Daily Times

I was sent the damning editorial carried by The New York Times on May 12 by two friends in the US. As I read it, I could not help feeling irked by words based on half-truths, and amused by the editorial’s implied belief in American morality. When the USA came into being, its founding fathers, many of whom presided over their country, were intellectually gifted and possessed of high ethical values. Anyone with ethical values should not be considered immoral, but so it was.

The tragedy is that the USA considers itself the only moral nation and nation-state in the world.

With the passage of time, when one views the American political landscape, one must admit that the two virtues the founding fathers had have deteriorated to the extent that they have become extinct.

Where should I pick up the thread of their falsehoods? From FDR’s ignoring confirmed intelligence to permit Japanese naval forces to attack the Pearl Harbor so as to get congressional approval to join the WWII in Europe? Or from Nixon’s constant lies during his period of office, but specifically concerning Vietnam? I could even start from Iran-gate. But I think I will start from where the lies were to ‘help’ Pakistan.

In the 1980 the Soviet Union was in war with Afghanistan. Pakistan was desperately needed by the US in its capacity as the frontline state against the Soviets. Consequently, when American Congress balked at providing Pakistan further military aid, an unknown Congressman, Larry Pressler, found his niche in history by sponsoring an amendment enabling the US government to continue providing military aid to Pakistan provided the US president sent a signed certificate testifying that Pakistan had not gone any further than the previous year in its development of nuclear weapons. For five years thereafter, until 1990, two different US presidents deliberately sent a false certificate to Congress, knowing fully well that Pakistan had begun producing nuclear weapons in 1987.

George H W Bush rediscovered the truth when the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1990, and he refused to continue lying any further, denying us F16s we had paid for. Thank God, we have not already paid for those F16s that are being denied today. This example should suffice to demonstrate how low a US president could fall to get what he wants, and just how quickly he would ditch an ally it no longer needs.

Successors of these presidents continued to follow the sterling example of their predecessors. They lied when they accused Iraq of possessing WMD. They lied about Libya and Qaddafi. And none of their successors stopped. What irks is when editors approve editorials accusing Pakistan of being a “duplicitous and dangerous ally for the US and Afghanistan.” A truthful editor would have made that comment about the US’s relations with every ally, barring Israel, so far.

To address the cause for this editorial a brief revisit of recent history is necessary. In the 1980s, the ISI led, and CIA and the US followed. However, even then the US had one exclusive ally in Afghanistan: Jalaluddin Haqqani. Charlie Wilson, the US Congessman who led the support for aid to Afghanistan at that time, once referred to Haqqani as “Goodness personified.” Hamid Karzai, former Afghan president, was the first noteworthy Pashtun warlord from the era of Soviet occupation to join the Taliban in 2005. Haqqani continued to oppose the Taliban until Kabul fell in 1996, and that is when he realised that the US and Pakistan were adamant to bring the Taliban to power. And that is when Karzai deserted the Taliban when he was not offered the position he coveted in the Taliban cabinet. Worse, he committed the cardinal ‘sin’ of seeking succor with Taliban’s sworn enemy, Ahmed Shah Masood.

Why the US ditched this ally and alienated him is a question CIA veterans might be able to answer. All I can say is that Haqqani never betrayed Afghanistan, and I know him as a real patriot. Nonetheless, in due course he fell afoul of the US.

Repeatedly, I explained to those who would listen that Haqqanis shifted their headquarters from Pakistan back to Afghanistan in 2010. Individuals still come and go but the bulk has long been gone. Over the last eight years or more, I have lost no opportunity to explain to American friends, some of whom are still in positions where they could influence matters, that Haqqani must be included in all talks on Afghanistan. Not because he is close to Pakistan — he never was and nor is — but because he can be the foil to Mullah Omer’s (now Mansour’s) Taliban. Furthermore, when the IS was making inroads in Northern Afghanistan, I showed them the map to explain why, from Kabul, Mansour’s Taliban can’t be effective. The only force that could isolate forces in Northern Afghanistan was and is Haqqani network.

Finally, when an invitation was issued to the Taliban, it was such a cavalier one as to ensure that their participation was merely a formality. That unknown to most of us, but not unknown to Haqqani, Mullah Omer was long dead, added insult to injury. But, tragically, the US, as always, needs a scapegoat for its own failures and errors, and Pakistan is made to order for that. Furthermore, the US is a law unto itself in today’s international arena. When it accuses an individual or a state, he, she or it stands convicted without an indictment, or trial, or public disclosure of evidence.And so, Pakistan does need to be squeezed.

The writer is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute