Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. I

Hey all, not sure sure if you've been following the situation in Pakistan (it's the big country sharing borders with Afghanistan, India, and Iran), but since the civilian government took power not long ago, instability has been on the rise. Taliban militants have gotten close to the capital, and this is worrisome not only to the global community, but to the people of Pakistan. Remember that this is a country with a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance. I will dedicate the next three entries to addressing this issue. Here is the first part of an essay by a friend of a friend:

Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend

As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.

The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:

Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:

* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:

o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’

As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:

*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)

This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:

* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR

o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR

o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.

Republicans: Fearing themselves to insignificance

The Republican Party is truly the ignorant, xenophobic fear-mongering party. See this video released by the Minority LEADER John Boehner... I think you will see why I am going to enjoy watching these radicals implode.

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

Wondering Where Your Democracy Went?

When President Reagan gave his famous "City on a Hill" speech, he declared the United States the pinnacle of civilization--the city...on the hill. But when John Winthrop said those words he was talking about an America that ought to be. Not that is. Perhaps it is too hasty to assume that we have reached this ideal.

To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.

In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.


Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal

Important Vids: Obama and Economy

Sorry I've been away... this week has been hell. Please watch these videos on Obama and the economy... they are unique from all the other news I have seen, and frame all the goings on in a very interesting way.

Please share your thoughts. PS: None of these are actually as long as it says because there is a 3-4 commercial at the end of each. Enjoy.

Obama is a "liberal wolf in centrist clothing"?:







On ECONOMIC CRISIS:

How Obama Could Fail

I know it's early in the term, but I want to get these ideas out there before they disappear. And maybe this will be a worthy assessment in the long-run.

As the title indicates, I believe there is a very high possibility that President Obama will not be able to accomplish his vision in the next 4 years or 8. His full vision has yet to be disclosed in its entirety, but to bring about the change I and many others believe in will take a lot of political power that I'm not so sure Obama will have for long.

You see, there is this thing called the "political establishment"-- an institution or set of institutions that have evolved over the years into the system that currently exists--which makes it really difficult to enact fundamental change (that is, change in the system itself). Congress, the Executive, and the courts are all a part of this establishment, and they have many rules--accumulated since the founding-- that determine HOW business is done. If you want to act effectively in this system, you must play by the rules.

What I am suggesting is that Barack Obama will be forced to play the game of Washington in order to get things done... and in the process he will discover that the establishment is far more powerful than any president-- and the hopeful masses will become tomorrow's cynics because the promises will fade to mere whispers. It is the nature of the beast.

And I've avoided an entire institution--perhaps the most crucial one of all-- that is, the media. As Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen suggest on Bill Moyers Journal (PBS), the mainstream media will protect the establishment of Washington, D.C. because they are a PART OF the establishment of Washington. Media commentators simply do not think to question the actual system of which they are so immersed.

If our basic institutions of democracy are in fact broken, and the media continues to insulate it from fundamental criticism, how exactly is the new president supposed to upset the system and restore government to the people?

I guess it all depends on how Obama can reconnect people with what is really going on... in a truly interactive and revolutionary way... via the internet. The question is: how do we utilize this remarkable tool in a way that changes the way people think about and learn about government? And affect government?

Evolution: Yay or Nay?

Tell me what you make of these statistics... should the United States be embarrassed by this monkey business?