Trivializing The ISIS Threat



Regardless of the factors leading to the creation of the Islamic State or ISIS, there is little debate that it is a disturbing entity.

Even the most shameless Sunni apologists of the terrorist entity could feel some disturbance at their gruesome abuse of the local people in Iraq and Syria. Their treatment of the Yazidi women has particularly been the most chilling for the global conscience. To add insult to injury, they have been systematically wiping out the archeological treasures of the region, which should alarm anyone who treasures human civilization.

This is not an ordinary political and military force and is one that threatens human civilization as much as the more recent menaces in history such as the Nazi Germany, if not worse. This only necessitates forceful and meaningful military action against them involving boots on ground, without which the complete annihilation of ISIS is not possible. Unfortunately, neither President Obama nor any other global power seems to be interested in doing so, primarily because none of them is directly threatened by this terrorist state yet.

The unwillingness to take military action against ISIS is usually met by the resistance due to the fatigue from the several American military operations in the Middle East and around the world. The opponents of military intervention have a point, and for many years, I have held the same position. We should also recognize that many are being very consistent in their criticism of US military intervention over the years, and deserve respect for their intentions and ideological position.

The caucus of the anti-military constituents is significant in the United States and in most Western countries including UK and Canada, despite the widespread dislike for ISIS. The influence of such public opinion makes a possibility of action against the ISIS particularly difficult. But what is even worse, such political narrative often cynically trivializes the ever-growing threat of ISIS, when awareness for the support of more comprehensive action is badly needed.

Probably the main reason for the resistance to military intervention against ISIS among Western liberals is that North America and Europe have no direct threat from it. Fortunately, conservative politicians and voters in the United States are not only concerned about the ISIS threat but are also very much willing to support boots on ground.

Sadly, the opposition to comprehensive military action against ISIS has been simply reduced as a partisan election issue. The choice of not taking comprehensive military action against ISIS is a purely ideological and partisan position of liberal politicians, instead of a defensive strategy. However, President Obama certainly considers it the best way to go.

Conservative US senators such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain make sense in their criticism of President Obama’s recent decision to deploy less than 50 special operations troopers because of the half-hearted nature of the measure. While it is encouraging that the President finally realized that the ISIS threat deserves some boots on grounds, especially to assist the Kurds who are putting up an active resistance, we are a long way from a meaningful remedy.

The possible involvement of ISIS in bombing down a Russian airliner over the Sinai desert, as suspected by US intelligence, is only reflective of how dangerous ISIS and its affiliates have become. It clearly shows that the ISIS, if allowed to grow stronger and more influential, is not far from harming Western interests directly, if the misery of the Kurds, Iraqis and Syrians is not enough to fight this fire. Incidents such as these only strengthen the case of building an international coalition to fight the group, which is the right way to deal with the crisis.

The half-hearted approach adopted by the current US administration to deal with the threat of ISIS is not helping the situation. With a departing President looking to build his legacy as a peacemaker, it is unlikely that the current administration is going to commit to any major campaign. There is not much to expect from a Defense Department that considers the Sharia-enforcing Afghan Taliban as a partner for reconciliation anyway, something for which Pakistani government has been blasted since the Soviets left Afghanistan.

But probably what is even worse is the contribution of liberal and faux pacifists to trivialize the threat of ISIS for partisan purposes in political discourse. While it would help them win an election, it is not going to help in building the necessary public support for taking on the crisis created by ISIS, as was in the case of the operation against Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. ISIS is far worse than both the Taliban and Al-Qaida and a Democratic President may very well require that support in 2016.

What the liberal and isolationist ISIS cynics don’t get is that whatever way we see the problem, there is no real solution but to deal with it through full throttle military action. Whether ISIS is created due to the actions of the wars started by Bush 43 or a by-product of President Obama’s military strategy in Syria, there is no choice but to deal with the crisis.

