Faisal Shahzad, anti-Americanism, and terror

Faisal Shahzad, anti-Americanism, and terror

Pervez Hoodbhoy

The fervent hate for America in Pakistan is in part the resentment and self-loathing of a client state for its paymaster.

The man who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was a Pakistani. Why is this unsurprising? Answer: because when you hold a burning match to a gasoline tank, the laws of chemistry demand combustion. As anti-American lava spews from the fiery volcanoes of Pakistan's private television channels and newspapers, collective psychosis grips the country's youth. Murderous intent follows with the conviction that the United States is responsible for all ills, both in Pakistan and the world of Islam.

Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Karachi, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of Zia-ul-Haq's hate-based education curriculum. The son of a retired Air Vice-Marshal, life was easy as was getting U.S. citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in. Guilt may have overpowered him as he saw pictures of Gaza's dead children and held U.S. support for Israel responsible. Then a little internet browsing, or perhaps the local mosque, steered him towards the idea of an Islamic caliphate. The solution to the world's problems would require, of course, the U.S. to be damaged and destroyed. Hence Shahzad's self-confessed trip to Waziristan.

Ideas considered extreme a decade ago are now mainstream. A private survey carried out by a European embassy based in Islamabad found that only four per cent of Pakistanis polled speak well of America, 96 per cent against. Although Pakistan and the U.S. are formal allies, in the public perception the U.S. has ousted India as Pakistan's number one enemy. Remarkably, anti-U.S. sentiment rises in proportion to aid received. Say one good word about the U.S., and you are automatically labelled as its agent. From what popular TV anchors had to say about it, Kerry-Lugar's $7.5 billion may well have been money that the U.S. wants to steal from Pakistan rather than give to it.

Pakistan is certainly not the world's only country where America is unpopular. In pursuit of its self-interest, wealth and security, the U.S. has waged illegal wars, bribed, bullied and overthrown governments, supported tyrants and military governments, and undermined movements for progressive change. But paradoxically the U.S. is disliked far more in Pakistan than in countries which have borne the direct brunt of American attacks — Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why?

Drone strikes are a common but false explanation. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi implicitly justified the Times Square bombing as retaliation. But this simply does not bear up. Drone attacks have killed some innocents, but they have devastated militant operations in Waziristan while causing far less collateral damage than Pakistan Army operations. On the other hand, the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam's jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange, the effects of which persist even today. Yet, Vietnam never developed deep visceral feelings like those in Pakistan.

Finding truer reasons requires deeper digging. In part, Pakistan displays the resentment and self-loathing of a client state for its paymaster. U.S.-Pakistan relations are frankly transactional today, but the master-client relationship is older. Indeed, Pakistan chose this path because confronting India over Kashmir demanded heavy militarisation and big defence budgets. So, in the 1950's, Pakistan willingly entered into the SEATO and CENTO military pacts, and was proud to be called “America's most allied ally”. The Pakistan Army became the most powerful, well-equipped and well-organised institution in the country. This also put Pakistan on the external dole, a price that Pakistan has paid for its Indo-centrism.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, even as it brought in windfall profits, deepened the dependence. Paid by the U.S. to create the anti-Soviet jihadist apparatus, Pakistan is now being paid again to fight that war's blowback. Pakistan then entered George W. Bush's war on terror to enhance America's security — a fact that further hurt self-esteem. It is a separate matter that Pakistan fights that very war for its own survival, and must call upon its army to protect the population from throat-slitting, hand-chopping, girl-whipping fanatics.

Passing the buck is equally fundamental to Pakistan's anti-Americanism. It is in human nature to blame others for one's own failures. Pakistan has long teetered between being a failed state and a failing state. The rich won't pay taxes? Little electricity? Sewage-contaminated drinking water? Population out of control? Kashmir unsolved? Just blame it on the Americans. This phenomenon exists elsewhere too. For example, one recently saw the amazing spectacle of Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatening to join the Taliban and lashing out against Americans because they (probably correctly) suggested he committed electoral fraud.

Tragically for Pakistan, anti-Americanism plays squarely into the hands of Islamist militants. They vigorously promote the notion of an Islam-West war when, in fact, they actually wage armed struggle to remake society. They will keep fighting this war even if America were to miraculously evaporate into space. Created by poverty, a war-culture, and the macabre manipulations of Pakistan's intelligence services, they seek a total transformation of society. This means eliminating music, art, entertainment, and all manifestations of modernity. Side goals include chasing away the few surviving native Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus.

At a time when the country needs clarity of thought to successfully fight extremism, simple bipolar explanations are inadequate. The moralistic question “Is America good or bad?” is futile. There is little doubt that the U.S. has committed acts of aggression as in Iraq, worsened the Palestine problem, and maintains the world's largest military machine. We also know that it will make a deal with the Taliban if perceived to be in America's self-interest, and it will do so even if that means abandoning Afghans to blood-thirsty fanatics.

Yet, it would be wrong to scorn the humanitarian impulse behind U.S. assistance in times of desperation. Shall we simply write off massive U.S. assistance to Pakistan at the time of the dreadful earthquake of 2005? Or to tsunami affected countries in 2004 and to Haiti in 2010? In truth, the U.S. is no more selfish or altruistic than any other country of the world. And it treats its Muslim citizens infinitely better than we treat non-Muslims in Pakistan.

Instead of pronouncing moral judgments on everything and anything, we Pakistanis need to reaffirm what is truly important for our people: peace, economic justice, good governance, rule of law, accountability of rulers, women's rights, and rationality in human affairs. Washington must be firmly resisted, but only when it seeks to drag Pakistan away from these goals. More frenzied anti-Americanism will only produce more Faisal Shahzads.

(The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.)

Great Military shots

http://www.tom-phillips.info/images/cool.pics.military.htm

http://www.tom-phillips.info/images/cool.pics.military.2.htm

http://www.tom-phillips.info/images/cool.pics.military.3.htm

Computer Cartoons

Afghanistan: Dire predictions

Afghanistan: Dire predictions

SENATOR LARRY PRESSLER (RETD)



THE US military presence in Afghanistan has to be opposed as it can lead to very negative results for India and the world. First, a little background. This writer is one of the few remaining Americans who served voluntarily in the US army in Vietnam and, in fact, volunteered for a second tour of duty there in 1968. At that time I believed President Lyndon Johnson and secretary of defense Robert McNamara that we had a very noble cause in Vietnam and that we were winning. Of course, later, both men confessed that they had been lying, and worse still, they knew they were lying!

Nevertheless, as a young man I had very limited information and had seen that the British had apparently defeated the communists in Malaysia with a Strategic Hamlet Program. Several wonderful combat medals were awarded to me, but by the time I left Vietnam I was convinced of what I shall call Pressler’s Basic Rule: you cannot send young men with rifles to a foreign country where they do not speak the language; where they know nothing of the culture; and expect them to transform the country.

Some very strange things are happening. It seems that the national and international media supports the concept that we can send men with rifles to a truly foreign land and transform it. We praise the military — we praise those who volunteer for our military service to an extreme, almost unbelievable, level for this Vietnam veteran. The regard for the military was so low when I checked out of the Oakland Army Base that I was advised not to wear my uniform into San Francisco as I might be spat on!

I have never met a Vietnam veteran (except career military) who believes we can win in Afghanistan. Being fairly active in veteran’s affairs, I meet quite a few Vietnam veterans who served in the military for three-to-six years. Among those aging soldier warriors, the universal feeling is that we should withdraw completely from Afghanistan. But somehow, this feeling is not permeating into the news media.

Strangely enough, Barack Obama ran for President on a platform of reducing troops abroad, but has done just the opposite. I was a part of Republicans for Obama, on the grounds that he would reduce or withdraw our commitment to Afghanistan. His campaign statements were very clear on this. And somehow, without much explanation, he seems to have yielded to the forces of our national security military industrial state.

My prediction is that the US ’surge’ in Afghanistan will appear to be working in some cases. But the Taliban will not stand and fight, but fade away whenever US troops appear. After three years the US will withdraw, except from the capital, and the country will essentially be taken over by the Taliban. During those three years, Pakistan will be given more and more modern equipment by the US (as is happening) and will emerge as one of the strongest militaries in the world.

India will struggle along desperately, buying more arms from the US and elsewhere. When the US leaves Afghanistan, India will have a Pakistan ’on steroids’ next-door and a Taliban state to deal with in Afghanistan. The rouge ISI will be playing all kinds of tricks on India, and India will be left alone to answer as best she can.

The policy options at this stage are grim. My recommendation is that the US begin withdrawing troops now and stop giving so much additional military aid to Pakistan. But that is unlikely to happen. It is time for Indian leaders to speak up much more strongly in criticising the US for both remaining in Afghanistan and for the arms being given to Pakistan. The Indian leadership has been almost mute on this dangerous development. There is something of an anti-war movement in the US, similar to what finally got us out of Vietnam, but without some international voices crying out (especially India’s), we are headed for a major catastrophe that will last for decades.