Based on 30 years of research and analysis, this definitive book is a profound, multi-layered, and historical analysis of the nature and role of the Pakistan army in the country’s polity as well as its turbulent relationship with the United States. Shuja Nawaz examines the army and Pakistan in both peace and war. Using many hitherto unpublished materials from the archives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the General Headquarters of the Pakistan Army, as well as interviews with key military and political figures in Pakistan and the United States, he sheds light not only on the Pakistan Army and its US connections but also on Pakistan as a key Muslim country in one of the world’s toughest neighbourhoods. In doing so, he lays bare key facts about Pakistan’s numerous wars with India and its many rounds of political musical chairs, as well as the Kargil conflict of 1999. He then draws lessons from this history that may help Pakistan end its wars within and create a stabler political entity. Forthcoming April 2008, Oxford University Press (Pakistan) and May 2008 OUP, USA.
To order from OUP USA please visit here.
To order from Amazon.com please visit here
"This is by far the fullest and most authoritative analysis yet pubished of Pakistan and its army and intelligence services"
William Dalrymple, The New York Review of Books, Feb 12, 2009
“Shuja Nawaz has used his considerable expertise to delve deep into the Pakistan Army. The result is an insightful study of an institution that has been, and remains, the center of gravity in Pakistan. This superbly researched book comes at a critical time in Pakistan’s history. A must read to understand the past and the ongoing events.”
- General Jehangir Karamat, Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan. 1996-98
“This exceptionally authoritative book, rich in insider history, could not have come at a better time as a key to understanding the underlying power structures of Pakistan as it struggles to find its place in the world.”
- Barbara Crossette, former South Asia Bureau Chief, The New York Times
“Shuja Nawaz’ study is as definitive as we are likely to get: no other book has penetrated so deeply into the army, and so carefully examined this powerful institution in the context of Pakistan’s history and politics.”
- Stephen P. Cohen, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, author of The Pakistan Army, and The Idea of Pakistan
"An exhaustive account of the most powerful pillar of the Pakistani state structure, this is more than just a study of a single institution. It is an insider’s considered view of sixty years of Pakistani history. Using information culled from an array of hitherto unused sources, including some rare interviews and the Pakistan army’s own archives, the author blends astute analysis and gripping historical narrative with consummate skill. Containing a welter of insights into the military mindset, its partnership with the civil bureaucracy and attitude towards the political fraternity, this is a book no serious student of Pakistan can afford to miss."
- Ayesha Jalal, Mary Richardson Professor of History, Tufts University
"To understand Pakistan you need to understand the army and to understand the army you need to read this book."
- Owen Bennett-Jones, BBC, author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm (Yale 2002)
"At a time of crisis and peril for Pakistan, this ground breaking book offers unprecedented information about and provides unique insights into the country’s most important and powerful institution. Nawaz opens new ground on the army that has ruled Pakistan for half its political life. The army wields immense power in troubled Pakistan. Nawaz explains why and how in the most well researched and lucidly written book of its kind.”
- Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban, and Jihad: the Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia
"Running at more than 600 pages, this densely researched study of Pakistan’s army – the country’s premier political institution – is set to become a standard reference. Based on a wealth of primary documentary sources and privileged access to key players, both domestic and foreign, it lays bare the less-than-benign role of a power broker that has dominated Pakistan’s national politics and that could yet determine its future course".
- Farzana Shaikh, Associate Fellow, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London
'Crossed Swords is extremely authoritative and based on extensive research; it balances the in-depth knowledge of the insider with the critical eye of the scholar; and is both accessible enough for students while invaluable for specialists. In short, it is much needed and fills a longstanding gap on the existing literature on Pakistan.'
Yasmin Khan, author of The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan (Yale University Press 2007)
FATA—A Most Dangerous Place
Increased militancy and violence in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan has brought FATA into sharper focus, as U.S., Afghan, and Pakistani leaders attempt to find solutions to the problems underlying the situation there. This most dangerous spot on the map may well be the source of another 9/11 type of attack on the Western world or its surrogates in the region. Should such an attack occur, it likely will be spawned in the militancy that grips FATA and contiguous areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. The principal actors are the Taliban, in both countries; their allies—former Soviet-era mujahideen commanders including Gulbadin Hekmatyar of the Hezbe Islami and the Haqqani group (headed by Jalaluddin and his son Siraj); Sunni militants from Central and Southern Punjab; and al Qaeda, which benefits from links to most of these insurgents. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar is suspected to be hiding in southwestern Afghanistan and Pakistani Balochistan. The Taliban are engaged in a struggle against foreign forces inside Afghanistan and now against the military in Pakistan. Hekmatyar has spoken against the Pakistani government but has not yet taken up arms against it. The Haqqanis have also not provoked a battle with the Pakistani forces as yet. The Punjabi militants, however, have become franchisees of al Qaeda and have been linked to attacks on the Pakistani state and its army.
While many ideas have been put forward for tackling the issues facing FATA, too often they rely on longer-term plans and solutions. This report attempts to define the conditions that spawn militancy and violence among the Pakhtun tribesmen that inhabit FATA and suggest practicable ways of approaching them in the short and medium term. Concrete actions by the principal actors—the U.S., Afghan and Pakistan governments and the U.S. and Pakistan militaries—are suggested. These will need to be underpinned by a national debate in Pakistan, in particular, on the nature of the country’s polity and the need to tackle terrorism and militancy as domestic issues. But the debate will need to be rooted in a clear consensus among the civil and military leadership on the nature of the Pakistani state and society and how to tackle the growing militancy inside the country and in broad-based support from major political parties and the general public. The United States needs to forge a longer-term relationship with Pakistan and its people, shifting from a transactional relationship to one built on strategic considerations and respect for Pakistan’s political and development needs. Failure to bring peace and to restore a modicum of stability to FATA will have widespread repercussions for the region and perhaps the world.
This report by a team sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies of Washington DC was released on January 7, 2008. The principal author is Shuja Nawaz.
You can download the report as a PDF file: FATA - A Most Dangerous Place.
The video and audio can be reached athttp://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1893/
President Obama's interview with Al Arabiyya, discussed on NPR's Tell Me More
NPR's Michel Martin discusses President Obama's interview on Al Arabiyya TV network with Hisham Mehlem, who got the interview, and Shuja Nawaz, Director, South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council. Thursday, 29 January 2009.
War Against Poverty in Iraq & Afghanistan: Foreign Policy Spanish edition
Spanish Edition of Foreign Policy magazine October-November 2008 issue: article on Iraq and Afghanistan by Shuja Nawaz
What will President Obama mean for India and Pakistan
Discussion on NDTV 24 x 7 hosted by CEO of NDTV Vikram Chandra and including Amb. Frank Wisner and Bal G. Das in New York, Congressman Jim McDermott and Shuja Nawaz in Washington DC. Recorded January 154, 2009 and broadcast January 17, 2009.http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/video/video.aspx?id=51159
Pakistanis Dispute Full Blame For Mumbai Attacks :NPR Report
Jackie Northam reports from Islamabad on reaction inside Pakistan to Mumbai attacks. Morning Edition on National Public Radio, 18 December 2008.Pakistanis Dispute Full Blame For Mumbai Attacks
India-Pakistan Tensions: VOA Report
Story and Video report by VOA's Ravi Khanna on Indo-Pak tensions 18 December 2008
Pressure Mounts For Pakistan To Act After Mumbai
On All Things Considered, NPR with Jackie Northam. December 12, 2008
Mumbai attack discussed on CNN
GPS with Fareed Zakariya. Discussion of Pakistan's Purported Role on CNN with Lt. Gen. Talat Masood and Shuja Nawaz. December 9, 2008
PBS News Hour discussion of Mumbai Attacks
Interview by Ray Suarez of Shuja Nawaz and Michael Krepon on PBS New Hour program 1 December 2008
Afghanistan and Pakistan: Middle East Institute conference
Panel on Afghanistan, with Steve Coll, Maleeha Lodhi, and Shuja Nawaz. Moderated by Ambassador Wegger Strommen of Norway.
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 10 AM in the National Press Club building.
Video from C-Span
An inside account of the army
Column on Crossed Swords by Irfan Husain for DAWN newspaper of Pakistan. 25 October 2008
Petraeus Mounts Strategy Review
Article by Ann Scott Tyson in The Washington Post on General Petreaus' expected approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan, 15 October 2008.
Double Dealing Intelligence Washington Times story by Jason Motlagh
Article on new army chief and new head of ISI by Jason Motlagh for The Washington Times
Pakistan Plan to Arm Tribal Militia: VOA Report
Report by Gary Thomas of the Voice of America
Audio podcast of Talk at Middle East Institute
Talk on book and current situation in Pakistan introduced by President Wendy Chamberlain of the Middle East Institute in Washington DC on 19 September 2008
Zardari's Pakistan: Lessons from Musharraf's Presidency
Article in the Washington Post/Newsweek on line Post Global Forum
September 2, 2008
Nawaz Sharif Quits Coalition
Interview with ABC Radio's Breakfast with Fran Kelly on the dissolution of the coalition in Pakistan. August 25, 2008
Pakistan's President Musharraf Resigns ABC Radio National
ABC Radio, Australia's Radio National Breakfast with Fran Kelly. Interview on the morning of August 19, 2008 (Australian time), August 18, US EST.
Musharraf's army chief abandons him
Article for Bloomberg News by James Rupert
Review in Power Politics, India
Review of Crossed Swords
Review of Crossed Swords in Southasia Online by Ilhan Niaz
Pakistan Faces Political Challenges After Musharraf
PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Interview by Margaraet Warner of Stev Coll and Shuja Nawaz
Monday August 18, 2008
Pakistan on the Brink Again
How Army Controls Pakistan
Book Review in Indian web site Power Politics
The Future of US-Pakistan Military Ties
Talk at Heritage Foundation by David Smith, US Departent of Defense, and Shuja Nawaz. Moderated by Lisa Curtis of Heritage. Tuesday July 22, 2008
Army at Center of Global War on Terror
Review in The Washington Times by Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation on July 20, 2008
Pakistan's Army: Fighting the Wars Within
Article in SEMINAR magazine, India
Blog by and interview with Kidvai in Karachi
Crossed Swords is discussed. Some audio clips of that chat.http://www.kidvai.com/windmills/labels/Books.html
Next Door to War by Tariq Ali
- Descent into Chaos: How the War against Islamic Extremism Is Being Lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia by Ahmed Rashid
- Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars within by Shuja Nawaz
To recapitulate. After Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last December, her will was read out to the family’s assembled political retainers. Her 19-year-old son, Bilawal, inherited the Pakistan People’s Party, but until he came of age her husband, Asif Zardari, would act as regent. The general election, postponed following her death, took place in February. The immediate impact of the stunning electoral defeat suffered by General Musharraf’s political party and his factotums was to dispel the disillusionment of the citizenry. Not for long. Musharraf is still clinging on to the presidency; Zardari is running the government with the help of his old cronies; the judges dismissed by Musharraf have still not been reinstated; the economy is a mess; and the US Air Force has started dropping bombs on the North-West Frontier Province again. Poor Pakistan.
Forty-five per cent of the electorate voted in the election, more than expected, though the figure was much lower in the Frontier Province, where the spillage from the Afghan war discouraged voters from braving the journey to the polling stations. The new army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, had ordered the ISI not to interfere with the polls and instructed his generals to cease all bilateral contacts with the now civilian president. Musharraf’s defeat would have been even worse had it not been for the violence and vote-rigging in Karachi, where his loyal and armed allies from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) threatened opposition candidates and their supporters. In at least three cases, armed MQM goons threatened TV journalists with death if the chicanery was reported.
The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) – or BFP (Bhutto Family Party), as some of its own members refer to it in semi-public – emerged as the largest single party in the country, thus propelling the widower Bhutto to power. The Pakistan Muslim League (N), led by the ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif, came second nationally, but emerged as the largest party in the largest province, the Punjab, where Nawaz’s younger brother Shahbaz is now ensconced as chief minister. In the Frontier Province, the secular Awami National Party (ANP) defeated the Islamists, once again contradicting the widespread view that jihadis are either strong or popular in Pakistan. In Sindh the PPP won comfortably and could have governed on its own, but chose to do so with the MQM. In Baluchistan, largely because of military actions in the province, which borders on Afghanistan, and the killings of nationalist leaders, most local opposition parties boycotted the polls, and it was in this province alone that Musharraf’s party won a majority of assembly seats.
Five months on, democratic fervour, or naivety, has turned to anger. Old Corruption is back. The country is in the grip of a food and power crisis. Inflation is approaching 15 per cent. The price of gas (used for cooking in many homes) has risen by 30 per cent and the price of wheat by more than 20 per cent since November 2007. Food and commodity prices are rising all over the world, but there is an additional problem in Pakistan: too much wheat is being smuggled into Afghanistan to feed the Nato armies. According to a recent survey, 86 per cent of Pakistanis find it increasingly difficult to afford flour, for which they blame their new government. Zardari’s approval rating has plummeted to 13 per cent. Were an election to be held now, he would lose to Sharif by a substantial margin. That this old rogue is now thought of as a man of principle is an indication of how desperate the situation has become.
Two major issues confronted the victors. The first concerned the judiciary. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, had been a prisoner of the regime since 3 November 2007, detained in his own house, which was sealed off by barbed-wire barricades with a complement of riot police permanently on guard outside. His landlines had been cut and cellphones were incapacitated by jamming devices. His colleagues and the lawyers defending him were subjected to similar treatment. In January, he wrote an open letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Condoleezza Rice and the president of the European Parliament. The letter, which remains unanswered, explained the real reasons for Musharraf’s actions:
At the outset you may be wondering why I have used the words ‘claiming to be the head of state’. That is quite deliberate. General Musharraf’s constitutional term ended on 15 November 2007. His claim to a further term thereafter is the subject of active controversy before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was while this claim was under adjudication before a bench of 11 learned judges of the Supreme Court that the general arrested a majority of those judges in addition to me on 3 November 2007. He thus himself subverted the judicial process which remains frozen at that point. Besides arresting the chief justice and judges (can there have been a greater outrage?) he also purported to suspend the constitution and to purge the entire judiciary (even the high courts) of all independent judges. Now only his hand-picked and compliant judges remain willing to ‘validate’ whatever he demands. And all this is also contrary to an express and earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on 3 November 2007.
Before the election, Sharif had pledged that his party would restore the chief justice and the other sacked judges to their former positions and remove those who had replaced them. The PPP’s position on this issue was ambiguous, but soon after their election triumph the widower Bhutto and Sharif agreed publicly that reinstating the judges would be a priority, and promised that they would be returned to office within thirty days of the new government’s being formed. Within the month, the judges were released and restrictions on them removed. This was widely, but wrongly, interpreted as a prelude to their reinstatement. Musharraf and his backers in Washington panicked and the US ambassador summoned Zardari. The message from Washington was clear. The State Department was determined to keep Musharraf in power as long as Bush was in the White House. If the chief justice and his colleagues were to resume office, the under-secretary of state told the new government, there was a possibility that Musharraf would be legally removed from office, and that was unacceptable. His removal would be considered a setback in the War on Terror. The issue brought into the open the differences between the widower and Sharif, which were subsequently aggravated when it was made plain that, unbeknownst to Zardari, Benazir had agreed to work with Musharraf in the War on Terror and to sideline the judges.
Zardari had other worries. A National Reconciliation Ordinance which allowed corrupt politicians to be pardoned had been part of the deal between Benazir and Musharraf. It was much detested and the Supreme Court was due to hear an appeal questioning its legality. Zardari, only too aware of the possibility that the cases against him in European courts might be resurrected, capitulated to the US: the judges would not be reinstated or, at least, not on their own terms. Might the chief justice be interested in a senior position on the International Court of Justice, the US intermediary asked, or perhaps a sinecure at some American university? The chief justice declined.
In May, Zardari and Sharif met in London. Two Muslim League parliamentarians flanked Sharif; two political fixers, Rehman Malik and Husain Haqqani, sat with Zardari. No agreement could be reached on the restoration of the judiciary and, after consulting senior colleagues, Sharif withdrew Muslim League ministers from the government, citing disagreement on this issue. It is extremely rare in Pakistan for a politician to relinquish office on an issue of principle. The ministers who were told to resign were not happy, but they accepted party discipline and Sharif’s popularity soared. The widower’s failure to support the judges provoked great indignation and a number of senior figures in his own party were clearly unhappy at the public embracing of Musharraf. But they had accepted him as their ‘temporary’ leader and so rendered themselves powerless. When told that it was really Benazir who had done the deal they replied that just before her death she was beginning to realise she’d made a mistake. There is no evidence for this, although it helps preserve a few illusions. The trouble is that PPP politicians have grown so accustomed to the Bhutto harness that they can do nothing without it. In the PPP the initiative now lies entirely with Zardari and Malik. They make the key decisions. The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, seems happy in his role as political eunuch; the PPP cohort in parliament is used as a rubber stamp.
The campaign to defend the judiciary constituted the first nationwide mass movement against military rule since 1969. The Supreme Court decisions challenging the legality of the Musharraf regime had restored the country’s self-respect. But the judges were not popular in the United States or Euroland, where elite opinion was obsessed with occupation and war. For defending the civil rights of the poor, the chief justice was referred to in the Guardian as a ‘judicial activist’ and a ‘firebrand’.
The second major problem confronting the government was the Nato occupation of Afghanistan. Washington and its allies regard the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s role in relation to it as the central priority. Everything else is a diversion. In March, Admiral Olson, the head of the US Special Operations Command, arrived in Islamabad for consultations with the Pakistan military and surprised locals by demanding a meeting with the country’s elected leaders. Olson asked the politicians how they would respond to the US need to make cross-border incursions into Pakistan. The Pakistanis made their opposition clear. The most senior civil servant in the Frontier Province, Khalid Aziz, told Olson that ‘it would be extremely dangerous. It would increase the number of militants, it would be . . . a war of liberation for the Pashtuns. They would say: “We are being slaughtered. Our enemy is the United States.”’ For Sharif, negotiations with militants in Waziristan and a gradual military withdrawal from the area were essential to deter terrorist attacks in Pakistan’s cities. The PPP was not prepared to go quite so far, but it was not in favour of Nato raids inside Pakistan, at least not in public. The ANP leaders, who had supported the US presence in Afghanistan, now refused to go along with Washington’s demands and called for negotiations with Baitullah Masood, a pro-Taliban militia leader in South Waziristan, accused by the CIA of masterminding Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.
Two ANP leaders, Asfandyar Khan and Afrasiab Khattak, were summoned to Washington for meetings with Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, and John Negroponte. There was only one issue on the agenda: cross-border raids. Washington was determined to find Pakistani politicians who would defend them. The ANP leaders refused. ‘We told them physical intervention into the tribal areas by the United States would be a blunder,’ Khattak later told the New York Times. ‘It would create an atmosphere in which the terrorists would rally popular support.’ Owari Ghani, the governor of the Frontier Province and a Musharraf appointee, agreed: ‘Pakistan will take care of its own problems, you take care of Afghanistan on your side . . . Pakistan is a sovereign state. Nato is in Afghanistan; it’s time they did some soldiering.’
Some light is thrown on the Afghan situation by Ahmed Rashid in his new book, Descent into Chaos. As a foreign correspondent on the Far Eastern Economic Review and subsequently the Independent and Daily Telegraph, Rashid has been reporting diligently from the region for more than two decades; when the publication of his book on the Taliban coincided with 9/11, he was projected to media stardom in the United States, repeating a pattern that introduced the Iraqi-American writer Kanan Makiya and the Republic of Fear to the liberal public during the First Gulf War. Both men became prize-cocks of the US defence establishment and the videosphere. Graciously received by Bush in the Oval Office, Makiya strongly backed the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and predicted that the US would be greeted as liberators, looking forward to the day his friend Ahmad Chalabi would be running a ‘liberated Iraq’. It didn’t quite happen like that, but fortune favoured Rashid. The first chapter of Descent into Chaos lavishes praise on his friend Hamid Karzai and the book is full of sentences like ‘On 7 December, with Vice President Cheney in attendance, Karzai took oath as Afghanistan’s first legitimate leader for nearly three decades. Many grizzled old Afghan leaders broke down in tears.’
Rashid’s real argument can be summarised as follows: the war after 9/11 should have been fought in Afghanistan and not Iraq, which was a diversion. A heavy armed presence was needed. Bush and his neocon advisers have let the side down badly by trusting Musharraf and the ISI. Karzai, a legitimate leader, was prepared to embark on reforms, sidelining the Northern Alliance, but the Taliban were allowed to regroup and create chaos, helped by the conspiratorial and ‘Bolshevik-like’ al-Qaida. The real problem is Pakistan, not a Western occupation gone badly wrong, and there is no point being squeamish about what needs to be done. Rashid’s views coincide with those of the Pentagon hawks who have, for the last year, been pressuring Bush and Rice to unleash Special Operations units inside Pakistan on the pretext that al-Qaida has grown substantially and is preparing new attacks on the West.
Rashid was a firm supporter of the Soviet intervention, although he is coy about this in his book. He shouldn’t be. It reveals a certain consistency. Afghanistan, he thinks, can be transformed only through war and occupation by civilised empires. This line of argument avoids the need to concentrate on an exit strategy. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are high and in the last two months more US and British soldiers have died here than in Iraq. Jaap Scheffer, Nato’s secretary-general, told the Brookings Institution in February that the continuing occupation had less to do with good governance than with the desire to site permanent military bases (and nuclear missiles?) in a country that borders China, Iran and Central Asia. Contributors to the organisation’s house magazine, Nato Review, have argued that the preservation of Western hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region requires a permanent military presence. Whatever the justifications or fantasies, the occupation cannot last, since those who live under it feel they have no option but to back those trying to resist, especially in a part of the world where the culture of revenge is strong.
On 14 May a Predator drone hit the village of Damadola in the Bajaur Agency, close to the Afghan border, and killed more than a dozen people. The US claimed that they had targeted and killed a ‘significant leader’. Akhundzada Chattan, the local member of parliament and a PPP veteran, called a press conference and denounced the US for ‘killing innocents’. ‘The protest lodged by the Pakistan government against the missile raid is not enough,’ he insisted. ‘The government should also sever diplomatic ties with the US and expel its envoy immediately.’ Chattan saw a pattern: whenever the Pakistan government and local insurgents began to talk to each other and discuss a durable peace, Nato targeted the tribal areas inside Pakistan. He appealed to tribal elders, insurgents, the Pakistan army and the new government to cast aside their differences and unite against ‘foreign aggression’. This could indicate that Zardari’s ascendancy is not as secure as he might imagine. It is also a reminder that the decision of successive Pakistan governments to keep the tribal areas formally separate from the rest of the country has become entirely counterproductive. It prevents political parties and other organisations from functioning in the region, leaving political control in the hands of tribal leaders, often with dire results.
In June two F-15 bombers dropped 500 lb bombs in Pakistan killing 11 soldiers and a major from the Frontier Corps. The Pentagon described the action as ‘a legitimate strike in self-defence’, leading Brian Cloughley, an extremely conservative historian of the Pakistan army (and a former commandant of the Australian Psychological Operations Unit in Vietnam) to write:
One can only regard such utterances with contempt, because those who spoke in such a way, and those who ordered them to say what they did, have no concept of loyalty to a friendly country. Nor, for that matter, do they take the slightest heed of international law and custom. The Pentagon quickly distributed a video showing an attack that was said to be a strike on an ‘enemy’ position. There was no indication of where it was, when it was, what ordnance was used, or results of the attack. It was a fatuously amateur exercise in attempted damage control. And of course, later, in the inevitable reassessment (for which read: ‘We’ve been found out and had better think up a more believable version of the lies we told’), it was revealed that ‘a US Air Force document indicates bombs were dropped on buildings near the border, and Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman conceded there may have been another strike that occurred outside the view of the drone’s camera.’
Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani, merely denied that the air strikes had been intentionally hostile and stressed the ‘improving’ . . . partnership between the two countries. Cloughley’s links to GHQ in Islamabad stretch back several decades and it was clear he was giving the view of many senior officers in the Pakistan army, men who fear that such actions and the alliance with Washington will undermine the much vaunted unity of the military high command, with unpredictable and dangerous consequences.
There are three interrelated power blocs in Pakistan. Of these the US lobby is the most influential, the most public and the most hated. It is currently running the country. The Saudis, who use a combination of wealth and religion to get their way, are second in the pecking order and less unpopular. The Chinese lobby is virtually invisible, never interferes in internal politics and for that reason is immensely respected, especially within the army; but it is also the least powerful outside military circles. In Cold War times, the interests of the three lobbies coincided. Not now. The War on Terror has changed all that.
What is missing is a Pakistan lobby, a strong group within the ruling class that puts the interests and needs of the country and its citizens above all else. A survey carried out in May for the New America Foundation revealed that 28 per cent of Pakistanis favour a military role in politics as compared to 45 per cent in August 2007; that were elections to be held now, Sharif would sweep the board; that 52 per cent regard the United States as responsible for the violence in Pakistan; that 74 per cent oppose the War on Terror in Afghanistan. A majority favours a negotiated settlement with the Taliban; 80 per cent hold the government and local businessmen responsible for food scarcity; only 11 per cent see India as the main enemy.
Given the political conjuncture in the country, the publication of Shuju Nawaz’s Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army and the Wars Within is timely. He overlooks links between military entrepreneurship and corruption, but nevertheless this is the best researched and most serious history of the Pakistan army. Nawaz, a former IMF staffer who lives in Washington, had unprecedented access to the military archives. Belonging to a military family, he was treated as an insider and interviewed numerous army personnel. His brother Asif Nawaz was the army chief when he died suddenly and mysteriously in January 1993. His widow received letters suggesting murder. Some were anonymous, two were not. One was from a servant at Prime Minister’s House. He named senior government officials who, he alleged, had told him to put poison in the food served to the general. It was widely rumoured that Sharif (then the prime minister) had had General Nawaz poisoned because a military operation in Sindh against the MQM had embarrassed the government (then in alliance with the MQM) and Asif Nawaz was obstinately refusing to allow a cover-up and, more important, could not be bought off. Sharif denounced these reports. When traces of arsenic were found in the dead general’s hair, Shuja Nawaz fought for a new investigation and the body was exhumed. The military establishment closed ranks and the official inquiry, supported by evidence from US medical experts, upheld the result of the original autopsy: the general had died of a heart attack. Perhaps he did. As with much else in the book the incident is described dispassionately, both sides of the argument are clearly laid out – yet another unsolved mystery involving an illustrious corpse for Pakistan to consider. There might be more of these if the war next door continues.
Tariq Ali’s new book, The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power, will be published by Simon and Schuster in September.
Source: LRB, 17 July 2008
Inside Pakistan's Army
Army with a Nation
Review article in FRONTLINE on Crossed Swords by A.G. Noorani
Book Review from INDIA TODAY
Review in The Economist
The Pakistani Army
A review in The Economist of 19th June 2008FOR more than half the 60 years it has been independent, Pakistan has been ruled by its soldiers. The army has mostly stepped in when inept civilian governments were on the brink of collapse. In February, however, the reverse occurred. An elected government took over and a new army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, declared that his troops would take their orders from the country’s civilian leaders.
This shift was given a wary welcome abroad. America, long a benefactor of the Pakistani armed forces, remains perplexed about how to encourage the army to become an effective counter-insurgency force against the emboldened Islamic militants who shelter al-Qaeda in the tribal areas of the north.
Shuja Nawaz, the brother of a former chief of the Pakistani army who died in suspicious circumstances in 1993, drops some clues in this study on why the army developed into such an important national institution when it is so inept at dealing with this internal enemy, yet he draws no firm conclusions.
Mr Nawaz was the director of the International Monetary Fund’s publications division, still lives in Washington, DC, and writes a blog about Pakistan, India and America for the Huffington Post. He shows little animus about his brother’s death, is on good terms with senior Pakistani officers and has been allowed to use the military archives. He describes the army’s internal squabbles but avoids open criticism.
Mr Nawaz devotes considerable space to the air crash in which Pakistan’s most famous military leader, General Zia ul Haq was killed in 1988. General Zia’s insistence that Pakistan’s soldiers should adhere strictly to the tenets of Islam still persists. On the day of the crash, General Zia had been attending a demonstration of American-made M1A1 main battle tanks near Bahawalpur in the Punjabi desert. The performance was a shambles. “The most pathetic sight was of the tank trying to climb up a dirt ramp built at the site, getting stuck, and then sliding sideways off the ramp like a drunken sailor,” Mr Nawaz writes, implying that America was planning to deliver inferior equipment that was unsuited to the terrain.
General Zia’s plane nosedived as it was returning to the capital, Islamabad, and exploded on impact. Although he was flying aboard an American-made C-130 military aircraft with the American ambassador, Arnold Raphel, also on board, the American authorities refused to allow the FBI to investigate the crash. Mr Nawaz does not overtly accuse America of sabotaging the plane. But he points out that some 250 pages of American government documents remain sealed 20 years after the crash. General Zia’s violent death is also the subject of a recent novel by Mohammed Hanif, “A Case of Exploding Mangoes”, though neither book reveals much that is new about the incident.
In the 1990s relations between Pakistan’s politicians and the army became increasingly mired in personal intrigue, petty politics and corruption. Concern about its traditional enemy India also grew. In a tit-for-tat race between the two, Pakistan began testing nuclear weapons in 1998, ignoring protests from America. After the attacks on the twin towers President Bush stepped up America’s military assistance to the Pakistani army in the hope that it would be encouraged to attack the Taliban’s rear base in Pakistan’s tribal areas. But President Pervez Musharraf, who until last November was also chief of the armed forces, preferred to focus on developing conventional warfare, training and equipment to use against India.
It was not until 2003 that Pakistani soldiers were at last deployed, at America’s insistence, against the militants. The Pakistani army, most of which is drawn from flat, agricultural Punjab, lacks the skills to fight in the mountainous tribal areas. Having sustained heavy losses, it retreated to barracks, its morale battered. America, still sending cheques, has been left wringing its hands about what to do next. Unable to adapt, Pakistan’s most powerful institution may not be so strong after all.
Book Tour of India
During May I was in Pakistan and India for the launch of Crossed Swords. The first event was a launch on May 15 in Karachi organized by OUP Pakistan, then a talk at the Sindh Club, ogranized by Shafqat Ali Shah Jamote, and a talk with young bloggers and others at The Second Floor bookstore and cafe. The big launch took place on May 19 at the Marriott, Islamabad. The main speakers were Nasim Zehra and former army chief General (retd) Jehangir Karamat. The co-hosts were Mr. Sadruddin Hashwani and Ameena Saiyid, Managing Director of OUP Pakistan. I appeared on different Pakistani TV programs, incuding CNBC, Geo TV, and ATV, and gave interviews for local newsmedia.
The launch in India was organzied by OUP India on May 23 at the Indian International Centre in New Delhi. The main speakers were Lt. Gen. (retd) Raghavan, Ambassador Parthasarthy, and journalist Manoj Joshi. Managing Director OUP India Manzar Khan hosted the event.
I was also invited to speak at the United Services Institution, the Centre of Land Warfare Studies at Army headquarters, and the Observer Research Foundation.
Stories about the visit and some of the reviews of the book are given below:
Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine
Shuja Nawaz at ORF Delhi
‘Pakistan is constantly relearning how to be a democracy’ - IndianExpress.Com
Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine
Book launching ceremony titled “Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within”
Exposing the Pakistani Military
Review of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within by Ali Eteraz for Jewcy.com
Al Jazeera English Program on FATA Part 2
Al Jazeera English Program on FATA part 1
An interview with Bill Roggio, editor of the Long War blog, Jalil Afridi, Managing Editor of The Frontier Post, Lahore, and Shuja Nawaz on the emerging "deal' bewteen the government of Pakistan and the militants in FATA
Hope is on the Rise in Pakistan
Op Ed article in The Boston Globe
1 March 2008
In Pakistan: Go Long USA!
VOA Show on Pakistan after the Elections
Program hosted by Eric Felten.
Other discussants: Lisa Curtis of Heritage Foundation and Kevin Whitelaw of US News & World Report
Broadcast weekend of February 23/24, 2008
Pakistan Situation Assessed
Latest from Pakistan & the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
What Is Pakistan's Future Without Bhutto?
Former Prime Minister Bhutto Assassinated
Assassination Raises Fears of Renewed Turmoil in Pakistan
Opposition Parties Slam Pakistani Election Postponement
In Pakistan, the army is key
A storm in the Gulf tea cup? Or much worse?
My Huffington Post Blog