Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Change of guards at ISI


Pakistan’s New Spy Chief
by Steve Coll, New Yorker, September 30, 2008

Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kiyani, the country’s senior military leader, has appointed a new Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence or I.S.I., the Army’s main spy agency, notorious in the United States because of its long collaboration with Islamist militants, including the Taliban.

Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha succeeds Lt. General Nadeem Taj, who had been appointed by former President Pervez Musharraf. The leadership change is part of a much broader shakeup of senior assignments in the Pakistan Army involving fourteen or more new promotions and senior commands. The main theme of these appointments is an assertion of greater direct control by Kiyani, who succeeded Musharraf as Army chief late last year.

In addition to Taj’s removal at the spy agency, the two-star generals at I.S.I. in charge of liaison with Islamist groups and with internal Pakistani politics, Asif Akhtar and Nusrat Naeem, have been “superseded,” or denied promotion. These changes mean Kiyani and Pasha will install their own generals in the critical operations jobs.

Pasha is well regarded at the Pentagon. He has attended all six of Kiyani’s meetings with the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. In these and other meetings with American interlocutors, he and Kiyani have described and defended their approach to their war against the Taliban, according to the accounts I have heard of the meetings. The Pakistani generals have said that they are seeking a politically acceptable military solution to the challenge posed by the Taliban, and are anxious to see the new Pakistani civilian government in Islamabad, led by President Asif Zardari, offer more political support and cover for what is an unpopular war. The Pakistani generals have described themselves as searching for the optimal blend of military, political, and economic approaches to the conflict, and they have emphasized the need to maintain and raise the morale of Pakistan soldiers as they wage a campaign that many of their fellow citizens regard as illegitimate.

Late-breaking news from Pakistani media, which, if true, may make the Army’s campaign slightly easier, at least in the short run: Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, has apparently died from natural causes. Pakistani authorities accused him of ordering Benazir Bhutto’s murder.

I spoke about the I.S.I. leadership changes today with Shuja Nawaz, an expert on the Pakistani Army; he is the author of “Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within,” published by Oxford University Press. He told me that he met with Pasha in July during a research trip to Pakistan, and that during their conversation, Pasha described “an internal debate within the Army about the need to reorient the Army toward counterinsurgency” in order to fight the Taliban. “He indicated that it was not a finished debate yet.” Nonetheless, under Pasha, who was then Director-General of Military Operations, the Army had begun for the first time to provide counterinsurgency training to officers and troops headed off to fight in Taliban territory in the country’s West.

“He’s very solid militarily,” Nawaz told me, speaking of Pasha. “He’s quite close to Kiyani and I suspect he will be able to exercise much greater control down to the contractor level” of I.S.I., which is the operational level where former military officers and other contractors in the spy agency have the closest interactions with Islamist clients.

Pasha’s career has been based in the infantry. He served abroad in peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone. For the past several years, he has held the main day-to-day war-fighting job in the Army; in that capacity, he has worked closely with Kiyani on counterterrorism campaigns.

We’ve heard declarations about I.S.I. reform before, of course, and they have not led to meaningful change. An essential problem has been that Pakistani generals have not seen the Taliban as an unmanageable threat—certainly not a threat to their country’s “existence,” as General David Petraeus described it the other day while on a visit to London. Do Kiyani and Pasha really see the current threat equation differently? Is he prepared to give up or at least seriously diminish the use of Islamist militancy as an instrument of Pakistan’s foreign policy, particularly against India and Afghanistan? If so, how much drive and ability will Kiyani and Pasha display as they attempt to force I.S.I. to abandon its history of collaboration with the Taliban and other Islamist groups? Arguably, there are few more important questions these days in American national-security policy.

(In photo, from left: U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Scott Van Buskirk, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 9, talk with Pakistani Army General Ashfaq Kiyani, Chief of Army Staff, and Pakistani Army Lt. General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, director general of military operations, on the flight deck aboard U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, in the North Arabian Sea. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class William John Kipp Jr.)

Monday, September 29, 2008

Kayani Replaces ISI Chief and Four Corps Comamnders (Including Rawalpindi)



Picture: Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha
For background of Gen. Pasha and comments, click here, here and here

ISI chief, four corps commanders changed
* Ahmed Shujaa Pasha replaces Nadeem Taj as DG ISI
* Seven major generals promoted to lieutenant general
Daily Times, September 30, 2008

RAWALPINDI: In a major reshuffle in the Pakistan Army, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Lt Gen Nadeem Taj has been replaced by newly promoted Lt Gen Ahmed Shujaa Pasha.

According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the corps commanders of Karachi, Gujranwala, Bahawalpur and Rawalpindi have also been changed.

Taj has been appointed Gujranwala Corps Commander.

Lt Gen Muhammad Yousaf has been appointed Bahawalpur Corps Commander and his predecessor Lt Gen Raza Muhammad has been appointed Joint Staff Director General at the Joint Staff Headquarters.

Lt Gen Shahid Iqbal has replaced Lt Gen Ahsan Azhar Hyat as Karachi Corps Commander, while Hyat has been appointed Inspector General (IG) Training and Evaluation at the General Headquarters (GHQ).

Lt Gen Muhammad Zaki has been appointed IG Arms at GHQ and Lt Gen Javed Zia has been appointed Quarter-Master General at the GHQ.

Lt Gen Mohsin Kamal has been appointed Military Secretary at the GHQ while Lt Gen Tahir Mehmood has been appointed Rawalpindi Corps Commander. Lt Gen Muhammad Zahid has been appointed the Adjutant General at the GHQ.

Lt Gen Muhammad Mustafa has been appointed as Chief of General Staff at the GHQ. Lt Gen Tanvir Tahir has been appointed as IG Communication and IT at GHQ. Lt Gen Ayyaz Salim Rana has been appointed Chairman of the Heavy Industries Taxila in place of Lt Gen Israr Ahmad Ghumman, who will retire in November.

Promoted: Earlier, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani recommended the promotion of seven major generals of the Pakistan Army to the rank of lieutenant generals.

Those promoted were Major General Tahir Mahmood (Infantry), Major General Shahid Iqbal (Infantry), Major General Tanvir Tahir (EME), Major General Zahid Hussain (Artillery), Major General Ahmad Shuja Pasha (Infantry), Major General Muhammad Mustafa Khan (Armoured Corps) and Major General Ayyaz Saleem Rana (Armoured Corps).

Major General Zahid Hussain was serving as Kakul commandant, Major General Tahir Mehmood as General Officer Commanding Special Services Group (SSG) in Cherat, Major General Shahid Iqbal was at the National Defence University and Major General Ahmad Shujaa Pasha was the Director General Military Operations (DGMO). sajjad malik/staff report

Also See:
ISI chief urged to quit as battle rages at border - Australian
Lt Gen Pasha to head ISI - The News
Editorial: Welcome change of guard at ISI - Daily Times

The most dangerous job on earth

The most dangerous job on earth
By Roger Cohen
International Herald Tribune/ New York Times, September 28, 2008

NEW YORK: Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's new president and the widower of Benazir Bhutto, does not mince words about the growing Taliban insurgency.

"It is my decision that we will go after them, we will free this country," he told me in an interview. "Yes, this is my first priority because I will have no country otherwise. I will be president of what?"

After the massive bomb attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, that's a fair question. Its finances in a free fall, its security crumbling, nuclear-armed Pakistan stands at the brink just as a civilian takes charge after the futile zigzagging of General Pervez Musharraf's U.S.-supported rule.

I asked Zardari, who took office this month, if the assassination of his wife had motivated him to confront Islamic militancy. "Of course," he said, "It's my revenge. I take it every day."

He continued: "I will fight them because they are a cancer to my society, not because of my wife only, but because they are a cancer, yes, and they did kill the mother of my children, so their way of life is what I want to kill; I will suck the oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs."

Are you afraid? "I am concerned, I am not afraid," Zardari, 53, told me. "Because I don't want to die so soon, I have a job to do."

What a job it is. If Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth, a phrase no less true for being a commonplace, its presidency is one of the world's least enviable posts.

Billions of dollars in U.S. aid to the Muslim country's former military government have not stopped the northwestern tribal areas becoming the new Qaeda-Taliban central.

That menace has produced a rising death toll for NATO forces in Afghanistan, 2,000 pounds of explosives at Pakistan's heart, and far-flung terrorist threats. No wonder countless ministers gathered under a "Friends of Pakistan" banner at the United Nations this week with promises of aid.

But money is worthless, as the seven years since 9/11 have demonstrated, unless some basic things change. One is the double game played by Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, in an apparent effort to ensure that Afghanistan remains weak.

"The ISI will be handled, that is our problem," Zardari told me. "We don't hunt with the hound and run with the hare, which is what Musharraf was doing."

Aside from Zardari's official meetings here, I was told he held an unpublicized one with Michael Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I also learned that the heads of three ISI directorates have already been replaced.

"Anyone not conforming with my government's policy will be thrown out," Zardari said of the ISI.

He also indicated that he wants to cooperate with the United States in training specialized counter-insurgency army units. "I mean business," he said. "We will train ourselves with the U.S. present as trainers to raise the quality of certain forces."

But he warned against further U.S. military incursions inside Pakistan, the object of recent tension since a Sept. 3 commando raid. "It is counterproductive and a political price is paid," he said, especially if no high-level target is found.

Zardari said his "new medicine" for the tribal areas would include industrial investment, incentives for alternative crops to poppy, like corn, and a message that "we are hitting the Taliban" so make sure "your space is not being used by them." He noted that historically, "Nobody traveled through these mountains without either paying them or hiring them or sharing the booty of India with them."

But Pakistan is short of cash to strike Anbar-province-like deals in tribal areas. Zardari made an impassioned plea for the Saudis and others to slash his annual oil bill by $15 billion and give "a democratic Pakistan oil at their base price."

He asked the French for helicopters and the U.S. for "blanket support" in persuading every country to buttress Pakistan "according to its strengths."

My impression? This guy's very smart, street smart, a wheeler-dealer in an area full of them, secular, pro-American, committed to democracy, and brave. I never heard Musharraf frame Pakistan's fight against terrorism with such candor.

I believe he wants genuine conciliation with India and Afghanistan, essential to the region's stability. (Positive meetings were held here with the Indian and Afghan leaders.). I care much less right now about his checkered past than about getting behind him for civilization's sake.

The next U.S. administration must be forthright in support, relentless in demanding results, and ruthless where necessary. It must not be had, as Bush was.

Whether Zardari can work with the army will be critical; he says the generals have "come full circle" and understood "civilian leadership is the only place to be." But Pakistan's history suggests otherwise.

After he talked of revenge for Benazir's death, Zardari added this: "I am not a warmonger. I am not interested in physical might which is not the expression of my strength. I have many strengths, and one of them is that I can take pain, not give pain. I don't consider anyone who can give pain brave, I consider anyone who can take pain brave. That is why I consider a woman a stronger gender because she can take much more pain than a man."

From a Muslim leader, and one so bereaved, I salute that, without reserve.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Report on U.S. - Muslim Engagement

Report of the Leadership Group on U.S. - Muslim Engagement
Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World
Convened by the "Search for Common Ground" and "Consensus Building Institute"
September 2008

For complete Report, click here

Pakistan, the Media and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons

Pakistan, the Media and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons
The Unspoken War
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO, Counterpunch, September 27-28, 2008

"We're on the brink of war with Pakistan…the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty…the Bush administration's decision to step up attacks in Pakistan is fatally reckless, because the cross-border operations' chances of capturing or killing al Qaeda's leadership are slim. American intelligence isn't good enough for precision raids like this, Pakistan's tribal regions are a black hole that even Pakistani operatives can't enter and come back alive. Overhead, surveillance and intercepts do little good in tracking down people in a backward, rural part of the world like this…our going into Pakistan, risking a full-fledged war with a nuclear power, isn't going to stop them…Finally, there is Pakistan itself, a country that truly is on the edge of civil war. Should we be adding to the force of chaos?"
- Robert Baer, September 17, 2008

As a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, Robert Baer has many important insights to add to American foreign policy deliberation. Too bad his warnings have been systematically ignored throughout the mainstream media. The comments above, cited from Time magazine, are the only commentary I've managed to find in all of the American press that warn about the dangerous game the U.S. is playing in destabilizing Pakistan.

The Pakistani political situation has heated up with the September 21st bombing of the Islamabad Hotel, which many suspect was undertaken by radical Islamists. The massive attack, detonating over one ton of explosives, killed at least 60 civilians, injured hundreds more, and may have been intended for Pakistan's Prime Minister, President, and military leaders (who had reportedly planned to meet for dinner at the Hotel).

This attack on Pakistan's government is merely one of many that have been attempted against major officials in recent months. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suspected Islamist attack in December of 2007, while former President Pervez Musharraf was also the target of attempted assassination. Pakistan's political leaders are caught between the terrorist attacks of Islamist forces on one side, and the increasingly cavalier bombings of the United States, which have further inflamed hostility toward Pakistani officials close to American political leaders.

In recent years, the U.S. military has increased its aggressive attacks against Pakistan. These attacks have typically led to civilian casualties, rather than to the neutralization of Al Qaeda- affiliated or Islamist terrorists. The basis for this extended, low-intensity conflict arose in January 2006, when the U.S. attempted to assassinate Al Qaeda's number two political leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, in an attack on the village of Damadola on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan. The attack failed in killing Zawahiri, instead resulting in the deaths of 18 civilians. The policy of U.S. aggression was formalized in July of 2007, when the Bush administration issued a presidential order that authorized American attacks inside Pakistan without the approval of Pakistan's government.

The enunciation of the Bush administration's Pakistan position was followed by numerous attacks on alleged terrorist targets, with dire results. Various attacks in recent years using unmanned predator drones resulted in dozens of deaths, and led thousands of Pakistanis to protest the attacks as unwarranted, terrorist incursions into their sovereign territory. Recent U.S. attacks in September 2008 in the mountainous Waziristan region in Northwest Pakistan have left dozens of civilians dead, consistently failing to kill suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.

The U.S. has long treated Pakistani leaders as if they were commanded by Washington. Following 9/11, the Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back into the Stone Age" if it did not cooperate with the war against Afghanistan. Pakistan's assistance was demanded, considering the Pakistani Secret Intelligence's (the ISI) lengthy history of working with the Taliban and radical Islamists in Afghanistan. The cooperation of Pakistani presidents Musharraf and Zardari resulted in intense skepticism on the part of the country's public, which views them as corrupt figureheads serving the United States. It's not difficult to see why considering the United State's long history of opposing democracy in Pakistan. As Time magazine aptly admits:

"For much of Pakistan's history, Washington has preferred doing business with military dictators, who don't answer to voters and, at least on the surface, seem more eager than their citizenry is to cooperate with Washington." Popular discontent has become even further entrenched in light of Islamist terrorist attacks, increased political instability, a sluggish economy, and the escalated assault from the United States.

Media reactions to U.S. attacks against Pakistan have varied tremendously depending upon the country reporting the developments. Pakistani and American media coverage differ night-and-day in their framing of the issues. Pakistan's Nation newspaper condemned a September 4th border raid by the U.S. military as an act of "tyranny" and "ruthless aggression and crude pressure" against its people. The paper condemned the U.S. for its unmanned predator drone attacks as a "violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity" – and as part of a larger "killing spree" that has been undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.

American media coverage, conversely, is driven by a warmongering that's remarkably indifferent to the dangers involved in escalating the conflict. U.S. attacks on Pakistan inevitably carry the risk of further inciting Pakistani anger against the U.S. Such anger takes on a renewed urgency in light of widespread political and military instability, and the recent emboldening of anti-governmental Islamist forces. All of this, we should remember, is happening in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The U.S. has attacked this nuclear power with no regard for the consequences of the possible use of Pakistan's weapons, should they fall into the hands of anti-American forces.

Don't expect to hear about many of these warnings in the U.S. press, however. If political leaders refuse to address the concerns over U.S. aggression (and they haven't), then for all practical purposes these concerns may as well not exist. Short of occasional media coverage in papers such as the New Yorker, most of the American press has been hesitant to criticize the U.S. too heavily for unwittingly evacuating Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders from Pakistan during "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan. These leaders secretly fled Afghanistan, along with Pakistani intelligence officers when they were evacuated by the U.S. in late 2001 in a plan approved by the Bush administration and promoted by former President Musharraf. Rather than focusing on this embarrassing incident, blame for Islamist forces' operations in Pakistan has been placed squarely at the feet of the Pakistani government, which is attacked for "turning a blind eye as the militants organize their insurgency" from within the country.

Star reporters such as Bob Woodward have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker government claims that targets in Pakistan may be pin-point targeted with "newly developed techniques and operations." In the New York Times, editors depict the conflict in an Orwellian fashion, framing Pakistan, rather than the U.S., as the true threat. Illegal U.S. attacks are framed innocently as a response to terrorism, with the Pakistani government's promises of reprisals against invading troops seen as "threatening" the safety of U.S. troops. There is little room under this framework for condemnations of U.S. actions as illegal. While the New York Times has tactically criticized the Bush administration attacks in Pakistan as a "desperation move," it has also lent strong support to future attacks: "If an American raid captured or killed a top Qaeda or Taliban operative, the backlash might be worth it." CIA officer Baer's warnings about the severe dangers of such attacks (and their extraordinary likelihood of failure) are unsurprisingly ignored.

A systematic review of the Washington Post's coverage of U.S.-Pakistani relations further demonstrates the tremendous levels that American propaganda has reached. A review of the paper's coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the dangers of nuclear weapons in relation to North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan reveals a troubling pattern. From June 1-September 15, 2008 (the period in which American attacks in Pakistan dramatically escalated), coverage of U.S. responsibility for increasing the danger of a nuclear conflict with Pakistan have appeared in not a single story. In contrast, over thirty stories appeared (one story every three days) regarding U.S. foreign policy and Iran's alleged threat from developing nuclear weapons. In the case of North Korea, over 55 stories appeared (one story every two days) about U.S. foreign policy and the supposed threat from North Korea.

What is most striking about the examples of North Korea and Iran is that both countries have pursued a de-escalating of tensions with the U.S., engaging in various negotiations with the U.S. and other parties over the last year over the WMD issue. Iran itself was found not even to be developing nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. North Korea has recently begun the long process of dismantling its nuclear weapons program, disassembling its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon (in 2007 and 2008). These stories, regardless of the de-escalation, often condemned Iran and North Korea as nuclear rogues that only disarmed because of U.S. and allied actions.

What reporting has shown up in the Washington Post on Pakistan, the U.S., and nuclear weapons places blame solely on Pakistan's leaders, leaving U.S. officials free from skepticism. Attention is devoted almost exclusively to the actions of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, who admitted to selling nuclear technology and secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya during the 1990s. The late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is also lambasted for having allegedly smuggling information on nuclear enrichment to North Korea. No stories are found criticizing the U.S. for destabilizing Pakistan, or warning about the dire consequences of such instability for Pakistan as a nuclear power. No attention is devoted to addressing U.S. recklessness in consistently attacking another nuclear power. In short, nuclear threats from Pakistan arise only from Pakistani actions, not from those of the U.S.

The American media's opposition to printing stories that are critical of the U.S. are not unexpected. If American political elites refuse to challenge America's dangerous initiatives in Pakistan, there is little reason to expect that the media will do so on its own. American reporters have long been known for their stenographic role, faithfully reflecting the official debate in Washington, rather than independently promoting their own reasoned, critical dialogue. Such reliance on, and dissemination of, official propaganda, however, has major effects on public opinion. In a recent poll released on September 22nd, 68% percent of Americans questioned supported taking military action in Pakistan to kill terrorists and Islamist figures "even if the [Pakistani] government does not give the permission to do so." Such a commitment to imperial aggression poses major problems, for reasons discussed above. American survival in a time of terror requires that we refrain from escalating threats with other nuclear powers. Whether the public will effectively take up this challenge remains an open question in an era of media spin and official propaganda.

Anthony DiMaggio is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Understanding American News in the “War on Terror” (2008). He teaches American Government at North Central College in Illinois, and can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu

Notes

Anil Dawar, "Pakistani President and PM Just Missed Hotel Bomb Blast," Guardian, September 22, 2008

Tariq Ali, "The American War Moves to Pakistan," TomDispatch, 16 September 2008

Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah, "U.S. Attack on Taliban Kills 23 in Pakistan," 9 September 2008; CNN.com, "Suspected U.S. Attack Kills 13 in Pakistan," 12 September 2008.

David Usborne, "Musharraf: U.S. 'Threatened to Bomb' Pakistan," 22 September 2006,

Bobby Ghosh, "The U.S. and Democracy in Pakistan," Time, 20 August 2008,

Editorial, "Defending Sovereignty," Nation, 16 September 2008; Mazhar Qayyum Khan, "Anger at War on Terror," Nation, 16 September 2008.

Javid Husain, "Impotent Rage," Nation, 16 September 2008; "The Killing Spree," Nation.

Seymour Hersh, "The Getaway," New Yorker, 28 January 2002.

Reuters, "Pakistan Condemns 'Cowardly' U.S. Attack," 11 June 2008.

Steve Weissman, "Bob Woodward's Not-so-Secret Weapon in Iraq," Truthout, 16 September 2008.

Editorial, "Running Out of Time," New York Times, 22 September 2008.

Glenn Kessler, "Bhutto Dealt Nuclear Secrets to North Korea, Book Says," Washington Post, 1 June 2008, 16(A); Joby Warrick, "Smugglers had Design for Advanced Warhead," Washington Post, 15 June 2008, 1(A); Joby Warrick, "Nuclear Ring was More Advanced than Thought, U.N. Says," Washington Post, 13 September 2008, A11.

"New Poll Shows Americans Support Major Changes in U.S. Foreign Policy," Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, September 22, 2008.

Also See:
The Problem of Pakistan - Steve Coll, New Yorker

McCain and Obama 1: How to Tackle Pakistan?


Picture source

New Debate Territory: Pakistan and Iran Policy
By DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times, September 27, 2008

For months, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have argued over whether Iraq was the right war to fight in 2003. On Friday night they delved for the first time into the problems one of them will face on Jan. 20: Whether America has to be ready to carry out military action inside Pakistan, an important ally, and against Iran’s nuclear program.

Curiously, there was more than a little role reversal in the first presidential debate. It was Mr. Obama who seemed more aligned with President Bush’s current policy of authorizing American special forces to cross the Afghan-Pakistan border into Pakistan’s tribal areas that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have used as a sanctuary.

In one of the more heated moments of the debate, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, argued that he would take the war to Osama bin Laden’s cave door, whether Pakistan cooperated or not. And it was Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, who argued that without Pakistan’s cooperation, any such operation was doomed.

Mr. McCain took the position that Mr. Bush had taken until this summer, when the president gave up on the Pakistani government in frustration. With no public announcement, Mr. Bush loosened the reins on American forces to go into sovereign Pakistani territory. Mr. Obama essentially argued on Friday night that Mr. Bush should have done that years ago, ridiculing the $10 billion that the administration had paid to the Pakistani military with little result.

At its core, the candidates’ argument is about the “central front” in the war on terrorism. Mr. Obama said it was, and always has been, Pakistan’s tribal areas and the neighboring areas of Afghanistan. Iraq, he argued, was a dangerous distraction. Mr. McCain made the case that Iraq was the central front, noting that Mr. bin Laden himself had declared that the battleground with America.

The debate over Iran became the testing ground on where the candidates stood on pre-emption and engagement. Mr. McCain repeatedly referred to Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel. But curiously, given his hawkish statements in the past, Mr. McCain did not repeat his previous argument that it might be better to attack Iran than to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon. Instead, he called for more-effective sanctions, suggesting that he does not think Mr. Bush ever really rallied the United States’ allies, namely France, Germany and Russia, to pressure Iran.

Mr. Obama shot back, arguing that the war in Iraq has empowered Iran. And he pointed out that the Iranians have built 4,000 centrifuges during the Bush years. (The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest number is slightly lower: 3,800.)

But Mr. Obama turned the discussion to argue that even while pressing Iran, the United States has to engage the Iranians directly. On this, he is in agreement with many in the State Department, though not Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. McCain echoed the Bush administration’s argument, that negotiating directly with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would “legitimize” him, and that you do not sit down with Iranian leaders until they first meet “preconditions.” That has been American policy since 2006. The Bush administration has refused to sit down with Iranian leaders until they suspend building the centrifuges that produce uranium.

Also See:
Pakistani Bloggers on McCain-Obama First Debate - Global Voices
Obama breathes fire, McCain shows restraint over Pakistan - Dawn
In debate, Obama and McCain differ sharply on foreign policy - Los Angeles Times
Obama, McCain underline policy differences on Pakistan - Reuters
For transcript of the debate, click here

The Long Road to Chaos in Pakistan: NYT

The Long Road to Chaos in Pakistan
By DEXTER FILKINS, New York times, September 28, 2008

Hours after a truck bomber slew 53 people last weekend at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, the country’s interior minister laid responsibility for the attack on Taliban militants holed up in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, the remote, wild region that straddles the border with Afghanistan.

“All roads lead to FATA,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said.

If the past is any guide, Mr. Malik’s statement is almost certainly correct.

But what Mr. Malik did not say was that those same roads, if he chose to follow them, would very likely loop back to Islamabad itself.

The chaos that is engulfing Pakistan appears to represent an especially frightening case of strategic blowback, one that has now begun to seriously undermine the American effort in Afghanistan. Tensions over Washington’s demands that the militants be brought under control have been rising, and last week an exchange of fire erupted between American and Pakistani troops along the Afghan border. So it seems a good moment to take a look back at how the chaos has developed.

It was more than a decade ago that Pakistan’s leaders began nurturing the Taliban and their brethren to help advance the country’s regional interests. Now they are finding that their home-schooled militants have grown too strong to control. No longer content to just cross into Afghanistan to kill American soldiers, the militants have begun to challenge the government itself. “The Pakistanis are truly concerned about their whole country unraveling,” said a Western military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the matter is sensitive.

That is a horrifying prospect, especially for Pakistan’s fledgling civilian government, its first since 1999. The country has a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons. The tribal areas, which harbor thousands of Taliban militants, are also believed to contain Al Qaeda’s senior leaders, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

For complete article, click here

Friends of Pakistan

EDITORIAL: Friends rally around Pakistan
Daily Times, September 28, 2008

A permanent forum known as Friends of Pakistan was launched in New York on Friday with the mission to help Pakistan out of its economic crisis. It has been estimated that Pakistan would need around $15 billion to prevent its economy from collapsing. The Forum’s first substantive session, hopefully meaning actual execution of commitments, will be held in Abu Dhabi early October. The future host of the forum, UAE’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, said in New York that his country fully backed the initiative to “show our commitment to Pakistan”.

Others too have shown commitment: the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “We are engaged with Pakistan through international financial institutions. We will support the steps Pakistan must take for its economy”. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband saw “a very strong signal of political and economic support to the democratically elected government in Pakistan”. Those who attended the Friends of Pakistan forum meeting were: The United States, Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Japan, China, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

President Asif Ali Zardari, whose presence at the UN helped the campaign for Pakistan’s economic survival, appropriately remarked: “I don’t want them to give us the fish. I want to learn how to fish and do it myself”. Needless to say, the forum couldn’t have been launched without the help of the United States and the commitment shown by the PPP leadership in Pakistan to fighting Pakistan’s war against terrorists and extremists which cannot be sustained without a dramatic economic revival. And that is exactly why the international community is ready to offer financial help.

For complete editorial, click here

Also See:
Friends of Pakistan group pledges aid for stabilization - AFP
‘Friends’ unveil initiative to avert collapse: Over $15bn needed: media - Dawn
Zardari Wins Support of Global Coalition on Terrorism, Economy - Bloomberg

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The kidnapping of Afghan Diplomat in Pakistan

The kidnapping of Farahi
The News, September 27, 2008
Rahimullah Yusufzai

Kidnapping for ransom is a flourishing business in Pakistan and not a day goes when a number of people aren't kidnapped in different parts of the country. But the issue is highlighted when someone important is snatched or the kidnappers make political demands such as release of people detained by the government.

Due to the government's weak writ in certain areas, Pakistan once again is faced with a difficult situation following the kidnapping of Abdul Khaliq Farahi, Afghanistan's ambassador-designate, from Peshawar on September 22. This incident happened at a time when the government was still looking for a breakthrough in recovering the two Chinese telecommunication engineers Zhang Guo and Long Xiao Wei, who were kidnapped by suspected Taliban militants in Khal area of Upper Dir district in NWFP on August 29. The recovery of the young engineers, who were employees of a Chinese company which had been contracted by the mobile firm Telenor to set up towers and do other related work in the remote Upper Dir and Lower Dir districts, is no less important than that of ambassador Farahi in view of the friendly nature of Pakistan's relations with China.

For complete story, click here

Friday, September 26, 2008

India - Pakistan Peace Process Resumes

Indo-Pak accord on four trade routes
The News, September 26, 2008
Singh assures Zardari of respecting Indus Waters Treaty
By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir

NEW YORK: Pakistan and India have agreed to resume trade through land routes and decided to open four points for this purpose, including two along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, while two would be on the international borders.

The agreement, without any tangible progress towards the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, is perceived to be a departure from Pakistan's historic position on Kashmir followed by the successive governments.

Meanwhile, India assured Pakistan that it would stand by the Indus Waters Treaty and Pakistan would get its share of river waters in accordance with the treaty. President Asif Ali Zardari raised the issue of water share in his maiden meeting on Wednesday evening with Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in his hotel in New York.

A joint statement was issued after the meeting and the two leaders also had a brief interaction with the media. The leaders of Pakistan and India, vowing to work for an early and full normalisation of relations, have agreed to open four trade routes as part of the efforts to strengthen trade, commerce and bilateral ties.

The joint statement reads: "Both the leaders agreed that the forces that had tried to derail the peace process must be defeated. "This would allow the continuation and deepening of a constructive dialogue for the peaceful resolution and satisfactory settlement of all the bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir," added the statement issued after the hour-long session.

"They agreed that violence, hostility and terrorism had no place in the vision they shared regarding the bilateral relations, and must be visibly and verifiably prevented," it said, adding: "Severe action would be taken against elements involved in terrorist acts," the statement said.

The two leaders welcomed the "several positive outcomes of the four rounds of the composite dialogue, which had brought their people, businesses and institutions closer." They agreed on the opening of the Wagah-Attari road link and Khokrapar-Munabao rail route for all permissible items of trade. They also decided to commence cross-LoC trade on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawlakot roads on October 21, and to discuss modalities for the opening of the Skardu-Kargil route soon. The two countries have just concluded talks in New Delhi on the subject of opening of trade routes across the LoC.

The meeting between the two leaders called for consolidating the gains made through sustained efforts to resolve all outstanding issues. "They agreed to work for an early and full normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan, on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and non-interference," the two-page statement said.

Pakistan and India also agreed that their foreign secretaries would schedule meetings of the fifth round of the composite dialogue in the next three months to focus on "deliverables and concrete achievements".

They also agreed to stabilise the ceasefire and that the director-generals military operations and sector commanders would stay in regular contact.The two sides also agreed to hold a special meeting of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism in October to address mutual concerns, including the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Prime Minister Singh congratulated President Zardari on his election and the victory of democracy in Pakistan. He expressed the hope that this would pave the way for a profound transformation of the bilateral relationship, so that India and Pakistan might work together on their shared objectives of peace, prosperity and security.

The two leaders also agreed on expansion of people-to-people contacts, trade, commerce and economic cooperation as it provided an effective platform to develop and strengthen bilateral relations.

They evolved a consensus to continue interaction between the planning commissions of both the countries to develop mutually beneficial cooperation, including the energy sector.

Indian diplomatic sources later told this scribe that India was committed to implementing the Indus Waters Treaty that allowed equitable distribution of water, after President Asif Ali Zardari sought an early action on the issue of reduction of water flow in the River Chenab at his meeting with the Indian prime minister.

Dr Manmohan Singh assured President Zardari that the Indus Waters Treaty would be implemented in letter and spirit. It is the obligation of the government of India and they will invite the Indus waters commissioner soon after Eid to look at the situation."

President Zardari said he was working for poverty alleviation and economic development in South Asia.Manmohan said all the outstanding issues could be resolved through peaceful dialogue.

"We discussed all aspects of our relations - trade, Jammu and Kashmir - we are not afraid of the word K (Kashmir)." President Zardari while talking to the media after the meeting said that Dr Singh is the architect of modern India. He has assured us about water, which is our main concern. "We are thankful for his assurances in this regard"

Dr Singh said that all outstanding issues could be resolved through peaceful dialogue. "A strong prosperous, peaceful, democratic Pakistan is in our interest," he concluded.

Also See:
Zardari calls Manmohan 'father of modern India' - NDTV
Water issue to be resolved: Singh: Indus treaty to provide guidance - Dawn
India, Pakistan leaders agree to kickstart peace talks - AFP

Thursday, September 25, 2008

U.S., Pakistan exchange shots at volatile border: CNN

U.S., Pakistan exchange shots at volatile border
CNN, September 25, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- U.S. and Pakistani troops exchanged fire Thursday along the Pakistani-Afghan border minutes after the Pakistani military fired shots at two American helicopters that were providing cover for the troops, a U.S. military spokesman said.

The U.S. Army OH-58D Kiowas, part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan, were patrolling the Pakistani-Afghan border when the Pakistani military fired on them, NATO and U.S. officials said.

The Pakistani military said the fire was warning shots, and President Asif Ali Zardari said it was flares. Both Zardari and the Pakistani military said the helicopters had crossed into Pakistani territory -- a charge U.S. officials denied.

Rear Adm. Greg Smith of U.S. Central Command said the helicopters were providing cover for a small U.S. military unit accompanying an Afghan border police unit on a routine patrol.

After the shots were fired at the helicopters, Smith told CNN, the U.S. troops fired "suppressing rounds" into a nearby hill to get the Pakistanis to stop. That prompted the Pakistani troops to stop firing at the helicopters and fire instead in the direction of the troops, he said. The U.S. troops then returned fire, Smith said.

No injuries were reported in the five-minute incident.

Smith and other U.S. officials said the helicopter crews did not fire back.

But the Pakistanis disagreed, asserting in a written statement that the helicopters "returned fire" after the initial shots were fired.

"The helicopters passed over our border post and were well within Pakistan territory" at the time that "security forces fired anticipatory warning shots," the Pakistani statement said.

After the shots were fired, "the helicopters returned fire and flew back."

For complete report, click here

Disaster Management in Pakistan

Disaster and management
By I.A. Rehman, Dawn, September 25, 2008

THE people of Pakistan are living under double jeopardy. On the one hand, the scale of disasters caused by terrorists is escalating and, on the other, the management of emergencies is becoming more and more disastrous.

The havoc caused by last Saturday’s blast at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel is truly colossal. Besides resulting in the huge loss of life and property, it led to an enormous erosion of the people’s confidence in the government’s capacity to deal with terrorist attacks and their aftermath. As a perceptive analyst has pointed out, in view of the mounting evidence of the authorities’ inability to handle terrorists, the latter’s attacks are likely to increase in terms of both numbers and the scale of devastation.

Quite a few ominous developments have been reported since the Islamabad disaster. The death of the Czech envoy has raised Pakistan’s rating as a hazardous assignment and foreign governments could downgrade their diplomatic relations with Islamabad. An important airline has suspended its flights to and from Pakistan and another airline had done so earlier. An IMF mission, on whose favourable report the managers of national finance were perhaps banking, is reported to have flown back.

Hopes of foreign investors’ coming to this country can hardly be sustained. The same can be said about the academics and professional experts that Pakistan might have been wooing. And, thanks to our sports czars’ decision to compete with the terrorists in demolishing whatever credit we had in the world of cricket, hockey and boxing, Pakistan’s isolation in the sports arena is nearly complete.

The terrorists’ demonstration of their ability to launch a massive attack on the federal seat of power comes after their unprecedented gains in the tribal areas allegedly administered by the federal government and their increasingly bold forays into the so-called settled districts of the Frontier province.

The blowing up of a grid station in Swat has multiplied the misery of its population many times over. Estimates of the time repairs may take vary from two to six months. What will happen to the people during a long blackout can only be imagined.

The abduction of the Afghan ambassador in Peshawar is likely to further deplete the morale of its citizens and their even more demoralised guardians. Now the Frontier governor has disclosed that terrorist groups are getting stronger in Punjab and that Punjab is the breeding ground for terrorist leaders and cadres, and not Fata as Islamabad’s Al Qaeda watchers are insinuating, as if we have been unaware of Punjab’s pioneering role in fostering terrorist outfits.

This grim scenario assumes more sinister dimensions if one takes into account the poverty of the disaster managers. Everything related to internal security appears to be a one-man show. However shrewd or gifted the present lynchpin of the interior establishment may be, the impression that the safety and security of the entire population depends upon him breeds more apprehension than trust.One has not heard of the Disaster Management Authority since it evinced some interest in the disturbances in Sindh following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination eight months ago. One hopes this body’s mandate is not limited to natural calamities and that it has something to do in the event of man-made disasters too. Further, it is time the security establishment tried to allay the people’s fears and anxieties by revealing its disaster management mechanisms and offering reasons for their claim to public trust in their effectiveness.

Reports that fire-fighting and rescue operations at the Marriott were not up to the mark, that some equipment needed for lifesaving tasks was not available or that what was available could not be efficiently used for lack of duly trained personnel are bound to fuel anxiety. It is possible that such reports are exaggerated and do not do justice to the functionaries concerned. But anyone who can recall the sufferings of the victims of the 2005 earthquake, or of the recent floods in Balochistan or of the floods in Sindh some years earlier will not be able to dismiss these reports altogether.

The agonising question that more skilled and better equipped rescue teams might have saved a few more lives will not go away easily. The fact is that our management of calamities has, more often than not, been pathetic and that there are dangerous deficiencies in both equipment and skills.

This was amply borne out at a recent high-profile conference at Karachi’s Aga Khan Medical University that received due attention neither from officialdom nor the media. Among the many inputs on the subject of managing disasters and injuries caused on roads and in closed environments, eminent surgeon Rasheed Jumma (now federal director-general of health) spoke of his plan to develop pre-hospital medical services of the kind that he said might have saved the lives of Princess Diana and Murtaza Bhutto, and the chief of Punjab’s Rescue 1122 service explained how this initiative is one of the best things to have happened in the province over the past many years.

Here are ideas that need to be adopted and further developed by the authorities responsible for saving lives and mitigating the suffering of disaster victims.

Despite the fact that we have been at the mercy of terrorists for quite some time, precautious against untoward emergencies in hotels, apartment blocks and offices do not go beyond installing a few fire extinguishers (often untested and unserviceable) here and there and giving warnings against the use of elevators in the event of fire.

Nobody has been told what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Even proper alarm systems have not been thought of. Suppose an alarm system had been activated the moment the truck carrying explosives exploded at Marriott, would it have made the situation worse or could it have saved some of the victims from death and injury? The point is that not only security personnel but the whole population should be instructed and drilled in safety measures when under attack.

The exposure of shortcomings in disaster management should have a sobering effect on the crazy war-mongers who are unfortunately receiving unmerited respect in the media. Some of them want to take on the forces that are armed with the deadliest weapons of mass destruction and some others talk of a nuclear conflict as if that would be a repetition of the 1965 encounter in the Rann of Kutch.

And this while we cannot cope with a blast at a hotel! A little reflection on this matter will lead to the need to revisit the puerile theory of safety regarding nuclear capability and to the realisation of the prohibitive cost of keeping a nuclear arsenal that every sane person hopes will never be used.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Zardari Bush Discuss Ties



President Zardari, Bush discuss ties, Bush pledges continued support for Pakistan
Associated Press of Pakistan, September 23, 2008

NEW YORK, Sept 23 (APP): President Asif Ali Zardari and President George W Bush discussed strengthening bilateral relationship here Tuesday, with the U.S.leader acknowledging Pakistan’s sovereignty and pledging continued support for the country’s in economic and security fields. Bush welcomed the newly elected Pakistani leader at The Waldorf Asotria Hotel as they met on the sidelines of the 63rd UN General Assembly session. At the outset, the US leader expressed a profound sense of grief over the loss of life in the weekend bombing on the Marriott Hotel, Islamabad.

“Pakistan is an ally, and I look forward to deepening our relationship. We’ll be discussing, of course, how to help spread prosperity. We want our friends around the world to be making a good living. We want there to be economic
prosperity and we can work together, and of course we’ll be talking about security,” Bush said in reference to economic cooperation and anti-terrorism efforts.

For complete report, click here

Also See:
Pakistan's Zardari Tries to Keep His Distance from US - TIME
Bush’s words mean nothing as Obama is hawkish on Pakistan - The News
Comment: Sovereignty and diplomacy —Brian Cloughley - Daily Times

US drone ‘shot down’ in SWAT?

US drone ‘shot down’ in SWAT
The News, September 24, 2008
Four US Predators violated Pak airspace
By Mushtaq Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: Pakistani security forces and Wazir tribesmen Tuesday shot down a CIA-operated US Predator plane near Angoor Adda, in South Waziristan Agency (SWA) but AFP reported that the plane crashed.

Official and tribal sources informed this correspondent from Angoor Adda - a border town between Pakistan's South Waziristan and Afghanistan's Paktika province — that Pakistani security forces and armed Wazir tribespeople fired at the US spy plane and downed.

"Yes, the security forces and Wazir tribesmen fired at the plane and shot it down," said a security official based in the border town, but wished not to be named.The wreckage of the drone was reportedly lying scattered in a border village.

The official said the drone had been constantly flying over Pakistani border villages since Tuesday morning.Also, tribal sources from Wana, the headquarters of South Waziristan, said they received reports from their fellow Wazir tribesmen living in the border town that a US plane had been shot down.

Security officials said four US drones were flying over various towns of South Waziristan inhabited by the Ahmadzai Wazir tribesmen. However, despite several attempts by this scribe, Pakistan Army spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas did not attend telephone calls.

The US drones violated Pakistan's air space at the time when US President George W Bush was assuring his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari of respecting sovereignty of his country.The flights seemingly in search of yet another site for an attack across the border created panic among the already terrified tribesmen.

Official and tribal sources informed The News from Wana and Miramshah, the headquarters of South and North Waziristan tribal agencies, respectively, that the Predators intruded into Pakistani territory on Tuesday evening and continued flying over the border villages until one of the planes was downed.

The sources from Wana said four US drones came from Afghanistan and were seen flying over several border areas, including Wana, Birmal, Shakai and Toi Khula. The residents said the planes came early on Tuesday morning and after flying for a few hours disappeared at noon. However, four of them later reappeared in the evening and hovered over the Wazirs-inhabited areas of South Waziristan along the border with Afghanistan's troubled Paktika province and were still hovering over the region.

According to the residents of Wana, non-stop flights of US spy planes over the tribal region have terrified the tribesmen as these planes in the past had fired several Hellfire missiles resulting in the killing of dozens of people, majority of them innocent tribals, including women and children.

"The drones have been constantly flying over the villages located near the border with Afghanistan forcing majority of the residents on living outside their homes," Shakirullah, a resident of Dabkot village near Wana, said while talking to this scribe on telephone.

Meanwhile, tribesmen of adjoining North Waziristan Agency also claimed that two US drones had crossed into Pakistani territory on Tuesday morning and were continuously hovering over the area.

"The two planes are continuously flying over residential areas since Tuesday morning. At noon they briefly disappeared but re-appeared afternoon and are still flying over us," said Mohammad Javed, a resident of Danday Darpakhel village near Miramshah.

He said both the spy planes had been constantly flying over Danday Darpakhel village where a house and Madrassa of veteran Afghan Taliban commander Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani were attacked recently by two US drones killing 25 people, majority of them women and children belonging to Haqqani's family.

"Both the planes are flying at extremely low altitude frightening the villagers, especially the children," complained another villager Syed Halim. A security official based in Miramshah also confirmed the intrusion and said besides Danday Darpakhel, the drones were flying over other adjoining villages including Dattakhel, Spalga, Razmak and Mirali.

Also See:
‘Threat to US greatest from Tribal Areas’ - Daily Times

Monday, September 22, 2008

Pakistani president and PM just miss hotel bomb blast: Guardian

Pakistani president and PM just miss hotel bomb blast
Last-minute change of mind saved Zardari and Gillani from Marriott carnage as 53 die in explosions
Guardian, September 22, 2008; Anil Dawar and agencies

The new Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, and his prime minister were due to dine at the Marriott hotel on the night it was devastated by a huge truck bomb, it was revealed today.

An interior ministry spokesman, Rehman Malik, said Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gillani had changed their plans at the last minute and decided to meet at the prime minister's house instead.

Malik declined to elaborate on why the decision was made.

"Perhaps the terrorists knew the Marriott was the venue of the dinner for all the leadership where the president, prime minister and speaker would be present," he told reporters.

"At the eleventh hour, the president and prime minister decided the venue would be the prime minister's house. It saved the entire leadership," Malik added.

For complete story, click here

Pakistan troops 'repel US raid': BBC

Pakistan troops 'repel US raid'
BBC, September 22, 2008
Pakistani troops have fired warning shots at two US helicopters forcing them back into Afghanistan, local Pakistani intelligence officials say.

The helicopters flew into the tribal North Waziristan region from Afghanistan's Khost province at around midnight, the reports say.

Tensions have risen after an increase in US attacks targeting militants.

The incident comes amid mounting security fears after a militant bomb attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel.

Pakistan's army has said it will defend the country's sovereignty and reserves the right to retaliate to any border violations.

The government has said it will take targeted action against the militants, promising raids in some "hotspots" near the border with Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in the city of Peshawar, Afghan consul Abdul Khaliq Farahi was kidnapped after six unidentified men ambushed his car, officials say. His driver died in the attack.

'Firing in the air'

Last week Pakistani troops fired into the air to prevent US ground troops crossing the border into South Waziristan.

BORDER TENSIONS
3 Sept: First reported ground assault by US troops in Pakistan - Islamabad responds furiously
15 Sept: Pakistani troops reportedly fire in air to stop US troops crossing in S Waziristan
17 Sept: Top US military chief Adm Mike Mullen visits Pakistan to calm tensions
16 Sept: Pakistan says it was not told of fresh US missile strike
22 Sept: Pakistani troops in fresh firing to deter US incursion into N Waziristan, officials say

The latest confrontation between US and Pakistani forces took place in North Waziristan's sparsely populated Ghulam Khan district, west of the main town in the region, Miranshah, local officials say.

They told the BBC that troops at border posts in the mountainous region fired at two US helicopters which crossed into Pakistani territory.

The helicopters returned to Afghanistan without retaliating.

A senior security official based in Islamabad told the AFP news agency that the helicopters had been repelled by both army troops and soldiers from the paramilitary Frontier Corps (FC).

"The helicopters were heading towards our border. We were alert and when they were right on the boundary line we started aerial firing. They hovered for a few minutes and went back," the official said.

"About 30 minutes later they made another attempt. We retaliated again, firing in the air and not in their direction, from both the army position and the FC position, and they went back."

A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj Murad Khan, said he had no information "on border violation by the American helicopters".

The US military in Afghanistan also said it had no information on the incident.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says after increased American incursions this month, the army stressed that it reserved the right to retaliate.

Our correspondent says standard procedure would be to first fire warning shots.

'Crisis in relations'

The two countries held talks last week on anti-militant co-ordination.

America's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad to try to calm the crisis in relations but tensions remain high, our correspondent says.

As well as reported incursions, there have been a number of US missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistan territory in recent weeks.

The Americans stepped up their strikes after criticism that Pakistani troops were unable or unwilling to eliminate Taleban sanctuaries along the border.

Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

It emerged earlier this month that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

Pakistan reacted with diplomatic fury when US helicopters landed troops in South Waziristan on 3 September. It was the first ground assault by US troops in Pakistan.

Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting tribesmen with the Taleban.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Options for Pakistan?

What's next?
The News, September 21, 2008
Dr Farrukh Saleem

These are the most dangerous of times. The trajectory of events on the Pakistan-Afghan border has a shocking parallel to the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War had begun in 1959 and by 1966 -- seventh year of the war -- the Viet Cong had established safe sanctuaries across the border in eastern Cambodia. The Viet Cong crossed the border through the Sihanouk Trail; crossed the border to rest and to rearm.

For the following three years, a unit of US Special Forces conducted covert intelligence operations across the border. The collected intelligence was repeatedly presented to Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia. Inaction on part of Sihanouk resulted in a regime change whereby Lon Nol was brought in as the new president (Sihanouk ran to China and Russia for help). Cambodia under a new president, and American operations turned from covert to overt.

Look at how history repeats itself: the Viet Cong turned against the Cambodian army. Nixon entered the White House on 20 January 1969 and within a year ordered General Abrams to "launch American forces into Cambodia with the special objective of capturing the headquarters of the entire communist military operation…."

America killed 1.5 million Vietnamese at the cost of 58,159 of its own soldiers. Remember, the only force that pulled the Americans out of Vietnam was the American public opinion (because too many Americans were getting killed). Over the following three decades -- and a dozen wars later -- the Pentagon has learned to keep American casualties low. In Iraq, over a million Iraqis have lost their lives while US casualties stand at 4,159.

Iraq has been destroyed; destroyed for no reason, destroyed for weapons of mass destruction that didn't even exist. Imagine; if there is another 9/11 and it's traced back to Pakistan. They'll have a reason -- a reason to vaporize Pakistan. If they can destroy countries for no reason just imagine what they'll do if we give them a reason.

The Shireen Mazari-Imran Khan-Qazi Hussain Ahmed trio defines 'pro-Pakistan' as 'anti-US'. The trio can make us lose everything we have built by eating grass for the past 61 years. The trio can make us lose everything that's dear to us and everything that's near to us. The Munir Akram-Zamir Akram duo defines 'pro-Pakistan' as 'anti-India'. That definition is no longer in Pakistan's national interest.

The 'Great Game' will encircle us and then crush us, choke us, squeeze us and squash us beyond recognition. There are no morals or ethics on either side. The game is about containing China, and America has already recruited India and Afghanistan. On September 8, Indian army's Corps of Engineers completed the construction of a road by virtue of which Afghanistan now stands connected to Iran's Free Port of Chahbahar. On September 13, India blockaded Chenab River just when our Kharif crops -- cotton and sugarcane -- need water the most. On September 17, Air Marshal P K Barbora redeployed six of his most advanced Sukhoi-30MKI, heavy-class, nuclear-capable, air superiority fighters from Pune to Awantipur Air Base (the airbase is next to Srinagar). Now we have Su-30MKIs in the east, Hellfire air-to-ground missiles in the west and USS Ronald Reagan in the Arabian Sea.

July, August and September are proving to be the deadliest months for American forces in Afghanistan. America's GDP stands at $14 trillion; next in line are Japan, Germany, China and the UK. Imagine; the collective GDP of Japan, Germany, China and the UK is less than America's. The whole wide world outside of the US spends $500 billion a year on killing machines and soldiers. Imagine; the US alone spends $500 billion (China $59 billion, Russia $50 billion, Japan $48 billion, India $27 billion and Pakistan $8 billion).

For the past two decades, Pakistan's ISI has outsmarted all Indian generals by pining down India's 15, 9, 16, 14, 10 and 11 Corps in the northeast in a low-intensity, low-cost confrontation -- and Indian generals have failed to find a way out. General Deepak Kapoor, India's 23rd chief of army staff, would now love a way-out.

America has her own interests and India has her own. We must determine a path that is best for Pakistan. Eventually, we would have to decide -- proxy wars or regional economic integration. Our decision must be knowledge based as oppose to being honour based.

Postscript: we have no intention of either returning their F-16s, stop applying for US visas or deny their wheat under PL-480.

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

Battle at Bajaur

Battle to be won or lost in Bajaur
By Ismail Khan, Dawn, September 21, 2008

THE battle in the Bajaur Agency has not only become a tipping-point for Pakistan’s internal security, it can also have a deep impact on the country’s status as a key US ally in the war against terrorism. In the second week of August, the operation started haltingly to prevent what looked like the imminent fall of Bajaur’s regional headquarters, Khaar, to the militants.

Having suffered initial reversals, the operation is now on at full throttle. It has created a surrender-or-die situation for the militants and a now-or-never moment for the country’s security forces.

Predictably, the militants are using everything they have to hold their ground. Government and security officials say that they are baffled by the resilience and stiff resistance offered by the battle-hardened fighters, by their tactics and the sophistication of their weapons and communications systems.

“They have good weaponry and a better communication system (than ours),” said a senior official. “Even the sniper rifles they use are better than some of ours. Their tactics are mind-boggling and they have defences that would take us days to build. It does not look as though we are fighting a rag-tag militia; they are fighting like an organised force.”

More worryingly, the Bajaur battleground has attracted militants from other tribal regions and from across the border, from Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar province. It has long been known that there are foreign militants in Bajaur, but their numbers have always been thought to be small. Now, their ranks are swelling, catching by surprise many veterans in the civil-military establishment. This supply line from Kunar to Bajaur has, however, eased the pressure in Afghanistan. Western diplomatic sources acknowledge that the level of violence in Kunar has dropped appreciably since the launch of the operation in Bajaur, indicating a planning and operational linkage that overlaps the Durand Line.

Realising how crucial and critical the Bajaur operation is — and the massive impact it can have on restive neighbouring tribal regions — the army has lined up tremendous resources to make quick headway.

Concern for backlash

Government and security sources say that so far the operation is going well. However, there are concerns that rising numbers of civilian casualties in a lengthening conflict may cause public and political backlash, and undermine the national support needed to succeed in Bajaur. The Jamaat-i-Islami, for one — which has a strong political base in Bajaur and has had close ties with Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i-Islami (which operates in Kunar) — has already launched a campaign against the operation.

For now, government and security officials are staying put and are determined to take the battle to what they call “its logical conclusion”.

To gauge the seriousness of this operation a brigade of the Pakistan Army has, for perhaps the first time, been placed under the command of the recently-posted Inspector General of Frontier Corps, Maj-Gen Tariq Khan, to ensure the unity of command and effectiveness.

The security forces are relieved by much-needed words of praise from an otherwise sceptical and suspicious American administration regarding the action in Bajaur. On Thursday, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Kabul that the US was “encouraged” by the security forces’ operation in Bajaur.

At home, meanwhile, important members of the political leadership have stopped expressing misgivings about the establishment’s intentions in terms of dealing with militancy; they acknowledge that this operation is for real.

“There is a change in their approach,” said a senior politician from the NWFP. “They seem serious. As to what caused this change of mind, we really have no idea.”

One view being expressed among political circles is that the gravity of the security threat to national integrity, crucial support from the current leadership and growing public mobilisation in Buner, Dir and Bajaur have together served as a shot in the arm for the military, enabling it to decisively take on the militants.

An additional fillip has been provided by the American administration’s upping of the ante. President George W. Bush’s July authorisation to permit operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas forced the army high command to come up with a strong reaction.

More importantly, the US commando raid in Angoor Adda made the top brass reiterate the commitment that they alone will take action on Pakistani soil, and Bajaur is the litmus test of this commitment. This has helped the government ‘own’ the operation as being driven by internal security concerns and has changed the perception that action was being taken under external pressure.

More aggressive approach

Bajaur, thus, may constitute the beginning of a more aggressive approach and strategy by Pakistan’s armed forces, backed equally by the political leadership.

The success of this approach may not only initiate the unravelling of the militants’ insurgency in the tribal region — though total elimination would take much longer and would require a host of other measures such as political, administrative and economic reforms — it may also restore to the state and its security forces much-needed credibility at home and abroad.

Equally crucial, however, would be the extent of the collateral damage, for that may tip the balance either way and cause the loss of local support to the government. Tribal support, therefore, would be of critical importance. The Salarzai and Utmankhel tribes have already risen against the militants, albeit for reasons of their own. But it would be the Mamonds, which constitute a stronghold of the militants, which could really tilt the balance in the government’s favour.

Analysts say that any failure, or the abandonment of the operation midway as occurred, for a variety of reasons, in South Waziristan, Darra Adamkhel and Swat, could potentially not only undermine the gains made so far in Bajaur, but could also cast a negative spell on the ongoing operations in Swat and elsewhere.

“Needless to say, such a situation would not only embolden the militants on the one hand, on the other it would give the cynics in Washington and Kabul an excuse to point to Pakistan’s lack of ability and political will to fight this war,” commented a seasoned observer.

Clearly, therefore, the Bajaur operation is being watched closely by policy-makers in the US, and may shape that country’s strategy vis-Ć -vis Pakistan and the tribal areas, Bush’s July authorisation notwithstanding.

The stakes are equally high for the militants in Bajaur which, after Waziristan, is perhaps the second most significant stronghold of the militants.

Militant leader Maulvi Faqir Muhammad is the deputy to Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehreek-Taliban Pakistan, whose fighters are not only waging a war against Pakistani security forces but are also involved actively in the ‘jihad’ in Afghanistan, particularly in the bordering eastern province of Kunar. Faqir Muhammad is known to wield a lot of influence over militants operating in Swat under Maulana Fazlullah, who draws strength and support in large measure from Bajaur.

Militants in the Mohmand tribal region would also be watching the operation in neighbouring Bajaur with a great deal of anxiety, since the triumphs and losses of their comrades in arms and ideology may also decide their own fate.

Having said this, however, much would depend on the strategy the government adopts in the post-operation scenario, to consolidate its grip over Bajaur in order to prevent the resurgence of the militants, and to introduce a rehabilitation package for hundreds of thousands of Bajauris.

Officials say that a one-time package of $7.2 million is ready for such an intervention, based mostly on commitments made by international donors. But the full success of the entire operation will also be determined by how quickly, efficiently and transparently this rehabilitation process is carried out and implemented.

Victory for either side may not be soon in the coming, but one thing is certain: it may largely determine the future course of events in Pakistan.

Islamabad Bombing: The Best of Times and the Worst of Times

The best and the worst of times
The News, September 21, 2008

By Shafqat Mahmood

LAHORE: The day gone by in Islamabad could not have been more eventful, truly reflecting the much repeated Dickens line in A Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

It was the best because after a long time a civilian president addressed a joint session of parliament. The last military ruler came once to the parliament building, only to be greeted with a constant cacophony of catcalls and boos throughout his speech. This time the presidential address was heard in a civilised and orderly manner, reflecting the true traditions of a parliamentary democracy. It was something to cheer about.

It was the worst of times because the explosion in front of the Marriott was the deadliest car bomb in the history of the capital, killing about 100 people. This toll will probably rise after all the missing have been accounted for, including all the drivers who congregated in front of the building waiting for their masters to return. We can only hope for the best.

It is the best of times because democracy with all its flaws is now flowering. Politics and politicians are in command and the military has quietly chosen to play its assigned role of defence. It is the worst of times because never before has the nation faced such an organised insurgency. We need to have patience to overcome the teething problems of a democratic order that has many visible flaws. We need to have endurance and fortitude to fight the cancer that threatens our survival from within. The Marriott hotel is an iconic building in the capital because it is where the rich and powerful of the land congregate. It is also the place where most foreigners stay. This bomb attack was not just a stray attack on a well-guarded area of the capital. It was designed to strike terror in the heart of the Pakistani ruling class and the foreign visitors who deal with it.

It was also as clear a message as possible that the militants are not on the run. It demonstrated that they have the ability and the wherewithal to hit the most sensitive places in the country.

This attack should open the eyes of those who think that Pakistan does not have a home-grown problem of religious militancy. There are many apologists within the political parties and in the media, who explain away the insurgency in the tribal areas and parts of the Frontier as only a reaction to the American invasion of Afghanistan. They refuse to recognise that we are facing an organised attempt to destabilise the existing structure of the state and take it over. Such notions are dismissed as too fanciful because it is hard to believe that these people can have such grandiose objectives.

This attack on a day when parliament sat in a joint sitting to hear the presidential address and when anyone and everyone who mattered was in the capital should make the sceptics rethink. These brazen attacks in the heart of the capital can only have one purpose and that is to destabilise the state. If they are not successful or their motives and ambitions seem quixotic, it is not a reason to discount them. If anything, their objective can provide a clue to their methods and perhaps prevent another attack of such a magnitude.

President Zardari and his team will now have to rethink not only the priority that they give to the war against militancy and terror, they will also have to put in place draconian security measures to ensure that sensitive installations in the capital and indeed in other places of the country are properly protected. Despite a series of suicide bombings, I am afraid the attitude of our government officials and the citizens towards security is lackadaisical to say the least. The citizens bristle at going through security procedures and often quarrel with security personnel. The security people in turn are either rude or only go through motions without paying proper attention. We cannot afford either. The real test for the government is to train its security forces to thwart terrorist attacks. The real test for the citizens is to recognise the need for security measures.

It is important for the nation to come together and stand behind the government in its efforts to fight terrorism. We have a lot of differences with each other and are a quarrelsome lot when it comes to politics. On the issue of fighting militancy and indeed insurgency against the state, we have to put aside our differences and stand together. We can argue about tactics but there cannot be any disagreement with the objective of protecting the nation.

Also See:
Islamabad Marriott Blast May Deepen Strains With - Bloomberg
Terror pledge after Pakistan bomb - BBC

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Massive Suicide Bombing Attack at Islamabad Marriott


Picture Source: NYT

Explosion at Pakistan Marriott hotel kills 40
By ASIF SHAHZAD – AFP, September 20, 2008

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A massive suicide truck bomb devastated the heavily guarded Marriott Hotel in Pakistan's capital Saturday, killing at least 40 people and wounding at least 100. Officials feared there were dozens more dead inside the burning building.

The blast targeting the U.S. hotel chain appeared to be one of the largest terrorist attacks ever in Pakistan, leaving a vast crater some 30 feet deep in front of the main building, where rescuers ferried a stream of bloodied bodies.

The five-story Marriott had been a favorite place for foreigners as well as Pakistani politicians and business people to stay and socialize in Islamabad despite repeated militant attacks.

The attack came just hours after President Asif Ali Zardari made his first address to Parliament and days ahead of the new leader's meeting with President Bush Tuesday in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

For Complete Report, click here

Also See:
Some of the deadliest terror attacks in Pakistan - International Herald Tribune
At Least 40 Are Killed in Blast at Pakistan Hotel - New York Times

Taliban: From FATA to the NWFP

"From FATA to the NWFP: The Taliban Spread Their Grip in Pakistan" by Hassan Abbas
CTC Sentinel, volume 1, issue 10,September 2008

"Years of neglect, incompetence in governance and failure to devise an effective policy in the realm of fighting religious extremism has provided an opportunity for the Taliban and other extremist groups to expand their activities and influence in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Continuing instability in Afghanistan and the progressive loosening of the government’s writ in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) has exacerbated the crisis. Pakistan also experienced a prolonged transition from General Pervez Musharraf’s rule to a democratic dispensation, and this proved to be a distraction that opened up more avenues for extremist forces to plan and implement their expansionist vision. A weakening of the independent judiciary further diminished the potential of the state as well as society to check the overall deterioration of law and order in the NWFP.

Any effort to stem the tide of extremism in the NWFP first requires a dispassionate analysis of the ground realities. This article attempts to examine such indicators, by explaining how the Taliban have managed to spread their influence from FATA into the NWFP, and will present some ideas on how to reverse extremist trends.

For complete article, click here (page 3-5)

Troika Re-emerges...


Picture Source Getty Images/AFP

Troika vows to defend borders
The News, September 20, 2008
By our correspondent

ISLAMABAD: The country’s troika resolved on Friday not to allow the US to conduct air strikes or ground operations inside the Pakistani territory and showed its determination to defend the borders with full force.

It was the crux of an informal meeting President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani held at the Aiwan-e-Sadr here on Friday.

“Matters of national and international interest came under discussion,” said an official announcement about the meeting. With the present set-up being fully in place, it was the first interaction between the three.

Sources privy to their discussions said that they focused on issues arising out of repeated US attacks in Fata, and Pakistan’s principled stand not to allow any foreign forces to conduct these operations. President Zardari is scheduled to meet President Bush next week during his visit to the United Nations in New York, and he is expected to take up this matter with his American counterpart.

“The US would be asked at the summit level to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and a diplomatic breakthrough is likely which President Zardari would love to achieve during his interaction with President Bush,” said a senior official.

The meeting also agreed to adopt a common strategy for the government and the army. According to the sources, the President’s upcoming visits to the US and China also came under discussion during the meeting. Later, the president hosted an Iftar-dinner in honour of the prime minister and the Army chief.

Also See:
Pakistan must control tribal areas”, Hadly
The News, September 20, 2008

WASHINGTON: As Pakistani leaders stand united against U.S. strikes in the tribal areas, Senior Bush administration official Stephan Hadly said Pakistan is not yet equipped to combat its militant threat.

National security adviser to President Stephen Hadley declined to comment on American counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan but said Washington was trying to help Pakistan's government address the threat.

Speaking to the media, he insisted the problem could only be overcome when Pakistan's writ was firmly established in the tribal areas, and that the United States works very closely with Pakistan authorities.

President Zardari is scheduled to meet with U.S. President Bush on the 23rd, and the issue of cross-border strikes is sure to be very high on the agenda.

Troubling Revelations - Hamid Mir Interview from FATA

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Unilateral actions cannot defeat militants, says Negroponte: Dawn

Unilateral actions cannot defeat militants, says Negroponte
By Anwar Iqbal, Dawn, September 19, 2008

WASHINGTON, Sept 18: Unilateral actions cannot defeat militancy in Fata, said US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte who also indicated on Thursday that the United States and Pakistan were working on a more collaborative approach to deal with this problem.

Diplomatic sources in Washington say that the two countries whose relations have been strained after a series of unilateral US military strikes in tribal areas are trying to develop a common strategy to defeat terrorists hiding in that region.

The sources say that they hope to finalise the new strategy before an expected meeting between Presidents George W. Bush and Asif Zardari in New York next week.

“Unilateral actions are probably not a durable or a viable solution over a prolonged period of time,” said Mr Negroponte, the senior-most US diplomat after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

“I think the best way forward for both of our countries is to try to deal with the situation in that border area on a cooperative basis.”

Mr Negroponte said that “the best way forward” was to develop a trilateral approach, which includes the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“It’s a bit of a wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind of relationship,” Sadanand Dhume, a South Asia expert at Washington’s Asia Society, told ABC radio.

“And there is a difference between what Pakistan will tolerate as long as it is done privately and what it will publicly accept.”

A senior Pakistani diplomat, who did not want to be identified, told Dawn that while Pakistan would not allow US ground forces inside its territory, it would be more tolerant of US missile attacks on suspected terrorist targets.

The diplomat said that public perceptions of US military actions in Fata would, however, force Pakistani authorities to sometimes condemn air strikes as well.

A recent poll showed 74 per cent of Pakistanis did not support American actions in tribal areas.

Diplomatic observers in Washington say that despite such strong anti-American sentiments, there’s no possibility of Pakistan ever pulling out of the US-led anti-terrorism coalition.

In his statement, issued by the State Department in Washington, Mr Negroponte described America’s partnership with Pakistan as “a very important relationship” in a region where the US has “very important interests”.

“The war in Afghanistan, the issues of dealing with militant extremism in Pakistan, and above all the nexus between the situation in Pakistan and in Afghanistan” made this relationship so important, said Mr Negroponte.

Acknowledging the recent tensions between Islamabad and Washington, Mr Negroponte noted that Pakistan was going through a political transition but hoped that things would begin to stabilise soon.

The top US diplomat, however, conceded that “there have been issues about the degree to which Pakistan has been able or not been able to control the border region”.

Stability in this region, he said, was “not only of importance to the stability of Afghanistan, but also directly relevant to the security of our own forces that operate in Afghanistan”.

Another State Department official, spokesman Sean McCormack, blamed “intra-regional tensions” for problems in Fata but said that such tensions predated America’s recent involvement in the region.

“We want to work effectively with both -- and separately with Afghanistan and with Pakistan, and also we want to bring them together to try to effectively fight extremists,” said Mr McCormack while explaining a key element of the US strategy towards the region.

“The last thing you want is to have violent extremists to be able to exploit any sort of gaps, either political or physical security gaps that exist along that border,” he said.

The two statements reflect the desire of the current US administration to stay engaged with Pakistan, but a recent congressional hearing showed that at least some US lawmakers don’t share this desire.

Chairman of a House panel on South Asia, Congressman Gary Ackerman, described Pakistan as a country at “the bottom one per cent … of the sub-prime borrowers” and questioned the wisdom of lending money to Islamabad, sarcastically calling it “a bastion of economic stability”.

A sub-prime borrower is the one who is most likely to default on the loan he obtains.

Congressman Ed Royce indicated that he feared Pakistan might share F-16 technology with China for developing a new fighter jet.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry thought that there’s a lack of trust between the US and Pakistani militaries.

Congressman Jim Costa noted that Pakistan’s current rulers had “less than a pristine record” in fighting corruption.

But even at the hearing, representatives of the US administration defended Pakistan very strongly.

Donald Camp, a senior official at the State Department’s Bureau for South Asian affairs, said that Pakistan was not only a trusted ally in the war against terror but was also “taking serious casualties in Fata, Swat, Bajaur and Waziristan”.

Mitchell Shivers, the deputy assistant secretary of defence for South and Central Asia, told the panel that “there’s sincerity on Pakistan’s part” in fighting the terrorists.

Besides taking casualties, the Pakistani government is also bearing “political cost” for fighting terrorists in Fata.

Also See:
The future divide - By Ayesha Siddiqa, Dawn
A wild frontier - Economist