Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Final Nail In The Coffin Of The Pakistani Pantomime?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Final Nail In The Coffin Of The Pakistani Pantomime?

    The Final Nail In The Coffin Of The Pakistani Pantomime?


    If the history of the 21st century's first decade is ever properly written, the words "the war in Afghanistan" could probably serve as little more than an index entry from a footnote in a prominent chapter about Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. The ISI deserves at least a chapter of its own, if only for the spectacularly cunning confidence trick it managed to play, year after year after year, with the United States of America as its most gullible victim.

    Billions of dollars wasted and tens of thousands of lives lost, all the result of an elaborate pantomime carried off by the ISI, a parasitic, third-rate military-industrial lie machine that the White House still fancies as an American "ally." Chief among the ISI's successes, from 2001 until even now, is the propaganda fiction that after September 11, 2001, the Pakistani military stopped providing succor and sustenance to Al Qaida and the Taliban, and that if those entitities were present in Pakistan after 2001 at all it was only on account of those savage Pakhtuns from the hill country in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and their primitive "hospitality" code of Pakhtunwali.

    I strike a glancing blow at all that in my book, Come from The Shadows, which is due out in October. It's one of several myths about Afghanistan that I easily dispose of (evidence is our friend) in the opening chapter, Welcome to Absurdistan. In dispelling the myth that the Pakhtuns of FATA are as angry about NATO drone strikes as the troops-out lobby keeps telling us, I have relied heavily on the splendid front-line work of the Pakistani journalist Farhat Taj, a research fellow at the University of Oslo. Last year, I noted her finding: “I have been discussing the issue of drone attacks with hundreds of people of Waziristan. They see the U.S. drone attacks as their liberators from the clutches of the terrorists into which, they say, their state has wilfully thrown them.”

    Two years ago, she told the Washington Times that most of what passes for informed punditry about Pakistan's tribal areas is drawn from third-hand journalism written by journalists who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about. "They constantly distort the realities of our people and area. Most of them do not even bother to come and see what is happening.”

    Now, Taj has got a book out, Taliban and Anti-Taliban. It is the result not just of historical scholarship but also roughly 2000 interviews and discussions undertaken throughout FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkwa (formerly the Northwest Frontier Province) over the past two years. A lot of nasty and violent people, along with very smart and well-situated people, are going to be quite displeased with what the book exposes, not least the nonsense that the Pakistani government would surrender the jihadist Arabs and Talib crackpots in the hill country, but the stubborn tribes just won't permit it because of that "Pakhtunwali" thing. Taj writes: "Some first-hand interactions with the tribesmen would have provided the scholars and journalists with a wealth of empirical evidence to establish that no tribes in FATA can dare to host anyone wanted by the state."

    Further: "Where do Usama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri or other foreign terrorists fit in to this notion and practice of hospitality? Well-armed and battle hardened Al-Qaida terrorists never surrendered their weapons to the tribes in FATA. Instead they have overpowered the tribes and brutally killed those tribesmen who defied them. They entered Waziristan with full state consent and all the tribesmen who opposed their entry were killed with state collusion by the militants. Those that were left ran away or were overpowered by the militants covertly backed by the Pakistani state. If the Pakistani state wants today, no militants can ever stay in Waziristan or elsewhere in FATA.

    "It is a myth that FATA tribes gave refuge to Al-Qaida terrorists under the code of Pakhtunwali. In the tribal context, public backing of any issues, including refuge to anyone, has to be discussed and agreed upon in a tribal jirga (council). . . I would challenge the scholars and journalists to produce evidence of any such jirgas. The fact is that Taliban and Al-Qaida banned the institution of jirga wherever they took control in FATA or at least rendered it ineffective through targeted killing and intimidation of the tribal leaders, and all this was thoroughly facilitated by the ISI. . ."

    It's pretty straightforward. The Frontier Crimes Regulations that apply in the otherwise lawless FATA region allow the Pakistani military to bulldoze entire towns if a tribe refuses to hand over a fugitive. The ISI has done precisely that for offences less grave than harbouring al Qaida. Indeed, the ISI did bulldoze villages, recklessly and unnecessarily, when it finally felt obliged to go after the Haqanni Talibs. What has the ISI done to go after Mullah Omar's Taliban? Nothing. Why? Pakhtunwali? Please, get real.

    I've only read the first few pages, but it promises to be a most useful book. You can order it here.



    http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/

  • #2
    This is going to arouse some raw nerve in some of the members here...due to the name of Farhat Taj. Bravo Farhat Taj.

    Comment


    • #3
      to us Toramana and pakistan are both anti Pashtun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Toramana View Post
        This is going to arouse some raw nerve in some of the members here...due to the name of Farhat Taj. Bravo Farhat Taj.
        Huffington Post Outs Taj ANDERSEN - 04-16-2011, 09:59 PM



        **Well, you guys have been asking for the critical analysis... here you go a break down of the AIRRA data and why perpetuating Farhat Taj ANDERSEN's myths are going to lead to brutal stupidity and continued intervention. The article delves into her data and its absolute lack of nuance and misinterpretion.** See reddened and bolded criticism of the data itself below...

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajiha..._b_389408.html

        The New York Times - Getting Pakistan Wrong


        In her December 5, 2009 New York Times article, reporter Sabrina Tavernise looks to history to explain why many Pakistanis are so critical of America. Unfortunately, Tavernise looks to the wrong history, focusing on Pakistan's trauma after the partition with India. Instead, she should have focused on US support for successive Pakistani military dictatorships.
        No doubt, as Tavernise highlights, there are conspiracy theorists in Pakistan, and criticizing America can be a powerful tool to elicit populist support. However, Tavernise's analysis ignores very real grievances regarding American interference in the country.

        It is worth noting that the last US-supported military dictator, General Musharraf, left the stage less than a year and a half ago. He allowed the Taliban to fester, ignored burgeoning economic problems, and institutionalized the military's illegal hold over governance. It is easy to forget that Musharraf's reign was the third period of U.S.-supported dictatorship in Pakistani history.

        The point is that while some Pakistanis might subscribe to outrageous theories, it is disingenuous to paint such a simplistic picture of the vast majority of Pakistanis. Tavernise's report that Pakistan's media outlets "trumpet" conspiracy theories is incomplete. Even a quick skim of major Pakistani television networks and newspapers reveals a robust national debate.

        In this debate, many Pakistani commentators place blame squarely on the Pakistani government for failing to protect its citizens. These commentators also blame Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies for past support of militant organizations.

        Tavernise's article isn't the only example of problematic Pakistan analysis at the New York Times. There is also Scott Shane's December 4, 2009 piece, "C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan." Shane's piece deprives American readers of an opportunity to truly evaluate U.S. drone missile attacks.

        The article focuses heavily on the thoughts of "one government official," who not-so-surprisingly is an advocate for drone attacks. Shane's article does mention that some counterinsurgency experts question whether the attacks do "more harm than good." However, he doesn't investigate these potential downsides.

        Instead, Shane calls Pakistani press reports of hundreds of civilian casualties "sketchy." He gives more space to the same unnamed "government official" who claims that civilian casualties are "just over 20." The piece references a well-researched New America Foundation report claiming that between 260 to 320 civilians have been killed, but then immediately negates the quote with another quote from the unnamed "government official."

        Setting aside Shane's dependence on an all-knowing secret government source, the negative consequences of drone attacks are real:

        1. CIA drone attacks undermine indigenous Pakistani efforts to combat militants by redirecting popular attention to basic questions of the country's sovereignty.
        2. The attacks push militants away from the tribal areas and deeper into Pakistan's urban centers, dispersing previously consolidated forces.
        3. The attacks result in significant civilian casualties, which consequently increase anti-American sentiments.
        4. Those civilian casualties serve as a powerful recruiting tool for Pakistani Taliban militias.

        Shane also presents a partial sketch of a recent Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy report on the views of 550 residents of the tribal areas where drone attacks occur, authored by anthropologist Farhat Taj -- who claims that professionals in FATA view the drone missiles as "liberators." A more careful look at the survey, however, reveals that the report's findings are so split down the middle as to be inconclusive.

        When asked whether the drone attacks bring about "fear and terror in the common people," 45% of respondents answered in the affirmative. "Fear and terror" are powerful words. When respondents were asked whether they thought the drone strikes were "accurate in their strikes," 48% answered "No," and 42% believed the missiles increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas. 100 of those approached declined to answer. These results are at best inconclusive, but by no means provide a solid argument in favor of drone attacks.

        The New York Times needs to do a better job of reporting on the nuanced and diverse views of Pakistani civilians. Not only that, but the newspaper should also be more independent in its coverage of policies like drone missile attacks. More than two-and-a-half thousand Pakistanis have died in terrorist violence, and some three million Swat and South Waziristan residents have become refugees. Pakistani viewpoints deserve better coverage, and American readers deserve better analysis.
        "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

        Comment


        • #5
          whats a pantomime ?
          It's enough that I know, Our time had a home, In your heart..Was a place..But the glass always breaks..

          Comment


          • #6
            lol, no one cares about Andersen, NO one.

            Comment


            • #7
              Few damn-headed fanatics (ossama-asses) don't matter...Her bold stance and original work exposing the Pakistani/Punjabi propaganda lies and Pakistan's cronies are getting wide-spread appreciation....

              Last edited by Toramana; 08-11-2011, 08:44 PM.

              Comment

              Working...
              X