Confused Mr. Sehbai

ZoneAsia-Pk

It seems Mr Sehbai is not clear in his own mind about the role he wants the Army to play. He blames Gen Kayani for sitting on the sidelines and letting the country slide into the current mess. Yet he blames 10 years of Army rule which incidentally except for first three years of Musharraf was actually run by politicians allied with Musharraf , for a bad legacy for the current rulers. He calls Gen Kayani a Gorbachev for letting Pakistan reach this failed state situation but at the same time is against Army intervention. It seems he is constrained by the oft repeated slogan of Democracy is our future irrespective of the results that we are reaping. I think Gen Kayani has done well to clarify so many doubts sown about the Army actions/ inactions spread by our media. By talking directly to the media and clarifying the Army role in the last 5 years, he has briefed them about the true state of affairs. Hopefully this should at least reduce the unjustified criticism and doubts about the Army,s role and specially his own role as Chief . Let this election bring up some fresh and well meaning leadership for if that does not happen, we should have a fresh look at our systems specially our brand of parliamentary democracy which has failed again and again in providing good Government to the country. Gen Kayani has brought some truths to the notice of our opinion makers. Let it not be said by any one that he/ she did not know these things. Now it is upto our media to educate our public on all major issues facing the country.

General Kayani spills the beans, blames others, raises doubts

Shaheen Sehbai
Thursday, February 28, 2013

General Kayani has finally spoken his heart out and the information trickling out from the not so off-the-record four-hour briefing is revealing as well as a cause for serious concern and a warning for the civilians and the country.

The bottom line General Kayani gave was that he wants free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power and everyone must respect the mandate of the people and for this the army will provide the maximum help, but only that much which is asked for by the civilians.

So in other words what the general said repeatedly was that no one should try to play games with the transparency and fairness of the elections and the results must be accepted but the army will not impose itself in any way and this job has to be done by the civilians themselves.

Yet while confirming that the army has pulled out of these, and almost all other, matters in the civilian domain, General Kayani gave a long list of civilian failures, almost a charge sheet against the politicians and the government and placed the blame of gigantic failures in many critical domains at the civilian doorstep.

Not to intervene is constitutionally and practically a very positive and constructive approach but in reality it has brought the country to the verge of a collapse and General Kayani realises that but does not want to share the blame.

Examples of the civilians’ failure that he quoted, in his own soft style and in a non-intrusive way, were many but a cool analysis of his thoughts and ideas reveals he has told the government and politicians they had messed up in a big way and no more of this mess-up can be afforded.

For instance, he says on the key issue of war against terrorism, the army is not to be blamed but the civilians have not formulated a comprehensive anti-terrorism policy and they could not decide what to do. They threw the ball in the court of the army without giving them policy guidelines, the targets to be achieved and the way that was to be done.

Repeatedly, he said that the army had not been consulted or taken on board about the political all parties conferences being held on counter terrorism.

General Kayani, in this context, quoted many examples and reminded the media men of the Swat situation where he said the President was persuaded by him to take a decision. He also took ANP leader Asfandyar Wali to the President and when the decision was taken to talk to Maulana Sufi Mohammed, the talks were held but when he violated the accord, an operation was launched. Then the civilians had to take over the responsibility which, he implied, they did not.

General Kayani specifically mentioned the arrests made in Swat and complained that if the arrested persons are not convicted because of lack of evidence, the army cannot hold them forever. For three-and-a-half years it is holding these people and is either violating laws by doing so or risks more terrorism if they are released.

Likewise, in Balochistan, General Kayani said, an army operation could be launched only if the civilians take that decision and order the army to do so. But once the operation is done and people are arrested, they will again have to be tried and convicted by the police and courts for which the civilians are not prepared and ready.

Similarly, he said the civilians depend too much and remain forever scared of the ISI and army intelligence agencies whereas the tasks should have been done by their own agencies.

All internal matters have to be handled by the civilians as the ISI has to look after external intelligence threats and the army has to secure borders. Where are the civilian agencies? he asked, in so many words, though politely.

General Kayani’s talk was almost a report card of failure of the interior ministry but he said in so many words that for five years the army took all these failures in its stride, and sometimes guided the civilians to reform and take ownership and responsibility yet did not intervene to stop the rot.

In my view, this was a very considered and deliberate policy as General Kayani and his colleagues knew the capacity of the civilians. They knew that these politicians will not be able to handle such colossal issues like the war on terror, the Balochistan mess, the fight against domestic extremism and fanaticism but they left everything to these immature and inexperienced or incompetent politicians so that the army may not be blamed and the onus of the disaster falls on the civilians.

Now he has explained his five years of non-interference by the army, failure of the civilians to cope and the resultant disasters in a four-hour session which can be summed up in one line: “Don’t blame us. Do something if you can.”

The tragedy is that General Kayani knows well that the 10 years of General Musharraf and the total dominance of the army, the persecution of politicians, the disarray in the political system, the physical threats to political leaders, their assassinations and mass murders, all meant that the politicians were not ready, although they had been voted into power because an election was held and that too under the threat of mass rebellion after Benazir Bhutto’s murder.

So there was no way the army could avoid an election but there was no way the civilians could correct everything messy that the generals were leaving behind.

Similar is the issue with the present elections. General Kayani is now saying that elections must be free, fair and transparent but the set-up that has been put in place is controversial, weak and fragile, weakest at the top.

In his four-hour talk he referred to this weakness of the ECP in his own way by recalling the famous meeting between him and Fakhru Bhai in which a briefing was given by the army to the CEC for over two hours but at the end Fakhru Bhai did not recognise General Kayani.

“Yes I am General Kayani” he told the ageing CEC but then also recalled the story of Alif Laila and the joke associated with it when after the whole night someone asked: “Was Zulekha a man or a woman”.

By referring to Fakhru Bhai and speaking about his age and his capacity, General Kayani indirectly expressed doubts that he can handle such a gigantic task of holding the election. He also knows that politicians have nominated the other four members of the ECP and they are political nominees who can, and may, play games for their sponsors.

So when he says that elections must be fair and free, he is again shifting the blame to the civilians while knowing that they do not mean a fair business and they will do the mischief in their own ways. He is not ready to interfere but is only asking them not to try. Yet he has walked out of providing army cover to the polls saying he cannot spare 200,000 troops. Fakhru Bhai has been left high and dry, on his own.

So if the politicians don’t listen to the army chief, the bottom line is that nothing will happen. Kayani has already, and in the same meeting, announced that he will retire later this year, or just after a few months after the elections. The politicians can even cut that period short by announcing his replacement three months ahead of the date. So the politicians will play around and the general will go home, leaving the mess for the people to face.

His clearest warning was on the economy and again he blamed the civilians entirely for the failure. He recounted so many instances and asked do you blame the army for this, for that and for everything. He, however, allowed the corrupt civilians to do the damage before his own eyes.

The media lot sitting in front of him, it looks, did not disagree with him on this count. But a pile of dirt, mixed with filth and stink left behind by the army after years of misrule cannot be cleared so easily, when the army pulls itself into a corner and does not stop even the most glaring and blatant violations of the laws and Constitution.

What General Kayani could have done, and has not done, was to strengthen and reassure the institutions which can check the incompetent civilians to place strong checks and corrections at every stage, so that things would not have come so near to collapse. When General Kayani retires, as he would in a few months later this year, he would be judged as another leader of the Gorbachev kind. Will he like to be called General Gorbachev?

Source: The News

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…

Why the ISI has played a silent spectator to the CIA/Black Water operations?

By Yousuf Nazar

I have suspected for long that the United States has been conducting false flag operations in Pakistan through covert operatives. I wrote on my blog on January 10, 2008, Could CIA be conducting Operation Gladio in Pakistan?

False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time. Operation Gladio was a covert operations project conducted by the UK and UK intelligence during the 1960s in Europe and involved massacres and bombing conducted by the covert operatives of these agencies with the objective of blaming them on the communist Soviet Union and discrediting it.

On December 11, 2009, the Guardian published a story, “Blackwater operating at CIA Pakistan base”, which said:

“the US contractor Blackwater was operating in Pakistan at a secret CIA airfield used for launching drone attacks, according to a former US official, despite repeated government denials that the company is in the country.The official, who had direct knowledge of the operation, said that employees with Blackwater, now renamed Xe Services, patrol the area round the Shamsi airbase in Baluchistan province.He also confirmed that Blackwater employees help to load laser-guided Hellfire missiles on to CIA-operated drones,”

On September 16, 2010, noted investigative journalist Wayne Madsen published an article in the Online Journal titled, ” Blackwater/Xe cells conducting false flag terrorist attacks in Pakistan.” The author of the Wasden Report (who formerly worked for the US Navy and the State Department) claimed that he has learned from a deep background source that Xe Services, the company formerly known as Blackwater, has been conducting false flag terrorist attacks in Pakistan that are later blamed on “Pakistani Taliban” and noted that only recently did the US State Department designate the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as terrorist organization.

On March 17, 2011, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an uncharacteristically candid and realistic article, “Perfidious America” declaring that the [Raymond] Davis case has knocked Washington off the moral high ground in Pakistan. It is probably for the first time that a pro-establishment American paper such as the WSJ acknowledged that ‘suspicions of Pakistanis about the US operations in Pakistan have a basis in reality’ noting that in his book “Obama’s Wars,” Bob Woodward revealed the existence of a secret 3,000-strong army of paramilitary Afghan fighters created by the CIA to target Taliban and al Qaeda commanders inside Pakistan through “false flag attacks.” Recall that the Wikileaks had revealed that President Zardari had told Richard Halbrooke that he suspected that the US was destabilizing Pakistan through the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.

Former Indian Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar in an article published by the AsiaTimes (February 15, 2011) pointed out that “the heart of the matter is that Pakistan has been wondering for a long time who it is who could be instigating the so-called “Pakistani Taliban” to inflict such bloody wounds on the Pakistani military and weaken and incrementally destabilize the Pakistani state” and concluded that Davis can most certainly provide the proverbial “missing link” to Pakistan to connect several dots on an intriguing chessboard. Ambassador Bhadrakumar had also noted that that Davis’ detention sent alarm bells ringing all the way to the White House and the US was apprehensive that the Davis case had the potential to shake up the very foundations of its alliance with Pakistan.

So the most important question to come out of the Raymond Davis, as I wrote in the Express Tribune on February 28, 2011, is not whether he killed in self-defense or not, whether the ISI manipulated the media or not, whether he was an accredited diplomat or not, whether he enjoyed diplomatic or consular immunity or not, or whether he was spy or a CIA contractor.

The most critical question is what hundreds of CIA agents (according to scores of reports including those carried by top US papers recently) are doing in Pakistan, and why they were provided cover by an embassy whose facilities are being upgraded by a massive spending program exceeding one billion dollars, according to official US documents, as either the ISI looked the other way or was sleeping.

Going further, given the dirty and murky CIA-ISI deal that resulted in the release of Raymond Davis, the most important question seems to be why the civilian and military leaders of Pakistan have kept silent, at the least, and therefore have been complicit in the false flag operations against the state and the people of Pakistan despite the fact that the head of the state had expressed his suspicions that the CIA was behind some the terrorist attacks. The nation and the super-patriots that our TV anchors are ought to tell General Kayani that issuing press statement condemning drone attacks can no longer fool the people. The masses may be silent and may feel helpless for now but the time will come when they will ask loudly, why did you co-operate with the Americans when you knew they were upto no good?

WikiLeaks: Pakistan military cast in favourable light

KARACHI: While the leaked US State Department memos reveal that President Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have been described as ‘dirty’ and ‘dangerous’ respectively, Saudi Arabia “sees Zardari and other leading Pakistani politicians as corrupt”, and the US is “astonished” that Zardari remained in power, Pakistan’s military appears to have won over US officials and world leaders.

The success achieved by Pakistani forces under General Kayani has been appreciated by then
US Centcom Commander General David Petraeus and the US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates.

The role of Pakistan Army

Even though some French officials in particular are sceptical of the military, US officials have praised the military over the years.

Similarly, older memos have revealed support for former president and chief of army staff Pervez Musharraf from various countries, including the UAE and Israel. A 2007 memo says, “The United States Government will continue to support Pakistani President Musharraf, and is seeking to boost his military defensive capabilities.”

Even though US officials describe the changes in Pakistan as ‘dramatic’ and ‘encouraging’, the credit is given to the Pakistan Army. Global support for the civilian set-up appears almost non-existent. According to a March 2009 memo, “The Saudis say they have been holding back economic and political support pending evidence that the political situation in Pakistan is stabilising.”

The head of France’s interagency Afghanistan-Pakistan cell Jasmine Zerinini told a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in January 2010, “General Kayani has ‘learned the lesson of Musharraf’ and was staying behind the scenes.”

“However, he is manipulating the government and parliament, to prevent change on Pakistan’s policy towards Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border, and also to stir up controversy regarding the Kerry-Lugar bill that ties continued US aid to increased civilian control of the military.”

The Pakistan Army’s reservations about the Kerry-Lugar bill are a matter of public record. A press release issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations on October 7, 2009 about the 122 Corps Commanders Conference stated, “Kerry Lugar bill also came under discussion during the conference. The forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting National Security. A formal input is being provided to the Government. However, in the considered view of the forum, it is the Parliament, that represents the will of the people of Pakistan, which would deliberate on the issue, enabling the Government to develop a National response.”

Zerinini is also quoted as saying that France “does not want to return to a relationship (with Pakistan) based on military equipment sales, as in the 1980s, and is instead focusing on counter terrorism in addition to economic and trade links.”

In a briefing memo to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, France’s relationship with Pakistan was described as “relative newcomers who have requested close cooperation with the UK and US, particularly in areas of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency assistance.” However, the memo also states, “Paris officials complain that Pakistani cooperation in combating the Afghan Taliban refuged in their country is weak, if not non-existent.”

Jasmine Zerinini also “argued that the west had missed its opportunity to push the Pakistani military to crush the Afghan Taliban taking refuge in Pakistan. Citing Jalaladin Haqqani as an example, Zerinini said in 2004 he had standing as a leader in the jihadi community, but did not have the organisation to represent a significant military threat. However, since then, large amounts of funding, predominately from Gulf donors, have allowed Haqqani to create a network that would be difficult for the Pakistani military to defeat, even if it had the will to do so.”
Memos released by WikiLeaks support the theory that Gulf donors are funding militancy.

US officials highlighted the success of Pakistan’s military operations in several meetings. The chief of the Turkish General Staff General Ilker Basbug met with US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in Ankara on February 6, 2010. The memo states, “Basbug also raised Pakistan, recalling his October visit at the invitation of General Kayani. During his visit to Swat he had witnessed a hundred-fold improvement in security since his previous visit, citing the return of civilian populations to the region as a clear success for Pakistani forces. Gates agreed, observing that the degree of success by Pakistani forces ran counter to all of our intelligence predictions.”

Gates praised the Pakistan Army in a meeting with France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on February 8, 2010. The memo states, “SecDef (Gates) described the dramatic changes that had taken place over the past year.”

Gates also noted that it was “astonishing that President Zardari had remained in power and that the Pakistanis had conducted such effective COIN (counter-insurgency) operations.”
According to the memo, Gates “noted that coordination between ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) and Pakistan’s armed forces was improving – and this was creating a more difficult situation for the Taliban along the border. The Pakistan operation in South Waziristan had flushed out Taliban and al Qaeda elements; they were more vulnerable on the move. Moreover, Pakistan’s aggressive campaign against the insurgency had won broad political support among all political parties. Operations in the West and North-West had begun to accrue respect for Pakistan Army that Musharraf had squandered. It is important for all of us to talk to the Pakistanis and provide economic assistance. SecDef commented that one can never be an optimist about Pakistan, but that the changes had been striking. Kouchner agreed with SecDef’s analysis that the changes in both the political and military spheres were ‘nothing short of a miracle’.”

However France’s Minister of Defence Herve Morin struck a different tone in his meeting with Gates the same day. Morin “expressed doubt about the willingness of the Pakistani government to fight extremists at home.” Morin said Afghan President Hamid Karzai had told France that if the Pakistan-Afghanistan border was closed, it would largely solve issues in Afghanistan.

According to the memo, “SecDef replied that he had told the Pakistani government two weeks earlier that al Qaeda was helping the Pakistan Taliban to destabilise Pakistan. SecDef highlighted the dramatic changes in Pakistan over the past 18 months, especially in Swat and Bajaur provinces, which offered some hope of progress. SecDef said that there was increasing coordination between US and Pakistani forces across the border.”

In a June 2009 meeting between then US Centcom Commander General David Petraeus and Egyptian General Intelligence Service Chief Omar Soliman, Petraeus is quoted as saying he was “encouraged by the Pakistani military’s operations in the Swat Valley and Northwest Frontier Province, including their focus on holding and rebuilding affected areas.”

Soliman, according to the memo, “credited the Pakistani government for doing a better job of convincing people that extremists pose a real threat to Pakistani national security.”

THE US EDGES CLOSER TO INVADING PAKISTAN

By: Eric Margolis

This writer has been warning for years that US and NATO efforts to defeat resistance to Western occupation by Afghanistan’s fierce Pashtun tribes would eventually lead to spreading the conflict into neighboring Pakistan, a nation of 175 million.

We’ve seen it all before in Vietnam. It was then called, “mission creep.”

The focus of the Afghan War is clearly shifting south into Pakistan, drawing that nation and the United States forces ever closer to a direct confrontation. This grim development was as predictable as it was inevitable.

This week’s fevered warnings from Washington of supposedly imminent terrorist attacks in Europe may be aimed at justifying intensifying US military operations against Pakistan. If attacks do come in Europe, they will most likely be linked to anti-French militant groups in North Africa and the Sahara – nothing at all to do with Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Last week, Pakistan temporarily closed the main US/NATO supply route from Karachi to the Afghan border at Torkham after the killing of three Pakistani soldiers by US helicopter gunships. Three US/NATO fuel supply convoys were burned by anti-American militants.

Eighty percent of the supplies of the US-led forces in Afghanistan come up this long, difficult route. Along the way, the US pays large bribes to Pakistani officials, local warlords, and to Taliban. The cost of a gallon of gas delivered to US units in Afghanistan has risen to $800.

US helicopter gunships have staged at least four attacks on Pakistan this past week alone, in addition to the mounting number of strikes by CIA drones that are inflicting heavy casualties on civilians and tribal militants alike. US Special Forces and CIA-run Afghan mercenaries are also increasingly active along Pakistan’s northwest frontier.

Pakistan’s feeble, discredited government has long closed its eyes to CIA’s drone attacks. Washington does not even seek permission for the raids or give advance warning to Islamabad. Pakistan’s media claims over 90% of the casualties in US air raids are civilians.

The failing government in Islamabad is caught between two fires. Pakistanis are furious and humiliated by the American attacks. Each new assault further undermines the inept, US-installed Zardari government. Even Interior Minister Rehman Malik, the government’s strongman, protested last week’s US attacks.

But Pakistan is on the edge of economic collapse after its devastating floods. Islamabad is now totally reliant on $2 billion annual US aid, plus tens of millions more “black” payments from CIA. Washington has given Islamabad $10 billion since 2001, most of which goes to renting 140,000 Pakistani troops to support the US-led Afghan war. CIA also has 3,000 mercenaries operating inside Pakistan.

As Osama bin Laden just pointed out in a new audio tape, the Muslim nations have been derelict in coming to Pakistan’s aid. He blamed the massive flooding in Pakistan on global warming.

An influential former Pakistani chief of staff, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, just demanded Pakistan’s air force shoot down US drones and helicopters violating his nation’s sovereignty. His sentiments are widely shared in Pakistan’s increasingly angry military.

Pakistan’s senior generals are being blasted as “American stooges” by some of the media and are losing respect among Pakistanis. A video this week of the execution of six civilians by army troops has further damaged the army’s good name.

However, Washington’s view is very different. Pakistan is increasingly branded insubordinate, ungrateful for billions in aid, and a potential enemy of US regional interests. Many Americans consider Pakistan more of a foe than ally. The limited US financial response to Pakistan’s flood was a sign of that nation’s poor repute in North America.

Fears are growing in Washington and in Europe that the nine-year Afghan War may be lost. American popular opinion has turned against the war. The Pentagon fears a failure in Afghanistan will humiliate the US military and undermine America’s international power. In short, just what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

America’s foreign policy establishment is venting its anger and frustration over the failing Afghan War by lashing out at Pakistan and, as well, the US-installed Karzai regime in Kabul.

Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, is seen in Washington as hopeless and incompetent. Full US attention is now on Pakistan’s military, the de facto government, and its respected but embattled commander, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, whose tenure was just extended under US pressure. Kayani is still regarded as an “asset” by Washington. But like Zardari, he is caught between American demands and outraged Pakistanis – plus concerns about the threat from India and Delhi’s machinations in Afghanistan. The recent upsurge of violence in Indian-ruled Kashmir has intensified these dangerous tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.

The neoconservatives in Washington and their media allies again claim Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces.

There is also talk in Washington of dividing Afghanistan into Pashtun, Tajik and Uzbek mini-states, as the US has done in Iraq, Could Pakistan be next for this divide and conquer treatment? Little states are easier to rule or intimidate than big ones. Many Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation. Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy than India.

Now that America is in full mid-term election frenzy, expect more calls for tougher US military action in “AfPak.” Already unpopular politicians are terrified of being branded “soft on terrorism” and failing to maximally support US military campaigns. Flag waving replaces sober thought.

If polls are right and Republicans achieve a major win, it’s likely there will be more and deeper US air and land attacks into Pakistan. The Pentagon is convinced it can still defeat resistance by Taliban and its allies “if only we can go after their sanctuaries in Pakistan,” as one general told me.

Where have we heard this before? Why in Cambodia and Laos, that’s where, during the Vietnam War. Frustrated US commanders expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos to go after Communist base camps. The war spread; these two small nations were largely destroyed, but the war was ultimately lost.

Victory in war is achieved by concentration of forces, not spreading them ever thinner and wider.

But our imperial generals seem determined to blunder into a nation of 175 million hostile people without any clear strategy. Unable to subdue the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan, they are now attacking the Pashtun tribes of Pakistan. America does not need more enemies.

(Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times and other news sites in Asia.He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, Lew Rockwell and Big Eye. He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC).

Was A Fourth Military Coup Averted In Pakistan?

The paranoid elected government of President Asif Zardari has been out battling shadows and ghosts, whipping up anti-military sentiment when the military never planned a coup of any sort against him. His problems are with the Supreme Court on legal grounds. To calm frayed nerves, it appears Gen. Kayani agreed to let Zardari and Gilani issue a statement on the three’s commitment to ‘defending’ democracy. Pakistani military could also be bound by ‘sovereign guarantees’ given as back as 2007 stating that Pakistani military won’t destabilize a government created through the US-sponsored NRO deal.

By AHMED QURAISHI
Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan-Hardly. Better still, there wasn’t a coup to start with.

Monday’s well-timed meeting between the so-called ‘troika’ – the President, Prime Minister, and the Army chief – is being widely interpreted as having averted a possible collapse of the elected Zardari-Gilani government. There is no word from the military’s media people on the meeting but the president’s media office took the liberty of releasing a statement renewing the commitment of Gen. Kayani, and that of the President and Prime Minister, to defending democracy.

If there’s anyone who created a frenzy about an extra-constitutional [read: military-engineered] change, it is the elected government when it opened indiscriminate fire at shadowy and unseen enemies, warning it will defend democracy, pleading its American friends to issue pro-democracy statements, prodding ministries and NGOs to place newspaper advertisements extolling the virtues of democracy, and unleashing a frontman like Abdul Qayum Jatoi to whip up anti-military sentiment. By choosing Balochistan and Akbar Bugti’s house as a venue for Mr. Jatoi’s provocative lines, it was a clear message to the Pakistani military that, if toppled, the Zardari government will use Balochistan against the federation. It was naked blackmail. It came on top of other forms of blackmail – the waving of the so-called Sindh card, Zulfiqar Mirza’s statement about breaking away from Pakistan after Benazir Bhutto’s death, and coalition partner ANP’s recent bold statement linking respect for the military to respect for the elected government.

This paranoia by the elected government worsened when the ruling politicians saw the military winning hearts and minds in interior Sindh and Balochistan, where people saw soldiers saving them when politicians in power diverted flood water to save their lands. Another thing that sent shivers down the spines in the PPPP government was to see the Pakistani military gaining ground once again in America’s war on terror, forcing Washington to become dependent again on Pakistani military’s goodwill.

So, did Gen. Kayani deliberately become part of the ‘defend-democracy’ meeting on Monday?

No doubt about that. He must have been told about the statement that would be issued after the meeting and he accepted it. Or President Zardari might have wanted to test the waters with the general on the post-meeting statement and Gen. Kayani simply said yes [what else could he do? Say no?]. Or maybe it was Gen. Kayani’s initiative to suggest such a meeting in order to calm the frayed nerves of the government. It could be any one of the three scenarios, we don’t know for sure. There are also rumors that either Mr. Gilani or Gen. Kayani brought up the question of expelling some figures who occupy key positions in the Zardari government. Again, no confirmation from any quarter about this, but it’s important to recall that a similar understanding was reached between the troika last year after the Kerry-Lugar bill fiasco and it seems the government reneged later, benefiting from the military’s distraction after a bold terror attack on the GHQ building in Rawalpindi.

All of these reports are important and cannot be ignored but they remain unconfirmed. What is confirmed, however, is that the military wasn’t planning any coup.

Here is a key point that analysts forget when debating this point: whether it likes it or not, the Pakistani military is one of the main guarantors for the Mush-BB-US-UK deal of 2006-7 that created the piece of law called NRO and the incumbent coalition government in Islamabad. For the Pakistani military to remove this government would amount to staging a coup against the whole set of ‘sovereign guarantees’ that Gen. Musharraf left Pakistan and the military saddled with. Apparently these guarantees include a lot of secret clauses about US activities in Pakistan, in addition to committing the Pakistani military to avoid destabilizing this government. [Yes, despite US criticism about the corruption of the current Pakistani government, Washington won't ditch it so easily. Just ask the US ambassador in Islamabad how much busy time she spent earlier this year quietly convincing opposition politicians 'not to rock the boat'!].

The day the Pakistani military turns against this government would be the day Pakistan would opt out of America’s failed war effort in the region.

So, has a fourth coup been averted?

Hardly. Conditions for a military intervention in Pakistan continue to exist. After all, this nation can’t spend the next nine decades of this century with this kind of a messy and porous political system. But for the time being, whatever problems the government faces are with the Supreme Court. And only a fool would advise the military to stage a coup and stop the politicians from doing such a wonderful job of proving they are not fit to rule now or in the future, without inducting new faces and, more importantly, a new mindset.

Was A Fourth Military Coup Averted In Pakistan?

The paranoid elected government of President Asif Zardari has been out battling shadows and ghosts, whipping up anti-military sentiment when the military never planned a coup of any sort against him. His problems are with the Supreme Court on legal grounds. To calm frayed nerves, it appears Gen. Kayani agreed to let Zardari and Gilani issue a statement on the three’s commitment to ‘defending’ democracy. Pakistani military could also be bound by ‘sovereign guarantees’ given as back as 2007 stating that Pakistani military won’t destabilize a government created through the US-sponsored NRO deal.

By AHMED QURAISHI
Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan-Hardly. Better still, there wasn’t a coup to start with.

Monday’s well-timed meeting between the so-called ‘troika’ – the President, Prime Minister, and the Army chief – is being widely interpreted as having averted a possible collapse of the elected Zardari-Gilani government. There is no word from the military’s media people on the meeting but the president’s media office took the liberty of releasing a statement renewing the commitment of Gen. Kayani, and that of the President and Prime Minister, to defending democracy.

If there’s anyone who created a frenzy about an extra-constitutional [read: military-engineered] change, it is the elected government when it opened indiscriminate fire at shadowy and unseen enemies, warning it will defend democracy, pleading its American friends to issue pro-democracy statements, prodding ministries and NGOs to place newspaper advertisements extolling the virtues of democracy, and unleashing a frontman like Abdul Qayum Jatoi to whip up anti-military sentiment. By choosing Balochistan and Akbar Bugti’s house as a venue for Mr. Jatoi’s provocative lines, it was a clear message to the Pakistani military that, if toppled, the Zardari government will use Balochistan against the federation. It was naked blackmail. It came on top of other forms of blackmail – the waving of the so-called Sindh card, Zulfiqar Mirza’s statement about breaking away from Pakistan after Benazir Bhutto’s death, and coalition partner ANP’s recent bold statement linking respect for the military to respect for the elected government.

This paranoia by the elected government worsened when the ruling politicians saw the military winning hearts and minds in interior Sindh and Balochistan, where people saw soldiers saving them when politicians in power diverted flood water to save their lands. Another thing that sent shivers down the spines in the PPPP government was to see the Pakistani military gaining ground once again in America’s war on terror, forcing Washington to become dependent again on Pakistani military’s goodwill.

So, did Gen. Kayani deliberately become part of the ‘defend-democracy’ meeting on Monday?

No doubt about that. He must have been told about the statement that would be issued after the meeting and he accepted it. Or President Zardari might have wanted to test the waters with the general on the post-meeting statement and Gen. Kayani simply said yes [what else could he do? Say no?]. Or maybe it was Gen. Kayani’s initiative to suggest such a meeting in order to calm the frayed nerves of the government. It could be any one of the three scenarios, we don’t know for sure. There are also rumors that either Mr. Gilani or Gen. Kayani brought up the question of expelling some figures who occupy key positions in the Zardari government. Again, no confirmation from any quarter about this, but it’s important to recall that a similar understanding was reached between the troika last year after the Kerry-Lugar bill fiasco and it seems the government reneged later, benefiting from the military’s distraction after a bold terror attack on the GHQ building in Rawalpindi.

All of these reports are important and cannot be ignored but they remain unconfirmed. What is confirmed, however, is that the military wasn’t planning any coup.

Here is a key point that analysts forget when debating this point: whether it likes it or not, the Pakistani military is one of the main guarantors for the Mush-BB-US-UK deal of 2006-7 that created the piece of law called NRO and the incumbent coalition government in Islamabad. For the Pakistani military to remove this government would amount to staging a coup against the whole set of ‘sovereign guarantees’ that Gen. Musharraf left Pakistan and the military saddled with. Apparently these guarantees include a lot of secret clauses about US activities in Pakistan, in addition to committing the Pakistani military to avoid destabilizing this government. [Yes, despite US criticism about the corruption of the current Pakistani government, Washington won't ditch it so easily. Just ask the US ambassador in Islamabad how much busy time she spent earlier this year quietly convincing opposition politicians 'not to rock the boat'!].

The day the Pakistani military turns against this government would be the day Pakistan would opt out of America’s failed war effort in the region.

So, has a fourth coup been averted?

Hardly. Conditions for a military intervention in Pakistan continue to exist. After all, this nation can’t spend the next nine decades of this century with this kind of a messy and porous political system. But for the time being, whatever problems the government faces are with the Supreme Court. And only a fool would advise the military to stage a coup and stop the politicians from doing such a wonderful job of proving they are not fit to rule now or in the future, without inducting new faces and, more importantly, a new mindset.

General Kayani: The Party Pooper

Dan Qayyum

The stage had been set for another round of the cordial, cosmetic but utterly pointless exercise at the behest of Washington as the US and NATO try and control the India-Pakistan proxy war on Afghan soil and convince Pakistan to shift its focus to the Western border. A lot of groundwork had been done to project the gradual normalization of relations between India and Pakistan in the run-up to the foreign minister-level talks.

However, India’s Home Minister GK Pillai’s direct allegation on the eve of the talks that Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) was ‘literally controlling and coordinating it (the Mumbai attacks) from the beginning till the end’ – had doomed the latest round of talks even before they commenced.

Pillai Unleashed

The latest outburst by Pillai – who had also recently blamed the unrest in occupied Kashmir on the ISI while absolving the trigger-happy Indian security forces of any blame – was part of a calculated attempt to undermine and pressure the ISI as the rift between it and the CIA continues to grow over Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s ‘democratically elected’ leaders, implanted at Washington and London’s behest, had been all set to play their part in this malarkey as they have done in the past, most noticeably when they attempted (and failed) to clip the ISI’s wings by pushing it under Rehman Malik’s interior ministry in the early days of Zardari’s government.

SM Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi appeared quite relaxed and happy when they broke for lunch around 1300 hrs (Pakistan Standard Time) after the first round of talks. After having painstakingly worked out numerous CBM agreements and cosmetic gestures during Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s visit to Islamabad last month, both Foreign Ministers were set to announce these agreements. A draft joint-statement was also ready in which the Pakistani side had appeared to give more concessions than they got in return – namely more promises to reign in JuD and Hafiz Saeed yet no word of protest on the Indian attempts to implicate the ISI in terrorism or to include Kashmir in talks.

This is when Kayani was forced to step into the picture and hold separate meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, making it absolutely clear on the two that Pakistan will not let itself be bullied, and there will be no further talks unless the following issues were included in discussion:

1. India’s human rights abuses in Kashmir
2. India’s covert support to TTP terrorists and Baloch separatists
3. India’s continued attempts to point the finger at Pakistan’s military establishment, as evident by Pillai’s statement

Krishna’s schedule was to leave at 3.20 pm and reach Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s office to meet him at 3.30 pm. The call on President Asif Ali Zardari was to follow at 5.30 pm at the Presidential palace.

Just 15 minutes prior to his departure, Krishna was informed that the order has been reversed and the call on Zardari will precede.

In the time slot Krishna was to meet Gilani, Kayani met the Prime Minister after having met with Zardari earlier.

According to the official release issued after Kayani’s meetings with Pakistan’s political leadership, the army chief discussed the security situation in the country and operational matters of the army.

However, when the talks resumed after Krishna’s two call-ons, the atmosphere totally changed.

Qureshi’s Switch

The tone and tenor of Qureshi changed at the third and final rounds of the marathon talks. He is said to have demanded on the time frame for settlement of various issues, as well as a resumption of the composite dialogue on Kashmir. He also raised the issue of India’s covert support to terrorists in Pakistan and the role its consulates in Afghanistan are playing in arming and training terrorists from the TTP and various Baloch separatist groups. Finally, Pakistan responded to India’s requests of blocking Hafiz Saeed’s right to speak publicly by telling the Indian contingent to put a leash on India’s official state actors such as Pillai and stop them from making statements that can only further strain the relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

India Caught with its Pants Down

To say that the sudden shift caught the Indian contingent as well as the country’s media and analyst’s off-guard would be an understatement. Heads were scratched and editorials were hurriedly scribbled trying to decipher what prompted the sudden change in Pakistan’s stance, from being apologetic in recent months to the new ‘take it or leave it’ posture which sent alarm bells ringing not just in Delhi but as far as Washington and Langley.

In Qureshi’s defense, he went far and above the call of duty and warned India not to expect him to come over to India for the next round of talks unless India was prepared to actually discuss all unresolved issues including Kashmir, and not use Mumbai as a stalling tactic which it has done successfully for the last couple of years.

With the endgame for US being spelt out in the mountains of Afghanistan, this is the latest signal in the gradual shift of power in the region – one where Pakistan can and will dictate terms as per its own national interest – even if it takes an Army chief to hold the US-backed puppet government to task to protect the national interest, just as when Kayani forced the reversal of the order that would have put the ISI under Rehman Malik’s control almost exactly 2 years ago.

Dan Qayyum is an Afghanistan and India analyst for PakistanKaKhudaHafiz.com, Pakistan’s leading online alternative news website, as well as for the defense and security publication Fortress Magazine, published out of Karachi, Pakistan.

Exercises Azm-e-Nau-III in the Perspective

Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

The Phase-1 of Exercise Azm-e-Nau-III was concluded on April 18, 2010, in the Cholistan Desert under the Southern Command. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani along with his cabinet ministers, representatives from all political parties, over thirty military attaches from major countries and the senior leadership of armed forces of Pakistan witnessed this phase of the exercise. The demonstration was a unique combination of the higher dimension of military planning and the fire power of Pakistan Army and Air Force. On this occasion, Prime Minister Gillani emphasized on the maintenance of peace and security in the region based on credible minimum deterrence by armed forces of Pakistan. The premier said that, “Our democratic system, economic potential, vibrant population, national unity and consensus and armed forces provide strategic stability against any possible threats to our great country. The world today finds Pakistan standing as a bulwark against forces of extremism and militancy. It is in this struggle where nation pledges to support armed forces in spirit, with its youth and its entire resources.”

Towards Pak-Afghan Harmonization

Lt. Col Dr. Muhammad Khan

“No country has ever showed more hospitality to Afghanistan than Pakistan, and that his country (Afghanistan) would not allow its soil to be used against Pakistan.” These were the wordings of the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai during the joint press conference between him and Pakistani Premier, Yousaf Raza Gillani on the conclusion of a daylong visit of the former to Pakistan on March 11, 2010. Earlier both countries agreed for a joint fight against the terrorism and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the augmentation of bilateral relationship. Declaring Pakistan and Afghanistan as the “twin brothers,” President Karzai further said that the “destiny, grieves and happiness of both the countries are shared.” On this occasion, Prime Minister Gilani assured the visiting President that, “We want to take the strategic partnership with Afghanistan forward.” Moreover, Pakistan would enhance its cooperation with Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorism, and bilateral ties between the two countries would be further enhanced.

The resilience shown by either side is being envisioned as the glimmer of hope for the beginning of a new chapter in the bilateral relationship of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, the history of Pak-Afghan relationship is an account of uneven correlation. There has hardly been a period of good will and cooperation between these two brotherly Muslim countries, linking various regions and civilizations of Asia. Why there has been a gulf in their mutual relationship, who has been playing in-between, and how long would it continue, is indeed a fruit for thought for over 200 million people of both countries? The significant factor, which has to be kept in mind, is that, after all, they have to live together, since neighbours cannot be changed.

The buoyant joint statement of the two leaders indeed, is reflective of the lessons they learnt during their prolonged uncooperative history, especially after the incident of 9/11. In this regards, Pakistani efforts at various tiers has played a vital role. The Afghan Government has now realized the significance of incessant Pakistani pursuance for the CBMs and emphasis for the adoption of a collective fight against the terrorism. Pakistan has always been critical to the role of extra-regional powers in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and in the bilateral relationship of Pakistan and Afghanistan. So much so the US and NATO countries, with whom, Pakistan is playing the role of a frontline state and as a partner in the global war on terror has been suspicion of the Pakistani role.

During the meeting of the NATO’s Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Staff (CHODs) held in Brussels on January 26-27, 2010, the Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, adequately highlighted the role played by Pakistan in the war on terror. Indeed, Pakistan lost over twenty five thousand lives during last nine years, since the beginning of this war. The casualties of security forces of Pakistan are much more than what the coalition and Afghans forces have collectively suffered in these years. General Kayani’s presentation on the Pakistan’s contribution indeed, removed the misperception of the NATO countries about the Pakistani role in the global war on terror. Thereafter, the Western world has changed its perception about the Pakistani role and vision.

Sequel to this meeting General Kayani, briefed the foreign and domestic press about the outcome of the meeting in Rawalpindi. During the course of the meeting, he categorically said that, “We cannot wish for Afghanistan anything that we don’t wish for Pakistan.” Since Pakistanis desire peace, stability, and economic prosperity for their country, therefore, they ought to wish similar comforts for their brethrens of Afghanistan. Furthermore, three decades of war, factional fighting, and the internal instability in Afghanistan has brought us to the conclusion that, stability and peace in Pakistan is directly proportional to these factors in Afghanistan. Indeed, the statement of Chief of Army Staff was the factor compelled Afghan President to say that, “the destiny, grieves and happiness of both the countries are shared.”

In the aftermath of US invasion of Afghanistan, India, a noncontiguous country, intruded in Afghanistan in a big way. Initially it assumed the responsibility of reconstruction of infrastructure of Afghanistan, but subsequently, it took over the responsibilities of other projects in that country. So much so, that Indian Army was given the responsibility to undertake the training of Afghan National Army (ANA), Afghan secret services and Afghan National Police (ANP). Besides, the Indian training teams, training Afghans on their soil, over 100 Afghan senior defence officials are being trained every year in India’s military institutions. It is worth mentioning that a huge number of the Indian army officers and lower ranks have been especially deputed to teach basic military field-crafts and English-language skills to personnel of ANA. Afghan police officers and foreign ministry officials have also attended training courses in India. Afghanistan is getting Indian help in the training of Afghan pilots and technicians for using its helicopter-gunships.

Afghan education system is yet another area where India has been given a key role to play. Now it is to the imagination of the Afghan people to know, as what would be the ethical condition of its future generation after having gone through the Indian founded educational system and training of its security setup (ANA, ANP and spying agency). Pakistan feels that Indian trained ANA and ANP will be on the warpath to all its neighbours, mainly Muslim countries, and People’s Republics of China. Apart from its geographically contagious neighbours, these Indian trained troops will be in conflict with basic Muslim cultural and social setup of that country even. Besides, promoting internal clashes, these troops will maintain the current state of volatility, distrust, and hostility with Pakistan. Indeed India and Afghanistan are two different countries, with different values, culture, and different future requirements. Therefore, the Indian trained ANA would further destabilize the region as a whole. This state of affairs would neither suit coalition nor to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In order to save Afghanistan from the lukewarm effects of these factors, General Kayani offered Afghan Government for the assistance in the training of ANA and ANP. Indeed, this step would greatly reduce the current instability and hostilities along the Pak-Afghan border by promoting harmony among the security forces of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as both countries share common terrain and borders to defend. Moreover, they have the similar cultural and historical values and milieus and ideological harmony. This is only possible once there are common trainers having corresponding training parameters for both armies. In fact, Afghans should not forget the experience of getting their Army trained from the former Soviet Union in 1970s. The result of the Soviet trained troops, teachers, doctors, other officials, and even politicians brought them in clash with the traditional Afghan society in late 1970s. That clash of ideas finally led to the Soviet invasion. Afghan society had enough of that, in the form of thirty years factional fighting, foreign invasions, and internal strife. Do they still want Russian like Indian invasion? Afghan should question themselves and later from their Indian friends too, that, why they (Indians) are so much concerned about Afghan people. Why should they forget the Indian role during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s? Being part of the Communist camp, India fully supported the Soviet Union globally as well as regionally and considered the invasion as justified.

Indeed, through the offer for the training of ANA and ANP, Pakistan envisions to bring the stability in the Afghanistan in the first phase and stabilization of the whole region thereafter. Besides, the offer would help in the implementation of the President Obama’s recently conceived “exit strategy” from Afghanistan, largely by paving way for the gradual restitution of peace in the region. The vision behind the offer is that “We cannot wish for Afghanistan anything that we don’t wish for Pakistan.” What all Pakistan wish for is a peaceful, stable and friendly Afghanistan. If visualized precisely, the Coalition forces and Afghan administration should be very happy on this offer, as it would surely lessen the ceaseless fighting in Afghanistan in the near future. Did not successful Pakistani military operations during 2009, help in lessening the militancy in Afghanistan, by constricting space for the terrorists. This evidence indeed should become a lead point for the materialization of the Pakistani offer of the training to ANA and ANP. This indeed would be a “win-win for Afghanistan, the United States, ISAF, and Pakistan.”

Besides, sharing common values, culture, and comparable stakes, both countries have a history of interdependence. Foreign interferences, influences, and imperialism cannot force the people to think differently. Pakistan visualizes a peaceful, stable, and economically affluent Afghanistan. It also wishes the Afghanistan freed from the foreign interferences and forays with an ethnically cohesive society. The wish for a stable Afghanistan is the collective voice of 170 million people of Pakistan. They can no more see their Afghan Brethren in a state of melancholy. The visionary offer of the Pakistani Army Chief for the training of ANA and ANP has the backing from the whole nation. Indeed, they stood behind Pakistan Army in curbing the militancy from Pakistan and have the enduring desire of peace and stability in both countries. The vision behind the offer indeed is a sincere endeavour to save Afghanistan from another debacle or colonialism.

India Prepares To Run From Afghanistan With Tail Between Legs

Dan Qayyum | PKKH

India has decided to run from Afghanistan with its tail between its legs as Pakistan increasingly takes center-stage in bringing stability to war-torn Afghanistan.

CNN-IBN Reports: India plans to ‘scale down’ its operations in Afghanistan and will advice its citizens in that country to return home, sources in the government have told CNN-IBN.

The Indian government is considering paring down its presence at reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. Projects underway may be wrapped up quickly and there may be even a freeze on undertaking new projects.

Apart from the embassy in Kabul, the work of consulates in Herat, Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad may also be scaled down.

CNN-IBN learns the precarious security situation in Afghanistan-highlighted by the terrorist attacks targeting Indians in Kabul on February 26, is prompting a gradual but significant rethink in New Delhi.

Pakistan Forces India Out Of Afghanistan

Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours – Pakistan, Iran, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, as well as the US, met earlier this year in Turkey to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and to take stock of measures for the restoration of peace in the country. The original “six-plus-two” formula also included Russia, but in the new set up Moscow representation was replaced by the United Kingdom.

Diplomatic sources said Pakistan had been lobbying for the renewal of talks among Afghanistan’s neighbours in order to foil Indian designs of gaining a foothold on Afghan soil.

Pakistan believes India is not an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan and therefore should have limited role in the country.

Turkey was asked to convene that meeting, as it enjoys the backing and trust of Pakistan and is accepted as a neutral party for promoting a common approach to the conflict. The conference urged regional players to work together in order to stabilise Afghanistan and the region.

The revival of the talks group came at a crucial juncture – two days before the London Conference attended by 50 nations to discuss the Afghan issue and deliberate on measures to help the war-ravaged nation. The organisers of the London Conference, like the US, had been trying to convince Pakistan on accepting the greater Indian role in Afghanistan.

India appears to be the biggest loser from the London conference. Not only did Pakistan succesfully manage to keep it out of key decision-making, but also offered to help train 300,000 Afghan Police and Army personnel within the next 2 years – a role that India had been whoring itself out for.

Participants of the London Conference also rejected India’s assertion that there were ‘no degrees of Talibanism – all factions must be fought and destroyed’. India often bundles the Kashmiri militant groups within this classification, in an attempt to discredit the legitimate Kashmiri freedom struggle. New Delhi has even gone to the extent of alleging the presence of Afghan Taliban in Indian occupied Kashmir – which was rejected outright by its own Armed forces, causing massive embarassment.

On the other hand, it is Pakistan that seems to have come out of this conference with its head held high. Not only does the world accept the need for bringing Afghan Taliban into the political frame – a long-standing demand of the Pakistan Army – Pakistan has also been requested to assist in brokering the deal which the US and NATO believe will allow them a safe exit.

General Kayani reportedly told US and NATO commanders in the recent meeting in Brussels that Pakistan intends to take a hands on approach and play a central role in bringing stability to Afghanistan. He also demanded the US and its allies curb Indian influence in Afghanistan as the latter has been supporting terrorism in Pakistan from its many bases on Afghan soil.

The tough, matter-of-fact line on India was in stark contrast to that of the current ‘democratic’ rulers of Pakistan, who have bent over backwards in their attempts to appease both the Indians and the Americans.

In a recent presentation to Pakistani media, Gen Kayani also reiterated his widely reported comments on the Pakistan Army’s view of the situation in Afghanistan and the way forward there – and made it clear that his institution’s “frame of reference” for addressing the problems in that country included certain concerns that are India specific.

History, unresolved issues, India’s military capability and its ‘Cold Start’ doctrine meant that Pakistan could not afford to let its guard down.

“We plan on adversaries’ capabilities, not intentions”, General Kayani said.

Pak Moving her Forces from Western to Eastern Border?

Zaheerul Hassan

Reliable sources stated that Pakistani authorities have decided to move her forces from Western to Eastern border. The move of forces would start soon. The decision has been taken after receiving the threat from Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor to strike Pakistan on November 22, 2009. Indian Chief warned that a limited war under a nuclear overhang is still very much a reality at least in the Indian sub-continent. On November 23, 2009 Pakistan Foreign Office Spokes man Abdul Basit asked the world community to take notice of remarks passed by the Indian Army Chief. He also said that India has set the stage and trying to impose a limited war on Pakistan. There are reports that Indian intelligence agencies have made a plan to hit some Indian nuke installation, alleging and then striking Pakistan.

Indian Chief’s statement by design came a day earlier to Manmohan Singh visit to USA. The purpose of threatening Pakistan could also be justifying future Indian attack on Pakistan. Therefore, Islamabad concern is serious in nature since any Indian misadventure will put the regional peace into stake and would lead both the country towards nuclear conflict. Islamabad probably conveyed her ally (USA) regarding danger of limited war against Pakistan; she has to cease her efforts on western border for repulsing Indian aggression on eastern border. In fact, Indian government and her army chief made a deliberate try to sabotage global war against terror. In this connection Pakistan Army Spokesman Major General Athar Abbas time and again said that India is involved in militancy against Pakistan and her consulates located in Afghanistan are being used as launching pad.

It is worth mentioning here that Pakistan has deployed more than 100,000 troops on the border with Afghanistan and is fighting a bloody war against terrorism. Her security forces are busy in elimination of foreign sponsored militancy. Thousand of soldiers have scarified their lives not only for the motherland but to bring safety to the world in general. Pakistan is a key ally in the war on terror and the threat of withdrawal would alarm the USA as it could seriously hamper NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a nuclear power too and is able to handle any type of Indian belligerence.

In this context, earlier Pakistan Army Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has categorically expressed at number of occasions that Indian attack would be responded in full strength while using all types of resources. On November 25, 2009 General Kayani stated that the nation would emerge as victorious in the on-going war against extremism. While addressing a ceremony at Police Lines he paid rich tributes to the Frontier police for their valuable sacrifices in the war against terrorism. At this occasion General Kayani revealed that Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam by our forefathers and each one of us should work for strengthening the country and should made commitment towards achieving the goal of turning the country into a true Islamic state. He also announced Rs.20 million for the Frontier Police Shuhada Fund.

In response to Indian Army Chief’ statement he also put across the message that the protection and solidarity of the country are our main objectives as our coming generation owes this debt to us and resolved that any threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the country would not be tolerated. The General made it clear that Pak Army has the capability and the capacity to fight the war against terrorists and adversary too. He praised the sacrifices rendered by the security forces and high morale of the troops. Lt General Masood Aslam, Commander 11 Corps, IGFC Major General Tariq and IGP NWFP Malik Neveed Khan were also present at this historic moment.

Pakistan Army Chief visits of western border reflect his commitment to root out the foreign sponsored militancy from the area. This rooting out is directly helping global war on terror, whereas on the other hand his counter part (Indian Chief) keep on yelling and dreaming of striking Pakistan. He probably has forgotten that Pakistan is a responsible nuke power and capable to defend and strike. In 2001 and 2008 at the occasions of attacks on parliament and Mumbai, both the nations close to a nuke war, this was averted by interference from the world community India and USA. At that time too security officials have also told NATO and USA that they will not leave a single troop on the western border incase of Indian threat.

Pakistan is facing a serious economic crisis and terrorist attacks present most serious threat to the country’s internal security. The political and military leadership knows that it is not an ideal situation for them to go for war, but they would not be having any choice to defend the country if threatened by India. Moreover they would be justified in moving her forces from her western to Eastern front. USA, if serious in elimination of global militancy then she has to ask India to resolve regional issues with the neighbouring countries instead of trying to hijack the war against terror. American think tanks should also review the remarks of Indian Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor in the light of India’s offensive nuclear doctrine. The doctrine of a fake nuke power (Indian) reflect the hazardous and aggressiveness of nuclear theory and prediction of third World War.

In the wage of above debate, the world community and USA should ask India to stop fanning terrorism. USA should review the nuke deal with a fake nuclear power prior of signing NPT and CTBT. Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit also quite right in saying that India’s dangerous and offensive nuclear doctrine is serious hazard to global peace. It is true that also that India has long been working on the so-called ‘Cold Start’ strategy and preparing for a limited war. Thus, Pakistan has to pay more attention on her Eastern front under the prevailing adverse security environment and Indian General Kapoor’s threat to her.

Zaheerul Hassan is keen follower of the developments in the region. He writes regularly for Opinion Maker.

War and politics

Shafqat Mahmood

Their claim of fighting for Islam was always a sham. That they are barbarous animals has been exposed by the bombing of innocent people in Peshawar. This is not the first time and it will not be the last. They will stop at nothing to get what they really want; power to lord it over you, and tell you how to live your life.

Is this slaughter of poor men, women and children happening because they hate the United States? Were they cutting throats and whipping women in Swat because of the drone attacks? Are these the kind of people who can be talked to, as Imran Khan, Rustam Shah Mohmand and others would have us believe?

They tell us that we the people of Pakistan are being targeted because our governments, past and present, collaborated with the US in fighting the Al Qaeda and Taliban. Let us for a moment accept their logic. How will they explain that these groups had already created cadres, prepared suicide squads, armed themselves and were ready to take on the Pakistani state?

Did this occur because of US-Pakistan partnership after 9/11 or was this happening anyway? The Sufi Mohammads of this world were on the warpath much before September 2001 as were the Punjab-based radical sectarian outfits. Their power and organisation was growing and they were all prepared to assert themselves whether or not the US-Pakistan collaboration took place.

The American presence in Afghanistan has of course added to the problem. After it was occupied, Al Qaeda and other radical groups shifted to Pakistani border regions, adding their money, leadership and skills to the growing strength of local groups. Drone attacks and the overbearing American attitude did not help either. But to say that the terrorism we face today is only because of Pakistan-US collaboration is delusional.

The US could indeed help us to fight this home-grown insurgency better by making its attitude towards Pakistan clearer. It is not just a question of giving us money and arms, although given the state of our economy and the militancy challenge it is not something to sneer at. It could go further by giving greater respect to our sovereignty and not appear to assist our adversaries.

Unwelcome drone attacks are just one aspect of it. The growing footprint of US advisors and security personnel on the ground in Islamabad and other parts of the country is disturbing for the Pakistani people. Some of them have even been caught roaming the capital with arms and others allegedly stopped close to our nuclear installation in Kahuta. Such stories fuel the already high levels of anti-Americanism in the country.

The US attitude in Afghanistan is also giving rise to misgivings. It is allowing Indian presence there to enlarge rapidly. The opening of new consulates is just one part of it. Indian civil institutions and private contractors in every field are also a growing presence. If the US wants to win hearts and minds in Pakistan, it has to show greater sensitivity to our concerns.

The Americans also need to clarify their attitude towards known anti-Pakistan figures, such as Brahmdagh Bugti and others, who are being given refuge in Afghanistan. There is sufficient evidence, according to Pakistan government, of Indian meddling in Balochistan. By giving refuge to the so-called Baloch nationalists, the Americans appear to be colluding with them.

It is in this context that the conditions attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill raised so many doubts in Pakistan. If there had been no worries regarding American intentions, some of the intemperate language may have been tolerated given the larger framework of support contained in it. But the feeling that Americans are not playing straight, led to the strong response in the country.

This is also the reason that the Zardari-led PPP government’s perceived policy of totally giving in to every American demand is creating much stress within the security establishment. Stories in the media have identified blanket permissions given by the Ministry of Interior to the American embassy on arms import and travel of its security personnel as one serious sore point. There may be others not in the public domain.

As opposed to the way the government handles its relationship with the Americans, Pakistani armed forces appear to have a more nuanced approach to this partnership. They play their part effectively, where the interests of the two sides coincide. But, if there is a divergence, they are not shy in articulating their differences. It is not an adversarial relationship but it is also not a complete submission. The perception is that the government has totally surrendered.

This has become the substantive point of difference between the military and President Zardari. It was reflected in the terse language of the statement issued after the last Corp Commanders conference. The deference accorded in it to the parliament as opposed to the government or the president, was also noticeable. It was a message that clearly made its point to Mr Zardari.

In a country with a strong parliamentary tradition, the import of the message may have been nothing more than a difference of opinion between two institutions of the government. But, given our history, it was obviously unsettling for President Zardari. He countered it by the only option available to him. He reached out to Mr Nawaz Sharif.

This put Nawaz Sharif in a quandary because while he deeply distrusted Asif Zardari, he wanted to play his role to stabilise democracy. In the end, he chose to go because saving the system was more important to him. While this strengthened the president, it is not going to be without cost. He will have to give up all powers contained in the 17th Amendment, including the ability to appoint service chiefs.

Government Ministers have already begun to create the atmosphere for it by claiming that the President never wanted these powers anyway. The Rabbani committee, which earlier seemed to be an exercise in futility, has become relevant and the likelihood is that its recommendations including repeal of the seventeenth amendment will be accepted. This will be Zardari’s quid pro quo to the overt support extended by Nawaz Sharif.

There still could be hiccups on the way because Mr Zardari’s track record of keeping promises is not particularly good. But, he has run out of options and is likely to give in. He will, of course, remain the co-chairperson of the party, and this still gives him a platform to influence government decisions. But, his legal powers will vanish.

It also means that the decision to appoint the next chief or give an extension to General Kayani would lie with Prime Minister Gillani. Given the security situation in the country, and for the sake of continuity, there is every likelihood that the army chief will get another term.

If the repeal of the 17th Amendment takes place, would that be the end of President Zardari’s troubles? In the realm of politics yes but the NRO issue is still to be resolved. It is impossible to predict how this will play out in parliament and the courts.

Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com

Expel These Two US Diplomats From Pakistan

CIA Mouthpieces Warn Gen. Kayani: US Strikes Will ‘Impact’ Pakistan’s Military

Further eroding Pakistan’s credibility is the alarming phenomenon of US diplomats indirectly threatening war against their host country

By Ahmed Quraishi
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan-CIA’s mouthpieces in the US media and the Web have been activated to give maximum punch to US threats of bombing Quetta and convincing the international public opinion of the veracity of US intelligence on the presence of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden in Balochistan. Separately, and as we predicted in our report A US Counteroffensive In Pakistan, the US embassy has decided to launch a ‘scare campaign’ inside Pakistan, discarding security concerns and opting to intensify television appearances on Pakistani channels in order to create public pressure against the government and especially against the military and the ISI.

One of the US intelligence mouthpieces has gone as far as warning Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani of the ‘impact’ that US strikes could have on the Pakistani military, claiming that this could lead to a ‘revolt’ within the army and the Pakistani intelligence community.

The Long War Journal, founded by Bill Roggio, a frequent lecturer at US Air Force’s Contemporary Counterinsurgency Warfare School, has warned that the “expansion of the US air campaign into Balochistan would likely lead to an internal revolt in the Pakistani military. General Kiyani knows the impact a wide-reaching US air campaign would have on his military.”

The Journal was established as a not-for-profit company registered in the US after 9/11 to promote the idea of an expanded war that would also serve as a vehicle to achieve US strategic goals. The CIA has a long tradition of creating ‘nonprofit incorporated companies’ as multipurpose fronts. Another nonprofit incorporated company called Creative Associates International is suspected of having acted as a front for private US military contractors operating in Peshawar’s University Town. Mr. Broggio’s Journal was created by Public Multimedia Inc., which describes its mission as a ‘nonprofit media organization with a mission to provide original and accurate reporting and analysis of the Long War.’

The Pakistani military has used its own channels to convey its strong protest to US military leadership on the belligerent American statemetns. But with a weak response by the elected government, Pakistan risks failure in countering the multi-pronged US media outreach that seeks to discredit Pakistan’s soft denials on the issue of Afghan Taliban’s ‘Quetta Shura’.

Further eroding Pakistan’s credibility is the alarming phenomenon of US diplomats indirectly threatening war against their host country. Aside from US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson’s recent undiplomatic statements, a junior US diplomat – Deputy Head of Mission Gerald Feierstein – has made the unusual move of making a masked threat of war against his host country on Oct. 1.

Yesterday, Mr. Feierstein is reported to have called another group of Pakistani journalists and briefed them about what he terms as the insincerity of Pakistan’s military and intelligence in helping America manage its Afghan quagmire. The US diplomat has reportedly taped an interview yesterday with a Pakistani news channel expected to be aired today. Sources confirm that US diplomats in the Pakistani capital are planning a round of television interviews and press briefings in the coming days as part of a media offensive to counter the growing concern among Pakistanis on the activities of private US security firms in the country and the large number of US citizens that have entered Pakistan in recent months without proper security clearance. The Nation published a detailed report on Sept. 26 on US embassy’s decision to launch this campaign. Not since the days immediately after 9/11 have US diplomats in Pakistan hit the Pakistani television circuit like this. On Sept. 19, Ambassador Patterson chose a polite Pakistani talk show host to use his platform for an interrupted projection of US policy positions.

The statements of Ms. Patterson and Mr. Feierstein create a rare precedent. It is not often that an ambassador dares to threaten war against a host government. If Ms. Patterson has stretched the terms of her stay in Pakistan to the limits, the junior diplomat has gone a step further. And in Mr. Feierstein’s case, this is an insult to Pakistan that a junior foreign diplomat has the audacity to call a press conference and threaten war against the host country. Ambassador Haqqani, Pakistan’s envoy to Washington, dares not make half as strong statements even when he should.

What the Pakistani media and public opinion needs to consider is that Mr. Feierstein expressed confidence in the intelligence information provided by Karzai and the Indians on the presence of Mullah Omar in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan. And he added Osama bin Laden to the list, discovering all of a sudden that bin Laden was definitely in Pakistan and possibly in the same place as Mullah Omar.

Never mind that Karzai sent Pakistan the same information back in 2006, along with a list of several other Afghan Taliban leaders allegedly living in Pakistan. The Pakistani response, unlike the American-Karzai-Indian rehash, was backed by credible information, proving that the intelligence given to Pakistan was faulty and inaccurate.

In the absence of an effective Pakistani response, it will be easy for the Americans to mislead the world on concocted and often deliberately false information, as they did in the days preceding the invasion of Iraq.

A Pakistani analyst who has experience working closely with the US government but does not want to identify himself had this take on the latest American posturing: “They have launched a media campaign to prepare the public mind and the message to Pakistan is this: Take action in Waziristan. If not then we will bomb Quetta.”

Thanks to Gen. Musharraf’s strategic blunder of allowing Washington to dictate the terms of domestic Pakistani politics in the name of fighting terror, and now the Zardari-Gilani government’s unwarranted appeasement, Pakistan has lost a lot in terms of peace, stability and respect. Time to cut our losses.

The Pakistani government should declare US ambassador Anne W. Patterson and her Deputy Chief of Mission Gerald Feierstein as unwanted persons on Pakistani soil and ask them to leave the country. Failing to do so, we should be ready to see more junior diplomats from other countries doing the same.

This report was published by Pakistan’s The Nation today.

Fighting terrorism

Talat Masood

As counterinsurgency operation in Swat draws to a close and a major South Waziristan operation is undertaken, terrorists as a reaction are stepping up their activity and demonstrating that they have the ability to strike at different places. NWFP of course is the worst affected but Punjab too is being frequently targeted, being the political power centre. Militants in desperation are also expanding the area of conflict. The ambush of a military convoy in North Waziristan and militant activity in some parts of tribal belt indicates that insurgents would like to open multiple fronts to diffuse military effort in South Waziristan. Recent attack in Rawalpindi on the KRL bus and an earlier one in Azad Kashmir also indicate that improved security is pushing terrorists towards using motorbikes instead of vehicles and choosing softer targets. It is surprising why the government failed to capitalise these incidents against the militants as both nuclear and Kashmir has a special place in the hearts of most Pakistanis.

Regrettably, sectarian violence has become an everyday occurrence in Kurram Agency and the government’s inability to stop the mayhem is disconcerting. In short, extremists are using every possible means to hold on to power and expand their influence where feasible.

It is unlikely that the threat of terrorism and insurgency will diminish in the short term and we have to be mentally and otherwise prepared in dealing with it. For this the nation and the military have to develop and sustain a strong will power to defeat a ruthless enemy that has nothing to lose. In addition the nation needs high level of motivation, training and leadership in the military as well as quality political stewardship. We are fortunate that General Kayani is at the helm and has the professional competence and integrity to lead the military ably and is taking measures to improve its counterinsurgency skills. Initially, the Swat operation was conducted more as a conventional conflict perhaps due to the basic orientation of our army to fight conventional wars. With increased emphasis on counterinsurgency training, equipment and doctrine competence level of our forces has enhanced and will prove valuable in South Waziristan. It is only by adopting strategies that are unconventional that we can win asymmetric and unconventional wars. The importance of intelligence too is foremost in unconventional wars. United States and NATO forces have the technology and resources to create intelligence dominance in Afghanistan. They also use the disgruntled elements within Taliban held territory and the Northern Alliance to supplement their technology based intelligence. In fact with all our human resources there is no reason why we should not have good intelligence on our side. CIA instead of targeting militants inside our territory should share surveillance equipment and real time information so that we can benefit from their capabilities.

Fortunately, with the induction of democratic government it has been possible to develop political ownership of the war against militants. The credit for this goes as much to the government as to the opposition, but to sustain it under trying conditions would be the greatest challenge. What we are facing today is an extraordinary situation where Pakistani Taliban have made it a passion to kill indiscriminately, are irrational, commit atrocities that one is hesitant to pen, leave aside show them on screen. They butchered their own comrades recently when they had to flee in haste during a military operation in Swat. In a recent TV interview a suicide bomber admitted having no qualms in killing anyone including his closest kith and kin if they would not follow his group’s agenda. For them persecuting opponents and enslaving women is a matter of routine.

Clearly, targeting the terrorist’s leadership, camps and logistic bases is crucial. Equally important is to neutralise the ideology and media machine of the militants. Some progress has been made as government’s FM radio is being heard instead of Mullah Fazalullah’s sermons, but more has to be done.

In order to fight terrorism effectively we have to counter extremism. How is it that proponents of such destructive and violent ideologies are able to attract donors and are able to easily recruit young people? People are asking is the government aware of the financial sources of Baithullah and Fazalullah and has it taken appropriate measures to block them? One additional source for militants is to project war on terror as crusade against Islam and use it as a means to generate funds for their global fight against West.

Recruiting sources of militants should also be identified and efforts made to prevent young people from joining their ranks. At the ideological level militant indoctrination has to be countered with progressive and positive message of Islam and by providing alternate sources of employment. Revival of tribal customs and setting of sound administrative structures is a prerequisite for reducing influence of militants.

Improvement in the security situation of Afghanistan and better Indo-Pakistan relations should have an overall positive impact. This will take away the ideological underpinning and be a disincentive for the extremist and terrorist. It is also true that US occupation of Afghanistan accentuates the Jihadi sentiment that is cleverly manipulated by the Taliban.

The most effective way of fighting terrorism is to develop a comprehensive approach where in addition to military action other non-military political, economic, administrative and informational strategies are adopted. Now that the military operation in Swat has been fairly successful it is important that ANP government establishes effective governance. Coordination between provincial and federal governments and military so far has been weak and needs attention. Moreover, the government should put in place programmes for the rehabilitation and reintegration in society of the large number of detainees, who were guilty of committing violence or were held on suspicion for terrorist offences. It is crucial to keep influencing the mind of the militant and that of his supporters by all possible means. For after all, it is a battle of hearts and minds!

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general. Email: talat@comsats.net.pk