Earlier today, law enforcement authorities arrested yet another terrorist in the making – a naturalized American of Pakistani origin, Farooque Ahmed for trying to help coordinate bombing at Washington’s Metro System, also known as the subway system. Once again, fortunately, this nut’s plot was never a serious threat, but for his part, Farooque Ahmed did everything in his power to hurt, harm and devastate whatever he could.

Shame on him and shame on everyone who knowingly supported his sickening plot to target innocent civilians, really, shame on them.

Given what Muslims in general, but in this case, Pakistanis in particular have tried to do to attack America; it truly is amazing that so far, the Americans have been superbly generous, amazingly tolerant and insanely forgiving towards Muslims within the United States. But, can this relax attitude towards Muslims going to remain decent given all these repeated attempts to harm America? Only time will tell, but common sense points towards justified anger emerging within this country in the very near future, if Muslims, and Pakistanis (not all Pakistanis) don’t give up their violent and wicked dreams of attacking America.

I personally have had the misfortune to come across people, who didn’t believe that Al-Qaeeda existed, or worse, that Osama and his cronies are behind any effort, including the horrific tragedy of 9/11, to harm America, but naively, I dismissed them as loonies. However, it seems that it is a mistake, in fact, a horrible blunder to not take anyone seriously who speaks of Osama admiringly and who believes that every foiled terrorist attack is actually a ‘conspiracy concocted by the CIA’.  

I suspect that this misguided man Farooque Ahmed, too is going to justify his behavior by complaining that Muslims are being attacked for their religion, and that there is a conspiracy against Islam. And, even though he was living in America, he still got plenty of material not only on the Internet, but also in the mosques that he and his family visited. And, it makes me really sad, because Farooque had every opportunity to study in detail that Muslims are hurting because of their own failures and their misfortunes have nothing to do with America, honestly. Worse yet, he could have helped his Muslim brother and sisters by dispelling this notion of ‘Muslims are being attacked for being Muslims’ but instead, he opted to go down the wrong path, and now, thankfully, he is in custody, and fortunately, his vicious dreams will never materialize.

However, for me, his arrest is not the end of the struggle to beat hate mongers, because for me, it represents just one chapter that came to light and I believe that there are many more people within the United State who think and agree with the ideology that inspired Farooque Ahmed to engage in terrorist activities.

I believe that it is time for Muslims, and of course, Pakistanis in America to seriously entertain the notion that political Islam is not the way to move forward. Muslims and Pakistanis must decide whether they are loyal to America or not and if not, believe me, nobody wants to keep them in the United States forcefully. These people, whether it is Faisal Shazad and Farooque Ahmed and numerous others like them to move to another country that welcomes their ideology of hate.

In America, we reject this appalling idea of carrying out revolting attacks in the name of religious fight.

Thankfully, in America, there is no room for religious hate and we all, regardless of our background support the efforts to defeat nihilists.

However, nothing could be more tragic than today’s Pakistan

Let us be clear about Pakistan and judging from the evidence, it seems unlikely that the country will ever be a success story. Everything about Pakistan suggests failure, misery and more failure and misery. No question, people will continue to believe that ‘things will improve’, but I hate to be the guy to break this to the believers – not going to happen, sorry.

What I have come to believe is that Pakistan is a textbook example of classical failure as a state. Right from the start when Pakistan came into being, the country was shaky, poor, and unprepared. To make matters worse, it has always been one problem after another and with each passing day, month, year or a decade, the overall situation has continued to deteriorate through out the country.

Yes, it is true that the love of Pakistan will continue to prevent people within the country to deny that the country has not been a success story. For varying reasons, people will maintain that ‘if only this changes or that power leaves us alone’, Pakistan will be fine. Different ethnic, religious and political groups divided along ideological and territorial lines will advance strong, but naïve reasons for defending Pakistan in spite of daily suicide bombings, beheadings, stoning, growing poverty, frightening population explosion, and so on so forth. And, those who question Pakistan’s overall physiological, political, and economical health would still be considered ‘traitors, foreign agents and enemies of Pakistan’ but this bullying by the misguided must not stop those who argue for a different course.

Nations (Pakistanis still have to forge a national bond to become a nation) don’t succeed or fail in a day or two. It takes generations to become successful and it takes miraculous harmony and exceptional commitment to keep the progress alive and the society to thrive, something that has not happened in Pakistan.  Unless people in Pakistan from all walks of life fully understand that emotional rants, hyper charged rhetoric, insane conspiracy theories, and the desire to ‘conquer’ everything and everyone else is not the way to make Pakistan a success story, things are not change or improve, period.  

For Pakistanis, the first goal must be to become realistic and accept ground realities, even if it makes them question everything they have been told about Pakistan’s history and its future. Loyalty to Pakistan does not, and it should not mean accepting the narrative put forward by the judiciary, jihadists, and judges and yes, even generals. On the contrary, country’s love makes it a patriotic duty to not be conned by shady judges, crooked journalists, and dishonest politicians.  Nope, people of Pakistan will have to decide, independently, about what is good for them and what is good for their country.

According to the New York Times, Pakistan’s military is maneuvering to remove the current government. This, according to the paper, is because of corruption and lack of proper response to the flood.

What is missing from the report is that once this government is gone, angels and superheroes are going to takeover and they will change everything wrong with Pakistan, overnight.

The world has seen this before, but I suspect that people in Pakistan like this game of throwing out democratic governments and bringing in old, tried, and tired hands with this hope that somehow, magically, things will change and yes, improve, even though, history begs to differ.

No point in repeating that the current government has been perpetually dealt with crisis right after Musharaff and his cronies left the country without any food, water and money. What Musharaff and his gang did leave behind were multiple disasters in the shape of terrorism, charged up lawyers movement, and uncountable other problems that the current government is still trying to solve.

