I don't know about you Iqbal, but Musharraf just gave us a wonderful display of political "tap-dancing", IMO.
For one, trying to spread the blame over the Mujahidin to the US, when the ISI absolutely forbade the CIA from being involved with their operations or leadership (though we tried anyway), relegating the US to the role of financier and weapons provider.
In such situations, who is using whom becomes murky. We — the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia — created our own Frankenstein’s monster.
I believe the historical record is pretty clear that the ISI desired full control over events in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation there, so as to prevent provoking an invasion of Peshawar. And after the Soviet pull out, the ISI had no desire to see any unification that wasn't under their control and influence.
Now.. that doesn't mean to suggest that Musharraf was directly behind the Taliban.. Only that even he could not control the ISI and the situation that they had created for Pakistan by implicitly backing an Islamist government cavorting with international terrorism.
And that's probably why Armitage was so "explicit" to the ISI chief. Because we've always known the Taliban were a creation of the ISI and we were just laying it on the line as to what the repercussions would be if Pakistan continued to permit the ISI to run rough-shod over Pakistani foreign policy.
But let me say this.. I don't believe the ISI had ANY interest in providing economic reconstruction to Afghanistan, and certainly not to the point where Afghanistan might threaten Pakistan's "back door". They wanted to focus as much attention on their "front door", Kashmir, and their confrontations with India..
Thus, Musharraf's words ring rather hollow when he tries to spread the blame for why Afghanistan economically languished in the years after the Soviet withdrawal..
Your thoughts?
Hawk |
