Pakistan’s education system has come under close observation and scrutiny since 9/11 as it was blamed for promoting militancy and fanning hatred and bigotry. Perhaps ours is the only country whose education policy and system has generated so much worry globally. Something’s got to be drastically wrong with it.
The educational system has three streams, i.e., private, public and madressah that serve different sections of society. The private sector is basically for those who can afford to pay for educating; the government schools are for the lower income groups that are unable to afford the high fees and related expenditure; the madressah education is availed by those who can’t afford even the nominal fees charged by the public sector schools and the expenses incurred.
Many in abject poverty look to these seminaries which provide free boarding and lodging facilities along with free education which is a big relief for the poverty-stricken. Of course, exceptions are there whereby some better off religious-minded people may also choose to enroll their child in a madressah; indeed, many such people are among the donors to seminaries.
Madressah as an institution started in the 11th century by Nizamul Mulk in Khorasan (Iran), hence the name Dars-i-Nizami, to train bureaucrats for the Seljuk empire. At that time it had a modern syllabus that included logic, grammar, mathematics, history, law and administration. After the Mongol attack in the 13th century, it collapsed like other institutions.
However, in contemporary Pakistan, religious seminaries are blamed to hold a very traditionalist and mediaeval worldview.
The faculty and the students are said to be hostile to the notions of globalisation and diversity as they don’t adhere to the principles of modern statehood like secular democracy. Many may disown secular laws, the writ of the state, pluralism, tolerance, gender equality and the separation of public and private spheres in individual life, as dictated by secular law.
Whenever the madressah system is discussed, two pertinent questions about its functioning and utility are raised. These are:
whether the syllabus is keeping up with the changing times; and, what are the prospects of employment for its graduates (as their degree is officially equivalent to graduation in Pakistan).
As far as the first question is concerned, it can be said safely that notwithstanding the tall claims by the successive governments and the regulatory and monitoring bodies, there is a very little substantial change in the system and, by and large, it remains the same old system.
Maulana Asadullah Bhutto, former MNA and the president of Jamat-i-Islami, Sindh, believes that the syllabus of the religious schools is compatible with the present-day demands, and imparts quality education. To elaborate his point, he says, “When a student enrolls in a madressah he comes there to get religious education and it is clear that he is not interested in other subjects, so why should he be expected to be well versed in other subjects too?”
He explains that there are three types of madressahs: they are called Nazara, Hifz and Deeni. The last mentioned specifically imparts religious education and trains future scholars. They are in the eye of the storm as all controversy revolves around them; many of them are blamed for promoting intolerance, sectarian violence and militancy. Maulana Bhutto firmly rejects the notion that madressah students lack creative and rational thinking and considers these allegations as part of the misinformation campaign to defame the institution.
However, on the other side of the fence, there is a common perception that madressah education is faring badly due to a lack of scientific curriculum and emphasis on social sciences. Madressah students can’t base their studies on reason and logic; instead, they rely on tenets of the faith which do not allow for reasoning.
Dr Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, dean and professor, faculty of management and social sciences, Biztek Institute of Business and Technology, Karachi, elucidates, “This factor is responsible for their rigidity of thought and rejection of the notions of tolerance, diversity and respect for difference of opinion. In order to bring the education level of the seminaries on a par with the other educational systems, there is a need to cultivate empirical thinking in students.”
Coming to the second question, about the employment prospects of madressah students, there is a divided opinion. One school of thought believes that students graduating from the seminaries can find jobs very easily and become part of the mainstream. As Qari Mohammad Usman, belonging to Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (F) and the Ameer of Karachi city, explains, “There is a huge demand for our graduates and most of them opt for teaching and usually open new madressahs. This way there is continuity in the process. They are also hired to teach Arabic and Islamiat in private schools due to their deep and profound knowledge.”
He strongly refutes the generally held view that madressah students are involved in terrorist activities, suicide bombings and sectarian violence and regards it as propaganda by their opponents.
Taking the debate to the next level, A.H. Nayyar, an academician associated with the Lahore University of Management Sciences, explains that an ordinary madressah graduate would seek to establish a new mosque, such as one at a construction site where labourers camp, needing a small space for daily prayers. A maulvi would look after this modest space, keeping it clean and conducting prayers. Once a functioning mosque, he places a collection box outside and in the nearby marketplace for donations, which he gets generously. This secures his bread and butter.
“The donation also goes into further construction of the mosque, which now far exceeds the original area of a rudimentary structure, and includes the construction of living quarters for the maulvi. The mosque will eventually grow into a fine permanent structure with electricity, running water, internal furnishing, a good number of loudspeakers, and finally may evolve into a madressah. The modest maulvi sahib, too, now becomes a maulana or an allama; the madressah employs many more graduates as teachers. Even when a mosque does not grow into a madressah, it will most certainly act as an elementary Quran school, which nearly every neighbourhood needs,” adds Nayyar.
