On December 20, the editorial of a Lahore-based English newspaper lamented the exit of the CIA chief in Pakistan calling the disclosure of his cover and his subsequent departure from Pakistan not a small matter. "The Americans will not take it kindly and this would be seen as an unfriendly act by the US' frontline ally in the war against terror if the ISI did out Jonathan Banks' name."
"Even though the ISI has vehemently denied this allegation by calling it "a slur" that "can create differences between the two organisations [the ISI and CIA]", it is not unnatural that the finger of suspicion is pointing towards Pakistan's top spy agency."
"Banks was reportedly here on a business visa, meaning thereby that he was operating undercover. To find out his identity is no mean task and could not have been done without the help of our intelligence agencies, who are the only ones to have access to such sensitive information."
"If indeed the ISI exposed the CIA chief in retaliation for the lawsuit filed against the ISI chief in the US, it could have grave repercussions for our country." This narrative portrays the newspaper's vocal approval of CIA's presence and operations in Pakistan as well as the newspaper's concern for Pakistan's sovereignty and security interests.
But, according to an APP report, the Americans don't feel that way. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry said on American television channel "No, I don't believe it will be a major setback, and I think we need to stop having public debates about what Pakistan is at fault for or not at fault for..."
He admitted that "The drones are very unpopular, all through Pakistan" - the trigger that convinced the kin of the martyred civilian non-combatants to file a suit against Banks, CIA chief in Pakistan. In this backdrop, it is hard to surmise the stand of the Lahore newspaper. Even if it desires to do so, this newspaper isn't helping the US. As a matter of fact, by trying to appear 'more loyal than the king', it is tactlessly betraying its loyalties and, in the process, not providing the king the covert help that the king needs.
Comments
Comments are closed.