Saturday, November 28, 2009
India's Mumbai Evidence 'Theatrical'
[In Urdu] Hafiz Mohammad Saeed's international attorney describes his meetings with UN officials where he proved to them how India is using Mumbai to get back at India's Kashmiri opponents fighting its illegal occupation of Kashmir. Attorney Haider Rasul Mirza also confirmed there is no evidence against Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a Kashmiri freedom group. India's noise in this regard is theatrical. Interview by Ahmed Quraishi.
Launching Ceremony of First Indigenously Manufactured JF-17 Thunder in Pakistan
Launched on 23 November 2009.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
A Salute To Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi
Mr. Jatoi, right, in this undated file photo.
This was early September 1990. Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. The region was in a mess.
Imagine this: When these thousands were running after donations of food and water, Pakistanis by the thousands were the only nationality that was given immediate entry into Jordan and an impeccable treatment and arrangements after that.
Pakistani leaders rarely work like this. But it was Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi who came to the rescue of thousands of Pakistanis stranded in Kuwait and Iraq nineteen years ago. He was just an interim Prime Minister, but he outperformed the governments of India, the Philippines, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Lebanon and literally gave them a lesson in looking after their citizens abroad.
And Mr. Jatoi did it in an impressive way.
Thanks to his personal interest, thousands of Pakistanis received the kind of treatment that left the citizens of other countries in envy.
I was just 18 then. And what I saw on that day on the Jordanian border and in the following three days made me immensely proud to be a Pakistani.
Thousands of Pakistanis were given priority treatment by border officers of the Jordanian army. While others waited for days on the border, Pakistanis were allowed entry without hassle.
Once in Jordan, they were escorted all the way to the Jordanian capital, where a five-star accommodation awaited them in a sprawling, centrally air-conditioned complex. Families stayed for a maximum of three days before being flown on chartered Iberian Airlines flights to different cities of Pakistan. Once landed, every breadwinner in those families received a token financial gift from the Government of Pakistan as initial help.
This excellent and flawless arrangement was the work of Mr. Jatoi, a great Pakistani patriot who came from the a culturally rich part of Pakistan: Sindh.
I was one of the few or maybe the only Pakistani there who fluently spoke, read and wrote Arabic. The Foreign Office Liaison Team picked me up to help them communicate with the Jordanians on small, day-to-day logistical issues. I can't forget how, when a BBC crew visited the complex to meet the refugees, it refused to film because, as one of their team members said, what they saw did not look like a refugee camp. "This is a five-star hotel," he said. And it really was.
Having been born and educated in Arabic schools in the Middle East, this was the first time I heard the name Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi.
And I heard his name from the Pakistan Foreign Office Team stationed at the complex. I was impressed at the arrangements so I asked them if this is how things were run in Pakistan.
"Not at all," laughed one of the diplomats. "This arrangement is thanks to Mr. Jatoi. He was concerned at reports on the situation of Pakistanis stranded in the area."
A minority of pseudo 'liberals' and 'democrats' in Pakistan had the audacity to criticize Mr. Jatoi in their obituaries. This veiled criticism was focused on the fact that Mr. Jatoi accepted national duties, as in overseeing an interim government and national elections, when elected governments were removed by the Pakistani military.
I say what a lousy excuse this is to criticize a patriot like Mr. Jatoi. As a Pakistani, I am proud of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, who served his nation with honor. We want hundreds more like Mr. Jatoi to replace these fake democrats and corrupt politicians.
Mr. Jatori died in London this week at age 78. He was buried in his hometown near Nawabshah.
I salute the Honorable Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, former Prime Minister of Pakistan.
May his soul rest in peace.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
A Bunker In The Heart Of Islamabad
I was passing by this bunker-type police checkpoint and took this snap using my cell phone. It saddened me no end to see this in the heart of Islamabad in November 2009. The reason for my sadness is that I wrote an analysis titled, Plan To Topple Pakistan Military, in Nov 2007. The paper was based on some evidence indicating Indian activity in Afghanistan centered on inserting agents into Pakistan’s tribal belt, these agents being a mix of Indians and others working for Karzai’s spymasters.
The findings of that analysis linked terrorism in our entire western belt to a CIA-India-Karzai nexus that exploited festering local Pakistani problems. No one at the time believed it. I brought the theory to the attention of the highest people's in the country at the time. Unfortunately, those in power used the insight for political reasons [sustain the government] and chose to trust the Americans, who at the time were planning to shift their Afghan mess to Pakistan. Since then, Chinese interests have been attacked on Pakistani soil for the first time, GHQ has been attacked for the first time, and ethnic terrorism is in action in Balochistan using a Pakistani ethnic rebel leader based in safe houses in Kabul.
I am one of countless Pakistanis now who are glad to read Gen. Kayani's statement on US policy in Afghanistan, and Gen. Tariq Majeed's tough retort to US propaganda on our nukes.
