5 Minutes over Islamabad by A.H Amin

Resentment of Musharraf- Shaukat Aziz Rule is NOT confined to Obscurantist Periphery.

There appears to be a strong evolving consensus in the USA as well as its NATO allies that Pakistan is the centre of gravity of the Islamists in the ongoing so called war on terror. This idea gained currency in various high US policy making circles as well as think tanks around 1987-89 and then assumed a solid shape in the decade 1990-2000. After 2001 it was adopted as a policy and concrete albeit top secret planning was started to deal with Pakistan which at the ulterior level was seen as part of the problem rather than a solution.

When the Spaniards landed in Mexico their main collaborators were indigenous Mexicans themselves. In Pakistan, the USA made use of indigenous collaborators: Generals whose sons had a US passport; bankers who were US nationals but also dual Pakistani citizens. These leaders justified collaboration with the USA after 9/11 on the grounds that what they did was the only guarantee for the survival of Pakistan!

The Pakistani military junta in 2001 was isolated internationally so it was very easy for the USA to overawe it with one telephone call. The life of a career army officer revolves around getting a good annual report from his superiors. The Generals are no exception. Pakistan's military leadership grasped at the opportunity to get a "˜pat at the back' from their geopolitical strategic boss - the US President - and eagerly provided airbases and all logistic support to the USA. This was a short term measure and Pakistani military junta had a sigh of relief as it's survival in power was ensured. It had no connection with survival of Pakistan as a state. Compare how Iran is surviving as a state despite defying the USA since 1979. Later, the fiction that USA threatened Pakistan with bombing it to the Stone Age was invented. The weak-kneed irresolution was rationalized as supreme strategic brilliance. Some "˜media men' who are also running private businesses were in the forefront praising strategic timidity as strategic brilliance.

In "Real Strategic Terms" what happened was that Pakistani military junta's collaborated (providing logistic support and air bases) with the USA to enable it to occupy Afghanistan with little cost in men and material. This was no mean strategic achievement as it placed the USA right below the soft underbelly of China as well as Russia. More significantly, it reduced the flying time to strike Pakistani nuclear as well as missile installations. Close proximity to Pakistan also enabled the USA to obtain intelligence and conduct covert operations inside Pakistan far more effectively than ever before.

It was theorized in secret sessions of the highest level in US decision making circles that although the Islamists fighting the USA had no fixed centre of gravity which could be attacked and eliminated, Pakistan with its sympathetic pro Islamist populace and nuclear and missile assets was at least a provisional centre of gravity of the Islamists. It may be noted that the US feared, not the ISI, not the tin-pot Pakistani military junta, but the sentiments of the bulk of the Pakistani populace and its arsenal of nuclear warheads and missiles.

The occupation of Afghanistan was seen as a potential US base to carry out a raid in "˜5 minutes over Islamabad' like the Israelis did with US cooperation to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor in 5 minutes over Baghdad in 1981.

In 1945, the USA had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki not for any direct military purpose but to overawe the USSR that no one could match the US military might. The USSR responded to the challenge and developed a massive nuclear arsenal to counter US aspirations to control the world. Later, China also emerged as another challenger to US ambition to control the resources of the world. Thanks to the help by USSR, many Asian countries and African countries fought and won wars of liberation. The Arabs were able to confront Israel only because of the Soviet aid, until the collaborator Anwar Sadaat sold his soul to the USA and Israel!

The USA was all set to "˜cut Pakistan to size' in 1977 when it financed the anti Bhutto agitation in 1977. The role of the military under General Zia ul Haq would have been no different to that of Musharraf but for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from 1979 till 1989. The emergence of effective resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan's willingness to support was too good an opportunity to miss. USA had to put its plan to destabilise Pakistan on hold as it had no option other than using Pakistan's help and its bases for assisting the anti Soviet War in Afghanistan.

Change of posture came very quickly. In the 1990s, after the Soviet troops had withdrawn, the USA started demonising Pakistan as a terrorist state presenting the liberation struggle in Jammu and Kashmir as "˜terrorism'. It was basically a war of nerves the decisive point of which was one telephone call which made Pakistan's tin pot military junta take the so called "brilliant strategic decision" of collaborating with the USA.

After the disintegration of the USSR, strategically speaking, the military targets of the USA were the littoral states of the Indian Ocean. The Iraq War of 1990, the invasion of capture of Afghanistan in 2001, the invasion and capture of Iraq in 2003, all have the same aim "“ domination of the Indian Ocean region. Interestingly, Iraq and Afghanistan were not ultimate objectives; they are merely convenient bridge-heads from which to launch further operations. This was only Phase One; Phase Two may be Pakistan, and Phase Three may be Iran. Phase Four may well be Chinese Xinxiang and/or Central Asian Republics. The American advance is sometimes called Orange Revolution of Ukraine. But its first good example was the anti Bhutto agitation that they financed in 1977 in Pakistan. Now they call it a "˜war on terror' or war against weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

History has shown that generals fail as statesmen. In 1936, all of Hitler's generals opposed his decision to march into Rhineland. This is because the generals think in terms of gaining and holding territory. They do not appreciate the value of intangible factors like resolute determination. After 9/11, when Pakistan's tin pot junta war-gamed invasion by the USA, it thought only in military terms "“ losses vs gains. It failed to appreciate that the USA had been humbled in war in Vietnam and also in a war of nerves "“ sort of diplomatic contest - with Iran in 1979. They facilitated the destruction and occupation of Afghanistan by the USA unmindful of the fact that low cost of victory would encourage further invasion. Pakistan shall pay a heavy price for this. Whether Mr Armitage said so or not, the USA will bomb some parts of Pakistan to the stone age in order to denuclearize Pakistan.

Pakistan is in a strange strategic situation. It is led by a military dictator whose sole aim is to stay in power. His number two - the so called prime minister - is a US citizen. In the case the President dies naturally or unnaturally his successor - the Chairman Senate "“ would also be a US citizen. Politically, the USA is the real rulers of Pakistan already. But the Americans are still not happy. Their aim is denuclearization and complete submission of Pakistan.

Imagine the following scenario! Pakistan's military dictator is killed in a mysterious air crash or is assassinated by soldier on duty like Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India. The USA immediately issues an ultimatum that it fears that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may fall in the hands of extremists. A surgical nuclear strike is launched on Kahuta and Islamabad. Another general takes over power in Pakistan and capitulates to all US demands dismantling the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and its missiles rationalising this on the ground that if he did not do so the USA would bomb Pakistan to Stone Age. In the following ten years Pakistan is balkanised with an independent US supported Baluchistan and an independent puppet Pashtun state in NWFP and Northern Pashtun majority districts of Baluchistan. An independent Sindh in the South, an independent Kashmir and Northern Areas with US bases for future operations against Xinxiang from the Deosai Plateau. It is only the Punjab which is left as Pakistan. No nukes, no missiles, no resolve! Just like defeat of the Muslims in Granada that led to their genocide in Spain and finally even Granada was eliminated in 1492.

This is not pessimism; this is hard strategic reality. The writing is clear on the wall. The war which USA is fighting is not against the Pashtun tribes of Waziristan but against all Muslims. Bagram, Khost, Jalalabad and Kandahar airfields are being developed not against the Taliban or against the Al Qaeda but for 5 minutes over Islamabad!

In strategy, things moves very slowly and it is the greatness of a statesman and military commander to assess what will happen in next 5 or ten years. Here in Pakistan we have a situation where our military leaders are overawed by just one phone call. From leaders of such a calibre one cannot expect resolute determination or strategic insight.

From 1979 to 1988, Pakistan's military junta, after seizing power through the backdoor, provided the USA with an active base to destabilize and destroy Afghanistan's de facto government. All infrastructure of Afghanistan was destroyed as well as all its institutions between 1979 and 1992. Now if the Afghan state allows the USA to do so to Pakistan, it should not be a surprise. Why did Pakistan's military junta of 1977-88 support the so called Afghan Jihad? It was to enable General Zia stay in power. The characters were different, but the motivation was the same in 2001 as in 1979.

The scenario may be disbelieved by sceptics. However, if history be the guide, there is no room for doubt or complacency. If Saddam Hussain "“ the principal CIA asset in the Middle East "“ could be killed and his country destroyed on the mere suspicion that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction why is Pakistan not a perfectly legitimate target for the USA? It is a Muslim country and it does possess the WMD without any doubt! Saddam was more secular than any Muslim leader in modern history yet his country and he himself were targeted and destroyed! What is the aim of this so called "˜enlightened Islam' espoused by Musharraf? It is supposed to act as anaesthesia for the USA and also destroy all the resistance power of the Pakistani nation! If not strategic brilliance at least we have good anaesthetists at the top! In war, surprise is the key. The US will not politely announce its intentions before it raids Pakistan. It could find any number of excuses provided by inevitable destabilisation that always results from ousting dictators. Musharraf, Benazir and any other general who may emerge as the leader are merely pawns in the game. They can be removed by air crashes or assassinations. Waziristan, Al Qaeda and terrorism are mere slogans. The Pakistan Army is being forced into Waziristan by the USA not to attack the Al Qaeda but to create an internal divide in Pakistan.

There have been many cases of desertion of soldiers in units in Waziristan as well as cases of refusal of officers for carrying out duties against their conscience. What kind of "˜enlightened moderation' prescribed by Musharraf would ward of the dangers when the enemy is not merely at the gates and even inside the Pakistani citadel of power? What can be expected from leaders whose sons are US citizens or who consider USA safer for their families to live than Pakistan? What can be expected from US citizens now enjoying high political office in Pakistan after having a good time in Bank of America or CITI Bank? What respect will the army jawan have for leaders more distinguished for deciding not to fight a battle after one telephone call; who are more interested in privatizing the PSO, PTCL or the Steel Mill?

Five Minutes over Islamabad is not a just a nightmare scenario; it is a distinct possibility! Is this not ironical that a nation that provided so many pilots to their blood brothers in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, who downed many Israeli aircrafts over the Golan, over Amman and in Iraq, should be so irresolute and afraid? Today the Pakistani leaders are sycophantically courting Israel. Why? When a country has leaders who want to save their chair or their skin but not their country; whose rest pad is in the USA; the whole nation is afraid.

Pakistan today is led by collaborators who will go to any extent to continue in power. The nuclear and military assets of the country are in peril because of them. They have actively cooperated with the enemy, deceived and lied to the people. Submission and surrender is the hallmarks of our leaders who portray their timid strategic collaboration as "˜strategic brilliance'. A secret clause of "˜Vision 2030' propaganda of Pakistan's present leadership is that by 2030 Pakistan would be a Balkanised state with no nuclear and missile assets and kicked by all its neighbours. Good luck to vision 2030!