Hitchens’ Pakistan Delusions
Why does the miliitary refuse to fight the Afghan Taliban? Photo: AFP
Journalist Christopher Hitchens has never been one to let good journalism come in the way of a great turn of phrase. His latest piece in Slate is no exception.
“Why do the Pakistanis hate us?” he asks, then proceeds to list everything the US has done for the country. The examples he gives are telling:
The United States made Pakistan a top-priority Cold War ally. It overlooked the regular interventions of its military into politics. It paid a lot of bills and didn’t ask too many questions….During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Washington fed the Pakistani military and intelligence services from an overflowing teat and allowed them to acquire nuclear weapons on the side.
Hitchens doesn’t consider that this may be the problem. The US has either turned a blind eye to or actively supported every one of Pakistan’s three military coups. It has thrown tons of money at successive governments with no accountability, fostering a ruling elite that is among the most entitled and corrupt in the world. And all Pakistan got from the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was over a million refugees, a military establishment that cannot be dislodged and easy access to heroin and Kalashnikovs.
But after asking why the Pakistanis hate the US, Hitchens forgets about the 150 million citizens of the country and decides to psychoanalyse the elite.
This, then, is why the Pakistani elite hates the United States. It hates it because it is dependent on it and is still being bought by it. It is a dislike that is also a form of self-hatred of the sort that often develops between client states and their paymasters.
What spurred this armchair psychiatry is the news that the Pakistan army isn’t interested in taking on the Afghan Taliban. It seems obvious to Hitchens that the only reason this isn’t happening is because the military is filled with self-hatred. He doesn’t bother to analyse the argument that Pakistan sees the Afghan Taliban as an asset that can be used to the country’s benefit later on. Instead, its just “overcompensation for their abject status as recipients of the American dole…”
Hitchens also shows a stunning disregard for the daily reality of life in Pakistan when he says, “the Pakistanis don’t even pretend that their main military thrust is directed against the common foe..” Pakistan may have kept the majority of its army on the border with India, but it has also directed two major, and by all accounts, successful operations this year. To imply that the army is not even pretending to fight the Taliban is ridiculous. We may not have taken on assorted Afghan Taliban because we don’t think it’s in our national interest (a view I don’t agree with, but one that the military establishment clearly holds), but we’ve done everything we could to fight the Pakistani Taliban and suffer the consequences through daily terrorist attacks.
It also appears that Hitchens has forgotten, or chosen to ignore, that Pakistan has never shown any interest in fighting the Afghan Taliban. Why else would he attribute our reluctance to Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011? If we were only refusing to fight the Taliban because the US was going to leave Afghanistan, why didn’t we fight them back when it seemed like the US would be around indefinitely? Or could it be that Hitchens opposes any withdrawal date and will say anything to discredit it, no matter what the facts?
Without any mention of drone attacks and US arrogance, Hitchens comes to the conclusion that the US should stop all aid to Pakistan and get closer to India. Because the only thing that will change our opinion of the US is being isolated from them.
The opinions expressed in this article and the views shared by readers in the comment forum below do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance or policies of Newsline.
Share this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
I hope your view of Hitchens is changing. If I recall, you used to defend him fairly staunchly back in the day. He’s just a bombastic fool with a penchant for disregarding facts.
I always defended Hitchens’ writing style, which I still love, not his opinions, which are often repugnant. And he still writes great literary pieces and hilarious obituaries.
“Hilarious obituaries.” Alrighty then.
Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell deserved hilarious obituaries. Bob Hope probably didn’t; nonetheless it was awesome.
I am almost surprised Hitchens didn’t make the argument that the Pakistani military won’t bend to the U.S. wishes because of their effed up relationships with their own mothers. Because when in doubt, keep it freudian. That explains everything.
Kalsoom: Hitchens is never in doubt about anything. He always knows best.
And as an addendum to my earlier comment that I love his writing style, the guy is also a brilliant extempore speaker. He’d make a great dictator.
i think its called demagoguery
most interesting; am going to circulate it here in new york, maybe hitchens will see it and engage in an online debate with you
[...] Neoconservatism and the arguments of all those who favor democratization at the barrel of a gun are fundamentally Orientalist in character. In some ways they go back to Karl Marx, who in his journalism on India argued that the capitalist [...]
[...] Neoconservatism and the arguments of all those who favor democratization at the barrel of a gun are fundamentally Orientalist in character. In some ways they go back to Karl Marx, who in his journalism on India argued that the capitalist [...]
Well put, Mr Hassan. I’ve long been amazed to see your brave lawyers being beaten and arrested demonstrating for the rule of law in your country, and sad that a corrupt army of dollar millionaire generals is ‘owned’ by the Pentagon. Its weak protection of its people is a predictable response. The alcoholic journalist-prostitute Hitchens demonstrates how low the US political cabal will go in their lame attempt to paint themselves as lovers of democracy.
Still, in your own land are many evil people generating the groundswell which props up this loathsome Taliban, nasty mullahs in madrassas who have produced the poison crop of suicide bombers and jihadists. If they are not tackled, you will lose the struggle for modernity and be shut up in 7th century Wahabism.
[...] Neoconservatism and the arguments of all those who favor democratization at the barrel of a gun are fundamentally Orientalist in character. In some ways they go back to Karl Marx, who in his journalism on India argued that the capitalist [...]
Follow Us
Search by Keyword
Search by Author
Powered by Authors WidgetLatest Poll
Will Pakistan win the third Test match against England and secure the "clean sweep" in the series?
Total Voters: 61
Blogroll
Blog Row
Media Partners
Blogs from Pakistan and Around the World
Top Search Terms
Recent Comments
Most Read...