rofile: Aslam Beg

Aslam Beg was a participant or observer in the following events:

After November 16, 1988: Prime Minister Bhutto Not Much Involved in
Pakistan’s Nuclear Program

Edit event

A. Q. Khan (right) and Benazir Bhutto (center).A. Q. Khan (right) and Benazir
Bhutto (center). [Source: CBC] (click image to enlarge)After becoming prime
minister of Pakistan following the victory of the Pakistan People’s Party in
elections, Benazir Bhutto does not play a large role in Pakistan’s nuclear
policy, according to US analysts. It is unclear whether she chooses not to do
so, or is cut out of it by the military. In her absence the two senior figures
overseeing the program are President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and army head
General Aslam Beg. [New Yorker, 3/29/1993]

Entity Tags: Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Benazir Bhutto, Aslam Beg

Timeline Tags: A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network

Bookmark and Share

February 1989 or Shortly Before: Pakistan Conducts Second Test of Nuclear-

Capable Missiles

Edit event

Pakistan conducts a second test firing of its Hatf 1 and 2 missiles, which are
able to carry a nuclear payload. This follows a first test in May of the previous
year (see May 1988). The missiles are launched from mobile pads on
Pakistan’s Merkan coast, which is towards the border with Iran. The tests will
be revealed by General Aslam Beg, chief of army staff, in a speech to
students at Pakistan’s National Defence College. Beg comments that the
missiles are “extremely accurate” and can carry up to 500 kg. Beg also
thanks Munir Khan of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission for his team’s
work on their development, and indicates that Pakistan’s development of a
tank is progressing. This is intended as a message to the US that Pakistan is
becoming less and less reliant on it for purchases of military hardware. [Levy
and Scott-Clark, 2007, pp. 198, 498]

Entity Tags: Aslam Beg, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission

Timeline Tags: A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network

Bookmark and Share

May 1990: Robert Gates Undertakes Mission to Avert Nuclear War between
India and Pakistan

Edit event

When the US learns of a crisis in relations between India and Pakistan that
could escalate into nuclear war (see January-May 1990), President George
Bush sends Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates to meet leaders of
both countries in an attempt to prevent armed conflict. Gates will later say he
appreciated the seriousness of the situation: “The analogy we kept making
was to the summer of 1914… Pakistan and India seemed to be caught in a
cycle that they couldn’t break out of. I was convinced that if a war started, it
would be nuclear.” However, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who is
on a tour of the Middle East, keeps changing the place where she is to meet
Gates, indicating she has no desire to see him. Gates therefore only meets
with Pakistani army chief Aslam Beg and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who
say they will cease supporting insurgents in Kashmir. This is apparently
enough to calm the Indians, who allow US officials to check that the Indian
army is not on the border preparing to invade Pakistan, and the situation
gradually calms down. [New Yorker, 3/29/1993]

Entity Tags: George Herbert Walker Bush, Aslam Beg, Benazir Bhutto, Robert
M. Gates, Ghulam Ishaq Khan

Timeline Tags: A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network

Bookmark and Share

Late 1990 or After: Pakistan Sends Stinger Missile to North Korea to Revive
Cooperation
Edit event

Pakistan sends a Stinger missile to North Korea. Pakistan obtained the Stinger
from the US, which provided them to Pakistani-backed rebels during the
Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s (see September 1986). The missile is partly
intended as a gift for the North Koreans—an incentive for the revival of co-
operation between the two countries, which has been stalled for some time
(see Late 1980s). In addition, the Stingers held by Pakistan are becoming
useless, because their batteries are failing, and the Pakistanis hope that the
North Koreans will be able to help them reverse engineer the batteries. The
mission to North Korea is undertaken by ISI Director Javed Nasir at the behest
of Pakistani army chief Mirza Aslam Beg and nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, who
will later become closely involved in co-operation with the North Koreans.
[Levy and Scott-Clark, 2007, pp. 220]

Entity Tags: Abdul Qadeer Khan, Javed Nasir, Aslam Beg

Timeline Tags: A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network

Bookmark and Share

February 1991: Pakistan Supposedly Considers Funding Covert Operations

through Drug Money

Edit event

Pakistan’s army chief and the head of the ISI, its intelligence agency, propose
to sell heroin to pay for the country’s covert operations, according to Nawaz
Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister at the time. Sharif claims that shortly after
becoming prime minister, army chief of staff Gen. Aslam Beg and ISI director
Gen. Asad Durrani present him with a plan to sell heroin through third parties
to pay for covert operations that are no longer funded by the CIA, now that
the Afghan war is over. Sharif claims he does not approve the plan. Sharif will
make these accusations in 1994, one year after he lost an election and
became leader of the opposition. Durrani and Beg will deny the allegations.
Both will have retired from these jobs by the time the allegations are made.
The Washington Post will comment in 1994, “It has been rumored for years
that Pakistan’s military has been involved in the drug trade. Pakistan’s army,
and particularly its intelligence agency… is immensely powerful and is known
for pursuing its own agenda.” The Post will further note that in 1992, “A
consultant hired by the CIA warned that drug corruption had permeated
virtually all segments of Pakistani society and that drug kingpins were closely
connected to the country’s key institutions of power, including the president
and military intelligence agencies.” [Washington Post, 9/12/1994]

Entity Tags: Pakistan Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Aslam Beg,

Nawaz Sharif, Asad Durrani

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Bookmark and Share

Why don't moderate Muslims speak up?

aslam.jpeg

General Aslam Beg

"Why don't moderate Muslims speak up in favor of US President George W.

Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair when they resolve 'to crush global
terrorists who hate freedom?'" Arnaud de Borchgrave asks this question,
which has occurred to many of us.

Then he supplies a disquieting answer from Pakistani General Aslam Beg:

"One of Pakistan's most respected former army chiefs supplied a chilling
explanation this week: Because the 'terrorists' are the 'freedom fighters' of a
'Muslim world facing unprecedented oppression and injustice.' . . .

"In a lengthy e-mail, Beg said the Bush-Blair 'strategy to combat global
terrorism' is 'a declaration of total war on freedom movements, and it is the
Muslim world that will be at the receiving end.'"

It's one thing when a radical Muslim member of a terrorist group spouts this
sort of thing (thanks to nicolei for the link), but Beg holds a position of
influence in Pakistan's government — and he is by no means singular in his
views. Says Borchgrave: "The anti-coalition resistance in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as seen by Beg, is 'a new reality emerging – a surging tide of
their élan and vitality.' By the standards of Pakistan's coalition of six politico-
religious parties that govern two of Pakistan's four provinces and hold 20
percent of the seats in the federal assembly, Beg is a moderate."

"Musharraf estimates that the number of extremists in Pakistan amounts to

'no more than 1 percent of the population.' That's 1.5 million religious
fanatics who are holding, according to Musharraf, '99 percent of the
population hostage.' But what happens when the moderates speak – only to
echo the extremists? That certainly appears to be the case of Beg, a soft-
spoken man who is a leading geopolitical thinker in a country that is one of
nine nuclear powers in the world. Pakistan is also a Muslim nation where anti-
Americanism is the issue that unites all shades of political opinion.

"Beg argues that it is the United States that originally sponsored the rent-a-
jihadi, or holy warrior, when the CIA sought the support of jihadis from all
over the Muslim world to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the
1980s. Some 60,000 mujahideen passed through a system that was
sponsored by the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Their numbers are now
growing daily, says Beg, and they 'form the core of the global Muslim
resistance... engaged in fighting in Chechnya, the Palestinian territories,
Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Iraq.'

