The International Herald Tribune has a fascinating look at the headaches/near-heart-attacks that the Secret Service endured in securing Bush’s visit to Pakistan. It also includes a particularly insightful comparison to Bill Clinton’s 2000 trip. This may go a ways in providing an answer to a post on The Acorn a few days ago that posited some notions that I found a bit far-fetched.
How did it happen that the president spent a night in Pakistan, the assumed haven of Osama bin Laden and one of the one most dangerous countries in the world?
The short answer is that Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, insisted. The long answer is a tale about the nightmare scenarios of the Secret Service and the calculated risks of presidential travel…The fuzziness [of the travel plans to Pakistan] was to keep terrorists guessing about the timing of motorcades and the arrival of Air Force One, basic precautions passed down from a cloak-and-dagger trip that President Bill Clinton made to Pakistan in 2000 that had the Secret Service in an uproar. Six years later, accounts of the trip from former Clinton administration officials are far more harrowing than was known at the time.
“In the preparations for the 2000 visit, the service dug its heels in, repeatedly confronting the top NSC officials with horror scenarios,” Benjamin and Simon write. “There was danger to Air Force One from ground fire. No one trusted the Pakistani military to keep travel routes in the country secret or secure. The service said it could not perform its mission: It could not protect the president. In a meeting with Clinton, Larry Cockell, the head of the presidential detail, told him so.”
Clinton overruled the Secret Service, although he decided that his daughter, Chelsea, who was to accompany him to India on the same trip, should not make the stop in Pakistan. Clinton ended up slipping into Islamabad for less than six hours on a small military jet owned by the CIA while an Air Force One decoy flew in to draw a possible attack. It was a dramatic and, for Musharraf, embarrassing difference to the five previous days that Clinton had spent out in the relatively open in India. [Link]
<
p>Very cool. I would love a job planning out stuff like this. Especially after watching 24 last week. I like seeing gutsy calls where the President overrules his bodyguards at his own peril. The article also mentions that Musharraf wanted Bush to make up for the sins of his predecessor:
For Bush’s trip, Pakistanis say, Musharraf was adamant that there would be less of a contrast with India, Pakistan’s archrival in the region. “Musharraf had to have the overnight stay, primarily to offset the snub that Clinton had given him,” said Hussain Haqqani, a former adviser to three Pakistani prime ministers and an associate professor of international relations at Boston University. “This had to be something better. If Bush stayed the night, it was a signal that he trusted Musharraf and Pakistan a lot more.”
Bush, like Clinton, made the political calculation that he could not visit India without visiting Pakistan, and that it was critical to maintain good relations with a country, however problematic, that is at the center of the battle against terrorism. “It was the proper call and a gutsy one,” said Strobe Talbott, who was Clinton’s deputy secretary of state. [Link]
<
p>The Acorn wondered why it seemed as if Musharraf was snubbing Bush:
Neither Gen Musharraf nor Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz turned up to greet President Bush at Chaklala air base near Islamabad. Unless it was due to those extra-ordinary security measures Musharraf’s is something of a diplomatic slight. The snub becomes even more glaring considering President Bush’s decision to press on with his Pakistan trip after the attack on the US consulate in Karachi that claimed the life of an American foreign service officer.
<
p>I think Nitin got it right in the second sentence. The rest of the Tribune article makes it even clearer.
See related post: Three-ring circus
Abhi,
B Raman, a well-known commentator on terrorism (and not exactly a Musharraf fan) agrees with the view that it was due to security measures. I have my doubts. We’ll know in time, perhaps after President Clinton visits the subcontinent again in a few years time.
President Clinton was just in India for that Chatwal wedding recently.
Amitabh writes: >>President Clinton was just in India for that Chatwal wedding recently
Ex-President Clinton was just in India for that Chatwal wedding recently. Important distinction there – not too many terrorists go after ex-Presidents.
A note aside: Who is their right mind would invite a married man with a child who got blow-jobs on the side at work from a colleague – to something as sacred as a wedding? I can understand if they invite him for speeches on international relations, inaugarating call-centers etc etc. But a wedding?
M. Nam
I would. I’ve never worked at the Ministry of Vice and Virtue though.
Paris Hilton was invited to the wedding.
Nuff said.
Abhi writes:
Then I don’t think you’ll have a problem inviting a neo-nazi to a Synagogue inaugaration. Since you’ve not worked in the ministry of anti-Semitism…
You should not have a problem inviting a person convicted of child-pornography to a kid’s birthday party. Since you have never worked at the Ministry of Child abuse…
You should not have a problem inviting a country with a bad record of Human rights(like Libya) to chair the Human Rights panel in UN. No… wait… strike that out. It’s been done already…
You should not have a problem inviting a male-chauvinist to a feminist gathering as a keynote speaker. I’m sure you’ve never worked at the Ministry of Gender Equality…
You should not have a problem with Enron’s top executives teaching corporate responsibility Business schools. Since you’ve never worked in the Ministry of Clean Accounting.
I could go on and on…
M. Nam
MoorNam,
Having extra-marital affair is not equivalent to being a neo-nazi.
If extra-marital affair was the litmus test for attending weddings, a lot of people will fail the test, irrespective of culture and religion. Sinners go to the church, temple too. Weddings are social gatherings for friends and nothing more than that.
To all others,
Bill Clinton has been to India 7-8 times since 2000. He goes to India more often then NRIs/ PIOs.
Kush, the fact that you had to actually explain that indicates that this is a dead-end street. 🙂
Kush writes: >>Weddings are social gatherings for friends and nothing more than that.
Then you have misunderstood the concept of a wedding…
A wedding is a transaction like any other, a contract like any other business contract, which has to be solemnised by people who value the terms of the contract. The only difference is that this is a businesses transaction that comprises material, spiritual and sexual aspects (dharmecha, arthecha, kaamecha) of life. So, only people who either have honored or intend to honor these values should be on the list.
A marriage is a job, like any other. Those who are good at this job are those who have the moral right to bless the newly wed couple. Clinton has failed at this job, just as the Enron executives failed at theirs. However, Clinton was good at his other job, that of a President. So go ahead and invite him to conferences on International Laws or something like that. Enron executives were good at the other job as well: They were devoted husbands and fathers. So feel free to invite them to your PTA at schools.
Abhi writes: >>this is a dead-end street. 🙂
No it’s not. You would be lying if you said you did not learn something from me in the last few months. I know others on SM have.
M. Nam
A wedding is a transaction like any other, a contract like any other business contract… A marriage is a job, like any other…
“Playing with your toddler is like giving quarterly guidance to Wall Street…
Telling your wife ‘I love you’ is like doing a performance review…
Making love is like doing your taxes…”
MoorNam,
It’s nobody else’s business who the bride & groom’s families decide to invite to their children’s wedding, even if they do happen to be relatively well-known public figures.
Speaking generally, who should be the person to gets to decide who does and does not fit your criteria of people sufficiently pious to bless the couple ?
Jai,
I certainly agree that it’s nobody’s business who gets invited – except the folks who are throwing the wedding. But I have every right to be judgemental about it, and that’s nobody’s business either. Else, why discuss anything?
Manish,
You’ve got it all wrong…
Doing your taxes is like getting screwed in your ass… Giving quarterly guidance in Wall Street is similiar to your wife asking you if she looks fat in that dress… Undergoing a performace review is when your in-laws come to visit…
M. Nam
They probably invited Slick Willy as a VIP guest. Its like when people in India, invite Indian politicians they dont care about how many police cases are pending against them for rape, murder, corruption, etc. Same concept.
When others are paying the bill and some times paying bill, he shows up. All those trips were paid for by others. The thing to check would be the %age of time the clintons are in ny state. When ambanis invite clinton and he shows up it was considered novel now it is a so so. It may even have become a fad in the billionare club bet you he will visit india several more time on their tabs
“Making love is like doing your taxes…”
What??????? Only once a year!!!!!!! Its a terrible life….
Nah, in the corporate analogy it’s quarterly 😉