Since Osama Bin Laden's death in Pakistani town of Abbottabad on May 1, 2011, I am seeing a dramatic increase in cyber activity by many Indians manifesting itself as a constant stream of anti-Pakistan hateful commentary being posted on almost all major news discussion forums.
But, amidst all the usual venomous babble, the following fantasy by an Indian blogger Prashant Agrawal published in the Wall Street Journal stands out in particular:
India’s prime minister greets the Mi-25 helicopters carrying Indian Navy MARCOS commandos. He shakes hands with the returning troops, congratulates and thanks them. For the photographers, he holds up his thumbs, “Mission Accomplished”-style. The MARCOS are returning from Pakistan where they took out some of India’s, and the world’s, most wanted terrorists.
That was the story that didn’t happen yesterday or the week before or the month before or the year before or the decade before that. It’s the story that some, perhaps many, Indians have wished to read. It hasn’t happened but the chances of it happening have gone up slightly.
How interesting!
This reminds me of what Indian author and journalist Pankaj Mishra wrote some years ago. Here's an except from his article:
Gung-ho members of India's middle class clamor for Israeli-style retaliation against jihadi training camps in Pakistan. But India can "do a Lebanon" only by risking nuclear war with its neighbor; and Indian intelligence agencies are too inept to imitate Mossad's policy of targeted killings, which have reaped for Israel an endless supply of dedicated and resourceful enemies.
Prior to this latest episode of wishful thinking, I had heard of India’s “Israel Envy”, a phrase coined by former Indian minister Sashi Tharoor immediately after Mumbai terror attacks in 2008.
Now it seems that gung-ho Indians like Prashant are also suffering from India’s “America Envy”.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
Usama's Death in Perspective
India's Israel Envy-Haq
Can India Do Lebanon in Pakistan?
India-Pakistan Military Balance
India's Israel Envy-Tharoor
ISI Rogues-Real or Imagined?
India's Missile Shield and Israel Envy Threaten Pakistan
Gaza Compared With Nazi Concentration Camps
Gaza Bombing Witnesses Describe Horror
Showing posts with label Usama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Usama Bin Laden. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Seeing Osama Bin Laden's Death in Broader Perspective
Usama Bin Laden was not only the "Most Wanted" man for his horrible crimes against innocent civilians, but also the most hated person in the world, particularly in the United States where his al Qaeda terrorists killed thousands of innocent people on Sept 11, 2001. So it's not a surprise to see on TV wildly cheering crowds in America celebrating his death announced by President Obama on May 1, 2011. In polling by the Pew Research Center before he was killed, support for bin Laden in Pakistan dropped precipitously from a high of 52% in 2005 to just 18% in 2010, lower than 25% in Indonesia and 48% in Nigeria.
While many questions remain unanswered about the events before and during the US commando raid in Pakistani city of Abbottabad where Bin Laden was reportedly killed, it's important to put Osama's death in a broader context as laid out in a recent paper by the Pentagon's "Mr. Y" titled "A National Strategic Narrative". It's a wide-ranging and thought-provoking paper calling for reorienting American policy thinking from the current concept of "National Security" to "National Prosperity and Security".
An important step toward re-establishing credible influence and applying it effectively is to close the “say-do” gap. This begins by avoiding the very western tendency to label or “bin” individuals, groups, organizations, and ideas. In complex systems, adaptation and variation demonstrate that “binning” is not only difficult, it often leads to unintended consequences. For example, labeling, or binning, Islamist radicals as “terrorists,” or worse, as “jihadis,” has resulted in two very different, and unfortunate unintended misperceptions: that all Muslims are thought of as “terrorists;” and, that those who pervert Islam into a hateful, anti-modernist ideology to justify unspeakable acts of violence are truly motivated by a religious struggle (the definition of “jihad,” and the obligation of all Muslims), rather than being seen as apostates waging war against society and innocents. This has resulted in the alienation of vast elements of the global Muslim community and has only frustrated efforts to accurately depict and marginalize extremism. Binning and labeling are legacies of a strategy intent on viewing the world as a closed system.
Who is Mr. Y? It is a pseudonym for US Navy Capt Wayne Porter and US Marine Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby who are active serving military officers. The paper offers a disclaimer that "Mr. Y is a pseudonym for CAPT Wayne Porter, USN and Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby, USMC who are actively serving military officers. The views expressed herein are their own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Department of Defense or the U.S. government".
According to Foreign Policy magazine, "Mr. Y" pseudonym "is a takeoff on George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" from Moscow (published under the name "X" the following year in Foreign Affairs) that helped set containment as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union".
The authors are senior members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who say they wrote the "Y article" in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without official sanction.
Relative to the latest developments, it's important to emphasize Mr Y's argument "to accurately depict and marginalize extremism" without alienating Muslim allies like Pakistan. To make this point further, let me offer the following quotes from a Washington Post Op Ed by President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan:
"Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operation, a decade of cooperation and partnership between the United States and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a continuing threat to the civilized world. And we in Pakistan take some satisfaction that our early assistance in identifying an al-Qaeda courier ultimately led to this day."
"Only hours after bin Laden’s death, the Taliban reacted by blaming the government of Pakistan and calling for retribution against its leaders, and specifically against me as the nation’s president. We will not be intimidated. Pakistan has never been and never will be the hotbed of fanaticism that is often described by the media.
Radical religious parties have never received more than 11 percent of the vote. Recent polls showed that 85 percent of our people are strongly opposed to al-Qaeda. In 2009, when the Taliban briefly took over the Swat Valley, it demonstrated to the people of Pakistan what our future would look like under its rule — repressive politics, religious fanaticism, bigotry and discrimination against girls and women, closing of schools and burning of books. Those few months did more to unite the people of Pakistan around our moderate vision of the future than anything else possibly could."
Here's how President Obama acknowledged Pakistan's role in the Abbottabad operation in his May 1 speech televised live from the White House:
"Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates."
After all is said and done, I think OBL's killing is at best a Pyrrhic victory for America, unless it's followed by a fundamental reorientation of US policy posture as advocated in Mr. Y's "A National Strategic Narrative" in its concluding paragraph:
"This Narrative advocates for America to pursue her enduring interests of prosperity and security through a strategy of sustainability that is built upon the solid foundation of our national values. As Americans we needn’t seek the world’s friendship or to proselytize the virtues of our society. Neither do we seek to bully, intimidate, cajole, or persuade others to accept our unique values or to share our national objectives. Rather, we will let others draw their own conclusions based upon our actions. Our domestic and foreign policies will reflect unity of effort, coherency and constancy of purpose. We will pursue our national interests and allow others to pursue theirs, never betraying our values. We will seek converging interests and welcome interdependence. We will encourage fair competition and will not shy away from deterring bad behavior. We will accept our place in a complex and dynamic strategic ecosystem and use credible influence and strength to shape uncertainty into opportunities. We will be a pathway of promise and a beacon of hope, in an ever changing world."
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
Appeasement in Swat
ISI Rogues-Real or Imagined?
Daily Carnage in Pakistan
King's Hypocrisy
India's Guantanamos abd Abu Ghraibs
Obama McCain Debate on Pakistan Policy
While many questions remain unanswered about the events before and during the US commando raid in Pakistani city of Abbottabad where Bin Laden was reportedly killed, it's important to put Osama's death in a broader context as laid out in a recent paper by the Pentagon's "Mr. Y" titled "A National Strategic Narrative". It's a wide-ranging and thought-provoking paper calling for reorienting American policy thinking from the current concept of "National Security" to "National Prosperity and Security".
An important step toward re-establishing credible influence and applying it effectively is to close the “say-do” gap. This begins by avoiding the very western tendency to label or “bin” individuals, groups, organizations, and ideas. In complex systems, adaptation and variation demonstrate that “binning” is not only difficult, it often leads to unintended consequences. For example, labeling, or binning, Islamist radicals as “terrorists,” or worse, as “jihadis,” has resulted in two very different, and unfortunate unintended misperceptions: that all Muslims are thought of as “terrorists;” and, that those who pervert Islam into a hateful, anti-modernist ideology to justify unspeakable acts of violence are truly motivated by a religious struggle (the definition of “jihad,” and the obligation of all Muslims), rather than being seen as apostates waging war against society and innocents. This has resulted in the alienation of vast elements of the global Muslim community and has only frustrated efforts to accurately depict and marginalize extremism. Binning and labeling are legacies of a strategy intent on viewing the world as a closed system.
Who is Mr. Y? It is a pseudonym for US Navy Capt Wayne Porter and US Marine Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby who are active serving military officers. The paper offers a disclaimer that "Mr. Y is a pseudonym for CAPT Wayne Porter, USN and Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby, USMC who are actively serving military officers. The views expressed herein are their own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Department of Defense or the U.S. government".
According to Foreign Policy magazine, "Mr. Y" pseudonym "is a takeoff on George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" from Moscow (published under the name "X" the following year in Foreign Affairs) that helped set containment as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union".
The authors are senior members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who say they wrote the "Y article" in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without official sanction.
Relative to the latest developments, it's important to emphasize Mr Y's argument "to accurately depict and marginalize extremism" without alienating Muslim allies like Pakistan. To make this point further, let me offer the following quotes from a Washington Post Op Ed by President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan:
"Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operation, a decade of cooperation and partnership between the United States and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a continuing threat to the civilized world. And we in Pakistan take some satisfaction that our early assistance in identifying an al-Qaeda courier ultimately led to this day."
"Only hours after bin Laden’s death, the Taliban reacted by blaming the government of Pakistan and calling for retribution against its leaders, and specifically against me as the nation’s president. We will not be intimidated. Pakistan has never been and never will be the hotbed of fanaticism that is often described by the media.
Radical religious parties have never received more than 11 percent of the vote. Recent polls showed that 85 percent of our people are strongly opposed to al-Qaeda. In 2009, when the Taliban briefly took over the Swat Valley, it demonstrated to the people of Pakistan what our future would look like under its rule — repressive politics, religious fanaticism, bigotry and discrimination against girls and women, closing of schools and burning of books. Those few months did more to unite the people of Pakistan around our moderate vision of the future than anything else possibly could."
Here's how President Obama acknowledged Pakistan's role in the Abbottabad operation in his May 1 speech televised live from the White House:
"Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates."
After all is said and done, I think OBL's killing is at best a Pyrrhic victory for America, unless it's followed by a fundamental reorientation of US policy posture as advocated in Mr. Y's "A National Strategic Narrative" in its concluding paragraph:
"This Narrative advocates for America to pursue her enduring interests of prosperity and security through a strategy of sustainability that is built upon the solid foundation of our national values. As Americans we needn’t seek the world’s friendship or to proselytize the virtues of our society. Neither do we seek to bully, intimidate, cajole, or persuade others to accept our unique values or to share our national objectives. Rather, we will let others draw their own conclusions based upon our actions. Our domestic and foreign policies will reflect unity of effort, coherency and constancy of purpose. We will pursue our national interests and allow others to pursue theirs, never betraying our values. We will seek converging interests and welcome interdependence. We will encourage fair competition and will not shy away from deterring bad behavior. We will accept our place in a complex and dynamic strategic ecosystem and use credible influence and strength to shape uncertainty into opportunities. We will be a pathway of promise and a beacon of hope, in an ever changing world."
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
Appeasement in Swat
ISI Rogues-Real or Imagined?
Daily Carnage in Pakistan
King's Hypocrisy
India's Guantanamos abd Abu Ghraibs
Obama McCain Debate on Pakistan Policy
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Obamas Lampooned as " Flag-burning Islamic Terrorists"
As the general elections get closer with Barack Obama enjoying a big lead over John McCain, the smears and whisper campaigns against the Obamas are getting nastier by the day. Now a cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker Magazine's latest issue caricatures Barak Obama in the Oval Office dressed as Usama Bin Laden, bumping fists with Michelle Obama wearing military style fatigues with an AK-47 machine gun slung over her shoulder. The background has a picture of Osama Bin Laden over the fireplace and American flag burning in the fireplace. It captures all the lies, rumors and innuendos against Barack Obama. For those unfamiliar with the polls, about 10-12% of the Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Another 12% believe he took oath of office for the Senate on the Quran. A whopping 39% believe he attended an Islamic madrassa in Indonesia. All of these beliefs are completely baseless and repeatedly denied by Obama. In fact, some of the Obama staffers have become so sensitive to this "charge" that they refused to seat hijab-wearing Muslim women supporters behind Obama on stage in front of the cameras at a recent rally in Michigan. Obama later apologized for it.
