Thursday, April 26, 2012

USAID in Pakistan: Successes and Failures


Aid to Pakistan: $2.6 billion spent, little ability to show it
Anti-US sentiments and foreign policy squabbles are thwarting good US public relations from reaching turbulent, poor border regions of Pakistan.
By Taha Siddiqui, Contributor / April 25, 2012

Khalil Afridi recently survived a fatal attack by militants when a hand grenade was hurled at him. “They want me to quit development work, because of my association with Western donors,” he says.

He has been a social worker in Khyber Agency, an area bordering Afghanistan through which supply routes run, for the past eight years and is currently working on water projects with the US Agency for International Development (USAID). But he says it’s too dangerous to tell this to locals. Instead, he says, “We tell people it’s the Pakistani government funding these projects.”

Anti-US sentiments and foreign policy squabbles are thwarting good US public relations from reaching turbulent, poor border regions of Pakistan. They are also putting the lives of aid workers there at risk.
Like Mr. Afridi and many others, Shahzad Afridi (not related) has also worked for projects funded by USAID in Khyber Agency and is careful about making sure he does not mention USAID. “The militants think we are spies for the West, and they have threatened me to stop,” he explains.
US Aid in Pakistan: Where's the money going?

USAID does not have any offices in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) but operates out of Peshawar, a settled area adjacent to the tribal areas. Officials here recognize the threats and say security is one of the biggest challenges to their aid work, so they've found a small way to work around it.

“It is the requirement of US government to brand its aid, but we are giving waivers to projects undertaken in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, because if they put up our logos etc, it can be life threatening,” says Mehdi Ali Khan, the communication specialist for USAID here.

Another official says USAID in Pakistan would prefer to be more transparent. Not only would it help to show that money is being put to good use, but it could build good will toward the US.

“We [would] like to get credit but it’s a complex situation. There is a war in Afghanistan. There are areas under conflict in Pakistan.... This is the reality,” he says wishing not to be named since he is not authorized to speak to the media. The official said USAID was putting up signboards that say the project is USAID funded in areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) in northwest Pakistan, but in areas like FATA, it just wasn’t possible.

The trouble with branding

Some in the region criticize USAID’s approach.

Shad Begum, who received the International Women of Courage Award by the US State Department for her social work in the area, was threatened by the Taliban for working for the US government, even after asking the press in the area not to cover her award in the media for her safety.

“USAID is more focused towards highlighting their name than focusing on development on many of the projects on which I worked with them,” she says. She developed a campaign recently on capacity building and social rights awareness that involved distributing fliers and putting up banners. But because USAID helped fund it, the organization required that its logo be visible on all materials she handed out, she says.
Ms. Begum says she had to argue with USAID over the size of the logo and the American flag. “People hate the Americans in this region because of their foreign policy,” she says. Displaying the US flag, on a school, a new road, or other infrastructure project fuels anti-US sentiment and, worse, can put needed social projects in jeopardy.

For complete article, click here

Related:
U.S. assistance to Pakistan buys little goodwill - The Washington Post
Sixty years of US aid to Pakistan: Get the data - Guardian
Can Pakistan survive without US aid? - Dawn
US Assistance to Pakistan - 2012:  Congressional Research Service

Which Khan can Save Pakistan ?

Which Khan Can Save Pakistan?
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Le Monde diplomatic, April 20, 2012

To say that Pakistan is at a crossroads is something of a truism. Over the last decade, the country has jumped from one political, constitutional and economic crisis to the next, with little sign of stability on the horizon. With parliament having issued its ultimatum to the US last week with a resolution demanding an end to drone strikes and military intelligence operations on Pakistani soil, among other things, the future of the country appears as uncertain as ever.

Despite that, prospects seem to have changed with the sudden meteoric rise of Pakistani cricket legend and opposition leader Imran Khan. When he first entered politics fifteen years ago to found Tehreek-e-Insaf (the Justice Party), he struggled to translate his sporting fame into votes. But in October last year, when up to 250,000 people turned out to support him in Lahore and Karachi — an unprecedented number — it became clear that Khan was a force to be reckoned with. No wonder that earlier this year Khan himself predicted his party would win a landslide victory at the upcoming national elections in 2013.

Khan’s grassroots popularity is driven by the very essence of his political campaign. As a relative newcomer to Pakistani politics who has never held office before, he is the only candidate to remain untainted by allegations or rumours of corruption. This lends unique credibility to his core campaign pillars — fighting corruption through political reform, promoting real democracy, transforming Pakistan’s relationship with the United States and, most of all, creating a meaningful welfare system and generating a robust and vibrant economy.

However, as Pakistanis look to Imran Khan as the country’s best — if not only — hope, questions remain about how much one man can really do to transform decades of accumulating social, political and economic challenges. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is poverty. Currently 61 per cent of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Adult literacy is at 56 per cent, with overall female literacy even lower at 36 per cent. Sanitation coverage is only 58 per cent, and 40 per cent of the population lack access to safe drinking water. Overall, Pakistan ranks 145 in the human development index — a slide down from its position at 138 in 1999.

Why all the gloom? Pakistan has an unfortunate tradition of privileging military over development spending. In 2011, defence spending comprised a total of 22 per cent of the budget whereas health, education, infrastructure, and social spending amounted to a measly 2.1 percent of the total budget.

So despite his obvious popularity, many fear that Khan’s political plan lacks substance in dealing with such entrenched issues. Pakistani journalist Farooq Sulehria, writing in The News, points out that Khan’s political ideology simplistically “blames corruption for all the ills plaguing this country”, but lacks a clear manifesto for transformation. “The external debt is approaching $70 billion. Population growth and environmental catastrophes are depriving an increasing number of Pakistanis of their livelihoods. Nuclear waste holds our future hostage. Will Mr Khan solve all these problems by persuading politicians to make their bank accounts public?”

For complete article, click here

Monday, April 16, 2012

US Policy Towards Pakistan Needs Readjustment ?


Pakistan Spring Emerging From Winter of Discontent
By Vali Nasr , Bloomberg, Apr 15, 2012



The snarling between the U.S. and Pakistan won’t let up. The battle began, of course, when U.S. forces sneaked into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden last May.
Last week, the U.S. upped the ante, announcing a $10 million reward for information leading to the arrest of notorious terrorist Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, who is thought to be close to Pakistani intelligence. Things are so bad, Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid pronounced in his recently published book, “The United States and Pakistan are just short of going to war.”
America’s greater fear is that Pakistan will get in the way of war. Pakistan’s Parliament last week unanimously voted to forbid the U.S. from conducting drone strikes inside Pakistani territory. If the measure is implemented, it will deny the U.S. its most effective weapon against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.
Yet, as worrisome as the trend in bilateral relations is, other developments within Pakistan signal that the country may be changing for the better, in terms of the military’s role, democratic tendencies and relations with India. By focusing on the security dimension of its relationship with Pakistan, the U.S. risks missing these currents and thus the opportunity to engage with the country in fruitful new ways.

Unexpected Turn

One new twist that should be particularly gratifying to the U.S. is the Pakistani public’s unexpected turn against the military. Popular anger at the U.S. for swooping into the country to kill bin Laden was matched by outrage that the military was caught snoozing by U.S. commandos. Pakistanis asked: Why do we need such an expensive military if it can’t even protect the country’s borders and doesn’t know that the world’s most wanted man is hiding in a garrison town?
If that weren’t enough, three weeks later, extremists attacked the naval base in Karachi, which houses nuclear warheads. They destroyed a helicopter and two advanced P-3C Orion patrol aircraft. Pakistani special forces lost 10 men and had to fight for 16 hours to end the siege.
For complete article, click here

Relevant
What Peace with Taliban might look Like - Ahmed Rashid at Asia Society
Vali Nasr on Revisiting US Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Asia Society

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Political Trends and Attitudes of American Muslims - A New ISPU Study


Engaging American Muslims: Political Trends and Attitudes
Farid Senzai; Fellow and Director of Research, ISPU
April 3, 2012

Executive Summary

As the 2012 presidential election season moves into full swing, the American Muslim minority community has become a more important player on the political landscape, especially in key swing states. However, data on its members’ political attitudes and behaviors have been limited and scattered. This report represents the first effort to comprehensively combine and analyze a decade’s worth of research on this particular community in order to provide insights for political strategists and community organizers. It includes analyses of the data by racial and ethnic background, state of residence, education level, and other factors.

The report primarily draws upon surveys conducted by the Muslims in the American Public Square (MAPS) project in 2001 and 2004, the Pew Research Center’s national surveys on the American Muslim Community in 2007 and 2011, and the Muslim American Public Opinion Survey (MAPOS) conducted between 2006 and 2008. Two case studies examine the community’s political activity in two swing states: Florida and Michigan.

Key findings
American Muslims were at a political and social crossroad after September 11, 2001. Soon after 9/11, the majority of Muslims engaged in a massive political shift away from the Republican Party. Arab-American and South Asian-American Muslims who initially supported Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) in the 2000 presidential election gave their support to Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004. This political realignment was a result of several factors, among them the passing of laws such as the PATRIOT Act and the Bush administration’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Between 2001 and 2004, the percentage of American Muslims who were dissatisfied with the country’s direction soared from 38 percent to 63 percent.

The shift toward the Democratic Party was further strengthened when the community voted overwhelmingly for Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in 2008. Despite some disappointments, the community strongly supported him during his first term in office. In 2011, Obama continued to maintain a higher approval rating among American Muslims than the general public.

Since 9/11, American Muslims have faced increased discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes. The MAPS study suggests that they have experienced a dramatic increase in all types of discrimination since that tragic incident. In 2009, 58 percent of Americans expressed the belief that Muslims face “a lot” of discrimination. The increased animosity toward them, coupled with the rise of Islamophobia, has motivated the community to mobilize and become more politically active.

Research has shown that American Muslims are well informed about politics and pay attention to what is happening both at home and abroad. The vast majority of them want to be politically involved, with 95 percent stating that American Muslims should participate in the political process. Voter registration in the community, however, continues to trail that of the general public. The Pew survey suggests that 66 percent of the community’s were registered to vote in 2011. This percentage would likely be much higher if one were to count only those who are citizens and therefore eligible to vote.

Contrary to growing public opinion, most American Muslims do not see a conflict between their faith and being American or living in a modern society. The majority of them feel that American Muslims, a large number of whom are immigrants or children of immigrants, should adopt American culture and become part of the mainstream. Furthermore, studies support the idea that mosques, like churches and synagogues, are associated with a higher level of civic engagement. American Muslims who were engaged in their mosques were found to be 53 percent more involved in civic activities (e.g., charity organizations, school and/or youth programs) than those who were not connected or involved with a mosque.

Surveys have also examined the community’s opinions on a number of policy issues. The data suggest that American Muslims, much like the American public in general, are more concerned with domestic than foreign policy and with the economy in particular. They generally demonstrate a high level of support for immigration and support the view that immigrants strengthen, rather than burden, the country.

For complete summary, click here
For complete Report (pdf), click here
For New York Times oped by report author Farid Senzai titled The Muslim Swing Vote, click here

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Is conducting research on 'politicisation of religion in Pakistan' a crime ?


Thought Control
Ayesha Haroon, The News, April 11, 2012
A student was thrown out of a university for emailing a poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz and for insisting on doing his research paper on politicisation of religion in Pakistan. 

He is now on the streets protesting his removal from the university. He not only has a right to protest, he has a right to every possible legal remedy that is available to any citizen.

Throwing a student out of a university is not a small thing – and should not be treated as such. Throwing a student out allegedly on the basis of his sending “threatening” emails supposedly filled with revolutionary poetry of Faiz Ahmed Faiz makes the matter even more worrying.

Students are supposed to ask questions – and not just about how a car transmission works but also about why is there injustice in the world, who benefits from the economic hierarchy, what is freedom? Dozens were killed in Kohistan a few weeks ago in a religious sect-based crime; Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan carries out blasts across Pakistan for its political agenda; Difa-e-Pakistan Council is a political grouping of mainly religio-political parties, trying to improve their image before the elections. Given our current societal context, Arsalan Bilal’s proposal for writing a thesis on politicisation of religion in Pakistan is an obvious one.

Prima facie the treatment of this case calls for an investigation on the part of Bahria University, the Higher Education Commission and the appellate courts of the country. The future of a student and his family is at stake. What is also at stake is the intellectual space students at Bahria and other universities should take for granted.

Universities are supposed to be places where knowledge is created, boundaries of the status quo are challenged, perceived truth is pushed to its limits. Faculty and students are provided a space where exchange of ideas takes precedence sometimes over their acceptability – and this space is protected by institutions of tenure, on one side, and freedom of speech as well as the inviolability of university boundaries, on the other.

For complete article, click here

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

What is happening in the Gilgit-Baltistan Area?

* Commission urges promotion of sectarian harmonyStaff Report, Daily Times, April 6, 2012

LAHORE: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has expressed serious alarm at the continuing loss of life in sectarian strife in Gilgit-Baltistan and demanded that the government, political parties and civil society organisations join hands to bring peace to the area at the earliest.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the commission said, “HRCP has watched with growing concern the reprehensible and lengthening shadow of sectarian bloodshed in Gilgit-Baltistan and condemns it unequivocally.”

“The relative calm in Gilgit following the imposition of curfew and deployment of troops is a tense one... and retaliatory attacks and incidents of hostage-taking have been reported amid concerns that the authorities have responded only to some of the more violent incidents and are proceeding in a reactive manner,” the statement read.

“HRCP is very concerned about people facing great difficulties as provisions and food stocks, even milk for children, have run low. In hospitals, medicines are scarce and food is being rationed as curfew has continued without a break. Those who have provided shelter to others irrespective of sect or faith and out of concern for human life, find their own lives at risk. Everything must be done to ensure safety and protection for their lives and property.”

The commission said it would be naĆÆve to think that the scars of the events of the last few days in Gilgit-Baltistan would go away by imposing curfew and shutting down cellular phone services or by preaching calm.

“The monumental task of healing the wounds and promoting sectarian harmony must begin at the earliest in consultation with the affected communities and should be persisted with. Political parties must desist from indulging in point scoring. And in addition to publicly expressing their unambiguous condemnation for violence they should also share with people their vision for controlling the situation and preventing recurrence of such senseless violence in the future. They should join hands with the government to help implement that objective,” it said.

“Those who have fanned the strife in Gilgit-Baltistan must be identified and held to account as must those who pulled the trigger in target killings. In fact, there is every reason to pay equally urgent attention to contain the continuing bloodletting based on sectarian identity in Quetta, Karachi and elsewhere in the country.”

Relevent:
Gilgit-Baltistan sectarianism: Police chief denies foreign hand in violence - Express Tribune
Violence-hit Gilgit faces shortage of essentials - Dawn
The Gilgit Knot - The News
The Gilgit Violence - The News

For Background, see:
Sectarian Conflict in Gilgit-Baltistan - PILDAT Background Paper
Kohistan Carnage — the first mishap between now and later - The Dardistan Times
For local updates visit: http://www.mygilgit.com/ (English); http://www.dailybaadeshimal.com/ (Urdu);

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Prospects of India-Pakistan Peace Process - Need for Bold Initiatives


Set a menu that goes beyond the lunch
Humayun Khan and Salman Haidar,
The Hindu, April 3, 2012; Dawn, April 3, 2012

Asif Ali Zardari's visit to India on April 8 — including a luncheon meeting with Manmohan Singh — may be an essentially private trip, yet the detour brings hope of a new phase in India-Pakistan relations. The expectation is that President Zardari will renew his invitation to the Indian Prime Minister to visit Pakistan, and that the latter will accept, setting the stage for the bold initiatives that are now needed to take matters forward.

South Asia is home to one fourth of the human race and has the largest middle class anywhere in the world. But the region also accounts for the majority of the world's poor, is hamstrung by sectarian and caste beliefs and spends a disproportionate share of its resources to meet non-productive ends. Most significantly, South Asia has not been able to forge a cooperative framework to match the European Union or the Association of South East Asian Nations. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, now more than 25 years old, remains dormant.

Situation not dismal
Relations within the region, particularly between India and Pakistan, have always been troubled, with three open conflicts and repeated near-war situations resulting in frequent breaks in bilateral engagement. Both countries are also conscious of the fact that they are now nuclear powers. And yet the situation is not as dismal as it might appear from the outside. Saner elements in both countries have consistently worked for better relations. There have been serious discussions on a No-War Pact and a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. A Joint Commission was set up in 1983 and a framework for composite dialogue devised. The first big break came in 1999 with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee boarding a bus to Lahore where he publicly acknowledged the reality of Pakistan and assured the nation-state that it had nothing to fear from India. Mr. Vajpayee's initiative showed that an imaginative leadership can push the envelope on India-Pakistan relations.

What followed Lahore is too well known to bear repetition. Suffice it to say that reconciliatory efforts resumed in 2001 with Pervez Musharraf agreeing to meet Mr. Vajpayee in Agra. Predictably the talks ended in failure. Peace efforts restarted in January 2004: Mr. Vajpayee signalled his willingness to hold a composite dialogue on all issues, including on Kashmir and Gen. Musharraf promised not to allow terrorism and cross-border incursions from Pakistani territory. The process suffered a jolt four years later following the November 2008 terrorist strike on Mumbai. India broke off the composite dialogue.

Two years were lost because public feeling in India was greatly aroused by Mumbai. The basic reality, however, remained. It was not in the interest of either country to depart from the path of negotiations. Eventually, a limited resumption was agreed by the two Prime Ministers in 2010. At the moment, these talks are proceeding well, though there have been no major breakthroughs.

The two most inflammable issues that could jeopardise the peace process are Kashmir and terrorism. There are hopeful signs that mutually acceptable solutions to both can be found. On Kashmir, the back channel made considerable progress. Unfortunately, the new elected government in Pakistan has, more or less, disowned this process. To move forward courageously on Kashmir and build on the progress already achieved must now be the main objective of both countries.

Settlement on Kashmir
The crucial point in reaching a settlement on Kashmir must remain its acceptance by the Kashmiri people. The settlement must aim to put an end to the violence and the abuse of human rights so that the people can live normally and in peace. The need for cooperation on terrorism cannot be overstated. Regrettably, a number of terrorist incidents in India have been found to have originated in Pakistan which has negatively influenced public opinion in India. Where the culprits can be identified, it is incumbent on Pakistan to satisfy India that it is making genuine efforts to bring them to book. India must do likewise. This a fight that has be fought jointly.

If dialogue is the key to resolving problems, how do we keep dialogue alive and how do we avoid its derailment, especially in the context of the changed circumstances? India's economic progress and political stability, together with its size, have lifted it to the status of a world power. But this will work to its disadvantage unless India earns the confidence of its smaller neighbours and reassures them that it does not seek to be a regional hegemon. Peace within the region is an essential requirement for India to continue on its upward path. It must make renewed efforts to convince its neighbours that it poses no threat to them. It still has to fully convince them that it is ready to honour their independence and separate personality.

In Pakistan
Pakistan, on the other hand, is dogged by an unhappy past marked by repeated military interventions that prevented democracy from taking root. Misgovernance and the fear of an aggressive and more powerful neighbour have driven it towards becoming a security State, further ensuring the dominance of its armed forces. The country is going through what many consider the most testing phase in its history and so it needs to be at peace with India to solve its domestic problems.

Given this, it is in the interests of both India and Pakistan to forge a permanent relationship of peace and amity. The time has come for imaginative policies, a change in fundamental attitudes towards each other. The present promising state of their relations seems a propitious moment to adopt a common approach on promoting their permanent interests.

So who takes the first step? It is obvious that Pakistan's need for peace is greater, but the weakness of its civilian government and its internal problems make it unlikely that it can take any bold initiative. India can live with the present state of affairs, yet it stands to benefit greatly from a transformed relationship. It needs to take the initiative and to lay at rest the fears of the military in Pakistan.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made clear his desire for peace and friendship with Pakistan. He has worked hard to improve relations and has revived the stalled dialogue more than once. But we are still some way from the major leap that could permanently transform relations.

What is needed now is direct engagement at the very top. Dr. Manmohan Singh must pay a return visit to Pakistan. It would be an occasion to announce agreement on some specific issues like Siachen and Sir Creek. More importantly, he could launch some major new initiatives, like reviving the offer of a No-War Pact and a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Such formal agreements, duly supported by the international community, would effectively allay the fears of the Pakistan military.

To further allay apprehensions, discussions could be initiated on relocation of forces along the border and on regular meetings between chiefs of the armed forces and of intelligence agencies. The need for better understanding between the two militaries cannot be over-emphasised, because the security syndrome in Pakistan is the major obstacle in the way of progress.

Trade, terrorism, Afghanistan
On the major outstanding issue of Kashmir, a clear decision to resume both back channel and official negotiations is needed. Simultaneously, the Line of Control should be made truly porous for free movement of vehicles and trade. A settlement on Kashmir would be of great value in addressing the vital issue of water on which there has recently been a renewed focus.

The other major issue is terrorism. There remains the very real danger that, if another major terrorist attack in India takes place and its origins are traced to Pakistan, the peace process would again be endangered. The two countries have to address this issue as a top priority and agree that firm action will be taken against the culprits wherever they are found. There are encouraging signs that both sides recognise the need to cooperate.

The Afghan problem has the potential of critically affecting India-Pakistan relations, either in a positive or a negative way, and must be on the agenda. Similarly, the nuclear issue must be meaningfully addressed and the existing areas of agreement expanded. In the critical field of economic development, the decision by Pakistan to grant Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India has been a major advance. It must be implemented in its true spirit. Economic cooperation is the strongest guarantee of peace.

Dr. Manmohan Singh's visit could be a decisive moment for substantive and meaningful progress. The visit needs to take place soon and intensive preparation will be required. Much can be achieved, provided both sides realise the time has come to put their relationship on stable and permanent foundations.

Official efforts will need to be supplemented by people-to- people contacts. The key to any lasting relationship is that the people on both sides should want it. People are South Asia's greatest resource and they are also the surest long-term guarantee of the region's stability and progress.

( Humayun Khan is a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan; Salman Haidar is a former Foreign Secretary of India .)

Monday, April 02, 2012

In Defense of Blood Money...

In Defense of Blood Money
Why the United States was right to give $50,000 each to the families of villagers massacred in Afghanistan.
By Will Oremus, Slate, March 29, 2012


There’s no price you can pay to make up for the loss of a loved one. That’s as true in Afghanistan as it is in the United States. It’s understandable, then, that some people in both countries found it insulting that the U.S. government reportedly gave $50,000 each to the families of the 17 villagers allegedly slain by Staff Sgt. Robert Bales earlier this month. "The villagers aren't like animals that you can buy," an unnamed Afghan official told ABC News. "Yes, it's a lot of money. But their children are not coming back."

The United States, for its part, has been offering “condolence payments” to civilian victims of its combat operations for years. The military won’t talk much about the practice, but documents obtained by the ACLU and the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC, show that the standard sum is $2,500. It’s not exactly blood money; the United States makes no admission of wrongdoing in cases where the victims are considered collateral damage, and the payment isn’t meant to reflect the full value of the life lost. Still, the amount of the payment is inevitably interpreted as a reflection of the extent to which the United States acknowledges harm done—and the extent to which it cares about that harm.
.....


The counterinsurgency strategy, which makes protection of civilians an explicit goal, may have helped (belatedly) in changing some perceptions. And while Republicans have blasted President Obama for apologizing for American missteps, including the Quran burnings, such public acknowledgments by the commander in chief go a long way as well. What Afghans want most of all is not money or apologies, but for Bales to face justice. Without a trial, the condolence payments do become blood money, in the worst sense; see the case of former CIA contractor Raymond Davis, whom Pakistan grudgingly released only after the United States forked over $2.3 million to the families of his two victims. Hassan Abbas, a former Pakistani government official and a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., notes that such payments not only fail to defuse resentment, but undermine the rule of law

For complete article, click here

The Bin Laden Mystery...

Ex-Pakistani soldier searches for the truth of Osama bin Laden's death
By Shaukat Qadir, The National, March 16, 2012

A note from the author: I started my efforts to discover the truth behind Osama bin Laden's execution in July 2011. Eight months have now passed since I commenced that work and I am still not finished. My adventures could easily fill a book, but I do not have the patience to write one, although my research and writing is large enough to qualify to be called a monograph. My thanks to The National for printing these extracts.



On May 2, 2011, I was in Islamabad when, in the small hours of the morning, I got a call from a friend, enquiring as to whether I had heard of the military operation in Abbottabad. I hadn't. I called another friend there, who told me that something was definitely going on: some explosions had been heard in the night and there had been considerable movement of troops since the explosion, but the entire operation appeared very hush-hush.
A couple of hours later, the story broke. We, in Pakistan, followed events with a variety of emotions: shock, dismay, betrayal, shame, disbelief but most of all, a sense of having been let down by our armed forces, our intelligence services, by our allies and especially by the Americans, for the insult they offered us in the accusation that the US couldn't trust us with the information.
Like many others, I was tracking the news as it unwound and numerous contradictions soon became apparent. Nobody seemed to have the real story of what happened that night. Conspiracy theories emerged from a variety of sources. Nobody in either the US or Pakistan seemed to accept the official versions, although the Pakistani people and the media were still baying for the army's blood.
But what, I wondered, was the truth?
•••
The story begins in August 2003, in a small village south of Gandamak in the province of Nangarhar, Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden (OBL) had been ailing physically and mentally for more than a year. Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's number two, had been running the day-to-day affairs, including receiving donations and distributing monies, weapons, and overseeing the drug- and gun-running operations of the organisation.
I have, over the years, made extensive contacts and friends in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. As far back as 2003, my friends there were divided in their opinions as to whether OBL was still alive. However, even then, those who held the view that he was were insistent that he was ill and had become largely irrelevant to Al Qaeda.
Various options of where OBL should be permanently housed were considered by the hierarchy, all of which were within Pakistan. It was decided that OBL should live a secluded family life, without armed guards to protect him (since they would draw attention to him), in a city not too far from the tribal areas, so as to remain in communication.
For complete article, click here


Related:
Details emerge about bin Laden's other residences - NY Daily News
Wife: Bin Laden Hid in Pakistan, Not Caves, for Decade - ABC News
A Flawed Narrative - Dawn