Public Domain image provided by VOA

With our third and final electoral pageantry behind us, Americans can now gorge on a spate of lucid and provocative articulations of global security in the 21^st century.  That is, for those bothering to read below the fold.  For most of us, our interest peaked with the morning headlines whose typographic excess was reserved for the truly important and widely anticipated fare of the evening:

Zingers.

Nuclear proliferation, Iranian diplomacy, al-Qaeda, China, Osama bin Ho Hum.  Yes, we are electing a leader to make life and death decisions affecting countless soldiers and civilians, but foreign policy debates are mostly fodder to keep pundits satiated until the weekend. If the top headlines are any indication of our public appetites, however, then Americans are apparently interested in one question alone — which candidate was the most cutting, the most rhetorically incisive, the most qualified to be our next quippy-in-chief?

From the Associated Press to the Huffington Post and everything in between, Obama emerged as the clear front-runner in this war of wits.  In responding to Romney’s diminished tally of naval ships by noting that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets,” Obama showcased his own experience in this area while simultaneously casting his opponent as uninformed, naïve and generationally disconnected.  While it may not have changed any minds, the the only ones not laughing this morning are those powerful representatives of America’s bayonet lobby.

In all likelihood, Romney’s statement probably had less to do with any reasoned analysis or personal stance on nautical dominance than as a dog whistle for a candidate lacking service history to appear pro-military.  His choice of anachronisms may have set Obama up for the easy one-two, but in responding to such platitudes with humor, the president revealed a tacit agreement with his opponent’s underlying assumption that military strength is derived from superior hardware.  Unfortunately for both candidates, and our national discourse, this is empirically fallacious.

One reliable data source is the Correlates of War (COW) project begun in the 1960s by J. David Singer of the University of Michigan. COW is a massive data project cataloging all interstate wars since 1816 which have resulted in more than 1,000 battlefield deaths.  One subset, the Composite Index of National Capability, assigns proportionately higher scores to states with higher global shares of six resources deemed militarily consequential: personnel, resource expenditure, steel/iron production, energy consumption, total population and urban population. Of course, the fact that these six criteria were chosen to determine military capability is in itself telling of the remarkable hegemony of material preponderance as a presumptive determinant of victory.

Based on the available data, it might surprise readers to know that superior military systems have proven victorious in only slightly more than half of all engagements.  In other words, having superior technology, training, and assets predicts victory no better than a coin toss.  If this sounds implausible then I ask you to consider Vietnam, the Global War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan — all conflicts where the full might of the world’s most superior military systems have yielded tenuous victories at best.  Victories asserted, we should recall, only by changing the parameters of success to allow for non-material engagement.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the evening is that for all of Obama’s occasional frontiersman bluster for American exceptionalism, his administration seems to understand that power is vastly more complex than material preponderance.  The fact that he has struggled to actualize the soft power espoused in 2008 may explain his unwillingness to make it a centerpiece of this campaign.  Yet in stooping to Romney’s level, he abdicated yet another opportunity to bring such insights to the forefront of our national dialogue.

Source: Murat Sezer/Reuters

Syrian refugees sit outside their tents at Reyhanli refugee camp in Hatay province on the Turkish-Syrian border in April. Turkey’s prime minister recently warned that ‘Syria must be aware that in the event of a repetition of border violations, Turkey’s stance will not be the same.’ A fifth of Turkish military’s top brass is under arrest.

Dear readers, I recently wrote an Op-Ed on Turkey’s democracy and the state of Turkish military in relation to Syria/Middle East. You can read the original article that appeared in The Christian Science Monitor by clicking here.  

I recall having a hard time remembering all the Southern islands of Iran for exams during school years. I remember the name of “Abu Mousa” from those years. I had never thought about this island ever since. When I read the news about President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Abu Mousa, I still did not detect the controversial nature of this official trip. It was only when I logged in Facebook that I realized, “Wow! Iranians are having a patriotic day today!” The homepage was flooded with maps of Iran with “Persian Gulf” in large letter fonts. People seemed angry, patriotic and ready to fight the Arabs to protect Abu Mousa against the claims of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Iranians are patriotic and do not want to see what is left of their “Persian Empire”  further shrink. The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), namely President Ahmadinejad, seems to have mastered the ability to trigger nationalistic sentiments in the hearts of even the most radical opposition groups. His recent trip to Abu Mousa and his speech for the small population (about 2,000 residents) of this island instigated regional controversy and domestic nationalistic romanticism.

But, why did he make a trip to Abu Mousa now? What was the purpose of this visit that Iranian officials called “a domestic matter within the framework of the President’s provincial visits”?

The most obvious reason could be that Ahmadinejad’s visit to Abu Mousa was for the neighboring Arab countries, friends of the United States and the West to yet again remember Iran’s regional power. This is of importance, because Iran is soon to participate in the second round of nuclear negotiations with five permanent members of the United Nation Security Council and Germany. And, Iran is naturally doing everything possible to enter these negotiations with an upper hand, hence taking all the necessary steps to exhibit its undeniable regional power.

Another less obvious reason could be that the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) at large needs the support and attention of even its opposition in the midst of the aforementioned negotiations. IRI and in particular President Ahmadinejad has been successful in displaying a strong degree of national unity surrounding the issue of nuclear program. To this end, the IRI needed to yet again show off the Iranian national solidarity surrounding a topic adjacent to the nuclear issue. So, Abu Mousa seems to have been chosen as an issue to spark regional tensions and to gently tap on the nationalistic sentiments of Iranians with diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Essentially, IRI needed another nationalistic roar from Iranians to set the stage for the upcoming negotiations.

While there might be many more motivations behind this visit, the stated reasons suffice to justify a trip of this nature. In his speech, Ahmadinejad noted that the people of this island, along with the government, should turn this island into the “stud of the Persian Gulf”. When reading excerpts from his speech, I could not help but to try and put myself in the shoes of the people of this island. Did they feel proud to have President Ahmadinejad as a guest to their island? They welcomed him. Would they welcome a UAE official visiting, too? Territorial disputes aside, how did one of those fishermen in the crowd feel? Did he feel truly Iranian? Did he feel Iran or the UAE should have done more for the island? Did this visit give more confidence to the fisherman?

In my search to find something, at least a little something, about the real people of Abu Mousa, I only came across an IRI Youtube clip that contained a series of interviews with children and adults residing in Abu Mousa along with a short tour of all the facilities built by I the government such as a hospital, university and an Islamic Basij building made in the aftermath of Ahmadinejad’s controversial visit. At least in this clip, the people sounded like most other patriotic Iranians. In their interviews, some called the “little sheikhs” in Abu Mousa as “the guests of the island” who should just remain guests without ownership entitlements. Among the interviews captured in this clip, the response of an eight year old boy named Mousa when asked about his home, Abu Mousa, struck me the most. While playing with the sand, Mousa said, “It has a sea, a park…”

Regardless of its small size and population, Abu Mousa does indeed have geographical strategic value. It is true that we now care deeply about this island and the beautiful water surrounding it all. Yet, very few of us Iranians could claim that we ever really thought about Abu Mousa. But, now all of a sudden we feel blood circulating faster in our body when we hear the name “Abu Mousa”; a small island whose strategic importance we seem to have realized. If not fruitful for Iran’s negotiations with P5+1 or for Iran’s relations with the UAE, let us at least hope that the controversial visit of President Ahmadinejad guarantees a more promising future for the fishermen who eagerly listened to him speak. Let us see who will provide that little boy, Mousa, with employment opportunities a few years down the road. Let us return to this island in some years and talk to Mousa again to see what he really felt in April 2012 when the whole world was discussing his little island. At the end of the day, it is a kid like Mousa—and not only historic and political claims— who should matter in such controversial discussions.

(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edyjFvESL8E

(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2012/04/120412_l38_iran_reax_uae.shtml

(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/world/middleeast/dispute-over-island-of-abu-musa-unites-iran.html?_r=2

(4) http://www.roozonline.com/persian/news/newsitem/article/-d6accd4b1c.html

(5) photo: http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/gulf-states-to-meet-on-iranuae-island-spat_6087

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.

Pervez Musharraf – Freedom through Dictatorship ?

