something to think about:
carpet bombing pakistan (there is now talk of expanding the drone attacks to baluchistan), cambodia-style, will only radicalize more people. just so happens that pakistan has about 170 million of them. do we want to set this war in motion?
here is a sensible article by juan cole, salon.com.
saw “war made easy” on the 6th anniversary of the iraq war: looks like war is a “product” sold to us by the govt/media nexus, cuz it’s supposed to bring peace – hence perpetual war or in orwell’s words: war is peace!
narrated by sean penn, this is an excellent documentary. it’s a step by step manual on how to create, package, promote and continue war – “war for dummies” as someone said in the post screening discussion. many felt that the only way to overhaul the present system is to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, unconstrained by national boundaries or national interests.
that’s tough to sell, not only because we fear and distrust “otherness” but more so because of how we choose to live (our “way of life” which we are told is constantly under threat). can we give up the over-consumption we have gotten used to? it has taken too much from too many and given it to very few. the bigger our slice of the pie, the less others will get in other parts of the world. are we willing to change that?
here is a worrisome bbc news report.
an expansion of military operations in pakistan will be ruinous. as i am writing this i am feeling physically ill about what this will mean for pakistanis. not only is it going to destroy lives and already scarce infrastructure but it will create instability and chaos to an extent that we cannot imagine. pakistan is already extremely fragile. this might be the last straw.
this is NOT going to minimize or even contain terrorism. the rationale behind it is reminiscent of vietnam and the end results will be similarly disastrous.
americans should oppose this new war on pakistan before we find ourselves in the middle of it and it’s too late, once again!
Pakistan to restore chief justice
By CHRIS BRUMMITT, Associated Press Writers Chris Brummitt, Associated Press Writers
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan agreed Monday to reinstate a fired chief justice, a move that will help defuse a political crisis that has sparked street battles and raised fears of instability in the country at a time of surging Islamist violence.
Opposition leaders and lawyers had vowed to sit-in at the parliament later Monday until Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, known for his independence and willingness to challenge authority, was reinstated. The capital has been barricaded and scores of extra police brought in amid fears of violence.
In a dawn address to the nation that capped a night of high drama, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced Chaudhry would be sworn in on March 21, the day the current chief justice was due to retire. The speech triggered scenes of jubilation outside Chaudhry’s home in the capital, Islamabad.
Gilani also ordered all lawyers and political activists arrested over the past week to be freed immediately and appealed for political reconciliation in the country, which is facing a punishing economic crisis in addition to rising militant violence.
The concession came as thousands of protesters led by Nawaz Sharif, the head of the largest opposition party and a longtime foe of President Asif Ali Zardari, were traveling to Islamabad to join the planned sit-in. Sharif joined the convoy after ignoring a house arrest order in his hometown of Lahore in Punjab, where his supporters fought running battles with police.
“Go and celebrate!” Sharif told The Associated Press when asked for reaction. “It has saved Pakistan.”
Party spokesman Pervaiz Rasheed said Sharif would address supporters before returning to Lahore, an end to the so-called “Long March” that has gripped the nation for a week.
“This is a victory for the people of this country,” said Baz Mohammad Kakar, a leader of the lawyers’ movement. “Chaudhry is the first chief justice in the history of Pakistan who has proved himself to be a judge for the people, as a chief justice for the people.”
Former President Pervez Musharraf fired Chaudhry, 60, in 2007 after he took up cases challenging the leader’s rule, sparking a wave of protests that helped force Musharraf from power in 2008.
Musharraf’s successor, Zardari, pledged to reinstate Chaudhry within 30 days of his party forming a government, but reneged on the promise, apparently fearing the justice might examine a deal that he and his wife, slain politician Benazir Bhutto, struck with Musharraf to grant the pair immunity from prosecution over alleged corruption cases.
Zardari’s broken promise and his government’s repression of the protesters will likely leave him in a politically weakened position. Sharif has projected an image of strength and stands to gain from leading a successful movement against the president, who has been the focus of popular anger.
Lawyers and civil rights activists have remained committed to the cause of Chaudhry’s reinstatement, believing it was a vital first step in getting an independent judiciary in Pakistan. The court system has often been abused by past rulers to cement their grip on power.
Their movement got a boost last month when Sharif threw his full weight behind it after he and his brother, Shahbaz, were banned from elected office by the Supreme Court. Zardari then dismissed the government led by Shahbaz in the Punjab province, the wealthiest in Pakistan and a vital prize for politicians.
Gilani repeated a pledge made Saturday to appeal that verdict to the Supreme Court.
In recent days, U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had spoken to Zardari and Sharif, urging them to reach a deal. Washington and other Western capitals had been concerned the crisis was distracting the nuclear-armed country from its fight against Taliban and al-Qaida militants operating along the Afghan border.
Before dawn on Sunday, hundreds of police surrounded Sharif’s residence in Lahore, carrying an order for his house arrest. Sharif denounced the order as illegal and later left the house in a convoy of vehicles as police stood by. It was unclear why they relented, but Lahore is Sharif’s political stronghold.
Some of the protesters defied police barricades to gather near the city’s main courts complex and pelt riot police with rocks. One mob smashed the windows of buses parked along the route of Sharif’s convoy, while another broke into the main Post Office building, trashing furniture and then clambering onto the roof to hurl rocks at police below.
Police responded with tear gas, and beat several protesters with batons. Associated Press reporters saw several injured officers being helped away. A handful of protesters were detained and bundled into police vans.
Later, the crowd swelled to several thousands and police again pulled back. Many were black-suited lawyers, but most appeared to be supporters of Sharif, equipped with party flags and chanting “Go Zardari go!”
For days, the government has been seeking to squelch the protest movement.
Authorities have put the army on alert and temporarily detained hundreds of activists nationwide to prevent them traveling to Lahore or Islamabad. But its resolve appeared to waver Sunday amid signs of internal party dissent. A day earlier, a prominent minister quit Zardari’s Cabinet, apparently over attempts to censor critical media coverage.
The Sharifs and 16 other protest leaders were initially ordered under house arrest, said Rao Iftikhar, a senior government official. Later, he said authorities reached an “understanding” with Sharif that he would address the protesters in Lahore and then return home — an arrangement that authorities failed to enforce.
Sharif accuses Zardari of being behind the Supreme Court ruling last month that disqualified put Sharif and his brother from elected office over convictions dating back to Musharraf’s rule.
Associated Press writers Babar Dogar in Lahore, and Zarar Khan and Asif Shahzad in Islamabad contributed to this report.
zakaria makes some good points but is anyone going to listen? not sure what the agenda is anymore. war is too profitable for too many.
“Learning to Live With Radical Islam” by Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek, Feb 28, 2009
We don’t have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it’s time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists.
Pakistan’s Swat valley is quiet once again. Often compared to Switzerland for its stunning landscape of mountains and meadows, Swat became a war zone over the past two years as Taliban fighters waged fierce battles against Army troops. No longer, but only because the Pakistani government has agreed to some of the militants’ key demands, chiefly that Islamic courts be established in the region. Fears abound that this means women’s schools will be destroyed, movies will be banned and public beheadings will become a regular occurrence.
The militants are bad people and this is bad news. But the more difficult question is, what should we—the outside world—do about it? That we are utterly opposed to such people, and their ideas and practices, is obvious. But how exactly should we oppose them? In Pakistan and Afghanistan, we have done so in large measure by attacking them—directly with Western troops and Predator strikes, and indirectly in alliance with Pakistani and Afghan forces. Is the answer to pour in more of our troops, train more Afghan soldiers, ask that the Pakistani military deploy more battalions, and expand the Predator program to hit more of the bad guys? Perhaps—in some cases, emphatically yes—but I think it’s also worth stepping back and trying to understand the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism.
It is not just in the Swat valley that Islamists are on the rise. In Afghanistan the Taliban have been gaining ground for the past two years as well. In Somalia last week, Al-Shabab, a local group of Islamic militants, captured yet another town from government forces. Reports from Nigeria to Bosnia to Indonesia show that Islamic fundamentalists are finding support within their communities for their agenda, which usually involves the introduction of some form of Sharia—Islamic law—reflecting a puritanical interpretation of Islam. No music, no liquor, no smoking, no female emancipation.
The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world—in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years—including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.
How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan’s turn toward Islam was “reactionary.”) Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai’s oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago.
Were he to hold Western, liberal views, Shinwari would have little credibility within his country. The reality—for the worse, in my view—is that radical Islam has gained a powerful foothold in the Muslim imagination. It has done so for a variety of complex reasons that I have written about before. But the chief reason is the failure of Muslim countries to develop, politically or economically. Look at Pakistan. It cannot provide security, justice or education for many of its citizens. Its elected politicians have spent all of their time in office conspiring to have their opponents thrown in jail and their own corruption charges tossed out of court. As a result, President Asif Ali Zardari’s approval rating barely a month into office was around half that enjoyed by President Pervez Musharraf during most of his term. The state is losing legitimacy as well as the capacity to actually govern.
