Post by Bint Mohammed on Mar 28, 2004 12:50:24 GMT -5
High-value fiction
By Ayaz Amir
It was supposed to be Ayman Al-Zawahiri, no less, Osama bin Laden's
deputy, finally trapped by the trusted Pakistan army in the wilds of
South Waziristan. President Musharraf himself triggered this feverish
line of speculation when he told CNN's Aaron Brown (one of the best
anchors in the business) that the fierce resistance being put up by
suspected Al Qaeda fighters suggested they were protecting a "high-
value target".
The hype, alas, did not last. It gave way to embarrassment when
the 'militants', far from surrendering, inflicted heavy casualties on
first the Frontier Constabulary and then the regular army.
To add insult to injury, instead of yielding any "high-value target"
the so-called militants captured over a dozen militiamen or soldiers
whose whereabouts are still unknown.
Don't blame the army for being coy on the subject of casualties.
Press reports put the number of militia and army dead at 60, the
injured at 45, and "missing" at 24. The 'militant' dead:
11. 'Collateral damage': over two dozen civilians, including women
and children, caught in the crossfire.
This is a first-rate fiasco whichever way you look at it. If this
were Iraq and if even half as many Americans had died, the White
House would be shaken and George Bush would be scurrying for cover.
This being Pakistan where life is relatively cheap, you just look the
other way. And you talk tough. The Rommel in overall command of this
operation, the Peshawar Corps Commander, Lt Gen Safdar Hussain, vowed
to flush out and eliminate the 'militants' as the Wana action got
underway.
He continues to sound tough even with this botched operation behind
him. Incidentally, Lt Gen Safdar's name was first on the list of
military personnel who received awards on March 23, Republic Day.
The army says it discovered a long tunnel beneath one of the mud
fortresses where the 'militants' were holed up, the suggestion being
that that's how they got away. The wheel thus comes full circle, high-
value target turning to high-value fiction.
Aaron Brown had pressed the military spokesman, Major General Shaukat
Sultan, on this point. Was there any way the 'militants' could get
away? No they couldn't, the army had it all worked out. Well, well,
he couldn't have known about the tunnel, could he?
If the Peshawar Corps HQs had read its tribal history it would have
preferred prudence to misplaced bragging. The British learnt to their
cost not to mess around with the frontier tribes. In return for
nominal allegiance, they allowed them full internal autonomy. This
system served the British well for a hundred years. It has served us
well since 1947.
There have been no Pakistanis more loyal to Pakistan than the tribal
people. Remember they helped get us the bit of Kashmir we have. They
went in first, the army followed later.
Now under American pressure these time-tested arrangements are coming
under strain. The Americans couldn't care less what happens to us or
to the fabric of our society. They want quick trophies to nail to the
wall, so that they can declare some sort of victory in their war
against anything that smells or looks like Al Qaeda.
The Americans couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan in the
1980s. All they wanted was to give the Russians a bloody nose and
avenge the memory of Vietnam. That accomplished they just walked
away, leaving the Afghans to their misery.
In pursuit of the Viet Cong the Americans entered Kampuchea (then
Cambodia) in 1968, setting off a chain reaction leading to the
destruction of that once peaceful and easygoing country. Kampuchea
has yet to recover from those wounds.
What do the Americans care what happens to Pakistan as long as their
purpose is served in the tribal areas? They are paying us for
services rendered: about $600 million a year, half in so-called
economic aid, half in military aid, most of the military aid being
used to beef up the Pakistan army for duty along the Pak-Afghan
border.
Smart, isn't it, the Americans giving us just enough to better serve
their interests? Like giving a sentry a better rifle to perform
better sentry duty. And we call this aid.
But since they are paying us something, they think they are within
their rights to order us about. Reinforcing this monumental self-
belief is the spectacle of the Pakistani leadership taking obvious
pleasure in being ordered about.
Should we fight the Americans? Who's saying that? Should we confront
them? Don't be silly. But how does it follow from this that Pakistan
should be getting up every morning and proving to the rest of the
world that it stands in the front rank of all banana republics?
We did this in the 1950s when we became part of America's global
system of alliances against communism. We did this in the sixties
when we played the crucial role in America's opening to China.
We did this in the eighties when casting prudence aside we became the
CIA's cat's paw in Afghanistan. We did this after September 11 when
we became the launching pad for America's war on Afghanistan.
Masochism aside, why do we do this?
Now Colin Powell tells us Pakistan should soon be getting 'non-Nato
ally' status. For this kindness many thanks. Don't we know the list
of America's non-Nato allies? Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Philippines,
etc, etc? Do we want to be part of this distinguished company?
It can be argued that after September 11 the Americans, out for
revenge and blood, left us with little choice. In his testimony
before the presidential commission on terrorism, Colin Powell has
said as much. The Pakistanis, he said, were given a clear choice and
48 hours to make up their minds. Pervez Musharraf made his "historic
and strategic" decision, Powell's words, on September 14.
Fine. All this is history, water under the bridge. We've done the
Americans enough service in Afghanistan. There's no pistol pointing
at our head now. We can afford to draw breath, weigh our options, do
the sensible thing.
We don't have to be stampeded into stupid actions enraging the
Pakistani people and imperilling our future. At least for now, we can
afford to speak to the Americans on equal terms.
It's the Bush White House in election trouble, not the Musharraf
presidency (not least because presidencies here have other ways of
going around elections). If anything, between now and the US
presidential election, Pakistan's importance to the Bush White House
is greater than the other way round.
And who are these 'militants' of Wana, in any case? The foreigners
amongst them, Chechens, Uzbeks, Arabs, are the leftovers of the
Afghan jihad. They and the CIA fought on the same side then, against
the Soviets. They became an embarrassment only later.
But with nowhere to go many of them settled in the tribal areas,
marrying locally and intermingling with the tribes. Does that make
them Al Qaeda fighters, loyalists to Osama bin Laden, protectors
of "high-value targets"?
Perhaps, yes. But if that's the case, what's the Pakistan army been
doing these past two years since September 11? Shouldn't it have gone
after these elements much before and without American prodding?
But let's not be fooled. The Wana operation reeks of other things:
American pressure, American indifference to our plight and supreme
Pakistani incompetence.
And consider what we are reaping in the aftermath: bomb attacks and
ambushes beyond Wana. Even rockets fired at Peshawar itself. Which
doesn't mean the tribal areas are rising in revolt. But it does mean
new dangers. Don't we have enough of them already?
Tailpiece: Haji Abdul Haque of Adil Manzil, Tauheed Commercial Area,
DHA, Karachi, asks: "Whenever our soldiers die in action we call
them 'shaheed'. In the ongoing Wana operation being carried out at
the behest of the United States, Pathan Frontier Constabulary
soldiers are pitted in ferocious battles against fellow Pathans.
Whatever the case, all combatants are Muslims. Has our high command
decided which of the killed combatants will be called 'shaheed'? The
Muslim frontier constabulary pathan soldiers fighting for the US or
the Muslim pathans fighting against the US? Will our great COAS Gen
Musharraf kindly explain?"
TEXTTEXTTEXT
By Ayaz Amir
It was supposed to be Ayman Al-Zawahiri, no less, Osama bin Laden's
deputy, finally trapped by the trusted Pakistan army in the wilds of
South Waziristan. President Musharraf himself triggered this feverish
line of speculation when he told CNN's Aaron Brown (one of the best
anchors in the business) that the fierce resistance being put up by
suspected Al Qaeda fighters suggested they were protecting a "high-
value target".
The hype, alas, did not last. It gave way to embarrassment when
the 'militants', far from surrendering, inflicted heavy casualties on
first the Frontier Constabulary and then the regular army.
To add insult to injury, instead of yielding any "high-value target"
the so-called militants captured over a dozen militiamen or soldiers
whose whereabouts are still unknown.
Don't blame the army for being coy on the subject of casualties.
Press reports put the number of militia and army dead at 60, the
injured at 45, and "missing" at 24. The 'militant' dead:
11. 'Collateral damage': over two dozen civilians, including women
and children, caught in the crossfire.
This is a first-rate fiasco whichever way you look at it. If this
were Iraq and if even half as many Americans had died, the White
House would be shaken and George Bush would be scurrying for cover.
This being Pakistan where life is relatively cheap, you just look the
other way. And you talk tough. The Rommel in overall command of this
operation, the Peshawar Corps Commander, Lt Gen Safdar Hussain, vowed
to flush out and eliminate the 'militants' as the Wana action got
underway.
He continues to sound tough even with this botched operation behind
him. Incidentally, Lt Gen Safdar's name was first on the list of
military personnel who received awards on March 23, Republic Day.
The army says it discovered a long tunnel beneath one of the mud
fortresses where the 'militants' were holed up, the suggestion being
that that's how they got away. The wheel thus comes full circle, high-
value target turning to high-value fiction.
Aaron Brown had pressed the military spokesman, Major General Shaukat
Sultan, on this point. Was there any way the 'militants' could get
away? No they couldn't, the army had it all worked out. Well, well,
he couldn't have known about the tunnel, could he?
If the Peshawar Corps HQs had read its tribal history it would have
preferred prudence to misplaced bragging. The British learnt to their
cost not to mess around with the frontier tribes. In return for
nominal allegiance, they allowed them full internal autonomy. This
system served the British well for a hundred years. It has served us
well since 1947.
There have been no Pakistanis more loyal to Pakistan than the tribal
people. Remember they helped get us the bit of Kashmir we have. They
went in first, the army followed later.
Now under American pressure these time-tested arrangements are coming
under strain. The Americans couldn't care less what happens to us or
to the fabric of our society. They want quick trophies to nail to the
wall, so that they can declare some sort of victory in their war
against anything that smells or looks like Al Qaeda.
The Americans couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan in the
1980s. All they wanted was to give the Russians a bloody nose and
avenge the memory of Vietnam. That accomplished they just walked
away, leaving the Afghans to their misery.
In pursuit of the Viet Cong the Americans entered Kampuchea (then
Cambodia) in 1968, setting off a chain reaction leading to the
destruction of that once peaceful and easygoing country. Kampuchea
has yet to recover from those wounds.
What do the Americans care what happens to Pakistan as long as their
purpose is served in the tribal areas? They are paying us for
services rendered: about $600 million a year, half in so-called
economic aid, half in military aid, most of the military aid being
used to beef up the Pakistan army for duty along the Pak-Afghan
border.
Smart, isn't it, the Americans giving us just enough to better serve
their interests? Like giving a sentry a better rifle to perform
better sentry duty. And we call this aid.
But since they are paying us something, they think they are within
their rights to order us about. Reinforcing this monumental self-
belief is the spectacle of the Pakistani leadership taking obvious
pleasure in being ordered about.
Should we fight the Americans? Who's saying that? Should we confront
them? Don't be silly. But how does it follow from this that Pakistan
should be getting up every morning and proving to the rest of the
world that it stands in the front rank of all banana republics?
We did this in the 1950s when we became part of America's global
system of alliances against communism. We did this in the sixties
when we played the crucial role in America's opening to China.
We did this in the eighties when casting prudence aside we became the
CIA's cat's paw in Afghanistan. We did this after September 11 when
we became the launching pad for America's war on Afghanistan.
Masochism aside, why do we do this?
Now Colin Powell tells us Pakistan should soon be getting 'non-Nato
ally' status. For this kindness many thanks. Don't we know the list
of America's non-Nato allies? Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Philippines,
etc, etc? Do we want to be part of this distinguished company?
It can be argued that after September 11 the Americans, out for
revenge and blood, left us with little choice. In his testimony
before the presidential commission on terrorism, Colin Powell has
said as much. The Pakistanis, he said, were given a clear choice and
48 hours to make up their minds. Pervez Musharraf made his "historic
and strategic" decision, Powell's words, on September 14.
Fine. All this is history, water under the bridge. We've done the
Americans enough service in Afghanistan. There's no pistol pointing
at our head now. We can afford to draw breath, weigh our options, do
the sensible thing.
We don't have to be stampeded into stupid actions enraging the
Pakistani people and imperilling our future. At least for now, we can
afford to speak to the Americans on equal terms.
It's the Bush White House in election trouble, not the Musharraf
presidency (not least because presidencies here have other ways of
going around elections). If anything, between now and the US
presidential election, Pakistan's importance to the Bush White House
is greater than the other way round.
And who are these 'militants' of Wana, in any case? The foreigners
amongst them, Chechens, Uzbeks, Arabs, are the leftovers of the
Afghan jihad. They and the CIA fought on the same side then, against
the Soviets. They became an embarrassment only later.
But with nowhere to go many of them settled in the tribal areas,
marrying locally and intermingling with the tribes. Does that make
them Al Qaeda fighters, loyalists to Osama bin Laden, protectors
of "high-value targets"?
Perhaps, yes. But if that's the case, what's the Pakistan army been
doing these past two years since September 11? Shouldn't it have gone
after these elements much before and without American prodding?
But let's not be fooled. The Wana operation reeks of other things:
American pressure, American indifference to our plight and supreme
Pakistani incompetence.
And consider what we are reaping in the aftermath: bomb attacks and
ambushes beyond Wana. Even rockets fired at Peshawar itself. Which
doesn't mean the tribal areas are rising in revolt. But it does mean
new dangers. Don't we have enough of them already?
Tailpiece: Haji Abdul Haque of Adil Manzil, Tauheed Commercial Area,
DHA, Karachi, asks: "Whenever our soldiers die in action we call
them 'shaheed'. In the ongoing Wana operation being carried out at
the behest of the United States, Pathan Frontier Constabulary
soldiers are pitted in ferocious battles against fellow Pathans.
Whatever the case, all combatants are Muslims. Has our high command
decided which of the killed combatants will be called 'shaheed'? The
Muslim frontier constabulary pathan soldiers fighting for the US or
the Muslim pathans fighting against the US? Will our great COAS Gen
Musharraf kindly explain?"
TEXTTEXTTEXT
