Afghanistan, Pakistan and
the Press
Credit and Credibility
By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
13/08/08 "Counterpunch"
-- - So attacks in Afghanistan must be the work of
Pakistan’s dastardly Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI), yet again, because the New York Times told us the other
day that “American intelligence agencies have concluded that
members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the
deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan,
according to United States government officials.” The New York
Times went on to claim that “The conclusion was based on
intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence
officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials
said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani
intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts
to combat militants in the region. The American officials also
said there was new information showing that members of the
Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing
militants with details about the American campaign against them,
in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile
strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.”
There are plenty of clichés (“powerful spy service” and
“actively undermining” are splendid examples), but not a shred
of hard evidence in this important story. There is not one bit
of material that can be verified or even checked for accuracy.
No names are named. There are declarations by anonymous
“American officials” concerning supposed electronic intercepts
of which no details are provided. But the New York Times and
other US newspapers chose to blare to the world the unsupported
conclusion that Pakistan is guilty of treason against itself.
It might be thought that the New York Times would have learned a
lesson after being manipulated by the infamously incompetent and
gullible reporter Judith Miller who made such a fool of the
paper at the time of the US invasion of Iraq. She swallowed
nonsense purveyed to her by un-named “government officials” and
other anonymous and indeed malevolent sources, but the
newspaper’s editors just followed along and published the
rubbish. Garbage in; Garbage out. As one of her colleagues said
of her in the context of a combined story : “She has turned in a
draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more
than dictation from government sources over several days, filled
with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies.”
To believe the sort of drivel that comes from “officials” of any
nationality who refuse to be identified takes particular energy
and dedication. But even those who are required to speak on the
record are liars when it suits official purposes and policies.
Take the VOA report in early July that “The Pentagon says no
civilians were killed in an air strike Sunday in a remote area
of eastern Afghanistan, which local officials say killed 27
people who were walking to a wedding . . . US military officials
in Kabul say they believe the air strike hit its intended
target, a group of militants. Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman
confirmed that view. “I can only tell you I talked to
Afghanistan this morning, and they are very clear with that
particular strike that they believe they struck the intended
target and that there were not innocent civilians involved in
that particular strike".”
The claim, the flat statement, that there were no civilian
casualties was first made by unidentified “US military
officials,” then by a spokesman who had “talked to Afghanistan.”
To whom did he talk? To any Afghans? To anyone in the Afghan
government? To an Afghan who had lost a wife or husband or
children in the blitzed village of Deh Bala where so many
civilians were killed? Of course not : he spoke with
“Afghanistan” as represented by a bunch of unnamed US officials
in Kabul. He then retailed the same rubbish, that “there were
not [sic] innocent civilians involved,” which was a lie, because
the province governor stated with hard evidence – like bodies of
children – that there had indeed been many civilian deaths.
Then the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, left his
fortress in Kabul and flew to the stricken village to speak with
the tribes, saying he had “come to share your grief.” Now : is
it likely that Karzai, beholden to Bush as he is, would have
taken the trouble to do that if the US claim of no civilian
deaths had been even remotely believable?
One has to give Karzai recognition for venturing into the region
where the US bombing took place, because there is no doubt that
by doing so his life was in extreme danger (possibly from a US
airstrike like the one for which he went to offer condolences).
We must give credit where it’s due. But there is no credit, or
credibility for that matter, due to the liars who try, with
increasing success, to mislead the media and thereby the outside
world, about the slaughter of civilians through incompetence.
And when they kill so many scores of civilians by reason of
technical or human ineptitude and then lie about the crimes, how
can we believe mysterious unidentified “officials” who allege
without evidence that Pakistan’s intelligence agency was
responsible for the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul?
Stories change ; usually when the lie has become too obvious for
all the “officials” and other sources to continue spreading it.
As happened with the killing of a bank manager and two of his
staff by American troops on Baghdad’s Airport Road on 25 June,
for example. It was stated officially that “The attack left
bullet holes in two of the convoy vehicles, and a weapon was
found in the car;” but these were lies. Deliberate, unvarnished,
straightforward, downright lies. Iraqi outrage was such that
there had to be an investigation, and eventually a US spokesman
had to say that the official description of the incident was
poppycock from beginning to end. (Nobody was punished for
telling lies or slaughtering civilians, of course : that would
be too much to expect.)
There are dozens of stories like this. Most of the killings of
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are ignored because US
military media releases are published unquestioningly by the
world’s newspapers. The words of US “officials” go straight into
print without question and are presented as incontrovertible
fact.
The evidence that US “officials” have lied to the depth of their
bootstraps is, however, irrefutable. So why believe the
unsupported word of nameless US officials that Pakistan plotted
the Kabul bombing?
As a result of worldwide parade of a media report based on
unverifiable declarations by anonymous “US government officials”
there has been a dramatic dive, a terrible crash in relations
between Pakistan and India. At the exact time when, for the
first time in almost five years, there were exchanges of fire
between soldiers of India and Pakistan along the Line of Control
in Kashmir, the sadly disputed territory between the two
countries, there suddenly appeared a US-sourced report that
gravely endangers ongoing but fragile India-Pakistan
confidence-building discussions.
Why?
The tale from unidentified US “officials” that Pakistan was
involved in an attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was
published in a period when the governments of India and Pakistan
are extremely vulnerable to religious and nationalist pressures.
In Delhi the shaky coalition is apprehensive about elections
next year and trying to be all things to all people; it is under
enormous strain. In Islamabad there is a barely-functioning
coalition of mutual distrust, and the country is desperately in
need of external support that could promote domestic calm.
Domestic and bilateral stability in the region, one would think,
should be encouraged by foreign powers.
Yet “American intelligence agencies” and “United States
government officials” tell newspaper reporters that Pakistan was
involved in attacking the Indian embassy in Kabul, thus
immeasurably increasing tension between Islamabad and Delhi (and
Islamabad and Kabul, of course) and almost destroying their
faltering but sincere approaches to rapprochement.
The extremely serious implications of such statements to
reporters of a large US newspaper, and consequent international
results, must have been understood by whoever made them. So why
did they make them? What was the purpose? It certainly wasn’t to
encourage dialogue between two neighbours who distrust each
other.
We will never know the motive, of course, because there is no
means of finding out; just as there is no means of verifying the
story. So once again some unaccountable US officials have sown
even more distrust and created much more resentment in a region
in which there is singular lack of trust and a marked
inclination to believe the worst of neighbours. Whoever had the
bright idea of spreading this malevolent tale must now have the
satisfaction that it had the result of stirring up hatred and
suspicion. Give credit where it’s due. But credibility is quite
another matter.
Brian Cloughley lives in France. His website is
www.briancloughley.com
Click
on "comments" below to read or post
comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be
succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage
engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do
not include personal information such as names,
addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines – those
including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you have
concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send
Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
