Is America Serious in Fighting 'Terrorism'?

Pakistani army is advancing at a fast pace in south waziristan. Resistance by the opponent group is far less than expected. Question arises that why is the resistance that low when it was considered a safe heaven for the armed militants residing there for so many years? Answer to this question becomes evident if we note that american checkposts in afghanistan along the south wazriristan border were removed within a few days after the start of the operation (Reported Here). So we can easily conclude that the militants have moved to afghanistan (obviously they'd have, they were provided the chance by the troops on eastern border of afghanistan).

See more on Random Thoughts

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Swat accord is not surrender

By Kunwar Idris . Sunday, 22 Feb, 2009

Supporters of Maulana Soofi Mohammad peace march on the street of in Mingora, outskirts of Swat valley.— Reuters

A day after President Zardari conceded in an interview with an American television channel that the Taliban had established their presence across large swathes of Pakistan, the government of the NWFP, with his approval, recognised the presence of the militia in Swat - one which could not be eradicated even by military action.

Only time can tell whether this recognition will work to advance or check the aim of the Taliban which, in Zardari’s words, is ‘to take over the state of Pakistan and our way of life’. The instant merit of the agreement between the provincial government and Maulana Sufi Mohammad, however, lies in bringing to an end the sufferings to which the people of that once idyllic valley have long been subjected.

The jubilant crowds on the streets of Swat were celebrating not the advent of Sharia law but the return of normality — let there be no mistake about it. The ovation given to Sufi Mohammad was not because of recognition of him as a harbinger of a new order but as a messenger of peace.

Even if he is unable to persuade his Taliban son-in-law Fazlullah to lay down his arms and abide by the agreement, Swat’s worst nightmare, it seems, is over. If the political administration now acts sensibly and promptly, Fazlullah’s marauding men will no longer be able to raid music shops, harass women or burn down schools.

The reaction of Pakistan’s allies — the US and Nato — quite predictably has been sceptical. Both would have preferred Pakistan to press on with its military campaign. They suspect that the ceasefire would only provide a respite, giving the terrorists time to regroup and mount their assault again.

The allies, however, have conveniently overlooked the ground reality that the army operation was alienating the population without exterminating the fanatical fighters.

Thus even if the agreement fails to take hold, the ceasefire provides an opportunity to the government to muster popular support more than it does to the terrorists to refurbish their armoury. The loss of life and earnings that people of all vocations have undergone seems to suggest that they would rather put up with the present system howsoever corrupt or unjust than suffer all the more while waiting for an elusive Islamic order.

In any case the agreement between Maulana Sufi Mohammad and the NWFP government stipulates no more than a judicial system based on the Sharia laws to be introduced in the former princely states of Swat, Dir, Chitral, the protected area of Malakand and Hazara Kohistan.

The executive authority and all other regulatory and developmental functions will continue to vest in the provincial and federal governments under the same laws as are applicable to the rest of the country.

The judicial system envisaged in the agreement is hardly any different from what was in vogue in the former princely states before they were made districts. It was informal, inexpensive and expeditious even if harsh and not always just. Such was the experience of this writer as resident political agent and adviser of Chitral state as also of his colleagues in Dir and Swat.

The formal introduction of Sharia courts now that the states have become districts must not be viewed as Talibanisation of their society or institutions. For all purposes other than the trial of criminal cases and adjudication of civil disputes they will continue to administer justice as is done in other districts of the country.

It needs to be clearly understood that the three states and other parts of Malakand and Hazara divisions are not tribal societies nor wild territories in the sense that next-door Bajaur and Mohmand or further Khyber, Kurram, Orakzai and North and South Waziristan are.

It was wrong to have grouped them as Pata, i.e. provincially administered tribal areas, for they are not tribal as are the federally administered agencies collectively called Fata. Between Pata and Fata there is little affinity or communication. Even the language and social norms differ. Swat has cultural and lingual links with settled Mardan but none with the Mohmands, for instance.

Likewise, Sufi Mohammad’s Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi predates the Taliban phenomenon and had no connection with it — until recently. It was the agony caused by the expense, delay and corruption inherent in the operation of the unfamiliar and complex laws of Pakistan that persuaded him to launch a mass campaign for the enforcement of Sharia law in Dir much before 9/11. As the campaign dragged on, Sufi Mohammad’s son-in-law Fazlullah from his base in Swat established contacts with the Taliban and the movement took a violent turn.

Despite this connection which surely brought the TNSM arms and money, it remains essentially an independent movement confined to Dir and Swat. The occupation of Pakistan and the destruction of America do not appear to be its goal.

It would not have gathered the momentum it has if our local councils instead of indulging in politics had attended to the needs of the common people and had spared them the torture of prolonged litigations. The provisions of the local government law relating to the care of the poor and settlement of disputes at the village level had all along remained a dead letter.

Pakistan stands much to gain and its allies in the ‘war on terror’ have little to lose if the Sharia courts bring tranquillity and tourists back to the Swat valley and the mountains beyond that are among the highest in the world. Sharia law is not new to the area but violence is. As political agent in the 1960s, this writer presided over both Chitral’s Sharia system and its secular judicial council only to wonder now whether the people living under Pakistan’s elaborate judicial system could ever be as law-abiding, tolerant of dissent and content in poverty as were the Chitralis then. Swatis were not much different.

Given a just and non-intrusive but firm administration they can be the same again. Advice from Ijlal Hyder Zaidi who had long served in the region and was later Benazir Bhutto’s adviser should help. Talking to the mullahs and militants undoubtedly has its risk but it is one worth taking for the survival of Pakistan and peace of the region. The liberals and militarists will surely live to fight another day.

DAWN.COM | – NWFP | Swat accord is not surrender

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Numbing statistics

By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi
THE statistics are numbing and mind-boggling and should make any Pakistani sit up: in 2008 the country saw 2,148 terrorist attacks, which caused 6,825 casualties — 2,267 of them fatal.

Suicide attacks alone killed nearly 1,000 people — 967 to be precise — and wounded or maimed for life over 2,000. Of the 63 suicide attacks countrywide, the highest — 32 — occurred in the NWFP, killing and wounding over 1,000 Pakistanis; 10 in Punjab (201, dead, 580 injured), and 16 in Fata (263 dead, 497 injured).

Compiled by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, these statistics do not include those who fell in ‘operational attacks’. According to the think-tanks’ report for 2008, more than 5,500 people were killed or injured in operational attacks (a minimum of 3,182 dead and 2,267 wounded).

What is scary is the steady rise over the years in the number of terrorist attacks and the consequent increase in casualties. In 2006, terrorist attacks left 907 dead and 1,543 injured; in 2007 there was a quantum jump in the figure for the dead — 3,448.

If to those killed in acts of terrorism we add those who died in operational attacks, sectarian and factional clashes and US drone attacks, the total number of civilians and security personnel killed in 2008 comes to a morbid 8,000, with the number of the injured approaching 10,000. The grand total for 2008, thus, comes to 18,000 Pakistani people getting killed or injured in acts of political violence.

Is the world aware of this Pakistani trauma? Going by the doubts cast on our commitment to fight terrorism and the ‘do more’ litany one doubts if we have been able to inform the world what this country and its people have been going through for years. In fact, it appears as if, barring US Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Richard Lugar in America and Foreign Secretary David Miliband in Britain, very few top personalities in the policymaking apparatus in the western world seem to be aware of Pakistan’s plight and the scourge which terrorism has become for us Pakistanis in our daily lives.

Our post-Mumbai diplomatic effort has not been all disaster. It did indeed succeed in convincing the world diplomatic community that Islamabad was not involved in the Mumbai crime. However, Pakistan’s advocacy of its case was characterised by diffidence. It failed to show our justifiable anger over India’s attempt to obfuscate the issue, and often we appeared to be pleading rather than telling.

Has India suffered anything even remotely resembling Pakistan’s trauma as seen in the cold statistics above? The answer is no, but the world evidently doesn’t think so. What the world does is to view the situation in terms of the ‘safe haven’ which is supposed to exist in Fata and elsewhere for the Taliban. That deprives us of the sympathy we deserve.

Read full opinion at DAWN - Opinion; January 26, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

War on Terror: Time to pull out?

DAVID Miliband’s assertion that the ‘war on terror’ was a mistake, together with Nato’s Secretary-General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer’s criticism of pro-American Afghan President Hamid Karzai clearly indicates a rift between Europe and America towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

International relations and global realities have changed tremendously since 9/11. The war on Iraq has exposed the limits of American military might. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghuraib exposed the moral bankruptcy of American regime which tremendously weakened American political power.

The resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan is testing the commitment of International Security Assistance Forces. The conflict between Georgia and Russia and now between Europe and Russia over gas supplies has marked the return of a belligerent anti-western power to the international stage.

The Iraq war and the recent butchery of Gazan Muslims in Palestine have exposed the bias inherent in international institutions such as the United Nations towards the West and its interests. And, above all, the most severe economic crisis has hit the West and crippled its economy, shattering the core capitalist principles of free market economy.

All of these factors have weakened western powers and their ability to influence states like Pakistan. Now is the time for Pakistan to review its foreign policy and make radical changes in it. The challenge on the eastern front provides Pakistan a golden opportunity to make a case for pulling out from the self-destructive war on terror.

The Pakistani government has already indicated that it would pull out from the war on terror if India isn’t reined in by the international community. After the rift increasing between America and Europe over the war on terror, Pakistan should actually move beyond just sending signals.

MOEZ MOBEEN
Islamabad

DAWN - Letters; January 22, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Leadership not IMF is the issue...

... a few excerpts from Yousaf Nazar's opinion published in DAWN, October 29, 2008

PAKISTAN’S current economic meltdown is a crisis of competence if judged in light of the recent past. In the context of history, it represents a colossal failure of the establishment’s long-term foreign and economic policies.

The government continued Musharraf’s Washington-centric foreign policy. Yet, in the hour of its greatest need, the US not only ditched Pakistan but a third-ranking state department official publicly humiliated its ‘friend’ by saying that the Friends of Pakistan “wouldn’t throw money on the table”. This wasn’t surprising given Condoleezza Rice’s more subtle remarks earlier on Sept 26: “We are very engaged with Pakistan, through the international financial institutions, to help Pakistan as it takes the difficult decisions that it is and must take on economic reform.” Translated: Pakistan should go to the IMF and reform its economy.While the US pressure on Pakistan to go the IMF has political undertones, it is also true that Pakistani rulers’ historic tendency to indulge in profligate spending and corruption has left them with few sympathisers despite the much trumpeted ‘geostrategic’ importance of Pakistan.

The US has historically directed most of its ‘aid’ to make Pakistan fight its wars. The aid has been primarily used for military purposes (e.g. Pakistan’s arms purchase orders in 2006 alone totalled $5.1bn) but the indirect cost of the conflicts since 1980 has been catastrophic, although some people continue to believe in the ‘benefits’ of such ‘aid’.

The ‘aid syndrome’ stymied any serious effort to reform the economy. Infrastructure investments and tax reforms were neglected because the so-called austerity programmes advocated by the multilaterals hit subsidies but not the pockets of vested interests. Oil and food subsidies played a major role in Asia and the European Union respectively in keeping the prices low because the governments had fiscal space, of which Pakistan never had much. Cutting fat in defence and establishment expenditures and taxing the rich were not high on the multilaterals’ reform agenda as the focus was usually on indirect taxes (e.g. sales tax) that inevitably hit the lower-income groups.

But what is the point in complaining about the US’s ‘real agenda’ or the IMF’s ‘conditionalities’ when the country’s leaders are unwilling to tighten their belts and undertake necessary reforms and are known to own assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars abroad? Confidence and credibility are important issues and cannot be wished away.

Full article at Random Thoughts

Blogged with the Flock Browser

US sponsored 'democracy': An interesting analysis

zaid hamid talks abt involvement of cia in pakistani affairs... he also mentions how deep does this involvement go... he describes how pakistan shot itself in its feet by helping usa against Taliban... when pakistan started refusing to act on US orders coz they got proofs tht cia n raw r destabilising pakistan in the wake of this american defined war on terror... talks abt indian sponsored govt. in balochistan... he further talks abt barahamdagh bugti's relationships with indian agency... n much more... he talks abt media war being staged against pakistani ppl... many secrets revealed... a must see!!

Be ready for more: US media warns of more attacks

US media warns of more attacks

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Sept 4: The US administration is officially refusing to comment on a cross-border raid into Pakistan that killed at least 15 people, but unnamed US officials are confirming that American troops entered Pakistan to target extremists and may continue to do so.

“In regards to the reports about that incident, we have not commented, and I won’t today,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters on Thursday. “I’m just not going to comment on the incident in any way.”

At the State Department, Secretary Condoleezza Rice made almost identical comments, saying: “I don’t have anything for you on Pakistan except to say that, obviously, we are working very closely with the civilian government there, the newly democratically elected, civilian government.”

Asked why was she reluctant to comment on the reported US strike, Ms Perino replied: “All I can tell you is that I am going to decline to comment on reports about that incident.”

But the US media, from newspapers to television and radio stations, are all quoting senior US officials as saying that American commandos entered Pakistan on Wednesday to attack an Al Qaeda target near Angoor Adda.

They also warned that the United States might conduct similar raids in future as well if it had “actionable intelligence” about the presence of Al Qaeda or Taliban commanders in a certain area.

US media warns of more attacks -DAWN - Top Stories; September 05, 2008

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Established 'rules of engagement'

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: The foreign minister told the National Assembly that Wednesday’s raid, which drew renewed opposition calls for a review of Pakistan’s role in the anti-terror war, was in violation of what he called “established rules of engagement” as well as of “international human norms” and the UN charter.

But he did not explain “the rules of engagement” that Pakistan might have agreed with the coalition forces in Afghanistan despite a demand from the main PML-N speaker in the National Assembly Ahsan Iqbal who, like several other members, called for a detailed debate in parliament on the situation.

A report by the US-based Associated Press news agency said the circumstances surrounding Wednesday’s raid were not clear, “but US rules of engagement allow American troops to chase militants across the border into Pakistan’s lawless tribal region when they are attacked” and that “they may only go about six miles on the ground under normal circumstances” and 10 miles into Pakistani airspace through aircraft.

Both the house, which took up the issue almost simultaneously, resounded with rhetoric and anti-American sentiment, mostly from opposition parties such as the Jamaat-i-Islami and the PML-N, while some in a mainly lawyers’ crowd who protested outside the parliament house against non-restoration of the deposed superior court judges also chanted “America ka jo yar hai, ghaddar hai, ghaddar hai” (whoever is friend of America is a traitor).

Outraged parliament wants border raids repulsed -DAWN - Top Stories; September 05, 2008

will we wake up ever??? almost one year ago, i felt yes... now i m sure we wont... :'(

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Mukhtar’s stand on US raid raises eyebrows

Saturday, September 06, 2008
Rahimullah Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: Unlike other defence ministers in the world who consider it their duty to defend their frontiers and people, Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar seems to have taken it upon himself to justify the US forces’ raids in Pakistani territory.

“No one carries out shelling without any reason after coming from far away,” the defence minister told reporters in Lahore. This is how he was quoted by sections of the Pakistani and foreign media. By arguing that there must be a reason for the cross-border raid in the early hours Wednesday, it was obvious that he was justifying the US attack on a Pakistani border village in South Waziristan that killed 15 civilians and injured another two. Among the dead were five women and three children.

In fact, the country’s defence minister wasn’t even aware that US aircraft didn’t carry out shelling on the Pakistani village as he made it out to be. Instead, up to four choppers, two Chinooks and two Cobra gunship helicopters, violated Pakistan’s airspace and landed near Musa Neeka village not far from the Pakistani border town of Angoor Adda. The troops brought by the helicopters then stormed three houses of innocent Pakistani tribesmen in Zololay hamlet and shot dead at least 15 of them. Ahmad Mukhtar, either deliberately or due to ignorance, made no mention of the US ground forces that raided the Pakistani village and committed an aggression that the defence minister and the country’s armed forces should have repelled. Otherwise, how does he qualify to be Pakistan’s defence minister if he cannot make an effort to defend the country’s borders and citizens?

This is the second time that the Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar has given statement that tends to justify cross-border raids by US forces in Pakistan’s tribal areas. But this one was insensitive to say the least because there was no report of any attempted infiltration of militants from the Pakistan side into Afghanistan that could have provoked the US military to retaliate. Besides, there was no evidence that the US troops had entered Pakistani territory in “hot pursuit”. All those killed were civilians and among the dead were women and children, who cannot be called al-Qaeda or Taliban militants by any stretch of imagination.

Subsequently, one heard on private TV channels that the defence minister had said he would issue a statement after completion of investigations into the South Waziristan incident. But by then the damage had been done as his initial reaction conveyed by him to reporters in Lahore had been widely reported and quoted.

This is undoubtedly a huge escalation in the hostilities on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. As defence minister, Ahmad Mukhtar should be worrying about the consequences of such acts of aggression and planning measures to reassure Pakistanis unfortunate enough to be living in these tribal borderlands. For five hours Wednesday, the aggrieved tribesmen kept the bodies of the 15 slain Pakistanis on the road linking Musa Neeka with Angoor Adda and Wana but no government official or army officer came there to listen to their grievances, condole with them the deaths of their near and dear ones and give them assurance that such acts of aggression by outside powers would be resisted in future. Pakistan Army and the paramilitary Frontier Corps have their bases in the area but no soldier moved from his entrenched position to come to the assistance of Pakistani villagers under attack from troops who had illegally crossed over from Afghanistan.

As defence minister, Ahmad Mukhtar should visit Musa Neeka and Angoor Adda, offer condolences to the grieving families and check and upgrade Pakistan’s defences at the border. He probably has never been to these parts and it would be a good opportunity for Pakistan’s defence minister to check out how life goes in an area that is frequently in the news and under attack from US, Nato and Afghan forces. He should also take along with him Rahman Malik, the prime minister’s adviser on interior affairs, who too is increasingly dealing with tribal areas and the “war on terror”.

Read full story: Mukhtar’s stand on US raid raises eyebrows

sad, really it is :(

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Pakistan: A 'sovereign' state

ISI’s functions to be discussed in US

WASHINGTON, July 27: The government’s attempt to change internal functions of the ISI comes amid intense pressure from Washington to rein in the so-called rogue elements in the agency.

Diplomatic sources told Dawn that this issue would figure prominently in the talks Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would be holding in Washington during his visit that begins officially on Monday.

According to the sources, while the Americans trust the senior Pakistani leadership, they believe that there are people within the ISI who still back militants, almost seven years after Pakistan joined the US-led war on terror.

The Americans also blame the so-called rogue elements in the agency for facilitating cross-border movement of the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants into Afghanistan.

In an article on the prime minister’s visit on Sunday, Washington Post noted that the US administration’s patience with Pakistan’s inability to end cross-border infiltrations into Afghanistan was running out. The newspaper said that the prime minister and his aides “should expect a testy reception on both ends of the Pennsylvania Avenue,” meaning the White House and Congress. “I’m not sure they’re ready for what they’re walking into,” said a senior administration official while talking to the Post.

Pakistan’s new civilian leadership, like its military predecessor, rejects all insinuations about the ISI’s alleged role in the militancy as incorrect but appears willing to discuss with the Americans measures for reforming the ISI. One of the proposals, that may also be included in a detailed notification expected to be issued in Islamabad soon, calls for taking away two major functions from the agency: internal security and coordination in the war on terror....
more on the following link

ISI’s functions to be discussed in US -DAWN - Top Stories; July 28, 2008

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Bila Unwaan!

DAWN - Cartoon; July 20, 2008


the cartoon speaks for itself :)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Liberal Assembly of NWFP condemns CIA Director’s comments on Pak tribal areas

The NWFP Assembly has taken a strong note of CIA Director Michael Hayden’s recent statement terming Pakistan’s tribal areas as direct threat to US. The Assembly strongly condemned Hayden’s comments in a unanimous resolution passed by it.

The resolution also said that all the matters should be resolved through holding meaningful talks.

Raising a point of order, PML-N provincial chief Pir Sabir Shah diverted the attention of the House towards the statement issued by the CIA chief, and termed it as direct threat to the country as well as interference and attack on sovereignty of their country.

He said that aggressions from any foreign country would not be tolerated. “My countrymen had witnessed suicide attacks, bomb blasts and destruction only because of the dictatorial policies of the US in this region,” The Nation quoted him as saying.

Provincial ex-CM Akram Khan Durrani seconded the resolution and expressed the same feelings, saying that a joint resolution should be tabled to condemn the CIA chief’s statement unanimously.

Later, the parliamentary leaders of various Parties drafted the resolution and allowed the ANP leader Mian Iftikhar Hussain to move it, and was unanimously passed through which they demanded of the Federal Government to take serious note of the statement issued by the CIA chief immediately as they considered it as an interference in the affairs of an independent country. (ANI)

NWFP Assembly condemns CIA Director’s comments on Pak tribal areas | Top News

Please note that religious parties do not have much representation in the assembly... so US n mush cannot say that these are views of extremists... also see following

Provoked by the recent statements of the CIA director Michael Hayden, the NWFP Assembly promptly adopted a unanimous resolution Tuesday condemning US official’s utterances and asked the PPP-led federal government to take steps to resolve all issues through negotiations.

All parties represented in the assembly ranging from the nationalist ANP to the secular PPP and centrist PML-N, rightist PML-Q to the Islamic JUI-F, backed the resolution. ANP’s Mian Iftikhar Hussain, who will take oath as education minister today, moved the jointly drafted resolution on behalf of all members of the House.
...
PPP-S’s Israrullah Gandapur did not agree with the speaker who suggested the mover to leave the issue for another day as no other business could be made except election of the chief minister. He said they could not remain silent spectators like those of school’s children on such important and sensitive issues. “We will be doing no service if we also adopt criminal negligence like that of the previous government,” he said and suggested passage of a resolution. He also asked the federal government to summon US ambassador to know as to whether it was the American policy or a statement of one individual.

Full story at The News website

Blogged with the Flock Browser

US officials’ Islamabad visit criticized!

Washington’s decision to send a delegation to a government which had not yet taken control has been criticised strongly in both Pakistan and the United States.

“It was very ill-advised,” said Dennis Kux, a former US ambassador and a South Asian expert. “I think the timing could have been better.”

“We should let Pakistanis work out their own problems and be happy that there is a democratically elected government there.”

Mr Kux said the Pakistanis were as concerned about the situation in the tribal areas as the Americans were and saw the extremists as a threat to their stability.

“We need a little patience and need to give the new government more time to cool off,” he added. “I don’t think this was the right time to arrive in Islamabad.”

Full story

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Respecting the mandate

Source: Nawaiwaqt

Blogged with the Flock Browser

"Shake the Three" operation

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Difference between 1-man rule n democracy

US has intensified Fata strikes: WP

Ecerpts only. Source: Dawn

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, March 27: The United States has escalated air strikes against Al Qaeda fighters operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas fearing that the new government in Islamabad may object to future strikes, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
....
Officials interviewed by the Post for the article said Washington wanted to inflict as much damage as it can to Al Qaeda’s network now because President Pervez Musharraf may not be able to offer much help in the months ahead.
....
The Post noted that neither the US nor the Pakistani authorities officially confirmed US missile attacks on Pakistani territory, which would be an infringement of Pakistani sovereignty.
....
Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told the newspaper that policy makers in Washington were aware that “Musharraf’s days are numbered, and so they recognised they may only have a few months to do this. Musharraf has . . . very few friends in the world -- he probably has more inside the Beltway (Washington) than in his own country.”

The report claimed that after months of prodding, the Bush administration and the Musharraf government this year reached a tacit understanding that gave Washington a freer hand to carry out precision strikes against Al Qaeda and its allies in the border region. The issue, however, is so sensitive that neither side is willing to discuss openly, the report added.

According to the Post, the goal of the new US strategy is partly to try to get information on senior Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, by forcing them to move in ways that US intelligence analysts can detect.

“It’s not a blitz to close this chapter,” a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the newspaper. “If we find the leadership, then we’ll go after it. But nothing can be done to put Al Qaeda away in the next nine or 10 months. In the long haul, it’s an issue that extends beyond this administration.”

The report said that the Bush administration’s effort to uproot Al Qaeda also has benefited from shifting loyalties among residents of the border region. Some tribal and religious leaders who embraced foreign Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters as they fled from Afghanistan in 2001 now see them as troublemakers and are providing timely intelligence about their movements and hideouts.

Experts interviewed by Post, however, warned that the new US strategy could backfire if missiles take innocent lives.

“The [tribal] Pashtuns have a saying: ‘Kill one person, make 10 enemies,” said Mr Johnson. “You might take out a bad guy in one of these strikes, but you might also be creating more foot soldiers. This is a war in which the more people you kill, the faster you lose.”

look mush tunay kia haal ker diya mulk ka... may Allah guide u....

Blogged with the Flock Browser

US Tones Down Praise for Musharraf

By FOSTER KLUG

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just months ago, the United States publicly championed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as an "indispensable" ally.

Now, officials barely mention the man the Bush administration once promoted as essential to holding together a nuclear-armed country deemed crucial to the U.S.-led fight against extremists in South Asia.

The new tone comes as the United States works to gain the favor of Pakistani opposition forces that won big in last month's parliamentary elections and as Musharraf's grip on power weakens. The newly empowered politicians are promising to reinstate fired judges who had questioned the legality of Musharraf's continuing in office.

The United States says it still intends to work with the former army chief, whom Pakistani lawmakers elected to a five-year presidential term in October. But the Bush administration appears to be shifting from making support for Musharraf the core of its Pakistan policy, which many U.S. lawmakers and Pakistani opposition leaders have long wanted.

Robert Hathaway, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Asia program, said Bush officials will not abandon Musharraf, "but clearly they have to, in rather dramatic fashion, alter what had been their previous practice of putting all of the American eggs in a Musharraf basket."

Pakistan's "new realities," Hathaway said, "dictate that they deal with Islamabad on a much broader basis if they wish to have any sort of influence in Pakistan."

In Feb. 18 parliamentary elections, the parties of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, finished first and second. The Pakistan Muslim League-Q, a party loyal to Musharraf, lost heavily.

The turnaround for Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, followed months of angry criticism at his crackdown late last year on the opposition, judiciary and media. In November, he declared a state of emergency and purged the Supreme Court before it could rule on the disputed legality of his presidential re-election.

Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, said this week that the United States was reaching out to the opposition. "We have talked to all the parties, telling them all, `We will work with whoever emerges as the leadership,'" he said.

The U.S. does not seem as eager to promote Musharraf as it once was.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told lawmakers late last month that "Pakistan has been indispensable" to the fight against extremists, a marked change from his comments in November that Musharraf himself was the indispensable key to the effort.

This week, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack avoided taking a position on the possible restoration of the judges.

Asked if the United States was reaching out to politicians to express opposition to bringing back the judges, McCormack said, "No."

"We're not in the business of interpreting their laws or their constitution for them," he told reporters. "We don't have a vote in this, nor should we."

The United States does, however, have a stake in Pakistan's success as a moderate Islamic state. Washington has pumped about $10 billion in aid into Pakistan since Musharraf sided with the United States in the drive to topple the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan and hunt down terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Farhana Ali, an analyst at the Rand Corp. think tank, said there is a "hesitancy within the administration to completely let go of Musharraf."

She added that the Bush administration acknowledges "that we need Pakistan's support. Therefore, it's wise for us to accept whoever is going to take the throne."

Mush Improved Pakistan's Image - There is no threat to Pakistan's Sovereignty :) See urself

"US yearns for Pak capitulation"

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has given them bases and logistic support as well as intelligence sharing but what the US is now demanding from Islamabad has shocked the Defence and Foreign Ministries and the initial reaction has been a rejection of what are highly intrusive demands for the US military and auxiliary personnel in Pakistan.

This scribe has learnt of the latest set of 11 demands the US has put to the Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence. As one goes down the list of the demands, they become increasingly untenable.

The first demand is for granting of a status that is accorded to the technical and administrative staff of the US embassy. The second demand is that these personnel be allowed to enter and exit Pakistan on mere National Identification (for example a driving licence) that is without any visas.

Next, the US is demanding that Pakistan accept the legality of all US licences, which would include arms licences. This is followed by the demand that all these personnel be allowed to carry arms and wear uniforms as they wish, across the whole of Pakistan.

Then comes a demand that directly undermines our sovereignty – that the US criminal jurisdiction be applicable in Pakistan to US nationals. In other words, these personnel would not be subject to Pakistani law. Full Story by Shireen Mazari

We, the ppl of Pakistan who rejected mush in recent elections, demand the same from america... if they accept all these for pakistani citizens, then we have no objection... but mush is not qualified to even have a look at these demands in order to accept or reject them, since he does not have mandate now... ppl have voted against him... so US shld had put these demands infront of newly elected govt... so tht there could b a chance of a NO or reciprocity... US wants all such things done before the elected govt. takes charge
btw i found a link at pkpolitics to a case where reciprocity was demanded from US :) see this...
NAPLES (Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

Well done Rafael...

See our i.e. Pakistani response US wish list confirmed

ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Office on Saturday while commenting on The News story "US yearns for Pak capitulation" said: "Foreign governments make proposals from time to time to secure facilities and privileges for their personnel in the event of temporary assignment or transit.

"Only those proposals are considered that are in line with our domestic laws and international instruments such as the Vienna Conventions on Privileges and Immunities. Nothing is accepted that is not consistent with our national interest and impinges upon our sovereignty."

Ok i m convinced my FO... i m convinced tht we r a sovereign state... plz dont repeat this again n again... but i must say... ecuador was asked to do far less than all this and they clearly showed they want all this on equality basis... all diplomatic negotiations take place on equality basis... in our case :) there will not be any negotiations since we r a 'sovereign' state and it is a threat to our 'sovereignty' to negotiate on US orders... n as u said we'll not do anything which is not consistent with our national interest and impinges upon our sovereignty.

Blogged with Flock

Is making its army "more effective and more competent" NOT Pakistan's internal matter?

why is amreeka assisting pakistan in improving the strength of the army?

US in wait-and-see mode on Fata By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, March 8: The United States is “anxiously watching” to see how the new political government in Pakistan will deal with the situation in tribal areas, says a top Pentagon official.

Admiral William Fallon, commander of the US Central Command, also said that despite political changes in Islamabad, Washington would like to maintain its close ties with the Pakistani defence establishment.

At a recent hearing at the US House Armed Services Committee, Admiral Fallon said the United States was ready to extend all assistance to the Pakistani Military to make it “more effective and more competent”.

Judiciary row Pakistan’s internal matter: US (as if all other matters are not)

Judiciary row Pakistan’s internal matter: US: Amnesty announces awards for lawyers, judges

Source: Dawn

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, March 5: The White House has said that it will not get involved in the judiciary-executive dispute in Pakistan because it views this as an internal matter of that country.

“That will be a topic that the Pakistanis need to address, not the United States,” said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino when asked if President Bush will use his influence to get the former chief justice released and the judiciary restored to its pre-Nov 3 status.

Ms Perino told a news briefing in Washington that Pakistan already has a parliament elected on Feb 18 and the newly elected leaders “are working on the changes that need to take place” to settle such disputes.

However, at a short distance from the White House, leaders of Pakistan’s lawyers’ movement received a rare honour from Amnesty International for their struggle to restore the rule of law in their country.

Amnesty International gave two awards – one for judges and another for lawyers – at a ceremony also attended by a delegation of lawyers from Pakistan.

“Amnesty International, USA, salutes the judges and lawyers of Pakistan who stood up during the recent state of emergency in defence of an independent judiciary,” said a citation etched on the plaques.

Hamid Khan, former President of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association, told the gathering that the US should use its influence to get the sacked judges reinstated.

The judges, he said, were sacked because they attempted to restore the independence of judiciary and not because they were releasing terror suspects, as some in the United States believe.

Mr Khan said if the US wanted to stay neutral, it should also stop supporting the Musharraf government.

He noted that while the Bush administration never shies away from expressing its support to the Musharraf government, it refuses to back the cause of the judiciary whenever this issue is raised.
Mr Khan claimed that the Musharraf government was using its influence to break up the PPP-PML-N alliance and bring a government that would agree to work with President Musharraf for the next five years.

“But the Feb 18 elections have shown that the people do not want him,” Mr Khan said. “He should step down in the greater interest of the country.”

The US administration, he said, should not try to prolong President Musharraf’s stay in power and “instead of supporting an individual, it should support the people of Pakistan”.

Sahibzada Anwar Hamid, former vice president of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association, advised the US administration not to allow the fear of terrorism to prevent it from seeing the changes sweeping through Pakistan.

“If you look closely, you will see that people not only voted against the ruling party; they also voted for an independent judiciary,” he said. He argued that at least in Punjab, political parties benefited from the pro-judiciary sentiments stoked by the lawyers’ movement and if the new government fails to restore the judiciary, they too will become unpopular.

Blogged with Flock