It is time for Pakistan to get out of America’s failed war in Afghanistan and take a stand on anti-Pakistan terrorism launched from that US-controlled country.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Diplomat Interview with Ahmed Quraishi
‘It is Pakistan that needs to complain, and complain loudly’
An Interview with Ahmed Quraishi, by Jason Miks
The Diplomat speaks with Pakistani commentator Ahmed Quraishi about the country’s current military offensive in Waziristan, relations with the US and what America should do to improve its image in Pakistan.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan this month meeting key political leaders. What did you make of her comment that she finds it difficult to believe that nobody in the Pakistani government knows the whereabouts of top al-Qaeda members?
Ahmed Quraishi: It was very surprising to even the most hardened skeptics here in Pakistan to hear a US secretary of state saying this, because despite all we heard during the eight years of President [George W.] Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, no American official accused Pakistan or ‘rogue elements’ in the country of supporting or protecting al-Qaeda. If ever there were any grievances with Pakistan on this count, they were mostly focused on that Pakistan had done a very good job of cooperating with the Americans on al-Qaeda, but that progress was still lacking on the Afghan Taliban and its leadership. So in the entire eight years since September 11, no US official actually criticized Pakistan by saying Pakistan was somehow trying to protect al-Qaeda.
Second, the facts contradict what the secretary of state said. Everybody knows the vast number of al-Qaeda operatives that have been arrested have been arrested in Pakistan. And the big fish names, although there is close cooperation between the CIA and ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence], were arrested thanks to crucial information coming from Pakistani intelligence sources. This is, of course, natural seeing as it is our country, and it’s only to be expected that the ISI and other Pakistani government agencies should be at the forefront of finding these people. And they did.
And three, another crucial point is that if we’re going to throw blame at each other, then frankly speaking it is Pakistan that needs to complain--and complain loudly--at the failure of US intelligence and the US military back in late November and early December 2001 to corner and arrest Osama bin Laden. If you remember the battle in Tora Bora on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that battle was instrumental at providing an escape route to the al-Qaeda chief and his liuetenanats. And the biggest blame for that actually goes to US intelligence, which relied on unreliable Afghan warlords on the ground who apparently took money, probably from al-Qaeda operatives, and let Osama bin Laden escape.
So if anyone should be complaining it should be the Pakistanis, who now have to deal with this country’s mess, basically because many of these people who should have been eliminated in Afghanistan were able to disperse and mostly head for Pakistan. And this is mostly because of the thin American presence in Afghanistan, the poorly secured military presence in that country and of course the poorly secured border.
One of the reasons Secretary Clinton was visiting was to try and improve the US image in Pakistan. How much of an image problem does the US have there?
Quraishi: In this whole debate about America’s image in Pakistan, and people talk of course about how America supported a military dictator [General Pervez Musharraf] and so forth, the reality is that the real grievances pertain to issues that are not really discussed very openly, especially in the American media, and which are not really known about by American public opinion. I’m talking about things like, for example, the fact that the US military and the Afghan army, which is being trained by the US army, suddenly removed all their posts from the Afghan side of the border when Pakistan began its military operation in South Waziristan.
This isn’t the figment of anyone’s imagination--it has been verified by people on the ground and was raised by the Pakistani chief with General Stanley McCrystal a couple of weeks back. This story was headline news on major Pakistani news channels and in newspapers, so it’s surprising that so little time has been given over to such grievances, which provide fodder to skeptics in Pakistan who question US motives in Afghanistan.
And of course we have a standing complaint that weapons and money that are sustaining terrorists are coming from Afghanistan. And it’s not just the factor of Afghan warlords and drug money and so forth. It’s beyond that. And we feel little time is given to this grievance in the US media. US officials know about it, and often discuss the issue with Pakistani officials, but they never talk about this openly. So I find it very funny when Secretary Clinton comes over here and says ‘you have some questions about our role, and we have some grievances about yours, but we need to reach some common ground.’ Sure. But this entire thing that is going on in the Af-Pak region is a result of US policy. And eight years on, this project is falling apart and isn’t showing any signs of being nearer a conclusion than it was, say, five years ago. So serious questions are arising about why in Pakistan we continue to be part of a project that shows every signs of failing, if it has not already failed.
What would you like to see the US doing differently to improve its image?
Quraishi: Two things. One is that in terms of foreign policy, on its policy on Afghanistan, it needs to take its Pakistani ally along as it moves on. What has happened over the past eight years is that Pakistan was not taken along in US planning on Afghanistan. A government was set up in Kabul that was decidedly full of anti-Pakistan elements, elements that are antagonistic to Pakistan. Now when I say this I don’t mean that the Afghan government should be pro-Paksitan. But they should not be antagonistic. So the United States and the different stakeholders in policy in Afghanistan, including the intelligence community and the military, will have to trust Pakistan and take it along as an ally, and not treat it as someone to be looked upon with suspicion, or to be used for logistical help it needs but to then not trust it on the long-term questions of what kind of government should be in Kabul and whether the Pashtuns need to be isolated from such a government or not.
Number two, the United States needs to understand that it is counter productive to try and interfere in the domestic politics of Pakistan. Very few observers in the United States discuss a very interesting thing that they have been doing in Pakistan, which is to try and micromanage that country. The very government we have in Pakistan right now, the elected government in Islamabad, wouldn’t have been in place without a deal that was discussed and tailored and finalized at the US State Department with the active participation of diplomats from the United States and United Kingdom. And, of course, with the full backing of Vice President Cheney at that time. That deal resulted in tailoring the political set up that you currently see in Pakistan, and it dealt with such minute issues as who would be the coalition partner, which parties could work with the United States, and which ones could not.
So this kind of micromanagement has really backfired--when the United States was tailoring this kind of deal with Musharraf, the anti-Americanism in Pakistan was not at a level it is at right now. So this tells you something at least about how the micromanagement has backfired and has produced possibly an exaggerated feeling of a threat among the ordinary Pakistani on the street.
As you mentioned, the Pakistani military recently embarked on a major offensive in Waziristan. What do you think the prospects for success are?
Quraishi: There’s no question that a ragtag army of mountain fighters who do not enjoy the full support of the people of the area they are based in--the people of that area are pouring into other parts of Pakistan where temporary camps have been set up for as long as this military operation goes on--that such a militia cannot sustain itself in the face of a large and well-organized army.
Of course, when the Pakistan army began the Swat operation in the spring of this year, there was a lot of skepticism--especially when almost 2 million people from that area poured into refugee camps, people were asking how that problem would be dealt with. But now, over 1.5 million people have been restored to their towns and villages in the Swat region, and that region is overwhelmingly secure now.
There’s no reason why this can’t be replicated in South Waziristan. It’s a small patch of land. The only uncertainty we really have is over the Afghan side of the border--there aren’t enough Afghan soldiers on that side, and there are no US military or ISAF on the other side. This is a constant problem and we know money and weapons are coming through from that side. The Mehsud terror militia is not sustaining itself from inside Pakistan. I understand that Pakistani officers have had assurances from General McCrystal that he will do what he can with the resources he has in Afghanistan to secure that area and ensure that such movement doesn’t occur backward and forward. But we’ll have to wait and see. At the moment though, the prospects look good.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
French Rap On Pakistan & Its Military
When was the last time you heard a French rap song on Pakistan? Here's your chance to do this. A French rapper of Pakistani origin salutes the nation and its men and women in the armed forces.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Step Aside Mathew Rosenberg, Welcome Ansar Abbasi
A small group of Pakistani journalists are protesting because one Pakistani newspaper has accused Mathew Rosenberg, an India-based American correspondent for the Wall Street Journal of being a spy. The editor of Wall Street Journal is 'disgusted'. Under new directions from Mrs. Clinton, US diplomats are aggressively engaged in a media battle in Pakistan. Part of the game is raising a new class of US apologists – commentators, editors, journalists. Mr. Rosenberg may not be a spy but here is a Pakistani lesson for the US media.
Click here to read the full story.
Click here to read the full story.
Haqqani Should Buy Zardari A New Maximilian
The Zardari-Nawaz musical chairs stands exposed before the Pakistani people. Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat appears on Ahmed Quraishi's TSS [Sunday, Nov. 15, 08:00 pm-Aag TV] to issue this warning: this is the last chance for the politicians and the expanded ruling elite. Anjum Niaz puts that warning in perspective in this column in her unique style.
Click here to read the full column
Friday, November 13, 2009
America's Sleazeball Haqqani
In the thick of the debate over Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan, Ambassador Husain Haqqani came under unprecedented attack. In fact, he is the only Pakistani ambassador to US who was ruthlessly criticized in the federal parliament for two days, with open demands that he be recalled from Washington. There are two reasons he survived. One is Mr. Zardari, and the second is the terrorist attack on the GHQ building in Rawalpindi. Pakistan's isolated President sees Mr. Haqqani as his man in Washington, entrusted with ensuring that Washington keeps its part of the 'deal' that brought his government to power. Interestingly, the Americans see Haqqani as their man, entrusted with ensuring that Zardari and Pakistan's military keep their parts of the 'deal'. When Mr. Haqqani sensed the noose tightening around his neck, he tried to play smart, using the Foreign Policy magazine to leak out a message to whom it may concern in Islamabad [and Rawalpindi]. The Nation published this message in a story titled If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Reveal 'Reams' of Pakistani Secrets on Oct. 14. Mr. Haqqani didn't anticipate that someone will catch his subtle message. So he slapped a defamation suit. But he certainly wasn't expecting this response from The Nation. Here it is in case you missed it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Shireen Mazari On Seymour Hersh
In Bob Woodward’s book, “Bush at War”, he recalls how when he (Woodward) quoted Hersh to Bush, the latter replied that Seymour Hersh was a liar! Hersh’s article “Defending the Arsenal” in The New Yorker (November 16, 2009) has predictably caused a stir in Pakistan. But this always happens after the event; after foreign journalists have been given excessive access into the corridors of power in Pakistan. So it has been with Hersh. Now the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claims Hersh has a well-known “anti-Pakistan” bias. If that is the case, then did the MFA give an official perspective on how much access Hersh should have been given in Pakistan? Did they advise the President to avoid meeting this man or did they give any official brief to the President on what to say to him on sensitive issues? Clearly, the Zardari meeting with Hersh has no reflection of the MFA or any official Pakistani position. Instead, there is a reflection of ignorance with the President declaring that our army officers are “British-trained”!
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL COLUMN
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL COLUMN
Peter Chamberlin: Why Not Criticize The Army, Ahmed?
US journalist and commentator Peter Chamberlin [Therearenosunglasses's Weblog] makes some insightful comments on my report below. He has written with insight on Pakistani affairs. He believes Pakistani military cooperation with US plans for our region is an important part of the problem and that Pakistani patriots are giving the Pakistani military a pass on its role. Like the Pakistani society, opinions and analysis vary within the Pakistani military on US strategic role in our region. Mr. Chamberlin's comments here should help the debate. Read his comments in red below.
By PETER CHAMBERLIN
Tuesday, 10 November 2009.
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
Ahmed,
I felt like commenting on your fine report, when I posted on my website. I posted it as a comment on the article, but I thought you might like to see it as it was written. Keep hammering, maybe reason might persuade your leaders to oppose mine.
Peter
Peter
American Psyops Destroying Pakistani Morale
[Ahmed is a great patriotic defender of Pakistan and he always calls the political leaders out when they sell-out. Like most Pakistani patriots though, he is hesitant to criticize the Army for the trouble that is boiling over there, even though Army cooperation with the United States is perhaps the biggest problem of all. Like I have been trying to point out for a couple of years, if the Army continues to cooperate with US planners and behind the scenes maneuvers, then Pakistan will not likely survive much longer. The Army must convince Obama that it works for the Pakistani people and not for him. It does this by resisting American calls for civil war and restoring all the displaced Pashtuns back to their homes and filling them with the will to resist.]
Nuclear Doubts: Pakistani Weakness Is Eroding Internal Morale, Fast
By AHMED QURAISHI
Tuesday, 10 November 2009.
[Strange as it seems, that is the way that the CIA undermines nations--it purposely complicates situations it wants to change, so that it can knock them down later. It is of strategic value to keep the nuclear issue in conflict. It is not really looking for cooperation on the nuclear issue, rather it is looking for complete capitulation to American Zionist demands.]
In May, when Boston Globe published a similar story quoting unnamed and unverifiable sources revealing that Pakistani officials have accepted a proposal to ship some highly enriched uranium to the United States for disposal, there was no reference whatsoever to Pakistani military. The Globe depicted the talks as a government-to-government exercise.
For all intents, the latest story seeks to embarrass the Pakistani military. This probably explains the immediate reaction of the US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson. Not that she actually denied the alleged talks. Her written statement was carefully worded to deny her government's "intention to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons or material."
[Patterson was probably telling a diplomat's version of the "truth," they don't intend to "seize" Pakistan's nukes, they expect the Army to simply hand them over.]
The element of embarrassment also explains the statement of Pakistan’s Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid, who made it a point to respond to the question, 'How much does US really know about Pakistan's nuclear program?' In a sharp public retort uncommon to Pakistan's top military brass, Gen. Majeed answered, ‘Only that much as they can guess and nothing more’.
Important parts of Mr. Seymour Hersh's investigative story remain unaddressed. No government or military official has confirmed or denied the revelation in the New Yorker that former President Pervez Musharraf shared with US officials information about the number of warheads, their locations and their security plan. Considering the embarrassing concessions that he gave the Americans (he allowed US diplomats, officials and military personnel unprecedented privileges at Pakistani airports at a time when Pakistani officials were humiliated on entry to US. Pakistan has withdrawn those concessions.)
[There should be no doubt in Pakistan, even within the Army, that Musharraf handed the country to Bush and waged war against the people afterwords, to please him. Why wouldn't the keys already be in US hands?]
(It is also important to question some of Mr. Hersh's findings, which border on the ridiculous. The last time Mr. Hersh visited Pakistan was five years ago by his own statement. Yet he concluded that since the few politicians, journalists and retired generals he met this time did not offer him Johnny Walker Black this must be a sign of growing religious extremism in Pakistan and in the ranks of Pakistan military. At other places, he has exaggerated the impact of two retired army officers that he interviewed on soldiers and middle rank officers. Mr. Hersh appeared to have made little effort to use his visit to the country to try to understand the real Pakistan. Instead, he felt comfortable regurgitating media stereotypes. Which is fine since his report fits in with the overall US political and military policy thrust with regards to Pakistan.)
Mr. Hersh's report comes six months after the Boston Globe story that broke the news on behind-the-scenes talks between Islamabad and Washington on US proposals to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons, including a US suggestion to ship out Pakistani uranium. No one in Islamabad denied the story at the time. The fixed Pakistani response to such stories has not changed much in recent years: that Pakistan has an excellent command and control regime and that Pakistan does not need outside help to secure its arsenal.
So, is the Pakistani government or military really talking secretly with the Americans on how to secure Pakistani nukes?
One explanation that retired military officers are giving is that Pakistani officers may be talking nukes to the Americans but not giving them the right information. If true, this policy line seeks to keep the Americans engaged with Pakistan without allowing Washington any real access.
This is not farfetched. Pakistani civilian and military governments have perfected a uniquely Pakistani version of the American idiom, 'to roll with the punches and survive to fight another day.' Only that Pakistan never really fights even for what is its legitimate right. Under this policy, Islamabad has accepted on several occasions to play along, live with the accusations and insinuations about its nuclear program, and hope to stall, engage, and win over the antagonistic elements of the Washington establishment, both political and military.
But the latest report takes the debate to a new level. Pakistani officials grappling with the PR aspect of this story need to consider the following:
1. The latest report is particularly demoralizing for ordinary Pakistanis, in the backdrop of an overall deteriorating strategic environment for Pakistani interests, internal and external. Pakistan's national security managers, civilian and military, need to pay attention to the hypothetical threshold of national morale. Dangerously low levels of national morale could prove fatal in case of war with India or a US-led military invasion of Pakistani territory from Afghanistan.
[Wearing-out an opponent, without having to actually fight, is the purpose of CIA and military psyops. When, and if, Pakistani morale sinks so low that agency planners expect complete capitulation with the next shock, then the final shock will soon come, psychological assault will intensify. It is the "shock doctrine" and the theory of "learned helplessness" rolled into one. The close cooperation between American and Pakistani military leaders makes it highly unlikely that Kayani and the generals don't understand what is happening. By looking the other way so often, whenever US operatives are taking actions that are harmful to Pakistan, the Army shares in the guilt for what is being done. This is the deadly problem that will finish Pakistan off, if left as is.]
2. Is there someone in Washington, within its political, military and intelligence communities that might have an interest in embarrassing Pakistani officials who are allegedly engaged in secret nuclear talks with Washington? Is someone trying to sabotage policy initiatives of the Obama administration? In such a case, Pakistani officials – especially in the Pakistani intelligence community – need to give more weight to reports that anti-Pakistan activities orchestrated on Afghan soil cannot happen without some level of American involvement.
[Ahmed is being too generous concerning American intentions, but he is dead-on about US and NATO forces being complicit in any Indian action against Pakistan from Afghani soil. Launching attacks against Pakistan from US-controlled territory would require US consent, just like in the case of Israel attacking Iran through US-controlled airspace, it can't be done without American permission.]
3. That the US media continues to cause tremendous damage to Pakistan's reputation and standing in the international community. Pakistan is receiving enemy treatment from the US media. Pakistani officials must understand that US media cannot mount similar attacks on other countries such as Turkey and Egypt because leaderships in those countries generally keep US officials on a leash and leverage Washington's strategic needs to their favor. In Pakistan, we have a ruling elite that is micromanaged from Washington, thanks to a deal that former President Musharraf signed with Washington and London.
[Pakistan will continue to be a pariah nation because of the armies of Islamists that it has trained for the CIA. Until Kayani and the generals stop covering-up what amounts to a shared criminal enterprise run for the CIA, Pakistan will take the fall for the entire operation, by itself, America is off the hook. The world is slowly coming to realize what was done in FATA and NWFP, because the graduates of the militant academies which were established there have been plying the trade they learned there all over the world. The world is holding Pakistan accountable for the terrorism these militants are commiting, no matter what. Pakistan will go down alone, unless the generals prove to the world that this has been an American enterprise all along, which they merely been managing and operated under a deadly contract that began in 1979.]
4. The New Yorker report harms the image of the Pakistani military leadership in the eyes of the soldiers and officers in middle and lower ranks. This is especially relevant to the debate raging in official US circles about a mutiny within the Pakistan army. Some American policymakers are deliberately using Afghanistan to push Pakistan to the wall in the hope that instability in Pakistan would reach a level where it could trigger a mutiny inside the Pakistani military against both the military leadership and the government. Anyone who knows Pakistan will instantly understand that this notion is exaggerated, but this US debate should tell Pakistan's military leadership and people something about the destructive line of policy thinking that Washington is pursuing in Pakistan's neighborhood.
[Some of the attacks, even some being committed on the Army, are being done by "former" military and ISI men, usually blamed on Taliban. Consider the officers involved in the attacks on Musharraf and the attack upon GHQ . There is secret cooperation between the CIA and some unnamed officers of the Army on some level that amounts to waging war against the locals.]
Common wisdom in both the Pakistani political elite and some parts of the military bureaucracy says that 'engaging' the Americans on the subject of the security of Pakistani nukes can be beneficial to Pakistan. It would keep Washington engaged. It would provide opportunities to milk the Americans of more aid money.
But no one in the policymaking circles is apparently weighing the downside: The 'engagement' is emboldening the Americans. The 'engagement' – or secret talks, call them whatever you want – are sending the wrong signals to ordinary Pakistanis at a time when more of our people are convinced that Pakistan's troubles stem from American failures in Afghanistan.
Pakistani schools and colleges are under attack when those in Iraq and Afghanistan are safe. This is happening because of American policy blunders and not just because of extremism inside Pakistan. Our problems are also the result of Islamabad refusing to submit completely to the US military strategy that wants to give India a larger role in Afghanistan. Pakistan, with a strong military and intelligence setup, is an obstacle in this strategy.
