Nukes worries myth

A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has written an article that does no credit to him or to the prize that he was once awarded. Old age could be a reason for this lapse but dementia has never been mentioned in his context and from all accounts he remains alert and 'all there'. Why then has he written an article that makes no sense and that packs no punch except vague generalizations? At its heart the article strikes at the Pakistan military for collusion with the US to protect their nukes and in for making compromises on the secrecy and security surrounding those nukes. Would anyone in his right mind believe such drivel? These nukes are to be protected from what? A threat that exists only in the mind of the writer---no one else seriously believes that such a threat exists.

He has quoted Hillary Clinton. She has said the right things-- trashing suggestions that insinuate secret understandings and discussions. He has quoted President Obama who, again, has made a balanced statement and refused to be drawn into hypothetical discussions on the security of Pakistan's nukes. The author says that he met President Zardari twice and has quoted him at length but Zardari has rubbished all insinuations and has stated without any ambiguity that that there were no disclosures, discussions or understandings and he has forcefully defended the security arrangements and those responsible for those arrangements. He has quoted Admiral Mullen who has also denied any knowledge of what the author is insinuating. He has mentioned some kind of rapport between Admiral Mullen and General Kayani---they are two men serving the interests of their own countries and nothing else. Who are the others he has relied upon? Ageing has-beens with no responsibility and desperate to retain some kind of importance. Unnamed officials and advisers and some others well known for their habit of airing specific views. None of them is current or can possibly be current on the subject that he is discussing and this includes those who were recently in responsible positions.

The author quotes one of his ghosts as having said that-'if a Pakistani generals lips are moving and he is talking of nukes then he is lying'. Of course he is. So would an American general be lying about his nukes or any other general for that matter? In fact if the author wants to discuss lying then lying was done at pay grades higher than general to justify the wars in which many including Americans are dying for the last eight years. The author is worried about 'penetration from within' that may lead to seizure of nukes by terrorists and extremists and he cites the recent attacks on Pakistan's security establishments. If these were engineered from within why did they barely get to the perimeter and no further? The author talks of Punjabis and Pashtuns within the military and insinuates some kind of discrimination---this is where he displays his complete and utter ignorance of the Pakistan military establishment. No other comment is needed. A hard to swallow truth is that the Pakistan military is cohesive, well trained and motivated --- perfectly capable of safeguarding itself from subversion and that Pakistan's nukes are safe, secure and under excellent custodial control. If the US has helped from the sidelines then this does not imply compromise or access.

There have been strong denials and rebuttals. None were needed because the article was a carefully built house of cards and nothing else.It has come tumbling down. The lesson to be learnt by Pakistan is that access to responsible people in Pakistan must be restricted. The point to consider is that why and at whose instigation was such a transparently motivated article written and why--- because there are sure to be more of the same category and with the same targets.

Fatima Rizvi

Back To Top