Naom Chomsky's take on Af/Pak


Noam Chomsky: ‘The US Does Not Care About Pakistan’

By Rabia Mehmood of the "Express Tribune" story reprinted in Information Clearing House

Professor Noam Chomsky sits on the eighth floor of the quirky-looking Stata Center of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, US. Former head of the linguistics department, the author and intellectual now serves as Professor Emeritus at the university.

The man is known worldwide for his incredibly popular and polarizing criticism of American foreign policy.

“The US doesn’t care about Pakistan, just like the Reagan administration didn’t care about either Afghanistan or Pakistan,” says Chomski, when asked how he sees the relationship between Pakistan and the US. “They supported Zia, the worst dictator in Pakistan’s history, and pretended they didn’t know that Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons. So basically they supported Pakistan’s nuclear weapon program and radical Islamisation in their bid to defeat the Russians. And that has not helped Pakistan.”

(Failed state Pakistan does need nuclear weapons, as much as the collapsed Soviet Union did not need its huge arsenal. Pakistan also does not need 500,000 Islamic Fundies all over the country operating under the guidance of the ISI.....Chomsky is absolutely correct when he says the USA oversaw Pakistan's Islamic Fundamentalist expansion from the late 1970's as part of "Operation Cyclone" and "Operation Green belt")

According to Chomsky, the reason the Pak-US relationship hasn’t worked is because the concern of US planners is not the welfare of Pakistan, it’s the welfare of their own constituency. “But it’s not the people of US either, just the powerful sectors within the US,” he said. “If the US policy towards Pakistan happens to benefit Pakistan it would be kind of accidental. Maybe it will to some extent, but that is not the purpose.”

Chomsky believes Pakistan has serious internal problems but says there are solutions.

(All Pakistan's national problems are solvable, through effective policies implemented by strong civilian governments only)

But, he insists, these problems have to be solved from within instead of from outside. “These problems have to be dealt with inside Pakistan, and not by the US; providing them with massive military aid, carrying out drone strikes, which enrages the population rightly,” he says. “Drone attacks are target assassinations and therefore a crime. Whether they are militants or not, these people are being targeted because the US doesn’t like them. Targeted assassination is an international crime. United Nations’ special rapporteur Philip Alston, a very respected international lawyer, came out with a report which simply says that it is a criminal act.”

(regardless, most of the victims of these drone strikes are civilians; of the 1500 deaths so far, fewer than 80 maybe actually be Taliban....a costly callous somewhat racist way to fight insurgency in Afghanistan)

He also supports the 1973 constitution and believes it is suitable for Pakistan. “It looks sensible on paper. It provided a degree of autonomy within a federalized system, which makes sense for a country like Pakistan,” he says. “Devoting resources to education, development and not military will help.”

Relationship with India

Speaking about Pakistan’s relationship and outlook towards India, he said that the Pakistani military has a strategic doctrine that they have to have a military presence in Afghanistan to counter India. “That’s a losing proposition because Pakistan cannot compete with India in terms of military force.

(India's PPP economy is between $4,000 ---4,500 billion, and Pakistan's economy about $460 billion.....a world of difference. Much more logical for Pakistan to cooperate and work with India, and share its success, as a responsible good neighbor constructively,... and realign itself in the region...so that it can effectively meet ALL the challenges its faces in the West in Baluchistan, and the NWFP, otherwise its a case of having both feet in two different boats as a failed state)

Besides, the strategic position in Afghanistan doesn’t really mean anything in case of a war,” he says. “Pakistan has undoubtedly supported terrorist groups in Kashmir and terrorism in India, which has made the situation worse.”

(Exactly!......what does strategic depth really mean besides sounding great? Offered originally to Pakistan by the USA GOOD BUDDY in 1994 as a clever idea. "Strategic depth" does not/will not make Pakistan militarily stronger. A Taliban controlled Afghanistan isn't going to make Pakistan significantly more powerful, or more secure viz India. Yes Pakistan may have the prestige of "controlling Afghanistan" through the Taliban, but failed state das Pakistan with its own multiple problems within its own borders, is hardly in a position to make significant economic, social, political, military gains in additional territory, when it FAILS to exploit the full potential of its existing territory through effective governance. In fact Afghanistan as a vassal state of Pakistan may produce more resource draining problems than it solves....as it has done for the JEWSA imperium, Soviet Imperium, British Imperium......Psychopath allies straight out of the medieval era such as Mullah Omer, Hekmatyar, and Haqqani which the Pakistan military passionately love, and whom they hope will rule Afghanistan, under Pakistan guidance.........is an impossibility, as much as the JEWSA relying on the Narco Mafia criminal elements to "rule" the Afghan Heroin plantation for them.....can't/won't work..EVER)

Afghan war’s future

“It is a complicated situation but I think there is good evidence that the US military and political structures recognize that they cannot have a military victory,” Chomsky says.

(What is there to win? "AL-Qaeda" is gone; the Taliban is gone....save for SOME angry Pashtun's who feel disenfranchised in the new Afghanistan......but thats not a grievance for the USA to solve, OR FIGHT AGAINST.....in Afghanistan, or in Pakistan with drones.....there are 40 million Pashtun's in Af/Pak...they have a right to be top dog in Afghanistan, as it has always been. The USA cannot remake this fact)

However, he says, they [US] can conquer whatever they like, but the Russians also won every battle in the 1980s but eventually lost the war. “The Americans are therefore trying to find a way to extricate themselves in some fashion, that it can be presented as a victory. They don’t want to admit they’ve lost the war, like the Russians.”

(Declare mission accomplished and fuck off home to the USA)