Consider Swat. The valley was historically a peaceful place that had autonomy within Pakistan (under a loose federal arrangement) and practiced a moderate version of Sharia in its courts. In 1969 Pakistan’s laws were formally extended to the region. Over the years, the new courts functioned poorly, with long delays, and were plagued by corruption. Dysfunctional rule meant that the government lost credibility. Some people grew nostalgic for the simple, if sometimes brutal, justice of the old Sharia courts. A movement demanding their restitution began in the early 1990s, and Benazir Bhutto’s government signed an agreement to reintroduce some aspects of the Sharia court system with Sufi Muhammed, the same cleric with whom the current government has struck a deal. (The Bhutto arrangement never really worked, and the protests started up again in a few years.) Few people in the valley would say that the current truce is their preferred outcome. In the recent election, they voted for a secular party. But if the secularists produce chaos and corruption, people settle for order.
The militants who were battling the Army (led by Sufi Muhammed’s son-in-law) have had to go along with the deal. The Pakistani government is hoping that this agreement will isolate the jihadists and win the public back to its side. This may not work, but at least it represents an effort to divide the camps of the Islamists between those who are violent and those who are merely extreme.
Over the past eight years such distinctions have been regarded as naive. In the Bush administration’s original view, all Islamist groups were one and the same; any distinctions or nuances were regarded as a form of appeasement. If they weren’t terrorists themselves, they were probably harboring terrorists. But how to understand Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the countries “harbor” terrorists but are not themselves terrorist states?
To be clear, where there are Qaeda cells and fighters, force is the only answer. But most estimates of the number of Qaeda fighters in Pakistan range well under a few thousand. Are those the only people we are bombing? Is bombing—by Americans—the best solution? The Predator strikes have convinced much of the local population that it’s under attack from America and produced a nationalist backlash. A few Qaeda operatives die, but public support for the battle against extremism drops in the vital Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Is this a good exchange?
We have placed ourselves in armed opposition to Muslim fundamentalists stretching from North Africa to Indonesia, which has made this whole enterprise feel very much like a clash of civilizations, and a violent one at that. Certainly, many local despots would prefer to enlist the American armed forces to defeat their enemies, some of whom may be jihadists but others may not. Across the entire North African region, the United States and other Western powers are supporting secular autocrats who claim to be battling Islamist opposition forces. In return, those rulers have done little to advance genuine reform, state building or political openness. In Algeria, after the Islamists won an election in 1992, the military staged a coup, the Islamists were banned and a long civil war ensued in which 200,000 people died. The opposition has since become more militant, and where once it had no global interests, some elements are now aligned with Al Qaeda.
Events have taken a different course in Nigeria, where the Islamists came to power locally. After the end of military rule in 1999, 12 of Nigeria’s 36 states chose to adopt Sharia. Radical clerics arrived from the Middle East to spread their draconian interpretation of Islam. Religious militias such as the Hisbah of Kano state patrolled the streets, attacking those who shirked prayers, disobeyed religious dress codes or drank alcohol. Several women accused of adultery were sentenced to death by stoning. In 2002 The Weekly Standard decried “the Talibanization of West Africa” and worried that Nigeria, a “giant of sub-Saharan Africa,” could become “a haven for Islamism, linked to foreign extremists.”
But when The New York Times sent a reporter to Kano state in late 2007, she found an entirely different picture from the one that had been fretted over by State Department policy analysts. “The Islamic revolution that seemed so destined to transform northern Nigeria in recent years appears to have come and gone,” the reporter, Lydia Polgreen, concluded. The Hisbah had become “little more than glorified crossing guards” and were “largely confined to their barracks and assigned anodyne tasks like directing traffic and helping fans to their seats at soccer games.” The widely publicized sentences of mutilation and stoning rarely came to pass (although floggings were common). Other news reports have confirmed this basic picture.
Residents hadn’t become less religious; mosques still overflowed with the devout during prayer time, and virtually all Muslim women went veiled. But the government had helped push Sharia in a tamer direction by outlawing religious militias; the regular police had no interest in enforcing the law’s strictest tenets. In addition, over time some of the loudest proponents of Sharia had been exposed as hypocrites. Some were under investigation for embezzling millions.
We have an instant, violent reaction to anyone who sounds like an Islamic bigot. This is understandable. Many Islamists are bigots, reactionaries and extremists (others are charlatans and opportunists). But this can sometimes blind us to the ways they might prove useful in the broader struggle against Islamic terror. The Bush administration spent its first term engaged in a largely abstract, theoretical conversation about radical Islam and its evils—and conservative intellectuals still spout this kind of unyielding rhetoric. By its second term, though, the administration was grappling with the complexities of Islam on the ground. It is instructive that Bush ended up pursuing a most sophisticated and nuanced policy toward political Islam in the one country where reality was unavoidable—Iraq.
Having invaded Iraq, the Americans searched for local allies, in particular political groups that could become the Iraqi face of the occupation. The administration came to recognize that 30 years of Saddam—a secular, failed tyrant—had left only hard-core Islamists as the opposition. It partnered with these groups, most of which were Shiite parties founded on the model of Iran’s ultra-religious organizations, and acquiesced as they took over most of southern Iraq, the Shiite heartland. In this area, the strict version of Islam that they implemented was quite similar to—in some cases more extreme than—what one would find in Iran today. Liquor was banned; women had to cover themselves from head to toe; Christians were persecuted; religious affiliations became the only way to get a government job, including college professorships.
While some of this puritanism is now mellowing, southern Iraq remains a dark place. But it is not a hotbed of jihad. And as the democratic process matures, one might even hope that some version of the Nigerian story will play out there. “It’s hard to hand over authority to people who are illiberal,” says former CIA analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht. “What you have to realize is that the objective is to defeat bin Ladenism, and you have to start the evolution. Moderate Muslims are not the answer. Shiite clerics and Sunni fundamentalists are our salvation from future 9/11s.”
The Bush administration partnered with fundamentalists once more in the Iraq War, in the Sunni belt. When the fighting was at its worst, administration officials began talking to some in the Sunni community who were involved in the insurgency. Many of them were classic Islamic militants, though others were simply former Baathists or tribal chiefs. Gen. David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy ramped up this process. “We won the war in Iraq chiefly because we separated the local militants from the global jihadists,” says Fawaz Gerges, a scholar at Sarah Lawrence College, who has interviewed hundreds of Muslim militants. “Yet around the world we are still unwilling to make the distinction between these two groups.”
Would a strategy like this work in Afghanistan? David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency expert who has advised Petraeus, says, “I’ve had tribal leaders and Afghan government officials at the province and district level tell me that 90 percent of the people we call the Taliban are actually tribal fighters or Pashtun nationalists or people pursuing their own agendas. Less than 10 percent are ideologically aligned with the Quetta Shura [Mullah Omar’s leadership group] or Al Qaeda.” These people are, in his view, “almost certainly reconcilable under some circumstances.” Kilcullen adds, “That’s very much what we did in Iraq. We negotiated with 90 percent of the people we were fighting.”
Beyond Afghanistan, too, it is crucial that we adopt a more sophisticated strategy toward radical Islam. This should come naturally to President Obama, who spoke often on the campaign trail of the need for just such a differentiated approach toward Muslim countries. Even the Washington Institute, a think tank often associated with conservatives, appears onboard. It is issuing a report this week that recommends, among other points, that the United States use more “nuanced, noncombative rhetoric” that avoids sweeping declarations like “war on terror,” “global insurgency,” even “the Muslim world.” Anything that emphasizes the variety of groups, movements and motives within that world strengthens the case that this is not a battle between Islam and the West. Bin Laden constantly argues that all these different groups are part of the same global movement. We should not play into his hands, and emphasize instead that many of these forces are local, have specific grievances and don’t have much in common.
That does not mean we should accept the burning of girls’ schools, or the stoning of criminals. Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas. We should mount a spirited defense of our views and values. We should pursue aggressively policies that will make these values succeed. Such efforts are often difficult and take time—rebuilding state structures, providing secular education, reducing corruption—but we should help societies making these efforts. The mere fact that we are working in these countries on these issues—and not simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle.
The veil is not the same as the suicide belt. We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan—people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That’s the most powerful weapon of all.
“Army leaders are fully aware that repeated deployments have led to increased distress and anxiety for both soldiers and their families,” Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said. “This stress on the force is validated by recent studies of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression.”
as obama escalates the war in south asia, we will be spending more on defense and less on fixing domestic problems. as the economy deflates further and unemployment rises, military enlistment is going to jump up. an untenable vicious circle. something will have to give.
here is the full article from cnn.
a press tv interview with respected american author, political analyst and world-renowned linguist, professor noam chomsky.
holbrooke’s appointment is a positive step. he is a brilliant diplomat and someone of his caliber is what we need in south asia. however, where his appointment falls short is the breadth of his portfolio. we choose to focus on the apparent “problem children” in the region without any reference to the big daddy of south asia – india. btw here is a great article about how that came to pass.
the pakistan-india conflict is at the epicenter of much of what we see today and kashmir is what keeps that conflict boiling. if some kind of pakistan-india accord could be brokered it would take the steam out of the pakistan army, the ISI and the whole concept of asymmetric warfare that gave birth to the taliban. it would strengthen pakistan’s civilian government.
another thing that would help of course, would be our abandonment of the latin american model of supporting military dictatorships in pakistan. the time has passed for that approach.
from “what obama should do in pakistan” by malou innocent, huffington post, jan 23, 2009:
…U.S. missile strikes prove tactically problematic for three reasons.
First, missile strikes undermine the authority of sitting Pakistani leaders. The August 19th resignation of former army general Pervez Musharraf demonstrated how the burden of assuming a pro-American stance can prove a political liability for “war on terror” allies. Aligning with pro-U.S. policies is one reason why Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s new president, is reviled by many of his countrymen, while opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who has been openly critical of U.S. actions across the border in Afghanistan, has seen his popularity soar.
A second reason to be skeptical of relying almost exclusively on missile strikes is that they encourage Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) militants to lash out against their closer enemy, Pakistan, causing disastrous ripple effects that further damage the already weakened country. Suicide bombers are striking Pakistan’s large urban centers with increasing frequency and are signals of the spreading insurgency engulfing the Islamic Republic.
The final, and most important, reason to be circumspect about escalating military force in the tribal areas is that it will almost certainly fail. The clans, subclans, and extended families that weave the complex fabric of Pashtun tribal society have endured hundreds of years of foreign invasions. Time and again, Persian, Greek, Turk, Mughal, British and Soviet invaders have discovered these peoples to be virtually unconquerable. Pashtun social values include loyalty (wafa), honor (nang), and badal, the Pashto word for taking revenge. Vendettas, personal and collective, have been known to last for generations. While U.S. missile strikes can certainly extinguish high-value targets, they also trigger collective armed action throughout the tribal agencies.
The dilemma for President Obama is that as long as militants continue to infiltrate the hundreds of unguarded checkpoints along the Afghan-Pakistan border, the security environment in Afghanistan will continue to decline. While Obama is correct to argue that we have no choice but to attack militants inside FATA as long as we remain in Afghanistan…
(here on i stopped agreeing with ms innocent – she doesn’t realize that she just stated the problem – “as long as we remain in afghanistan” – exactly, we need to get out!)
the latest u.s. attacks inside pakistan are deeply disturbing.
they are a continuation of the same lazy, ineffective and arrogant warfare ushered in by the bushies. however targeted these air strikes might be, based on whatever “actionable intelligence” might be available to americans living on the other side of the globe, they overwhelmingly result in the killing of poor villagers. and i am sick of hearing about “collateral damage” so let’s not even go there – it’s just convenient linguistic whitewash.
i read this analogy somewhere and it really struck home. if we had actionable intelligence that a serial killer was hiding in an apartment in manhattan, would it be ok to bomb that entire block? is that how we go after criminals? no, of course not, this would be unthinkable. civilian life is too precious. collateral damage would be too high. how can collateral damage be then justified in waziristan? we are not at war with pakistan.
on to more practical considerations. will killing a few militants (if that can ever be achieved and properly confirmed) mean an end to terrorism? for every militant who’s killed, for every villager in a wedding party who’s bombed to shreds, there will be ten more people who will become radicalized and will want to strike back.
there is direct correlation between u.s. bombings in pakistan’s northern areas and suicide attacks all over pakistan. suicide bombings are completely new to pakistan and they too have been v “targeted”. hafiz gul bahadur, a militant leader in north waziristan, warned that his men would launch suicide attacks on foreigners and government targets across the country unless the raids stop. and so it has been – police stations, army depots, the islamabad marriott where many government dignitaries and foreigners can be found, the list goes on. the pakistan army and government are thought to be complicit in america’s war on the people of pakistan and they have therefore sustained historic numbers of casualties.
