The safe havens must be eliminated. The corruption must be stopped. The infrastructures must be built. The people must be free. The allies must stand together. The nuclear arms must remain safe. The bombing must be stopped. The safe haven must be eliminated.
30,000 plus a exit date of June 2011. It's a safe bet that we will need some more troops. It's a safe bet that things will calm down before they become restive, once again. It's a safe bet that we will re-evaluate before we re-deploy.
A certain generation of Americans is heavily invested in the "Vietnam analogy" because that generation watches all of the cable shows. Is Afghanistan like or unlike Vietnam. Afghanistan is like Afghanistan. It's majority population has been born and raised in the noise of bomb blasts and the heavy weight of an automatic weapon nearby - highly transient and shell-shocked. They say more Afghans are needed to fight for the future of Afghanistan. I'd say find more Afghans who are done fighting.
He said, "Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali." See, again. There is no Islamabad. No Peshawar. No Lahore. No Lahore. No Lahore. Nor, even Mumbai (though, the Indian PM did get that nice dinner). No matter how much thoughtful and thorough review happens, some things are never questioned, nor changed.
"Public opinion has turned", he said. Right. It was public opinion that kept us back from 2001-2008. We had a name for that public opinion, didn't we? Our moderately enlightened public opinion. "In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over." Ah, past. Let us not tarry there. Let us move on quickly and forcefully. But where? To fund and finance the capacity of Pakistanis to carry out bigger and more effective wars? How exactly is that a break from the past? Maybe the difference is that we are now going to drop night-vision goggles instead of a pellet full of dollars from the C-9 or C-7 or whatever big-planes-are-called? Yes, that is indeed new. Because night-vision goggles can give you sight in the darkness. Essential.
We will support democracy. We supported the "flawed" election of Karzai. That, unfortunately, is not "the past". We supported Pervez Musharraf. He doesn't want to be "the past". And neither does "President Zardari" - who was bequeathed both a political party and a nation by a woman who last won an election in 1993 but was still the only possible future Pakistan was deemed to have. Sadly, she is also "the past".
Should I have been heartened, at least, by his "concerns about our approach." Yes, there are some concerns. In Islamabad. In Kabul. Maybe even is Khost and Karachi. Or in Kandahar and Lahore. We weren't told but maybe those concerns were heard in the "review process". I am sure that the easy traffic of weapons and people across borders, the legitimate demands of dis-enfranchised in Swat or Baluchistan, the fear of every-day life in Lahore or Karachi were all heard and discussed. Could it be that this "let's send some more troops and help train some other more troops" strategy was developed with the political and civil leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the table with the Iranian, Indian, and Chinese officials to address inter and intra-regional tactics? Maybe hidden in the fine print are new means of communication, new definitions of strategic aims and missions and a much more harmonized action plan? It certainly never was in "the past".
We have to "go forward", "go forward", while "going forward", "going forward" and then "move forward" while "moving forward". And Afghanistan? It has "moved backwards". Movement is key in a stateless country where the only anchored reference remains Alexander the Great. We will move forward. If it comes that these (safe?) havens also move, we will already be ahead of them. Or behind.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush.
[Photo Credit: Daily Waqt, Issue 69, vol. 287, Tuesday, Dec 1, 2009 & "Obama Announces Troop Increase for Afghanistan", Doug Mills/The New York Times]
COMMENTS
S. Harpasand | December 02, 2009
Virtualy every Pak centric blog today is talking and criticising the Obama speech and his afpak strategy. But there is no practical and realistic alternative being talked about which would be not only more Pak friendly but also solve the issues for both Pak and the USA. Are there any alternatives put forward by any Pakistani experts on how to handle the Afghan and Taliban issue ?
Erum | December 02, 2009
Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
omar ali | December 02, 2009
I think you are being too harsh. I think it was a good speech and its the best strategy possible at this time. There is no such thing as police work or supporting education if there is no security (no govt. in charge). The Afghan govt has to establish bare minimum control over Afghanistan, otherwise civil war, anarchy and export of criminality and terrorism will continue. Pakistan has to re-establish control over its tribal areas and stop supporting international terrorist networks. These are all practical and necessary goals (as long as we wish to continue in the present paradigm of nation states and international relations). If this works, then the whole region will benefit. If it does not work, the US will suffer a setback but the region will suffer much worse.
khalid mir | December 02, 2009
don't agree with you, omar. isn't there anarchy there already (to some extent, anyway)? and i don't know what "export of criminality" means. when has pakistan had control that it needs to "re-establish" it? and what international terrorist networks are we talking about? I thought they were mainly local ones, no? "if it works"..err..remind me again, what *exactly* is the aim here, what is "it"? As for practical and necessary goals I'd suggest: stop supporting dictators (General Z, Mush, etc) and radical groups in the name of 'national interest' and think a bit about that old-fashioned word justice.
sepoy | December 02, 2009
S. Harpasand: "Are there any alternatives put forward by any Pakistani experts on how to handle the Afghan and Taliban issue ?" Sure. Right there. In that post above.
Yes man | December 02, 2009
"Afghanistan at the table with the Iranian, Indian, and Chinese officials" Why would China even sit down at this table? It couldn't care less about Afghanistan. It already has Pakistan, a stalwart ally in south asia, that will get its hands dirty for it in south Asia. Although, seeing Chinese soldiers in Afghanistan doing their genghis khan impersonation would be interesting.
Nikolai | December 02, 2009
I too am irked by constant Alexander the Great references. A serious problem, I think, is the US seeing this from a US-centered perspective. They think that they're the target, when really they were injected into an ongoing 30-year civil war. This type of thinking will create disasterous problems for civilians worldwide, especially Afghanistan. The US and the West are major players, but only one part of a much larger conflict, and I think their ignorance about the situation as a whole dimishes chances of a lasting peace. All the people of Afghanistan must feel as though they can trust and hold their government accountable. Which, right now they can't, but more focuss, whether foreign or domestic, should be given to building a viable, democratic nation. There also should a serious reconsideration about these so-called "ethnic divides" and people need to jettison that ethno-based/racial/stupid thinking that was encouraged, and to some degree impossed some 300 years ago. Obama's team should seriously apply more efforts to helping Afghans bring peace to Afghanistan by healthcare, education, and employment. The world community at large, with Muslim governments at the forefront, should also work together to defeat violent Islamists. Thought I guess that'd take healthcare, education, and jobs as well.
Afghan Policy Roundup (And A Little Public Opinion Theory To Boot) « Chasing Fat Tails | December 03, 2009
[...] Finally, Manan has a wonderfully eloquent post on his reactions to Obama’s speech. Probably the link most worth reading here. A snippet: A [...]
Neena | December 03, 2009
And neither does “President Zardari” — who was bequeathed both a political party and a nation by a woman who last won an election in 1993 but was still the only possible future Pakistan was deemed to have. Sadly, she is also “the past”. Yup, no one able to safe guard her with so many weapons. As for Zardari despite all negative publicity by media he is handling the country well. I'm surprised at free and fair media who are still not blaming the true culprits of Pakistan the one who ruled the country more than anyine.
omar ali | December 03, 2009
I think the US is already trying to step away from the army and cultivate a civilian democratic leadership in Pakistan. But their short term interests constantly pull them back to the army, which is the institution that can help or hinder Afghan operations, can go after or support jihadi groups, and so on. I am generally critical of the ham-handed interference of the US embassy and I think sections of the pentagon and CIA are just too used to dealing with military dictators and right wing death squads, so they tend to go with what they know. But even they have gradually figured out that the Pakistani army is not the same as the Argentinian army. It has a long relationship with international islamist terrorists and many of its officers are genuinely committed to a vision of Islamic solidarity that does not go along with mercenary operations on behalf of the CIA. So I would submit that Pakistan is now a special case where EVEN the US security establishment is willing to move away from their fondly remembered Latin American model and actually supports democracy and even tolerates progressive ideals. 2. Afghanistan is a side show. The real center of gravity of international Islamist terrorism is still Pakistan. That is where the wannabe terrorists go to train, that is where the most determined leaders of this network are in hiding. The purpose of the Afghan surge is not so much to "pacify" Afghanistan as to convince the Pakistani army that they should give up the "good taliban" and the "good jihadis" just as they have started to fight the "bad ones". Once the Pakistani army is unambiguously aligned against the salafist'jihadi network, America has no further interest in Afghanistan. Or rather, America's job in afghanistan will no longer be a big problem. If Pakistan no longer offers sanctuary to the "good taliban", then the reconcilable elements will make a deal with Karzai and the rest will not be an insoluble problem for the new Afghan army (which is far more effective than Tariq Ali has been led to believe). Even if deals fall apart and fighting restarts, it will be contained within Afghanistan and will be settled in Afghan style. 3. The gentleman who thought there is already anarchy in Afghanistan has obviously not studied afghanistan too closely. Actually even now, with the taliban insurgency in full swing, there is peace in most of afghanistan. Some of it is peaceful because the taliban are in charge and some of it is peaceful because the govt or local warlords are in charge, the actual violence is limited by recent Afghan standards. Millions of boys and girls are going to school. Several Universities are functioning (and functioning better than anytime since 1990). Many hospitals have been rebuilt and the medical college in Kabul is fully functional. Several corps of the new Afghan army have overcome initial problems and no longer have the kind of desertion rate that plagues the police. I can go on and on, but you really need to be willing to step out of the "open democracy" echo chamber a little bit...
omar ali | December 03, 2009
I will add that i know some of you are pacifists and will not support ANY war. I respect that and admire that, but unless you have a Gandhian alternative means of action (which i admire and respect) the best you can do is object to all violent organized groups (armies and terrorists) and not pick and choose which violent group has "justice" on their side. That argument may seem straightforward within our own echo chamber, but tends to become complicated when alternative views are actually taken into consideration...
Nikolai | December 03, 2009
Between January and June of this year, at least 1013 civilians were killed. Last year it was over 2000. I think its important to remember this sort of human cost. Civilian aid, infrastructure, health, and education should be given as much attention as the war.
omar ali | December 03, 2009
My point is that this toll is small compared to the last civil war and nothing compared to the war we will see if American hurriedly pulls out. The best option for the Afghan people (and the Pakistani people) is that Obama's plan works and a functional Afghan regime is in place (and so is a Pakistani establishment clearly inclined against the jihadis). I also think the US and its allies are doing more to help the civilian population than the Taliban or their friends.
anan | December 03, 2009
Nikolai, South Africa suffered 3,000 violent deaths a month in 2005. Venezuela, Brazil Colombia, are all incredibly violent places. Mexico suffers more than 1,000 violent deaths a month. Afghanistan is far less violent than many countries, including Pakistan, on a per capita basis. Iraq had 3,500 violent deaths during some months in 2006. In November, Iraq had 90 civilian violent deaths. Annualized, that is 1080/year. Afghanistan is roughly as violent as Iraq is for civilians. The problem is less Afghan civilian deaths than the enormous numbers of Afghan National Police [ANP] and Afghan National Army [ANP] getting killed and wounded. Omar, Tariq Ali knows how effective the ANA is at fighting; Tariq Ali also knows that in every poll conducted since 2001, the ANA was by far the most popular and respected Afghan institution among Afghans, including Pashtun Afghans. These are the two reasons "WHY" he so strongly supports violent attacks against the ANA. Pakistanis need to realize that Pakistani bashing of the ANA fuels Afghan anger at Pakistanis. The ANA will be around long after the ISAF troops leave. Pakistan needs to reach out to the Afghan government and ANA; and demonstrate Pakistan's desire to help them. Perhaps Pakistan could offer lecturers to teach in Afghan universities, other civilian reconstruction workers, and trainers for the Afghan National Security Forces. This type of reconciliation gesture might alleviate tensions between Afghans and Pakistanis.
anan | December 03, 2009
"Civilian aid, infrastructure, health, and education should be given as much attention as the war." How? GIRoA annual revenue = $600 million versus long term expenditure of over $6,000 million per year. Afghanistan's education budget alone is substantially greater than total GIRoA revenues. -Afghanistan has 45,000 freshman in college now versus about one thousand in 2001. Many of these college freshman are woman. -Afghanistan had 2.5 million girls and 4.5 million boys in school now versus almost no girls and one to two million boys in school in 2001. This is just the unsustainable Afghan education industrial complex. Let alone the electricity industrial complex. Kabul has 24 hours of electricity today, but can't afford to pay for the electricity generated (except via international grants.) Afghanistan has a record number of roads, but not nearly enough ANA and ANP to protect them; and no revenue base to maintain the roads over time. In fact a major contributor to the deterioration of Afghan security is that the Afghanistan's limited ANA and ANP are being redirected to protecting the roads from protecting the Afghan people. This has directly lead to much less security for ordinary Afghans. Massive spending by Afghanistan's NGO and foreign aid industrial complexes have substantially boosted Afghan inflation, driven up the wages of educated Afghans; in the process harming many poor Afghans living on fixed incomes; and made Afghanistan almost completely dependent on ongoing massive international grants as far as the eye can see. Nikolai, I am with you more than you know. I would love to see more foreign aid to Afghanistan. But those who oppose increasing foreign aid to Afghanistan bring up these challenges. How would you, a friend of the Afghan people, address them?
YS_1 | December 03, 2009
I am very interested in what the consensus is on the Afghan National Army. The situation is that I am constantly hearing conflicting views, stronlgy, at the same time. I have recommended that the Pakistan Army begin to team up with the ANA, treat it like a younger brother and give it the respect and aid of an enduring institution. Then I find things like this from an on the ground reporter: http://www.alternet.org/story/142775/?page=entire Omar Ali, are you in Pakistan or working from Afghanistan or maybe abroad? What makes you think that it can't be made to come crashing down alá Najibullah circa 1992 even if the US leaves in three years?
anan | December 03, 2009
"I am very interested in what the consensus is on the Afghan National Army." Not many are interested in the ANA. "I have recommended that the Pakistan Army begin to team up with the ANA, treat it like a younger brother and give it the respect and aid of an enduring institution." I think the Afghans would appreciate the gesture. Even better would be a Pakistani proposal for joint ANA and ANP training with India, Iran and China through NTM-A, to ensure that the ANA and ANP are trained on a single consistent doctrine. YS_1, as long as the international community continues to fund, train, advise and equip it; why do you think the ANA can be defeated in most of Afghanistan? Granted the ANA might retreat from large parts of the South and smaller parts of the East if it lacked the size and capacity to secure all of Afghanistan. Ann Jones, who you cited, is not familiar with modern militaries. She went to an ANP training camp and hung out with some ANP, and then wrote an article about not the ANP, but the ANA. Make sense of that. Ann Jones anecdotally knew a few people who had gone to ANA boot camp a couple of times under different names without joining the ANA. She then extrapolates from this without bothering to research the ANA on her own, or talk to other people familiar with the ANA. The way I see it, the ANA boot camp did its job and kept suboptimal soldiers from joining the ANA. As of October, 2009, the AWOL rate of the ANA was 5%. {Although this low number is achieved by allowing a liberal leave policy.} YS_1, research the authors of the articles you read. Also beware of excessive generalizations of the ANA, given the variation in ANA quality between units. YS_1, Ann Jones wouldn't have been wrong had she been writing about the ANP. The outgoing commander of CSTC-A/NTM-A said a month ago that the ANP was four to five years behind the ANA. This is a polite way of saying that the ANP overall (with large notable exceptions) is not doing well. I suspect that if Pakistan and India jointly offered to assist with ANP training (which is far more needed than ANA training), this offer would be appreciated.
AG | December 03, 2009
While joint exercises seem a far way off, ANA will be happy with the Pakistani army if they make an attempt at dislodging the Quetta shura which operates--quite literally--across a ravine from the Command and Staff College. In any case, I suspect the Taliban phenomenon isn't a localized issue for either Pakistan or Afghanistan. Thousands of Pakistanis fought in the civil war in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban and Taliban-like activities (clamor for sharia courts, shutting down video shops, etc.) began in earnest in Balochistan, the NWFP and FATA around 1997. Prior to the fall of Kabul in 1996, the mosques in Balochistan held funeral prayers almost daily for dead bodies returning from the "jihad" in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, donation (chanda) drives allowed many more to participate vicariously in the jihad for the Sharia state.
khalidmir | December 04, 2009
Omar, could you tell me who these "international islamist terrorists" are? i.e when you say: "It has a long relationship with international islamist terrorists" what is the evidence for that? I'm sorry, I think your view sounds a bit like the old Vietnam line: in order to save the town we need to destroy it! I don't think one has to make a choice of which violent group has justice on its side. (Intriguing that you choose to write justice as "justice"!). I'm not disagreeing with you..it may, in fact, be that the case that the best option for everyone is more troops. All I'd suggest is a bit more tentativeness (err..and doesn't the history of Afghanistan show that invaders ahven't done too well there?). The Afghan wars have been one of the contributing factors to the growth of radicalization here..i.e the military-maulvi nexus. "...tend to go with what they know". Oh, that's okay then! :-) salaams, K.
omar ali | December 04, 2009
This is not a statement about all the commentators here (about whom I know little), but on a number of liberal blogs, there is a tendency to accept the party line about faraway places in uncritical ways that the same people would never accept notions about their own university or their own narrow field of study. This is purely anecdotal, but the leftish academics I know in the US either read their own kind, or read their polar opposites to get fresh material to make fun of (or be scared of). Dont get me wrong, in THEIR OWN FIELD they can be much much better informed and very deep thinkers, but I am talking about someone who teaches English or American History or Arabic literature very well, but bases his or her opinions of Afghanistan on Tariq Ali and George Monbiot level reportage. I have had discussions with otherwise intelligent and well informed people who seem to believe that the ANA is some kind of collection of evil mercenaries, recruited from "lumpen elements" and to be regarded ENTIRELY as an occupation force working for the hated occupiers of the brave Afghan nation. When told that this is not really true, they simply pick up their Tariq Ali book and leave. Its sad. (I am aware that a similarly dismal situation prevails on the Glenn Beck extreme, but I guess we are all aware of that, so its hardly worth mentioning).
omar ali | December 04, 2009
Khalid, The international Islamist terrorists are a loose but interconnected network of Islamists who came together in Pakistan during and after the Soviet occupation and mostly functioned under the supervision of (sympathetic) Pakistani army officers. The army high command completely succumbed to a relatively small number of Jihadi officers (due, in my opinion, to the extraordinary incompetence of our senior officers and the terribly short sighted decision to educate them in National Defence College, where they picked up notions of "strategy" and "national interest" that primed them for being made into utter fools by their jihadi peers) and gave them free rein throughout the nineties. During this time, half a million men were trained by various jihadi organizations and a nationwide culture of jihad was allowed to take root in rural punjab as well as in the less fashionable sections of major cities. It was mostly off the radar of the small class from which we all hail, but it was a very major social shift. In the tribal areas as well as in Pakhtun Karachi and in most of South Punjab, it was easier to get justice from these people than from the existing state. To avoid international pressure and to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of the English speaking classes, the endgame of this jihadi enterprise was never publicized outside their own groups. The extensive links of the army with the taliban and of the taliban with these jihadi networks were also kept off the front pages. All jihadists were never under Pak army control and some Arab extremists based in Afghanistan attacked the US, probably without Pak army knowledge. The US invasion that followed was assisted by the Pak army under the assumption that the Americans will one day leave and the good taliban will then come back. For that purpose, the good taliban were not hampered in their escape and sanctuary in Pakistan. Under American pressure, some jihadi groups were shut down while others were told to lie low. Unfortunately, the army then discovered that the jihadis were using the army more than the army was using the jihadis and many of them refused to lie low, leading to problems with the US and with India. I am not sure if the Mumbai attacks were done with Pak army knowledge or not, but am working on the assumption that they were NOT known to the army beforehand. Members of this network have set off bombs in London, Barcelona, India, bali and more. This network is now striking against the army, so my assumption is that the army has really started to move against the jihadists (except for ones like LET, which continue to accept some supervision...again, whether they pulled off mumbai without Pak army permission is an interesting question) And so on. As you can see, in my version, leaving the jihadists alone is not really an option because they will not leave us alone. Their project was real, it was international and it would have led to war IN ANY CASE even if 9-11 had not happened (though the initial war may have been against India in that case). Tactical decisions are always open for debate, but the overall strategic issue is clear to me: the Pakistani state has to either openly side with the jihadists, in which case the anti-taliban Afghans, India, Russia, Iran and NATO will look for ways to bring us down (some jihadists have told me that in that case we will have Chinese support, though I doubt it), OR we have to take on the jihadist network by working WITH the Americans, the Afghans, the Indians and so on, and in the course of this, still safeguard national interests of a more secular nature (water, boundary disputes, trade disputes and so on). There is no negotiated settlement because THEY will not negotiate peace except as a temporary reprieve in which to build up strength. Sorry, no time for references, though they exist for most of the above assertions. Anyway, you are free to find your own version. What is your picture of this terrorist network? btw, why is it OK if they "go with what they know"? I think its not OK at all. I think the pentagon and CIA old guard who only feel comfortable with uniformed dictators and right wing death squads are doing a terrible disservice to America and are of course, a plague on the countries that they hand over to dictators and death squads...I do think that is not the primary mode of operations in Pakistan anymore.
khalidmir | December 04, 2009
Omar, hello. I have no idea of the networks or how 'internationalist' they are or were. To say that the Pakistani state or the military supported 'international terrorists' is, to my mind, a rather strong claim-and I'm not even sure what the evidence is for that or if anyone has written on it. As far as I understand, the terrorist networks/jihadis were an attempt to 'bleed' India or offer 'strategic depth' and not, specifically, "internationalist" in nature. And southern punjab is probably a lot more complex (I think Aeysha Siddiqa says its partly down to class). And I think we'd have to factor in the local sectarian angle as well. They would not leave us alone.:Well, at the moment, you know what, living in Lahore it certainly feels that NOW they won't leave us alone! But that really comes on the back of years of war and drone attacks. So, I'm not sure about the claim. May have led to a low-level conflict, but "war"?Not so sure, not so sure. I think the jihadis were a lot more managebale before and not such a great threat (and certainly not an "existential threat", as some would like to portray them). For instance, to repeat the old saying: Lahore is [still] Lahore. Omar, I agree with you, the fanatics are a curse and the ISI's strategy of grooming them has also been disastrous -that goes without saying. The question-for me-is whether continued violence is the best way of dealing with them. I don't think the tribals are, or have been, anti-Pakistani but that may now be a possibility and most people here are becomingly rabidly anti-American (in my opinion). In that sense, I don't think it's 'winnable' (to use an Americanism). Perhaps we could phrase it this way: if America were to pull out of Afghanistan would the Pakistani "state" be able to crush militancy. Maybe not. But I certainly think they'd have a better chance (assuming the military were really up for it, and assuming the Americans could pay them enough) "They" will not negotiate peace. Not so sure and I don't know how you can say that with such confidence. Khair.. Thanks for the response. Keep well, K.
AG | December 04, 2009
They would not leave us alone.:Well, at the moment, you know what, living in Lahore it certainly feels that NOW they won't leave us alone! But that really comes on the back of years of war and drone attacks. It took some time for it to get around to Lahore and other parts of Pakistan and for the general indifference or the support for Taliban to melt away. The Taliban could always rely on manpower and funds from Pakistan and broad sections of Pakistan supported them for one reason or another: from the strategic depth of the army brass, to the Sharia as the law of the land for the lower classes. The Taliban franchise in Pakistan was creating trouble in Balochistan and NWFP well before the drone attacks as early as 1997 (unless we consider anything less than a suicide bomb as business as usual, or an increase in the targeting of Shias as boys being boys.) One can't really dissociate the developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Lest we forget, Zia was known as "Shahid Jihad Afghanistan" for a reason. Also, wouldn't affairs between Afghanistan and Pakistan be considered "international"?
khalidmir | December 05, 2009
No, don't think so, AG! Much more a local matter! By 'international' I though Omar was referring to global networks. In any case, not an anti-american, anti-western agenda (I think). And as you rightly say, the funding and support of the radicals-now read Taleban-has been going on for a while ( err..but wasn't America okay with that when it served its purpose..."our sonofabitch") Law of the land for the lower classes. Think you're way out there. "Broad sections" have no interest in sharia and the maulvi has always been a useless idiot for most people (now, for some, promoted to a useful idiot, I guess). That's not just anecdotal but can be evinced from the hopeless performance of the so-called religious parties in almost all the elections. You remember Z's "referendum"/jinazza, don't you? Remind me again: who was General Z supported by?
Jaydev | December 05, 2009
No Mumbai...? No Lahore ? No Peshawar? He was not talking about terror operations in general..He was referring to Al-Qaeda proper..i.e. Bin Laden's people. not franchises and copy-cats like Lashkar-e-Toiba+Brigade 313 which actually did the Mumbai operation.
Raymond Turney | December 05, 2009
As an American, please let me briefly discuss what the situation has historically looked like from the US. After all, it can be hard to understand the actions of Americans if you don't know where we're coming from. Actually, it can be hard to understand the actions of Americans even if you do know where we're coming from, but that's another story. The most important thing to understand is that most Americans are not descendants of immigrants from India or Pakistan. They know about as much about Pakistan as the average Pakistani or Indian knows about France. Maybe less. Just as important, they don't really care about South Asia. Historically, the US backed Pakistan because India was neutral, leaning pro-Russian, in the Cold War. So we backed Pakistan, neither knowing nor caring much about it, because the Pakistanis were the enemies of our enemies. The CIA unwisely decided to back the Islamists against Russia, because the CIA didn't know anything about Afghanistan, but they did know that they were against the Russians. Looking back now, we would probably have been better off not supporting the Afghan resistance against the Russians, but hindsight is often more accurate than foresight. General Zia was willing to do what we wanted, for his own reasons, so we looked the other way regarding the various crimes he committed. After all, we fought WWII as allies of Stalin, who is generally acknowledged to be much worse than Zia, and the enemy of your enemy is your friend. This created a small group of US specialists in Pakistan, forming what was in effect a Pakistan lobby. Pakistanis, used to dealing with the Pakistan lobby, were rudely shocked when the US demonstrated that it didn't care about either Pakistan or Afghanistan after the Russians left Afghanistan in 1989. For about a decade, the US was in a position to do what it wanted, which was basically to ignore Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The BJP was elected in India, they were friendly to US foreign investment, and factions in the US decided that India could be useful in containing China. Madeleine Albright noticed that Pakistan was an Islamic country unfriendly to Israel, armed with the atomic bomb. This did not fill her, or other pro-Israel Americans, with enthusiasm. So the US started to tilt toward India. Then 9/11 happened. Contrary to what most Americans think, this was not a radical change in the world, but it did result in some changes in US policy. Since Osama bin Laden and AQ were in Afghanistan the US suddenly became aware of Afghanistan again. We backed the enemies of OSL's friends, and chased him out of Afghanistan. To be honest, I wish the Bush administration had stuck to chasing OSL, but instead it lost interest in OSL and became interested in Iraq. After all, Iraq might have the atomic bomb soon (though the evidence was a lot more dubious than they admitted at the time), Saddam Hussein was also an enemy of the US (and Israel), and there was a lot of oil in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq started to go badly, and except for the people in the US army actually sent to Afghanistan, the US mostly forgot Afghanistan and Pakistan again. The situation in Iraq started to improve a bit in 2007, and the Democratic party candidate for President decided to make an issue of the Bush administration's failure to devote much effort to actually getting Osama bin Laden. While we were worried about Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan had deteriorated. Some people in the US media noticed that Pakistan had a fair number of already existing atomic bombs, Osama bin Laden, and a large number of suicidal terrorists. This combination was not encouraging and another flap ensued. I'm sure someone a little more sympathetic to US foreign policy could put a more attractive spin on it, but that's the way it looked to me in the US. I'm hoping the US will start paying attention to what people actually think in India and Pakistan, learn a little history, and maybe start responding to what's actually going on, but I'm not particularly optimistic. But then, since I'm almost never optimistic, the fact that I'm not optimistic does not mean much. It is in the interest of Pakistanis to crack down hard on Islamist terrorism, because they are the ones currently being blown up. For what it is worth, I'm willing to offer a little political support in the US for measures the Pakistanis think useful in this effort. Supprt for improving education also makes some sense to me, so I would support it. On the other hand, education also needs to be improved in the US, and the US has a ton of its own problems, better understood over here, to address. For what it is worth, which is nothing, I also favor a reasonable, mutually agreeable, solution to the Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India - but I have no idea what this would be and no willingness to sacrifice anything to bring it about so Pakistanis would be well advised not to think of me as ally. Good Luck. Ray,
sepoy | December 05, 2009
Thanks Ray for the good luck. It does help. It helps also that informed observers such as yourself get in touch with their congressfolks and their senators and let them know that they don't really want another war escalation, nor do they want un-necessary $s being send to Pakistan. It would also help to elect folks who promise to do such things. It would also help to support those in the media who seem to have a clear-eyed view of those distant lands (and of history) and to demand better from the others (hello, NYT!). There is much any "American" can do. And should do, if they don't want war in their name, for their sake.
omar | December 05, 2009
Khalid, I advise you to become a regular visitor to Jamia Qadsia. Make friends with them and listen to them as if they are real human beings with "agency" . I guarantee it that in a few weeks (not right away) your ideas about international aims and so on will evaporate (unless MI has managed a real miracle of self-censorship there, but I doubt that). What is your source about this so-called rampant anti-americanism in the tribal areas? I have friends from those areas and their main complaint is that the Pak army did not protect them against the taliban and actively colluded with the taliban. A surprising number are thankful for the drone attacks. I suspect that you are confusing the rampant anti-americanism of the English speaking middle classes in Punjab for the opinion of "all pakistanis".
khalid mir | December 05, 2009
Omar, when i said "most people" I was, of course, only giving my own *impression* from what I read, see on t.v., and from the people I meet. So, yeah, maybe you're right. I think it's important to say that at a cultural level people either don't care, don't know, or are indifferent to america. And some of the middle classes -what's left of them-and other classes, may actually be quite fond of parts of American culture: music, literature, films etc [small aside: yesterday a matric-educated, Punjabi-speaking cleaner asked me to get him some Jazzy B chains!] But in terms of political views I think it's a lot more than the english-speaking middle classes who think America is a bit delusional (to put it politely)...and that's putting to one side the American-Zionist-Hindu- conspiray theories! no "source", i'm afraid. Just a gut feeling that we're being drawn into an escalation of violence and uncertainty because of america's muddled thinking. as to your other point, I still think that pakistan's support was for groups that did not have an "internationalist" or globalist agenda. They were opposed either to occupation: by infidel Russia or infidel India. Anti-american or anti-western, with global pretensions? Not so sure. agree with ray, it's in pakistan's own interest to crack down (and it's a pity the ISI couldn't see that earlier), but maybe it would be made easier by the withdrawal of american troops from afghanistan? anyway, that's my two cents.
omar ali | December 06, 2009
How would it be made easier by American withdrawal? Btw, I think the Americans WILL withdraw or drawdown substantially in a few years, they have little interest in staying as an occupation power. Your whole argument is based on: 1. The terrorists being trained were for local use (somehow you do not define Russia, Iran and India as "international"). 2. They were a fringe phenomenon. 3. Their actions have been made worse by American intervention. I submit that alternatives exist to this framework: 1. The terrorists being trained were NOT a fringe phenomenon. What is your theory about how half a million young men were to be used? Where exactly would they have gone to fight? What was their aim? What was the ENDGAME of this terrorist training program, in your view? and how would that endgame have remained "local"? 2. While the US does not care as much about India or Russia as it does about Americans, it is wrong to think that it has no interest in a war involving India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran and possibly China. 3. If there was no war in 2000, why would there be war later? Well, first of all, there was a small scale war on in Kashmir, in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, even in central asia. What is your reason for believing that it could never escalate? 4. American intervention has actually damped down the wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir, but it has moved the war into Pakistan. True. But what was the alternative? As a Pakistani, you may feel aggrieved that you are being forced to fight terrorists in your own country when your plan was to use them locally (NOT internationally, as you say, but "locally" in Russia and India and Iran(you dont mention Iran, but ask some Iranians and your opinion may change). but honestly, can you think of a good argument why NON-Pakistanis should prefer to fight these terrorists in their own country instead of going after the heads of the network in Pakistan?
khalid mir | December 06, 2009
well, omar, i'm making the distinction between your 'internationalist' and globalist. did these groups primarily have an anti-western, anti-american agenda or were they being used in a specifically regional context? secondly, given that kashmir is a disputed terriroty I wouldn't call it 'international' . no, not 'russia' , but russians in afghanistan. iran? don't know waht you're talking about, i'm afraid. 'whole argument".. i think you're being too kind: i very rarely have a whole argument! I'm not sure that i said "fringe" or one can infer that from my comments. but, in relative terms..i.e relative to now, the situation after american intervention in afghanistan and drone attacks here that is, it does seem that they were *more*of a fringe problem. 3. no, their actions are still pretty bad! I think they've become more frequent, though. of course, your question is a good one, but i think you're giving too much credit to the americans and their friends (the saudis and isi) who intitially backed a lot of the radicals. as if to say: after they've been used in the regional context what will happen. the americans probably didn't care too much, even when the taliban got power, and the paks probably thought that they could engage India in this way for a long time. of course, you may be right, i don't know. but i'd be surprised if the agenda of the backers had a global dimension. and i'd be surprised that lots of the jihadis fighting in kashmir or afghanistan were not primarily motivated by occupation. endgame? don't know..like beckett's, maybe it was meant to be just a slow running down, a depletion. I don't think i said it could "never' escalate. maybe it would hve. who knows?on the other hand, it is at least plausible to maintain the possibility-i'm not saying you agree wholeheartedly, but at least think about the *possibility*- that the terroist threat was never as great as america has tried to portray it. not justbecause of the spiritual, intellectual, and moral bankruptcy of the terrorists, but also beause state power is, well, one mean machine. well, i've had lots of iranian friends and not a single one has mentioned anything (but maybe that's just their traditional impeccable manners!) don't know, omar. is fighting terrorists in america even a realsitic possibility? was it ever? if not, your question doesn't make much sense to me. but you know what, heard the same type of arguments when it came to saddam. "bring it on" and all that... before he atatcks us (britain, us.) "go after the heads" well, yes, if that's all you're arguing for then we agree! salaams, k. p.s sorry for the lack of capitals...my computer is buggered.
Ajit | December 06, 2009
"I still think that pakistan's support was for groups that did not have an “internationalist” or globalist agenda. They were opposed either to occupation: by infidel Russia or infidel India." Support for terrorism in aid of foreign policy noted. (Jihadi adjectives also noted.) Apparently violations of sovereignty and strikes against civilians are bad only in selected cases.
Conrad Barwa | December 06, 2009
“I still think that pakistan's support was for groups that did not have an “internationalist” or globalist agenda. They were opposed either to occupation: by infidel Russia or infidel India.” Support for terrorism in aid of foreign policy noted. (Jihadi adjectives also noted.) I could be wrong, and I am reluctant to speak on someone else's behalf so apologies if I am misreading Khalidi here, but I took that to mean and describe the rationale from the viewpoint of the Pakistani state that sponsored such groups during that period in the past, not the author's own personal current views. Within that security mindset which has influenced the external outlook and policy of the Pakistani military, maintaining a friendly regime in Afghanistan and laying claim to Kashmir all fall in line with the stated aim of attempting to meet or achieve some sort of rough parity with India (through the notorious 'strategic depth' doctrine). Now one can argue as to the merits of this policy and its benefits vs. costs for Pakistanis as well as other South Asian actors; but that is different from saying that there is some 'globalist' agenda at play. The aims here, if anything, are very regional. Of course, mobilising networks of trans-national irregular fighters has global consequences but these were not a foreseen or desired outcome by Pakistani - or indeed US policymakers who did so at the time - blowback etc.etc. I believe this is the point. Apparently violations of sovereignty and strikes against civilians are bad only in selected cases. I think there is a difference between 'bad' in terms of morality and 'bad' in terms of political and strategic outcomes. We can all agree that in moral terms such actions are bad; however, since states are not moral actors and since all states in the region have engaged in these actions, we are looking at the political and strategic outcomes of such actions. Sometimes, unpalatable though it is, actions which are morally 'bad' can have outcomes which from the point of view of some states is regarded as politically beneficial. I actually don't think this is the case here or generally as a rule; but this depends on how one defines issues such as the 'national interest' etc. Which is what is being discussed here, rather than the morality of such policies per se - I would hope that the latter should be pretty clear.
Ajit | December 06, 2009
I think there is a difference between 'bad' in terms of morality and 'bad' in terms of political and strategic outcomes. I see. And those drone attacks that you have written so much against elsewhere - which of these headings do they fall under ?
Conrad Barwa | December 06, 2009
I see. And those drone attacks that you have written so much against elsewhere — which of these headings do they fall under ? Well, both as should have been obvious from my reply to Omar on this thread. If you have a medium for killing, that manages to crash 50% of the time and kills at least 10 civilians for every intended target that doesn't sound like a very effective method to me. But then again I am not part of the 'at least it ain't Russia or China bombing you' crowd, so dunno, maybe that seems like a good performance record for you.
Ajit | December 06, 2009
10 civilians to one intended target sounds rather more effective/moral than 170 civilians and 0 "intended targets". I see you protesting against the former but appealing to some relativistic notions of states, effectiveness and morality in the other case.
khalidmir | December 06, 2009
Ajit, hello. I thought it goes without saying that terrorist activities in India or anywhere else supported by elements in Pakistan are wrong, morally bad. And if India's doing the same that obviously applies to them as well. For heaven's sake... But I think it's correct, legally speaking, to say that Kashmir is still a disputed territory, no? And there can surely still be legitimate resistance to occupation /oppression ? I mean, what are we saying here: that the 70-80,000 people killed in Kashmir have all been terrorists? One might as well say that all of the Palestinian violence is terrorism. I think that masks the distinction between the illegitimate/immoral violence carried out by these groups and the legitimate (I hesitate to call it 'moral') on the other; and it deflects from the question of state violence (wasn't the word 'terror' first used in conjunction with state violence (Burleigh))? As I've said earlier, I think the extremists are a curse. Not only has the strategy of supporting them proved to be disastrous, it was wrong (in my opinion) in the first place to support groups whose outlook is so fundamentally backward and repugnant. All I'm saying is that I doubt whether they were motivated by some over-arching notion of establishing the caliphate or were primarily driven by an anti-western, anti-American agenda. Certainly it would be hard to imagine their American/Saudi/ISI backers having that as an 'endgame' (assuming that they even thought beyond immediate concerns) and it is equally hard to imagine the foot-soldiers not being primarily motivated by the desire to drive the infidel out (perhaps I should say 'infidel' to avoid being noted!) Of course, they may have merged with Arab and Uzbeki fanatics and be part of some global network. Who can say?. My only point was to question whether from the outset these groups were supported for an "internationalist" -which I read as globalist-agenda.
omar ali | December 06, 2009
Khalid, your statement "endgame? don't know..like beckett's, maybe it was meant to be just a slow running down, a depletion." is not clear to me. Are you implying that the project of training half a million jihadis (a number I got from Arif Jamal's book, but which may or may not be correct) was some kind of clever way of depleting the jihadist virus? I will tell you what I think. I think the scale of the enterprise is simply not known to most English speaking Pakistanis since they were out of the loop on this one (except the hamid gul types who were part of the project). Most educated Pakistanis think there were some "Kashmiri freedom fighters" being helped out in some way, but everyone does that sort of thing and Kashmir is a just cause and India is interfering in Balochistan, so nothing to get too excited about. In actual fact, the scale of the jihadi effort was extremely impressive. There were dozens of training camps all over Kohistan/mansehra/AJK and in the tribal areas. Recruitment was carried out at hundreds of madressas. Thousands of young men went through these camps. Many of them came back to their villages and became men of importance. I dont know if you have had a chance to see Ajmal Kasab's first videotaped interrogation in which he mentions how his dad "sold" him to the jihadis because then he too would have nice clothes and be treated with respect. All over the country, these organizations gave a new life to people whom the existing unjust system provides nothing but humiliation. But this was no proletarian struggle. They learned nothing about expropriating the capitalists or changing the system in ways that leftists would find recognizable. They joined Allah's army and while some of them took advantage of that to become local gangsters, others were waiting for orders to go on the next mission...not just to India, but also for the day when Pakistan itself would be purified. Dont believe me? ask them. They are very happy to talk (or were until last year..now, there is likely to be some reticence, but if they trust you, they will be happy to relate their pure ambitions). btw, if you dig around, you will find people who got things done via these jihadis. Very basic things, like getting a transfer cancelled or a bill paid. This phenomenon is natural, but again, its not one that just stops at this point. This was a very large project, it was never meant to just use these people as bargaining chips with India. Or rather, it was intended that way by morons like Musharraf, but not by true believers like Mahmud and Hamid Gul. And the true believers were more realistic than the morons. Let me ask you this; suppose these were all "local". What was the purpose of training them? To send them to Kashmir? and then what happens? As you may remember, India did not exactly roll over and play dead at Kargil. If more of these people were sent, how would that have forced India to accept defeat? what if India decided to "do more"? Why are you so sure that India (unlike most countries) would never take action against Pakistan even if thousands of more jihadis were launched against them? And again, if they were not being launched against India, what was the purpose of training them? And remember, not only was this vast enterprise in motion, anyone talking too much about it in English could have his car burned by the ISI in broad daylight (amir mir). Everyone knew these were protected people. Ask the police. they can tell you many stories of jihadis they could not investigate or had to let go because "hasaas idara" white shalwar kameez chaps showed up. Are you aware of the anti-shia activities of many of these groups? what was to be the endgame of that particular trend? Was it also supposed to just drift away or could it have grown worse if 9-11 had not disrupted things? My point, Khalid sahib, is that this was not a project that was compatible with peaceful coexistence at home or abroad. 9-11 invited America into the business prematurely, but otherwise too this would have led to war. In afghanistan, the next step was to increase Islamist rebellions in the central asian dictatorships. China would have come into the picture because ETIM supporters were also being sheltered and trained by some of these networks. Iran was the main supporter of the Northern alliance and would have been involved in this war irrespective of 9-11. India would have widened the war at some point, OR the Musharraf type morons would have made a good bargain with India and then discovered they have to deal with these thousands of jihadis who refuse to be demobilized. I cannot prove that all this would have happened. Who can? But a close examination of the scale of this project leaves me in no doubt. This was a war that was bound to come. The only difference would have been when and where. I urge you see the dispatches documentary on Mumbai, or the HBO documentary. You will understand where the people who calmly walked into a mosque and shot up children and old people were coming from. This was going to come home to roost at some point. America just brought the game home sooner than the hasaas idara xpected...
Conrad Barwa | December 07, 2009
10 civilians to one intended target sounds rather more effective/moral than 170 civilians and 0 “intended targets”. I see you protesting against the former but appealing to some relativistic notions of states, effectiveness and morality in the other case. 10 civilians the is minimum figure here, the actual figure could be much higher; but the point isn't the morality of it, since killing civilians isn't moral, whether you kill them in the tens or the hundreds; arguing that we could have always killed more civilians and should be praised for our restraint in killing only some is as the comedian Alexi Sayle would say the morality of the psychopath - of course we could always be more destructive if we wished, but this is hardly any reason for a pat on the back or smug self-congratulation. But this is besides the point, some of your language and adjectives have been incorrect and/or misleading; I haven't anywhere 'protested' against drone attacks as you claim, I just pointed out that their success rate is low and the consequent loss of civilian casualties high - targeted accuracy is meant to be one of the major benefits of using drones, it isn't meant to be a hit and miss method. We are being incessantly told by many American commanders from McChrystal downwards that securing the consent of the local population is the only way to decisively defeat the Taliban; the old 'hearts and minds' approach much talked about since Vietnam, I remain sceptical as to whether killing 10 civilians for every insurgent is going to win you a lot of hearts or minds. If it was a case of targeting a few or a handful of leaders, I could understand the political and the tactical logic of it, but several years on the attacks are continuing and there talk of expanding their usage to major urban areas. I question the political and the strategic effectiveness of doing so. I never said anything about the morality of it, because I take it sort of given that killing Pakistani civilians isn't moral. Feel free to disagree if you have some sort of sliding scale where these actions are somehow less moral than others. But my point is that from the stated aims of US policy - ie defeating the Taliban and eliminating terrorist networks, I don't think this action will be particularly effective or wise, since it will not deal an effective surgical strike (given loss rates and the fact that drone attacks have continued and indeed escalated without delivering a decisive blow) but will have a large political cost in terms of increasing support for these groups on the ground and provoking backlash. Secondly, I just want to point out I am unsure as to what 'other case' you claim to be talking about. Killing civilians and using terrorism is 'bad' both morally and politically in my eyes but they are two separate discussions. I think few would disagree on the former, certainly not me, and your implication that I would do so, is false. If you want to somehow argue that you feel such deaths more than I do or weep more copiously over them, feel free to do so. But don't suggest or imply that I somehow think that it isn't wrong, because I do and so would almost all people, at least in this discussion here. Either way, this is a simple point and needs only to be made once; there isn't much room for discussion, either you agree/think this way or you don't. Discussions of political effectiveness and strategy are separate because as I said we are talking about state actors and morality is not a prime concern or motivation for them; generally speaking they will respond only to how effective their policies are from a political ans strategic point of view, talking about morality, in my experience has little or no effect on them, hence my setting aside. I hope this makes my position clear.
khalid mir | December 07, 2009
well, i don't know, omar. I don't think 70-80, 000 "terrorists" were killed in kashmir, and I don't think an insurgency would have taken root unless there was a genuine opposition to occupation. I think Arundhati Roy is right here. was a silly reference to beckett's wonderful play...a slow bleeding of India (in that sense a depletion). obtuse, i know! I take on board your point, but it's hardly an argument to say that "others were waiting to go on..." I mean, that's based on what? an hbo documentary and an interview with kasab? I'm not trying to be sarky , or anyhting, but could you provide some sort of academic references that that was the major objective of the jihadis (I'm assuming you're not talking about the jihadis when they were backed by america, the saudis and the isi, right?,..then they were good jihadis, i presume) yes, i agree with you omar, it wasn't a project that was compatibile with peace. I think i called it "delusional" above. not sure if a war was bound to come. i mean, haven't the taleban said that they would defend pakistan against an american attack and i don't think the tribals are anti-pakistan..continued atatcks on them may do the trick though..and then they can then be added to the growing 'terrorist network'? that's really my (unsubstantiated) point: things are getting worse (at least here).But yes, agree with you in that years and years of indoctrination was bound to backfire eventually. But the nature and extent of it is not something i think one can easily speculate on. in any case, my only point was that i think it would be/will be more manageable if the americans weren't in afghansistan or at least playing some other role. "calmly walked..." well, yes, that's atrocious, of course. but i'm sorry, i don't see the people who coldly bomb from the skies on a false pretext as much better. no mournful flutes playing barber's adagio for the collateral damage ( I note, ajit!) have you seen the bbc documentary: why america fights? not a classic, but still worth a brief viewing.
omar ali | December 07, 2009
I think the difference is in our background assumptions about the world. You seem to think that one crime (aerial bombing) justifies another. I think they are not even in the same discussion. Nations fight, air forces bomb. That is all very bad, but that is where the world is. Thanks to real efforts by heroic figures, that is not where it will stay (and it HAS moved from where it used to be....it was perfectly OK for the prophets of the old testament to order the killing of babies , it was routine for Arabs and Turks and Europeans to massacre by the thousands in the middle ages, it was OK for all countries to indiscriminately bomb civilians in world war two, but its no longer OK...now, it has to be hidden or its not even the primary intention and civilian casualties really ARE collateral damage). But the terrorists are NOT a step forward. they are a step backward. They really ARE worse than the pilot who bombs from the air. Got to run, but I have some arguments about this and will be sure to carry on. Btw, what do you think of the terrorists who TARGETED women and children (no military target in sight) in Moon Market Lahore today? Do you think they are on par with the US air force? or even better? I will tell you what I think> I think the US air force is positively saintly compared to these people.
khalidmir | December 07, 2009
You know Omar, it would have been nice if you'd at least tried to express some human qualities by showing sympathy for the victims of the people in my city instead of trying to score points. Bad form, my dear. "Btw" ? What the f*** is that?...hearts and minds, hearts and minds, said the great natural philosopher. Now, I realise that as an American English may not be your first language, but really, you should be a bit more careful when you use words like "justify". If you're trying to needle me, please don't, it's very childish and a waste of time. To your more substantive points: Firstly, I don't think it was"okay" and I don't think all people then thought it was okay. The doctrine of 'just war' may or may not have been very well developed but I don't think the 'middle ages', as they're contemptuously called, were devoid of a sense of moral constraints on political and economic behaviour (why else would Machiavelli have caused such a stir?) Secondly, you've got to be joking! On the back of what Hobsbawm called the bloodiest century on record, after the Trenches, the Gulags, the Bomb, Auschwitz, I don't think one can seriously maintain that there's been much 'movement' (at least not in a positive direction). And I think ti's worth recalling that most of the violence of that century (whether it's been Vietnam, Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq, or India-Pakistan) has been carried out by nation states. I think Foucault was right here when he called Nazism 'state racism'. And such violence is also considered "okay" , even pre-emptive violence is justified. And the boundaries of what is considered to be torture are being re-thought. That's where we are, my friend! I don't think anyone is a hero just because they have a feather in their cap and wear a uniform (just as they're not just because they wear a beard and call themselves muslims). But yeah, each to their own, I guess. "saintly"? Really? Do you think the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in Iraq have been "worth it" (to paraphrase Madeleine Albright)? And the firebombing of Tokyo (do read Berger's intriguing piece in the Guardian on this). And didn't the American commander say that all Japanese were animals or barbarians (not the army, mind you, but *all* of them?..see Rawls' Law of Peoples) No, Omar, after a century of slavery and a century of segregation, after the destruction of the native peoples, I don't think America is very saintly.
Salman | December 08, 2009
Would the US air force still be considered "saintly compared to these people," if the humane and the kind Reaper were flying over Abpara, Liberty Market, or Clifton? Or if the saintly Reaper was bombing "military targets" at the DHA mosque instead of a madrasa mosque or a funeral party "over there?" Indeed the “the morality of the psychopath." But then what do I know? I am not a "regular visitor to Jamia Qadsia." {{site.baseurl}}archives/imperial_watch/that_terror_thing_iii.html
omar | December 08, 2009
I never said the US air force is "saintly" period. I said they are saintly compared to these people. I stand by that statement. I dont represent the US govt and its not my job to win hearts and minds for them. You are free to dislike my posts as much as you want. My point, bhaijan, is much simpler. Let us assume that the US is evil incarnate. And we dont even have to assume that they are ham-handed and crude because we probably already agree on that one. The point is, what would be the best way to deal with this situation? I think it would be better to cooperate with the US against the jihadis and try to safeguard more basic things (like water rights, boundary disputes, issues of sovereignity) instead of playing games with them and trying to preserve good taliban and good jihadis for future use. That only pushes them to use more underhand means of their own. And their means (even after relative decline) greatly exceed our own. Khalid, my point about the middle ages was also misinterpreted. I made no claim that they were universally bad and the last century was universally good. I did say that public morality has shifted a little, enough so that even imperialist invaders have to pretend to be doing something else and public torture is not advertised and mass killings are not boasted of. To me, that is a change, even if a small one. I am well aware that to many other people (especially in academia) it is not a change at all. Who said we have to agree on everything.... btw, I am from Lahore and I dont think I was being flippant. I was being upset. Again, the point is that you dont have to agree with me, but I think we are on the same side. I also think you will get over your anger one day. I am an optimist. Baqi aap kee marzi.
Conrad Barwa | December 08, 2009
Thanks to real efforts by heroic figures, that is not where it will stay I don't think anyone is a hero just because they have a feather in their cap and wear a uniform (just as they're not just because they wear a beard and call themselves muslims). But yeah, each to their own, I guess. I understood this, unless I misread Omar, to be a reference to the general shift on the discourse of what is acceptable in waging war; most of the contributions here have been made by civilians, NGOs and popular pressure from below as we can see through things like the Geneva Conventions, Red Cross, UN conventions on genocide, child soldiers etc. I don't think many of them have been pushed for by states or by soldiers. As we can see from Cheney's so-called attempt to 'go to the dark side' most states have been willing to circumvent these in the name of national security; without much success it has to be said imo. There is a definitely a move forward in what is deemed acceptable, especially in many parts of the more 'developed' countries; though some worrying trends remain (support for torture seems quite high to me for example in places like the US) the big issue is that there isn't a realisation that if you take these things seriously, have to be uniformly and consistently applied; you can't exclude your own forces or the forces of those you support from them and you can stop these measures when it is inconvenient to do so. They are kind of indivisible that way, either they are taken seriously and properly applied with discrimination otherwise it is difficult to avoid the charge of hyporcrisy.
omar ali | December 08, 2009
I agree with Conrad sahib. Btw, is this your name or is it a pseudonym? and does it have anything to do with Joseph Conrad?
Conrad Barwa | December 08, 2009
Btw, is this your name or is it a pseudonym? and does it have anything to do with Joseph Conrad? LOL, I can only hope to reach such literary achievements but no, it is my real name, I very rarely use pseudonyms. First name was given as my father's family are Christian; for some reason quite a few Indian Christians are named 'Conrad' for reasons I have never exactly understood and 'Barwa' is a variant of Barwar, which is a recognisable Sengar clan name across the Hindi belt.
Salman | December 08, 2009
"The photo of the drone in Afghanistan has raised questions about why the United States would be operating a stealth unmanned aircraft in a country where insurgents have no radar systems, prompting speculation Washington was using the drones for possible spying missions in neighboring Iran or Pakistan." The beast of Kandahar: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091208/pl_afp/usaviationmilitarydrones_20091208212912
Akbar | December 09, 2009
Are there any alternatives put forward by any Pakistani experts on how to handle the Afghan and Taliban issue ? Here are some echos from the past. Replace Afghanistan for Vietnam and Taliban for Communists, and you have some sage advise. from Testimony of the Honorable George F. Kennan, Thursday, 10 February 1966 "SENATOR CARLSON: This morning you stated in response to a question, and this is not an exact quote but as I took it down, “We cannot order the political realities or views of other nations by our military power.” Would you want to elaborate a little on that? If we are not going to do it by military power in this age when we are confronted with nations who seem to respect only military might, what can we do? KENNAN: I am talking about the internal affairs of other peoples here, and about the—our entering into those internal affairs and deciding what sort of political conditions shall prevail, and this gives me opportunity to say something that I feel very strongly about. When it comes to helping people to resist Communist pressures of all sorts—whether you call them aggression or whatever you call them—it has been my conviction for many years that no assistance of this sort can be effective unless the people themselves have a very high degree of determination and a willingness to help themselves. The moment they begin to place the bulk of the burden on us, I think the whole situation is lost. So strongly do I feel about this that I have often said publicly that the only people worth helping in this world are the people who say, “We propose to survive whether you help us or not, and just because you don't help us doesn't mean we are going to go under. It means that we are going to fight to the last ditch anyway but it may be a little easier if you help us.” Now, the people who take that standpoint, there is something you can latch onto. But I am extremely suspicious every time I hear it said that “If you Americans don't give us more than you have given us or if you slacken your efforts on our behalf, we will become fainthearted, and then what will become of you?” And I think there is only one answer to this, and that is, “Whatever becomes of us will not be as bad as what becomes of you yourselves if you become fainthearted.” In other words, I do not believe in the possibility of helping people when it comes to problems that are partly problems of their internal political life, unless they themselves have a very high degree of determination and of internal self-discipline; and if things have deteriorated so far in these countries that they can't mobilize this sort of public morale and determination, I don't think any foreign force can put it into them. I think, then, the entry of a foreign force into the situation confuses it and creates new confusing elements which make it all the more difficult, and I think this is what has happened inVietnam, and I have seen it happen in other situations in history." http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/12/09/george-f-kennan-on-the-escalation-in-afghanistan/
Ajit | December 09, 2009
In Viet Nam the US was fighting a proxy war against the USSR and supposedly acting on behalf of the 'common Viet Namese man'. The aims and the logic were similar to what the Pakistani army has tried to do in Kashmir. The Talibs on the other hand allowed safe harbour for people responsible for 9/11.
Conrad Barwa | December 10, 2009
In Viet Nam the US was fighting a proxy war against the USSR and supposedly acting on behalf of the 'common Viet Namese man'. The aims and the logic were similar to what the Pakistani army has tried to do in Kashmir. That is a grossly simplistic understanding of both conflicts. It completely omits any mention of Vietnamese nationalism or the lead up of events to that war. Regarding Kashmir, the Pakistani army had been trying to foment an uprising there for decades; a large of the 1965 war was based on the erroneous calculation that the Valley would rise up against India. One needs to ask why this policy failed for decades, only to become successful in the late 80s.
anan | December 10, 2009
Kashmir seems to have had two large foreign infusions (one around 1990, and a larger one in 1996 when Osama Bin Laden (OBL) moved to Afghanistan.) After 9/11 violence in Kashmir fell by about 90%. Was this because of effective Indian COIN, or because a lot militants shifted to Pakistan and Afghanistan? For that matter, why did violence in Iraq fall by over 90% from 2006 levels? Did decisions in Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Syria/Egypt from the Sunni Arab extremist side; and Iran from the Shiite extremist side play a role? Vietnam was primarily a conventional war between conventional armies. This was especially so after 1969. This is to say that historic events do not strictly parallel one another. Akbar, not sure what your passage is predicting in a Pakistani and Afghan contexts. Both countries are fighting a ferocious Talibanat (plural for Taliban.) Can the GIRoA/ANSF with ISAF help defeat the Taliban west of the Durand line? Can Pakistan defeat Taliban east of the Durand line? What historic parallels should both countries study? McChrystal was asked in Congress this week what he would like Pakistan to do. He asked for one thing. He wanted Pakistan to attack Haqqani in North Waziristan; saying that ISAF/ANSF will be able to finish them off west of the Durand Line if the Pakistanis do their part in the East. McChrystal repeated a list of terrorist groups linked to Haqqani, including Haqqani's close ties to Tehrik-i-Taliban. I wonder if Pakistanis are open to conducting such an attack. If Pakistan does it (and 203rd ANA Corps, Khost and Paktya ANP, and ISAF RC-East push from the East); what would happen? How would your passage, Akbar, help us in understanding the consequences of such an action; or how both the ANSF/ISAF and the Pakistani Security Services should conduct such an operation?
Akbar | December 10, 2009
Akbar, not sure what your passage is predicting in a Pakistani and Afghan contexts. Both countries are fighting a ferocious Talibanat (plural for Taliban.) Not Talibanat but Talibothra ,my friend. Can the GIRoA/ANSF with ISAF help defeat the Taliban west of the Durand line? Can Pakistan defeat Taliban east of the Durand line? What historic parallels should both countries study?....... .....how both the ANSF/ISAF and the Pakistani Security Services should conduct such an operation? Those are the questions for Gen Petraeus, Gen McChrystal and Genl Kayani ! Forgetting about All analogies and simply stating in Kennan's words "In other words, I do not believe in the possibility of helping people when it comes to problems that are partly problems of their internal political life, unless they themselves have a very high degree of determination and of internal self-discipline; and if things have deteriorated so far in these countries that they can't mobilize this sort of public morale and determination, I don't think any foreign force can put it into them. I think, then, the entry of a foreign force into the situation confuses it and creates new confusing elements which make it all the more difficult...." Now US and Karzai are already negotiating with "GOOD Tlibothra", while Pakistani army's march has started from Red Mosque to SWAT to North Wazirstan to Quetta ? and you propose to Pakistani side of Durand Line (over 2000 mile long border)? While poors rot without clean drinking water, bread, cloths,healthcare, education. Now say for example all Talibothra are defeated and eliminated by Gates's DD, then what system is going to be put in place by HILLIARY'S Dept of state? the one in which Tim Geithner extends the bail out for Banks and Rich till 2010 on the back of Tax payers. While Obama receives Noble for Peace while waging the War fo Sequential Destruction?
Conrad Barwa | December 10, 2009
After 9/11 violence in Kashmir fell by about 90%. Was this because of effective Indian COIN, or because a lot militants shifted to Pakistan and Afghanistan? Well the restoration of having elected governments might have had an impact as well, not sure that violence fell 90% anyway here, I seem to recall some pretty savage suicide attacks between 2000-2003. Indian COIN operations have been going on for years, it would be an odd arguement to say that they suddenly became so effective so as to reduce violence by '90%' when they hadn't managed to do that for more than a decade previously. In anycase, Kashmir is still far from situation it was in the 70s and the 80s, garrisoned as it is with hundreds of thousands of military and paramilitary personnel that need to be there to prop up state authority.
anan | December 10, 2009
Akbar, still not sure what you are implying. What conflicts are taking place? Perhaps in order of importance: 1) Pashtun civil war on both sides of the Durand Line 2) Pakistani Civil war 3) War between Taliban (and her allies) and GIRoA/ANSF/ISAF 4) Proxy war between Taliban (and her allies) and Russia/Iran/Shiites/India Many Pashtun tribes are highly committed both to fight for the Taliban and to fight against the Taliban. That is why there is a Pashtun civil war in the first place. The ANA has a high degree of esprit de corps. Afghans volunteer to fight in the ANA in large numbers, including Kabul, Northern and Eastern Pasthuns (ANA is about 42% Pashtun and gets approximately 5,000 volunteers a month.) Khost (adjacent to Haqqani's Northern Waziristan stronghold) has arguably the best ANA and ANP in all of Afghanistan. The population is anti Taliban and volunteer for the ANA and ANP. The primary adversary they fight is Haqqani (Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura Taliban isn't a large factor in Khost) and Haqqani's allies (TTP, LeT, Jaish e Mohammed, LeJ, Sipah e Sahaba, two Uzbek groups . . . etc.) On the other hand many Pashtun tribes on both sides of the Durand line are loyal to Haqqani and his TTP allies; and are willing to fight to the death for Haqqani. Haqqani's fighters are among the best quality and best motivated on either side of the Durand line. The ANSF and Haqqani are bleeding each other in Khost . This isn't good for the rest of Afghanistan because McChrystal, and the ANSF leaders would like to redeploy quality ANSF form Khost to other Afghan provinces where they are badly needed. I am not sure what the relevance of your passage is to the situation in Waziristan and the Khost Bowl. The many parties fighting each other "themselves have a very high degree of determination and of internal self-discipline." Similarly in many parts of Pakistan, many Pashtun Tribes are determined to help the Pakistani Army defeat the Taliban. On the other hand, many other Pashtun tribes on both sides of the Durand line are determined to fight for the Taliban. Perhaps you could identify specific districts and provinces where your quote applies. I don't think it applies to either the Pakistani or Afghan armies or their war as a whole. This said, it might be that certain parts of Southern Afghanistan, such as perhaps certain pockets in Kandahar and Helmand really do support the Taliban against the GiRoA/ANSF/ISAF. It looks like we will find out over the next few months; since that is where most of the Obama surge is going. The ANA are also sending 16 combat companies (4 combat battalions worth; although they will probably attach to existing battalion HQs) by early winter to join the fight in Helmand. The ANA will almost certainly send substantial reinforcements to Kandahar over the next six months as well. Will the ANA and ANP and their GIRoA be seen as liberators, or as a hostile occupation force (backed by Uzbeks, Shiites, Iranians, Tajiks, Westerners, Jews, Indians, Russians) in the areas that the Taliban are expelled from? I think the ANA will be well received in most of Kandahar and Helmand; unfortunately the ANP may not be.
