General Hameed Gul does not clarify if the leaks constitute a 'fiction' only when it comes to ISI-Taliban nexus or if these leaks are untrue even when they unmask US' war crimes, brutalities perpetrated by Task Force 373 and Afghan police's corruption.
By Farooq Sulehria
General Hameed Gul's emblematic response to WikiLeaks (‘this is pure fiction') was as unconvincing as ISI's refutation. Talking to Guardian, ISI spokesperson said: 'It's very strange that such a large cache of information can be leaked to the media so conveniently. Is it something deliberate? What is its purpose?'. The ISI gentleman is advised to scour last week's newspapers to find that it indeed is not very strange. And yes it is 'deliberate'. A whistleblower has deliberately leaked. Regarding the 'purpose', WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange told Der Spiegel: 'I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards'. Assange is an Australian and WikiLeaks is hosted from Sweden to avoid censorship. The target WikiLeaks had in mind was the Empire. The ISI/ Gen. Gul popped up the way corrupt Afghan police have been frequently mentioned. The WikiLeaks has not singled out Gen. Gul/ISI. The USA has ironically not challenged these leaks. It takes a special qualification in ignorance to contest the reality of these leaks. Unlike ISI spokesman, Gen. Gul has not contested the possibility of these leaks either. He questions their credibility. But he does not clarify if the leaks constitute a 'fiction' only when it comes to ISI-Taliban nexus or if these leaks are untrue even when they unmask US' war crimes, brutalities perpetrated by Task Force 373 and Afghan police's corruption. Talking to BBC, Gen. Gul reminded us how the UNO was told a lie by Collin Powel, ahead of Iraq war, about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Since the USA lied to the UNO, Gen. Gul implies the USA cannot be trusted. Let us reverse the same logic and apply it on Gen. Gul. He was DG ISI (1986-89) at a time khakis were happily serving Washington on Afghan front. By the way, self-appointed 'Muslim visionary' Gen. Gul has never clarified to this day if it was not an incongruity to ally with 'infidel' Empire to destroy a neighbouring Muslim country. Anyhow, every time Kabul protested, a spokesperson for Gen. Zia's regime religiously denied hand in the internal Afghan affairs. Nowadays Gen. Hameed Gul takes the credit to beat Red Army in Afghanistan. Dear readers! either Kabul was told a lie back in the 1980s or we are told a lie now.
Similarly, throughout the 1980s, Islamabad was saying that Pakistan's nuclear programme was meant for peaceful purpose. In 1998, suddenly a mushroom cloud appeared over Chaghi. During the 1990s, the militancy in Kashmir was declared 'indigenous' by Islamabad. At the same time, vernacular rags used to proudly report on coffins arriving Punjabi villages from Valley carrying 'martyrs' bodies. In a few months time after tit for tat test in Chaghi, Kargil was alight. Pakistan refused a hand in the conflagration. Later on, an elected prime minister was exiled for betraying Kargil. More examples can be cited but let us restrict to Taliban. It was repeated on daily basis that Pakistan did not arm Taliban to capture Kabul in 1997. In the wake of 9/11, Gen. Musharraf on state TV was heard saying: 'What have I not done for Afghanistan and Taleban?'. Should one apply the logic Gen. Gul is grafting on Collin Powel, at least Pakistani generals can never be trusted. Only General Zia, the most pious one, lied dozen of times about '90 days'. Gen Gul has a valid objection when he says the Afghan War Logs cannot be verified. One hopes, when in future intelligence reports are leaked to Pakistani media ('uncircumcised' Taliban etc), he will not flaunt them on talk shows before verifying them.
Source: Viewpoint online