Juan Cole is one of my favorite writers on Islam and the Western world. On his blog today, he provides an alternative look at the recently issued National Intelligence Estimate on Pakistan that paints us as a country “on the edge, with no money, no energy and no government.” It expresses a fear that an unstable Pakistan will become the center for al-Qaeda operations.

I leave it to Juan to explain (emphasis is my addition):

The situation in Pakistan for ordinary people is indeed tough. Fuel and wheat prices have skyrocketed.

But all along, a third of the population has had to live on less than a dollar a day and the NIE wasn’t so worried about them a few years ago.

But I’m suspicious that all the talk about instability and ‘no government’ is really a way of saying that US intelligence agencies liked having a military dictatorship there much better than they like having an elected parliamentary regime.

Actually, the Pakistani bureaucracy does a fairly good job for a third world country, and the employees of the bureaucracy at the non-political level don’t change with the change of governments. I don’t know what they mean by ‘no government.’ The elected government headed by the Pakistan People’s Party has a majority and is not in danger of falling. The new president, Asaf Ali Zardari, is widely thought to be corrupt, but then the impeachment charges prepared against ousted military dictator Pervez Musharraf alleged the same thing of him, so it is hard to see how things have gotten worse in that regard.

The campaign of bombings and attacks by the Tehrik-i Taliban guerrillas of the Pushtun tribal agencies are worrisome, but life goes on in big cities such as Lahore, which are distant from the tribal areas, despite occasional attacks there.

Moreover, the Pushtuns of the North-West Frontier Province voted in a secular party in the last elections, and even a lot of people in the tribal areas oppose the neo-Taliban.

American reports about Pakistan are schizophrenic, because they say the Pakistani army is not fighting the Taliban. But the Pakistani military has chased 300,000 from their homes in Bajaur, one of 7 tribal agencies, and has engaged in firefights with dissident Muslim groups there. I mean, what do the authors of the NIE want?

The Pakistani military admittedly does not attack the Pushtun tribes it is paying to make trouble in southern Afghanistan, but then their activity is abroad and directed from Islamabad. The Mohmands and other tribes in Bajaur have been fighting the Pakistani military, which has hit them hard in retaliation.

The idea that the 3.5 million Pushtuns of the tribal areas could take over a country of 165 million with one of the most professional armies in Asia is just silly.

The most worrisome thing that has happened in the past year from my point of view was the 3-day orgy of destruction engaged in by Sindhis after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last December, suggesting that Sindhi subnationalism was extremely strong. But the PPP is a party rooted in Sindh, though it has supporters in the other provinces, and its ascendancy should assuage Sindhi feelings. Sindhis make up about 25% of the Pakistani population.

If Pakistan can whether the ethnic tensions in the rest of the country, surviving the terrorist attacks emanating from the tribal areas will be easy.

People who know Pakistan well are more afraid of the right wing elements in the Pakistani military (whom the CIA has long funded and coddled) than they are about an elected civilian government being weak or corrupt.

Related posts:

1. Pakistan Leaders Must Act Decisively after Deadly Marriott bombing - LA Times ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- More than any other terrorist attack in...
2. Battle of Bajaur: A Critical Test for Pakistan’s Daunted Military - NY Times PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A full-scale battle in a remote corner...
3. Akbar Bugti - Update Yesterday, the Government of Pakistan provided additional information about the...

I saw this online today about a protest by some Pakistani-Americans in Chicago and am posting for your consumption. I noticed that Teeth Maestro had commented on this article on the original site, but I was shocked at some of the hatred that people show towards Pakistan.

A group of Pakistani-Americans and anti-war activists delivered a letter today to the Chicago office of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, calling on him to cool political rhetoric about bombing targets in Pakistan.

“We are particularly concerned with your public pronouncements earlier this week in support of violating the borders of our ally, the country of Pakistan…,” the letter says. “You must understand the sweeping dismay that your avowed support for U.S. military incursions into Pakistan … has elicited among untold numbers of Pakistani-Americans and peace activists across the country.”

