Category — Terrorism

By Ikramullah
The writer is the president of the Pakistan Nation Forum.
There was a bomb blast in Peshawar on Friday killing more than 50 innocent people and injuring over 100. This was followed on Saturday by another blast near GHQ in Rawalpindi killing some security personnel, besides injuring a number of civilians in the most sensitive security zone of Rawalpindi. What follows when and where is anybody’s guess. After the defeat of the Taliban in Swat, it is clear that the stage has already been set for a military operation in FATA to put a final end to their strategic design, which was to destabilise Pakistan.
It is significant that at this critical juncture when the armed forces need total and undivided support of the whole nation, so vital for the success of the critical impending operations in South Waziristan, the political horizon in the country seems muddled with the haze of confusion and uncertainty in the shape of deep divisions amongst the four provinces on every major issue. The law and order situation has resulted in the postponement of the by-elections in two national and two provincial constituencies of the Punjab. If this continues, the holding of general or even mid-term elections, is a far cry. This does not augur well for democracy taking roots in Pakistan, much less any indicators of its forward march under the so-called Charter of Democracy (COD). According to independent political observers, the COD lost its spirit with the assassination of PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto and which is no more than a piece of paper.
Right at this moment when the nation is at its most critical crossroads, appears the ghost of Prince Hamlet on the horizon of Pakistan in the shape of the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) as a bolt from the blue, shattering the nation as if by a storm.
I have never seen this nation so deeply divided. Without going into the merits/demerits of this so-called Enhanced Aid Package to Pakistan tripling the present assistance by USA in the civilian sector with the conditions attached it has become a major bone of contention.
The recent core commanders’ meeting held under the chairmanship of the COAS found it necessary to express their deep concern over the clauses included in KLB connected with Pakistan’s national security. This indicates that the defence forces, responsible for the territorial integrity of Pakistan and even more important the command and control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, were not taken on board during the processing of the bill which has taken more than a year in preparing the final draft for approval by the US Senate and the House of Representatives. It is now awaiting the formal signature of the US president before it becomes a law, as a result of the bill resuming the new title of a US Act of Congress. It is no secret that the incumbent leadership as well as our ambassador in Washington were involved in the preparation of various drafts that were amended several times with joint consultations. Therefore, let us not kid ourselves with the claim that KLB is a purely US Congress Legislation which has nothing to do with Islamabad. No one will buy that.
In a meeting with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani in Lahore the other day, I pointed out that it is not just out of fear of the bill impinging upon the nation’s sovereignty, but primarily because it imposes strong checks on the country’s security and nuclear capability. I, therefore, strongly recommended to the prime minister that the bill should be placed before Parliament for scrutiny, so that the Congress is apprised of the sentiments of the Pakistani nation with regard to the implications of the three certifications that Secretary Clinton is required to provide to the Congressional Committees. The Parliament is the only and best possible democratic forum to finally decide the fate of the Bill. And also fix responsibility for the role and influence exercised by some major players during its preparation. This is a defining moment for Parliament upon which may depend the future course of our democratic journey towards the goal of a modern, independent, democratic and Islamic welfare state.www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/11-Oct-2009/A-defining-moment-for-Pakistan

Terrorism’s endless cycle: edit in The Nation
YET another suicide blast, in a busy commercial area, has devastated Peshawar, causing the deaths of precious innocent lives and destruction of property. This attack has come barely a fortnight after an earlier suicide blast, also in a busy commercial area. The attack reflects the growing concentration of terrorists in the areas around the urban capital of the NWFP. Military actions in Swat and Malakand have only moved the terrorists to other areas since no effort was made to prevent their escape during the course of the action. Even more reckless has been the absence of the civilian law and order and administrative structures to ensure that criminal elements and militants do not escape and merge into the population. That is precisely what has happened and what is required is a strong civil-law enforcement approach to dealing with the terrorists in and around the urban centres of the NWFP.
Unfortunately, the interior minister has jumped on the latest Peshawar tragedy to seek a pretext for a full-fledged military operation in South Waziristan. This is what the US has been demanding of the Pakistan military but the latter has sensibly sought to delay this while it adopts indirect strategies which combine targeted attacks along with covert destabilisation from within of the militant organisations. Military operations of themselves will never resolve the terrorism issue, but it is a “quick fix” – albeit a temporary one – the Americans are so fond of. But the costs of such a policy in isolation are tremendous. Already, new issues are arising relating to death and destruction in Swat. Bullet-ridden bodies are being found and corpses dumped on the roadside are being discovered, undermining claims of normalcy having returned to the area. Clashes between the military and militants also continue and the PAF continues to bomb hideouts in the peripheral areas of FATA. In all this, the central question also continues to persist: How will the state know when “all the Taliban” are finished?
The reality is that the military operation has not ended the terrorism, merely shifted its location. In the process, more and more innocent Pakistani lives are being lost all around. There is a need, as has continuously been reiterated in this space, for seeking to dialogue with the militants who are prepared to lay down their arms and accept the writ of the state – now that they are seeing the military’s resolve to strike against them decisively. Negotiations backed by force are still the only way to move if recent global examples are a guide – from Ireland to Indonesia. Meanwhile, the government should also realize that the increasing belligerency of the US towards Pakistan is a source of creating more space for militants. With US failure in Afghanistan writ large, the continuing terrorism in Pakistan and Iraq, it boggles the mind to discover President Obama being awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Where is the peace he has fashioned?

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/10-Oct-2009/Terrorisms-endless-cycle

Peshawar bleeds: edit in The News
There was a depressing, appalling, familiarity about the news that a car bomb had exploded in the busy Khyber bazaar area of Peshawar around noon on Friday. Friday; a time of prayer and peaceful reflection and celebration of the Muslim faith across the country, but seems to be the favourite day for those whose deadly business is to terrorise us. At the time of writing there are at least 42 dead and 54 injured with an estimated twenty of those injured being in critical condition. The numbers of dead and injured will inevitably rise. Rescue services are calling it the ‘worst blast we have ever seen’. Interior Minister Rehman Malik was swift to condemn the atrocity and said that the long-promised operation in Waziristan was ‘imminent’. Local business men speaking on private TV channels spoke of their frustration and anger at the way in which their lives and livelihoods were being destroyed and of their desire to leave the city as attempting to carry on business was pointless – and carried with it an unacceptable level of risk. There is understandable confusion about the type of device that caused this carnage, but the opinion seems to be that it was a suicide bomb, probably carried in a car which may have been moving at the time of the blast and the Khyber bazaar may not have been the intended target.

There will be entirely predictable statements that there has been a security lapse or failure and this that or the other agency has failed in its duty to protect the public. The bombers should have been spotted at any one of the numerous checkpoints that ring the city. Intelligence should have been better. CCTV cameras should have recorded them…all will be cited as a failure of the systems set up to protect the citizenry. All will miss the point that NWFP is a war-zone, not merely the site of what may euphemistically be termed an ‘insurgency’ – but an area where a fully-fledged war is being fought. It is a war fought by combatants who in one case may have signed the Geneva Convention on the conduct of warfare but have little care for it; and in the other the Geneva Convention is something they have never heard of. Civilian casualties are as much a part of the war in NWFP as were the thousands of refugees who died when the Allies firebombed Dresden in the Second World War or the civilians who were fried to a crisp in Hiroshima.

This is a war being fought with a ferocity that is increasing by the day and short of putting the entire city on lock-down there is probably little the civil or military authorities can do to stop the carnage. Realistically, there will be intelligence successes that we may not hear about, and operations that net the bombers and terrorists, but there will always be one that gets through. Such is the nature of warfare. This is a war that we cannot afford to lose no matter the attrition. It is our war, no matter how it gets ‘dressed up’ for political purposes. Ours to win and ours to lose. Now is the time for us to stand against the bombers and the gunmen, to expose them, reveal their dark plots and evil designs. More of us will die doing so, but stand we must. http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=202514

Lahore: A suicide car bomb exploded in a crowded market in the northwestern city of Peshawar yesterday, killing at least 49 people — an attack that the Government said could bring forward a planned army assault on the militant stronghold of South Waziristan.
The bomber detonated a car packed full of explosives and artillery shells around midday in the Khyber Bazaar commercial neighbourhood.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, blamed the Pakistani Taleban, who have repeatedly threatened to take revenge for the killing of Baitullah Mehsud, their leader, in a US drone strike in August. “We will take a decision on the operation against terrorists over the next few days,” he said.
However, analysts say that the army is unlikely to bring forward the operation because of a single bombing: this was the sixth in Peshawar in four months. There are, though, fears that the timing and the scope of the operation could be affected by the Pakistani military’s objections to conditions attached to a new $7.5 billion (£4.7bn) US aid bill. The United States wants the army to attack not only the Pakistani Taleban but also other militants in the area who cross the Afghan border to attack Nato and US troops. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6867649.ece

By Christi Parsons and Paul Richter
Washington: President Obama and his top advisors are moving toward a strategy on Afghanistan that defines Al Qaeda as a greater threat to U.S. security than the Taliban, a view that could help them avoid the major troop increase sought by military commanders.

