Pak Tea House » Army, USA » Abbotabad Operation and our chance to redeem ourselves
Abbotabad Operation and our chance to redeem ourselves
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
The Abbotabad Operation and the accompanying humiliation has given
Pakistan another opportunity to redeem itself.
Consider: For the first time since 1971 people of this hapless and
much raped country have realised that trusting men in uniform to make
political decisions on your behalf is a dangerous proposition. It is
about time too. Jinnah had told a gathering of Army officers in 1947
that in Pakistan civilian rule shall be supreme. Ayub Khan who was in
attendance made it a point to defy Pakistan’s founding father.
There are only two possibilities really and all of us need to state
these in black and white. Either our military establishment is
incompetent or they just don’t care about the country that have sworn
to protect having their corporate interests to worry about. My guess
is the latter. However I will go a step further and say that our
military establishment not only knew where Osama was, but was keeping
Osama deliberately in Abbotabad on American instructions. They were
however kept in the dark about the final raid. It does not take much
to realise that by killing Osama at this very convenient time, Obama
has pulled off a great coup at a time when he was in retreat on every
front at home from health care to federal budget. Now Republicans find
themselves outwitted and outsmarted by a terrific operator who has
stage managed a brilliant political victory and is all set to win the
elections in 2012 despite a largely disappointing first term.
Pakistan-US relations were at their lowest ebb and by carrying out
this bold raid, US has taken the bull by the horns.
That Osama’s end was nigh was written on the wall. The reason why the
Americans acted in utter secrecy was not because they feared that
Pakistanis would alert Osama. The Americans feared that Pakistan Army
would move in, arrest Osama and hand him over to the Americans alive.
This they feared would give Pakistan leverage in the post-war
Afghanistan as Pakistan Army would demand that Haqqani network be
recognised as a player with legitimate estimate. I suspect one day
when history is written after documents are de-classifed, it shall
record that American strike against Osama pre-empted a Pakistani plan
to strike.
A military mind only thinks tactically. He is likely to overlook the
bigger picture. Pakistan Army should not have kept Osama alive for
leverage in the first place. They should have captured him the first
chance he got and handed him over to the US, even if the US wanted
Pakistan to keep him in a safe-house which is the likely scenario. At
best it would have cost Pakistan a few hundred million in military
aid. Michael Moore, the director and activist, stated it bluntly:
Pakistan’s military establishment did not want to give up Osama
because that would mean losing their paycheck. It is the searing irony
of this war that the fulfillment of war means discontinuation of rent.
Still the clearest duty of our generals was to kill or capture
Pakistan’s enemy number one instead of charging rent for lodging him
comfortably in Abbotabad. The failure to do so is nothing less than
treason against Pakistan.
It is now self evident that generals usually have no vision, no
ability or capability when it comes to statesmanship which requires
sagacity and political will This is why in the civil war, Abraham
Lincoln, with second rate generals, overcame brilliant generals of the
South like Lee and Jackson.
Pakistan – all thanks to bad long term planning- is not just
humiliated but stands at the brink of being declared a terrorist
state. Yet this is precisely where our opportunity lies. The failure
of the Army in its aspirations within the great game has greatly
shattered the political ambitions of the top brass. Meanwhile
President Zardari- the one man we all love to hate- is ascendant. For
the first time even our Zardari-hating anchors have discovered that
legally it is the president of the republic who is the Supreme
Commander of Pakistan’s armed forces. He was also the first person to
respond to the media war. An article with his byline appeared in the
Washington Post recounting Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war on terror.
This is truly Zardari’s moment. He has to pick up the pieces and
convince Pakistan’s top brass to take a back seat in foreign policy
and other political decisions. He must also move decisively to cut the
massive military budget given that Pakistan’s Armed Forces have proved
useless against both Al Qaeda and the invading US helicopters.
Pakistan’s geo-strategic importance is inspite of the massive military
force we keep.
This is our best chance to establish civilian supremacy in this
country. Every politician- whether on the left or the right- ought to
band together for this purpose. The Pakistan Army should also make a
clear break with its duplicitous past and commit itself anew to its
primary job to protect and safeguard the republic whenever it is
called upon to do so by the civilian authorities.
Filed under: Army, USA · Tags: Abbotabad Operation, Pakistan, political, war
23 Responses to "Abbotabad Operation and our chance to redeem ourselves"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Rex Minor
said PS
Sorry, my laptop is playing silly bugger. I am... - Rex Minor said Tajender commentry on many aspects of Indian commu...
- ahem
said tajender = haywire brain
He is like a drunk man... - Rex Minor said AKB proposes a stop to name calling, and Kaalchakr...
- tajender
said the more educated states are less caste prone
k... - Fingolfin
said Tajender
ya they are not a trading community b... - tajender said reverse is ture,bjp and congress lost power in up...
- tajender said what i wrote about kayasth is right they have brhm...
- RajTOO
said tajender,
you're more of a cartoon than a serious... - no-communal
said BM,
.
I read parts of your debate on slavery. I...
Islam has always glorified the weapon-carrier and the aggressor and imperialist who increases the territory under the boot of islam.
In every islamic or muslim-majority society the weapon-carrier who claims to fight, kill and die for islam and its glory or defence or expansion is the hero and the ultimate authority (even when as dead as a martyr). He is given the maximum right to young women and land ownership as his earthly pre-mortem privilege.
So don’t complain about the pak army now – neither you nor your dracula or his ghost can change that. It is the fate of every muslim-majority land. Even in Turkey the army will soon become sunni fascistic (is already on the way to become sunni fascistic).
So the US has had Pakistan hold bin Laden since, say, 2005?
“The Pakistan Army should also make a clear break with its duplicitous past and commit itself anew to its primary job to protect and safeguard the republic whenever it is called upon to do so by the civilian authorities.”
I would like to hope but I don’t believe I am credible when I hope any more. Forget the army, there is no political will amongst the politicians to do this. Are the politicans willing to come out on the streets against terror outfits? They can’t even develop an effective plan to counter the security establishments’ interference in domestic politics which affects them most directly. Obviously the answer is no.
It’s easier to pass resolutions vigorously condemning the US, expressing hurt at accusations of complicity, but avoiding any mention of the need to assign responsibility arising out of complicity or ineptitude regarding OBL or the maintenance of ‘assets’.
Here is the text of resolution number 44 passed by the National Assembly after 10.5 hours of heated deliberation last Friday when the all the top brass were present. I think it perfectly illustrates where the politicians’ limits and priorities lie.
“Saturday 14th May, 2011Resolution # 44Resolution on Unilateral US Forces Action in Abbottabad on 2nd May 2011
RESOLUTION ON UNILATERAL U.S. FORCES ACTION IN ABBOTTABAD ON 2ND MAY 2011(14TH MAY 2011)
The Senate of Pakistan and the National Assembly, in a Joint Session held on 13-14 May 2011, considered the situation arising from the unilateral US forces action in Abbottabad on 2 May 2011.
After an in-depth discussion, including presentations made on the relevant issues by the Director General, Inter-Services Intelligence, Director General (Military Operations) and Deputy Chief of Air Staff (Operations), the Joint Session of Parliament resolved as under:
Condemned the US unilateral action in Abbottabad, which constitutes a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty;
Strongly asserted that unilateral actions, such as those conducted by the US forces in Abbottabad, as well as the continued drone attacks on the territory of Pakistan, are not only unacceptable but also constitute violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and humanitarian norms and such drone attacks must be stopped forthwith, failing which the Government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps including withdrawal of transit facility allowed to NATO/ISAF forces;
Determines that unilateral actions cannot advance the global cause of elimination of terrorism and the people of Pakistan will no longer tolerate such actions and repeat of unilateral measures could have dire consequences for peace and security in the region and the world.
