Daily Times

The military has sharply reacted to the ‘insinuations’ of the recently published New York Times report, ‘Seized phone offers clues to bin Laden’s Pakistani links’ that Osama bin Laden had some kind of support from Pakistan’s intelligence agencies through a militant outfit. According to the report, the cell phone of bin Laden’s courier recovered during the raid on his hiding place in Abbottabad had contacts of operatives of Harkatul Mujahideen, considered close to Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI. However, the American officials conceded that “there was no ‘smoking gun’ showing that Pakistan’s spy agency had protected bin Laden”. Despite this categorical disclaimer, Pakistan has been portrayed and perceived as being complicit in sheltering bin Laden in Abbottabad by media that picked up this report around the world. Therefore, there is a defensive tone in DG Inter-Services Public Relations Major General Athar Abbas’ statement: “It is part of a well-orchestrated smear campaign against our security organisations.” There has recently been a stream of suggestive news in the international media about Pakistan’s security agencies, reflecting suspicion and mistrust, although no proof that Pakistan’s officialdom knew about Osama’s presence on Pakistan’s soil has been brought forth. Perhaps it would be more fruitful for us to ponder why an atmosphere of mistrust keeps haunting us and why we have been condemned to defend our innocence whenever such a report surfaces.

If Pakistan wants to clear the army’s good name in this whole affair, it will have to conduct a credible investigation into the May 2 incident. The government has announced the formation of a commission for this purpose, which can serve as a very good tool to establish the facts surrounding that event. Unfortunately, the opposition has raised objections about the composition and mandate of the commission even before it has started functioning, rending it non-credible. This is too serious a matter to be dealt with by the government in this cavalier fashion. In terms of restoring the credibility and reputation of the military and intelligence services, the commission must be made acceptable to all parties. The opposition must be taken on board and its reservations addressed. This is the only way to absolve the military of the blame that has stuck to it for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, this stream of negative news will continue. *