By: Azhar Azam
Posted an Indian dock in the US, Christine Fair invariably maintains archaic and vindictive stance toward Pakistan; snubbing Pakistan’s unstinting support to the United States across snags despite copious criticism for fighting a US war on its territory
Fair, a staunch adherent of drone strikes in Pakistan, has a history of delivering malicious remarks to Pakistan such as a duplicitous, terrorist predator state, a hyena which is the ugliest scavenger, mocking military, dubious and liar, US hand bitter, and almost pleads to declare Pakistan a terrorist state for exporting terrorism.
Her pro-drone strikes in Pakistan bearing has been widely criticized in the US as well. Infamous for her impassioned rhetoric, she kept on constantly interrupting award winner journalist Glenn Greenwald in a debate on aljazeera and baptized him “pathological liar, a narcissist, a fool” for his criticism on US drone program.
Latter on Twitter, Fair retorted to her critics “Yep. Shut that lying clown down. I don’t care if you think I’m a rambo bitch. Do you know why? I AM a rambo bitch”. And in a Facebook post, she implored “India needs to woman up and SQUASH Pakistan military diplomatically, politically, and economically…deliver a muscular foreign policy with zero tolerance for Pakistan’s bullshit”.
Now in a mendacious response to op-ed by Stephen Hadley and Moeed Yusuf emphasizing “the United States must understand and address Pakistan’s strategic anxieties” for peace in Afghanistan; Fair unmasked her outpouring rage, abhor, and plague for Pakistan. She further furtively intertwines two entirely different areas Pak-US and Indo-Pak relations in one drive just to mar Pakistan image.
The associate professor at Georgetown University lamentably denoted Moeed Yusuf a “proxy” of Pakistan that editor-in-chief finally had to regret, declaring Fair’s allegation “baseless characterization of him”. Why shouldn’t she or the likes of her be assumed Indian “proxies” on the same Gage?
Exceedingly unfair to her profession, Fair imputes Pakistan for not resolving the core Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India; by not withdrawing all forces in compliance with the first of the chronological steps recommended by UN Security Council in its Resolution 47 (1948). That was to be followed by Indian withdrawal from the territory except for the defensive forces before holding a plebiscite.
It was Pakistan that undertook “to use its best endeavors to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident”; otherwise those tribesmen would have grilled India in Kashmir. How many tribesmen and Pakistani nationals were fighting from thereon till 1990s; before an uprise movement in Kashmir?
Despite Pakistan’s withdrawal of tribesmen and others, India was never keen to a single step to withdraw its forces. Instead Indian troops by now have engorged to about half of total Indian troops, 650,000 to 750,000 in the valley. Moreover, it is India that is always averred Kashmir to be its integral part, denying any third party involvement for the dispute resolution. Is this stance in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution?
Fair then distorts the resolution stating “and third, when both sides satisfied with the sequential withdrawals, India was to facilitate a plebiscite”. In fact, it was to the satisfaction of the UN Commission that when the tribesmen are withdrawing, withdrawal is taking place, and Indian forces have been reduced to minimum forces; India was to constitute and delegate powers to Plebiscite Administration. But tribesmen continued to withdraw; nonetheless India neither made a cut to its forces nor exerted any effort to found the Plebiscite Administration.
How can be someone such a stupid in today’s world striving for human rights to advocate a “sale deed” between Maharaja Hari Singh and India to sell out millions of people against their wishes?
She subsequently frustratingly hauls in Zulifqar Ali Bhutto for setting up Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) cell in Afghanistan to form first jihad policy in 1974, much before Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and also same out-dated accusation on Pakistan to fool Americans by using “proxies” of Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network. Before blaming ISI, she discounted the “myths” attributed to Pakistan’s ISI, unraveled by some of senior CIA officers.
Firstly even if the former claim is true, all intelligence agencies including CIA operate worldwide to serve national interests. Didn’t the United States bled millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere for its “national security objectives”? If Pakistan wanted a friendly government in Afghanistan, how could it be a “foul”?
Secondly, she must question the capabilities and competence of US forces that are exposed by just a few thousand Haqqani Network operatives; supposed from Pakistan. Afghan Taliban are however fighting their war as the Afghans have historically been. Faulting Pakistan for backing them cannot give accuse to the US defeat in Afghanistan; may although profess Pakistan’s superiority in covert warfare.
War decrees its own rules! You cannot win wars without confronting enemy and giving sacrifices on the ground. Air strikes are lethal but serve merely for clearing area for ground forces to capture and control the territory. US military forces never really commenced face-off “manly” with militants.
Michael Scheuer, ex-CIA official, says, “We are not manly. There the enemy losses hundreds a week and we, a country, a super power of 300-million people cannot tolerate a loss of 160 people a year. It’s a bad example for an enemy who is willing to expand enormous number of lives”.
And one should ask a silly question that why the United States withdrew most of the troops from Afghanistan, if the war was far from over?
Ted Poe, tented by Indian media for anti-Pakistan indoctrination, is a US lawmaker known as “The King of Shame” for his humiliating rulings as judge including ordering offenders to shovel manure. Hinging identical proposition, he charges Pakistan for “long history of duplicity” and playing US for fools. In March 2017, he introduced a Bill H.R. 1499 in House of Representatives to designate Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.
Pakistan have lost nearly 80,000 lives and suffered about $120 billion of economic loss in the war on terror to secure itself, the United States and the whole world. And in return, what Pakistan is conferred with is the testimonials of “dubious”, “betrayer”, “duplicitous” and “fooling Americans”.
If it is that easy to dupe Americans, does the United States has the right to proclaim world’s sole super power? For some reasons, the planet’s most advanced country has repeatedly been played “childishly” by a tiny Pakistan? And everything ascribed to Pakistan years before, US has realized years later? So, US is supposed to track Pakistan’s strategy-now, may be another after 10-years?
Actually, it is the Pakistan that has been betrayed by the United States times and again. Pressler Amendment in 1990, soon after Soviet Union retreat, was the crucial one that passed a high voltage shock to Pakistan’s trust on the United States. The amendment imposed economic and military sanctions on Pakistan over its nuclear program; a matter of its national interest and security.
Although the United States knew this since 1980s, wasn’t familiar about the whereabouts of the strategic assets, but zipped itself until the cold war concluded. Such sanctions still could not prevent Pakistan to develop an able nuclear arsenal. In the aftermath of 9/11, again the US “adored” Pakistan to topple Taliban government in Afghanistan and thereafter, once again grassing its “friend” by engaging rival India in Afghanistan that posed serious threats to Pakistan’s national security.
While the United States was test-firing weapons and developing “graveyards” in the Muslim dominated countries; China grew ballistic economically. Chinese Silk Road, powered by China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), provided idyllic opportunity to Pakistan to strengthen economically; fading reliance on the United States.
Balochistan, the epicenter of CPEC, is henceforth the staple territory for global clandestine operations. The US also apprehends that vacating Afghanistan could provide China an opportunity to exploit an estimated of $3-trillion mineral reserves in the Afghanistan. Correspondingly, this is the US bend to India which has forced Pakistan to forge ties with Russia; developing a formidable triangle of China-Russia-Pakistan.
Dire to the Indian and US interests too, Afghanistan soil and its puppet government are being used against Pakistan to manufacture another Afghanistan; miscalculating if Pakistan fails, who will be their next targets. India, with several freedom movements in the country, would fell a soft victim of terrorists and would open the doors of hell to the entire world. So, peaceful and stable Pakistan is in a guarantee to peace in the India, the United States, and the world.
US administration must not be influenced with this breed of such conjectural geo-political think tanks, analysts and politicians, which has only ignited Pak-US relations yesterday and today; subduing mutual efforts and cooperation in the fight on terror.