Reaffirmed the resolve of the people and Government of Pakistan to uphold Pakistan’s sovereignty and national security, which is a sacred duty, at all costs;
Affirmed the resolve of the people and state institutions of Pakistan to safeguard Pakistan’s national interests and strategic assets and, in this context, underscored that any action to the contrary will warrant a strong national response;
Expressed its deep distress on the campaign to malign Pakistan, launched by certain quarters in other countries without appreciating Pakistan’s determined efforts and immense sacrifices in combating terror and the fact that more than thirty thousand Pakistani innocent men, women and children and more than five thousand security and armed forces personnel had lost their lives, that is more than any other single country, in the fight against terror and the blowback emanating from actions of the NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan;
Called upon the Government to ensure that the principles of an independent foreign policy must be grounded in strict adherence to the principles of policy, as stated in Article 40 of the Constitution, the UN Charter, observance of international law and respect for the free will and aspirations of sovereign states and their peoples;
Further Called upon the Government to re-visit and review its terms of engagement with the United States, with a view to ensuring that Pakistan’s national interests are fully respected and accommodated in pursuit of policies for countering terrorism and achieving reconciliation and peace in Afghanistan;
Affirmed the importance of international cooperation for eliminating international terrorism, which can only be carried forward on the basis of a true partnership approach, based on equality, mutual respect and mutual trust;
Affirmed Also full confidence in the defence forces of Pakistan in safeguarding Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and in overcoming any challenge to security, with the full support of the people and Government of Pakistan. Reaffirmed the Resolution passed by the Joint Sitting of the Parliament on National Security held on 22 October 2008 and the detailed recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security in April 2009.
Called upon the Government to appoint an independent Commission on the Abbottabad operation, fix responsibility and recommend necessary measures to ensure that such an incident does not recur. The composition/modalities of the Commission will be settled after consultations between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition.”
This is taken from the National Assembly’s website.
[...] Abbotabad Operation and our chance to redeem ourselves [...]
This narrative connects several dots and makes a lot of sense.
QUOTEThe reason why the
Americans acted in utter secrecy was not because they feared that
Pakistanis would alert Osama. The Americans feared that Pakistan Army
would move in, arrest Osama and hand him over to the Americans alive.
This they feared would give Pakistan leverage in the post-war
Afghanistan as Pakistan Army would demand that Haqqani network be
recognised as a player with legitimate estimate. I suspect one day
when history is written after documents are de-classifed, it shall
record that American strike against Osama pre-empted a Pakistani plan
to strike.
I am always willing to give free advice that might pull Pakistan out of the sewer it currently occupies confident that my kafir faux wannabe military words will be contemptuously rejected by the heroic citizens of the Islamic Repub;ic of Pakistan.
While Pakistanis contort themselves into weird and unreal positions to try and cook up stories to make the Pakistani army come out of this hilarious (to me) episode with honor intact, I suggest that Pakistanis look at the obvious explanation that is clear to anyone who is not desperate to find a fig leaf for the Paki army.
Your army was hiding Osama and they believed that they could forever make everyone in the world look idiotic. What is totally hilarious is that the Americans who miserably bumbled special ops rescue in Iran and in that other companion failed state to Pakistan (Somalia) -the Pakistani army was incompetent enough to give Americans a victory in the fortress of Islam – Punjab. The US managed to hand the Pakistan army its ass on a plate and your nation is in denial, But this is a minor event. Your parents were in denial in 1971 when the Pak army got ass whupped, No wonder Pakistan has improved so much.
Kick your idiotic army out of power. They are a fat useless bunch. Let Pakistan be democratic and let the mullahs gain power. They have waited long enough. That is the only way you guys can get revenge on America,.
I have reservations about the conclusions of this article.
In a nut-shell, here are my disagreements with the article’s conclusions.
1) The events of 1971 cannot be compared with the events of 2011 because the two are diffrent and the context to them is different. The break up of Pakistan into two, in 1971, did not threaten the Pakistani military or its self-created narrative of being defenders of Pakistan’s Islamic values and it did not threaten the existence of Pakistan as a state. The events of 2011 have raised questions about the existence of Pakistan as a state and they have directly threatened the existence of the army not as a defender of Pakistan’s sovereignity, but as the defenders of Pakistan’s Islamic ideals.
