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

[LETHALFORCE]

exactly Vladimir give aid money with a wink, that gets diverted to buy arms and ask for no transparency in any aid; easy way to look innocent.

 

[SATISH]

I just hope the US administration drops their ego and diversify their supply lines and ask India and Iran help to resupply their troops through Chabbar-Delram highway then Pakistan can be easily put under pressure. But no their Ego is greater than the reality....

 

[RPK]

fullstory

Diversion of funds: US sends team to Pakistan

Washington, Sept 15 (PTI) Amidst former President Pervez Musharraf's revelation that Pakistan used US military aid to strengthen its defences against India, a top American military official today said a team was recently sent to Islamabad to review the reimbursement system under Coalition Support Funds.

In a written reply to Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said the team was sent to review the Coalition Support Funds, which provides reimbursement to Pakistan for expense incurred while conducting operations against war on terrorism.

However, there was no reference if it had any links with Musharraf's recent claim that US military aid to Pakistan for the war against terrorism was used during his tenure to strengthen defences against India.

 

[RPK]

US military aid not misused: Musharraf - Pakistan - World - NEWS - The Times of India

WASHINGTON: Former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday denied saying that while he was in power, he allowed using US military aid to
Pakistan to strengthen its defences against India.

In a statement issued in Philadelphia, Mr Musharraf said the issue highlighted by some Indian leaders and media was not even raised in the interview, according to a Dawn website. The former president is currently in the United States on a lecture tour.

The Indian media reported on Monday that in an interview to a Pakistani television channel, Mr Musharraf acknowledged using US military aid meant to fight the extremists to strengthen Pakistan’s defences against India.

“No question was asked regarding US funds for fighting the militants in this interview or at any other time,” he said. ‘I have never said Pakistan violated any agreement,’ the website said.

Pakistan, he said, ‘never violated any agreement or miss-utilised US funds’ for strengthening its defences against India.

‘As far as the equipment issued to a military unit is concerned, the equipment moves wherever the unit is deployed,’ he said. ‘The US at the time was aware of what we were doing.’

 

[Ray]

Musharraf is wrong when he says that it is not possible to ensure that weapons given as aid for a specific purpose has to be carried around with the unit.

In 1962, when the US gave aid that was specifically against the Chinese, we had to hand it over to the unit relieving us and take on their weapons simultaneously where it was not against China!

The man is a crook!

 

[Yusuf]

Sir,

Indians die in morality. As they say "Raja Harishchandra ke aulad".

No such qualms for others. Morality is the last thing on their mind.

 

[RPK]

fullstory

Pak govt attacks Mush over his remark on US aid

Islamabad, Sep 16 (PTI) Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi today attacked former President Pervez Musharraf, saying that he had done disservice to the nation by his remarks that the US military aid for the war on terror was diverted to boost defences against India during his tenure.

"If he (Musharraf) has said what has been printed in newspapers, then he has not done any service to Pakistan. If he has said this, he has not strengthened Pakistan's case," Qureshi told reporters in his hometown of Multan, without elaborating.

He was responding to a question about Musharraf's recent revelation that the US military aid meant for the war on terror was diverted to strengthen Pakistan's defences against India.

 

[qsaark]

Interesting development isn’t it? Question that comes to the mind is, why on earth Musharraf is doing this? Why he was not able to shut his mouth on this? I guess there are two reasons:

1. Musharraf is trying to play with the emotions of the brain-washed Pakistanis by telling them that look I was never sincere with Americans, rather I made them fool and used their money and equipment to strengthen our defenses against the arch enemy India.

2. He is trying to undermine the efforts of the present democratic government which she is making to improve the over all situation.

I see this nothing but Musharraf’s vicious attempt to bring back the military regime into power once again. I think that Americans should launch a full investigation and try to make sure that the American’s taxpayer’s (I am one of those) money is being spent ONLY for the purpose it was intended for.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

This team being sent by USA is for show, Obama/Biden have tripled aid without any conditions, without any transparency and without tying it to any outcomes or results.

 

[johnee]

Interesting development isn’t it? Question that comes to the mind is, why on earth Musharraf is doing this? Why he was not able to shut his mouth on this? I guess there are two reasons:

1. Musharraf is trying to play with the emotions of the brain-washed Pakistanis by telling them that look I was never sincere with Americans, rather I made them fool and used their money and equipment to strengthen our defenses against the arch enemy India.

2. He is trying to undermine the efforts of the present democratic government which she is making to make to improve the over all situation.

I see this nothing but Musharraf’s vicious attempt to bring back the military regime into power once again. I think that Americans should launch a full investigation and try to make sure that the American’s taxpayer’s (I am one of those) money is being spent ONLY for the purpose it was intended for.

Great points. But couldnt it be possible that Gen. was just being boastful and did not have any particular tactic in mind?

Lastly, when you say that you want US to launch a full investigation, you are assuming that US wants Pakistan to actually use that money for the purpose it was supposed to be given. I think US is just using Pakistan by buying the elites to get to its goals. When Mushy claims that money went to strengthen the defenses(or offenses) against India, I think half of that money ended up in the pockets of the ruling elite(military included).

