Wake-up call for the PM

A.B. Shahid

The recent disclosure by the Washington Post that a tacit understanding exists between the US and Pakistan over targeting the militants (impliedly using drones) inside Pakistan, should shake Pakistani Premier's confidence in his much-touted US support for Pakistan's democratic regime. Although denied by him and his able Foreign Minister, it has damaged the government's credibility.
The hope expressed by the PM that after president-elect Obama takes office, drone attacks inside Pakistan's borders would stop suggests two things: a break with the regime now in power in the White House, and that that regime is acting without the concurrence of the president-elect Obama. Only time will tell how farsighted is the Prime Minister.
As of now, the drone attacks, sometimes twice a day, are damaging the PPP regime's credibility, and as often the case, Washington Post is doing its bit in maximizing that damage. The outcome of the drone attacks is that even those Taliban, who had signed a peace deal with the government committing them not to carry out any subversive acts within Pakistan territory, are now turning against Pakistan.
Head of this Taliban faction in North Waziristan Hafiz Gul Bahadur has threatened retaliatory attacks in the settled areas of the Pakistan if the government fails to stop US drone attacks inside Pakistan. The development marks the beginning of the end of a truce between Pakistan Army and the Taliban nullifying the commendable efforts Gen. Kayani made for restoring peace in the border districts of the NWFP.
The development also takes the gloss off the stated US conviction that Pakistan and the US are pursuing a common cause. What the un-abated drone attacks promise is escalation of chaos that could re-ignite hatred for Pakistan among the Taliban and eventually undo the PPP regime. There are calls for breaking the peace deal with Pakistan to avenge the killing of the innocent. Perhaps, that's what the US wants.
According to the US, its drones hit targets with precision, and in some cases they actually did. Then why doesn't the US doesn't find it worth its while to target the biggest trouble-maker - Baitullah Mehsud? Isn't his group the prime suspect in the assassination of Ms. Bhutto? Is it because he does exactly what the US, (better still the CIA) wants? That may, perhaps be the explanation for his fighting power and survival.
Why is the US doing that? The question strengthens doubts about US sincerity, better still, of the neo-cons firmly entrenched in the Pentagon and the Defence Department. These elements seem beyond the writ of the White House. They have their own plans about re-shaping the planet although their over-lordship since the early 1960s damaged the US and its global image well beyond repair.
These elements know they have failed but won't give up; they don't have a choice since accountability by the now-in-trouble Americans would be ruthless. The neo-cons will continue to defy the law as long as they are in power. The fact that they forced the Whit House to defy ICC's writ, with total disregard for international law and sovereign responsibility establishes White House subservience to them.
Sane Americans, not the neo-cons, know that, in its present state, the only course for the US is to combine its energies and rebuild its economy and image; that it must pull out of battlefields that have impoverished it. The early indications (his plans to retain the current Secretary Defence and head of the CIA) are that president-elect Obama is gradually succumbing to the pressure of the neo-cons.
In this scenario, the hopes of Pakistan's PM seem over-optimistic. It is time he read the infamous '2015 Pakistan dismemberment plan' to punish Pakistan for committing the sin of going nuclear. Apparently, president-elect Obama's commitment to 'sort' out terrorists in Pakistan reflects his commitment to implementing that plan. If that's the case, Pakistan's PM may be making a grave error by relying on the president-elect.
Like his predecessor, Robert Gates listens to none; George W. Bush hardly knew what went on in the Pentagon and the Defence Department throughout his reign. How well-entrenched is Robert Gates is proved by the fact that drone attacks - his strategy - can't be questioned even by the serving US generals. Despite his refusals to heed the advice of State Department, he may continue in office even under Obama.
In such a setting, what can the ever-pleasant looking Ms. Patterson deliver isn't be hard to imagine; it is baffling why she continues to hold on to the office that she does? Obviously, Robert Gates has plans for Pakistan that the present as well as the future White House resident either doesn't know about, or has reconciled to live with, irrespective of his views.
The unchallenged exercise of authority by Robert Gates - only a bureaucrat - is a tribute to the 'great' US democracy that the US wants everyone to adopt. God help the US and those who emulate its democratic style! It is a dispensation wherein power rests with a coterie, not the elected representatives of the people. Faces may change but that coterie (like our waderas) will always remain in power.
Why doesn't it open the world's eyes that successive Secretaries of Defence and Treasury are the front-men of that coterie, which controls both financial and armament producing sectors in the US - tragically, now the real strengths of the US rather than its exports? Isn't it odd that, irrespective of their party affiliations the men who occupied the White House one after the other, chose men from that very coterie?
The landscape is shocking because thereon reside millions of the most innovative, hardworking and skilful people - the Americans. In spite of the mirage of democracy, they are pawns on a chessboard. The way the sitting regime went about fixing the colossal financial mess the US now confronts proves that, in spite of doing lasting damage to the US, the powerful will still walk away unscathed, courtesy the bail out plan.
Mr. Prime Minister, while I wish you well in your efforts to convince the US to refrain from virtually fomenting an uprising against your government, you should not expect much. If the people of the US via their Senators and Congressmen can't force the Pentagon and the Defence Department to do what the American nation wants, can you? I wish you could but you won't; Robert Gates won't let you.
The only option is to resist US intervention after giving a notice thereof so that both NATO member states and the American nation know why you opted to resist. What you will resist is not the American ideals individuals committing heinous crimes in the name of the great American nation. Surely, the ordinary Americans will understand. The chaos in the US is such that, for once, your resistance may arouse the Americans to act.
Americans know more about independence and sovereignty than most other nations. By now they also know what breeds terrorism; it is denial, not mere pig headedness, as claimed by the neo-cons.