The questions, which are being raised in critism of the army, are being raised not because the military failed to protect Pakistani sovereignty but because it failed to protect Osama bin Ladin, who was viewed, and still is, by the majority of the Pakistanis as a champion of Islam against the west and the United States. Therefore, the failure of the Pakistani military to stop the raid is not seen as a humiliation of Pakistan as a nation-state but as a humilation of Pakistan’s defination of Islam and its self-appointed status as the guardian of Islamic morality and values.
2) There is no political will and nor can they be any political will on the part of the civilian politicans to trim the role and influence of the Pakistani military in the politics of Pakistan. The civilian politicans are the proxies by which the military rules Pakistan indirectly, and the politicans will never bite the hand that feeds them. The Pakistani politicans need the patronage of the military to govern Pakistan and since they, themselves, are bonsai creations of military rule, they cannot limit the military’s role in politics without undermining their own political interests, which is to gain power and gaining political power in Pakistan, without the miliary’s blessing is not possible in Pakistan.
The politicans of the Pakistan seek their political mandates from the GHQ in Rawalpindi and not from the ballot boxes and this is a reality of the Pakistani politics.
3) It seems more plausible that Osama bin Ladin was sheltered and protected in Abbottabad not on the instructions of the United States but on the express orders of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is the principal antagonist to the United States in this war on terror, because we have to remember that it was the Saudis who attacked the Twin Towers and even though Saudi Arabia might have diplomatically disassociated itself from Osama bin Ladin, it was still emotionally and spiritually kindered to bin Ladin due to the logic of seeking the triumph of Wahhabism as the dominat version of Islam; an ideology that is funded and supported by Saudi Arabia as a state policy.
It is this same ideology that supports the madrassa archipeliago in Pakistan, which seeks to impose its views on the Pakistani state and which the Pakistani army supports because of the support network of such madrassas to the proxy wars of the Pakistani army in the region.
4) The Osama bin Ladin raid will not greatly alter the balance of political power in the United States or insure a victory for Barack Obama in 2012. Despite this raid, the fact remains that the real balance of power in the United States is not the White House but the Congress and the emergent issue in the 2012 elections will be the American economy and its ability to meet the needs of the Americans, who still are not able to see the end of recession and its related issues of healthcare, medicare, education and immigration reforms, which the GOP is planning to use to mount a challenge to the US Sentate in 2012.
Who ever controls the Congress, controls the money and who ever controls the money makes the policy and the White House does not control the money!
5) Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson lost not because of Abraham Lincoln’s third rate generals, but because of the industrial capacity of the north to produce the war materials; the ability of the north to tap into the immigration flows into the north to replace the lost soldiers and of the north’s blockade of the south, which denied the south access to sell its cotton or get weapons.
The American civil war the first industralized war in the world and industrialized wars have nothing to do with generals, but the ability of the economy to support a nation’s war aims. In this sense, Germany lost the First World War not because it had inferior generals to the allies, but because the German economy collapsed and could not support the German military and its war aims.
6) A military mind does not think tactically but logistically and only an amateur with no idea of military strategy thinks tactically! The American aid to the Pakistani military is not intended to equip the Pakistani army to fight the Taliban or Al Qaeda but to pay the salaries of the Pakistani army.
Pakistan as a state is bankrupt. There is no tradition of paying taxes in Pakistan and its ecomomy is dead in the water, so the question is where is the money coming to support and maintain the Pakistani army?
The United States is paying the upkeep of the Pakistani army because logistically, it makes sense to keep the Pakistani army intact because if there is a mutiny in the Pakistani army and there is a division in the Pakistani army, the United States does not have logistics to deal with the problem in terms of troop deployment and to sustain such deployments inside Pakistan for stability operations.
The biggest fear of the western policy makers and the United States is not a militant take over of Pakistan or Pakistan selling its nuclear wares in the open market, but what happens if the Pakistani army collapses? In such a case, the United States and the world will be looking at a frightful prospect of dealing with the problems of a nation of 180 million people disintergrating and seeking to stabilize it.
It is for this reason that despite all that has happened, there are still voices in the United States which are not too keen to cut aid to Pakistan. The disintergration of the Pakistani army will be a bigger problem than the disintergration of Pakistan and so, logistically, dealing with such a situation would be a nightmare.
7) As to Asif Ali Zardari, and carpe diem, Zardari’s political instincts are those of an opportunist and not a strategist. Zardari can only change the convenant of state power; of the relations between the governed and the governors and between civilian power centers and the military if he is willing to reject the notions of autocratic power and favor the idea of institutional autonomy in Pakistani politics.
Again, it is a naive idea to place faith in an individual as a savior of Pakistan’s problems because modern nation-state’s problems are not solved by individuals but by a bureaucracy that supports, implements and administers the reforms which an individual can suggest and for this to happen, there needs to mind-set change in Pakistani politics, whereby the politicans learn to admit the supremacy of a state’s interest over personal political egosim and do not see institutional politics as a threat to their own political ambitions.
Zardari cannot do a whit to change Pakistan for the better if the system itself is not willing to change for the better in Pakistan!
ciao
The Soviet Union with many more nukes than Pakistan and with many more diverse parts disintegrated in an orderly manner. I don’t see why that cannot be repeated with Pakistan.
Yawn.
Wikileaks says the US Government knew about Osama’s hideout as early as 2008.
Feroz,
Most of your post does not require a response.
Two points though…
1. 1971 was a deathblow to the Pakistan Army – which was till then devoid of “Jehad fee sabeelallah” sloganeering- as the defenders of Pakistan. The direct result of 1971 was that 1973 constitution armed forces were made explicitly subordinate to the Pakistani federal government… significantly the office of the Commander in Chief was discontinued.
Pakistan Army reinvented itself as a defender of the faith in response to the humiliation it had suffered in 1971. After the events of East Pakistan… Army had lost its raison d’etre as a national army. It became an Islamic army increasingly so under Zia.
2. ” Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson lost not because of Abraham Lincoln’s third rate generals”
Can you tell me where I said they lost because of Lincoln’s third rate generals? Read what I wrote again. Every student of civil war or with only a passing interest knows that it was the Industrial revolution that not only sustained the North but also was the reason why the North was ready to dispense with slavery as opposed to the plantation country in the South.
If I am wrong … and if Pakistan Army was not harboring Bin Laden with US’ approval… surely the White House will not make an effort to block the legislation to discontinue Pakistan’s aid especially military aid…
Instead the White House will certify that Pakistani Army had no idea… which we all know is highly unlikely… about Bin Laden’s whereabouts.
Meanwhile… yet again the Indian internet warriors will find themselves crying foul.
is it narrative essay.
Pakistan wants to redeem itself so that it can restart its “hate and bleed India” campaign with new vigour and “credibility” and self-confidence. That is the raison d’etre of Pakistan. That is Pakistan’s only redemption.
@ Yasser
“…it was the Industrial revolution that not only sustained the North but also was the reason why the North was ready to dispense with slavery as opposed to the plantation country in the South.”
If this statement was factual, can you explain why the North ended slavery in 1863, three years after the war had started?
Bruce Canton and Shelby Foote, noted American historians of the period, have noted that Abraham Lincoln only ended the slavery to ward off a British intervention on the side of the south. In the 1860s, the process of industrialization was at its height in England and English cotton mills were heavily dependent on the American cotton, but the naval blockade of the south by north, Operation Anaconda, was preventing south from exporting cotton to Britain.
The south was running contraband shippments of cotton to Europe and using the funds to equip its armies but the northern blockade was causing problems for the British traders. The opinion in the parliament was in favor of trade and that meant that if war went on longer, with no decision, Britain was prepared to intervene on the side of the south. Lincoln knew this, as his diplomats in London were telling him that Britain was getting impatient, and till the point of the Battle of Gettysburg, the north was losing.
Lincoln needed to keep the British out, but he needed a victory and when Gettysburg happened, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclaimation because he knew, from his diplomats, that Queen Victoria was deeply in favor of the abolishionist movement, but being a consitutional monarach would not go against paraliament, if parliament dominated by industrialists opted to intevene on the side of the south against the north. The act of freeing the slaves was a political decision to use the public opinion in Britain in favor of abolishionist movement to prevent the British paraliament from declaring war on the side of the south.
One of the myths of the civil war is that it was fought to despense with slavery; this is not true. The civil war was fought to keep the union intact and Lincoln did not fight it to free the slaves, because if he had, the inscription in his memorial would have not have said “in this temple, as in the hearts of the union, whom he served so well lies the memory of Abraham Lincoln”.
ciao
Feroze,
“One of the myths of the civil war is that it was fought to despense with slavery; this is not true.”
That myth is not entirely untrue. As has been documented by various Lincoln biographers, the war changed Lincoln from a not so closeted racist to someone wanting to stamp out the evil practice at all costs.
What is galling about this article is not the quality of the new conspiracy theory but the unmistakable sense of entitlement. That Obama has to go out on a limb to get the aid approved should generate a sense of gratitude but instead what we hear is outrageous nonsense that seeks to wash off all such favors with a brazen suggestion that OBL was held by the Pak Army as a favor to US! Bravo!
Another useless article by another uninformed analysts making assumptions and conspiracy theories based on unproven media leaks. What gives this article any more credibility than my assertion that Obama is a Pakistani spy and all of this drama has been done so that the Americans can say that they found proof of RAW’s involvement in hiding OBL, amongst the porn they found on OBL’s flash drive. Silly waste of time
Feroz mian,
Here is the quote from my article:
“It is now self evident that generals usually have no vision, no
ability or capability when it comes to statesmanship which requires
sagacity and political will This is why in the civil war, Abraham
Lincoln, with second rate generals, overcame brilliant generals of the
South like Lee and Jackson.”
Can you explain how anyone can deduce that I am saying that Abraham Lincoln won the war because of his third rate generals?
Also I will not allow you to impugn my integrity. So in the future refrain from making untrue insinuations about my motivations because lots of people can play at that game.
Chote Miyan,
I agree with you. Slavery did become an issue… but the underlying reasons were economic and also constitutional… vis a vis the sovereignty of the states v. federation.
Feroz asks:
“If this statement was factual, can you explain why the North ended slavery in 1863, three years after the war had started? ”
He is confusing Emancipation Proclamation that extended to the whole of United States with the reality of how overtime the slavery had ceased to exist in the North…. perhaps he can tell us how many of the states that formed part of the North in 1860 practised slavery?
Perhaps Feroz will do well to read about a little thing called Missouri Compromise of 1850… he would get the answer to his poorly framed question.
Also rcently – with the Article 158 litigation in Pakistan- a lot of lawyers have been reading the Dred Scott case.. perhaps Feroz mian has heard of it and its interplay with the Missouri Compromise.
Yasser Pai,
also constitutional… vis a vis the sovereignty of the states v. federation.
Ahem, are you obliquely hinting that there may be a parallel to the 1937-47 situation closer home. In which case surely your sympathy shud be with the Southies…….
Regards
Analogies work half and half always. Take Sudan’s partition for example.
The key difference in this case would be Bengal where the entire issue was inverted on its head… and Bengal was central to partition of India. Another important distinction… though … the US Federation – with residuary powers lying with the states- is precisely the kind of federation that could keep India together had it been adopted in 1928.
The more accurate analogy therefore would lie in East v. West Pakistan… except that East – unlike North- wanted to separate and West – unlike the South- wanted to keep the country together. 1971 Civil War is the most accurate analogy out of all of them.. and my sympathies are firmly and squarely with the Bengalis on that one.
Test
@ Yasser
I have heard of the Dred Scott case.
Yasser, your intergrity is in your hands and you alone, by your actions, decide if it being impugned or not. It is how you act and behave which defines your intergrity.
ciao