Pakistan: Thy Wish Is My Command - Enhancing CIA Presence
29 November 2010By Mir Adnan Aziz
"Tyrants use their power in three manners. The first
is, that they strive that those under their mastery be
ignorant and fearful, because, when they be such, they
may not rise against them, nor resist their wills; the
second, that their victims not be kindly and united
among themselves, in such a wise that they trust not
each other; and the third that they strive to make
them poor and to put them under great undertakings,
which they can never finish, whereby they may have so
much harm that it may never come into their hearts to
devise anything against their ruler". *(Alfonso X,
King of Castile).
These words seem prophetic seen in the context of the
West's attitude towards Pakistan and the subsequent
shenanigans of our own rulers. A recent US request to
'extend' the sphere of drone strikes was countered by
a spineless offer to 'enhance' CIA presence in Quetta.
The powers that be,
confident by the accepted bondage at large, gave up on
even the routine charade of defending sovereignty at
all costs. It was, after all, an open admission to
their connivance in 'limited' drone strikes and CIA
presence in Quetta and surely elsewhere too. Hillary
Clinton, British Foreign Secretary William Hague and
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, amongst a
host of others, tell us in strident tones how to tax
people fatally ravaged by their war. They warn us
severance of alms in case of non-compliance. Beggars
not being choosers, all we can do is say: 'thy wish is
my command'. We are indeed a fractious nation in
servitude.
Historically famines and poverty occur due to
calamities or prolonged wars. We cannot stop
calamities; forever wars are indeed of our own making.
Our insecurity and grinding impoverishment is
perceived to be planned by the government hence the
bondage our lives have become. Seemingly, contrary to
conventional thinking, politics and public offices
have become the most burgeoning business. The US, with
an administration that promised change, continues to
engage in forever wars; we the satellites are giddy
with the prospect in terms of dollars received. To
those pundits who rant that we sold ourselves cheaply,
it is the very act of selling oneself that is obscene;
no amount of money can be redemption.
The hole in Lower Manhattan (with 'holes' a routine
occurrence all over Pakistan) is a reminder of the
action of a few non-Pakistanis in a few hours, the
subsequent forever 'war on terror' a memorial to
futility. Bush, who ironically majored in history,
made a grave error going into Afghanistan; President
Obama is making an even graver one escalating the war.
The 2014 timeline is as fallacious as the 2011 one.
After making a series of ignominious decisions to
escalate the war in Vietnam, Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara eventually said: 'wars generate their
own momentum and follow the law of unanticipated
consequences'. Afghanistan, the saga of spying and
geo-political interventions chronicled by Rudyard
Kipling in 'The great game' shall prove to be no
exception.
President Obama's fundamental argument that occupying
Afghanistan makes the US more secure is flawed, as
only a small number (if any) members of al Qaedah
reside in Afghanistan. If the US premise of their
migration to Pakistan is true, will US troops stay on
perpetually in Afghanistan. If they do, where does the
peace equation come in with the Taliban calling for a
total withdrawl of US/NATO forces? It should be clear
beyond doubt that the focus of the developing
political strategy is expanding the war theatre to the
cities and towns of Pakistan. This blunder will have a
trans-borders domino effect and strengthen militants
with even moderates joining hands with them.
Obama's promised change and the post McCrystal
implosion change in military leadership should have
been cause for rethinking the entire Afghan policy;
what we have instead is a regressive policy guided by
the gospel of Petraeus. Meanwhile those that suffer
see this war as a totally imperial
agenda whereas what President Eisenhower called the
'military-industrial complex' using the war to
prosper. ‘Terrorism' experts are using the same to
gain money and visibility while mercenaries in the
garb of contractors mint (blood) money. This war has
given carte blanche to many nefarious agendas (here
and abroad) hindering a logical conclusion.
In the recent US election virtually no candidate
talked about Afghanistan. The longest war in American
history and the American public does not care to talk
about it any longer. What apart from servitude, forces
us to be the harbingers of western security at the
cost of our own? The United States has already lost
the War in Afghanistan. The Pentagon mindset believes
that numerical and armament superiority is a
precondition to sure victory; the history of wars
tells us otherwise - it is strategic superiority that
prevails. Afghanistan is a lost duel. History,
geography and culture make the area a nightmare for
any foreign presence attempting to impose its will on
the nation.
When Gorbachev came to power he, like President Obama,
inherited a war that was not in the interest of his
nation. It took a Soviet dictator, pariah to the West,
to end it. Would it be too much to expect the same
from the Nobel peace prize winning torch-bearer of the
‘free and democratic' world?
(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments