Clinton's Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

[srirangan]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040622/asp/frontpage/story_3401726.asp

Washington, June 21: Contrary to common belief, President Bill Clinton did not intervene on his own in the Kargil dispute in 1999 to bring about a withdrawal of Pakistani forces and avert a war between India and Pakistan.

The former President says in his autobiography that “Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan called and asked if he could come to Washington on July 4 to discuss the dangerous standoff with India that had begun several weeks earlier when Pakistani forces under the command of General Pervez Musharraf crossed the Line of Control (LoC)”.

The autobiography, My Life, is to be published on Tuesday, but an advance copy of the book, which promises to be America’s publishing sensation of the year, was obtained by The Telegraph on Sunday night.

Clinton’s first person account of US diplomacy and his summit meeting with Sharif in Washington at the height of the Kargil conflict throws authoritative light on America’s approach to India-Pakistan issues and is certain to be a factor with the new policymakers in New Delhi as they weigh their positions on the vexing trilateral issues involving India, Pakistan and the US.

Clinton writes in his memoirs that following the now-exiled Pakistani Prime Minister’s plea to be allowed to visit the White House: “I told Sharif that he was always welcome in Washington, even on July 4, but if he wanted me to spend America’s independence day with him, he had to come to the US knowing two things: first he had to agree to withdraw his troops back across the LoC; and second, I would not agree to intervene in the Kashmir dispute, especially under circumstances that appeared to reward Pakistan’s wrongful incursion.”

According to the former President: “Sharif said he wanted to come anyway. On July 4, we met at Blair House”, the residence for state guests adjacent to the White House.

“Sharif was concerned that the situation Pakistan had created was getting out of control… Once more, Sharif urged me to intervene in Kashmir, and again I explained that without India’s consent it would be counterproductive, but that I would urge (Prime Minister Atal Bihari) Vajpayee to resume the bilateral dialogue if the Pakistani troops withdrew. He agreed and we released a joint statement saying that steps would be taken to restore the LoC and that I would support and encourage the resumption… of bilateral talks once the violence had stopped.”

The rest is history. The broad premise of what Clinton writes about his Kargil diplomacy was revealed two years ago by Bruce Riedel, Clinton’s special assistant for South Asia on the National Security Council, in a policy paper for the University of Pennsylvania, but Clinton’s first person account is significant for its confirmation that the US was not doing India any good turn by securing a Pakistani withdrawal of forces from territory it occupied.

In recent years, the Kargil experience with the US has been repeatedly used by those who favour an Indo-US alliance to argue that New Delhi could be a strategic beneficiary of any such alliance.

Clinton’s book reveals that the US was unwilling — at least at that stage — to do anything beyond what it had already done to help India and that it was Sharif’s desperation for a settlement that forced Washington into the picture. Indeed, Sharif had to force himself on Clinton to make peace with India.

Those who favour an Indo-US alliance also cite the Bush administration’s subsequent pressure on Pervez Musharraf to end cross-border terrorism to argue for such an alliance, though their claims have lately been pricked by Washington’s decision to grant Pakistan the status of a major non-Nato ally.

Clinton reveals in his memoirs that his major consideration in dealings with Sharif was that “I needed his cooperation in the fight against terrorism”, the very same rationale of the Bush administration in support of Musharraf, the author of Kargil.

“Before our July 4 meeting”, writes Clinton, “I had asked Sharif on three occasions for help in apprehending Osama bin Laden… We had intelligence reports that al Qaida was planning attacks on US officials and facilities… perhaps in the US as well. We had been successful in breaking up cells and arresting a number of al Qaida members, but unless bin Laden and his top lieutenants were apprehended or killed, the threat would remain.”

[adsH]

siri we all know what kind of Leader Nawaz was i have listed a similar article somewhere and we have had this conversation

[sanman]

siri we all know what kind of Leader Nawaz was i have listed a similar article somewhere and we have had this conversation

Yeah, but you guys say that about all your leaders. It says what kind of country Pakistan is, when they can't even come up with an electable politician they can stick with over a military dictator. That's the true meaning of what self-determination is all about.

Who knows, Nawaz may be trying to pad his place in history -- we've seen similar interviews by Benazir about how she was against Taliban, even though her man Naseerullah Babar seemed to be godfathering them.

I think part of the problem is that very praetorian nature of Pakistani politics -- a telling reflection of the society, of course -- means that when you lose a political contest in that country, you really get crushed. You end up as a total exile -- eg. Nawaz, Benazir -- or worse, like ZA Bhutto. So you'll always see some exile politician from Pakistan later pleading to anyone who will listen, about how they deserve better than what was meted out to them.

Indian political contests can be very crass, and we have seen killings of party workers, but I don't think dictatorship is possible in India. There is no one ethnic demographic that's large enough or homogenous enough to dominate the army or the country. Anybody who tried it would quickly fall, Aurangzeb-style.

[The Watcher]

Nawaz and Benazir are TRAITORS, thats why they are exiled and will remain until they die. Your support for them is justified because they put other interest before interest of Pakistan!

[Salman78]

Kargil operation was an unprecedented success by all means and would have been even better until that scum nawaz interviened. Ofcourse many people will not agree for obvious reasons.

[sanman]

Funny, your hated Nawaz was groomed for power by Zia ul-Haq. He didn't suddenly magically rise on his own.

The predictably cyclical fickleness is strange -- adulation for a leader in the beginning, and then inevitably booing them in the end. It happens in many countries, but I see it as most pronounced in Pakistan.

To me, it looks like yo-yo dieting.
Step1: "This new magical diet will save me! This time I'm sure of it!"
Step2: "Damn! It didn't work! I HATE this!"
Step3: Go back to Step1

I have even heard of Pakistani commentators saying they can't have democracy in Pakistan until they first have Kashmir. The rationalizations are getting stranger and stranger.

In my opinion, Durand Line dispute is older than the Kashmir dispute, and is ultimately the root cause for the latter. When Sheikh Abdullah and Maharaja Hari Singh were leaning towards making Muslim-majority J&K its own separate state, Jinnah was frightened that this precedent could mean the breakup of the fledgling Pakistan -- with the perenially restless Pathans being the most likely to follow in the same footsteps. Jinnah specifically dispatched the Pathan raiders to attack Kashmir, to give them a distraction from their own potent nationalism that threatened Pakistani unity, and of course to bring J&K into Pakistan's fold.

I also note that when Pakistan was seeking recognition at the United Nations in 1948, India voted for it, but Afghanistan was the only nation to vote against its recognition, because of the Durand Line.

So to me, Durand Line issue is the root driving issue behind Pakistan's behavior, whether Pakistanis choose to admit it or not, and of course it will be the key to determining the future outcome of the Kashmir dispute.

[The Watcher]

you have a aserious anti-pakistan/inferiority complex when it comes to pakistan. :lol

yeah nawaz was liked before he was PM and when he first became one but later his corrupt ruling and corruption in his government is the reason people started booing him. He turned into a spineless traitor and pakistan needs to get rid of such people who get a chance to get on the high chairs and then cause harm to the nation. Our enemies with superiority complex may love them because they can use them against Pakistan but we the people of pakistan certainly don't and that should not make you uncomfortable.

We only exil traitors and criminals but what does india do? ELECT known terrorists and assassins. AKA Advani, governor of Gujrat..........

[sanman]

(mod edit): It's your posts which are more of a "Basket Case".Leave your prejudices at home before posting. :cop

[The Watcher]

you can't know about those leaders unles you elect them and see. which pakistani people did and they found out the hardway. when leaders bankrupted the country and stole its money! blaming the people isn't a good idea as they only excercised their voting right. its the leader which went astray and decided it would be good to steal peoples money and have foreign bank accounts with money of the people who elected them! thats Leaders fault and that problem is because of the leaders irresponsiblity.

i am not surprised at your support for thugs and criminals who have looted pakistan in the past and will do if people like you were incharge of putting them BACk into power. ;)

pakistan does not have quasi marxist religious culture... most of its people are moderator muslims and will remain like it or not. your replies only reflect your hate for pakistan rather than good ideas for its development in the long run. look at india before you talk about pakistani problems. brahmins rule india.... people get killed for slaughting a cow even lower caste hindus get killed for doing that. 400 million people are considered UNTOUCHABLES and 300 million are living below poverty line. Both of these figures are twice as many as pakistans population. not some thing to laugh on but something to consider.

pakistan is the only country DOING more than its share of things in war against TERRORISM. More than 600 al-qaeda militants arrested, many many killed. What has india done in war against terror? Nothing, other than jumping and crying over attention and good word pakistan is getting in war against terror and how international community stands behind pakistan as a KEY frontline ALLY against terror of ALL kinds. Go bite your nails.

[sanman]

[Mod: Give it a rest with your anti pakistani/Islamic flame baits. :roll ] :cop

[insas556]

[ look at india before you talk about pakistani problems. brahmins rule india.... people get killed for slaughting a cow even lower caste hindus get killed for doing that. 400 million people are considered UNTOUCHABLES and 300 million are living below poverty line. Both of these figures are twice as many as pakistans population. not some thing to laugh on but something to consider.

India at the moment has a Muslim for president , a Sikh as PM and the leader of the Congress party is a christian. Not many brahmins there.!!!!!
The fact is India is a large , 1 billion strong democracy. Things, social attitudes do not change with the press of a button or by imposition of martial law.Societal change is a slow and torturous process. The Indian constituition, (not withstanding the aberrations on the ground) still provides for basic equality. It is this constituition that has allowed so called backward castes to have a real say in the governance of India. the previous govt was entirely removed due to the anger of the poor and the farmers.Things are slow, problems caste violence is stll there but , society is changing for sure.
A perusal of this topic on this forum itself might help in getting a perspective of things.you may consider the devastating impact of the militant policies of the military on the socio-economic position of Pakistan.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2201&start=20

[mysterious]

Muslim, Christian, etc by name or just plain association doest really mean they're pure and religious people willing to help their associative communities. :cop

[insas556]

Muslim, Christian, etc by name or just plain association doest really mean they're pure and religious people willing to help their associative communities. :cop

They are not supposed to.The Indian constituition is secular in character. now whether they go for namaz or to a gurudwara or church regularly does not matter. As long as they perform their duties and obligations towards ALL the people of India.All the three persons esp Dr Kalam and Dr singh are admired by one and all for their simplicity,hinesty and professionalism.

Also what is being called plain association in a lot of countries means a great deal, where just by association of being in a particular religion. sect,being considered a non-believer, apostate etc etc will render one open to abuse,blasphemy , not being consider for important jobs leave alone becoming the leader of the country under the country's laws.
It is to the credit of the Indian constituition , that has allowed'minorities' to take up such positions despite discrimination still prevalent in Indian society.

Despite the eminence of the Dr Abdus Salm, the brilliant nuclear scientists and his contribuition to Pakistan in his lifetime, he always faced problems from fundamentalists ,and would he ever have been president of pakistan under the law. All this just because he belonged to a particular sect.

[Soldier]

Muslim, Christian, etc by name or just plain association doest really mean they're pure and religious people willing to help their associative communities. :cop

Why in the world should they only help their associative communities? They are selected to the office to help all the citizens of India regardless of caste & religion. I guess you are trying to imply the scenario of Pakistan in India's case... :D:

[VICTORA1]

Guys,
Pakistanis knowingly elect dictators---it is in their blood, it is their chemistry, it is a part of the culture. Our politicians are not public servants. They are rulers---after elections they become rulers and masters.

You know how these politicians get where they get---higher up politicians can fight an election from different areas for maybe 2, 3, 4 or 5 different seats---e.g. if Benazir was in the general election for the MNA's. she could fight from Larkana, Sukkur, Hyderabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan etc etc etc. in the same election at the same time. Same thing with any other party leader or higher ups. Imran Khan I believe fought elections from 2 different places. He lost from one place, but won from the other. Now after you get elected, how can you be sincere to that constituency which may not be your home turf.

Pakistani politicians are the most corrupt politicians coming second to only the nigerian brothers and sisters. It a shame.

Now Mr. Clinton the extrovert is only going to say what he wanted to hear and not what was said.

Just got away from the topic a tad bit.

[mysterious]

Muslim, Christian, etc by name or just plain association doest really mean they're pure and religious people willing to help their associative communities. :cop

Why in the world should they only help their associative communities? They are selected to the office to help all the citizens of India regardless of caste & religion. I guess you are trying to imply the scenario of Pakistan in India's case... :D:

I was commenting on the part where someone was boasting that India has a Muslim president. Big deal!! Thats what you get with 'secularism'. And my point about people from different religious associations helping out their communities was based on the fact that such groups (apart from Hindus in India) are a minority and so they need to be represented and taken care of well at the highest level.

[srirangan]

Well I'm surprised that so many Pakistani's support the Kargil Intrusion even though it was done in treachory and it caused the entire peace process to be revoked. Can someone explain why you support that war and not peace process by Nawaz and Vajpayee?

[Soldier]

Muslim, Christian, etc by name or just plain association doest really mean they're pure and religious people willing to help their associative communities. :cop

Why in the world should they only help their associative communities? They are selected to the office to help all the citizens of India regardless of caste & religion. I guess you are trying to imply the scenario of Pakistan in India's case... :D:

I was commenting on the part where someone was boasting that India has a Muslim president. Big deal!! Thats what you get with 'secularism'. And my point about people from different religious associations helping out their communities was based on the fact that such groups (apart from Hindus in India) are a minority and so they need to be represented and taken care of well at the highest level.

And what will be the hightest level according to your notion? You mean Quota in everything or what?

[VICTORA1]

Guy,
There was no treachery involved in Kargil incursion. It was in response to what india did in Siachen Glacier. Kargil was not a failure per se for pakistan. It woke up the world one day and made it realize that pakistan and india have a problem---there is a bone of contention. The issue of Kashmir got brought up one more time.
I don't want to start up a flame---but Sri---you need to understand that it was no victory for indian army either. The indian army lost more troops in this confrontation than possibly the whole of 71 war. After the first few days, it just became a clean up / mop up operation for the indian forces, as pakistan was pressurized to stop supporting the incursion any further.
.

[srirangan]

If he Prime Minister is on the peace process and the army act's independently and completely sabotages the peace process you say there wasn't any trechory?

Siachen is a war zone, so op's there by both armies are very valid, but crossing the line of control was in breach of the Shimla agreement and was against the peace process that the official govt of Pakistan was involved in.

[insas556]

Guy,
There was no treachery involved in Kargil incursion. It was in response to what india did in Siachen Glacier. Kargil was not a failure per se for pakistan. It woke up the world one day and made it realize that pakistan and india have a problem---there is a bone of contention. The issue of Kashmir got brought up one more time.
I don't want to start up a flame---but Sri---you need to understand that it was no victory for indian army either. The indian army lost more troops in this confrontation than possibly the whole of 71 war. After the first few days, it just became a clean up / mop up operation for the indian forces, as pakistan was pressurized to stop supporting the incursion any further.
.

As for it not being an Indian victory, so much has been said on it, so suffice it to say that, the Pak army climbed some peaks and subsequently went down the same way they had come, that is all that matters.
Well, Nawaz Shariff has spoken a lot on this issue to an Indian Mag, India Today. A lot has been revealed , including the total understatement of the reverses suffered by Pakistan.Seems P. Musharaf decieved almost everyone.

Unfortunately the web issue is priveleged, but anyhow the link is below, in case guys in Pak have access or they come across the print edition.

http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20040726/index.shtml

[srirangan]

I have copied the web edition of the Nawaz Sharif Interview and posted it here:
http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2310

[insas556]

Thx for the Info.

