Wajahat Ali

SCENE 1: NO FIGHTING IN THE WAR ROOM

TIME: Circa 2006

LOCATION: THE UNITED STATES

NARRATOR

The Curtains are raised and we see a darkened stage. Lights fade in. The scene begins in “THE WAR ROOM” a shadowy enclave hidden deep in the recesses of the nation’s Pentagon complex. A cool, chic black wooden conference table (Looks at the audience right before he says - ), made in Japan, sits in the middle of the football shaped room replete with a highly advanced, 360 degree, virtual reality digital map of the World adorning all sides of the room. A dimly lit light, (Looks at the audience), made in Korea hangs from the ceiling creating a dark, shadowy “war room-esque” atmosphere. There is also a mechanical horsie (Looks at the audience), Made in Mexico, located in the “play” corner. This notorious room is used by the nation’s political dignitaries only when discussing the most urgent, pressing matters of national security.

PRESIDENT
Bang Bang I got ya, ya yellar’ bellied Infidel. Now fall down…fall down. (Annoyed like a petulant child) Not like that, like the way I showed ya’, like Saddam’s statute. Bang Bang!

NARRATOR
Barked the 2nd term President to his illustrious Cabinet member, Secretary of Defense RAMstead, after firing play darts from his plastic pistols.

RAMSTEAD
Sir…please we don’t have time to play “Cowboys and Terrorists”, we (Exhales a deep sigh)…Fine.

NARRATOR
RAMstead pretends to fall down and crawls in a fetal position. He starts talking in an obviously fake, monotone ‘savage’ helpless voice.

RAMSTEAD
Owww, you got me, Shane. It’s High Noon for me. That sure is frontier justice. Thank you, oh mighty cowboy, for saving me from my savageness…by killing me.”

NARRATOR
Groaned the Secretary of Defense Ramstead with a fluorescent orange suction dart stuck on his forehead.

PRESIDENT
“Some of you have confused my recent frontier justice as “reckless” and my plain cowboy talk as putting ideology over faith. Heck, some have the balls to call my presidency the most dangerous administration in recent history. Such lies and accusations -“Bang! Bang!” (The president re-loads and shoots his darts at the Attorney General Alfredo Gonzalvez.) What do you say about this tomfoolery, Gonzo?

NARRATOR
Enter the illustrious Al-fredo Gonzalves, affectionately known as “Gonzo” to his friends, the recently appointed Attorney General with Italian-Mexican immigrant roots, who feigns pain as the orange play dart hits him in the leg…

GONZO
Owwwww!

NARRATOR
He quickly regains his composure.

GONZO
Mr. President, and other esteemed members of this esteemed staff, let me assure you I firmly stand behind your presidency and administration. Like all of your potent, manly initiatives, I believe your most recent firm and titular “security” measures such as “Terrorist Surveillance Program” is a legally legitimate use of authority in hunting pernicious – uh – that means evil, Mr. President – forces seeking to destroy our freedom loving ways. As proof, those same muckrakers in Congress who now sit high and mighty on their ivory, God-less pedestals ranting and raving mindlessly about Civil Liberties, Limitations to Executive Authority, and Amendment Shma-mendments are the same God-less dilly-dalliers who gave us, I mean, um, you Mr. President, the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons you believe have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on that “day”!!!! Grrrrrr!!!

NARRATOR
Gonzo rips the flag of one of the Axis of Evil countries in wild Hulk-like rage!

SOS Candy
“And to not stop until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated” –

NARRATOR
Interjects passionately the middle aged, extremely single, illustrious Secretary of State Candy, affectionately known as SOS Candy to her friends, powerfully filling out her power suit and clicking her $850 Ferragomos stilettos heels…as she rips the flag of another Axis of Evil country

PRESIDENT
(A sly, frat boy smile curls on his lips as he casually eyeballs SOS Candy) I like my Secretary of States like I enjoy my coffee – black…with occasional sugar on the side. (Chuckles). Thank you SOS Candy and Attorney General Gonzo for your undying, minority loyalty, however the TV said there’s a suspicion that we—we’re too “security-conscience.”

NARRATOR
Suddenly, out of nowhere, a shiny, menacing baldhead emerges from the shadows of the war Room with a deep heavy Darth Vader- breathing audibly silencing inferior noises. Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly introduce…The Vice President.

VP
Mr. President, respectfully, it is about high time that we start working…through the dark side, if you will. We’ve got to spend time in the shadows of the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to only our intelligence agencies. If we’re going to be successful… it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.

PRESIDENT
(The President interjects) – But some say I’m trampling on the 4th amendment with this NASA Surveillance Program -

RAMSTEAD
The NSA Surveillance Program, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT
Abusing my Execution Powers –

SOS Candy
Executive Powers, Mr. President

PRESIDENT
Sidestepping the VISA courts –

VP
FISA courts, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT
Committing impeachable offenses like Nixon that Sneaky, Tricky Dick.

GONZO
Dag nabit! Stupid Katz! Justice White should be lynched for saying Wiretap is a Search and Seizure requiring 4th amendment warrants. (Vexes Gonzo audibly to himself.)

VP
Mr. President, I believe it’s high time to pull out the “Lincoln” (makes quote marks with his hands) card.

PRESIDENT
My Brad Lincoln Houston Cougar Baseball card?

VP
No, Mr. President. (Groans) The former Civil War president Abraham Lincoln card, Mr. President. When criticized for unilaterally implementing controversial executive orders during war, Honest Abe simply responded, “Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation.”

PRESIDENT
And I am a preserver with a purpose, aren’t I?

SOS Candy
A mighty preserver!

GONZO
A purposeful preserver!

RAMSTEAD
A mighty purposeful preserver, Mr. President!

PRESIDENT
No! Wait – You’re confusin’ me.

NARRATOR
A sudden flash of anger and confusion, closes his eyes, sees his mechanical horsie, takes a deep breath, and calms down.

PRESIDENT
Now “I can only speak to myself.” —

VP
For yourself.

PRESIDENT
For yourself!

SOS Candy
For myself.-

PRESIDENT
For myself, when I say this: That it’s in our country’s interests to find those who do harm to us and get them out of harm’s way.

RAMSTEAD
Harm those who intend to harm us and get innocents out of harm’s way!

PRESIDENT
Harm innocents who intend to harm us and get harm out of innocents’ way, exactly. And in the past 5 years, that’s exactly what I’ve sincerely tried to accomplish in this Crusade –

VP
War on Terror, Mr. President! No more crusades, remember? War on Terror!

PRESIDENT
Exactly, the Reign on Terror!

RAMSTEAD
The Reign of Terror, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT
It’s raining terror?

VP
(Visibly annoyed) It’s not raining terror, Mr. President. It’s not the Reign of Terror, Mr. President. (Becomes passionate and possessed) But, now, it is The Reign of Man! (Firmly and violently shakes his right fist)

PRESIDENT
(Confused) It’s Raining Men?

SOS CANDY
(Suddenly jumps up and throws her hands in the air) Hallelujah!

PRESIDENT
(Starts getting into the cheesy, Disco classic and nodding his head) It’s raiiining men!
SOS CANDY
Hallelujah! (With her hands in the air, she sheepishly looks around, and then quickly composes herself) Ahem, sorry.

NARRATOR
With great gusto and machismo, a corpulent, burly man with lieutenant general stars and stripes who was silent throughout the proceedings b/c he was playing “command and conquer” on his mini play station, stands to attention. Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly introduce…Lieutenant General Dunkin.

DUNKIN

Man up and call it like it is, Mr. Crusader, I mean, sorry, Mr. President! I, for one, stand behind your noble Crusade and encourage your clash with these inferior civilizations. Do you know why you’re in the White House, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT
Why, Looo-tenant (Pronounces “Lieutenant” like Forest Gump pronounced “Lieutenant Dan” in the movie) Dunkin?

DUNKIN
Why? Well, the majority of Americans didn’t vote for you, Mr. President. So why are you my Commander in Chief? I’ll tell you why! Right now, this very instant in this War Room, I’ll tell you, just like I told the world! It’s because God put you here for a time such as this. And our God is bigger than their god! And my God is a real God and their god is an idol!”

PRESIDENT
American Idol?

DUNKIN
No, Mr. President. Not American Idol.

PRESIDENT
The Moon God of Mecca?

DUNKIN
Sweet baby Jesus, President Jesus, I mean, President!

RAMSTEAD
Goddamnit, Dunkin!

PRESIDENT
Sweet Baby Jesus Christ, Ramstead, I told you not to blaspha…blasphamer…blasphemersize in the War Room.

RAMSTEAD
Apologies for blas-pher-mer-sizing, Mr. President. But we need to keep that “clash of civilizations” rhetoric on a leash – we’re only inflaming the already inflamed A-rab world further, plus with civilian causalities in Iraq, this new smack talkin’ Pope, and these Goddamn Danish “cartoons” -

PRESIDENT
(Sharply rebuking tone) Ramstead!

RAMSTEAD
Sorry, sorry, (Makes quotation marks in the air) “damn” cartoons – our poll numbers are falling faster than Monica’s drawers. (Ramstead chuckles to himself over his ribald jab.)

DUNKIN
Easy to lay the blame on others “torture” boy.

RAMSTEAD
Just wait a minute, God boy, “What has been charged so far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. I’m not going to address the ‘torture’ word.” Quit Abu-Ghraibing me! At least I’m not a sissy schoolgirl like Candy (Makes a whiny school girl voice) apologizing for our administrations’ “thousands of mistakes” in I-rack.

SOS CANDY
“Tactical” mistakes! I said “Tactical”! And I emphatically reiterated the President made the right strategic decision to invade and topple Saddam Hussein, honest to goodness, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT
Hang ‘em High! Yeehaw!

RAMSTEAD
Yellow cake, my ass.

SOS Candy
Resign, Ramstead, Resign. Resign, Ramstead, Resign.

GONZO
As a proud Italian-Mexican American son of Italian – Mexican immigrants your respective actions bring shame to my valuable contributions to this administration, and your cowardly rhetoric and actions directly contribute to my fearless President’s sagging approval ratings!

VP
Hey Taco, are you willing to say that under oath, Mr. “I don’t need a” Warrant?

GONZO
I only told the committee what you, I mean, uh, the President wanted me to say, Quayle killer!

VP
Now wait just a goddamn minute, Speedy Gonzalvez!

DUNKIN
Be careful, Gonzo. He might shoot you in the back!

SOS CANDY
I’m sure you’ll beat him to it, Yosemite Sam!

DUNKIN
Shut your beak, Daffy Duck!

PRESIDENT
People! People! Please! We can’t fight in here. This is the War Room!

VP
You’re right, Mr. President, you’re right. Pardon me. If the Coalition of the Willing – that’s us Mr. President – is fighting amongst ourselves then we won’t have the moral integrity and democratic discipline to take on the Axis of Evil – that’s “them,” Mr. President. Gentleman (Quickly looks to the sole woman) and Candy, in light of our recent “bumps” if you will – The NSA warrantless wiretapping debacle (Looks to Gonzo who nods), the discredited evidence leading up to the war (Looks to Candy), inflammatory religious rhetoric (Looks to Bush and Dunkin), and general negligence and mayhem (Points his index finger to himself), we’ve landed ourselves in bit of a PR pickle. Since we have been unable to locate Mullah Omar, Zawhiri, or Osama Bin Laden –

PRESIDENT
That’s because he’s hiding.

VP
Very Astute, Mr. President (Rolls his eyes). Because this phantom menace has not been procured, the American people have lost sight of the real “terror” and “evil threat” and started taking unfair potshots at us, their loyal administration.

RAMSTEAD
(Gets up and puts his hand on VP’s Shoulder) Are you thinking what I think you’re thinking, Veep?

GONZO
Attack of the Clones? (Every minority gets up with Gonzo as he says this - )

VP
(Passionately says the next line, and then silences them and tells em to sit with one wave of his hand) Revenge of the Sith, Gentleman. The beautiful yet tempestuous mistress known as “His-Story” has proven time and again that most people would rather feel safe than be free. We need to use our, excuse me, I mean, the Executive powers to the hilt. Restraints and liberties be damned, gentleman and Candy. History doesn’t rewards pansies and pussies! (Towering thud of his fist lands on the Japanese made conference table). The American public demands results and results is what we’re gonna give ‘em. It’s with great pleasure that I unveil my latest strategic masterpiece – “Kazuo!” (Claps twice like the “clapper” commercial and jumps a girlish jump)

NARRATOR

Enter John Yu Kazuo, a young, Japanese-Chinese American lawyer wearing a finely tailored Seville Row Suit with American Flags as cuff links and a clean, non-threatening gelled back hairstyle and glasses to match his intellectual non-threatening stereotype.

(As NARRATOR introduces Kazuo, Kazuo struts and walks up and down the stage showing off his clothes, his cuff links, his hair. And then at the end gives a really cheesy “Two thumbs up” signal)

KAZUO
Ladies and Gentleman, good afternoon.

DUNKIN
(Points at Kazuo with wild astonishment. Looks around at the administration and the audience. ) Pokemon speaks English!!

KAZUO
As a second generation son of Japanese-Chinese Americans, I was born and raised in this proud country which rewarded my pro-establishment, (Raises his hand) tough love, (Raises his other hand) don’t rock the boat (Raises one hand and the other), pull myself up from the bootstrap ideology (Moves his hands left and right like an action figure).

DUNKIN
(Extremely flustered and outraged, his face expanded like a red balloon).
Outrageous, Mr. President! Like my daddy, I agree with World War 2 General Dewitt – A Jap’s a Jap. They are a dangerous element. Don’t forget Pearl Harbor! There is no way to determine their loyalty. The yellow peril like yellowcake is always hovering, my dear God-fearing brothers. Just like these Islamist activists and now these new illegal immigrant terrorists – we must worry about them at all times all the time! Even American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty! Prove you’re America-holic, Bruce Lee!

SOS CANDY
Let’s not overreact and respond with politically incorrect rhetoric, Dunkin. Give the Jap a moment to explain himself. (Looks reassuringly at Kazuo and gives him a nod.) Kato?

KAZUO
Collie. (Kazuo nods back with a weary smile.) No need to chide the patriotic Lieutenant General, gentle (Looks at Candy) – people, allow me to prove my loyalty. First, my last name Kazuo means a “man of peace” – and that I am. (In stereotypical Asian accent) “I love peace long time. Loooong time.” (The Administration laughs, Dunkin eases up. Kazuo regains his salesman composure) After being tenured at a prominent liberal law school university, I wrote and published a painstakingly original and bold new bestseller entitled “Defending Internment,” setting forth both the practical and legal rationalizations for the controversial WW2 executive measure. Yes, yes, even though my father’s English speaking family was interned during WW2 in these very same camps, and my mother’s family wasn’t naturalized until 1942 due to the Chinese Exclusion Act and National Origins Act , I feel no bitterness or regret. Only pride – pride that my country took the proactive steps necessary to defend its borders, its citizens, and its values from terrorists dedicated to tyranny and hatred! As further proof of my loyalty – I’ve named my first-born son, “Ronald”, my middle one “Reagan Oliver North,” and my youngest daughter- who is mentally retarded - “Hillary” and my newly adopted biracial Sudanese child “Barack.”

RAMSTEAD
O-bama!

PRESIDENT
You’ve earned your citizenship in my eyes, Kung Fu. Now, tell me, in plain legal-ese how you can cut us out of our pickle?

RAMSTEAD
Get us out of this pickle!

PRESIDENT
I wanna’ play with my pickle!

KAZUO
Emperor- excuse me – Mr. President, I regretfully inform you that your poll numbers are indeed at their lowest ebb. The country is nearly divided over your foreign and domestic policies, and your opponents and critics, especially the abolitionists and abortionists in Congress, view you as incompetent, overburdened, and worst of all weak. However I have one magic word that gets us out of this rabbit hole: “Aliens.”

PRESIDENT
E.T. the friendly Extra Terrestrial? Sigourney Weaver? Close Encounters of the Third Kind? A-ha! Invasion of the Body Snatchers!

KAZUO
Close, Mr. President, close, but…. not exactly. How would you like it if there were no guaranteed limits on your broad executive and constitutional authority to wage war with these pernicious “aliens”? How would you like to possess the legal ammunition to use military force without the interference of nosy abolitionist Congressman seeking review and censure of your actions?

PRESIDENT
(Looking at his empty plastic pistols)
I reckon my guns could use the extra ammo.

KAZUO
And with my new job as Deputy assistant attorney general (Looks to Cheney for a nod of approval – Cheney gives it to him. Gonzalvez visibly annoyed), I will work hand in hand with Gonzo and the rest of the Administration to ensure you receive the necessary ammo for your Spanish pistols.

GONZO
Now, wait just a goddamn minute! (Quickly) Sorry, Mr. President. (Makes quotation marks in the air) “Damn” minute. I can tolerate one more (Points to Candy) but three is definitely a crowd!

SOS Candy
The Mexi-cant is correct. Adding a Chinaman next to a Black Woman and an Italian Mexican is like the beginning of a bad joke that can only end badly. Come on now, peoples! This isn’t the frikkin’ United Nations!

DUNKIN
I didn’t sign up for the United Colors of Bennetton!

VP
The model minority will have his Deputy assistant attorney general position!

RAMSTEAD
“Aliens” eh? What type of aliens, Kato?

KAZUO
The worst type. Aliens in our own backyard. Aliens amongst our midst. No need to find Bin Laden abroad when Bin Laden can be found at home, Mr. President. One thing most Americans agree on is they don’t like “aliens.” Recent polls show over 52% think all immigrants are a burden on the US, 56% believe they – the aliens – don’t pay their fare share, and 58% are adamant they – the aliens –don’t care to speak or learn English! Also, there is a general consensus and awareness after Sept. 11 that the enemy was not simply al Qaeda—but militant Islam, well let’s just say Islam in general and over 50% Americans agree!
PRESIDENT
(Stand up and declares forcefully) Those who enter the country illegally violate the law.

SOS CANDY
(Like talking to a child) Very good, Mr. President.

DUNKIN
(Stands up to declare this statement, like he usually does) Goddamn Mexifornication! Islamiscegenation! Blacks mating with Asians! And Chocolate covered Caucasians – all over the country! Television should have never gone color if ya’ ask me!

KAZUO
Just think of them as Aliens, Lieutenant… aliens. And once we find these aliens, I mean, our “Bin Ladens,” Mr. President, then you unleash your power, and like a mighty Biblical Prophet –

PRESIDENT
Noah, no no- ummm…ummmmMMoses…no, no too Semitic, ummm, ok, got it, David!

THE ADMINSTRATION
David! (All cheering in unison!)

NARRATOR
Kazuo’s eyes widen to the size of hyperactive parakeet, a Joker grin stretching cheek to cheek like a Cheshire cat adorns his face, his voice rises with a furious Biblical fury breathlessly and passionately he declares -

KAZUO
Like David you shall single-handedly slay all your Goliaths with one furious sling of your Presidential slingshot! (President gets up and mimes a slingshot) The critics, nay Sayers, hippies, turncoat conservatives, wanna be demo-cats, and limp wristed liberals (VP gets up and limps his wrist and make a fey noise) will line up and jig to your fiddle (Gonzo, SOS Candy, and Kazuo all jig in synch to President’s mimed fiddling) , once they realize the public adulation adorning the new Empero-umm- King of Isra-uh – President of America for courageously rooting out dangerous elements from their own backyard using the same criticized security methods and procedures once maligned by these very same whining, pinko Philistines!

(During Kazuo’s tirade, Dunkin was slowly but surely getting animated and jazzed like a cranked up, Gung Ho Commando. Midway through the above speech, he takes out a red, RAMBO bandana and ties it around his head. He is twitching and shaking his knees with a giddy glee and a mad glint in his eyes. After Kazuo’s last words, he gets up like a steroid pumped enraged Commando freak and goes nutty. He makes a shotgun noise and blasts through a door. Then he does a stop, drop, and roll. He gets up, loads a big, gun turret and blasts the audience away. Then, he throws a grenade, waits for it to explode and covers his ears. Then, he unleashes a bazooka from his shoulder pack and blasts the audience. Finally, he takes out his hunter’s knife from his foot holster and starts stabbing the air, the audience members, and generally anyone who comes near him – becoming more and more frenzied and mad. Finally, Kazuo calms him and in a soothing voice placates him as he trembles and mumbles to himself)

NARRATOR
Suddenly the rest of the administration puckers up with glee, slowly realizing the fruition of Kazuo’s diabolically brilliant strategy. Meanwhile, the President is busy reloading his plastic pistol.

PRESIDENT
(Looking over to his Vice President)
Should I also be happy?

VP
Very happy, Mr. President.

KAZUO
Mr. President – just think of the magic word.

PRESIDENT
Shazaam?

KAZUO
Close, Mr. President. Close. Re-locate. (Smiles.) Re-locate –

THE ADMINSTRATION
Re-locate, re-locate, re-locate, re-locate, re-locate

(The President starts grinning and repeating the words to himself and then suddenly-)
PRESIDENT
Bang! Bang!

NARRATOR
Kazuo stands with an accomplished smile, hands folded, showing his shining American flag cuff links, Seville Row suit, and a fluorescent Orange suction dart stuck in the middle of his forehead.

Oil Wars

By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH

Despite all the recent talk of soaring prices at the pump, political and economic pundits rarely mention the impact of war and political instability in the Middle East on the skyrocketing price of oil. There is strong evidence, however, that the heightened price of energy is a direct consequence of the destabilizing wars and geopolitical insecurity in the region.

These include not only the raging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the threat of a looming war against Iran. The record of soaring oil prices shows that anytime there is a renewed U.S. military threat against Iran, fuel prices move up several notches.

Not long ago the price of oil was about a quarter of what it is today. But soon after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the price of oil began to escalate in tandem with the escalation of war and political turbulence in the Middle East. The fact that the rise in the price of oil has followed the heightened insecurity in oil markets is neither accidental nor a simple correlation; it represents a causality that runs from the heightened insecurity in oil markets to the inflated price of energy.

The war also contributes to the escalation of fuel cost in indirect ways; for example, by plunging the U.S. ever deeper into debt and depreciating the dollar. As oil is priced largely in U.S. dollars, oil exporting countries ask for more dollars per barrel of oil as the dollar loses value.

Not only are the raging wars in the Middle East responsible for energy price inflation, they are also responsible for price inflation of many other commodities, especially grains and other foodstuff, whose production and transportation depend on fuel. According to the World Bank, food prices have more than doubled over the past three years. The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year alone. The mounting food prices have caused hunger and deadly violence in many countries, including Haiti, Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, Senegal, and Malaysia.

This shows that the disastrous consequences of U.S. wars of choice go beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United States. The skyrocketing costs of fuel and food tend to plunge many of the world economies into a 1970s-style stagflation (a combination of stagnation and inflation) that threatens many lives and/or livelihoods around the globe.

Neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration and beneficiaries of war dividends—wishing to deflect attention away from war as the main culprit for the skyrocketing energy prices—tend to blame secondary or marginally relevant factors: OPEC, China and India for their increased demand for energy, or supply-demand imbalances in global markets.

Whatever the contributory role of these factors, the fact remains that the current oil price hikes started with the beginning of the Bush administration’s wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, a closer examination of these factors reveals that their roles in the current price inflation of oil have been negligible.

The claim that there is a supply-demand imbalance in global energy markets cannot be backed by facts. The alleged disparity between supply and demand is said to be due to the rapidly growing demand coming from China and India. But that rapid growth in demand is largely offset by a number of counterbalancing factors. These include slower growth in U.S. demand due to its slower economic growth, efficient energy utilization in industrially advanced countries, and increases in oil production by OPEC, Russia, and other oil producing countries.

Nor can OPEC be blamed for the current energy crisis. OPEC’s desire to sometimes limit the supply of oil in order to shore up its price is limited by a number of factors. For one thing, OPEC members are not unmindful of the fact that inordinately high oil prices can hurt their own long-term interests as this is bound to prompt oil importers to economize on fuel consumption and search for alternative sources of energy.

For another, OPEC members also know that inordinately high oil prices could precipitate economic recessions in oil importing countries that would, in turn, lower demand for their oil. In addition, high oil prices tend to raise the cost of oil producers’ imports of manufactured products as high energy costs are bound to be reflected in higher costs of those products.

For these reasons leading OPEC members such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have repeatedly stated that they prefer stable, predictable, and moderate oil prices to short-term oil price hikes that result from war, political turbulence and unstable markets.

The political implications of this discussion are clear: to bring down the prices of fuel and food requires bringing home the troops. By lowering the energy costs of production and transportation this will help save our own and many other economies from the plagues of inflation and stagnation. It will bring relief to hundreds of millions worldwide who are burdened by crippling energy bills and the crushing costs of feeding their families.

Not many people would doubt the devastating socio-economic consequences of the U.S. wars of choice, both at home and abroad. The question is: why can’t they be stopped?

The answer is that while the war has been ruinous to many, it has been a boon for a few, the powerful special interests who not only benefit from war (both economically and geopolitically), but who have also positioned themselves within the U.S. power structure in ways that allows them to constantly invent new enemies and make new wars in order to further their nefarious interests.

Who are these powerful special interests, the highly influential beneficiaries of war dividends who camouflage their evil objectives behind national interests in order to perpetuate war and militarism and fill out their deep pockets, or further their geopolitical interests in the Middle East?

A most widely-cited factor behind the Bush administration’s drive to war and the soaring energy cost is said to be Big Oil. Despite its popularity, however, this claim cannot be supported by facts; it tends to rest more on perception and precedent than reality.

It is true that for a long time, from the beginning of Middle Eastern oil exploration and discovery in the early twentieth century until the mid-1970s, colonial and/or imperial powers controlled oil either directly, or through control of oil producing countries—at times, even by military force. But that pattern of exploitation of global markets and resources has now changed.

It is also true that, once the Bush administration commenced with the invasion of Iraq, American oil companies set up shop in Baghdad in order to partake in the spoils of war. But this was not limited to oil companies; many non-oil transnational corporations likewise rushed to Baghdad to make an economic killing.

The larger part of the perception, however, stems from the fact that oil companies handsomely benefit from oil price hikes that result from war and political turbulence in the Middle East. Such benefits are, however, largely incidental. Surely, American oil companies would welcome the spoils of war. From the largely incidental oil price hikes that follow war and political convulsion, most observers automatically conclude that Big Oil must have been behind the war.

There is no hard evidence, however, that oil companies pushed for or supported the Bush administration’s plans of invading Iraq—just as they are now leery of the administration’s threat of a military strike against Iran. “The big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war,” says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, an energy consultancy firm based in Washington, D.C. “Corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region,” adds Mohamedi [1].

During the past few decades, major oil companies have consistently opposed U.S. policies and military threats against countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya. They have, indeed, time and again, lobbied U.S. foreign policy makers for the establishment of peaceful relations and diplomatic rapprochement with those countries. The Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1996 (ILSA) is a strong testament to the fact that oil companies nowadays view wars, economic sanctions, and international political tensions as harmful to their long-term business interests and, accordingly, strive for peace, not war, in international relations.

The 1996 Iran-Libya Sanction Act, which amounted to a total trade and investment embargo against these two countries, penalized not only Iran and Libya, but also major American oil companies, especially the Conoco oil company that had just signed a $1 billion contract to develop fields in Iran.

It is no secret that the major force behind the Iran-Libya Sanction Act was the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The success of AIPAC in passing ILSA through both the Congress and the White House over the opposition of the major U.S. oil companies is testament to the fact that, in the context of U.S. policy in the Middle East, even the influence of Big Oil pales vis-à-vis the influence of the pro-Israel lobby [2].

So, if Big Oil no longer favors war and political turbulence in oil markets, what, then, are the driving forces behind the Bush administration’s war and military adventures in the Middle East?

Many would immediately point to the power and influence of neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration. While obviously this would not be false, it would not be the whole truth either; it hides more than it reveals. Specifically, it tends to lose sight of the bigger, but largely submerged, picture: the powerful special interests that lie behind the façade of neoconservative figures.

There is clear evidence that the leading neoconservative figures have been long-time political activists who have worked through think tanks set up to serve either as the armaments lobby, or the pro-Israel lobby, or both—going back to the 1990s, 1980s and, in some cases, 1970s. These corporate-backed militaristic think tanks include the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National Institute for Public Policy, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

There is also evidence that the major components of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, including the war on Iraq, were designed long before George W. Bush arrived in the White House—largely at the drawing boards of these think thanks, often in collaboration directly, or indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and pro-Israel lobby. Even a cursory look at the records of these militaristic think tanks—their membership, their financial sources, their institutional structures, and the like—shows that they are set up to essentially serve as institutional fronts to camouflage the dubious business and political relationship between the Pentagon, its major contractors, and the pro-Israel lobby on the one hand, and militaristic neoconservative politicians, on the other [3].

While the Bush administration’s unilateral wars and military adventures have brought unnecessary death, destruction, and economic hardship to millions, including many in the United States, they have also brought fortunes and prosperity to war profiteers. Pentagon contractors constitute the overwhelming majority of these profiteers. They include not only giant manufacturing contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, but also a complex maze of over 100,000 service contractors and sub-contractors such as private army or security corporations and “reconstruction” firms.

The rise of the fortunes of the major Pentagon contractors can be measured, in part, by the growth of the Pentagon budget since President George W. Bush arrived in the White House: it has grown by more than 76% percent, from $297 billion in 2001 to almost $520 billion in 2008. These figures do not include the Homeland Security budget, which is close to $40 billion for the 2008 fiscal year alone, and the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which amount to nearly $200 billion per year.

The skyrocketing Pentagon’s share of public money has meant that, for example, in the current (200 fiscal year military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs [4]. (Discretionary programs include everything except Social Security and Medicare, that is, education, health, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and environment, justice, veterans’ benefits, science and space, transportation, training/employment and social services, economic development, and several more items.)

The soaring military spending has also meant that beneficiaries of war dividends are essentially looting the national treasury in order to line their pockets. These include not only the Pentagon and its military contractors but also members of the key Congressional committees who have grown increasingly addicted to generous contributions to their reelection that come from the fortunes of the Pentagon and its business clients.

U.S. lawmakers have additional, more direct, financial interests in war and military spending: “Members of Congress have invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contractors to provide goods and services to U.S. armed forces.” This means “lawmakers charged with overseeing Pentagon contractors hold stocks in those very firms” [5].

It also means that our esteemed lawmakers know how or where to invest most profitably: “Shares of U.S. defense companies have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq. . . . The feeling that makers of ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs” [6].

It is not surprising, then, that many elected officials with input or voting power in the process of the appropriation of the Pentagon budget find themselves in the pocket of defense contractors. Neither is it surprising that these dubious relationships should serve as breeding grounds for the near legendary levels of waste, inefficiency, and corruption that surround the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Two major conclusions follow from this discussion. The first is that, as pointed out earlier, war and political instability in the Middle East are the major driving forces behind the soaring price of oil; and that, therefore, to contain or reverse the rising trend of energy prices requires bringing U.S. troops home. The second conclusion is that achievement of this goal, the goal of ending U.S. wars of aggression, is possible only if (a) money or profits are taken out of war, and (b) money is taken out of elections [7].

The Sadistic Side of Bush’s War on Terror

Sexual Terrorism

By DAVID ROSEN

The “New York Times’” recently revealed the existence of a little-known executive order issued by President Bush in the summer of ’07 that permitted U.S. intelligence operatives to circumvent restrictions on the use of humiliating and degrading interrogation techniques.

Bush’s order permitted U.S. intelligence operatives to effectively side-step the legal and moral restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court and Congress (and formally approved by Bush) as well as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Brian Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, laid-out the rationale for the continued subversion of these restrictions:

The fact that an [humiliating interrogation] act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliating or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act.

The Bush administration’s argument is that an interrogator can utilize what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” if he/she believes such techniques will thwart a possible threat or terrorist act. For the administration, illegal (if not immoral) interrogation techniques are a corollary to preemptive military strikes that was its rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

Much attention has been paid to water-boarding as an immoral if not illegal technique utilized in the so-called War of Terror. Little attention has been paid to the equally physically harmful and likely more long-term consequential technique of sexual humiliation and terror.

Buried deep in Mark Mazzetti’s Times article is an intriguing paragraph:

That order specifies some conduct that it says would be prohibited in any interrogation, including forcing an individual to perform sexual acts, or threatening an individual with sexual humiliation. But it does not say which techniques could still be permitted. [New York Times, April 27, 2008]

Yes, what “techniques” of sexual humiliation can still be used?

It seems almost impossible to precisely determine these techniques. Reviews of the CIA, Justice and Defense department’s websites reveal little useful information. Email queries to the Justice Department, including Benczkowski and the media-relations office, have not been answered.

An exhaustive search of the internet has provided no further information about sexual humiliation then the oblique Times reference. (An effort for further clarification from Mazzetti has not succeeded.) This is very much in keeping with Bush administration policies to deny, falsify, obfuscate or simply lie about techniques sanctioned and employed in its fictitious War on Terror.

In the absence of the formal specification of CIA’s approved or utilized (and they are not necessarily the same) techniques of sexual humiliation, one must draw upon previously documented U.S. military and intelligence-agency practices and the techniques used by other militaries. These examples illustrate what the CIA and other U.S. agencies are capable of employing to break those they identify as “terrorists”.

Rape is one of the most barbaric forms of sexual humiliation and terror. Since the Civil War, rape has been increasingly integrated into what is known as total warfare. Women, girls and some boys have been increasingly singled out for systematic sexual abuse during civil conflicts and military campaigns. However, rape has only been limitedly employed against adult male captives detained in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo or CIA black sites around the world. [see “’The Hard Hand of War’: Rape as an Instrument of Total War,” CounterPunch, Apri1 4, 2008]

The U.S. has employed (and, most likely, continues to employ) a host of other techniques of sexual terrorization to break male inmates. An act of sexual humiliation serves two purposes: to physically harm and to emotionally scar those subjected to such abuse. Sexual terrorization seeks to inflict both pain and shame, to make the recipient suffer and loath himself. Sexual humiliation is intended to break the victim both physically and spiritually, to leave scars on (and inside) the body and in the psyche.

If (or when) top officials of the Bush administration face either an American or international war crimes tribunal over their conduct related to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, sexual humiliation and terror should not be absent from the indictment.

* * *

According to an ABC News report, in response to September 11th the CIA adopted six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in mid-March 2002. These techniques were to be used on a dozen or more alleged al Qaeda leaders detained in CIA black sites. These “approved” techniques consisted of:

• The Attention Grab: the interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
• The Attention Slap: an open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
• The Belly Slap: a hard open-handed slap to the stomach; the aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury.
• Long Time Standing: prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours.
• The Cold Cell: the prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees and is periodically doused with cold water.
• Water-Boarding: also known as “the water cure” or “simulated drowning,” the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet; cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him.

Obviously missing from the CIA’s list of interrogation techniques is sexual humiliation, degradation and terrorization. [ABC News, November 18, 2005]

Reconstructing U.S. military and intelligence officials use of sexual interrogation techniques begins in 2004 with Abu Ghraib and Seymour Hersh’s invaluable “New Yorker” article and the CBS “60 Minutes II” broadcast of soldiers’ photos. Their combined impact not only exposed the horrendous treatment of Iraqi prisoners, but made “celebrities” out of three of the perpetrators, Army reservists Charles Graner, Sabrina Harmon and Lynndie England. [see New Yorker, April 30, 2004 and March 24, 2008]

The best single source for details on abuses at Abu Ghraib is the study conducted by Major General Antonio Taguba. In the report’s executive summary, the following “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” are identified as having been used at the prison:

• videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
• forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
• forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
• forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;
• forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
• arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
• positioning a naked detainee on a MRE [meals ready to eat] Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
• placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture;
• sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

In a description of a meeting about the report with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other high-ranking Defense Department officials, Taguba told Hersh: “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.” Images of these practices, like similar images of cruelty from the Vietnam and other wars, have become enshrined in the nation’s memory.

Making matters even more sadistic, the festive, if not chaotic, conditions at the prison led male soldiers to engage in “consensual” sexual liaisons with female prisoners and even record their trysts for posterity. According to the Taguba report, “a male MP guard [was] having sex with a female detainee.” [Taguba report, “Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade”; New Yorker, June 25, 2007]

Subsequent to the Hersh and CBS exposés, additional photos, videotapes and personal accounts by military personnel and former detainees have come out. More than one hundred photographs and four videos taken at Abu Ghraib were initially suppressed by the Army’s Criminal Investigations Division. In September 2005, and only after ACLU litigation and a ruling by District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, was all the “evidence” finally released to the public. (Dozens of photos can be accessed through google and other sources.) They provide further examples of the sexual abuse systematically employed by U.S. personnel on alleged or suspected terrorists.

Drawing from a host of media reports, a jig-saw-puzzle picture of sexual torture employed in the War on Terror begins to emerge. Two examples are illustrative:

1. Scotland’s “Sunday Herald” reports that a former Iraqi prisoner claimed that there is a photo of a civilian translator raping a male juvenile prisoner; he stated, “They covered all the doors with sheets. I heard the screaming, … and the female soldier was taking pictures.”
2. The Associated Press reports that a former inmate, Dhia al-Shweiri, was ordered by American soldiers to strip naked, bend over and place his hands on a wall; while not sodomized, he says he was humiliated: “We are men. It’s OK if they beat me,” al Shweiri said. “Beatings don’t hurt us; it’s just a blow. But no one would want their manhood to be shattered. They wanted us to feel as though we were women, the way women feel, and this is the worst insult, to feel like a woman.”

Accepting the patriarchal sexism, the humiliation was deeply upsetting.

The experience of another former inmate, Hayder Sabbar Abd, is similarly revealing. Abd is memorialized as the man in the hood in Lynndie England’s infamous photo. In that photograph, the smiling England gives a thumbs-up gesture and points at Abd’s exposed genitals.

As reported by the “Independent”:

Mr. Abd said he recalled having his hood removed and being told by the soldiers’ Arabic translator to masturbate as he looked at Ms England. “She was laughing and she put her hands on her breasts,” he told the newspaper. “Of course I couldn’t do it, so they beat me in the stomach and I fell to the ground. The translator said, ‘Do it, do it. It’s better than being beaten.’ I said ‘How can I do it?’ So I put my hand on my penis, just pretending.”

At this point, one of the other prisoners, ­a friend of Mr Abd’s identified as Hussein, ­was pushed towards his genitals while the hood was put back over his own head.

“They made him sit next to me. My penis was very close to his mouth. I did not know it was my friend because of the hood. It was humiliating. We didn’t think that we would survive. All of us believed we would be killed and we would not get out alive,” said Mr Abd.

One can only wonder what England now thinks about Abu Ghraib as she sits in her jail cell at San Diego’s Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar. And how she appreciates the “bad apples” theory in the face of the recent revelation of Bush administration “Principals” approving “harsh” interrogation techniques.

Surprising to many, nearly a year before Abu Ghraib was exposed, in May 2003, British private Gary Bartlam, previously stationed in Basra and the port of Umm Qasr, was arrested in his hometown of Tamworth, Staffordshire. He had brought in a roll of pictures he shot in Iraq to his local photo-developer for processing. A shocked clerk, after reviewing the shots, called the police. Among his photos were:

* a picture showing an Iraqi man being forced to perform oral sex on a (white) man;

* a picture showing two Iraqis apparently being forced to perform anal sex;

* a picture showing two naked Iraqis cowering on the ground.

A flabbergasted Bartlam told the police that he took the shots to show his mom what was going on in Iraq.

Such interrogation practices were not limited to Iraq. According to a report in the “Sydney Morning Hearld”: “Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man’s face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider’s written account.”

This allegation was confirmed by former Army Sergeant Erik Saar in his book, “Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier’s Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo.” Saar worked as an Arabic translator at Gitmo from December 2002 to June 2003; Major General Geoffrey Miller, the architect of Abu Ghraib intelligence techniques, was his commander.

According to Saar, a female interrogator employed an innovative technique to “break” a Saudi detainee. He says she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner’s back and commenting on his apparent erection. In a draft of his book, Saar’s describes her most ingenious proceedure:

She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, ‘Who sent you to Arizona?’ [the detainee had taken a pilot course] He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.

She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.

“He began to cry like a baby,” the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying: “Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself.”

“The concept,” observes Saar, “was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength.” Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact between a man and a woman not his wife or family member or with a menstruating woman, who is considered unclean. [The Sun, June 4, 2003;Independent, May 6, 2004; Washington Blade, May 7, 2004; Sydney Morning Hearld, January 28, 2005]

* * *

The American people, through human rights groups, the ACLU, Congress and the Courts, have fought a protracted battle with the Bush administration over the precise meaning of “enhanced interrogation techniques” used in Iraq, Guantánamo and CIA black sites. Recent revelations show just how far the Bush administration will go to cover its tracks with regard to questionable (if not illegal) interrogation techniques.

In December ’07, it was revealed that the CIA destroyed videotapes it made in 2002 (two years before Abu Ghriab) of the interrogation of those it designated “top terrorist” suspects; these tapes were destroyed, as CIA director Michael Hayden explained, because CIA officials at the time were afraid that keeping them “posed a security risk”.

In March ‘08, Bush vetoed an intelligence bill that would have limited the CIA to interrogation techniques approved by the Army Field Manual. It would have banned water-boarding as well as stripping prisoners naked, forcing them to perform sexual acts or to mimic sexual acts, mock executions and beating or burning of prisoners.

In April, ABC News revealed that the highest officials of the Bush administration, what is know as the “Principals,” met dozens of times after September 11th to review and approve interrogation techniques. Those who participated in the White House Situation Room meetings included Dick Cheney, Colin Powel, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet and John Ashcroft; the president was intentionally excluded from the meeting in apparent fear of a possible war crimes indictment.

According to ABC, “the high-level discussions about these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.” The Times mentions that CIA operatives actually demonstrated some of these techniques, including water-boarding, for the principal war criminals. One can only wonder if any of the techniques of sexual humiliation were demonstrated or if the gathered officials had to rely on their vivid (if perverse) imaginations to conjure up the actual practices and their likely consequences for the hapless victims.

Ashcroft is reported to have been the only one troubled by the use of the techniques. Nevertheless, when queried about the meetings, Bush stated that he knew of and “approved” the techniques.

And later in April, the Times ran Mazzetti’s article further detailing CIA interrogation tactics and revealing Bush’s ’07 executive order permitting U.S. intelligence operatives to circumvent restrictions on the use of humiliating and degrading interrogation techniques.

The clock is ticking down on the Bush administration. For all their respective protestations, one can only wonder whether the next president will (secretly) approve the use of cruel, humilating and degrading interrogation techniques, especially sexual terror. Hidding behind plausible deniability is one of the oldest practices of those in power. Morality and the law nearly always take second place to expedience and necessity, whether real or invented.

The Bush administration and the Congress are unlikely to make public the full scope of sexual terrorism used to break the detainee in both body and mind during the War on Terror. Yet, detailing the actual techniques both approved and used by the interrogators (whether CIA, military or civilian contractors) is critical to establishing the true history of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. While wishfull thinking, this accounting might support subsequent war crimes prosecutions.

David Rosen can be reached at drosen@ix.netcom.com.

Being a Muslim in the US Army

By “Youssef Snuffy”

 

Part One

 

I was in the Reserve Officer Training Corps or ROTC when the attacks on September 11, 2001 occurred.  Every American felt something on that day.  Those of us in ROTC knew one thing … we would be going to war. 

 

Everyone deals with war in a different way.  But as a recent convert to Islam I had a lot more to worry about.  How was the Army going to treat me?  Would I be cast out, scapegoated, ran out or worse?  Stories about Chaplin James Yee and the American Taliban (John Walker Lindh) didn’t help. 

 

Luckily, I was chosen to receive more schooling and went to law school.  However, this educational delay wouldn’t last forever and soon I would be back in the Army.  A new army, a changed army, I would also be changed. 

 

Before being a cadet in ROTC I was an enlisted soldier.  My military occupation specialty or MOS was a combat engineer (code 12B).  I volunteered to be a paratrooper and was stationed at Fort Bragg North Carolina.  I was placed in a combat unit and trained.  Trained all the time, trained for a mission that under Clinton never came.  However, I always knew there was something more for me out there than being a grunt with C4. 

 

Being a paratrooper in a combat unit means you give up, on occasion, substantial freedom.  You are subject to room inspections in the morning and at night.  You sometimes are locked down and on 2-hour recall for parts of the year just in case we had to go to war at the drop of the hat.  Peculiarly, any time I was reading during a nightly room inspection my team leader would ask, “What are you reading … the Qur’an?” 

 

Prior to joining the Army, I involved myself with some haphazard soul searching.  Sometimes it involved learning about religions and trying to find the meaning of God.  Other times in involved various recreational activities of which I am not proud.  The Army, at first, delayed this soul searching as I got caught up in an isolated lake called “the barracks” and like a piranha went into a drinking frenzy. 

 

After about a year of drinking almost everyday I decided this is not how to live life and stopped.  At the time it was normal for me to vomit almost every weekend.  Something that is so foreign to me now. 

 

During a real soul searching session before joining the Army I caught a hint of a religion called Islam.  I knew very little about it.  No one teaches you about Islam in public school where I come from.  You would have to specifically ask to learn about it in a college course, but I was a chemistry major.  But I remembered one tenet was no drinking. 

 

After I stopped drinking I picked up a copy of the Qur’an and began too read.  One evening, just like every evening when I was reading, my team leader asked in a harsh yet civil tone, “What are you reading … the Qur’an?”  To his amazement I was.  Shortly there after I left the army and was in ROTC in sunny southern California. 

 

(*** TO BE CONTINUED ***)

FATIMA BHUTTO, A Portrait by Rusty Zimmerman (www.rustyzimmerman.com/)

Wajahat Ali

Wearing Bhutto as a last name in Pakistan is analogous to carrying a flamboyant, rare, elitist Prada bag: an accessory that assures you will never be common nor anonymous. The Bhutto merchandise captivates the political landscape as a dynamic, privileged, legendary and plagued real estate that encapsulates all that is wildly schizophrenic, volatile but ultimately endearing about Pakistan. It’s precisely this mythology borne from a feudal dynasty that burdens Fatima Bhutto, the charismatic and outspoken niece of recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto, and daughter of Murtaza Bhutto, himself assassinated in 1996.

The twenty five year old published poet, writer, and columnist for The News in Pakistan loathes “birth right politics” and laments Pakistan’s obsession with “the cult of personality.” Regardless, that Bhutto brand name, for better or worse, places the spotlight squarely on this young “Bhutto,” who is now coming into her own as both a vocal social activist and highly coveted, Pakistani bachelorette tabloid sensation. Instead of abusing the limelight for pretentious self adulation, Fatima Bhutto has found a forum to publicly blast Musharaff’s dictatorial government, Asif Ali Zardari’s corruption, Benazir Bhutto’s self serving machinations, and the Army’s hegemonic apparatuses.

I recently conducted a lengthy and informative interview with Pakistan’s “new” daughter of destiny and pleasantly discovered that she, despite her regal and privileged upbringing, was not like the narcissistic, self-absorbed Pakistani Clifton elitists I’ve met and come to abhor over the years. Instead, I talked to an extremely opinionated, well informed, sarcastic, passionate, garrulous yet articulate young woman about the recent Pakistani elections, Asif Ali Zardari’s new government, the real Benazir Bhutto, the role of Bhutto and Zardari in her father’s assassination, the disastrous results of American foreign policy, the future of Musharaff, and life living under the “Bhutto” spotlight.

ALI: There are many who have partisan views on the Bhutto family dynasty. Some see you as “the real Bhutto” as opposed to Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, son of Asif Zardari and the late Benazir Bhutto. Why would you think you warrant the “authentic label” – a political label, I might add, you seem to wholeheartedly reject at the current moment.

BHUTTO: To me it sounds like two different things. First, there’s a question of simple genetics I think. There’s a question of some kind of political birthright. But I think both propositions are frivolous. The first question is: who is actually a Bhutto child by virtue of their parents? I think that is a pretty straightforward answer; one that shouldn’t have other implications but does now in this exciting frenzy of “dynasty” that we live in, right?

The other is which child is more qualified to rule, which is equally frivolous. Because “name” is determining the qualification in this place. It’s not a resume, it’s not any work experience, it’s just who has the closer genetics to the [gene] pool and therefore who is more qualified. It’s an example of how names and personalities rather than principles and platforms have taken over politics in South Asia and Pakistan.

ALI: Many claim the dynasty has a curse and a privilege, which can be likened to what we have here in America with the Kennedys. Do you think this cycle will repeat itself in the 21^st century: a cyclical pattern of tragedy and privilege? Is there any way to break from this dynastic “curse”, or is this just an overreaching assumption?

BHUTTO: I think it’s a bit fantastical actually. When we rely on things like curses and blessings to explain things for us, we lose sight of the real picture. We lose sight of the wider truths and how it is that people live in the countries they live in and the factors that decide the things like violence in these countries. I think it’s all very romanticized to say there is a curse and that’s why they will be part of a cyclical violence for a family like the Kennedys, the Ghandis and so on.

The answer is probably less exciting or less mythical. That’s something people don’t like to look at. It’s amazing the politics of distraction that are practiced, not just in South Asia, but also in the media at large. Where you can take a family and build a myth around it that is exciting and sad and romantic without any mention of actual politics or actual conditions in the country they live in. It’s purely distraction. I think they keep perpetuating this myth of curses and blessings – it’s all very frivolous.

ALI: Throughout the history of Pakistan it seems either the military or feudal dynasties control the power. From the ground up, there seems to be a system in place that always hijacks the democratic process in their favor. How can Pakistan tangibly and realistically free itself of this? Can it at all?

BHUTTO: It certainly can. The question is will it? One question that is central to both is the issue of accountability and certainly the issue of merit. When you look at the state of Pakistani politicians today - you are right - it’s either a taking over by the army who believe they are the only ones who care for Pakistan and they are the only force that can set Pakistan down the right path. Then you’ve got this sort of feudal dynasty that believes they are entitled to rule and that they deserve power. Neither one of these groups is going to give up power or authority. Now we see a third cycling of politicians.

Musharraf came into power because people were fed up with Nawaz [Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s once exiled former Prime Minister] and [Benazir] Bhutto. Then, Nawaz and Benazir came back to Pakistan, because people were fed up with Musharaff. And when people are finished with Asif Zardari [Benazir’s husband and her party’s current figurehead] and Nawaz, they will go back to Musharaff.

Parties have molded politics in Pakistan into one of personality. They have completely lowered the political discourse and political understanding in this country. It doesn’t have to be about issues anymore, it’s about people. It’s about who looks better on a sticker. I mean it sounds funny, but in a sense it’s true. They are able to do this because in Pakistan we have no discourse that pushes things like principles or platforms or merits. One should be qualified to rule because of their experience, their platforms, their party’s manifesto, because of the internal democratic system. But of course that’s not the question, it’s whom you are related to and how closely you are related to them.

The other factor is also accountability with things like the NRO, which is really an odious piece of legislation called the National Reconciliation Ordinance, which is a bill signed unilaterally into power by Musharaff when he was the General and not the President. It effectively wipes out 20 years of corruption for politicians, bankers and bureaucrats. And it makes it virtually impossible to file future charges against a sitting parliamentarian. It effectively puts those in power above the law. And today the NRO is being used not to excuse just financial crimes, but also extortion, murder, smuggling cases, drug cases, I mean this is certainly the case of Asif Zardari. There’s no accountability, there’s no way of saying these feudal dynasties have stolen from the country and they have not given it back to the country, and the army has increased violence and changed our way of life. We would like to hold them accountable to their rule, and therefore remove them from office. Without that system, we can’t remove them.

ALI: Let’s discuss the current election and some political parties. You have actually talked about the rigging of Pakistan’s February elections, and even suggested the PPP [Benazir’s party, the Pakistan People’s Party] had a hand in rigging them. However, many said this election represented the will of the Pakistani people. Were these truly free elections we witnessed?

BHUTTO: This election was nothing more than state theatre. It was a complete farce in many ways. First of all, it was the third time the election date was changed. It was supposed to be in December, but then Emergency was declared. Then we were supposed to have it January 8th, and then it was postponed to February 18th. Now for each of these periods, the campaigning time was extremely limited – 30 to 45 days given – and if you look at the original Constitution, you need at least 60 but at least preferably 90 days for canvassing. For those who don’t know, this is an enormous country. We have very distinct provinces, and in order to canvass on that scale you need time. So, that’s the first way the elections were clearly not going to be free or fair.

Secondly, there was no drive for registration in Pakistan. If you look at most rural areas in many of these provinces, women don’t have ID cards. Not just women, but you also have the peasants working the land, your construction workers that come from the Frontier, village people who are in a way bonded labor; people who have no sort of social security or are legally tracked in any way. Women especially just don’t have access.

So, you have an election from the start that is not going to be representative of the people. You’re going to have only a small percentage of the people that can vote. Then, there’s Election Day. Musharaff’s government enabled rigging. I think that’s very important to state. They released, for example, a voter list by the government at one stage. Several weeks later, polling lists were released. Now, let’s say you have a voting list of 60,000 people and a polling list of maybe 300 polling stations; people have no idea where they are registered. So, they may go to their closest polling station where they voted at last elections, wait in line, and then be told, “No, I’m sorry you’re not registered here.” “So, where am I registered?” “Sorry, we don’t have that information.” There’s a complete disconnect and there’s no transparency between these two lists.

The other way is the election commission released booklets and did ads in the media putting out the rules of elections. What you need in an election to vote legally is that you need to appear in person, and you need a valid identity card with your name and card number on it. However, the voter lists that were given to the voting stations by the election commission and the government, they have a name and a birth date but nothing in between. They don’t have an ID card number or address. So, you can appear at a polling station and say, “Hi I’m Afzal Khan and I’d like to vote,” and there’s nothing to distinguish you from 400 other Afzal Khans in your neighborhood.

So, that name doesn’t get checked off, and people can come and vote on the same name over and over again. The Musharaff government certainly enabled rigging, but what’s important to know about rigging especially in a country like Pakistan is that people have this image that the government is sort of a miscreant in a black cloak who comes in to a station, sticks in a separate box, hides it in under his cloak, and somehow rigging happens. But how it really happens is through the local parties on the ground, who have polling agents at the scene and who are technically there to ensure rigging doesn’t happen, but of course that’s not the case.

Parties like PPP, PML-N rig in a number of ways, the first is through intimidation. These are small communities, the polling agent knows your name, knows where you live, and if you don’t vote the right way, you will be noticed. There’s also ballot stuffing, which we saw quite openly. You also have a presiding officer at the polling station who are usually school teachers, and these are government appointed positions who owe their livelihood and job to the government so they are not neutral in any way.

You also have fake ID’s being used. We saw women coming in with several ID’s. They come in wearing the burqahs and you have a 19 year old wearing a burqah who has an ID card saying she was born in 1938. And you are not permitted to ask a lady wearing a burqah to lift her burqah, she doesn’t have to show her face when she votes, and that of course leads to rigging.

ALI: CNN recently stated that Asif Ali Zardari is the most powerful man in Pakistan. The Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, was sworn in last week, and many people say he is a handpicked Desi [South Asian] uncle who is merely the proxy of Zardari. And, as you know, Zardari’s former nickname is “Mr. 10%” due to the illegal commissions he got off contracts. Has he been reformed 100%?

BHUTTO: I don’t think Zardari has been reformed an iota. This reform of Zardari has been through the NRO, a completely unconstitutional and illegal piece of legislation. What they have done is stricken from the record 2.5 to 3 billion dollars worth of corruption from Zardari’s name. And they said, “Sorry, nope, just kidding, he didn’t do it”. But in a city like Karachi most of the citizens don’t have access to electricity. In the summer, the running water comes maybe two or three hours a day. A city that effectively looks like a refugee camp. That’s evidence of that corruption, that evidence you see every day doesn’t erase itself with the NRO. They’ve removed some extortion and drug cases from Zardari’s record as well.

He had 4 murder cases pending against him, and one of them was just removed involving the murder of a High Court Justice and his young son. Just because his name is now suddenly stricken from the record, doesn’t change that there’s a family who remembered him. I don’t think he’s been reformed in any way except to promote this idea of reconciliation, healing and democracy at work in Pakistan. Which of course is for the benefit for people who know nothing about Pakistan.

If you see Gilani the Prime Minister, what has not been mentioned in the Washington Post pieces about his exciting and democratic election, is that he not only served under the parliament of the dictator Zia al Haq [Pakistan’s military dictator from 1977 to 1988 until his assassination], but he also served under the Majlis of Shura council of Zia al Haq, an Islamic council or parliament that Zia had created which he filled with his most trusted and closest advisors. A former crony if you will, or certainly a political worker of Zia al Haq, now stands in Parliament as a Prime Minister of the PPP, whose founder [Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir’s father] was killed by Zia. These are all fiefs. Historical amnesia in Pakistan doesn’t even have to extend that far, it just goes back 20 years. That’s how far you have to go to check Gilani’s political history.

Certainly he’s been placed there because he’s a “yes man”, he has no ideological attachment to the People’s Party, certainly the party that was founded by Zulfiqar Bhutto. However, I’m sure he worked just fine with Benazir and Zardari’s people. But this has become a charade concerning Zardari’s cases. What the NRO does is that those cases with Zardari no longer have to happen under the table – now they can happen over the table.

ALI: You’ve said publicly that you hold Benazir Bhutto “morally responsible” for the assassination of your father [Murtaza Bhutto shot outside his house in Karachi, Pakistan in a police ambush in 1996.] We now know the police had a direct role in the murder, including blocking traffic and delaying the ambulances as well dragging the investigation. Do you specifically blame your aunt and Asif Zardari for your father’s assassination? Pointing fingers at your aunt and Zardari is a bold claim no?

BHUTTO: As you said we know for a fact that the police pulled the trigger. Some very high level police officers were at the scene of the murder - they placed themselves there. Who authorized the police to stage a private killing of an elected member of the Assembly and coincidentally the Prime Minister’s brother? I always said Bhutto bears moral responsibility for my father’s murder because if you look at her last government in the mid 90’s it presided over thousands of deaths in Karachi. Bhutto used the police force to attack her critics and opponents.

The police were given orders by the Prime Minister’s office to clean up Karachi. They went after the ethnic Muhajir community, a community that came from India [after 1947’s partition], and is primarily Urdu speaking and the MQM party, which is the party that represents them. They were attacked in “Operation Clean Up”, which was as genocidal as it sounds. I mean the police were empowered by the Prime Minister’s office to setup torture cells and assassination squads. It was as simple as the police stop you, they ask for your ID card, and if you don’t have a Sindhi name, if you have a Muhajir name then you’re shot on spot. There were thousands of these daily murders. The MQM were targeted primarily because they opposed Bhutto and primarily because they were a sticking point in the province of Sindh where she got most of her votes and power from. My father was a very vocal critic of the corruption by Benazir and Asif and these extra judicial killings. And he was one man out of thousands that was killed by her government.

So, absolutely she created an environment of organized and sanctioned violence against political figures. None of these cases were solved. None of these cases were seriously looked into. The police were allowed to attack with immunity and were covered by the law. Secondly, I pointed the finger at Benazir because her role in the cover-up was substantial. While we don’t know if she signed the death warrant her self, while we know she wasn’t there to pull the trigger, we also know certain things. After the murder my family wasn’t allowed to file a first information report [F.I.R.], which is a police report that is every Pakistani’s right by law. Our family was denied the right to file an F.I.R. We had to go the high court of Sindh to have our legal rights awarded to us.

Secondly Bhutto’s government arrested the witnesses and the survivors to the assassination but not the police, they were not arrested, they were all internally cleared in a review, and they were honorably reinstated to their job, and they were promoted. One member of the police force who at the time headed the intelligence bureau that directly reported to the Prime Minister’s office, after the murder he was asked by Benazir to join the Central Committee of her Party. That sounds like a reward really. It doesn’t sound like a punishment. It was a very honored position to be given.

Third, the Benazir government didn’t allow us to push forward with a criminal case. They elected to have a tribunal which was to have no legal authority to pass a sentence. It was essentially a stalling mechanism. However the judges chosen were very well respected members of the community. The tribunal concluded three very important things, but unfortunately they were unable to act on these conclusions.

First, it was an assassination. Forensically, they concluded only the police fired ammunition; it wasn’t a shoot out. Second, they concluded that the police used an excessive amount of force, that they stopped traffic, they didn’t take the injured men to hospitals, and they dropped them off at clinics but not to emergency wards. And third, they concluded the assassination couldn’t have happened without approval from the highest level of the government. At the time what was higher than Benazir’s post as Prime Minister?

ALI: Many say that the bad blood between your late father and Asif Zardari points the blame at the latter. Do you think that’s pure speculation or accurate?

BHUTTO: We have to take into account my father was very vocal about Asif’s role in Benazir’s government. He was outspoken about his corruption and about the manner in which he and his friends essentially hijacked the government. He was given positions like the Minister of Investment, which is almost ridiculous to place in the hands of a man who has corruption cases leveled against him. Asif Zardari certainly with his wife took the party in a direction that rendered it completely unfamiliar in its original form. A party that was founded on the ideals of social justice, land reform, provincial empowerment, and economic empowerment became under Benazir and Asif’s control the party of feudal landlords. It became a party of the industrial class, these oligarchs that control industry in Pakistan, and it no longer is a party for the disposed and disenfranchised. It’s become a club, a club for the rich and famous and criminally inept. My father was very critical about this, of course he represented a threat politically to Benazir. He spoke truth to the power in that case, and it was certainly very threatening.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is not the only murder case leveled against Asif Zardari. There’s the case of the high court judge as I mentioned. There was a case of the steel mill chairman as well. Asif was a man at the time in power who was not used to hearing no, he was used to getting what he wanted. He received “10%” during Benazir’s first government and he became Mr. 50% during the second. Nothing ran in Pakistan without Asif’s approval, and I don’t imagine that this would have changed very much now. Again we see him at the helm of power pulling the string of the Prime Minister and Parliament.

ALI: If you’ve been reading the Western media’s coverage of Pakistan, you’ll know your late aunt, Benazir Bhutto, was heralded as the “beacon of democracy.” Some others state she was merely a shameless self-promoter. What was the reality, and why did the United States want so much to project her as this beacon of democracy?

BHUTTO: When people do their bidding for the U.S., they become beacons of democracy. The U.S also, I believe, thought Pinochet of Chile was a beacon of democracy at one time; they heralded Taliban as freedom fighters in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. Let’s not forget they supported Saddam Hussein until he became inconvenient then they toppled him. The Shah Of Iran was also a great friend of America. So I think it’s perfectly obvious why America would choose to support Benazir: she was willing to do their bidding for them. Here was a politician who was certainly corrupt if not financially then certainly ethically, and who had lost, through the years, the necessary ground support to bring her to power any more. That’s why she needed backers like those in The White House.

Before she came back to Pakistan, she gave a number of very controversial statements. She said that once re-elected Prime Minister for the third time, which she assumed - in the way feudal dynasts do - was a given, that she would open up Pakistan’s borders for U.S. troops to stage operations in their War on Terror. Now that statement is not pro American, that statement is anti Pakistani. But those were the lengths she was willing to go to please those pulling the strings. It was Condi Rice who basically pushed Musharaff’s arm to deal with Benazir and said, “Look, you need a pretty face in the government, we can’t keep supporting open dictators. We can support you and give you millions of dollars of aid provided you look sort of like a democracy. It’s not the ‘70’s anymore.”

Purely looking at Benazir’s record, Wajahat, we have to conclude she was not a beacon of democracy. In her first government, she came into power by dealing with the military, through dealing with Zia’s military. She would’ve been his Prime Minister, and she was very fortunate that he was killed before that. It’s worthwhile mentioning General Zia assassinated Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, her father, and abrogated the 1973 constitution. When Benazir won the 1988 elections the army said to her, “Look we will invite you to be Prime Minister, but we will choose your cabinet for you and your foreign minister for you. And, you have to continue on with the IMF and World Bank loan agreements that we have taken on, and they have to be carried forward without any argument.” And she agreed and compromised with the army in ’88.

If we look at her first government which lasted two years, Benazir’s government failed to pass any major legislation – and by any major legislation I mean any legislation. Instead, you’ve got a woman Prime Minister popularly elected who did not remove the Hudood Ordinance, which is the most violent piece of legislation against women and minorities in Pakistan. It is a part of Zia’s legacy. It says if a woman commits adultery or engages in sexual relations before marriage she can be stoned to death. It’s a completely draconian law. The Bhutto government didn’t even attempt to remove the Hudood.

She was ousted in 1990 on large-scale corruption charges. She comes back to government in ’93, which is now known for continued corruption on a major level. We’re talking billions. Two to three billon dollars worth of corruption cases about money stolen from Pakistan’s Treasury. They were also known for major flagrant human rights violations, for the extra judicial killings targeted against the ethnic Muhajirs and political dissidents. To top it off, before falling out of power, she recognizes and provided support for the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Her interior minister used to call the Taliban “my boys.” And Benazir has basically admitted in interviews “Look we made a mistake with Afghanistan. Whoops, I didn’t know. Please forgive me.”

This is her record. During her last government, six Sindhi papers were shut down because they were critical. There was no freedom of press, no freedom of political difference. Her record is not just violence, but also distinctly undemocratic. So, we come out of that and ask, “What did she do afterwards?” She leaves the country and she comes back and makes a deal with a dictator.

She makes a deal with Musharaff and asks for three things: First, the NRO and for [the pardon of] her corruption cases and her friends, which distinctively cover her and not other figures, from the start of her power till the end, from 1986 till now. She asks for the NRO. Secondly, she asks that the Constitution be changed so that the Prime Minister can have more than two terms. Now, most functioning democracies have limits on the powers for the Prime Minister and President. Benazir was asking this be removed so she could return to power for the third time, a personal request. And the third request was to remove Article 58-2b, which allowed the President to depose his Prime Minister without the sanction of Parliament. By removing the Article, it doesn’t empower the people, the democratic institution, the parliament; it simply shifts power from the President to the Prime Minister. Again, that’s a deeply personal sort of request.

For Benazir coming back for a third shot at power, it’s remarkable she didn’t ask for the 1973 Constitution to be restored, or she didn’t say drop the Hudood, or she didn’t ask for the thousands of people that have disappeared since Musharaff came into office. The only legislation she asked for was concerning her own person. Her record is one that is deeply flawed, deeply, deeply flawed. It’s no more democratic than the Shah of Iran or General Pinochet.

But, however, I think it’s this continued sort of racism in the West and this need for expediency to push Benazir forward. Here is this woman that speaks beautiful English and she went to the best schools the West could offer. And she is compliant, and she was a pretty face for this idea of a democracy, this sort of transposed democracy they were planning to put up in Pakistan. I don’t think the US government has dealt with Pakistan any differently than they do with other similar countries they intervene in. Certainly the media, and this is important to note, was remarkably irresponsible in their covering Benazir before she was coming back to Pakistan.

There were these fawning articles written about what a horrible life she had, how attractive she was, how she went to Oxford, who her friends in Washington and London were. It didn’t say much about her record, or her time in government. Ultimately, that’s what she is accountable to – her record.

ALI: Western media portrays Pakistan as a hotbed of “rage boys” – yet fundamentalist parties only win a minority of seats. Nonetheless, we see an explosion of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks this past year. This makes it hard for U.S. and the world to hear the age-old tale “Hey, we Pakistanis are peaceful.” If you could control the Western media’s depiction for one day – what would you show as the modern day reality of Pakistan?

BHUTTO: Wow. Well, that would be a very heavy day. I think when we talk about things like Islamic radicalism or Islamic extremism in Pakistan, the one thing Western media is really good at is showing the really scary side: men with beards burning things and bombing things. They de-contextualise them. They leave them completely floating in this space of terror and violence. One thing I’ve never seen in the media explanation as to why Islamic fundamentalists have become powerful in Pakistan is the following. In most of this country, you see no evidence of the government in rural areas. They are completely an invisible force, either reluctant or unwilling to provide the most basic needs for people in this country. So what happens in these places, Islamic organizations will come in and set up madrassas. So if there’s no other option for a family to have their child educated, how do you convince a family not to send their child to a religious school, a madrassa? You can’t. You don’t. You have no right to. Of course not all madrassas are bad, and we have to distinguish between good and bad madrassas In the Western media, madrassa is followed by jihad or training camp, and that’s certainly not the case.

After the 2005 earthquakes, which was incredibly devastating with tremendous destruction, what you saw when you went to these areas hit by the earthquake, you saw aid coming from foreign countries, foreign flags flying, and you saw the Jamaat and Islamic parties and organizations building tents and rehabilitations centers. You didn’t see anything from the Pakistan government. I would put that in the newspaper for the day. I think also the thing that happens in the Western media is that they have set the bar incredibly low for countries like Pakistan. That speaks to this sort of – I don’t know what the word is - one could call it Orientalism, neo-colonialism or imperialism – let’s just call it imperialism. Part of imperial thinking is to denigrate the people you are lording over, and say these are very simple people and so we must come and help them. The Western media does this constantly with Pakistan, for example, after the elections, they said, “Oh, only 20 people were killed that’s very good for Pakistan!” No, that’s not good or okay for Pakistan! 20 people or 200 people, it doesn’t matter, this is still 20 people, it’s still violence on Election Day.

You also had Joe Biden and John Kerry come in and say, “Oh, for Pakistan this was incredibly free and fair elections.” No! For no country was this free and fair elections, but the bar has been placed so low in the Western media. When there’s two suicide bombings instead of five, the media says, “Whoa! Things are booming in Pakistan.”

There are so many things the Western media leaves out, sorry for going on like this. The Western media paints this picture of economic progress in Pakistan, you know 10 billion dollars of aid, this country is moving forward, they are allies on the War on Terror, they are receiving foreign investments and so forth.

The idea that The New York Times would say these things that Pakistan is booming under Musharaff – everything is wonderful and everything is great. But what they don’t print is that the growth they speak of is this very small pool. Like 20 families that have always done well in Pakistan and have continued to do well. If you look at the majority of the population, it’s become too expensive to eat in this country in parts of Punjab and Sindh. The price of bread, which is a staple in the Pakistani diet, went from 2 rupees to 18 rupees. The price of flour, wheat is just enormously high in this country.

ALI: War on terror has produced kidnappings, battery and even outright attacks on Pakistani people by Pakistan’s army in its hunt for Bin Laden. A lot of times we see disappearances of activists and professors in the Balochistan province. Describe this scene to us and explain if this, at all, is linked to the blowback we see via suicide bombs in Pakistan?

BHUTTO: It started off in the same way that you see with American military involvement in a lot of countries under the guise of fighting terror or protecting interests, they’d come in, say so and so has terror links, and they’d take them to Guantanamo. However, the Pakistani government, once the American government stopped shipping people to Guantanamo with enthusiasm, decided this was a very convenient way to deal with their problems. In Balochistan Province you have anywhere between five to eight thousand people disappeared – that’s an incredibly high number. As you said they are activists, professors, political workers, poets, they are picked up and taken and for no reason. Their families don’t know where they are; we don’t discuss this in the media.

You know Pakistan doesn’t have a history of suicide bombing, but certainly does have a violent political history, but we never had suicide bombings. But this recent slate of suicide attacks against the state, but also politicians, in crowded places, in parks and outside eateries - several things here need to be mentioned. If you look at the suicide operations that happened in Sri Lanka or Palestine or Lebanon, you always have a testimony or evidence by the suicide bomber before he kills himself. You know, “I am so and so and I am killing myself for this reason.” And then afterwards you have family members who come and explain. In Pakistan, there is a bomb blast, many people die, we are told there was suicide bomber but he is now dead. Who is this suicide bomber? We never get the names of the suicide bomber, we never get a testimony or explanation, and we rarely get a picture. We never hear the background to this man, who he was, what his family thinks, does his family think he was guilty of suicide bombing or not?

The government then conveniently says look we promise we will provide some justice for people who lost their lives in these attacks and justice will be provided and the man who did it is killed and oh well. I mean the troubling part is how easily suicide bombings are used and how readily they are accepted; there is no questioning anymore. Everything is done now through the machinery of suicide bombing, and if we assume they are genuine attacks that are not manipulated in any way, they are incredibly aggressive, and they have grown more aggressive every year. This year we have Lahore hit thee times, which is the capital of Punjab, which is the safest province in the country. It has perfectly running water and most of the army comes from Punjab. But they’ve been hit three times. It’s an alarming rate. We have to connect this to the growing civil war in Pakistan, which started off in the tribal areas and moved near the capital and is coming into the country. This is the war against the government, which I think might have started off as a reaction against the War on Terror and American involvement, but I think now it’s very much concentrated against the state of Pakistan.

ALI: Musharaff seems to have slipped under the radar. What’s his role in Zardari’s new PPP controlled Pakistan? The U.S. still backs Musharaff, however, and he is still President. What’s his future?

BHITTO: So long as there’s an American occupation of Afghanistan, Musharaff will remain viable and indispensable. He has played his cards badly inside the country. He has lost a lot of control and power within the country. He picked General Kiyani to replace him as Chief of Army, but the word is that the army has had enough of Musharaff and he has brought on loss of respect for the armed forces. Personally, I think his role in the next government is to wait and watch. He has enabled this government to come forward and perhaps quite wisely. This is the government that has to deal with price inflation, greenage shortages; it has to deal with a civil war that is brewing across the country, which is no longer in the tribal areas. This is the government that has to deal with renewed American strength in Pakistan. We’ve seen since 2008 a tremendous amount of American air strikes, and they are reported as having great accuracy and tremendous precision, but it is never explained to us who is allowing the Americans to come in almost directly and conduct their business on Pakistan soil. So this government has to deal with a de facto American invasion and occupation of parts of Pakistan.

I think Musharaff prefers that these other politicians and parties deal with that, while he sits on the sidelines and waits for them to fail. But the question is will they allow him to do this and have any part of it? Will he have any future once this government disintegrates? I think that is looking increasingly unlikely as time goes by.

ALI: Islam permeates the cultural and political psyche of Pakistan’s society. What should Islam’s role be in modern day Pakistan, from a political level and from a grass roots socio-cultural level as well?

BHUTTO: This is an Islamic republic of Pakistan, but it was founded in its inception not as an Islamic state but rather as a state for Muslims. We’ve seen Islam used as a means of oppression, under Zia for example, the Hudood Ordinance was brought in as a piece of Islamic law, but has no connection to Islamic law. Islam as a religion has given women a tremendous amount of rights. Certainly, it was very progressive in its treatment of women at that time, and if you look at other religions, Islam is one that gives women the right to divorce and the right to property. But the laws of Hudood do not reflect the progressive side of Islam. I think when you bring in religion into the equation you ultimately use it to silence people and use it as a means to scare people into submission. Unfortunately, that’s what happened in this country, you cannot say please remove the Hudood Legalisations which is extraordinarily offensive to women, because it’s seen as Islamic legislation and it would be seen as blasphemous to ask to remove an Islamic piece of the law.

Ultimately, Islam in Pakistan has to be private, it has to be followed individually. This is a country that has four very distinct provinces. We have a minority presence in this country as well. We have Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, we used to have Jews. Part of this diversity, certainly cultural diversity and linguistic diver