Pakistan

Archive for Tag “Pakistan”


911–A Decade Later: Lessons for the Future

It has been a decade since the Sept. 11 attacks shocked and angered our nation. What lessons have we learned since then? ARC will be hosting a symposium on this subject, titled “Sept. 11—A Decade Later: Lessons for the Future,” on September 8, in Washington, D.C. The program will feature three panel discussions, presenting a range of viewpoints.

If you can’t make this event, it will also be streamed live over the web starting at 1p.m. ET.

Check out the panel topics and speakers on the event’s site. You can also watch the live stream of the event from there.

On ARC’s Facebook page, you can read, watch, and listen to ARI’s numerous efforts throughout the last decade to push for an egoist foreign policy that puts the lives and individual rights of Americans first.


Pakistan’s deceit

If there were an award for the skill of delivering massive understatements with a straight face, William Daley, Obama’s chief of staff, should be on the shortlist of contenders. Speaking about Pakistan, he stated:

Pakistani officials “have taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we were giving to their military,” Daley said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Was it the redirection of U.S. military aid for the use, not of combatting Islamists (as promised), but arming Pakistani troops heading for Kashmir? Or was it the fact that the Pakistani regime (likely) allowed bin Laden safe haven within its borders? Or was it the nearly decade long charade in which the regime professes to be on our side, accepts billions of dollars in U.S. aid–yet arms, supports and shields Taliban and Islamist fighters in Afghanistan? Long indeed is the list of Pakistan’s deceitful actions. Possibly now our leaders will face up to the reality that for so many years they have been pushing out of mind.

image: wikipedia/CC


After Bin Laden: Pakistan’s cooperation?

The official line from Secretary of State Clinton is that we owe a debt of gratitude to Pakistan, our nominal ally, for its cooperation in the raid on the Bin Laden compound. What that “cooperation” really amounted to, remains to be seen. But this report from Dexter Filkins at The New Yorker suggests the contours of our actual relationship with Pakistan:

initial indications are that Pakistani military and intelligence officials may have provided some routine coöperation with the Americans but were not given the identity of the target. This makes sense: In recent months, American officials have stopped informing Pakistani officials ahead of time about the C.I.A.’s drone strikes against militants in the tribal areas, out of fear that they might be tipped off. (emphasis added)

That fear is well founded. Pakistani forces have in the past tipped off and given shelter to Islamist fighters.

Bin Laden’s compound was well within the borders of Pakistan (rather than in the lawless borderlands), less than a mile from a military base. Its unusual size and build make it stand out. . . . Maybe the regime had no knowledge of it (doubtful). Or, perhaps, as the evidence suggests, this news provides added reason to question whether Pakistan is an ally.


The Times Square car-bomb

Fortunately, the three tanks of propane and two jugs of gasoline in the back of the Nissan Pathfinder failed to blow up. It remains to be seen who is behind the Times Square bomb plot; the arrest of a suspect — a Pakistani native — may bring more details to light. But looking at the evidence left behind in the truck and contemplating the bombmaker’s mindset, one expert remarked: “I can tell you that [the bomber(s)] thought it was the atomic bomb.” The bomber(s) “have more desire than ability.”

A desire for destruction of human life on a large scale definitely fits the m.o. of Islamic totalitarianism, the ideological movement behind the 9/11 attacks (among others). It figures, then, that one Taliban outfit in Pakistan has leapt to claim responsibility for the attempted car-bombing in Times Square. The claim may prove to be mere propaganda to win a perverse cachet within the movement, but if it is unfounded, it nevertheless underscores their wish to bring their holy war (back) to our shores.

image: flickr


Ominous news about our pseudo-ally, Pakistan

thumb.phpHe’s been denounced for his “heinous role as maestro of the world’s largest nuclear black market” and branded “the merchant of death,” but new, more alarming details have emerged in the dark story of A.Q. Khan. A Pakistani nuclear scientist, Khan was charged with illicitly trading nuclear technology. The standard account portrayed him as a rogue scientist out for his own gain and operating independently of the Pakistani regime. But now it appears he was a dutiful servant of the Pakistani regime (our purported ally).

Read the rest of this entry »


Make-believe about Pakistan

After interviewing high-up officials in Pakistan’s military for two hours, the New York Times’s reporters came away with this gem: “Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said.” What’s more: the Pakistani regime is unhappy about the American military efforts against Islamists in next-door Afghanistan. Why? The fighting has resulted in some of the Islamists crossing the border into parts of Pakistan. Translation: quit bothering the Taliban across the border, and quit bothering us about fighting them within Pakistani borders.

Note that Pakistan’s army gets some $1 billion in U.S. aid every year, and that our forces work closely with Pakistan’s military to target Islamists. Officials in the Obama administration praise these operations, though they complain that:

… Pakistani authorities have chosen to fight Pakistani Taliban who threaten their government, while ignoring Taliban and other militants fighting Americans in Afghanistan or terrorizing India. …

[American officials believe] Pakistan was still picking proxies and choosing enemies among various Islamic militant groups in Pakistan.

The United States maintains that the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, leads an inner circle of commanders who guide the war in southern Afghanistan from their base in Quetta [a city in Pakistan].

When will the weight of evidence impugning Pakistan be sufficient to overturn the belief (esp. in Washington) that it is our ally — and lead us to change our policy toward it? Its record has been abysmal. And its “dialogue with the Taliban” has worked splendidly — for the Taliban. Just look at the deal enabling Islamists to impose sharia in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. But perhaps no amount of evidence will be enough. For the idea that Pakistan is our friend — or even  that it is the enemy of our enemy (i.e., the Islamist movement) — belongs in the realm of make-believe. The Obama policy of self-delusion on Pakistan — continuing in the footsteps of Bush — will cost us dearly.


In Pakistan we trust?

Sixty miles. That’s how close the insurgent Taliban/Al Qaeda forces have come to the capital city of Pakistan, Islamabad. The gains of these Islamist fighters — along with the broader strife along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border — prompts the question: could jihadists get hold of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? Perhaps so.

To me one of the most worrisome indicators is the idea that we can trust the Pakistani regime to lockdown its nuclear arsenal (or trust it to do anything else it promises). Monday’s NYT indicates the official line from Washington — and some of the facts that belie it.

Read the rest of this entry »


Pakistan’s descent

“Every day I see armed Taliban move around freely. At the time of prayer, if they see anyone in his shop or walking about, they whip him with a stick,” said a resident of the Swat Valley in Pakistan. Yet those who are whipped can count themselves lucky by comparison with a man and woman who were executed for the alleged crime of adultery. This is the grisly reality of Islamist rule now swallowing up chunks of Pakistan.

The brazenness of the Islamists is astounding; the other day the Taliban stopped a Pakistani Army convoy heading into Swat and forced it to turn back. In large measure this confidence stems from the so-called peace deal that allows them to enforce sharia law in Swat Valley.

But the Pakistani government’s surrender has had another, little noted, effect: it has understandably demoralized many Pakistani citizens. This poignant story in the NYT sheds light on the experience of people in the area of Buner. There are also reports that people elsewhere are contemplating an exodus, for fear of what will become of their lives under Islamist rule.

I’m not sure which has a greater demoralizing effect on the innocents in Pakistan–the growing strength of the Islamists, or their national government’s capitulation (and perfunctory military responses). My sense is that it’s the latter, because it enables the gains of so vile a movement as the Taliban.


The Talibanization of Pakistan?

What might Pakistan look like in the years to come? The nuclear-armed country may well look a lot like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Sounds like hyperbole? Consider the trend now unfolding in Pakistan: the national government struck a so-called peace agreement with Islamist kingpins in the North. In return for promising to end jihadist attacks within Pakistan, the Islamists were given the power to enforce sharia (Islamic law) in the Swat Valley. The Pakistani government recently signed this agreement into law. But as a Washington Post subhead puts it, “After Reaching Deal in North, Islamists Aim to Install Religious Law Nationwide.”

Several months back, when the deal was announced, I suggested that it was an outright surrender. Instead of living up to its stated goal of opposing the Islamists, by defeating them militarily, Islamabad has opted for the losing policy of appeasement — a policy that can only strengthen the jihadists. One concerned observer, a prof at Quaid-i-Azam university, told the Post that “The [national] government made a big mistake to give these guys legal cover for their agenda.”

It’s far worse than that. Read the rest of this entry »


Obama’s solution for the Afghanistan-Pakistan nightmare (part two)

Regarding the newly announced Obama strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan, I argued (in part one) that the administration’s solution is based on a misdiagnosis of the problem. Last time I focused on how the Afghanistan war was guided by a “compassionate” strategy that put concern for the welfare of Afghans ahead of the necessary goal of defeating the enemy. But in his speech, Obama assured the Islamists (which he evasively terms “terrorists”) that “we will defeat you.”

If only that were the focus of his strategy. But it’s not.

Read the rest of this entry »