US Must Buy Friends Instead Of Enemies
Muhammad Khurshid
December 04, 2007
There is still a lot of confusion in the official level about Pakistan partnership in war against terrorism. On the one hand Pakistan is close ally of the United States in war against terrorism, but there is still bickering at the official level of the both the country. US President George W. Bush has been buying enemies. According to tribesmen, the US can buy the friends with the money it has been spending on military means. Problem in Pakistan can be resolved through political means.
According to a newspaper comment, to leave no room for any other interpretation of his earlier statement that the US would take direct military action within Pakistan's territory if there was concrete and definite information of the presence of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden there, President Bush has reaffirmed an old stance. Perhaps mindful of the strong reaction the notion of the US violating Pakistan's sovereignty over its territory had provoked in the past, both from its government and people, he appended a pat on their back, acknowledging that the country under President Musharraf had played a pivotal role in the war on terror and arrested key operatives of the terrorist outfit. Giving an interview to a private TV channel, Mr Bush said that he was "grateful to Islamabad" for its cooperation.
Needless to say that he is mistaken and the flattering remark would not cut much ice. That the US administration should display such rank superpower arrogance to a "key ally" in its pursuit of a vital foreign policy objective demonstrates the height of insincerity and selfishness, rubbishing its oft-repeated overtures of a long-lasting friendship made to Islamabad. And Mr Bush is mistaken also if he thinks that such an adventure would elicit meek acceptance of the reality from Pakistan. The US would have incurred an abiding hostility of the people and no leadership, military or civilian, offering obeisance to it could survive for a day. It would have irretrievably damaged the cause it has been struggling to achieve. Mr Bush should rather be looking at the gaping holes in the shape of the NATO allies' reluctance to commit their forces to hotspots in Afghanistan and not try to hide the shame of a losing war by putting the blame on Pakistan. The US media and leadership have gone to town proclaiming the presence of bin Laden on Pakistan's side of the Durand Line and accusing it of inaction. Yet, as President Bush's remark clearly shows, the US is not aware of his whereabouts, betraying the point that the hype is based on assumptions, not facts. If that is the case with a country possessing vast intelligence resources, it is strange for it to expect a Third World country to know where Mr bin Laden is.
Nevertheless, the Pakistani leadership does not stand absolved. Our instant acquiescence to Washington's threats by joining the War on Terror has encouraged it to entertain such evil thoughts. We should have engaged the US in negotiations highlighting the perils involved in going against the wishes of a big majority of Pakistanis, something that the military establishment, which by the very nature of its rationale for ruling the country i.e., force, would consider it unnecessary. Only a democratic government, accountable to the people, would have thought it imperative to set certain parameters of taking up the cudgels on US behalf.
The End
According to a newspaper comment, to leave no room for any other interpretation of his earlier statement that the US would take direct military action within Pakistan's territory if there was concrete and definite information of the presence of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden there, President Bush has reaffirmed an old stance. Perhaps mindful of the strong reaction the notion of the US violating Pakistan's sovereignty over its territory had provoked in the past, both from its government and people, he appended a pat on their back, acknowledging that the country under President Musharraf had played a pivotal role in the war on terror and arrested key operatives of the terrorist outfit. Giving an interview to a private TV channel, Mr Bush said that he was "grateful to Islamabad" for its cooperation.
Needless to say that he is mistaken and the flattering remark would not cut much ice. That the US administration should display such rank superpower arrogance to a "key ally" in its pursuit of a vital foreign policy objective demonstrates the height of insincerity and selfishness, rubbishing its oft-repeated overtures of a long-lasting friendship made to Islamabad. And Mr Bush is mistaken also if he thinks that such an adventure would elicit meek acceptance of the reality from Pakistan. The US would have incurred an abiding hostility of the people and no leadership, military or civilian, offering obeisance to it could survive for a day. It would have irretrievably damaged the cause it has been struggling to achieve. Mr Bush should rather be looking at the gaping holes in the shape of the NATO allies' reluctance to commit their forces to hotspots in Afghanistan and not try to hide the shame of a losing war by putting the blame on Pakistan. The US media and leadership have gone to town proclaiming the presence of bin Laden on Pakistan's side of the Durand Line and accusing it of inaction. Yet, as President Bush's remark clearly shows, the US is not aware of his whereabouts, betraying the point that the hype is based on assumptions, not facts. If that is the case with a country possessing vast intelligence resources, it is strange for it to expect a Third World country to know where Mr bin Laden is.
Nevertheless, the Pakistani leadership does not stand absolved. Our instant acquiescence to Washington's threats by joining the War on Terror has encouraged it to entertain such evil thoughts. We should have engaged the US in negotiations highlighting the perils involved in going against the wishes of a big majority of Pakistanis, something that the military establishment, which by the very nature of its rationale for ruling the country i.e., force, would consider it unnecessary. Only a democratic government, accountable to the people, would have thought it imperative to set certain parameters of taking up the cudgels on US behalf.
The End
Print
Email
