What do we share?

The US administration and the media these days appear to be obsessed with the Pakistan Army, as they allege that its Chief is fighting to keep his job. Far from it, who does not know that an unambiguous position on defence related matters impinging on the security of Pakistan by General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his ISI Chief, General Kamal Pasha, of late, is the reason for this tirade against the men in uniform. From mutiny within to collusion with terrorists or rank incompetence, there is not a syllable spared to discredit the Pakistani army, especially after the unilateral Yankee operation in Abbottabad, followed by the engineered Mehran Naval Air Base attack in which most of the terrorists were foreigners. The systematic and successful incursion in all the three organs of the countrys defence, has, indeed, embarrassed the army and severely bruised its image with the people of Pakistan whose unflinching faith in them calls for an immediate damage control, failing which the military is feared to get bracketed with the spineless political leadership lying prostrate before the United States, whose latest demand is that Pakistan radically alter its course to merit further military aid signals. That is that for Uncle Sam, 35,000 civilian and over 5,000 army casualties are not enough, and more blood is needed as America itself begins to bring its own men back home safety. So, heads should have rolled by now in order to establish that the Pakistani defence establishment takes no nonsense within its ranks and makes an example of any wrongdoers; the PNS Mehran attack ought to have been made the centre of focus setting in motion a swift court martial, alongside the Abbottabad episode and journalist Saleem Shahzad judicial commission. Anyway, the image and integrity of the armed forces was compromised far more in the Musharraf era than during the Ayub Khan or Ziaul Haq tenures, which General Kayani has worked overtime to repair. However, one hopes that the General would not let it go down the drain by delaying stern action in order to salvage the militarys pride, which is the only way to regain the peoples backing and trust he often yearns for. It would be dangerous, however, to infer from these incursions that there was a divide in the army, and that extremists among its ranks ought to be purged. James Lamont of the Financial Times in his piece titled Pakistan Army fights enemy within, and another write-up in the Washington Post, has tried to create the sinister impression that Pakistans military has traditionally been seen as a secular organisation, which needs to be effectively put down. He cites the refusal of certain officers to obey orders during Musharrafs stint, that is, not to grow a beard, as if majority of the rest were ready to comply; a long last desire of the West to secularise Pakistan, Washington Post is worried about the radicalisation of its army. It is true that General (retd) Musharraf appeared in the press holding puppies under his arm pits and Hamid Karzai posed with young Afghan girls in jeans displaying their navals bare, as both took office to establish their pro-West credentials in a vain attempt to fashion secularism in the two countries. Musharraf in order to water down the Islamic image of its forces ordered that its personnel would not grow a beard, and relaxed the restriction on liquor. In addition, an aborted campaign for secularism was carried out with the support of some NGOs fashioned as the civil society, and some contracted writers and journalists. They tried in vain to distort the ideological basis of Quaid-i-Azams Pakistan - a country that was born out of the sacrifices of millions of Muslims living in the subcontinent. As to the image of its armed force, its motto - Imaan, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah - is itself testimony to the fact that they will not let its edifice be catapulted, despite having got entrapped momentarily by the foreign masters due to the inaction of the spineless Pakistani political leadership. Pakistani soldiers and officers alike, whether donning a beard or otherwise, are imbued with the spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom displayed time and again in hours of trial, and any attempt secularising them ought to be consciously put down. James Lamont is also weary of the armys failure to sever link with the Islamic jihadis put together from all over the world under US patronage against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The West now chooses to call them terrorists. There is though a world of difference in the Pakistani and Western perception of 'who is a terrorist. Yet, Pakistan considers those indiscriminately hitting its own populace and military targets, which include the drones and the CIA-RAW-MOSSAD sponsored Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan as the ones. Whereas, the US terms all those hitting America and its allied forces as terrorists - those who, to the contrary, have waged a holy war (jihad) against the international forces until their ouster from Afghanistan. What does one say to the duplicity and nervousness of the allied force that, on the one hand, is seeking to negotiate peace with the Taliban after spilling blood of countless Afghans and failing to rein in on them in over a decade, while on the other, seeking to hunt and take out their Ameer, Mullah Umar, revered by his followers like a saint much more than Osama. Nevertheless, it has taken the US a decade to distinguish between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which they ought to have done at the outset. But then what justification would they have offered about invading Afghanistan will perhaps remain a question in history, just as the Iraqi invasion on mere apprehension of the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times has also given the impression that some Taliban were changing loyalties with Karzai persuasion (obviously through bait of position and office), but also indicates Washingtons scepticism that those switching could be habitual criminals rather than the Taliban, which is most likely the case. Such are the characteristics of this landmass that no genuine Afghan or Pakistani would ever think of deserting its moorings, While abhorrence of the US will continue to rise in proportion to its hegemonic measures, should it not learn its lesson. As for your aid Uncle Sam, please stop it forthwith, because Pakistan in similar situations in the past has come out better, and the urge this time is greater than ever before, as this will force it to tap its immense natural resources. Your friendship with Pakistan, indeed, has become time-tested, as more recently, you have objected to and stopped it from accepting cheap oil and gas from Iran, while every time China lends a helping hand in developing the states capacity and capability, it sends shivers down your spine. But continued Indian water terrorism, abetment and backing of terrorism in Pakistan via Afghanistan and putting Kashmir on the backburner, does not bother you. What then do we share to warrant forging a durable partnership? The writer is a freelance columnist.