Pakistan News

Ron Suskind, author of The One Percent Doctrine, claims in a new book that Pervez Musharraf gave an ominous warning to the late Benazir Bhutto in a September 2007 phone conversation, telling her: “You should understand something…Your security is based on the state of our relationship.”  [Benazir spoke to Musharraf on her cell phone, while in the late Congressman Tom Lantos’ office.]

Suskind’s book, The Way of the World, was released today.  Particularly compelling portions have been reported on CNN.  Suskind’s reporting is controversial, though his sourcing is seen as meticulous.  He’s a Pullitzer Prize winner.

Update: 1:59AM (08/06) -

• I purchased the book last night, wrote a brief summary, and provided a lengthy set of Pakistani-related excerpts.  Unfortunately, all that was lost and I’m not sure how.  So what follows is a crude reconstruction of what I originally produced.  In the end, you should read Suskind’s book yourself.  It weaves a beautiful narrative of the microcosmic struggles of real ‘characters’ to be human (who include Benazir and a young Pakistani working in DC) and with the more macrocosmic challenges of extremism/terrorism and U.S. hegemony.

Some Pakistan-related claims in the book:

• The Bush administration’s Pakistan policy is the product of a rivalry between Vice President Cheney’s office and the State Department team of Condoleeza Rice, John Negroponte, and Richard Boucher.  Rice’s team came up with the Bhutto-Musharraf deal idea.  Cheney’s office refused to own it, describing Bhutto as “complicated and unpredictable.”
• Bhutto’s aides proposed her return to Pakistan to the State Department in spring of 2006.
• In the summer of 2006, Washington threatened to “constrain” or freeze (perhaps partially?) Benazir Bhutto’s assets.  Yet a year later, it showed no interest Bhutto’s request to do so to Musharraf’s cronies, including Ejaz Shah.
• The State Department bought onto the idea of a Bhutto-Musharraf deal in the spring of 2007, with the rise of lawyers’ movement.
• The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had been spying on Benazir Bhutto for months prior to her return. It listened to her phone conversation with son Bilawal in which “she told him about the secret bank accounts that hold the family’s fortunes.”
• The NSA “has harvested a number of portentous conversations of Benazir Bhutto’s.”  This would let the Bush administration take a “carrots and sticks” approach to Benazir.  I would add this data likely serves as a restraint upon Asif Zardari.
• Prior to Bhutto’s return to Pakistan, Asif Zardari believed that she could be best secured by surrounding her with bodies; her American advisers thought otherwise–but Bhutto turned down a $400,000/month proposal from Blackwater.
• Musharraf called Benazir after the first assassination attempt on her.  After offering his sympathies, he tells her, “I’m not the enemy, Bibi.”
• After the Karachi blasts, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson asked Bhutto to “tone down” her criticism of Musharraf.
• Bhutto found out through sources days in advance that Musharraf would be imposing emergency rule/martial law.
• Bhutto was “evolving” during “the last months of her life.”  This was not only due to Karachi assassination attempt and house arrests,  but also because she saw herself as not simply returning to the throne, but also playing a “wider historic role.”

Suskind presents a nuanced version of Benazir — her strengths and weaknesses.  But, interestingly, he concludes somewhat hagiographically.  Benazir, he seems to suggest, evolved into a messianic figure of sorts after she returned to Pakistan.  Flawed, humane, and a source of hope she was.  Her “evolution,” he writes, could have helped her “turn into the next great narrative of this period, capturing the imagination far and wide and turning it away from destructive certainty.”

He then cautions the reader with a reminder of Benazir’s past.  But still, Benazir at her death, for Suskind, internalized the hopes of her nation.  Meanwhile, Zardari (at least the Zardari he met on the Hill in September ‘07) is disinterested, misplaced, and uninspiring.

Bhutto, during her return to Pakistan, alternated between populism and a Musharraf-accomodating pragmatism.  She was murdered at a moment in which she was tilted toward the former.  Whether she would subsequently re-tilt toward the latter or stay with the Pakistani public had she survived is unclear.  But myths can be an effective instrument of change.  The potential positive narrative that Suskind writes died with Bhutto remains alive in Pakistan.  Irrespective of its accuracy, it can serve as a means to manipulate elite activity, channeling it toward greater nobility.

Darwaish

Dr. Aafia’s Siddiqui story has been haunting most Pakistanis for months now. Famously known as ‘Prisoner 650′ at Bagram Base in Afghanistan, she is one of the missing persons of Pakistan, wanted by FBI on alleged links with Al-Qaeda.

Dr. Afia Siddiqui, a highly educated researcher who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, for about 10 years and did her PhD in genetics, mysteriously disappeared from Karachi in March 2003 along with her three children. Since then, US and Pakistani officials have continuously denied any knowledge about her.

It was only after British prisoner Moazzam Begg mentioned her in his book The Enemy Combatant that Human Rights Organizations and activists, British journalist Yvonne Ridley and MP Lord Nazir in particular, raised voice for Dr. Aafia kept in solitary confinement and her three children. A specially disturbing part of this story is that fate of her three children, aged between one month and 7 years at the time of her kidnapping, is still unknown. (more…)

ISLAMABAD: PML-N chief, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Peoples Party co-chairman, Asif Ali Zardari have concluded their meeting without any result that could well decide the fate of the ruling coalition.

Afghan soldiers at an outpost in Wardak Province, near the site where a Taliban attack killed three coalition soldiers in June.

Aafia Siddiqui, the U.S.-educated Pakistani neuroscientist who for years has been designated a “missing person” by human rights groups and wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for questioning, is in U.S. custody as many have suspected.

But the U.S. government narrative of her arrest claims that it was recent, rather than years ago.  The time line and details its offers are not only suspect, but ludicrous.

Siddiqui has been transferred from Afghanistan to the United States, where she will appear before a federal court in Manhattan today to face charges of “attempted murder and assault of United States officers and employees in Afghanistan.”

The doctorate in neuroscience has ‘evaded’ intelligence agencies for years, yet managed to get ‘caught’ in mid-July in a central Afghanistan province by Afghan National Police (one of the country’s most incompetent and corrupt institutions) with information on U.S. landmarks, an amateur book on bomb making, and sealed containers with undisclosed contents — all conveniently in the same handbag.

The 5′4″, 110 lbs. middle-aged mother of three also managed to launch a Rambo-like attack on U.S. military officers and an FBI agent.

All this information comes from a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release and complaint seemingly written under the influence of narcotics and Fox’s 24.

NOT-SO-DEEP BACKGROUND

Of all the stories of alleged al-Qaeda members, none was perhaps more peculiar than that of Aafia Siddiqui.  A practicing Muslim born and raised in Pakistan, Siddiqui received her B.S. from MIT and a Ph.D. from Brandeis University — a secular, Jewish institution.  None of Siddiqui’s university colleagues or neighbors offer anything to suggest an inclination toward militancy.  She apparently got along well with those she interacted with.  Indeed, Siddiqui is said to have estranged from her first husband because he wanted their children to be raised in Pakistan, while she preferred that they be brought up in the United States.

Since 2003, the FBI has said that it “has no information indicating [Siddiqui] is connected to specific terrorist activities” but “would like to locate and question [her].”  Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM), allegedly the planner of 9/11, is said to have claimed in interrogations that Siddiqui was an al-Qaeda “fixer”  — perhaps after he was waterboarded.  The Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) claims that Siddiqui–a U.S.-educated Ph.D. from Karachi–married Ammar al-Baluchi, KSM’s nephew, who appears to be a minimally educated Pakistani Baloch born and raised in Kuwait (i.e. there were ethnic, educational, and class differences).  The DNI also claims that Siddiqui provided administrative assistance to alleged al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S. and even shopped for blood diamonds in Liberia.  Despite the specific claims, no evidence has been provided.  More importantly, despite the severity of the allegations against Siddiqui, she was never charged with a crime.  The gap between media claims–serious they are–and legal action is considerable.  None of these allegations by the DNI are mentioned in her ‘extradition’ to the U.S.’

THE SILENCE ENDS

Until yesterday, the last reported sighting of Siddiqui was in March 2003, at her mother’s home in Karachi.  Media coverage of Siddiqui seems to have peaked around the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when there was speculation about a potential al-Qaeda attack against the moot — which never happened.

Siddiqui’s name stayed out of the headlines till early July 2008, when British journalist Yvonne Ridley claimed she was told that a female prisoner has been held at Bagram Air Base in Kabul for years and, after sexual abuse and confinement, has deteriorated physically and mentally.  Ridley’s speculation that it could be Siddiqui stirred up the issue in the Pakistani media.

In mid July, senior Pakistani journalist Nusrat Javed told his television program co-host and audience that U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson informed him at a dinner party that she looked into the matter and Siddiqui is not in U.S. custody.  Javed naively said the whole issue was a non-story.

The book on Siddiqui would reopen this Sunday, when the Boston Globe reported that she was alive and in U.S. custody.  Elaine Sharp, a lawyer for Siddiqui’s family in Houston was contacted by the FBI and said, “She is injured but alive, and she is in Afghanistan.”  Sharp added that Siddiqui’s brother was visited by an FBI agent and his request to learn of the fate of his sister’s three children was denied.  Siddiqui’s three children are U.S.-born citizens, one of the many factors that complicate this case.

THE SIDDIQUI ARREST STORY: 24 MEETS THE TERMINATOR

Yesterday, the DOJ formally announced the arrest of Aafia Siddiqui — almost a month after reports emerged of her detention in Bagram.  Virtually all facts claimed by the DOJ are puzzling.

It states that Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan National Police (ANP) on July 17 in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province.  Siddiqui is alleged to have been arrested a week and a half after the initial reports of her detention.  Curious, no?

Siddiqui is said to have been arrested while allegedly loitering around the Ghazni governor’s compound.  She speaks none of Afghanistan’s languages and could not interact with the police.  So why was she, conceivably a technical expert, on the ‘field’, especially without experience and a capacity to mix in and be independent?  How did she make her way around?  Strange, no?  Plus, she was allegedly picked up by the ANP — widely notorious for its corruption and incompetence.  That it could do something right is difficult to imagine.

The ANP officers are reported to have been suspicious of Siddiqui.  She is claimed to have in her handbag:

• “numerous documents describing the creation of explosives, chemical weapons, and other weapons involving biological material and radiological agents;”
• “descriptions of various landmarks in the United States, including in New York City;”
• “documents detailing United States military assets;”
• “excerpts from the Anarchist’s Arsenal;”
• “a one gigabyte (1 gb) digital media storage device (thumb drive);”
• and “numerous chemical substances in gel and liquid form that were sealed in bottles and glass jars.”

Wow.  That’s a bag full of smoking guns.  All that in a “handbag” while canvassing the Ghazni province governor’s compound?  Half of the alleged materiel has no relevance to that site.

So an MIT-educated neuroscientist had to rely on the Anarchist’s Arsenal?  Is that a ‘bootleg’ version of the ‘Anarchist’s Cookbook’?  Did she have any Rage Against the Machine tracks on her flash drive?

Adding to the incredulity is the story of how Siddiqui allegedly got into U.S. hands.  According to the narrative (mostly my paraphrasing):

Siddiqui is detained by the ANP overnight.  The next day (July 18th), a group of U.S. personnel (two FBI agent and several army officers) coincidentally arrived at Siddiqui’s detention facility.  They were “unaware that Siddiqui was being held there, unsecured, behind a curtain.”  One army officer sits down and by chance places his M-4 rifle on the floor near the curtain.  Another officer hears a woman yell.  When he turns, he sees Siddiqui holding the other officer’s rifle, pointing it at him.  Siddiqui said, “May the blood of [unintelligible] be directly on your [unintelligible, possibly head or hands].” I am not sure if this is a direct quote or paraphrasing from the epic film, True Lies.  Siddiqui fires two shots, but the rifle is pushed away by an army interpreter.  She was then shot in the torso at least once by an army officer.  Still, she continued to struggle with the officers as they were attempting to subdue her.  Siddiqui “struck and kicked them while shouting in English that she wanted to kill Americans.”  Then she temporarily lost consciousness and medical aid was rendered to her.

Sounds like Terminator meets 24.

CONCLUSION

The above strongly indicates there is far much more to Siddiqui’s story than the initial New York Times article, which all too often are overwhelmed by official press releases.  The narrative presented in court documents is wildly cartoonish.  If it is true, then I would say Siddiqui might be mentally ill.  Her alleged behavior is erratic, non-methodical, and unscientific.  It counters the DNI profile of her being the ‘patient sleeper.’  Its veracity, not only in the court but also in the realm of public opinion, is clearly contestable.  It defies a nominal personality profile available from personal acquaintances of Siddiqui.

Moreover, it serves to counter a context/competing narrative that is troubling for the prosecuting authority.  In other words, if Siddiqui was arrested years ago on grounds that not only lack a legal/practical basis, but also serve to damage the reputation (and even security) of involved governments, then this ’story’ provides the seemingly absent basis to try, incarcerate, and shut up Siddiqui.  The Ridley-suggested narrative — that the the U.S. unlawfully detained (and even abused) a U.S.-educated Pakistani Muslim mother and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) assisted in whatever shape or form — would be immensely damaging to both countries.

Before us, it seems, are two competing narratives.  But I would not rule out other alternatives.  The actual details, of Siddiqui’s arrest — whether it occurred five years ago or two weeks ago — is unclear.  The initial claims made against her years ago are cause for concern.  But it is puzzling as to why, if they were true, there was no legal followup.  Even now, those claims go unmentioned in the present legal action against her.  Siddiqui is not being treated as an enemy combatant; rather, she’s being prosecuted in conventional U.S. courts, albeit in a more closed anti-terrorism context.

And so Siddiqui’s arrest provides not answers, but more questions.

There are so many.

Where are her children?  They’re U.S. citizens.

If she was in Bagram, were the children also there?

Is it true that Siddiqui’s estranged/ex-husband, who seems to have been a person of interest, is now freely practicing medicine in Karachi?  Why?

How could Siddiqui operate in Afghanistan without knowing the local languages — especially in a city that is 70% Tajik and Hazara?

The role of U.S.-Pakistan relations, particularly in terms of intelligence, is likely critical.  Is the ‘arrest’ of Siddiqui a product of cooperation or competition between U.S. and Pakistani intelligence agencies, or none of the above?  Is either, or both, being provided with some sort of deniability in this case?

And who exactly were Yvonne Ridley’s sources?  Was the Siddiqui story leaked to her by intelligence officials from Pakistan, the United States, or another country?  Or did she simply find out from former detainees?

Alternatively, was this a ’sting’ operation designed to reel her in and provide a context to arrest her (after being arrested or in hiding)?

Who knows?  But all one can say at this point is that the article you’ve read in today’s paper likely offers very little toward the truth.

ISLAMABAD: The Inter-Services Intelligence is working under the prime minister and the government had issued clarification about the July 26 notification, Leader of the House in Senate Raza Rabbani said on ...

Five years after her disappearance, an MIT-trained Pakistani neuroscientist accused of belonging to an Al Qaeda cell based in Boston, is alive and in custody in Afghanistan, her family's attorney said ...