If Pakistan is viewed as a society without the deranged and delusional support of Pakistan’s contemporary electronic media, it is still not a bad place. However, because of the consistent poisonous war against the left leaning and progressive government of Pakistan People’s Party waged by the jihadists, so called-journalists and judges with the not so subtle help from the army, the country seems like a hell hole.

Ironically, the current champions of freedom of press have jailed journalists while they were in Power. Ask Najam Sethi, Husain Haqani (to name a few) about the experience. Even worse, the same people who claim to be in love with ‘independent judiciary’ are also responsible for organizing the one and only attack on judiciary. Just ask Sajad Ali Shah about it.

As awful as it sounds, it seems likely that the Zardari and Gillani will be shown the door, but it is going to be a supremely sad day for Pakistan’s public and for its future. Gone are the days when an elected government was overthrown, especially when it represented people from smaller provinces, and people took it quietly. Not any more.

Equally terrible is the prospect of ordinary Pakistanis suffering because of this upcoming ‘revolution’. And those, who are inviting a revolution, must not forget what happened in China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba when ordinary people gave up their rights for buying into the hideous notion of a better future. Better life after a revolution remains an unfulfilled dream, and an empty promise. It has never anywhere in the world, and it is not going to happen in Pakistan either. It will only make life more miserable for ordinary citizens and it will tremendously help the hard core hyper nationalists dying to dominate the society.

So, here is a message from insanity to the generals in Pakistan. “Go ahead, remove the government, and make my day.” 

]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/28/a-message-from-insanity/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/28/obama%e2%80%99s-wars-%e2%80%93-not-planning-to-fail-but-failing-to-plan/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama%25e2%2580%2599s-wars-%25e2%2580%2593-not-planning-to-fail-but-failing-to-plan http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/28/obama%e2%80%99s-wars-%e2%80%93-not-planning-to-fail-but-failing-to-plan/#comments Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:04:18 +0000 Zainab Jeewanjee http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=2281

Shifting the Focus to Pakistan

“Obama’s Wars” released today already has the attentive public abuzz with tidbits of explosive revelations disclosing divergences at the top levels of government; nothing short of that we’ve come to expect from a Bob Woodward work. While McChrystal’s abrupt departure earlier this year had already exposed wrangling between our executive branch and military personnel, Woodward’s book is set to make public the reality of Obama’s campaign promise in setting Pakistan squarely at center stage in our War on Terror.

“we need to make clear to people that the cancer is in Pakistan”

The book will illustrate Obama’s aim to wind down the war; elucidating his always meticulous refrain from using “Victory” in reference to Afghanistan.  Woodward reports however, that he is determined that no success can come without targeting Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan.

According to the Washington Post, the book recounts a top secret meeting with Obama’s then Director of national Intelligence, Mike McConnell who specifically warned that Pakistan is not be trusted as a partner in our Afghanistan engagement.

It’s thus no wonder “quagmire” is used to describe the task at hand. Because regardless of how much the President wants to cut back in Afghanistan, the very strong reluctance stems from potentially risking American interests and leaving the aforementioned “cancer” in Pakistan. So deepening, or as the President might prefer, “shifting” the focus requires a new, more Pakistan focused agenda.

Looking at his National Security Strategy laid out in May 2010, we do find Pakistan is a top concern. Amidst steadfast commitment to liberalist principles calling to defeat terrorism with multilateralism, in adherence with international law and a sensitive awareness to growing interdependence in an increasingly globalized system, the document reads our security objective as such:

“to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qa’ida and its affiliates through a comprehensive strategy that denies them safe haven, strengthens front-line partners, secures our homeland, pursues justice through durable legal approaches, and counters a bankrupt agenda of extremist and murder with an agenda of hope and opportunity. The frontline of this fight is Afghanistan and Pakistan”

Naming Pakistan alongside Afghanistan underscores the President’s shifting focus. The policy refers to Pakistan as the “epicenter of violent extremism” and warns “danger from this region will only grow if it’s security slides backward”.

Throughout the document, we see such warnings used interchangeably for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Perhaps an indication of how policymakers and journalists use sweeping generalizations such as “Af-Pak” for two countries still far from understood. However the National Security Policy makes no mistake in interchanging recommendations. Clearly spelling out that “denying Al Qa-da the Ability to Threaten the American People, our Allies, Our partners and our Interests Overseas” is our main objective, it specifically spells out how to achieve this in Afghanistan through:

-       Continued work with the United Nations and Afghan Government

-       Improving accountable and affective governance

-       Assistance on supporting the President of Afghanistan

-       Supporting ministries, governors and local leaders who have demonstrated measured progress in combating corruption

-       Targeting our aid to Agriculture and human rights

-       Military and International Security Assistance Forces partnering with Afghanistan to target the insurgency

-       Timetable laid out: transition to Afghan responsibility. July 2011 reducing troops.

This describes the first two parts of the three pronged approach spelled out in the National Security Strategy. The third prong refers to Pakistan and is relatively vague. It restates the objective of “strengthening Pakistan’s capacity to target violent extremists with continued assistance in those efforts” without laying out how this can occur. With Afghanistan, there is reference to the United Nations, specific levels of government and ISAF forces collaborating as a means to acheiving the objective to combat and provide security from violent extremists. No such specificities are spelled out in reference to Pakistan. Rather, the document vaguely describes an approach that is meant to

“strengthen Pakistan’s democracy…provide “assistance responsive to the needs of the Pakistani people and sustain a long term partnership committed to…deepening cooperation in a broad range of areas …in the years to come”

That is not a strategy. There is not a linking of means to an end. There is no specific timetable or reference to benchmarks for the end objective, nor quantifiable measurements for success. Further, Pakistan has not been able to cement it’s democracy let alone sufficiently respond to the needs of its population in 60+ years, making our intentions to do so implausible. In regards to “long term, deepening cooperation” amidst the staunch multilateral rhetoric, the document does not once refer to Pakistan as among the “partners” it seeks to engage in reaching our objectives. It references “fostering a relationship” but partnership is nowhere to be seen.

So, if the President has his way, we will wind down Afghanistan and likely shift focus to Pakistan. I hope by then there exists a more clearly laid out and practical approach to achieving our objectives and securing our interests there. Otherwise, without sufficient planning, the quagmire just deepens.

Surprisingly, this has worked superbly.

On top of everything else bad for the county, the electronic media imploded on the scene in recent years and the entire right wing, pro-Taliban, anti progress, anti rationality, anti Western, anti Women nationalists got an ideal platform for spewing non stop venom. This nauseating propaganda against pretty much everything has totally destroyed rationality in Pakistan and helped hate become the main argument against common sense.

Too bad for Pakistan, because it is not a good way to collaborate or co exists in the world.

Pakistan has not been able to do anything positive on its own and nothing has been planned, programmed or executed to put Pakistan on a peaceful path. And, it is not an unreasonable conclusion that there is nothing in Pakistan’s history that suggests that the nation is serious about anything, but -prepare yourself- jihad.

Therefore, it is no surprise that today, the world is literally ‘sick & tired’ of Pakistan. The Western governments are exhausted by perpetual crisis in Pakistan and the non stop aid demands that come out of these tragedies engulfing Pakistan, day after day, government after government.

So, naturally, when floods destroyed about 25 to 30 percent of Pakistan, it took forever for anyone to gear up, yet again, to help Pakistan. Because of Pakistan’s inability to help itself, or, accept some responsibility for the complete failure of everything across the board, there was no appetite for helping Pakistan on this scale.

After a very slow and terribly late start, a lot has been done, but whatever has been done is not enough. There are people who are doing everything they can to raise funds, collect food, medicines but what is needed is a commitment, serious, long term, generous commitment from the world to help the poor people who were destabilized by this horrific tragedy.

Fortunately for Pakistan, a friend in Maryland, who is a medical doctor, has been working, e-mailing, calling, and visiting everyone who would listen to bring attention to the flood victims. And, based on the evidence that I have seen, this selfless doctor was the first one to correctly point out that the flood in Pakistan has done more damaged than the Haitian earth quake and Indonesian Tsunami combined. Thankfully, there is awareness about the flood damage, but the time is running out as the gap between rich and poor in Pakistan is frighteningly increasing and this would lead to a catastrophe.

Also, the problem of flooding is going to end sooner or later and once the water is gone, a very difficult and problematic scenario is going to challenge not only Pakistan, but also the world.

Not only is Pakistan’s agricultural sector been totally annihilated by the floods, but the entire infrastructure for about 30 to 35 of the country has been ruined beyond repair. So, first, Pakistan needs money today to urgently help the flood victims find shelter, food, medicines, and later rehabilitate them, but also rebuild everything that was obliterated in three provinces from scratch. This is going to need a lot of money and this is where the world commitment to peace, prosperity and above all, to humanity will come into play.

If Pakistan is quickly helped, then, the risk of the Taliban winning hearts and minds of desperate people is extremely low. However, if the money or the aid does not flow towards the needy, it is very likely that the Taliban and other negative forces will jump to fill the vacuum and in the process, hand a permanent defeat to the civilized world.

Saint Augustine

According to a report in Dawn, once again, Pakistanis have embarrassed themselves, and ironically enough, their struggling country the other day at Washington Dulles Airport by acting awfully.

Bravo.

It is unfortunate to note that there has never been any report of delegation from any other country getting in trouble at any airport in America, except-prepare yourself for the shock- from Pakistan. And, it is impossible to comprehend why people from Pakistan, especially when they are ‘touring’ the United States in any official capacity don’t act professionally. Why must every law, every rule and every regulation that is the norm in America for Americans and foreigners alike be considered an attack on Pakistan’s pride?

Remember, there are delegations from around the world in America every day; trade delegations, cultural missions, business travelers, military and civilian groups, and all these people visiting the United States never ever get in trouble, especially at the airports, but somehow, Pakistanis have managed to make a scene out of two, not one, but two official trips within couple of months.

The latest incident took place at Washington Dulles Airport when a Pakistani army officer made unacceptable comment or remark while aboard a commercial flight from Washington to Tampa, Florida. Whatever he said was enough to cause concern among the passengers who contacted the airline to express their anxiety about the comment and as result of this discomfort among the passengers, the entire delegation was asked to leave the plane.

Somehow, this incident has become a diplomatic row between Washington, a city that is always accommodating and yes, apologizing to Pakistan, and Islamabad, a city that is always unhappy and angry with America.

Fortunately, there is no evidence that these passengers were removed because they are from Pakistan, but the evidence that has emerged so far suggests that the leader of the delegation was responsible for triggering this unpleasant incident.

Anyone who has traveled to Pakistan or has lived and traveled within Pakistan can understand that people serving in Pakistan army are walking statues of arrogance. They consider civilians to be second class citizen and these officers are not used to answering questions by the civilians. So, it is only natural that when they were confronted at Dulles Airport, they ‘demanded’ to speak with ‘higher ups’ or ‘in-charge’ of security at the airport. Imagine, just imagine the oozing arrogance from the scenario. Instead of answering genuine questions by the officials regardless of their rank or title, Pakistani delegation wanted to speak to the man/woman responsible for running the entire security operation at the airport. Because they had an invitation from Centcom these visiting buffoons thought they cannot be stopped, questioned, or worse, expected to deal with junior level people.

Whatever happened at the airport was unfortunate, but the reaction from Pakistan Army’s Headquarters was even more appalling. Instead of dressing down the leader of the delegation for creating a scene, his bad behavior was encouraged and even rewarded because the delegation was asked to cancel trip and come back to Pakistan.

Yeah, real mature way of handling a difficult situation. It just confirms that Pakistan’s army is out of control, period.

When people from Pakistan complain that their country has gone to hell, they don’t stop and honestly take into account their own transgressions. You will never hear any Pakistani admitting fault or failure, but the tendency is always to shift the blame, to always find a culprit somewhere else. But the sad reality is that it is Pakistan that is mostly at fault. The latest airport incident is just another example and a reminder that we are not dealing with a normal nation.

Zainab Jeewanjee with Ambassador Hussain Haqqani

“30 years of this whole business that started with the jihad against the Soviet Union is what we are trying to deal with the aftermath of. Its 30 years of these groups, supporting them, funding them, the opening of radical madrassahs in various parts of the country. Now I think we’ve done a decent job in the last two years of beginning the cleanup”

Pakistan is serious about cleaning up terrorism, but the mess runs deep. And If you want to share in an insightful discussion on the Wikileaks reports, I recommend watching Charlie Rose from last night. Because Pakistan pulled out the big guns in responding to the reports that suggested their Interservices Intelligence Agency is “aiding” the enemies in Afghanistan. Ambassador Hussain Haqqani was Rose’s guest and spoke directly to American anxieties that Pakistan is not entirely interested in ousting terrorists from the region. Specifically responding to the question of ISI links to the Taliban, Haqqani said:

“It goes back to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The CIA and ISI both worked with the Mujahedeen who morphed into Taliban. But now the Pakistani military and ISI are conducting successful military operations in SWAT and South Waziristan.

He elaborated:

“We’ve Taken out extremists and 74 ISI personnel have been killed in the past two years. With as many as 233 injured. That alone should be sufficient to convince people that was then and now is now and Pakistan is standing firmly on the side of those who want to eliminate the Taliban and extremists”

The statistics were particularly hard hitting. They brought a human element to our somewhat sterilized discussion about Pakistan here in the states. Being geographically removed, and with a vastly distinct culture, we are mostly informed of how the government in Islamabad deals with our administration in D.C., resorting to diplomatic sound bites and news for our information. But Haqqanis statistics provoke us to realize that just as we have struggled in Afghanistan, Pakistan too has sacrificed greatly as an ally in our war and continues to be deeply invested in combating terror.

Haqqani reminds us that the Wikileaks story is just that; a whistleblower. Without subtracting from the value of revealing what governments might otherwise keep classified, the Ambassador offered facts that quell sensationalized reception of the reports.

Rose asked weighty questions in trademark straightforwardness allowing us a chance to get answers to that the Wikileaks story leaves us lingering with. For instance, “what keeps Pakistan from doing more”; a question even those with ample knowledge and understanding of history and ground realities who can put the Wikileaks story into context sometimes wonder. Rose speculated it was a concern with India, and a fear of U.S. withdrawal. The Ambassador responded:

“There is a concern that India is not yet reconciled to our nationhood and statehood. Those are concerns reflected in public opinion and government has to deal with view that the US has not been a consistent friend of Pakistan and if we do too much at the behest of US they could leave us in the lurch and walk away again. The Biggest concern is the US can actually leave projects incomplete it has happened in the past US assistance and economic aid suspended arbitrarily and at short notice. Things have been left incomplete. They have had a very difficult relationship in the past 6 decades. We are trying tot address the totality of these issues”

It is no secret that India Pakistan relations are a primary driver of action in South Asian politics so the real nugget in the Ambassador’s above response is the talk of Pakistani Public opinion.

One of the first rules we learn in politics is that perceptions matter and what our pundits and political speechwriters have left out of the conversation is how Pakistani opinions factor into policymaking.

The Obama administration made clear by way of allocating funding in the Kerry Lugar bill that America would no longer support military regimes at the expense of democracy in Pakistan, yet we still tend to leave consideration of Pakistani public opinion out of our own expectations. Apprehensions of U.S. foreign policy are increasingly common as Pakistan deteriorated economically, politically in overall security post 9/11.

Ambassador Haqqani did an eloquent job of explaining this tremendous sensitivity with which Islamabad must balance its interest in continuing bilateral cooperation with D.C. while alleviating the rampant fear amongst Pakistani citizens that the United States might not be trustworthy, or as the Ambassador put it “ungrateful” for all their country does.

And although Ambassador Haqqani concluded on a positive note , citing increased military cooperation in fighting terrorism and tripartite agreements on trade, he gave viewers a clear view of the “totality” and complexity of issues from the Pakistan side.

To tally Islamabad’s task list thus far: in addition to 30 years of deep cleaning, speedy recovery from loss of life, toil, treasure and time, one must add mending 60 years of mistrust with the worlds superpower to Pakistan’s list of things everyone wants done yesterday.

So let’s think twice, maybe even thrice before sponging the Wikileaks reports without an understanding of context and implicating Pakistan for not doing enough.  Prime Minister Cameron, that’ means you.

Are the Drones Worth the Cost of Cooperation ?

Read Part 1 – Reconciling CIA Drones In Pakistan

Read Part 2  - Concessions & Collateral Damage

The most provocative piece I’ve seen on drones in Pakistan was published last week. Not the most detailed, well researched article (the New Yorker takes the cake so far) but certainly the most confrontational. Farhat Taj writes in the Daily Times that International media, including American and Pakistani reports critical of drone use are totally unfounded. Vehemently, Taj writes:

” The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and al Qaeda. It is in this context that they would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil, to rid them of the Taliban and al Qaeda”

It’s a grand, almost inconceivable statement given that Anti Americanism is on a rapid rise and India / Pakistan are widely considered notorious Arch Nemesis in international relations today.  Taj says inhabitants of Waziristan actually “welcome” drone attacks and dismisses all accusations of civilian casualties as Taliban propaganda. Basing this on the idea that almost no media are allowed in the area, she concludes there is no verifiable evidence, and therefore no reason for concern of civilian casualties. But mere logic would indicate otherwise. Although surgical, drones are not so precise to as to obliterate one individual at a time. When they strike, the range of damage inflicted by any drone is bound to cause peripheral damage, destroying more than just a singular terrorist.

Taj also too vehemently dismisses the concern that drones infringe on Pakistan’s sovereignty. She says greater Pakistan is oblivious to the more pressing priority of wiping out Taliban. And while I agree the Taliban is inflicting profound, perpetual and grave damage on Waziristan, greater Pakistan’s perceptions are important and not to be overlooked so easily.

Waziristan is but a fraction of Pakistan. If the majority of Pakistani’s see drones as an infringement of sovereignty, future cooperation with strategically poised Pakistan can become difficult. The alliance is already waning and one of politics’ golden rules is: perceptions matter. Whether or not there are exact numbers of civilian casualties, Pakistani’s are strongly against unmanned aircraft dropping bombs in their territory. Regardless of circumstances, the perception of an alliance with America, and our War on Terror is endangered by the drones. Hence arguments that drones are counter productive.

At what cost are we using drones to wipe out a few key leaders from militant and extremist groups? Might we accomplish the same success in hunting down terrorists by employing Pakistani forces to take these guys out themeslves using close cooperation with our counter terrorism, intelligence and military operations?

Some already argue that Islamabad tacitly works with the United States on drones in the north, however, the official and public stance of the Pakistani government is of staunch disapproval of drones. It’s a fair argument because without Islamabad’s approval, the United States would be in violation of international law, and protocol in using drones in Waziristan minus Pakistsan’s approval. So I buy the argument that Islamabad works closely in using drones in the north. But the fact that the government goes to the extent of constantly assuring its public that they disapprove of drones on record, is testimony to how offensive the use of unmanned aircrafts are in Pakistan.

So while our heightened use of drones might be effective in obliterating key leaders from the Taliban ranks for success in the immediate term, the consequences of drones entail potentially riling further anti Americanism which could compromise our interests in the future.

Cooperation is key, and I’m not convinced increased use of drones will help us engage Pakistan in the future.

Bush & Obama : Identical Policies to Pakistan?

Similar to his ratings drop at home, abroad President Obama is being accused of not living up to expectations. In DAWN news this week there’s an article entitled: “Obama’s Changing Tone” suggesting our President is reverting to foreign policy reminiscent of the Bush administration on Pakistan, and to an extent, the greater Muslim World. The idea is that Obama’s planned troop surge in tandem with ever toughening rhetoric post the Fort Hood Massacre and the Christmas Bomber, reflects leadership that’s not much different than former President Bush’s.

But on the contrary, our escalating presence in Pakistan is exactly what Obama promised. During the campaign trail, he made clear that his main focus was Al Qaeda and  destroying terrorists in Pakistan (militants having spilled over from Afghanistan into Pakistan). The rhetoric was so hawkish, it actually became a sticking point before the primaries that Republicans and Democrats like Hillary criticized. Also, the media publicized his staunch rhetoric at length, so

Obama really has not changed tone on Pakistan: an intensified war matches his rhetoric from the start.

Plus is it fair to expect something radically different than the previous administration in the first place? Let’s not forget that it is often the political system and circumstances that drive leadership, and not vice versa. The fact is, America was already deeply engaged in two very problematic wars at the inception of Obama’s Presidency. He inherited an intensely worsening situation in Afghanistan that rapidly spilled across the border into Pakistan. President Obama anticipated this and is thus living up to campaign promises: a more hawkish foreign policy to Pakistan.

Which of course then raises the question: is hawkishness the right approach to Pakistan at this time? Pakistani’s certainly don’t think so.  CIA drones have the entire country in an uproar, while Islamabad isn’t taking well to DC’s tacit encouragement of rapidly increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan, and even billions in aid from America is frowned upon with unprecedented magnitude. And it’s not that the Obama administration isn’t aware of skepticism. Rather, toughening policies are a matter of practicality.

My guess is that the President is thinking: we’re already in Afghanistan, the war is deteriorating into Pakistan, what’s the best way to mitigate the situation, secure the region enough to exit in the next couple years while leaving behind more cooperative players in the region so as to ensure our energy and geopolitical interests in South/Central Asia.

Phew. Now there’s a dilemma. And when looked at from this possible perspective, the Pakistan quagmire is revealed as tremendously complex. It’s such a multifaceted, sweeping, consequential and changing situation that involves so many players who work within the confines of political systems that only history should be the best judge of whether Obama’s stance on Pakistan is constructive or progressive. And that itself is relative. So let’s not be surprised at his hawkishness. It was naive of anyone to expect otherwise in the case of Pakistan.

The War on Terror has most definitely shifted: terrorists are massacring Pakistani’s. I churn each time I hear of terrorist attacks since 9/11, and mostly since then, those attacks have been in Pakistan. This weeks suicide bombings on religious processions in Karachi during the month of Mahurrum, (a somber time of reflection, considered sacred for many Muslims) are particularly unnerving.

I’ve lived in Karachi and was there until 2001 when suicide bombings were unheard of. And even though Karachi is a relatively chaotic city, never had it been victim to such consistent horror. In my lifetime, Pakistan has suffered it’s most widespread violence and insecurity post 9/11. I’ve already written about the deteriorating state of affairs,  so today i’ll share links to a BBC slideshow and article capturing the recent atrocities :

SLIDESHOW: Karachi March Attacked

ARTICLE : Pakistan’s Recount Horror of Suicide Attack

When the Economist, pundits and politicians declare Pakistan “the most dangerous place in the world”, important to remember is that it really is the most dangerous place: for Pakistanis. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/29/where-the-war-on-terror-is/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/28/who-meddles-in-pakistan/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=who-meddles-in-pakistan http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/28/who-meddles-in-pakistan/#comments Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:01:22 +0000 Zainab Jeewanjee http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=1663

“Before we begin to upbraid the world for “meddling in our internal affairs,” it is vital for us to put our own house in order.”

Says a writer for Dawn News (Pakistan’s premier Newspaper). It’s an increasingly heard argument as cooperation between the United States and Pakistan deepens. In fact, it seems many Pakistani’s either fall into the category of calling for less meddling if not suggesting a total end to the alliance.

But shouldn’t we clarify what exactly “meddling” is? Does the author mean to encompass everything from drones, the Kerry Lugar Bill, Obama’s Troop Surge, and Secretary Clinton’s Pakistani media rounds / policy recommendations are equivalent to meddling?

Because the inherent problem with referring to any of those issues as meddling is that they all require the compliance of Pakistan’s government. Without the concession of Pakistani politicians American interventions, assistance or policies could not be implemented.

Of course one might suggest realist theories on international relations wherein leaders, and ultimately states are subject to an international system dictate policymaking. In the case of current U.S. Pakistani relations some say cooperation, at any cost, is inevitable given American hegemony. It’s an argument echoing former President Musharraff’s description of why Pakistan didn’t remain neutral post 9/11:

‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age’,” is the threat Musharraf said Pakistan received if it didn’t cooperate in Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001’s invasion of Afghanistan.

So why wasn’t neutrality an option? One might look back in history and cite an unremitting reliance on international assistance as the main cause of why Pakistani politics might seem inevitably subject to foreign interference.

During the Cold War, while countries like India declared themselves Non Aligned, Pakistan bandwagoned with the United States forming an alliance in desire to expand militarily. I won’t argue whether that military expansion was necessary or not, because there are fair arguments on either side. But military cooperation during the Cold War, and then the Soviet Afghan War set the stage for inevitable cooperation in today’s War on Terror.

Never forming viable democratic social and political infrastructure from the ground up may have fated Pakistan to rely on foreign assistance, or what some consider “meddling” for the sake of basic security and development.

The author is then correct to some extent. Before whining about foreign interferences, Pakistan might consider constructing it’s own security first.

U.S. Pakistan Cooperation

One difference between valuable information and balderdash is that the balderdash is sometimes louder than the valuable information. Case in point are two articles criticizing our dealings with Pakistan. The first offers valuable insight on why it’s imperative we revamp foreign policy to the country since it’s likely becoming the “most dangerous place in the world”. The article outlines 5 well- founded reasons for this and is authored by Dr. Larry Goodson of the U.S. Army World college and published by the Strategic Studies Institute. The other article is written in the online magazine Slate.com by Chris Hitchens author of God is not Great: how Religion Poisons Everything. His piece entitled “Why does Pakistan hate the United States” like Dr. Goodman’s article. criticizes our policy, but inaccurately attributes Anti-Americanism to a sliver of Pakistani elites who irrationally and diametrically oppose the United States. Let’s compare both assessments:

Hitchens says the:

“Pakistani elite hates the United States because “it is dependent on it and is still being bought by it. It is a dislike that is also a form of self-hatred of the sort that often develops between client states and their paymasters. (You can often sense the same resentment in the Egyptian establishment, and sometimes among Israeli right-wingers, as well.) By way of overcompensation for their abject status as recipients of the American dole, such groups often make a big deal of flourishing their few remaining rags of pride. The safest outlet for this in the Pakistani case is an official culture that makes pious noises about Islamic solidarity while keeping the other hand extended for the next subsidy. This is, and always was, a sick relationship. It’s not possible to found a working, trusting, fighting alliance”

Conversely, Dr. Goodson explains:

“The United States is Pakistan’s far away, fair weather friend, locked in a decades long transactional relationship that satisfied neither partners desires. Pakistan is the dark side of the moon to the average American who cannot tell you one salient fact about the country, its people, their customs or history. So we use Pakistan as a bulwark against whatever goes boo in the night in that part of the world, paying their price of the moment and then walking away when the crisis is resolved”

Both authors describe what former Pakistan to United States Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi called a “transactional” relationship between the countries, but differ in their assessment of that situation. Hitchens concludes U.S. Foreign Policy is doomed for failure, ultimately insisting a complete severing of cooperation is imperative. It’s a wild recommendation that assumes various security, and economic interests can just be overlooked. His suggestions are simplistic and recommendations reckless. Severing ties with a long-standing, highly strategic ally like Pakistan is absurd. Balancing relations in South Asia is in our interest and requires maintaining an alliance with both Inda and Pakistan, not one for the other. In fact, Hitchen’s doesn’t even address the crux of the issue :U.S. Foreign Policy is problematic in that it’s viewed as merely “transactional”. Instead, he jumps to an implausible conclusion that cooperation is doomed for failure.

To contrast, Goodman suggests understanding Pakistan’s complex demographic, history and then engaging them for the long haul, especially with the Chinese sitting in Pakistan’s backyard eager to replace an American absence. His piece addresses such ground realities and offers a plausible prescription for change in what’s increasingly seen as “transactional ties”.

So although Hitchens is loud and published mainstream, he’s unfortunately inaccurate. Dr. Goodson’s work is more obscure, but it’s pragmatic with a well spelled out assessment and recommendation. his article concludes with detailed recommendations for long term engagement for development in Pakistan while Hitchens outlook puts a damper on an already dire Af-Pak situation.

Presenting problems isn’t enough. Elucidating complex situations, offering accurate insights and practical solutions separate valuable information, from journalistic balderdash. Kudos to Dr. Goodson for a well written assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy to Pakistan.

American Neutrality is Boston Globe’s recommendation for U.S. policymakers as political uncertainty looms over Pakistan with last weeks repeal of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, effectively revoking Amnesty from corruption charges on thousands of government officials. Although political transition appears imminent in 2010 and comes as President Obama commits to an Af-Pak troop surge, stepping up our engagement with Islamabad, the Boston Globe’s call for neutrality is wise given the current pool of potential leaders:

• Nawaaz Sharif:
  • Reason We Should Remain Neutral - Quite simply: “After two terms as prime minister, he’s remembered for rampant corruption, nuclear proliferation, and his penchant for cozying up to Islamist militants”
• Pervez Musharraf or Asif Zardari:
  • Reason We Should Remain Neutral – Well: “at the behest of Washington, General Pervez Musharraf, who was president at the time, arranged the amnesty that allowed Zardari and his wife, Benazir Bhutto, to return from exile so she could lead her Pakistan Peoples Party in elections. Bhutto was assassinated, and her husband became prime minister. Not without reason, many Pakistanis who are angry about Zardari’s corruption and ineffectiveness hold the United States responsible for imposing him on their country”
• The Pakistan Military:
  • Reason We Should Remain Neutral - Perpetuating rampant blame that one too many American backed military dictators have prevented democracy from ever taking root in Pakistan can’t help growing weariness of cooperation with our government.
    • Noteworthy example – Backing General Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980′s with his leadership key to training the Mujahideen (now known as Al Qaeda) to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Not coincidentally, Zia’s regime is remembered as the time Pakistan shifted from being a socially progressive, and moderate Islamic state, to imposing severe, fundamentalist religious policy reforms.
• Chief Justice Iftekhar Chaudhry:
  • Reason We Should Remain Neutral: Under a sugar-coated banner of “democracy”, the Chief Justice is too blatantly partisan for us to support. His recent decision to repeal the National Reconciliation Ordinance, which set wheels in motion for regime change is widely understood as nothing short of a ploy for power and done in the politics of retribution.

This leaves neutrality as not only our most wise option, but also perhaps our most ethical route. Restraint in supporting any particular regime could mean history points one less finger in our direction should anything go less than perfect as we deepen involvement in Af-Pak. Simultaneously, neutrality assures Pakistani masses who are increasingly skeptical of cooperation with the United States that they have 100% autonomy in political processes.

Well publicized neutrality on a looming regime change could be a valuable opportunity to demonstrate a genuine interest in Pakistan as they transform politically and we require their support in the War on Terror. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/21/the-power-of-restraint/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/14/if-we-leave-now/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=if-we-leave-now http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/14/if-we-leave-now/#comments Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:22:38 +0000 Zainab Jeewanjee http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=1591

Friday morning a CNN headline informed us that the stock market is inching forward, but America is “still in the red”, simply reminding us that we’re spending more than we’re making.

Ouch. With an expanding war and expanding government (Af-Pak war and healthcare reform respectively), expenses seem excessive. But thinking about the Af-Pak quagmire within this perspective made me realize the costly necessity of our engagement. Because even though it may seem cost effective and immediately convenient to bring troops home , our absence in the Af-Pak region entails risks that are perhaps higher than the costs of Obama’s troop surge, even in our downward economy.

Let’s run a counterfactual to demonstrate. If we begin troop withdrawal, ultimately winding down NATO forces as well, in the absence of a U.S.  presence, Af-Pak becomes fully accessible to regional powers, including China, Russia, and India to step in. Security and development will be led by other foreign powers who emerge with powerful influence in this strategic area. Because in addition to our foremost interest in obliterating Al Qaeda, Afghanistan is strategically poised to access Central Asian energy interests as is Pakistan. Pakistan is not landlocked so the Karachi port becomes key to transporting Central Asian energy to international markets. In our absence, Russia or China emerges as forerunners in supporting Af-Pak in their route to development meaning major energy projects that we stand to benefit from, such as theTurkmenistan-Afghanistan pipeline might take a backseat to projects led by Russia. Similarly, energy projects like the Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline which the Heritage Organization has already called “unacceptable” for U.S. interests make further headway in our absence with the support China. So withdrawing troops runs the risk of our losing access to potential energy resources and could further threaten Europe by allowing the former USSR to gain a “stranglehold over European energy security”.

Similarly, there are critical security risks that come along with our withdrawal. In our absence, regional powers that are historically not geopolitically neutral can create a climate of further conflict.

- Current Afghanistan-India alliance (rapidly increasing)

- Historic Pakistan – Afghanistan alliance (rapidly decreasing)

- Russia-Pakistan enmity (as per India Russia alliance)

- Russia-Afghanistan enmity (Soviet Afghan War)

- India-Russia alliance (An expanding, long term alliance began during the Cold War)

- India-China enmity (Sino Indian War)

- Pakistan-China alliance (Long term alliance began during the Sino Indian War)

- India-Pakistan enmity (Deep mistrust dating back to Partition in 1947 with 3 wars fought since)

This complex mix of regional relations in tandem with competing interests for Afghanistan and Pakistan creates weighty risks that are too big to take. For instance, there’s a widespread notion that Pakistan sought to wield control over Afghanistan to use it as a buffer against India and currently, the Pakistani government says the same is true for India as relations warm between Delhi and Kabul. By removing the United States from the picture, the risk of leaving two nuclear armed, historic adversaries vying for geopolitically strategic and energy rich Afghanistan becomes a weighty concern.

