To Die For.....the War at Wana
farheen zehra March 21, 2004
#159 Posted by Fumair on October 17, 2006 3:44:24 am
TO DIE FOR…. THE WAR OF WANNA
Images flashed on the television screen; a burning homes, scattered FC troops behind mud barricades,house hold things scattered all over the places. Bullets marks over living houses,and coffins wrapped in the national flag. Dead bodies are put in a row on the side of the road all to be buried in one. Weapon of the terrorists are shown in a bulletin ,old MK 47,s few grenades and rocket launchers.This was the footage of the war taking place in Wana - where our soldiers are engaged in a bloody combat with the so called foreign militants.
We all know what has led to this military conflict in Wana. The general’s threat to the tribal elders, the revelation of his killers identities, and the need to impress the great Colin Powell. An interesting mix of events that has triggered off a war that has left many wounded and dead.
Who are the dead?there gul Muhammad, Muhammad jehanzaib khan ,shah ahmed achkzai ,who killed them ? sher Muhammad of pakistan military , gul sher , zaryab ahmed .For us, they are just names that are announced in the news or printed in newspapers. But infact they are not names, they both were humans believed in the superiorty of Allah subhanotallah and the prophecy of prophet Muhammad salalhoalewasullum, and the sovereignty of shariyat.
I payed tax to government to be used over my defence to save my land, and my identity but yet killing my brother on both side. I PAID THE ASSASIGNS OT KILL MY OWN FAMILY ,isn’t it . why use military in Pakistan ?They are men who have sworn to laid down their lives, fighting against the enemies ,invaders and terrorsits. They are men whose bodies were put in wooden coffins with the green and white flag around it and carried off to be buried ceremoniously. But they are also men who leave behind old mothers and fathers, young siblings and anxious wives whose existence depended wholly on the shoulders of the young soldiers. And the soldiers lie dead in the battle.
Imagine rehmatul gul , use to live in waziristan for decades ,with his small family and son serving in Pakistan army, one day he saw a military troop helicopter over his sewing field , he is waving with joy upon the sight , but all of a sudden a rocket shell exploeded in the land next to his field because his neighbor`s son had visited Afghanistan in afghan Russian war(or ameican Russian war).
Soldiers are supposed to lay down their lives for their homeland,protecting against whom. They are trained for this from the day they wear the uniform that they so proudly exhibit. Theirs is not to question why, theirs is but to do and die. And that is what our soldiers have been doing since this country was born, laying down their lives for no worthy cause and asking no questions.
It was these waziristan people who served in army and who had laid down their lives in the 1965 war after our leaders` failure to rouse the Kashmiris to a full fledged combat with India. It was these soldiers, who were forced to surrender in 1971, when their leaders forgot that they had responsibility towards the people of the Eastern wing of the country.
It was very much ,discussed that our journal pus#sy cat, didn’t use the army platoon belonging to this area, but all the mens were from Punjab abd sindh rejiment.
Senior official of the army are not at all happy ,because of the fact , that these tribal area has kept Pakistani borders safe and helped and defend us in the time of need .
Stupid are those ,who loose and and accumulate enemies, making waziristan another of our enemy is not a decision of a journal.
Unless , journal sahib wants to be reformer ,will be American national after his retirement , if that so , then any thing he will ,will be a dictation from white house ,what else?
Yes, pick up the paper and read how manypakistani troops died in war against pakistani(balouchi, sindhi ,pukhtoon,If I am allowed to use word war for this act.?
Images flashed on the television screen; a burning homes, scattered FC troops behind mud barricades,house hold things scattered all over the places. Bullets marks over living houses,and coffins wrapped in the national flag. Dead bodies are put in a row on the side of the road all to be buried in one. Weapon of the terrorists are shown in a bulletin ,old MK 47,s few grenades and rocket launchers.This was the footage of the war taking place in Wana - where our soldiers are engaged in a bloody combat with the so called foreign militants.
We all know what has led to this military conflict in Wana. The general’s threat to the tribal elders, the revelation of his killers identities, and the need to impress the great Colin Powell. An interesting mix of events that has triggered off a war that has left many wounded and dead.
Who are the dead?there gul Muhammad, Muhammad jehanzaib khan ,shah ahmed achkzai ,who killed them ? sher Muhammad of pakistan military , gul sher , zaryab ahmed .For us, they are just names that are announced in the news or printed in newspapers. But infact they are not names, they both were humans believed in the superiorty of Allah subhanotallah and the prophecy of prophet Muhammad salalhoalewasullum, and the sovereignty of shariyat.
I payed tax to government to be used over my defence to save my land, and my identity but yet killing my brother on both side. I PAID THE ASSASIGNS OT KILL MY OWN FAMILY ,isn’t it . why use military in Pakistan ?They are men who have sworn to laid down their lives, fighting against the enemies ,invaders and terrorsits. They are men whose bodies were put in wooden coffins with the green and white flag around it and carried off to be buried ceremoniously. But they are also men who leave behind old mothers and fathers, young siblings and anxious wives whose existence depended wholly on the shoulders of the young soldiers. And the soldiers lie dead in the battle.
Imagine rehmatul gul , use to live in waziristan for decades ,with his small family and son serving in Pakistan army, one day he saw a military troop helicopter over his sewing field , he is waving with joy upon the sight , but all of a sudden a rocket shell exploeded in the land next to his field because his neighbor`s son had visited Afghanistan in afghan Russian war(or ameican Russian war).
Soldiers are supposed to lay down their lives for their homeland,protecting against whom. They are trained for this from the day they wear the uniform that they so proudly exhibit. Theirs is not to question why, theirs is but to do and die. And that is what our soldiers have been doing since this country was born, laying down their lives for no worthy cause and asking no questions.
It was these waziristan people who served in army and who had laid down their lives in the 1965 war after our leaders` failure to rouse the Kashmiris to a full fledged combat with India. It was these soldiers, who were forced to surrender in 1971, when their leaders forgot that they had responsibility towards the people of the Eastern wing of the country.
It was very much ,discussed that our journal pus#sy cat, didn’t use the army platoon belonging to this area, but all the mens were from Punjab abd sindh rejiment.
Senior official of the army are not at all happy ,because of the fact , that these tribal area has kept Pakistani borders safe and helped and defend us in the time of need .
Stupid are those ,who loose and and accumulate enemies, making waziristan another of our enemy is not a decision of a journal.
Unless , journal sahib wants to be reformer ,will be American national after his retirement , if that so , then any thing he will ,will be a dictation from white house ,what else?
Yes, pick up the paper and read how manypakistani troops died in war against pakistani(balouchi, sindhi ,pukhtoon,If I am allowed to use word war for this act.?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#158 Posted by soysauce on April 14, 2004 11:26:14 am
#156 ferozk
One rule of thumb could be that in a democracy the people are responsible for the acts of their government & in dictatorships no such responsibility can exist.
One rule of thumb could be that in a democracy the people are responsible for the acts of their government & in dictatorships no such responsibility can exist.
#157 Posted by tintingem on April 14, 2004 6:53:45 am
This article produced an interesting mix of responses and interactions which were indicative of the fact that there is no middle view on Wana.
Many questions have arisen during this operation. But like all other issues that have arisen in Pakistan time and again, there are no answers. The truth is that all governments (elected or enforced) have no policies or long term plans. Our politicians have become so used to acting on their whims that future planning is considered an alien phenomenon.
The army is no different and Musharraf has proved this time and again. Whatever action that he has taken has been on the basis of the events that have taken place in our neighboring countries. Much of what we do and say is dependent on what is happening in Afghanistan, India and Kashmir. Not to mention the dictations we receive from the fools sitting in the White House.
Musharraf acted on removing the terrorists only when orders were issued forth from Uncle Sam. He could have done all of this two years back, immediately after the Twin Towers came crashing down. But he was too busy in trying to stabilize his rule in the country. He did think proactively, but only regarding the issue of saving his own skin.
Thus, the tribal areas, and the terrorists harbored in these areas, were ignored. But then, the tribal areas have always been ignored. What has the government done for the tribal areas so far? The government has a good excuse of ignoring the tribal areas on the pretext of tribal laws and traditions. These tribal laws are being used as smoke screens by the politicians from these areas who are scared of development and improvement in the lifestyle of their people. The tribal areas are inhabited by Pakistanis who deserve all the attention of the government as much as you and me. But the government turns a blind eye always because it is the tradition of the politicians in our country to think of their own interests first and foremost.
The action taking place in Wana is correct. But the approach, the timing and the execution of this operation leaves much to be answered. But like all other ventures that have been undertaken by Musharraf so far, Kargil being the biggest blunder, this one will also lead to much loss than gain.
This was an article written not to glorify the armed forces but to bring to light the poor soldier who lays down his life for the country. Many innocent civilians also come under attack and this has always been the case in history (not that this makes it right). But what disgusts me most was the fact that these soldiers laid down their lives for a lost cause. And there is nothing more pitiful than sacrificing oneself for no cause at all.
farheen
Many questions have arisen during this operation. But like all other issues that have arisen in Pakistan time and again, there are no answers. The truth is that all governments (elected or enforced) have no policies or long term plans. Our politicians have become so used to acting on their whims that future planning is considered an alien phenomenon.
The army is no different and Musharraf has proved this time and again. Whatever action that he has taken has been on the basis of the events that have taken place in our neighboring countries. Much of what we do and say is dependent on what is happening in Afghanistan, India and Kashmir. Not to mention the dictations we receive from the fools sitting in the White House.
Musharraf acted on removing the terrorists only when orders were issued forth from Uncle Sam. He could have done all of this two years back, immediately after the Twin Towers came crashing down. But he was too busy in trying to stabilize his rule in the country. He did think proactively, but only regarding the issue of saving his own skin.
Thus, the tribal areas, and the terrorists harbored in these areas, were ignored. But then, the tribal areas have always been ignored. What has the government done for the tribal areas so far? The government has a good excuse of ignoring the tribal areas on the pretext of tribal laws and traditions. These tribal laws are being used as smoke screens by the politicians from these areas who are scared of development and improvement in the lifestyle of their people. The tribal areas are inhabited by Pakistanis who deserve all the attention of the government as much as you and me. But the government turns a blind eye always because it is the tradition of the politicians in our country to think of their own interests first and foremost.
The action taking place in Wana is correct. But the approach, the timing and the execution of this operation leaves much to be answered. But like all other ventures that have been undertaken by Musharraf so far, Kargil being the biggest blunder, this one will also lead to much loss than gain.
This was an article written not to glorify the armed forces but to bring to light the poor soldier who lays down his life for the country. Many innocent civilians also come under attack and this has always been the case in history (not that this makes it right). But what disgusts me most was the fact that these soldiers laid down their lives for a lost cause. And there is nothing more pitiful than sacrificing oneself for no cause at all.
farheen
#156 Posted by ferozk on April 3, 2004 7:32:48 am
re: arjun_m # 153
Interesting arguments, Arjun. Let me develop this line of thought further and please correct me, if I am wrong.
You are suggesting that we as individuals are responsible for the actions of our government. This idea; the idea of collective responsibility is not going to be shared by all people and they will disagree with you. I have have friends in the United States, who claim that President Bush does not represent them since he was elected by a process, which was/is questionable. They were questioning the legality of the vote count in Florida.
In their case and for the sake of argument, is this responsibility still valid when the government is not considered as a legitimate government?
In making an argument, did the 200 people in Spain who were killed in the terrorist bomb blasts, killed because of the actions of the government of Spain? Does this mean that the Israelis killed in terror bombings were killed because of the Israeli government`s actions or the Indians who were killed in the terror attacks killed because of the actions of their government?
To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the people of Spain did not favor their government`s policy in Iraq in support of the war. Should they be considered as ``legitimate`` targets and killed, because they were responsible for the actions of their government, when that particular government acted against the interests and judgement of its own people? Are we suggesting and I hope we are not, that Israelis should be mentally prepared to be killed in acts of violence, since they are also responsible for the acts of their government and as such are legitimate targets? Are we suggesting and I hope we are not that it is okay to kill American citizens, because they are responsible for the actions of their governments?
Arjun, this logic appeals to the twisted mind of a terrorist and in their rage, they will readily identify innocent people as being responsible for the actions of their government and seek to kill them. We may be responsible for the actions of our governments, but it does not mean we should we killed or blown up because of the actions of our government.
I agree with your statment, that I am responsible for the actions of my government as you for the actions of your government. Does that mean or suggest then that we are legitmate targets of retailiation for the actions of our government and our deaths in a senseless act of violence is not terrorism but a dejure act of political expression against the policies of our governments?
I understand that I have developed this argument too radically, but my point is that you cannot make a blanket judgement on a person being responsible for the actions of their goverments. I am sure that all the victims of terrorism will disagree with you that their deaths were perfectly fine, because they were responsible for the actions of their government and such, could be blown up in a bomb blast.
If you disagree with me, please let me know your reasons so that I may pass them on to the wife of a childhood friend who died in the World Trade Center terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He was an American citizen of Pakistani orgins. Please tell me, did he die because he was responsible for the actions of the Pakistani government or the American government? Was his death in the terrorist attack justified, because after all, he was responsible for the actions of his government? Can it?
I am looking forward to reading your comments.
Thank You.
Ciao
Interesting arguments, Arjun. Let me develop this line of thought further and please correct me, if I am wrong.
You are suggesting that we as individuals are responsible for the actions of our government. This idea; the idea of collective responsibility is not going to be shared by all people and they will disagree with you. I have have friends in the United States, who claim that President Bush does not represent them since he was elected by a process, which was/is questionable. They were questioning the legality of the vote count in Florida.
In their case and for the sake of argument, is this responsibility still valid when the government is not considered as a legitimate government?
In making an argument, did the 200 people in Spain who were killed in the terrorist bomb blasts, killed because of the actions of the government of Spain? Does this mean that the Israelis killed in terror bombings were killed because of the Israeli government`s actions or the Indians who were killed in the terror attacks killed because of the actions of their government?
To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the people of Spain did not favor their government`s policy in Iraq in support of the war. Should they be considered as ``legitimate`` targets and killed, because they were responsible for the actions of their government, when that particular government acted against the interests and judgement of its own people? Are we suggesting and I hope we are not, that Israelis should be mentally prepared to be killed in acts of violence, since they are also responsible for the acts of their government and as such are legitimate targets? Are we suggesting and I hope we are not that it is okay to kill American citizens, because they are responsible for the actions of their governments?
Arjun, this logic appeals to the twisted mind of a terrorist and in their rage, they will readily identify innocent people as being responsible for the actions of their government and seek to kill them. We may be responsible for the actions of our governments, but it does not mean we should we killed or blown up because of the actions of our government.
I agree with your statment, that I am responsible for the actions of my government as you for the actions of your government. Does that mean or suggest then that we are legitmate targets of retailiation for the actions of our government and our deaths in a senseless act of violence is not terrorism but a dejure act of political expression against the policies of our governments?
I understand that I have developed this argument too radically, but my point is that you cannot make a blanket judgement on a person being responsible for the actions of their goverments. I am sure that all the victims of terrorism will disagree with you that their deaths were perfectly fine, because they were responsible for the actions of their government and such, could be blown up in a bomb blast.
If you disagree with me, please let me know your reasons so that I may pass them on to the wife of a childhood friend who died in the World Trade Center terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He was an American citizen of Pakistani orgins. Please tell me, did he die because he was responsible for the actions of the Pakistani government or the American government? Was his death in the terrorist attack justified, because after all, he was responsible for the actions of his government? Can it?
I am looking forward to reading your comments.
Thank You.
Ciao
#155 Posted by ferozk on April 3, 2004 6:30:40 am
re: Sadna # 154
It was just a rant, which needed to be vented. Still, I am not too keen on the idea of being identified as supporting any political party or personality in Pakistan. I never had the choice to support one or the other! :)
My choices are very stark and when I compare, I have no choices! lol
I was too young when Ayub Khan was in the twilight of his rule; too immature and naive politically, when Z. A. Bhutto came to power in 1971. I supported him, but like all else he ended up as a disappointment. Zia-ul-Haq was the period, when Pakistan regressed into the Dark Ages and we left for North America. I missed out on the entire Zia years. After Zia, we had the decade of kleptocracy and it was a period of legalized robbery gone as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif played musical chairs and for 11 years, nothing happened in Pakistan. Then Musharraf came to power in 1999. Some choice!
So, I guess you do have an argument, when you said I support Musharraf. If the choice is between Zia and Musharraf as military rulers, then I guess Musharraf will be the lesser evil. Between Sharif and Bhutto, there is not that much of a choice; they might be elected and if the elections in Pakistan, which elected them were ever fair. Were the elections in Pakistan, which elected them fair? :)
Where is my choice? I do not have a choice; I am told I have a choice. That my friend is facism and a system under which I surivive. :) lol
Musharraf`s actions might be questioned, but honestly speaking people can question them all they wish, because the average fool like me is least bothered by the international opinion. Our concern is that tomorrow might be worse, but hopefully it will not be as worse as yesterday. The funny thing is the people of Pakistan are totally removed from politics, beause they have no faith in politics or the politicans and who ever rules over us; whether s/he is elected or not or is trusted internationally or not, makes no difference.
Let me put it in another words. United States is thinking about giving Pakistan major non-NATO ally status. Pray tell me, what good is that going to do? Is MNNA going to feed us, clothe us or pay for our kids` education or get us cleaning drinking water? lol
Who is this status going to benefit? lol
Thanks for listening to the rant of an old fool. :)
Ciao
It was just a rant, which needed to be vented. Still, I am not too keen on the idea of being identified as supporting any political party or personality in Pakistan. I never had the choice to support one or the other! :)
My choices are very stark and when I compare, I have no choices! lol
I was too young when Ayub Khan was in the twilight of his rule; too immature and naive politically, when Z. A. Bhutto came to power in 1971. I supported him, but like all else he ended up as a disappointment. Zia-ul-Haq was the period, when Pakistan regressed into the Dark Ages and we left for North America. I missed out on the entire Zia years. After Zia, we had the decade of kleptocracy and it was a period of legalized robbery gone as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif played musical chairs and for 11 years, nothing happened in Pakistan. Then Musharraf came to power in 1999. Some choice!
So, I guess you do have an argument, when you said I support Musharraf. If the choice is between Zia and Musharraf as military rulers, then I guess Musharraf will be the lesser evil. Between Sharif and Bhutto, there is not that much of a choice; they might be elected and if the elections in Pakistan, which elected them were ever fair. Were the elections in Pakistan, which elected them fair? :)
Where is my choice? I do not have a choice; I am told I have a choice. That my friend is facism and a system under which I surivive. :) lol
Musharraf`s actions might be questioned, but honestly speaking people can question them all they wish, because the average fool like me is least bothered by the international opinion. Our concern is that tomorrow might be worse, but hopefully it will not be as worse as yesterday. The funny thing is the people of Pakistan are totally removed from politics, beause they have no faith in politics or the politicans and who ever rules over us; whether s/he is elected or not or is trusted internationally or not, makes no difference.
Let me put it in another words. United States is thinking about giving Pakistan major non-NATO ally status. Pray tell me, what good is that going to do? Is MNNA going to feed us, clothe us or pay for our kids` education or get us cleaning drinking water? lol
Who is this status going to benefit? lol
Thanks for listening to the rant of an old fool. :)
Ciao
#154 Posted by sadna on April 2, 2004 2:03:09 pm
ferozk #151
I wasn`t judging you, I was pointing out a possible difference between our perceptions of Musharraf.
It is not your compromises which are the issue here, it is the compromises/courses of actions made by Musharraf which are the issue, in my view. A person`s compromises in his/her personal life affect mainly that person only and it is noone else`e business to pass judgement.
In huge contrast, the choices of compromises/courses of action made by the President/Prime Minister of a country are public issues since these choices are made on behalf of the state and the entire nation`s population, and it constitutes every affectee`s business to pass judgement.
Hope that clarifies.
I wasn`t judging you, I was pointing out a possible difference between our perceptions of Musharraf.
It is not your compromises which are the issue here, it is the compromises/courses of actions made by Musharraf which are the issue, in my view. A person`s compromises in his/her personal life affect mainly that person only and it is noone else`e business to pass judgement.
In huge contrast, the choices of compromises/courses of action made by the President/Prime Minister of a country are public issues since these choices are made on behalf of the state and the entire nation`s population, and it constitutes every affectee`s business to pass judgement.
Hope that clarifies.
#153 Posted by arjun_m on April 2, 2004 7:35:13 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#152 Posted by ferozk on April 2, 2004 6:34:27 am
re: arjun_m # 146
Arjun you wrote, `` It`s not like you`ve never done that before...You radicalized your own population to fight the Americans war...what? you think the arrests in the UK has nothing to do with the paki state policy of radicalization of it`s own population to breed jihadis?``
Please clarify your statement. Whom are you refering to as ``you``? The state of Pakistan or me personally?
Ciao
Arjun you wrote, `` It`s not like you`ve never done that before...You radicalized your own population to fight the Americans war...what? you think the arrests in the UK has nothing to do with the paki state policy of radicalization of it`s own population to breed jihadis?``
Please clarify your statement. Whom are you refering to as ``you``? The state of Pakistan or me personally?
Ciao
#151 Posted by ferozk on April 2, 2004 6:29:15 am
re: Sadna # 148
As to your comments, I do not trust Musharraf or for that matter any politican in Pakistan. The past experience suggests caution, when dealing with Pakistan`s leadership. I can understand your point on the legality, or the illegality, of Musharraf taking over power. Such ideals are worthy of appluse, but sadly in the situtation of Pakistan the reality is that such ideals are no match for the realpolitik of the Pakistan.
I personally believe that there is no subsitute to democracy and the rule of law, but in Pakistan I am confronted by a situation in which I have to compromise my believes on a daily basis. I wish that I could have the luxury of your thoughts and noble intentions, but I do not and unlike you, I have to exist within an imperfect situation. You have no idea on what I had to compromise and what I compromise in order to survive each day in Pakistan. I may detest Musharraf and I may hate the politicans for ruining my life, but in all honestly my anger and ill feelings towards them are not going to make them cower in their boots and they are not going to change their proverbial bad spots just to please my sense of right and wrong. As I said before and I will say it again; I have no choice in who comes to power in Pakistan and who is evicted from power or what is done in my name though I always suffer for the actions of others and I am the one, who pays the final price. Elected politicans or non-elected politicans have never served my interest as the citizen of Pakistan, but have always benefited themselves at my expense.
Our perceptional difference is simply that we live a world apart. You are entirely free to judge me and highlight all my weakness of character, which you use to condemn me and I have no objections. Before you do that; before you judge me, just walk a mile in my shoes and then, let me know what is your your final judgment. :)
Ciao
As to your comments, I do not trust Musharraf or for that matter any politican in Pakistan. The past experience suggests caution, when dealing with Pakistan`s leadership. I can understand your point on the legality, or the illegality, of Musharraf taking over power. Such ideals are worthy of appluse, but sadly in the situtation of Pakistan the reality is that such ideals are no match for the realpolitik of the Pakistan.
I personally believe that there is no subsitute to democracy and the rule of law, but in Pakistan I am confronted by a situation in which I have to compromise my believes on a daily basis. I wish that I could have the luxury of your thoughts and noble intentions, but I do not and unlike you, I have to exist within an imperfect situation. You have no idea on what I had to compromise and what I compromise in order to survive each day in Pakistan. I may detest Musharraf and I may hate the politicans for ruining my life, but in all honestly my anger and ill feelings towards them are not going to make them cower in their boots and they are not going to change their proverbial bad spots just to please my sense of right and wrong. As I said before and I will say it again; I have no choice in who comes to power in Pakistan and who is evicted from power or what is done in my name though I always suffer for the actions of others and I am the one, who pays the final price. Elected politicans or non-elected politicans have never served my interest as the citizen of Pakistan, but have always benefited themselves at my expense.
Our perceptional difference is simply that we live a world apart. You are entirely free to judge me and highlight all my weakness of character, which you use to condemn me and I have no objections. Before you do that; before you judge me, just walk a mile in my shoes and then, let me know what is your your final judgment. :)
Ciao
#149 Posted by bbabu on April 1, 2004 10:00:30 pm
Outsourcing the Hunt for Bin Laden
Pakistan should be at the top of Bush`s `axis of evil.`
By Leon Hadar
April 1, 2004
Imagine the following scenario, which includes all the historical analogies that neoconservative ideologues like to apply — World War II, Hitler, appeasement — plus a bonus reference to the evil du jour, Spain.
As American and Allied forces invade Nazi Germany in 1945, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and several SS troops flee to Fascist Spain, where they hide in the Pyrenees Mountains and mount guerrilla attacks against the Free French government. The American response? To ask Generalissimo Francisco Franco if he would be kind enough to send some of his forces to catch those Nazis — and it would be nice if it could all be wrapped up before the 1948 presidential election.
Sound absurd? Well, there is an element of the absurd in the acrimonious debate on 9/11 taking place these days. Lawmakers and pundits are arguing about what could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks. But they all agree that if Americans could rewind history to pre-9/11, they would have done everything humanly possible to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates — sooner rather than later.
But why look backward? Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri — the war-on-terrorism`s Hitler and Himmler, respectively — are still alive and well, as far as we know, and living somewhere in Pakistan. Yet to whom is the United States assigning the task of dealing with the gravest threat to its national security and to ensure that such horrific events won`t happen again? To the best and the brightest in the American armed forces and intelligence services? You would assume that we owe as much to the victims of 9/11 and their families.
But no. In fact, the job of wiping out the leaders of the group responsible for the worst attack on the homeland has been outsourced to a corrupt and incompetent regime that is ruling a country where anti-American Islamist groups roam the streets — and the corridors of power.
Indeed, Pakistan`s military and security services, which are in charge of hunting Bin Laden and his troops, were once allied with the Taliban, the former Al Qaeda protectors in Afghanistan. And some of its members are sympathetic to a radical Islamist agenda. Until recently, the nation`s top nuclear scientist was selling his country`s secret military technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Pakistan should have topped President Bush`s ``axis of evil`` list. Instead, it has been designated as a ``non-NATO`` ally of the United States. And its leader, Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator who ousted the country`s democratically elected, although admittedly unpopular, government, has been feted in Washington as a key partner of the United States in the global campaign to combat terrorism.
This policy helped to produce last month`s pathetic spectacle in the war on terrorism. Musharraf was eager to divert media attention from Abdul Qadeer Khan`s nuclear arms bazaar and to impress visiting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thus, Musharraf and his aides raised expectations that Zawahiri would be captured in a major battle with the guerrillas. But the Pakistanis, after bungling the military operation and suffering many casualties, discovered a network of secret tunnels that the fighters had used to escape. Adding insult to injury, Al Qaeda`s No. 2 figure showed up on a new audiotape calling for Musharraf`s overthrow.
Some military observers might conclude that the Pakistani army just doesn`t have the competence to mount a serious fight against Al Qaeda and capture its leaders. Other critics might explain the failure to apprehend Bin Laden and his associates by pointing to the support that radical Islamists enjoy among the rank and file of the Pakistani military and security services.
Take your pick, but consider what an American ``war president`` would have done in that 1945 scenario. He would have given Franco an ultimatum: Catch Hitler and Himmler, hand them over to us alive or dead, and destroy all the SS remnants. And do it ASAP. If you can`t deliver, the full force of the U.S. military will be employed to make that happen.
Americans should not wait for congressional commissions and historians to explain why their war president wasn`t taking that same kind of action against Bin Laden and Zawahiri in 2004, and why he decided to subcontract the job to an inept and untrustworthy military dictator whose associates espouse anti-Americanism, coddle terrorists and sell WMD to ``rogue states.`` What they know already sounds even worst than appeasement.
Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Pakistan should be at the top of Bush`s `axis of evil.`
By Leon Hadar
April 1, 2004
Imagine the following scenario, which includes all the historical analogies that neoconservative ideologues like to apply — World War II, Hitler, appeasement — plus a bonus reference to the evil du jour, Spain.
As American and Allied forces invade Nazi Germany in 1945, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and several SS troops flee to Fascist Spain, where they hide in the Pyrenees Mountains and mount guerrilla attacks against the Free French government. The American response? To ask Generalissimo Francisco Franco if he would be kind enough to send some of his forces to catch those Nazis — and it would be nice if it could all be wrapped up before the 1948 presidential election.
Sound absurd? Well, there is an element of the absurd in the acrimonious debate on 9/11 taking place these days. Lawmakers and pundits are arguing about what could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks. But they all agree that if Americans could rewind history to pre-9/11, they would have done everything humanly possible to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda associates — sooner rather than later.
But why look backward? Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri — the war-on-terrorism`s Hitler and Himmler, respectively — are still alive and well, as far as we know, and living somewhere in Pakistan. Yet to whom is the United States assigning the task of dealing with the gravest threat to its national security and to ensure that such horrific events won`t happen again? To the best and the brightest in the American armed forces and intelligence services? You would assume that we owe as much to the victims of 9/11 and their families.
But no. In fact, the job of wiping out the leaders of the group responsible for the worst attack on the homeland has been outsourced to a corrupt and incompetent regime that is ruling a country where anti-American Islamist groups roam the streets — and the corridors of power.
Indeed, Pakistan`s military and security services, which are in charge of hunting Bin Laden and his troops, were once allied with the Taliban, the former Al Qaeda protectors in Afghanistan. And some of its members are sympathetic to a radical Islamist agenda. Until recently, the nation`s top nuclear scientist was selling his country`s secret military technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Pakistan should have topped President Bush`s ``axis of evil`` list. Instead, it has been designated as a ``non-NATO`` ally of the United States. And its leader, Pervez Musharraf, a military dictator who ousted the country`s democratically elected, although admittedly unpopular, government, has been feted in Washington as a key partner of the United States in the global campaign to combat terrorism.
This policy helped to produce last month`s pathetic spectacle in the war on terrorism. Musharraf was eager to divert media attention from Abdul Qadeer Khan`s nuclear arms bazaar and to impress visiting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thus, Musharraf and his aides raised expectations that Zawahiri would be captured in a major battle with the guerrillas. But the Pakistanis, after bungling the military operation and suffering many casualties, discovered a network of secret tunnels that the fighters had used to escape. Adding insult to injury, Al Qaeda`s No. 2 figure showed up on a new audiotape calling for Musharraf`s overthrow.
Some military observers might conclude that the Pakistani army just doesn`t have the competence to mount a serious fight against Al Qaeda and capture its leaders. Other critics might explain the failure to apprehend Bin Laden and his associates by pointing to the support that radical Islamists enjoy among the rank and file of the Pakistani military and security services.
Take your pick, but consider what an American ``war president`` would have done in that 1945 scenario. He would have given Franco an ultimatum: Catch Hitler and Himmler, hand them over to us alive or dead, and destroy all the SS remnants. And do it ASAP. If you can`t deliver, the full force of the U.S. military will be employed to make that happen.
Americans should not wait for congressional commissions and historians to explain why their war president wasn`t taking that same kind of action against Bin Laden and Zawahiri in 2004, and why he decided to subcontract the job to an inept and untrustworthy military dictator whose associates espouse anti-Americanism, coddle terrorists and sell WMD to ``rogue states.`` What they know already sounds even worst than appeasement.
Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
#148 Posted by sadna on April 1, 2004 2:26:01 pm
ferozk #145
Thanks again for your reply.
Let me take you up on a couple of points.
Firstly, on `sealing the border`. It is easy for anyone to understand (it is even obvious) without visiting Pakistan and having any military wisdom that the border is hard to seal. OK? No need to host me in Pakistan for that :).
Now. Unlike myself, Musharraf is COAS of Pakistani Army, he is supposed to have some native or military wisdom and has visited Pakistani border areas. He is the President of the country. He is sure to have known right from Oct 9 2001, the day the war began, that Al Qaida elements are likely to find sanctuary in Pakistan, especially in FATA. He is likely to have known well how close are the links between some groups of that region, JUI factions and Al Qaeda/Taliban. I have myself heard Fazlur Rehman saying on Pak TV many months ago that there are regions(ilakas) which the tribals have alloted to Arab/etc mujahiddeen from Afghanistan to settle down.
Musharraf is also likely to have known that the US would come hunting some day.
Inspite of this eventuality being obvious to him from the start, Musharraf seems ill-prepared for it - he was even denying the possibility of such sanctuaries of Al Qaeda till very recently.
Coming to second point - war in Afghanistan and whether US has won or not. The question is what sort of victory does Pakistani Army want to see in Afghanistan? Taliban`s victory for 5 years was also a victory, obtained and maintained with the help of Pakistani Army. Does the Pakistani Army think such a pyrrhic victory as Taliban`s was in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s long term interests?
I would venture a guess that only the jihad-minded in Pakistani establishment think so.
For those who are not jihad-minded, there are more constructive ways for the Pakistan government to press for increased Pashtun representation in Kabul.
Condoning hit and run raids by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Taliban/Al Qaeda from Pakistani territory, attacks in which even civilian Afghans engaged in reconstruction get killed and girls schools are burned down, is not a constructive way to press for Pashtun representation.
My POV wrt these two issues is simply this - Musharraf has/had not made up his mind to be proactive and decisively pursue one of two paths to take, the jihad path or the progressive one. He is taking the path of least resistance, essentially reacting to competing pressures from both the US and his MMA/Army allies.
ferozk, I too think both of us are in agreement on most of the basics and differ in perceptions.
I am guessing one major area of difference is our perception about the primary party, Musharraf.
I myself, fundamentally distrust Musharraf as a person( I cannot trust a person who took power in a military coup), and I consider the realpolitic constraints on him to be largely self-imposed, some of these constraints inherent in how he came to power. Moreover I distrust his intentions and judge him positively only so far as he acts as an agent of positive change.
I could be mistaken, but perhaps you, in contrast, trust Musharraf as a person, view his method of gaining power as regrettable, but in total, the constraints on him to be beyond his control and his actions to be essentially good intentioned.
If my guess is correct, this is a major difference of perception. Let us agree to disagree at this time? Also, thanks for an interesting exchange of views.
Thanks again for your reply.
Let me take you up on a couple of points.
Firstly, on `sealing the border`. It is easy for anyone to understand (it is even obvious) without visiting Pakistan and having any military wisdom that the border is hard to seal. OK? No need to host me in Pakistan for that :).
Now. Unlike myself, Musharraf is COAS of Pakistani Army, he is supposed to have some native or military wisdom and has visited Pakistani border areas. He is the President of the country. He is sure to have known right from Oct 9 2001, the day the war began, that Al Qaida elements are likely to find sanctuary in Pakistan, especially in FATA. He is likely to have known well how close are the links between some groups of that region, JUI factions and Al Qaeda/Taliban. I have myself heard Fazlur Rehman saying on Pak TV many months ago that there are regions(ilakas) which the tribals have alloted to Arab/etc mujahiddeen from Afghanistan to settle down.
Musharraf is also likely to have known that the US would come hunting some day.