"'They are highly motivated, selfless, and fearless people, obeying no earthly
authority,' he says, 'they are hard to subdue by military force, and recognize
no international borders in pursuit of their goals... they have frustrated the
designs of the two superpowers and are surging forward to carve out their
own destiny.' The Bush administration dismisses the 'Islamic resurgence' by
'maligning such liberation movements as terrorism.' But, adds Beg, the
United States will soon find that Iraq and Afghanistan are 'quagmires' from
which 'safe exits' will become increasingly difficult. As for Osama Bin Laden
and Al Qaeda, 'all wars of liberation have splinter groups who lose sense of
direction and indulge in wanton acts of terrorism.' But the United States has
only itself to blame. . . ."

Beg, according to Borchgrace, speaks of American "anomie": "For Beg, this

'anomie' stems from America's alleged lack of ethical values, which, in turn,
begets violence, ergo Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11; America is. This is
a switch on the still widely held belief in the Muslim world that the CIA and
Mossad were co-conspirators in the 9/11 plot, whose objective was to provide
a rationale for military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. This taradiddle
also had its roots in Pakistan when Gen. Hamid Gul, a former head of the
Inter-Services Intelligence agency and a classmate of Beg, said he had
evidence that the US Air Force was also involved in the plot (the fact that no
US fighter planes took off to shoot down the hijacked aircraft). Both Beg, the
head of a think tank, and Gul, who is 'strategic adviser' to politico-religious
parties, are held in high regard by the Pakistani military.

"Either way, the warped, apprentice-sorcerer thinking goes a long way to

explaining the recent Pew Foundation's survey on global attitudes toward the
United States: As a trustworthy leader, Bin Laden scored higher than Bush in
most Muslim countries.

"There are no quick fixes for change. Despite all the constantly repeated
assurances given to the United States about reform, Pakistan's madrassas, or
religious schools, are still churning out 750,000 jihadi-prone male teenagers a
year. The madrassas were the spawning grounds of the Taliban. Today, a
resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan continues to enjoy the same logistical
support – and casualty insurance."

Posted by Robert on December 6, 2003 10:05 AM | 5 Comments

Print | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us | Buzz up!CONSCIENTIOUS

OBJECTOR

GENERAL MIRZA ASLAM BEG: GENERAL McCHRYSTAL – THE CONSCIENTIOUS

OBJECTOR

July 1, 2010 posted by Gordon Duff · 5 Comments

General McChrystal – The Conscientious Objector

By General Mirza Aslam Beg for Veterans Today and Opinion Maker

A soldier has the right to disagree with the higher civil and military
command, but there is a method in doing so, and the way General McChrystal
expressed his dissent, was no doubt, ‘unbecoming of an officer’. Perhaps, he
lost his sense of discretion, under influences, beyond his control, as one of his
close associates remarked: “he worked in a very right inner circle, doing
every thing together including getting drunk.” However, there are some
important aspects, connected with this incident, which need to be analyzed.

President Obama, as we all know had promised, while campaigning for the
presidential elections that he will pull out troops from Afghanistan, engaged
in a purposeless war and also made a firm commitment to address the
Kashmir issue, but on assuming the office of the president, he reneged on
both the issues. He caved-into pressure by ‘the military high command and
the defense industries lobby’ for a military solution and a troop surge,
although it was easy for him to say: “President Bush has accomplished the
mission in Afghanistan, and therefore, I have decided to withdraw our troops
from Afghanistan.” The Americans and the NATO allies would have hailed this
decision. On Kashmir, the Indian lobby forced him to restrict Holbrook’s
responsibility to Afghanistan and Pakistan only. Now, Obama is in a stronger
position, to carve-out a realistic exit-strategy.

McChrystal, no doubt, was frustrated at his failure to achieve military

success, whereas, General Petreaus was able to achieve a degree of success
in Iraq. General Petreaus exploited the ethnic divide in Iraq and mounted a
successful strategy to divide the Shia-Sunni population, through a process of
ethnic cleansing, ethnic riots and target killings, using Black water security
agency. On the contrary there is no such ethnic divide in Afghanistan. The
Pakhtuns are fighting the invaders, while the Northern Alliance, consisting of
the minorities mainly supported the invaders and rode the American tanks to
occupy Afghanistan in 2001. Together with the occupation forces, they also
stand defeated.

The Afghans have won, and therefore peace conditions are to be established,
on this ground reality. David Miliband rightly suggests: “The legitimate tribal
and ethnic groups must be given real stake in the political process, a peace
settlement in which we include the vanquished, as well as the victors.”
Obama, therefore has to initiate the political process, for the peaceful
settlement of the eight year long, purposeless and brutal war, and the step
that, he has to take, must be well-considered and appropriate. As the first
step he must engage and enter into dialogue with the Taliban, under Mullah
Umar and remove the trust deficit and reach agreement on the basic issues,
such as: Time frame of withdrawal of the occupation forces; declare
ceasefire; remove the ban on Taliban freedom movement; release all Taliban
prisoners, and negotiate a political settlement, with full realization that,
trying to establish a democratic authority on a country with a tradition of
decentralized governance, would prove counter productive.

The Karzai government at best can act as the facilitator, for the negotiations
with the Taliban who may be willing to call a Loe Jirga to decide the formation
of a national government, and the new constitution of the future political
setup. Other important issues such as these must also be considered and
consensus arrived at:

* The status of US-Afghan relations, in the post independence period.

* Guarantees for no-use of Afghan territory for militants activities against

other countries.

* Firm commitments from the UNO, USA. NATO and Russia to pay for the
war damages and a Marshal Plan to rebuild Afghanistan.

* Complete independence and freedom for the future Afghan government,

to establish diplomatic, economic and socio-cultural relations with all
countries of the world.

Pakistan has had the best of relations with Afghanistan, during the 80’s, but
distrust, doubts and apprehensions were created in Afghans’ mind, when
Pakistan’s ISI, which had supported and conducted the war against Soviet
occupation, was pulled-out of Afghanistan during the 1990 under the
American pressure. In the second phase, ISI was purged of all such operators,
who had good contact with the Mujahideen, but the greatest damage to
Pakistan’s security was caused in 2003, when Musharraf, pulled-out the ISI
and other intelligence agencies from our own tribal areas of Swat, FATA and
Balochistan, and the space so created was handed over to CIA, to be joined
by the Indian spy network established in Afghanistan, with the result that, our
entire border region was infested with foreign spies, agents and saboteurs,
who fomented trouble in our tribal belt, threatening Islamabad and Peshawar
and an out right rebellion in Balochistan, thus creating a very serious security
lapse for Pakistan. The new government formed in 2008, therefore, decided
to restore the writ of the government, in these areas and ordered steam-
roller military actions in Swat, Dir, Bajaur and South Waziristan.
Pakistan Army actions could succeed only with full intelligence support, which
meant, re-claiming, the territories, lost, to CIA, RAW and Mossad under
Musharraf regime. Now our intelligence is well established in these areas and
therefore, the tirade against it, for having established contact with the
militants. This was an essential operational demand for the success of the
military operations. But I am not sure, how far such contacts have helped,
narrow-down the trust deficit between Afghan Taliban, Pak Army and our
intelligence agencies. Taliban are one, under Mullah Umar, who is
sympathetic to Pakistan, despite betrayals, but the young Taliban under him
do not trust the Pakistan government, the Army and the ISI. What leverage
does Pakistan therefore has to bring the Americans and Taliban, on the
negotiations table? Minimal!! The much needed trust therefore must be re-
established, to play a positive role in determining the peace parameters in
Afghanistan, as the exit process of occupation forces begins. Unfortunately,
scope and options are limited for Pakistan.

Thank you General McChrystal, for having facilitated the exit and the hurtling
down of the “rolling stones” down the rocky mountains of Afghanistan. If I am
not wrong, perhaps, it were you, who remarked a few years back: “every
thing is so hard about the Afghans – their mountains, the people and their will
to resist.” You have proved right!!

General Mirza Aslam Beg is former Chief of Army Staff who was heavily
involved in Afghan Operation during USSR’s occupation and thereafter. Now
he has established his Think Tank FRINDS in Rawalpindi. He is a regular
contributor to www.opinion-maker.org

* Share/Bookmark

Filed under AfPak, America at War · Tagged with

Get Your Loan Now Get Your Loan Now Get Your Loan Now Get Your Loan
Now Apply for your VA Home Loan Now Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com
Now Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now Join a Winning Team Join a
Winning Team Join a Winning Team Honor and Remember our Veterans Get
Educated at Excelsior College Get Educated at Excelsior College Get
Educated at Excelsior College Military collectibles
Comments

5 Responses to “GENERAL MIRZA ASLAM BEG: GENERAL McCHRYSTAL – THE

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR”

1.

henry says:

July 1, 2010 at 2:44 am

outstanding analysis — obama & mcchrystal are both fantasists — obama

wanted to leave afghanistan by winning — mcchrystal sold obama on a
fantasy of easy victory — mcchrystal was fated to be the first to bark his
shins on reality — obama’s next

Reply

2.

Musashi says:

July 1, 2010 at 1:23 pm

I must say a well written opinion and some excellent points. For sure the
prescence of wisdom and common sense. Although for discussion, I don’t
agree with this statment “Guarantees for no-use of Afghan territory for
militants activities against other countries.”

Now don’t get me wrong, we should of course get approval of the country
we are planning and executing military action against…I just feel this would
not be in the US’s best interest. We will still have other obstacles to clear
before we can just step away.

Reply

3.

Dublinmick says:

July 1, 2010 at 8:03 pm

 We certainly have a lot on our plate lately, what with world war III and an
extinction level event in the gulf. I have had an amazing amount of posts
disappear on the VT lately.

When The Forces Of Raunch & Decay Are On The March The

London Corporation Can Soon Be Found Not Far Behind

http://dublinmick.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/when-the-forces-of-raunch-
decay-or-on-the-march-the-london-corporation-can-soon-be-found-not-far-
behind/

In 1743 Mayer Amschel Bauer, born Frankfurt, Germany, the son of Moses
Aschel Bauer, a money lender and the proprietor of a counting house. Over
the entrance door he places a red sign. This sign is a red hexagram (which
geometrically and numerically translates into the number 666) which under
Rothschild instruction will end up on the Israeli flag some two centuries later.

Business flourished and Mayer went on to become the keeper of

Napoleon’s fortune and after being told by President Andrew Jackson the
central bank charter would not be renewed stated “Either the application for
renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved
in a most disastrous war.”

Jackson responded by saying “You are a den of thieves vipers, and I

intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.” There was
later an attempt on Jackson’s life but both pistols failed to go off. Jackson had
it engraved on his grave stone, “I killed the bank.”

Of course there were others throughout history who opposed central

banking. William McKinley, Abraham Lincoln, Czar Nicholas, John Kennedy
and Jesse James come to mind. They were all killed. Jesse James whose
mother’s farm was burned down by the Pinkerton contractors was shot in the
back. Anyone ever see the movie Ned Beatty?
 At the time of Jesse James the Harrimans, Goulds and the Rockefellers
were the dominant financial and railroad enterprises in America. The
Rockefellers are Rothschild descendants through a female bloodline that
stretches all the way to William Clinton.

The Rothschild controlled IBM business machines were supplied to the

Nazis and were recently contracted to the U.S. government to handle the
census.

Maria Anna Schickelgruber became pregnant while working in the

Rothschild mansion. She is better known as Adolph Hitler’s grandmother.

While being funded by Prescott Bush Nazi soldiers were busy killing
American soldiers during world war II. His company was seized under the
trading with the enemy act.

It was Rothschild’s couriers who got through first with news the British
had defeated Napoleon and he instructed his all his workers on the floor of
the exchange to begin selling consuls as to make it appear a certain British
defeat. Most saw this and followed his lead. When they hit rock bottom
Rothschild bought them all up again at a 20 to 1 profit. He was now in
complete financial control of the British empire.

100 years ago Englishman William Knox D’Arcy struck a deal with Iran to
pay them 16% of all oil found there and he became the sole owner of all
Iranian oil. Soon afterwards the British government bought the company and
it became the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British empire, the land on
which the sun never sets, was financed to a large extent on Iranian oil.

After the war however the Iranian Mohammad Mossadegh decided Iran
was not getting a fair shake and oil profits would be better used to develope
Iran than to fuel Britain. After withdrawal of funds and U.N. resolutions failed
to disrupt this avenue, the British turned to Washington to overthrow this
madman.
 The CIA managed in 1953 to overthrow their first government thereby
installing the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Operation Ajax had
long repercussions however. Democracy was finished and repression was the
order of the day ending in the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Iran has
been ruled by the Ayatollahs ever since. It is doubtful that Iranians are at all
surprised to see relations between British Petroleum and the American
people taking a turn for the worst!

That brings us to the ongoing oil disaster now ongoing in the Gulf of
Mexico where BP has apparently drilled into an methane/tar/oil volcano.

“We now know, through witness testimony, that there were cracks
reported in the drill casing two weeks prior to the disaster. Goldman Sachs
sold 44% of their total holdings, 4,680,822 shares of BP stock in the first
quarter of 2010. Goldman Sachs earned about $ 266 million on the sale.

Apparently, Halliburton also had some psychic insight on what was soon
to come. Eleven days before the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon,
Halliburton purchased an oil spill prevention firm. Halliburton was the lead
company in charge of cementing the Deepwater rigs as well.”

We must also look into what organizations the major players belong too.
It now appears that there are too many interlocking connections for this to be
a coincidence. British Petroleum has ties to the Queen of England. The C.E.O.
of BP Pacific, Peter Sutherland is a Trilateral Commission member, a
Bilderberg member and a financial adviser to the Vatican. Tony Hayward has
also attended numerous meetings of the world elite and was caught selling
his stock in BP justweeks before the disaster.

Next one must look at the CIA, Evergreen Air, and their connection to
chemtrail spraying and the Gulf oil spill. The following is an excerpt of an
article we did that linked Evergreen Air to the spraying of Corexit, the deadly
chemical being sprayed over the spill by the cover of night. This was
documented in the article ” BP Crop Dusting U.S. Population Under Cover of
Night“.
 Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund and Vanguard 500 Index Fund handles
the funds of Barack Obama. They unloaded 1.5 million shares of stock
miraculously just before the blowout saving their investors millions of dollars.

Their largest stockholder is Exxon Mobil and BP has hired Goldman Sachs
to advise them on their “next course of action.” The 3 accounts with
Vanguard should earn Barack Obama $100 million over the next ten years in
the event lady luck smiles on him and Exxon buys BP and as another stroke
of good luck BP has just hired Goldman Sachs to “advise” them on the next
course of action.

