Musharraf conducted his coup while Clinton was President

[dkf]

George Bush just inherited the guy.

My question is: Was this successful foreign policy by Bill Clinton?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. umm....

what was he supposed to do? Invade Pakistan?

[OKNancy]

2. yeah... who needs peace and prosperity?

This is getting ridiclous.

[liberalnurse]

4. Was Bill Clinton President of the Universe?

I must of been absent that day when he was inaugurated President of the Universe.

[dkf]

18. Isn't this what foreign policy is all about?

I mean really what control do we have over anyone outside our borders.

But foreign policy is about using the levers that we can to create favorable outcomes for ourselves and the world.

And sometimes understanding the situation and having experience with it can still lead to the wrong moves. This is where judgment comes in.

[dkf]

5. I'm trying to understand how good Clinton really was at foreign policy

so sue me.

[WinkyDink]

23. Contrast with the current situation. There's your answer.

[dkf]

30. How much of the current situation is due to the past situation?

And what did we do in the past to get there?

A cursory study of Pakistan shows a history of military coups and weak civilian rule. A lot of what I am reading how says this coup was not unexpected. Pakistan's economy under Bhutto and Sharif showed only deterioration. Both were accused of corruption. But at least they were democratically elected and could be replaced democratically.

The US pressure put on Sharif led to the coup. If you read up on the subject this is a very common conclusion.

I just wonder if we didn't overplay our hand.

[PA Democrat]

3. Did Clinton fund his coup or provide funds to keep him in power?

[dkf]

6. I'm curious as to what our intelligence knew and what

we did about it.

It seems to me that a country with nuclear weapons should demand more effort than just any old country.

[PA Democrat]

7. Good background here:

In a nutshell. Clinton was desperately trying to gain Pakistan's cooperation in going after bin Laden, Musharraf's coup put an end to those efforts.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a101299pakistancoup

<snip>

In early May 1999, the Pakistani army, at the instigation of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seizes a strategic height called Kargil in the Indian province of Kashmir. This creates a grave crisis between Pakistan in India. By early July, the CIA picks up intelligence that Pakistan is preparing to launch nuclear missiles against India if necessary. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif comes to the US on July 4 to meet with President Clinton about this. Clinton is livid and yells at Sharif for breaking promises, not only about Kashmir but also about failing to help with bin Laden. According to notes taken at the meeting, Clinton says he had “asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama bin Laden to justice… promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead, the ISI worked with bin Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorists.” Clinton threatens to release a statement calling worldwide attention to Pakistan’s support for terrorists. He adds, “You’ve put me in the middle today, set the US up to fail, and I won’t let it happen. Pakistani is messing with nuclear war.” Sharif backs down and immediately withdraws his troops from Kargil, ending the crisis. But as a result, Sharif becomes deeply unpopular in Pakistan. A few months later he will be ousted in a coup by Musharraf (see October 12, 1999), the general who started the crisis in the first place.

[pretzel4gore]

12. the west controls Pakistan's nukes

i read that back during the conflict between India/Pakistan....how the logistic works is in the secret air around such things as 'national security' which in USA allows mr pig to drive the equivilent of 747 fulla cocaine through, every week for years on end (which makes harsh drug laws vital, gettit) The men who control the world's wmd's all seem to sukk each other off alot (anyone ever notice) and to garner personal benefits from status quo...the murder of Ms Bhutto don't affect that ...if mr pig, holly roller variety, can get Saddam...i mean Bhutto, then why not Musharif, or that drone guy running Egypt, or Abbas? Could it be because the fix is in, and the international terrorist orgs like AllCiaDoes are western, secret assets?
It would take revolution to find out the truth, cuz the truth is toxic to mr pig, and his holly roller punk...
(how is it that the US sold Iran 24 nuclear plants and mr pig ratfink news gets away without mentioning that?
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/ommani01.html
snip>
"Emboldened by Washington's encouragement, the Shah planned to build 23 nuclear power plants throughout the country, and no authority in the U.S., France, or West Germany disputed the Shah's extensive and expensive projects on the basis of the fact that Iran was rich in oil and natural gas deposits, the reasoning that recently Condi Rice provided for the redundancy of plans for nuclear energy in Iran. At the time of the Shah, the only reason that the plan for the construction of such a huge project could not be enacted upon was that the price of oil in the world market fell considerably, and the Shah's government was not financially capable of paying for it.
<snip
Mr pig is much more deadly, more criminal that most people care to imagine....

[liberalnurse]

11. EXCELLENT POINT!

How much has this administration given Musharraf....9 Billion Dollars?

[Perry Logan]

8. "CLINTON ENTREATS PAKISTAN TO TREAD LIGHTLY IN KASHMIR"

I found this article:

CLINTON ENTREATS PAKISTAN TO TREAD LIGHTLY IN KASHMIR

In an effort to defuse tensions in a region that he has described as the most volatile in the world, President Clinton today asked the military leader of Pakistan to show restraint in Kashmir, where Pakistan and India most recently battled last summer, and to reopen a dialogue with his Indian neighbors.

But after more than an hour and a half with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Clinton received no assurances, said a senior administration official who participated in the meeting.

''We broke no new ground on Kashmir,'' the official said after the session. ''We heard no new assurances from the general.''

Administration officials had expected little if any immediate progress from the talks with General Musharraf. Pressed on terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons and when he would return Pakistan to democracy at the national level, the general offered nothing new, the White House official indicated.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DE1D7103DF935A15750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[dkf]

9. 9/26/99 Sharif-Musharraf continue talks to beat coup rumours

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990926/ige26061.html

"The crises-ridden Nawaz Sharif government is holding hectic back-door consultations with Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf amid reports of persistent differences between the government and military over the commitments Sharif administration made to US.

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif along with a senior cabinet minister was closeted with the army chief for about 45 minutes on Friday during which matters relating to former Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik's controversial comments and US warning of a possible coup in Pakistan were discussed, English daily Pakistan Observer reported today quoting sources."

October 12, 1999: General Musharraf Takes Control of Pakistan

[frogcycle]

10. sheesh

[WilliamPitt]

13. Hokay...

1. Clinton did not have the means or national political backing to stop a military coup on the subcontinent, never mind the ablity to even make it part of US political dialogue, while in the midst of/aftermath of a partisan impeachment fiasco.

...come on, dkf, share with us: when was the first time you heard the name "Musharraf"? Was it in '99? If so, you're singular. Most folks first heard of Pervez after the first Bush/Gore '00 debate, when Bush praised Musharraf's dedication to democracy and Gore sighed in despair and said, "Um, hey, he's a military dictator who illegitimately took power after a coup, so...um...oh never mind..." or something to that effect...

2. You want foreign policy? How 'bout this: Clinton and his people managed to keep India from declaring full-scale war against Pakistan after the Musharraf coup, which India wanted to do given the threat posed by a junta-run Pakistan whose new "leader" had the loyalty of the Army and control of nukes. Clinton and his peeps also calmed down China and Russia, and managed to, like, forestall an imminent region-wide conflagration and slaughter, and stuff...

That's foreign policy.

Unless you have different suggestions for what should have been done.

Mm?

[dkf]

16. Well that is the question, isn't it? How good were they really?

And your #2 is a result of the coup and is a decent cleanup act but unnecessary if the coup hadn't happened.

Sounds to me like the Clinton Administration put pressure for Sharif to do move in ways that resulted in the coup. This must have been calculated as a possible risk. Sharif probably thought that if he did as asked, the Clinton Administration would keep him in power.

And I do not profess to be an expert on foreign policy. But I can google!

Lastly, I am horrified if we lack interest in examining what happened in the past simply because it happened under a Democratic President.

[bigtree]

27. that's pretty close, but needs more context

July 4, 1999: During Regional Crisis, Clinton Threatens to Publicly Expose Pakistan’s Support for Bin Laden

excerpt from 'Ghost Wars' : The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001- by Steve Coll
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0143034669/centerforcoop-20

"In early May 1999, the Pakistani army, at the instigation of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seizes a strategic height called Kargil in the Indian province of Kashmir. This creates a grave crisis between Pakistan in India. By early July, the CIA picks up intelligence that Pakistan is preparing to launch nuclear missiles against India if necessary. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif comes to the US on July 4 to meet with President Clinton about this. Clinton is livid and yells at Sharif for breaking promises, not only about Kashmir but also about failing to help with bin Laden. According to notes taken at the meeting, Clinton says he had “asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama bin Laden to justice… Sharif promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead, the ISI worked with bin Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorists.” Clinton threatens to release a statement calling worldwide attention to Pakistan’s support for terrorists. He adds, “You’ve put me in the middle today, set the US up to fail, and I won’t let it happen. Pakistani is messing with nuclear war.” Sharif backs down and immediately withdraws his troops from Kargil, ending the crisis. But as a result, Sharif becomes deeply unpopular in Pakistan. A few months later he will be ousted in a coup by Musharraf (see October 12, 1999), the general who started the crisis in the first place."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a70499kargil#a70499kargil

[spanone]

14. clinton didn't give pakistan 10 billion bucks and support his dictatorship

[dkf]

17. Well what would they have done?

I would really like to know how they would have played it differently.

That is an Excellent question.

[Bitwit1234]

15. I guess bashing Hillary didn't work the American goof off idolers

are now going to try to bash her thru her husband. Wonder what the widdle piddle's would do if someone started on Obama's wife.

I do suppose she and Oprah take turns leading with that leash she told him he AIN'T GONNA RUN NO MORE.

[dkf]

19. Hillary is selling Bill's experience as her experience

However, as it was post Monica it may be that she was completely out of the loop on this.

[fasttense]

20. The favorite bushie excuse.

It's the Clinton's fault (even after almost eight years, it still works).

And the altered more all purpose bushie excuse: Someone, sometime in American history did something very similar so the bush can do it too.

See this way the bush can make every possible mistake and break every possible law all at once. Unlike the historical figures he digs up to justify his dictatorial powers, the bush makes every imaginable bad presidential decision all in two terms instead of over more than 200 years.

[dkf]

21. Looks to me like both Clinton and Bush messed up in Pakistan.

But maybe that is just me.

Doesn't mean they weren't trying mind you. I guess I give both of them credit for that.

[Blue_Roses]

22. good grief...

give it rest...you've had ample documentation from previous posts that support the fact Clinton not only was livid about the "coup" but did everything he could to prevent war with India. I can understand and support truth no matter what party is in office, but this is more than just searching for the truth...eh?

[dkf]

28. Geez don't you people get it. Clinton misjudged Sharif's situation

and pushed him into doing things that caused the coup.

Sure once Musharraf was in power, then Clinton had to go fix up the mess that was created.

[IsItJustMe]

25. I see no credible evidence for your statement, except for your belief in it. I don't think that

necessarily qualifies it as the truth. But you keep on keeping on. Maybe you can get some other folks to buy into it.

[bigtree]

26. I think that Clinton did have other concerns for stability and the securing of Pak's nukes

which caused him to pull back on his concerns about bin Laden (after the Cole bombing) and his clear objections to the way Musharraf took power. He did the same dance that Bush has done, calling for a return to democratic elections and civilian rule, but Clinton had even less leverage in Pakistan than Bush has had with the billions of aid he's given Musharraf. The Clinton administration already had stiff sanctions in place against Pakistan at the time of the coup because of its nukes. There really wasn't much Clinton could actually do, but there was a tepid, measured response from his administration which had initially resisted calling it a 'coup', and eventually, took to calling it a 'military takeover.'

I think there was way too much of an expectation that Musharraf wanted civilian rule and elections from both Clinton and Bush. Bush obviously has been more accommodating of Musharraf than Clinton was or intended to be. But there was definitely wishful thinking on the part of the Clinton administration that Musharraf would allow civilian rule to return. There was also a riff between Clinton and Sharif over their perception that the ousted leader was unwilling to press forward with efforts to bring bin Laden to justice which created the dynamic of effective support for the coup.

Bhutto also took a reserved stance, expressing optimism about Musharraf's intentions - understandable because of Sharif's prosecution of the Bhutto's during his term in power.

[bigtree]

24. Hillary’s Musharraf - Mrs. Clinton’s forgotten fling with the Killer of Karachi

from November, by Greg Palast: http://www.gregpalast.com/mrs-clintons-forgotten-fling-with-the-killer-of-karachi/


(her potential vice-presidential candidate, Evan Bayh at her side . . .)

[dkf]

29. Very interesting

This is what I am trying to find out. Sure we normal citizens were blindsided by the coup...but the players were in the know.

[sampsonblk]

31. Please reconsider

That's the ugly american thinking. We cannot completely control world events. We can do our best. And that's about it.