Inspite of this eventuality being obvious to him from the start, Musharraf seems ill-prepared for it - he was even denying the possibility of such sanctuaries of Al Qaeda till very recently.
Coming to second point - war in Afghanistan and whether US has won or not. The question is what sort of victory does Pakistani Army want to see in Afghanistan? Taliban`s victory for 5 years was also a victory, obtained and maintained with the help of Pakistani Army. Does the Pakistani Army think such a pyrrhic victory as Taliban`s was in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s long term interests?
I would venture a guess that only the jihad-minded in Pakistani establishment think so.
For those who are not jihad-minded, there are more constructive ways for the Pakistan government to press for increased Pashtun representation in Kabul.
Condoning hit and run raids by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Taliban/Al Qaeda from Pakistani territory, attacks in which even civilian Afghans engaged in reconstruction get killed and girls schools are burned down, is not a constructive way to press for Pashtun representation.
My POV wrt these two issues is simply this - Musharraf has/had not made up his mind to be proactive and decisively pursue one of two paths to take, the jihad path or the progressive one. He is taking the path of least resistance, essentially reacting to competing pressures from both the US and his MMA/Army allies.
ferozk, I too think both of us are in agreement on most of the basics and differ in perceptions.
I am guessing one major area of difference is our perception about the primary party, Musharraf.
I myself, fundamentally distrust Musharraf as a person( I cannot trust a person who took power in a military coup), and I consider the realpolitic constraints on him to be largely self-imposed, some of these constraints inherent in how he came to power. Moreover I distrust his intentions and judge him positively only so far as he acts as an agent of positive change.
I could be mistaken, but perhaps you, in contrast, trust Musharraf as a person, view his method of gaining power as regrettable, but in total, the constraints on him to be beyond his control and his actions to be essentially good intentioned.
If my guess is correct, this is a major difference of perception. Let us agree to disagree at this time? Also, thanks for an interesting exchange of views.
#147 Posted by nooralain on April 1, 2004 12:17:19 pm
arjun,
just when i thought you were beginning to sound less hateful, and i thought, wow. .a man after my own heart, the piper had to return to the same old tune. . .again. damn.
and i keep returning to the same old place. . .
just when i thought you were beginning to sound less hateful, and i thought, wow. .a man after my own heart, the piper had to return to the same old tune. . .again. damn.
and i keep returning to the same old place. . .
#146 Posted by arjun_m on April 1, 2004 8:26:22 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#145 Posted by ferozk on April 1, 2004 7:09:59 am
re: Sadna # 143
Sadna, all those statements reflect the realpolitik of Pakistan`s politics at the time. There is no ``pattern`` as you seem to think, but they were based on the ground realities of the time. You seemed to be obessed with time. Pakistan did not intergrate the FATA after 1947, because it was struggling to survive its formative years as a nation-state and after 1989, it was pre-occupied with the politics of the so-called ``decade of democracy`` and the governments in Pakistan, between those two time periods, never made a concentrated effort to include FATA into Pakistan. The whole issue of FATA was not high on the list of Pakistani governments` concerns. You have to ``see`` the issue in context of the reality as it existed and not in isolation of it, as you are suggesting by your comments. Hindsight is perfect and you should not judge the past in the experience of the present.
I have no idea how to explain the Pushtun code of honor to you, but it does exist and you and I with our western outlooks and believes may belittle it, but it is a very powerful institutional force in the tribal customs of Afghanistan and Pakistan. A tribe`s and the individual`s honor is judged by this code and people would rather die than betray the code.
The United States has not won the war in Afghanistan by any sense of the imagination. Its control only extends to the outskirts of Kabul. The United States might have defeated the Taliban in 2001, but it has no effective control over the rest of Afghanistan. The war is still being waged and people, on both sides are being killed and to call it an American victory is the height of arrogance.
As to the Arab/Muslim world being offended, I was more offended by their apathy than the American bombing during the months of Ramadan.
Sadna, Afghan history has been dominated by the rule of Pushtuns and they form the majority in Afghanistan and you cannot have a majority ruled by a minority as the United States was wishing in the post-Taliban Afghanistan. Granted, Musharraf`s choice of words always leaves a lot to be desired, but his assessment was correct and the past three years have proven him right. The present political instability inside Afghanistan was created by the exclusion of the Pushtuns from the government. As to Taliban representation, they are presently engaged in a mid-level insurgency to regain their political power and since the Taliban were mostly Pushtuns, Musharraf was correct in predicting the outcome of excluding the Pushtuns from the post Taliban government.
As to the tribals crossing the Durand Line, which is the Afghan-Pakistan border, it was easy because the border was never demarcated and the Afghan never accepted it as a de jure international boundary. Secondly, it runs through mountainous terrain and its populated by tribes, with family links on both sides. The border is nearly 2500 kilometers long. The question is how come the United States has not been able to plug the border on the Afghan side, with all its technology? Some day, you must visit Pakistan and I will take you on a trip to Durand Line and you can share your military wisdom with me and tell us, how you would seal the border? :)
The United States could not seal its border with Mexico with all the resources at its disposal and India had a hard time trying to seal 750 odd kilometer of the LoC and you expect Pakistan to seal 2500 kilometers of the Durand Line? LOL
Sadna, it is very difficult to explain to a person, who have never visted the FATA how things work there. The FATA has to be incorporated into Pakistan by offering the people an incentive and that incentive is economic growth of the region. There are no roads or phone lines in the FATA, so the government has to create the infrastructure of its presence in the region. Did you know that the symbol of Pakistan Government`s authority in FATA is the road. The road and nearly 100 yards on both sides of a road is the only territory the Pakistani government controls inside FATA and that is the extent of its jurisdiction. Hence, building roads means that the government will increase its presence in the region.
Sadna, thank you for all your hard labor in quoting Musharraf, but you also have to look at the context of the quotes and not just the words themselves. :)
Ciao
Sadna, all those statements reflect the realpolitik of Pakistan`s politics at the time. There is no ``pattern`` as you seem to think, but they were based on the ground realities of the time. You seemed to be obessed with time. Pakistan did not intergrate the FATA after 1947, because it was struggling to survive its formative years as a nation-state and after 1989, it was pre-occupied with the politics of the so-called ``decade of democracy`` and the governments in Pakistan, between those two time periods, never made a concentrated effort to include FATA into Pakistan. The whole issue of FATA was not high on the list of Pakistani governments` concerns. You have to ``see`` the issue in context of the reality as it existed and not in isolation of it, as you are suggesting by your comments. Hindsight is perfect and you should not judge the past in the experience of the present.
I have no idea how to explain the Pushtun code of honor to you, but it does exist and you and I with our western outlooks and believes may belittle it, but it is a very powerful institutional force in the tribal customs of Afghanistan and Pakistan. A tribe`s and the individual`s honor is judged by this code and people would rather die than betray the code.
The United States has not won the war in Afghanistan by any sense of the imagination. Its control only extends to the outskirts of Kabul. The United States might have defeated the Taliban in 2001, but it has no effective control over the rest of Afghanistan. The war is still being waged and people, on both sides are being killed and to call it an American victory is the height of arrogance.
As to the Arab/Muslim world being offended, I was more offended by their apathy than the American bombing during the months of Ramadan.
Sadna, Afghan history has been dominated by the rule of Pushtuns and they form the majority in Afghanistan and you cannot have a majority ruled by a minority as the United States was wishing in the post-Taliban Afghanistan. Granted, Musharraf`s choice of words always leaves a lot to be desired, but his assessment was correct and the past three years have proven him right. The present political instability inside Afghanistan was created by the exclusion of the Pushtuns from the government. As to Taliban representation, they are presently engaged in a mid-level insurgency to regain their political power and since the Taliban were mostly Pushtuns, Musharraf was correct in predicting the outcome of excluding the Pushtuns from the post Taliban government.
As to the tribals crossing the Durand Line, which is the Afghan-Pakistan border, it was easy because the border was never demarcated and the Afghan never accepted it as a de jure international boundary. Secondly, it runs through mountainous terrain and its populated by tribes, with family links on both sides. The border is nearly 2500 kilometers long. The question is how come the United States has not been able to plug the border on the Afghan side, with all its technology? Some day, you must visit Pakistan and I will take you on a trip to Durand Line and you can share your military wisdom with me and tell us, how you would seal the border? :)
The United States could not seal its border with Mexico with all the resources at its disposal and India had a hard time trying to seal 750 odd kilometer of the LoC and you expect Pakistan to seal 2500 kilometers of the Durand Line? LOL
Sadna, it is very difficult to explain to a person, who have never visted the FATA how things work there. The FATA has to be incorporated into Pakistan by offering the people an incentive and that incentive is economic growth of the region. There are no roads or phone lines in the FATA, so the government has to create the infrastructure of its presence in the region. Did you know that the symbol of Pakistan Government`s authority in FATA is the road. The road and nearly 100 yards on both sides of a road is the only territory the Pakistani government controls inside FATA and that is the extent of its jurisdiction. Hence, building roads means that the government will increase its presence in the region.
Sadna, thank you for all your hard labor in quoting Musharraf, but you also have to look at the context of the quotes and not just the words themselves. :)
Ciao
#144 Posted by Tmk on April 1, 2004 12:01:02 am
Letter in Daily Times on 03/31/04
The real battle in Wana
Sir: I supported the recent Wana operation even though I was cognisant of the short-term consequences of such an operation. A state must maintain a monopoly of violence over the territory it controls, and the Pakistani state certainly does not enjoy this monopoly in the tribal areas. This situation must change, and the establishment must come up with a long-term plan to incorporate the tribal areas and its people into Pakistan.
The Pakistan Army says that the operation is now over and its objectives have been realised. But have we really succeeded? Looking at pictures of women and children going through the rubble of their homes in Wana, it is obvious that the army has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the tribal people. I also condemn the policy whereby the houses of people not cooperating with the army were razed. Collective punishment of this kind, which results in women and children losing their homes, is morally reprehensible and will create more hatred against the Pakistan Army and the state.
What the government must do is create a comprehensive economic, social and political programme for these Tribal Areas so that the people can benefit. I welcome the fact that new schools and roads are being constructed in some areas. This is a policy that must continue at a faster pace. Only by winning the hearts of these people can we root out foreign terrorists permanently. As of now, we are losing this battle for the hearts and minds.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
Via Email
The real battle in Wana
Sir: I supported the recent Wana operation even though I was cognisant of the short-term consequences of such an operation. A state must maintain a monopoly of violence over the territory it controls, and the Pakistani state certainly does not enjoy this monopoly in the tribal areas. This situation must change, and the establishment must come up with a long-term plan to incorporate the tribal areas and its people into Pakistan.
The Pakistan Army says that the operation is now over and its objectives have been realised. But have we really succeeded? Looking at pictures of women and children going through the rubble of their homes in Wana, it is obvious that the army has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the tribal people. I also condemn the policy whereby the houses of people not cooperating with the army were razed. Collective punishment of this kind, which results in women and children losing their homes, is morally reprehensible and will create more hatred against the Pakistan Army and the state.
What the government must do is create a comprehensive economic, social and political programme for these Tribal Areas so that the people can benefit. I welcome the fact that new schools and roads are being constructed in some areas. This is a policy that must continue at a faster pace. Only by winning the hearts of these people can we root out foreign terrorists permanently. As of now, we are losing this battle for the hearts and minds.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
Via Email
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Abee: Re: # 10 Thank you.... Salt N Pepper
- tahmed32: #320 I agree with... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- captainjohann: Mr.Geelani, You are sitting... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- MeiraJ08: #55, what happened Mr.... Fathers and Daughters
- _arjun29: #12 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: Congratulaltions, Geelani Saheb: Mehbooba has... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #318 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- vatanparast: Yes rf786 Saheb, one... MQM - History and
