Straight Talk On Pakistan

[roberto]

STRAIGHT TALK ON PAKISTAN Durrani: Honest envoy for his homeland.

January 28, 2008 -- 'PAKISTAN'S democracy hasn't suffered because of the illiterate but because of the literate, because of abuses by the privileged who went to Oxford and Cambridge.

"Ninety percent of Pakistan's politicians are feudals. We have to break the hold of tribal leaders who won't permit development. India got it right when it broke up the great landholdings after independence."

The speaker wasn't a dissident student but Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Mahmud Ali Durrani, a retired major general. He once commanded his country's premier strike force aimed at India, but spent the last decade lobbying for a permanent peace between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Having dealt with a leprous swarm of diplomats over the years, I was prepared for a waste of time when I walked into the embassy. A Pakistan-hand Army pal claimed that Durrani was a straight-shooter, but honest ambassadors are even rarer than honest pols.

My buddy was right: From the start of our hourlong conversation, the ambassador routinely committed the diplomatic sin of telling the truth.

We discussed two key issues: making democracy work in Pakistan and our mutual problems with Islamist fanatics.

On the first subject, the ambassador didn't toe the party line. Instead, he suggested that Gen. Pervez Musharraf has outlived his welcome, that emotional term limits are as powerful as legal ones.

The Pakistani military "can't do two jobs well," he said. It needed to concentrate on fighting terrorists.

Of course, the ambassador's well aware of how corruption plagues his country's politics. He believes that Pakistan's military should play a role resembling that of Turkey's - a referee at the edge of the ring to make sure abuses don't get out of hand.

The former general is committed to making democracy work but warns that the process takes time: "People have a simplistic notion of democracy. It's not a switch that can be thrown overnight."

When it comes to the struggle with terrorists, Durrani is passionate. It frustrates him that every Pakistani setback makes news while successes go ignored. He'd just returned from Swat, a beautiful, remote region where extremists had driven out the local government. We knelt over a map as he detailed a recent multibrigade operation that shattered the terrorists and forced their leader into hiding.

There hadn't been a whisper about that campaign in the Western media. Pakistan is typecast in the role of shirker.

Lord knows the Pakistani military has undeniable problems and makes mistakes (we've made a few ourselves in a place called Iraq). It has serious training and equipment shortfalls - especially a shortage of helicopters to maneuver in mountains where there are no roads, as well as inadequate night-fighting gear.

Pakistan's army also has had to reset itself for counterinsurgency after six decades of preparing for war with India - a parallel with the tough adjustments our own military faced as we "re-cocked" from facing Soviets to coping with suicide bombers.

But the ambassador bristles at the suggestion that his military isn't fighting hard. Westerners who've never set foot in the country rant as though it's Delaware with ski slopes. Yet Pakistan's a vast state with 178 million people and some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, as I've seen for myself.

In the Federally Administered Tribal Areas bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan has 85,000 soldiers and constabulary forces deployed - twice the number of US and NATO soldiers in all of Afghanistan, which is 20 times larger. Tens of thousands more Pakistanis in uni- form serve in the adjacent Northwest Frontier Province, for a total of five divisions and 130,000 troops engaged.

The contribution in blood? Almost 500 Pakistani soldiers and paramilitary members were killed in action in 2007 as suicide bombings soared. We get it backward when we blame Pakistan for Afghanistan's problems: Our successes in Afghanistan have led the terrorists to view Pakistan as a preferable target.

That said, the ambassador expressed confidence that Pakistan's new chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, is the right man at the right time. Having met both men, he finds a marked resemblance between Kiyani and Gen. David Petraeus. Both are serious thinkers as well as rigorous, ascetic soldiers; like Petraeus, Kiyani will base military operations on a coherent, comprehensive plan.

But even with the best generals in charge, this remains a long-term struggle complicated by practical realities that Western pundits ignore.

