Ahmed Quraishi
What ‘Punjabi’ Taliban? by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Monday, March 15, 2010
Ahmed Quraishi
South Waziristan is an Indian outpost on Pakistani soil with a religious version of Mukti Bahini in place, the terror militia created by India in 1969 before its full-fledged and unprovoked invasion of East Pakistan two years later. The similarity is in using proxies. This is not an outlandish theory but an emerging fact anchored in hundreds of pieces of information and intelligence that Pakistani security forces have gathered from the western strip of Pakistan stretching from Balochistan and all the way to the tribal agencies in the north.
To simplify this, let’s start with the series of attacks on Lahore in the past fifteen months. Attacking Pakistan’s military and attacking Lahore has been an old Indian obsession. The link was first made by Indian analysts associated with Indian military and intelligence. They theorized that since Pakistan’s military is mostly drawn from Punjab province, it only makes sense that the best way to punish it for involvement in occupied Kashmir is to attack that part of Pakistan where the families of Pakistani military officers live. Indian propagandists have long been promoting this flawed line of thinking. Explaining Pakistan in lingo-ethnic terms is something New Delhi turned into an art form after 1971. That’s when it successfully exploited this lingo-ethnic card to invade East Pakistan. Our Indian friends later took the same idea to Soviet Moscow to encourage them to meddle in Balochistan and NWFP using Afghan soil.
But after 9/11, this flawed theory was taken by the Indians to a new place: Washington, along with the ideas of independent Balochistan, Pashtunistan and the alleged ‘lingo-ethnic’ divide in Pakistan. Some US powerbrokers took fancy to this theory. To cut a long story short, that’s how US media’s anti-Pakistan bias in the past five years was heavily tinged with this Indian theory on Pakistan. It is also one way of explaining why Afghanistan gradually turned into an anti-Pakistan territory and India was empowered at Pakistan’s expense despite being celebrated by US officials as a ‘major non-NATO ally.’
It is interesting to see an overlap between this Indian security mindset and the TTP. This so-called Pakistani Taliban group attacks the same targets today that New Delhi’s security establishment has been focused on for decades: the army and Lahore.
‘Punjabi Taliban’ is another misnomer that serves the same agenda of forcing Pakistanis to see one another through lingo-ethnic glasses. There is no such thing in Pakistan. Those Pakistanis who volunteered with the Afghan Taliban or with Kashmiri freedom groups during the 1990s came from all linguistic backgrounds [Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Pashtun, Urdu-speaking, and Balochs]. To lump all of them together in one ‘Punjabi’ Taliban is wrong and malicious.
It is also part of the indirect desire to attack the geographic position of the Punjab province, where much of Pakistan’s strategic installations and military units are based. It would also mean taking the war to the heart of Pakistani military’s base as defined by the Indians who see it as Punjab-focused.
Pakistan’s political and military leaders should tell their friends in Washington that freezing the expansion in India’s role in Afghanistan is not enough. It should be accompanied by a cleansing within US policymaking circles to remove the poisonous Indian theories on Pakistan that so many within the US academia and media have embraced. Washington should understand that strategies such as inserting pro-US elements into power in Islamabad to contain Pakistan from within won’t work. A better course of action is to genuinely understand and respect Pakistani strategic concerns and interests and work with them, not covertly undermine them when the time is right and grudgingly accept them when the tides are rough.
Pakistanis will also have to understand that they will pay a heavy price for insisting on securing their own interests in the region. And it’s not hard to identify the culprits. India won’t just roll over with punches. And there are lobbies in Washington that won’t simply let go of Afghanistan after experiencing the sweet taste of regional imperialism.
All terror in Pakistan is linked to South Waziristan, where Pakistanis are recruited, brainwashed and then used to kill other Pakistanis. South Waziristan has been turned into Pakistan’s Tibet or Xinjiang. Our strategists understand this. It is time for our public opinion to see this reality without the distortions created by the multimillion dollar media campaigns by foreign governments that want us to see our problems through their eyes.
The writer works for Geo television. Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com
Raise your price by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Ahmed Quraishi
Pakistan has agreed to hand over Afghan Taliban’s number 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, to Afghanistan. How about asking for the dismantling of the Afghan-based terror infrastructure targeting Pakistani Balochistan? Though Afghanistan’s role as a base for anti-Pakistan operations over the past seven years seems to be gradually shrinking, it is not completely over yet. The rollback in that role is directly linked to what the US wants. Its recent change of heart regarding Pakistan’s role and legitimate regional security interests are the result of the Pakistani military standing its ground, not any genuine change of heart in US policymaking circles. This is why you did not see any US official jumping in excitement at the idea of the Pakistani military training the Afghan National Army.
So the change in the US position may be tactical, forced by Pakistani straight talk. Examples abound, including how the CIA dragged its feet before it finally began targeting anti-Pakistan terror groups and leaders in the border area. There might have also been some visible decrease in the level of logistical support that the so-called Pakistani Taliban received from the Afghan soil (and not all of it from the proceeds of Afghan Taliban’s drug trade, as Afghan and American officials have been trying to convince their Pakistani counterparts). Pakistani officials are yet to certify this decrease publicly. Granted that Admiral Mike Mullen is someone who genuinely tries to understand Pakistani concerns. And he has been doing his bit with apparent sincerity in the past few months. But there are still some tensions below the surface. A Time magazine story over the weekend tried to delink US connection to the Jundullah terrorist group and throw the entire responsibility at Pakistan, targeting Iranian paranoia by suggesting a Pakistani intelligence support for Jundullah ‘as a tool for strategic depth.’ Enough of the demonization of Pakistan that the US media unfortunately spearheaded over the past three years, apparently through some kind of semi-official patronage. If US officials can bluntly accuse their Pakistani counterparts of sponsoring ‘anti-American articles’ in newspapers, whatever that means, surely Islamabad can pose the same question, especially when Pakistan’s case is stronger.
The same goes for the admirable US nudge to India to resume peace talks with Pakistan. Had things not gone wrong in Afghanistan for the grand US project, Washington was all set to introduce India as the new regional policeman in Afghanistan following the eventual pullback of NATO and US militaries from that country. Pakistan was being pushed to accept this as fait accompli and Mr Zardari’s pro-US government was more than willing to play along. Again, a Pakistani public opinion that is not ready for such a major one-sided Pakistani concession probably threw a spanner in the works.
Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir must be commended along with his team for stating the Pakistani bottom line. Forget the US statements on the need for peace between Pakistan and India. The fact is that the US played the two countries against one another in Afghanistan in the past eight years. If Pakistan accepts, a photo-op would work just fine for Washington as it does for New Delhi. We’d be asking too much if we think anyone in New Delhi or Washington is really itching to help Pakistan resolve its grievances with India. It’s just that the regional dynamic is helping us at this point in time.
So let’s make the most out of it while we retain the initiative. Instead of the theatrics, we must ask for something substantial this time. No more prolonged people-to-people exchanges. There is no problem between our peoples. And please, no more equating Pakistan’s responsibility for peace with India’s responsibility. The onus is on India. It is the bigger country. It can change the entire mood in the region by taking small steps to alleviate Pakistani insecurities. It can do so by taking steps in the water dispute, in improving how it treats Pakistani visitors, and by reducing tensions with the Kashmiri people on the ground.
Bottom line: Enough of selling ourselves cheap over the past eight years. Pakistan should secure its interests and accept nothing less.
The writer works for Geo TV.
Email: aq@ahmedquraishi.com
US imperialism 2.0 by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
August 13th by Ahmed Quraishi.
Pakistan’s relationship with the US remains rocky despite the recent reported assassination of Baitullah Mehsud. He was an anti-Pakistan terrorist and not an anti-US terrorist. He was a new sore on the face of this relationship but by no means the only one.
Whether Baitullah Mehsud is dead or alive, there is little question that he was someone’s asset. This unnamed someone is based in Afghanistan and is not Mullah Omar. Since there are so many foreign forces openly and covertly present inside Afghanistan at present, it is difficult to pin down the actual culprit. But one thing is for sure: the CIA spared him for the past three years. His predecessor Abdullah Mehsud was also spared in a similar way.
Over the past 13 months, Baitullah Mehsud’s activities and his bottomless Afghan supply lines became a bone of contention between Pakistan and the US, starting from a July 2008 meeting in Rawalpindi between Pakistani and American military and intelligence commanders. In this meeting, the CIA or elements within it were accused of supporting terrorism inside Pakistan and deviating from the stated US government policy.
It is interesting how the mainstream American media refuses to cover this side of the Baitullah story. Or the fact that his senior aide, Qari Zainuddin Mehsud, came out in June to expose Baitullah’s links to US and Indian interests on Afghan soil. He was promptly eliminated after that.
The American alibi was good: the CIA is interested in hunting down the anti-US Afghan Taliban and not in targeting anti-Pakistan terror groups. That was Pakistan’s responsibility. But the Pakistani contention and the piles of evidence were also very obvious: several tribal rebels had risen in power between 2004 and 2008 claiming to fight the American occupation in Afghanistan while actually targeting Chinese and Pakistani interests inside Pakistan.
So did CIA drones attack Baitullah Mehsud this time?
After the July 2008 meeting, the CIA dragged its feet over Baitullah Mehsud. The Pakistani government also appeared too indebted to Washington, for many reasons, to effectively raise this and India’s terror outposts in Afghanistan. It was the military-to-military channel between Islamabad and Washington that helped break the deadlock. This is how William Burns was sent to New Delhi in June to ask India to stand down. Around the same time, the CIA began sending drones to Baitullah’s territory.
So should we in Pakistan be grateful to CIA drones? Hardly. Our problems will persist as long as the unjust and mismanaged Afghan occupation continues. What is stunning is how the Pakistani government is sanctioning the construction of probably the largest US embassy in the world in Islamabad. In the past couple of weeks it has been reported that a security officer of the US embassy had a run-in with a Pakistani police officer in Islamabad. The diplomat reportedly cursed the country that is hosting him. And this is before 1,000 US marines reach Islamabad to guard the new huge embassy.
Pakistan’s core contention with the US persists: how the US turned Afghanistan into a hub for anti-Pakistan forces from within and outside the region. US-occupied Afghanistan is a source of destabilising Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia. We want excellent relations with the United States but an imperial-size diplomatic mission in the Pakistani capital is a wrong start. Why is Mr Zardari sanctioning this?
Owning Balochistan by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
July 29th by Ahmed Quraishi.
A college chemistry professor is murdered in cold blood at his house’s doorstep in Quetta, the latest in a long list of educationists cowardly assassinated by terrorists claiming to stand for the great Pakistani Baloch. And yet no one in the PPP-led federal and provincial governments is willing to condemn the terrorists. Last month they planted a bomb on a train leaving Karachi and detonated it just half an hour away from Quetta, killing an innocent Pakistani Baloch. No condemnation then too.
The sheepish and apologetic attitude of the government is inexplicable. Just a few days ago this government gave the Indians and the Americans damning proof on how Indian spy outfits were using the Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar to target Balochistan. The central role of a grandson of the late Akbar Bugti has been mentioned by the Pakistan government as playing a leading role in this terrorist enterprise. As much as eight foreign spy agencies are cramming this Pakistani territory. And yet the Pakistani state is reluctant to call a spade a spade.
Instead of putting a politician-turned-terrorist on a pedestal, it is time to ask the question: Was Akbar Bugti acting on foreign guarantees when he launched without notice a blitzkrieg of rocket fire on vital installations one fine morning in January 2005? His grandson Brahamdagh has been photographed meeting Indian intelligence officers not just in Kabul but also in New Delhi. So, why does the provincial government of Nawab Aslam Raisani avoid condemning these terrorists? More stunning is the reply of Interior Minister Rehman Malik in the Senate when questioned about how a Pakistani television station was allowed to air an interview with a London-based member of the Brahamdagh terror group. Mr Malik said the interview was taped in London and “you know there is freedom of speech there.”
What a joke. Britain is providing a sanctuary to people who finance and support terrorism inside Pakistan and all our powerful security czar can say about this is to cite Britain’s speech laws. Is there a conflict of interest here between Mr Malik’s personal life and interests in the UK and his official duty to level with the Brits on their duplicitous policy?
Major grievances aside, there is no direct discrimination against Pakistani Baloch on ethno-language grounds from anyone in the rest of the country. The level of education of Pakistani Baloch denies them opportunities to climb the social ladder. And the blame for this rests squarely with both the federal government and Balochistan’s tribal chieftains. And there is no hope in sight that those running the federal government – the PPP now or the PML in the future – can change anything on the ground.
Washington is desperate now in Afghanistan and this has given Pakistan some breathing space. But there are lobbies in Washington that would like to see their failed war expand now into southern Punjab and Karachi after NWFP, Balochistan and the northern areas. Unfortunately we have people here who parrot the lines created by propaganda artists elsewhere.
We need a practical, nationalistic and visionary federal administration that can take monumental steps to reorganise the state and provinces. We need creative minds at the top to unlock the initiative of the Pakistani people. We need change. But let’s begin with condemning the terrorists who have taken ownership of Balochistan without any contest from the government.
Resolve ‘Af-Kash’ by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
July 23rd by Ahmed Quraishi.
Three things have never happened before. Afghanistan has conceded over the weekend that anti-Pakistan terrorists and separatists have safe havens on its soil. India accepted last week it was feeding terror in Balochistan. And CIA drones have begun targeting the area of Baitullah Mehsud. The new CIA move is a result of Pakistani officials accusing some lobbies in Washington of protecting Mehsud for the past four years.
What we are seeing now is not everyone coming clean. What we are seeing is the result of nearly one year of quiet pressure from Pakistan on its allies in Washington. It started in a secret meeting in Rawalpindi in July 2008 where Admiral Mike Mullen and CIA number two Stephen Kappes were told that some CIA activities inside Pakistan contradicted stated US government policy. There is credible information that the Pakistani military handled this matter with the Americans through military channels after reluctance shown by President Zardari in confronting Washington, Kabul and New Delhi. In this sense, Prime Minister Gilani’s bold talk with his Indian counterpart on Balochistan last week was a break from his party line.
The strength of Pakistan’s position can be gauged from the fact not a single Indian official chose to contradict US top diplomat William Burns’ call to India to reduce the activities of its consulates in Afghanistan. Mr Burns reportedly shared some evidence Pakistan provided confirming that the Indian ‘consulates’ were little more than intelligence outposts for exporting terror to Pakistan’s tribal belt.
The credit for these new developments also goes to the new policy thinking within the Obama administration which apparently is questioning the entrenched lobbies in Washington responsible for some of the failed US military and intelligence adventures in the region.
Over the weekend, Iran’s state-run media has shown a televised confession by the brother of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of the Jundullah group that claims to be based in Pakistan. Islamabad helped Iran arrest the brother. “Abdulmalek and his group,” says the brother, “had a purpose to sow discord among Shia and Sunni on the orders received from the US. He said his brother “had held several confidential meetings with CIA agents in Karachi and Islamabad,” according to Iran’s PRESSTV.
This should help us understand who has turned the Afghan soil into a base for exporting terror to neighbouring countries, including China’s Xinjiang. The other thing this shows is that foreign governments or at least their spy agencies have created Pakistan-specific terror groups over the past five years as leverage against the perceived Pakistani support for the Afghan Taliban. In other words, the fake Pakistani Taliban and the various terror groups in Balochistan were a payback for us for our alleged support for the Afghan Taliban.
Pakistan needs to come clean on this for good. Pakistan cannot press a button to stop the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan from attempts to sideline them and keep them out of power in Kabul. This problem has to be resolved inside Afghanistan. We should push for this because this is also upsetting Pakistan’s Pashtun and destabilising us. The US needs to rethink its support to Kabul’s warlords and individuals who have failed the American project in Afghanistan. Instead of trying to eliminate legitimate Afghan parties like the Taliban and Hekmetyar, it is better to bring them aboard.
The other thing is Kashmir. The anti-India actions there are not a Pakistani creation. They will continue, fester and invite reaction from Kashmiris and Pakistanis on Pakistani soil unless resolved.
It is better for the United States and India to resolve Afghanistan and Kashmir than to create proxies against Pakistan.
Pakistan’s northern Iraq by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
July 7th by Ahmed Quraishi.
If Pakistan were Turkey, Pakistani military commanders would have been publicly warning by now to send fighter jets into Afghanistan to pound the secret supply routes that are being used to fan terrorism and separatism in northwest and southwest Pakistan. The Afghan support bases for terrorism in Balochistan and the NWFP are well known by now to Pakistani spy agencies and we’d be justified to act. The purpose wouldn’t be to start a war but force an end to the export of terrorism into Pakistan, especially the Indian intelligence and terror-training outposts on Afghan soil. This is how Turkey dealt with the situation when northern Iraq turned into a haven for anti-Turkey insurgents right under the watch – and possible encouragement – of the United States military.
This scenario might appear farfetched at the moment, considering that last week another US citizen has become the recipient of our highest civil award, Hilal-e-Quaid-e-Azam. That is the third (or the fourth?) American to do so in less than a year. Islamabad’s power corridors are sniggering with the quip that US citizenship has become the newest prerequisite for the prestigious award.
But banter aside, the situation on the Pakistani-Afghan border stands on the precipice of anarchy. Just when the Pakistani Army was preparing to corner master terrorist Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan, the CIA ordered a drone attack in North Waziristan targeting the pro-Pakistan tribal commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur. He was at peace with the Pakistani Army for more than a year. The CIA action has opened a new warfront for the Pakistani Army that would make nabbing Baitullah more difficult.
If the – deliberate? – American blunders continue, we will end up with a fully fledged civil war in our entire northwest. Washington has already messed up Afghanistan, and until a few months ago was itching to put boots on the ground in Pakistan. A full-fledged civil war would give the Americans that chance. The Kabul ruling elite and their Indian ally want nothing more than to see such a situation. It is not in Pakistan’s interest to fight the Pakhtoon, let alone our own Pakistani Pakhtoon.
We need to eliminate the terrorists who call themselves Pakistani Taliban. But in order to do so we need to shift the focus back to Afghanistan. US top diplomat William Burns has already asked the Indians to scale down or close some of their “consulates” that act as terrorist planning and training outposts inside Afghanistan. Indian officials have avoided discussing this demand in public, thanks in large part to the evidence reportedly exchanged through the Pakistani-American military channels.
Now Pakistan needs to build on this through a series of fresh policy initiatives on Afghanistan. Let’s test America’s sincerity by making it clear that a US victory in Afghanistan shouldn’t come at the expense of Pakistan’s legitimate security interests. Let’s achieve our goals together instead of handing Afghanistan over to anti-Pakistan forces. It’s either this, or we stop NATO supplies.
We should also declare that, unlike Al Qaeda, the elimination of the Afghan Taliban or any other local Afghan faction is not a strategic objective. We are not occupying Afghanistan, America is. And it needs to take responsibility. Mullah Omar can in fact help Pakistan neutralise the criminals inside Pakistan who are butchering Pakistanis. This will also help us identify and neutralise the fake Taliban.
The Americans’ position that the resistance they face in Afghanistan comes from our tribal areas should be countered. A fresh report by a US think tank shows the Afghan resistance entrenching itself in the north. So it’s not just the Pakistani tribal belt. The main issue is the pacification of the Pakhtoon and other areas inside Afghanistan. Do this and the problem can be resolved inside that country.
We need to start seeing US-occupied Afghanistan as Turkey’s northern Iraq. It’s either this or we end up making America’s war against the Pakhtoons our own.
The real asset by Ahmed Quraishi
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
July 1st by Ahmed Quraishi.
Two things made America more influential and awe inspiring than any other nation on the face of the earth: cowboy movies and Michael Jackson. Long before the American Tomahawks, B-52s and the rest of the American weapons used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, Michael Jackson entered the houses of the nations across the Middle East and Central Asia.
Some say these Muslim nations want war with America. That’s typical Langley hogwash. Long before Karen Hughes and Don Rumsfeld came up with kooky concepts of public diplomacy, and long before Pentagon and State Department established offices for outreach to Muslims, this icon of modern American culture was welcomed in a region that knew little about American culture or simply didn’t care. America didn’t need men with twisted minds and Darth-Vader plans for global domination to open the doors for American supremacy [this is for you, Richard Perle]. It happened anyway thanks to Jackson, Stallone and Madonna.
I was ten years old, growing up in the Middle East with kids who were Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iranians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Syrians, Turks, Sudanese and Afghans. And I distinctly remember how in 1982 and 1983 Michael Jackson burst on the scene, to a great and an enthusiastic welcome never accorded to an American before. Those who knew one face of America – Reagan at the time – and vehemently hated it became crazy about another American face. I am sure they could never reconcile this contradiction deep in their hearts. But it was there, the two sides coexisting side by side.
Aside from our region, Michael’s music opened the doors of the Soviet Union and China to everything American, not to mention Africa, East Asia and the rest of the world. Before his album, Thriller, for example, only members of the elite in some of these nations knew the truth: that there is another side to America besides imperialism, a good side. It seems so ordinary now. But, really, think about it; closed and proud societies warmly welcoming a completely new and alien culture of a country whose foreign policy was viewed suspiciously by many.
Right about the same time as Michael’s Thriller and the moonwalk, there came Sylvester Stallone with his accent, Tom Cruise with Top Gun, and then ‘USA for Africa’: forty-five American singers joining in a song for the victims of the African drought. The song, We Are The World, gave the world this amazing message about an American nation striving to help the needy. Even the best American diplomats and the best image consultants couldn’t buy the goodwill that these ordinary good Americans created for their nation.
Sure, while this was happening, CIA was secretly supporting terrorist militias in Latin America and Africa, pushing Iraq to declare war against Iran, destabilizing governments and exploiting the pure passion and the blood of the Afghans to settle an American score with the Soviets. America’s governments were doing dirty things. But it was the good side of America that the people of the world preferred, the one that was really launched by Michael Jackson and others. The Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union didn’t exactly crumble thanks only to America’s gung-ho politicians or military strategists. They crumbled because of the enduring power of the image that Jackson and Madonna and Tom Cruise and Stallone and others spread worldwide.
This is the lesson that America desperately needs to learn today. Jackson almost launched America’s cultural supremacy in the digital age. CIA or the US military used it, not caused it. So who is the real asset? This ugly and militarized side of America has eclipsed everything else in the past decade. Let’s remember that Washington’s entire might in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t and couldn’t generate the kind of real goodwill that America received with Jackson’s death.
Your Jacksons are far more appealing than your Tomahawks. Get it. Or beat it.
Loading ...