What's new

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

So, yeah.

After all these years, the only superpower in the world hasn't got rid of Taliban. They wear worn out sandals, have 2 pairs of clothing, ride around in dented tired old Hilux pickup trucks, not multi-million dollar war machines, no body armours or modern day state of the art equipments, but Afghanistan is their home and they will fight on for that reason. Their country not ours.


Countries win wars, not armies who don't know what the fight is about.

The last sentence should be highlighted for pakistani army ....... without countries or nation pakistani army is nothing ......
May ALLAH bless pakistan AMEEN
 
Afghanistan: the fire needs to be put out

Warlords remain the most virulent obstacle to Afghanistan's future. Without the writ of the government beyond Kabul, the new state is bound to continue weak and troubled.

Musa Khan Jalalzai

Civil war in Afghanistan vastly changed the traditional political process and created an imbalance in power sharing among various ethnic players. After the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country, a new phase of civil war began among various factions, which proved more destructive than the Soviet military intervention. The power shift from Pashtuns to non-Pashtuns and the post-Taliban democratic and political transformation tilted in favour of the Persian ethnic groups, who never had legitimate representation during a century-long Durrani rule. As they gained political power, they resolved to institutionalise ethnicity and adopt a unified strategy against Pashtun domination.
This is the saga of ethnic strife, sectarianism and brutal civil war of 21st century Afghanistan, which resulted in massive population displacement, torture and humiliation. Keeping in view the brutality of the war, finally, Afghan mothers raised their voices for peace and harmony and demanded no more killings, bloodshed, torture and suicide attacks. Now they have tired weeping over the dead bodies of their loved sons. These tired and frightened voices of Afghan mothers need to be heard.
One of the most destructive dimensions of this war is the internal rivalry among factions organised around tribal, ethnic, religious and ideological lines. The current wave of ethno-civil war and Taliban imposed jihad on the country is a protracted conflict where the focus of NATO and US forces has tended to fluctuate, depending on their interests. In Afghanistan, ethnic war symbolises two warring groups: Pashtuns and Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbek and Turkmen. The emergence of the Taliban movement added to its complexity. The Afghan defence and interior ministries present a picture of appointments on ethnic and ideological bases. The officers in these ministries are of four ethnic and ideological backgrounds, busy sidelining each other.
In the 1964 constitution, the right of forming political parties of ethnic minorities remained uncertain. Ethnic rivalries and superiority complexes were promoted. Hazaras had no right to raise their voices. Tajiks, Uzbeks and Pashtuns were embroiled in various protracted conflicts. After 9/11, the balance of power shifted in favour of Tajiks and Hazaras while Pashtuns believe they are being sidelined.
Such attitudes empowered elements who say that Afghanistan is the land of Pashtuns and Tajiks belong to Tajikistan, Uzbeks to Uzbekistan and Hazaras to Iran. These wrong perceptions of both majority and minority groups have increased incidents of ethnic violence in northern Afghanistan. Pashtuns have been connected to the ISI, al Qaeda and Pakistan to provide solid reasons for the killing of their children. Uzbeks specified their destiny. In northern Afghanistan, they once had autonomy in 1998. They introduced their own currency and their own administration. During the Taliban capture of Mazar-e-Sharif and the brutal killing of the Uzbek and Hazara populations, the perception was strongly reinforced that Pashtuns do not tolerate other communities. However, the killing of Pashtuns in northern Afghanistan and their humiliation by the Tajik and Uzbek militias changed the whole political scenario. A heartbreaking story of a Tajik criminal police officer, Azizullah, exemplifies how the clefts of ethnic conflict are being widened by US forces. Azizullah is alleged to have remained on the payroll of the US military intelligence to target Pashtun civilians in the southern part of the country. The UN office in Kabul raised the issue of Azizullah's brutality with NATO Command in February 2010. There are many ethnic Pashtun warlords who often target Tajiks and Hazaras. These painful acts by Afghan warlords have increased ethnic tension and wrong perceptions of Pashtun domination and Pashto-Persian conflict have further widened the clefts of communal violence.
Pakistan supported the Taliban movement and recognised their government in Kabul. The arrival of warring factions in Kabul was accompanied by violent ethnic cleansing and massacres carried out with the aim of homogenising whole areas of the city.
In Kabul, between 1992 and 1994, and the north of the country in 1996, 1998 and 2001, ethnic cleansing occurred in which thousands of innocent citizens were killed. After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, in many parts of the country, land disputes are still playing out with an ethnic dimension. The incidents of ethnically motivated crime, rape, humiliation and abuse increased. In the 1990s and between 2001 and 2010, land disputes assumed an ethnic shape. Pashtuns were driven from their lands in villages in the north and the Hazaras reclaimed land from Kuchis in Hazarajat, Behsood and Ghazni provinces.
Returnees from Pakistan and Iran face a threatening situation when ethnic commanders refuse to leave houses they have occupied. The Panjsheri mafia has been playing its own ethnic card. The Pashtun and Uzbek mafias are playing their own. In Kabul and the northern parts of the country, their ethnic and political dominance has also altered inter-ethnic relations at the grassroots level. Petty discrimination against non-Tajiks has many faces.
The Kuch invasion of Behsood and the killing of children and women from the Hazara population is another problem that needs to be addressed. The Afghan government and its machinery supported the Kuch invasion against the Hazara population. The main reason behind the growing ethnic violence in the north is that Kabul is not fully in control of some northern provinces like Balkh, Mazar-e-Sharif and Bamyan. The governors there do not accept any advice from Kabul. They run the provinces like independent states, not sharing even revenue with the central government. The residents of Balkh say its relative peace is largely due to the strong hand of Governor Atta Muhammad Noor.
Atta Muhammad Noor has been deeply involved in the killing of the Pashtun minority in the province. He does not recognise the authority of the central government and never shares his provincial revenue with Kabul. Consequently, another hot debate in the Afghan media often appears about the issue of ethno-federalism. Discussions concerning the creation of a decentralised state in Afghanistan are of more importance. Now this discussion has adopted a practical shape. The debate of the ethnic partition of the state has intensified, specifically in the north. Debates on the dismemberment of the country have become important both in political and intellectual circles.
This newly raised issue has increased hurdles for the Afghan government. All the above-mentioned forms of ethnic violence, criminal culture and warlordism need to be addressed. A strong, legitimate Afghan state can be the only solution to all these grievances. But turning Afghanistan into an effective functioning state with the present administration is a difficult task. Warlords remain the most virulent obstacle to Afghanistan's future. Without the writ of the government beyond Kabul, the new state is bound to continue weak and troubled. If its writ fails to run very far and if it is unable to protect its citizens, it will be difficult for the government to establish its authority. In the absence of an effective and strong central government and counter-terror strategy, the Taliban will further threaten the national security and stability of Afghanistan. As increasing ethnic tension, warlordism and social polarisation have threatened the territorial integrity of the country, it is mandatory for Afghan rulers to begin addressing the issue of institutionalised factionalism, ethnicity and political alienation.

The writer is the author of Britain's National Security Challenges and can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com
 
EDITORIAL: Strained relations

Daily Times
March 29, 2011

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thanked the Pakistan government for its cooperation in the release of CIA operative Raymond Davis. The Davis episode had further strained the relations between the US and Pakistan. Ms Clinton admitted in an interview that the US had “a very difficult relationship” with Pakistan “because there have been some problems”. She was obviously referring to the war in Afghanistan where the US-led NATO troops are fighting the Taliban. Pakistan, despite being a frontline ally of the US in the war on terror, is known for supporting the Afghan Taliban. This has ruffled the feathers of our western allies who want Pakistan to end this double game. In our quest for ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, we continue to outwit our own allies by our contradictory posture on the Afghan Taliban.

On the other hand, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman has expressed regret over the death of civilians after a drone strike in North Waziristan this month. It was for the first time that Pakistan’s army chief, General Kayani, publicly condemned the drone attack, calling it “unjustified and intolerable”. While there may have been some civilian casualties, the way every drone strike is made into an issue of ‘sovereignty’ is a bit bizarre. Drone strikes are fairly accurate and are carried out after Pakistani intelligence agencies point out a militant target. So this claim that every drone strike leads to civilian deaths does not stand up to scrutiny. The reason for our recent rage, especially the military’s, in the case of this month’s North Waziristan strike could be that this time around, the US used its own intelligence to carry out the attack. It is quite possible that members of the Haqqani network were targeted and subsequently killed. Since Pakistan’s military is providing a safe haven to the Haqqanis, the reason for our ‘outrage’ is clear. US drone strikes in Afghanistan have been criticised by President Karzai who says that every time an innocent is killed, the resentment against foreign occupation increases.

Mr Grossman also said that the purpose of US’s relationship with Pakistan is to “make Pakistanis more secure and to make Pakistanis more prosperous”. Well, it is good to see that the US has finally remembered the Pakistani nation. In the past, the US has only been concerned with supporting military dictators in our country. After Mr Obama came to power, things changed to a certain extent but even now the US government is reluctant to give aid money directly to our civilian government and has not been able to find reliable NGOs either to disburse the money under the Kerry-Lugar Act. In the light of the tensions that arose over Davis and drone attacks, perhaps that is a programme that needs to be speeded up so development takes place in Pakistan and our people get some relief.
 
Taliban create Lashkar-e-Khorasan to hunt Predator spies
Posted on March 29, 2011

By Bill Roggio

The Taliban have created a group assigned to hunt down tribesmen suspected of providing information to the CIA that enables the Predator campaign to target terrorist leaders in Pakistani tribal areas.


The group, known as the Lashkar-e-Khorasan, or Army of the Khorasan, was established in North Waziristan last year by both the Haqqani Network and Taliban forces under the command of Hafiz Gul Bahadar, The Express Tribune reported. The creation of the group was confirmed by Pakistani intelligence officials, tribesmen, and members of the Taliban.

The Pakistani government continues to maintain that Bahadar and the Haqqani Network are “good Taliban” as they do not attack the Pakistani state. But both groups shelter al Qaeda, as well as Taliban groups that do conduct attacks in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

The Lashkar-e-Khorasan was first established as a “loose network with members casually going out and trying to find out who is providing information to the US,” but has become an “organized” unit that is “scientifically on the counter-intelligence line,” a Taliban member associated with Bahadar’s group told the The Express Tribune.

The group has sought to uncover the network of tribesmen believed to be aiding the US Predator campaign that targets leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and allied groups, including the Haqqani Network and Bahadar’s fighters. The Predator campaign has focused on taking out al Qaeda’s external operations network, which is assigned to hitting Western targets, as well as terror groups that attack the Afghan and Pakistani states.

The local anti-Taliban spy network is thought to observe the location of meeting and plant tracking chips on compounds and vehicles used by the terror groups. The information is provided to the CIA, which then executes the attacks via unmanned Predator and Reaper strike aircraft. The US has executed 234 strikes total since the program began in 2004; 224 of those strikes have taken place since January 2008 Of the 234 strikes since 2004, 168 have taken place in North Waziristan [see LWJ report, Charting the data for US airstrikes in Pakistan, 2004 - 2011].

The Lashkar-e-Khorasan not only attempts to root out the spy network, it carries out the executions. Increasingly, the Taliban’s counterintelligence unit has been executing so-called US spies in batches. On March 1, the Taliban executed four more “US spies” in North Waziristan; four more were executed on March 21.

The Lashkar-e-Khorasan have also carried out the executions outside of North Waziristan. On Feb. 5, the Taliban executed four people accused of “spying for Indian and Jewish intelligence agencies” in the district of Karak, and on March 18 the Taliban executed a spy in Kohat.

The executions are occasionally carried out in public, in a brutal fashion. On May 21, 2010, the Taliban placed suicide vests on the so-called spies, and detonate them in front of crowds of onlookers.