"Two hundred thousand people a day cross the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan," the ambassador noted. "We need excellent intelligence, and we need hard-hitting mobile forces. The military must use both carrot and stick, but when force is used, you have to be very strong. In the tribal areas, they understand the language of strength."

Asked about our planned $2 billion training package for Pakistan's military, the old soldier reminded me that training alone takes years to be felt in the field: "Only equipment - helicopters and night-vision devices - could bring short-term results."

A stock military response? Durrani just doesn't fit the mold. During his term as the chief of Pakistan's military production, he fought corruption, improved efficiency and cleaned up arsenal towns, building schools and clinics for workers and their families.

That information came from my Army buddy, not from a PR firm. Queried about it, the ambassador beamed: "In the first speech I gave to my subordinates, I told them, 'Treat every individual with dignity.' " He was also proud of breaking traditions of nepotism in the system (something I'd like to see US generals do).

As the interview ended, I asked what message he'd like to send directly to the American people.

"Americans should know that we're doing the best we can. We are committed. Lack of trust hurts us all," he said. "Please don't micromanage Pakistan for us."

STRAIGHT TALK ON PAKISTAN - New York Post

[Hussain87]

The whole birth of Pakistan was illegitimate (it being the bastard child of the British) so it is no surprise that the country is facing these problems

Please note the above should not be interpreted as racist or offensive but the artificial nature of Pakistan is part of history and indeed cause for its crisis.

[roberto]

Hussain87 said

The whole birth of Pakistan was illegitimate (it being the bastard child of the British) so it is no surprise that the country is facing these problems

Please note the above should not be interpreted as racist or offensive but the artificial nature of Pakistan is part of history and indeed cause for its crisis.

The split was not really favoured by the British; it was at the insistence of the Pakistani leaders.

What do you believe should have been done?


Jinnah: Pakistan's founding father

[Hanbali]

Hussain87 said

The whole birth of Pakistan was illegitimate (it being the bastard child of the British) so it is no surprise that the country is facing these problems

Please note the above should not be interpreted as racist or offensive but the artificial nature of Pakistan is part of history and indeed cause for its crisis.

And the whole birth of a Shia Iran was illegitimate, with its bastard roots going back to Shah Ismail I, who forcibly mass converted Sunni Persia to Shi'ism, using the sword as his tool of conversion. It is no surprise then that the country of Iran has been a knife in the back of the Ummah ever since.

Please note the above should not be interpreted as racist or offensive, but the artificial conversion of Iran to Shi'ism is part of history and indeed cause for its crisis.

[Hussain87]

converted Sunni Persia to Shi'ism

al-hamdulillah

country of Iran has been a knife in the back of the Ummah ever since.

It has been a great service to the Muslim ummah unlike your beloved demi-gods who have inspired nothing but killing, terrorism, extremism and backwardness which is of course a relic of their ancestors 1350 years ago.

[AmroodWaala]

roberto said

STRAIGHT TALK ON PAKISTAN

"Americans should know that we're doing the best we can. We are committed. Lack of trust hurts us all," he said.

]

From his prison cell (in the late 70s), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote about the two hegemonies that control Pakistan: internal hegemony (military) and the external hegemony(US).

According to him, " the two hegemonies complement each other. If our people meekly submit to internal hegemony, a priori, they will have to submit to external hegemony. This is so because the strength and power of external hegemony is far greater than that of internal hegemony. If the people are too terrified to resist the weaker force, it is not possible for them to resist the stronger force. The acceptance of or acquiescence in internal hegemony means submission to external hegemony" (If I Am Assassinated, p.148).

Bhutto was overthrown by a military dictator who ruled for over 10 years, followed by an Oxford degenerate and a Steel Mill thug, and then back to another military dictator- Uncle Musharraf. Military rulers have led Pakistan for half of its 60 years of existence. history in a nutshell. All of them were "committed" to pleasing the DC masters and "doing the best" they could to fulfill the demands of outsiders while neglecting the interests of their own people. And not much has changed. The US should stop meddling into affairs of others and let the people take control of their own lives. Since it hasn't happened and it won't happen because "we need to protect our interests" (according to Kissinger types), the people will continue to resist and the conflict will continue.... That's my STRAIGHT TALK ON PAKISTAN.

[Hanbali]

Hussain87 said

It has been a great service to the Muslim ummah unlike your beloved demi-gods who have inspired nothing but killing, terrorism, extremism and backwardness which is of course a relic of their ancestors 1350 years ago.

Our people have spread Tawheed and fought Shirk.

Meanwhile your people actively promote Shirk and fight Tawheed.

And your country has done NOTHING for the Muslim Ummah; only service it has done is to the Shia nation.

[roberto]

roberto said

The split was not really favoured by the British; it was at the insistence of the Pakistani leaders.

What do you believe should have been done?


Jinnah: Pakistan's founding father

Since I felt the British left things in a bit of a mess, I thought a discussion on what they should have done would have been interesting, but it the event the thread has become an exchange of hatreds of which I do not have knowledge, so I’ll move on.

[Aryan_]

Iran is more an illegitmate state than Pakistan. Most of it's people aren't even Persian. When the Molla's go, things will be different.

[Jamroll]

The article, or rather the General, makes a lot of good points:

The Pakistani Army needs to get out of the political sphere, or at the very least take a backseat. They dominate all the main sectors of society, it's too much power over everything.

America can't micromanage Pakistan and Pakistani affairs. If they want Pakistan as an ally, they need to butt out of internal affairs. Pakistanis understand Pakistan and the surrounding nations best, not the Americans.

It's essential for the Pakistan government to be on good terms with the old boys running the show in the Tribal Areas. Without Tribal Area support, NWFP et al, might as well not be Pakistani sovereign territory. Without Tribal Area support, the Taliban is dead in the water. Both the Taliban and the Pakistani government need Tribal Area support. The Americans sticking their noses in with their Boo-Ya attitude ruins the delicate balancing act required in order to maintain stability.

[roberto]

Jamroll said

The article, or rather the General, makes a lot of good points:

The Pakistani Army needs to get out of the political sphere, or at the very least take a backseat. They dominate all the main sectors of society, it's too much power over everything.

America can't micromanage Pakistan and Pakistani affairs. If they want Pakistan as an ally, they need to butt out of internal affairs. Pakistanis understand Pakistan and the surrounding nations best, not the Americans.

It's essential for the Pakistan government to be on good terms with the old boys running the show in the Tribal Areas. Without Tribal Area support, NWFP et al, might as well not be Pakistani sovereign territory. Without Tribal Area support, the Taliban is dead in the water. Both the Taliban and the Pakistani government need Tribal Area support. The Americans sticking their noses in with their Boo-Ya attitude ruins the delicate balancing act required in order to maintain stability.

Good back on track, the present is more important than the past, but I’d be interested in a Pakistanis view on the creation of the independent Pakistan

[Hanbali]

roberto said

I’d be interested in a Pakistanis view on the creation of the independent Pakistan

The creation of Pakistan is one of the greatest things that happened in this century. This is the view held by the vast majority of Pakistanis. And by Pakistanis, I mean Pakistanis living in Pakistan, and not the pseudo-intellectual self-hating ABCDs.

[roberto]

Hanbali said

The creation of Pakistan is one of the greatest things that happened in this century. This is the view held by the vast majority of Pakistanis. And by Pakistanis, I mean Pakistanis living in Pakistan, and not the pseudo-intellectual self-hating ABCDs.

That’s fine, however what I meant to ask and cleiarly didn't was the method and the make up, which, I think, lead to very many deaths and upheavals

[Hanbali]

roberto said

That’s fine, however what I meant to ask and cleiarly didn't was the method and the make up, which, I think, lead to very many deaths and upheavals

Freedom fights are very rarely bloodless.