.
.
.
.
And so we have the usual cheap generalized calls from the usual countries that Pakistan is the center of global terrorism, and in addition from other sources mainly in the USA. This is of course nonsense, and such political grandstanding statements miss the intricate little issues which really matter to Pakistan and the problems which this troubled Third World nation faces, and must resolve by the will and action of her own people.
The article below looks at the problems from the perspective of Pakistan's interests, and possibly by extension represents the views of sections of the ISI, and Pakistan military. It has some sound ideas, but such ideas are not elaborated comprehensively, but merely generalized over......of course its a journalists article and not a government policy paper.
What the article significantly also lacks is very little elaboration of the role of the Pakistani military in all this MESS........you know the 800,000 strong military organization backed by the 300,000 paramilitary, who have in addition significant business interests in the country, and control the Pakistan nukes. In all security matters Zardari has to run the ideas with Kiyani first, before he can do anything...........as the writer below has clearly stated in previous articles and thus misses the crucial issue, in that very recently it was the Pakistan military who brokered the recent settlement of the political impasse between the Sharifs and Zardari.........so.
So on the one hand Ahmed says the Pak civilian politicians are doing this that and the other to negate the country, with contributions from the Americans and British, no less, but on the other articles he acknowledges the overriding power of the military in Pakistan society and especially in Pakistani politics, even if they exist in the background under Kiyani who has wisely withdrawn military officers from many aspects of Pakistani civil society.
This is inconsistent analysis, and clearly this writer believes that the Pakistani military even now operating in the background of Pakistani society, is the primary dominating force in Pakistani society and politics, and thus any strategic issues that relate to and affect Pakistan as a nation must be addressed to and run through the Pakistani military. More specifically the Corp commanders and upwards of the top brass of the Pakistani military.
The security problems of Pakistan can only be resolved if there is a significant paradigm shift in the way the top brass of the Pakistani military (corp commanders and upwards who wield the real power in Pakistan) approach the Taliban question, and the problem, and the overall security question in the Afghan/Pakistan geography.
The challenge for the top brass of the Pakistan military is this, and it requires a certain amount of courage and moral purity to face it and answer it honestly which reinforces and protects Pakistan:
1. Does the Pakistan military continue to operate as an annex of the Western military as it has done for a couple of decades, and especially of the Americans? If this is the case then what specifically, clearly written down do the Americans want out of Pakistan?.......and what are the long term end game consequences for Pakistan of sticking to and following such policies for Washington? I conjecture that mostly it will lead to the disintegration of Pakistan as a nation, and some Pakistani and Western analysts have stated as much...........................I would strongly concur with such a perspective. But it is for the Pakistani military top brass to make medium to long term calculations of the likely scenarios; thats their job.
2. If the top brass summon up the courage, and look deeply into the issue, as they must sometimes do, and arrive at the conclusion that Pakistan's pursuit of American policies are actually harming the nation, and perhaps the time has come for the parting of ways with Washington's political and security policies in the region then what is the alternative? Does Pakistan attempt to do a Hugo Chavez and Venezuela? Or does Pakistan attempt to create new alternative alliances, away from the USA?................with China or more logically India?
Clearly I think the second option is better for Pakistan's long term viability and survival. The current experience with American policies will lead to Pakistan's eventual disintegration, and is clearly failing unless you live in planet Mars. The relationship of a abused wife, who has yet to file for divorce. The first option will gradually lead to the disintegration of Pakistan, with greater Taliban activity in the NWFP, and other parts of Pakistan previously not experienced before actively backed by Talibanised officers from the Pakistan military and ISI, retired and serving, followed by civil and political strife in Pakistan; further economic deterioration of the country..........and further foreign incursions into Pakistan proper, leading possibly to invasion eventually. That in the current trajectory Pakistan will NECESSARILY be projected by the USA as a failed state terrorist haven number one which needs to be rescued by the USA for the sake of the world. Oh the burdens of the politically, legally, morally and economically bankrupt!!!
The more money America gives to Pakistan, the more it fails. An interesting correlation that ought to be thoroughly observed and studied.....it has shades of South Vietnam written all over it.
Clearly the Americans are desperate to maintain the present status quo in Pakistan, that is why they are pouring $ 15 billion over the next 10 years into Pakistan; the $5 billion Kerry-Lugar one off payment; the $7.6 billion IMF loan; the $1.8 billion annual security aid, which as been suspended for a few months, and which Obama is likely to renew, and finally on top of all that the Obama administration is topping that up with an additional $2.8 billion security aid.
Now the average Pakistani might well think all this great help, but strategically speaking if such sums bolster failed policies which lead to the disintegration of Pakistan eventually, with not a cent actually helping the Pakistani economy and people under Al Capone Zardari, then clearly such billions of $ aid must be rejected, and must be seen as essentially as anti-state blood money out to destroy Pakistan.
A good deal of Saddam's generals and his intelligence chief took the American $ and offered no resistance to the American invasion of 2003 (The Iraqi resistance came from the Fedayeen)........and we now know where Iraq exactly is under American "liberation" and occupation. 1.3 million dead; 4 million internal and external refugees, the country destroyed, and the country ethnically cleansed into separate statletes of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish..............are there any scents and hints of things to come for Pakistan in the manner which America with the UK operates against Pakistan, by looking at Iraq?
The experience of Iraq can be avoided with Pakistan, but requires the Pakistan top brass to act and think a little like Mohammad Ghauri, Alauddin Khilji, Mohmmed Bin Tughlaq, Babur, Sher Shah and Akbar. You name your missiles after such men. How about for once the Pakistani top military brass actually acting just a little like such great men.
And when the current Pakistan top brass have for a short while meditated and prayed at the temple of such illustrious men of history who had bountiful measures of IZZAT, incorruptibility, and duty.............then they can begin to formulate policies which ween Pakistan away from the USA, and to an extent the UK.
In doing their duty they must:
- Close ALL American military bases in Pakistan.
- Reject ALL foreign military advisers in Pakistan
- Close ALL foreign intelligence activity in Pakistan
- Reject and resist any missiles attacks or incursions by Western soldiers into sovereign Pakistan territory.
- Stop taking security aid which indebts Pakistan to Washington's policies.
- Through the MSM in Pakistan...Geo news, Dawn, PTV etc state to all Pakistanis that OBL is dead, and that he may have died in 2001.
- Tell the Pakistani people through the MSM that "al-Qaeda" is a fake organization that never existed..............tell them clearly and comprehensively. Then the people will be able to understand the real situation in Pakistan and make better assessment of who exactly is fighting who. There is no greater asset than taking the general people into your confidence. The American narrative must be debunked in relation to Afghanistan/Pakistan, and only then can American policies can be debunked in the region also. The Pakistani military at the very least should not sustain American lies.
- Reject Holbrooke the Jew, the "peacemaker of the Balkans" as a mediator for Pakistan/Afghan affairs. His only duty and job is to facilitate and legitimate failed states such as Bosnia, and Kosovo.
___________________________________________________________
The ‘Am-Brit’ MESS.
By Ahmed Quraishi
WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM
Forget ‘Af-Pak’. Let’s talk about the ‘Am-Brit’ mess in Afghanistan. The Anglo-American media won’t cover this. But we will. If America occupies Afghanistan and uses that country as a base for covert operations against neighbors, that’s not meddling. But if Pakistan, a next door neighbor, tries to protect its legitimate interests, Washington calls it meddling. We have no problem with Afghan Taliban.
(But the Western forces in Afghanistan do, according to their perception, and a good deal of the Afghan Taliban operate from Pakistani soil----so there is a level of legitimate concern here of the Americans which you can't all together ignore)
And we don’t want to see Hoolbrooke or any other ‘Special Af-Pak envoy’ stepping on Pakistani soil again. Pakistani government and military should shut down CIA stations in the country. Pakistanis don’t want an alliance with a country that is stabbing us in the back and supporting terrorists against us.
(I assume you are alluding to the attack against the Lahore Police by Taliban fighters? Was that the work of the Americans? Are you sure Ahmed?.....Obviously you have your sources in the ISI, I assume. Obviously if the Americans intend getting at the Pakistan nukes for Israel, they need to destabilize the country first, especially along ethnic lines for example Punjabis vs Pashtuns........think of what fun you could have with such games?
Baitullah Mehsud is dead, a couple of months ago it is said, so are we seeing a OBL like resurrection of him threatening Pakistan and then the USA? It would seem so, as the Taliban traditionally stay and operate in Afghanistan, in the Pashtun parts of Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, again in the Pashtun parts of Pakistan.........because a lot of them were and still are managed by the Pakistan military. If they are going "out of territory", then it must be because of non-Pakistani Western backing, under the plausible denialibility of a non-existent dead leader who is not there to refute the official story.
What about the Brits? Aren't they suppose to have developed close relations with certain sections of the Taliban and turned them for British purposes?
Is it just possible that the Taliban are acting on their own initiative? Is the Taliban always taking operational orders from the Pakistani military, or the Americans and Brits in the case of the Pakistan Taliban. If so where does the peace deal in Swat leave us.........how much trust can be had from the Taliban in any part of the NWFP?
Or was the Lahore operation the work of certain sections of the ISI? You know that there are some sections of the military who don't like Sharif, and especially Busharaf supporters. On Monday 30/03/2009 Governors rule in the Punjab is overturned, and so the Sharifs can contest elections in Pakistan-------a victory for them. The attack maybe is a message to Sharif saying that yes you may have won in one sense, but we can still create problems for you in your home state. You think thats too cynical? Too low for the Pakistan military? If you think along the lines of what the Pak military did in East Pakistan...............especially using fundies..........or Musharaf in Kargil against Sharif, sacrificing 4,000 irregular soldiers lives without the slightest planning or intention of winning, then maybe an ISI connection to the latest Lahore terror attack is not so far fetched. My suspicions are with the last group.
And the basic problem for Pakistan. In India the senior officers talk to the media, and talk unanimously on controversial issues through the media getting their views across in a civilized professional manner. In Pakistan the wannabe Napoleon's are quite willing to sacrifice their servicemen's lives, and it seems even the destiny and stability of the nation for their personal egos, and ambition. Not all the officers of course, but strangely a lot of the ones that get to the top.)
You have to give it to the American propaganda machine. U.S.officials and America’s long list of self-styled Pakistan experts’ are advising Islamabad to stop meddling in Afghanistan. But it is kosher for the U.S. military to travel half the world to occupy Afghanistan and that’s not meddling. Well guess what, Pakistan has more pressing interests as a next door neighbor of Afghanistan and it will protect its interests. Who says CIA’s interests in Afghanistan are more sacred than ISI’s?
(I don't get this paragraph. Are you saying Pakistan does not interfere with Afghan affairs, which is the line of the Pakistan military and civilian leadership.......i.e the Afghan Taliban is not under the control of the Pakistan military. But your end sentences basically state that that's precisely what Pakistan does, and has the right to do.
In reality of course the Afghan Taliban haven't really made a real military impression on the Western Occupation forces, after 8 years, (a few hundred Occupational soldiers have been killed thus far, less than the loss of lives in the American military during peace time in one year) but the talk from America of the need to deal against the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan is something which is just hype to pressure Pakistan further, into following American policies. Further the overall failed situation in Afghanistan is the creation of the Occupation Forces under the Americans, and the highly dubious puppets that they support which has in reality substantially created the MESS in Afghanistan.......NOT Pakistan's alleged support for the Afghan Taliban.
Your over enthusiastic position of defending Pakistan's rights might create the wrong impressions by the way.
The Westerners who wish to stay in Afghanistan, and exploit the country fall into various desperate groups, and must not be characterized as representing just one Western intelligence agency. Jews figure prominently in the USA, UK, and Israel, and they all have their own agendas...........NARCOTICS, Afghanistan as a base to strike Iran, as a base to strike Pakistan and its nukes for Israel, and Central Asia, and China.......the oil tansit route secure for American oil companies is a red herring)
Regardless of what many of his Pakistani cheerleaders say, President Obama’s new ‘Af-Pak’ policy is a lot of mumbo jumbo that conceals two basic threads: expanding the war inside Pakistan and using the pretext of a ‘regional approach’ to bring India into Afghanistan as Washington and London’s new slave-soldier, especially when Nato members won’t deliver. Surely Washington is not thinking about empowering the Chinese or the Iranians in Afghanistan as part of its new found regionalism.
(Yes basically correct, Obama "Change we can believe in" is slavishly continuing with Bush II policies here. The Predator attacks into Pakistan from January 2009 especially is an expansion of that war into Pakistan......yes, whilst simultaneously pouring money into Pakistan's security and economy. You keep going on about India, but they don't have any troops in the country in the final analysis.....its the USA, UK............But again one must repeat the obvious point that the attacks against Pakistan are being facilitated from Pakistani military bases.....so you must first ask why the Pakistani military agreed to this in the first place. That is the original position you start from)
The best part is the expanded aid package for Pakistan. It comes with so many ifs that we might as well voluntarily dismantle the ISI, declare defeat, forget about Kashmir and dedicate the rest of the 21st century to carrying America’s burden in Central Asia. To make the package believable, U.S. officials have leaked information through the usual suspects – NYT and WSJ – about a possible ‘exit strategy’, as in America running away from Afghanistan. But America is still in Iraq despite all the hype to the contrary by the Anglo-American media. And it is definitely staying in Afghanistan for as long as possible. We appreciate the American concerns about all the anti-America conspiracies being hatched in the caves of Tora Bora, but surely America also has an eye or two on the vast strategic benefits of controlling Afghanistan.
(Now there's an idea, dismantling the ISI. It might make Pakistan safer and stronger....created by the British in 1948, and operates mainly for foreign interests, not Pakistan's. Honest assessment of the organization.
As to declaring defeat, Pakistan has ample experience in that area thanks to the ..................Pakistan military/ISI........Lets see....1971, 93,000 POW'S, Kargil 1999, 4,000 killed without achieving any territorial victory, Afghanistan 2001 where under the threat of an attack and invasion by the USA/Richard Armitage, Busharaf accepted ALL the American terms of surrender in relation to Afghanistan and Pakistan.........................................................and so logically with all this historical experience in mind, realistically it is best to declare defeat over Kashmir, and than formulate more realistic policies after that realization.
Pakistan has for the better part of several decades served as an annex to British/American geo-strategic as a willing neo-colonial "slave soldier" tool since the 1950's in such diverse places as Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, The Gulf states, Afghanistan and .........India..............so what exactly are you talking about in relation to Central Asia? Is that another sly ISI job advertisement,"You need us sahib. We sahib are good for you."
The Americans aren't leaving Afghanistan any time soon)
Some Pakistani officials see Mr. Obama’s new policy as a win for Pakistan because, they claim, Washington is now planning to do what Islamabad has been advocating since, namely negotiating with the Afghan Taliban and giving Pakistan all the weapons it needs to fight Al Qaeda. If this is the case, there certainly isn’t anything in the public statements of U.S. officials that leads to this optimism, unless there is a secret side to this new policy that only a few in Islamabad know about. So far it looks more like Pakistani officials misleading their people about the extent of the Zardari-Gilani government’s capitulation before the Americans.Otherwise, how to explain that the government welcomed Obama’s policy within minutes of the speech, only to be followed by the most intensive verbal attacks by senior U.S. military officials against Pakistan’s military intelligence community, as if the Afghan blunders are entirely of our making?
(Giving Pakistan the weapons to fight "al-Qaeda"? OBL is dead, and "al-Qaeda" does not exist, so who exactly is the Pakistan military going to be fighting in Pakistan which leads to further instability inside the country. Or is it not more likely that the new military aid will be directed against India as in the past without fail?
1. The Corbett Report.
2. The Corbett Report.
3. The Corbett Report.
Pakistan did train upwards of 12,000 foreign Jehadi fighters from various Muslim countries against the Soviets in the 1980's, but 99% of them never called themselves "al-Qaeda", and non of them were involved in 9/11 taking orders from OBL and his phantom organization. They were used in the Balkans in the 1990's to support the KLA, and Bosnian Muslims, supported by Iran and the USA, but not as "al-Qaeda".........that remnants of those original 12,000 still exist in Pakistan numbering a few hundred, BUT these people don't call themselves "al-Qaeda", and they don't take their orders from OBL and his mythical organization.
These few hundred come from Arab countries, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, and other Muslim countries and are considered security risks in their home countries so they do not return to their own country but exist perilously in the NWFP, but are not "al-Qaeda".
Negotiating and thus legitimating the Taliban is wrong, and will vehemently be opposed by India, Iran and Russia. The Taliban is a failed organization that offers no real hope for the Afghan people overall. That the Taliban may receive some misguided sympathy from some Afghan Pashtuns is overridden by the fact that as many non-Pashtun Afghans don't like such an organization and have negative memories under their medieval rule. Why negotiate and legitimate a failed organization which offers no hope for the Afghan people, but merely promises more instability and problems for the overall region in the long term if they are allowed to prevail.
I would agree that the Pakistan military/ISI.......they are one and the same, have a lot to answer for. For all the wild bad ideas that came/come from the British and Americans, in the final analysis it always was the Pakistan military top brass whose actions in Pakistan/Afghanistan set the stage for the ensuing disasters. The buck stops with the Pakistan military making the wrong choices and sticking to them.
The Pakistani military's choice of backing Hekmatyar and Haqqani over more moderate secular Afghan mujaheddin fighters in the 1980's.
The Pakistani military's choice of using the "surplus" mujaheddin fighters from Afghanistan to wage a low intensity guerrilla war in Kashmir against India from 1989/1990.
The Pakistan military's choice to back the Taliban an extremely primitive Islamic fundamentalist organization from 1994, and not see the blow back against Pakistan subsequently.
The Pakistan military's choice to propagate and sustain the "al-Qaeda" myth for Washington from the 1990's.
The Pakistan military's choice to paint themselves as "slave soldiers" of the USA, and some how that the Pakistan military were indispensable allies of the USA, "You need us sahib".............rather than say that America was over there in North America, run by Jews, and Pakistan was in South Asia run by Pak Muslims.........oil and water .
To be sure the obvious point is that the failure of Afghanistan currently falls squarely on the shoulders of the Occupation Forces under America, and their lust for narcotics (the perennial Jew side business from Rabbi's to their children), and other such things using highly dubious characters to run Afghanistan...........Pakistan has little say or control over such failure IN AFGHANISTAN, BUT the decisions and actions and choices of the Pakistan military over the better part of 30 years in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in pursuing essentially Western policies repackaged as pan-Islamic nationalism, and funded by the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, the Pakistan military MAKE IT ALL TOO EASY FOR THE WEST to paint Pakistan as the current number one hub for global Islamic terrorism.
The military can easily and clearly rectify this negative situation by doing what I have suggested; points 1---8)
The danger of complete Pakistani surrender to an imposed war is heightened because of signs that Washington is using Pakistan’s flawed democracy as a tool to meddle and to keep Pakistan politically unstable. In the past week, our politics sunk to a new low when our President was reported to have secretly met a senior American bureaucrat in Dubai without the knowledge of any Pakistani except his American mediator, our ambassador in Washington. Have we turned into a banana republic? I am posing this question because not all of us accept it and we never signed up for this.
(Of the fact that Zardari is Washington's puppet there is no doubt. Washington destabilized Busharaf, and maneuvered Zardari into power using elements of the Pakistan military and ISI. Busharaf for all his faults brought a certain degree of discipline into Pakistan society which the Americans do not want, as the ideal pre-condition before invading the country, and securing the nukes for Israel. If Pakistan is stable it can't be labeled a failed state which is about to be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists. ..............the causus belli which allows the USA to slowly encroach on Pakistan's sovereignty, and eventually invade.
For This reason Zardari must go, asap.
I do not know, but certainly possible that Zardari would do such a thing against Pakistan. The man was a small time gangster at one time, who has done prison time for a variety of charges. He has no political base inside Pakistan....non........so his ascendancy into political power is the result of naivety on the part of Pakistan's voters, and the misjudgment of the Pakistan People Party in choosing him over other genuinely talented men and women in that Party of ZA Bhutto.....they certainly could have done better.
Finally the active support of the UK and USA...............if we observe where Zardari holds ALL his key political meetings, Dubai and London.....just shameful that any decent Pakistani would meet and even talk with such a criminal.
Zardari is not the main cause of Pakistan turning into a banana republic in the long term............its the fault of the Pakistan military and the wananbe Napoleon's within its ranks starting from General Iskander Mirza..........Field -Marshal Ayub Khan....General Yahya Khan..............General Zia-ul-Haq...........General Busharaf. Zardari the one time small time gangster who has done prison time, and has $3 billion of Pakistan's money stashed away in foreign accounts is the final "FRUITION" of this long term banana republic syndrome and curse essentially created by the Pakistan military......, and not just Zardari the final manifestation of this long process, in power for a few months so far from September 2008 (7 months).
If our government is honest with Pakistanis and has not just sold us for a few billion dollars, someone in this government should have the courage to declare that Washington does not have the right to equate Pakistan with a failed state like the U.S.-occupied and administered Afghanistan.
(Name calling is not a problem, but it's what governments actually DO negatively that is. If America is destabilizing Pakistan thats an actual problem. If America is attacking sovereign Pakistan territory and killing its civilians thats a problem. If America is subverting the Pakistan political system, and backing out right criminals into power, thats a problem.......BUT name calling is the least bit of the problem. I think according to wikipedia, and its sources Afghanistan is failed state 7, and Pakistan number 9 from the bottom---situation in Pakistan deteriorating since 2006, when America destabilised Busharaf)
Someone should also have the courage to say that we will henceforth not entertain any ‘Af-Pak special coordinators’.
(Especially if that coordinator is Jewish, and has a history of enforcing and legitimating failed balkanised narco states run by the USA. And additionally who is that someone you talk about who must shoulder the burden?...Zardari?.......till hell freezes over...........the responsibility falls on the military, the Pakistan military.......the 800,000 men in it backed by 300,000 paramilitary. )
Additionally, we in Pakistan must keep an equal distance from all players inside Afghanistan. But at the same time we should say it without embarrassment that we have no strategic conflict of interest with one of the key Afghan parties – the Afghan Taliban – just because America and its puppet regime in Kabul have problems with them. Why should we pick up a fight that is not ours? Sure, Al Qaeda are our enemies and we have killed so many important ones among them that our intentions here cannot be questioned. But it is not Pakistan’s responsibility to eliminate the Afghan Taliban. The Americans must bring them on board in Kabul.
(Thats going to be tough. The Pakistan military have been involved in Afghanistan for the better part of 30 years and to ween them off Afghanistan is going to require a lot of self imposed discipline, and the equally all important non interference in Afghan affairs by other regional countries like Iran, India, Russia and China....if the Pakistanis see these other countries getting involved in Afghanistan's affairs it will be natural that the Pakistani military will also want to get involved.Once Afghanistan lost its isolationist position in 1973 with the over throw of the king, things fundamentally changed in Afghan affairs.
As to Pakistan being a "slave soldier" of America and combating the "al-Qaeda' for America; But really how many of the 650 that your country handed over to America were actual terrorists members or mere innocent bystanders being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and subsequently released by the Americans, or not put on trial by the Americans because there was no case against them in a normal court of law in the USA?
Did not the Pakistan military use Bin Laden to wage Jehad against the Shia in various parts of the NWFP, and Northern territories in the late 1980's and nineties?
Did not the Pakistan military clearly invite these misguided young men over to Pakistan from their Muslim countries to fight for a just cause as Islamic holy warriors, along side the Afghan mujaheddin, against the infidel Soviets?
Did not the Pakistan military use the remaining foreign jehadi fighters to support the Taliban, to consolidate Afghanistan under their control from 1994?
Did not the Pakistan military create the "al-Qaeda" myth, speaking about the organization as if it actually existed, just like you Ahmed, senior generals like Mahmud going over to the USA and conducting meetings with senior American officials as if the organization actually existed............................................then the Jews carry out 9/11 and because of this Jew lie, the Pakistan military kill and capture "al-Qaeda" members for America......what does that say about the Pakistan military? Chamar,chamcha chauds.)
Washington and its list of ‘Af-Pak’ experts should stop treating our region as a laboratory for their strategic experiments.
(If the Pakistan military didn't collaborate with the Americans as their "slave soldiers" in the first place, there would be no opportunity for the Americans, or British or the Israelis to carry out their strategic experiments in and around your country.
Ahmed why do you hope for and expect good from the JEWUSA, and UK and Israel? Is this ISI naivety or stupidity or logic? Surely the first objective for Pakistan is the protection of Pakistan from their "good intentions")
Instead of toying with silly ideas like backing ‘secular Pashtuns’ against the Taliban, the Americans can diffuse the entire tension in our region by sharing power with the Pashtuns in Kabul instead of the motley crew of Karzai, the drug lords and the assortment of former communist officials who sit in key offices today.
(I've not heard of this. If the Americans are backing secular Afghans/Pashtuns as a counter balance to the Afghan Taliban than that is real progress which I would support. If the scheme is not to create more strife between Afghans than I for one support it. If the Americans are seriously proposing to make Afghanistan work for America using viable realistic personalities instead of cartoon cutout joker characters than I support this American initiative
...........remove Karzai, remove his brother the biggest Narcotics operator in Afghanistan; remove the narco warlords and their private militias; invest in the whole of Afghanistan, not just Kabul and its corrupt bureaucrats; bolster the Afghan security services and let them do most of the anti-insurgency operations defending their country, rather than follow the South Vietnam failed model.)
This American-British mess – the ‘Am-Brit’ – is the reason why Pakistan’s entire western regions are disturbed today. And Pakistan has conclusive evidence that confirms that someone is busy ‘convincing’ us that the ‘Am-Brit’ scheme of things is the best option for us. The wave of terrorism in Pakistan, including yesterday’s attack in Lahore, should be viewed as part of the subtle attempts to ‘convince’ Pakistan. The question is: Whose side our government is on?
(Zardari is on the side of America for what ever $ he can get and the Americans are throwing quite few $ in his direction if you noticed recently. This also suggests the situation is desperate for the Americans for what reason I do not know, and that they are very keen to support Zardari.
The American-British mess in the Western regions of Pakistan is only possible because of the collaboration of the Pakistan military as "slave -soldiers" of their policy culminating over 30 years, not yesterday. It can still be resolved by the Pakistan military top brass if they choose to save Pakistan decisively or choose to sink slowly into the American-British quagmire.............they must choose soon.)
