt so we could have access to more contracts. We donated hundreds of millions in military equipment including most of the armies tank force. We have always supplied the Northern Alliance. No nation has invested more except the US. Why do you think we aid the Amerikans in supplying their troops? We do not want another Islamist government taking power to spread their Wahhabi ideals to the rest of Central Asia. The last thing we need are uprisings in our own Muslim population if they aren't contained.

The survey conducted by the World Public Opinion in 2006 showed an overwhelming support for US and International presence, along with a rejection of the Taliban (the "good" Taliban so eloquently supported by Hamid Gul and the likes) and Al Queda.

You think Afghanis love the US today after all the innocent people they have killed? Polls of Afghans are a waste of time considering you aren't going to talk to people outside of controlled areas.

Left to themselves, the Taliban (the "good" kind) will certainly overrun the country. They certainly tried their darnedest to kep ordinary Afghans away from the polls.

What good kind of Taliban is there?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

I agree Vladimir Russians have played a key role in assisting US/NATO's war effort in Afghanistan one clear example of this was when Russians helped USA secure new supply routes thru Central Asia, USA dropped the missile shield plans in Poland and Czech Republic.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

What clearly defines "Good Taliban" from "Bad Taliban"?

 

[Antimony]

Russia has quite a bit at stake in the country. We forgave $10 billion in debt so we could have access to more contracts. We donated hundreds of millions in military equipment including most of the armies tank force. We have always supplied the Northern Alliance. No nation has invested more except the US. Why do you think we aid the Amerikans in supplying their troops? We do not want another Islamist government taking power to spread their Wahhabi ideals to the rest of Central Asia. The last thing we need are uprisings in our own Muslim population if they aren't contained.

Vlad,

That is exactly what I am saying. Refer my next post in that chain

You think Afghanis love the US today after all the innocent people they have killed? Polls of Afghans are a waste of time considering you aren't going to talk to people outside of controlled areas.

Regardless of that, you would prefer the US to the Taliban

What good kind of Taliban is there?

That was a snide remark. Many in Pakistan seem to believe that while the TTP are "bad" Taliban since they go against the state of Pakistan, the Afghani Taliban under Mullah Omar are "good" Taliban who are fighting against foreign oppression.

To me, a good Taliban is a dead Taliban

 

[qsaark]

That was a snide remark. Many in Pakistan seem to believe that while the TTP are "bad" Taliban since they go against the state of Pakistan, the Afghani Taliban under Mullah Omar are "good" Taliban who are fighting against foreign oppression.

To me, a good Taliban is a dead Taliban

Those who are fighting against the NATO/ISAF occupation are not all Taliban. There are numerous fractions of Afghan Mujahideen who once fought against the Soviet occupation, and now are fighting against the NATO/ISAF occupation. It is easier for the occupation forces to talk about all the Afghan insurgent fractions under a common name of Taliban for obvious reasons, but in reality, that is not the case. Pakistanis do not support the so called ‘good’ Taliban, yes, they do support the Afghan insurgents who are fighting against the occupation of the NATO/ISAF and the corruption of Karzai & Co.

 

[Antimony]

Those who are fighting against the NATO/ISAF occupation are not all Taliban. There are numerous fractions of Afghan Mujahideen who once fought against the Soviet occupation, and now are fighting against the NATO/ISAF occupation.

I am sure there are some of them, but I would assume the majority are hardcore Islamist Taliban

It is easier for the occupation forces to talk about all the Afghan insurgent fractions under a common name of Taliban for obvious reasons, but in reality, that is not the case. Pakistanis do not support the so called ‘good’ Taliban, yes, they do support the Afghan insurgents who are fighting against the occupation of the NATO/ISAF and the corruption of Karzai & Co.

Come on Qsaark,

I have seen enough comments on some Pakistani fora that goes directly against this comment

By the way, guys, feel free to admire my new avatar

 

[qsaark]

I am sure there are some of them, but I would assume the majority are hardcore Islamist Taliban

I will suggest you not to assume. I was born in Quetta and lived for good 25 years there. I have dealt with the Pathans on everyday basis. What you call hardcore Islamist, is a regular way of living the life for the Pathans. They never miss a single prayer, even though they may earn money through smuggling; they never miss a fast, even though they may deal in drugs and arms; they will visit Mekkah repeatedly even though he may have blood of several humans on his hand. Now I am not saying that all of them are like this, but very many are indeed like this.

I tell you one more thing, they are not as big an Islamist as thy are presented by the West. As I have mentioned above, they are involved in all kinds of un-Islamic activities yet calling them Islamist is rather un-realistic.

Come on Qsaark,

I have seen enough comments on some Pakistani fora that goes directly against this comment

It is possible that many appreciate those 'good' Taliban. But again, when they appreciate them, they actually appreciate their insurgence. Most Pakistanis on the various fora are suffering with severe type of identity crisis. They change their stance with type of the person they are talking to and with the nature of the debate as well. They can act as a hardcore religious person in one debate and can behave as a liberal fascist in another. I am writing an article on the Identity crisis of Pakistanis.

 

[Antimony]

I will suggest you not to assume. I was born in Quetta and lived for good 25 years there. I have dealt with the Pathans on everyday basis. What you call hardcore Islamist, is a regular way of living the life for the Pathans. They never miss a single prayer, even though they may earn money through smuggling; they never miss a fast, even though they may deal in drugs and arms; they will visit Mekkah repeatedly even though he may have blood of several humans on his hand. Now I am not saying that all of them are like this, but very many are indeed like this.

I am not going to argue with your experience. But do answer one thing for me. In a post US/ ISAF Afghanistan, would these guys support the real Taliban?

More importantly, are these guys beneficial for Afghnistan as a nation?

I tell you one more thing, they are not as big an Islamist as thy are presented by the West. As I have mentioned above, they are involved in all kinds of un-Islamic activities yet calling them Islamist is rather un-realistic.

Which brings me to back to my point. they are certainly not beneficial to a stable, properous Afghanistan.

The only people seriously doing something good about Afghanistan are the "Occupied forces". Case in point, many have tried to do away with the opium trade, including the Tqaliban. Noone till now has provided an alternative which USAID had in ther form of pomegranete cultivation