A Friend in Need ...

How bad can a relationship between two military allies get? Pakistan and the U.S. keep us guessing.

In the wake of a NATO attack killing 25 Pakistani soldiers this weekend, Pakistan has indefinitely shut NATO supply lines through the country and said it was re-evaluating its military, intelligence and diplomatic links with the U.S. It also gave the U.S. two weeks to pull out of a Pakistani air base that Washington has used in the past to launch covert drone strikes on Taliban militants. Pakistan is also threatening to pull out of next week's Bonn conference on Afghanistan, at which key stakeholders will attempt to draw up a plan for transition from a US-led NATO command to an Afghan security force by December 2014.With Pakistan's co-operation considered key to an orderly and peaceful transition, the Afghan authorities urged Islamabad to reconsider.

With plans of a pull out starting as early as next year, this may not be the first strategic mistake the US had made in this war, but it could yet prove the costliest. The short-term response is not as troubling as the long-term implications. The closure of NATO supply lines will make Barack Obama more dependent on Vladimir Putin's goodwill, and the northern supply route through which 60% of troops and military cargo to Afghanistan now travel. But, of itself, the closures will be a temporary problem. Of greater significance is the erosion of Pakistani public support for the US fight against the Taliban. Images of the funerals of the young martyrs filled television screens across Pakistan on Sunday and protests against the attack were held throughout the country. “Imagine how we would feel if it had been 24 American soldiers killed by Pakistani forces at this moment,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, said on Fox News Sunday.

Hilary Clinton and Pentagon big shots responded with the usual regrets and worthless determinations to investigate, without admitting responsibility - all while Pakistan's own death toll from the "war on terror" rises, it struggles under an excess of American demands that are contrary to its own national interest, and as uninformed, people-pleasing US-senators and Republican presidential candidates continue to pick on this infinitely more important country.

The thought that destabilized, poor Pakistan has no choice but to slavishly obey what the master says could be one of the biggest misconceptions of this century. If bullied for long enough, it could learn to firmly and politely tell the US that it must, from henceforth, conduct its war on terror by itself and that while Pakistan is willing to be a friend, it is unwilling to destabilise and destroy its own stability for the neocon cause. Then, Pakistan has other friends to turn to: alternative alliances with China or Russia could lead to a completely different ball game.

Pakistani soldiers carry coffins of their comrades killed in a NATO air strike during a funeral ceremony in Peshawar
Photo: AFP PHOTO / A. MAJEED

My Country, Surrounded by Myths

In my conversations with all the curious, ill-informed people I meet, the surprising part is all the myths that exist about Pakistan. There is a striking similarity to people's concerns for this strategically located, small in size, yet always making-the-headlines state in the subcontinent. Below is my attempt to debunk some of the most popular myths about my country that I encounter all the time.

All Pakistani women wear the hijab.
There is no one way to describe the dress of Pakistani women. Walk down the street and you can see everything from capri pants to niqabs, from sleeveless tops to abayas. There is no law dictating what women should wear. Pakistani women go to school, college, and university with men and compete in equal roles with the opposite sex at the workplace. They practice the religious and legal right to marry anyone they like - when they ask for the family's approval, it is out of love and respect for them, not an obligation. Even when they aren't the primary bread winner for the family, they often are the policy makers of the household. They are pilots in the Pakistani Air Force, judges in the High Court, lawyers, journalists, doctors, scientists, actors, musicians, writers, and sportswomen. Pakistan elected its first female Head of State in 1988 - a feat not many "developed" countries have accomplished even to date.

Pakistan is in the Middle East.
Because Pakistan is in the Middle East, everything that holds true of the Middle Eastern countries applies to Pakistan. First to clarify, Pakistan is not a part of the Middle East. It is a part of South Asia. Pakistanis are not Arabs, they are South Asians. Pakistanis don't speak Arabic, the national language of Pakistan is Urdu. Pakistanis vote in elections. Pakistan's very free media can bash the government if it wants to. Pakistan has mountains, forests, deserts, beaches. It snows in Pakistan, too.

U.S. aid is running Pakistan.
Seems like people think that America is feeding the poor of Pakistan. Even though the U.S. has given $1 billion per year to Pakistan since 2001, the aid is directed towards the military to fight the War on Terrorism and not civilians. Even then this supposed aid is outweighed by economic losses from terrorism and insurgency. Pakistan’s government estimates that these losses were more than $18 billion in 2010 alone. So Pakistan may as well be better off without America's aid. Pakistani officials also believe that Pakistan's bff, China, could match America's aid if asked. The U.S. is in no position to play around here. If Pakistan does not allow supply routes for U.S. and NATO forces to run through Pakistan, the U.S. would have to send supplies across Central Asia and make major concessions to Russia.

Pakistanis are deeply religious and, by default, supporters of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Religious parties have never won more than a fraction of popular vote. Last year Pakistan witnessed the largest civil rights movement in the history of this region. It was spontaneous, secular and entirely peaceful. But since people weren’t raising anti-America slogans, nobody outside Pakistan took much notice. The masses do not favor the Taliban and do no want an Islamist revolution. And, no matter what people think, Pakistan's military has proved — by launching counteroffensives that cleared the Taliban from the Swat Valley and other areas — that it can defeat Islamist insurgency.

Pakistani nukes can fall into the hands of terrorists.
Pakistan's nuclear program is under a sophisticated command and control system, no more under threat than India or Israel’s nuclear assets are threatened by Hindu or Jewish extremists. If Pakistanis can make nuclear bombs, they can also protect them. If the world is so concerned about world peace, they better be cracking down on other countries with nuclear arms, too.

So, believe the rumors, if you will. But always know there are two sides of a story. And FOX provides only one side. That's right.

After Osama

     U.S. agents killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The al-Qaeda leader was responsible for great suffering; I do not mourn his death. But I do not celebrate it, either. I am worried about my country's security now, more than ever. Dread lingers over me: Pakistan may have to pay the price for this.

    Crowds justifiably celebrated bin Laden's death in downtown Manhattan, where a decade ago al-Qaida terrorists massacred nearly 3,000 Americans. The statistic that many people do not know is that since the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan, terrorists have killed nearly five times that number of people in Pakistan. Five times. Before 2002, suicide bombing was a word unknown to Pakistanis. Now, suicide attacks by Taliban/al-Qaeda, have slaughtered over 34,000 Pakistani civilians, policemen and army personnel. The annual number of Pakistani fatalities from terrorism has surged from less than 200 in 2003 to more than 3,000 in 2009. Every day, Pakistanis are targets for bombs, bullets, cannons, and drones. Bin Laden declared war on Pakistan, too.

    Despite all of that, CNN was having a field day yesterday (I didn't even bother watching FOX). Their target: Pakistan. The crux of every conversation was Pakistan's supposed support for al-Qaeda and the likes. All of this may make for great rhetoric but makes no sense when one asks why Pakistan would care about the group that has killed thousands of Pakistanis and destroyed all kinds of infrastructure and investment? We were the world's second fastest growing economy in 2005 (China was first). Now, our economy is in the dumps. Are we really going to bring this upon ourselves? And yes, Osama was found in Abbotabad, but who is to say he stayed in one location. For ten years? Please. We also know that this operation wouldn't have been possible without the support of Pakistani forces. We are not the perpetrator, we are the ally and the victim.

     Pakistan is not a country that accommodates and hides mass murderers. Pakistanis just want to be left alone and go back to the time when their lives were plain regular: tranquil. If Osama bin Laden's death means that America can begin to withdraw its forces from Pakistan and Afghanistan and that we can somehow rediscover peace, then one day Pakistanis are going to celebrate, too. But till the continued al-Qaeda/Taliban operations all around the world, mass murder of innocent civilians in my country and elsewhere, the norm of racial profiling of American-Muslims, human right injustices in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and all such heinous acts are not put to end, I do not have a reason to celebrate.

One School at a Time

I was having the longest and the crappiest day of my life when one man brought a smile to my face. This man was Greg Mortenson.

I had the honor of meeting this man whose fan I had become after reading his book, Three Cups of Tea. He received the Sitara-e-Pakistan ("Star of Pakistan"), Pakistan's highest civil award in 2009. He looks older now. He has started to lose some hair. There's somewhat of a tummy. He greeted me with an assalam alaikum and said khuda hafiz when I was leaving. He told me the book was ready to be published in Urdu and Pushto very soon. He said higher education was becoming more important in Pakistan. He asked me what I was studying (after he asked me if I was a teacher and I had to tell him I was actually a student!). He's soft spoken, funny, listens to you with utmost humility, and is passionate about what he does - everything I had imagined of him when I read the book.

Time and again I have bashed American and Pakistani governments for being insensitive and selfish. And here comes a man who shows me that there are still good people left in the world who would go out of their way to do something for others, in the most selfless manner. He is the American who is working day and night for a better tomorrow of children half the world across from home for him. He goes to places where few foreigners dare to go - places often considered to be the front lines of the War on Terror. And he works with the most basic ideas: let your children go out and play, sit with your elders and listen to their stories, educate the women (because "when you educate a boy, you educate an individual but when you educate a girl, you educate the community"), instead of bombing people, get to know them, understand them, build their trust. He says that hatred in the world comes from ignorance, that education needs to be America's top national and international priority - especially education for girls. "Ignorance is the enemy," he says.

Not only does Mortenson speak from the heart, he makes me look at my country in a way I had never seen it before. Parts of Pakistan I've never visited are heaven on earth, he says. I am in awe of the poor and illiterate men of Pakistan's most impoverished areas that are the champions of girls' education in their villages. When the men from Mullah Omar's village come to him, asking him to build a girls' school in their village, Mortenson finds them playing on the swings of a playground. I finally think of these bearded men in turbans as humans, people who never saw a childhood in a country ridden in war. Mortenson learns that everything is discussed over chai in Pakistan, that relationships are build over a steaming hot cup of this special tea, that family is crucial in my culture. In the words of Korphe's nurmadhar Haji Ali (who was also Mortenson's mentor),

"The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger. The second time you take tea, you are honored guest. The third time you share a cup of tea, you become family, and for our family, we are prepared to do anything, even die."

Thus, Mortenson's lecture was enlightening, invigorating to say the least. The reality he presents is gruesome but he shares hope, nonetheless, that something can be done and is being done. Pakistanis and Americans have a lot to learn from him. He is a reminder of the power of one man's determination in the face of gigantic obstacles. This is one man's mission to promote peace - one school at a time. This man clearly deserves to be called a hero.

Mortenson lectures at the Lied Center on KU Campus. Photo by Artem Bagiev.

He signed my copy of Three Cups of Tea!

Speak Up!

We protested. We wrote blogs. We wrote in the papers. We demonstrated in rallies on the streets. But our voices fell on deaf ears. I guess our measly third-world cries mean nothing.

Shumaila Kanwal knew what would happen better than us. The wife of the man shot and killed by C.I.A. contractor Raymond Davis committed suicide by eating rat poison, explaining before she died that she was driven to act by fears the American would be freed without trial. She was right. But what's all the uproar for? I mean Davis killed two Pakistanis. A missile attack by a C.I.A. drone killed at least 40 people in North Waziristan on Thursday. The C.I.A. has carried out more than a hundred drone strikes against militant groups in Pakistan’s tribal territories over the past year in which scores of my country's civilians have been killed - women and children and old people - and entire villages have been wiped out. Civilians are callously targeted without any regard for human life. These attacks are nothing but counterproductive in the battle against terrorism.

But all that does not mean we can just sit with our arms crossed and become a part of the circus. We will continue protesting. U.S. drones will have to stop bombing my country's civilians and its spies will not get away with shooting my country's people. Faiz Ahmed Faiz says,

"Speak up, while your lips are free
Speak up, your tongue is still yours
Speak, for your strong body is your own
Speak, your soul is still yours
Look at the blacksmith's shop
Hot flames make the iron red hot
Opening the locks
Every chain opens up and begins to break
Speak, for this brief time is long enough
Before your body and words die
Speak, for the truth still prevails
Speak up, say what you must."

McCarthyism 2.0

Yes, I will go that far. I will call this another McCarthy era. Because if it isn't just that, then what is it? Here we are aggressively questioning a religion's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a religion's followers to adhere to conformist politics. If it isn't a witch hunt, then what is it? Is it not an attempt to cause moral panic?

How do you expect me to take these "Muslim radicalization" hearings seriously? The great champion of the threat is Republican Peter King. In the past, King supported a different kind of terrorist organization — the Irish Republican Army. He pledged to support the "brave men and women" of the IRA as they "struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." His explanation? Well, the IRA never attacked the U.S - only British civilians, a distinction which, in King’s moral universe, makes his support acceptable. I mean, it's true that the IRA never attacked the U.S., but neither have Hamas, Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood. Does King have the same sentiment for them? I doubt it.


King's problem with the Muslim-Americans is that they are not doing enough to stop terrorism in the country. But really, what ethnic group in America is doing enough to safeguard the nation from terrorism? Once again the Republicans have bamboozled their gullible constituents, by claiming that jobs were going to be their priority - but the minute they get into office, they start chasing ghosts. They have yet to create a single job because they are too busy with creating Islamophobia and tax cuts for their corporate masters.

The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 1,002 active hate groups in the United States in 2010: Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, racist skinhead, Christian identity and so on. These people are not members of the “Muslim community.” The more pertinent question to be asked and answered is: will King hold hearings to examine these groups' threats to America's security too?


[Totally worth watching is Jon Stewart's take on King . Also for your entertainment, a cartoon from THE WEEK.]

Remember our Raymond Davis, Washington?

In a new twist of events, Raymond Davis has been revealed to be a part of a covert, C.I.A.-led team collecting intelligence and conducting surveillance on militant groups deep inside Pakistan. He has worked for years as a C.I.A. contractor, including time at Blackwater, now Xe, that is viewed by many Pakistanis as symbolizing a culture of American gun-slinging overseas. 

Since the United States is not at war in Pakistan, the American military is largely restricted from operating in the country. So the C.I.A. has taken on an expanded role, operating armed drones that kill militants inside the country and running covert operations, sometimes without the knowledge of the Pakistanis.

Davis carried an American diplomatic passport and was listed as “administrative and technical staff,” a category that would grant him diplomatic immunity. But with Pakistan’s government trying to clamp down on the increasing flow of C.I.A. agents trying to gain entry into the country, more of these operatives have been granted “cover” as embassy employees and given diplomatic passports.

President Barack Obama has demanded the release of Raymond Davis, but the Pakistan government has insisted the matter will be decided by the courts.

In the absence of any deal, the Pakistan government reportedly sought a way out of the stand-off by offering to trade his release for that of Dr Aafiya Siddiqui, a US-trained neuro-scientist currently serving an 86 year sentence for the attempted murder of an American soldier in Afghanistan. Her supporters claim she was illegally detained by American intelligence agents in Pakistan and held in a number of secret jails in Afghanistan before the shooting incident. Her three children were taken into custody with her, when the youngest one was still an infant. Two of her children went missing for a longtime. Many believe 86 years in prison for attempted murder to be outrageous - especially with the lack of evidence in Siddiqui's case.

It's funny how the U.S. government is suddenly so pro-active in pressurizing the Pakistani administration to release an American who killed two Pakistanis in broad daylight. The scenario was totally opposite with a detained Pakistani a few months ago. Davis or Siddiqui, American or Pakistani. Justice needs to be served. Superpowers need  to stop bending the rules for themselves. No one can be allowed to take law into their hands.

Winners & Losers

Mommy and Daddy say the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammad bin Zayed, recently toured the less prosperous parts of the United Arab Emirates to hold town-hall-style meetings. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced a $10 billion increase in welfare spending to help young people marry, buy homes, and open businesses. Trying to hold onto our thrones, aren't we now?

In the Middle East, two presidents have already tumbled: Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia. Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen is in an increasingly tenuous position. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya is desperately trying to resist rebellious forces too. Despite all this upheaval, it doesn't look like the region's monarchs are going anywhere. The presidents seem more likely to fall.

Bahrain's King Hamad and his security forces were pretty brutal in their treatment of the insurgents - almost shocking for the prosperous Bahrainis. King Abdullah of Jordan managed to handle the unrest too. Although the monarchs rule in a similar fashion to the presidents of the region, the presidents oversee more populous countries, without the oil wealth of the gulf monarchies. The much lesser unrest in countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait is mostly because all of them are regal welfare states - citizens pay no taxes and are looked after by the government. In the U.A.E, for example, when one citizen marries another, the government helps to pay for the wedding and even to buy a home. This gives the monarchies more legitimacy than the republics. The republics claim that the people have a voice - when they really don't have one. With the monarchies, no one's pretending to have a voice.

The turmoil in the Middle East is a time of change in history. As powerful and influential countries fail to play the role that they can during this time, we've come to a stark recognition: it's only the people of the Middle East that can pick the winners and the losers.