Pakistan: Neither unwilling nor unable in Tirah Valley

By Zoon Ahmad Khan
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH

Tirah is a belt of valleys providing a convenient passage into Afghanistan, with a population of 1.5 million. Fertile for what Afghanis do best: opium, poppy fields have flourished in the region and the government has been for years trying to curb the epidemic. But the Tirah Valley people are slippery under the quivering thumb of the establishment since colonial times. It was in 2003 that the Pakistan Army entered the valley, that too after 9/11 and escalating Talibanization of the northern region when it was believed that Osama bin Laden could be hiding in one of these self governing regions.

For a month now, since March 2013, Tirah Valley has been making headlines. As over 300 militants have been eliminated and more than 30 army personnel have achieved martyrdom in less than thirty days. Due to fierce resistance, the military operation has gained momentum. Like the Swat operation, where Taliban had allied themselves with the local government promising better law enforcement and good riddance from the sloppy civil courts, in Tirah the emergence of TTP has also been gradual. Owing to poor infrastructure and isolation of the region (a tribal area that avoids foreign interference), news of the hundreds killed while resisting TTPs advancement in to the region, never reached mainstream media sources.

Three militant outfits are operating in the region presently: Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Islam (LI), and Ansar ul Islam (AI) . The AI and LI have been battling with each other in the region for more than seven years over sectarian differences. When the LI joined hands with the TTP, AI reached out to the Pakistan army to protect its position against its adversary. It is noteworthy that the AI, a militant organization, has previously been banned for protecting the area from foreign influence (i.e. the government). How this support for the AI is any different from that of the Taliban back in the 1980s is not clear. For Pakistan, at the moment, fighting the Taliban is more crucial. What demons this war gives birth to can be dealt with later perhaps.

The TTP has not taken over the valley overnight, nor without assistance. Since last June, one step at a time the Tirah tribes have been coming under their fold. Even today, as the army marches against the Taliban with bursting force, launching aerial assaults to drive the Taliban out, few know the gravity of the situation. Few realize the dire consequences of this belt coming under full control of anti-state outfits. Thousands of the valley’s inhabitants have migrated out of their homes towards Peshawar. What will become of them and their families knowing the situation of IDPs amidst a fragile economy is another burden we are temporarily ignoring for a false peace of mind.

With three vital entry points: into Peshawar, Orakzai and the Khyber Pass (the main passageway for NATO supplies) the valley is an important stronghold for the TTP. With no road access, the army was initially only relying on aerial assaults. So far with scanty news, all we get a few days later is a death count of militants versus soldiers. Nothing about civilian casualties. Turns out we have an alternative for the drone strikes that have caused much discord between us and the United States. But the problems with an operation where only Pakistani blood is being spilt are manifold.

These quandaries can take the shape of a thought process. Firstly, Tirah was not above the regular drone drill. Rather the area has been a frequent target. Yet the LI joined hands with the Taliban, killed hundreds of civilians while fighting the local AI, took over the entire region over the course of a year. All of this while drone strikes were happening with unhampered discretion. Should this not make us question the effectiveness of drone strikes? The AI , temporary partner of the Government of Pakistan in this operation, is not our friend either. It is these temporary alliances with local militant outfits, and keeping our enemies ‘closer’ that has strengthened them to begin with. Before the Taliban took over completely, Ansar-ul-Islam were adamant that they could handle the situation. But with stiff resistance from TTP backed LI. Eventually the Pakistan army was forced to step in and save the region. The main question that arises from such situations is: why should we trust the security of such volatile and strategically important regions with militias who are not completely supportive of the government?

Initially when the wave of conflict erupted last month, media and ISPR reported that two militant groups were at war with each other and the death toll from both sides was being reported as “militant death toll”. TTP extended full support to LI, and AI was almost driven out of the region and increased TTP influence in the region was becoming evident. It was at this point when civilian casualties escalated and mass migration from the Tirah Valley started that the army stepped in. With General Elections only days away, it would have been catastrophic if hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the valley had become IDPs. Additionally with Peshawar well within the range of rocket launchers the threat of TTP advancement in to the developed regions of the country had become too real. The AI-Army alliance is strategic and passing. Whether the army death toll includes the AI, or they aren’t dying at all is not certain. It is possible that the militant death include the AI, TTP, and LI, which would quite literally be true.

The new tagline for justifying drone strikes is ‘Unwilling and Unable’. The US claims that Pakistan is both, unwilling and unable to get rid of terrorists, and hence drones, are a final resort to secure their own national interest is justified. How they come up with new justifications for overstepping the boundaries and disrespecting sovereignty is fascinating. But after delegating the responsibility of keeping the terrorists out to anti-state elements, who haven’t pledged any loyalties to the region, what can we say about Pakistan’s sovereignty? Some argue that more than delegating authority the military and political establishments’ apparent absence was more about respecting the existing status quo that has been for centuries.

The expanding terrorism in the Northern areas can be solved not by drone attacks or killing the terrorists alone, rather by better law enforcement and presence of state sponsored security. The operation that Pakistan army troops are sacrificing their lives for concerns the US’ national security as well. After the drone method has proven ineffective and immoral both countries should look into alternatives. The US needs to decide: in or out? If out then they should completely rely on what the Pakistan army executes. But if they believe we are unwilling and unable then they must join in any battle against the Taliban, even if some blood will be spilt. But this would mean allowing US troops into our territory, and that is another breach of our sovereignty. And hence the dearth of solutions. As the army continues to sacrifice lives, while we acknowledge the courage it takes to execute such an operation, we must realize these lives and those of the civilians can be saved if preventive measures are taken. The upcoming government must get all local and foreign stakeholders on board and strategize better governance in the northern areas of Pakistan. The gun is only a temporary solution.

PAKISTAN HAS NO ENEMIES

By Ahsan Waheed
ZoneAsia-Pk

As of now Pakistan has no enemies. Even those who hate us and want to do us in are not really our enemies. Take India for example—basking in the glow of its many achievements it is gloating as Pakistan stews in its own juices. All it has to do is wait for juicy morsels to be thrown up by Pakistanis themselves so that it can tweak them and splash them all over the world. The recent plethora of whistle blowers is manna from heaven for the Indian media, establishment and politicians so these whistle blowers are encouraged to spew out more and more poison against their own country and they are falling for it in pursuit of their own warped ambitions.

Consider Afghanistan. It can talk publicly about a strategic relationship and need not be an enemy. It encourages the Pakistanis who have joined hands with others to kill other Pakistanis not just in the western border areas but deep in the heart of Pakistan. Now and then they inspire the misguided Pakistanis who think they are struggling for their rights and freedom by killing their brethren who may be of a different sect or by blowing up the people who are their saviors and by damaging precious assets of the State. There are many who then take on the task of stoking the fires and exploiting the vulnerabilities that emerge. It helps that Pakistanis raise their own voices to condemn their own law enforcers.

Consider the US whom many consider an enemy. It’s not– because it doesn’t have to be. By our actions and our confessions and the antics of our despicable whistle blowers and those who give them a stage we are actually confirming the worst fears of the US and the western world. No one needs to do anything and the well funded think tanks all over are going crazy analyzing and projecting what we are telling them about our past and present. No other country talks endlessly about its own corruption the way we do. No one parades sensitive issues the way we do. In no other country are their own countrymen actively involved in assisting others from inside to carry out dastardly terrorist attacks and subversion. We kill our own governors and then eulogize the killers. We set up national heroes making a laughing stock of ourselves. So called analysts and experts think it is macho to dig up dirt on our own institutions and scatter it all over. No sir—the US need not be our enemy.