[srirangan]

no problem :)

[mysterious]

For all the Indians here, Nawaz Sharif is a traitor so dont expect others to believe what all he said (to clean up his image and make his chances of coming back to Pakistan brighter) in an interview to an "Indian" magazine! Highlighting that, doesnt get you anywhere. Everyone knows who Nawaz Sharif was/is, what his character was/is, how corrupt he was/is, what coward he was/is and that he is bent on defaming Musharraf and his government just so that he can come back to Pakistan one fine day and rule again to build himself some more gold-houses in his little birth town in Punjab! :cop Now get over it cuz Musharraf is here to stay! (Inshallah)

[srirangan]

I tink you're being totally biased. Nawaz was atleast a legitimate leader, while Musharraf has cheated his way into office. Plus its a well known fact that Musharraf hijacked the 1999 peace process. So much for the integrity of the guy.

And myst, no matter how much you hide it, there is loads of dissent against Musharraf in Pak. Both the islamic extremists and the democrats within Pakistan hate Musharraf. There are sectors in the Army itself that hate Musharraf, and this was admitted by Musharraf himself when he said that the assasination attempts were by officers from the army itself.

I don't think people will buy the rosy Musharraf picture that you're painting.

[The Watcher]

:lol

Anti Pakistani thug is at it again! Supporting crooks and criminals who have hurt pakistan. So so typical of an indian! But then again, if India can support thugs and terrorists like northern Alliance against Pakistan why not political criminals and looters who have hurt pakistan time and time again.

this was admitted by Musharraf himself when he said that the assasination attempts were by officers from the army itself

I would like you to back your crap up otherwise stop bullshitting.

Indians pay lip service to Nawaz and benazir for their help in damaging Pakistans position in world community. Indian media is all over these criminals BECAUSE they on the same level as our Indian friends - Hurting, demeaning pakistan. Thats why you see so much ass licking from these Indians since motive and objective is same - to hurt, discredit Pakistan and its current political establishment who is wanting to put these same criminals in jail for looting the country and rampant corruption and we see Indians supporting these corrupt criminals. :D

:haha And this bull crap about nawaz or benazir being legitimate leaders, well on same token Saddam hussain is the rightfull leader of Iraq today too. :lolol Wouldn't you agree?

This baseless ASS LICKING of corrupt thugs and criminals won't get you indians no where. It will not help satisfy your craving for anti-pakistan bullshit that you want to spread. It will not help satisfy your craving for a worst off pakistan instead of better off pakistan. Bite you nails, Pakistan does not like thugs and criminals who loot its wealth and certainly not when our enemy supports these criminals.

[srirangan]

The Watcher Wrote:
Quote:
this was admitted by Musharraf himself when he said that the assasination attempts were by officers from the army itself


I would like you to back your crap up otherwise stop bullshitting.

Srirangan Reply's:
http://en.ce.cn/World/Asia-Pacific/t20040528_946903.shtml

- - - -

The Watcher Wrrote:
And this bull crap about nawaz or benazir being legitimate leaders, well on same token Saddam hussain is the rightfull leader of Iraq today too

Srirangan Reply's:
Nawaz and Benazir were elected, hence legitimate. Musharraf stole power in a military coup, just like Saddam Hussien. If Saddam is not the legitimate ruler of Iraq, neither is Musharraf.

- - - -

Suck it up. :roll

[The Watcher]

Nawaz and Benazir were elected, hence legitimate. Musharraf stole power in a military coup, just like Saddam Hussien. If Saddam is not the legitimate ruler of Iraq, neither is Musharraf.

Who said Saddam is a legitimate leader? Read my reply again, I quoted you for a reason so that you don't misuse or mislead your self into posting something else.

According to some in Iraq and saddam him self, he is the rightful leader, PRESIDENT of the country. Even though he was a brutal dictatory for rest of us, he looted the country, made palaces for him self, killed his opponents... so on and so forth! But since he was REMOVED by military force, he still is the leader of the iraq since it was military force that removed him! You are ready to use same logic on Pakistan but not ready to accept same logic for Iraq?

If person is looting the country, causing pain and suffering, tries to kill or has planned on killing a top general in the army, has build great palaces and stole peoples money from national wealth, should he be left alone to rule the country? What if India was in this situation, would you leave that person to RULE India, kill its top general, humiliate its army and full his swiss banks with looted money? Would you? Tell me would you?

I didn't think so either, so why are you hell bent on supporting thugs and criminals that have hurt pakistan so much and have looted its wealth and poor man's money for sake of being anti-pakistan and spreading anti-pakistani sentiment? You must have the narrowest mind as most indians do when it comes to Pakistan. They would support any thug, terrorist, criminal if it means that Pakistan gets hurt, pakistan gets humiliated. What a shameless enemy we have.

Army and military of Pakistan is more important than everyone else and that includes good and bad politicians. Its above all others it must be respect. I would rather support army than these thugs that you want to display as good people because you know they hurt and discredit pakistan and play in the hands of enemies of Pakistan.

Your anti-pakistani lame posts are sickening and only show the cowardly nature of the enemy pakistan faces.

[srirangan]

WTF you ranting about man, all I said was Mushie ain't been elected to office, and he stole powers in a military coup. This even you can't deny, so stop with the useless ranting.

[The Watcher]

Mush is 100 times better than Nawaz sharif and others that you support and want to come back to power in Pakistan. Even if he stole power from a CORRUPT politicians, its GOOD for Pakistan because he restored the power back to people of pakistan. And majority of Pakistanis support musharaf so you can go kiss Nawaz sharifs behind as you are rigth here and remember he ain't coming back to hurt pakistan again, so stop wet-dreaming about it.

You didn't answer my question, would you allow a corrupt politicians who has looted india wealth, has humiliated its army and tried to kill its general to rule India?

And why are you getting all worked up, didn't like something I said? :lol

[srirangan]

See man all I'm saying is let the people of Pakistan decide what is good for them. Why not have Mushie stand up for elections, and if he wins he'll have legitimacy, and the whole world will respect that,

[The Watcher]

He did and people supported him. Thats why he is there for next 5 years. The whole world respects him more than any other leader today, and world respects pakistan more because of its place as frontline state against terrorism and butchery. Don't worry about if pakistan is being respected, it is very well and that is just unbearable for some indian friends since 911. :haha

[srirangan]

Cute smiley, the the world knows that Pakistan is the hub of all terrorism today. And US knows that Mushie is their best stooge who can get the job done. I just am saying the people of Pak deserve fair elections and not referrandums where military dictators get 98% of the votes.

[The Watcher]

We just had an election, what are you talking about? :lol Your true colors are just showing your from that clown band that has been beating its "declare pakistan terrorist state..." drums since 911 like extremist hindus in indian government but failing miserable, i mean failing miserably. If India can elect a known terrorist and assassin, why not have a general who ousted a corrupt politician/criminal for the good of the country. If Mushie was a stooge then Pakistan would have boiled over and its public would have supported the religious parties but they didn't.

Pakistan IS THE FRONTLINE state against terrorism and world sees it like that, you can just weep that india is not getting as much attention as pakistan nor is india doing as much as pakistan is as far as war against terror is concerned. :lol

Your anti-pakistani lies and bs is lame and sickening, but only shows the cowardly nature of enemy we face. :D

[srirangan]

You are letting your personal hate towards India and Indians hijack this thread. I'll stay ontopic. The elections you had were a farce, and to this day Mushie handpicks his PM's. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

I posted a thread linking to the Washington Post where it said Pak was the hub of terrorism. You will dismiss that as anti-Pak propaganda. The Pak mod/admin here found it so unbearable that he deleted it before anyone could see it. Anyway the fact is that article spoke the truth and the truth remains that Pak is a terrorist state, and that's why US needs Mushie to clean the mess, I hope US succeeds.

[The Watcher]

Your the one that started anti pakistani bs look at you and when I question and refute your stupid logic you claim to be a victim? So sad.

Washington post? :lol The jewish zionist news paper that has a history of writing anti pakistani crap? :lol

Pakistan is a frontline state against TERROR, there is nothing that india can do to hide that fact. :P :smokingc:

:pak

[WebMaster]

S T O P ! ! !

[srirangan]

So everything which portrays the truth about Pak becomes a zionist, free mason conspiracy thing?

[WebMaster]

The Pak mod/admin here found it so unbearable that he deleted it


It was deleted by one of the mods, it was posted in the wrong forum.