The New York Times, relying on its usual and conveniently anonymous sources who brief selectively and effectively on Pakistan, has reported that General Kayani is "fighting to save his position in the face of seething anger from top generals and junior officers since the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden."
What an intriguing concept. Has the army chief any reason to "fight to save" himself from "top generals and junior officers"? Who are these energetic conspirators, one wonders? The notion that "top generals" are somehow influencing majors and captains to encourage them to revolt against their commander is fascinating. Or maybe it's the majors and captains who are pressuring the generals. Taking advice from Elvis and Michael Jackson, perhaps. Anything is possible in the fevered imagination of tastily-briefed reporters. But how do they imagine that these bold plotters will overthrow the army chief and seize command of the army?
Now this doesn't mean to say that officers – and non-commissioned officers and soldiers, as well – are not mightily upset with the way the army is being treated by the United States of America. It appears that some people in Washington are intent on humiliating the army and, for that matter, the entire Pakistani nation, and it would be a natural human reaction for those most affected to feel aggrieved about this.
From the talk-shop on Constitution Avenue to the do-shop in suburban Rawalpindi there is indeed evidence of what the New York Times ecstatically describes as "seething anger", which is understandable. But this doesn't mean to say that the fury is focused on the Chief of Army Staff or even on the international joke who lives and loves in sybaritic splendour in downtown Islamabad.
Some reporters of the New York Times and the Washington Post have tidy,
instantly accessible and delectably spicy US sources, never-to-be-named, who feed them with tidbits of disinformation which are based, cleverly and plausibly, on juicy gossip from around the world.
These frisky tipsters are empowered and encouraged by their Washington bosses to talk to reporters. If there were no permission given to do so, there would indeed be a drought of unattributable tittle-tattle. We should bear in mind that leaks to the media are greeted with energetic condemnation and savage reprisals by the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA – when the leaks aren't authorised as a matter of policy. Given official reaction to leakers who have had the courage to provide uncomfortable facts publicly, as distinct from passing on officially embroidered rumours, it would be a very brave American official who dared reveal the truth to the media off the record.
So the anonymous official leakers plant disinformation. They are purveyors of the sort of stuff we like to believe. (Come on, let's be honest with ourselves – we all love scandalous chitter-chatter.) And the genius of such operations is that some of it – just a fraction – a grain, a scrap, a peck on occasions – is pleasingly, attractively, compellingly true. It's what sells the New York Times' pages commenting on Pakistan. And it can influence people. That's what the anonymous 'sources' are told to do; and they are good at carrying out their orders.
It appears that the main targets of government agencies' propaganda are their own and foreign citizens. So the point-people are reporters.
Here's another one of them, saying that "The military has to be understood to be a world unto itself in Pakistan. If you walk onto a military base, if you see how people are housed, if you see the quality of living, the quality of just basic food supplies amongst the military families, you understand that there is a real Catch 22 situation."
I very much doubt that this man – described as "Sebastian Gorka, a military affairs analyst at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracy in Washington who advises the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies, as well as the British military and the United States Special Operations Command" – has walked around a battalion or regimental lines or visited a married quarters' building in Pakistan. (The head of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracy is Mr Clifford May, formerly of the New York Times, the Republican National Committee, and the Republican Jewish Coalition.)
The quality of living on Pakistan Army bases and domestic areas is pretty much the same as in every army in the world, even Mr Gorka's, although it has to be said that some cantonments are a bit basic. There aren't any caviar jars or gold taps in the kitchens.
But Mr Gorka is believed by the people who want to believe him. Just like those who trust the New York Times reporters who write that General Kayani is "fighting to save his position in the face of seething anger from top generals and junior officers since the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden."
There is a campaign being mounted against the Pakistan Army and government, and it's proving to be quite effective in stirring up hostility against these institutions. Who are the directors of the Crusade? Just who is stage-managing all this? And why?
Brian Cloughley, News International (Rawalpindi), June 24, 2011, http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=54248&Cat=9&dt=6/24/2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment