Yo-yo coalition

The coalition government of the PPP seems to be back in the game - and what a funny game it is. The PPP is celebrating the return of the MQM back into the coalition and the promise of the PML-Q to weather the course and backtrack on its threats to quit the government. The MQM is rejoining all the posts that it had previously quit at the federal and provincial levels, upping the numbers for the coalition. A smug prime minister could be seen afterwards thumbing his nose at the opposition (the PML-N) and smirking at how Nawaz Sharif’s party is now isolated. Amidst all the jubilation and cheer one must ask a few pertinent questions, the kind that are impossible not to discuss in a country as plagued politically, socially and economically as Pakistan.

Is the MQM so flexible and unprincipled in the stands it takes that it can revert to the age-old tactic of blackmail to achieve whatever goals it has? Is its integrity so easily compromised that a few promises to have its demands met will make it turn its back on its many loud proclamations? When it was announced that the MQM would quit the government, Karachi saw itself in the midst of another cycle of violence. If the hoopla was just about having its demands met, many people were killed in vain and, it seems, the MQM has no qualms about this.

In this convoluted merry-go round that has become political leadership in this country, one wonders whether our political barons and the country, which is in a deep morass, function in the same or parallel universes. The answer is clear. Pakistan is not just in crisis mode - it is in crises. From ‘power outages to mega inflation to suicide bombings every other day, the state of Pakistan and its people is like that of a volcano ready to erupt. So when Prime Minister Gilani remarks that Nawaz Sharif will only find another excuse to lambast the government after the current load shedding crisis is over, he is admitting, involuntarily of course, that there are many more reasons for the opposition to criticise the government. It is a fact that the government, whether at the federal or provincial levels, has not risen to the many challenges before it in the past three and a half years. At a whim and frenzy the coalition breaks and with a quick sleight of the hand it is once again restored - much like the proverbial yo-yo. This haphazard method of running a country so damaged has made our political leadership nothing less than one that needs an arena merely to clown around in.   

The PML-N has taken to the streets to rile up the public against President Zardari and the government. A dharna (sit-in) was staged outside the Presidency but the turnout was lacklustre with only some MNAs and senators in attendance. The PML-N’s ‘roar’ is mightier than its bite apparently and the public does not seem interested in backing what seems like another trivial pursuit. The public is disillusioned and tired of the same old faces and usual rhetoric. Fresh elections, whether mid-term or scheduled, look ready to usher in the usual suspects and the people are weary given that they expect nothing from them when it comes to tackling our current challenges. The vision, innovation and resolve of our political leadership are nil and the masses know it. The veneer of leadership is eroding fast as people ask themselves: in this crises-riddled situation, who will fill the yawning vacuum of political leadership? And lest there is any misunderstanding, the tried and failed praetorian solution is hardly it.

Indo-Afghan strategic partnership

The very outcome the policy of strategic depth was intended to prevent has finally come to pass, precisely because of that policy. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have just signed an Indo-Afghan strategic partnership agreement in New Delhi. The agreement deepens existing ties in the trade and culture fields, but most significantly, in security cooperation. It envisages Indian training, equipping and capacity building of the Afghan security forces in the run up to and after the US/Nato withdrawal by 2014. Pakistan’s so-called strategic depth policy could be seen as consisting of denying India influence in Afghanistan, which our military and intelligence establishment has tended to view as its ‘backyard’, a description fiercely contested by all Afghans, even the Taliban. The ingress with the Afghan security forces yields a level of influence at the heart of the Afghan state that can only be understood in the light of history. The Soviet-trained and equipped Afghan army in the past was imbued with revolutionary communist ideas transmitted by exposure to what the Soviet Union represented. The Republican coup of 1973, as the communist one of 1978, would probably never have come about without the tacit and explicit backing of the Afghan army. Indian-trained and equipped Afghan security forces will almost certainly repeat that historical parallel, this time to the advantage of India. The ‘nutcracker’ squeeze from east and west so feared by our military strategists may well now become a reality, especially given the recent frictions between Kabul and Islamabad over the safe havens of Pakistani soil used by the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network to attack US/Nato/Afghan forces across the border and the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani. On the latter issue, the Afghan National Directorate of Security has accused Pakistan of not cooperating in the investigation into the murder. Of course our foreign office, in usual mode, denies this. In short, our brilliant strategists have succeeded beyond measure in driving Afghanistan into the arms of India. How has all this come to pass?

After 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, whereas India projected soft power into Afghanistan, having by now invested some $ 2 billion in reconstruction and infrastructure building in Afghanistan, Pakistan stuck to its old paradigm of offering safe havens to and supporting a proxy war by the Taliban and Haqqani network. A golden opportunity to turn the page and befriend Afghanistan in its hour of need was thus missed. Afghan resentment of long standing interference by Pakistan in its internal affairs has wiped out whatever goodwill Islamabad had earned during the days of the anti-Soviet resistance. Now, Pakistan is hated by most Afghans whereas India is seen as a benefactor and true friend. The shortsightedness of our strategic planners stands badly exposed thereby.

The Indo-Afghan partnership now threatens a renewed and prolonged proxy-cum-civil war in Afghanistan after the foreign forces depart. With Afghanistan not being at peace, Pakistan and the region cannot hope for things to settle down. This war will inevitably slip across borders and destabilise the region further. Pakistan’s military establishment has tried, and failed, to convince the world that it has genuine and legitimate interests in Afghanistan and therefore cannot leave things to take their own course. Had that ‘interest’ been confined to having a friendly government in Kabul while recognising the sovereign right of the Afghan people to manage their own affairs themselves, and backed up by help rather than sabotage of the Afghan polity and society, Islamabad may have obtained more purchase. As things stand now, Afghanistan will continue to lose a great deal in the prolongation of its internal conflict, in which the contending sides may be backed by rivals India and Pakistan. But the real loser in the end will be none other than Pakistan itself, internationally already isolated, regionally seen as a troublemaker extraordinaire.

Mixed signals and warnings

General Martin Dempsey has replaced Admiral Mike Mullen as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his farewell speech, Admiral Mullen said he continues “to believe that there is no solution in the region without Pakistan, and no stable future in the region without a partnership”. Admiral Mullen’s advice to General Dempsey was “to remember the importance of Pakistan to all of this; to try and do a better job than I [Mullen] did with that vexing, and yet vital, relationship”. Maybe Admiral Mullen was trying to take the sting out of his earlier statement linking the ISI to the Haqqani network by giving ‘friendly’ advice to his successor. With the change of command in the US military, there are mixed messages coming from the Obama administration. President Obama said US intelligence is not clear in terms of what exactly the relationship between the Haqqanis and the ISI is. A US official said that there will be no US boots on the ground in Pakistan. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton said that when she “became Secretary of State, they [Pakistanis] were trying to draw a distinction between the good terrorists and the bad terrorists, because we had funded the good terrorists together…That in no way excuses the fact that they are making a serious, grievous, strategic error supporting these groups, because you think that you can keep a wild animal in the backyard and it will only go after your neighbour?” An ambiguity has clearly been left in both President Obama’s remarks and that of Ms Clinton. The US admits it helped Pakistan in creating terrorists for the Afghan jihad but now those ties must be terminated.

While there are mixed signals emanating from the Obama administration, things in our neighbourhood are not looking good either. On the one hand Afghan President Karzai has rejected negotiations with the Taliban and asserted that Pakistan is the key to peace talks. On the other hand, the Afghan intelligence service has blamed the Quetta Shura for assassinating Burhanuddin Rabbani. “We have given the evidence to the Pakistan Embassy in Afghanistan to cooperate with us,” said Afghanistan’s intelligence service spokesman. The most significant statement, though, came from JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman who said it was possible that the US might go to the UN against Pakistan, where the Americans would raise the issue of the Quetta Shura. This would create trouble for Pakistan, especially if the US declares the Haqqani network a terrorist organisation and links between the ISI and the Haqqanis are established. Sanctions could be imposed on Pakistan in this event.

The pressure on Pakistan is building and the writing on the wall could not be clearer. Pakistan is heading towards isolationism. Even if we admit our mistakes, like the US did, it is important to correct those mistakes. If we are taken to the UN, things would get serious. When a hardliner like Maulana Fazl starts painting a gloomy picture, it means something is definitely wrong. Maulana sahib would not say anything as alarmist as this without a reason. The policy of exporting terrorism has made Pakistan a terrorist haven. We need to adopt a two-pronged policy: flush the foreign elements out of the tribal areas and talk to the local tribes to eliminate local terrorists from our soil. This would help bring peace back in the region and change our image of a breeding nursery for terrorists. 

Hot Bridal photos of Kim Kardashian

Here are some hot bridal photos of  Kim Kardashian

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is a hammer-blow to al-Qaeda, and a reminder of how British campuses host extremists

By Michael Weiss
Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born al-Qaeda cleric, has just been killed in Yemen, according to both Yemeni defence ministry and US officials. This represents the harshest blow to al-Qaeda’s global movement since the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May. Although not a military strategist or commander of Bin Laden’s stature, Awlaki’s importance as a charismatic "procurement agent" for al-Qaeda, and as an ideologue for global jihadism, can be seen in his influence of several infamous lone wolf terrorists. These include Nidal Malk Hassan, the US army major who murdered 13 of his fellow soliders and wounded 29 others at the Ford Hood military installation in late 2009; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian UCL graduate who tried to detonate a bomb woven into his underwear on a Detroit-bound airliner two Christmases ago, and Faisal Shahzad, the abortive Times Square bomber.
Click here for more details

Obama dubs Al-Awlaki 'External Operations' Chief for Terror Group

President Obama used a more formal title to refer to Anwar al-Awlaki, as he announced the Al Qaeda leader was killed Friday morning in Yemen.

Al-Awlaki typically had been described as an operational planner with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But Obama said Friday that he was the leader of "external operations" for the Al Qaeda affiliate.

As such, Obama said, the U.S.-born radical cleric "took the lead" in planning attacks on Americans and called on others to take part in the "murderous agenda."

One intelligence official told The Washington Post the designation is not new and that CIA analysts have used that title for al-Awlaki for a while.

Al-Awlaki was killed in a CIA-led drone strike on his convoy in Yemen early Friday.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/obama-dubs-al-awlaki-external-operations-chief-for-terror-group/#ixzz1ZSneaVvH

Anwar al-Awlaki reported killed in Yemen

Yemeni defense officials said today -- and officials in the Obama administration confirmed -- that radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed this morning in the Yemeni province of Jawf, reportedly by a U.S. jet and drone attack. Al-Awlaki was believed to play an important role in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and has been linked to a number of terrorist plots in the West in recent years; Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in July that eliminating Awlaki was one of his top two goals (NYT). Samir Khan, another American-born AQAP member and the suspected producer of the group's English-language magazine Inspire, is reported to have been killed alongside Awlaki
More detail of the Story at FP

APC: an exercise in futility

An All-Parties Conference (APC) was held on Thursday at Prime Minister Gilani’s call to discuss Pak-US relations in view of recent events. Admiral Mike Mullen’s statement against the ISI irked Pakistan to such an extent that it led to war hysteria in the media. Mr Mullen openly blamed the ISI for supporting the Haqqani network. Pragmatically, the White House did not endorse Mr Mullen’s statement, which helped restore Pak-US relations to some extent. There were hardly any expectations from the APC given that our politicians had already resorted to ‘tough’ statements and warnings to the US in case of an attack. It was as if the civilian leadership wanted to give a stamp of approval to the military’s strategy. The APC was attended by at least 56 political leaders and the army top brass, including army chief General Kayani. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and Director General (DG) ISI, Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha briefed the APC participants. “There are other intelligence networks supporting groups that operate inside Afghanistan. We have never paid a penny or provided even a single bullet to the Haqqani network,” said General Pasha. After hours of deliberations, the APC was able to come up with a 13-point joint declaration. ‘Give peace a chance’, most likely inspired by John Lennon’s famous song, was declared to be “the guiding central principle henceforth” in the unanimously passed resolution. The APC “rejected the recent assertions and baseless allegations made against Pakistan” and affirmed the nation’s “full solidarity and support for the armed forces of Pakistan in defeating any threat to national security”. This is quite interesting given that the armed forces’ flawed security and foreign policies have landed Pakistan in the current mess.
While most of the APC participants were there only to pay lip service to the so-called ‘consensus’, there were a few dissenting voices at the APC. PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif reportedly asked some tough questions and pointed out that there is no smoke without fire. Mian sahib addressed a press conference yesterday confirming those reports. “I talked in the moot about our internal weaknesses and called for introspection. We must ask ourselves whether we are at fault…we should admit our mistakes,” Mr Sharif told the media. He also said the government should reveal the terms of engagement between the US and Pakistan. Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party’s Mehmood Achakzai reportedly told General Pasha that peace can be achieved in Afghanistan within a month if the ISI wanted.
Barring Mr Sharif and Mr Achakzai, the performance of our political leadership at the APC was shameful. What was even more shameful was how representatives of the minorities were not even invited to the APC. The boycott of the APC by the Baloch nationalists made the exercise seem less credible. The APC resolution smacks of an ostrich-like approach. The political class let the army and its intelligence agencies off the hook once again. Disastrous policies adopted by the military top brass for decades have created problems for Pakistan internally and externally. Thus Mr Sharif and Mr Achakzai’s remarks were lauded by the saner voices in Pakistan. We must stop pretending as if everything is hunky-dory with our policies and the fault only lies with others. Pakistan’s India-centric security and foreign policies have not deterred India’s influence in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In fact, it has risen due to our self-defeating policies. If we really want to give peace a chance, we should stop interfering in Afghanistan through proxies and let the Afghans take care of their own problems. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent statement should be given due consideration: “I think Pakistan is paying a heavy price for the mistakes of the 1970s by linking religion with politics and developing religious schools which are, in some cases, dangerous sources of extremism.” It is indeed time for serious introspection.

Friend turns foe

Tensions are high and a relationship that was fragile right from its onset seems ready to crumble. Pakistan and the US are at verbal daggers drawn and one cannot help but worry where the current trend will take us. Statements being issued by the US have taken on an accusatory tone and those given by Pakistan to counter them are of denial. However, it is the extreme change in stance that should really be making Pakistanis unsettled. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has, in no uncertain terms, declared Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) as a body that uses militants - the Haqqani network - as an instrument to wage a proxy war against the US. He has, in a statement to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned Pakistan’s ISI for “exporting” terror. These are strong words. They are stronger still if you consider that Mike Mullen has been a staunch advocate of keeping Pakistan close as an ally and acknowledging it as a friend of the US, especially in these dire times. It is Mike Mullen who has been at the forefront of keeping the Pak-US alliance intact, especially through his relationship with COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his many meetings with the Pakistani military commander.
However, now Mullen is at the forefront of accusing Pakistan’s ISI of playing double games. He has unequivocally stated that Pakistan is now staring at the very real possibility of isolating itself from the international community and limiting its influence in the region. Statements from the likes of Interior Minister Rehman Malik denying these charges and nudging the Americans to “prove” their allegations are tantamount to giving them a reason to go on an all out offensive. No one is now ready to believe that Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment has not played a double game with the US and, some would say, the Pakistani nation. Couple that with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s taut response to Mullen’s statement that the US stands to lose an ally by alienating Pakistan - to the US’s own cost - and you have the stage set for a confrontation.
Whilst Rehman Malik may deliver his usual spiel about “boots on the ground” not being allowed, the US does not need Malik’s permission. One can see just how important the issue of our sovereignty was when the May 2 operation was conducted in Abbottabad:. Our intelligence had not a clue till the Navy SEALS had entered and taken out their target. Once boots on the ground do arrive, there will be no more room for manoeuvre. Even if the prospect of American troops within our borders seems far farfetched, there are many ways the US can harm our national interests. Besides the possibility of stepping up drone attacks on more than just directed targets, the US may carry out its own military operations in the border areas if they locate the Haqqani network and other such militants. When we fail to justify being called an ally of the Americans, they will take matters into their own hands. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani needs to consider which sovereignty he is talking about when he issues statements about it not being compromised. The US Congress has already attached conditions to the next tranche of aid, one of them being our ability to tackle the Haqqani threat.
We are dancing on the edge of a precipice and seem ready to fall over. We must revisit our position before we reach a stage in this war where the US looks at us in hostility. Keeping up support for our so-called proxies to limit Indian expansion is a bet we have lost, according to Mullen. It is time we realise that our time for dual policies is up and that the game is reaching a worrisome end - for us.

Palestinian statehood bid

US President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Palestinians’ statehood bid at the UN was hardly a surprise. Long before he took the podium to address the UN General Assembly (UNGA), it had become obvious from guarded official and not so guarded unofficial comments that the US, as usual, was going to stand by its ally Israel, right or wrong. To stave off a looming diplomatic disaster, since the Palestinian bid has evoked a great deal of sympathy and support from the UNGA, Obama and the Israeli government coordinated wonderfully in suggesting bilateral talks were the only path to a solution that offered the Palestinians a state in return for security for Israel. Have bilateral, trilateral or even multilateral talks yielded anything in the last two decades? Not for the Palestinians, although Israel has used stalling tactics to buy time and create new ‘facts on the ground’ (e.g. expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank). Arguably, Israeli intransigence and repression have rendered the Oslo Accords dead in the water. Since these were premised on a ‘two state solution’, that has left Israel holding all the cards, occupied and expanding territory, a US-supplied arsenal that would be the envy of any great power, and a blank cheque from Washington for all other, economic, etc, needs.
Obama has predictably disappointed his liberal supporters the world over. The Cairo speech attempting to build bridges with an alienated Muslim world is a distant memory, while the Israeli lobby and the foreign and security policy establishment has encircled Obama and forced him to relinquish any notions of ‘change’ he may have carried initially into office. Between Washington and Tel Aviv, therefore, it has been business as usual, with nary a hiccup, the mild but quickly quelled disagreement over new settlements being drowned in the roaring reception Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was accorded in the US Congress on his last visit.
The Palestinian side was expected to submit its statehood recognition request to the UN Security Council (UNSC) today, although reports were swirling that the US might conjure a last minute reprieve for itself and its satrap. This could only mean some carrot (and perhaps stick) to cajole the Palestinians to retreat, even though threatening noises from the US Congress to cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority seem to have had the opposite effect of what was intended. If the Palestinian bid proceeds as planned, and the US vetoes it in the UNSC, the Palestinians can still salvage “observer state” status by approaching the UNGA. That too would amount to a diplomatic and political advance for the Palestinian cause. Whether the bid succeeds or not, it has already put the US and its cat’s paw Israel on the diplomatic mat. Ironically, while the Palestinians suffer daily repression, evictions and humiliation at the hands of the Israeli state, the oppressor seeks ‘security’ for itself! To equate the pin pricks of the occasional crude rocket attack from Gaza with the bloody track record of the Zionist entity would be laughable were it not such a grave and continuing tragedy. The Arab world’s repeated betrayals of the Palestinian cause have left Israel sitting pretty and the Palestinians having perforce to rely on themselves. Unfortunately, the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas has weakened the voice of the Palestinians. It would be in their own interest to subsume their internal differences to the greater good of their common cause, although that seems unlikely at present.
Pakistan must support the Palestinian statehood recognition bid to the fullest extent. If the Muslim world and other countries that adhere to international norms of justice add their voices to the growing chorus demanding an end to Israel’s depredations and occupier logic, perhaps the Palestinians may still have their day in the court of the world’s peoples.

'G Free Diet' secerts of Elizabeth Hasselbeck

The View's outspoken host  shares tips from her new book, "The G Free Diet." Here is the review of her collection.

Rosie O'Donnell vs. Elisabeth Hasselbeck Cat Fight!

Back to square one

Sunday marked the tenth anniversary of the dastardly terrorist attacks on American soil, which resulted in the death of almost 3,000 people. US President Barack Obama and former president George W Bush went to the site of the September 11 attacks and paid tribute to the victims. A terrorist attack in any part of the world must be condemned unequivocally. The world stood by the Americans in their hour of grief. They all agreed that the perpetrators of these heinous attacks must be punished but there was a difference of opinion even then on how the US should go about it. That 9/11 changed the world is common knowledge. What remains to be seen is whether the measures used to avenge 9/11 were appropriate or not.

With hindsight we can say that the US invasion of Afghanistan following Mullah Omar’s refusal to hand over al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer. The fly got away from Tora Bora, only to be found almost 10 years later in Abbottabad. But the virus it left behind is something that leaves no country in the world unaffected. What went wrong in these 10 years that led the world from being with the US to an increasing anti-Americanism worldwide, especially in the Muslim world? To say that this is only because of religious affiliations is wrong. The sense of solidarity in the Muslim world is largely cultural, not religious. What imperialism has done to the third world is a historical fact and continuing reality. The memory of humiliation awakens and is refreshed every day for the victims of imperialist interventions (past and present). The anti-colonial movements were led by the local elites, who turned out to be a disappointment for their followers later on. Even revolutionary nationalist movements failed as their leaders turned out to be corrupt and morally bereft. Extremists filled the vacuum of a lack of leadership in the Muslim world and used religion to advance their agenda. Following the US invasion of Afghanistan, the extremists got an added advantage: now they had reason to justify their fanaticism. The means applied to resolve the al Qaeda conundrum were used without weighing the consequences, intended or unintended. On the eve of 9/11’s tenth anniversary, 77 American soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan as a result of a suicide bombing. It shows how the US is back to square one: the promise to usher in a new dawn of democracy in Afghanistan turned out to be nothing but a damp squib. The western forces now have to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban in order to ensure some semblance of normality post-troops withdrawal (a precarious enterprise at best).

While paying tributes to the victims of 9/11, the world should not have forgotten millions of innocent lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries. They were the consequent victims of this war. They too were human beings, they too had families, yet the world does not mourn or commemorate their deaths. Pakistan’s Foreign Office said that Pakistan is severely affected by terrorism. Despite our security establishment’s double-edged policy of supporting the jihadis and the Taliban, the real victims of terrorism are the common citizens of this country. There is a need for introspection for the western world as well: those responsible for war mongering and war crimes are still free. George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair, among others, should be punished for their crimes. But it seems that our world is not based on the rule of law; justice is only of and for the powerful.

9/11 and all that

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11 today, much introspection is taking place on the meaning and impact of that seminal event. Despite successes against al Qaeda, in particular the degrading of its terrorist capabilities by taking out Osama bin Laden (OBL) and many of the top leaders of the organisation, cautionary voices can be heard arguing that the struggle against terrorism is far from over and there is little room for complacency. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed to a credible, new, but still unconfirmed threat to the US on the eve of the anniversary. Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair too chimed in with the statement that the post-9/11 battle was not over. Some context needs to be recalled.

The decade 1991-2011 could be looked back at with the benefit of hindsight as arguably providing the momentum that led to 9/11 in the midst of historic changes and developments. The first Iraq war of 1990-91 saw foreign, particularly US forces, deployed for the first time on Saudi soil. This event is widely believed to have alienated OBL from his home country and its monarchy, and impelled him to seek ways and means to combat American worldwide hegemony. This project led him from Sudan back to his original battlefield against the Soviets, i.e. Afghanistan, now ruled by the Taliban. From his base there, OBL stands accused of planning 9/11. The American response in the shape of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq crippled the neo-con American century project, in the process eroding due process and civil liberties at home and abroad, the latter witnessing the recourse to rendition and torture of suspects. However, whatever success or lack of it attended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they had the unintended consequence of spreading the al Qaeda franchise further abroad, increasing the threat of the terror network beyond its original support base. Western interventionism found a new lease of life (which continues), while the checks and balance provided in world affairs by the USSR-led communist camp during the cold war ended with a whimper when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. The assassination of redoubtable Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud in Afghanistan just two days before 9/11 has been considered by many as the prelude to and preliminary strike by al Qaeda in preparation for the 9/11 attacks. The purpose perhaps was to ensure the strengthening of al Qaeda’s hosts, the Taliban’s grip on Afghanistan.

While there is little quarrel with the assertion that 9/11 changed the world almost beyond recognition, it is perhaps too early to grasp all the ramifications of that change. After all, if the cautionary voices mentioned above are correct, and there is weighty evidence that they are, the struggle against the ideology that al Qaeda represents is continuing, even while it spawns affiliates and draws to its banner a diverse array of religious extremists worldwide. Of all the countries most affected by 9/11 and its aftermath, in order of destruction, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan probably enjoy pride of place. We in particular have been hoist by our own petard, our support to the export of jihadi extremism having returned to haunt us with a vengeance. While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are seeing an incremental drawdown and withdrawal of foreign troops, the problems they leave behind will not so easily go away. In particular, Afghanistan’s endgame is poised delicately at the cusp of a possible return to the corridors of power, albeit partial, in Kabul of the Taliban. This spells risks not only for the Afghan people, but also for Pakistan’s security if the nexus of the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban strengthens the latter’s ability to operate from Afghan soil against Pakistan’s security. Ironically, our military establishment’s quest for that will-o-the-wisp, ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, may end up in the strategic pit of increased threats to Pakistan’s own security.

Democracy in the dock

It seems that Pakistani politicians have a profound love for theatrics. Zulfiqar Mirza’s explosive press conference on August 28 made headlines but the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) responded to Dr Mirza’s hard-hitting allegations with restraint, which was quite a departure from the MQM’s usual method of rebuttal. MQM leader Faisal Sabzwari responded to Dr Mirza’s press conference on August 30. That was not the end of it. On Tuesday night, MQM leader Mustafa Kamal held another press conference and appeared on a private television channel later to deny all allegations levelled at the MQM by Dr Mirza. “The negative and biased thinking and acts of accusing the MQM and Quaid-i-Tehreek Altaf Hussain of indulging in anti-Pakistan activities should be stopped forthwith in the interest of the country and its people,” said Mr Kamal. He was of the opinion that Dr Mirza’s views were not part of the Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP’s) official policy, something the PPP has also said in its defence. Mr Kamal came down hard on the media and human rights organisations for fanning anti-MQM sentiment. The MQM also criticised President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jahangir for her statement: “The MQM is the inventor of extortion while other parties followed it.” Ms Jahangir did not just single out the MQM, she also blamed other parties like the MQM-Haqiqi, the PPP and the Awami National Party (ANP) for the violence in Karachi. The MQM has a monopoly of power for the longest time in Karachi; to the extent it still wields considerable power in urban Sindh, particularly in Karachi. But now other political players are trying to garner support in order to rout the MQM. This has led to turf wars, which in turn leads to target killings and general unrest in the city.

The MQM’s response to the allegations was far from satisfactory. The Supreme Court (SC) should evaluate the evidence and decide once and for all whether these are mere rumours or there is any weight in what Dr Mirza said. The PPP, for its part, needs to conduct an operation across the board despite the fact that it might end up annoying its former and incumbent coalition partners, the ANP and the MQM. By carrying out an operation in Lyari, the PPP has already irritated its own constituency but it should not shirk its responsibility of restoring peace in the metropolis.

In all this war of words between politicians, what is being missed is an important factor. All this will benefit undemocratic forces waiting in the wings to discredit the politicians. Director-General (DG) Rangers Major-General Mohammad Ejaz Chaudhry informed the SC that the situation in Karachi was worse than that of Waziristan and a military solution was only temporary. For lasting peace, a political solution was needed. The DG Rangers is right in asking for a political solution because in Waziristan, there is one enemy: the jihadist Taliban. In Karachi, there are many shades of militants who belong to different ethnicities. When the economic and financial hub of the country descends into chaos and anarchy, politicians as a class run the risk of being rendered irrelevant in the march of history in a direction we are all too familiar with. Instead of providing a chance to the army to intervene in Karachi, all democratic forces must come together and reach a consensus on how to control the situation. Our politicians must not forget that the army would not just stop at Karachi; it might want a bigger share of the pie if things get out of hand.

Al Qaeda arrests

The Pakistan military announced on Monday the arrest of senior al Qaeda leader Younis al-Mauritani along with two other top operatives, Abdul Ghaffar al-Shami and Messara al-Shami, from Quetta. The arrests were the result of an intelligence-led operation that included elements of the FC. Younis al-Mauritani is said to be head of al Qaeda’s international operations, charged with planning and preparing attacks on the US, Europe and Australia. Such attacks would have included US economic interests such as gas/oil pipelines, power generating dams, and strikes against ships/oil tankers using explosive-laden speedboats in international waters.

Interestingly, the arrests have not only been lauded by the White House as a shining example of the common anti-terrorist goals and cooperation between Pakistan and the US, they have also been held up by Pakistan’s ISPR as resulting from the close cooperation between the intelligence services of the two countries, particularly the ISI and CIA. Now public memory is notoriously short, but not so short as to have forgotten how since 2011 dawned, the two countries, and in particular the ISI and CIA have been at loggerheads, first manifested in the Raymond Davis affair, later peaking after the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden. In this space, we had argued consistently for both sides to draw back from the brink of a seemingly hopeless incremental breakdown in relations amidst mutual mistrust, suspicions and accusations. This position was not motivated by any illusions about the two countries’ interests or their convergence/divergence. Instead it was based on the bigger picture in the struggle against terrorism, in which the stakes for both sides were so huge as to require statesmanship and restraint if the terrorists were not to have the last laugh. It is therefore gratifying to see that the logic of the situation appears finally to be reasserting itself and both sides have not only generously lauded each other’s contribution, but also the cooperation that made this breakthrough possible. The terrorists of all hues and persuasions would love nothing more than if the US and Pakistan alliance against them breaks down, naturally to their benefit. The hope is that both sides have drawn the appropriate lessons from the near debacle in their relations provoked by the adverse developments earlier this year and will use that wisdom to further the common goals of defeating the terrorist menace.

Of course there is no room to be lulled into complacency at this positive turn. The reason is the convergence (since 9/11) of interest and policy between Washington and Islamabad regarding al Qaeda and the divergence regarding the Afghan Taliban. Even under General Musharraf, Pakistan led the way in cracking down on al Qaeda and was central to the arrest of many of those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. However, it must also be said that there has been an inherent divergence in the approach to and policy towards the Afghan Taliban. Whereas Washington has tended to see the Afghan Taliban as merely an extension of their main target – al Qaeda – Islamabad, and particularly Rawalpindi has had a different take. While our military establishment was rooting out al Qaeda from Pakistani soil and transferring all operatives captured to the custody of the US over the last 10 years, it was at the same time providing safe havens and operating bases to the Afghan Taliban to fight the US and Nato forces operating in Afghanistan. And all this while acting as the main logistical conduit for the western forces in Afghanistan and also paying lip service to common goals and strategy! The duality of approach of the Pakistani military establishment, which continues to date, is at the heart of the friction in the relationship between the two allies.

A return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan would be a disaster not only for the suffering people of that country, it would arguably be a disaster for the region and the world. One, our homegrown Taliban movement would be free to operate from Afghan soil against the Pakistani state (something they have already begun through cross-border attacks from bases in Afghanistan). Two, who will guarantee that the Afghan Taliban will not allow their old ally al Qaeda to once again find a foothold on Afghan soil? And who will rescue the Afghan people from the medieval rule and practices of the Taliban again, given war weariness in the west?

Army’s ‘concern’ on Karachi

Major-General Athar Abbas, Director General (DG) Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), said that the Pakistan army felt concerned about the poor law and order situation in Karachi, just like all other people. Major-General Abbas said that it was the duty of the law enforcement agencies to conduct operations against all criminals and terrorists without discrimination as it “would help bring peace to Karachi”. According to the DG ISPR, the army was concerned over the death of innocent citizens in the metropolis and the poor law and order situation in Karachi had an impact on the whole country. So far the army had remained relatively quiet on the situation in Karachi, as it should have. Now, with Major-General Abbas’s comments, it seems that the army is once again trying to meddle in matters that are in the domain of the democratically elected government. Whether the public agrees with President Zardari’s reconciliation policy or not is a separate matter but the army’s ‘concern’ may sound to some as critical of the civilian government’s policy. The army should not have any role in such issues. This is the actual problem that the Pakistani state is faced with. Every now and then, the army – which is the most powerful institution in Pakistan – tries to undermine the civilians by asserting its authority. The army needs to stop this if it wants the country to progress. Pakistan has a parliamentary democracy whereby parliament is supreme, not the army or any other institution. All institutions of the state must remain within their constitutional parameters.

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) tried to appease the MQM by ignoring its criminal activities ever since it came to power in 2008. This policy annoyed Sindhi nationalists and the PPP’s own Sindhi constituency. It was in this context that PPP’s leader Zulfiqar Mirza gave up all party and government positions in protest and lashed out at the MQM and Interior Minister Rehman Malik. There is no doubt that the surgical operation being conducted in Karachi should be across the board and should target all those responsible for the breakdown of law and order in the city. Criminal gangs working side by side with different political parties should be nailed and penalised. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) was the party that initiated a trend of terrorist wings and torture cells in Karachi. Other political parties followed suit in order to counter the MQM’s dominance. So far, MQM-dominated areas have not been targeted by the law enforcement agencies. It is time the government forgets about annoying the MQM and does something for the public instead. Interestingly, Prime Minister Gilani asked land grabbers to vacate state land worth trillions of rupees within a month. Mr Gilani said, “People of the country in general and the people of Sindh in particular stood up against the land grabbers, extortionists, and terrorists and they would not rest till these criminals are eliminated from the province.” It is beyond comprehension why the prime minister is appealing to the land grabbers to vacate state land instead of ensuring that they do so by taking strict action against them. The people of Karachi have already suffered a lot at the hands of criminals and now they want some reprieve. Peace in Sindh, particularly in Karachi, can only be restored once the government decides to nab all those responsible for terrorising the people. 

Dushanbe summit

The quadrilateral summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, brought the presidents of four major regional powers to discuss increased cooperation in regional trade, fighting terrorism and drug trafficking, and making joint efforts for regional peace and security. Earlier in Kashgar, Xinjiang, China, President Asif Ali Zardari had mooted the idea of a revival of the historic Silk Route and the Eurasian Corridor. In its modern avatar, this would take the form of increased connectivity through modern highways, railroads and air services. Increased trade and investment would follow the development of these modern means of communication, bolstered by banking and other mutually beneficial services. The potential for good of these ideas is further underlined by the possibility of Pakistan acting as the southern leg of a trade and energy corridor, linking Gwadar Port with China, Central Asia, Russia and Europe. The dream is ambitious but doable, as underlined by Russian President Dimitry Medvedev’s remarks on regional issues, particularly Afghanistan, and the role Russia was desirous of playing in implementing the dream.

The summit communiqué emphasised the importance of accelerated training and arming of the Afghan security services in the light of the planned withdrawal of 10,000 US troops this year, another 23,000 by the end of next summer, leaving behind a 65,000-strong force, to be gradually whittled down to perhaps a residual 25,000 by 2014. Medvedev expressed the sense of the meeting when he argued for a regional solution to Afghanistan. Naturally, Afghanistan and all its neighbours are seized of the fact that with the withdrawal of the US-led coalition, the region would have to fill its shoes if Afghanistan was to be stabilised as the first step in the stabilisation of the region as a whole. This would allow the Russian interest in CASA 1000, the project to supply 1,000 MW electricity from Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to be implemented, along with the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline. Russia is attempting to recover its influence in a region it has historically had an important role in, especially in the light of the recently emerged tensions in the US-Afghan and US-Pakistan relationships, but without any direct involvement in Afghanistan, from which the Soviet Union retreated with a bloody nose in 1989. Medvedev lamented the lack of progress in these joint energy projects and committed his country to investing millions of dollars to ensure they see the light of day. As part of Russia’s policy of recovering influence in its ‘near abroad’, it has managed an extension in the agreement with Tajikistan for its military base by another 49 years.

This quadrilateral summit of Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan and Tajikistan seems to be acquiring a regular character. Last August, President Medvedev had hosted it in Sochi. Next year it is Pakistan’s turn in Islamabad. As is usual at such international moots, they provide opportunities for the participants to have bilateral discussions on the sidelines of the main action, which often are productive. For example, Presidents Zardari and Karzai took the opportunity to discuss Pak-Afghan relations, the transit trade agreement between the two countries, security and mutual cooperation. The atmospherics, body language of all the leaders and the obvious friendliness and bonhomie point to the quadrilateral process acquiring a dynamic that is the obvious need of the countries concerned, as well as the region as a whole. There is a visible tectonic shift away from the western ‘interlopers’ to regional arrangements for mutually beneficial security and economic cooperation. More power to their Excellencies’ elbows.

Sectarian warfare reignited

Two despicable terrorist attacks targeting the Shiites in Pakistan should ring alarm bells but it seems that Pakistani state is oblivious to any such warnings. On Eid day, 11 people lost their lives while more than a dozen others were injured when a suicide bomber targeted a Shia congregation offering Eid prayers in Quetta. A day later, seven Shias were killed when gunmen opened fire on a minibus on its way to Parachinar in Kurram Agency. There are not enough words to condemn the attack on a mosque on Eid day and another attack on innocent travellers on the second day of Eid. Hazara Shias in Balochistan and Shias in Parachinar have been targeted continuously by sectarian groups over the years. The resurgence of sectarian groups is alarming. In the 1980s and 90s, sectarian killings became a norm in Pakistan because of General Ziaul Haq’s extremist policies. The military and its intelligence agencies aided and abetted sectarian groups like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), among others to pursue the state’s nefarious agendas as well as their own. The Wahabi school of thought, propagated through Saudi-funded madrassas and organisations, are inherently anti-Shia. Saudi Arabia’s enmity with Shiite Iran is no secret. Wahabis have been using Pakistan to fight their proxy war against Iran and Shias in the region for decades now. Pakistani mercenary forces are presently being used in Bahrain to barbarically quell Shiite uprising.

Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agencies are very active when it comes to intimidating, harassing and killing Baloch nationalists and/or progressive elements in the country. But when it comes to protecting the Shias or religious minorities, these same forces are found wanting in their duties. It seems that our law enforcement and security agencies have turned a blind eye to the massacre of Shias in Balochistan, Kurram and elsewhere in the country despite there being a pattern of systematic attacks on Shias. The reasons behind this could be many. Either the security forces are helpless, plain incompetent or complicit in these attacks. Whatever the reasons for the security agencies’ failure in protecting the citizens of Pakistan, especially the Shias, it is beyond disgusting that the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ continues to ignore the plight of its Shias. We have seen several terrorist attacks on Shiite processions in the holy month of Muharram. Even though the state provides some sort of security during Muharram, the Shia community itself is far more vigilant than our law enforcement agencies. This is a sad state of affairs because it is the responsibility of the state to ensure the safety of its citizens, be they from any sect or religion.

Pakistani state is fast turning into one of the most intolerant societies in the world. Attacks on the Ahmediyya community, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs are usually swept under the carpet while the attacks on Shias are condemned but not much is done to counter these attacks or nail the culprits. It gives a signal of poor law enforcement and gives rise to a climate where the country is seen as a pariah state. Islam preaches tolerance but our ruling elite think that just by naming our country an ‘Islamic Republic’ we have done our service to Islam. On the contrary, by mixing religion and the state’s affairs we have made Pakistan into a quasi-theocratic state fast turning into an extremist hotbed. In order to save Pakistan from poisonous elements, the country must be turned into a pluralistic and secular state.

WikiLeaks reveals murder of Iraqi children by US troops

While this week marks the one-year anniversary since the US formally ended military operations in Iraq, a diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks unearths a gruesome incident in which Americans handcuffed and executed children during a 2006 raid.

An uncensored diplomatic cable released through WikIleaks last week shows that not only did US troops brutally execute 11 Iraqis during an incident in March of 2006, but they then ordered in an airstrike to destroy the evidence of their wrongdoing.

Up until now, officials have either downplayed or denied the event, but the latest release courtesy of Julian Assange’s whistleblower site confirms what Iraqis have accused Americans of all along.

According to the newly released cable, American troops approached a house in Ishaqi, around 80 miles outside of Baghdad, and were met with gunfire. Once the firestorm subsided, however, the soldiers entered the home and handcuffed all of the residents, including several women and children. Once bound, the US troops then shot the civilians in the head and called in an air raid.

Allegations that the incident occurred have existed ever since the event, which was dated to have happened on March 15, 2006. The recent file released in a document dump from WikiLeaks finally confirms it by way of a United Nations investigator, who questioned the incident days later.

The newly-released cable documents correspondence between Phillip Alston, the UN’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and American officials only 12 days after the raid occurred. According to the cable, Alston reached out to US officials after Iraqi civilians cried foul play and asked for a formal investigation into the matter. At the time, US officials denied they had done anything. McClatchy Newspapers reports that US military officials in Iraq dismissed allegation from the townspeople at the time, saying that their supposed eye-witness accounts were highly likely to be false and that an investigation was not necessary.

In Alston’s letter, however, the UN official states that American forces entered the house after firing at it — with support from an armed helicopter — and then executed 11 people in all. Three vehicles and the family’s animals were also destroyed.

Alston’s correspondence with US officials and analyses of the autopsy remained unpublished until WikiLeaks exposed the information last week.

Though the incident occurred over five years ago, the US has remained mostly mum on the issue. Speaking to McClatchy today, Alston says, “The tragedy is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (UN) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them."

The cable shows that the UN official was able to receive information from the autopsy of those killed, which revealed that each person in the house during the raid was handcuffed and shot in the head, including five children under the age of 5 years old and four women, one in her 70s.

Early on in the investigation, spokespeople for the US military said that an al-Qaeda-linked insurgent was located in the house and that American troops seized him from a first-floor room after a gun battle. The cables exposed by WikiLeaks, however, suggests that troops entered the house after 25 minutes of a shootout, handcuffing and shooting the residents once the coast was clear.

The cable was signed off by Col. Fadhil Muhammed Khalaf, assistant chief of the Joint Coordination Center, and cites autopsies performed at the morgue of the Tikrit Hospital. The Join Coordination Center was based in Tikrit, hometown of Saddam Hussein, and served as a security center that was founded by US military personnel and staffed by Iraqi police officers that were trained by Americans.

"We will not surrender" , says Qaddafi in audio address

Damscus-(PFP)Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi has said that the libyan nation will not surrender to the colonizers and at last we will be the victorious.The fresh audio tape was released on Syrian television,Araai, in which Qaddafi asked his loyalists to fight against the colonizers.

According to the Syrian Arrai television channel, Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in a new audio message, has called on his loyalists to rebel against colonizers, saying they will be 'victorious.'
"We will not surrender. We are not women and we are going to keep on fighting," the message said.
"Even if you cannot hear my voice, continue the resistance", Gaddafi said on the 42nd anniversary of the coup that brought him to power.
“If Libya goes up in flames, who will be able to govern it? Let it burn. They don’t want to rule Libya. They cannot rule it as long as we are armed. We are still armed. We will fight in every valley, in every street, in every oasis, and every town.”said the Qaddafi from undisclosed place.
He added: “How can we give ourselves up again? Are we women surrendering ourselves to our husbands or what?“
This address came on surface at a time when French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron are hosting delegations from 60 countries and world bodies in Paris.
The tight three-hour agenda focuses on political and economic reconstruction, but talks on the sidelines may expose early jostling for opportunities in oil and infrastructure.