What's new

The Army, Allah, and America

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
thenewsinternational.com

The Army, Allah, and America

By Shuja Nawaz
5/6/2008
In the 1950s, the US and Pakistan became close in the battle against the communist threat, or so Pakistan portrayed it to the Americans. Pakistani politicians and military leaders rather adroitly painted themselves as partners in the defence of the Middle East and against the communist threat worldwide, in sharp contrast to India's neutral and at times pro-Soviet stance.

As Pakistan's domestic political situation deteriorated, then army chief Gen Ayub Khan began formulating a plan to reorient the state. He had in mind a leadership role for the military. The US went along, as Pakistan played the communist card to acquire arms and equipment and to expand the army. Under the cloak of this argument, Pakistan's army grew with US help to become a dominant player and coercive power on the national scene.

The US fully understood that Pakistan needed arms to defend itself against India and was not capable of fighting outside its borders against any future Soviet threat to the Middle East. Pakistan continued to believe that US aid could be used against India, and so long as it paid lip service to the fight against communism, it would meet all the criteria for continued aid. The Pakistanis were unaware that President Dwight Eisenhower himself was raising doubts about the military relationship, favouring economic aid. Chairing a meeting of the National Security Council in January 1957, President Eisenhower said that "this was perhaps the worst kind of a plan and decision we could have made. It was a terrible error, but we now seem hopelessly involved in it."

But the pendulum was already swinging away from blind friendship towards a more pragmatic relationship on the part of the United States. This was captured succinctly in the new US ambassador James Langley's letter to William Rountree, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs, near the end of 1957: "I fear that it would not be to difficult to make a rather convincing case that the present military programme is based on a hoax, the hoax being that it is related to the Soviet threat."

The US saw then, as it does now, that the army was "well disciplined" and had a "high degree of morale and loyalty to their leaders and constitute the most stable element in Pakistan today." Thus when President Iskander Mirza conveyed to the US ambassador in Pakistan that he was getting ready to impose martial law in October 1958, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles responded by advising Langley to convey to Mirza that the US favoured democratic government. But he added that "there may be exceptions which can be justified for limited periods. That decision must be left entirely for Pakistan's leaders and people to decide….only as a last resort." In effect, the green light was given for martial law.

The US needed Pakistan on its side, regardless of what was good for Pakistan's internal political development. As a result, the US condoned or abetted Pakistan's slide into martial law and repeated cycles of military rule. It propped up Gen Ayub Khan and then deserted him in the1960s after his war with India. President Richard Nixon, in effect, supported his illegal successor Gen A M Yahya Khan's repression against East Pakistan, paying him back for Yahya's help with opening up the doors to China for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Nixon. But Yahya ended up losing a war to India and losing half his country, as East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Needing an ally against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979, the US learned to live with and love the dictator General Zia-ul-Haq for a decade, but once the Soviets were defeated and General Boris Gromov's tanks rumbled across the Amu Darya in February 1989, the US packed its bags and left. Pakistan had to deal with the blowback of the ensuing Kalashnikov and drug culture.

That is the history of political breaking-ups that Musharraf and many of his countrymen and generals remembered vividly, as they put themselves and Pakistan first in their dealings with the United States.

Now that a new democratically elected government is back in power, the United States needs to review this history too, to see how this time it can come out unequivocally in favour of the people of Pakistan, to regain their trust and friendship. If not, then Iraq and Iran may seem, in retrospect, to be minor challenges compared to what might emerge in a fractured, nuclear, and Islamist Pakistan in the years ahead. In the final analysis the security of Pakistan's nuclear stockpile and the security of the region rest on a return to normalcy to the political system, and economic and social development that would meet the aspirations of its 165 million inhabitants.

The writer is the author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within which will be released in Pakistan this month by Oxford University Press. He is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and can be reached at Shuja Nawaz
 
I think that in coming decades, the new equation would be: Allah, Army, America and China….

Somehow America always needed us in the past and will need us forever (now being stuck in Iraq/Afghanistan and possibly Iran- who knows!) and as the China is also growing its wings and with lots of interest in Pakistan due to various reasons, somehow we will always remain in the lime light and probably in trouble too. :woot:

We do boast about our strategic geographical location in the region, but I think that instead of gaining any benefits from that, it has been more of a nuisance for us. Located between the giants like America (in a way), China , India and also flanked by Afghanistan and Iran , I am not sure what the future hold for us at this ‘location’. :undecided:
 
I think that in coming decades, the new equation would be: Allah, Army, America and China….

Somehow America always needed us in the past and will need us forever (now being stuck in Iraq/Afghanistan and possibly Iran- who knows!) and as the China is also growing its wings and with lots of interest in Pakistan due to various reasons, somehow we will always remain in the lime light and probably in trouble too. :woot:

We do boast about our strategic geographical location in the region, but I think that instead of gaining any benefits from that, it has been more of a nuisance for us. Located between the giants like America (in a way), China , India and also flanked by Afghanistan and Iran , I am not sure what the future hold for us at this ‘location’. :undecided:

I have somehow seen this feeling among many Pakistanis that USA needs them more than they need USA! I doubt they know the equation.

More than 2 million Pakistani textile workers depend on USA providing preferential treatment to Pakistani manufacturers just for a start. You get almost all your defense equipment from them, large amount of aid and so on.

I am not sure but I assume that USA is your biggest trade partner while the reverse is far from true!
 
I have somehow seen this feeling among many Pakistanis that USA needs them more than they need USA! I doubt they know the equation.

More than 2 million Pakistani textile workers depend on USA providing preferential treatment to Pakistani manufacturers just for a start. You get almost all your defense equipment from them, large amount of aid and so on.

I am not sure but I assume that USA is your biggest trade partner while the reverse is far from true!

Please back up those claims.
Pakistan does rely on America but we wont collapse if America pulls out. Remember the 90s?
 
Pakistan has a great future.

It is strategically located.

It is ideal time and place to play its role as the arbitrator.

Its main aim is to stabilise and assume its rightful place.

I will be frank, I don't know how that can be done.

All I can say, it requires great leaders who are seized with the situation and the times!

Musharraf was slowly edging towards it, but he has been defanged!
 
Please back up those claims.
Pakistan does rely on America but we wont collapse if America pulls out. Remember the 90s?

Indeed Pakistan will not collapse.

But one cannot forget geopolitical realities!
 
Vinod

You are right…we do need them for many reasons (defence, industry etc) but one should also acknowledge that they do need us too …Ever wonder that why they had been supplying arms to us since decades or giving monitory aid or manipulating our political system etc ????…..

Somehow since late 50s, luckily (or unluckily) we had been fitting into her ulterior motives in this region and probably will continue to do so. …. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.
 
I wouldn't be proud if someone manipulates us!
 
Yes again the "Three A" theory is being talked about. Lets just break it down:
Allah or in other words the Islamic way of life. Their is no denying the fact that religion does play a very big role in Pakistani politics and it all ways will. We can talk of secularism all we want but the fact is we are an Islamic Republic. Now I am not going against what some of us believe that Quaid-I-Azam declared Pakistan to be a secular state. The Quaid-I-Azam was a man who believed in the democratic principles and if the people wanted and Islamic government he would of supported it. But at the same time the fact is he was a man larger then life. At the time he could say what he wanted and no one would question him or his theory. That is why when he went the East Pakistan and said Urdu would be the only language, the people said nothing but when some of our other leaders tried to do the same they were critized.
Army in Pakistan is no doubt a political force. But I think right now the Army has totally staying out of politics atleast for the next ten years when the civilians will force the Army to take power.
America is no doubt a party in our political system. But in no way is the federation of Pakistan depend upon America. They have left us before in the woods and we have survived and if they leave us again we will survive.
One A which is missing from this theory is "Awam." I just wish I could replace America with Awam.
 
Some would argue that we have been manipulating them as well.

That is also true.

And gained in out of proportions from it too!

And yet, they appear to be dictating terms and making Pakistan do things where the heart is not there! ;)
 
Muj,

A nice post.

But too emotional and not quite congruous with realpolitik!
 
Please back up those claims.
Pakistan does rely on America but we wont collapse if America pulls out. Remember the 90s?

Which claim do you want me to back up? I will happily do that. Most of them are easily verifiable by doing a simple google or live search. If you are a serious observer of the political/economics space of Pakistan, you should be knowing all of that already.

All of what I wrote are easily verifiable facts and not personal opinions.

And I never said anything contradictory to your second point.

As per the facts on the ground, Pakistan needs the USA much more than vice versa and your governments and ruling elite know that even if the common man doesn't.

Of course that is only the current (and past) situation and can change very rapidly in future!
 
Vinod

You are right…we do need them for many reasons (defence, industry etc) but one should also acknowledge that they do need us too …Ever wonder that why they had been supplying arms to us since decades or giving monitory aid or manipulating our political system etc ????…..

Somehow since late 50s, luckily (or unluckily) we had been fitting into her ulterior motives in this region and probably will continue to do so. …. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.

That's a correct way of looking at it.

This relationship has been mainly transactional for many reasons and could not really develop into a deeper relationship. May be this is due to little or no inherent meeting points or similarities between the two countries or the great asymmetry or some other reasons.

But USA holds most of the cards and is able to get its way most of the times.
 
I have somehow seen this feeling among many Pakistanis that USA needs them more than they need USA! I doubt they know the equation.

More than 2 million Pakistani textile workers depend on USA providing preferential treatment to Pakistani manufacturers just for a start. You get almost all your defense equipment from them, large amount of aid and so on.

I am not sure but I assume that USA is your biggest trade partner while the reverse is far from true!

Dude let me tell you something the US does not give pakistani textiles preffrential treatment. infact we have been lobbying for that for a very longtime. I know this because my cousin is a manager of a buying house that exports textiles to the US
 
Back
Top Bottom