“Patsy-Stan,” the Perilous Partnership With America

Turning on an “ally” Coolie kuta

.
It was Henry Kissinger in the mid-1970′s who said roughly, “It is more dangerous to be an ally of the USA, then its enemy.”

And so the Shah of Iran found out in 1978-79; Ditto Diem of South Vietnam; General Noriega of Panama 1989; Marcos of the Philippines; Saddam of Iraq in 1990/91; Gaddafi of Libya 2011; Mubarak of Egypt 2011; Field Marshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan from 1965–69; General Musharaf of Pakistan 2007–8; Mullah Omer of the Taliban 2001. Yes Mullah Omer of the Taliban and the USA were once great buddies, in fact the American’s installed him into power using the resources, manpower and logistics of the Pakistan military……..but despite all this Pakistani help, by pure definition mullah Omer was an American installed puppet.

America is a nation with competing Jewish interests (various elite groups). Being a puppet and a client state of such a nation imperils the long term interests of the ally of the USA, unless you are a powerful independent state, or you are at the other end of the spectrum where the client state is so small and insignificant…the American’s don’t really need to impose any real new policies (Kuwait, Kiribati). When the competing Jewish interests are imposed on a client nation as policy, this may severely strain the relationship between the two states because the new American policy being imposed is so bad (drone strikes in Pakistan’s case) that the client regime comes under strong domestic pressure, naturally.

The American reaction usually in the last scenario above, as the lone superpower is not to reflect, be circumspect and offer alternative solutions and policies…..but to change the puppet in charge who WILL carry out American policy in the client state.

Musharaf often referred to as Busharaf for obvious reasons, who conceded to the USA ON SECURITY within Pakistan, more than any other Pakistani leader (The Americans using the pressure tactics of the 9/11 false flag event, “We’ll bomb you back to the stone age”, courtesy of Richard Armitage), was still unsatisfactory for the American’s who envisaged a colonial Raj takeover of Pakistan, under the guise of GWoT, to secure its nukes for Israel, post 9/11. Thus Musharaf was pushed out using Benazir Bhutto’s death, civil society and a cooperative military…..to impose Zardari, Mr. 10% who was/is correctly believed by the USA to be totally amoral, capable of selling his own mother if the price is right. Such a man as Zardari was deemed more useful for America’s agenda in Pakistan which is…..creeping occupation of Pakistan using GWoT, and the securing of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, about which Raymond Davies may have been probing deep in the Punjab, as a pose to doing his work in the NWFP. Under Zardari drone strikes in Pakistan has increased dramatically.

Many in the Pakistan military, especially in the top brass love the USA….since many have under gone extensive training there. But as the examples of Third World dictators exiting show above, the American “love’ is rarely reciprocated or permanent.

In the below article Admiral Mullen as head of the American armed forces, makes vague suggestions that the Pakistani government is somehow tied to terrorism. Building up the image that Pakistan is terrorist hub number one.

This is utter nonsense…….technically and specifically if we are referring to the civilian government of Asif Zardari of the PPP. 1) The civilian government of Zardari was brought into power by the USA, toppling Musharaf, and thus the American’s must have had inside knowledge of Zardari’s true nature….and what really motivates Zardari…….$/money. 2) The real power in Pakistan, thanks to the USA, is the military…using the ISI…..and thus the only real “government” with any control of events in Pakistan is the military.

Now if Admiral Mullen is pointing a finger at the Pakistan military and their ties to terrorism then he should be more clear, for everybody’s sake, and say so. YES, if he were to say this then he would be correct………the 500,000 Jihadi’s in Pakistan now are ALL controlled by the Pakistan military, and have been groomed since the late 1970′s. They represent the proxy militia arm of the Pakistan military which carry out the Pakistan military’s policy both within Pakistan and outside……without having to use the regular forces (800,000) or the paramilitary (300,000)……fighting Shia minorities in the extreme North, or NWFP….fighting India in Kashmir ongoing (Kargil also)….fighting in Afghanistan to maintain Pakistan’s interests as per the “strategic depth” policy put forward by the American’s themselves.

Finally the 300 terrorist incidents inside Pakistan since 2001, with about 4000 civilian deaths have been carried out by the same Pakistan military controlled Jihadis……LeT, HuJI, Taliban, Swat Taliban, Asian Tigers and what ever other cock and bull names these Pakistani military controlled outfits call themselves for the week………..the objective being (i) To destabilize the civilian government since 2008 (ii) Promote the truly bizarre perverse calculation and logic within the Pakistan military that uncle SAM won’t let the Pakistan state fail, and will/must not allow it to fall into the hands of the Taliban………the oft repeated mantra…and thus must pour security resources into the hands of the brave loyal Pakistani military fighting an epic hand to hand battle against terrorists within GWoT, for the USA. (Coolie Kuta logic which is dangerous for Pakistan). (iii) Each terrorist incident carried out by the Pakistani military controlled Jihadis increases the positive profile of the Pakistan military in the eyes of the civilians, as national custodians of Pakistan’s defenses and security!!!!

In defense of the indefensible Pakistan military one has to say that many greasy Third World nations do run various “militia” groups in South America, Africa and Asia……often with full American backing, arming, training…….Guatemala….El Salvador…..Indonesia (Admiral Mullen is obviously behaving like the Pot calling the kettle black) BUT…..500,000 jihadis I have to say is too many for such a failed unstable strife ridden state as Pakistan.

But as with the above proverb, IT IS THE USA which fully advised, armed, trained, funded Pakistan’s Jihadi monsters from the 1970′s using the Pakistan military to fight the Soviet Union initially, and said nothing and did nothing to control this monster once the job was done in 1989.

The Taliban is the love child of the USA and the Pakistan military from 1994.

The fake phantom “al-Qaeda” is the love child of the USA/Israel and the Pakistan military……..a threat to nobody unless a threat needs to be created.

The revolution syndrome

The revolution syndrome 

—M Hassan Hakeem


Many analyse the present situation of the country as ripe for a ‘revolution’, seeing what has been going around in rest of the world. But comparing the
socio-political liberties of Pakistanis with those of Arabs and Africans leads one to conclude that the former have a greater proportion of independence in most, if not all, aspects 

The world community is
witnessing a new chapter of democratic history being written with protests emanating from North Africa and spreading to the entire Arab world. The uprisings are similar to the ones witnessed in the 1990s in demands but intense in magnitude and momentum. With no visible leadership on top of these excited demonstrators, these uprisings are like a headless body structure, senseless and leaderless, a cruise with no destination at all.
The ‘Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia’ speaks volumes about American puppetry: a stage show where actors change while the play remains the same. The public needed a legitimate mechanism to ventilate grievances. Now that long-term ally of the West, Ben Ali, has been ousted, the system still remains intact while the players have ostentatiously been changed; an old wine in a shiny new bottle. Egypt’s case is no different. Now being ruled by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, that has always been a close ally of the US, the public mood is still dark and discontent looms large.
Likewise, Libya has been the latest addition to this list. Colonel Gaddafi functioned internationally by pitching himself as a revolutionary anti-imperialist, immune to western manipulation. There have been a number of revolts and worse humanitarian crises in recent years (if the Rwandan genocides of the early 1990s and the Yemen uprising are anything to go by), where NATO, with the US at the helm, did nothing.
A number of reasons correspond to the military intervention by NATO. One of them is that Libya has more often than not been on the outskirts of the American domain of influence and the latter finds this window of opportunity providential to its imperial interests. Secondly, there is the issue of western interest in Libyan oil resources, a fact being kept under the wraps. Libya, a key supplier to Europe, appears to be a square deal for the West. However, the western media remains completely negligent in reporting that oil tankers have started arriving at the Marsa el-Hariga export terminal to load oil bound for Qatar. The Italian government’s formal recognition of oil rich town Benghazi-based Transitional National Council (TNC) ensures that the Libyan opposition will sell oil to Italy. This is a blatant attempt to protect British and western companies’ massive investments in Libya.
Thirdly, Washington’s reaction was slow and stilted in case of Tunisian and Egyptian uprising and its tight lipped statements were heavily criticised world over. Fourth, the emergence of Islamic Brotherhood in Middle Eastern uprisings has actually motivated the US to intervene proactively this time on to foster ties with these fundamentalist groups through military support and aid.
Africa and the Arab world equate chaos with ‘revolution’ and think of turmoil as synonymous with revolution. Democracy is a process, not an event, and protests are a part of any democratic process. An uprising must not be confused with revolution; revolution is the toppling of the existing political apparatus that leads to a complete change from one constitution to another (for instance, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran).
What remains an unanswered question is why South Asia, Pakistan in particular, which presently has all the ingredients needed for a true revolution, still lags behind despite the fact that it has been rocked by scandals such as the murder of a governor in broad daylight who dared to criticise man-made blasphemy laws, or the release of an American, purportedly protected by diplomatic immunity, after he had gunned down two Pakistani men in plain view of a crowd. Each of these incidents had the potential in them to spark off a tide of protest and precipitate an uprising, yet they lacked the leadership that would see it through. Do we even have those calibrated visionaries when the leftists stand divided?
Many analyse the present situation of the country as ripe for a ‘revolution’, seeing what has been going around in rest of the world. But comparing the socio-political liberties of Pakistanis with those of Arabs and Africans leads one to conclude that the former have a greater proportion of independence in most, if not all, aspects. Even though our media does not represent all classes of society, the limited segments it does represent do get their grievances ventilated. The western media has always been intense in its reaction to these uprisings and has always coined nomenclature that is fervent and sharp. Unfortunately, our local media instinctively follows what the western media propagates.
Long march, shutter down strikes, etc are all forms of protests indigenous to Pakistan, whereas, the gathering of mobs in large numbers was new to this generation of Middle Eastern and North African countries, regions that had always been suppressed by the autocrats. Public processions and head on collisions with government forces were just as unprecedented in their world of repression.
Another reason why the West cannot afford a revolution in Pakistan is the approaching Afghan endgame. The cost of interests and gains is high for the West. Any twitch internal to Pakistan will have a ripple effect as far as the Oval Office. The convolutions of poverty, psychological estrangements, governance issues, corruption allegations, social injustice and power deficits can never be overlooked, but at the same time, can never be catalysts for a revolution. Be it the killing of two Pakistani boys in broad daylight by a foreigner or Salmaan Taseer’s heroic killing, these correspond to post-traumatic stress symptoms of the ‘War on Terror’ proposed by Uncle Sam.
As put by Richard Nixon in 1980 look-ahead book The Real War, “Many of those who romanticise revolution prefer to view terrorism merely as one of the ills of modern society, or as an outraged response to intolerable social conditions. But ‘senseless’ terrorism is often not as senseless as it may seem … it is a calculated instrument of national policy.”