February 28, 2007
Scapegoating Pakistan
Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine:
Other countries, as former senior CIA official Michael Scheuer reminded me, do not look at the world from the same point of view as the United States. “The first duty of any intelligence agency,” he said, “is to protect the national interest. Pakistan is not going to destroy the Taliban because at some point they would like to see the Taliban back in power. They cannot tolerate a pro-Indian, pro-American, pro-Russian, pro-Iranian government in Afghanistan. They already have an unstable Western border and have to worry about a country of one million Hindus that has nuclear bombs.”
That point was echoed by a second retired CIA official, who asked to remain anonymous. “The United States,” he told me, “has never recognized the essential security concerns of Pakistan, which are on its eastern border. India can be in Islamabad in three days. We tell them India would never do that, but they have fought three wars against India. Pakistan cannot be put in a position where it might have to fight a war on two fronts, from India and Afghanistan.”
More here. [Thanks to Husain Naqvi.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 06:33 PM | Permalink
Comments
Pakistan has suffered greatly over the last twenty some years due to the continuing war in Afghanistan. First fighting the CIA's prosy war against the Russians, with over 3 million refugees bringing in guns, drugs and violence into Pakistani society which has been ruined, then by increasing fundamentalism, also by perpetuating Zia-ul-Haq's regime mostly because of the American support to continue the policies in Afghanistan, and after all that when finally Afghanistan got a new American backed governement, the Karzai regime, they suddenly became chums with India and actively aggressive towards Paksitan. This article reflects accurately the Paksitani point of view, and explains why Bush supports Musharraf as much as he does. I hope the Congress will also realize this.
Posted by: Tasnim | Feb 28, 2007 9:21:13 PM
Michael Scheuer seems to have his numbers (and ideas) quite wrong about India. A country of a million Hindus?! A billion people, yes. 800 million hindus, 150 million muslims and 50 million of other religions co-existing in a secular space, and not in a 'Hindu' country.
I don't see how the Afghan government, whether it is pro-India or pro-Russia poses any security threat to Pakistan. If anything there exists a threat to Pakistan's internal security from the autonomous tribal areas and other border areas where many Al-Qaeda and other militant groups continue to hide.
I also don't see war with India as a realistic scenario. The last of the three major wars was way back in 1971. Kargil in 1999 could have been an all out war but wasn't. International pressure and domestic pressure will call for restraint and will ensure that war doesnt take place between two nuclear armed countries.
Pakistan would do well to restore liberal democracy and define itself as that rather than a theocracy or dictatorship of any form. In the long run, a liberal and democratic framework would work best to protect pakistan's security interests. The military and the ISI will never bring peace to Pakistan, as they protect their own interests before the interests of Pakistan's people.
Posted by: Dhiraj | Mar 1, 2007 2:51:14 PM
Dhiraj,
I agree with you that the writer of this article makes an unfortunate conflation between the interests of Pakistan and the interests of certain elements of Pakistan's Military Intelligence services.
You are, of course, completely correct that it is in NO way in Pakistan's long-term interest to help the likes of the Taliban. While it may be true that India could be in Islamabad in 3 days, why would they? The development of nuclear weapons by both sides has made military misadventures very unlikely, as you point out.
Pakistan has never even contemplated "defining itself as a theocracy," so I am not sure what you are getting at there. And, of course, the million dollar question for a long time has been how to institute a stable democracy in Pakistan which is immune to military interventions. What is also clear, however, is that the last few civilian governments have been corrupt kleptocracies which brought Pakistan to the brink of financial and economic ruin, while the current regime, whatever its faults, has managed the economy better, and allowed more press freedom than any previous civilian government.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Mar 1, 2007 7:49:56 PM
Abbas,
I certainly wouldn't like to see Pakistan as a theorcracy. You would agree, however, that some political parties like the MMA want pakistan to head in that direction. And the MMA does have popular support in parts of Pakistan especially the NWFP. Zia-ul-Haq at an earlier time (and perhaps elements in the ISI now) veered towards an Islamisation of Pakistan. So there are certainly some people (admittedly a minority at the moment) who may want Pakistan to be a theocracy. Such forces must be defeated, and not militarily but at the level of ideas.
I also agree that the present government has managed the economy reasonably well, and better than the earlier 'democratic' regimes. However, I cannot see how the army, as long as it is in control, will pave the way for a suitable democracy, despite musharraf's arguably noble intentions.
Posted by: Dhiraj | Mar 2, 2007 3:42:53 AM
I think both Dhiraj and Abbas have hit on the real problem. A significant number of people in Pakistan (many with political power) seem to think supporting the Taliban is in Pakistan's long-term interest. This seems totally wrong to me. Already the Taliban have created huge friction between Pakistan and the US and China, Pakistan's two main "allies". Sheltering and aiding people who stage terror attacks against your allies isn't a good way to keep those allies. In addition, the Taliban are ruthlessly sectarian, and feed the Sunni-Shia struggle within Pakistan. (There are a lot of Hazaras in Pakistan who didn't react well to the democide of Hazaras in Afghanistan by the Taliban.) The Taliban have shown themselves to be incompetent at ruling Afghnistan, and supporting them only encourages the growth of Taliban-like ideas in Pakistan, where they would also be equally incompetent.
I don't understand this idea of the Pakistani leadership that conflict with India is an assumed condition, and that Pakistan must somehow balance India and constantly strive against it. Why not just make peace with India and get on with growing the economy, educating your children, and improving the quality of life?
One hopes that eventually Pakistan can arrange some sort of lasting peace deal with India, and the border between Pakistan and India can become like the border between Canada and the US, which also grew out of a bitter partition and massive population transfers.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Mar 2, 2007 9:44:32 AM
Post a comment