You cannot expect to have diplomatic negotiations with the Islamic State as in the case of Iran.

A version of the post was published in The Nation blogs.

Post-Traumatic Stress Governance

Source: Dawn News

Source: Dawn News

The way constitutional amendments are passed in Pakistan makes you marvel at the degree of national unity we enjoy.

You would probably never see such unity among any nation in the world.

Despite speaking passionately against the ruling, not a single MP or Senator dared casting a vote against the constitution. Some even voted against their conscience.

It’s good to know that some politicians in this country take up the constitution seriously enough to consider it a matter of guilty conscience.

But the question remains. Why was not a single vote cast in the opposition of the passage of the constitutional amendment?

Why did the JI and the JUI-F boycott the voting session instead of casting a more effective nay? Did they not betray their loyal voters?

There is no doubt about the fact that the 21st constitutional amendment is a resounding insult to the judicial branch of government in Pakistan. A legally sanctioned statement making fun of its perceived inability to dispense the elusive commodity known as justice. No one is bothered.

Despite the gravity of the situation, let’s concentrate on the silver lining in this dark thunderstorm. Maybe, the government has finally made up its mind to eradicate terrorism from the country, despite all the cynical skepticism.

What if the military courts really would deliver the kind of “swift justice” that the people of this country have been waiting for? Hopefully, not the kind of swift justice that the Taliban are known for.

But why have a trial in the first place?

Or maybe there is hope because Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman believes that the bill for the constitutional amendment reflects secular thinking for linking religion with terrorism. Finally, our parliament ended up doing something secular. Though he is unaware that even many secularists are worried about that too.

Perhaps, the way constitution can be altered in Pakistan offers some distant hope for the secularists. Who knows, some day, some compromising situation would bring all the politicians together and make them all unanimously vote to remove the Islamic provisions from the constitution.

All we need is stirring a little sense of urgency for that.

Now that the constitution has been altered pretty drastically, you can only wonder what happened.

What changed so drastically after the Peshawar massacre that it required bringing about such drastic changes to the way the state worked?

How did the terrorists manage to change the way our government works? A lot of people are perplexed about the way the government, all the political parties and the military have reacted.

To others, disappointed that the civil courts keep on releasing or delaying indicting suspect terrorists, the sudden change came as a sigh of relief. This might deliver some justice, finally.

Yet harsher critics merely saw the recent government legislation using the Peshawar school attack as an excuse for imposing undemocratic constitutional measures.

Let’s just blame their destruction of the constitution on their post-traumatic stress symptoms, instead of deliberate intent to sabotage.

But let’s not take the overzealousness of our administrators for malice.

Let us judge actions instead of the intentions.

Though for some, that would make the case even worse.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Excommunication for Condemnation

Source: EPA/

Source: EPA/

We have a serious problem at our hands.

We are in the middle of a war. We can see that we have an enemy, even though we are not willing to fully confront them.

How can the Taliban be our enemies?

We have always known them to fight for the righteous cause and how can they be evil if all they want is to enforce the will of God?

Such questions perplex the entire nation.

We are even not willing to call our enemy our enemy, because everything we know, everything we understood about the world, tells us it’s not true.

We simply cannot accept the fact that we can be at war with an entity that is not our enemy.

It can’t be their fault. Must be someone else behind all this mess.

How can our enemy be of the same faith as ours?

So in order to escape this confusion, we have two parallel explanations.

  1. Our enemy cannot be Muslims, because Muslims are not capable of acts as heinous as the Peshawar massacre, so they must be funded by the RAW, MOSSAD and the CIA
  2. Our enemy is cruel, so we need to excommunicate them from our religion.

 Why do we have to excommunicate someone to condemn them as our enemies?

Where does this insane idea that we can only be at war with non-Muslims come from? Well, even if you believe that, apparently our faithful enemy, which is far more self-righteous than we are, does not believe in it.

Oh, wait, I forgot. The faithful army of the enemy also believes that we are infidels.

So no matter what we do, no matter how much we suck up to them, we are going to be infidels in their eyes.

Our lifestyle is going to be the lifestyle of an infidel.

Unless we succumb to their Shariah, give up our way of life, and give up every freedom that we enjoy, it is not going to make us people of the faith in their eyes.

What we think about it is pointless.

And pretending that they could not believe in whatever in the world is the true faith does not matter too.

They don’t give a damn about our excommunication. But apparently, the faith of our enemy matters to us a lot.

We make our national decisions, declarations of war and truce, on the basis of whether our enemy belongs to our faith or not.

And that they must be excommunicated before any action against them is taken.

We come to realize that the people killing our children and the loved ones should be declared our enemies because they actually don’t follow true Islam.

We might claim that we, in Pakistan, are not a medieval culture. But apparently, our behavior tells us otherwise.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

We are all Taliban

Source: Dawn

Source: Dawn

The entire nation is in mourning.

The terrorists strike again where we are most vulnerable. Killing our children. Making us realize that we still have a lot to lose and proving how cruel they can possibly get.

Cruel. That’s how we have come to define our enemy.

But how are we dealing with them? Other than complaining about people not being mournful enough of the incident.

We are responding by suspending the moratorium on the death penalty and applauding the Prime Minister for it.

And what do I hear from many of my fellow countrymen?

Enforce the death penalty. Hang the terrorists in public squares.

Cruel. Justice must be cruel and merciless.

If only we could keep our cruelty to the battlefield, where it belongs, and out of our towns, legislatures and courtrooms.

Forget that. We actually want to follow the example of Iran and the Taliban themselves. We have people drooling for revenge justice. We are broadcasting the images of the corpses of the hanged terrorists and are just a touch away from live broadcast of public executions.

We condemn the extremist terrorists for their barbaric actions but believe in the same heinous extremities.

It is safe to say that a good number of those who would be described as moderate Muslims believe in public punishment, amputations, stoning to death and an eye for an eye.

Does this mean we would like to see many of our politicians hanging in public, just like what the Taliban did to Dr. Najeeb? I would really like a survey asking that question.

But ask any ten people and you would find a healthy number of replies hinting toward such revolutionary goals.

In other words, how does that make us any different from the enemy?

But wait, who is our enemy?

You might see the condemnation of the heinous act of the Peshawar carnage, but you would find voices reluctant to attack the attackers.

Some of our most prominent commentators would see India behind the attack. Others would blame the CIA and the Mossad for the problem.

Of course, how could our Muslim brothers possibly do something like this to us?

The very occurrence of the incident is evidence that the attackers were not Muslims, but non-Muslims in the guise of the holy warriors.

We are never going to win this war anyway. How can you fight your own self and claim to win? Down with the military operation which resulted in this massacre.

Yet, India and America are behind it.

But no need to appease Western influenced politicians and civil society. There is no need to pretend that we hate our brothers, who are our very own people.

Their beliefs and ours are the same.

We want Shariah compliant public executions now. We don’t care who is being killed in the name of God, we want revenge.

We are all Taliban.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.

Another Attack on Our Way of Life

Source: A. Majeed/AFP/Dawn

Source: A. Majeed/AFP/Dawn

Today’s tragic terrorist attack on the premises of Army Public School in Peshawar is not an ordinary one. There has been a lot of thought behind it.

It only possibly targeted the families of the personnel of the Pakistan Armed Forces, because it is their children studying in that particular school, for most part. So the TTP terrorists probably thought about sparing the civilians in their own way by selecting that school.

Revenge for the military operation. We’ll take your kids away.

Makes sense.

But children… Even the Taliban would not lower themselves to such disgrace. That’s too low to be human.

What sort of faithful people could engage in such a heinous action?

Well, so much for wishful thinking. And if you really, really thought so, you have a considerably good opinion about them.