Conversely, many madressah graduates also go for business and trade because trading is looked at as the vocation of the Prophet (PBUH). This is also a reason why seminaries and religio-political parties enjoy substantial support amongst the trading classes.
Madressahs and related issues are more often than not associated with hunger, poverty and the rise in population. An overwhelming number of those sending their children to seminaries are the ones who can’t provide two square meals and education. Therefore, madressahs somewhat fill the gap left behind by the state; many say that they are here to stay and grow in number as long as there is poverty, rich and poor divide, food insecurity, limited job opportunities and inequality in society.
Ahmed Salim, a senior research advisor at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, who has done extensive research on the topic, endorses this observation and articulates that this whole debate boils down to the policy issues of successive governments which lack the political will to change the dynamics of governance.
It can be concluded that in order to streamline madressah education and bring it more in sync with the job market, the basic approach should be changed in the acquisition of knowledge. Emphasis should be placed on teaching market-oriented and skill-based subjects in the madressahs. This will help the students find jobs in the market and thus develop a stake in being part of the mainstream society instead of being on a parallel, alternative path.
The madissah graduates do serve the religious needs of common public up to great extent, especially in normal ritualistic routine, however they do not perform well to satisfy the intellectual and theosophical challenges faced by educated lot. They can not even communicate at same pedestal. The modern modes of communication in cyber world provide much more but pearls have to be separated from trash. Some Madrissah students should also get in to field of Information Technology, Medicine, Science, Engineering and so on.. This shall have positive effects in making a pluralist modern Muslim society.[ Aftab Khan]
A matchless specimen of comprehensiveness and brevity of the message of Qur’an, a whole world of meaning has been compressed into three short sentences in Surah 103, in few brief words, which is too vast in content to be fully expressed even in a book. In it, in a clear and plain way it has been stated what is the way to true success & salvation for man and what is the way to ruin and destruction for him. The great scholar of Islam; Imam Shafie has very rightly said that if the people only consider (understand) this Chapter well, it alone would suffice them for their guidance(Ibne Kathir), he is also reported to have said that , if only this Chapter was revealed in the Qur’an, it would have been sufficient for the guidance of mankind (Abdah). How important this Surah was in the sight of the Companions can be judged from the tradition cited from Abdullah bin Hisn ad-Darimi Abu Madinah, according to which whenever any two of them met they would not part company until they had recited Surah Al-Asr to each other. (Tabarani). According to Imam Razi; This Surah [103] is very harsh, because Allah has decided to destroy all the mankind except those who comply with the four conditions i.e. to have faith, perform Righteous Deeds, urge one an other to Truth and to Patience and Constancy. It implies that the salvation is collectively contingent upon these four acts. As every human is concerned about his own self similarly he has to preach to others i.e. inviting to the Deen (Islam), advise to act on good things and avoid forbidden and the prohibitions. Read and watch click <<Essence of Quran in 3 Verses>>
I must have been less than ten years old when I first heard of Alhamra and Granada. PTV’s drama serial Shaheen, which was based on Nasim Hijazi’s novel, had captured my young imagination. Badr bin Mughira was perhaps my first childhood hero. I wanted to grow up like him – a handsome and chivalrous warrior – concerned with the tragedy of Muslim downfall and in love with Rabia, whose beauty eclipsed that of Alhamra! Such were the days.
Some twenty years later I was walking in the same gardens where Badr and Rabia might have bid their farewell. I was standing in the same halls where treacherous Abu Dawud and incompetent Abu Abdullah might have decided the fate of Granada and its people. But then I had grown out of the spell of Hijazi’s historical-fictional narrative and dreams of Badr and Rabia had long been forgotten. Then, I was a graduate student at a university near Valencia. Therefore, my reasons for being in Spain were completely educational. I continued to become a student of Islam and Muslim societies with a special interest in Spain. I also took up Classical Arabic which now helps me to read the walls of Alhamra on my own. I was becoming a scholar who began to question romantic narratives of selected Muslim past created and propagated by writers like Hijazi.
Still, the first time I laid eyes on Alhamra from the opposing hill I was spellbound. Yes, some childhood memories remained etched in my mind but overall it was the magic of the structure’s wondrous presence. As I explored Alhamra the following day, I completely fell in love with the jewel of Granada. I have been fortunate enough to have visited the Alhamra three times and I have learnt much to appreciate its history and significance for the past and present.
Granada was the seat of Nasrid dynasty (1238-1492) of Moors, a term which was normally used to describe Arabs from North Africa or Muslims in general in Spain. Granada had become the most important city-state after the fall of Cordoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248 at the hands of the armies of Spanish monarchs. The holy alliance of Queen Isabel I of Castile and King Fernando of Aragon finally defeated the kingdom of Granada in 1492 – the last Muslim stronghold in the Iberian Peninsula. Its humiliated king, Abu Abdullah Muhammad XII (1460-1527) left for Morocco in exile. The city of Granada or Gharnata as it is known in the Muslim world and as it had existed in my own memory, invokes mixed feelings for many people. On the one hand it represents the height of Muslim power and prestige in Spain, while on the other, it represents its downfall.
Beginning in 1238, the construction of the Alhamra palace, fortifications to the existing castle, and gardens took about a century to complete. – Photo by Aurangzeb Haneef/Dawn.com
Granada was both a pride and humiliation for the Muslims, and a prize for Catholic monarchs of Spain. Situated in fertile valleys by Sierra Nevada Mountains and not very far from the Mediterranean, Granada was ideal for a secure and prosperous living. Moorish rule brought it to new heights. In popular Spanish memory Granada came to hold a rather romanticised vision. The Spanish saying goes: “Quien no ha visto Granada, no ha visto nada,” meaning that one who has not seen Granada has not seen anything. Poets wrote about it, singers sang about it, and travelers walked about it.
If Granada was a prize, then Alhamra was its most precious possession. For centuries the Nasrid palace and the adjacent gardens have been a source of inspiration for artists, musicians, lovers, and historians. In the 19th century Washington Irving helped to revive the popularity of Granada in the wider Western world through his still published travelogue: Tales of Alhamra. A late nineteenth century composition in Spanish guitar called Memories of Alhamra (Recuerdos de la alhambra) is a very enchanting composition that captures the Continuous Bliss (Arabic: al- ghibta al-muttasila) inscribed on the walls of the palace. On one of the towers of the castle of Alhamra, the words of Mexican poet Icaza stand true:
Spare him a penny, woman! For I cannot call to mind
A sadder fate for a human than to be in Granada – and blind!
Alhamra is situated strategically on a hill overlooking the city of Granada. Beneath the trees at the base of the hill flows river Darro. It makes a pathway along one of its sides which is lined with shops, bars and restaurants. There are two theories about the name of Alhamra. First is that the hill appeared reddish due to the colour of its soil. The materials used for the construction of the complex also gave it a red look from a distance. Second theory is that the builders of Alhamra, the Nasrids belonged to the family of one al-Ahmar (most red one) from which the name was acquired. Whatever the real reason was, the name Alhamra has stuck. Spaniards spell it with a ‘b’: Alhambra.
The Alhamra complex constitutes the Nasrid Palace, the Castle and the Gardens. Beginning in 1238, the construction of the palace, fortifications to the existing castle, and gardens took about a century to complete. Amendments and additions were constantly made until 1492.
Before Alhamra, the Nasrid court was located on the facing hill called Albaicín. The name is perhaps a distortion of Arabic al-baziyyun or al-baizin meaning the Falconers. One is immediately reminded of a Hijazi’s Shaheen which lamented the fall of the last Muslim state of Granada in Spain. A less interesting theory points the origin of this name to the people of Baeza who fled from the invading Christian armies and settled in some parts of this hill.
The old quarters of Albaicín were housed mostly by Muslim and Jewish citizens who worked with the Moorish Court until the re-conquest by Christian armies. The highest tower is that of the Church of San Nicholas whose mirador is a popular visiting point from which one can appreciate the distant architecture of Alhamra. Albaicín was also declared a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1984.
If Islamic architecture is to be distinguished by one thing only, it would be the arches. And in Alhamra there are plenty. One after another – a never ending sequence – of all sizes, adorned with ever-changing patterns but never seeming sudden or out of place – always in synch with each other. A continuous bliss of arches! Walking through these one tends to lose any sense of direction and time.
Predestination is the most misconstrue doctrine of theology, the misunderstanding has been catastrophic for the people and even nations. Christianity and Islam have their own doctrines. Some people exploit the supreme power of God and His Will, to take refuge for their wrong actions behind Will of God, as if they are innocent, saying; “it was will of God, that I killed a person” or “It was will of God that I am disbeliever” and so on. If human being are not free to perform good or evil deeds, then it is unfair to punish them, it is against justice of God. But God is not unjust. lets try to understand this doctrine through Bible and Quran: The balanced Islamic doctrine of Predestination is based upon professing His Will, Power to plan and execute, His ‘Timeless Knowledge’ and limited freedom of choice granted to man for trial. Read full >>>> http://wp.me/PCgrB-8g
Leon E. Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who replaced Robert M. Gates as defense secretary on July 1, said during his confirmation hearing last week that Pakistan, an important American ally, also remains a serious problem. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the relationship with Pakistan was "one of the most critical, and yet one of the most complicated and frustrating relationships that we have." Mr. Panetta added that Pakistan's nuclear weapons remained a concern because of "the danger that those nukes could wind up in the wrong hands." So, what will happen at that point in time? This is a part of the vision that I have seen.