[That is precisely why American planners are working so hard to take Pakistan out of the way. If they succeed in destroying the morale of the brave people of Pakistan, then a whole new level of pain will sweep over the land, with the idea of washing Pakistan back upon Indian shores.]
Email from a reader, Mr. Zeeba Khan to PakNationalists:
I think the problem in this country is that there is a race going on between the civilian and the military leadership to excel in terms of loyalty to the Americans. The interests of 170 mn people of this country is of no consequesnce. The most important thing is to pursue US interests, so that personal gains can be reaped from the situation. The accusation by Seymour Hersch has been accepted by the top military brass by stating that they are engaging the Americans. Whether these engagements lead to pursuing Pakistan's interests or the personal interests of the 'engagers' remains to be seen. In the past personal interests have triumphed over national interests.
There is evidence to show that Pakistan army is totally committed to US interests. The military operations in Swat and Waziristan are proofs. Even when proofs of US involvement in Pakistan were found with the discovery of US arms from Swat (or Waziristan) ISPR spokesperson Gen Athar Abbas stated that these were stolen US arms. The army found the arms and ISPR spokesperson knew even before any investigation had been conducted that these were stolen arms. US interests are closer to his heart than Pakistan's.
Nuclear Doubts: Pakistani Weakness Is Eroding Internal Morale, Fast
Seymour Hersh might have come up with some absurd findings, like concluding that religious extremism has multiplied in Pakistan because no one offered him Johnny Walker Black during his recent visit. But apart from that, Pakistan's national security managers should sit up and take notice of one glaring fact: The US media and some circles in the Washington establishment are behind the worst global demonization campaign against Pakistan. Now this is denting national morale and forcing Pakistanis to question if their military is capable of defending the nation, since politicians have proven to be a disaster.
By AHMED QURAISHI
Tuesday, 10 November 2009.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Two curious aspects of the New Yorker story on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is that the report singles out the Pakistani military – and not the civilian government – as partner in alleged secret negotiations with the Obama administration to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The other is the objective behind leaking the story – if indeed some US officials helped in leaking details – since the story only serves to make it more difficult for Pakistani officials cooperating with Washington on the nuclear question.
In May, when Boston Globe published a similar story quoting unnamed and unverifiable sources revealing that Pakistani officials have accepted a proposal to ship some highly enriched uranium to the United States for disposal, there was no reference whatsoever to Pakistani military. The Globe depicted the talks as a government-to-government exercise.
For all intents, the latest story seeks to embarrass the Pakistani military. This probably explains the immediate reaction of the US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson. Not that she actually denied the alleged talks. Her written statement was carefully worded to deny her government's "intention to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons or material."
The element of embarrassment also explains the statement of Pakistan’s Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid, who made it a point to respond to the question, 'How much does US really know about Pakistan's nuclear program?' In a sharp public retort uncommon to Pakistan's top military brass, Gen. Majeed answered, ‘Only that much as they can guess and nothing more’.
Important parts of Mr. Seymour Hersh's investigative story remain unaddressed. No government or military official has confirmed or denied the revelation in the New Yorker that former President Pervez Musharraf shared with US officials information about the number of warheads, their locations and their security plan. Considering the embarrassing concessions that he gave the Americans [he allowed US diplomats, officials and military personnel unprecedented privileges at Pakistani airports at a time when Pakistani officials were humiliated on entry to US. Pakistan has withdrawn those concessions.]
[It is also important to question some of Mr. Hersh's findings, which border on the ridiculous. The last time Mr. Hersh visited Pakistan was five years ago by his own statement. Yet he concluded that since the few politicians, journalists and retired generals he met this time did not offer him Johnny Walker Black this must be a sign of growing religious extremism in Pakistan and in the ranks of Pakistan military. At other places, he has exaggerated the impact of two retired army officers that he interviewed on soldiers and middle rank officers. Mr. Hersh appeared to have made little effort to use his visit to the country to try to understand the real Pakistan. Instead, he felt comfortable regurgitating media stereotypes. Which is fine since his report fits in with the overall US political and military policy thrust with regards to Pakistan.]
Mr. Hersh's report comes six months after the Boston Globe story that broke the news on behind-the-scenes talks between Islamabad and Washington on US proposals to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons, including a US suggestion to ship out Pakistani uranium. No one in Islamabad denied the story at the time. The fixed Pakistani response to such stories has not changed much in recent years: that Pakistan has an excellent command and control regime and that Pakistan does not need outside help to secure its arsenal.
So, is the Pakistani government or military really talking secretly with the Americans on how to secure Pakistani nukes?
One explanation that retired military officers are giving is that Pakistani officers may be talking nukes to the Americans but not giving them the right information. If true, this policy line seeks to keep the Americans engaged with Pakistan without allowing Washington any real access.
This is not farfetched. Pakistani civilian and military governments have perfected a uniquely Pakistani version of the American idiom, 'to roll with the punches and survive to fight another day.' Only that Pakistan never really fights even for what is its legitimate right. Under this policy, Islamabad has accepted on several occasions to play along, live with the accusations and insinuations about its nuclear program, and hope to stall, engage, and win over the antagonistic elements of the Washington establishment, both political and military.
