Loose Cannons, Generals And US Foreign Policy In The Trump Era

SOURCE:
http://swarajyamag.com/world/loose-cannons-generals-and-us-foreign-policy-in-the-trump-era

SNAPSHOT

President-elect Trump seems to be hiring US Army and Marine Corps generals in key advisory roles.

While its impact on US policy is debatable, what’s common to Trump’s picks is that they all disagree with President Obama on his policies.

Under Obama, India-US relations reached new heights. India shouldn’t take that for granted, and must instead stay prepared for any eventuality.

Loose Cannons, Generals                      And

   US Foreign Policy In 

      The Trump Era

                                  BY
                     Syed Ata Hasnain 




December 11, 2016,                                                       
   President-elect Donald Trump has a few more weeks to remain in the ‘loose cannon’ mode before he is fully accountable for what he utters. For over a year, he has been trumpeting his wares, his mind and his ideas, on a nation which is in a state of regression. The entire Trump phenomenon arose from a sense of insecurity brought on by the failure of post-Cold War international configurations that the United States (US) sought to create. The so-called restructuring of the new world order at a time of fundamental change in the way the world exists and does business could not succeed. The Information Revolution and the resultant globalisation hasn’t given the dividends that were sought by a superpower like the US.

In fact, in an era when the US is still counted as the only superpower, there is an internal weakening in its fabric, leading to a loss of confidence among its people in the American Dream. The economic meltdown of 2008 added to its woes, and the military deployments in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Iraq, the former a strategic compulsion and the latter a strategic blunder, only weighted the sinking ship. The social fabric of the US, formerly its strength, suddenly has become a weakness.

The arrival of Trump at such a crucial juncture in US and world history, when the world is seeking a mature approach towards the persisting problems of communal confrontation and phenomena such as terror and radicalism, could not have been more tragic.

In India, we may gloat about our success and the fact that an Indian American hand also facilitated Trump’s success; the emergence of Indian American personalities in the soon-to-be-created power centre of the Republicans seems to also overawe us. The impact on India-US relations may well have a telling effect – Indian American political personalities are not known to display any loyalty to their former homeland. In fact, in the case of personalities such as Bobby Jindal, the opposite is known to be true.

Trump’s utterances continue to project the extent of his ignorance in matters strategic, especially if they concern the military domain. Out-of-the-box ideas and introduction of volatility in the leadership style are fine if the strategic leader has a firm hold over history and an understanding of the nuances. Trump, probably on advice, is obviously following a strategy of gamesmanship, needling opponents, forcing them to respond to reveal their core concerns and display their limits of tolerance. His telephonic conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, the first recorded conversation between an American President and a Taiwan head of state since 1979, has irked China. Ever since the US decided to improve its relationship with China following the pathbreaking diplomatic efforts of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, the principle of One China has been adhered to – with no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. However, the US has maintained a special relationship with the island state and treaded a careful path, something that is only now coming into focus.

On Iran, Trump’s views are well known and supported by his advisors; the 15 July 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement does not meet approval among any of them. The future of Iraq and Syria, as well as the situation in West Asia, will be dependent on US’ attitude towards the Iran nuclear deal.

The President-elect is known to have been guided to some extent during the campaign by a set of US Army and Marine Corps generals who are emerging from the shadows. Among the ones likely to be advising him as part of his core team are General Michael Flynn as Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor and General James Mattis for Defense Secretary. More uniformed officials from the four American armed forces, including General Stanley McChrystal, could find plum, influential jobs running intelligence agencies or offering advice. The New York Times observed that the single thread tying them all together is that they all had issues with President Barack Obama.

Trump seems to perceive the idea of a political opposition as one with a literal 180-degree opposition. Expectations always remain that a presidential candidate once elected would quickly adjust himself to the ways of the establishment and proceed cautiously in terms of pursuing change. But one example from history of single-minded pursuance of change as a policy was Nixon with his approach to China; ping-pong diplomacy took just five months to commence after his inauguration.