The New Yorker magazine does have a reputation for its satirical covers. It is generally regarded highly by its supporters and critics. The magazine claims that its controversial cover is meant to satirize the campaign of lies and fabrications against Barack Obama. It has definitely got people talking about it. But the magazine's defense does raise a lot of questions about the approach it took. For example, could it have debunked the lies about Obama more effectively by showing this cartoon inside a thought bubble coming out of easily identifiable bigots? Or by showing it as a figment of Karl Rove's political imagination?
The way the New Yorker has chosen to satirize the issue comes across as really "tasteless and offensive" as the Obama campaign put it. By creating this controversy about someone like Obama with an unconventional background for a US presidential candidate, it is clear that the right-wing negative campaigns are getting a boost with much wider publicity. And it is serving to perpetuate and reinforce the worst possible stereotypes against Muslims in the United States. It is clearly unhelpful for people hoping for peaceful dialog and coexistence with the Islamic world. Given the current toxic environment in the United States against Islam and Muslims, Obama's stereotyping as Muslim could also expose him to great personal and physical harm.
If it is really not an innocent or botched attempt at satire, then what is its intent and who is behind it? In addition to Republicans who have successfully used whisper campaigns and smears in past presidential elections, there are other individuals and groups who are nervous about having Obama in the White House and they are trying to subvert his campaign by all means they consider necessary. For example, there are many who are vehemently opposed to Obama's insistence on direct talks with the Iranians on all issues between the US and Iran. Others see Obama as a problem because his presidency could hurt those who profit from the massive US military spending. Then there are those who believe Obama opposes the Iraq war and he wants to reach out to the Muslim world because he may have a soft corner for Muslims.
I expect to see a lot more insidious and inflammatory attacks on Obama for allegedly being "un-American", "unpatriotic", "unsympathetic to working class Americans", "closet Muslim", "Manchurian candidate", etc. etc. At the same time, I sense some level of discontent among some of the traditional Democratic Black and Jewish constituencies because of Obama's positions on personal responsibility and outreach to the Islamic world. I hope the Obama campaign is up to the task to deal with unconventional challenges from all kinds of bigots and interest groups plotting to derail his history-making run for the President of the United States.
The New Yorker magazine does have a reputation for its satirical covers. It is generally regarded highly by its supporters and critics. The magazine claims that its controversial cover is meant to satirize the campaign of lies and fabrications against Barack Obama. It has definitely got people talking about it. But the magazine's defense does raise a lot of questions about the approach it took. For example, could it have debunked the lies about Obama more effectively by showing this cartoon inside a thought bubble coming out of easily identifiable bigots? Or by showing it as a figment of Karl Rove's political imagination?
The way the New Yorker has chosen to satirize the issue comes across as really "tasteless and offensive" as the Obama campaign put it. By creating this controversy about someone like Obama with an unconventional background for a US presidential candidate, it is clear that the right-wing negative campaigns are getting a boost with much wider publicity. And it is serving to perpetuate and reinforce the worst possible stereotypes against Muslims in the United States. It is clearly unhelpful for people hoping for peaceful dialog and coexistence with the Islamic world. Given the current toxic environment in the United States against Islam and Muslims, Obama's stereotyping as Muslim could also expose him to great personal and physical harm.
If it is really not an innocent or botched attempt at satire, then what is its intent and who is behind it? In addition to Republicans who have successfully used whisper campaigns and smears in past presidential elections, there are other individuals and groups who are nervous about having Obama in the White House and they are trying to subvert his campaign by all means they consider necessary. For example, there are many who are vehemently opposed to Obama's insistence on direct talks with the Iranians on all issues between the US and Iran. Others see Obama as a problem because his presidency could hurt those who profit from the massive US military spending. Then there are those who believe Obama opposes the Iraq war and he wants to reach out to the Muslim world because he may have a soft corner for Muslims.
I expect to see a lot more insidious and inflammatory attacks on Obama for allegedly being "un-American", "unpatriotic", "unsympathetic to working class Americans", "closet Muslim", "Manchurian candidate", etc. etc. At the same time, I sense some level of discontent among some of the traditional Democratic Black and Jewish constituencies because of Obama's positions on personal responsibility and outreach to the Islamic world. I hope the Obama campaign is up to the task to deal with unconventional challenges from all kinds of bigots and interest groups plotting to derail his history-making run for the President of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)