Cross-posted from the LUBP old website:

Dear President Obama,

Your extraordinary ascent to the U.S. Presidency is, to a large part, a reflection of your remarkable ability to mobilize society, particularly the youth, with the message of “change.” Indeed, change is what the world is yearning for after eight long and almost endless years of carnage let loose by a group of neo-cons that occupied the White House.

Understandably, your overarching policy focus would be the security and welfare of all U.S. citizens and so it should be. Similarly, our first and foremost concern is the protection of Pakistani lives and the prosperity of our society. We may have different social and cultural values, but we share the fundamental values of peace, harmony, justice and equality before law.

No people desire change more than the people of Pakistan, as we have suffered the most since 9/11, despite the fact that none of the perpetrators of the acts of terrorism unleashed on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, were Pakistani. Our entire social, political and economic fabric is in a state of meltdown. Our sovereignty, dignity and self-respect have been trampled upon. The previous U.S. administration invested in dictators and corrupt politicians by providing them power crutches in return for total compliance to pursue its misconceived war on terror.

There are many threats confronting our society today, including the threat of extremism. In a society where the majority is without fundamental rights, without education, without economic opportunities, without health care, the use of sheer force and loss of innocent lives continues to expand the extremist fringe and contract the space for the moderate majority.

Without peace and internal security, the notion of investing in development in the war zones is a pipe dream, as the anticipated benefits would never reach the people. So the first and foremost policy objective should be to restore the peace. This can only be achieved through a serious and sustained dialogue with the militants and mitigation of their genuine grievances under the ambit of our constitution and law. Since Pakistan’s founding leader signed a treaty in 1948 with the people of the country’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas and withdrew Pakistani troops, they had remained the most peaceful and trouble-free part of Pakistan up until the post-9/11 situation, when we were asked to deploy our troops in FATA.

Even a cursory knowledge of Pushtun history shows that for reasons of religious, cultural and social affinity, the Pushtuns on both sides of the Durand Line (which marks the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of their brethren on either side. The Pushtuns are proud of their history of resisting every invader from Alexander onwards, to the Persians, Moghuls, British and the Russians (all superpowers of their times) who were all bogged down in the Pushtun quagmire. So, no government, Pakistani or foreign, will ever be able to stop Pushtuns crossing over the 1,500-kilometer border to support their brethren in distress on either side, even if it means fighting the modern-day superpower in Afghanistan. Recent history shows how the mighty Soviet Union had to retreat from Afghanistan with its army defeated even though it had killed over a million Afghans.

To an average Pushtun, notwithstanding the U.N. Security Council sanction, the U.S. is an occupying power in Afghanistan that must be resisted. It is as simple as that. Therefore, the greatest challenge confronting U.S. policy in Afghanistan is how to change its status from an occupier to a partner. The new U.S. administration should have no doubt that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. As more innocent Pushtuns are killed, more space is created for new Taliban and even Al-Qaida recruits–revenge being an integral part of the Pushtun character. So, as with Iraq, the U.S. should give a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan and replace NATO and U.S. forces with U.N. troops during the interim period.The Pushtuns then should be involved in a dialogue process where they should be given a stake in the peace. As the majority’s stake in peace grows, proportionately the breeding ground for extremists shrinks.

The crucial lesson the U.S. needs to learn–and learn quickly–is that you can only win against terrorists if the majority in a community considers them terrorists. Once they become freedom fighters and heroes amongst their people, history tells us that the battle is lost.

Terrorism worldwide is an age-old phenomenon and cannot be eliminated by rampaging armies, no matter how powerful. It can only be contained by a strategy of building democratic societies and addressing the root causes of political conflicts. The democratization part of this strategy demands a strategic partnership between the West and the people of the Islamic world, who are basically demanding dignity, self-respect and the same fundamental rights as the ordinary citizen in the West enjoys. However, this partnership can only be forged if the U.S. and its close Western allies are prepared to accept and coexist with credible democratic governments in the Islamic world that may not support all U.S. policies as wholeheartedly as dictators and discredited politicians do in order to remain in power.

The roots of terror and violence lie in politics–and so does the solution. We urge the new administration to conduct a major strategic review of the U.S.-led war on terror, including the nature and kind of support that should realistically be expected of Pakistan keeping in mind its internal security interests. Linking economic assistance to sealing of its western frontier will only force the hand of a shaky and unstable government in Pakistan to use more indiscriminate force in FATA, a perfect recipe for disaster.

The stability of the region hinges on a stable Pakistan. Any assistance to improve governance and social indicators must not be conditional. For the simple reason that any improvement in the overall quality of life of ordinary citizens and more effective writ of the state would only make mainstream society less susceptible to extremism. However, if the new U.S. administration continues the Bush administration’s mantra of “do more,” to which our inept leadership is likely to respond to by using more force, Pakistan could become even more accessible to forces of extremism leading to further instability that would spread across the region, especially into India, which already faces problems of extremism and secessionist movements. Such a scenario would benefit no one–certainly not Pakistan and certainly not the U.S. That is why your message of meaningful change, Mr. President, must guide your policies in this region also.

Source: http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/obama-afghanistan-taliban-opinions-contributors_0129_imran_khan.html

….

Some Comments

MalangBaba Says:
January 30th, 2009

This aticle of IK is not for consumption of Obama but for few ‘urdu’ readers to ask them ‘Don’t dump me for Nawaz Sharif’.

I don’t think anyone who matters in USA will even know what he wrote.

This is a first round of Sharif-Imran Malakhra.

amirtai Says:
January 30th, 2009

I agree 100% with MalangBaba. This letter is just a point scoring for Pakistani politics. Imran knows very well that US president is not more than a puppet and has to pursue the policy of think tanks institution.

I do not agree with most of what Imran Khan has said. I would rather ask Imran! What are you doing to stop the bloodshed of Pushtuns, especially in Bajaur and Swat?

We’ve seen you and your family members leading the Lawyers movement, and even for Gaza. Why don’t we see the same energies for those suffering in Swat? Please stop portraying the pushtuns as warmongers, and differentiate between those who are getting funding and support from agencies (drug money) and those who are suffering.

I would say about the situation in Swat. An honest operation, lasting only two weeks can restore peace n calm to the region. But if our army is only killing innocent civilians, and letting the militants roam freely, then they cannot restore peace in a 1000 years (already almost 17 months of the operation).

There is no need to have talks with those who slaughter people in front of children, who destroy the very signs of civilization and who push a whole generation to the dark ages (destroying schools). There is only one solution: STOP funding them, and start killing them (not innocent women and children).

I do agree with him that US should change its role from an occupier to a partner and same thing should be applied in Pakistan as well.

SangeenKhan | 01/29/09

Imran is simply ISI puppet and his ideas on this situation are absolutely ridiculous and not worth a look for any US foreign policy official, let alone US president.
Being a Pashtun and a pakistani citizen its my conviction that there is no pashtun nationalistic struggle against the foreign troops in afghanistan rather a bunch of terrorists from Punjab, arab countries, central asian republics etc are fighting for their own agendas and play havoc with the lives of innocent pashtuns. In the tribal areas all this is happening in connivance and colloboration of Pakistani national security apparatus. Being a pashtun I fully support international presence in afghanistan untill process of institution building is complete. Leaving afghanistan at this moment, westren world will commit a grave crime. Lets recall what happened to afghanistan and pashtuns after the withdrawl of USSR.
Pashtuns intelligencia around the world supports US and Nato presence in Afghanistan at this moment of history.

Pukhtoon | 01/29/09

..”A dialogue can only be successful if it stands on mutually respected ground between the two parties. In this case the common ground can be the law of Pakistan, the Code of Pakhtunwali and Islam. The Taliban respect neither of the three. The Taliban have no respect for the law of Pakistan. There is abundant proof of it in their attacks on the security forces, destruction of infrastructure including bridges, hospitals and education institutions etc. Some of my friends who have had face to face discussions with foot soldiers of the Taliban informed that the Taliban do not accept the authority of the law of Pakistan. The Taliban have no respect for the code of Pakhtunwali. The most revered institution under the code is jirga. Even the mighty empires that the Pakhtun resisted- the Muslim Mughal Empire and the non Muslim British Empire did not violate the respect of Jirga- I do not know of any attacks on Jirga that were carried out by the Mughals and the British. The Taliban have repeatedly bombed jirgas all across NWFP and FATA. The code of Pakhtunwali dictates that there shall be no attacks on women and children. The Taliban have repeatedly violated the dictate by brutally killing women and children. The Taliban have violated the respected norms of Islam. Islam never justifies any disrespect of dead bodies. The Taliban takes pride in their humiliation of dead bodies. Islam orders every Muslim man and woman to get education. The Taliban forbid education for both girls and boys. In Islam there is no compulsion in religion. The Taliban imposed their version of the religion through terror and violence. How can there be a dialogue in such conditions with the Taliban. It is perhaps due to the lack of mutually respected grounds that almost all agreements between the Taliban and the Pakistan army fell apart.” (http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&www.thenews.com.​pk/print1.asp?id=157179)​
The important question you should be addressing is that Who are the Taliban? Who created them? Who are Supporting Them

Pukhtoon | 01/29/09

Being a PTI member, I myself do not agree with most of what Imran Khan has said. I’ll start by asking a question from Imran .. What are you doing to stop the bloodshed of Pukhtoons, especially in Bajaur and Swat? We have seen your energies in the Lawyers movement, and even for Gaza. Why don’t we see the same energies for those suffering in Swat? Please stop portraying the pukhtoons as warmongers, and start differentiating between those who are getting funding and support from different agencies, and those who suffer. I would give you an example of the situation in Swat. An honest operation, lasting only two weeks (maximum) can restore complete peace to the region. But if our army is only killing innocent civilians, and letting the militants roam freely, then they cannot restore peace in a million years (and we have already seen almost 17 months of the operation).

There is no need to have talks with those who slaughter people in front of children, who destroy the very signs of civilization and who push a whole generation to the dark ages. There is only one solution: STOP funding them, and start killing them (and not innocent civilians).

I do agree with a few things in your article though and that is Afghanistan the “US has to change its status from an occupier to a partner.” I also agree with “you can only win against terrorists if the majority in a community considers them terrorists. Once they become freedom fighters and heroes amongst their people, history tells us that the battle is lost.”

But even your own sentence differentiates between the stages .. terrorists and freedom fighters. Many people have joined the militants because of revenge (and yes you are right here too), and those people might lay down their arms if negotiated with. But there is another party there as well. They are the ones you call terrorists, and these people can not be negotiated with. Allow me to paste an extract from article in the news (Space limit, continued in next comme

Salloo | 01/29/09

Some of what Imran bhai says is silly. Pushtuns are not the only ones looking for revenge – Americans are too, for 9/11. Tribal areas were not peaceful from 1948 until 9/11. They have always been restive – since Alexander’s/Sikandar’s time. He does not mention that Afghans do not recognise the Durand line – and that has long been a sore point between Islamabad and Kabul.

I think the biggest problem is that Karzai is about as good a nation-builder as Arafat was. He is running a very corrupt govt – which i think is as big a problem for Afghanistan as the Taleban.

But Imran bhai is right about difficulty in building a nation when security is crap. No easy answer. I think Pakistan and perhaps Iran need to play a more important role in Afghan security. Perhaps invite their armies to police the border districts of Afghanistan???

ardesh2000 | 01/29/09

This is like saying let’s not irradiate or cut out cancer from the body, let’s try to make peace with it and give it dignity.

The only real answer is sustained bombardment and elimination of terrorist infrastructure and people.

sdhume | 01/29/09

“The democratization part of this strategy demands a strategic partnership between the West and the people of the Islamic world, who are basically demanding dignity, self-respect and the same fundamental rights as the ordinary citizen in the West enjoys.”

Surely even Imran Khan can’t believe such hogwash. So that’s why they’re razing girls’ schools in Swat? Or banning Yoga in Indonesia?

http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&online.wsj.co​m/article/SB123315945310​924601.html

…

gditpp Says:

dara Says:
January 31st, 2009

What this drama is , cheap publicity? has this letter been sent over to White house or this is only for Pakistanis to read?
First of all Obama doesn’t know Imran Khan , and secondly even if he did, why he listen to a so called leader who doesn’t have any popularity in masses., who boycotted the democratic process ( elections) and who supported a Gen when he was in uniform and at his peak ( referendum).
Imran needs to establish him self as leader of this country, needs to challenge real establishment to break the status quo, then if he writes a letter will have some meanings.

haneef.gujar Says:
January 31st, 2009

imran cheetah hai. but he is a little confused. last week in urdu university he was saying there is nothing wrong with “sharai nizam” and then a few sentences later he said it is wrong to use “deen” for politics. imran i know you mean well but we want rule of law not “sharai nizaam” whatever the heck that means

darT Says:
February 1st, 2009

@haneef.gujar

yaara imran is not cheeta he is more like a choota, he is often found weighing the tesicals of jamatiya mafia so its better not to waste time talking about this

MalangBaba Says:
February 1st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
comment-top

a blogger wrote: ” Everyone should remember Bacha Khan and his supporters ANP are people who were against the great Jinnah and voted against the making of Pakistan. ”

So did the religious extremists like Jamaat Islami, Ahrar, Khaksar, Jamiat Ulma Hind (current JUI). Many of these extremists now dictates us their Nazria as ‘Nazria Pakistan’. Bacha Khan was a very honorable man and Jinnah respected him very much. I am a Punjabi but I consider Bacha Khan a great person. At least he was not a hypocrite.

a blogger wrote: “According to one article in Urdu BBC which one of the American has written,, there is no leadership in Pakistan and even does not seem any slight sign of it”

Leaders are not born out of vaccum. They r the product of time and circumstances. Unfortunately we got some great leaders like Jinnah, Suharwardi, Bhutto and BB but we killed them. Now we are left with Zardaries, Sharifs and IKs. They are not natural leaders. Real leaders are fearless, lead by example, give hope, trigger change, and above all connect themselves with people. I agree Pakistan lacks leadership at this point.

“I would love to work with Imran Khan ……the way he speaks shows purity and sincerity but unfortunately people like him can’t come forward to be leaders, because of highly involvement of national and international selfish powers.”

The biggest problem with IK are thrre:
1. he does not walk his talk
2. he fails to connect with masses
3. he is an aristocrate from heart

Real leaders don’t need media to glorify themselves. Bhutto, BB, Arafat, Nasir, Chavez, Khomeini, Ghandhi, Mandala, Nikroma and countless other leaders were never favoured by media. Media by nature protects ’status quo’ and interests of ‘upper classes’.

This is the reason IK can never win the hearts of masses. Zardari is much better than him at least he is fearless and no coward.

…

FahadAfridi Says:
February 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm

@ImranKhanforpm,

Bacha Khan was the greatest Pakhtun leader in last 100 years and an honorable leader who who struggled for freedom against the British and Indic/Pakistani colonists till his last breath. Jinnah did not even spend 1 day in jail for freedom but was assigned Pakistan by the British as part of divide and rule policies.

Why does it give you heartburn that Pukhtuns want to unite with other Pukhtuns and do not like to be killed by your Taliban and Army cabal?

“I have been a Pashtun for six thousand years, a Muslim for thirteen hundred years, and a Pakistani for twenty-five.” – Bacha Khan

…

Muhammad Usman Says:
February 1st, 2009 at 10:47 pm
comment-top

Fahadafridi

Your argument is flawed regarding union of puktuns.

Is afghanistan a pakhtun country , no sir it is not.

Afghanistan is third rate country, which is law less for many centuries, ruled by warriors.

Some time in histrory inviting communists to rule and now capitalism to rule.

What ashame.

Did any one from paksitan invited russians to inavade afghanistan. What should pakistan do to stop russians advance into its territory.

Sorry sir you are fundamentally wrong.

I can agree with you on PUKTONKWA, AUTONOMY,

But not on this union stuff.

Any way what ever you say about JINNAH sahab, his status in history will remain what he was.

He was man of integrety, honour.

He was not the person showing his vote on television.

#
Utmankhel1 Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 am
comment-top

I don’t want to talk about Jinnah, as i don’t want to listen about Bacha Khan. Both are dead, God give them eternal peace. You know what u respect Jinnah for, and we know why we keep Bacha Khan in esteem.

Imran Khan has lost everything. After Shaukat Khanum and cricket, he did not deserve to go down in history as 2nd in command to a crook like Qazi. If extremism is what Imran stands for then he is already a loser as that space is pre-occupied by many whom Imran will struggle to match in meanness, like Qazi,Masood Azha, Baitullah Mehsood, Muslim Khan etc ………. though one would be dishonest not to appreciate the pace at which this man is going down

This letter is a testimony to his cheap tactics of getting sympathies of the religious right. And most importantly, by twisiting facts to match his idiotic ideas, he is loosing credibility in the eyes of people who have even a slight knowledge of the history and current situation of the region.

Pukhtuns will not spare him especially, as this man is bent upon labelling them terrorists.

Evey child knows where the afghan jihad was planned and where the movement of taliban started but imran khan does not know. By talking of terrorists he just does not remember to mention GHQ RAWALPINDI, where everything has been planned. An evidence of the meanness of this person is that despite knowing that America/Obama is well aware of every double game that pakistan has played but still he is writing to them in ‘Open Letter’, which shows the letter is not meant for policy makers in Washington but for the sheeple of pakistan.

In the end, on a positive note, dear Pakhtun brothers, we need not worry, because Obama does not make policies on the letters of Qazi Imran Khan, he knows history of Soviet War Jihadis and Taliban creation in GHQ Rawalpindi, and he knows everything about the double game pakistan is and has been playing in Afghanistan, FATA and Swat.

So, Imran Khan we know you what you want to get, and Obama knows well where to hit………..

Muhammad Usman Says:
February 2nd, 2009

Well my pukhtun friends , how conviemtly u forget this jihad was planned by fathers in amreeca.

They are not our friends either.
I am not all fan of imran, what i am saying is it was not pak/ghq who invited russians and certainly not pak who is inviting new colonial masters.
Forget about imran think about who the enemy is.

Comments

comments