It has famously been said that “short-term gain for long-term pain” is foolhardy, but this is exactly what happened to the allies in the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, not least the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
(Have a look at Rambo III) We helped to create the Mujahidin, fired them with religious zeal in seminaries, armed them, paid them, fed them, and sent them to a jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We did not stop to think how we would divert them to productive life after the jihad was won. This mistake cost Afghanistan and Pakistan more dearly than any other country.
Worse, the United States didn’t even consider the rebuilding and development of Afghanistan after the Soviets departed.
America simply abandoned Afghanistan to its fate, ignoring the fact that a wretchedly poor and unstable country, armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated weapons and torn apart by warlords, could become an ideal haven for terrorists.
Our greatest oversight was to forget that when you help to organise and use people fired by extraordinary religious or ideological zeal to achieve your objectives, you must consider that they might be using you to achieve their objectives and are only temporarily on your side for tactical reasons. In Mullah Omar’s case the objective was to gain power in Afghanistan. In the case of Osama bin Laden it was perhaps to get help from America, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to create al-Qaeda, obtain funding and arms, and finally secure a base from which to operate. In such situations, who is using whom becomes murky. We — the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia — created our own Frankenstein’s monster.
It is true that Pakistan had assisted in the rise of the Taleban after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, which was then callously abandoned by the United States. For a while, at the embryonic stage, even the United States had approved of the Taleban.
Is only Pakistan to blame for all that's happened?

Musharraff knows wats he doing he couldnt disclose truth in 2001,because that time america could bomb pakistan , now while stuck and suffering in iraq and afghanistan and forced by circumstances to talk to iran instead bombing,mush realized its the time to pull the americans leg a bit,he knows if pakistan withdraws it support the western troops in afghanistan couldnt even be airlifted out of afghanistan.
Bottomline the truth hurts as shown in above comments, its so sad that instead of being thankful to pakistan for giving free services to americans with their lives they insist that bin laden is treated as a king in pak and want their troops in pak
americans troops didnt solve the problems in afghanistan and iraq and if they come to pakistan world cud face another nuclear threat which could even be felt in the heart of israel as i think so far
pakistaniese should have worked out wat they have to to do if americans try to bomb pak.

Straight Talk -- Author's many assertions in the book are well corroborated. US and UK governments did not contradict his statements. It gives this book a good credibility. Pakistan has checkered history when it comes to democracy but his government still is considered more democratic than many of his predecessors. Many of the comments written here, are wirtten before this book is published and I am sure many must have changed their views now with the exception of some Indian readers who continue to disregard the fact that without Mushharraf 's help war on terror will most likely fail. This is a fact that world leaders such as Bush and Blair know it well. This book takes spin out of most the comments made regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and war on terror. For one thing, Musharraf is not known to be corrupt. He has no known swiss accounts like his predecessors. The fact that he is hated so much by Al-Qaeda that they tried to assasinate him twice, should made us think what is he doing that makes him so unwanted by evil forces?

Musharraf is letting so many cats out of his bag,which no commander in power will dare to do,he talks about strategies in his addresses,but is this the strategy of a ''commander'' to let out the political dealings of a nation when (in his own language) ''they are on board''? He agreed in his speech that he specialises on tight rope walking but it looks like he is specialising in the art of deception and acting.The nuclear physicst is just a scape goat of the musharraf's so called Government.India has always maintained and has ample evidence to prove pakistan sponsored terrorism in Indian soil,and has always remained as a tolerant nation who has always respected international covenants.If like the US they had gone on war against terror on Pakistan for every Indian lives lost then pakistan cannot boast of what it is today.Hope at least now the world community will see the truth.

I feel the book is getting attention it dosn't even deserve. It is mostly a bunch of lies written by a dictator who somehow thinks he can rewrite history. Stuff like his claims of "victory" in the 1999 Kargil conflict in Jammu and Kashmir and that a lesser Pakistani force had tied down four divisions of Indian soldiers baffles me since he had said in the past that only freedom fighters were battling the Indians and not the Pakistani Army.

Musharraf is harboring terrorists in Pakistan and the sad thing is we all know it. He too needs to stop hiding the truth. I say whatever it takes to stop them from hurting us, the USA, then stop them too. I will never forget what Daniel Pearl looked like while pleading for his life. He is etched in my mind forever. A life that needless to say...ended early for nothing. If truth be known, Ossama Bin Laden is probably being treated like a king in Pakistan.

Musharraf's claims raise an interesting question--book deal or no book deal: He's claiming that his administration was bullied into action by a more powerful administration. He claims he was forced to make a choice or suffer consequences all in the name of "defending America". If this is true, wouldn't this cause resentment on the part of the country that is being bullied? And, how many other countries are being bullied by such a powerful administration. Behavior like that tends to back-fire and there are usually consequences for throwing weight around like that. If we want to curtail terrorism, we need to consider that our own administrations in America could be breeding terrorism through their authoritain attitudes towards lesser-developed countries. Yes, we have to go after terrorists since they attacked us on our soil. But, sometimes in our attempt to justify our actions, we overgeneralize our cause. We are quick to define terrorism and then act as if it gives us the authority to attack any country suspected of harboring terrorists(which, may I add, it was actually Saudi Arabian terrorists who hijacked the planes initially).

In the early settlement days of America, they called Native Americans "savages" and that seemed to give settlers the right to kill them and take their land. Overgeneralizing to justify a cause is what America desperately needs to avoid doing again and it seems to be making the people of other nations ill at ease because of how we use our power. Many think we want to take away their way of life and replace it with ours...and I have yet to be convinced thats NOT what Americans of considerable power are trying to do! After all, if everyone is like us, we sort of control everything, right?

I ask, could we be playing a bigger role is fanning the flames of terrorism than we are admitting? Is America's history simply repeating itself on a worldly scale? Except this time, the "savages" are "terrorists" proving to be much more aware and capable of striking back.

One wonders if this military dictator (sorry, I won't call him "President," he was not elected) is attempting to pad his Swiss bank account in case he has to flee the country.

Pakistan is a truly scary place. They are one more coup away from being a radical Islamic republic with nukes.

Regarding Musharraf's memoirs, his planning on releasing them Monday makes me curious--reason being, I've noticed that leaders usually write and/or release their memoirs after they've been out of office. So I wonder...could Musharraf be thinking his days are numbered?

Brian this is interesting. Bush threatens to bomb Iran but can't remember saying he'd bomb Pakestan and honest Armitage says not in those words. Lately world leaders are telling the truth only for Americans to say their lying. Well let's see has Bush ever lied to the American people or the UN?

Musharraf's country is in the stone age. Call a spade a spade. The way we coddle these idots is discusting.

Is anyone at NBC News looking into the trail of terror by Pakistan? That country is no more an ally on fighting terrorism than the Taliban or al Qaeda. Please read link below.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/18/82548/4524

As a curiosity question....Does Simon & Schuster have precedence over matters relating to Congress? What if our President Bush were to be asked a question by our Congress...would he be able to reply, "Sorry, I have a book coming out in 50 years which gives my views on how history will look at me...so I can't answer you...Simon & Schuster have the rights to that!" Sheesh!

Could Musharraf have disclosed 'Bomb to Stone Age' threat at this time to raise interest in his book? And is it less thn usual to not give books for review prior to their publication date - any insight on the motives from fellow readers will be appreciated.