Home Blog Page 83

NATO Attacks & Disinformation leaks in International Media, Why?

1

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blogs |

We need to critically evaluate the claims being released by unnamed Afghan and Western officials in Wall Street Journal and Guardian. We cannot blame these papers because they are being told by ‘unnamed officials’ however Pakistani Papers like Express Tribune and Media channels and even public should evaluate these claims so that our arguments and positions remain fact based and realistic…

Narratives are important; poor and under-developed sides, like Pakistan, in a conflict of interest with rich and highly developed sides like the United States, suffer from an inability to put forward a convincing point of view. It is not because the point of view is not true or convincing but becasue weaker sides don’t have the capacity and the skills to take their point of view across. That is why Pakistan continues to suffer from an ‘image probelm’ which is then used to justifiy more aggression against Pakistani state and people and its vital interests in this region. The same is happening with this tragic incident in which 25 Pakistani officers and soliders have died and another 13-14 are seriously injured.NATO off-course cannot come forward and admit that we wanted to send a message to Pakistani military or punish them so they have to come up with an explanation, but it’s upto us to critically evaluate their claims, not to allow us to be dragged into a mindless debate on how bad the Americans are; we need to pin NATO officials down on their lies and disinformation; and here are some facts to help all of you…we need to have international & American public opinion on our side instead of just condemning; we exist inside a context and we must operate inside that context….

First, If Pakistanis were firing on Afghan or American forces then what is the Time Line Evidence of that firing? Since NATO determined the origins of that fire and attacked the source of fire then there has to be credible verifiable evidence of that fire and its intensity? How many Afghan soldiers or western soldiers were injured or hurt by that fire? or have they fired & killed almost 38 Pakistani soldiers (25+13) and destroyed two known, hill top visible, GPS determined positions, on the basis of a hunch? what kind of professionalism is that from world’s msot advanced military?

Two, Self-defence is the most primitive form of defence; it’s claimed in most homicide cases before Police and courts; evidence has to be examined as to what kind of threat and force was being faced by the Afghans and NATO to which they were responding?..remember Raymond Davis claimed ‘self-defence’ for his rash actions in Lahore; few weeks ago his actions inside United States help understand what might have happened in Lahore…

Three, Border communication and coordination has been under debate for several months; in the past several years more than 70 Pakistani soldiers or FC Jawans have died as a result of NATO fire. As a result GPS positioning of all Pakistani posts are given to NATO; these GPS coordinates are fed into the Map Grids of NATO Weapon Systems; operators when they are about to open fire get “alerts” from their systems that “friendly posts” are on target. Unless targets are cleared from some one above, such operators won’t open fire on Paksitanis…

Four, Pakistani officials were in touch with the NATO Regional commanders as soon as the firing started; telling that our posts are under attack from your side and please stop, but firing and attack continued for more than an hour or so, how come such lack of coordination and ignoring such information input from Pakistani side?

Five, who is talking and explaining facts from the NATO side? just compare that whereas DG ISPR, the head of the Information wing of the Pakistani military is presenting facts to the whole world and has expressed doubts that this NATO attack could be ‘deliberate’ ..the NATO point of view is being leaked into the public space and minds of the unaware public by ‘unnamed Afghan & western officials’…what does it tell you?

Six, every time some thing happens Pakistan is condemend or disbelived on the basis of a generalized negative narrative spun around Pakistan. But every incident that feeds and fuels and builds upon that narrative has serious elements of lies and exaggerations in the first place. Now compare, if a few Taliban attackers attacked the out-skirts of US Embassy in Kabul, which is 2-3 hours deep inside Afghanistan then US media blames Pakistan for that and it becomes a reference point for all discussions, for justifying hatred against Pakistan and for policy changes but here we have a tragedy created by the US lead NATO forces and the US and western media is creating doubts as to what might have happened? …solution is that Pakistani media needs to develop its capacity to analyse, disect and critically evaluate and they are not going to do it unless the aware citizens like you force them to learn and improve….

Information Warfare and Information Operations

0

Dr Moeed Pirzada invited by National Defence University to discuss on “Information Warfare and Information Operations”,this program was organized on  23rd November 2011 at NDU,Islamabad.

Dr Moeed discussed the role of media in armed conflict and media requirements.

Is a palace coup unfolding in Pakistan?

Moeed Pirzada |

A palace coup could be in the offing in nuclear-armed Pakistan as pro-Taliban army generals try to undermine democratically elected civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari.

First indications that something foul was afoot in Islamabad came on the weekend when Pakistan’s top four military officials, including powerful Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani became conspicuous by their absence at a state banquet hosted by President Zardari for the visiting President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov of Turkmenistan. For Pakistan watchers, the presence or absence of the top military leadership at events organized by a civilian government is an indication of the state of relations between the Pakistan’s poweful power-hungry military and the weak civilian administration in Islamabad. The obvious boycott of a state dinner hosted by Pakistan’s president by his top generals and admirals, who are supposedly answerable to him, was not the only signal that something sinister was taking place.

For Pakistan watchers, the presence or absence of the top military leadership at events organized by a civilian government is an indication of the state of relations between the Pakistan’s poweful power-hungry military and the weak civilian administration in Islamabad.

The absence was followed by the resignation from the ruling party by the former foreign minister, which too was suspected to have come after prodding by the military. The latest tug of war between the government of president Zardari and his generals erupted on October 11, 2011 when the Financial Times ran an op-ed titled “Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadis.” In the article, Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman, claimed he was contacted by a senior Pakistani diplomat close to President Zardari and asked to contact Admiral Mullen to prevent a military coup from taking place in Pakistan. The military was outraged and wanted heads to roll. Ijaz wrote: “Early on May 9, a week after US Special Forces stormed the hideout of Osama bin Laden and killed him, a senior Pakistani diplomat telephoned me with an urgent request. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, needed to communicate a message to White House national security officials that would bypass Pakistan’s military and intelligence channels.

The embarrassment of bin Laden being found on Pakistani soil had humiliated Mr Zardari’s weak civilian government to such an extent that the president feared a military takeover was imminent. He needed an American fist on his army chief’s desk to end any misguided notions of a coup – and fast.” Ijaz further claimed that a memo was drafted and delivered to Admiral Mullen on May 10. “In a flurry of phone calls and emails over two days a memorandum was crafted that included a critical offer from the Pakistani president to the Obama administration: ‘The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.’” The pro-military media in Pakistan suggested the diplomat in question was Pakistan’s ambassador the U.S., former Boston University professor, Husain Haqqani –a man not liked by his country’s Jihadis, whether civilian or military.

Read more: Is Pakistan at risk of coup in 2017 along with Turkey, Russia and US?

Both Admiral Mullen and Islamabad denied that any such back door diplomacy had taken place, but the denials could not put out the fire. What was ostensibly written as a critique of Pakistan’s jihadi extremists in fact turned out to have the exact opposite effect. In a country where anti-Americanism is rife, the elected civilian government was made out to appear as lackeys of the U.S. Could the writer have intended to weaken the government and strengthen the military? Mansoor Ijaz is not new to controversy. According to the International Herald Tribune’s Pakistan edition, “a deeper look into Ijaz’s background provides evidence that this hasn’t been the first time the influential businessman has raised controversy concerning his alleged role as a secret international diplomat.”

The embarrassment of bin Laden being found on Pakistani soil had humiliated Mr Zardari’s weak civilian government to such an extent that the president feared a military takeover was imminent. He needed an American fist on his army chief’s desk to end any misguided notions of a coup

The IHT discloses that : “In 1996, he was accused of trying to extort money from the Pakistani government in exchange for delivering votes in the US House of Representatives on a Pakistan-related trade provision. Ijaz, who runs the firm Crescent Investment Management LLC in New York, has been an interlocutor between U.S. officials and foreign government for years, amid constant accusations of financial conflicts of interest. He reportedly arranged meetings between U.S. officials and former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. He also reportedly gave over $1 million to Democratic politicians in the 1990s and attended Christmas events at former President Bill Clinton’s White House. Ijaz has ties to former CIA Director James Woolsey and his investment firm partner is Reagan administration official James Alan Abrahamson.”

Anywhere else a civilian diplomat warning directly or indirectly against a military coup would not be deemed wrong in itself. But in Pakistan, a civilian Prime Minister was toppled and arrested (Nawaz Sharif, in 1999 by General Musharraf) for simply trying to assert civilian control over the military. Even if Zardari and his diplomat had, as Ijaz claims, asked Ijaz to contact the American government to use its influence against a military coup, there was nothing unlawful or unconstitutional in what he did. But in Pakistan, Ijaz’s claims have provoked circumstances that are threatening at least the sacking of a respected ambassador and possibly undermining civilian rule. Knowing the workings of Pakistan’s intelligence services, Ijaz’s article could have been part of a plan by the ISI to destabilize Pakistani democracy once again.

On Monday, the moves by the military triggered a closed-door meeting between President Asif Ali Zardari and the country’s dour Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani followed by another meeting between Zardari and the Chief of Army Staff Gen. Kayani. The generals are adamant. President Zardari has being asked to summon his ambassador to the U.S. back to Islamabad for a full dressing down by the junta. According to the Pakistani newspaper The News, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani decided on Monday to call Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington, to Islamabad to brief the country’s leadership on a host of issues impacting on Pak-U.S. relations and recent developments.” Long before Haqqani was appointed as Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., he had exposed the close links between the Pakistan military and the country’s Islamist jihadis in his book, Pakistan: Between Mosque and the Military.

Because of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the army cannot overthrow an elected government as it used to do in the past, but the generals and the ISI are propping up a Khan and demanding the firing of the liberal Haqqani. 

For that sin, the men in boots have never forgiven the man they cannot control. Haqqani, described by Bloomberg as the “hardest working man in DC,” has been in the sights of the Pak Army and its intelligence wing, the ISI, who do not trust the academic. They fear he has exposed their attempts to double-cross the USA and as such want his skin as a price for allowing Zardari to stay in power. The developments in Islamabad and the demand by the army to fire Haqqani should also be seen in light of the sudden rise in the profile of Pakistan’s leading pro-Taliban politician, former cricketer Imran Khan. The establishment in Pakistan has run a brilliant campaign to project Khan as both a patriotic Islamist as well as a liberal. Using his Oxford background, he cultivates the ultimate anti-American modernist who has charmed the urban middle classes as the ‘non-politician.’

Because of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the army cannot overthrow an elected government as it used to do in the past, but the generals and the ISI are propping up a Khan and demanding the firing of the liberal Haqqani. The sad part is that Islamist influence inside the U.S. State Department may result in a nod of approval to the Khakis to trigger a civilian coup. If Ambassador Haqqani is fired, can president Zardari be far behind?

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Is a Palace Coup Unfolding in Pakistan?

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

A palace coup could be in the offing in nuclear-armed Pakistan as pro-Taliban army generals try to undermine democratically elected civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari.

First indications that something foul was afoot in Islamabad came on the weekend when Pakistan’s top four military officials, including powerful Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani became conspicuous by their absence at a state banquet hosted by President Zardari for the visiting President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov of Turkmenistan. For Pakistan watchers, the presence or absence of the top military leadership at events organized by a civilian government is an indication of the state of relations between the Pakistan’s poweful power-hungry military and the weak civilian administration in Islamabad. The obvious boycott of a state dinner hosted by Pakistan’s president by his top generals and admirals, who are supposedly answerable to him, was not the only signal that something sinister was taking place.

The absence was followed by the resignation from the ruling party by the former foreign minister, which too was suspected to have come after prodding by the military. The latest tug of war between the government of president Zardari and his generals erupted on October 11, 2011 when the Financial Times ran an op-ed titled “Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadis.” In the article, Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman, claimed he was contacted by a senior Pakistani diplomat close to President Zardari and asked to contact Admiral Mullen to prevent a military coup from taking place in Pakistan. The military was outraged and wanted heads to roll. Ijaz wrote: “Early on May 9, a week after US Special Forces stormed the hideout of Osama bin Laden and killed him, a senior Pakistani diplomat telephoned me with an urgent request. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, needed to communicate a message to White House national security officials that would bypass Pakistan’s military and intelligence channels.

The embarrassment of bin Laden being found on Pakistani soil had humiliated Mr Zardari’s weak civilian government to such an extent that the president feared a military takeover was imminent. He needed an American fist on his army chief’s desk to end any misguided notions of a coup – and fast.” Ijaz further claimed that a memo was drafted and delivered to Admiral Mullen on May 10. “In a flurry of phone calls and emails over two days a memorandum was crafted that included a critical offer from the Pakistani president to the Obama administration: ‘The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.'” The pro-military media in Pakistan suggested the diplomat in question was Pakistan’s ambassador the U.S., former Boston University professor, Husain Haqqani –a man not liked by his country’s Jihadis, whether civilian or military.

Both Admiral Mullen and Islamabad denied that any such back door diplomacy had taken place, but the denials could not put out the fire. What was ostensibly written as a critique of Pakistan’s jihadi extremists in fact turned out to have the exact opposite effect. In a country where anti-Americanism is rife, the elected civilian government was made out to appear as lackeys of the U.S. Could the writer have intended to weaken the government and strengthen the military? Mansoor Ijaz is not new to controversy. According to the International Herald Tribune’s Pakistan edition, “a deeper look into Ijaz’s background provides evidence that this hasn’t been the first time the influential businessman has raised controversy concerning his alleged role as a secret international diplomat.”

The IHT discloses that : “In 1996, he was accused of trying to extort money from the Pakistani government in exchange for delivering votes in the US House of Representatives on a Pakistan-related trade provision. Ijaz, who runs the firm Crescent Investment Management LLC in New York, has been an interlocutor between U.S. officials and foreign government for years, amid constant accusations of financial conflicts of interest. He reportedly arranged meetings between U.S. officials and former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. He also reportedly gave over $1 million to Democratic politicians in the 1990s and attended Christmas events at former President Bill Clinton’s White House. Ijaz has ties to former CIA Director James Woolsey and his investment firm partner is Reagan administration official James Alan Abrahamson.”

Anywhere else a civilian diplomat warning directly or indirectly against a military coup would not be deemed wrong in itself. But in Pakistan, a civilian Prime Minister was toppled and arrested (Nawaz Sharif, in 1999 by General Musharraf) for simply trying to assert civilian control over the military. Even if Zardari and his diplomat had, as Ijaz claims, asked Ijaz to contact the American government to use its influence against a military coup, there was nothing unlawful or unconstitutional in what he did. But in Pakistan, Ijaz’s claims have provoked circumstances that are threatening at least the sacking of a respected ambassador and possibly undermining civilian rule. Knowing the workings of Pakistan’s intelligence services, Ijaz’s article could have been part of a plan by the ISI to destabilize Pakistani democracy once again.

On Monday, the moves by the military triggered a closed-door meeting between President Asif Ali Zardari and the country’s dour Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani followed by another meeting between Zardari and the Chief of Army Staff Gen. Kayani. The generals are adamant. President Zardari has being asked to summon his ambassador to the U.S. back to Islamabad for a full dressing down by the junta. According to the Pakistani newspaper The News, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani decided on Monday to call Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington, to Islamabad to brief the country’s leadership on a host of issues impacting on Pak-U.S. relations and recent developments.” Long before Haqqani was appointed as Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., he had exposed the close links between the Pakistan military and the country’s Islamist jihadis in his book, Pakistan: Between Mosque and the Military.

For that sin, the men in boots have never forgiven the man they cannot control. Haqqani, described by Bloomberg as the “hardest working man in DC,” has been in the sights of the Pak Army and its intelligence wing, the ISI, who do not trust the academic. They fear he has exposed their attempts to double-cross the USA and as such want his skin as a price for allowing Zardari to stay in power. The developments in Islamabad and the demand by the army to fire Haqqani should also be seen in light of the sudden rise in the profile of Pakistan’s leading pro-Taliban politician, former cricketer Imran Khan. The establishment in Pakistan has run a brilliant campaign to project Khan as both a patriotic Islamist as well as a liberal. Using his Oxford background, he cultivates the ultimate anti-American modernist who has charmed the urban middle classes as the ‘non-politician.’

Because of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the army cannot overthrow an elected government as it used to do in the past, but the generals and the ISI are propping up a Khan and demanding the firing of the liberal Haqqani. The sad part is that Islamist influence inside the U.S. State Department may result in a nod of approval to the Khakis to trigger a civilian coup. If Ambassador Haqqani is fired, can president Zardari be far behind?

Nawaz Sharif’s interesting interaction with American Journalist, Kim Barker, Author of “The Taliban Shuffle” – Some Extracts

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Post |

From “The Taliban Shuffle”by Kim Barker (published by Doubleday):
“With Bhutto gone,I needed to meet the lion of Punjab,or maybe the tiger. No one seemed to know which feline Nawaz Sharif was nicknamed after. Some fans rode around with stuffed toy lions strapped to their cars. Others talked about the tiger of Punjab. By default,Sharif,a former prime minister like Bhutto,had become the most popular opposition leader in the country. He was already the most powerful politician in Punjab,which was the most powerful of Pakistan’s four provinces,home to most of the army leaders and past rulers. Some people described Sharif as the Homer Simpson of Pakistan. Others considered him a right-wing wing nut. Still others figured he could save the country. Sharif was once considered an invention of the establishment,a protégé of the former military dictator in Pakistan,General Zia,but like all politicians here,he had become a creature of himself. During his second term,Sharif built my favorite road in Pakistan,a hundred and seventy miles of paved,multilaned bliss…..……

“One of Sharif’s friends tried to explain him to me:“He might be tilting a little to the right,but he’s not an extremist. Extremists don’t go do hair implants. He also loves singing.” I had attempted to see Sharif when he first tried to return to Pakistan a few months earlier,in September. But commandos had stormed his plane shortly after it landed. Within five hours,he had been shipped back to Saudi Arabia,looking bewildered. Sharif had finally flown home in late November,weeks after Musharraf declared an emergency. Samad had driven me to the airport in the eastern city of Lahore,Sharif’s home territory and the capital of Punjab Province. Tens of thousands of supporters waited behind fences across from the airport entrance. Some shouted for the lion of Punjab—others waved stuffed toy tigers or tiny cardboard Sharif cutouts.

It was a classic botched media event. Reporters were herded into a tiny area in front of the airport,surrounded by barriers covered in barbed wire. Thousands of supporters eventually broke through the fences,screaming and running toward us. More and more people pushed into the journalists’ pen,squeezing everyone and driving us toward certain impalement on the barbed wire. Samad guarded a shorter friend of mine. My translator tried to protect my back. I stood in a basketball stance,an immovable force. But not for long. A Pakistani journalist from Aaj TV pushed past me,elbowed me in the ribs,and shoved me to the side. I pushed back. “You don’t see me standing here?” I said. He shrugged. “Women should not be here anyway. This is a man’s job.” The crowd swayed back and forth,and I tried to keep my balance. A man grabbed my butt,a message to my fist,and before my brain knew it,I managed to punch him in the face. Not professional,not at all,but still somewhat gratifying.

That was the chaos just before Nawaz Sharif and his brother walked out of the airport,with me worried about my rear,my position,the barbed wire,a mob,and a potential bomb. Supporters lifted the Sharifs onto their shoulders and spun them around in circles because they had no room to walk. Nawaz Sharif looked shell-shocked. He somehow clambered onto a rickety wooden table next to a taxi stand. The contrast with Bhutto was obvious—she was smooth,a master performer,charisma personified,always in control. Sharif seemed more like a baffled everyman,nondescript and beige. The crush of men waved their arms in the air and shouted that they loved Sharif. He spoke into a microphone,but it was broken and no one could hear anything he said.

Speech over,Sharif climbed down from the counter and slipped into a bulletproof black Mercedes,courtesy of his good friend,King Abdullah,who had also shipped Sharif back to Pakistan in a Saudi royal plane. Now,six weeks later,it was January 2008. Bhutto was dead and Sharif was the only living senior politician in Pakistan. He had been banned from running in the upcoming parliamentary elections because Musharraf still hated him so much—but he would be a major factor in those elections. Sharif was trying to appear like a figure of reconciliation,above all the politics. He publicly cried after Bhutto’s death,and talked about how she had called him for his fifty-eighth birthday,two days before she was killed. I called everyone I knew to try to get an interview.

“You only get fifteen minutes with Mian Sahib,” Sharif’s press aide finally told me,referring to Sharif by his honorary title. “Maybe twenty at the most.” I flew into Lahore on a Friday morning,and we drove for an hour toward the town of Raiwind and Sharif’s palatial home and palatial grounds. The closer we got,the more Sharif. The place may as well have been called Nawaz Land,given the amusement-park feel and the fact that his name and picture were on everything,from the hospital to giant billboards. Everywhere I looked,Sharif—amiable,slightly pudgy,topped with hair plugs—stared at me like the Cheshire cat. Guards checked me at the gate,searching my bag meticulously. The grounds of Raiwind resembled a cross between a golf course and a zoo,with several football fields of manicured grass and wild animals in cages,leading up to a miniature palace that looked slightly like a wedding cake,with different layers and trim that resembled frosting. The driveway was big enough for a limousine to execute a U-turn. I walked inside and was told to wait.

The inside of the house appeared to have been designed by Saudi Arabia—a hodge-podge of crystal chandeliers,silk curtains,gold accents,marble. A verse of the Holy Quran and a carpet with the ninety-nine names of God hung on the walls of Sharif’s receiving room,along with photographs of Sharif with King Abdullah and slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Finally I was summoned. “Kim,” Sharif’s media handler said,gesturing toward the ground. “Come.” I hopped up and walked toward the living room,past two raggedy stuffed lions with rose petals near their feet. So maybe Sharif was the lion of Punjab. Inside the room,Sharif stood up,wearing a finely pressed salwar kameez,a navy vest,and a natty scarf. He shook my hand and offered me a seat in an ornate chair. The sitting room was a study in pink,rose,and gold,with golden curlicues on various lighting fixtures and couches,and crystal vases everywhere. Many of the knickknacks were gifts from world leaders. His press aide tapped his watch,looked at me,and raised his eyebrows.

I got the message and proceeded with my questions,as fast as I could. But it soon became clear that this would be unlike any interview I had ever done. “You’re the only senior opposition leader left in Pakistan. How are you going to stay safe while campaigning?” In Pakistan,campaigns were not run through TV,and pressing the flesh was a job requirement. Candidates won over voters by holding rallies of tens and hundreds of thousands of people. Even though Sharif was not personally running,his appearance would help win votes for anyone in his party. Sharif looked at me,sighed,and shook his head. “I don’t know. It’s a good question. What do you think,Kim?” “I don’t know. I’m not the former prime minister of Pakistan. So what will you do?” “Really,I don’t know. What do you think?” This put me in an awkward position—giving security advice to Nawaz Sharif.

“Well,it’s got to be really difficult. You have these elections coming up. You can’t just sit here at home.” “What should I do?” he asked. “I can’t run a campaign sitting in my house,on the television.” I had to find a way to turn this back on him. “It’s interesting,” I said. “You keep asking me questions about what I think. And it seems like you do that a lot—ask other people questions. It seems like you’re also willing to change your mind,if circumstances change.” “I do take people’s advice,” he said. “I believe in consultation.” After twenty minutes,Sharif’s aide started twitching. I fired off my questions about Musharraf,the man Sharif had named army chief,only to be overthrown by him. “I do not actually want to say much about Musharraf. He must step down and allow democracy. He is so impulsive,so erratic.”

“Come on. You named this man army chief,then tried to fire him,then he overthrew you and sent you into exile,and now you’re back. What do you think about him?” Sharif nodded,then tried to duck the question. “Appointing Mr. Musharraf as chief of army staff—that’s my biggest mistake.” I stood up. Sharif’s aide was already standing. “I should probably be going,” I said. “Thanks very much for your time.” “Yes,Mian Sahib’s schedule is very busy,” Sharif’s handler agreed. “It’s all right,” Sharif said. “She can ask a few more questions.” I sat down. I had whipped through most of my important questions,so I recycled them.

I asked him whether he was a fundamentalist. Sharif dismissed the idea,largely by pointing to his friendship with the Clintons. I tried to leave again,fearing I was overstaying my welcome. But Sharif said I could ask more questions. “One more,” I said,wary of Sharif’s aide. Then I asked the question that was really on my mind. “Which are you—the lion or the tiger?” Sharif didn’t even blink. “I am the tiger,” he said. “But why do some people call you the lion?” “I do not know. I am the tiger.” “But why do you have two stuffed lions?” “They were a gift. I like them.”……

“Once home from Thailand,I picked up my Pakistan cell phone from my colleague,who had borrowed it. “So,you got a few phone calls,” she said. “One interesting one.” “Who?” “Nawaz Sharif,” she said. I had almost forgotten about the story—I had mentioned his hair plugs,twice,and said Sharif’s genial personality made him seem more like a house cat than a tiger or lion. Ouch. “Oh. Him. What did he say?” I asked. “He wanted to talk to you. I said you were on vacation,and he told me to tell you that you wrote a very nice story,and he liked it. “Really?” Well,that was good news,and meant Sharif was remarkably down to earth. Clearly he had a sense of humor. Bhutto had certainly never called after any story I wrote. I soon called Sharif,to see if I could campaign with him. “You’re the most dangerous man in Pakistan,the top living opposition leader,” I told him.

“I want to see what it’s like to be around you.” “Welcome anytime,Kim,” he said. In mid-February,I met Sharif at the government’s Frontier House,just outside the judges’ enclave,where the country’s former top justices were still under house arrest. Eventually,after slipping through the mob,I climbed into Sharif’s bulletproof black SUV,surrounded by similar SUVs,and we took off,heading for two speeches outside the capital. We left Islamabad. One of Sharif’s security officers somehow sent us down narrow,bumpy dirt roads,where we ended up in traffic jams. Not encouraging. “That was bad planning,” Sharif muttered. He sat in the front passenger seat. I sat behind the driver,next to Sharif’s aide. After various detours,we ended up at the dirt field where Sharif would speak. Thousands of people waited. He was mobbed when he tried to step out of his vehicle,and his bodyguards bounced around like pinballs,trying to get in between well-wishers and their charge. I stood near the dusty stage,but I didn’t want to walk out. Despite Bhutto’s killing,the security at this event resembled that of a high-school pep rally.

The podium didn’t even have a bulletproof glass screen,which was supposed to be there. “I don’t know where it is,” Sharif told me,shrugging. “Sometimes the police give it to me,sometimes they give it to someone else.” Onstage he didn’t seem to care about potential attacks,thundering against dictatorship to the crowd. But I did. This country made me feel insecure,much more than Afghanistan. We drove to the next rally. I looked at my BlackBerry and spotted one very interesting e-mail—a Human Rights Watch report,quoting a taped conversation from November between the country’s pro-Musharraf attorney general and an unnamed man.

The attorney general had apparently been talking to a reporter,and while on that call,took another call,where he talked about vote rigging. The reporter had recorded the entire conversation. I scanned through the e-mail. “Nawaz,” I said. I had somehow slipped into calling the former prime minister by his first name. “have to hear this.” I then performed a dramatic reading of the message in full,culminating in the explosive direct quote from the attorney general,recorded the month before Bhutto was killed and just before Sharif flew home:“Leave Nawaz Sharif … I think Nawaz Sharif will not take part in the election … If he does take part,he will be in trouble. If Benazir takes part she too will be in trouble … They will massively rig to get their own people to win. If you can get a ticket from these guys,take it … If Nawaz Sharif does not return himself,then Nawaz Sharif has some advantage. If he comes himself,even if after the elections rather than before … Yes …” It was unclear what the other man was saying,but Human Rights Watch said the attorney general appeared to be advising him to leave Sharif’s party and get a ticket from “these guys,” the pro-Musharraf party,the massive vote riggers. Sharif’s aide stared at me openmouthed. “Is that true? I can’t believe that.” “It’s from Human Rights Watch,” I said. “There’s apparently a tape recording. Pretty amazing.” Sharif just looked at me. “How can you get a text message that long on your telephone?” “It’s an e-mail,” I said,slightly shocked that Sharif was unconcerned about what I had just said. “This is a BlackBerry phone. You can get e-mail on it.” “Ah,e-mail,” he said. “I must look into this BlackBerry.”

Sharif soon whipped out a comb,pulled the rearview mirror toward him,and combed his hair. I watched,fascinated. His hair plugs were in some ways genius—not enough to actually cover his bald spot but enough to make him seem less bald. He had the perfect hair transplant for a Pakistani politician who wanted to look younger while still appearing like a man of the people. But with every pull of the comb,I counted the potential cost—$1,000,$2,000. At the next speech,Sharif spoke in front of a metal podium with a bulletproof glass screen that ended three inches below the top of his head. I wondered if Musharraf was trying to kill him. The election was three days away. And as much as Sharif seemed to be slightly simple,he was also increasingly popular,largely because of his support of the deposed judges. While Bhutto’s widower campaigned on the memory of his dead wife,Sharif campaigned against Musharraf and for justice. Bhutto’s party would win the most votes.

But I thought Sharif would perform better than anyone suspected. The day of the election,two journalist friends and I drove to polling stations in Islamabad and neighboring Rawalpindi. Everywhere we heard the same name:Nawaz Sharif. It was rather spooky. At one point,we found a man who had spent the entire night cutting up white blankets,gluing them to his new car,and then painting them with tiger stripes. He finished the project off with black-feather trim. “What are you going to do if it rains?” I asked the man. “God willing,it won’t,” he said. I snapped a photograph with my BlackBerry. By the end of the day,the results were clear—Musharraf’s party had received barely any votes. Secular parties had triumphed over religious ones. Bhutto’s party had won the most seats,as predicted. But Sharif’s party had won the second-highest amount of votes,a surprise to many Western observers. Through the election,Sharif had exacted revenge on Musharraf. And Bhutto’s party needed Sharif to have enough seats to run the country. After more than eight years of political irrelevance,Sharif was back. I sent him a text message and asked him to call. A few hours later,he did,thrilled with his victory.

“I saw a car today,where a man had glued blankets to it and painted it like a tiger,” I told him at one point. “Really?” he asked. “Yeah. It was a tiger car.” He paused. “What did you think of the tiger car,Kim? Did you like the tiger car?” Weird question. I gave an appropriate answer. “Who doesn’t like a tiger car?”

“Capping the chaos,Nawaz Sharif then dropped out of the government. This shocked me—he had repeatedly threatened to end his party’s support for the coalition,but I didn’t think he would,as this chess move would in effect checkmate himself,eliminating any power he had. I called Sharif for the first time in months,and he invited me over to the Punjab House in Islamabad. He had always been unfailingly polite and soft-spoken with me. He seemed old-fashioned,speaking my name as a full sentence and rarely using contractions.

This time,in a large banquet hall filled with folding chairs and a long table,Sharif told his aides that he would talk to me alone. At the time,I barely noticed. We talked about Zardari,but he spoke carefully and said little of interest,constantly glancing at my tape recorder like it was radioactive. Eventually,he nodded toward it. “Can you turn that off?” he asked. “Sure,” I said,figuring he wanted to tell me something off the record. “So. Do you have a friend,Kim?” Sharif asked. I was unsure what he meant. “I have a lot of friends,” I replied. “No. Do you have a friend?” I figured it out. “You mean a boyfriend?” “Yes.” I looked at Sharif. I had two options—lie,or tell the truth. And because I wanted to see where this line of questioning was going,I told the truth. “I had a boyfriend. We recently broke up.” I nodded my head stupidly,as if to punctuate this thought. “Why?” Sharif asked. “Was he too boring for you? Not fun enough?” “Um. No. It just didn’t work out.” “Oh. I cannot believe you do not have a friend,” Sharif countered. “No. Nope. I don’t. I did.”

“Do you want me to find one for you?” Sharif asked. To recap:The militants were gaining strength along the border with Afghanistan and staging increasingly bold attacks in the country’s cities. The famed Khyber Pass,linking Pakistan and Afghanistan,was now too dangerous to drive. The country appeared as unmoored and directionless as a headless chicken. And here was Sharif,offering to find me a friend. Thank God the leaders of Pakistan had their priorities straight. “Sure. Why not?” I said. The thought of being fixed up on a date by the former prime minister of Pakistan,one of the most powerful men in the country and,at certain points,the world,proved irresistible. It had true train-wreck potential.

“What qualities are you looking for in a friend?” he asked. “Tall. Funny. Smart.” I envisioned a blind date at a restaurant in Lahore over kebabs and watermelon juice with one of Sharif’s sidekicks,some man with a mustache,Sharif lurking in the background as chaperone. “Hmmm. Tall may be tough. You are very tall,and most Pakistanis are not.” Sharif stood,walked past the banquet table toward the windows,and looked out over the capital. He pondered,before turning back toward me. “What do you mean by smart?” he asked. “You know. Smart. Quick. Clever.” “Oh,clever.” He nodded,thought for a second. “But you do not want cunning. You definitely do not want a cunning friend.” He looked out the window. It seemed to me that he was thinking of Bhutto’s widower,Zardari,his onetime ally and now rival,a man universally considered cunning at business who many felt had outsmarted Sharif in their recent political tango. “No. Who wants cunning?” “Anything else?” he asked. “What about his appearance?”

“I don’t really care. Not fat. Athletic.” We shook hands,and I left. In all my strange interviews with Sharif,that definitely was the strangest. ……

“The next night,Samad drove some friends and me to a dinner inside the diplomatic enclave. My phone beeped with a text message from a number with a British international code. “Hello,Kim,I arrived London yesterday. Congratulations on AZ becoming the new president,how is he doing and how have the people taken it? I am working on the project we discussed and will have the result soon. Best wishes and warm regards.” I had no idea who sent the message. My brother? Sean? No,this sender clearly knew me from Pakistan. And what was the project? What had I discussed? I read the text message to my friends,and we pondered the sender. Then,finally,I remembered reading that Nawaz Sharif had flown to London so that his sick wife could have some tests. “Is this Nawaz?” I replied. “You are correct,” he responded. The project. That was funny. Everyone in the car,even the man from the U.S. embassy,agreed that I needed to see this through. And I thought—well,we all did—how hilarious it would be if Sharif actually found an option that worked. ……

“I flew to India to write some stories. Nawaz Sharif asked for my number there. He needed to talk about something important,outside Pakistan. One early evening,he called from London. Sharif wondered whether I would be back in Pakistan before Eid al-Fitr,the Islamic holiday at the end of Ramadan. Maybe,I told him. He planned to go to Pakistan for a day,and then to Saudi Arabia for four days. “I am working on the project,” he said. “Day and night,I’m sure,” I replied. Sharif said the real reason he was calling was to warn me that the phones were tapped in Pakistan. “Be very careful,” he said. “Your phones are tapped. My phones are tapped. Do you know a man named Rehman Malik? He is giving the orders to do this,maybe at the behest of Mr. Zardari.” Everyone knew Rehman Malik,a slightly menacing figure who was the acting interior minister of Pakistan. He was known for making random word associations in press conferences and being unable to utter a coherent sentence. He also had slightly purple hair. “Is this new?” I asked. “Hasn’t it always been this way? “Well,yes. But it has gotten worse in the past two or three months.” So true. He had a solution—he would buy me a new phone.

And give me a new number,but a number so precious that I could only give it to my very close friends,who had to get new phones and numbers as well. Very tempting,but I told him no. He was,after all,the former prime minister of Pakistan. I couldn’t accept any gifts from him. “Sounds complicated. It’s not necessary. And you can’t buy me a phone.” He said I needed to be careful. We ended our conversation,and he promised to work on the project. “Don’t be—what is it you say? Don’t be naughty,” he said before hanging up. Naughty? Who said that? The conversation was slightly worrying. I thought of Sharif as a Punjabi matchmaker determined to find me a man,not as anyone who talked naughty to me. ……

“I planned a trip to Afghanistan,where the politics were much less murky,where the suicide bombers were much less effective,to write about alleged negotiations with the Taliban. That’s why I had to see Nawaz Sharif again. Emissaries from the Afghan government and former Taliban bigwigs had flown to Saudi Arabia for the feasts that marked the end of Ramadan. But they had another goal. Afghan officials had been hoping that the influential Saudi royal family would moderate negotiations between their battered government and the resurgent militants. Sharif,in Saudi Arabia at the time,was rumored to have been at those meetings. That made sense. He was close to the Saudi king. He had supported the Afghan Taliban,when the regime was in power.

I called Sharif and told him why I wanted to see him. “Most welcome,Kim,” he said. “Anytime.” We arranged for a lunch on a Saturday in October—I was due to fly to Kabul two days later. Samad and I decided to drive the five hours from Islamabad to Raiwind instead of flying. Samad showed up on time,but I overslept,having been up late the night before. I hopped out of bed and rifled through my Islamic clothes for something suitable because I liked to dress conservatively when interviewing Pakistani politicians. I yanked out a red knee-length top from India that had dancing couples embroidered on it. Potentially ridiculous,but the nicest clean one I had. We left Islamabad. “You’re gonna have to hurry,Samad,” I said. “Possible?” “Kim,possible,” he said. It always cracked me up when I got him to say that. We made good time south,but got lost at some point on the narrow roads to Raiwind. Sharif sent out an escort vehicle with flashing lights to meet us. We breezed through security—we actually didn’t even slow down—and I forced Samad to stop in the middle of the long driveway leading up to Sharif’s palace. I had forgotten to comb my hair or put on any makeup. I turned the rearview mirror toward me,smoothed down my messy hair with my hands,and put on some lipstick. Twenty seconds. “Good enough,” I pronounced my effort,and flipped the mirror back to Samad. We reached the imposing driveway.

Sharif actually waited in front of his massive front doors for me,wearing a blue suit,slightly snug around his waist. He clasped his hands in front of his belt. It was clear that our meeting was important. Sharif was surrounded by several lackeys,who all smiled tight-lipped before looking down at the ground. I jumped out of the car,sweaty after the ride,panicked because I was late. I shook Nawaz’s hand—he had soft fingers,manicured nails,baby-like skin that had probably never seen a callous. “Hello,Kim,” he said. “Hey,Nawaz. Sorry I’m late.” In the sitting room,I immediately turned on my tape recorder and rattled off questions. Was Sharif at the negotiations? What was happening? He denied being at any meetings,despite press reports to the contrary. I pushed him. He denied everything. I wondered why he let me drive all this way,if he planned to tell me nothing. At least I’d get free food. He looked at my tape recorder and asked me to turn it off. Eventually I obliged. Then Sharif brought up his real reason for inviting me to lunch. “Kim. I have come up with two possible friends for you.” At last. “Who?” He waited a second,looked toward the ceiling,then seemingly picked the top name from his subconscious. “The first is Mr. Z.” That was disappointing. Sharif definitely was not taking this project seriously. “Zardari? No way. That will never happen,” I said. “What’s wrong with Mr. Zardari?” Sharif asked. “Do you not find him attractive?”

Bhutto’s widower,Asif Ali Zardari,was slightly shorter than me and sported slicked-back hair and a mustache,which he was accused of dying black right after his wife was killed,right before his first press conference. On many levels,I did not find Zardari attractive. I would have preferred celibacy. But that wasn’t the point. Perhaps I could use this as a teaching moment. “He is the president of Pakistan. I am a journalist. That would never happen.”

“He is single.” Very true—but I didn’t think that was a good enough reason. “I can call him for you,” Sharif insisted. I’m fairly certain he was joking.

“I’m sure he has more important things to deal with,” I replied.

“OK. No Mr. Z. The second option,I will discuss with you later,” he said. That did not sound promising. We adjourned our meeting for lunch in the dining room,where two places were set at a long wooden table that appeared to seat seventy. We sat in the middle of the table,facing each other over a large display of fake orange flowers. The food was brought out in a dozen courses of silver dishes—deep-fried prawns,mutton stew,deep-fried fish,bread,a mayonnaise salad with a few vegetables for color,chicken curry,lamb. Dish after dish,each carried by waiters in traditional white outfits with long dark gray vests. Like the good Punjabi that Sharif was,he kept pushing food on me. “Have more prawns. You like prawns,right?” He insisted on seconds and thirds. It felt like a make-believe meal.

I didn’t know which fork to use,not that it mattered in a culture where it was fine to eat with your hands,but the combination of the wealth,the empty seats,and the unspoken tiger in the room made me want to run screaming from the table. I needed to get out of there. “I have to go.” “First,come for a walk with me outside,around the grounds. I want to show you Raiwind.” “No. I have to go. I have to go to Afghanistan tomorrow.” Sharif ignored that white lie and started to talk about where he wanted to take me. “I would like to take you for a ride in the country,and take you for lunch at a restaurant in Lahore,but because of my position,I cannot.” “That’s OK. I have to go.” “I am still planning to buy you a phone. Which do you like Nokia,iPhone?” So now he knew what a BlackBerry was. But I would not bend. “You can’t buy me a phone,” I said. “Why not?” “You’re the former prime minister of Pakistan. No.” “Which do you like?” He kept pressing,wouldn’t let it go. BlackBerry,Nokia,iPhone,over and over. That scene from The Wizard of Oz started running through my head:Lions and tigers and bears,oh my! “BlackBerry,Nokia,or iPhone,Kim?” “The iPhone,” I said,because I already had a Nokia and a BlackBerry. “But I still can’t take one from you.” As we left,Samad insisted on getting our picture taken with Sharif. Samad was a Bhutto man,which meant he should have been a Zardari man,but increasingly,like many of Bhutto’s followers in Pakistan,Samad had grown disenchanted with Zardari. And increasingly,Samad liked Sharif. Everyone liked Sharif. Behind the scenes,the tiger of Punjab was growing very powerful. His decision to break with Zardari over the issue of restoring the judges had proved to be smart. As Zardari’s government floundered and flip-flopped,Sharif looked more and more like an elder statesman. Regardless,I told my boss it was no longer a good idea for me to see Sharif. He was married,older,rich,and powerful. As a pleasant-looking,pedigree-lacking American with hair issues,I was an extremely unlikely paramour. But Sharif had ended our visit with a dangling proposition—the mysterious identity of a second potential friend. I decided to stick to a tapped-phone relationship. ……

“And I knew,with plenty of reservations,that I needed to go to Lahore because of Nawaz Sharif. If anyone knew the right Faridkot,he would. That Friday,Pakistan seemed to have launched its typical crackdown on the charity—in other words,lots of noise,little action. A charity billboard in the heart of Lahore proclaimed:“We can sacrifice our lives to preserve the holiness of the Prophet.”

I sent my translator into the group’s mosque because I wasn’t allowed. There,flanked by three armed guards,the founder of Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Lash preached to about ten thousand men. His bluster was typical Islamic militant stuff—about sacrifice,about Eid al-Adha,the upcoming religious festival where devout Muslims would sacrifice an animal and give part of it to the poor. The holiday honored Ibrahim,or as Jews and Christians knew him,Abraham. “Sacrifice is not just to slaughter animals in the name of God,” the founder said. “Sacrifice also means leaving your country in the name of God. It means sacrificing your life in the name of God.” His meaning seemed fairly clear.

Meanwhile,the spokesman for the charity tried to rewrite history. He said the founder was barely involved with Lash—despite founding it—and insisted Lash was now based in India. The spokesman also drew a vague line in the sand,more like a smudge—he said the charity talked about jihad,but did not set up any training camps for jihad. The man who ran the ISI when Lash was founded denied having anything to do with the group. “Such blatant lies,” he told me,adding later that Jamaat-ud-Dawa was “a good lot of people.”

These men seemed convinced of their magical powers,of their ability to wave a wand and erase a reporter’s memory. This obfuscation was not even up to Pakistan’s usual level. With a heavy heart,I knew I needed to see Nawaz Sharif. I figured I might be able to get something out of him that he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to tell me—as former prime minister,he’d certainly be told what was happening,but because he wasn’t a government official,he wouldn’t necessarily know that he was supposed to keep the information quiet. But this time,I planned to bring my translator along,a male chaperone. Samad drove our teamout to Raiwind. I sat in the back of the car,writing up my story about the charity on my computer,trying not to think about what Sharif might try to pull this visit. Eventually,we walked inside Sharif’s palace.

Sharif looked at my translator,then me,clearly confused. He invited us both into his computer room,where we sat on a couch. Sharif sat on a chair,near a desk. When he answered my questions,he stared at my translator. My translator,embarrassed to be there,stared at the ground. Sharif told me the right Faridkot—the one in Okara district,just a couple of hours from Lahore. He gave me the phone number for the provincial police chief. He told me what Indian and Pakistani authorities had told him about the lone surviving militant.

For us,this was big news—a senior Pakistani confirming what the government had publicly denied:The attackers were from Pakistan. “This boy says,‘I belong to Okara,and I left my home some years ago,’ ” Sharif said,adding that he had been told that the young man would come home for a few days every six months or a year. “He cut off his links with his parents,” Sharif also told me. “The relationship between him and his parents was not good. Then he disappeared.”

Once the interview was finished,Sharif looked at me. “Can you ask your translator to leave?” he asked. “I need to talk to you.” My translator looked at me with a worried forehead wrinkle. “It’s OK,” I said. He left. Sharif then looked at my tape recorder. “Can you turn that off?” I obliged. “I have to go,” I said. “I have to write a story.” He ignored me. “I have bought you an iPhone,” he said. “I can’t take it.” “Why not? It is a gift.” “No. It’s completely unethical,you’re a source.” “But we are friends,right?” I had forgotten how Sharif twisted the word “friend.” “Sure,we’re friendly,but you’re still the former prime minister of Pakistan and I can’t take an iPhone from you,” I said. “But we are friends,” he countered. “I don’t accept that. I told you I was buying you an iPhone.” “I told you I couldn’t take it. And we’re not those kind of friends.” He tried a new tactic. “Oh,I see.

Your translator is here,and you do not want him to see me give you an iPhone. That could be embarrassing for you.” Exasperated,I agreed. “That’s it.” He then offered to meet me the next day,at a friend’s apartment in Lahore,to give me the iPhone and have tea. No,I said. I was going to Faridkot. Sharif finally came to the point. “Kim. I am sorry I was not able to find you a friend. I tried,but I failed.” He shook his head,looked genuinely sad about the failure of the project. “That’s OK,” I said. “Really. I don’t really want a friend right now. I am perfectly happy without a friend. I want to be friendless.” He paused. And then,finally,the tiger of Punjab pounced. “I would like to be your friend.” I didn’t even let him get the words out. “No. Absolutely not. Not going to happen.”

“Hear me out.” He held his hand toward me to silence my negations as he made his pitch. He could have said anything—that he was a purported billionaire who had built my favorite road in Pakistan,that he could buy me a power plant or build me a nuclear weapon. But he opted for honesty. “I know,I’m not as tall as you’d like,” Sharif explained. “I’m not as fit as you’d like. I’m fat,and I’m old. But I would still like to be your friend.” “No,” I said. “No way.” He then offered me a job running his hospital,a job I was eminently unqualified to perform. “It’s a huge hospital,” he said. “You’d be very good at it.” He said he would only become prime minister again if I were his secretary. I thought about it for a few seconds—after all,I would probably soon be out of a job. But no.

The new position’s various positions would not be worth it. Eventually,I got out of the tiger’s grip,but only by promising that I would consider his offer. Otherwise,he wouldn’t let me leave. I jumped into the car,pulled out my tape recorder,and recited our conversation. Samad shook his head. My translator put his head in his hands. “I’m embarrassed for my country,” he said. After that,I knew I could never see Sharif again. I was not happy about this—I liked Sharif. In the back of my mind,maybe I had hoped he would come through with a possible friend,or that we could have kept up our banter,without an iPhone lurking in the closet. But now I saw him as just another sad case,a recycled has-been who squandered his country’s adulation and hope,who thought hitting on a foreign journalist was a smart move. Which it clearly wasn’t.

The next morning,Samad drove us to Faridkot. As soon as we pulled into town,dozens of men in cream-colored salwar kameezes flanked our car. One identified himself as the mayor—he denied all knowledge of the surviving militant and his parents. Other Pakistani journalists showed up—we had all found out about the same time that this was the Mumbai assailant’s hometown,a dusty village of ten thousand people in small brick houses along brick and dirt paths. My translator said many of the cream-attired men here were ISI. Another journalist recognized an ISI commander. Their job:to deny everything and get rid of us. ……

“I packed up my belongings and got ready to fly home. The day I planned to execute my exit strategy,my phone rang. And the caller was the other eccentric older man who had dominated my time,from the other side of the border. Nawaz Sharif. His timing was always impeccable. “Is this Kim?” he asked. “Yes,” I said,shoving Afghan tourism guides from the 1970s into a suitcase. I was hesitant,unsure of what he wanted. “So. It’s been a long time,” he said,awkwardly. “What are your plans to come to Pakistan?” “Actually,I’m moving back to the U.S. New York,in fact. I’m leaving in a few hours.”

“Oh,congratulations. I will have to come see you when I’m in New York,” he said. “That would be great,” I replied. “We’re still friends,right?” he asked,tentatively. “Always,” I said. “We’ll stay friends,right?” he said. “Sure.” We said goodbye. I had about the same level of intention of being friends with Nawaz Sharif as I did with Sam Zell. But I figured I could just end our relationship through the inevitable ennui of distance and time,and through the likelihood that he would never get his hands on my U.S. number. (He was more resourceful than I thought).

Qurbani, Ritual and Religion

0

Moeed Pirzada | Daily Times |

Today we have unique challenges: we have the Islamists but without the spirit of Islam; we have democracy without the democrats and we have liberals without liberalism

My parental home was like most homes in Pakistan. Each year just before Eid-ul-Azha or ‘bari Eid’ we talked of the prices of goats, of lambs, and how such and such corrupt official, thekedar (contractor) or smuggler (basically everyone our parents hated) has bought a big fat healthy cow for qurbani (sacrifice). And each year we meekly purchased a goat or a lamb, for remembering Abraham and Ishmael and for fulfilling our responsibility to God and to society. As children we joined our parents and other elders in touching the heads of these goats and later in the day gleefully consumed the best part of their meat in biryani or roast; carefully saving many valuable chunks in our deep freezer before distributing the rest among neighbours, rich friends and poor folks around the town. And I remember rushing to the front gate dozens of time to receive and collect the sacrificial meat from all friends and family and city notables, including the same smugglers we hated. And on our dining table we often discussed which maulvi or madrassa will extract the black, brown or the white sheepskin.

