# CBC: Musharraf defends war effort, downplays Canadian losses



## ccownsu (26 Sep 2006)

Okay, maybe I'll give you a hand since you didn't get anything right - see how it's done.  PS:  Leave "disses" in the schoolyard

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/26/musharraf-interview.html



> Musharraf defends war effort, downplays Canadian losses
> Last Updated Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:27:08 EDT
> CBC News
> 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.
> ...



Normally, you should put some commentary here - journalists like it when you talk about what they've reported.  It tends to justify cutting and pasting their work and brings this page in line with the spirit of the Copyright Act


----------



## Trinity (26 Sep 2006)

cbc

this has to be taken out of context from the whole speech....


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> cbc
> 
> this has to be taken out of context from the whole speech....



Afraid not, padre. 

Posted while thinking about all that fair dealings legal mumbo jumbo: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/26/musharraf-interview.html


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2006)

Basically he didn't say anything we have not said....in combat there are casualties. From the sounds of the clip, he was dissing the NDP more the the CF, even though he didn't go there.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Sep 2006)

Yup, although he has made a few high profile rants lately.  I think he is frustrated that nobody seems to give him credit for the fact that he walks a tighter line than Harper....


----------



## derael (27 Sep 2006)

Now I might be taking this out of context but it seems to me if he's going to argue the effectiveness of our troops being less than his then he shouldn't be admitting that over 500 of his have been killed. Sure it's not simple matter and there are many factors to consider, but the numbers tend to demonstrate that our soldier's tactics and training are much more superior to theirs...although they most likely have many more troops in "theater".


----------



## COBRA-6 (27 Sep 2006)

MUSHARRAF - is on the Daily Show now!


----------



## George Wallace (27 Sep 2006)

...and he will be on CTV's Canada AM in the Morning.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Sep 2006)

More combat equates to more deaths.  Who know's what conditions his troops died in.  Either way to take our guys lightly or theirs for that matter is foolhardy for both sides.  Not that we're gonna go at it.  Their our "allies" for now anyway.


----------



## Scoobs (27 Sep 2006)

Mush or whatever his name is a dictator.  Everyone must remember that.  Also, he is doing interviews in order to sell his book, not defend Pakistan.  Reality is that insurgents are crossing the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.  Until this stops, there will be no end to the suicide bombings (where do you think that these suicide bombers are receiving their "religious" instruction?) or insurgents.
Mush needs to be educated on the realities of what is going on in.  Remember, he is a dictator that is not used to tough questioning by the media.  He gave direct answers (which I have to admit was refreshing from a politician/dictator) and put his foot in his mouth when he mistakenly stated the amount of soldiers we lost.  Perhaps the Pakistan Embassy in Canada should have briefed their el dictator about the correct numbers.  Oh ya, that's right, he's a dictator and who dare question el presidente?


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2006)

Don't forget that Pakistan lost people when the Russians were in Afghanistan. While they supported the Taliban and recognized the government (one of the few), there were pretty serious border clashes with the border tribes (I think Warizan? Province). Since 2000, they had to make a choice or lose to India. Either become an ally of the US or the US would weaken them to the point that India would be able to invade (That always has been the big bogyman to the Pakistani's). 

So, yeah they have lost a lot of guys. They are not the calibre of the CF, but do incredible battles without the protective equipment and support we have. There is not the hue and cry everytime one of their soldiers are killed, as it is in Canada. The family mourns of course, but life is brutal, far beyond what we think we would tolerate


----------



## big bad john (27 Sep 2006)

As I entitled a thread on the site and I think it is an appropriate statement here; Our "Friend" Pakistan!


----------



## Infanteer (27 Sep 2006)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Mush or whatever his name is a dictator.



So is Mubarak, the House of Saud, the Kuwaiti royals and the host of other strongmen we keep counsel with in the region.  It is actually one of AQ's complaints against the West; that we are supporting apostate regimes.  However, when you consider the alternatives (like a Pakistan under Zia)....

As well, when discussing Pakistani foreign policy, it is important not to hone into the militant tribal guys to the north so much - most of Pakistan's population is Punjabi/Sindhi Shi'a living to the south and the enduring and dominant foreign/security policy concern since Pakistan's birth since it's birth has been India.  Relations with India and the dispute in Kashmir drive nuclear policy, relations with others, and Afghan policy; the Soviets were comfortable with non-aligned India while with the Taliban, the northern flank was finally secure.

Infanteer - south Asian studies guy....


----------



## m410 (27 Sep 2006)

> Since deploying in Afghanistan in 2001, 36 Canadian troops and one diplomat have been killed.


Once again the media neglects mention of Mike Frastacky, who was murdered by the Taliban this summer.


----------



## big bad john (27 Sep 2006)

m410 said:
			
		

> Once again the media neglects mention of Mike Frastacky, who was murdered by the Taliban this summer.



The media tends not to repeatedly trumpet the death of civilians in warzones no matter their intentions.  I know of British civilian workers who have been killed in Afghanistan.  It is highly regretable.  But they knew the risks and they chose to take them.


----------



## m410 (27 Sep 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> The media tends not to repeatedly trumpet the death of civilians in warzones no matter their intentions.  I know of British civilian workers who have been killed in Afghanistan.  It is highly regretable.  *But they knew the risks and they chose to take them.*


How is that different from any soldier, or from civilian diplomat Glyn Berry?

If we weren't fighting savages, Frastacky (and Berry) should have been quite safe.


----------



## big bad john (27 Sep 2006)

m410 said:
			
		

> How is that different from any soldier, or from civilian diplomat Glyn Berry?
> 
> If we weren't fighting savages, Frastacky (and Berry) should have been quite safe.



A soldier is there defending us.  You say that you are in uniform, you should know the difference.  

As to your your second point, do I get this right.  You are actually saying that if Canada did not have Troops in Afghanistan,  Frastacky and Berry would be safe and alive?


----------



## m410 (27 Sep 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> As to your your second point, do I get this right.  You are actually saying that if Canada did not have Troops in Afghanistan,  Frastacky and Berry would be safe and alive?


No.  Emphasis on "savages", not "fighting".  I'm a true believer in our mission.


----------



## big bad john (27 Sep 2006)

Ok for a minute there...  I haven't been to Afghanistan recently, but the first time I went was as a child with my parents.  I've also served in the region.  So I do have an opinion.

I don't think of them as savages.  But I do think of Timmie as a fanatic of the highest order.  He sort of reminds me of, (forgive me here for I do know that they are not a true part of Islam) an Islamic version of the Khmer Rouge.  "My way or the Highway" to the extreme.  We do have to go in an clean them out or they will eventually come out of their hiding places and strike at us.  It maybe years from now, but they won't stop.


----------



## warspite (27 Sep 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> MUSHARRAF - is on the Daily Show now!


Just caught it after reading this post (had to jump a flight of stair to make it) thanks for the heads up.
   
It was interesting to hear Musharraf speak. His point's on the tribes in northern Afghanistan were well said. Also when he was talking about cooperating with the U.S. and how they were coming through Pakistan with or without his permission also was well put.


----------



## scoutfinch (27 Sep 2006)

From today's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060927.wmusharraf27/BNStory/Front

Quit crying, Musharraf tells Canada

OLIVER MOORE

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf lashed out at critics of his government's anti-terror credentials yesterday, noting that his army has suffered hundreds of casualties while Canadians "cry and shout" when a few of their soldiers die.

General Musharraf was unyielding during an interview with the CBC, reacting strongly when it was suggested that Pakistan could do more to stamp out the Taliban. He shot back that that his country has borne the brunt of the fighting and, trying to make his point, he radically underestimated the number of Canadians killed in Afghanistan.

"We have suffered 500 casualties, Canadians may have suffered four or five," he said in the interview broadcast last night. "You suffer two dead and there's a cry and shout all around the base that there are coffins. Well, we've had 500 coffins."

The interviewer tried to correct the general before conceding that there was no value in comparing body counts.

Gen. Musharraf went on to suggest that the citizens of countries contributing troops to the NATO mission in Afghanistan should not become so agitated when their soldiers die.

"When a soldier puts on a uniform and he joins the army, is this for fighting or for peacekeeping? What has he joined the army for? He's joined to fight, and when you fight, there are casualties. The nation must be prepared to suffer casualties. So if you're not prepared to suffer casualties as an army, then don't participate in any operation," he said.

"We are fighting the Taliban. We will have casualties, because we confront them, we have bullets, they are fighting and you are killing them. They are killing you, this is how the game is, and if you are not prepared to do this, why are we there?"

This blunt assessment came as friends, family, and colleagues gathered at CFB Petawawa yesterday to mourn 32-year-old Corporal Glen Arnold, who was killed in Afghanistan last week by a suicide bomber.

Nine Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in September, making it the bloodiest month for Canadians so far. Since the conflict began, 36 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed.

Gen. Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have been publicly trading blame over the failure to capture Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding out in their mountainous border.

"I think [Mr. Karzai] is purposely not speaking the truth," the Pakistani leader told CTV's Canada AM. "He is finding [it] more convenient for himself to hide the truth and cast all aspersions on Pakistan."

Both leaders are scheduled to have dinner tonight at the White House with U.S. President George W. Bush.

During the CBC interview, Gen. Musharraf said that there was no way Canadian troops could operate on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, arguing that Pakistani troops are more experienced fighters and that domestic politics would not allow it.

"We are the only one who has caught 680 al-Qaeda people," he said. "We are the one who broke the back of al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan. They are on the run now, we've got their sanctuaries where they were in hundreds and now there are in single digit."

Gen. Musharraf also showed a combative side when asked about criticism from British officers that Pakistan should do more to turn off covert assistance to the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan.

"Who in the British? Who said that?" he responded during the interview in New York. "Some old major or lieutenant-colonel comes up with this statement . . . they don't know anything. I'm afraid they don't understand the environment. They are very new, this is a very complex environment."


----------



## scoutfinch (27 Sep 2006)

I listened to the interview and was stunned at Musharref's duplicity.  

It was shocking.


----------



## scoutfinch (27 Sep 2006)

m410 said:
			
		

> Once again the media neglects mention of Mike Frastacky, who was murdered by the Taliban this summer.



Unfortunately, the media is less concerned with the exercise of personal choice than public policy.  

Mr. Frastacky was murdered doing a good deed in a foreign country.  He went to Afghanistan of his own accord without taxpayer support (as far as I can discern and I stand to be corrected on this point if I am wrong).  

While laudable, Mr. Frastacky's death does not reflect government efforts and are thus less open for debate as to the propriety of efforts in a known war zone.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2006)

Anyone wants to watch Musharraf & Stewart, the interview's already posted:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml


----------



## Shec (27 Sep 2006)

I heard the interview on the radio and while I bristled at his arrogant comments about the  price that we have paid he made sense when he spoke about the risks of being perceived as an army of occupation and how that perception could turn the tide against us.   I also thought he made sense when he spoke about the importance of an indigenous lead role in COIN to counter that perception.  But then I heard... 



> During the CBC interview, Gen. Musharraf said that there was no way Canadian troops could operate on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, arguing that Pakistani troops are more experienced fighters and that domestic politics would not allow it...
> 
> Gen. Musharraf also showed a combative side when asked about criticism from British officers that Pakistan should do more to turn off covert assistance to the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan.
> 
> "Who in the British? Who said that?" he responded during the interview in New York. "Some old major or lieutenant-colonel comes up with this statement . . . they don't know anything. I'm afraid they don't understand the environment. They are very new, this is a very complex environment."



Which sounds like he wouldn't even consider liasion officers much less joint ops.   And if that's the case,  listen Pervez - do not pass go and do not collect $200.


----------

