The Swat deal is wrong

[fatman17]

COMMENT: The Swat deal is wrong —Shaukat Qadir

The Swat deal amounts to the opening of a Pandora’s Box: where will it stop? The other chapters of the Taliban are only waiting to ask for their own ‘Islamic’ government. Is this the beginning of the real Talibanisation of the NWFP?

The Taliban in Pakistan are far from a monolithic structure. There is, at best, a loose union with a disputed leadership and undefined hierarchy. However, the undisputed Taliban leader in Swat is Fazlullah. Pakistan has attempted to strike a peace deal with the Swat Taliban, in return for the imposition of sharia — Islamic law — in Swat. The attempt has been heralded by some, viewed sceptically by others, and condemned by a few. Let us attempt to examine what is wrong with this deal.

To begin with, the government’s deal has been brokered with Sufi Muhammed, Fazlullah’s father-in-law, not with Fazlullah who, despite their relationship (or because of it), is not on the best of terms with Sufi. If Fazlullah accepts Sufi’s terms, it might result in Sufi becoming more powerful; else the endeavour could deteriorate to an internecine battle for turfs, doomed to fail from the outset.

If one vectors into this equation that the Taliban are hated by the population for all that they stand for and can rule only by force, it is obvious that the deal can, at best, offer a breather and no more.

The provincial government, having announced that it is prepared to go the extra mile to ensure the success of this deal, has now announced its intention of arming the local population to fight against the Taliban and that ‘arms not being used against the Taliban would be withdrawn’. How that will be discovered or how the arms, once given, will be recovered remains a mystery. The central government is having second thoughts anyway.

However, irrespective of whether it works or not, this deal is a recipe for disaster, unless we are prepared to hand Islam over to the Taliban and allow them to legalise their violation of every law of the land and every tenet of Islam.

The Quran states again and again that Islam is progressive; even Saudi Arabia that had been living with its archaic laws is attempting to change. Pakistan is, on the other hand, prepared to allow itself to be held hostage to these self-styled saviours of Islam.

I have persistently numbered among those who advocate negotiating with terrorists, though from a position of strength, and that the use of force alone is not the answer. I have continued to quote the IRA and Sein Fenn as an example of erstwhile terrorists who are today negotiating the fate of Ireland with the British government.

However, there is a line beyond which it is not possible for any state to cede its authority. While it is possible to negotiate a mutually acceptable form of government that reflects the aspirations of the people, no state should be prepared to accept a state within a state, which is governed by force, irrespective of the wishes of the governed.

One meaning of the word ‘Islam’ is peace; the Quran forbids its followers to kill innocent people or to take their own lives. However, the Taliban preach that to take one’s own life as a suicide bomber is not only the path to heaven for the bomber, but that he/she is also doing a favour to those killed for, unknowingly, they too will have died in the cause of Allah and will thus go to heaven.

Hazrat Bibi Khadija RA asked the Prophet PBUH for his hand in marriage. Islam permits each woman to choose her mate and seek divorce if unhappy, just as to the male. Yet the Taliban find justification for ‘honour killing’; the killing of disobedient female offspring, and women who choose their own mate or seek divorce against their parents’ wishes.

Islam asks its followers to seek knowledge and educate themselves; one of the most famous sayings of the Prophet PBUH is ‘seek knowledge, even if you have to travel to China for it’. Yet the Taliban condemn knowledge as being un-Islamic: they burn girls’ schools, throw acid on the faces of girls who defy them in persisting to seek knowledge, and murder persistent teachers.

Even if schools in Swat resume classes, what will they teach? If they have their own courts, what justice will they offer? Will not the next generation of Swatis be condemned to become Taliban?

They forget history and declare democracy to be un-Islamic. The first Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr RA was deemed to have been nominated by the Prophet PBUH, since he was asked by the Prophet PBUH to lead the Friday prayers when He fell ill. Yet, Abu Bakr RA did not assume his office until the Friday congregation following the death of the Prophet PBUH, when he was accepted unopposed and unanimously by the congregation. The same occurred following the death of Hazrat Abu Bakr RA when Hazrat Omer RA became Caliph. Following Hazrat Omer’s death, Hazrat Ali RA decided to contest the nomination of Hazrat Osman RA, but withdrew when he realised that Hazrat Osman RA was likely to win. What else is an election or democracy?

In fact, Islam is the first democracy in which not only was the Caliph appointed in accordance with the wishes of the people, he was accountable to the people during his rule. Numerous instances are recorded in history when common people challenged ruling Caliphs and had to be satisfied.

Finally, the Swat deal amounts to the opening of a Pandora’s Box: where will it stop? The other chapters of the Taliban are only waiting to ask for their own ‘Islamic’ government. Is this the beginning of the real Talibanisation of the NWFP?

If so, does no one realise that if they are permitted to take over a province, they will find time to consolidate and, some day in the not too distant future, threaten Islamabad, something they are incapable of doing, now or ever, unless the state gives them such an opening in Swat.

This article is a modified version of one originally written for the National

 

[metalfalcon]

THIS DEAL HAS BROUGHT PEACE IN THE AREA WHATS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS.

 

[JK!]

"Peace: In International affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting"

Ambrose Bierce

IMHO this applies the internal peace deals made in Pakistan

 

[fatman17]

THIS DEAL HAS BROUGHT PEACE IN THE AREA WHATS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS.

relax and enjoy it while you can - but dont relax too much because they could be in your neighbourhood before you know it!

 

[muse]

It's unfortunate that Lt. Gen. Qadir has chosen as examples, elements from early history of Islam in Arabia - this distorts the challenege presented by the Islamist Maoists, it misrepresents the ideological basis of the challenge and therefore the response to it.

there was no Pakistani state or nation at the time from which Gen Qadir has chosen examples of - these examples only serve to confuse the public and pullute the conceptual basis of the response.

 

[roadrunner]

The author is just a drama queen.

There's no "Taliban" sharia in Swat. People will be going about their business and girls will be being educated.

I can guarantee that girls in Swat will not be banned from going to school under the new sharia law there. Basically nothing will change.

So what's the problem?

 

[linkinpark]

The author is just a drama queen.

There's no "Taliban" sharia in Swat. People will be going about their business and girls will be being educated.

I can guarantee that girls in Swat will not be banned from going to school under the new sharia law there. Basically nothing will change.

So what's the problem?

If nothing changes at ground level, why did GoP made the deal with Taliban?.

 

[roadrunner]

If nothing changes at ground level, why did GoP made the deal with Taliban?.

Because the insurgents were using insecurity/lack of Islam as an excuse to justify waging war on the army. Remove that excuse, they won't have much left. It's important to get rid of any justification they have.

The people of Swat want their own sharia law version. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I do think more money needs to be given to development projects in Swat. At first I saw nothing wrong with trickle-it-down, but now i'm against it.

 

[linkinpark]

Because the insurgents were using insecurity/lack of Islam as an excuse to justify waging war on the army. Remove that excuse, they won't have much left. It's important to get rid of any justification they have.

The people of Swat want their own sharia law version. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I do think more money needs to be given to development projects in Swat. At first I saw nothing wrong with trickle-it-down, but now i'm against it.

What is the basis for 'People of Swat want their own Sharia'?. If that was true why would they vote overwhelmingly the secular ANP party but not some religious party. It was the Taliban that wanted the Sharia and GoP has agreed to it and I don't think SWAT people really wanted it, they were being persecuted by the Talibani on a daily basis.

 

[roadrunner]

What is the basis for 'People of Swat want their own Sharia'?. If that was true why would they vote overwhelmingly the secular ANP party but not some religious party. It was the Taliban that wanted the Sharia and GoP has agreed to it and I don't think SWAT people really wanted it, they were being persecuted by the Talibani on a daily basis.

Shiaria law can be very secular looking. When governmental forces fail to provide them security and development they will turn to alternatives. It's simply instead of government forces, they want their own lashkars that will have authority under a "sharia" even if the laws remain exactly the same.

ANP are a nationalist party. Did they vote overwhelmingly for them? That would indicate exactly where the problem is. A useless government that doesn't do enough for the people of that area.

 

[Torpedo]

The author is just a drama queen.

There's no "Taliban" sharia in Swat. People will be going about their business and girls will be being educated.

I can guarantee that girls in Swat will not be banned from going to school under the new sharia law there. Basically nothing will change.

So what's the problem?

Then how it i supposed to satisfy Taliban? I guess Taliban are not fools that they wouldn't spot the difference.

 

[roadrunner]

Then how it i supposed to satisfy Taliban? I guess Taliban are not fools that they wouldn't spot the difference.

There's a billion people in India.

Everytime a new ones comes to the forum, they ask the same thing.

Read, pass it to your fellow countrymen, because i'm just going to stop responding to this idiocy.

The Taliban are not all of the same beliefs. The Afghani Taliban had a version of Sharia, the Pakistani Taliban have another, and within the Pakistani Taliban are a mixture of bandits, religious people, and others that share different views on what is Sharia.

There is no uniform Taliban, there is no uniform Sharia.

 

[SurvivoR]

SWAT Peace Deal: Separating facts from fiction
Sun, 2009-03-01 05:27
By: Farzana Shah

Peace cannot be achieved through violence; it can only be attained through understanding. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace. ~William Ewart Gladstone

On 16 Feb. 2009, NWFP government and militants signed a deal according to which government will implement Islamic Sharia in Malakand division under Nizam-e-Adal Regulations. Immediate effect of this deal is sudden ceasefire in Swat’s troubled areas and life returned to normal in the Valley earlier suffered badly due to fierce fighting between militants and Pakistan army.

Buying peace is need of the hour and a legitimate right of all Pakistanis in the region and as a nation Pakistanis expect that global community will also appreciate the efforts for peace but ironically there are elements having opposition confusing the masses world over about this peace and Sharia Law.

2- Peace deal; Facts out of fiction :

Of course any deal demands from concerned signatories to put their actions under the signed agreement to honour it. Fate of current truce hangs on the level of commitment by both parties to honour the deal. Understanding the good and bad aspects of the deal a brief look at main points of agreement is necessary.

1. Sharia law would be implemented in Swat and Malakand.

2. Security forces will gradually withdraw from the region.

3. The government and the Taliban would exchange prisoners.

4. Militants would recognize the writ of the government and cooperate with security forces.

5. Taliban would halt attacks on barber and music shops.

6. Ban on display of weapons by militants in public.

7. Taliban would lay down heavy weapons (rockets, mortars).

8. Taliban would close down training camps.

9. Taliban would denounce suicide attacks.

10. A ban would be placed on raising private militias.

11. Taliban will cooperate with the government to vaccinate children against diseases like polio.

12. Fazlullah's madrassa, the Imam Dheri would be turned into an Islamic university.

13. Only licensed FM radio stations would be allowed to operate in the region.

14. Taliban would allow women to "perform their duties at the workplace without any fear."

3: Gains and Losses:

A cursory look at the above points concludes at some optimistic view that the deal demands a lot more from militants than government in return

It seems the people of Swat and Government of NWFP are victorious rather than militants as claimed by many self-claimed South Asian experts sitting thousands of miles away from Swat serving Western and US media.

However a detailed comparison of the demands that each signatory will have to comply with will help in understanding the long term and short term gains or losses.

Government’s demands from militants:

Militants agreed to most of the demands of government like

• To bring two-year long violence to an end.

• Shutting down training camps.

• Handing over heavy weapons.

• Lifting ban on education.

• Abandoning illegal FM radio stations.

• Releasing captured military and civilian government officials.

• Halting suicide bombing and training for such attacks

• Turning madrassa into university

These are few short term gains for government in Islamabad but this deal has some real far-reaching implications discussed in the article afterwards.

Militants’ demands from Government:

Government agreed to;

• Implementing Nizam-e-Adal Regulations.

• Releasing captured militants gradually.

• Withdrawal of Pakistan Army after ensuring that peace is achieved in all troubled pockets of Swat.

As far as implementation of Nizam-e-Adal is concerned this is nothing new. This system was promised by previous governments during 90s much earlier than 9/11 and WoT and current government in Islamabad was also under obligation to fulfill this longstanding demand of people of Swat. The thing annoying most of regional and international stakeholders is withdrawal of military from the area.

Why it is necessary to pullout army and why some elements don’t want this to happen will be examine later on; first a quick look at how international and local players reacted over this peace deal. By military point of view again it is Pakistan Army who has gained. Armed forces gained a strong tactical position to expose those who were getting help from foreign agencies and were committing anti-social activates as said by DG ISPR after the deal. The victory for forces was not in sight before the accord.

Militant will lay down firearms and abandon all their illegal check posts but still according to deal, Pakistan Army will remain in the area so it is not a take over by militants as it is being propagated by international media. The prominent gain for Pakistan is an end to a fight between Army and Militants in which civilians were suffering at the hands to both.

4- Reactions over peace deal:

US: Mixed signals were sent by US official regarding the Swat deal.

In his statement Gordon Duguid, acting spokesman of Obama administration, said “We are in touch with the government in Pakistan and discussing the issue. We’ll wait and see what their fuller explanation is for us."

First clear criticism came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "the activity by the extremists in Pakistan poses a direct threat to the government of Pakistan as well as to the security of the United States, Afghanistan and a number of other nations," Washington is studying the agreement and trying to understand the Pakistani government’s "intention and the actual agreed-upon language."

The US seems not liked the deal much and it is beyond any comprehension why US always thinks that only military usage can bring peace when a more reliable and workable solution is available to counter of terrorism i.e. eliminating root-cause.
By agreeing to implement Nizam-e-Adal Regulations government has done exactly the same because this demand was biggest cause of militants’ surge in Swat. Pakistan has made it clear that ‘Adal’ is nothing more than system of justice for people.

NATO: NATO is most worrying stakeholder with regard to latest development in Pakistan. According to NATO commanders in Afghanistan accepting any deal with militant means surrender by government of Pakistan. A Nato spokesman, James Appathurai, told reporters in Brussels that "we should all be concerned by a situation in which extremists would have a safe haven" He said, "I do not want to "doubt the good faith of the Pakistani government, but it’s clear that the region is suffering very badly from extremists and we would not want it to get worse".

Responding to this reaction foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit said statements by NATO and Britain about the peace deal in Swat are 'mostly speculative', making it clear that implementation of the 'Nizam-e-Adal regulations' was sequentially linked to the restoration of peace in the area. “Speculation in the matter therefore would not be helpful".

India: Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee on 22nd Feb. 2009 accused Pakistan of still being in denial mode over cross-border terrorism and called the peace deal as matter of concern for India. Mukherjee opined "No compromise should be made with terrorist organizations like Taliban".

At surface it seems that Swat is no business of India but underneath the surface there is a great deal of Indian interests there in Swat and FATA. It is also pointed out by DG ISPR that there is foreign intervention by hostile agencies in Swat but government was failed to highlight this involvement of foreign intelligence agencies. Many RAW operatives were captured or killed in region during operation Rah-e-Haq. FO in previous and current government utterly failed to highlight this sinister game mostly due to strong US intervention in Islamabad’s decision regarding WoT. It is time for both military and civilian government to act according to Pakistan’s own needs and plans instead of serving the US.

5- Hypocrisy, Psy-Ops & Misunderstandings against Swat Deal:

Most vocal opposition to his deal did not come from any top official of US or NATO but from some self-styled experts on Pakistan’s issues and WoT. Who are too inept to take historical struggle of Swatis for the Sharia law and Qazi courts as it was there till 1969. This is same media and these are same "experts" that had been terming the Afghan Taliban and TTP as same organization working with two different names in two countries. Western media which launched these Psy-ops is also spitting venom over Swat peace deal but failed to utter a word against the similar deal which is in the offing for Afghanistan by US.

Al Jazeera TV Website on 16th Feb reported,"The US and Afghanistan have signed a declaration containing measures aimed at reducing civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. The move was announced by Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, at a news conference in the capital Kabul on Sunday." report continues "The US and Afghanistan have signed a declaration which will initiate specific measures aimed at reducing civilian casualties in Afghanistan."

Again there is an irony the way US perceives things. It is confusing for many to understand why US is pursuing a policy of double standards in the region where one thing is legitimate for Afghanistan while the same is prohibited for Pakistan. At one place US is ready to workout ways to reduce the civilian causalities and on the other hand US is pushing Pakistan to carry on military operations in NWFP and FATA despite the fact that mainly locals are the ones suffering due to these operations much more than Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

US duplicity doesn’t end here. Secretary of defense Robert Gate welcomed similar deal in Afghanistan,< "If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government, then I think we would be very open to that. We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan."

An example of media Psy-Ops can be seen in following peace of Press Trust of India’s report where Michael Kugelman, an expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center South Asia, agreed, calling the deal "a dramatic setback" in the American and Pakistani battle against “radical Islam” in South Asia.

He fears that the cease-fire will legitimize the implementation of Islamic law by the Taliban, who have been de-facto imposing their interpretation of sharia in the region for over a year. It will be really interesting to know Mr. Kugelman’s view on above mentioned US-Afghan deal to cut civilian causalities. Why he is not commenting on Robert Gates’ comments about similar deal in Afghanistan with Afghan Taliban? Simply, because he is not told to raise these sort of questions in front of US administration. Then there are some misunderstandings among some Pakistani commentators who by the way are sitting miles away from NWFP and especially from Swat.

One can understand the motives of non-Pakistani commentators and Western media but Pakistani journalists and commentators must understand that by presenting a horrified picture of the deal just because of the word “Islamic Sharia” is not only confusing local people in the region but also making case of Pakistan more and more difficult in International community where already many active players are out there to destabilize Pakistan in order to get there own objectives served.

6- Foreign Interventions: A Different Angle

The main strength of militants is large amount of criminals being used for pumping money and abducting government officials. These criminals are real threats to any peace deal as they are working on the payroll of foreign agencies as revealed by DG ISPR in press conference after the peace deal.

Swat’s location is also very critical for Pakistan. It borders Bajaur Agency at one side and with Chitral region from other. It provides route to the Northern areas of Pakistan which connects it to China. There are plans to cut Chinese access to Pakistan through ground by dismembering Pakistan by cutting NWFP province.

There are also reports that Israeli are also involved in covert trainings of these militants in Badakhshan province of Afghanistan as reported in Arab News on 24th Feb 2009, and sending these troops to Pakistan’s Northern areas like FATA and Swat for creating unrest.
Unlike Swat, situation in Bajaur (FATA) is much more under control of security forces after massive operations and TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) was forced to announce a ceasefire in the area. The comments by local commander of TTP in Bajaur on recent ceasefire are very meaningful. As reported by Daily Times, "Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on Monday announced a unilateral ceasefire and an end to resistance against security forces in Bajaur Agency. Speaking on their illegal FM radio, Bajaur TTP Chief Faqir Muhammad said Pakistan was their country and its defence was their obligation.

He said the Taliban did not want war against the government and the army, but some elements were fuelling differences between them, adding that the Taliban did not attack government installations and schools."

Isn’t there a shocking change in tone of TTP local commander? But this is not the revelation part of the entire development the real surprise came from Swat where “Taliban” extend ceasefire. The move came shortly after a Taliban group in the nearby Bajaur region declared a unilateral ceasefire.

Now this development is fascinating because Badakhshan lies on Afghan side against Bajaur on Pakistani side and it is evident that supply route of these Mossad-backed militants has been seized. So tactically there is no need to fight at front battle field (Swat) if supply line from rare battle field (Bajaur) has been cut off.
There are media reports that many militants left the area as soon as peace deal was signed between NWFP government and TNSM. This is another indication that there were more than two stakeholders in battle fields.

According to Pakistan Observer, the speed with which NATO/US came out with penchant criticism confirms the widely held belief that the United States and some other Western countries were exploiting Afghan situation to destabilize Pakistan and their agenda is other than peace and stability of the region.

7. Impact of Deal on Pakistan Security

Impact of deal can be seen already there in Swat Valley. Life in Swat is coming back to normal rapidly with markets reopened and witnessing large crowd whereas the most pleasant and worth noticing change is the re-opening of many private schools in the areas whereas government ones will also follow the same.

Armed-militant gangs have vanished from roads, displaced population is returning back to homes. For a common Pakistani this peace deal makes a complete sense but ironically for some "strange" but obvious reasons Western world and US got irritated. How much world powers are annoyed by this daring deal, by a rather weak government in Islamabad? It can be judged by looking at initial reactions of major regional and world players who have stakes in the region.

This is another very misunderstood aspect of this deal that Pakistan’s security has been compromised. According to DG ISPR "political cost of the operation was too high." This one line is enough to conclude why this deal was made and why it is important to buy peace for Pakistan at this time. Military operation was not paying any dividends at all but also utterly counter productive due to following facts

1- Massive collateral damage in form of civilian lives and displacement of thousands of people was creating a deep rift between security forces and people.

2- Situation was fast turning into another 1971 due to operation as militants were using grief and anger of masses to have new recruits in their ranks just like Mukti Bahni did in then East Pakistan.

3- Non functional civilian and paramilitary forces in Swat and lack of public backing to operations were biggest problems to have constant control over areas which were cleared by Army. This was one of major reasons for halting operation and it was described by DG ISPR, "The army had already reduced operations in Swat because it lacked public backing, and was hampered by the breakdown of the local administration and ineffectiveness of the police in the face of the insurgency".

4- There was no political backing to operation by local political parties like ANP which has it s government in NWFP.

Pakistan will have to stand on its feet. Swat deal is good beginning in this direction as it will pave way for coming out of 8-year-old unnecessary pressure of “Do More’. Pakistan military and civilians had bled much more than those who actually carried out 9/11. If there was no terrorist in Pakistan before 9/11 or till that date then certainly there is none expect those who were sent in to destroy peace in mainland Pakistan. Since last 8 years Pakistan did what no other country will do ever on its own soil. Some of the decisions turned into real disaster as these were taken under pressure or dictated by Washington like accepting Damadola strike by CIA in 2006 and drop scene of Lal Masjid siege in 2007.

What happened after these is now part of brutal history of Pakistan. Pakistan cannot afford another blunder by pursuing military operations where as those who are asking for these operations themselves signed such deals (UK in Ireland) or are busy in signing these deals elsewhere (recent agreement between US and Afghanistan to minimize civilian causalities). So far stance of FO in Islamabad is just in accordance with Pakistan’s national interests in context of Swat deal. All parties must support government in this deal and must contribute towards its success. Only peace can erode the demon of terrorism.

Pakistan has all the rights to protect its citizen and territory by taking any route suited to its geopolitical situation, be it military, political or economical. Only and only people of Pakistan have the right to determine how to handle any internal problem. Swat deal is just a manifestation of this rule. Now if "civilized" world do respect democracy and peace this deal has both of these civilized norms of modern world so this peace deal needs to be respected and honored as it is by the representative of people of Pakistan.

It is time for the world to heed to what former US president Clinton said about peace:

The real differences around the world today are not between Jews and Arabs; Protestants and Catholics; Muslims, Croats, and Serbs The real differences are between those who embrace peace and those who would destroy it; between those who look to the future and those who cling to the past; between those who open their arms and those who are determined to clench their fists. ~William J. Clinton, 1997.

Farzana Shah is a Pakistani journalist, defense analyst based at Peshawar.

- Asian Tribune -

SWAT Peace Deal: Separating facts from fiction | Asian Tribune

Swat Peace deal: Separating fact from fiction RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intellibrief Analysis: Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Rupi Nyheter

 

[foofighter]

Ofcourse it is, giving into demands of terrorists is totally unacceptable. There is no good taliban. Giving militants time to rearm and reorganise only to strike later, is foolish. Dont tell me you actually believe in the ceasefire. Musa Khan would have been still alive, if that were to be taken at facevalue.

 

[XYON]

The best judge of the viability of the peace deal in Swat are the local populace itself which has returned to their homes in the same droves as they had left in a few weeks ago. Again, the Shariah deal ensures provision of justice to the locals, it ensures reduction and almost complete end of militancy, it ensures continuance of education in the area and most importantly it ensures less recruits for the misguided Al-Qaeda foreigners! Calling the Swat deal wrong is premature and speculative. Again, the deal does not mean that folks form other parts of Pakistan entering the scenic valley will have to pull up their shalwars above the ankles or grow a beard or women wear a hijab for that matter! Swats economy depends on outside tourism and it seems unlikely that the local populace will do anything to jeopardize that!

I know a few Swati's (a retired Army Brigadier and a local well-off businessman) who have endorsed the deal and have praised the peace. These folks have returned to their homes in Swat and are very comfortable in leading the lifestyles they had led before this hoopla started! No one has complained of any so called 'Taliban' style environment.