Some Burning Questions

mohar11 #81 Whatever.

arjun: I have no wish to engage in discussion with you. Thanks.

tahmed32 #74: The open letter business is a literary style and little to do with appealing anymore. In old times, it used to mean appealing the higher/ highest authority for being detached or unaware of the facts - surrounded by cronies. In this very case, Musharraf must be insane not to know that military has been unfairly squanderingt he resources to build an empire unto themselves. As it was pointed out that Pakistani military needs a country (more than other way around) in order to meet the needs of their empire. One part of this mutually exclusive parasitic empire (or dianosuarus) is privileged dispensation of quality education for members` children only.

Every year, military asks money in the budget, earmarked for education of dependants and gets away with it without question whereas it is often denied or reduced when asked by other organizations like PIA, Steel Mill Corporation, Wapda, Pakistan Railways etc.

The system of cantonements should go. One way to do it is to decrease rotation of officers every two years. It will save tons of money, wasted in mass scale, round the year rotation and used as a justification for exceptional treatment in housing, healthcare and dependants schooling. Those who have contacts with higher ups get away with longer stays and choicest locations. Why not make it minimum of 5 year stay instead of two or three.

#74 by tahmed32
//....I dont think simple appeals to musharaff (much as one may sympathize with them) will accomplish anything.
We need some ``out of the box thinking``....//

OK guys - from now on, no more simple appeals to Musharaf( until today - touted as the ``saviour`` of Pakistan - the country`s only white hope). Now - it is time to think ``out of box``.

So what happened? For last three years pakis have been worshipping Musharaf as the messiah who would bring deliverance for Pakistan. How come the ``brave`` , ``honest`` , almighty soldier has suddenly become so impotent?

Faisaluno:

Thanks for posting that very interesting article.

Its evidently a lot easier to bash Indians/Hindus under the pretext of pious outrage at an unknown poster than to discuss the Pakistani Army.

Derogatory comments about Hindus and Hinduism are made as a matter of course by almost all Pakistani posters on all threads and even a chowk movie review on Star Wars had to bash Hindus/Indians. I don`t recall anyone saying in response `no wonder India`s defence budget is so large`. What hypocrites from start to finish.

I suspect most chowkies are part of the Army food chain and making only a show of concern here. Good luck bleeding your country white because of the Hindus.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``All the while the mirage of a ``liberated`` Kashmir blinds Pakistan`s leadership to the country`s rational self-interest.``

...i doubt any pakistanis actually understand that....

nazarhayat/waqar/stuka: Agreed that the issue here is the equation of the self-interest of military officials with the interest of the people of Pakistan in general. However, given the realities of the political situation in india and pakistan, I dont think simple appeals to musharaff (much as one may sympathize with them) will accomplish anything.
We need some ``out of the box thinking`` if we are to ever hope to see a truly democratic government within Pakistan, and good neighborly relations between the government of India and Pakistan. Any ``outside the box`` thoughts??

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Waqartalib:

This happens all the time. You could post an article on Laddoos and Jalebis, and the discussion will switch to Kashmir, religion and partition. :)

wonders of wonders. a nuanced analysis of pak in the op-ed pages of wsj. intersting conclusion. author thinks it is in u.s. interest to cooperate to with fourth reich. an accurate insight into how u.s. has applied its policy to muslim countries.

COMMENTARY

Hamlet of the Indus

By RALPH PETERS

Whenever a voice on the airwaves generalizes about Pakistan, I want to ask, ``Which Pakistan do you mean?`` Beyond the facade of a flag and customs officers at major airports, there is no integral, unified state behind the name. Does the pundit mean the feudal territories east of the Indus river, which resemble 15th century England with electricity? Or the tribal lands to the west, where the blood feuds and clan rule of medieval Scotland are supercharged by religious ferocity?

Does the Pentagon spokesperson mean the mega-city of Karachi, which the government cannot rule firmly, or the frontier settlements where Islamabad does not even pretend to rule, deferring to tribal elders? Mughal Pakistan yearning for the ``liberation`` of Kashmir, or Pathan Pakistan dreaming of a Pukhtunistan between Kabul and Peshawar? Mohajir or Baluch Pakistan? Or Islamic Pakistan, blaming unbelievers for its self-inflicted failures?

* * *
Today`s Pakistan is a military pretending its sponsor is a functioning state. The government shows little sense of responsibility for the welfare of the man on the street or the woman in the field. Pakistani identity succumbs when tribal, family, ethnic or regional rivalries come into play. The adjective ``lawless`` often is used to describe the vast Northwest Frontier Province adjoining Afghanistan. Yet that territory may be the strictest rule-of-law portion of the country -- although the law is not one of ratified constitutions, but of Pukhtunwali, of the tribe, based upon religion and cultural traditions immune to modernity. Any foreign businessman can attest that the ``lawless`` parts of Pakistan are those most evidently under control of the government.

The contradictions compound. As a firm believer in democracy and the rule of law, I nonetheless recognize that military government is the best, if feeble, hope for keeping Pakistan together and making any progress at all. Even the most nationalistic Pakistanis will tell you that the civilian politicians pandered to cancerous extremists and ignored the law whenever they could not exploit it to family advantage.

Which leaves us with Pervez Musharraf, a Hamlet in khaki, as Pakistan`s head of state.

Gen. Musharraf is, without question, a patriot. Those who know him describe him as a dutiful soldier, physically brave, conscientious and honest by local standards -- but a man of limited vision. And that vision focuses obsessively on the reunification of Kashmir. Since the events of 9/11 returned America`s attentions to Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf consistently has chosen expedient fixes, opting for the tactical solutions natural to the field soldier. But he has left Pakistan in a strategic muddle as he and his paladins attempt to placate the U.S. in its war against terrorism, while hesitating to pursue the bold actions against fanatics and renegades necessary if the state is ever to grow healthy -- not least because the extremists have been fervent allies on the Kashmir issue. Gen. Musharraf has tried to have it both ways -- postponing internal and external confrontations, but moving Pakistan no closer to enduring solutions.

The U.S. is far from blameless. Washington simply turned its back on Pakistan after the Russians left Afghanistan, exacerbating problems American policies had deepened: metastasizing extremism, endemic corruption, and a casual availability of weapons that would make the NRA swoon. Pakistan responded to Washington`s desertion by attempting to create strategic depth for its endless crisis with India by backing the Taliban regime and its now-notorious consorts in Afghanistan.

After 9/11, Gen. Musharraf`s best chance was to recognize that Islamabad`s Afghan policy had failed dangerously and to turn his back resolutely on those who had designed it. He and his supporters needed to purge the extremist elements that had crowded into the Inter Services Intelligence agency and, to a lesser extent, the military. Instead, Gen. Musharraf played musical chairs at the top, while leaving the radicalized field structures largely intact. He now heads an internally divided government, in which some elements cooperate impressively with American counterparts, while others work to protect violent extremists and preserve terrorist networks.

Despite his indefatigable sense of duty, the demands of his position have been too much for Gen. Musharraf. His recent nuclear tantrums vis-à-vis India are not evidence of a bloodthirsty spirit, but of the pressures of trying to serve too many demanding constituencies without a coherent strategy -- beyond threatening an enormous, far-more-powerful neighbor with devastation.

Meanwhile, the military, the ISI, and the rest of the government are torn between the very human anxiety to back the ultimate winner and loyalties to the state, to the institutional military, to self-perpetuating bureaucracies, to friends and allies hunted by America, to family and tribe, and to competing visions of Islam.

Could the Pakistani government do more in the war against terror? Certainly. But the military is terrified of breaking the long-standing patterns of doing business that have allowed the pretences of a state to continue. The military could move forcefully into the Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan, but it does not see the risk of casualties and bloody rebellion as worth taking just to please America`s passing fancy. Pakistanis remember all too well that the U.S. walked away from them before.

East of the Indus, the government is willing to pursue known terrorists -- especially if they are not Pakistani nationals. But it has been unwilling to take a stand against the organized domestic extremists whose avowed goal is to remake Pakistan as a strict Islamic state and who sponsor violence to achieve their ends. All the while the mirage of a ``liberated`` Kashmir blinds Pakistan`s leadership to the country`s rational self-interest.

At present, Washington has no choice but to work -- carefully -- with Gen. Musharraf, a head of state who insists on a sovereignty he cannot enforce over territory that continues to harbor both international terrorists and Afghan renegades. There are no better options available to Washington than continuing to pressure the Pakistani government behind closed doors, while avoiding any public humiliation of a leader who, however imperfect, remains preferable to any known alternatives. On the crucial issue of the hot pursuit of terrorists across the Afghan border into Pakistan, the U.S. must not be deterred, but must go to all possible lengths to maintain public deniability.

* * *
Perhaps the best for which we can hope is that Pakistan will continue to muddle through, never quite collapsing. Incremental progress against Pakistan-based terrorists may be the best level of cooperation we realistically can expect, given the indecisive nature of the Musharraf regime. Increasingly, Pakistan looks like a problem that can only be contained, not solved. Meanwhile, the long-term strategic and economic interests of the U.S. lie across the border in India and we must manage our engagement on the subcontinent artfully. While the U.S. should endeavor to defuse nuclear confrontations, it must avoid any involvement in the insoluble Kashmir issue, in which an honest broker would merely alienate both parties. Finally, Washington must plan for various scenarios were the current government in Islamabad to fall, if Gen. Musharraf were to be assassinated, or, the worst case, if hostilities were to break out between India and Pakistan.

In Gen. Musharraf, the U.S. is bound to a Hamlet, a man torn between action and inaction. We cannot exit the stage, but we should avoid too close an embrace of the leading actor.

Mr. Peters, a retired Army officer, is the author, most recently, of ``Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World`` (Stackpole, 2002).

Updated January 15, 2003

Pakistanis Question Perks of Power
Many Say Military Confuses National Interest With Its Own

By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, November 22, 2002; Page A01

KARACHI, Pakistan -- Public schools here are little more than warehouses, grim concrete shells lacking libraries, sports facilities, sometimes even teachers. Classes have as many as 60 students. But the children of Pakistani military officers almost certainly are not among them. For them, there is Army Public School O Levels.

......

Alas, keshto has succeeded in his mission i.e., to deflect the attention from the subject. Sadly some of our friends dont understand his gameplan and allowed themselves to be manipulated.

Please, why cant you see that by replying his nonsense over here serves only one purpose namely the points raised by the author remain unanswered. And who would love this development?

Yeah, the intended audience.
Please, please, let him write what he feels like. Please, lets try to discuss what this article is all about.

Ok, one thing seems to be confirmed that the article is based on facts and there are no ulterior motives behind it. It would be really interesting if someone takes the challenge of Ms N Y and refutes anyone of her assertions.

The issue raised by Nighat Yasmeen has been hijacked into a religious debate. This will be a fruitless and an endless debate. Not having been resolved in many past centutries. All religions are the best religions for their followers and it is best left at that. Spirtuality is a human need and it comes out in various forms in the shape of varios faiths. No religion can be logically proved nor their is any need for doing so. It is a personal matter. The religions have done a great service to the mankind by regulating the mating of the human specie. Otherwise it would have been quite a chaos and a calamity for the off springs. The religions have also performed an important function of psychological therapy giving hope and contentment to human beings. On the negative side, the religions have been the greatest source of causing bloodshed in human beings and continue to do so. The basic fundamentals in all religions are alike - prayer, fasting, sacrifice, mariage ritual, beads, beard, head dress, sex control laws and so on. And the religious leaders in all religions look and behave alike whether it is a Mulla, Pundit, Priest etc. They are well fed, very healthy, sexualy potent, inclined towards homosexuality, confidant, intolerant, and have anabsolute belief in their wisdom.

Here no one seems to be talking of `Sufism`, the islamic school of thought which preaches tolerance towards the mankind and a belief in the truth of all religions. Islam spread in the South Asia and Far East because of the message of love by the Sufis. If it were the Mullas doing the job, Islam would have been an extinct religion by now. Please forgive me if I have overstepped somewhere.