The analysis of Ms Christine Fair in her article, What to do about Pakistan, in the biannual Foreign Policy magazine and the subsequent comments by R. Raman is a conspiracy study for coercion. For a journal as respected as this to publish fallacies warrants an analysis of underlying motives. Though Ms Fair is termed an ally of the Pakistani establishment, this is as unfair as she could get.
The propaganda is working well. According to a Pakistani observer: “Halfway across the world, in India, the neocons have found their soul mates amongst the revivalist Hindu fascists with distorted and revisionist reading of their country’s history.” This propaganda puts the USA on a mission statement, clouding the judgements and assessment of the geo-strategic realities of our region. Consequently, US thinkers have started beating war drums with a vague comprehension of ground realities; least aware of the dangers awaiting in the region.
A glimpse of many studies and reports about Pakistan churned out from the USA reach faulty conclusions with dangerous implications. Amazingly, most of these sages have never bothered to visit Pakistan; or have chosen to write from the nearest comfort in Dubai or India. It is incumbent on the more knowledgeable and well informed thinkers and visionaries to discern the facts objectively in their true sense and perspective.
One such scholar is Zalmay Khalilzad, a naturalized American citizen of Afghan origin. He is Pushto-speaking, was born in Mazar-i-Sharif and migrated with his family to the US when he was five years old. He is totally ignorant of the basic realities, has no contacts in Afghanistan and lacks all knowledge and assessment of the war-torn country and the region. He was catapulted into prominence and assigned key appointments as a sheer coincidence. While I was on a visit to the US in September 1996, he came to see me and coincidently, John Reagan, Ex-Country Head of CIA in Pakistan, also dropped in. The two met and ever since Khalilzad became the lynchpin authority on Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.
Contrary to what Ms Fair alleges, General McChrystal had rightly and bluntly summed it up: “When we arrived in Afghanistan, we were ill informed, ignorant and totally naive in our understanding of the ground realities. Ten years on in this fight, we are still equally ill informed, ignorant and oblivious of the ground realities.” Why the American forces meandered towards Marjah and away from Kandhar is a story for another day and not what Ms Fair so innocently simplifies.
The stark reality is that the war on terror, has assumed the domain of ‘full spectrum dominance’, including media and disinformation. It is essential for USA to implement Mackinders Doctrine of Eurasian Landmass and Brzezinski’s prescription of Euro Asian Landscape of Geo-Strategy. The dominant American Interests have resulted in ruthless pursuit of these objectives what some call the New American Century Project. The so-called war on terror has morphed into a territorial occupation of Afghanistan and subsequent pacification of Pakistan. The anti-US sentiment as a sea of emotions and uncontrollable energy will intensify as hostilities grow. The boiling has reached a point where it shall overflow the kettle.
Shri Raman is strongly advising America to keep a close and watchful eye on the long established and time-tested strategic partnership between China and Pakistan and to have China delinked. He is also advocating pressurising Saudi Arabia to cede support to Pakistan. If the American imperious arrogance continues, the forging of the regional alliance will come as the only logical and practical solution of the problem.
A lot of emphasis is being laid on building up India, in the ‘strategic alliance’ to contain China. India is all-out to exploit the maximum advantage of this newly-formed wedlock. But when the chips are down, they will not find India standing with them. This whole hallucination and myth of building up India as a card to contain and control China is again a product of naive and ignorant minds.
Ms Christine Fair has very frankly, bluntly and clearly summed up: “How can the United States and Pakistan have any kind of positive relationship when our strategic interests not only diverge but violently clash?” This is the only point of her essay that is valid.
n The writer is one of the oldest retired officers of the Pakistan Army and executive vice president of the Pakistan
He is also a historian of the
1965 and 1971 wars.