Observers are terming the entry of US Generals into advisory and strategic decision-making roles as dangerous because that would inevitably lead to a more robust policy of the use of hard power. However, the New York Times, quoting Stephen K Bannon, the President-elect’s chief strategist, says “the 

incoming administration was looking at 

potential cabinet officials with combat 

experience so that people who had fought in 

wars would be making decisions about whether 

to commit the country to more of them.” Military leaders of the Marshall, Eisenhower and Powell variety drew much respect when saddled with political responsibilities. Yet today, even military analysts are being critical. Retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, who authored two books on military strategy, speaks about the feasibility of too many military instruments in every consideration of international security.  Somehow, the perception of military leaders seeking conflict resolution through the employment of only hard power appears to have permeated the thinking of most academic and security related analysts. This is also the opinion of the political class and civil society in most nations.

To establish the truth or otherwise of this perception would need a separate essay. Currently suffice to say that military leaders are acutely conscious of the economic and social implications of the unrestrained use of hard power. Military institutions the world over, which teach and discuss strategy, usually emphasise on all instruments of conflict resolution. The United Kingdom’s Royal College of Defence Studies and India’s National Defence College hardly carry much content about the military in their curriculum. Yet, somehow this perception prevails to the detriment of exploiting the strategic might and experience of military leaderships.

For Indian foreign policy specialists, analysts and those specifically focused on the development of the India-US strategic relationship, this would be a time for concern. If 

there has to be a marked influence of the US 

military on strategic policy formulation, then it 

is worth knowing that the US military has no 

particular affection for India. The slight disdain that exists, and many would take this writer up on it, is symbolically displayed in many a US training institution where both Indian and Pakistan Army personnel train. In all strategic seminars around the world, it is the Pakistan Army which finds favour with the US armed forces. India’s Soviet/Russia connect from the Cold War era and the US-Pakistan connect of CENTO and, also, the 1979-89 period of Soviet presence in Afghanistan inspires less confidence in India and more in Pakistan, at least within the US uniformed and intelligence community.

Former US President George Bush’s push for a stronger US-India equation received energetic support from President Obama in the second half of his presidency. Just when things seem to be looking upwards comes the new presidency of Trump. Continuity is usually the responsibility of non-partisan bureaucracies, but when the President-elect is veering towards hiring advisors who have had major disagreements with President Obama, the potential of continuity becomes questionable.

This is what Indian policy planners must be prepared for. They must work to prevent awkward perceptions from developing. The time to work on that is now, even before the inauguration. We may be sceptical about the alleged Trump-Nawaz Sharif telephonic chat and promises of a visit to Pakistan, but Pakistan’s strategic position in world polity must not be scoffed at. Indian efforts at isolating Pakistan on the issue of terrorism have been insufficiently supported internationally, and the US continues to play games in this regard. The strategic importance of Pakistan’s territorial space for all kinds of international players makes it a nation everyone wishes to befriend.

Trump may yet turn out to be an outstanding President, independent in thought and not tied to old-world equations. Yet, the uniformed intellectual community is definitely going to be a major player in deciding US security policy. If that is the case, India will have to redouble its efforts to stay where it has reached with President Obama and potentially engage in different dimensions beyond just the political and diplomatic contacts.

Calling upon the Indian military and 

intelligence community to play a greater role in 

diplomacy may well be in order.

You re reading 1 of 7 free articles for this weaek. Only Swarajya subscribers have unlimited access to all our articles.

Click here to subscribe for as little as Rs 299Already have an account? Log in

 

Donald Trump

America

India-US relations

US Foreign Policy

Indian foreign policy

Michael Flynn

                                                                         

PARTITION :MY GRANDFATHER WAS KILLED IN THIS TRAIN Why was COLD-BLOODED MASSACRE AT KAMUKI by Secular muslims?

https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090327042205AASrJFw

                    THIS IS   MY  TRUE  STORY



MY GRANDFATHER WAS KILLED IN THIS TRAIN

Why was COLD-BLOODED MASSACRE AT KAMUKI by Secular muslims?

       

COLD-BLOODED MASSACRE AT KAMUKI (24TH SEPT. 1947) We migrated from SAUWAL Village of Pind Dadan Khan Tehsil, Distt Jhelum, with broken hearts due to tremendous hardship and miseries arising from our of extremely painful events.During the last week of August 1947, a well-wisher of our family informed that our... show more COLD-BLOODED MASSACRE AT KAMUKI
(24TH SEPT. 1947) 


We migrated from SAUWAL Village of Pind Dadan Khan Tehsil, Distt Jhelum, with broken hearts due to tremendous hardship and miseries arising from our of extremely painful events.During the last week of August 1947, a well-wisher of our family informed that our house would be attacked shortly by nearby villagers to take away valuables and to kill the entire family.

My father approached the camp authorities to arrange transport to move to the Camp at Pind Dadan Khan. The Army truck with Baluch Regiment Jawans took us to Camp. My father got information that while taking refugees to the Camp some Army personnel would grab all the valuables. i.e. money, Gold etc. My father left the entire money and gold which was around 5 kgs, gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- cash with his very close Muslim friend with the request to hand over the valuables at the Camp the next day.


After reaching the Camp when my father discussed the matter with other relatives and friends every body was of the opinion that the money and gold left at village would never come back. The very next day early in the morning the Muslim friend of my father reached the gate of the Camp with all our valuables along with ration for one month for us. There were around 10,000 people in the Camp and local authorities arranged movement of refugees. As Sikhs were the main target, it was decided to send 1st batch of Sikhs only in the 1st available train. Although there were a few seats available at the time of departure but Hindus were afraid of boarding the train because Sikhs were the main target of Muslims. At the eleventh hour a batch of Hindu military escorted the train to India and it reached India safely without any problem.

We could not board the 2nd train which was attacked at Chalisa junction next to Pind Dadan Khan and other places between Malkwal and Lalamusa Jn, but casualities were few.Finally our turn came and we boarded the train on 22nd Sept. 1947 from Pind Dadan Khan. As there was acute shortage of passenger bogies, goods bogies without roof were provided for the journey. Nearly 5500 people boarded the train in carriages, overloading the wagons with 100-150 persons in each carriage. The train was escorted by the Baluch Army, with a few private guards provided by a Hindu organization. While passing through the Wazirabad Station, some people threatened us “Bach ke nehin jaooge’’.

 On 23rd Sept. 1947, our train reached KAMOKI station, a small station between Gujranwala and Lahore .
It halted there The whole day.
A police escort came from Lahore and asked us to surrender all our arms and ammunition as it was not allowed to be taken to India . Although some people resisted, but finally everybody gave their entire arms and ammunition including swords and lathies.


The whole night the train remained at Kamoki station. We could see hundreds of people moving from Gujrawanwala side to the Lahore side, with weapons, a sign of unusual happenings.

In the morning of the 24th Sept. the Army informed us that the railway line was blocked by a mob and they were trying to disperse them. But the fact was that the Pakistan Army was asking the mob to attack the train. The attack started at 10 a.m. and continued till evening. It was a pre-planned attack, first they took all arms and ammunitions, then mob started looting cash and gold. All our cash and gold which was delivered to us by a Muslim at the Camp was looted by another Muslim.

 The young girls were taken away forcibly and raped.

Finally, the massacre, all type of weapons were used to kill people. They were killing people like they were cutting sugar canes, they took their time to finish the job. I lost 11 members of my family. While in killing spree, one of the attackers suggested to another to take me and adopt me as a son as he was childless. My father offered him to take me away rather than killing me..One attacker saw me and my uncle alive. He attacked both of us with a sword, my uncle tried his best to save me and provided full cover of his body and hid me beneath his body, in this my uncle got very serious injuries and I got cut on my neck and my hand, as my uncle took me under his body and he got very badly injured. I had to remove my shirt as it was filled with my blood and of my uncle. My uncle succumbed to his injuries in absence of medical aid at Gujaranwala Hospital .


Only a few hundred persons who hid themselves under dead bodies could survive. of the attack many young persons tried to flee but they were also killed by Baluch Army.The attackers were tired after killing around 4500 to 5000 persons. While they moved from the sight when Army came, they surrounded the survivors to come out of the train and gather at the platform for shelter, their plan was to kill the rest of the survivors at the station itself. As luck would have it Indian Army soldiers were passing through the nearby road to India and they stopped and ensured our safety

 

Update: Cold Blooded Massacre of Hindus at Badomali Town during Oct 1948 - Muslim Army of Pakistan attacked a group of our community members. They were given an option to convert their religion. Some Proud Hindus were not willing to convert and resisted them to the point of their death. Muslim Army tortured them and... show more Cold Blooded Massacre of Hindus at Badomali Town during Oct 1948 - Muslim Army of Pakistan attacked a group of our community members. They were given an option to convert their religion. 

 Some Proud Hindus were not willing to convert and resisted them to the point of their death. Muslim Army tortured them and finally killed them. My Grand father had told these murderers that 

“ Sons, How can I convert my Belief in a few seconds. A belief which motivates me to live a purposeful life, how can I forget this belief.” 

To this the Army fired at the unarmed crowd of Sixty of my Community members along with my Grand parents, killing every body. A few Hindus who converted were spared by the Muslim Army.

 

Update 2: There was a higher truth behind the Planned Hindu Genocide 

Which people did not know

 

Update 3: My Grand Father was of the opinion that Rulers change but common people are not affected. 

 He never abandoned his properties and was brutally murdered by the Muslim Army. 

 He was not aware of the barberic face of Islaam 

 I STATE HINDU NATION IS OUR BIRTH RIGHT

Follow

10 answers

Are you sure that you want to delete this answer?

Conducting India-Sri Lanka relations the Modi way

               

Conducting India-Sri Lanka Relations
                         the Modi Way 
                                  By
                           G. Padmaja    

 

 

India's Narendra Modi and Sri Lanka's Maithripala Sirisena. Photo Credit: Sri Lanka government.

            
Mar 30, 2015                                                        

                                                   

         On March 18, 2015, the Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made a statement in parliament on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka which took place from March 10-14. She began by saying: “The importance of these visits can be gauged from the fact that an Indian prime minister has paid a bilateral visit to Seychelles after 34 years, Mauritius after 10 years and Sri Lanka after 28 years.”

 

 Prior to Modi’s visit and after that too these facts have been repeated by many. This statement no doubt brings out the significance of the visit, but implicit in it is also the acceptance that the Indian foreign policy has either failed in conducting its relations with these countries at the highest level or faces challenges which prevent it from doing so.  The immediate question which arises is what has changed that the Modi government is undertaking these visits where the earlier governments hesitated to do so. In this context it is argued that the new government at the centre believes that India’s national, regional and global interests are best served by having these bilateral visits at the highest level. This article looks specifically at India-Sri Lanka relations to bring this out.

 

 Like the earlier governments, the Modi government too has been influenced by domestic interests and pressure groups from Tamil Nadu, especially with regard to the issues related to Sri Lankan Tamils.  Modi swept to power with an overwhelming majority in May last year. His government has not allowed the Tamil Nadu parties to dictate foreign policy. Whereas the earlier government could not resolve domestic dilemmas and undertake bilateral visits at the highest level, the Modi government did.  While conducting relations with Sri Lanka, Modi in no way diluted India’s stated position on important issues. On the contrary the prime minister, throughout his visit to the island nation, forcefully articulated India’s concerns. It’s only on the basis of strong trust and continuous engagement at the highest level will India’s long term political, economic and maritime strategic interests be served. Not engaging at the highest level is no longer a policy option for Indian foreign policy. It will only result in other external political actors actively engaging with Sri Lanka, which in the long run is not beneficial for India.

This paper looks at some specific issues to bring this out.

 

Overcoming Domestic Dilemmas

 

 The former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh after much debate did not attend the CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet) which took place in Sri Lanka in November 17-18, 2013. In October 2013, the Tamil Nadu assembly passed a unanimous resolution demanding that India completely boycott the meet in Sri Lanka and seek temporary suspension of the island nation from the Commonwealth till Tamils are given rights on par with the Sinhalese and are able to live freely. All political parties, including the Congress, had supported this resolution. They argued that participation would give legitimacy to the then Mahinda Rajapaksa government which they believed had carried out human rights violations in its war against the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). The then foreign secretary Sujatha Singh had said: “Foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. It is meant to protect domestic interests and any decision that will be taken will be keeping in view the domestic interests, foreign policy and international obligations.” Finally the then external affairs minister Salman Kurshid participated.

 

 
In May 2014, when the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) leaders were invited to attend the swearing-in-ceremony of Prime Minister Modi, the major political parties in Tamil Nadu once again criticised the decision. The Modi government however went ahead with the decision and all the SAARC leaders, including then president of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapaksa participated.
 

 

The ‘neighbourhood first’ policy of the Modi government, which he once again articulated in Sri Lanka by saying, “I am convinced that the future of any country is influenced by the state of its neighbourhood”, clearly implied engaging with the immediate neighbourhood at the highest level without compromising on India’s interests. The bilateral visit gave him an opportunity to address the Sri Lankan parliament and share his views on political, economic, maritime security issues concerning the two countries. He spoke of India’s own experience in centre-state relations. He said: “Today, my top priority is to make the states in India stronger. I am a firm believer in cooperative federalism. So, we are devolving more power and more resources to the states. And, we are making them formal partners in national decision making processes.”

Later in his media statement he said: “We stand with you in your efforts to build a future that accommodates the aspirations of all sections of society, including the Sri Lankan Tamil community, for a life of equality, justice, peace and dignity in a united Sri Lanka. We believe that early and full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond it would contribute to this process.”

 

 He became the first Indian prime minister to visit Jaffna. He participated in the various rehabilitation activities being undertaken by India for the Sri Lankan Tamils. He now gave a ‘face’ to those activities. By being there, he once again championed their cause and India’s commitment to them. He further said, “For India, the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka are paramount. It is rooted in our interest. It stems from our own fundamental belief in this principle.” This statement would surely allay any fears from any quarters regarding India’s intentions.

 

 Other Issues

 

 A sense of realism too guided the complex fishermen’s issue where Modi was of the opinion that since it concerns livelihood and humanitarian concerns on both sides, the fishermen associations of both countries should meet and work out a mutually acceptable solution. Economic relations was also given focus. Modi while urging Sri Lankan businessmen to benefit from India’s growth story also agreed that the trade gap which is to India’s advantage needs to be addressed. He called for the early conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.

 

Modi also spoke of how the Indian Ocean was critical to the security and prosperity of both the countries. He referred to the maritime security cooperation between India, Sri Lanka and Maldives and how it needs to be expanded. It is important to note here that in July 2013, these three countries had signed an agreement on Trilateral Cooperation on Maritime Security (TCMS) to address common maritime security threats and challenges and enhance security through cooperative measures. In March 2014, the third National Security Advisor- level Trilateral Maritime Security Cooperation was held in Delhi where delegations from Mauritius and Seychelles participated as guest countries. Meaningful maritime security cooperation with other countries is indeed of critical importance. However, it cannot work in isolation of the nature of bilateral relations India has with them. They need to be built on strong bilateral relations and Modi’s visit sought to achieve this.

 

 Looking Ahead

 

 The sensitive issues involved in India-Sri Lanka relations make it one of the most difficult bilateral relations for both the countries. However, it can become the most beneficial for both countries if constant engagement at the highest level takes place to build trust which helps in resolving issues. 

 

 China is an important factor in India–Sri Lanka relations. China has close economic, political and security relations with Sri Lanka which at many times is perceived as being detrimental to India’s security concerns. One of the mechanisms for India to safeguard its interests while Sri Lanka–China relations are carried out is by actively engaging at the highest level. Prime Minister Modi’s visit sought to exactly do this. In this context Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s bilateral visit to China from March 26 will be eagerly watched by India.

 

(G. Padmaja, a former UNIDIR (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research) Visiting Research Fellow at the United Nations, Geneva, is presently an independent researcher writing on SAARC and India’s policy towards its immediate neighbours.  She is based in Visakhapatnam. She can be reached at: sri2003ja@yahoo.com)

 




1, Analysis, India, Sri Lanka











 

PAKISTAN ARMY'S SPRAWLING SHOPPING MALL OF PRIVATE PUTTARS -“Murshid, marwa na daina.”

PAKISTAN

AN  INTERNATIONAL CASE OF...................

CLICK  & READ HOW THE MANGOEs WERE EXPLODING & TILL DATE MANGOEs ARE STILL EXPLODING
http://nusa.wikispaces.com/file/view/A+Case+of+Exploding+Mangoes+-+Mohammed+Hanif.pdf

                    “Murshid, marwa na daina.”


         PAKISTAN  ARMY'S SPRAWLING SHOPPING MALL
                                                   OF
                               PRIVATE PUTTARS (sons) 

                     ORIGINALLY AUTHORED BY 

                 EXPLODING MANGOES
                                            OF 
                        GENERAL ZIA UL HAQ  
                        
                                 FOUNDER OF 
                   
                          RIVERS OF BLOOD
                                       OF
                PAKISTAN'S PRIVATE PUTTARS






"....the biggest strategic mistake PAKISTAN ARMY has made is that it has not even taken advice from the late Madam Noor Jehan, one of the Army’s most ardent fans in Pakistan’s history. You can probably ignore Dr Eqbal Ahmed’s advice and survive in this country but you ignore Madam at your own peril."


        NATIONAL WAR EPITAPH ANTHEM 
                                   FOR
                          PAKISTAN ARMY
                                      BY
              LATE  MADAM NOOR JEHAN
                                     FOR
       LOST PAKISTAN ARMED FORCES
 
                           IN MEMORY OF

                       A DREAM OF PAKISTAN

                                 WHICH 

  REMAINS A  BLOODY DREAM ONLY

A long read, but worth it...especially for us in uniform...
Pakistan’s General Problem...

~ Mohammad Hanif...


What is the last thing you say to your best general when ordering him into a do-or-die mission? A prayer maybe, if you are religiously inclined. A short lecture, underlining the importance of the mission, if you want to keep it businesslike. Or maybe you’ll wish him good luck accompanied by a clicking of the heels and a final salute.

On the night of 5 July 1977 as Operation Fair Play, meant to topple Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s elected government, was about to commence, then Army Chief General Zia ul Haq took aside his right-hand man and Corps Commander of 10th Corps Lieutenant General Faiz Ali Chishti and whispered to him: “Murshid, marwa na daina.” (Guru, don’t get us killed.)

General Zia was indulging in two of his favourite pastimes: spreading his paranoia amongst those around him and sucking up to a junior officer he needed to do his dirty work.
 General Zia had a talent for that; he could make his juniors feel as if they were indispensable to the running of this world. And he could make his seniors feel like proper gods, as Bhutto found out to his cost.



General Faiz Ali Chishti’s troops didn’t face any resistance that night; not a single shot was fired, and like all military coups in Pakistan, this was also dubbed a ‘bloodless coup’. There was a lot of bloodshed, though, in the following years—in military-managed dungeons, as pro-democracy students were butchered at Thori gate in interior Sindh, hundreds of shoppers were blown up in Karachi’s Bohri Bazar, in Rawalpindi people didn’t even have to leave their houses to get killed as the Army’s ammunition depot blew up raining missiles on a whole city, and finally at Basti Laal Kamal near Bahawalpur, where a plane exploded killing General Zia and most of the Pakistan Army’s high command. General Faiz Ali Chishti had nothing to do with this, of course. General Zia had managed to force his murshid  into retirement soon after coming to power. Chishti had started to take that term of endearment—murshid—a bit too seriously and dictators can’t stand anyone who thinks of himself as a kingmaker.

Thirty-four years on,Pakistanis a society divided at many levels. There are those who insist on tracing our history to a certain September day in 2001, and there are those who insist that this country came into being the day the first Muslim landed on the Subcontinent. There are laptop jihadis, liberal fascist and fair-weather revolutionaries. There are Balochi freedom fighters up in the mountains and bullet-riddled bodies of young political activists in obscure Baloch towns. And, of course, there are the members of civil society with a permanent glow around their faces from all the candle-light vigils. All these factions may not agree on anything but there is consensus on one point:

General Zia’s coup was a bad idea. When was the last time anyone heard Nawaz Sharif or any of Zia’s numerous protégés thump their chest and say, yes, we need another Zia? When did you see a Pakistan military commander who stood on Zia’s grave and vowed to continue his mission?

It might have taken Pakistanis 34 years to reach this consensus but we finally agree that General Zia’s domestic and foreign policies didn’t do us any good. It brought us automatic weapons, heroin and sectarianism; it also made fortunes for those who dealt in these commodities.

And it turned Pakistan into an international  jihadi  tourist resort.And yet, somehow, without ever publicly owning up to it, the Army has continued Zia’s mission. Successive Army commanders, despite their access to vast libraries and regular strategic reviews, have never actually acknowledged that the multinational, multicultural jihadi project they started during the Zia era was a mistake. Late Dr Eqbal Ahmed, the Pakistani teacher and activist, once said that the
 Pakistan Army is brilliant at collecting information but its ability to analyse this information is non-existent.


Looking back at the Zia years, the Pakistan Army seems like one of those mythical monsters that chops off its own head but then grows an identical one and continues on the only course it knows.


In 1999, two days after the Pakistan Army embarked on its Kargil misadventure, Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmed gave a ‘crisp and to the point’ briefing to a group of senior Army and Air Force officers. Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail, who attended the meeting, later wrote that they were told that it was nothing more than a defensive manoeuvre and the Indian Air Force will not get involved at any stage. “Come October, we shall walk into Siachen—to mop up the dead bodies of hundreds of Indians left hungry, out in the cold,” General Mahmud told the meeting. “Perhaps it was the incredulousness of the whole thing that led Air Commodore Abid Rao to famously quip, ‘After this operation, it’s going to be either a Court Martial or Martial Law!’ as we walked out of the briefing room,” Air Commodore Tufail recalled in an essay.


If Rao Abid even contemplated a court martial, he probably lacked leadership qualities because there was only one way out of this mess—a humiliating military defeat, a world-class diplomatic disaster, followed by yet another martial law.

 The man who should have faced court martial for Kargil appointed himself Pakistan’s President for the next decade.


General Mahmud went on to command ISI, Rao Abid retired as air vice marshal, both went on to find lucrative work in the Army’s vast welfare empire, and Kargil was forgotten as if it was a game of dare between two juveniles who were now beyond caring about who had actually started the game.

Nobody remembers that a lot of blood was shed on this pointless Kargil mission. The battles were fierce and some of the men FCC and officers fought so valiantly that two were awarded Pakistan’s highest military honour, Nishan-e-Haidar. There were hundreds of others whose names never made it to any awards list, whose families consoled themselves by saying that their loved ones had been martyred while defending our nation’s borders against our enemy. Nobody pointed out the basic fact that there was no enemy on those mountains before some delusional  generals decided that they would like to mop up hundreds of Indian soldiers after starving them to death.

The architect of this mission, the daring General Pervez Musharraf, who didn’t bother to consult his colleagues before ordering his soldiers to their slaughter, doesn’t even have the wits to face a sessions court judge in Pakistan, let alone a court martial. The only people he feels comfortable with are his Facebook friends and that too from the safety of his London apartment. During the whole episode, the nation was told that it wasn’t the regular army that was fighting in Kargil; it was themujahideen. But those who received their loved ones’ flag-draped coffins had sent their sons and brothers to serve in a professional army, not a freelance  lashkar.

The Pakistan Army’s biggest folly has been that under Zia it started outsourcing its basic job—soldiering—to these freelance militants. By blurring the line between a professional soldier—who, at least in theory, is always required to obey his officer, who in turn is governed by a set of laws—and a mujahid, who can pick and choose his cause and his commander depending on his mood, the Pakistan Army has caused immense confusion in its own ranks. Our soldiers are taught to shout Allah-o-Akbar when mocking an attack. In real life, they are ambushed by enemies who shout Allah-o-Akbar even louder. Can we blame them if they dither in their response? When the Pakistan Navy’s main aviation base in Karachi, PNS Mehran, was attacked, Navy Chief Admiral Nauman Bashir told us that the attackers were ‘very well trained’. We weren’t sure if he was giving us a lazy excuse or admiring the creation of his institution. When naval officials told journalists that the attackers were ‘as good as our own commandoes’ were they giving themselves a backhanded compliment?




In the wake of the attacks on PNS Mehran in Karachi, some TV channels have pulled out an old war anthem sung by late Madam Noor Jehan and have started to play it in the backdrop of images of young, hopeful faces of slain officers and men. Written by the legendary teacher and poet Sufi Tabassum, the anthem carries a clear and stark warning:Aiay puttar hatantay nahin wickday, na labhdi phir bazaar kuray(You can’t buy these brave sons from shops, don’t go looking for them in bazaars).

While Sindhis and Balochis have mostly composed songs of rebellion, Punjabi popular culture has often lionised its karnails and jarnails and even an odd dholsipahi. The Pakistan Army, throughout its history, has refused to take advice from politicians as well as thinking professionals from its own ranks. It has never listened to historians and sometimes ignored even the esteemed religious scholars it frequently uses to whip up public sentiments for its dirty wars. But the biggest strategic mistake it has made is that it has not even taken advice from the late Madam Noor Jehan, one of the Army’s most ardent fans in Pakistan’s history. You can probably ignore Dr Eqbal Ahmed’s advice and survive in this country but you ignore Madam at your own peril.
Since the Pakistan Army’s high command is dominated by Punjabi-speaking generals, it’s difficult to fathom what it is about this advice that they didn’t understand. Any which way you translate it, the message is loud and clear. And lyrical: soldiers are not to be bought and sold like a commodity. “Na awaian takran maar kuray”(That search is futile, like butting your head against a brick wall), Noor Jehan goes on to rhapsodise.For decades, the Army has not only shopped for these private puttars in the bazaars, it also set up factories to manufacture them.

It raised whole armies of them.

When you raise Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish Mohammed, Sipahe Sahaba, Sipahe Mohammed, Lashker Jhangvi, Al- Badar Mujahideen,

others encouraged by the thriving market place will go ahead and

start outfits like Anjuman Tahuffuze Khatame Nabuwat and Anjuman Tahuffuze Namoos-e-Aiyasha. It’s not just Kashmir and Afghanistan and Chechnya they will want to liberate, they will also go back in time and seek revenge for a perceived slur that may or may not have been cast by someone more than 1,300 years ago in a country far far away.





As if the Army’s sprawling shopping mall of private puttars in Pakistan wasn’t enough, it actively encouraged import and export of these commodities, even branched out into providing rest and recreation facilities for the ones who wanted a break. The outsourcing of Pakistan’s military strategy has reached a point where mujahids have their own mujahids to do their job, and inevitably at the end of the supply chain are those faceless and poor teenagers with explosives strapped to their torsos regularly marched out to blow up other poor kids.Two days before the Americans killed Osama bin Laden and took away his bullet-riddled body, General Kiyani addressed Army cadets at Kakul. After declaring a victory of sorts over the militants, he gave our nation a stark choice. And before the nation could even begin to weigh its pros and cons, he went ahead and decided for them:
we shall never bargain our honour for prosperity. As things stand, most people in Pakistan have neither honour nor prosperity and will easily settle for their little world not blowing up every day.
The question people really want to ask General is that if he and his Army officer colleagues can have both honour and prosperity, why can’t we the people have a tiny bit of both?




The Army and its advocates in the media often worry about Pakistan’s image, as if we are not suffering from a long-term serious illness but a seasonal bout of acne that just needs better skin care. The Pakistan Army, over the years, has cultivated this image of 180 million people with nuclear devices strapped to their collective body threatening to take the world down with it. We may not be able to take the world down with us; the world might defang us or try to calm us down by appealing to our imagined Sufi side.

 But the fact remains that Pakistan as a nation is paying the price for our generals’ insistence on acting, in Asma Jahangir’s frank but accurate description, like duffers.

And demanding medals and golf resorts for being such duffers consistently for such a long time.

What people really want to do at this point is put an arm around our military commanders’ shoulders, take them aside and whisper in their ears:


                 
                 “Murshid, marwa na daina.”
+++
Mohammed Hanif is the author of  A Case of Exploding Mangoes(2008), his first novel, a satire on the death of General Zia ul Haq.

PAKISTAN