Indian RAW & Afghan NSD proxy behind FATA Baluch unrest
by Moin Ansari
What was being whispered in the corridors of power, the streets of Pakistan and the blogosphere is open being openly discussed by the media and the press statements of one of the most important confidantes of Mr. Zardari. The statement by Mr. Rehman Malik is a bold step for the compliant PPPP govenment who is willing to accept any and all conditions set on the sovreignty of Pakistan by their masters in the land of the Dollar. The despised Mr. Haqqani might as well be the US ambassador to Pakistan. Surely he has shown no interest in defending Pakistani rights in Washington.
Indian and Afghan units are openly supporting anti-Pakistan elements in Baluchistan and Sarhad and thre is no condemnation of this aggession either by the international or the domestic media.
The dispicable act of instituting an inquiry into the Kabul embassay bombing is abomanable if not connected to an inquiry into the bombing of the Pakistani consulate in Afghanistan.
Malik blames Afghanistan, India for Fata unrest By Our Correspondent
WASHINGTON, July 30: India and Afghanistan are stirring troubles in Fata and Balochistan, Rehman Malik, adviser to the prime minister on interior, told journalists on Wednesday.
Mr Malik also blamed India for indulging in baseless propaganda against Pakistan although Pakistan itself was a victim of terrorism.
The time has come for us to reveal the facts and tell the world how outside forces are creating troubles in Pakistan.
When pressed to identify the outside forces, he named India, Afghanistans Northern Alliance, Chechens and Uzbeks who he said were using Pakistan to serve their vested interests.
India, he said, wants to destabilise Fata. What India and (Afghan President) Mr Karzai are doing must stop. They must stop this. They must stop this.
He also appealed to Pakistans western allies, including the United States, to stop India and Afghanistan.
Although Pakistan has always blamed foreign hands for stirring troubles in Balochistan and the NWFP, this is the first time since the Feb 18 election that a senior government official has directly blamed India.
Mr Malik said that India and Afghanistan had direct links to people like Barhamdagh Bugti and one call from outside leads to the death of four people in Balochistan.
Asked if his statement was on the record, he said: Yes, I am not afraid of anyone.
Rethinking the post-9/11 strategy
Analysts debate the rhetoric of war as part of the fight against terrorism.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
August 1, 2008 edition
Reporter Alexandra Marks discusses the debate among analysts over how to fight terrorism.
New York - During the seven years since 9/11 there hasnt been a successful terrorist attack within the United States.
And Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the downing of the World Trade Center, has been pushed back in Iraq where it continues to lose support.
But the core of Al Qaeda continues to thrive, according to security analysts, who note it has increased the number of attacks worldwide since 9/11 as well as its geographic reach.
Those facts have led to two starkly different assessments of where the United States stands in its fight against terror as well as sharp disagreement on the strategy needed as the country goes forward.
This week the RAND Corp. sparked renewed debate about the nations strategy when it released a report done for the Defense Department that concluded that the so-called war on terror has so far failed to significantly undermine Al Qaedas capabilities. It suggested it was time for fundamentally rethinking post-Sept. 11 US counterterrorism strategy.
A top recommendation is to replace the phrase war on terror with the more low-key term counterterrorism.
Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism, says Seth Jones, the studys lead author. With the growing number of attacks and an expansive reach, one could argue [Al Qaeda] is even growing stronger.
That assessment prompted derision among some conservative security analysts who contend the war on terror is being waged successfully and should continue as is.
They argue that the number of terrorist attacks around the world has actually been declining since 2003. The only reason US intelligence assessments indicate an increase is because they include terrorist attacks in Iraq. These analysts argue those should be categorized as war crimes, not terrorist attacks.
We are winning the war on terror, in fact weve almost won the war on terror, says the Heritage Foundations James Jay Carafano.
Terrorist attacks have been declining since 2003, he says. If you look at the polling numbers on [Osama] bin Laden
theyre way down in the Islamic world. Essentially, the only thing left to be done is to get into Pakistan and root out the tribal areas where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding.
Security experts who favor a change in antiterrorism strategy agree there have been some successes in the fight against Al Qaeda, particularly in Iraq. But they disagree with Mr. Carafanos analysis on several fronts. First, they contend its important to look at the number of attacks carried out by Al Qaeda and its sympathizers separately from other global terror attacks. Thats because most international terrorist attacks are not targeted at the United States, while destroying the US remains one of Al Qaedas primary goals.
Measuring the total number of terrorist attacks globally from a US national security perspective is meaningless because most of those groups are not targeting the United States, says Jones.
He and other analysts also contend that Al Qaeda has been pushed back successfully in parts of Iraq specifically because the military has begun employing more law-enforcement type strategies there.
To be effective against terrorism in many ways requires the same things that are needed to be effective against crime. Its knowing neighborhoods, good intelligence, and on the ground information exactly the kind of information we lacked in Iraq the first three years of the operation, says Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland.
But Professor LaFree says criminology is not a perfect metaphor for dealing with terrorism, either.
This is whats so difficult about terrorism: its a blend of political and just plain old criminal justice stuff, he says.
That political element is one of the things that prompts Frank Cilluffo, the director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University to argue strongly against using the phrase war on terror. Like Jones, he believes the phrase plays into Al Qaedas own political narrative as holy warriors and thus gives them legitimacy.
The adversarys real center of gravity is its narrative and we have to find ways to facilitate it falling on its own weight, says Professor Cilluffo. He agrees with the Heritages Carafano that Al Qaeda is indeed losing some popular support in the Muslim world.
But Cilluffo believes Al Qaeda itself is responsible for that.
Al Qaeda has made its colors very clear people see it for what it is: a violent ideology that will kill anything and everything in its way to meet its so-called objective, he says. Its unraveling. Even some of the intellectual thinkers [within the movement are] peeling away the justification and credibility of Al Qaedas narrative.
Jones and others also note that most major Western countries have already abandoned the notion of a war on terror, including Great Britain.
The British have long since dropped any reference to a war on terror, in part because of their long standing experience fighting the [Irish Republican Army], says Jones. Where they became increasingly successful is when they started using Special Branch their counter terrorism police force - as well as MI-5, their domestic intelligence service. Its the use of those two actors together that really helped penetrate the IRA not the military.
The Heritages Carafano believes the debate about shifting the rhetoric is already old and will have little impact on a war that he contends is already almost won.
But Carafano does agree with the other analysts on one other point: The threat posed by Al Qaeda is still present and the country cannot let down its guard.
We could easily have another event. We dont want to blow it out of proportion we want to keep things in perspective, says LaFree. Its great we havent had another attack, but were still not out of the woods.
