“[W]ho allowed the Americans to come to Pakistan and carry out this attack?”
- Imran Khan
This author has made it clear that he is no fan of the ex-cricket player turned political commentator, Imran Khan, who has spent his valuable time campaigning for the upcoming Pakistani elections and chastising the current state of the game of cricket in his homeland. His recent politically organized anti-drone sit-in highlights the vague sense of Pakistani nationalism that he has consistently promoted throughout the region. In a recent article to the Independent, Mr. Khan expressed the humiliation he feels that the United States circumvented Pakistani authority and captured the most notorious international terrorist in human history. Make no mistake, he is correct to feel that Pakistan was (or rather “has been”) essentially a puppet of America’s war on terror rather than a fully ordained partner.
And so we arrive here:
“…who allowed the Americans to come to Pakistan and carry out this attack?”
Yes, he used the term “allowed.” As if American forces were to have ever spoken openly and in earnest to Pakistani intelligence. As though there were some unspoken agreement between the Pakistani government and the Obama administration. As if Pakistan hasn’t simply been a bullied force of American intelligence agencies for the past decade. While this language may inspire indignation in those not accustomed to the impetus of political bodies, the fact remains that international affairs consist merely of political rhetoric designed to distract from practical leverage. These polemics should be reserved for the floor of the United Nations, but please don’t play games with us.
However, in the same article, Khan is correct to acknowledge that the rest of the world will recognize the comfort in which bin Laden was kept during his final months. He did not reside in squalor or ostracized in the border regions, but only an hour away from the heart of the Pakistani capitol, which simply begs the question: “How?” Not just how did Osama bin Laden survive for so long behind enemy lines, but how does the Pakistani military not actively gather intelligence within their own country?
President Obama was quick to assure the American press that Pakistan was in no way harboring the international killer. Fine. Acceptable answer. Why would Pakistani intelligence hide the hottest international criminal so close to a military academy? But why did the ISI not know he was there? Mr. Khan correctly disparages the Pakistani military as corrupt, but this is not nearly as accurate as comparing the ISI to a leaky bucket, through which American intelligence reaches the ears of its enemies. American Navy SEALs infiltrated Abbottabad on Sunday night without notifying the ISI and even went so far as to jam the country’s radar system to avoid detection. The entire operation was based in Bagram, a military base in Afghanistan. These are not the actions of allies. The operations that occurred and the location in which they took place only serve to highlight the disparity between Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s statements that Washington and Islamabad are working closely to pressure Al-Qaeda.
One can almost summon the image of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani dandling on the knee of Uncle Sam who nurses him with a $36 billion bottle. And yet, Gen. Kayani holds no love for the American intelligence in his heart. He has made his impression of U.S. foreign policy clear when he declared earlier this year that America’s sole concern for Pakistan is to reduce its nuclear arsenal, accusing the U.S. and its allies of "double standards and discrimination."
It is clear that the support system establishing the fantasy that Osama bin Laden was not residing in the confines of Pakistan originated in one of three places, all of them Pakistani. Either bin Laden was disguised by the military, the state, or society in general. In any of these scenarios, the answer for Pakistan lies not in a “Pakistani” solution. In short, nationalism is not the answer here. Globalism, however, solves both the economic decline and the domestic terror threat. The expressed understanding that no book, none, is correct in its explanation of the human person or the proper governance of society, will lead Pakistani officials to direct the country in a manner that allows economic growth and greater civil rights.
Independence from the West, I agree, is the first in a grand scheme to free Pakistan from corrupt and ineffective military control. As long as foreign nations are allowed to frame Pakistan’s foreign policy, the internal chaos will elude the grasp of true reformers. Yet many would be mistaken if they are under the impression that terrorism will disperse through a revitalization of either “Islam” or “national pride.”
So what are Mr. Khan’s plans for dealing with the American bully? Simply put, he has none. He wishes to implement counter terrorism efforts via… tribal warfare? Clearly his presidential agenda is to release Pakistan from the artificial bonds placed on it by the Western powers and loose his nation into a purlieu of… Muslim nationalism? There is no middle ground when dealing with the terrorist organizations that have infiltrated Pakistan. These groups may exist along a radical fringe of Islam, but they view themselves instead as the last remaining bastions of pure Mohammadian theology. Any deals with Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a betrayal of Islam. Any condemnation of the act of Hamas would be viewed as a betrayal of Islam.
The struggle between Pakistan and fundamentalist Islam is neither unique to the country or the terrorists hoping to infiltrate it. The fight against Islamic terrorism is waged, not by the West, but by secularism in general. The fear I have of Imran Khan gaining control derives from the same emotional branch that provided me with anger over the complacency of Benazir Bhutto. Standing up for the vocabulary of woman’s rights is invariably different than actually standing up for women’s right; of which she did nothing (I take great pride in noting that the female-oriented reforms Bhutto simply parroted were finally adopted into law by the tyrant Gen. Musharraf). The inability of Muslim politicians to promote themselves to the level of “Muslim philosophers” can be traced to their belief that the “right way” is the “Pakistani” way. As an American, I can easily claim that the correct way to maintain security and a viable economy within a state is not the “American way” or the “Christian way”, but the secular way. I repeat here again, as President Obama alluded to in his announcement speech, that secularism in no manner reduces the role of Islam in an individual’s life.
I must also say here that it is a shame that we, as Americans, have allowed Pakistan to become the battlefield for the response we have mustered to Al-Qaeda. While Americans crowd the street in celebration and adopt the collective mindset that the war on terror (at least in one phase) has concluded, Pakistani civilians truly have much to fear in the form of vengeful reprisals. It can never be overlooked that Pakistan has always been on the radar of Islamic fundamentalist groups. When Bhutto came up against the might of the Taliban in the 1990s, her political resolution was to allow a quasi “two-state solution,” allowing conservative Muslims the right to dictate applied law throughout specific regions with no reprisal from the official government. Many have argued that we are witnessing a similar scenario unfold under Karzai’s Afghanistan. As secularism is adopted in Pakistan (as it must eventually be adopted despite overwhelming disapproval by even moderate Muslims within the argument), fundamentalist Islam will continue to oppose, not the culture, but Pakistan itself as a sovereign nation.
The theocratic delusions of Islamic fundamentalism have advanced for so long because they have gone unchecked (or often encouraged) by authoritarian governments in the region. The fact is that bin Laden picked on an enemy he could not defeat. When American troops responded, he fled to a country within which he could hide. It was Pakistan’s inherent weakness, brought on by generations of corruption and an inability to unify the nations many outlying tribes, which enticed bin Laden. He has claimed on multiple occasions that he personally financed the downfall of the Bhutto administration. Why not the Musharraf regime? Why not the Bush administration? Imran Khan seeks to free Pakistan from foreign interference, but we must challenge him on this. Will Pakistan find itself free to roam a secular and intellectual purlieu? Or will it revert back to the corruption and shortsightedness that mired Pakistani progress that has defined the nation for the past seven administrations?
The lame attempts by Imran Khan to summarize the problems of Pakistan by arguing that they are not his Pakistan do nothing to correct, or even alleviate, the pressing threats to Pakistani sovereignty. Namely, that Pakistan can be allowed to govern itself and can remain free from fundamentalist Islam without American drone attacks.
Soon-to-be-replaced director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, stated simply, "Either they're involved [in the hiding of bin Laden] or incompetent." I'm sure we can all assume its the latter.
