Monthly Archives: July 2011

Reassessing American Strategy in South Asia

Shuja NawazShuja Nawaz, Director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, testified before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week regarding American strategy in South Asia. In his written testimony submitted to Congress, Mr. Nawaz makes several important recommendations for improving US-Pakistan relations including de-linking aid from political objectives and increasing investment in improving regional trade. At the heart of his recommendations, though, is a call for the US to focus on strengthening civilian institutions. The following paragraph, in particular, stands out.

The United States must put its interactions with civilian leaders and civil society on a much higher plane than it has to date. And it must increase its effort to help Pakistan rebuild institutions in civil society that have been damaged by years of autocratic rule. A better civil service and community-based police at the federal and provincial level are critical for security and development. Support mechanisms and systems for parliament and the Pakistan Senate, for provincial administrations, and key institutions such as the Election Commission and the Defence Committee of the Cabinet are needed to allow the civilians to provide the leadership that Pakistan deserves. In effect we need a civilian counterpart of the IMET (International Military Education and Training) program run by the Department of State, with dedicated resources to allow the US to be seen as a partner of democracy in Pakistan.

Extremist Groups on Pakistan’s Campuses – Should Americans Worry?

University of Punjab students protesting against IJT

University of Punjab students protest against Islami Jamiat Talaba (IJT) and extremism on campus

The New York Times today reports a troubling story about the rise of extremism on college campuses in Pakistan. College campuses have long been home to twenty-somethings experimenting with radical thought. Even conservative commentator P.J. O’Rourke was a college Marxist in his day. But are Pakistan’s centers of education becoming incubators for extremist ideology and violence? There are many reasons to believe that, despite the Times story, the answer is no.

The Times story begins by noting that posters were plastered around the University of Punjab advertising an essay contest eulogizing Osama bin Laden. No sponsor was listed on the posters, and the only contact information given was an email address. No award ceremony was presented, and it is not known whether any students actually participated in the mysterious “contest.” All in all, not much of a story.

With little substance to the story of the mysterious flyers, the reporter shifts to a discussion of the student organization Islami Jamiat Talaba (IJT), a youth organization started in 1947 by Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi – founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-i-Islami political party.

The IJT is notorious for its conservative brand of Islam, and the violence with which it enforces its beliefs on college campuses. Though the group claims popular support, this is belied by the fact that the group is forced to resort to threats of violence against its fellow students.

As Salman Masood reports, IJT members in June beat a male student for sitting too close to a female colleague – an act they deemed un-Islamic. Despite IJT’s willingness to resort to violence, Pakistani students are standing up to IJT. After the incident in June, students held a demonstration against the IJT’s tactics. University administrators, too, are cracking down by expelling students involved in extremism.

Political extremism is a problem on college campuses across cultures, even in the US. In 2000, racist flyers were posted on the University of Texas campus twice in one month. In 2005, pro-Nazi flyers were distributed on campus at Central Michigan University. In 2009, Neo-Nazi posters were found at Bucknell University’s campus. While this is a problem, it is one that should be addressed in a way that recognizes the unique political environment of college campuses.

The intensity of student politics is amplified by the energy and passion of youth. As newly independent adults, campus activists often find themselves pushing boundaries and testing the limits of social acceptability. Whether or not IJT itself is complicit in promoting sympathy for a figure like Osama bin Laden, Americans should take heart from the fact that the views of IJT are still so unpopular that they must be enforced at gunpoint.

There are thousands of reasons to believe that Pakistan’s university campuses are not becoming hotbeds of extremism – each of those reasons is a moderate Pakistani student who rejects such ideologies. Rather than treating all Pakistani students as suspect because of the actions of a few misguided activists, those who support democracy and justice in Pakistan should support the moderate majority of students in Pakistan to ensure they are able to receive a quality education that they can take into the workforce to tackle the challenges facing their nation.

Pakistan’s Youth Taking the Reins

Young Pakistanis are making headlines as they increase their involvement in Pakistan’s democratic political process, taking the reins from an older generation of politicians and government officials. Sherhbano Taseer, the 20-something daughter of Salmaan Taseer who was assassinated earlier this year, has received considerable attention for speaking out for justice and tolerance in Pakistan. But Ms. Taseer is not the only young Pakistani who is devoting her life to public service and the cause of strengthening democracy and justice in Pakistan.

Hina Rabbani KharFirst elected to parliament at the age of 25, Hina Rabbani Khar was last week was sworn in as Pakistan’s youngest and first female Minister for Foreign Affairs. Despite her seemingly young age – she is 34 – Hina Rabbani Khar is 13 years older than the median age in Pakistan. She arrived in Delhi today for talks with her Indian counterpart.

In a profession dominated by seasoned diplomats and older political professionals, Hina Rabbani stands out. But Pakistani journalist Huma Yusuf suggests that rather than a liability, Hina Khar’s youth is an asset for strengthening democracy in Pakistan.

In strong democracies, young politicians are valued for their stamina, gumption and for their ability to mobilise and motivate other youngsters. It is high time that Pakistan, with its youth bulge, caught on to the trend.

Bilawal Bhutto ZardariThe next young Pakistani to make headlines was Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the son of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and present Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. Yesterday, English-language daily The Express Tribune reported that Bilawal will compete in Pakistan’s 2013 elections, a claim subsequently rejected  by Bilawal himself on Twitter. Pakistani political junkies have long speculated about not how, but when Bilawal would enter politics. It appears they had the equation backwards.

According to a report in April, Bilawal is not interested in assuming the mantle of politics as part of a political dynasty.

“Bilawal has specifically expressed interest in the party’s youth wing, which was very dear to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto,” [PPP spokesperson Farahnaz Ispahani] said. “He will be looking into modernising the Peoples Youth Organisation, and bringing in new ideas, media technology etc through intellectual and practical exercises.”

Bilawal, who turns 23 this September, is two years away from being eligible to run for a provincial or national assembly seat. However, the PPP believes that the idea is not for Bilawal to jump into politics by contesting elections, but to spend time learning about the party.

“He is a keen learner,” said Ispahani. “He has spent time travelling here and meeting party leaders and members. He listens and he takes his time with making comments on issues.”

At 23, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has spent recent years outside the world of politics, concentrating on completing his studies as Oxford University. Earlier this year, though, he did make a notable public appearance when he gave an unflinching speech in response to the assassination of Salmaan Taseer – at the time a rare show of defiance in the face of terrorist threats, and a demonstration of a courage of conviction largely missing from older political figures.

“To the Christian and other minority communities in Pakistan, we will defend you,” he said at a memorial ceremony in London for Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province who was killed by his own security guard last week.

“Those who wish to harm you for a crime you did not commit will have to go through me first.”

Of course, how Bilawal’s political career proceeds – if he even chooses to have one – remains to be seen. But cynicism aside, Bilawal deserves credit for approaching politics from the path of a public servant, and not a dynastic heir.

Americans can appreciate the desire of young adults to serve their country. First elected to Congress when he was only 29 years old, John F. Kennedy was elected President of the United States at 43 – less than 10 years older than Hina Khar. Current Vice President Joe Biden was first elected to the US Senate at 29 – he had to wait until his 30th birthday to take the oath of office. When Barack Obama entered the White House, he brought not only a youthful spirit, but a group of public servants the New York Times dubbed, “the Obama 20-Somethings.”

However the political careers of Hina Rabbani Khar, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and other young Pakistanis pan out, it is encouraging to see young people in Pakistan taking up the work of strengthening democracy and justice in their country. The next chapter in Pakistan’s history will be written by their youth. They deserve our support.

Petraeus: Need to strengthen relationship with Pakistan


Gen. David Petraeus told reporters this week that the US has no intelligence suggesting that Pakistani officials were aware of Osama bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad prior to the US special forces raid in May. Acknowledging that incidents earlier this year had strained trust between Pakistan and the US, CIA director Petraeus warned against repeating past mistakes by disengaging.

He said it was believable that Pakistani intelligence did not know that Bin Laden was hiding out in Abbottobad, home to much of the Pakistani military establishment, when he was killed there.