on the one hand obama wants to stabilize and engage that region but on the other hand his military strategy will only create more hatred, violence and chaos in south asia. pakistan is already feeling the strain. there are power outages in islamabad and major cities like lahore and karachi, every other hour. food is so expensive that it’s becoming increasingly hard for people not to starve. as the pakistani people are pitted against their own government and army, many see civil war around the corner.
things are so bad right now that the only intelligent thing for us to do is to GET OUT. nothing even remotely good has ever come out of u.s. presence and aggression in that region.
the war in congo is horrific. for some historical perspective watch “king leopold’s ghost” by pippa scott (on netflix). for the devastating effects of the war on women watch “the greatest silence: rape in the congo” by lisa f. jackson (an HBO doc).
we should educate ourselves about what’s going on in the congo. here is a good way to start.
hope president obama will talk to some people who know something about pakistan (for real, not just from books by people who spent a weekend there once or flew over pakistan on their way to another country) before deciding to escalate the war in afghanistan.
Ten Myths about Pakistan by Mohammed Hanif (The Times of India, January 4, 2009)
Living in Pakistan and reading about it in the Indian press can sometimes be quite a disorienting experience: one wonders what place on earth they’re talking about? I wouldn’t be surprised if an Indian reader going through Pakistani papers has asked the same question in recent days. Here are some common assumptions about Pakistan and its citizens that I have come across in the Indian media…
Pakistan controls the jihadis: Or Pakistan’s government controls the jihadis. Or Pakistan Army controls the jihadis. Or ISI controls the jihadis. Or some rogue elements from the ISI control the Jihadis. Nobody knows the whole truth but increasingly it’s the tail that wags the dog. We must remember that the ISI-Jihadi alliance was a marriage of convenience, which has broken down irrevocably. Pakistan army has lost more soldiers at the hands of these jihadis than it ever did fighting India.
Musharraf was in control, Zardari is not: Let’s not forget that General Musharraf seized power after he was fired from his job as the army chief by an elected prime minister. Musharraf first appeased jihadis, then bombed them, and then appeased them again. The country he left behind has become a very dangerous place, above all for its own citizens. There is a latent hankering in sections of the Indian middle class for a strongman. Give Manmohan Singh a military uniform, put all the armed forces under his direct command, make his word the law of the land, and he too will go around thumping his chest saying that it’s his destiny to save India from Indians . Zardari will never have the kind of control that Musharraf had. But Pakistanis do not want another Musharraf.
Pakistan, which Pakistan? For a small country, Pakistan is very diverse, not only ethnically but politically as well. General Musharraf’s government bombed Pashtuns in the north for being Islamists and close to the Taliban and at the same time it bombed Balochs in the South for NOT being Islamists and for subscribing to some kind of retro-socialist, anti Taliban ethos. You have probably heard the joke about other countries having armies but Pakistan’s army having a country. Nobody in Pakistan finds it funny.
Pakistan and its loose nukes: Pakistan’s nuclear programme is under a sophisticated command and control system, no more under threat than India or Israel’s nuclear assets are threatened by Hindu or Jewish extremists. For a long time Pakistan’s security establishment’s other strategic asset was jihadi organisations, which in the last couple of years have become its biggest liability.
Pakistan is a failed state: If it is, then Pakistanis have not noticed. Or they have lived in it for such a long time that they have become used to its dysfunctional aspects. Trains are late but they turn up, there are more VJs, DJs, theatre festivals, melas, and fashion models than a failed state can accommodate. To borrow a phrase from President Zardari, there are lots of non-state actors like Abdul Sattar Edhi who provide emergency health services, orphanages and shelters for sick animals.
It is a deeply religious country: Every half-decent election in this country has proved otherwise. Religious parties have never won more than a fraction of popular vote. Last year Pakistan witnessed the largest civil rights movements in the history of this region. It was spontaneous, secular and entirely peaceful. But since people weren’t raising anti-India or anti-America slogans, nobody outside Pakistan took much notice.
