Crisis and Opportunity

RE Macgupta

If you can rebuild Afghanistan, one can build a house on a foundation of quicksand. That place is beyond gone, and it will be nothing but a waste of money. My must the US be responsible for building up every godforsaken corner. Remember the effort in Haiti. Flushed down the toilet. Afghanistan will make Haiti look like club med. I say to hell with that godforsaken corner of the earth. No oil. No resources. Only headache for every foreign entity who has tried to get involved from the great game on.

If the US has money to spare, I would suggest downtown Manhattan.

The chicken have come to roost in Pakistan, but this cannot be a source of unalloyed joy for India. The consequences of a war at our backdoor should not be underestimated. The best option for us would have been to somehow stay out of the conflict, and let the US and the terrorists fight it out. But that cannot happen. In this war, we will have to choose our sides. The danger is that once the US objectives are met, they will return to their island nation, while we will be left to deal with the consequences and with angry, possibly desperate neighbours at home. Not a good situation!

-narain

Are these not pakistanis - they have been named.

from Jang

The daily named the suspects as Pakistanis Muhammad Asif, Rana Abdul Gafhoor, Imran Asjid Husain, Mangat Sajid Hussain, Malik Tahir Mahmood and Muhammed Shahbaz; Bolivians Maria Angela Bustillo Molina and Ana Maria Vedia Barron; as well as Imtiaz Ahmad.

check out

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2001-daily/14-09-2001/main/main5.htm

This is awful. Its a sad day. Pakistanis involved in terrorism. Boy this is bad.

After winning World War I, the US turned its back on Europe; and festering problems there led to World War II. After World War II, the US wised up, and with the Marshall Plan, helped rebuild Europe and Japan.

After winning the Cold War, the US turned its back on Afghanistan; and festering problems there led to World War III. After World War III, hopefully, the US wises up, and helps build/rebuild.

-Arun Gupta

Going After the Osama and maybe the Taliban is not a real long term solution. It`s clear to me that this terrorist act was different from anything else the world has ever seen, in it`s sophistication, efficiency and heartlessness. To me that means resources, including human, do not point to Osama. But such an attack may sooth the need for revenge or retribution, however; remember it took basically four persons to do this. After the ``war against terrorism` has been won, why would we believe that in the space of another few years, another four persosn will not seek revenge for another percieved ``injustice`` by unleashing a chemical or biological agent in the atmosphere or in water resevoirs?

Of course this outrage calls for an appropriate response, however; caution and attention to the grevances that such groups champion should not be neglected.

To the degree that Pakistan can assist the effort against terror, while mindful of it`s domestic compulsions, it should do so with caution and with it`s interests paramount.

This is a great opportunity for Gen. Musharraf. He should provide all necessary help to the US to capture Bin Laden. He should also ask the US for monetary, material and strategic support to destroy all those Jihadi groups inside Pakistan. In return he should ask the Americans for their complete support and involvement in the total resolution of the Kashmir issue.

This is a great opportunity for Gen. Musharraf. He should provide all necessary help to the US to capture Bin Laden. He should also ask the US for monetary, material and strategic support to destroy all those Jihadi groups inside Pakistan. In return he should ask the Americans for their complete support and involvement in the total resolution of the Kashmir issue.

This is a great opportunity for Gen. Musharraf. He should provide all necessary help to the US to capture Bin Laden. He should also ask the US for monetary, material and strategic support to destroy all those Jihadi groups inside Pakistan. In return he should ask the Americans for their complete support and involvement in the total resolution of the Kashmir issue.

This is a great opportunity for Gen. Musharraf. He should provide all necessary help to the US to capture Bin Laden. He should also ask the US for monetary, material and strategic support to destroy all those Jihadi groups inside Pakistan. In return he should ask the Americans for their complete support and involvement in the total resolution of the Kashmir issue.

romair

you are wrong in saying the mass murders in new york and washington by islamic terrorists was a result of u.s. foreign policy. it was the result of fanatical hatred of america. there is a difference. consider this: if american foreign policy is the real issue, these terrorists, who obviously have vast human, financial, and intellectual resources, should devote their efforts to preventing the execution of american foreign policy; i.e. by militarily attacking american and american allied forces directly responsible for the alleged persecution of muslim peoples. but instead, these terrorists commit mass murder of several thousand civilians, thousands of miles away from any american persecuted muslims. clearly, this is irrational hatred.

Haha! Good one there about George Bush! Don`t forget tho that he isn`t smart enough to bomb an aspirin factory and call it retaliation either.

Seriously, your ``solution`` sounds like a wish list from a pakistani. What`s in it for the US of A? As someone already implied, the reconstruction of japan & germany was a natural choice because these were industrial powers before the war and would have risen again with or without the marshall plan. The US played its cards judiciously so IT WOULD BENEFIT when the inevitable occured. Again, what does the US stand to gain from following your prescription? Nothing. If OTOH it played an active and JUST role in solving the palestine problem, it would earn unmeasureable goodwill the world over. Bin Laden, or whomever, would then be irrelevant. Let a thousand flowers bloom and the let the US, for once, live up to its rhetoric and encourage democracy everywhere regardless of how that might affect its pocket books.

(Wiping the tears away & clearing my throat..) sorry, got carried away a little there. Aint gonna happen. The US knows that so long as it keeps a strong military and talks the talk, everything will go its way. Repeat after me: Democracy, Free Market, DemocFree Market, D..Free Market, Free Market, Free Market...

By George, you`ve got it!

Have i gone nuts or is this cynicism masquerading as sophistication?

I appreciate and agree with most of Mr. Minai`s articles. Following are couple of my observations.

1. Between the end of second world war and until the break down of the Soviet empire communism was a real threat to the rest of the world. I learnt about it in graphic details in books such as the Gulag Archipelago (on Soviet communism) and

Wild Swans (By Jung Chang Chinese communism). So at that time US`s goal was to destroy and contain communism. It is with that in mind we have to consider the US`s misadventure in Afghanisthan and other places. It is hard to figure out globally optimal solutions and often there may not be any. So even though the US in some sense propped up OBL and Taliban, I can understand the compulsions they had in their goal to fight communism.

2. Something that Mr. Minai hinted at but perhaps was not clear from the article is the necessity for a longer engagement in countries with terrorist cells. Just going into Afghanistan (and other countries) and wiping out the current terrorists can only be a short term solution, if at all. If long term engagements are not made to guarantee that madarasas (and other schools of whatever faith) that teach young minds about jihad and infidels are stopped and not allowed to restart from doing that. (I worry about the `free speech` aspect of stopping that though.) In my opinion if US and others are really serious to contain `terrorism` as they were about containing `communism` during cold war days then they have to have a long term stratgey.

With that in mind the approach suggested by Mr. Minai makes a whole lot of sense.

3. Some people have mentioned in chowk posts that the suggestions of Mr. Minai may result in a bloodbath in Pakistan. I do not have first hand information on Pakistan`s inetrnal situation, but from chowk posts i have gathered that its only a minority in Pakistan that supports or votes for the Jehadi parties. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the liberal Pakistanis ovecome them with US help. When the majority stands up, and that with US help, the minority (with jehadi mentiality) will have no choice but to back down.

4. In this global world I often wonder what most terrorists are fighting about. As I have mentioned in some of my infrequent chowk posts when you can go into other countries freely and even work there freely (as in EU for example) how does the country borders matter.

sincerely,

Cbaral

To the Author:

You are one person who has manged to convey the gist of American shortsightedness, without actually ``blaming`` America. It is one thing to say America miscalculated in certain policies. It is quite another to say that this act of terrorism is America`s fault, or ``we brought it upon ourselves``. Thank you also, for providing at least a legitimate framework of action, instead of just playing the blame game.

From `Breaking News: September 11, 2001` board

Re: Hamidm

``... if we don`t Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will do it anyway and we will end up on the loosing side ..``

The appropriate thing for the US was to first ask the Pakistan government for help -- which it did. In developing its response, the Pakistan government will do well to consider that along with the above mentioned countries, India (that has long endured violent threats emanating from Pakistan, e.g. LeT threat to bomb the Prime Minister`s Office/Red Fort, etc., not to mention the various `actions` by `volunteers` in Kashmir) is straining at the leash to offer the US any help (including military) and that India has a Joint Counter-Terrorism taskforce with the US. Regardless of how the Pakistan government responds, the US is still going to do what it determines is in its best interest, and take help from others if need be. There are enough disaffected countries in the region that will step in. There were newsreports that Russia-Iran-India have held consultations on how to respond. The Pakistan establishment (which will manage to take care of its own needs in any eventuality) will quite willingly jeopardize its own middle class (most of whom, would rather get on with their lives in peace and not be dragged into a messy war) for illusionary `strategic depth`. One class of victims that never gets mentioned are the quite, silent Pakistanis (not here on Chowk, and not dancing on the streets) who have seen their establishment hijack their priorities without their consent and has allowed things to come to such a sorry pass, that a large section of Pakistani society is being tarred with a broad brush. (Gowardhan, in your posts, do not make the mistake of clubbing all Pakistanis in one category. If you cannot resist being derisive, then at least be more specific about whom you target.)

Re: Nasah

``Ex Pakistani ambassador Haqqani said on US TV -- that the Army government is with US (wise decision) -- is only asking for assurance from US -- that the US will protect Musharraf from the wrath of its own Talibans!!``

That is the ultimate irony. In India, too, stupid politicians have bred devils only to be consumed by them (Indira by Bhindranwale sympathizers, and Rajiv by LTTE ones). India is powerful enough to squish its own devils, but Pakistan is not. It is safe to say that it is not in anyone`s interest (Pakistan`s, USA`s, India`s, China`s, Russia`s) to see a Taleban revolution take place in Pakistan. All these countries can help Pakistan in house cleaning, but cannot lead it. That can only be done by a Pakistani leader enjoying broad support. The minimum that India can do to help, should the Pakistani establishment decide that that is what needs to be done, is to eliminate/reduce any external military pressure on Pakistan, while Pakistan does the same simultaneously to India. The best hope for Pakistan remains its middle class.

Re: Ayaz Amir in Dawn

``The manner in which we delivered Ramzi Yousef and Aimal Kansi to the US was less that of a sovereign country and more that of a vassal state doing the bidding of a distant godfather. What did we get for our pains?``

Wrong question, Mr. Amir. I agree with most things that Mr. Amir writes, but not this one. Turning in terrorists to the authorities (or trying them at home) is an honorable thing to do. Quid pro quos should neither be demanded, nor given.

Re: Zafar

``Fellow heeng-smelling (!) Indians: How will this affect Pakistan’s relationship with India? Which groups in India will become more dominant as a consequence of US engagement in the area, and which will lose power? How will that change in dominance be played out, and what forms will any internal struggles take? (I realise that since India is one country largely removed from ground zero in this case, the changes are likely to be less immediately violent, but will they be in their own way as profound? What about Kashmir which has been shaping up as the next Afghanistan?)``

If the Pakistani establishment buckles, and a soft- or hard-revolution takes place, with Taleban look-alikes coming to power in Pakistan, you can be sure that relations with India (and most of the world) will suffer. The only way, as the current Pakistani regime defines it, that relations with India can improve are if the Kashmir problem is solved. That can happen, but only politically, and not using the current violent strategy which has become too enmeshed in `voluteers`/`jehadis`/`freedom-fighters` who deploy the tactics seen in NY on a smaller scale, and for which the world will have too little patience now, especially if it fears Kashmir becoming another Afghanistan. If the current strategy remains on autopilot, then Pakistan will be even more isolated diplomatically, and nothing will change. I do not think that it is a good idea to invite any foreign power (USA, Russia, or any other) into our Indo-Pak SubContinent. If we created problems, we must solve them ourselves without outside help. Otherwise, it is East-India Company all over again in a different time and context. The introduction of US troops in Pakistan will severely polarize Pakistani society (and possibly India, too). In India, religious nuts of all kinds (Hindu, Muslim) will be against them for their own various reasons. I do not really know which group will be strenghtened, perhaps the most vehement anti-US ones -- e.g. communists, trade-unionists, fundoo hindus and islamists. Other than them, no political or religious group comes to mind. The Congress and the BJP have their own anti-globalism hawks.

Pakistan is in a very critical situation without any options. If Islamabad backs the United States, it risks a civil war in the provinces of Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan; two provinces, which though are geographic parts of Pakistan have an ideological affinty with the Taliban. If it disgrees to the political demands made by the United States, it risks annilation. Pakistan is reaping the harvest of its own misdeeds and the myopia of its foreign policy of the last two decades concerning Afghanistan.

Pakistanis, where ever they may be, have to decide what they believe in and with whom they wish to be associated with and where they wish to stand in this moment in time, because their very future hinges on the choice they will make in this crisis. It is time that Pakistanis move away from the ususal empty rhetoric and asked serious questions why they are presently staring at the edge of an abyss and how did they get here.

Asking the hard and bitter questions will be the least of Pakistan`s worries. Pakistan must be prepared to accept the answers and if it refuses to accept the answers and clings to the flawed policies of the past, then there can be no redemption for Pakistan as a nation state in the new century.

Ciao

Ali, You have almost precisely voiced my sentiments. We cannot take peace and progress and freedom for granted. The implosion of the twin towers is symbolic of the fragile construction of civilized society. The Taliban and the millions of Afghan refugees are testiment to the kind of society that we can slide into even in the 21st century.

If we Pakistanis are the kind of people we think we are, if we want to develop into a civilized society that one day reflects the kind of people we think we are, then we must also stand up and fight.

We must recognize evil when we see it, and fight it as if our lives depended on it (which in fact they do, as do the lives of our children). In Pakistan and Afghanistan, evil has come disguised as religion. The Pakistan military, under Zia, contributed to the creation of this evil and the US government walked away from Afghanistan without recognizing the seeds that had been sowed. The Pakistan military must now work as one with the US government to take out from the roots the evil plants that have sprouted. And we as Pakistanis must be prepared to sacrifice for the struggle that I am afraid the misgovernance of the past decades has now forced upon us. Let us not look to the US alone to fight this battle for humanity.