Exclusively in the new print issue of CounterPunch
GOD SAVE HRC, FROM REALITY — Jeffrey St. Clair on Hillary Clinton’s miraculous rags-to-riches method of financial success; LA CONFIDENTIAL: Lee Ballinger on race, violence and inequality in Los Angeles; PAPER DRAGON: Peter Lee on China’s military; THE BATTLE OVER PAT TILLMAN: David Hoelscher provides a 10 year retrospective on the changing legacy of Pat Tillman; MY BROTHER AND THE SPACE PROGRAM: Paul Krassner on the FBI and rocket science. PLUS: Mike Whitney on how the Central Bank feeds state capitalism; JoAnn Wypijewski on what’s crazier than Bowe Bergdahl?; Kristin Kolb on guns and the American psyche; Chris Floyd on the Terror War’s disastrous course.
Pakistani Concubine or Western Dicks?

Who’s the Thug?

by B. R. GOWANI

The article, “Pakistan: Concubine among nations,” in the Toronto Sun by Taraq Fatah (former spokesperson of the Muslim Canadian Congress) stinks of fallacies. It is one thing to criticize Pakistan–and there are several things for which Pakistan should be condemned–but it becomes a bit too much when total blame is placed on Pakistan.

He is surprised at the arrest of Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who worked for the US CIA and helped in tracking down Osama bin Laden’s Abbotabad residence. If the US, Canada, or any other Western country had encountered a similar situation, what would it have done? Exactly the same thing. Whether the action was right or wrong is a different matter.

Even the cases where the purpose of the persons involved were humanitarian and peaceful, the authorities are ruthless in their treatment. Take for example the case of US soldier Bradley Manning. He had released classified information to the WikiLeaks. The information was related to US diplomatic cables, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and videos of air strikes.

Pakistan’s demand for an apology also bothers him: “Shamelessly, Pakistan is also demanding a U.S. apology.”

Either he is mixing up things or is ignorant about the apology issue. It’s about the NATO killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers and injuring thirteen others, and is not related to Osama.

He then vomits his vitriol:

“The country needs tough love. But no one is willing to wrestle Islamabad to the ground and drag it away to a detox centre where it can be woken from its visions of grandeur and confronted with its true worth — a nation that can offer nothing to the world other than jihadi terrorism.”

For his information, Pakistani concubine, for a long time now, has been on the ground with its face down; it’s just that the Western dicks can’t control their libido and the minute they get erection-which is quite frequent, as if hooked up on a permanent Viagra medication–they head towards the Land of the Pure to purify their manhood. (Pakistan means the Land of the Pure.)

Then Taraq Fatah goes back into history and reminds his readers that in August 1947, Pakistan’s founder M. A. Jinnah asked for US help by pointing out the Soviet threat.

The creation of Pakistan out of India in August 1947 was a collective folly of Jawaharlal Nehru, Jinnah, M. K. Gandhi, and British. Pakistan’s founding was one of the greatest tragedies and saw some million deaths and over 10 million refugees.

Pakistan was in dire need of money. India was not releasing it’s share of funds. (It was Gandhi who forced the Indian government to give Pakistan’s share.) The Kashmir issue was left unresolved by the last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. There was a great deal of uncertainty and insecurity in the air. Jinnah himself was dying of TB. There was no other leader of his caliber. Like any Third World leader, Jinnah must have been well aware that whites were officially leaving but were unofficially going to be the Masters of the Universe for a long time. The choice was limited: Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and United States’ Harry Truman–both mass murderers.

Except Subhas Chandra Bose, all other top Indian leaders were close to British and the US.

When Jinnah asked for help, the US was not some kind of a saintly and innocent entity which was unaware of real politics. It was a professional criminal, the only Super Power–since 1945, when it dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities. (In 1949, the USSR became the Super Power by joining the atom bomb league.)

The US could have simply refused to give any sort of help. As a reaction to the refusal, Pakistan wouldn’t have sent an aircraft carrier to the US.

Now Taraq Fatah feels that it’s enough: “For 65 years the U.S. has succumbed to Pakistan — until now.”

A person succumbs to another person for two reasons: Either the other person is too powerful to defeat or is too attractive to resist. None of these characteristics Pakistan is in possession of. The United States is not a vulnerable or gullible an entity which can’t resist a country which since its inception is searching for its identity.

In the the late 1970s, the US succeeded in luring the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, this according to President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski: “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.

Now to give the Soviets its Vietnam, the US needed Pakistan. Lots of arms and ammunition and money meant for the Afghan Mujahids ended up in the hands of Pakistani military rulers. The US knew about it. But then it is counted as part of the cost of maintaining the Super Power status.

After this costly experience, why after a dozen or so years, at a gunpoint, the US ordered Pakistan to join its “war on terror”? The US could have waged its illegal and unjust war against Afghanistan through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan. All three countries would have easily succumbed to US threats. The Soviet Union had disappeared; the US was again the sole Super Power. This would have provided the US a golden opportunity to take actions even against Pakistan without any inhibitions.

Then he suggests: “The time has come for Canada, the U.S. and the West to draw a line in the sand. If Pakistan is unwilling to free Dr. Afridi and arrest the al-Qaeida leader Ayman Zawahiri, then weshould cut all aid to Islamabad.”

Look at the “we” when he’s recommending to cut off all aid. Either he considers or imagines himself as part of the ruling class.

The question is: Who’s stopping you from cutting off all aid to Pakistan? It will be the only genuinely good thing the West would be doing to Pakistan. That country doesn’t have ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) with which it can bomb the Western world nor does it have the giant aircraft carrier/s that it can sail to the coastlines of the Western countries to attack them.

The US and the Western countries have supported the Pakistani military and corrupt leaders for its own advantage. Pakistan has not threatened the US the way the US issued a warning to Pakistan in 2001: Join our war on terror in Afghanistan or we’ll bomb you to stone age! Pakistan joined the coalition of the willing got into more mess than it was prior to September 2001.

In the end, he asks:

“The U.S., U.K. and Canada should ban the entry of all Pakistani military officers*, serving or retired, as well as their families and children. The thousands of Pakistan civil and military officials who have descended on America and Canada should be asked to leave immediately.”

In his opinion, the above action is necessary in order to prevent nuclear proliferation.

“If we don’t, a thousand AQ Khans will bloom.”

But sometimes, it’s only people like Khan who can dodge the Western monopoly and restrictions on transfer of technology to small countries. Iran wouldn’t be facing the threats from the US, other Western countries, and Israel if today it was a nuclear power. It should be a totally nuclear weapons-free world or all the countries should be free to acquire those weapons.

A word for Mr. Fatah: Instead of going after the screwed up concubine, go after the  real dicks–the world will be a little better place.

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com