An added bonus in all this is the social security and welfare recipients
along the gulf coast are going to fall over dead in the next several years most
likely. The U.S. will move forward with the cap and trade. If the pressure is
equalized down the road the well should stop and prime land eventually will
sell for rock bottom prices along the gulf coast. That is unless something goes
horribly wrong with this attempt to play God such as a triggering of the New
Madrid fault which sits just north of the gulf of Mexico and extends as far as
Illinois. Should this giant rift be activated it could knock out the two mile
sandstone barrier separating Great Lakes from the Chicago River which feeds
into the Mississippi. Should they empty into the gulf we could see a giant
house cleaning for this body of water. Unfortunately it could destroy most of
the east coast and break the continent in half.

So here we are in the 13th section of the Mayan calendar which began
5123 years ago. A final step in the rise of consciousness where ethics are said
to overcome power constructs. How are we doing? You can judge how we are
doing by broaching the above treatise to a fellow denizen of the west. Most
anywhere in the west, who is the victim of a controlled media and dumbed
down educational process which has left them with the mind of a child even
as they enter adulthood.

Of course this process has been aided by the addition of almost every
contaminant known in the diet such as fluoride, aspartame, MSG,
vaccinations which there is no study by the way to prove a vaccination of pig
DNA, timersol, mercury and aluminum every protected anyone against
anything. Fluoride especially attacks and calcifies the pineal gland which is
instrumental in the area of intuitive thought.

No most likely you will get wrong link dude, you sound like a
liberal/conservative or you must be on drugs. These are the standard stock in
trade references we will see mostly on the internet used by the paid
employee/enforcers of the new world order and of course the average citizen
who is too dumbed down to think of anything original himself. It is obvious
they are not very good at hiring talent.

Asphalt Volcano & BP

Intel Hub, Gulf Spill Well Organized Plan

There Is Gold In Those Sachs, Raw Story

The Gulf Of Mexico Sea Floor Will Collapse FAU

Geologist Believes Origin Of Last Madrid Quake Lies Under Gulf

House Of Rothschild

What Time Is It?

Asia TimesGENERAL MIRZA ASLAM BEG: AMERICA AND THE FUTURE OF

AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

June 18, 2010 posted by Gordon Duff · 38 Comments

Securing Pakistan – Iran – Afghanistan Future

By General Mirza Aslam Beg (ret) for Veterans Today and Opinion Maker

former Chief of Staff, Army of Pakistan

Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan
Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan are passing through a very historic moment,
as their future is being challenged by forces of aggression, attempting to
weaken their commitment to their “value system”, and “national purpose”.
Their struggle against the forces of evil, for the last thirty years in particular,
has determined the threshold of their tolerance and resistance against such
threats. They have made great sacrifices, now culminating into a new era,
which promises a bright future for them. A few incidents of the recent past
would explain the point.

In 1979 encouraged by the West, Iraq invaded Iran, to defeat the Islamic
Revolution. General Zia called an emergent meeting of the cabinet, to
formulate Pakistan’s foreign policy options. I was called to attend the
meeting, to represent GHQ, in my capacity as the Chief of the General Staff.
The discussion lasted for over three hours and general consensus emerged
that: ‘Iraqi armed forces would sweep across Iran, defeating the resistance
and the Islamic Revolution, in a matter of days, and therefore Pakistan should
be prepared to deploy a peace keeping force in Iran, under the UN mandate.’
I had not spoken by then, and sought the permission of the chair to put
forward my argument. I said:

* “The war is not going to end in a matter of days or weeks, rather it

would be a long protracted war, lasting over several years, with Iran
emerging as the victor, and the Revolution would consolidate. The famous
Chinese saying will prove right: “Never take-on the revolutionaries unless you
have an ideology stronger than theirs.” And there is no ideology stronger
than the ideology of Islam.

* “Historically, the Iranians have always stood united against foreign

aggression. No doubt Raza Shah’s armed forces have been dismantled and
are locked-up in their barracks, but they will rise, as one, to defend the
country, supported by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, who would avail the
opportunity to consolidate the Revolution.

* “The Iraqi armed forces, no doubt, have a modern military machine, but
their higher military leadership, lacks the professional ability of the German
General Staff, to launch breakthrough battles and blitzkrieg operations deep
into the enemy territory. The boggy areas in the South and the mountainous
region in the north would restrict deep maneuvers. Thus there would be no
major gains or losses and only slow slogging series of battles causing heavy
casualties.

* “In the first few days of war, Iraqi armed forces will lose sight of the main
objective of war, i.e., to defeat the Iranians, while the Iranians will continue to
fight with greater resolve and on a high moral ground, i.e., to defeat the
aggressor. Ultimately the Iranians would emerge victorious. I therefore
submit that, we formulate our policy for both the options, i.e., a short war
ending into Iraq’s victory and a long war, with Iran emerging as the victor.”

General Zia listened to my arguments attentively, gave a broad smile and

said: “I agree with you. We prepare for boththe eventualities.” And there was
‘the silence of the lamb’. No one spoke and the meeting ended.

Eight years later, Iranian armed forces crossed Shatt-el-Arab and as they
concentrated in the Fao peninsula, poised for offensive towards Basra,
Saddam attacked with chemical weapons, provided by the civilized West. Iran
suffered heavy casualties and having no defense against this weapon, called
for seize fire. Ever since, Iran has remained under great pressure on one
issue or the other. Now the UNSC has imposed sanctions, for the fourth time,
testing the national resilience of Iran. The Israelis are provoking Iran, by
deploying their nuclear submarine in the region. This provocation resembles
the Indian nuclear intimidation of 1974 and 1998, which left no option for
Pakistan, but to prepare for retaliation with overt posture. What are the
options for Iran now?

September 2001, General Musharraf succumbed to Richard Armitage’s

undiplomatic warning and sheepishly accepted all the conditionalities to join
the American war on Afghanistan. Having taken this decision, he decided to
call the politicians, scholars, media men and diplomats in groups, to explain
and justify the decision. I was invited, with one such group for the 22
September 2001 meeting. His monologue and the discussion lasted for over
four hours. I had not spoken. He invited my comments. I said:

* “You have taken the decision and therefore there is no point in justifying
it now. The critical issue is, of joining the war, having no moral or ethical
ground. The Afghans have never done any harm to us, nor do we have a
defense pact with America to join them. We have to see how far we can go,
so that the red line is not crossed to harm our national interests.”

* “In a matter of weeks, the invading forces will occupy Afghanistan and
the Taliban will fall back to the line – Jalalabad – Kandahar, from where they
had started in 1996, and would link-up with their support bases in Pakistan.
Ultimately they will regroup, forming an alliance with the old Mujahideen and
supported by the new grown up lot from Pakistan and other countries, will
build-up a formidable resistance against the occupation forces.”

* “As the resistance develops, the conflict zone would expand to our
border region, reversing the war on Pakistan. This would be a difficult period
for Pakistan, facing a two-front war.”

* “No doubt the Americans and their allies will take full control of
Afghanistan in a matter of weeks but ultimately it will turn into Vietnam for
them. They cannot win. They will lose the war.”

* “The Afghans, Pakistani jihadis and many freedom fighters, from many
countries of the world, have embraced Shahadat for the Afghan cause. For
Pakistan to join the American war in Afghanistan, would amount to
compromising and bartering away the blood and sacrifices of the martyrs
(Shuhada) – an unforgivable sin and God knows, how to punish the sinner.”

On hearing my comments, General Musharraf’s face turned pale. He

mumbled something which I could not comprehend. The meeting ended,
abruptly. That was my last meeting with him. We never met again, as we
were two poles apart.