Ifti Nasim, the host of a Pakistani radio show in Chicago called Sargam, said the U.S. was “making a mistake” by “attacking Pakistan and making Pakistan your enemy.”

He and other protesters criticized U.S. military incursions into Pakistan’s tribal areas in the northwest part of the country to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda targets. They also decried the Bush administration’s use of unmanned military drone aircraft, which has resulted in civilian deaths.

Said Umar Khan said his hometown of Mardan outside Peshawar in Pakistan’s troubled North-West Frontier Province has seen a wave of displaced people escaping fighting in the tribal areas. A recent explosion rocked his sister’s home, damaging windows and walls, he said.

Negotiations with Taliban leaders–not Pakistani or U.S. military actions–will end the violence, Khan said.

The tough rhetoric against Pakistan in the presidential campaign has left many Pakistani-Americans wondering which candidate to support.

“McCain and Obama are the same,” said Raja M. Yaqub, chairman of the Coalition of Pakistani Organizations in Chicago. “Muslims and Pakistani Americans are confused over who they should vote for.”

On Thursday, Obama campaign officials restated his comments from the debate earlier this week. They added that Obama understands Pakistan is an “important ally” and is also calling for a partnership with the South Asian nation through increased U.S. aid for health, education and security.

When you read the comments, there is a vicious strain of “kill of the Pakistanis” in the thread. Many wanted to bomb Pakistan until we “hand over bin Laden,” like we have him under military protection. Another said that “if you don’t want us to cross your borders, don’t be a haven for terrorists,” interesting coming from a country that hid behind the Pakistan Army and the Mujahideen against the Soviet Army. The resounding call for US-based Pakistanis (legal and illegal) to go back to their home country was my favorite.

When the first Gulf War happened, I was living in the US and one of these illiterate, unplanned pregnancies walked up to me and told me the same. My answer, “I’m Pakistani, not Iraqi, you dumb shit.”

My answer to you today, “I’m a Pakistani, not a Terrorist, you stupid shit.”

Here’s what I don’t understand… on one hand that don’t know why there is so much anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and on the other hand, they hate us so much that they want to bomb our country until they prove that they were wrong about bin Laden being in Pakistan. 

But let’s be honest, the US military is already negotiating its exit strategy from Afghanistan by re-installing the Taliban as part of the government. And even then negotiating through the Saudis. 

So tell me this, since its the Taliban, and not Pakistan, that has given Osama bin Laden a home and protection for so many years, does anyone in the US think that once you broker a power sharing deal with them, they will hand him over? Are you really that stupid?

Otherwise, what would be the reason to broker a peace deal with the people that had a hand in the planning and attack on 9/11 without getting bin Laden or any other high value al-Qaeda target?

Karzai may be a US puppet, I guarantee the Taliban is not.

Source: Chicago Breaking News

Related posts:

1. The Long Road to Chaos in Pakistan Hours after a truck bomber slew 53 people last weekend...
2. Bush Had No Plan to Catch Osama bin Laden This month's Economist announces the Terrorism Index for 2008, in...
3. Say It Ain’t So Nic Robertson - Part I This is the first part of a review of Nic...

Looking at the global economic collapse and the state of Pakistan’s economy, our government and citizens need to take some prudent steps to keep Pakistan from slipping into “failed state.” I would like to suggest some possible remedies. I preface by saying that certain things were promised when individuals took office and made promises from the floor of the Parliament, which have not been followed, so let’s start with those.

I started this list in anger over the continuous price hikes passed to the citizens, while the government celebrates, and would like anyone and everyone to add on to it.

1. When Prime Minister Gilani took office as Prime Minister, he promised to lower the budget of PM House and his office by 40%. 

We know that this hasn’t happened and probably has increased by the same percentage. Mr. Prime Minister, you have no reason to travel around Pakistan giving speeches or attending lunches/dinners, as you have yet to deliver on any of the promises that your government made since taking office. 

Also, since the elected government and the political party leadership are targets of suicide bombers, it would be best if you kept yourself contained at PM House, where you can best serve the nation.

2. Reduce the budgets of ALL government offices to bare minimum.

It is pretty clear to all of the citizens of Pakistan that the elected/appointed leadership of Pakistan is enjoying the spoils of government, while watching the country disintegrate. While we enjoy the promises and statements that come out of the government in regards to reducing loadsheding and atta prices, since there has been no work done there, someone must sacrifice. The people have sacrificed enough, now it’s your turn.

3. Reduce the budget of the President’s office

Since the “Parliament is supreme” and in a parliamentary system, the President is just a figurehead to unify the country, the President’s office budget should be slashed to what the constitutional responsibility is, a figurehead. 

President Zardari even promised in his inauguration that he would personally reduce the spending of the President’s office, including Awan-e-Sadr. 

4. To inspire investor confidence, please move your offshore foreign accounts back to Pakistan.

When you ask someone for money to help your country, the first question they will ask you is what have you done? If you are not able to show loyalty and sincerity to the country that you are hoping to “save,” it makes it difficult for any foreign country or investor to be willing to put money into Pakistan for development or investment.

To that effect, any member of the Provinicial or National Assembly, Senators, Ministers, Advisors, Chief Ministers, Governors, Prime Minister and President, along with the leadership of each of the “national” political parties should transfer all their forex balances back to bank accounts in Pakistan. 

Be clear, I am not asking you to return your money to the national exchequer because that would be impossible, but if you move your money back to Pakistan’s banks, it would stabilize the banks and show confidence to potential investors and donors that the elected government BELIEVES that they can “save Pakistan.”

5. No more unneeded foreign visits or tours

Pakistan is a poor country. Our elected leaders keep telling us, and showing us with their policy decisions that we are running out of money and fast. Therefore, Pakistan can no longer afford to pay for trips to Dubai, London or any other country for the different elected offices. Since the global giants that have financed Pakistan in the past are going through their own economic collapses, there is really no reason to go and beg them for money in return for favors.

Airplane fuel is extremely expensive. What is spent on a flight to Dubai and back for President Zardari to visit family members could feed a village for a month.

And please don’t say that he is paying the airfare from his own pocket.

6. No more stupid domestic visits

In all actuality, no one wants to meet the elected leadership of Pakistan. Partly because of the security risk that they are, being targets of suicide bombers, and partly that there is really no point in talking to an MPA, MNA, Senator, Minister or anyone else. There is no money to be passed around in grafts and gifts, so there is no reason to travel around promising money to different people and organizations.

Nor does the nation have money to pay for big meals and fanfare when someone from the government decides to grace their village, town or city.

You are punishing us for electing you to power and it is unforgivable, but nothing new to the body Pakistani.

7. No more grants to associations and groups that helped get your government elected.

Since the PPP government has come into power, it has been open season on rewarding their own supporters for getting them elected. This must stop. Pakistan is in the middle of a major financial crisis and your government is just creating more debt.

Instead of rewarding the different groups for getting you elected, please spend that money on improving education or health care.

Professional organizations can generate their own money, how does a government school get the money for books, teachers and utilities if the government doesn’t provide it?

8. End the VIP culture

Since this was again promised from the Parliament floor by the newly elected Prime Minister, we expect this to happen immediately. There is no reason that a poor country like Pakistan should have it’s elected leaders travelling around in 20 car caravans to enlarge their egos. It is both a security risk and a waste of money for the government and the poor citizens that have to sit in their vehicles waiting for your ego to pass by.

Take a hint from Iran and President Ahmedinejad. They have petro-dollars and the President lives in the same flat as before he was elected and rides a bicycle to work. 

Sad our political egos are so big that we would rather starve our population than sacrifice a perk.

9. Pay your taxes

It is a resounding embarassment for Pakistanis that work day-in and day out to earn money while the elected leadership of Pakistan has never paid its fair share in taxes. Never. If you would like to refute this, please publish your comprehensive wealth/income statements and allow the media to investigate how much taxes have been paid. This applies to all members of government, not just the elected ones. 

The true question here is: Do you feel the Constitution of Pakistan is a legal document that should be honored? If so, then you should realize that it is your constitutional responsibility to follow the laws that are created by the Parliament and the government, under the authority that same Constitution provides you, then the responsibility to pay your taxes is non-negotiable. 

10. Be Pakistani

After all of these things, I come to the most important point. Be Pakistani. 

While many of our elected/appointed officials enjoy all the spoils of the government, they also enjoy the ability to make a run for it whenever they see things getting bad. As a matter of respect to the nation, renounce your citizenship in any country other than Pakistan. When you show us that you are here no matter what, we might believe more that you are sincere in fixing the problems this nation suffers from.

This includes bringing any children who are not of University age back to Pakistan and enrolling them in schools here. When you trust our education system with your children, we might entrust our country to your government.

And by being Pakistani, you take ownership to evolve Pakistan into a true democratic state.

11. A Real Truth and Reconciliation

I still, along with many other Pakistanis, don’t understand your view of Truth and Reconciliation. In the South African model, a commission was formed where each person who had been charged, fairly or unfairly, comes before the commission and ADMITS to what they have done. The Commission then determines what the reconciliation process is. You don’t just get to say “we have reconciled the nation,” uphold an NRO and say it’s done. The people demand answers to the numerous accusations and arrests that have been made since the first political government.

If you can’t do this, then please stop saying that you have are following anyone’s reconciliation process. Personally, I know of no one who accepts an apology and forgives someone without knowing what they are forgiving. That is asking a lot of a nation and its people. 

Have we not suffered enough for the past 61 years that this farce should be passed over on the people of this great nation?

As a nation, we all cringe when we hear “Parliament is supreme” and that you “have Pakistan and Pakistanis best interests at heart.” We know that it is rhetoric and not a Quranic ayat or Hadiths, so please actions instead of words.

We saw yesterday that the promised delayed payment deference from Saudi Arabia was refused, and I can assure that with the American economic crisis, they won’t have as much money to Pakistan in aid or grants. We need to tighten our own belts before we ask for USD 100 billion to stabilize our country.

In short, please be the example for the nation, not the excuse for continued failure.

Related posts:

1. “Pakistan on the Brink” - NIE Juan Cole is one of my favorite writers on Islam...
2. How Sarah Palin Rallied Pakistan’s Feminists - Time Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari would have expected that his...
3. Pakistan’s dilemma - Dr Muzaffar Iqbal Pakistan is in the grip of an explosive situation. There...

Lyndon Johnson once said of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover: “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.” In the dangerous arena of Washington politics, Johnson thought he needed a hatchet man. Who better than Hoover?

That’s pretty much how the Pakistani government viewed the Taliban, and how the Israeli government viewed even its most militant settlers. In the dangerous arenas of South Asia and the Middle East, Pakistan and Israel each thought they needed a hatchet man. The logic was simple: “They may be extremists, but they’re our extremists.”

Recent events show that it’s not so easy to, shall we say, control the direction that extremists point their business once you’ve let them into the tent. Turns out they may well focus it inward, even at the folks who created and nurtured them.

The truck bomber who killed 53 people at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, a favorite meeting spot of government officials and business people, was very likely part of the Taliban or a related group. Over a decade ago, Benazir Bhutto’s government in Pakistan started supporting the Taliban in an effort to exert Pakistani influence across the region. As the New York Times recently wrote, “Now they (the Pakistani government) are finding their home-schooled militants too strong to control.”

Israel is facing a strikingly similar set of circumstances with its most militant settlers. As the New York Times reports, “elements of Israel’s settler movement are resorting to extremist tactics to protect their homes in the occupied West Bank against not only Palestinians, but also Jews who some settlers argue are betraying them.” An Israeli professor well known for being critical of the settlements was recently wounded in a bomb attack. The prime suspects are the extremist wing of the settler movement. Those same groups recently distributed fliers offering a $300,000 award for anyone who murders a member of the progressive Israeli advocacy organization Peace Now. Even the Israeli army has been threatened and attacked by extremist settlers - battling everything from stones to acid when they followed the government order to remove settlements from the Gaza strip.

Let me cut some of you off before you even begin to write your comments: I am not comparing Israel and Pakistan, or the militant settlers and the terrorist Taliban. I don’t play the ‘who is the better extremist’ game. If you implored me to see your side - “Can’t you just understand why our extremists do what they do?!!!” - I might suggest that you went wrong at the “we”.

Whether you are Muslim or Jewish, Israeli or Pakistani - these are not your people. I don’t care if they speak the same language as you, use the same prayer book, call the same land home.

Extremists who bomb hotels or professors do not deserve the honor of being included in the tent of any religion or nationality.

There is no such thing as your extremists or my extremists, Jewish extremists or Muslim extremists. There are only extremists. The militant settlers and the terrorist Taliban - and anybody else willing to murder or maim to achieve ethno-religious dominance - they belong only to each other. 



They are the them. We are the we.

And once we figure out there are only two tents on earth - one for the people willing to accept reality and live together, and one for people who are willing to murder and maim to dominate - we’ll stop being tempted to let them into our tent in the false hope that they offer some type of protection.

Instead, we’ll banish them to their own tent, where they can piss on each other all they like.

Courtesy: The Washington Post

Related posts:

1. How To Squeeze Jihadi Culture Out of Pakistan - Vali Nasr Vali Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and...
2. Israel Should Quit Nearly All Occupied Land - Olmert JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel should withdraw from nearly all territory...
3. Problem, Not Solution - Dr. Hasan-Askari Rizvi Dr. Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a noted defense and political analyst in...

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...

Officially, the central bank holds $8.14 billion (£4.65 billion) of foreign currency, but if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may be only $3 billion - enough to buy about 30 days of imports like oil and food.

Nine months ago, Pakistan had $16 bn in the coffers.

The government is engulfed by crises left behind by Pervez Musharraf, the military ruler who resigned the presidency in August. High oil prices have combined with endemic corruption and mismanagement to inflict huge damage on the economy.

Given the country’s standing as a frontline state in the US-led “war on terrorism”, the economic crisis has profound consequences. Pakistan already faces worsening security as the army clashes with militants in the lawless Tribal Areas on the north-west frontier with Afghanistan.

The economic crisis has already placed the future of the new government in doubt after the transition to a civilian rule. President Asif Ali Zardari has faced numerous but unproven allegations of corruption dating from the two governments led by his wife, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated last December.

The Wall Street Journal said that Pakistan’s economic travails were “at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him”.

While Mr Musharraf’s prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, frequently likened Pakistan to a “Tiger economy”, the former government left an economy on the brink of ruin without any durable base.

The Pakistan rupee has lost more than 21% of its value so far this year and inflation now runs at 25 per cent. The rise in world prices has driven up Pakistan’s food and oil bill by a third since 2007.

Efforts to defer payment for 100,000 barrels of oil supplied every day by Saudi Arabia have not yet yielded results, while the government has also failed to raise loans on favourable terms from “friendly countries”.

Mr Zardari told the Wall Street Journal that Pakistan needed a bail out worth $100 billion from the international community.

“If I can’t pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?” he asked. “The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful.”

The ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has given Pakistan’s sovereign debt a grade of CCC+, which stands only a few notches above the default level.

The agency gave warning that Pakistan may be unable to cover about $3 billion in upcoming debt payments.

Mr Zardari is expected to ask the international community for a rescue package at a meeting in Abu Dhabi next month.

This gathering will determine whether the West is willing to bail out Pakistan.

Courtesy: The Telegraph

Related posts:

1. Taking a U-Turn from Failed State Looking at the global economic collapse and the state of...
2. Pakistan markets $750m bonds - Khalid Mustafa ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Thursday launched its Eurobond of $750 million...
3. Is Pakistan’s New President Up to the Job? Henry Chu has recently done a series of articles on...

When Pakistani fashion designer Honey Waqar said she was going to New Delhi to show her work at Bridal Asia 2008, Gillani gave her his full support. “Ms Waqar has been chosen as Pakistan’s fashion ambassador,” said a fax from Gillani’s office.

The letter, signed by the aide-de-camp to the prime minister, goes on to say, “The newly elected democratic government in Pakistan ably led by the PM himself, encourages all women to explore diversified fields in order to not only excel in their individual capacities but also to bring laurels to their country of origin, Pakistan.”

Unsurprisingly, Waqar is thrilled.

“I’ve shown my work in India and abroad many times before. But to actually be sent as a fashion ambassador, that too by the PM himself, is a great honour. It gives me the confidence that fashion is recognised as a strong industry and is taken seriously by this government. India and Pakistan have similar cultures and it’s very heartening to know that our prime minister is keen to bridge the gaps between both nations.”

It may be better if the gap is filled by salwars-kameez creations from Waqar’s repertoire, rather than strong rhetoric from either side on Kashmir and terrorism. At least some of the prime minister’s interest in this new-fashioned diplomacy may be explained by his wife, Fauzia’s work with the fashion industry. According to sources, Mrs Gillani herself was to be the guest of honour at the bridal wear exhibition but had to cancel in order to arrange her son’s October 11 wedding.

Though Waqar is not a career diplomat, there are signs she is learning the language of diplomacy in her new role as fashion envoy. India, she says, feels so like “home” that she never bothers to get her collection of outfits insured when she brings them here. “I use real jewels (pearls, emeralds, diamonds) on my clothes, so I need to have them insured when I take them out of Pakistan. But in India, I do no such thing. I feel at home here,” she says.

The fashion bonhomie will continue with Mehreen Syed, one of the two Pakistani models showing Waqar’s collection in India. Syed has been offered a role in a Bollywood film by Sanjay Chauhan, who wrote the dialogue for Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Maara.

Courtesy: Times of India

Related posts:

1. Zardari hugs Manmohan, says he’s a fan - IBN New York: Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari is the latest...

This month’s Economist announces the Terrorism Index for 2008, in which Pakistan is mentioned a few times. According to the report results, Pakistan is considered one the top nations to potential engage in the nuclear trade with terrorists, tied with North Korea, and the hands down winner on where the next al Qaeda stronghold will be.

Interesting when looking at it in the light of the Asia Times Online headline, Bush had no plan to catch Osama. Gareth Porter, an investigative journalists specializing in US national security policy, provides a very deep and disturbing look into the decision making process of the Bush administration and the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

According to the Asia Times Online story:

Top administration officials instead gave priority to planning for war with Iraq, leaving the United States with not nearly enough troops or strategic airlift capacity to close the large number of possible exit routes through the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area where Bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the US military was also forced to turn down an offer from then Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to intercept the al-Qaeda leaders. As Northern Alliance troops marched on Kabul with little resistance in November 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency had intelligence that Bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks “wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what’s going in and out”, according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward’s book Bush at War.

Bush responded that they would need to “press Musharraf to do that”.

Then after realizing that the US military wasn’t up to the task of stopping bin Laden from getting into Pakistan, General Franks ended up in Islamabad:

A deputy to Franks, Lieutenant General Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks’s request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book “Inside Centcom” that Musharraf had said he “couldn’t do that”, because it would spark a “civil war” with a hostile tribal population.

By the way, that civil war has started in Pakistan’s tribal areas and is spreading to our cities, did we say thank you for that?

But US ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong’s claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden’s exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, “Look you are missing the point: there are 150 valleys through which al-Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan,” according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was “a good time to begin”. The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn’t logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region - far more than was available.

So, now wait, I’m confused… you’re telling me that the US military doesn’t have the resources to assist the Pakistan Army in shifting forces from the India border to the Afghanistan border, and it’s our fault that America is losing the War on Terror? Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world, not Iraq, I recall an international publication putting it.

When you are not serious about your accomplishing your mission, then can you really say “Mission Accomplished?”

Franks did get 1,200 marines inserted into the area, but they would not be enough to patrol the 1,500 kilometer border. The American military also realized, at this point, that local tribal leaders wouldn’t be willing to assist them either because bin Laden had given them “millions of dollars.”

The article damns the Bush administration:

Had the Bush administration’s priority been to capture or kill the al-Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theater over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

“You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan,” said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush’s key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001 Rumsfeld refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, despite a National Security Presidential Directive that called for such planning, according to the 9-11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9-11 Commission, at four deputies’ meetings on Iraq between May 31 and July 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have US troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after September 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

….Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing Bin Laden’s escape to Pakistan.

So let’s get this clear, the US military abandoned Afghanistan to chase Iraq’s petro-dollars. In the process, the Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were able to escape into Pakistan, because “we weren’t doing enough” over and over again.

Now, as the US presidential election nears, we are learning that it’s not Pakistan’s fault that the War on Terror has failed. It’s America, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

Guess this wasn’t the October Surprise that McCain was looking for…

Related posts:

1. I’m A Pakistani, Not a Terrorist I saw this online today about a protest by...
2. Are Pakistan and the US on the Brink of War? As the United States steps up border raids into Pakistan,...
3. Pakistan Leaders Must Act Decisively after Deadly Marriott bombing - LA Times ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- More than any other terrorist attack in...

A very interesting interview with the Mayor of Kabul, President of Afghanistan to the rest of the world, Hamid Karzai.

I find it interesting to listen to his change in position on Pakistan and its involvement with the war on terror. But what is more interesting is how deftly he avoids questions about corruption and warlords in the Afghan parliament but a trying to talk about the great accomplishments he has been able to achieve. Seems like he went to the same diplomatic school as George Bush and Sarah Palin. Give it a listen and share your thoughts.

And if rumors are true, Zalmay Khalilzad will have some competition in his run for the Afghan presidency in the next elections since Karzai is planning to run again.

Related posts:

1. World Safer Place Because of Bush - Asif Zardari This morning's Daily Times carried a stunning headline for Pakistanis....
2. How Sarah Palin Rallied Pakistan’s Feminists - Time Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari would have expected that his...
3. Say It Ain’t So Nic Robertson - Part I This is the first part of a review of Nic...

The Acorn says that now is the time to drop trade barriers with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s economy is in a tailspin. Since the second last thing that the international community wants in Pakistan is an economic meltdown, Friends of Pakistan are coming together to provide emergency foreign aid.

The “Friends of Pakistan” are “Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Turkey, Australia and Italy plus the United Nations and the European Union.” Among these are nations - US, China, the Arab states, France, Britain - that give aid to Pakistan. The military component of the aid is what Pakistan uses to initiate and fight bloody wars with India. India, a desperately poor country, cannot afford these costly wars but it has to fight them because the Friends of Pakistan want that India bleeds. Pakistan is the instrument.

I can see the reason why the economic meltdown of Pakistan is certainly not in the interests of the Friends of Pakistan. The biggest dagger stuck in India’s rib would be pulled out and with it will disappear the prospects of selling arms to India, of keeping India engaged in 1,000-year jihads which Pakistan regularly declares against India. The Friends of Pakistan more certainly do not want Pakistan to fail. You too would get worried if the pit bull you have trained for years to attack suddenly is in danger of dropping dead.

The Friends of Pakistan have an interest in keeping the conflict between India and Pakistan alive. Why do I say that? I use the revealed preference argument. Basically it says that by freely choosing something, you reveal what you prefer. If you have the power to choose a “Pakistan Friendly to India” but instead choose a “Pakistan as a Sworn Moral Enemy of India”, you have revealed that you prefer that. I take it is obvious that the Friends of Pakistan could have easily enough told Pakistan that it should stop its belligerence towards India and concentrate on economic development. But they do not and that is why I believe that they have an interest in keeping Pakistan dependent on their money because Pakistan does their bidding.

Absent the conflict, the Indian subcontinent will develop differently and could in fact become economically prosperous and consequently exert an independent influence on the world. That independent influence could potentially alter the current power structure. As it is, controlling China is out of the question. They have had to make space for China. But they will be damned if India also becomes powerful.

Here’s how I imagine the Friends of Pakistan reasoning:

“Sure, there is a lot of talk in India about India becoming a ’super power.’ (snigger, snigger.) We are fine with India deluding itself into thinking that it is an economic superpower just because it has a lot of software coolies and call center operators. Good for them. It keeps them distracted.

“But let’s not forget that without Pakistan as a mill around India’s neck, India could have a decent shot at actually developing. We cannot afford the disintegration of Pakistan. To keep Pakistan in business is not such a costly affair, in any case. We’re rich enough to chip in a few billion dollars and they will do what we want them to do. The generals are not very expensive anyway. If we had to keep the civilian population happy, it would have been more expensive. But this is much cleaner. We buy the generals and give them shiny new fighter planes and even help with getting them a few nukes to jerk off over. In turn, the generals have the politicians eating out of their hands, and rule the starving population with an iron fist.

“Now let’s just pull together, shall we? The last thing we need is Pakistan disintegrating. We are not always on the same side of the table. But on this one we are as one. Even China needs to be - has to be - on our side. China especially sees the need for containing India. For the greater good, we all, we the Friends of Pakistan, have to make sure that we give just enough to keep the pit bull alive. It should be kept hungry. That dependence on us keeps it obedient to us and savage against India. Remember, not too much though. It should be hungry and mean, not fat and lazy.

“We have plied Pakistan with lots of military hardware. The economic collapse of Pakistan would be disastrous because the same hardware in the hands of the factions within Pakistan would be totally useless against India. It bloody defeats the bloody purpose. That cannot be allowed to happen.”

So yes, I do understand why Pakistan’s economic meltdown is not a good thing for the Friends of Pakistan. But is it good for India?

Now, India is not an enemy of Pakistan, as far as I can tell. From Mohandas to Jawahar to Inder to Atal to Manmohan (the sweetest name of all), they have been kissing Pakistan’s behind to make nice. Sadly, they all got knifed in the back for all their kissy-kissy.

Pakistan defines itself in opposition to India and has made India its mortal enemy. That is nothing that Pakistan has much of a choice over since it is the most important part of the ideological foundation upon which Pakistan was created. The moment Pakistan decides that it wants to be friends with India, it commits ideological suicide. That is not permitted although a battle against an infidel state in which Pakistan itself dies is ideologically permitted. Suicide bombers and those who get killed in battle against infidels do go to paradise.

Anyway, so back to the question: Is the meltdown of Pakistan good for India? My thesis is that it is. It will weaken the state that has sworn to destroy India - and if it cannot do it in one fell swoop, it will do it with a war of a thousand cuts (over a 1,000-year jihad, I presume.) So if Pakistan were to stop existing as an entity and fracture into a number of small warring states, it would be good for India.

What about the nukes? Did you know that the US was not born yesterday. Sure it did not actually give Pakistan the nukes as a Christmas gift. It merely allowed Pakistan to have them. And Pakistan’s possession of the nukes is at the pleasure of the US. Anytime that the US doesn’t want Pakistan to have them, it will bloody well take them away.

What having a big destabilized country on India’s western borders? Well, to begin with, India is not exactly having a fun time with a “stable” Pakistan, is it?

But I want to know how can one tell the distinction between a “stable” and an “unstable” Pakistan from an Indian point of view. Is it that a stable Pakistan wages wars against India once every 10 years and an unstable Pakistan wages wars every 10 months? How is one sure that a “stable” Pakistan is not more dangerous for India?

So back to the point that The Acorn raised. Should India liberalize trade with Pakistan? My answer is no. Not just that, my answer is that India should have NO trade with Pakistan. Trade with Pakistan is not practical, it is immoral, and last but not the least it makes no economic sense.

I should explicitly state that I have the greatest sympathy for the people of Pakistan. Caught between the devil (an ideology) and the deep blue sea (the powerful advanced industrialized countries who use it as a tool), they have little hope of escaping pain and misery. No wonder so many are willing to die and kill for the promise of a virgin-filled paradise. I wish it were otherwise but such is life.

It’s all karma, neh?

Courtesy: Deesha

Related posts:

1. Choosing Your Friends: Pakistan, The US and China While Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari is in the United...
2. Stable Pakistan not in India’s Interest - Cpt. Bharat Verma A Must Read for anyone who wants to understand the...
3. Zardari hugs Manmohan, says he’s a fan - IBN New York: Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari is the latest...