But then came a strange year. Our mother, for reasons best known to her, decided to buy a goat many weeks before Eid. All my siblings fancied that black goat with big eyes and a furry mane. We joined our servant and took turns in feeding her, cleaning her shed and in walking her around. She even fell ill before Eid so we called a vet who took care of that. And then came the day of the sacrifice. I do not know how animals have an intuition of what is about to happen or there is a thing called ‘animal ESP’. But from the night before Eid, our goat’s usual baah’s and meh’s changed to moans. In the morning when the busy and much sought after ‘man of the day’ — the butcher — arrived, we had to drag a reluctant, resistant, protesting goat to the front of our lawn for the butcher’s knife. During my CSS examinations I had read that the mother of King George III used to admonish the shy would-be monarch, “George be a king,” but I remember that day my mother shouting at me and my brother, “Be a man, go assist the butcher.” I still remember the helpless look of surprise and horror in that goat’s eyes as she lay there moments before the moving of the knife looking at me; someone she had internalised as the caretaker and someone who had betrayed her. On that Eid, my siblings ensured that no meat was served on our dining table and nothing went into our mother’s deep freezer; all of it went to the neighbours and to the poor.

It was the first day in my life when I had to grapple with the spirit and power of the biblical parable of Abraham and Ishmael (some sources argue it relates to Isaac). Though we all profess to love children but I had to wait many more years in my life before I held my own child in my arms and to experience the joy and to understand what it might have been for Abraham to have Ishmael or Isaac. My religious beliefs were never akin to those of a bishop or a maulana and in years of traversing through life and absorbing a bit of Voltaire here and Russell there like most of us do, I might have come to understand things a little differently. But despite all this, in my own way, I have always been religious and looked and searched for greater meaning in all the divine religions and their parables.

No doubt rituals have been important in defining, orchestrating and deepening religious experiences. I do not want to spend time describing how today on TV and radio we will consume endless hours discussing the price inflation of sheep; or that today we purchase goats one day before Eid or how across the world we get certificates of our financial share in a qurbani. Societies have held together and shaped themselves around rituals but I wonder what happens to a society when it loses its power to interpret and reinterpret and all it is left with is rituals. We know that when ideas lose their spirit, words lose their meaning and thus their power and effect but have you wondered that something more than that may also happen.

So please forgive me for going totally berserk and refer to something very unusual and bizarre for this kind of discussion. A few years ago while studying ‘Media and Internet Regulation’ at the London School of Economics, I came across a very provocative book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace by Professor Lawrence Lessig who has taught Internet Law at both Harvard and Stanford and who in my judgement is to Internet Law what Steve Jobs is to computation. Lessig, at one point, while trying to explain how statutes and constitutional enactments of an early age may not only lose their original intent and meaning but if interpreted literally in a different age and context may end up meaning the opposite.

To help explain Lessig takes us to a 1928 US Supreme Court case, ‘Olmstead vs the United States’. The US government was fighting prohibition era alcohol cartels; it had just become technically possible for the government to tap telephone lines and record private conversations from its telephone exchanges without physically going into private property; and using this newfound power the government used such phone recordings to convict alcohol smugglers. Lawyers of the defendants argued before the Supreme Court that such recordings, without a warrant, constituted ‘trespass’ and ‘invasion of privacy’ and that the government had violated the US constitution and the Fourth Amendment that guarantees citizens their right to privacy.

What do you think happened? The US government argued that since the police never physically entered the premises, merely recorded phone conversations from exchanges, so trespass never happened. In 1928, Justice William Taft agreed with the government. However, another judge on the panel, Justice Brandeis, wrote a note of dissent arguing that newer technologies had made it possible for the government to violate the privacy enshrined in the Fourth Amendment without the need of a physical trespass. And that the court, grappling with challenges of a different age and time and context, needs to reflect beyond the words of the Fourth Amendment to preserve the original meaning and the spirit of the framers of the Fourth Amendment.

Lessig relieved us by telling that 40 years later, in ‘Katz vs the United States’, the US Supreme Court was able to understand what Justice Brandeis was arguing, and it overturned the judgement of ‘Olmstead vs the United States’

Now let’s come back. Lessig was obsessed with Internet Law and how the 200-plus-years-old US constitution’s original meaning can be preserved in defining laws and governance for cyberspace. And I was thinking of religions and Islam. Today we have unique challenges: we have the Islamists but without the spirit of Islam; we have democracy without the democrats and we have liberals without liberalism. If on this auspicious bari Eid day, I have made you pause and reflect that words and statutes may not only lose their meaning in a changed context, but may end up meaning the opposite, then maybe I have succeeded. Eid Mubarak!

ANALYSIS: What Imran Khan achieved in Lahore and why?

0

Moeed Pirzada | Daily Times |

Imran Khan did not have the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or the oratorical skills of Benazir, but what he had, in his simple straightforward words, was something different

“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very Heaven! O times…”

Is this not how Englishman William Wordsworth had once summed up his feelings about the French Revolution? But forget about the English and the French, and let’s be honest for once, let’s put those pretensions of cold logic and those million cautions aside and let’s admit: is this not how most of us felt when we saw thousands and thousands of young fearless Pakistanis, stretching as far as the eye could see, waving and singing and dancing along with Shehzad Roy and Strings in PTI’s rally in Lahore? You may not like to admit it but let me admit: this is how I felt; tantalising, tingling sensations of love and joy travelled along my spine; there were moments when I uncontrollably laughed and there were moments when I helplessly cried. But these tears rolling down my cheeks were tears of happiness and relief for the whole of my life from pre-school days till now was flashing and dancing in front of me. And for the first time in many many years I have lost count how many I felt that we in Pakistan are neither idiots nor zombies and nor some forgotten children of a lesser God with limited imagination but part of the living humanity of this beautiful blue planet and we have hope!

Imran Khan whom our mentally challenged liberal elite, in their thinly disguised desperation to appease Washington, had often referred to as ‘Taliban Khan’ — now slapped them with a political rally that made all the difference. It had young men, it had beautiful Pakistani women, it had innocent children and it had music. And these men and women and children entered the historic Minar-e-Pakistan not as bonded or captured Kunta Kinte slaves of Alex Haley transported in commandeered and hijacked public transport forcibly seized by the factotums of the Punjabi bureaucracy but walked on their feet, with poise and discipline, as free humanity. Before and after the American Civil War, researchers and the captains of industry found out that free men are more productive than slaves. The electric enthusiasm of these Pakistanis drawn to the message of a cricket captain also made it clear that they were there for they believed in something; perhaps it was their revulsion to sickening corruption, perhaps it was their desire for national self-respect or perhaps they just wanted to break the cancerous inertia of Pakistani politics, but one thing was clear: these baby boomers, children of Pakistan’s demographic dividend, want change.

The primary assumption of Pakistani politics since the 1980s is that the Pakistani public and voters are some sort of pre-Neanderthal idiots; the secondary assumption is that they will always remain so. It is this duo of assumptions around which the politics of ‘notables’ and ‘electables’ is built. A smart, mature, wise Pakistani politician is thus one who firmly believes in this and preaches the opposite. He knows that elections have to be won by managing a system of petty spoils, biradaris (clans), pirs (holy men) and sajada nasheens (hereditary pirs) and that is why thanedars (policemen), patwaris (land record officers), superintendents of police and district officers are so important to him. This is why a typical winning politician has no need to invest in developing any systematic view of public welfare at the national level. And this is why today none of the major parties has any political message, any national narrative, any idea worth appealing to anyone whose IQ is more than 40. In short, since the 1980s Pakistani politics has no defining ideas that can connect almost 200 million people divided across barriers of age, education, awareness, ethnicity and sectarianism.

This is where Imran Khan’s speech at the Minar-e-Pakistan becomes a turning point in Pakistani politics. I could feel that he did not have the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or the oratorical skills of Benazir, but what he had, in his simple straightforward words, was something different. He did not spend much time in blasting Nawaz or Zardari, whom he referred to as leaders of the past. Instead, he used his rather brief speech to hint upon a politics of ideas and issues. No doubt abolishing the patwari system or reforming the police are easier said than done, but he has laid the ideas or their seeds on the political table. The absence of usual demagoguery was also remarkable. Pakistani politicians, bereft of overarching ideas, have always gone overboard when they talk of Kashmir, of India, of the US, especially when a pulpit is set in Lahore. But Imran chose his words carefully; no liberation of Kashmir, no befitting responses to India, and no demonisation of the US either. On every issue he said something measured, which made sense and resonated with the demographic dividend spread all around Minar-e-Pakistan and those countless millions who were connected through television screens all across the world like one single organism.

What will happen? Electoral politics does not change overnight. For the PTI and Imran Khan, and Pakistan’s baby boomers, there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. And they have lots of genuine learning to do. The Lahore power play was an effective demonstration of the innate appeal of their message, their ability of strategic communication and their administrative skills, but much more is needed, for the task to rid Pakistan of the politics of non-sense is humungous. Those piranhas of Pakistani politics whose teeth are deep into the flesh of the Pakistani people and their pockets will engineer anything conceivable under the sun to woo their vote banks to maintain their stranglehold on Pakistani politics and the economy and this moment in Lahore has shown them the ‘nightmare trailer’ that will now kickstart a new behind-the-scenes campaign to contain Imran Khan and his demographic dividend.

But one thing is certain: politics will change. The PPP may be able to manoeuvre and shield its safe vote banks in interior Sindh and the Seraiki belt from this new wave in politics but what about the PML-N? Whether Nawaz and Shahbaz have realised it or not, after this PTI power play in Lahore, PMN-L stalwarts are standing in a Turkish hamaam (steam bath) without towels. For three years they had chosen careful rhetoric to painstakingly build an identity around anti-Zardari sloganeering, against corruption and for hyper-nationalism, but the practical demands of politics and repeated compromises drained all credibility from their strategic communications and now a new untainted entity has emerged representing all what they had stood for. Today the PML-N leadership stands upon a dead heap of old loyalties and expectations of the spoils, but in weeks and months the emerging sense of change will trickle down across the Punjabi towns. Shahbaz Sharif’s recent mantras of Habib Jalib and his inability to understand that he does not fit into Jalib’s revolutionary context only showed how seriously disconnected they have been from the emerging reality around them. It is time for Pakistani politics to pause, readjust and reinvent itself. This is what Imran Khan and his followers have achieved in Lahore.

The writer is a political analyst and a TV anchorperson. He can be reached at director@media-policy.com

 

 

What Imran Khan achieved in Lahore and why?

Moeed Pirzada |

Imran Khan did not have the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or the oratorical skills of Benazir, but what he had, in his simple straightforward words, was something different

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011112story_2-11-2011_pg3_4

“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very Heaven! O times…”

Is this not how Englishman William Wordsworth had once summed up his feelings about the French Revolution? But forget about the English and the French, and let’s be honest for once, let’s put those pretensions of cold logic and those million cautions aside and let’s admit: is this not how most of us felt when we saw thousands and thousands of young fearless Pakistanis, stretching as far as the eye could see, waving and singing and dancing along with Shehzad Roy and Strings in PTI’s rally in Lahore? You may not like to admit it but let me admit: this is how I felt; tantalising, tingling sensations of love and joy travelled along my spine; there were moments when I uncontrollably laughed and there were moments when I helplessly cried. But these tears rolling down my cheeks were tears of happiness and relief for the whole of my life from pre-school days till now was flashing and dancing in front of my eyes. And for the first time in many many years — I have lost count how many — I felt that we in Pakistan are neither idiots nor zombies and nor some forgotten children of a lesser God with limited imagination but part of the living humanity of this beautiful blue planet and we have hope!

Today the PML-N leadership stands upon a dead heap of old loyalties and expectations of the spoils, but in weeks and months the emerging sense of change will trickle down across the Punjabi towns.

