If you take major decisions from world history, you will be appalled. Napoleon’s attack on Russia for one, which made the grande armee a mob of straggling beggars; the same decision by Hitler came to the same ignominious end; and the recent American attack on Iraq resulted in the destruction of Iraq, as well as sacrifice of American lives. Going back to other decisions, such as those which led to the First World War and even the Second World War, show the appalling lack of understanding of world leaders who act like gamblers in crises with no compunction about human life. The few exceptions are the Cuban Crisis in which Nikita Khruschev and John F Kennedy prevented a nuclear holocaust though the American generals had advised such a folly. Unfortunately, with a dimwitted man like George W Bush as president and the same kind of advice by the generals, the United States became a major violator of laws against torture and attacked Afghanistan without learning anything from history.
There are many examples but let us take the ones which matter to us in Pakistan. Take the Kashmir War of 1947-48. Basically, soldiers on leave and tribesmen were used by some Pakistani decision-makers to capture Kashmir. Now, consider that units of the Pakistan Army, weapons and ammunition were either in transit or having teething problems and refugees sprawled in appalling squalor in Lahore and Karachi. Was this the time to fight a much larger neighbour? And now, consider that in 1965, the same strategy, if that is what you want to call this folly, was used again. The irony of it is that the authors of it — General Akhtar Malik, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Aziz Ahmed — were known to be intelligent men. And yet, this is the plan they made. And it put Pakistan years behind in development, stopped American military aid (which was not too bad since Pakistan moved on to China) and gave Pakistan the reputation of an irresponsible and aggressive state.
Let us go on to consider Ziaul Haq’s decision to join America’s proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This war is ripe with examples of the folly factor. First, the folly of the Soviet marshals who deluded themselves and the Kremlin into thinking that they could conquer Afghanistan within a fortnight — and this despite the failure of the British nearly a century back as William Darlymple’s latest book points out. Secondly, the folly of the Americans who used Islamic militants and malcontents from all over the world to fight the Russians in the name of faith. And, thirdly, Zia’s joining the war in which we should have been neutral. But Zia’s decision was not out of stupidity. Indeed, he was being cunning. The Americans gave him the legitimacy he lacked and billions of dollars. It was the decision to use the militants in Kashmir later, which was dangerously foolish. And so were the Americans. So, would you agree that foolishness is more harmful for countries than corruption?
Published in The Express Tribune, April 23rd, 2013.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Falcon: "@Abid P. Khan: You certainly have good sense of humor. With regards to lobbying in US, I did post a link for your reference, but apparently it didn’t get past ET’s mysterious comment moderator. If you type up Dawn + Musharraf + 25000 in Google, you will have your answer."
. That's old chestnuts. Be more inventive. BTW, regarding humour. the feeling is mutual.
@Abid P. Khan: You certainly have good sense of humor. With regards to lobbying in US, I did post a link for your reference, but apparently it didn't get past ET's mysterious comment moderator. If you type up Dawn + Musharraf + 25000 in Google, you will have your answer.
The author has omitted to mention the biggest folly,f refusing power transfer after the election of 1971 at federal level by politicians and the army both, to Awami League and thereafter deployment of army to crush the genuine voices of the then East Pakistani people resulting in division of Pakistan .
Great analysis and true to a dot
@Falcon,
Good point. How can an army general accumulate wealth to the tune of $50+ millions on his salary?
@Falcon: "The kind of lifestyle he had while living outside the country along with the kind of funds he was doling out to lobbying agencies in U.S., it is obvious that he took more than share of his pay from the national exchequer." . Apparently you are well informed about Musharraf's lobbying efforts in the US. Why don't you take this case to the court so as to have it legally proven, how he was dipping his hands in the government's till. . After all your party can finance you in this noble cause. The nation will bless you for exposing someone whom they perceive as a hero.
I agree with the principal but why do we have to make that choice? Don't we have political options that are reasonably intelligent and relatively better in terms of corruption record?
On a side note, I don't think Musharraf was not involved in corruption. The kind of lifestyle he had while living outside the country along with the kind of funds he was doling out to lobbying agencies in U.S., it is obvious that he took more than share of his pay from the national exchequer.