Posts Tagged ‘drones’

Drone Statistics

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Show Your WorkIn school my maths teacher used to always require that we write out each step in an equation so that he knew how we arrived at the answer. If a student simply wrote the answer to a complex equation without showing how he arrived at that answer, he was not given credit for the equation because there was no way to know if he truly knew the answer, if he simply guessed, or if he had memorized some answer to give. A similar problem faces the media today on how to solve the equation of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes in the tribal areas.

Today’s edition of The News includes two articles which add to the confusion. One by Amir Mir claims that the majority of deaths were those of innocent civilians:

Of the 1,184 persons killed by the American drones in 124 attacks in 2010, around 59 percent were innocent civilians while the remaining 41 percent were terrorists belonging to numerous militant groups based in the Pak-Afghan tribal belt.

According to his article, Amir Mir’s analysis is based on “data gathered by The News primarily from local and international news sources”. He does not reveal what these news sources are – and important point considering the prevalence of questionable and planted information.

An editorial on the same day in the same newspaper claims that “Nobody, be it nation or agency, is questioning the analysis of the figures for drone strikes in Pakistan is 2010 which have been printed in this newspaper”. If nobody is questioning these figures (which is not true), they should be.

Katherine Tiedmann, of the blog AfPak Channel, posted on Twitter today asking Amir Mir to provide his sources so that they can be verified, noting that his figures are not what she sees.

Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation tells a different story:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2011

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)

2011* 15 18
2010 591 985
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,372 2,125

*Through January 1, 2011

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2011

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2011* 15 18
2010 569 927
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 1,061 1,584

*Through January 1, 2011

As you can see, these figures provide a much different answer than the one arrived at by Amir Mir – 985 total deaths (on the high end) with 927 of those being militants. That means there were 58 innocent civilians killed, or 6 percent of the total. As you can see, this is a far different result than what Amir Mir found. Unlike Amir Mir, Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedmann do provide news sources to back their figures.

Inaccurate figures for deaths resulting from drone attacks is an ongoing problem in news media. This has been a controversy raised within the media itself by researchers such as Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood. Differences in methodology and the difficulties of obtaining accurate counts make it difficult to know for certain the number of deaths and whether the victims are associated with militant groups. All death counts should be considered with this understanding, and the idea that nobody should question one group of figures is ridiculous.

Dr Zeeshan Usmani’s “Pakistan Body Count” data site has been taken offline after it was shown by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood to be unreliable. If Amir Mir and The News have sources to back their figures, they should reveal them so that they can be fact-checked. Despite their claims to being unquestionable, they are, indeed, being questioned.

If Amir Mir’s numbers are correct, The News will be doing the nation a service to reveal the source of his data. As it remains, however, his figures are in doubt because there is another data set which does reveal its sources and methodology and contradicts Amir Mir’s claims. We look forward to seeing the data set from Amir Mir so that we may judge for ourselves.

The Nation Repeats Incorrect Data on Drone Attacks

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

The Nation (logo)The Nation today includes an editorial, “Say firm NO to drones” that repeats incorrect data on the number of deaths of innocents due to drones attacks. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that such incorrect data has been published by The Nation which raises the question of whether the newspaper is intentionally misleading the people.

According to the editorial,

The drones have already wrought havoc in the country, killing nearly 2000 innocent men, women and children, and spreading insecurity nationwide, while managing to take out only 30-odd suspected Al-Qaeda operatives.

The authors of this editorial do not reveal what source of information they have taken these numbers, and based on the publicly available data it appears that they have simply made it up from thin air. Possibly, though, they have taken their data from the website Pakistan Body Count by Dr. Zeeshan Usmani. However, this Pakistan Body Count data was recently debunked by independent researchers.

Research by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood was published by Daily Times in October and is also available at the website http://dronedata.wordpress.com.

The first problem is that Dr Usmani has only two entities in his data, i.e. al Qaeda and civilians. Where do the Taliban fit in, precisely the Afghan Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Islam (LI)? Where does targeting monsters like Baitullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain Mehsud fit in this scenario? There is no justification for including the TTP, LI or any other militant groups in the same category as civilians. Such gimmicks are only being used to mislead the whole world and any such defence of the flawed data is misleading and unacceptable. We cannot claim whether the data is manipulated and purposely flawed for ideological reasons. What we can assert is that this alone leaves a serious flaw in his data collection and since the government of Pakistan officially declares the TTP, LI and associated groups as terrorists and has been pursuing an active military campaign against them, including their deaths amongst civilians is a serious distortion of the truth, erroneous and contrary to acceptable logic. Their deaths are and should be included as a part of the accuracy of drone strikes.

Mr Saeed and Mr Masood go on to reveal several inaccuracies in Dr Usmani’s data which makes his entire project unreliable. And these are not the only independent researchers that have debunked these statistics. Researchers at the New America Foundation have compiled data based on news reports and other verifiable research. The following is data from Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 514 841
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,276 1,955

*Through November 21, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 488 781
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 965 1,420

*Through November 21, 2010

The Nation also recited in their editorial the idea that drone attacks are responsible for suicide bombings. This defies common sense. Actually, Saeed and Masood eloquently explain why such ideas are nonsense on their website:

There lies no factuality in the rhetoric that strives to create a cause and effect relationship between drone attacks and suicide bombing. These are shallow assertions with hollow foundations and no proof to back them up. They can, they are and will be used as a motivating factor, but they are just one amongst the hundreds of motivating factors used by militants. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any suicide bomber has been linked to or a potential bomber that has been apprehended had any acquaintance that died in a drone attack. We challenge the other side to bring forward any news report, intelligence report or a case report that states that the person caught or who carried out the bombing had any relative that died in a drone attack and he was avenging his family members. Most of the times, this assertion is made without any evidence. One of the cited examples is of Faisal Shahzad but that it is unbelievable since his life story as is tells how he was led to the TTP. Baituallah Mehsud once claimed that a suicide attack was in revenge for a particular drone strike but it is unbelievable that he and the group of his monsters wouldn’t have carried it anyway.

The prime reason militants fight and suicide bombers exist is the world view of clash of civilizations, an ideological assertion of one’s one faith over the other’s and the view all military operations conducted by our forces are being conducted on the “behest of the US”, where they view death for their “greater cause” as the ultimate achievement and where life itself remains just a step towards a better eternal life they imagine. They view the state’s involvement in the war on terror, including the Operations in Wana, Tirah, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, South Warizistan, Operation Silence and Swat as only for “pleasing the US”, as guided by infidels. The drone attacks are an additional factor but in no way the prime motivating factor. The toxic religious dogmas of declaring everybody not cooperating with you as Kafir and liable to death is a major factor, not drones.

Obviously, none of this justifies the use of drone attacks in Pakistan or anywhere else. The debate about whether or not drone attacks are a good policy for Pakistan should be discussed openly and transparently, and each individual is entitled to his own opinion. But nobody, including The Nation, is entitled to his own facts. Using misleading and inaccurate data only undermines an argument. In a debate as serious as the issue of drone attacks, only honest facts should be considered. For a newspaper to knowingly continue using inaccurate data is dishonest and unprofessional.

Ridding Ourselves Of Shireen Mazari's Mistakes

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

The Nation (logo)In an opinion column published in today’s The Nation, “Ridding ourselves of the US“, Shireen Mazari makes several incorrect claims about incidents and statistics in the war against militants. While Shireen Mazari is certainly entitled to her own opinion about the war, she is not entitled to her own facts.

Shireen Mazari claims that drone attacks have killed more civilians than militants. According to Shireen Mazari’s column,

…we are unable to deal with our terrorism threat internally because we are following US diktat and using a military-centric policy which is simply creating more space for militants within the country. The drone attacks, killing more civilians than militants, are one glaring case in point.

Mazari provides no research to back up her claim, so it is not known why she says this. But Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation (NAF) shows that more militants have been killed by drone attacks than civilians. Furthermore, the NAF research is transparent as to its sources and analysis:

The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network.

Here are the estimated death counts:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 409 685
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,171 1,799

*Through October 4, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 383 625
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 860 1,264

*Through October 4, 2010

Estimated Militant Leader Deaths from US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010

2010* 10
2009 10
2008 11
2004-2007 3
Total 32

*Through October 4, 2010. Included in estimated militants and estimated totals, above.

