Against Pakistan

Two bearded, traditionally dressed Afghan men stopped the conversation, excused the CIA director, rolled out their rugs, and prayed loudly in one corner of the spy chief's ultra-secured office in Washington, D.C. The director watched quietly until the two Mujahideen finished and rejoined the meeting.

The setting appears impossible today. But that was 1983. And director William Casey was not appeasing extremists. He was simply doing whatever a nation must do to protect its supreme national interest.

In Pakistan, we are still reluctant to firmly state our national interest. That is why the in-camera briefing in parliament failed to tell the truth. The briefing was not that of a military given to politicians. It was a briefing by a PPP-led government, reflecting PPP policies. The military officials were not representing themselves. They are an organization subordinate to the elected government, bound by its policies. Military officers giving the briefing conducted themselves as such.

There is no question that the military cannot take the lead in making public some harsh truths if the government is not prepared to own the consequences, especially regarding the role of some of our allies in fostering secessionism and terrorism inside Pakistan as part of a wider strategic objective. There is also the question of protecting intelligence sources. Pakistan woke up late to the reality of how Afghanistan has turned into a base of operations to destabilize Pakistan. The effort to counter that will not figure in any public briefing, especially if the government in power is not interested in focusing on this.

The briefing was more about a PPP effort seeking to firmly align Pakistan behind Washington's war in Afghanistan. The Americans want Pakistan to stop seeing India as the enemy and focus instead on American interests. That was the briefing's objective. And that is why Pakistanis are seeing a sudden mushrooming of expensive newspaper

advertisements 'owning' the war, seven years after the war actually began. The parliament, by most accounts, did not hear how Washington is drastically changing the strategic outlook in the region in a way that is detrimental to Pakistani interest. There was no discussion about American plans to formalize an expanded Indian intelligence and military presence in Afghanistan, the effort to cut Pakistan's ability to influence the future of Kashmir, the near-total Indian control over our waters, or the efforts to reduce Pakistan's ability to protest Indian involvement in future joint patrols of Pak-Afghan border, which is also on the cards.

What the parliamentarians and the nation should have heard is what the British ambassador in Islamabad recently heard from a lady member of parliament. In brutal honesty, she told the ambassador there are three wars in the region. One is America's war against the Afghan resistance. Second is Pakistan's war against the militants fighting our nation. The third is the low-intensity, undeclared war against Pakistan itself, which takes the shape of exporting terrorism to our country from the Afghan soil with the final aim of cutting Pakistan to size to fit in with Washington's larger view for the region.

How is the government responding to these challenges? President Zardari has an assurance from India it will not block Pakistan's water. Prime Minister Gilani has an assurance from United States it will not violate Pakistani sovereignty. But water blocking continues. So do the violations of our western border. And it must have been embarrassing for President Zardari to warn the Indian prime minister on the water issue after his controversial statement – adopting the American line – that India poses no threat to Pakistani security.

Let's not mince words about Pakistani interest: We have no interest in eliminating the Afghan Taliban. That is not our job and it should not be confused with eliminating the fake Taliban or the 'Pakistani Taliban' who are armed and supported from the Afghan soil and exclusively assigned to fight Pakistan. America is least concerned about protecting Pakistan's back in Afghanistan. Why should Pakistan reciprocate?



The writer works for Geo TV. Email: aqahmedquraishi.com