| Submit your comments on this article | |
| India-Pakistan | |
| Pakistan Reverses 911 Appeasement | |
| 2008-09-14 | |
By Ahmed Quraishi
There is a bigger problem here. Pakistani policy analysts are convinced that United States has been a duplicitous ally during the past seven years, using the sincere Pakistani cooperation on Afghanistan to gradually turn that country into a military base to launch a sophisticated psychological, intelligence and military campaign to destabilize Pakistan itself. The objective is to weaken the control of the Pakistani military over geographical Pakistan and ignite an ethnic and sectarian civil war leading to changing the status of Balochistan and NWFP, possibly even facilitate the break up of both provinces from the Pakistani federation. The defeatist stance of Pakistan's elected government in the face of U.S. belligerence is discussed later in this paper. But it is worth noting that President Zardari has refused to publicly back the military's warning to U.S. He also delayed his China visit to go to London to hunker down with Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani, in a statement that deprives Pakistan of strategic advantage and dampens the psychological effect of army chief's warning, has said that 'Pakistan can't wage war with U.S.' In comparison, the governor of NWFP, Mr. Owais Ghani, has become the only government official to publicly state the truth. On Sept. 12, the governor's office issued the following statement: "Foreign forces based in Afghanistan and militants [inside Pakistan] are working on the same anti-Pakistan agenda and both are following the same strategy to weaken the country [...] while the coalition troops were threatening to extend their war to Pakistan, the militants are also attacking the country and creating a war-like situation. It appeared that both the forces were working on the same agenda to weaken Pakistan." In one sign of the grand double game, despite the poor relations with Iran, Washington has encouraged Karzai and the Indians to complete the construction of a road that links Afghanistan to an Indian-built Iranian seaport. The purpose is to end the dependence of both U.S. army and the Karzai regime on Pakistan for access to sea. U.S. military officials have also been seeking permission to use Russian air space for military cargo to replace Pakistani facilities. These American actions show a degree of long term planning and are not connected to the recent American grievances against Pakistan and its intelligence agencies. A segment of the U.S. policy establishment had decided to take the war to Pakistan from the outset in 2001. Washington first used Islamabad to occupy Afghanistan and then used the Afghan soil to start series of insurgencies inside Pakistan. The strategy was an alternative to a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed country. A weak Pakistani state with a neutered military was envisaged as an ideal situation to protect U.S. interests with regards to China, Russia and India. It is not clear how much the rest of the departments of the U.S. government knew about the destabilization plans for Pakistan. If the entire U.S. political and military strategy on Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001 was based on consensus, then Pakistanis have been massively deceived by their American allies. The anti-Pakistan lobby in Washington found willing allies in the Indians and the Northern AllianceKabul. component of the Karzai regime in The idea to destabilize Pakistan appears to have started with simple and clear thoughts. The U.S.- and India-backed Kabul regime proposed reviving Pashtun nationalism and the secession of Pashtun regions from Pakistan. The Indians offered their decades-old experience in penetrating Pakistani territories for espionage. The Indians offered something else too: The revival of the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The Soviets and Indians together created this terrorist organization in the 1970s and used Afghan soil to foment an ethnic-based civil war inside Pakistan. The idea died out naturally, until the Indians offered the Americans to revive it after 9/11 as a punishment for Pakistan. Pakistan's tribal belt, Balochistan and Swat were peaceful until early 2005. Since then, series of insurgencies have erupted led by shady ethno-religious characters. One of them, a tribal thug who stayed in American and Karzai custody for several years, was released only to enter Pakistan and begin targeting Chinese citizens in the country. Another thug in Balochistan was convinced by handlers in Afghanistan that he would be made the head of an independent Balochistan with U.S. help if he agreed to launch an insurgency and help recruit young Pakistanis to get training to fight their own country. Between 2005 and now, the entire western Pakistan from the Arabian Sea to the border with China has turned into a cocktail of ethnic and religious insurgencies focused on fighting the Pakistani state and the Pakistani military. On July 12, 2008, when U.S. Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes were in Rawalpindi on a secret visit, Gen. Kayani, former President Musharraf and Pakistani intelligence officials confronted the American duo with conclusive evidence that showed U.S. complicity in feeding and sustaining a terrorist movement in Balochistan, where China is building a strategic seaport. Pakistanis now also have damning evidence that shows that Karzai's security apparatus, which is heavily infested with Indian security and intelligence advisers, has been directly supplying weapons and money to clusters of thugs masquerading as 'Pakistani Taliban'. The main assignment for these fake 'Taliban' is to target and kill Pakistanis -- military and civilians -- and kidnap Chinese citizens in Pakistan. Which is surprising because the Afghan Taliban, the real Taliban, are focused on targeting U.S. occupation forces in Afghanistan and not on spreading fear and chaos among Pakistanis. This is more like someone is trying to punish Pakistan through a planned effort. In the latest incidents, over 25 worshippers perished when unknown terrorists lobbed hand grenades inside a mosque in northern Pakistan. The real Taliban would never indulge in such senseless violence targeting Pakistani citizens. Moreover, two Chinese engineers have been kidnapped. It is strange that the Chinese are the only foreigners being targeted in Pakistan, while citizens of United States and other NATO member countries are spared. Even if U.S. officials deny that parts of the U.S. government are privy to this destabilization effort, there is no question that the U.S. military is inexplicably ignoring the Karzai-Indian export of terrorism into Pakistan. The U.S. role is certainly suspicious. Starting in early 2007, the U.S. media unleashed an organized demonization campaign against Pakistan that was unprecedented in the history of Pak-U.S. relations. U.S.Pakistan and spread 'anti-Pakistanism' globally. media made a concerted effort to create world hostility against Besides India, the United States is the only other country in the world busy in this deliberate creation of hostility against Pakistan. Take the example of this quote from an article that appeared in the conservative, pro-Bush magazine, The Weekly Standard, in Nov. 2007: "A large number of ISI agents ... should be thrown in jail or killed. What I think we should do in Pakistan is a parallel version of what Iran has run against us in Iraq: giving money [and] empowering [anti-state] actors. Some of this will involve working with some shady characters." On Feb. 1, 2008, New York Times, published an op-ed piece that discussed in detail the division of PakistanNYT is the same paper that allowed itself to be used by Bush administration spin masters to promote fake stories about WMD and Iraq before U.S. invaded that country. Pakistan's ace diplomat, Mr. Munir Akram, who has recently been removed by the Zardari government from his job as Pakistan's envoy to the U.N., saw the NYT article and sent a letter to the paper's editor, although it was not his job to do so but the responsibility of the press attaché in the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. into three independent states. The article was an example of malicious fear-mongering but the real surprise was that a prestigious paper carried it. Mr. Akram wrote: "will confirm the belief of many Pakistanis that there is an international conspiracy to destabilize and disintegrate Pakistan [...] The orchestrated campaign against President Pervez Musharraf, the denigration of the Pakistani Army, calls for the capture of Pakistan's nuclear assets, the string of suicide bombings and terrorism in Balochistan are all seen as aimed at this malevolent design." This American media campaign against Pakistan continues unabated. Last month, Mr. Harlan Ullman, a Washington columnist with strong ties to U.S. military, visited Islamabad and returned to float this stunning idea: "Pakistan should create integrated and joint operations centers at ISI or Army GHQ with U.S. military, State Department, law enforcement and intelligence officers in residence." This U.S. media campaign has been going hand in glove for the past eighteen months with a wave of terrorism inside Pakistan targeting Pakistani civilians and government. The blame for these acts was laid at the doors of something called 'Pakistani Taliban' which is, in major part, a creation of Indian and Karzai intelligence setups inside Afghanistan. It is highly suspicious that U.S. military attacks inside Pakistan in recent weeks have targeted pro-Pakistan tribesmen. Somehow the U.S. drones and spy satellites are unable to target the shady rebel leaders who are exclusively fighting Pakistan and never attack U.S. soldiers across the border. Also, the American war strategy neatly fits in with the secessionist campaign that seeks to turn Pakistani Pashtuns against their own country. With every U.S. attack that kills women and children, Pakistani Pashtun are becoming convinced that their country, Pakistan, is either unwilling or incapable of defending its citizens. The military operations conducted by Pakistani military to kill these shadowy terrorists are indirectly sending the message that Islamabad is also party to spilling Pashtun blood. All of this is strengthening the case of those who are promoting a secessionist propaganda that the NWFP and the Pashtun areas must secede from Pakistan. This is the first time in decades that the idea of Pashtuns, the real liberators of Azad Kashmir, turning against Pakistan is appearing to be a possibility. There is no question that Pakistan' military waited for a cue from the country's elected leadership to respond to U.S. violations of Pakistani territory. On Sept. 6, marked as Pakistan Defense Day in memory of a failed Indian invasion of Pakistan in 1965, the Pakistani air force chief tried to send a message to the elected government. He told reporters that the Pakistani air force was ready to respond if the government made a policy decision. The Zardari-Gilani government chose to ignore U.S. attacks. In fact, the defense minister, Mr. Ahmed Mukhtar, made statements on multiple occasions that raised eyebrows. At one point he said U.S. drones flew too high for Pakistani military to respond. At another point he justified U.S. attacks inside Pakistan by saying 'there must be a reason' for Washington to violate the border. Then came Hamid Karzai to plant a misleading story in the Pakistani media when President Zardari invited him to his oath-taking ceremony on Sept. 9. After his arrival, Karzai called some journalists and leaked to them that Arabs were killed in the Sept. 8 U.S. attack on the house of the veteran Afghan commander Jalaluddin Haqqani in Miramshah. This was a perfect justification for the violation of Pakistani territory and it helped the Americans tell their reluctant European allies that attacking Pakistan was justified. Karzai leaked the information, complete with names and numbers of the dead Arabs. The sinister part of this exercise was that 'sources close to the Haqqani family' were cited to confirm the report. Major Pakistani news organizations picked up the story and made it their lead for several hours. This was the height of cynicism. The Haqqani family was in mourning, with several members of the family, women and children dead while a disinformation campaign was using their name to confirm the existence of foreign fighters in their house. The truth was that Haqqani's house was never a secret hideout. His family maintained a house in PakistanAfghanistan and the people in the house where his extended family relatives, ordinary people with no link to the war in Afghanistan. This is like Afghan resistance groups deciding to target Mr. Karzai's extended family members who have nothing to do with Karzai's activities just to get back at him. The Afghan resistance has never done it. But Karzai and his American allies have no problem in resorting to this method. since the 1980s. Haqqani lived and operated in The devastated Haqqani family corrected the story later and questioned the source of the story since there were no Arabs or foreign or any fighters at all in the house. The U.S. attack was a deliberate act of terrorism to cause maximum pain to the Afghan commander. Pakistani military quietly watched the Zardari-Gilani government take no position on the U.S. attacks. Then came the bombshell when, last week, Bush and his military chief, Adm. Mullen, said Pakistan was now part of the Iraq-Afghanistan 'war theater' and New York Times published a leak that said Bush had authorized attacks inside Pakistan without Islamabad's consent. The purpose behind the leak was to put Pakistan on notice and somehow force the issue down on Islamabad in the hope that Pakistan will grudgingly accept it. After Gen. Kayani's tough-worded counter statement, an embarrassed Prime Minister Gilani said the statement reflected his government's policy. But the biggest question mark is the silence of President Zardari. He did not endorse Gen. Kayani's statement. Even more shocking for Pakistanis was that Mr. Zardari reneged on his promise that China will be his first foreign visit as President. Instead he left for London after a call from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown 'inviting' him to London to discuss the new U.S. strategy. It is clear that President Zardari supports the new U.S. policy and does not agree with the Pakistani military's warning that it will protect Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs. Mr. Zardari is in power thanks to the arrangement -- known as the 'deal' - that Washington and LondonPakistan to accept. His assets are mostly in United States and Britain. There is no way he can risk alienating his backers. forced There is every possibility that President Zardari has been convinced by close advisors, especially Ambassador Husain Haqqani in Washington, to tacitly accept U.S. operations inside Pakistan and not allow the Pakistani military to dictate its terms. Ambassador Haqqani is strongly sympathetic to Washington's position. Last year, he played a major role in convincing Benazir Bhutto to make public statements accepting U.S. boots on Pakistani soil and American access to Dr. A. Q. Khan. Before his present assignment, Mr. Haqqani has been closely linked to the same hawkish U.S. think tanks that are the biggest advocates of U.S. military intervention in Pakistan. The elected government's soft position on U.S. attacks has a lot to do with the work of Ambassador Haqqani and another American figure--Zalmay Khalilzad, President Zardari's 'secret' American adviser. It is a foregone conclusion; based on Ambassador Haqqani's intrusive record at the Pakistan Foreign Office in the past four months, that he has a direct link to the bizarre statement by Prime Minister Gilani ["PakistanU.S."-Sept 12] and the series of statements made by Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar that justified U.S. attacks against Pakistan ["U.S. drones fly too high, we can't attack them" and "If U.S. attacks, there must be a reason."]. can't wage war with If Pakistani military tries to block U.S. military violations, there is a possibility of limited armed conflict between Pakistani and American soldiers on the Afghan border. Gen. Kayani's warning of retaliation did help NATO make a public statement that it does not share Washington's idea of taking the war to Pakistan. However, no one in Islamabad is convinced that NATO will remain neutral in the event that U.S. military tries to engage Pakistan in a conflict. In case of conflict, Washington is expected to signal to India to open a front in the east in order to divert Pakistani military resources. Intelligence assets that have been planted inside Pakistan with links in Afghanistan will be activated and will possibly try to ratchet up the campaign of public terror in order to spread chaos and exert pressure on Pakistan military. More Chinese targets can be attacked or killed in order to strain ties between Beijing and Islamabad. But Pakistan is not without options. In fact, the Pakistani position is stronger than what it appears to be. Islamabad can activate old contacts with a resurgent and rising Afghan Taliban inside Afghanistan. The entire Pakistani tribal belt will seize this opportunity to fight the Americans. The attempts to divide Pakistanis along sectarian lines have failed and the Americans cannot expect to repeat what they did in Iraq Pakistanis will fight and resist. There is a possibility that Pakistani tribesmen could cross the border in large numbers using secret routes to dodge aerial bombardment and join the Afghan Taliban and find their way to Kabul. The misguided 'Pakistani Taliban' who appear to be operating as an extension of U.S. military in Afghanistan will also come under pressure of the tribesmen and will be forced to target the occupation forces instead of fighting the Pakistani government. in March 2003. Washington might be tempted by the idea of signaling to the Indians to engage Pakistan from the east. But the fact is that the Indian army has a dangerous rebellion on its hands in the valley. By opening a front with Pakistan, Indian soldiers will have to protect their front and rear simultaneously. The Pakistani military has contingency plans for dealing with hostilities on two fronts. But the situation between Islamabad and Washington does not have to come to this. Islamabad can help tip the scales in Washington against the hawks who want a war with Pakistan. Not all parts of the U.S.Pakistan must make it clear that it will retaliate. Statements like that of Prime Minister Gilani must be stopped. His statement virtually damaged the psychological effect of army chief's warning. government accept this idea and this must be exploited. U.S. military posturing aside, Washington has recently seen a string of diplomatic defeats. Russia has cut American meddling in Georgia to size. In Iraq, a coalition of Shiite parties is forcing the Americans to leave the country. Bolivia and Venezuela have expelled U.S. ambassadors, and, in Bolivia's case, the world has suddenly become alert to Washington's meddling in that country's politics and the role of the U.S.U.S. role inside Pakistan, where U.S. ambassador in fueling separatism. Which is not very different from the diplomats have created political chaos by directly engaging the politicians, coupled with creating and feeding insurgencies to weaken the country. The only way to entrap Pakistan now is to either orchestrate a spectacular terrorist attack in U.S. and blame it on Pakistan, or to assassinate a high profile personality inside Pakistan and generate domestic strife that will make it impossible for the military to resist U.S. attacks. | |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #9 ARCLIGHT, just one, but a big one, down through the center of the FATA. Pakistan will fold like a wet paper bag trying to hold 20 pounds of potatos. We don't want Pakistan. We really don't want anything to do with Pakistan. They just keep poking us with a sharp stick, and we're getting tired of it. It's time to spank a hand or two, preferably hard, but not nuclear. We also need to let them know that if they DON'T stop, they will disappear from the face of the Earth faster than a snowcone in the Mojave. The future of Pakistan is in the hands of the Pakistanis. They have to make the decision as to how they go forward from here. We, however, hold the trump if they make the wrong decision. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-09-14 22:57 |
| #8 What of Pashtunistan, Graveyard of Armies? The Sikh king Ranjit Singh conquered the Pashtuns. The graveyards were filled with those Muslims who rose up in jihad against him and were defeated. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-09-14 18:21 |
| #7 I fear that our brave soldiers will be helpless in the face of the Brutal Pakistan Winter(tm). |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-09-14 15:40 |
| #6 I think Pakistain may be in the process of making the decision to actually go to war with the United States. I think the decision has already been made, and Pakistan wasn't consulted. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-09-14 15:19 |
| #5 Somehow the U.S. drones and spy satellites are unable to target the shady rebel leaders who are exclusively fighting Pakistan and never attack U.S. soldiers across the border. Why should the US attack those who never attack us? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-09-14 13:34 |
| #4 Whatever became of Dan Darling? |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2008-09-14 13:08 |
| #3 But talk about loquacious. I haven't seen anything like that since Dan Darling got his security clearance. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-14 11:27 |
| #2 It's nice to know that as the American MSM collapse there's a place they can go to continue their profession of creative writing. It may not pay as well, but they get ink, damn it. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-09-14 11:07 |
| #1 Uh, I think there's already plenty of domestic strife in pakistain and all the US has to do is watch, wait and lower the boom at the appropriate moment... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-09-14 10:05 |