WASHINGTON: The US military for the first time has provided Pakistan with a broad array of surveillance information collected by US drones flying along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, US military officials said yesterday. But it is not clear whether the cooperation will continue. US military drones flew a handful of noncombat surveillance missions along the border earlier this spring at the request of the Pakistani government, but requests for additional flights stopped abruptly without explanation, the officials were quoted as saying by the New York Times.

The offer to give Pakistan a much larger amount of imagery, including real-time video feeds and communications intercepts gleaned by remotely piloted aircraft, was intended to help defuse a growing dispute over how to use the drones and which country should control the secret missions flown in Pakistani airspace, US officials said.

In meetings last week with President Obama and other US officials in Washington, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan repeated his insistence that his country be given its own armed Predator drones to attack operatives of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border. But the US intelligence operatives who fly the armed drones inside Pakistan remain opposed to joint operations with Pakistani intelligence services, saying that past attempts were a failure. Several years ago, US officials gave Pakistan advance word of planned Predator attacks, but stopped the practice after the information was leaked to militants.

“We’re going after terrorists plotting directly against the United States and its interests,” said one US counter-terrorism official. “Nobody wants to gamble with those kinds of targets. We tried a joint approach before, and it didn’t work. Those are facts that can’t be ignored.”

US military officials said yesterday that there was no plan to allow the military to join the CIA in operating armed drones inside Pakistan. They disputed a report in The Los Angeles Times on Tuesday that said Pakistan had been given joint control of armed US military drones inside Pakistan. Obama administration officials are vigorously resisting sharing the drone technology with Pakistani security forces, but officials from both countries said compromises were possible.

US and some Pakistani officials spoke anonymously because the CIA drone operations are classified.

Pakistani officials said Zardari wanted the drone technology partly to tamp down anger inside Pakistan over the campaign of CIA air strikes inside the country, which have killed civilians in addition to more than a dozen Qaeda leaders. If Pakistan had its own Predators, they said, the government in Islamabad could make a more plausible case to the public that Pakistani missiles, not US missiles, were being used to kill militants.

Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times has reported that the U.S. military has flown drones into Pakistan at least a dozen times in recent weeks in cooperation with the Pakistanis as part of a new program, U.S. officials acknowledged Wednesday.

The military conducted test flights in March to demonstrate intelligence gathering capabilities to the Pakistanis. Those were followed by Pakistani requests for additional Predator flights to collect intelligence on suspected militants, said an official from U.S. Central Command, which oversees forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The program’s existence was first reported Wednesday by The Times. Officials have told The Times that it represented an effort to have U.S. and Pakistani military officers work together on drones and to persuade Pakistan to fire the drones’ missiles at militant positions.

In response, the Central Command official and other military officers said Wednesday that a formal U.S. proposal for the joint effort did not include the use of armed strikes on suspected militant positions.

“This program is designed to provide an intelligence capability, not a weapons capability,” said the Central Command official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of Pakistani sensitivities about the program.

The government in Islamabad is ambivalent about the program, and strikes by the CIA’s separate fleet of unmanned aircraft have been deeply unpopular with the Pakistani public. The Pakistanis have not requested use of the drones since mid-April, the Central Command official said. The military’s Predator and Reaper drones are always armed with missiles.

Some of the flights over Pakistan involved drones that crossed over the border after armed missions in Afghanistan. Some U.S. military officials have expressed frustration at Islamabad’s reluctance to use the drones offensively. “This is an enhancement that will help you save your soldiers, your people,” one senior officer said he told the Pakistanis. “You will be more credible, you will be more effective.”-ONLINE

WASHINGTON: President Asif Ali Zardari has stressed the need of devising a strategy to eliminate the menace of terrorism. Speaking in Meet the Press program of NBC, in Washington he called for close cooperation between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States to tackle the challenge of the extremism and terrorism.

President Zardari said the terrorism is a world wide challenge of the 21st century as the terrorists are launching attacks everywhere including Spain, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Africa and the United States. The President strongly dismissed the impression that the extremists and terrorists will be able to inflict irreparable damage on Pakistan. He said one hundred and eighty million people of Pakistan are resolved to fight the menace.

To a question, the President opposed conditions to the US financial assistance for Pakistan. In an another interview with the Washington Post and News Hour Television Channel, President Asif Ali Zardari has urged the United States to provide sustained financial assistance and drones technology to Pakistan to curb extremism.

He urged the United States to provide a fleet of US aerial drones to Pakistan to strike Taliban and Al-Qaeda hideouts in Tribal Areas along the Afghan border. To a question, the President rejected media apprehensions about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets and said that they are in safe hands under a foolproof command and control system. NNI

WASHINGTON: Senior leaders of al-Qaeda are using sanctuaries in Pakistan’s lawless frontier regions to plan new terror attacks and funnel money, manpower and guidance to affiliates around the world, according to a top American military commander.

Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in an interview that Pakistan has become the nerve center of al-Qaeda’s global operations, allowing the terror group to re-establish its organizational structure and build stronger ties to al-Qaeda offshoots in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and parts of Europe, IRNA reported.

The comments underscore a growing US belief that Pakistan has displaced Afghanistan as al-Qaeda’s main stronghold. “It is the headquarters of the senior al-Qaeda leadership,” said the general, who took the helm of the military’s Central Command last fall.

In the interview, Gen. Petraeus also warned of difficult months ahead in Afghanistan, saying Taliban militants are moving weapons and forces into areas where the US is adding troops, planning a ’surge’ of their own to counter the US plan.

The commander said that the US had intelligence showing that the Taliban were deploying new fighters to southern Afghanistan, appointing new local commanders, and pre- positioning weapons and other supplies.
“We have every expectation that the Taliban will fight to retain the sanctuaries and safe havens that they’ve been able to establish,” he said.

Senior Obama administration officials have spoken publicly for weeks about the threat posed by Pakistan. In late March, President Barack Obama said that Pakistan’s lawless border region had ‘become the most dangerous place in the world’ for Americans.

Pakistani officials have acknowledged that their country is facing a growing threat from al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other armed Islamist groups. Appearing at the White House on Wednesday with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari pledged to ’stand with our brother Karzai and the people of Afghanistan against this common threat, this menace, which I have called a cancer’.

Pakistani Ambassador to Washington Hussein Haqqani said that his government is ‘determined to eliminate al-Qaeda and the terrorist Taliban’. He added, “We have launched a major offensive against the Taliban and look forward to acting on any actionable intelligence shared with us by our American partners.”

US officials once believed that years of strikes had broken al-Qaeda’s leadership into smaller, less effective splinter groups. But in the interview, Gen. Petraeus said US intelligence information suggested that al Qaeda has re-emerged as a centrally directed organization capable of helping to plan attacks in other countries.

“There is a degree of hierarchy, there is a degree of interconnection, and there is certainly a flow of people, money, expertise, explosives and knowledge,” he said. Gen. Petraeus painted a picture of a globalized al Qaeda that maintains extensive logistical and communications links to terror groups in Morocco, Somalia and other countries.

A ring of Tunisian suicide bombers who were recently apprehended in Iraq appear to have received their directions from al Qaeda figures in Pakistan as well, he said. “There’s absolutely no question about these links,” he said. He said that al-Qaeda hired Sunni Arab lawless gangs in southern Iran as ‘facilitators’, without the government’s knowledge, to pass supplies through southern Iran. NNI

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari Monday said there was no possibility of country’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban and believed that al?Qaeda chief Osama bin laden was dead. President Zardari told a panel of journalists from international media here at the President House.

“I want to assure the world that the nuclear capability of Pakistan is under safe hands,”

The President was responding to questions about reports of Taliban’s presence in Buner and fears that they might move advance towards the capital Islamabad.

President Zardari allaying the fears of any threat to the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, said Pakistan had a strong command and control system for its nuclear weapons that was fully in place.

Asked about reports that Taliban in the Swat valley have welcomed bin Laden, President Zardari said country’s intelligence believes that Al?Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was dead but acknowledged they had no evidence. “The Americans tell me they don’t know, and they are much more equipped than us to trace him. And our own intelligence services obviously think that he does not exist any more, that he is dead,” Zardari said.

With a set of old glories neatly arranged in the background, flanked by his Secretaries of State and Defense, President Barack Obama announced a comprehensive strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan (or Af-Pak Strategy). President announced,

“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

Apparently, the strategy was more of an escalation of Bush policy than a policy shift. However, foreign policy experts like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski remain skeptical of the goals set for, what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called, “long slog” war.

