We, The Muslim Americans

Re: Romair Part II on Feudalism

Romair, your lengthy answer lacked the clarity of thought that you normally demonstrate.

a) You begin finding solutions to destroying feudalism by analyzing the military hierarchy. I don`t think that the solution for feudalism lies there (ie in how many Generals the Pak military has).

b) You correctly state that the military is doing squat about removing feudals. Why? Why is Musharraf sitting on a ticking time bomb?

c) Musharraf, if he cannot break feudalism, should have a laser-like focus on creating alternative (ie. non-agricultural land based) sources of employment. I have not heard anything bold emanate either from him or from his Cabinet.

d) You talk about limiting land holdings -- this has already been tried in India with mixed (mostly detrimental) results (for both agricultural and urban residential land). First, land redistribution has not taken place in the manner that Marx would have been proud of. Second, these laws have created barriers to agricultural investment which has limited productivity (who wants to buy a $1M combined harvester, if your land holding is only 2 acres?) and have increased urban land prices. (Bombay real-estate is very expensive because India`s Urban Land Ceiling Act prevents the emergence of a rental apartment industry. This combined with other dinosaurs like Urban Rent Control Act and disallowing uncompetitive industries (like textile mills in the heart of Bombay) from closing down and moving, prevents new real estate from hitting the market. Thus, prices stay artificially high. The law of unintended consequences has been in full effect.

Instead, I think that you should focus on first understanding the `natural` causes that lead to feudals, and then attempt to weaken them.

re temporal

Is this the same Dr. Edward Said, the Palestinian professor at Columbia University, who is also a member of Arafat`s Palestinian National Council?

re nasah 302

``IT IS Sharon -- whose days are numbered.``

Ah, if wishes were horses...The delusions that PLO apologists suffer from would be a pathetic comedy if it were not related to the grim reality of terrorism. Master terrorist George Habash, at 70 no less and barely able to talk, keeps on issuing statements as to the continuation of the struggle while Chairman Arafat holds on to the hope of having all the mosques and churches in Jerusalem fly his flag soon.

Israel ain`t going anywhere and Sharon is irrelevant to that basic point: in democracies, leaders get elected and un-elected, no surprise there. The only fault with Sharon is his boorishness and subsequent sloth in hitting back at the PLO`s homegrown terror network. No country worth its salt can or should tolerate a neighbor constantly sending suicide bombers to its shpping malls, churches, kindergartens, and hotels. If this had happened to Syria, towns like Jericho and Jenin (home of the al-Aqsa brigades) would be a flat plain of debris with thousands buried underneath; in Saudi Arabia, they would have beheaded a few thousand men in public. Israel`s tolerance is phenomenal by any standards, certainly by the standards of the region she is in.

Romair:

I agree with you about the difficulties the Soviet Union would have faced in attacking Pakistan AFTER we had been rearmed by the US. That is my entire point. IF the Soviets had ANY intentions of going for a ``warm water port`` (the ostensible reason for the invasion of Afghanistan), they would have done so BEFORE Pakistan`s defensive capabilities were rebuilt by the Americans. The simple fact that they did not do so BEFORE Pakistan`s military capabilities were rebuilt is the best ``proof`` to me that they never had any intention of doing so. Hmmmm. Lets see. I can either beat up this pathetic ninety pound weakling now and take his money or I can wait six months while he takes weight-training classes, studies judo and karate and hires himself a bodyguard. Hmmmmmmm. I think I`ll wait six months and then attack him and take his money because I really relish a good fight.

Now, honestly, does that make sense to you? How stupid was the Soviet General Staff anyway? Or did we have Gen. Niazi on deputation to the Kremlin and were the DS from Staff College Quetta also teaching at the Frunze Higher Military Academy in the USSR?

The Mujahideen in the time period after the 1978 Coup and the Soviet invasion were less than useless militarily. They were ONLY effective against the DRA Army because (i) over 50% of the pre-coup officer corp was purged and (ii) massive desertions/mutinies had weakened the DRA Army to less than half its strength. The Soviet invasion faced NO opposition worth talking about and the Soviets had NO difficulty in taking ANY of the major population centres and Army garrisons. The inflexibility of Soviet Military Doctrine, and the Soviets are notorious for being lakeer ka fakeer militarily, which was geared to fighting NATO in Western Europe is why the Soviet Union had such a hard time fighting the later Mujahideen (armed and trained by the Pakistanis with secure bases in Pakistan; Masud excepted of course) although its not until the introduction of the Stingers (1985?) that the tide turns against the Soviets. NO US analyst in the early 1980s thought that the Mujahideen would ever ``win`` and strictly speaking they didn`t. The Soviets simply got tired of fighthing and left. Just as the Americans did in Vietnam. Unlike the NVA/VC, the Mujahideen did win some fairly large encounters with Soviet units but, on the whole, the battle ``victories`` belong mainly to the Soviets.

What spirited defense did you expect the FC (Baluchistan and NWFP) to put up against any Soviet invasion? How effective do you think the Khyber Rifles or the Zhob Militia would be in stopping the Soviets? You`ll notice how well the Mujahideen did in the first few years after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Remember, we had no real Army troops in Baluchistan and NWFP positioned to stop an invasion from Afghanistan until much later and even then we did not radically realign our defense posture. BTW, other than pounding Peshawar into rubble and completely demoralizing Pakistan, the Khyber Pass as an invasion route makes no sense. We do have more military presence once you get past Peshawar (although the bulk of the Army was in AK/Kharian/Lahore/Multan). The southern route would have been much better, leading straight into Gwadar--the ultimate goal--and with minimal resistance. Given the difficulty the Army had in putting down the Baluch Insurgency (actually really only one subtribe, the Ghickis I think, provided most of the fighters), it doesn`t say much about the Army`s presence in Baluchistan.

Sorry, even the ``logistics`` side of the invasion doesn`t explain why the Soviets did not invade Pakistan in 1980. Only reasonable explanation is that they never wanted to.

Regards.

sigalph235 #295:

[…Capital point!!! ….. Arafat, he is getting exactly what he deserves…. Arafat`s terror networks(or whoseever they are) need to be uprooted from Jericho, Nablus, Jenin, Hebron and every other town and hamlet in Judaea/Samaria. These thugs who send other people`s teenagers to blow themselves up understand only the language that is spoken from the barrel of a Merkava tank….]

...big…bold….and unwarranted words…i seldom produce entire columns…but here i will…edward said has articulated what i want to say much better than i could...please read and answer this…would appreciate…

rgds,

t

________________________________________________

What price Oslo accord?

By Edward W. Said


The television images on al-Jazeera have been burningly clear. There is a kind of Palestinian heroism in evidence there that this is the story of our time. An entire army, navy, and air force supplied munificently and unconditionally by the United States have been wreaking destruction on the 18% of the West Bank and 60% of Gaza afforded Palestinians after ten years of negotiations with Israel and the US.

Palestinian hospitals, schools, refugee camps, civilian residences have been at the receiving end of a merciless, criminal assault by Israeli troops huddled inside their helicopter gun-ships, F-16`s and Merkavas, and still the poorly armed resistance fighters take on this preposterously more powerful force undaunted and unyielding.

In the US, the CNN and newspapers like The New York Times to their discredit fail ever to mention that ``the violence`` is uneven and that there aren`t two sides involved here, but only one state turning all its great power against a stateless, and repeatedly dispossessed people, bereft of arms and real leadership, with the aim of destroying them, ``dealing them a terrible blow`` as the war criminal who leads Israel has put it shamelessly.

As an index of how deranged Sharon has become, I might quote here what he said to Ha`aretz on March 5: ``The PA is behind the terror, it`s all terror. Arafat is behind the terror. Our pressure is aimed at ending the terror. Don`t expect Arafat to act against the terror. We have to cause them heavy casualties and then they`ll know they can`t keep using terror and win political achievements.``

Besides symptomatically revealing the workings of an obsessed mind bent on destruction and sheer unadulterated hatred, Sharon`s words indicate the failures of reason and criticism since last September. Yes there was a terrorist outrage, but there`s more to the world than terror. There is politics, and struggle, and history, and injustice, and resistance and yes, state terror as well.

With scarcely a peep from the American professorate or intelligentsia, we have all succumbed entirely to the promiscuous misuse of language and sense, by which everything we don`t like has become terror and what we do is pure and simple good, to fight terror, no matter how much wealth, and lives, and destruction is involved. Swept away are all the enlightenment precepts by which we attempt to educate our students and our-fellow citizens, replaced by a disproportionate orgy of vindictiveness and self-righteous wrath of the kind that only the wealthy and the powerful, it would seem, have the right to use and act upon.

No wonder then that a thug like Sharon feels entitled to do what he does when in the greatest democracy on earth, laws, constitutional rights, writs of habeas corpus and reason itself are consigned to the rubbish bin in the pursuit of terror and terrorism. As educators and as citizens, we have failed in our mission by allowing ourselves to be bamboozled in this way, without so much as an organized public discussion about a defence budget that has shot up to 400 billion dollars and 40 million people remain without health insurance.

Israelis, Arabs and Americans are told that love of country requires such expenditures and such destruction because a good cause is at stake. Nonsense. What is at stake are material interests that keep rulers in power, corporations making profits, people in a state of manufactured consent, just so long as they don`t get up one morning and start to think about where, in this mad technologized rush to bomb and kill, we are going.

Israel is now waging a war against civilians, pure and simple, although you will never hear it put that way in the US. This is a racist war, and in its strategy and tactics, a colonial one as well. People are being killed and made to suffer disproportionately because they are not Jews. What an irony!

The picture you get here is that Israelis are battling for their lives instead of for their settlements and military bases on the occupied lands of Palestine. No maps have been run for months in the American media. On March 8, hitherto the bloodiest day for the Palestinians of the sixteen month intifada, the CNN`s main evening news specified the death of 40 ``people`` and failed even to mention the death of several Red Crescent workers killed while their ambulances were prevented callously by Israeli tanks from getting to the wounded. Just ``people,`` and no pictures of the hell they`ve been living in the 35th year of military occupation.

