Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?

Oops, hit Post too soon. We could take something like a three-year moving average to calculate Iraqi casualties IF we assume that Hussain had changed his ways but, I would argue, that is not a good idea since we have no compelling evidence to suggest that this was the case. Therefore, it is still better to look at his entire track record (Kurds gassed, Iraqi infants dying of malnutrition, Shias slaughtered, Sunnis fed into the cannon`s mouth of the Iran-Iraq war, etc) before we decide.

Romair, you wrote:

``Twice as many Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war, than the total number of civilians killed in WTC attacks. However, no one seems pushed about that. Apparenly a dead Iraqi (or maybe even a dead Muslim) is less important than a dead American.``

Lets be really coldbloodedly rational about this. What is the net increase in the number of Iraqi deaths? That is, what is the average number of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussain per six month period of his rule and compare that to the number of Iraqi deaths caused by US military action. There is a slight problem here, though. Do we attribute the 500,000+ Iraqi children deaths to Hussain or to the US/UN sanctions? I vote for Hussain since, if he had money to spare for building new palaces, keeping (literally) billions in US currency and importing cases of Scotch by the thousands for his sons, the Baath Party high command and his Special Republican Guard and other bully boys, he had the ability and resources to spend on luxuries such as Oral Rehydration Salts and Infant Formula.

So, now, are the Iraqis better off or worse off?

Romair # 26

``Here is my formula: $1 billion loan write-off (not loans, but loan write-off) for evey 1000 soldiers sent. And the soldiers will not be sent to the Sunni triangle around Baghdad. They will be sent to Kurdistan or Southern Iraq (where the British are). This is exactly the forumla Turkey has used, i.e. $8.5 billion for 10k soldiers. ``

There are two things that can be said for you.

1. You are hell of an optomistic guy.
2. Also you are a sheikh chilli par excellance.

You are aways counting you chicken before they are hatched. Remember beggers can`t be chosers. Also Bush dosen`t have billions of dollars to give away and even if he did, he will think twice before funnelling those dollars into the hands of rabid anti america mullahs.

It is a very well written and equally well researched article. Events are being dominated by the hate being generated by the NEOCONS and the absence to recognise Pakistan`s true role in the war on terror. Somehow, it seems that the US administration is convinced that Pakistan can be squeezed more and more and that Pakistan will comply. This hate is now seeping into the very fabric of Pakistan`s life specially at the rock bottom.Even the so called secular middle class is shifting from looking upto USA to hating it.

Once the US bombing of Kabul began in 2000, I was of the view that Pakistan`s role in the operation was periferal and ultimately a deliberate Pashtun Dilemma will be created for Pakistan and would ultimately form the basis for balkanisation of the region. There were few who agreed with me and many laughed it off. But it happened.The Pashtum belt today is divided between the ethno religious sentiment (MMA) and the Pashtun nationalists. We have to be very careful as these sentiments can be easly set alight through contentious issues. Kalabagh is one.

I agreed with Amir Matin when he said that Aimal Kansi could have provided a laboratory to USA and explain why secular young muslims have come to hate her. Alas! no compassion was shown and Aimal fell prey to the dirty intelligence wars. So tthere is no compassion. Many Pakistanis have fled USA and others dread going there. This is what the most important ally gets in return.

The tragedy is that USA has not recognised Terrorism as a social problem. It has chosen a military course of action which in turn is generating more hate. Unfortunately the hi tech violence will be met by primordial revenge and blood will continue to flow.

In this entire equation, Pakistan could ultimately send troops to Iraq, but will still remain in Square One. This has to be abundantly clear to our elites.

I think those who have not read must read Syed Ali`s paper on ``The Village of Kheruddin``
Maybe, he has already said something

The US is in a big dilemma in Iraq.

It is now being forced to make decisions in the benefit of Iraq, not voluntarily, but forcefully. Though it is still fighting tooth and nail, rather unsuccessfully now, to not allow the UN to take control of Iraq, and ruin its control on Iraq.

Everything started going against the USA, when it had already deployed tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East to attack Iraq, and found the European population going totally against it. The neo-cons had not predicted this. Due to this, since then, nothing has followed the course that the US wanted, or predicted. Consider the following:

- For the first time in modern history, the European govts. opposed a US military action openly.

- The Elections of one European nation, Germany, were actually decided by the Iraq War. The popularity of another govt., France, was raised by its opposition to Iraq War. And another election, Britain`s, maybe decided by it. According to Newsweek, the people of only two countries in the world, USA and Israel, supported the war, in public opinion polls.

- The USA had no credible intellegence of WMDs or any other threat in Iraq. If had the intelligence, it would have known where they are, and would have found them by now. However, it was going to shove that under the carpet, after the invasion, with the help of a European coalition. But, since Europe is against the USA on this one, it has put all the US actions in Iraq under the microscope of a free press.

- Now that USA has had to come up with another reason for the invasion. And that spin happens to be that it invaded Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis. Even though that was never mentioned as the original reasonm, which was always WMD. And the Iraqis themselves were never asked whether they wanted to be invaded. I doubt there are too many countries that want to be invaded by another country.

- Now the USA is being forced to make good on its promises about the, ``benefit of Iraqis.`` To do so, it has to literally build up the whole country from scratch. Since in all wars, the USA military first goes after destroying the infrastructure of the country, to immobolize the military. It now has to rebuild what it destroyed itself, like the electrical and water systems.

- The above is an extremely difficult task. In fact it is impossible. One cannot just rebuild another country. It takes decades. Even this year, out of the $87 billion being invested by the USA, only $16-$18 billion is being spent on rebuilding Iraq. The rest is US military expenses. This amount is about the same as the money that came into Iraq during sanction days. So a lot more will be needed.

- Iraq is now an occupied country, and under international law and human rights law, citizens of an occupied country can try to attack the occupying army soldiers. That is not considered terrorism, even though CNN keeps saying it is. This has given Al-Qaeda and anyone else, an open certificate for attacking Americans in Iraq, without their acts being considered terrorism. This has made Iraq the magnet attracting Arabs who want to target Americans. The US soldiers are now, thus, walking targets will bull`s eyes on their helmets. They are getting picked off one to two a day.

- Due to the above, the US military moral is way down. It is very difficult for soldiers of any country, to fight civilians. They hate it. It is a lose-lose situaiton for them. They can get killed anytime. And if they accidently kill a civilian, they are considered, ``baby-killers.``

- The US Army is actually, in numbers of troops, smaller than the Pakistan army and nearly 1/3rd of the Indian Army. Yet it is spread so far all over the world, than it doesn`t have enough people. So the USA relies on National Gaurd troops. These are normal working men and women, like you and me, who have professional jobs and are reservists. Many of them have been called into Iraq, and have had to leave their civilian jobs for six months to a year or more.

- Apparently, 1/3rd of the USA soldiers have claimed low moral (I don`t blame them), and 1/2 have stated they will not re-enlist again. Unlike the Pakistan and Indian armies, in the USA Army, people enlist for brief amounts of time, and then leave. So their enlisted folks are always in rotation. They are not career long soldiers (US officers are career soldiers). Now the US govt. is afraid, Americans will not enlist anymore, in the Army, if they have to ship off to Iraq. In addition, the National Guard folks, will be way behind in their civilian careers when they return, and may even lose their jobs. Hence Americans will be reluctant to joing the National Guard also.

- Due to this, the USA needs troops from other countries to rotate its own troops out of Iraq on vacations back to their families, so that they are not completely fed-up with an Army career. At the same time, it does not want to increase the size of its own military.

This is where Pakistan, Turkey and India (and Bangladesh) come in. The USA wants 10,000 soldiers from each. 10,000 soldiers aren`t going to make much of a difference, where 140k soldiers have not made a difference. It will however, allow 10k American soldiers to take a vacation. And then rotate back in. And if the Pakistani, Indian, or Turkish soldiers end up being deployed in the most dangerous areas, then it will reduce American casualities. Too many USA deaths could ruin Bush`s Presidential bid.

More international soldiers will also give an image that Iraq is being occupied by a multinational force, even though, the USA will not allow anyone else to run Iraq - not even the UN.