But the latest report takes the debate to a new level. Pakistani officials grappling with the PR aspect of this story need to consider the following:
1. The latest report is particularly demoralizing for ordinary Pakistanis, in the backdrop of an overall deteriorating strategic environment for Pakistani interests, internal and external. Pakistan's national security managers, civilian and military, need to pay attention to the hypothetical threshold of national morale. Dangerously low levels of national morale could prove fatal in case of war with India or a US-led military invasion of Pakistani territory from Afghanistan.
2. Is there someone in Washington, within its political, military and intelligence communities that might have an interest in embarrassing Pakistani officials who are allegedly engaged in secret nuclear talks with Washington? Is someone trying to sabotage policy initiatives of the Obama administration? In such a case, Pakistani officials – especially in the Pakistani intelligence community – need to give more weight to reports that anti-Pakistan activities orchestrated on Afghan soil cannot happen without some level of American involvement.
3. That the US media continues to cause tremendous damage to Pakistan's reputation and standing in the international community. Pakistan is receiving enemy treatment from the US media. Pakistani officials must understand that US media cannot mount similar attacks on other countries such as Turkey and Egypt because leaderships in those countries generally keep US officials on a leash and leverage Washington's strategic needs to their favor. In Pakistan, we have a ruling elite that is micromanaged from Washington, thanks to a deal that former President Musharraf signed with Washington and London.
4. The New Yorker report harms the image of the Pakistani military leadership in the eyes of the soldiers and officers in middle and lower ranks. This is especially relevant to the debate raging in official US circles about a mutiny within the Pakistan army. Some American policymakers are deliberately using Afghanistan to push Pakistan to the wall in the hope that instability in Pakistan would reach a level where it could trigger a mutiny inside the Pakistani military against both the military leadership and the government. Anyone who knows Pakistan will instantly understand that this notion is exaggerated, but this US debate should tell Pakistan's military leadership and people something about the destructive line of policy thinking that Washington is pursuing in Pakistan's neighborhood.
Common wisdom in both the Pakistani political elite and some parts of the military bureaucracy says that 'engaging' the Americans on the subject of the security of Pakistani nukes can be beneficial to Pakistan. It would keep Washington engaged. It would provide opportunities to milk the Americans of more aid money.
But no one in the policymaking circles is apparently weighing the downside: The 'engagement' is emboldening the Americans. The 'engagement' – or secret talks, call them whatever you want – are sending the wrong signals to ordinary Pakistanis at a time when more of our people are convinced that Pakistan's troubles stem from American failures in Afghanistan.
Pakistani schools and colleges are under attack when those in Iraq and Afghanistan are safe. This is happening because of American policy blunders and not just because of extremism inside Pakistan. Our problems are also the result of Islamabad refusing to submit completely to the US military strategy that wants to give India a larger role in Afghanistan. Pakistan, with a strong military and intelligence setup, is an obstacle in this strategy.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Pakistan's Angry Students: Ominous Sign For The Ruling Elite
Two days ago I spent an entire day at the International Islamic University. No, it is not a madrassah but a modern institution spread over 700 acres in the heart of the Pakistani capital. When I entered the campus with our team from Geo's Aag TV to tape a special episode with its students, I never expected what I found.
Close to 20,000 students live and study here, Pakistani and foreign. A cosmopolitan environment exists, where bearded male students rub shoulders with others wearing jeans, sporting cool haircuts and listening to their ipods. The female campus reflects the diversity of the Pakistani society. Girls in western dresses mingling with friends veiled in black chadors or simple hijab.
Two weeks ago, two suicide attackers came to this place and blew up several students to pieces.
Four days later, hundreds of students defied security warnings and gathered in the campus for a rally against the terrorists and against the destabilizing American presence in neighboring Afghanistan.
Who returns to a site of terror attack? Not in Pakistan anyone does. No Pakistani politician of weight did something like this after scores of terrorist acts in Pakistan.
In fact, there are four heavyweight Pakistani politicians elected from the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, belonging to the ruling PPP and Mr. Nawaz Sharif's PMLN – Mr. Nayyar Bokhari, Mr. Hanif Abbasi, Mr. Sheikh Rashid, and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan – but not one of them cared to join the students in their hour of grief.
What to talk of Pakistani politicians and the ruling elite. The other day, 117 Pakistanis were killed in a single day in Peshawar, mostly the poorest of the poor, and our ruling elite was busy on that evening exchanging smiles with Mrs. Hillary Clinton over dinner. [15 Americans were killed in America in a military base and their President lowered the national flag for 3 days in mourning.]
The Pakistani media, although well meaning, did not fare any better. Every talk show was busy in the usual bickering and backbiting that mars Pakistan's useless and unproductive politics.
But the people in our team did care. We went to meet the students. And they are angry. And they are not mincing words. The show we taped will be aired on Geo's Aag TV on Sunday, Nov. 7, 8-9 pm PST.
The time is running out for the Pakistan's failed ruling elite, the ones in government and the ones who remain in power one way or the other no matter what government in place.
Pakistan is looking ahead at difficult times if the anger, frustration and disenchantment among the young Pakistanis, who are in majority in this nation, boils over. And that point is not very far.
Here I share with you three pictures I took with my cell phone. They show how our students reacted to the tragedy. That's much more than anything our government and politicians did to mourn their children who died in the heart of the Pakistani capital, a few minutes' drive away from the seats of political power.
Launching The PakNationalists Movement
A school of thought has taken shape in Pakistan during the past three years. There was a time when the mere mention of 'Pakistan' and 'nationalists' together invited bland looks. Today Pakistani nationalists are asserting themselves like never before. The ideology has taken shape. It needs to be translated into a force for political change. A debate has begun. The following is one small sign of it. This is from a Dr. whose name I do not know. What is important is the idea that he is sharing. Multiply this by one thousand and you can get a glimpse into the giant lurking beneath the political mess in Pakistan today. The failed political elite does not represent the energetic people vying for change.
Mr. Quraishi,
I've been an avid fan of yours since you started on PTV. Kudos to you for your profound sense of perception and point of view. It not only is reflective of the truth but demands answers and explanations, which is so rare among the majority of journalists heading these mammoth political talk shows. They lack substance and meaning. However, your program on Aag and your views in general are truly a breath of fresh air....and usually my family and I can be heard saying "thank god...someone is finally speaking up!"
I share some similarities with your background. Spent my early childhood in the Middle East---Riyadh. Was there during the Gulf War (of course didn't ''cover'' it like you did!). I share a similar point of view as yours on the present political situation our country is faced with these days. However, my profession is quite different---I'm a medical doctor. However, through my profession I've been able to experience some of life's bitter truths that people here are faced with. And it has been an immense eye-opener.
Coming to the point. I just saw your facebook post on your aq-lounge blog about whether this is the time to launch and be a bit more proactive. You raise an interesting question that I wanted to answer through this email. Your question about what it should do initially? What should be discussed first? I think addressing our responsibilities should be discussed. This will inadvertently bring us to discussing about politics. My point is, first we need to discuss what our duties are to society. That's where it all starts from. We constantly raise the rhetoric that our politicians are doing this to us. But I think it's high time we start addressing ''Then how come we aren't doing anything to stop them?" I think through numerous talk shows and discussions and dinner party get-togethers we've managed to clarify that the ineptness of our politicians has gotten us into this mess. So I think we've covered that part well. Now, what needs to be addressed and taken action on is what WE need to be doing. Because it's becoming apparent that no one is willing to step up to the plate to set this all straight. So if we are able to, then why aren't we doing something? And even if it is on a small scale, then at least, let's do it! It could begin within your own neighborhood. It takes 1 person to start it. We need to be the change we want to see. The ills that face us are innumerable. They range from being pressured into giving safarish to get things done to even something as mundane as the milkman cheating us on the quality of milk. If we just keep taking it, then it will continue being dished to us.
Of course nothing will happen over night. But it will be a start. We can get to the politics part later. First we need to ensure we're worthy of bringing about this ''change''. Are our morals and values in line with what the Quaid expected from us? In essence, he was merely repeating what our religion instructs us to be doing. We need to teach, lead, and change by example.
Just my 2 cents. Would appreciate your feedback.
Regards,
dare2dv8 (http://dare2deviate.blogspot.com)
Friday, November 6, 2009
Want To Meet Hillary? Don't Criticize United States!
Click here to see more pictures of Hillary In Lahore
courtesy of Laura Rosen of Politico.com
Obviously the US Embassy in Pakistan and the doormat Pakistani officials did an excellent job of 'vetting' the Pakistani invitees to Mrs. Clinton's PR events in Pakistan, the same ones that she has described back in the US as having been 'positively received' by Pakistanis. The truth is that every effort was made to shield her from hearing the real grievances on the Pakistani street, grievances that both US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson in Islamabad and Husain Haqqani in Washington are misleading the US public opinion about. Read how this young Pakistani lawyer, who often writes criticizing the US mess in Afghanistan, was 'hidden' from Hillary in Lahore.
Click here for the full article.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
To Pakistanis: Italy Convicts CIA Chief
In at least two Pakistani cities, undercover US intelligence operatives have been arrested by Pakistani police. These American operatives are running an undercover operation in Pakistan that uses the cover of the US Embassy. On at least three occasions, these operatives, who presented themselves as US 'diplomats', were roaming Pakistani streets in cars with fake number plates and wearing Afghan dresses and sporting Taliban-style beards. Most importantly, these operatives were carrying sophisticated weapons that were not licensed to the US Embassy. Four such US 'diplomats' were arrested a few hours before the arrival of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Pakistan. When asked about the incident, she said she had no idea who those people were and what exactly they were doing. She was not lying. This is a standard procedure for US diplomats when US intelligence operatives get busted. Pakistani civilian and military officials have enough evidence of the illegal activities of CIA in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the American spy agency is using the help of Karzai's and India's spy outfits. Can Pakistan learn to stand for itself?
Click here to read the full story.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)