The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re: zeemax # 464

I can understand your sense of optimism about the aid. Zeemaz, a major policy shift like this one will not happen over night. Zeemax, please keep in mind that once Congress starts to debate this policy change, it might not be "free aid" as a lot people in Pakistan think. There will be aditional provisos added to it and we need to wait see what the final package will look like.

However, I agree with you that Pakistan will not be better off or worse of because of this aid package. If on the other hand, the money reaches the people where it is needed the most, then I hope things improve.

Please do not make blanket judgemental statements about people and their views, when their views disgree with your views. :)

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics Please note the US "offer" of 7 billion dollar non-military aid to Pakistan is an idea. It has, yet, to be formalized into a policy, which means that it must go through the process of committee hearings and then a full debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Also note, that before it comes to a final vote, it may have "riders" attached to it; strings, which will/may alter the nature of the offer itself significantly. Given the nature of the American legislative system, compromises will have to be made to seek a possible ratification of this bill and hence, this bill might/will change radically from its utopian intentions, as said by Senator Joe Biden - its sponser.

"Offers" like these take years to materialize before the first dollar is deposited into a bank account. Remember the old saying; he who has the gold makes the rules. US will gain more political coverage and leverage over Pakistan this way than it presently has and as said before, given Pakistan's financial problems, Pakistan will need a constant injection of foreign aid to keep its economy aloft and therefore, might not be in a position to reject the final shape of the bill even it turns out against Pakistan's strategic interests.

Therefore, while the nation might be rejoicing on the democratic dividend, it should take into the account the "investment" and the long-term price it will have to pay for this American investment in Pakistan.

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re: Dost_Mittar

The Kashmir issue will settled not because the people wish it, but because it has ceased to be important in their lives. I have no doubt that it will solved, but it might be a big surprise to the patriots on both sides that they will not get all they had hoped for in the matter. The most logical outcome will be to formalize the present status quo - the Line of Control - into an international border and end the issue for once and for all.

As to my old hometown, isn't the snow a bit late? Then again, I remember the snow in late May also...

BTW; I was there when Trudeau (sp?)and Levasque (sp?) were battling it out and was south of the border, when the second plebiscite was held and thank God, the rest of the nation did not buy into a federal version of Bill 101.

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re: HP

I owe you a reply and I will post as soon as I can figure out the new loadshedding schedule and have some time to frame a proper reply to your generous explanation.

The problem is that when you try to squeeze in words between power outages, the intent is often garbled. :)

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re:dost_mittar # 347

Dostji, please consider this hypothesis. After the nuclear blasts of 1998, a conventional style war between India and Pakistan became highly unlikely. After 1998, Pakistani army basically accepted this proposition that a war with India was not practical.

If the Pakistani army is not going to fight India, then what role will it have?

In 1998, COAS General Karamat said that the same and was forced to resign by Nawaz Sharif paving the way for Musharraf. Musharraf goes on a PR campaign with India and i the process reverses Pakistan's traditional policy on Kashmir, which had been the root cause of all its wars with India.

Would such a policy alteration would have been possible without the consent and the consensus of the Pakistani army's corps commanders, who make up the executive decision making body of the Pakistani army and ipso fact of the Pakistani armed itself?

There has been a re-think in the army over Kashmir and even after Asif Zardari's interview, Kiyani simply stated the obvivious without elaborating Pakistani army's views on Kashmir. The talking-discussionj space allowed on the Kashmir issue is indicative of this; otherwise the army would have not allowed the deviance from the offical script.

Dostji, it is always more educational in Pakistani politics to pay attention to the silence than the loud noises. The silence is more deafening and more instructional about the intentions of the people than their actions mimicking their intentions.

Incidently, how is my old adopted home town? I miss the canal in the winter months. :)

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re: HP

I will post a reply to you soon, but in the meantime; will say this. I never said that Pakistani army's orientation has changed, but that it is in the process of changing. It has been undergoing a change ever since Pakistan realized that it is no longer in a position to fight a war with India. Your view of the Pakistani army is a very traditional one, but the mindset of the Pakistani army is not that of the urban corps commanders any more, but of the rural middle class. Pakistani army, presently, is not interested in politics and it does not want to intervene in it because the result of political involvment since 1999 has been the worst institutional damage to it since the defeat in 1971.

Please read the speeches of its leadership since the early 1990s and read some of the in-house journals. They all point to a re-think within the army and as to the American advisors; they will come regardless of what you and I think. If this war in FATA continues, then we will a new generation of officers, moulded in COIN operations assuming the leadership of the army in the next 10-20 years. In the new thinking/doctrine, the strike crops will lessen in importance to the SSG units, which are being upgraded and increased to fight a COIN war in FATA.

The army does not have to stay in politics to keep its business interests intact. The Pakistani army will adopt, over a period of time, the role of the Turkish army and it will pull the strings from behind the curtain. There has been too much exposure of the military's business interests and the documentation of it in Ayesha Siddiqui's book for example, that has opened a new debate on the issue. With the freedom of the media and the recent scaling back of PEMRA, the new parliament will debate this issue. One of the ways to bring the military to accountibility will to review the defense budget in public and from there, we will see what happens next.

Wishes may indeed be horses, but you have to credit that Pakistan is changing and the vast majority of the Pakistani people, in the last decade, have matured considerably politically speaking and with the legal movement of 2007 still fresh in the minds of many, have become aware of their rights. These rights will be demanded soon, but we will have to be patient. :)

The only issue is when to confront the army. The political institutions and the political parties and their cadres are still not that strong yet. This is speculative, but it might be a reason why there is a growing seperation of opinion between PPP and PML-N. Nawaz Sharif wants a confrontation with Musharraf - read the military - but Asif Zardari wants to avoid this confontation till and untill, PPP is strong enough to challenge the military and win.

In the last eight years, and even before that, the military tried to dominate the civilian politics only to see a massive reaction against its trespass of civilian authority. If the military persists as you envision, there is a very good chance that it will risk losing more than its business interests, epecially since Punjab is not in the pro-military camp any more. For the first time, to the best of my recollection, the four provinces of Pakistan are united in their unmasked opposition to military rule.

The military knows this and here lies the rub. Both sides are at a position of stalemate, where none can deliver a knockout punch, so there is a good chance that there will some sort of accomodation between the two. Here is a possible scenrio; article 52-B in exchange for regularization of military's commerical interests in the civilian economy (tax liabilities imposed) and the total withdrawl of the military from politics and in return, it is allowed to keep its business interests as a financial incentive.

Will the military take the sop and leave? It will once it realizes that to seek a situation of a status quo ante in 2008, will entail a more severe loss of its overall interests.

COAS Kiyani is replacing key officers in important positions with his own selections and he will pick like-minded men; men who agree with his "vision". Therefore, if his intitial decisions are any indication, the army will pull back from politics and the new "inner sanctum" of the army will endorse Kiyani's new mantra for Pakistani army. Just like you said an army's orientation cannot be changed overnight; this will also take time but it will happen as Kiyani consolidates his tenure as COAS.

HP, the Pakistani army is not same army it was before Kiyani took over and it is certainly a different army after February 28 elections. Who do you think disallowed the ISI to intervene in the elections? What was Kiyani's previous posting before becoming COAS? It is safe to assume that while he was there at ISI, he fielded his staff of important positions, with officers who thought like him.

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re: HP # 123

HP, first of all, there is no denying the fact that the presently elected government's task is the most difficult of any Pakistani government since 1947. The multicipility of the problems are mind-boggling and as I said before, the levels of expectations from the person to have his/her problems solved is so acute, that this government does not have much room to maneuver. This government needs time; a commodity, which it is fast running out of and in this sense, I agree with you that we have to watch the game unfold because there is not much else we can do in the present situation.

As to the army, I still maintain the army is not interested in politics. It has been burned badly by the last eight years and it needs to repair its image. The army in Pakistan may have corporate interests, which require a political engagement, but the army will seek another course to keep those interests secure. The army is not keen to save the civilians and there is a growing in feeling in the army to show the civilian politicans as a bumbling, failing lot to the people.

Agreed that it is the obligation of the army to ensure law and order, and it will undertake this only in the most dire of circumtances.

You may be right, but in the foreseeable future, the army has no interest in meddling in politics because it has serious professional-institutional issues, which need to be addressed on an urgent basis. The Pakistani army's threat preception is under going a paradigmic shift from a conventional external threat assessment based on India specific orientation to an internal threat assessment based on non-state actors specific to an internal insurgency.

The military will leave the matters in the hands of the civilians while it concentrates on revamping its fighting doctrines based on fighting on the plains of Punjab and deserts of Sindh and making them tuned to needs of fighting in the mountains of FATA and the urban environments of the Pakistani cities.

Hence, my reasons why it would be hestitant to re-enter politics any time soon.

Ciao

The ‘shoey’ Side of Politics re: tahmed32

Sirji, do not count on the military coming in to maintain the law and order in Karachi. The military is not interested in entering politics again. It wants the people to learn the truth about the politicans and if the people suffer to learn this, the military would not bat an eye. The only exceptional option might be if the nation is literally in the process of imploding and only then, might it intervene again.

However, I was a bit disappointed in your post, when you suggested military intervention. I did not expect this from you, Sirji, when yours had been the most vocal voice on Chowk for getting rid of military rule in favor of civilian rule. No matter how bad the situation gets, we must still not ask the military to pull our chestnuts from the fire. It is this sort of wishful thinking that lends creditbility to military interventions and then we distribute sweets in the streets when they topple civilian governments and then we cry, we want democracy.

We need to make up our minds once and for all as to what we want:democracy or martial law. We cannot pick and decide what we want one day and not on another day.If the civilians make problems, then let the civilians clean up the mess. Now that military rule has ended in Pakistan, I am against it being allowed back into politics for any reason and if the civilians cannot sort out the mess, then we deserve what we get because the sooner we learn to blame ourselves instead of scape goating everyone else in the world for our own follies, the sooner we will learn from our own mistakes.

Sirji, if this government cannot maintain the peace, as it promised; it should resign and let us have another election and let us keeping having elections till we find a government that can keep the peace and that still would be a thousand times better than asking the military to keep the peace.

I would much rather see this coalition break down and another one cobbled up in it's place, but no matter what happens, this government must be allowed its 5 years and then changed. The politicans must be given full rein so that they can never say that they were not allowed to finish their terms and the people must be allowed to see and suffer them completely for 5 years. This way, they will learn a valuable lesson and elect someone else and not keep electing the same old faces again and again, who have nothing to offer but empty promises of more unfulfilled promises.

Best wishes, Sirji!

Ciao

How to End Politics of Hate and Intolerance re: Urstruly # 22

Oye, brilliant scholar of the cave, learn to spell "pity" before you claim to have one...I will shove my thesis and leave as soon as you bend over...

How to End Politics of Hate and Intolerance re: Urstruly

Pakistan has a lot of problems and these problems need to be solved, but they will not be solved by playing a blame-game.

Your words would have added weight had you been in Pakistan, but sitting within the comfort of the First Amendment in the United States and wishing death and destruction upon others just to sate your own personal insecurities, is not only hypocritical but also a sign of moral cowardice. You sit and work in a society, whose freedoms you enjoy and support by paying your taxes to a government you claim to hate.

If you hate all that is so rotten with the west, then why do still stay there? Why don't you leave the United States and come back to Pakistan and lead the revolution, that you claim is at hand. If you believe so strong in your words, why don't you stand on a corner and say aloud what you believe in? Are you afraid of being arrested and deported?

My friend, take a good look at yourself in the mirror! You are the one, who is supporting the subjuation of Pakistan by the "US elites" by finanically supporting their plans/policies thanks to your tax dollars.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

I have more respect for Masadi because he is saying all of what he believes in from Pakistan.

Ciao

Color-Blind Love One of the best articles I've read on Chowk in a very long time!

Ciao

Surviving Musharraf\'s Exit? re: zeemax # 153

Zeemax, by all accounts, Pakistan has serious economic problems and the reason for giving the finance portofolio to PML-N was that PPP wanted to make sure that PML-N got its share of blame too. As PPP has accepted the ownership of the GWOT, it will be blamed for it, as time goes on, and had it not shared the blame, with PML-N, it would have allowed Nawaz Sharif to reap a political windfall at its expense and would have paid for this dearly at during the next elections.

There is nothing remarkable in the distribution of the assignments, because like any other coalition, this one too is interested in sharing the credit and blame alike. Let us wait till the end of the first 100 days of this government and see if there has been progress. There are serious problems to be solved and once this government has its fill of populism, it will realize that solutions will require policies and not speeches and as I said to tahmed32, the nation's patience level is very low; almost non-existant and it will not tolerate an extension of the honeymoon period for this government beyond the 100 days of its goverance.

The best we can hope for is that all stake holders in Pakistan will soon realize the wisdom of moving away from their maxmalist positions towards a common consensus on major policies. We should not be too surprised if we see a movement in that direction. The civilians would have to listen to the military and take the military on board in formulating a policy on GWOT and in return, the military would be expected to vacate the sphere of civilian authority and remove itself from non-military aspects of politics in Pakistan.

Let me hazard a moment of unguarded optimism and suggest that parliamentary style of government generally has been more inclined towards coalition governments, because such governments naturally create a sense of checks and balances, based on a common interest - the willingness to stay in power - and such governments then offer themselves to a more transparent nature of policy discourse, whereby policies of unilateralism are discouraged because it tends to fray the coalition political interests, i.e staying in power.

This government has a very hard task before it and it has to do everything right at the first go and has no room for mistakes, for such is the expectation levels of the common person in Pakistan. I have my doubts about how long will government last, but I still wish this government the best simply because it will need all the luck it can muster in the comming days and weeks ahead.

Ciao

Surviving Musharraf\'s Exit? re: leadenwinter

Democracy may be a fiction, but it is a fiction that works better than most other "real" alternatives.

Ciao

War of Another Kind re: Masadi

Proof? It is ironic that a person, who calls others names and questions them, without proof, demands proof. :)

Since you are all assuming and all knowing, I will accept that you know what the majority of the Pakistanis believe and do not believe in. :)

Ciao

War of Another Kind re: Masadi

You said and I quote, "Of course as a major peon of the West on this site, Feroz will push the American line and anything that detracts from it will be rejected by him. He thinks that Pakistanis consider themselves God's armies out to defend Islam-"

The vast majority of the nation, Pakistanis, thinks that they are here on this earth to defend Islam and they all support this idea.

re: majumdar

Let's see, what happens...

re: tahmed32

Sirji, only time will tell and sirji, you also need to keep an open mind and not be blinded by prior assumptions. :)

For the sake of the nation, I hope you are proven correct and till that point, I am not pinning my hopes on this alliance lasting very long. I am simply offering an alternative to your hypothesis :)

Ciao

An Agenda for the New Government re: majumdar

Article 6 of the 1973 Pakistan constitution states that anyone held responsible and found guilty for subverting the constitution, will face a death penalty. There is no stated constitutional provision for converting such a penalty (that I am aware of) into a life sentence, though such could be amended if so desired by the executive and the legislative branches. This, at least, is the theory and we all know, in Pakistan, theory hardly ever materializes into reality.

As to Musharraf being tried to discourage future Bonpartists, that would depend if you have the means to carry this process to its logical terminal end. Chest beating and sounding brave on the air waves is one thing, taming the army to allow this process; the process of putting one of it's former chiefs on trial, is the real challenge. Musharraf may have shed his uniform and Kiyani may have been distancing the army from the presidency, but will the army still remain committed to the so-called democracy, when that democracy poses an institutional threat to the military itself?

At this stage of the analysis, I must fully concur with Masadi. There are external based interests, which may not allow this possibility and yes; I am talking about the United States' strategic foreign policy goals, or what Masadi calls as the "US elites". The United States, historically speaking, has favored working with the bureaucratic-military complex in Pakistan (to borrow a phrase from Dwight Eisenhower) than it has with a civilian government and there is no emperhical evidence to suggest a paradigm shift in that assessment based on past historic experience.

There is a papable fear in Pakistan from speaking out against Al Qaeda and there is a very strong indication that this goverment may well appease Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban by ceding FATA to them in exhange of "peace" in Pakistan itself. Pakistani civilian politicans are afraid of speaking the truth about the presence of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and to divert attention, they espouse popularism.

However, there is no written gurantee that terrorism in Pakistan will stop if this government gives up FATA but the United States' fear, and for which they came to apprise themselves, was that the present Pakistani government seems to be headed towards a "Munich Agreement" with the militants. The fact that such an agreement might well be the final death knell of Pakistan is immaterial to the United States, but what is of concern to them is their interests inside Afghanistan and their ability to protect those interests - read military logistics, which need Pakistani cooperation in order to be sustained.

Thus, the question. Will the United States allow the democratic process in Pakistan to undermine its regional intrests?

The answer seems to be a "no".

FATA of Pakistan has developed into a linchpin of American military operations inside Afghanistan and that is why, there is a growing realization inside United States' foreign policy decision making circles that critical battles in GWOT that will influence the strenghtening of United States' regional interests, will be fought inside FATA and Pakistan.

The United States' strategic interests will always take precedence over individual choices/policies and likewise, Obama or Clinton or McCain will still target and bomb FATA if that is in American interests regardless of whether there is a Musharraf in power or not or if there is a military or a civilian government in Islamabad.

Presently, the United States is quiety observing the developing political scene inside Pakistan, and suggesting to the new government that a policy, which encourages a lessening of Pakistan's role in GWOT is not necessarily the best solution. One has to remember that Pakistan can ill afford to follow a policy, which basically amounts to one of isolationism from the GWOT, because Pakistan does not have the capacity to sustain such a policy for the long term.

Pakistan's economy is dependent on foreign aid and all of its debts were rescheduled on the promise of its contributions in the GWOT and therefore, Pakistan can be financially squeezed to make it cry "uncle" should the need warrant itself in the future.

At this stage, the crux of the matter is what Masadi said in the past and with which I tend to agree and that is; in the larger scheme of things, Musharraf's fate is immaterial to the final equation and putting him on trial might be pointless unless and until, we can are also capable of removing the United States' influence from Pakistan and being economically and political independent from the United States' and from its global strategic interests.

Therefore, Majumdat sahib, in order to discourage future Bonapartist in Pakistan, you have to discourage the institutions that support them. Punishing people, who act as spokespersons for such institutions, may gain a sense of popular retribution but will achieve nothing in the long run and the words from the Eagles song, it would all have been "a wasted time".

Ciao