Tag Archive for 'Pakistan'

So much for Pakistan

Published
by
Gary
on December 28, 2007
in News and Thoughts
. 0 Comments

Benazir Bhutto is dead.

[Bhutto] was assassinated Thursday evening as she left a political rally here… plunging Pakistan deeper into political turmoil and igniting widespread violence by her enraged supporters. [She] was shot in the neck or head, according to differing accounts, as she stood in the open sunroof of a car and waved to crowds. Seconds later a suicide attacker detonated his bomb, damaging one of the cars in her motorcade, killing more than 20 people and wounding 50, the Interior Ministry said. (IHT, “Assassination of Bhutto sparks disarray“)

I’m not going to lionize Bhutto, just say that—as the leader of Pakistan’s largest political party and also as it’s most pro-Western politician—she was an incredibly crucial counter-balance to General/President Musharraf’s desperate desire to grasp power.

At the core of Musharraf’s problem is a widespread perception that he did too little to protect Bhutto or that his government carried out the killing itself, analysts said. On Thursday, members of Bhutto’s party accused Musharraf’s government of exactly that. And Musharraf’s own supporters blamed the government for lax security. (IHT, “Musharraf’s political future appears troubled“)

The argument is that Musharraf’s government implicitly assassinated her by allowing sufficient access to the seething forces moving for her murder. This isn’t JFK in Dallas—Bhutto nearly escaped fate upon stepping foot in Pakistan two months ago. Musharraf wanted Bhutto gone, he simply let mysterious terrorists do the work for him. Perhaps in his mind he could simply blame “the terrorists” and thus strengthen the rationale for his earlier state of emergency—the idea that de facto military dictatorship can effectively handle terrorism where democratic government can’t.

The primary potential benefit to Musharraf is that he’ll be running essentially unopposed during the January 8th elections, thus a sweep is guaranteed. But what’s an election without legitimacy worth? Bhutto’s now a martyr for Pakistani Democracy, an even greater threat dead than she was alive. Now, how civil will their war be?

The U.S. and Pakistan

Published
by
Gary
on November 10, 2007
in Criticism and News
. 2 Comments

As of late, Pakistan’s been in a bad way. U.S. and C.I.A. plans to moderate Musharraf’s madness and build his legitimacy through cooperation with opposition leader Benazir Bhutto have completely collapsed: post-martial law, post-house arrest, Musharraf has emerged as the oppressor, Bhutto as the freedom fighter, Musharraf marshaling thousands of police against protest and Bhutto in eminent danger of assassination. U.S. fumbling and incompetence has made a complete clusterfuck out of a crisis.

Pakistan police attack demonstrators

The U.S. needs to immediately stop supporting General Musharraf. After all, what was the rational for aiding Musharraf’s government?

  1. he’s America’s ally in anti-terrorism.
  2. he’s promised a “path to democracy” for Pakistan with fair elections, free press, the works

Now he’s neither. As of November 3, 2007, he’s certainly no path to democracy I’ve ever seen: declaring martial law and suspending the supreme court to protect his presidency, removing dissenting judges, censoring the media, arresting over 3,500 lawyers, civil rights leaders, and liberal politicians, banning public protest, and suspending the Constitution are all decidedly un-democratic moves. Musharraf’s been smart enough to frame his dictatorship as an anti-terrorist move:

In the last few months, our situation has changed dramatically. Terrorism and Extremism are rampant. Suicide bombings are widespread. In Karachi, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, fanatacism is now common. Fundamentalist extemists are everywhere. They are not afraid of law-enforcement agencies.
(Musharraf’s address to the nation)

Yet, U.S. support continues because Musharraf still represents security in Pakistan and thus that corner of the Muslim World… except he doesn’t. First of all, the U.S. is undermining its own credibility (as usual) by publicly supporting an obvious dictator just because of empty sweet talking. This subsequently creates yet more completely legitimate reasons to hate the U.S. Second, the people of Pakistan, more than ever, now have [even more] legitimate reason to rebel against their government—Musharraf argued that he imposed martial law to stabilize Pakistan, but ironically he’s done just the opposite. So, in effect Musharraf is fanning the complex flames of terrorism in his own interest—and America’s paying him to do it. Meanwhile, the possibility for safe, free elections and the establishment of a moderate government with a true mandate to fight terrorism is quickly fading.

The bigger picture is that America needs to stop supporting dictators under the mistaken impression that it can somehow control them. That’s complete fiction, as has been proved time and time again in Iraq (Saddam Hussein), Chile (General Pinochet), Argentina (General Videla), Indonesia (Suharto), Iran (The Shah), Zaire (Mobutu), Cuba (Batista), Haiti (Papa & Baby Doc), and so on. America’s arrogance consistently undermines both its own best interest and the self-determination of people in non-Western countries.

Oh Obama, or, don’t fight today’s enemies with yesterday’s government

Published
by
Gary
on August 26, 2007
in Criticism, News and Thoughts
. 1 Comment

On August 1st, Barack Obama stated “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” He added “As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations.” (source)

I’m not buying that. He don’t seem to really understand who wants to vote for him and why: war-weary people who want a fresh face and no bullshit, who want desperately to trust and believe again in American government. I’m not troubled by the media’s accusations that he lacks experience, because—to paraphrase Barack—experience doesn’t necessarily mean good judgment. “We try to remind people, nobody had a longer résumé than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and that hasn’t worked out so well.” (source) I’m troubled because, at least here, Barack has judged so poorly.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (&hellip) If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will. (BBC)

No! Hell no! Say it with me: you can’t “fight” terrorists with a conventional military! This isn’t World War II. You can’t fight terrorists by invading countries; you can’t bomb, blast, or blow-up a completely liquid, ideologically-based enemy. That just makes them stronger while completely pissing off whatever country they happen to be in. Attack the terrorists and the terrorists win.

We’re looking at a fundamental paradigm shift in how our enemies attack and how they’re to be fought. In the short term, we must address our methods of engagement: America now is like Britain in the Revolutionary War, lining up in bright red suits and firing in orderly succession, all the meanwhile being massacred by colonial rebels hiding in the brush and sharpshooting from behind trees. Our tactics are outdated, geared for assaulting proper armies with proper bases and proper governments behind them. We need to understand that, as far as fighting terrorism is concerned, force is obsolete: fighting terrorism involves small elite squads backed up by incredible support teams and impeccable, exhaustive military intelligence. In short, the near opposite of today’s immense, lumbering, largely useless military-industrial complex.

In the long term, we need to understand that the 21st century isn’t the 20th century: foreign and military policy needs to be more nuanced, more sensitive, and more holistic. The only way to really, truly stop terrorism to any degree is to understand why people become terrorists and why they hate America and the West so very damn much. We need to admit that yes, they have several excellent reasons to be extremely pissed and we need address those. The time for doing as we please is over, because they now know how to fight back.

And it’s clear that this is exactly what Barack doesn’t completely realize, let alone something as simple as we don’t want another Iraq, ever. Yes, there are those in America who think guns-blazing dick-wagging military might is still the answer, but they aren’t Barack’s supporters and they never will be; meanwhile, he’s losing those who believed he would think twice (or at least once) before rolling out the military machine.

On the upside, I still largely believe Barack’s a smart guy with great potential, someone caught playing a political game he’s obviously not the best at. His conditions for giving Pakistan more aid and, ah, not invading are that Pakistan acts to close terrorist training camps, evict foreign fighters, and prevent the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area. That suggests that’s only reaching for the “blow up now” button on the second or third round instead of the first, and that perhaps he was going in the right direction before violently pulling the policy wagon back around.

But those of us who are pro-Barack, we need to realize that we like Barack largely because he’s so damn likeable, and that we’re largely betting based more on his personality than his actions and words. Personality worked for JFK, but do we really want it to work for Barack?

Continue reading ‘Oh Obama, or, don’t fight today’s enemies with yesterday’s government’