Ravi Rikhye on Dr Afridi and USAs Masochism- www.orbat.com

0230 GMT May 19, 2012

Worlds leading military thinker Ravi Rikhye on Dr Afridi and USAs Masochism- www.orbat.com

 

• • Pakistan making no sense on doctor who helped pinpoint OBL We have an American reader who delights in sending us articles that demonstrate the complete irrationality of Pakistan's decision-making. Then the Editor is forced into defending Pakistan, along the lines of "it makes sense if you look at it from Pakistan's viewpoint". But every now and then Pakistan does something so astoundingly senseless even the Editor, who can find a rationale for anyone's actions, is left without an answer.

   

  • The case of the Pakistani doctor who helped pinpoint OBL is one such situation where the Editor, after spending the entire day trying to come up with a rational explanation for Pakistan's action has to retire defeated from the field.

   

  • Let us go back a little. Pakistan insisted that it had no idea where OBL was, but it knew for certain he was not in Pakistan. It further insisted it had nothing to do with OBL and Al Qaeda. It told the US with a straight face "if you say he is in Pakistan, tell us where and we'll arrest him." This, of course, would generate a lot of ROFLs on the part of the Americans, but that's beside the point here.

   

  • So you would think that when OBL was killed, the Pakistanis would go: "Oopsies!" and do their best to divert the conversation by saying "And are you enjoying the cucumber sandwiches from your garden?" Instead the Pakistanis made a truly sad, moronic effort to say they gave the US the lead to locate OBL. The contradictions of this position seemed not to bother the Pakistanis one bit. To wit, what does it say about you that the man is living in your country, but you are forced to resort to giving tips to the US so that the Americans can find him? Can there be any deeper expression of your complete patheticity and ineffectuality? Anyway, let us skip that.

   

  • What the Pakistanis have done is arrest the doctor; they are planning to put him on trial for treason. See http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NE18Df02.html and thanks to reader VK for the article.

   

  • Now let us back off for a minute. Treason is where someone causes his country grievous harm. It is a very serious offense, about the worst offense a citizen can commit against his country. Since Pakistan kept saying it had nothing to do with OBL, would not it have made sense to simply say nothing? By arresting the man and charging treason, you are saying the doctor severely harmed Pakistan's national interests. By saying he aided the Americans, you are saying that in the matter of OBL Pakistan's interest is fundamentally opposed to America's. And you are further saying that America is your enemy.

   

  • What precisely does Pakistan gain, after donkey's years of denying it had anything to do with OBL, by charging the man who flushed OBL from hiding with treason?  You have just shot down your own position, and confirmed to the world that you and AQ are BFFs. And for what? This is a real mystery to us, for all that we think we understand the Pakistanis.

   

  • Now, there is another angle to this doctor thing How exactly did the Pakistanis come to know about the doctor? It has to be from the Americans. And how come after the doctor delivered the blood samples, and OBL's presence was confirmed, the Americans did not tell him to skedaddle? Not only did the Americans blab all to the Pakistanis, they sacrificed their own man.

   

  • Now, of course, those who don't like the American government  will have a simple explanation. (When it comes to military/spy stuff, most everyone in the world does not like the American government; that is different from not liking America and Americans, who almost everyone likes.) The explanation is that the American government is a Class One duffer and blithering idiot.

   

  • We have a somewhat different take. It could be the doctor, poor fellow, is a red herring. It could be he did work for the Americans, and was sacrificed to throw the Pakistanis off the track.

   

  • We know some of our friends, particularly our British friends, are going to say: "Face facts, Ravi: the US government is a bunch of blithering idiots in these matters, and we're sick and tired of cleaning up the mess it makes." But the truth is, the Brits – and the Russians and Chinese and French and anyone you can think of – make their fair share of messes, so no sense in getting holier than thou in these matters.

   

  • Advice for the young spy From time to time Editor, in his self-appointed role of Wise Old Spy, likes to give advice to the aspiring youngster who has set his heart firmly on spydom. Today Editor will give the same advice he gave many times during his 20-years in India. Which is: you have to be stark raving bonkers to work for the Americans. It is not they are incompetent. They are no more or no less incompetent than anyone else. It is they are absolutely ruthless: they will sacrifice you at the drop of a hat.

   

  • At which point out Brit friends and not a few Russians will interrupt: "Be serious, Ravi. No one can out-ruth us."

   

• But actually the Americans are more ruthless because they are experts at making you believe you are their best friend forever and that you matter more to them than anything. They play off their reputation for straight-shooting and honesty that is longer than the day. No one with an IQ above 5 ever trusts a Brit or a Russian covert operative. So anyone who works for them and is sacrificed to expediency has only themselves to blame.  The Americans are so good it is very easy to believe they care for you.
 
• By all means work for the Americans if that's what you absolutely must do. Just don't latter come complaining to Old Grandpa Ravi.

0230 GMT May 25, 2012

 

·         Pakistan doctor case: developments and clarifications First, US senate appropriations committee has voted to cut $33-million from Pakistan's aid budget, one million for every year of the doctor's sentence (see BBC at http://tinyurl.com/bvv3vlm). The annual aid is $800-million, so this is more an expression of displeasure than a punishment.

 

·         And second, the doctor was not told who he was looking for. He guessed it was someone important, and according to a Pakistani who has seen the interrogation transcripts, the Pakistanis, he asked for and received additional money. But he was never told the identity of the target. According to other material we read, he did not succeed in finding Osama.

 

 

·         We are intrigued by august US Senators saying that the doctor was a patriot because he helped in the search for Bin Laden, and Pakistan as much as America benefited. So clearly if the Pakistanis have sentenced the doctor to 30-years for treason plus 3-years if he fails to pay a fine of $4500, they believe he was a traitor to Pakistan – and have repeatedly said so. From there it is but a short leap to the notion that Pakistan and America are not on the same side as far as OBL is concerned.

 

·         Now, while Editor completely understands Pakistan's support of the Taliban, and has many times said the Pakistanis are entitled to work with the Taliban because it serves Islamabad's national security imperatives, frankly we are a bit confused as to what Pakistan gains by backing AQ. The only rational explanation that comes to mind is that Pakistan is so anti-American that the enemy of America is Pakistan's friend. If we are wrong, then it implies Pakistan sees strategic advantage in working with AQ.

 

 

·         Which takes us to the last point. America is preparing to spend forever and a day in Afghanistan because, it says, AQ must not return to Afghanistan. First, does the US really believe AQ no longer has havens in Pakistan? The evidence is that AQ and the Taliban are getting to be BFFs, and AQ is quite welcome in Afghanistan. Second, precisely what has America achieved if AQ continues to enjoy its havens in Pakistan? It seems to us the ad hocism of American strategic policy continues unabated, as it has for eleven years after 9/11. There is neither logic, nor thought, nor analysis, nor reason, nor objective. Washington just keeps blurting post hoc rationalizations to keep this endless war going.

 

·         It seems to us AQ is spreading, which means we are losing. Before 9/11, AQ was a moderately successful terror outfit that was pushed out of the Horn of Africa and found refuge in Afghanistan. Now it remains in Afghanistan, and has spread to Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and the Sahel, including its recently achieved sultanate in Mali. 

 

 

·         But, our readers will say, America is succeeding because there has been no successful terror attack since 9/11. Now, like it or not, we have to go into the logic of this. To what extent have we prevented terror attacks because of our most excellent defensive measures, and how much due to our offensive measures?

 

·         Readers will say "our offensive measures work, look at the case of the Yemen bomb plot just foiled." Hmmmm. We're not sure we'd call it a success when we (actually the British) infiltrate an agent provocateur into AQ, have him volunteer for a suicide mission, and then say we foiled AQ. If that man had not gone to AQ, this particular bomb plot would not have arisen.

 

 

·         This further raises a question: how much of the threat are we responsible for creating? To give an example. In Vietnam, every time we stepped up our military efforts, the enemy reacted by stepping up his effort. So we were creating the threat that we were forced to fight by investing greater effort, which led to the enemy investing greater effort to fight us.

 

·         It also raises another question: when the enemy is spending – say - $100-million a year and we have to invest – say $100-billion a year (including Homeland Security, additional intelligence, etc.), isn't AQ winning?

 

 

·         At which point readers may well throw up their hands and exclaim: "Okay, Editor, you're the tops in criticism, what's your solution?"

 

• Editor does not have a solution. Counter-terrorism is not his area. Editor can tell you how we could have defeated the Taliban, because that is a military matter. All he's saying is that to his mind, the AQ problem is getting worse, not better.

 

0230 GMT May 26, 2012

 

 

 

Odds and Ends

 

·         Pakistani doctor treason case From what we read, the doctor was offered an exit by the CIA, but refused. He believed Pakistan would be proud of him. Poor, witless fool. Next, we read that since he was tried under tribal law, the court could deny him a lawyer and even deny his right to be present. So there was no fuss or muss embarrassing to the Pakistan military. Third, the Pakistanis are said to have thrown the book at him possibly to add to their card suit for bargaining with the Americans.

 

·         Now, we know little about tribal law.  But we find it difficult to believe that an accused can be barred from saying anything in his defense or from confronting his accusers. Agreed tribal law is rough justice by the standards of western jurisprudence. But it is a traditional system of justice. If a tribe can just pick up anyone, and sentence them without allowing a single word from the accused, this cannot be considered justice in any sense. It gives the tribal court unlimited power over tribe members, and we do not see any tribe accepting this. Further, how is treason a subject for tribal jurisdiction? Treason is committed against a state. Tribes are not states. Then, we do not see how the Pakistan military can be embarrassed if it does not so wish. The man is accused of treason, of aiding a foreign power. Surely a closed military trial is easily arranged? Last, the idea of tribal justice is that it is immediate and is settled wither with blood-for-blood or by the victims accepting compensation. Since when have tribes had prison systems to hold convicts for 33-years?