Saving Pakistan

[Neo]

Saving Pakistan ​

By Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

It is a wrong assumption that the Taliban will again become friendly to Pakistan if it gives up its support to the US-led war on terrorism. The Taliban have an anarchist agenda that aims at dismantling the Pakistani state

The debate continues unabated on militancy in the tribal areas and how the United States should cope with its spillover in Afghanistan. Official circles in Washington hint at resorting to unilateral military action in the tribal areas against the backdrop of intensified military challenges to American and NATO troops from Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, and the overall deterioration of the security situation in southern Afghanistan.

It may appear quite reasonable to some US military strategists to take unilateral military action in the tribal areas, including the use of ground troops. There is no guarantee that such an action can eliminate militancy in the area. Rather, it may worsen the situation and increase American losses. The US should balance the need to control militancy in the tribal areas with the importance of stability in Pakistan. Any major unilateral US military action in the tribal areas will destabilise Pakistan, which will in turn undermine the US goal of controlling militancy and ensuring stability in Afghanistan.

Despite the current distrust between Pakistan and the US on coping with militancy in and around Pakistan, they will have to work together to address these problems.

American talk of unilateral action unnerves the Government of Pakistan, which is already faltering in addressing acute internal political and economic challenges. Top Pakistani officials attempt to salvage their credibility by declaring that no foreign country will be allowed to undertake military action on Pakistani territory. These statements sound hollow to those who remember periodic US air-strikes and, at times, limited ground offensives in the tribal areas. Any new American offensive will add to the problems of the Pakistani government in the domestic context.

Pakistan is using diplomatic channels to dissuade the US from taking unilateral military action. Its Foreign Minister, Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, visited the US last week to convince American policymakers that Pakistan views the war on terrorism as its own war and that Pakistan is determined to control extremism and militancy. His spirited defence of Pakistani policy was weakened by the statement of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on July 14 on the possibility of “Nine-Eleven-like attacks” on the West from the tribal areas and he admitted that Uzbeks, Chechens and other foreign militants were based there.

Pakistani officials are unable or unwilling to explain why and how these elements have become so entrenched in the tribal areas that many people talk of the spectre of another 9/11.

The war on terrorism is so closely identified with the US that a good number of politically active circles in Pakistan, especially those with strong Islamic orientations, do not view it as serving Pakistan’s interests. Their worldview is so coloured by anti-America sentiments that they are unable to comprehend the fast increasing threat of extremism and militancy to civic order and stability in Pakistan. This worldview was partly modified in the aftermath of the Red Mosque incident when the Taliban and affiliated groups resorted to suicide attacks in parts of the Pakistani mainland; some of them began to view Islamic hardliners as a threat to the Pakistani state and society.

However, there are still people in Pakistan, including some in the military and civilian official circles, who consider Pakistani security operations against militants in the tribal areas and the Red Mosque the sole reason for increased violence. They view Taliban violence as a reaction to the use of force against them by Pakistan and the US rather than a strategy to establish their hegemony in the name of Islam.

Some, including those with military backgrounds, describe militancy as the instrument of the weak to challenge a powerful adversary and they describe suicide attacks as defensive moves by the Taliban, who do not possess advanced military equipment.

Pakistan’s civilian leadership, military and intelligence cannot cope with the challenge of extremism and militancy without developing a categorical consensus that Taliban-type elements constitute the main threat to Pakistan’s existence as a coherent and effective state. Religious fanaticism and violent enforcement of a narrow interpretation of Islam will tear apart Pakistani society to such an extent that it will not be able to sustain itself as a collective social entity.

Pakistan’s salvation lies in working towards an egalitarian, pluralist and democratic political order that derives ethical inspiration from the teaching and ideals of Islam. Pakistan has to identify with and practice Jinnah and Iqbal’s vision of a homeland for the Muslims that gave equal status to the followers of other religions.

Pakistan’s survival depends on functioning as a nation-state in an inter-dependent international system. Some extremist groups cannot be allowed to hijack Pakistan to pursue their narrow and bigoted agenda.

The political circles have to first develop a consensus among themselves on the dangers of religious extremism and violence. This will make it easy for them to mobilise the people in favour of a tolerant, plural and democratic socio-political order.

People have to be sensitised to a number of issues. First, no individual or group has the right to enforce Islam by coercive means. None of the Taliban leadership is a known Islamic scholar who understands Islamic teachings and principles in their true spirit and recognises diversity in the interpretation of Quranic verses and Shariah.

Second, no group can establish a state within the Pakistani state and resort to public executions, extract money for protection or doing business in the region, kidnap for ransom and dispatch young boys as suicide bombers.

Third, Pakistan should not allow its territory to be used by any group for challenging established authority in a neighbouring state. The principle of sovereignty applies equally to Pakistan and other states.

Fourth, the time has come to finally give up the esoteric notions of ‘territorial depth’, ‘militancy as an instrument of the weak’, ‘militants as the vanguard of the Pakistan military’, and that the Taliban are now contesting the Pakistani state because it is pursuing the American agenda in the region. It is also a wrong assumption that the Taliban will again become friendly to Pakistan if it gives up its support to the US-led war on terrorism. The Taliban have an anarchist agenda that aims at dismantling the Pakistani state.

One of the Pakistani Taliban leaders, Baitullah Mehsud, is said to have delivered an ultimatum to the NWFP government to resign in five days or face his wrath. This shows that the Taliban are determined to confront the Pakistani state because they have learnt from experience that the Pakistani state caves in to their demands. If these trends continue, the Taliban will soon demand the withdrawal of federal administrative and security presence from the tribal areas.

The federal government and the military/intelligence authorities should adopt a determined and unambiguous approach to cope with the militancy challenge. However, the federal government has lost most of its momentum due to its failure to work along with its political partners on restoring the ousted judges and deciding the future of Musharraf. If the political forces continue to drift in different directions, they may not be able to cope with the current challenges to the Pakistani state and may lose the initiative either to the military or to the Taliban.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[martialLAW]

Any significant country in the world has its extremists . . . Europe has its anti-federalists, Russia its ultra-nationalists, China its expansionists and India its paranoid fringe.

The United States, ofcourse, has its neoconservative 'headbangers' that have created havoc on the eastern flank of Pakistan, illegally invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 muslims, operated "rendition" programmes around the world that have tortured thousands, operated illegal facilities like Guantanamo Bay and numerous other sanctuaries outside any national+international law, suspended habeas corpus and circumvented the US contstitution.

I contend that American [neocon] extremists are far more dangerous to Pakistan and the world than the Pakistani variety that Dr Rizvi is so upset about. The American neocons have enjoyed power and patronage for a generation, they wear suits and ties and have access to the most powerful and extensive range of WMD in the world. The Pakistani Taliban cannot compete with this type of [secular] neo-imperalist extremism.

The Pakistani Taliban are no threat to Pakistan . . . they have faithfully served Islamabad on many occasions and have a better appreciation of Pakistani national interests than Dr Rizvi and the civilian coalition government put together. The Taliban wish to see Islamabad cease its support of The War On Terror . . . a key objective that is supported by the vast bulk of Pakistanis - moderate or extremist. Dr Rizvi may not recognise it, but, a consensus exists amongst Pakistanis for their country operating an independent foreign policy that serves the nations interests and not the expansionist and hegemonic objectives of Washington.

In short, it is not the Taliban that is a threat to Pakistan, but, a distorted and warped analysis of Pakistani interests that seeks to maintain the American Raj in Islamabad and the nations [true] interests subordinate to an imperial superpower.

 

[JK!]

The Pakistani Taliban are no threat to Pakistan . . . they have faithfully served Islamabad on many occasions and have a better appreciation of Pakistani national interests than Dr Rizvi and the civilian coalition government put together.

You have a rather twisted view of the Pakistani Taliban considering the Pakistani Taliban kill Pakistani Soldiers, kill civilians, destroy schools and have conducted many suicide bombings.

 

[muse]

The need for clear thinking about the war on terrorism



Monday, July 21, 2008
Khalid Aziz

Many years ago I attended a class on international trade and which was discussing the inequity in the terms of trade between the rich and the poor nations; between those who produced technological goods and those that produced agricultural commodities. During the heated discussion I made an immature comment to my dour Scottish professor, “The West should be ashamed for giving a bad deal to the poor nations of the world.” He retorted, “So what?” I infuriatingly mumbled in anger, “If I had the ability I would nuke you.” He smiled and said, “Now you make sense and in that case we will negotiate a fair price for primary commodities, since you could de-stabilize us.” That conversation 28 years ago has left an indelible impression on my mind and is a good guide about the real politics of international relations.

Pakistan is facing a similar situation today. It is a nuclear power yet it is fast losing control over parts of her territories because of the pressure applied on her to sacrifice her security for peace in Afghanistan. Should we be paying that price? Finding answer to this and other similar riddles is essential for our future security. I feel that we are in the midst of events that are generating plenty of emotion leading to confused thinking on a whole range of security concerns that makes an average Pakistani fearful of his future. Some of my fellow writers are adding to the confusion.

For example some argue that the militants are fighting the US for the protection of Afghanistan’s Islamic identity; it is also argued that the Taliban are keeping the US away from the energy resources of Central Asia. Others add that the actions of the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan have prevented the US from attacking Iran. According to this convoluted thinking the Taliban are credited with being the bulwark against US domination of the region. Can we please stop and think what that is doing to Pakistan?

Even the barbaric practices of the Taliban are rationalized away by saying, “… (That) the Taliban became vicious because of the treachery and violence they had to suffer.” I wonder what sort of justification is that for slaughtering and murdering captives or persons belonging to a different sect of Islam. Will the US be permitted to use the same argument as defense for the death of innocent people who become victims of collateral damage?

A second type of muddled thinking arises when viewing the militants as fighters against US imperialism. A corollary of this argument is that in doing so the militants are preserving Pakistani independence against the imperialists. Even if I accept this argument, how would the supporters of the militants justify the killing of Pakistani security personnel who are trying to secure the writ of the state? Recently, a whole contingent of the frontier constabulary was ambushed in Hangu and more than 19 men were killed after they refused to surrender. Was their slaughter in any way a strike against an imperialist power? To me the only result is Pakistan’s destabilization.

I also fail to understand how the militants will succeed in their war against the US by burning girls’ primary schools by the dozen or torching a tourist resort in Swat. Other instances of kidnapping of polio vaccinators and doctors also abound. The militants are against education of females thus preventing them from becoming doctors or teachers; yet at the same time they demand that males should not provide services to women. If they are going to prevent the education of the girl child how will female service providers created? If the militants succeed in coming to power in FATA or NWFP what would life be like under their rule and what model of governance will they follow? What type of existence will it be for the people? To answer these questions one has to note how they ruled first Kandahar and latter Afghanistan in 1996.

Within 24 hours of taking over Kabul the Taliban imposed their version of the strictest Islamic system. All women were banned from work including those in the civil services, teaching and health-care system. Girl schools and colleges were shut affecting 70,000 students. A strict dress code for women was ordered and 25,000 families who were headed by widows of the Afghan wars, lost their bread winners; their families became destitute! TV, radio, satellite broadcasts, music and games were all outlawed. Sharia courts with the religious police peering into the personal lives of people were instituted. Politics and political parties were banned because as Mullah Wakil, Mullah Omar’s secretary said, “The Sharia does not allow politics or political parties.”

The first thing is to be very clear about the nature of the threat facing us. It is convenient to say that it is the work of a religiously driven group. It is and it is more. What we have under the loose classification of Taliban is a group of diverse militant groups with separate histories. Their origins lie in state manipulation to undertake proxy wars and who have now coalesced into a critical mass. According to a report in early June, fighters from the Kashmiri Jihadi groups including representatives of Lashkar-e- Tayyaba, Jaish and Hezbul Mujahideen met and agreed to prioritize fighting foreign troops in Afghanistan rather than in Kashmir. This is a momentous decision for NWFP, FATA and Afghanistan; it will cause destabilization in Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, since Pakistan has a larger institutional base it will be more harmful to Pakistan.

The US reports a 40 per cent increase in Taliban attacks in Afghanistan this year as compared with 2007. For two months in a row, the deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan exceed those in Iraq. Recently the US lost nine soldiers in one attack in Kunar, which was conducted by Hikmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami and the Jaish e Muhammad. While we regret the US losses we forget to lament our own!

In Fata and NWFP the situation is deteriorating rapidly. One indicator is the decision taken by the ANP in NWFP recently to reorganize their party’s security arm - the Nanglalay Pukhtun and morph it into peace and development committees. The re-organization is based on mobilizing rural communities. The ANP historically has rarely taken recourse to arming except on a limited scale when the Maoist Mazdoor Kissan party under Maj Ishaq in the 1970’s challenged the landlords who are the ANP’s main supporters in Hashtnagar and Mardan. This region is the Pukhtun’s intellectual and political heartland and to which its party leadership belongs. The party has taken the risk of challenging the cells of the Islamists which are sprouting like mushrooms throughout the province – they are armed, funded and motivated. This is no ordinary decision. The party feels threatened. If the ANP program fails then we will see a rapid takeover of the Peshawar – Mardan valley in the weeks to follow.

It is thus evident that the militants are neither fighting imperialism nor permitting peace to prevail; they are slowly destroying the only nuclear power in the Muslim world. On the other hand there is ambivalence, confusion and ambiguity within our security apparatus the like of which has never been witnessed before. The political leadership is too divided to arrest the downslide that is gaining momentum with each passing day. There is not only an absence of policy but a failure to realize the gravity of the situation; it is critical. One wonders if there can be any other outcome other then the de-stabilization of Pakistan. Thus the real question to answer is whether Pakistan ought to be sacrificed for Afghanistan? It is time for clear thinking and quick actions.

The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research. Email: azizkhalid **********

 

[martialLAW]

Dr Rizvi and Khaled Aziz both make the same mistake in their analysis . . . they isolate what is happening in Afghanistan [and its affects on Pakistan] from the global US-sponsored War On Terror.

The second mistake they make is to treat the deterioration in security as a militia problem . . . the same militias that existed in the country for decades and were used as arms of Pakistani foreign policy in Kashmir and against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Why are they being accused of destabilizing the country by Dr Rizvi and Mr Aziz now !?

Unfortunately, the religious elements in Pakistani society [like the mainstream elements] have a realistic view about US foreign policy . . . which is shared by people throughout the Muslim World. Unlike the politicians in a discredited political system in Islamabad, they are not 'pragmatic' about cooperating with an imperial agenda that they know to be unsustainable and damaging to Pakistan.

When we are talking about barbarity in our present age . . . the images from Abu Ghraib prison and orange jump suits from Guantanamo Bay have become symbols of American imperialism and its brutality. Its the reason why poll after poll has shown muslim hostility towards US foreign policy and its hegemonic nature . . . Dr Rizvi and Mr Aziz are a minority species in the Muslim World.

 

[martialLAW]

Dr Rizvi and Khaled Aziz both make the same mistake in their analysis . . . they isolate what is happening in Afghanistan [and its affects on Pakistan] from the global US-sponsored War On Terror.

The second mistake they make is to treat the deterioration in security as a militia problem . . . the same militias that existed in the country for decades and were used as arms of Pakistani foreign policy in Kashmir and against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Why are they being accused of destabilizing the country by Dr Rizvi and Mr Aziz now !?

Unfortunately, the religious elements in Pakistani society [like the mainstream elements] have a realistic view about US foreign policy . . . which is shared by people throughout the Muslim World. Unlike the politicians in a discredited political system in Islamabad, they are not 'pragmatic' about cooperating with an imperial agenda that they know to be unsustainable and damaging to Pakistan.

When we are talking about barbarity in our present age . . . the images from Abu Ghraib prison and orange jump suits from Guantanamo Bay have become symbols of American imperialism and its brutality. Its the reason why poll after poll has shown muslim hostility towards US foreign policy and its hegemonic nature . . . Dr Rizvi and Mr Aziz are a minority species in the Muslim World.

 

[muse]

Editorial: Al Qaeda and suicide-bombing

In an extraordinary TV interview, the third senior-most leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Mustafa Abu Yazid alias Sheikh Saeed, has said something that should stop Pakistan’s numberless and mindless “conspiracy” theorists from spreading the word that 9/11 was done by the Jews. Speaking to a Pakistani TV channel, Sheikh Saeed stated that the 9/11 attack on the US was carried out by 19 men of Al Qaeda and that Pakistan did a dastardly thing by handing over the “courageous” Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and many others, to America. He also said that suicide-bombing was allowed under Islam and declared those clerics who outlawed it as “lackeys of the government”.

Sheikh Saeed, who heads Al Qaeda’s operations in Afghanistan, is Egyptian in origin and spent three years in jail along with the second senior-most man of Al Qaeda, Aiman Al Zawahiri. The Pakistani journalist taken from Karachi to visit his stronghold was spotted by a Palestinian “studying” in Karachi but in fact devoted to jihad. The journalist was told that he was taken to the province of Khost in Afghanistan where he met the Al Qaeda operational chief. Curiously enough, the Pakistani reporter did not ask him about the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto, a “job” admitted by an Al Qaeda spokesman immediately after the killing.

Sheikh Saeed was aggressive about the validity of suicide-bombing but balked at accepting the attempt at the life of the ex-interior minister, Mr Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, inside a mosque. He denied that Al Qaeda had tried to kill Mr Sherpao. Again, curiously enough, the reporter did not ask if it was involved in the second attempt that did not take place inside the mosque. Possibly because he doesn’t want to incur Al Qaeda’s wrath again, Mr Sherpao himself says the culprits behind those attacks were the intelligence agencies of India and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

But in Karachi, the senior-most cleric of Pakistan, Maulana Rafi Usmani, insists that suicide-bombing is not permissible in Islam if it kills innocent people, particularly innocent Muslims. Indeed, he echoed the fatwa of 52 Pakistani ulema in 2005 who said that suicide-bombing was anti-Islamic. Al Qaeda had condemned this fatwa then, followed by many ulema of Pakistan who threatened the issuers of the fatwa. However, Sheikh Saeed was weakest in his argument when he justified the collateral damage of innocent people in New York after the attack by Al Qaeda in 2001. He said American citizens had to die because they had re-elected President George Bush. The fact is that George Bush invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 (2001) whereas he was re-elected in 2004. The people killed as collateral damage were therefore innocent. There were other weak points in the argument of Sheikh Saeed.

Those who vote in the American elections contain people belonging to both the government party and the opposition. Sheikh Saeed may not accept democracy in so far as it allows opposition in elections and in parliament, but the fact is that those who got killed on 9/11 belonged also to the party that did not elect President Bush. The fact is that the re-election of 2004 was closely fought and it is quite possible that, by a rule of thumb, half of the people whom Al Qaeda killed on 9/11 were opposed to President Bush. Therefore the bitter truth is that Al Qaeda is more responsible for lethal collateral damage of Muslims than the invading Americans. In Pakistan, the attacks mounted by Al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed hundreds of innocent people.

Mr Sherpao thinks there are three streams of terrorists in Pakistan. There are two branches of the Taliban, the Afghan and the Pakistani, and Al Qaeda with an inner core of Arabs who protect foreigners like Uzbeks, Chechens and Tajiks, etc. He also added the fourth element: common criminals posing as warriors of Islam. Sheikh Saeed set apart the Arab component when he said that the suicide-bombing of the Denmark embassy in Islamabad was carried out by an Arab from Saudi Arabia. He seemed to imply that other such bombings could be the “independent” work of other non-Arab outfits. Curiously, again the reporter did not ask him about the line of command established between Al Qaeda and its affiliates by the statement of threat by Aiman Al Zawahiri after the storming of a mosque in Islamabad and the spate of suicide-bombings that followed that statement.

Al Qaeda probably sits athwart the Afghan-Pakistan border. And one reason its leaders have not been tracked down may be the support of the people they live among and their general disapproval of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, the fact of the dwindling writ of states on both sides of the Durand Line doesn’t help matters.

 

[muse]

With the editorial above it becomes clearer that as part of a deliberate, well thought out strategy, AL-Qaida will goad the enemies of Pakistan to attack Pakistan and so doing Al-Qaida seeks to replace the Pakistani State: Some Pakistanis will protest this suggestion, but I am sure the "democractic government" will invite them to discuss "grievances"


Al-Qaeda's got a brand new bag
By Pepe Escobar

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaeda is back - with a vengeance of sorts. Listen to Mustafa Abu al-Yazeed - a senior al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan, in a very rare interview with Pakistan's Geo TV, shot in Khost, in eastern Afghanistan.

"At this stage this is our understanding - that there is no difference between the American people and the American government itself. If we see this through sharia [Islamic] law, American people and the government itself are infidels and are fighting against Islam. We have to rely on suicide attacks which are absolutely correct according to Islamic law. We have adopted this way of war because there is a huge difference between our material resources and our enemy's, and this is the only option to attack our enemy."

The interview is not only about defensive jihad. Yazeed delves into classic al-Qaeda strategy - inciting a cross-border Taliban jihad against the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces and blasting a state, in this case the government of Pakistan. According to him, "Sadly, it is the government of Pakistan which has most damaged our cause. President [Pervez] Musharraf violated the trust of Muslims and contributed to the destruction of the Islamic government of Afghanistan ... Musharraf and his government have made big mistakes, there is no such example in other Islamic states."

Yazeed also said al-Qaeda was responsible for the suicide car bombing on the Danish Embassy in Islamabad in early June, when six people were killed.

So why is al-Qaeda feeling so emboldened to have one of its top commanders on camera - and on a foreign TV network to boot, not as-Sahab, al-Qaeda's media arm?

I want my emirate

Jihadis now assess that the new Afghan jihad - against the "infidel" US and NATO troops combined - is more important at the moment than Iraq. So in this sense, Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has got it right - Afghanistan, and not Iraq, is "the central front in the war on terror".

But it's much more complicated than that. The central front is actually in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda basically wants a pan-Islamic caliphate. The neo-Taliban, based in Pakistan, are not that ambitious. They already have their Islamic Emirate - it is in the Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. What they want most of all is to expand it. They also know they would never stand a chance of taking over the whole of Pakistan. A Pakistani expert on the tribal areas, currently in Washington, describes it as "a class struggle - almost like an evolving peasant revolution. Baitullah Mehsud [the neo-Pakistani Taliban leader] is but a peasant from a poor family."

What is startling is that the neo-Taliban are now practically in control of North-West Frontier Province on the border with Afghanistan - whose capital is fabled Peshawar. They already control several Peshawar suburbs.

The Pakistani state has virtually no power in these areas. The Taliban enforce strict sharia law. If local security people refuse to obey, they are simply killed. No wonder the neo-Taliban now have subdued scores of middle- and low-ranking Pakistani officials. They even issued a deadline to the new secular and relatively progressive regional government to release all Taliban prisoners - or else. As for the government, the only thing it can do is to organize some sort of neighborhood watch to prevent total Taliban supremacy. This state of affairs also reveals how the Pakistani army seems to be powerless - or unwilling - to fight the Taliban.

Across the border, in Kunar and Nuristan provinces in Afghanistan, the Taliban now control almost all security checkpoints. No wonder Yazeed - speaking for al-Qaeda, envisions a war without borders. He said, in his Geo TV interview, "Yes, we cannot separate the tribal area people from Afghanistan which are part of Pakistan and the Pakistani people. Yes, we are getting support from tribal people in Pakistan, and in fact it is obligatory for them to render this help and it is a responsibility that is imposed by religion. It is not only obligatory for residents of the tribal regions but all of Pakistan."

In a recent high-profile al-Qaeda meeting in Miramshah in North Waziristan, the al-Qaeda leadership made it clear it not only expects - it wants the new Afghan war/jihad to spill over to the tribal areas in Pakistan.

And this is what al-Qaeda will get - according to what Obama told CBS News' Lara Logan, "... what I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, then we should."

The Pentagon for its part is preparing the battlefield - it has already sent Predator drones, repeatedly, over the tribal areas. An air war is in the works - not to mention scores of Pentagon covert special ops.

Al-Qaeda's strategy is to suck in the US military - this is classic Osama bin Laden ideology, according to which the US should be dragged to fight in Muslim lands. Al-Qaeda is reasoning that an attack on the tribal areas, in fact a real third front in the "war on terror" (so dreaded by chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen) will have Pakistani public opinion so outraged that the Pakistani army would be powerless to follow the US track. And al-Qaeda, in the end, would be left with an even freer hand.

Obama and Osama

How does that fabled phantom, bin Laden, fit into this strategy? Is he alive or just ... a phantom? Hassan Ibrahim from al-Jazeera television recently told independent journalist Kristina Borjesson "bin Laden is alive. The kidney failure and dialysis machine stories are nonsense, CIA rumors. In 2002 one of his wives was interviewed for a Saudi magazine and she categorically denied the dialysis story. After Tora Bora [in Afghanistan when the US invaded in 2001], his fourth wife asked for a divorce. He took on a new wife in April 2005, with whom he now has a son. Her father is a powerful Saudi businessman from Hejaz who announced in his mosque that his daughter had married bin Laden."

There's also chatter in the jihadi underground related to an ongoing theological debate with direct participation by bin Laden.

Obama for his part still cannot have grasped the full, complex, picture of what is going on the tribal areas - in his current world tour he's only been to Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, and only for a few hours. But he's on a learning curve - although, for the moment, he seems to be playing to the US military establishment galleries, pledging to add 10,000 US combat troops to the Afghan theater of war. Al-Qaeda will be delighted.

What Obama has certainly accomplished for now is a certified three-pointer - turning George W Bush administration and neo-conservative rhetoric about the "war on terror" in Iraq upside down and applying it to Afghanistan. Obama has been emphasizing the "growing consensus at home that we need more resources in Afghanistan".

In his press conference in Jordan, Obama also emphasized his decision to make Afghanistan the first stop on his world tour because it's the "central front in the war on terror," the place "where 9/11 was planned" and where "terrorists" are "plotting new attacks against the United States".

And here's the clincher - straight out of the neo-con playbook, "We have to succeed in taking the fight to the terrorists." But that's not all. Obama's political jiu-jitsu has mixed this hardcore rhetoric with a global, multilateral vision - not to mention forcing Republicans to accept his own take on the "war on terror". As for the tribal areas, he projects the impression he is allowing himself time to fully understand their complexity.

So what's left to self-described national security expert and Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain? Well, he did manage to tell ABC's Diane Sawyer the new al-Qaeda and Taliban configuration is "a very hard struggle, particularly giving the situation in the Iraq-Pakistan border".

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

 

[fatman17]

there are four issues currently playing out in the north-western areas.

1. sectarian violence in the khurram agency.
2. talibanisation of swat valley.
3. militants holed out in FATA, attacking afghanistan as well as pakistan.
4. the criminals taking advantage of the aforementioned three.

what the govt. is trying to do is kill all 4 with 1 stone. this is not possible and not correct.
it requires a different approach and strategy for all 4 issues.

no.1 requires dialogue between the factions to address their greviances.
no.2 requires the establishment of the govt. writ in a peaceful manner.carrot and stick approach.
no.3 requires a concentrated and effective military solution.direct action by the PA.
no.4 requires the police to ensure that these criminal elements are caught and locked up.

 

[muse]

fatman

Indeed, each challenge with it's own dynamic. Have you ever considered that Taliban may be characterized as maoists in Islamist garb??

It is amazing to me how few people realize what Al-Qaida's own state strategy is : Get U.S. to attack a muslim country, trap the U.S. into a prolonged terror war -- the reason behind this strategy is to turn the population against the government by suggesting the government is U.S. dupe or lackey and it is Al-Qaida that are the real muslims.

"Al-Qaeda's strategy is to suck in the US military - this is classic Osama bin Laden ideology, according to which the US should be dragged to fight in Muslim lands. Al-Qaeda is reasoning that an attack on the tribal areas, in fact a real third front in the "war on terror" (so dreaded by chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen) will have Pakistani public opinion so outraged that the Pakistani army would be powerless to follow the US track. And al-Qaeda, in the end, would be left with an even freer hand"

"Yazeed delves into classic al-Qaeda strategy - inciting a cross-border Taliban jihad against the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces and blasting a state, in this case the government of Pakistan. According to him, "Sadly, it is the government of Pakistan which has most damaged our cause. President [Pervez] Musharraf violated the trust of Muslims and contributed to the destruction of the Islamic government of Afghanistan ... Musharraf and his government have made big mistakes, there is no such example in other Islamic states."

Jihadis now assess that the new Afghan jihad - against the "infidel" US and NATO troops combined - is more important at the moment than Iraq...
But it's much more complicated than that. The central front is actually in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda basically wants a pan-Islamic caliphate. The neo-Taliban, based in Pakistan, are not that ambitious. They already have their Islamic Emirate - it is in the Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. What they want most of all is to expand it. They also know they would never stand a chance of taking over the whole of Pakistan. A Pakistani expert on the tribal areas, currently in Washington, describes it as "a class struggle - almost like an evolving peasant revolution. Baitullah Mehsud [the neo-Pakistani Taliban leader] is but a peasant from a poor family

 

[niaz]

Dr Rizvi and Khaled Aziz both make the same mistake in their analysis . . . they isolate what is happening in Afghanistan [and its affects on Pakistan] from the global US-sponsored War On Terror.

The second mistake they make is to treat the deterioration in security as a militia problem . . . the same militias that existed in the country for decades and were used as arms of Pakistani foreign policy in Kashmir and against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Why are they being accused of destabilizing the country by Dr Rizvi and Mr Aziz now !?

Unfortunately, the religious elements in Pakistani society [like the mainstream elements] have a realistic view about US foreign policy . . . which is shared by people throughout the Muslim World. Unlike the politicians in a discredited political system in Islamabad, they are not 'pragmatic' about cooperating with an imperial agenda that they know to be unsustainable and damaging to Pakistan.

When we are talking about barbarity in our present age . . . the images from Abu Ghraib prison and orange jump suits from Guantanamo Bay have become symbols of American imperialism and its brutality. Its the reason why poll after poll has shown muslim hostility towards US foreign policy and its hegemonic nature . . . Dr Rizvi and Mr Aziz are a minority species in the Muslim World.

Real barbarians are the Taliban who kill scores of innocents in suicide bombings in Pakistan every other day? I have no qualms about whatever they do in the US or Afghanistan but why use Pakistan territory and kill Pakistanis? Is this how one reciprocates the support Pakistan gave them against their war with the Northern alliance?

There is no rationale for justifying Taliban attacks on Pakistani soil with what is being done to them by the US in Guantanomo bay or in the Abu Gharib prison. You have no sympathy for Pakistanis being killed by these terrorists; your heart bleeds only for Taliban?

IMO the problem is that many in Pakistan hate Americans with justifiable reasons. Since Taliban are defying US, they really admire them and willing to overlook their terrible deeds.

In one of the Capital Talk shows; most of the participants were in awe of the Al-Qaeda. One even mentioned that they have 'Jazba' so they can do it in an admiring sort of way.

We have very learned Forum members who started a new thread implying that Al Qaeda was not involved in 9/11 despite the fact that an Al Qaeda leader ( Sh. Abu Yazid) openly admitted it in an interview. Many Pakistanis who are supportive of Taliban; cannot find in heart to condemn whatever atrocities these people commit. Their error is that in their hate towards US, they are unable to realize harm being done to Pakistan.

I ask just one question to all Taliban lovers. Do you love Pakistan or not?

If you love Pakistan, how can you justify Islamists such as Baitullah Mahsood or Lal Masjid thugs creating a state within a state and openly defying writ of Pakistan gov't and giving ultimatum to NWFP Govt?

While on one hand you don’t find it in your heart to condemn suicide bombers killing Pakistanis; at the same time you claim to love Pakistan? You have to choose either one.

I don’t claim to be a better patriot than anyone else, but for me any one who harms Pakistan; regardless of who is running the country as I refer to the State not any party; is an enemy and Talibans are one. It is flabbergasting when very rational people justify that these attacks by Taliban as a reaction. For Heaven Sake! If you openly defy govt's writ and insist on imposing your views (blowing up girl's schools for example) what do you want GOP to do? Just twiddle their thumbs.

I am sorry for this emotional outburst; but when it comes to Pakistan's future as a State and people insist that it is night despite the sun being out, what is one to do?

 

[fatman17]

^^^muse,
i dont disagree with you, but i am very poor looking at things from a philasophical perspective. i see things in back & white, right or wrong. i guess it has to do with my military upbringing.

 

[muse]

Niaz

Just wanted to say "Excellent, excellent post" - if that is an emotional outburst lets have a lot more of it - the post was an expression clear headedness and honesty.

fatman

a google search for a document known as either "Management of Barbarism" or Management of Savagery" - A AQ document, authored by an AQ "wala" will offer some insight into the strategy.

 

[muse]

"International community speaks out both sides"


UNHCR wants extension in Afghan refugees’ stay
By Zulfiqar Ali

PESHAWAR, July 26: The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has called for allowing Afghan refugees to stay in Pakistan for at least four more years.

According to a senior government official, the UNHCR has cited various reasons, ranging from the worsening security situation to lack of shelter in the war-ravaged Afghanistan, for seeking the extension.

“The UNHCR has urged the government to review its policy regarding Afghan refugees,” he said.

He said the UN agency wanted four to five years’ extension in the period of stay for the Afghans possessing the Proof of Registration (PoR) cards issued in 2006.

He said the proposal was likely to be discussed by the tripartite commission comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan and the UNHCR.

After granting the extension, he said, the government should renew the PoR cards which would expire by the end of 2009.

However, a spokesman for the UN refugee agency declined to confirm or deny that the proposal had been made and said that the UNHCR was discussing issues and problems related to the refugees.

“UNHCR’s stance is that Pakistan should understand the ground realities and look beyond 2009 because it is not possible to repatriate 1.8 million refugees in one year,” the spokesman said.

He said that under the tripartite commission agreement, voluntary repatriation of the refugees should be sustainable and gradual.

Official sources, meanwhile, said that the government had allowed the National Database Registration Authority (Nadra) to modify the PoR cards from next month and include the children born after 2006. The government issued cards in 2006 to 2.2 million Afghans counted in the 2005 census.

These cards of three-year validity recognise the bearers as Afghan citizens temporarily living in Pakistan.

According to official figures, 83 percent of the Afghans living in Pakistan are Pakhtuns.

The official said that the voluntary repatriation process was considerably slow and most of the refugees were reluctant to return to their homeland.

The main reason, they said, was growing insurgency and lawlessness in their country, particularly in provinces adjacent to Pakistan.

According to UNHCR figures, 33,793 Afghan families (177,327 individuals) returned to Afghanistan under the voluntary repatriation programme since March.

Last year, about 364,000 refugees had returned, but about 1.8 million registered Afghans are still in the country.

The official said that on an average 80 to 90 families were leaving Pakistan daily after receiving the financial assistance of $100 per individual from the UN refugee agency.

He said that repatriation from refugee camps in the NWFP was slower than from urban areas. The reason, they said, was the growing cost of living in urban areas.

 

[niaz]

Article published in todays Dawn.

Unlike Urdu Press which is full of pro Taliban articles;I find that English Press in Pakistan been consistantly sane and moderate in their outlook. IMO the main problem in Pakistan is lack of will to tackle extremism head on. A case in point is that GOP is against re-incarnation of Jamia Hafsa, however they lack the will to stop them by force. Understand that classes have restarted at the same place in tents! How can writ of government prevail if they cant even stop people ignoring the same in the Capital!





Taliban’s propaganda



AS indicated by the International Crisis Group in a recent report, an important reason behind the success of the Afghan Taliban is the ability of the extremist Islamic movement to effectively harness its communication skills. Thus the Taliban are able to cover up their own deficiencies while influencing local populations in a manner that Kabul is not able to counter successfully. A dextrous mix of the old (‘night letters&#8217 and the new (DVDs and the Internet) and the availability of Taliban spokesmen at all hours has, unfortunately, not seen the Karzai government respond forcefully. Moreover, while the basic motive to replace the Afghan administration with a Sharia-based order shows limited foresight, the Taliban have proved themselves adept at spreading their message with a degree of confidence and sophistication. No wonder the ICG has called upon Kabul to reinforce its own communication skills to effectively counter the Taliban strategy of enhancing the insurgency’s legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

But words alone are not sufficient to win the people over. The Taliban have been helped by appalling socio-economic conditions, increasing violence and lawlessness, and disenchantment with the foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Kabul government, whose mandate is severely limited in terms of the area

it actually controls, has much to do to establish its writ throughout the country and destroy the demons of extremism coming alive in the minds of the people. Terrorised, no doubt, by the Taliban’s barbaric ways, illiterate communities living in the movement’s shadow are nevertheless imbibing their ideals and have little access to more liberal thought. They have no reason to trust Kabul that has not been able to impose the rule of law, curtail the spiralling drug trade that fuels the Taliban movement or introduce economic development. Unless there is a concrete effort to achieve these goals, religious extremism will continue its march.

There is an obvious lesson in this for the Pakistani government which has problems similar to those which the Karzai administration faces. It, too, could benefit from a deeper understanding of how the local Taliban operate, and offset their means of communication (including hate-spewing FM radio stations) by interacting more closely with local communities and taking an active interest in their welfare. Extremism in both thought and deed are increasing. Yet, the only measure to combat this phenomenon has been either the military option or shoddy political deals with the Taliban. With stronger institutions and a vast communication network, Pakistan is better placed than Kabul to counter the Taliban propaganda. It has now to prove that it also has the will to do so.

DAWN - Editorial; July 27, 2008