Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Taking a look at Pakistan.. a good long look
January 27, 2009 | Posted by Londonstani - 7:12pm | 24 Comments
Don't tell anyone that a journalist let you into this little (sort of) secret.. but everyone (that means British media outlets) are trying desperately to figure out how they are going to cover 2009's big story - Pakistan.
There isn't too much coming out of Pakistan because 1) No British news organisation understands the place 2) No British organisations have proper journalists there. (ie. not local stringers who are paid slave wages to go to dangerous places and point a camera).
The result is that the sheer mess of the place is being overlooked. It also helps that the government is keen to try and persuade everyone that things are pretty much OK since the horrible dictator Musharraf was made to leave. Things would be even better, they say, once the Americans butt out. Londonstani wasn't a big fan of the Americans butting in, but doesn't think that's the summation of the very serious problems there.
Anyway, William Dalrymple has a good review in the New York Review of Books of Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos that covers the present situation, while also adding much needed background.
There's definitely a lot in it that many will disagree with on a ... well "world outlook level" would probably be a good way of describing it.. so why not just get it out of the way first.
"Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all."
Dalrymple says he agrees with Rashid's view that the Bush administration's portrayal of the terrorism as some sort of illogical, unthinking, sudden outburst of blind hatred only served to make the problem worse. This point, in one form or another, is often debated on this blog (particularly for some reason on the comment threads of Londonstani's postings). So, maybe there's no point dragging it up again, but here it is so we can read, digest and move on.
"...terrorism was presented by the administration as a result of a "sudden worldwide anti-Americanism rather than a result of past American policy failures." Bush's speech to Congress, claiming that the world hated America because "they hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote," ignored the political elephant standing in the middle of the living room—US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, with its long history of unpopular interventions in the Islamic world and its uncritical support for Israel's steady colonization of the West Bank and violent repression of the Palestinians. As the Department of Defense Science Board rightly pointed out in response to Bush's speech: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies."
In the same vein, we also often visit the idea that the problem lies with Islam. Rashid makes a good point as to why this is not only inaccurate, but also counter productive.
"the intense hostility to Islam emanating from both the press and the government of the United States that made it so difficult for moderates in the Islamic world to counter the propaganda of the extremists. How could the moderates dispute the notion that America was engaged in a civilizational war against Islam when this was clearly something many in the administration, and their supporters in the press, did indeed believe?... as Rashid puts it:
"If they hated us, then Americans should hate Muslims back and retaliate not just against the terrorists but against Islam in general. By generating such fears it was virtually impossible to gain American public attention and support for long-term nation building."
Londonstani has read Rashid's book and does recommend it to anyone who hasn't. He likes that Rashid doesn't shy away from blaming Pakistan's military rulers but also explains what they are thinking:
"Many in the army still believe that the jihadis make up a more practical defense against Indian dominance than even nuclear weapons. For them, supporting a range of jihadi groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir is not an ideological or religious whim so much as a practical and patriotic imperative."
So, if you can't read the book, read this.
Update: Abu Muqawama here. Goodness. I just read that Dalrymple article. One of the more depressing things I have read since breakfast.
There isn't too much coming out of Pakistan because 1) No British news organisation understands the place 2) No British organisations have proper journalists there. (ie. not local stringers who are paid slave wages to go to dangerous places and point a camera).
The result is that the sheer mess of the place is being overlooked. It also helps that the government is keen to try and persuade everyone that things are pretty much OK since the horrible dictator Musharraf was made to leave. Things would be even better, they say, once the Americans butt out. Londonstani wasn't a big fan of the Americans butting in, but doesn't think that's the summation of the very serious problems there.
Anyway, William Dalrymple has a good review in the New York Review of Books of Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos that covers the present situation, while also adding much needed background.
There's definitely a lot in it that many will disagree with on a ... well "world outlook level" would probably be a good way of describing it.. so why not just get it out of the way first.
"Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all."
Dalrymple says he agrees with Rashid's view that the Bush administration's portrayal of the terrorism as some sort of illogical, unthinking, sudden outburst of blind hatred only served to make the problem worse. This point, in one form or another, is often debated on this blog (particularly for some reason on the comment threads of Londonstani's postings). So, maybe there's no point dragging it up again, but here it is so we can read, digest and move on.
"...terrorism was presented by the administration as a result of a "sudden worldwide anti-Americanism rather than a result of past American policy failures." Bush's speech to Congress, claiming that the world hated America because "they hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote," ignored the political elephant standing in the middle of the living room—US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, with its long history of unpopular interventions in the Islamic world and its uncritical support for Israel's steady colonization of the West Bank and violent repression of the Palestinians. As the Department of Defense Science Board rightly pointed out in response to Bush's speech: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies."
In the same vein, we also often visit the idea that the problem lies with Islam. Rashid makes a good point as to why this is not only inaccurate, but also counter productive.
"the intense hostility to Islam emanating from both the press and the government of the United States that made it so difficult for moderates in the Islamic world to counter the propaganda of the extremists. How could the moderates dispute the notion that America was engaged in a civilizational war against Islam when this was clearly something many in the administration, and their supporters in the press, did indeed believe?... as Rashid puts it:
"If they hated us, then Americans should hate Muslims back and retaliate not just against the terrorists but against Islam in general. By generating such fears it was virtually impossible to gain American public attention and support for long-term nation building."
Londonstani has read Rashid's book and does recommend it to anyone who hasn't. He likes that Rashid doesn't shy away from blaming Pakistan's military rulers but also explains what they are thinking:
"Many in the army still believe that the jihadis make up a more practical defense against Indian dominance than even nuclear weapons. For them, supporting a range of jihadi groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir is not an ideological or religious whim so much as a practical and patriotic imperative."
So, if you can't read the book, read this.
Update: Abu Muqawama here. Goodness. I just read that Dalrymple article. One of the more depressing things I have read since breakfast.
Add your comment