You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
India-Pakistan
U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11: Musharraf
2006-09-21
I smell sulfur. Do you smell sulfur?
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director. "The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said. "I think it was a very rude remark." The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were distributed to the media by CBS, said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way. "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did," Musharraf said about the cooperation extended by Pakistan. Musharraf said some demands made by the United States were "ludicrous," including one insisting he kill Qazi, Fazl, and Hafez Saeed suppress domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States. "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," Musharraf said.
Posted by:Destro in Panama

#17  As I recall reading somewhere, we directly threatened their nuke sites and leadership with a USBN out there in the ocean. 24 missiles with up to 8 warheads each. One SSBN could turn pakiland into glass.

I am sure we knew about the ISI/AQ Khan/AlQ links and told them this was WAR. Pick your side, Perv.
Posted by: Brett   2006-09-21 21:48  

#16  It was still dumb to force them into acquiesence. We'd be better off if their vocabulary were now monosyllabic.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-09-21 21:27  

#15  This isn't actually new news. Armitage wasn't free-lancing either - the verbiage came directly from the White House (State Department people can leak, but they can't disobey a direct order to say some specific thing). What Musharraf then did was go to Beijing to ask the Chinese if they would back him if he stiff-armed Uncle Sam. The Chinese gave him the back of their hand, since they wanted no direct part in the Muslim world's covert jihad against Uncle Sam.

This is the meaning of Chinese cooperation in the War on Terror - they refused to align themselves with terror-sponsoring states. The Chinese will sell weapons (cash on the barrel) to them, but not actually fight their wars for them. This represents Chinese prudence rather than any love for Uncle Sam, of course. And Muslim fanatics are being silly when they attempt to use China to fight their enemies - only Uncle Sam is naive enough to fight other people's battles in their behalf.

My feeling is that Rumsfeld's repeated assertion that "all options are on the table" (at the behest of the White House) wasn't necessarily directed at the Taliban. Pakistan and China might have been the intended recipients of the message.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-09-21 21:19  

#14  Recall that right after 9/11 Wolfowitz talked about "ending states" that supported terrorism.

And Bush was quite clear - "you are either with us or against us"

So Armitage's warning about Pakistan choosing between the 21st century and the stone age would be quite understandable.

Posted by: john   2006-09-21 17:44  

#13  I wonder if India needs MIRV help.
Posted by: 6   2006-09-21 17:28  

#12  He's lucky he was given a choice. Sept 11 was caused by Al Queda who was being shelterd by the Taliban which was created and supported by Pakistan. Pakistan was guilty up to their eyeballs.

I don't think it would have been difficult to arrange to bomb him and restore the democratically elected crook that he couped out of power. Either that or work with India to dismantle Pakistan once and for all.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-09-21 16:22  

#11  It was a rude remark and a big mistake was made, but no surprise given that it was Armitage. We should simply have reiterated the "If you're not against the terrorists, you're with the terrorists." judgement. Let him come to his own conclusion. We'd have been a lot better off if we'd taken Pakistan out at the same time as Afghanistan.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-09-21 16:16  

#10  And rude would be that they smell bad and dress funny.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-09-21 16:04  

#9  "I think it was a very rude remark."

No, rude would be the observation that you've never left the Stone Age. Or that the Stone Age would be an improvement on the Islamic Age.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-09-21 16:02  

#8  9/11 was a rude remark, Perv.
Posted by: Thoth   2006-09-21 15:58  

#7  Musharraf said. "I think it was a very rude remark."

That was US being pleasant and nice. You haven't even seen rude yet.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-21 15:54  

#6  This administration has been more generous with the carrots than with the sticks from day one. This is a fig leaf for Perv's internal politix.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-09-21 15:52  

#5  He propally seen how Iran and Venezuala push around now, and is trying to be tougher, and show he is no longer a fraid of us.
Posted by: plainslow   2006-09-21 15:52  

#4  Yes, that's right, we're still after 9/11, aren't we?
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-09-21 15:52  

#3  How open ended is was this?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-09-21 15:49  

#2  Considering their actions... maybe we should have bombed them to the Stone Age.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-09-21 15:47  

#1  My recollection is that as of Wednesday or Thursday right after 9/11, Pakistan was refusing us overflight or overland access to Afghanistan and they were dismissing U.S. requests for such as completely out of the question.

By the following day, IIRC, their position had switched around to something like, "Oh, of course, it goes without saying that we'll give America all the access it wants; no problem."

Regardless of the particulars it was a sudden and total switcheroo, and I've always wondered what triggered it. I would not be surprised at all if this story were true.

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-09-21 15:45  

00:00