| September 21, 2008 | Sunday | Ramazan 20, 1429 |
|
Is the war over?
INFORMATION technology has made it possible for people to know that Pakistan has waged war against a formidable enemy, the world’s sole superpower, and that both warring sides are winners.
To boot, from the latest reports and statements made by the high and mighty of Washington and Islamabad it is proclaimed that ‘sovereignty’ and honour on both sides have been upheld and that we should infer that peace now reigns and all the gunfire heard is but ‘noises off’.
If such be the case, had information technology ruled the air waves in 1914 or in 1939, many lives may have been saved by the spread of instant information, no matter how biased, vague or misinformative. We in 2008 embroiled in our war must thank our former president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, for having opened up the air waves and the printed press.
Our television screens beam out over 80 channels, 61 of them locally conceived which regale us with a relentless string of analysts, retired army generals, renowned intellectuals, informed commentators, who move effortlessly from channel to channel spouting too often dangerous and inflammatory words — ‘take ‘em on’, ‘attack’, ‘teach them a lesson’, and so on, much in the vein of the Hizbut Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan. Its message to its Pakistani brethren during the holy month has been: “It is you that America fears the most. America is aware of your fighting spirit and it is well acquainted with your abilities to overcome India and the Soviet Union … the only practical way to protect ourselves from the American aggression is by responding to a stone with a rock.”
To relieve the monotony, thankfully television has also given us Animal Planet and BBC Food, and our press ‘The Wizard of Id’ and ‘The Gambols’.
Apart from the professional pontificators we have the frightened who write and remain nameless. For instance, we had a letter from a ‘concerned citizen’ — in this newspaper yesterday under the heading ‘Sickening example’ — who wrote that “There are many people today who think of Muslims as intolerant barbarians...” What is he afraid of? Being lynched? Sadly, the man is in his right senses.
On the matter of war and peace, I have been pipped at the post by two rare but sane writers whose columns appeared in this publication on Friday and on Saturday. Ayesha Siddiqa is unconvinced about the reign of peace: “... [T]he American government knows that Pakistan’s so-called liberal elite and many among the Pakistani expatriate community would be happy with the removal of the Taliban or other militants. If the Pakistan Army can’t do it, then let the US forces achieve the objective. Moreover, eliminating this threat would fundamentally readjust the military’s power vis-à-vis the civilian establishment because it would essentially mean roping in the intelligence agencies as well. This means that Pakistani society is divided and will not be able to pose an extensive threat to American attacks.”
And Irfan Husain yesterday very rightly reminds us that “Should our army actually kill a number of American troops, the resulting escalation could easily spin out of control very quickly. The Americans currently have two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf, with a third on its way. Their combined firepower could wipe out Pakistan many times over. So, while it’s great fun to fulminate against the Americans before the cameras in TV studios, we need to get real here.”
As for letting the Americans do what has manifestly become obvious — taking on and reining in or eliminating the militant Taliban who cover the frontier area, press reports yesterday have it that within a matter of weeks dozens of US military advisors will descend upon Pakistan with their training teams. Hopefully this is correct, though we are informed that Pakistan has been resisting such a move. If it happens, this will alter the entire scenario as far as any cross-border incursions are concerned.
As to the aircraft carrier groups, they form part of the US Seventh Fleet, the largest of the forward-deployed US fleets, covering 52 million square miles, with approximately 60-70 ships, 200-300 aircraft and 40,000 sailors and marines assigned to it at any given time. It conducts operations to ensure control of the sea to defend the United States against attack through the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. Friends of the Hizbut Tahrir would seem to be totally out of their depth.
The problem remains that no matter how many placatory statements may emanate from the spokespersons of the two antagonists, Pakistan is largely viewed by the American public as untrustworthy and ramshackle. They fear that the murderous violence that overwhelms Pakistan may spread to their own land once again. They feel that the war on terror started in this region, in the training camps and madressahs that swarm the Frontier and Balochistan regions, and that therefore it must be ended over here — however and by whatever means.
Unless there is a swift turnaround within the next few months, and then should Barack Obama, the more militant of the two American presidential candidates, have any say in the matter, we need to watch our backsides. He may have no compunctions about ‘acting’ against the ‘so-called’ Islamabad ally. He has committed himself in advance to the projection of American power into what is considered by too many of his compatriots and others around the world as one of the major enemies in the war on terror. If we do not amend our national mindset we may be in for a lot more war and a lot less peace.
As it is, despite the official placatory statements, some local expert polls have it that 53 per cent of the 173 millions of Pakistan would be happy were President Asif Zardari to declare war on America (though many are worried about how helpless we would be were we to win). If this is what has been achieved by COAS Gen Ashfaq Kayani’s tactics of shooting not to kill, coupled with Zardari’s prosthodontic wall-to-wall perpetual grin, are they to be congratulated?
The rightwing Washington Times last week carried a column by Arnaud de Borchgrave which ended with an ominous warning: “in authorising this month’s raid into South Waziristan ... President Bush was testing the boundaries of the new government — and the authority of Mr Zardari over the army. In Afghanistan, the future of the Atlantic alliance is at stake. In Pakistan, the state itself is at stake.”
arfc@cyber.net.pk
