Afghan Journal

Lifting the veil on conflict, culture and politics

Pakistan : four probes and a killing

May 18, 2011

Pakistan has launched four separate investigations into the life and death of Osama bin Laden on its soil, according to U.S. Senator John Kerry. The army, the air force and the intelligence establishment are running a probe each while parliament last week ordered an investigation by an independent commission to be set up for the purpose.

It’s not entirely clear who is investigating what but a common theme running through the probes is to find out how did the United States launch a heliborne  operation so deep in the country, hunt bin Laden down in his compound after a shootout in the outer wing  and fly away with his corpse, without the knowledge of the Pakistani authorities. Indeed the military and the government only got to know about it after the Americans told them once they were safely out of Pakistani airspace.

It’s, doubtless,  a serious breach of Pakistan’s air and ground defences and the biggest worry for the nation’s security planners would be ensure that its eastern borders are secure, lest it gives bitter foe India any ideas of mounting an incursion of its own. It is also a failure of the intelligence agencies they didn’t know it was coming, or indeed what had happened until they were informed by the Americans. All that will be the subject of the parallel investigations.

But what about the other question that people inside Pakistan as well abroad are asking : how is it that bin Laden came to live in a town buzzing with military officers, serving and retired, and not far from the nation’s premier military academy without anyone finding out. The world’s most hunted man is found to be living not in caves in the mountains of the northwest region straddling Afghanistan, but in relative comfort in a military town, barely two hour’s drive from the office of the country’s intelligence agency.  Shouldn’t that be a question the nation must ask its security establishment ?  Indeed, avoiding the issue would only put the security agencies under a greater cloud of suspicion, as Pakistani commentators themselves are saying, not to mention their rather aggressive American interlocutors.

Badar Alam, the editor of the monthly magazine Herald. said it was revealing that the unanimous resolution that parliament passed in setting up a commission to probe the incident in Abbottabad had little reference to bin Laden and the militant Islamist groups that threaten not just other countries, but Pakistan itself. Indeed, contrary to worries that parliament would use the opportunity presented by the security agencies’ discomfiture to crack open the steel curtain and reveal their functioning, it seemed to have narrowed down the focus of the investigation to the U.S. violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, he wrote in a piece for Dawn.

 ”Going by the tone, tenor and the text of the joint resolution, it is more than obvious that the investigators will be strictly focused on the American invasion into Pakistan, not on how bin Laden could live in Abbottabad undetected and whether there is any truth in unceasing reports about Pakistan army and intelligence agencies secretly collaborating with terrorists.”

Alam said members of parliament seemed more focussed on asking the military whether they could shoot down U.S. drone aircraft that had routinely violated the country’s air space particuarly over the northwest.  For all you know, the military might come out of this stronger with the politicians opening the purse strings further so they can buy expoensive equipment to better handle such incursions.

As Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said the truth is that there were many in Pakistan  “angrier about the United States’ ability to launch a special-operations raid right under their noses than they are that bin Laden was found on their soil-and the military is bearing the brunt of the criticism inside Pakistan.”  He warned that the more America puts pressure on the Pakistan military, already smarting under the humilitation of the raid, the more it risks losing it as a partner.

Comments

@Umairpk
History is refreshing but present is the reality. What we are witnessing is the second stage of Resistance. The so called talibans are going to move across the Indian border thereby encouraging Indian militry confrontation with Pakistan military. It was suspected that drones would compel tne Resistance to extend their area of operation in Pakistan cities first and later across the Indian border. Pakistan military would than be in the soup!

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

About, the world reducing tensions with India….

With all due respect, I’m sick of hearing this. I’ve heard this screed from numerous Pakistani officials. When I was less experienced, I used to feel sympathetic. Now I see that line for what it really means, “Please convince the Indians to give us everything we want without any compromises on our part.”

I wouldn’t accept that kind of pressure on my country. Why would I believe that the Indians would accept that kind of pressure from us?

It’s as ridiculous as “Solve Kashmir,” which usually means, “Please ignore all aspects of the UNSCR and violations thereof, that pertain to Pakistan, tell the Indians to hand over Kashmir and leave. If you don’t do this, we’ll keep nurturing terrorists.”

Quite frankly, every Westerner knows what these lines mean nowadays. We just smile and nod because it’s the polite thing to do.

We are not responsible for Pakistan’s tension with India. Neither side is willing to follow the UNSCR completely (unless Pakistan has changed its position on completely withdrawing all its troops?). And quite frankly, it seems to me that there’s more intransigence from Pakistan than India (though it’s not politically correct to say that). The Indians are stubborn to be sure. But they have the UNSCR on their side. They aren’t obligated to do squat until every last Pakistani soldier and tribesmen has withdrawn from all of the former state Kashmir. So if Pakistan isn’t willing to do that, how do Pakistanis propose that the world pressure the Indians? What grounds do we have to do so? So at this point, there is nothing for the world to do. You guys figure it out.

What the world will not be held hostage to, however, is Pakistan’s coddling of Jihadists. Nobody in the West buys this whole, “We need Jihadists to fight India.” line. Lots of states have border conflicts. None of them have Jihad factories like Pakistan. There’s no excuse for Pakistan coddling terrorists. Even less so, when these apparently anti-India terrorists seek out every opportunity to attack Westerners, Jews, etc. both inside India and around the world. And if these terrorists are freedom fighters who are all about India, then what the hades are LeT operatives doing fighting NATO in Afghanistan? And what are they doing targetting a pregnant Jewish woman at Chabad house in Mumbai?

It’s quite clear to me that much of the Pakistan security policy making machine is now on auto-pilot. They aren’t willing to give up the Jihadists, because they are so used to having them around. They are simply comfortable wielding Jihad as an instrument of state policy. They certainly understand the threat the Jihadis pose to Pakistan. But the thought of giving them up is just unsettling to them now. So they continue on, in the hopes that the world will ignore them once the West leaves Afghanistan. What they don’t understand is that the West won’t stop hounding Pakistan as long as these groups are intent on attacking Westerners at home or elsewhere (often in India).

And the implicit threat that these Jihadists won’t go away until tensions with India are reduced, just comes across as crass blackmail to the rest of the world.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

Umair,

You’re obfuscating, is quite cowardly.

Are you seriously suggesting that the CIA is responsible for the ISI becoming a state within a state. So the PA routinely meddling in Pakistan’s democracy, regularly staging coup-d’etats, etc. had nothing to do with it?

And what about Pakistan’s gains from all that they CIA did? Perhaps Pakistanis would have been happier with a Soviet run Afghanistan, with half a million hostile Soviet troops next door. You Pakistanis have some short memories. If you think the Americans are hostile, you definitely don’t remember the actual threat the Soviets posed.

The Americans helped protect Pakistan from the Soviet Bear, and this is the gratitude they get? I certainly hope they’ve learned their lesson this time around. I mean really. Why bother? You can pump in billions in aid (which will be diverted), provide tons of technical assistance, and in the end Pakistanis will screw up their own institutions and blame you for it.

Lastly, it’s worth noting that even in the USA, the CIA follows the orders of the President their other legislative bodies. So what’s the excuse for the ISI?

And going back to defensive obfuscation, why don’t you man up and answer my question: whic is it? Is the ISI really powerful (in which case they were certainly hiding something vis-a-vis OBL) or they just incompetents who blow smoke to cover their six? Do try and show some testicular fortitude and offer up a direct answer…if you have it in you.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

KeithZ: “We are not responsible for Pakistan’s tension with India.”

Sorry for nit picking. Though Canada is not responsible for the issues in the rest of the world, Canada is part of the “Western world” dominated by US and UK which have burnt parts of the world in order to counter their opponents.

I have mentioned before about the creation of Pakistan itself as a part of the “Great Game”. The reason why Pakistan was not allowed to evolve into a normal, democratic nation is because public consensus always works against international diktats. People can vote a government out for allying with some international coalition for an unjust cause that is against the national interests. Dealing with autocrats and oligarchs is a lot easier. Public are sidelined and a single individual or a dominant system becomes a fulcrum for all leverage that is needed.

In this regard, the CIA has done a lot of damage to Pakistan by propping up its military and its generals. The entire sub-continent is a victim of the Great Game that was of prime importance to the British imperial government that was nearing its sunset. It did not know at that time that it did not have to worry about the Russian expansion. It became a worry for the next super power that replaced it. Pakistan was created to facilitate countering of Russian expansion into South Asia. An independent India, dominated by a socialistic, anti-Western Congress Party would have resulted in losing all that advantage. So the British found an opportunistic politician in Jinnah, who suddenly became a champion for Muslims in South Asia. If were alive today, he would have been publicly hanged by the Mullahs in Pakistan for eating pork, not praying and not being a Sunni Muslim. His death saved him.

Pakistanis (ordinary people) are victims of cold war geo-politics. The US began to court a willing Pakistani military for a foot hold in South Asia. India decided to try non-alignment and it was perceived as an anti-Western move by the Western countries.

From what I have read, the Soviet Union backed Communist government in Afghanistan was trying to provide education and jobs to women. The CIA triggered the tribal leaders into revolting against this change. Today the US is fighting the Taliban which believes in denying women rights and education. Cold war allowed for immoral and unethical moves that resulted in genocides, human rights violations and dictatorships in many parts of the world.

It was the US that figured out that radical Islam can be a potent weapon. Zia’s illegal government was looking for an opportunity to be accepted by the international community, come out of the pariah status, Islamize the nation and build the nukes. Both the US and Pakistan walked into each others’ well laid traps. The text books for children praising the virtues of radical Islam were edited and printed by the University of Nebraska. Money poured into Pakistan. The ISI was trained by the CIA in sabotage, insurgency, proxy wars, assassinations and what not. At that time, no one cared if people fell victims to these acts.

The Western powers turned a blind eye to India’s woes that resulted from the pampering of Pakistan’s military regime. Pakistan was allowed to smuggle nuclear secrets, materials and everything just so that Western objectives could be achieved. India faced the brunt of Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Thousands of people died in the cross fire between insurgents and Indian military.

From 1989 to 2001, India bore the brunt of Pakistan sponsored terrorism. No one cared. As soon as 9/11 happened, suddenly precious Western lives, their freedom, their rights etc became ultimate objectives. Human rights violations did not matter. Guantanamo bay interrogations were all right. But India was wrong at handling insurgents in Kashmir and elsewhere. We have been seeing this farce by Western nations and their citizens.

The US did not care if terrorists walked into Mumbai and massacred 160 odd people or not. It only mattered when 6 Americans and a few Jewish people were victimized in the bargain. This attitude towards children of a lesser God needs to change.

India-Pakistan problem is, to a large extent, created, supported and sustained by the Western nations for their own geo-strategic interests. India is being courted now because China has become huge, threatening Western dominance. Pakistan is being looked at critically because Westerners are affected. Terrorists are separated into those who affect Westerners, their rights etc and those who affect others.

Pakistan might be made up of lunatics, but it was the West that lit the fire on its head and threw kerosine on top of that. We are sitting next to this burning house and we are the ones ducking from the embers.

“Neither side is willing to follow the UNSCR completely (unless Pakistan has changed its position on completely withdrawing all its troops?).”

Kindly stop playing the judge here. Firstly Canada is far removed from all this. Pakistan has been turned into a maniacal nation by the Western powers. They have an obligation to clean up the mess that they have created in the region. It has begun to burn their own rear ends. We would like to be left alone and mind our own business.

“And quite frankly, it seems to me that there’s more intransigence from Pakistan than India (though it’s not politically correct to say that). The Indians are stubborn to be sure.”

So is everyone else. Imaging a conflict between Canada and the US on some resource issue. Understand how it would feel if we sit and tell you guys what to do.

I am not supporting Umair here. But the West has its ugly side that has affected any normal conditions from growing in this part of the world.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

From 1989 to 2001, India bore the brunt of Pakistan sponsored terrorism. No one cared.
Posted by KPSingh01
==
This has been repeatedly discussed here. All you will get is a hypocritical response that India was in the Soviet camp.

The role of West in creating the Terroristan monster as it is today is HUMONGOUS. Not to discount Canada’s role as a safe haven for sundry global terrorists.

It will be fun if Algerians start planting bombs in Montreal demanding separate Muslimistan out of Canada. Britain is already reaping what it sowed.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

Keithz,
Sorry for the harsh comments. In the real world, India has to forget the past and work with US, Canada and UK to work together. Despite the buzz, lot of our people are still extremely poor and upliftment of them should be the primary goal. Not settling old scores, wars, etc.

Regards.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

Keith

You have raised some important points, and let me just sum up. I agree with you that PAF and Pak Navy need to get more defence spending. Pak Army on the other hand has greatly increased its capacity to conduct COIN operations, recent assessments now say internal millitant threat has now surpassed that posed by India. There is greater resolve as evident by 2009/10 COIN ops in Swat and South Waziristan by Pak Army to conduct aggressive COIN ops. This should be a welcome sign, on the other hand a structured dialogue to resolve bilateral disputes with India will ensure less tension on eastern border and more focus on COIN ops by the Army. I agree the FC, Rangers, paramilitary should be properly equipped and border posts across Afghan border manned effectively and COIN ops should be upto the mark. And rest assured Pakmil is moving in that direction. But only this does not seem good:

Pakistan shuts down U.S. ‘intelligence fusion’ cells

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ world/la-fg-us-pakistan-20110527,0,52786 34.story

While today Admiral Mike Mullen US CJS is in Islamabad, Pakistan and Secretary Clinton will be here too, a focus should be to provide greater opportunity for Pak Military officers to train in US on courses. Joint training for special forces, Air Force pilots, Naval officers. And certainly your idea of Navy and Air Force remaining onboard in defence strategy looks smart. I am aware already of Kargil issue, and an PAF Air Commodore wrote an article in which it raised the issue that PAF was only brought into action when the IAF was already flying sorties. PAF had to limit its role to patrolling the skies otherwise it could escalate the conflict in case there is a provocation with IAF. So I agree there exist some institutional flaws, here is where I think our allies can help us overcome them.
Having said that, I would state even Canada should boost defence cooperation with Pakistan military, including Australia, France, Germany, etc. True some of sanctions on Pakistan in past, the nuke proliferation are serious concerns and Pakistan should acceopt blame and work to eliminate fears in west.
With Pakistan all is not lost, Pakistan has been a staunch western ally, as far back as 1960s Gary Powers flew in from Badaber airbase near Peshawar airbase, the famous U2 incident over Soviet Union. Even today, unlike Iran, Pakistan is not lost, the window to fix our differences with west is there. People of Pakistan do not hate west. With social upliftment things will improve.

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive
 

“Pakistan has been a staunch western ally”

I wonder what pakistan means when it talks of a ‘staunch ally’.Maybe it would be worthwhile reading about others views on waht being a staunch ally means:

“What is the definition of an American ally? On an ideological level, an ally is a country that shares America’s values, reflects its founding spirit, and resonates with its people’s beliefs. Tactically, an ally stands with the United States through multiple conflicts and promotes its global vision. From its location at one strategic crossroads, an ally enhances American intelligence and defense capabilities, and provides ports and training for U.S. forces. Its army is formidable and unequivocally loyal to its democratic government. An ally helps secure America’s borders and assists in saving American lives on and off the battlefield. And an ally stimulates the U.S. economy through trade, technological innovation, and job creation.” Michael Oren

So how staunch is staunch?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20 11/04/25/the_ultimate_ally?page=0

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive
 

Umairpk: “You have raised some important points, and let me just sum up. I agree with you that PAF and Pak Navy need to get more defence spending. Pak Army on the other hand has greatly increased its capacity to conduct COIN operations, recent assessments now say internal millitant threat has now surpassed that posed by India. and BLAH..BLAH..”

What a window washing! Not one point raised by Keith and others has been addressed. Instead the response is filled with jargon and military mumbo jumbo. Go back and look at the questions you raised with Keith and read his counter questions. If you are fair, you will address them one by one. We are curious to see what kind of honest responses can come from your side. But knowing the way you guys deal with issues when put on a bind, I am not surprised.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

kpsingh01,

Look. I can get that some Indians are prickly about the past. But that’s no excuse really. On occassion, I’ve had a good laugh with an Indian counterpart or two. We compare the old guys in our respective offices. I’ve got my fair share of Cold Warriors who can’t get past India being in the Soviet camp. Ditto for my counterparts in the US, UK, etc. And he’s got his share of Nehruvian anti-Imperialists in his office who can’t see anything good coming from co-operation with the West. And you quite frankly, remind me a fair bit, of the caricature of the old guys that my Indian contact puts forward.

In both cases, these old farts tut-tut the younger generation of civil servants, intelligence personnel, diplomats and military officers for “sleeping with the enemy” so to speak. But those of us under 35 can see beyond the animosity of the past and would like our nations to have positive relations in the future. We cheer every retirement of the old guard.

Did the West (particularly the US) make mistakes with India? Sure they did. Most American analysts today will be the first to admit it. Should those mistakes hold relations with India hostage? Of course not. The mistakes of the past are just that: mistakes. You learn from them and move on.

One of the biggest complaints the Americans have, when it comes to India, is that India sees relations with the US through a Pakistan lens. This is a sign of immaturity from the US perspective. From the US perspective, great powers can have the odd competing interest and still remain friends. The idea that just because the US does not completely adhere to the India playbook on Pakistan (even though there are many areas of agreement) makes them unreliable, is frankly ludicrous, not just to the US, but the rest of the West too. The US agrees with India on a lot of issues (not just on Pakistan). They might not agree on how these issues are to be solved, with what timeline, etc. but they do agree that these are areas of concern. However, so many Indians act as though the US must simply adopt the Indian policy and stance (forget its own interests), or else its not reliable at all. Imagine if the Americans told India that there would no deal on anything unless India takes up an adversarial relationship with Iran. You wouldn’t like that very much, would you? That’s how it feels for the Yanks (and the rest of us in tow), every time the issue of Pakistan comes up, with India.

What would Indians have the Americans do? Cut off billions in aid and start bombing Pakistan, the day after 26/11? Ideas like these are as ludicrous from Indians as the Pakistanis telling the West to pressure India on Kashmir. It’s actually quite humourous that both, Indians and Pakistanis, seem to think that the US has some kind of mythical hold on the other country. They don’t. Despite what many Indians believe, the US just does not have enough leverage in Pakistan to change things that much (not without turning the place into an expanded version of Somalia) and it is using what little sway it has to wrap up that thing in Afghanistan. And when it comes to India, the US has even less leverage than most Pakistanis seem to imagine.

As for the argument that the Americans care because it’s only their citizens…what do you expect? Does India declare sanctions and alter its foreign policy everytime any new terrorist threat pops up (even if it has nothing to do with India)? What’s India’s take on the IRA or the Shining Path? Was India concerned about the Black Panthers in the last century? Did India create new foreign policies because of the rise of drug lords like Pablo Escobar? The US government is mandated by law to take care of its own citizens, at home and abroad. They are doing just that.

And coincidentally (as I have said before), the deaths of Americans (and other Western nationals) in India is making anti-India jihadism an American (and Western) issue. As long as groups like LeT and JeM, etc. keep killing Westerners in India, Pakistan will be under the spotlight. It may be cold comfort to some. But this is how the world works. And dead westerners are actually working to India’s benefit.

“So is everyone else. Imagine a conflict between Canada and the US on some resource issue. Understand how it would feel if we sit and tell you guys what to do.”

We have resource conflicts with the US. We even have a maritime border dispute that would be larger than many an Indian state. Not to mention the fact that the Americans seem to believe they have the right to drive ships through the Northwest Passage any time they feel like it. Yet, Canada has never seen the need to involve outside parties to be involved. Nor have we clamped down on our border between the two countries. We’d rather deal with the Americans one-on-one.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

From 1989 to 2001, India bore the brunt of Pakistan sponsored terrorism. No one cared.
Posted by KPSingh01
==
This has been repeatedly discussed here. All you will get is a hypocritical response that India was in the Soviet camp. – netizen

The Cold War was the Cold War. It made for strange bedfellows. I’ve always found it odd that India was in the Soviet camp, but hey, that’s how history played out. No use holding the future hostage on this regard.

The role of West in creating the Terroristan monster as it is today is HUMONGOUS. – netizen

Both sides during the Cold War, played some dirty games. The Soviets and the Chinese funded the Viet Cong and various insurgent groups in Africa, and the Middle East. Nobody set out to make a “Terroristan monster” in Pakistan. That’s just how it happened.

If we are to hold up such standards, then imagine nobody funding rebels fighting apartheid in South Africa.

Not to discount Canada’s role as a safe haven for sundry global terrorists. – netizen

I’m curious where you get this impression that Canada is a safehaven for global terrorists. We’ve had our failures to be sure (Sikh extremists fell through the cracks largely because of an incompetent police force in the 80s). But by and large, Canada does not have a reputation for coddling terrorists. I daresay, you have less extremism here than you do in the UK, for example.

It will be fun if Algerians start planting bombs in Montreal demanding separate Muslimistan out of Canada. Britain is already reaping what it sowed. – netizen

It is sad that you would wish death and violence on other countries. But given the track record of our intelligence services and police forces, I’m not too worried. They’ve been quite successful at nailing extremists. And the muslim communities in our large urban centres have a far more cooperative relationship with our authorities than their counterparts in the UK or the USA.

And I don’t know where you get this idea that Montreal is overrun with Algerians? There’s many. But there are more immigrants of Lebanese origin and many more from former french colonies in Africa and the Carribean (particularly Haiti). You ever been to Montreal? Or are you just assuming that because Montreal is French dominated and Algerians are French-speaking Muslims that you can be hopeful that we have a large french-speaking Algerian community that will launch terrorist attacks there?

Keithz,
Sorry for the harsh comments. In the real world, India has to forget the past and work with US, Canada and UK to work together. Despite the buzz, lot of our people are still extremely poor and upliftment of them should be the primary goal. Not settling old scores, wars, etc.

Regards.

Posted by kEiThZ | Report as abusive
 

One of the biggest complaints the Americans have, when it comes to India, is that India sees relations with the US through a Pakistan lens
Posted by kEiThZ
=

Keithz,
You have undermined your ALL OTHER reconciliatory (?) statements towards Indians with that one statement above.
Unfortunately the above statement makes the rest of the discussion plain silly.

Suppose you have a petty criminal living next door to you. His only purpose for existence seems to be bombing your house, poisoning your water, setting your house on fire. (good news is the criminal got himself burnt badly).

Suppose the Village Chief supplies money, feeds the criminal to make him fat, supplies bombs, petrol, knives which he uses against you. Every time you point this out the village chief acts like a village idiot and dismisses your concerns until he himself got hit.

What kind of lens you will have?

What makes you think KP Singh’s or my comments are not shared by many if not most in the Indian strategic community?

America lawys wanted only puppets, Pakistan was the natural choice. India did vote with Soviet Union, but it was not Soviet Puppet. Independence has been much more importatnt to Indians than Paks.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

KeithZ: “I’ve got my fair share of Cold Warriors who can’t get past India being in the Soviet camp. Ditto for my counterparts in the US, UK, etc. And he’s got his share of Nehruvian anti-Imperialists in his office who can’t see anything good coming from co-operation with the West. And you quite frankly, remind me a fair bit, of the caricature of the old guys that my Indian contact puts forward”

Do not judge based on one’s writings. I am not a cold war bureaucrat. I am less than 40. I try understand matters based on an overall perspective rather than through any lens.

Your comparison of scenarios relating to Iran and other parts of the world is not a fair comparison. Understand this first.

If India ran a global campaign that needed a foot hold inside Mexico, and if that resulted in Mexico strengthen its military so that it could stand up to the US, that would be a fair comparison. The difference between what you have mentioned and what I have presented is this – Your countries have meddled in our neighborhood that has made our situation precarious. India can take sides with Iran and the US can do nothing about it. This does not mean India facilitates their nuclear bomb and missile technology development so that it counters Pakistan while it affects American interests. India has been a friend with the Arab nations, while opening up to Israel. We are not burning Israel by funding Hezbollah while setting up business with Israel at the same time.

Every country has its own issues in its backyard and it can pretty much handle it by itself. What has happened in our case is that the constant meddling in Pakistan and nearby nations have turned detrimental to our existence and survival. And we are being told to look the other way on it. Therein lies the fundamental difference between your analogy and mine.

Just like no one can trust Pakistan, but have to deal with them, as an Indian, I do not want my countrymen to trust the West, but we will deal with them where we can. The West only cares about itself and we are fortunate enough to see their selfish attitude. It is just the choice of choosing the better of the evils around. That’s what it has come to. You will be surprised to know that there are people I know in India who felt glad when planes flew into the twin towers. They are not Muslims. The feeling was that let Americans feel the pain we have been feeling and let them understand what we have been facing. And now Americans have been forced to accept the truth that their allies are the real villains all along.

India could have dealt with Pakistan in the past and prevented it from become the monster it has become. Guess who prevented it from that effort? Your dear Western powers. Certain things have to be kept where they have to be. Islamic ideology, nukes, terrorism etc make a deadly poison. Your West used it and helped breed it. And now it is being stung by it. We could have prevented that right at the start. But the West blocked all the efforts by India in the past and now sitting with India wondering what to do about it. Our viewpoint towards Pakistan does not arise from any hatred. After all there are genetically the same people as we are. Our view comes from the potential that has been created for utter destruction of South Asia by imperial powers of the past and the current powers.

Even now our view is that your countries look at terrorism only from your limited view point and are being very selective. Your missions are hurting us more. Now it has reached a point of no return. We all have become stuck together in this mess. We have no choice but to face the monster together. But when we do finish it off, I’d like my countrymen to remember what led to the whole thing in the first place and be cautious about the West.

Once again, let me tell you I am no cold war bureaucrat. I do read a lot on history though.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

KeithZ: “The mistakes of the past are just that: mistakes. You learn from them and move on.”

Mistakes do not happen often and happen by error or oversight. And mistakes do not carry an intent. This is like saying colonizing the planet is a mistake. A lot of calamities happened due to colonization. But it was no mistake.

Cold war geo-politics led to a number of actions that have caused severe damage to many parts of the world. Americans and their allies are still in that mode as we see it. The old farts there have not disappeared. All we are seeing is a continuation of that mindset from one generation of old farts to the new ones. They are committing more blunders as a result. The only person I can give some credit for his vision and approach is Obama. But he is dealing with a system that has evolved through cold war years.

Hope the world changes towards a direction where mutual respect reigns. Let the UN be more democratic and this farce called permanent membership be abolished.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •