Best known internationally as the sole journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, Mir is a prominent Pakistani journalist who specializes in investigative reporting in Pakistan and abroad.
Mir has exposed various corruption scandals and has put major political figures, including Pervez Musharraf, Condoleezza Rice and Hamid Karzai in the hot seat on Geo TV, Pakistan's most popular TV station. He has been called the media face of the Taliban, a CIA agent and more.
Find out what he knows about the state of the Pakistan government, the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy in the region and what it's like to be an investigative journalist in one of the most turbulent regions in the world.
Bio
Hamid Mir
Hamid Mir, Executive Editor, Geo TV; Osama bin Laden's Authorized Biographer
Best known internationally as the sole journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, Mir is a prominent Pakistani journalist who specializes in investigative reporting in Pakistan and abroad. Mir has exposed various corruption scandals and has put major political figures, including Pervez Musharraf, Condoleezza Rice and Hamid Karzai in the hot seat on Geo TV, Pakistan's most popular TV station.
He has been called the media face of the Taliban, a CIA agent and more. Find out what he knows about the state of the Pakistan government, the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy in the region and what it's like to be an investigative journalist in one of the most turbulent regions in the world.
Political and religious faction and militia that came to power in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. Following the Soviet Union's 1989 withdrawal from Afghanistan (see Afghan Wars), the Taliban (Persian: Students)whose name refers to the Islamic religious students who formed the group's main recruitsarose as a popular reaction to the chaos that gripped the country. In 199495, under the leadership of Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban extended its control in Afghanistan from a single city to more than half the country, and in 1996 it captured Kabul and instituted a strict Islamic regime. By 1999, the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan but failed to win international recognition of its regime because of its harsh social policieswhich included the almost complete removal of women from public lifeand its role as a haven for Islamic extremists. Among these extremists was Osama bin Laden, the expatriate Saudi Arabian leader of Al-Qaeda, a network of Islamic militants that had engaged in numerous acts of terrorism. The Taliban's refusal to extradite bin Laden to the U.S. following the September 11 attacks in 2001 prompted the U.S. to attack Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, driving the former from power and sending the leaders of both groups into hiding. See also Islamic fundamentalism.
Mr Motown's opinion_ that since America is fostering economic aid regarding its war on terror in Afghanistan/ Fata- the Pakistan based territory, therefore the US administration does have the license to use the drones or make the drone attacks in Pakistan_ is not a warranted argument.The fact is that many Pakistanis view the us policy of drones attack as a tactical means as to defend its philosophy of strategic realism.
Mr. Amid’s interview doesn’t really hearten me. The United States is in the worst possible condition regarding Pakistan. The only worse “ally” we have in the region Afghanistan itself and Karzai. He criticizes our drone attacks as inflaming Pakistani hatred toward us and contributing to the problem. Huh? As Mr. Amid points out, fighting strong insurgents within their own country should be Pakistan’s responsibility, not ours. But by his own admission Pakistan’s government is rife with corruption, political intrigue, and totalitarian tendencies. How are they then supposed to take care of the problem? Pakistan’s also getting billions of dollars of our aid, which to me seems counter-productive if it’s just wasted on corruption and ineptitude. If Pakistani’s hate American influence and our drone attacks that much, how about stop accepting huge sums of American aid and finally taking care of the Taliban sanctuaries yourself, once and for all!
I am not sure whether it's all Robert Gates' fault or Obama's fault in keeping him as a secretary of the state. As far as I remember, when running for the president Obama has already expressed willingness to use force against Pakistan in case there will be an evidence of terrorist activity. Anyway total damage caused by drone attacks can hardly be justified by the minor success in eliminating insignificant terrorist figures. Thanks for the article.
The reason things have not yet changed is because Obama kept Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense whom held that position with Bush in office. Didn't Obama learn from Bush's mistakes? Here is an article from The Australian explaining the damage that is being caused from our "drone attacks": http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...0-2703,00.html
"the latest Predator strike, and reports that Washington was intensifying its aerial bombardment, were likely to reinforce sentiment in favour of the militants and make it even more difficult to achieve peace."
Hamid Mir has some great advices for both Obama’s administration and regular Americans travelling to Pakistan. I have particularly liked the question asked by a state department official who was advised by his colleges to grow beard in preparation for his trip.
Mir’s great sense of humor compounded by his hands-on experience as award-winning journalist is a source for a lively discussion on how US should engage Pakistan. I agree that it is important to differentiate between Taliban and Pakistan, although the US suspects that this country is currently a home of Osama bin Laden. It’s essential to understand that drone attacks will antagonize Pakistani people and ultimately create more suicide bombers rather that eliminate Al-Qaeda