[Dawn] When on December 18 leaders from more than a dozen radical religious parties, certain down-and-out politicians, one very verbose former ISI chief and the son of a bygone and dead dictator graced the 'Defend Pakistain' rally organised by the controversial Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD), I wondered, was the military touched by this gesture? Were the military's top cats elated by the sight of some very loud and angry beings saluting the country's army, all the while spitting venom at the government and, of course, a Hindu India along with the US crusaders? Or was the military embarrassed?
I mean, the cat has certainly not popped out of the bag so openly before. In other words, there has always been talk of how the military -- ever since Yahya Khan's misadventures in the former East Pakistain, and especially ever since the reactionary Ziaul Haq dictatorship -- has been playing footsie with radical Islamist parties to undermine any force supposedly threatening the country's illusory sovereignty. Of course, illusory sovereignty in this specific context usually means safeguarding the political and institutional hegemony and influence of the establishment and of 'Pakistain ideology', manufactured by the establishment (with the help of the once anti-Jinnah Learned Elders of Islam and their urbane ideologues) from the 1970s onwards.
It reached its propagated peak during Zia's time and now is a mindless populist slogan that actually means nothing, really. Ever since Pakistain's entry in the global 'war on terror' (post-9/11), its armed forces have been at pains to explain to the concerned world that the country's military and especially its intelligence agencies have nothing to do with the violent psychos who've been blowing up mosques, shrines and markets and slaughtering civilians in the name of jihad; and nor is the military in league with hate-spouting sectarian organizations.
Yet there they were on December 18, eulogising the military, these political faces and the overt apologists and sympathisers of precisely the kind of barbarity and the barbarians the military says it has no links to and is at war with. Catch-22, indeed. Because if such are the forces that the military has used much of our tax money, US military aid and common frontline soldiers to fight against, then prey tell, why on December 18, were men who glorify Death Eaters seen polishing medals of an army that has fought a prolonged counter-insurgency with those whom these men consider a collective reincarnation of Muhammad Bin Qasim?
In the aftermath of the humiliation that the military had to face in the event of the Raymond Davis issue, the Osama discovery, the Mehran Base attack (by Islamist terrorists) and finally the NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A cautionary tale of cost-benefit analysis.... attack on Pak soldiers, has the establishment finally let go of its pretence about being an institution that (after 9/11) had discarded its baggage of being a much radicalised and reactionary outfit? According to some observers of military politics, such as Najam Sethi, Hasan Askari, Ahmed Rashid and Ayesha Siddiqa, both conventional and clandestine Islamist outfits usually pour out onto the streets with given a tactical wink by the establishment as and when required.
The reasons behind this have usually to do with the establishment wishing to whip up emotions against a democratic regime that it is not happy with or to brew widespread sentiment against either India or the US. If so, then this sudden unity and pouring out of both mainstream as well as shady Islamist groups, pro-establishment politicians, ex-ISI men and even some media personnel praising the military whilst sounding like Islamised Kim Il Sungs, is a cause for concern.
Are these the only kind of men that the military, ever since Yahya's initial patronage of the Jamat-i-Islami in 1970-71, been able to attract as a constituency? Forget about the US concerns (a country which, till the 1980s, was actually an encouraging partner in Pak military's growing infatuation with Islamists), and also forget about Indian pangs as well. The concern should be ours first.
Any rational Pak should be worried. Worried that today a lethal battery of nuclear warheads lies surrounded by an enigmatic military now being carried on the shoulders of men who applaud murderers of men accused of 'blasphemy', spit obscenities at actresses visiting India but refuse to condemn those who have mercilessly slaughtered over 36,000 soldiers, civilians and women and kiddies.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Ride the tiger. Feed the tiger. Hope that the tiger eats you last...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/26/2011 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
[Dawn] SOME recent developments must cause concern to all those interested in seeing Iraq develop into a mature and stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Vice President Tarik al-Hashemi, wanted on terror charges, is holed up in Kurdistan¸ and the provincial government has so far been reluctant to hand him over to Storied Baghdad ...located along the Tigris River, founded in the 8th century, home of the Abbasid Caliphate... for trial. Meanwhile, ...back at the pie fight, Bella opened her mouth at precisely the wrong moment... the Sunni members of Prime Minister Nuri Maliki's government have boycotted cabinet meetings, and Mr Maliki has threatened to sack them all. Also, there have been kabooms in Shia areas, leading to over 60 deaths. These developments are ominous. Making a success of democracy in the wake of a military defeat is an onerous task. Germany's democratic experience in the wake of the First World War failed, because militias -- foremost among them the Nazi and communist -- wrecked the Weimar republic.
There are, of course, many dissimilarities between Germany and Iraq, but Iraq too is trying to work democracy in the wake of war and defeat. The 2003 Anglo-American invasion, which ended the Baathist regime, was followed by an occupation that ended this month. The scars of the occupation are too recent to be recounted. But Iraq's infrastructure -- one of the Middle East's best -- was pulverised, the oil industry was wiped out, Iraq's cultural heritage was looted, and the civilian corpse count, though varying in estimate, was high.
Also, as in Leb, where the national covenant was imposed by the French (subsequently modified at Taif), the Iraqi constitution is full of compromises and seeks to strike a balance between its linguistic and sectarian populations. The basic law was enacted when Iraq was under occupation, but there were hopeful signs. The constitution was approved in a referendum, and two general elections were held successfully despite terrorist threats. These efforts to continue the democratic experiment are laudable. However, some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... the Hashemi affair and the terror acts pose a threat to the system. At stake is not just democracy but Iraq's organic unity. The Kurdistan government's reluctance to hand over Mr Hashemi to Storied Baghdad is indicative of the separatist tendencies in the region. These centrifugal trends have to be checked by means democratic and economic, while a spirit of accommodation must guide all parliamentary 'blocs' that represent the people. Despite ethnic and sectarian divisions, the state established after the First World War has given an Iraqi identity to all its citizens. This identity must be fostered and strengthened. Any break-up of the Iraqi state will be traumatic for the region, for it could have a spill-over effect in neighbouring countries and start a fragmentation process in the Middle East.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/26/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iraq is an Iranian client. Been this way since their first free elections. Get used to that.
#2
Remember also that Iraq is far from unified. The Kurds are just barely still in Iraq, and would not mind at all having a no-fault divorce.
Demographically, Shiites outnumber both the Kurds (Sunni) and the Sunni Arabs by 2 to 1. But that is still one third of the country that could put up quite a fight if the Shiites decide to be diacks about it.
And the Shiites are divided big time about the Iranians. They for the most part do not want the Iranian Mullahs bossing around Iraqis.
#3
Kurds need to cut a deal with Turkey if they want independence. Turkey doesn't like the idea at all because their own Kurds might get funny ideas. If the Kurds could convince Kurds from neighboring non-Arab states to migrate to their new nation and give up claims to land in Turkey and Iran they might even find support for carving a chunk out of Syria. Otherwise they are doomed to fail.
Nope. What they need is a smart POTUS/US SecState. Independent Kurdistan can be a loyal USA ally/client for ever.
Everybody in MME hates them almost as much as Israel. And, unlike Israel, Kurds are not tech wizards i.e., remain dependent.
#1
Finally, its about time someone used the term
"Global Islamism".
FYI, iff various Muslim sources are to be believed, there are Muslim Indonesians [ + Malays] training + fighting in AFPAK, Africa, + around the CAR. Once properly "blooded", these will gener be returning home as new Cadres to initiate + wage jihad there.
IMO one of the rationales for the US to have Marines in Australia is to support + reinforce its Regional Allies while the SE Asian Jihad is still simmering [preemption]. THE US IS SENSING LOOMING TROUBLE + WANTS ITS FORCES IN-PLACE, ALLIES PREPPED, ETC. BEFORE THE JIHAD BREAKS OUT.
#2
Seems to me that the the crazies in Southeast Asia are busy fighting in the Philippines, southern Thailand, and chopping off heads in Indonesia. They are just as vile, just a bit more local in outlook.
War on Terror always was a lame term. Most other terms are lame as well as they can easily be twisted. I think we should have gone for Arab Imperialist or something along those lines. Pry the rest of Islam away from Wahhabi's jihadist outlook and you might create a civil war within Islam.
#3
The Philippines / Southern Thailand / etc... is another front of Islam's war against non-islam - a front I think Indonesia is deep into (Bali bombing / Church burnings / etc..). Islam (the political movement masquading as a religion) is at war along *all* of its borders - not just Afghanistan. Philippines, Thailand, India, Southern Africa, Ukrane, and I believe soon South America, etc... Sometimes that war is 'hot' (as in Afghanistan) and sometimes it is cooler (just terrorist murder, school burning, etc... nothing the lamestream media finds important enough to report over Lady GagGag's new tats or whatever...) and sometimes it more subtle (UK, France, Denmark, etc...). The 'hotness' of the war depends on the ratio of Muslims to non-muslims in the target country - the higher the ratio - the more liklihood for violence until Islam dominates.
It isn't because Indonesia is 'moderate' but because they simply are not involved in the Afghanistan front.
It never ceases to amaze me -- especially since I seem to be one of the very few people pointing this out -- that both liberals and conservatives in the American debate are missing the most important point, the essential but simple argument that spells the difference between victory and defeat, right and wrong.
What people on both sides don't understand is that it is the historical situation and not an eternal ideology that makes for the right policy. What was appropriate for a time when the United States didn't have enough regulation and government was too weak is not appropriate for a time when the United States is overregulated, government is too strong, and the country is ridiculously deep in debt.
...A lot of conservatives seem to think that to explain where the country is going wrong and fix it they have to prove that Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt were completely wrong.
There is such a thing as balance. America's rapid industrialization after the Civil War put the system out of balance and threatened to wreck the country's constitutionally-mandated system. Robber barons, monopolies, exploitation of labor, and the buying and selling of legislatures were all commonplace. Only due to reforms, largely backed by Democratic presidents before most of us were born, was the balance corrected. The modern prosperity and progress of America has been due to a combination of Founding Fathers' constitutionalism, largely free capitalism, and a government able to carry out reasonable levels of regulation.
A proof of that fact is that few conservatives sought to roll back all the pre-1952 innovations. And the same applies to such later initiatives as civil rights along racial and gender lines or the main and much needed environmental legislation following the discovery of just how much America's water and air had deteriorated.
Yet the governmental machine just kept going beyond the point of reasonable balance. More and more; further and further. The books of regulations grew and grew, strangling the society, trying to perfect ever-smaller faults at an ever-higher price. When was the turning point? The War on Poverty and Great Society of the 1960s? The ascension of Obama in 2009? The precise date isn't so vital. What's important is that things just went too far.
#4
I think I'd prefer the Robber Barons, CF - at least they wouldn't care what I eat, where I live, etc., unlike today's libruls. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
12/26/2011 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The problem with FDR is that he was the first US President who did not feel constrained by the US Constitution. As a result, many of the changes he made are certainly things that need to be rolled back.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
