US: TERROR POLITICS?

Why Osama will be...!
Alive! There are reasons to kill Osama, and there are reasons to keep him alive; Pakistan, and the US, look decisively tilted towards the latter

May 11, 2010: In context with the failed attempt of the Times Square bombing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that Pakistan would face “severe consequences” if a future terrorist attack on US soil was traced back to Pakistan and said, “…Pak officials know where bin Laden, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are.” A few days later, she reiterates her warning (albeit in a relatively softer tone) and said, “There is more that Pakistan must do to face what is now a common enemy…” May 12, 2010: The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates bellows, “The relationship between the two anti-terror allies [aka, USA and Pakistan] has improved significantly over the last two years.”

In the two statements above, which are obviously contradictory, the usage of word “ally” does raise critical concerns. When one juxtaposes this with the latest leakage of thousands of secret US military records by a whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, which proves Pakistan’s deep complicity in terrorist activities, US pro-Pak political intentions suddenly become suspiciously dangerous, as the US and especially Barack Obama ostensibly are still not convinced enough to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state, amazingly turning a blind eye to what seems crystal clear to the rest of the world!

But wait! Barack’s bent clearly must be a put-on, in his efforts to get Pakistan’s assistance to catch Osama bin Laden, right? At least initially, it seemed so. But of late, Barack’s double entendres just can’t be ignored. While Barack announced that his administration would stick with pulling out US troops from Iraq (down from a peak 150,000 to 50,000 by the end of this month), he has concurrently increased the deployment of US soldiers in Afghanistan (up from 68,000 to 100,000). With a shrewd redeployment, it’s quite clear that the US is simply gaining avenues to increase its influence over Central Asia. Without the excuse of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Taliban, the US would surely have faced global admonition on troop deployment.

On the other side of the coin, the presence of Osama and the controlled nurturing of Taliban and anti-India elements allows Pakistan to keep receiving spectacularly humungous aid from the US, most of the moneys going to the personal pockets of local bureaucrats and politicians in Pakistan, a handful of who – by some accounts – are now close to becoming billionaires. Pre-Osama, from 1991 till 2000, Pakistan received $434.2 million as economic and military assistance aid from the US. Post Osama (9/11), from 2001 till 2009, Pakistan has received a shocking $15 billion from the US; and Obama had deftly announced another hollering $7.5 billion in October 2009! 

Newsweek reported late last year that officials at the US embassy in Islamabad alleged that “Pakistan misspent some 70% of the US funds!” Pakistan is also accused of “running a double game with the money, keeping the Taliban at bay just enough to persuade American benefactors to keep their wallets open.” Not that this was a State secret; but the benign nature of Barack Obama’s response – or lack of it – is astounding! On August 2, 2010, Obama commented that Pakistan is beginning to “take the fight to violent extremists within its borders.” That sounds as far from the truth as possible.

Thomas Friedman writes in this week’s issue of The Sunday Indian, “The 9/11 attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.” Fareed Zakaria confirms, “70 percent of the terror plots uncovered in the past decade can be traced back to Pakistan,” a country which, Zakaria adds, is “the epicentre of Islamic terrorism!”

Is Barack Obama blind or are we plain nutty? The practice of keeping anti-social elements alive for political and economic benefits is not just a western phenomenon. In the Asian continent, the most famous case was of a forest brigand cum smuggler in Southern India, called Koose Muniswamy Veerappan, who – in spite of being charged of murdering 184 people, poaching around 200 elephants, smuggling ivory and sandalwood worth $24,600,000, kidnapping the who’s who of the political and entertainment world – never saw the local government ordering swift action against the criminal, mainly because a considerable amount of money flowed into the territory due to his staying alive and in action.

Similar is the case with bin Laden. His living means more to Pakistan than to any other entity. Barack’s refusal to call a spade what it is, will go down in history as perhaps the worst two-faced moves ever made. Friedman quotes, “If you are in a poker game and you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s probably you!” Obama, ever wondered why Chelsea never invited you for her wedding?