Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sun

28

Oct

2007

Will History Repeat Itself?
Sunday, 28 October 2007 13:06
by M. Shahid Alam

In January 2002, when President Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the first targets in his ‘global war against terror’ – the putative ‘axis of evil’—few noticed a curious omission. Pakistan was not on the list.

The targeted countries – we were told – sought weapons of mass destruction. In truth, Iraq and Iran were targeted because they stood in the way of Israeli ambitions – and they had oil.

Although Pakistan has been unlucky in oil, it could make stronger claims as a target for American and Israeli ire. It is the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons, a nuclear proliferator, the Taliban’s chief patron, and a sponsor of jihadis in Kashmir. 

Why, then, did the US not target Pakistan?

Six years later, this question is not less pertinent: and for two reasons. After being stalled by the Iraqi resistance, US plans for war against Iran are again gathering steam. If Iran is such a tempting target, why not take a few potshots at Pakistan also?

In addition, since their rout in Afghanistan, bands of Muslim ‘extremists’ have found safe havens in Pakistan’s northern districts, as well as Quetta and Karachi. More ominously, last July, the Taliban challenged the authority of the state in Pakistan’s capital.

Yet, there has been little talk in Washington or Tel Aviv about adding Pakistan to the ‘axis of evil.’ This is the Pakistani paradox.

This paradox has a simple explanation. In Pakistan, the US had effected regime change without a change of regime. Almost overnight, following the attacks of 9-11, the US had drafted the Pakistani military to wage war against Muslim extremists. The US had gained an army: and Pakistan’s military dictators had gained longevity.

Yet, could the Pakistani military deliver on its promise to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaida? At first, it appeared that it was succeeding. General Musharraf boasted that Pakistan had collected $50 million in exchange for extremists handed over to the US.

These losses, however, did not deter the extremists from regrouping; and before long they were attacking NATO forces in Afghanistan from bases inside Pakistan. As NATO casualties rose, the US ratcheted its pressure on Pakistan. And by August 2004, the Pakistan had deployed 100,000 troops to guard its frontier with Afghanistan.

The extremists now began targeting Pakistani troops. In September 2006, in the face of rising losses, Pakistan pulled out its troops from Waziristan in return for a Taliban promise not to mount attacks from bases in Pakistan. It was an improbable truce.

In reality, the Taliban had ‘liberated’ Waziristan.

The US was unhappy about the truce. And with good reason: Taliban attacks in Afghanistan began to rise after the truce. Since then, US has been ratcheting its pressures on Pakistan to hunt down the extremists operating out of bases along its northern frontier.

According to the Newsweek of Oct. 8, the Pentagon is now demanding that General Musharraf “turn much of Pakistan’s military into a counterinsurgency force, trained and equipped to combat Al-Qaeda and its extremist supporters along the Afghan border.”

This Latin American approach to counter-insurgency is not likely to work in Pakistan. Their military juntas were firmly rooted in the elites and middle classes, set apart from the leftist insurgents – mostly Amerindians or Mestizos – by both class and race. The boundary between the adversaries in Latin America was firmly drawn.

In Pakistan, the insurgents are Muslim nationalists. They are drawn mainly from Pashtun peasants, but they enjoy broad support among the peasants as well as the middle classes all over Pakistan.

On the other side, about a fourth of Pakistan army consists of Pashtuns; and mid- and low-ranking officers are middle-class in their origin and orientation. Only the top military brass identify firmly with the elites.

In Pakistan, the boundary between the opposite camps is not as firmly drawn as in Latin America. As a result, as Pakistan army escalates the war against its own people, this boundary has been shifting, shrinking the support base of the military elite.

If this is the irreversible dynamic behind the US-inspired counterinsurgency, it is unlikely that Pakistani elites can long sustain their decision to fight America’s war against Muslim nationalists.

Recent events support this prognosis. As the military has escalated its offensive, its reputation has plummeted. Hundreds of soldiers have surrendered or, more likely, defected. General Musharraf has rescinded corruption cases against Benazir Bhutto to court her party; but this has eroded the standing of her party.

How is this ‘civil war’ likely to end? In one scenario, at some point, an alliance of Muslim nationalists – the fighters and their allies in the army and civil society – will enforce their own regime change, and create an Islamist Pakistan.

This will end the civil war, but not Pakistan’s troubles. Instantly, US and Israel will clamor for a regime change of the hard variety: through covert operations, air strikes, invasions, and civil wars.

As these events unfold, the US may well decide to start a war against Iran. This can only advance the timetable for an Islamist take-over in Pakistan. When that happens, the US and Israel will be engaged in a major war along an Islamic arc stretching from Lebanon to Pakistan –and perhaps beyond, to the north and the east.

Is this the ‘clash of civilizations’ that the Neocons had advocated – and have worked so hard to advance? Over the past century, the nations that initiated the two major wars eventually came to regret them. Is it likely that this history may repeat itself?

Once begun, the course of wars cannot always be foretold. Germany, Japan and Italy learned this lesson the hard way. With some wisdom, the US and Israel could learn this lesson the easy way – from the mistakes of belligerent nations before. Even now, it may not be too late to take this lesson to heart, and avoid a major war that promises to be catastrophic for all sides.



M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics at Northeastern University, Boston. he is the author of Challenging the New Orientalism (North Haledon, NJ: IPI, 2007). He may be reached at alqalam02760@yahoo.com.
 
More from this author:
Two White Sisters in Asia: Israel and Australia (7944 Hits)
by M. Shahid Alam “Israel has not fully acknowledged the value of working together with Australia in Asia. It’s a way for us to...
Zionism: Pitting the West Against Islam (8384 Hits)
by M. Shahid Alam It is tempting to celebrate the creation of Israel as a great triumph, perhaps the greatest in Jewish history. Indeed, the...
An ‘Islamic Civil War’ (4993 Hits)
by M. Shahid Alam The war that Western powers – primarily US, Israel and Britain – began against the Islamic world after September...
Has Regime Change Boomeranged? (5182 Hits)
by M. Shahid Alam In the early 1990s, the fall of the Soviets produced a surge of triumphalism in the US. After defeating the fascist...
America’s ‘Global War On Terrorism’ (5370 Hits)
by Shahid Alam One day Mulla Nasruddin went to his neighbor, known to be a mean fellow. “Sir,” he explained, “your ox has gored my cow...
Related Articles:
Sandinista! How Will Bush Make Nicaragua Pay for its Disobedience? (10050 Hits)
Written by Chris Floyd Ortega back in power, early poll results show From the Guardian: The Sandinista leader and former...
Will the real Dr. King please stand up? (6849 Hits)
by Mickey Z. There was no shortage of opportunists present as they broke ground the other day for the $100 million Martin Luther King...
Happy 65th Birthday -- Now Will You Please Retire? (6075 Hits)
Sixty-five years ago today, on December 7th, 1941, Japanese pilots bombed the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. World War II had...
The South Continues to "Make" Race: Will the Supreme Court Follow? (7125 Hits)
by Walter C. Uhler A Review of How Race is Made: Slavery, Segregation, and the Senses, by Mark M. Smith (University of North Carolina Press,...
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded (5710 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler In the anti-Bushite movement, there is an ongoing clamor for impeachment. Even when someone as ill-suited to ...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (1)add comment

John Merryman said:

0
...
In the long run there is a lot that has to work out of the system. Our political, economic and ecological models are not sustainable. I think a great deal of it has to do with the philosophic assumption on which monotheistic societies are based. The real problem with monotheism isn’t whether or not there is some anthropomorphic entity pulling the strings, but that it exaggerates monolithic thought patterns and projects them on to the entire community. As individuals, we have what amounts to a one track mind. There is always only one thing we can effectively focus on at a time, otherwise the internal conflict is a mental disorder, otherwise known as schizophrenia. The larger reality is that there are any number of potential perspectives. This is why life organizing itself as a multitude of individual beings is such a successful adaptation. Not only are there multitudes of perspectives, but any particular position and especially those with any degree of clarity and force, enable, encourage and in fact require an opposite position as balance. Eastern philosophies are far more cognizant of this fact, thus the fundamental concept of yin and yang. The practical problem is that while it may be a more intellectually advanced understanding, it can be politically inconvenient. Looking at both sides of an issue tends to get one branded as wishy-washy and the less scrupulous opponent will punch you in the nose, as you examine his side of the argument. Campaign politics proves this on a daily basis. In fact, this political advantage is the basis of the success of the monotheistic model in the first place, from the old testament to Constantine’s vision of the cross as a war totem. The fact is that everyone is able and frequently does view themselves as both individual and as part of their chosen group. Just not at the same moment. Like a coin, there are two sides, but you can only view one at a time.
As for God, absolute is basis, not apex, so the spiritual absolute would be that raw essence of being out of which we rise and, if we are not careful, to which we fall. Not a model of perfection, or Platonic Ideal Form from which we fell and to which we will rise. Life is a journey, often muddy. Not a destination of some shining city on a hill. It is the politicians and the rich who want you to think God is up there somewhere and they are the chosen. They are just the ones most willing to stand on others to get what they want.
 
October 29, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top