Musharraf and Pakistan have fooled Washington Maximum - 10 Billion Dollars and Counting, Much of It Will Boost Islamism

Submitted by Singha (India), Nov 17, 2007 at 01:27

2001 onwards Pakistan has been the beneficiary of the American largese. Over 10 billion dollars.

The naivete of the American State Department knows no bounds. Post 2001, Musharraf was easily able to fool Americans and position himself and Pakistani army as the bulwark against Islamists. On ground musharraf done nothing to dent Islamism; mullah omar and osama are still enconsced in their safe pakistan houses; American aid and equipment will most certainly be used to further global islamist agenda.

Americans must have been amused seeing pakistani soldiers surrendering to taliban in Waziristan, refusing to fight their brother muslims; It is even more amusing that for their good islamist conduct, talibs rewarded each pakistani soldier that surrendered 500 Rs.

It is common knowledge in Pakistan about the close linkages, of the Pakistani Army with Jehadi elements. Pakistani Army was formed as an Islamic force. America's close partner, the previous Pakistani strongman, Zia Ul Haq had formulated a Jihadi doctrine for Pakistani Army; the madrassa-indoctrinated warriors of jihad (talibs) working in tandem with a islamised professional army.

Musharraf since taking over has been further empowering the islamists by facilitating the handing over governance of two key states (NWFP and Baluchistan) to them. The civil society in pakistan, always very week has been further marginalised by musharraf's actions against Chief Justice Choudhary. The liberal people who in their naivete have dared to criticize the army and islamists have been beaten up and arrested for their troubles. Manifestations of the Islamist terror are there for the world to see while the role of an Islamised army with nuclear capabilities has yet to completely unfold.

The State department has not been able to learn their lessons still. State Department has also been fooled by benazir bhutto's pretensions of moderate behavior little realizing her nuclear proliferation record, proven hypocrisy and her track record in creating and nurturing taliban.

Part of the problem is the discourse in United States that somehow muslims and islamists are two different entities; Perhaps some opinion makers who believe that a useful purpose is served by creating a distinction between Islam (dealing with religion) and Islamism (dealing with politics). While in theory this semantic approach gives people including muslims the opening to attack islam, it also obfuscates and in a way makes islam, an imperialistic totalitarian belief system, look nice suggesting as if islamism is something different and is the sole problem. Worse as you will read below it provides islamists to camouflage their intentions under the cloak of moderate behavior and further islamist interests.

Islam and Islamism remain siamese twins with one single heart. They are two sides of the same coin Islamists such as musharraf and the pakistanis have been able to expoit this perception of difference between muslims and islamists very well, positioning themselves as moderates taking on islamists in a mock fight, winking at islamists and at a fundamental level, boosting the capabilities of islamists.

It is time to declare Islam as the enemy to the civlisation. The costs of obfuscation and refusal to clearly see reality have always been calamitous.

The best hope in the short term on winning against islamists, is someone like Guiliani taking over and doing a better job of managing islamism. Taking on Islamism is going to be the fight of the century; a total war. There are no easy options. The Islamists are extremely capable and underestimating the threat is not going to help anyone.

Singha

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".