There has been a story in the news for the last two months that
requires prompt clarification.  In the original version (Dawn newspaper of August
21), the Tori embankment was ordered breached causing the raging Indus and its
canals to flood Balochistan's green belt and destroy the homes and farms of a
half million and more, all because the Sindhi ministers wanted to protect their
own areas, which also happen to include the Shahzad air base.  The base has
been leased by us and apparently houses drones and other equipment
considered by us to be so militarily sensitive that Pakistanis are generally not
allowed in it.  In this particular version of the story, contractors allied with the
minister were also afraid a flood would expose their shoddy construction work at
the base.

There is another far more insidious version now doing the rounds.  In an
interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Feryal Ali-Gauhar, an actress,
author, a former UN Goodwill Abassador and a human rights activist, charges the
embankment was breached at the U.S.'s behest to save the base.  If she is
correct, and she claims to have investigated the story, then we are guilty of moral
turpitude of the kind witnessed in dictatorial regimes like the former Yugoslavia.  
Imagine flooding millions of people (according to Ali-Gauhar) destroying their
homes, farms, no doubt followed by some subsequent loss of life, for the sake of
military equipment and personnel that were possible to evacuate in the worst
circumstance.  The story has enraged the Pakistani public according to an article
in Common Dreams yesterday about losing the battle there to win hearts and
minds.  It surely deserves an investigation to ascertain the truth and respond
appropriately, or people will become convinced of the latter version and accuse
us of acting with impunity and criminal disregard of Pakistani life and property.

In other news this week, we are giving $2 billion in military aid to Pakistan over
five years.  Actually, if truth be known, we are not giving much as most of the
package is in the form of loans.  So, we lend money to an impoverished country
to buy equipment to fight their own people … who have never directly attacked or
threatened us.  The logic escapes this observer.  Of course, as with any package
to a country larded with corrupt politicians (and I don't mean us — for that one can
refer to another article) there will be plenty of skimming by them leaving the
taxpayers to face the debt in the future.  A country devastated with the worst
flooding in living memory, twenty million homeless, vast tracts of farm land
destroyed, and the government is busy making military purchases.  Of course the
politicians are delighted.

In the same week Saudi Arabia, a puny country in a population comparison with
Pakistan, bought $60 billion worth of advanced military equipment.  The deal
amplifies the paltry nature of the $400 million per year arrangement with Pakistan,
which, despite that fact, still upsets India.

The much touted civilian aid/loan package of $7.5 billion to Pakistan amounts to
about $40 per capita.  It wouldn't buy a meal at a Washington D.C. hotel and it's
spread over five years.  What was it we gave to the banks?  $2 trillion in Fed toxic
asset purchases with more to come, and $700 billion in direct loans — costs a lot
to feed a banker!

---