So two weeks ago when Fareed Zakaria questioned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on whether or not India believes Pakistan is doing it all it can to uproot terrorism, and Mr. Singh gently responded that America has given him all the assurance he needs, one realizes the magnanimity of our mitigating tensions in the region. Leaving the Af-Pak region now runs great potential for further insecurity and could run directly counter to our energy interests. Let’s hope our policies in uprooting terror are accompanied by development strategies for long term stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that our presence is not perpetually required. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/14/if-we-leave-now/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/09/defeat-taliban-first/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=defeat-taliban-first http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/09/defeat-taliban-first/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:01 +0000 Bilal Qureshi http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=1586 It is nauseating to see people being slaughtered in Pakistan these days. Human life has no respect for barbaric animals responsible for these bombings and suicide attacks. And if the news of bombings and killing was not enough, I was horrified to learn that Lahore’s commissioner (incorrectly) blames India for these attacks while Punjab’s law minister (correctly) believes that the thugs being smoked out from Swat and Wazirstan are actually behind these attacks to force the government to back down. Isn’t it time for Pakistan to get united? Isn’t it time stop obsessing about India? Isn’t it time to be realistic?

If any other country had been under attack the way Pakistan has been targeted by the Taliban, you’d see the entire nation fighting back, collectively. However, in Pakistan, out of control judiciary, rogue media (read Urdu columnists and anchors on private television channels) and out of power politicians are more concerned with NRO than defeating the Taliban. No political party, except MQM and PPP has taken a clear and bold stand against the Taliban. Isn’t time to forget the NRO, at least for now, and focus on defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who are out to annihilate Pakistan as we know it? Doesn’t common sense dictate that Pakistan’s first and top most priority must be to secure the homeland? Isn’t it critical to save Pakistan from becoming another Afghanistan? what good is the issue of NRO if Taliban or people who idolize Taliban are able to totally destroy Pakistan?

Ignoring Islamabad’s incompetence for now, it seems odd, even strange that the more Islamabad tries to do the right thing, i.e. the Baluchistan package, taking on the Taliban, taking a hard line with Washington vis-à-vis civilian aid, the more louder the opposition gets in these efforts to derail everything Zardari-Gillani try to achieve. Worse yet, while the enemy is working hard to destroy Pakistan as a peaceful country, some in Pakistan are scoring political points even at a time when the country is literally exploding from within. For example, Axis of Evil; arrogant media, politically motivated judiciary and right wing hard core fundamentalists led by Nawaz Sharif are trying to bring down the government. Specifically, all efforts are targeted towards maligning Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s democratically elected president. Otherwise, I don’t see any reason for this type of extremely charged rhetoric in Pakistan where the Chief Justice is almost openly signaling that he would target Zardari, Nawaz League is also encouraging negativity towards Zardari and the media too is obsessing about Zardari, while the country is engaged in life and death struggle. Pakistanis must learn to compartmentalize and prioritize if the country is interested in staying intact.

Don’t get me wrong. I want accountability and I want it across the board, but what is going on inside Pakistan is worrisome. Hysterical yelling, finger pointing, name calling, and other efforts rooted in bigotry never yielded anything before, nor will we see anything this time as for as accountability goes, as it is playing out in Pakistan these days.  Unfortunately, what gets lost in this lousy circus of NRO is the fact that enemy (and I don’t mean India or America or Jews whenever I use the term enemy – I always mean right wingers and the Taliban) are getting stronger instead of getting weaker and their efforts are much more synchronized and targeted instead of sporadic attacks here and there. More worrisome is the fact the funding for these nut jobs has not dried up. And no, India is not funding these people. The money for these humanity hating animals is always coming from the Gulf States. It has always come from there; nobody paid any attention to it before, plain and simple.

Isn’t it time to pay attention to stop the free flow of money to the Taliban instead of beating the dead drum of NRO?

Whether Zardari remains in power or not, it won’t matter if the enemy is able to land a blow. Therefore, common sense dictates that the nation puts else everything on the backburner and tackles the issue of dealing with terrorism that is plaguing everything in Pakistan. In historical context, Zardari, Gillani and even Nawaz Sharif will come and go, but what is constant is Pakistan and that is what the focus should have been ever since the Taliban declared war on Pakistan. NRO is the last thing that should be debated at this critical time in Pakistan’s history.

Regretfully, it is difficult to say with certainty whether Pakistan can come out of the big hole that the country has dug for itself or not. The pragmatist in me, who also loves Pakistan say yes, Pakistan will survive all this. However, looking at the data (political, social and economical indicators), the realist in me comes to a different and a horrifying conclusion.

Is there a future for Pakistan if the Taliban succeeding in overthrowing the government?

When Newsweek declared Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world in an article in 2007, all of us responded angrily. It was pointed out at the time that the wars are going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those countries should have been labeled dangerous, unstable or whatever. However, given Pakistan’s colossal struggles, it has become clear that Newsweek had it right all along. Pakistan is perhaps the most dangerous country in the world. And, it gives me no pleasure to predict that unless the media, the politicians and the judiciary wakes up to what is ‘really’ threatening Pakistan, there is no chance that Pakistan will be able to reverse the tide of destruction.

Is anyone listening in Pakistan?