The Afghan freedom movement now has reached a point where the
occupation forces are suffering from failure of nerves, inducting more troops
only to reinforce their defeat. The irony is that the occupation forces, which
stand defeated, are trying to lay down the conditions for peace, which is the
privilege of the Taliban, who have emerged as winners. It would, therefore be
proper to focus on Afghanistan, the people, their culture, their national ethos,
their sense of honour and value system, which lend resilience to the cause of
freedom. The occupation forces must accept the reality that they have failed
to read the complex tribal and societal relationship of the Afghans. They must
not repeat the mistakes of 1990 and 2001, of denying the fruits of victory to
the Afghans, i.e., to share power and form a government. There will be no
peace, if any other course is adopted. Taliban are now strong enough to
snatch away their freedom, which they have won with such a great sacrifice.

The people know the predicament of the occupation forces and the
tenuousness of the routes of supply to Afghanistan. The attack on the NATO
supply convey near Islamabad and the turmoil in Kyrgyzstan to disrupt the
daily supply of over forty five thousand liters of oil daily from the Manas air
base, is meant to check-mate the occupation forces. Who is responsible for
these acts? Certainly, not the Taliban from Afghanistan or the American
haters of Pakistan! Not difficult to make a fair guess!!

The Americans and the allies have to take a bold decision in Afghanistan,
same as years earlier, wisdom demanded that timely intervention in Bosnia
was necessary to check the spread of jehadism in Europe. In Afghanistan, the
Americans themselves have become part of the problem, yet it is not too late
to intercede now. Jehadism is a phenomenon by itself, which needs to be
understood. It has special message for the believers in the ideology of Islam:
“Nothing should stop the believers from reaching out to protect the helpless
men, women and children being brutalized, who are crying for help to Allah,
to send the redeemers.” The redeemers who converged on to Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, Chechnya, Palestine and Kashmir, will return to their hearth
and home, only when brutality comes to an end. Jehadis pose no threat to
other ideologies, civilizations or culture. And yet there is the element of
Terrorism, growing out of this movement, over the years, which is the
common threat for all, but will gradually fade away, as occupation,
oppression and injustice come to their logical end.

The momentous decision, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, now have to jointly
take, is a comprehensive strategy to revitalize the war ravaged Afghanistan.
The occupation forces have no option but to exit, creating a power vacuum,
which they will try to fill with the proxy power, like India. This must be
prevented at all cost, as our joint responsibility, ensuring that:

* Afghanistan returns to their people, to let them govern the country as it

suits them.

* Help the Afghans, establish peace, as the prelude to regional stability.

* Demand from the Americans, their allies and the Russians, to pay for the
war damages to the Afghans.

* Join the world community to rebuild Afghanistan’s basic infrastructures

for speedier economic recovery.

At this juncture, Pakistan’s hands are full, dealing with insurgency along the
borders with Afghanistan and the turmoil within, between the judiciary and
the executive, while the democratic order struggles to find its right bearing.
Very challenging times indeed, to carve-out a destiny for the nation. The
pressures from USA are mounting to undertake operations in North
Waziristan and having failed in their effort, they now have made the crude
attempt of blaming the President of Pakistan to have secretly met the Taliban
leaders in custody and a charge sheet has been framed against Pakistan’s
Inter Services Intelligence, for providing ‘extensive support to the Afghan
Taliban.’

These are lame excuses, which betray their frustrations, as they continue to
suffer losses at the hands of the Taliban. Defeat is staring in their face.
General Petraeus, the hero of Iraq, who was tasked to turn the tide on the
Taliban, collapsed and fainted, while briefing the Defence Committee of the
Senate, last Tuesday. The Peace Jirga held at Kabul last week also suggested
reconciliation with the Taliban, because military defeat cannot be averted.
The best option, therefore is to follow the Soviet example – make a clean
break and withdraw. The Taliban and Pakistan will provide the safe exit, as
they did in 1989-90. And leave Afghanistan to the Afghans, who will take care
of themselves. The proxy forces – India or any other cannot withstand
Afghan’s absolute love for total freedom.

The year 2010 is a momentous period of opportunity and action, which has
occurred after twenty two years since 1988, when conditions were ripe for
Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, to form an Alliance, (PIAA), to secure national
security interests and to repel aggression. This alliance was to emerge on the
basis of strategic consensus, forging unity as the main element of ‘Strategic
Depth’ of security interests of the three countries. In 1988, the obtaining
conditions were ideal.

Pakistan had returned to democracy after eleven years of military rule; Iran
has emerged victorious after eight years of brutal Iraqi war; Afghanistan was
free, after eight years of Soviet occupation. The dawn of freedom and
democracy thus provided an opportunity to PIAA countries to forge unity, but
Alas! it was not to be. The idea of alliance, seeking Strategic Depth was
ridiculed by foreign proxy scholars and some of our own. The argument was
twisted to mean, that Pakistan needed territorial depth of Afghanistan, to
retreat in case of Indian aggression. This was a preposterous and naïve
notion because Pakistan’s military strategy envisages no such withdrawal or
retreat. Our mission is very clear. “While defending the territories of Pakistan,
armed forces will contain the offensive, and carry the war into the enemy
territory, to capture and hold vital areas, so as to enable the government to
negotiate peace from a position of strength.”

Pakistan has won the war on our territory, turned on it by the occupation
forces in Afghanistan. Thus the scourge of terror that we faced from the
north-west is relatively under control, and soon will be eliminated as the
occupation forces leave Afghanistan, because foreign occupation is the
“cause of all evil.” For the last thirty years, the Afghans have been fighting
for their freedom and have defeated two super powers. As winners, they have
been cheated twice in 1990 and 2001, by denying them power-sharing in
their country. They cannot be hoodwinked again, and as winners, it is they
who would lay down the conditions for peace in Afghanistan. The Iranians,
since 1979, have faced foreign aggression, military and economic
intimidation, embargos and sanctions, but have triumphed, through national
unity, over all such machinations. The very fact that, Iran-Pakistan gas
pipeline project has been signed and sealed, serves as a rebuff to the powers
wanting to forestall this deal.

The destiny repeatedly points towards gravitation of PIAA, to build a climate

of trust and forge unity, fortifying their resolve and resilience, to deter and
defeat aggression and establish peace in the region. Afghanistan has been
badly ravished. Two generations have lost their youth and civilized living.
They have seen only war, death and destruction. It is our fault that we failed
to provide the protective shield to them. The greed-oriented nations with
imperial mindset may now be converging on Afghanistan to seize their
mineral deposits, worth trillions of dollars. This wealth belongs to the Afghans
and is to be exploited for the good of Afghans and shared with the rest of the
world. The dynamics of time demand that we honour our shared
responsibility to protect ourselves, against aggression, exploitation and
hegemony.

General Mirza Aslam Beg is former Chief of Army Staff who has been deputy
to General Zia and assumed the command after General Zia’s death. He is
the founding Chairman of FRIENDS, a Think Tank established in Rawalpindi.
He has a complete grasp over the situation in the region and reads the
situation well. He is called upon by various TV Channels both Pakistani and
Foreign for his expert views.
He is a regular contributor to www.opinion-maker.org and
www.veteranstoday.comGeneral Mirza Aslam Beg

Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan are passing through a historic moment, as

their future is being challenged by forces of aggression, attempting to
weaken their commitment to their “value system” and “national purpose”.

Their struggle against the forces of evil, for the last 30 years in particular, has
determined the threshold of their tolerance and resistance against such
threats. They have made great sacrifices, now culminating into a new era,
which promises a bright future. A few incidents of the recent past would
explain the point.

In 1979, encouraged by the West, Iraq invaded Iran to defeat the Islamic
Revolution. General Zia called a meeting of the Cabinet to formulate
Pakistan’s foreign policy options.

I was called to attend the meeting in my capacity as the CQAS. The

discussion lasted for over three hours and a general consensus emerged:
“Iraqi armed forces would sweep across Iran, defeating the resistance and
the Islamic Revolution, in a matter of days and therefore Pakistan should be
prepared to deploy a peacekeeping force in Iran, under the UN mandate.”

I had not spoken by then and sought the permission of the chair to put
forward my argument. I said: “The war is not going to end in a matter of days
or weeks, rather it would be a long protracted war, lasting over several years,
with Iran emerging as the victor and the Revolution would consolidate. The
famous Chinese saying will prove right: ‘Never take on the revolutionaries
unless you have an ideology stronger than theirs’. And there is no ideology
stronger than the ideology of Islam.

“In the first few days of war, Iraqi armed forces will lose sight of the main
objective of war, i.e., to defeat the Iranians, while the Iranians will continue to
fight with greater resolve and on a high moral ground, i.e., to defeat the
aggressor. Ultimately the Iranians would emerge victorious.

I therefore submit that, we formulate our policy for both the options, i.e., a
short war ending into Iraq’s victory and a long war with Iran emerging as the
victor.”

Zia listened to my arguments and said: “I agree with you. We will prepare for
both the eventualities.” No one spoke and the meeting ended.

Eight years later, Iranian armed forces crossed Shatt al-Arab and, as they
concentrated in the al-Fao peninsula, poised for offensive towards Basra,
Saddam attacked with chemical weapons, provided by the civilised West.

Iran suffered heavy casualties and having no defence against this weapon
called for ceasefire. Ever since, Iran has remained under great pressure on
one issue or the other. Now the UNSC has imposed sanctions, for the fourth
time, testing the national resilience of Iran. The Israelis are provoking Iran, by
deploying their nuclear submarine in the region.

This provocation resembles the Indian nuclear intimidation of 1974 and 1998,
which left no option for Pakistan, but to prepare for retaliation with overt
posture. What are the options for Iran now?

In September 2001, Musharraf succumbed to Armitage’s undiplomatic

warning and sheepishly accepted all the conditionalities to join the American
war on Afghanistan.

Having taken this decision, he decided to call the politicians, scholars, media
men and diplomats in groups, to justify his decision. I was invited, with one
such group for the September 22, 2001, meeting. His monologue and •the
discussion lasted for over four hours.
Then he invited my comments and I said: “You have taken the decision and
therefore there is no point in justifying it now. The critical issue is, of joining
the war, having no moral or ethical ground. The Afghans have never done
any harm to us, nor do we have a defence pact with America to join them. We
have to see how far we can go, so that the red line is not crossed to harm our
national interests.

“In a matter of weeks, the invading forces will occupy Afghanistan and the
Taliban will fall back to the line – Jalalabad-Kandahar, from where they had
started in 1996 and would link up with their support bases in Pakistan.

Ultimately they will regroup, forming an alliance with the old mujahideen and
supported by the new grown up lot from Pakistan and other countries, will
build up a formidable resistance against the occupation forces. As the
resistance develops, the conflict zone would expand to our border region,
reversing the war on Pakistan. This would be a difficult period for Pakistan,
facing a two-front war.”

“No doubt the Americans and their allies will take full control of Afghanistan
in a matter of weeks but ultimately it will turn into Vietnam for them. They
cannot win. They will lose the war. The Afghans, Pakistani jihadis and many
freedom fighters, from many countries of the world, have embraced
Shahadat for the Afghan cause.

For Pakistan to join the American war in Afghanistan, would amount to

compromising and bartering away the blood and sacrifices of the martyrs
(Shuhada) – an unforgivable sin and God knows, how to punish the sinner.”

On hearing my comments, Musharraf’s face turned pale. He mumbled

something which I could not comprehend. The meeting ended, abruptly. That
was my last meeting with him. We never met again, as we were two poles
apart.

The Afghan freedom movement now has reached a point where the
occupation forces are suffering from the failure of nerves, inducting more
troops only to reinforce their defeat.
The irony is that the occupation forces, which stand defeated, are trying to
lay down the conditions for peace, which is the privilege of the Taliban, who
have emerged as winners. It would be proper to focus on Afghanistan, the
people and their values, which lend resilience to the cause of freedom.

The occupation forces must accept the reality that they have failed to read
the complex tribal and societal relationship of the Afghans. They must not
repeat the mistakes of 1990 and 2001, of denying the fruits of victory to the
Afghans, i.e., to share power and form a government. There will be no peace,
if any other course is adopted.

The Afghans now know the predicament of the occupation forces and the
tenuousness of the routes of supply to Afghanistan. The attack on the NATO
supply convey near Islamabad and the turmoil in Kyrgyzstan to disrupt the
daily supply of over 45,000 litres of oil daily from the Manas air base, is
meant to checkmate the occupation forces.

Who is responsible for these acts? Certainly, not the Taliban from Afghanistan
or the US haters of Pakistan! Not difficult to make a fair guess!

The US and its allies will have to take a bold decision.

The US has become part of the problem. Jihadism is a phenomenon by itself,

which needs to be understood. It has a special message for the believers in
the ideology of Islam: “Nothing should stop the believers from reaching out to
protect the helpless men, women and children being brutalised, who are
crying for help to Allah, to send the redeemers.” Jihadis pose no threat to
other ideologies, civilisations or cultures. And yet there is the element of
terrorism, growing out of this movement, over the years, which is the
common threat for all, but will gradually fade away, as occupation and
injustice will come to its logical end.

The momentous decision that Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan will now have to
jointly take is a comprehensive strategy to revitalise the war ravaged
Afghanistan. The occupation forces have no option but to exit, creating a
power vacuum, which they will try to fill with the proxy power, like India. This
must be prevented at all cost, as our joint responsibility, ensuring that:

? Afghanistan returns to its people, to let them govern the country as it suits
them.

? Help the Afghans establish peace, as the prelude to regional stability.

? Demand from the US, its allies and the Russians, to pay for the war
damages to the Afghans.

? Join the world community to rebuild Afghanistan’s basic infrastructures for

speedier economic recovery.

At this juncture, Pakistan’s hands are full, dealing with insurgency along the
borders with Afghanistan and the turmoil within, between the judiciary and
the executive, while the democratic order struggles to find its right bearing;
very challenging times indeed to carve out a destiny for the nation.

The pressures from the US are mounting to undertake operations in North

Waziristan and having failed in their effort, they now have made the crude
attempt of blaming the President of Pakistan to have secretly met with the
Taliban leaders in custody and a charge sheet has been framed against
Pakistan’s 1S1, for providing “extensive support to the Afghan Taliban.”

These are lame excuses, which betray their frustrations, as they continue to
suffer losses at the hands of the Taliban. Defeat is staring the US in the face.
The peace jirga held at Kabul suggested reconciliation with the Taliban,
because military defeat cannot be averted. The best option therefore is to
follow the Soviet example – make a clean break and withdraw.

The Taliban and Pakistan will provide a safe exit, as they did in 1989-90 and
leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. The proxy forces, India or any other,
cannot withstand Afghan’s absolute love for total freedom.
The year 2010 is a momentous period of opportunity and action, which has
occurred after 22 years since 1988, when conditions were ripe for Pakistan,
Iran and Afghanistan to form an Alliance (PIAA) in order to secure national
security interests.

This alliance was to emerge on the basis of strategic consensus, forging unity
as the main element of ‘Strategic Depth’ of security interests of the three
countries. In 1988, the conditions were ideal – Pakistan had returned to
democracy after 11 years of military rule; Iran had emerged victorious after
eight years of brutal Iraqi war; and Afghanistan was free after eight years of
Soviet occupation.

The dawn of freedom and democracy thus provided an opportunity to PIAA

countries to forge unity, but it was not to be. The idea of alliance, seeking
‘Strategic Depth’ was ridiculed by foreign proxy scholars and some of our
own. The argument was twisted to mean that Pakistan needed territorial
depth of Afghanistan to retreat in case of Indian aggression.

This was a preposterous notion because Pakistan’s military strategy

envisages no such withdrawal. Our mission was very clear: “While defending
the territories of Pakistan, armed forces will contain the offensive and carry
the war into the enemy territory, to capture and hold vital areas, so as to
enable the government to negotiate peace from a position of strength.”

Pakistan has won the war on our territory, turned on it by the occupation
forces in Afghanistan. Thus the scourge of terror that we faced from the
northwest is relatively under control and soon will be eliminated as the
occupation forces leave Afghanistan. For the last 30 years, Afghans have
been fighting for their freedom and have defeated two superpowers.

As winners, they have been cheated twice in 1990 and 2001; they cannot be
hoodwinked again. So now they should lay down the conditions for peace.
Moreover, the Iranians, since 1979, have faced foreign aggression, military
and economic intimidation, embargos and sanctions, but have triumphed,
through national unity, over all such machinations.
The very fact that, Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project has been signed and
sealed, serves as a rebuff to the powers wanting to forestall this deal.

The destiny repeatedly points towards gravitation of PIAA, to build a climate

of trust and forge unity, fortifying their resolve, to defeat aggression and
establish peace in the region. Afghanistan has been badly ravished. Two
generations have lost their youth and have seen only war, death and
destruction. It is our fault that we failed to provide the protective shield to
them. The greedy nations with imperial mindset may now be converging on
Afghanistan to seize their mineral deposits, worth trillions of dollars. This
wealth belongs to Afghans and is to be exploited for their good.

Nevertheless, the dynamics of time demands that we honour our shared

responsibility to protect ourselves, against aggression, exploitation and
hegemony.

The writer is a former COAS, Pakistan

Email: friendsfoundation@live. co. uk

The Nation columns

VOICES FROM THE WHIRLWIND: Assessing Musharraf's Predicament

• Ahmed Rashid

Critical Journalist

• Jugnu Mohsin

Newspaper Editor

• "Shahzad"

An Underground Militant

• Lieutenant General Hamid Gul

Defender of Islam

• General Mirza Aslam Beg

Former Army Foe of Musharraf

• Sherry Rehman

Opposition Parliamentarian

• Sami ul-Haq

Powerful Religious Leader

The voices of opposition and dissent are closing in on General Pervez

Musharraf, the embattled president of Pakistan. He rescued Pakistan from the
brink of political collapse, only to find himself threatened by a rising tide of
opposition from both Islamic fundamentalist groups and liberal political
parties, who view his military rule as a betrayal of the nation. While fending
off these dissenting factions, Musharraf also must struggle to balance a hefty
load of explosive issues. His historic peace accord with India has averted the
threat of nuclear war, but it ignited the ire of radical Pakistani groups who lay
claim to Kashmir. He is cooperating with the international community to
dismantle the nuclear weapons black market, but having to confront
emerging revelations about Pakistan's central role in the growing nuclear
scandal. FRONTLINE/World reporter and producer Sharmeen Obaid journeyed
across her native Pakistan in early 2004, talking with people on the ground
about the president's predicament. The following interview excerpts,
featuring some of Pakistan's leading voices, illuminate the complexities and
contradictions playing out inside Pakistan and the razor's edge on which its
president is now walking.

Ahmed Rashid: Critical Journalist

Ahmed Rashid Ahmed Rashid is an internationally known Pakistani journalist

and an authority on Muslim extremist groups. He is a correspondent with the
Far East Economic Review as well as the author of Jihad: The Rise of Militant
Islam in Central Asia and Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in
Central Asia. In this interview, Rashid traces the roots of Pakistan's internal
struggles to Musharraf's contradictory policy toward extremist groups that he
once supported but now has outlawed. "He has banned them and restricts
them," Rashid tells FRONTLINE/World reporter and producer Sharmeen Obaid.
"At the same time, the intelligence services have worked with them very
closely, especially in Kashmir and backing the Taliban.... I think all these
chickens are coming home to roost now."

Jugnu Mohsin: Newspaper Editor

Jugnu Moshin Jugnu Mohsin is the publisher of the Friday Times Newspaper,
one of Pakistan's leading liberal newspapers. In this interview, Mohsin
explores the personal contradictions of Musharraf the man as a way to
understand the current contradictions in Pakistani policy. Musharraf, she
says, is molded in the staunch, authoritarian traditions of the military, yet has
a progressive, open-minded worldview. He is at once a dyed-in-the-wool
soldier and a "regular, liberal guy," Mohsin tells FRONTLINE/World. As a
consequence, Pakistan is struggling to reconcile the security-obsessed and
insular worldview of the Pakistani army with the openness and transparency
demanded by the age of globalization. Musharraf "could do better," in this
regard, Mohsin says, principally by scaling back the military's role in
government. But, she maintains, "... it would be tragic for Pakistan if at this
juncture he wasn't there to lead us. I think he must lead us to the other
side ... to the safe side."

"Shahzad": An Underground Militant

“Shahzad” "Shahzad," whose true identity is concealed, is an outlawed jihadi

fighting for Kashmir's independence from India. This interview takes us inside
the struggle for Kashmir, illuminating the conflict and its effect on Pakistan's
stability. Jihadis support Musharraf's efforts to broker peace with India,
Shahzad tells FRONTLINE/World, but Kashmiris must be consulted in the
peace talks if the violence is to end. He maintains that recent assassination
attempts on Musharraf had nothing to do with Kashmiris, who see the
president as an ally. "[I]t is my opinion that Mr. Musharraf is our Muslim
brother and he will never betray the trust that the Kashmiris have vested in
him. He is a patriot, a Pakistani, and will never betray the blood which has
been spilled in Kashmir."

Lieutenant General Hamid Gul: Defender of Islam

Lieutenant General Hamid Gul Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, retired, was the
director of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's military intelligence
agency, from 1987 to 1989, during the time of the rise of the Taliban. He is
known for his sympathies to Islamic radicals, and in this interview with
FRONTLINE/World, he defends the rights of militants to fight for an Islamic
system of government. Pakistan would become an Islamic state, Gul argues
in this interview, if it were not for the United States. "[It] ... is part of the
global design of the imperialist powers that Pakistan should not be a
democracy. Because whenever it becomes democracy, it will be an Islamic
democracy. And that is what the Americans don't like."

General Mirza Aslam Beg: Former Army Foe of Musharraf

General Mirza Aslam Beg General Mirza Aslam Beg, retired, was the chief of
staff of the Pakistani army from 1988 to 1991. Many accuse him of being on
the inside of Pakistan's underground nuclear proliferation program, an
allegation he denies in this interview with FRONTLINE/World reporter and
producer Sharmeen Obaid. "If my government wasn't aware, how was I
aware?" General Beg asks, adding that the United States and England should
be held responsible for failing to reveal what they knew about Pakistan's
nuclear activities. "They are a party to the crime that was committed," he
says, "by not revealing the facts to the responsible people in Pakistan either."

Sherry Rehman: Opposition Parliamentarian

Sherry Rehman Sherry Rehman is a liberal parliamentarian as well as an

outspoken critic of President Musharraf. In this interview, she argues that
more robust democratic institutions, and not continued military rule, are
necessary to guide Pakistan through the current political crisis. Rehman
acknowledges that in the wake of 9/11, Pakistan was faced with extraordinary
challenges requiring strong leadership. And she concedes that Musharraf
served his nation well during that difficult time. But that time has now
passed, and, she says, military authority still goes unchecked and must be
replaced with the electoral process. "What happens with us," she tells
FRONTLINE/World reporter and producer Sharmeen Obaid, "is the military
establishment takes control and therefore becomes accountable to no one."
Sami ul-Haq: Powerful Religious Leader

Sami ul-Haq Sami ul-Haq is a senator and founding member of Muttahida

Majlis-e-Ama (MMA), otherwise known as the United Action Front, a coalition
of religious parties that gained unprecedented victories in 2003 elections. Ul-
Haq, who still supports Taliban ideology, is best known for his madrassah, or
religious school, which is considered the most famous in Pakistan for having
trained thousands of students who went to fight in Afghanistan and Kashmir
as jihadis. In this interview, ul-Haq tells FRONTLINE/World that Pakistan's
enemies object to the country's possession of nuclear weapons, but that "If
we gave it to Libya, then what is the crime? If all of Europe can share this
technology between them, then it is the duty of all Muslims to share any
technology or knowledge they possess."

General Mirza Aslam Beg General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of
the Pakistani army, discusses Pakistan's growing nuclear scandal and his own
alleged involvement. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Do you think the United States has designs on [Pakistan's] nuclear

capabilities?

... [T]hey've had designs on our program since 1974, [when] India exploded
the device and then Pakistani prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared ...
[that] Pakistan would build that capability to correct the imbalance -- and
that's what he did. And since then, Pakistan [has] been working to acquire
nuclear capability, and this was an open secret. ... The program that we
started in 1976 achieved its purpose in about 12 years' time. ... The American
and [British] agency had been working on Pakistan's nuclear program and
probably picked up some evidence of some scientist trying to sell nuclear
secrets to other countries. But they never informed Pakistan.

I mean if they were monitoring our program for the last 15 years, they should
have told us 10 years or 12 years back so we could have checked these
wrong practices much earlier than doing it now. What I am trying to say is
that they are parties to the crime.
It's been said that you were aware of the nuclear proliferation. How do you
comment on that?

If my government wasn't aware, how was I aware? I was army chief from
1988 to 1991. If we were never told what was happening beneath the surface
when the Americans knew, when the British agencies knew, when they have
claimed they have penetrated the entire system including Pakistan -- so are
they not guilty?

A number of reports are putting you against Musharraf and [make] it seem
you are in opposition to him. Why do you think it might be the case?

I am sorry -- I have not been arrested; I have not been put behind bars ... .
[Those reports are the work of] the American lobby within the country and
outside ... .

You've been quoted as saying that there were newspaper advertisements in

the Pakistani newspapers in 2000 that elicited bids for enriched uranium.

It's not a secret. It was a full one-page ad given by the government of

Pakistan. And there is nothing wrong with it -- because what they wanted to
sell has been authorized by the international community and by the
international atomic agency. Pakistan had all those items, which were offered
for sale, which are not banned. And all the requirements were met for any
one who wanted to see. So what was wrong with it?

Members of the Pakistani army have been arrested regarding the nuclear
proliferation as well -- so would it be safe to say that the Pakistani army knew
about the nuclear proliferation?

[The] Pakistan army, if they deputized a person to be responsible at the site

about the security of the project or the program, they were made responsible
to the boss, that is [Dr. Abdul Qadeer] Khan [the head of Pakistan's nuclear
research program]. They were not responsible to the army chief -- not before,
not after me, or to another army chief. They reported directly to the KRL
[Khan Research Laboratory, Pakistan's nuclear research laboratory] and its
director, Khan. And it has come out they were getting paid by him. So [the]
army as such was involved in decision-making policy -- but not directly
responsible for all that was happening within the Kahuta lab [the site of
Pakistan's KRL].

Do you believe that Dr. Qadeer Khan is responsible for nuclear proliferation or
that he's been made a scapegoat?

[A] scapegoat on the basis of all that's been said by the government. Perhaps
he was involved. But including myself -- I am also being blamed -- I have also
claimed that unless there is an open judicial inquiry, unless all those who are
blamed are given a chance to clear their reputation, the real facts will not
come out. And people will have a degree of doubt and a credibility gap will be
there.

Do you think Dr. Qadeer Khan's confession has humiliated the country?

Of course. Yes, it has humiliated the country. It has humiliated every

Pakistani, and we are feeling so sorry and sad about it.

What kind of repercussion will this kind of revelation have on Pakistan and
the Pakistani army in the future?

Well, the Pakistani nation, the Pakistani army, [is] really sad to see what [has
happened] to Dr. Khan, who is held in such high esteem by everybody. It will
have an impact. And I think that is a major crisis that President Musharraf and
the government is facing. But the problem, I think, that Pakistan is facing is
the nuclear program itself. ... There are actually pressures building up to
have Pakistan sign the NPT treaty [an international treaty established by the
United Nations in 1970 to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons]. But once
we sign that without India also signing, the pressure to open up our facilities
for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency -- that is the kind of
pressure we are facing.
President Musharraf recently said there were certain generals who were
making comments that they are trying to get into the media. Do you think he
was talking about you at all?

Perhaps my name is also included. I have been talking. I have been making
statements and writing about the policy of nuclear program and nuclear
propriety. I have my papers written some eight years back, nine years back.
And I gave a paper at a conference in Lahore just last year. So ... what I say
now I have been saying for many years based on my assessment and studies
with other scholars. Anything people think is new is not. I have been talking
about it for a long time.

Why haven't you been arrested?

Just to disappoint you and many. My American friends and their stooges here
in Pakistan want to see me behind bars for sins which I have not committed.
And I am very confident that nobody can harm me because I have committed
no crime.

If you speak about President Musharraf -- what kind of pressures do you think
he is under now?

I have listened to his speech to the assembly ... after this Qadeer Khan
episode and all that. He is under tremendous pressure. And one more
pressure is physical pressure, the attempt on his life. I think it is part of a
plan to extract maximum concessions from him on issues which they want to
be settled on their terms. The Kashmiri issue on Indian terms; the nuclear
issue on American terms, I think; and the Pakistan government's full support
to the United States fighting against the terrorists on the so-called India-
Pakistan border.

Do you think that once President Musharraf has served the role he is
supposed to, that he will be disposed of?
Who will dispose him?

Perhaps the West, after he's serving their interests now?

Why should they dispose him now? He's accepted by elected parliament; he
has been voted as the president by the parliament. But god forbid the
attempts on his life -- who is behind it, it is very difficult to say. It is part of
the aura of conspiracy put upon him to extract concessions ... .

Who is behind this conspiracy?

Your guess is as good as mine. ...

• Ahmed Rashid: Critical Journalist

• Jugnu Mohsin: Newspaper Editor

• "Shahzad": An Underground Militant

• Lieutenant General Hamid Gul: Defender of Islam

• General Mirza Aslam Beg: Former Army Foe of Musharraf

• Sherry Rehman: Opposition Parliamentarian

• Sami ul-Haq: Powerful Religious Leader

• Return to Introduction

back to top
HOME • STORIES • REACT • WATCH • ABOUT • EDUCATORS •
DISPATCHES • NEWSLETTER • CONTACT US • FRONTLINE

Privacy Policy • © 2002-2010 WGBH Educatio