Opinion
General Bluster
It is high time that the US and the world called the Pakistani bluff, and demanded that the country and its leadership fulfil its commitments to neutralise terrorism from its soil, and engage in international relations in accordance with contemporary and civilised norms, and not through the instruments of terror.
Opinion
Discontent mounts in Pakistan armed forces against how Musharraf conducted himself in public and TV interviews during his recent visit to the US and the UK
B. Raman
Interview
A former foreign minister of Pakistan and a former Indian high commissioner in Islamabad on whether General Musharraf can be trusted after the latest disclosures in his book.
Nagendar Sharma, BBC Hindi Radio
While the details of the many 'disclosures' in General Pervez Musharraf's book, In the Line of Fire, will be discussed ad nauseam over the coming months (just as, at one time, Ayub Khan's fabrications in his autobiographical Friends not Masters were discussed, and then quickly forgotten), one thing is already and abundantly clear: Gen Musharraf has now been demonstrated to be an inveterate, compulsive and unashamed liar. This, of course, is not news to those who have watched Pakistan and its leader through the clear eye of realism over the past seven years. The Indian and global discourse has, however, been dominated by the many who have tended to grant the General extraordinary latitude, and others who were seduced into believing his every past falsehood. Since many of Gen Musharraf's lies have been exposed in his own narrative now, his positions can be expected to attract a greater measure of scepticism in future.

There is, in fact, significant and mounting evidence that the extraordinary licence that Pakistan and its dictator have long enjoyed is approaching, if not an end, at least some measure of curtailment. Recent reports from UK suggest that opinion within the security establishment is becoming increasingly hostile to Pakistan, and an internal document has accused Pakistan's ISI of supporting the Al Qaeda and Taliban. The document suggested, further, that the ISI should be dismantled and that Gen Musharraf himself should resign.

Pakistan's continuing role in supporting and sponsoring terrorism has been widely acknowledged by a range of Western sources, including officials, particularly among those who are directly connected or familiar with developments on the ground— including the leaders of the US-led military alliance forces deployed in Afghanistan. It is useful to recall that, as recently as September 21, 2006, Marine General James Jones, NATO's top military commander in Afghanistan, became the latest in a string of US officials to confirm that the Taliban leadership was directing the Afghan insurgency from Quetta in Pakistan. Nevertheless, most Western Governments try to studiously look the other way, and Gen Musharraf continues to receive pats on the back from President Bush and the State Department.

India's leaders have also shown themselves to be periodically susceptible to this selective blindness, and have only recently reclassified Pakistan as a 'victim' rather than a perpetrator of terrorism. Only an occasional leader, like Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, has remained steadfast in his insistence that Pakistan is an essential part, indeed core, of the problem of terrorism, and not any part of a possible solution.

The world's tolerance of Pakistani terrorism is, indeed, astonishing in view of enormous and direct evidence of Pakistani mischief in some of the worst incidents of terrorism, as well as networks and conspiracies for terrorism targeting the West, in the recent past. Indeed, a listing of the Pakistani "Footprints of Terror" appears endless, and includes almost every major terrorist attack on targets in the West since and after 9/11.  A look at just a handful of the recent 'footprints' is edifying, with the conspiracy for the multiple hijacks in UK leading the listing. 

Just over the last six months, 

  • a Pakistan-born architect has been sentenced to 20 years in jail in Australia for plotting a bombing campaign; 
  • US intelligence agencies have told a US Court that Pakistan is still running a terrorist training camp at Balakot in the NWFP;
  • Afghan officials captured two Pakistanis who were part of a 20 member team that entered the country to carry out suicide attacks, after two members of the group were killed when they detonated a car bomb in the southern Zabul province; 
  • a federal jury in the US convicted a Maryland man of Pakistani origin, Ali Asad Chandia on charges of providing material support to the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba; 
  • police arrested 17 persons of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in Canada for conspiring to launch terrorist attacks in Southern Ontario; 
  • a Pakistani-American, Hamid Hayat, was found guilty of providing 'material support' to terrorists and training in Pakistan as a terrorist, for planned attacks in the US; 
  • a Pakistani immigrant, Shahawar Matin Siraj, was indicted for conspiring to bomb one of New York city's busiest subway stations; 
  • a Pakistani man, Muhamed Abid Afridi, was sentenced by a US court to nearly five years in prison for his role in a plot to obtain and sell Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, etc. etc. etc...

The principal argument for the continuing Western, and particularly US, support to Pakistan and to Gen Musharraf personally, is the specious reasoning that Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be neutralised without Pakistani assistance. The fact, on the contrary, is that they cannot be neutralised because they continue to enjoy significant Pakistani support and assistance, and a very substantial freedom of operation on Pakistani soil. Gen Musharraf has repeatedly held up the example of the 600-plus 'Al Qaeda terrorists' that he has handed over to US custody as evidence of his good faith.

The reality, however, is that most of these are low-value targets, and the few who had a significant position or presence in the Al Qaeda were only arrested by Pakistani forces when they were left with little choice, as Western intelligence agencies had provided specific and detailed intelligence on their location. Pakistan's 'cooperation' in the 'Global war on terror' has been both reluctant and meagre. Pakistan seeks constantly to keep the instrumentalities of terrorism— the various terrorist groups operating on and from its soil— alive in the long-term expectation that, eventually, US and Western enthusiasm for and commitments in the region will wane, creating the space for a restoration of Pakistan's strategic over-reach through terrorism across South and Central Asia.

It is high time that the US and the world called the Pakistani bluff, and demanded that the country and its leadership fulfil its commitments to neutralise terrorism from its soil, and engage in international relations in accordance with contemporary and civilised norms, and not through the instruments of terror. Failing this, Pakistan would need to be completely de-militarised, left only with weapons to fight terrorism and crime. Gen Musharraf has admitted that he executed his U-turn on Afghan policy because Mr Richard Armitage threatened to 'bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age' (though this has been denied by Mr Armitage, and subsequently by the ever-lying Gen Musharraf). This— and this alone— is the kind of choice that will force Pakistan and Gen Musharraf into abandoning their long-cherished enterprise of international terrorism.


K.P.S. Gill is a former Punjab DGP and is currently advisor to the Chhattisgarh government on Naxalite affairs. This piece first appeared in the Pioneer

Opinion
Discontent mounts in Pakistan armed forces against how Musharraf conducted himself in public and TV interviews during his recent visit to the US and the UK
B. Raman
Interview
A former foreign minister of Pakistan and a former Indian high commissioner in Islamabad on whether General Musharraf can be trusted after the latest disclosures in his book.
Nagendar Sharma, BBC Hindi Radio
 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
29
Joseph will be able to get a favourable Press if, and only if, he gets out of his burka.
Anil Narlikar
Pune, India
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
28
Joseph:
"India may be able to get a favourable Press, when, and only when, it makes peace with all, repeat all, its neighbours"

India already gets favourablt press. And you are overstating the importance of neighbourhood relations. India's bad relations with Pakistan is not really a failure of India's foreign policy but is an outcome of Pakistans domestic polity and policies.

India's relations with China maybe considered a consequence of bad policy.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
27
Joseph

You love India. I am sure of that. But do you realise how much Indians love you? No, Joseph, you don't. Otherwise why would you have left Mangalore? My appeal and that of India is: Come Back To Mangalore and Bring 500 Million Paki Terrorists with You ....! Only then will Indians feel happy.

The Mangaloreans in Richmond B.C. are called Pereira. Know them? One family is from Pakistan. All hate Pakistan. What a pity. Pakistan is Heaven.
Anil Narlikar
Pune, India
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
26
Joseph:
"India is ciltivated because it is a huge market for Microsoft, McDonalds, etc. Its basic flaws and defects are glossed over "

That does not explain why India gets a more positive international press than China which cuurently is a far bigger market. With all its deficiencies India is a reasonably working democracy.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
25
Curiously USA too has one of the worst foreign policies. But it is its domestic strengths such as economy which enable it to hold on in the international arena.