Tul Karm, undergoing a siege of sieges with 24-hour curfews, electricity and water cut-off, systematic round-ups and removal of 800 young men, the wanton smashing of refugee houses, immense destruction of property (and I`m not speaking of night clubs or sports facilities but of shacks that have furnished twice displaced with hovels for bare subsistence) limitless cases of unexampled sadistic cruelty to unarmed and undefended civilians who are pushed and beaten and left to bleed to death, women allowed to give birth to stillborn babies while they needlessly wait at Israeli road-blocks, old men made to strip and take off their shoes and walk barefoot for a gum-chewing 18 year old waving around an M-16 that my taxes have paid for.

Today, in the biggest attack of all, Ramallah has been invaded and is being ravaged by 140 Israeli tanks, thus completing Israel`s re-conquest of the already-occupied Palestinian territories.

The Palestinian people are paying the heavy, heavy unconscionable price of Oslo, which after ten years of negotiating left them with bits of land lacking coherence and continuity, security institutions designed to assure their subservience to Israel, and a life that impoverished them so that the Jewish state could thrive and prosper.

In vain during those ten years did some of us warn that the distance between the US-Israeli language of peace and the appalling realities on the ground was never bridged, never even intended to be bridged. Words and phrases like ``peace process`` and ``terrorism`` took hold without reference to any real referent.

Land confiscations were either overlooked or referred to ``bilateral negotiations`` that were taking place between a state consolidating its hold on territory it wanted at all costs, and a mediocre set of uninformed negotiators whom it took four years to acquire, much less use, a reliable map of the land they were negotiating over.

The worst misrepresentation of all is that in the 54 years since 1948, never has a narrative of Palestinian heroism and suffering ever been allowed to emerge. We are all depicted as basically violent fanatic extremists who are little more than the terrorists that George Bush and his cabal have imposed on the consciousness of a stunned and systematically misinformed population, aided and uncritically abetted by an entire army of commentators and media stars - the Blitzers, Zahns, Lehrers, Rathers, Brokaws, Russerts, and their ilk. The Israeli lobby is scarcely needed with such faithful disciples trailing happily in its ranks.

But now that the Saudi peace proposal has become the point of discussion and of hope, it is necessary, I think, to put it in its real, as opposed to its supposed, context.

First of all, this is the re-cycled Reagan plan of 1982, the Fahd Plan of 1983, the Madrid plan of 1991, and so on: in other words, it follows a series of plans many times put forward which in the end both Israel and the US have not only refused to implement, but have actively torpedoed.

The way I see it, the only negotiations worth having should be on the phases of a total Israeli withdrawal and not, as was the case with Oslo, bargaining over what pieces of land Israel was willing very grudgingly to give up. There`s been too much Palestinian blood spilled, too much Israeli contempt and racist violence dispensed for any serious return to Oslo-style negotiations brokered by that most biased of honest brokers, the United States.

Everyone is aware, however, that the old Palestinian negotiators haven`t given up on their dreams and illusions, and that meetings have been occurring throughout the raids and bombings. But I would argue that due weight be given to decades of Palestinian suffering and the real human costs of Israel`s destructive policies before any negotiations accord undue status to Israeli governments that have trampled on Palestinian rights the way they have demolished our houses and killed our people.

Any Arab-Israeli negotiations that do not factor in history - and for this task a team of historians, economists, and geographers with a conscience are needed - are not worth having, just as the Palestinians must now elect a new set of negotiators and representatives in the hope of salvaging something from the present calamity.

In short, in whatever meetings that now occur between Israeli and Palestinian representatives, the gravity of Israeli depredations against our people has to be given attention and not simply brushed aside as so much past history. Oslo, in effect, pardoned the occupation, excusing it for all the buildings and lives destroyed over the first twenty five years of occupation.

After so much further suffering, Israel cannot be excused and allowed to walk away from the table with not even a rhetorical demand that it needs to atone for what it did.

I will be told that politics is about what is possible, not about what is desired, and that we should be grateful to get even a small Israeli pullback. I disagree strongly. Negotiations can only be about when the total withdrawal will take place, not how may percentages Israel is willing to concede. A conqueror and a vandal cannot concede anything: he must simply return what he`s taken and pay for the abuses that are his responsibility to bear, just as Saddam Hussein should and did pay for his occupation of Kuwait. -

Fuzair #285: Interesting comments, as usual.

I will discuss the Soviet troop deployments in a later reply, if time is available.

Eric Margolis is perhaps the most authoratative writer I have ever read on present-day Central Asian affairs. And I have reading on this subject since the Soviet invasion started.

He actually goes into the areas where the fighting is going on, and spends weeks fighting with the soldiers. He knows all the leaders, Afghani (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Rabbani etc.), Pakistani (Zia, Abdur Rahman, etc.), US, etc. personally. There is nothing any Pakistani officer, of any rank, can tell him, that he already doesn`t know (he spent more time inside Afghanistan than any Pakistani). However, he is famous for telling stories to officers all over the world on the wars he has been a part of. He is always called on TV discussions on this subject.

His biggest point of credibility is that he is a vicious critic of US policies. A quality which is rare in North American journalists, specifically in Americans. So this would make his views on Afghanistan all the more accurate. If there is any bias that I have found in him, it is that he is too great an admirer of, ``Islamic warriors,`` who took on the Soviets (even though he is himself is almost an athiest). This is a quality I have seen in so many Americans/Westerners who actually went into Afghanistan to fight with the Mujahideen. They come back in awe of the Mujahideen, and their, ``Islamic`` spirit, and highly impressed by the way they took on the Soviet military(when I was doing a six month training course in the US, during Soviet invasion days, my US colleagues actually gave a standing ovation to Ahmad Shah Masood when a video of him taking on the Soviets was shown).

So one cannot just discredit Margolis. One can discredit Zbignew Brezensky, Henry Kissenger, CNN, ABC (and the other US mouthpieces) etc., but not Margolis.

The other point is that you are completely dismissing the importance of logistics in invading a country. This is infact the most important point in any ground war. ``Naive Generals talk strategy, Great Generals talk logistics.``

For the Soviets to invade Pakistan, they would have had to secure their supply lines from Tashkent to the Khyber Pass, and/or to Baluchistan. To do so, all of Afghanistan would have had to be in their complete control. Which is what they were trying to do. There is absolutely no way they could have attacked Pakistan (or Iran) with such vulnerable supply lines, even if Pakistanis didn`t have a single tank in its armory. The Soviets wouldn`t have even made it past the tribal areas of NWFP. The Mohmands, and the Kakars and Afridi tribesmen would have taken them out, without proper supply lines.

I am not sure how familiar you are with the logistics of carrying out large scale air attacks. It is not as simple as you are suggesting. It is probably the most difficult type of attack of any kind (air, land, sea) to carry out. Specially when you target an area deep in a country.

One cannot carry out the types of air attacks you are suggesting without complete air superiority. Something no country besides the USA (and that too against banana republic militaries) has been able to establish in the past few decades. The Soviets couldn`t even establish air superiority over Afghan cities, due to Stingers (even though the Soviet military was occupying the ground). How could they establish air superiority over Pakistan, and that too without ground occupation?

The Soviets did invade the airspace of Pakistan hundreds of times as I stated. Their equipment was ancient. At best, they could have deployed Mig-25s (they had yet to make the breakthroughs that would result in Mig-29 and Su-30). The Mig-25 for all practical purposes, is a sitting duck in front of F-16s. I talked to the pilots who engaged Soviet aircraft, and they said it was way too easy to take them out.

The US would have increased, and was increasing, Pakistan`s supply of Stingers and F-16s in proportion to the Soviet threat. The total number of F-16s would have gone to at least 200 (infact Pakistan already paid for many of these aircraft, and had the Soviet invasion not ended, Pakistan would have gotten them). 200 fully armed F-16s, with supporting cast of a few hundred Mirages, F-6s etc., with a long line of air defence consisting of Stingers, Crotales and a powerful radar system, was enough to handle an invasion of 1000 Soviet aircraft or more. Have you ever heard of an air invasion of 1000 aircraft (only in WWII movies)? Fighting a defensive war, on the air or ground, is much much easier than fighting an offensive war.

The 40 F-16s, along with other supporting aircraft, and ground defence, were good enough to handle anything the Soviets threw at Pakistan at that time. It is all a question of equipment.

How exactly would the Soviets launch this successful large wave of air attacks? I would be interested in your explanation of the details. For starters, what kind of radar coverage would they have had inside Pakistan? What aircraft did they have to counter the F-16? What kind of air to air missile capability did they have to counter the US provided AIM9-L (which can fire head-on at an attacking aircraft)? What would have the Soviet aircraft`s exit strategy, once they had penetrated deep into Pakistan?

When the PAF carries out dissimilar air combat training, F-16s are impossible to shoot down by any other Pakistani aircraft (even with ground radar coverage). Such is the difference in quality. In air combat, quality is everything. Even when restrictions are placed on F-16 maneouvring, it shoots down other Pakistani aircraft at a ratio of 4-1 or more (if I remember correctly). 200 F-16s would have knocked out hundreds of Mig-25s and many times more Su-7 (please see Israeli US aircraft kill ratios against inferior Arab equipment); even more since the F-16s would have had support from the ground also.

As I stated, an air, ``invasion`` was not that easy, and it would not have allowed the Soviets to capture any ground, even if it was successful.

The Indian Air Force isn`t large enough to establish air superiority over Pakistan, even with Pakistan`s current aircraft fleet. It has never been able to establish air superiority over West Pakistan (not because there is anything wrong with the IAF, but because achieving air superiority of the kind you are talking requires USAF type ratios).

Basically the exact same pilots and aircraft and air strategies from Pakistan and India fought in 65 and 71. Pakistan had upgraded to Mirages and F-6s by 71 (while India had upgraded air defence systems). But no other major change could have been done in six years (it takes that long to bring in train aircraft systems successfully). I know the pilots who were fighting in 65 and 71. In 71, their were hardly any bombing sorties authorized from West Pakistan, because it was assumed that the war was lost in East Pakistan, and there was no point in losing any bombers on the Western front. So these pilots hardly flew any missions, they basically sat on the ground, all geared up and ready to go. Exact same pilots, same planes as in 65. I have seen their log books. They could have easily flown as many sorties in 71 as they did in 65, from West Pakistan (they would have lost more planes due to improved Indian SAMs in 71; but that has nothing to do with air superiority). But there was no point in doing so, since Pakistan had lost the war in the East, before it had even started. It had nothing to do with India achieving air superiority. Countries (neither Pakistan nor India) cannot all of a sudden gain enough power to achieve air superiority in a mere six years.

The only way India can achieve military superiority is through a combined Army, Air and Naval attack. This would eventually be successful, due to India`s larger size and primarily becuase India wouldn`t have any supply line problems. If the whole Indian military had to cross through a hostile Afghanistan (or even through a hostile Kashmir only, with no access to Punjab and Sind), they would not be able to achieve any kind of offensive military superiority due to supply line problems. The Soviets couldn`t have thrown anything against Pakistan, that was larger than the whole IAF, and the Soviet aircraft would have had to fly over the airspace of Afghanistan to reach Pakistan, if they came from USSR. Not an easy task for Soviet gas-guzzling technology.

And the scenario of a group of bombers going into attack a country, is from WWII movies. It doesn`t happen like this anymore. Bombers are sitting ducks without proper escorts. All the latest breed of US bombers are supersonic (B-52s are now only used, once air superiority has been achieved). The bombing missions nowdays are at near supersonic speeds, with only a second or two available as time-over-target.

If one looks at pure destruction, then the Soviets could have just launched a couple of nukes at Pakistan and destroyed it; what to talk of sending its whole Air Force against Pakistan. But they wanted to capture the land (or at least control it politically), not destroy it. This they would have done, by destabilizing Pakistan first (through Pakhtunistan or some Baluch independence movement, or something similar; if they could have), and putting there own people in power, and then by using a fully occupied Afghanistan (they failed there) as a launching base, invading Pakistan, if required.

The Soviets would have never just launched their whole Air Force against NATO, either. They would have only done so, by an accompanying ground invasion. An Air Force on its own is dead meat, unless it has the ratios and quaility of the US Air Force against Serbia. That is why even though the Soviets were equipped to launch against NATO, they never did. They knew they would lose their aircraft. They didn`t launch a ground invasion either, because they couldn`t, due to NATP resistence forces. Similarly they couldn`t launch one into Pakistan due to logistical problems through Afghanistan, and due to the fact that they were defeated in Afghanistan.

I am not saying the Soviets couldn`t have defeated Pakistan had the two countries been adjacent, or if the Soviets were just willing to tolerate any number of losses (they probably could have taken out West Germany, had they been willing to tolerate huge losses). I am just stating that the losses would have been so huge, due to logistical problems, and high-tech aid from the USA to Pakistan, and due to the size of the Pakistan army (with or without staff cars), that the losses were intolerable. Had the Soviets succeeded in conquering Afghanistan, they would have used that as a lauching pad, by first destabilizing Pakistan. That is when India would have gotten involved.

They were able to, ``conquer`` Czechoslavakias of the world, because these countries were unwilling to lose a million men to fight the Soviets. Hence, there is no legend of Czech Mujahideen.

If their aim was to just stabilize Afghanistan, in thier direction, they would not have carried out so much damage, and would have left earlier when they realized it was a lost cause. Yet they ruthlessly killed over 1 million Afghanis (1 out of every 15 Afghans), and turned 5 million into refugees (1 out of every 3). Not to mention, risked breaking the USSR into pieces. Don`t you think that is a bit too much just to stabilize a neighboring country?

The Soviets do not have a history of stabilizing their border countries at such cost. The Czars do have a strong history of slowly occupying Central Asian countries on their move towards the water. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was just another step.

HANDS OFF ARAFAT – AND WITHDRAW : UN AND US tells Sharon.

Sharon may be trying to eliminate Arafat but the writing on the wall is that -- IT IS Sharon -- whose days are numbered.

Like Hitler, Mussolini, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain -- every TORMENTOR of the people -- in a rising crescendo of VIOLENCE -- one day -- OVERPLAYS -- his HANDS -- and suddenly the world catches those HANDS -- and says NO MORE -- and BEATS those HANDS into pulp.

The blood soaked HANDS of that Butcher of Shattila and Sabra are -- in the process of -- OVERPLAY -- around Arafat`s compound -- those HANDS are heading for the chopping block.

The US supported 14-0 Security Council resolution ordering Israel to WITHDRAW -- is the FIRST warning SHOT.

As always like every TYRANT -- Sharon the Bulldozer is about to BULLDOZE the moral and political structure of Israel -- into the grounds of NAZI abominations.

IT IS TIME -- for that Likud’s APOLOGIST – the FIG LEAF -- Shimon Perez -- to jump off the TYRANT`S TITANIC.

ylh, SameerJB, shankar, bina, shammi, sigalph25, Nawabzada N., Qazi Urstruly, tahmad, temporal and any other interested folk:

The Pakistani Power Structure and its grip on the Pakistani society (Part II): How to break it:



Now that there is some understanding of how the four power structures are inter-related to each other, through 200 hundred or so powerful families, one has to figure out how to liberate the normal Pakistanis (i.e. all of us who do not belong to these families, the peasants, the comp. scientists, etc.) from the shackles of these families.

It should be understood that these families will themselves fight tooth and nail to ensure their dominance is kept. Regardless of how many enlightened poems they may author about peasant`s rights, they will never give up power volutarily. Someone outside the system will have to take the power from them by force. Also, since these families will always be in power regardless of which feudal party wins the elections (since their relatives are in every party), election after election under the current system will not solve the problem. It will infact strengthen them, which is why they are they biggest supporters of Pakistan ridiculous version of, ``democracy.``

Let`s start with the military, a subject whose internals I understand quite well. There is a simple solution: Cut down the General ranks to 1/3rd their current size. Instead of 160 Generals, there should be around 55 in the combined forces. The PAF has four Air Marshalls (Lt. Gens.) and around 17 AVMs (Maj. Generals). Interestingly it only has around 17 fighter squadrons. The USAF at its peak with 90 times the budget of the PAF and ten times the men, had only 13 Lt. Generals (not 100% sure of this figure).

The Pakistani military, thus, is one of the most top heavy in the world. It is basically turning into an employment agency for Generals. Cutting the size of the General staff will require a joint agreement from the three Chiefs, the President and the Prime Minister. After that, it will be an easy task. All the money and resources saved from this cutdown should be used to raise the salaries of the junior officers. Captains and Majors, in any military of the world, usually don`t like Generals, anyways.

This will greatly reduce the power of the top military brass in areas outside the military. There will barely be enough Generals to run the military, much less get involved in civilian ventures. And cutting down the top staff will actually make the military more efficient.

- A similar task needs to be done in the beaurecracy. And it needs to be made subordinate to the elected local bodies.

- Feudalism does not need to be reduced. It needs to be eliminated, all together. There needs to be a limit set on the amount of land a person can own, thereby removing his/her monopoly on farming and politics. All landowners also need to be forced to pay taxes on equivalent scales to the businessmen.

- This brings us to the final group: big business. This is the only group that should not be reduced. Infact, businessmen of all sizes (big, small, medium) need to be encouraged and allowed to grow even bigger. This group is the true strength of any country.

However, an equal playing field needs to be set up in business, by minimizing corruption. And big business needs to be forced to pay taxes honestly. The market forces, and not corruption, should be deciding factor in business growth. Once a level playing field is achieved, then businesses of all sizes must be provided every single facility they need to grow even bigger.

(I would like to point out that I am myself a businessman, hence a member of this group. So my views maybe a bit biased; for some reason, perhaps due to their own frustration, some people keep placing me in the military group).

How will this reduce the influence of these powerful families:

- From my generation onwards, these powerful families have stopped sending their kids into the military. It is no longer lucrative. The ones who have kids in the military, are desparately trying to get them out. Zia-ul-Haq`s son is not in the military, but a senior member of the feudal PML. Gohar Ayub got out of the military as a Captain, and is a part of the powerful four nexus. Nawaz Sharif married his daughter to a Captain. Immediately after marraige, the Captain was out of the Army and into the beaurecracy, etc.

The only thing that happens now is that these families marry their kids to the kids of people who have become Generals, and vice-versa.

Since the feudal and business kids are not in the mlitary profession any more, the military`s direct association at the personal level, with the nexus has weakened. Additionally, once the number of Generals are reduced, the chances of marrying into this group will be reduced also. Also, the military works on a rotational basis. So while a General maybe a very powerful position, a person only occupies it for three years or so. He eventually retires, and loses his power. He does not own these positions (unlike the feudal who occupies his position as long as he lives).

- The reduction of the beaurecracy will have the same effect as the reduction of the General staff. And placing it under elected control will furthur reduce its power.

- Removing the feudal will completely shake everything up. It will literally liberate 2/3rd of Pakistan. With limited lands, the feudal will no longer be able to control politics. He will start losing political power and will be unable to influence to other members on his land. This will be the killing blow to the power 4 nexus, and will throw these families completely out of Pakistan`s power loop.

- Big business will grow, but the powerful families will now have lost their nexus network. They will thus be effected by the market forces like everyone else. If they are efficient, by all means their relatives in this area should be allowed to grow. However, if they are not efficient, these families will automatically die their natural death in the business arena.

Thus the power nexus will be broken, and these families kids will have to earn a 9-5 living like the rest of us.

As an example, lets look at how this nexus harms business in Pakistan. I am currently in a position to set up a small computer business of around 15 people in Pakistan. Suppose I go to Pakistan, and set it up. Now suppose some kid from Goor Yoob`s (Gohar Ayub) extended families decides to compete with me. All things equal, if I am more efficient than him, I will kick his butt. If he is more efficient, then he will kick mine. Well and good.

However, Gohar Jr. will be so well connected in all sectors of Pakistan, that he will have a huge head start on me. Regardless of who is in power, he will have access to him/her , since his family members are in every party and in every power group. Regardless of how efficient I maybe, he will probably control the business market through his contacts, thereby putting me out of business, and increasing his influence in big business. Due to this, I will be reluctant to invest in Pakistan, regardless of how much I may want to.

As an example look at what Irfan Marwat (Ghulam Ishaq Khan`s son in law, and thus the relative of the Ayubs, Khattaks and Saifullahs) did in Pakistan`s cellular phone market.

``Let us start with former

president of the republic, the obstinate, uncompromising, grim Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who, one could take a risk and say, was not personally financially corrupt. But one cannot say with full

certainty that he was not as, whilst in office, he allowed an open field to his two sons-in-law, Anwar Saifullah and Irfan Marwat, to abuse the national wealth and the people.`` (http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/jan2701.html)

What has the current govt. done to break the power 4 nexus:

In all fairness (regardless of what our local Nawazada Hamid and Qazi Urs may say; two individuals who bicker with each other on every issue, except in opposing others` point of views, unconditionally), unlike previous govts., the current govt. is not feeding the power 4 nexus. I say this as a member of the business group, and not as a member of the military group (which Nawabzada and Qazi keep trying to place me into, for some strange reason). Though not completely successful, it has done a much better job in cutting down the influence of the powerful families than the previous govts. (since the previous govts. were constitued by these families themselves). The current govt. and cabinet consists of people who are generally from outside the powerful family nexus (no Gohar Ayubs or Anwar Saifullahs etc.), and represent successful Pakistanis from the middle and upper middle class, and not feudals.

Its performance is as follows:

- The current govt. has not cut down the size of the General Staff. It has put some Generals in jail. It has frozen the military budget. It has introduced stricter accountablity in the military. These three steps are well and good, but those of us who understand the military, know that its budget is not the main problem (most of it is spent on equipment; military men in South Asia are the lowest paid professionals in the society). It is the number and influence of the General staff, in areas outside the military, that is the problem. That can only be reduced by removing 2/3rd of the General ranks, and giving these positions to people of a lower rank (like it used to be).

Musharraf has not cut the General staff down to size, because this is where he draws his strength from. Since Musharraf is not part of the power 4 nexus through family contacts, the other 3 members of the nexus, along with the religious right, is already united against him (the complete spectrum from Nawazada Nasrullah to Qazi Hussein). People who hate each other and never agree on anything, are now united against Musharraf, since they are afraid he is going to cut them down to size.

If Musharraf turns on the military General staff also, he probably feels he will be isolated, since this group will join into the nexus as well, and leave Musharraf completely isolated. So since Musharraf isn`t going to cut this group to size, someone else will have to do it in the future.

- The current govt. has completely decimated the beaurecracy. Not only has it been cut it down to size, the powerful positions of DC and Commissioner have been removed all together. Added to this, it is now under the control of the elected bodies. The old beaurecratic power structure is now gone.

- The feudals have not been taken on by the current govt., at all, except for disqualifying many of the elder ones through the Bachelors degree requirement. I assume the govt. is afraid of the feudals. It knows it cannot break their back. If it takes them on, the feudals will turn 2/3rd of Pakistan against this govt. This is unfortunate, because until feudals are eliminated, Pakistan will not progress, regardless of what else happens.

- The govt. is trying to create a level playing field for business. It has gone after a whole group of corrupt businessmen through NAB (some of the ones who belong to the powerful 200 families have been able to get themselves freed). It has also given more autonomy to financial institutions. It is desparately trying to privatize everything, specifically the banks. And it is trying hard to promote small and medium enterprises, etc.

However, it will be very difficult to create a level playing field, until the powerful 200+ family nexus is broken, since they will come back into political power, and undo everything this govt. has done in the business arena.

So the current govt. gets very good marks in sorting out the beaurecracy. It gets good marks on creating level playing fields in business. It gets bad marks in sorting out the military General staff. And it gets very bad marks in going after the feudal.

In conclusion, the above solution is no different than what is employed by successful socieities in the West:

1) They have completely eliminated the feudal, distributed the lands, and have turned farming into a business which is governed by market forces (with some govt. subsidies provided fairly to all farmers). Hence the most efficient farmer wins out, not the biggest feudal with the most political influence.

2) They have not completely eliminated the military and beaurecracy, realizing that they are needed for self-defence and management, respectively. These countries have however, reduced the military and beaurecracy to the smallest possible size (except of superpowers like the USA and aspiring powers like India), with a small General Staff, thereby reducing its influence in civilian areas.

3) They have highly encouraged businesses of all sizes to grow, but in an even playing field, with strong laws against corruption.

Thus these successful societies have built themselves on the backs of robust tax-paying entreprenuers and businessmen (farming being a business there also), and not on the shoulders of Generals, beaurecrats and feudals (feudals are gone, generals and beaurecrats are respected, but given no power outside their specific tasks). The most talented people in these socieites go into business. The politics of these countries are not run by feudals and Generals, either. And beaurecrats do not have the influence to bother the businessmen (I have hardly ever had to deal with a single US beaurecrat direcly in my small software businessman).

saminashah #284 The Arab-Palestinian conflict reminds me of the family feuds that go on for generations in NWFP, and for the same stupid reason: land. In NWFP, they have an excuse - people are poor and land is their livelihood. That is not true in the middle east. It is the sense of injustice, pride and so forth. True leadership would be to end the conflict and bring peace to the people. There is more than enough land for everyone in the middle east.

Romair

Check this out `India-China-U.S. Triangle: A ‘Soft’ Balance of Power System in the Making`

http://www.csis.org/saprog/venu.pdf

`The Bush administration does not want to say or do anything that might undermine Musharraf’s game plan to get himself “elected” as his country’s President (currently, he is self-appointed) through a referendum, scheduled for May. The Bush White House evidently thinks that Musharraf, with a fig leaf of legitimacy, might be more useful to it than in his present avatar. In Pakistan there is a chorus of protest against the referendum ploy. Two earlier military despots of that country, Ayub and Zia, have tried this trick to the great detriment of Pakistan. But America continues to stand by Musharraf just as, in the eighties, it had backed to the hilt the smiling and sly Zia. `

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=5603

Pakistan: The Dangers of Conventional Wisdom, by the International Crisis Group

http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=578

These words uttered by Ahmed Shah Masud now appear almost prophetic,

Veteran Afghan warrior Commandant Ahmad Shah Mas’ud bluntly warned Wednesday Pakistan to get out of Afghanistan or face the same humiliation the Afghan people dealt to the British and Russian occupiers.

Speaking to a packed press conference in Paris, Mr. Mas’ud, who is in France on his first ever visit to the West, said he could check and defeat the Taleban if it were not for the ``full military, logistic, financial and physical`` assistance the hard-line Islamist militants receive from Pakistan.

``We ended the British colonialism and defeated the Red Army. Pakistan is not stronger. Sooner than latter, they too, will suffer the same humiliation``, he assured, calling on both Europe and the United States help restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan by putting pressure on Islamabad to evacuate Afghanistan.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/apr_2001/masud_paris_4401.htm

Romair,

Your analysis of the power stucture in Pakistan was an extremely interesting read. I`ve learnt more about Pakistan from you than any other poster on Chowk. I`d like to make a few comments.

1) My first non biased introduction to Pakistan was in the late 60s, when Kushwant Singh (who was then the Editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India) had a cover story in the magazine. It was titled ``Pakistan--friend, not enemy``--or something like that. I think the article was written by him, with a lot of pictures. Ofcourse, it was very controversial because at that time (perhaps like now) most Indians considered Pakistan the epitomy of evil.

I remember feeling a mixture of envy, admiration, derision..among others. It was a along time ago..so my memory about that was sketchy. But I do recall, the theme of the article was that instead of blindly hating Pakistan (because they hate us), its time we Indians learnt more about Pakistan in a non biased way.

My dad`s comment to that article was that ``we human beings are prejudiced creatures & the only `pill` for prejudice is non-biased knowlege--its time India & Pakistan became friends``.

I was very impressed (& envious) by the fact that Pakistanis had access to ``phoren`` consumer goods like cars & tv--that we Nehruvian socialists were denied & starved by our govt. This was a time when India had NO TV & COLOR TV was already introduced to Pakistan!!

At the same time, what sticks in my mind is that most of the wealth & power in Pakistan is concentrated in the hands of 22 families. The rest of the Pakistanis were basically peons & serfs, who were purposely denied any of the fabulous luxuries that this aristocratic class enjoyed.

Also, what stuck in my mind was that eventhough the Pakistani military was not highly paid monetarily (compared to the the aristrocrats), they were far better off than India`s military class--the Govt made sure that the military & their families were given perks that other civilians had no access to (in terms of housing, education & various other subsidies). So a military officer was considered a very highly desireable ``catch`` for your daughter`s hand:)

Your description of the power structure portrays something quite similar to what I remember Kushwant said (but he said it as a compliment to Pakistan--rather than a crticism).

2) If the military/feudal/beaurocratic nexus is so closely intertwined by their own interests & ``blood`` relations--Pakistan is screwed! How in God`s name can that influence & power structure be broken, short of a revolution along the lines of the French Revolution? I`m eagerly waiting for PartII. Who is going to ``bell the cat?!!``.

3)I sincerely think you should submit Part II as an article to Chowk. You write beautifully. You are controversial & generate a lot of debate. You are passionate in your beliefs & will defend them valiantly. You have no problem kicking the beehive & fending off the stings of angry bees buzzing around you:)

I would like you to seriously consider it. Its an important topic. This thread will be soon going off the main page & this topic is very important to the future of the whole Subcontinent.

Bhai -

It offends when someone I care about isn`t being authentic. There`s none on the board I admire more than you. No greater mind - except when it falls to anti-Indian rhetoric. You`re better than that - more creative than that. What can we really do about India? Nothing. It`s like sleeping with an elephantine Snow White for Pakistan. She rolls in her eternal sleep, you`re screwed - and not in a good way:(

Though I disagree, yar, you redeemed yourself with the ``pissed`` note to Romair (#289). Authentic EXPERIENCE. When we experience a thing, we KNOW it in a gnostic sense. I experienced things in Pakistan, where my heart still resides. What I saw there tells me that India has little to do with Pakistan`s problems. It`s being bled to death by military feudals, hardcore feudals, bureaucrats, and even its poor can`t withhold gratification long enough to plant a goddamn tree to burn later to make rhoti.

I salute you, Yurstruly. I too am pissed.

re: shammi #291

you think Urstruly cares? he knows you, indira, and all indians are murderers looking to kill the next pregnant kashmiri woman you can find. don`t try to put wool over his eyes by being sympathetic to his compaints and relating them to yours for india.