Friday, December 9, 2016

Christine Fair's Anti-Pakistan Rants: Unfair? Unhinged?

Carol Christine Fair is an associate professor at the Center for Peace and Security Studies (CPASS), part of Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She has only recently wised up to the opportunity to profit from sale of books attacking Pakistan in India, the world's third largest and currently the fastest growing market for books written in the English language.

Fair on India's Secret War in Pakistan:

Before writing and promoting "Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War", a virulently anti-Pakistan book, Dr. Fair said this in 2009:

"Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan".

Former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has essentially confirmed Fair's above statement when he said: "India has always used Afghanistan as a second front against Pakistan. India has over the years been financing problems in Pakistan".

On what basis did Chuck Hagel make the statement about India's use of Afghan territory to attack Pakistan? Was he, too, just another victim of conspiracy theories? Off course not. Secretary Hagel had the benefit of intelligence briefings by the CIA given to him in multiple capacities: first as US Senate Intelligence committee member and then as US Defense Secretary.

Fair is Self-Proclaimed "Rambo B**ch":

In recent years, Christine Fair has become a strong advocate of continuing the disastrous neoconservative policies that found favor in former President George W. Bush's administration after 911 terrorist attacks.

Fair has  called herself a "Rambo B**ch"; she supports US military interventions around the world; she encourages India's hawkish Hindu Nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi to invade Pakistan.

In a Facebook post, Fair called Pakistan “an enemy” and said “We invaded the wrong dog-damned country,” implying the U.S. should have invaded Pakistan, not Afghanistan, according to Salon magazine.

In another Facebook post, Fair insisted that “India needs to woman up and SQUASH Pakistan militarily, diplomatically, politically and economically.” Both India and Pakistan are nuclear states.

Fair Supports US Drone Killings:

Fair strongly supports the US drone killing program that has been questioned even by senior US military commanders who have served in Afghanistan. One such commander is General Michael Flynn who has now been picked by President-elect Donald Trump as his national security advisor.

“When you drop a bomb from a drone… you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good,” remarked Michael T. Flynn. The retired Army lieutenant general, who also served as the U.S. Central Command’s director of intelligence, says that “the more bombs we drop, that just… fuels the conflict.”


C. Christine Fair's anti-Pakistan rants show that she is a warmonger masquerading as a serious scholar.  She calls herself a "Rambo B**ch".  She wants both US and India to invade Pakistan knowing that all three countries have nuclear weapons. She strongly supports US drone killings which, in the words of General Michael Flynn, "fuel the conflict".

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Modi's Covert War in Pakistan

India is World's Fastest Growing Book Market

Are Iran and Russia Supporting Taliban in Afghanistan?

Gen Petraeus Debunks Allegations of Duplicity Against Pakistan

Gall-Haqqani-Paul Narrative on Pakistan

Pakistan-China-Russia vs India-US-Japan

Robert Gates' Straight Talk on Pakistan


Mohammad said...

A word about Ms. Carol Christine Fair. She is a scholar of international repute but like some could be susceptible to sale to the highest bidder. At one stage she was considered a friend of Pakistan and had been a regular visitor at the invitation of the Pakistan Army and has authored a number of books and features on Pakistan and the Pakistan Army. Her current vitriolic condemnation and outburst against anything concerning Pakistan could well be a result of her personal experience in the country where she claims she has been victimized and threatened; or perhaps the anti-Pakistan lobby has either out rightly purchased her loyalty or are financing and promoting her writings and books. While her analyses are based on well documented verifiable data, the manner she responded to the questioner she appeared like an accomplished prosecution trial lawyer who presents only one side of the picture by cherry picking of evidences to portray an already made up mindset. No matter what an academic might claim, when a study or a book is financed by a particular institution or organisation, to maintain true impartiality and absolute fairness is almost impossible.

Riaz Haq said...

DC Insider Speaks Candidly About Pay-for-Play at Think Tanks
Investigative reporter Ken Silverstein recently spoke with an unnamed think tank insider who has been a donor to think tanks and held multiple board positions at various think tanks. Here are some excerpts:

He who pays the bills, calls the tune, as much as people try to deny it. There’s a vicious competition in this town for money. The foreign segment is relatively new and important. Before most of that money was Israeli but now it’s much more diverse and you begin to see more and more donors pushing for very distinct and specific causes.
The competition is getting tougher and tougher and so think tanks are becoming more and more reckless. Things are done now that would’ve been impossible in the past. The boundaries are being eliminated.
The means of payment are sophisticated. There is no straightforward bribery. Maybe you work at a think tank but you also have a position at another unrelated company or maybe you have a girlfriend who has a business that’s totally unrelated to the think tank. Maybe you have a company that holds events around town and that company gets hired and is overpaid for some unrelated work by 25%. The money doesn’t go directly to the think tank, it goes to one of these other projects and the money moves from some offshore Singapore account to that unrelated company account.
Think tanks are now weapons of personal and mass destruction. They have become part of the lobbying community; that was always the case to some extent but now they’ve become very specific lobbying weapons.
Governments and gangsters are the two biggest clients for these think tanks — not corporations but governments, and not European Union governments but Third World governments.

Wow. That is some pretty strong language.

Mr. Silverstein said that more is coming soon from this person (will he go on record?), so we are definitely looking out for that...

In the meantime, here (and here and here and here and here and here and here) is some more from Mr. Silverstein on pay-for-play at think tanks.

Pay-for-play at think tanks has gotten a significant amount of renewed attention after a damning New York Times exposé in August unveiled fresh examples of just how rampant the problem has become.

Riaz Haq said...

From Wikipedia entry for Christine Fair:

Fair's work and viewpoints have been the subject of prominent criticism.[5] Her pro-drone stance has been denounced, and called "surprisingly weak" by Brookings Institution senior fellow Shadi Hamid.[5] Journalist Glenn Greenwald dismissed Fair's arguments as "rank propaganda", arguing there is "mountains of evidence" showing drones are counterproductive, pointing to mass civilian casualties and independent studies.[6] In 2010, Fair denied the notion that drones caused any civilian deaths, alleging Pakistani media reports were responsible for creating this perception.[7] Jeremy Scahill wrote that Fair's statement was "simply false" and contradicted by New America's detailed study on drone casualties.[7] Fair later said that casualties are caused by the UAVs, but maintains they are the most effective tool for fighting terrorism.[8]

Writing for The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf challenged Fair's co-authored narrative that the U.S. could legitimize support in Pakistan for its drone program using 'education' and 'public diplomacy'; he called it an "example of interventionist hubris and naivete" built upon flawed interpretation of public opinion data.[9] An article in the Middle East Research and Information Project called the work "some of the most propagandistic writing in support of President Barack Obama’s targeted kill lists to date."[10] It censured the view that Pakistanis needed to be informed by the U.S. what is "good for them" as fraught with imperialist condescension; or the assumption that the Urdu press was less informed than the English press – because the latter was sometimes less critical of the U.S.[10]

Fair's journalistic sources have been questioned for their credibility[11] and she has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her past work with U.S. government think tanks, as well the CIA.[5] In 2011 and 2012, she received funding from the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to conduct a survey on public opinion concerning militancy. However, Fair states most of the grants went to a survey firm and that it had no influence on her research.[5] Pakistani media analysts have dismissed Fair's views as hawkish rhetoric, riddled with factual inaccuracies, lack of objectivity, and being selectively biased.[11][12][13][14] She has also been rebuked for comments on social media perceived as provocative, such as suggesting burning down Pakistan's embassy in Afghanistan or asking India to "squash Pakistan militarily, diplomatically, politically and economically." She has been accused of double standards, partisanship towards India, and has been criticized for her contacts with dissident leaders from Balochistan, a link which they claim "raises serious questions if her interest in Pakistan is merely academic."[13]

Riaz Haq said...

#Modi's Hawkish #Hindu Nationalist #Indian Minister Rajnath wants to break #Pakistan in 10 parts. via @economictimes

Home Minister Rajnath Singh today slammed Pakistan for its continuous support to terrorists and ceasefire violations and warned that it will break into 10 parts if it persists with its current policy.

Till now Pakistan got divided into two parts but if it won't mend its way, perhaps it will break into 10 parts, Rajnath Singh said here today.

However, he added, India will have no hand in that.

"India is the only country that never wanted to occupy a ..

Read more at:

Riaz Haq said...

#India leads global #defense growth with $56.5 billion budget in 2018 to be #3 (after #US, #China ) #Modi … via @FT

● $38.17bn: Indian defence spending in 2010
● $64.07bn: Indian defence spending (projected) in 2020
● $1.6tn: global defence spending in 2016
Source: Jane’s

India’s drive to modernise its military has helped it to oust Russia from the world’s top five spenders on defence this year, while the country is set to push Britain from the number three spot by 2018.


India this year surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the fourth biggest defence budget, spending $50.7bn against Russia’s $48.5bn and the UK’s $53.8bn. After three years of budgetary constraints, Jane’s is forecasting that Indian spending will surpass Britain’s, rising from $38bn in 2010 to a forecast $64bn in 2020, against expectations of $55bn for the UK.

Meanwhile, China’s defence spending continues to accelerate and the Jane’s analysts predict the shift from territorial protection to power projection, along with rising tensions around the South China Sea, could prompt faster budget growth in the Asia-Pacific region. Between 2011 and 2015, states surrounding the South China Sea spent $166bn on defence equipment. Between 2016 and 2020, that will rise to $250bn, the review states.

China’s defence budget will have doubled within 10 years from $123bn in 2010 to $233bn in 2020, the report predicts. In 2016, China spent $191.7bn. By 2020, China will be spending more than the whole of western Europe and by 2025, more than all states in the Asia-Pacific region combined.

Ravi_Krishna said...

In case you are not aware, she has fallen out of favor even with many indians now. Reason being, her double standards when it comes to Islam vs Hinduism. She never utters a word against Islam because her university (Georgetown Univ) is funded by Saudi. Her other place of work (Brookings Institute) is funded by Qatar. So looks like while Saudi is fine with her giving gaalis after gaalis to Pakistan, they are sensitive to any criticism of Islam (which is what drives Pakistan's hatred for India).

Singh said...

C. Fair is an oddity (and, putting it mildly, lets just leave it at that). If you read her earlier reports, rants and periodic ravings, it becomes clear that she was once in “bed” with the pakistanis only to turn against them (maybe the checks dried up?). She speaks urdu along with the curse words, the official pakistani language. Now she is universally despised by the pakistani fan boy establishment. It may be timing – must be the saudi/qatari love-hate relationship with the pakls.

Watch out for her.

Riaz Haq said...

Christine Fair calls Asra Nomani "chutiya", "bevkuf", says "F**K YOU", tells her to "GO TO HELL"in Twitter rants

In her Washington Post article, Nomani said she was motivated by a distaste for Obama's edging around using the phrase 'Islamic extremism', the cost of Obamacare and what she saw as Obama's failure to help poor and rural Americans.
According to Nomani, on November 22, 12 days after her article was published, Fair began a sustained period of abuse on Twitter and Facebook.
In a letter of complaint to the university, Nomani said that Fair told her 'F**K YOU, GO TO HELL', and called her a 'wench', a 'fraud' and a 'fame-mongering clown show'.
Nomani added that Fair had called her 'chutiya,' or 'the equivalent of a "f**ker" in my native Urdu', and 'bevkuf', another Urdu word meaning 'idiot'.
The letter also included images of Tweets apparently sent by Fair.
One tweet, dated November 22, read: 'Yes, @AsraNomani, I've written you off as a human being. Your vote helped normalize Nazis in DC. What don't you understand, you cluless [sic] dolt?'

That same day Nomani asked her to 'take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard'.
Fair reportedly replied: 'I know you. You're a fame-mongering clown show. You voted 4 a hateful bigot. U now want civility and respect. You are responsible for this.'
At present, Fair's Twitter account is visible to her friends only.
On December 2, Nomani wrote a letter of complaint to Georgetown about Fair, whom she had previously considered to be 'a friend'.
Over the next two days, she told the Daily Caller, the letter was escalated to Professor Irfan Nooruddin, faculty chair of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service.
Nooruddin promised to speak to Fair.

Nomani says that Fair sent another tweet, calling her a 'crybully', on December 22 - one month on from the initial barrage.
But it was the last insult that was the most startling, Nomani says.
In a tweet from December 23 that is included in her letter of complaint, Fair is seen telling her: 'And you told me you were an atheist when you were at my home. Guess you've changed your opinion, or is this another publicity stunt?
Being called an atheist 'amounts to being an apostate in Islam, something that has carried a death sentence for atheists in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere,' Nomani says - adding that Fair is aware of that fact.
'I am not an atheist although I respect those who choose atheism. I am a Muslim woman whom Prof Fair has targeted for attack, using my race, religion and political views against me.'
Nomani is calling for an investigation by the university, a public apology from Fair and training from her 'on engaging in civil discourse.'

Riaz Haq said...

Chuck Hagel’s Indian Problem
Said allied nation is funding attacks on Pakistan in Afghanistan in previously unreleased 2011 speech

Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel suggested in a previously unreleased 2011 speech that India has “for many years” sponsored terrorist activities against Pakistan in Afghanistan.

“India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan” in Afghanistan, Hagel said during a 2011 address regarding Afghanistan at Oklahoma’s Cameron University, according to video of the speech obtained by the Free Beacon.

The controversial comments mark a departure from established United States policy in the region and could increase tensions between the Obama administration and India should the Senate confirm Hagel on Tuesday, according to experts.


Hagel’s 2011 remarks at Cameron University were released to the Free Beacon under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. The university had initially stated that Hagel would have to personally authorize the speech’s release, though no authorization was ultimately granted.