Land of conspiracies
In a recent email exchange, one of the ideological founders of the country's largest left-oriented
By Ahmed Quraishi
September 16, 2008
In a recent email exchange, one of the ideological founders of the country's largest left-oriented parties said that he believed that the "core strategic objective of the US" was to "establish its control over the Pakistan Army – to weaken it when it is strong and strengthen it when it is weak but maintain total control over it." He went on to say that the only long-term potent weapon that the Pakistan Army has is "the support of the people of Pakistan". The support General Kayani received from the people on the few words he said about not allowing foreigners to violate the territory of Pakistan is extremely significant."
This is where the defeatist stance of Pakistan's elected government on US belligerence becomes inexplicable. Gen Kayani does not need votes. Those who do need them are wasting a perfect opportunity to earn more of them. That is why Prime Minister Gilani's statement saying 'Pakistan can't wage war with US' comes as a shock. Even if true, why would the prime minister say this because it only serves to deprive Pakistan of the strategic psychological impact created by the army chief's warning.
America has been a duplicitous ally during the past seven years, using Pakistani cooperation on Afghanistan to gradually turn that country into a military base to launch a sophisticated psychological, intelligence and military campaign to destabilize Pakistan itself.
In one sign of the grand double game, despite poor relations with Iran, Washington has encouraged Karzai and the Indians to complete the construction of a road that links Afghanistan to an Indian-built Iranian seaport. The purpose is to end the dependence of both the US army and the Karzai regime on Pakistan. The recent demonization of Pakistani intelligence agencies is a pretext.
Apologists for the US position need to understand that Pakistan has a legitimate right to protect it interests in the region. Everyone does. The problem is not our intelligence agencies. It is how Washington deliberately trampled on the legitimate interests of its ally in favour of strengthening the position of our competitors. Maybe, had the Americans been as considerate to us as we have been to them, our spies wouldn't have needed to re-establish contacts with the militants. If we are doing this, it is protect our interest.
Pessimists fear that if our military tries to block US border violations, there is a possibility of armed conflict. Also, in case of conflict, Washington is expected to signal to India to open a front in the east to divert Pakistani military resources. But Pakistan is not without options. In fact, the Pakistani position is stronger than what it appears to be. Islamabad can activate old contacts with a resurgent and rising Afghan Taliban inside Afghanistan. The entire Pakistani tribal belt will seize this opportunity to fight the Americans. There is a possibility that Pakistani tribesmen could cross the border in large numbers using secret routes to dodge aerial bombardment and join the Afghan Taliban and find their way to Kabul. The misguided and suspicious 'Pakistani Taliban' – whom the NWFP governor has described on Sept 12 as an extension of the US military in Afghanistan – will also come under pressure of the tribesmen and will be forced to target the occupation forces instead of fighting the Pakistani government and people.
But the situation between Islamabad and Washington does not have to come to this. Islamabad can help tip the scales in Washington against the hawks who want a war with Pakistan. Not all parts of the US government accept this idea and this must be exploited. Pakistan must make it clear that it will retaliate.
US military posturing aside, Washington has recently seen a string of diplomatic defeats. Russia has cut American meddling in Georgia to size. In Iraq, a coalition of Shia parties is forcing the Americans to set a timetable for departure. And both Bolivia and Venezuela have expelled US ambassadors, and, in Bolivia's case, the world has suddenly become alert to Washington's intrusive meddling in that country's domestic politics and the role of the US ambassador in fuelling separatism. This is not very different from the US role inside Pakistan, where American diplomats have caused political chaos by directly engaging the politicians.
The only way to entrap Pakistan now is to either orchestrate a spectacular terrorist attack on the mainland US and blame it on Pakistan, or to assassinate a high profile personality inside Pakistan and generate enough domestic strife to scuttle military resistance to US attacks. It's called realpolitik.
The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq @ahmedquraishi.com
This is where the defeatist stance of Pakistan's elected government on US belligerence becomes inexplicable. Gen Kayani does not need votes. Those who do need them are wasting a perfect opportunity to earn more of them. That is why Prime Minister Gilani's statement saying 'Pakistan can't wage war with US' comes as a shock. Even if true, why would the prime minister say this because it only serves to deprive Pakistan of the strategic psychological impact created by the army chief's warning.
America has been a duplicitous ally during the past seven years, using Pakistani cooperation on Afghanistan to gradually turn that country into a military base to launch a sophisticated psychological, intelligence and military campaign to destabilize Pakistan itself.
In one sign of the grand double game, despite poor relations with Iran, Washington has encouraged Karzai and the Indians to complete the construction of a road that links Afghanistan to an Indian-built Iranian seaport. The purpose is to end the dependence of both the US army and the Karzai regime on Pakistan. The recent demonization of Pakistani intelligence agencies is a pretext.
Apologists for the US position need to understand that Pakistan has a legitimate right to protect it interests in the region. Everyone does. The problem is not our intelligence agencies. It is how Washington deliberately trampled on the legitimate interests of its ally in favour of strengthening the position of our competitors. Maybe, had the Americans been as considerate to us as we have been to them, our spies wouldn't have needed to re-establish contacts with the militants. If we are doing this, it is protect our interest.
Pessimists fear that if our military tries to block US border violations, there is a possibility of armed conflict. Also, in case of conflict, Washington is expected to signal to India to open a front in the east to divert Pakistani military resources. But Pakistan is not without options. In fact, the Pakistani position is stronger than what it appears to be. Islamabad can activate old contacts with a resurgent and rising Afghan Taliban inside Afghanistan. The entire Pakistani tribal belt will seize this opportunity to fight the Americans. There is a possibility that Pakistani tribesmen could cross the border in large numbers using secret routes to dodge aerial bombardment and join the Afghan Taliban and find their way to Kabul. The misguided and suspicious 'Pakistani Taliban' – whom the NWFP governor has described on Sept 12 as an extension of the US military in Afghanistan – will also come under pressure of the tribesmen and will be forced to target the occupation forces instead of fighting the Pakistani government and people.
But the situation between Islamabad and Washington does not have to come to this. Islamabad can help tip the scales in Washington against the hawks who want a war with Pakistan. Not all parts of the US government accept this idea and this must be exploited. Pakistan must make it clear that it will retaliate.
US military posturing aside, Washington has recently seen a string of diplomatic defeats. Russia has cut American meddling in Georgia to size. In Iraq, a coalition of Shia parties is forcing the Americans to set a timetable for departure. And both Bolivia and Venezuela have expelled US ambassadors, and, in Bolivia's case, the world has suddenly become alert to Washington's intrusive meddling in that country's domestic politics and the role of the US ambassador in fuelling separatism. This is not very different from the US role inside Pakistan, where American diplomats have caused political chaos by directly engaging the politicians.
The only way to entrap Pakistan now is to either orchestrate a spectacular terrorist attack on the mainland US and blame it on Pakistan, or to assassinate a high profile personality inside Pakistan and generate enough domestic strife to scuttle military resistance to US attacks. It's called realpolitik.
The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aq @ahmedquraishi.com
-
‘Narcissist’ Andrew Still Feels ‘invincible’ After Exile -
Shamed Andrew ‘mental State’ Under Scrutiny Amid Difficult Time -
Bad Bunny's Super Bowl Halftime Show: What Time Will He Perform Tonight? -
Where Is Super Bowl 2026 Taking Place? Everything To Know About The NFL Showdown -
Chris Pratt Explains Why He And Katherine Schwarzenegger Did Premarital Counseling -
Drake 'turns Down' Chance To Hit Back At Kendrick Lamar At Super Bowl -
Sarah Ferguson Had A ‘psychosexual Network’ With Jeffrey Epstein -
Miranda Kerr Shares The One Wellness Practice She Does With Her Kids -
Czech Republic Supports Social Media Ban For Under-15 -
Khloe Kardashian Shares How She And Her Sisters Handle Money Between Themselves -
Prince William Ready To End 'shielding' Of ‘disgraced’ Andrew Amid Epstein Scandal -
Chris Hemsworth Hailed By Halle Berry For Sweet Gesture -
Blac Chyna Reveals Her New Approach To Love, Healing After Recent Heartbreak -
Royal Family's Approach To Deal With Andrew Finally Revealed -
Super Bowl Weekend Deals Blow To 'Melania' Documentary's Box Office -
Meghan Markle Shares Glitzy Clips From Fifteen Percent Pledge Gala