Later, in the same paragraph, Mazari claims that “there are the NATO incursions into our territory and targeting of even our military personnel”. While there was the well-reported NATO incursion into our territory, the claim of “targeting” is misleading.

An investigation of the incident has found that Pakistani soldiers fired warning shots at the helicopters, which returned fire. The US and NATO have apologized for the incident and pledged to work more closely with the Pakistani military and government to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Shireen Mazari’s account could lead readers to believe that the US was intentionally and aggressively attacking Pakistani soldiers, which would be an act of war. This doesn’t make any sense. If the US military wanted to go to war with Pakistan, why would it provide so much support and supplies to the Pakistani military? And why would the US apologize and pledge to work more closely in coordination with the Pakistani military?

Mazari goes on to repeat the discredited conspiracy theory that the US is planning to steal our nuclear arsenal. Her evidence is a statement by an American conservative historian Arthur Herman. But Arthur Herman is not a member of the US government or military and would have no access to such sensitive information. He is simply describing a hypothetical ‘worst-case scenario’ based on no evidence.

Actually, the article that Mazari is referring to is an opinion column in an American newspaper New York Post which has been criticised by the Columbia Journalism Review who said, “The New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem.” According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the New York Post was rated the least-credible news outlet in New York. The Wikipedia entry on New York Post includes a long list of controversies surrounding the newspaper.

Shireen Mazari then goes on to repeat another discredited conspiracy theory saying that Visas are being granted “with no proper scrutiny and with all normal procedures being abandoned”. Mazari provides no evidence for this claim, which would be a quite serious breach of protocol. Notably, Shireen Mazari does not accuse anyone by name of committing this act, possibly because she knows that it would be defamatory for her to do so. Instead, she merely states that it is being done which could possibly result in readers mistakenly believing that she has some evidence to back her claim.

Shireen Mazari has every right to believe that the US is the root of all of the country’s problems, but she must make this claim with facts and not inventions and conspiracy theories. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but facts are facts. Making statements to support a particular political agenda even when the facts are the opposite is not journalism, it is merely propaganda. Please, Shireen Mazari, stick to the facts.

Shireen Mazari Gets Failing Grade

Drone Attacks And Roots of Terror

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Yesterday’s The Nation included an editorial that claimed to explain the root causes of terrorism and called on the goverment to ‘do more’ to solve the problem. The primary cause of terrorism, according to The Nation, is US foreign policy, including drone attacks. I was especially curious about one item that comes up every time terrorism and the Americans are discussed in the media: drone attacks.

Drone attacks are the targeted killings of suspected militants using what are known as Unmanned Arial Vehichles (UAV) or drones. These aircraft are flown remotely and the weapons aboard them are fired remotely are controlled by Americans working with Pakistani military.

The Nation, as well as many other media voices, are quite opposed to drone attacks due to their habit of killing not just the one person who was targeted, but some innocent people who might be standing next to the target. Now, some will ask how an innocent person finds themself standing next to someone like Hakimullah Mehsud – but, again, that is for someone else to argue about.

The Nation gives a fairly common argument:

…one of the major causes of post-9/11 terrorism in Pakistan has been the US policies in this region – which are increasingly revealing their anti-Muslim character. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, these policies have been and continue to be directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims – through military actions including the drone attacks.

My curiousity had to do with how bad these drone attacks actually are. So, I did a little bit of research and found this excellent web page that has a map of drone attacks from 2004 to 2010 examines the actual number of casualties.

Our study shows that the 135 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 39 in 2010, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 944 and 1,398 individuals, of whom around 654 to 1,011 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 30 percent.

This is an interesting statistic. In the past six years, 70% of those killed by drone attacks were reliably reported as militants by the press. 

I also did some research to find out how many Pakistanis have been killed by militants. The results were a bit surprising. First, I had a hard time finding anything quite as comprehensive as the map of drone attacks and the research on militants killed by drones. There does not seem to be – at least as far as I can find – anyone who wants to create a map that tracks civilians killed by Taliban.

But I did find some interesting research. According to a report by Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, in one year alone – 2009 – 3,021 innocent Pakistanis were killed and 7,334 were injured by terrorist attacks. According to the South Asia Intelligence Review, there have been over 7,500 civilians and 2,876 Pakistani troops killed by militants.

