As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan, troops from both countries have commenced a deadly game of brinksmanship. Although aimed at asserting each other’s military presence along the Pakistan-Afghan border, the skirmishes risk outright hostilities.

U.S. strikes in Pakistan are nothing new. Washington has conducted unilateral missile strikes since soon after its invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. American pilotless surveillance planes have been flying over the restive border with near impunity for much the same time.

From Air to Ground

But the tone of the U.S. presence changed this year. In July, President George W. Bush approved covert ground raids into suspected militant hideouts in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, much of which is a Taliban stronghold. Militants use the region as a sanctuary from which to strike foreign and Afghan troops in neighboring Afghanistan. Thus far, U.S. forces attempted at least three ground assaults. The only confirmed ground invasion of Pakistan, on September 3, led to the deaths of around 20 civilians, including women and children. No militant leaders were believed captured or killed in the raid.

This ground assault led to unprecedented rhetoric from Pakistan condemning the United States. Even Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, normally quite evasive with the media, said that the Army would defend Pakistan’s territory. The Pakistani government summoned the U.S. ambassador to the foreign office and blocked NATO supplies vital to the multinational force’s continued operation in Afghanistan.

Pakistan averted two other attempted ground raids when its border forces fired warning shots at U.S. helicopters ferrying commandos into Waziristan. On the most recent occasion, Pakistan and U.S. troops exchanged fire for five minutes. Pakistan’s government later claimed that its army fired flares, not bullets, at the helicopters, but this explanation did not sound very convincing.

Ostensibly, Washington fears that Waziristan - and other tribal regions - could become a staging area for further attacks on the United States if the Pakistani army doesn’t root out pro-Taliban forces. But Washington doubts whether Islamabad is capable of doing the job.

More broadly, U.S. policy in the region is increasingly shaped by its failure to establish unequivocal dominance in Iraq. With the War on Terror overshadowing U.S. foreign policy for the foreseeable future, the next U.S. president will have to deliver victory in some form to a skeptical public. That is the ultimate legacy of the September 11 hijackers, and the Bush administration.

The Next Target

That victory will most likely not come out of the violence and political mess of Iraq. Although the Bush administration and both presidential candidates support a significant, continued military presence in Iraq, the United States has accepted that it can’t control the entire country by direct military force. It may have had some success in marginalizing al-Qaeda in Iraq - after initially spurring its growth - but it has also been forced to accept Shia domination of domestic politics.

Iran was seriously mooted as the next frontline and even now experiences tremendous diplomatic pressure from Washington. But it’s difficult for the United States to promote the Shia state as the next front in the War on Terror, however much Israel or its lobby in the United States may favor this path. Iran doesn’t pose an immediate threat, nor would it afford a quick and easy military campaign. Rather, war with Iran would almost certainly lead to a severe disruption of global energy supplies and the world economy.

Pakistan, in comparison, is an irresistible target. The United States claims to have evidence that the government supports jihadis that wage war against the United States and NATO in Afghanistan. Even a limited, covert war, directed at militants, not the Pakistan Army, is arguably the easiest sell the United States has ever had to make since the 1990 war with Iraq. The only factor preventing all-out conflict is Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Escalation

U.S. raids and missile strikes may be an attempt to see how far it can go with Pakistan. After Pervez Musharraf stepped down as president, the United States felt uninhibited by the concern that its Pakistan interventions were impairing a staunch ally. There have been as many missile strikes this year as in the previous seven.

Pakistan has engaged in loud rhetoric decrying the attacks and asserted it won’t tolerate intrusions into its territory. Strong public criticism was inevitable to placate a population deeply resentful of the U.S. presence in the region. Both civilian and military leaders have to guard against forces, such as rival politicians or upstart officers, using the crisis to leverage power.

Even internationally, if Pakistan hadn’t condemned the U.S. attacks, it would have tacitly acknowledged that it can’t address the militant problem on its own. That would be an open invitation to more interference from foreign armies and, potentially down the road, international isolation as a failed state.

Pakistan, as it currently exists, relies on U.S. patronage for its survival. There’s very little it can do if the United States decides to step up its military presence in Pakistan. According to the State Department, the United States has given Pakistan $2.4 billion in “security assistance” and $3.4 billion in economic assistance over the past seven years. Pakistan has obtained a raft of loans and credits from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank since its rehabilitation by the United States after September 11.

Despite the cold-headed realism, there’s a real danger that future confrontations between Pakistan and U.S. troops could escalate into outright hostilities. The Pakistani army’s rank-and-file is deeply uneasy about military operations that have killed several thousand fellow citizens and Muslims at the behest of Washington, not Islamabad. Pakistan border posts may welcome any future U.S. intrusion into Pakistan as an opportunity to assert their country’s independence.

U.S. and NATO commanders in Afghanistan also resent what they see as Pakistan’s unwillingness to stop militants from attacking their troops from hideouts in Pakistan. U.S. Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright recently told Congress that 30-40% of the attacks in Afghanistan come from Pakistan, an increasing proportion. American commanders may not need much persuasion to fire on Pakistani forces if they are seen to be getting in the way of militant targets. Even a standoff could accidentally escalate into all-out hostilities.

If substantial casualties ensue, Islamabad and Washington might be hard-pressed to soothe popular calls for revenge.

Courtesy: Toward Freedom

Related posts:

1. Gen. David Petraeus: Pakistan Faces Threat to Existence LONDON - U.S. Gen. David Petraeus warned Monday that combat...
2. Bush Had No Plan to Catch Osama bin Laden This month's Economist announces the Terrorism Index for 2008, in...
3. If Only The Roles Reversed - Pakistan Invades America I spotted this online today and thought... if only the...

An interesting commentary by Dr. Shahid Masood, one of Pakistan’s leading political analysts, in The News.

“The media’s power is frail. Without the people’s support, it can be shut off with the ease of turning a light switch.” – Corazon Aquino

By playing into the hands of the establishment, the media wreaks havoc in the name of ‘national interest’— it fails to give the real picture and ends up by only preparing recipes for disaster. And this cuts both ways— creating a blatant sense of superiority of power on the one hand and causing despondency and loss of faith in the system on the other. When the freedom of the press is curbed on the pretext of safeguarding ‘national interest’, it is a clear case of further tyranny being created. Unfortunately, since the creation of Pakistan, the media has been misused, manipulated and subverted on numerous occasions, regime after regime, government after government— all in the name of ‘national interest’.

I often wonder what constitutes ‘national interest’. Is it the realization of the dreams of a chosen few who are enjoying the fruits of power or the wishes and aspirations of the masses struggling to make ends meet? Is highlighting corruption and nepotism in the establishment not in ‘national interest’? Is protecting those accused of heinous crimes in ‘national interest’? Is twisting facts to suit a political party in ‘national interest’? The jury may be out on what are the parameters defining the real role of the media but it is critical to realize that ‘national interest’ cannot be arbitrarily used as a tool to silence the voice of reason. More importantly, if the message is bad, you cannot shoot the messenger.

The recent decision by the government to impose restrictions on live transmission is another regressive step that will only make matters worse for civil society in Pakistan. Efforts are being made to justify this move by citing Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (PEMRA) regulations. If the media has to take permission before telecasting live, then what happens to emergency situations in matters of public interest? Imagine the US media being under such a ban when 9/11 was happening. Does it make any sense for the government to disallow going live when pitched battles are taking place on the streets? Another charge against the media is that it exaggerates and sensationalizes issues and events. If the O J Simpson case was a classic case of exaggeration and sensationalism by the media, the Pakistani media should take respite from the fact that it has never stretched its boundaries.

I agree that the army should not be made a subject of ridicule and contempt, but what happens if an army chief dons the garb of a politician and is hell-bent on chewing the fruits of labor on both counts? Isn’t that adding fuel to the fire? President Musharraf has always proclaimed that he has championed the cause of the media. He never fails to take credit for the freedom of the press in Pakistan in recent years. What he forgets is that any independence is gained and fought for, and not granted, and that the media in Pakistan has snatched independence from the jaws of autocracy. The logic sounds as convoluted as the British claiming to grant independence to Pakistan as opposed to Pakistan having gained it. And even if such a thing as media freedom exists in Pakistan, why do we hear cases of cable blackouts? Which law of the country allows such throttling of the freedom of the press?If the media has taken the responsibility of highlighting issues in the larger interest of the society, it is only performing its duty. If the media chooses to debate subjects that would define the future of the nation and help succeed in building a consensus between different segments of the society, it only helps the establishment achieve an objective that would otherwise have been difficult to accomplish. In hindsight, if issues of balance of power, strengthening of democratic institutions and safeguarding of civil rights had been discussed without malice by the media decades earlier, things would not have come to such a pass today.

We must also learn from the pages of history how spreading lies through the media in the name of ‘national interest’ proved counter-productive in the long run and how the country had to pay a heavy price for allowing propagandist elements take things in their own hands. The narration of ‘zulm ki daastaan’ (tales of torture) on national television after the ouster of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is a case in point. Traditionally whenever military regimes have gone out with a vengeance to clip the wings of their opponents, the results have always been calamitous as is happening in today’s Pakistan. The failure to debate implications of successive federal budgets with high defence allocations in the past meant that more important areas such as health and education suffered owing to a lack of resources. If only the media was allowed to play its rightful role during those eventful decades, it would have criticized such a policy and things would have been vastly different today. We would then certainly have had a better pen-to-missile ratio.

Just as in politics, the media too has no permanent friends or enemies. The western media had in the aftermath of 9/11 declared General Pervez Musharraf as its greatest ally in its war on terror. Today, the same media is asking Musharraf to do more, raising questions about the US administration’s backing of the government in Islamabad. That only goes to show that the so-called ‘national interest’ can be a very myopic view of the reality and can induce governments to take wrong decisions.

The argument being used to justify gagging the media is that in the US and in other developed countries it stands behind the government in hours of need for the sake of ‘national interest’. While the basic premise of this contention is inaccurate, if not flawed, the hazards of such an approach has also translated into disastrous foreign policy decisions. The American media had an important role to play in the days leading up to the Iraq war and if it had not largely toed the government line, the Bush administration may have been spared of the ignominy it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Isn’t this a classic example of how bulldozing the media in the name of ‘national interest’ can lead to disastrous consequences and tarnish the country’s image across the world as has happened in the case of the US?

In Pakistan, successive governments have found different, and sometimes innovative, ways of imposing restrictions on the media. Even though it would be wrong to suggest that the media is above board and should be beyond scrutiny, this judgement should largely be left to the viewing public instead of letting the establishment become the final arbiter. Two examples are worthy of mention. Doha-based Al Jazeera television, despite taking on totalitarian regimes and exposing dictators, has gained overwhelming support from the viewing public. It has succeeded in holding a mirror to society, something that is in every society’s long-term interest. In India, the fourth estate has worked as a crusader of justice and has helped expose corruption at high offices, thereby empowering the masses.

The media may lose this latest war to the powers that be but it will at least be known to have put up a fight, in the larger interest of the society. If the media is not performing its role in an unbiased and objective manner, it will only lose respect from those who matter most— the viewing public

Related posts:

1. The Darkest Day In Pakistan Yesterday was one of the darkest days in Pakistan’s...
2. Ifs and Buts of Separation of Power EDITORIAL (May 30 2007): There is a story in the...
3. Politicizing the CJP affair - Anwar Syed This Op-Ed piece was picked up from the Sunday Daily...

ARYOne World is currently breaking the story with the footage of members of the Karachi Bar Association practicing vigilante justice on the journalists from ARY, Indus TV and other channels.

Geo TV, the nation’s largest television news channel, has put the story on their website:

KARACHI: The lawyers here losing temper for reasons yet unknown attacked journalists, beat them up, broken their camera, tore their clothes and drove them away bleeding from their protest rally, which they had staged against the presidential reference and making the Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry non-function.

The rallies coming out from the Sindh High Court and the City Court reached M.A. Jinnah Road, when some persons in black coat thrashed a camera man of a private television and broke his camera, which the journalists strongly protested and boycotted the coverage of the lawyers’ rally. Later, some persons from among the rally reaching near Quaid’s mausoleum once again attacked the journalists with sticks and injured several of them.

The lawyers held a meeting at the Quaid’s mausoleum and thereon dispersed peacefully, while the journalists staging a sit-in for some time on the M.A. Jinnah Road resenting the lawyers’ perpetration of violence on them and the police and administration remaining silent spectators, also dispersed peacefully.

What I find funny, is that it was the journalist community that was the first to support the attorney’s strike against the referendum against the suspended Chief Justice and today, they become the targets of the aggression.

Like I said in a previous post, the problem with Pakistan is that the attorneys are just as corrupt as the police, so who are you to trust? After today, never an attorney.

Those of you that remember a few weeks back when the Geo offices were attacked in Islamabad, the entire world condemned the Pakistani government and the police for not doing anything to protect the free media. The international media even dared to suggest that President Musharraf or his government was behind the attack on Geo because of its open journalistic policies. Yet, BBC, CNN and the other international networks that were quick to break that story have not even reported this.

Where in the CNN story or BBC story about the hearing today in Islamabad have you mentioned the attack on the media in Karachi? Is that just not newsworthy or does the international media not have the time to cover the rest of the story?

Where are your international correspondents now that were screaming that the attack on the Geo offices was an attack on the freedom of the press?

Why haven’t any of your channels picked up this attack on the media?

In your opinion, is this justifiable when it is not the government or the police doling out the justice?

[ratings]

Related posts:

1. The Darkest Day In Pakistan Yesterday was one of the darkest days in Pakistan’s...
2. Johnston Freed! After 115 days in captivity, BBC reporter Alan Johnston was...
3. Geo Transmission Break? While watching GEO around 12:30 today, they were discussing the...

Yesterday was one of the darkest days in Pakistan’s rich history. One of our most trusted institutions was violated here and here.

Yesterday, Geo News was broadcasting the protesters in front of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Islamabad, that were objecting to the Judicial hearing against Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftekhar. During this coverage, Geo News broke to another area of Islamabad, Blue Area, where police and protesters had started throwing rocks at each other, and the police were firing tear gas and rubber bullets. Most of you have seen the coverage on the international news channels.

While this was going on…. A small band of Punjab police officers stormed the Geo News offices in Islamabad shattering windows, firing tear gas and rubber bullets, and assaulting employees of the company. A small band of police officers.

This was broadcast live on Geo News.

The Federal Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani seeing what happened, came immediately to Geo’s offices when this transpired and brought it to a halt. More importantly, with the authority of the President and Prime Minister, Geo continued to broadcast the raid and the aftermath at their own offices.

This government enacted freedom of the press, issuing TV broadcasting licenses to anyone that wanted to start a TV channel. So how could this government malign an institution that it’s work so hard to establish? It didn’t.

President Musharraf stepped to the table first, speaking via telephone to Hamid Mir, one of Geo’s shining stars, apologizing for what happened, calling it a national tragedy and promising immediate action against the people that committed this travesty of justice. “I want justice tonight!” said President Musharraf.

Federal Minister for Information Muhammad Ali Durrani, speaking live from Geo’s studios in Islamabad, promised to pursue this to the very end and get justice against these rogue police officers, adding that if the government didn’t fulfill its promise and bring these people to justice, he would not be able to continue to serve.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz spoke with Geo last night and visited the Islamabad offices today, promising due and swift justice for the people that were involved with this incident.

For the first time in the history of the nation, the government leadership apologized and took responsibility for what happened.

But this is a trait that is intrinsic in the Pakistani police. This is not the first time.

They believe that they are above the law, because they are the law. Until the Musharraf government came into power, the police were an institution that was untouchable. They file police reports if they want to, otherwise they will tell you they can’t do anything. They take bribes as if it were part of their salary to collect money from citizens for violating the laws of Pakistan. Most crimes are planned and covered up with police assistance. Pakistan is in a law and order situation because of these losers!

Now, in the rest of the world, to put on a police uniform, it requires a strong moral and educational background, an understanding of the laws and law enforcement, regular training courses to update skills and understandings, and a graduation from a police academy.

What does it take to become a cop in Pakistan? You need a 10th grade education and to be able to pass a physical fitness test. That’s it. Nothing more. When your police force is made up of high school dropouts that don’t know any of the laws that they are supposed to be enforcing, what do you expect to happen to the law and order?

What happened yesterday is part of what the Pakistani police are about.

When someone joins the police force in Pakistan, they do it because they are unemployable anywhere else. Unemployable. When someone joins the police force in Pakistan, they do it with money in their eyes. A typically police officer makes about Rs. 5000 (US$ 100) per month and takes about Rs. 3000 (US$ 50) in bribes daily. They don’t do it to serve and protect the nation and it’s people; they do it to make a fast buck for themselves, while terrorizing Pakistanis.

What happened yesterday is a tragedy of the highest proportion because it was an attack on the voice of Pakistanis, the media. If we can not be guaranteed a free voice because of ruthless police officers, then what can we expect from any government?

This morning, The News announced that 14 police officers had been suspended during the night for their involvement in the incident at Geo and that a federal judicial inquiry was initiated to determine additional members of the police, government or political parties that may have had a hand in the ransacking of the Geo offices.

Mr. President, we want them to be brought on television for the entire nation to see.
We want an example made of them so that no one ever dares to touch our freedom of speech.

Mr. President, we want you to show us that you are still committed to “Pakistan First!”

And to our brothers and sisters at Geo…

You are in our prayers and thoughts each moment of the day. We will not tolerate what was done yesterday. We will not accept anything less that harsh and final justice for these rogue elements of our society that dared to impede press freedoms that are guaranteed in Pakistan’s constitution. You are our voice. You are our conscience. You are our souls.

Everyday, you all put yourselves in harms way to make sure that Pakistan and the world see Pakistan for Pakistan.

We shall not.

We can not.

We will not allow the police to continue to trample our freedoms to continue their high-handedness and irreverence of the laws that they are to uphold.

Khadam Barhao, Khadam Barhao, Hum Tumaray Sath Hai… Geo Jeetay Raho!

Related posts:

1. Karachi Lawyers Attack Media With Batons ARYOne World is currently breaking the story with the...
2. Lal Masjid - Firing Begins In Islamabad With the start of the conflict between Lal Masjid and...
3. Geo Transmission Break? While watching GEO around 12:30 today, they were discussing the...

As reported by all the international media outlets, Pakistan’s government has come to a “peace treaty” of sorts with the militants that are based in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to end years of unrest. The North Waziristan accord calls on the tribesmen to expel foreign militants and end cross-border attacks in return for a reduced military presence. This story has been posted on the following international media venues: BBCnews.com, Washington Post, MSNBC, and biased FOXNews. Domestically, the story was credited to GEO TV, but was also carried by Jang and DAWN, which are Pakistan’s largest media outlets. All of the above media sources have reported the same story throughout their news publications.

But ABCNews.com made a huge error in reporting that “If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden ‘would not be taken into custody,’ Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, ‘as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen.’”

What makes this a major error is that all of the other media source have no comment from Major General Shaukat Sultan, who is Director General – ISPR. Whereas, the above sources have quoted Zaman Khan Shah, Director General - Media Civil Secretariat (FATA) , but not with any statement that comes close to matching what ABC News has on its website. Zaman Khan is only quoted with providing the details of a military force reduction in the area in return for an end to fighting inside Pakistan and cross-border fighting in Afghanistan. This error in reporting comes on the heals of an embarrassing incident involving ABC News distributing copies of the “Path to 9/11” script to its preferred bloggers to generate a false buzz around the television series, which included numerous incorrect statements about the events that lead up to the September 11th tragedy.

Additionally, Major General Shaukat Sultan, Pakistan’s top army spokesman on Wednesday vehemently denied a news report quoting him as saying Osama bin Laden would not be taken into custody if he agrees to live peacefully in the country.

“This is absolutely fabricated, absurd. I never said this,” Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan told The Associated Press, referring to an ABC News report aired hours earlier.This is the second reporting error by the international media in regards to events in Pakistan. Last week, Nic Robertson, a CNN Correspondent, incorrectly reported that due to the violence in Baluchistan surrounding Akbar Bugti’s death, President Musharraf had ordered certain news channels to suspend transmission, which was not repeated in any of the related news stories on its website. Nor, is it true. Since we have the local news channels on all day in our offices, we can confirm that no channel suspended transmission during the Akbar Bugti violence spree, instead they all covered the violence and the government response with fervor, even through to today.

I guess if you are going to blow a news story, you might as well blow it really badly.

UPDATE:

Since the posting and the denial by Major General Shaukat Sultan, ABCnews has updated their website with his recorded comments:

Q. ABC News: If bin Laden or Zawahiri were there, they could stay?

A. Gen. Sultan: No one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.

Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn’t be taken into custody? He would stay there?

A. Gen. Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.

General Sultan said today it was “hair splitting” to speculate whether troops would be sent in if bin Laden was found in North Waziristan.

“If someone is found there, we will see what is to be done,” General Sultan said today. “Pakistan is committed to the war on terror, and of course we will go after any terrorist found to be operating here,” he said.

In the process of updating their news, they deleted the 250 comments that had been made in regards to the first story, most of which were calling for Pakistan to be invaded and bombed for supporting terrorism and bin Laden. Fortunately, I have a saved copy of the whole page on my laptop and can reference the comments.

You can read the statement issued by Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, here and here.

When you have FIX News to portray the far right ideals and beliefs of the Bush Administration, it would make sense that ABC News would take the time to confirm the whole story and make sure they quote the source correctly. General Sultan categorically said in his comment that “they would have to surrender.”

First, a false documentary on the events of 9/11 and now a grossly misquoted statement about Pakistan’s commitment to the War on Terror. Guess the boys at ABC want to stay on Dubya’s good side, rather than report the news.

Reminds me of the National Enquirer.

Related posts:

1. Karachi Lawyers Attack Media With Batons ARYOne World is currently breaking the story with the...
2. Say It Ain’t So Nic Robertson - Part I This is the first part of a review of Nic...
3. Bush Had No Plan to Catch Osama bin Laden This month's Economist announces the Terrorism Index for 2008, in...