An Agenda for the New Government

R2D2's ... LoL Echoboom Saheb Zindabad!

GT sahib: You must excuse Hamidm. He has not been in a good mood ever since King Musharraf I lost his lota Rashid.

re: tahmed32

Sirji, I did not misunderstand your post. It is just that I do not share your sense of euphoria about this government accomplishing anything other than revisiting old vendettas. I see nothing but another wasted opportunity, when Pakistan does not have any more time left to keep tinkering with a broken system, trying to fix, with worn out and tired out solutions that have failed in the past.

I agree, building up Pakistan's political capacity is good idea, but to do so with the intention of creating another round of confrontational politics, is a bad idea.

National reconcilation means forgetting the past and not embarking on another witch hunt! :)

Ciao

hmm.....pakistan start to disassociate itself from us gwot, and the weekly toll of suicide bombings goes down........

is it just a coincidence, or was there some meat to what many of us were suggesting......

......the current visit of the us delegation, wasn't really of the us delegation, but of a scared republican party.....the republicans are finished in their gwot wars.....one disaster after another.......

afghanistan is on its way to disaster.....and if pakistan backs out, it will be a complete disaster......pakistan is shoring up one flank, and is providing logistical lines, also.......

without this, americans have had it in afghanistan.......as nato allies start dropping off one after another.....

......the george bush/neo-con experiment has totally failed.....as many of us had predicted.....the only supporter left is hamidm mian.....

.....americans cannot launch war after war.....what will they do.....attack iran and pakistan.....there is no exit strategy to this war.......and no one wants to be a part of it......

americans should have not gone into afghanistan.....and should have spent that $80 billion/year rebuilding afghanistan and not bombing it.......

anyways, it is about time pakistan got out of gwot.......

Nau Gyara Bahana hai,
Afghanistan Thhikana hai,
Pakistan Nishana hai!

(Gen Retd Hameed Gul)

"If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here"

(Bush/hamidm2/ferozk & even cliftronbridge-ism)

Really?

Taliban foot soldiers deeply ignorant of the world

Survey reveals Kandahar fighters know next to nothing about Canada or U.S., contradicting view Taliban are sophisticated terrorists

GRAEME SMITH

gsmith@globeandmail.com

March 27, 2008

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- The typical Taliban foot soldier battling Canadian troops and their allies in Kandahar is not a global jihadist who dreams of some day waging war on Canadian soil. In fact, he would have trouble finding Canada on a map.

A survey of 42 insurgents in Kandahar province posed a series of questions about the fighters' view of the world, and the results contradicted the oft-repeated perception of the Taliban as sophisticated terrorists who pose a direct threat to Western countries.

Faced with a multiple-choice question about Canada's location, only one of 42 fighters correctly guessed that Canada is located to the north of the United States, meaning the insurgents performed worse than randomly.

None of them could identify Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada, and they often repeated the syllables of his name - "Stepheh Napper," "Sehn Hahn," "Steng Peng Beng," "Gra Pla Pla" - that reflected their puzzlement over a name they had never heard.

Nor did they seem to associate the word "Canada" with anything except, in some cases, the soldiers now serving in Afghanistan. Most could not distinguish between the French- and English-speaking rotations of troops.

One of The Globe and Mail's questions offered the Taliban a chance to volunteer any information about Canada: "Do you know about this country? What kind of people are there? Is it a big country or a small country? Poor country, rich country? Cold or warm? Do Muslims live there?" None offered any meaningful responses, and most of them simply declined to answer. One of the few who guessed, a 21-year-old farmer, seemed to think the word "Canada" indicated a faraway city.

"It might be an old and destroyed city," he said.

The results show the depth of ignorance among front-line insurgents in Kandahar. In a previous visit to the tribal areas of Pakistan, a reporter for The Globe and Mail personally met with more sophisticated Taliban who demonstrated a keen grasp of politics and appeared to know the latest news of the war. But those politically astute Taliban were hundreds of kilometres away from the battlefields, and it remains unclear how much control such organizers exert over the day-to-day operations of the insurgency.

The Taliban became synonymous with ignorance during their years in government, banning media such as television that might bring foreign ideas into the country. As insurgents, however, they've shown a newfound flair for technology, distributing video propaganda and sending press statements via text message to reporters' mobile phones.

"The Taliban also have a sophisticated media strategy and full grasp of modern technology," said a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations in January.

Canadian politicians and military officials often make public statements that suggest the Taliban monitor political trends in Ottawa and choose to attack at politically sensitive moments: General Rick Hillier, Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, raised the possibility that a suicide bombing that killed more than 100 people in Kandahar province in February may have been connected with debates in the House of Commons about the future of the mission.

But a Western expert who reviewed The Globe's video footage said the kind of worldliness described by Gen. Hillier isn't the most likely explanation.

"Those [insurgents] making decisions are more sophisticated than those you are interviewing, so there is some chance of this being plausible," the expert said. "But I think they're working to their own calendar, not ours." Three fighters in the survey didn't recognize the name of U.S. President George W. Bush, and another mispronounced his name as "Bukh," suggesting he wasn't familiar with the word.

Those who had heard of the U.S. President often gave responses that revealed more of their parochialism. He was called a "Jew," and "King of America." Sometimes, amid the errors, the Taliban showed their simplistic view of world politics. "He is the son of George W, [and] he is the son of Clinton W, and he is American, and is a serious enemy of Islam," said one fighter in his description of Mr. Bush.

"Why is he an enemy of Islam?" he was asked.

"The Koran says: 'Jews and Christians will be unhappy until you obey them. When you obey them, they will be satisfied,' " the insurgent replied. "This means if you obey them they are happy, but if you don't accept their commands, they will fight you."

Some of the comments about Mr. Bush showed the Taliban's enthusiasm for crude violence: "If I were to capture him, I would cut a piece of his flesh even as he was still alive." They were equally vitriolic in their descriptions of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, calling him a "slave" of the Americans. "There is no difference between the red-faced and green-eyed infidel, and him," one said.

When the Taliban demonstrated any understanding beyond their immediate surroundings, it was often references to their own version of Islamic history. They invoked stories of ancient Egypt and compared the U.S. President to one of the pharaohs, also drawing a parallel between the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the medieval Christians who launched Crusades.

Another described the war in Afghanistan as part of a conflict that stretches back to the founding of Islam as a religion.

"Non-Muslims have been against Muslims for a long time," he said. "Just as they attacked the Prophet Mohammed and broke his teeth, so they are against us since that era."

Re: # 53

Zeemax
Nau Gyara Bahana hai,
Afghanistan Thhikana hai,
Pakistan Nishana hai!

ye ab hamara gana hai
basta naya banana hai
hum nai school jana hai
zeemax aik zanana hai

#52 by bulleya

americans should have not gone into afghanistan.....

Isn't it amazing how you always seem to get things right..so what if it is way AFTER the event has actually occurred? Remember how you were itching to give up your career in IT and join the invasion of Afghanistan? You might think you're Nostradamus, but a more appropriate name would be Postradamus, given how you predict (or is it post-dict?) things after they have happened.

#51 ferozk: Rejecting musharraf's convenient assumption that he was above the Constitution is a "witch-hunt"? You have a strange definition of a "witch-hunt", illustrious sir. :-)

feroz writes "National reconcilation means forgetting the past and not embarking on another witch hunt! :)"

National reconciliation does not mean that the status quo be enhanced. Musharraf is the Army's excrement (sh**), he needs to go, the new parliment needs to elect a new President and the Army and its sh** needs to get the hell out of political affairs...Any remnant of the military and its influence in the political arena means more of the same and time for that has run out...

Feroze,

For once I disagree with you and agree with Masadi sahib. There has to be a clean break with the past. Mush has to be impeached and put on (a just and fair) trial for treason. To send out a warning to future Bonapartes more than settling scores. Else, future military adventurism cannot be ruled out.

Regards

Re: # 59; Majumdar bhai,

Sorry can't stay for long. After reading yours and masadi sahib's comments, I think it makes some sense.

I know I did say in No:12 that may be Musharraf should be left alone. I am not in favour of capital punishment but the idea of associating these "off-the-peg military coups", with some repercussions in the future is not a bad one.

I have read some other recent interacts by Masadi Sahib as well; I don't agree with the contents in entirety but a lot of it (as far as my humble understanding goes) makes some sense. I also like the, at times, refreshingly direct approach! A significant proportion of the force of an argument can sometimes be lost in the subtlties of political correctness!

Must dash.

Cheers

Re: # 59; Majumdar bhai,

Sorry can't stay for long. After reading yours and masadi sahib's comments, I think it makes some sense.

I know I did say in No:12 that may be Musharraf should be left alone. I am not in favour of capital punishment but the idea of associating these "off-the-peg military coups", with some repercussions in the future is not a bad one.

I have read some other recent interacts by Masadi Sahib as well; I don't agree with the contents in entirety but a lot of it (as far as my humble understanding goes) makes some sense. I also like the, at times, refreshingly direct approach! A significant proportion of the force of an argument can sometimes be lost in the subtlties of political correctness!

Must dash.

Cheers

Cheema sahib,

I am not an expert in legal matters but my limited understanding is:

Mush's coup was an act of treason.
Pakistan has death penalty (as max) for treason.

But it does not have to come to that. It cud be life imprisonment or maybe whatever punishment is given, Parliament can give a pardon with riders (say a life long exile). Whatever it is due process of law shud be followed and seen to be followed as such.

Regards

re: majumdar

Article 6 of the 1973 Pakistan constitution states that anyone held responsible and found guilty for subverting the constitution, will face a death penalty. There is no stated constitutional provision for converting such a penalty (that I am aware of) into a life sentence, though such could be amended if so desired by the executive and the legislative branches. This, at least, is the theory and we all know, in Pakistan, theory hardly ever materializes into reality.

As to Musharraf being tried to discourage future Bonpartists, that would depend if you have the means to carry this process to its logical terminal end. Chest beating and sounding brave on the air waves is one thing, taming the army to allow this process; the process of putting one of it's former chiefs on trial, is the real challenge. Musharraf may have shed his uniform and Kiyani may have been distancing the army from the presidency, but will the army still remain committed to the so-called democracy, when that democracy poses an institutional threat to the military itself?

At this stage of the analysis, I must fully concur with Masadi. There are external based interests, which may not allow this possibility and yes; I am talking about the United States' strategic foreign policy goals, or what Masadi calls as the "US elites". The United States, historically speaking, has favored working with the bureaucratic-military complex in Pakistan (to borrow a phrase from Dwight Eisenhower) than it has with a civilian government and there is no emperhical evidence to suggest a paradigm shift in that assessment based on past historic experience.

There is a papable fear in Pakistan from speaking out against Al Qaeda and there is a very strong indication that this goverment may well appease Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban by ceding FATA to them in exhange of "peace" in Pakistan itself. Pakistani civilian politicans are afraid of speaking the truth about the presence of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and to divert attention, they espouse popularism.

However, there is no written gurantee that terrorism in Pakistan will stop if this government gives up FATA but the United States' fear, and for which they came to apprise themselves, was that the present Pakistani government seems to be headed towards a "Munich Agreement" with the militants. The fact that such an agreement might well be the final death knell of Pakistan is immaterial to the United States, but what is of concern to them is their interests inside Afghanistan and their ability to protect those interests - read military logistics, which need Pakistani cooperation in order to be sustained.

Thus, the question. Will the United States allow the democratic process in Pakistan to undermine its regional intrests?

The answer seems to be a "no".

FATA of Pakistan has developed into a linchpin of American military operations inside Afghanistan and that is why, there is a growing realization inside United States' foreign policy decision making circles that critical battles in GWOT that will influence the strenghtening of United States' regional interests, will be fought inside FATA and Pakistan.

The United States' strategic interests will always take precedence over individual choices/policies and likewise, Obama or Clinton or McCain will still target and bomb FATA if that is in American interests regardless of whether there is a Musharraf in power or not or if there is a military or a civilian government in Islamabad.

Presently, the United States is quiety observing the developing political scene inside Pakistan, and suggesting to the new government that a policy, which encourages a lessening of Pakistan's role in GWOT is not necessarily the best solution. One has to remember that Pakistan can ill afford to follow a policy, which basically amounts to one of isolationism from the GWOT, because Pakistan does not have the capacity to sustain such a policy for the long term.

Pakistan's economy is dependent on foreign aid and all of its debts were rescheduled on the promise of its contributions in the GWOT and therefore, Pakistan can be financially squeezed to make it cry "uncle" should the need warrant itself in the future.

At this stage, the crux of the matter is what Masadi said in the past and with which I tend to agree and that is; in the larger scheme of things, Musharraf's fate is immaterial to the final equation and putting him on trial might be pointless unless and until, we can are also capable of removing the United States' influence from Pakistan and being economically and political independent from the United States' and from its global strategic interests.

Therefore, Majumdat sahib, in order to discourage future Bonapartist in Pakistan, you have to discourage the institutions that support them. Punishing people, who act as spokespersons for such institutions, may gain a sense of popular retribution but will achieve nothing in the long run and the words from the Eagles song, it would all have been "a wasted time".

Ciao

Ferozk,

Surrendering FATA to the jihadis is the easy part. Already most of the predators attacks have been interpreted as explosion of ammunition stored in such houses. The problem is that the FATA jihadis are supported by a steady stream of support from teh rest of pakistan, partly in the form of haven for the stolen cars, and progressively as an operating base for the bank robers.

The recent suicide attacks and the killing of the genrals and the military men have shown that teh FATA based guys can create havoc through out pakistan.

There is no doubt that the new govt has no options, nor the military has.
The situation is similar to kargill, the military started the process and found teh situation unmanageable, called in the politicians to spell out the surrender terms.

Unconditional military withdrawal from FATA. The problem will be if there are predator attacks, the jihadis will blame it on the pak military, and they will become the targets. It is a total loss situation for the pak govt and the army.