Not long before President’s announcement, Secretary Gates was lowering nation’s expectations for winning the war. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he cautioned against setting unrealistic goals, “This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan”. He warned, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money”. Considering, no power has ever been able to hold Afghanistan for too long, his warning was right on the money.

Despite bipartisan approval of Obama Af-Pak Strategy, experts believe the policy is fraught with unrealistic optimism, unattainable goals and erroneous calculations. Even worst, it fails to meet the tenets of the Powell Doctrine. Many analysts hail the doctrine to be the Holy Grail of modern warfare. According to the Doctrine, before America takes a military action its tenets would have to be answered affirmatively:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Coincidently, with the exception of the first tenet, Obama policy falls short of affirming every other tenet. However, before glancing over the negations, a retrospective accounting of genesis of the Af-Pak crisis might assist in understanding the crisis.

Roots of the current mess can be traced back to the political and administrative vacuum left by the CIA, when it suddenly left Afghanistan without even saying bye to its wartime partners, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Mujahideen – who used to frequent White House as state guests. Its premature departure was resented by the abandoned, which gave birth to equally cold-hearted phenomenon of Talibanization. They controlled over 80% of Afghanistan; hence, they became its default government. In exchange for financial support, the cash-strapped Taliban provided safe heavens to terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda.

At least initially, Al Qaeda’s core was made up of the CIA funded and trained Mujahideen; who should been rehabbed after the Soviets withdrawal. Unsupervised and forsaken by Americans and their native countries, these fighters who knew no other trait but guerrilla warfare searched for new causes. When none found, they invented their own.

Similarly, Pakistanis also found themselves deserted and heavily sanctioned by their allies. On its Eastern borders India was still as hostile as ever. Pakistanis decided to defend themselves by creating a buffer through a proxy. Pakistanis diverted thousands of idle guerrilla fighters from Afghanistan to Kashmiri. The buffer kept India engaged in an asymmetrical warfare.

After the 9/11 attacks, instead of seeking assistance of the patrons of Taliban and its time tested partner ISI, America aligned itself with a pro Indo-Iran-Russian mercenaries, the Northern-Alliance (NA). Soon after the American lead invasion, the Taliban dispersed into the civilian population. By placing an ethnic minority NA government (Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks) in Kabul, the allies further alienated the Pushtoon majority.

If things weren’t already complicated enough, Bush team made the worst possible mistake; it allowed a massive Indian influx into Afghanistan. Indians who were itching to settle scores with Pakistan wasted no time in opening at least 11 consulates on the western borders of Pakistan. Pakistanis viewed these consulates as launch pads for the subversive elements tasked to destabilize Pakistan. The Pakistanis felt entrapped by what they interpreted as a hostile Indian encirclement. They countered the move by reassembling the Taliban proxy.

That is when an Afghanistan, which was apparently turning to normalcy, took a turn for the worst. It became the shooting gallery for many; including the NATO, India, Iran, Pakistan, and non-state elements like Al Qaeda, Pakistan Sponsored Taliban (PST) and RAW/CIA Sponsored Taliban (RCST). The RCST were primarily tasked to infiltrate PST and to conduct subversive activities inside Pakistan. Additionally, it was meant to erode public support for the PST and to generate anti-Taliban sentiments among the global community. The risky strategy runs a too realistic danger of destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan to a point of no return. Pakistan may end up fracturing into multiple unmanageable pieces, each with its own share of extremists. Clearly the strategy violates tenets 2 and 3 of the Powell Doctrine.

While analyzing President Obama’s European (G20) trip with Charlie Rose, both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski offered their criticism of Af-Pak review. Henry Kissinger warned of an unmanageable mess, if something is not done soon to stabilize deteriorating conditions in Pakistan. He called Af-Pak policy a “fluid military strategy.” Mr. Brzezinski was more specific with his criticism. He asked, “how do we really get Pakistan to help us?” Then he answered, “Pakistanis are convinced they are under threat from India.” But Af-Pak policy does exactly the opposite. It recommends a greater role of India in Afghanistan, which only adds to Pakistan’s fears and goes against the prevailing wisdom of stabilizing Pakistan. A contradiction of the 3rd tenet.

President’s special representative, Richard Holbrooke announced Af-Pak exit strategy,

“The exit strategy includes governance, corruption, but above all, and this is the single most difficult aspect of what we are talking about today, it requires dealing with Western Pakistan.”

The unattainable and ambiguous exit strategy stood in stark contrast of the 5th tenet of the Powell Doctrine. He explained,

“If the current situation in Western Pakistan continued, the instability in Afghanistan will continue.” Meaning, success in Afghanistan is tied to the threats in the ‘Western Pakistan’.

An interdependent strategy gives birth to a range of new complexities: either, the US will have to depend on Pakistan’s resolve and capacity to deal with the extremists, or it will have to root them out itself.

America has already voiced its mistrust of Pakistan’s resolve to fight the extremists. If Pakistan cannot be trusted then US will have to do it itself. It will have to: either divert the resources from Afghanistan, or send additional troops to Western Pakistan. But the resources from Afghanistan cannot be diverted, until Afghan National Security Forces are first brought up to a level where they could function independently; an ambitious goal, considering Afghan president still can’t leave his Kabul palace without the protection provided by the US Navy SEALS. The other option is equally impractical, because it will require pumping-in additional American troops – paralleling the numbers deployed during the ‘Gulf War’.

Since American allies are already fatigued from the long drawn Afghan war, they want to leave Afghanistan altogether. Allies, like Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup (head of Britain’s armed forces), also expressed their reservations over the practicality of the American strategy. He advised, “Just as in Afghanistan, that kind of insurgency cannot be defeated by conventional military means. It can only be dealt with, in the long term, through politics.” An obvious negation of tenet 8 of Powell Doctrine.

US will have to dip into its own pool to exercise the second option, because no amount of covert/shoot & scoot missions can stem the militancy. No Pakistani government will be able to ignore populous’ demands to fight the invaders. It will be compelled to fight with any or all means at its disposal. Naturally, a Pakistani reaction cannot be calculated, without invoking the forbidden phrase of ‘nuclear exchange’. Much to be desired to affirm the 6th tenet.

Reportedly, even Vice President Joseph Biden argued against the troop surge in Afghanistan. Moreover, American public is not in mood to embark on another never-ending war. Besides, neither the US nor its allies’ economies are hardly in a shape to be able to afford yet another trillion dollar war. Cardinal sins, per 7th and 8th tenets.

Despite thumbs up from the Afghan and Pakistani presidents, the public remains extremely suspicious and resentful of the American policy. Reportedly, between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, 60 UAV hits in Pakistan killed 14 Al Qaeda men, 687 innocent civilians, including women and children. Fairly or unfairly, an ordinary Afghan or a Pakistani believes, West is in there to destroy their faith, their country and the Muslim world altogether. If the war is to be won, then Obama’s team will have to reevaluate and reform its strategy.

The emphasis should be on winning hearts and minds of Afghans and Pakistanis. Before exercising the military option, a really heavy dose of diplomacy, political and financial support will have to be thrown in the mix. Above all, US will have to win back the trust and goodwill of their Pakistani counterparts. Suspension of UAV attacks and phenomenal reduction of Indian presence in Afghanistan would be good starting points in generating goodwill and normalcy in the region.

Secretary Gates was prophetic when he said, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla [in Afghanistan], we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money”. Listen to him!

Islam is derived from the Arabic root “salama” which means “surrender, submission, obedience, sincerity” and consequently “being in peace”. So in the religious sense Islam means, “being in a state of peace by surrendering to the will of God” and “obedience to His law”.

Today over a billion Muslims of the world are in a perpetual state of listlessness owing to a tirade of Islam-negative images, discourse, diatribe and stereotypes being directed at them. While the roots of Islam bashing and persecution can be traced back to the times of the Prophet (PBUH), the aftermath of 9/11 certainly saw Islamophobia reaching historic heights. Several reasons account for this disturbing imbroglio including the political policies and ambitions of the western governments, historical encounters between Islam and Christianity and agenda-setting of western media machinery; however, one of the most important factor that has lead to the current chaos and confusion is the absolute lack of understanding and scholarly guidance on what “true” Islam is within the Muslim World itself.

Islam (deen, the way of life) is based on Quran (the Revealed Word of Allah) and Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet). However, a cursory glance at the Muslim World will reveal that the Islam followed or in most cases “enforced” exhibits serious dichotomy and disconnect. Some Muslim countries have officially declared a certain form of Islam as their state religion (and they make sure that their form of Islam is enforced and strictly adhered to), while others have taken a relatively neutral stance. Yet others have declared themselves as secular Muslim countries. Many may regard this as vibrancy and plurality in Islam, but the truth is rather bitter and alarming.

For centuries, the Muslim World has been plagued by a serious dearth of intellectual discourse on Islam and its teachings. While Quran exhorts and encourages man to seek knowledge and learn; to discover himself and his Lord through this knowledge and to utilize the offerings of this universe for his blissful existence, progress and multiplication of his progeny, this trait of “pondering” and “questioning” has been consciously stifled by the pseudo-ulemas and retrogressive governments in the Muslim World. This has lead to a consistent decadence and digression of understanding of even the most basic and intrinsic Islamic principles. Similarly a mullah can be found in every mosque at every end of a street but they hardly ever do anything more than delivering war-mongering sermons on Fridays or bickering over frivolous issues like the length of the beard or the way the takbeer should be observed.

Borne out of this intellectual decadence and taking advantage of the void thus created, emerged a radicalized, extremist group, who took upon itself the task of “Islamizing” the Muslim society and representing (rather misrepresenting) the true Islam. This group loosely includes the Taliban, Al-Qaeda operatives, militants, mullahs, maulvis and their ilk whose philosophy today poses the greatest threat to the Muslim World. Their version of Islam has no Islamic authentication, their faith has no god to worship and their humanness has no humanity. They only serve to malign, defame and insult Islam. They brazenly and shamelessly use Islam to fulfill their personal and political ambitions. They are not religiously inspired, they are politically motivated. They employ religious symbolism of paradise and martyrdom to allure young minds to fulfill their destructive agendas.

Jihad is not suicide bombing, blowing up of innocent, unarmed worshippers in a mosque or killing of people who leave homes in the morning in search of livelihood; it is a pious practice of striving in the way of Allah by various means (Jihad al-Nafs, Jihad al-Lisan, Jihad al-Yad, Jihad as-Sayf). Similarly, women in Islam are not meant to be oppressed, mistreated and forced within the confines of their homes without providing for their physical, mental and psychological wellbeing; rather Islam empowers and encourages women to realize their true potential and lead their lives with dignity and self-respect within the parameters laid down in Islam.

So burning down of girls’ schools in Matta or other areas, public whipping of a young girl in Swat without ascertaining her sin, burning and closing down of barber shops and CD outlets have no precedence in Islam. It is due to this extremist and irrational behaviour that images of armed bearded men chanting and sloganeering, flogging and whipping, killing and beheading, burning and rioting are constantly splashed across the western media.

It is imperative to state that it is certainly the duty of Muslims to preach Islam to the non-believers so that truth may be distinguished from the falsehood. After that, whosoever wishes to embrace Islam may do so and whoever wishes to continue upon un-islamic belief may do so. But under no circumstances can people be violently threatened or forced to conform to Islamic faith. Decisive evidence in this regard is the following ayah:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth has been made

clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in

Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks.

And Allah hears and knows all things.” (Surah Al Baqarah:256)

The Prophet (PBUH) spread Islam by being a practical example for the followers. He never exhibited violent behaviour even in the face of the most atrocious and barbaric cruelties directed at him and his followers. The state of Madinah was one of the most peaceful and tolerant societies the world has seen and yet these so-called forbearers of Islam “choose” to revive Islamic values not by peaceful means but violent, abhorrent devastation.

Immediate corrective measures need to be taken at individual, intellectual, societal and government levels to redeem the situation. Extremism, radicalization and ultra-conservatism might push the world to the brink of “clash of civilizations” in addition to polarizing the Muslim society. The entire Muslim World needs to step back and go through a phase of introspection, self-analysis and self-realization before it even begins to counter the external threats directed at it. It needs to get in touch with the true meaning of Islam. This can be done at the individual and collective level by ending the monopolization and “ownership” of Islam from the diktats of the faux maulvis, mullahs and the pseudo-scholars. The Muslim governments must end their official endorsements of a certain form of Islam and allow for open discussion, discourse and dialogue aimed at promoting and enhancing better understanding Islam and its philosophy. Every Muslim must strive to gain knowledge, read and understand Quran and Sunnah and endeavor to lead his life according to the true teachings of Islam.

Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, harmony and co-existence. Therein lays the true spirit and essence of Islam. “Islam,” wrote George Bernard Shaw, “is the best religion and Muslims are the worst followers.” It is about time the followers take heed and prove him wrong.

ISLAMABAD: Former President retired Pervez Musharraf strongly defended role of Inter-Services Intelligence saying, “the ISI has played vital role in defending country, it carried out proactive policy to nab terrorists and operatives of Al-Qaeda and it is an organisation which ensures formidable defence of Pakistan in an era of ‘operations other then war’. He was speaking to journalists at the Benazir Bhutto International Airport Sunday night before his 10-day visit to China.

He said, “those foreign powers or individuals are now critical of ISI they know it well that same organisation has crushed cells of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s main cities and made Al-Qaeda operatives on the run”.

He opposed President Obama’s planned drone attacks inside Pakistan saying, “if the US-led NATO finds any high value target Pakistan government and security agencies be taken into confidence before striking at them.

When he was asked about his reaction to several case to be instituted against him in Pakistan’s several courts, he said, “I am not running away if and when any court calls me I will not hesitate to face courts”.

Responding to a question about Red Mosque Operation during his tenure where a large number of people were killed in July 2007, Musharraf said, “only 93 people were killed and we acted after lot of persuasion to clerics of Red Mosque to give up militancy’.

He said, “I am going to China for 10 days and later I will be visiting United Arab Emirates at the invitation of two countries and I will come back to Pakistan. Referring to recent decision of Zardari administration to reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar chaudhry, “its the action of present government I will not comment on it”.

Musharraf said Pakistan is facing grave threats from militancy, extremism and terrorism. He said we have to combat these challenges in a strong manner”. When asked will he join politics, he replied, “when you will invite me I will join politics”.

ISLAMABAD: In the second climb-down in a month, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari yesterday said he would order the lifting of governor’s rule in Punjab, the populous eastern province considered the political bastion of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz.

The provincial government of Shahbaz Sharif was dismissed in late February and governor’s rule imposed after the Supreme Court disqualified the Sharif brothers from contesting elections over previous conviction.

The one-year-old civilian government, led by Zardari’s Pakistan’s Peoples’ Party (PPP), was plunged into crisis this month when Sharif drove through Punjab at the head of mass protests that raised fears of a violent climax in Islamabad. The government placed barricades round the capital and put the army on alert as Sharif set off from the eastern city of Lahore.

Fearful of instability in a nuclear-armed nation already under threat from Al-Qaeda and Taleban militants, Western governments and the Pakistan Army persuaded Zardari to defuse the crisis by submitting to Sharif’s demand for the reinstatement of a top judge. On March 16, the government restored Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as Supreme Court chief justice. Chaudhry was sacked by former President Pervez Musharraf.

“I wish to announce that we shall recommend the lifting of the governor’s rule in Punjab,” Zardari said in a keynote address to Parliament yesterday. He said the PPP will sit in the opposition in the Punjab Legislative Assembly.

“Pakistan has many challenges. What it does not need is a challenge from within its democracy,” Zardari said. “Let’s put an end to challenging each other. We have enough challenges from around the world and within us (from) our enemies. Let us be friends once again and forever.”

In a step toward dispelling mistrust between the country’s two major political parties, the government this month asked the Supreme Court to suspend the Sharifs’ disqualification while an appeal is heard. The court is due to hear the government’s plea on the Sharifs’ behalf tomorrow.

Zardari said he hoped the restoration of the provincial government would lead to reconciliation between the two and that he and Sharif could “still meet as friends.” Opinion polls show Sharif, the prime minister ousted by Musharraf in a coup in 1999, has become Pakistan’s most popular politician since returning from exile in late 2007.

Sharif’s popularity was linked to the uncompromising stand he took over Chaudhry, the judge Musharraf dismissed when he declared emergency rule to extend his presidency.