Well, I called it: Pervez Musharraf is staging a return to Pakistani politics. Launching his new “All Pakistan Muslim League” (AMPL) party this week in a plan to return to the country, the former General will have to face a tremendously skeptical, increasingly hardened citizenry and even tougher adversaries in the judicial branch and opposition parties. In an Al Jazeera special report, Musharraf’s former Legal Advisor Ahmed Raza Kasuri insisted that should tacit approval come from the country’s military establishment and most importantly, with support of a “silent majority” Kasuri measures at 60-65% of moderate Pakistani’s, Musharraf will garner required support to win in future elections. Political analyst Imtiaz Gul insisted otherwise explaining not only would the military establishment be weary of backing Musharraf who cost them valuable political capital when he sacked the judiciary in 2007 and issued a State of Emergency, but also because he has “lost relevance” in Pakistan today.

Gul makes a valuable point: without relevance a political figure is climbing an uphill battle of garnering credibility, and because credibility is deeply intertwined with legitimacy, Musharraff undoubtedly faces a bumpy comeback.

But relevance is not necessarily an impediment to power in Pakistan since the current situation lends a valuable opportunity for it to be readily earned. Current President Asif Zardari usurped such an opportunity when his wife was tragically murdered and assumed leadership, riding the waves of sympathy that swept the nation to win elections. While that “relevance” is waning now, it was enough to allow him a seat of power for 2 years and actually shake off some of the “Mr. 10%” infamy, which is a far larger feat than what Mushrraf faces today.

While the main opposition party leaders Asif Zardari and Nawaaz Sharif are forever bogged by allegations of corruption, Musharraff’s criticisms revolve around issues of “democracy”.

His most vociferous opponents will cite his sacking of the judiciary, coup to power, and 9 year dictatorial reign as subverting democracy in Pakistan. But such criticism of Musharraf is both misleading and mostly hyperbole.

The deficient part of such rhetoric lies in lacking recognition of liberalism. Notions of individual human rights and liberty, free trade, separation of church and state and religious tolerance are erroneously assumed to come only with democratic leadership in Pakistan. On the contrary, liberal policies extending specifically to women’s rights, fostering regional cooperation and trade, namely with India, opening domestic markets, such as free media and holding free and fair elections were successfully carried out previously by Musharraf.

Ironically, under the title of “dictator”, he brought forth more liberal triumphs than any other leaders in my lifetime. And it is important to not confuse democracy with liberalism. Fareed Zakaria makes this distinction in tweaking “Democratic Peace Theory”. His ideas are described:

“democracy is defined in terms of the process by which a government is selected. In contrast, “constitutional liberalism” is defined not by how the government is selected, but rather b the extent to which the society and its institutions protect individuals’ basic rights (to life, property, freedom of speech, and religion)”

Thus basic tenants of a such liberalism, to a fair extent were brought forth by Musharraf. And as political change seems imminent in Pakistan, if we continue looking to political theory one might advance a case for liberalism by way of identifying Musharraf’s opposition. If we take a voluntaristic view of government, wherein heads of states are integral parts of policymaking as opposed to looking mostly at system wide determinants of policy, one finds that not only corruption, but the fact that both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are part of feudal, landowning elites in Pakistan is meaningful. With that background, and likely subsequent value sets which are diametrically opposed to liberal notions of liberty and individual rights, Pakistan runs the risk of remaining socially, and economically stagnant under their leadership. Moreover, with the U.S. winding down our war in Afghanistan and shifting in to Pakistan, more than ever liberal ideals are needed.

No amount of drones, target killings or CIA intervention have yet quelled extremism let alone terrorism in Pakistan since 9/11. Modernity and liberalism are Pakistan’s best bet at framing a solution for the long run.

It cannot be an overnight shift, but it will require leadership that espouses liberal ideals. Because without credible experience in upholding individual rights and freedoms, only halfhearted appreciation will come for liberalism and even weaker attempts to implement them.

Is Musharraf the solution Pakistan is looking for? I do not know. But until new, more modern, and liberal alternatives in political leadership are available, he just might be the best option now.

Pakistani Tennis Star Asiam Qureshi Calls for Peace at U.S. Open 2010

It’s my first week in Denver where I’ll be attending graduate school the next two years and I’m soaking in how kind this city is. It is the most laid back, genuine U.S. City I’ve experienced. The sincerity with which people prod “No, where are you really from?” when I initially respond “California”, is priceless. I feel like a novelty here. At an Eid Celebration last night, even a local of Pakistani descent pointed out “Wow, the guys are going to flip over you. There are no ethnic girls in Denver”.

“Ethnic”? I’ll take it; I realize I’m getting a pass for being a Californian female. Because in light of increasingly disheartening news from Pakistan, be it about floods, match fixing in cricket, and mostly terrorism plaguing the country since 9/11, Pakistani’s have captured the American state of mind in a less than appealing way. Once indecipherable on a world map for most Americans, Pakistan emerged as our stalwart ally in victory after 40+ years of Cold War. Yet as we turn to Islamabad again to fight a War on Terror, we possess a deep skepticism of Pakistani intentions.

Pakistan is rampantly associated with concepts of Terrorism, Extremism, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Corruption and disaster as D.C. and Islamabad are ever more understood as reluctant partners. Plus post thwarting the Faisal Shahzad situation , expert indications that homegrown terrorism poses the biggest threat to the United States, stabbing of a cab driver of Pakistani descentand Amnesty International’s recent report that hate crimes against Muslims is on an alarming rise, being Pakistani seems like an uphill battle in America. So on an individual level, Pakistani’s and Americans may be feeling the same skepticism that governments harbor for one another in bilateral relations. But this week the world was abuzz when Pakistani tennis player Asiam-ul-Haq Qureshi with irresistible sincerity exclaimed:

Since September 11, every time I come to the States or western countries I feel people have the wrong impression about Pakistan as a terrorist nation. I just wanted to declare that we are very friendly, loving and caring people, and we want peace in this world as much as Americans and the rest of the world wants.

There are extremists in every religion, but just because of them you cannot judge the whole country as a terrorist nation. I just wanted to get this message across as a Pakistani

In plain terms Qureshi clarified that his country is a mostly moderate nation where people expect the same peace and security desired by all people. He reminded us of Pakistan’s humanity, directly countering the “transactional” ties that progressively complicate our understanding of Pakistan. Fareed Zakaria might agree. In a recent piece, he eloquently concurred:

Across the Muslim world, militant Islam’s appeal has plunged. In the half of the Muslim world that holds elections, parties that are in any way associated with Islamic jihad tend to fare miserably, even in Pakistan.

In his article “We’re Safer Than We Think” Zakaria points out that Muslims in Pakistan and beyond are if anything, less safe from terrorism than we are as they suffer the brunt of radical Islam’s consequences.

Over the last few years, imams and Muslim leaders across the world have been denouncing suicide bombings, terrorism, and Al Qaeda with regularity….The fatal problem with these kinds of attacks is that they kill ordinary civilians—not U.S. soldiers or diplomats—and turn the local population against Islamic radicals.

With more thorough detail, Zakaria’s is saying exactly what Qureshi did; Pakistan is not a country of terrorists. So next time I get asked where I am “really” from, I might just say “I’m from Asiam Qureshi’s country”. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/12/asiam-qureshis-country/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/05/will-anger-solve-anything/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=will-anger-solve-anything http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/05/will-anger-solve-anything/#comments Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:52:55 +0000 Bilal Qureshi http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=2222

Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.

Mark Twain

It really is a grueling task to write about Pakistan because there is never anything encouraging to discuss. It is always an angry mob shouting against ‘foreign hands, ‘corruption’ bomb attacks, which now has turned into a horrific Hollywood style shootout after the explosions. The situation has deteriorated to a new low because the list of targets has been expanded to include shrines, mosques, and yes, peaceful religious processions.

Worse, now, it is public lynching and execution without any trial, jury, and witnesses, judge, or, evidence. One, but not the only example of this mindset was on display recently when we witnessed humanity gored to death by the mobsters of Sialkot.

If that was not enough, then, there are protests in the country against power shortage, lack of food commodities (think flour, sugar, rice etc).  To top all this, we see agitation and processions against America, facebook and Youtube (and Israel and India, of course) where people are going crazy with rage. And if this mayhem was not sufficient to make Pakistani supporters nauseous, we now have about 24 to 26% of the country under water because of record flooding in Pakistan.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that today’s Pakistan is one of the most dangerous places in the world, regardless of what yardstick we use to measure danger. It offers nothing to anyone who might be interested in visiting because of work or family related situation. I have tried hard, but can’t come up with any rational or logical explanation to fly there. Pakistanis living abroad are cutting back their annual travel plans. Those who travel to Pakistan for work prepare like they won’t come back. And leisure travel to Pakistan which was always abysmal has diminished altogether, thus, permanently depriving the country from tourism money helping its depressed economy.  

Unfortunately, it is obvious that Pakistanis don’t even know about businesses planning to expand beyond America (google, Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, Dell, HP, Apple, and the list goes on and on) have opted for two countries. For hardware and other production related supplies, corporations deal with China and for software and call centers, businesses establish branches in India. And for Pakistan it means lost opportunities – and by extension, loss of significant tax revenue, excellent job and training openings.

But, if you look at Pakistan, the population there is more concerned about fighting Americans, fighting each other, fighting imaginary threats, instead of developing a country which attracts visitors, business and tourists.

There are a lot of good people, both Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis who believe that Pakistan is a lost cause and there is nothing that will change Pakistan’s course. They believe that living in denial and living on borrowed money has its limit and very soon, the country will explode, not because of external danger, but because of out of control population, debt, inflation, and overall economic stagnation.   

However, I believe that there is always hope, but, I also believe that at this point, only brutal honesty, seriousness, objectivity, and hard work will change Pakistan’s future. So, if Pakistanis want to continue on their current turbulent journey, they don’t have to change anything. However, if they want to live in peace, prosperity, and happiness, they will have to stop blaming America, Blackwater, Jews, Hindus, and yes, even Zardari. Instead, Pakistan will have to work together, not against each other to turn misery into fortune. Remember, Pakistan’s problems did not begin with Zardari’s arrival and Pakistan’s fortunes are not going to change when Zardari is gone.  

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.

Wikileaks & Pakistan

Pakistan is in desperate need of a plumber to fix the leak on the front page of the New York Times this morning. The article has one of strongest suggestions yet that the Inter Services Intelligence Agency aids the enemy in Afghanistan and is rooted in reports made available by the whistler blower organization, Wikileaks. The reports entitled the “Afghan War Diaries” purport that the Pakistani ISI provides haven, if not supports Al Qaeda comes from “unverified” sources most likely “aligned with Afghan” intelligence and “paid informants”. The New York Times piece provides examples of how a suggestion of Pakistani aiding insurgents could be accurate, and leaves only a brief disclaimer that nothing is yet certain. Rather, the story more strongly asserts:

Senior lawmakers say they have no doubt that Pakistan is aiding insurgent groups. “The burden of proof is on the government of Pakistan and the ISI to show they don’t have ongoing contacts,” said Senator Jack Reed

“No doubt” is an alarming allegation against a critical ally in this war and a bit sensational in the absence of a closer reading of Pakistan’s realities and motivations.

What seems more likely than “no doubt”, is something I’ve stated previously. Both Ideology and what Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesperson said are “ground realities” run directly counter to the suggestion that the ISI rampantly supports insurgent groups against American interests.

Quite simply, insurgent groups including Al Qaeda are deeply comprised of remnants from the Soviet Afghan war, meaning former fighters we engaged the ISI to train, maintained links to “freedom fighters” who ultimately became extremist groups we combatted post 9/11. That engagement created a decade long window in which there was little instruction or immediate opportunity and to some extent, interest for Pakistan to eradicate insurgents in its neighboring country. Couple this with the fact that Pakistan shares a nebulous border with Afghanistan as it became haven to one of the worlds largest refugee problems with Afghans fleeing Soviet atrocities, and you’ve got a battle hardened, impoverished, and an armed influx of an outside population who call major cities like Karachi, home.

So when we hear about the “Af-Pak Quagmire”, one should really be thinking in terms of the pickle Pakistan got into when millions of refugees made Pakistan’s underdeveloped, politically volatile and vastly feudal state home as the Cold War ended.

This climate allows us to put the Wikileaks reports into perspective. Firstly, reports linking ISI aid to insurgents could likely be referring to former Pakistan intelligence officials who maintained ties to insurgents as Afghans became part of the fabric of Pakistani society. Secondly, although these groups made Pakistan their home, the arms and influx of drugs via Afghanistan, never ceased. An infamous Klashinkov culture pervades Karachi amongst other places, including the now well-known FATA areas.  So with such imbedded presence in Pakistan, obliterating Afghani insurgents becomes a highly sensitive task.

I rarely point to ideology as a driver of action when it comes to government behavior, but as Afghan’s made their home in Pakistan, they came sharing religion and some aspects of culture which intensifies the complexity of hunting down terrorists because it leaves Pakistan open to the possibility of a civilian uprising. Certainly Afghans would have preferred we “negotiate” rather than wage full scale war post 9/11 to settle differences. And I will not argue whether or not that would have been wise, however, the point is that the

ISI may be dealing with insurgents in vastly different ways, wheeling and dealing as opposed to obliterating them with the force we might use because of a profound risk involved in alienating an enormous, and internal Afghan presence within Pakistan’s border.

Since 9/11 Pakistan has descended into civlian chaos at certain intervals with extremists growing polarized, gravitating toward insurgents as we intensified our offensive in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So our expecations must take these realities into account and the Wikileaks reports understood within that context.

Ultimately, a lesson we might learn from the Wikileaks story is that negotiating with extremist groups for Pakistan is inevitable. General McChrystal’s Counterinsurgency strategy was moving in that direction as it called for U.S. engagement for the long haul requiring additional years in time, toil, troops, and treasure; which is an increasingly unpopular idea. So will the Wikileaks reports be the “game changer” or this wars equivalent to the “Pentagon Papers” for it’s suggestions that our engagement of Pakistan in providing billions in aid has been not only counter productive but comes in addition to our own mishandlings of the war thus far?

Perhaps. But either way, Pakistan is in desperate need of one skilled plumber to fix this leak.

Facebook Banned in Pakistan – May 2010

There’s a notion of two distinct America’s; one that is conservative, mostly Republican Red and the other a more liberal Democratic Blue, and in a similar way I see two Pakistan’s this week.

Case in point: the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority severed access to the worlds largest social networking site this week when a Lawyers Association won a court injunction officially banning Facebook because of a page entitled “Post Drawings of Prophet Mohammad Day”.  As of now, the Pakistan government has added YouTube, and certain pages on Flickr and Wikipedia to the ban list which is either fueling vehement support of the ban (a conservative, we’ll say Red thing to do) and protests against Facebook or a eliciting a total opposite response “God save this country, lunatics are running it” (a more liberal, response we’ll label Blue).

The polarized views are reminiscent of our own democratic deliberations; strong demonstrations for (Red) and against (Blue) the legality of the Iraq invasion beginning in 2004, or protests against the passage of Proposition 8 (Blue) in California which outlawed same sex marriage in 2008 (Red).

So do such polar views necessarily indicate a distinctly Blue and Red America? I’ve never thought so, because overallAmerican’s tend to be far more centrist than our elected officials make us out to be in a two party system. Generally, Americans from California to New York and everywhere in between share basic social and cultural values; we watch the same shows, dress similarly, and ultimately ascribe to the values outlined in our Constitution (albeit interpretations differ).

But Pakistan is very different. There is far less social homogeneousness and more indications of a vastly distinct populace, a Red and Blue Pakistan if you will. Citizens from the remote, more rural northern areas bordering Afghanistan, or Red places will likely dress, consume, and believe differently than people in the more cosmopolitan hustle and bustle of large cities like Karachi, or Blue Pakistan.

Pakistani’s are educated on vastly different scales. While one child might be raised in a feudal system from a village in Sindh with no education, another might be educated per the Cambridge system in a large city, while another might have only had formal training in religious studies at a Madrassah! In terms of dress; it’s not uncommon to find females covered in burqa’s from head to toe, no face, hands or even eyes showing (Red), while you’ll find other’s in the skimpiest of attire partying until daybreak (Blue), at which point some Pakistani’s may rise to pray at a local Mosque while others are just getting home from a night of drinking and dancing. It’s Red and Blue if i’ve ever seen it, if not as stark as the contrast of Black on White.

So there’s an enormous diversity in belief systems that is more immediately recognized in the Pakistani landscape than in ours. I recall living there while in High School and being shocked at the level of ignorance toward America by some and whole hearted embrace of western culture by others. But polar lifestyles and belief systems amongst Pakistani’s doesn’t indicate there isn’t a grey area of people who fall in between two extremes, nor does it mean the group perceived as more “western” is necessarily against the ban on Facebook. In fact, notorious party animal and international rock star Ali Azmat didn’t denounce the censorship:

“Musician Ali Azmat said the issue should be dealt with sternly so that no such thing takes place in the future. “Every Muslim condemns this act, but it should be handled responsibly because we have to maintain our image. I have registered my condemnation of the relevant Facebook page.”

And that’s when I start to worry. If so called “liberal” personalities in Pakistan can be overworked over the Facebook page and fail to renounce such short sighted legislation, I shudder to think of how widespread acceptance of unnecessary censorship still is in Pakistan.

I’ll be the first to say the Facebook page is in poor taste, it’s a sorry excuse for a cause and the fact that it does not have even  a 20k following yet is testimony to how silly it is. Thus the futility of the inane effort makes the Pakistani ban a disproportionate, counter productive response.

The page does not incite hate or violence and I would go so far as to say it posed an opportunity for the Pakistani government to lead its citizens to moderation in this instance. After violent protests against the Danish cartoons which forever mar the image of Muslims today, Pakistan missed a chance to demonstrate Islamic sensibility.

By banning Facebook over a trivial issue the government makes a mockery of it’s people, Red and Blue alike. Officially designated as The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the government carries a profound responsibility to simultaneously uphold freedom and religious consciousness. Not an easy task, but the last thing Pakistan needs right now is are further riled extremists and increased Anti-Americanism.

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.

Reconciling CIA Drones in Pakistan

Click here to Read the First Part: Reconciling CIA Drones in Pakistan Part 1

Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with officials in Islamabad to reiterate the importance of drone attacks, despite escalating reservations of their use amongst Pakistani’s. It’s been a polarizing issue from the onset because while it’s convenient to fly unmanned CIA predator aircraft over potential terrorist havens, they result in significant civilian casualties, and displaced persons. So it’s no surprise that over a year later, reconciling their use in Pakistan is still on the agenda.

For this reason, Secretary Gates announced a possibility of America providing “Pakistan with 12 unarmed Shadow aircraft”. Meaning the planes would not have a capacity to strike, but offer enhanced “surveillance capabilities under U.S. supervision”. It’s a fair decision and something I’ve suggested previously.

Supplying drones to close allies who aid in our War Efforts absolves us of sole liability for collateral damage wreaked by these machines that are always controversial, and increasingly protested internationally.

Gates also stressed the importance of militarily addressing all extremist groups because:

“It’s dangerous to single out any one of these groups and say, ‘If we could beat that group that would solve the problem,’ because they are in effect a syndicate of terrorist operators”

And almost simultaneously, Secretary Clinton unveiled The Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy which sends an increase of 20-30% in civilian experts to both countries and “outlines plans to rebuild the Afghan farm sector, improve governance, and reintegrate extremists into society”. But this strategy of “reintegrating extremists” runs in contradiction to Secretary Gates’ aforementioned remarks.

Gates ruled out any possibility of reintegration calling for a consolidated attack on extremists suggesting that they work in “syndication”, while Cinton’s plan attempts to bring extremists back into the fold of moderate society.

It’s a stark inconsistency in our foreign policy. Because while I think Secretary Clinton’s idea notion of reintegration is more in tune with ground realities, and therefore viable, I figure Secretary Gates was being staunch in talks because finally relinguishing partial drone technology provided him with that margin of hawkishness. Either way though, one thing is certain, despite skepticism on both ends of the U.S. Pakistan relationship, cooperation is ever deepening. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/22/still-trying-to-reconcile-cia-drones/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/19/is-pakistan-ready-for-democracy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-pakistan-ready-for-democracy http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/19/is-pakistan-ready-for-democracy/#comments Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:50:37 +0000 Bilal Qureshi http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=1692 Downhill for Pakistan? (Dawn) Tariq Amin-Khan. Tuesday, January 19, 2010 For the record, I want to make clear that I am ...]]> “The Canadian military planners expect that Pakistan will collapse by 2016, and the territory will be occupied by India. Sound bizarre? Not so to the security analysts in Ottawa.”

Downhill for Pakistan? (Dawn) Tariq Amin-Khan. Tuesday, January 19, 2010

For the record, I want to make clear that I am a staunch supporter and promoter of democracy, but lately, I have started to wonder if Pakistan is ready for democracy after all. I don’t mean to agree with or advance the argument that Islam has no room for democracy. My argument is based on entirely different set of circumstances and it has nothing to do with religion.

We all know that unfortunately, Pakistan has been deteriorating for some time. Unlike what most anchors and jihadi elements in Pakistan would have you believe, the reality is that Pakistan has almost run out of options in terms of second and third and fourth chances.  Today’s Pakistan is actually on life support (thanks to Washington) and we have to see how long would the Western world keep replenishing Pakistan’s depleted oxygen tank.  And, even if this artificial support continues, it will end one day because everything comes to an end, eventually. So, will Pakistan be ready when the flow of aid will stop? This is the question that frightens a lot of people, including myself.

Even if Pakistan manages to survive despite awful shortage of food items that are vanishing from the country i.e. sugar, flour, and manages to find work for millions and millions of untrained, and uneducated youngsters in the country, and somehow, connects every house hold in to an electric grid and provide non-stop electricity, gas, water and petroleum to every citizen, the prospect of religious zealots taking over the county and destroying the society is very real. Religious gangsters have already declared war on Pakistan and these thugs are carrying out vicious attacks across the country every single day.

The rise of extreme religion is not on the rise because mullah is forcing everyone to embrace their version of religion, but the society is evolving and drifting towards hard core Wahabi school of thought. Everywhere in Pakistan you look, religious symbols have become the norm and it seems that pretty soon, every woman in Pakistan would be either in burqa or wearing a hijab and every man would be supporting long un-kept beard. And, not only is the society gravitating towards hard-core religion, but ‘I know what is right’ attitude has given a new dimension to religious bullying in Pakistan, which has forced moderate and sometime secular individuals and families to conform in order to avoid being a target  or draw attention to themselves.

Add to this volatile mix of lack of economic, social and cultural depression and shrinking energy reservoir the intense and unyielding anti American sentiment across Pakistan and it is a recipe for a complete catastrophe. Pakistan, in my opinion has become a ticking time bomb.

So, in order to turn around Pakistan, can we rely on democracy? Can democratic institutions provide relief and answers for the challenges that the country faces today? Or perhaps, we should ask – has democracy been able to provide any assistance to the ordinary Pakistani? Of course not if one examines the evidence.

Therefore, if the country sticks to democratic means, it might take years, perhaps decades to make a simple decision. Take Kala Bagh Dam. It was in the pipeline for decades before The World Bank pulled its support for this vital project. Similarly, there are other examples where a quick decision is needed to save the future, but democracy dictates that you consult, debate, consider all sides and in the end, reject what is plausible and start again while the problem becomes a crisis. And, it is not only energy crisis – it is almost everything in the country that needs urgent and solid decisions without any compromise, but, we don’t see anything positive happening. The current government is struggling to stop attacks for all sides – army, judiciary, opposition, MQM, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, population explosion, and so forth. And, democracy is not providing any answer, let alone solution for Pakistan.

Can it go on like this forever?

Maybe Pakistan’s democratic transition should be gradual. Maybe Pakistanis should be trained and educated in understanding what it means to live in a democratic society. Maybe, it would be helpful if Pakistanis were first prepared to live within the frame work of democratic traditions. The list of prerequisites can go on and on, but I think you get my point. So, given all this, I ask you to think about it.

Is Pakistan really ready for democracy?

“ Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.”
Voltaire

Bilal Qureshi

Washington, DC

Both DAWN news and CNN have good reports on Pakistani artist Imran Mudassar. The following video briefly takes us into some of his recent works that depict deteriorating security, and amplified militarism that torments his country.

VIDEO : CNN talks to Pakistan Artist Imran Mudassir – January 2010

I found his first work in the video of particular interest: the wall piece brought from Kabul that was peppered with shrapnel holes. Mudassir traces an outline of a man’s torso onto the destroyed wall and highlights each hole with color to accentuate a very poignant notion that these aren’t just holes, they’re wounds. He specifically mentions he can’t stop thinking about those holes after having seen them, and quite effectively after seeing his work, one might feel the same. Minimal use of color and the small scale work set into a simple frame brings us in contact with a wrenching reality that mainstream news reporting of terrorism just can’t offer.

Seeing the actual holes that sharpnel makes on an individual human torso is far different than just hearing that another suicide bomber struck in the Af-Pak region.

The holes in this work leave us feeling empty as we peer into the darkness and depth of these wounds. Kudos once again CNN for reporting on one of the many persevering stories out of Pakistan during these testing times. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/11/strokes-of-genius-in-a-time-of-war/feed/ 0