About 300 deaths by drone attacks have been innocents. In the same time period, over 10,000 innocents have been killed by terrorists.

Headlines from the past week have told that militant attacks killed 90 Ahmadis who were praying, 5-12 hospital workers in Lahore, and 3 or more people when Taliban blew up another girls school and health centre. Was this in response to drone attacks also?

Drone attacks are controversial, and this blog is not here to defend the practise. Not only The Nation, but officials with the UN have called for an end to the programme. But it is important to consider all the facts when discussing an issue as important as root causes of terrorism. The Nation asks a very important question:

“The question, though, for us is why in all instances, Pakistani citizens are vulnerable to being recruited as terrorists?”

This is a vital question, I agree completely. But to find the answer, we will have to look a little bit deeper than only drone attacks and American policies. That these practices are used by terrorist recruiters is no question. But The Nation is telling the same thing as terrorist recruiters – if drone attacks stop and Americans go away, terrorism will stop. I tell you, I wish it was so easy. 

The simple fact is, as bad as drone attacks might be, 300 deaths does not explain the 10,000 and more people who are being killed by terrorists in our nation. Ahmadis are not launching drone attacks. Drones are not being kept in girls schools. 

The Nation is asking the right questions, but it is avoiding the difficult truths.

The heart desire's more!

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

Another fantastic argument by Agha Haider Raza

Looking at the past week, one can see how resilient Pakistanis have become.  Suffering numerous suicide bomb attacks and wide-spread military action, we are here yet again, still standing.  But how long can we sustain ourselves at this current rate of demolition? How many times will we resist smacking the hammer on our own foot? Nowadays we seem to have become the offspring of Glenn Beck and the Republican Party.  With a constant denial of the harsh reality and a love for misconstruing and fabricating baseless facts that just aim to maim the United States, we seem to be struggling.  And when we struggle, we play the role of a secluded, spoilt child. 

Prior to 9/11, we perfected this character, but now the circumstances have changed. We can no longer do as we please without being held accountable for our actions.Pakistan has suffered.  Thousands of innocent lives have been lost at the hands of suicide bombs and ambush attacks.  Women have lost husbands, sons and brothers and it is despicable at the number of families that have suffered.  Much to the dismay of our right-wing journalists, I am not going to be making a presumed argument as to how India, Israel or even the United States are after Pakistan’s existence.  It’s just not happening, guys! I feel it would also be fruitless to engage in a history lecture as to who gave rise to the mujahedeen since various institutions in our country groomed them.  But by excluding so much, the foreign influence and historic aspect many would argue that I have no argument.  But for a split second, would it be possible to sit and analyze how we can carry ourselves into the future rather than dissecting the past?

Many times a day, we read in the newspapers and on the internet, the extent by which America has extended its influence within Pakistan.  From Blackwater to US diplomats wielding weapons and the constant chatter in regards to the Americans taking over our nuclear arsenal, we’ve heard it all.  I would like to take this opportunity and remind my avid readers that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not hidden in any underground garage that can be easily picked up by “US diplomat”.  I have more faith in my military that protects such weapons than those journalists and commentators who seem to believe otherwise.

The United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, came and went.  Although she was given a red-carpet upon landing, there were times where her reception was – well – jagged.  Criticism and resentment towards the United States is understandable.  Issues ranging from drone attacks (which is debatable!), alleged presence of US personnel and expansion of the US embassy are some of the concerns Pakistanis share.  But how much credit have we given Hillary Clinton for taking the initiative of reaching out across the political spectrum?  Firstly, she stayed for three days.  Both President Bush and President Clinton had to arrive in secrecy in Pakistan, and the statements they made seem more like a photo-op than anything substantive.  Upon meeting specific people, both Presidents took off and that was the end of their journey into Pakistan.