Take the Taliban-not the ones fighting to free their country of foreign occupation but those who are fighting and killing to get power so that they can impose their rule and their laws on Pakistan Of course they are Pakistanis but with them are free loaders from all over the world as well as from other parts of Pakistan. There are some who have sympathies for them. Others think we should surrender to them or join them or hold talks with them on their terms. Our confusion translates into the world thinking we have a mindset with Lemming like suicide ambitions. We then find others simply setting themselves up in inspirational or funding roles to keep the body counts high all over the country. The Taliban need not be our enemies to get what they want—they can be our friends and achieve their goals. If they want to talk why don’t they declare a cease fire and talk without pre conditions?

The whole world with many Pakistani included are telling us what to do to get our economy right. We are doing the exact opposite of what they are telling us. Mobilize your resources-we do not. Curb your expenditure-we do not. Stabilize your internal security—we do not. Establish the rule of law-we do not. Get your public sector enterprises under control-we do not. Stop subverting your institutions by using discretionary powers and political clout-we do not. Get everyone to do his job-we do not. Elect political LEADERS not people who want authority-we never did-will we now?

The media is having a ball. It is raking in revenues from advertisements. It has developed clout and uses it to pressurize and extract the maximum from every source. It pits whistle blowers against each other and watches them do each other and the country in. It pits political rivals against each other and then sits back and watches the feathers fly as they scream like banshees. It does not do any heavy lifting like policy analysis, counseling, advising or suggesting or informing-much easier to rake up and scatter muck all round. To hell with the country and its image. The joy in the media is from the excellent local and foreign drama serials, movies and fun talk and comedy shows. No wonder more and more people are getting hooked to these and go to the news channels only during ads in their favorite shows.

So do we have enemies? No we do not because we are own worst enemies. Like sheep we see people lined up for meaningless security checks, waiting in queues for CNG in their vehicles, outside government offices to get some flunkeys approval or signature or simply staring into space as they wait for the power to come back on. Yet it is these people-the common folk in the cities and villages- who are keeping the country afloat and functional. From abroad they send hard earned foreign currency and within the country they work and earn and spend and pray for better days. These people are the true friends of this country and it is their resilience that keeps faith alive and the home fires burning. They demonstrate the great potential that this country has. Long live the people and may the enemies within perish.

THE PUZZLE

By Azmaish Ka-waqt

The Pieces of the Puzzle

1. Renewed interest by Scotland Yard in the Imran Farooq murder in London
2. The unconditional and abject apology by the MQM before the Supreme Court of Pakistan
3. The Qadri intervention
4. MQM’s prompt and total support of the Qadri intervention.
5. Surge in US Drone attacks with TTP being targeted.
6. Pakistan military’s changed threat perception with the internal threat identified as the main threat and a public announcement of this realization.
7. US/UK/NATO compulsion to exit Afghanistan in an orderly manner and the need to protect Afghanistan from external inroads in the vulnerable post exit period
8. Pakistan’s centrality in the entire exit strategy including safe passage for logistic movement.
9. The political situation in Pakistan and the US/UK desire for status quo so that their exit strategy continues to get support.

The Mosaic

The US and UK decide that an electoral change in Pakistan that could have unpredictable results is not in their interest at this stage. They need the present political and military set up in Pakistan in 2013-2014 to get out of Afghanistan, push the peace process in Afghanistan forward and not face the ignominy of a post exit chaos in Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore be accorded a central role and given an assurance of continuity of the status quo.

The US/UK does not favor an internal upheaval in Pakistan and want ‘democracy’ to continue. They sense that the people want change and reform to give them a better future and not more of the same that the elections seem to promise. The US and UK do not want a change that triggers a change in policies that may change the relationship with the US.

Enter Qadri with limitless funds and superb organizational ability. He promises reform and elections under a competent and impartial interim government. The implication being that the interim government will have to be given time for the reforms. The MQM ‘decides’ to join Qadri and clears itself with the Supreme Court-surprising many on both counts. To ward off criticism The MQM leader threatens a political Drone strike-obviously a disclosure of some sort.

The military readies itself to face the new threat and an expected disruption in the already serious internal security situation. Increased Drone strikes ratchet up the pressure on insurgents who may be expected to retaliate in Pakistan’s urban areas heightening the internal threat.

The major power players react as expected. The PPP (government) soft pedals the MQM turnabout and goes along with the evolving situation as status quo suits it. The military and the judiciary are satisfied that the Constitutional provisions are being respected. The PML(N) and the PTI are lost in the fog and likely to remain lost.

The interim government is given access to IMF and World Bank funds and acts to reform not just the electoral process but takes long overdue steps to establish the rule of law, to provide services and security to the people through effective governance, tackles the internal threat and puts the country on the road to economic recovery. The people heave a sigh of relief.

Pakistan in 2012: A year in review

The year 2012 was no less tumultuous for Pakistan than any other year. Starting from the Supreme Court and former premier Gilani at loggerheads to the return of Tahirul Qadri’s (untimely) arrival on the political scene, Pakistan has seen a healthy share of ups and downs this year. NATO supply routes were resumed, terrorism continued, Metro Bus project was initiated – it is difficult to remember when one event ended and the other began. For the purpose of simplification and to refresh the previous year, Spearhead Research put together a year in review, a compilation of all important news Pakistan saw.

Read more…

A Faustian Bargain

Tacstrat Analysis

Pakistan’s attempt to exact token reprisal for the Salala Attacks did not culminate in the sought after apology from the US nor did it halt drone strikes past a month. It might have been perceived by our top echelons as an opportunity to re-draw our lines of engagement, and the political claptrap surrounding the Parliamentary Committee for National Security (PCNS) debates must have bolstered this stance. Difai Pakistan took to the streets clad in martial-rightwing chainmail issuing dire warnings in case of resumption of the supply route, and Khar went on to declare the two countries as strategic partners not allies.

But all good things come to an end; the ephemeral excuse of national interest could not hold ground for long in this case. So when the DCC (Defense Committee of the Cabinet) got on board the G-LOCS (Ground Lines of Communication), the early dissenters quietly returned to their camps. With promises of commission ‘up to’ a million dollars a day, the government began selling the newly negotiated terms as a strategic win to save face.

The US has asked Pakistan to provide security for trucks en route to Afghanistan. Security for NATO supplies had hitherto been provided by private contractors; the trucks would still get looted, providing Taliban with a steady supply of weapons and ammunition. A thriving black market selling items from computers to American flags was in the process of shutting down since supplies in the last six months had dwindled. So now Pakistan has been asked to deal with this issue of targeted pilfering.

If the Pakistani government agrees to this demand, then the small increase in price negotiated with the US comes to naught. Firstly the logistical costs of fuel, setting up bases and transferring say, the FC or Army troops there would cancel out any gains to be made from this newly drafted deal. If this doesn’t involve chalking out a completely different assignment for the Army or FC, then it would materialize in the form of costs involving training a national guard for the supply route.

Secondly, Pakistani forces, or paramilitary posted along the Pak-Afghan border automatically become easy targets for Taliban and exercises for terrorists. To arm them to the teeth would require massive funds and even then the beauty of asymmetric warfare favors the Taliban. Pakistan is looking at bleak possibilities of immense loss of life, livelihood and reparations if it agrees to provide security along the border.

This Faustian bargain was inevitable, even warranted. However the new terms of engagement must be drawn with extreme caution. Pakistan shouldn’t have to be the one apologizing for the Salala Attack by signing a regressive deal.

STRAWS IN THE WIND

By Ahsan Waheed
ZoneAsia-Pk

There is a big hype in the media about the Prime Minister’s fate at the hands of the judiciary. It is certainly news and a sad day for Pakistan but not the kind of catastrophe that it is made out to be. If he is convicted and goes there will be another Prime Minister and it will be business as usual. The majority feel that he should be allowed to complete his term and that writing a letter to a foreign government about an elected President is not what our government should be doing. In any case these matters are good for drawing room discussions and media speculations but do not matter one way or the other.

Then there is the furor over the memo, the so called memo-gate. This non starter from the outset started off with a bang, created some fireworks and collapsed with a whimper. It is being dragged along but no one is interested any more. If two functionaries had to depart then another two took their place. If there was some hard talk then it was followed by clarifications and assurance. The whole thing was and remains farcical.

We now have the drama of the ISI Chiefs replacement. This is a routine affair and there are clear cut procedures for it. If he gets another extension it will be good because he is a straight talking and straight shooting man who has done a great job. If he retires he will be replaced by a suitable lieutenant general selected from the panel of names given by the military. The US Ambassador has commented upon this change in his address in Massachusetts. The US is ‘monitoring’ this change as if it matters or as if it can do anything about it. One of the analysts from the many who make a living out of commenting on Pakistan has said that this change is very significant because the ISI is not just an intelligence agency but it actually makes policy. So has it made all the policies that are being implemented? All this does boost the ISI image by driving home the point that it is an obsession for many who are terrified by it. That’s not too bad-is it?

The US is talking to the Taliban and have allowed them an office in Qatar so that others can talk too. Everyone and his aunt know that the US is preparing for a face saving exit after being defeated and after failing to create any sustainable structures in Afghanistan. The Taliban and others are licking their chops at the prospect of tucking into the pathetic caricature that is the Afghan Security Forces. The suited guys in government are looking at getting out as quietly as possible to wherever they came from. After the US and NATO leave it will be business as usual in and around Afghanistan. Karzai will be ditched and will be history-not that it will make any difference.

There is the matter of who kept Osama under wraps. A bitter, sick retired general with an axe to grind has blamed Musharraf and everyone is running round in circles. A doctor recruited by the US to find Osama is being interrogated and the US is ‘concerned’—he is a Pakistani and not a US citizen. US ‘diplomats’ continue to be tripped up some where or the other-the latest being one caught at an airport with bullets in his bag. Every one wonders where his gun was hidden and whether they searched him thoroughly. Some mad cap ‘fundos’ with some misguided former position holders get up on a stage and make threatening noises and tremors go through the land and as far away as the US! The good thing is that Pakistan continues to tick over and Pakistanis cope with power shortages and soaring costs. If the NATO logistics resume through Pakistan the dollars will flow in—not bad at all.

What matters is Pakistan’s economy, its internal situation, its institutions and public sector enterprises, its relations with neighbors and the world, its people and internal security. This is what we should be focusing on because if we get this right we are home free. Till we can do that let us develop thick skins and not get tickled by all these meaningless straws in the wind.

Friendship between Pakistan and Afghanistan are the way forward for regional stability and Peace

PILDAT

Kabul, May 30; Friendship and Deep Relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan are the way forward for regional stability and Peace, said Mr. Hamid Karzai while what he termed as ‘very warm welcome’ to Pakistani Parliamentarians who called on him today upon the conclusion of the 5th round of Pak-Afghan Parliamentarians Dialogue in Kabul, facilitated by PILDAT. Please take a message of deepest love from Afghanistan to Pakistan, said Mr. Karzai.

Parliamentarians of Pakistan joined their Afghan counterparts in Kabul for a two-day dialogue, May 29-30, 2011, that focussed on counter-terrorism strategies for the two countries.

Pakistani MPs, who appreciated the welcome and hospitality of President Karzai, said that the Parliament of Pakistan, reflecting all political shades in Pakistan, stands firmly behind strengthening of ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They said that only through people-to-people dialogue can the two countries move forward on removing mistrust and cultivate and enhance the deepest ties between the two countries.

Pakistani delegation included Honourable Senator Mir Jan Muhammad Jamali, Deputy Chairman Senate of Pakistan and Honourable Mr. Faisal Karim Kundi, Deputy Speaker National Assembly of Pakistan; Honourable Senator Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi, PML; Honourable Senator Fauzia Fakhar-uz-Zaman, PML; Honourable Senator Najma Hameed, PML-N; Honourable Senator Mrs. Saeeda Iqbal, PPPP; Honourable Senator Afrasiab Khattak, ANP, Honourable Senator Dr. Abdul Malik, Honourable Malik Amad Khan, PPPP; Honourable Dr. Muhammad Ayub Shaikh, MQM, Honourable Mr. Nadeem Afzal Gondal, PPPP; Honourable Mr. Pervaiz Khan, Advocate, ANP; Honourable Sardar Mehtab Ahmed Khan Abbasi, PML-N; Honourable Mr. Humayon Saifullah Khan, PML; Honourable Sardar Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari, PML, Mr. Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, Executive Director PILDAT, Ms. Aasiya Riaz, Joint Director PILDAT, Mr. Hmmal Dostain and Mr. Mamoon Bilal, Project Managers of PILDAT.

Pakistani MPs shared with President Karzai details of the comprehensive round of dialogue and candid interaction that took place in two days. President Karzai was also presented with a copy of the Joint Resolution agreed to by the Parliamentarians of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the text of which is given below:

“The Pakistan-Afghanistan Parliamentarians’ Dialogue 5th round took place in Kabul, Afghanistan on May 29-30, 2011 on the overarching theme of terrorism. The Parliamentarians of the two countries held a candid dialogue while recognizing that both Pakistan and Afghanistan are victims of terrorism and joint efforts are needed to address this scourge.

Both sides agreed that while blame game is counter-productive and not a solution to this affliction, it is Parliamentary dialogue and Parliamentary support and oversight over executive in both countries for mutual cooperation on areas such as intelligence sharing, improved coordination on Counter-Terrorism Operations, install effective control on growth and supply of drugs fuelling terrorist-financing and terrorism in the region, and enhancing border security management that will help the two countries and the region rid itself of terrorism. They also believed that central banks of both Pakistan and Afghanistan should follow recommendations of Basel Committee III on supervision of Banks especially on Money Laundering and Terrorist financing.

Parliamentarians of the two countries agreed that the representative institutions of two countries should adopt a people-oriented approach to resolving bilateral issues and exercise greater control and oversight on key national policies including that of internal and external security and pursue independent national foreign policies that do not work at cross-purposes of each other. Parliamentarians believed that while remaining part of tripartite cooperation in the area of security, Pakistan and Afghanistan should also develop bilateral cooperation between the Armed Forces and Security Agencies of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Parliamentarians agreed that the two countries should institute, and effectively exercise, mechanisms to carry out due diligence of NGO funding in both countries and stress on international donors to help the two countries build indigenous and sustainable capabilities and facilities.

The Parliamentarians also agreed that visa free regime between Parliamentarians of two countries should be implemented immediately. Greater cooperation is needed in both countries, through support from each Parliament, on overseeing liberal visa policies, facilitating and enhancing communication networks including roads, rail and air travel, telephony and trade. Parliamentarians from two neighbouring countries also decided to support greater media interaction and exchange, both print and electronic, between the two countries by urging and facilitating both governments and independent media networks to operate in each other’s country. They also urged that Pakistani and Afghan investors and business persons should get reciprocal incentives in each country to strengthen business and trade.

The two sides also agreed that greater facilitation, support and opportunities need to be provided to Afghan students to study in Pakistan through scholarships, skill-enhancement and capacity-building programmes. Youth and Cultural Exchanges should be facilitated between the two countries and cricket should be promoted as a way of enhancing better people to people contact.

Parliamentarians believe that early return of Afghan refugees in Pakistan to Afghanistan with dignity and honour should be facilitated by both countries, and assisted by the United Nations. Moreover the two countries should sign a treaty of extradition of criminals on both sides, as well as set-up a Commission on Prisoners that could facilitate exchange of those prisoners who have not committed heinous crimes.

Parliamentarians also stressed that Parliaments of the two countries should work to remove trust deficit in the areas that strain the relationship between two brotherly countries. They agreed that the Parliaments of two countries should nudge and support their respective executive branches to enter into negotiations and in the future draft treaties on upcoming issues of interest to both countries that, once put in place, should be ratified by the two Parliaments.

The two sides agreed on the need for a follow up mechanism, appreciating the role of PILDAT that serves as a focal point and continues to provide support and assistance to the dialogue process. Dialogue is important for the two countries to achieve their potential and it was decided that institutionalisation and continuation of the dialogue will be facilitated which will periodically provide a forum to representatives of the two countries to take stock of their resolutions and decisions agreed to and recorded through joint declarations and dialogue proceedings.

Parliamentarians of Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed, upon conclusion of the dialogue, to move content of the joint declaration in the form of resolutions in respective Parliaments for adoption and follow up with the respective Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

The delegation also called on Honourable Mr. Burhanuddin Rabbani, Chairman High Peace Council and interacted in detail on areas where the two countries can cooperate in bringing regional peace.

The dialogue is a continuation of PILDAT’s commitment to strengthening Parliamentary ties and relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Earlier, four joint workshops of Pakistani and Afghani Parliamentarians have been facilitated by PILDAT since 2008. The broad objective behind the initiative has been to facilitate Parliaments of the two countries to develop a relationship based on greater interaction and dialogue with each other on bilateral and regional relations and issues of mutual interest.

Our sectarian divide

By: Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg

The sectarian divide of the Muslim World has been the cause of serious conflicts in the past, and continues to have its toll, particularly for the last thirty years, with external forces exploiting this weakness. The countries which have suffered most are Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine’ Lebanon and Pakistan, and the one being targeted now, is Bahrain, from where the New Great Game begins.

On a larger canvas, one would find that, during the last thirty years, sectarianism has grow into “two centers of power”, namely the Pakhtun Power and the Shia Power, determining the security parameters of the entire Asian region. These ‘centers of power’ can be called, the Sectarian Tectonic Plates, which could shake the world peace if they collide and if they collude, a new era of peace and unity would emerge.

These centers of power, have grown out of the great turmoil caused by contrived wars and conflicts in the region, through interventions, state-sponsored terrorism, contrived conflicts, such as the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1980; the eight years war of liberation by the Afghans from 1980 to 88; the eight years Iran-Iraq war from 1980-88); the first Gulf War of 1991; the nine years civil war in Afghanistan from 1992-2001; invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by USA and allies in 2001-2011; invasion and occupation of Iraq by USA in 2003-2011; Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 and the on-going brutal wars in Palestine and Kashmir. As a result, more than six million Muslims have died and many more millions seriously wounded, maimed and decapitated – a brutality, which ironically has earned the title of ‘terrorists’ for the brutalized and the oppressors call themselves the ‘messengers of peace.’ As a reaction to this state- sponsored terrorism, the Islamic Global Resistance grew to contain and curb the menace, and turned into a movement, which has lasted for almost thirty years, giving birth to Pakhtun and Shia Powers.

The Pakhtun Power. The hard core of this power base is in the Pakhtun belt, along the Pak-Afghan borders, with 240 millions of Pakhtuns living in Pakistan and 170 millions in Afghanistan. Its area of influence extends from Karachi with four million Pakhtuns, to the line of Hindukush. It has developed into a formidable base for the “Islamic Resistance, which draws “support of the freedom fighters from seventy countries of the world.” During the last thirty years, it has defeated two super powers, and NATO. The defeated powers, therefore, are now planning “to contain and curb the Pakhtun Power, the greatest threat to US interests in the region” – David Kilkullen, Security Advisor to the former US President. This purpose can be achieved by making the two powers collide with each other.

The Shia Power extends from Iran to Iraq, to Bahrain and to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where significant Shia minority resides. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, was contrived to create hatred between the Shias and the Sunnis. Iraq has since been occupied and defeated, but Iran is defiant and is being demonized as a threat for the Sunni countries in the region, who out of fear are arming themselves against Iran and have bought military hardware worth over 150xbillion dollars from USA, during the last seven years. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, GCC countries and Jordan are the main recipients of the military hardware, and are preparing themselves to fight the so called Shia threat.

Bahrain, which is a Shia majority country, and is ruled by the Sunni minority, is facing intervention by Saudi and GCC armed forces, under the watchful eyes of the West, as part of the Gulf countries Joint Peninsula Shield Force. Iran calls it as “invasion by an army of occupation,” while the United States has declared that the “entry of foreign troops was not an invasion.” The Shia led protests seeking to break the 200 years old Sunni rule in Bahrain, and military intervention by the neighbouring Sunni countries marks the unfolding of the conspiracy to make the Sunni and Shia countries collide, whereas during the past thirty years, sectarian riots were induced in Iraq and Pakistan and now “the nations are being pitched against each other.” It is the beginning of the New Great Game, to damage the unity of the Muslim World.

The US intelligence agencies operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan are hand-in-glove with the Indian and European intelligence agencies in Afghanistan since 2004, and have been able to turn the Afghan war on Pakistan. Pakistan military thus is engaged in a running battle against its own Pakhtun tribes. Additionally, more than hundred thousand troops are deployed on the Pak-Afghan borders, in support of the American and coalition forces in Afghanistan. In fact, Pakistan has unwittingly become a party to the crime, for defeat and destruction of the Pakhtun Power, which is the name of the New Great Game of the competing powers in the region. Both, the Pakhtun Power and Shia Power, are a significant element of our national power and must be harnessed to enhance our national security at this very critical moment in history, when a strong wind of change is sweeping the Muslim World. In Pakistan, we already have a burning problem in Parachinar, Kurram Agency, due to involvement of the neighbouring countries with so much of blood letting there, since the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 by foreign powers. It is a dangerous trend, so clearly visible now in Bahrain, where the Saudi and GCC countries have entered to support the Sunni ruler with full blessings of the West. These are very ominous signs, making the Sectarian Tectonic Plates collide and damage the prospects of unity of the Muslim World.

The revolutionary upsurge in the Arab World, demands democratic freedom and social justice and equally ignites the Pakistani mind. Fortunately we have a democratic rule in Pakistan, which can deliver social justice and civil liberties, despite all the faults of the present system. We have to give it a chance to correct itself. We need political peace and stability, which will come if we show patience. And the best to happen to our national security, would be, the departure of the occupation forces from Afghanistan – the Mother of All Evil.

Pakistan thus stands at the choice point to experiment democratic governance, unpolluted and free from foreign intrusions and intrigues. Sectarian divide is a great weakness, which can be overcome democratically, through political wisdom. Also awareness is fast developing in the Muslim society about the negative impacts/consequences of sectarianism.

Never Fight a Land War in Asia

By George Friedman

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said last week that “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” In saying this, Gates was repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War, who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – none of which had ideal outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?

The Hindrances of Overseas Wars

Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army. Indeed, the same problem existed in World War II.

When the United States fights in the Eastern Hemisphere, it fights at great distances, and the greater the distance, the greater the logistical cost. More ships are needed to deliver the same amount of material, for example. That absorbs many troops. The logistical cost of fighting at a distance is that it diverts numbers of troops (or requires numbers of civilian personnel) disproportionate to the size of the combat force.

Regardless of the number of troops deployed, the U.S. military is always vastly outnumbered by the populations of the countries to which it is deployed. If parts of these populations resist as light-infantry guerrilla forces or employ terrorist tactics, the enemy rapidly swells to a size that can outnumber U.S. forces, as in Vietnam and Korea. At the same time, the enemy adopts strategies to take advantage of the core weakness of the United States – tactical intelligence. The resistance is fighting at home. It understands the terrain and the culture. The United States is fighting in an alien environment. It is constantly at an intelligence disadvantage. That means that the effectiveness of the native forces is multiplied by excellent intelligence, while the effectiveness of U.S. forces is divided by lack of intelligence.

The United States compensates with technology, from space-based reconnaissance and air power to counter-battery systems and advanced communications. This can make up the deficit but only by massive diversions of manpower from ground-combat operations. Maintaining a helicopter requires dozens of ground-crew personnel. Where the enemy operates with minimal technology multiplied by intelligence, the United States compensates for lack of intelligence with massive technology that further reduces available combat personnel. Between logistics and technological force multipliers, the U.S. “point of the spear” shrinks. If you add the need to train, relieve, rest and recuperate the ground-combat forces, you are left with a small percentage available to fight.

The paradox of this is that American forces will win the engagements but may still lose the war. Having identified the enemy, the United States can overwhelm it with firepower. The problem the United States has is finding the enemy and distinguishing it from the general population. As a result, the United States is well-suited for the initial phases of combat, when the task is to defeat a conventional force. But after the conventional force has been defeated, the resistance can switch to methods difficult for American intelligence to deal with. The enemy can then control the tempo of operations by declining combat where it is at a disadvantage and initiating combat when it chooses.

The example of the capitulation of Germany and Japan in World War II is frequently cited as a model of U.S. forces defeating and pacifying an opposing nation. But the Germans were not defeated primarily by U.S. ground troops. The back of the Wehrmacht was broken by the Soviets on their own soil with the logistical advantages of short supply lines. And, of course, Britain and numerous other countries were involved. It is doubtful that the Germans would have capitulated to the Americans alone. The force the United States deployed was insufficient to defeat Germany. The Germans had no appetite for continuing a resistance against the Russians and saw surrendering to the Americans and British as sanctuary from the Russians. They weren’t going to resist them. As for Japan, it was not ground forces but air power, submarine warfare and atomic bombs that finished them – and the emperor’s willingness to order a surrender. It was not land power that prevented resistance but air and sea power, plus a political compromise by MacArthur in retaining and using the emperor. Had the Japanese emperor been removed, I suspect that the occupation of Japan would have been much more costly. Neither Germany nor Japan are examples in which U.S. land forces compelled capitulation and suppressed resistance.

The problem the United States has in the Eastern Hemisphere is that the size of the force needed to occupy a country initially is much smaller than the force needed to pacify the country. The force available for pacification is much smaller than needed because the force the United States can deploy demographically without committing to total war is simply too small to do the job – and the size needed to do the job is unknown.

U.S. Global Interests

The deeper problem is this: The United States has global interests. While the Soviet Union was the primary focus of the United States during the Cold War, no power threatens to dominate Eurasia now, and therefore no threat justifies the singular focus of the United States. In time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States must still retain a strategic reserve for other unanticipated contingencies. This further reduces the available force for combat.

Some people argue that the United States is insufficiently ruthless in prosecuting war, as if it would be more successful without political restraints at home. The Soviets and the Nazis, neither noted for gentleness, were unable to destroy the partisans behind German lines or the Yugoslav resistance, in spite of brutal tactics. The guerrilla has built-in advantages in warfare for which brutality cannot compensate.

Given all this, the question is why the United States has gotten involved in wars in Eurasia four times since World War II. In each case it is obvious: for political reasons. In Korea and Vietnam, it was to demonstrate to doubting allies that the United States had the will to resist the Soviets. In Afghanistan, it was to uproot al Qaeda. In Iraq, the reasons are murkier, more complex and less convincing, but the United States ultimately went in, in my opinion, to convince the Islamic world of American will.

The United States has tried to shape events in the Eastern Hemisphere by the direct application of land power. In Korea and Vietnam, it was trying to demonstrate resolve against Soviet and Chinese power. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was trying to shape the politics of the Muslim world. The goal was understandable but the amount of ground force available was not. In Korea, it resulted in stalemate; in Vietnam, defeat. We await the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, but given Gates’ statement, the situation for the United States is not necessarily hopeful.

In each case, the military was given an ambiguous mission. This was because a clear outcome – defeating the enemy – was unattainable. At the same time, there were political interests in each. Having engaged, simply leaving did not seem an option. Therefore, Korea turned into an extended presence in a near-combat posture, Vietnam ended in defeat for the American side, and Iraq and Afghanistan have turned, for the time being, into an uncertain muddle that no reasonable person expects to end with the declared goals of a freed and democratic pair of countries.

Problems of Strategy

There are two problems with American strategy. The first is using the appropriate force for the political mission. This is not a question so much of the force as it is of the mission. The use of military force requires clarity of purpose; otherwise, a coherent strategy cannot emerge. Moreover, it requires an offensive mission. Defensive missions (such as Vietnam and Korea) by definition have no terminal point or any criteria for victory. Given the limited availability of ground combat forces, defensive missions allow the enemy’s level of effort to determine the size of the force inserted, and if the force is insufficient to achieve the mission, the result is indefinite deployment of scarce forces.

Then there are missions with clear goals initially but without an understanding of how to deal with Act II. Iraq suffered from an offensive intention ill suited to the enemy’s response. Having destroyed the conventional forces of Iraq, the United States was unprepared for the Iraqi response, which was guerrilla resistance on a wide scale. The same was true in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency is occupation warfare. It is the need to render a population – rather than an army – unwilling and incapable of resisting. It requires vast resources and large numbers of troops that outstrip the interest. Low-cost counter-insurgency with insufficient forces will always fail. Since the United States uses limited forces because it has to, counterinsurgency is the most dangerous kind of war for the United States. The idea has always been that the people prefer the U.S. occupation to the threats posed by their fellow countrymen and that the United States can protect those who genuinely do prefer the former. That may be the idea, but there is never enough U.S. force available.

Another model for dealing with the problem of shaping political realities can be seen in the Iran-Iraq war. In that war, the United States allowed the mutual distrust of the two countries to eliminate the threats posed by both. When the Iraqis responded by invading Kuwait, the United States responded with a massive counter with very limited ends – the reconquest of Kuwait and the withdrawal of forces. It was a land war in Asia designed to defeat a known and finite enemy army without any attempt at occupation.

The problem with all four wars is that they were not wars in a conventional sense and did not use the military as militaries are supposed to be used. The purpose of a military is to defeat enemy conventional forces. As an army of occupation against a hostile population, military forces are relatively weak. The problem for the United States is that such an army must occupy a country for a long time, and the U.S. military simply lacks the ground forces needed to occupy countries and still be available to deal with other threats.

By having an unclear mission, you have an uncertain terminal point. When does it end? You then wind up with a political problem internationally – having engaged in the war, you have allies inside and outside of the country that have fought with you and taken risks with you. Withdrawal leaves them exposed, and potential allies will be cautious in joining with you in another war. The political costs spiral and the decision to disengage is postponed. The United States winds up in the worst of all worlds. It terminates not on its own but when its position becomes untenable, as in Vietnam. This pyramids the political costs dramatically.

Wars need to be fought with ends that can be achieved by the forces available. Donald Rumsfeld once said, “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient. When you understand the foundations of American military capability and its limits in Eurasia, Gates’ view on war in the Eastern Hemisphere is far more sound than Rumsfeld’s.

The Diplomatic Alternative

The alternative is diplomacy, not understood as an alternative to war but as another tool in statecraft alongside war. Diplomacy can find the common ground between nations. It can also be used to identify the hostility of nations and use that hostility to insulate the United States by diverting the attention of other nations from challenging the United States. That is what happened during the Iran-Iraq war. It wasn’t pretty, but neither was the alternative.

Diplomacy for the United States is about maintaining the balance of power and using and diverting conflict to manage the international system. Force is the last resort, and when it is used, it must be devastating. The argument I have made, and which I think Gates is asserting, is that at a distance, the United States cannot be devastating in wars dependent on land power. That is the weakest aspect of American international power and the one the United States has resorted to all too often since World War II, with unacceptable results. Using U.S. land power as part of a combined arms strategy is occasionally effective in defeating conventional forces, as it was with North Korea (and not China) but is inadequate to the demands of occupation warfare. It makes too few troops available for success, and it does not know how many troops might be needed.

This is not a policy failure of any particular U.S. president. George W. Bush and Barack Obama have encountered precisely the same problem, which is that the forces that have existed in Eurasia, from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Korea to the Taliban in Afghanistan, have either been too numerous or too agile (or both) for U.S. ground forces to deal with. In any war, the primary goal is not to be defeated. An elective war in which the criteria for success are unclear and for which the amount of land force is insufficient must be avoided. That is Gates’ message. It is the same one MacArthur delivered, and the one Dwight Eisenhower exercised when he refused to intervene in Vietnam on France’s behalf. As with the Monroe Doctrine, it should be elevated to a principle of U.S. foreign policy, not because it is a moral principle but because it is a very practical one.

Davis Arrest Throws US Undercover Campaign in Pakistan into Disarray

This Can’t Be Happening

By Dave Lindorff

The ongoing case of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor facing murder charges in Lahore for the execution-style slaying of two apparent agents of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, is apparently leading to a roll-back of America’s espionage and Special Operations activities in Pakistan.

A few days ago, Pakistan’s Interior Department, which is reportedly conducting a careful review of the hundreds of private contractors who flooded into Pakistan over the last two years, many with “diplomatic passports,” and many others, like Davis, linked to shady “security” firms, arrested an American security contractor named Aaron DeHaven, a Virginia native who claims to work for a company called Catalyst Services LLC.

The Catalyst Services LLC website describes the company, with offices in Afghanistan, Dubai, the US and Pakistan, as having experience in “logistics, operations, security and finance,” and as having a staff led by “individuals who have been involved in some of the most significant events of the last 20 years,” including “the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US effort in Somalia, and the Global War on Terror.”

DeHaven is being held on a 14-day remand, charged with overstaying his visa and with living in an unauthorized area.

Meanwhile, the English-language Express Tribune in Pakistan reports that according to ISI sources, 30 “suspected US operatives” in Pakistan have “suspended” their operations in the country, while 12 have fled the country.

The paper quotes the Pakistan Foreign Office as saying that 851 Americans claiming diplomatic immunity are currently in Pakistan, 297 of whom are “not working in any diplomatic capacity.” The paper says that the country’s Interior Department claims that 414 of the total are “non-diplomats.” The majority of these American operatives, the paper says, are located in Islamabad (where the US is building a huge fortress-like embassy reminiscent of the one in Baghdad), with the others in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar. Most are suspected of being involved in covert missions that report to the US Joint Special Operations Command, with many suspected of being active-duty Special Forces personnel from the Army’s Delta Force. (The website of the JSOC says its responsibility is “synchronizing Department of Defense plans against global terrorist networks and, as directed, conducting global operations.”)

As I reported earlier, both Pakistani and Indian news organizations are claiming, based upon intelligence sources, that Davis was involved in not just intelligence work, but in orchestrating terrorist activity by both the Pakistani Taliban and the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which has been linked to both the assassination of Benezir Bhutto and the capture and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Multiple calls to members of both groups were found by police on some of the cell phones found on Davis and in his car when he was arrested in Lahore.

It is unclear how far the blow-up in Pakistan over the exposure of America’s role in stirring up unrest in that country will go. Clearly, the ISI and the Pakistani military have long had their own complicated relationship with the Pakistani Taliban, and much of the current anger in both the ISI and the military has to do with the US being found to be working behind their backs, including in its contact with those groups.

But things have been complicated too by mounting public outrage over Davis’s brazen slaughter of the two Pakistanis, who reportedly were tailing him because of concerns about the nature of his activities, and who reportedly were both shot in the back. This public outrage has been further stoked by both a subsequent suicide by the 18-year-old bride of one of the victims, and by the death of an innocent bystander mowed down by a second vehicle carrying several more US contractors which sped to Davis in response to his call for assistance following the shooting. That vehicle, after running down the bystander, raced to sanctuary at the US Consulate. The men in the car, never identified by the consulate, were spirited out of the country by the US so they could avoid arrest.

Further complicating matters for the US, the province of Punjab, of which Lahore is the capital, is run by the opposition party, headed by former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Sharif, who still has presidential aspirations, has no incentive at all to make things easy for the country’s ruling party by letting Davis go. Indeed, with public opinion running almost 100% in favor of trying Davis for murder, Sharif can only gain by insisting that the court system have the final say.

Pakistan’s central government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, clearly wants to put the Davis incident behind it by having him declared to have diplomatic immunity. Foreign Officials allege that Zardari pressured the Foreign Office in early February to backdate a letter identifying Davis as being a “member of staff” of the US Embassy in Islamabad, which would have afforded him such immunity from prosecution. But the country’s foreign minister at that time, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, reportedly refused, saying, “On the basis of the official record and the advice given to me by the technocrats and experts of the Foreign Office, I could not certify him (Raymond Davis) as a diplomat. The kind of by blanket immunity Washington is pressing for Davis, is not endorsed by the official record of the Foreign Ministry.”

He has subsequently been ousted and replaced by Zardari.

The reality is that the US, which as required, on Jan. 25 submitted to the Foreign Office its annual list of those employees of the US Embassy whom it classified as “diplomats” warranting diplomatic immunity. The list had 48 names on it, and did not include Davis. Only after Davis’s Jan. 27 shooting of the two Pakistani motorcyclists, on Jan. 28, did the US submit a “revised” list, to which Davis’s name had been appended.

The US initially said Davis was an employee of the Lahore Consulate, and Davis himself told arresting police officers that he was a contractor working out of the Lahore Consulate, a role that would not afford him any diplomatic immunity, as consular workers, under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations only receive immunity for their “official duties,” and in any case lose even that limited immunity in the case of “grave crimes.”

His current legal problems, and the public demand that he be tried (and then hanged) for the killings, has definitely led to a reduction in US undercover operations in Pakistan, and to a pullback of at least some of the Special Forces personnel operating there. It will take considerable finesse for the US and the Zardari government to put the the relationship back together-if the Pakistani military and the ISI even want to restore it-finesse that the US has not been very good at displaying.

So far, in fact, the US response to Davis’s arrest has been to bluntly and publicly threaten Pakistan with a loss of foreign and military aid-a threat that seems empty given the American need for Pakistani assistance in supplying its military in Afghanistan, and its need for at lease covert permission to continue sending Predator and Reaper drones across the border to attack Taliban suspects in the tribal border areas. US bluster, and some clumsy efforts to forge records that would purport to show Davis had diplomatic immunity-all widely exposed in the Pakistani media-have only served to further stoke public outrage.

Meanwhile, local authorities in Lahore at the prison where Davis is being held, are so worried that the US may try to have him killed to prevent him from spilling the beans about his activities-for example explaining why the camera he was carrying held photographs of Pakistani military installations as well as of mosques, madrassas and other schools-that they have reportedly posted special guards (unarmed as an added precaution) around his cell, and have been monitoring his food. Davis was reportedly even denied a box of chocolates sent by the US Consulate in Lahore, for fear it might have been laced with poison.

Intelligence assets: After Davis’ arrest, US operatives leaving Pakistan

By Asad Kharal

LAHORE: At least 30 suspected covert American operatives have suspended their activities in Pakistan and 12 have already left the country, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The foreign ministry states that there are 851 Americans with diplomatic immunity currently in Pakistan, of whom 297 are not working in a diplomatic capacity. PHOTO: FILE

In the aftermath of the shootings in Lahore on January 27 by suspected CIA operative Raymond Davis, intelligence agencies in Pakistan began scrutinising records of the Americans living in Pakistan and discovered several discrepancies, causing many suspected American operatives to maintain a low profile and others to leave the country altogether.

The foreign ministry states that there are 851 Americans with diplomatic immunity currently in Pakistan, of whom 297 are not working in a diplomatic capacity. However, sources at the interior ministry put the number of non-diplomats at 414. The majority of these ‘special Americans’ (as the ministry refers to them) are concentrated in Islamabad, with some also residing in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar. Interior ministry records show that most of the “special Americans” live in upscale neighbourhoods in Islamabad and Lahore, with smaller presences in Karachi and Peshawar.

Most of the ‘special Americans’ are suspected of being operatives of US intelligence agencies who are on covert missions in Pakistan, reporting to the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), according to sources familiar with the situation.

Counter-intelligence agencies in Pakistan have long suspected a covert US espionage presence in Pakistan. The first internal investigation into suspicious activities by American citizens in the country was conducted in March 2009, which revealed some significant gaps in the implementation of laws concerning foreign citizens.

Under the Foreigners Act of 1946, foreign citizens are not allowed to live in cantonment areas anywhere in the country. Yet the majority of the suspected American intelligence operatives in Lahore are reportedly living in the Officers’/Generals’ Colony on Sarwar Road and Cavalry Ground in the Lahore Cantonment.

Several senior retired army officers – ranging in rank from brigadier to lieutenant general – have rented out their homes to American citizens at rates astronomically higher than the rents of similar homes in the area. The presence of these Americans came to light when several serving and retired Army officers who lived in the neighbourhood reported suspicious activity, including unauthorised foreigners living in cantonment areas.

Foreign citizens in Pakistan have to obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from security agencies before they can rent a residence. This process is meant to ensure that they are not living in prohibited areas. But somehow American citizens were able to get NOCs issued to live in cantonment areas in violation of the law.

Sources say that the intelligence agencies’ reports state that many of the Americans living in these residences are assumed to be US Special Forces – including members of the covert Delta Force of the United States Army – and therefore are considered armed and dangerous.

The report further claims that the late US special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, had visited one of the covert American teams in Lahore, at a residence on Sarwar Road owned by a retired army general.

Obama to keep aid flowing to Pakistan

By: Andrew Quinn

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed spending almost $110 billion on Afghanistan, signaling little let-up in the U.S. war drive despite demands for tougher spending controls at home.

Obama, in his budget for the 2012 fiscal year, proposed spending just $16 billion in Iraq — a significant decrease as U.S. diplomats take over from combat troops under a security agreement between the two countries.

Obama had put total U.S. war costs in both countries at about $160 billion in budget requests for both 2010 and 2011.

Obama’s 2012 budget request for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was $47 billion, up one percent from 2010 levels.

Republicans, who took control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November elections, have called for a tough new look at non-military overseas spending amid widespread calls to control the ballooning U.S. federal deficit.

The fiscal 2012 budget request focuses on money for some of Obama’s priorities including global health and food security initiatives, while cutting direct aid to several countries and regional organizations.

Obama’s budget calls for $107 billion in military spending in Afghanistan, where he has pledged to begin withdrawing the first of about 100,000 U.S. troops fighting Taliban insurgents by the middle of this year.

The State Department, mounting its own civilian “surge” aimed at stabilizing the country, would spend an additional $2.2 billion there as it seeks to increase aid and assistance programs.

Obama also proposes maintaining significant aid to Pakistan to arm, train and equip its military to fight extremists with about $1.1 billion earmarked for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, roughly the same level as last year.

The peak for U.S. war funding in recent years was fiscal year 2008, the last year in office of Obama’s Republican predecessor George W. Bush’s last year in office, when spending on war operations hit $185 billion.

Death of the ‘Imam’

By Shemrez Nauman Afzal
ZoneAsia-Pk

Amir Sultan Tarar AKA Colonel Imam

Brigadier Retired Amir Sultan Tarar is suspected to have died in Taliban captivity, presumably because of cardiac arrest, but suspicions and conspiracy theories indicate that his captors, the Taliban, may have murdered him because of non-payment of ransom by his family. However, the official quarters including Military sources as well as the Frontier Corps are finding it hard to verify the reports saying they have no confirmed information in this regard.

“We have been told that his dead body has been seen near Danday Darpa Khel area in North Waziristan Agency, but the news could not be confirmed nor could we get any picture of the dead body of Colonel Imam”, a senior Army official told this scribe when contacted. Similar remarks were offered by the FC sources.

Read Complete Article Here: Death of the ‘Imam’

Pakistan assures support to Afghan peace efforts

Pakistan strongly believes in the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan and is committed to helping build its institutions with the view to facilitate the transition process, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Nawabzada Malik Amad Khan said on Wednesday.

He said this during a meeting with a 25-member delegation of the High Council for Peace in Afghanistan, led by its Chairman Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani.

The delegation is visiting Pakistan on the invitation of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, which was extended to Professor Rabbani during his visit to Afghanistan.

The delegation was originally scheduled to meet Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, but he had to leave for Lahore to attend the funeral of late Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer. Talking to Professor Rabbani and members of his delegation, the minister said that relations between the two brotherly countries had come a long way, especially in the last two years.

“There is complete harmony of views between the two countries. Ties are expanding in all areas for the mutual benefit of both countries. The implementation of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement will bolster bilateral commercial ties,” he added. Khan underlined that the destinies of Pakistan and Afghanistan were intertwined. He wished success to the High Peace Council in its efforts towards promoting peace in

Afghanistan and assured Pakistan’s full support to Afghanistan-driven efforts in this regard. The minister underscored that Pakistan was actively participating in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, adding that the fact that Pakistan continued to host close to 3 million Afghan refugees was reflective of the historical ties, as well as bonds of friendship that had existed between people of both the countries for centuries.

Professor Rabbani, expressing strong sentiments of friendship and brotherhood towards Pakistan, said that Afghanistan and Pakistan were brothers as well as neighbours.

The two countries had opened a new chapter in their friendly relations, he said and added the people of Afghanistan could never forget the valuable support, which Pakistan had extended against the foreign occupation in the 1980s, including hosting five million Afghan refugees on its soil.

He appreciated Pakistan’s policy of non-interference and non-intervention. He said Pakistan was the most important country for Afghanistan. It was, therefore, important that the two countries continued to work together in order to promote peace and stability in the region, he added.

He said that there were countless opportunities for Afghanistan-Pakistan cooperation at all levels and in all spheres. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, who also attended the meeting, stressed that the situation was very complex both at the regional and global levels.

It was important that Afghanistan’s neighbours and all countries of the region recommitted themselves to respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as adhered to the principles of non-interference and non-intervention, he added.

Bashir assured the delegation that Pakistan would continue supporting Afghanistan as a sincere brotherly country.

The two sides agreed to reconvene the joint peace jirga as soon as possible.

Let’s stop flattering India so much

Ayaz Amir

The centre of the Pakistani solar system is not the sun, as innocents may tend to believe, but our elephant-like neighbour to the east, from whose bosom once-upon-a-time we were carved: India. We may be fighting a war on our western frontier and the greatest threat to the idea envisioned by our luckless founding fathers may come from the forces of religious extremism – whose creation in present form and shape is one of the singular achievements of our defence establishment – but all our war doctrines are based on the real or presumed threat from the east.

Thus, while the world marches on we remain trapped in a time warp, fighting the battles of the past, obsessed with the perception of a threat which spurs us on to a nuclear arms race underpinned by no sense of logic or rationality…as the rest of the world understands these terms.

How much land does a man require?… famously asked Leo Tolstoy. How much nuclear security does a country require? In a reasonable world five nuclear bombs would be enough to ward off real or chimerical dangers. If Al-Qaeda had a single nuclear device the United States would not know how to deal with the threat. We may be a beggar country but, Allah be praised, we have enough nuclear bombs, and missiles to carry them, to spread death and destruction across the entire sub-continent.

Yet our supreme custodians of the national interest, self-appointed protectors of our ideological and geographical frontiers, are not satisfied, continuing to articulate and champion a national security doctrine out of sync with the times.

If the bombs at our disposal and more than half a million men, and mercifully a sprinkling of women, under arms are not enough to impart a sense of security to this putative citadel of Islam – another of our mythical notions – then Ares, the god of war, can descend from Olympus and we will not be secure.

Yes, we have problems with India and will continue to have them. But surely we are not envisaging a recourse to arms to settle these problems. We should stick to our viewpoint on Kashmir and, in this regard, be guided by the wishes of the Kashmiri people. If we have water problems with India we must talk to resolve them. If both countries are engaged in the most senseless of standoffs anywhere in the world – on the dizzying heights of the Siachen Glacier, the only way for common sense to make an appearance is through negotiations.

Except for the first Kashmir war, 1947-48, which allowed us to acquire the portion of Kashmir in our possession, all our subsequent wars with India were exercises in unmitigated folly. In the name of the national interest and, from Gen Ziaul Haq’s time onwards, in the name of ‘jihad’, our supreme keepers of the national flame have done things which in other countries would have called for the requisitioning of a determined firing squad.

Haven’t we gone through enough but must we still learn no lessons? Yes, the Pakistan-India border remains one of the most militarised frontiers in the world. Yes, there is an unbroken chain of military cantonments on the Indian side of the border, just as there is a similar chain – from the mountains of Kashmir to the sea – on our side. But we should be reversing this state of affairs, not advancing it.

Yes, we must remain eternally vigilant, I suppose an inescapable cliché in this sort of discussion. But the point is that we have enough, and to spare, to meet and even exceed the demands of vigilance. There may be sections of Indian public opinion hostile to Pakistan. But that shouldn’t cause us any sleepless nights. There are many things about official India which we don’t like. To hear Indians talk about their economic achievements, the implication being that Pakistan has been left far behind, can be tiresome, especially when repeated too often.

But the mark of being a civilized people is not to eliminate prejudice – it would be a dull world without anger and prejudice – but to keep it in check. We can indulge our fancies in private but when fancy and fantasy cloud public discourse or become substitutes for wisdom in government policy we invite trouble for ourselves.

Pakistan is not a morsel that can be chewed and swallowed. Contrary to what many in the chattering classes assert, Pakistan is not a banana republic. The United States does not run Pakistan and indeed could not, because some of our most glaring stupidities in the name of ‘jihad’ and national security are entirely indigenous, capable of concoction in no other laboratory.

Without under-estimating the ingenuity of the CIA, would the CIA have been able to create something quite like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or the Lashkar-e-Taiba? The Kargil adventure could have been dreamt up only by the best and brightest in our own general staff. The fortress-of-Islam narrative can only be a Pakistani production. Making regular asses of ourselves in the name of religion is very much a home-grown talent.

So let us not run ourselves down and put India on too high a perch. India cannot harm us. Let us get this dangerous nonsense out of our heads. India is not about to attack Pakistan. Its leaders would have to be crazy – crazier than us – to even contemplate the possibility. India attacked us only once, in 1971, and even then we had made such a mess of East Pakistan that it was almost like inviting India to intervene. The rest of the times we attacked India, with nothing but disaster to show for it. We should get the balance of this accounting right.

Pakistan stands in greatest risk from itself, from our incapacity to look hard at our real problems and from our failure to confront those problems. Religious extremism especially in its Taliban and Al-Qaeda variety is a product of 30 years of distortion starting from the Zia era (or rather the 1977 rightist movement against Bhutto which set the stage for so much occurring thereafter). Reversing the tide of this extremist is not just a question of conducting military operations in one area of FATA or another but of reinventing the Pakistani state and making it less of a playground for theocratic forces.

This task of reinvention has to include the country’s most powerful institution, the army…which, unluckily for Pakistan, instead of having a reformist and progressive influence on the nation has been the smithy for the forging of some truly strange concepts and doctrines.

And the time for this reinvention is very short. The Americans begin to withdraw from Afghanistan, as they are priming themselves to do, and a new period of uncertainty, to put it no stronger than this, will begin in that embattled country. We have to get things right between now and then.

None of the principals in Islamabad (to name them is to spoil one’s mood) inspires much hope in this regard. But for the general staff at least, the self-appointed custodians of all that is holy, this should be a cue to change gears and spend less time fretting about India and more time in sizing up the threat of religious extremism – which won’t grow less when the Americans depart.

With all the nonsense assiduously cultivated over the years about strategic depth and our legitimate interests in Afghanistan, and the threat from India, we have managed to turn what could have been a perfectly beautiful country, a crossroads of East and West, the gateway on the one hand to India and on the other to Central Asia, into an abnormal country.

The foremost task facing us as a nation is to return to normality and make education and the march to civilization our central preoccupations, instead of the totem poles currently the greatest objects of our worship: bombs and nuke-carrying missiles.

Tailpiece: Shahzain Bugti being held by the scruff of his neck as he was arrested…a photo, in the context of Balochistan, about as damaging as the one which showed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry being pushed by the head into a waiting car. Will we never learn?

Email: winlust@yahoo.com