VALID BILATERAL DISTRUST BY RAHIMULLAH YUSUFZAI

Posted by Unknown Friday, May 13, 2011

The world’s biggest, longest and costliest manhunt spread over more than 15 years finally ended on May 2 when President Barack Obama announced that Osama bin Laden has been killed in Pakistan.


Though many all over the world have questioned the US side of the story and will continue to do so until some convincing proof of Bin Laden’s presence and death in his Abbottabad house is made available, far more important in the context of Pakistan are questions regarding the failure to detect the Al-Qaeda founder’s hideout located in plain sight of the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul, in an army garrison city and the unchallenged intrusion of US Special Forces into Pakistani territory to eliminate the most wanted man in the world.

The so-called “red lines” often mentioned by Pakistani authorities were brazenly crossed and there were American boots on the ground, and still Pakistan’s vaunted military didn’t react. Though it wasn’t the first time that the “red lines” were breached, the earlier US intrusions were in the godforsaken tribal regions of South Waziristan and North Waziristan, and not deep inside Pakistan: Abbottabad is located only 71 kilometres north of the federal capital, Islamabad.

One has serious doubts about this version of events.

For two hours or so, the US Blackhawk helicopters were in Pakistan’s airspace and American boots were on the ground and yet we are told that the country’s land and air forces and intelligence agencies were unaware of the presence of alien aircraft and soldiers inside our territory. It sounds unbelievable, and for this reason one is of the view that top Pakistani authorities were actually made aware of the US move but were told at the same time that the Pakistanis need not act or panic as the Americans were after a high-value target.

This should explain the first reaction by Pakistan’s foreign ministry on May 3 and the statement by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani the same day that justified the American military operation in Pakistan by pointing out that this was “conducted by the US forces in accordance with the declared US policy that Osama bin Laden will be eliminated in a direct action by the US forces wherever found in the world.” In so many words, the people of Pakistan were told that Pakistan had no choice in the matter as the mighty US would have gone ahead and undertaken this unilateral military mission anyway, overriding Islamabad’s objections. There was no stopping the US after it had received the first real actionable intelligence about the man who had caused so much pain to the Americans as a result of the 9/11 attacks. According to reports in the US media, the planners had calculated that there was a 40-60 percent chance of finding Bin Laden at his Abbottabad compound and it was considered good enough to undertake the mission.

It is possible that the place where the US commando operation was to be conducted was revealed to the Pakistani authorities at the last moment to avoid complications, but the high-value target was never disclosed. That should explain CIA chief Leon Panetta’s insulting, but perfectly understandable, remark that the US didn’t trust the Pakistanis and thus couldn’t tell them that the target of their secret mission was Bin Laden. The Al-Qaeda leader’s presence in Abbottabad, a place teeming with soldiers, would certainly have aroused suspicion about Pakistani military’s intentions and prompted the US to keep the Pakistanis outside the loop and undertake the mission itself.

Another reason for Panetta, who is designated to replace Robert Gates as US defence secretary, to distrust his counterparts in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the continuing friction between the CIA and ISI as a result of the Raymond Davis affair. The arrest of the CIA operative in January after his having killed two Pakistanis in Lahore and his hurried release following the ISI-brokered “blood-money” deal with the families of the deceased, had provided the ISI with leverage to demand the expulsion of the CIA operatives infiltrated into Pakistan in the guise of diplomats. Through the Abbottabad operation the CIA appears to have neutralised the advantage hitherto enjoyed by the ISI, but their turf war is far from over.

It should therefore surprise none that there is serious lack of trust between the two countries and their secret services. The US and Pakistan have clearly different agendas in our part of the world. One is a superpower with an imperialistic agenda and the aspiration to control the world, the other a struggling state confronted with multiple challenges, and yet a proud nuclear power with regional ambitions. If the Americans don’t trust the Pakistanis, there are valid reasons for them to do so. But Pakistanis also don’t trust the Americans, and in their case there are even more valid reasons for the distrust. The distrust is reciprocal and yet the two countries continue to maintain their loveless relationship due to the hard ground realities.

Showing its punishing arm and superior technology, the world’s lone superpower got its public enemy number one not in some remote mountain hideout in the tribal borderland straddling the Pak-Afghan border but in Abbottabad, the summer hill-station known for its pleasant weather, quality schools and colleges and military installations. According to the US narrative leaked in bits and pieces to the media and corrected a few times, the mission was accomplished by 79 US navy SEALS flying in four Blackhawk helicopters from Afghanistan’s Bagram airbase and returning safely after a 40-minute ground raid on the Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad’s Bilal Town. If the Pakistanis were on board as one is suspecting, the operation was largely risk-free as no Pakistani jet-fighter was scrambled or artillery gun was readied to attack the intruding US helicopters. Another reason for suspecting that the Pakistani military had been informed by the US beforehand was the arrival of our soldiers at the Bin Laden compound soon after the Americans had flown away. The policemen also arrived at the scene fairly quickly but were turned back by the army officers guarding the place.

It was understandable for the Americans to celebrate the success of the Abbottabad mission even though killing Bin Laden won’t mean the final defeat of Al-Qaeda or the end of the “war on terror” and victory for the US-led Nato forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They have reasons to praise the bravery of their commandoes who raided the compound and reportedly killed Bin Laden along with three others and took away his body. But to describe the mission as heroic seems far-fetched because 79 heavily-armed commandoes in the end had a fairly easy job shooting dead an unarmed Bin Laden and the three other men caught unawares in their sleep. The other inmates of the compound were women and children and there were no heavy weapons or suicide jackets around, contrary to what the Americans had come to believe. Killing one woman and causing injuries to another also wasn’t a manly and honourable thing to do. Questions are also being asked as to why Bin Laden wasn’t captured alive to bring him to justice. Former President George W Bush, in line with his Texan concept of frontier justice, wanted him “dead or alive” but it seems the Obama administration had decided not to make him prisoner and to throw his body into the sea to prevent the emergence of a grave turned into a shrine.

More importantly, the United States’ job was made easier as the Pakistanis stood aside and let it accomplish the inappropriately named “Operation Geronimo” after a Native American chief who fought for the freedom of his people. The Pakistan government and military had little choice but to feign ignorance about the raid in Abbottabad and helplessly face criticism because any attempt to stop the American helicopters would have led to open confrontation and even war with the US. For the same reasons, Pakistan is unable to tackle the US drones launching missile attacks unchallenged in its tribal areas. By-Rahimullah Yusufzai

2 comments

  1. maleeha khan Says:
  2. what we can say! anyways nice write up!

     
  3. maleeha khan Says:
  4. good write up!

     

Post a Comment

Share |