Secretary Clinton on the other hand, not only met those in office, but those outside of office as well.  She took a step further and held a town-hall debate with students and met various journalists while giving time to Pashtun elders as well.  But was this enough to please our right-wing journalists? Of course not! They had problems with the type of journalists she met, the transparency of the business leaders she conversed with and the lack of money she brought with her.  Did they even dare comment on the extent to which she tried to rectify the failure of previous administrations?  We only felt too proud, when a journalist claimed that we are fighting America’s war.  Proud because we assumed someone was able to stand up to the mighty Clinton.  Unfortunately, the moderator failed to realize that when a Pakistani is killed on a daily basis, it becomes the responsibility of our government and our military, thus our war.

I fail to understand how we keep asking for more aid money and assistance from around the globe, but at the same time are completely unwilling to be held accountable for the pennies we spend.  We lambasted the IMF for bailing us out of near bankruptcy.  No doubt the IMF places stringent conditions when offering loans, but is it safe to assume that if we had the money, we would not need to be borrowing? Pakistan’s tax-GDP ratio is a number that is so micro, I don’t think it would be visible here.  On the other hand we enjoy receiving other countries money, as long as we do not tell them, where and how it is being spent.  Frankly speaking, it is not fair to use aid money in this manner of secrecy, nor should we allow other countries to micromanage us, just because we have been given their aid money.  This mantra of dil maange aur (the heart desires more) needs to stop.  And can only stop if we are faithful to ourselves.  Although we tend to be very egotistical when it comes all other issues, but taking a kashkol (begging bowl) to other countries seems to make us forget all about our ego.

Pakistan is at its wits end.  We must take the reins of our future and grasp them tightly.  Rooting out militants from South Waziristan is only a step towards cleansing our country of this disgusting and twisted ideology that causes inhumane persons to blow themselves up and kill others.  Condemning the United States will not stop a child in Lahore from gathering a bogus understanding of Islam that will cause him to take the lives of others, nor will it rid us of the poverty in Karachi and unemployment issues in Peshawar.  To counter this we need a united front in order to stop the ethnic tensions rising between us.  This is where your role as a Pakistani citizen comes into play.  All our lives we learnt not to point fingers at others, and now when the going gets tough, we find it only to easy blaming others for our predicaments.  At the end of the day, we all know our destiny lies only in our hands; no other country has control over it.  Believe it!

Hamid Mir and his Ridiculous Benchmarks for Success

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

Sana A’s point-by-point rebuttal of Hamid Mir’s latest piece…an excellent read!

If anyone needed more proof of the media being overrun by the disgracefully uninformed, here it is. In
this preposterous piece, Hamid Mir makes outlandish demands of United States’ policy whilst having the nerve to wonder at the mistrust between the US and Pakistan. The fact that this man is executive editor of Geo TV in Islamabad is troubling.

Taking a deep breath, I feel the only way to tackle this monstrosity of distorted facts and hysteria is to go through it, point by point.

At the end of his first paragraph, Mir brings up the favorite punching bag of Pakistan’s obsessed media, the Kerry-Lugar bill. One has to wonder: now that the Pakistani public seems to be embracing the aid package, will the pseudo-journalists go through withdrawal symptoms once this this is no longer a relevant topic?

Mir writes: “Very few people in Washington realise that tension between Pakistan Army and President Zardari were actually created by Kerry-Lugar Bill.”

Quite off the mark, the statement goes to illustrate Mir’s love for simplified truths. The Kerry-Lugar bill was up for debate for many months. The writing, drafting, research and of course, floor debate and vote process was very much an open process. Throughout this sequence, there was no outcry to be heard, no fear of losing sovereignty to be felt. If anything, Pakistanis should be aware that tougher, far more intrusive clauses were actually not approved and the bill was full of immense respect and recognition for Pakistan at the time it was signed into law. Mir misses the point that tensions between the Pakistani Army and President Zardari’s administration are mainly over the new role the army must now play: to serve the federal government. We have in Pakistan a fledging democracy, and we absolutely must give it a chance to flourish. The Army has the noble task of protecting the people from danger, and it must work with President Zardari’s government to meet that goal. Tensions are natural when the role of one entity changes, and as Kerry-Lugar also notes, the Army is on its way to becoming a powerful, professional force in place of a political one.