Imran Khan — whom our mentally challenged liberal elite, in their thinly disguised desperation to appease Washington, had often referred to as ‘Taliban Khan’ — now slapped them with a political rally that made all the difference. It had young men, it had beautiful Pakistani women, it had innocent children and it had music. And these men and women and children entered the historic Minar-e-Pakistan not as bonded or captured Kunta Kinte slaves of Alex Haley transported in commandeered and hijacked public transport forcibly seized by the factotums of the Punjabi bureaucracy but walked on their feet, with poise and discipline, as free humanity. Before and after the American Civil War, researchers and the captains of industry found out that free men are more productive than slaves. The electric enthusiasm of these Pakistanis drawn to the message of a cricket captain also made it clear that they were there for they believed in something; perhaps it was their revulsion to sickening corruption, perhaps it was their desire for national self-respect or perhaps they just wanted to break the cancerous inertia of Pakistani politics, but one thing was clear: these baby boomers, children of Pakistan’s demographic dividend, want change.

Read more: Karachi Jalsa is a Game Changer?

The primary assumption of Pakistani politics since the 1980s is that the Pakistani public and voters are some sort of pre-Neanderthal idiots; the secondary assumption is that they will always remain so. It is this duo of assumptions around which the politics of ‘notables’ and ‘electables’ is built. A smart, mature, wise Pakistani politician is thus one who firmly believes in this and preaches the opposite. He knows that elections have to be won by managing a system of petty spoils, biradaris (clans), pirs (holy men) and sajada nasheens (hereditary pirs) and that is why thanedars (policemen), patwaris (land record officers), superintendents of police and district officers are so important to him. This is why a typical winning politician has no need to invest in developing any systematic view of public welfare at the national level. And this is why today none of the major parties has any political message, any national narrative, any idea worth appealing to anyone whose IQ is more than 40. In short, since the 1980s Pakistani politics has no defining ideas that can connect almost 200 million people divided across barriers of age, education, awareness, ethnicity and sectarianism.

This is where Imran Khan’s speech at the Minar-e-Pakistan becomes a turning point in Pakistani politics. I could feel that he did not have the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or the oratorical skills of Benazir, but what he had, in his simple straightforward words, was something different. He did not spend much time in blasting Nawaz or Zardari, whom he referred to as leaders of the past. Instead, he used his rather brief speech to hint upon a politics of ideas and issues. No doubt abolishing the patwari system or reforming the police are easier said than done, but he has laid the ideas or their seeds on the political table. The absence of usual demagoguery was also remarkable. Pakistani politicians, bereft of overarching ideas, have always gone overboard when they talk of Kashmir, of India, of the US, especially when a pulpit is set in Lahore. But Imran chose his words carefully; no liberation of Kashmir, no befitting responses to India, and no demonisation of the US either. On every issue he said something measured, which made sense and resonated with the demographic dividend spread all around Minar-e-Pakistan and those countless millions who were connected through television screens all across the world like one single organism.

I felt that we in Pakistan are neither idiots nor zombies and nor some forgotten children of a lesser God with limited imagination but part of the living humanity of this beautiful blue planet and we have hope!

What will happen? Electoral politics does not change overnight. For the PTI and Imran Khan, and Pakistan’s baby boomers, there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. And they have lots of genuine learning to do. The Lahore power play was an effective demonstration of the innate appeal of their message, their ability of strategic communication and their administrative skills, but much more is needed, for the task to rid Pakistan of the politics of non-sense is humungous. Those piranhas of Pakistani politics whose teeth are deep into the flesh of the Pakistani people and their pockets will engineer anything conceivable under the sun to woo their vote banks to maintain their stranglehold on Pakistani politics and the economy and this moment in Lahore has shown them the ‘nightmare trailer’ that will now kickstart a new behind-the-scenes campaign to contain Imran Khan and his demographic dividend.

But one thing is certain: politics will change. The PPP may be able to manoeuvre and shield its safe vote banks in interior Sindh and the Seraiki belt from this new wave in politics but what about the PML-N? Whether Nawaz and Shahbaz have realised it or not, after this PTI power play in Lahore, PMN-L stalwarts are standing in a Turkish hamaam (steam bath) without towels. For three years they had chosen careful rhetoric to painstakingly build an identity around anti-Zardari sloganeering, against corruption and for hyper-nationalism, but the practical demands of politics and repeated compromises drained all credibility from their strategic communications and now a new untainted entity has emerged representing all what they had stood for. Today the PML-N leadership stands upon a dead heap of old loyalties and expectations of the spoils, but in weeks and months the emerging sense of change will trickle down across the Punjabi towns. Shahbaz Sharif’s recent mantras of Habib Jalib and his inability to understand that he does not fit into Jalib’s revolutionary context only showed how seriously disconnected they have been from the emerging reality around them. It is time for Pakistani politics to pause, readjust and reinvent itself. This is what Imran Khan and his followers have achieved in Lahore.

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

ANALYSIS: What Imran Khan achieved in Lahore and why

1

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

Imran Khan did not have the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or the oratorical skills of Benazir, but what he had, in his simple straightforward words, was something different

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011112story_2-11-2011_pg3_4

“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very Heaven! O times…”

Is this not how Englishman William Wordsworth had once summed up his feelings about the French Revolution? But forget about the English and the French, and let’s be honest for once, let’s put those pretensions of cold logic and those million cautions aside and let’s admit: is this not how most of us felt when we saw thousands and thousands of young fearless Pakistanis, stretching as far as the eye could see, waving and singing and dancing along with Shehzad Roy and Strings in PTI’s rally in Lahore? You may not like to admit it but let me admit: this is how I felt; tantalising, tingling sensations of love and joy travelled along my spine; there were moments when I uncontrollably laughed and there were moments when I helplessly cried. But these tears rolling down my cheeks were tears of happiness and relief for the whole of my life from pre-school days till now was flashing and dancing in front of my eyes. And for the first time in many many years — I have lost count how many — I felt that we in Pakistan are neither idiots nor zombies and nor some forgotten children of a lesser God with limited imagination but part of the living humanity of this beautiful blue planet and we have hope!

Imran Khan — whom our mentally challenged liberal elite, in their thinly disguised desperation to appease Washington, had often referred to as ‘Taliban Khan’ — now slapped them with a political rally that made all the difference. It had young men, it had beautiful Pakistani women, it had innocent children and it had music. And these men and women and children entered the historic Minar-e-Pakistan not as bonded or captured Kunta Kinte slaves of Alex Haley transported in commandeered and hijacked public transport forcibly seized by the factotums of the Punjabi bureaucracy but walked on their feet, with poise and discipline, as free humanity. Before and after the American Civil War, researchers and the captains of industry found out that free men are more productive than slaves. The electric enthusiasm of these Pakistanis drawn to the message of a cricket captain also made it clear that they were there for they believed in something; perhaps it was their revulsion to sickening corruption, perhaps it was their desire for national self-respect or perhaps they just wanted to break the cancerous inertia of Pakistani politics, but one thing was clear: these baby boomers, children of Pakistan’s demographic dividend, want change.

The primary assumption of Pakistani politics since the 1980s is that the Pakistani public and voters are some sort of pre-Neanderthal idiots; the secondary assumption is that they will always remain so. It is this duo of assumptions around which the politics of ‘notables’ and ‘electables’ is built. A smart, mature, wise Pakistani politician is thus one who firmly believes in this and preaches the opposite. He knows that elections have to be won by managing a system of petty spoils, biradaris (clans), pirs (holy men) and sajada nasheens (hereditary pirs) and that is why thanedars (policemen), patwaris (land record officers), superintendents of police and district officers are so important to him. This is why a typical winning politician has no need to invest in developing any systematic view of public welfare at the national level. And this is why today none of the major parties has any political message, any national narrative, any idea worth appealing to anyone whose IQ is more than 40. In short, since the 1980s Pakistani politics has no defining ideas that can connect almost 200 million people divided across barriers of age, education, awareness, ethnicity and sectarianism.

This is where Imran Khan’s speech at the Minar-e-Pakistan becomes a turning point in Pakistani politics. I could feel that he did not have the charisma of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or the oratorical skills of Benazir, but what he had, in his simple straightforward words, was something different. He did not spend much time in blasting Nawaz or Zardari, whom he referred to as leaders of the past. Instead, he used his rather brief speech to hint upon a politics of ideas and issues. No doubt abolishing the patwari system or reforming the police are easier said than done, but he has laid the ideas or their seeds on the political table. The absence of usual demagoguery was also remarkable. Pakistani politicians, bereft of overarching ideas, have always gone overboard when they talk of Kashmir, of India, of the US, especially when a pulpit is set in Lahore. But Imran chose his words carefully; no liberation of Kashmir, no befitting responses to India, and no demonisation of the US either. On every issue he said something measured, which made sense and resonated with the demographic dividend spread all around Minar-e-Pakistan and those countless millions who were connected through television screens all across the world like one single organism.

What will happen? Electoral politics does not change overnight. For the PTI and Imran Khan, and Pakistan’s baby boomers, there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. And they have lots of genuine learning to do. The Lahore power play was an effective demonstration of the innate appeal of their message, their ability of strategic communication and their administrative skills, but much more is needed, for the task to rid Pakistan of the politics of non-sense is humungous. Those piranhas of Pakistani politics whose teeth are deep into the flesh of the Pakistani people and their pockets will engineer anything conceivable under the sun to woo their vote banks to maintain their stranglehold on Pakistani politics and the economy and this moment in Lahore has shown them the ‘nightmare trailer’ that will now kickstart a new behind-the-scenes campaign to contain Imran Khan and his demographic dividend.

But one thing is certain: politics will change. The PPP may be able to manoeuvre and shield its safe vote banks in interior Sindh and the Seraiki belt from this new wave in politics but what about the PML-N? Whether Nawaz and Shahbaz have realised it or not, after this PTI power play in Lahore, PMN-L stalwarts are standing in a Turkish hamaam (steam bath) without towels. For three years they had chosen careful rhetoric to painstakingly build an identity around anti-Zardari sloganeering, against corruption and for hyper-nationalism, but the practical demands of politics and repeated compromises drained all credibility from their strategic communications and now a new untainted entity has emerged representing all what they had stood for. Today the PML-N leadership stands upon a dead heap of old loyalties and expectations of the spoils, but in weeks and months the emerging sense of change will trickle down across the Punjabi towns. Shahbaz Sharif’s recent mantras of Habib Jalib and his inability to understand that he does not fit into Jalib’s revolutionary context only showed how seriously disconnected they have been from the emerging reality around them. It is time for Pakistani politics to pause, readjust and reinvent itself. This is what Imran Khan and his followers have achieved in Lahore.

Imran Khan and PTI have emerged as a new power on the political map of Pakistan!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blogs |

Yes! I was only cautious when I wrote my last one liner…people were still gathering at Minar-e-Pakistan; but then they came from all directions, and they came with their wives, and wives with their husbands, they came with their children and their friends, they came on their motorbikes, on cycles, on their cars and they walked, and so we know for sure that they were not in the usual government controlled buses, and they were not brought by police and patwaris and by the petty bureaucrats…they were free men and women who walked to the sprawling lawns of Minar-e-Paksitan on their free will for they believed in something…something bigger than their own lives; they wore all colors of Pakistan, they were Punjabis and Pakhtoons and Sindhis and Baluch and Kashmiris..and they showed a remarkable discipline and respect for each other…and what else was different? …they were young and they were full of excitement and belief..unlike the rent-a crowds of usual Pakistani politicians who sullenly and listlessly listen to the demagoguery of politicians these men and women were full of enthusiasm and self-belief…the presence of large number of Pakistani women, of music, of Shahzad Roy and Strings added a dimension to this political rally that had never been seen in this country before…that was like the Latin American political scene…alive and full of belief..

What Imran said? he may not be as charismatic as Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or as trained a speaker as Benazir Bhutto but the message he delivered, and delivered with all sincerity was more original and powerful ever heard from a politician in Pakistan since the Bhutto speeches of 1960’s and 1970’s….perhaps for the first time in the last 40 years a politician has emerged on the scenes of Pakistan who actually put forward a political agenda, an agenda that could be defined, understood and implemented; when he says we will get rid of the usual Patwari and thana he is laying down the vision for a progressive Pakistan…a Pakistan in which land assets could be traded without the fear of fraud…if we achieve this, or at least move in this direction, we will enter a new era of commerce….and what was refreshing was the total absence of “demagoguery”, Imran did not talk of the liberation of Kashmir, usual rhetoric against India or ultimatums to America, kind of things which cannot be implemented, he talked of things that are possible…it was so fun to listen to him…it was this balanced, sophisticated political message we so wanted to hear but could never hear from these buffoons who have ruled our lives in the last 20 -30 years…

What has changed? Elections are far off, and there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip but today a new Pakistan was born or perhaps the Pakistan of 1960’s and 1970’s was revisited; a Pakistan that existed before Ronald Reagon the and Gen. Zia ul Haq struck the faustian bargain against Soviet Union, the faustian bargain that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union but left Pakistan in a perpetual crisis of the politics of personality cult, of feudals and Pirs and Sajada Nasheens..today PTI has brought forward the politics of ideas and issues and this will not only effect us but will effect the structures and power politics inside the other parties…to fight PTI they will have to change…

Lets watch it as it evolves, lets make a pledge that we will all vote in the next elections and we will demand a free fair transparent election process..we will ensure a transition of power in this country..from feudals and criminals and thugs into the hands of decent human beings, first step has been taken….

Special Documentary on the eve of 10th Anniversary of September 11: 9/11 Ki Kahani, Ek Pakistani Ki Zubani

1

This is second part of the documentary which Moeed Pirzada & his ‘Sochta Pakistan’ team made on the eve of 10th Anniversary of 9/11. This was an attempt to bring out a purely Pakistani perspective on how the Muslim world saw 9/11 and its tragic implications for Pakistan, Iraq, Middle East and the Muslim world at large. But above all for Pakistan – a country that had nothing to do with purely middle eastern origins of violence that hit United States but became a principal battle ground between Islamists and the West.

This was a unique effort, one of its kind in Ptv, which Moeed Pirzada, as Director World Affairs Ptv, proposed and then MD Ptv, Yousaf Baig Mirza and Secretary Information, Taimoor Azmat approved. Ptv teams under the guidance and supervision of Moeed Pirzada travelled across Pakistan and Pirzada himself interviewed ten key prominent Pakistani opinion makers who widely differed in their intellectual positions and world view. These ranged from the ultra-conservatives like Gen. Hameed Gul and Zaid Hamid to the Pakistani origin US scholars like Prof. Adil Najam at Boston University and Dr. Moeed Yusuf of United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Top foreign policy experts like Ex-Foreign Secretary, Riaz Khokar and Ex-Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri and media persons like Adur Rauf of GEO TV, Mujib ur Rehman Shami, prominent Urdu Columnist and Rashid Rehman, Editor Daily Times and Art Critic, Saleem Hashmi added their voices to make this a unique Pakistani comment on 9/11. Narrated in the voice of Moeed Pirzada its a quintessential Pakistani story of 9/11 told by Pakistanis.

At the very last moment, President Zardari’s Office tried preventing its broadcast on the grounds that Zaid Hamid and Gen. Hameed Gul are radicals and therefore unacceptable on Pakistan’s state broadcaster. However Secretary Information, Taimoor Azmat, boldly intervened and advised President’s Office that art products have to be provocative and without the radical voices this important comment will remain incomplete. Whole two part documentary was then broadcast without any censor.

US Embassy holds Gay & Lesbian Event in Islamabad; debate from Press Pakistan…!

Moeed Pirzada |

I think that ‘Baqir Sajid’s’ balanced and well-argued position, which he has explained again, has not been understood by most on this forum. This is not a debate about the good & bad of gay and lesbians or transgenders but about the message US Embassy wants to send.

Baqir was clear from the very beginning that US Embassy is United States’s sovereign territory and they can hold any kind of event which is permitted by their law and culture. Can they invite Pakistani gays and lesbians to such an event? I am not sure of the legality but then a significant percentage of Pakistani invitees to diplomatic events do consume alcohol on embassy premises and if that is fine (despite being against Pakistani law) then inviting Pakistani gay and lesbians will technically not be much different. What makes it different is that US embassy issues a press release about it on June 26th, Why? they don’t issue press releases about every single event and they don’t issue press releases saying that Pakistani invitees, some of whom serve in the government or media relished every drop of red and white wines and were falling over each other…so why issue a press release about the Gay & Lesbian event?

I sincerely hope that the US diplomats here and their “fanatic bosses” back in Washington will care to understand the sensitives of this country, and will not like to unnecessarily provoke their intellectual other halfs ie “Pakistani fanatics” to harm the lives of Pakistani gays and lesbians and all those who believe in the vital role of United States in this region…unless you want to spread more chaos here??

Because US embassy appears to be eager to be sending a message to Pakistani society and media that we stand by the gay and lesbians and in this regards, we don’t respect Pakistan’s laws, whether they are based upon religion or derived from long-standing local customs and traditions. And it is only natural to understand that they want to kick start a debate on this issue. What an American way to start a debate? It is also interesting that they have decided to do it at a time when we hear almost daily that relations between the two countries (or with the military establishment; their historical partner in this region) are unusually strained. So much much so that the latest round of the Strategic Dialogue between US & Pakistan has been postponed indefinitely. Under these circumstances, the US Embassy sending this kind of message, in clear, unambiguous terms, is not only disappointing but very troubling.

Because they appear to be sending a clear, conscious, well thought out and robust message that we don’t respect Pakistani laws, conventions, and traditions at all…and we don’t care a damn as to what Pakistanis think about our flagrant disrespect of their religon, laws and customs….I am not sure if they will hold such an event in Saudi Arabia or if they hold it they will issue a press release about it?

What makes it different is that US embassy issues a press release about it on June 26th, Why? they don’t issue press releases about every single event and they don’t issue press releases saying that Pakistani invitees, some of whom serve in the government or media relished every drop of red and white wines and were falling over each other…so why issue a press release about the Gay & Lesbian event?

Why is this stupid? for so many reasons: first and foremost, it is a clear violation of the basis of diplomatic relations (as Baqir has so clearly pointed out, in his second email) and mutual respect for each other; Second, if widely known, it reduces US mission’s already strained good will & ability to undertake, handle and manage so many other important tasks which should be on the top of their priority list in this region; it also unnecessarily polarizes the Pakistani civil society which is already polarized in so many different directions; it puts many like Baqir and myself who are great believers in US- Pakistan relations and the United States important and vital role in this region into a difficult corner as to how to respond to this “stupidity” which unfortunately is clearly intended as a message; this isolates the genuine friends of United States and degrade (in the eyes of majority) all those Pakistanis into “stooges lacking self-respect” who for their friendship with the Americans will be forced to defend this action by giving one or other kind of excuse; it will empower all those who suspect that United States is actively working to spread “creative chaos” in Pakistan for some nefarious agenda and further marginalize & discredit those feeble voices of rationality that depend upon just and deserving support from the US foreign policy based on long established principles.

Finally this is also “stupid” because it shows the sheer inability of US diplomatic missions & State Department baboos (since Embassy will not pull this kind of stupidity, unless a dumb ass from Washinton signalled that) to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant, theory and practice, possible and impossible; in simple words it exposes their intellectual poverty, lack of understanding of this country and exposes the quality of their advisers here and in Washington. No doubt that current administration is taking a big and bold position on gay and lesbian rights within the US; but if US diplomats fail to understand Pakistan then one expects them to at least understand and respect the lessons of US history, where gay & lesbians have a difficult and painful struggle to their credit, which is still continuing.

Unfortunately, these kinds of mistakes happen when you take ‘stooges’ as friends. The human temptation to fall for sycophancy is huge; US dips and experts, despite a massive advantage in terms of education and resources are falling for the advice of those clever voices who specialize as “His Masters Voice”…I sincerely hope that the US diplomats here and their “fanatic bosses” back in Washington will care to understand the sensitives of this country, and will not like to unnecessarily provoke their intellectual other halfs ie “Pakistani fanatics” to harm the lives of Pakistani gays and lesbians and all those who believe in the vital role of United States in this region…unless you want to spread more chaos here??

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

US Embassy holds Gay & Lesbian Event in Islamabad; debate from Press Pakistan…!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

I think that ‘Baqir Sajid’s’ balanced and well argued position, which he has explained again, has not been understood by most on this forum. This is not a debate about the good & bad of gay and lesbians or transgenders but about the message US Embassy wants to send.

Baqir was clear from the very beginning that US Embassy is United States’s soverign territory and they can hold any kind of event which is permitted by their law and culture. Can they invite Pakistani gays and lesbians to such an event? I am not sure of the legality but then a significant percentage of Pakistani invitees to diplomatic events do consume alcohal on embassy premises and if that is fine (despite being against Pakistani law) then inviting Pakistani gay and lesbians will technically not be much different. What makes it different is that US embassy issues a press release about it on June 26th, Why? they don’t issue press releases about every single event and they don’t issue press releases saying that Pakistani invitees, some of whom serve in the government or media relished every drop of red and white wines and were falling over each other…so why issue a press release about the Gay & Lesbian event?

Because US embassy appears to be eager to be sending a message to Pakistani society and media that we stand by the gay and lesbians and in this regards we don’t respect Pakistan’s laws, whether they are based upon religion or derived from long standing local customs and traditions. And it is only natural to understand that they want to kick start a debate on this issue. What an American way to start a debate? It is also interesting that they have decided to do it at a time when we hear almost daily that relations between the two countries (or with military establishment; their historical partner in this region) are unusually strained. So much much so that the latest round of the Strategic Dialogue between US & Pakistan has been post poned indefinitely. Under these circumstances the US Embassy sending this kind of message, in clear, unambigous terms, is not only disappointing but very troubling.

Because they appear to be sending a clear, conscious, well thought out and robust message that we don’t respect Pakistani laws, conventions and traditions at all…and we don’t care a damn as to what Pakistanis think about our flagrant disrespect of their religon, laws and customs….I am not sure if they will hold such an event in Saudi Arabia or if they hold it they will issue a press release about it?

Why this is stupid? for so many reasons: first and foremost, it is a clear violation of the basis of diplomatic relations (as Baqir has so clearly pointed out, in his second email) and mutual respect for each other; Second, if widely known, it reduces US mission’s already strained good will & ability to undertake, handle and manage so many other important tasks which should be on the top of their prioritiy list in this region; it also unnecessarrilly polarizes the Pakistani civil society which is already polarized in so many different directions; it puts many like Baqir and myself who are great believers in US- Pakistan relations and United States important and vital role in this region into a difficult corner as to how to respond to this “stupidity” which unfortunately is clearly intended as a message; this isolates the genuine friends of United States and degrade (in the eyes of majority) all those Pakistanis into “stooges lacking self-respect” who for their friendship with the Americans will be forced to defend this action by giving one or other kind of excuse; it will empower all those who suspect that United States is actively working to spread “creative chaos” in Pakistan for some nefarious agenda and further marginalize & discredit those feeble voices of rationality that depend upon just and deserving support from the US foreign policy based on long established principles.

Finally this is also “stupid” becuase it shows the sheer inablity of US diplomatic missions & State Department baboos (since Embassy will not pull this kind of stupidity, unless a dumb ass from Washinton signalled that) to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant, theory and practice, possible and impossible; in simple words it exposes their intellectual poverty, lack of undertanding of this country and exposes the quality of their advisers here and in Washington. No doubt that current administration is taking a big and bold position on gay and lesbian rights within the US; but if US diplomats fail to understand Pakistan then one expects them to at least understand and respect the lessons of US history, where gay & lesbians have a difficult and painful struggle to their credit, which is still continuing. Unfortunately these kinds of mistakes happen when you take ‘stooges’ as friends. The human temptation to fall for psycophancy is huge; US dips and experts, despite a massive advantage in terms of education and resources are falling for the advice of those clever voices who specialize as “His Masters Voice”…I sincerely hope that the US diplomats here and their “fanatic bosses” back in Washington will care to understand the sensitives of this country, and will not like to unnecessarrily provoke their intellectual other halfs ie “Pakistani fanatics” to harm the lives of Pakistani gays and lesbians and all those who believe in the vital role of United States in this region…unless you want to spread more chaos here??

Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan have cost upto $3.7 trillions to the US economy so far…!

Moeed Pirzada |

NEW YORK (Reuters) – When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America’s wars. Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project “Costs of War” by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org).

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion. Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

Even where the United States does do body counts — for the members of the military — the numbers may come up short of reality, said Lutz, the study’s co-director. When veterans return home, they are more likely to die in suicides and automobile accidents. “The rate of chaotic behavior,” she said, “is high.” (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Missy Ryan, Brett Gering, Laura MacInnis and Sharon Reich; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional 365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people — equal to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky — have been displaced. “Costs of War” brought together more than 20 academics to uncover the expense of war in lives and dollars, a daunting task given the inconsistent recording of lives lost and what the report called opaque and sloppy accounting by the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon.

The report underlines the extent to which war will continue to stretch the U.S. federal budget, which is already on an unsustainable course due to an aging American population and skyrocketing healthcare costs. It also raises the question of what the United States gained from its multitrillion-dollar investment. “I hope that when we look back, whenever this ends, something very good has come out of it,” Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, told Reuters in Washington. SEPT 11, 2001: THE DAMAGE CONTINUES

In one sense, the report measures the cost of 9/11, the American shorthand for the events of September 11, 2001. Nineteen hijackers plus other al Qaeda plotters spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 on the plane attacks that killed 2,995 people and caused $50 billion to $100 billion in economic damages.

What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since.

Was it worth it? That is a question many people want answered, said Catherine Lutz, head of the anthropology department at Brown and co-director of the study. “We decided we needed to do this kind of rigorous assessment of what it cost to make those choices to go to war,” she said. “Politicians, we assumed, were not going to do that kind of assessment.” The report arrives as Congress debates how to cut a U.S. deficit projected at $1.4 trillion this year, roughly a 10th of which can be attributed to direct war spending. What did the United States gain for its trillions? Strategically, the results for the United States are mixed. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead, but Iraq and Afghanistan are far from stable democracies.

Read more: British economy loses steam as business investment wilts – surveys

Iran has gained influence in the Gulf and the Taliban, though ousted from government, remain a viable military force in Afghanistan. “The United States has been extremely successful in protecting the homeland,” said George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, a U.S.-based intelligence company. “Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was capable of mounting very sophisticated, complex, operations on an intercontinental basis. That organization with that capability has not only been substantially reduced, it seems to have been shattered,” Friedman said. Economically, the results are also mixed. War spending may be adding half a percentage point a year to growth in the gross domestic product but that has been more than offset by the negative effects of deficit spending, the report concludes.

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY Some U.S. government reports have attempted to assess the costs of war, notably a March 2011 Congressional Research Service report that estimated post-September 11 war funding at $1.4 trillion through 2012. The Congressional Budget Office projected war costs through 2021 at $1.8 trillion. A ground-breaking private estimate was published in the 2008 book “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” by Linda Bilmes, a member of the Watson Institute team, and Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. That work revealed how much cost was added by interest on deficit spending and medical care for veterans. The report draws on those sources and pieces together many others for a more comprehensive picture.

The report also makes special note of Pakistan, a front not generally mentioned along with Iraq and Afghanistan. War has probably killed more people in Pakistan than in neighboring Afghanistan, the report concludes. Politicians throughout history have underestimated the costs of war, believing they will be shorter and less deadly than reality, said Neta Crawford, the other co-director of the report and a political science professor at Boston University. The report said former President George W. Bush’s administration was “shamelessly politically driven” in underestimating Iraq war costs before the 2003 invasion. Most official sources continue to overlook costs, largely because of a focus on just Pentagon spending, Crawford said. “Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war,” Obama said in last week’s speech on reducing U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. At the very least, he was rounding down by $200 billion to $300 billion, when counting U.S. congressional appropriations for the post 9/11 wars.

Read more: Is Kuwait on the verge of an economic crunch?

“I don’t know what the president knows, but I wish it were a trillion,” Crawford said. “It would be better if it were a trillion.” ELUSIVE NUMBER. In theory, adding up the dollars spent and lives lost should be a statistical errand. The U.S. Congress appropriates the money, and a life lost on battlefield should have a death certificate and a casket to match. The team quickly discovered, however, the task was far more complicated.Specific war spending over the past 10 years, when expressed in 2011 dollars, comes to $1.3 trillion, the “Costs of War” project found. When it comes to accounting for every dollar, that $1.3 trillion is merely a good start. Since the wars have been financed by deficit spending, interest must be paid — $185 billion of accumulated so far. The Pentagon has received an additional $326 billion to $652 billion beyond what can be attributed to the war appropriations, the study found.

Homeland security spending has totaled another $401 billion so far that can be traced to September 11. War-related foreign aid: another $74 billion.

Then comes caring for U.S. veterans of war. Nearly half of the 1.25 million who have served in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan have used their status as veterans to make health or disability claims at an expense of $32.6 billion to date.

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion. Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020.

Those costs will soar over the next 40 years as veterans age. The report estimates the U.S. obligations to the veterans will reach $589 billion to $934 billion through 2050. So far, those numbers add up to a low estimate of $2.9 trillion and a moderate estimate of $3.6 trillion in costs to the U.S. Treasury. No high estimate was offered. “We feel a conservative measure of costs is plenty large to attract attention,” said report contributor Ryan Edwards, an economist who studied the war impact on deficit spending. Those numbers leave out hundreds of billions in social costs not born by the U.S. taxpayer but by veterans and their families: another $295 billion to $400 billion, increasing the range of costs to date to some $3.2 trillion to $4 trillion.

That’s a running total through fiscal 2011. Add another $453 billion in war-related spending projected for 2012 to 2020 and the total grows to $3.668 trillion to $4.444 trillion.

THE HUMAN TOLL If the financial costs are elusive, so too is the human toll. The report estimates between 224,475 and 257,655 have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, though those numbers give a false sense of precision. There are many sources of data on civilian deaths, most with different results.

Read more: FTSE 100 slips after hitting record high, as pound extends falls

The civilian death toll in Iraq — 125,000 — and the number of Saddam’s security forces killed in invasion — 10,000 — are loose estimates. The U.S. military does not publish a thorough accounting. “We don’t do body counts,” Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander in Iraq, famously said after the fall of Saddam in 2003. In Afghanistan, the civilian death count ranges from 11,700 to 13,900. For Pakistan, where there is little access to the battlefield and the United States fights mostly through aerial drone attacks, the study found it impossible to distinguish between civilian and insurgent deaths.

The numbers only consider direct deaths — people killed by bombs or bullets. Estimates for indirect deaths in war vary so much that researchers considered them too arbitrary to report. “When the fighting stops, the indirect dying continues. It’s in fact worse than land mines. The healthcare system is still in bad shape. People are still suffering the effects of malnutrition and so on,” Crawford said. Even where the United States does do body counts — for the members of the military — the numbers may come up short of reality, said Lutz, the study’s co-director. When veterans return home, they are more likely to die in suicides and automobile accidents. “The rate of chaotic behavior,” she said, “is high.” (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Missy Ryan, Brett Gering, Laura MacInnis and Sharon Reich; Editing by Doina Chiacu).

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan have cost upto $3.7 trillions to the US economy so far…!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

NEW YORK (Reuters) – When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America’s wars. Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project “Costs of War” by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. (http://www.costsofwar.org)

In the 10 years since U.S. troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the September 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion. Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional 365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people — equal to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky — have been displaced. “Costs of War” brought together more than 20 academics to uncover the expense of war in lives and dollars, a daunting task given the inconsistent recording of lives lost and what the report called opaque and sloppy accounting by the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon.

The report underlines the extent to which war will continue to stretch the U.S. federal budget, which is already on an unsustainable course due to an aging American population and skyrocketing healthcare costs. It also raises the question of what the United States gained from its multitrillion-dollar investment. “I hope that when we look back, whenever this ends, something very good has come out of it,” Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, told Reuters in Washington. SEPT 11, 2001: THE DAMAGE CONTINUES

In one sense, the report measures the cost of 9/11, the American shorthand for the events of September 11, 2001. Nineteen hijackers plus other al Qaeda plotters spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 on the plane attacks that killed 2,995 people and caused $50 billion to $100 billion in economic damages.

What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on September 11, another 73 have been killed since.

Was it worth it? That is a question many people want answered, said Catherine Lutz, head of the anthropology department at Brown and co-director of the study. “We decided we needed to do this kind of rigorous assessment of what it cost to make those choices to go to war,” she said. “Politicians, we assumed, were not going to do that kind of assessment.” The report arrives as Congress debates how to cut a U.S. deficit projected at $1.4 trillion this year, roughly a 10th of which can be attributed to direct war spending. What did the United States gain for its trillions? Strategically, the results for the United States are mixed. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead, but Iraq and Afghanistan are far from stable democracies. Iran has gained influence in the Gulf and the Taliban, though ousted from government, remain a viable military force in Afghanistan. “The United States has been extremely successful in protecting the homeland,” said George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, a U.S.-based intelligence company. “Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was capable of mounting very sophisticated, complex, operations on an intercontinental basis. That organization with that capability has not only been substantially reduced, it seems to have been shattered,” Friedman said. Economically, the results are also mixed. War spending may be adding half a percentage point a year to growth in the gross domestic product but that has been more than offset by the negative effects of deficit spending, the report concludes.

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY Some U.S. government reports have attempted to assess the costs of war, notably a March 2011 Congressional Research Service report that estimated post-September 11 war funding at $1.4 trillion through 2012. The Congressional Budget Office projected war costs through 2021 at $1.8 trillion. A ground-breaking private estimate was published in the 2008 book “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” by Linda Bilmes, a member of the Watson Institute team, and Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. That work revealed how much cost was added by interest on deficit spending and medical care for veterans. The report draws on those sources and pieces together many others for a more comprehensive picture. The report also makes special note of Pakistan, a front not generally mentioned along with Iraq and Afghanistan. War has probably killed more people in Pakistan than in neighboring Afghanistan, the report concludes. Politicians throughout history have underestimated the costs of war, believing they will be shorter and less deadly than reality, said Neta Crawford, the other co-director of the report and a political science professor at Boston University. The report said former President George W. Bush’s administration was “shamelessly politically driven” in underestimating Iraq war costs before the 2003 invasion. Most official sources continue to overlook costs, largely because of a focus on just Pentagon spending, Crawford said. “Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war,” Obama said in last week’s speech on reducing U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. At the very least, he was rounding down by $200 billion to $300 billion, when counting U.S. congressional appropriations for the post 9/11 wars.

“I don’t know what the president knows, but I wish it were a trillion,” Crawford said. “It would be better if it were a trillion.” ELUSIVE NUMBER. In theory, adding up the dollars spent and lives lost should be a statistical errand. The U.S. Congress appropriates the money, and a life lost on battlefield should have a death certificate and a casket to match. The team quickly discovered, however, the task was far more complicated. Specific war spending over the past 10 years, when expressed in 2011 dollars, comes to $1.3 trillion, the “Costs of War” project found. When it comes to accounting for every dollar, that $1.3 trillion is merely a good start. Since the wars have been financed by deficit spending, interest must be paid — $185 billion of accumulated so far. The Pentagon has received an additional $326 billion to $652 billion beyond what can be attributed to the war appropriations, the study found.

Homeland security spending has totaled another $401 billion so far that can be traced to September 11. War-related foreign aid: another $74 billion.

Then comes caring for U.S. veterans of war. Nearly half of the 1.25 million who have served in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan have used their status as veterans to make health or disability claims at an expense of $32.6 billion to date.

Those costs will soar over the next 40 years as veterans age. The report estimates the U.S. obligations to the veterans will reach $589 billion to $934 billion through 2050. So far, those numbers add up to a low estimate of $2.9 trillion and a moderate estimate of $3.6 trillion in costs to the U.S. Treasury. No high estimate was offered. “We feel a conservative measure of costs is plenty large to attract attention,” said report contributor Ryan Edwards, an economist who studied the war impact on deficit spending. Those numbers leave out hundreds of billions in social costs not born by the U.S. taxpayer but by veterans and their families: another $295 billion to $400 billion, increasing the range of costs to date to some $3.2 trillion to $4 trillion.

That’s a running total through fiscal 2011. Add another $453 billion in war-related spending projected for 2012 to 2020 and the total grows to $3.668 trillion to $4.444 trillion.

THE HUMAN TOLL If the financial costs are elusive, so too is the human toll. The report estimates between 224,475 and 257,655 have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, though those numbers give a false sense of precision. There are many sources of data on civilian deaths, most with different results.

The civilian death toll in Iraq — 125,000 — and the number of Saddam’s security forces killed in invasion — 10,000 — are loose estimates. The U.S. military does not publish a thorough accounting. “We don’t do body counts,” Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander in Iraq, famously said after the fall of Saddam in 2003. In Afghanistan, the civilian death count ranges from 11,700 to 13,900. For Pakistan, where there is little access to the battlefield and the United States fights mostly through aerial drone attacks, the study found it impossible to distinguish between civilian and insurgent deaths.

The numbers only consider direct deaths — people killed by bombs or bullets. Estimates for indirect deaths in war vary so much that researchers considered them too arbitrary to report. “When the fighting stops, the indirect dying continues. It’s in fact worse than land mines. The healthcare system is still in bad shape. People are still suffering the effects of malnutrition and so on,” Crawford said. Even where the United States does do body counts — for the members of the military — the numbers may come up short of reality, said Lutz, the study’s co-director. When veterans return home, they are more likely to die in suicides and automobile accidents. “The rate of chaotic behavior,” she said, “is high.” (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Missy Ryan, Brett Gering, Laura MacInnis and Sharon Reich; Editing by Doina Chiacu)