US Think Tanks
The two leading US think tanks namely
‘Hudson Institute’ and the ‘Heritage Foundation’ have advised the Donald Trump
administration to adopt tough measures against Pakistan. In their view Pakistan
is not doing enough in controlling terrorism and is making its soil available
for export of terrorism into Afghanistan, thereby threatening the US vital
security interests in the region. They have suggested a critical review of
intelligence on Pakistan’s involvement in supporting terror since in their view
the previous administrations have been taking a lenient view. In their estimation,
Pakistan is not an American ally and has been playing a double game by cooperating
occasionally and partially.
In their recommendations they have
stated that Pakistan must be firmly asked to fully share the US
counterterrorism objectives, end its support to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani
network (HN) and given stern warning that failure to do so would deprive it of
the status on non-NATO ally within six months and result in declaring Pakistan
as a State sponsor of Terrorism. In their assessment, China and Gulf Arab States
share the US concern about Pakistan’s tolerance of terrorist organizations/individuals.They
hasten to add that Pakistan being an important country should also be induced by
offering a mutually beneficial trade and investment package,while continuing
humanitarian and social assistance programs.
It is a well-known fact that there
are 1984 think tanks in USA with 350 in Washington. Both Heritage and Hudson
are among the 50 most influential think tanks. Other important ones are
American Enterprise Institute, Centre for Security Policy, Foreign Policy
Research Inst, Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis, Brookings Inst etc. These institutes are required to provide
research solutions to a variety of world problems and then lobbying for policy
changes. Perceptions are built and the US policy makers influenced to formulate
foreign policies or make changes in policies, and frame responses to external
These intellectual institutes are
however mostly controlled by the Far-Right Zionist lobby which is pro-Israel
and guided by American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPIAC). Of the 30 top
executives of the major think tanks, 19 are Jews (63%), whereas Jews are mere
2% of the total population. 94% of American Jews live in 13 key Electoral
College State, who play a predominant role in the election of US president. Zionist
lobbyis closely aligned with Indian lobby in USA. The two lobbies besides
having influence over think tanks and media, also have strong influence over
the US Congress and play a big role in the election of each member. It is
therefore quite logical to assume that like hundreds of anti-Pakistan reports
dished out by the US think tanks, US Congress, New York Times, Washington Post
and Voice of America, this report was also manufactured by these lobbies that
are hostile to Pakistan. Purpose is to influence the new administration to
pursue old policies to keep Pakistan in the dock.
Rather than focusing on foreign
policy and security issues, these think tanks work on tutored themes and burn
midnight oil in justifying the crimes of USA, Israel and India against
humanity, painting the targeted Muslim countries particularly the radical
groups in black and blaming the victims of aggression as terrorists or sponsors
of terrorism. Pakistan has been the biggest victim of Indo-US-Israeli
propaganda since 2005. Since none of the sinister objective against Pakistan
could be accomplished through covert means, the propaganda continues unabated
and this report is in continuation of the malicious campaign.
I may like to ask the wise guys of
the two think tanks some probing questions:
Whether their counsels helped USA in
winning the war on terror, or at least in improving their image. If not, have
they ever prepared a paper highlighting why the US has failed to achieve its
stated and hidden objectives after fighting the longest war in its history and
spending over $ 1 trillion, where the US went wrong and how could it make
amends to restore its lost prestige. (I have).
Instead of the next door neighbor
Pakistan feeling insecure, how come the US located 7000 miles away and across
the seven seas feel threatened by the chaos in Afghanistan which it had
I want to know as to what are the
accomplishments of the US-NATO forces and in what way they have fared better
than Pakistan to ask it repeatedly to do more? In my reckoning, the US need to
do a lot more.
Can the US deny that CIA in league
with RAW, NDS, MI-6, Mossad and BND been exporting terrorism into Pakistan
since 2003 with the help of its proxies created in FATA, Swat, Baluchistan and
Karachi? Can it deny that RAW and NDS are still supporting them?
Why the ISAF withdrew bulk of 1,30,
000 troops from Afghanistan in December 2014 without eliminating its principal
objective of eliminating terrorism?
Was it because of resurging Taliban
power which it couldn’t defeat, or the sagging morale of ISAF soldiers due to
mounting war casualties, suicides, in-house attacks,huge number of post stress
disorder cases and uninspiring military leadership?
Isn’t it true that the morale of
occupying forces drawing handsome salaries drooped because they had no cause
and that they were fighting a wrong war for selfish motives of the elites?
When theUS accepted in principle that
the Taliban could neither be defeated on the battlefield nor cowed down and
decided to quit Afghanistan by December 2014, what was the need for keeping
behind a token force along with airpower? Did it really expect that what the
combined military force of 48 countries couldn’t achieve, would be accomplished
by ANSF rived in so many discipline problems?
Isn’t it a fact that rather than
accepting defeat in good grace and quitting honorably, the US military brazenly
blamed Pakistan for all its failures? Can the prestige and honor of the sole
super power be restored by making Pakistan a scapegoat?
Pakistan security forces and ISI on
the other hand successfully broke the back of terror network and demolished all
the sanctuaries, communication and command infrastructure from FATA and settled
areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, enfeebled foreign backed separatist movement in
Baluchistan and demolished the militant structure of MQM in Karachi. All this
was done single-handed against all odds and astounded the world. USA is among
the ones acknowledging Pakistan’s spectacular successes.
If Pakistan had fought the war with
ill-motives and without a genuine cause, could it have achieved the miracle?
It is now an open secret that the US
had occupied Afghanistan under a preconceived design and with sinister
objectives against Pakistan and other regional countries. It has been
calculatingly inflaming terrorism in the region and particularly in Pakistan
and at no stage made any sincere effort to quash terrorism.
Had the US been sincere and serious
in eliminating terrorism as professed by George W. Bush and his successor Barak
Obama, it would have made Pakistan its strategic partner and banked upon it
based upon its astounding performance in the war against the Soviets in the
The US relied upon India which has
nothing in common with Afghans and is a far distant neighbor. Driven by acute
animosity against Pakistan, India kept pressing US military to focus on
Pakistan rather than on consolidating its gains in Afghanistan. Gen Mc
Chrystal, Gen Petraeus and former Secretary Defense Chuck Hegel publically
declared India as a problem child.
Wasn’t it a big mistake on part of
the US to sideline the Afghan Pashtuns that are in big majority, and instead
rely upon minority Tajiks, Uzbeks and others in Northern Alliance and unpopular
and inefficient regimes of Karzai and of Ghani?
One may ask as to why the US has been
striving hard since 2011 to have dialogue with the Taliban who are supposed to
be the foes and are still vying to make them agree to talk? And why Pakistan is
being asked to stay away from them? Concept of good and bad Taliban is the
brainchild of USA and not of Pakistan. In its view, all those agreeing to talk
are good and those refusing to talk are bad.
Since 2008, the Taliban are
constantly gaining ground in Afghanistan and are striking targets in all parts
of the country including Kabul and northern and western parts. Their resurgence
became menacing after 2014 and coming spring offensive will prove highly
perilous for the unity government in Kabul and for the 3, 50,000 ANSF supported
by 12000 Resolute Support Group that have failed to stem the tide. So how come
Pakistan is responsible for their dismal performance particularly after it
cleared the last stronghold of North Waziristan in 2014 where HN was based?
The US has been suspecting and
distrusting Pakistan from the outset since it was never made an ally. Marked as
a target, friendship was a ruse to deceive Pakistan, make it complacent, weaken
it from within through covert operations and then extract its nuclear teeth at
an opportune time. This feat if achieved would have justified its most
expensive Afghan venture. So who has been playing a double game??
Rather than learning lessons from
past mistakes and blunders and taking corrective measures by working out a face
saving formula, the two think tanks have suggested the same old remedy which will
Pakistan has been kept on the leash
all these years. So, what tough measures are now being suggested? The threat of
declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, or to make the financial assistance
condition based, or drone war are coercive tools in use for over a decade.
What is so new suggested by the sages
and that too at a time when Pakistan has weathered all the pains, its armed
forces are fully battle inoculated and have proved their mettle, its nuclear
and missile programs are vibrant and in safe hands, ithas overcome its energy
and economic crisis, it is no more isolated, itis a coalition partner of ascending
power and has other options as well? On the other hand, USA is a declining
power ruled by controversial, unpredictable and unpopular president, annoying
everyone including the Americans other than the most
detestable Israel and India. How has the Trump administration responded to
Iran’s tough response? It is on a weaker wicket to threaten nuclear