“I will never forget what the American soldiers did to my country, my tribe and my family.  They violated our national sovereignty and our Islamic laws. They killed my son and my younger brother.  They destroyed my home. If I see the soldiers who are responsible for this – if I have the opportunity — I will kill them.” (translated from Pashto)

These are the chilling words of Kareem Khan, a Pakistani journalist from a tribe in Northern Waziristan, whose compound was destroyed by a Hellfire missile from an American drone on Dec. 24, 2009.  They starkly illustrate the concept of “blowback.” What you sow today, you will reap tomorrow — in this case, hatred and a desire for revenge born from shattering personal loss and a tribal code (called Pashtunwali, or “way of the Pashtuns”) that dictates a simple recipe for justice: eye for an eye.  

To a large extent, this equation explains the intense and ongoing anger over the movie trailer that denigrated the prophet Mohammed. The video by itself would not have produced anger that is so sustained. The Western world’s disrespect of the Islamic culture is perceived to be – often justifiably so – long and broad. In Pakistan, anti-American riots on Fridays after prayers are continuing even now – so much so that the U.S. embassy compound is in almost total lock-down. When CodePink — a delegation of Americans — tried to visit the embassy in our van, we were held in virtual captivity a half mile away by the Pakistani police for more than 40 minutes. (After a phone call to the deputy head of mission – a connection most Americans and Pakistanis don’t have – we were miraculously permitted to drive by. We had to argue with the guards, using a show of CodePink “chutzpah,” to be allowed just to take pictures outside.)

The cordon of security that isolates the U.S. embassy into a Green-Zone “bubble” also creates a sense of American impunity among a people who feel that their very survival is under threat. “If they think specific people have done something wrong, arrest them and bring them to court. That is a basic right you give to your own people,” Khan told us. “But (Americans) don’t consider us human beings. I can’t go to your embassy (to register a complaint). This is our sovereign state, but no one can go there without permission.”

Only three persons were in Kahn’s compound when the drone sent six Hellfire missiles crashing into it: a mason who was building a mosque nearby, Kahn’s 16-year-old son and his younger brother, who worked as a teacher and believed education was more powerful than the gun. Instead, the drones came and taught his students hatred. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantanamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”  Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center found that 74 percent of Pakistanis now consider the United States to be an enemy. Particularly insidious is the increasingly common belief that the CIA is paying informants to plant tiny, silicon-chip homing devices that attract drones in homes of suspected “militants”; however, says Khan, those chips are frequently used instead to settle old grudges and disputes between tribes. (A note about that word “militant,” so often used by the Western media: Too often all those who are killed by drones are assumed to be terrorists. U.S. officials have confirmed that it now counts all adult males to be militants, absent exonerating evidence. In other words, all men living in Waziristan are guilty until proven otherwise.)

Although the U.S. announced shortly after the strike on Khan’s compound that a “militant target” named Al Juma had been killed, no one by that name was present.  Several months later, yet another strike allegedly killed the same man. “I think actually he is still alive today,” Khan said with graveyard humor.

Each of these Hellfire missiles costs $60,000.

“Twenty-four hours a day, the American drones circle our airspace. Whenever they want to attack any house, no one can (or will even try to) stop them,” Kahn observed. “Everything in our lives is affected – our ability to work, go to school and provide a future for our children. Our boys are leaving for cities elsewhere in Pakistan.”

Another Waziri tribal elder, Malik Jalal, echoed Kahn’s concerns, reporting 17 suicides in the region in the last month alone.

“Family members can’t sit together in large gatherings anymore, for weddings or even funerals; we are too afraid of appearing ‘suspicious’ to the Americans,” he explained. Consider the story of Sherabaz Khan, who lost both of his brothers on March 17, 2011, when 50 of his tribe members were killed while participating in a jirga, an assembly of Pashtun elders in which tribal decisions are made. Pakistani government authorities had been informed in advance of the planned meeting, yet they clearly did nothing to stop the drone attack. (Despite protestations to the contrary by officials, it is widely acknowledged among the Pakistani people that their government is cooperating at some level with the United States in the drone program.)

Noor Behram, a photojournalist from North Waziristan, has been documenting the effects of drone strikes for four years, focusing on the deaths of children and women.  Many women have been killed in drone attacks, since the kitchen is normally adjacent to the large meeting room where jirgas and other gatherings are held. Yet, they frequently go undocumented due to the practice in Waziristan of purda, or the separation of women – to the point that they are not allowed to be photographed, for instance, or even talked about in conversation with outsiders. Women’s deaths are not officially reported.

“So far I have counted more than 670 women who have been killed by drones, most while working in kitchens, and 100 children,” said Behram. To work around the purda restrictions, he begins by collecting the names of the brothers or fathers of women who have been killed, and photos of their clothing. Slowly, as word of his work spreads, tribal members are coming forward to tell them the stories of their women and children, and he often travels up to seven hours to collect the information.

Behram has held an exhibition in Islamabad, and foreign publications like the UK’s Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel have printed his pictures. But Pakistani media will not use his images, or even announce the deaths he documents.

“The mainstream narrative in Pakistan has been very pro-drone,” explained Shahzad Akbar, founder of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), the organization that is sponsoring the CodePink delegation and sued the CIA for wrongful deaths caused by drones in Pakistan. “If a woman is whipped for violating some norm, those images are shown right away. But drone victims? No. That is slowly changing. “

FFR also is challenging the Pakistani government’s acquiescence with the drone program and – with the UK’s Reprieve – the British government for its own role in providing intelligence.

“Tell your president he must stop using drones to kill innocent people, and tell your fellow Americans they must join you in protesting,” pleaded Kareem Khan. “We are proud of our culture and our way of life, and you are destroying it.”

Abdul was just 20 years old when he drove his father to the medical clinic one day for an exam. He dropped his father off, then left to run a few errands, saying nonchalantly that he would be back by the time the tests were done. But..he never showed up at the clinic. It was as if he had disappeared into thin air. His family agonized over what had happened to the young man, who – as the oldest son — had worked as a laborer to support his parents and siblings in the wake of his father’s disability.  The family fell into debt as a result, and his brother fell ill. It was more than a year later when the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) informed them that Abdul was alive, but in prison, being held indefinitely, without formal charge or trial.

Sound like the infamous “disappearances” of Augusto Pinochet’s brutal regime in the 1970s, for which he was condemned, indicted and tried for human rights violations? (Or like Israel today, with its thousands of Palestinian prisoners in “indefinite administrative detention”?) You’d be correct. But actually, this incident occurred in 2005, in Pakistan.  And the jailer that kidnapped Abdul Halim Saifullah off the streets of Karachi, then imprisoned him without a word to anyone, access to a lawyer or trial, was the United States. It wasn’t until 2007 that his family was finally told where their son was being held – the infamous Bagram prison, the largest detention facility in the world and known as ”Afghanistan’s Guantanamo.” In January of this year, Afghan investigators accused the U.S. Army of abusing detainees at Bagram, including torture.

Although the CodePink delegation is in Pakistan to publicize the disastrous effects of U.S. drone attacks in the region of Waziristan,  many organizations and individuals who have suffered at the hands of Americans have sought an “audience” with us, hoping that we will take on their cause as well when we return home. One of those organizations is the “Justice Project Pakistan,” modeled after and mentored by the UK’s Reprieve. JPP advocates for the most vulnerable of prisoners – primarily those facing the death penalty or who are detained beyond the rule of law in secret prisons.  Included among the latter are 37 Pakistanis – one as young as 16, who was seized in circumstances similar to Abdul’s at the age of just 14. Although the U.S. handed Bagram over to the Afghan government in September, the transition did not include prisoners from other countries, such as Pakistan, of which there are 52. (A side note: It also did not include more than 600 Afghans who were detained after the agreement was signed in March; they all remain in U.S. custody.)

The father (left) of Hamidullah Khan, who was 14 when he was abducted and handed over to the U.S., painfully tells his story.

Sarah Belal, an Oxford-trained lawyer and director of JPP, interpreted for a group of men whose brothers and sons are being held in Bagram. According to the men, some of the prisoners had been visiting Afghanistan for work or education, but others were in their hometowns in Pakistan. Many Americans do not realize that for years, the United States has been running “search-and-seize” operations in Pakistan as well, detaining these nationals for years without formal charge or trial. The longest has been there since 2002.

When Sarah asked the men how long they had waited, thinking their relatives were dead, before learning from the ICRC that they were in Bagram, the answers ranged from six months to as long as two years.

“Some have no idea why their son or brother was taken,” Sarah said. “Others say their relative was mistaken for someone else, but they haven’t been released. No formal charges are ever filed, except for a label in an Excel sheet given to the Pakistani government, such as ‘suspected member of Taliban’ or ‘IED (improvised explosive device) manufacturer’.”

Sarah interprets for the detainees’ families.

Once they learn of their loved ones’ whereabouts, the families are allowed to see them only by video conference, once every two months. They must travel to Islamabad, a long distance for many who live in more distant regions of Pakistan. When they arrive, poor Internet connections often mean the trip is for naught.  When they do talk, or send letters, the prisoners are not permitted to discuss how they were seized or under what conditions they are being held.

“We have been told by the few detainees who have been released that when there are first interned in Bagram, the prisoners are exposed to extreme temperatures, and the floors of their cages are covered with two feet of water,” Sarah told us. “It is one to two months before the ICRC is allowed to see them, and then they are moved to their ‘regular’ quarters.” Their lawyers are never allowed direct access.

The Pakistani prisoners are held together, in one big cage divided into small cubicles with only one open toilet for all 37.  Teenagers are mixed with the adults. Fazal Karim, who was abducted in 2003 when he was traveling cross country for a business trip, was held in solitary confinement for the past five years. In 2011, the Pakistani embassy in Kabul announced that Fazal had been cleared for release. However, today, he is still in Bagram, with no explanation.

“The Pakistani government has been no help,” the father of 16-year-old Hamidullah Khan told us through Sarah. “We are Pakistani citizens, but we totally on our own, at the mercy of the United States.”

JPP has filed a petition with the Pakistani government on behalf of 10 of the detainees, including Abdul Halim Saifullah and Hamidullah Khan. In October 2011, a Pakistani justice ordered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to visit its citizens in Bagram. In February of this year, the High Court in Lahore directed the government of Pakistan to negotiate with the U.S. for the return of the detainees. However, no concrete results have yet been achieved, and on Sept. 25, the JPP proposed a draft memorandum of understanding which would, once signed by the U.S. and Pakistan, order the safe return of Pakistani citizens held in Bagram. The next hearing is scheduled for Oct. 16.

Prisoners’ cases are reviewed behind closed doors every six months, and even when they are told they will be released, it can take weeks or longer before it becomes reality.

“What is unsettling,” Sarah told us, “is that prisoners often come home very fluent in English cuss words – with an American accent.”

What a legacy we are leaving the world – an encyclopedic knowledge of English profanity, among individuals often so damaged they either can no longer work as productive members of society or are so filled with hate they may still grow into that terrorist label we gave them.

Nine of us arrived in Islamabad very early Wednesday, at 3 a.m. It was a long flight, but our fatigue didn’t last long…We walked into the terminal to the waiting arms of a throng of welcomers, throwing rose petals, taking pictures and chanting.  

Distrust of America is strong in Pakistan, but when the people learn that we are coming in solidarity — in support of a less-violent foreign policy and greater mutual understanding –- their hospitality reminds me of what first drew me to Palestine.  When my seatmate on the flight to Islamabad from Abu Dhabi learned that our plan was to join populist leader Imran Khan on his peace convoy into South Waziristan, a smile immediately bloomed on his face and stretched from ear to ear. 

Three stories from the first day

The men who greeted us at the airport had a special hope: They carried posters demanding the freedom of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani mother of three and American-trained neuroscientist  who was sentenced in 2010 in a U.S. court to 86 years of solitary confinement. She is now being held in FMC Carswell, a federal prison for women with special medical needs in Ft. Worth, Tex. (also chillingly known as the “Hospital of Horrors”).

I have to confess that I had never heard of Aafia, so later, when I managed to get online using our small hotel’s fitful connection, I did a quick Google search to learn more.  I found a number of articles in Western media that implicated her as a terrorist.  Aafia was allegedly a “firebrand Islamist” who returned to Pakistan with her husband shortly after 9/11. After the two divorced, in part due to what her ex-husband calls her “extreme views,” Aafia supposedly married Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who later named her as an Al-Qaeda operative during his torture by waterboarding.  (The allegations arrayed against her and the conflicting accounts given by a variety of sources are actually even more complicated than this simple summary. Google her name if you’re interested and you’ll find a trove of confusing articles.) A damning line-up of accusations, indeed.

After getting barely three hours of sleep and joining the 23 other Americans (and one Canadian) in our delegation for an orientation, I heard directly from Aafia’s older sister, Fowzia (a Harvard-trained neurologist). What we heard was a totally different description of events.  (Visit http://www.aafiamovement.com.)

Fowzia

Consider:

·      Aafia’s family knew nothing of any second marriage. In fact, under Islamic law, says Fowzia, she couldn’t have gotten re-married so quickly after her divorce. (However, although not mentioned in the Western coverage I found, Aafia’s ex-husband, Amjad Khan, did almost immediately re-marry.) Fowzia believes it was Amjad – who had physically abused his wife – who named Aafia as a terrorist to the authorities. (This is possible; there are many stories of prisoners in Guantanamo who were fingered by other tribal members to settle a grudge or to earn a bounty payment.)

·      When Aafia was first seized from the streets of Karachi by the Pakistani intelligence service (who later turned her over to U.S. authorities) in 2003, she was with her three children; two of them were not found until several years later (2008 and 2010) and one is still missing. 

·      When Aafia was finally charged in U.S. court, no mention was made of her alleged ties to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or the plan for a “mass casualty attack in the United States” she supposedly was carrying. Instead, Aafia’s conviction was based on an entirely separate allegation – that while detained by local forces for interrogation by the Americans, she leapt out from behind a curtain, grabbed an M4 rifle and fired on the team of visiting soldiers and FBI agents. They were unharmed, but she was shot twice in the abdomen and nearly died. It simply doesn’t make sense (to me at least) that the police would have detained her behind a mere curtain in the first place, or that the 100-pound, 4’11” woman was able to nab one of the soldier’s guns. And according to Fowzia, no fingerprints were found on the gun allegedly seized by Aafia, and forensic analysis could not prove it had even been fired.

·      Aafia was not allowed to choose her own lawyer, despite her family’s willingness to pay. No family visits have been allowed since she was imprisoned.

It is a complex, bewildering story, and one could spend literally hours researching its twists and turns. However, even given the obvious  (and understandable) bias of Aafia’s sister, Western media coverage has clearly not given it the detailed examination it deserves, given the level of outrage it has stirred among the Pakistani public.  And it certainly calls into question whether basic principles of due process and proportionate punishment – vaunted principles upon which the United States was built – were even minimally followed. Is Aafia the victim of an elaborate conspiracy, the stuff of which movies are made? I don’t know, but it is a legitimate question.

“The ISI (intelligence service) runs Pakistan, and from what I have observed, the Pentagon and the CIA run the United States,” observed Fowzia. “We have tried to take our case to the U.S. government, but it doesn’t seem to matter who is president, Republican or Democrat.”

* * *

Also in the afternoon, we were granted an “audience” with Richard Hoagland, deputy chief of mission for the U.S. consulate in Islamabad.  The meeting opened with a briefing on the dangers of our intent to travel to South Waziristan as part of Imran Khan’s convoy to protest American drone attacks. (According to his staff, there have been some “credible threats” against the convoy.) Then he took our questions.

Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy (middle) delivers to Richard Hoagland a petition with more than 3,000 signatures calling for an end to U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan

A sampling of his remarks:

·      The inflammatory movie trailer insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammed, which triggered riots across the Islamic world, was “a sea-changer here.“  Anti-Americanism already existed, but the posting of the video accelerated it a great deal.

·      Protests should be through legal forums, however, he cautioned in a veiled warning about the upcoming march to Waziristan.  The anti-Mohammed clip and other such incidents in the past have shown that mass street protests often turn violent.  (My comment: Yet…appeals to international forums so rarely produce enforceable action! The Palestinians have been trying this for years.) Nonetheless, Hoagland assured us the U.S. government had taken no action with Pakistani officials to stop us from going on the convoy, and he was “quite confident” we would not be targeted while we are on our journey. (Funny side note: We interpreted him as saying there would be no drone strikes, period. Hoagland wrote after seeing some of our articles and was quick to correct us. He was sure WE would not be targeted — but he wasn’t saying drones wouldn’t strike at all! Still, clearly when we are present, the U.S. feels constrained….Maybe Americans and other internationals should accompany farmers in Waziristan, as they do in Palestine?)

·      Since the drone program targeting terrorists in Pakistan began in 2004, civilian casualties have been limited to the “double digits,” Hoagland insisted. And since 2008, when a different, more sophisticated technology was employed, there have been “hardly any, if at all. Extreme care is taken before a decision to strike is made, and I am not just a parrot of my government.”

However, a recent analysis conducted by the Stanford and NYU schools of law contradicts Hoagland, estimating the number of civilian deaths at 474-881, including 176 children. The number of drone strikes has only increased in number and scope since Barack Obama took office.  When President Bush left the White House in January 2009, the U.S. had carried out 45-52 drone strikes, depending on which organization’s estimates are cited. (The U.S. government makes no effort of its own to document the civilians killed by its drones — or to offer reparation payments, for that matter.) Since then, President Obama has ordered more than five times that number: 292 in just over three and a half years.  The increase is due, in part, to Obama’s introduction of “signature strikes,” in which “suspicious patterns” of activity, rather than specific individuals, are targeted.

Hoagland claimed he knows of no instances of drones hitting the same target twice in close succession, thereby targeting rescue workers, despite the repeated cases documented in the Stanford report. He agreed, however, that a thorough investigation of these claims and a public statement of U.S. findings would “improve transparency.”

·           When asked if the government of Pakistan was complicit in aiding and abetting the drone strikes in its own country, Hoagland said he “couldn’t answer.” Just days before our meeting, a report appeared in the Wall Street Journal claiming that for the last four years, Pakistan has gradually withdrawn its overt cooperation with U.S. drone strikes, as they have become increasingly unpopular among the residents here. In the early days of the Afghan war, according to the report, lists of specific individuals to be targeted by U.S. drones were faxed to the ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) and approved by both sides. By last year, however, the fax merely outlined the boundaries of the airspace the drones would use, and the ISI would simply send a confirmation of receipt. After the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani territory, the ISI stopped responding at all. However, since Pakistani airspace continues to be cleared to avoid midair collisions, the U.S. has acted on the belief that this implies continuing approval – an assumption that is increasingly being challenged. Pakistani politicians like Imran Khan are calling on their government to explicitly demand a halt.

Many of the delegation participants responded warmly to Hoagland’s concluding comment: “I welcome your visit.  I always try to make the moral choice, but I know that no matter how thin you slice the bologna, there are always two sides to every issue.“

Others, however, remained unimpressed – me among them. Persons in his office are paid to “talk a good game,” saying little of real substance, while sounding otherwise. As one of my fellow delegates commented, this is what “banality of evil” looks like. It is so very easy to say just the right thing to calm ruffled feathers, while denying any personal responsibility or knowledge.

* * *

The first day concluded with a visit of a few of us to an Islamabad home where several women from a variety of development groups and “left-leaning” political parties shared a homemade Pakistani dinner, fresh lemonade (with gin!, making my jet-lagged head spin), a feisty political debate and music.

Four of those left-leaning (and inevitably, small) political parties were set to announce their unification, a move they hoped would build their influence. I was surprised to learn that despite his courageous stand against drones, the women in room did not hold Imran Khan and his PTI party in high regard. It turns out that one U.S. publication I read was correct when it compared him to Ron Paul: Khan may be on the ethical side of the issue of war, but is “center-right” when it comes to economic issues — such as the destructive effects of the policies demanded of Pakistan by the International Monetary Fund. (The women added that they view Khan’s upcoming march to Waziristan as driven more by self-promotion than a compassion for the people. However, the need for self-promotion comes along with politics, in my opinion, and Khan’s decision to take his campaign to Waziristan requires real courage. He is the only Pakistani leader – political or otherwise – who has done so.)

Another spirited debate ignited over the issue of drones itself. A musician who joined the gathering to entertain us (I must confess I have blanked on his name!) raised the question, “If the drone attacks are halted, how will we stop the extremists?” He is not alone in this viewpoint, and it cannot be denied that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are brutal and widely feared. However, a recent Pew survey showed only 17% of Pakistanis favor the U.S. conducting drone strikes in conjunction with their government against leaders of extremist organizations. (A demand for approval of the Pakistani government is universal, however, as is disapproval of “collateral damage.”) As one of our delegation members observed, “violence only begets more violence.” And when one Taliban operative is “taken out,” another is quick to take his place.

What was remarkable about the evening was that very diverse points of view were aired and addressed in such an open and constructive manner.  At the end, when we were ready to disappear into the night, we drew together around the singer’s guitar. What did we sing? Bob Marley’s “Get Up, Stand Up” – a song for all cultures.

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don’t give up the fight!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don’t give up the fight!

Most people think,
Great god will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights. jah!

My friends and family have gradually gotten used to the fact that the fight for Palestinian rights is my passion; they may not understand it totally, but they accept and even embrace it. A few have even occasionally asked me why I don’t just move to the Gaza Strip, where I have increasingly returned since 2009. (The answer, in part: I also want to be a part of my daughters’ lives.) 

But when I announced that I am joining a CodePink delegation to Pakistan, with the purpose of journeying into Waziristan – the quintessential “no-man’s land” – to interview families of victims of American drone attacks, I invariably have been met with a blank look. “Why?” they ask. Followed by, “Isn’t that a bit too….dangerous?” 

Let me try to answer both of those questions, starting with “why?” 

I believe in global connectedness, and that “people power” only has a chance of gaining real traction if we close ranks in the face of common challenges and concerns. Yes, it is important to focus in order to accomplish anything substantial, and because I was exposed to the plight of the Palestinians (and the role of the United States) in 2007, that became mine. (I could just as well have “stumbled upon” the Congo and ended up investing my time there. I would say the same about a minority population in the United States, except my wanderlust always called me to cross borders and cultures.) However, the Palestinians are not alone in their treatment as pawns in a Great Game driven by money and/or power.

Pakistan (too) is a “controversial” country at the epicenter of international conflict – and lost in the power politics and tug of war are the hard-working, ordinary people who just want to survive and support their families.  Ask the average person on the street what “Pakistan” brings to mind, and (if that produces any more than a shrug – a big if), he or she will likely say “Osama Bin Laden” (Navy SEALS invaded Pakistan in May 2011 after it was discovered that the accused mastermind of 9/11 had been hiding out there for six years), “the Taliban” (what was once limited to an Afghan Sunni extremist group has formed an even more lethal branch in Pakistan) or “chaos” (more often than not, when Pakistan is talked about at all, it’s as a failed state). 

In actuality, Pakistan is far more geostrategically critical than Afghanistan, where U.S. troops and other personnel have now spent more years on the ground (and dropped more bombs) than World War I and II combined. It is the sixth most populous country in the world, the second-largest Muslim nation (behind Indonesia) and one of Asia’s five nuclear-armed powers. Geographically – bordering as it does Central, South and West Asia, and sitting at the mouth of the Arabian Gulf — no other country in the world has its potential to serve as a hub for trade, including the transcontinental transport of energy. And as for Afghanistan, no peace is possible there without the active cooperation of the various military and security agencies that have purposely cultivated extremist influences (or at least looked the other way) to prevent other parties such as India from gaining a foothold in its shadow. 

The United States has increasingly turned its attention to Pakistan, but since 9/11, our diplomacy has been heavily slanted towards military operations. The passage in 2009 of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act was supposed to fix that imbalance with a focus on development, but a report two years later from the Center for Global Development concluded that “aid has been seen as part of an integrated ‘Af-Pak strategy,’ (and thus) its effectiveness in promoting development in Pakistan has been seriously undermined.”  Since at least 2004, we’ve been supplementing this “aid” with drone raids, at first targeting suspicious individuals and progressing to “signature” strikes based merely on patterns of activity. Think about it. How could this ever accomplish anything but narrow, short-term “wins”? 

Here is where we come to the parallel with Palestine, where the drones of our staunch ally Israel regularly target what it calls “militants,” killing many innocents in the process and breeding hatred along the way. 

A Pakistani father of three: “Drones are always on my mind. It makes it difficult to sleep. They are like a mosquito. Even when you don’t see them, you can hear them, you know they are there.”

Americans have significant problems here at home that deserve all of our attention, but it’s all connected. Each drone costs nearly $20 million – money that could instead be spent at home, while encouraging a foreign policy that relies on development and diplomacy instead of violence. 

Each and every one of us should feel a sense of responsibility for the way our tax dollars are spent. My trips to Palestine, and now Pakistan – including the articles I write and the talks I give in the weeks after – are my small way of saying, “Not in my name.”

Me (on the right), protesting Obama’s “kill list” in front of the White House.

* * *

Monday evening, I will fly from New York City to Abu Dhabi, and then on to Islamabad. On Oct. 6, I and about 30 others from the United States and the UK will join PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or “Movement for Justice”) Chairman Imran Khan on a convoy into South Waziristan, the “no-man’s land” along the border with Afghanistan where extremists hide and U.S. drones most often strike.

Before founding the PTI party in 1996, Khan played international cricket for two decades (at 39, Khan led his teammates to Pakistan’s first and only World Cup victory in 1992) and became a much-beloved philanthropist, including the founding of Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre. Foreign Policy magazine described him as “Pakistan’s Ron Paul.”

The original plan was for the convoy to penetrate deep into North Waziristan, the heart of the unrest and military response, allowing us to visit the families caught in the crossfire at “Ground Zero.”

However, after threats of suicide attacks were received, the plan was revised to limit the convoy to South Waziristan – a path that the Hakimullah Mahsud-led Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, or the Pakistani Taliban) has pledged to protect. The question now is whether the Pakistani government will allow the convoy to go ahead. In light of Khan’s criticism of the Pakistani government’s tacit complicity with the U.S. drone attacks, several international journalists already have been denied visas. Stay tuned.

I have become active in a “Professional Women’s Network” on LinkedIn, and recently, one of the participants posed a question that attracted a huge number of responses (594 to date): “What is the most influential book you have read?”

It has been gratifying to read the outpouring of responses; thankfully, books still are popular and treasured in this age of technology, multi-tasking and 30-second soundbites.

The books mentioned included the standard classics; To Kill a Mockingbird and  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn seem to always be on such lists.

Another popular choice was the Bible. I must admit that I was not among this group – although without a doubt it offers some wonderfully wise parables from which to learn. I value critical thinking, and too many devotees of this ancient tome demand unquestioning fealty. In other words, “everything in the Bible is true because it says it is.”

Still another large group of women cited self-help and business books. One popular favorite was Who Moved My Cheese? One woman  described why she likes it this way: “It taught me to drop any sense of entitlement and the importance of embracing change, not fearing it.” However, too often, it is used by corporate HR types who make it required reading by employees who are being moved around like chess pieces and are supposed to be happy about it. (I’m not so sure we should embrace every change without a fight.)

Many business-related and self-help books are excellent, of course, but too many business people – especially those of us in the communications field – need to re-discover the creative inspiration that can come from reading good novels, or nonfiction books on far-afield topics. A good place to start reading outside of your comfort zone (read “rut”) is the All_Nonfiction online reading group on Yahoo.  When I have participated, I found myself reading books I never would have chosen otherwise, and I only found one to be a waste.  

A surprising number of women cited children’s books. The most often mentioned was Dr. Seuss’ Oh the Places You’ll Go. I hadn’t really thought of Dr. Seuss as a philosopher, but upon reviewing his words, I discovered that he was!

Consider this excerpt:

“You’ll get mixed up, of course, as you already know. You’ll get mixed up with many strange birds as you go. So be sure when you step. Step with care and great tact and remember that Life’s a Great Balancing Act.”

Whew! It’s rather comforting to be reminded that “getting mixed up” is to be expected, and that those harassing individuals along the way are indeed “strange birds.”  It can be easy to think you’re all alone.

Here’s another quotable quote:

“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You’re on your own. And you know what you know. YOU are the one who’ll decide where to go…”`

We all suffer from a lack of a personal sense of agency sometimes. It is so much easier to focus on what circumstances or other people have done to cause our bad luck, than to figure out what we can do now to change it.

My favorite Seuss quote, however, is this: “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.” (Interestingly enough, there are some who question whether this bit of wisdom was actually authored by him. I will go with the majority, who say yes.) It speaks to the way I am striving to live my life now, by savoring the experiences instead of mourning the fact that they don’t last, or take a turn I didn’t dictate.

That’s the secret of the genius of Theodor Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss). He  had the gift of being goofy and deep at the same time.  Few people know that he first began using his middle name as his nom de guerre while in college.  At Dartmouth, Geisel was caught drinking gin with nine friends in his room. As punishment, the dean insisted that he resign from all extracurricular activities, including the college humor magazine. To continue writing for the Jack-O-Lantern without the administration’s knowledge, Geisel began signing his work with the pen name “Seuss.” A man after my own heart….

Other children’s books cited by LinkedIn’s “professional women” as influential are Winnie the Pooh (I have to admit that there is one story about Eeyore, Piglet and Pooh that I reference all the time), Charlotte’s Web, Anne of Green Gables, and Harold and the Purple Crayon.

The most surprising pattern among the book nominations, however, and a little shocking, was the number of women who are cheerleaders for Ayn Rand’s books, Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.  (BTW, how many of you know that her first name is pronounced “Eyn,” not “Ann”?) I read her books too, back in high school. And the brainiac, romance-hungry girl that I was (ok, and still am) loved the intense, passionate affairs that are woven through her intense stories, as well as the strong characters who conquer adversity to achieve their goals.  It wasn’t until much later, as I became more broadly aware of the world around me and the many conflicting agendas, that I learned of (and began to really understand) Rand’s underlying philosophy and mission. It can be basically summed up as “individualism is good and laws that protect the collective good are bad.” Or rather, let the market rule. (We all saw how well that worked, and for whom, when the men who run the banks were allowed to run amok.)

John Nichols, political writer for The Nation and the author of Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street, had this to say on a recent broadcast of Democracy Now: “She was a Russian immigrant—her family, dispossessed by the Russian revolution, came to the United States—and throughout her writing career was a militant opponent of what she called collectivism, but really what she meant was government, and beyond that, a critic even of helping your neighbor. She said that selfishness must be the central organizing precept of your life and that the most important thing was to take care of yourself, don’t worry about others.”

Jennifer Burns, an assistant professor of history at Stanford and the author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right,further explained her appeal to arch-conservatives, including Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, in a New York Times op-ed: “Rand’s anti-government argument rested on another binary opposition, between ‘producers’ who create wealth and ‘moochers’ who feed off them. This theme has endeared Rand, and Mr. Ryan, to the Tea Party, whose members believe they are the only ones who deserve government aid.” (Unlike other members of the Tea Party, however, Rand is true to her libertarian values on every issue, and also was an atheist who believed the church had no say in how people lived their private lives.)

When I asked the women in the LinkedIn group why they were so inspired by Rand, they replied: 

•  “If Rand could be boiled down to one essential point it’s that forced altruism by any collective (government, peer or religious) is bad due to its nature of sacrificing everything one has for others, but self-sufficiency, charity and compassion are good because of the conscious rational choice involved. I often think the perfect analogy for Ayn Rand is sitting on an airplane listening to the flight attendant telling us to put our own air mask on then help the person next to us.” [My response: That would be well and good if everyone who has enough money to live well immediately offered that kind of help to everyone else, and their largesse was distributed fairly. However, we only need to examine the many stories of titans such as Sheldon Adelson, CEO of  Las Vegas Sands Corp. and one of the wealthiest men in the world. He gives a lot of money away, to be sure – but mostly to conservative political causes (such as the election campaign of Mitt Romney and the creation of Jewish-only colonies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories) and not to medical care for the poor or more affordable transportation. Who will finance such services on a reliable, consistent basis, if not for the government?]
   
• “Rand never opposed charity, rather she opposed entitlements. Rand came from Russia, where she experienced firsthand the economic outcomes of a socialist government. Here is how Ayn Rand’s novels positively influenced my young life: I was born into a family/home/community ravaged by poverty, violence, depravity, mental illness and alcoholism. I was completely orphaned at age 7 and went on to live in a series of government-approved foster homes that were all abusive. Growing up, I heard that I would never amount to anything, that I would likely abuse my own children because I was abused, and that I wouldn’t fit in on a college campus. Ayn Rand was the first person to tell me otherwise. Her philosophy is, in fact, focused on positive ideas such as honesty, integrity, achievement, intellectual growth, responsibility and endless possibilities for success in life. Her suggestion that I am not doomed to the wretched circumstances of my youth provided me with a bridge to the understanding that my DNA, my birthright and my talents come from God, not from my earthly father.” [My response: I am in awe, reading this woman’s story, that she emerged unscathed and I applaud her for making it to the status of “professional woman.” And I totally agree that what shapes us is how we react to events in our lives; we are not doomed by the events themselves or the perpetrators. But it seems to me to be extreme over-reaction and rather tragic to oppose all collective action, including government, because some such institutions did not serve her well. I can offer many other stories illustrating how programs such as Medicare and unemployment insurance have saved lives and helped get people back on their feet.]

These women’s responses helped me better understand what had totally befuddled me before. In other words, what is the matter with Kansas???? Why do people as selfish and greedy as Romney and Ryan attract such a following?  They’ve been conned into thinking that as a human race, we are unable to act together to protect and improve life for everyone. Their worldview sort of reminds me of the rules imposed by the Machiavellian creators of the Hunger Games.  Save yourself, and forget the others. But think about it…why did Katniss Everdeen win at the end, in part by capturing the imagination and hearts of the audience? She never lost her sense of humanity (unlike most of her fellow captives) and used it to save who she could.