![wants enhanced trade and investment relations stock image wants enhanced trade and investment relations stock image](https://c.tribune.com.pk/2017/10/1545459-PakistanUSPakUS-1509519603.jpg)
Every time an American president or a US official opens his/her mouth, they issue threats. Issuing threats against a sovereign nation is a contravention of the UN charter. Furthermore, previous and current rhetoric of US officials is a textbook illustration of terrorism based on the definition of the US army manual or US code, which defines terrorism as the calculated use of violence to achieve goals that are political, ideological, and religious in nature through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. But never mind because definitions don’t matter when the good guys do it.
In most of the American TV shows, around season 5 viewers are either bored with the show or the outcome or a development in the story leaves them surprised and disappointed. Pakistanis are in season 5 of this super boring, mindless, senseless, nonsensical, and flawed show. When US officials repeat the “do more” mantra, their reaction can be summed up as “do what more”?
Pakistan has lost over 70,000 lives in the war on terror. There was no terrorism and no suicide bombing inside Pakistan before 9/11. Pakistan lost so much of its infrastructure, hurt its economy, lost the peace, lost the various traditions, and so forth. Yet, the Americans are not happy. Pakistanis ask you want us to “do more” of that?
The Americans lecture the Pakistanis not to support terrorism. But Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi just told Secretary Tillerson that “today Pakistan is fighting the largest war in the world against terror”. If a leader’s word is not enough, well then, likewise. And why bother indulge in this ritualistic mantra anyway if there is so much trust deficit?
In season 5, we are witnessing the Twitter in chief denouncing Pakistan for its alleged support of the Haqqani Network in his August 21st speech. Last week’s episode had Secretary Tillerson criticise Pakistan’s policy from New Delhi. Secretary Tillerson said that Pakistan’s policy was damaging for Pakistan. This could be an advice or a jibe since his threat threshold is higher than normal. Either way, there can’t be a worse way of conveying it to Pakistan than to do it from India. That is like criticising Winterfell while sitting in Westeros. The Starks are not going to forget it whose ambition is to defend and live in their loving Winterfell, rather than invading and occupying other people’s lands.
Season 5 will end with one conclusion: the overlapping sentiments of Pakistani civilian and military leadership towards the US policy. In the 70s, the Pakistani civilian leadership was anti-American and pro-Soviet. However, the army was totally pro-American. Therefore, American wishes prevailed. The Pakistan Army helped the United States take its revenge by “giving the USSR its Vietnam”. Today’s Pakistani civilian leadership is pro-American. But America is at loggerheads with a powerful and recalcitrant army. Even in the ’80s, the United States was against Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons. The Pakistan Army managed to become a nuclear state. It is the army that prevails.
We might witness an assertive India in Afghanistan emboldened by America’s support. This will threaten Pakistan’s security. The continuous “do more” will push Pakistan further into the arms of Russia and China. Vali Nasr, the Iranian-American academic and author, in his book The Dispensable Nation has a chapter titled ‘Who Lost Pakistan?’ as if Pakistan was America’s property. If the mindless fraudster trying to pass himself as an academic dares asking the same question again after the shifting alliances solidify, I will gladly solve the puzzle for him. The answer is: watch all the seasons of “do more”.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 31st, 2017.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