The Taliban’s usage of the term Khorasan indicates it is working in conjunction with al Qaeda to hunt down the spy network in North Waziristan. Al Qaeda’s forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan is known as Qaidat al-Jihad fi Khorasan, or the Base of the Jihad in the Khorasan. The US killed Mustafa Abu Yazid, the leader of Al Qaeda in the Khorasan, in a Predator airstrike in North Waziristan last summer.

The Khorasan is a region that encompasses large areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. The Khorasan is considered by jihadists to be the place where they will inflict the first defeat against their enemies in the Muslim version of Armageddon. The final battle is to take place in the Levant – Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

Mentions of the Khorasan have begun to increase in al Qaeda’s propaganda since 2007. After al Qaeda’s defeat in Iraq, the group began shifting its rhetoric from promoting Iraq as the central front in their jihad and have placed the focus on the Khorasan.
 
Lashkar-e-Khorasan , An unstoppable Army of Black Flags which will to Jerusalem ...
But this fake lashkar must be a work of Mossad...
 
Pakistan and US in patch-up efforts

Dawn
By Baqir Sajjad Syed
April 08 2011

Pak-US-talks.jpg

Joint Chief of Staff Committee Chairman Gen.Khalid Shamim Wynne exchanges views with General James N. Mattis, Commander United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) during a meeting at Joint Staff Headquarters in Rawalpind.-APP


ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Thursday it was ready to work with the United States on its concerns about the fight against militancy, but cautioned it against making Pakistan a scapegoat for its failures in Afghanistan.

The statement indicated that Islamabad was willing to come out of the latest denouement in relations with Washington that started with last month’s drone attack on a tribal jirga in North Waziristan and forced Pakistan to pull out of March 26 trilateral ministerial meeting with the US and Afghanistan.

At her weekly briefing, Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua rejected the White House assessment of Pakistan’s counter-insurgency operations and said that divergences on combating militancy in the region warranted purposeful Pak-US-Afghanistan engagement to deal with the challenges in the conflict.

“There is undoubtedly recognition of the need for genuine and honest engagement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US to overcome what are perceived to be common challenges and shared goals,” the spokesperson said, adding that Pakistan would be engaging with the US on these issues.

Underlining the need for Pakistan, US and Afghanistan to engage with each other at both bilateral and trilateral levels, Ms Janjua noted that the three countries needed to be “on the same page to ensure peace and stability in Afghanistan”.

While indicating that a Pak-US rapprochement was in the works, the spokesperson placed special emphasis on keeping Pakistan’s national interest “foremost”.

“We are building our bilateral relations with the US on principles of equality, respect, partnership, mutual interest and mutual trust.”

Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir is likely to travel to Washington later this month to discuss contentious matters that have strained the relationship.

The military and intelligence leadership of both countries is also engaging separately to discuss problems in their cooperation that was always taken as the foundation of Pak-US ties.

It was, however, quite evident that Pakistani leadership was displeased with the White House report submitted to Congress earlier this week, which made a bleak appraisal of Pakistan’s progress in its fight against Taliban insurgents in tribal areas and had said that it (Pakistan) lacked a sound strategy to fight militancy.

The report had further alleged that Pakistan’s poor planning for ‘hold’ and ‘build’ stages of its military operations was enabling militants to make a comeback in areas from where they had been driven out.

The US, in an effort to complement Pakistan’s counter-insurgency operations, is said to have provided billions of dollars in the shape of military training, hardware and civilian aid programmes and has been particularly vexed over poor results.

Ms Janjua rejected this perception and said: “Pakistan has a clear strategy in dealing with these and other issues and in doing so will solely be guided by Pakistan’s national interest.

“I would like to emphatically state that we do not entirely share the US assessment,” she said, adding that references related to Pakistan in the report were “unwarranted”.

Pakistan, she noted, was itself capable of evaluating its strengths and weaknesses in the fight against militants and the strategy being pursued by coalition forces in Afghanistan.
 
OK, so Pakistan has sacrificed much, and it has done so in her own interests, right?? I mean that's what the FO Spokesperson says -- so why make a big deal about the sacrifices? I don't get it -- Is the criticism warranted?? Does Pakistan have a strategy to defeat the Islamist insurgency?? If yes, what the heck is it? And why is the US having to pay for what the FO spokesperson says is an effort in Pakistan's interests??


Coalition failures in Afghanistan

Don’t hold Pakistan accountable, US told

* Spokesperson says references to Pakistan in US report are unwarranted

* Pakistan’s strategy in dealing with all issues is solely guided by its own national interest

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Thursday rejected a highly critical US report of its efforts to defeat Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, saying it would not be held accountable for US-led failures in Afghanistan.

“I would like to categorically state that we do not share the assessment of the US,” Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Tehmina Janjua told reporters at a weekly briefing in response to a question on the White House document. “The references to Pakistan are unwarranted,” she said. “Pakistan should not be held accountable for the failings of coalition strategy in Afghanistan. Pakistan has a clear strategy in dealing with this and other issues and solely be guided by its own national interest,” added the spokesperson.

Tuesday’s White House report noted a deterioration of the situation in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal belt along the Afghan border between January and March this year, and said Pakistan still had no clear path to triumph over insurgents.

Janjua pointed out that Pakistan had rendered more sacrifices as compared to any other country of the world. She emphasised the need for engagement between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States to address the common challenges.

When asked about the current status of Pak-US bilateral relations, the spokeswoman said that both the countries had been trying to build a relationship based on mutual respect and interest. In reply to another media query about Pakistan-India engagement, she said that the process between the two countries was moving ahead. She said that commerce secretaries of both the countries would meet in Islamabad on April 27-28. She expressed the confidence that “these talks will be imbued by a spirit of enlightened national interests on both sides”.

Janjua said that Pakistan attached considerable importance to the dialogue process and dates for the meeting on Sir Creek were expected to be finalised soon.

Responding to a question about the situation in Libya and Bahrain, the spokesperson said that Pakistani mission in Bahrain was in constant touch with the Pakistanis to facilitate the community in every possible manner.

Similarly, she said that Pakistani missions in Cairo and Tunisia had been instructed to extend every possible facility to Pakistani nationals fleeing Libya. agencies
 
Time for the US to pack its bags & leave the region, for the sake of the survival of both Pakistan & Afghanistan; as well as the US. This war will kill all 3 countries if it continues on like this, the Americans are losing against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Afghanistan is getting worse & Pakistan as well.
 
Time for the US to pack its bags & leave the region, for the sake of the survival of both Pakistan & Afghanistan; as well as the US. This war will kill all 3 countries if it continues on like this, the Americans are losing against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Afghanistan is getting worse & Pakistan as well.

No Bro. It wont kill us instead it is going to make us more strong...Alhamdolillah....:)
 
Pakistan and US in patch-up efforts

Dawn
By Baqir Sajjad Syed
April 08 2011

Pak-US-talks.jpg

Joint Chief of Staff Committee Chairman Gen.Khalid Shamim Wynne exchanges views with General James N. Mattis, Commander United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) during a meeting at Joint Staff Headquarters in Rawalpind.-APP


ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Thursday it was ready to work with the United States on its concerns about the fight against militancy, but cautioned it against making Pakistan a scapegoat for its failures in Afghanistan.

The statement indicated that Islamabad was willing to come out of the latest denouement in relations with Washington that started with last month’s drone attack on a tribal jirga in North Waziristan and forced Pakistan to pull out of March 26 trilateral ministerial meeting with the US and Afghanistan.

At her weekly briefing, Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua rejected the White House assessment of Pakistan’s counter-insurgency operations and said that divergences on combating militancy in the region warranted purposeful Pak-US-Afghanistan engagement to deal with the challenges in the conflict.

“There is undoubtedly recognition of the need for genuine and honest engagement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US to overcome what are perceived to be common challenges and shared goals,” the spokesperson said, adding that Pakistan would be engaging with the US on these issues.

Underlining the need for Pakistan, US and Afghanistan to engage with each other at both bilateral and trilateral levels, Ms Janjua noted that the three countries needed to be “on the same page to ensure peace and stability in Afghanistan”.

While indicating that a Pak-US rapprochement was in the works, the spokesperson placed special emphasis on keeping Pakistan’s national interest “foremost”.

“We are building our bilateral relations with the US on principles of equality, respect, partnership, mutual interest and mutual trust.”

Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir is likely to travel to Washington later this month to discuss contentious matters that have strained the relationship.

The military and intelligence leadership of both countries is also engaging separately to discuss problems in their cooperation that was always taken as the foundation of Pak-US ties.

It was, however, quite evident that Pakistani leadership was displeased with the White House report submitted to Congress earlier this week, which made a bleak appraisal of Pakistan’s progress in its fight against Taliban insurgents in tribal areas and had said that it (Pakistan) lacked a sound strategy to fight militancy.

The report had further alleged that Pakistan’s poor planning for ‘hold’ and ‘build’ stages of its military operations was enabling militants to make a comeback in areas from where they had been driven out.

The US, in an effort to complement Pakistan’s counter-insurgency operations, is said to have provided billions of dollars in the shape of military training, hardware and civilian aid programmes and has been particularly vexed over poor results.

Ms Janjua rejected this perception and said: “Pakistan has a clear strategy in dealing with these and other issues and in doing so will solely be guided by Pakistan’s national interest.

“I would like to emphatically state that we do not entirely share the US assessment,” she said, adding that references related to Pakistan in the report were “unwarranted”.

Pakistan, she noted, was itself capable of evaluating its strengths and weaknesses in the fight against militants and the strategy being pursued by coalition forces in Afghanistan.

all i can understand they want to screw up the situation more.
 
Nurseries of hate

Editorial
The Express Tribune, April 11th, 2011.

The interview run by Express 24/7 with Umar Fidai, the 14-year-old would-be suicide bomber, was revealing for many reasons. It confirmed, for one, that there are a lot of foreigners among the militants. According to Umar, Arabs, Tajiks and Uzbeks are among those receiving training in North Waziristan. Since so many of the international terrorist plots that have been uncovered over the last decade have been found to have originated in Pakistan, which seems to have become a hub and training ground for foreign militants, this was something that was already suspected and has now been proven by someone who was in their midst. Since the government writ barely applies in North Waziristan and other tribal areas, there seems to be very little that can be done to stop their influx. This adds strength to the idea being strongly advocated by the US, that a military operation in North Waziristan is the only way to tackle militancy.

Umar also revealed that there were some Punjabis among the 350 or so men that he saw receiving training. This, too, does not come as a shock to most, but it does belie the words of the provincial government in Punjab, which has sought to downplay the threat of the Punjabi Taliban. In fact, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif had denied that such a thing as the Punjabi Taliban even exists, claiming that talk of it was simply a ploy to create differences between the provinces. Umar’s interview should serve to force Sharif to get his head out of the sand and acknowledge the very real threat his province, and the rest of the country, faces.

Above all, Umar’s interview has put a human face on the destruction extremism has caused in Pakistan. It is very hard to blame a teenager who lost his father in a blast and who apologised to the nation for the actions he was about to undertake and for becoming embroiled with terrorist outfits. That he found himself in this position is not his fault. It is the fault of a government that has forsaken the most vulnerable and, above all, the militants who have no regard for human life.
 
Pakistan, US and their intelligence agencies

Editorial
The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2011.

The ISI and CIA are talking in Washington. These talks, by all signs and tokens, are not so much talks for reconciliation, as for laying down a new regime of relations between the two. Since both spearhead the policies of their governments in the neighbourhood of Pakistan, the Pasha-Panetta talks will shape the Pak-US relations in the days to come. The commentators are talking in terms of a break in the relationship by referring to Pakistan’s desire for a reformulation mainly centred on Pakistan’s decision to curtail American interests in Pakistan, especially in the activity of the CIA.

The Pakistani public is on board. The media, after the Raymond Davis episode, has shaped the Pakistani opinion, which in turn has compelled the PPP government to align itself more closely with the GHQ, with President Zardari telling a British newspaper in an interview that the US-led war in Afghanistan is “seriously undermining efforts to restore Pakistan’s democratic institutions and economic prosperity”. That widens the scope of the ‘objections’ Pakistan has expressed to American policy in the region. It means that Washington’s ‘Afghan policy’ is not in sync with Pakistan’s own national objectives.

A lot of harsh things regarding American policy have been said in public in Pakistan, trumping the official line in their intensity. One argument which has always been seen as ‘official thinking’ is that the Americans are not in the region to confront al Qaeda and ensure peace in Afghanistan, but to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear capability by somehow disabling its nuclear arsenal. If this were true, then from the Pakistani point of view, the Americans should not be in Pakistan at all but the two should be arrayed against each other as enemies. If you listen to the TV anchors in Pakistan, many of them see America as an enemy of Pakistan and portray the so-called ‘bad’ Taliban killing innocent Pakistanis through suicide-bombers as being on the payroll of the CIA.

On the American side, think-tanks and politicians are increasingly pointing to the ‘dubious intent’ of the rulers in Pakistan. A recent report by the US Congress said that Pakistan had no effective policy against terrorism and did not seem to care much about the growth of the power of al Qaeda and its ancillaries often called ‘jihadi organisations’. Needless to say there is a marginal opinion too in Pakistan which marvels at the real intent of the state of Pakistan as it fights a fluctuating battle against terrorists in the Tribal Areas that seems to be going nowhere. There is also a gap between these marginal observers and the official opinion about the drones operated by the CIA.

If one were to take the pulse in Pakistan, anti-Americanism is at its most intense among the public. But there is also the consensual lament about the radicalisation and extremism of Pakistani society. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot link this extremism and intolerance to the Americans — although some religious parties do. There is also no coherent opinion about the Taliban and al Qaeda comparable to the clarity expressed in hatred of America. The state is seen by all as too weak to stand up to the terrorists and criminals preying on the common man and crippling Pakistan’s economy through ‘protection money’ and disruption of business.

Pakistan’s economy is in dire straits and the only country willing to assist Pakistan substantially is the US. From the above facts, it seems Pakistan wants to force a change in America’s policy towards Pakistan. The current talks between the CIA and ISI have come in the wake of a period of non-communication between the two agencies. Pakistan’s Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has ‘the nation behind him’, but he must know precisely whether the US ‘needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US’.

We all know that terrorism is coming out of North Waziristan. General Kayani will have to do something about it if he wants the drone attacks stopped. And he will have to take another look at the ‘jihadi’ organisations who owe allegiance to al Qaeda and not to Pakistan and with whom it is unclear whether the Deep State has fully severed its ties.
 
So a majority of Pakistanis are clear that this radicalization is a existential threat to Pakistan -- and if you find that you cannot agree that a majority are of this view, then certainly, a significant number do, is that fair enough?

Now, US friends say they only want to help? But this is a fiction, at least in the view of most Pakistanis -- US may want to be a little less ambitious and of course fanatics in key policy positions does, well at least it hasn't as yet, helped the US position.

Both the US and Pakistan are better served by disengaging from each other and to create a foundation for a relationship - we read from some that it's all about interests and that these serve as a foundation and while this is reasonable and obvious, allow us to ask how can "interests" be furthered when domestic politics see utility in the "otherness" of the respective, would be partners -- The US thinks "interests will triumph while she wages a culture war which negate the very same interest it seeks to further and build on - a lost cause, fools errand.

Some Pakistani commentators delight in suggesting that Pakistan will sink, ruined, if the US aid which an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis seek to distance themselves from and which plays zero part in their experience of life, must continue -- Why does the US taxpayer need to subsidize Pakistani policy makers and their lavish lifestyles?? US weapons are not some God given birth right, there are after all, other peoples in the world, are they also existing on US aid and weapons?? Pakistan can do with these, it actually must, it's is an imperative on the road to independence, Liberty and Dignity.
 
Back
Top Bottom