o Clinton's War Threat Should Be Met With Punitive Pakistani Measures
o If we can't shoot down CIA drones, why are we spending on our
military purchases?
Why did our Ambassador to Washington maintain a strange silence in the
immediate aftermath instead of seeking access to Faisal Shahzad? Why
did Foreign Minister Qureshi link Shahzad to drone attacks and accept
Pakistan's guilt without evidence? Why Pakistan's civilian and
military leaderships are not questioning the US intent?
By Shireen M. Mazari
Monday, 10 May 2010.
TheNation
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Hillary Clinton has once again come into her own
true self and issued a direct threat to Pakistan of "severe
consequences" if the 'terror attack' of Time Square New York City had
been successful and found to have definitively originated in Pakistan.
It brings to mind an earlier moment when Hillary, during the course of
her unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, had
responded to a question on whether she would use tactical nuclear
weapons against Pakistan in the context of a terror attack linked to
Pakistan and she unhesitatingly declared "yes". She was also right up
there with Bush on the question of the Iraq war until she realised how
unpopular it was becoming within her own country. So she is very much
in the same mould as Condi Rice.
However, her latest threat has established without an iota of doubt
the larger US game plan for Pakistan and the issue is not what the US
plans to do so much as what are leadership is doing or not doing to
protect itself from this increasingly threatening US agenda.
But first some serious questions that our leadership and our normally
verbose Ambassador to Washington should have raised in the immediate
aftermath of the Faisal Shahzad episode, which is beginning to look
more and more like a deliberately created incident to suck Pakistan
into not only doing the US bidding vis a vis North Waziristan but also
to provide a scenario which would allow more US forces into the
country and move the US further into forcibly taking control of our
nuclear assets:
Why should one presume the whole incident was created?
How come the explosion did not go off?
How come such an easy trail of evidence was laid to track Faisal Shahzad?
How come, he confessed to everything so easily and immediately?
How come the US immediately, as if already prepared, began demanding
permission for more troops into Pakistan?
How come the CIA immediately announced more drone attacks on Pakistan?
In other words, things moved in an almost synchronized manner in
succession that they had to have been pre-planned.
Why are the US government and media paying no heed to Shahzad's
alleged connection to the Yemeni cleric and to the Taliban's clear
denial of any link to Shahzad?
What is disturbing though is the immediate utterances and silence of
the different Pakistani players – apart from the brief but necessary
statement from the ISPR that there was no tangible evidence to link
Shahzad to Waziristan and the militants there:
First: Why did our Ambassador to Washington maintain a strange silence
in the immediate aftermath instead of seeking access to Faisal
Shahzad, given that despite being a US citizen his Pakistani links
were being played up?
Two: How come Foreign Minister Qureshi immediately declared that
Shahzad's action was in response to the drone attacks, even before
Shahzad himself allegedly talked of the disturbing effect of drones?
Is there a common script here? Did Qureshi not know that by making
such a statement he was accepting Shahzad's guilt? More important, how
did he know the cause unless he had met Shahzad, knew him earlier or
had been told by him that this was the reason behind his alleged
action?
Three: In a similar vein, Interior Minister also made a similar
statement as if Shahzad had been found guilty already.
Four: Why should the father of Shahzad have been arrested? Apparently
it was given out that his arrest was to facilitate the FBI team but is
it the job of the government to aid and abet the US or to protect its
own citizens? It would appear the answer is the former for this
government, in which case there is little difference in how this
democratic government is treating its citizens and how Musharraf
treated Pakistanis.
What is truly disturbing though is the civil and military leadership's
silence on questioning US intent. Why are we allowing the US to
threaten us while we continue to entertain their civil, military and
intelligence teams/delegations? Why are we not insisting on out
investigation team being in Washington if the US can send an FBI team
to Pakistan? Why have we not called for a Joint Investigation on the
Shahzad issue?
In the aftermath of the Clinton threat, at the very least shouldn't
the Pakistan government suspend cooperation with the US, at least
temporarily? Should our ambassador not convey our displeasure at this
overt threat? Stoppage of NATO supplies and the downing of a drone
will send a clearer message than any apologetic mumblings from the
leadership. Finally, is our military prepared to compromise our
defence and security, target more Pakistani civilians, simply to do
the US bidding and commence a premature and hasty North Waziristan
operation?
Incidentally, if the government is unwilling to use the capability its
air force has of shooting down drones, as was demonstrated to the PM
recently, why are we acquiring such expensive systems? If we cannot or
will not fight anyone but are own tribals, we need to review our
military expenditures.
In conclusion, it will be worth painting once again the holistic
picture that should now be crystal clear even to the most myopic
Pakistani, in the light of the Clinton threat. Send in more US troops
to destabilise Pakistan; push the military into North Waziristan,
stretching its lines of communications and capabilities and
aggravating the civil-military divide as well as the dormant ethnic
and sectarian fault lines within the institution of the military,
thereby undermining its long term cohesiveness; another operation
would add to terrorism within Pakistan as will the increased drone
attacks in FATA; convince the world that Pakistan is in disarray and
there should be international control over its nukes through the UNSC
– which effectively would mean US control.
Nor is the US agenda premised only on diplomatic-military tactics.
There is a strong economic component also. After all, the IMF factor
is not merely coincidental; nor are the new economic managers with
strong US/IMF/World Bank connections who have been brought in
recently. Add to all this the growing US intrusions already within
Pakistan at multiple levels and the picture should become evident that
Pakistan is being set up for destruction. What is less clear to some,
though not to all, is why our own leadership should be complicit in
this destruction?
First published by The Nation. Dr. Mazari can be reached at callstr@hotmail.com
© 2007-2010. All rights reserved. PakNationalists.com
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
in any medium
without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
YOUR comment IS IMPORTANT
Do NOT underestimate the power of your comment
Please click here to comment or to read what others have said about this story.
Or visit the PakNationalists group to post a comment there.
Posts
.jpg)
