In praise of Moeed Yusuf and the Jinnah Institute Report – by Riaz Malik Hajjaji

by admin

The best thing about the report is that it comes from people who my pious brothers in JI-SSP mistook for liberal fascists.

About the author: Riaz Malik Corner

Just when it looked like the liberal fascist brigade would attempt to take Pakistan away from the Taliban, the brilliant Jinnah Institute report scattered the hopes of this perfidious group of people. This group includes those “Pashtuns” like Prof. Ijaz, Dr. Taqi and Farhat Taj who think they know more about Pathans and NWFP than good, honest patriotic Punjabis. This group also includes fringe elements like Kamran Shafi and others who have the temerity to be critical of the Pak Fauj.

However, the best thing about this report is that it comes from that class of people who my pious brothers in Jamaat-e-Islami and Sipah-e-Sahaba mistakenly thought were also liberal fascists. When we look at those who contributed to this list and the boss of Jinnah Institute, Sherry Rehman, we were expecting the typical liberal fascist rubbish that Pakistan should not support brave, anti-imperialists like Daira-e-Biradaran-e-Pidar-e-Haqqania and Hazrat Mullah Omar.

We were expecting Zionist propaganda that Pakistan needs to move towards becoming a pluralist, secular country away from the teachings of Jinnah and Iqbal. We thought that since Jinnah Institute is funded by the government, this report would say that Un-Islamic concepts like mass populist democracy that allows the paleeth, mud people should be encouraged. Most importantly, we were expecting that Pakistan should forgo the principal of Jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Astagfirallah!

However my fate has been restored and now I want to add Imtiaz Gul and Moeed Yusuf to my list of heroes for authoring and defending this excellent report. Now I know that many liberal fascists have reformed or were always part of the League of Pakistani Patriots (LPP) but were in Taqqiya (Dissimulation). When brave patriots like Ansar Abbasi, Hamid Gul, Tahira Abdullah, Talat Hussain, Zaid Hamid, Orya Maqbool Jan, Fareed Parach, Maulana Ludhianvi, Shahbaz Sharif and others were defending the Taliban, Imperialist Amrika simply ignored them because they were talking mostly in Urdu.

It was Hazrat Imran Khan who was the trail blazer who slowly build a case for supporting and accommodating the Taliban in English. People don’t realize that in Pakistan, anyone supporting the Taliban and the Pak Fauj has to live in great danger; something that liberal fascist cowards can never understand. Those supporting the Taliban and Pak Fauj always have to be worried that the agents of CIA-RAW-Mossad will launch suicide attacks on them. The proof is that NO liberal fascist in Pakistan has ever been attacked and all the victims have been Taliban and their patriotic supporters.

Imtiaz, I am so impressed with the way that you and Moeed have engaged with these liberal fascists. Don’t make the mistake of addressing their deceptive arguments; their Yahood-Hunood-Nisara masters have taught them many tricks. They are the followers of Yajood-Majood and have the audacity to critisize Hazrat Imran Khan and Sir Syed Zaid Hamid. If they ever question you on the report, just tell them they are being abusive and personal. If they criticize you for being Pro Pakistan army, there is no shame in it. Take it as a compliment. After all, it is the army that has been forced to run the country since 1958 because our leaders are such failures and our honest civilian bureaucrats were getting too old. Why should the army be critisized if Bhutto was too busy in doing black magic, becoming pro-America and entertaining the requests of the mud people!

The whole world knows that even if the great Taliban might not have brought full stability to Afghanistan between 1997-2001 (let us agree to disagree on this), it will be unrelated groups like Hazrat Mullah Omar and Daira-e-Biradaran-e-Pidar-e-Haqqania who will do this in 2014. If these groups can bring back the glory of the Taliban government, we should not complain.

After the Jinnah report, you and all the authors have become a hit with Jamaat-e-Islami, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and all the patriotic people, especially the folks at GEO. There can be no higher compliment.

I am Riaz Malik and I am proud of the Jinnah Institute Report.

8 Comments to “In praise of Moeed Yusuf and the Jinnah Institute Report – by Riaz Malik Hajjaji”

  1. Moeed Yusuf: US ‘Can Still Turn Pakistan Around’

    Written by Dan Washburn on May 12, 2011

    South Asia adviser in the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention Moeed Yusuf testifies during a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee May 5, 2011 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    Moeed Yusuf, an Asia Society Pakistan 2020 Study Group member, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations last week, part of a hearing entitled “Assessing U.S. Policy and Its Limits in Pakistan.”
    Yusuf, South Asia Advisor for the Center for Conflict Prevention and Analysis at the United States Institute of Peace, advocated a long-term relationship with Pakistan for the U.S., arguing that downgrading ties would be a grave error, because Pakistan’s importance goes far beyond Afghanistan. You can watch the entire hearing here. And you can download his complete testimony here. You can find the conclusion of Yusuf’s testimony below.

    “As you can imagine, the atmosphere was quite tense given the Osama bin Laden episode less than a week before the hearing,” Yusuf said. “In any case, I found the questions from the Senators constructive and engaging.”
    Yusuf is moderator for the May 20 Washington, D.C., launch of the Pakistan 2020 report, which focuses on the future of the country. The United States Institute of Peace is co-hosting the event. For more information about Pakistan 2020: A Vision for Building a Better Future, click here.

    Here is a snippet from Yusuf’s May 5 testimony:

    Pakistan’s stability as a state is a critical U.S. national security interest. I will be the first one to admit that this message runs contrary to the natural impulse, especially at a time when questions continue to be raised about Pakistan’s sincerity in the wake of Osama Bin Laden’s killing inside the country.
    Indeed, the relationship will continue to give ample opportunities for finger pointing; tempers will run high; and often, frustrations with Pakistan may boil over. The Pakistani leadership will also remain inefficient and U.S. aid will seldom get the short term returns that law makers desire. And yet, losing Pakistan and letting it destabilize will have systemic implications, if not for any other reason, then purely for its destructive potential: one of the largest youth bulges; extremism; terrorism; and nuclear weapons.
    On the other hand, well crafted U.S. policies with a long term vision can still turn Pakistan around and help it become a moderate Muslim country with a middle‐sized economy. The silver lining is that much of the present strategic divergence of interest between the two sides is Afghanistan‐specific. Should Pakistan and the U.S. manage to work together and find a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement in Afghanistan, a sustained relationship beyond that would by definition be for Pakistan’s sake alone. The basis for Pakistani perceptions about fickleness of the U.S. partnership, transactional nature of the relationship, and even anti‐American sentiment would have disappeared. Presuming that the flow of economic and security assistance is uninterrupted throughout and that Pakistan’s democratic process has not been disrupted, the returns on U.S. investment will be greater and swifter beyond that point.

    http://asdev2.asiasociety.org/blog/reasia/moeed-yusuf-us-can-still-turn-pakistan-around

  2. At the end of the day, one has to wonder about the credulity of Americans who indulge these gentlemen out of the ostensible belief that they are operating in the interest of the United States. Someone really needs to shed some light onto these fellows and their activities and address her concerns forthrightly. Any perusal of their publications provides ample anecdotal evidence to back up her suspicions. I am very concerned about the legitimacy with which they are feted and the access that they have to significant shapers of US policy towards Pakistan and the region. Their productivity seems calibrated to defend the equities of the Pakistan army.

    —-

    Moed Yusuf from USIP is a representative of the deep state in the US . He has done consultancy work for the Strategic Plans Division which is General Kidwai’s organization and the reports from Washington are that he warns the ISI/ISPR of any research activity in the US that has a bearing on the military in Pakistan . He makes a good team with Shuja Nawaz. He has been making inroads into Pakistan from the USIP forum. In 2010 Moed used the USIP platform to send a
    report to specific congressional committees suggesting that Pakistan is in a bad shape and the US will benefit by supporting the military. He is now using the USIP platform to engage with every other think tank in town. Imtiaz Gul and many other academics from Quaide Azam university now work with him.

    —-

    I have noticed this problem with US specially and other western countries generally. The people that we see interacting with the US consulate or other US think tanks etc some times surprises you. However, people like Moeed yousaf et all does not surprise one. what surprises rather worries is when apparently influential US individuals or organizations also start depending on them. but that can be ascribed to a lack of understanding on US part. however, when people like Sherry Rehman, who is supposed to be educated liberal and democratic voice in Pakistan’s political scene lend credibility to works of such artists that frustrates one. It is important that alternate voices start shouting to be heard.
    The problem with the west is that it considers the religious part of the Al Qaeda / Taliban etc as the real threat. so they focus on the religious both as friends and as enemies. they ignore the fundamental question of the dominant perception of the Pakistani state that sees these religious forces and slogans as tools of policy, which are considered as such by even the clean shaven men or coloured haired ladies of the Pakistani state establishment. Religion is not the real issue at all. The US also needs to hear other voices then they are used to and that they like.

    ——

    A growing number have been saying the same thing and the JI report is the latest in a long line of military establishment propaganda. . Deconstructions of this report have also been published at various blogs and newspapers.

    If the US State Department is following the recommendations of the JI report, God help Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the US has drunk the cool aid that the transnational Taliban are representative of the Pashtuns, then a major lie has been passed off as truth.

    The deep state must stop it’s two-faced policies. Whilst disagreeing with someone is fine, it is the personal abuse: ‘traitor; Hindu-agent-go-to-India-where-you-belong; you ought to be shot’ etcetera that really upsets one, if only for the reason that the Deep State and its handmaidens arrogate to themselves the perfect right to determine which way Pakistan will be forced to go. As if enough damage hasn’t already already been done to the country and the region, and as if the rest of us who think differently are enemies of the country.

    —-

  3. Moeed Yusuf’s response to the above criticism:

    I find it useless to engage in such a pathetic and slanderous conversation but since I have been blamed for all sorts of malicious things, I need to set the record straight.

    I wish to put on the record the factual inaccuracies in your message because knowing you, tomorrow you will happily use my lack of response as evidence of my guilt:

    1. I have never in my life done any consultancy for the SPD or any other military institution. In fact, I have never ever earned a SINGLE PENNY working for the government of Pakistan, civilian or military, although I didn’t know it was a crime to consult for the Government of Pakistan. But since you have alleged this, please provide the evidence you are basing you statement on. I guess its too much to ask you to apologize publicly for misstating facts.

    2. I never submitted any report to any Congress Committee in 2010 from any platform. So please enlighten me which Congress committee was this and what was the report. I am sure you thought … will not put this on a public blog and that I will never found out. Now that it is here, your lie has been exposed. I will inform all the Congress committees that deal with Pakistan of this allegation so that they know what you are insinuating. Surely, they would know whether
    I submitted a report or not and would realize how you are including them into such an allegation. I will also inform USIP of this as you have mentioned the USIP platform being used for this hypothetical report.

    Also, FYI – I have never ever appeared before any Congress committee in any confidential or off-the-record briefing. Again, feel free to go to whoever your contacts are and ask them to prove to the contrary. I have only been on the Hill once for a formal hearing and that was a public testimony – available for all to read and see. The section on civil-military relations and democracy in Pakistan I am pasting below. If this is the GHQ line, I think its great news for Pakistan:

    3. Would you like to tell me who these “reports from Washington” that I inform ISPR/ISI of a report come from. Because I would like to confront them and take them to task for spreading lies about me. My guess though is that this is another one of those baseless stories.

    4. To be very clear, what you mention about …s personal matter, there are no “these gents” who have leaked anything. Fortunately or unfortunately, … has mentioned this to people apart from me that I have nothing to do with whatever this issue is and that her problem is with someone else. This story can’t change sadly since she has mentioned it to others as well. And yes, she should feel free to share it so that people know what information has been leaked and can trace it to whoever it is. I am tired of hearing about this without finding out what this prized information contained and who has done it. Shouldn’t be difficult once we know what the story is.

    Finally, this is not the first time you have accused someone like this. In fact, I have heard many many people say this about you. Each time they tell me since its accusing someone it can be safely ignored. Quite a reputation you have developed! Keep it up!

    ———-

    1. Your initial response would have made me say the following very bluntly:
    If you think I am a spook, please bring the evidence and tell the FBI to arrest me since that is a crime in the US. If not, remember, slander is also a crime. Go ask whoever you want to check on any of my activities and associations. Good luck to whoever wants to waste time on a boring endeavor.

    2. Your much more detailed response now, even though is a retraction of that, to my mind is worse. Because you are branding origins and exposing your prejudices. Perhaps you should go and tell the US Government to put all foreign origin experts in concentration camps and throw them out of the country. My apologies for doing hard work honestly and gaining respect of people.

    3. Even in this longer response, you have misrepresented my position on LeT, which was the only place you have mentioned me. Please read what I have written about it. In any case, you are absolutely right. Everyone should go and read each and everything I have written and every product that has ever come out of USIP’s Pakistan program since I have been at USIP. I take full responsibility for it. I have a public profile, all I write is open source. Please go and read my columns – I write every 3 weeks in the Dawn (Monday’s) and also read all analytical articles I have ever put out. My views are my own and I am unapologetic about them.

    I do not want to indulge in this further but we have had enough email exchanges and you have contradicted yourself about me too many times in front of people including two of my bosses over the past two years for you to pull this one off with a straight face. Too many people have seen through this.

    Both of you, please keep trying. Thankfully, unlike Pakistan, people in Washington read – and they have read plenty of what I have written to know what I stand for. So it won’t work.

    MOEED YUSUF

  4. The JI report pretty much negates whatever Moeed has said via Zahid and yourself.

    It essentially parrots the military establishment point of view of supporting the Taliban as has been pointed out by various writers for newspapers and even by blogs.

    Furthermore, it would be intellectually dishonest to distance oneself from this report, again for the various reasons pointed out and which include:

    1. NO specific notes of dissent
    2. No objective alternate presented

    If you use a major, well-funded report by the Jinnah Institute to tell the reader, primarily the US government that the Taliban need to be supported, how have you distinguished yourselves from this point of view?

    Thanks for forwarding Moeed’s testimony to Congress. If I had any doubts about the there being a difference between the views of Moeed and the military establishment, they have been dispelled.

    —–

    What Moeed and Imtiaz have written/approved/testified makes the issue very clear. The JI report and Congress testimony seems like it has been written by an ISI major. It doesn’t matter what Imtiaz and Moeed have written before. these two documents which have their signatures highlight the obvious. The JI report is a rehash of the same disastrous policy of strategic depth and I don’t know who it is trying to fool by presenting the Haqqani network and Mullah Omar as the 2014 alternate to the Taliban!

    Whether wittingly or otherwise, Imtiaz and Moeed have become the mouthpieces of the military establishment’s Pro-Taliban policies. Instead of being defensive and asking for rebutalls of the obvious, I hope they realize that they are being used. ”

    —-

    It is sad to see that Imtiaz and Moeed are reinforcing the military establishment pov.

    questions have shaken them.

    Copied below is the link to Moeed’s ISPR-esque testimony to congress:

    http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Yusuf%20Testimony.pdf

    Page 13 is most interesting and the first few lines are the ones that… has used brilliantly to attack the crux of Moeed’s arguements.

    —-

    The problem with diasporas is that it is always the same problem of disambiguating agency and on whose behalf they operate. Yet there is a growing scholarly literature that examines the roles of diasporas in security issues and it is in this system of inquiry that I root my concerns about specific knowledge production and its influence. Incidentally, I would add to this list the role of my friend and mentor, ….., in putting forward the US-nuke deal. I would add to this list a slew of folks arguing for positions that advance Israel’s interests and not those of the US. This is not unique to the Pakistan-US puzzle. What you think is an interesting or even innocent conversation about people in the US and what they say/write/belief with specific Pakistani officials could have serious repercussions were you to have such a conversation.

    When folks work for US organizations, there is a tacit presumption that they represent the equities of the US and argue for policies that advance US interests. I don’t see you or Shuja doing that as often as defending the Pakistan army (though you do this far less) and I sure as hell don’t understand how retired Pakistani generals at US military educational institutions could do that. What military in its right mind would permit such a development???? It’s not personal. I have no grudge with said general. It’s an issue of the obvious.

    Folks become agents of influence willingly and/or by appropriation. In both cases, neither you nor Shuja publicly reflect upon the obvious motivations of GHQ to tell you so frankly “what is going on.” Neither of you reflect amply upon the simple reality that the institution may be laundering, through the legitimacy of your organizations and your personal positions, its narrative. I have said this to you and Shuja and this is a shortcoming of serious import.

    On the other private issue, there is no reason to indulge in it here. If you read my posts, neither says what you accuse me of writing.

    As I indicated in my note, I have a larger structural concern about how knowledge has been created through a system that incentivizes cultivation and appropriation of scholars/writers be it US embeds, NATO embeds or governments on whose access these writers rely. Equally problemmatic is that scholars, journalists and analysts must cultivate ties in specific organizations/governments to do their job as access is the currency. However, they are most surely being cultivated by those same agencies with or without their knowledge or consent.

    Neither you nor Shuja exhibit any self-consciousness about this. Worse, you will depict GHQ’s talking points as fact rather than a a point of departure and I see no reflection upon the stark differences between what is said and what they do. To be fair, I think you are far less culpable of this than is Shuja. You on occasion do reflect upon this. This is not new or a surprise: I have spoken bluntly about this to you both. It’s bad “social science” to present what is really a mem con as analysis.

    That is my concern and it extends far beyond you or any other person or for that matter any particular country as many countries have cultivated diasporan assets with or without the approval of the persons so appropriated.

    —-

  5. Mooed seems to be a new version of Ejaz Haider and Shirin Mazari.

    Intellectual servants of the deep state!

  6. I am collecting rotten tomatoes and eggs to spray on Moeed Yousuf when he speaks next time. Also some rotten grapes (not wine) for Sherry.

  7. Debate on USIP-JI report on Afghanistan and Moeed Yusuf’s testimony to US Congress – by Marvi Sirmed
    http://criticalppp.com/archives/57307

  8. @Shahid, don’t waste your rotten tomatoes and eggs on this even more rotten soul.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: