Tuesday, March 31, 2009

With Obama at the World's "Most Dangerous Place": Amabassador Akbar Ahmed

With Obama at the World's "Most Dangerous Place"
Akbar Ahmed, Huffington Post, March 28, 2009

Seated a few yards in front of President Obama as his invited guest at the White House on Friday, March 27, I heard him describe the areas I had been in charge of--including Waziristan--as "the most dangerous place in the world."

Obama was laying out what I suspect will become the signature foreign policy effort of his presidency. He had shifted the American focus of the last eight years from the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ultimately he will be judged by the success or failure of the objectives he laid out in his speech.

As if to confirm the sentiment of Obama's speech, at the same time as he delivered it, a suicide bomber in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan blew himself up and seventy other people in a mosque at Friday prayer. Around the same time, an Afghan soldier, trained by Americans, turned his gun on two American soldiers killing them and then shot himself. The stakes, therefore, could not be higher.

Obama laid out a persuasive argument--something that I had been doing for several years--that in order to stabilize Afghanistan, its neighbor Pakistan had to be stabilized. Obama's political insight was that Pakistan could not be stabilized without first calming and controlling the border areas that lie between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama rightly made a distinction between al-Qaeda who would be challenged and defeated and the general Taliban who were to be treated differently. There were those Taliban who could be talked to and eventually brought in, and those who were not redeemable.

Afghanistan will receive the attention it deserves but could not get because of the war in Iraq, and Pakistan will no longer be neglected. For Pakistan Obama committed $1.5 billion in aid annually for the next five years. While applauding Obama's generosity, I would urge him to ensure that the rulers of Afghanistan and Pakistan account for the $16-17 billion in American aid already given since 9/11 before providing more funds for their Swiss bank accounts.

As a Pakistani, it was a pleasure to hear an American president speak with such respect of the people of Pakistan. Obama talked of the suffering of the Pakistanis at the hand of the terrorists after 9/11. He even mentioned the large numbers of Pakistani soldiers killed in action along Pakistan's international border while attempting to bring law and order.

I was equally impressed--as I am sure most Pakistanis were--that he was the first American president I have heard pronounce the name of the country correctly. It is difficult for the people of that country to take American commentators too seriously when they pronounce Iran as "I-ran", Iraq as "I-rack", or Qatar as "gutter."

But, eloquence and diction will not get Obama very far in the rugged terrain that he has rightly called lethally dangerous for America and the world. If he fails to control the tribal areas, Obama will find his policy unraveling and the fears of American commentators that this may very well become "Obama's Vietnam" may prove correct.

So as someone who was directly in charge of three divisions in Baluchistan and several of the Tribal Areas in theFrontier Province, let me offer my suggestions based on my experiences.

My first suggestion is that Obama stop the drone strikes. At the moment, the issue of the drone strikes in the Tribal Areas is a highly sensitive and inflammatory one. While some "bad guys" may be killed in the strikes, there is little doubt that too many "good guys" are lost in the process--and many of them are women and children. This causes widespread outrage and fuels the anti-Americanism which is already rampant.

There is talk of opening up a new chapter by ordering drone strikes in Baluchistan. Not a good idea. The colonial British assiduously prevented the Baluch tribe of Baluchistan and Pashtun tribes of Southern Afghanistan and Pakistani agencies like North and South Waziristan from ever teaming up against them. I can predict that with the first drone strike in Baluchistan, America will ensure that this occurrs. As a result, the Taliban will gain new supporters and vast strategic depth.

And for those who may still have a cocky arrogance about dealing with these "tribal people," I would suggest they take a look at the map and confront the reality that the Baluch share hundreds of miles of border with Iran which will undoubtedly provide covert aid to put further pressure on its American adversaries.

Secondly, Obama must encourage the Pakistani government to stabilize law and order at the district level, the basic unit of administration. This can be done by revamping the civilian administrative structure in the tribal areas and districts of Pakistan. The vast majority of Pakistanis are fed up with the anarchy in their country and want to focus their lives on food, employment, and education for their families. Above all, they want law and order, which the district administration once provided. The district structure has been marginalized to the point of irrelevance over the last decade, and in its vacuum feudal lords, corrupt policemen and army soldiers play havoc with ordinary Pakistanis. An independent, honest, and competent civil administration, backed by an independent judiciary, would provide immediate relief and justice at the district level. In the Tribal Areas, the office of the political agent, along with the structure of tribal administration should be revived and strengthened, and the army used in aid of civil power and not to thwart it. It has been clearly shown that the army cannot deal effectively with the tribes.

Thirdly, in the tribal areas the council of elders, the jirgas that act as a tribal body providing justice and stability and the religious scholars advocating calm and stability should be strengthened. Some of these have become particular targets of the Taliban. But they are an effective inbuilt structural check to the Taliban.

Fourthly, the madrassas which form a vast, complex network of potential recruiting arenas for the Taliban need to be vigorously reformed. With the kind of money Pakistanis are receiving they should also be told that a large percentage should go to this reformation providing new syllabi, teachers training programs, and up to date equipment. This action will go a long way toward securing the next generation of Pakistanis.

Finally, follow up on the sensitivity shown by Obama in his approach to the Pakistani people and emphasize friendship and honor. I would suggest less bluster and more diplomacy on the part of those who are being sent out as part of Obama's efforts in the field.

Back at the White House, as I sat sensing the charisma of Obama and the eloquence of his words, I could not help but feel that I was seated in the front row watching history unfold.

I wondered whether he or those whose task it was to implement the President's vision were fully aware of the enormity of the challenge, as indeed I was.

Robert Fisk’s World: A brave man who stood alone

Robert Fisk’s World: A brave man who stood alone. If only the world had listened to him
I wish I had met Tom Hurndall, a remarkable man of remarkable principle
Independent, March 28, 2009

I don't know if I met Tom Hurndall. He was one of a bunch of "human shields" who turned up in Baghdad just before the Anglo-American invasion in 2003, the kind of folk we professional reporters make fun of. Tree huggers, that kind of thing. Now I wish I had met him because – looking back over the history of that terrible war – Hurndall's journals (soon to be published) show a remarkable man of remarkable principle. "I may not be a human shield," he wrote at 10.26 on 17 March from his Amman hotel. "And I may not adhere to the beliefs of those I have travelled with, but the way Britain and America plan to take Iraq is unnecessary and puts soldiers' lives above those of civilians. For that I hope that Bush and Blair stand trial for war crimes."

Hurndall got it about right, didn't he? It wasn't so simple as war/no war, black and white, he wrote. "Things I've heard and seen over the last few weeks proves what I already knew; neither the Iraqi regime, nor the American or British, are clean. Maybe Saddam needs to go but ... the air war that's proposed is largely unnecessary and doesn't discriminate between civilians and armed soldiers.

For complete article, click here

Monday, March 30, 2009

Tackling Terrorism in Lahore: Police Shows Resolve

Villagers block, police defeat terrorists
* 8 Villagers, policemen dance in celebration after siege ends
By Adnan Lodhi, Daily Times, March 31, 2009

LAHORE: When the terrorists attempted to escape from the scene after attacking the trainees at the Police Training School Manawan, armed villagers from nearby localities prevented their escape, locals told Daily Times.

They said the assailants intended to escape from the scene just like they did after the 3/3 Liberty terrorist attack. Villagers said they did not allow them to escape and forced them back into the school by opening indiscriminate fire on them.

Villagers: Muhammad Fazal, resident of Taiz Garh, said he was working in his fields when he heard the sound of consecutive blasts. He said the residents of the village reached the scene with their weapons and intercepted the terrorist attack. He said more than one dozen villagers were waiting for the terrorists to come out when they tried to climb over the wall to exit the building. He said consecutive firing on all walls of the school by the villagers prevented their escape and they hid themselves inside the building. Security Superintendent of Police (SP) Ahsan Younas said locals played a commendable role during the attack. He said he was unaware of how long the police took to reach the scene. After the siege was over, the villagers as well as the police officials celebrated. They all danced in jubilation. The villagers lifted the police commandos on their shoulders and celebrated.

The villagers and policemen also shouted slogans praising their resolve against terror.

Also See:
Pakistani police fight off attackers at training center - The News and Observer
Lahore attack part of TTP campaign - The News

The Truth about Abu Zubaydah ?

The truth about Abu Zubaydah
The Bush administration's false claim that my client was a top al-Qaida official has led to his imprisonment and torture
Brent Mickum guardian.co.uk, Monday 30 March 2009

This article was submitted to the CIA prior to publication. Passages redacted by the CIA are marked [...].

Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, more commonly known as Abu Zubaydah, is my client. After being extensively tortured by the CIA and imprisoned in various black sites around the world, Zayn may finally be approaching his day in court. I and my co-counsel welcome that day. But what if we are successful and establish that Zayn is not an enemy combatant? Would any country agree to take our client? The Bush administration's misrepresentations about Zayn make that virtually impossible unless I am allowed to tell his side of the story. This article is the first step in that reclamation process.

For many years, Abu Zubaydah's name has been synonymous with the war on terror because of repeated false statements made by the Bush administration, the majority of which were known to be false when uttered. On 17 April 2002, [...] President Bush publicly announced that Zayn had been captured: "We recently apprehended one of al-Qaida's top leaders, a man named Abu Zubaydah. He was spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al-Qaida, plotting and planning murder."

For complete article, click here

Terror Attack in Lahore Targeting Police

26 Die as Gunmen Storm Police School in Pakistan
By WAQAR GILLANI, New York Times, March 30, 2009

LAHORE, Pakistan — Gunmen firing indiscriminately and throwing hand grenades stormed a police training center in Lahore Monday morning, killing at least 26 people and injuring up to 90 , according to police and media reports.

Five hours after the attack, Pakistani television reported that army commandos had been sent into the building where gunmen were holed up on an upper floor.

A senior police official said commandos and police inside the compound were attempting to contact the attackers by megaphone to ask them what their demands were.

The official, the inspector general of police for Punjab Province, Khalid Farook, said efforts were being made to capture the attackers alive. Television footage from a neighboring building showed the militants holed up on the second floor of the building and people could be moving around inside. The militants were throwing grenades at about 10-minute intervals, one of the television reports said.

Earlier, an army brigade joined police, the governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, said. The brigade had “laid a complete siege” to the compound, he said.

A helicopter ferrying troops to the scene was hit by fire from the attackers, but managed to land safely, according to Dawn television. The bodies of at least six policemen were visible in television images of the compound.

The secretary of information for Punjab, Taimur Azmat Usman, said three men, including one carrying hand grenades, had been arrested on the perimeter of the compound on suspicion of helping the attackers inside the building.

About 10 to 14 gunmen held several hundred cadets hostage as police and the attackers exchanged fire inside the center. Armored police vehicles carrying police and rangers drove into gates of the center after the attackers took control and explosions and bursts of heavy gunfire could be heard sporadically.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Eyewitness: Pakistan academy attack - BBC
Pakistan army battles gunmen who killed 11 police - AFP

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Groups encourage Obama administration to hire more Muslim Americans

Groups encourage Obama administration to hire more Muslim Americans
A book of resumes from some of the best and the brightest is sent to the White House. It's part of an effort to get the administration to focus on a group that has at times felt slighted -- or worse.
By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009

Reporting from Chicago -- In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with the resumes of 45 of the nation's most qualified -- Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted -- has been submitted to the White House.

The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), was bumped up two weeks ahead of schedule because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Assn., who sifted through more than 300 names.

For complete article, click here

The rise of the Taliban, the fall of Karachi

The rise of the Taliban, the fall of Karachi By Kamal Siddiqi
In the national interest
The News, March 30, 2009

The writer is editor reporting, The News

Earlier this week, a family friend got off from her car and walked to a chemist’s shop in a busy shopping area of Karachi. She was wearing a normal shalwar- kameez suit that most Karachi women wear in public areas. Nothing out of the ordinary. As she walked to the shop, a man approached her and showed her a pistol.

But instead of robbing her, he gave her a chilling message: “Next time you come in public, cover yourself from head to toe.” This happened in full public view on a busy Karachi street. But no one seemed to notice and the man did not in any way seem in any hurry or worry.

The reference of this incident happening to a family friend has only been done to make people understand that this is not an urban myth but a reality. It is happening in Karachi, the country’s largest and possibly most open city. There are more worrisome incidents than one can recall.

Many businessmen have received calls on their cell phones in which the caller does not identify himself but does confirm the name of the person he has called. After a couple of days comes another call. And then another. The businessman is told to contribute a certain amount to the Tehreek-e-Taliban.

One businessman shrugged this off as a hoax. But soon enough there were men who called at his house and made the same demand, only this time they also mentioned that they not only knew where he lived, but where he worked, which schools his children went to, and other details.

The man ended up paying. No one knows who these people are. Some say they are criminals who are using the name of the Taliban. Who knows?

A family in Clifton last month received a notice which was addressed to the father. In it, he was told to ensure that his daughters — who were described in the letter in very negative terms — should be told to stay home since they were seen to be of loose character. The letter warned the father to take action, otherwise the mosque will have to “do something.” The crime of these girls apparently was that they were seen too frequently moving around and that too in Western clothes.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Shinking Space - Chris Cork

The Idiot's Guide to Pakistan!

The Idiot's Guide to Pakistan
By Nicholas Schmidle, Foreign Policy, March 20, 2009

fter eight years of a White House that often seemed blinkered by the threats posed by Pakistan, the Obama administration seems to grasp the severity of the myriad crises affecting the South Asian state. The media has followed suit and increased its presence and reporting, a trend confirmed by CNN’s decision to set up a bureau in Islamabad last year.

And yet, the uptick in coverage hasn’t necessarily clarified the who’s-doing-what-to-whom confusion in Pakistan. Some commentators continue to confuse the tribal areas with the North-West Frontier Province. And the word lashkars is used to describe all kinds of otherwise cross-purposed groups, some fighting the Taliban, some fighting India, and some fighting Shiites.

I admit, it’s not easy. I lived in Pakistan throughout all of 2006 and 2007 and only came to understand, say, the tribal breakdown in South Waziristan during my final days. So to save you the trouble of having to live in Pakistan for two years to differentiate between the Wazirs and the Mehsuds, the Frontier Corps and the Rangers, I’ve written an “idiot’s guide” that will hopefully clear some things up.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Obama Af-Pak Strategy Gains Qualified Support - The Democratic Strategist

Protecting Democracy in Pakistan

analysis: Protecting democracy —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Daily Times, March 28, 2009

Political leaders need to recognise that their primacy in the political domain depends on their ability to deal with their differences in the democratic framework of dialogue and accommodation. If they project their demands in ‘either-or’ terms and use street agitation to pursue their agenda, they will lose the initiative

The first year of democratic governance in Pakistan has exposed, once again, political incoherence and the two main parties’ poor capacity for crisis management. Other leaders found it difficult to convince the PPP and the PMLN to moderate their disposition towards each other.

Pakistan returned from the brink of a major political breakdown on March 16, 2009 mainly because of factors external to a normal functioning democracy. The Pakistan Army played the key role in defusing tensions by encouraging the PPP-led federal government to reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and other deposed judges. This amicable resolution of the problem was supported by “friendly advice” from the United States and other allies.

The top brass of the army has shown that it can bring into play its institutional clout to moderate the political feuds and influence the direction of politics. If anything, the army chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, has demonstrated that the army is a formidable political player even when not in power.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Scholar continues to see hope for democracy in Pakistan - The News
Civil Revolution May Usher A Constitutional Democracy In Pakistan - Countercurrents.org

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Obama's Speech on Pakistan and Afghanistan Strategy



PART 2

Inside Pakistan Today: President Zardari's Address

Zardari moves to end Pakistan political crisis
By STEPHEN GRAHAM, AP, March 28, 2009

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan's president said Saturday his party would help the opposition return to power in a key province, moving to end a political crisis threatening to hobble his U.S.-allied government's efforts against Islamist militants.

In a reminder of the dangers facing the nuclear-armed country, militants rocketed a transportation depot used to ship supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan and the army said troops killed 26 militants near the border.

Pakistan plunged into political turmoil in January that has damaged the standing of President Asif Ali Zardari, a key Western ally against al-Qaida and Taliban militants entrenched in the country's northwest.

It began when the Supreme Court disqualified opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister widely considered Pakistan's most popular politician, as well as his brother Shahbaz Sharif from elected office.

Zardari promptly ousted the government in Punjab province, Pakistan's biggest and wealthiest, which had been led by Shahbaz Sharif, prompting a power struggle that Zardari's party appears to have lost.

After weeks of maneuvering over who would lead the new provincial administration, Zardari said Saturday that his party would back the Sharifs' pick.

"Pakistan has many challenges. What it does not need is a challenge from within its democracy," Zardari said in an address to Parliament. He said his party "will not let down the government in Punjab."

Also See:
Warped federalism By A.G. Noorani - Dawn
Pakistani president backs Obama's al-Qaida strategy - Guardian

ISI Under Focus Again?: New Af-Pak Policy

ISI under heat in new US strategy
Dawn, March 27, 2009

WASHINGTON: The United States has vowed to put the heat on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in its new regional strategy, with top officials openly accusing elements in powerful intelligence agency of abetting al-Qaeda.

President Barack Obama on Friday unveiled a plan to root out extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan by boosting troops and drastically increasing civilian personnel and aid to the region.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to the region, said he would visit Pakistan again next week to follow up on the plan. Of all issues, investigating the nuclear-armed nation's spy network 'is the most important,' he said.

'The issue's very disturbing,' Holbrooke told public television's 'Newshour with Jim Lehrer,' when asked if the ISI was assisting al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

'We cannot succeed if the two intelligence agencies are at each others' throat or don't trust each other and if the kind of collusion you referred to is factual,' Holbrooke said.

General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, did not dispute that ISI elements have tipped off extremists to let them escape US-led forces.

For complete article, click here

Also see:
Commentary: Obama anti-terror plan could be doomed to fail - Peter Bergen, CNN

Friday, March 27, 2009

Outlines of Obama's Af-Pak Policy

Obama unveils sweeping new Afghan war strategy, includes Iran in Afghan contact group: Qaeda ‘cancer’ can devour Pakistan
* US president indicates Washington will act on intelligence against terrorists if Islamabad does not
* Calls Pakistan’s border areas with Afghanistan most dangerous place in world
* Claims Osama, Zawahiri in Pakistan
Daily Times, March 28, 2009

WASHINGTON: Unveiling a sweeping new strategy for the Afghan war – US President Barack Obama warned on Friday that Al Qaeda was a cancer that could devour Pakistan.

“Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the US from safe havens in Pakistan ... to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is ... we will defeat you.” “We will insist that action be taken ... one way or another,” he said, indicating that the US would act on intelligence against terrorists if Pakistan does not.

He said Pakistan and Afghanistan were inextricably linked. Obama said the US military would also shift the emphasis of its mission to training and expanding the Afghan army.

Obama plans to send 4,000 more US soldiers to train the Afghan army, along with hundreds of civilian personnel. The US would also step up military and financial aid to Pakistan. “The situation is increasingly perilous,” said Obama in a sombre speech.

Obama said that together with the UN, the US would form a ‘contact group’ – including Iran, Russia, India and China – bringing together countries with a stake in the region’s security.

He said his strategy had one “clear and focused goal – to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan”.

“For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world ... the safety of the world is at stake.” “This [area along Pak-Afghan border] almost certainly includes ... Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri ... Pakistan’s government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens,” he said. Obama set no timetable for the strategy, but said the US would set benchmarks for the Afghan government.

He said the key to defeating Al Qaeda was strengthening the civilian government of Pakistan. He said he would triple US aid to over five years and attempt to peel away more moderate Taliban factions. But he said, “We will not provide a blank check [to Pakistan].” agencies

key points of afghan strategy

* Disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda terrorists and their safe havens in Pakistan

* Triple US aid to Pakistan to $7.5bn over 5 years

* Help Afghan govt rely on itself while better and more honestly ensuring its people’s security

* Build up and train the Afghan security forces

* Boost civilian govt in Pakistan and strengthen economic opportunities for Pakistanis

* Urge UN to take a lead role in generating world assistance for Afghanistan and Pakistan

* Overhaul the way US foreign aid is managed, funded and allocated

* Set up a new contact group on Afghanistan, including Iran

* Ensure that aid to Afghanistan is accompanied by steps to ensure greater govt accountability

* Send US engineers, agricultural and other experts to Afghanistan to help counterparts

* Encourage Afghan govt in its efforts to convince moderate Taliban to lay down their weapons

* Strengthen efforts to build Pakistani security forces capable of defeating terrorists

Also See:
Obama sets al-Qaeda defeat as top goal in Afghanistan, Pakistan - The News
Pakistan ‘most daunting’ in new plan: Holbrooke - Dawn
Pakistani intelligence backing Al-Qaeda, Taliban - AFP
ANALYSIS-Obama move faces obstacles in Pakistan - Reuters
Pakistan pessimism at Obama revamp - BBC

Obama's New Policy Towards Afghanistan and Pakistan - Awaited

Iran, India may join US war in Afghanistan By Anwar Iqbal
Dawn, 27 Mar, 2009

WASHINGTON: A key US senator said on Thursday that the United States and Iran might begin their cooperation for stabilising Afghanistan after a meeting between officials of the two countries in The Hague next week.

‘We also need to reach out to Afghanistan’s other neighbours, including India, China, and Iran,’ Senator John Kerry told the confirmation hearing for the new US ambassador to Afghanistan.

The former Democratic presidential candidate, who now heads the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted that in 2001 and 2002, Iran helped to stabilise Afghanistan. ‘And the Obama administration is right to explore how our interests might coincide again on this issue, beginning at the Hague Conference next week,’ he added.

Earlier on Thursday, Hasan Qashqavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, told reporters in Tehran that Iran would join the United States at two international conferences on Afghanistan, including the one at The Hague which begins on March 31.

‘The level of participation is yet to be determined,’ he added. Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially invited Iran to the Hague conference.

The US move is seen in Tehran as a moral victory for the Iranian government, which was castigated by the Bush administration as part of an ‘Axis of Evil’.

Although the US still plays a leading role in the campaign against Iran’s nuclear programme, the US decision to involve it in its efforts to stabilise Afghanistan enhances the stature of the Iranian government.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Pakistan to get billions from U.S. despite oversight concerns - USA Today
Obama Plans to Send 4,000 Troops to Train Afghans - Bloomberg
Australian anthropologist-soldier now drives US policy on war on terror - Times of India

Undemocratic policing

Undemocratic policing
Sanjay Patil, Maja Daruwala and Asad Jamal
The News, March 27, 2009

With the restoration of Chief Justice ftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, it would be easy to overlook the role of the police in the preceding saga and how the police has been manipulated by vested interests to serve as an instrument of oppression. The undemocratic use of force by the democratically elected government in Islamabad is particularly disappointing. While the Pakistan People's Party takes pride in its struggles against military dictatorships, it has imposed governor's rule in Punjab. Governor Salmaan Taseer's orders for transfer of "unfriendly" senior police officials and for application of Section 144 throughout the province in advance of the lawyers' long march are examples of how the police have been used to secure and solidify power.

The immediate desire of a newly-elected member of Parliament is usually to get appointed in his area police officials he knows and can "trust." When Shabhaz Sharif was compelled to step down as chief minister, Governor Taseer immediately removed the inspector general of police and replaced him with Khalid Farooq, a handpicked appointee. In fact, four police chiefs in local stations in Lahore were dismissed on March 11 for alerting Muslim League workers to the fact that the authorities were looking to detain them for their involvement in organising protests. Across Punjab, 22 police chiefs considered loyal to the Sharifs had been replaced.

For complete article, click here

Pakistan: Beyond Gloom and Doom

OPINION: Beyond gloom and doom — Saleem H Ali
Daily Times, March 27, 2009

To use the dominance of a few thousand militants in a narrow valley as somehow suggestive of a larger movement towards Talibanisation of the whole of Pakistan is preposterous. I am not saying this out of crass patriotism or starry-eyed optimism but rather after a deliberate analysis of historical precedent

On March 23, 2009, the day Pakistanis were commemorating sixty-nine years of the resolution that gave birth to the idea of an Islamic state on the subcontinent, a jihadist suicide bomber struck in the heart of Islamabad near Sitara Market. At that moment, I was sitting in a hotel in Muscat, flipping through the news channels from Sky News to BBC to CNN to Al Jazeera, and was alarmed to find immediate live coverage of the incident and commentary that suggested that the country was about to fall to the Taliban.

All the channels also featured long documentary pieces on the rule of Maulana Fazlullah and his minions in Swat, with a note of foreboding that the valley was only a hundred miles from Islamabad. Video images were then shown of how drug dealers were being flogged in public. Polished English reporters winced at the sight of the criminals in pain.

No doubt corporal punishment is disturbing but most Pakistanis are not cheerleading for the Taliban either. However, what is most surprising is that the same kind of punishments which the Taliban are carrying out in Swat have been practiced for years in some of the West’s closest allies like Saudi Arabia and not a tear is shed on that since they are well-shielded by greater geostrategic interests.

For complete article, click here

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Sayeeda Warsi Britain's most powerful Muslim woman

Baroness Warsi named Britain's most powerful Muslim woman
AFP, March 25, 2009

LONDON (AFP) — Britain's most powerful Muslim woman is Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who notably helped rescue a Briton jailed in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed two years ago, a panel of judges said Wednesday.

Warsi, a 38-year-old member of the House of Lords, said her Pakistani origins and her "strong faith" contributed to her career success, highlighted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Other names in the top five of the Muslim Women Power List, chosen by a panel of the commission's judges, were BBC News presenter Mishal Hussain, Grange Park Opera chief executive Wasfi Kani and Farmida Bi, a banking partner for law firm Norton Rose LLP.

"I personally come from a family of all girls and was brought up to believe that anything was possible and being a Muslim woman should in no way be seen as a barrier but as an asset to achievement," Warsi said.

"I'm extremely proud to be named as the most powerful British Muslim woman and I'm sure my Pakistani origins, my strong faith and my Yorkshire upbringing has played a huge part," she added.

Trevor Phillips, head of the commission, said, "Our list of female Muslim high achievers challenges many stereotypes, celebrating some truly impressive individuals."

Warsi was one of two British peers who secured the release of Gillian Gibbons in 2007.
Gibbons, a 54-year-old teacher from Liverpool, was arrested in November 2007 and sentenced to 15 days in prison for insulting religion by allowing children at an English school in Sudan where she worked to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

Sustainable Security in Afghanistan: Report

Sustainable Security in Afghanistan
Crafting an Effective and Responsible Strategy for the Forgotten Front
By Lawrence J. Korb, Caroline Wadhams, Colin Cookman, Sean Duggan;
Center of American Progress, March 24, 2009

The Obama administration inherits a rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. In fact, both President Obama and General David McKiernan, who commands all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, agree that we are not winning the war against the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Facing facts on the ground is a prerequisite to responding to this challenge, which will require a comprehensive and long-term approach that uses all elements of U.S. national power.

Ever since the United States began planning to invade Iraq in early 2002, Afghanistan became the “Forgotten Front” for U.S. policymakers—an under-resourced, undermanned, and under-analyzed “economy of force” operation that was limited to seeking out and killing surviving Taliban, Al Qaeda and other transnational terrorist groups. As a result, critical political and economic reforms to ensure the country recovered from the extremist Taliban regime and decades of war were neglected. This chronic and unacceptable neglect has led to a resurgent Taliban, a fierce insurgency, a weak Afghan government tainted by corruption and incompetence, a booming opium trade, and an increasingly disillusioned Afghan people.

Despite some initial success by the United States and its coalition partners after the 2001 invasion, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups are now stronger than at any time since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, operating out of neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan and making key inroads in both countries. From both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border, these extremist groups continue to threaten the safety of the United States, its allies, and the stability of South Asia.

Responding to this challenge will require a comprehensive, sustainable approach that uses all elements of U.S. national power—military, economic, and diplomatic. Given declining American and European support for the war in Afghanistan, the strategy must be not only effective but convincing, too. In a U.S. poll taken in mid-March, 42 percent of the respondents said the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, up from 30 percent just a month before and from 6 percent in January 2002.2 Europeans are even more skeptical, with majorities in Germany, Britain, France, and Italy opposing increased troop commitments to the conflict.

For complete report, click here

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

JEM Resurgent in Pakistan

Pakistan militants strengthen in heartland
By CHRIS BRUMMITT , Associated Press, March 24, 2009

BAHAWALPUR, Pakistan (AP) — The compound bore no sign. Residents referred to it simply as the school for "jihadi fighters," speaking in awe of the expensive horses stabled within its high walls — and the extremists who rode them bareback in the dusty fields around it. In classrooms nearby, teachers drilled boys as young as 8 in an uncompromising brand of Islam that called for holy war against enemies of the faith. Sitting cross-legged on the floor of the Dar-ul-uloom Madina school, they rocked back and forth as they recited sections of the Quran, Islam's holy book.

Both facilities are run by an al-Qaida-linked terror network, Jaish-e-Mohammed, in the heart of Pakistan, hundreds of miles from the Afghan border that is the global focus of the fight against terrorism. Their existence raises questions about the government's pledge to crack down on terror groups accused of high-profile attacks in Pakistan and India, and ties to global terror plots.

Authorities say militant groups in Punjab are increasingly sending out fighters to Afghanistan and the border region, adding teeth to an insurgency spreading across Pakistan that has stirred fears about the country's stability and the safety of its nuclear weapons.

The horse-riding facility, discovered by The Associated Press during a visit to this impoverished region where miles of dusty, wind-swept desert spread out in all directions, had never before been seen by journalists.

There, would-be jihadi fighters practice martial arts, archery and horse-riding skills and get religious instruction, according to a former member of Jaish-e-Mohammed, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be identified by ex-comrades or authorities.

Horse-riding is considered by many extremists to be especially merit-worthy because the pursuit is referenced in Islamic teachings on jihad.

Pakistan has seen a string of attacks, including the ambush this month of Sri Lankan cricket players in the Punjab capital, Lahore, and a truce with extremists in Swat less than 100 miles from the capital, Islamabad, that have heightened alarm in Washington and other Western capitals that the country is slipping into chaos.

Amid the near daily onslaught of violence, the country's president and opposition leader have been locked in a bitter political dispute that has exposed the weakness of the civilian government less than a year after it took over following years of military rule by Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Pakistan outlawed Jaish in 2001, but has done little to enforce the ban, partly out of fear of a backlash but also because it and other groups in Punjab were created by the powerful intelligence agencies as a proxy force in Afghanistan and Kashmir, a territory disputed with rival India.

"You can say Jaish is running its business as usual," said Mohammed Amir Rana, from Pakistan's Institute for Peace Studies, which tracks militant groups. "The military wants to keep alive its strategic options in Kashmir. The trouble is you cannot restrict the militants to one area. You cannot keep control of them."

Apart from the martial arts and horse riding center, Jaish militants openly operate two imposing boarding schools in Bahawalpur, a dusty town of 500,000 people. Food, lodging and tuition are free for their 500 students, paid for by donations from sympathizers across the country.

A top police officer said the schools and other hard-line establishments in the area were used to recruit teens and young men for jihadi activities in Pakistan's northwest or in Afghanistan. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

A guard wielding an automatic weapon stood at the gate of the Usman-o-Ali school and turned a visiting AP team away. But the head teacher at nearby Dar-ul-uloom Madina school allowed the group a tour and an interview.

Ataur Rehman said none of the students were allowed to be recruited for jihad while studying there, but added that he could not stop them joining up after they graduated.

"We have made it clear: our focus is teaching, teaching and teaching," he said in his damp threadbare office as a student served sweet, milky tea and biscuits. "But if someone does something independently, we cannot be held responsible."

In classrooms, students ranging in age from 8 to their mid-20s sat shoulder-to-shoulder along wooden planks as they chanted Quranic verses; one of the youngest boys broke off briefly from his studies and grinned at a visiting reporter.

In the kitchen, men stirred huge pots of chicken curry, washed potatoes and made fresh bread. Outside, workers mixed cement for a new cafeteria and dormitory.

The walled complex with the horse stables was on the outskirts of town, and from the road, laborers could be seen working on a building toward the rear of the compound.

Home to more than half of Pakistan's 160 million people, Punjab's large cities are centers of wealth and political power, but in towns like Bahawalpur, poverty is widespread.

Last year, the governor of Pakistan's border region warned that insurgent commanders and suicide bombers were increasingly coming from Punjab. Afghan police officers also say Punjabi fighters are becoming common there.

"Pakistani citizens, and especially Punjabis, are the Taliban trainers in the area for bomb-making," said Asadullah Sherzad, police chief in Afghanistan's insurgency-wracked Helmand province, adding there are around 100 Punjabis at any one time in that area of Afghanistan.

A police officer in Bahawalpur said Jaish members were not believed to be training with weapons in the town's schools and other facilities, adding that law enforcement agencies had infiltrated the group. He spoke on condition of anonymity because sections of the government and security agencies disagreed on the need to crack down on the group.

Jaish is believed to have been formed in 2000 by hard-line cleric Masood Azhar after he was freed from an Indian prison in exchange for passengers on a hijacked Indian Airlines flight that landed in Taliban-controlled southern Afghanistan the same year.

Azhar was born in Bahawalpur, though the government says his current whereabouts are not known. A small stall outside the Usman-o-Ali school sells his speeches and writings.

"When my brother's blood is shed in Afghanistan, when he is a victim of bombs, then does America expect us to offer it flowers?" he proclaims in a recording of an undated speech. "America you should listen... We will not let you live in peace so long as we are alive."

In 2007, British militant suspect Rashid Rauf was seized at the Usman-o-Ali school on suspicion of links to a failed plot to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic in 2007. Rauf, who escaped Pakistani custody and was reported to have been killed last year in a U.S. missile strike close to the border, is related by marriage to Azhar.

Jaish members and leaders are also suspected in the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002, and in a bombing the same year in the city that killed 11 French engineers.

Jaish and other groups still recruit in villages in southern Punjab, according to the ex-Jaish member and another former militant who fought in Afghanistan.

The Usman-o-Ali school "requires each student to attend some sort of jihad training or practice each year," the ex-Jaish operative said, adding that the hot months of June and July were the prime recruiting period.

Associated Press writers Asif Shahzad and Rahim Faiz contributed to this report from Bahawalpur.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Can Obama Change the Scenario in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

view: The best ally against extremism —Paula R Newberg
Daily Times, March 24, 2009

This is one way the Obama administration’s policies can stem the tide of failure in the region: by ensuring that its own policies are supported in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not just by officers, presidents and technical experts, but by the electorates themselves

Last week, Pakistan turned its political clock back to the year 2007. Its lawyers’ movement forced President Asif Ali Zardari to reinstate judges dismissed by his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf. After many broken promises and nasty personal politics, Pakistanis now confront the same governance problems that dogged them in the waning days of Musharraf’s rule.

This may not seem like progress. But the fact that the courts can now hold government to account is an enormous step for a state engulfed by terror and fear. Just as the United States is ready to unveil a new strategy for the region, Pakistan may finally begin to marshal a democratic response toward the Taliban and Al Qaeda that neither Islamabad nor Kabul could muster until now.

Why should a domestic dispute matter to the US-led war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Politics and a deep need for justice. The Supreme Court can certainly make life uncomfortable for Zardari, whose tenure is coloured by allegations of his corruption and the shadow of Musharraf’s policies. Before the dismissals, the Supreme Court was prepared to take up contentious cases concerning the security and intelligence services, the disappearance of hundreds of Pakistanis swept up in anti-terrorism campaigns and US rendition practices, Musharraf’s abuse of presidential powers to support US policies and state corruption.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Can Obama Win In Afghanistan?
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Brookings: March 20, 2009

By 2010, the Afghanistan conflict will have become the longest war in American history. Is it a quagmire that we should extricate ourselves from while there is still time? Should the buildup in U.S. forces now under way even be tried?

The answer to the last question is yes. Leave aside the domestic politics. The strategic stakes are high, given that this part of the world has become Al Qaeda central (and that nuclear-armed Pakistan is directly involved). In addition, the prospects for success — or at least partial success, permitting a reasonably stable country, free of major terrorist sanctuaries — are pretty good.

But Afghanistan could become a quagmire. It is unlikely but possible. So even as we intensify the effort, we need realistic expectations about how long the effort will take — and how to know if it is failing. President Barack Obama should approve the full buildup his commanders are requesting, even as he also steels the nation for a difficult and uncertain mission ahead.

Why Obama’s new strategy makes sense

Obama is completing a review process that is likely, in the end, to approve roughly doubling U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan to about 65,000 from 30,000 or so. The total NATO-led international force will then approach 100,000 total troops; the overall coalition will also include 150,000 Afghans in uniform (about a quarter of whom are presently in respectable military shape).

To some critics, this buildup looks like pouring additional resources into a black hole deep in the heart of the mountains of Central Asia, with no particular sense of what they will do or why they will be helpful. In fact, some critics argue that the buildup will make matters worse — not only for our troops, who will likely die in larger numbers than before, but for the prospects of the mission, since a buildup will further antagonize the famously xenophobic Afghan people and further motivate the Taliban as well as other extremists.

For complete article, click here

A flawed view of Pakistan

A flawed view of Pakistan: Democracy, not danger By Daud Munir
Dawn, 23 March, 2009

IT was a triumphant day in Pakistan when power lost to principle. Elsewhere, however, the mood must have been more sombre.

For several months now, the western media has been projecting Pakistan as a failed state, the citizens of which have been branded as either extremists or sympathisers. The indolent coverage by the western press of Pakistan’s historic moment reveals how difficult it must have been for some analysts to grasp the new Pakistan.

Following Washington’s newfound fascination with this country, the western press spawned a coterie of lay journalists who began to tag themselves as experts on Pakistan. Shying away from the labour involved in discerning the true political aspirations of Pakistanis, these novices relied on old knowledge. And, of course, readymade frames were all too easily available into which they painlessly fitted the entire nation: extremism, tribalism and Islamism.

Pakistan has spoken back, and forcefully. No matter how ingeniously the gurus of western media attempt to recast their frames, Pakistan will no longer fit in them. Instead, Pakistan has presented the world with a new model of progressive political change. It is worth remembering that in most countries that democratised during the last three decades, the critical factors had been elite pacts or foreign intervention. In Pakistan, it was rightful resistance by the legal community that created the opening for democratic change.

But this is not all. The Pakistani legal complex has presented a new paradigm of democratic resistance. In no other country in the world have lawyers mobilised and sustained a movement in support of the rule of law. While it is true that the legal community in most countries favours political liberalism, the arena of contestation has always been the court. The weapons of resistance have historically been writs and petitions. But, where the courts were filled with inept regime-friendly judges, the lawyers felt powerless in challenging abuses of power by the state.

Not the Pakistani lawyers. In my own scholarship of this movement, I have searched extensively to find a comparable case in which the mobilisation of lawyers changed so dramatically the politics of a country. The black coats of Pakistan stand apart. By contesting the unrule of law on the street rather than in incapable courts, the uncompromising Pakistani lawyers have invented a new method of rightful resistance.

The reinstatement of the judiciary is a well-earned victory for the legal community, the political opposition and the ordinary citizens who marched in support of the rule of law. But, as we celebrate, we must also stop to ask what this struggle means for Pakistan. How has the mobilisation of people altered the political landscape in Pakistan? What have we gained?

There has been much informative commentary on the immediate impact of political mobilisation in Pakistan. The restoration of the judiciary is of course the most important outcome. But analysts have also detailed the responsible role played by the opposition parties and the military. Further, political analysts are making an important contribution preventing the government from seizing the credit for the restored judiciary. Even if international actors such as Richard Holbrooke term the reinstatement a ‘statesmanslike act by [the] president’, the citizens of the country are well aware of the cost they had to pay in removing the roadblocks to justice.

Much of recent political discourse, however, focuses on personalities. But this was history made by millions. It would be unfitting then to think of this struggle only in terms of who will win the next election. The marching millions have opened new spaces in Pakistani politics, leading to structural transformations that we must contemplate. I see three revolutionary aspects of the movement.

The most significant aspect of the lawyers’ movement was its indigenous origins. This was not a movement initiated by NGOs funded by western donors. The belief that Pakistan somehow has to be democratised from the outside no longer holds any merit. For a country that has unfortunately been in the grip of foreign intervention in the political arena, the purely localised nature of the movement is excellent news. The fact that the native impulse for reform arose under inauspicious circumstances confirms the promise of indigenous nation-building in Pakistan.

Second, I believe the lawyers’ movement acted as the occasion for the initiation of issue-based politics in Pakistan. Since the only opening available for the opposition was through this movement, the politicians were led into using the claims of the movement. Hence, the promise was no longer ethnic (greater resources for a province) or clientalistic (we will give you more government jobs). The claims were larger, more abstract and related to national ideals. The new vocabulary of politics — with its primary emphasis on justice — has initiated a new phase of democratic politics in Pakistan.

Third, this was not only a lawyers’ movement but a media revolution. It was thrilling to see the commentary, the level of professionalism and critique by journalists. The media has opened channels for the powerless in Pakistani society, providing a platform for new voices. This development, is, I believe, irreversible and has created a critical space for public engagement in Pakistan. Rather than merely infusing people with consumerist ideals, the Pakistani media offered political consciousness to its audience. This is an arena which even India — with all its freedoms of press — will be envious of.

Finally, it seems that those who continue to find only extremism and violence in the Pakistani political scene have lost credibility. Pakistan is a democratic nation that has shown its uncompromising belief in the rule of law. The long march and the restoration of the judiciary are a message to western nations and intellectuals to act more responsibly when generating simple-minded discourse about the country.

For the editors of the bestselling weekly who recently wrote ‘there is no country on earth more dangerous than Pakistan’, let it be known that Pakistan is also the country which has given the world a new model of peaceful resistance and change. Perhaps Newsweek should consider a new cover story about Pakistan’s triumphant moment to rectify its previous misrepresentation.

The writer is a doctoral candidate in politics at Princeton University. daudmunir@gmail.com

Inside NWFP Today: Aftermath of Swat Deal

It’s Nizam-e-Adl: 500 Swat lawyers out of work
By Akhtar Amin, Daily Times, March 23, 2009

PESHAWAR: Tehreek Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Sufi Muhammad’s ban on district courts and the lawyers’ appearance in Qazi courts in Swat has rendered around 500 lawyers jobless, a law practitioner said on Sunday.

Shaukat Saleem, a Swat-based lawyer, told Daily Times that establishment of Qazi courts was a welcome move, as it would ensure speedy dispensation of justice to the people through disposal of cases after two or three days of hearing.

He, however, said the new judicial system had deprived around 500 lawyers of jobs by stopping district courts from functioning and lawyers from appearing before Qazi courts. Saleem said locals didn’t support lawyers and judges of regular courts, but Qazi courts and Sufi Muhammad. He said while non-local lawyers had left Swat for safe districts of the province, local law practitioners were undecided about future course of action.

“We’re uncertain about whether to move out of the valley or stay put until the government decides the regular courts’ fate,” he said. Meanwhile, Ahmed Farooq of NWFP Bar Council met Peshawar High Court (PHC) Chief Justice Tariq Pervez and apprised him of the problems of Swat lawyers. Farooq said the PHC chief justice had promised to take up the matter with the provincial government. Peshawar High Court Bar Association (PHCBA) Secretary General Essa Khan said after March 23, an emergency meeting of the association’s general body would discuss the situation arisen out of the Qazi courts’ establishment in Swat.

Also See:
14 more Swat Taliban released - DT
Lawyers are losers in Swat peace deal - Dawn
Taliban close family planning centre in Dir - DT
Girls’ school blown up in Mardan - Online
Under Pressure: Can Peshawar Resist Taliban? - SkyNews
Rockets fired at DIK police station - DT

LATEST Reports:
Religious parties demand sharia in other NWFP areas after Malakand - DT
NGOs ordered to vacate Swat: Civil society condemns TTP’s stance - DT

Signs of Optimism in Pakistan Vs. Negative Trends

SCENARIOS: Pakistan's buds of optimism amid risks
Reuters, Mon Mar 23, 2009

(Reuters) - President Asif Ali Zardari called for national reconciliation in a Pakistan Day message on Monday, as he sought to mend fences with the opposition after defusing a political crisis by restoring the country's top judge.

The reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhry as Supreme Court chief justice a week ago averted a looming violent street confrontation.

But tension has lingered between Zardari's party and its main rival, the party of former prime minister and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, in particular over control of Punjab, Pakistan's most populous and politically influential province.

Pakistan's Western allies fear political upheaval distracts the nuclear-armed country from fighting spreading Islamist militancy and reviving its flagging economy.

REASONS TO BE HOPEFUL

-- Confrontation has given way to reconciliation, and Pakistan's two biggest mainstream political parties are at least communicating again, even if they can't be friends.

-- A weakened Zardari has survived the crisis over the judge but could eventually be forced out if he lost the support of his party. As long as it happened within the constitution, it shouldn't pose the dangers mass agitation would.

-- Central government rule of Punjab is likely to be ended soon and Sharif is expected to get back control of the province. The Supreme Court will review a bar on Sharif and his younger brother, Shahbaz, holding elected office, raising the prospect Shahbaz Sharif will be Punjab chief minister again.

-- Nawaz Sharif, whose support base is conservative religious nationalists, lacks numbers in parliament to destabilize the coalition led by Zardari's Pakistan People's Party. The next general election is due in 2013.

-- Sharif strengthened his standing by getting Chaudhry reinstated, but he cannot use street power too often. Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and Pakistan's Western allies would frown on politicians working outside the parameters of parliamentary democracy without just cause.

-- A constitutional package will be worked on that could remove some of the unpopular president's sweeping powers and strengthen the prime minister's role.

-- Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is friendly with Sharif, who appreciated his efforts to break the deadlock over the judge, and this augurs well for his government.

-- On an even bigger canvas, Pakistan's educated middle class, in the shape of the lawyers' movement, has for the first time prevailed over vested interests in the political arena. That is positive. Any leader who stands in the way of building stronger institutions or better governance in Pakistan should now realize he can be called to account.

-- The Pakistani media played a big part. But some sections are very partisan, favoring Sharif.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Nawaz, Gilani agree to reconciliation - The News
Editorial: ‘Olive branch’ politics in Punjab - DT Editorial
Pakistan's Chief Justice Returns to Work - New York Times
Holbrooke: western Pakistan key to resolving Afghanistan war - Christian Science Monitor
Analysts see need for US talks with Taliban - DT
Army Chiefs' Bond Bolsters U.S. Hopes in Pakistan - WSJ

Friday, March 20, 2009

How we helped create the Afghan crisis By Stephen Kinzer

How we helped create the Afghan crisis
By Stephen Kinzer, New York Times, March 20, 2009

WITH THE United States facing a terrifying set of challenges in Pakistan and Afghanistan, this is an opportune moment to look back at how the United States itself helped create the crisis. It is an all-too-familiar tale of the behemoth lashing out in ways that seem emotionally satisfying and even successful at first, but that in the end decisively weaken its own security.

The tale begins in 1979, when Americans were caught in a sense of defeat and malaise. They were still recovering from the shock of losing the Vietnam War, only to absorb another one with the stunning overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the seizure of American diplomats in Tehran.

On Christmas Eve, however, something happened that seemed to open a new horizon for the United States. Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan and installed a pro-Moscow regime. Here, suddenly, was a chance for the United States to fight a war against the Red Army.

In order to forge an Afghan force that would wage this war, the United States needed camps in Pakistan. Pakistan was ruled by General Zia al-Huq, who had proclaimed two transcendent goals: imposing a "true Islamic order" in his country and building a nuclear bomb. He had also just hanged the elected leader he deposed, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. This was the man the United States would have to embrace if it wanted Pakistan to support the anti-Soviet rebellion it hoped to foment in Afghanistan. It eagerly did so.

The United States also accepted Zia's demand that all aid sent to Afghan warlords be channeled through his intelligence agency, the ISI, and that the ISI be given the exclusive right to decide which warlords to support. It chose seven, all of them in varying degrees fundamentalist and anti-Western.

The ISI also came up with the idea of recruiting Islamic militants from other countries to come to Pakistan and join the anti-Soviet force. Its director, Hamid Gul, later said his agency recruited 50,000 of these militants from 28 countries. One was Osama bin Laden. Most of the others - brought to the region as part of a US-sponsored project, then armed and trained with US funds - shared bin Laden's radical anti-Americanism and fundamentalist religious beliefs.

During the 1980s, the CIA waged its most expensive and largest-scale campaign ever, pouring a staggering $6 billion into its anti-Soviet guerrilla force. Saudi Arabia, at Washington's request, contributed another $4 billion. Finally, in 1989, the insurgency succeeded and the Red Army withdrew from Afghanistan in defeat. One million Afghans died in the decade-long war. Five million fled to refugee camps in neighboring countries. Many found food and shelter at religious schools sponsored by Saudi Arabia, where they were taught the radical Wahhabi brand of Islam. Those schools were the cradle of the Taliban.

After the last Soviet unit withdrew from Afghanistan, the overseer of the CIA project there, Milt Bearden, sent a two-word message to his superiors at Langley: "WE WON." For a while, that seemed true. In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had helped conceive the project, dismissed those who worried about its long-term effects.

"That secret operation was an excellent idea," he said. "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

Those "stirred-up Muslims" are now the enemy that the US faces in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They threaten America's national security far more profoundly than the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan ever did.

Jimmy Carter approved the idea of sponsoring anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Ronald Reagan poured billions of dollars into it. George H. W. Bush turned his back on Afghanistan, allowing it to degenerate into the chaos from which the Taliban emerged. Bill Clinton refused to confront the looming threat with anything more than an ineffective cruise missile raid on one of bin Laden's camps. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan, succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime, and then, rather than staying engaged, immediately turned his attention to Iraq. Their policies showed the short-sightedness that has for more than a century been a hallmark of American foreign policy.

These American policies, more than any other factor, created the daunting crisis President Barack Obama now faces.

Stephen Kinzer is a longtime foreign correspondent and author of "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Interview of Sufi Muhammad - The Lord of Swat!


HARDtalk: “If Fazlullah does not appear in court when summoned, he will be acting against shariat” —Sufi Muhammad, Leader of the TNSM
* Keeping weapons is allowed in Islam
* The military violated the ceasefire
* No objection to a cantonment in Swat
* Democracy is not allowed in Islam

Daily Times, March 19, 2009

The influential pro-Taliban cleric of Swat, Sufi Muhammad has said that the sharia law does not allow debate on the past, and therefore he will not term what his son-in-law Mullah Fazlullah did against the state of Pakistan during the last year and a half as haram or halal. In an exclusive interview with Daily Times’ Peshawar Bureau Chief Iqbal Khattak in Mingora city, the 74-year-old cleric said keeping weapons is Islamic, and that he did not demand that the Taliban surrender their weapons after a peace deal with the NWFP government. Excerpts follow:

Daily Times: You said in a 2005 interview with us that what Al Qaeda and the Taliban are doing in Pakistan is haram. Are Maulana Fazlullah’s activities over the last sixteen months also haram?

Sufi Muhammad: Yes, I said that about Al Qaeda, but not about the Taliban. Let me say...that debate on past happenings is disallowed in Islam. A hadith sharif says, what has happened in the past should not be discussed.

But how can we proceed without debating the past?

The hadith sharif says a Muslim should not discuss past happenings because he may not remember all the [details] and, therefore, he may...sin by not speaking the truth.

A majority of Swat residents do not think the peace deal recently signed between the TNSM and the NWFP government will last long.

God Almighty does everything; he builds and destroys countries.
Residents also doubt whether peace is possible in the presence of armed Taliban.
Everyone keeps weapons. People in Peshawar have weapons with them.


You support keeping weapons?

Yes, you can keep weapons with you.

Did you ask Fazlullah to surrender weapons after the sharia law deal?

Keeping weapons is halal in Islam.

President Zardari said recently that force would be used if the Taliban do not surrender weapons in Swat.

His statement is childish...immature.

With sharia law in Swat, there will be a complete ban on music and girls’ education, and people will be forced to grow beards?

There are five subjects — judiciary, politics, economics, education and the executive. The judicial subject will be with us, the rest is beyond our control.

The Taliban are kidnapping government officials and killing soldiers, yet you still hold the army responsible for ceasefire violations.

Kidnapping cases are taking place all over the world. The military violated the ceasefire.

The military says some of its soldiers were shot dead while bringing water.

No. This is not the case. The soldiers were not killed near any stream.

Are soldiers moving freely in Swat after the peace deal?

No. The military cannot move freely unless peace is restored.

After peace is restored, will the army leave Swat?

This is Pakistan’s army and Swat is within Pakistan’s borders. I will have no objection if a military cantonment is established here.

Locals say innocent people have been killed. Will the aggrieved families be able to get justice?

I have told you already: we will not discuss what has happened in the past. Sharia law does not allow this.

If a court summons a key Taliban commander, will he appear before the court?

If Caliph Umar (RA) can appear before a court, then why can’t others?

So Fazlullah will also appear in court if summoned?

If he does not...he will be acting against the sharia law.

What you did in Malakand in the 1990s and then in Afghanistan in 2001 you called ‘jihad’. Are Fazlullah’s activities over the last 16 months in Swat also jihad?

I do not want to speak on this.

What are Fazlullah’s plans after the peace deal?

He will support imposition of sharia law.

You have termed democracy ‘infidelity’. But Maulana Sami-ul Haq, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Qazi Hussain Ahmad are taking part in the democratic process.

Democracy is not permissible in sharia law. I will not name [these leaders] but they are taking part in infidelity. I will not offer prayers if one of [these leaders] is leading those prayers.

Do you intend to export sharia law to other parts of Pakistan?

If people help me, I will. Otherwise, no. *

U.S. Urged to Lift Ban on Tariq Ramadan

U.S. Is Urged to Lift Ban on Foreign Scholars
By JOHN SCHWARTZ, New York Times, March 18, 2009

Tariq Ramadan, a respected Swiss academic and Muslim scholar, had a job all lined up at the University of Notre Dame in 2004, but the Bush administration prevented him from entering the country. Government officials said he had contributed to a charity believed to have connections to terrorism.

A federal judge supported the government’s position in December 2007, and an appeal will be heard next Tuesday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York.

Now, in a move leading up to that hearing, a coalition of academic and civil liberties groups is calling on the Obama administration to break with the Bush administration’s policies on blocking visas of some foreign scholars, writers and activists.

In a letter being released Wednesday, the coalition says so-called ideological exclusion “compromises the vitality of academic and political debate in the United States at a time when that debate is exceptionally important.”

After Professor Ramadan was denied entry, the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of him and several organizations interested in his case, including the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center. The groups claimed that they had a First Amendment right to hear Professor Ramadan, who had visited the United States dozens of times in the years before his visa was blocked.

For complete article, click here

Engaging the Muslim World - Juan Cole


“Engaging the Muslim World”– Middle East Analyst Juan Cole on US Policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and Beyond
Democracy Now, March 17, 2009

AMY GOODMAN: It’s nice to have you here in the studio, as opposed to talking to you out in Michigan. But let’s start off with—well, this is the week of the sixth anniversary of Iraq. What’s your assessment of where we stand, where Iraq stands?

JUAN COLE: Well, Iraq is starting to see, finally, some fairly good news. I think it’s important that the government seems to be starting to be more responsive, that the prime minister has established more security in cities like Basra or Amara. And you can see this in the results of the provincial elections, where the prime minister’s party did exceptionally well, I think, in those places where he had sent in troops and established more order. And so, this is a change from—a year ago, I wouldn’t be talking like this. It really is a better situation in some ways.

But, of course, there are so many problems. There are four million people who have been left essentially homeless, displaced—2.7 million inside the country, another very large number in Jordan and Syria. There are still very severe tensions between the Arab community and the Kurdish community over the northern oil city of Kirkuk and other territory in the north. That issue has not been resolved, by any means. And so, the country faces many problems of infrastructure. There’s not enough potable water available to people. There’s very high rates of unemployment. There’s not much foreign investment in most of the country, outside the Kurdistan region. So it is a basket case; I mean, it is a mess. But there are some slight signs of some improvement recently.

.......

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about Afghanistan, the US pushing a surge there—at this moment, 17,000 more soldiers in Afghanistan. Vice President Joe Biden goes to Brussels to meet with NATO, NATO forces—NATO countries, I should say, increasingly opposed to the Afghan war. But the US is pushing harder and trying to get support in countries that don’t want to support it, like Canada, like Britain.

JUAN COLE: Well, Canada has announced that it’s leaving in 2012. And a lot of the European publics are very much opposed to a continued military mission in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is an almost insoluble problem. And the question is, what’s the mission? You know, if you’re sending US troops there to fight, to die, we have to know what is exactly their mission. And it’s not to fight al-Qaeda. Have you seen anything for the last five years in the newspapers about US troops capturing major al-Qaeda figures in Afghanistan, even fighting al-Qaeda units? I don’t see any evidence that they’re there. So what we’re fighting is Pushtuns, the neo-Taliban, which is probably—

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, “the neo-Taliban”?

JUAN COLE: Well, you know, the Taliban were the old Mullah Omar group that now is based in Quetta. They’re still active. But there are new groups that have emerged, some of them old warlords. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is—I talk about this in the book. This is a former US ally, a very hard-line fundamentalist who got a lion’s share of the CIA money that was given to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. He has now hooked up with Mullah Omar. He used to be an enemy of his. And his group, the Hezb-e-Islami, is actively fighting US troops in the Pushtun regions. Or you have someone like Jalaluddin Haqqani, who’s likewise an old warlord who’s now—his group is considered part of the Taliban. And then, I think you have a lot of disgruntled villagers whose, you know, poppy crops were burned or who don’t want US or NATO troops in their region, who are attacking checkpoints and soldiers and who are also getting called Taliban.

So you’ve got a complex group of insurgents, several thousand of them, who are challenging the Karzai government. And it seems to me that mainly what the US, Britain and Australia are doing in the south of the country is to shore up the government of Hamid Karzai. And if that’s the goal, that’s a tough mission. Karzai only controls 30 percent of the country. The gross domestic product of Afghanistan is only $9 billion a year. There simply aren’t the resources there to have a strong state, strong army. And if that is the goal, it’s going to take a long time.

For complete article, click here

Expanding U.S. Strikes in Pakistan - A Receipe for Disaster?

U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike Into Pakistan
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT, New York Times, March 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the American covert war in Pakistan far beyond the unruly tribal areas to strike at a different center of Taliban power in Baluchistan, where top Taliban leaders are orchestrating attacks into southern Afghanistan.

According to senior administration officials, two of the high-level reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been forwarded to the White House in recent weeks have called for broadening the target area to include a major insurgent sanctuary in and around the city of Quetta.

Mullah Muhammad Omar, who led the Taliban government that was ousted in the American-led invasion in 2001, has operated with near impunity out of the region for years, along with many of his deputies.

The extensive missile strikes being carried out by Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones have until now been limited to the tribal areas, and have never been extended into Baluchistan, a sprawling province that is under the authority of the central government, and which abuts the parts of southern Afghanistan where recent fighting has been the fiercest. Fear remains within the American government that extending the raids would worsen tensions. Pakistan complains that the strikes violate its sovereignty.

But some American officials say the missile strikes in the tribal areas have forced some leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to flee south toward Quetta, making them more vulnerable. In separate reports, groups led by both Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of American forces in the region, and Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, a top White House official on Afghanistan, have recommended expanding American operations outside the tribal areas if Pakistan cannot root out the strengthening insurgency.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Pakistan Supply Route Attacked - Washington Times

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Dynamics of Peoples' Power

The Power of People Power
Spearhead Research (directed by former army chief General Jehangir Karamat), March 16, 2009

Pakistan moved towards a precipice, teetered on its edge and moved back. Internationally there was a collective sigh of relief that a disaster had been averted. Within Pakistan there is jubilation. People power has triumphed over State power. The State after flexing every muscle it had, gave in to the marching hordes. It was the right thing to do because the other option would have led to the end of democracy. Now democracy stands strengthened and the road map to a shift of the power center to the people is clear. This opens a new chapter in Pakistan’s history as hope and optimism pervade the environment after the gloom generated by the deadlock.

The deposed Chief Justice was already a hero for the people simply because he had stood up to a military dictator. Now there are other heroes; the politicians who defied arrest and braved barricades and police brutality, the lawyers who sparked the demand for an independent judiciary under the re-instated Chief Justice, the people who thronged to the rallies and marches oblivious to the danger and discomfort and the media that defied gag orders and restrictions to bring the struggle into every household. Except for what the police did, there was no violence---just people who wanted justice, law and order, security and an enforcement of laws that limit excesses and make a democracy a republic that cannot be manipulated to suit individuals.

There were many doomsday scenarios predicted as the drama played out on the streets and TV screens. The most pervasive view was that the ‘high noon’ in Islamabad would lead to military intervention because this was the experience of the past—crude outright take-over, forced resignations to drive out everyone and start anew and public criticism to pressure the government. There were also the Bangladesh and Thailand models with the military manipulating changes. This time the military followed what must be called the ‘Kayani Model’---invisible but around, fully informed and acting through well timed and effective influence in the right quarter. The preference was for the institution rather than any individual and there was no personal angle or ambition. It worked. The lawyers, politicians and the people who were out on the street pitted against the power of the state never asked for military intervention---they relied on their own power and were prepared for the worst. The military acted to avert, to correct and to clear the way for full democracy with the center of gravity where it should be---in parliament and the people. As events unfold this is exactly what is likely to happen.

There were phone calls from abroad, frantic running around by concerned envoys and negotiators trying to bring about a reconciliation that would have been a respite not the solution. The solution came from within—home grown and totally suited to the environment and in line with the national urge not to derail democracy. This augers well for the future of democracy and for civil-military relations--- the military has demonstrated its full support for democracy and abhorrence for intervention. The intelligence agencies have been kept out of the fray except for the over-watch necessary for national security. Quietly but firmly a precedence has been set to determine the future course of events; forging a national response to the threats, charting a blue-print for the economy, making a pragmatic foreign policy and bringing about effective responsive governance –all stemming from political stability.

The biggest folly would be to start identifying winners and losers. There were none. Everybody won. If the government had not acted at the outset to ensure security there may have been a tragic event as in the past. If it had not responded to the will of the people it would have led to violence. If it had not listened to the voice of reason it would have doomed democracy. In the end the government did what was best for the country and the people---that is what governments are there for.

Also See:
The key role played by Gen Kayani - Amir Mir, The News
Scenarios - What Next in Pakistan ? - Reuters

Reforming the Intelligence Agencies of Pakistan: A Carnegie Report

Pakistan’s Government Must Reform Intelligence Agencies, Reassert Civilian Control
March 6, 2009 - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

WASHINGTON, Mar 6—Pakistan’s new and fragile government must reform the country’s intelligence agencies to counter their influence on civil society and politics, Frederic Grare explains in a new report. The army remains the dominant actor in Pakistan’s political life, despite some improvements in civil-military relations in recent years. Previous abuses of power by both Pakistani regimes and the intelligence agencies—particularly Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)—make reforms imperative before Pakistan can continue its democratic transition.

Through interviews with Pakistani officials and case studies in Indonesia and Chile, Grare argues that with patience, resolve, and assistance from the international community, Pakistan’s government can successfully reassert civilian control over the intelligence community.

Key recommendations for the international community:

■ Work through the Pakistani government, not the intelligence services. The current double standard of demanding that the government end support for regional extremists within its agencies, yet still maintaining working relations with those agencies, undermines the government and vindicates intelligence actors.
■ Pursue alternate supply routes to Afghanistan to diminish the importance of Pakistan and its agencies to the NATO mission. The international community should seek routes through China and Iran to reduce Islamabad’s leverage over Western countries fighting in Afghanistan. The newly opened Russia route isn’t a stable solution, given ongoing tensions over NATO.
■ Condition aid to the Pakistani military on improved control of the intelligence agencies and counterterrorism cooperation. Pakistani intelligence agencies are losing their base of support and are increasingly targeted by terrorists. Previous resistance to cooperate in counterterrorism is likely diminishing, and the international community should capitalize on the opportunity.

Recommendations for the Pakistani government:

■ Restore the Supreme Court and prosecute ISI violations of legality. Reestablishing judicial preeminence is critical to intelligence reform and democratization, so amnesty for past violations should not be used as a political bargaining tool.
■ Reinforce the separation between civilian and military intelligence agencies. The integration of former ISI agents into other civilian bodies—particularly the Intelligence Bureau (IB)—should be limited or stopped. Cross-recruitment prevents organizations from becoming independent.
■ Strengthen the police force. Better-trained and equipped police can take over some of the counterterrorism work currently used by the intelligence agencies to legitimize their control.
■ Build public support, but manage expectations. Public support is essential to advance reforms, but raising expectations beyond reasonable objectives could enflame social tensions. Public intolerance of the intelligence agencies' abuses is often the best guarantee against a return to corruption after reforms have taken place.
Grare concludes:

“Pakistan’s civilian government would be wrong to ignore the need to decisively establish its supremacy over the intelligence community. Reducing the role of the military in intelligence should be a priority not only because it will help the government consolidate itself domestically but also because the perception abroad of Pakistan’s emerging democracy and consequent foreign support will be shaped by its capacity to impose its authority on the intelligence agencies’ activities on issues ranging from domestic terrorism to foreign policy.”

For complete Report, click here

About the author: FrĆ©dĆ©ric Grare was a visiting scholar with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Grare’s research focuses on the tension between stability and democratization in Pakistan, including challenges of sectarian conflict, Islamist political mobilization, and educational reform. He also facilitates interactions between U.S. experts and officials and European counterparts on the main policy challenges in South Asia. Grare is a leading expert and writer on South Asia, having served in the French Embassy in Pakistan and, from 1999 to 2003, in New Delhi as director of the Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities.

Also See - Previous articles on the subject:
"Reform of Pakistan's Intelligence Services" - Hassan Abbas, March 2008
ISI Reform is Urgent but faces Hurdles - Haider Mullick
Focusing the Spy Glass on Pakistan's ISI - Shuja Nawaz

Rejoice Over CJ restoration - What Next?

Pakistanis Rejoice Over Restoration of Justice
By SABRINA TAVERNISE, New York Times, March 17, 2009

ISLAMABAD — It was a day of rejoicing, of drum playing, and of smiling at strangers. Pakistan’s chief justice had just been reinstated after a two-year struggle, and for those assembled in the country’s capital to celebrate, anything seemed possible.

“We’re watching history,” said Javed Ali Khan, a 45-year-old who had traveled for days with his wife and six children to participate in a national march of lawyers and opposition political parties that came to an abrupt end on Monday when the lawyers demands were met.

Samir Ali, 3, was sitting atop his father’s shoulders, waving a tiny Pakistani flag. “We are so happy,” said his father, a taxi driver, grinning and gesturing at his son. “See his face? He’s happy too.”

In the crowd, whose members included a radio announcer who was researching homosexuality and an illiterate mechanic who wore a flower pot on his head to stay cool and admitted to stealing monkeys to get by, one word was on everybody’s lips.

“Justice,” said Mr. Khan’s wife, Rubina Javed, smiling broadly. “We came for justice.”

The word was apt for the victory at hand: the restoration of the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, to his court. But others in a jubilant crowd celebrating on Mr. Chaudhry’s lawn on Monday were working from a broader interpretation.

“Justice is the solution to the common man’s problems,” Ms. Javed said, seated on a blue scarf on the grass with two daughters and four sons, ages 6 to 18, around her. “I want justice in schools, on roads, in transportation. Now the common man is speaking.”

In the Arab world, the word is a constant companion. Islamic political movements use it in struggles against autocrats, arguing that justice is a central tenet of Islam.

But in Pakistan, the political class comes from a powerful feudal elite, which has largely avoided policies that would bring greater social equality, like land reform. With only half of the population literate, so far the strategy has worked.

“The ruling elite can get away with anything,” said Muhammad Ali, a software engineer. “They are like kings here.”

But the lawyers’ movement may be starting to change that. Though small in number, it is made up of an educated, diverse cross section of Pakistani society that includes lower middle class professionals, whose reach may extend deeper into Pakistan’s 160 million population than initially expected.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
Indian Perspective - The Hindu
Pakistan's Quickfix - New York Times
A Narrow Miss (Suicide Bombing in Rawalpindi) - BBC
Pakistan Avoids Pitfall, but Path Ahead Is Unclear - NYT
Zardari says he was never against Justice Iftikhar - The News
Some in Congress may not back aid, Hillary told Pakistan - The News
Jinnah & mob politics - Farah Ispahani - The News
analysis: A great victory — Rasul Bakhsh Rais, Daily Times