U.S. Allegedly Threatened Pakistan with Bombings

[Mephisto]

Now I'm confused . . . is THIS imperialism or just international bully-ism?

Pakistan: U.S. threatened to bomb us back to Stone Age

POSTED: 8:39 p.m. EDT, September 21, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan says the United States threatened to bomb his country back to the Stone Age after the 9/11 attacks if he did not help America's war on terror.

Musharraf says the threat was delivered by Richard Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, to Musharraf's intelligence director, the Pakistani leader told CBS-TV's "60 Minutes."

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,' " Musharraf said in the interview to be shown Sunday on the CBS television network. (Watch how Armitage shook up the Pakistan intelligence chief -- 1:35)

It was insulting, Musharraf said. "I think it was a very rude remark," he told reporter Steve Kroft.

But, Musharraf said he reacted responsibly. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation and that is what I did," he said.

The White House and State Department declined to comment on the conversation.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/pakistan.threat.ap/index.html
______________

I thought this pretty relevant too.

"Musharraf told "60 Minutes" that Armitage's message was delivered with demands that he turn over Pakistan's border posts and bases for the U.S. military to use in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some demands were "ludicrous," such as a demand he suppress domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States."

An imperialist by any other name would smell just as foul.

[Cylinder]

One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation and that is what I did.

And everyone claims that Bush hates diplomacy.

[Darat]

Given the USA decided upon strategy I say it made their intentions perfectly clear and therefore it helped push forward the USA's goals. I think it was perfectly acceptable for the USA to explain what might be the result of not co-operating in tracking down terrorist and so on.

The USA was completely open that this was their policy - e.g. co-operate or be considered part of the problem.

And lets not forget prior to 9/11 Pakistan was certainly not one of the good guys. I don't see how the USA could have achieved the co-operation it has with Pakistan without using a combination of threats and making co-operation in the best interests of the Pakistan dictator.

[Cylinder]

Yup, it's a classic case of diplomatic give-and-take. You give us overflight and the al Qaeda leadership inside Pakistan and we'll take you off the NATO target lists.

[RyanRoberts]

And lets not forget prior to 9/11 Pakistan was certainly not one of the good guys.

It isn't now. They pay lip service to cooperating in TWOT while being major players in regional and international terror (especially in the UK). PK is more dangerous than Iran.

I assume Musharaf can get away with saying this now as the US has spent so much diplomatic capital. Lets hope he does tell Bush to get stuffed, at least we will then have a clear public understanding of where they stand.

That will also give the UK justification for severely restricting air travel and immigration from Pakistan. A long overdue measure.

[DaChew]

Man, Armitage is having one hell of a bad month.

[Garrette]

I saw on BBC this morning that Armitage denies saying this.

[Darat]

I saw on BBC this morning that Armitage denies saying this.


We'll he would wouldn't he? ;)


More seriously it would surprise me more to learn that no such comments were made.

[Mephisto]

Given the USA decided upon strategy I say it made their intentions perfectly clear and therefore it helped push forward the USA's goals. I think it was perfectly acceptable for the USA to explain what might be the result of not co-operating in tracking down terrorist and so on.

The USA was completely open that this was their policy - e.g. co-operate or be considered part of the problem.

And lets not forget prior to 9/11 Pakistan was certainly not one of the good guys. I don't see how the USA could have achieved the co-operation it has with Pakistan without using a combination of threats and making co-operation in the best interests of the Pakistan dictator.

I wonder why they never applied this strategy to Saudi Arabia, but then again Bush hasn't walked through the White House flower gardens holding Musharaf's hand. ;)

[Garrette]

We'll he would wouldn't he? ;)


More seriously it would surprise me more to learn that no such comments were made.I actually put not stock in what Armitage says. Likewise, I put no immediate stock on Musharraf's second-hand account.

[Garrette]

I wonder why they never applied this strategy to Saudi Arabia, but then again Bush hasn't walked through the White House flower gardens holding Musharaf's hand. ;)Man, o man. If my friends only knew how many men's hands I held in Iraq, they'd boot me out of the studly macho man club.