The evolving strategy represents a subtle shift for the administration, which has considered Osama bin Laden’s network its top enemy while viewing the Taliban as a close ally of Al Qaeda that supports its ambitions. White House officials now are taking pains to make distinctions between the two groups, branding Al Qaeda a global terrorist group and the Taliban a local movement.

Such a strategy could let U.S.-led forces concentrate on their successful strategy of using unmanned aircraft and missile strikes against Al Qaeda operatives and outposts in the remote region along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

A senior administration official indicated that in the fight against the Taliban, at a minimum the extremists would not be allowed to regain the strength to control Afghanistan or offer help to Al Qaeda, whose leadership is thought to be based in Pakistan.

“Are they violent adversaries? Yes,” the official wrote of the Taliban in an e-mail exchange. “And we would not tolerate their return to power as they were before 9/11.”

The new emphasis rekindled an 8-year-old debate about how closely Al Qaeda and the Taliban are aligned. Many experts agree they are distinct, but others see them as virtually interchangeable sets of militants.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration considered Al Qaeda a “global, transnational, jihadist movement” that has attacked the U.S. before and would again.

The Taliban, meanwhile, is an “indigenous” movement centered in Afghanistan and Pakistan that includes “homegrown political actors with localized ambitions and concerns,” the senior administration official said.

In comments this summer, Obama indicated that the administration saw a link between the two groups.

In an address Aug. 17 to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Obama said:

“We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”

Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran who led the Obama administration’s overhaul of its Afghanistan and Pakistan policies this year, said it was “a fundamental misreading of the nature of these organizations to think that they are anything other than partners.”

“Al Qaeda is embedded in the Taliban insurgency, and it’s highly unlikely that you’re going to be able to separate them,” he said.

Obama meets today with national security advisors as part of his review of Afghanistan strategy, and officials said he is at least a week away from any decisions on a new U.S. policy or troop levels. Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has recommended sending up to 40,000 American troops, in addition to the 68,000 already there.

Top administration officials are skeptical about sending so many troops without a close examination of U.S. aims. That view has been influenced by a series of dismal developments, including the extremist violence in Afghanistan, a fraud-tainted presidential election there, and plummeting support for the war among the U.S. public and lawmakers.

Influential Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed unease about a strategy that requires a major increase in the number of troops. But it is far from clear that they would undercut Obama by refusing an administration request for funds to pay for the conflict.

“People are unsure what do to,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a critic of the war who gathered more than 50 signatures on a letter to Obama opposing a troop increase. “I think people want to give the president more space and wait for his decision. But I thought it was important to try to send something to him before a final decision is made to let him know there is a lot of concern.”

Daniel Markey, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the White House emphasis on Al Qaeda may be a sign that the administration is unlikely to send the full complement of troops sought by McChrystal. The views of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are “presumably an argument for why a heavy emphasis on Afghanistan and the Taliban is misplaced,” said Markey, a former State Department official.

The Taliban inserted itself into the debate this week by posting a statement in English on one of its websites asserting that the group poses no threat to the West.

“We did not have any agenda to harm other countries, including Europe, nor do we have such agenda today,” said the statement, according to a report in the British newspaper the Guardian. “Still, if you want to turn the country of the proud and pious Afghans into a colony, then know that we have an unwavering determination and have braced for a prolonged war.”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, in an appearance at George Washington University this week, said it was unclear whether Al Qaeda would move back into Afghanistan if given the opportunity.

But he added, “There’s no question in my mind that if the Taliban . . . took control of significant portions of Afghanistan, that would be added space for Al Qaeda to strengthen itself and [begin] more recruitment, more fundraising.”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton views the Taliban as a foe as well.

“They’re not just a threat to the people of Afghanistan,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Thursday. “The Taliban hosted and encouraged Al Qaeda. And the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — the idea for them — was hatched in the Taliban-run Afghanistan. So I think that we do see the Taliban as a threat to U.S. security for that reason.”

A strategy centered on eliminating extremist enclaves in Pakistan carries additional risks. Though the U.S. and the Pakistani government have been successful in killing senior insurgents, U.S. officials acknowledge that they have limited influence in Pakistan. The U.S. strategy of using drone airstrikes there is deeply unpopular with Pakistanis.

This week, even U.S. aid sparked controversy. Pakistani political figures and military leaders were offended by the strings attached to a just- approved $1.5-billion-a-year aid package, and some have been pressing for revision of the U.S. legislation. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-afghan9-2009oct09,0,4418683,print.story

By Anna Husarska
( the author is senior policy advisor at the International Rescue Committee).
Writing From Mingora, Pakistan: The drawing shows three boys in traditional Pakistani long shirts, shalwar kameez, crying and holding banners that read “We want peace,” “Not the peaces [sic] of human bodies” and, in Arabic script, “Aman” — Pashto for “peace.” On the left of the group, two hooded men (members of the Taliban, one presumes) carry swords; on the right, two figures in uniform carry guns (Pakistani army, one guesses). In the foreground, a hooded figure holds down a person who is pleading, “Please let me go; I have small children.”

This was a drawing by a schoolgirl named Sheema for an end-of-Ramadan competition in Mingora, the main town of Pakistan’s Swat Valley in the North-West Frontier Province. The scene depicting her hometown this spring — civilians caught between the militants and the army — illustrates the huge human cost of the operation by the Pakistan army against the Taliban. And the suffering is far from over. After a week of talking to people living in the Swat Valley, displaced from Swat or working in Swat, I can attest that Sheema got it exactly right.

The tragedy of more than 2 million people being displaced in less than two months may have vanished from the headlines, but the civilian drama continues. If there is less attention to their needs, it’s partly because it’s still hard for anyone other than the armed forces or a native Swati to reach most of the district north of Mingora. The army can take foreign journalists on periodic tours of the “cleared” areas in the south but rarely in the north, where the situation remains uncertain. One thing is obvious: Beyond Mingora, the Swat Valley is still an insecure place.

The Pakistanis themselves have concerns for the collateral damage that the offensive has caused: A visit by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan resulted in a strongly worded report about mass graves and extrajudicial “revenge” killings. And last week, the Pakistani daily Dawn and others reported that a 10-minute video apparently showing Pakistani soldiers beating men detained in anti-militant operations had surfaced on the Internet. The army is investigating.

If the restrictions caused by emergency army administration — such as curfews and checkpoints — are a nuisance and add risks for civilians, anger against the militants is rising too. The displaced return to areas promised to be “cleared” of militants, only to find it may not be so. People fear that if they are seen during daytime (from the hills where the militants tend to hide) having contact with any army or government personnel, the Taliban will come down at night to exact a heavy price on them.

Close to Peshawar, in Mardan, I met with some of the displaced people who have found temporary shelter there — they number more than 1,000. Fourteen of the families are redisplaced — i.e. they tried to return home and found it impossible to live there. What 35-year-old Selma mentions is typical: Before the army’s action, her daughters could not go to school because of Taliban-imposed rules, and one brother’s shop was judged un-Islamic — for selling clothes catering to women — and destroyed. Now the daughters cannot go to school because of the army-imposed curfew, and the army told her brothers to dismantle the homes of suspected militants (which exposes them to revenge). So after one month spent back in Charbagh, a former Taliban stronghold, the family opted to flee yet again.

The situation in other parts of the North-West Frontier Province remains unstable. Reporting about a militant attack in a market last month in Kohat, a local Pakistani newspaper wrote that for several hours after the blast, “an enraged crowd did not allow the bomb-disposal squad to enter the market.” How huge must be the people’s grief, and animosity toward those responsible for the mayhem, for them to shoo away Samaritans coming to rescue their loved ones.

The message in Sheema’s drawing gets confirmed with every conversation I have with those who fled the Swat Valley. It resonates across the troubled province, where another major anti-Taliban assault by the army is brewing, this time on the militant stronghold of South Waziristan. Hundreds of thousands more civilians may be forced to flee, caught between the army and the Taliban.

However, in Mingora and the territory just south of it, ringed by army checkpoints and crawling with street patrols, many wish for a civilian administration — a sign that things could be genuinely stabilizing. The army is beginning to draw back in Mingora and hand over security to the police. There too I find a beaming principal of a private girls school, Ziauddin Yousafzai, whose enthusiasm over the “clearance” of Mingora is contagious. And his pupil, Sheema, has another, more hopeful drawing showing her high school reopened and boys and girls holding hands and smiling. Were it that the rest of the Swat Valley could hold hands and smile. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-husarska7-2009oct07,0,2648217,print.story

Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram tell Indian Express
Excerpts from interaction with editors of the daily
•AMITABH SINHA: What were the specific results achieved during your recent US visit?
Much has been made of the Hafiz Saeed chapter but it was only one small part of the agenda. The main purpose of the visit was to work out an arrangement by which we can share intelligence on a real time basis and then to share analysis of intelligence. We also discussed access to technology. We need technology; we need to improve the skill sets of our people. Then there was the very important need to get to know the important people in the US on a personal basis. I believe the objectives were substantially achieved.

•RITU SARIN: Is there a qualitative difference in the nature of evidence we have against Hafiz Saeed and the evidence we have handed over to Pakistan on other 26/11 accused?
Yes, because Hafiz Saeed did not come to India. All his overt actions were done on Pakistan soil. So all I can give are leads as to what he did. The evidence is on Pakistan soil. If the Pakistan government throws up its hands and says it cannot or it is unwilling to investigate on Pakistan soil, that is a very sad commentary on the Pakistan police.

•AMITABH SINHA: You mean there is no evidence against him as of now and Pakistan will have to investigate further?
There are leads which amount to evidence. For example, when Kasab said Hafiz Saeed asked a man to set up 10 targets and asked each one of them to hit the targets and he was given target No 4 and he hit target No 4 and Hafiz Saeed personally complimented him on his accurate firing, that is a lead bordering on evidence which has to be substantiated by locating the place where the target practice took place, by talking to the people involved, by investigation. If these are confirmed, it is hard evidence.

•PRANAB DHAL SAMANTA: Is there any possibility of a joint investigation with Pakistan?
No more investigation needs to be done on Indian soil. We have filed the chargesheet, the trial is well on its way and is about to be concluded. All the investigation that has to be done now is on Pakistan soil. FBI asked for access, they (Pakistan) denied it. If they did not give access to FBI which is obliged to investigate the attacks since six American nationals were killed in 26/11, what chance do we have?

•AMITABH SINHA: So what is the way out?
I see the tunnel. I don’t see the end of the tunnel yet. We have a Letter Rogatory for Hafiz Saeed. We will follow the processes of law which are available to us. At some point of time, the Pakistan Government, I hope, will fall in line and investigate and help us gain access to the evidence of that investigation.

•RITU SARIN: At some stage, India will have to take a call on the nine bodies of the 26/11 perpetrators lying in cold storage in Mumbai.
What do we do? No Muslim organisation is willing to take those bodies and bury them. Pakistan has grudgingly accepted that some of them maybe Pakistani nationals. There must be some organisation which is willing to come forward to bury them and we are willing to work with them. They are dead and deserve a decent burial.

•MANU PUBBY: There has not been any major terrorist strike since the Mumbai attack. What has changed on the ground?
I don’t think there is any let-up in the plans of militant organisations in Pakistan, especially LeT and JeM. I think they continue to plan and plot. What has changed is that our intelligence sharing is now on a real-time basis and the level of alertness, vigilance of states is much better. We are proactively seeking out cells and modules to neutralise them. Let me say very candidly that while effort plays a big part, luck also pays a big part. We have to be ever vigilant and we have to raise our level of preparedness.

•VAIBHAV VATS: Is there any thought being given to repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)?
We are proposing amendments to the AFSPA. As far as the presence of security forces in Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, I have said on the border, the army will be present. The paramilitary will be deployed in the hinterland to aid and assist the state police. And the state police will take the frontline in maintaining law and order.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/521990

