Today, we face a state of military hegemony: political, economic and intellectual control.

There is not a single young scholar who is not on the military's payroll or network. Shahbaz Sharif used to instruct the police to facilitate Hamid Gul's Varan bus service A dissidents job is always fraught with dangers. In case of Pakistan, the risks involved in criticizing allpowerful Khakis and their proxy Taliban hardly need an elucidation. Still, dissident voices keep tormenting military establishment. Ayesha Siddiqa is one such tormenter. In an interview with Viewpoint, she candidly exposes the Khaki myths painstakingly built by indoctrinating outlets. Read on: Tell us about yourself. I was born and raised in Lahore which probably explains my madness. I grew up in a Lahore which was really a cultural and intellectual hub. Being the only child of a writer-mother - Jamila Hashmi - I was dragged around by her to all sorts of places like the Pak Tea House, Writer's Guild and others. Grew up seeing some of the top intellectual icons of our country. I went to Cathedral High School which was then the only co-ed educational institution. Later, I did my graduation from Kinnaird College, Lahore and Masters in Political Science from the Punjab University as an external student because I had by then joined the civil services. In 1992, I went to the UK to do my Ph.D. in War Studies from King's College, London. One of the first books my mother gave me to read was Maxim Gorky's autobiography. Right across my school was People's Publishing House that sold translations of some of the most fantastic literary works from the then Soviet Union. I still return to Gorky when I am lost. I read almost all Russian authors, English literature and some French authors. I was raised to become a fiction writer but I probably didn't have the balls for that. I still desire to be one because great fiction makes great people. If one goes by WikiLeaks and reports frequently appearing in global media, the ISI is patronizing Taliban. In your book, Military Inc. and numerous other articles you have written, military appears as a conglomerate with financial and industrial interests. Don't you think GHQ's Afghan and Kashmir policy is in contradiction with its economic interests? In fact, these policies constitute the foundations on which the empire stands. It is the narrative through which everything else is sold. Contrary to the propaganda that military is the only surviving institution of the state, it is also a victim of the politics of its echelons. There are factions within the military: some support the west and other the Islamists. There is not one policy but several policies. But at a glance, the sense of being a nuclear weapon state gives the army a certain confidence to engage in misadventures. But more than everything else, dependence on non-state actors is built into its own tactical narrative. This means that it will not give up its claim on either Kashmir or Afghanistan. These two issues are essential in the process of militarizing the society and the societal mindset, which, in turn, is necessary for military's predation. Today, we face a state of military hegemony: political, economic and intellectual control. Today, there is not a single university in Pakistan or a young scholar who is not on the military's payroll or network. They open shops called think-tanks for their young clients. A journalist, who does not take directions from the military, is a rarity in today's Pakistan. Institutionally, this outreach is done through the ISPR and the ISI. But there are other informal channels as well such as the army chief himself. Recently, heard a top Pakistani journalist claim in a private meeting that the military intends to fight the Taliban because he had heard that from the army chief with whom he had about six private sessions. The national security narrative built on and around the Kashmir and Afghanistan issues is critical for establishing military's hegemony. Every time ISI is accused of patronizing Taliban, we are told bout over 2000 soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in 'war on terror'. What explains this contradiction. Who is army patronizing, if it is patronizing, and who it is fighting back? The army only fights those militants who have gone astray but the policy is to continue supporting nonstate actors. Over the past couple of decades or more, the army has developed an operational dependence on these forces. The animosity with India is ideological and so there will always be the need to build and sustain elements having blind faith in destroying the enemy and not question the narrative. The Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and certain factions of the Taliban are considered friendly and dependable. However, there is no real plan to ensure that they all stay strictly in control. For instance, there are elements from within the friendly forces that go astray and launch an