The pro-West Zardari had become widely unpopular, again in part because of his past reluctance to reinstate Chaudhry who had stood up to Musharraf. Analysts say the president had feared the judge might nullify an amnesty Musharraf had given Benazir Bhutto and Zardari to return to Pakistan without fear of prosecution in corruption cases.

In his Parliament speech yesterday, Zardari also said that Pakistan will not compromise its sovereignty. “We have opposed drone attacks and we will oppose them,” the president said, referring to frequent missile attacks on suspected terrorists in the country’s northwest bordering Afghanistan.

- With input from agencies

WASHINGTON: U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday committed his administration to support democratic Pakistan with robust economic and much?needed security aid as he declared a relentless regional effort to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” al-Qaeda along Pakistan?Afghanistan border region.

Outlining Washington’s widely anticipated ‘comprehensive’ strategy ? the result of about two?month review of the U.S. policy for the restive regions ? Obama said al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistani border areas are “actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from a safe haven in Pakistan.”

The people of the United States and Pakistan face a common threat in the form of al-Qaeda, he stressed, pledging a lasting US partnership with the Pakistani people and unstinted support for its democratic advancement.“To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.”

Under the new plan, U.S. military expenses in Afghanistan ? currently about $2 billion a month ? would increase by about 60 percent this year as about 70,000 international forces, led by the United States struggle against an spiraling Taliban insurgency, seven and a half years after post?9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.

Obama advocated that the U.S. steps backing Pakistan “are indispensable to our effort in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.”At the same time, he acknowledged that military actions alone will not address the problem of violent extremism.

He promised to provide military assistance to Pakistan and urged the U.S. Congress to pass measures to bolster economic development in the country to help the South Asian ally ride out a difficult mix of economic and security challenges.“It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al?Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, they are rugged and they are often ungoverned.

“That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs in rooting out terrorists and after years of mixed results, we cannot and will not provide a blank cheque. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al?Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders.“We will insist action be taken one way or the other when we have intelligence about high?level targets.”

Obama, who Thursday called President Asif Ali Zardari to discuss the strategy, said the Pakistani government’s ability to destroy these safe?havens is tied to its own strength and security.“To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners.”

In the regional security perspective, Obama was conscious of the historical tensions between India and Pakistan and the need to defray strains between the two South Asian powers over their disputes through constructive U.S. diplomacy.“To lessen tensions between two nuclear?armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan.”

The US president claimed the al?Qaeda leaders have moved into Pakistan after U.S. dislodged their Afghan hosts, the Taliban from power in Kabul in post?9/11, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. He said Pakistan? Afghanistan border region has become the most dangerous place in the world for the American people. Yet, he said, it is an international challenge of the highest order and in this respect, referred to terrorist acts in Islamabad and other cities of the world.

Obama, flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary Defense Robert Gates, described the situation in Afghanistan as “perilous” and announced to ramp up security effort in Afghanistan to add 4000 U.S. trainers on top of already approved 17000 deployments for the southern parts of the country this summer.

“The people of Pakistan and Afghanistan have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists,” he said, hours after a suicide bombing in Khyber tribal agency claimed scores of lives. The incident underscored the severity of challenge in the Afghan?Pak border regions.

Obama stressed the commonality of Pakistani and American peace and security goals and vowed a “lasting partnership with the Pakistani people,” saying they share with Americans the desire to get rid of terrorist threat. “The United States has the greatest respect for the Pakistani people,” he said, applauding their rich history and struggle for democracy in the country.

“The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams and the security that can only come with the rule of law.“The single greatest threat to their future comes from al?Qaeda and its extremist allies. And that is why we must stand together.”

The terrorists, he said, killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani soldiers and police personnel. “Al-Qaeda and its extremists allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within,” he said urging the need for supporting Pakistan.

To strengthen Pakistan’s economy, he endorsed a bipartisan Congressional move to expand socio?economic assistance for Pakistan to $ 1.5 billion annually over at least five years, extendable to another five years. In this context, he urged passage of the measure that Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and Ranking Republican Richard Lugar plan to introduce the landmark measure next week.

He also called for enactment of legislation on establishing reconstruction opportunity zones under a preferential trade plan to kickstart economic activity and create jobs in the terrorism?afflicted areas.

“A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co?sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years ? resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan’s democracy.

“I am also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co?sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part ? including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.”

Obama added, he does “not ask for this support lightly”.“These are challenging times, and resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future ? because the security of our two countries is shared. Pakistan’s government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe?havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people.”

The U.S. president hinted at broadening the regional effort by looping in help from Russia, Iran, China and India in the stabilization effort.“Together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region ? our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.”

He said Pakistan and Afghanistan are inextricably linked.“The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.”

“Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 ? and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.”

Contrastingly with his predecessor George Bush’s high?flown claims about objectives in the insurgency?wrecked country, Obama scaled down and simplified the targets ? not to allow Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven for violent extremists who may plan attacks against the U.S. and its allies.

He said the U.S. military push in Afghanistan would be joined by a dramatic increase in the civilian effort.

“Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.”

He said “an uncompromising core of the Taliban,” the fundamentalist party that America and its allies ousted seven years ago, must be defeated militarily, but that other opposition forces “who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price,” must be drawn back into the fold.-APP

LONDON: The US-led War in Afghanistan, plagued by unclear goals and unintended consequences, must change course, according to Tariq Ali. Condemning the conduct of the conflict, the influential London-based Pakistani historian, journalist, and editor of the New Left Review also touched on the regrouping of the Taliban and the geopolitical motivations for NATO’s presence in the region.

Ali also presented what he believed would be a successful exit strategy from the now eight year long war. The event was sponsored by Unbound, Harvard’s journal of leftist legal thought.

After an introduction by Tor Krever ‘11, spokesman for Unbound, and by Prof. Duncan Kennedy, Ali praised recent developments in Pakistan, calling the reinstatement of the country’s Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry dismissed after standing up the country’s ruling elites a rare bit of good news for the region.

He also lauded the country’s lawyers’ movement, which had helped to place Chaudhry back on the bench and wondered why there was not a similar movement against breaches of the rule of law in the US.

Turning to Afghanistan, Ali speculated that the war had been primarily motivated by revenge. He highlighted the Taliban’s initial offer to turn over members of Al-Qaeda if the US produced evidence of their role in the September 11th attacks a request, he lamented, never taken seriously.

He also hinted at darker motives for NATO’s role in the conflict, pointing to statements by the organization’s Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Schaffer, that Western armies’ ongoing role in the region is meant to “contain China”.

Ali also said that the US initial goals to kill or capture Osama bin Laden or the Taliban’s former leader, Mullah Omar had become a driving obsession, interfering with attempts to make a positive impact on the country. If NATO had gone into Afghanistan with the stated goal of reconstruction and development, Ali reasoned, its conduct would not have alienated as many Afghans.

Instead, he claimed, their raids into the countryside have increased support for a resurgent Taliban and sent many Afghans streaming to shelter on the outskirts of the capital, Kabul. There, they live in shanties within direct sight of the comparatively luxurious lifestyles of aid groups and Western militaries.

In the face of an occupation force that ignores the social realities of the Afghan state, Ali said, and an Afghan government that barely retains control of Kandahar and Kabul, the Taliban has not only expanded its territorial scope and military strength, but its membership.

Ali asserts these new recruits have changed the character of the organization. Citing formal Taliban press conferences in which members of the group wore suits, he went on to describe their offer to cleanse the region of Al-Qaeda if NATO forces were to leave the region, entirely.

While not explicitly exhorting NATO to take up their offer, Ali did suggest that the organization aim to fulfill Afghans’ social and political needs rather than continue to concentrate on Al-Qaeda, which he said had become a wildly overstated threat.

Doing so, Ali said, would allow Afghanistan to recover from a state which was “worse than under the Taliban,” worse even, NGOs now report, for women. Noting that rapes had increased significantly, he said that Afghans now looked to Iran as a model society.

Echoing the alleged Obama administration plans to engage that country to seek a regional solution for Afghanistan, Ali said that Pakistan, Russia, and China should all be involved as well. Still, Ali did not believe the war could continue to be prosecuted as a fruitless assault on Al-Qaeda, a campaign promise which Pres. Barack Obama ‘91 could only possibly deliver at Afghanistan’s continuing expense.-SANA