Mir’s next paragraph launches into a recap of a conference on US-Pakistan relations that took place at Harvard University. Mir cites Ambassador Haqqani’s declaration that democracy is the only way forward for Pakistan. Indeed, Ambassador Haqqani has said as much from Day One, and worked tirelessly towards that end. Mir laments that his question, “Why the US is not listening to the voice of democracy in Pakistan coming through an elected parliament?” went unanswered. The answer, boys and girls, is taught in International Relations 101: diplomatic relations between nations are between the federal executive branches. President Zardari will not be setting up meetings with elected members of American state and city governments, as his work directly leads him to President Obama and the State Department. Realizing that Mir is unaware of this plain fact (and also knowing this is only the second point in his article) makes one uneasy about the rest of Mir’s piece.

Does Mir advocate American involvement with the Parliament? Does Mir forget that he just mentioned the rift between Zardari and the army and that too, over American involvement? The United States most unequivocally supports democracy in Pakistan, any question of that at this point is beyond ludicrous.

His third paragraph states, “No doubt that the US is the most controversial country in Pakistan and Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the US. There is a huge mistrust on both sides but even then both countries need cooperation of each other because they are facing some common threats. Pakistan lies in one of the world’s most important geopolitical regions surrounded by Afghanistan, Iran, China and India.”

The fact is, the US should not be hated by Pakistanis but rather identified as a true ally. The anti-terror, pro-democracy goals of both nations are so neatly aligned, it just does not make sense for conspiracy-minded Pakistanis to break up this valuable bond. There are many in Pakistan who acknowledge the US’s extended hand and are grateful for it, because they understand a stable future for their country depends on it. Others will, however, continue to blast away at the US and the West in general in visceral, illogical ways. That is why the US is controversial in Pakistan. As to why Pakistan is misunderstood…it’s simple! American taxpayers are sending over an incredibly generous, well-thought out $7.5 billion in non-military aid alone, and all across their papers and televisions are reports of Pakistanis caught up in a fury. Of course this leads to confusion, how can they be anything but confused and frustrated? Any cooperation must come with respect, and if Mir believes in the spirit of partnership, he must lead the charge and do his best to bolster US-Pakistan efforts.

In ill-structured form, Mir abruptly cuts off topic and discusses the US drone attacks. If the US is so worried about the border, he asks, “Why is there no fencing and no proper border check posts? There are more than 350 illegal entry points on the Pak-Afghan border. Every day more than 20,000 vehicles and 45,000 people cross the border without proper documents.” Once again…how can we go from hearing “The US is intruding and will soon take over the country” to “Why isn’t the US building a proper border fence?” This is absurd and baffling.

Pulling another 180, Mir begins demands for a timeline for troop removal from Afghanistan, going so far as to say the replacement of American troops with UN peacekeeping forces would be better for the nation. There are a myriad of reasons as to why all this is utterly useless. The United States has a solid interest in Afghanistan, and will do its best to stabilize the country. The entire world in invested in Afghanistan, with billions in aid coming from Afghanistan’s neighbors, the EU, USAID as well as individual donations. Mir’s recommendation exposes he clearly does not know President Obama’s administration is working on a new strategy for military operations, and are contemplating a troop increase. UN peacekeeping forces would not be able to accomplish as much, nor have equal clout as, American troops.

Towards the end of his piece, Mir must have challenged himself to spit out the most bizarre statement he could muster. And he rose to the challenge.

Nobody can deny the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have become unsafe after the arrival of US troops in the region.

Is one to assume Afghanis were “safe” under the tyrannical, murderous Taliban regime? That the quality of life, civil liberties, access to education were readily available to all people? Is one also to forget all she knows about Pakistani history and pretend Pakistan through the 90s up until the attacks of 9/11 was a perfectly safe country? Hamid Mir, you should be ashamed of yourself. The horrors that took place should never be forgotten, and you have some absolute nerve as you try to rewrite history.

There is one thing all people need to understand at some point, and that is that the United States of America is not interested in taking over another country. We are all living in the era of globalization, our successes and failures are tangled up. It is disingenuous and immoral to lie when you are in the media, in the name of a noble profession — journalism. Perhaps Mir and others like him will slowly come around. If not, we can all be grateful cooler heads seem to be prevailing. As Pakistan is rocked with tragedy after tragedy at the hands of the extremists, the public is slowly realizing the importance of a partnership with the US.

The goal, for all of us, is a stable, prosperous and modernized Pakistan.