In a piece published by The News (Jang Group), Aijaz Zaka claims that all signs point to an imminent attack on Pakistan by American forces.

Only two months ago, Aijaz was singing a different tune. After Osama bin Laden was killed in the Abbottabad opertion, Aijaz wrote a piece for The News that started by denying that Osama was responsible (even though Osama himself confessed to the attack), and then said that now American President Barack Obama has an opportunity to “turn the page” and start fresh with the Islamic world.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to turn the page on America’s disastrous decade and make a fresh start with the Muslim world. He has repeatedly talked about seeking “a new way forward” with the Islamic world. It’s time to show he means it. The so-called Islamic extremism as represented by the likes of Bin Laden is merely a symptom of a far serious disease. And the source of the disease lies elsewhere – in the Middle East. Obama would drive home this message when he hosts Israel’s Netanyahu later this month, if he really believes in what he says.

It should be noted here that Obama did exactly as Aijaz wished, telling Israel’s Netanyahu that he should pull back to the 1967 borders. The American president even went further stating clearly that “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

In light of these facts, we might expect Aijaz Zaka to praise Obama! But actually Obama is not mentioned in his latest piece at all. Rather, Aijaz reaches back in time to dust off the relic of “Bush’s Crusaders”. Nevermind the facts, though, they are inconvenient to this “crazy, outrageous idea” that Aijaz has concocted in his mind.

And this isn’t the only inconsistency in Aijaz’s analysis. In May he wrote that “the departure of one long isolated and ailing figure changes nothing”. Today, Aijaz sees the raid on Osama’s compound in a much more sinister light.

The US military-industrial establishment, the Israeli lobby and Muslim-bashers on the Hill have been looking for an excuse to take the war to Pakistan, the only Muslim state with a nuclear arsenal. And they got it when Osama bin Laden was conveniently discovered, not in a cold cave along the Afghan frontier but living cheek-by-jowl with Pakistan’s elite military academy.

That’s right – the OBL raid was a precursor to a war on Pakistan! Nevermind that the raid was months ago and since then America actually has less personnel in Pakistan. According to Aijaz, a war has been in the works for some time. Further evidence for this can be found in the US withholding $800 Million in military aid and Adm Mullen accusing ISI of being in cahoots with terrorists.

Only, there are a few problems here also.

First, if the OBL raid was just an excuse to invade Pakistan…why haven’t the Americans invaded? In fact, ever since that day American officials including President Obama and Adm Mullen have gone out of their way to praise Pakistan and say that there is no evidence of complicity.

Second, the Americans continue to say that the $800 Million is only on hold – not cut – until the trainings that the money was meant to pay for resume. Otherwise the rest of the the $2.7 Billion is still flowing to Pakistan military. Are we to believe that the US is funding the Army it is preparing to fight?

Third, despite the sensational newspaper headlines, Amd Mullen never blamed ISI for killing Saleem Shahzad. Though it remains a mystery to many journalists, the fact is that American officials post unedited transcripts of their statements on government websites – a very helpful tool for fact checkers and something editors may want to start actually using. In this case, we can look at what Adm Mullen actually said about Saleem Shahzad…

Q: Admiral Mullen, you said, I haven’t seen anything to disabuse those reports. Which reports? The reports that the – the journalist killed, or the reports that the ISI was involved?

ADM. MULLEN: The reports that – the reports that the – that he was killed and that there were government officials who sanctioned that.

Q: Actually, the reports said that the ISI did it. Is that what you’re talking about?

ADM. MULLEN: The – this is the – The New York Times report?

Q: Just this Times story a couple of days ago – the ISI effectively murdered him.

ADM. MULLEN: Yeah. And I haven’t – I haven’t seen anything where I could confirm that.

Q: (Wait a minute ?).

MODERATOR: That it was the ISI?

ADM. MULLEN: That it was the ISI.

Q: You haven’t seen anything that can confirm that?

ADM. MULLEN: Yeah.

Q: But you said – but you had said, now you couldn’t disabuse the report.

ADM. MULLEN: I – in specifically identifying who did it, you know, I just – I just don’t have that. I haven’t seen anything –

Q: But it was the – but it was the government.

ADM. MULLEN: Yeah, that it was sanctioned by the government, yeah.

Q: So your answer do that is that you can’t – OK. It’s the opposite of whatever I said originally.

ADM. MULLEN: No, no, no, no. I mean, they did – I have not seen anything to disabuse the report that the government knew about this. I cannot – you know, I would not be able to walk in and say, you know, here’s the string of evidence I have to confirm it.

Further, Adm Mullen’s statements about ISI were that he told Dawn, “It is fairly well known that ISI had a relationship with the Haqqani network”. This is certainly different that how it was sensationalised by Aijaz Zaka. Also, here is a photo of formder DG ISI Gen Hamid Gul with Jalaluddin Haqqani.

ISPR recently reported that present DG ISI Gen Pasha visited the US and reported that relations between the two powers are improving despite media sensationalism.

He said a range of issues was discussed in a congenial environment to improve mutual understanding between the two sides. Contrary to the speculative reporting in a section of the press, the USPR DG said neither doubts were raised nor aspersions cast on the functioning of the ISI and both sides focused on the way forward.

Aijaz also suggests that the arrest of Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai this week “is part of the plot”. According to Aijaz Khan, Dr Fai was arrested “for lobbying for the Pakistani government in a city where every other guy is a lobbyist”. Actually, according to Dawn, Dr Fai was arrested for acting as a front organisation for the ISI. Whether or not we are sympathetic with Dr Fai, do we really expect the Americans to allow foreign agents to operate in their capital? Imagine if someone was caught running a CIA front organisation in Islamabad. Would Aijaz Khan be so forgiving then?

It appears that Aijaz Khan is twisting the facts in order to present the Americans as a bogey. Ironically, turning to the Business page of the same newspaper that features Aijaz Khan’s latest screed, readers will see the following headline: ‘United States top trading partner of Pakistan. Let me tell you, this is a strange way to prepare for war.

Aijaz concludes his piece by saying that, “I’m no sucker for conspiracy theories, but I wish for once this was merely a conspiracy theory of idle pundits.”

Sir, your wish is granted.

American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.

The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.

Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.

Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.

It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:

We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:

Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…

Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:

• United Kingdom
• France
• Canada
• Italy
• Netherlands
• Poland
• Australia
• Spain
• Romania
• Turkey
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Belgium
• Norway
• Bulgaria
• Sweden
• Hungary
• New Zealand
• Croatia

Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.

The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the  sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.

In the editorial, “President in City,” The Nation writes a disjointed argument that starts by saying that President Zardari’s trip to the provinces proves that the country can continue to run when he is not in Islamabad. I am glad that The Nation has figured this out finally. I am worried, though, that these editors were staying home when Zardari was making overseas trips to the UN or to visit other heads of state. Did they think the country was shut down?

But the really funny part is when The Nation finds out that the President is a politician!

…the President may have realised by now that his position as President is in conflict with his position as head of one of the country’s two largest political parties. 

This realization has apparently caused great concern for the wise old men and women at The Nation. How can someone be a politician and be the leader of all people?

…he is supposed to be the foremost representative of the Federation, indeed its symbol, and should be open to all shades of politics, not just to those belonging to one party. However, the co-chairman of a party is expected to give ear to members of the party whenever he moves into the nation outside his capital.

This made me laugh out loud. Who does The Nation believe should be in government? Someone with no political party? Of course, The Nation‘s editorial page often drips with nostalgia for the bygone days of military dictatorship, so this could very well be true. But Pakistan is no longer a dictatorship (Alhamdulillah), and it is a ridiculous assertion that a democracy would be run by people with no political party. Is USA President Barack Obama not the leader of his Democratic Party? Is UK PM Gordon Brown not the leader of his Labour Party? Is Angela Merkel not the Chancellor of Germany and also the Chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union political party?

Okay, clearly The Nation does not understand how a democracy works. But what is their solution for the confusing situation in which Mr. Zardari is both President and a politician? He must resign! Naturally! It is almost as if this article was written backwards. I can hear the conversation at The Nation‘s offices now:

“Okay, so we want a new editorial that says Mr. Zardari should resign.”

“Yes, but he seems to be doing everything that we are demanding! He has condemned the drone attacks, he has traveled to the provinces, he is working with opposition parties…what new way can we think to condemn him?”

“I know! We will say he is a politician!” 

Lately I have begun to wonder if Mr. Nadeem Paracha is not secretly writing the editorial page for The Nation as it has become some of the best political satire in the country. According to the logic of The Nation, no politician can be president. Brilliant!

It is clear that The Nation has some vendetta against the President and will not be happy until he resigns. That is certainly their right. But perhaps they should just be honest and write an editorial called, “We have a vendetta against the President and do not have any good reason, but would only like it if he resigns.” This would be much more honest and not require them to write such silliness as saying politicians should not be President.