“It is credible to me that they did not know. We received no intelligence whatsoever to indicate that there was any awareness that he was there.” But while “we see the Bin Laden raid as an extraordinary success, intelligence together with military forces, Pakistan sees it as an affront to their national sovereignty, we’ve got to work our way through this”.

“We know what happens when we walk away from Pakistan and Afghanistan, we’ve literally seen the movie before, it’s called ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ (about covert US support for anti-Soviet Afghan fighters) and indeed that is not in my view a good option.

“However difficult the relationship may be it’s one we need to continue to work, it’s one where we need to recognise what our Pakistani partners have done, they’ve sacrificed several thousand soldiers and police and their civilians have suffered substantial levels of violence.”

Domestic Politics and Foreign Diplomacy

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is set to mark up a fiscal 2012 State Department and foreign assistance authorization bill, and there’s some concern that the committee has aid to Pakistan in its sights. But the statements and actions of the House Foreign Affairs Committee do not represent a shift in US policy to Pakistan, they represent American politicians playing domestic politics in anticipation of the coming election year.

In fact, it’s not just Pakistan that’s in the cross-hairs of House budget hawks. The same committee also voted to end funding for the Organization of American States, calling the 63-year-old DC-based institution, “an enemy of the U.S. and an enemy to the interests of freedom and security.”

Keep in mind that the House is also where we’re seeing a fight over whether or not to fund the US. Politico’s Mike Allen reported yesterday that Republicans are fracturing over the way some in their caucus are handling budget issues.

Establishment Republicans practically spit contempt for what they call “the default caucus” – the small number of House and Senate members who say they won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

With Republicans still without a clear leader going into 2012, House Republicans are playing to a very conservative base that has a strong isolationist strain. Some of this is being acted out with no shortage of theatrics. This does not mean that official policy towards Pakistan – or any other state – has changed. In fact, just recently State Department Spokesperson Victorian Nuland reiterated that, “with regard to U.S. civilian assistance to Pakistan, that continues unchanged.”

The often confusing and opaque world of foreign diplomacy is difficult enough when trying to navigate the standard obstacles of language and culture. We should be careful, though, not to mistake what are domestic political battles for shifts in official policy towards any nation. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is an important and influential body, but at the end of the day, it is only one part of an intricate and balanced political process.

Pakistan’s New Minister for Foreign Affairs

Minister for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar

Pakistan has a new Foreign Minister this morning, as Pakistan’s President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani appointed the nation’s first woman to the high profile cabinet post.

Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar took the oath of office today, and prepares to travel to Indonesia later this week for a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. While there, Foreign Minister Khar is expected to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Americans for Democracy & Justice in Pakistan congratulates Foreign Minister Khar on her new post, and the Government of Pakistan for continuing to support greater rights and involvement for Pakistani women in the democratic process.

Rep. McDermott Speaks About the Path to Normalizing Pakistan-India Relations

Rep. Jim McDermottCongressman Jim McDermott was the keynote speaker at a panel discussion at the United States institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington DC earlier this week. The discussion, “The Quest for India Pakistan normalization: The Road Ahead,” examined key challenges to opportunities for India and Pakistan to work together towards mutual peace and prosperity, and what role – if any – the US can play in facilitating dialogue between the two South Asian powers.

Rep. McDermott served as a Foreign Service medical officer in Congo, and is a founding member of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, which remains one of the largest country caucuses in the House of Representatives. His unique experience in developing countries has informed his views on the critical role of U.S government in helping countries build global coalitions and address global challenges.

During his keynote speech, Congressman McDermott observed that, when attitudes become habitual, it is extremely difficult to change them. This is particularly true in the case of Pakistan and India due to ongoing tensions that have existed since the two countries gained independence in 1947. For this reason, Rep. McDermott noted, dialogue is crucial to improving bilateral relations.

According to Rep. McDermott, the US needs to stop sending mixed signals to Pakistan. The sensitive geo-political environment exacerbates misunderstandings. He noted that the only example a working bilateral treaty between Pakistan and India is the Indus River treaty – one that was drafted without over US intervention. In fact, he said, when his team inquired about the dynamics of the treaty in the past, both Pakistani and Indian officials discouraged the US from becoming involved. This demonstrated, he concluded, that Pakistan and India are capable of working together, and that often overt US intervention can actually be an obstacle to successful dialogue.

Rep. McDermott also mentioned his distaste for the term “AfPak”. According to the Congressman, “AfPak” gives the impression that the US has a narrow counterterrorism focus in the region, ignoring the important development work that is aimed at improving the health, education, and economic opportunities of all Pakistanis.

When discussing cross border tensions, Rep. McDermott gave the example of fishermen being arrested and jailed for accidentally crossing an invisible border in the open water. Fishermen from both sides are often held for years despite the fact the fishermen’s only fault lie in trying to earn a living. This example tied into Rep. McDermott’s second major point, which was that economic cooperation can be a catalyst for cooling political tensions.

Congressman McDermott urged Pakistan’s political leaders and opinion-makers to also focus on economic development and opportunities and expand the middle class – a crucial element of social and political reform. Projects that foster regional economic connectivity, such as the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline which would transport natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India, he said, can benefit all nations in the region as well as build a foundation of trust and cooperation that can aid in resolving more difficult issues.

Congressman McDermott concluded his remarks saying that, though the task is enormous, it is not impossible. Where there is political will and neutral third party facilitation, Pakistan–India relations can be transformed from one based in mutual suspicion to one of mutual benefit. While the US can play a facilitating role, however, it should be one that respects the centrality of Pakistan and India in determining their own futures.

News Reports on Aid to Pakistan Don’t Match Reality

Bill Daley on This Week

When I saw the headline hit Twitter on Saturday, U.S. Is Deferring Millions in Pakistani Military Aid, I immediately thought the worst. But after reading the Times report in full, my fears were allayed. Despite the calls from some to cut aid to Pakistan, this was not happening. The government was merely pausing the delivery of some aid because the trainings and other deliverables the aid was intended to pay for were also being put on hold. Over the next two days, however, the story seems to have taken on a life of its own, and much of the following reporting and commentary does not match reality.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg describes the latest news as a policy of “humiliating Pakistan.” Goldberg appears to be basing his read on a single Politico article. What else could explain this paragraph:

What is important is that the Obama Administration believes that public embarrassment of an on-again, off-again ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism will bring that ally to heel. This does not seem like a path to success. The Pakistanis want the respect of the U.S., or at least some recognition that, despite the Bin Laden calamity, they have also suffered at the hand of extremists, and that thousands of Pakistanis have died fighting extremism.

Here’s what Bill Daley actually said:

“Obviously they have been an important ally in the fight on terrorism. They’ve been the victim of enormous amounts of terrorism,” Daley said. “But right now they have taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we were giving to their military, and we’re trying to work through that.”

Unlike Jeffrey Goldberg’s assertion, the Obama administration has and continues to recognize Pakistan’s suffering at the hands of extremists and the great sacrifice their military has made in the fight against militant extremists, and continues to be an ally to Pakistan in our mutual struggle against terrorism.

Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow for Indian, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, at least realizes that cutting aid to Pakistan is not a viable means of changing Pakistan’s strategic calculus, but he too continues the narrative that deferring this military aid is in some way punitive.

The Obama administration is putting the screws to Pakistan, cutting roughly 40 percent of U.S. military assistance (NYT) and publicly challenging the activities of Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI). The question is: Will these coercive efforts pay dividends, or will they contribute to a downward spiral in U.S.-Pakistan relations?

But is this really “putting the screws to Pakistan?” Let’s take a moment to revisit the original New York Times report.

Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual American security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected, three senior United States officials said.

This aid includes about $300 million to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border to combat terrorism, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in training assistance and military hardware, according to half a dozen Congressional, Pentagon and other administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss the politically delicate matter.

Some of the curtailed aid is equipment that the United States wants to send but Pakistan now refuses to accept, like rifles, ammunition, body armor and bomb-disposal gear that were withdrawn or held up after Pakistan ordered more than 100 Army Special Forces trainers to leave the country in recent weeks.

Some is equipment, such as radios, night-vision goggles and helicopter spare parts, which cannot be set up, certified or used for training because Pakistan has denied visas to the American personnel needed to operate the equipment, two senior Pentagon officials said.

And some is assistance like the reimbursements for troop costs, which is being reviewed in light of questions about Pakistan’s commitment to carry out counterterrorism operations. For example, the United States recently provided Pakistan with information about suspected bomb-making factories, only to have the insurgents vanish before Pakistani security forces arrived a few days later.

As is clear from the Times report, much of the aid is being held up because it’s earmarked for trainings and operations that aren’t happening, or it’s assistance that “Pakistan now refuses to accept.” This sounds more like basic accounting than “putting the screws to Pakistan.”

And that’s not all. The headline on the original Times report used the term “deferring”. The reporters spoke of the administration “suspending and, in some cases, canceling”. When speaking with ABC, White House Chief of Staff Daley said, “hold back.” The only people talking about “cutting aid” are journalists and analysts.

I mention Jeffrey Goldberg and Daniel Markey specifically because these two gentlemen both have a history of writing fair and accurate analyses of US-Pakistan relations. And, yet, they both fall for the chicken little narrative that sees every development as a sign of the end of US-Pakistan relations.

According to government officials, the US is holding back aid that is earmarked for specific deliverables that are also being put on hold. If Pakistan chooses to resume these trainings and other operations, the funds will be delivered. There has been no “cut” to the amount of aid approved for Pakistan.

[Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan] emphasized the delayed aid is a hold, not a halt, and the funds may be delivered if the two nations can resolve certain issues.

The US and Pakistan continue to cooperate in the fight against militant extremists, including Pakistani military offensives against Taliban fighters along the border with Afghanistan. Over a billion dollars in military aid for mutually agreed upon operations continues to flow to Pakistan, as does the billions of dollars in civilian aid set aside by the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill. Reality may be less exciting, but it is the way things are.

Adm. Mullen’s Pakistan Red Herring

Admiral Mullen

Admiral Mullen made headlines yesterday when he told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that, the murder of a Pakistani journalist “was sanctioned by the government.” For those suspicious of Pakistan, these words reinforced previously held beliefs. Ironically, however, the institution that most gained from Adm. Mullen’s statement was the one suspected of responsibility for the journalists death – Pakistan’s ISI.

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that the White House has obtained classified information implicating Pakistan’s spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in the murder.

New classified intelligence obtained before the May 29 disappearance of the journalist, Saleem Shahzad, 40, from the capital, Islamabad, and after the discovery of his mortally wounded body, showed that senior officials of the spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, directed the attack on him in an effort to silence criticism, two senior administration officials said.

The involvement of the ISI has been suspected ever since Saleem Shahzad’s body was discovered. Human Rights Watch released copies of emails sent from the murdered journalist prior to his death. Shahzad sent the emails, “in case something happens to me or my family in future.” These emails detail conversations between Shahzad and ISI officials unhappy with his reporting on extremist infiltration in Pakistan’s military.

But rather than mention the ISI in his remarks, Admiral Mullen laid the blame on “the government,” leaving many Americans to incorrectly assume that the murder of Saleem Shahzad was carried out under the direction of the civilian leadership.

“It was sanctioned by the government,” Admiral Mullen told journalists during a Pentagon briefing. “I have not seen anything to disabuse the report that the government knew about this.”

Americans tend to think of intelligence agencies as working at the behest and under the oversight of their respective governments, as if all nations operate in a post-Church Committee environment. But the relationship between Pakistan’s civilian government and its ISI is quite different. In fact, in many ways the ISI operates not just independently of civilian oversight, but often in opposition to it.

Shortly after Pakistan’s civilian government took power in 2008, Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani announced that control of the ISI would be shifted to the portfolio of the civilian Interior Ministry. It was only a matter of hours before Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told the media that no such change would occur. The civilians promptly retracted the announcement.

The government’s backtracking has prompted plenty of comment among politicians and in the Pakistan media.

An ex-army officer and defence analyst, Ikram Sehgal, told the Dawn News TV channel that the government retracted its decision when the army “showed its teeth”.

Formally, the ISI currently reports to the prime minister. But many observers believe it is answerable to no one.

This split between the democratically-elected civilian government and Pakistan’s spy agency was shown in stark relief during the Raymond Davis fiasco. Writing for the English-language newspaper Dawn, Pakistani analyst Cyril Almeida noted that when push comes to shove, it’s not the civilians who hold the upper hand in matters that concern the ISI.

When the interior minister, the ex-foreign minister and the all-powerful spy chief met to decide the fate of Raymond Davis, two of those gents were of the opinion that Davis doesn’t enjoy ‘full immunity’.

One of those two has now been fired by Zardari. The other, well, if Zardari tried to fire him, the president might find himself out of a job first.

It may seem counterintuitive to speak of Pakistan’s government and intelligence agencies as separate institutions, but the distinction matters. Pakistan’s civilian leadership – though weak – is trying to implement democratic reforms; and those efforts are often held back by unaccountable military and intelligence officials who are loath to cede their power to civilians. Rather than paint all institutions with the same broad brush, US officials should seek to strengthen civilian democratic institutions so that they can effectively reign in those parts of the military and intelligence services that are acting outside of civilian oversight.

Saleem Shahzad died trying to expose extremist influence in Pakistan’s security services. His death does not have to be in vain. At present, a Pakistani judicial commission is investigating the circumstances of Mr. Shahzad’s death; the next meeting is scheduled to be held in Islamabad on July 9th.

“The government” of Pakistan is a red herring in Shahzad’s murder. Though likely unintended, Adm. Mullen’s statement yesterday shifts focus away from those responsible. Rather than issue statements that can undermine the authority of the civilian government, US officials should present any evidence about the circumstances of Shahzad’s death to the commission and publicly support efforts by the civilian government to bring the ISI under the oversight of publicly accountable civilian leaders.

Remarks by Asst. Sec. Brownfield at Wreath Laying Ceremony for Pakistan Police Martyrs

The following remarks were given by Assistant Secretary William Brownfield at a wreath  laying ceremony at the Pakistan National Police Martyr’s Memorial on July 4, 2011.

Asst. Sec. Brownfield at the Pakistan Police Martyrs MemorialInspector General, senior officers, officers and men of the Islamabad Police and all representatives of Pakistan’s law enforcement, I thank you very much for the honor of joining you today, particularly this day, the 235th anniversary of the independence of the country I represent, the United States of America. You do me high honor in allowing me to share it with you.

Inspector General, since the dawn of history, all societies, peoples and countries have had two professions of arms: one to protect our communities from the threats from outside and the second to protect our communities from the threats from inside. And while I, the grandson, son and brother of Army officers have enormous respect for the military, it is now and always has been the police that protect our communities day after day. They patrol our streets and protect our homes, they rescue our children and confront the criminals, they solve crimes, and they bring justice to our communities. Whether it’s Islamabad or Washington, Lahore or New York, Karachi or Los Angeles, they are the bedrock of our communities.

Ladies and gentlemen, from time to time, far too often, they pay the ultimate price, they make the ultimate sacrifice. Inspector General, about one month ago, specifically on the seventh of June, I participated in an annual ceremony at the U.S. Law Enforcement Memorial in the city of Washington, where all American police, federal, state and local police met to honor those who fell that year. We added nearly 40 names to the memorial. We are here today at Pakistan’s memorial where 500 names are already inscribed and 1,400 more will soon be inscribed. We say about each of those names that when others fled, they stood; when others cowered, they protected their communities; while others lived in cowardice, they died in honor. To them, to their families, I offer thanks, I offer respect, and I offer the highest honors.

If I might close on this 4th of July, quoting the words of the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who said in Gettysburg in 1863, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.” Members of the Pakistani Law Enforcement Community, I thank you, I honor you, and I respect you. Thank you very much.