That it is not just an attack on school children, and there is nothing shocking about the Taliban carrying it out. They have only proved how cruel they are, and we have only come to learn how vulnerable we are.

They are perfectly capable of it. They have been at it before, exploding schools.

Though there is one thing that we must not forget, and which most Pakistanis are not even going to consider. Because they still refuse to acknowledge that Islamism and the Taliban are the enemies.

This war must be fought.

It is time to decide whether to keep on fighting, or to hide behind the world of comfortable lies of Islamism. It is time to ask ourselves how strongly have we stood by our military for fighting these terrorists.

Were we just as enthusiastic as we would be in a war against India?

Would we ever recognize Islamism, not just the Taliban, as our enemies?

This is no ordinary terrorist attack on a children’s school.

This is another attack on our way of life.

If you would not fight for that, what else is there to worry about?

What Has She Done?

Source: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Media/

Source: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Media/

So what has she done?

That pesky Malala.

What has she accomplished to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, you are asking? Especially, since she said she didn’t deserve it.

Here is what she has accomplished what I or any of you could not have.

Despite being a little girl, she stood up to a very clear and present threat from the Taliban, which actually jeopardized her very existence.

In case anyone had any doubts, the Taliban actually ended up shooting her in the head and it’s a fucking miracle she’s even breathing.

They still vow to go after her.

She just had to speak out an innocuous little thing to get all this attention that she just wanted to go to school. Yes, that’s all what it has been about.

But it snowballed into something gigantic thanks to the ignorance of her haters.

You think it’s all obvious? No, it’s not.

But she won the prize also because she was important enough for an activist to address the United Nations Youth Assembly. She has also been active for causes such as speaking for the Nigerian girls abducted by Boko Haraam and addressing the concerns of Syrian children refugees.

She is not just a local figure anymore, but a global figure.

What really matters is  that the world sees her as a global ambassador for education, for girls especially.

Now why girls? You know, why be a sexist? But you have to be, because in her culture, people do go out of their way to target women like her. To deprive them of education.

Now when does it prick the most that she has won yet another prize valued by the West? Well, when you constantly apologize for the Taliban, Islamism and obscurantist misogynistic forces.

But it probably happened for a plain reason that Malala has become a Gandhi like figure to the West. Right up there with the likes of Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa, and even Gandhi was not awarded this prize, thanks to his shocking Holocaust satyagraha statements.

And this is precisely why Malala is important to the world now, even if she is of no consequence to the social conservatives and Islamist nationalist conspiracy theorists in Pakistan.

So don’t be surprised if you find completely irrelevant babbling complaining why Edhi not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is such a disaster (as if they cared about that too) and sharing articles making ridiculous comparisons with a random girl testifying against drone strikes backed by an American congressman.

Source: Daily Telegraph

Source: Daily Telegraph

Which reminds me that part of why Malala is condemned is because she is backed by Western powers. Hell, even President Obama met her with his entire family. He never did that for the Pakistani Prime Minister. That’s really fucked up.

She even had the courage to criticize him to his face about the drone strikes of the Nobel Peace Prize recipient President.

But that’s how powerful Malala has become.

Maybe she has sold her soul to the devil.

I never really had tremendous respect for the Nobel Peace Prize anyway, because I had read somewhere that only a devil would put a prize on peace. Maybe George Bernard Shaw’s statement, not too sure.

But  I was greatly impressed when I saw the likes of President Carter, President Sadaat and Prime Minister Begin winning one for the Camp David Accord of 1979, and when I saw Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat receiving it.

You know, bitter adversaries working hard to attain some peace. Back then, I really found this shit inspiring. That part I still admire though.

But overall, the idea has been pretty empty and meaningless. You know what they say, hey, that’s the award that President Obama got for who knows what. And oh, even Henry Kissinger received it.

Must be something evil for sure.

I know this one, like all of them, is highly political. But who gives a fuck. Somebody said something nice about Pakistan.

But if I ever was delighted for a Nobel Peace Prize, for the first and most probably the last time, it is for Malala Yousafzai.


Donate to the Malala Fund please. 

The Libertarian Case for the Baloch Resistance



No resistance movement is popular in the State against which it is initiated. The Baloch resistance to Pakistan is not any different.

But do they have the right to resist the tyranny of the State and struggle for freedom? And does that also extend that right to the Taliban? It is illegal, but arguably, yes.

This pertains to their fundamental rights, which should be covered by the Constitution, even if they are not currently.

The resistance movement would prove very sound from a Libertarian viewpoint as well, but from the standpoint of the defending State, it would be rightful to enforce law and order and curb it. So in terms of warfare, it is a violence for violence battle. But what is the limit?

While there is little doubt about the Baloch right for the secession, what should the State do to win the hearts and minds of the Baloch people?

Should the State continue to rule a people like a colony, as an alien ruling class, or should it start allotting more aid to the province? Should the State take measures to free the local people from the tyranny of local Baloch nobles and feudals or would that be the tyrannical intervention of the Federation on one of its independent units or States?

How should a civil war be treated? Is it justified to use violence, or any means possible, to preserve the Union?

There are arguments on both sides, but the dissidents are arguing beyond Pakistani nationalistic fervor here. Their opinion may not necessarily be liberal, but would reach out to the violated individual liberty of the freedom fighter.

The Libertarian case for the Baloch resistance would be the recognition of their right to bear arms and engage in an armed struggle against an oppressor. It would be the recognition of their right to life and liberty and protection from any unwarranted searches, detention and unlawful killing. It would be the recognition of their right to free speech for expressing dissenting views against the State and rejecting the Constitution.

This is where the Pakistani state law enforcement and military agencies are making a big mistake.

Pakistani agencies are allegedly detaining Baloch citizens on the suspicion to be a part of the treasonous resistance, which is both illegal and unconstitutional. An extrajudicial killing after torture would be even worse.

Now there would be a lot of Pakistani nationalist friends who would defend this act, which is supporting the idea of curbing the resistance by all means necessary.

But if this sort of behavior were to be given legal approval, then the State could detain any citizen for any given cause, without warrant. If it does not alarm a citizen, then they need to be more aware of the excesses of the government that could threaten their liberty.

I am not saying that the State has no right to curb an uprising by force and to enforce law and order. What it cannot do is to alienate its own people. So while it is curbing an uprising, it is up to the State how it treats its own people.

But above all, it is the responsibility of the State to not violate the liberty of an individual based on suspicion, instead of a legal warrant based on reasonable doubt.

This is not how a democratic republic should curb an uprising. Of course, a military dictator or monarch could use any means at their disposal, but surely that would be the wrong way of doing things. In another words, not the democratic way.

Now arguably all the rights for the Baloch resistance also apply to the Taliban. Which is true, like it or not. So let it be the Baloch cause or the Taliban, the liberty of the individual citizen must not be violated.

Surely, it would be outrageous for some for me to mention both of the different resistance movements together, considering the different morality of their ideologies. But then again, morality of ideologies is relative.

Of course, all that makes Baloch cause any better to that of Taliban is that the latter is fighting to enforce the authoritarian Islamism on an unwilling population. While others could have the same distaste for the Baloch resistance if it were Socialistic or Anarchic in nature.

While you could talk about just about any resistance movement regardless of the ideology or cause, there is a reason to present the case of the Baloch resistance. At least in the context of Pakistan. At least when we have inspirational people like Mama Qadeer marching all the way from Quetta to Islamabad to make this point.

The Baluch people have allegedly seen brutal assaults from the State elements and have had their liberty violated.

This is the perfect way to make enemies of already dissenting and defecting citizens.


Disclaimer: The post does not reflect my support of or opposition to any of the resistance movements anywhere.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers