[Peace-discuss] Obama orders killing in Pakistan

[John W.]

This is an excellent summary of the situation in Pakistan.  I've forwarded
it to a friend in the State Department, so we should soon see a change in
U.S. policy.



On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

       Published on Sunday, May 17, 2009 by Winnipeg Sun
>        US Stirs a Hornet's Nest in Pakistan
>        by Eric Margolis
>
> PARIS - Pakistan finally bowed to Washington's angry demands last week by
> unleashing its military against rebellious Pashtun tribesmen of North-West
> Frontier Province (NWFP) -- collectively mislabelled "Taliban" in the West.
>
> The Obama administration had threatened to stop $2 billion US annual cash
> payments to bankrupt Pakistan's political and military leadership and block
> $6.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan's
> turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier.
>
> The result was a bloodbath: Some 1,000 "terrorists" killed (read: mostly
> civilians) and 1.2 million people -- most of Swat's population -- made
> refugees.
>
> Pakistan's U.S.-rented armed forces have scored a brilliant victory against
> their own people. Too bad they don't do as well in wars against India.
> Blasting civilians, however, is much safer and more profitable.
>
> Unable to pacify Afghanistan's Pashtun tribes (a.k.a. Taliban), a deeply
> frustrated Washington has begun tearing Pakistan apart in an effort to end
> Pashtun resistance in both nations. CIA drone aircraft have so far killed
> over 700 Pakistani Pashtun. Only 6% were militants, according to Pakistan's
> media, the rest civilians.
>
> Pashtun, also improperly called Pathan, are the world's largest tribal
> people. Fifteen million live in Afghanistan, forming half its population.
> Twenty-six million live right across the border in Pakistan. Britain's
> imperialists divided Pashtun by an artificial border, the Durand Line
> (today's Afghan-Pakistan border). Pashtun reject it.
>
> Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947, provided much of their
> homeland be autonomous and free of government troops. Pashtun Swat only
> joined Pakistan in 1969.
>
> As Pakistan's Pashtun increasingly aided Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan,
> U.S. drones began attacking them. Washington forced Islamabad to violate its
> own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands. The result was the
> current explosion of Pashtun anger.
>
> I have been to war with the Pashtun and have seen their legendary courage,
> strong sense of honour and determination. They are also hugely quarrelsome,
> feuding and prickly.
>
> One quickly learns never to threaten a Pashtun or give him ultimatums.
> These are the mountain warriors who defied the U.S. by refusing to hand over
> Osama bin Laden because he was a hero of the anti-Soviet war and their
> guest. The ancient code of "Pashtunwali" still guides them: Do not attack
> Pashtun, do not cheat them, do not cause them dishonour. To Pashtun, revenge
> is sacred.
>
> HAM-HANDED
>
> Now, Washington's ham-handed policies and last week's Swat atrocity
> threaten to ignite Pakistan's second worst nightmare after invasion by
> India: That its 26 million Pashtun will secede and join Afghanistan's
> Pashtun to form an independent Pashtun state, Pashtunistan.
>
> This would rend Pakistan asunder, probably provoke its restive Baluchi
> tribes to secede and tempt mighty India to intervene militarily, risking
> nuclear war with beleaguered Pakistan.
>
> The Pashtun of NWFP have no intention or capability of moving into
> Pakistan's other provinces, Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan. They just want to
> be left alone. Alarms of a "Taliban takeover of Pakistan" are pure
> propaganda.
>
> Lowland Pakistanis repeatedly have rejected militant Islamic parties. Many
> have little love for Pashtun, whom they regard as mountain wild men best
> avoided.
>
> Nor are Pakistan's well-guarded nukes a danger -- at least not yet. Alarms
> about Pakistan's nukes come from the same fabricators with hidden agendas
> who brought us Saddam Hussein's bogus weapons.
>
> THE REAL DANGER
>
> The real danger is in the U.S. acting like an enraged mastodon, trampling
> Pakistan under foot, and forcing Islamabad's military to make war on its own
> people. Pakistan could end up like U.S.-occupied Iraq, split into three
> parts and helpless.
>
> If this continues, at some point patriotic Pakistani soldiers may rebel and
> shoot the corrupt generals and politicians on Washington's payroll.
>
> Equally ominous, a poor people's uprising spreading across Pakistan -- also
> mislabelled "Taliban" -- threatens a radical national rebellion reminiscent
> of India's Naxalite rebels.
>
> As in Iraq, profound ignorance and gung ho military arrogance drive U.S.
> Afghan policy. Obama's people have no understanding what they are getting
> into in "AfPak." I can tell them: An unholy mess we will long regret.
>
> © 2009 Winnipeg Sun
>
> Eric Margolis is a columnist for The Toronto Sun. A veteran of many
> conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special
> appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his
> predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in
> Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving
> the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/17-6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090517/0d7a369e/attachment.html