Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?

Nicely argued.

Pakistan should send troops to Iraq if and only if, the people of Pakistan want Pakistan to send troops to Iraq. That is the simple answer. “People of Pakistan” here means those Pakistanis who are completely dependent on Pakistan for their survival, i.e. they have no where else to go. This excludes expatriates, it excludes Pakistanis who have kids studying in the USA or are planning to or have migrated there. It also excludes those that have business interests in the USA. I fall into all these categories, hence my vote on this issue should not be considered important, due to conflicting interests. However, my argument should be considered.

The Pakistani elite has always been pro-USA, because it has always wanted to keep one foot in the USA, directly or through its family, and one foot in Pakistan. It’s the elite that runs the beaurecracy, media, military (at the General ranks), political parties (other than MQM and MMA), businesses etc., at the top levels, and hence it always defaults towards the USA; many times, at the expense of Pakistan. However, the elite only constitutes maybe 5% of the total population. The remaining population, invariably has opinions, different from the elite, because they think only about Pakistan, since their future is completely tied to Pakistan. Luckily, this is now changing as the elite, and its kids, due to new immigration laws, are also facing the same obstacles in entering the USA, after Sep 11, as the normal, “bus-riding” Pakistani faces.

I try to follow independent public opinion surveys taken in Pakistan on various issues, and try to use them as the basis for my arguments, on what is best for Pakistan. What I have found is that the results indicated by these surveys are very practical, balanced and very pro-Pakistan. Interestingly, they oppose many of the views displayed on this site, by many individuals who take if for granted that their view represents the view of all of Pakistan.

These surveys depict the actual view of the Pakistani populace, as opposed to election results, which depict, at least in the feudal areas, the controlled view of the populace (the referendums represent a controlled view of the military, as well). Primarily, because during a survey, the people are not voting for anyone, hence they can speak their mind. A hari in rural Sind will not be told how to express his view one way or the other on the survey. While in an election, his feudal master will ensure he votes for him, even if he does not want to. Similarly a labourer in a city will express his feelings in a survey, since it does not effect the govt. But the same labourer will be forced to vote a certain way, during a referendum, by a General.

Hence, these opinion polls are about the closest thing Pakistan has to actual democracy.

Invariably, all the results of the surveys prove to be prophetic. Opinion polls indicated that Pakistanis did not want to completely lay themselves out for the USA in Afghanistan, recently. The result has been the rise of the MMA, as well as Al-Qaeda attacks in Pakistan, alongwith a hostile Afghanistan led by a brutal Northern Alliance (as brutal as the Taliban) blaming Pakistan for all its problems. Surveys also indicate Pakistanis do not want to go to war with India. Pakistanis prefer job growth over elections, etc. etc.

Similarly, a survey (read public opinion) on Iraq and troops would indicate what is in the best interest of Pakistan. Which is far more important than what is in the best interest of the USA, as far as Pakistan is concerned. George Bush bases all his decisions on surveys related to the views of the US population. He is asking for Pakistani troops, for the benefit of USA, and not for the benefit of Pakistan. He would have never attacked Iraq if 70% of the Americans had not agreed. He does not ask expatriate Americans. Why shouldn’t Pakistani leadership do the same?

It is about time the Pakistani leadership (and expats) realized that the strategic depth and strength of Pakistan does not lie in Afghanistan. It does not lie in the USA. It does not lie in South Asia or in the Middle East. It does not lie in the Muslim Ummah or in Indian Punjab. It does not lie in the expatriates nor in the internationally mobile local Pakistani elite – both of whom, myself included, will always have conflicts of interests between USA and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s strategic depth and strength lies in the hearts and minds of those Pakistanis who are in Pakistan, with nowhere else to go. Pakistan is all they have, and they will ensure its better interests are looked after, since, unlike mine, their personal survival depends on it.

It`s about time we started listening to them, rather than considering ourselves more intelligent than them.

As Ayaz Amir argued in his article, the person negotiating with the USA from Pakistan’s side, should be someone who, “doesn’t have kids studying in the USA.” And Pakistan should only agree to send troops, if the USA gives a deal, which no Pakistani can refuse - like writing off all the debt.

Very interesting piece. Especially for its complexity.

From today`s Dawn - Choudhury of Chakwal on the wages of whoredom (the issue not being willingness but mere haggling over the price):

Soldiers for Iraq: revised thoughts

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

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

Repeat after me, the national anthem of Bevakoofistan:

We are owed something !!! Preferably something from India !!!
We have no goals ! No national ambition ! Nothing to contribute to anyone, anywhere !!
But still we are owed something !!!
We hate the West !! Especially Am-Ree-Ka ! But it owes us big time !!!
Give us visas, give us Kashmir, give us dollars !!
And if we take the dollars and waste them on Faujis and Jihad

---

remember, we are like babies and cannot be responsible for anything !!
You owe us ! You owe us !

[Yup, you are certainly owed a big fat kick in the behind. You have received some and will get some more soon]

``I still believe that whereas the US occupation of Iraq was illegal and unjust, the continuing rot there will be disastrous for the region and the best antidote will be the presence of disciplined Muslim troops on the side of the US that can impart confidence.``(PIRZADA)

the occupation of Iraq without any rhyme or reason is indeed illegal, criminal, and as offensive as the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein --

but did it occur to you that your ``continuing rot`` is also called RESISTANCE to Occupation --

any self respecting Iraqi is 1000% justified in RESISITNG the occupation of their fatherland or motherland by two totally foreign countries -- by any means at their disposal --

THAT IS THE IRAQI`S INALIENABLE RIGHT -- and THAT IS THE NORM -- by any ANY standard -- Western or Eastern --

that is what all of Europe did against the German invaders and occupiers 60 years ago --

if they wouldn`t have done that -- we all would still be saluting swastika in 2003...

of course the colonialbred armies of Pakistan and India would have no difficulty in implementing the `peace and order` for their British and American Generals --

but despite that Security Council fig leaf -- the cheap expendable Pakistani and Indian soldiers will essentially be DYING in place of the pretty precious British and American Boys

.....in fighting and quelling -- the IRAQI RESISTANCE...

so that OUR US BOYS could come home to their mothers and wives and children -- after devastating the mothers, wives and children of a third world country that should by now call EYE ROCK -- that they know nothing about...

and our president can get re elected despite this rock in his eye -- called eyeraak

and for heavens sake don`t bring that goddamn word ``Muslim`` -- as an excuse for sending Pakistani troops as -- ``the presence of disciplined Muslim soldiers`` --

just ask the Iraqis about ``the presence of discplined Muslim`` Turkish sodiers -- how musch `condfidence` those MUSLIM MERCENARIES instill in the hearts of average Iraqis --

Shias OR Sunnis....

The article, like much of the Pakistani media, bemoans the agony of Pakistanis in the US. Indeed the agony is there and no good family should have to suffer through no fault of theirs. But the author(s) conveniently ignore a couple of contextual points. One, Pakistanis were not the only folks targeted in the post 9/11 scenario. Granted there was a much heavier emphasis on Pakistanis, which brings to point no. two.

Whether we like it or not, Pakistanis have been (and are being) hauled up in every Jihad spot in the world: Balkans, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and what not. You find them heavily involved in financing some questionable stuff from the Gulf. The utterances of Pakistan`s intellectual elite, never mind the mullah-class, are shrill in their anti-American and anti-Israel hysteria. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. I mean if the Europeans and Americans don`t pay particular attention to PAkistan, who are they going to pay special attention to, Brunei? Jamaica?

re AirMarshal 1

Something is wrong with the air and water: I agree with you again, this time on the Pakistani` elite`s prpensity to keep feet in both places. Frankly it amazes me as to how many Pakistani upper middle class folks (and I am not even talking of the `rich`) have kids in America. I mean how do mid ranking bureaucrats find the money...never mind, I know the answer.

Read Ayaz Amir`s column. The old major has a point about it too though I found his understanding of the American political system (give aid without Congressional approval) quite rudimentary and his wish list quite Christmas like.

nasah:

Here was Mr Pirzada`s quote;

[``I still believe that whereas the US occupation of Iraq was illegal and unjust, the continuing rot there will be disastrous for the region and the best antidote will be the presence of disciplined Muslim troops on the side of the US that can impart confidence.``(PIRZADA)]

And you responded with,

[the occupation of Iraq without any rhyme or reason is indeed illegal, criminal, and as offensive as the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein -- ]

Why should then I even bother to indulge in this debate when same words, illegal, illegitimate and occupation can be used for Musharraf and his government. What makes the difference for air marshall and others who have been fuming over illegitimacy and occupation. Here is your statement again with Iraq, Kuwait and Saddam Hussein replace by Pakistan, Islamabad and Musharraf (or military) respectively.

[the occupation of Pakistan without any rhyme or reason is indeed illegal, criminal, and as offensive as the invasion of Islamabad by Musharraf -- ]

Musharraf does not have any more right to decide about Pakistan than Saddam Hussein or USA having rights to decide about Iraq.

``It is about time the Pakistani leadership (and expats) realized that the strategic depth and strength of Pakistan does not lie in Afghanistan. It does not lie in the USA. It does not lie in South Asia or in the Middle East. It does not lie in the Muslim Ummah or in Indian Punjab. It does not lie in the expatriates nor in the internationally mobile local Pakistani elite – both of whom, myself included, will always have conflicts of interests between USA and Pakistan. ``

Most expats don`t have any power to change the policy of the Government of Pakistan. They can only voice opinions about any situatuion as some of them are doing here at Chowk.

Regarding Pakistani leadership, it is only interested in increasing the strategic depth of its own wallets and its hold on power. And hence it will only take decisions that ensure its grip stays as powerful as ever. And that can only be done by sucking up to U.S.

We would be quite naive if we think Musharraf will listen to the people of Pakistan (who do not have a say in whether Musharraf stays in power or not) instead of listening to U.S & Bush (through whose approval he stays in power). Generals` source of legitimacy comes from the U.S, not from the people of Pakistan. Why would they then take the Pakistani people`s opinion into consideration and shoot themselves in the foot? That would mean saying bye bye forever to juicy civilian posts and plots in Defense Housing Authorities.

to the question posed by Moeed Pirzada: Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?

the answer is right here:

KARBALA, Iraq, Oct. 17 — On a gritty street at the edge of town, a joint United States-Iraqi military patrol fell into a firefight with two dozen heavily armed guards of an ambitious and militant Shiite cleric near midnight on Thursday, leaving at least 10 people dead, including 3 American servicemen and 2 Iraqi security officers. Seven more Americans were reported wounded in the gun battle.

With the death of a fourth American, a military policeman killed by a roadside bomb in the Baghdad area on Friday, the 24-hour period was the deadliest for American forces here in a month, pushing the number of American combat deaths since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities to 101.

The American task here appears to be growing ever more complicated.

Until recently, the American forces had been battling Sunni Muslims, Saddam Hussein loyalists and perhaps other Islamic fundamentalists who have slipped across the border from neighboring countries.

But in the past week, Americans have begun facing pockets of resistance from elements of the Shiite Muslim community, which constitutes more than 60 percent of Iraq`s population....`` (NYT)

the Pakistani troops will be FIGHTING -- the Iraqi Resistance ....nobody else --

not only the ``sunni triangle` but now the ``shia rectangle`` and soon the ``Kurdish Trapezium`` - will be busting at the seams --

it`s called -- the Resistance... the Resistance -- against FOREIGN OCCUPATION

If Mushy has an iota of dignity and self-respect left in him after all he has done for the Bushys -- he wouldn`t touch this odious proposal with a ten foot pole --

Mush will not push the respected Pakistani soldiers to become the cannon fodder for a stinky spurious colonial meat grinder in Iraq.....

``Musharraf does not have any more right to decide about Pakistan than Saddam Hussein or USA having rights to decide about Iraq.``(SAMEERJB)

TRUE INDEED -- couldn`t agree with you more -- sameerjb

the question -- ``Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?`` by Moeed Pirzada -- may have been debated for parity sake.....

can the illdisciplined, illegitimate invader of Islamabad send illdisciplined muslim mercenary troops to help the ILLEGITIMATE INVADER of Iraq...

however u will have to agree sameerjb -- that there does exist a fine line of difference in the degree of illegitimacy -- between Bush and Busharraf

unlike a foreign Christian General Bush invading a foreign Muslim country -- this desi Muslim General had -- `the courtesy and intelligence` -- to invade HIS VERY OWN Muslim COUNTRY.......

so after all your Massiah Mush may not be as illegitimate as our Pariah Bush

don`t you think...

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

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.

:-)

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