US at war with Pakistan
Real facts about US plan. Implementation of NEW WORLD ORDER
Attack on Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons to result in WWW-3
By Robert Windrem
NBC News Investigative Producer for Special Projects
As U.S.-Pakistani relations spiral downward, the specter of a showdown between the increasingly antagonistic allies is garnering more attention, including the worst-case scenario of the U.S. attempting to “snatch” Pakistan’s 100-plus nuclear weapons if it feared they were about to fall into the wrong hands.
That would be a disastrous miscalculation, former Pakistani President and army chief Pervez Musharraf told NBC News, saying that such an incursion would lead to “total confrontation” between the United States and Pakistan.
A Medium Range Ballistic Missile Hatf V (Ghauri) missile takes off during a test fire from an undisclosed location in Pakistan on Dec. 21 in this photo distributed by the Pakistani military. The liquid-fuel missile can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads and has a range of more than 800 miles.
Privately, current and former U.S. officials say that ensuring the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has long been a high national security priority, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that plans have been drawn up for dealing with worst-case scenarios in Pakistan.
The greatest success of the U.S. war on terrorism – the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden in his safehouse in Pakistan in May – has fueled the concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, increasing suspicions among U.S. officials that he had support within the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, and emboldening those in Washington who believe an orchestrated campaign of lightning raids to secure Pakistan’s nukes could succeed.
It’s no secret that the United States has a plan to try to grab Pakistan’s nuclear weapons -- if and when the president believes they are a threat to either the U.S. or U.S. interests. Among the scenarios seen as most likely: Pakistan plunging into internal chaos, terrorists mounting a serious attack against a nuclear facility, hostilities breaking out with India or Islamic extremists taking charge of the government or the Pakistan army.
In the aftermath of the bin Laden raid, U.S. military officials have testified before Congress about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the threat posed by “loose nukes” – nuclear weapons or materials outside the government’s control. And earlier Pentagon reports also outline scenarios in which U.S. forces would intervene to secure nuclear weapons that were in danger of falling into the wrong hands.
But out of fear of further antagonizing an important ally, officials have simultaneously tried to tone down the rhetoric by stressing progress made by Islamabad on the security front.
Such discussions of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, now believed to consist of as many as 115 nuclear bombs and missile warheads, have gotten the attention of current and former Pakistani officials. In an interview with NBC News early this month, Musharraf warned that a snatch-and-grab operation would lead to all-out war between the countries, calling it “total confrontation by the whole nation against whoever comes in.”
Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf met with Texas Gov. Rick Perry on July 12 in Austin to exchange ideas about improving the economy and discuss the strained relationship between the U.S. and Pakistani governments. Musharraf has been critical of the White House's recent suspension of $800 million in U.S. aid to the Pakistani military, saying the decreased aid will hurt his country and hinder its fight against terrorism.
advertisement
“These are assets which are the pride of Pakistan, assets which are dispersed and very secure in very secure places, guarded by a corps of 18,000 soldiers,” said a combative Musharraf, who led Pakistan for nearly a decade and is again running for president. “… (This) is not an army which doesn't know how to fight. This is an army which has fought three wars. Please understand that.”
Pervez Hoodboy, Pakistan’s best known nuclear physicist and a human rights advocate, rarely agrees with the former president. But he, too, says a U.S. attempt to take control of Pakistan’s nukes would be foolhardy.
“They are said to be hidden in tunnels under mountains, in cities, as well as regular air force and army bases,” he said. “A U.S. snatch operation could trigger war; it should never be attempted.”
Despite such comments, interviews with current and former U.S. officials, military reports and even congressional testimony indicate that Pakistan’s weaponry has been the subject of continuing discussions, scenarios, war games and possibly even military exercises by U.S. intelligence and special operations forces regarding so-called “snatch-and-grab” operations.
“It’s safe to assume that planning for the worst-case scenario regarding Pakistan nukes has ready taken place inside the U.S. government,” said Roger Cressey, former deputy director of counterterrorism in the Clinton and Bush White House and an NBC News consultant. “This issue remains one of the highest priorities of the U.S. intelligence community ... and the White House.”
Carefully worded assurances
Mindful of the growing distrust and suspicions between Washington and Islamabad, U.S. officials have publicly tried to defuse concerns that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could be compromised. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress two weeks ago that Pakistan’s atomic arsenal has become “physically more secure” and the U.S. has seen “training improve” for personnel charged with securing the weapons.
But does “more secure” and “improved” training mean the Pakistanis have met U.S. standards?
Jeffrey T. Richelson, an intelligence historian, has written extensively about the possibility of a U.S. military operation aimed at Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, notably in his 2009 book “Defusing Armageddon.” The book focuses on the U.S. Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST), which might play leading a role in disarming Pakistani weapons along with elements of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
The nuts-and-bolts of how such an operation would work – such as whether teams would attempt to disarm or destroy the weapons – remain highly classified.
advertisement
But Richelson notes that without referring to Pakistan by name, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2006 discussed two types of operations where in which the U.S. military would seek to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of al-Qaida or other militants.
Detailed in a military policy document titled “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the two scenarios were: “elimination operations” – defined as “operations systematically to locate, characterize, secure, disable and/or destroy a State or non-State actor’s WMD programs and related capabilities” – and “interdiction operations” – finding and seizing nuclear devices or nuclear material it has been removed from a nation’s storage bunkers but not yet delivered to a terrorist group.
Richelson also obtained an unclassified PowerPoint presentation titled “Detecting, Identifying and Localizing WMD” by the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SOLIC). In it were slides referring to “clandestine or low-visibility special operations taken to: locate, seize, destroy, capture, recover or render safe WMD,” either on land or sea. He said such a mission has been a special operations forces priority since 2002.
Neither the report nor the PowerPoint presentation specify where such operations would be considered, but Richelson says that both were prepared with Pakistan in mind.
“The focus on Pakistan,” he wrote, “is the result of its being both the least stable of the nine nuclear weapons states and the one where there has been significant support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, not only among the general population but also within the military and intelligence forces.”
Publicly, U.S. officials don’t want to embarrass or infuriate Pakistani officials by suggesting such an operation would be possible, a point brought home in a White House press conference on April 29, 2009. After President Barack Obama spoke of the confidence he had in the Pakistani Army’s ability to secure the nuclear weapons, NBC News’ Chuck Todd began to ask if the U.S. military would step in and seize weapons that were at risk.
Obama quickly cut him off. “I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands, OK?”
'All nuclear matters are controlled by the army'
While the U.S. has a non-proliferation policy that aims for the elimination of Third World weaponry, it also has been working with Islamabad to minimize the current threat, sending an estimated $100 million to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to improve the safety and security of the Pakistani nukes.
But Pakistan never permitted U.S. officials to visit the weapons bunkers or see how the U.S.-purchased equipment was working. In fact, Richelson writes, the Pakistanis have gone so far as to set up decoy bunkers to throw off anyone trying to keep track of the arsenal.
And physical security and protection from terrorists only addresses one aspect of the threat, Hoodboy said.
“Technology determines safety, but only partly,” he told NBC News. “Ultimately it depends upon the men who have control over nuclear weapons. … Governments come, governments go. But all nuclear matters are controlled by the army. The important question is whether the army has total, absolute control over its nukes. I have no idea whether this control is absolute, and doubt how anyone can know for sure.”
There are additional reasons to be concerned. In July 2009, for example, the journal of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point reported that “home-grown terrorists” had tried to enter Pakistani nuclear facilities three times between 2007 and 2008, when Pakistan was wracked by rioting and a series of destructive suicide bombings.
Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Center at the University of Bradford in England, wrote of the attacks.
“These have included an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sarghoda on Nov. 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan’s nuclear air base at Kamra by a suicide bomber on Dec. 10, 2007, and, perhaps most significantly, the Aug. 20, 2008, attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons assembly sites.”
Pakistani officials have played down the seriousness of such attacks, noting that the attackers were unable to enter what are large military bases, much less penetrate the inner defenses.
Musharraf, who was president of Pakistan during the three reported attacks, dismissed the threat in talking with NBC News. Asked if terrorists were targeting Pakistan’s nuclear assets, he replied, “I don't think so. I don't think they are trying actively to get to our nuclear assets. And we have no such intelligence. Never.”
His statement is, at best, a disingenuous and narrow reading of the intelligence, according to former senior U.S. intelligence officials, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity. These officials point to an August 2001 campfire meeting between bin Laden and his successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, and two Pakistani nuclear scientists, part of a so-called Islamic charity called UTN, on the other. With planning for the 9/11 attacks nearly complete, the two al-Qaida leaders wanted a tutorial on nuclear weapons development, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
advertisement
Tenet's tense meeting
Then-CIA Director George Tenet, in fact, wrote in his memoir, “At the Center of the Storm,” of a tense discussion he had with Musharraf in Islamabad shortly after the U.S. found out about the meeting.
“After a few pleasantries … I launched into a description of the campfire meeting between (O)sama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and the UTN leaders,” Tenet wrote. “‘Mr. President,’ I said, ‘you cannot imagine the outrage there would be in my country if it were learned that Pakistan is coddling scientists who are helping bin Laden acquire a nuclear weapon. Should such a device ever be used, the full fury of the American people would be focused on whoever helped al-Qaida in its cause.”
In a testimony before Congress four months ago, the CIA’s new director, Gen. David Petraeus, left little doubt the U.S. still fears the worst. “There are certainly elements in Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban and several other varieties of elements who generally have symbiotic relationships, the most extreme of which might, indeed, value access to nuclear weapons or other weapons that could cause enormous loss of life,” said Petraeus, then commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Like others in the U.S. government, however, Petraeus felt duty bound to note, “There is considerable security for the Pakistani nuclear weapons.” But he appeared to choose his words with care. “Considerable” does not mean “state of the art,” for example.
Not everyone thinks the U.S. is very worried about Pakistan’s nukes falling into the wrong hands. Zia Mian, a colleague of Hoodboy’s and director of the Project on Peace and Security in South Asia at Princeton, said war gaming and exercising for dire situations is something the Pentagon and CIA do all the time.
“The U.S. exercised global nuclear war. They’ve exercised attacking Iran. You’ve got to be ready,” Mian argues. “It suggests to me there are people whose job is to be worried. So when someone asks you, you say you’re worried. But when you’re reading the WikiLeaks disclosure, when you read embassy talking points, the nuclear weapons barely figure.”
Of course, the main question is if, in the last resort, the U.S. did attempt to “snatch” Pakistan’s weapons, would it work? Hoodboy thinks it’s unlikely to have the intended effect and could very well lead to one of two scenarios, both with potentially disastrous outcomes.
“An American attack on Pakistan's nuclear production or storage sites would be extremely dangerous and counterproductive,” he said. “By comparison the bin Laden operation involved only minor risks. Even if a single Pakistani nuke (out of roughly 100) escapes destruction, that last one could be unimaginably dangerous.” Hoodboy added that no seems to have thought through another scenario, one where there is confusion about who snatched the bomb. “The situation is more uncertain than even this. For one, it might trigger nuclear war with India, even if India was not involved in the snatch.”
I am an old intelligence analyst (though of the North Korean persuasion) and had studied many of these issues (albeit pertaining primarily with chemical, biological, and "ditry" nuclear weapons) for a number of years. North Korea had a great deal of input and received a great deal of missile technology in return from Khan in this matter, so it is likelyu very pertinent.
1) This is a situation where 100% mission success is required. If only one device is not captured, it will be immediately used or will be immediately transferred to terrorists for use in order to prevent its capture.
2) Such a "focused" strike would require simultaneous penetration of numerous areas of the country. The geography of the country means that this will never happen. These weapons are not stored in an ungarded compound, as was bin Laden, but are in fortified, heavily guarded, special-purpose facilities. These are not potential SEAL targets (except for reconnaissance), but would require combined arms and air superiority. I have seen generals overreach and seen the consequences --- remember the disastrous "can't fail" attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages?
3) One thing North Korea has contributed to Pakistan is the "shell game". If the North Korean model is followed, the 100+ nukes (they increase by about 1 every two months) are stored in a minimum of 100 facilities with varying numbers of warheads at each site. The facilities are fully guarded and fully functional, but at any given time 70 of them are empty. Even the troops guarding them do not know if they are in use. The Pakistanis have sophisticated enough radar to know when there are no reconnaissance satellites overhead and use those "windows" to shuffle the weapons between sites. This means that all 70+ sites would have to be attacked simultaneously. This is too tall an order for a "snatch and grab."
4) People always forget that nuclear weapons are the weapons of losers. This is taught to every military man in every war college in the world. If you paint any country with nukes into a small enough corner, they will use their nukes as a last resort. All their weapons systems are designed and hardened or hidden with this in mind. It's the "if we lose we'll take the bastards with us" mentality. Since it is India that is targeted (though some targeting may have been shifted to places like Bagram AB) it is likely that millions of uninvolved innocents would die.
5) We have far, far too much confidence in high technology. For my part that is too many eggs in too few baskets. We seem to think that things like MOABs, "Bunker Buster" bombs, and even nuclear weapons can destroy almost any target. That could not be further from the truth. Some are too large to be carried by stealth aircraft, others so large they have to be carried by low-flying transports, and others require that immense numbers of innocent civilians be killed along with the target. In North Korea, in the old days of the 1960's and 1970's, we planned on neutralizing a lot of North Korean facilities by using nerve gas and possibly even biological weapons such as anthrax. We have given up those wespons by treaty. We can't even use cluster bombs without risking a huge international backlash since we are one of the few nations what have not ratified the anti-cluster munitions treaty. In short, the idea that we can breach any bunker with current munitions is a wholesale myth.
6) Both India and Pakistan are nuclear armed. And presumption that Pakistan was using or was about to use CBR weapons against ANY target, even in retaliation for a US raid, would prompt truly massive nuclear response by India who would love to rid the world of their long-time enemy who sponsored the Mumbai terrorist raid and the more recent bombings. We have virtually no control over India since Pakistan is our "friend" and India is still our "enemy" since 1948. The Indian government sees the US as a country with no credibility and a great deal of animosity toward India.
While every country has contingency plans for every thing they can think of, most of them represent the last measure of desparation when every other military and diplomatic option has failed. Virtualy all of them are suicide missions. When it comes down to brass tacks, the US military would never decide to launch a large combined arms attach against virtually all of Pakistan with the greatest liklihood being that virtually all the troops would be casualties, nuclear war could easily result, and it is highly unlikely that the mission objectives would be more than partially met in the best case and completely fubar in the worst case (again think about the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages.) Cooler heads would mean that this would never be attempted unless the warheads were all on warheads and ready to go. And then it would be too late already.
If US decides to undertake this venture, it will not care for any moral, ethics or international treaties, hence use of unconventional weapons like Biological, Chemical, Electromagnetic even nuclear waves [gamma rays etc] can not be ruled out. Prior to it they shall create favourable environments to get international support through UN. Propaganda through media will be extensively used, simultaneously using their pawns [Pakistani Taliban, terrroists] to launch suicide attacks at sensitive installations [remember Mehran Naval Base].
They would incapacitate the defenders and complete the mission. It is up to defenders of Pakistan's Nuclear weapons how they counter it, using deception, early warning, interception, terminal defence, reserves, technology and other innovative means. If they do their homework well and do not allow themselves to be isolated internationally, highlighting their strong reaction with long term ramifications USA & co would be deterred and refrain to undertake such a foolish venture. Pakistan has to have strong political leadership ....... [Brigadier Aftab Khan (Retired)]
Growing anti-Americanism in Pakistan: In April 2009 warnings by
US military and intelligence officials as reported by the McClatchy News
Service echoed what certain dissenting CIA operatives had said about drone
strikes that they do more harm than good.
CIA Drones Killed Over 2000, Mostly Civilians in Pakistan
Since...: Drone strikes were a comparative rarity when
President Bush was in office, but have been dramatically and repeatedly
escalated by President Obama, usually in retaliation for attacks by militant
groups. This has led CMC to term the
US has lost battle for hearts as well: A warnings by US military
and intelligence officials as reported by the McClatchy News Service echoed
what certain dissenting CIA operatives had said about drone strikes that they
do more harm than good....
Wake up America, You are are being Cheated - by your own leaders!!! Facts of War on Terror
-- open your eyes ....... Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on
Terror from John Pilger on Vimeo....
US prepares for worst-case scenario with Pakistan Nukes may Trigger WW3 ? ... http://t.co/UHYla8d
Over a quarter million people took to the to the streets Saturday to protest spiralling living costs and soaring rents that are making it impossible for working people to make ends meet. The marches were the largest social protest in Israel’s history; accounting for the size of Israel’s population, this is the equivalent of a protest by 10 million people in the United States, or 2 million in Britain.
At the largest rally in Tel Aviv, over 200,000 young people, retired couples and families, both Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews, demonstrated under the slogan “the government has abandoned the people.” Banners read “The People Demand Social Justice” and “An entire generation
demands a future.”
At least 30,000 people turned out in Jerusalem, with some demonstrators marching on the residence of Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Smaller rallies took place in Beer Sheva, Haifa and so-called development or slum towns such as Kiryat Shmona, Ashkelon, and Dimona.
Palestinian activists set up a tent city in Taibeh that has attracted hundreds of visitors, while a number of Druze youngsters have set up tents outside Yarka and Julis, villages in the Western Galilee.
Participants in the protests have made powerful comparisons with the mass movements that are sweeping Arab countries, particularly Egypt and Tunisia. Protesters carry signs written in Hebrew and Arabic reading “Resign, Egypt is here.” Tel Aviv’s Habima Square is being called Netanyahu’s Tahrir Square.
The demonstrations, which are now in their fourth week, started as a Facebook call for a tent city protest in Tel Aviv over the cost of housing. They have spread throughout the country, fuelled by the outrage over the dozen billionaire families that monopolise much of Israel’s economy. It is a powerful outcry against Israel’s proteksia, the byword for its system of rule by money and connections.
The Israeli stock market plunged 7 percent yesterday, after its opening was delayed 45 minutes to avert panic selling. Traders were reportedly responding both to Standard and Poor’s downgrading of the US credit rating, and to fears about the impact of the protests.
The protesters’ demands are growing. There were calls to halt the programme of “free market” reforms and the cuts to social budgets in health and education. The National Union of Israeli Students called for an expansion of free education and bigger government housing budgets.
In an unprecedented move, the protest organizers have embraced two demands of Israel’s Palestinian citizens: state recognition of the unrecognized villages throughout the country, especially the Bedouin communities in the Negev, and approval of master plans to expand local authorities’ jurisdiction and enable construction.
Last Thursday, parents marched in Tel Aviv, Ariel, Herzliya and other cities to protest the high cost of raising children, while high school and college students held a demonstration opposite the Education Minister’s Tel Aviv residence. Demonstrators set up tents to protest the new housing law that aids developers by fast-tracking approval for residential construction.
Alongside the protests is the ongoing five-month resident hospital doctors’ strike over low pay and long hours. The government and doctors’ union leaders are desperate to settle the dispute, to prevent it from developing into a broader strike movement against the government. Doctors in a number of hospitals have threatened to resign if their demands are not met.
This week, the government agreed to fund an additional 1,000 posts and provide grants of up to NIS 300,000 ($85,000) for doctors who move to outlying regions or transfer to in-demand specialities.
As the protests gather momentum, however, the main leaders have shunned direct political slogans and demands that the movement should come out in direct opposition to the government and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Stav Shafir, one of the founders of the Tel Aviv tent city, said in an interview on Israeli television, “We are not asking to change the prime minister. We are asking to change the system.”
Netanyahu’s coalition government confronts a major political crisis. The most right wing government in Israel’s history, Netanyahu is dependent upon the support of Foreign Secretary Avigdor Lieberman from the ultra-right Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home) party.
Netanyahu has made clear that his ultra-right government intends to make no real concessions to protesters’ demands. He has responded with some cosmetic changes and vague promises of “reform,” lauding the National Housing Committees Law, which the Knesset passed on Wednesday, as the solution to the housing crisis, all of which have been angrily dismissed by the protestors.
The role of the Histadrut trade union is particularly perfidious. Having called off several strikes over budget cuts last Monday, Ofer Eini, its general secretary, called a one-day strike of municipal workers. Eini claimed this was in solidarity with the protests; however, the real purpose was not to lead a fight against the government but to stifle and control the growing movement. Eini said explicitly in a radio interview that he had no intention of “bringing down the government.”
Under conditions where workers face an ultra-right government determined to make no concessions to the working class, this amounts to an open admission by Eini that his union intends not to prosecute a struggle by the working class, but to block it.
The prime minister has refused to meet the protest leaders to hear their demands, referring them instead to a “dialogue team” which is charged with coming up with a plan by mid-September, headed by Harvard-educated Israeli economist Manuel Trajtenberg. Netanyahu held out the prospect of “major change,” but warned that he would “not be able to satisfy everyone.”
There is a very real danger that the Netanyahu government will resort to its usual tactic of launching a provocation against the Palestinian people or neighbouring Arab states as a diversion from the growing social unrest. Israel’s security forces have recently launched provocative raids on Gaza, killing at least two people, and arresting several people in the West Bank, increasing tensions in the region.
In recent months, Lieberman and his allies within Netanyahu’s Likud Party have pushed a number of anti-democratic laws threatening Israel’s Palestinian citizens, and those who seek a peace deal with the Palestinians and free speech. These include the Nakba law, which bans public funding for groups that mark Israel’s “independence day” as Palestinians do by declaring the creation of the Jewish state to be a Nakba—Arabic for “catastrophe.”
Another makes it an offence for Israelis to take part in a boycott against Israel or Israeli settlements, rendering them liable to lawsuits or compensation payments of up to $10,000 or both. Another strips those convicted of espionage against the state of their citizenship.
There are currently attempts to remove Arabic, the first language of Israel’s 1.8 million indigenous Palestinian citizens, as one of Israel’s three official languages—Hebrew, Arabic and English. Right-wing forces are also seeking to outlaw international funding for human rights groups whose reports were cited in the United Nations’ Goldstone report, which accused Israel’s army of war crimes in the 2009 Gaza war.
In contrast to the chauvinist policies of the ruling class, the entry into struggle of Jewish and Arab workers in Israel amid an upsurge of revolutionary struggles throughout the Middle East highlights the unity of the working class across ethnic and national boundaries. The fact that these struggles emerge amid an unprecedented and deepening crisis of world capitalism further underlines their historic significance.
As in Egypt and Tunisia, the fundamental question facing workers is the development of a politically independent movement of the working class, based on a unified struggle for socialist policies by workers throughout the region.
