Death Wish

[muse]

Article-6 implicates not a single person: PM

Updated at: 0100 PST, Thursday, September 17, 2009

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani Wednesday said that economic stability is impossible without political stability.

Addressing the journalists at Iftar-dinner hosted in the honor of journalists at PM House here, the PM said that only one person cannot be held responsible under Article-6 of the constitution, as the people who get involved in the implementation on any unconstitutional step, are equally culpable and responsible.

Commenting on statement on former President Gen (rtd) Pervez Musharraf attributed to President Asif Ali Zardari, the PM said the explanation has been given by the Presidential House, adding the government does not believe in deal.

It is only the parliament that can decide on the issue relating the trial of Musharraf, he said adding president can waive anyone’s sentence; hence if anything is decided in connection with Musharraf’s trial, President can quash that as well.

The government has constituted a committee to purge the constitution of all contradictory clauses and started to take the parliament in confidence on all issues, he observed.

The government in a bid to protect minority rights, has apportioned for them five percent quota in government jobs, he said.

The decision of cabinet would final on rental power plants, he maintained.

Country cannot afford the mid-term poll, he said.

The issue of Balochistan would be raised in the joint session of the parliament, the PM said adding if parliament wants, it can gives go-ahead for investigations into the killing of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

He said, ‘You know who from the previous set up are sitting with the government.’

If Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) announces to observe October 12 as Black Day, then Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led government would stand by.

The decision of Gilgit-Baltistan would not negatively affect the issue of Kashmir, he said adding Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) has approved the construction of Bhasha Dam.

Commenting on the US drone attacks, the PM said he condemns them and deems them as violation of Pakistani sovereignty, adding Pakistan wants to be given drone technology, so that it may take along the anti-terror operation successfully.

 

[muse]

PML-N submits motion on president’s statement

Thursday, September 17, 2009

By Muhammad Anis

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on Wednesday moved a privilege motion in the National Assembly (NA) against the statement of President Asif Ali Zardari on a deal for giving safe passage to former president Pervez Musharraf.

The privilege motion, signed by 91 MNAs, was submitted to the National Assembly Secretariat by MNAs Hanif Abbasi, Dr Tariq Fazal and Anjum Aqeel Khan.

It may be recalled that Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had announced to move a motion against President Zardari on Tuesday and demanded of the president to present all the aspects of the deal made with Musharraf before the nation and parliament.

“We, the following members of the National Assembly, would like to move the motion involving a serious breach of the privilege of the House,” the privilege motion said. The motion says President Zardari in his press briefing to selected journalists on September 14 has said that Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf ultimately decided to resign after a deal struck between him and various other international stakeholders, who have interests in the region.

The motion further states the fact of the matter is that Musharraf was forced to resign as a result of the pressure put on him on account of the impeachment proceedings initiated against him by parliament.

“The revelations by President Zardari as reported in the press have raised serious questions about independence and sovereignty of the National Assembly, hence this issue be referred to the Privilege Committee,” the motion said.

Online adds: Meanwhile, talking to media, spokesperson for the president Farhatullah Babar said we are a democratic country and the PML-N has the right to move motions and the government know very well how to respond.

He said that an organised campaign was underway in the media against President Zardari and some political parties were also involved in it. He said Zardari was elected by all political parties of parliament through a democratic process.

PPP Central Information Secretary Fauzia Wahab said Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had insulted the mandate of 160 million people of the country by declaring that Zardari was elected as president as a result of any deal.

About the party’s position on the privilege motion moved by the PML-N, she said the PPP never struck any deal and preferred to sacrifice for rights of people. She said the nation knows very well that who left the country with his family, adding the PML-N leadership is in Pakistan due to the PPP as the Sharif brothers tried twice to return to the country but failed. Fauzia alleged that it was the PML-N which set the tradition of involvement of foreigners in country’s affairs.

 

[muse]

Aims of war
Shaukat Qadir



Why do nations go to war? If we begin by accepting Clausewitz’s famous maxim that ‘war is an extension of policy’, we have a logical starting point: in effect that nations have clearly defined aims/objectives (some considered vital) and, in the pursuit of these, nations use all their elements of power and the recourse to war is one of the options available to achieve its aims/objectives.

Two obvious conclusions from the foregoing statement are: a) that a war must have clearly defined aim(s) to be achieved; and b) that nations initiating a war do not expect to lose the war.

I am a perpetual student, and one of the subjects of my interest is warfare — it used to be the prime subject as long as I was soldiering. One of the first things we learnt was that a war had a political aim, which was up to the political government to define. Once defined, the senior military leadership would define for itself a ‘military aim’, which would then achieve the political one.

If, for example, Country A wanted to go to war with Country B so as to force Country B to resolve an outstanding territorial dispute over territory X. It is not necessary for the military of Country A to attack and recapture X; if X is well defended, but Y, which is equally or more important to Country B is not as well defended, the military could attack and capture Y, which would be the military aim and thereby still achieve the political one. That is the extent of liberty that the military enjoys — how to achieve the political aim of the war.

All this necessarily assumes that the political government knows what it wants and the senior military leadership is sufficiently competent to define for itself a military objective that would achieve the political one, particularly if it intends to adopt the ‘indirect approach’ in the example above.

To continue with the theoretical study, before broaching the practical aspects; since the days of conquering and annexing territories are in the past, a fact that the US continues to find incomprehensible, students of war have begun to raise a question: shouldn’t the ultimate aim of any war be lasting peace? If so, there has never been a war between nations in contemporary times, nor is likely to be any, that will bring a lasting peace in its wake.

I could begin with the United States and question its political and military aims, starting from Korea and concluding with Afghanistan, but I intend to confine myself closer to home. I have already written on both the 1965 War and Kargil; and while some kind of an excuse of a political and military aim was defined for the latter after it had been launched, I can find no reasonable excuse for 1965. Needless to state, both were crass idiocies. I am leaving the 1971 war out, since we didn’t initiate it.

However, what I am concerned with most today is the fact that we are in the throes of another war; one that challenges our very being; a war with our own citizens. The political government has still failed to define an aim for this war, and has left it to the army to define both the political and the military aim.

Our current military leadership may, in fact, be competent enough to define both, but there are complications in handing over such a responsibility to the military. Apart from the fact that such avoidance of responsibility by the political leadership is tantamount to a tacit acceptance of a continued political role of the military, no military can, or should, possibly be expected to cater for all political considerations.

What is more, modern wars are fought not only by the military alone. Nations go to war, which means that wars cannot be won without the support of the people. Mobilising the people is not something that any military can do. We are fortunate at present to have a nation that is virtually united in its desire to rid itself of the scourge of terrorism, even though there is a minority that disagrees with the current methodology. However, all such support is transient and, unless the political leadership demonstrates its desire to carry its citizens along with it, this support could be lost as quickly as it appeared.

Our political leadership, in defining their aim, should realise that this is one war that has to conclude in a lasting peace. I can assure them that no insurgency commences, moving onto terrorism, without the presence of a complaint against the government. Therefore, while the use of force is essential to eliminate the structure that breeds terrorism, it will be of no use without the speedy provision and permanent guarantee of justice, equality, freedom, and political empowerment; in other words, good governance. And finally, unless the ever-increasing religious extremism is also eliminated, this war is not going to end and you will soon lose the transient national support that you are presently enjoying.

So someone in our political hierarchy, please find yourself a political aim for this war for the military to aim for, and then formulate a wholesome national security policy using all elements of national power to support the military and achieve your aim. Our military successes have offered the political leadership a priceless opportunity. Please don’t squander it through a sheer lack of understanding of your responsibilities.

This article is a modified version of one originally written for The National. The writer is a former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Insititute (IPRI)

 

[muse]

Politicians to the rescue??? Think again:


FATA MPs protest possible South Waziristan operation

LAHORE: The prospect of a Pakistan Army offensive against the Taliban in South Waziristan is triggering concern among local lawmakers, a Bloomberg report says.

Fifteen of the 20 members of parliament from FATA say they have withdrawn support to the government because they have not been consulted. Munir Khan Orakzai, an MP, said an offensive might fail if the government does not simultaneously move to develop the impoverished area. The US has been pressuring Pakistan to attack the Taliban stronghold. Most recently, Gerald Feierstein, the deputy chief of the US embassy in Islamabad, told reporters at a press conference the US believed Osama Bin Laden was operating from that area. The possibility of a government offensive has led more than 128,000 residents of Waziristan to flee their homes, the United Nations said in September. daily times monitor

 

[Student]

Most of us are only looking at the surface and naming names and pointing fingers. The activity thus far has proved to be in effective. My personal opinion though i have no soft corner for the current regime in my heart but the current regime should complete its ligitimate tenure. Everything takes time and patience. In five years time it will be clear to the PPP PML MQM and ANP supporters that how much there choosen people have inflated there respective Swiss Account and when they come begging for vote we should make our choice wisely.
Or there can be simpler solution but for this Mr Obama will have to appoint Mr Richard Butcher as the official Viceroy of Pakistan region and declare Pakistan as its 53rd state. so we can do without hundereds of thousands of these ministers and advisors.