Akbar | December 10, 2009
Akbar, still not sure what you are implying Option 1) WAR, MORE WAR OR MORER WAR Now sure if hammer is our only tool then every problem will look like a nail. Option 2) Take a deep breath and reflect upon , what have we done since 911 blew a whole in time/space continuum? As since then ,war is peace and up is down. May be Onion can help us make the point "U.S. Finally Gets Around To Prosecuting Mastermind Behind 9/11" "While emphasizing that trying Mohammed had always been "right up near the top" of the government's to-do list, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the country had at last gotten enough off its plate to actually follow through on bringing to justice the man who oversaw the slaughter of almost 3,000 people. "Since the tragic events of Sept. 11, the United States has remained committed to putting the individuals responsible for these heinous acts behind bars," Holder said. "But come on, you know how it is. Sometimes even really important stuff just kind of falls off the radar. One minute you're watching the second tower crumble in horror and disbelief, and the next thing you know it's almost 2010." Added Holder, "There's only so many hours in a day, you know?" http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_finally_gets_around_to
anan | December 10, 2009
:LOL: Thanks for the Onion! Lets say the Afghan and Pakistani government give you Akbar; full power to negotiate with Haqqani and TTP on their behalf and you get a $10 billion checkbook to fund economic development on both sides of the Durand line. What will you do? Will Haqqani or TTP be satisfied with anything short of ruling both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and being able to export righteousness to Iran, Chechnya, Kashmir, Xinjian and the 5 Stans? How would you persuade TTP and Haqqani to accept lesser terms?
omar ali | December 11, 2009
Anan, I dont think spending 10 bajillion dollars is possible without having wars and states and all the other nonsense. Once you are in the domain of 10 billion dollars, you are in the domain of big money, big states and modern mega organizations (and make no mistake, the ISI and its children are very modern organizations too) and war is part and parcel of this arrangement (those who cannot fight being relieved of their billions in very short order). There IS an alternative. But it involves breaking down not just the warlike United States, but all states ("the state will whither away"). We are not there yet....Until then, you can pull away the United States and leave the show to states with even fewer scruples than the great satan. I am not saying the great satan has a lot of scruples, but its an aging bureaucracy and that alone is worth something...slows the killing machine down considerably. I shudder to think of the day when the new and super efficient Chinese army starts "maintaining the peace". PS: As is obvious, I am being a little facetious. But only a little.
Akbar | December 11, 2009
Lets say the Afghan and Pakistani government give you Akbar; full power to negotiate with Haqqani and TTP on their behalf and you get a $10 billion checkbook to fund economic development on both sides of the Durand line. What will you do? That is a good question. Musharraf was given upward of 11 Billion dollars since 9-11, and full control of Pakistan for over 9 years, and all what his and His Master's policies led to, is the mess ,we are discussing now. So first thing I would do is to not follow the same failed policies!
omar ali | December 11, 2009
Failed policies of Jihadism or failed policies of accepting US aid? (since Musharraf was closely implicated in both failed policies)?
akbar | December 16, 2009
"The American generals seem to be saying to Pakistan: You henceforth will ignore your own national security interests and devote yourself to our interests, whatever the cost to you. You will hand over all of the Taliban leaders and men in your country, and place your army under our strategic control. Otherwise, we will bomb your cities" http://original.antiwar.com/pfaff/2009/12/16/us-contemplates-more-of-the-scarcely-believable-in-afpak/
omar ali | December 17, 2009
No, actually the American general is saying to Pakistan: We have decided (for whatever reason) to seriously degrade the Islamist Jihadi networks headquartered in Pakistan and Afghanistan. When we launched this mission, you told us you were willing to help us do this job and that, in fact, this was also your own wish (plays tapes of musharraf and Kiyani and Pasha saying all of the above on multiple occasions). Since then, we have found that you are not doing so and are in fact saving some of this network for future use. Make up your mind because our emperor has told us to finish this job and the legions are itching to go (kiyani smiles, "bluff"he thinks to himself, but who knows?). Either you stop collecting payments every month, or you deliver the goods on time. With us, or against us? To which, Pasha and Kiyani have consistently said (videotape available on request) that SIR, we are with you, one hundred percent. We just need some time. Its a disagreement between business partners about who is failing to honor the contract and deliver the goods. We, who are outside the loop, are not in a position to know all the details. Neither side, by the way, has any interest in what the "antiwar" crowd is saying. They are in the war business, not the antiwar business.
akbar | December 19, 2009
"Unfortunately, these massive violations of the U.N. Charter, specifically of the principles of territorial integrity and political independence, go unnoticed. The U.N. officials are silent over these violations as if Article 2(4) does not exist. The U.S. foreign policy remains the same under President Obama, who promised to mend relations with Muslim nations. Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers continue to talk about winning hearts and minds of Muslim populations. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Iran, with so many Muslim countries on the U.S. hit-list, it is unclear how a foreign policy of territorial aggression, invasion, and subversion can generate goodwill that the U.S. seeks in the Muslim world." http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/alikhan12182009.html
omar | December 20, 2009
Why are you laboring under the impression that "generating goodwill in the Muslim world" is (or should be) the primary objective of US policy? It is my impression that the US would be happy to have goodwill, but not at the cost of other more concrete objectives (whether those objectives make good sense or not is a different matter. I am not saying US policy is all good and sensible, just curious to know why you think they may wish to generate goodwill over and above other objectives). Btw, what do you think "the muslim world" is doing to generate goodwill all over the world? Or is it only the US that must "generate goodwill"?
akbar | December 20, 2009
just curious to know why you think they may wish to generate goodwill over and above other objectives It is self evident,as Bill Clinton once said and I paraphrase, 'No matter how heavily armed, 4% of world population(that is USA) cannot hold rest of the world hostage indefinitely by force.' So a little good will can a long way. Especially with "Muslim World" as it is not competing with USA, the competitors are as you know, Eurozone, South america uniting behind Brazil and argentina, SCO(Russia,China). Now if you can step in the shoes of a Muslim American, who is contributing his tax dollars and soon to be 18 ,sons and duaghters to a never ending war policy under the Neo con/Neo Liberal narrative, US nationalism( West) Vs Islam, then the concern is obvious and urgent. As of "Muslim World" that is Ali Khan's term, If there was such a thing (hence good will), united entity with a counetr weight then this all would not be happening or would be playing out differently.
akbar | December 24, 2009
In Nightmares Begin Responsibilities: Why War Will Take No Holiday in 2010 "In his 1937 short story with an unforgettable title -- "In Dreams Begin Responsibilities" -- Delmore Schwartz's unnamed narrator imagines himself "as if" in a "motion picture theatre." He's watching a silent film -- already then a long-gone form -- "an old Biograph one, in which the actors are dressed in ridiculously old-fashioned clothes, and one flash succeeds another with sudden jumps." It's not any movie, however, but one about his parents' awkward, uncertain courtship, and there comes a moment when his character suddenly leaps up in the crowded theater of his dream life and shouts at the flickering images of his still undecided (future) parents: "Don't do it. It's not too late to change your minds, both of you. Nothing good will come of it, only remorse, hatred, scandal, and two children whose characters are monstrous." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/23-0
akbar | December 28, 2009
"How does this end? The verdict is already written: The Long War ends not in victory but in exhaustion and insolvency, when the United States runs out of troops and out of money." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/23/2009-12-23_obama_tell_me_how_this_ends_is_afghanistan_just_a_new_war_of_attrition.html
omar ali | December 29, 2009
depends on your definition of the long war. If you mean the various military actions the US takes in different parts of the world to maintain its superpower status, get control of important resources, guard logistics, avenge terrorist attacks and so on and so forth, then I am not sure that "war" is one war, its a long series of semi-independent actions...and yes, it will only end when the US collapses...but that war has been going on for at least a hundred years and may go on for decades more. By the time it "ends", a lot of smaller wannabe powers will have had their goose cooked and eaten. I am sure the whole paradigms is open to questioning and people in the US will have to figure out if there are alternatives and how to get there, but meanwhile the situation in Pakistan is really simpler: Pakistan is in no position to play regional power, sending proxies to attack neighbouring countries and playing games with bigger powers on whom it depends for daily cash infusions. Its "long war" may end in insolvency long before the US reaches that point....
akbar | December 29, 2009
"Pakistan is in no position to play regional power, sending proxies to attack neighbouring countries and playing games with bigger powers on whom it depends for daily cash infusions. Its “long war” may end in insolvency long before the US reaches that point…." Pakistan, my friend, is insolvent ever since its inception. Whatever solid infrastructure it has, was mostly developed with the help of China(KARAKORAM HIGHWAY,Gawadar Port,Chashma Power plant etc) Korea,(MOTORWAY), Russia(steel mills) The debauchry of its eastablishment and elites has been funded through our "western" friends and Saudis with strings attached. That is the main dilema, Lebanon a country of few millions, can show the middle finger to the Bullies and can stay intact while look at what is happening in Pakistan. The article posted above mainly looks at the events from a conservative military expert and scholar 's perspective,Andrew Bacevich, whose son incidently died in Iraq war. He uses the term long war as the US policy maker use it as alternative to GWOT.
omar | December 30, 2009
btw, you can check out my latest effort at positive propaganda at: http://wichaar.com/news/284/ARTICLE/18052/2009-12-30.html
omar ali | January 01, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/wo...a/02pstan.html I wrote this note on my group in response to the above news. comments welcome. Another terrible bombing, this time in Lakki Marwat. It seems the suicidal maniac was headed for a peace committee meeting but could not get there due to heavy security, so he hit the wall of a playground and went to meet the 72 virgins short of his final target. Sadly, there was a volleyball game going on in the playground and there were a lot of spectators. TV is saying 70 or more are dead and the death toll could rise. Since this particular tragedy has struck poor pathans in a small town, its not going to register for too long on the minds of the Pakistani elite, who will no doubt be back to discussing blackwater safehouses within two days max. But while some vague sense of outrage and disorientation still exists, I am going to throw out some random thoughts and make some predictions...the purpose is to invite all of you to make some predictions of your own. Predictions are what distinguish science from fantasy. Social change is too complex to be modeled like the physical sciences (at least at this point) but still, unless we can make a prediction, our models are worthless...so here goes. 1. I think the neo-wahabi paradigm which lies at the heart of the jihadi operation in Pakistan (the network obviously extends into Afghanistan and other places and crucial sources lie in Saudi Arabia, but the largest physical node is in Pakistan) is not compatible with "normal" existence in the globalized world and its going to be slowly and painfully pushed further and further away from the mainstream. This process of separating it from its "mainstream" supporters like the high command of the Pak army is going to accelerate. Friends who believe the army is irreversibly pro-jihadi are not correct. The army WAS pro-jihadi and is still terribly confused about whether they can save "good jihadis" for future use against India , but they will be pushed to give them up by circumstances. The army and the jihadis will stand against each other one day. GHQ may not know it, but one day it will even fight against old friends like Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed. Maybe not in weeks or months, but certainly in years. 2. Recurrent waves of anti-Americanism and "paknationalism" will confuse the process. Old Nationalists will struggle with their 60 years worth of anti-indian training with the need to make an accomodation not just with the Indian state but with our own Indian heritage.Old leftists will struggle to align their anti-imperialist models and their issues with capitalism with the need to cooperate with the imperial war machine.Swarms of ex-foreign secretaries and retired generals will display their utter confusion on TV for many months to come. But the fact is, the jihadi paradigm is retrogressive, indiscriminately violent, and unable to deliver relief from ANY of the multiple real grievances and conflicts that various classes and groups have against others all over the world. All this sound and fury will blow over and most of these people will end up compromising deeply held beliefs to deal with this menace. Being human, they will do so without necessarily admitting it even to themselves, but in whatever messy form, they will do it. 3. Many respected commentators will take a while to overcome their own habits of automatic self-censorship. Lesser known commentators will push the envelope first and better known ones will step forward more aggressively only after they realize that A, B or C can actually be said without the heavens falling. Some friends will be surprised at how dramatically the tone will shift from hunting for Jews and Hindus under every bed to openly identifying the jihadis AND their fellow travellers as a terrorist menace that will have to be dealt with before we can come back to the arguments about imperialism and "the metropolitan XYZ"...in other words, before we can become just another "normal country", stuggling with all the issues raised by the existence of 7 billion unequally placed humans on one planet...
Akbar | January 02, 2010
"Saudi officials initially thought the bomb had been secreted in the operative's anal cavity. " http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/02/white-house-advisor-briefed-in-october-on-underwear-bomb-technique.aspx
akbar | January 09, 2010
"But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to "justice and progress"?" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/09-1
Ajit | January 09, 2010
Is "Muslims" a useful category in discussing global politics ? Should it be ?
akbar | January 09, 2010
Is “Muslims” a useful category in discussing global politics ? Should it be ? Ajit I hope you went through the article as Mr McGovern is trying to shine some light on the elephant in the room, that is the US Policy towards lesser humans. As you can see the fiftten countries whose population will be screened if ever comes to US Airports are all Muslim countries except Cuba. I guess discussion of global politics would be boring if it read like, 'A humane and progressive human in White house ordered to liquidate some "Bad" humans in distan mountains. Unfortunately when the order was excuted some other humans including children and women also had their lives terminated prematurely'. And like wise ' A BAD human somewhere in caves ordered another human to blowup in a plane full of humans' Also what will happen to the job prospects of people who are fond of pairing Muslims or Islam with terror, fascism, savages etc etc,
akbar | January 09, 2010
"What is fascinating is the way al-Balawi's grievances tie together the Iraq War, the ongoing Gaza atrocity, and the Western military presence in the Pushtun regions-- the geography of the Bush 'war on terror' was inscribed on his tortured mind. Morally speaking, al-Qaeda is twisted and evil, and has committed mass murder. Neither the US nor Israel is morally responsible for violent crackpots being violent crackpots. Al-Qaeda or a Taliban affiliate turned al-Balawi to the dark side. Gandhi and Martin Luther King taught us the proper response to social injustice (and it should not be forgotten that Gandhi had a significant following among the Pashtuns). But from a social science, explanatory point of view, what we have to remember is that there can be a handful of al-Balawis, or there can be thousands or hundreds of thousands. It depends on how many Abu Ghraibs, Fallujahs, Lebanons and Gazas the United States initiates or supports to the hilt. Unjust wars and occupations radicalize people. The American Right wing secretly knows this, but likes the vicious circle it produces. Wars make profits for the military-industrial complex, and the resulting terrorism terrifies the clueless US public and helps hawks win elections, allowing them to pursue further wars. And so it goes, until the Republic is bankrupted and in ruins and its unemployed have to live in tent cities." http://www.juancole.com/
Ajit | January 10, 2010
Akbar, I wasn't advocating a linguistic censorship. The McGovern article you referred to earlier seemed to be saying that the treatment of Palestinians by Israel was what led Abdulmutallab to do what he did, with the implication that US foreign policy towards *any* region with a Muslim majority was adequate explanation for *any* Muslim to undertake *any* action against her civilians. Which is why I asked the question I did. The world would be a scarier place than it is if followers of other religions thought in this way. For instance, do you think the violence against Christians that has occurred in India and Pakistan in recent years is reason enough for every "Christian" country and her citizens to launch attacks against those two countries and any of their allies ?
akbar | January 10, 2010
The McGovern article you referred to earlier seemed to be saying that the treatment of Palestinians by Israel was what led Abdulmutallab to do what he did, with the implication that US foreign policy towards *any* region with a Muslim majority was adequate explanation for *any* Muslim to undertake *any* action against her civilians. That is not true. It is not justifying the attacks. What he points out is a lack of debate about what is motivating the fanaticism of these individuals and I quote So, Washington's sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world. After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents. The purpose of U.S. "public diplomacy" appears more designed to shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism or sympathizing with "the enemy." Commentators who are neither naïve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). Salon.com's Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained loudly about "how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.," and how it is taboo to point this out. And McGovern a decades long retired CIA Analyst is not alone in his eagerness to debate the motivation of these individuals. Here is Stephen Walt raising the same question. My point is not to rehash the whole debate over the invasion of Iraq (although to be honest, I don't think there's much debate to be had over the folly of that particular decision). My point is simply to reiterate that any serious effort to deal with our terrorism problem has to be multi-faceted, and has to include explicit consideration of the things we do that may encourage violent, anti-American movements. Only a complete head-in-the-sand approach to the issue would deny the connection between various aspects of U.S. foreign and military policy (military interventions, targeted assassinations, unconditional support for Israel, cozy relations with Arab dictatorships, etc.) and the fact that groups like al Qaeda keep finding people like al-Balawi to recruit to their cause. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com Juan Cole also chimes in on the same theme as above But from a social science, explanatory point of view, what we have to remember is that there can be a handful of al-Balawis, or there can be thousands or hundreds of thousands. It depends on how many Abu Ghraibs, Fallujahs, Lebanons and Gazas the United States initiates or supports to the hilt. Unjust wars and occupations radicalize people. The American Right wing secretly knows this, but likes the vicious circle it produces. Wars make profits for the military-industrial complex, and the resulting terrorism terrifies the clueless US public and helps hawks win elections, allowing them to pursue further wars. So the point is not to justify or rationalize the violence that "Muslims" or individuals with Muslim names want to visit on "West", but to discuss what motivates them, right now the competing theories are Muslims/Islamists/Islamicates are inherently deranged and violent and looking for rvenge Vs they are freedom fighters and heros trying to reverse the Western oppresion and avenge the honnor of Ummah. To me None of these narrative is whole truth or even closer to truth. And that is why opening up the debate on their motivation is not equivallent to condoning what is being done. Now as for you suggestion to drop word "Muslim" from the discourse, it will be th ultimate sanitizer, but does it help solve any conflict. " The world would be a scarier place than it is if followers of other religions thought in this way" Again probably unwittingly you are implying that more than 1 billion Muslims all are thinking like underwear bomber, and that is precisely why thoughtful people like McGovern want this discussion so earnestly.
Ajit | January 11, 2010
Akbar, whether McGovern is 'justifying' or not is not relevant. The question is how to view Abdulmutallab's actions and whether the supposed provocation is an adequate motivating factor. Fanatics are motivated by logic which the rest of us need not subscribe to and will not always be able to make adjustments for, except by confronting them. Again probably unwittingly you are implying that more than 1 billion Muslims all are thinking like underwear bomber In fact they are not. But clearly some are. I was pointing out that a similarly tiny minority from other religious persuasions could make the world a much more violent place.
Akbar | January 11, 2010
In fact they are not. But clearly some are But why? And Helen thomas asked that same.question. and I quote. Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why." Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents... They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death." Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?" Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way." Thomas: "Why?" Brennan: "I think this is a - long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland." Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how evil al Qaeda continues to pervert a religion and entice and exploit impressionable young men. There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. Obama's Non-Answer I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President limited himself to a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before he walked away from the podium: "It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations ... to do their bidding. ... And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death ... while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. ... That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists." But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to "justice and progress"? Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do is "communicate clearly to Muslims" that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and its allies, that brings "misery and death"? Does any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that for "misery and death"? Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than with the Muslim world. But why isn't there a frank discussion by America's leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive? Now your postiion to me crystalizes as follows, we drop the word "Muslim " from the discourse and get busy confronting the fanatics without wasting time in understanding their logic or illogic ,motivation or lack of motivation etc, . I respect your opinion but disagree that it is solution to anything and there is overwhelming evidence for that, as we say in urdu 'Dard bahrta gia joon joon dawa kee'.
Ajit | January 12, 2010
I can't quite tell if Helen Thomas is being obtuse deliberately or if she is just drawn that way. Obama is being politically correct - as a public figure must - in not pointing the finger too directly at some people's distorted visions of religion (for fear that accusations will be made that he is demonising 'one billion Muslims') . Is she hoping to trap him into saying something incendiary that she can then use to beat him on the head with ? Akbar, I am not trying to ban the word 'Muslim' but trying to understand it better. Is it a universal religious identity or a universal political identity ? Must everyone everywhere stop all conflicts with every Muslim to avoid inviting violence from any Muslim anywhere ? Should Nigerian students go berserk because of the sufferings of Palestinians ? This is not to downplay what is happening to Palestinians - just as in my previous example I did not mean to suggest Christians are not having serious difficulties in parts of India and Pakistan that the respective societies need to address urgently.
akbar | January 14, 2010
I can't quite tell if Helen Thomas is being obtuse deliberately or if she is just drawn that way. Obama is being politically correct — as a public figure must — in not pointing the finger too directly at some people's distorted visions of religion (for fear that accusations will be made that he is demonising 'one billion Muslims') . Is she hoping to trap him into saying something incendiary that she can then use to beat him on the head with ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas Ajit, let me get at straight, so Helen Thomas an octogenarian,a reporter with utmost integrity, is being Obtuse or Deranged or conspiring to Pull President Obama's leg, by asking a simple question . While Mr Obama(a certifiable war criminal and violator of Geneva accord by now), being the leader of "Strongest nation" and "Civilized world", while planning to spend Billions of dollars(borrowed from China) and hungreds of American and thousands of other lives in this conflict, does not have a spine to answer a simple question truthfully and he is still our hero!
akbar | March 03, 2010
"Here, then, are three modest suggestions for recalibrating the American way of war. All are based on a simple principle -- "preventive war planning" -- and are focused on getting the next war right before it begins, not decades after it's launched." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/03-1