Secret Cooperation With Drones: When Silence Speaks Volumes

Shamsi Airbase

Shamsi Airfield, located 320km South West of Quetta, was used as a base for CIA drone strikes until 2011 under agreement with Pakistan military.

While publicly decrying drone attacks as a violation of sovereignty, Pakistan was secretly cooperating with America’s drone program according to a new report by Greg Miller and Bob Woodward for The Washington Post on Thursday. According to the report, Top Secret documents from the US and Pakistan governments reveal a long and close cooperation between the two countries on the controversial drone program. While much of the Pakistani media has been slow to comment on the details of the report, hyper-nationalists on social media quickly attempted to cast the blame on the civilians who they claimed had manipulated the military and gone against their will. A brief refresher on the history of military and civilian relations, however, shows just how ridiculous an excuse this is.

Continue reading

Zardari: Talk to, not at, Pakistan


President Zardari

by President Zardari

Democracy always favors dialogue over confrontation. So, too, in Pakistan, where the terrorists who threaten both our country and the United States have gained the most from the recent verbal assaults some in America have made against Pakistan. This strategy is damaging the relationship between Pakistan and the United States and compromising common goals in defeating terrorism, extremism and fanaticism.

It is time for the rhetoric to cool and for serious dialogue between allies to resume.

Pakistan sits on many critical fault lines. Terrorism is not a statistic for us. Our geopolitical location forces us to look to a future where the great global wars will be fought on the battleground of ideas. From the Middle East to South Asia, a hurricane of change is transforming closed societies into marketplaces of competing narratives. The contest between the incendiary politics of extremism and the slow burn of modern democracy is already being fought in every village filled with cellphones, in every schoolroom, on every television talk show. It is a battle that moderation must win.

Our motives are simple. We have a huge population of young people who have few choices in life. Our task is to turn this demographic challenge into a dividend for democracy and pluralism, where the embrace of tolerance elbows out the lure of extremism, where jobs turn desolation into opportunity and empowerment, where plowshares take the place of guns, where women and minorities have a meaningful place in society.

None of this vision for a new Pakistan is premised on the politics of victimhood. It pivots on a worldview where we fight the war against extremism and terrorism as our battle, at every precinct and until the last person, even though we lack the resources to match our commitment. When Pakistan seeks support, we look for trade that will make us sustainable, not aid that will bind us in transactional ties. When we commit to a partnership against terrorism, we do it in the hope that our joint goals will be addressed. When we add our shoulder to the battle, we look for outcomes that leave us stronger.

Yet as Pakistan is pounded by the ravages of globally driven climate change, with floods once again making millions of our citizens homeless, we find that, instead of a dialogue with our closest strategic ally, we are spoken to instead of being heard. We are being battered by nature and by our friends. This has shocked a nation that is bearing the brunt of the terrorist whirlwind in the region. And why?

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s most powerful democracy compromised its fundamental values to accommodate a dictator in Pakistan. Since then we have lost 30,000 innocent civilians and 5,000 military and police officers to the militant mind-set that the U.S. government is now charging that we support. We have suffered more than 300 suicide bomb attacks by the forces that allegedly find sanctuary within our borders. We have hemorrhaged approximately $100 billion directly in the war effort and tens of billions more in lost foreign investment. The war is being fought in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, yet Washington has invested almost nothing on our side of the border and hundreds of billions of dollars on the other side.

We fight an ideology that feeds on brutality and coercion that has taken the lives of our minister for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, and Gov. Salman Taseer, among thousands of others. And we have seen our greatest leader, the mother of my children, assassinated by a conspiracy that was powered by the same mind-set we are now accused of tolerating.

Both our nations need to learn from history. South and Central Asia is a region of complexity and nuance where mistakes repeat dangerously and where many empires have floundered. In the 10 years that NATO has been in the neighborhood, it has not even attempted to choke the world’s largest production of narcotic contraband that funds terrorist activity. Yet we struggle to hold the line against the tidal wave of extremism that surges into Pakistan each day from internationally controlled areas of Afghanistan. While we are accused of harboring extremism, the United States is engaged in outreach and negotiations with the very same groups.

The Pakistani street is thick with questions. My people ask, Is our blood so cheap? Are the lives of our children worthless? Must we fight alone in our region all those that others now seek to embrace? And how long can we degrade our capacity by fighting an enemy that the might of the NATO global coalition has failed to eliminate?

As the United States plans to remove its ground forces from Afghanistan and once again leave our region, we are attempting to prepare for post-withdrawal realities. The international community abandoned Central and South Asia a generation ago, triggering the catastrophe that we now find ourselves in. Whoever comes or goes, it is our coming generation that will face the firestorm. We have to live in the neighborhood. So why is it unreasonable for us to be concerned about the immediate and long-term situation of our Western border? History will not forgive us if we don’t take responsibility.

Where do the United States and Pakistan go from here? We are partners in a world where broadcasts and bombs know no borders. We fight a common menace. We share the same democratic values and dreams for a moderate, modern, pluralistic, democratic South and Central Asia. We jointly appreciate that trade, job creation and manufacturing will dry up conscripts for the extremist banner, yet we never saw Congress approve the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones that were meant to secure vulnerable livelihoods. We are on convergent policy tracks, but our rhetoric has split us onto divergent roads.

The recent accusations against us have been a serious setback to the war effort and our joint strategic interests. It is not as if Pakistanis will stop reclaiming our terrain, inch by inch, from the extremists, even without the United States. We are a tenacious people. We will not allow religion to become the trigger for terrorism or persecution.

But when we don’t strategize together, and when an ally is informed instead of consulted, we both suffer. The sooner we stop shooting verbal arrows at each other and coordinate our resources against the advancing flag of fanaticism, the sooner we can restore stability to the land for which so much of humanity continues to sacrifice.

The author is President of Pakistan. This piece was originally published in The Washington Post.

Sometimes madness is just madness

Syed Yahya HussainySomething is very wrong with the state of US-Pakistani relations at this critical time in the war against extremism and fanaticism. In the midst of this defining moment in the war effort in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the US has turned its guns not on its enemies but on its friends. After the clumsy spectacle of the Untied States publicly insulting and degrading Afghan President Hamid Karzai almost derailed the NATO offensive, it seems the Obama Administration is stumbling into an even greater political blunder in Pakistan. It may be unintended but it is nevertheless unprofessional. The amateurish undermining of Pakistan’s democratically elected civilian government by “unnamed administration officials” who claim they are preparing for a replacement of the current government over the next months, may be antagonistic to a friend and ally at its best, or a tragic self-fulfilling prophesy at its worst.

The United States has run roughshod over the people and politics of Pakistan for large chunks of Pakistani history. The US on-again-off- again commitment to democracy and human rights in Pakistan was turned off like a spigot to prop up a brutal dictator like General Zia ul Haq in the eighties, and then again the Musharraf dictatorship in the first decade of the new century. If the American people ever want to know why only eleven percent of the people of Pakistan view the US as a friend, they don’t have to beyond the US presidential dances with Pakistani dictators while the country’s economic and social infrastructure collapse. The reason the people of Pakistan think the US has exploited and manipulated their country is because it has. And it looks like it is planning to do it once again.

It is said that Pakistan is ruled by the three great “A’s” — Allah, the Army and America. We assume Allah is politically neutral. The army has episodically intervened to take over power whenever they thought they could get away with it. And getting away with it always centered on whether the third “A’ — America, was signaling green light, yellow light or red light. Administration sources telling the NY Times and Washington Post that they expected a change in leadership in Pakistan had to be viewed as a bright green signal to an Islamabad and Rawlpindi that lives off rumor and gossip.

Why would the US turn against its only reliable political ally in Pakistan? Asif Ali Zardari, the President of the country and the leader of PPP the ruling party, may not be Pakistani right wing’s political cup of tea, nor Pakistan’s left wing intellectual cup of tea, but he is the best thing America has going for it in Pakistan, and there’s nothing and no one even close. He has been consistently underestimated over the last twenty years, and he has survived and thrived, defying the pundits and the odds. I expect he’ll defy the latest assaults as well. If Washington is betting against Zardari, who exactly is it betting for? Another military dictatorship? A conservative opposition that is viscerally anti-American and has been historically bonded at the hip to the jihadists? What does the US accomplish in undermining Zardari other than undermining itself?

Zardari declares war on the terrorists and orders the army into Swat and South Waziristan. Zardari publicly defends the United States despite the enormous political price he pays for his friendship. Zardari pushes for educational reform and closing of political madrassas. Zardari asks for “trade not aid.” Zardari commits Pakistan to a green, renewal energy future. Zardari’s government mobilizes the nation and evacuates twenty percent of the country before marauding flood waters can kill millions of Pakistanis. Zardari then orders a millionaires tax on the wealthiest people in Pakistan to pay for flood relief, infuriating the Punjabi urban super-rich business barons of the PML(N) opposition, and the Karachi and Hyderabad anarchistic upper classes of the MQM. These ideologically diametrical right and left poles of Pakistani politics are held together only one common trait: their common elitist nihilism. The filthy rich conveniently and sanctimoniously use alleged corruption of the Pakistani government as an excuse not to pay taxes but also don’t contribute a nickel to Pakistan’s poor underclass and flood refugees.

What more would a progressive White House want from an ally in Pakistan other than strong anti-terrorism and a liberal, secular domestic agenda. Does Obama think he’d get that kind from a new military dictator or a Jihadist supported Nawaz?

Is there method to the White House’s madness? I think not. Sometimes madness is just madness.

This article was originally published at