Militarily Troubled Pakistan and Terribly Administered Tribals

zeemax #45 Excuse me for not reading your post too carefully, and simply commenting on the first line which seemed like a request for comments on the Mush-BB deal-making.

I went back and read it more carefully, and see that the sentence with the specific question was "Is this what you liberal fascists are? Who tell lies all the time? "

This reduces your post to another in the piles of posts on chowk that are nothing more than gibberish: What is a "liberal fascist" if not a contradiction in terms, and therefore gibberish? And since when am I a supporter of BB (or any of the other third rate individuals seeking to come to power in Pakistan by hook or by crook?)

#48 Posted by GT,

What HP meant was that it was all orchestrated by the government.

But I get your point. What you mean is characters come and go, but the consequences remain.

arjun #29 What part of "any time it has had free elections." did you have trouble understanding?

#51 Posted by tahmed32 on July 30, 2007 12:41:45 pm

you had free elections in the 90s, didn't you? yet that's the time you became the fountainhead of islamic terrorism...that's the time when you had john jihad walker training at a madrassah in the land of the pure..that's the time you had the indigenous kashmiri freedom fighters get training and arms in the land of the pure...

#49 Posted by tahmed32,

There are only two liberal forces in Pakistan. One is Benazir, the other is Altaf Hussain. Surely if you're a liberal, you would support one of these two.

But I'll let it go. You, Sir, cannot answer this question. Regardless of how well-meaning you are. And I acknowledge and respect that.

#50 Posted by zeemax

Yup ....

... you should edit some of my current working papers ... I am pretty bad with this language thingy.

Re: # 53

Calling charlatans and murderers like BB and Altaf liberals is insulting the very notion of liberalism. Same thing goes for some other riff raf on chowk as well. I think Hamid Mir has coined the very appropriate term "Libral Fascists" that describes them perfectly. i.e. Fascists pretending to be liberals. I think top brass of na pak fouj falls into this rabies infested category as well.

...i think one has to accept that, on the whole, pakistan has been ruled by, "lying cheating liberal fascits".....actually the fascist part is a bit of an exageration......but they certainly were lying and cheating (and quite liberal by pakistani standards)......the only exception was zia, who was a, "lying cheating religious fascist"......a bit more of a fascist than the liberal ones....

jinnah (and liaqut also) were neither liers, nor cheats, nor fascists.......though they were liberal.....

.......the next combo to rule will also be lying cheating liberal combo of musharraf and benazir......musharraf is a constitutional crook, while benazir is a financial crook.....both are about as liberal as it gets in pakistan.....

.....the only group more liberal than them is the mqm.....which actually is a lying cheating liberal fascist group....fascist in their case does apply.......

......so one cannot blame pakistanis, if they turn away from liberalism......they have tried it for 60 years, and what has it giving them.......a chowk-like elite and poverty.......

......which way are they going to turn.....hard to tell......i don't think they wil turn en-masse towards the lal masjid leadership type groups......these leaderships are criminals, who play with the lives of brainwashed students..........

.....they may towards the religious political parties like mma.......however they have also turned out to be liers and cheaters.......

......not too many places to turn to........who else is left as a leader.........

i think urstruly may have to return to pakistan, to take over the leadership.....or perhaps hp or hamidm........

Whatever Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Liaqut Ali Khan were, they
sure were communal with hatred of Hindus and Sikhs
deep in their blood and bones, may be that is why they
were appealing to an average Pakistani!

#55 Posted by Urstruly,

Just trying to use common terminology. Liberal-Fascists is a new term which many will not comprehend so soon.

#56 Posted by bulleya

".......who else is left as a leader........."

Rest assured. Leadership will emerge and most probably it will be driven by young idealists. But, IMO, successful leadership will be provided by only those who understand and are in tune with the common man's 'religious ideals'.

{Rest assured. Leadership will emerge and most probably it will be driven by young idealists. But, IMO, successful leadership will be provided by only those who understand and are in tune with the common man's 'religious ideals'.
}

GT Jai Sri Krishna,

is this also true for the colonial cousin india? if not, why not? if so, which religions religious ideal?

#59 Posted by GT,

That commodity is missing in Pakistan ... but not for long. Events will take their natural course.

...contd...#61,

... I mean one emerged, but they killed him. They wouldn't be able to kill the next one.

#60 Posted by jang

Jango,

Jai Shiri Ram,

I am confused here. Help me out .... Isn't it true that Indian democracy (post 1977) has induced political parties to closely adhere to the 'religious beliefs' of its constituents? I do not only mean caste, breaking coconuts before flagging of sulabh sauchalays etc. I mean things like the lyrics of say Gadhar (CPI-ML, Andhra) etc. You know .... If anything democracy, post 1977, has become disgustingly pleasurable .... e.g. the evolution of the speeches of Mayawati and Laloo over the past decade ... they might sound vulgar and cheap to you and me but by jove they are able to carry the message through ... And please do not tell me that the CPM do not use it. Nevertheless, nobody perfected it like the half naked fakir. Anyway, you like democracy ... well then learn to live with it ... I have had the pleasure of seeing M.M. Singh slurp his puri aloo and discuss religion with people ... You are free not to believe though.

Jai Hanuman.

Listen to the one who HAS been there , done that...

Mujahid Margolis was in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Iraq WITH muslims, with the Mujahideen..

He knew each and every leader there...

His judgement has never been wrong or questioned...
He knows what he is talking about.


_________________________________________________________


Ju ly 23, 2007
IS THE US PREPARING TO ATTACK PAKISTAN?


The Bush Administration may be preparing to lash out at old ally Pakistan, which Washington now blames for its humiliating failures to crush al-Qaida, capture its elusive leaders, or defeat Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan.

One is immediately reminded of the Vietnam War when the Pentagon, unable to defeat North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces, urged invasion of Cambodia.

Sources in Washington say the Pentagon is drawing up plans to attack Pakistan’s `autonomous’ tribal region bordering Afghanistan. Limited `hot pursuit’ ground incursions by US forces based in Afghanistan, intensive air attacks, and special forces raids into Pakistan’s autonomous tribal region are being evaluated.

This weekend, the US national intelligence chief and other intelligence spokesmen confirmed that strikes against `terrorist targets’ in Pakistan’s tribal belt are increasingly possible. These warnings were designed to both further pressure Pakistan’s beleaguered strongman, President Pervez Musharraf into sending more troops to the tribal areas to fight his own people, and to prepare US public opinion for a possible widening of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan.

Pakistan’s 27,200 sq km tribal belt, officially known as the Federal Autonomous Tribal Area, or FATA, is home to 3.3 million Pashtun tribesmen. It has become a safe haven for al-Qaida, Taliban, other Afghan resistance groups, and a hotbed of anti-American activity, thanks mostly to the US-led occupation of Afghanistan which drove many militants across the border into Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is very likely sheltered in this region, as US intelligence claims.

I spent a remarkable time in this wild, medieval region during the 1980’s and 90’s, traveling alone where even Pakistani government officials dared not go, visiting the tribes of Waziristan, Orakzai, Khyber, Chitral, and Kurram, and meeting their chiefs, called `maliks.’

These tribal belts are always referred to as`lawless.’ Pashtun tribesmen could shoot you if they didn’t like your looks. Rudyard Kipling warned British Imperial soldiers over a century ago, when fighting cruel, ferocious Pashtun warriors of the Afridi clan, if they fell wounded, `save your last bullet for yourself.’

But there is law: the traditional Pashtun tribal code, Pashtunwali, that strictly governs behavior and personal honor. Protecting guests was sacred. I was captivated by this majestic mountain region and wrote of it extensively in my book, `War at the Top of the World.’

The 40 million Pashtun – called `Pathan’ by the British – are the world’s largest tribal group. Imperial Britain divided them by an artificial border, the Durand Line, which went on to become, like so many other British colonial boundaries, today’s Afghanistan-Pakistan border. When Pakistan was created in 1947, the Pashtun were split between that new nation and Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s Pashtun number 28-30 million, plus an additional 2.5 million refugees from Afghanistan. Pashtuns, one of the British Indian Army’s famed `martial races,’ occupy many senior positions in Pakistan’s military, intelligence service and bureaucracy, and naturally have much sympathy for their embattled tribal cousins in Afghanistan. The 15 million Pashtun of Afghanistan form that nation’s largest ethnic group and just under half the population.

The tribal agency’s Pashtun reluctantly joined newly-created Pakistan in 1947 under express constitutional guarantee of total autonomy and a ban on Pakistani troops ever entering there.

But under intense US pressure, President Pervez Musharraf violated Pakistan’s constitution by sending 80,000 federal troops to fight the region’s tribes, killing 3,000 of them. In best British imperial tradition, Washington pays Musharraf $100 million monthly to rent his sepoys (native soldiers) to fight Pashtun tribesmen. As a result, Pakistan is fast edging towards civil war, as the bloody siege of Islamabad’s Red Mosque and a current wave of bombings across the nation show.

The anti-communist Taliban movement is part of the Pashtun people. Taliban fighters move across the artificial Pakistan-Afghanistan border, to borrow a Maoism, like fish through the sea. Osama bin Laden is a hero in the region, and likely shelters there.

The US just increased its reward for bin Laden to $50 million and plans to shower $750 million on the tribal region in an effort to buy loyalty. Bush/Cheney & Co. do not understand that while they can rent President Musharraf’s government in Islamabad, many Pashtun value personal honor far more than money, and cannot be bought. That is likely why bin Laden has not yet been betrayed.

Any US attack on Pakistan would be a catastrophic mistake. First, air and ground assaults will succeed only in widening the anti-US war and merging it with Afghanistan’s resistance to western occupation. US forces are already too over-stretched to get involved in yet another little war.

Second, Pakistan’s army officers who refuse to be bought may resist a US attack on their homeland, and overthrow the man who allowed it, Gen. Musharraf. A US attack would sharply raise the threat of anti-US extremists seizing control of strategic Pakistan and marginalize those seeking return to democratic government.

Third, a US attack on the tribal areas could re-ignite the old irredentist movement to reunite Pashtun parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan into independent state, `Pashtunistan.’ That could begin unravelling fragile Pakistan, leaving its nuclear arsenal up for grabs, and India tempted to intervene.

The US military has grown used to attacking small, weak nations like Grenada, Panama, and Iraq. Pakistan, with 163 million people, and a poorly equipped but very tough 550,000-man army, will offer no easy victories. Those Bush Administration officials who foolishly advocate attacking Pakistan are playing with fire.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007
Posted by Eric Margolis at 01:19 PM | Comments (57)