US Taliban-bill sword hangs over Pervez

Ray · 01-29-2007, 00:28 AM

Quote:

US Taliban-bill sword hangs over Pervez

K.P. NAYAR

Washington, Jan. 28: Five years and four months after Pervez Musharraf abandoned the Taliban and tricked the Americans into enlisting him as a partner in the fight against terrorism, the wily general’s day of reckoning in Washington may be around the corner.

The new Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives has passed a bill which requires America’s President to certify that “the government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control”. Failure to do so will stop all US aid, including military assistance. The House wants the restriction to take effect from the 2008-09 financial year.

Yesterday, Musharraf protested against the new legislation at a meeting in Islamabad with the new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the chairman of the House committee on foreign affairs, Tom Lantos, and five other powerful Congressmen, including the chairmen of the House armed services committee and permanent select committee on intelligence.

The bill is now before the Senate. If this chamber, too, passes the legislation, Pakistanis fear that it may have the same effect as the “Pressler Amendment”, which was used by George Herbert Walker Bush, the present President’s father, in the 1990s to suspend military aid to Islamabad because of its nuclear programme.

The new rift between Pakistan and the US has been serious enough for a visiting American official to call an emergency news conference in Islamabad to distance the Bush administration from the Congressional initiative.

John Gastright, deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, on Friday attempted to whitewash the bill arguing that it was more about Pakistan’s education system and poverty reduction and that the portion about a suspected nexus between Musharraf and the Taliban was minor.

About presidential certification to continue US aid to Pakistan, Gastright said: “The President can certify that. The issue is, he shouldn’t have to.… We will want to work with her (speaker Pelosi) so that she realises that that provision is not necessary.”

There are several significant elements to the new US bill on Pakistan versus the Taliban and the rift it has caused between Washington and Islamabad.

First, the bill was part of the Democrats’ “first 100 hours” agenda after they retook both Houses of the Congress, underlining the urgency US lawmakers attach to challenging the Bush administration’s policy of treating Musharraf with kid gloves even as the ISI rearms and gives the Taliban a new lease of life.

Second, the bill has been sponsored by the new chairman of the powerful house committee on homeland security, Democrat Bennie Thompson. It has a whopping 205 co-sponsors representing all shades of opinion on Capitol Hill from both Democrats and Republicans.

Third, the bill is making its way through Congress even as divisions within the Bush administration on how to handle Musharraf in the face of a Taliban revival are deepening.

At the same time that Gastright was praising Musharraf’s fight against terrorism on Friday, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs, Nicholas Burns, was underlining a more balanced American policy.

“The Taliban increased its insurgency in 2006. It is a real problem. There is a problem of forces coming from Pakistan into Afghanistan to attack and then to return to Pakistan to seek refuge and refitting.

“We, of course, are working very closely with President Musharraf and with the Pakistan military and the Pakistan intelligence services to see that Pakistan will do more and make a concerted effort to strike at those terrorist training camps in north and south Waziristan and in Balochistan.”

A fortnight earlier, America’s outgoing intelligence czar John Negroponte said in his annual “threat assessment” to the US Congress that “the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain critical sanctuaries” inside Pakistan.

The bill passed by the House makes specific mention of Taliban activities inside Pakistan, “in the cities of Quetta and Chaman and in the Northwest Frontier Province and the federally administered tribal Areas.

“The bill allows Bush to waive its provisions in the “national security interest” of the US, but it remains to be seen if the President, already under fire for his Iraq policy, will invite more fire by doing so with Pakistan.
The Telegraph - Calcutta : Nation

This bill will surely put Pakistan in a tight corner.

There is no doubt that such a provision was required in all fairness to the seriousness involved in furthering the War on Terror. There was a urgent requirement to eliminate the daily confrontation with the Taliban foraying from Pakistan into Afghanistan and impeding the work by the ISAF. Yet, because Pakistan can never stop supporting the Taliban owing to the internal dynamics, this can create an upheaval in Pakistan wherein the little that Musharraf does is neutralised.

Therefore, does this bill further the chances of success of the War on Terror? Or will the backlash in Pakistan be so fierce that Musharraf himself aligns totally with the Taliban. Should that happen, what would be the scenario?

**Officer of Engineers** · 01-29-2007, 00:30 AM

Can we say Presidential veto?

Ray · 01-29-2007, 00:33 AM

Most probably will.

But that would not sit well with the current Senators!

Too many ISAF people are being sacrificed and the more and more troops are being pumped in, which is not being savoured by the people back home!

Everyone gets tired of indefinite results!

**Officer of Engineers** · 01-29-2007, 00:42 AM

Sir,

If Canada is any example, people have moved on to the next American Idol.

highsea · 01-29-2007, 01:46 AM

The title of the bill is: Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act, 2007.

This one's a slam dunk as far as passing, I don't think Bush will veto it. He'll probably have to threaten a veto to get the Pak specific language removed though, lol.

Bush will certify Pakistan anyway, but he's only 2 more years...

Ray · 01-29-2007, 03:33 AM

There is no doubt that Musharraf is fooling all, but then should the bill pass and Bush does not veto it, Musharraf's days will be numbered and he will be just a lame duck President or would play the terrorist's tune.

The Taliban will get more committed aid from Pakistan and there would be a real danger thereof of ISAF transgressing into Pakistan territory, this time officially as an aggressive defensive measure and without the OK of the Pakistan President. That would be a stage of the War on Terror that would be a trifle explosive.

China would not officially not be in a position to take up Pakistan's side and would not do so since she herself is battling the Xingjiang insurgents, but all the same would surely let her displeasure be known to the US diplomatically.

Balochistan insurgency would get an impetus and so would the Northern Territories. But then these two may also not be in the photo!

texasjohn · 01-29-2007, 18:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Can we say Presidential veto?

Or worse, another "signing statement". He only has about 700+ of them. Far more than ALL US Presidents combined.

highsea · 01-29-2007, 19:08 PM

^^^ Laura told him he needed to practice his penmanship...

texasjohn · 01-29-2007, 21:09 PM

If the bill passes intact would this mean no F-16s AGAIN? no more harpoons, and yanking of the MNNA status? The moaning and groaning will be loud, and then again Taliban support would skyrocket.

Jay · 01-29-2007, 21:14 PM

Only a measured response from the US is necessary. They should not completely alienate Mushy and his puppet company, but he should get the message. If US stops F-16 one more time, then Pakistan would be firmly out of grip.

But it will be interesting as Russia has already pulled out JF-17 engine (for now) and if the F-16 deal fails, what would PAF do? Fly kites?

texasjohn · 01-29-2007, 23:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

what would PAF do? Fly kites?

Not to take away from the topic Jay, but what is the current status of flying kites in Pakistan? I heard it was banned, then unbanned, etc. Just trivial curiousity on my part!

darth_malick · 01-30-2007, 02:00 AM

Mushy will get screwed soon enough, but not before they make Pakistan liquidate as much Afghani assests as they can. I assume the bill will pass and they might lessen the direct calls on Pakistan but not by much. At least it offers hope of weaking the taliban and al-qaida, doubt it will acomplish much though.

Ray · 01-30-2007, 03:05 AM

Musharraf is a nonentity without the US backing.

That is the trump card!

And Musharraf knows that.

01-29-2007, 00:30 AM	#2 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 20,033 Country:	Can we say Presidential veto? __________________ Chimo

01-29-2007, 00:33 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ray Suspended Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 29,172 Country:	Most probably will. But that would not sit well with the current Senators! Too many ISAF people are being sacrificed and the more and more troops are being pumped in, which is not being savoured by the people back home! Everyone gets tired of indefinite results! Last edited by Ray; 01-29-2007 at 00:36 AM..

01-29-2007, 03:33 AM	#6 (permalink)
Ray Suspended Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 29,172 Country:	There is no doubt that Musharraf is fooling all, but then should the bill pass and Bush does not veto it, Musharraf's days will be numbered and he will be just a lame duck President or would play the terrorist's tune. The Taliban will get more committed aid from Pakistan and there would be a real danger thereof of ISAF transgressing into Pakistan territory, this time officially as an aggressive defensive measure and without the OK of the Pakistan President. That would be a stage of the War on Terror that would be a trifle explosive. China would not officially not be in a position to take up Pakistan's side and would not do so since she herself is battling the Xingjiang insurgents, but all the same would surely let her displeasure be known to the US diplomatically. Balochistan insurgency would get an impetus and so would the Northern Territories. But then these two may also not be in the photo! Last edited by Ray; 01-29-2007 at 03:37 AM..

01-29-2007, 21:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
Jay Tamizhanban *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-06-03 Location: NJ Posts: 6,820 Country:	Only a measured response from the US is necessary. They should not completely alienate Mushy and his puppet company, but he should get the message. If US stops F-16 one more time, then Pakistan would be firmly out of grip. But it will be interesting as Russia has already pulled out JF-17 engine (for now) and if the F-16 deal fails, what would PAF do? Fly kites? __________________ A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

01-30-2007, 02:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
darth_malick New Member Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada, Montreal Posts: 16 Country:	Bill Mushy will get screwed soon enough, but not before they make Pakistan liquidate as much Afghani assests as they can. I assume the bill will pass and they might lessen the direct calls on Pakistan but not by much. At least it offers hope of weaking the taliban and al-qaida, doubt it will acomplish much though. __________________ If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war.

01-29-2007, 00:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 20,033 Country:	Sir, If Canada is any example, people have moved on to the next American Idol.

01-29-2007, 01:46 AM	#5 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,839	The title of the bill is: Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act, 2007. This one's a slam dunk as far as passing, I don't think Bush will veto it. He'll probably have to threaten a veto to get the Pak specific language removed though, lol. Bush will certify Pakistan anyway, but he's only 2 more years...

01-29-2007, 19:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,839	^^^ Laura told him he needed to practice his penmanship...

01-29-2007, 21:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
texasjohn *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-28-06 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 1,121 Country:	If the bill passes intact would this mean no F-16s AGAIN? no more harpoons, and yanking of the MNNA status? The moaning and groaning will be loud, and then again Taliban support would skyrocket.

01-30-2007, 03:05 AM	#13 (permalink)
Ray Suspended Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 29,172 Country:	Musharraf is a nonentity without the US backing. That is the trump card! And Musharraf knows that.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Future of afghanistan	raja khan	The War on Terrorism	114	03-23-2009 06:09 AM
Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare	troung	Military Aviation	5	02-22-2008 20:59 PM
Sessions on the immigration bill....	troung	American Politics	1	05-29-2006 00:30 AM
Mullah's leading the charge...	troung	The Field Mess	11	03-28-2006 10:59 AM