All Pakistanis hate India: Three out of four provinces in Pakistan – Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP – have never had any popular anti-India sentiment ever. Punjabis who did impose India as enemy-in-chief on Pakistan are now more interested in selling potatoes to India than destroying it. There is a new breed of al-Qaida inspired jihadis who hate a woman walking on the streets of Karachi as much as they hate a woman driving a car on the streets of Delhi. In fact there is not much that they do not hate: they hate America, Denmark, China CDs, barbers, DVDs , television, even football. Imran Khan recently said that these jihadis will never attack a cricket match but nobody takes him seriously.
Training camps: There are militant sanctuaries in the tribal areas of Pakistan but definitely not in Muzaffarabad or Muridke, two favourite targets for Indian journalists, probably because those are the cities they have ever been allowed to visit. After all how much training do you need if you are going to shoot at random civilians or blow yourself up in a crowded bazaar? So if anyone thinks a few missiles targeted at Muzaffarabad will teach anyone a lesson, they should switch off their TV and try to locate it on the map.
RAW would never do what ISI does: Both the agencies have had a brilliant record of creating mayhem in the neighbouring countries. Both have a dismal record when it comes to protecting their own people. There is a simple reason that ISI is a bigger, more notorious brand name: It was CIA’s franchise during the jihad against the Soviets. And now it’s busy doing jihad against those very jihadis.
Pakistan is poor, India is rich: Pakistanis visiting India till the mid-eighties came back very smug. They told us about India’s slums, and that there was nothing to buy except handicrafts and saris. Then Pakistanis could say with justifiable pride that nobody slept hungry in their country. But now, not only do people sleep hungry in both the countries, they also commit suicide because they see nothing but a lifetime of hunger ahead. A debt-ridden farmer contemplating suicide in Maharashtra and a mother who abandons her children in Karachi because she can’t feed them: this is what we have achieved in our mutual desire to teach each other a lesson.
The writer is the author of ‘A Case of Exploding Mangoes’
this article by cenk uygur (the huffington post, jan 21) articulates many of my own feelings. here it is:
The Country Was Made Ours
I know I have emphasized this theme before, but I can’t tell you what a relief it is to have the Reign of Error over (I don’t know who to credit for that turn of phrase; I saw it on the internet somewhere and thought it’s perfectly appropriate). I love that Obama was inaugurated today. But I have to confess that I think I loved Bush leaving more. That was the world’s greatest helicopter ride out of town.
I was even more relieved when they swore Joe Biden in, knowing that Dick Cheney could not torture one more man, break one more law or invade one more wrong country.
I feel released from the oppression of one more injustice or one more grave error around the corner. What will they do next? What heinous or negligent act lies ahead for us? But, now it’s over. It feels like a burden has been lifted off of me. I feel liberated.
The liberation of America has begun!
The reason for my relief is not my abiding faith that Obama can do no wrong or will make no mistakes. It rides on one single idea – he will do his best. Unlike Bush, he will be diligent, intelligent, responsible and caring. And that makes all the difference.
It’s not that Bush didn’t care about anybody. I’m sure he loves his family and thinks he loves his country. What I mean is that he didn’t care to do the job right. He didn’t take his responsibility seriously. It didn’t keep him up at night. He didn’t diligently think through his actions. He didn’t appreciate the consequences of his decisions. He was careless with our well-being.
Obama might not always do right, but I believe he will at least try with all his might. That is the new faith I have in our president and in our country.
And in that light, let me end on this note. I wasn’t sure the Roosevelts, the Kennedys or the Bushes really represented me. Not that they were all bad presidents, because they surely weren’t (not all of them at least). But because I wasn’t sure they were one of us.
Were they from a different class of people? Were they part of a different group I didn’t have a chance of joining? Did they rule us instead of lead us?
Bill Clinton was genuinely middle-class. He seemed to show that a real American without any connections or privileges could make it to the top. But you always wondered. Was there something we didn’t know about Clinton’s connections to the world of the powerful?
With Obama those doubts have been erased. Obama wasn’t born as anybody. Obama didn’t know anybody. Obama became somebody. It turns out there are no secret elites that exist above us. We are truly a democracy. Any of us can make it.
With this inauguration, this country was made ours. For the first time – as much as I have loved it before – I feel like it is truly our own now. Any one of us can really be the first among equals. The hope that America actually stands for what it proclaims has been realized. That is not to be underestimated. And that is part of why so many people were out in Washington, DC today. Because they came to their inauguration.
America was made real today.
the new yorker, with its vast arsenal of ironic political covers, hasn’t always hit the nail on the head. but i absolutely love this latest issue.
it’s simply called “the first”.
by drew friedman