attack. Army's own men dying helps build the narrative that it is under attack and so deserves sympathy and support of the people. The Viewpoint was told by an ISPR spokesperson: ''As for as the defense budget is concerned it's total Rs. 450 billion which makes almost 17 percent of the total budget whereas propaganda is more than 50 percent goes to military'' . Is it really 17 percent or is it some twist here? Under Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz the government introduced cosmetic changes such as de-linking military pensions from the main defense budget. There are about Rs. 100-150 billion that are not included in the budget. This is one problem. But then there is the overall share claimed by the military in national resources that would put the percentage at a much higher level. There is a need to monetize the military's commercial ventures and the state assets that they utilize for financial purposes to arrive at a correct figure. The defense budget calculated to the older formula (pensions and all other hidden items included) make it over 25% of CGE. The hidden items also include expenditure used on military but drawn from civilian head of expenditure. A calculation of defense expenditure based on their overall share of national resources would take the figure even higher. A big justification for big defence budget is '' due to India's hegemonic designs''. When Pakistan went nuclear, we were told by government as well as military hawks that no body could cast an evil eye on Pakistan anymore. Why this big defense budget when we have The Bomb? And don't you think the increasing budget contradicts the logic behind The Bomb? Since we follow the US-USSR example, there is no evidence that non-conventional defense reduces the need or the size for conventional defense. The nuclear deterrence causing budgetary reduction formula does not work for us at all because we have not gone into a phase of sustainable confidence-building measures or given up the military option for resolving disputes with India. The example being Kargil crisis or the attacks by non-state actors originating from Pakistan. Due to India's superior or quantitatively stronger position to push Pakistan up the conflict escalation spiral, buying major weapon systems to stave off threat of a war imposed by India in a nuclear environment becomes necessary. Our defense budget will never go down unless we change the politics of our rivalry with India. Army claims to have a superb system of internal accountability. It is said many officers go home on minor corruption charges. That's why, they say, this organization is still intact and takes over the country with out bloody revolution. Your comments. The organization does not survive because of its superior accountability but due to its mafia-style accountability. This means that while those at the top and at responsible positions are not touched, others who are not so well-connected are kept in line with this narrative of accountability. Firstly, the accountability system is flawed. It is one organization whose manpower (Department of the AuditorGeneral of Pakistan) conducts both internal and external audit. To give one example, I have served both as a military accountant and a defense auditor. Am I likely to point out issues with spending that I had approved during my tenure as part of the Military Accountant-General's organization? Second, the defense budget has over 20% wastage which is due to procurement of weapons and other items, incorrect human resource planning and a negative teeth-to-tail ratio. This means the military spends more on non-essentials than essentials. In one of your articles you claimed a general in Pakistan is worth 500 millions. Can you compare it with the costs incurred by an Indian general? The worth of an Indian general is much less because they do not get to make all the properties that Pakistani generals do. To give one example, when general Musharraf retired he had 8 properties on prime location and his legal net worth runs into millions of rupees. And I have not even begun to calculate the worth of his off-budget wealth. The interesting part is that military acquires land at cheap rates. There are stories after stories of ordinary people being forced off their land or forced into selling their land at cheap rates which is then developed using state infrastructure and sold at higher rates. It is worth pointing out that there is a thin line between public and private spending on defense. There are hundreds of cases pointed out in defense audit reports whereby military's commercial ventures draw upon state resources. Also, according to an ISPR spokesperson: ''There are two types of service setups. One is command and other is staff. From Major General to Lieutenant General there is total 10 years of service, 3 to 4 for command and rest is staff. On staff you only get 90000 to 100000 Rs. Salary, 5 to 6 people of staff. A staff car and driver and one house. One house servant''. It does not sound 500 million. Your comments.

It is not just the pay of the generals which is counted as part of their worth. The lands they acquire as part of their being in service is included. Also, the money spent on acquisition and development of the golf courses, residential colonies, housing schemes, etc. An exact calculation may push up the figure even higher. Military has been accused of land grabbing and making quick bucks out of real estate business. But privately many officers say: well! bureaucrats, judges, journalists, police officers, all get residential houses and plots who only single out military officers.Your comments. The military economy, as I tried to point out in my book "Military Inc", is part of the elite economy. The Pakistan military does not predate alone but in partnership with other actors. The fact that judges, journalists, and bureaucrats are also allowed similar facilities is so that military personnel can say 'but they do it too'. The other point worth attention is that while others do not engage in such land-grabbing so frequently, the military has an institutionalized system to do so. There is no justification for giving away land to any select group. Also, we are told that not every general has made fortunes. Only the ones enjoying power under military dictatorships have benefited. Others have not. What is your opinion? It is a false assumption that no one has made money. Lt. General (retd) Amjad is considered as one of the honest generals. However, he also made his 'legal' millions selling the land acquired through the army. Having said that I agree there are always those who make less money than others. However, military's predation is an institutional feature. It is no longer about personalities. Every military regime opens up newer facilities for the officer cadre. The problem is that these perks are legalized and so we generally don't look at these as theft of national resources. There is not a single general who has not benefitted. Be it the Islamist General Hamid Gull or the pro-democracy Lt. General (retd) Talat Masood, they are all beneficiaries. They benefit under military rule and also under civilian rule. Ask some reasonable police officer who would be willing to tell you how Shahbaz Sharif used to instruct the police to facilitate Hamid Gull's Varan bus service. In fact, the retired military officers are as much a part of military incorporated as serving.

Adnan Farooq
Adnan Farooq did his Masters in Political Science and has worked with daily The Nation, Lahore and daily Jang, Lahore. He has also volunteered for Milieudefensie, Amsterdam. Friends of the earth, Europe, on environmental issues. He has been working with ON FILE, an Amsterdam-based publication run by journalists from all around the world. He studied Conflict Resolution at University of Amsterdam and is living in Paris. He is the editor.
Share Link:

Comments

0#5 Ahmed Tareen 2010-09-08 22:40 Quoting salman: It appears that the writer is herself on payroll of some power, mandated to destroy the image of defense forces. Her approach to malign the institute and shake the foundation with baseless accusations is highly deplorable. It must be appreciated that barring few individuals rest of the military men are simple, hardworking, focused and making both ends meet. Articles like these hurt their feelings. Yes Army has a system of looking after its work forces in an institutionaliz ed, way which is far better than others that is why it is subjected to criticism by hawks. They want this institution to be dead like others. Rather it should be taken as role model by others to be followed. Just to give one example in recent floods there was a place where all co-located setups of Army, Wapda, Railways, Govt School, police station came under 12 feet of water. All of the govt servants

abandoned their setups and fled away less military men who till last kept on salvaging government property (weapons) from their units and not a single one deserted / abandoned their unit although their own families back home were also victims of flood. I think if one day Pak faces some national disaster people will be looking towards military men. The writer should stop weakening the institution of Army just to earn from Best sellers, however individual cases may be investigated and published. i can write pages here, but i know you are never going to think. come out from your 8th grade text book and Alpha Bravo Charlie Quote

0#4 SHammad 2010-09-07 22:05 DEar Salman, whoever you are, I enjoy such kneejerk vitroilic Quote

-3#3 salman 2010-09-07 16:07 It appears that the writer is herself on payroll of some power, mandated to destroy the image of defense forces. Her approach to malign the institute and shake the foundation with baseless accusations is highly deplorable. It must be appreciated that barring few individuals rest of the military men are simple, hardworking, focused and making both ends meet. Articles like these hurt their feelings. Yes Army has a system of looking after its work forces in an institutionaliz ed, way which is far better than others that is why it is subjected to criticism by hawks. They want this institution to be dead like others. Rather it should be taken as role model by others to be followed. Just to give one example in recent floods there was a place where all co-located setups of Army, Wapda, Railways, Govt School, police station came under 12 feet of water. All of the govt servants abandoned their setups and fled away less military men who till last kept on salvaging government property (weapons) from their units and not a single one deserted / abandoned their unit although their own families back home were also victims of flood. I think if one day Pak faces some national disaster people will be looking towards military men. The writer should stop weakening the institution of Army just to earn from Best sellers, however individual cases may be investigated and published. Quote

+1#2 Zafar Ullah 2010-09-07 11:24 In light of the facts unfolded by you people, it appears that army is exploiting the resources of the country. Nothing new, I think, majority of people have already perceived it, but they feel helpless having no way out of this imbroglio. Army will not let the reforms take place as it may castrate them. To my mind thing will keep moving from bad to worse till, sorry to say, fragmentation. Quote

0#1 Azad 2010-09-06 15:29 Ms. Siddiqa is right mostly but she never touches the Army's dependence on the Pentagon and often the pressure from the Pentagon is the deciding factor. I am not trying to come up with an excuse, obviously the army should be more responsive to the people of the country but with the Pak army that is not the case. Realistically there is no force in Pakistan that can make the army see the light because for the army the institution's interest has priority over the country's interest. The army believes that if it is powerful, it can protect the country so the army's interest takes a priority. The problem is that the army's approach is actually undermining the nation's interests. I don't see the mindset changing barring some catastrophic event. To make the situation worst, Pakistan has a civilian government that is devoid of any ideas or any plans for the country and is more interested in making money and confronting the Supreme court rather than winning it over.

Quote

Amid the Arab Spring, Obama's dilemma over Saudi Arabia

There's a crisis in U.S. policy in the Middle East - and it's not about Libya. For weeks the Obama administration has been preoccupied with averting a humanitarian catastrophe in North Africa. But on the other side of the region, in the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula, a matter of vital, strategic importance awaits the urgent attention of policymakers. Over there, the ailing 87-year-old king of Saudi Arabia probably isn't getting much sleep. Abdullah, this Sunni monarch of monarchs, custodian of the holy mosques of Mecca and Medina, can see the flames of instability and turmoil licking at all his borders. In the south, Yemen is imploding, to the advantage of his al-Qaeda enemies. In the east, Bahrain's Shiite majority has been in such a state of revolt that Abdullah has already sent armed forces to prevent Iran from establishing a "cat's paw" on the Sunni Arab side of the Persian Gulf. In the north, Abdullah sees Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as nothing more than a front for the hated Persians. In the west, a Palestinian majority is demanding that the Hashemite king of Jordan become a constitutional monarch. Meanwhile, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, that other Sunni pillar of regional stability, has already been overthrown. Historically, in times of trouble, Saudi kings have depended on American presidents to guarantee their external security. But at this moment of crisis, Abdullah views President Obama as a threat to his internal security. He fears that in the event of a widespread revolt, Obama will demand that he leave office, just as he did to Mubarak, that other longtime friend of the United States. Consequently, Abdullah is reportedly making arrangements for Pakistani troops to enter his kingdom should the need to suppress popular demonstrations arise. This presents the Obama administration with a particularly thorny dilemma. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer and the only one with sufficient excess production capacity to moderate rises in the price of oil. Instability in Saudi Arabia could produce panic in the oil markets and an oil shock that could put an end to America's economic recovery (and the president's hopes for reelection). This would argue for granting an "exception" to Saudi Arabia from the Obama administration's trumpeting of universal rights. Indeed, the soft criticism of Bahrain's Saudi-dictated suppression of its people suggests that this has already become U.S. policy. Yet helping the Saudi king effectively erect a wall against the political tsunami sweeping across the Arab world is not a long-term solution. If there's one thing that we can now predict with some confidence, it's that no Arab authoritarian regime can remain immune from the demands of its people for political freedom and accountable government. To be sure, $100 billion in subventions from the palace and the promise of 60,000 jobs can help postpone, for a time, the demands of unemployed Saudi youths. But political freedom, transmitted across borders via cable TV and the Internet, has proved to be a seductive idea. In the end, it will not be assuaged by economic bribes or police-state suppression. And the Saudi system is fragile. Power is concentrated in the hands of the king and his brothers, who are old and ailing. The Saud family's legitimacy depends in significant part on its pact with a fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy

that is deeply opposed to basic political reforms, such as equal rights for women. The deep structural tensions generated by a 21st-century Westernized elite existing within a 15th-century Saudi social structure have been papered over for decades by oil wealth. If this strange social contract begins to fray, it might tear completely. And over in the eastern quarter, adjacent to Bahrain, where most of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are located, sits a restive Shiite minority who have been treated as second-class citizens for decades. Even if the Obama administration were understandably inclined to leave well enough alone, it cannot afford to do so for other reasons. The Saudis are attempting to erect the wall beyond their borders not only by suppressing the revolt in Bahrain but also by insisting that Jordan's king not pursue the reform agenda he has promised his people. In effect, Abdullah intends to carve out an exception for all the kings and sheiks - Sunni to a man - in Saudi Arabia's neighborhood. It might work for a time. But should this dam break, it could generate a sectarian Sunni-Shiite, Arab-Iranian conflict on one side and an Arab-Israeli conflict on the other. It could spell the end of Pax Americana in the Middle East. For all of these reasons, President Obama urgently needs to negotiate a new compact with King Abdullah. He has to find a way to convince him that defining a road map that leads to constitutional monarchies in his neighborhood, and eventually in Saudi Arabia, is the only effective way to secure his kingdom and the interests of his subjects. Abdullah has been willing to undertake important reforms in the past. But if the king is to be persuaded to embark on this road again, he will need to know that the president will provide a secure safety net of support, rather than undermine him. And he will need to know that the United States will not make a deal with his Iranian enemies at Saudi expense. Such a compact would be difficult to negotiate in the best of times. It cannot even be broached in current circumstances unless the basic trust between the president and the king can be reestablished. With a budget crisis at home and turmoil in the Middle East, it's understandable that Obama has had little time for the personal engagement with potentates that does not come naturally to him. But it's not just Abdullah's survival that is at stake. A revolt in Saudi Arabia could sink his presidency. *Article Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/amid-the-arab-spring-obamas-dilemmaover-saudi-arabia/2011/04/07/AFhILDxC_story.html *

The Secret Agenda to Destroy the African Union

*By Prof. Sam Hamod* None of the talking heads on TV or any columnists have dealt with one of the major reasons the US and EU want to get rid of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi. It's not about "human rights." That is a cover - they want to stop Qaddafi's money that is going to form and support the African Union. This is not a pro- or anti-Qaddafi article; it is an attempt to make clear an aspect of this situation that none of our major media have discussed, but

may be at the heart of our hurried rhetoric that Qaddafi should step down because - as the senile Senator McCain keeps saying, "Qaddafi is crazy" and other outlandish things. WE are given all the negative things against Qaddafi, so that he seems bizarre, crazy, a lunatic, etc. These are the same type of lies Ronald Reagan made up about Qaddafi "hit squads" - lies later quashed by none other than Secretary of State George Schultz, when he told a joint committee of Congress in Oct. 1986 that the story about the Qaddafi "hit squads" was pure disinformation! Without Qaddafi's money, there will be no money for African Union peace-keeping forces, no major unity in Africa and no power to stop the continued colonialism of America and the EU from advancing further into Africa. Most American and European citizens don't know of the African Command that America has set up in Djibouti to interfere in the domestic affairs of African nations. This "Command" is nothing but another colonial tool; it had its hand in making a mess of Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria and now Libya. No matter how much America denies this, those of us who know how our American "black ops" work and who have long followed our colonial intentions, are aware of this new move against the African continent. There were a few stories about this African Command in some of our newspapers, but then nothing; and Africans leaders are upset about it. They are also upset about our new naval base in Djibouti. But none of our major media ever talks about it anymore, and none talk about the Qaddafi money that bankrolls the African Union. With this in mind, don't follow all the propaganda and lies being told to us every day on every American "news" outlet. This brings to mind Newspeak propaganda, or the language "designed to diminish the range of thought," in George Orwell's novel, 1984 - and was evident on TV, radio and newspapers (especially the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and LA Times since it was taken over months ago by a friend of the New York Times Sulzberger family). This is about not only the EU's desire to control Libyan "sweet crude," but also about the West's attempt at stopping the full development of the African Union. One last note, there have been photos of Africans being lynched in Libya. We don't know who they are, but we do know there are African Union members sending troops to help Qaddafi against the American backed "rebels." But remember this, Libyans are black, blue black, dark brown, brown, dark tan, tan and white - the Africans who are helping Qaddafi are black and the ones fighting Qaddafi are mostly white - so if there is any lynching going on, it is more likely the white Libyan "rebels" doing the alleged lynching. But if anyone needs to know the truth about American and EU lies, one has but to look at Pravda and Xinhua news that make clear that, according to their satellites, Qaddafi's air force did not attack the Libyan people. To better understand this, please, please, rent the movie, WAG THE DOG to see how Hollywood makes movies to help America lie to the world in order to continue their empire and colonial building. *Article Source: http://wadhaf.com/archives/1717*