Much like it is the sanctity and respect to India's internal democracy and secularism which enable it score over the smoother and more efficient foreign policy of Pakistan.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
24
We, in India, may have to accept that the Pakistan manages its foreign policy better than India under some conditions. They generally had cordial relations with their neighbours ( such as China, to some extent Iran and for some time period Afghanistan) whereas we had one of the worst relations with the neighbours.

The inference is that as long as there is no Islamist element involved ( like in China) they have done better in foreign relations. Their major handicap is that the foreign policy is forced to firefight the consequences of domestic polity which is bigotic.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Oct 10, 2006 12:00 AM
23
It's perhaps the ultimate paradox: precisely because this extremely well- thought out piece ,can prove so very telling in its impact - that its does not stand even the ghost of a chance of ever becoming a cover -story.

Pakistan has proved to be truly an adept . It has elevated the stringing out of the West ,in the danse macabre of terror, into an art form - unparalleled in its demonic fascination.

With al Quaida as its ultimate insurance , Pakistan will continue to hold the West over a barrel.

There is little the West can do - except perhaps tear its collective hair out in sheer , unmitigated frustration.

Ranjith Thomas
Calcutta, India
Oct 09, 2006 12:00 AM
22
Mr. Varun Shekhar, have you moved to distant Canada because you hate Pakistan as a neighbour. I have not acted like you. I do not hate India, I only wish Indians were more aware of ground realities. And the reality India is a Third World Country, NRI pretentions notwithstanding.
Joseph
Karachi, Pakistan
Oct 09, 2006 12:00 AM
21
Anil Narlikar, one can divorce one's spouse, move from a neighbourhood, disown a child but unfortunately, one can not change one's geographical location.

In the circumstance, it will be wholly in India's interest to develop good neighbourly relations, religious and ethnic factors notwithstanding.

It is difficult to believe that 800 million Hindus are all angels while 500 million Muslims are all devils or terrorists or worse.

One needs to disabuse oneself from this purely biased understanding of people.
Joseph
Karachi, Pakistan
Oct 09, 2006 12:00 AM
20
Mr. Anil Narlakar, please give me the details of those Mangaloreans in BC, once you return from Poona. When I say something every one sees red and uses inuendo, sarcasm, abuse. Given that most of those participating in Rants and Raves are from the 'educated segment', one is appalled by the hate that comes through. I have never abused Indians, all I attempt to do is to remind them that they live in a dream world. The dream can burst at any time as it is likely quite soon with the North Korean Cat Among The Pigeons.
Joseph
Karachi, Pakistan
Oct 09, 2006 12:00 AM
19
Joseph

It is very disturbing and disappoing to find that Pakistan is only doing very slighlty better than India economically.

Every intelligent Indian would want Pakistan and Bangladesh to do much much much better than India economically.

This will give an incentive to the Indian MUslims to go to their homeland in Pak. It will discourage Bangladeshis and pakis from flooding into India.

By the way, there are quite a few Mangaloreans here in Richmond, British Columbia. Some of them may know you. All are firecely anti-Paki. I know. I go to the same church as they do.
Anil Narlikar
Pune, India
Oct 09, 2006 12:00 AM
18

Economically, India can definitely afford to ignore Pakistan, as well as attention seekers such as Joseph( I will not be ignored, as in Glen Close in "Fatal Attraction") . There is nothing that Pakistan produces that India really needs, or is not producing in much larger quantities. Yes, it is true that Pakistan is a nusiance. India will have to strengthen italef military to insure that Pakistan doesn't try any monkey business-the only thing that concerns India.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Oct 07, 2006 12:00 AM
17
Hi Joseph

"......In the circumstance, India is not in a position to give Pakistan a bloody nose......"

We should not take Indias military strength at face value. On paper it may be 1.2:1 but at ground level nobody knows.
Corruption compounded by poor budgetary allocation may have resulted in some military hardware to be of inferior quality.
I had gone across some news related to purchase o flow quality spares for indian airforce.
For ex. Plz visit this link.

http://www.flonnet.com/...s/20030523006412300.htm
#####:::::-NNNNN-:::::#####
Ranchi, India
Oct 07, 2006 12:00 AM
16
In the context of India and Pakistan, it is important to remember that India does not any longer have the 3:1 ratio in respect of armed force strength. If Air Chief Marshal Tyagi is to be believed the ratio has reduced to 1.2:1 constraining him to express concern. In the circumstance, India is not in a position to give Pakistan a bloody nose. Then there is the nuclear deterrence that each possess.

Granted the Indian econmomy is large at about $800 billion at current market prices. However keeping in mind the fact that Pakistan's population is one-seventh of India's, its economy at $125 billion is not insignificant.

India can not, therefore, ignore Pakistan in its geo-strategic equation.
Joseph
Karachi, Pakistan
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
15
Old mac

I agree with you on one point: If India has a problem with Pakistan it is more than big enough to sort it out on its own. Running complaining to Big White Daddy in Washington shows only that bar a couple of PMs since Independence - Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi - Indian leaders have been and are about the most cowardly on earth. In brief, they are terrified of tackling Pakistan and expect the Us to do it for them. Look how wobbly and weak-kneed Vajpayee was. By contrast look at Indira. Whatever her faults - and they were very serious - the woman was packed with guts. With practically all the wise guys in the world warning her not to act against Yahya Khan's genocide in East Pakista, with the Us and China breathing fearsome threats, she took all risks and sensationally routed the boastful Pak army in just 13 days. In general Muslim armies are like that: once people dare to stand up to them. Look how Israel thrashed the living daylights out of the Arabs armies in 1967.....

But we have no-body today with the necessary guts. To be fair to India, the US is even more cowardly. They are letting their young men be slaughtered piecemeal by jehadis in Iraq with large-scale support for the terrorists from Syria and Iran, countries far less powerful than Pakinstan. Why doesn't your fire-eater Bush act? No guts, Old Mac. You are as gutless as Hindus, these days - nay, even more cowardly. You don't need to invade Syria or Iran; simply make repeated commando raids to destroy their military installations until they get the message and lay off Iraq. With the incredible air superiority the US enjoys, this ought to be very feasible. But, Old Mac, your guys have no damned guts. Afraid to lose a few boys dead. Your guys are wimps. Weaker-kneed than wobbly Hindus.

Reputable journalists like Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani, Owen Bennet-Jones, the US NSC, have all established that pakistan has long been training and sending terrorists into India. Such is your shabby pettiness of spirit that you contest the obvious. Like Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
Anil Narlikar
Pune, India
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
14
chanakya writes
An interesting specimen for Freud. Maybe he gets off that way.

Or may be for a biologist studying primates' sexual behaviour.. For, never before has a macaca been accorded the ability to articulate its amorous abstractions so articulately.

one of the papal miracles ?
bhushan
richmond, United States
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
13
old mac writes
Surprisingly, you can follow the plot line of a Disney cartoon...making my point that Gill lives

that makes you the disney cartoon..
bhushan
richmond, United States
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
12
Mr Gill writes ... "It is high time that the US and the world called the Pakistani bluff, and demanded that the country and its leadership fulfil its commitments to neutralise terrorism from its soil, and engage in international relations in accordance with contemporary and civilised norms, and not through the instruments of terror."

And exactly why Mr. Gill, should the US do this (oh - sorry I forgot the rest of the world too as if that matters to Pakistan). For the US administration, Pakistan is probably doing enough in terms of US needs for US self interest. US may want more but seem to have also decided that "more" is not so important as to risk Musharuff having problems. In fact it is very likely, the Manmohan Singh/Musharuff Havana joint statement was crafted by the US state dept.

I thought Gill was a realpolitik realist type dude, so this article does come as a surprise. The global war on terror has a strict heirarchy. IMHO - America, then the rest of the west, then everyone else. And by and large "everyone else" should be satisfied that they get recognized as victims of terror with the appropriate condolences and words of "hang in there".

I agree with Old Mac, that Musharuff seems to be playing his game well. And Indian foreign policy seems to be weird mix of unrealism, idealism, looking desperately for a shoulder to cry on and fire from (since we gave up the ability to inflict a downside).

Pakistan seems to playing the game well to get back "strategic depth" in Afghanistan.
Arun Maheshwari
Bangalore, India
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
11
It is an interesting spectacle that Mac sees "sex" or "sexual connotations" in everything.

First he visualises moist panties, then he visualises "sea-turtles humping".

An interesting specimen for Freud. Maybe he gets off that way.

Anyway, other than raising some stupid "Disneyland" themes, there is nothing in his argument to suggest any other thing.

One more example - US, which claims to be the champion of democracy and wants democratic governments in the middle east, surprisingly (???) supports the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the Jordanian Monarchy. Again, surprisingly (???) it is against the democratically elected Hamas and the democratically elected govt in Iran.

It continues to be Saudi Arabia's best friend despite the fact that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

Why? Simple. Pure self-interest. Same thing in Pakistan too. Dining with the Devil and Dancing with the Wolves out of pure self-interest.
Chanakya
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
10
"The bottomline is it's futile to depend on US and we must strive ourselves to set our house in order"

Thats what I was trying to say. We dont have any right to whine over US policy of Pak when we ourselves dont have a policy. We dont have answer to the basic question. Is Pakistan sponsoring terrorism on Indian soil? It requires a yes or no answer but in the "complex" world, we get answers ranging from definite yes, yes, may be, probably not and definite no.

In TV pgms, when they show Africa, they will show totally impoverished children whose bones you can see. The only thing that is more impoverished than those poor children is our foreign policy. There is no direction and no sense of purpose.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
9
Hasn't US suffered from "Paki terrorism"? So why the heck aren't they able to catch OBL and his associate Zawahiri? What about guys like Khalid Sheikh? And what about the British plot which is their only big ally in the phoney war in Iraq? Ganesan's statement clearly validates my claim - State Dept. and other lunatic neocons are only fit to take corrective measures after an act of terror, they are not wise enough to take measures to prevent them. For example, they should have caught OBL during Clinton administration but they failed and they have paid the price. If they continue being too cozy with Pakis - who knows - history might repeat itself. But as I said in my earlier posts the US also has no other option (and Musharraf knows this very well when he said the West will be brought to its knees without Paki's help) so they are anyway screwed.

Ganesan says
"So if we dont consider Pak a terror state, to expect US to treat is that way is day dreaming. US has not suffered from Pak terrorism and can pursue the same policy which India follows after suffering from Pak terrorism."
I will play the Devil's Advocate here. The times we cried foul over terrorist attack and represented our case in UN was the US really forthcoming in its efforts to help us put an end to terror? Anyways. The bottomline is it's futile to depend on US and we must strive ourselves to set our house in order.
ARVIND
ROCHESTER, United States
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
8
So Pakistan is a sponsor of terrorism. And Bush is wrong to think that he needs Mush's help to fight Alqueda.

Fine arguments and can debate all day long. But the basic question of why no one calls Pak a terror state is simple to answer. Which country suffered most because of terrorism emanating from pak? India. Which country says Pak is a victim of terrorism? India. Which country wants to improve the relations with steps like giving up Siachen, forgetting the facts like Dawood is in Pak and so forth? India.

So if we dont consider Pak a terror state, to expect US to treat is that way is day dreaming. US has not suffered from Pak terrorism and can pursue the same policy which India follows after suffering from Pak terrorism.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
7
Okay, I have already said this in another article but for those who didn't read it.
"Okay, if anybody thinks that US fights in some place for "charitable reasons" or purely due to SELFLESSNESS, plz. wake up from your stupor. N0000000 - IT DOESN'T. US fights only in places with ITS OWN strategic interest in place. It entered WW2 due to Lousitania sinking and Pearl Harbour. It was so afraid of communists that it fought in Vietnam and Korea but lost in both. Gulf War 1 was due to attack by Iraq on Kuwait - oil country saddled with US bases. It wants to broker Israel Palestine deal to appease Jewish lobby. But it cares s**t about its "ally" Paki harboring terrorism and spreading it in India. It didn't do s**t in Bosnia Serbia war. Iraq war is again for the Texan oilmen. Afghan war is presumably for catching OBL - good luck with that. It is mostly countires which the West labels as "third world countries" like India which send their peacekeeping misssions to god-forsaken places like Congo in Africa. Anyways, US has to remember one thing - failed countries like Sudan could be potential haven for guys like OBL. Maybe they will take action only after they find intel of guys like him hiding there. Probably they believe cure is better than prevention."
US has only 2 big allies in Middle East - Saudis and Pakis. Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanitan are either in a mess or evil. Even the US with #1 military in the world can't jeopardize the relationship with Pakis and tackle all of Middle East alone. How about we increase border security, strike some terror camps covertly and hang bas***ds like Afzal? and a moron like MM Singh shouldn't say some bu***hit like Pakis are as much victimized as Indians by terror. Yeah right. What next, world is flat as stated in quran? This guy makes me wanna puke. If the above measures don't work I guez we have to live with terrorism. The terrorists are gonna run off of steam in sometime. You can't kill 1 billion people that easily.

And Mr. Mac, you need to get a little more out of your house. Get a life, man. Probably then you won't be enamored of two sea turtles humping each other in Discovery. Try Ask.com for impressive girls. And check if they are over 18 before you engage in any mischief. Otherwise u r gonna spend the rest of your life in a federal penitentiary or a mental institution depending on where you fit better and how good your lawyer is.
ARVIND
ROCHESTER, United States
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
6
Chanakya writes:

>>The US is acting in its interest by keeping the General going.

Surprisingly, you can follow the plot line of a Disney cartoon...making my point that Gill lives in a la la land with his analysis slightly less thought-provoking than two sea turtles humping on Discovery channel.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
5
Mac says :"For some unexplained reason, the US forgets its own interests and perversely increases security threat for itself."

During Gulf War-1 the US could have knocked down Saddam Hussein pretty easily. However, the alternative at that point of time was frightening (at least for the US). Iraq being a Shiite majority, may throw up Shiite leadership who would align with the Shiite majority Iran.

So they stopped short of dethroning Saddam - and the Sunnis had a field day going after the Shiites.

Its the same story in Pakistan too. The alternative to the General are radical Islamists. At a time when US needs the Pak establishment to go after the Taliban and Al-Q, the General is the best man in place.

The US is acting in its interest by keeping the General going.
Chanakya
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Oct 05, 2006 12:00 AM
4
good article. nothing in this is news to anyone. and Gill doesnt claim that either. infact he himself mentions that musharraf's story is well known to most.

old mac, it probably doesnt make sense to your
(mal)functioning brain. which part of it you dont agree with or understand?
musharraf being an inveterate liar, or terrorist camps in pakistan, or pak's support to taliban/AQ because of (or inspite of) musharaff.
if any of these, can you cite something to prove otherwise?

if is gill's analysis akin to beggin bowl then govt's attitude towards pakistan resembles that of demented retard in a lunatic assylum about to commit accidental suicide.

may be gills article represents the indian security establishment's anxiety over indian governments apathetic policy towards terrorism. saying that pak is victim not perpetrator of terror is the most ludicrous thing.

bhushan
richmond, United States
Oct 04, 2006 12:00 AM
3

Another excellent article by Gill. The recent arrests and pronouncements by the Mumbai police have vindicated India's initial strong suspicions of Pakistani involvement. For those silly doubters, India has better proof for these terrorist acts than the US or UK. (note that I didn't say that India is a more literate country, a more Christian country, a more white country or a more NATO country. I said that India has better proof than the US or UK with regard to terrorist acts on its soil.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Oct 04, 2006 12:00 AM
2
Why did Gill write this ludicrous article? Though it was initially written for a Chaddi publication, it serves no purpose even there. Its audience is already convinced that all past, present and future evil in the universe can be heaped on Pakistan. So, what is to be gained with “facts” and argument? They can only get in the way. On the other hand, this article doesn’t convince anyone with a functioning brain.

Of course, Gill could be right. For that, we have to live in an alternate universe where the US pursues of its own interests every case except Pakistan. For some unexplained reason, the US forgets its own interests and perversely increases security threat for itself. In this universe, what passes for “evidence” of overwhelming evidence of official Pakistani government complicity in terrorism for Pakistan-obsessed Indian foreign policy types is universally persuasive. In this universe, India cares more about the best interests of the US than the US itself.

I think Gill’s article represents anxiety among Indian security types that Musharraf (even with Islamists gunning for him) is skillfully negotiating his way through international politics with only a fraction India’s economic and military power. Gill’s pleading for US to win India’s political/military dispute with Pakistan resembles a beggar’s whine at a railway station.

When vast regions are unreachable and ungovernable by Musharraf, Gill’s dream of US demanding Pakistan “to neutralize terrorism” brings up the perennial issue of magic that lies right below the surface of most Indian thinking. “De-militarized” Pakistan's impact on lower security threat to India...er..US is my leading contender for magic marinated thinking.
Old Mac
Wonderville, United States
Oct 04, 2006 12:00 AM
1
Afghanistan was never a unified country, many tribes were fighting among themselves in the name of islam and other local perceived needs with Russian. By not having any clear vision and no national unifying leadership Talibanis took over with active support from across the nuclearized border. The difficult terrain and Taliban served as safe heaven for likes of OBL, al qda, LeT, etc who motivated the new found army to support jihadi terrorism against west. The nuclear neighbour was very much elated by what Taliban was doing in its own land for it found very useful for it’s so called liberation of Kashmir.

Even if we keep the India/Kashmir factor aside, also India should not expect that someone else should fight its war, US and NATO's mistake is in not quickly understanding the pak game plan which many understood and wrote already about. It is very much evident and clear after what Musharraf said and wrote in his "line of liar". It is now clear to many in the west that this eunuch survives in his home on the hate India campaign, runs A.Q Khan’s business with equal partnership, his recent babbling in US that OBL is not in his country, that the Taliban reemerging in Afghanistan is NATO to control rather than relying on pak intelligence and support, there is no cross border to Afghanistan and his signing pact with NWFP and what is happening in Balochistan are reason enough to believe that he is sure to play further with the West to extract more largesse.

On the other side there is growing mistrust among the common westerners about this eunuch’s commitment as both chief of the uniform and head of the nation to fight terrorism shoulder to shoulder because he has done nothing to dismantle the sanctuaries of terror education in his own country and all the attacks (materialized and foiled) had active links with his country.

Therefore, the solution lies in taming the source of terrorism across the world by fighting the war on terror from Afghanistan towards the pak border so that the sanctuary is contained for the Pakistanis living in Pakistan and also the sanctuaries/terror camps within pakistan should also be targeted.

The world also has to understand that Pakistan has nothing to offer to the world except terror and whatever little it offers in the form of human power (computer viruses, etc) the world can do away with.

Why pakistan? because afghan are not likely to cross the border and be on world tour spreading jihad. But the same can not be said of the pakistani muslems as is evident since 9/11 and after. India must join this war from its side, pak muslems need to be contained in their own land with all diplomatic and trade ties stopped forthwith. Pak must be declared as state sponsor of terrorism. These measures may antagonise the muslems worldwide but there is no other recouse they have left before the democratic and civilized societies.

However, to win war on terror it will also be necessary to increase security measures and observe them all the times by the democratic and civilized societies.

Humanity has more to gain from the middle-east and north African nations so active cooperation is required in this area. If US really want to keep its tab on Asia and particularly on China it must understand what is required of it. Joining hands with India can only serve strategic interest in the sphere of economy but will never be a solution to contain violence and military rise in asia unless pakistan in the SE is dealt with sternly. Eliminating OBL and Mush will not serve any purpose unless the hardliners in pakistan get a clear message as to where they are living, what is their purpose in life after getting their desired heaven post-partition.
Ehsan Nawaz
La Hore, Afghanistan
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY