Clinton's Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

Status
Not open for further replies.

srirangan

Banned Member
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)â€.

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.â€

According to the former President: “Sharif said he wanted to come anyway. On July 4, we met at Blair Houseâ€, 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.â€

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 terrorismâ€, the very same rationale of the Bush administration in support of Musharraf, the author of Kargil.

“Before our July 4 meetingâ€, 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, bt unless bin Laden and his top lieutenants were apprehended or killed, the threat would remain.â€
 

adsH

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

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

sanman

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

adsH said:
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

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

The Watcher

New Member
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.
 

insas556

New Member
[ 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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

mysterious said:
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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

mysterious said:
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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

Soldier said:
mysterious said:
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

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

mysterious said:
Soldier said:
mysterious said:
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

New Member
Re: Clinton’s Kargil crisis and Al-queda secrets

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

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top