 

[qsaark]

This team being sent by USA is for show, Obama/Biden have tripled aid without any conditions, without any transparency and without tying it to any outcomes or results.

That is true. The problem with the Americans is, they are not holding high moral grounds. They had similar problems in Iraq and they have even worst problems in Afghanistan. The neighbors of Afghanistan do not want to see the long term presence of Americans in Afghanistan. Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan, all are the stake holders here and it is not in the interest of any of those that Americans stay in Afghanistan. Americans are kind of trapped in Afghanistan, and the only country or the regime they can deal with easily (through bribe or intimidation) is Pakistan. At this point, they don’t want to loose Pakistani support or what ever you want to call it.

Great points. But couldnt it be possible that Gen. was just being boastful and did not have any particular tactic in mind?

You may be right you know. But as I have found Musharraf, he is dying for coming back to the power and he will leave no stone unturned to achieve his dirty objectives. He hates the democracy to the core of his heart, and he will go to any length to make sure that democracy never take-up its roots in Pakistan.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Many nations are puzzled by USA'S true intentions in Afghanistan, the WOT has not been what was sold to the world and the search for Osama is not a goal anymore, the CIA dismantled the team and closed the operation to find him. So what is the true purpose of this war? To get a foothold against nations like Iran, Russia,China, Pakistan ,India and Central Asia seems to be the answer and Afghanistan is the right place to do it.

 

[bhramos]

thats true the US is with in their for their long term interests this cant be ruled out.
so that those people wont stop supporting Taliban and its risk to the whole Region and its neighbours.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

with this much spent to fight the taliban ,no solid results in last 8 years??This is USA alone other NATO nations like UK,Australia have also spent their share.

 

[natarajan]

It is almost one third of our black money in swiss bank :2guns:

 

[Antimony]

That is true. The problem with the Americans is, they are not holding high moral grounds. They had similar problems in Iraq and they have even worst problems in Afghanistan. The neighbors of Afghanistan do not want to see the long term presence of Americans in Afghanistan. Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan, all are the stake holders here and it is not in the interest of any of those that Americans stay in Afghanistan. Americans are kind of trapped in Afghanistan, and the only country or the regime they can deal with easily (through bribe or intimidation) is Pakistan. At this point, they don’t want to loose Pakistani support or what ever you want to call it.

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

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.

WPO Poll: Afghan Public Overwhelmingly Rejects al-Qaeda, Taliban - World Public Opinion

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.

 

[Antimony]

Great points. But couldnt it be possible that Gen. was just being boastful and did not have any particular tactic in mind?

Lastly, when you say that you want US to launch a full investigation, you are assuming that US wants Pakistan to actually use that money for the purpose it was supposed to be given. I think US is just using Pakistan by buying the elites to get to its goals. When Mushy claims that money went to strengthen the defenses(or offenses) against India, I think half of that money ended up in the pockets of the ruling elite(military included).

Johnee

I think Qsaark may be right in stating that this is for home consumption. The US is not in a position to do anything since the current government will plead that whatever happened was done by a former dictator who is facing court cases in Pakistan.

On the other hand, Mushy gets to be the home grown hero who stuck his thumb at the Americans in the "best interests of Pakistan".

I don't expect him to leave his London flat anytime soon though

 

[qsaark]

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

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.

WPO Poll: Afghan Public Overwhelmingly Rejects al-Qaeda, Taliban - World Public Opinion

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.

Well, if the surveys were right, why the Americans are not getting success in Afghanistan? Why the Americans have to cut deals with the Taliban forces and to bribe them so that NATO trucks could pass through Taliban-controlled areas? Why the American and British Generals are insisting that dialogues are needed between the NATO/ISAF/Kabul and Taliban?

In my humble opinion, things are not and never were as green. Those surveys were for the consumption of the American tax payers to relieve pressure from the White house/Pentagon. However, now several columnists are writing and criticizing openly the Pentagon and the US/NATO commanders for their inability to deliver what they promised initially.

 

[Antimony]

Well, if the surveys were right, why the Americans are not getting success in Afghanistan? Why the Americans have to cut deals with the Taliban forces and to bribe them so that NATO trucks could pass through Taliban-controlled areas? Why the American and British Generals are insisting that dialogues are needed between the NATO/ISAF/Kabul and Taliban?

You are diverting from the issue. Your contention was that none of the neighbouring countries want the US there.

I have said that the survey noted that Afghanis overwhelmigly favour the Allied forces compared to the Taliban. That need not in any way correlate with success, which is dependent on a whole host of other factors such as strengths of forces, terrain, the complicacies of fighting an insurgency etc. I understand you contest this survey. In that case can you offer evidence to the contrary - that the Afghanis prefer the Taliban to either Allied forces or democracy? Any surveys, polls, independent findings?

You have also not answered the very specific question that I asked. Why are the interest of the neighbouring states more important than those of the Afghanis themsleves?

 

[qsaark]

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.

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.