By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI
The New York Times, Sept 24
WASHINGTON — Senior Taliban leaders, showing a surprising level of sophistication and organization, are using their sanctuary in Pakistan to stoke a widening campaign of violence in northern and western Afghanistan, senior American military and intelligence officials say.
The Taliban’s expansion into parts of Afghanistan that it once had little influence over comes as the Obama administration is struggling to settle on a new military strategy for Afghanistan, and as the White House renews its efforts to get Pakistan’s government to be more aggressive about killing or capturing Taliban leaders inside Pakistan.
American military and intelligence officials, who insisted on anonymity because they were discussing classified information, said the Taliban’s leadership council, led by Mullah Muhammad Omar and operating around the southern Pakistani city of Quetta, was directly responsible for a wave of violence in once relatively placid parts of northern and western Afghanistan. A recent string of attacks killed troops from Italy and Germany, pivotal American allies that are facing strong opposition to the Afghan war at home.
These assessments echo a recent report by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, in portraying the Taliban as an increasingly sophisticated shadow government that sees itself on the cusp of victory in the war-ravaged nation.
General McChrystal’s report describes how Mullah Omar’s insurgency has appointed shadow governors in most provinces of Afghanistan, levies taxes, establishes Islamic courts there and conducts a formal review of its military campaign each winter.
American officials say they believe that the Taliban leadership in Pakistan still gets support from parts of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s military spy service. The ISI has been the Taliban’s off-again-on-again benefactor for more than a decade, and some of its senior officials see Mullah Omar as a valuable asset should the United States leave Afghanistan and the Taliban regain power.
The issue of the Taliban leadership council, or shura, in Quetta is now at the top of the Obama administration’s agenda in its meetings with Pakistani officials.
At the same time, American officials face a frustrating paradox: the more the administration wrestles publicly with how substantial and lasting a military commitment to make to Afghanistan, the more the ISI is likely to strengthen bonds to the Taliban as Pakistan hedges its bets.
American officials have long complained that senior Taliban leaders operating from Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan Province, provide money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan, where most of the nearly 68,000 American forces are deployed.
But since NATO’s offensive into the Taliban-dominated south this spring, the insurgents have surprised American commanders by stepping up attacks against allied troops elsewhere in the country to throw NATO off balance and create the perception of spreading violence that neither the allied military nor the civilian Afghan government in Kabul can control.
“The Taliban is trying to create trouble elsewhere to alleviate pressure” in the south, said one senior American intelligence official. “They’ve outmaneuvered us time and time again.”
The issue has opened fresh rifts between the United States and Pakistan over how to combat the Taliban leadership council in Quetta. American officials have voiced new and unusually public criticism of Pakistan’s role in abetting the growing Afghan insurgency, reviving tensions that seemed to have eased after the two countries worked closely to track and kill Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, in an American missile strike in Pakistan’s tribal areas last month.
General McChrystal said in his assessment, which was made public on Monday, “Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with Al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups,” and are reportedly aided by “some elements” of the ISI.
The United States ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, said in a recent interview with the McClatchy newspapers that the Pakistani government was “certainly reluctant to take action” against the leadership of the Afghan insurgency.
Pakistani officials take issue with that, adding that the United States overstates the threat posed by the Quetta shura, possibly because the American understanding of the situation is distorted by vague and self-serving intelligence provided by Afghanistan’s spy service.
A senior Pakistani official said that the United States had asked Pakistan in recent years to round up 10 Taliban leaders in Quetta. Of those 10, 6 were killed or captured by the Pakistanis, 2 were probably in Afghanistan and the remaining 2 presented no threat.
“Pakistan has said it’s willing to act when given actionable intelligence,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. “We have made substantial progress in the last year or so against the Quetta shura.”
Pakistani officials also said that a move against militant leaders in Quetta risked inciting public anger throughout Baluchistan, a region that has long had a tense relationship with Pakistan’s government in Islamabad.
Mullah Omar, a reclusive cleric, recently rallied his troops with a boastful message timed for the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr.
In the message, he taunted his American adversaries for ignoring the lessons of past military failures in Afghanistan, including the invasion of Alexander the Great’s army.
And he bragged that the Taliban had emerged as a nationalistic movement that “is approaching the edge of victory.”
A half-dozen American military, intelligence and diplomatic officials said in interviews that the Taliban leadership in Baluchistan, which abuts the portion of southern Afghanistan where most of the fighting is taking place, is increasing its strategic direction over the insurgency.
“The Taliban inner shura in Baluchistan is certainly trying to exercise greater command and control over the Taliban in Afghanistan,” said one American official in Afghanistan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because his assessment involved classified intelligence.
The official said that Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a former inmate at the American military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who is now a top Taliban lieutenant, was involved in replacing Taliban shadow governors and commanders, as well as reorganizing the Taliban throughout the country. “The Quetta shura — you can’t knock on their clubhouse door,” a Western diplomat said. “It’s much more of an amorphous group that as best we can tell moves around. They go to Karachi, they go to Quetta, they go across the border.”
American officials grudgingly acknowledge the Taliban’s skill at using guerrilla-style attacks to manipulate public impressions of the insurgency. “We assess that the primary focus of attacks in northern provinces such as Kunduz is to create a perception that the insurgency is spreading like wildfire,” the American official in Afghanistan said. “But I think it’s more of an ‘information operations’ success than a substantive one of holding any territory.”
Another American intelligence official who follows Pakistan closely said the insurgents had sought to exploit allied countries’ political vulnerabilities, like elections in Germany on Sunday. “The Taliban have proven themselves capable of strategic planning,” the official said.
General McChrystal said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that he had been surprised by “the growth of the shadow government, the growth of its coercion and its growth into the north and west.”
Germany, which has suffered 33 combat deaths in Afghanistan, has remained committed to the Afghan mission, although it has placed strict limits on where its soldiers can serve, refusing to send them to the south.
But that commitment is now being hotly debated in the coming parliamentary elections, after an airstrike called in by a German commander this month. The NATO airstrike, directed at two tanker trucks carrying alliance fuel that had been hijacked by the Taliban, killed scores of people; the number of dead civilians remains unclear.
Other allies are also rethinking their presence in Afghanistan. A bomb that killed six Italian soldiers in Kabul last Thursday prompted Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy to declare that his nation had begun planning to “bring our young men home as soon as possible.” Italy has 3,100 troops in Afghanistan. www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/asia/24military.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

By Salim Saifullah Khan
The writer is a senator and a former federal minister
Balochistan is the most serious crisis confronting Pakistan today. The grievances of the Baloch are well known to all, and yet no strategy has been adopted to remove them.

One word that defines the Gilani government is procrastination. On assumption of power in March last year, he offered the nation his 100 days plan, in which he also promised that the Concurrent List would be abolished within 12 months and the provinces would be given autonomy in accordance with the Constitution and the provinces and rights over their own resources. It is 18 months since then and no real movement has been made in any direction with the result that the patience of Baloch leaders is wearing thin and extremist elements are replacing the moderate leadership.

The tardy manner the issue is being addressed shows both the government’s ineptitude and its inefficiency. Each passing day is making the problems more intractable.

Recently, presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar assured the nation that “a serious rethinking is already under way.” On April 22 last year, Zardari had also set up a National Reconciliation Committee for Balochistan. Its mandate was to have an in-depth study of issues such as provincial autonomy, Balochistan’s share in national resources, good governance, poverty-alleviation, an end to political persecution, tracing of missing persons, rule of law and relations between the province and the federation. The committee held only one meeting and lapsed into oblivion. I hope the present exercise doesn’t meet a similar fate.

It is unfortunate that the present government, with the largest cabinet in Pakistan’s history, has not yet appointed a minister for inter-provincial coordination. In the past inter-provincial coordination was considered an important portfolio. PPP stalwarts like Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Rafi Raza held this portfolio. As minister for inter-provincial coordination during the last government, I had the opportunity to deal with the Balochistan Issue in all aspects and based on my personal knowledge, experience and contacts with Baloch leadership I can say confidently that the Baloch question is not intractable and can be solved if there is political will.

This brief account amply show why the Baloch leadership is so frustrated and doesn’t trust Islamabad. In the last 18 months the Baloch leadership has received only pious words and expressions of good intentions, which were not followed up by action. Time is of the essence. Governor Magsi has rightly warned the government that “the province will get out of control if the federal government did not take immediate corrective measures. How the situation is taking an ugly turn is evident from the unilateral “Declaration of Independence of Balochistan” by Prince Dawood Sulaiman, the Khan of Kalat, August 11. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=198806

By Talat Masood
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general of Pakistan
When the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) coalition government assumed power in 2008, it provided President Zardari with an excellent opportunity to focus on Balochistan. Initially, he did raise hopes when, as head of PPP and being of Baloch descent, he made a public apology for all the wrong doings of the past against the Baloch people. This was followed by further conciliatory gestures by both the president and prime minister which resulted in the release of political detainees and a relatively relaxed political environment. Sadly, the momentum was lost and the province is once again adrift with insurgency taking a turn for the worse, as was evident on the third death anniversary of Nawab Akbar Bugti when the province came to a grinding halt.

Prior to the assassination of Akbar Bugti, the insurgency was primarily centered on Dera Bugti, but after his death it has spread beyond the tribal belt into settled areas of Makran, Sarawan and Jhalawan divisions. In fact, there is an on-going operation in Makran division. Target killings are on the rise and Shias and Punjabis are the main victims. In addition, gas pipelines and high-voltage transmission grids are being blown up, and the armed forces are being targeted. All three militant nationalist movements — the Balochistan Liberation Army, Baloch Republican Army and the Baloch Front are now engaged in low-level insurgency operations and are closely cooperating with one another in attacking military installations and civilian targets.

The Baloch nationalist leaders believe that the present civilian government, even if it wants to pursue a policy of reconciliation, will not succeed as the real policy is still being determined by the military intelligence as was the case during General Musharraf’s period. The Baloch leadership believes that the establishment is not prepared to shed control over their rich resources and there is lack of confidence between the state institutions and the province’s political elite.

Regrettably, the Baloch leadership also does not have much to offer. Tribal chiefs have been mistreating their own people and failing miserably while in office. They are rightly accused of deliberately mismanaging provincial resources and development funds. In fact, they have deliberately kept the people backward by not promoting education, failing to build hospitals and creating physical infrastructure. On the other hand, Balochi nationalists and tribal chiefs claim that the federal government has deprived them of their normal democratic rights and has taken control of their natural resources, thus throttling the Balochs economically and politically.

Extensive involvement of the military and age-old tribal customs has prevented normal political evolution in the province. Practically all Baloch nationalist parties that have a large following and include the Jamhoori Watan Party, Balochistan National party, National party and the Haq Tawar Party boycotted the last national and provincial elections. The current provincial assembly draws its strength more from the establishment than from the people. With politics and governance of the province being managed from outside, the representative character of the provincial government is indeed questionable.

General Musharraf erred by ordering a military operation against Akbar Bugti. The latter was perhaps among the few tribal leaders who had earlier been a part of government and was still prepared to engage with the establishment provided he was dealt with honourably. Instead, Musharraf adopted the fatal military option. The younger generation of tribal leadership has, since then, become more alienated and radicalised. General Musharraf, on the basis of his development projects, wrongly assessed that a majority of the Balochs are supportive of the government and tribal chiefs had limited following.

Tribal leaders claim that false cases are registered against them to keep them out of politics and force them to leave the country. Geography, poor communication links, the absence of political and economic development, antiquated social structures and lack of say in the management of natural resources are mainly responsible for the current state of Balochi frustration.

The main demands of the rebel groups are that security forces should be withdrawn. Political workers and insurgents under detention should be released and the government should make a public apology for its wrong doings. Their main demand however focuses on control of resources and a high level of provincial autonomy bordering on independence. The demand for provincial autonomy in accordance with the 1973 Constitution is perfectly valid and the federal government should grant it, but going beyond that is unacceptable. However, more crucial in the context of Balochistan are social reforms and unless these are undertaken, any sustainable development will not be feasible in a centuries-old tribal structure. The only way to bring the region in the mainstream is to allow genuine politics to take root. But for both political evolution and economic development, the government has to provide security which, so far, has been unsatisfactory.

The government accuses the Balochistan Liberation Army and other nationalist parties of having links with India, Afghanistan and other foreign agencies. The involvement of India was even brought to the attention of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by our prime minister at Sharm-el- Shiekh and will remain a serious subject in future exchanges.

China, Iran and United States too have a deep interest in the province.

The establishment of the Gwadar deep-sea port, confirmed deposits of precious metals in the province and shared borders with Afghanistan and Iran has given Balochistan a unique strategic position. Gwadar has the potential of being a highly profitable communication link between China and the Persian Gulf, and between Central Asia and Pakistan. The US has a huge interest in the province to protect itself in Afghanistan, and considers it important in the context of its potential rivalry with China and poor relations with Iran. The power play of global and regional actors in an insurgency-ridden Balochistan is a serious challenge for Pakistan. Islamabad should realise that the peace security and stability of the province are closely interlinked with the integrity and future well being of Pakistan. And Balochi nationalism has to be assimilated and harmonised with the overall national interest, and not allowed to remain hostile to it. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=195789