Do I Hate Husain Haqqani?

A US-based Pakistani Aqil Nadeem is sympathetic to Husain Haqqani, the disgraced former ambassador of Pakistan to United States.  So he asked me a couple of questions on Facebook. My answers were brief and I'm sharing them here.

I am doing this because this is a subject I've written a lot about, professionally, since there's nothing personal at play.

Mr. Nadeem accused me of hating Mr. Haqqani. And then he accused the judicial commission probing Haqqani's role in writing a treasonous anti-Pakistan memo to US military of leaking the conclusions of forensic experts who believe Haqqani is guilty as charged.

I have no hatred or grudge against Mr. Husain Haqqani. Never met him or crossed path with him and so I have no personal agenda or feelings for him.  However, I do have very clear feelings and ideas on the need to curb the growing trend of Pakistanis being recruited to work for foreign governments. This has happened after 2002 with US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the subsequent destabilization of the region.  The United States and Israel have treated treason harshly and we should be no different. Those who do harm to this nation and people must be pursued and tried.

The alleged acts committed by Haqqani are very serious. See this following link if you want to get a clear idea about what Haqqani did wrong in this particular case: http://j.mp/wpCNso . I also have a very clear idea on what will happen to Pakistan if we don't get tough on treason, especially when we have seen massive covert operations and recruitment by CIA inside Pakistan, activities that have little to do with the war on terror and everything to do with other strategic American goals regarding Pakistan. See this link to understand this point better: http://bit.ly/yZlyoT .

On the second point.  Mr. Nadeem is partially right.  It is unusual that the Memo Commission is yet to make its conclusions public but a report quoting unnamed sources is already out claiming the commission's judicial experts are sure Haqqani is guilty of treason.

This leak is not unusual. But I am not sure there is deliberate leaking of information by Memo Commission.

If you live in Pakistan, you'd know there are hardly any secrets here. When GHQ and ISI requested closed-door meetings to brief the parliament last year, a lot of the info leaked out to TV and papers by evening and next day. When the forensic testing was taking place in London in Haqqani's case, there were diplomats and employees of the Pakistan High Commission in the building, their assistants, local Pakistani journalists, members of the commission, their support staffers, the forensic experts and their assisting teams. Anyone could have leaked the info.  It is incorrect to accuse the Memo Commission itself of doing this.

If the commission was leaking, it should have happened before too but didn't.

Then there are the diplomats in London. Haqqani doesn't have any allies or friends in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They hate him en masse over there. So anyone could have leaked this info about Haqqani's culpability in writing the anti-Pakistan memo. 

Pakistan's Wrong Debate On US Ties

Today, The News International published an opinion I wrote on resetting Pakistan-US ties, appropriately titled, Re-Engaging US.

My argument on this debate is simple. The recommendations that the Parliamentary Committee on National Security proposed are good but not enough.

We are having the wrong debate.

We are discussing reopening the US and NATO supply road. We are talking about containers, trucks, drones and money.

The real issue is that the United States has taken over Pakistani presidency. It struck a deal in 2006 and 2007 that decided who will be the next Pakistani president. Washington is pumping money into Pakistani media. It refuses to blacklist BLA as a terror group and is shielding BLA and TTP terrorists in Switzerland and Afghanistan, respectively. Washington owes Pakistan close to a billion dollars for using our bases and facilities for the Afghan war. It has been using that money to blackmail us. It wants to bring India into Afghanistan, has granted India access to civil nuclear technology and continues to blackmail our nuclear program in Geneva.

Considering all of this, the least we can do is to be honest. All of the above has to be part of the agenda of resetting Pak-US ties. Simply talking about restoring the supply road is ridiculous.

And what about the aerial corridor? Are we going to tax the goods flying through our airspace to Afghanistan? How come there's no mention of this in the parliamentary recommendations?

Someone also needs to ask the Zardari government why he quietly decided to reopen the aerial corridor for Americans on 'humanitarian grounds'? And is it possible for his compassion to extend to the seven Pakistani widows and the sixteen Pakistani orphans left behind by the deliberate American attack on 26/11?

US Can Replace Supply Routes But Not Pakistan's Role

Pakistan has sincerely cooperated with the US-led coalition in establishing peace and a working government in Kabul after 2001.

A working government in Kabul and a semblance of peace in Afghanistan is possible today thanks to Pakistan's diplomatic and logistical role in late 2001 and early 2002.

In return, US turned Pakistan into a punching bag. But this will not continue. The US can replace supply routes but not Pakistan's key role and US officials, in government, military and intelligence, will have to learn to respect Pakistani interests if they hope to convince Pakistan to resume at least some cooperation. 

Should Pakistan Accuse Pentagon And CIA Of Murdering Rabbani?

Should Pakistan Accuse Pentagon And CIA Of Murdering Rabbani?

Ironically, the assassination removed a friend of Pakistan and served the interests of Pentagon, CIA and their Afghan allies. While avoiding confrontation, Pakistan needs to speak up and not let disinformation dominate the air waves. Here are key points that weaken American propaganda.

AHMED QURAISHI | Monday | 26 September 2011
PakNationalists.com

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—There is a reason why the United States has ignored the cold-blooded murder of ex-Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and focused all its energies instead on the attacks on US embassy and NATO offices in Kabul.

The assassination neatly fits in with the interests of three parties: US military, CIA and their Afghan warlord allies. It might well be the first planned murder of a senior Afghan government official opposed to US meddling in Afghan reconciliation.

This is the work of the same American lobbies opposed to President Barrack Obama’s Afghan pullout plan and his defense budget cuts.

There is no credible confirmation yet on who exactly eliminated the man who served as President Karzai’s key manager of reconciliation with Afghan Taliban and someone who recently converted into a friend of Pakistan.

After the assassination, the United States military and intelligence tried to create a wedge between Kabul and Islamabad by invoking an alleged Pakistani hand. But this was effectively countered by Pakistani officials, who have become accustomed to American games. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s quick dash to Kabul to offer condolences and support and later army chief’s cool and calm response to Leon Panetta and Mike Mullen’s anti-Pakistan outbursts helped counter the attempt to poison Karzai’s newfound understandings with Islamabad.

Rabbani’s murder removed an advocate of bringing Afghan Taliban into government, and blaming Pakistan for his murder built pressure on Karzai to sever ties with Islamabad. Such a move would have destroyed Pakistan’s strategy of working closely with Karzai – and Rabbani – to reach a deal with Afghan Taliban and re-empower the Pashtuns despite American opposition.

In short, it is Pakistan that should be raising questions about the mystery of who killed Mr. Rabbani and not vice versa.

The only party that was well prepared to make the most out of Rabbani’s murder was Pentagon and CIA. Both of them moved quickly on two fronts: domestic politics and Pakistan. Domestically, the Panetta-Mullen duo organized a joint anti-Pakistan briefing on 22 September and later Mullen appeared before US Senate armed services committee.

The domestic objectives of Pentagon and CIA from this anti-Pakistan campaign are:

1.    Save the skin of US military and intelligence officials responsible for security lapses in Afghanistan

2.    Dodge accountability

3.    Send a message that major cuts in defense budget won’t be acceptable, and

4.    Underline that Afghanistan continues to require foreign military and intelligence presence

Afghanistan today is CIA’s largest base of operations anywhere in the world. The agency is loath to abandon an outpost that gives it direct access to the backyards of several strategic nations at once: Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia. No sane strategist would let go of such an opportunity. Mr. Rabbani’s peace mission may not have shown initial signs of success but it had already upset the policy direction favored by US military, intelligence and their Afghan warlord allies. India was also skeptical about the Rabbani-Karzai plans. Ending the isolation and punishment of the Pakhtun and incorporating them into Afghan power structure has never appealed to these parties. Another common denominator among these parties is their expressed anti-Pakistanism.

In fact, whoever assassinated Mr. Rabbani was also aiming at ensuring that Afghanistan remains an anti-Pakistan outpost. Islamabad has advocated ending the policy of isolating the Pashtun and worked hard to convince Mr. Karzai that friendship and respect for the legitimate interests of both Afghanistan and Pakistan is in both nations’ interests and would benefit stability in the region. Mr. Rabbani had made several overtures to Pakistan in recent months. In January he used the platform of Geo television to address Pakistanis. He spoke in Urdu as a special gesture.

PAKISTAN’S RESPONSE

Pakistan is pursuing the right policy with regards to American provocations. What is lacking in this policy is the media edge. For example, several Pakistani officials have sent strong direct and indirect messages to Washington recently. The list includes the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Interior Minister, Chief of Army Staff and ISI director. But Pakistan faces a sweeping campaign of demonizing the country. This American policy continues since 2004. Both political and military establishments have failed to counter the American narrative. The danger in the massive American campaign is that it paves the way for stronger future actions and limits global support for Pakistani positions. An example is the intense propagandist reporting on Iraq’s WMD in 2002 which helped Washington invade that country on fake evidence.

We need to become more overt in questioning US positions with regards to several key issues. This includes:

1.    CIA support and safe havens for terrorists meddling in Balochistan

2.    TTP’s easy access to US weapons

3.    The freedom of movement granted to anti-Pakistan terrorists inside US-controlled Afghan territory

4.    The intense demonization of Pakistan primarily and largely in mainstream US media as part of an unstated American policy

5.    Transforming US-controlled Afghanistan into a hub for anti-Pakistan forces in the region

6.    Meddling in Pakistani politics

7.    Buying out Pakistani media and planting mouthpieces in print and TV.

We should also review the argument that we can’t abandon America’s war on terror to ensure US aid flow and to fight domestic extremism. Washington will keep Pakistan afloat but will continue to drag its feet on key strategic issues such as energy generation and access for Pakistani textiles to US market. The US won’t sign any written agreements on CIA’s illegal activities inside Pakistani territory and airspace. As for domestic extremism, apart from TTP terror group that is linked to the Afghan mess, all other forms of domestic extremism are an internal Pakistani issue and should be delinked from America’s Afghan war.

All of this strengthens the argument that we need to declare an end to our direct participation in America’s Afghan war, known as the war on terror. Bilateral Pak-US cooperation to find an end solution in Afghanistan can continue. The move will give us a chance to redesign our relations with Washington and get rid of the verbal commitments made earlier.

© 2007-2011. All rights reserved. PakNationalists.com

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

CIA And Pentagon Itching For Pakistan War

Someone is working overtime in Washington to scuttle President Obama's and the American people's wish to end the war in Afghanistan.

The more America gets closer to that goal, CIA and US military in Afghanistan do something stupid to raise tensions with Pakistan. The drones have been doing that job for some time now. But recently CIA operatives have joined hands with likeminded rogue elements inside NDS [the National Directorate of Security, the Afghan spy service] to train, arm and send hundreds of terrorists across international borders into Pakistan to kill Pakistani civilians and soldiers. When Pakistan protests, US and NATO officers have a ready answer: It's the Taliban, what can we say.

The purpose of these antics is nothing but to harass Pakistani citizens and military and just avenge Pakistan's refusal to submit to CIA demands.

There is another reason for CIA's rude awakening in Pakistan.

Pakistanis have misled the agency hotshots for some time into believing that dealing with Pakistanis is like dealing with the defeated and conquered Iraqis and the Northern Alliance puppets in Afghanistan.

Why Pakistanis did this? I don't honestly know. Maybe for US aid, or maybe to cooperate with the Americans in the hope that this time the United States will not prove to be a two-timing untrustworthy ally.

But when CIA went too far in treating Pakistan as a conquered territory, someone in Islamabad had to give Langley a wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee call.

The bottom line is that now CIA is trying hard to cause a military standoff between the United States and Pakistan in the hope of derailing Mr. Obama's plans for a drawdown.

The CIA and US commanders in Afghanistan are doing everything they can to provoke Pakistani military into armed retaliation.

I am not sure what messages Pakistani military commanders are sending to the peeved Americans. But those messages are certainly not good because Admiral Mike Mullen was so angry the other day he accused ISI of murdering a Pakistani journalist.

Imagine this: a US Chairman Joint Chiefs turning into a homicide detective for a day!

If I had the liberty of sending a message to the honchos at Bagram base, it would be this:

The Soviets were smarter.

Why Pak Media Ignored Anti-CIA Sit-In?

While there are many hardworking journalists in the Pakistani media, this media is yet to develop a sense of perception, which means looking into the future beyond the immediate headlines of the day.

When PPP and PMLN were running for elections in March 2008, Pakistani media refused to ask these two parties any tough questions about their long record of failed politics. The media gave these two parties an easy time. Journalists were focused on only one thing: the exit of Musharraf. While that was a worthy story, the media failed in its duty to check the record of those whom it was promoting as alternatives.

The same thing happens in the case of PTI's sit-in in Peshawar. For the first time since 2002, ordinary Pakistanis come out of their homes and block NATO supply line. This was a major story. But our media generally ignored it. Why? Because PTI boycotted the 2008 elections and the party is not in the parliament and wields no power. Many of our media men and women depend on maintaining good relations with some politicians either because of bias or for indirect benefit or gain. So everyone in the media is focused on what the politicians in parliament are saying. No one is interested in PTI or the drones because, well, PTI can't offer journalists favors because it is not in power.

That's why most of the Pakistani media ignored the sit-in in Peshawar on the first day, on 23 April.

But everyone in our media sat up and noticed when elected politician and those parties that are considered to be well established, participated in the second day of the sit-in. The parties did this because of the tremendous response that PTI generated among ordinary Pakisanis, and everyone wanted a piece of the pie.

This is realistic and unfortunate aspect of our media. But I hope our media will drw some lessons from its coverage of the sit-in.