Latest news with #JimMattis
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
How Pakistani military has metastasised like cancer inside society
The public plays along as the military intensifies its anti-India narrative and false propaganda and the Generals prosper at the expense of the economy read more 'Of all the countries I've dealt with, I consider Pakistan to be the most dangerous because of the radicalisation of its society and the availability of nuclear weapons.' —Jim Mattis, former US defence secretary and four-star Marine Corps General, Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead, 2019 General Mattis, who commanded forces in the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan War and Iraq War, realised three things: First, the Pakistani society is 'radicalised'. Second, Pakistan's political culture has 'an active self-destructive streak'. Third, US military interactions with Pakistan 'could only be transactional' as its military can't be trusted. The three factors are interwoven and describe the current state of Pakistan's mess. A nation born out of hatred and animosity, ruled directly or indirectly by its military, which sponsors terrorism and has radicalised its society, will keep on sinking into the abyss of self-destruction. Decades of hatred and enmity towards India—especially the dream of occupying J&K—systematically nurtured and propagated by the Pakistani military, have turned into a metastatic cancer which has spread deep inside its society. External affairs minister S Jaishankar rightly compared Pakistan to a cancer that has started affecting its society. 'Pakistan is an exception in our neighbourhood in view of its support for cross-border terrorism. That cancer is now consuming its body politic,' he said at the 19th Nani A Palkhivala Memorial Lecture in Mumbai in January. Military supremacy and hatred for India Hatred for India and the Pakistani military's creation of the mirage of a Hindu nation being an existential threat unite its society. Despite orchestrating four coups, ruling directly and indirectly, meddling in politics, robbing the nation of development, wasting funds and foreign loans on weapons and suppressing dissent and protests, the Pakistani military is respected by the population. The military has cemented its image as the saviour of Pakistan's borders and its people, 'threatened by a Hindu India' since its independence. In his book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, Husain Haqqani, a Pakistani journalist and former ambassador to the US, writes: 'Very soon after independence, 'Islamic Pakistan' was defining itself through the prism of resistance to 'Hindu India'.' The belief that India 'represented an existential threat to Pakistan led to maintaining a large military, which in turn helped the military assert its dominance in the life of the country'. Within weeks of independence, Haqqani writes, 'Editorials in the Muslim League newspaper, Dawn, called for 'guns rather than butter', urging a bigger and better-equipped army to defend 'the sacred soil' of Pakistan.' The national security apparatus was accorded a special status as protecting nationhood by military means 'took priority over all else'. 'It also meant that political ideas and actions that could be interpreted as diluting Pakistani nationhood were subversive. Demanding ethnic rights or provincial autonomy, seeking friendly ties with India, and advocating a secular Constitution fell under that category of subversion.' Haqqani explains how the military gained prominence. 'The Kashmir dispute as well as the ideological project fuelled rivalry with India, which in turn increased the new country's need for a strong military. The military and the bureaucracy, therefore, became even more crucial players in Pakistan's life than they would have been had the circumstances of the country's birth been different.' Historian Ayesha Jalal, in her book The State of Martial Rule, explains how internal threats to the government were conflated with a defence against India. Thus, the difference between internal and external threats was blurred to the military's advantage. 'So in Pakistan's case, defence against India was in part a defence against internal threats to central authority. This is why a preoccupation with affording the defence establishment—not unusual for a newly created state— assumed obsessive dimensions in the first few years of Pakistan's existence,' she writes. The Pakistani leadership found it 'convenient to perceive all internal political opposition as a threat to the security of the state'. Gradually, the Pakistani society also started perceiving India as a threat and the military as the protector from this imaginary danger. A February Gallup & Gilani Pakistan opinion poll found that only 41 per cent of Pakistanis think that Pakistan should maintain any relationship with India at any level before the Kashmir issue is resolved—35 per cent are against it. Military cons, coerces Pakistanis at the same time Operation Sindoor exposed Pakistani society's fickle-mindedness, the military's hero-worshipping and how the Generals con and coerce the public at the same time. The Pakistani military changed the Black Day in May 2023 to the Day of Righteous Battle in the same month this year in merely four days. The tactics were the same. Pakistani and local terrorists attack J&K, Indian retaliation portrayed as an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty and the military retaliates as the nation's saviour. The scene in Pakistan changed from the massive protests against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan's arrest, which engulfed major cities, public and private properties and military installations, to celebration and triumph around two years later. In May 2023, the public challenged the military's dominance and power. In May 2025, the public celebrated the military's fake propaganda of supremacy and winning against India as the Generals took advantage of Operation Sindoor and the decades-old Kashmir issue to boost their decreasing popularity. A May 7 Gallup Pakistan survey found 77 per cent of Pakistanis rejecting India's allegation that Pakistan was behind the Pahalgam attack with 55 per cent believing that India's intelligence or government may have orchestrated it. Despite India's no-first-use nuclear policy, 45 per cent of Pakistanis fear that India might launch a first nuclear strike. For Pakistanis, the country's foreign policy with India takes precedence over deep-rooted corruption, serious economic problems and the incapability of successive governments with 64 per cent of the public satisfied with the political leadership's unified stance on tensions with India. Sixty-five per cent express overall satisfaction with the Shehbaz Sharif government's India foreign policy. Another Gallup Pakistan survey, conducted on May 21, found how the military's lies, disinformation and fake propaganda had boosted its image with 96 per cent of the public believing that India was defeated and 97 per cent rating the performance of its armed forces as good or very good. An overwhelming 87 per cent held India responsible for initiating the conflict. Public opinion of the Army improved to 93 per cent compared to 73 per cent of the civilian government. Sharif's party, PML-N, received the highest positive performance rating (65 per cent), followed by PTI (60 per cent) and Pakistan Peoples Party (58 per cent). Around 30 per cent opposed normalisation of ties with India. Not even 50 per cent supported normalising relations with India with trade cooperation receiving the highest support (49 per cent), followed closely by sports (48 per cent), education (44 per cent) and cultural exchanges (40 per cent). Two incidents show how the military cons Pakistanis, who are willing to be conned, in the name of the non-existent Indian threat and increases its iron grip at the same time. First, the government revoked the ban on X, imposed in February 2024, a few hours after India targeted terrorist bases in Pakistan and PoK on May 7. The social media platform was banned on February 17, 2024, without notification on the pretext of threats to national security and Elon Musk's company's refusal to accede to requests and comply with the Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight and Safeguards) Rules 2021. The actual reason for the ban was the accounts of candidates and parties, especially PTI and the National Democratic Movement, posting about election irregularities. The government admitted after one month that X was banned. Internet and cybersecurity watchdog NetBlocks said that X was banned after 'it was used to draw attention to instances of alleged election fraud'. According to Access Now, a nonprofit that focuses on digital civil rights and reports on global Internet censorship, Pakistan imposed 21 shutdowns in 2024. Once the ban on X was revoked, a deluge of disinformation, like Pakistan shooting down a Su-30MKI and a MiG-29, from Pakistani handles flooded the platform. Pakistanis were part of the disinformation campaign without realising that the ban was removed to whip up anti-India feelings and restore the military's image. The military managed to reunite the nation with hatred against India and false claims of victory as Pakistanis forgot how their economic woes increased, ethnic and political dissent was crushed, dissenters went missing and all these years. Even Khan, who had held Army chief General Syed Asim Munir responsible for his arrest, tweeted: 'The recent escalation between Pakistan and India has once again proven that Pakistanis are a brave, proud, and dignified nation.' Second, as Pakistanis celebrated the military's lies, the spineless Supreme Court, in a 5-2 verdict by the Constitutional Bench, allowed 105 civilians accused in the May 9, 2023, protests to be tried in military courts. The civilians had been convicted under the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), 1952, and the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for espionage, 'interfering with officers of the police or members of the armed forces' and unauthorised use of uniforms. The apex court overturned an earlier ruling against military trials of civilians. Section 2 of PAA permits trials of civilians before military courts when they are accused of 'seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to government' or having committed 'in relation to any work of defence…in relation to the military of Pakistan'. Section 59(4) provides for the trial of such civilians under the PAA. In a May report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 'Military Justice in Pakistan: A Glaring Surrender of Human Rights', found that trials of the 105 civilians violated Pakistan's legal obligations under international human rights. 'The ICJ recalls that the use of military courts to try civilians usurps the functions of the ordinary courts and is inconsistent with the principle of independence of the judiciary.' According to Principle 5 of the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission, 'military courts should, in principle, have no jurisdiction to try civilians… The jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to offences of a strictly military nature committed by military personnel. Military courts may try persons treated as military personnel for infractions strictly related to their military status'. Pakistani military's grip on economy The state of Pakistan's economy is as open as the military and the political leadership's sponsorship of terrorism. Since joining the IMF in 1950, Pakistan has been bailed out more than 20 times by the Fund to address fiscal deficits, balance of payments crises and structural reforms. One of the arrangements under which the IMF has bailed out Pakistan is the Extended Fund Facility (EFF), a longer-term arrangement involving reforms to address the economy's structural weaknesses. On May 9, a day before the ceasefire, the IMF granted $1 billion to Pakistan as part of its $7-billion EFF and another $1.3 billion under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. The amount was a carrot dangled by the US-led IMF before Pakistan to end hostilities, and was vociferously opposed by India. Pakistan's economy was in negative territory twice in the last five years—2020, -0.9 per cent; 2021, 5.8 per cent; 2022, 6.2 per cent; 2023, -0.2 per cent; and 2024, 2.5 per cent In April, the IMF revised Pakistan's GDP growth in 2025 downward to 2.6 per cent from 3 per cent in January and 3.6 per cent in 2026 from 4 per cent citing the 29 per cent tariffs imposed by the Donald Trump administration. Inflation has been a constant problem with higher prices of fruits, vegetables, flour, rice, meat and chicken. According to IMF data, inflation has been in double digits in the last five years except once—2020 (10.7 per cent), 2021 (8.2 per cent), 2022 (12.2 per cent), 2023 (29.2 per cent) and 2024 (23.4 per cent). Per IMF projections, inflation in 2025 will be 5.1 per cent and 7.7 per cent in 2026. The unemployment rate in the last five years was 6.6 per cent in 2020, 6.3 per cent in 2021, 6.2 per cent in 2022, 8.5 per cent in 2023 and 8.3 per cent in 20204. According to the IMF, the unemployment rate in 2025 is projected at 8 per cent and in 2026 at 7.5 per cent. Pakistan's forex reserves are abysmally low compared to India's. In December 2020, it was $20.5 million; December 2021, $23.9 million; December 2022, $10.8 million; December 2023, $12.7 million; and December 2024, $15.9 million. Forex reserves in May were $16.6 million, according to data released by the State Bank of Pakistan. The Pakistani currency has been severely hit by economic mismanagement, ineffective fiscal policies, a massive trade deficit, the lack of structural reforms and investment, low growth rates, high inflation, rising unemployment and political instability. The PKR tanked to an all-time low of 307.10 against the dollar in the first week of September 2023. The currency has been trading above 280. According to a Fitch Ratings projection in April, Pakistan will gradually devalue its currency to avoid likely pressure on the current account. Bloomberg, quoting Krisjanis Krustins, director, Asia Pacific Sovereign Ratings, Fitch, reported, 'The ratings company sees the rupee falling to 285 against the dollar by the end of June and weakening further to 295 by the end of the next fiscal year in 2026.' Pakistan's poverty rate is estimated at 42.4 per cent in the 2025 fiscal year, higher than 40.5 per cent in 2024, according to the World Bank. With a two per cent annual population growth, 1.9 million more people will fall into poverty this year. Even in 2026 and 2027, the rate will be around 40 per cent and 40.8 per cent, respectively. Amid the economic disaster and financial ruin with a national debt of $130 billion, $7.64 billion was allocated for defence in the 2024-25 defence budget. The Generals have been thriving for decades at the expense of Pakistanis by controlling industry, agriculture and the private sector. Under the Defence Housing Authority, the Army owns 12 per cent of the country's land at nominal rates, including urban and agricultural. The military has a massive stake in the government's industrial and commercial policies due to its immense influence on industry, commerce and business. In her book Military Inc. – Inside Pakistan's Military Economy, Pakistani political scientist Ayesha Siddiqa terms the military's 'internal economy' Milbus, military capital used for the personal benefit of its personnel, especially officers. 'Pakistan's military runs a huge commercial empire with an estimated value of billions of dollars.' This capital is 'neither recorded nor a part of the defence budget. Its most significant component is entrepreneurial activities that are not subject to state accountability procedures'. The military is the sole driver of Milbus— and is 'an example of the type of Milbus that intensifies military interest in remaining in power or direct/indirect control of governance'. According to her, Milbus involves: the varied business ventures of four welfare foundations (small businesses such as farms, schools and private security firms and corporate enterprises such as commercial banks and insurance companies, radio and television channels and manufacturing plants) direct institutional military involvement in enterprises such as toll collecting, shopping centres and petrol stations and benefits given to retired personnel, such as state land or business openings. Siddiqa explains how Milbus hurts Pakistan economically, politically and socially. The system 'nurtures' the military's political ambitions by creating deep-rooted vested interests in military dominance. 'The military has nourished the religious right to consolidate military control over the State and society.' Socially, it 'increases inter-ethnic tensions (due to skewed military recruitment policies), reduces the acceptability of the military as an arbiter among political interests and increases the alienation of the underprivileged'. Moreover, building and sustaining the military's influence in power politics come at a cost. 'Evidence shows that military businesses are not run more efficiently than others. Some of the military's larger businesses and subsidiaries have required financial bailout from the government.' Meanwhile, the Army continues with its anti-India narrative despite losing four wars to India—and the public plays along. Anti-India rhetoric, sponsorship of terrorism in J&K and the portrayal of India as an existential threat to Pakistan sustain the military while development has come to a standstill. According to Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the father of modern linguistics, 'Pakistan just cannot survive' if it continues the confrontation with India. In an interview with the Dawn in May 2013, he said, 'Pakistan will never be able to match the Indian militarily and the effort to do so is taking an immense toll on society.' The writer is a freelance journalist with more than two decades of experience and comments primarily on foreign affairs. He tweets as @FightTheBigots. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Washington Post
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
US to withdraw 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to help counter IS militants
WASHINGTON — The U.S. will withdraw about 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to work with Kurdish allies to counter the Islamic State group, a U.S. official said Thursday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet announced publicly. The U.S. troops have been critical not only in the operations against the Islamic State but as a buffer for the Kurdish forces against Turkey, which considers them to be aligned with terror groups. President Donald Trump tried to withdraw all forces from Syria during his first term, but he met opposition from the Pentagon because it was seen as abandoning allies and led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The departure of the 600 troops will return force levels to where they had been for years, after the U.S. and its allies waged a multiyear campaign to defeat IS. The U.S. had maintained about 900 troops in Syria to ensure that the IS militants did not regain a foothold, but also as a hedge to prevent Iranian-backed militants from trafficking weapons across southern Syria. The number of U.S. troops was raised to more than 2,000 after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas in Israel, as Iranian-backed militants targeted U.S. troops and interests in the region in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza. Three U.S. troops in Jordan were killed by a drone fired by an Iranian-backed militia in January 2024. In December 2024, Syrian President Bashar Assad fled the country. In the months since, Syrians displaced by more than a decade of war have returned home, but the country remains unstable. Israel has targeted Syrian weapons installations, and there are some indications that the Islamic State group is trying to reconstitute itself, and Iranian-backed militias in Syria remain a threat to U.S. interests. The withdrawal of the 600 troops was first reported by The New York Times.
Asharq Al-Awsat
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
US to Withdraw 600 Troops from Syria, Leaving Fewer than 1,000 to Help Counter ISIS Militants
The US will withdraw about 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to work with Kurdish allies to counter the ISIS group, a US official said Thursday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet announced publicly. The US troops have been critical not only in the operations against ISIS but as a buffer for the Kurdish forces against Türkiye, which considers them to be aligned with terror groups. President Donald Trump tried to withdraw all forces from Syria during his first term, but he met opposition from the Pentagon because it was seen as abandoning allies and led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The departure of the 600 troops will return force levels to where they had been for years, after the US and its allies waged a multiyear campaign to defeat ISIS. The US had maintained about 900 troops in Syria to ensure that the ISIS militants did not regain a foothold, but also as a hedge to prevent Iranian-backed militants from trafficking weapons across southern Syria. The number of US troops was raised to more than 2,000 after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas in Israel, as Iranian-backed militants targeted US troops and interests in the region in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza. Three US troops in Jordan were killed by a drone fired by an Iranian-backed militia in January 2024. In December 2024, Syrian President Bashar Assad fled the country. In the months since, Syrians displaced by more than a decade of war have returned home, but the country remains unstable. Israel has targeted Syrian weapons installations, and there are some indications that the ISIS group is trying to reconstitute itself, and Iranian-backed militias in Syria remain a threat to US interests. The withdrawal of the 600 troops was first reported by The New York Times.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US to withdraw 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to help counter IS militants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will withdraw about 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to work with Kurdish allies to counter the Islamic State group, a U.S. official said Thursday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet announced publicly. The U.S. troops have been critical not only in the operations against the Islamic State but as a buffer for the Kurdish forces against Turkey, which considers them to be aligned with terror groups. President Donald Trump tried to withdraw all forces from Syria during his first term, but he met opposition from the Pentagon because it was seen as abandoning allies and led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The departure of the 600 troops will return force levels to where they had been for years, after the U.S. and its allies waged a multiyear campaign to defeat IS. The U.S. had maintained about 900 troops in Syria to ensure that the IS militants did not regain a foothold, but also as a hedge to prevent Iranian-backed militants from trafficking weapons across southern Syria. The number of U.S. troops was raised to more than 2,000 after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas in Israel, as Iranian-backed militants targeted U.S. troops and interests in the region in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza. Three U.S. troops in Jordan were killed by a drone fired by an Iranian-backed militia in January 2024. In December 2024, Syrian President Bashar Assad fled the country. In the months since, Syrians displaced by more than a decade of war have returned home, but the country remains unstable. Israel has targeted Syrian weapons installations, and there are some indications that the Islamic State group is trying to reconstitute itself, and Iranian-backed militias in Syria remain a threat to U.S. interests. The withdrawal of the 600 troops was first reported by The New York Times.
The Independent
17-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
US to withdraw 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to help counter IS militants
The U.S. will withdraw about 600 troops from Syria, leaving fewer than 1,000 to work with Kurdish allies to counter the Islamic State group, a U.S. official said Thursday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet announced publicly. The U.S. troops have been critical not only in the operations against the Islamic State but as a buffer for the Kurdish forces against Turkey, which considers them to be aligned with terror groups. President Donald Trump tried to withdraw all forces from Syria during his first term, but he met opposition from the Pentagon because it was seen as abandoning allies and led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The departure of the 600 troops will return force levels to where they had been for years, after the U.S. and its allies waged a multiyear campaign to defeat IS. The U.S. had maintained about 900 troops in Syria to ensure that the IS militants did not regain a foothold, but also as a hedge to prevent Iranian-backed militants from trafficking weapons across southern Syria. The number of U.S. troops was raised to more than 2,000 after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas in Israel, as Iranian-backed militants targeted U.S. troops and interests in the region in response to Israel's bombardment of Gaza. Three U.S. troops in Jordan were killed by a drone fired by an Iranian-backed militia in January 2024. In December 2024, Syrian President Bashar Assad fled the country. In the months since, Syrians displaced by more than a decade of war have returned home, but the country remains unstable. Israel has targeted Syrian weapons installations, and there are some indications that the Islamic State group is trying to reconstitute itself, and Iranian-backed militias in Syria remain a threat to U.S. interests. The withdrawal of the 600 troops was first reported by The New York Times.
