tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59267577801138503552024-03-14T04:00:39.678-04:00The State of PakistanThe issues and conflicts in the State of PakistanContrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-41430622032713524912023-06-12T23:26:00.002-04:002023-06-12T23:30:02.133-04:00 Introducing My Goat Droppings of WisdomI will strive to make every post in this site factually correct to the best of my ability. Some post are by me, and some post by my fourth cousin thrice remove (twice by ISI and once by CIA).
Common Pakistani Beepuls Greatest Charity Organization In The World!!!
Sourced Phrom Yawn Neuj
From 1971 to 2009, State Bank of Pakistan has donated money to the tune of Rs256 billion. The figures are brejented from 1971, becauje the modest State bank does not want boast the fact that their charity campaign accelerated from from 1997 to 2009 when they donated Rs202.5 billion to charity or about 80% oph total charity ever made in Pakistan betweeen 1971 and 2009. Of these, donashuns of Rs500,000 or more were made to 22,021 beneficiaries from 1997 to 2009 amounting to Rs202.5 billion. This figure was again brodujed to protect the haanaar and dignity oph 93 of those recibients who recieved Rs193.4 billion or about 96% oph all money donated between 1997 and 2009.
Thus, the 93 recibients got 75% of all donations made since 1971 by all banks of Pakistan. These donations are aljo referred to as “loan write offs” by State Bank of Pakistan and in wejtern accounting bractices it is referred to as “looting”. The 93 needy beepuls were identified through a comblex process of Madrassa Mathematics, Beshawar Bookkeeping and Sialkot Statistics by Shortcut Aziz after October 2002 elections to save their needy businesses. On asking why Rs193 billion waj donated, Shortcut Aziz said “These needy beepuls were identified by meticulously following the comblex lota relationship to the ruling barty boliticians and Jernails. Prudence demanded we donate more, but misunfortunately, Rs66 Billion had to be sbent on ejjucation in 2002″. It ij to be noted that Bakistan could have made the so-virgin decision of donating the Rs66 billion too if not for IMF meddling.
This is a broud moment of common beepuls of Bakistan whose taxes amounting to 3 years of total ejjucation budget of the entire country were donated for charity for bettering the life of 93 beepuls. Needless to say that such generosity is not seen among Joos, Yindoos and Qadianis.
How to make your own Ejaz Haider (at home)
FEBRUARY 14, 2011 BY MAJOR 3 COMMENTS
So everyone loves an Ejaz Haider! But it ij not availabal every din and can become costly (due to subscripshuns). I too love columns of Ejaz Haider and after careful reading, I think I have reverse engineered the recibe!! The secret is simbal. The recipe has 5 major combonents: Demand Money–Act as if terrorism is normal–Show bravado–High sounding grabagic nonsense—Toilet/Adult jokes.
To beepuls who are afraid about cooking their own Ejaz Haider column, I am providing this ready to make recipe!! Ejaz Haider Column Generator!!
A. Sentence one: Choose one phrom each category: (Demanding money)
1. Not giving Pakistan money
2. Asking Pakistan to do too much
3. Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money
Will only
1. Strengthen hands of extremists
2. Compel the Army to take over
3. Weaken democracy
4. Put region into Chaos
B. Sentence two: Choose one phrom each category: (Acting as if terrorism is normal)
Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because
1. Every country has done it
2. It is how weaker countries challenge the stronger
3. Oppressed people have no recourse
4. It is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger
in any case
1. US has indulged in it
2. India has indulged in it
3. Pakistan has indulged in it in the past several times
4. It is one of the 5 tools of statecraft
C. Sentence three: Choose one (Bravado)
1. Pakistan is here to stay
2. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan
3. India cannot pacify Kashmir without Pakistan
D. Sentence four: Choose one from each category: (High sounding nonsense)
1. The normative interpretation of inter-state relations
2. The consensus understanding of the spirit of Magna carta
3. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz
will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of
1. Temporal-spatial nature of geo strategic relationship
2. Inter- and intra state transactions of state actors
3. Game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium
E. Sentence five: Insert your own toilet humor/male anatomy jokes here:
Here ij what I generated!!
Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money will only put region into chaos. Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because it is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger, in any case it is one of the 5 tools of statecraft. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium. There is a long glorious erection of flagpole outside my window. Tee heee. –Ejaz Haider.
As you can see, the number of variashuns are infinite!! Taking time to explore all of them will assure your career as an analyst and strategic thinker!! Post your own columns and variashuns!!
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
How to Borrow Money Phrom Your Unkil
FEBRUARY 11, 2011 BY MAJOR 12 COMMENTS
So you dont have a job, the roof of your house has collapsed, your kids keep setting your car on phyrr and you dont have any money. Fikar not! Everyone has a rich unkil! But how do I get money phrom unkil you pooch? Fikar not again! Yours sachly happens to be an expert. Yours sachly has an unkil. Unkil Samad. I fondly called Unkil Sam and have extorted much money phrom him. Here is a list oph things that worked.
1. Does your Unkil own a business? In which case, has it ever lost money and has your unkil taken loans and/or borrowed from his kids to cover for the losses? If so, DEMAND money like it is your birthright!! How do I demand you pooch? Fikar not. You can uje the eloquent words oph Hussain Haqqani:
Pakistan aid pales next to U.S. bailouts
“A company at the verge of failure is quite clearly able to get a bigger bailot than a nation that has been accused of failure,” Ambassador Husain Haqqani said in remarks at a Washington think tank…”That’s something that in this town needs a review”. Pakistan and Afghanistan deserve more resources than “some failed insurance company or some car company whose achievement is that they couldn’t make cars that they could sell,” said Haqqani.
As you might have no doubt observed, having a sense oph entitlement while simultaneously making fun oph Unkil’s failed business ventures can be quite helpful. Also please to note that companies making stuff they cant sell is funny, doing that at a country-level is a different and quite serious issue altogether. Blease to 400% make sure you lose that irony.
2. Unkil still not convinced? Hint that your hungry kids will burn his house down! How to do that with straight face you pooch? Fikar not! Shah Mahmood Qureshi to the rescue!!
Pakistan Flood Aid Helps Fight Terrorism as Peace `Fragile,’ Qureshi Says
“We are not going to allow them (terrorists) to take advantage or exploit this natural disaster,” Qureshi told reporters in New York yesterday. The result “depends on how effective and quick the response is. That is why it is so important that the international assistance comes immediately.”
But ij using your poor destitute childrens as selling points and hinting that they might become terrorijts a honorable thing to do you pooch? Joo idiot! Do you want the money or not? If you care about haanaar that much, restore it by beheading your wiphe.
3. Okay scared Unkil gives you money but insists that you fix your roof and wants to send his servant to make sure your kids dont burn his house. Now what to do?
Simbal! Protest hugely about how you know how to spend his money, arrest his servant and tell your kids you have been dishonored! Then do what you ujually do with the money and when it runs out, back to step 1! Isnt this fun?!
And oh, encourage your kids and turn a blind eye when they burn his house down anyway to show that you haven’t lost any honor due to shameless borrowing!
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Scared People Attend Book Party, Dont Really Defy The Taliban
FEBRUARY 6, 2011 BY MAJOR 13 COMMENTS
By now you might have figured that the phrase “liberal people of Pakistan” severely annoys yours sachly’s goat who goes nuts and writes blog posts.
So this lazy sundin yours sachly opens newspapers and what does he see? Krachi Literature Festival!! Where about a hundred authors and about five thousand people gathered to “defy the taliban and talk about books and not bombs”!! (paraphrased) where among many things people indulged in:
Reimagining a state that presently “breaks bread with the Americans during the day and sleeps with the Taliban at night” and of course “You know that all is not lost when eager readers turn up in the hundreds to witness a former nun open a literary festival” Whoa! So a bunch of people gathered to talk about books, re-imagined the future of Pakistan which happens to be a tolerant society!! (or at least will become one by the time the literature festival ends)
While their safety is of atmost concern, articles insinuating that literature-loving intelligentsia form the vanguard of Pakistan’s saviors were a bit hard for your sachly’s goat to chew and digest. The goat started to wonder “Is this whole fixing Pakistan thing a PR stunt for the festival or are they serious?” So yours sachly’s fourth cousin tweeted:
So I think it is safe to conclude that no taliban defiance is going on in Krachi Literature Festival. It is a bunch of scared people having a party about books. And just in case you had any lingering doubts (or any hopes about the whole Blasphemy law issue and/or liberal people saving Pakistan)….
PS> For more rants, please see yours sachly’s comment response.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Major Emoshuns
JANUARY 21, 2011 BY MAJOR 10 COMMENTS
Yours sachly waj reading Ayaz Amir column where he excoriates the general Pakistani buplic about where their obsesshun ij leading them. Reading his column, yous sachly started to wonder why the country waj in this shape when sensibal beepuls like Ayaz Amir ij shaping our obinions. Here ij a record oph my overflowing emoshuns:
Ayaz Amir: The fallacies of the military class – such as its never-ending quest for security, the preoccupation with Afghanistan, the bane of India-centrism, less a threat to India than to our own mental stability.
Yours Sachly: Whoa!!!
Ayaz Amir: What Pakistan is today, the depths it has plumbed, the failures courted, the follies assiduously pursued, have been the handiwork of its English-speaking elite classes
Yours Sachly: AoA!! Agree!!
Ayaz Amir: Our militarist adventures vis-à-vis India; and the honing of ‘jihad’ as an instrument of strategic fallacies. This last piece of brilliance came from the army as commanded by Gen Ziaul Haq. Religious elements became willing accessories in this game but were not its inventors.
Yours Sachly: AK Phyrr in the Air!! Beace with Yindia!! I like!!
Ayaz Amir: The religious parties have been the hyenas and jackals of the hunt, yelping from the sides and helping themselves to the morsels that came their way. Lords of the hunt, lions of the pack, have been Pakistan’s generals and politicians, assisted ably at all times by a powerful and equally short-sighted mandarin class.
Yours Sachly: Whoa!! He calls a lota a lota and an AK an AK!!
Ayaz Amir: If the Pakistani establishment continues to see India as the enemy, keeps pouring money into an arms race it cannot afford, is afflicted by delusions of grandeur relative to Afghanistan, and remains unmindful of the economic disaster into which the country is fast slipping, we will never get a grip on the challenges we face. The raging cleric, frothing at the mouth, is thus not the problem. He is merely a symptom of something larger. Pakistan’s problem is the delusional general and the incompetent politician
Yours Sachly: Beace in South Asia!! PHREEDOMM!!! BEACE BEACE BEACE!! Phreedom!! A Monkey’s Asha!!
Yours Sachly: Who are theje Jackals that feed morsels phrom army and blay the syncophant?! Who are those short sighted idiots who gloriphied moojahids and drove our society to the depths oph extremijam!! Who are these beepuls? Where ij my AK? OUTRAGED!! 100 Aafiyas!!!
Ayaz Amir: Circa 1999: It is instructive and not a little inspiring to consider the courage and skill of the fighters who are challenging the might of the Indian army and air force along the cruel heights of Drass and Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir. Risking a battle in which the chances of death outweigh those of remaining alive requires motivation of a high order. Whatever the Indian side may say, these fighters have a better right than most to call themselves mujahideen, those who fight in the way of Allah. Whether any or most of these fighters acquired their combat skills in Afghanistan is a matter of detail. What is important is that their spiritual outlook has been shaped by the Afghan experience which they, and a goodly part of the religious and military establishment in Pakistan, considers to have been a true jehad. It was the spirit of jehad which drove the Soviet army from Afghanistan. It is the spirit of jehad which can drive the Indian army from Kashmir…. Right from the Afghan war till now in Kashmir, volunteers for jehad (or whatever else the finicky may call it) have come from social classes far removed and indeed alienated from this structure. How many people from the intelligentsia or the newspaper-reading classes fought in Afghanistan? How many of them are fighting in Kashmir?
Yours Sachly: :(
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Birth of a Liberal Pakistan!! (approximately after 70 years of screwing)
JANUARY 18, 2011 BY MAJOR 10 COMMENTS
After Salman Taseer’s assassination (about which one of my fourth cousins had something to say), I read several articles lamenting the death of liberal Pakistan. These many excellent articles that you would have definitely read were probably written by a middle aged donkey resting somewhere in Peshawar. I base it on the fact that I get a profound impression of an (intellectually) lazy, gas emanating being typing out identical articles and concluded that the only possible explanation is an unemployed donkey. Who takes on foreign (Indian and the West) nom-de-plumes occasionally.
By now you probably figured that I disagree with those articles. If you hadn’t, let me formally state it. I formally disagree with those articles. So atleast by now, you probably figured that I disagree with those articles. Well, Good.
So what do I soch you pooch?
Salman’s taseer assassination, wimmens and gentlemards, heralds the arrival of an egalitarian Pakistan!
“But Why!” you pooch?
Here is why. Liberalism, wimmens and gentlemards, is a belief in social justice rooted in individual liberty and equal rights. So how did social justice and equal rights prevalent before Salman Taseer’s assassination die on that day? Actually it didnt. Before going back to the begining, for dramatic effect let me start with the end. The day Salman taseer got assasinated, the elite suddenly realized that they cannot do what they wished, such as down a few or have their way with the blasphemy law, without the danger of their incensed security guard or domestic help firing off a clip in their direction. This, I suspect, the aforementioned muddle headed donkey has mistaken for the death of “liberalism”. What has instead died, I humbly submit, is the power over the common man which was usurped and weilded for so long by the the elites.
And that is because power has been democratized. And that is because everyone has a gun. Ergo, the power to shape the future and destiny of Pakistan, which used to lie with the elites is suddenly with the masses. Because every one of them has a gun, and unlike the elites, they seem quite comfortable firing it to protect their beliefs.
A round of applause for AK-facilitated egalitarianism!!
So what of this elusive little-understood animal (like the Yeti and “Silent Majority” of Pakistan) called Liberalism? More importantly what is and why Liberalism? Liberalism wimmens and gentlemards, among other things, is to ensure social mobility and equal participation in governance. And social mobility in yesteryears depended on access to capital producing goods. Like Land. Ergo, if Liberalism had existed before Salman Taseer’s assasination, Land reforms would have been implmented. Pray tell me how did that go? As you would have guessed:
Fantastically!! We had the Provincial Tenancy Act of 1950!!
Since yours sachly fancies himself as a story teller more than a lawyer (and is allergic to the word “WHEREAS” in all caps that every legal document seems to have) instead of describing the law, let me tell you a story. There are 1.7 million landless agricultural workers in Pakistan and in January 2002 The honorable High court of Sindh dismissed petitions for the release of bonded laborers citing this very same act and declaring bonded laborers to be a “dispute” between Landlords and peasants. Covered by the Tenancy act. So much for equal rights and social mobility based on capital producing goods. So, did the “liberalism” enabled by tenancy act die with Salman Taseer’s assassination?
No!
Did the egalitarianism of the threat of a few peasants banding together, declaring their landlord to be a blasphemer and shooting him in the head become a real possibility after Salman Taseer’s assasination?
Emphatic yes!!
So wimmens and gentlemards, I submit that egalitarianism has taken birth!!
Let us take the second aspect of social mobility. Education. The less said about this, the better. But let me belabor the point. Education in Pakistan has become a propaganda tool of the state. To supply canon fodder for the various Jihads. Afghanistan. Cashmere. And dont forget Dagestan. Before Salman Taseer’s assasination, it used to be the case that only the likes of Khaled Ahmed had a monopoly over dissemination of his (incoherent) opinion in English about how Pakistan is the guardian of Indian Muslims. Now after Salman Taseer’s assassination, Khaled Ahmed’s interpretation of the Nationhood of Pakistan is being challenged, (in an egalitarian way, let me hasten to add) by the products of our emiment education system who insist that the Nation of Pakistan means strict adherence to Blasphemy law. Now pray tell me, why does this diversity of opinion indicate the death of Liberalism?
Ladies and Gentlemards, a round of applause for free speech and the right to dissent (with an AK if the need arises) !!
What am I getting at here? Salman Taseer’s assassination is a tragedy. This piece is not about him, but about the other tragedy. The so-called “intellectuals” who are hemoragging columns after columns lamenting their inability to continue business as usual and realizing to their horror that their long neglect of Pakistan’s population and radicalization of the successive generations brought about by their hatred of India and the west and desire to maintain status quo has in fact enabled the opposite. That the very base of their authoritarian power to shape the future and destiny of Pakistan has eroded. They are simply using the death of a governor to lament the death of their authoritarian power over the masses. The very masses they neglected, manipulated and whose world view they grotesquely mutilated for their short sighted needs.
The future belongs to this grotesque semi educated, poor, landless, hatred infused, mullah directed armed Yahoos. And they are coming for you. To shape a society where more people are equal and have a right to shape their country’s future as they deem fit.
In short, a Liberal Pakistan. Ergo, Liberalism in Pakistan is quite fine. The elites who claim to practice it on the other hand….are F’ed.
LONG LIVE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE!! LONG LIVE EGALITARIANISM IN PAKISTAN!!
PS> For an excellent writeup about Land reforms in Pakistan by Shahid Saeed, please see here:
PS> My fourth cousin’s goat suggests that the elites immediately jumping into the “Lets all find ideas to prevent blasphemy & uphold the blasphemy law” bandwagon is further proof of their aversion to Liberalism *and* AKs. So they should probably STFU and not write more articles lamenting the death of liberalism.
FILED UNDER FOURTH COUJIN COMMENTARY
3.Formula
JANUARY 5, 2011 BY MAJOR 12 COMMENTS
Governor Salman Taseer has been murdered. My condolences to his family. Full disclosure: He was the target of some sarcasm from my fourth cousin’s tweets, especially those concerning India’s space program, (which got yours sachly’s fourth cousin’s Patriotic goat because he thought that the real joke — Pakistan’s space program — didn’t get the credit it deserved for being the bigger joke). Nevertheless, as a self-made man with wealth made not from privilege, connections or Khaki, notwithstanding my fourth’s cousin’s tweets, *I* always thought of him as the vanguard of Pakistan’s future.
So yours sachly has been following twitter posts and achieved great enlightenment (not the Buddhist variety, please don’t shoot me for blasphemy!!) on how to proceed to build a strong and prosperous Pakistan and defeat the Mullah brigade. Here is my 3 point plan:
As a nation, we should debate Hadiths at great lengths to determine what constitutes Blasphemy, and whether Blasphemy does in fact entail death as a punishment. By “nation” I mean well-traveled, middle-to-upper-class english educated people on Twitter whose tweets on non-assassination days involve booze, cricket, sexual innuendo, flirting and complaints about the latest gadgets. After all, their pronouncements on religion have much more credibility than shabbily dressed, hirsute madrassa educated firebrands who are employed in Mosques and preach everyday. Any debates along the lines of “I have traveled to a few places and have a modern education and am of the opinion that running a country with laws based on religion is a medieval proposition” should strictly be avoided. That would make Iqbal and the Quaid sad. If the Quaid said what I thought he said. But I digress. We need to defeat Mullahs in their own game!! More importantly we need to do a bait-and-switch on the questionable fence sitters (which would be 99% of the non-mullah population) who might be intimidated if we bring in too much modernity into debates and start denouncing religion as the basis of nationhood.
While engaging in such a debate, care should be taken to protect Honor & Dignity. Western commentator says Pakistan’s laws are F’ed up? Scream “PALESTINE!!!!”. Indians taking the opportunity to brand Pakistan a medieval country where people cannot speak out without getting shot 27 times? Bring up the outrageous Arundhati episode where Hindu trained Zionist RSS terrorists did Hindu terror in her house and broke a flowerpot!! Keep in mind that *all* countries are as bad as Pakistan, they only have better PR. Fixing Pakistan is important, but not at the cost of hurting its “image” in the process!! Never for a moment even entertain the thought that Pakistan might be more F’ed up than any other reasonable-sized country and acceptance of this fact might possibly provide a good starting point.
That brings me to the third issue: We must take a nuanced view and not end up criticizing all religious intolerance. Everyone knows that there are two types of Jihad. Internal Jihad and external Jihad. I heard it on TV once. I think that it means Jihad fought internally in Pakistan (“Bad Jihad”) and Jihad fought externally — say in India, US, Afghanistan, Palestine or Dagestan for that matter (the “Good Jihad”). While criticizing internal Jihad and religious intolerance inside Pakistan, care should be taken to balance it with vehement expressions of outrage when “OPPRESSED” indulge in external Jihad — say when a few fellows with nice sized rocks throw them on policemen in Cashmere and get shot at in the process. Ofcourse religion inspired ethnic cleansing of say, Kashmiri Hindu Pandits should be swept under the rug. Few cases of religious intolerance when a revolution is in the works are inevitable and should be condoned (Note: This applies only outside Pakistan, inside Pakistan please criticize all religious intolerance.)
And lastly, don’t let Salman Taseer’s death bother you for long. The next time Turkey sends a flotilla to Israel, Alms from the US or IMF come with strings attached, IPL does not take Pakistani players or some random Indian celebrity gets criticized in Indian media, the services of our collective outrage and short attention span would be in urgent demand. I’d say Salman Taseer should be given half the time that was spent after Benazir’s assassination debating the use of violence as a state policy.
PS> As an aside, deep introspection has revealed that Kasab is not Pakistani. If he is, he is a non-state actor led astray due to atrocities in Cashmere & Palestine. Nothing about that episode or the lack of progress in the case indicates any sort of Society-Establishment-Mullah-Army-ISI-Judiciary-Politician consensus on using radicalization-inspired violence to achieve the objectives of the state. If you are not part of this consensus, you are part of the minority. And you know what happens to minorities in Pakistan…
FILED UNDER FOURTH COUJIN COMMENTARY
Wikileaks (according to Pakistan’s Newspapers)
DECEMBER 10, 2010 BY MAJOR 2 COMMENTS
By now (if you are not living under a rock and hiding from predator drones) the gentle readers would be intimately familiar with the whole Pakistani Newspapers-Wikileaks saga. What surprises me is that the news article (which I first came across in The Nation) sounded obviously fake even after a cursory skimming. For example, one of the gems was that an Indian police officer was somehow assassinated fortuitously by India during the Mumbai attacks in a pre-planned operation for threatening to reveal the nexus between Hindu fanatic groups and the Indian army to an American diplomat.
Whew!!
And no, I am not claiming in hindsight that it was easy to spot that the article was fake, please refer to my fourth cousin’s tweets immediately after reading the articles.
This hurried blog post is not about how Pakistani newspapers should verify their sources. This post is not about how even bizarre conspiracy theories find traction in the minds of the public and the media if it somehow fits into the accepted narrative about India .
This blog post is about Zafar Hilaly’s Op-ed in the Express Tribune. It is clear that the distinguished ”analyst” has bought the entire article hook, line and sinker and gives out foreign policy prescriptions and value judgements about India and the USA. After suffering through his previous enlightening articles, I am compelled to respond to his latest.
I wish to tell Mr Hilaly, the honorable Ex-ambassador to Yemen, Italy and Nigeria:
DIYAR MR HILALY
I AM MR MOBUTU ADAMS, PERSONAL SECRETARY OF HIS HIGHNESS THE LATE MR ODIAKA, WHO HAS ENTRUSTED A SUM OF 50 MILLION US DOLLAR FORTUNE. I GOT YOUR EMAIL THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY WHO SPOKE TO ME HIGHLY OF YOUR INTEGRITY, INTELLECT AND JUDGEMENT.
I AM WRITING TO REQUEST A FAVOR FROM YOU. FOR SAFEKEEPING OF THE MONEY AND TO MOVE IT FROM NIGERIA, I AM IN NEED OF A HONEST, INTELLIGENT AND RESOURCEFUL PERSON SUCH AS YOURSELF AND AM WILLING TO SHARE 50% OF THE FORTUNE. TO HELP ME IN THIS ENDEAVOR, PLEASE WRITE A COLUMN IN THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE WITH A COPY OF THIS LETTER, YOUR BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER, DATE OF BIRTH, BANK DETAILS, A COPY OF YOUR SIGNATURE, AGE, ADDRESS AND FULL LEGAL NAME.
I AWAIT YOUR URGENT REPLY
YOURS SACHLY
MAJOR.
PS> The Nation’s version of Wikileaks should immediately be reproduced word for word in Class 6 biology textbooks and taught to all school children.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Strapping the Suicide Vest on the Kashmir Issue
NOVEMBER 12, 2010 BY MAJOR 31 COMMENTS
One more attack in Karachi. As of writing this post, 20 have died and over 100 are wounded. Many of them critically. My sympathies to the brave law enforcers who were killed in cold blood. But this was bound to happen.
The instinctive reaction–which is also the decent and conscientious thing to do–is the outpouring of grief and sympathy for the victims. Some of the statements made during the immediate aftermath should be interpreted in the context of the shock of the moment: This includes Edhi attributing the attack to rising prices and the economic discomfort of the common man.
This post is not about such statements. Instead, this post is about other mindless platitudes–some of them due to intellectual laziness and others due to malice–which make me very pessimistic about the prospects of reduced violence in the foreseeable future. I am not talking about the inevitable nuttiness about “foreign hands” or “Zionists conspiracies” or “Sugar hoarding” which explain this horror, but the statements of intelligent, well travelled, accomplished Pakistanis made (presumably) with the best of intentions before and after the attack. I am talking about those along the lines of “Talk, dammit. TALK to resolve issues, incl #Kashmir” (as a reply to What can India do when one pakistani kills other..)
An explanation is due first. My criticism is general, I do not accuse anyone in particular. When I do quote someone, I rest secure in the knowledge that he/she is mature enough to debate criticism. Feel free to comment, I will approve it unmoderated.
Why am I bothered about such statements? Before I go into it, let me first quickly point out why some statements (like those which seem to suggest solving the Kashmir issue will somehow reduce violence levels in Pakistan) are the epitome of stupidity and/or intellectual laziness. I present Exhibit A (attributed to @pragmatic_d in twitter whose blog I read) and wish to pose a question.
If India did not negotiate during the 1991-2003 period why would India do so now?*
In fact, I would go a step further:
Taking the adversarial view, if Pakistanis are killing Pakistanis because of unresolved Kashmir issue, the best strategy for India is to wait till Pakistanis kill each other off. India certainly has the time, money, manpower, strategy, international support and the will to pursue this strategy.
After Pakistanis kill off Pakistanis, Kashmir issue is solved! So are Sir Creek, Siachen, opposition to UN security council seat, threat of nuclear weapons, Mumbai style attacks, need to maintain a huge Army. So why really would India help Pakistan out? In short,
What if India does not negotiate Kashmir with Pakistan? What is Pakistan’s anti-terror strategy then?
Now that we have dispensed with the stupidity of the “solve Kashmir” approach to anti-terrorism (about which I also hastily put together a crudely humorous response in a previous blog post) let me visit what really bothers me and prompted me to write this post. Surely any reasonable person would have first asked the question:
How do I know for sure that the terrorists are somehow connected to the Kashmir issue?
Data Durbar, Marriott bombing, Shah Ghazi attack, Police academy bombing come to mind. What did these have to do with Kashmir? While it is seductive to blame everything on the “extremist forces” I wish to hear the argument why Shah Ghazi shrine would be safe if Kashmir is solved. As an aside, I wish to politely point out that nobody knows who killed Benazir or Zia and why. So claiming to know the motives of these attacks seem to be a bit presumptuous. Viewed from another angle, how can anyone assure us that if we solve the Kashmir issue, the “extremist forces” suddenly wont get passionate about Rajasthan or for that matter Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or Timbuktu? Or Aafiya Siddiqui? Or Guantanamo? Thereby creating yet another, yet another, yet another and yet another issue to solve before someone can buy tomatoes at a Lahore market without getting blown to pieces.
So why are people still dishing out Kashmir-based or US forces in Afghanistan-based narratives for explaining terrorism?
While I am not accusing everyone, at least a substantial number of such statements and articles seem to come from people who “understand” why people get radicalized due to these causes. “Solve Kashmir and they will go back to living peacefully” they say. Or the more nuanced variant from articulate people “Solve Kashmir and the Pakistan government can sell it as proof of western recognition of our sensitivities and de-radicalize such people”. Sometimes people get careless and let it slip
“If Kashmir is solved, Pakistan will have no use for terrorist cells”
Aha!!
So the people dishing out the platitudes dont really denounce the terrorists, they are simply the “liberal and mainstream” supporters of terrorists who serve as a propaganda arm to put an acceptable face on terrorism!! (needless to say, I am not accusing everyone. Please read on)
Let me explain why I make this shocking allegation. Our very own commando (yes, yes he was Ex-President long gone. With a capital EX. But please note that like minded people still run Pakistan and he was running it as recently as 2 years ago) and innumerable others portray a subtext of innocence and helplessness. This starts off usually with “Mujahideen groups rose up to help their Kashmir brethren” and/or “US left the region and left behind a gun culture”. Let me once and for all settle this and get it out of my system.
Claiming Mujahideen groups rose up is like claiming WAPDA rose up to supply electricity or PTCL rose up to provide internet. Terrorist groups were and are still actively recruited, funded, trained, supported and their spectacular attacks planned by the state of Pakistan. In that sense claiming that they rose up is like claiming that a government department was spontaneously formed one day. It would do everyone a great deal of good, if people started saying We formed, funded and trained terrorists…. But that would just make us look bad. Secondly, people should understand the subtext behind US left the region and left behind a gun culture. Let me dish out a history lesson here: It was understanding of Pakistan’s strategic community that US will help Pakistan replicate the Afghan success in Kashmir. Unfortunately US did not feel inclined to do that. Pakistan’s Jihad-warriors tried to take a go at it alone and the results are for everyone to see. The “US leaving the region…” is a subtle lament that if US had helped Pakistan with Kashmir, Pakistan would have succeeded and ergo, would have dismantled the terror apparatus by now. So before repeating this line ad-nauseam please do understand where this disappointment with the US really originates. Therefore, by starting off a grand speech with “Mujahideen groups rose up to help their Kashmir brethren” and/or “US left the region and left behind a gun culture” people are just brazenly admitting:
We trained terrorists as part of state policy and sent them to Kashmir & other parts of India and wont stop now because we havent succeeded in our objectives yet
The second half hearted attempt at claiming innocence goes along the lines of “Our army is tied down in the east and west, so many Pakistanis have lost their lives…we are helpless”. Case in point is this gem from Mosharraf Zaidi “Pakistan has proven that it is a country that cannot protect its own citizens — in mosques, shrines, universities, shopping centers and police stations. How can it possibly protect the citizens of other countries?” Which again is at best naive and at worst malicious.
The naiveté stems from viewing anti-terrorism as a military operation: How many terrorists have been convicted in Pakistani courts? Why is Omar Sheikh Saeed still alive (yes that one. The one who was freed during the exchange of hostages in the hijacked Indian Airlines plane). His illustrious compatriot Mazood Azar (also freed during the hijack) is still running around free. So is the Philanthropist-in-chief of the “charity organization” LeT/JuD (About whom Musharraf admiringly spoke of recently) who is openly holding rallies. Punjab law minister is taking breezy car rides with terrorists. The case of the accused in Mumbai attacks is doing a farcical dance in the courts (Which to jog our memories, started off as a “RAW operation to defame Pakistan”. Followed by “Kasab is not a Pakistani” by none other than illustrious President Zardari. Followed by “Planned on a boat outside of Pakistani territorial waters” by our illustrious UK ambassador. Ultimately reaching the current consensus of “non-state actors trained by rogue ex-employees of ISI” — because denying involvement in the face of overwhelming evidence was just getting plain embarrassing. Of course if not for that idiot Kasab getting caught alive, Mumbai attacks would have still remained a “RAW operation to defame Pakistan”). Then there are “Patriots” (the yahoos in Waziristan) and “Strategic assets” (The taliban according COAS Kayani’s utterances). So much for the “helplessness”.
Forget invading North Waziristan, a leisurely walk in Muridke will net more terrorists than entire FATA and KP put together. Everyone knows this. Why hasn’t anyone gone on a stroll yet? Now you know why it is really mischievous to claim But…but…Pakistan is helpless because our Army is tied down. So when Mosharraf Zaidi says “”Pakistan has proven that it is a country that cannot protect its own citizens — in mosques, shrines, universities, shopping centers and police stations. How can it possibly protect the citizens of other countries?“” the narrative it is subtly conveying is***
Look at us!! Even though terrorists kill so many of our citizens, we stand steadfast in doing nothing about them, in fact we actively encourage them to kill a few of your citizens and you cannot make us stop!! Gloat!!
So where does the instigation to feign innocence, helplessness and blame everything terrorism and radicalization on everything from Kashmir to water sharing come from? Let us take a look at the recent “outrage” over NATO attacks in Khurram. A basic question needs to be addressed first – if drone attacks are acceptable to the Army, approved by Musharraf and operated form the Shamsi airbase inside Pakistan, why the sudden anger about helicopter attacks? Anger evident in blocking the transit routes for NATO convoys, where “extremists” suddenly showed up to burn the trucks (The comedic ending being the “extremists” strangely deciding to stop burning the trucks as soon as a NATO apology was dished out).
The reason ladies and gentlemen is that the attacks by NATO nearly gave Sirajuddin Haqqani his 72. Who (for the benefit of the uninformed) happens to be: Pakistan’s man in Afghanistan. Epitome of the “good taliban”. A great patriot who has served his country by bombing the Indian consulate and their employees in Kabul under ISI guidance, planning and funding.
Thrice.
Outrage about Khurram was parroted by the TV anchors. Regurgitated by the newspapers. Bandied about by our diplomats. Ultimately lapped up by the naive “intelligentia” who get busy in blogs, twitter, opinion pieces–raising so much ruckus about violation of sovereignty that in the ensuing confusion a dozen drones slipped in unnoticed and did their deed. A narrative was built up whereby every “thinking Pakistani” then speaks with a unified voice “Violation of Sovereignty strengthens the hands of extremists!!!” and NATO backed off.
Congratulations!! You were used successfully by the Army and the ISI to impress upon NATO that killing Sirajuddin Haqqani is a red line for Pakistan.
Ofcourse we dont know for sure if ultimately our great patriot might one day get angry for whatever reason and set off few in Lahore. Not to worry, everyone can then blame NATO for not killing Sirajuddin Haqqani because NATO abandoned Pakistan as soon as their security objectives were met! Let me put it in clear terms:
A large part of blaming terrorists on “unresolved Kashmir issue”, feigning helplessness, dishing out platitudes about overstretched army is just a tactic to buy time, keep the terror apparatus intact, wait till the Americans leave Afghanistan, send half the terrorists Afghanistan and the other half to Kashmir and party like it is the 80′s & 90′s. A few Pakistanis blown up in Karachi or Lahore is acceptable collateral damage for this great strategic plan.
People who get deceived by this narrative, parroting the “Kashmir cause”, bemoaning helplessness and consequently refusing to ask the obvious questions or demanding commonsense actions on the anti-terrorism front, are just being suckered into participating in the propaganda arm of those who wish to adopt a terror-based strategy to further Pakistan’s “interests”.
Or in short, I just called you probably well-intentioned but gullible and/or dangerous. And I was being charitable.
Ofcourse there are those who do this by design because they believe that this is a viable strategy — To wait till the Americans leave, export all the bothersome terrorists to places which are part of Pakistan’s strategic calculus. This has been articulated in so many words by many in the establishment**. If they succeed, everyone should keep their bags packed and ready to travel. To the stone-age. That is where Pakistan will be bombed back to after the inevitable repeat of 9/11.
Till then I will be at your service helplessly complaining about my weight while helping myself to another bucket of butter…and blaming my girth on the “Kashmir issue”.
And oh, wake me up if any of Pakistan’s “strategic assets” get arrested. Maybe then I will talk about Kashmir and Pakistan’s helplessness.
________________
*Your answers cannot be one of:
Because India is “moral”
I thought they were Muslim-hating, Zionist, conspiracy-hatching, serial rapist Brahmin Banias?
Because Pakistan’s ally US will force India to!
The current US president chose to skip Pakistan altogether. If someone looks back fondly at the past “strong US-Pakistan relationship”, let me remind you that the one before this (Bush Jr) landed in a decoy plane with all lights switched off in the middle of the night in an Airbase. The one before (Clinton) got out of the emergency hatch to confuse “the snipers” and lectured us from the Airport tarmac. At least Obama did not subject Pakistan to that ignominy. And that about sums up our relationship with the US for the past 15 years.
Because Pakistan’s ally China will force India to!
India-China trade was 60 Billion $ this year. Last I checked, the Pakistan government did not have enough money to buy sugar. Money, I suspect, is taller than the mountains and deeper than the oceans.
Because our brethren in Kashmir will pelt bigger stones!
It is very clear that protesting Kashmiris want Azadi. None of them want to join Pakistan. What is Pakistan’s locus standi on the issue then? In what way is Pakistan relevant? Why should India negotiate with Pakistan?
**Hamid Gul lovingly spoke of how the Taliban will “rise up against Kashmir” once Afghanistan is settled.
***To belabor the point, I am not accusing everyone who mouth such platitudes to be secret terrorist sympathizers
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Anti Miscreant Equipment
NOVEMBER 4, 2010 BY MAJOR 1 COMMENT
Close in the heels of domestic development oph JF-17 plane and Rehman Malik declaring that satellites will be used in krachi, in a bositive develobment, Pakistani dephense scientists have 200,000 percent indigenously pindigenously develobed anti miscreant detection devices. This phollows in the glorious phootsteps of the pindigenous satellite develobment and launch personally by Musharraph that made us 400 per cent better than Yindia. These devices have been imborted phrom China in a joint development contract and shtamped “Made in Pakistan”, using shtamps also made in China. The devices were bought phor cash, just like the satellite, and will help in catching miscreants in Krachi, Waziristan and Swat.
The device comej in two forms. The jernailist version, called “Nuttybaranoia V1″ consists oph a red color reciever to be worn over the head and a transparent detector to be worn over the face and can sbot RAW, CIA, Mossad, Yindoo, Yankee, Joo agints. Pakistanis, taalipaan, and patriotic terrorists are not detected or seen by theje devijes.
Zion Hamid Demonstrating the Kanspeerajy Detection Device in phorm of Lal topi and eye glasses. He can spot Joo, RAW, CIA, Mossad and Yindoo agints everywhere.
There ij aljo a military verjion, in the phorm of a face mask called “Baghdad Bob V2″ which has better detection and can also detect common medical conditions oph Pakistani citijens. This was demonstrated by Athar Abbas, who saw bodies, some with torture marks and some with limbs tied and a bullet in the neck and head, on the roads of Mingora and immediately said “These beepuls have died of old age”.
Athar Abbas, ujing “Baghdad Bob V2″ devije and looking at mass graves in Kukarai, Daulai and Shah Dheri village. He immediately declared “these pits are not graves but in fact fields planted by the bious and gentle Pakistani army to grow more beepuls”.
“The introduction of these devijes in Krachi will catch all miscreants in 24 hours” said Rehman Malik.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Internashunal Community Should Help Themselves by Helping Pakistan Help Themselves to Cashmere
NOVEMBER 1, 2010 BY MAJOR 10 COMMENTS
Here ij my help to bopularise to the 400% brilliant artecal “International Community should help themselves by helping Pakistan” which helpfully concludes
Consequently, what the United States needs to do, and this is not at all an easy job, is bring the Kashmir issue to the forefront. If they can come to some sort of conclusion concerning Kashmir, Pakistan will have no use for terrorist cells and hence create a more stable Subcontinent. Pakistan will be able to focus more on their economic welfare and the wellbeing of their citizens.
Such a clear articulation for the end of terrorist activitiej has never been written on the internets. Hugely encouraged, I wish to jump into the Jeehaard and contribute as well. Here is my 400% endorsement titled “Internashunal Community Should Help Themselves by Helping Pakistan Help Themselves to Cashmere”
To understand the phenomenon of the terrorijt infestation in Pakistan, it is imbortant to understand the relevanje of Cashmere issue and the part it plays in forcing Pakistan to train moojahids to fight in far away places. As it ij well known, in the past 4 years Pakistanis were implicated (and in many cases convicted) for terrorism in
France
Spain
Canada
Norway
Tunisia
India
US
Britain
China (Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region)
Russia (Chechnya)
Uzbekistan (Tashkent, Ferghana valley)
Dagestan
Tajikistan
Southern Philippines
Bosnia
Afghanistan
Iran
Maldives
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Burma
Indonesia
South Korea
And that ij just a few places yours sachly got in 5 minutes of Google News archive search.
Look at the list of blaces that will benefit if Cashmere ijjue is solved!! If you ask “What do these places have to do with Cashmere and why are Pakistanis & Pakistani trained terrorijsts attacking them?” you are most probably a Joo working for CIA, RAA or Mossad out to defame Pakistan. On the other hand, the first thing that should come to any Batriotic Pakistani’s mind is “Whoa!! There is a place called Dagestan? And our moojahids know enough geography to go there and set off bums?” YES!! And this is precisely the reason why even though Yemen is increasingly showing botential to challenge this record, WE ARE STILL NO 1!! AK Phyrr in air!!
Okay I got carried away and I digress.
Where were we? My support for an article which articulates why Cashmere is a normal and legitimate explanation for using the State apparatus of Pakistan to terrorize the population of a neighbouring country by randomly killing innocent civilians.
Going back to the list, look at the size of the Internashunal community that can help themselves by helping Pakistan help themselves to Cashmere!! Ofcourse, this will not solve *all* terrorijam and will leave a few countries behind. Like Denmark (Stop drawing cartoons you Kuffars!!), Switzerland (Build more Minarets!!), Norway (Stop giving out Nobel brizes to Chinese dissidents!!), US (FREE DAUGHTER OPH PAKISTAN AAFIA!!). But that is for a later analysis on how remaining terrorism can be tackled. Right now let us stay with supporting the low standards of conduct the State has set for itself
_______________________________________________
PS> Several beepuls have pointed out inconsistencies and addishuns to this blog post and I am listing them here.
A reader feels left out that Pakistan’s accomplishment in Thailand has been ignored. 400% abologies! Pakistan trained moojahids have spread Pakistan’s name far and wide in Thailand as well.
A reader points out that Dagestan is a Russian province. Another reader says that Dagestan is not a country at all, but is probably a Joo kanspeerajy to defame Pakistan’s image and RAA, CIA and Mossad are probably partners in this kanspeerajy. I agree with both.
Another reader points out that Pakistani moojahids going to Dagestan is 400% proof of the wholesome madrassa educashun preparing people with real world skills. Who said real-world subjects like Geography are not taught in madrassas hain?
Another reader says that the internashunal community is obligated to help Pakistan and quotes one of my tweets
“Pakistan is doing the whole world a favour by being Pakistan. Would you rather have your country be Pakistan hain?”
=======================================
Herps Fueled Thoughts – 1
JULY 28, 2011 BY MAJOR LEAVE A COMMENT
Hina Rabbani Khar’s appointment as the foreign minister was met by a collective “meh”. Intelligentsia were quick to point out her privileged entry into politics and lament the lack of choices. Some wrote articles arguing why a woman in a position of power need not yield dividends for betterment of women as a whole in Pakistan.
Indian media’s fawning over her has changed all that, and suddenly she is a poster girl for woman power — one who can carry her Birkin bag and Pakistan’s position on Kashmir with equal grace. One has to admire Indian media’s ability to grant legitimacy to Pakistani public figures. The last time it was in full display in Agra in 2001, it shored up Musharraf’s fortune and Pakistan had to live with him for the next seven years.
Indian media with its short attention span, will move on to the next headline-worthy news item. Maybe IPL, next fast unto death or the telecom scam. Pakistan on the other hand, will be stuck with the same FM with her new found legitimacy whose only notable achievement so far, like Musharraf before her, is impressing a bunch of fawning Indian journalists.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Lone Wolf is Lonely
JULY 23, 2011 BY MAJOR 12 COMMENTS
So one Mr Walid Zafar Teets:
@WeeZieInc When a Muslim commits terror, every Muslim in the world somehow shares responsibility. When it’s a white Christian, he’s always a lone wolf.
Which is representative of many teets on teetar, made yours sachly 400% agree and wallow in deep sadness at the loneliness of the lone wolf unfortunate enough to be born in a cold Scandinavian country. Such loneliness will never happen in warmer places inhabited by purer people where every one will definitely share responsibility. Off the top of my head I can assert that:
The interior minister of Norway is unlikely to insinuate that an Israeli weapon was used and take care of the image of his own people.
The Bresident oph Norway probably wont deny on Larry King that the shooter was a Norwegian and stand up for his rights. I soch this is becase Larry King show ended. Also the President is bigoted.
I also soch that the killer probably wont be garlanded by the lawyers.
The barbaric Norwegian bolis will probably never leak myoojic videos oph him in Jail.
The equally barbaric Norwegian army wont have the guts to sign beace treaties with the Christian right.
Neither are they large hearted enough to promulgate rule oph Pible in Norwegian provinces.
Norwegian people are probably lazy. The society probably wont rise up and demand his release.
The killer probably wont be getting any stipend in Jail from the Norwegian government either.
Nor will he get any subbort from the Judges.
Norwegian jingos will probably overly gloriphy the victims and not take a balanced view.
With so little subbort phrom the political leadership of Norway, the Norwegian Police, the Norwegian Army, the Norwegian Government, it Lawyers, Judges and the Society at large, the killer is probably very lonely. This will never happen in Pakistan where every one — irrespective of whether they are Politicians, Army, Police, Lawyers, Judges or just common ordinary Pakistanis — will pitch in and make sure that the killer doesn’t feel lonely at all. The citizens would all collectively ensure that the killer is very well taken care of, and the responsibilities of his legal, economic and social well being will be somehow be shared equally by everyone*.
Another one of many reasons why the west is so corrupt and under decline and one of the many proofs of our collective sense of shared responsibility which makes us all united and unfailingly stand up for one of our own. Proud to say that there are no wolves that are lonely among the pure.
*Except for the mythical silent majority, which like the Himalayan Yeti has never been seen at all. Which means either it never existed, is probably dead or hiding with fear in a cave somewhere.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A Comprehensive Analysis of Aatish Taseer Episode
JULY 22, 2011 BY MAJOR 7 COMMENTS
Note to everone except Ejaz Haider:
Go and get a life. Dont grab your AK and express OUTRAGE for every teeny column written by random semi-popular people from across the border.
Note to Ejaz Haider:
Please try harder to impress us with your reading list.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pasha Conquers Washington–A Quick Note
JULY 17, 2011 BY MAJOR 5 COMMENTS
There have been a spate of articles recently in the press, following Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha’s visit to the US, which yours sachly will summarize for your convenience:
US is convinced that it cannot win without Pakistan’s assistance in Afghanistan, and therefore invited Pasha to the US. US agreed to resume aid, apologized profusely for its actions, promised take Pakistan’s sensitivities into account and assured that it would give Pakistan a larger say in the future of Afghanistan. Large hearted Pasha gracefully accepted this offer, and issued a few ultimatums and warnings which made all of American civilian and security staff tremble and sweat. They gave him and the people of Pakistan a pony as a parting gift.
Which just goes on to prove my hypothesis:
Pasha personally carried reports of progress made by the ISI to determine if any members of the ISI/Armed forces were complicit in hiding Osama Bin Laden. US made a few more demands and stated that further progress in this investigation is the litmus test for resumption of military aid. Following the visit, ISPR planted a few articles to cast ISI in a positive light.
In case you missed the conclusion:
THERE IS NO PONY.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
On the Importance of Pakistan-US Relationship
JULY 12, 2011 BY MAJOR 3 COMMENTS
I have been reading the various articles and analysis about the recent suspension of US military aid to Pakistan. The narrative of most of the articles seem to converge along the lines of:
U.S.-Pakistan relationship is so vital for success in Afghanistan, stability of Pakistan and defeat of terror that I cannot imagine why U.S. would be so short sighed and not value this relationship.
All of which makes eminent sense to me, but I am more than a bit annoyed (could you tell?). The reason is simple: Let us, for a minute assume that the relationship is valuable to the U.S., to Pakistan and to the rest of the world. Let me jog your memories by randomly picking out – from the top of my head – instances which reflect the value Pakistan places in this relationship*.
Pakistan halted NATO convoys for several days, leading to several tankers being set on fire
Pakistan establishment did the Raymond Davis drama for an extended period of time
Gilani and Kayani are rumored to have advised Karzai to ditch the U.S. and throw in his lot with China
Pasha had his famous outburst against U.S. in the assembly
GHQ released a strongly worded statement exhorting U.S. to re-allocate aid to the civilians
The establishment instigated much drama over conditions in the Kerry-Lugar act
Not a week goes by without some section of Pakistan rioting against some incident involving the US (Aafiya anyone?) some section of the establishment releasing vaguely threatening statements, some section of columnists, analysts and ex-diplomats playing the China card and so on.
If Pakistan has dispensed with the practice of haranguing in private and crossed the Rubicon to using public threats, instigated anti-Americanism and coercion in its dealing with the U.S., why the surprise at the reciprocity from the U.S.? Why does it come as a surprise that the U.S. does not value its relationship with Pakistan and fundamentally hates Pakistan as much as Pakistan hates the U.S.? If it is not a surprise, then why the strong tone of indignation all these articles?
*I am charitably ignoring the shady role played by the agencies vis-à-vis OBL, Mullah Baradar, SSS affair since there is “no proof” of this.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Will Suspension of US Aid Hurt Pakistan More or Hurt US More?
JULY 12, 2011 BY MAJOR 5 COMMENTS
After reading insightful analysis by Pakistani commentators and analysts, I have created a quick poll to analyze the intricate nuances of the suspension of US aid to Pakistan to understand why US suspending aid to Pakistan is a bad idea and the likely consequences of this action.
Will Suspension of American Aid Hurt Pakistan or Will it Hurt the US?
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan will stop supplies to Afghanistan
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan will become fraands with China
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan will stop phyting against moojahids
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan has nuclear bum
It will hurt India because it affects strategic stability in the subcontinent
VoteView ResultsPolldaddy.com
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan’s Security Posture is Untenable
MAY 16, 2011 BY MAJOR 10 COMMENTS
Pakistan has decided that its security is dependent on a destabilized (and pliable) Afghanistan on its western border and an India tied up through covert warfare on its eastern border. Pakistan has had to fight Afghanistan, US and India to achieve this. Pakistan has relied on a three-pronged strategy: sub conventional warfare, denials and deterrence in this fight. Pakistan has fought
Sub conventional warfare through (a) the Taliban proxies in the west and (b) and in the east, through the various so-called “non-state actors” derived from groups such as Lashkar-e-tayyiba which enjoy state patronage. It has maintained
Deniability by disassociating itself from these armed proxies. Pakistan skillfully employs its diplomats, myriad media personalities and “analysts” who trot out denials ranging from the respectable to the bizarre. For example, in the Osama Bin Laden case, one has a variety of denials to choose: From ambassador Haqqani’s articulate denials of complicity, to Prime Minister Gilani’s ludicrous assertion that the failure belongs to the world, to the conspiratorial Mirza Aslam Beg’s theory that the operation was staged and a look alike was killed!!* The third prong is
Deterrence from retaliation for pursuing sub conventional warfare. To deter conventional retaliation from India, Pakistan uses a mixture of nuclear threats and conventional counter attacks and to deter retaliation from the US, Pakistan uses the threat of cutting off NATO supplies, ceasing co-operation and increased anti-Americanism among its population.
I wish to argue that this security posture is untenable. The current security posture seems to be based more on spite than on deliberate strategy and is likely to fail with disastrous consequences because Pakistan has failed to understand a simple fact: adversaries have options. Much has been written about the costs incurred by Pakistan in terms of human capital, security and economy. My argument is not along these lines and more along the structural aspects of this strategy. Using terror as a security strategy is flawed because:
1. There is no end-game: Due to the denials that Pakistan is indulging in covert warfare, negotiations cannot be a solution (which would require Pakistan to take responsibility for its proxies, either LeT vis-à-vis India or the Haqqani faction vis-à-vis Afghanistan). The only conclusion of this approach of subconventional warfare-deniability-deterrence is the defeat of the adversary through force. Be it US in Afghanistan or India in Kashmir and elsewhere. This is unlikely to happen. The adversaries have strong national will backed by a sense of morality, and no incentive to accept defeat. Surrendering Kashmir is not an option for India, since India will calculate the costs of losing access to its waters and a possibility that the conflict will not end with Kashmir. Surrendering Afghanistan is not an option for the US, since attacks originating from Afghanistan have a potential to shape domestic politics in the US. Under such a context, Pakistan will be forced to continue this indefinitely and forced to escalate, which it cannot because:
2. Escalation defeats the strategy: Any escalation, either of the form of spectacular attacks in Mumbai or arresting American operatives for example, leads to a breakdown of deniability and could invite retaliation. The Mumbai attacks trial in India have conclusively proven that Pakistani attackers were involved. The upcoming trial of Rana (involving Headley) in Chicago might uncover even more uncomfortable truths. A similar situation arose when it was revealed that Raymond Davis was accosted by armed intelligence agents and not a couple of random bystanders as was reported first. This breakdown in deniability can be used by the adversary to escalate, leaving Pakistan with no option because
3. The adversaries enjoy flexibility in their response: Pakistan seems to have forgotten that her adversaries are intelligent, adaptive and backed up enormous economic and military resources. India is fighting back by choosing not to fight. Without raising tensions, they have embarked on an arms build-up spree, developed a cold start strategy backed up by ballistic missile defense. This is aimed at eliciting arms build up by Pakistan and ultimately bankrupting Pakistan (one can notice parallels to Regan’s SDI approach).
The Americans are following an approach through technology and coercion. Pakistani declarations of its inability to fight in the tribal areas led to the Americans employing drones. Which has had a backlash inside Pakistan. Furthermore through the OBL raid, Americans have simultaneously struck at the credibility of the civilians and the myth of capability of the armed forces gavely injuring the deniability part of the strategy and demonstrating that Pakistani threat to shut down the NATO supply routes are hollow. This loss in credibility combined with the fact that keeping the economic lifeline of Pakistan alive requires negotiations and goodwill from the international community means that Pakistan has been boxed into a corner and American leverage over Pakistan has increased many fold. Make no mistake: the Americans are following a strategy of feigning friendship while indulging in warfare – as a reply to Pakistan’s strategy of feigning friendship while indulging in warfare**. While Pakistan measures its short-term success through body counts, India and US are charting a path to their successes by running Pakistan to the ground.
The same sub conventional warfare-deniability-deterrence approach was tried out in Kargil and failed spectacularly due to the same reasons of lack of endgame, asymmetric escalation by India and the flexibility of response that India enjoyed. Pakistan could not obtain a negotiated withdrawal (because that would imply that Pakistan would have accept responsibility for the intrusion) and counted on an Indian surrender (and were not prepared for their will to fight). Indian escalation could not be matched by Pakistani escalation, due to the danger of loss of deniability. Ultimately India prevailed through strength of arms through Artillery and Airforce and thoroughly discredited Pakistani denials by going on a diplomatic offensive***. Though the conflicts themselves were dissimilar, the current conflict is following the well-charted Kargil route. A bloody nose in the Kargil conflict**** led to a decade of military rule, erosion of Pakistan’s economic base, steeper economic divisions and radicalization. A bloody nose in the current conflict will prove to be much more costly and might very well be fatal to Pakistan.
* This despite Al-Qaeda’s acceptance that OBL is dead, the historic closed door briefing given by the armed forces to the Parliament and the possibility that US might find incriminating evidence from among the materials seized in the compound!
** Hence Pasha’s protestations about why US is not a reliable ally and noises about violation of sovereignty. Also, commentators seem to have missed the most significant aspect of the OBL raid: The fact that a successful operation would thoroughly humiliate and discredit Pakistani armed forces at home and abroad, could not have been overlooked by the US. In fact, this could have been one of the primary objectives of this raid.
*** People with long memories will recall that in the aftermath of the Kargil war, (and before 9/11) similar loss of credibility ruined Pakistan’s economy. 9/11 was a fortuitous windfall.
**** The defeat in Kagil was predictably sold off through stories ranging from a victory to denials that Pakistan was ever involved.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Post OBL Raid–Quick Notes
MAY 7, 2011 BY MAJOR 11 COMMENTS
Pakistan’s Sovereignty
US has stationed RADAR evading helicopters in Afghanistan. Since Taliban does not have RADAR, it wont be a stretch to guess whey they plan to fly these to. This raid is not the last. Probably was not the first. I find it impossible to believe that they did not go on a “test run” at night to see if they would be caught.
Did the Army help?
The sooner everyone gets over the delusion that the Army and ISI helped as an institution the better. The resulting loss of honor & dignity is strong enough to fracture the Army. The chief must be an idiot to do this. Trying to palm off the blame to PAF chief and civilian leaders are an indication that the Army is trying to get over this humiliation. Here is a sanity check: Nobody even had a coherent statement to make 3 days after.
What next in the Army/ISI?
Expect a witch hunt. The top brass must conclusively prove to the people of Pakistan that incompetence is punished. Expect a few heads to roll. More importantly, the top brass must conclusively prove to the radicalized middle and lower rungs that they were not hand in glove with the US. Not addressing this issue is a huge threat to the cohesion of the Army. Expect a few more heads to roll. If the Army and ISI did not help with this operation, by now they suspect that there are CIA moles inside. Expect still more heads to roll. It would be interesting to scan newspapers over the next several months to see how many Army/ISI operatives get bumped off.
So who helped?
I find it impossible to believe that CIA has not penetrated the ISI. They have had 10 years to cultivate mid-level ISI operatives, who probably are high level ISI operatives now. The repetition of the “courier” story is a red-herring. Someone from within the Armed forces ratted about RADAR installations and operating procedures. Someone from within the ISI ratted out a list of “off limits” houses.
If you truly believe Americans zeroed in on the OBL compound, set up a observation house near OBL compound (and therefore, near PMA Kakul) without getting caught, evaded RADARs in the middle of the night and snatched OBL AND there are no rodents inside Army/ISI — I have a Minar in Lahore that I wish to sell you. If you believe Army & ISI helped, I will throw in a big Mosque in Islamabad for free.
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Jardari Stole My Oped
MAY 3, 2011 BY MAJOR 2 COMMENTS
On this momentous occashun when Sheikh Osama has become Shaheed, I had written an op-ed for western newsbapers. Those of you who are regulars in this blog and are readers of my tweets know my strategic stance on various issues of strategic geopolitics pertinent to the strategy of Pakistan’s strategic interests. Todin, I wake up and what do I see? My column reproduced almost verbatim (with a few words changed here and there) with Jardari taking complete credit (Like how Wajid Shamsul Hasan took credit for the operashun which caught Bin Laden) for it!!
Jardari’s (stolen I might hasten to add) Washington Post op-ed is here. I am reproducing the draft of my piece so you yourself can make up your mind:
Pakistan wont Part with Some Parts of the Whole Part of the Operashun
Before the people of the United States, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria and ofcourse Dagestan (those countries who can benefit from solushun to Cashmere issue) complain about terroijam originating from Pakistan, they should all realize that Pakistan itself victim of Pakistan-trained terrorists. Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operashun, Pakistan helped capture Bin Laden by not being unhelpful in capturing Bin Laden (at this time).
One should realize that Pakistan’s terror toll bigger than the terror toll of all countries in NATO put together. Before terror victims complain to me about being victims of terror groups sheltered in Pakistan, they should realize I too am victim of terror groups sheltered in Pakistan. Some in the U.S. press have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, but such allegashuns only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists.
Before going NUTS at the inevitable protests marches in support of Bin Laden that will surely follow, I wish to remind you that religious parties win less than 0.001% of support in Pakistan, (the rest 99.999% oph support goes directly to Murderers who sing in Jail cells and Rapists who walk away free, like this one time when nobody stood up to condole Salman Taseer in the Nashunal assembly and the 0.001% oph beepuls who did, are now in hiding. But I digress). Asking uncomfortable questions will only destabilize democrajy in Pakistan and lead to further radicalizashun of South Asia and Central Asia.
I will now quote Benajir because I never really figured out what the Quaid said about Pakistan in the constituent assembly.
Now blease to go read Jardari’s Washington Post op-ed is here and see for yourself!!
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
An Observation – I
APRIL 14, 2011 BY MAJOR 9 COMMENTS
As a departure from regular programming, here is a note: Pakistan is overplaying its hand.
As a background, It is customary for Pakistan’s “establishment” to react vehemently when one of three things happen:
1. The establishment perceives that their relevance and power in Pakistan (in relation to the civvies) is being eroded: The last time this happened was when the US, in a not so subtle way, tried to set up a framework for strengthening the civilian set-up by tying the aid money under the Kerry-Lugar bill to conditions such as (i) Not having coups (ii) Transparency in disbursement and expenditure (iii) Progress along the democracy front etc. The KL bill was greeted by shrill debates in the media, manufactured outrage and public mobilized through the usual “establishment channels” to make the displeasure of the establishment known.
2. Vital surrogates in Afghanistan are attacked: An example of this was when NATO helicopters attacked terrorists of the Haqqani faction in the Kurram agency. Pakistan perceives that the Haqqani faction best serves its interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s desire to control Afghanistan is a primary national security objective – even though it is cloaked in the “acceptable” language of keeping India out, the fact remains that the gravest threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity arises from Pashtun nationalism, which is a far greater threat to the unity of Pakistan than even the unrest in Balochistan. Ofcourse Pashtun nationalism in border areas could easily be exploited by India which could strike grand bargain with the Pashuns along the lines of Bangladesh-Mukti Bahini. Pakistan retaliated to the attacks in Kurram by blocking NATO convoys and subsequent attacks on the tankers with tens of tankers set on fire.
3. Vital surrogates fighting India are attacked: The latest Raymond Davis spat arose due to CIA’s unilateral expansion of its activities to include the surveillance and penetration of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. This CIA action is most likely due to a realization of three things (i) Western cities are just as vulnerable as Mumbai to commando-style attacks. This problem would be much worse if there are multiple commando-style attacks* (ii) The full extent of the complicity of official agencies in the funding and training of LeT has become apparent due to the confession of David Headley (Dawood Gilani). The CIA probably realizes that Pakistan’s security apparatus will not move against the LeT (iii) LeT is increasingly becoming a potent threat in Afghanistan, with the attacks on Indian embassy in Kabul traced to LeT operatives. Pakistan retaliated by arresting Davis, and demanding the withdrawal of CIA operatives in Pakistan whose primary brief is to keep tabs on “other” terrorist organizations.
Pakistan’s strategy seems to be three fold. It is a mixture of (1) Drastic and audacious steps such as blocking NATO convoys and arresting CIA agents. This is done for short term advantages and signaling to the Pakistani public that the Army/ISI do and can stand up to the US. Pakistan’s assessment is that these drastic steps would work due to American compulsions in fighting the Afghan war (2) Gaining the initiative in the civilian discourse by whipping up passions through shrill TV anchors and columnists. This was evident in the KL bill, where swathes of protestors had no idea or were misinformed as to what the real issues were! As part of this strategy, Pakistan is increasingly trying to convert the LeT into a Hezbollah-type organization with charity and political wings thereby deeply embedded into the civil society itself (3) Vastly expanding the nuclear arsenal to guarantee that American drone attacks (and other intensive attacks like air-strikes and cruise missile strikes) do not happen in the heartland against Army and Army-surrogate establishments.
The danger** in these assessments and strategy is two fold
1. Pakistan has no short-term and definitely no long-term leverage against the US: Pakistani economy is unviable. This gives rise to several pressure-points that the Americans can exploit vis-à-vis IMF an the world bank. Combined with the unrest in the middle east and sluggish economy in Europe and the natural disaster in Japan, Pakistan has very few allies to turn to. Even China is short of cash after increasing social spending. In any case Chinese money will come with far greater cost (and social unrest like the recent Reko Diq fiasco) than American money. In the best case scenario, Americans will meddle increasingly in the political and economic setup of Pakistan, trying to install a pliant civilian and army leadership. In the worst case, Americans will assassinate key Army and political figures. If one thinks this is a fantastic proposition, one needs to take a fresh look at the Zia case.
2. Pakistan usually misreads democratic governments with disastrous effect: This happened with India in 1965 (where Shastri was considered to be a “short dark man in a dhoti with no will to fight”) in 1971 where obliviousness to popular displeasure against Pakistan in Bangladesh was followed by a thorough misreading of US & Chinese support and Indian will to fight, in 1998 where International mood and Indian will to fight in Kargil was misread. Many more examples come to mind. In the current context, Pakistan has misread American domestic compulsions. The greatest danger to Pakistan today is a terror attack in the US being traced to Pakistani soil***. A successful attempt will drive the American public opinion against Pakistan and to prevent democrats from looking weak on national security Obama will be forced to retaliate militarily.
Frequent spats such as the spat over Raymond Davis is not winning Pakistan any friends among the US public in a time when Obama is due for re-election. Terror attacks originating from Pakistan certainly will not win any. In any case, the Afghanistan and Pakistan “problem” is due for a thorough “examination” in the upcoming presidential debates preceding the elections in 2012. Pakistan should also realize that the Americans are innovative as well. The drone attacks have started primarily as a result of Pakistan’s unwillingness or inability to take on militants in the border areas. This is deeply embarrassing to Pakistan and a far bigger headache than joint operations in the region. Last but not least, Pakistan seems to forget that the money, media and muscle available with the Americans is far in excess of what Pakistan and her allies have and it is best to not test American patience and goodwill or to stretch Pakistan’s luck till the next terror attack on US soil.
*Spectacular terror attacks against India are invariably replicated in the west. This includes the IC 814 hijack where the very same people were connected to the 9/11 hijack as well.
**I will not go into the dangers of the society getting radicalized as exemplified by the recent Salman Taseer and Bhatti case. That is a separate thread.
***This nearly happened with the failed times-square bombing attempt of Faisal Shahzad (the son of an Air Vice Marshal!!)
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
============================================
The Year That Was – Part 4 (Oct-Dec)
FEBRUARY 14, 2012 LEAVE A COMMENT
Yours sachly wanted to write a blog post summarizing the events of the year past. Since he never got around to it, here is a collection of tweets from yours sachly’s fourth cousin which summarizes the events.
October
Zardari had his customary Op-ed in Washingtonpost
Zardari oped in Washington Bost!! http://wapo.st/pGaTGz I have to admit, @husainhaqqani writes well
Amreekis should leave the region so Pakistan can complain that Amreekis left the region.
Was followed by the customary Rehman-Malikism
Rehman Malik "no negotiations if the insurgents held AK in one hand." http://bo.st/ngEfyP Exberts use both hands to hold AK for stability!!
If someone holds an AK in one hand, claims to be an extremist and wants negoshiashuns — he is lying. He is not a properly trained extremist
And some Cricket
So the retired current ex-captain is the ex-retired current ex-captain.
Gaddafi died
OKAY IT IS CONPHIRMED!! Bositive Neuj!! Gaddafi captured and killed and it was NOT near Pakistan Military Academy!! Repeat: NOT near PMA!!
Mother-in-Law visited
Last time Clinton sahiba visited, she alleged that OBL was in Pakistan. I bet she won’t have the guts to make that accusashun in this visit.
My advice to Clinton Sahiba: If you want to take Pakistanis on in a debate, blease to train with Yindian Saas-Bahu serials. We are exberts.
Steve Jobs book was released
Steve Jobs "time in India taught me intuition" Hmph!! If he had visited Pak he would have learned how to save on taxes
Mushy and IK start politicking
Taken at the Imran Khan rally todin (photu) http://bit.ly/hLXJ3N
To Beepuls who suggest the photu is fake, it is 400% original!! I made it myself in photushop!
Musharraph: "Pakistan bending backwards to invite Afghan" he then added "Pakistan bending forwards to invite Chinese"
My summary oph Musharraph Speech: Fear that Amreeka might leave behind unstable Aphghanistan has caused Pakistan to destabilize Aphghanistan
Saudis get a new Crown prince
Saudi Barbaria has youthful crown brince. Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz was 81 and the new crown brince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz is only 78. Progress!!
November
People got divorced
Kim Kardashian Marrij just like US-Pakistan strategic relashunship!! It was short, involved a lot of money and people got screwed.
People got caught
Why cant we play a clean Krikit game like the Yindians? Where doing massive corrupshun is taken care of by the organizers?
My idea to Butt & Asif: Immediately release statement supporting Qadri. 400% guaranteed hero welcome back home & lawyers fighting to defend!
Amir conphession and Butt & Asif whining confirms that only Butt and Asif have no balls.
My summary of Courtroom arguments: Amir: "I did it" Asif: "Butt made me do it": Butt: "I offered only moral, bolitical & diplomatic support"
"Rehman Malik directs FIA team & lawyers to reach London and help Pakistani players" Translation: British will be dealt with an iron hand
Butt Song: Roses are red // Violets are Plue // Match is broken? // Let me fix it for you.
You self-righteous A-Hole!! It is cheating *only* if someone takes money and does *not* bowl no-palls. Ever thought of that? Amir was honest
Pakistan, Nukes and Cold Start
"Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans"http://bit.ly/ufeLCz Thats why they are called "Nuke Delivery Vehicles" you moron!
Sick of "Pakistan’s Nukes are in Danger" Propaganda by the west. Similar to "Osama Hiding in Pakistan" defamashun campaign they mounted.
Cold start is a strategy conceived in the small, cold Yindoo heart. Pakistani strategy should be warm start.
Eid
"Jamaatud Dawa free to collect Eid donations"http://bit.ly/uVXDrJ Their Ban status, like Veena Malik’s age, is ambiguous & contradictory.
Greece got bailed out
Can you name a single Greek terrorist? I cant either. Then why is Greece getting all the money? What nonsense!
India offers electricity and free trade
Whoa!! Excited about Phree trade with Yindia!! What are we getting phor free?
In two minds. Electricity phrom Yindia supports Yindian soaps. On the other hand, they are essential phor ISI interrogashun technawlaji
US tries civilize Pakistanis
"US. tries hip hop diplomacy in Pakistan" http://reut.rs/uAO4bZ I soch telling Pakistanis to bust a cap at Police is not the need of the hour
Sick of artecals selling US to Pakistan to "westernize" us. We are already westernized you morons! We emulate Saudi Barbaria on the west
PTA tries to civilize Pakistanis
Words are oph two types. Good words and Bad words. Should talk with the good words and ban the bad words. #PTA
Whoa! Padma (#369 in Urdu list) is banned. I soch Salman Rushdie had a hand in putting that one in.
They also banned FORESKIN. The Brophet banned Foreskin Captain Redundant!!
Why is Niger banned but not Algeria, Libya, Chad, Mali OR Bukina Faso? They are all neighpours of Niger!!
First hints of trouble for Husain Haqqani
My idea: @husainhaqqani should threaten Army that he’ll become Ambassador to China instead oph Ambassador to US if they ask him to do more.
Visited India through Marvi Memon’s tweets
Going to Yindia for a South Asian Youth leadership conference. Hope to teach them some civilization and hopefully get back Cashmere.
First, Dilli. Airplane just landed in Dilli. Runway looks just like those in Pakistan. A bit shorter in length and the asphalt a bit darker.
So we share the same kind of runways.
Documentary program "Khuda Gawah" on TV. Exposes Yindian strategy of enticing Afghanistan into its orbit #YindiaVisit
Let me hasten to add I avoid all Yindian programmes. I could be persuaded to watch if Cashmere is returned though. #YindiaVisit
For someone who boycotted indian music due to principles, "sheila ki jawani" sounds pretty okay. #YindiaVisit
Yindian Bollywood songs seem to be shorter in length and darker in mood than Pakistani Bollywood songs #YindiaVisit
Had chai for breakfast. Yindian chai like Pakistani chai, except it is darker and served in shorter cups. #YindiaVisit
This shah rukh khan looks identical to our Bollywood shah rukh khan. #YindiaVisit
Irregularity filled, corruption ridden land distribution to poor. No army like efficiency for allotting plots. #YindiaVisit
5 lakh ride train in Dilli & no ambulances. REPEAT 5 Lakh, no ambulance. That is 5 lakh, no ambulance. Ppl could misuse info.#YindiaVisit
Wrenching poverty causes women to get into degrading professions. Saw song of one "munni" who became badnaam.#YindiaVisit
Got a calendar from Hurriyat Grandpa. He seems to have several.#YindiaVisit
Yindian youth brainwashed that Pakistan created only in 1947!! Pakistan was formed 4.5 Billion years ago with the rest of earth#YindiaVisit
More trouble for Husain Haqqani
Jernail Pasha. DG CSISI.
US Army got OBL you say?! Bah! Pakistan Army got@husainhaqqani !! TAKE that and DESPAIR Amreeka!!
The important question to answer in #memogate is who was Maha Siddiqui? Did she really marry Shoaib? Hopefully ISI can answer this too.
Memogate song: Roses are red // Violets are plue // Please to not challenge // Army’s right to Cooo
"@ijazulhaq A lesson for all of you too. Be careful of what you say on Twitter" Most of all be carephul of accepting mangoes phrom strangers
Salala Incident
If NATO wanted to attack Pakistani soldiers they should atleast have had the decency to send in deniable proxies.
December
Ashura, traditional celebrations and traditional blasts
Ashura is the traditional festival celeprated to mark the commencement oph Shia hunting season in Pakistan.
Whoa!! Cylinder blast!! My advice: please to check pressure, valves and proximity oph Shia processions.
India-Pak
That reminds me. A Monkey’s Asha was shattered when it was arrested when it crossed the border. #AMonkeyAsha
Another Son of Pakistan arrested
Whoa!! Fai pleads guilty!! Before US accuses ISI of illegal influence, they should realize that Pakistan itself victim of ISI influence
Fai says he got 3.5 million $ but didnt lobby phor Pakistan. OUTRAGED!! HE STOLE ALL OUR MONEY!!
More propaganda that India won in 1971
It took 14 days phor army to prove they suck at phyting. And about 30 years to prove that they suck at governing too.
It is time we got past the 71 fiasco, come together as a nation and rewrite our destiny. And history books. We won in 71.
Government under attack from multiple directions
Aphter his wife died he became dejected sucked at governance and wrecked the economy. His son who helped him was a bumbling fool.
His subordinates conspired with jernails to overthrow him and there was anarchy all around.
Joo thought I was talking about Mughal empire? Sorry, was reading neuj.
People threatened by 9mm guns
Those twits boasting about their 9mm: Meet Mr 9 inches!
Year ends!
Mens of teetar, in the new year, pick up courage and tell the wimmens how much you love them. Preferably in DM with SMS lingo.
Wimmens of teetar, ignore creepy guys who DM in SMS lingo. Talk to nice people, like yours sachly.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan: The Way Forward
JANUARY 15, 2012 6 COMMENTS
Pakistan finds herself at cross roads again. The recent protracted tussle between the civilian setup on the one side and the Judiciary and the Army on the other, with no clear winners so far, has left Pakistan tottering on the brink of instability. A paralyzed civilian government is unable to govern, a distracted Judiciary is unable to dispense justice in important cases like the missing persons case, and the Army’s focus on fighting extremism has been sapped by the recent confrontation.
As can be expected, several commentators have written in western newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times offering simplistic analysis of the current crisis and recommend canned proposals like “Civilian supremacy over the Army” or complicated suggestions like “Checks and balances”. These solutions are unworkable, ridiculous and inapplicable given the peculiar nature of the power structure in Pakistan, her history, her constitution, jurisprudence and her polity. I wish to use this blog post to evolve a set of proposal for the Army, the Judiciary and the Civilian government. Please do post your own proposals as well in the comments:
Army: On earlier occasions, the crisis would have come to a quick conclusion with one simple trip to PTV on a tank followed by a speech. The reason for the current drawn out confrontation and festering instability is clear: Bad economy. I am sure that the Army’s economic advisors are aware of recent research which show that ruining the economy by profligate spending and picking up irresponsible fights with the US is more fun than actually fixing the said ruined economy. This is restraining the army from ending the crisis with a quick coup. In the interests of stability, crisis should be kept short and coups should be quick. Therefore, the Army, in addition to foreign policy and national security should also run the economy. This would guarantee that the economy would be in great shape like the our foreign policy and national security. This would ensure that the Army can conduct coups anytime they want without being overly scared of inheriting a hopelessly broken economy after the coup. Crises would be short!
The Judiciary: Pakistan’s Judiciary has accumulated impressive experience at justifying coups post-facto. However, it has shockingly meager experience in initiating regime changes. Initiating a regime change is what they are trying now and have created a protracted messy crisis. The fly in the ointment is the constitution which has hurdles like Presidential immunity, to prevent exactly this attempt at power-grab, but astute observers will note that the same constitution provides for a way out: Only a Muslim can become a President! Therefore, I propose that the Supreme court rename itself as the Supreme Jirga and the Chief Justice assume the title of Chief Qazi. Want to get rid of the government? No problem! Declare the Prime Minister and the President as bad Muslims and ergo, not Muslims at all! (This has a second advantage: Getting rid of Prime ministers by declaring them to be bad Muslims is definitely less ridiculous than citing judgements in Nigeria and Uganda to justify coups as the honorable Supreme Jirga did in Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of the Army Staff case.) Want to defuse the current crisis instead? No issues at all. Rule that the president should gift 1000 goats to the Chief of the ISI to repent for defamation and drop the case altogether. Crisis solved!
The Civilians: Of the three arms of the Government dreamt up by the Quaid – Qazis, Army and Bloody Civvies (This is what the Quaid really wanted. I claim that he carried a concealed gun in addition to his concealed beard and turban that people constantly search for), the Civvies are the weakest. They neither have the tanks of the Army nor do they have the religious self-righteousness of the Supreme Jirga. So they have to rely on subterfuge to ensure stability. It is clear that the recent crisis has been exacerbated by the extension granted to the COAS and DG-ISI. Keeping all this in mind, I propose that the Prime minister grant extension for life for the COAS. This offers many advantages:
The COAS wont be in a hurry to overthrow the government before his extension is up. He is COAS for life!
Dictators in Pakistan have a typical shelf life of 10 years at the maximum, after which either they are exiled or presented with mangoes. What would you rather be? Dictator for 10 years or COAS for life?
COAS would be busy purging his generals to make sure that they dont overthrow him to become COAS for life and therefore would be too busy to intervene in the civilian setup.
With a Supreme Jirga and a Chief Qazi taking care of Judicial matters and a General for life who commands his armed forces, purges his subordinates and has the final say on economy, national security and foreign policy and a Prime minister appointed by the General and Qazi, to take care of other minor issues with a relatively stable job and who constantly conspires to play off one power center against the other, crises would be short and stability would be guaranteed. Then Pakistan can finally return to its roots, get the magnificent administrative setup and the concomitant prosperity of the Mughal empire!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Musharraf-Pulled Speculations on NATO Shenanigans
NOVEMBER 29, 2011 6 COMMENTS
Due to changed circumstances, not getting enough time to maintain this blog. So here is a bunch of (musharraf-pulled) poorly thought out speculations.
With equipment like GPS is it impossible for ISAF ground forces to not know that Pakistani post was inside Pakistan territory
Even if ISAF ground forces did not know this, GPS and maps on their air-assets would have indicated that the post was inside Pakistani territory.
They chose to attack anyway. This indicates that NATO forces knew that they were attacking a post inside Pakistan. Ergo, this negates the latest BS peddled by NATO of taliban “provoking” a firefight with Pakistanis. However this statement itself is salient, we will return to this later.
The attack went on for two hours “despite repeated pleas”
PAF was not scrambled
Which means that “the soldiers were sleeping” reports which initially came out is BS. If they were indeed sleeping, the discipline of the people manning outposts is suspect. Even if they were, they probably woke up quickly. The “Soldiers were sleeping” was probably trotted out to imply that they did not provide covering fire to retreating taliban or fire first. PAF was not scrambled either due to inter-services bureaucracy, shenanigans by the Army without taking the PAF into confidence or PAF knowing that they will be shot out of the air. Please note this in the context of interpreting all future blusters and bravado about shooting down drones.
Initial reports spoke of “Lightly manned outposts” which was manned by a captain and a major nonetheless!
DGMO talked about interpreting the incident in the “background of May 2″
So speculation time. What to conclude? Let us assume as given: 1. NATO knew the post was inside Pakistani territory. 2. NATO has a selfish motive of not pissing off Pakistan much, because they know that Pakistan will stop supplies (as was done before). These leave only two possible logical conclusions:
Previous news articles have reported that field commanders are mighty pissed with the taliban firing from positions in or close to Pakistan border outposts. NATO stringently refuses to apologize for this incident (and by extension promise that such incidents will not happen in the future). Taken together: This probably indicates that the rules of engagement of border posts offerring covering fire has possibly changed and NATO will attack first and ask questions later. This was probably the double-speak of NATO about “taliban provoking a border incident”. If the rules of engagement have indeed changed, expect many more incidents in the future, if powers that be do not intervene and smooth ruffled feathers. Smoothing ruffled feathers will not happen by refusing to talk to the US, boycotting conferences or stopping supply lines.
If the attack was not in response to a change in the rules of engagement, and was carried out despite NATO knowing that the post was inside Pakistani territory, they could have proceeded Only if they knew that the post was sheltering a high-value target. This possibly explains the “Background of May 2″ comment by DGMO.
So change in the rules of engagement or high-value target? take your pick.
____________________________________________
Postscript:
I dont know about the composition of the forces manning the border posts. But is it standard operating procedure for them to be manned by a Captain and a Major?
Pakistan has reacted vehemently by closing NATO supply lines and boycotting the Bonn conference. Which is predictable and understandable. But a little surprising given that US reaction to Pakistani border guard killing its soldiers, numerous attacks — including the one on its consulate — traced to the Haqqani network and the biggest of them all: Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan for six years, have all been muted. I am sorry to say this, but Pakistan protests look too loud in comparison.
Pakistan has ruled out joint investigations and wants nothing short of an apology. NATO has refused to apologize and says US will press on. So 1. We might never know the truth 2. Next few days will be interesting.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
I Hate Apes
NOVEMBER 16, 2011 13 COMMENTS
Yours sachly tried his hand at writing a Sci-Fi short story and thought that it would be interesting to blog the background as a blog post. This blog post is about the the basic structural conflict between (some) religion(s) and science and wish to explain this using the theory of evolution as an example.
The Structure of Proselytizing Religions
Religions which successfully challenge the status-quo, eventually do so by strength of arms. But before they do so, they acquire enough converts to be a viable force. Achieving this critical mass of converts is not easy because the new religion should upend an existing religion with wide-spread adoption, a large clerical hierarchy and possibly backed by royal support and money (like how Christianity challenged Judaism). New religions acquire this critical momentum by finding a way to be popular with the masses and a way to retain the new converts. The successful ones which have done so, have structural properties of being conclusive and separative.
They are “conclusive” in the sense that they provide a book or a set of books which conclusively informs the reader everything they need to know about the religion: For example, the Bible or the Koran. The book typically has a conclusive answer for every question of faith. This has the advantage of (a) efficient dissemination across cultures and vast distances and (b) keeping the religion simple. If one cannot answer the question “What are the central tenets of your religion” in a short and meaningful way or transmit it across vast distances, one cannot hope to spread the religion! Hinduism never met any success at being transmitted, because it is simply too complicated and there is no conclusive authority on what Hinduism really is.
They are “separative” in the sense that they express a separate, or a distinct identity. For example, one cannot be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. Once converted, the convert should adhere to his new identity to the exclusion of any other identities. For example: you either adhere to the tenets of Christianity in totality or you are a heretic. Religions which are not separative, risk being absorbed into a bigger and more flexible religion. Somewhat like how Hinduism successfully subsumed Buddhism, because Buddhism did not require its adherents to discard all other beliefs.
Being conclusive and separative has two side effects: Nothing can be added to the religion without violating the requirement of a separate identity (For example. Ahmedis and Mormons, who tried to add things are heretics. Now you know why mullahs freak out about the Ahmedis) and nothing can be subtracted from the religion without violating tenets of the conclusive book. In fact, it goes a step further: If the book claims to be a divine revelation with everything in the book being stated as true, infallible and immutable, subtracting from the book brings the whole edifice crashing down and therefore, is a heresy.
The Structure of Science
Whereas conclusiveness and separativeness cause religions to stay constant, science is all about change. New theories are constantly proposed and validated and old ones discarded. In this context, it is important to understand the concept of a theory. The word “theory” is colloquially used to refer to a hypothesis or a conjecture or as my fourth cousin says: something pulled from one’s musharraf. Whereas in Science, a “theory” refers to our understanding of truth, which is strongly substantiated through multiple experiments and for which no counter-examples have been found so far (despite trying very hard). What then is the difference between a “Law” (like the second law of thermodynamics) and a “Theory” (like the atomic theory of matter)? Isn’t one stronger than the other? Actually no.
Law vs Theory
The word “Law” is used to codify an empirical observation which is believed to be universally true. Like for example “hot things cool”. Hot things have cooled for eons. Cups of coffee cool. Hot coals cool. Stars cool. We haven’t yet observed an instance of a hot object becoming hotter. So it is safe to codify it as (paraphrased) “Hot stuff cools” and call it “The second law of thermodynamics”. Note that Laws require evidence too and Laws require a lack of counter-examples. On the other hand theories explain how the laws work. “Why do hot things cool?” Hot things cool because all stuff is made of atoms and atoms like to hit each other transferring their energy to slower moving atoms. The “all stuff is made of atoms” is the “Atomic theory of matter” and has been substantiated through numerous experiments. We are yet to find a counter-example. Theories need strong evidence supporting them and require that there be no counter-examples. So “a theory” in the scientific sense is not a conjecture and is certainly not pulled from the musharraf. A Law and a Theory are equally strong, they are just instruments to codify different aspects of our knowledge. Note that the concept of counter-examples is very critical and is more subtle than most people realize. Because:
Exceptions Justify The Rule (Law/Theory)
Which does not mean that if we find a counter-example, that somehow strengthens the law or theory. Which would be bizarre. What it really means is that strong theories and laws, allow scope for counter-examples. For example, “Earth is spherical and you can dispute this theory by sending up a satellite to photograph it, and if it turns out to be flat, the theory is disproved” is a good theory. The reason being that there is a reasonable scope to challenge the theory by sending up a rocket. On the other hand “Earth is flat, but becomes spherical every time someone tries to verify this claim” is not a good theory, because there is no scope to disprove this theory. So more ways to challenge a theory automatically translates into a stronger theory if these challenges are defeated. On the other hand, only a weak theory tries to disallow challenges. In short, Exceptions justify the rule.
The Theory of Evolution
By now you probably know the news. Humans evolved from Apes. Note that it is a theory in the scientific sense that (a) It is not a conjecture (b) Multiple supporting evidence like fossil records and endogenous retroviral segments (more on this later) in human and chimpanzee DNA have been found (c) The theory allowed many challenges, all of which have been successfully met. Why is this incompatible with religion (eg Christianity)? Because it challenges a tenet in a conclusive book. Not only that, it challenges a central tenet in the conclusive book.
One of the questions any new religion has to answer is “What if I believe in everything you say, just not your God?” or in other words “What if I do everything that the Bible asks me to, but just don’t believe in Jesus? Do I still get to go to heaven?” Christian theology has answered it through the principle of Sola gratia or by grace alone. The explanation being that: Everyone goes to Hell. Because Adam and Eve committed a sin against God and this sin has been passed from father to his children through the semen and therefore everyone, including a child, has inherited this sin and is automatically destined to hell (Note that this is why it is important that Jesus was born to a Virgin. He was sinless. The sin was not transmitted to him). Only a belief in Jesus will earn enough grace from him to spare you from hell. Therefore, actions and faith go hand in hand in securing heaven.
Now you see the problem with the theory of Evolution! If Humans evolved, there is no Adam and Eve, there is no Original sin and there is no Sola gratia and everyone gets to go to heaven even without believing in Jesus! More seriously, a central tenet of a book that claims to be infallible and immutable is demonstrably false, thereby making the entire book suspect!
The Challenges
But what of the typical challenges?
“Evolution is just a theory not a law” Which is nothing but scientific gibberish as we have already seen before.
“God put fossil records in there to test our faith” Which in fact weakens creationism instead of strengthening it due to “exceptions justify the rule” principle.
“Literal interpretation of the Book should be avoided” Negates the conclusiveness and separativeness principles of the religion.
So how do we resolve this conflict? It is a tough question indeed.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A Thought Provoking Article
OCTOBER 31, 2011 11 COMMENTS
In the crowded field of “South Asian Analysts”, many of whom have excellent credentials — like managing to be born in Pakistan or better still, having managed to visit Pakistan within the past five years — how does one get noticed? By writing thought provoking articles of course! And “thought provoking” gentle readers, is synonymous with “contrarian”. Or for the clueless, “thought provoking” means to vehemently disagree with accepted wisdom. But “thought provoking” articles should be written with care. What you disagree with doesn’t matter as much as when you disagree with it: Timing is everything!
“So how long should I wait, and what should I wait for” you ask? Fikar not. The wait is usually a couple of weeks and the incident can be one of: Ahmedis getting massacred, Shias getting shot, Interior minister declaring that he will kill Blasphemers with his own bare hands, MNAs going underground for proposing amendments to Blasphemy laws, murderers getting garlanded or Judges running away to Saudi Arabia (you get the idea). That is the right opportunity for you to bust out your column “Why Pakistan is still largely a moderate country”.
Many have done this, and many more will do this in the future. To save time and effort for everyone, I present for your gentle consideration: The “Pakistan is a moderate country” column generator!! The formula itself is very simple: Riveting opening sentence, intriguing provocation of thought, religious mumbo jumbo, meaningless statistics, blame Zia, guilt out the west, demand money, cashmere or both.
So here it goes. The opening sentence should be riveting (choose one)
Pakistan is
A country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban.
Viewed synonymously with Osama Bin Laden.
Thought of as a cesspit of Blasphemy laws, Coups, Nuclear weapons and Jihadis
Most people will be tempted to end the article right here.
But dont!! Brave analyst, you should plod on!! Don’t forget that we aren’t stating facts, we are disagreeing with them! The second sentence should turn the premise around and be thought provoking (choose one):
But could it be
That Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law?
That the problems commonly associated with Pakistan started only as recently as 1947?
Nothing but propaganda by Zionist-RAW-CIA controlled western press?
That the problems facing Pakistan are completely misconstrued?
Now these two sentences set up the right platform to stake your credentials as a Pakistani. “But I don’t know anything about the core cultural zeitgeist of the country!” you say? Not to worry. Nobody reading your column does either. The trick is to act confident and informed (choose one):
The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality (Please DO NOT mention that Qadri was a Berelvi).
Most people visit the graves of mystic saints who were clean shaven.
The call for prayers co-exist with vibrant cultural scenes in Karachi, with girls in tight jeans under their shuttlecock burkhas, art festivals, book readings (inside well fortified, double cavity searched British consulate, but it is best not mentioned here).
Next is the time for some statistics (choose one)
The so-called conservative Pakistanis:
Overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties.
Where are my choices you ask? YOU MORON!! YOU DONT HAVE A CHOICE!! THIS STATISTIC SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE ARGUING THAT PAKISTAN IS MODERATE!! Now that we are past statistics, go on to blame Zia (choose one):
It was Zia who:
Started a process of Islamization of the society
Declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims*
Stopped PTV anchors from dressing up stylishly in sarees
Next is guilt trip!
And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. (To be mentioned in every article)
The next is the clincher
So what should the west do?
They should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support.
Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis.
Encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
(Choose ALL of them).
So putting it all together, here is an example of “Pakistan is a moderate country” column I put together:
Pakistan is a country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban. But could it be that Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law? The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality. The so-called conservative Pakistanis overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties. It was Zia who started a process of Islamization of the society. And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. For a safe and secure future of the world, the west should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support. Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis and encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
Please submit your “Pakistan is a moderate country” in western press!!
________________________________________
*It was actually ZAB who declared Ahmedis to be non-muslims, but remember that we are disagreeing with facts here, not stating them!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan and Indonesia are Different Countries
OCTOBER 28, 2011 16 COMMENTS
The perceptive Sadanand Dhume in his article “A Model for Pakistan’s Revival” draws parallels between Pakistan and Indonesia, and uses the dramatic transformation of Indonesia as a reason for optimism and the way forward in South Asia. Dhume cites the current stability and prosperity in Indonesia and points out:
Consider the parallels between yesterday’s Indonesia and today’s Pakistan. Sukarno’s Indonesia was the region’s problem child: unhappy with its borders, tilted toward an authoritarian power (China), and infested by a totalitarian ideology (communism). Today Islamabad pursues so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan and won’t quite abandon obsolete ambitions in Indian Kashmir. It leans toward “all-weather friend” China even as its economy stagnates and radical Islam eats away at society and the state.
While at first look the similarities are uncanny, the example cited is not remarkable: If one wants to cite examples of poorly governed countries with poor economies turning around, there is South Korea. If you want the example of a Muslim country which turned its economy around, it could be Saudi Arabia in the 60s and 70s. An example of a Muslim country without oil achieving this feat could be Turkey. Essentially what I am arguing is that such a parallel between Pakistan and Indonesia does not quite capture the very basis of all that ails Pakistan: Her identity which will cause a perpetual instability in the eastern border and her geography which will cause a perpetual instability in her western border. On the subject of Identity:
Commentators who wish to explain Pakistan’s seemingly irrational behavior—Supporting the destabilization of Afghanistan and her affinity towards China*—frequently attribute it to Pakistan’s security anxieties vis-a-vis India. This is not an accurate explanation: Nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles have ruled out India-Pakistan wars of the magnitude which cleaved Bangladesh away from Pakistan. Therefore, possibility of conflicts which challenge the existence of Pakistan itself is ruled out and in this sense the conflict has stabilized. Then why does Pakistan still pursue avenues which give it strategic advantage over India? The only possible explanation would be the pursuit of India’s defeat rather than the pursuit of any guarantees of Pakistan’s survival. This is because:
Pakistan views herself as the ideological progeny of the Mughal empire, with an unfinished agenda of conquering the subcontinent. Abandoning this endeavour would mean accepting the eventual supremacy of India (simply due to her demographics and geographical area) which would be interpreted (in Pakistan) as the defeat of the religion itself. This is unthinkable. Furthermore, abandoning this identity of Pakistan is unthinkable. This is the first “circular” conundrum.
This is essentially what sets the India-Pakistan conflict apart from seemingly similar conflicts, and can end only with the ideological collapse of one of the adversaries — in this sense it resembles the US-Soviet cold-war conflict (which ended with the collapse of the USSR) than the Turkey-Greece or Egypt-Israel conflict (where the adversaries realized the futility of conflict and the economic advantages of peace). This is the first objection that I have towards Dhume’s prescription: Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace and working with her to de-radicalize her society and re-structure the economy to bring stability, would have as much success as attempting to talk the Soviet Union out of the Cold-war, by convincing the Soviet Union to abandon communism.
The “Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace” part is an order of magnitude harder than what US has achieved in Indonesia and elsewhere. In the pursuit of this “Convincing” strategy, US has failed in an even more dangerous way: She has armed Pakistan (to address the “insecurity vis-a-vis India” thesis), which will eventually serve as a catalyst for more conflict (due to the “defeat of India” pursuit) rather than less conflict.
The second part of Pakistan’s problem is her Geography. The land that is Pakistan today, has neither been a viable entity nor had peace with Afghanistan except during periods of economic linkages and power projection from the Gangetic Plain. Astute observers of history will not fail to notice the fact that:
Peace between Pakistan and a strong Afghanistan is possible only with a strong Pakistan-India military alliance. In the absence of this alliance, peace is possible only with a destabilized Afghanistan. However an Afghanistan under perpetual Pakistani hegemony is possible only with strong economy in Pakistan, which is impossible without strong economic linkages with India. This is the second “circular” conundrum.
Ergo, Pakistan is not Indonesia. Therefore, any solution to create stability in the region will not have “Sell the idea of economic prosperity to Pakistan” as the first step. If anything, Pakistan is the Gordian Knot, which can be cut only by a revolution inside Pakistan first — that too a revolution of the good kind. But this is no reason to abandon optimism. Being the optimist that yours sachly is, I will wait till the region collapses into a rubble and then rebuilds itself into a stable and viable entity.
___________________________________
*Pakistan shares no common grounds or linkages with China on the basis of race, religion, values or geography (except of course the tiny strip of a perilous highway). The single point of convergence with China is the shared hostility towards India. Even there, both countries disagree about the magnitude of hostility. While China is content with an India that cannot drain her resources through economic and territorial challenges, Pakistan wishes to bet her very survival towards besting India.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Among The Believers by Naipaul – A Review (Part 1 of 3)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 17 COMMENTS
The latest controversy surrounding VS Naipaul’s statement about women writers re-kindled my interest in his works. I read his book “Among the believers–An Islamic Journey”. It is a travelogue of Naipaul’s travel (in 1979) through Islamic countries. Not Saudi Arabia, but the countries of the “converted peoples”. The countries which are separated from Arabia either through heresy (Iran, with its Shiite beliefs) or through distance — Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
In these travels Naipaul talks to a cross section of the society: people from drivers, students, guides, government officials to people of power like Ayatollah Khalkhali and Anwar Ibrahim (during his student politics days). Naipaul then synthesizes his experiences into a commentary on the history of the people, their faith, the impact of their faith on their way of life. This book written in the early 80′s offers a perceptive and prescient analysis of the impact of Islam on the politics and society of these countries.
This review is divided into three parts. The first two parts are about Naipaul’s impressions of Islam: Its effect on the culture and attitude of the people and the politics and society of these countries. The third part is about Naipaul’s impressions of Pakistan.Naipaul comes across as a man with a sharp sense of observation and intellect and a sharper tongue. His analysis of the role of Islam in the countries he visits is brutal and honest. The first of the two recurring themes of his work (the second theme in the second review) is:
The Lack of Solutions in Political Islam
Naipaul’s most vehement opinions about Islam have to do with (his) perceived misuse of Islam by a set of aggrieved people and the lack of solutions in Islam to address the very grievances of these people, which made them turn to religion in the first place. For example, in Iran, what started off as a revolution triggered by the injustices of the Shah, quickly took on an Islamic fervor. Naipaul is pessimistic about the ability of this fervor to carry the civilization forward. About Ayatollah Khomeini, Naipaul says
He was the kind of man who, without political doctrine, only with resentments, had made the Iranian revolution
This theme of lack of political solutions in Islam and the adoption of Islam by aggrieved people is their search for solutions (which do not exist in Islam) to their grievances pervades Naipaul’s keen commentary. About the Islamic fervor in the “born again” Muslims in Malaysia, Naipaul observes
The new men of the villages, who feel they have already lost so much, find their path blocked at every turn. Money, development, education have awakened them only to the knowledge that the world is not like their village, that the world is not their own. Their rage—the rage of pastoral people with limited skills, limited money, and a limited grasp of the world—is comprehensive. Now they have a weapon: Islam. It is their way of getting even with the world. It serves their grief, their feeling of inadequacy, their social rage and racial hate. This Islam is more than the old religion of their village. The Islam the missionaries bring is a religion of impending change and triumph; it comes as part of a world movement. In Readings in Islam, a local missionary magazine, it can be read that the West, in the eyes even of its philosophers, is eating itself up with its materialism and greed. The true believer, with his thoughts on the afterlife, lives for higher ideals. For a nonbeliever, with no faith in the afterlife, life is a round of pleasure.
Thus Naipaul attributes the fervor of the “born again” Muslims as their attempt at satiating their rage at the perceived inequities due to their inability to deal with the modern times. He also comments on the use of Islam by the Malays as a tool to look down upon the Chinese–who through their hard work and entrepreneurial skills outstrip the Malays in education and business. Malays perceive the Chinese to be unclean, due to their animist beliefs and pork eating. But of Malays he says
If the Chinese convert to Islam, the Malays would become Buddhists
But Islam has offered no solution to social inequities or injustices in Iran. During Naipaul’s trip, the Kurds were massacred, the communists brutally suppressed. The very acts of suppression and brutality for which the Shah was despised are now justified in the name of Islam. Malays, in their search for equality, have built a framework of race-based discrimination rooted in Islam. Pakistan, in its search for identity and a paradise for Muslims was under military rule with mobs attacking newspapers, jailed journalists and the brutal massacre of the Balochs. The lack of political solution in Islam, Naipaul deems as a intrinsic structural flaw in the religion itself:
Religion, which filled men’s days with rituals and ceremonies of worship, which preached the afterlife, at the same time gave men the sharpest sense of worldly injustice and made that part of religion. This late-twentieth-century Islam appeared to raise political issues. But it had the flaw of its origins—the flaw that ran right through Islamic history: to the political issues it raised it offered no political or practical solution. It offered only the faith. It offered only the Prophet, who would settle everything—but who had ceased to exist. This political Islam was rage, anarchy.
Naipaul further argues that contrary to the contention of the Islamic fundamentalists, there is no scope for Islam prescribing an institutionalized method of cratering to people’s political and social needs while taking their civilization forward. Because:
The Islamic fundamentalist wish is to work back to such a whole, for them a God-given whole, but with the tool of faith alone—belief, religious practices and rituals. It is like a wish—with intellect suppressed or limited, the historical sense falsified—to work back from the abstract to the concrete, and to set up the tribal walls again. It is to seek to re-create something like a tribal or a city-state that—except in theological fantasy—never was. The Koran is not the statute book of a settled golden age; it is the mystical or oracular record of an extended upheaval, widening out from the Prophet to his tribe to Arabia.
Thus, his conclusion is two-fold:
Islam was used by aggrieved people who do not know where to look for solutions, and
Islam, in an intrinsic and structural way, provides no political solution to these people
This conclusion cannot be dismissed as shallow opinions of a man who is hostile to Islam and ignorant of its key tenets, but rather can be countered (if at all) only by equally keen and perceptive arguments.
Next: Naipaul’s observation of the relationship of Islam with the West.
===========================
Musharraf-Pulled Speculations on NATO Shenanigans
NOVEMBER 29, 2011 LEAVE A COMMENT
Due to changed circumstances, not getting enough time to maintain this blog. So here is a bunch of (musharraf-pulled) poorly thought out speculations.
With equipment like GPS is it impossible for ISAF ground forces to not know that Pakistani post was inside Pakistan territory
Even if ISAF ground forces did not know this, GPS and maps on their air-assets would have indicated that the post was inside Pakistani territory.
They chose to attack anyway. This indicates that NATO forces knew that they were attacking a post inside Pakistan. Ergo, this negates the latest BS peddled by NATO of taliban “provoking” a firefight with Pakistanis. However this statement itself is salient, we will return to this later.
The attack went on for two hours “despite repeated pleas”
PAF was not scrambled
Which means that “the soldiers were sleeping” reports which initially came out is BS. If they were indeed sleeping, the discipline of the people manning outposts is suspect. Even if they were, they probably woke up quickly. The “Soldiers were sleeping” was probably trotted out to imply that they did not provide covering fire to retreating taliban or fire first. PAF was not scrambled either due to inter-services bureaucracy, shenanigans by the Army without taking the PAF into confidence or PAF knowing that they will be shot out of the air. Please note this in the context of interpreting all future blusters and bravado about shooting down drones.
Initial reports spoke of “Lightly manned outposts” which was manned by a captain and a major nonetheless!
DGMO talked about interpreting the incident in the “background of May 2″
So speculation time. What to conclude? Let us assume as given: 1. NATO knew the post was inside Pakistani territory. 2. NATO has a selfish motive of not pissing off Pakistan much, because they know that Pakistan will stop supplies (as was done before). These leave only two possible logical conclusions:
Previous news articles have reported that field commanders are mighty pissed with the taliban firing from positions in or close to Pakistan border outposts. NATO stringently refuses to apologize for this incident (and by extension promise that such incidents will not happen in the future). Taken together: This probably indicates that the rules of engagement of border posts offerring covering fire has possibly changed and NATO will attack first and ask questions later. This was probably the double-speak of NATO about “taliban provoking a border incident”. If the rules of engagement have indeed changed, expect many more incidents in the future, if powers that be do not intervene and smooth ruffled feathers. Smoothing ruffled feathers will not happen by refusing to talk to the US, boycotting conferences or stopping supply lines.
If the attack was not in response to a change in the rules of engagement, and was carried out despite NATO knowing that the post was inside Pakistani territory, they could have proceeded Only if they knew that the post was sheltering a high-value target. This possibly explains the “Background of May 2″ comment by DGMO.
So change in the rules of engagement or high-value target? take your pick.
____________________________________________
Postscript:
I dont know about the composition of the forces manning the border posts. But is it standard operating procedure for them to be manned by a Captain and a Major?
Pakistan has reacted vehemently by closing NATO supply lines and boycotting the Bonn conference. Which is predictable and understandable. But a little surprising given that US reaction to Pakistani border guard killing its soldiers, numerous attacks — including the one on its consulate — traced to the Haqqani network and the biggest of them all: Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan for six years, have all been muted. I am sorry to say this, but Pakistan protests look too loud in comparison.
Pakistan has ruled out joint investigations and wants nothing short of an apology. NATO has refused to apologize and says US will press on. So 1. We might never know the truth 2. Next few days will be interesting.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
I Hate Apes
NOVEMBER 16, 2011 13 COMMENTS
Yours sachly tried his hand at writing a Sci-Fi short story and thought that it would be interesting to blog the background as a blog post. This blog post is about the the basic structural conflict between (some) religion(s) and science and wish to explain this using the theory of evolution as an example.
The Structure of Proselytizing Religions
Religions which successfully challenge the status-quo, eventually do so by strength of arms. But before they do so, they acquire enough converts to be a viable force. Achieving this critical mass of converts is not easy because the new religion should upend an existing religion with wide-spread adoption, a large clerical hierarchy and possibly backed by royal support and money (like how Christianity challenged Judaism). New religions acquire this critical momentum by finding a way to be popular with the masses and a way to retain the new converts. The successful ones which have done so, have structural properties of being conclusive and separative.
They are “conclusive” in the sense that they provide a book or a set of books which conclusively informs the reader everything they need to know about the religion: For example, the Bible or the Koran. The book typically has a conclusive answer for every question of faith. This has the advantage of (a) efficient dissemination across cultures and vast distances and (b) keeping the religion simple. If one cannot answer the question “What are the central tenets of your religion” in a short and meaningful way or transmit it across vast distances, one cannot hope to spread the religion! Hinduism never met any success at being transmitted, because it is simply too complicated and there is no conclusive authority on what Hinduism really is.
They are “separative” in the sense that they express a separate, or a distinct identity. For example, one cannot be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. Once converted, the convert should adhere to his new identity to the exclusion of any other identities. For example: you either adhere to the tenets of Christianity in totality or you are a heretic. Religions which are not separative, risk being absorbed into a bigger and more flexible religion. Somewhat like how Hinduism successfully subsumed Buddhism, because Buddhism did not require its adherents to discard all other beliefs.
Being conclusive and separative has two side effects: Nothing can be added to the religion without violating the requirement of a separate identity (For example. Ahmedis and Mormons, who tried to add things are heretics. Now you know why mullahs freak out about the Ahmedis) and nothing can be subtracted from the religion without violating tenets of the conclusive book. In fact, it goes a step further: If the book claims to be a divine revelation with everything in the book being stated as true, infallible and immutable, subtracting from the book brings the whole edifice crashing down and therefore, is a heresy.
The Structure of Science
Whereas conclusiveness and separativeness cause religions to stay constant, science is all about change. New theories are constantly proposed and validated and old ones discarded. In this context, it is important to understand the concept of a theory. The word “theory” is colloquially used to refer to a hypothesis or a conjecture or as my fourth cousin says: something pulled from one’s musharraf. Whereas in Science, a “theory” refers to our understanding of truth, which is strongly substantiated through multiple experiments and for which no counter-examples have been found so far (despite trying very hard). What then is the difference between a “Law” (like the second law of thermodynamics) and a “Theory” (like the atomic theory of matter)? Isn’t one stronger than the other? Actually no.
Law vs Theory
The word “Law” is used to codify an empirical observation which is believed to be universally true. Like for example “hot things cool”. Hot things have cooled for eons. Cups of coffee cool. Hot coals cool. Stars cool. We haven’t yet observed an instance of a hot object becoming hotter. So it is safe to codify it as (paraphrased) “Hot stuff cools” and call it “The second law of thermodynamics”. Note that Laws require evidence too and Laws require a lack of counter-examples. On the other hand theories explain how the laws work. “Why do hot things cool?” Hot things cool because all stuff is made of atoms and atoms like to hit each other transferring their energy to slower moving atoms. The “all stuff is made of atoms” is the “Atomic theory of matter” and has been substantiated through numerous experiments. We are yet to find a counter-example. Theories need strong evidence supporting them and require that there be no counter-examples. So “a theory” in the scientific sense is not a conjecture and is certainly not pulled from the musharraf. A Law and a Theory are equally strong, they are just instruments to codify different aspects of our knowledge. Note that the concept of counter-examples is very critical and is more subtle than most people realize. Because:
Exceptions Justify The Rule (Law/Theory)
Which does not mean that if we find a counter-example, that somehow strengthens the law or theory. Which would be bizarre. What it really means is that strong theories and laws, allow scope for counter-examples. For example, “Earth is spherical and you can dispute this theory by sending up a satellite to photograph it, and if it turns out to be flat, the theory is disproved” is a good theory. The reason being that there is a reasonable scope to challenge the theory by sending up a rocket. On the other hand “Earth is flat, but becomes spherical every time someone tries to verify this claim” is not a good theory, because there is no scope to disprove this theory. So more ways to challenge a theory automatically translates into a stronger theory if these challenges are defeated. On the other hand, only a weak theory tries to disallow challenges. In short, Exceptions justify the rule.
The Theory of Evolution
By now you probably know the news. Humans evolved from Apes. Note that it is a theory in the scientific sense that (a) It is not a conjecture (b) Multiple supporting evidence like fossil records and endogenous retroviral segments (more on this later) in human and chimpanzee DNA have been found (c) The theory allowed many challenges, all of which have been successfully met. Why is this incompatible with religion (eg Christianity)? Because it challenges a tenet in a conclusive book. Not only that, it challenges a central tenet in the conclusive book.
One of the questions any new religion has to answer is “What if I believe in everything you say, just not your God?” or in other words “What if I do everything that the Bible asks me to, but just don’t believe in Jesus? Do I still get to go to heaven?” Christian theology has answered it through the principle of Sola gratia or by grace alone. The explanation being that: Everyone goes to Hell. Because Adam and Eve committed a sin against God and this sin has been passed from father to his children through the semen and therefore everyone, including a child, has inherited this sin and is automatically destined to hell (Note that this is why it is important that Jesus was born to a Virgin. He was sinless. The sin was not transmitted to him). Only a belief in Jesus will earn enough grace from him to spare you from hell. Therefore, actions and faith go hand in hand in securing heaven.
Now you see the problem with the theory of Evolution! If Humans evolved, there is no Adam and Eve, there is no Original sin and there is no Sola gratia and everyone gets to go to heaven even without believing in Jesus! More seriously, a central tenet of a book that claims to be infallible and immutable is demonstrably false, thereby making the entire book suspect!
The Challenges
But what of the typical challenges?
“Evolution is just a theory not a law” Which is nothing but scientific gibberish as we have already seen before.
“God put fossil records in there to test our faith” Which in fact weakens creationism instead of strengthening it due to “exceptions justify the rule” principle.
“Literal interpretation of the Book should be avoided” Negates the conclusiveness and separativeness principles of the religion.
So how do we resolve this conflict? It is a tough question indeed.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A Thought Provoking Article
OCTOBER 31, 2011 11 COMMENTS
In the crowded field of “South Asian Analysts”, many of whom have excellent credentials — like managing to be born in Pakistan or better still, having managed to visit Pakistan within the past five years — how does one get noticed? By writing thought provoking articles of course! And “thought provoking” gentle readers, is synonymous with “contrarian”. Or for the clueless, “thought provoking” means to vehemently disagree with accepted wisdom. But “thought provoking” articles should be written with care. What you disagree with doesn’t matter as much as when you disagree with it: Timing is everything!
“So how long should I wait, and what should I wait for” you ask? Fikar not. The wait is usually a couple of weeks and the incident can be one of: Ahmedis getting massacred, Shias getting shot, Interior minister declaring that he will kill Blasphemers with his own bare hands, MNAs going underground for proposing amendments to Blasphemy laws, murderers getting garlanded or Judges running away to Saudi Arabia (you get the idea). That is the right opportunity for you to bust out your column “Why Pakistan is still largely a moderate country”.
Many have done this, and many more will do this in the future. To save time and effort for everyone, I present for your gentle consideration: The “Pakistan is a moderate country” column generator!! The formula itself is very simple: Riveting opening sentence, intriguing provocation of thought, religious mumbo jumbo, meaningless statistics, blame Zia, guilt out the west, demand money, cashmere or both.
So here it goes. The opening sentence should be riveting (choose one)
Pakistan is
A country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban.
Viewed synonymously with Osama Bin Laden.
Thought of as a cesspit of Blasphemy laws, Coups, Nuclear weapons and Jihadis
Most people will be tempted to end the article right here.
But dont!! Brave analyst, you should plod on!! Don’t forget that we aren’t stating facts, we are disagreeing with them! The second sentence should turn the premise around and be thought provoking (choose one):
But could it be
That Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law?
That the problems commonly associated with Pakistan started only as recently as 1947?
Nothing but propaganda by Zionist-RAW-CIA controlled western press?
That the problems facing Pakistan are completely misconstrued?
Now these two sentences set up the right platform to stake your credentials as a Pakistani. “But I don’t know anything about the core cultural zeitgeist of the country!” you say? Not to worry. Nobody reading your column does either. The trick is to act confident and informed (choose one):
The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality (Please DO NOT mention that Qadri was a Berelvi).
Most people visit the graves of mystic saints who were clean shaven.
The call for prayers co-exist with vibrant cultural scenes in Karachi, with girls in tight jeans under their shuttlecock burkhas, art festivals, book readings (inside well fortified, double cavity searched British consulate, but it is best not mentioned here).
Next is the time for some statistics (choose one)
The so-called conservative Pakistanis:
Overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties.
Where are my choices you ask? YOU MORON!! YOU DONT HAVE A CHOICE!! THIS STATISTIC SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE ARGUING THAT PAKISTAN IS MODERATE!! Now that we are past statistics, go on to blame Zia (choose one):
It was Zia who:
Started a process of Islamization of the society
Declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims*
Stopped PTV anchors from dressing up stylishly in sarees
Next is guilt trip!
And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. (To be mentioned in every article)
The next is the clincher
So what should the west do?
They should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support.
Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis.
Encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
(Choose ALL of them).
So putting it all together, here is an example of “Pakistan is a moderate country” column I put together:
Pakistan is a country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban. But could it be that Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law? The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality. The so-called conservative Pakistanis overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties. It was Zia who started a process of Islamization of the society. And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. For a safe and secure future of the world, the west should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support. Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis and encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
Please submit your “Pakistan is a moderate country” in western press!!
________________________________________
*It was actually ZAB who declared Ahmedis to be non-muslims, but remember that we are disagreeing with facts here, not stating them!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan and Indonesia are Different Countries
OCTOBER 28, 2011 16 COMMENTS
The perceptive Sadanand Dhume in his article “A Model for Pakistan’s Revival” draws parallels between Pakistan and Indonesia, and uses the dramatic transformation of Indonesia as a reason for optimism and the way forward in South Asia. Dhume cites the current stability and prosperity in Indonesia and points out:
Consider the parallels between yesterday’s Indonesia and today’s Pakistan. Sukarno’s Indonesia was the region’s problem child: unhappy with its borders, tilted toward an authoritarian power (China), and infested by a totalitarian ideology (communism). Today Islamabad pursues so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan and won’t quite abandon obsolete ambitions in Indian Kashmir. It leans toward “all-weather friend” China even as its economy stagnates and radical Islam eats away at society and the state.
While at first look the similarities are uncanny, the example cited is not remarkable: If one wants to cite examples of poorly governed countries with poor economies turning around, there is South Korea. If you want the example of a Muslim country which turned its economy around, it could be Saudi Arabia in the 60s and 70s. An example of a Muslim country without oil achieving this feat could be Turkey. Essentially what I am arguing is that such a parallel between Pakistan and Indonesia does not quite capture the very basis of all that ails Pakistan: Her identity which will cause a perpetual instability in the eastern border and her geography which will cause a perpetual instability in her western border. On the subject of Identity:
Commentators who wish to explain Pakistan’s seemingly irrational behavior—Supporting the destabilization of Afghanistan and her affinity towards China*—frequently attribute it to Pakistan’s security anxieties vis-a-vis India. This is not an accurate explanation: Nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles have ruled out India-Pakistan wars of the magnitude which cleaved Bangladesh away from Pakistan. Therefore, possibility of conflicts which challenge the existence of Pakistan itself is ruled out and in this sense the conflict has stabilized. Then why does Pakistan still pursue avenues which give it strategic advantage over India? The only possible explanation would be the pursuit of India’s defeat rather than the pursuit of any guarantees of Pakistan’s survival. This is because:
Pakistan views herself as the ideological progeny of the Mughal empire, with an unfinished agenda of conquering the subcontinent. Abandoning this endeavour would mean accepting the eventual supremacy of India (simply due to her demographics and geographical area) which would be interpreted (in Pakistan) as the defeat of the religion itself. This is unthinkable. Furthermore, abandoning this identity of Pakistan is unthinkable. This is the first “circular” conundrum.
This is essentially what sets the India-Pakistan conflict apart from seemingly similar conflicts, and can end only with the ideological collapse of one of the adversaries — in this sense it resembles the US-Soviet cold-war conflict (which ended with the collapse of the USSR) than the Turkey-Greece or Egypt-Israel conflict (where the adversaries realized the futility of conflict and the economic advantages of peace). This is the first objection that I have towards Dhume’s prescription: Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace and working with her to de-radicalize her society and re-structure the economy to bring stability, would have as much success as attempting to talk the Soviet Union out of the Cold-war, by convincing the Soviet Union to abandon communism.
The “Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace” part is an order of magnitude harder than what US has achieved in Indonesia and elsewhere. In the pursuit of this “Convincing” strategy, US has failed in an even more dangerous way: She has armed Pakistan (to address the “insecurity vis-a-vis India” thesis), which will eventually serve as a catalyst for more conflict (due to the “defeat of India” pursuit) rather than less conflict.
The second part of Pakistan’s problem is her Geography. The land that is Pakistan today, has neither been a viable entity nor had peace with Afghanistan except during periods of economic linkages and power projection from the Gangetic Plain. Astute observers of history will not fail to notice the fact that:
Peace between Pakistan and a strong Afghanistan is possible only with a strong Pakistan-India military alliance. In the absence of this alliance, peace is possible only with a destabilized Afghanistan. However an Afghanistan under perpetual Pakistani hegemony is possible only with strong economy in Pakistan, which is impossible without strong economic linkages with India. This is the second “circular” conundrum.
Ergo, Pakistan is not Indonesia. Therefore, any solution to create stability in the region will not have “Sell the idea of economic prosperity to Pakistan” as the first step. If anything, Pakistan is the Gordian Knot, which can be cut only by a revolution inside Pakistan first — that too a revolution of the good kind. But this is no reason to abandon optimism. Being the optimist that yours sachly is, I will wait till the region collapses into a rubble and then rebuilds itself into a stable and viable entity.
___________________________________
*Pakistan shares no common grounds or linkages with China on the basis of race, religion, values or geography (except of course the tiny strip of a perilous highway). The single point of convergence with China is the shared hostility towards India. Even there, both countries disagree about the magnitude of hostility. While China is content with an India that cannot drain her resources through economic and territorial challenges, Pakistan wishes to bet her very survival towards besting India.
==============================
Yours Sachly Ko Lulz Kyon Ata Hai: Part 1
MAY 1, 2012 LEAVE A COMMENT
Yours sachly brings you for your enjoyment, news articles that should be read together for Lulz.
Army has its eye on Nato supplies deal
The bankrupt Pakistan Railways management has pulled off the mother of all deals with the NLC, while the army is working hard behind the scenes for an equally big deal with the United States. In the first week of February, railways signed a deal with the military-run National Logistics Cell (NLC) under which the cell will repair 30 railway locomotives of which 15 will be returned to the railways to use. The other 15 will be used by the NLC to carry freight booked by the NLC. What does the NLC get out of this deal? This was a question that proved hard to answer as the NLC and the ISPR never bothered to reply to any questions despite a weeklong wait. However, Dawn has learnt that the military is gearing up to earn big bucks from the transport of US/Nato/Isaf supplies via Pakistan’s land routes in the near future and this is what is behind the NLC deal with the railways.
Pakistan Railways asked to justify controversial deals
The National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) has asked Pakistan Railways (PR) to justify its deal with National Logistics Cell (NLC) for repairing 30 locomotives at Rs500 million while the Bank’s Balancing, Modernisation and Replacement (BMR) for 100 locomotives is worth Rs 6.1 billion. The News has reliably learnt that PR has two separate deals to repair 130 units from its aging fleet of locomotives. In the first deal, NLC has been asked to repair 30 locomotives at the cost of Rs500 million. After the repair, half of the repaired locomotives would be used by NLC and PR for freight purposes only. In the second deal, NBP is to arrange a financing facility of Rs6.1 billion for the BMR of 100 locomotives.
Railways’ ancillary staff move to block Rs6.1 billion loan
Cash-strapped railways got the Rs6.1 billion loan in January through its profitable ancillary PRACS. PRACS was chosen for the purpose as no bank and financial institution was ready to trust the loss-making railways. The employees, under the cover of PRACS Employees Association, are of the view that the loan will not be used for the repair of locomotives and may be misused by railway officials. The association represents lower as well as some high-ranking officers of PRACS.
Pak Rail team arrives today to buy engines
With the intention of acquiring locomotives from India to re-start its defunct train services, a three-member team of the Pakistan Railways Advisory and Consultancy Services Limited (PRACS), led by managing director Mohammed Junaid Quareshi, will arrive in the Capital for a two-day visit onThursday. As reported in the April 21 edition of the Hindustan Times, Pakistan has pitched an upgraded offer to buy or take on lease about 100 railway engines from India.
So NLC wants locomotives repaired for cheap, Pakistan railways is taking a loan from a bank for four times that money to repair locomotives. The loan is taken out by an ancillary, the money will not be used to repair locomotives but for purchasing new ones from India, which will then be used to transport NATO supplies, which will earn money from the US for National Logistics Cell. Which makes me propose a new Headline:
India to Fund Pakistan Army to Move Peace Process Forward
Or better still
Milo Minderbinder Runs Pakistan Railways
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
You Too Can Give Suggestions To Solve Siachen
APRIL 17, 2012 1 COMMENT
Do you feel like doing a strategic analysis of Siachen issue but cannot figure out where it is on the map? Do you feel like calling for solutions to Siachen but do not know the difference between Karakoram highway, Karakoram pass and Karakoram mountain range? Fikar not. Here is a map yours sachly made for you (click on it for a bigger map and opportunities for bigger strategic analysis)
Siachen
And here is information about the Karakoram pass ripped off from Wikipedia:
The Karakoram Pass is a mountain pass between India and China in the Karakoram Range. It is the highest pass on the ancient caravan route between Leh in Ladakh and Yarkand in the Tarim Basin. ‘Karakoram’ literally means ‘Black Gravel’ in Turkic. The Karakoram pass falls on the boundary of territory controlled by India (Jammu and Kashmir region) and China (Xinjiang Autonomous Region).
Now go forth and embellish your tweets with profound observations like ”India should withdraw to the Nubra valley, and Pakistan to Skardu”.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A Laymard’s Guide to the Siachen Problem
APRIL 13, 2012 21 COMMENTS
The origins of the Siachen problem can be traced to the Simla agreement of 1972. That agreement demarcating the Line of Control between India and Pakistan did not demarcate where the line of control went and simply stated that it went “North”. This left a great strategic ambiguity as to whether “North” meant North or if it really meant East, thus creating confusion as to whether Siachen Glacier belonged to Pakistan or India.
Even in the presence of this ambiguity, there was relative peace between 1971 and 1979, when Pakistan was busy with coups and hangings. After taking charge in 1978 through a peaceful coup, Zia-ul-Haq wanted to repair the image of Pakistan army severely dented in the 1971 war. To make up for losing 57,000sq miles of East Pakistan, Zia wanted to capture the 1000sq miles of Siachen, where there was no deployment of either Indian or Pakistani soldiers (Siachen is a icy waste where not a single blade of grass grows just like Aksai Chin, which also has nothing except strategically important passes connecting Tibet). Pakistan started giving licenses for mountaineering expeditions for tourists. In accordance with the tradition of gracious subcontinental hospitality, each of these expeditions were accompanied by representatives from Pakistan army and supplied by helicopter. Coincidentally, the terrain and logistics routes were also mapped. Simultaneously, the Indians were playing cricket in Antarctica to practice getting acclamatised to the cold. But an all out war on Siachen would have to wait. The reasons were two fold: (1) The treacherous Indians, in a display of ungentlemanly behaviour, had attacked across the international border as a retaliation for Pakistan attacking across the line of control in 1965. Indians did not limit the war to the line of control respecting the strategy drawn up by Pakistan’s generals to keep the war limited. So any war on Siachen had the potential to flare up as a major border war (2) Pakistan did not do very well in a major border war and could win only a silver medal after coming in second in that competition.
1984 brought the Nuclear test at Lop Nor in China. Co-incidentally, for presumably unrelated reasons, Pakistan gained the confidence that a conflict along the undemarcated line of control would not flare up into a larger border war. Preparations were made for another mountaineering expedition into Siachen by buying Arctic gear from a shop in London, which was unfortunately run by a RAW agent, who promptly informed the Indians. This set off a race to Siachen, where Indian soldiers and Pakistani soldiers trekked to Siachen, but Indians beat the Pakistanis by 4 days. Yes, all of 4 days. A war followed. In those heights, fighting consisted of not dying in the cold air or lack of oxygen and the side which did not freeze to death won. Indians with their short, dark bodies required less food and oxygen, (each Pakistani soldier on the other hand, needed the food and oxygen of atleast 8 Indian soldiers) survived longer and won. The Indians advanced all the way upto the Saltoro ridge west of Siachen glacier and occupied the 3 major passes into the glacier — Sia La, Gyong La and Bilafond La — thus completely cutting off all approaches to the glacier and and making it impossible for the Pakistan army to even reach Siachen.
Which leads to current status of Siachen problem where India has all of Siachen and Pakistan has a problem with it.
Several attempts were made to dislodge the Indian Army, the most ferocious in 1987 by the then Brig. Gen. Pervez Musharraf who had raised a SSG unit in Khaplu for mountain warfare. The attack proved futile and led to a huge loss of life on the Pakistani side and in a subsequent counter-attack Indians captured even more territory. Musharraf subsequently turned his attention to Gilgit and won a major war against the Pakistani Shias in Chitral, killing hundreds. Buoyed by this victory, Musharraf returned for a major assault in 1989 on Siachen but it fared even worse than the 1987 assault. Readers would know that Mushrraf would later go on to become COAS and to complement his bigger rank, distinguish himself by losing in a bigger way in Kargil, but would eventually win in the 1999 war in Islamabad. The Islamabad war consisted of an assault by the forces commanded by General Musharraf on the forces commanded by Ameer-Ul-Momineen Nawaz Sharif. That short war involved precise military maneuvers to capture PTV headquarters, an assault on the airport, capturing all the roads leading to the Parliament and the eventual capture of the Parliament itself, leading to the unconditional surrender of all Senators, MNAs, the Judiciary and the Constitution. Losing against India but winning against Pakistan seems to be Musharraf’s speciality, but I got ahead of myself.
Subsequent intermittent attacks till the mid 90’s were futile as well, which led to one logical conclusion: Siachen could not be won by attacking Siachen, Indian supply routes to Siachen would have to be cut much further south, somewhere along the demarcated line of control. But this war had to wait. A war across demarcated Line of Control (as opposed to war across the actual ground position line or AGPL) had the potential to flare up as a major war across the international border and … well you get the idea.
1998 brought the nuclear tests by India as well as Pakistan. Co-incidentally, for presumably unrelated reasons, Pakistan gained the confidence that a conflict along the demarcated line of control would not flare up into a larger border war. (The Lop Nor tests only gave the confidence that conflict along the undemarcated line of control would not flare up into a larger border war. This has to do with deep strategic reasons involving just having a nuclear bomb vs having a weaponized nuclear bomb). A mountaineering expedition of Mujahideen who were fighting for freedom against Indian oppression in Kashmir occupied the Indian positions in Kargil during the winter* and threatened the Indian supply lines to Siachen, leading Musharraf to brag (actual quote)
‘I have a Stinger on every peak…we shall walk into Siachen to mop up hundreds of dead Indians in the cold’
While the freedom fighters had full moral, political and diplomatic support from Pakistan army, they had only weak artillery support and worse, they committed a major blunder of not securing complete air support. Thus they were ultimately beaten back, mainly due to Indian air and artillery attacks. Ten years later in 2009 after Musharraf was sent packing, it was discovered by COAS Kayani that they were not Mujahideen at all but belonged to the Northern Light Infantry. Why they called themselves Mujahideen and how exactly they were oppressed by India in Kashmir is a mystery to many to this day. Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail has a few thoughts for everyone vis-a-vis the importance of air support in Kargil while freedom-fighting and you can read it in his blog, but I digress.
Subsequent events of 9/11, a bad economy, Americans in the region, and military build up by both India and Pakistan meant that Siachen issue could not be solved by military adventures, leaving no option but to solve it using talks. Which leads us to the present day:
Pakistan should convince India that Siachen is taking a heavy toll on both sides, consuming valuable money and resources, which could be better spent on Ballistic missiles, Artillery and Nuclear bombs which both India and Pakistan desperately need. Repeated attacks aimed at recapturing Siachen has caused casualties on both sides. The men fighting a futile war in Siachen could be redeployed to fight a futile war elsewhere — in Balochistan, Swat or even Gilgit where the Shia problem still persists. But the talks are at a deadlock: To withdraw from Siachen, India has started to place demands that Pakistan should validate the Actual Ground Position line agreeing that North is in fact North, and not East**. This is unacceptable to Pakistan, especially because if North is in fact East, the Karakoram pass connecting to Tibet falls under Pakistan’s claim. But if the North is in fact North, then all attempts by Musharraf would have gone in vain. More importantly, the all weather friends may not be pleased that Pakistan gave away a pass into Tibet to India. So in many ways, Siachen is about the territorial integrity of China, about which there can be no compromise by Pakistan.
So the conflict endures in the face of obstinacy by both sides, where Pakistan’s principled position stands as firm as the mountains and Indian’s hearts are as cold as the Siachen glacier. This problem can only be solved in some non-rocky non-icy place — the warm sandy beaches of Thailand by track-2 participants.
__________________
* Before Kargil it used to be the case that Indian and Pakistani soldiers retreated to warm base camps during winter. Now thanks to Kargil, they man their posts in the cold all year round, even in winter. On the positive side, the soldiers report that Siachen does not feel much more cold and miserable when compared to the Kargil heights in winter.
** This demand is meaningless. Even after agreeing where the Line of Control was, the NLI/Freedom Fighters/Mujahideen occupied Indian camps in Kargil. So it is absurd to assume that agreeing on AGPL in Siachen is a guarantee against NLI/Freedom Fighters/Mujahideen occupying the Saltoro ridge. So why make this demand anyway?
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Prospects for Peace
APRIL 10, 2012 5 COMMENTS
Without addressing the internal deficiencies of Pakistan — The various autonomous terror groups which enjoy various degrees of popular and official support, an over-ambitious Judiciary which is reluctant to convict terrorists, an Army which manufactures and uses the pretext of external threats in its power struggle with the civilians, and an intelligence agency addicted to using terror as an instrument of its policy and whose objectives do not align with the long term interests of the state — Pakistan government neither has the credibility nor the capability to deliver on its side of the bargain on any negotiated settlement for peace. Permanent peace with India, US and the world is impossible without demonstrated commitment to stick to Pakistan’s end of the bargain: Any deals which rely on empty promises, platitudes, talking points1, negotiating skill, goodwill, large heartedness, symbolic gestures and nuisance value might buy short-term normalization and a few dollars but will neither achieve permanent peace nor economic prosperity. What it will achieve repeatedly though is a steady employment, fame, importance and travel to exotic location for “track-2” participants. But then, short-term normalization might be the exactly what the various players (Zardari, Army, ISI, track-2 participants) are shooting for at this time to cater to their own short-term needs.
A Background
India’s GDP in 2010 was $1.73 Trillion. Pakistan’s GDP was $0.176 Trillion. In other words, Pakistan’s entire GDP is about the same as a rounding error in India’s GDP, and the gap is widening.
This huge disparity in economic strength has begun to translate into military and diplomatic might. India has won the largest mining contract in Afghanistan worth Billions2. It is inevitable that deals like these will translate to economic and political clout in Afghanistan. This is how Indians will take over Pakistan’s backyard — not by constructing dozens of consulates and training hundreds of RAW agents as some armchair analysts stuck in 80’s Jihadi mindset suggest. This influence is not limited to countries poorer than Pakistan: India-China’s trade volume today is more than a third of Pakistan’s GDP, larger than all of Pakistan’s external debt and is growing fast. It is inevitable that over time, the “all weather friendship” becomes seasonal, starts placing demands and charging its pound of flesh. Pakistan’s relevance, clout and friends in the region are shrinking.
Pakistan economy has internal ramifications as well. If the Army stays out of politics (and if ballots are not stuffed), elections will be fought and won based on the economy. If tomorrow the PPP is able wipe out gas and electricity shortages and reduce the price of petrol, its victory in the next elections is guaranteed. On the other hand, prices of essential commodities will be a central plank of PML-N’s election pitch.
With relations souring with the USA and the consequent reduction in IMF’s enthusiasm in giving out loans, dole outs are not a steady guarantee. This leaves only the option of trade to bolster Pakistan’s economy. Improving trade relations with India shows the political acumen of Zardari. The economy will be bolstered (electricity and fuel deals, export potential). By removing India as an existential threat, the Army’s relevance and eventually their stranglehold over the country will be weakened. Quasi-normal relations with India will also mean blunting the appeal of players like PTI and Difa-e-Pakistan. Zardari’s visit to India should be seen in this light (and as a lesser objective, bolstering Bilawal’s credentials as a PPP leader and Pakistan’s external face).
So will Pakistan-India relationship permanently and irreversibly improve? Unfortunately no.
The Terror Angle
From India’s (and the World’s) perspective, Pakistan’s relevance primarily stems from one aspect: Its nuisance value. Pakistan is relevant to NATO because of its propensity and willingness to shut down NATO logistics routes. Pakistan is relevant to the US because it shelters the Taliban hierarchy and either through collusion or by benign neglect aids Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan is relevant to India because of its ability to export terror. Beyond this, Pakistan contribution to the global scheme of things are few, if any.
Any permanent normalization of relationship with India (and indeed the US) would need to eventually address the terror aspect. Even if Pakistan’s foreign office relies on Indian “large heartedness” and promises of future action to gain concessions, this relationship will be built on a shaky foundation. The next terror attack in India and the consequent domestic compulsions will leave the Indian government no option but to break off contacts and retaliate, resetting the relationship. In recent times, this happened after the attack on India’s Parliament (when BJP was in power), and again after the Mumbai attacks (when Congress party was in power), showing that this is not a party-specific thing in India, but is rather driven by public opinion and political compulsions.
Too Many Jihadis….
There is great reluctance in Pakistan to give up terror as a leverage, because as noted before, it is the only leverage Pakistan has over the world. Even if the Government decides to give up terrorism as a leverage as part of a grand bargain, it cannot: Irrational violence has been decentralized in Pakistan and accountability for abetting terrorism has been willfully destroyed. There are simply too many power centers perpetrating irrational and un-coordinated violence in Pakistan: The Army (responsible for Kargil intrusions), ISI and the various Jihadi Groups (responsible for Mumbai attacks), the Judiciary3, the Taliban (Responsible for attacks on India’s embassy in Kabul) each acting with various degrees of autonomy, with opaque objectives under partial control. Mumbai attacks are a case in point: They were probably perpetrated by the intelligence agencies to flare-up India-Pakistan hostility and reduce the pressure on the Army to fight in the west. Whether this decision was taken while considering the impact on Government’s push to improve relations with India or Army’s preparedness to counter Indian mobilization is not known. In many aspects, this resembles the Kargil intrusions, which was perpetrated without considering the Government’s efforts at normalization and the diplomatic and economic strength of the country, ultimately resulting in Pakistan’s military defeat, an economic catastrophe, a coup and a significant erosion of Pakistan’s credibility and position on the Kashmir issue.
…with too little accountability
In addition to the decentralization of violence, Pakistan willfully lacks any chain of accountability for abetting terror. This lack of chain of accountability has served Pakistan well: In other countries, the government would have been held accountable for sheltering Osama Bin Laden. However in Pakistan, extraordinary evidence is needed to show that the Government (and not one of the several “non-state actors” or “rogue elements” or “retired ISI officers” or “banned groups” or “Intelligence agents acting on its own”) was responsible for sheltering Osama Bin Laden.
While lack of accountability and decentralization of rogue behaviour is useful for deception and perfidy, it weakens credibility and shuts the scope for negotiated settlement based on accountability. In other words, Zardari cannot credibly promise to rein in the terror groups and even if he does, he cannot deliver. Gilani protests the bounty on Hafiz Saeed, because Gilani cannot touch Hafiz Saeed even if he wanted to. If the Government cannot deliver, it is inevitable that some group perpetuates another terror attack on India leading to renewed hostility between India and Pakistan. This is probably neither lost on India nor on Pakistan and both might still embrace after offering some platitudes at the altar of peace — for the short term.
_____________________________________________
1“Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism”, “not talking will strengthen the hands of extremists”, “South Asia is a nuclear flashpoint”…
2To get a perspective, this deal is worth more than the entire money promised by the Kerry-Lugar bill and IMF support program put together.
3A Judge once famously asked why the UN ban should be enforced on Hafiz Saeed, in his view, India had not adhered to the UN resolutions on Kashmir.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Another Lone Wolf In The Making
APRIL 5, 2012 7 COMMENTS
Pakistan used to be good friends with North Korea. Benazir Bhutto visited North Korea in 1993, whose GDP at that time was about $6 Billion. So presumably it was for economic co-operation and trade. The enduring friendship, which was presumably based on shared cultural heritage was taller than the tallest missiles: When bluntly warned by Japanese foreign minister that Japan would support an IMF loan to Pakistan to rescue an economy in shambles (Hey, don’t give all the credit for a broken economy to Zardari) only if they stopped importing missiles from North Korea, Sartaz Aziz firmly reassured the Japanese that he knew of no such thing. Sartaz Aziz also announced a firm commitment to sign the CTBT to the Japanese, but the signing ceremony was held up in some procedural issues after the IMF loans were approved — but I digress.
So when it emerged that Nuclear centrifuges were exported from Pakistan to North Korea, transported in military C-130 planes (about 135 loads), the only possible explanation could be that AQ Khan acted alone without the military or the civilian leadership (who were busy fighting the war on terror and hunting Osama Bin Laden) having any knowledge about it. The foreign minister did not know about it, the Prime minister was ignorant, the Army leadership had no clue and the intelligence agencies who were supposed to provide counter-espionage against the nuclear program was roundly outwitted. AQ Khan single-handedly loaded the planes by himself, flew them to North Korea, and returned it back in the same place before the next morning (after filling petrol so that nobody noticed). Being a Pakistani patriot committed to the defence of Pakistan and all that, he was promptly pardoned after a televised apology on National television.
That brings me to another Pakistani patriot committed to the defence of Pakistan. Professor Hafiz Saeed. Turns out Professor Saeed is quite friendly with the other set of patriots, the Army, and was a guest of honor of the X corps commander for an Iftar party. He is quite friendly with the Judiciary too, which ordered the Government to pay him a stipend during his house arrest. His friendship with the retired ISI folk is well known, so is his popularity with the leader of the Tsunami, who regularly sends his representatives to share a dias with him.
When it turned out that a top Al Qaeda leader, Abu Zubaydah was captured in Faisalabad in a Lashkar-e-Tayyiba safehouse, the US National Counterterrorism Center observed: Abu Zubaydah was captured at an LT safehouse in Faisalabad, suggesting that some LT members assist the group. This, taken along with the recent news trickling out about Osama’s five safe houses and two government hospital-born children, and a $10 million reward for (capturing/interviewing/convicting/complaining about) the good Professor, one cant help but speculate that the Lashkar had some hand in arranging Osama bin Laden’s hospitality. Which leads to only one possible explanation:
Professor Hafiz Saeed acted alone, without any knowledge of the Civilian, military or Intelligence leadership (who were busy fighting the war on terror and hunting Osama Bin Laden) in assisting Al Qaeda in various ways, including possibly arranging for safe houses for Osama Bin Laden all by himself. Army generals did not bring it up during their Iftar conversations, politicians had no idea and Intelligence was outwitted. Which leads to only one possible course of action reserved for great Pakistani patriots:
Televised apology by Hafiz Saeed and a Presidential pardon for his sins
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
How to Become A Strategic Analyst Like Yours Sachly
MARCH 26, 2012 18 COMMENTS
I am pleased to see a new generation of Pakistani analysts: The twenty-somethings whose western education makes them credible in Pakistan and whose Pakistani heritage and once-a-year visit to Pakistan makes them extremely credible in the west. I am also pleased to note that this generation is diligent in not letting scholarship get in the way of creativity. While they have no doubt realized that any good analysis of Pakistan is like a piece of modern art — its beauty should be appreciated, without searching for meaning — some seem to lack the vocabulary that should be mandatory in any article written by Pakistanis which discusses Pakistan. For their benefit, I am presenting a few such phrases and their semantic deconstruction:
South Asia: Indians are Indians, and Pakistanis are Indians too. Especially in tight situations involving airports in foreign countries. In most other situations, Indians and Pakistanis are “South Asians”. Being a South Asian confers three type of advantages. The first advantage is that credit can be earned by association. This is useful while reporting positive news like: “A lady of South Asian origin wins the Governorship of South Carolina” and “As usual, South Asian children sweep spelling-bee championships.”.
The second advantage is that blame can be spread over a larger geographic area. This is particularly useful while discussing terror groups. Examples include “South Asian terrorist group suspected of attacking Mumbai” and the “South Asian terrorist who tried to attack Times square” or our very own Ambassador Hussain Haqqani’s scholarly study: “The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups”. Of course, one wouldn’t want to go into divisive details like the exact nationality of these organizations and individuals! That would just make you petty minded and someone who is against unity and peace. If you did want to go into details, usually substituting “Indian” in positive news articles and “Pakistani” in embarrassing ones would usually serve the purpose.
The third and the most significant advantage is numerical. This includes a vast South Asian market for “South Asian” artists and an equally vast room to wriggle out of uncomfortable questions. For example, when posed the question “Is radicalization a problem?” South Asians can reply with a straight face “Only 170 million, or about 10% of the South Asians are radicalized”. Which sounds entirely reasonable and makes me proud of being a South Asian.
While we are on the subject of radicalization, a subject of interest is the set of issues which are likely to radicalize Pakistani extremists. It is important to keep in mind that a good analyst does not complicate issues with deep analysis of ideologies, supporters and funding of extremists organizations and instead speaks with authority derived from having lived in Pakistan, which brings us to issues which:
Will Only Strengthen the Hands of Extremists: The exact issue which will strengthen the hands of the extremists depends on the current hot topic in the media and should strangely align with the objectives of the state. For example: If India’s prime minister says borders cannot be redrawn, a suitable analysis could be: “Such controversial statements could strengthen the hands of extremists” (Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri circa 2004). If the west plans to attack Iran, a suitable cautionary advice would be: “This will strengthen the hands of extremists” (Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri circa 2006). If NATO violates Pakistan’s border, a stern warming would include: It will “Strengthen extremists” (Zardari circa 2008). In short, the “hand of extremists” is the adult version of “My daddy will come by tomorrow” — a subtle threat that can be used in every occasion. Ofcourse, only a Pakistan-hater will pause to ask “Who are these extremists? What do they want? Why do we even care what they want? How about some good policing and laws to weaken the hands of extremists?” because asking such sensitive questions will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists in Pakistan.
While every sensitive issue strengthens the hands of extremists, every intractable issue can be solved by:
Solving the Kashmir Issue: Which has, at various times, has been touted as the solution to the mess in Afghanistan, to prevent future “Kargils” (as argued by Musharraf), to reap the “Peace dividend” for the economy (hinted whenever India’s finances are in a mess), to prevent nuclear war in the region and to even prevent floods in Pakistan by preventing glacier melting in Siachen! In short, Kashmir solution is like your grandmother’s home-remedy — It cures everything!
Thus, a well-informed analysis of Pakistan will read:
Ignoring the Kashmir issue will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists in South Asia and solving the Kashmir issue is necessary for strategic stability in the subcontinent.
Which sounds entirely reasonable, informed and enlightened! But I got ahead of myself by not explaining:
Strategic: Which is a mystical word, evoking thoughts of the Army, courage and intelligent planning, which automatically makes any bad idea sound profound. Try arguing along the lines of “If India attacks Pakistan, we will all run away, hide in the mountains of Afghanistan, re-group and then fight back” and you will be laughed out of the room. On the other hand, declaring with a solemn face “Pakistan needs strategic depth” and committing several million dollars to run training camps to train and send several thousands of illiterate, brainwashed fighters across the border is a profound military strategy. In this vein, while assets are needed for economic security for civilians, Strategic assets are needed for the security of the country (acquiring which, will make a country insolvent, but secure). Again, Pakistan’s propensity to pick up fights with the U.S. can be explained away as “Strategic defiance” which will not invite any retaliation from the U.S. due to Pakistan’s geostrategic location. Using the word “Strategic” liberally like:
Pakistan’s strategic defiance of the U.S. to acquire strategic depth in Afghanistan leaves little strategic options for the U.S. due to Pakistan’s geostrategic location and strategic assets.
Will elevate your columns from merely being an “Analysis” to the exalted heights of a “Strategic Analysis”. While a cynic will characterize Pakistan as a country of extremists and people who write columns about extremists, a strategic analyst on the other hand will highlight positive aspects of the society like:
The Silent Majority: Which forms the core of Pakistan and is the vanguard of liberalism and modernity. Though like the name suggests, it has never been seen or heard from, it can be effectively used to re-assure the terrified west (terrified presumably due to the extremists and columns about extremists pouring out of Pakistan). When vague allusions to the silent majority is inadequate, its effectiveness can be increased manyfold when used along with the percentage of support religious parties enjoy. Thus yet another massive protest of support for religion-inspired murder can be effectively explained away by:
The protesters are a fringe group in a country where the moderate silent majority ensures that religious parties win less than 10% of the votes.
Which should be written in english, to make sure that the vocal supporters of the said religious parties dont chase you down and silence you. When such allusions to silent majorities and the unpopularity of religious parties dont reassure an anxious (and frequently exasperated) west, it is time to pull out the victim card by declaring that:
Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism: However, care should be taken to follow it up with a statement that blames “non-state actors” and other people without nationality or religion for terrorism. Without this, using the phrase “Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism” runs the risk of hinting at carelessness — somewhat like an arsonist who sets his own house on fire by improperly storing flammable materials at his own house.
Putting it all together, a timeless strategic analysis of the latest terror incident (with the inevitable Pakistani connection) would read:
Before the world pressures Pakistan to do more against terrorism, they should realize that Pakistan itself is the biggest victim of terrorism. A key step towards reducing the influence of extremists in Pakistan is finding a solution to the Kashmir issue. Ignoring the Kashmir issue will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists in South Asia. Without solving the Kashmir issue Pakistan will continue its strategy of strategic defiance of the U.S. to acquire strategic depth in Afghanistan, which leaves little strategic options due to Pakistan’s geostrategic location and strategic assets. A solution to the Kashmir issue will strengthen the silent majority and further marginalize the religious parties who, in any case, win less than 10% of the votes in Pakistan.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A 10-Step Analysis of Analyst Analysis of Apple Product Cycle
MARCH 14, 2012 1 COMMENT
It all starts at a Chinese website famous for posting suspiciously photoshopped-looking blurry fighter jet pictures taken from behind the bushes: A suspiciosuly photoshopped-looking rectangular aluminium piece picture with apple logo which is blurry and is taken from behind some bushes.Apple fanboys and “analysts” go NUTS!! Rumors about hypothetical device that Apple may or may not be working on swirl!! The device may or may not cook your breakfast, double as an electric shaver for men and a lipstick applicator for women. The device will open beer cans, will have voice recognition, and dispense salt and sugar.
People despair for 15 Apple media events, when Steve appears, bumps up the specs of Mac Book. Demos a “glorious feature” (IPhotos now supports folders!! IWork can now save to thumb drives!! The world has changed!!) and leaves.One inch from the point of despair and collective insanity of Apple fanboys due to unbearable anticipation, Apple sends out an invite, which may or may not have a coded message. People are convinced that since the message had a picture, it may or may not have something to do with a TV.
On event day, Steve appears, introduces an electronic brick with one button, which blinks when the button is pressed.WTF?!
Steve calls it iDiot talks about how this will revolutionize searching for keys in the dark. Costs $999 and the button can be pressed by only fingers pre-approved by apple. The device will come only in one color and will blink only 3 times. The battery cannot be replaced and you would need to buy apple approved car keys to search for them using the device. The device looks like this:
“What is the difference between 4 Ipod touches pasted together and an Ipad? You can multi-task with the former, which is super distracting.” — Steve Jobs.
Collective “meh” from the “analysts”. They talk about lack of features. Where is the camera? The toaster? Night vision lenses? It does not even come with blue tooth or 6.5G or wireless Z! Fanboys are angry!! Apply has let them down!! Steve Ballmer mocks it saying that Microsoft has 1000 products all looking iDiot-ic and sells 10 million per year.
“We have thousands of Idiotic products!!” — Steve Ballmer
Apple releases said product. Everything is forgotten, like Pakistan forgiving the latest violation of sovirginity by the US. There is a mad rush to buy the product.
Microsoft’s iDiot-ic market share is wiped out overnight!! Turns out their device used to freeze up every time the button was pressed and would electrocute users. The button was on the edge and could be pressed only by a needle you had to carry around in the pocket. Sometimes the needle would slip in the pocket, pierce places that shouldn’t be pierced and make some users sterile. Sometimes pressing the button would reset the device and the device itself was made of spit, twine, chewed up paper and bubblegum.Microsoft calls for a strategy meeting. Discussions about design and fixing the shortcomings of their product devolve into what color the packaging should be made of and what market segment to target. Microsoft strategists decide that a new device should be produced. “Hip” people who think like “Gen Z” and who are “living on the edge” who want products “their way”are identified as market segment.
The engineer at the back making feature recommendations is ignored.
So shut up the pesky engineer, they take that perfectly okay geeky-looking Microsoft engineer and hire image consultants to do a complete makeover to make him look “hip” and “on the edge”. They make him the head of the development team.
J Allard who is not Hip. And not on the edge. Not ready to make an Apple-Killing product.
J Allard who is Hip. And on the edge. And ready to make an Apple-Killing product.
Eighteen months later Engineer delivers!! Overruling his objections (hey, what do engineers know about products?) Microsoft branding does market research, names it “Zunekinbing” calls it a “Vampiristic new moon social media device aimed at a web 2.0 experience” they declare that it will be available in 8 colors! including “vanilla flavored, skinny double caffe hazelnut latte” color (unfortunately, the color is brown and reminds people of something else, so people buy only the black colored ones). The device looks somewhat like iDiot, though you can press the button and make your friend’s Zunekinbing glow. Since partners protested, this feature can be used only 3 times per month, after activating it with microsoft over the internet through a software whose download link nobody can find. Microsoft calls it “secret feature 69″ Everybody at Microsoft holds their breath hoping that the “hip crowd” will catch on.
Ballmer goes on air, in an effort to sound hip calls light as “goo” and switching on somebody else’s Zunekinbing as “squirting” and declares “You can squirt goo on my face, I can squirt goo on your face and we can do it together secretly while 69-ing.” All listeners throw up. The news gets reported and derided. The readers throw up. Ballmer has violated #1 principle of marketing: Never try to take possession of any word from the porn industry. You are bound to fail. Nobody buys Zunekinbing.
Meanwhile, Apple releases iDiot-2nd gen, three months later for $999. It has a button on the front *and* the back. The first gen device drops 500$ in price. Rabid Apple fan boys storm blogs and loudly protest claiming they were swindled, swearing to boycott all Apple products all together.Steve jobs unflappably declares “It is an early adopter premium” and offers a $100 discount off of iDiot-2nd gen.
All the fanboys stop in the middle of the sentence while blogging, run to Apple stores and buy iDiot-2nd gen by the millions.
Steve lays back, lights his pipe with a $20 dollar note and gives out a loud rumbling orgasmic ecstatic laugh. Some analyst sees the rolled up note from the window, takes a blurry picture from behind the bushes and blogs and blogs
“NEXT APPLE PRODUCT. IT IS SHAPED LIKE AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT DEVICE AND WILL GIVE YOU ORGASMS”
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
The Year That Was – Part 4 (Oct-Dec)
FEBRUARY 14, 2012 4 COMMENTS
Yours sachly wanted to write a blog post summarizing the events of the year past. Since he never got around to it, here is a collection of tweets from yours sachly’s fourth cousin which summarizes the events.
October
Zardari had his customary Op-ed in Washingtonpost
Zardari oped in Washington Bost!! http://wapo.st/pGaTGz I have to admit, @husainhaqqani writes well
Amreekis should leave the region so Pakistan can complain that Amreekis left the region.
Was followed by the customary Rehman-Malikism
Rehman Malik "no negotiations if the insurgents held AK in one hand." http://bo.st/ngEfyP Exberts use both hands to hold AK for stability!!
If someone holds an AK in one hand, claims to be an extremist and wants negoshiashuns — he is lying. He is not a properly trained extremist
And some Cricket
So the retired current ex-captain is the ex-retired current ex-captain.
Gaddafi died
OKAY IT IS CONPHIRMED!! Bositive Neuj!! Gaddafi captured and killed and it was NOT near Pakistan Military Academy!! Repeat: NOT near PMA!!
Mother-in-Law visited
Last time Clinton sahiba visited, she alleged that OBL was in Pakistan. I bet she won’t have the guts to make that accusashun in this visit.
My advice to Clinton Sahiba: If you want to take Pakistanis on in a debate, blease to train with Yindian Saas-Bahu serials. We are exberts.
Steve Jobs book was released
Steve Jobs "time in India taught me intuition" Hmph!! If he had visited Pak he would have learned how to save on taxes
Mushy and IK start politicking
Taken at the Imran Khan rally todin (photu) http://bit.ly/hLXJ3N
To Beepuls who suggest the photu is fake, it is 400% original!! I made it myself in photushop!
Musharraph: "Pakistan bending backwards to invite Afghan" he then added "Pakistan bending forwards to invite Chinese"
My summary oph Musharraph Speech: Fear that Amreeka might leave behind unstable Aphghanistan has caused Pakistan to destabilize Aphghanistan
Saudis get a new Crown prince
Saudi Barbaria has youthful crown brince. Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz was 81 and the new crown brince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz is only 78. Progress!!
November
People got divorced
Kim Kardashian Marrij just like US-Pakistan strategic relashunship!! It was short, involved a lot of money and people got screwed.
People got caught
Why cant we play a clean Krikit game like the Yindians? Where doing massive corrupshun is taken care of by the organizers?
My idea to Butt & Asif: Immediately release statement supporting Qadri. 400% guaranteed hero welcome back home & lawyers fighting to defend!
Amir conphession and Butt & Asif whining confirms that only Butt and Asif have no balls.
My summary of Courtroom arguments: Amir: "I did it" Asif: "Butt made me do it": Butt: "I offered only moral, bolitical & diplomatic support"
"Rehman Malik directs FIA team & lawyers to reach London and help Pakistani players" Translation: British will be dealt with an iron hand
Butt Song: Roses are red // Violets are Plue // Match is broken? // Let me fix it for you.
You self-righteous A-Hole!! It is cheating *only* if someone takes money and does *not* bowl no-palls. Ever thought of that? Amir was honest
Pakistan, Nukes and Cold Start
"Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans"http://bit.ly/ufeLCz Thats why they are called "Nuke Delivery Vehicles" you moron!
Sick of "Pakistan’s Nukes are in Danger" Propaganda by the west. Similar to "Osama Hiding in Pakistan" defamashun campaign they mounted.
Cold start is a strategy conceived in the small, cold Yindoo heart. Pakistani strategy should be warm start.
Eid
"Jamaatud Dawa free to collect Eid donations"http://bit.ly/uVXDrJ Their Ban status, like Veena Malik’s age, is ambiguous & contradictory.
Greece got bailed out
Can you name a single Greek terrorist? I cant either. Then why is Greece getting all the money? What nonsense!
India offers electricity and free trade
Whoa!! Excited about Phree trade with Yindia!! What are we getting phor free?
In two minds. Electricity phrom Yindia supports Yindian soaps. On the other hand, they are essential phor ISI interrogashun technawlaji
US tries civilize Pakistanis
"US. tries hip hop diplomacy in Pakistan" http://reut.rs/uAO4bZ I soch telling Pakistanis to bust a cap at Police is not the need of the hour
Sick of artecals selling US to Pakistan to "westernize" us. We are already westernized you morons! We emulate Saudi Barbaria on the west
PTA tries to civilize Pakistanis
Words are oph two types. Good words and Bad words. Should talk with the good words and ban the bad words. #PTA
Whoa! Padma (#369 in Urdu list) is banned. I soch Salman Rushdie had a hand in putting that one in.
They also banned FORESKIN. The Brophet banned Foreskin Captain Redundant!!
Why is Niger banned but not Algeria, Libya, Chad, Mali OR Bukina Faso? They are all neighpours of Niger!!
First hints of trouble for Husain Haqqani
My idea: @husainhaqqani should threaten Army that he’ll become Ambassador to China instead oph Ambassador to US if they ask him to do more.
Visited India through Marvi Memon’s tweets
Going to Yindia for a South Asian Youth leadership conference. Hope to teach them some civilization and hopefully get back Cashmere.
First, Dilli. Airplane just landed in Dilli. Runway looks just like those in Pakistan. A bit shorter in length and the asphalt a bit darker.
So we share the same kind of runways.
Documentary program "Khuda Gawah" on TV. Exposes Yindian strategy of enticing Afghanistan into its orbit #YindiaVisit
Let me hasten to add I avoid all Yindian programmes. I could be persuaded to watch if Cashmere is returned though. #YindiaVisit
For someone who boycotted indian music due to principles, "sheila ki jawani" sounds pretty okay. #YindiaVisit
Yindian Bollywood songs seem to be shorter in length and darker in mood than Pakistani Bollywood songs #YindiaVisit
Had chai for breakfast. Yindian chai like Pakistani chai, except it is darker and served in shorter cups. #YindiaVisit
This shah rukh khan looks identical to our Bollywood shah rukh khan. #YindiaVisit
Irregularity filled, corruption ridden land distribution to poor. No army like efficiency for allotting plots. #YindiaVisit
5 lakh ride train in Dilli & no ambulances. REPEAT 5 Lakh, no ambulance. That is 5 lakh, no ambulance. Ppl could misuse info.#YindiaVisit
Wrenching poverty causes women to get into degrading professions. Saw song of one "munni" who became badnaam.#YindiaVisit
Got a calendar from Hurriyat Grandpa. He seems to have several.#YindiaVisit
Yindian youth brainwashed that Pakistan created only in 1947!! Pakistan was formed 4.5 Billion years ago with the rest of earth#YindiaVisit
More trouble for Husain Haqqani
Jernail Pasha. DG CSISI.
US Army got OBL you say?! Bah! Pakistan Army got@husainhaqqani !! TAKE that and DESPAIR Amreeka!!
The important question to answer in #memogate is who was Maha Siddiqui? Did she really marry Shoaib? Hopefully ISI can answer this too.
Memogate song: Roses are red // Violets are plue // Please to not challenge // Army’s right to Cooo
"@ijazulhaq A lesson for all of you too. Be careful of what you say on Twitter" Most of all be carephul of accepting mangoes phrom strangers
Salala Incident
If NATO wanted to attack Pakistani soldiers they should atleast have had the decency to send in deniable proxies.
December
Ashura, traditional celebrations and traditional blasts
Ashura is the traditional festival celeprated to mark the commencement oph Shia hunting season in Pakistan.
Whoa!! Cylinder blast!! My advice: please to check pressure, valves and proximity oph Shia processions.
India-Pak
That reminds me. A Monkey’s Asha was shattered when it was arrested when it crossed the border. #AMonkeyAsha
Another Son of Pakistan arrested
Whoa!! Fai pleads guilty!! Before US accuses ISI of illegal influence, they should realize that Pakistan itself victim of ISI influence
Fai says he got 3.5 million $ but didnt lobby phor Pakistan. OUTRAGED!! HE STOLE ALL OUR MONEY!!
More propaganda that India won in 1971
It took 14 days phor army to prove they suck at phyting. And about 30 years to prove that they suck at governing too.
It is time we got past the 71 fiasco, come together as a nation and rewrite our destiny. And history books. We won in 71.
Government under attack from multiple directions
Aphter his wife died he became dejected sucked at governance and wrecked the economy. His son who helped him was a bumbling fool.
His subordinates conspired with jernails to overthrow him and there was anarchy all around.
Joo thought I was talking about Mughal empire? Sorry, was reading neuj.
People threatened by 9mm guns
Those twits boasting about their 9mm: Meet Mr 9 inches!
Year ends!
Mens of teetar, in the new year, pick up courage and tell the wimmens how much you love them. Preferably in DM with SMS lingo.
Wimmens of teetar, ignore creepy guys who DM in SMS lingo. Talk to nice people, like yours sachly.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan: The Way Forward
JANUARY 15, 2012 6 COMMENTS
Pakistan finds herself at cross roads again. The recent protracted tussle between the civilian setup on the one side and the Judiciary and the Army on the other, with no clear winners so far, has left Pakistan tottering on the brink of instability. A paralyzed civilian government is unable to govern, a distracted Judiciary is unable to dispense justice in important cases like the missing persons case, and the Army’s focus on fighting extremism has been sapped by the recent confrontation.
As can be expected, several commentators have written in western newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times offering simplistic analysis of the current crisis and recommend canned proposals like “Civilian supremacy over the Army” or complicated suggestions like “Checks and balances”. These solutions are unworkable, ridiculous and inapplicable given the peculiar nature of the power structure in Pakistan, her history, her constitution, jurisprudence and her polity. I wish to use this blog post to evolve a set of proposal for the Army, the Judiciary and the Civilian government. Please do post your own proposals as well in the comments:
Army: On earlier occasions, the crisis would have come to a quick conclusion with one simple trip to PTV on a tank followed by a speech. The reason for the current drawn out confrontation and festering instability is clear: Bad economy. I am sure that the Army’s economic advisors are aware of recent research which show that ruining the economy by profligate spending and picking up irresponsible fights with the US is more fun than actually fixing the said ruined economy. This is restraining the army from ending the crisis with a quick coup. In the interests of stability, crisis should be kept short and coups should be quick. Therefore, the Army, in addition to foreign policy and national security should also run the economy. This would guarantee that the economy would be in great shape like the our foreign policy and national security. This would ensure that the Army can conduct coups anytime they want without being overly scared of inheriting a hopelessly broken economy after the coup. Crises would be short!
The Judiciary: Pakistan’s Judiciary has accumulated impressive experience at justifying coups post-facto. However, it has shockingly meager experience in initiating regime changes. Initiating a regime change is what they are trying now and have created a protracted messy crisis. The fly in the ointment is the constitution which has hurdles like Presidential immunity, to prevent exactly this attempt at power-grab, but astute observers will note that the same constitution provides for a way out: Only a Muslim can become a President! Therefore, I propose that the Supreme court rename itself as the Supreme Jirga and the Chief Justice assume the title of Chief Qazi. Want to get rid of the government? No problem! Declare the Prime Minister and the President as bad Muslims and ergo, not Muslims at all! (This has a second advantage: Getting rid of Prime ministers by declaring them to be bad Muslims is definitely less ridiculous than citing judgements in Nigeria and Uganda to justify coups as the honorable Supreme Jirga did in Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of the Army Staff case.) Want to defuse the current crisis instead? No issues at all. Rule that the president should gift 1000 goats to the Chief of the ISI to repent for defamation and drop the case altogether. Crisis solved!
The Civilians: Of the three arms of the Government dreamt up by the Quaid – Qazis, Army and Bloody Civvies (This is what the Quaid really wanted. I claim that he carried a concealed gun in addition to his concealed beard and turban that people constantly search for), the Civvies are the weakest. They neither have the tanks of the Army nor do they have the religious self-righteousness of the Supreme Jirga. So they have to rely on subterfuge to ensure stability. It is clear that the recent crisis has been exacerbated by the extension granted to the COAS and DG-ISI. Keeping all this in mind, I propose that the Prime minister grant extension for life for the COAS. This offers many advantages:
The COAS wont be in a hurry to overthrow the government before his extension is up. He is COAS for life!
Dictators in Pakistan have a typical shelf life of 10 years at the maximum, after which either they are exiled or presented with mangoes. What would you rather be? Dictator for 10 years or COAS for life?
COAS would be busy purging his generals to make sure that they dont overthrow him to become COAS for life and therefore would be too busy to intervene in the civilian setup.
With a Supreme Jirga and a Chief Qazi taking care of Judicial matters and a General for life who commands his armed forces, purges his subordinates and has the final say on economy, national security and foreign policy and a Prime minister appointed by the General and Qazi, to take care of other minor issues with a relatively stable job and who constantly conspires to play off one power center against the other, crises would be short and stability would be guaranteed. Then Pakistan can finally return to its roots, get the magnificent administrative setup and the concomitant prosperity of the Mughal empire!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Musharraf-Pulled Speculations on NATO Shenanigans
NOVEMBER 29, 2011 6 COMMENTS
Due to changed circumstances, not getting enough time to maintain this blog. So here is a bunch of (musharraf-pulled) poorly thought out speculations.
With equipment like GPS is it impossible for ISAF ground forces to not know that Pakistani post was inside Pakistan territory
Even if ISAF ground forces did not know this, GPS and maps on their air-assets would have indicated that the post was inside Pakistani territory.
They chose to attack anyway. This indicates that NATO forces knew that they were attacking a post inside Pakistan. Ergo, this negates the latest BS peddled by NATO of taliban “provoking” a firefight with Pakistanis. However this statement itself is salient, we will return to this later.
The attack went on for two hours “despite repeated pleas”
PAF was not scrambled
Which means that “the soldiers were sleeping” reports which initially came out is BS. If they were indeed sleeping, the discipline of the people manning outposts is suspect. Even if they were, they probably woke up quickly. The “Soldiers were sleeping” was probably trotted out to imply that they did not provide covering fire to retreating taliban or fire first. PAF was not scrambled either due to inter-services bureaucracy, shenanigans by the Army without taking the PAF into confidence or PAF knowing that they will be shot out of the air. Please note this in the context of interpreting all future blusters and bravado about shooting down drones.
Initial reports spoke of “Lightly manned outposts” which was manned by a captain and a major nonetheless!
DGMO talked about interpreting the incident in the “background of May 2″
So speculation time. What to conclude? Let us assume as given: 1. NATO knew the post was inside Pakistani territory. 2. NATO has a selfish motive of not pissing off Pakistan much, because they know that Pakistan will stop supplies (as was done before). These leave only two possible logical conclusions:
Previous news articles have reported that field commanders are mighty pissed with the taliban firing from positions in or close to Pakistan border outposts. NATO stringently refuses to apologize for this incident (and by extension promise that such incidents will not happen in the future). Taken together: This probably indicates that the rules of engagement of border posts offerring covering fire has possibly changed and NATO will attack first and ask questions later. This was probably the double-speak of NATO about “taliban provoking a border incident”. If the rules of engagement have indeed changed, expect many more incidents in the future, if powers that be do not intervene and smooth ruffled feathers. Smoothing ruffled feathers will not happen by refusing to talk to the US, boycotting conferences or stopping supply lines.
If the attack was not in response to a change in the rules of engagement, and was carried out despite NATO knowing that the post was inside Pakistani territory, they could have proceeded Only if they knew that the post was sheltering a high-value target. This possibly explains the “Background of May 2″ comment by DGMO.
So change in the rules of engagement or high-value target? take your pick.
____________________________________________
Postscript:
I dont know about the composition of the forces manning the border posts. But is it standard operating procedure for them to be manned by a Captain and a Major?
Pakistan has reacted vehemently by closing NATO supply lines and boycotting the Bonn conference. Which is predictable and understandable. But a little surprising given that US reaction to Pakistani border guard killing its soldiers, numerous attacks — including the one on its consulate — traced to the Haqqani network and the biggest of them all: Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan for six years, have all been muted. I am sorry to say this, but Pakistan protests look too loud in comparison.
Pakistan has ruled out joint investigations and wants nothing short of an apology. NATO has refused to apologize and says US will press on. So 1. We might never know the truth 2. Next few days will be interesting.
=================================
You Might As Well Become a Hermit Because Pakistan-China Fraandship Puts Your Fraandships To Shame
JUNE 8, 2012 4 COMMENTS
Official Quotes about Pakistan-China fraandship
Pakistan China Friendship is: Unique and Unprecedented (May, 2010)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Taller Than Mountains and Deeper Than Oceans (Dec, 2010)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Stronger than Steel (Dec, 2010)
Pakistan China Friendship is: All-weather (May, 2011)
Pakistan China Friendship is: A Lush Tree (July, 2011)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Deeper Than the Seas and Sweeter Than Honey (March, 2012)
Pakistan China Friendship is: The Stuff of Legends (Apr, 2012)
Pakistan China Friendship is: In Our Blood (Apr, 2012)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Beyond the Confines of Time Limits (June, 2012)
Please post your own superlatives for Pakistan-China fraandship, which could be used for the next joint statement!! Some poems I wrote to inspire you:
Roses are red // Violets are plue // You might eat pork // But cash makes me like you!!
Taller than Mountain // Lush like a Tree // O dear China // You smell like Currency!!
And some suggestions to get your creative juices flowing.
Pakistan China Friendship is: Rounder than a Circle
Pakistan China Friendship is: Odder than 5
Pakistan China Friendship is: 400% more than 100%
Pakistan China Friendship is: Bigger than Infinity
Pakistan China Friendship is: Sweeter than Invert Fructose with Sweetness approaching Aspartame
And lastly, this level of pheelings can only be produced by an orgasm. I wonder who is screwing who.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Bollywood Story
JUNE 6, 2012 2 COMMENTS
Yours sachly has been toying with writing a story for bollywood movie. The story goes as follows.
A respectable judge with white (or dyed black) hair and horn rimmed glasses gets a case involving a petty criminal. The straightforward judge hates criminals and is a man of integrity who frequently stands up to authority. That is when the criminal starts humming a song. Judge recognizes the song and has a flashback….
Flashback: A Father is separated from his wiphe and son. Father is obsessed with his career as a judge. Son becomes a criminal. Then son is arrested for some crime and shows up in father’s court.
Present day: Father is in turmoil, does not know whether to acquit his son or convict him impartially. Does some soul searching and lot of prayers. Next day he goes to court and declares that since he is responsible for his son becoming a criminal, he should be judged and the son should be set free. Everybody is shocked.
That is when we discover (as unearthed by the Son’s girlfriend), that the evil politician-villian who the Father had convicted had influenced the son with bad company and alcohol to extract revenge on the father. The villian is caught, punished, thrashed and imprisoned. The father and son are set free. That is when the father asks for the son’s mother, who now has white hair and constantly prays.
They meet. It is an emotional scene. They all sing the family song. The son’s girlfriend joins in. Everyone smiles.
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any person or persons, living or dead is purely coincidental.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan Has Lost the Records For Calculating the Money Lost on The Lost Cause of War on Terror
JUNE 1, 2012 1 COMMENT
So the express tribune newspaper reports (I will not treat it as the final word. When it comes to Express Tribune, each article is like a Man’s labor of love: Never quite done and subject to change)
Cost of war: Chapter on war on terror losses jettisoned
Why you ask? Well the usual reasons that make sense
Pakistan has formally abandoned the claim of suffering immensely from the ongoing war on terror, saying that this in fact “hurt the economy, rather than bringing about any benefit.” And therefore a section carrying details of losses the country has suffered due to the war on terror has been dropped from the latest edition of the Economic Survey of Pakistan.
“For how long will we highlight the impact of the war on terrorism on the country,” argued finance minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh while justifying the decision to drop the special section, “Cost of War on Terror for Pakistan Economy”. The repeated emphasis has hurt investor sentiments, he added.
Followed by the real reason
According to last year’s economic survey, Pakistan has suffered almost $68 billion in cumulative losses over the past decade due to the ongoing war on terrorism. Finance ministry officials, however, said the $68 billion figure proved to be wrong during this year’s initial assessments. “We did not want to drastically revise this figure downward, as it might have raised the issue of the credibility of the country’s statistics”, official said.
Notice the word “drastically”. I personally do not think the country’s credibility would have been affected in any manner, given that making up numbers is not totally alien for the finance ministry and I am not so sure that any credibility is left:
Double-counting: GDP overestimated, may be slashed by 10%
The size of the country’s economy will shrink by up to Rs2.5 trillion, or roughly 10%, after reports surfaced that the value of some goods and services were counted twice in calculation of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the last several years. The ‘correction’ has major implications, and places a question mark on authenticity of key economic indicators.
The interesting phrase here is “For the last several years”. And before that:
Finance secretary changed in wake of IMF report
In its recent report on the state of the country’s economy, the IMF has unearthed that, in a bid to hide the real budget deficit, Pakistan’s expenditures were understated by Rs317 billion and revenues overstated by Rs215 billion.
It is interesting to see someone being charged for it. Which in Pakistan’s context means (0) It is not an innocent mistake (1) Higher ups were involved and Finance secretary was just an escaped goat. And even before that:
Lack of coordination costs Pakistan the IMF programme
Two different sets of statistics about flood damages to the economy irritated the IMF staff that negotiated with Pakistani delegation, headed by Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, in Washington. “The IMF staff was already perplexed by economic growth and inflation numbers in the aftermath of the floods, as different data came out of the finance ministry but the major blow came from none other than Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani,” a source said.
I find it interesting that it has been passed of as a “Lack of coordination” which presumably means “Two different people made up two sets of figures and everyone is shocked that they didnt agree”. The urge to make up “ball park” figures is so irresistible that a sitting President has gone on to claim in an Op-ed:
Talk to, not at, Pakistan
We have hemorrhaged approximately $100 billion directly in the war effort and tens of billions more in lost foreign investment.
Amount of Money Lost by Pakistan in War on Terror
Turns out, that $100 billion was in fact not quite $100 billion but $68 billion and now it is not quite $68 billion. But one cannot blame the President for not being able to resist the urge to make up numbers. Yours truly’s fourth cousin too has fallen prey to that urge and over time has tweeted:
17 May: Pakistan has lost $200 Billion due to US not giving $200 Billion to Pakistan
1 May: Pakistan has lost $100 Billion due to Abbottabad raid because of money lost in not being able to charge US money for hunting Osama
26 Feb: Pakistan has lost 50.01billion $ in war on terror. The 0.01 Billion due to the cost of Sheikh Osama Shaheed house and its demolishun.
15 Nov 2011: Pakistan has lost more than 40 runs due to war on terror (comment on a Criket match)
Seems they did not heed the advice my fourth cousin was hinting at:
27 Feb: When complaining about war on terror expenses, please to stick to one figure! Dont quote different numbers like Veena Malik’s age!!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
MAY 25, 2012 LEAVE A COMMENT
At this rate, Never.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Obama and Osama
MAY 12, 2012 4 COMMENTS
Yours sachly had been meaning to write this article for the first anniversary of the fake american operation which killed a clone of Sheikh Osama Shaheed, but as usual got caught up in other things.
In the immediate aftermath of Osama’s killing effusive praise has been handed out to Barack Obama for (paraphrased) “His brave decision to give the go-ahead for the operation”. I am sure that this will be touted again in the articles that will be written on every anniversary of the operation and also during Obama’s re-election campaign, when it heats up.
Courage is demonstrated in the face of danger and risk, which we will get to in a minute. Before that, let us analyze the possible outcomes of the operation. In the extreme, there were four possibilities
Osama is in the compound and the forces kill or capture him
Osama is in the compound and the forces are unable to kill or capture him and are thwarted by Osama’s bodyguards or by PAF or Pakistan army and suffer casualties.
Osama is not in the compound, the forces ascertain this and get out safely (with egg on their faces).
Osama is not in the compound and the forces suffer causalities in the hands of PAF or Pakistan Army during their ingress/exit.
So of the four possible outcomes (obviously, not of equal probability) three end in disasters of various sizes and one of them is a success. Undeniably it is a difficult decision to make. As I had mentioned earlier the decision has not only been characterized as difficult (which it is) but also brave and courageous. As I had also mentioned before, courage is demonstrated in the face of danger and risk. Since Obama was only risking the lives of his soldiers, he should have been risking something else for him to be called courageous. A ready answer would be that
Obama was risking his popularity and re-election chances.
This is not really true. American public has valued bold (and reckless) decisions more than they have valued nuanced and considered decisions. There are a few cases in point: Jimmy Carter’s popularity had a measurable increase after Operation Eagle Claw which was a disaster by any measure. Conversely, George Bush senior’s popularity fell by 50 points over a year after the successful conclusion of operation desert storm. By contrast, George Bush junior’s popularity was high enough for him to win a re-election even though 9/11 happened in his watch and the war in Iraq was botched, Osama was not caught and there were no WMDs in Iraq*.
So Obama’s popularity even in the face of a failed operation to kill or capture Osama was in no danger of falling. On the contrary, his acolytes could have even spun it as an example of his willingness to use force to protect American interests. So the impact of this operation on his popularity would most likely be positive and at worst not impact it at all. Apart from a risk to his conscience (which I honestly believe any leader of any state should not possess) he was not risking anything at all.
As a passing note, any astute reader would not fail to notice that under every possible outcome, US-Pakistan relations would be gravely damaged. Obama was certainly not risking US-Pakistan relationship — the fact that it would nosedive after Operation Geronimo was a foregone conclusion. People who repeatedly bleat about “trust deficit between Pakistan and US” should spare a moment to think about this.
_____________________________________
*All these numbers form USA Today historical presidential approval ratings website.
Rate this:Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-64853468434078143012012-12-31T10:05:00.002-05:002012-12-31T10:05:32.988-05:00The only appropriate response to Honor Killings and Fatal Fatwas http://www.kwrw.org/kwahk/index.asp?id=68
12/03/2006 KurdishMedia.com - By Charles Chapman
As first noted by Sydney historian Keith Windschuttle, history provides a powerful example of the only appropriate response to "honor" killings and fatal fatwas:
"Sir Charles Napier, the British Commander-in-chief in India from 1849 to 1851, signed an agreement with local Hindu leaders that he would respect all their customs, except for the practice of suttee, the incineration of widows. The Hindu leaders protested. Napier replied:
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.""
Some might object to relying on the example of a colonial warrior, namely Napier, who oppressed and imposed Western values on both India and Afghanistan. Yes, colonialism was and is wrong. Yes, Napier and the British imposed their will on the people of India and Afghanistan.
However, whatever else they may have done, they did not "oppress" the people of India by preventing grieving widows from being burned alive.
Moreover, we are not now talking about imposing our values on some foreign culture (no matter how beneficial, as in the case of the British ban on the practice of suttee, doing so may be), but instead about deciding for ourselves the values we uphold and, most importantly, are willing to defend. At some point one must decide what type of society one wants to live in and, far more importantly, wants one's children and grandchildren to live in. A society, such as the India of Napier's time, where widows are burned to death? A society where religious authorities can issue a fatal fatwa against one who has written a scholarly book? A society where a young woman can be murdered with impunity by those who "do not like girls to choose who they marry?" At this point in history, some things are simply wrong and should not, and cannot, be tolerated.
As a result, Napier's dictum can and should be applied to honor killings:
"You say that it is your custom to kill any young woman who has the unmitigated gall to choose who she wants to marry. Very well. However, we also have a custom: to defend to the death such a young woman and, if she is killed, to hunt down, prosecute and fully punish the persons responsible for her death. Attempt to kill her; we shall defend her.
Succeed in killing her; we shall ensure that you pay fully for your crime.
You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Napier's dictum can and should also be applied to those who issue fatal fatwas:
"You say that it is your custom to kill any person who has the audacity to criticize your religion. Very well. However, we also have a custom: to defend to the death the right of a person to speak his mind even if we disagree with him and, if he is killed, to hunt down and fully punish the persons responsible for his death. Attempt to kill a person for speaking his mind; we shall defend him. Succeed in killing him; we shall ensure that you pay fully for your crime. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Finally, lest it appear that I am being overly critical of Iraqi-Kurdistan, allow me to note that this is a lesson that the West must also relearn. Indeed, Iraqi-Kurdistan has an opportunity to serve as an example for the West. It need only seize that opportunity.
References
http://tinyurl.com/jwvzs
http://www.sydneyline.com
http://tinyurl.com/q9pln
http://tinyurl.com/p45x6
http://www.kwahk.org/
http://tinyurl.com/fwthb
http://tinyurl.com/p3b8p
http://www.kwahk.org/index.asp?id=78
http://tinyurl.com/nyskx
Charles Chapman is a civil rights attorney located in Bakersfield, California. Mr. Chapman is the webmaster of the weblog: The Is-Ought ProblemContrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-83503764373629840152012-12-29T19:15:00.003-05:002023-06-12T23:05:47.445-04:00@Majorlyprofound AWOL: Some Major Bearls Oph Wisdom and Fourth Coujin Commentary (courtesy Google cache) @majorlyprofound
Well traveled, highly ejjucated, critical thinker. Wimmens, Social Media and Thermodynamics expert. Strategic geopolitics analyst. Impressive Blog. Amsterdam, NY, London, FATA · http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/
Major/Dr./Eng/ @majorlyprofound has gone missing – his/her Twitter handle/ WordPress blog was removed on 8th August 2012. Going without an announcement makes his/her online disappearance a bit scary. Doesn’t matter whether it was a he or a she, Pakistani or belonging to some other Nationality, will always have a high regard for the intellect. Just hope he/she is safe & sound…
His/her Twitter handle & WordPress blog was removed yesterday at the same time, it is highly possible that all traces of him/her could be removed from the web shortly, therefore have tried to save some of his goat droppings (Bearls Oph Wisdom and Fourth Coujin commentary) recovered from the Google cache in this blog post
Every word that he/she wrote was hilarious, may god keep him/her in good health. I for one do not wish to know the real identity of majorlyprofound, just wish and hope that his/her writing continue and we get to read it online, in newspapers or in a book form.
Here goes some of his/her goat droppings errrr major bearls oph wisdom…
A Technical Analysis (in Layman Terms) of Laws of Physics Which Indicates Water Powered Car is Feasible
AUGUST 2, 2012
It is due to Djinn Energy!!
—-xxx—-
Retired & Rogue Moojahid Non-State Actors That Nobody Knows About
JULY 26, 2012
Heated arguments fly around as to whether Pakistan Government knew about Osama in Abbottabad, or if the Army and ISI knew and Government didnt, or whether retired and rogue faction of ISI did but Army, ISI and Government didnt, or if neither Government, nor Army nor ISI (legitimate & rogue) knew and only non-state actors did or if anybody knew at all. These arguments are frequently accompanied by denials and passionate assertions.
Ditto for the (bad) Haqqani network. Are the (bad) Haqqanis in Pakistan? Do they get support? Do they get support only from “non state actors”? Do they get support from retired and rogue ISI? Do they get support from official ISI and army? Do they get support from the Government?
Same story for drone attacks. And Mumbai attacks. And Saleem Shazad murder. And Benazir Murder. Bulk of our information about all these come exclusively from denials and pious assertions made with passion with victimhood thrown in.
Since thinking about all these is a pain on the backside and I believe everything that the Government and Army says, I decided to not worry about Osama or Haqqani or drones and amuse myself with pious statements about Kargil.Where Northern Light Infantry fought and occupied Indian territory. Thanks to internet and all that, I pulled up a few articles from 1999.
From here:
If the Mujahideen(Islamic warriors) are forced to withdraw from Kargil-Drass, they will “head straight to Islamabad instead of Srinagar and it would lead to a civil war in the country,” Urdu daily Din quoted former director general of Inter-Services Intelligence General (retd) Hamid Gul as saying.
From here:
Pakistan has agreed to make an appeal to the `mujahideen’ to stop fighting in Kargil and vacate their positions after having achieved their objective of drawing international attention to the Kashmir dispute, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman Tariq Altaf said last night.
From here:
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said the mujahideen had achieved the”basic purpose” of the occupation. ”By agreeing to vacate these peaks on our appeal, the mujahideen have created an opportunity that will, God-willing, lead to Kashmir’s liberation. And that opportunity is efforts for a solution of the Kashmir dispute through bilateral talks and the full attention, interest and pressure of world powers, for the success of these efforts,” he said.
From here:
“Basically the disengagement between the mujahideen and the Indian troops, as far as we can monitor, is going on smoothly,” Pakistan military spokesperson Brigadier Rashid Qureshi said. Qureshi said the reported remarks by Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf in an interview with the BBC on Friday that his troops had indeed crossed into the Indian side of Kashmir to fight – after weeks of Pakistani denials that its troops had been involved – had been taken out of context and “blown up out of all proportion”.He said Musharraf’s words did not amount to an admission of Indian and Western charges that Pakistani troops had taken part in the capture of strategic heights in Batalik, Drass and Kargil areas of Indian north Kashmir.
From here:
After his return from London on July 8, where he met Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sharif went into a meeting with Chief of the Army Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf and other senior aides. The next day he presided over a meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC), Pakistan’s highest decision-making body on security matters. The DCC “decided that Pakistan should appeal to the mujahideen to help resolve the Kargil situation”. Soon after the DCC meeting ended, Sharif met with leaders of the Jehad Council in the presence of Gen. Musharraf and made an “appeal” to them to “help resolve” the Kargil situation. An official statement issued after a Cabinet meeting on July 10 said: “The Cabinet noted that the mujahideen have responded positively to the appeal of the Government of Pakistan to help resolve the Kargil situation.”
From here:
Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz has said that Kashmiri freedom fighters will be requested to vacate Kargil area inoccupied Kashmir only if India agrees to revert back to 1972 positions on the Line of Control when Simla agreement was signed.The Pakistani Foreign Minister, who arrived in London on Tuesday morning along with Prime Minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharif on a day-long visit enroute to Pakistan, told reporters that Pakistan has agreed to request and appeal to the freedom fighters to vacate Kargil area if India also agrees to vacate the areas that it occupied on the Line of Control after the signing of the Simla agreement in 1972.
So there you go. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz, Defence Committee of Cabinet, Pakistan military spokesperson Brigadier Rashid Qureshi, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman Tariq Altaf and Hamid Gul all agreed that non-state actor mujahideen had occupied Kargil and Pakistan was doing everything in their power to get them to vacate. Pakistan Government, Army, Foreign office, ISI (Legitimate, rogue, serving and retired) had nothing to do with it, just like in the Osama, Haqqani, Drone, Mumbai and Baluchistan issues.
—-xxx—-
You Might As Well Become a Hermit Because Pakistan-China Fraandship Puts Your Fraandships To Shame
JUNE 8, 2012
Official Quotes about Pakistan-China fraandship
Pakistan China Friendship is: Unique and Unprecedented (May, 2010)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Taller Than Mountains and Deeper Than Oceans (Dec, 2010)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Stronger than Steel (Dec, 2010)
Pakistan China Friendship is: All-weather (May, 2011)
Pakistan China Friendship is: A Lush Tree (July, 2011)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Deeper Than the Seas and Sweeter Than Honey (March, 2012)
Pakistan China Friendship is: The Stuff of Legends (Apr, 2012)
Pakistan China Friendship is: In Our Blood (Apr, 2012)
Pakistan China Friendship is: Beyond the Confines of Time Limits (June, 2012)
Please post your own superlatives for Pakistan-China fraandship, which could be used for the next joint statement!! Some poems I wrote to inspire you:
Taller than Mountain // Lush like a Tree // O dear China // You smell like Currency!!
And some suggestions to get your creative juices flowing.
Pakistan China Friendship is: Rounder than a Circle
Pakistan China Friendship is: Odder than 5
Pakistan China Friendship is: 400% more than 100%
Pakistan China Friendship is: Bigger than Infinity
And lastly, this level of pheelings can only be produced by an orgasm. I wonder who is screwing who.
—-xxx—-
Bollywood Story
JUNE 6, 2012
Yours sachly has been toying with writing a story for bollywood movie. The story goes as follows.
A respectable judge with white (or dyed black) hair and horn rimmed glasses gets a case involving a petty criminal. The straightforward judge hates criminals and is a man of integrity who frequently stands up to authority. That is when the criminal starts humming a song. Judge recognizes the song and has a flashback….
Flashback: A Father is separated from his wiphe and son. Father is obsessed with his career as a judge. Son becomes a criminal. Then son is arrested for some crime and shows up in father’s court.
Present day: Father is in turmoil, does not know whether to acquit his son or convict him impartially. Does some soul searching and lot of prayers. Next day he goes to court and declares that since he is responsible for his son becoming a criminal, he should be judged and the son should be set free. Everybody is shocked.
That is when we discover (as unearthed by the Son’s girlfriend), that the evil politician-villian who the Father had convicted had influenced the son with bad company and alcohol to extract revenge on the father. The villian is caught, punished, thrashed and imprisoned. The father and son are set free. That is when the father asks for the son’s mother, who now has white hair and constantly prays.
They meet. It is an emotional scene. They all sing the family song. The son’s girlfriend joins in. Everyone smiles.
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any person or persons, living or dead is purely coincidental.
—-xxx—-
Pakistan Has Lost the Records For Calculating the Money Lost on The Lost Cause of War on Terror
JUNE 1, 2012
So the express tribune newspaper reports (I will not treat it as the final word. When it comes to Express Tribune, each article is like a Man’s labor of love: Never quite done and subject to change)
Cost of war: Chapter on war on terror losses jettisoned
Why you ask? Well the usual reasons that make sense
Pakistan has formally abandoned the claim of suffering immensely from the ongoing war on terror, saying that this in fact “hurt the economy, rather than bringing about any benefit.” And therefore a section carrying details of losses the country has suffered due to the war on terror has been dropped from the latest edition of the Economic Survey of Pakistan.
“For how long will we highlight the impact of the war on terrorism on the country,” argued finance minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh while justifying the decision to drop the special section, “Cost of War on Terror for Pakistan Economy”. The repeated emphasis has hurt investor sentiments, he added.
Followed by the real reason
According to last year’s economic survey, Pakistan has suffered almost $68 billion in cumulative losses over the past decade due to the ongoing war on terrorism. Finance ministry officials, however, said the $68 billion figure proved to be wrong during this year’s initial assessments. “We did not want to drastically revise this figure downward, as it might have raised the issue of the credibility of the country’s statistics”, official said.
Notice the word “drastically”. I personally do not think the country’s credibility would have been affected in any manner, given that making up numbers is not totally alien for the finance ministry and I am not so sure that any credibility is left:
Double-counting: GDP overestimated, may be slashed by 10%
The size of the country’s economy will shrink by up to Rs2.5 trillion, or roughly 10%, after reports surfaced that the value of some goods and services were counted twice in calculation of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the last several years. The ‘correction’ has major implications, and places a question mark on authenticity of key economic indicators.
The interesting phrase here is “For the last several years”. And before that:
Finance secretary changed in wake of IMF report
In its recent report on the state of the country’s economy, the IMF has unearthed that, in a bid to hide the real budget deficit, Pakistan’s expenditures were understated by Rs317 billion and revenues overstated by Rs215 billion.
It is interesting to see someone being charged for it. Which in Pakistan’s context means (0) It is not an innocent mistake (1) Higher ups were involved and Finance secretary was just an escaped goat. And even before that:
Lack of coordination costs Pakistan the IMF programme
Two different sets of statistics about flood damages to the economy irritated the IMF staff that negotiated with Pakistani delegation, headed by Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, in Washington. “The IMF staff was already perplexed by economic growth and inflation numbers in the aftermath of the floods, as different data came out of the finance ministry but the major blow came from none other than Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani,” a source said.
I find it interesting that it has been passed of as a “Lack of coordination” which presumably means “Two different people made up two sets of figures and everyone is shocked that they didnt agree”. The urge to make up “ball park” figures is so irresistible that a sitting President has gone on to claim in an Op-ed:
Talk to, not at, Pakistan
We have hemorrhaged approximately $100 billion directly in the war effort and tens of billions more in lost foreign investment.
Amount of Money Lost by Pakistan in War on Terror
Turns out, that $100 billion was in fact not quite $100 billion but $68 billion and now it is not quite $68 billion. But one cannot blame the President for not being able to resist the urge to make up numbers. Yours truly’s fourth cousin too has fallen prey to that urge and over time has tweeted:
17 May: Pakistan has lost $200 Billion due to US not giving $200 Billion to Pakistan
1 May: Pakistan has lost $100 Billion due to Abbottabad raid because of money lost in not being able to charge US money for hunting Osama
26 Feb: Pakistan has lost 50.01billion $ in war on terror. The 0.01 Billion due to the cost of Sheikh Osama Shaheed house and its demolishun.
15 Nov 2011: Pakistan has lost more than 40 runs due to war on terror (comment on a Criket match)
Seems they did not heed the advice my fourth cousin was hinting at:
27 Feb: When complaining about war on terror expenses, please to stick to one figure! Dont quote different numbers like Veena Malik’s age!!
—-xxx—-
Obama and Osama
MAY 12, 2012
Yours sachly had been meaning to write this article for the first anniversary of the fake american operation which killed a clone of Sheikh Osama Shaheed, but as usual got caught up in other things.
In the immediate aftermath of Osama’s killing effusive praise has been handed out to Barack Obama for (paraphrased) “His brave decision to give the go-ahead for the operation”. I am sure that this will be touted again in the articles that will be written on every anniversary of the operation and also during Obama’s re-election campaign, when it heats up.
Courage is demonstrated in the face of danger and risk, which we will get to in a minute. Before that, let us analyze the possible outcomes of the operation. In the extreme, there were four possibilities
Osama is in the compound and the forces kill or capture him
Osama is in the compound and the forces are unable to kill or capture him and are thwarted by Osama’s bodyguards or by PAF or Pakistan army and suffer casualties.
Osama is not in the compound, the forces ascertain this and get out safely (with egg on their faces).
Osama is not in the compound and the forces suffer causalities in the hands of PAF or Pakistan Army during their ingress/exit.
So of the four possible outcomes (obviously, not of equal probability) three end in disasters of various sizes and one of them is a success. Undeniably it is a difficult decision to make. As I had mentioned earlier the decision has not only been characterized as difficult (which it is) but also brave and courageous. As I had also mentioned before, courage is demonstrated in the face of danger and risk. Since Obama was only risking the lives of his soldiers, he should have been risking something else for him to be called courageous. A ready answer would be that
Obama was risking his popularity and re-election chances.
This is not really true. American public has valued bold (and reckless) decisions more than they have valued nuanced and considered decisions. There are a few cases in point: Jimmy Carter’s popularity had a measurable increase after Operation Eagle Claw which was a disaster by any measure. Conversely, George Bush senior’s popularity fell by 50 points over a year after the successful conclusion of operation desert storm. By contrast, George Bush junior’s popularity was high enough for him to win a re-election even though 9/11 happened in his watch and the war in Iraq was botched, Osama was not caught and there were no WMDs in Iraq*.
So Obama’s popularity even in the face of a failed operation to kill or capture Osama was in no danger of falling. On the contrary, his acolytes could have even spun it as an example of his willingness to use force to protect American interests. So the impact of this operation on his popularity would most likely be positive and at worst not impact it at all. Apart from a risk to his conscience (which I honestly believe any leader of any state should not possess) he was not risking anything at all.
As a passing note, any astute reader would not fail to notice that under every possible outcome, US-Pakistan relations would be gravely damaged. Obama was certainly not risking US-Pakistan relationship — the fact that it would nosedive after Operation Geronimo was a foregone conclusion. People who repeatedly bleat about “trust deficit between Pakistan and US” should spare a moment to think about this.
_____________________________________
*All these numbers form USA Today historical presidential approval ratings website.
—-xxx—-
Yours Sachly Ko Lulz Kyon Ata Hai: Part 1
MAY 1, 2012
Yours sachly brings you for your enjoyment, news articles that should be read together for Lulz.
Army has its eye on Nato supplies deal
The bankrupt Pakistan Railways management has pulled off the mother of all deals with the NLC, while the army is working hard behind the scenes for an equally big deal with the United States. In the first week of February, railways signed a deal with the military-run National Logistics Cell (NLC) under which the cell will repair 30 railway locomotives of which 15 will be returned to the railways to use. The other 15 will be used by the NLC to carry freight booked by the NLC. What does the NLC get out of this deal? This was a question that proved hard to answer as the NLC and the ISPR never bothered to reply to any questions despite a weeklong wait. However, Dawn has learnt that the military is gearing up to earn big bucks from the transport of US/Nato/Isaf supplies via Pakistan’s land routes in the near future and this is what is behind the NLC deal with the railways.
Pakistan Railways asked to justify controversial deals
The National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) has asked Pakistan Railways (PR) to justify its deal with National Logistics Cell (NLC) for repairing 30 locomotives at Rs500 million while the Bank’s Balancing, Modernisation and Replacement (BMR) for 100 locomotives is worth Rs 6.1 billion. The News has reliably learnt that PR has two separate deals to repair 130 units from its aging fleet of locomotives. In the first deal, NLC has been asked to repair 30 locomotives at the cost of Rs500 million. After the repair, half of the repaired locomotives would be used by NLC and PR for freight purposes only. In the second deal, NBP is to arrange a financing facility of Rs6.1 billion for the BMR of 100 locomotives.
Railways’ ancillary staff move to block Rs6.1 billion loan
Cash-strapped railways got the Rs6.1 billion loan in January through its profitable ancillary PRACS. PRACS was chosen for the purpose as no bank and financial institution was ready to trust the loss-making railways. The employees, under the cover of PRACS Employees Association, are of the view that the loan will not be used for the repair of locomotives and may be misused by railway officials. The association represents lower as well as some high-ranking officers of PRACS.
Pak Rail team arrives today to buy engines
With the intention of acquiring locomotives from India to re-start its defunct train services, a three-member team of the Pakistan Railways Advisory and Consultancy Services Limited (PRACS), led by managing director Mohammed Junaid Quareshi, will arrive in the Capital for a two-day visit onThursday. As reported in the April 21 edition of the Hindustan Times, Pakistan has pitched an upgraded offer to buy or take on lease about 100 railway engines from India.
So NLC wants locomotives repaired for cheap, Pakistan railways is taking a loan from a bank for four times that money to repair locomotives. The loan is taken out by an ancillary, the money will not be used to repair locomotives but for purchasing new ones from India, which will then be used to transport NATO supplies, which will earn money from the US for National Logistics Cell. Which makes me propose a new Headline:
India to Fund Pakistan Army to Move Peace Process Forward
Or better still
Milo Minderbinder Runs Pakistan Railways
—-xxx—-
You Too Can Give Suggestions To Solve Siachen
APRIL 17, 2012 1 COMMENT
Do you feel like doing a strategic analysis of Siachen issue but cannot figure out where it is on the map? Do you feel like calling for solutions to Siachen but do not know the difference between Karakoram highway, Karakoram pass and Karakoram mountain range? Fikar not. Here is a map yours sachly made for you (click on it for a bigger map and opportunities for bigger strategic analysis)
Siachen
And here is information about the Karakoram pass ripped off from Wikipedia:
The Karakoram Pass is a mountain pass between India and China in the Karakoram Range. It is the highest pass on the ancient caravan route between Leh in Ladakh and Yarkand in the Tarim Basin. ‘Karakoram’ literally means ‘Black Gravel’ in Turkic. The Karakoram pass falls on the boundary of territory controlled by India (Jammu and Kashmir region) and China (Xinjiang Autonomous Region).
Now go forth and embellish your tweets with profound observations like ”India should withdraw to the Nubra valley, and Pakistan to Skardu”.
Prospects for Peace
APRIL 10, 2012
Without addressing the internal deficiencies of Pakistan — The various autonomous terror groups which enjoy various degrees of popular and official support, an over-ambitious Judiciary which is reluctant to convict terrorists, an Army which manufactures and uses the pretext of external threats in its power struggle with the civilians, and an intelligence agency addicted to using terror as an instrument of its policy and whose objectives do not align with the long term interests of the state — Pakistan government neither has the credibility nor the capability to deliver on its side of the bargain on any negotiated settlement for peace. Permanent peace with India, US and the world is impossible without demonstrated commitment to stick to Pakistan’s end of the bargain: Any deals which rely on empty promises, platitudes, talking points1, negotiating skill, goodwill, large heartedness, symbolic gestures and nuisance value might buy short-term normalization and a few dollars but will neither achieve permanent peace nor economic prosperity. What it will achieve repeatedly though is a steady employment, fame, importance and travel to exotic location for “track-2” participants. But then, short-term normalization might be the exactly what the various players (Zardari, Army, ISI, track-2 participants) are shooting for at this time to cater to their own short-term needs.
A Background
India’s GDP in 2010 was $1.73 Trillion. Pakistan’s GDP was $0.176 Trillion. In other words, Pakistan’s entire GDP is about the same as a rounding error in India’s GDP, and the gap is widening.
This huge disparity in economic strength has begun to translate into military and diplomatic might. India has won the largest mining contract in Afghanistan worth Billions2. It is inevitable that deals like these will translate to economic and political clout in Afghanistan. This is how Indians will take over Pakistan’s backyard — not by constructing dozens of consulates and training hundreds of RAW agents as some armchair analysts stuck in 80’s Jihadi mindset suggest. This influence is not limited to countries poorer than Pakistan: India-China’s trade volume today is more than a third of Pakistan’s GDP, larger than all of Pakistan’s external debt and is growing fast. It is inevitable that over time, the “all weather friendship” becomes seasonal, starts placing demands and charging its pound of flesh. Pakistan’s relevance, clout and friends in the region are shrinking.
Pakistan economy has internal ramifications as well. If the Army stays out of politics (and if ballots are not stuffed), elections will be fought and won based on the economy. If tomorrow the PPP is able wipe out gas and electricity shortages and reduce the price of petrol, its victory in the next elections is guaranteed. On the other hand, prices of essential commodities will be a central plank of PML-N’s election pitch.
With relations souring with the USA and the consequent reduction in IMF’s enthusiasm in giving out loans, dole outs are not a steady guarantee. This leaves only the option of trade to bolster Pakistan’s economy. Improving trade relations with India shows the political acumen of Zardari. The economy will be bolstered (electricity and fuel deals, export potential). By removing India as an existential threat, the Army’s relevance and eventually their stranglehold over the country will be weakened. Quasi-normal relations with India will also mean blunting the appeal of players like PTI and Difa-e-Pakistan. Zardari’s visit to India should be seen in this light (and as a lesser objective, bolstering Bilawal’s credentials as a PPP leader and Pakistan’s external face).
So will Pakistan-India relationship permanently and irreversibly improve? Unfortunately no.
The Terror Angle
From India’s (and the World’s) perspective, Pakistan’s relevance primarily stems from one aspect: Its nuisance value. Pakistan is relevant to NATO because of its propensity and willingness to shut down NATO logistics routes. Pakistan is relevant to the US because it shelters the Taliban hierarchy and either through collusion or by benign neglect aids Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan is relevant to India because of its ability to export terror. Beyond this, Pakistan contribution to the global scheme of things are few, if any.
Any permanent normalization of relationship with India (and indeed the US) would need to eventually address the terror aspect. Even if Pakistan’s foreign office relies on Indian “large heartedness” and promises of future action to gain concessions, this relationship will be built on a shaky foundation. The next terror attack in India and the consequent domestic compulsions will leave the Indian government no option but to break off contacts and retaliate, resetting the relationship. In recent times, this happened after the attack on India’s Parliament (when BJP was in power), and again after the Mumbai attacks (when Congress party was in power), showing that this is not a party-specific thing in India, but is rather driven by public opinion and political compulsions.
Too Many Jihadis….
There is great reluctance in Pakistan to give up terror as a leverage, because as noted before, it is the only leverage Pakistan has over the world. Even if the Government decides to give up terrorism as a leverage as part of a grand bargain, it cannot: Irrational violence has been decentralized in Pakistan and accountability for abetting terrorism has been willfully destroyed. There are simply too many power centers perpetrating irrational and un-coordinated violence in Pakistan: The Army (responsible for Kargil intrusions), ISI and the various Jihadi Groups (responsible for Mumbai attacks), the Judiciary3, the Taliban (Responsible for attacks on India’s embassy in Kabul) each acting with various degrees of autonomy, with opaque objectives under partial control. Mumbai attacks are a case in point: They were probably perpetrated by the intelligence agencies to flare-up India-Pakistan hostility and reduce the pressure on the Army to fight in the west. Whether this decision was taken while considering the impact on Government’s push to improve relations with India or Army’s preparedness to counter Indian mobilization is not known. In many aspects, this resembles the Kargil intrusions, which was perpetrated without considering the Government’s efforts at normalization and the diplomatic and economic strength of the country, ultimately resulting in Pakistan’s military defeat, an economic catastrophe, a coup and a significant erosion of Pakistan’s credibility and position on the Kashmir issue.
…with too little accountability
In addition to the decentralization of violence, Pakistan willfully lacks any chain of accountability for abetting terror. This lack of chain of accountability has served Pakistan well: In other countries, the government would have been held accountable for sheltering Osama Bin Laden. However in Pakistan, extraordinary evidence is needed to show that the Government (and not one of the several “non-state actors” or “rogue elements” or “retired ISI officers” or “banned groups” or “Intelligence agents acting on its own”) was responsible for sheltering Osama Bin Laden.
While lack of accountability and decentralization of rogue behaviour is useful for deception and perfidy, it weakens credibility and shuts the scope for negotiated settlement based on accountability. In other words, Zardari cannot credibly promise to rein in the terror groups and even if he does, he cannot deliver. Gilani protests the bounty on Hafiz Saeed, because Gilani cannot touch Hafiz Saeed even if he wanted to. If the Government cannot deliver, it is inevitable that some group perpetuates another terror attack on India leading to renewed hostility between India and Pakistan. This is probably neither lost on India nor on Pakistan and both might still embrace after offering some platitudes at the altar of peace — for the short term.
___________________________________________
1“Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism”, “not talking will strengthen the hands of extremists”, “South Asia is a nuclear flashpoint”…
2To get a perspective, this deal is worth more than the entire money promised by the Kerry-Lugar bill and IMF support program put together.
3A Judge once famously asked why the UN ban should be enforced on Hafiz Saeed, in his view, India had not adhered to the UN resolutions on Kashmir.
—-xxx—-
I Hate Apes
NOVEMBER 16, 2011 13 COMMENTS
Yours sachly tried his hand at writing a Sci-Fi short story and thought that it would be interesting to blog the background as a blog post. This blog post is about the the basic structural conflict between (some) religion(s) and science and wish to explain this using the theory of evolution as an example.
The Structure of Proselytizing Religions
Religions which successfully challenge the status-quo, eventually do so by strength of arms. But before they do so, they acquire enough converts to be a viable force. Achieving this critical mass of converts is not easy because the new religion should upend an existing religion with wide-spread adoption, a large clerical hierarchy and possibly backed by royal support and money (like how Christianity challenged Judaism). New religions acquire this critical momentum by finding a way to be popular with the masses and a way to retain the new converts. The successful ones which have done so, have structural properties of being conclusive and separative.
They are “conclusive” in the sense that they provide a book or a set of books which conclusively informs the reader everything they need to know about the religion: For example, the Bible or the Koran. The book typically has a conclusive answer for every question of faith. This has the advantage of (a) efficient dissemination across cultures and vast distances and (b) keeping the religion simple. If one cannot answer the question “What are the central tenets of your religion” in a short and meaningful way or transmit it across vast distances, one cannot hope to spread the religion! Hinduism never met any success at being transmitted, because it is simply too complicated and there is no conclusive authority on what Hinduism really is.
They are “separative” in the sense that they express a separate, or a distinct identity. For example, one cannot be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. Once converted, the convert should adhere to his new identity to the exclusion of any other identities. For example: you either adhere to the tenets of Christianity in totality or you are a heretic. Religions which are not separative, risk being absorbed into a bigger and more flexible religion. Somewhat like how Hinduism successfully subsumed Buddhism, because Buddhism did not require its adherents to discard all other beliefs.
Being conclusive and separative has two side effects: Nothing can be added to the religion without violating the requirement of a separate identity (For example. Ahmedis and Mormons, who tried to add things are heretics. Now you know why mullahs freak out about the Ahmedis) and nothing can be subtracted from the religion without violating tenets of the conclusive book. In fact, it goes a step further: If the book claims to be a divine revelation with everything in the book being stated as true, infallible and immutable, subtracting from the book brings the whole edifice crashing down and therefore, is a heresy.
The Structure of Science
Whereas conclusiveness and separativeness cause religions to stay constant, science is all about change. New theories are constantly proposed and validated and old ones discarded. In this context, it is important to understand the concept of a theory. The word “theory” is colloquially used to refer to a hypothesis or a conjecture or as my fourth cousin says: something pulled from one’s musharraf. Whereas in Science, a “theory” refers to our understanding of truth, which is strongly substantiated through multiple experiments and for which no counter-examples have been found so far (despite trying very hard). What then is the difference between a “Law” (like the second law of thermodynamics) and a “Theory” (like the atomic theory of matter)? Isn’t one stronger than the other? Actually no.
Law vs Theory
The word “Law” is used to codify an empirical observation which is believed to be universally true. Like for example “hot things cool”. Hot things have cooled for eons. Cups of coffee cool. Hot coals cool. Stars cool. We haven’t yet observed an instance of a hot object becoming hotter. So it is safe to codify it as (paraphrased) “Hot stuff cools” and call it “The second law of thermodynamics”. Note that Laws require evidence too and Laws require a lack of counter-examples. On the other hand theories explain how the laws work. “Why do hot things cool?” Hot things cool because all stuff is made of atoms and atoms like to hit each other transferring their energy to slower moving atoms. The “all stuff is made of atoms” is the “Atomic theory of matter” and has been substantiated through numerous experiments. We are yet to find a counter-example. Theories need strong evidence supporting them and require that there be no counter-examples. So “a theory” in the scientific sense is not a conjecture and is certainly not pulled from the musharraf. A Law and a Theory are equally strong, they are just instruments to codify different aspects of our knowledge. Note that the concept of counter-examples is very critical and is more subtle than most people realize. Because:
Exceptions Justify The Rule (Law/Theory)
Which does not mean that if we find a counter-example, that somehow strengthens the law or theory. Which would be bizarre. What it really means is that strong theories and laws, allow scope for counter-examples. For example, “Earth is spherical and you can dispute this theory by sending up a satellite to photograph it, and if it turns out to be flat, the theory is disproved” is a good theory. The reason being that there is a reasonable scope to challenge the theory by sending up a rocket. On the other hand “Earth is flat, but becomes spherical every time someone tries to verify this claim” is not a good theory, because there is no scope to disprove this theory. So more ways to challenge a theory automatically translates into a stronger theory if these challenges are defeated. On the other hand, only a weak theory tries to disallow challenges. In short, Exceptions justify the rule.
The Theory of Evolution
By now you probably know the news. Humans evolved from Apes. Note that it is a theory in the scientific sense that (a) It is not a conjecture (b) Multiple supporting evidence like fossil records and endogenous retroviral segments (more on this later) in human and chimpanzee DNA have been found (c) The theory allowed many challenges, all of which have been successfully met. Why is this incompatible with religion (eg Christianity)? Because it challenges a tenet in a conclusive book. Not only that, it challenges a central tenet in the conclusive book.
One of the questions any new religion has to answer is “What if I believe in everything you say, just not your God?” or in other words “What if I do everything that the Bible asks me to, but just don’t believe in Jesus? Do I still get to go to heaven?” Christian theology has answered it through the principle of Sola gratia or by grace alone. The explanation being that: Everyone goes to Hell. Because Adam and Eve committed a sin against God and this sin has been passed from father to his children through the semen and therefore everyone, including a child, has inherited this sin and is automatically destined to hell (Note that this is why it is important that Jesus was born to a Virgin. He was sinless. The sin was not transmitted to him). Only a belief in Jesus will earn enough grace from him to spare you from hell. Therefore, actions and faith go hand in hand in securing heaven.
Now you see the problem with the theory of Evolution! If Humans evolved, there is no Adam and Eve, there is no Original sin and there is no Sola gratia and everyone gets to go to heaven even without believing in Jesus! More seriously, a central tenet of a book that claims to be infallible and immutable is demonstrably false, thereby making the entire book suspect!
The Challenges
But what of the typical challenges?
“Evolution is just a theory not a law” Which is nothing but scientific gibberish as we have already seen before.
“God put fossil records in there to test our faith” Which in fact weakens creationism instead of strengthening it due to “exceptions justify the rule” principle.
“Literal interpretation of the Book should be avoided” Negates the conclusiveness and separativeness principles of the religion.
So how do we resolve this conflict? It is a tough question indeed.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A Thought Provoking Article
OCTOBER 31, 2011 12 COMMENTS
In the crowded field of “South Asian Analysts”, many of whom have excellent credentials — like managing to be born in Pakistan or better still, having managed to visit Pakistan within the past five years — how does one get noticed? By writing thought provoking articles of course! And “thought provoking” gentle readers, is synonymous with “contrarian”. Or for the clueless, “thought provoking” means to vehemently disagree with accepted wisdom. But “thought provoking” articles should be written with care. What you disagree with doesn’t matter as much as when you disagree with it: Timing is everything!
“So how long should I wait, and what should I wait for” you ask? Fikar not. The wait is usually a couple of weeks and the incident can be one of: Ahmedis getting massacred, Shias getting shot, Interior minister declaring that he will kill Blasphemers with his own bare hands, MNAs going underground for proposing amendments to Blasphemy laws, murderers getting garlanded or Judges running away to Saudi Arabia (you get the idea). That is the right opportunity for you to bust out your column “Why Pakistan is still largely a moderate country”.
Many have done this, and many more will do this in the future. To save time and effort for everyone, I present for your gentle consideration: The “Pakistan is a moderate country” column generator!! The formula itself is very simple: Riveting opening sentence, intriguing provocation of thought, religious mumbo jumbo, meaningless statistics, blame Zia, guilt out the west, demand money, cashmere or both.
So here it goes. The opening sentence should be riveting (choose one)
Pakistan is
A country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban.
Viewed synonymously with Osama Bin Laden.
Thought of as a cesspit of Blasphemy laws, Coups, Nuclear weapons and Jihadis
Most people will be tempted to end the article right here.
But dont!! Brave analyst, you should plod on!! Don’t forget that we aren’t stating facts, we are disagreeing with them! The second sentence should turn the premise around and be thought provoking (choose one):
But could it be
That Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law?
That the problems commonly associated with Pakistan started only as recently as 1947?
Nothing but propaganda by Zionist-RAW-CIA controlled western press?
That the problems facing Pakistan are completely misconstrued?
Now these two sentences set up the right platform to stake your credentials as a Pakistani. “But I don’t know anything about the core cultural zeitgeist of the country!” you say? Not to worry. Nobody reading your column does either. The trick is to act confident and informed (choose one):
The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality (Please DO NOT mention that Qadri was a Berelvi).
Most people visit the graves of mystic saints who were clean shaven.
The call for prayers co-exist with vibrant cultural scenes in Karachi, with girls in tight jeans under their shuttlecock burkhas, art festivals, book readings (inside well fortified, double cavity searched British consulate, but it is best not mentioned here).
Next is the time for some statistics (choose one)
The so-called conservative Pakistanis:
Overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties.
Where are my choices you ask? YOU MORON!! YOU DONT HAVE A CHOICE!! THIS STATISTIC SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE ARGUING THAT PAKISTAN IS MODERATE!! Now that we are past statistics, go on to blame Zia (choose one):
It was Zia who:
Started a process of Islamization of the society
Declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims*
Stopped PTV anchors from dressing up stylishly in sarees
Next is guilt trip!
And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. (To be mentioned in every article)
The next is the clincher
So what should the west do?
They should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support.
Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis.
Encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
(Choose ALL of them).
So putting it all together, here is an example of “Pakistan is a moderate country” column I put together:
Pakistan is a country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban. But could it be that Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law? The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality. The so-called conservative Pakistanis overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties. It was Zia who started a process of Islamization of the society. And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. For a safe and secure future of the world, the west should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support. Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis and encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
Please submit your “Pakistan is a moderate country” in western press!!
________________________________________
*It was actually ZAB who declared Ahmedis to be non-muslims, but remember that we are disagreeing with facts here, not stating them!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan and Indonesia are Different Countries
OCTOBER 28, 2011 16 COMMENTS
The perceptive Sadanand Dhume in his article “A Model for Pakistan’s Revival” draws parallels between Pakistan and Indonesia, and uses the dramatic transformation of Indonesia as a reason for optimism and the way forward in South Asia. Dhume cites the current stability and prosperity in Indonesia and points out:
Consider the parallels between yesterday’s Indonesia and today’s Pakistan. Sukarno’s Indonesia was the region’s problem child: unhappy with its borders, tilted toward an authoritarian power (China), and infested by a totalitarian ideology (communism). Today Islamabad pursues so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan and won’t quite abandon obsolete ambitions in Indian Kashmir. It leans toward “all-weather friend” China even as its economy stagnates and radical Islam eats away at society and the state.
While at first look the similarities are uncanny, the example cited is not remarkable: If one wants to cite examples of poorly governed countries with poor economies turning around, there is South Korea. If you want the example of a Muslim country which turned its economy around, it could be Saudi Arabia in the 60s and 70s. An example of a Muslim country without oil achieving this feat could be Turkey. Essentially what I am arguing is that such a parallel between Pakistan and Indonesia does not quite capture the very basis of all that ails Pakistan: Her identity which will cause a perpetual instability in the eastern border and her geography which will cause a perpetual instability in her western border. On the subject of Identity:
Commentators who wish to explain Pakistan’s seemingly irrational behavior—Supporting the destabilization of Afghanistan and her affinity towards China*—frequently attribute it to Pakistan’s security anxieties vis-a-vis India. This is not an accurate explanation: Nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles have ruled out India-Pakistan wars of the magnitude which cleaved Bangladesh away from Pakistan. Therefore, possibility of conflicts which challenge the existence of Pakistan itself is ruled out and in this sense the conflict has stabilized. Then why does Pakistan still pursue avenues which give it strategic advantage over India? The only possible explanation would be the pursuit of India’s defeat rather than the pursuit of any guarantees of Pakistan’s survival. This is because:
Pakistan views herself as the ideological progeny of the Mughal empire, with an unfinished agenda of conquering the subcontinent. Abandoning this endeavour would mean accepting the eventual supremacy of India (simply due to her demographics and geographical area) which would be interpreted (in Pakistan) as the defeat of the religion itself. This is unthinkable. Furthermore, abandoning this identity of Pakistan is unthinkable. This is the first “circular” conundrum.
This is essentially what sets the India-Pakistan conflict apart from seemingly similar conflicts, and can end only with the ideological collapse of one of the adversaries — in this sense it resembles the US-Soviet cold-war conflict (which ended with the collapse of the USSR) than the Turkey-Greece or Egypt-Israel conflict (where the adversaries realized the futility of conflict and the economic advantages of peace). This is the first objection that I have towards Dhume’s prescription: Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace and working with her to de-radicalize her society and re-structure the economy to bring stability, would have as much success as attempting to talk the Soviet Union out of the Cold-war, by convincing the Soviet Union to abandon communism.
The “Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace” part is an order of magnitude harder than what US has achieved in Indonesia and elsewhere. In the pursuit of this “Convincing” strategy, US has failed in an even more dangerous way: She has armed Pakistan (to address the “insecurity vis-a-vis India” thesis), which will eventually serve as a catalyst for more conflict (due to the “defeat of India” pursuit) rather than less conflict.
The second part of Pakistan’s problem is her Geography. The land that is Pakistan today, has neither been a viable entity nor had peace with Afghanistan except during periods of economic linkages and power projection from the Gangetic Plain. Astute observers of history will not fail to notice the fact that:
Peace between Pakistan and a strong Afghanistan is possible only with a strong Pakistan-India military alliance. In the absence of this alliance, peace is possible only with a destabilized Afghanistan. However an Afghanistan under perpetual Pakistani hegemony is possible only with strong economy in Pakistan, which is impossible without strong economic linkages with India. This is the second “circular” conundrum.
Ergo, Pakistan is not Indonesia. Therefore, any solution to create stability in the region will not have “Sell the idea of economic prosperity to Pakistan” as the first step. If anything, Pakistan is the Gordian Knot, which can be cut only by a revolution inside Pakistan first — that too a revolution of the good kind. But this is no reason to abandon optimism. Being the optimist that yours sachly is, I will wait till the region collapses into a rubble and then rebuilds itself into a stable and viable entity.
___________________________________
*Pakistan shares no common grounds or linkages with China on the basis of race, religion, values or geography (except of course the tiny strip of a perilous highway). The single point of convergence with China is the shared hostility towards India. Even there, both countries disagree about the magnitude of hostility. While China is content with an India that cannot drain her resources through economic and territorial challenges, Pakistan wishes to bet her very survival towards besting India.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Among The Believers by Naipaul – A Review (Part 1 of 3)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 18 COMMENTS
The latest controversy surrounding VS Naipaul’s statement about women writers re-kindled my interest in his works. I read his book “Among the believers–An Islamic Journey”. It is a travelogue of Naipaul’s travel (in 1979) through Islamic countries. Not Saudi Arabia, but the countries of the “converted peoples”. The countries which are separated from Arabia either through heresy (Iran, with its Shiite beliefs) or through distance — Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
In these travels Naipaul talks to a cross section of the society: people from drivers, students, guides, government officials to people of power like Ayatollah Khalkhali and Anwar Ibrahim (during his student politics days). Naipaul then synthesizes his experiences into a commentary on the history of the people, their faith, the impact of their faith on their way of life. This book written in the early 80′s offers a perceptive and prescient analysis of the impact of Islam on the politics and society of these countries.
This review is divided into three parts. The first two parts are about Naipaul’s impressions of Islam: Its effect on the culture and attitude of the people and the politics and society of these countries. The third part is about Naipaul’s impressions of Pakistan.Naipaul comes across as a man with a sharp sense of observation and intellect and a sharper tongue. His analysis of the role of Islam in the countries he visits is brutal and honest. The first of the two recurring themes of his work (the second theme in the second review) is:
The Lack of Solutions in Political Islam
Naipaul’s most vehement opinions about Islam have to do with (his) perceived misuse of Islam by a set of aggrieved people and the lack of solutions in Islam to address the very grievances of these people, which made them turn to religion in the first place. For example, in Iran, what started off as a revolution triggered by the injustices of the Shah, quickly took on an Islamic fervor. Naipaul is pessimistic about the ability of this fervor to carry the civilization forward. About Ayatollah Khomeini, Naipaul says
He was the kind of man who, without political doctrine, only with resentments, had made the Iranian revolution
This theme of lack of political solutions in Islam and the adoption of Islam by aggrieved people is their search for solutions (which do not exist in Islam) to their grievances pervades Naipaul’s keen commentary. About the Islamic fervor in the “born again” Muslims in Malaysia, Naipaul observes
The new men of the villages, who feel they have already lost so much, find their path blocked at every turn. Money, development, education have awakened them only to the knowledge that the world is not like their village, that the world is not their own. Their rage—the rage of pastoral people with limited skills, limited money, and a limited grasp of the world—is comprehensive. Now they have a weapon: Islam. It is their way of getting even with the world. It serves their grief, their feeling of inadequacy, their social rage and racial hate. This Islam is more than the old religion of their village. The Islam the missionaries bring is a religion of impending change and triumph; it comes as part of a world movement. In Readings in Islam, a local missionary magazine, it can be read that the West, in the eyes even of its philosophers, is eating itself up with its materialism and greed. The true believer, with his thoughts on the afterlife, lives for higher ideals. For a nonbeliever, with no faith in the afterlife, life is a round of pleasure.
Thus Naipaul attributes the fervor of the “born again” Muslims as their attempt at satiating their rage at the perceived inequities due to their inability to deal with the modern times. He also comments on the use of Islam by the Malays as a tool to look down upon the Chinese–who through their hard work and entrepreneurial skills outstrip the Malays in education and business. Malays perceive the Chinese to be unclean, due to their animist beliefs and pork eating. But of Malays he says
If the Chinese convert to Islam, the Malays would become Buddhists
But Islam has offered no solution to social inequities or injustices in Iran. During Naipaul’s trip, the Kurds were massacred, the communists brutally suppressed. The very acts of suppression and brutality for which the Shah was despised are now justified in the name of Islam. Malays, in their search for equality, have built a framework of race-based discrimination rooted in Islam. Pakistan, in its search for identity and a paradise for Muslims was under military rule with mobs attacking newspapers, jailed journalists and the brutal massacre of the Balochs. The lack of political solution in Islam, Naipaul deems as a intrinsic structural flaw in the religion itself:
Religion, which filled men’s days with rituals and ceremonies of worship, which preached the afterlife, at the same time gave men the sharpest sense of worldly injustice and made that part of religion. This late-twentieth-century Islam appeared to raise political issues. But it had the flaw of its origins—the flaw that ran right through Islamic history: to the political issues it raised it offered no political or practical solution. It offered only the faith. It offered only the Prophet, who would settle everything—but who had ceased to exist. This political Islam was rage, anarchy.
Naipaul further argues that contrary to the contention of the Islamic fundamentalists, there is no scope for Islam prescribing an institutionalized method of cratering to people’s political and social needs while taking their civilization forward. Because:
The Islamic fundamentalist wish is to work back to such a whole, for them a God-given whole, but with the tool of faith alone—belief, religious practices and rituals. It is like a wish—with intellect suppressed or limited, the historical sense falsified—to work back from the abstract to the concrete, and to set up the tribal walls again. It is to seek to re-create something like a tribal or a city-state that—except in theological fantasy—never was. The Koran is not the statute book of a settled golden age; it is the mystical or oracular record of an extended upheaval, widening out from the Prophet to his tribe to Arabia.
Thus, his conclusion is two-fold:
Islam was used by aggrieved people who do not know where to look for solutions, and
Islam, in an intrinsic and structural way, provides no political solution to these people
This conclusion cannot be dismissed as shallow opinions of a man who is hostile to Islam and ignorant of its key tenets, but rather can be countered (if at all) only by equally keen and perceptive arguments.
Next: Naipaul’s observation of the relationship of Islam with the West.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Herps Fueled Thoughts – 1
JULY 28, 2011 5 COMMENTS
Hina Rabbani Khar’s appointment as the foreign minister was met by a collective “meh”. Intelligentsia were quick to point out her privileged entry into politics and lament the lack of choices. Some wrote articles arguing why a woman in a position of power need not yield dividends for betterment of women as a whole in Pakistan.
Indian media’s fawning over her has changed all that, and suddenly she is a poster girl for woman power — one who can carry her Birkin bag and Pakistan’s position on Kashmir with equal grace. One has to admire Indian media’s ability to grant legitimacy to Pakistani public figures. The last time it was in full display in Agra in 2001, it shored up Musharraf’s fortune and Pakistan had to live with him for the next seven years.
Indian media with its short attention span, will move on to the next headline-worthy news item. Maybe IPL, next fast unto death or the telecom scam. Pakistan on the other hand, will be stuck with the same FM with her new found legitimacy whose only notable achievement so far, like Musharraf before her, is impressing a bunch of fawning Indian journalists.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Lone Wolf is Lonely
JULY 23, 2011 13 COMMENTS
So one Mr Walid Zafar Teets:
@WeeZieInc When a Muslim commits terror, every Muslim in the world somehow shares responsibility. When it’s a white Christian, he’s always a lone wolf.
Which is representative of many teets on teetar, made yours sachly 400% agree and wallow in deep sadness at the loneliness of the lone wolf unfortunate enough to be born in a cold Scandinavian country. Such loneliness will never happen in warmer places inhabited by purer people where every one will definitely share responsibility. Off the top of my head I can assert that:
The interior minister of Norway is unlikely to insinuate that an Israeli weapon was used and take care of the image of his own people.
The Bresident oph Norway probably wont deny on Larry King that the shooter was a Norwegian and stand up for his rights. I soch this is becase Larry King show ended. Also the President is bigoted.
I also soch that the killer probably wont be garlanded by the lawyers.
The barbaric Norwegian bolis will probably never leak myoojic videos oph him in Jail.
The equally barbaric Norwegian army wont have the guts to sign beace treaties with the Christian right.
Neither are they large hearted enough to promulgate rule oph Pible in Norwegian provinces.
Norwegian people are probably lazy. The society probably wont rise up and demand his release.
The killer probably wont be getting any stipend in Jail from the Norwegian government either.
Nor will he get any subbort from the Judges.
Norwegian jingos will probably overly gloriphy the victims and not take a balanced view.
With so little subbort phrom the political leadership of Norway, the Norwegian Police, the Norwegian Army, the Norwegian Government, it Lawyers, Judges and the Society at large, the killer is probably very lonely. This will never happen in Pakistan where every one — irrespective of whether they are Politicians, Army, Police, Lawyers, Judges or just common ordinary Pakistanis — will pitch in and make sure that the killer doesn’t feel lonely at all. The citizens would all collectively ensure that the killer is very well taken care of, and the responsibilities of his legal, economic and social well being will be somehow be shared equally by everyone*.
Another one of many reasons why the west is so corrupt and under decline and one of the many proofs of our collective sense of shared responsibility which makes us all united and unfailingly stand up for one of our own. Proud to say that there are no wolves that are lonely among the pure.
*Except for the mythical silent majority, which like the Himalayan Yeti has never been seen at all. Which means either it never existed, is probably dead or hiding with fear in a cave somewhere.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
A Comprehensive Analysis of Aatish Taseer Episode
JULY 22, 2011 7 COMMENTS
Note to everone except Ejaz Haider:
Go and get a life. Dont grab your AK and express OUTRAGE for every teeny column written by random semi-popular people from across the border.
Note to Ejaz Haider:
Please try harder to impress us with your reading list.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pasha Conquers Washington–A Quick Note
JULY 17, 2011 5 COMMENTS
There have been a spate of articles recently in the press, following Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha’s visit to the US, which yours sachly will summarize for your convenience:
US is convinced that it cannot win without Pakistan’s assistance in Afghanistan, and therefore invited Pasha to the US. US agreed to resume aid, apologized profusely for its actions, promised take Pakistan’s sensitivities into account and assured that it would give Pakistan a larger say in the future of Afghanistan. Large hearted Pasha gracefully accepted this offer, and issued a few ultimatums and warnings which made all of American civilian and security staff tremble and sweat. They gave him and the people of Pakistan a pony as a parting gift.
Which just goes on to prove my hypothesis:
Pasha personally carried reports of progress made by the ISI to determine if any members of the ISI/Armed forces were complicit in hiding Osama Bin Laden. US made a few more demands and stated that further progress in this investigation is the litmus test for resumption of military aid. Following the visit, ISPR planted a few articles to cast ISI in a positive light.
In case you missed the conclusion:
THERE IS NO PONY.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
On the Importance of Pakistan-US Relationship
JULY 12, 2011 3 COMMENTS
I have been reading the various articles and analysis about the recent suspension of US military aid to Pakistan. The narrative of most of the articles seem to converge along the lines of:
U.S.-Pakistan relationship is so vital for success in Afghanistan, stability of Pakistan and defeat of terror that I cannot imagine why U.S. would be so short sighed and not value this relationship.
All of which makes eminent sense to me, but I am more than a bit annoyed (could you tell?). The reason is simple: Let us, for a minute assume that the relationship is valuable to the U.S., to Pakistan and to the rest of the world. Let me jog your memories by randomly picking out – from the top of my head – instances which reflect the value Pakistan places in this relationship*.
Pakistan halted NATO convoys for several days, leading to several tankers being set on fire
Pakistan establishment did the Raymond Davis drama for an extended period of time
Gilani and Kayani are rumored to have advised Karzai to ditch the U.S. and throw in his lot with China
Pasha had his famous outburst against U.S. in the assembly
GHQ released a strongly worded statement exhorting U.S. to re-allocate aid to the civilians
The establishment instigated much drama over conditions in the Kerry-Lugar act
Not a week goes by without some section of Pakistan rioting against some incident involving the US (Aafiya anyone?) some section of the establishment releasing vaguely threatening statements, some section of columnists, analysts and ex-diplomats playing the China card and so on.
If Pakistan has dispensed with the practice of haranguing in private and crossed the Rubicon to using public threats, instigated anti-Americanism and coercion in its dealing with the U.S., why the surprise at the reciprocity from the U.S.? Why does it come as a surprise that the U.S. does not value its relationship with Pakistan and fundamentally hates Pakistan as much as Pakistan hates the U.S.? If it is not a surprise, then why the strong tone of indignation all these articles?
*I am charitably ignoring the shady role played by the agencies vis-à-vis OBL, Mullah Baradar, SSS affair since there is “no proof” of this.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Will Suspension of US Aid Hurt Pakistan More or Hurt US More?
JULY 12, 2011 5 COMMENTS
After reading insightful analysis by Pakistani commentators and analysts, I have created a quick poll to analyze the intricate nuances of the suspension of US aid to Pakistan to understand why US suspending aid to Pakistan is a bad idea and the likely consequences of this action.
Will Suspension of American Aid Hurt Pakistan or Will it Hurt the US?
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan will stop supplies to Afghanistan
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan will become fraands with China
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan will stop phyting against moojahids
It will hurt Amreeka because Pakistan has nuclear bum
It will hurt India because it affects strategic stability in the subcontinent
VoteView ResultsPolldaddy.com
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Will Suspension of US Aid Hurt Pakistan More or Hurt US More?
JULY 12, 2011 5 COMMENTS
After reading insightful analysis by Pakistani commentators and analysts, I have created a quick poll to analyze the intricate nuances of the suspension of US aid to Pakistan to understand why US suspending aid to Pakistan is a bad idea and the likely consequences of this action.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Pakistan’s Security Posture is Untenable
MAY 16, 2011 10 COMMENTS
Pakistan has decided that its security is dependent on a destabilized (and pliable) Afghanistan on its western border and an India tied up through covert warfare on its eastern border. Pakistan has had to fight Afghanistan, US and India to achieve this. Pakistan has relied on a three-pronged strategy: sub conventional warfare, denials and deterrence in this fight. Pakistan has fought
Sub conventional warfare through (a) the Taliban proxies in the west and (b) and in the east, through the various so-called “non-state actors” derived from groups such as Lashkar-e-tayyiba which enjoy state patronage. It has maintained
Deniability by disassociating itself from these armed proxies. Pakistan skillfully employs its diplomats, myriad media personalities and “analysts” who trot out denials ranging from the respectable to the bizarre. For example, in the Osama Bin Laden case, one has a variety of denials to choose: From ambassador Haqqani’s articulate denials of complicity, to Prime Minister Gilani’s ludicrous assertion that the failure belongs to the world, to the conspiratorial Mirza Aslam Beg’s theory that the operation was staged and a look alike was killed!!* The third prong is
Deterrence from retaliation for pursuing sub conventional warfare. To deter conventional retaliation from India, Pakistan uses a mixture of nuclear threats and conventional counter attacks and to deter retaliation from the US, Pakistan uses the threat of cutting off NATO supplies, ceasing co-operation and increased anti-Americanism among its population.
I wish to argue that this security posture is untenable. The current security posture seems to be based more on spite than on deliberate strategy and is likely to fail with disastrous consequences because Pakistan has failed to understand a simple fact: adversaries have options. Much has been written about the costs incurred by Pakistan in terms of human capital, security and economy. My argument is not along these lines and more along the structural aspects of this strategy. Using terror as a security strategy is flawed because:
1. There is no end-game: Due to the denials that Pakistan is indulging in covert warfare, negotiations cannot be a solution (which would require Pakistan to take responsibility for its proxies, either LeT vis-à-vis India or the Haqqani faction vis-à-vis Afghanistan). The only conclusion of this approach of subconventional warfare-deniability-deterrence is the defeat of the adversary through force. Be it US in Afghanistan or India in Kashmir and elsewhere. This is unlikely to happen. The adversaries have strong national will backed by a sense of morality, and no incentive to accept defeat. Surrendering Kashmir is not an option for India, since India will calculate the costs of losing access to its waters and a possibility that the conflict will not end with Kashmir. Surrendering Afghanistan is not an option for the US, since attacks originating from Afghanistan have a potential to shape domestic politics in the US. Under such a context, Pakistan will be forced to continue this indefinitely and forced to escalate, which it cannot because:
2. Escalation defeats the strategy: Any escalation, either of the form of spectacular attacks in Mumbai or arresting American operatives for example, leads to a breakdown of deniability and could invite retaliation. The Mumbai attacks trial in India have conclusively proven that Pakistani attackers were involved. The upcoming trial of Rana (involving Headley) in Chicago might uncover even more uncomfortable truths. A similar situation arose when it was revealed that Raymond Davis was accosted by armed intelligence agents and not a couple of random bystanders as was reported first. This breakdown in deniability can be used by the adversary to escalate, leaving Pakistan with no option because
3. The adversaries enjoy flexibility in their response: Pakistan seems to have forgotten that her adversaries are intelligent, adaptive and backed up enormous economic and military resources. India is fighting back by choosing not to fight. Without raising tensions, they have embarked on an arms build-up spree, developed a cold start strategy backed up by ballistic missile defense. This is aimed at eliciting arms build up by Pakistan and ultimately bankrupting Pakistan (one can notice parallels to Regan’s SDI approach).
The Americans are following an approach through technology and coercion. Pakistani declarations of its inability to fight in the tribal areas led to the Americans employing drones. Which has had a backlash inside Pakistan. Furthermore through the OBL raid, Americans have simultaneously struck at the credibility of the civilians and the myth of capability of the armed forces gavely injuring the deniability part of the strategy and demonstrating that Pakistani threat to shut down the NATO supply routes are hollow. This loss in credibility combined with the fact that keeping the economic lifeline of Pakistan alive requires negotiations and goodwill from the international community means that Pakistan has been boxed into a corner and American leverage over Pakistan has increased many fold. Make no mistake: the Americans are following a strategy of feigning friendship while indulging in warfare – as a reply to Pakistan’s strategy of feigning friendship while indulging in warfare**. While Pakistan measures its short-term success through body counts, India and US are charting a path to their successes by running Pakistan to the ground.
The same sub conventional warfare-deniability-deterrence approach was tried out in Kargil and failed spectacularly due to the same reasons of lack of endgame, asymmetric escalation by India and the flexibility of response that India enjoyed. Pakistan could not obtain a negotiated withdrawal (because that would imply that Pakistan would have accept responsibility for the intrusion) and counted on an Indian surrender (and were not prepared for their will to fight). Indian escalation could not be matched by Pakistani escalation, due to the danger of loss of deniability. Ultimately India prevailed through strength of arms through Artillery and Airforce and thoroughly discredited Pakistani denials by going on a diplomatic offensive***. Though the conflicts themselves were dissimilar, the current conflict is following the well-charted Kargil route. A bloody nose in the Kargil conflict**** led to a decade of military rule, erosion of Pakistan’s economic base, steeper economic divisions and radicalization. A bloody nose in the current conflict will prove to be much more costly and might very well be fatal to Pakistan.
* This despite Al-Qaeda’s acceptance that OBL is dead, the historic closed door briefing given by the armed forces to the Parliament and the possibility that US might find incriminating evidence from among the materials seized in the compound!
** Hence Pasha’s protestations about why US is not a reliable ally and noises about violation of sovereignty. Also, commentators seem to have missed the most significant aspect of the OBL raid: The fact that a successful operation would thoroughly humiliate and discredit Pakistani armed forces at home and abroad, could not have been overlooked by the US. In fact, this could have been one of the primary objectives of this raid.
*** People with long memories will recall that in the aftermath of the Kargil war, (and before 9/11) similar loss of credibility ruined Pakistan’s economy. 9/11 was a fortuitous windfall.
**** The defeat in Kagil was predictably sold off through stories ranging from a victory to denials that Pakistan was ever involved.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Post OBL Raid–Quick Notes
MAY 7, 2011 11 COMMENTS
Pakistan’s Sovereignty
US has stationed RADAR evading helicopters in Afghanistan. Since Taliban does not have RADAR, it wont be a stretch to guess whey they plan to fly these to. This raid is not the last. Probably was not the first. I find it impossible to believe that they did not go on a “test run” at night to see if they would be caught.
Did the Army help?
The sooner everyone gets over the delusion that the Army and ISI helped as an institution the better. The resulting loss of honor & dignity is strong enough to fracture the Army. The chief must be an idiot to do this. Trying to palm off the blame to PAF chief and civilian leaders are an indication that the Army is trying to get over this humiliation. Here is a sanity check: Nobody even had a coherent statement to make 3 days after.
What next in the Army/ISI?
Expect a witch hunt. The top brass must conclusively prove to the people of Pakistan that incompetence is punished. Expect a few heads to roll. More importantly, the top brass must conclusively prove to the radicalized middle and lower rungs that they were not hand in glove with the US. Not addressing this issue is a huge threat to the cohesion of the Army. Expect a few more heads to roll. If the Army and ISI did not help with this operation, by now they suspect that there are CIA moles inside. Expect still more heads to roll. It would be interesting to scan newspapers over the next several months to see how many Army/ISI operatives get bumped off.
So who helped?
I find it impossible to believe that CIA has not penetrated the ISI. They have had 10 years to cultivate mid-level ISI operatives, who probably are high level ISI operatives now. The repetition of the “courier” story is a red-herring. Someone from within the Armed forces ratted about RADAR installations and operating procedures. Someone from within the ISI ratted out a list of “off limits” houses.
If you truly believe Americans zeroed in on the OBL compound, set up a observation house near OBL compound (and therefore, near PMA Kakul) without getting caught, evaded RADARs in the middle of the night and snatched OBL AND there are no rodents inside Army/ISI — I have a Minar in Lahore that I wish to sell you. If you believe Army & ISI helped, I will throw in a big Mosque in Islamabad for free.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Jardari Stole My Oped
MAY 3, 2011 2 COMMENTS
On this momentous occashun when Sheikh Osama has become Shaheed, I had written an op-ed for western newsbapers. Those of you who are regulars in this blog and are readers of my tweets know my strategic stance on various issues of strategic geopolitics pertinent to the strategy of Pakistan’s strategic interests. Todin, I wake up and what do I see? My column reproduced almost verbatim (with a few words changed here and there) with Jardari taking complete credit (Like how Wajid Shamsul Hasan took credit for the operashun which caught Bin Laden) for it!!
Jardari’s (stolen I might hasten to add) Washington Post op-ed is here. I am reproducing the draft of my piece so you yourself can make up your mind:
Pakistan wont Part with Some Parts of the Whole Part of the Operashun
Before the people of the United States, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria and ofcourse Dagestan (those countries who can benefit from solushun to Cashmere issue) complain about terroijam originating from Pakistan, they should all realize that Pakistan itself victim of Pakistan-trained terrorists. Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operashun, Pakistan helped capture Bin Laden by not being unhelpful in capturing Bin Laden (at this time).
One should realize that Pakistan’s terror toll bigger than the terror toll of all countries in NATO put together. Before terror victims complain to me about being victims of terror groups sheltered in Pakistan, they should realize I too am victim of terror groups sheltered in Pakistan. Some in the U.S. press have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, but such allegashuns only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists.
Before going NUTS at the inevitable protests marches in support of Bin Laden that will surely follow, I wish to remind you that religious parties win less than 0.001% of support in Pakistan, (the rest 99.999% oph support goes directly to Murderers who sing in Jail cells and Rapists who walk away free, like this one time when nobody stood up to condole Salman Taseer in the Nashunal assembly and the 0.001% oph beepuls who did, are now in hiding. But I digress). Asking uncomfortable questions will only destabilize democrajy in Pakistan and lead to further radicalizashun of South Asia and Central Asia.
I will now quote Benajir because I never really figured out what the Quaid said about Pakistan in the constituent assembly.
Now blease to go read Jardari’s Washington Post op-ed is here and see for yourself!!
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
An Observation – I
APRIL 14, 2011 9 COMMENTS
As a departure from regular programming, here is a note: Pakistan is overplaying its hand.
As a background, It is customary for Pakistan’s “establishment” to react vehemently when one of three things happen:
1. The establishment perceives that their relevance and power in Pakistan (in relation to the civvies) is being eroded: The last time this happened was when the US, in a not so subtle way, tried to set up a framework for strengthening the civilian set-up by tying the aid money under the Kerry-Lugar bill to conditions such as (i) Not having coups (ii) Transparency in disbursement and expenditure (iii) Progress along the democracy front etc. The KL bill was greeted by shrill debates in the media, manufactured outrage and public mobilized through the usual “establishment channels” to make the displeasure of the establishment known.
2. Vital surrogates in Afghanistan are attacked: An example of this was when NATO helicopters attacked terrorists of the Haqqani faction in the Kurram agency. Pakistan perceives that the Haqqani faction best serves its interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s desire to control Afghanistan is a primary national security objective – even though it is cloaked in the “acceptable” language of keeping India out, the fact remains that the gravest threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity arises from Pashtun nationalism, which is a far greater threat to the unity of Pakistan than even the unrest in Balochistan. Ofcourse Pashtun nationalism in border areas could easily be exploited by India which could strike grand bargain with the Pashuns along the lines of Bangladesh-Mukti Bahini. Pakistan retaliated to the attacks in Kurram by blocking NATO convoys and subsequent attacks on the tankers with tens of tankers set on fire.
3. Vital surrogates fighting India are attacked: The latest Raymond Davis spat arose due to CIA’s unilateral expansion of its activities to include the surveillance and penetration of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. This CIA action is most likely due to a realization of three things (i) Western cities are just as vulnerable as Mumbai to commando-style attacks. This problem would be much worse if there are multiple commando-style attacks* (ii) The full extent of the complicity of official agencies in the funding and training of LeT has become apparent due to the confession of David Headley (Dawood Gilani). The CIA probably realizes that Pakistan’s security apparatus will not move against the LeT (iii) LeT is increasingly becoming a potent threat in Afghanistan, with the attacks on Indian embassy in Kabul traced to LeT operatives. Pakistan retaliated by arresting Davis, and demanding the withdrawal of CIA operatives in Pakistan whose primary brief is to keep tabs on “other” terrorist organizations.
Pakistan’s strategy seems to be three fold. It is a mixture of (1) Drastic and audacious steps such as blocking NATO convoys and arresting CIA agents. This is done for short term advantages and signaling to the Pakistani public that the Army/ISI do and can stand up to the US. Pakistan’s assessment is that these drastic steps would work due to American compulsions in fighting the Afghan war (2) Gaining the initiative in the civilian discourse by whipping up passions through shrill TV anchors and columnists. This was evident in the KL bill, where swathes of protestors had no idea or were misinformed as to what the real issues were! As part of this strategy, Pakistan is increasingly trying to convert the LeT into a Hezbollah-type organization with charity and political wings thereby deeply embedded into the civil society itself (3) Vastly expanding the nuclear arsenal to guarantee that American drone attacks (and other intensive attacks like air-strikes and cruise missile strikes) do not happen in the heartland against Army and Army-surrogate establishments.
The danger** in these assessments and strategy is two fold
1. Pakistan has no short-term and definitely no long-term leverage against the US: Pakistani economy is unviable. This gives rise to several pressure-points that the Americans can exploit vis-à-vis IMF an the world bank. Combined with the unrest in the middle east and sluggish economy in Europe and the natural disaster in Japan, Pakistan has very few allies to turn to. Even China is short of cash after increasing social spending. In any case Chinese money will come with far greater cost (and social unrest like the recent Reko Diq fiasco) than American money. In the best case scenario, Americans will meddle increasingly in the political and economic setup of Pakistan, trying to install a pliant civilian and army leadership. In the worst case, Americans will assassinate key Army and political figures. If one thinks this is a fantastic proposition, one needs to take a fresh look at the Zia case.
2. Pakistan usually misreads democratic governments with disastrous effect: This happened with India in 1965 (where Shastri was considered to be a “short dark man in a dhoti with no will to fight”) in 1971 where obliviousness to popular displeasure against Pakistan in Bangladesh was followed by a thorough misreading of US & Chinese support and Indian will to fight, in 1998 where International mood and Indian will to fight in Kargil was misread. Many more examples come to mind. In the current context, Pakistan has misread American domestic compulsions. The greatest danger to Pakistan today is a terror attack in the US being traced to Pakistani soil***. A successful attempt will drive the American public opinion against Pakistan and to prevent democrats from looking weak on national security Obama will be forced to retaliate militarily.
Frequent spats such as the spat over Raymond Davis is not winning Pakistan any friends among the US public in a time when Obama is due for re-election. Terror attacks originating from Pakistan certainly will not win any. In any case, the Afghanistan and Pakistan “problem” is due for a thorough “examination” in the upcoming presidential debates preceding the elections in 2012. Pakistan should also realize that the Americans are innovative as well. The drone attacks have started primarily as a result of Pakistan’s unwillingness or inability to take on militants in the border areas. This is deeply embarrassing to Pakistan and a far bigger headache than joint operations in the region. Last but not least, Pakistan seems to forget that the money, media and muscle available with the Americans is far in excess of what Pakistan and her allies have and it is best to not test American patience and goodwill or to stretch Pakistan’s luck till the next terror attack on US soil.
*Spectacular terror attacks against India are invariably replicated in the west. This includes the IC 814 hijack where the very same people were connected to the 9/11 hijack as well.
**I will not go into the dangers of the society getting radicalized as exemplified by the recent Salman Taseer and Bhatti case. That is a separate thread.
***This nearly happened with the failed times-square bombing attempt of Faisal Shahzad (the son of an Air Vice Marshal!!)
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Thorough Brosecution Of Mumbai Attackers in Pakistan
APRIL 5, 2011 18 COMMENTS
Gautam Gambhir’s recent statement that the Indian cricket world lota victory was dedicated to the 26/11 victims rightfully raised outrage in Pakistan. Before heaping blame on Pakistan for Pakistan-trained terrorists who commit terror acts in India, Indians should realize that Pakistan too is a victim of Pakistan-trained terrorists. In any case, viewing India-Pakistan relationship through the one-dimensional lens of terror is quite unfair to the world’s foremost front-line ally against terror. Pakistan has time and again tried to rescue India-Pakistan relationship from falling prey to 26/11 issue by first insisting that Kasab was not Pakistani, then by insisting that the terror attack was planned in a ship in international waters and finally when Indians nitpicked based on confessions of Kasab, insisting that the terrorists were non-state actors and terror did not have a nationality. When the Indians complained that the terror organization responsible for 26/11 attack was registered in Pakistan, Pakistan went the extra mile to declare the LeT as a charity organization. Despite all this, Indians insisted in Judicial action, indulged in state-sponsored tree-terrorism, sent pages and pages of dossiers and defamed Pakistan.
Pakistan reciprocated positively even for this grave dossier provocation. Nowhere in the world have terrorists been dragged through the courts for such extended period of time with such meticulous prosecution. Consider the chronology:
March 4, 2009: The trial starts!! AK Phyrr!! (in camera of course)
May 24, 2009: How can there be a trial without a judge, hain ji? (not our fault)
July 18, 2009: Chargesheet filed!! (Going to Sharm-al-Sheikh, have to show brogress!!)
July 25, 2009: Case adjourned for 1 month (Back from Sharm-al-Sheikh!!)
Aug 29, 2009: Adjourned for 1 month (Still digesting the food eaten at Sharm-Al-Sheikh!!)
Sep 26, 2009: Adjourned again (Still digesting)
Oct 3, 2009: Adjourned again (digesting…)
Oct 21, 2009: Judge wants to leave the case for “unavoidable reasons” (400% sure it is a gastric problem)
New judge, many adjournments, case put off till accused plea for acquittal is considered (I yam no judicial exbert, but isnt this what the case is about?) fast forward to Feb 13, 2010
Feb 13, 2010: Case adjourned because the judge is “busy”
Feb 20, 2010 to Apr 19, 2010 (heated debate whether Kasab is an absconder, a fugitive or a proclaimed offender) Adjourned till July 03, 2010 to find out whether Yindia will send Kasab to Pakistan (Riddal: Blease to guess Yindia’s answer)
July 24, 2010: Judge didn’t show up for work
July 31, 2010: Judgement on Lakhvi’s bail plea reserved till August 7 (“reserving” is a judicial activity 400% distinct from “adjourning”)
Aug 28, 2010: Reserved judgement is adjourned till Sep 18. (Did I naat tell you “reserving” is different from “adjourning” hain ji?)
Nov 13, 2010: Pakistan has determined that Yindia will not hand over Kasab (then what happened on July 03, 2010 you pooch? Just making 400% sure)
Dec 17, 2010: Defence lawyer has fake degree. Case adjourned.(imagine how long the case would have dragged on if he had a real degree!!)
Jan 8, 2011: Adjourned
Jan 22, 2011: Adjourned
Feb 5, 2011: NOT ADJOURNED!!! (heh heh, just kidding. Also adjourned)
Feb 17, 2011: Take a guess!!
Feb 26, 2011: Guess again if you made a mistake last time!!
March 05, 2011: One more chance!!
March 26, 2011: Last chance for guessing!!
As you can dekho, even before examining a single witness over 2 years, look at the thoroughness of Pakistani Judiciary! Then why do Indians complain? Pakistanis have chosen to move on and forget the trauma to the national Image the 26/11 has caused and tried hard to forget. Maybe the tiny hearted Indians should take a clue from large hearted Pakistanis and move on too. Regular statements to the media about the 180 odd killed in Mumbai will only serve to keep their memories alive.
In conclusion, what I am trying to say is….
(artecal adjourned till later)
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Everything You Wanted To Know About Raymond Davis (But Were Afraid To Ask)
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 11 COMMENTS
Raymond Davis works for the CIA. CIA is an organization in the USA. USA pays all of Pakistan’s bills.
Or, in the words of our taller than mountain, deeper than ocean friends:
Confucius say “He who should check his balls often, cannot hold head high with dignity”
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Cultural Concepts of South Asia–Part I
FEBRUARY 20, 2011 14 COMMENTS
For the benefit of the Goras who might find it strange to get to terms with Pakistani South Asian cultural concepts, Yours sachly has produced a quick cheat sheet of terms & concepts. These are very useful when reading blog posts, listening to diplomats, "analysts", talking heads and the all too pervasive columnists you would come across in newspapers (Which about covers 99% of the Pakistani population). But first things first:
South Asian
Indians are Indians and Pakistanis when caught in tight situations (like in Airports) are Indians too. In other circumstances they are South Asians. Being "South Asian" offers many advantages. Such as an overwhelming numerical advantage.
Example: When faced with the question “Is radicalization a problem”? South Asians can reply with a straight face "Only 170 million, or less than 10% of the South Asians are radicalized". Which sounds entirely reasonable.
Glorious Victory
When Side A attacks Side B, and everyone in Side B is dead, save for one man with one leg, one eye and no arms who stands up and yells "Death to the Kuffars", Side B is judged to have won a resounding Glorious Victory. Because Side A is (non bious and) powerful, Side B is (bious and) not powerful, Side B always wins a Glorious Victory.
Other equivalent concepts: Hezbollah Victory, Kargil Victory (We internationalized the Cashmere issue), 1965 Victory (celebrated to this day), Simla Accord Victory (as claimed by ZAB), Baglihar Dam Victory, and the recent Talks with India Victory (as claimed by Shah Mahmood Qureshi).
My strategic forecast: Kishenganga Victory will be added to the list of Glorious Victories soon.
99% Solution to Cashmere issue
When someone gets booted from position of power, it is frequently used as a tagline to demonstrate they did useful and audacious things. Claimed by Benazir, Musharraf, Sartaz Aziz and everyone who was ever kicked out of position of power in Pakistan at various times.
Usage: “Cashmere issue was solved 99.999% under my tenure and we were hours away from signing the agreement” (with subtle subtext that India signed away all of Cashmere, retreated from Siachen, gave away Sir Creek and resolved not to build any dams at all. Because we won a Glorious Victory in the battlefield and the negotiating table)
Please Note: It is a tactical mistake to claim that electricity problem, employment or the economy of Pakistan was 99.999% solved. Because that would just be plain absurd and ludicrous.
Free Aafia!!
When an issue is raked up provide a local advantage (such as raising the Aafia issue as a warning to threaten the political ambitions of Musharraf, who handed over Aafia in the first place) and ultimately ends up consuming scarce resources (such as the millions of dollars spent by the government of Pakistan for mounting her legal defense while the IDPs of Swat get loads of….Malaria) while becoming a huge headache, it is called Free Aafia!!
Recently Seen in: Raymond Davis and all other Honor & Dignity related issues.
Silent Majority
Himalayan yeti. Nobody has seen it, but it is rumored to be big and powerful.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
Islamic Emirate of Whatever-istan and its Liberal Extremists
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 11 COMMENTS
R U A Muslim?! Is by far the most frequent question that yours sachly’s fourth cousin gets on Twitter. This and the latest happenings in Egypt (speculating about the direction its politics would take) has prompted me to write this hurried blog post about two interlinked thoughts I had.
Islamic Emirate of…..
So what is wrong in being a proud MUSLIM living in a country that proudly declares itself to be ISLAMIC? Nothing actually. But the devil is in the details…
In any society, our understanding of complex concepts evolves over time (as an example, science comes readily to mind). In this vein, our understanding of ethics and the social consensus of morality progresses over time. So it stands to reason that the current understanding of ethics and morality of any society draws from its cultural heritage. Religion usually dominates this cultural heritage. So to recognize this fact and to declare that a country’s zeitgeist evolved from its religious heritage is quite natural.
And then you have Pakistan.
Where, what seems to be lost is the crucial distinction between a country whose heritage is rooted in a particular set of beliefs and a country whose sole reason for existence is for the benefit of people who carry particular set of beliefs. This distinction is crucial and makes all the difference. The former is an acknowledgement of a fact, and the latter designates a particular subset of people as beneficiaries.
If we accept the current consensus that Pakistan is formed for the benefit of Muslims (notwithstanding what the Qaid might or might not have said according to selective interpretation of history), we are immediately faced with a question "Who is a Muslim?". Obviously everyone in Pakistan is not a Muslim and ergo, the country cannot benefit everyone! So as a first cut approximation, let us declare Ahmedis to be not Muslims. Let us be so proud about this discovery that let us stick it into the constitution. They don’t get to enjoy the benefits of being in Pakistan (or equivalently, the benefits bestowed by a country upon its citizens). Obviously Hindus are not Muslims. They don’t get to be the President or the Prime Minister. Next we are faced with a tricky question: "Are Shias Muslim too?" Maybe not. That was easy. How about Barelvis? When compared to Deobandis, Barelvis seem to be a little confused…..
The social consensus converges around three points
This country is for the benefit of the Muslims
My subgroup, (with more and more stringent set of conditions to determine membership) is Muslim, others are not
Ergo, take stuff away from people outside the subgroup
So the country spends its time in diligently making the conditions to get into the beneficiary list more and more stringent while taking away more and more from people who don’t make it into the list. This activity of drawing up a list and judging who are in the list dominates the social discourse and sucks out the intellectual energy of people. Who then explain everything with: So and so cannot be a true Muslim because….
This ladies and gentlemen, is why Islamic Emirate/Republic of Whateveristan will forever be F’ed up and whose future will be more F’ed up than the present.
Liberal Extremists
In the glorious tradition of “truth is somewhere in the middle” (so earth is neither spherical nor flat), under Musharraf(please correct me here, maybe this existed even earlier) we saw a new phenomenon: It suddenly dawned upon the talking heads that religious extremists should become more tolerant and liberal extremists should start respecting culture. So somehow they are equal and two sides of the same coin. This has been hammered into our heads again and again.
My first reaction was Liberal Extremists?! Whoa!! Please leave my goats alone!! please. please. please.
Later, I wanted to make a list of all kinds of extremists that I would be scared of
Buddhist Extremists: Not so much. They probably will gather as a group, go silent, sit under a tree, start meditating and give cryptic answers about the impermanence of human life and other worldly things.
Pacifist Extremists: Probably will start weeping on seeing my leather shoes. Not scared.
…and the list goes on.
So you see, the operating word is not "extremist" it is what precedes it. Liberal extremists probably would have strong opinions about how individual liberty and social justice may be merged. A religious extremist (of certain kinds) probably will strap a suicide vest and blow you up while you are busy buying tomatoes in a Lahore market. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer being lectured than being blown up.
It goes further.
So what is the difference between religious (of certain kinds) extremists and religious (of certain other kinds) extremists? Well if a Buddhist extremist were to pull out an AK to propagate his beliefs, that would clearly be absurd. After all it is clear that the Buddhist religion is built around the central concept of rejection of violence. How about a Liberal extremist pulling out a gun? That is absurd too. And how about religious (of the Pakistani kind) extremist? Most people think that it is quite normal and justified.
So don’t fear the ‘extremist’. Fear the word that precedes it.
Rate this:
FILED UNDER UNCATEGORIZED
How to make your own Ejaz Haider (at home)
FEBRUARY 14, 2011 14 COMMENTS
So everyone loves an Ejaz Haider! But it ij not availabal every din and can become costly (due to subscripshuns). I too love columns of Ejaz Haider and after careful reading, I think I have reverse engineered the recibe!! The secret is simbal. The recipe has 5 major combonents: Demand Money–Act as if terrorism is normal–Show bravado–High sounding grabagic nonsense—Toilet/Adult jokes.
To beepuls who are afraid about cooking their own Ejaz Haider column, I am providing this ready to make recipe!! Ejaz Haider Column Generator!!
A. Sentence one: Choose one phrom each category: (Demanding money)
1. Not giving Pakistan money
2. Asking Pakistan to do too much
3. Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money
Will only
1. Strengthen hands of extremists
2. Compel the Army to take over
3. Weaken democracy
4. Put region into Chaos
B. Sentence two: Choose one phrom each category: (Acting as if terrorism is normal)
Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because
1. Every country has done it
2. It is how weaker countries challenge the stronger
3. Oppressed people have no recourse
4. It is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger
in any case
1. US has indulged in it
2. India has indulged in it
3. Pakistan has indulged in it in the past several times
4. It is one of the 5 tools of statecraft
C. Sentence three: Choose one (Bravado)
1. Pakistan is here to stay
2. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan
3. India cannot pacify Kashmir without Pakistan
D. Sentence four: Choose one from each category: (High sounding nonsense)
1. The normative interpretation of inter-state relations
2. The consensus understanding of the spirit of Magna carta
3. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz
will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of
1. Temporal-spatial nature of geo strategic relationship
2. Inter- and intra state transactions of state actors
3. Game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium
E. Sentence five: Insert your own toilet humor/male anatomy jokes here:
Here ij what I generated!!
Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money will only put region into chaos. Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because it is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger, in any case it is one of the 5 tools of statecraft. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium. There is a long glorious erection of flagpole outside my window. Tee heee. –Ejaz Haider.
As you can see, the number of variashuns are infinite!! Taking time to explore all of them will assure your career as an analyst and strategic thinker!! Post your own columns and variashuns!!
---xxx-----
A Laymard’s Guide to the Siachen Problem
APRIL 13, 2012
The origins of the Siachen problem can be traced to the Simla agreement of 1972. That agreement demarcating the Line of Control between India and Pakistan did not demarcate where the line of control went and simply stated that it went “North”. This left a great strategic ambiguity as to whether “North” meant North or if it really meant East, thus creating confusion as to whether Siachen Glacier belonged to Pakistan or India.
Even in the presence of this ambiguity, there was relative peace between 1971 and 1979, when Pakistan was busy with coups and hangings. After taking charge in 1978 through a peaceful coup, Zia-ul-Haq wanted to repair the image of Pakistan army severely dented in the 1971 war. To make up for losing 57,000sq miles of East Pakistan, Zia wanted to capture the 1000sq miles of Siachen, where there was no deployment of either Indian or Pakistani soldiers (Siachen is a icy waste where not a single blade of grass grows just like Aksai Chin, which also has nothing except strategically important passes connecting Tibet). Pakistan started giving licenses for mountaineering expeditions for tourists. In accordance with the tradition of gracious subcontinental hospitality, each of these expeditions were accompanied by representatives from Pakistan army and supplied by helicopter. Coincidentally, the terrain and logistics routes were also mapped. Simultaneously, the Indians were playing cricket in Antarctica to practice getting acclamatised to the cold. But an all out war on Siachen would have to wait. The reasons were two fold: (1) The treacherous Indians, in a display of ungentlemanly behaviour, had attacked across the international border as a retaliation for Pakistan attacking across the line of control in 1965. Indians did not limit the war to the line of control respecting the strategy drawn up by Pakistan’s generals to keep the war limited. So any war on Siachen had the potential to flare up as a major border war (2) Pakistan did not do very well in a major border war and could win only a silver medal after coming in second in that competition.
1984 brought the Nuclear test at Lop Nor in China. Co-incidentally, for presumably unrelated reasons, Pakistan gained the confidence that a conflict along the undemarcated line of control would not flare up into a larger border war. Preparations were made for another mountaineering expedition into Siachen by buying Arctic gear from a shop in London, which was unfortunately run by a RAW agent, who promptly informed the Indians. This set off a race to Siachen, where Indian soldiers and Pakistani soldiers trekked to Siachen, but Indians beat the Pakistanis by 4 days. Yes, all of 4 days. A war followed. In those heights, fighting consisted of not dying in the cold air or lack of oxygen and the side which did not freeze to death won. Indians with their short, dark bodies required less food and oxygen, (each Pakistani soldier on the other hand, needed the food and oxygen of atleast 8 Indian soldiers) survived longer and won. The Indians advanced all the way upto the Saltoro ridge west of Siachen glacier and occupied the 3 major passes into the glacier — Sia La, Gyong La and Bilafond La — thus completely cutting off all approaches to the glacier and and making it impossible for the Pakistan army to even reach Siachen.
Which leads to current status of Siachen problem where India has all of Siachen and Pakistan has a problem with it.
Several attempts were made to dislodge the Indian Army, the most ferocious in 1987 by the then Brig. Gen. Pervez Musharraf who had raised a SSG unit in Khaplu for mountain warfare. The attack proved futile and led to a huge loss of life on the Pakistani side and in a subsequent counter-attack Indians captured even more territory. Musharraf subsequently turned his attention to Gilgit and won a major war against the Pakistani Shias in Chitral, killing hundreds. Buoyed by this victory, Musharraf returned for a major assault in 1989 on Siachen but it fared even worse than the 1987 assault. Readers would know that Mushrraf would later go on to become COAS and to complement his bigger rank, distinguish himself by losing in a bigger way in Kargil, but would eventually win in the 1999 war in Islamabad. The Islamabad war consisted of an assault by the forces commanded by General Musharraf on the forces commanded by Ameer-Ul-Momineen Nawaz Sharif. That short war involved precise military maneuvers to capture PTV headquarters, an assault on the airport, capturing all the roads leading to the Parliament and the eventual capture of the Parliament itself, leading to the unconditional surrender of all Senators, MNAs, the Judiciary and the Constitution. Losing against India but winning against Pakistan seems to be Musharraf’s speciality, but I got ahead of myself.
Subsequent intermittent attacks till the mid 90’s were futile as well, which led to one logical conclusion: Siachen could not be won by attacking Siachen, Indian supply routes to Siachen would have to be cut much further south, somewhere along the demarcated line of control. But this war had to wait. A war across demarcated Line of Control (as opposed to war across the actual ground position line or AGPL) had the potential to flare up as a major war across the international border and … well you get the idea.
1998 brought the nuclear tests by India as well as Pakistan. Co-incidentally, for presumably unrelated reasons, Pakistan gained the confidence that a conflict along the demarcated line of control would not flare up into a larger border war. (The Lop Nor tests only gave the confidence that conflict along the undemarcated line of control would not flare up into a larger border war. This has to do with deep strategic reasons involving just having a nuclear bomb vs having a weaponized nuclear bomb). A mountaineering expedition of Mujahideen who were fighting for freedom against Indian oppression in Kashmir occupied the Indian positions in Kargil during the winter* and threatened the Indian supply lines to Siachen, leading Musharraf to brag (actual quote)
‘I have a Stinger on every peak…we shall walk into Siachen to mop up hundreds of dead Indians in the cold’
While the freedom fighters had full moral, political and diplomatic support from Pakistan army, they had only weak artillery support and worse, they committed a major blunder of not securing complete air support. Thus they were ultimately beaten back, mainly due to Indian air and artillery attacks. Ten years later in 2009 after Musharraf was sent packing, it was discovered by COAS Kayani that they were not Mujahideen at all but belonged to the Northern Light Infantry. Why they called themselves Mujahideen and how exactly they were oppressed by India in Kashmir is a mystery to many to this day. Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail has a few thoughts for everyone vis-a-vis the importance of air support in Kargil while freedom-fighting and you can read it in his blog, but I digress.
Subsequent events of 9/11, a bad economy, Americans in the region, and military build up by both India and Pakistan meant that Siachen issue could not be solved by military adventures, leaving no option but to solve it using talks. Which leads us to the present day:
Pakistan should convince India that Siachen is taking a heavy toll on both sides, consuming valuable money and resources, which could be better spent on Ballistic missiles, Artillery and Nuclear bombs which both India and Pakistan desperately need. Repeated attacks aimed at recapturing Siachen has caused casualties on both sides. The men fighting a futile war in Siachen could be redeployed to fight a futile war elsewhere — in Balochistan, Swat or even Gilgit where the Shia problem still persists. But the talks are at a deadlock: To withdraw from Siachen, India has started to place demands that Pakistan should validate the Actual Ground Position line agreeing that North is in fact North, and not East**. This is unacceptable to Pakistan, especially because if North is in fact East, the Karakoram pass connecting to Tibet falls under Pakistan’s claim. But if the North is in fact North, then all attempts by Musharraf would have gone in vain. More importantly, the all weather friends may not be pleased that Pakistan gave away a pass into Tibet to India. So in many ways, Siachen is about the territorial integrity of China, about which there can be no compromise by Pakistan.
So the conflict endures in the face of obstinacy by both sides, where Pakistan’s principled position stands as firm as the mountains and Indian’s hearts are as cold as the Siachen glacier. This problem can only be solved in some non-rocky non-icy place — the warm sandy beaches of Thailand by track-2 participants.
__________________
* Before Kargil it used to be the case that Indian and Pakistani soldiers retreated to warm base camps during winter. Now thanks to Kargil, they man their posts in the cold all year round, even in winter. On the positive side, the soldiers report that Siachen does not feel much more cold and miserable when compared to the Kargil heights in winter.
** This demand is meaningless. Even after agreeing where the Line of Control was, the NLI/Freedom Fighters/Mujahideen occupied Indian camps in Kargil. So it is absurd to assume that agreeing on AGPL in Siachen is a guarantee against NLI/Freedom Fighters/Mujahideen occupying the Saltoro ridge. So why make this demand anyway?
—-xxx—-
Another Lone Wolf In The Making
APRIL 5, 2012
Pakistan used to be good friends with North Korea. Benazir Bhutto visited North Korea in 1993, whose GDP at that time was about $6 Billion. So presumably it was for economic co-operation and trade. The enduring friendship, which was presumably based on shared cultural heritage was taller than the tallest missiles: When bluntly warned by Japanese foreign minister that Japan would support an IMF loan to Pakistan to rescue an economy in shambles (Hey, don’t give all the credit for a broken economy to Zardari) only if they stopped importing missiles from North Korea, Sartaz Aziz firmly reassured the Japanese that he knew of no such thing. Sartaz Aziz also announced a firm commitment to sign the CTBT to the Japanese, but the signing ceremony was held up in some procedural issues after the IMF loans were approved — but I digress.
So when it emerged that Nuclear centrifuges were exported from Pakistan to North Korea, transported in military C-130 planes (about 135 loads), the only possible explanation could be that AQ Khan acted alone without the military or the civilian leadership (who were busy fighting the war on terror and hunting Osama Bin Laden) having any knowledge about it. The foreign minister did not know about it, the Prime minister was ignorant, the Army leadership had no clue and the intelligence agencies who were supposed to provide counter-espionage against the nuclear program was roundly outwitted. AQ Khan single-handedly loaded the planes by himself, flew them to North Korea, and returned it back in the same place before the next morning (after filling petrol so that nobody noticed). Being a Pakistani patriot committed to the defence of Pakistan and all that, he was promptly pardoned after a televised apology on National television.
That brings me to another Pakistani patriot committed to the defence of Pakistan. Professor Hafiz Saeed. Turns out Professor Saeed is quite friendly with the other set of patriots, the Army, and was a guest of honor of the X corps commander for an Iftar party. He is quite friendly with the Judiciary too, which ordered the Government to pay him a stipend during his house arrest. His friendship with the retired ISI folk is well known, so is his popularity with the leader of the Tsunami, who regularly sends his representatives to share a dias with him.
When it turned out that a top Al Qaeda leader, Abu Zubaydah was captured in Faisalabad in a Lashkar-e-Tayyiba safehouse, the US National Counterterrorism Center observed: Abu Zubaydah was captured at an LT safehouse in Faisalabad, suggesting that some LT members assist the group. This, taken along with the recent news trickling out about Osama’s five safe houses and two government hospital-born children, and a $10 million reward for (capturing/interviewing/convicting/complaining about) the good Professor, one cant help but speculate that the Lashkar had some hand in arranging Osama bin Laden’s hospitality. Which leads to only one possible explanation:
Professor Hafiz Saeed acted alone, without any knowledge of the Civilian, military or Intelligence leadership (who were busy fighting the war on terror and hunting Osama Bin Laden) in assisting Al Qaeda in various ways, including possibly arranging for safe houses for Osama Bin Laden all by himself. Army generals did not bring it up during their Iftar conversations, politicians had no idea and Intelligence was outwitted. Which leads to only one possible course of action reserved for great Pakistani patriots:
Televised apology by Hafiz Saeed and a Presidential pardon for his sins
—-xxx—-
How to Become A Strategic Analyst Like Yours Sachly
MARCH 26, 2012
I am pleased to see a new generation of Pakistani analysts: The twenty-somethings whose western education makes them credible in Pakistan and whose Pakistani heritage and once-a-year visit to Pakistan makes them extremely credible in the west. I am also pleased to note that this generation is diligent in not letting scholarship get in the way of creativity. While they have no doubt realized that any good analysis of Pakistan is like a piece of modern art — its beauty should be appreciated, without searching for meaning — some seem to lack the vocabulary that should be mandatory in any article written by Pakistanis which discusses Pakistan. For their benefit, I am presenting a few such phrases and their semantic deconstruction:
South Asia: Indians are Indians, and Pakistanis are Indians too. Especially in tight situations involving airports in foreign countries. In most other situations, Indians and Pakistanis are “South Asians”. Being a South Asian confers three type of advantages. The first advantage is that credit can be earned by association. This is useful while reporting positive news like: “A lady of South Asian origin wins the Governorship of South Carolina” and “As usual, South Asian children sweep spelling-bee championships.”.
The second advantage is that blame can be spread over a larger geographic area. This is particularly useful while discussing terror groups. Examples include “South Asian terrorist group suspected of attacking Mumbai” and the“South Asian terrorist who tried to attack Times square” or our very own Ambassador Hussain Haqqani’s scholarly study: “The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups”. Of course, one wouldn’t want to go into divisive details like the exact nationality of these organizations and individuals! That would just make you petty minded and someone who is against unity and peace. If you did want to go into details, usually substituting “Indian” in positive news articles and “Pakistani” in embarrassing ones would usually serve the purpose.
The third and the most significant advantage is numerical. This includes a vast South Asian market for “South Asian” artists and an equally vast room to wriggle out of uncomfortable questions. For example, when posed the question “Is radicalization a problem?” South Asians can reply with a straight face “Only 170 million, or about 10% of the South Asians are radicalized”. Which sounds entirely reasonable and makes me proud of being a South Asian.
While we are on the subject of radicalization, a subject of interest is the set of issues which are likely to radicalize Pakistani extremists. It is important to keep in mind that a good analyst does not complicate issues with deep analysis of ideologies, supporters and funding of extremists organizations and instead speaks with authority derived from having lived in Pakistan, which brings us to issues which:
Will Only Strengthen the Hands of Extremists: The exact issue which will strengthen the hands of the extremists depends on the current hot topic in the media and should strangely align with the objectives of the state. For example: If India’s prime minister says borders cannot be redrawn, a suitable analysis could be: “Such controversial statements could strengthen the hands of extremists” (Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri circa 2004). If the west plans to attack Iran, a suitable cautionary advice would be: “This will strengthen the hands of extremists” (Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri circa 2006). If NATO violates Pakistan’s border, a stern warming would include: It will“Strengthen extremists” (Zardari circa 2008). In short, the “hand of extremists” is the adult version of “My daddy will come by tomorrow” — a subtle threat that can be used in every occasion. Ofcourse, only a Pakistan-hater will pause to ask “Who are these extremists? What do they want? Why do we even care what they want? How about some good policing and laws to weaken the hands of extremists?” because asking such sensitive questions will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists in Pakistan.
While every sensitive issue strengthens the hands of extremists, every intractable issue can be solved by:
Solving the Kashmir Issue: Which has, at various times, has been touted as the solution to the mess in Afghanistan, to prevent future “Kargils” (as argued by Musharraf), to reap the “Peace dividend” for the economy (hinted whenever India’s finances are in a mess), to prevent nuclear war in the region and to even prevent floods in Pakistan by preventing glacier melting in Siachen! In short, Kashmir solution is like your grandmother’s home-remedy — It cures everything!
Thus, a well-informed analysis of Pakistan will read:
Ignoring the Kashmir issue will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists in South Asia and solving the Kashmir issue is necessary for strategic stability in the subcontinent.
Which sounds entirely reasonable, informed and enlightened! But I got ahead of myself by not explaining:
Strategic: Which is a mystical word, evoking thoughts of the Army, courage and intelligent planning, which automatically makes any bad idea sound profound. Try arguing along the lines of “If India attacks Pakistan, we will all run away, hide in the mountains of Afghanistan, re-group and then fight back” and you will be laughed out of the room. On the other hand, declaring with a solemn face “Pakistan needs strategic depth” and committing several million dollars to run training camps to train and send several thousands of illiterate, brainwashed fighters across the border is a profound military strategy. In this vein, while assets are needed for economic security for civilians,Strategic assets are needed for the security of the country (acquiring which, will make a country insolvent, but secure). Again, Pakistan’s propensity to pick up fights with the U.S. can be explained away as “Strategic defiance”which will not invite any retaliation from the U.S. due to Pakistan’s geostrategic location. Using the word “Strategic” liberally like:
Pakistan’s strategic defiance of the U.S. to acquire strategic depth in Afghanistan leaves little strategic options for the U.S. due to Pakistan’s geostrategic location and strategic assets.
Will elevate your columns from merely being an “Analysis” to the exalted heights of a “Strategic Analysis”. While a cynic will characterize Pakistan as a country of extremists and people who write columns about extremists, a strategic analyst on the other hand will highlight positive aspects of the society like:
The Silent Majority: Which forms the core of Pakistan and is the vanguard of liberalism and modernity. Though like the name suggests, it has never been seen or heard from, it can be effectively used to re-assure the terrified west (terrified presumably due to the extremists and columns about extremists pouring out of Pakistan). When vague allusions to the silent majority is inadequate, its effectiveness can be increased manyfold when used along with the percentage of support religious parties enjoy. Thus yet another massive protest of support for religion-inspired murder can be effectively explained away by:
The protesters are a fringe group in a country where the moderate silent majority ensures that religious parties win less than 10% of the votes.
Which should be written in english, to make sure that the vocal supporters of the said religious parties dont chase you down and silence you. When such allusions to silent majorities and the unpopularity of religious parties dont reassure an anxious (and frequently exasperated) west, it is time to pull out the victim card by declaring that:
Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism: However, care should be taken to follow it up with a statement that blames “non-state actors” and other people without nationality or religion for terrorism. Without this, using the phrase “Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism” runs the risk of hinting at carelessness — somewhat like an arsonist who sets his own house on fire by improperly storing flammable materials at his own house.
Putting it all together, a timeless strategic analysis of the latest terror incident (with the inevitable Pakistani connection) would read:
Before the world pressures Pakistan to do more against terrorism, they should realize that Pakistan itself is the biggest victim of terrorism. A key step towards reducing the influence of extremists in Pakistan is finding a solution to the Kashmir issue. Ignoring the Kashmir issue will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists in South Asia. Without solving the Kashmir issue Pakistan will continue its strategy of strategic defiance of the U.S. to acquire strategic depth in Afghanistan, which leaves little strategic options due to Pakistan’s geostrategic location and strategic assets. A solution to the Kashmir issue will strengthen the silent majority and further marginalize the religious parties who, in any case, win less than 10% of the votes in Pakistan.
—-xxx—-
The Year That Was – Part 4 (Oct-Dec)
FEBRUARY 14, 2012 4 COMMENTS
Yours sachly wanted to write a blog post summarizing the events of the year past. Since he never got around to it, here is a collection of tweets from yours sachly’s fourth cousin which summarizes the events.
October
Zardari had his customary Op-ed in Washingtonpost
Zardari oped in Washington Bost!! http://wapo.st/pGaTGz I have to admit, @husainhaqqani writes well
Amreekis should leave the region so Pakistan can complain that Amreekis left the region.
Was followed by the customary Rehman-Malikism
Rehman Malik “no negotiations if the insurgents held AK in one hand.” http://bo.st/ngEfyP Exberts use both hands to hold AK for stability!!
If someone holds an AK in one hand, claims to be an extremist and wants negoshiashuns — he is lying. He is not a properly trained extremist
And some Cricket
So the retired current ex-captain is the ex-retired current ex-captain.
Gaddafi died
OKAY IT IS CONPHIRMED!! Bositive Neuj!! Gaddafi captured and killed and it was NOT near Pakistan Military Academy!! Repeat: NOT near PMA!!
Mother-in-Law visited
Last time Clinton sahiba visited, she alleged that OBL was in Pakistan. I bet she won’t have the guts to make that accusashun in this visit.
My advice to Clinton Sahiba: If you want to take Pakistanis on in a debate, blease to train with Yindian Saas-Bahu serials. We are exberts.
Steve Jobs book was released
Steve Jobs “time in India taught me intuition” Hmph!! If he had visited Pak he would have learned how to save on taxes
Mushy and IK start politicking
Taken at the Imran Khan rally todin (photu) http://bit.ly/hLXJ3N
To Beepuls who suggest the photu is fake, it is 400% original!! I made it myself in photushop!
Musharraph: “Pakistan bending backwards to invite Afghan” he then added “Pakistan bending forwards to invite Chinese”
My summary oph Musharraph Speech: Fear that Amreeka might leave behind unstable Aphghanistan has caused Pakistan to destabilize Aphghanistan
Saudis get a new Crown prince
Saudi Barbaria has youthful crown brince. Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz was 81 and the new crown brince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz is only 78. Progress!!
November
People got divorced
Kim Kardashian Marrij just like US-Pakistan strategic relashunship!! It was short, involved a lot of money and people got screwed.
People got caught
Why cant we play a clean Krikit game like the Yindians? Where doing massive corrupshun is taken care of by the organizers?
My idea to Butt & Asif: Immediately release statement supporting Qadri. 400% guaranteed hero welcome back home & lawyers fighting to defend!
Amir conphession and Butt & Asif whining confirms that only Butt and Asif have no balls.
My summary of Courtroom arguments: Amir: “I did it” Asif: “Butt made me do it”: Butt: “I offered only moral, bolitical & diplomatic support”
“Rehman Malik directs FIA team & lawyers to reach London and help Pakistani players” Translation: British will be dealt with an iron hand
Butt Song: Roses are red // Violets are Plue // Match is broken? // Let me fix it for you.
You self-righteous A-Hole!! It is cheating *only* if someone takes money and does *not* bowl no-palls. Ever thought of that? Amir was honest
Pakistan, Nukes and Cold Start
“Pakistan Carts Its Nukes Around In Delivery Vans”http://bit.ly/ufeLCz Thats why they are called “Nuke Delivery Vehicles” you moron!
Sick of “Pakistan’s Nukes are in Danger” Propaganda by the west. Similar to “Osama Hiding in Pakistan” defamashun campaign they mounted.
Cold start is a strategy conceived in the small, cold Yindoo heart. Pakistani strategy should be warm start.
Eid
“Jamaatud Dawa free to collect Eid donations”http://bit.ly/uVXDrJ Their Ban status, like Veena Malik’s age, is ambiguous & contradictory.
Greece got bailed out
Can you name a single Greek terrorist? I cant either. Then why is Greece getting all the money? What nonsense!
India offers electricity and free trade
Whoa!! Excited about Phree trade with Yindia!! What are we getting phor free?
In two minds. Electricity phrom Yindia supports Yindian soaps. On the other hand, they are essential phor ISI interrogashun technawlaji
US tries civilize Pakistanis
“US. tries hip hop diplomacy in Pakistan” http://reut.rs/uAO4bZ I soch telling Pakistanis to bust a cap at Police is not the need of the hour
Sick of artecals selling US to Pakistan to “westernize” us. We are already westernized you morons! We emulate Saudi Barbaria on the west
PTA tries to civilize Pakistanis
Words are oph two types. Good words and Bad words. Should talk with the good words and ban the bad words. #PTA
Whoa! Padma (#369 in Urdu list) is banned. I soch Salman Rushdie had a hand in putting that one in.
They also banned FORESKIN. The Brophet banned Foreskin Captain Redundant!!
Why is Niger banned but not Algeria, Libya, Chad, Mali OR Bukina Faso? They are all neighpours of Niger!!
First hints of trouble for Husain Haqqani
My idea: @husainhaqqani should threaten Army that he’ll become Ambassador to China instead oph Ambassador to US if they ask him to do more.
Visited India through Marvi Memon’s tweets
Going to Yindia for a South Asian Youth leadership conference. Hope to teach them some civilization and hopefully get back Cashmere.
First, Dilli. Airplane just landed in Dilli. Runway looks just like those in Pakistan. A bit shorter in length and the asphalt a bit darker.
So we share the same kind of runways.
Documentary program “Khuda Gawah” on TV. Exposes Yindian strategy of enticing Afghanistan into its orbit #YindiaVisit
Let me hasten to add I avoid all Yindian programmes. I could be persuaded to watch if Cashmere is returned though. #YindiaVisit
For someone who boycotted indian music due to principles, “sheila ki jawani” sounds pretty okay.#YindiaVisit
Yindian Bollywood songs seem to be shorter in length and darker in mood than Pakistani Bollywood songs #YindiaVisit
Had chai for breakfast. Yindian chai like Pakistani chai, except it is darker and served in shorter cups. #YindiaVisit
This shah rukh khan looks identical to our Bollywood shah rukh khan. #YindiaVisit
Irregularity filled, corruption ridden land distribution to poor. No army like efficiency for allotting plots.#YindiaVisit
5 lakh ride train in Dilli & no ambulances. REPEAT 5 Lakh, no ambulance. That is 5 lakh, no ambulance. Ppl could misuse info.#YindiaVisit
Wrenching poverty causes women to get into degrading professions. Saw song of one “munni” who became badnaam.#YindiaVisit
Got a calendar from Hurriyat Grandpa. He seems to have several.#YindiaVisit
Yindian youth brainwashed that Pakistan created only in 1947!! Pakistan was formed 4.5 Billion years ago with the rest of earth#YindiaVisit
More trouble for Husain Haqqani
Jernail Pasha. DG CSISI.
US Army got OBL you say?! Bah! Pakistan Army got@husainhaqqani !! TAKE that and DESPAIR Amreeka!!
The important question to answer in #memogate is who was Maha Siddiqui? Did she really marry Shoaib? Hopefully ISI can answer this too.
Memogate song: Roses are red // Violets are plue // Please to not challenge // Army’s right to Cooo
“@ijazulhaq A lesson for all of you too. Be careful of what you say on Twitter” Most of all be carephul of accepting mangoes phrom strangers
Salala Incident
If NATO wanted to attack Pakistani soldiers they should atleast have had the decency to send in deniable proxies.
December
Ashura, traditional celebrations and traditional blasts
Ashura is the traditional festival celeprated to mark the commencement oph Shia hunting season in Pakistan.
Whoa!! Cylinder blast!! My advice: please to check pressure, valves and proximity oph Shia processions.
India-Pak
That reminds me. A Monkey’s Asha was shattered when it was arrested when it crossed the border.#AMonkeyAsha
Another Son of Pakistan arrested
Whoa!! Fai pleads guilty!! Before US accuses ISI of illegal influence, they should realize that Pakistan itself victim of ISI influence
Fai says he got 3.5 million $ but didnt lobby phor Pakistan. OUTRAGED!! HE STOLE ALL OUR MONEY!!
More propaganda that India won in 1971
It took 14 days phor army to prove they suck at phyting. And about 30 years to prove that they suck at governing too.
It is time we got past the 71 fiasco, come together as a nation and rewrite our destiny. And history books. We won in 71.
Government under attack from multiple directions
Aphter his wife died he became dejected sucked at governance and wrecked the economy. His son who helped him was a bumbling fool.
His subordinates conspired with jernails to overthrow him and there was anarchy all around.
Joo thought I was talking about Mughal empire? Sorry, was reading neuj.
People threatened by 9mm guns
Those twits boasting about their 9mm: Meet Mr 9 inches!
Year ends!
Mens of teetar, in the new year, pick up courage and tell the wimmens how much you love them. Preferably in DM with SMS lingo.
Wimmens of teetar, ignore creepy guys who DM in SMS lingo. Talk to nice people, like yours sachly.
—-xxx—-
Pakistan: The Way Forward
JANUARY 15, 2012 6 COMMENTS
Pakistan finds herself at cross roads again. The recent protracted tussle between the civilian setup on the one side and the Judiciary and the Army on the other, with no clear winners so far, has left Pakistan tottering on the brink of instability. A paralyzed civilian government is unable to govern, a distracted Judiciary is unable to dispense justice in important cases like the missing persons case, and the Army’s focus on fighting extremism has been sapped by the recent confrontation.
As can be expected, several commentators have written in western newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times offering simplistic analysis of the current crisis and recommend canned proposals like “Civilian supremacy over the Army” or complicated suggestions like “Checks and balances”. These solutions are unworkable, ridiculous and inapplicable given the peculiar nature of the power structure in Pakistan, her history, her constitution, jurisprudence and her polity. I wish to use this blog post to evolve a set of proposal for the Army, the Judiciary and the Civilian government. Please do post your own proposals as well in the comments:
Army: On earlier occasions, the crisis would have come to a quick conclusion with one simple trip to PTV on a tank followed by a speech. The reason for the current drawn out confrontation and festering instability is clear:Bad economy. I am sure that the Army’s economic advisors are aware of recent research which show that ruining the economy by profligate spending and picking up irresponsible fights with the US is more fun than actually fixing the said ruined economy. This is restraining the army from ending the crisis with a quick coup. In the interests of stability, crisis should be kept short and coups should be quick. Therefore, the Army, in addition to foreign policy and national security should also run the economy. This would guarantee that the economy would be in great shape like the our foreign policy and national security. This would ensure that the Army can conduct coups anytime they want without being overly scared of inheriting a hopelessly broken economy after the coup. Crises would be short!
The Judiciary: Pakistan’s Judiciary has accumulated impressive experience at justifying coups post-facto.However, it has shockingly meager experience in initiating regime changes. Initiating a regime change is what they are trying now and have created a protracted messy crisis. The fly in the ointment is the constitution which has hurdles like Presidential immunity, to prevent exactly this attempt at power-grab, but astute observers will note that the same constitution provides for a way out: Only a Muslim can become a President! Therefore, I propose that the Supreme court rename itself as the Supreme Jirga and the Chief Justice assume the title of Chief Qazi. Want to get rid of the government? No problem! Declare the Prime Minister and the President as bad Muslims and ergo, not Muslims at all! (This has a second advantage: Getting rid of Prime ministers by declaring them to be bad Muslims is definitely less ridiculous than citing judgements in Nigeria and Uganda to justify coups as the honorable Supreme Jirga did in Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of the Army Staff case.) Want to defuse the current crisis instead? No issues at all. Rule that the president should gift 1000 goats to the Chief of the ISI to repent for defamation and drop the case altogether. Crisis solved!
The Civilians: Of the three arms of the Government dreamt up by the Quaid – Qazis, Army and Bloody Civvies (This is what the Quaid really wanted. I claim that he carried a concealed gun in addition to his concealed beard and turban that people constantly search for), the Civvies are the weakest. They neither have the tanks of the Army nor do they have the religious self-righteousness of the Supreme Jirga. So they have to rely on subterfuge to ensure stability. It is clear that the recent crisis has been exacerbated by the extension granted to the COAS and DG-ISI. Keeping all this in mind, I propose that the Prime minister grant extension for life for the COAS. This offers many advantages:
The COAS wont be in a hurry to overthrow the government before his extension is up. He is COAS for life!
Dictators in Pakistan have a typical shelf life of 10 years at the maximum, after which either they are exiled or presented with mangoes. What would you rather be? Dictator for 10 years or COAS for life?
COAS would be busy purging his generals to make sure that they dont overthrow him to become COAS for life and therefore would be too busy to intervene in the civilian setup.
With a Supreme Jirga and a Chief Qazi taking care of Judicial matters and a General for life who commands his armed forces, purges his subordinates and has the final say on economy, national security and foreign policy and a Prime minister appointed by the General and Qazi, to take care of other minor issues with a relatively stable job and who constantly conspires to play off one power center against the other, crises would be short and stability would be guaranteed. Then Pakistan can finally return to its roots, get the magnificent administrative setup and the concomitant prosperity of the Mughal empire!
Musharraf-Pulled Speculations on NATO Shenanigans
NOVEMBER 29, 2011 6 COMMENTS
Due to changed circumstances, not getting enough time to maintain this blog. So here is a bunch of (musharraf-pulled) poorly thought out speculations.
With equipment like GPS is it impossible for ISAF ground forces to not know that Pakistani post was inside Pakistan territory
Even if ISAF ground forces did not know this, GPS and maps on their air-assets would have indicated that the post was inside Pakistani territory.
They chose to attack anyway. This indicates that NATO forces knew that they were attacking a post inside Pakistan. Ergo, this negates the latest BS peddled by NATO of taliban “provoking” a firefight with Pakistanis. However this statement itself is salient, we will return to this later.
The attack went on for two hours “despite repeated pleas”
PAF was not scrambled
Which means that “the soldiers were sleeping” reports which initially came out is BS. If they were indeed sleeping, the discipline of the people manning outposts is suspect. Even if they were, they probably woke up quickly. The“Soldiers were sleeping” was probably trotted out to imply that they did not provide covering fire to retreating taliban or fire first. PAF was not scrambled either due to inter-services bureaucracy, shenanigans by the Army without taking the PAF into confidence or PAF knowing that they will be shot out of the air. Please note this in the context of interpreting all future blusters and bravado about shooting down drones.
Initial reports spoke of “Lightly manned outposts” which was manned by a captain and a major nonetheless!
DGMO talked about interpreting the incident in the “background of May 2″
So speculation time. What to conclude? Let us assume as given: 1. NATO knew the post was inside Pakistani territory. 2. NATO has a selfish motive of not pissing off Pakistan much, because they know that Pakistan will stop supplies (as was done before). These leave only two possible logical conclusions:
Previous news articles have reported that field commanders are mighty pissed with the taliban firing from positions in or close to Pakistan border outposts. NATO stringently refuses to apologize for this incident (and by extension promise that such incidents will not happen in the future). Taken together: This probably indicates that the rules of engagement of border posts offerring covering fire has possibly changed and NATO will attack first and ask questions later. This was probably the double-speak of NATO about “taliban provoking a border incident”. If the rules of engagement have indeed changed, expect many more incidents in the future, if powers that be do not intervene and smooth ruffled feathers. Smoothing ruffled feathers will not happen by refusing to talk to the US, boycotting conferences or stopping supply lines.
If the attack was not in response to a change in the rules of engagement, and was carried out despite NATO knowing that the post was inside Pakistani territory, they could have proceeded Only if they knew that the post was sheltering a high-value target. This possibly explains the “Background of May 2″ comment by DGMO.
So change in the rules of engagement or high-value target? take your pick.
____________________________________________
Postscript:
I dont know about the composition of the forces manning the border posts. But is it standard operating procedure for them to be manned by a Captain and a Major?
Pakistan has reacted vehemently by closing NATO supply lines and boycotting the Bonn conference. Which is predictable and understandable. But a little surprising given that US reaction to Pakistani border guard killing its soldiers, numerous attacks — including the one on its consulate — traced to the Haqqani network and the biggest of them all: Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan for six years, have all been muted. I am sorry to say this, but Pakistan protests look too loud in comparison.
Pakistan has ruled out joint investigations and wants nothing short of an apology. NATO has refused to apologize and says US will press on. So 1. We might never know the truth 2. Next few days will be interesting.
—-xxx—-
Pakistan and Indonesia are Different Countries
OCTOBER 28, 2011
The perceptive Sadanand Dhume in his article “A Model for Pakistan’s Revival” draws parallels between Pakistan and Indonesia, and uses the dramatic transformation of Indonesia as a reason for optimism and the way forward in South Asia. Dhume cites the current stability and prosperity in Indonesia and points out:
Consider the parallels between yesterday’s Indonesia and today’s Pakistan. Sukarno’s Indonesia was the region’s problem child: unhappy with its borders, tilted toward an authoritarian power (China), and infested by a totalitarian ideology (communism). Today Islamabad pursues so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan and won’t quite abandon obsolete ambitions in Indian Kashmir. It leans toward “all-weather friend” China even as its economy stagnates and radical Islam eats away at society and the state.
While at first look the similarities are uncanny, the example cited is not remarkable: If one wants to cite examples of poorly governed countries with poor economies turning around, there is South Korea. If you want the example of aMuslim country which turned its economy around, it could be Saudi Arabia in the 60s and 70s. An example of aMuslim country without oil achieving this feat could be Turkey. Essentially what I am arguing is that such a parallel between Pakistan and Indonesia does not quite capture the very basis of all that ails Pakistan: Her identity which will cause a perpetual instability in the eastern border and her geography which will cause a perpetual instability in her western border. On the subject of Identity:
Commentators who wish to explain Pakistan’s seemingly irrational behavior—Supporting the destabilization of Afghanistan and her affinity towards China*—frequently attribute it to Pakistan’s security anxieties vis-a-vis India. This is not an accurate explanation: Nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles have ruled out India-Pakistan wars of the magnitude which cleaved Bangladesh away from Pakistan. Therefore, possibility of conflicts which challenge the existence of Pakistan itself is ruled out and in this sense the conflict has stabilized. Then why does Pakistan still pursue avenues which give it strategic advantage over India? The only possible explanation would be the pursuit ofIndia’s defeat rather than the pursuit of any guarantees of Pakistan’s survival. This is because:
Pakistan views herself as the ideological progeny of the Mughal empire, with an unfinished agenda of conquering the subcontinent. Abandoning this endeavour would mean accepting the eventual supremacy of India (simply due to her demographics and geographical area) which would be interpreted (in Pakistan) as the defeat of the religion itself. This is unthinkable. Furthermore, abandoning this identity of Pakistan is unthinkable. This is the first “circular” conundrum.
This is essentially what sets the India-Pakistan conflict apart from seemingly similar conflicts, and can end only with the ideological collapse of one of the adversaries — in this sense it resembles the US-Soviet cold-war conflict (which ended with the collapse of the USSR) than the Turkey-Greece or Egypt-Israel conflict (where the adversaries realized the futility of conflict and the economic advantages of peace). This is the first objection that I have towards Dhume’s prescription: Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace and working with her to de-radicalize her society and re-structure the economy to bring stability, would have as much success as attempting to talk the Soviet Union out of the Cold-war, by convincing the Soviet Union to abandon communism.
The “Convincing Pakistan of the benefits of peace” part is an order of magnitude harder than what US has achieved in Indonesia and elsewhere. In the pursuit of this “Convincing” strategy, US has failed in an even more dangerous way: She has armed Pakistan (to address the “insecurity vis-a-vis India” thesis), which will eventually serve as a catalyst for more conflict (due to the “defeat of India” pursuit) rather than less conflict.
The second part of Pakistan’s problem is her Geography. The land that is Pakistan today, has neither been a viable entity nor had peace with Afghanistan except during periods of economic linkages and power projection from the Gangetic Plain. Astute observers of history will not fail to notice the fact that:
Peace between Pakistan and a strong Afghanistan is possible only with a strong Pakistan-India military alliance. In the absence of this alliance, peace is possible only with a destabilized Afghanistan. However an Afghanistan under perpetual Pakistani hegemony is possible only with strong economy in Pakistan, which is impossible without strong economic linkages with India. This is the second “circular” conundrum.
Ergo, Pakistan is not Indonesia. Therefore, any solution to create stability in the region will not have “Sell the idea of economic prosperity to Pakistan” as the first step. If anything, Pakistan is the Gordian Knot, which can be cut only by a revolution inside Pakistan first — that too a revolution of the good kind. But this is no reason to abandon optimism. Being the optimist that yours sachly is, I will wait till the region collapses into a rubble and then rebuilds itself into a stable and viable entity.
___________________________________
*Pakistan shares no common grounds or linkages with China on the basis of race, religion, values or geography (except of course the tiny strip of a perilous highway). The single point of convergence with China is the shared hostility towards India. Even there, both countries disagree about the magnitude of hostility. While China is content with an India that cannot drain her resources through economic and territorial challenges, Pakistan wishes to bet her very survival towards besting India.
—-xxx—-
A Thought Provoking Article
OCTOBER 31, 2011
In the crowded field of “South Asian Analysts”, many of whom have excellent credentials — like managing to be born in Pakistan or better still, having managed to visit Pakistan within the past five years — how does one get noticed? By writing thought provoking articles of course! And“thought provoking” gentle readers, is synonymous with “contrarian”. Or for the clueless, “thought provoking” means to vehemently disagree with accepted wisdom. But “thought provoking” articles should be written with care. What you disagree with doesn’t matter as much as when you disagree with it: Timing is everything!
“So how long should I wait, and what should I wait for” you ask? Fikar not. The wait is usually a couple of weeks and the incident can be one of: Ahmedis getting massacred, Shias getting shot,Interior minister declaring that he will kill Blasphemers with his own bare hands, MNAs going underground for proposing amendments to Blasphemy laws, murderers getting garlanded or Judges running away to Saudi Arabia (you get the idea). That is the right opportunity for you to bust out your column “Why Pakistan is still largely a moderate country”.
Many have done this, and many more will do this in the future. To save time and effort for everyone, I present for your gentle consideration: The “Pakistan is a moderate country”column generator!! The formula itself is very simple: Riveting opening sentence, intriguing provocation of thought, religious mumbo jumbo, meaningless statistics, blame Zia, guilt out the west, demand money, cashmere or both.
So here it goes. The opening sentence should be riveting (choose one)
Pakistan is
A country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban.
Viewed synonymously with Osama Bin Laden.
Thought of as a cesspit of Blasphemy laws, Coups, Nuclear weapons and Jihadis
Most people will be tempted to end the article right here.
But dont!! Brave analyst, you should plod on!! Don’t forget that we aren’t stating facts, we are disagreeing with them! The second sentence should turn the premise around and be thought provoking (choose one):
But could it be
That Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law?
That the problems commonly associated with Pakistan started only as recently as 1947?
Nothing but propaganda by Zionist-RAW-CIA controlled western press?
That the problems facing Pakistan are completely misconstrued?
Now these two sentences set up the right platform to stake your credentials as a Pakistani. “But I don’t know anything about the core cultural zeitgeist of the country!” you say? Not to worry. Nobody reading your column does either. The trick is to act confident and informed (choose one):
The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality (Please DO NOT mention that Qadri was a Berelvi).
Most people visit the graves of mystic saints who were clean shaven.
The call for prayers co-exist with vibrant cultural scenes in Karachi, with girls in tight jeans under their shuttlecock burkhas, art festivals, book readings (inside well fortified, double cavity searched British consulate, but it is best not mentioned here).
Next is the time for some statistics (choose one)
The so-called conservative Pakistanis:
Overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties.
Where are my choices you ask? YOU MORON!! YOU DONT HAVE A CHOICE!! THIS STATISTIC SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE ARGUING THAT PAKISTAN IS MODERATE!! Now that we are past statistics, go on to blame Zia (choose one):
It was Zia who:
Started a process of Islamization of the society
Declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims*
Stopped PTV anchors from dressing up stylishly in sarees
Next is guilt trip!
And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. (To be mentioned in every article)
The next is the clincher
So what should the west do?
They should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support.
Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis.
Encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
(Choose ALL of them).
So putting it all together, here is an example of “Pakistan is a moderate country” column I put together:
Pakistan is a country usually mentioned in the same breath as the Taliban. But could it be that Pakistan is in fact a moderate, secular democracy founded on rule of law? The religious violence in Pakistan is perpetrated by a small minority of Wahhabis while the bulk of the country follows the Berelvi sect of Islam known for its tolerance and plurality. The so-called conservative Pakistanis overwhelmingly vote for secular parties with less than 10% voting for religious parties. It was Zia who started a process of Islamization of the society. And Zia was co-opted by the west for their Jihad against the Soviets. For a safe and secure future of the world, the west should support the fledgling democracy in Pakistan with adequate economic support. Strike a grand bargain involving Cashmere for peace in Afghanistan to demonstrate their seriousness among ordinary Pakistanis and encourage close economic linkages with the west through a liberal visa regime, relaxed trade quotas and co-operation in the nuclear field.
Please submit your “Pakistan is a moderate country” in western press!!
________________________________________
*It was actually ZAB who declared Ahmedis to be non-muslims, but remember that we are disagreeing with facts here, not stating them!
—-xxx—-
A Comprehensive Analysis of Aatish Taseer Episode
JULY 22, 2011
Note to everone except Ejaz Haider:
Go and get a life. Dont grab your AK and express OUTRAGE for every teeny column written by random semi-popular people from across the border.
Note to Ejaz Haider:
Please try harder to impress us with your reading list.
—-xxx—-
Pakistan’s Security Posture is Untenable
MAY 16, 2011
Pakistan has decided that its security is dependent on a destabilized (and pliable) Afghanistan on its western border and an India tied up through covert warfare on its eastern border. Pakistan has had to fight Afghanistan, US and India to achieve this. Pakistan has relied on a three-pronged strategy: sub conventional warfare, denials and deterrence in this fight. Pakistan has fought
Sub conventional warfare through (a) the Taliban proxies in the west and (b) and in the east, through the various so-called “non-state actors” derived from groups such as Lashkar-e-tayyiba which enjoy state patronage. It has maintained
Deniability by disassociating itself from these armed proxies. Pakistan skillfully employs its diplomats, myriad media personalities and “analysts” who trot out denials ranging from the respectable to the bizarre. For example, in the Osama Bin Laden case, one has a variety of denials to choose: From ambassador Haqqani’s articulate denials of complicity, to Prime Minister Gilani’s ludicrous assertion that the failure belongs to the world, to the conspiratorialMirza Aslam Beg’s theory that the operation was staged and a look alike was killed!!* The third prong is
Deterrence from retaliation for pursuing sub conventional warfare. To deter conventional retaliation from India, Pakistan uses a mixture of nuclear threats and conventional counter attacks and to deter retaliation from the US, Pakistan uses the threat of cutting off NATO supplies, ceasing co-operation and increased anti-Americanism among its population.
I wish to argue that this security posture is untenable. The current security posture seems to be based more on spite than on deliberate strategy and is likely to fail with disastrous consequences because Pakistan has failed to understand a simple fact: adversaries have options. Much has been written about the costs incurred by Pakistan in terms of human capital, security and economy. My argument is not along these lines and more along the structural aspects of this strategy. Using terror as a security strategy is flawed because:
1. There is no end-game: Due to the denials that Pakistan is indulging in covert warfare, negotiations cannot be a solution (which would require Pakistan to take responsibility for its proxies, either LeT vis-à-vis India or the Haqqani faction vis-à-vis Afghanistan). The only conclusion of this approach of subconventional warfare-deniability-deterrence is the defeat of the adversary through force. Be it US in Afghanistan or India in Kashmir and elsewhere. This is unlikely to happen. The adversaries have strong national will backed by a sense of morality, and no incentive to accept defeat. Surrendering Kashmir is not an option for India, since India will calculate the costs of losing access to its waters and a possibility that the conflict will not end with Kashmir. Surrendering Afghanistan is not an option for the US, since attacks originating from Afghanistan have a potential to shape domestic politics in the US. Under such a context, Pakistan will be forced to continue this indefinitely and forced to escalate, which it cannot because:
2. Escalation defeats the strategy: Any escalation, either of the form of spectacular attacks in Mumbai or arresting American operatives for example, leads to a breakdown of deniability and could invite retaliation. The Mumbai attacks trial in India have conclusively proven that Pakistani attackers were involved. The upcoming trial of Rana (involving Headley) in Chicago might uncover even more uncomfortable truths. A similar situation arose when it was revealed that Raymond Davis was accosted by armed intelligence agents and not a couple of random bystanders as was reported first. This breakdown in deniability can be used by the adversary to escalate, leaving Pakistan with no option because
3. The adversaries enjoy flexibility in their response: Pakistan seems to have forgotten that her adversaries are intelligent, adaptive and backed up enormous economic and military resources. India is fighting back by choosing not to fight. Without raising tensions, they have embarked on an arms build-up spree, developed a cold start strategy backed up by ballistic missile defense. This is aimed at eliciting arms build up by Pakistan and ultimately bankrupting Pakistan (one can notice parallels to Regan’s SDI approach).
The Americans are following an approach through technology and coercion. Pakistani declarations of its inability to fight in the tribal areas led to the Americans employing drones. Which has had a backlash inside Pakistan. Furthermore through the OBL raid, Americans have simultaneously struck at the credibility of the civilians and the myth of capability of the armed forces gavely injuring the deniability part of the strategy and demonstrating that Pakistani threat to shut down the NATO supply routes are hollow. This loss in credibility combined with the fact that keeping the economic lifeline of Pakistan alive requires negotiations and goodwill from the international community means that Pakistan has been boxed into a corner and American leverage over Pakistan has increased many fold. Make no mistake: the Americans are following a strategy of feigning friendship while indulging in warfare – as a reply to Pakistan’s strategy of feigning friendship while indulging in warfare**. While Pakistan measures its short-term success through body counts, India and US are charting a path to their successes by running Pakistan to the ground.
The same sub conventional warfare-deniability-deterrence approach was tried out in Kargil and failed spectacularly due to the same reasons of lack of endgame, asymmetric escalation by India and the flexibility of response that India enjoyed. Pakistan could not obtain a negotiated withdrawal (because that would imply that Pakistan would have accept responsibility for the intrusion) and counted on an Indian surrender (and were not prepared for their will to fight). Indian escalation could not be matched by Pakistani escalation, due to the danger of loss of deniability. Ultimately India prevailed through strength of arms through Artillery and Airforce and thoroughly discredited Pakistani denials by going on a diplomatic offensive***. Though the conflicts themselves were dissimilar, the current conflict is following the well-charted Kargil route. A bloody nose in the Kargil conflict**** led to a decade of military rule, erosion of Pakistan’s economic base, steeper economic divisions and radicalization. A bloody nose in the current conflict will prove to be much more costly and might very well be fatal to Pakistan.
* This despite Al-Qaeda’s acceptance that OBL is dead, the historic closed door briefing given by the armed forces to the Parliament and the possibility that US might find incriminating evidence from among the materials seized in the compound!
** Hence Pasha’s protestations about why US is not a reliable ally and noises about violation of sovereignty. Also, commentators seem to have missed the most significant aspect of the OBL raid: The fact that a successful operation would thoroughly humiliate and discredit Pakistani armed forces at home and abroad, could not have been overlooked by the US. In fact, this could have been one of the primary objectives of this raid.
*** People with long memories will recall that in the aftermath of the Kargil war, (and before 9/11) similar loss of credibility ruined Pakistan’s economy. 9/11 was a fortuitous windfall.
**** The defeat in Kagil was predictably sold off through stories ranging from a victory to denials that Pakistan was ever involved.
—-xxx—-
Post OBL Raid–Quick Notes
MAY 7, 2011
Pakistan’s Sovereignty
US has stationed RADAR evading helicopters in Afghanistan. Since Taliban does not have RADAR, it wont be a stretch to guess whey they plan to fly these to. This raid is not the last. Probably was not the first. I find it impossible to believe that they did not go on a “test run” at night to see if they would be caught.
Did the Army help?
The sooner everyone gets over the delusion that the Army and ISI helped as an institution the better. The resulting loss of honor & dignity is strong enough to fracture the Army. The chief must be an idiot to do this. Trying to palm off the blame to PAF chief and civilian leaders are an indication that the Army is trying to get over this humiliation. Here is a sanity check: Nobody even had a coherent statement to make 3 days after.
What next in the Army/ISI?
Expect a witch hunt. The top brass must conclusively prove to the people of Pakistan that incompetence is punished. Expect a few heads to roll. More importantly, the top brass must conclusively prove to the radicalized middle and lower rungs that they were not hand in glove with the US. Not addressing this issue is a huge threat to the cohesion of the Army. Expect a few more heads to roll. If the Army and ISI did not help with this operation, by now they suspect that there are CIA moles inside. Expect still more heads to roll. It would be interesting to scan newspapers over the next several months to see how many Army/ISI operatives get bumped off.
So who helped?
I find it impossible to believe that CIA has not penetrated the ISI. They have had 10 years to cultivate mid-level ISI operatives, who probably are high level ISI operatives now. The repetition of the “courier” story is a red-herring. Someone from within the Armed forces ratted about RADAR installations and operating procedures. Someone from within the ISI ratted out a list of “off limits” houses.
If you truly believe Americans zeroed in on the OBL compound, set up a observation house near OBL compound (and therefore, near PMA Kakul) without getting caught, evaded RADARs in the middle of the night and snatched OBL AND there are no rodents inside Army/ISI — I have a Minar in Lahore that I wish to sell you. If you believe Army & ISI helped, I will throw in a big Mosque in Islamabad for free.
—-xxx—-
Thorough Brosecution Of Mumbai Attackers in Pakistan
APRIL 5, 2011
Gautam Gambhir’s recent statement that the Indian cricket world lota victory was dedicated to the 26/11 victims rightfully raised outrage in Pakistan. Before heaping blame on Pakistan for Pakistan-trained terrorists who commit terror acts in India, Indians should realize that Pakistan too is a victim of Pakistan-trained terrorists. In any case, viewing India-Pakistan relationship through the one-dimensional lens of terror is quite unfair to the world’s foremost front-line ally against terror. Pakistan has time and again tried to rescue India-Pakistan relationship from falling prey to 26/11 issue by first insisting that Kasab was not Pakistani, then by insisting that the terror attack was planned in a ship in international waters and finally when Indians nitpicked based on confessions of Kasab, insisting that the terrorists were non-state actors and terror did not have a nationality. When the Indians complained that the terror organization responsible for 26/11 attack was registered in Pakistan, Pakistan went the extra mile to declare the LeT as a charity organization. Despite all this, Indians insisted in Judicial action, indulged in state-sponsored tree-terrorism, sent pages and pages of dossiers and defamed Pakistan.
Pakistan reciprocated positively even for this grave dossier provocation. Nowhere in the world have terrorists been dragged through the courts for such extended period of time with such meticulous prosecution. Consider the chronology:
March 4, 2009: The trial starts!! AK Phyrr!! (in camera of course)
May 24, 2009: How can there be a trial without a judge, hain ji? (not our fault)
July 18, 2009: Chargesheet filed!! (Going to Sharm-al-Sheikh, have to show brogress!!)
July 25, 2009: Case adjourned for 1 month (Back from Sharm-al-Sheikh!!)
Aug 29, 2009: Adjourned for 1 month (Still digesting the food eaten at Sharm-Al-Sheikh!!)
Sep 26, 2009: Adjourned again (Still digesting)
Oct 3, 2009: Adjourned again (digesting…)
Oct 21, 2009: Judge wants to leave the case for “unavoidable reasons” (400% sure it is a gastric problem)
New judge, many adjournments, case put off till accused plea for acquittal is considered (I yam no judicial exbert, but isnt this what the case is about?) fast forward to Feb 13, 2010
Feb 13, 2010: Case adjourned because the judge is “busy”
Feb 20, 2010 to Apr 19, 2010 (heated debate whether Kasab is an absconder, a fugitive or a proclaimed offender) Adjourned till July 03, 2010 to find out whether Yindia will send Kasab to Pakistan (Riddal: Blease to guess Yindia’s answer)
July 24, 2010: Judge didn’t show up for work
July 31, 2010: Judgement on Lakhvi’s bail plea reserved till August 7 (“reserving” is a judicial activity 400% distinct from “adjourning”)
Aug 28, 2010: Reserved judgement is adjourned till Sep 18. (Did I naat tell you “reserving” is different from “adjourning” hain ji?)
Nov 13, 2010: Pakistan has determined that Yindia will not hand over Kasab (then what happened on July 03, 2010 you pooch? Just making 400% sure)
Dec 17, 2010: Defence lawyer has fake degree. Case adjourned.(imagine how long the case would have dragged on if he had a real degree!!)
Jan 8, 2011: Adjourned
Jan 22, 2011: Adjourned
Feb 5, 2011: NOT ADJOURNED!!! (heh heh, just kidding. Also adjourned)
Feb 17, 2011: Take a guess!!
Feb 26, 2011: Guess again if you made a mistake last time!!
March 05, 2011: One more chance!!
March 26, 2011: Last chance for guessing!!
As you can dekho, even before examining a single witness over 2 years, look at the thoroughness of Pakistani Judiciary! Then why do Indians complain? Pakistanis have chosen to move on and forget the trauma to the national Image the 26/11 has caused and tried hard to forget. Maybe the tiny hearted Indians should take a clue from large hearted Pakistanis and move on too. Regular statements to the media about the 180 odd killed in Mumbai will only serve to keep their memories alive.
In conclusion, what I am trying to say is….
(artecal adjourned till later)
—-xxx—-
Scared People Attend Book Party, Dont Really Defy The Taliban
FEBRUARY 6, 2011
By now you might have figured that the phrase “liberal people of Pakistan” severely annoys yours sachly’s goat who goes nuts and writes blog posts.
So this lazy sundin yours sachly opens newspapers and what does he see? Krachi Literature Festival!! Where about a hundred authors and about five thousand people gathered to “defy the taliban and talk about books and not bombs”!! (paraphrased) where among many things people indulged in:
Reimagining a state that presently “breaks bread with the Americans during the day and sleeps with the Taliban at night” and of course “You know that all is not lost when eager readers turn up in the hundreds to witness a former nun open a literary festival” Whoa! So a bunch of people gathered to talk about books, re-imagined the future of Pakistan which happens to be a tolerant society!! (or at least will become one by the time the literature festival ends)
While their safety is of atmost concern, articles insinuating that literature-loving intelligentsia form the vanguard of Pakistan’s saviors were a bit hard for your sachly’s goat to chew and digest. The goat started to wonder “Is this whole fixing Pakistan thing a PR stunt for the festival or are they serious?” So yours sachly’s fourth cousin tweeted:
So I think it is safe to conclude that no taliban defiance is going on in Krachi Literature Festival. It is a bunch of scared people having a party about books. And just in case you had any lingering doubts (or any hopes about the whole Blasphemy law issue and/or liberal people saving Pakistan)….
PS> For more rants, please see yours sachly’s comment response.
Major says: February 7, 2011 at 7:58 am
I agree & understand. But it makes me rant 2 things. A smaller rant and a bigger rant:
1. If it is just a bunch of people gathering to read books — why all this news articles about the people somehow reforming Pakistan or the festival being a proof that somehow Pakistan is still a peaceful & tolerant place to live in? (Ref: “You know that all is not lost when eager readers turn up in the hundreds to witness a former nun open a literary festival”) In any other part of the world, attributing a statement that calls for punishing a murderer would not invite such a quick denial or such a thorough wetting of people’s pants.
2. This is a bigger rant: If people in posh areas in Karachi (which presumably includes powers that be/ diplomats and others) cant even risk a statement which condemns a murderer, why make statements like “Solving Cashmere is necessary for peace in South Asia” — People cannot speak out against a semi-literate, inbred, room temperature IQ murderer – how do they propose to take down well oiled terror machinery?
Major says: February 20, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Outrage much? Please to try it.
Major says: February 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm
And I am amused to see that you think that
(a) A statement calling for judicial prosecution of a murderer
and
(b) A statement filled with bigotry and blasphemy
are totally the same and equal. Pakistan needs more people like you!
—-xxx—-
How to make your own Ejaz Haider (at home)
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
So everyone loves an Ejaz Haider! But it ij not availabal every din and can become costly (due to subscripshuns). I too love columns of Ejaz Haider and after careful reading, I think I have reverse engineered the recibe!! The secret is simbal. The recipe has 5 major combonents: Demand Money–Act as if terrorism is normal–Show bravado–High sounding grabagic nonsense—Toilet/Adult jokes.
To beepuls who are afraid about cooking their own Ejaz Haider column, I am providing this ready to make recipe!! Ejaz Haider Column Generator!!
A. Sentence one: Choose one phrom each category: (Demanding money)
1. Not giving Pakistan money
2. Asking Pakistan to do too much
3. Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money
Will only
1. Strengthen hands of extremists
2. Compel the Army to take over
3. Weaken democracy
4. Put region into Chaos
B. Sentence two: Choose one phrom each category: (Acting as if terrorism is normal)
Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because
1. Every country has done it
2. It is how weaker countries challenge the stronger
3. Oppressed people have no recourse
4. It is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger
in any case
1. US has indulged in it
2. India has indulged in it
3. Pakistan has indulged in it in the past several times
4. It is one of the 5 tools of statecraft
C. Sentence three: Choose one (Bravado)
1. Pakistan is here to stay
2. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan
3. India cannot pacify Kashmir without Pakistan
D. Sentence four: Choose one from each category: (High sounding nonsense)
1. The normative interpretation of inter-state relations
2. The consensus understanding of the spirit of Magna carta
3. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz
will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of
1. Temporal-spatial nature of geo strategic relationship
2. Inter- and intra state transactions of state actors
3. Game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium
E. Sentence five: Insert your own toilet humor/male anatomy jokes here:
Here ij what I generated!!
Expecting Pakistan to serve US interest for the money will only put region into chaos. Terrorism is a reaction which is justified because it is the leverage of the weaker against the stronger, in any case it is one of the 5 tools of statecraft. US cannot achieve strategic goals without Pakistan. An informed reading of Carl von Clausewitz will indicate to an enlightened reader the nature of game theoretic achievement of Nash equilibrium. There is a long glorious erection of flagpole outside my window. Tee heee. –Ejaz Haider.
As you can see, the number of variashuns are infinite!! Taking time to explore all of them will assure your career as an analyst and strategic thinker!! Post your own columns and variashuns!!
—-xxx—-
How to Borrow Money Phrom Your Unkil
FEBRUARY 11, 2011
So you dont have a job, the roof of your house has collapsed, your kids keep setting your car on phyrr and you dont have any money. Fikar not! Everyone has a rich unkil! But how do I get money phrom unkil you pooch? Fikar not again! Yours sachly happens to be an expert. Yours sachly has an unkil. Unkil Samad. I fondly called Unkil Sam and have extorted much money phrom him. Here is a list oph things that worked.
1. Does your Unkil own a business? In which case, has it ever lost money and has your unkil taken loans and/or borrowed from his kids to cover for the losses? If so, DEMAND money like it is your birthright!! How do I demand you pooch? Fikar not. You can uje the eloquent words oph Hussain Haqqani:
Pakistan aid pales next to U.S. bailouts
“A company at the verge of failure is quite clearly able to get a bigger bailot than a nation that has been accused of failure,” Ambassador Husain Haqqani said in remarks at a Washington think tank…”That’s something that in this town needs a review”. Pakistan and Afghanistan deservemore resources than “some failed insurance company or some car company whose achievement is that they couldn’t make cars that they could sell,” said Haqqani.
As you might have no doubt observed, having a sense oph entitlement while simultaneously making fun oph Unkil’s failed business ventures can be quite helpful. Also please to note that companies making stuff they cant sell is funny, doing that at a country-level is a different and quite serious issue altogether. Blease to 400% make sure you lose that irony.
2. Unkil still not convinced? Hint that your hungry kids will burn his house down! How to do that with straight face you pooch? Fikar not! Shah Mahmood Qureshi to the rescue!!
Pakistan Flood Aid Helps Fight Terrorism as Peace `Fragile,’ Qureshi Says
“We are not going to allow them (terrorists) to take advantage or exploit this natural disaster,” Qureshi told reporters in New York yesterday. The result “depends on how effective and quick the response is. That is why it is so important that the international assistance comes immediately.”
But ij using your poor destitute childrens as selling points and hinting that they might become terrorijts a honorable thing to do you pooch? Joo idiot! Do you want the money or not? If you care about haanaar that much, restore it by beheading your wiphe.
3. Okay scared Unkil gives you money but insists that you fix your roof and wants to send his servant to make sure your kids dont burn his house. Now what to do?
Simbal! Protest hugely about how you know how to spend his money, arrest his servant and tell your kids you have been dishonored! Then do what you ujually do with the money and when it runs out, back to step 1! Isnt this fun?!
And oh, encourage your kids and turn a blind eye when they burn his house down anyway to show that you haven’t lost any honor due to shameless borrowing!
—-xxx—-
3.Formula
JANUARY 5, 2011
Governor Salman Taseer has been murdered. My condolences to his family. Full disclosure: He was the target of some sarcasm from my fourth cousin’s tweets, especially those concerning India’s space program, (which got yours sachly’s fourth cousin’s Patriotic goat because he thought that the real joke — Pakistan’s space program — didn’t get the credit it deserved for being the bigger joke). Nevertheless, as a self-made man with wealth made not from privilege, connections or Khaki, notwithstanding my fourth’s cousin’s tweets, *I* always thought of him as the vanguard of Pakistan’s future.
So yours sachly has been following twitter posts and achieved great enlightenment (not the Buddhist variety, please don’t shoot me for blasphemy!!) on how to proceed to build a strong and prosperous Pakistan and defeat the Mullah brigade. Here is my 3 point plan:
As a nation, we should debate Hadiths at great lengths to determine what constitutes Blasphemy, and whether Blasphemy does in fact entail death as a punishment. By “nation” I mean well-traveled, middle-to-upper-class english educated people on Twitter whose tweets on non-assassination days involve booze, cricket, sexual innuendo, flirting and complaints about the latest gadgets. After all, their pronouncements on religion have much more credibility than shabbily dressed, hirsute madrassa educated firebrands who are employed in Mosques and preach everyday. Any debates along the lines of “I have traveled to a few places and have a modern education and am of the opinion that running a country with laws based on religion is a medieval proposition” should strictly be avoided. That would make Iqbal and the Quaid sad. If the Quaid said what I thought he said. But I digress. We need to defeat Mullahs in their own game!! More importantly we need to do a bait-and-switch on the questionable fence sitters (which would be 99% of the non-mullah population) who might be intimidated if we bring in too much modernity into debates and start denouncing religion as the basis of nationhood.
While engaging in such a debate, care should be taken to protect Honor & Dignity. Western commentator says Pakistan’s laws are F’ed up? Scream “PALESTINE!!!!”. Indians taking the opportunity to brand Pakistan a medieval country where people cannot speak out without getting shot 27 times? Bring up the outrageous Arundhati episode where Hindu trained Zionist RSS terrorists did Hindu terror in her house and broke a flowerpot!! Keep in mind that *all* countries are as bad as Pakistan, they only have better PR. Fixing Pakistan is important, but not at the cost of hurting its “image” in the process!! Never for a moment even entertain the thought that Pakistan might be more F’ed up than any other reasonable-sized country and acceptance of this fact might possibly provide a good starting point.
That brings me to the third issue: We must take a nuanced view and not end up criticizing all religious intolerance. Everyone knows that there are two types of Jihad. Internal Jihad and external Jihad. I heard it on TV once. I think that it means Jihad fought internally in Pakistan (“Bad Jihad”) and Jihad fought externally — say in India, US, Afghanistan, Palestine or Dagestan for that matter (the “Good Jihad”). While criticizing internal Jihad and religious intolerance inside Pakistan, care should be taken to balance it with vehement expressions of outrage when “OPPRESSED” indulge in external Jihad — say when a few fellows with nice sized rocks throw them on policemen in Cashmere and get shot at in the process. Ofcourse religion inspired ethnic cleansing of say, Kashmiri Hindu Pandits should be swept under the rug. Few cases of religious intolerance when a revolution is in the works are inevitable and should be condoned (Note: This applies only outside Pakistan, inside Pakistan please criticize all religious intolerance.)
And lastly, don’t let Salman Taseer’s death bother you for long. The next time Turkey sends a flotilla to Israel, Alms from the US or IMF come with strings attached, IPL does not take Pakistani players or some random Indian celebrity gets criticized in Indian media, the services of our collective outrage and short attention span would be in urgent demand. I’d say Salman Taseer should be given half the time that was spent after Benazir’s assassination debating the use of violence as a state policy.
PS> As an aside, deep introspection has revealed that Kasab is not Pakistani. If he is, he is a non-state actor led astray due to atrocities in Cashmere & Palestine. Nothing about that episode or the lack of progress in the case indicates any sort of Society-Establishment-Mullah-Army-ISI-Judiciary-Politician consensus on using radicalization-inspired violence to achieve the objectives of the state. If you are not part of this consensus, you are part of the minority. And you know what happens to minorities in Pakistan…
—-xxx—-
Cultural Concepts of South Asia–Part I
FEBRUARY 20, 2011
For the benefit of the Goras who might find it strange to get to terms with Pakistani South Asian cultural concepts, Yours sachly has produced a quick cheat sheet of terms & concepts. These are very useful when reading blog posts, listening to diplomats, “analysts”, talking heads and the all too pervasive columnists you would come across in newspapers (Which about covers 99% of the Pakistani population). But first things first:
South Asian
Indians are Indians and Pakistanis when caught in tight situations (like in Airports) are Indians too. In other circumstances they are South Asians. Being “South Asian” offers many advantages. Such as an overwhelming numerical advantage.
Example: When faced with the question “Is radicalization a problem”? South Asians can reply with a straight face “Only 170 million, or less than 10% of the South Asians are radicalized”. Which sounds entirely reasonable.
Glorious Victory
When Side A attacks Side B, and everyone in Side B is dead, save for one man with one leg, one eye and no arms who stands up and yells “Death to the Kuffars”, Side B is judged to have won a resounding Glorious Victory. Because Side A is (non bious and) powerful, Side B is (bious and) not powerful, Side B always wins a Glorious Victory.
Other equivalent concepts: Hezbollah Victory, Kargil Victory (We internationalized the Cashmere issue), 1965 Victory (celebrated to this day), Simla Accord Victory (as claimed by ZAB), Baglihar Dam Victory, and the recentTalks with India Victory (as claimed by Shah Mahmood Qureshi).
My strategic forecast: Kishenganga Victory will be added to the list of Glorious Victories soon.
99% Solution to Cashmere issue
When someone gets booted from position of power, it is frequently used as a tagline to demonstrate they did useful and audacious things. Claimed by Benazir, Musharraf, Sartaz Aziz and everyone who was ever kicked out of position of power in Pakistan at various times.
Usage: “Cashmere issue was solved 99.999% under my tenure and we were hours away from signing the agreement” (with subtle subtext that India signed away all of Cashmere, retreated from Siachen, gave away Sir Creek and resolved not to build any dams at all. Because we won a Glorious Victory in the battlefield and the negotiating table)
Please Note: It is a tactical mistake to claim that electricity problem, employment or the economy of Pakistan was 99.999% solved. Because that would just be plain absurd and ludicrous.
Free Aafia!!
When an issue is raked up provide a local advantage (such as raising the Aafia issue as a warning to threaten the political ambitions of Musharraf, who handed over Aafia in the first place) and ultimately ends up consuming scarce resources (such as the millions of dollars spent by the government of Pakistan for mounting her legal defense while the IDPs of Swat get loads of….Malaria) while becoming a huge headache, it is called Free Aafia!!
Recently Seen in: Raymond Davis and all other Honor & Dignity related issues.
Silent Majority
Himalayan yeti. Nobody has seen it, but it is rumored to be big and powerful.
—-xxx—-
Major Emoshuns
JANUARY 21, 2011
Yours sachly waj reading Ayaz Amir column where he excoriates the general Pakistani buplic about where their obsesshun ij leading them. Reading his column, yous sachly started to wonder why the country waj in this shape when sensibal beepuls like Ayaz Amir ij shaping our obinions. Here ij a record oph my overflowing emoshuns:
Ayaz Amir: The fallacies of the military class – such as its never-ending quest for security, the preoccupation with Afghanistan, the bane of India-centrism, less a threat to India than to our own mental stability.
Yours Sachly: Whoa!!!
Ayaz Amir: What Pakistan is today, the depths it has plumbed, the failures courted, the follies assiduously pursued, have been the handiwork of its English-speaking elite classes
Yours Sachly: AoA!! Agree!!
Ayaz Amir: Our militarist adventures vis-à-vis India; and the honing of ‘jihad’ as an instrument of strategic fallacies. This last piece of brilliance came from the army as commanded by Gen Ziaul Haq. Religious elements became willing accessories in this game but were not its inventors.
Yours Sachly: AK Phyrr in the Air!! Beace with Yindia!! I like!!
Ayaz Amir: The religious parties have been the hyenas and jackals of the hunt, yelping from the sides and helping themselves to the morsels that came their way. Lords of the hunt, lions of the pack, have been Pakistan’s generals and politicians, assisted ably at all times by a powerful and equally short-sighted mandarin class.
Yours Sachly: Whoa!! He calls a lota a lota and an AK an AK!!
Ayaz Amir: If the Pakistani establishment continues to see India as the enemy, keeps pouring money into an arms race it cannot afford, is afflicted by delusions of grandeur relative to Afghanistan, and remains unmindful of the economic disaster into which the country is fast slipping, we will never get a grip on the challenges we face. The raging cleric, frothing at the mouth, is thus not the problem. He is merely a symptom of something larger. Pakistan’s problem is the delusional general and the incompetent politician
Yours Sachly: Beace in South Asia!! PHREEDOMM!!! BEACE BEACE BEACE!! Phreedom!! A Monkey’s Asha!!
Yours Sachly: Who are theje Jackals that feed morsels phrom army and blay the syncophant?! Who are those short sighted idiots who gloriphied moojahids and drove our society to the depths oph extremijam!! Who are these beepuls? Where ij my AK? OUTRAGED!! 100 Aafiyas!!!
Ayaz Amir: Circa 1999: It is instructive and not a little inspiring to consider the courage and skill of the fighters who are challenging the might of the Indian army and air force along the cruel heights of Drass and Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir. Risking a battle in which the chances of death outweigh those of remaining alive requires motivation of a high order. Whatever the Indian side may say, these fighters have a better right than most to call themselves mujahideen, those who fight in the way of Allah. Whether any or most of these fighters acquired their combat skills in Afghanistan is a matter of detail. What is important is that their spiritual outlook has been shaped by the Afghan experience which they, and a goodly part of the religious and military establishment in Pakistan, considers to have been a true jehad. It was the spirit of jehad which drove the Soviet army from Afghanistan. It is the spirit of jehad which can drive the Indian army from Kashmir…. Right from the Afghan war till now in Kashmir, volunteers for jehad (or whatever else the finicky may call it) have come from social classes far removed and indeed alienated from this structure. How many people from the intelligentsia or the newspaper-reading classes fought in Afghanistan? How many of them are fighting in Kashmir?
Yours Sachly: FACEPALM
—-xxx—-
Birth of a Liberal Pakistan!! (approximately after 70 years of screwing)
JANUARY 18, 2011
After Salman Taseer’s assassination (about which one of my fourth cousins had something to say), I read several articles lamenting the death of liberal Pakistan. These many excellent articles that you would have definitely read were probably written by a middle aged donkey resting somewhere in Peshawar. I base it on the fact that I get a profound impression of an (intellectually) lazy, gas emanating being typing out identical articles and concluded that the only possible explanation is an unemployed donkey. Who takes on foreign (Indian and the West) nom-de-plumes occasionally.
By now you probably figured that I disagree with those articles. If you hadn’t, let me formally state it. I formally disagree with those articles. So atleast by now, you probably figured that I disagree with those articles. Well, Good.
So what do I soch you pooch?
Salman’s taseer assassination, wimmens and gentlemards, heralds the arrival of an egalitarian Pakistan!
“But Why!” you pooch?
Here is why. Liberalism, wimmens and gentlemards, is a belief in social justice rooted in individual liberty and equal rights. So how did social justice and equal rights prevalent before Salman Taseer’s assassination die on that day? Actually it didnt. Before going back to the begining, for dramatic effect let me start with the end. The day Salman taseer got assasinated, the elite suddenly realized that they cannot do what they wished, such as down a few or have their way with the blasphemy law, without the danger of their incensed security guard or domestic help firing off a clip in their direction. This, I suspect, the aforementioned muddle headed donkey has mistaken for the death of “liberalism”. What has instead died, I humbly submit, is the power over the common man which was usurped and weilded for so long by the the elites.
And that is because power has been democratized. And that is because everyone has a gun. Ergo, the power to shape the future and destiny of Pakistan, which used to lie with the elites is suddenly with the masses. Because every one of them has a gun, and unlike the elites, they seem quite comfortable firing it to protect their beliefs.
A round of applause for AK-facilitated egalitarianism!!
So what of this elusive little-understood animal (like the Yeti and “Silent Majority” of Pakistan) called Liberalism? More importantly what is and why Liberalism? Liberalism wimmens and gentlemards, among other things, is to ensure social mobility and equal participation in governance. And social mobility in yesteryears depended on access to capital producing goods. Like Land. Ergo, if Liberalism had existed before Salman Taseer’s assasination, Land reforms would have been implmented. Pray tell me how did that go? As you would have guessed:
Fantastically!! We had the Provincial Tenancy Act of 1950!!
Since yours sachly fancies himself as a story teller more than a lawyer (and is allergic to the word “WHEREAS” in all caps that every legal document seems to have) instead of describing the law, let me tell you a story. There are 1.7 million landless agricultural workers in Pakistan and in January 2002 The honorable High court of Sindh dismissed petitions for the release of bonded laborers citing this very same act and declaring bonded laborers to be a “dispute” between Landlords and peasants. Covered by the Tenancy act. So much for equal rights and social mobility based on capital producing goods. So, did the “liberalism” enabled by tenancy act die with Salman Taseer’s assassination?
No!
Did the egalitarianism of the threat of a few peasants banding together, declaring their landlord to be a blasphemer and shooting him in the head become a real possibility after Salman Taseer’s assasination?
Emphatic yes!!
So wimmens and gentlemards, I submit that egalitarianism has taken birth!!
Let us take the second aspect of social mobility. Education. The less said about this, the better. But let me belabor the point. Education in Pakistan has become a propaganda tool of the state. To supply canon fodder for the various Jihads. Afghanistan. Cashmere. And dont forget Dagestan. Before Salman Taseer’s assasination, it used to be the case that only the likes of Khaled Ahmed had a monopoly over dissemination of his (incoherent) opinion in English about how Pakistan is the guardian of Indian Muslims. Now after Salman Taseer’s assassination, Khaled Ahmed’s interpretation of the Nationhood of Pakistan is being challenged, (in an egalitarian way, let me hasten to add) by the products of our emiment education system who insist that the Nation of Pakistan means strict adherence to Blasphemy law. Now pray tell me, why does this diversity of opinion indicate the death of Liberalism?
Ladies and Gentlemards, a round of applause for free speech and the right to dissent (with an AK if the need arises) !!
What am I getting at here? Salman Taseer’s assassination is a tragedy. This piece is not about him, but about the other tragedy. The so-called “intellectuals” who are hemoragging columns after columns lamenting their inability to continue business as usual and realizing to their horror that their long neglect of Pakistan’s population and radicalization of the successive generations brought about by their hatred of India and the west and desire to maintain status quo has in fact enabled the opposite. That the very base of their authoritarian power to shape the future and destiny of Pakistan has eroded. They are simply using the death of a governor to lament the death of their authoritarian power over the masses. The very masses they neglected, manipulated and whose world view they grotesquely mutilated for their short sighted needs.
The future belongs to this grotesque semi educated, poor, landless, hatred infused, mullah directed armed Yahoos. And they are coming for you. To shape a society where more people are equal and have a right to shape their country’s future as they deem fit.
In short, a Liberal Pakistan. Ergo, Liberalism in Pakistan is quite fine. The elites who claim to practice it on the other hand….are F’ed.
LONG LIVE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE!! LONG LIVE EGALITARIANISM IN PAKISTAN!!
PS> For an excellent writeup about Land reforms in Pakistan by Shahid Saeed, please see here:
PS> My fourth cousin’s goat suggests that the elites immediately jumping into the “Lets all find ideas to prevent blasphemy & uphold the blasphemy law” bandwagon is further proof of their aversion to Liberalism *and* AKs. So they should probably STFU and not write more articles lamenting the death of liberalism.
—-xxx—-
Internashunal Community Should Help Themselves by Helping Pakistan Help Themselves to Cashmere
NOVEMBER 1, 2010
Here ij my help to bopularise to the 400% brilliant artecal “International Community should help themselves by helping Pakistan” which helpfully concludes
Consequently, what the United States needs to do, and this is not at all an easy job, is bring the Kashmir issue to the forefront. If they can come to some sort of conclusion concerning Kashmir,Pakistan will have no use for terrorist cells and hence create a more stable Subcontinent.Pakistan will be able to focus more on their economic welfare and the wellbeing of their citizens.
Such a clear articulation for the end of terrorist activitiej has never been written on the internets. Hugely encouraged, I wish to jump into the Jeehaard and contribute as well. Here is my 400% endorsement titled “Internashunal Community Should Help Themselves by Helping Pakistan Help Themselves to Cashmere”
To understand the phenomenon of the terrorijt infestation in Pakistan, it is imbortant to understand the relevanje of Cashmere issue and the part it plays in forcing Pakistan to train moojahids to fight in far away places. As it ij well known, in the past 4 years Pakistanis were implicated (and in many cases convicted) for terrorism in
France
Spain
Canada
Norway
Tunisia
India
US
Britain
China (Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region)
Russia (Chechnya)
Uzbekistan (Tashkent, Ferghana valley)
Dagestan
Tajikistan
Southern Philippines
Bosnia
Afghanistan
Iran
Maldives
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Burma
Indonesia
South Korea
And that ij just a few places yours sachly got in 5 minutes of Google News archive search.
Look at the list of blaces that will benefit if Cashmere ijjue is solved!! If you ask “What do these places have to do with Cashmere and why are Pakistanis & Pakistani trained terrorijsts attacking them?” you are most probably a Joo working for CIA, RAA or Mossad out to defame Pakistan. On the other hand, the first thing that should come to any Batriotic Pakistani’s mind is “Whoa!! There is a place called Dagestan? And our moojahids know enough geography to go there and set off bums?” YES!! And this is precisely the reason why even though Yemen is increasingly showing botential to challenge this record, WE ARE STILL NO 1!! AK Phyrr in air!!
Okay I got carried away and I digress.
Where were we? My support for an article which articulates why Cashmere is a normal and legitimate explanation for using the State apparatus of Pakistan to terrorize the population of a neighbouring country by randomly killing innocent civilians.
Going back to the list, look at the size of the Internashunal community that can help themselves by helping Pakistan help themselves to Cashmere!! Ofcourse, this will not solve *all* terrorijam and will leave a few countries behind. Like Denmark (Stop drawing cartoons you Kuffars!!), Switzerland (Build more Minarets!!), Norway (Stop giving out Nobel brizes to Chinese dissidents!!), US (FREE DAUGHTER OPH PAKISTAN AAFIA!!). But that is for a later analysis on how remaining terrorism can be tackled. Right now let us stay with supporting the low standards of conduct the State has set for itself
_______________________________________________
PS> Several beepuls have pointed out inconsistencies and addishuns to this blog post and I am listing them here.
A reader feels left out that Pakistan’s accomplishment in Thailand has been ignored. 400% abologies! Pakistan trained moojahids have spread Pakistan’s name far and wide in Thailand as well.
A reader points out that Dagestan is a Russian province. Another reader says that Dagestan is not a country at all, but is probably a Joo kanspeerajy to defame Pakistan’s image and RAA, CIA and Mossad are probably partners in this kanspeerajy. I agree with both.
Another reader points out that Pakistani moojahids going to Dagestan is 400% proof of the wholesome madrassa educashun preparing people with real world skills. Who said real-world subjects like Geography are not taught in madrassas hain?
Another reader says that the internashunal community is obligated to help Pakistan and quotes one of my tweets
“Pakistan is doing the whole world a favour by being Pakistan. Would you rather have your country be Pakistan hain?”
Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-92044533744273118302012-12-28T03:41:00.002-05:002012-12-28T03:41:29.332-05:00Principle standpoints in Al Bakistan IIIhttp://dawn.com/2012/12/26/principle-standpoints-in-al-bakistan-iii/
We as a nation have developed great rational and philosophical arguments to explain the world around us. It might not explain the world but may explain the workings of our mind. We must appreciate in ingenuous minds working behind these standpoints.
Principle standpoints in Al-Absurdistan
Principle standpoints in Al Bakistan II
1-Refining heroin and selling drugs for a living is trade…. but consumption of liquor is haram.
2-Taliban confessed that they shot Malala, the attacker’s sister has confessed and apologised for the attack. The Pakistani authorities, medical staff of Peshawar and Rawalpindi hospitals, British hospital staff and authorities, Malala’s family, teachers and classmates who were injured have confirmed the attack, but its unbelievable for lot of al Bakistanis … but the guy who claimed that he made a car that runs on water is believable for them.
3-Taliban fighting America in Afghanistan is jihad….. but Taliban attacking the allies of America in Pakistan is terrorism.
4-When Mehdi Hassan crossed over into India its, ‘un ke gale mein Bhagwan bolta hai’…but the moment he crossed Wahga border into Pakistan, it was, ‘o meraci wapas agai jay’.
5- We will use nuclear bombs for the protection of national honour and preservation of our country… but killing in the name of family honour is crime in al Bakistan.
6-Our consumption of oil, sugar and vegetables, fruits doubles in the holy month of Ramazan ….but this is a holy month of fasting and abstaining from indulgences and food.
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
7-We need to stop basant, praying at shrines, marriage rituals and ban obscenity on TV, films, and theatre. We shall prohibit arts, music, dance and painting etc.….but we need to revive our culture to stop the Indian cultural invasion of Pakistan.
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
8- Majority of Pakistanis are peace loving and only a tiny minority of extremists are responsible for Pakistan’s bad image…..but most popular name in Pakistan is Osama.
9-Earthquake and floods in Pakistan was our test from God … but Sandy hurricane was God’s wrath on America for their arrogance.
10-Afia Siddiqui’s links with al Qaeda are fake. Swat video was fake, Malala attack was drama, Osama killing in Abbotabad was drama (he died in 2005),…..but Abu gharib torture photographs in Iraq and Gautanamo detaninee tortures exposed by western media are real.
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
11-Women shall not go to school and stay at home….but when they get sick they should only go to female doctors for ultrasounds and physical checkups.
12-When Pakistan is struck with a calamity like a flood or an earthquake, we demand that where are NGOs and international community now, and should come forward and help the people….but NGOs work for western agenda is against the interests of Pakistan.
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
13-We don’t understand from where religious extremism, sectarianism and violence is seeping into our society… but Mahmood Ghaznavi, Mohd bin Qasim, Mahmud Ghori, Syed Ahmed Shaheed, Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi, Taimur ling are our heroes to be taught at schools.
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
14-We are 7th most corrupt and dangerous country that lack rule of law according to world justice project (WJP)۔ According to Transparency International, Pakistan stands at 33 in an index of 1 to 100 ……but our religious leaders want us to lead the entire Muslim Ummah.
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
-Illustration by Sabir Nazar
15-Dual nationals can’t be members of parliament because they have taken oath to pick up arms in defence of their host country…. but their video testimony is enough for treason charges against Pakistani Ambassador.
16-All cases against the government were strong cases and the culprits were convicted including the elected Prime Minister Gilani …..But 96 per cent of terrorists were freed because of weak cases.
17-Human right violation of al Qaeda detainees and Taliban are a testimony of dual standards of the West. Gautanamo Bay detainees and Aafia siddiqui shall be given a fair trial according to UN charter… But we shall hold peace negotiations with Taliban who dragged Najibullah out of UN compound and hanged him publicly without any trail.
18. Foreign hands are responsible for all the bomb blasts, sectarian killings and attacks on army bases, shrines, mosques and target killings of religious scholars…… but our strategy against them is banning pillion riding and mobile phones.
19. The extremist outfits are banned and their accounts frozen… but they can drop the name and start afresh with new names in similar office. They would be allowed to work as charities.
20-FIA can’t be trusted to investigate charges against Master Bill Gates Arsalan … but case against Aslam Beg and Asad Durrani shall be investigated by FIA.
Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-81247937399861663532012-12-28T03:40:00.001-05:002012-12-28T03:40:34.604-05:00Principle standpoints in Al Bakistan IIMujahideen and Taliban defeated Soviet Union and United States….but missed when it came to shooting a girl at close range? Therefore they were not Taliban…but CIA agents…!
Malala is American agent because she idolised Obama…but those who copied Obamas slogans of hope and change are anti-Americans and revolutionaries.
Taliban are not Muslims and are American agents and are working for foreign powers to defame Muslims and Pakistan…but operation against Taliban and killing our own citizens is not in the interest of Pakistan.
Dual nationals don’t have the right to be representatives in Parliament as they have taken oath to defend their adopted country…but dual national Aafia siddique is the daughter of Pakistan.
Illustration by Sabir Nazar
Since Pakistan is a narrow country, we need strategic depth in Afghanistan to survive first strike and respond with retaliation. Up till now we didn’t get that strategic depth…. but Taliban have achieved strategic depth from Khyber to Karachi.
Malala is just a child who didn’t have an understanding of issues and was being used by someone (her father) against the Taliban….But child soldiers and child suicide bombers are not used by anyone. They are protesting against the drone attacks on civilians.
LHC bars TV channels from airing programs on judiciary…and Taliban threaten TV channels to air programs on Malala….but media is free in Pakistan.
Illustration by Sabir Nazar
There were no suicide attacks before 9/11….only 19 suicide pilots who flew the planes into twin towers in New York.
Pakistanis are being crushed between two extremists, Taliban and their supporters and liberal fascists…one are supporters of a victim (Malala) and others are supporters of killers (Taliban).
The drones are responsible for Taliban’s revenge against Pakistani civilians. If drones are stopped, attack on Malalas would stop…..But secular education for girls is against Islam.
US-UN shall intervene in Burma to stop killings of Muslims…but Nato and US intervention in Afghanistan is against international law and sovereignty of a nation state.
Illustration by Sabir Nazar
Afghan mujahideen/Taliban has defeated USSR and now USA and Nato. But….they can’t defeat Pakistan to take control of nuclear arms.
We shall not judge Imran khan’s politics by his playboy past. But… all other politicians are answerable of their past (e.g Saudi exile of PML-N leaders, NRO etc).
Steve Arsalan is innocent till proven guilty. But….. Asif Zardari is guilty till proven innocent.
Illustration by Sabir Nazar
Drone attacks are giving rise to extremism and the relatives of victims of these attacks want revenge as no Pakhtun forgets revenge…but relatives of thousands of Pakhtuns, army soldiers, Jirga elders killed in Pakistan, never seek revenge on these extremists.
Drones are killing civilians in Waziristan and are violating the sovereignty of Pakistan. But….we can’t verify whether they are extremists or civilians as we have effectively no control on our territory.
Micheal Phelps won 22 medals in 3 Olympics and Pakistan won only ten Olympic medals in 65 years. But ….we created world record of singing national anthem to beat India.
Illustration by Sabir Nazar
Saudi Arabia is our time tested friend and matched dollar with dollar from America to defeat Russians in Afghanistan. But…..America, not Saudi Arabia is responsible for fanning religious jihadi extremism in Pakistan.
Solution to our education system is to abolish elite schools and create single education system. But…those who can afford can send their children to schools in Europe and US.
UN intervention in Afghanistan is illegal and Taliban are waging Jihad to liberate their country….but the West shall try Guantanamo Bay detainees according to Geneva Convention of UN and respect UN human rights charter.
In Al Bakistan everything is controversial, whether it is President Zardari, media, army, War Against Terror, Khuda Hafiz, Shias, politicans, parliament, khilafat, Taliban, dresses, law, medicine, police, moon sighting. But…. we are part of one Ummah.
The blasphemous film was not an individual act but a conspiracy of America to insult Muslims…But all Muslims can’t be declared terrorist because of individual acts of 9/11 plotters.
I remained silent.
http://dawn.com/2012/10/31/principle-standpoints-in-al-bakistan-ii/Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-60765051395933525862012-12-28T03:38:00.002-05:002012-12-28T03:39:27.799-05:00Principle political standpoints in Al-AbsurdistanThe United Nations is a puppet in the hands of the United States and its job is to clean up the mess created by super powers. The UNSC resolution 1368 gave the US and Nato a killing license in Al-Afghanistan; and the Indians are using the soil of Afghanistan to encircle Al-Absurdistan. But … Al-Absurdistan wants to resolve the Kashmir issue according to the UNSC resolution 47 of the United Nations.
We shall protest against the killings of the Rohingya Muslims of Burma and call OIC to take notices of injustice to Rohingya Muslims, Palestinians, Chechens, Kashmiris, Afghans and Uighurs. But … condemning the killing of Shias in Al-Absurdistan is projecting a negative image of Al-Absurdistan.
Al-Absurdistan believes in the right of self-determination for Kashmiris in India and their right to govern themselves by the plebiscite under the UN resolution. But … when Bengalis wanted self-determination to break up with Al-Absurdistan, they were agents of India. And now Balochistan, demanding separation from Al-Absurdistan, is obviously the agent of India.
When Christians were living in the Dark Ages, Muslims progressed in all fields of Science. The Western world learned everything from Muslim scientists, scholars and inventors. The word Chemistry is derived from the Arabic word ‘Chemia’, But … Western education taught in Al-Absurdistan is a conspiracy against Muslims, being used to enslave the children of Al-Absurdistan.
The last time America came to Afghanistan to help our jihadi boys to defeat Russia, we wanted her to stay and keep sending dollars, arms and visas to jihadis. Americans betrayed Al-Absurdistan and ran away from Afghanistan leaving us in a lurch. This time the Americans want to stay and keep their bases in Afghanistan. But … this time we don’t want them to stay.
Christians during the Dark Ages burnt coffee beans and attacked coffee shops in Paris as coffee was considered a Muslim drink and they thought that Christians were being enslaved by Islamic education. They burnt the books of Ibn Rushd and Arabic was banned in universities. But … we want to ban their language and cola drinks because, you guessed it, they are enslaving Muslims.
NGOs that receive foreign aid from Western countries (who fund human rights, child education, women rights), bring a Western agenda into Al-Absurdistan. But … NGOs that take foreign aid from Eastern countries (who fund sectarian and jihadi outfits) does not bring a Eastern agenda into Al-Absurdistan.
Communist Russians are atheist who are against Islam and are trying to reach warm waters. They were defeated in Afghanistan. But … China is our eternal friend and we built Gwader with their help to provide access to warm waters.
European tourists who come to Al-Absurdistan shall wear shalwar kameez, should not drink or kiss in public as that would hurt the sensibilities of Al-Absurdistanis. But … a ban on the veil in Europe is against human rights and symbolic of Islamophobia in the West.
For the last 65 year, 3 lac Muslims go to Hajj annually, 2 million attend the Raiwind congregation every year, 35 thousand madrassahs impart religious education to thousands of students. Mosques, television, Friday prayer, milads, and our school textbooks all speak of the teachings of Islam to our students. But … the current mess in Al-Absurdistan is because we have left the teachings of Islam.
The presidential immunity is against Islam, because all are equal in Islam and the rulers are answerable to all. But … the Contempt of Court law is against the constitution.
Al-Absurdistan was created in the name of Islam and according to the Objective Resolution, all laws contrary to Islam can not be implemented. It’s the duty of public office holders to implement the Islamic law and punishments in Al-Absurdistan. But … since Jihad is a private matter, it can not be left to an un-Islamic government to declare it.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-40755171346968068012009-12-23T07:19:00.002-05:002009-12-23T07:19:43.435-05:00The gravity of the problem —Dr Manzur Ejazhttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\23\story_23-12-2009_pg3_3<br />
<br />
Investors were avoiding Pakistan even before the Taliban threat and they will remain so even after the Taliban are gone. Pakistan has multiple problems that repulse the foreigners, whether they are investors or tourists<br />
<br />
I ran into Mr Eric Lawson, an investor, in a conference organised by a Pakistani group. My unusual take on Pakistan’s troubles intrigued him quite a bit and he asked me to get together sometime. After six months, out of the blue he called me and invited me over for dinner in a downtown Spanish restaurant.<br />
<br />
I have passed from that street hundreds of times but I never noticed the Restaurant Hispania where a bottle of wine can cost up to $ 500 or above. Mr Lawson, noticing my shocked state of mind, laughed and told me that most of the people around us were from the World Bank and IMF being dined-wined and wowed by developing world governments. This restaurant runs on the loan/aid money given to developing countries or people like me who make money in those countries in other ways, he added.<br />
<br />
After we were settled, he asked me as to what was going on in Pakistan and if the military could eliminate the Taliban insurgency. I told him that I was reasonably optimistic that the military will prevail because it was their creation. In the past, the military was not confronting them sincerely because of their misplaced fairytale policy of getting strategic depth in Afghanistan. Now, the military has learnt the lesson as suicide bombings kill people near the capital of Islamabad. I further added that I hope investors like you can return to Pakistan, and ended my explanation with a smile.<br />
<br />
“No, you are wrong here. I hope your optimism is realistic as far as the Taliban are concerned. But the Western investors are not going to return to Pakistan even then. Investors were avoiding Pakistan even before the Taliban threat and they will remain so even after the Taliban are gone. Pakistan has multiple problems that repulse the foreigners, whether they are investors or tourists,” he told me.<br />
<br />
“I know there is immense corruption in Pakistan and foreigners do not know how to deal with it. But so are most of the developing countries where the US and European investors and tourists readily go. What is special about Pakistan other than this?” I asked.<br />
<br />
He became a little frustrated and impatient and promptly busted out “No, this is where Pakistanis do not get it. We all know about corruption in the developing world and we know how to deal with it and make money. But Pakistan’s problem is Islamisation and restrictions on personal liberties and most aspects of entertainment that we consider a necessary part of life. Why would we go to a prison-like country to make money when we have better choices all around? Why not to go to India or China where we can make money and enjoy life as we like to.”<br />
<br />
I could not fully appreciate his highly negative characterisation of Pakistan and could not resist rebutting in pointing out: “If you are talking about unavailability of alcohol, you as foreigners can buy it from any five-star hotel. Oh, and if you are talking about other entertainment, that is also arranged easily.” To keep the atmosphere pleasant, I joked, “By creating some hurdles in your way, we provide you the chance to save some money.”<br />
<br />
He was more upset now and almost yelling “You guys will never understand us. We make money to spend it not like you guys who earn to horde. This is why we progressed and you did not.” He went on, “To answer your take on alcohol and so-called other entertainment by which you probably meant prostitutes, I will say we are neither addicted to alcohol or prostitutes. We enjoy these things as you enjoy tea and company. The difference may be that we have female friends along with males, which is rare in your societies. Buying alcohol from five-star hotels feels just like stealing and drinking like thieves. We want to go out to bars of different kinds where we can see and meet different types of people and enjoy their company for a while.”<br />
<br />
I was more perplexed than ever and did not know how to respond to him. After having lived three decades in the West I knew what he was talking about. But for face saving I threw my last argument, “Pakistan is not the only ideological state. Israel, Saudi Arabia and some others are ideological too and you do business in those countries.”<br />
<br />
He laughed whole-heartedly and said, “Thank you. I was expecting this excuse much earlier. This is a favourite excuse Pakistanis use. But let me tell you that Israel may be too cruel for Palestinians, but it is an open society like any European nation. Saudi Arabia can afford any ideology because of its oil wealth and tribal society. Furthermore, not many investors go there except oil companies and the Saudis have created free zones for foreigners that Pakistan cannot. Your society is very poor but relatively open-minded. You can neither feed them like Saudi Arabia nor create islands for foreigners because society is very vocal. You are stuck by imposing an ideology that you cannot afford. Therefore, you will remain stuck even after the Taliban are gone. And, the worst part is that even intelligent people like you do not appreciate the gravity of the problem.”<br />
<br />
I did not know what to say and decided to move the conversation to Obama’s healthcare plan instead.<br />
<br />
The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.comContrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-31759621200812844802009-12-11T07:26:00.002-05:002009-12-11T07:26:30.497-05:00Afghanistan and Pakistan: Anatomy of a Proxy WarObama's Afghan surge and new strategy attempt sophistication and nuance, but fail to grasp the terrible complexities of the Afghan war. In his speech the President noted two key issues: Afghanistan's rampant corruption and the problematic role of Pakistan. But these problems are more vexing than he admits.<br />
<br />
I know the depth of these problems from study and from years of -- sometimes bitter and disappointing -- experience working in Afghanistan. From 2001 until very recently I was intimately involved with Afghan security and intelligence agencies; helped to create the Afghan National Security Council; did reconstruction work; trained NATO forces for deployment; and traveled across much of the country by road, in the process coming to know many of its local and regional leaders.<br />
<br />
First, the issue of a "credible" Afghan partner. Obama wants Karzai to fight corruption and he wants to sidestep Karzai to effectively deliver aid. Good luck with that.<br />
<br />
But what about the heart of the strategy, the Afghan National Army? This force is supposed to "stand up as we stand down." Sadly this is a phantom Army. Made up from the recombined remnants of Northern Alliance militias, held together by British and American money and training, it has nowhere near the numbers needed nor claimed. Drug addiction and demoralization are rampant among its soldiers.<br />
<br />
Most importantly, the ANA is a largely Tajik army. Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and are based in the north of the country. The Pashtun are the largest group and dominate the south. The Taliban draws its support from the Pashtun. Tajik and Pashtuns are bitter rivals.<br />
<br />
In the eyes of Tajik leaders, Karzai (a Pashtun) isn't "their" president, and this isn't "their" war, nor are Tajiks too keen on getting killed in it, as many US soldiers have noticed.<br />
<br />
Even if Tajik forces were willing to fight and replace NATO soldiers, sending the Tajik dominated ANA into the south to control the Pashtun would not amount to a "national army" fighting "its own" war. The Pashtun would and do see these Tajiks as invaders.<br />
<br />
In short, this is not the force that will beat the Taliban.<br />
<br />
What about our other ally, Pakistan? Regardless of what they tell you, the Pakistani military is not on America's side. They pretend to be because they enjoy receiving billions and billions of dollars in aid every year, but in the end the Pakistani Army is obsessed with India. Their fear of India means they want a weak Islamic Afghanistan behind them.<br />
<br />
The Pakistani officer class sees the current Afghan government as allied to India and thus hostile to Islamabad -- which it is. India supported the communist government of Afghanistan and then the northern Alliance and now the Karzai government. It is heavily involved in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is determined that it will dominate Afghanistan once we, the foreigners, leave.<br />
<br />
Despite its weakness, Afghanistan's political leaders have always coveted large areas of Pakistan: the Pashtun inhabited North West Frontier Province, (the NWFP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (the FATA). Afghanistan lost these regions to what was British India in 1893 when it accepted the so-called "Durand line" which is now the border with Pakistan.<br />
<br />
In the 1950s and early 60s, Afghanistan did its best to destabilise Pakistani control in these regions, and actually sent armed tribal groups to invade them. This did much to encourage Islamabad's later enthusiastic support of the US-back Mujahadeen in the late 1970s and 1980s.<br />
<br />
In the Pakistani military's view, the international community will leave Afghanistan, as they did after the Soviets left, and indeed as Obama has promised to do. When that happens Pakistan feels that it must be in position to install a friendly regime in Kabul, one that will expel the Indian advisors, spies, diplomats, contactors, etc and provide a potentially friendly area to the rear of Pakistan in the event of another major war with India. This is the Pakistani idea of "strategic depth."<br />
<br />
Who would be that friendly government: most likely, the Taliban.<br />
<br />
And if they cannot get a friendly government in Kabul, an ungoverned Afghanistan is better than the present Indian dominated one.<br />
<br />
This pro-Taliban stance remains the Pakistani position, despite the blow back from their encouragement of extremist Islamic groups. Pakistan uses radical jihadist groups as proxies in Indian-administered Kashmir.<br />
<br />
Sometime it looks different, because the Pakistanis do just enough by way of arresting Arabs and other Islamic extremists to keep the US happy. Bluntly speaking, the Pakistanis desperately need the US money (billions every year, year on year) to equip themselves in the build up against India.<br />
<br />
And the Pakistan military is being forced to push back the various newly formed Pakistani Taliban groups. So it can look like the Pakistani's really are US allies. But that is an illusion.<br />
<br />
Whilst the Pakistani Taliban maintain strong connections with the Afghan Taliban and other Islamic rebels and extremists, the Pakistani military regards the two forces as entirely separate. In their eyes, the Pakistani Taliban are dangerous rebels, whereas the Afghan Taliban are the next government of Afghanistan; and must be kept on good terms and assisted at every juncture.<br />
<br />
It has taken US intelligence, military and diplomats years to see this and they still don't quite know what to do about it.<br />
<br />
The Afghan Taliban created themselves almost spontaneously in 1994, with the intention of improving justice and security, and removing illegal checkpoints and local warlords. But the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, soon began supporting them. And soon this vigilante force became a religious army of Pashtun nationalists, believing that they have a god-given right to rule.<br />
<br />
This Pakistani encouragement of radical Islam in Afghanistan and in Kashmir has seriously "blown back." Much of the Pashtun areas of Pakistan are now in rebellion and the Pakistani Taliban does not answer to the ISI. From here it may seem like one single movement and threat however, it is essential to understand that Pakistani military and intelligence officers regard the two Taleban organizations (or clusters of organizations) as separate.<br />
<br />
The present action against the Pakistani Taliban is just that. The Pakistan has, definitively, not moved against the Afghan Taliban. In fact, the Afghan Taliban leadership remains secure in Pakistan. Indeed they are widely thought to have moved the Quetta Shura (Mullah Omar's command structure) to Karachi, to protect it from possible air strikes.<br />
<br />
Powerful elements in Pakistan will continue to support the Pashtun insurgency in Afghanistan no matter what Islamabad's government says or does. This is only one of many problems affecting Afghanistan, but it is the core problem.<br />
<br />
Unless the international community can address the proxy fight between Pakistan and India at a political level -- through a settlement on the line of control through Kashmir and a guarantee of security for Pakistan -- it is unlikely that Pakistan's support of the Afghan Taliban can be stopped. And without that stabilizing Afghanistan is very unlikely.<br />
<br />
Bob Churcher is a former British Army Officer with a degree in history. He served in Northern Ireland and Africa and has spent the last 20 years in conflict or post-conflict environments, including, the Balkans, East Timor and Afghanistan.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-16659864996903524752009-12-03T08:48:00.000-05:002009-12-03T08:48:07.797-05:00Can China Deliver in Pakistan?The success or failure of President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy will depend on numerous international factors, from the contributions of Washington's NATO allies to the performance of Afghanistan's beleaguered government.<br />
<br />
However, few factors loom larger than Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the Obama administration has conceded that unless Islamabad intensifies its efforts against Taliban and al-Qaida forces based in Pakistan, the Afghanistan plan will likely fail. Predictably, the U.S. government has renewed pressure on Pakistan to launch a more aggressive campaign against militancy within its borders.<br />
<br />
However, Washington has little credibility and leverage in Pakistan, and Pakistani mistrust of the United States runs high. According to one poll from earlier this year, 64 percent of Pakistanis regard America as an enemy, and only 9 percent see it as a partner. Such sentiments pose a major challenge to the development of an expanded strategic partnership with Pakistan, which Obama reportedly offered to Islamabad in recent weeks.<br />
<br />
Given these unsavory views of the United States, Washington's appeals for stronger Pakistani action against extremism could easily fall flat -- unless they are accompanied by similar pleas from nations with more credibility in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Enter China. Since this spring -- and presumably during Obama's discussions with his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao, last month in Beijing -- Washington has been asking China to help stabilize Pakistan. This makes good sense. Pakistan's instability jeopardizes critical Chinese interests (.pdf), and the time has never been more ripe for Beijing to lean on its longstanding ally.<br />
<br />
Ten thousand Chinese workers reside in Pakistan, and a fair number of them have been kidnapped or killed in the last few years. Additionally, Pakistan's northwest frontier has provided a sanctuary for Uighur separatist militants from China's Xinjiang province, some of whom have trained in Pakistani camps before returning to China. In April, Chinese officials alleged that the Uighur East Turkestan Islamic Movement -- the likely perpetrator of a deadly attack on Chinese border police before last year's Beijing Olympics -- had established its military headquarters in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, China has provided much of the funding and labor for the construction of a port in the southern Pakistani city of Gwadar. This port, which became operational earlier this year, gives China a strategic foothold near the Persian Gulf, facilitating the transit of Chinese energy resources from the Gulf back to China. However, Gwadar lies in the combustible province of Baluchistan, home to a separatist insurgency and alleged refuge for the Afghan Taliban's leadership.<br />
<br />
In short, Pakistan's instability threatens the security of China's citizens, its government, and its energy imports -- a trifecta of threats that Beijing can ill-afford to ignore.<br />
<br />
Beijing's high credibility in Pakistan ensures that its concerns will be taken seriously. The two governments have enjoyed warm relations since the 1960s, and Beijing has invested billions of dollars in economic aid, dam construction, energy development, and other infrastructure projects across Pakistan. One 2009 survey reveals that 80 percent of Pakistanis view China as a partner. And in a 2009 public opinion poll assessing perceptions of world leaders, 80 percent of Pakistanis expressed confidence in Hu -- the highest level of Pakistani support for any world leader mentioned.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, whenever China has demanded something of Islamabad, the latter has often complied. Many observers believe former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf launched his 2007 offensive against radicals holed up in Islamabad's Red Mosque after Beijing, angered by the kidnapping of Chinese engineers in Pakistan, pressured him to do so.<br />
<br />
Today, however, China has much more at stake. Beijing must quietly yet forcefully impress upon Islamabad the fact that Pakistan's problems threaten the critical interests of its chief benefactor and ally.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, Washington's greatest concern should be neither Beijing's willingness to nudge Islamabad, nor the receptiveness of Islamabad's civilian leadership to Beijing's entreaties.<br />
<br />
Rather, the big question is how Pakistan's undisputed powerbroker -- the military -- chooses to respond to Chinese pressure. The army has already demonstrated in Swat, and more recently in the tribal area of South Waziristan, that it is determined to crush Pakistan-based Taliban forces that target Islamabad. However, other militants based in Pakistan cross the porous border with Afghanistan to fight American troops and the government of Hamid Karzai in that country. Certain elements within Pakistan's security institutions consider these anti-Kabul forces a strategic asset, regarding them as a hedge should international forces one day withdraw from Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
If such sentiments carry the day, the effectiveness of Chinese cajoling could be limited -- and achieving Beijing's and Washington's shared goal of a stable Pakistan will grow ever more challenging. Nonetheless, enlisting China's help will go a long way toward promoting better stability in Pakistan -- and, by extension, in Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
Michael Kugelman is program associate with the Asia Program at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he specializes in South Asia. He can be reached at michael.kugelman@wilsoncenter.org.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-4161344469765616562009-12-03T00:33:00.001-05:002009-12-03T00:33:49.303-05:00ContingencyThursday, December 03, 2009<br />
Parvez Iqbal<br />
<br />
More surprising than the recent statement of British prime minister Gordon Brown asking Pakistan to "do more" is the surprise that our Foreign Office has shown on this statement. Similar statements have simultaneously emanated from Britain's first cousin, the United States.<br />
<br />
In a letter addressed to our president, personally delivered by Obama's national security advisor James L Jones, the US president has asked for Pakistan to take action against five extremist outfits: Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Haqqani group. He went on to say that ambiguity in Pakistan's relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored. This might well have been a ploy to becalm those in his own country who want to see an end to the Afghan conflict and were opposing deployment of additional forces. But the tone is too serious to be taken lightly. Jones has been quoted as saying bluntly that if Pakistan cannot deliver, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's borders with Afghanistan. "Any means" could obviously include movement of US troops across the border into Pakistan's tribal areas, or beyond if need be.<br />
<br />
Add to all this the announcement by Obama about additional US troops for Afghanistan, and one does not then have to ask the US to define its future strategy for that country. Every piece of that strategy is falling into place. Remain ready to move into Pakistan if needed. Obama had just not being alluding to this possibility in his election campaign speeches and interviews, he had referred to it directly time and again. His broad smiles appear deceptive now.<br />
<br />
Before our Foreign Office gets "surprised" again, we should have our own strategy and contingency plans ready for any eventuality that might develop with US forces moving across the border if Pakistan "fails to deliver." Our forces are already taking care of the TTP in South Waziristan. The other two groups, Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba, are underground and other than covert actions like physical capture or targeted killings through drone attacks, overt large-scale conventional military action against them is not possible.<br />
<br />
So if the US military planners have been tasked to keep contingency plans ready for a ground offensive into Pakistani territory, it would most likely be initiated first into North Waziristan against the Haqqani group, which is being blamed for the attacks on US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. What would the options be for Pakistan's response, other than a statement of surprise from the Foreign Office, of course?<br />
<br />
Protest statements, like those for the drone attacks, would be futile. Even school kids can by now tell us that. Military response? The army, already committed against the TTP, would be compelled to seek direction from the government to commit forces for deploying forces to stop the Americans. This would not be a matter which any sovereign country could gulp sitting back. Drone attacks are one matter, territory and sovereignty are another. To divert the attention of our military, even the smallest of misadventures by India on our eastern borders, with or without American elbowing, would really complicate matters. The dilemma, or call it a catch -22 situation, if you will, would be whether to continue the support to the US in its war effort, or openly tell them they are on their own. If the Haqqani group gives them a bloody nose, will we say "so be it"? The possibilities are more complex and more in number than a dice with six sides can cope with.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The writer is a retired commodore. Email: greenfields48 @yahoo.comContrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-60279747711859989112009-12-03T00:30:00.002-05:002009-12-03T00:30:23.764-05:00Obama's Afghanistan mis-speechWhen Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton pulled the Al Qaeda card on Pakistanis during her visit to the Islamic Republic, many thought it was classic Clintonian rage unfettered. Last week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown first congratulated President Zardari on his country's successful jihad against terrorists and then hung up the phone and told the BBC that Pakistan needs to do more against Al Qaeda. That was chalked up immediately by followers of British politics to Brown's now legendary incompetence. Perhaps, he read the briefing notes all wrong, or forgot to take his medication, we all thought. After all, this is the man that has single-handedly brought the greatest era of Labour politics and its dominance in Britain to a pathetic end.<br />
<br />
But of course, Secretary Clinton (being the Obama administration's sharp-toothed diplomatic supremo) and PM Brown (continuing Tony Blair's legacy of being the US government's poodle) were just setting up the ball for Obama to smash. Unlike what we've come to expect from President Obama, however, this was no smash. A less thunderous or less effective Obama speech is hard to conceive of.<br />
<br />
If President Obama is the Muhammad Ali of political oratory, then his much-anticipated Afghan strategy speech was, at least to his admirers (even those from faraway places like Islamabad) as bitter as Ali's 1971 loss to Joe Frazier at Madison Square Garden. It was his first grand failure. In the past, Obama's oratory skills have helped him do the things he was looking to get done (Reverend Wright, Election Night, healthcare). His effectiveness is borne of the clarity he creates and the trust he engenders.<br />
<br />
At West Point on Tuesday, President Obama was least like himself than we've ever known him. He was guarded, defensive, and less than entirely convincing. The biggest reason for the speech's failure is that it deliberately skirted around the central issue that plagues the American war in Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
If there is one overwhelming area of consensus among pundits that think about these things for a living, it is concerning where the epicenter of America's problem in Afghanistan lies. That place is Pakistan. More specifically, it is Pakistan's willingness and its ability to take on and defeat, decisively, those terrorists that would either themselves, or through proxies, seek to harm the United States.<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech almost entirely ignored this aspect of his country's Afghanistan strategy. Where he didn't ignore it, he fudged the issues so grandly that his talking points were eerily similar to some of the most emphatically unrealistic analysis of what is going on in Pakistan these days. In the most distressing part of Obama's speech, he repeated the spurious link between extremism and the security problems in Pakistan, saying "…as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy."<br />
<br />
Pakistani public opinion is decidedly against extremist groups and extremism -- but even a cursory look at the data and the news would disabuse anyone of the notion that Pakistan and the United States face a common enemy.<br />
<br />
For Pakistani decision makers (and cynics are welcome to insert all the acronyms here that they like, but the fact is that the military and politics of this country are ultimately inextricable) Pakistan's enemies are those terrorists that are killing Pakistanis. America's enemies are those that are killing Americans.<br />
<br />
It is true that Pakistanis are getting killed at the hands of FATA-based terrorists, and that Americans (soldiers) are getting killed at the hands of the same militants. That is about where the similarities end.<br />
<br />
The FATA-based terrorists that attack Pakistan have been, and will continue to be, hunted down by the Pakistani military because it makes eminent political and strategic sense to do that. But the terrorists that operate in Afghanistan (from FATA), seeking to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan do not pose a threat to Pakistan. At least, that is what the calculus of Pakistani decision makers has been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Pakistan might take action against them, off and on, but will do so purely as a secondary proxy for American military power. The Pakistani military, in that case, will represent a better investment for US power than either the US military or the mercenaries that it uses, where it can. But the motivation for such piecemeal action against terrorists targeting Afghanistan will always be material. That's not how wars are won.<br />
<br />
The Kandahari Taliban represent an even more complex creature, and I deliberately categorise them separately from the FATA-based terrorists that are killing American soldiers. Many within the Kandahari Taliban are ready to embrace their Poppalzai brother in Kabul, and snub both the hardcore elements within their ranks, as well as the Dostum and Masood proxies that have had an uncontested run of Afghanistan's spoils since 2001-2002. Pragmatists in the Karzai camp, as well as among both US military and diplomatic circles, know that the end-game in Kabul will require accommodation with such Taliban.<br />
<br />
President Obama could have tried to outline these broad strokes to his audience at West Point and around the world in his speech. Instead, he chose to continue a dangerous tradition of dealing with Pakistan clandestinely. This is a deeply fascinating choice of strategy. Constant efforts to buy, coerce or cajole Pakistan's military and political elite into doing things that they consider suicidal simply has not worked. Pakistan's government will take the money, but it will not deliver the product.<br />
<br />
It did not work for eight years under the Bush and Mush tag team. It was never going to work with a PPP government whose strongest instrument is a dislocated former Islamist Pakistani intellectual who has as keen an understanding of Pakistani politics, as Sarah Palin does of Russian geography. Now, with the PPP government buckling under the weight of its own broken promises, it seems Richard Holbrooke has convinced people that a hybrid diplomatic relationship, with six toes in the General Headquarters of the Pakistani military, and four in service of the president and prime minister -- whoever wins the skirmish -- is going to somehow yield success in getting Pakistan to take on the Taliban of Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
This would not make for a very good suspense thriller. The ending is the same as the beginning. Pakistan will not abandon the Kandahari Taliban or any other proxies of Pakistani power that will be useful in Kabul. The regional imbalances that drive existential fears in Pakistan don't make Pakistan less committed to having influence in Kabul; they make Pakistan more committed to it.<br />
<br />
Of course, Pakistan enjoys no moral authority whatsoever in Afghanistan. But it does enjoy being the only other country that Pakhtuns call home. It does enjoy an extremely long border with Afghanistan. It does enjoy clandestine services that have 30 years of experience in cultivating and leveraging assets in Afghanistan that have a demonstrated record of strategic success. Ethnically, geopolitically and in terms of intelligence, Pakistan has an insurmountable advantage in Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
The seven-week victory of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001 was an illusion that was aided by General Musharraf's sleight of hand, and the kind of firepower that America is unlikely to use again in the near future. As an alternative to the Kandahari Taliban, despite the presence of 100,000 US and NATO troops, billions of dollars and the support of 43 countries, the Northern Alliance has failed its sponsors.<br />
<br />
Continued reliance on the Northern Alliance to provide good governance, on the US military and NATO to hold territory, and on Pakistan to take on the Kandahari Taliban are all delusions. President Obama's refusal to recognise the immobility of America's position in his speech is his greatest failure to date.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The writer advises governments, donors and NGOs on public policy. He can be reached through his website www.mosharrafzaidi.comContrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-49013060538011363862009-12-02T08:31:00.002-05:002009-12-02T08:31:53.851-05:00The Other Face Of PakistanI have just returned from Pakistan where I was invited to support the efforts of women on the ground who are refusing to be terrified and silenced in the face of recent bombings and attacks. This was my fifth trip to Pakistan over the last fifteen years. I was there in 1994 when I followed a group of 500 Bosnian refugees who were promised swimming pools, bungalows and jobs, and ended up essentially stranded for five years at the Haji Complex, a barren site in Rawalpindi for pilgrims on the way to Mecca. That support offered by the Pakistani government to the Bosnian refugees was more than most were offering at the time. I went back to Pakistan in 1999 when I first met RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) and traveled with them into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, leaving from Peshawar, through the Khyber Pass. I have made this trip several times since then. I was there in 2003 when women activists and artists presented the first production of The Vagina Monologues, a clandestine production in Islamabad that afterwards moved to public performances in Lahore and Karachi.<br />
<br />
I was not prepared for the new Islamabad that I met, a city essentially under siege. A maze of 50 check points. People hardly leaving their houses. Schools closed for a month at a time. The fancy Serena Hotel surrounded, a fortress. The U.S. embassy an enclave, protected by miles of stone barricades and elaborate barbed wire. Inside the embassy is another world, a getaway, a club, a café, Pilates classes, and a shopping bazaar imported for the 800 or so American employees the day I was there. No one allowed out. A resident of Islamabad told me, "There weren't barricades and now there are. We're appalled. We're under threat... Because they're targets, we're targets. There were bomb blasts near us and all the windows were blown out of my house. My sister refuses to sleep in a room alone."<br />
<br />
There is sense of musical chairs. If you move fast enough and are clever enough, the suicide bomber will not land on you. Every place is a target. One woman told me that she has come to make arbitrary decisions. She doesn't go to the Jinnah market. It feels central. This constant guessing and not knowing makes for terrible and constant anxiety. Everyone seems traumatized in one way or another.<br />
<br />
I did a survey, asking people who they thought was doing the bombing and I got many answers. Most people said they had no idea. They did not know the political intentions of the bombings, didn't know who the bombers were or what they wanted. One person told me "...with the Contras [in Nicaragua] and the Tamils [in Sri Lanka], their intent was clear. Here it is an invisible evil. No one is claming it." Many thought it was the work of the Pakistani Taliban although no one thought all the bombings were done by them (the Taliban itself has only claimed responsibility for some of the bombings). There were many rumors and conspiracy theories. Since there is now talk of Blackwater operating in Pakistan, there are those who believe the U.S. is in cahoots with the Taliban (the theory is that if the U.S. has a deliberate foreign policy to keep the streets destabilized, they would have an excuse to intervene and occupy), or that the ISI (the Pakistani intelligence agency) is in cahoots with the U.S. and they are behind the bombings to turn the population against the Taliban. Some thought it was the Pakistani army, or the Taliban within the army. Several people talked about the fact they when they arrest people for the bombings, the stories die quickly and when there is a bomb blast police hose down the area and erase the evidence. Some thought the violence was sponsored by the Indian government. One woman from Swat told me, "We, the common people don't know what's going on. We are pawns. We are suffering at their hands. Whatever their plan is we wish they would get on with it."<br />
<br />
I traveled to Rawalpindi, a bustling and madly crowded town right next to the capital. Once outside Islamabad, where the international groups and embassies are stationed and where western hotels exist, there is hardly a checkpoint. No security, no protection for the majority of the population who seem to be on the frontlines of the killing. It is very reminiscent of Iraq and the Green Zone. I go to visit a safe house run by a long time activist Shahnaz Bukhari. The house provides support and refuge for women who have been acid burned -- usually by their husbands. I meet Fauzia*, a 48-year-old woman, who is fully covered in a black chador. After we talk for a while and she begins to trust me, she removes the black veil and her face is a monstrous vision, melted and swollen, no ears, no eyes, she is completely blind. When she was young she married a man who did not like to work. She was working many jobs to support him and their family. She discovered he secretly got married to another women using her money. Eventually she asked for a divorce. After six years of being separated, he started blackmailing her to give him their kids or money. She had bought a plot of land. He was after it. She finally gave it to him, thinking he would leave her alone. She brought him the documents for the land. He said he was satisfied and wouldn't take the kids. He sent them out to have sodas to celebrate. Then he burnt her with acid. Threw it in her face. She told me, "When I say my prayers, I pray that he has been crippled. I don't want him to die. I want him to suffer." She brought her case to court. Her husband came once and then he vanished. She is now speaking out, standing up, showing her face. She wants other women to punish these perpetrators. There are 2,000 burn cases a year. The government is not supporting these cases or women. She is trying to create a network to pressure hospitals and everyone involved to support the women.<br />
<br />
At the shelter, I am surprised to find a very handsome young man, Naeem*, and his very adorable son. They are dressed in matching gray cotton suits. It is only a few minutes into the interview that I realize Naeem is really Abaaz*, a 24-year-old woman. Abaaz was married off when she was 13 to a man who was 26. He abused her, tortured her mentally. He threw her out when she was 17 because he took another woman. Abaaz was left on her own with a child on the streets. She had to find a way to survive. She went to a men's barber and had her hair cut. Then she found suitable clothing, lowered her voice and changed her name. She got a vending stand and sells fruits and vegetables. She has achieved success with her business and her identity and is able to support herself and son. I asked her if she is happy living like this. "No, I do not like living as a man. My heart knows how I feel. But I am more secure. No one harasses me. I have learned street slang like the boys use. I mainly have male friends." I ask her son how he feels. "I call my mother brother Naeem in the streets, but I do not like that she can't be a woman. I want her to be in the house. At home she is different. She can be my mother." I ask if she will get married again. She says, "I can't be that fool again." She worries about money. She wants her son to go to school. She tells me it's embarrassing to be a boy. "When things are favorable, I'll be a girl again. The shawl, the symbol of my pride, I had to leave. I'll be happy when my son grows up and I can sit at home in my chair and wear my shawl. I will be happy then when I can live my last years as a woman."<br />
<br />
I return that evening to Islamabad and am joined by a group of very powerful women. We talk for hours. I meet Samar Minallah -- an activist lawyer. She focuses primarily on highlighting problems of women in the Northwest Province of Pakistan. She has been fighting a practice called "retribution" where girls are traded to resolve conflict between men. Recently she was involved in a case where a man killed another man's dog and instead of a fight ensuing, the man who killed the dog gave the aggrieved man 15 girls between the ages of six months to seven years old. These girls then became the aggrieved man's possessions, to be raped, enslaved, treated in any way the man desired. Fifteen girls for one dead dog. This is a common practice. A practice Samar has been fighting against. In the case of the dog, she called the father of the girls and asked if it was true. She recorded the conversation. The father proudly announced that he had traded his daughters. Samar went to the human rights commission of Pakistan. She reported the case to a policeman. The father called Samar's son and told him "Your mother is going to die very soon." Fortunately, Samar was able to prosecute the case and the man went to jail. She then told me of the story that has put her life in much bigger jeopardy.<br />
<br />
"I live in Swat. In April, I was told that a 16-year-old girl had been flogged by the Taliban. Beating women has nothing to do with our culture or religion. The girl had come from a far off village in Swat. She had refused a marriage proposal from a good for nothing Taliban boy. The boy then claimed the girl had an illicit relationship with her father-in-law. The woman was flogged publicly. Many photographed and videoed the flogging on their mobile phones and sent it around." Samar took the video and posted it on Facebook. She posted it with her name and email. She attached a message, "If you don't wake up today, this will happen to you." Because she identified herself, her life was immediately endangered. When I asked her why she took such a risk, she said "No one is taking responsibility for anything. There is no credibility or impact if you do not sign your name or take responsibility." The Taliban told Samar they were sending five suicide bombers to her house. This did not stop her. They tried to discredit her. They said it was a 14 year old video, said she manufactured it in her house. They said she was a known mad woman. Certain people stopped taking her phone calls. Some people removed her from their Facebook. She went on Pakistani TV. Samar did not use a drone or an AK-47, but she put the Taliban on the defensive. They demanded she be handed over, (like the 15 girls) but her actions spurred a revulsion and Pakistan people mobilized in the streets to protest. The Taliban claimed Samar had damaged their reputation in the international press. They put a fatwa against her. "I was shattered because of my children. I cried on the phone afraid for my children. I had the option of leaving Pakistan. To leave for me would have been death. I have a role to play in the theater against women's rights violations. A few embassies called and asked if I wanted asylum. I would never leave Pakistan. My daughter was crying because she couldn't leave her cats. I felt guilty I had done this to my kids. My friends gave us refuge." Samar stopped talking publicly for three months. Now she is back at it, fighting the cases. "I'm in a make shift home now. No landline. It's not just the Taliban I am afraid of. It is the Taliban mind set. Most suicide bombers are clean-shaven, look just like us. I am still getting horrible emails from people I don't know. People will get brownie points in heaven for killing me. Of course I am afraid of getting picked up, abused, raped, tortured. That is the most terrifying, not death. There are hundreds of missing people in Pakistan. But how can I stop. How can I let them win?"<br />
<br />
The condition of women has never been elevated in Pakistan (I do not single Pakistan out as I have yet to find a country where the status of women is elevated), but the current climate of terror, militarism, and Talibanization has escalated and licensed a brutal gender oppression, inhumanity and violence. A male leader from Chitral, a formerly progressive town in the frontier told me, "The Taliban hasn't arrived yet physically, but they have mentally. Already women are not going out of the house, leaving jobs, covering themselves when they have never been covered."<br />
<br />
Religious extremism is a kind of plague. It seizes the mind, body and soul. It creates a kind of slow terror that invades cell by cell and feeds off the preexisting patriarchal traditions and conditioning in women. Then, there are the various practices that enforce that conditioning: acid burning, retribution, honor killing, flogging, burying women alive, etc. Some of these stories get out to the West from time to time; but, what rarely gets out are the stories of women who are resisting this violence and fighting with their lives for human rights.<br />
<br />
After listening to many women's stories, I am struck with their brilliance in constructing strategies that are not rooted in war or violence, but rather in courage, enabling justice, transformation and real security. There is another Pakistan -- the Pakistan of women academics running women studies programs, women demonstrating in front of the judiciary, speaking out on television, fighting law suits in protection of women's rights, harboring and giving refuge to women who are acid burned. There is the mother obsessively seeking justice for her daughter who she believes was poisoned by a Mullah after he raped her, the woman fighting off the Taliban after they murdered her husband in Swat. Activists like Tahira Addullan, who has been in the human rights and women's movement 30 years, always threatened, arrested twice, fiercely fighting for the restoration of an independent judiciary. And, Nighat Rizvi, who produced a sold out event to raise awareness about violence against women in the middle of a paralyzed city, and who screened her documentary on the inhumane conditions for women in the recent IDP camps.<br />
<br />
These women understand that the major threat to Pakistan is not terrorism but poverty, malnutrition, (60 percent of the children are now born moderately stunted) lack of education, HIV, violence against women, and corruption of the government. Women who know that the U.S. war in Afghanistan escalates violence in Pakistan, that computer driven drones killing hundreds of innocent people enrages those who lose their loved ones and that creates more terrorists. They know their lives are being manipulated, that the millions of dollars the U.S. sends never reaches them or the people (but goes to the corrupt leaders and elites). That the future of their country is essentially in their hands, as the government, the army, the security forces are not focused on the struggles that occupy their daily existence.<br />
<br />
As I leave Pakistan, I think of Fauzia, Abaaz and Samar. One reveals her destroyed face to stop the burning of others, one disguises her face to support her child and protect her security, one uploads an explosive video on Facebook to expose and stop a hideous practice. Each one of these strategies involved creativity, originality, bravery and very little money. I think the U.S. government and the military, the Pakistani government and army could all take heed from the vision and bravery and work of women like these. The change needs to come from the ground. Religious extremism is a virus. It feeds on poverty, malnutrition, humiliation, sexism and fear. As President Obama gets ready to formally announce his plans for a troop increase in Afghanistan, we must recognize that putting more US troops on the ground will only increase the violence, bombings and terror in the region. Our strongest methods of inoculation are to feed, help educate and honor the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan and to support the women, providing them with resources to do what they need to do, what they know how to do.<br />
<br />
*Names have been changed to protect their identity.<br />
<br />
Eve Ensler, a playwright and activist, is the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against women and girls.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-56165874737988917282009-12-01T23:42:00.000-05:002009-12-01T23:42:17.736-05:00The Taliban mindset —By Dr Khalil Ahmadhttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\02\story_2-12-2009_pg3_2<br />
<br />
The fundamental rights of the citizens, which found a mention as far back as in 1928 in the Nehru Report, remained a chimera in Pakistan until the lawyers’ movement brought them to the streets in 2007<br />
<br />
In order to secure constitutional protection for the Muslims of the subcontinent, the Muslim League argued for a homeland in a separatist language, on the basis of a different religious identity. However, since the Congress would not budge on the issue, the Muslim League went ahead with its demand for Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Thus the constitutional issue was merged into a religious one. Naturally when Pakistan came into being, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah found himself facing a dilemma: the Muslim League had been using the rhetoric of separate religious identity and now he wanted to make the new homeland a religiously neutral state as is evident from his speech of August 11, 1947. That it could not happen, and the controversy lives to this day, is evident. Also, that a constitution could not be framed until 1973, or while a few were framed and enforced, whatever their merit was, they could not survive, is sufficient to demonstrate the point that transforming the constitutional issue (especially the right to religious freedom) into a religious one proved disastrous for the new homeland.<br />
<br />
It provided various elites, including the military and religious groups, with an excuse to exploit the absence of a constitution to their benefit. It was they who tried their best to ensure that no constitution should prevail in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
The fundamental rights of the citizens, which found a mention as far back as in 1928 in the Nehru Report, remained a chimera in Pakistan until the lawyers’ movement brought them to the streets in 2007. Socialism, populism, religion, ‘enlightened moderation’ and a mixture of parasitism and welfare state completely eclipsed the issue of fundamental rights in the country.<br />
<br />
All the politics through the last six decades can be summarised as thus: from the very beginning, a constitutional issue, i.e. the issue of fundamental rights of individual citizens was confused with the issue of the state’s control of individual citizens’ lives, i.e. the State’s right to determine what is best for its citizens, including their religion.<br />
<br />
Principally, the only point of a constitution is its ability to protect the life, property and other fundamental rights of individual citizens. Also, the state’s control of its individual citizens is a relic of the monarchical past where the ruler was the law, and acted like a father or mother taking care of his subjects. When the rule of law is supreme, it means the laws and the state give equal protection to every citizen’s life, property and other rights. That is why all attacks on the constitution first require the suspension of these fundamental rights.<br />
<br />
That brings us to two beliefs: first, that it is right to deprive others of their natural freedom, and second, that it is not. Whether those who deprive others of their freedom also try to control their lives or not is beside the point; what is important is whether this deprivation is achieved by force or by (false) law. That such rule of law, ensuring the fundamental rights of each citizen to live life as they wish, was missing in Pakistan, created a vacuum which many groups and parties — religious, sectarian, ethnic and otherwise — and conglomerations of intellectual, political, business and military elites rushed to fill. It is obvious that this vacuum was deliberately kept intact and even prolonged.<br />
<br />
In fact, what is happening around us in Pakistan today again proves that the nature of the crisis is constitutional. It explains the onslaught of the Taliban as a violent resurrection of that mindset, which was never dealt with constitutionally. The absence of a constitution and, when we had one, its sheer violation by all elites — intellectual, religious, political, business, and military — strengthened that mindset.<br />
<br />
Additionally, this mindset was deliberately strengthened by all the elites to perpetuate their rule and hegemony, and to protect their parasitism. It was nourished, nurtured, and trained at the cost of constitutional provisions relating especially to fundamental rights and religious freedom.<br />
<br />
What was sowed by the intellectual, political, religious, business, and military elites is today beginning to rear its ugly head and its consequences are affecting ordinary citizens in the form of absolute insecurity that threatens their very existence without any reprieve in sight. This tragedy is deeper than our imagination can fathom. The number of hardcore Taliban in Pakistan may well be smaller than is repeatedly being claimed these days by the political and military elites — hundreds or thousands who will be wiped out in months. But who can enumerate the number of “soft” Taliban living amongst us?<br />
<br />
This “soft” category can be divided into active and passive. Religious groups and parties fall into the active, while the passive are those ordinary citizens who are unaware of their own Taliban mindset. This passive category openly believes in depriving others of their freedom and controlling their lives according to its own scheme of thought. That may be why we see no mass agitation against the Taliban in spite of them killing fellow Pakistanis indiscriminately.<br />
<br />
To fight this war we first have to admit that we are in the midst of an intellectual as well as a real war. The constitution of 1973 should be the rallying point for all who do not believe in depriving others of their freedoms and who believe in the fundamental human rights ensured in the constitution. Not only will that help us fight both the hardcore and soft Taliban but will also help to bring harmony, peace, stability and happiness to Pakistan.<br />
<br />
The writer is founder/head of the Alternate Solutions Institute, http://asinstitute.org a think tank dedicated to the cause of personal freedom and rule of law. He can be contacted at: khalil@asinstitute.orgContrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-27312367560105560442009-11-24T10:42:00.000-05:002009-11-24T10:42:09.956-05:00Breaking America's Silence on PakistanHillary Clinton's truth-telling is necessary and overdue.<br />
<br />
By SUMIT GANGULY<br />
<br />
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered an especially blunt, if long overdue, message to Pakistan last week. Talking to reporters in Lahore, she said she found it "hard to believe" that local authorities did not know where key members of al Qaeda had taken refuge. Her message set off another firestorm of criticism from both the government and the Pakistani press.<br />
<br />
Though belated, Mrs. Clinton's remarks were entirely apt and, one hopes, mark a departure from U.S. policy under former President George W. Bush, and more recently, under President Barack Obama. Apologists for Pakistan in both administrations argued it was necessary to overlook the country's unwillingness to be more forthcoming on counterterrorism operations because of the U.S. dependence on Pakistan's goodwill to supply the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Though superficially correct, this reasoning overlooks the fact that Pakistan extracts significant rents for the use of its territory for this purpose and has also been the beneficiary of some $11 billion in American largesse over the past eight years.<br />
<br />
Pakistan has helped the U.S. seize a number of key al Qaeda operatives on its soil, including Abu Zubaidyah, Ramzi Bin al Shibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu-Faraj-al-Libi, among others. Nevertheless, the Pakistani security establishment, especially in recent days, has done little to place the remnants of al Qaeda under a military anvil. Nor has it shown any willingness to disrupt and dismantle Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, two anti-Indian terrorist organizations known to have significant ties to al Qaeda. Instead Islamabad has relied on every possible subterfuge to protect them, such as asserting that evidence against the two groups is inadequate and placing Lashkar-e-Taiba's leader under arrests and then releasing him. These organizations have been allowed to thrive despite Indian, American and international pressure.<br />
<br />
The security establishment's dalliance with these terrorist groups and unwillingness to hunt down the remnants of al Qaeda might seem to be a puzzle. The Pakistani Taliban, which has close links with al Qaeda, has been wreaking havoc across the country and has attacked key civilian and military targets with impunity in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Peshawar. These attacks have shaken many ordinary Pakistanis from their complacency and have contributed to a growing sense of urgency in addressing the country's domestic security.<br />
<br />
But the security establishment's terrorist links are also logical. For several decades Pakistan's security apparatus has cultivated and worked with a host of Islamist militants to pursue its perceived strategic interests in Afghanistan and in Indian-controlled Kashmir. It remains unwilling to end this partnership. While it has finally mounted a military campaign against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, a loose umbrella group of tribal factions in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the security force still believes it is capable of distinguishing among these various Islamist terrorist organizations as friends and foes of the state. More to the point, it remains unwilling to stop using these entities to pursue its goals of installing a pliant regime in Afghanistan and sapping Indian resources in Kashmir.<br />
<br />
Officials within the Bush and Obama administrations have been aware of these long-standing goals. Nevertheless, to elicit the Pakistani security establishment's cooperation, however limited, they refrained from blunt, unequivocal public criticism. Now that Mrs. Clinton has finally broken the deafening silence on the subject, the U.S. needs to sustain the pressure. A high-level American official's carefully crafted and deftly delivered speech can serve as a much-needed wake-up call. However, it would be irresponsible on the part of the administration not to follow up this verbal volley with firm actions.<br />
<br />
The U.S. needs to hold the Pakistani security establishment to account. Despite the fanfare surrounding the current military operations in the tribal regions, foreign media coverage has been severely restricted. It is thus difficult to assess the vigor with which these operations are being conducted and to measure their effectiveness. Washington could insist on greater transparency to ensure that these operations are yielding meaningful results. This would include arresting and charging key leaders and shutting down their camps at Muridke, just outside Lahore. The administration should simultaneously insist that the Pakistani security forces finally launch an offensive against Lashkar-e-Taiba and not resort to sophistry to downplay its ties to al Qaeda and its involvement with terror in Kashmir and other parts of India.<br />
<br />
A failure to sustain pressure on the Pakistani security establishment would have widespread adverse consequences for the country, for the region and for the U.S. The costs of homegrown terrorism to Pakistan's society have been more than apparent the past several weeks. The attack on the United Nations Mission in Kabul last week while Mrs. Clinton was in Islamabad underscored the dangers that these Pakistan-based groups pose for the region. Unless the sanctuaries these entities have long enjoyed in west Pakistan are finally denied, the U.S.-led effort to stabilize Afghanistan could be in serious jeopardy.<br />
<br />
Mr. Ganguly is a professor of political science and director of research of the Center on American and Global Security at Indiana University.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-25085061765109525882009-11-24T10:28:00.000-05:002009-11-24T10:28:03.631-05:00By MATTHEW ROSENBERG<br />
<br />
ISLAMABAD -- The Islamist militant group behind the deadly attack in Mumbai one year ago remains a potent force determined to strike India and the West, and a source of acrimony between South Asia's nuclear-armed rivals, say officials and members of the militant faction.<br />
<br />
Indian officials and experts say at least six new plots against Mumbai by the Pakistan-based group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, have been disrupted in the 12 months since 10 gunmen wrought three days of havoc on India's financial capital, killing 166 people.<br />
<br />
Lashkar's infiltration of India's part of Kashmir is again on the upswing, the officials say; and a U.S. citizen with alleged ties to Lashkar was recently arrested in Chicago, evidence of the group's reach, U.S. officials say.<br />
<br />
"Our aims are the same today as they were 10 years ago," said a man who identified himself as a former Lashkar militant now working with its charity arm. "We are waging war on the enemies of Islam."<br />
<br />
U.S. officials and experts say hitting India remains the primary focus for Lashkar, which was nurtured in the 1990s by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency for use as a proxy against Indian forces in the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir. Pakistan banned the group in 2002 and officials here say they cut ties with it at the time.<br />
<br />
But no one disputes that Lashkar continued to operate from Pakistan, repeatedly striking Indian targets in recent years. Another Mumbai-style attack, say officials from both countries, risks sparking a fourth war between the neighbors.<br />
<br />
At the very least, Lashkar's continued existence presents a major obstacle to peace between the rivals. The tension also jeopardizes U.S. efforts in Afghanistan by keeping the bulk of Pakistan's sizable army focused on India, not the Taliban, say U.S. officials.<br />
<br />
Yet Lashkar endures today because Pakistan's pledges to dismantle it in the wake of the Mumbai attack remain largely unfulfilled, say U.S., Indian and some Pakistani officials.<br />
<br />
The group's long ties to Pakistan's powerful security establishment and the deep roots it has put down in towns and villages through its charity arm leave the government with a difficult challenge. Many Pakistanis still doubt Lashkar's role in the attack, and officials here privately say they fear a popular backlash if they move too forcefully against the group.<br />
<br />
Timeline<br />
<br />
* Nov. 26, 2008: 10 men from the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba begin a gun-and-grenade assault on targets in Mumbai, lasting nearly three days and leaving at least 174 people dead.<br />
* Dec. 11, 2008: Pakistan moves against Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the charity front of Lashkar, arresting the group's leaders and shuttering its offices a day after the U.N. sanctioned the group. Days earlier, Pakistan also began arresting suspected members of Lashkar.<br />
* Jan. 5, 2009: India gives Pakistan its first dossier of what it says is evidence that Lashkar orchestrated the Mumbai attack. The two countries have since repeatedly exchanged additional dossiers, although each side has complained about the information provided by the other.<br />
* Jan. 6, 2009: After weeks of denials, Pakistan acknowledges that the single gunmen captured by Indian police in Mumbai, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, is a Pakistani citizen.<br />
* Feb. 12, 2009: Pakistan publicly acknowledges for the first time that the Mumbai attack was partly planned on its soil and says it has arrested most of the key plotters, including the alleged operations chief of Lashkar, Zaki ur-Rehman Lakhvi.<br />
* June 2, 2009: A Pakistani court orders the founder of Lashkar, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, released from house arrest, finding that the government does not have enough evidence to hold him. Mr. Saeed maintains that he runs a charity, nothing more.<br />
* July 20, 2009: The single attacker captured by Indian police, Mohammaed Ajmal Kasab, confesses in open court that he took part in the assault. He says he was trained by Lashkar in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Pakistani officials also worry about taking on a potent enemy as they are trying to beat back the Taliban, which has killed hundreds of people in terrorist attacks in Pakistan since early October.<br />
<br />
U.S. officials and analysts also say factions within Pakistan's military still see Lashkar as a potential weapon to be used in any future conflicts with India. Lashkar "has historically been Pakistan's most reliable proxy against India and elements within the military clearly wish to maintain this capability," according to a report this week by security analyst Stephen Tankel in the CTC Sentinel, published by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.<br />
<br />
Pakistan, following India and the U.S., concluded in the weeks after the Mumbai attack that it was carried out by Lashkar. Islamabad moved against the group, arresting dozens of people and banning its charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa.<br />
<br />
But most of those arrested have since been released and the trial of seven still-jailed Lashkar suspects, including the group's alleged chief of operations, has been repeatedly delayed.<br />
<br />
U.S. officials, experts and Lashkar members say the group's few thousand fighters are still training at camps and safe houses, many of them in Pakistan's part of Kashmir.<br />
<br />
Money is still flowing into its charity arm, which is now operating under a new name, Falah-i-Insaniat, according to Western officials and members of the group. The charity is best known for aiding victims of the 2005 earthquake and refugees from a Pakistani army offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley this year.<br />
<br />
India and Pakistan have exchanged a series of dossiers detailing what they know about the attack's planning and execution, but each side complains the information provided by the other is insufficient.<br />
<br />
Pakistani officials, for example, say India hasn't given them enough evidence to try Lashkar's founder, Hafiz Mohammaed Saeed, who has been in and out of house arrest since the attack. On Friday, Mr. Saeed preached a sermon to thousands of followers at the Jamia al Qadisa Mosque in the eastern city of Lahore.<br />
<br />
"No power on the earth can defeat Muslims if they follow the God's path," preached Mr. Saeed, who says he runs a charity, and nothing more. "You can see what has happened to the American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."<br />
<br />
Pakistani officials say the men awaiting trial are the key players in the group, especially the alleged operations chief, Zaki ur-Rehman Lakhvi.<br />
<br />
"Pakistan's political and military leadership endeavors to bring all terrorists, including those involved in Mumbai attack, to justice.... Any reports to the contrary are false and misleading," said Farahnaz Ispahani, a spokeswoman for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. "The least we seek from the international community is recognition of our struggles."<br />
<br />
U.S. officials say Pakistan's civilian leadership -- especially President Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani -- remains committed to dismantling Lashkar. They are far less certain about Pakistan's military and its spy agency, the ISI. Both deny aiding Lashkar.<br />
<br />
An ISI officer said "maybe a handful" of retired officers work with Lashkar. The officer said the agency maintains informal contacts needed to monitor the group.<br />
<br />
The officer added that Pakistan is facing multiple Taliban attacks every week and has to prioritize when it comes to moving against militants. "Which choice do you think we should make? Defend ourselves or defend India?" he said.<br />
—Zahid Hussain in Lahore contributed to this article.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-91511783826940631712009-11-24T10:24:00.000-05:002009-11-24T10:24:35.929-05:00Speaking of PakistanThe U.S. and India must take steps to deepen their cooperation against South Asian terrorism.<br />
<br />
By C. CHRISTINE FAIR<br />
<br />
Pakistan is likely to loom large in the meetings between President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh this week. Partly that's because Thursday is the first anniversary of the Mumbai hotel attacks that claimed 173 lives, including four Americans—attacks perpetrated by terrorist groups based in Pakistan. More broadly, there is a growing realization that Washington and New Delhi have many common security interests in Pakistan, which is a key country both to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and to the fight against Islamist terrorism.<br />
<br />
So amid the fanfare of the Obama administration's first state visit, both sides will quietly focus on how they can best protect each other from the terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan. Americans are now more aware than ever of the threats India faces. Before the "11/26" assault, few Americans had ever heard of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based terrorist group operating largely, but not exclusively, in India. Though the attack was not India's deadliest—that was the 1993 attack on Mumbai's stock exchange—it changed the world's understanding of terrorism in India as real-time television footage streamed into American and European living rooms. It catalyzed discussions in Washington and Delhi about Lashkar-e-Taiba and the danger that group and its fellow travelers pose not just to India but to other countries.<br />
<br />
India and the U.S. share a common vision of a stable, democratic, civilian-controlled Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. But they have often disagreed on how best to achieve this end. It is unlikely that Mr. Singh's visit will yield an immediate consensus, but will likely continue to focus on law enforcement and counterintelligence cooperation.<br />
<br />
Since 9/11, Delhi has watched warily as Washington enlisted Pakistan's help against al Qaeda by providing conventional military assistance and other allurements such as such as aid for Pakistan's participation on the war on terrorism. In total Pakistan has received more than $15 billion since 9/11. Washington had applied only episodic pressure on Pakistan to shut down militants operating in and against India and the disputed border region of Kashmir. Washington has wanted to encourage Pakistan to fight those militants that it can and will fight, even if Islamabad opposes actions against groups like Lashkar and the Afghan Taliban. And Washington needs Pakistan's support to fight the war in Afghanistan. Washington used to see Lashkar and other "Kashmiri groups" as India's problem, caring about these militant outfits only if they directly threatened U.S. interests. The United States and India have for too long been fighting their own, parallel wars on terror.<br />
<br />
The 11/26 attack has changed regional and international dynamics, ultimately to Pakistan's disadvantage. First, Pakistan's inaction toward Lashkar and its front organization Jamaat-ul-Dawa puts to rest any doubt about Pakistan's commitment to retaining the organization as a strategic reserve to do the state's bidding in the region. Pakistan's failure to take meaningful action against Lashkar came to the fore in April 2009 when the organization, with the tacit assent of the government, provided high-visibility assistance to Pakistanis displaced by military action in Swat. It is now obvious, despite Islamabad's recent efforts to pursue the Pakistan Taliban and the sanctuaries it provides to al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban, that the Pakistan government is part of the problem of international terrorism.<br />
<br />
Second, whereas Lashkar was previously a "niche specialty" for counterterrorism experts within the U.S. government, now nearly every policy, law-enforcement, intelligence and military agency has dedicated resources to protect the U.S., its friends and its assets from Lashkar. The Mumbai attack lent increased urgency to deepening U.S.-India cooperation centered on joint law enforcement and counterterrorism concerns. While less "sexy" than military-to-military engagements, this kind of Indo-U.S cooperation is vital to securing both nations against future terrorist threats.<br />
<br />
Third, the proximity of Lashkar to Pakistan's intelligence and security services, along with continued revelations about those services' assistance to the Afghan Taliban, remind the U.S. and others that the Pakistan government continues to fight a selective war on terror, preserving those militant groups that serve the state's foreign policy goals. This has forced many analysts and policy makers to acknowledge that Pakistan is unlikely ever to abandon terrorism as a tool of foreign policy even while domestic terrorists tear at the fabric of the state.<br />
<br />
India has taken important steps under the leadership of Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, who is keen to make sweeping changes in India's domestic security arrangements. He wants to learn from India's past mistakes and from other countries, including the U.S. This is an opportunity for Washington and Delhi to explore ways to deepen intelligence sharing, to continue developing contacts between local and federal law enforcement agencies, expand government and non-governmental engagement on the nature of the terrorist threat and best practices to counter it, and to deepen the focus on maritime security cooperation to limit the maritime opportunities for a variety of illegal actors.<br />
<br />
Mr. Singh's visit reminds us all that while India and the U.S. have come a long way since 2000, there is much work to be done in jointly securing the safety of their citizens from groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. Whether both states will rally to the challenge remains to be seen.<br />
<br />
Ms. Fair is an assistant professor in the security studies program at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-4556555403627468672009-11-17T00:59:00.001-05:002009-11-17T00:59:12.029-05:00How Azad is `Azad Kashmir'If you want to study the situation in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and cannot go to even the minuscule part of this region designated as `Azad Kashmir', the best place to go to is England. Bradford, Birmingham, Nottingham, Luton, Slough and Southall are perhaps even better sources of information about the POK than Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Bagh Rawalakot and Kotli. For the Kashmiris living in Britain breathe free air that it not much available in the so-called Azad Kashmir. Even if you so much as apply for a job you have to sign an affidavit saying you believe in the ideology of "Kashmir banega Pakistan" (Kashmir will become Pakistan).<br />
<br />
I happened to be in England on the eve of recent election in `Azad Kashmir'. Meeting `Azad' Kashmiris in Britain proved revealing. The politically active among them have organised themselves on the lines of politics back home. Nearly all political organisations and ideologies are represented. They all appear to be working against India and, except JKLF, pro-Pakistan. Their activities range from the ridiculous to the more sober. I come across some Tehrik-e-Kashmir activists in Birmingham attempting to impose a boycott of Tilda rice supposedly imported from India. They are aware that India is far too big and powerful a country with a vast capacity to take losses to be bothered with such nonsense. But they think this helps them spread hatred against India. On the other hand they are making a serious and somewhat successful attempt at lobbying political parties, media and bureaucracy to convince them of the genuineness of their case against what they call Indian occupation of Kashmir and serious human rights violations.<br />
<br />
But this is a superficial impression. Beneath the surface, most of them are disgusted with Pakistan and many of them find India's handling of its part of Kashmir, despited the obvious difficulties and current hostilities, more commendable. Several people, for instance, mentioned that while India has respected Kashmir's age-old practice of not allowing outsiders to settle down in the valley, Pakistan has allowed over 28,000 Afghan families to settle down and fleece the local populace in the name of Jihad. These Afghans are even more exploitative that the Hindu baniya ever was, they point out.<br />
<br />
The comparisons are endless. Kashmiris in the valley are better educated and better skilled. They have their own university with medical and engineering colleges. Some of us, particularly Mirpuris may be more prosperous, they say, but that is only because we managed to come to England when we were virtually thrown out of Pakistan as we lost our livelihood in the wake of the construction of Mangla Dam. The reference to Mangla Dam always brings out either complete silence in pro-Pakistan circles or vociferous protest from those who are not so particular about living with Pakistan. This Dam is said to supply 65% of the electricity needs of Pakistan, but the so-called Azad Kashmir does not get any royalty. Pakistan's Water and Power Development Agency (WAPDA) is estimated to be earning over Rs. 50 crores from the electricity produced at Mangla, thought the total budget of the Azad Kashmir is in the vicinity of Rs. 10 crores.<br />
<br />
The most talked about issue, of course, is that of Northern Areas which has been virtually swallowed by Pakistan Army. It comes in the news periodically only when there are Shia-Sunni clashes in the area of firing by the Army to quell anti-government demonstrations. In a historic judgment when a Kashmiri chief justice of the High Court dared to say a couple of years ago that the area was a part of Kashmir and had been illegally occupied by Pakistan Army, he instantly became a hero. Similar enthusiasm was shown by the Kashmiris towards Raja Mumtaz Hussain Rathore, the last PPP `Prime Minister' of the so-called Azad Kashmir, who started taking up the issue of Northern Areas followed his dismissal and detention by the last Nawaz Sharif government.<br />
<br />
This leads any discussion in the direction of almost complete denial of democracy to the so-called Azad Kashmir. While India has at least one or two free and fair elections in the valley, notably in 1977 and 1983, the Pakistani Establishment has dismissed and installed governments of `Azad Kashmir' at will. The only party that has not been able to do so is Ms. Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People Party as it is not considered a part of Establishment even when in power.<br />
<br />
It is hardly surprising in view of such perceptions of the Pakistani Kashmiris that they throw out Sardar Qayyoom's obscurantist Muslim Conference which has ruled them for most of the last half a century at the first available opportunity. They did that in 1990 and they have done that now. Sardar Qayyoom's protestations of massive rigging by the PPP government in Islamabad is unbelievable. All that she had to do to win elections there was not to concede Sardar Qayyoom's demand of allowing the Army to conduct elections.<br />
<br />
ELECTION EXPOSE SIMMERING DISCONTENT IN POK OBSCURANTIST INDIA-BAITERS FACE MASSIVE DEFEAT<br />
<br />
Sardar Abdul Qayyoom Khan's ruling Muslim Conference has been virtually wiped out in the small part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) designated as "Azad Kashmir" where generally farcical elections are held intermittently to buttress the fiction of its Azadi. He has blamed massive rigging for his defeat. This is predictably music to Indian ears. We have ourselves faced similar allegations in international as well as sections of national media in regard to recent elections in our part of Kashmir. But by playing up Sardar Qayyoom's incredible claims in our media and in the diplomatic circuit, we are simply playing in the hands of Pakistan's right wing obscurantists, Army and the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).<br />
<br />
Indian media pundits and bureaucrats may have valid reasons to regard the ruling Pakistan People Party headed by Ms Benazir Bhutto and even its so-called Azad Kashmir branch as communal or obscurantist and anti-India. Obviously they must have more impeccable sources of information and intelligence. But the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir have been consistently told since the formation of PPP itself that it is secular, anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan and pro-India. The Pakistani media, the Sardar Qayyoom government, indeed the entire Pakistani Establishment has indulged in this propaganda on the largest possible scale for years. And yet they have chosen to give a massive mandate to this supposedly secular, progressive, pro-India party. Whether or not the PPP is secular and pro-India is not the issue. The fact that despite this widespread perception, the people of this piece of POK have chosen to elect it again must mean something to us in India. There is so clearly some message in this massive PPP victory and we should try to understand and interpret it in this light. Our hatred for Pakistan seems to have blinded us and we are reacting mindlessly.<br />
<br />
Sardar Qayyoom's party has ruled the so-called Azad Kashmir (I prefer to use this term rather that the popular POK, as this area is actually less than half of the POK) for most of the last half a century. He has himself ruled as President as well as Prime Minister for decades. he retains the love and affection of the military-bureaucratic and feudal-industrialist complex that rules Pakistan as ever. He is the darling of the obscurantist elements in the Pakistani Opposition, despite his son Sardar Ateeq's shenanigans. he had himself come to power in the present instance through a farcical election following an undemocratic and immoral, though constitutional and legal, dismissal and even detention of the last Prime Minister Raja Mumtaz Hussain Rathore who headed a duly elected People's Party government.<br />
<br />
The rule in Pakistan is that the movement changes hands in Islamabad, the so-called Azad Kashmir government is dismissed and a new one installed through a farce of an election unless this happens to be a Muslim Conference government headed by Sardar Qayyoom. Following this glorious tradition the last Muslim league government headed by Mr. Nawaz Sharif had dismissed Mr. Mumtaz Rathore, detained him and installed Sardar Qayyoom. But Ms. Benazir Bhutto's PPP has never been allowed to follow this tradition. When she came to power a couple of years ago, she was widely expected to reinstall Mumtaz Rathore. She would not have required to rig the elections to do so. For reasons that we will discuss later the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir are fed up with the Sardar Dynasty. Indeed Ms. Bhutto is not capable of rigging elections there or anywhere else.<br />
<br />
Ms. Bhutto came to power for the first time having won elections that followed President Zia-ul-Haq's death in August 1988, she was told that as chairperson of the Kashmir Council, she had the power to dissolve the Kashmir Assembly order fresh elections. She was considering the popular demand for dismissal of the Muzaffarabad government. But Sardar Qayyoom criticised Ms. Bhutto's policy of normalisation with India "to undo the Islamic ideology and weaken the Pakistan Army". He wrote to President Guhlam Ishaq Khan: "We will not allow a pro-India government in Azad Kashmir," He made it clear that he would not accept the electoral verdict if the PPP won. And despite all the pressure from the people of Pakistan Occupied `Azad' Kashmir and her party she could not topple the Sardar government. Sardar Qayyoom completed his tenure in 1990.<br />
<br />
Informed people are aware that Pakistan is ruled by a troika. A Pakistan Prime Minister can only do things with the concurrence of Washington and the local Establishment which includes the Army, ISI, Bureaucracy, Business, Feudal and Obscurantist elements. Ms. Bhutto's PPP was allowed to stay in power because for a variety of reasons not germane to this discussion she was for the moment begin tolerated by the two other parts of the troika. But she had very obvious limits to her power. She had enough powers thought to ensure that elections in the so-called Azad Kashmir are not rigged by any part of the troika including the Pakistani Establishment which would have loved to see Sardar Qayyoom back in power. All that she needed to do was not to concede Sardar Qayyoom's persistent demand to allow the Army to conduct the elections.<br />
<br />
Why did Ms. Bhutto allow Sardar Qayyoom during her second term to continue for so long and complete his full term again is thus no mystery. She was under intense pressure from the Sardar government. But she continued to be so incensed with Mr. Nawaz Sharif who had earlier dismissed and detained the PPP Prime Minister Raja Mumtaz Rathore that she was seriously considering taking them on in this case. This was when, according to my sources in PPP, a new element entered into the picture which proved decisive and finally saved the Sardar government.<br />
<br />
President Laghari of Pakistan visited India and met a delegation of Kashmir valley's pro-Pakistan leaders. This delegation pleaded with him to persuade Ms. Bhutto not to dismiss Sardar Qayyoom. Their argument was that in the absence of Sardar Qayyoom the network supporting militancy in the valley would be disturbed. A PPP government there can obviously not be trusted to support the right wing network. Their second argument was even more important. Islamabad dismissing a duly elected Muzaffarabad government without any apparent reason, thought constitutionally valid and legal, would be clearly immoral and undemocratic that it would weaken their case that Kashmir's identity and autonomy would better protected by Pakistan that it is with India. Even though Pakistan has a history of such undemocratic dismissals, this particular dismissal at the height of militancy in the Valley would prove disastrous, so pleaded Hurriyat leaders. Despite all his sophistication and persuasive arguments, my sources tell me, it took President Laghari two and a half hours of intense pleading to dissuade Ms. Bhutto from dismissing Sardar Qayyoom's government.<br />
<br />
One wonders if the pro-Pakistan Hurriyat leaders in the valley are now pleading with Sardar Qayyoom not to accuse PPP government in Islamabad and his own government in Muzaffarabad of massive rigging in the elections. For, this too weakens their case of Kashmir's accession with Pakistan. It brings to light the farcical nature of `Azadi' in the so-called Azad Kashmir. Of course, even this so-called Azadi is not available to the hapless people of the majority area of the Pakistan occupied Kashmir designated as Northern Areas. The vast areas of Gilgit and Baltistan have simply vanished from the face of the earth as far as the Pakistan Constitution and other legal documents are concerned, though until 1954, Pakistan used to supply maps that showed these territories as a part of Kashmir.<br />
<br />
The Muslim Conference alleging massive rigging is indeed ridiculous. The People's Party massive mandate in Azad Kashmir represents not so much its own popularity as it articulates the disgust of the `Azad' Kashmiris with Pakistani Establishment. The Muslim Conference is seen as this Establishment's local representative despite its regional character. Ironically, the People's Party Kashmir unit is seen as more representative of the regional aspirations despite this Party's all-Pakistan character.<br />
<br />
The plight of Azad Kashmiris calls for a separate write-up. What we can say here is that economic factors like lack of development of any industry, communication facilities, exploitation of Mangla dam for providing electricity to 65 per cent of Pakistan without any compensation, no local university, no local bank, no new bridges over the river Jhelum and so on do weight heavily on the minds of `Azad' Kashmiris, what they resent most is their virtual slave status in the Constitution, new tensions in the wake of settlement of over 28,000 Afghan families, militant training camps and the inevitable rise of obscurantism due to almost uninterrupted half-a-century rule of the Muslim Conference. They have been told for years now that the accession of Kashmir valley to Pakistan is round the corner. But neither the proud Suddhan tribals, nor the wealthy Mirpuris (most of them have relatives in England) are prepared to accept the inevitable domination of the better educated and numerically stronger `hatos' as they contemptuously refer to the Kashmiris of the valley in case Kashmir is united.<br />
<br />
An Open Letter:<br />
What are you doing with Hurriyat, Yasin Malik?<br />
<br />
It is easier for an Indian to sympathise with you, regardless of the folly of your pursuit. With your emaciated body, you are the only Gandhi-like figure on the kashmir horizon. Despite your militant past, the country appeared to have accepted your protestations of peade when you renounced violence. Released from captivity, you received the best media attention any Kashmiri leader had got, perhaps with the solitary exception so Shabir Shah. But when you went on fast for three days in Delhi nevently to focus attention on human rights violations in Kashmir, there was hardly an mediaperson or realy any one else around. I wonder if you have been wondering why.<br />
<br />
I wanted to ask you-what are doing with Hurriyat, Yasin Saheb?-when I visited you on the second day of your fast. But you were in no dondition to converse. You have been taking so much on yourslef, despite ill-health. Also, the question would have been a trifle awkward with so many Hurriyat leaders, including Chairman Mirwaiz Omar Farooq surrounding you.<br />
<br />
You and Shabir Shah are the two prominent leaders who are associated with peaceful means of protest as well as what is called the third option, independence from both India and Pakistan. As other members of the Hurriyat Conference still stand for accession with Pakstan your association with Hurriyat has always been rather intriguing. Now this question has acquired some urgency with the recent declarations of the Hurriyat chief during his recent trip abroad. At a news conference in Washington, he said: "No Third Option exists on Kashmir. All components of All-Parties Hurriyat Conference, despite their diversity have accepted this. The Kashmiris have to decide in a plebiscite whether they should opt for India or Pakistan."<br />
<br />
Hurriyat's total and rather desperate dependence on Pakistan become even more pronounced during the last SAARC foreign ministers' conference in Delhi. Senior Hurriyat leaders like Umar Farooq, Sayed Ali Shah Geelani adn Professor Abdul Ghani met the visiting Pakistani foreign minister Sahabazda Yaqub Khan and criticised Islamabad's efforts to improve trade relations with India. They felt Pakistna's business interests might overshadow the political aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Since Pakistan seemed keen to remove trade barriers with India under the SAARC agenda, they feared it might ultimately not give that much importance to the Kashmir issue.<br />
<br />
That Pakistan was getting ready to dump the Kashmiris and perhaps concentrate on improving its battered economy had become clear to me, Yasin Shaeb, several months ago. You couldn't have forgotten what happened in Leicester, U.K. last August. Expartriate Kashmiri leader Dr. Ayyub Thukar had organised a conference of Kashmiri leaders from India Pakistan as well. No one turned up from Pakistan. This became particularly embarrassing for the organisers because two people arrived even from India - the present writer and Mr. Subodh Kant Sahai. Finally, Islamabad, probably after much coaxing and cajoling, instructed its deputy High Commissioner in London to attent the conference who was able to reach there only for the last session.<br />
<br />
One can hardly blame Pakistan, though, for this state of affairs. In the case of proxy wars this is almost routine. This is what Shah of Iran did with Mulla Barzani's Kurdish secessionist movement in Iraq. This is what Saddam Hussain does with Iranian Kurdish secessionists in Iran. Support them, use them, sell them and dump them is virtually the norm.<br />
<br />
As Pakistani pro-occupation with tis impending political and economic disintegration grows, Hurriyat is bound to grow even more desperate. It is bound to shout louder and louder from rooftops higher and higher ist protestations of loyality to Pakistan. It is for leaders like you, Yasin Saheb, to think if Hurriyat is correctly representing your point of view. Shabbir Shah has proved smarter. He has manoeuvered himself out of Hurriyat at the right time. I wonder if you would reconsider your position vis-s-vis Hurriyat before it is too late for you to extricate yourself out of the mess that Hurriyat is beginning to sense it has got itself into.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-41940246685189059472009-11-17T00:38:00.000-05:002009-11-17T00:38:21.478-05:00"What you mean 'we,' kemosabe?"; Pakistani anti-American attitudes and their implicationsHoward Schweber<br />
Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison<br />
Posted: November 16, 2009 08:58 PM<br />
<br />
<br />
In a classic Mad Magazine cartoon (that I dimly recall), the Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by a horde of hostile Indian warriors. The Lone Ranger says to Tonto "what do we do, now?," to which Tonto replies, "what you mean 'we,' kemosabe?"<br />
<br />
One has the impression that the Obama administration feels like that is the response it has been getting from Pakistan, and indeed doubts about Pakistan's status as a U.S. ally are nothing new. One thing that has received renewed attention of late, however, is the extent of anti-American sentiment of Pakistanis. Awareness of hostility to America among Pakistanis received a jolt with the publication of an Al Jazeera/Gallup poll in July 2009. In that poll, Pakistanis identified the U.S. as a greater threat to Pakistan (59%) than either the Taliban (11%) or India (18%). In that same poll, an overwhelming 67% of respondents opposed U.S. operations on Pakistani soil. A Pew Research poll in August 2009 confirmed these findings, but added some interesting nuances. While no fewer than 69% of respondents expressed concern that extremist forces could seize control of the country, 64% continued to describe the U.S. as an "enemy" and only 9% described it as a "partner."<br />
<br />
At the same time, there were elements in the Pew poll results that muddied the waters. By a margin of 53% to 29%, respondents said it was important that U.S.-Pakistani relations improve, an odd statement about an "enemy." Even more confusing, 72% support continued U.S. financial and humanitarian aid, and 63% support the U.S. continuing to provide support to the military. In a beautiful illustration of the principle that question order matters in polling design, when the question about U.S. missile strikes against extremist leaders was asked after the series of questions about U.S. support and cooperation generally, support for such strikes soars to the 47% level.<br />
<br />
Many Americans find Pakistani anti-Americanism baffling. Americans see a nation whose military was built and is supported largely by American money, facing a threat from America's own enemies, whose government professes to be an American ally at every opportunity. Certainly the drone attacks cause resentment, but they have caused far fewer deaths than attacks by extremists or the Pakistani Army's campaigns against those forces. So how, from the American perspective, is anti-American sentiment to be explained?<br />
<br />
There are three narratives that help Americans explain Pakistani hostility: let's call them the "secret enemy" narrative, the "two-faced government" narrative, and the "quagmire" narrative. It is important to recognize that all three of these narratives have purchase because they appear against a background of general negative American attitudes toward Pakistan. In a 2007 Gallup poll, 64% of respondents had a negative view of Pakistan, a number that is generally consistent with results dating back to before 9/11.<br />
<br />
The Secret Enemy Narrative<br />
<br />
The first narrative is one that posits Pakistan as nothing less than a U.S. enemy, or, at a minimum, as an ally of U.S. enemies. The key claim here is that Al Qaeda and Taliban forces fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan have safe havens in Pakistan, where they are sheltered and supported by the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments. In addition, while there have always been a trickle of stories about cooperation between Pakistan's military and intelligence services and Taliban or Al Qaeda forces, lately that trickle has become a torrent. This week, French investigative magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere is going to publish a book in which he accuses Pakistani government and military officials of supporting Al Qaeda. David Rohde's account of his capture by Taliban forces cites U.S. officials statements' that Pakistani military and intelligence forces provide money, supplies, and strategic planning to Taliban groups, specifically including the group led by Mawlawi Haqqani. The Haqqani network is a special point of contention between the U.S. and Pakistan, as it is blamed for many of the attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. (For an extended report on the background of the Haqqani network and its relationship with the ISI, see this report by the Institute for the Study of War.)<br />
<br />
One also hears a great deal of this narrative from within the U.S. military. In October Col. David Haight, the U.S,. military commander of forces in Wardak, sent an e-mail to his forces encouraging them not to lose heart after months of lethal fighting. Among other things, the commander commented "We knew that the summer months would bring increased enemy activity. Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader headquartered at the Quetta Shura in Pakistan, transmitted that Wardak would be his main effort." The Pakistani Army's unwillingness to take action in Quetta was one of the key points at issue in Pakistani opposition to the current U.S. aid bill. Similarly, the announcement that the Pakistani Army had reached a truce deal with two Taliban commanders - Maulvi Nazir and Hafiz Gul Bahadur - as part of the South Waziristand operation was greeted by both Stars and Stripes and Yahoo News with the headline "Pakistan cuts deal with anti-American militants." (The link to that story in Stars and Stripes, interestingly, no longer functions. The title can be found with an internal search result here; Yahoo!'s publication of the original AP story can be found here.<br />
<br />
A variation on the "secret enemy" narrative is the "indifferent ally" narrative, in which Pakistan is willing to fight against Taliban and other extremist forces when it suits them, and to continue supporting those same groups when it doesn't. As Rep. Jane Harman is quoted as saying in today's New York Times, "They are focused on who they think are threats to them. Period." (This in a generally sympathetic treatment of Pakistan that emphasizes the need for the U.S. to demonstrate a long-term "commitment" in Afghanistan.) Those extremist groups who, according to this account, Pakistan's military and intelligence forces do not think of as a threat include groups that operate in Afghanistan and those that launch attacks against India. As I wrote earlier, there is some reason to believe that the Pakistani leadership has begun to rethink their relationships with these groups, but as of yet there has been no concrete action to suggest a change in what is at any rate a murky policy.<br />
<br />
The policy implications of the secret enemy narrative are sobering. If Pakistan is dominated by an anti-American population led by pro-Taliban forces (or some variation of that theme), then prospects for the future in not only Pakistan but also Afghanistan are dim, indeed. During the campaign, candidate Obama spoke of sending troops across the Pakistani border; if one accepts the "secret enemy" narrative, we need to hear more of that talk.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Two-Faced Government Narrative<br />
<br />
The second narrative is the "two-faced government" narrative. In this second story, the Pakistani governments stand accused of appealing to anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani people, who would (or might) otherwise recognize that their true interests are with the Americans. The drone attacks are Exhibit A, just as they are Exhibit A for anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. For months, Pakistani government officials complained that the drone attacks constitute violations of Pakistani sovereignty. But way back in February, U.S. officials (not to mention Google Maps images released by the London Times) confirmed the fact that the drones were being flown out of Shamsi air base, a fact reported in the Pakistani press.<br />
<br />
Yet Zardari and other government officials continue to criticize the Americans' actions. In this second narrative the Pakistani government and military leadership appear as opportunistic con artist. The argument is that the U.S. is being played for suckers in the War on Terror as it was once similarly played throughout the Cold War. The most recent piece of this story was the report by Associated Press that out of $8.6 billion in U.S. military aid given to Pakistan between 2002 and 2008 only $500 million actually went to pay for operations against the Taliban or in support of U.S., forces in Afghanistan, while the remaining $8.1 billion - a staggering 94% -- was diverted to purchase weapons systems for use against India and for domestic subsidies. This year, the U.S. has promised a 5-year $7.5 billion military aid package, with a proposal for an additional $7.5 billion for the period from 2015-2019. The new aid bill caused great controversy in that it required Pakistan to "continue to cooperate" on nuclear weapons, make "significant efforts" against terrorist groups "such as ceasing support"; and ensuring that Pakistani security forces are "not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan." From the American side, the explanation is simple: the Pakistani leadership will not accept any oversight of any kind on how it uses American money, which it has every intention of using for its own purposes that have little to do with American priorities. (This is all basic and public information, but for an extended essay treatment of this narrative, go here.)<br />
<br />
The approach that this understanding seems to recommend is tough love: force the Pakistani leadership to acknowledge its dependence on the U.S., make them spend U.S. dollars the way they were intended to be spent rather than being diverted toward military preparations for future conflict with India. In short, compel the Pakistani leadership to become democratic, transparent, and pro-American under threat of being cut off. Then the people, or at least a lot of them, will realize that their true interests lie with America, after all.<br />
<br />
<br />
The quagmire narrative<br />
<br />
The third narrative is the "quagmire" narrative. This account, popular on the American Left, holds that American presence in Pakistan - and Afghanistan, for that matter -- can only cause resentment and inspire further resentment. Like the Pakistani respondents to the Pew Research poll, Americans who take this view favor humanitarian aid and intelligence cooperation, but nothing more. This is not by any means a uniquely American view. Writing in Le Monde Diplomatique, Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, Nov. 2 2009 quotes Pakistani political analyst Asif Ezdi explaining that "the wellspring of Islamic militancy in Pakistan is to be found in the alienation of the mass of the population by a ruling elite that has used the state to protect and expand its own privileges, pushing the common man into deeper and deeper poverty and hopelessness."<br />
<br />
The quagmire narrative leads to an argument for disengagement. If the Pakistani leadership chooses not to take action against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces that operate in Afghanistan, terrorist groups that launch attacks against India, and groups that set off bombs inside Pakistan, that is their own business. Besides, goes the argument, it is only American and NATO presence in Afghanistan that provokes (some of) these attacks in the first place. If future attacks against the U.S. are launched by Al Qaeda forces within Pakistan, or if military conflict with India or a radical takeover of Pakistan become imminent threats, well, America can jump off that bridge when we come to it.<br />
<br />
<br />
And so, kemosabe?<br />
<br />
None of these narratives is quite persuasive, and none of the policy prescriptions I have mentioned are particularly attractive, yet both the narratives and the prescriptions have elements of truth sufficient to keep them going. Meanwhile, beyond the policy there is the politics. Obama and anyone else trying to persuade us to adopt a particular strategy has to be able to make make sense to Americans of the otherwise deeply confusing fact that an awful lot of Pakistanis seem to see the conflict in their country as America's war even as bombs go off in marketplaces in Peshawar.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-22153053530391195802009-11-17T00:36:00.002-05:002009-11-17T00:36:37.546-05:00United States, Pakistan: The Decade AheadForeign Policy In Focus <br />
www.fpif.org<br />
Zia Mian | November 3, 2009<br />
<br />
The United States has charted out its relationship with Pakistan for the next 10 years. The recently approved multi-billion-dollar U.S. economic and military aid packages for Pakistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit there, suggest that this Pakistan policy will be much like the one Washington followed for the last 50 years. For their part, Pakistanis are unlikely to change their views of the United States and may even become more hostile.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, Islamist militants have escalated their brutal war on the people and the state of Pakistan. The state, with U.S. encouragement and support, may respond with ever greater violence of its own. It is hard to know how much more Pakistan can bear.<br />
A Matter of Principle<br />
<br />
President Barack Obama recently signed the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (more prosaically the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill), a five-year, $7.5 billion aid package, with a promise of more to come. It includes language proposing a subsequent tranche of $7.5 billion of aid for 2015 to 2019. There is yet more money for Pakistan in the 2010 defense budget. The Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid comes on top of the more than $15 billion the United States has given Pakistan since 2001, of which more than $10 billion has been military aid.<br />
<br />
The new package includes a requirement for the secretary of state annually to certify on behalf of the president that, among other things, Pakistan is:<br />
<br />
* "[C]ontinuing to cooperate...in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials"<br />
* "[M]aking significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups...such as ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups," and <br />
* Ensuring that its "security forces...are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan."<br />
<br />
These conditions attracted howls of outrage from Pakistan's politicians and stern words from its military leaders. The United States immediately backtracked.<br />
<br />
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), after whom the bill is named, and respectively chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a Joint Explanatory Statement, explaining that the "legislation does not seek in any way to compromise Pakistan's sovereignty, impinge on Pakistan's national security interests, or micromanage any aspect of Pakistani military or civilian operations. There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid."<br />
<br />
To make sure that everyone understood that the United States would not impose any penalties on Pakistan if the certification conditions were violated, they emphasized that "this certification could be waived if the determination is made by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security that this was necessary to continue such assistance."<br />
Backwards into the Future<br />
<br />
The backtracking was to be expected. When it comes to Pakistan, there's a long history of the United States waiving both principles and legal obligation "in the interests of national security." Pakistan's government, and especially its army, learned early on to take advantage of this characteristic style of U.S. foreign policy.<br />
<br />
The United States has been giving economic and military aid to Pakistan for over 50 years. It started in 1954, as part of a U.S. effort to recruit Pakistan as a Cold War ally. Pakistan was located in a key region, close to both the Soviet Union and the Middle East. Pakistan's leaders invited and welcomed this alliance. It brought them American political, economic, and military assistance, all of which they hoped to use in their contest with India.<br />
<br />
The results were catastrophic. Pakistan's generals seized power and ruled for over a decade, with generous support from Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. In the United States' seemingly endless war to defend democracy, nary a word was said about what was actually happening to democracy in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
U.S. money helped create a much larger army than Pakistan could afford on its own, equipped it with new American weapons, and trained young Pakistani officers in the United States in modern warfare. Bolstered by their alliance, Pakistan's generals went to war with India in 1965. It went badly, and America didn't come to their aid. The only war that mattered to America was the one against the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The 1970s saw a superpower détente. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship languished, and U.S. aid to Pakistan dried up. The United States began to pressure Pakistan not to follow India in developing nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
But 1979 brought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, an intervention incited by the United States. The United States needed an ally bordering Afghanistan to help organize and fight its proxy war. Pakistan's generals were more than happy to oblige. The army had taken power again in 1977 and was under international pressure to restore civilian rule and to give up Pakistan's nascent nuclear weapons program.<br />
<br />
The demands to restore democracy and give up the bomb quieted down. Instead, money and weapons poured in. The Pakistan army bought new American fighter jets and other high-tech weapons that could serve in a war with India. It worked with the United States to raise, train, fund, and equip an international Islamist army to fight in Afghanistan. With American help, Pakistan's generals learned how to organize guerrilla fighters, how to provide a safe haven, and how to cover their tracks. The rest is history.<br />
<br />
There was, however, U.S. legislation banning all but food aid to Pakistan because of its nuclear weapons program. Throughout the 1980s, the U.S. president annually signed a waiver covering this legislation. Once the Soviets were gone, the waiver ended. By then, Pakistan had built the bomb and the A.Q. Khan network was illicitly buying and selling knowledge and technology for a nuclear weapons program. The United States imposed sanctions that lasted a decade.<br />
<br />
The army staged another takeover, with General Musharraf seizing power in 1999. Another layer of sanctions were imposed. The United States demanded a restoration of democracy as well as an end to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. <br />
The War This Time<br />
<br />
In the wake of September 11, again "in the interests of national security," the United States lifted all sanctions and aid poured into Pakistan for the third time. Democracy and nonproliferation were set aside.<br />
<br />
Kathy Gannon, a veteran reporter on Pakistan for the Associated Press, recently broke the news that out of a total of $8.6 billion in American military aid given to Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million was actually used by the Pakistani army to cover its costs in helping the U.S. war in Afghanistan and against the Taliban. Instead, the government used some of the money to buy advanced American weapons for the next war with India.<br />
<br />
General Mahmud Durrani, who was Pakistan's ambassador to the United States under Musharraf explained that "Pakistan insisted and America agreed...we have to strengthen our overall capacity...The money was used to buy and support capability against India." Money also "went to things like subsidies," which served to artificially boost Pakistan's economy and prop up public support for the Musharraf government.<br />
<br />
The Pakistan army's orientation is apparent to U.S. officials. It took U.S. pressure for the army to launch its attacks on the Taliban in Swat and now in South Waziristan. But as one administration official told The New York Times "the perception in the Pakistani military is that this is a surgical strike. They go and clear out Swat and Waziristan and then they can go back to fighting the Indians."<br />
<br />
Nuclear weapons, so long the center of U.S. concerns about Pakistan, are no longer an issue. This is despite Secretary of State Clinton telling the press corps on the airplane to Islamabad that "we always talk about proliferation with everybody that I meet with, and we will certainly raise it with Pakistan." In her press conference with Pakistan's foreign minister two days later, Clinton did not once mention the issue of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Under the Bush administration, the United States began helping pay to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons, materials, and facilities safe, no questions asked. This will likely continue.<br />
Governments and Peoples<br />
<br />
There are, however, more than just government officials and generals who decide what happens as part of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. The Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill claims that the "people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States share a long history of friendship and comity." There is little evidence of this mutual friendship to be seen in Pakistan.<br />
<br />
Pakistani public opinion continues to be deeply hostile toward the United States. The most recent Pew survey, carried out in summer 2009, reported that the "image of the United States is overwhelmingly negative in Pakistan."<br />
<br />
Barely 16% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the United States. This is an enduring opinion. Almost 70% in the poll saw the United States in an unfavorable light, about the same percentage as was the case in 2007, and even as long ago as 2002. The election of Obama has had little effect in Pakistan, unlike in many other countries. In fact, more Pakistanis claim to have a positive view of Osama bin Laden than of Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
But this is only half the story. The Pew poll found that over 60% of Pakistanis think the United States is an enemy of Pakistan. Similarly, an August 2009 Gallup Pakistan poll asked people "Who do you think is the greatest threat for Pakistan?" Given a choice between the Taliban, India, and the United States, almost 60% picked the United States, while less than 20% picked India and around 10% said the Taliban.<br />
<br />
In the United States, public opinion has turned against the war in Afghanistan, with almost 60% opposed to sending more troops — and half of these people want American troops brought home. The war is costly in lives, money, and honor. But almost 40% of Americans, and many in the military, want to send more soldiers. For them, victory is the only option, no matter how long it takes or at what cost. To balance these competing demands there are some, including President Obama and Vice-President Biden, who wish to fight this war from afar. They hope to reduce American casualties and the cost of war by increasing the use of special forces, drones, and air strikes.<br />
The Breaking Point<br />
<br />
A key source of public hostility in Pakistan toward the United States is the use of missile attacks from unmanned U.S. drones. An October 2009 assessment found 87 reported U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since such attacks started in 2004. The tempo is clearly increasing. There were only nine missile attacks between 2004 and 2007. There were 36 attacks in 2008. There were 42 attacks by the end of September 2009.<br />
<br />
It is estimated that there have been almost a thousand casualties from these attacks. Some of these casualties were certainly civilians rather than al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders and fighters. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston has questioned whether "these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law." He has, in particular, demanded that "the United States…reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons."<br />
<br />
The widespread public outrage in Pakistan against the U.S. missile attacks is not due to the number of casualties or the possible violations of international law. The Taliban, al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamist insurgent groups in Pakistan have killed many more people in their bomb attacks, while the Pakistan army has killed as many if not more in its campaign against these groups.<br />
<br />
In October, militants killed over 200 people and injured many hundreds more, including in the massive attack on a market in Peshawar, timed it seems to coincide with Hillary Clinton's arrival in Pakistan. The Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, which produces monthly estimates on political violence in the country, reported that in September 2009 alone militants killed over 190 people and injured over 550, while the Pakistan army's operations led to over 370 deaths. The previous six months had a much higher toll, with a total of over 6700 people killed (including those from drone attacks).<br />
<br />
This cruel arithmetic seems lost to many in Pakistan, who view this war through an aggrieved nationalism and embattled faith, and a learned hostility both towards their rulers and American policy in the world.<br />
<br />
Today, the United States is about as unpopular as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This is good news in that it shows a dramatic decline in public support and sympathy for al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistanis are finally realizing the terrible consequences of the violent ideology that drives these groups and underlies the brutal war that they have unleashed on the country. Some 80% of Pakistanis now fear Islamic extremism and almost 70% worry that radical Islamist groups might seize power.<br />
<br />
Pakistan's people are besieged. Even though they arebeset by the Islamists' war on society and state, surveys show that for ordinary Pakistanis the most important issues today are those of bread and butter, of inflation, poverty, and unemployment. They are ruled by an elite driven by self-interest rather than the public good and dominated by an army that is a power unto itself. A domineering, almost colonial structure of national government inflames struggles for provincial and minority rights that have spilled over into demands for secession. The economy caters to the greed of the westernized elite and the military rather than providing for basic needs. Above it all hovers America's seemingly endless search for national security above all else.<br />
<br />
Pakistan, wrote the late Eqbal Ahmad, suffers from five profound crises: the crises of legitimacy, state power, integration, economy, and external relations. To help Pakistan solve any of these problems, the United States needs to delink its assistance from its security policy. Economic assistance cannot be payment to fight America's war. It must be aid that supports democracy, good governance, decentralization, equitable economic growth, and regional peace above all else. There should be no question of waivers. Channelling American aid to Pakistan exclusively through the United Nations and independent international nongovernmental aid organizations would be one step in this direction.<br />
<br />
Zia Mian is a physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-17468848848760962732009-11-16T07:50:00.001-05:002009-11-16T07:52:42.492-05:00CIA says it gets its money's worth from Pakistani spy agency<h3>It has given hundreds of millions to the ISI, for operations as well as rewards for the capture or death of terrorist suspects. Despite fears of corruption, it is money well-spent, ex-officials say.</h3>By Greg Miller<br />
November 15, 2009<br />
Reporting from Washington<br />
<br />
The CIA has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Pakistan's intelligence service since the Sept. 11 attacks, accounting for as much as one-third of the foreign spy agency's annual budget, current and former U.S. officials say.<br />
<br />
The Inter-Services Intelligence agency also has collected tens of millions of dollars through a classified CIA program that pays for the capture or killing of wanted militants, a clandestine counterpart to the rewards publicly offered by the State Department, officials said.<br />
<br />
The payments have triggered intense debate within the U.S. government, officials said, because of long-standing suspicions that the ISI continues to help Taliban extremists who undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda members in Pakistan. <br />
<br />
But U.S. officials have continued the funding because the ISI's assistance is considered crucial: Almost every major terrorist plot this decade has originated in Pakistan's tribal belt, where ISI informant networks are a primary source of intelligence. <br />
<br />
The White House National Security Council has "this debate every year," said a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official involved in the discussions. Like others, the official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. Despite deep misgivings about the ISI, the official said, "there was no other game in town."<br />
<br />
The payments to Pakistan are authorized under a covert program initially approved by then-President Bush and continued under President Obama. The CIA declined to comment on the agency's financial ties to the ISI.<br />
<br />
U.S. officials often tout U.S.-Pakistani intelligence cooperation. But the extent of the financial underpinnings of that relationship have never been publicly disclosed. The CIA payments are a hidden stream in a much broader financial flow; the U.S. has given Pakistan more than $15 billion over the last eight years in military and civilian aid.<br />
<br />
Congress recently approved an extra $1 billion a year to help Pakistan stabilize its tribal belt at a time when Obama is considering whether to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
The ISI has used the covert CIA money for a variety of purposes, including the construction of a new headquarters in Islamabad, the capital. That project pleased CIA officials because it replaced a structure considered vulnerable to attack; it also eased fears that the U.S. money would end up in the private bank accounts of ISI officials.<br />
<br />
In fact, CIA officials were so worried that the money would be wasted that the agency's station chief at the time, Robert Grenier, went to the head of the ISI to extract a promise that it would be put to good use. <br />
<br />
"What we didn't want to happen was for this group of generals in power at the time to just start putting it in their pockets or building mansions in Dubai," said a former CIA operative who served in Islamabad.<br />
<br />
The scale of the payments shows the extent to which money has fueled an espionage alliance that has been credited with damaging Al Qaeda but also plagued by distrust.<br />
<br />
The complexity of the relationship is reflected in other ways. Officials said the CIA has routinely brought ISI operatives to a secret training facility in North Carolina, even as U.S. intelligence analysts try to assess whether segments of the ISI have worked against U.S. interests.<br />
<br />
A report distributed in late 2007 by the National Intelligence Council was characteristically conflicted on the question of the ISI's ties to the Afghan Taliban, a relationship that traces back to Pakistan's support for Islamic militants fighting to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
"Ultimately, the report said what all the other reports said -- that it was inconclusive," said a former senior U.S. national security official. "You definitely can find ISI officers doing things we don't like, but on the other hand you've got no smoking gun from command and control that links them to the activities of the insurgents."<br />
<br />
Given the size of overt military and civilian aid to Pakistan, CIA officials argue that their own disbursements -- particularly the bounties for suspected terrorists -- should be considered a bargain.<br />
<br />
"They gave us 600 to 700 people captured or dead," said one former senior CIA official who worked with the Pakistanis. "Getting these guys off the street was a good thing, and it was a big savings to [U.S.] taxpayers."<br />
<br />
A U.S. intelligence official said Pakistan had made "decisive contributions to counter-terrorism."<br />
<br />
"They have people dying almost every day," the official said. "Sure, their interests don't always match up with ours. But things would be one hell of a lot worse if the government there was hostile to us."<br />
<br />
The CIA also directs millions of dollars to other foreign spy services. But the magnitude of the payments to the ISI reflect Pakistan's central role. The CIA depends on Pakistan's cooperation to carry out missile strikes by Predator drones that have killed dozens of suspected extremists in Pakistani border areas. <br />
<br />
The ISI is a highly compartmentalized intelligence service, with divisions that sometimes seem at odds with one another. Units that work closely with the CIA are walled off from a highly secretive branch that has directed insurgencies in Afghanistan and Kashmir.<br />
<br />
"There really are two ISIs," the former CIA operative said. "On the counter-terrorism side, those guys were in lock-step with us," the former operative said. "And then there was the 'long-beard' side. Those are the ones who created the Taliban and are supporting groups like Haqqani."<br />
<br />
The network led by Jalaluddin Haqqani has been accused of carrying out a series of suicide attacks in Afghanistan, including the 2008 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. <br />
<br />
Pakistani leaders, offended by questions about their commitment, point to their capture of high-value targets, including accused Sept. 11 organizer Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. They also underscore the price their spy service has paid.<br />
<br />
Militants hit ISI's regional headquarters in Peshawar on Friday in an attack that killed at least 10 people. In May, a similar strike near an ISI facility in Lahore killed more than two dozen people. Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who served as ISI director before becoming army chief of staff, has told U.S. officials that dozens of ISI operatives have been killed in operations conducted at the behest of the United States.<br />
<br />
A onetime aide to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described a pointed exchange in which Kayani said his spies were no safer than CIA agents when trying to infiltrate notoriously hostile Pashtun tribes.<br />
<br />
"Madame Secretary, they call us all white men," Kayani said, according to the former aide.<br />
<br />
CIA payments to the ISI can be traced to the 1980s, when the Pakistani agency managed the flow of money and weapons to the Afghan mujahedin. That support slowed during the 1990s, after the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan, but increased after the Sept. 11 attacks.<br />
<br />
In addition to bankrolling the ISI's budget, the CIA created a clandestine reward program that paid bounties for suspected terrorists. The first check, for $10 million, was for the capture of Abu Zubaydah, a top Al Qaeda figure, the former official said. The ISI got $25 million more for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's capture.<br />
<br />
But the CIA's most-wanted list went beyond those widely known names.<br />
<br />
"There were a lot of people I had never heard of, and they were good for $1 million or more," said a former CIA official who served in Islamabad.<br />
<br />
Former CIA Director George J. Tenet acknowledged the bounties in a little-noticed section in his 2007 memoir. Sometimes, payments were made with a dramatic flair. <br />
<br />
"We would show up in someone's office, offer our thanks, and we would leave behind a briefcase full of $100 bills, sometimes totaling more than a million in a single transaction," Tenet wrote.<br />
<br />
The CIA's bounty program was conceived as a counterpart to the <a href="http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/">Rewards for Justice</a> program administered by the State Department. The rules of that program render officials of foreign governments ineligible, making it meaningless to intelligence services such as the ISI.<br />
<br />
The reward payments have slowed as the number of suspected Al Qaeda operatives captured or killed by the ISI has declined. Many militants fled from major cities where the ISI has a large presence to tribal regions patrolled by Predator drones.<br />
<br />
The CIA has set limits on how the money and rewards are used. In particular, officials said, the agency has refused to pay rewards to the ISI for information used in Predator strikes.<br />
<br />
U.S. officials were reluctant to give the ISI a financial incentive to nominate targets, and feared doing so would lead the Pakistanis to refrain from sharing other kinds of intelligence.<br />
<br />
"It's a fine line," said a former senior U.S. counter-terrorism official involved in policy decisions on Pakistan. "You don't want to create perverse incentives that corrode the relationship."<br />
<br />
<a href="mailto:greg.miller@latimes.com">greg.miller@latimes.com</a><br />
<br />
Times staff writer Alex Rodriguez in Islamabad contributed to this report.Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-75990367078675010382009-11-16T07:48:00.001-05:002009-11-16T07:54:49.006-05:00Pakistan Taliban taps Punjab heartland for recruits<h3>Pakistanis are increasingly concerned over the deadly collaboration between Punjabi militants from Sargodha and the Taliban.</h3><div>By Alex Rodriguez<br />
November 16, 2009<br />
Reporting from Sargodha, Pakistan<br />
<br />
One by one, recruits from Pakistan's Punjab heartland would make the seven-hour drive to Waziristan, where they would pull up to an office that made no secret of its mission.<br />
<br />
The signboard above the office door read "Tehrik-e-Taliban." In a largely ungoverned city like Miram Shah, there was no reason to hide its identity.<br />
<br />
The trainees from Sargodha would arrive, grab some sleep at the Taliban office and afterward head into Waziristan's rugged mountains for instruction in skills including karate and handling explosives and automatic rifles.<br />
<br />
"Someone recruits them, then someone else takes them to Miram Shah, and then someone in Miram Shah greets them and takes them in," said Sargodha Police Chief Usman Anwar, whose officers this summer arrested a cell of returning Punjabi militants before they could allegedly carry out a plan to blow up a cellphone tower in this city of 700,000. "It's an assembly line, like Ford Motors has."<br />
<br />
The arrests of six Punjabi militants in Sargodha in two raids Aug. 24 illustrated a burgeoning collaboration between Punjabi militants and northwestern Pakistan's Taliban that has Pakistanis increasingly concerned as the government focuses its military resources on Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in South Waziristan.<br />
<br />
Military commanders say their troops assumed control of most of South Waziristan just three weeks after launching a large-scale offensive aimed at uprooting the Pakistani Taliban near the Afghan border. Troops are now clashing with Taliban fighters in Makeen, the hometown of slain Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mahsud.<br />
<br />
However, evidence is growing that militants in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province, could prove just as dangerous as the Taliban militants from the country's northwestern region that includes South Waziristan and other parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA.<br />
<br />
Pakistan has been broadsided by a nationwide wave of terrorist strikes in recent weeks, and several of those attacks have involved militants from Punjab either masterminding or carrying out the violence.<br />
<br />
A daring Oct. 10 commando raid on the army's headquarters in Rawalpindi, a heavily guarded complex that is Pakistan's equivalent of the Pentagon, was engineered by a Punjabi militant who also organized the deadly ambush of the Sri Lankan cricket team in March.<br />
<br />
Punjabi extremists were also believed to be behind near-simultaneous attacks on three police buildings in Lahore that killed 14 people on Oct. 15.<br />
<br />
Years ago, the agendas of the Pakistani Taliban and Punjabi militant organizations such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Muhammad moved in different directions. Whereas the Taliban has long focused its attacks on Pakistan's Western-allied government, Punjabi groups, which, like the Taliban, are Sunni Muslims, have traditionally targeted Indian forces in the disputed Kashmir region and members of Pakistan's Shiite Muslim minority.<br />
<br />
Now, however, the missions of the Taliban and Punjabi militants seem to have merged. Law enforcement officials and analysts say the catalyst was the government's 2007 siege of the Red Mosque in Islamabad where Islamic extremists held scores of people hostage. The eight-day siege in the Pakistani capital ended in the deaths of more than 100 people.<br />
<br />
Then-President Pervez Musharraf ordered security forces to seize the mosque after militants at the sprawling compound set fire to the capital's Environment Ministry building. The siege had been preceded by months of challenges to Musharraf's leadership from the mosque's radical leaders, including an insistence that Pakistan adopt Islamic law.<br />
<br />
After the siege, Punjabi militant groups that had been tolerated -- and in some cases fostered -- by Pakistani authorities viewed the government as an enemy.<br />
<br />
Experts say Pakistan has neglected to adequately brace for the threat posed by Taliban-trained Punjabi militants. Their cells have spread throughout Punjab province, and law enforcement officials say Punjabi militants have established their own training camps in southern Punjab, a desolate wasteland where the police presence is minimal and a feudal society dominates.<br />
<br />
"At the moment, the government is bewildered. It doesn't know how to manage this challenge coming from Punjabi militants," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based security analyst.<br />
<br />
"In the past, Punjab militants were merely facilitating the Taliban. But now they have joined with the Taliban to engage in terrorist attacks."<br />
<br />
Southern Punjab provides militant groups a haven to train and reconnoiter. Like the Taliban's primary stronghold in Waziristan, vast tracts of southern Punjab are regarded as tribal areas where rule is laid down by local <i>sardars</i>, or feudal leaders. In some places, the only glint of law enforcement comes in the form of the poorly trained border military police, who take orders largely from feudal leaders, said Maj. Gen. Yaqub Khan of the Pakistan Rangers Punjab.<br />
<br />
In an interview on Pakistan's Express News television channel in mid-October, Khan said militants freely move between South Waziristan and the tribal area surrounding the southern Punjab city of Dera Ghazi Khan.<br />
<br />
Khan said the jurisdiction of his paramilitary force, which is under the control of the Interior Ministry, is limited to securing a gas pipeline.<br />
<br />
"There are no police in the region," he said. "We have confirmed reports that terrorists gather and get training in this region, and they have definite linkage with militants fighting in FATA."<br />
<br />
Pakistanis in Dera Ghazi Khan and surrounding villages fear that, as the government continues its crackdown on Taliban militants along the Afghan border, fleeing Taliban fighters may attempt to establish themselves in southern Punjab.<br />
<br />
"No one is serious about preventing the Talibanization of our area," said Khawaja Mudasar Mehmood, a Dera Ghazi Khan politician with the ruling Pakistan People's Party. "We face spillover from South Waziristan. Taliban militants are already passing into this area, and the border military police can't prevent it."<br />
<br />
In Sargodha, the link to the Taliban is Mohammed Tayyab, who heads the Punjabi Taliban cell in Miram Shah and had close ties with Mahsud, said Anwar, the Sargodha police chief. Tayyab has been accused of engineering the November 2007 suicide bombing attack on a Pakistani air force bus in Sargodha that killed eight people.<br />
<br />
After several raids, Tayyab and his militant group are keeping a lower profile in Miram Shah, but they still tap Sargodha for fresh recruits and train them in Waziristan, Anwar said. A primary conduit for recruitment was a <i>madrasa</i><i>, </i>or Islamic seminary school<i>,</i>run by the father of four brothers who were arrested by Sargodha police in August, accused of planning an attack on the cellphone tower.<br />
<br />
"Likely recruits at the <i>madrasas </i>are teens, 14 or 15, without strong links to family," Anwar said. "Poverty is a factor, but having no social links, no future, is the main cause."<br />
<br />
Law enforcement officials say the military offensive in South Waziristan has accelerated collaboration among Punjabi militants, the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda. Punjabi militants have been waging the attacks on behalf of their Taliban and Al Qaeda allies, government officials say, hoping to erode popular backing for military operations in Waziristan.<br />
<br />
The problem with battling militancy in Punjab is that the government cannot undertake a crackdown on the scale of the offensives against the Taliban in northwestern Pakistan's Swat Valley or in Waziristan, experts say. Punjab is too densely populated and many in the province still cling to the belief that Pakistan's next-door enemy, India, is behind much of the terrorism in Punjab.<br />
<br />
"People don't really recognize Punjabi militants as a threat, or they think these terrorist groups are agents of foreign countries," said Rizvi, the analyst. "So when you start arguing that the roots of the problem lie outside Pakistan, then you don't recognize the threat actually emerging here."<br />
<br />
<a href="mailto:alex.rodriguez@latimes.com">alex.rodriguez@latimes.com</a><br />
</div>Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-67623665375653937342009-11-15T17:28:00.001-05:002009-11-15T17:53:19.647-05:00Pakistan's ProblemsPakistan has three problems -- Fauji, Feudal and Faith. While a moderate amounts of each is fine, probably even beneficial, it becomes a problem if you get an extreme dose of it. Unfortunately, Pakistan got a large dose of all three Fs.<br />
<br />
<b>Pakistanis (irrespective of their standing in society) exult gossip, paranoia, superstition, and conspiracy theories more than science or history</b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="pluck-comment-body"> Pakistani people?s obsession with India is understandable because they don't understand what is going wrong with their country for the last 60 years or they don't have a say in their countries matters and feel helpless. <br />
They have seen how Indian has embraced western/British concept called democracy and molded to it own advantage i,e unity in diversity and secularism. <br />
The problem with Pakistan is that there no sound or unifying idea or basis behind its creation. Even if the country intended to be a strictly theocratic state and a leader popular and strong enough to impose that ideal, Pakistan would have been better off than it is now. Jinnah had no realistic vision, he was a dying man who just wanted to go out in style. You create a nation on the basis of religious division and then want it to be secular? That's insanity, and so since inception, crooks have filled the void of a unifying raison d'etre. The country's only hope is to implode and have something better re-built from its ashes. Don't count on the masses of Pakistanis waking up out of their slumber otherwise.<br />
<br />
<br />
Says an Indian: "As long as the ISI officers and the Pakistani Army is getting whacked, this Indian is happy! Let the Pakistanis win it albeit with lots of losses to their Army so that they cannot continue their undeclared war against India for the last 30 years! Martyrs hardly, when the ordinary citizens of Pakistan contribute voluntarily to terrorist organizations such as LeT, JeM. Let them understand the deadly consequences of supporting terrorists! Then perhaps the Pakistani society will shed its delusional conspiracy theory, just as the 1971 defeat at the hands of India removed an earlier delusion of 10 Indian soldiers being equivalent to 1 Pakistani soldier."<br />
<br />
<i>Blame for the recent spate of bombings is being laid at the door of foreign powers by many ordinary Pakistanis. Why?</i> <br />
Ask the perpetrators of a victim culture obsessed with the West and Israel, whilst indifferent to the genocide in Darfur, the manifest injustices of the Saudi regime or indeed any patch of land unfortunate enough to find itself under the juristiction of Sharia.<br />
<br />
<div class="pluck-comment-body"> "The images of fellow Pakistani men, women and children being martyred on our television screens " <br />
Once upon a time, words had a meaning, and methinks that "being martyred" had something to do with being killed for one's beliefs, or indeed, choosing death rather than giving up or compromising one's beliefs. <br />
Frankly, I think it would help also with the conspiracy theories you bemoan here if you could bring yourself to call a spade a spade: Pakistani men, women and children are murdered in cold blood by brutal fanatics from their own land who couldn't care less how many they kill and maim in pursuit of their goals.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-75010802202453001642009-11-14T08:27:00.000-05:002009-11-14T08:27:02.175-05:00INTERVIEW-French magistrate details Lashkar's global roleBy <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=myra.macdonald&">Myra MacDonald</a><br />
<br />
PARIS, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Pakistan's army once ran training camps for the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group with the apparent knowledge of the CIA, an example of complicity that raises questions about the current state of the nuclear-armed nation.<br />
<br />
So says former French investigating magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere, author of a new book that provides rare insight both into alleged past army support for the Lashkar-e-Taiba and to the group's connections to a global network linked to al Qaeda.<br />
<br />
The question of Pakistani military support for Islamist militants is crucial for the United States as it tries to work out how to stabilise the country and neighbouring Afghanistan.<br />
<br />
Bruguiere bases the information in his book on international terrorism, "Ce que je n'ai pas pu dire" ("What I could not say") on testimony given by jailed Frenchman Willy Brigitte, who spent 2-1/2 months in a Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp in 2001/2002.<br />
<br />
In an interview, Bruguiere said he was convinced Lashkar-e-Taiba, first set up to fight India in its part of the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir, had become part of an international network tied to al Qaeda.<br />
<br />
"Lashkar-e-Taiba is no longer a Pakistani movement with only a Kashmir political or military agenda. Lashkar-e-Taiba is a member of al Qaeda. Lashkar-e-Taiba has decided to expand violence worldwide," he told Reuters.<br />
<br />
He was "very, very anxious about the situation" in Pakistan, where militants are staging a series of bloody urban attacks to avenge a government offensive against their strongholds. <br />
<br />
"The problem right now is to know if the Pakistanis have sufficient power to control the situation," he said. <br />
<br />
The problem was also "to know if all the members of the military forces and the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence agency) are playing the same game. I am not sure," he added.<br />
<br />
Pakistan has long been accused of giving covert support to Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was blamed for last year's attack on Mumbai in which 166 people were killed. It denies the allegation and has banned the organisation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
NEW FORM OF TERRORISM<br />
<br />
Bruguiere said he became aware of the changing nature of international terrorism while investigating attacks in Paris in the mid-1990s by the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA).<br />
<br />
These included an attempt to hijack a plane from Algiers to Paris in 1994 and crash it into the Eiffel Tower -- a forerunner of the Sept. 11 2001 attacks. The plane was diverted to Marseilles and stormed by French security forces.<br />
<br />
This new style of international terrorism was quite unlike militant groups he had investigated in the past, with their pyramidal structures and political objectives.<br />
<br />
"After 1994/1995, like viruses, all the groups have been spreading on a very large scale all over the world, in a horizontal way and even a random way," he said.<br />
<br />
An early encounter with Lashkar-e-Taiba came while he was investigating shoe-bomber Richard Reid, who tried to set off explosives on a transatlantic flight from Paris in 2001.<br />
<br />
This investigation led to a man, who Bruguiere said was the Lashkar-e-Taiba's representative in Paris, and who was suspected of helping Reid -- an accusation he denied. Bruguiere said the link to Reid was not proved in court.<br />
<br />
Brigitte, a Frenchman originally from France's Caribbean department of Guadeloupe, had gone to Pakistan shortly after Sept. 11 to try to reach Afghanistan. Unable to make it, he had been sent to a Lashkar centre outside Lahore. A man named Sajid Mir became his handler.<br />
<br />
"He quickly understood that Sajid belonged to the regular Pakistan army," wrote Bruguiere.<br />
<br />
After 1-1/2 months, he was taken with four other trainees, two British and two Americans, to a Lashkar camp in the hills in Punjab province. The Toyota pick-up which took them there passed through four army check-points without being stopped.<br />
<br />
During his 2-1/2 month stay at the camp, Bruguiere says, Brigitte realised the instructors were soldiers on detachment. Military supplies were dropped by army helicopters.<br />
<br />
Brigitte said he and other foreigners were forced four times to leave the camp and move further up into the hills to avoid being caught by CIA officers.<br />
<br />
They were believed to be checking if Pakistan had kept to a deal under which the Americans turned a blind eye to Lashkar camps in Punjab provided no foreigners were trained there.<br />
<br />
In return, Bruguiere said, Pakistan under then president Pervez Musharraf helped track down leaders of al Qaeda.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"DOUBLE STANDARDS"<br />
<br />
Western countries were at the time accused by India of double standards in tolerating Pakistani support for Kashmir-focused organisations while pushing it to crack down on militant groups which threatened Western interests.<br />
<br />
Diplomats say that attitude has since changed, particularly after bombings in London in 2005 highlighted the risks of "home-grown terrorism" in Britain linked to militant groups based in Pakistan's Punjab province.<br />
<br />
After leaving the camp accompanied by Sajid, Brigitte was sent back to France.<br />
<br />
Sajid then ordered him to fly to Australia where he joined a cell later accused of plotting attacks there. Tipped off by French police, Brigitte was deported from Australia in 2003 and convicted by a French court of links to terrorism.<br />
<br />
Bruguiere said he had personally questioned Brigitte in the presence of his lawyer to check his testimony. Information provided by Brigitte was also cross-checked by French police based on mobile phone and e-mail traffic.<br />
<br />
Bruguiere went to Pakistan himself in 2006 as part of his investigations into the deaths of 11 Frenchmen in a bombing outside a hotel in Karachi in 2002.<br />
<br />
He stepped down as France's best-known counter-terrorism expert in 2007 and now represents the EU on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program in Washington. (Editing by Bill Maclean and <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=david.stamp&">David Stamp</a>)Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-87742614433631694322009-11-13T07:55:00.000-05:002009-11-13T07:55:31.105-05:00A nuclear power's act of proliferationAccounts by controversial scientist assert China gave Pakistan enough enriched uranium in '82 to make 2 bombs<br />
<br />
<span> By R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick<br />
Washington Post Staff Writer<br />
Friday, November 13, 2009 <br />
</span> <br />
<br />
In 1982, a Pakistani military C-130 left the western Chinese city of Urumqi with a highly unusual cargo: enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs, according to accounts written by the father of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/pakistan.html?nav=el" target="">Pakistan's</a> nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and provided to The Washington Post. <br />
The uranium transfer in five stainless-steel boxes was part of a broad-ranging, secret nuclear deal approved years earlier by Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that culminated in an exceptional, deliberate act of proliferation by a nuclear power, according to the accounts by Khan, who is under house arrest in Pakistan. <br />
U.S. officials say they have known about the transfer for decades and once privately confronted the Chinese -- who denied it -- but have never raised the issue in public or sought to impose direct sanctions on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/china.html?nav=el" target="">China</a> for it. President Obama, who said in April that "the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons," plans to discuss nuclear proliferation issues while visiting Beijing on Tuesday. <br />
According to Khan, the uranium cargo came with a blueprint for a simple weapon that China had already tested, supplying a virtual do-it-yourself kit that significantly speeded Pakistan's bomb effort. The transfer also started a chain of proliferation: U.S. officials worry that Khan later shared related Chinese design information with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el" target="">Iran</a>; in 2003, Libya confirmed obtaining it from Khan's clandestine network. <br />
China's refusal to acknowledge the transfer and the unwillingness of the United States to confront the Chinese publicly demonstrate how difficult it is to counter nuclear proliferation. Although U.S. officials say China is now much more attuned to proliferation dangers, it has demonstrated less enthusiasm than the United States for imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear efforts, a position Obama wants to discuss. <br />
Although Chinese officials have for a quarter-century denied helping any nation attain a nuclear capability, current and former U.S. officials say Khan's accounts confirm the U.S. intelligence community's long-held conclusion that China provided such assistance. <br />
"Upon my personal request, the Chinese Minister . . . had gifted us 50 kg [kilograms] of weapon-grade enriched uranium, enough for two weapons," Khan wrote in a previously undisclosed 11-page narrative of the Pakistani bomb program that he prepared after his January 2004 detention for unauthorized nuclear commerce. <br />
"The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us kg50 enriched uranium," he said in a separate account sent to his wife several months earlier. <br />
China's Foreign Ministry last week declined to address Khan's specific assertions, but it said that as a member of the global Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1992, "China strictly adheres to the international duty of prevention of proliferation it shoulders and strongly opposes . . . proliferation of nuclear weapons in any forms." <br />
Asked why the U.S. government has never publicly confronted China over the uranium transfer, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said, "The United States has worked diligently and made progress with China over the past 25 years. As to what was or wasn't done during the Reagan administration, I can't say." <br />
Khan's exploits have been described in multiple books and public reports since British and U.S. intelligence services unmasked the deeds in 2003. But his own narratives -- not yet seen by U.S. officials -- provide fresh details about China's aid to Pakistan and its reciprocal export to China of sensitive uranium-enrichment technology. <br />
A spokesman for the Pakistani Embassy in Washington declined to comment for this article. Pakistan has never allowed the U.S. government to question Khan or other top Pakistani officials directly, prompting Congress to demand in legislation approved in September that future aid be withheld until Obama certifies that Pakistan has provided "relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals" involved in past nuclear commerce. <br />
<b>Insider vs. government</b><br />
The Post obtained Khan's detailed accounts from Simon Henderson, a former journalist at the Financial Times who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has maintained correspondence with Khan. In a first-person account about his contacts with Khan in the Sept. 20 edition of the London Sunday Times, Henderson disclosed several excerpts from one of the documents. <br />
Henderson said he agreed to The Post's request for a copy of that letter and other documents and narratives written by Khan because he believes an accurate understanding of Pakistan's nuclear history is relevant for U.S. policymaking. The Post independently confirmed the authenticity of the material; it also corroborated much of the content through interviews in Pakistan and other countries. <br />
Although Khan disputes various assertions by book authors, the narratives are particularly at odds with Pakistan's official statements that he exported nuclear secrets as a rogue agent and implicated only former government officials who are no longer living. Instead, he repeatedly states that top politicians and military officers were immersed in the country's foreign nuclear dealings. <br />
Khan has complained to friends that his movements and contacts are being unjustly controlled by the government, whose bidding he did -- providing a potential motive for his disclosures. <br />
Overall, the narratives portray his deeds as a form of sustained, high-tech international horse-trading, in which Khan and a series of top generals successfully leveraged his access to Europe's best centrifuge technology in the 1980s to obtain financial assistance or technical advice from foreign governments that wanted to advance their own efforts. <br />
"The speed of our work and our achievements surprised our worst enemies and adversaries and the West stood helplessly by to see a Third World nation, unable even to produce bicycle chains or sewing needles, mastering the most advanced nuclear technology in the shortest possible span of time," Khan boasts in the 11-page narrative he wrote for Pakistani intelligence officials about his dealings with foreigners while head of a key nuclear research laboratory. <br />
<b>Exchanges with Beijing</b><br />
According to one of the documents, a five-page summary by Khan of his government's dealmaking with China, the terms of the nuclear exchange were set in a mid-1976 conversation between Mao and Bhutto. Two years earlier, neighboring <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/india.html?nav=el" target="">India</a> had tested its first nuclear bomb, provoking Khan -- a metallurgist working at a Dutch centrifuge manufacturer -- to offer his services to Bhutto. <br />
Khan said he and two other Pakistani officials -- including then-Foreign Secretary Agha Shahi, since deceased -- worked out the details when they traveled to Beijing later that year for Mao's funeral. Over several days, Khan said, he briefed three top Chinese nuclear weapons officials -- Liu Wei, Li Jue and Jiang Shengjie -- on how the European-designed centrifuges could swiftly aid China's lagging uranium-enrichment program. China's Foreign Ministry did not respond to questions about the officials' roles. <br />
"Chinese experts started coming regularly to learn the whole technology" from Pakistan, Khan states, staying in a guesthouse built for them at his centrifuge research center. Pakistani experts were dispatched to Hanzhong in central China, where they helped "put up a centrifuge plant," Khan said in an account he gave to his wife after coming under government pressure. "We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow meters, pressure gauges," he wrote. "Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time." <br />
In return, China sent Pakistan 15 tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a feedstock for Pakistan's centrifuges that Khan's colleagues were having difficulty producing on their own. Khan said the gas enabled the laboratory to begin producing bomb-grade uranium in 1982. Chinese scientists helped the Pakistanis solve other nuclear weapons challenges, but as their competence rose, so did the fear of top Pakistani officials that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html?nav=el" target="">Israel</a> or India might preemptively strike key nuclear sites. <br />
Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, the nation's military ruler, "was worried," Khan said, and so he and a Pakistani general who helped oversee the nation's nuclear laboratories were dispatched to Beijing with a request in mid-1982 to borrow enough bomb-grade uranium for a few weapons. <br />
After winning Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's approval, Khan, the general and two others flew aboard a Pakistani C-130 to Urumqi. Khan says they enjoyed barbecued lamb while waiting for the Chinese military to pack the small uranium bricks into lead-lined boxes, 10 single-kilogram ingots to a box, for the flight to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital. <br />
According to Khan's account, however, Pakistan's nuclear scientists kept the Chinese material in storage until 1985, by which time the Pakistanis had made a few bombs with their own uranium. Khan said he got Zia's approval to ask the Chinese whether they wanted their high-enriched uranium back. After a few days, they responded "that the HEU loaned earlier was now to be considered as a gift . . . in gratitude" for Pakistani help, Khan said. <br />
He said the laboratory promptly fabricated hemispheres for two weapons and added them to Pakistan's arsenal. Khan's view was that none of this violated the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, because neither nation had signed it at the time and neither had sought to use its capability "against any country in particular." He also wrote that subsequent international protests reeked of hypocrisy because of foreign assistance to nuclear weapons programs in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/greatbritain.html?nav=el" target="">Britain</a>, Israel and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/southafrica.html?nav=el" target="">South Africa</a>. <br />
<b>U.S. unaware of progress</b><br />
The United States was suspicious of Pakistani-Chinese collaboration through this period. Officials knew that China treasured its relationship with Pakistan because both worried about India; they also knew that China viewed Western nuclear policies as discriminatory and that some Chinese politicians had favored the spread of nuclear arms as a path to stability. <br />
But U.S. officials were ignorant about key elements of the cooperation as it unfolded, according to current and former officials and classified documents. <br />
China is "not in favor of a Pakistani nuclear explosive program, and I don't think they are doing anything to help it," a top State Department official reported in a secret briefing in 1979, three years after the Bhutto-Mao deal was struck. A secret State Department report in 1983 said Washington was aware that Pakistan had requested China's help, but "we do not know what the present status of the cooperation is," according to a declassified copy. <br />
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang promised at a White House dinner in January 1984: "We do not engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons." A nearly identical statement was made by China in a major summary of its nonproliferation policies in 2003 and on many occasions in between. <br />
Fred McGoldrick, a senior State Department nonproliferation official in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, recalls that the United States learned in the 1980s about the Chinese bomb-design and uranium transfers. "We did confront them, and they denied it," he said. Since then, the connection has been confirmed by particles on nuclear-related materials from Pakistan, many of which have characteristic Chinese bomb program "signatures," other officials say. <br />
Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that except for the instance described by Khan, "we are not aware of cases where a nuclear weapon state has transferred HEU to a non-nuclear country for military use." McGoldrick also said he is aware of "nothing like it" in the history of nuclear weapons proliferation. But he said nothing has ever been said publicly because "this is diplomacy; you don't do that sort of thing . . . if you want them to change their behavior." <br />
<i>Warrick reported from Islamabad. Staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington and Beijing bureau assistant Wang Juan contributed to this report.</i>Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5926757780113850355.post-29878999609581035412009-11-11T08:47:00.000-05:002009-11-11T08:47:08.083-05:00Powder Keg Chronicles: The real trouble, Pakistan<div id="photo"><img src="http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/photo/resize/2009-11-08-pakistan-powder-keg/618/408" /></div><div id="blurb">For the current “great game” in Southern Asia, Pakistan is central to the region’s future stability. Created in 1947, out of predominantly Muslim areas of the old Indian Raj, it has never fully achieved a stable political system.<br />
</div><div id="body">Its society is fractured between a variety of ethnic groups that transcend its various borders; its political system alternates between repressive military rule, unstable democratic intervals and periods such as now that have an awkward balancing act between civilians and the military. In the past several decades, two of its presidents have been assassinated. Furthermore, while the country was formally established as a state for the Muslims of South Asia, Pakistan has yet to evolve a stable social agreement on the role of Islam in Pakistani politics. Moreover, Islamic fundamentalists have continued to operate out of Pakistan to carry out terror attacks in Pakistan’s major neighbour, India, most recently in the coordinated assaults in Mumbai.<br />
Beyond all these concerns, however, it must not be forgotten that Pakistan is a nuclear power. Pakistan has a population six times larger than Afghanistan’s, it borders on Iran, India and China, and it has a clutch of nuclear warheads. Its neighbours and allies alike may worry that its missiles, nuclear warheads - and the technology and knowledge to create more of them - are not or might not be under full security and control. Should things begin to spin out of control, they could be dispersed surreptitiously to others.<br />
Except for some technological improvements, contemporary descriptions of the ongoing military campaign in Pakistan’s northwest frontier regions might just as well have come from Winston Churchill’s memoir of his time with the Malakand Field Force on their mountain manoeuvres in the same region. The military forces roll forward, artillery fires into the hills and soldiers set up check points to inspect the baggage of long lines of civilians or refugees from the fighting. Then, too, there are those inevitable communiqués pointing to the military’s successes in capturing insurgents, strategic villages and towns - or in pushing the warrior tribes back into the distant hills.<br />
These days, most of al-Qaeda’s leadership is ensconced in Pakistan’s mountainous northwest frontier, not in Afghanistan. In recent months, US Vice President Joe Biden has quietly become the major proponent within the Obama administration to recalibrate America’s primary attention in the region on Pakistan, rather than, as has been the case for the past eight years, on Afghanistan. In strategic terms, it may be a no-brainer.<br />
From their side, once again, Pakistan’s army is moving northward to carry out its earlier promise – this time with more finality than in several previous campaigns – to deal with the insurgents in this mountainous region. This time, however, their effort comes just as there has been a shattering wave of coordinated attacks, not only against top Pakistani security installations, markets and schools scattered all over the northern half of the country and in Lahore, as well as at army headquarters in Rawalpindi and the capital, Islamabad, itself.<br />
<img alt="" src="http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/photo/resize/2009-11-11-pak-military/600/425" /><br />
<em>Photo: A policeman points a gun at an unruly crowd, comprising of people uprooted by the military offensive in South Waziristan, as they gather at a distribution point for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Dera Ismail Khan, located in Pakistan's restive North West Frontier Province, November 6, 2009. Pakistani soldiers have entered an important militant bastion in South Waziristan, security officials said on Friday, as gunmen wounded an army brigadier and his driver in a drive-by shooting in the capital. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro</em><br />
To many analysts, these attacks may indicate al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups (some once actually nurtured by the Pakistani government) are coming together in a loose alliance with the goal of bringing the Pakistani state to its knees. For example, an umbrella group for the Pakistani Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban, ultimately claimed responsibility for the recent attacks in Lahore. But the style of the attacks may also be revealing growing ties between the Taliban and al-Qaeda – as well as what are known as “jihadi” groups operating out of southern Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, analysts said.<br />
For years, the Pakistani government turned a blind eye to some of these Punjabi groups, including Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi operating in India. Part of the problem seems to be that many Pakistani citizens consider these groups to be allies in just causes such as fighting India, the US and Shiite Muslims. But, concurrently, they have become entwined with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and in the process they seem to have turned back on the state that permitted them to exist in the first place.<br />
These new attacks also highlight the expanding challenges for the Obama administration as it tries to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government, as well as encourage the military to press its campaign against the Taliban. In October, Obama signed the legislation that provided aid to Pakistan to the tune of some $7.5 billion over five years. The offer of the aid package prompted friction between Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership over the conditions for the aid —greater civilian oversight of the military and halting support for militant groups in India — which some army officers and politicians considered infringements on Pakistan’s sovereignty. The White House noted the shared interests of the countries in its statement on the aid signing, but there was no signing ceremony - an apparent response to a distinct lack of appreciation for all that money.<br />
The wave of attacks inside Pakistan may now be adding more pressure on the Pakistani government to really crack down on the militants. Says Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of North-West Frontier Province, “The national narrative in support of jihad has confused the Pakistani mind. All along we’ve been saying these people are trying to fight a war of Islam, but there is a need to transform the national narrative.”<br />
The recent attacks also drove home the point that the government can no longer hide the alliance between the Taliban in South Waziristan and the forces in Southern Punjab, said Zaffar Abbas, a prominent journalist at the English-language newspaper, Dawn. And, according to Farrukh Saleem, executive director for the Centre for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad, too many Pakistanis do not see the “jihadi” groups as the enemy. Says Saleem, “They feel America is in the region, the Pakistani Army is fighting for an American army and the ‘jihadis’ have a right to retaliate.”<br />
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when Pakistan joined the US in the campaign against terrorism, then-president Pervez Musharraf’s government formally banned those “jihadi” groups. But the groups have entrenched domestic and political constituencies, as well as shadowy ties to former military officials and their families, analysts said. Punjab is the major recruiting centre for the Pakistani Army and it hosts more army divisions than any other province. But the insurgent groups as well “proliferate and operate with impunity, literally under the nose of Pakistan’s army,” said Georgetown University’s Christine Fair.<br />
The current offensive, by itself, however, is unlikely to be a deathblow to the entrenched militants, who have networks across the country, including with groups once nurtured by the state as proxies in efforts against India. The militants under attack now could escape to other parts of Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal belt or cities in its heartland.<br />
Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Pakistani army's three attempts to dislodge Taliban fighters from South Waziristan have ended in truces that left the Taliban largely in control of that region. This time, the military has said there will be no deals, although there have apparently been some, to avoid jeopardising gains won earlier this year when Pakistani soldiers overpowered the Taliban in Swat.<br />
One can only imagine what might happen if the Pakistani government or military command and control truly came under siege and state collapse loomed. Or if some portions of its nuclear technology and weaponry were seen to be in danger of coming under the control of religious insurgents. India, the self-proclaimed hegemonic power on the subcontinent, would assuredly be thinking about pre-emptive action. Should that happen, how would China respond, or the many Muslim fundamentalist irregular groups, for that matter?<br />
More than a century ago, Otto von Bismarck, contemplating the European security order he had largely created after the unification of Germany, mused that “some damn thing in the Balkans” had the power to upset his carefully contrived balance of power. For Americans – and for Indians - it may not be Afghanistan that is the most difficult question to contemplate. As Biden has been advocating within Obama administration councils, it is Pakistan’s future that is the one to watch most closely. And it doesn’t look good at all.<br />
<strong>By Brooks Spector</strong><br />
<em>Main Photo: Firefighters extinguish a fire as rescue workers and residents watch in the aftermath of a bomb explosion in Peshawar, located in Pakistan's restive North West Frontier Province, October 28, 2009. A car bomb ripped through a crowded market killing 90 people in Pakistan's city of Peshawar on Wednesday, just hours after Washington's top diplomat arrived pledging a fresh start in sometimes strained relations. REUTERS/K.Parvez</em><br />
</div><div id="dateline">Wednesday 11 November, 2009</div>Contrarianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927595028483296780noreply@blogger.com0