USIP Pakistan Report Is Flawed Orientalism

May 25, 2012

The U.S. Institute For Peace released a new report with recommendations for policies towards Pakistan: Fixing Pakistan’s Civil-Military Imbalance: A Dangerous Temptation.

The report argues that the U.S. should not fix the imbalance which favors the military, but should only selectively react harshly towards the military when it displays hostility towards the U.S. It empathizes to continue with the duality of contacts with the civil government and with the military.

The Pakistan commentator Kamran Shafi (rightly) critizes the report for furthering the (U.S. sponsored) imbalance and for not acknowledging the primacy of the civil government:

No one needs to deal ‘harshly’ with any Pakistani department of government: all the Americans have to do is to deal directly, and only, with the civilian government. That is all.

The USIP report (pdf) is indeed deeply flawed as one can, for example, tell from this orientalism gem:

For one, the majority of Pakistanis do not see a clear good versus bad division between the civilians and the military. Surprising as it may be for Western audiences, the military ranks far higher than the political elite in terms of the trust people place in them.

The USIP writers seem to have zero self awareness and from that half-blind standpoint argue that the relation to the military and the civil government in Pakistan deserves to be seen as something special even when that it is absolutely not the case.

There is no surprise at all for aware "western audiences" that trust towards the military is higher than towards the civil government. In that the Pakistanis have just the same opinion that those "western audiences" have. From a mid 2011 Gallop poll:

Americans continue to express greater confidence in the military than in 15 other national institutions, with 78% saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in it. In addition to the military, a majority of Americans express high esteem for small business and the police. Congress ranks last among these institutions, behind big business and health maintenance organizations.

And here from a later AP poll:

The military in particular earns the most respect of the survey, with 54 percent deeply confident in the institution.

But deep contempt for Congress and aspects of President Barack Obama's health care law remain among Americans tired of partisan standoffs over basic pocketbook issues.

As the Pakistani express about the same view as people in the U.S. do why does USIP think that this should surprise "western audiences"?

And as the USIP uses the higher trust the people have towards the military as an argument for ignoring the civil government in Pakistan and handling (and bribing) the military in Pakistan directly would it give the same recommendations to other countries for their relations with U.S. power structures?

Dear USIP, should Lavrov ignore Clinton and Obama and negotiate directly with General Dempsey? No? Then why do you recommend that for Pakistan?

Posted by b on May 25, 2012 at 15:25 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Sadly enough, the way things are going, Lavrov will eventually come to realize (if he hasn’t already) that it makes food sense to ignore Clinton and Obama and negotiate directly with General Dempsey. Besides the military’s higher approval ratings (Congress gets 10% approval), the military appears to already have enormous sway in US policy. On top of that, it’s a more enduring, therefore more trustworthy, institution to deal with than politicians who are afraid to make big decisions and then come and go every few years.
Furthermore, it’s not at all clear who’s in charge now. Bush may have actually been describing reality (say what?!?) when he talked about giving the generals what they want. Obama has shown no signs of reversing Bush’s disgraceful deference to the military.

Posted by: JohnH | May 25 2012 17:45 utc | 1

No one needs to deal ‘harshly’ with any Pakistani department of government: all the Americans have to do is to deal directly, and only, with the civilian government. That is all.

I agree with this, and from what I can read, so does the USIP.

Posted by: Alexander | May 25 2012 18:08 utc | 2

from what I can read, so does the USIP.
No, the USIP argues for a continued two track approach – military and civil government. This independent of the grade to which the military actually follows the orders of the politicians.
But what the U.S. is really doing is shunning the civil government while it continues to work with the military.
Recall the recent NATO meeting on Afghanistan in Chicago. First the civilian president Zardari was not invited. Then on the last minute he was. Then his demand for $5000 per container transport through Pakistan was rejected. He left with empty hands.
The $5000 per container is peanuts compared to the overall cost of the U.S. in Afghanistan. Agreeing to this, or some compromise, would have given Zardari some standing.
He left empty handed. But the U.S. will continue to talk to the military and make a deal with them. How does that look to the Pakistani public?

Posted by: b | May 25 2012 18:42 utc | 3

I’ve re-read the report, and still, what bit me was this sentence at the end: “it would be prudent to adopt a “do no harm” approach; a good start would be to discard any two Pakistans-based strategy.”
Pointing out many problems on a way towards “opening for the civilians to usurp their rightful space”, even though, that is the base of the argument as far as I can tell. And even if the USIP make arguments for continuing current relations, and even extrajudicial killings only when the Pakistani public agree, their main goal seems to be a normalization of relations, meaning a shift towards civilian only relations, at least in public perception.

Posted by: Alexander | May 25 2012 20:00 utc | 4

two Pakistans – that is, to device a Pakistan policy based on a neat division between civilian and military elites

Posted by: Alexander | May 25 2012 20:04 utc | 5

Of course your asessment of what the US in reality are doing is spot on.

Posted by: Alexander | May 25 2012 20:08 utc | 6

JohnH @1 Are you for real? The military brass is dishonest to the core. I don’t believe anyone who says they trust them unless in the grip of Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by: ruralito | May 25 2012 23:36 utc | 7

Trusting the military is all relative. Given a choice between Obama and Dempsey, who would Lavrov choose? Where is the real power in the US government?

Posted by: JohnH | May 26 2012 0:37 utc | 8

‘The U.S. Institute For Peace’
the title alone should set alarm bells ringing…the US regime would not harbor any real org devoted to peace…Its a front for the usual war of terror

Posted by: brian | May 26 2012 3:00 utc | 9

I think this is wonderful, as so long the US can’t move its supplies out of Afghanistan… it can’t afford a war in an other region… thus the only war they could start is with Iran… and then I think the problem would be re-supplying the troops fighting on the Iran Afghanistan border…
Thus this report due to its faults, decreased the chance of war…

Posted by: simon | May 26 2012 9:54 utc | 10

Washington-based Institute For Peace is a pro-Israeli Jewish think tank. It was founded in 2009 by Islamophobes Eric Edelman, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Dan Senor. Like dozens of other Zioncon think tank – IFP works to mold US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.
The Zionist regime’s problem with Pakistan goes back to Israel’s creation by the western powers.
There two incidents in Pakistan’s early history which are rarely mentioned in the media or Pakistan history books. These incidents show world Zionist movement’s intentions toward Pakistan – the only country among 57 Muslim nation states created on Islamic faith and a nuclear power. The first incident happened during Pakistan’s first prime minister, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan to the US in May-June, 1950. He was paid a visit by leaders of US Trade and Industry, who promised all possible military and economic assistance in case Pakistan recognized Israel. The American industrialists also underlined the importance of such a package for the new state of Pakistan. Liaquat Ali Khan in his known gentle tone replied: “Gentlemen! Our soul is not for sale.” This moral strength cost him his life. In 1951 he was assassinated, most probably through CIA/Mossad plot. The second incident happened in the 1960s during Pakistani president FM Ayub Khan’s visit to Paris on French president Gen. Charles de Gaulle’s invitation – he was offered French nuclear assistance to Pakistan in return for giving Uranium mining rights to France on 50-50% sharing basis. The offer was later declined by Ayub Khan on the advice of his Planning Commission chief, M.M. Ahmad, for the reason that Jewish Lobby in the US would not like it (quoted in ‘Shahab Nama’).
http://rehmat1.com/2009/01/30/pakistan-under-zionist-attack/

Posted by: Rehmat | May 26 2012 14:34 utc | 11

our military is bought off, too. military-industrial-(educational)-complex that Eisenhower warned us about. just watch the top brass as they “retire”. always some cushy suited position, often something hard to define like a “consultant “.

Posted by: Proton Soup | May 26 2012 17:15 utc | 12

Back to Main