Pakistan to America: no, you may not attack us

July 23, 2007 at 11:02 pm (Military, Pakistan, The United States, World War III)

Evidently, the Pakistani military government is more arrogant and stupid and proud and idiotic than I imagined.

A spokeswoman of the Pakistani military government stated that the Pakistani military government would find any operation by foreign troops within its borders to be unacceptable. The Pakistani military will take care of matters in Pakistan, thank you very much. (From “Pakistan says any strike on its territory to hunt Al Qaeda ‘unacceptable'”; this article can also be found here if the URL becomes out of date.)

Either this is a bluff to reassure Pakistanis that the government is not giving up Pakistani sovereignty to the Americans, or the Pakistani military government is not cooperating as much as it should. The fact remains that as much as the military may want to, it is simply unable to do what needs to be done to eradicate terrorist enclaves within Pakistan.

There is, of course, the theory that Pakistan does not want the War against Terrorism to succeed in Pakistan, for if there are no terrorists, Pakistan will lose our interest and cooperation. Furthermore, if there are no terrorists, there will be no reason to allow a military general rule the country: there would renewed pressure to return Pakistan to civilian rule.

Eh. I don’t know any more. I’m going to go watch cartoons with my doggy.



  1. Nice Deb Pakistan: Jihadi vs. Jhadi « said,

    […] says, “No, you may not attack us”. Muslihoon’s got the goods. Posted in Islamofascists, Very […]

  2. S. Weasel said,

    There is no question to which watching cartoons with a beloved pet is not a sensible answer.

  3. Enas Yorl said,

    Well, that depends on which cartoons you are watching. The stuff coming out these days is entirely unwatchable. Speaking of which – oh cool The Pink Panther is available on DVD!

  4. Wolf Pangloss said,

    I think you got it right on the first guess. It’s spin.

    There is a scene in Casablanca that applies:
    Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
    Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on here!
    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
    Renault: Oh, thank you very much. Everybody out at once.

  5. JackStraw said,

    This could be a message designed for internal consumption, keep the masses happy. It doesn’t speak to well of any leader, particularly a military leader, if he can’t deal with military issues on his own soil.

    Nothing precludes Pakistan from deciding in the future, the best strategy is to invite NATO (read US) troops in for a combined effort.

  6. Ahsan Iqbal said,

    What do you mean by “Pakistan Army is not Co-operating”. You said right, that they did not cooperate, but they sacrificed many things for you Bloody Americans. If Pakistan was in more power than US and had said to attack Canada or UK then would they had attacked? Afcourse not! Anyways, if US will attack Pakistan, then let me tell you that our Airforce is not on lands, they are in airs like a pure alive Airforce. Neither our Army is sleeping in their beds, nor our navy is sunken. If it will be happenned, then afcourse you will see, then I will ask you that who was watching cartoons. I bet, Pakistan are undefeatable. America should not consider us Iraq or Afghanistan

  7. Fahad said,


    I agree with u Ahsan. Nobody has right to enter into a country and carry out operations by entering other country without it’s permission. Pakistan has co-operated as much as it could in the War against terrorism as it wants Peace and reduce terrorism but that doesn’t mean that if a country has supported America and even provided it’s bases , America gets the right to enter into it’s territory without permission. NO way!. It’s clearly unethical. America says it is at war against terrorism so it must avoid terrorism itself. It’s military should be atleast that much well trained that they know that entering other’s territory without permission is an international crime, specially when you urself r at war against terrorism. And those who talk about American attack on Pakistan; they might think that we r sleeping but this incident shows clearly that we aren’t and we WON’T!. Our Army spokesmen tell that they have even noticed the slight unpermissioned enterings of American planes. And those who talk about American attack on Pakistan; they might think that we r sleeping but this incident shows clearly that we aren’t and we WON’T!. I am a boy aged 18 of Pakistan and i m doing BBA but i m ready to fight against the one who looks at my Pakistan with bad intentions and I’ll fight till the destruction of our Pakistan’s enemy or till my last breath. I have many friends. And i know the youth of my country. There are many who are ready to even sacrifice their lives for our country. Many of us want to join the Pak Army. After every 6 months, PAk Army helds recruitments and every time , only 0.02%-0.08% of the applied candidates get selected. And that little %age of selection makes Pak Army greater than American army. Yes. 3 years ago, the manpower of American Army was 500,000 approx. and that of Pak Army was 5,20,000approx. So don’t they worry. our country size small, the hitting is BIG. And i don’t think we , the “ready 2 die 4 Nation” public will need 2 fight. Our armed forces heroes will do it. Those who say Pakistani forces have failed 2 clear the tribal areas efficiently, what did the American army do? what was IT”S efficiency?? the deaths of innocents are much more lesser in the Pak Army operations than those by the American army in Iraq Afghanistan. Pak army has got medals and awards not only in bravery and valour at war but also in peace keeping activities throughout the world. i can’t recall the name of country in which it was only the Pak Army who successfully maintained peace despite the several attempts by Un American and Uk forces also and other armies world wide. The contribution of Pakistan and Pak Army in UNO is quite considerable. Pak army avoids innocent deaths and that’s why it makes things delicate,if you think as human beings.Place yourself in the place of those people where there are terrorists in their area/city and operations are being carried out and you don’t even have that much money/resources to get shifted n some other place and you are at mercy of the army and terrorists.American forces have caused enough destruction and innocent deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. And everybody knows the “efficiency” of American forces. American government personnel themselves have agreed that it was mistake and even there were NO SUCH THINGS FOUND WHICH WERE THE REASON OF ASSAULT BEFORE THE ATTACKS IN IRAQ. I don’t think the American public pays taxes and votes for things like that. Public, as a whole can never be that much unethical. Neither is the mistake of the forces. Forces do whatever order is given to them. The mistakes are of the high level government personnel whose inhumane behaviour shows that they don’t care for humanity , human lives , not even of their own soldiers. May God help us.

    Long live Humanity
    Long Live Pak Arme Forces
    Long Live Pakistan
    Long Live Peace in our World, on our dear Earth.

  8. Fahad said,

    “U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know”

    Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel’s foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)

    When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.

    Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

    I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people. (Tom Malthaner)

    There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel’s half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.

    Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.

    It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it’s a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America’s mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.

    (Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer)

  9. Naveed said,

    Mr.FAHAD you are 100% Correct and I strongly Agree to your point.

    I will not say that the Americans are bad but the Leaders like Bush who is following the JEWS AND Free Masonic Governments are Stupid.

    Just tell me..

    America go for a war in IRAQ By saying that “IRAQ HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.” So where are the Weapons of mass destruction?

    Bush and its Administration is simply WASTING THE RECOURSES OF AMERICA and American People. And in the Result what we have is the increases Rate of HATE Against America.

    I am a software Engineer AND My Age is 23
    If America Try to invade Pakistan then I wanted to be the first on to Fight Against American Army. I prefer to die in a war Field Fighting the Intruders rather than Giving me and my Country’s Freedom.


  10. Naveed said,

    Here is an Article I want to share.

    The Plan To Topple Pakistan Military


    This is not about Musharraf anymore. This is about clipping the wings of a
    strong Pakistani military, denying space for China in Pakistan, squashing
    the ISI, stirring ethnic unrest, and neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear
    program. The first shot in this plan was fired in Pakistan’s Balochistan
    province in 2004. The last bullet will be toppling Musharraf, sidelining the
    military and installing a pliant government in Islamabad. Musharraf shares
    the blame for letting things come this far. But he is also punching holes in
    Washington’s game plan. He needs to be supported.

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – On the evening of Tuesday, 26 September, 2006,
    Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf walked into the studio of Comedy
    Central’s ‘Daily Show’ with Jon Stewart, the first sitting president
    anywhere to dare do this political satire show.

    Stewart offered his guest some tea and cookies and played the perfect host
    by asking, “Is it good?” before springing a surprise: “Where’s Osama bin

    “I don’t know,” Musharraf replied, as the audience enjoyed the rare sight of
    a strong leader apparently cornered. “You know where he is?” Musharraf
    snapped back, “You lead on, we’ll follow you.”

    What Gen. Musharraf didn’t know then is that he really was being cornered.
    Some of the smiles that greeted him in Washington and back home gave no hint
    of the betrayal that awaited him.

    As he completed the remaining part of his U.S. visit, his allies in
    Washington and elsewhere, as all evidence suggests now, were plotting his
    downfall. They had decided to take a page from the book of successful ‘color
    revolutions’ where western governments covertly used money, private media,
    student unions, NGOs and international pressure to stage coups, basically
    overthrowing individuals not fitting well with Washington’s agenda.

    This recipe proved its success in former Yugoslavia, and more recently in
    Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

    In Pakistan, the target is a Pakistani president who refuses to play ball
    with the United States on Afghanistan, China, and Dr. A.Q. Khan.

    To get rid of him, an impressive operation is underway:

    * A carefully crafted media blitzkrieg launched early this year assailing
    the Pakistani president from all sides, questioning his power, his role in
    Washington’s war on terror and predicting his downfall.
    * Money pumped into the country to pay for organized dissent.
    * Willing activists assigned to mobilize and organize accessible social
    * A campaign waged on Internet where tens of mailing lists and ‘news
    agencies’ have sprung up from nowhere, all demonizing Musharraf and the
    Pakistani military.
    * European- and American-funded Pakistani NGOs taking a temporary leave from
    their real jobs to work as a makeshift anti-government mobilization machine.
    * U.S. government agencies directly funding some private Pakistani
    television networks; the channels go into an open anti-government mode,
    cashing in on some manufactured and other real public grievances regarding
    inflation and corruption.
    * Some of Musharraf’s shady and corrupt political allies feed this campaign,
    hoping to stay in power under a weakened president.
    * All this groundwork completed and chips in place when the judicial crisis
    breaks out in March 2007. Even Pakistani politicians surprised at a
    well-greased and well-organized lawyers campaign, complete with flyers,
    rented cars and buses, excellent event-management and media outreach.
    * Currently, students are being recruited and organized into a street
    movement. The work is ongoing and urban Pakistani students are being
    cultivated, especially using popular Internet Web sites and ‘online
    hangouts’. The people behind this effort are mostly unknown and faceless,
    limiting themselves to organizing sporadic, small student gatherings in
    Lahore and Islamabad, complete with banners, placards and little babies with
    arm bands for maximum media effect. No major student association has
    announced yet that it is behind these student protests, which is a very
    interesting fact glossed over by most journalists covering this story. Only
    a few students from affluent schools have responded so far and it’s not
    because the Pakistani government’s countermeasures are effective. They’re
    not. The reason is that social activism attracts people from affluent
    backgrounds, closely reflecting a uniquely Pakistani phenomenon where local
    NGOs are mostly founded and run by rich, westernized Pakistanis.
    All of this may appear to be spur-of-the-moment and Musharraf-specific. But
    it all really began almost three years ago, when, out of the blue and
    recycling old political arguments, Mr. Akbar Bugti launched an armed
    rebellion against the Pakistani state, surprising security analysts by using
    rockets and other military equipment that shouldn’t normally be available to
    a smalltime village thug. Since then, Islamabad sits on a pile of evidence
    that links Mr. Bugti’s campaign to money and ammunition and logistical
    support from Afghanistan, directly aided by the Indians and the Karzai
    administration, with the Americans turning a blind eye.

    For reasons not clear to our analysts yet, Islamabad has kept quiet on
    Washington’s involvement with anti-Pakistan elements in Afghanistan. But
    Pakistan did send an indirect public message to the Americans recently.

    “We have indications of Indian involvement with anti-state elements in
    Pakistan ,” declared the spokesman of the Pakistan Foreign Office in a
    regular briefing in October. The statement was terse and direct and the
    spokesman, Ms. Tasnim Aslam, quickly moved on to other issues.

    This is how a Pakistani official explained Ms. Aslam’s statement: “What she
    was really saying is this: We know what the Indians are doing. They’ve sold
    the Americans on the idea that [the Indians] are an authority on Pakistan
    and can be helpful in Afghanistan. The Americans have bought the idea and
    are in on the plan, giving the Indians a free hand in Afghanistan. What the
    Americans don’t know is that we, too, know the Indians very well. Better
    still, we know Afghanistan very well. You can’t beat us at our own game.”

    Mr. Bugti’s armed rebellion coincided with the Gwadar project entering its
    final stages. No coincidence here. Mr. Bugti’s real job was to scare the
    Chinese away and scuttle Chinese President Hu Jintao’s planned visit to
    Gwadar a few months later to formally launch the port city.

    Gwadar is the pinnacle of Sino-Pakistani strategic cooperation. It’s a
    modern port city that is supposed to link Central Asia, western China, and
    Pakistan with markets in Mideast and Africa . It’s supposed to have roads
    stretching all the way to China. It’s no coincidence either that China has
    also earmarked millions of dollars to renovate the Karakoram Highway linking
    northern Pakistan to western China.

    Some reports in the American media, however, have accused Pakistan and China
    of building a naval base in the guise of a commercial seaport directly
    overlooking international oil shipping lanes. The Indians and some other
    regional actors are also not comfortable with this project because they see
    it as commercial competition.

    What Mr. Bugti’s regional and international supporters never expected is
    Pakistan moving firmly and strongly to nip his rebellion in the bud. Even
    Mr. Bugti himself probably never expected the Pakistani state to react in
    the way it did to his betrayal of the homeland. He was killed in a military
    operation where scores of his mercenaries surrendered to Pakistan army

    U.S. intelligence and their Indian advisors could not cultivate an immediate
    replacement for Mr. Bugti. So they moved to Plan B. They supported Abdullah
    Mehsud, a Pakistani Taliban fighter held for five years in Guantanamo Bay,
    and then handed over back to the Afghan government, only to return to his
    homeland, Pakistan, to kidnap two Chinese engineers working in Balochistan,
    one of whom was eventually killed during a rescue operation by the Pakistani

    Islamabad could not tolerate this shadowy figure, who was creating a
    following among ordinary Pakistanis masquerading as a Taliban while in
    reality towing a vague agenda. He was rightly eliminated earlier this year
    by Pakistani security forces while secretly returning from Afghanistan after
    meeting his handlers there. Again, no surprises here.


    This is where Pakistani political and military officials finally started
    smelling a rat. All of this was an indication of a bigger problem. There
    were growing indications that, ever since Islamabad joined Washington’s
    regional plans, Pakistan was gradually turning into a ‘besieged-nation’,
    heavily targeted by the American media while being subjected to strategic
    sabotage and espionage from Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan, under America’s watch, has turned into a vast staging ground
    for sophisticated psychological and military operations to destabilize
    neighboring Pakistan.
    ! ;
    During the past three years, the heat has gradually been turned up against
    Pakistan and its military along Pakistan’s western regions:

    * A shadowy group called the BLA, a Cold War relic, rose from the dead to
    restart a separatist war in southwestern Pakistan.
    * Bugti’s death was a blow to neo-BLA, but the shadowy group’s backers
    didn’t repent. His grandson, Brahmdagh Bugti, is currently enjoying a safe
    shelter in the Afghan capital, Kabul, where he continues to operate and
    remote-control his assets in Pakistan.
    * Saboteurs trained in Afghanistan have been inserted into Pakistan to
    aggravate extremist passions here, especially after the Red Mosque
    * Chinese citizens continue to be targeted by individuals pretending to be
    Islamists, when no known Islamic group has claimed responsibility.
    * A succession of ‘religious rebels’ with suspicious foreign links have
    suddenly emerged in Pakistan over the past months claiming to be ‘Pakistani
    Taliban’. Some of the names include Abdul Rashid Ghazi, Baitullah Mehsud,
    and now the Maulana of Swat. Some of them have used and are using encrypted
    communication equipment far superior to what Pakistani military owns.
    * Money and weapons have been fed into the religious movements and al Qaeda
    remnants in the tribal areas.
    Exploiting the situation, assets within the Pakistani media started
    promoting the idea that the Pakistani military was killing its own people.
    The rest of the unsuspecting media quickly picked up this message. Some
    botched American and Pakistani military operations against Al Qaeda that
    caused civilian deaths accidentally fed this media campaign.

    This was the perfect timing for the launch of Military, Inc.: Inside
    Pakistan’s Military Economy , a book authored by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa Agha, a
    columnist for a Pakistani English-language paper and a correspondent for
    ‘Jane’s Defence Weekly’, a private intelligence service founded by experts
    close to the British intelligence.


    The book was launched in Pakistan in early 2007 by Oxford Press. And,
    contrary to most reports, it is openly available in Islamabad’s biggest
    bookshops. The book portrays the Pakistani military as an institution that
    is eating up whatever little resources Pakistan has.

    Pakistani military’s successful financial management, creating alternate
    financial sources to spend on a vast military machine and build a
    conventional and nuclear near-match with a neighboring adversary five times
    larger – an impressive record for any nation by any standard – was distorted
    in the book and reduced to a mere attempt by the military to control the
    nation’s economy in the same way it was controlling its politics.

    The timing was interesting. After all, it was hard to defend a military in
    the eyes of its own proud people when the chief of the military is ruling
    the country, the army is fighting insurgents and extremists who claim to be
    defending Islam, grumpy politicians are out of business, and the military’s
    side businesses, meant to feed the nation’s military machine, are doing well
    compared to the shabby state of the nation’s civilian departments.

    A closer look at Ms. Siddiqa, the author, revealed disturbing information to
    Pakistani officials. In the months before launching her book, she was a
    frequent visitor to India where, as a defense expert, she cultivated
    important contacts. On her return, she developed friendship with an Indian
    lady diplomat posted in Islamabad. Both of these activities – travel to
    India and ties to Indian diplomats – are not a crime in Pakistan and don’t
    raise interest anymore. Pakistanis are hospitable and friendly people and
    these qualities have been amply displayed to the Indians during the
    four-year-old peace process.

    What is interesting is that Ms. Siddiqa left her car in the house of the
    said Indian diplomat during one of her recent trips to London. And,
    according to a report, she stayed in London at a place owned by an
    individual linked to the Indian lady diplomat friend in Islamabad .

    The point here is this: Who assigned her to investigate the Pakistani Armed
    Forces and present a distorted image of a proud an efficient Pakistani

    From 1988 to 2001, Dr. Siddiqa worked in the Pakistan civil service, the
    Pakistani civil bureaucracy. Her responsibilities included dealing with
    Military Accounts, which come under the Pakistan Ministry of Defense. She
    had thirteen years of rich experience in dealing with the budgetary matters
    of the Pakistani military and people working in this area.

    Dr. Siddiqa received a year-long fellowship to research and write a book in
    the United States . There are strong indications that some of her Indian
    contacts played a role in arranging financing for her book project through a
    paid fellowship. The final manuscript of her book was vetted at a publishing
    office in New Delhi.

    All of these details are insignificant if detached from the real issue at
    hand. And the issue is the demonization of the Pakistani military as an
    integral part of the media siege around Pakistan, with the American media
    leading the way in this campaign.

    Some of the juicy details of this campaign include:

    * The attempt by Dr. Siddiqa to pitch junior officers against senior
    officers in Pakistan Armed Forces by alleging discrimination in the
    distribution of benefits. Apart from being malicious and unfounded, her
    argument was carefully designed to generate frustration and demoralize
    Pakistani soldiers.
    * The American media insisting on handing over Dr. A. Q. Khan to the United
    States so that a final conviction against the Pakistani military can be
    * Mrs. Benazir Bhutto demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be
    restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in
    November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against
    the army chief, a damning attempt at destroying a professional army from

    Some of this appears to be eerily similar to the campaign waged against the
    Pakistani military in 1999, when, in July that year, an unsigned full page
    advertisement appeared in major American newspapers with the following
    headline: “A Modern Rogue Army With Its Finger On The Nuclear Button.”

    Till this day, it is not clear who exactly paid for such an expensive
    newspaper full-page advertisement. But one thing is clear: the agenda behind
    that advertisement is back in action.

    Strangely, just a few days before Mrs. Bhutto’s statements about
    restructuring the ISI and her open call to army officers to stage a mutiny
    against their leadership, the American conservative magazine The Weekly
    Standard interviewed an American security expert who offered similar ideas:

    “A large number of ISI agents who are responsible for helping the Taliban
    and al Qaeda should be thrown in jail or killed. What I think we should do
    in Pakistan is a parallel version of what Iran has run against us in Iraq :
    giving money [and] empowering actors. Some of this will involve working with
    some shady characters, but the alternative-sending U.S. forces into Pakistan
    for a sustained bombing campaign-is worse.” Steve Schippert, Weekly
    Standard, Nov. 2007 .

    In addition to these media attacks, which security experts call
    ‘psychological operations’, the American media and politicians have
    intensified over the past year their campaign to prepare the international
    public opinion to accept a western intervention in Pakistan along the lines
    of Iraq and Afghanistan:

    * Newsweek came up with an entire cover story with a single storyline:
    Pakistan is a more dangerous place than Iraq.
    * Senior American politicians, Republican and Democrat, have argued that
    Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran and merits similar treatment. On 20
    October, Senator Joe Biden told ABC News that Washington needs to put
    soldiers on the ground in Pakistan and invite the international community to
    join in. “We should be in there,” he said. “We should be supplying tens of
    millions of dollars to build new schools to compete with the madrassas. We
    should be in there building democratic institutions. We should be in there,
    and get the rest of the world in there, giving some structure to the
    emergence of, hopefully, the reemergence of a democratic process.”
    * The International Crisis Group (ICG) has recommended gradual sanctions on
    Pakistan similar to those imposed on Iran, e.g. slapping travel bans on
    Pakistani military officers and seizing Pakistani military assets abroad.
    * The process of painting Pakistan’s nuclear assets as pure evil lying
    around waiting for some do-gooder to come in and ‘secure’ them has reached
    unprecedented levels, with the U.S. media again depicting Pakistan as a
    nation incapable of protecting its nuclear installations. On 22 October,
    Jane Harman from the U.S. House Intelligence panel gave the following
    statement: “I think the U.S. would be wise – and I trust we are doing this –
    to have contingency plans [to seize Pakistan’s nuclear ass! ets], es
    pecially because should [Musharraf] fall, there are nuclear weapons there.”
    * The American media has now begun discussing the possibility of Pakistan
    breaking up and the possibility of new states of ‘Balochistan’ and
    ‘Pashtunistan’ being carved out of it. Interestingly, one of the first acts
    of the shady Maulana of Swat after capturing a few towns was to take down
    the Pakistani flag from the top of state buildings and replacing them with
    his own party flag.
    * The ‘chatter’ about President Musharraf’s eminent fall has also increased
    dramatically in the mainly American media, which has been very generous in
    marketing theories about how Musharraf might “disappear” or be “removed”
    from the scene. According to some Pakistani analysts, this could be an
    attempt to prepare the public opinion for a possible assassination of the
    Pakistani president.
    * Another worrying thing is how American officials are publicly signaling to
    the Pakistanis that Mrs. Benazir Bhutto has their backing as the next leader
    of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death
    for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their
    actions are inviting potential assassins to target Mrs. Bhutto. If she is
    killed in this way, there won’t be enough time to find the real culprit, but
    what’s certain is that unprecedented international pressure will be placed
    on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets to create maximum
    internal chaos in the country. A dress rehearsal of this scenario has
    already taken place in October when no less than the U.N. Security Council
    itself intervened to ask the international community to “assist” in the
    investigations into the assassination attempt on Mrs. Bhutto on 18 October.
    This generous move was sponsored by the U.S. and, interestingly, had no
    input from Pakistan which did not ask for help in investigations in the
    first place.

    Some Pakistani security analysts privately say that American ‘chatter’ about
    Musharraf or Bhutto getting killed is a serious matter that can’t be easily
    dismissed. Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that
    could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot,
    giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership
    in Islamabad.

    Having Musharraf killed isn’t a bad option either. The unknown Islamists can
    always be blamed and the military will not be able to put another soldier at
    the top, and circumstances will be created to ensure that either Mrs. Bhutto
    or someone like her is eased into power.

    The Americans are very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out
    of their hands. They have been kicked out of Uzbekistan last year, where
    they were maintaining bases. They are in trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Iran continues to be a mess for them and Russia and China are not making it
    any easier. Pakistan must be ‘secured’ at all costs. !

    This is why most Pakistanis have never seen American diplomats in Pakistan
    active like this before. And it’s not just the current U.S. ambassador, who
    has added one more address to her other most-frequently-visited address in
    Karachi, Mrs. Bhutto’s house. The new address is the office of GEO, one of
    two news channels shut down by Islamabad for not signing the mandatory
    code-of-conduct. Thirty-eight other channels are operating and no one has
    censored the newspapers. But never mind this. The Americans have developed a
    ‘thing’ for GEO. No solace of course for ARY, the other banned channel.

    Now there’s also one Bryan Hunt, the U.S. consul general in Lahore, who
    wears the national Pakistani dress, the long shirt and baggy trousers, and
    is moving around these days issuing tough warnings to Islamabad and to the
    Pakistani government and to President Musharraf to end emergency rule,
    resign as army chief and give Mrs. Bhutto access to power.


    So what should Pakistan do in the face of such a structured campaign to
    bring Pakistan down on its knees and forcibly install a pro-Washington
    administration in Islamabad?

    There is increasing talk in Islamabad these days about Pakistan’s new tough
    stand in the face of this malicious campaign.

    As a starter, Islamabad blew the wind out of the visit of Mr. John
    Negroponte, the no. 2 man in the U.S. State Department, who came to Pakistan
    last week “to deliver a tough message” to the Pakistani president.
    Musharraf, to his credit, told him he won’t end emergency rule until all
    objectives are achieved.

    These objectives include:

    * Cleaning up our northern and western parts of the country of all foreign
    operatives and their domestic pawns.
    * Ensuring that Washington’s plan for regime-change doesn’t succeed.
    * Purging the Pakistani media of all those elements that were willing or
    unwilling accomplices in the plan to destabilize the country.
    Musharraf has also told Washington publicly that “Pakistan is more important
    than democracy or the constitution.” This is a bold position. This kind of
    boldness would have served Musharraf a lot had it come a little earlier. But
    even now, his media management team is unable to make the most out of it.

    Washington will not stand by watching as its plan for regime change in
    Islamabad goes down the drain. In case the Americans insist on interfering
    in Pakistani affairs, Islamabad, according to my sources, is looking at some
    tough measures:

    * Cutting off oil supplies to U.S. military in Afghanistan. Pakistani
    officials are already enraged at how Afghanistan has turned into a staging
    ground for sabotage in Pakistan. If Islamabad continues to see Washington
    acting as a bully, Pakistani officials are seriously considering an
    announcement where Pakistan, for the first time since October 2001, will
    deny the United States use of Pakistani soil and air space to transport fuel
    to Afghanistan.
    * Reviewing Pakistan’s role in the war on terror. Islamabad needs to fight
    terrorists on its border with Afghanistan. But our methods need to be
    different to Washington’s when it comes to our domestic extremists. This is
    where Islamabad parts ways with Washington. Pakistani officials are
    considering the option of withdrawing from the war on terror while
    maintaining Pakistan’s own war against the terrorists along Afghanistan’s
    * Talks with the Taliban. Pakistan has no quarrel with Afghanistan’s
    Taliban. They are Kabul’s internal problem. But if reaching out to Afghan
    Taliban’s Mullah Omar can have a positive impact on rebellious Pakistani
    extremists, then this step should be taken. The South Koreans can talk to
    the Taliban. Karzai has also called for talks with them. It is time that
    Islamabad does the same.
    The Americans have been telling everyone in the world that they have paid
    Pakistan $10 billion dollars over the past five years. They might think this
    gives them the right to decide Pakistan’s destiny. What they don’t tell the
    world is how Pakistan’s help secured for them their biggest footprint ever
    in energy-rich Central Asia.

    If they forget, Islamabad can always remind them by giving them the same
    treatment that Uzbekistan did last year.

  11. Farrukh Saleem said,

    I think that I, Dr Farrukh Saleem, a mere columnist is paid for by the US government more than either Dr. Saddiqa, or anyone else, to write anti Pakistan scribblings. Perhaps i have been chosen since i possess a very good grasp on the New Testament prose style, which has the captivating effect on the emotional run of the mill idiot. Dr. Saddiqa probably is a puppet of the west, but please do not bring her at par with me. You can have a look at my great and flawless (read mendacious) writings in THE NEWS on sundays. I like to copy sheakspear somewhat but don’t bother about that, i mean, what gives, every great writer copies him these days.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: