Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

After listening to Democracy Now‘s appalling interview in its Tuesday, June 10 broadcast, I sent Amy Goodman a letter of complaint which I had also CCed to a few friends with interest in the subject. One of them had passed the letter on among other people to Counterpunch, who recognizing the urgency of the issue published it as an article, typos and all. The article has since generated a lot of reaction, nearly all of it positive (I have received more mail in response to this article than I have to all my past writings combined). Since today it has also been quoted by Alexander Cockburn, let me just add a note of qualification. The tone of the letter, a follow up to an earlier complaint about the lack of coverage of the AIPAC conference, was harsh because it was an immediate response and was not intended for publication. However, the substance of the complaint remains valid. This is not to say, as some have construed, that DN is abandoning its principles. I just think they have shown poor judgement (and they are not alone in this unfortunately; the whole US left, with the exception of the Cockburns, Chris Hedges, Philip Weiss and Ralph Nader, has given the lobby a free pass) which becomes all the more egregious given the particular time in history, the nature of the threats emanating from AIPAC’s podia, and the failure to investigate a power that imposes unanimity on politicians who otherwise have little in common. Other than that I remain a devoted listener, and I hope DN rectifies by giving Mearsheimer and Walt a chance to present their own case.

Following is a more precise, typo-free version of the letter:

It is with some alarm and dismay that I watched Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! provide platform to right-wing Paksitani journalist Ahmad Rashid, long an apologist for Bush’s war-on-terror, to recycle propaganda from British tabloid press and other discredited sources. His tale about al-Qa’ida recruiting “white European converts” for terrorist acts in Europe originated with the British security services as part of their fearmongering campaign to build support for the 42-day detention without charge plan. No shred of evidence was ever offered.

Equally bogus are his claims of organized al-Qa’ida “training camps with language facilities” etc. Once again, these claims are the products of the vivid imaginations of the terrorologists proliferating in the war on terror fear factory. I suggest Amy ask Rashid to substantiate his claims or issue a retraction. (When he claims Iraq is an “Arab Middle East problem” and that it would be resolved when its neighbours “stop interfering”, I would have liked Amy to at least ask if he was aware the country is under U.S. occupation.)

He suggests the truce negotiated by the Pakistani government is tantamount to supporting the Taliban. Quoting U.S. military officials in Kabul he alleges that Pakistan is “funding” the resurgence of the Taliban. He faults Pakistan for not cooperating more enthusiastically in Bush’s war on terror. Rashid appears to be living in a timeless world where the realities of 10 years past substitute for the present. Pakistani military’s intervention in the FATA region has been brutal, now extending to the frontier heartland of Swat. Tactics have included Israeli-style collective punishment; wholesale demolition of recalcitrant villages; disappearing of opponents (mostly the tribal homines sacri); bombing raids; and extrajudicial killings. The response of the tribesmen — all swept under the handy label of “the Taliban” by the government and hacks of Rashid’s stripe — is as brutal as it is predictable. Only a few months back three rockets landed in the very safe neighborhood where my sister resides in the frontier city of Peshawar.

Kidnapping for ransom has become a common phenomenon. Suicide attacks on the military have been frequent. The Pakistani military death toll is now nearing a thousand. So when a guest on Democracy Nowher judgment I must question for letting this pass without challenge. starts claiming that the Pakistani government is funding and encouraging the slaughter of its own soldiers I am forced to demur despite my disdain for the regime. When I hear Amy’s guest fault Pakistan for not allowing US forces on its territory, and refusing CIA a base in the tribal regions, its her judgment I must question for letting this pass without challenge.

The government for some years has shown a preference for a negotiated political settlement, only to be thwarted every time by unauthorized US assaults that have reignited the conflict. On other occasions the government has caved under pressure and resumed assaults itself to fend off accusations of the type recycled by Rashid on the show that it is “not doing enough” in the fight against the Taliban. He even questions the new peace deal the government is negotiating with the tribesmen, calling it “a surrender document by the Pakistan army”. This armchair Bonaparte clearly has a preference for military solutions.

There is no reason why Pakistan should be cooperating with the US “war on terror”. Under its rubric, the Musharraf regime has already devastated much of the tribal belt and created enemies where there were none. Contrary to Rashid’s claim that the new government is “prepared to fulfill the US agenda”, it has promised to open dialogue with the tribals in order to end hostilities. This is a positive development that makes the US apprehensive, as it does Uncle Toms of Rashid’s stripe who have wedded their careers to the ‘war on terror’ as its sanctioned cheer leaders.

I hope Amy shows more care in the future in vetting her guests. She certainly could not have been unaware of the political leanings of this guest since in an earlier appearance on her show he had dismissed Afghan civilian casualties at the hands of NATO because according to him “the Taliban are doing the same thing”. The “tragedy in Afghanistan” is, he said, that “there are too few troops on the ground”. The loss of civilian life was bad “because it becomes a tool for Taliban propaganda” and “it really doesn’t help NATO very much, because NATO and American forces really need boots on the ground, and clearly, you know, they don’t have enough troops.” (July 11, 2007)

This is the second time in a week where Amy’s editorial judgment has left me deeply disappointed. First was the refusal to cover — yet again! — the AIPAC conference, with all its implications for US politics and the Middle East. In a year when even the mainstream media was forced to take notice, with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show going so far as to refer to the lobby as the “Elders of Zion”, Democracy Now! appeared alone in missing the irony of three presidential candidates, each pledged to fight the stranglehold of lobbyists on Washington, genuflect to the most powerful of them all.

Amy, what happened to Democracy Now’s promise to speak truth to power? Did you not say once that your aim was to go where the silence is? How is it that the Washington Post was able to break the silence (Philip Weiss calls this the Mearsheimer and Walt-effect) even as Democracy Now remained AWOL? Why did Democracy Now join MSM in denying Mearsheimer and Walt a voice, instead allowing their views to be misrepresented by critics without a chance of rebuttal? How well placed are you to criticize the mainstream for refusing to stand up to power when you can yourself be considered guilty of the same?

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is at the Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde. He can be reached at m.idrees@gmail.com. He blogs at Fanonite.org.