![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldWhile promoting his new book last year, In the Line of Fire, on an international book tour, Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf managed to trigger a minor controversy in Canada last week when he criticized the heavy press coverage of Canadian military casualties in Afghanistan.
The sentiment of indifference--towards foreign dead, true, but possibly also his own--might explain why Musharraf was the one who not only started the badly-planned and potentially catastrophic Kargil War of 1999. It might also explain recent events within Pakistan.
Carol Off accused the above Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence of masterminding the July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. Bernard-Henri Lévy would be in general agreement with this suggestion, as expressed in his rather frightening Who Killed Daniel Pearl?.
Back in January, the Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion suggested that NATO make a diplomatic intervention in Pakistan to install border controls that would prevent Taliban forces to move back and forth across the (contested) Durand Line with impunity. That seems unlikely to happen, especially with the tack of Pakistan's current government. Is the region going to experience a nasty scenario, whereby United States attacks on Pakistan soil and Pakistan's government remains willing to allow Tablian forces free egress (and recuits and arms and sundry?) on its territory? If so, should Canada really remain involved? I doubt that Canadians have much stomach for that sort of conflict, whether it becomes a low-level sort of thing or not (crushing defeat, by one side or another).
What are your thoughts on this situation?
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf told CBC Tuesday that the Canadian military casualties from fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan have been insubstantial compared with those suffered by Pakistan.
Musharraf brushed off the suggestion that his government was endangering Canadians and other troops in Afghanistan by not doing enough to root out the Taliban and al-Qaeda and their sympathizers.
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf told CBC's Carol Off on Tuesday that his government is doing all it can to root out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that Pakistani military losses have been much more substantial than those suffered by Canada.
"We have suffered 500 casualties [1000 as of April 2008]," he said. "Canadians may have suffered four or five."
[. . .]
Musharraf said any nation, such as Canada, that enters a war-torn area must be prepared to suffer casualties or get out of the operation.
"You suffer two dead and you cry and shout all around the place that there are coffins," he said. "Well, we have had 500 coffins."
The sentiment of indifference--towards foreign dead, true, but possibly also his own--might explain why Musharraf was the one who not only started the badly-planned and potentially catastrophic Kargil War of 1999. It might also explain recent events within Pakistan.
U.S. forces struck a suspected al-Qaeda hideout inside Pakistan Monday, exposing growing tensions between the allies over Pakistan's inability to deal with militants in its tribal regions.
The attack, believed to have killed a top al-Qaeda chemical and biological weapons expert, came as Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani arrived in Washington in an effort to reassure Americans of his country's efforts to eradicate the militants based in Pakistan, who are believed to be feeding the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.
While U.S. President George W. Bush praised Pakistan as a "strong ally and a vibrant democracy," yesterday's military strikes - the latest in a rash of such U.S. interventions - drew a quick rebuke from Pakistan's army, which warned they "could be detrimental to bilateral relations."
The attack also came a day after a senior United Nations envoy suggested that Pakistan's intelligence agents may have been involved in recent attacks inside Afghanistan.
As Mr. Gilani sought to present an image as the head of a freely elected government in a budding democracy, a drama back at home cruelly laid bare the limits of his power. As he left for Washington over the weekend, Mr. Gilani had issued a surprise order that placed Pakistan's notorious Inter-Service Intelligence agency under firm civilian control, by handing command of it to the Interior Ministry.
[. . .]
The military, however, refused to accept the change, as did President Pervez Musharraf, a former army chief, and the order had to be reversed within hours.
"The notification came as a surprise and we informed the government of our reservations," said Pakistan army spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas. "The ISI is basically responsible for external intelligence, only around 10 per cent of its work is internal security."
Carol Off accused the above Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence of masterminding the July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. Bernard-Henri Lévy would be in general agreement with this suggestion, as expressed in his rather frightening Who Killed Daniel Pearl?.
Back in January, the Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion suggested that NATO make a diplomatic intervention in Pakistan to install border controls that would prevent Taliban forces to move back and forth across the (contested) Durand Line with impunity. That seems unlikely to happen, especially with the tack of Pakistan's current government. Is the region going to experience a nasty scenario, whereby United States attacks on Pakistan soil and Pakistan's government remains willing to allow Tablian forces free egress (and recuits and arms and sundry?) on its territory? If so, should Canada really remain involved? I doubt that Canadians have much stomach for that sort of conflict, whether it becomes a low-level sort of thing or not (crushing defeat, by one side or another).
What are your thoughts on this situation?
