Kabul should address Pakistan’s concerns on India

[fatman17]

Pakistan has gone too far down the road in the WoT to quit.

It would mean the stopping of economic and military aid, sanctions and shift in focus of those in the WoT.

That will be the reality if Pakistan does quit.

i agree with you. pakistan cannot quit the WoT. but if it did it will not be the end of the world.

 

[Spring Onion]

Here is an article from Asia Times which is not in much love with Pakistan.
It might helps you understanding Indian role in terrorism in Pakistan
------------------------------


South Asia
Nov 9, 2006



Afghanistan strikes back at Pakistan

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - After a number of recent incidents, it is emerging that for the first time since the fall of the communist regime in Afghanistan 13 years ago, Afghan intelligence, likely with foreign assistance, is active in Pakistan.
At the same time, several attacks on Pakistani military bases - the most recent a suicide attack on Wednesday morning that killed at least 35 soldiers - add to the overall volatility of the country. And this comes at a time that the top brass are gathering at



General Headquarters in Rawalpindi to make a vital decision on Pakistan's role in the "war on terror".

Last week, a car bomb ripped through the office of the inspector general of police in Quetta, the capital of southwestern Pakistan's Balochistan province. One policeman and two other men were killed.

This followed a bomb attack in Peshawar, the provincial capital of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), in which nine people were killed and more than 30 injured.

And on Tuesday, NWFP Governor Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai escaped unhurt in a rocket attack while he was addressing a council in Wana, headquarters of the South Waziristan tribal agency.

Initial investigations into the Quetta attack pointed to suspects of Afghan-Uzbek origin. A subsequent massive raid netted more than 70 Afghans, a few of whom admitted connections with Afghan intelligence.

A joint investigation team comprising Military Intelligence, Inter-Services Intelligence and the Intelligence Bureau then grilled these suspects and concluded that the sophisticated and organizational nature of the operation was beyond the known capabilities of Afghan intelligence on its own.

"KHAD [Khadamat-e Etela'at-e Dawlati, Afghanistan's secret police] was the most active agency in the region throughout the 1980s, but most of its counter-intelligence missions were assisted by the [Soviet] KGB. KHAD's external wing carried out bomb attacks in cities such as Peshawar, Quetta and Karachi, as well as assassinations of mujahideen leaders," a senior security official told Asia Times Online on condition his identity not be revealed.

"Now, no KGB services are available to Afghan intelligence, and none of the old Soviet-trained Afghan officials remain. Thus it is a matter of surprise for Pakistan to see Afghan intelligence using methods which only a few intelligence agencies, considered the best in the world, are capable of applying," the security official said without giving names but clearly hinting at British, US and Indian intelligence.

Information acquired from the suspects rounded up in Quetta and other parts of the country revealed a network working through the Afghan consulates in Karachi and Quetta, where the Afghan Foreign Ministry had attached a number of staff who were not career diplomats but activists of the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance, a mostly non-Pashtun grouping, bitterly opposed the Taliban during their rule from 1996-2001.

According to Asia Times Online contacts, during interrogation some of the suspects talked of plans for death squads to launch attacks in Karachi and Islamabad. The facilitation was to be through the Afghan consulates in Quetta and Karachi.

The death squads were to target top religious leaders considered pro-Taliban. One of the names learned by this correspondent is Maulana Noor Mohammed (a member of parliament from Quetta), in addition to some non-political clerics in the tribal and border areas.

Certainly, such killings would anger the large pro-Taliban following in Pakistan; at the same time, they would likely fuel sectarian strife in the country as the blame would fall on Shi'ites. More instability would be the obvious result.

Army in the firing line
On Wednesday, a suicide bomber blew himself up at an army parade ground in the town of Dargai in NWFP, killing at least 35 soldiers and wounding 20. Dargai is mostly pro-Taliban.

The first reaction would be to assume that this attack had nothing to do with Afghan intelligence operatives - why should they attack the Pakistani army, which is ostensibly on their side?

But if it was Afghan intelligence, as a section of Pakistani intelligence is convinced, the argument is the same as it was for the Quetta attack. In that incident the attackers selected the office of the inspector general of police because insurgents in Afghanistan target Afghan police and the Afghan National Army (ANA), in what the Afghan government calls Pakistan-sponsored attacks. So these would be tit-for-tat responses.

Wednesday's attack could also have been undertaken by al-Qaeda-linked militants. Indeed, they would be the immediate suspects. This would be because they are seeking revenge for the air attacks on a madrassa (seminary) in Bajour agency last week in which 80 people died. US drones are believed to have been involved in the attack, which officials said targeted militants.

Further, the militants would want to sabotage peace deals between Islamabad and the tribal areas. North and South Waziristan recently concluded deals under which the army would withdraw in exchange for the tribals stemming the flow of militants across the border into Afghanistan. Bajour agency was on the brink of signing such a deal when the air attacks came. Shifting tides
According to Asia Times Online contacts, the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan (HIA) led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, once the favorite of Pakistan's groups, has come out into the open in southwestern Afghanistan in a form of alliance with local Afghan governments. Gulbuddin has been considered an important player in the Taliban-led insurgency.

HIA commanders have taken control of many villages and towns. Here they have hoisted HIA flags alongside those of the local Afghan administrations, which are already filled with former HIA members. Hekmatyar has already signaled for a deal with the Afghan administration in Kabul.

Certainly Hekmatyar would not have changed his attitude toward foreign forces in Afghanistan and still demands that they announce a schedule for leaving. But Hekmatyar has always been against killing ANA or members of the police. The present arrangements in parts of the southwest between the HIA and Afghan administrations are purely local and not between North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and the HIA.

Nevertheless, this is an important development and a positive one from Kabul's point of view.

At the same time, a number of Baloch insurgents, including top commanders of the Baloch Liberation Army, are in Kabul - again, for the first time since the fall of the communist regime in Afghanistan in 1992. The Pakistani government has been battling an insurgency in Balochistan province for many years. The last thing it would want is the insurgency to receive support - moral or any other form - from Afghanistan.

Pakistan's choices
Pakistan has been walking between the devil and the deep blue sea ever since it signed on to the "war on terror" in 2001 after ditching the Taliban.

It has constantly been criticized by Washington and Kabul for not doing enough to root out al-Qaeda militants and Taliban elements in its territory, while at the same time President General Pervez Musharraf has drawn open hostility (including assassination attempts) from militants, clerics and even sections of the armed forces.

As stated above, Pakistan recently tried to bring some security to the semi-autonomous tribal areas by signing agreements with the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan and South Waziristan, and was about to strike one with Bajour.

Pakistan tried to convince Washington that such deals would be beneficial to the "war on terror", but Washington thought just the opposite, with visions of a vast uncontrollable zone emerging in Pakistan as the strategic backyard of the anti-US movement in Afghanistan. Thus the widespread conviction that the US took matters into its own hands by launching the Bajour attack.

Apparently, Musharraf wanted to follow up this action with further attacks on suspected militants, but was dissuaded from doing so by his top brass, who argued for reconciliation with the Taliban at all costs.

As a result, Musharraf is back to square one with regard to Washington and the Taliban: he just doesn't know which way to turn. The reports of Afghan counter-intelligence activity in Pakistan make the decision all that much more difficult.

Boiled down, Pakistan has three choices, all of them tough:


Go head-to-head with Pakistan's militants and face intense instability in which Afghan intelligence would be ready to play its part;

Strike a Waziristan-like deal with militants and face Washington's wrath in the shape of more air strikes and other conspiracies, including even a coup;

Reassess its whole policy in the region and come up with something that would allow Islamabad once again to gain friends in Kabul as well as keep its Western allies happy.

According to reports from Waziristan, a new video by al-Qaeda leader Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri will be released soon in which he will call for a global jihad against the US and its ally, Pakistan.

Against this background, Pakistan's top brass will debate the options above. Whichever path they choose, it will have a defining influence on the "war on terror".

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

 

[Goodperson]

why would India support Mujahideen in the first place ??
As Mujahideen were never against Pakistan.
India only supports anti-Pakistan elements. as far your consulates these are eight and in such areas where these are not at all required with no government or dimplomatic activity in place.

These Indian consulates are involved in carrying terrorist activities inside Pakistan and it was also clear from this statment of Interferth that US should address Pakistan concerns in this regard.

And as far activities being in the open, its a biggest concern we expressed that US is looking away from the sinister activities of India in Afghanistan.

I have been reading views of some pakistani press and leaders accusing India about Balochistan but one would like to read no Pakistani media reports on the same.

Afghanistan problem is not Indian consulates or Northern Alliance not but the very Mujahideens (Taliban) or Taliban supported Al Quida now even Pakistan is feeling the heat of Taliban.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Back to the topic,

Inderfurth's comments, and a US shove to get Kabul moving on these issues would be extremely helpful in toning down tensions between the two countries. The whole business of Indian influence, (coupled with the post Soviet distrust between the parties in power in Kabul and Islamabad), and India's support in the aftermath of Pakistani independence to help Afghanistan forment some sort of Pashtun separatist movement in Pakistan, result in several very valid concerns for Pakistan that need to be addressed.

 

[S-2]

You point to, probably, the issue.

The entire network is insidious, ages old, and deep. Were men of goodwill to come forward aplenty to govern and administer in Afghanistan, it will still be a multi-decade process of reversing the layers of criminal decay that's endemic.

Nobody's fooling themselves on guys like Fahim or Dostum. They're sh!ts when it gets down to it. In fact, most every competing outside nation with some half-baked agenda in Afghanistan has their "special" proxy reps of equally dubious ilk. Karzai, amazingly, seems to possess little (if any) significant personal stink. As such, he remains not a half-bad choice to govern the nation.

Yet he's limited and even if not, shouldn't serve forever. It's just another repeated problem with emerging nations. One man, one vision, one monolithic lock-step agenda. No real plurality.

These are HUGE concepts for a nation one step removed from the stone-age and still waddling like a baby-deformed and malnourished at that.

Rant over.

 

[Goodperson]

Here is an article from Asia Times which is not in much love with Pakistan.
It might helps you understanding Indian role in terrorism in Pakistan
------------------------------


South Asia
Nov 9, 2006



Afghanistan strikes back at Pakistan

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - After a number of recent incidents, it is emerging that for the first time since the fall of the communist regime in Afghanistan 13 years ago, Afghan intelligence, likely with foreign assistance, is active in Pakistan.
At the same time, several attacks on Pakistani military bases - the most recent a suicide attack on Wednesday morning that killed at least 35 soldiers - add to the overall volatility of the country. And this comes at a time that the top brass are gathering at



General Headquarters in Rawalpindi to make a vital decision on Pakistan's role in the "war on terror".

Last week, a car bomb ripped through the office of the inspector general of police in Quetta, the capital of southwestern Pakistan's Balochistan province. One policeman and two other men were killed.

This followed a bomb attack in Peshawar, the provincial capital of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), in which nine people were killed and more than 30 injured.

And on Tuesday, NWFP Governor Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai escaped unhurt in a rocket attack while he was addressing a council in Wana, headquarters of the South Waziristan tribal agency.

Initial investigations into the Quetta attack pointed to suspects of Afghan-Uzbek origin. A subsequent massive raid netted more than 70 Afghans, a few of whom admitted connections with Afghan intelligence.

A joint investigation team comprising Military Intelligence, Inter-Services Intelligence and the Intelligence Bureau then grilled these suspects and concluded that the sophisticated and organizational nature of the operation was beyond the known capabilities of Afghan intelligence on its own.

"KHAD [Khadamat-e Etela'at-e Dawlati, Afghanistan's secret police] was the most active agency in the region throughout the 1980s, but most of its counter-intelligence missions were assisted by the [Soviet] KGB. KHAD's external wing carried out bomb attacks in cities such as Peshawar, Quetta and Karachi, as well as assassinations of mujahideen leaders," a senior security official told Asia Times Online on condition his identity not be revealed.

"Now, no KGB services are available to Afghan intelligence, and none of the old Soviet-trained Afghan officials remain. Thus it is a matter of surprise for Pakistan to see Afghan intelligence using methods which only a few intelligence agencies, considered the best in the world, are capable of applying," the security official said without giving names but clearly hinting at British, US and Indian intelligence.

Information acquired from the suspects rounded up in Quetta and other parts of the country revealed a network working through the Afghan consulates in Karachi and Quetta, where the Afghan Foreign Ministry had attached a number of staff who were not career diplomats but activists of the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance, a mostly non-Pashtun grouping, bitterly opposed the Taliban during their rule from 1996-2001.

According to Asia Times Online contacts, during interrogation some of the suspects talked of plans for death squads to launch attacks in Karachi and Islamabad. The facilitation was to be through the Afghan consulates in Quetta and Karachi.

The death squads were to target top religious leaders considered pro-Taliban. One of the names learned by this correspondent is Maulana Noor Mohammed (a member of parliament from Quetta), in addition to some non-political clerics in the tribal and border areas.

Certainly, such killings would anger the large pro-Taliban following in Pakistan; at the same time, they would likely fuel sectarian strife in the country as the blame would fall on Shi'ites. More instability would be the obvious result.

Army in the firing line
On Wednesday, a suicide bomber blew himself up at an army parade ground in the town of Dargai in NWFP, killing at least 35 soldiers and wounding 20. Dargai is mostly pro-Taliban.

The first reaction would be to assume that this attack had nothing to do with Afghan intelligence operatives - why should they attack the Pakistani army, which is ostensibly on their side?

But if it was Afghan intelligence, as a section of Pakistani intelligence is convinced, the argument is the same as it was for the Quetta attack. In that incident the attackers selected the office of the inspector general of police because insurgents in Afghanistan target Afghan police and the Afghan National Army (ANA), in what the Afghan government calls Pakistan-sponsored attacks. So these would be tit-for-tat responses.

Wednesday's attack could also have been undertaken by al-Qaeda-linked militants. Indeed, they would be the immediate suspects. This would be because they are seeking revenge for the air attacks on a madrassa (seminary) in Bajour agency last week in which 80 people died. US drones are believed to have been involved in the attack, which officials said targeted militants.

Further, the militants would want to sabotage peace deals between Islamabad and the tribal areas. North and South Waziristan recently concluded deals under which the army would withdraw in exchange for the tribals stemming the flow of militants across the border into Afghanistan. Bajour agency was on the brink of signing such a deal when the air attacks came. Shifting tides
According to Asia Times Online contacts, the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan (HIA) led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, once the favorite of Pakistan's groups, has come out into the open in southwestern Afghanistan in a form of alliance with local Afghan governments. Gulbuddin has been considered an important player in the Taliban-led insurgency.

HIA commanders have taken control of many villages and towns. Here they have hoisted HIA flags alongside those of the local Afghan administrations, which are already filled with former HIA members. Hekmatyar has already signaled for a deal with the Afghan administration in Kabul.

Certainly Hekmatyar would not have changed his attitude toward foreign forces in Afghanistan and still demands that they announce a schedule for leaving. But Hekmatyar has always been against killing ANA or members of the police. The present arrangements in parts of the southwest between the HIA and Afghan administrations are purely local and not between North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and the HIA.

Nevertheless, this is an important development and a positive one from Kabul's point of view.

At the same time, a number of Baloch insurgents, including top commanders of the Baloch Liberation Army, are in Kabul - again, for the first time since the fall of the communist regime in Afghanistan in 1992. The Pakistani government has been battling an insurgency in Balochistan province for many years. The last thing it would want is the insurgency to receive support - moral or any other form - from Afghanistan.

Pakistan's choices
Pakistan has been walking between the devil and the deep blue sea ever since it signed on to the "war on terror" in 2001 after ditching the Taliban.

It has constantly been criticized by Washington and Kabul for not doing enough to root out al-Qaeda militants and Taliban elements in its territory, while at the same time President General Pervez Musharraf has drawn open hostility (including assassination attempts) from militants, clerics and even sections of the armed forces.

As stated above, Pakistan recently tried to bring some security to the semi-autonomous tribal areas by signing agreements with the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan and South Waziristan, and was about to strike one with Bajour.

Pakistan tried to convince Washington that such deals would be beneficial to the "war on terror", but Washington thought just the opposite, with visions of a vast uncontrollable zone emerging in Pakistan as the strategic backyard of the anti-US movement in Afghanistan. Thus the widespread conviction that the US took matters into its own hands by launching the Bajour attack.

Apparently, Musharraf wanted to follow up this action with further attacks on suspected militants, but was dissuaded from doing so by his top brass, who argued for reconciliation with the Taliban at all costs.

As a result, Musharraf is back to square one with regard to Washington and the Taliban: he just doesn't know which way to turn. The reports of Afghan counter-intelligence activity in Pakistan make the decision all that much more difficult.

Boiled down, Pakistan has three choices, all of them tough:


Go head-to-head with Pakistan's militants and face intense instability in which Afghan intelligence would be ready to play its part;

Strike a Waziristan-like deal with militants and face Washington's wrath in the shape of more air strikes and other conspiracies, including even a coup;

Reassess its whole policy in the region and come up with something that would allow Islamabad once again to gain friends in Kabul as well as keep its Western allies happy.

According to reports from Waziristan, a new video by al-Qaeda leader Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri will be released soon in which he will call for a global jihad against the US and its ally, Pakistan.

Against this background, Pakistan's top brass will debate the options above. Whichever path they choose, it will have a defining influence on the "war on terror".

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

The article tries to say Afgan Intelligence with foreign support, I do not see anything other than below allegation

the security official said without giving names but clearly hinting at British, US and Indian intelligence.

 

[fatman17]

India, if indeed, is getting superior aircraft fro, the US, it is because they are paying CASH and not getting AID! A cash paying customer gets the discount and not those who are on tick!

my dear fellow - pakistan is paying CASH for its new F-16s. it is not AID. further pakistan pays CASH for all the upgrades on the EDA items given to pakistan (which is AID). without the upgrades they are obsolete.

 

[Spring Onion]

The article tries to say Afgan Intelligence with foreign support, I do not see anything other than below allegation

the security official said without giving names but clearly hinting at British, US and Indian intelligence.

Only Ostrich natured people can not read between the lines dear.

 

[fatman17]

my dear fellow - pakistan is paying CASH for its new F-16s. it is not AID. further pakistan pays CASH for all the upgrades on the EDA items given to pakistan (which is AID). without the upgrades they are obsolete.

....furthermore, the US$ 10B paid to pakistan is mostly for services rendered since 2001 for logistical support provided by pakistan (bases, fuel, fuel-trucks, food and water etc) for OEF.

there is a US AID component used for other less than high-profile items.eg: SP guns, C-130s, Radars etc.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Rant away - I know the feeling, unfortunately.

Given recent events in FATA under Kayani, I am hopeful that our policy with respect to the Taliban is moving on a bit of a different direction, against factions that refuse to show any flexibility whatsoever, despite our concerns about who is in Kabul and their agenda. While that does nothing to change the NA attitudes, it may help in eliminating one source of instability, and in the absence of the hardline Taliban, the Pashtun areas might actually become a harbinger of good governance and change.

 

[Goodperson]

Only Ostrich natured people can not read between the lines dear.

No personal attacks lady, Couldn't you find a better article since you yourself claim to be journalist ?

Anyway I am not interested to discuss further with you.

 

[Majnun]

and who is Kabul currently ??

The Norther Alliance, the Karzai.

Northern Alliance is Indian stoog with regard to Pakistan, It is getting funds and backing from India to carry terrorism inside Pakistan.
About Karzai well he also has no love for Pakistan pluse all the sabotage activities from Afghanistan hacth by India are carried out under the very nose of USA.

Hence interferth needs to tell US that she should stop the policy of looking towards otherside when Afghanistan is being used against Pakistan by India and Northern Alliance.

I agree. Actually, Afghanis are friendly with Pakistan, except for the Northen Alliance. Northern Alliance has been in power too often.

 

[Majnun]

and who is Kabul currently ??

The Norther Alliance, the Karzai.

Northern Alliance is Indian stoog with regard to Pakistan, It is getting funds and backing from India to carry terrorism inside Pakistan.
About Karzai well he also has no love for Pakistan pluse all the sabotage activities from Afghanistan hacth by India are carried out under the very nose of USA.

Hence interferth needs to tell US that she should stop the policy of looking towards otherside when Afghanistan is being used against Pakistan by India and Northern Alliance.

I agree. Actually, Afghanis are friendly with Pakistan, except for the Northen Alliance. Northern Alliance has been in power too often.
They are the only anti-Pakistan Afghani government.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Given recent events in FATA under Kayani, I am hopeful that our policy with respect to the Taliban is moving on a bit of a different direction, against factions that refuse to show any flexibility whatsoever, despite our concerns about who is in Kabul and their agenda. While that does nothing to change the NA attitudes, it may help in eliminating one source of instability, and in the absence of the hardline Taliban, the Pashtun areas might actually become a harbinger of good governance and change.

I differ with you in this regard Agno,

People might not admit it but Taliban are still being backed by Pakistan ISI and MI and PA establishment. But some are not undercheck and are renagades and playing in the hands of the west. There is no union of Taliban so to speak, like one gets a feeling of. Foreign elements fighting all over the world can be found in these areas. As it was the paradise for the people who wanted training for Jihad and were sent to all the lenghts of the world with the support of ISI and Saudi money. No matter what one feels at the moment about them, rest assured, GOD willing we will see US backed NA not getting hold of Afghanistan. It is not in slightest interest of Pakistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

my dear fellow - pakistan is paying CASH for its new F-16s. it is not AID. further pakistan pays CASH for all the upgrades on the EDA items given to pakistan (which is AID). without the upgrades they are obsolete.

I wouldn't know, but this article should indicate the position.

Pakistan Denies Misusing US Anti-Terror Aid
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
December 26, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Reports claiming that U.S. aid money sent to Pakistan for anti-terror operations has been used for other purposes -- including weapons systems designed to counter long-time foe India -- are causing a stir in the region, and playing into Pakistan's election campaign.

Pakistan's government denied a Christmas Eve report in the New York Times alleging that much of the $5 billion in counter-terror aid sent to Islamabad in recent years had not gone to military units fighting al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Sadiq told Pakistani media the U.S. report, which cited unnamed administration and military officials, was baseless and concocted.

Officials cited in the report said the money, provided through the post-9/11 Coalition Support Funds (CSF) program, set up to reimburse key allies for conducting anti-terror military operations, was not reaching the troops who need it, especially in the restive tribal areas adjoining the border with Afghanistan.

The New York Times report has been carried widely this week in India, a longstanding rival that has fought three wars against Pakistan since winning independence from Britain in 1948.

Two of the three wars were over Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim territory divided between the two and claimed by both. Peace talks that began in 2004 have eased tensions between the two, but distrust still runs deep.

The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said the alleged squandering of U.S.-provided funds exposed corruption and the failure of oversight by what it called a "rubber stamp" parliament in place under the military government.

"This is an insult to the brave soldiers of Pakistan who have always upheld their commitment to safeguard the country's borders," PPP Information Secretary Sherry Rehman told Pakistani media.

"The PPP is clear in its anti-terrorism stand and will work towards empowering the parliament, the public and the military to work jointly against the menace of terrorism," she said.

Pakistan is preparing for parliamentary elections on January 8, following a year marked by political turmoil, a now-lifted state of emergency and an unprecedented spate of suicide bombings.

Bhutto, who returned from exile to lead the PPP in the campaign, told an election rally on Tuesday that terrorism and extremism had spread across the country since Musharraf seized power eight years ago in a military coup.

If President Pervez Musharraf's critics blamed the government over the New York Times report, others were furious at the suggestion that Pakistan wasn't pulling its weight in the Americans' eyes.

Pointing to the surge of violence against Pakistani civilians and troops in recent months, the Frontier Post of Peshawar said in an editorial, "This war might have secured the United States. But it has palpably made Pakistan a bleeding target of terrorism."

The New York Times was not the first to make the allegations. Early last month, the Los Angeles Times carried a similar report, claiming "rather than use the more than $7 billion in U.S. military aid to bolster its counter-terrorism capabilities, Pakistan has spent the bulk of it on heavy arms, aircraft and equipment that U.S. officials say are far more suited for conventional warfare with India, its regional rival."

That report focused on Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which U.S. officials said were poorly equipped and armed as they faced well-armed Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

Also last month, Rick Barton of the Center for Strategic and International Studies discussed a new CSIS report on the issue in a National Public Radio interview.

"We found that the Pakistani military has been using that [CSF] money and the majority of our direct military assistance for the purchase of high-tech weaponry such as the F-16 fighters," Barton said.

"It appears that the Pakistani military is continuing to arm more for its confrontation with India than it is for the war on terror because these weapons really don't have that much application for the kinds of low-grade persistent Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda fighters that you find in the Northwest part of Pakistan."

As of December 24, 54 suicide terrorism attacks had been reported in Pakistan this year, 34 of which were against military targets, ten against police and ten against civilians, according to security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a press briefing last week that al-Qaeda "seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people."

Pakistan Denies Misusing US Anti-Terror Aid -- 12/26/2007

Therefore aid money is being used for purchase of F 16.

If that is not aid, then what is?

India, on the other hand, is buying with her OWN money!