It seems incumbent on most analysts in the USA to mention Pakistan, whenever asked about the source of the humiliation of the USA in Afghanistan. Some zealots amongst them have even instigated a demand to sanction Pakistan (a trend that did rounds on the internet as well; thanks to the (open-secretive) networks working tirelessly to malign the image of the country).
Christine Fair is doubtlessly the flagbearer of a group of such zealots (that also include former US National Security Advisor John Bolton), and she unfortunately holds academic credentials owing to her extensive work on terrorism in Pakistan. I do not however free Pakistan of the charge of not constructing its own counter-narrative, other than of course documentaries and songs for domestic consumption, but we leave that for another day.
Pakistan being censured by troll-farmers propagating #sanctionPakistan was still tolerable, since those behind such trends are solely hired to propagate falsehood, but former officials and academics echoing the same tone on different forums was not. But Fair, Bolton, and others in this league, the apparent wizards on Pakistan, are so focused on Pakistan that they do not even find a moment to look at one of its western neighbours, Iran.
Years of sanctions have not yet been able to circumvent the resolve of its citizenry, rather the opposite, as the sanctions are utilized by the regime to rally support against a common enemy and put on sanctions the results of their own mismanagement too. Such analysts on Pakistan, blinded by bigotry, forget the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the country when promoting their illusionary sanctions against Pakistan. They are also not cognizant of the energy Pakistan burned into bringing USA’s archrival, on talking terms with it, and that too, on the request of the USA. Why did one of the most hawkish Presidents in the history of the USA greet Pakistan’s Prime Minister so warmly, if that were not the case?
Without Pakistan, that face-saving for the USA in the garb of a peace deal was implausible. Still, rather than being appreciative of the role Pakistan played, the western fanatics are adamant Pakistan backed the Taliban in its fight against the US forces and subsequently had tremendous leverage over them.
The former foreign minister of Pakistan, Hina Rabban,i in an interview with a journalist famed for his decisive onslaughts, Mehdi Hasan, calmly outsmarted him by correcting the term “backing Taliban” used by previous administrations and then reused by journalists to question Pakistan’s intent. She maintained that “not taking any action against the Taliban” was not synonymous with “backing” them since Pakistan was already preoccupied with the terror outfits of TTP and Al-Qaeda. To further her stance, it is necessary to mention that the TTP and Al-Qaeda were a blowback to Pakistan for its support to the USA, making the USA guilty rather than the other way round. Secondly, even if Pakistan had the luxury to take decisive action against the Taliban, why would it do so?
Why such know-it-all analysts forget each time who funded the mujahedeen (from whom emerged the Taliban)? The question is so clichéd now, yet the likes of Christine Fair tend to religiously forget it, while ther are ones like Bolton, who in his recent op-ed for The Washington Post termed it as a mere “mistake”. Clearing the whole involvement of the USA in one word, while writing a thousand on Pakistan is evident of the academic frailty of these scholars. However, the market is full of books to improve memory skills, so next time I hope the eyes of Christine on her next visit to the bookstore turn towards them too, while for Bolton, Eating the Grass by Feroz Khan, is recommended, which explicitly explains the securest structures of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, considering his concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists, a view long dead, but desperately being revived again in the wake of the current situation.
If the world had to fear any nuclear weapons though, they were the ones under the control of US President Donald Trump, accompanied by Bolton himself, who both were right-wing extremists. Thus, lecturing Pakistan on securing its nukes from extremists is not the correct thing to do for a right winger who should focus on his own country’s policies leading to its deteriorating international clout.
Though, yes, Pakistan was in on it in 1989, but the benefits for the USA were far more than those for Pakistan, a fact acknowledged by Zbigniew Brzezinski himself, who in an interview proudly claimed that the disintegration of the USSR and the freedom of Eastern Europe were the biggest successes for the USA and were worth any price. By being in the game financed by the USA, Pakistan naturally developed a working relationship with the Taliban which was supposed to continue unless Pakistan was also perfidious like the now-sole superpower that abandoned both its allies, Pakistan and the Mujahedeen.
Interestingly, it was not only Pakistan, and the Mujahedeen, the superpower turns away its eyes quite frequently as witnessed in the case of those Kurds who were left at the mercy of Turks after they helped the USA eliminate ISIS. Since the attitude is considered normal in the USA, the same was apparently expected of Pakistan that it would disengage entirely with the Taliban, but why?
Was it even feasible with someone sitting right next door? I wonder if Pakistan would have entirely disengaged in all domains with the Taliban, how worse the situation in Afghanistan would be today with no peace talks between the Taliban and the USA, coupled with India’s inimical presence in that region. At least, there is hope now (facilitated by the extended Troika) about “economic integration” of Afghanistan; something missing from the Afghan discourse for ages now.
Though, if any reader is bored or is in the mood to read fiction, I would recommend searching for the works of Christine Fair who is gradually losing credibility owing to her enmity against Pakistan evident in her recent pieces and interviews after the US withdrawal. I wonder if RAW is hiring any research analysts, she must be a clear fit! Why cannot Bolton, Fair and their like, including Stephen Tankel, realize that the USA could not have stood a single day in a region with China on one side, and Russia on another, two of the USA’s staunch competitors, without Pakistan being its ally, and if they are still illusioned that they would have taken Pakistan back to the stone age, then that bubble should burst after their defeat against a shalwar-kameez-dressed unlettered milia. Thus, the recent episodes should be enough for the USA to realize that Pakistan’s alignment with it was a privilege and not a right.
The USA should be pleased with Pakistan for its unconditional support against Al-Qaeda (many leaders of which were arrested with the help of Pakistan), rather than being ungrateful by blaming Pakistan for its own defeat. What sort of air support was provided to the Taliban by Pakistan? What sort of sophisticated Pakistan-made weaponry was captured from the Taliban? How many SSG commandos were caught fighting in disguise as Taliban? How many internal ops-plans of NATO were leaked to the Taliban by Pakistan (that was not aware of them either)? Basically, how, other than not attacking the Taliban, providing shelters to their families on humanitarian grounds and its intel agency having working relationship with the Taliban (something all agencies do for a living), did Pakistan aid the Taliban in defeating the 20+ finest armies of the world are questions for the answer of which I shall wait (maybe a lifetime).