[Crossbow]

I expect that what is actually happening is that the government of Pakistan is signaling that it wants to change its stance in regards to the "War on Terror" and is trying to avoid looking like another mindless lackey of the Bush Administration.

After all, Bush just said that he would send troops into Pakistan in order to capture bin Laden without clearing such actions with the government of Pakistan.

[Demigorgon]

Good, I would hope our government would have said something like this shortly after 9/11. It's much more effective than "Could you be a nice guy and help us out?"

[WildCat]

After all, Bush just said that he would send troops into Pakistan in order to capture bin Laden without clearing such actions with the government of Pakistan.
I don't think capture is in the plan. If OBL is located the bombs will fall first, the diplomatic cat fight will come after.

[Darth Rotor]

We'll he would wouldn't he? ;)
More seriously it would surprise me more to learn that no such comments were made.
I find your credulity disappointing.

This is a senior State Department official we are talking about, in a meeting with the president of a country. Such language doesn't fit the protocol.

The language used is standard sound byte rhetoric from pundits, commentators, and wiseacres who don't have to deal with real diplomatic deal making. I would be immensely surprised if Mr Armitage used such language with the President of Pakistan. He was working for Colin Powell at the time. No way Secretary Powell condones that kind of talk on his watch.

This report screams of hyperbole, and looks like Musharraf reacting to Bush's recent hoof-in-mouth incident in re Pakistan.

"You make me look bad, George, which you did, so I make you lood bad. Capisce?" (Or howerver you say capisce in Urdu)

DR

PS: What a tower of babel Pakistan is. It must be a bear to get out PSA's.

Language breakdown:

Punjabi 48%
Sindhi 12%,
Siraiki (a Punjabi variant) 10%,
Pashtu 8%,
Urdu (official) 8%,
Balochi 3%,
Hindko 2%,
Brahui 1%,
English (official and lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries),
Burushaski
other 8%

[Darat]

I find your credulity disappointing.


I find the idea that you think that politicians when talking to one another abide by some courtly decorum touchingly innocent. Do you not remember just recently a clip of the USA President and the PM of the UK chatting? That didn't sound quite so courtly.... ;)



This is a senior State Department official we are talking about, in a meeting with the president of a country.
...snip...

Your facts are in error.

[MRC_Hans]

Musharraf says the threat was delivered by Richard Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, to Musharraf's intelligence director,


Two officials talking under four eyes. I don't think there is usually much decorum in such talks.

One mustn't generalize, but an alarming percentage of the people from Pakistan with whom I have had the pleasure to communicate had a very creative approach to reality. Granted, they we all homeopaths .... :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Darth Rotor]

I find the idea that you think that politicians when talking to one another abide by some courtly decorum touchingly innocent. Do you not remember just recently a clip of the USA President and the PM of the UK chatting? That didn't sound quite so courtly.... ;)

Your facts are in error.
Ah, the senior official, not the Pres. Got it. That changes nothing.

The Blair/Bush anecdote is irrelevant to the case, two people on the same side talking turkey. That is a completely different context than a meeting to discuss consequences of supporting terrorists who may attack a nation, don't you think? Or did you think? :rolleyes:

I didn't state "courtly language," you did, but I did present "protocol" and the style of language that one could expect as acceptable in a Colin Powell run State Department.

If you choose to answer that part of the mail, I'll be all ears. As it stands, you stand guilty of being predisposed to think "the worst" of anything that an American official might have said, regardless of context or the motives of whoever is reporting on the alleged incident.

Rule number one, of politics: the truth is malleable. Note who is being quoted. A politician.

I'll stand by my position, thanks, as finding the words being claimed as unlikely, and the report so much hyperbole.

Tell me, Darat, how much time have you spent in diplomatic circles? I've had the opportunity to be in official meetings (though not a primary, a horse holder) with consular and embassy officials, meeting in rooms with closed doors. (Less than 20) Some meetings were more cordial than others.

Loose talk like that was never remotely within protocol.

DR

[Darat]

Ah, the senior official, not the Pres. Got it. That changes nothing.

The Blair/Bush anecdote is irrelevant to the case, two people on the same side talking turkey. That is a completely different context than a meeting to discuss consequences of supporting terrorists who may attack a nation, don't you think? Or did you think? :rolleyes:


"Talking Turkey"? They discussed if Blair should go to the Middle East, talked about Syria and talked about whether Rice should go to the Middle East. To me sounds like some quite "high level" talking as they say.


I didn't state "courtly language," you did, but I did present "protocol" and the style of language that one could expect as acceptable in a Colin Powell run State Department.


I know what you expect - however as I said I find your expectations rather naive.

As for the use of "courtly language" that is called a figure of speech and I believe totally appropriate when talking about any claimed "protocols" that control how an official can talk to a foreign official.


If you choose to answer that part of the mail, I'll be all ears. Otherwise, you are guilty of a gross assumption based on being predisposed to think "the worst" of anything that an American official might have said.


Think the "worse"? "gross assumption" "being predisposed to think the worse" if I don't respond in some manner you decide for me? I will answer what I want and in any way I decide to answer and will in future ignore your attempts at poisoning the well .



I'll stand by my position, thanks, as finding the words being used as unlikely, and hyperbole.



You do realise I never said that it had to be those exact words? Again perhaps you should read my posts before you criticise something I've not said?


Tell me, Darat, how much time have you spent in diplomatic circles? I've had the opportunity to be in official meetings with consular and embassy officials, meeting in rooms with closed doors, though not all that many. (Less than 20) Some meetings were more cordial than others.

Loose talk like that was never remotely within protocol.

DR

Well strictly speaking I could argue that we are not talking about diplomats but politicians but that would be splitting hairs. Why personal experience is important in this matter I don't know however I have a lot of experience with working with elected politicians and their civil servants (the highest level being with the UK's Home Secretary) and my experience of them is that they tend to be like everyone else i.e. some are more diplomatic then others, some are less, some speak in a very blunt and coarse manner some don't. What I have learnt is that the more successful ones will vary how they say something depending on their audience and the message they are trying to get across.

In this instance as I said earlier it would surprise me more if the USA officials dealing with Pakistan after 9/11 had not not make any such clear and unequivocal comments to their counterparts.

[Darth Rotor]

Well strictly speaking I could argue that we are not talking about diplomats but politicians but that would be splitting hairs.
I am with you so far.
What I have learnt is that the more successful ones will vary how they say something depending on their audience and the message they are trying to get across.
Still with you.
In this instance as I said earlier it would surprise me more if the USA officials dealing with Pakistan after 9/11 had not not make any such clear and unequivocal comments to their counterparts.
Let's see, and with your second quote considered. (My bold)

Shortly post 9-11, pending operations in Afghanistan. US needs Pakistan's (border with Afghanistan, to include the debates over the Durand line) cooperation to prevent privileged sanctuary for Osama and friends. US familiar with (due to Russians in Afghanistan) the porous nature of border and the relationships of tribes and clans in Pakistan. US needs Pakistan to share intelligence in a tough to access, tough to control area. US needs help, not neutrality, and a policy of no privileged sanctuary.

Pakistan is, in this case, in a bit of the drivers seat, since they have what US wants: local stuff, local turf, and local intel.

So, I am being asked to believe that language is chosen by an official envoy from Powell, one who is establishing future policy/intel sharing for a pending operation (Why else talk to the intel official?) that bluntly threatens Pakistan with "bomb into the stone age" or other harsh consequences. Besides that being a non-option in a strategic sense, and that both parties know such a threat is empty.

I don't buy it, not in a Colin Powell run State Department. A more likely position deals in Pakistan arms, military loans, economic loans, nuke issues, and India issues.

"For us or against us."

I think you'll find the origin of that talking point in the Cheney, Rummy, GW modes of speech. As added consideration: recall the Powell-Cheney-Rummy bureaucratic wars in Washington, 2001-2003. Ugly stuff with too many leaks to the press used as weapons in jockeying for position.

There, I didn't throw any rocks at you, we're still on topic. *throws confetti*

So, do you still choose to believe that line from Musharraf, and not disbelieve his assertions?

That Armitage denies the comments is of interest, but not convincing, when we go back to Rule 1: politicians often lie in pursuit of their aims or in attempts to preserve their image.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Well strictly speaking I could argue that we are not talking about diplomats but politicians but that would be splitting hairs.
I am with you so far.
What I have learnt is that the more successful ones will vary how they say something depending on their audience and the message they are trying to get across.
Still with you.
In this instance as I said earlier it would surprise me more if the USA officials dealing with Pakistan after 9/11 had not not make any such clear and unequivocal comments to their counterparts.
Let's see, and with your second quote considered. (My bold)

Shortly post 9-11, pending operations in Afghanistan. US needs Pakistan's (border with Afghanistan, to include the debates over the Durand line) cooperation to prevent privileged sanctuary for Osama and friends. US familiar with (due to Russians in Afghanistan) the porous nature of border and the relationships of tribes and clans in Pakistan. US needs Pakistan to share intelligence in a tough to access, tough to control area. US needs help, not neutrality, and a policy of no privileged sanctuary.

Pakistan is, in this case, in a bit of the drivers seat, since they have what US wants: local stuff, local turf, and local intel.

So, I am being asked to believe that language is chosen by an official envoy from Powell, one who is establishing future policy/intel sharing for a pending operation (Why else talk to the intel official?) that bluntly threatens Pakistan with "bomb into the stone age" or other harsh consequences. Besides that being a non-option in a strategic sense, and that both parties know such a threat is empty, it is most likely to preclude good intel sharing.

I don't buy it, not in a Colin Powell run State Department. A more likely position deals in Pakistan arms, military loans, economic loans, nuke issues, and India issues.

"For us or against us."

I think you'll find the origin of that talking point in the Cheney, Rummy, GW modes of speech. As added consideration: recall the Powell-Cheney-Rummy bureaucratic wars in Washington, 2001-2003. Ugly stuff with too many leaks to the press used as weapons in jockeying for position.

There, I didn't throw any rocks at you, we're still on topic. *throws confetti*

So, do you still choose to believe that line from Musharraf, and not disbelieve his assertions?

That Armitage denies the comments is of interest, but not convincing, when we go back to Rule 1: politicians often lie in pursuit of their aims or in attempts to preserve their image.

DR

[Nick Bogaerts]

Given the USA decided upon strategy I say it made their intentions perfectly clear and therefore it helped push forward the USA's goals. I think it was perfectly acceptable for the USA to explain what might be the result of not co-operating in tracking down terrorist and so on.

Mass murder is perfectly acceptable as long as one is perfectly clear about one's intentions?

And lets not forget prior to 9/11 Pakistan was certainly not one of the good guys. I don't see how the USA could have achieved the co-operation it has with Pakistan without using a combination of threats and making co-operation in the best interests of the Pakistan dictator.

Most Pakistani I have met have been good guys. I'm not convinced they would accept having their family killed with quite as much perfection as you.

[Darat]

Mass murder is perfectly acceptable as long as one is perfectly clear about one's intentions?


No and I never said.

I was interested in the political and diplomatic considerations behind such a threat (even if it is hypothetical or didn't happen), that can be discussed without any consideration of whether any particular strategy was right or wrong.



Most Pakistani I have met have been good guys. I'm not convinced they would accept having their family killed with quite as much perfection as you.

I have never said anything like what you are attributing to me.

However ignoring that your actual point is presumably why the USA could consider this type of threat to be effective in gaining the co-operation they required from Pakistan.

[Darat]

...snip...

...snip..

So, I am being asked to believe that language is chosen by an official envoy from Powell, one who is establishing future policy/intel sharing for a pending operation (Why else talk to the intel official?) that bluntly threatens Pakistan with "bomb into the stone age" or other harsh consequences. Besides that being a non-option in a strategic sense, and that both parties know such a threat is empty, it is most likely to preclude good intel sharing.

I don't buy it, not in a Colin Powell run State Department. A more likely position deals in Pakistan arms, military loans, economic loans, nuke issues, and India issues.

"For us or against us."

I think you'll find the origin of that talking point in the Cheney, Rummy, GW modes of speech. As added consideration: recall the Powell-Cheney-Rummy bureaucratic wars in Washington, 2001-2003. Ugly stuff with too many leaks to the press used as weapons in jockeying for position.



I caught the tailend of either a speech or statement he made about this (on the radio about 3 hours ago) I didn't realise it was him at first so I may not remember all the details correctly but my recollection he did just say he wouldn't make any threat he couldn't carry through on and he could not have carried through on that threat at that time. (Which given the mealy mouth on some politicians does make me wonder why he didn't just say "we would never make such a threat" or "we have never made such a threat" - but that's a slight aside.) He did however say they made it clear that it was a matter of "For us or against us." So that is as I assumed it would be - clear unequivocal language being used.

...snip...

So, do you still choose to believe that line from Musharraf, and not disbelieve his assertions?

...snip..
DR

My first comments in this thread were before I had read about any refutation, my follow-up comments seem pretty in line with what I can recollect from Armitage's recent statement/speech (I will see if I can find a transcript or audio file of his statement).

[Darat]

Can't find a transcript yet but from this article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15584115.htm



...snip...

Armitage said he used "strong language" to convey to Ahmed demands for Pakistan's cooperation against al Qaida and the Taliban.

He recalled telling Ahmed that "history begins today" and "you're either with us or against us."



Seems to confirm my recollections.

[Nick Bogaerts]

No and I never said.

I was interested in the political and diplomatic considerations behind such a threat (even if it is hypothetical or didn't happen), that can be discussed without any consideration of whether any particular strategy was right or wrong.

Are you saying that mass murder is not acceptable, but threatening mass murder is?

Mind you, I did once encounter two gentlemen whom I presume were of Pakistani extraction present me with similar diplomatic considerations late at night on the streets of Bristol. Should I have accepted their threat, even if it were hypothetical or didn't happen?

[Darat]

Are you saying that mass murder is not acceptable, but threatening mass murder is?


I have passed no comment on whether any particular strategy is right or wrong. In this thread I am not interested in discussing such matters - I am interested in discussing how a country may act in a political or diplomatic manner when it is trying to achieve a particular goal.





Mind you, I did once encounter two gentlemen whom I presume were of Pakistani extraction present me with similar diplomatic considerations late at night on the streets of Bristol. Should I have accepted their threat, even if it were hypothetical or didn't happen?

No idea what you are going on about.

[Darth Rotor]

Can't find a transcript yet but from this article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15584115.htm
He recalled telling Ahmed that "history begins today" and "you're either with us or against us."
Seems to confirm my recollections.
How does this rather vague and general comment have ought to do with the

"Bomb into the stone age"

remark that you found so credible in the beginning?

On "Pakistan being bad guys" and what you presumed would have to be done in order to get their cooperation:

The US has had a security policy relationship with Pakistan for some decades. Cooperation and relations move with the tides. We get along some years better than others.

F-16 sales on one year, blocked over nuke issues the next, back on another year. Ships offered, withdrawn over one brouhaha or another. Nukes, India, Human Rights (a fave for Clinton) or elections.

I met the Pakistani (again, me a horse holder, not a primary) Chief of the Naval Defense Staff and a few of his aides in the early 1990's during one of the warmer periods. Helicopter sales were in the wind.

Why you characterize Pakistan as "bad guys" in this manner is unclear. What is your basis?

This assumption appears to inform your idea that only threats would evoke a positive response from Pakistan in 2001. I don't find that position reasonable. Given the long, albeit inconsistent, security relationship US and Pakistan have maintained, working a deal, possibly one distasteful to some parts of the US government -- Congressional feminists? -- is part of the politics and strange bedfellows problem.

People like Armitage aren't fools, and know this.

Again, I find the extrapolation from "we are taking a stand, and want you to do the same, or things will not be well between us" with incentives for doing so far more likely than a simple threat. Aid, loans, weapons, support at UN, a whole host of other deals for an over populated third world nation.

As inelegant as rhetoric from Washington all too frequently is when grand standing for the press, I don't find credible the assumption that working level diplomatic talks under Powell's secretaryship take on the character of press release bombast.

DR

[Darat]

How does this rather vague and general comment have ought to do with the

"Bomb into the stone age"

remark that you found so credible in the beginning?



And just where did I find it so "credible in the beginning?" My first response was to the article.


On "Pakistan being bad guys" and what you presumed would have to be done in order to get their cooperation:


Lets see - ruled by a ruthless military dictator, repressive regime, atrocious record regarding abuses of basic human rights, nuclear weapons, frequent clashes with India, supporting if not being directly behind terrorist attacks on India are a few of the things I remember prior to 9/11. By my reckoning that certainly makes Pakistan one of the "bad guys" prior to 9/11.


This assumption appears to inform your idea that only threats would evoke a positive response from Pakistan in 2001. I don't find that position reasonable.

...snip...


Since this is a strawman you are introducing it is not surprising you do not find it reasonable.

You are not arguing against what I actually said.

[Mycroft]

Now I'm confused . . . is THIS imperialism or just international bully-ism?

I don't know. Define "Imperialism". Then define "bully-ism".

[Mephisto]

I don't know. Define "Imperialism". Then define "bully-ism".

It's a new term I coined myself and if you can tell what "suiciders" is then, bully-ism shouldn't be too difficult.

[Darth Rotor]

And just where did I find it so "credible in the beginning?" My first response was to the article.
Lets see - ruled by a ruthless military dictator, repressive regime, atrocious record regarding abuses of basic human rights, nuclear weapons, frequent clashes with India, supporting if not being directly behind terrorist attacks on India are a few of the things I remember prior to 9/11. By my reckoning that certainly makes Pakistan one of the "bad guys" prior to 9/11.
No worse than dozens of autocratic regimes with whom we've (US) dealt for decades, except the nukes add spice.
You are not arguing against what I actually said.
You opened with a statement:
I don't see how the USA could have achieved the co-operation it has with Pakistan without using a combination of threats and making co-operation in the best interests of the Pakistan dictator.
This indicated a belief that US would use such a threat, which I found credulous. Your position (based on the article?) bolded, which when tied to the fact that we are discussing an article about the "US threatens bombing Pakistan" strawman presented a position of (disappointing) credulity.

Per my last comment on US Pakistan relations -- threats like bombing "Pakistan into the stone age" which is where this thread started -- were hardly necessary, and likely counterproductive. Pakistan were in a position to provide the US with something -- local intel and basing for anti terrorist operations -- that the US needed rather badly.

I think we are done. We disagree. I find your willingness to believe -- based on why you belive such from your comments in this thread -- the line you have expressed disappointing: it smells of a predisposition to assume the worst on claims made about American policy.

Darat, is prejudiced skepticism really skepticism?

DR

[Darat]

No worse than dozens of autocratic regimes with whom we've (US) dealt for decades, except the nukes add spice.


And I never said Pakistan was any worse then "dozens" of other states just that it was considered one of the "bad guys".


You opened with a statement:

This indicated a belief that US would use such a threat, which I found credulous. Your position (based on the article?) bolded, which when tied to the fact that we are discussing an article about the "US threatens bombing Pakistan" strawman presented a position of (disappointing) credulity.


And as I said your naivety in thinking there is some courtly protocol that top politicians abide by which means such a threat is somehow out of the question is (still) quite amusing.


Per my last comment on US Pakistan relations -- threats like bombing "Pakistan into the stone age" which is where this thread started -- were hardly necessary, and likely counterproductive. Pakistan were in a position to provide the US with something -- local intel and basing for anti terrorist operations -- that the US needed rather badly.


Which is why threats (as he stated he did make) and other means of ensuring co-operation were used - it's called diplomacy.


I think we are done. We disagree. I find your willingness to believe -- based on why you belive such from your comments in this thread -- the line you have expressed disappointing: it smells of a predisposition to assume the worst on claims made about American policy.


Repeating your strawman doesn't make it any more my position then the first time you tried to pretend it was a position I hold.


Darat, is prejudiced skepticism really skepticism?

DR

No.