A Different Strategy!
The famed American writer and columnist Christopher Hitchens has written an essay that shows America has learned nothing from its foolish and shameful acts. In the essay, below, which was published in an English-language publication [Vanity Fair], Christopher asks the question: Why do the Pakistanis hate the Americans so much? He answers his own question, writing, “They hate us because they owe us, and are dependent on us.” If these are the thoughts of a renowned and wise American writer, imagine what the average American thinks about the Pakistanis.
American writers like Hitchens play a crucial role in shaping public opinion in the United States. This essay tells the American people that Pakistanis hate them because they depend on them and that instead of being grateful, Pakistanis harbor feelings of animosity toward them. Interestingly, Hitchens goes on to write, “The two main symbols of Pakistani pride — its army and its nuclear program — are wholly parasitic on American indulgence and patronage.” He also writes that the United States has spent three billion dollars in supporting the Pakistani army and atomic program and thus the Pakistanis’ hostile feelings toward the United States show their cowardice and hypocrisy. He says that whenever Pakistan arrested a terrorist suspect, the United States soon provided it with financial aid, so it came as a surprise that Pakistan was harboring Osama bin Laden in a palace. Writing in a harsh tone, Hitchens believes that of all the countries that have used the United States for their benefit, Pakistan is the worst: “Pakistan ingratiatingly and silkily invites young Americans to one of the vilest and most dangerous regions on earth, there to fight and die as its allies, all the while sharpening a blade for their backs. ... This is well beyond humiliation. It makes us a prisoner of the shame, and co-responsible for it.”
“The United States was shamed when it became the Cold War armorer of the Ayub Khan dictatorship in the 1950s and 1960s. It was shamed even more when it supported General Yahya Khan’s mass murder in Bangladesh in 1971. ... We were then played for suckers by yet another military boss in the form of General Zia-ul-Haq, who leveraged anti-Communism in Afghanistan into a free pass for the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the open mockery of the nonproliferation treaty.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he writes, did not intend for Pakistan, a country with a Muslim majority, to become an Islamic Republic. He writes that under General Zia’s regime, Shari’ah law was implemented and many in the general population became very religious. “In recent years these theocratic tendencies have intensified with appalling speed, to the point where the state contains not one but two secret statelets within itself. ...”
Hitchens writes that after the Abottabad incident, Pakistani military leader Ashfaq Kayani stated that the United States should reduce its military presence in Pakistan and that Pakistan would seriously reevaluate its relations with the United States if an incident like this were ever to occur again in the future. Hitchens believes it is utterly shameful for the United States that a Pakistani leader was the first to make such a demand. Whenever Pakistan treats us badly, he writes, we reward it by providing it with even more benefits: “We have been the enablers of every stage of that wretched state’s counter-evolution, to the point where it is a serious regional menace and an undisguised ally of our worst enemy, as well as the sworn enemy of some of our best allies. How could it be ‘worse’ if we shifted our alliance and instead embraced India, our only rival in scale as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracy, and a nation that contains nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan? How could it be ‘worse’ if we listened to the brave Afghans, like their former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, who have been telling us for years that we are fighting the war in the wrong country?” Hitchens concludes his essay with this warning: “If we continue to deny or avoid this inescapable fact, then we really are dishonoring, as well as further endangering, our exemplary young volunteers.”
American writers like Hitchens play a crucial role in shaping public opinion in the United States. This essay tells the American people that Pakistanis hate them because they depend on them and that instead of being grateful, Pakistanis harbor feelings of animosity toward them. Interestingly, Hitchens goes on to write, “The two main symbols of Pakistani pride — its army and its nuclear program — are wholly parasitic on American indulgence and patronage.” He also writes that the United States has spent three billion dollars in supporting the Pakistani army and atomic program and thus the Pakistanis’ hostile feelings toward the United States show their cowardice and hypocrisy. He says that whenever Pakistan arrested a terrorist suspect, the United States soon provided it with financial aid, so it came as a surprise that Pakistan was harboring Osama bin Laden in a palace. Writing in a harsh tone, Hitchens believes that of all the countries that have used the United States for their benefit, Pakistan is the worst: “Pakistan ingratiatingly and silkily invites young Americans to one of the vilest and most dangerous regions on earth, there to fight and die as its allies, all the while sharpening a blade for their backs. ... This is well beyond humiliation. It makes us a prisoner of the shame, and co-responsible for it.”
“The United States was shamed when it became the Cold War armorer of the Ayub Khan dictatorship in the 1950s and 1960s. It was shamed even more when it supported General Yahya Khan’s mass murder in Bangladesh in 1971. ... We were then played for suckers by yet another military boss in the form of General Zia-ul-Haq, who leveraged anti-Communism in Afghanistan into a free pass for the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the open mockery of the nonproliferation treaty.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah, he writes, did not intend for Pakistan, a country with a Muslim majority, to become an Islamic Republic. He writes that under General Zia’s regime, Shari’ah law was implemented and many in the general population became very religious. “In recent years these theocratic tendencies have intensified with appalling speed, to the point where the state contains not one but two secret statelets within itself. ...”
Hitchens writes that after the Abottabad incident, Pakistani military leader Ashfaq Kayani stated that the United States should reduce its military presence in Pakistan and that Pakistan would seriously reevaluate its relations with the United States if an incident like this were ever to occur again in the future. Hitchens believes it is utterly shameful for the United States that a Pakistani leader was the first to make such a demand. Whenever Pakistan treats us badly, he writes, we reward it by providing it with even more benefits: “We have been the enablers of every stage of that wretched state’s counter-evolution, to the point where it is a serious regional menace and an undisguised ally of our worst enemy, as well as the sworn enemy of some of our best allies. How could it be ‘worse’ if we shifted our alliance and instead embraced India, our only rival in scale as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracy, and a nation that contains nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan? How could it be ‘worse’ if we listened to the brave Afghans, like their former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, who have been telling us for years that we are fighting the war in the wrong country?” Hitchens concludes his essay with this warning: “If we continue to deny or avoid this inescapable fact, then we really are dishonoring, as well as further endangering, our exemplary young volunteers.”
Next article![]( "Obama and Netanyahu Battle in the American Elections")
