The Pakistani Spectator

In the response of my article nameD “Consensus Between PPP & PML (N) in Linking with Lobbying Firms In Washington”, Insaf Khan expressed his reaction by writing:  “In fact, the PML-N does NOT want to waste Pakistani tax-payers money by hiring any old or new (American Neo-Con, Zionist, Evangelist, Christian, or Jewish) lobby firms in Washington DC, USA.” Among some, alleging Evangelist, Christian, or Jewish has become a fashion for the foolishness of some of our leaders.

Let’s look into this issue of perceived exploitation and unfair treatment of Muslims through analyzing the hiring of lobbying firm by the Pakistani embassy in Washington. This examination could explain how people like Insaf Khan shift the blame wrongfully toward Christians and Jews for the follies committed by Muslims like President Musharraf.

The lobbyists of Marsteller and BKSH & Associates, Van Scoyoc Associates and Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, regardless of their religion, did not have to be hired by the Pakistani embassy.  Since it was Musharraf government’s decision to hire them, Insaf Khan, by blaming others, is being as much as guilty as some of the Christians who liken the religion OF Islam with terrorism.

An analysis of President Musharraf’s policies – the ones considered less than perfect — would exonerate the parties Insaf Khan alleged.

Firstly, the alleged parties did not bring Musharraf into power.

Secondly, regarding his relatively recent error, Musharraf made the first mistake by overestimating his own personal importance in American foreign policy when he fired Justice Iftikhar Ch. Before the firing, Musharraf, probably, felt that nothing could go wrong with him as long as he had President Bush’s blessings.

Thirdly, Musharraf also underestimated the power of the pictures of black suits and tie lawyers’ protest against him on the Pakistani streets. In one of the hearings on Capitol Hill about Pakistan, I remember hearing one Congressman saying that the highly educated Americans lawyers and some financial analysts on Wall Street could relate themselves with the demonstrating Pakistani lawyers.

Fourthly, Musharraf is wrong, if he thinks of himself as some kind of extraordinary world leader loved by Bush and/or any other American leader. Within last four decades during their longest rule, two Pakistani Generals, Zia-Ul-Haq and Musharraf, have respectively given their country the legacies of gun culture and of having Pakistani troops and tribes fight with each other.

Fifthly, about Musharraf’s legacy, even some American politicians are saying that it is better to attract a tribal leader with $10,000 than wasting $100,000 to kill him.  President Musharraf should have realized it a long time ago, if he considers himself to be an insightful leader.
Sixthly, for some observers, by creating revulsion among Pakistani tribal leaders, Musharraf has weakened Pakistani defense in any future confrontation with India. Unless there is some kind of resolution of the Kashmir issue, there is always the possibility of a conflict between the two countries. Because of Musharraf’s less than perfect decisions, the Pakistani army has diminished its stature among tribal leaders’ hearts who in the past loved to defend the country.

Seventhly, it is Musharraf who sold Pakistani armed forces services to America for cheap.  It happened because there was not any democracy in the country.

Eighthly, it is President Musharraf and not the alleged parties who delayed the democracy by looking for excuses to hold onto the power in Pakistan.

Ninthly, the PML-Q, MQM and the Pakistani army are the parties who first tolerated and supported Musharraf, and given Musharraf did not have their support, America would not have backed him.

Tenthly, About the U.S. influence on Pakistani army, it was the Chief of Army staff, Musharraf, who was able to send some senior Pakistani Generals — who could have prevented him from following President Bush blindly — in the private sector because those Generals got some good financial packages as incentives to leave the army to become executives of some big organizations. Again, America should not be blamed for those Generals’ choices of going into private sector.

After Musharraf had enough support at home then U.S. supported him because U.S. didn’t want to have many decision makers in the form of a powerful national assembly and an assertive Ministry of Foreign affairs led by a strong opposition leader like Khawaja Asif of Sialcot.  These strong national institutions and hotheaded Pakistani politicians would have delayed the Pakistani cooperation with America on its ‘War on Terror.’

To be precise, it’s unfortunate that some Muslims blame Evangelist, Christian, or Jewish when they get hurt for making the mistakes that have nothing to do with the accused.

In summary, Jews and Evangelist Christian did not do the following: To bring General Musharraf into power, to make the Pakistani army, PML-Q and MQM support him, make him support Bush, make some senior Pakistani Generals to leave the army, to make Musharraf sell the services of Pakistani soldiers just for $700/month and to ask  Ambassador Durrani to hire a lobbying firm for $45,000/month.

It’s interesting that Americans don’t blame Muslims for the mistakes of their leaders. One could look at our VP Dick Cheney, for example. He could not or did not go to Vietnam when it was time for him to go, but he is known to be one of the first to send young American servicemen abroad on ill advised missions.

Some liberal Americans who hate VP Cheney and his policies criticize him harshly. But they don’t blame any other race, Muslims, or any third world countries for the perceived wrong deeds of VP Cheney. Some Muslims, Pakistanis, or third world countries have no reason to blame Evangelist, Christian, or Jewish for the problems created by their own Muslim leaders, and they certainly should not blame them for the mess created by Musharraf.