- So basically, Pakistani soldiers aren`t going to benefit the Iraqis much. They will actually harm Pakistan, because the Iraqis will resent Pakistanis, much like Afghanis resent Pakistan. These soldiers will become targets of terrorist groups, as will Pakistan. They will however, help the USA Army and Bush`s re-election. This would be all well and good, if the USA did not have the money to recruit more American soldiers. It definitely does. But it wants to use the men and women of other countries to do its work, thereby keeping the moral of its own soldiers higher, by allowing them to go on leave.

America is now in a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation in Iraq. It has been unable to install its Chalabi led pro-US govt. in Iraq, due to opposition by EU, and the lack of support of the Iraqis. It has been forced to realize that if real democracy is introduced in Iraq, then pro-Iran Shia clerics will win in a landslide. Yet it is being forced to introduce democracy, since it is under an international microscope, thereby itself introducing the Ayotollahs into power.

And it will have to pump in $80 billion +/ per year into Iraq, as long as its Army is occupying the country, just to fund its own Army. This is higher than the annual US education budget. So the USA cannot do that for another year, I think.

So, in the end, the USA will gain nothing in Iraq. It may, ``actually`` end up doing good for Iraq, due to the pressures exerted on it by the rest of the world. In essence, this could be a watershed victory for the rest of the world, over US foreign policy ambitions.

We may see a democratically elected, Shia cleric pro-Iran/anti Israel govt., and probably anti-USA in the long run, in Iraq, which will be actually put into power by the actions of the USA. How ironic (though don`t be surprised if Iraq is invaded again, in fifteen years by the USA, to get rid of that govt. After all, Saddam and Taliban were big time allies of USA, at one time).

I am not sure this is what the neo-cons had in mind, when they initiated the attacks of Iraq, under the false reasonings of WMDs. The original neo-cons, under Zbignew Brezehnsky, helped put Afghanistan under mullahs after their Soviet jihad. And the new neo-cons will help put Iraq unde Shia clerics, after their latest jihad. In the process, tens of thousands of people have been killed, and two countries` infrastructure and societies have been decimated. Absolute power definitely corrupts absolutely. And the USA has too much absolute power in the world.

Oh yeah, and I forgot, Saddam is still alive, somewhere. As is OBL.

All of this mess, due to the bold neo-con visions of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle (not to mention our resident neo-con, tahmad). Twice as many Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war, than the total number of civilians killed in WTC attacks. However, no one seems pushed about that. Apparenly a dead Iraqi (or maybe even a dead Muslim) is less important than a dead American.

P.S Lady luck seems to be on the side of Musharraf, and on Pakistan`s side, again. Again and again, Pakistan ends up in a position, where its actions can decide the Presidential elections in the USA. Troops in Iraq, being the factor this time around. However, this time around, Pakistan is not as vulnerable as before, financially or geographically (since Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, does not border Pakistan). So Pakistan should play its cards very very carefully, and do a good cost-benefit analysis.

The USA is desparate in Iraq. And it needs Muslim soldiers. And it doesn`t trust any Muslim army, other than Turkey, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) to have professional enough soldiers to handle the situation. Pakistan should bargain, like there is not tomorrow.

Here is my formula: $1 billion loan write-off (not loans, but loan write-off) for evey 1000 soldiers sent. And the soldiers will not be sent to the Sunni triangle around Baghdad. They will be sent to Kurdistan or Southern Iraq (where the British are). This is exactly the forumla Turkey has used, i.e. $8.5 billion for 10k soldiers.

I think the above formula will be acceptable to Pakistani common man. However, f he still votes against it, then the deal is off, and no soldiers to be sent.

Now where have we heard similiar polemics before, Change the decade and the Military Dictator and you will have the whoredome of the 80s and Pakistans involvement in Afghanistan and the resulting rot. Fundamentalism which is a sizable force , with a large representation in the Pak Parliament is the illegitimate child of our last major one sided romance with the US in the Afghan war against the russian spearheaded by the ever zealot Mard-e-momin Zia. And boy did he fell (literally) from the skies once America had no more use of him. On Iraqi resistance, We fail to see the larger picture emerging as a ground reality in Iraq that the US will not be able to sustain its dominance as the resistance is becoming larger and braver by the minute. Thus the Monkey President is calling for the likes of Mongolia to send its troops to Iraq, as long as he can get the White boys out by the next election.

This is a trap that Pakistan can avoid, needs to avoid and has to avoid by all means. This whoredome to US Interests is going to bear no fruits. A lesson that we should have ``learned`` by now.

We are talking about a ten year commitment to Iraq, with no guaranteed results. The US public and family of the servicemen and women in Iraq dont like whats going on...why should any other country?

PS: Personally I don`t give a damn about the war on terror or the war in Iraq... My concern is the constitutional democracy in Pakistan ... so in the ultimate analysis Musharraf is not a nice guy!

Here is the situation as I see it...

I think to accuse General Musharraf of still having links with international terror is laughable... he does not... as a matter of policy he has severed his links of which he had abundant in the last decade (e.g. Afghan Jehad, Kashmir etc)... that much is clear.

As an individual Musharraf is a good man... he is a decent and modern muslim who no doubt wants to end this ... and he is certainly better than the military dictators we have had in the past... However the problem with him is his constituency.. the corp commanders in Rawalpindi. He is NOT an elected ruler... hence he is NOT a legitimate ruler. Pure and simple... let us make no mistake about it ... for the US`s interests in the region he is the ideal man, my objection to his regime is with respect to Pakistan only... he is not good for the prospects of constitutional democracy in this country.


-YLH

re: ahmadzai

{Hawks in Indian Government, the likes of Advani, Joshi, Sinha, Modi, Bal Thakray, who have declared a war on Pakistan. }


...mushraf family rats are sneaking across the LoC to behead women who wear jeans, and india has declared war?...wow...

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

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

Some times I wonder why USA insist Pakistan to send troops to iraq.dont they know
Pakistan is rouges of rouge state and had most unprofessional and rouge army. there is lot of danger for USA troops in Iraq from Pakistani army men. they are master in stab to back
in name of relegion.

This is an excellent article that analyses the situation rationally.

To answer the captioned question by the writer.

No Pakistan will not send its troops to Iraq even after the new UN resolution on the matter. Now expect to see the increased anti-Pakistani stance by the fanatic anti-Pakistani lobby in the USA.

In one of the previous articles on Chowk, I had posted that President Musharraf`s Scylla (the 6 headed hydra) is extremism and fundamentalism.

The 6 heads of this monster would be:

(1) Al Qaeda,
(2) Talibans,
(3) Mullas of Pakistan,
(4) Hawks in Indian Government, the likes of Advani, Joshi, Sinha, Modi, Bal Thakray, who have declared a war on Pakistan.
(5) Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim lobby in the USA, being led by hate mongering jews and Indian influentials and
(6) The corrupt politicians who made 90s a lost decade for Pakistan i.e. BB and Nawaz, with their brainless followers, who will continue to sabotage the parliamentary proceedings of Pakistan, because their future is doomed if the current situation continues.

I had also written that anti-Pakistani lobby will be most difficult to control. This lobby consists of rabiedly anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistani Jews and Indians (By this I mean not necessarily all of the Jews and Indians). All the other heads of the Scylla can and will be squashed.

The corrupt politicians (6) have almost been squashed and the Government`s strategy with Indian Hawk`s (4) is based on tit for tat. As the time passes, people will be increasingly wary of Mullas (3). Reports are in that the USA is trying to negotiate a deal with the moderate factions of Talibans (that will take care of 2 and 3). Al Qaeda members (1) are on the run and have no sympathies on either side of the border.

The lobby at # 5 will remain a problem. Even after other matters are resolved according to the wishes of the West, this lobby will continue to concoct new problems.

The main objective of the anti-Pakistani lobby for now is to put Pakistan at war with itself .

...yes, paki army should go to iraq....

Musharraf has every right to decide on behalf of Pakistanis:

As per the results of the last elections, he has the support of parties (5 factions of PML, NDA, MQM, PPPPP, PPP Sherpao, etc.) polling most votes.

Those who think otherwise, please come to Pakistan and try dislodging him. Please try to mobilize people from Fazal`s DI Khan constituency, Qazi`s Nowshera constituency, Nawaz`s Model Town constituency or BB`s Larkana or Hala constituency.

Alternatively, feel free to write to any Pakistani politician to start a campaign against him since enough is enough. Try doing it and start counting your procession. You will not find even your kith and kin from Pakistan alongside you.

Just try it.

:-)