THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN. Or Maybe We Should Have Known Better?

Henri was taken aback. He normally did not expect me to react with such ferocity. He had come to expect a usually subdued response from me on most issue. Henri is a math-head German who has had the dubious honor of being my best friend in NYC for more than 10 years. I was meeting him at a new LES restaurant for drinks and a bite of their famed hamburger. He commented on seeing me, “They must have known”.

US Navy Seals had raided the Bin Laden compound in Pakistan. Media was frenzied with speculation as to the details, trying to glorify the American heroes who carried out the operation with remarkable precision, and vilifying OBL as a dangerous enemy bent on America’s destruction, while at the same time portraying him as a coward, who hid behind his wife to avoid the bullets (a story later denied in more detailed accounts). There was a quasi-consensus cutting across all the news channels, be them left or right leaning. “Pakistanis must have known”. Some more insightful commentators were more forgiving, stating that the Pakistan army was either complicit (a grave strategic blunder), or they were unaware (hopelessly incompetent). Fatima Bhutto in her speech to Sydney Writer’s Festival quipped that perhaps commentators didn’t realize there was a way for the army to be both!

This media consensus irked me not because I thought it was uncalled for, or because it made me ashamed and/or insecure due to my Pakistani heritage. It irked me for the same reason that many other commonly held, yet fallacious beliefs about Pakistan and Mid-East irk me. If inconsequential folk develop strong yet flawed beliefs about an issue, it’s much less of a problem. When people in position of power and influence show lack of fundamental understanding of the subject matter, it is far more distressing.

Could the Pakistanis have known? Possibly. But depends what you mean when you say Pakistanis. Does it mean the entire chain of command of the military? I told Henri that I believe that to be an extremely unlikely scenario. Does it mean the top political establishment? That would also be equally unlikely I said. Can there be a small group of army officers, working or retired that knew and were harboring OBL? That is possible. Or a handful of extreme right leaning politicians were in the know? That might also have happened, even though I would put the likelihood of that as very low too.

I told Henri that OBL was a guy with $50m bounty on his head. Once the knowledge of his residence goes beyond 3-4 people, keeping it a secret would become impossible. Abbottabad is a decent sized and a functioning city of a million people. It is not the caves of Afghanistan. People are largely educated (remember there was a neighbor live-blogging the raid), and they know where the US Embassy is and most importantly they know what $50m is.

Some in the military and political establishment might have sympathies towards OBL, but these would not be potent enough to overcome the $50m incentive. And precisely because of this $50m sword hanging over his head, OBL would not have trusted them. He might not even have believed in their ability to harbor him.

Months have gone by since the raid. Not a shred of evidence has been presented that shows that establishment had any knowledge or connections to OBL’s presence. Every assertion still remains largely a conjecture. Maybe one day we will learn more, and find out some connection of OBL’s hiding to the govt. Or maybe we won’t, either because in the murky world of intelligence, details remain well buried. Or maybe because there was no connection to begin with.

I’m sure that the sensible people in the administration realize this and, I hope, are focused on the more significant issues of working with the Pakistanis for containing future terror threats, national security issues and command & control procedures to assure safety of nuclear assets. As to the media, story is old and has lost its sensation. They tried to milk it for all its worth, without bothering with the expensive and laborious process of investigative journalism as to what actually happened. Now they can move to the next sensation in their quest for eye-balls in this business of infotainment. Hey look, Sarah Palin just showed up at the Republican convention! With Kim Kardashian in tow!

FEEDING HUBRIS – The Drums of War Are Beating, Again……

‘Tis the season of insanity. Whether it’s the delightful Linsanity, or the delirious proclamations of the candidates in an increasingly desperate contention for Republican nomination for president. Or the insaner and maddening musings of downside-of-free-speech Mr. Limbaugh. What has got me boiling this season is the by-the-spades bullshit of Iran’s nuclear threat being fed to the US public by the all-powerful Israel lobby, augmented by stir-seeking media. Same bullshit was fed to the US last time when we rushed head long into attacking Iraq.

Thankfully this time skepticism is greater. Even Israeli propagandists like Jeff Goldberg, seem unsure. Self-proclaimed atheist, yet curiously Zionist, Bill Mar was also skeptical when he interviewed the telegenic (and talking-point head) Israeli ambassador to the US. They have good reason. We were all burned by the Iraq war when we gave too much benefit of the doubt to the government. I remember I was in South Africa to watch the cricket world cup in 2003. I met up with many college friends from Pakistan, who had arrived from different parts of the world for a long due get-together in that beautiful country, and watch the favorite Pakistan pastime (other than drawing room gossip).

Arriving from New York, I became the token “American” to be skewered over the about-to-be-initiated Iraq invasion. I gave too much benefit of the doubt to the govt. “They must know more than what they are telling us. Iraq must have deadly weapons with credible plan to use them directly or indirectly against the US or its interests abroad. Otherwise how can the govt initiate such a major war in which large number of innocent people will likely die.”

I was wrong. The govt believed the hubris it wanted to. And it was fed hubris by the buckets from all the vested interests. Israel being on top of the list. This time, thankfully, public is more skeptical. And we have a President who is more composed and perceptive of the complicated world around us than his predecessor. Thankfully this time the onus to prove the threat will be on the govt. But that still doesn’t mean that Israel will not attack Iran, even if it does so alone. US interests will be a casualty in this war, as it will have to provide unqualified, even if just verbal, support.

And why are we fighting with Iran anyway, considering they released American hostages a few decades ago. Yes, their regime is despotic and composed of religious fanatics. Yet there is scant evidence that Iran poses any national security interest to the US. It might pose threat to Israel, but that threat is merely strategic, and far from existential.

Besides, a threat to Israel is not a threat to the US. If Israel attacks Iran, it will do little to bolster US security. It will only harm it, as the US domestic politics will ensure that is stands by Israel’s side during any such undertaking, and hence attracts the usual wrath of US flag burning Arab & Muslim streets. US and Israel’s interests are not the same, and in this case might be diametrically opposite.

In the end, fate of this war might just be decided by any technical hurdles Israel might face - whether it’s the ability to refuel planes on the long ride, or ability to penetrate Iran’s defenses by the available bunker-buster bombs. But eventually Israel’s quest to maintain an absolute and unquestionable military and nuclear superiority over all of its neighbors is perhaps not sustainable. If Israel attacks and fails to deal a meaningful blow to Iran’s nuclear plans, realization of that might set in sooner than it would have wanted. At some point it will have to start aggressive diplomacy, rather than aggressive preemptive wars. Time for that realization might be now.