The Muslims and Hindus lived for at least 850-year together in India but without overt enmity, oppression and violence.

Indeed the Hindus looked towards the Muslims as aliens and invaders but preferred them to the British. Both the cow-eaters and the cow-worshippers fought combined against the British Raj. Consequently they succeeded in expelling the Britishers from this land of odd traditions. But the colonial power shattered the frayed unity of both the Muslims and Hindus by unjust distribution of assets, keeping Kashmir unsolved. And the issue still is a bone between the two dogs–here the word dog must not be taken for disgrace and contempt rather for instance. Both the countries chalked out their foreign policies on hostile lines. Since then the enmity has mounted many times. Today, Pakistan is more religiously intolerant than was achieved. Same is the case of India. The purported and self-styled religious clerics in both the countries have dripped the venom of hatred so much that the two–Muslims and Hindus stand poles apart. Here is the need to rewrite the foreign policies in the two countries. It is needed to expurgate the textbooks in both the countries that teach the language of hate and sentimentality.

Pick any book from Pakistani institutions and you will see what is wrong with. And pick any book from Indian state sponsored educational institutions and you will see how its nascent buds are taught and an anti-Pakistani secret message. As both the countries are developing where most of the people cannot go higher than graduation and they don’t know the hidden hands behind their curricula which try to mould their mind set in the way as the hidden hands want. What is that hidden hand? It is the elite class which has been using and exploiting the masses. It sends their children to Europe and American, who has the right to know, to mould and to rule. It is the same hidden hand, which has divided the Muslims and Hindus in South Asia.

There are more than 38 illegal FM channels in Pakistan wherefrom the religious clerics teaches its followers the language of abhorrence, hatred and sectarianism. And they don’t talk much about India but its own Muslims in Pakistan to be tortured and killed. Then who poses a serious threat to Pakistan. For me these stations, its runners and the self-styled Taliban have been posing a serious threat to the masses of Pakistan than India. In 1965 Pak-India war the death toll was nearly four thousand and causalities were less than unleashed in the current wave of terrorism. If we compare the loss of lives and causalities inflected on the masses from these terrorists is four times greater than that. Then why not to call them a threat?

If India attacks, let suppose, and most of the intellectuals believe it will never attack, but we would be united and will fight it with unity. And the enemy would be obvious and opposite. But in case of Taliban–or homegrown enemies, they are carrying out bomb explosions, killing the innocent and down to earth natured poor people, and persecuting but without declared war. It is an enemy in dark. Who carried out more than 17 suicide attacks only in Swat during the past year?

Who masterminded and carried out no less than 70 remote-control bomb explosions in Swat? Who razed 122 schools to earth and colleges including 84 girls’ institutions? More than 18 bridges have been damaged but who is behind it? More than 12 police stations have been assaulted and damaged but can any one explain who, by whom and why? Who kidnapped more than 68 security personal personnel during the past year? Who invoked to the military operation in Swat, which resulted at the destruction of hundreds of houses, and migration of more than 50,0000 people from the area? The terrorist or India? Only one masjid (Babri Masjid) was demolished in India and that shook not only Pakistanis but also the entire Islamic world but more than 40 masajid have been destroyed but went unsung. It is either because of the fear of the Taliban or because it is all done in the name of religion. But the fear of Taliban rules only in tribal belt and NWFP but why the rest of Pakistanis preferred for silence. As a journalist one cannot put life at stake for candid reporting from FATA and Swat. By now three journalists had to wash their hands of their lives in Swat. Who has banned the polio vaccination in the remote areas of NWFP and tribal agencies? And why to sharpen our teeth and show honed jaws to Indians. The word Indians must be taken in broader context contrary to BJP, VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal’s definition. Such Indianism comes under the definition of Hindutva-fascism. To all these questions the answer is not India. Then why to blame India? That is very easy to blame others for one’s own faults and lapses. Unfortunately the government officials and the politicians are already addicted to it instead seeking ways and means for solutions. And always they are at it to exonerate themselves, which indeed is not the solution. We have a proverb in Pushto, “che ghal de da kora we no mela ba de spora we”. It can be taken in English; “an in-home thief /enemy is sufficient for your destruction”. When we have an enemy in home there is no need to have from outside. And the statement of Tehreek-e-Taliban and other militant outfits is beyond understanding and is really ridiculous. According to these outfits they are as patriotic as the rest of Pakistanis and if India attacks they will fight them abreast with Pakistani forces. Is it not their insanity? If they are so patriotic then why they have set their home ablaze?

We must put our home aright than to blame others. India is not that much a threat as these miscreants who have unleashed a reign of terror specifically in FATA.

This all is carried out under the nose of the establishment. The government in NWFP has coined an attractive but lethal excuse that FATA is not a part of the province.

We have been hearing this excuse since long and the federal is also escapist on this issue. Escapism and allegationism are tools, which have been in use, but the terror and the military operation in Swat is enough to be an eye-opener fact. Ask any Swati about the Taliban and abruptly he will start cursing the government and abusing Taliban. Have you ever seen a human yoked for plowing fields instead ox or heard a story. If not, you can see and hear the story in FATA.you must have seen or heared about the stories about hurling acid at the faces of schoolgirls but must have not seen or heard about yoking and plowing by men.

This trangression against the mild and lenient laws of mild and true Islam. And such acts of bleak barbarism have defaced the true picture of religion.

It is also unripe and misleading to allege India for all the chaos in FATA. Even, if it is accepted then comes the question that who is behind the terror game in valley Swat. Because it has no direct frontiers with any neighbouring countries and it is not a part of FATA–an area that is being considered in Pakistan, as unruly but is an area, which comes under the control of provincial government. Then wherefrom Swat (once the Switzerland of Pakistan and one of the favourite tourists spot) is receiving aid in money and weapons? Why the state agencies have not traced out the hands behind it. Or they know it but deliberately look the other way. If that is so, then the masses have the right to know the expediency of the government in it. Since 2002 more than 700 terrorists have been handed over to foreigners and more than 3000 have been put behind the bars but none of them were dragged into the law courts. And none of them were proven guilty and punished. Had the governments in Pakistan done so, it would have discouraged the rest of terrorists and would have overcome the sagging confidence of the masses. No nabbed terrorist has been shown on media punished for his or her crimes but we hear news-statements just about figures. No journalist knows about the sequel of the detainees. In return the outcome is doubt from the masses.

A few days back I had a chance to hear Voice of America and heard the comments of different callers from across the Pakistan especially NWFP.

Ignorance, religious and anti-Hindu sentimentalities gushed out of their mouths. And same is the attitude of those Indians who can be kept under the catagory of haves not. They are the selfsame emblem of religious intolerance, ignorance, hatred and anti-Pakistan sentiments. Here ignorance does not mean the lack of education but the famine of well and timely thinking. Their sentimentalities don’t go with the trend of the times as of the Taliban in Pakistan. The political classes in both the countries know very well that there is no enmity between the two states at all and when they meet in foreign, they meet like friends. Even there is a rumour that some of the political elites from India and Pakistan have combined businesses in foreign countries. If the rumour is true then why this duplicity? Is it not a deadly and contemptuous game against the poor people of the two countries?

But this is all done under the cloak of jingoism, nationalism and patriotism. And it is all done from elite but for misleading the masses. The day when the masses will realise that it is all a game, will they allow their politicians and governments to allocate a huge portion of its fiscal budgets for defence. Will they allow a third world country like Pakistan, where the 40 percent people live under the poverty line to construct new general head quarter (GHQ) in Islamabad. It requires more than 70 billion rupees ( Pakistani currency). Is it fair and just to builed it at the cost of poverty, low literacy rate and militancy in a country where the poor are committing suicides because of searing poverty. A few years back 23 percent people in Pakistan were below poverty line while in India the ratio was 40 percent. Today the order is totally opposite.

The new GHQ in Islamabad would be constructed on the design of the five-sided building of Pentagon. For that purpose 1400 acres of land has been allotted which is phase-III of Defence Complex project. It is appreciable that General Ishfaq Pervaiz Kiani has ordered to stop its construction because of global recession. Here it must not be construe that we must not be strong in defence but at least those who chalked out the project must have taken the poor into consideration. India also has the same mentality and allocating huge defence budget for its military adventurism. It is doing it under the pretext of bolstering its defence but like Pakistan at the cost of poverty and religio-perversion of its masses.

It woul also be better to concentrate on the in-home enemy for it has demonised Pakistan among world communities as a plague spot. And it is necessary to change the militant psyche of general public into a moderate and tolerant one. It requires a long and steady efforts to mittigate it. India also has to do the same if it wants peace in the region. If the Muslims and Hindus could live in past as a nation for centuries with out violence and antagonism at least they can live as peaceful neighbours for millenia in future.

With that ther is growing need to re-write foreign policies in the two states with the ink of not only tolerance but sympathy on the paper of devotion, wherein there is no hint of hatred. And that is it.

The writer is FATA-based freelance journalist.

Since the Mumbai carnage the clouds of war have been hovering over the heads of the two nuclear states.

With each passing day the war-hysteria was mounting which invited to the foreign influence. From America to the Britain and from China to Saudi Arabia all the countries exerted their influence over the two countries. The issue was bedeviled by the obduracy of India. The media in India, Pakistan and the US fanned the war phobia equally. Especially the electronic media left no stone unturned in igniting the war hysteria. The three media in the countries behaved ridiculously and the US media had already done it in the case of Iraq invasion.

According to Atique Saddique who writes from New York for an Urdu daily being published from Peshawar, says an his column that in the US, the public opinion is fully moulded for the invasion on Pakistan. According to the American media, Pakistan is a plague spot for nursing and importing terrorism on this planet. His prognosis surely is convincing that public opinion in America is leveled for the attack on Pakistan whereas it is debatable that the US will attack. It will never until it hopes that the war on terror is winnable in Afghanistan. If it fails, then beyond any doubt, it will kick back at Pakistan. If it succeeds then also it will try to smother its non-Nato ally. But right in a few months it is premature that such an evil befall on Pakistan.

The US is not here really to combat terror rather it is here to fan it alive. In this regard possibly Russia and even Iran will burry the hatchet and will join hands with the US against Pakistan.

Since the Mumbai mayhem of 26th November 2008, wherever I went the words, which stroke my ears, were whether India will attack Pakistan or not? The answer they received from my side was surely not now. It was their discussion that dragged me towards writing this article. Why it will not? Is Pakistan is cousin to the US? Indeed the answer is no. Then why it is not attacking Pakistan or why it is exerting India not to attack? The reason is not that it is a nuclear state rather the environment is not fertile for the invasion. As a part of the great game the anti-Pakistan hands want to bleed it so profousedly that it will succumb without any invasion.

A few months back when the Tehreek-e-Taliban plundered the trucks of Nato forces in Khyber Pass, the Nato forces refused to attack Pakistan. And the US is also fully aware of the importance of Khyber Pass that it is as important for the Nato and American forces in Afghanistan as a windpipe. In case the US forces attacks Pakistan the Pass can go to the hands of Taliban and the war on terror in Afghanistan is lost. Moreover, destabilise Pakistan means a safe haven for Al-Qaida and other militants’ forces. And destabilise Pakistan means a constant threat for India, for it will be easy for the Al-Qaida and Taliban to expand its area of operations to the revered land of Baharat Matha. Initially India was searing with rage and the smell of possible war was clearly coming from New Delhi towards Islamabad. But the recent statement of its Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee that terrorism is not a bilateral enemy rather it is a global enemy and hence should be fought congregationally, shows the u-turn of Indian aggressive policy towards Islamabad, which was likely to erupt war. It was also alleging Islamabad that New Delhi has provided proofs of its involvement. However Islamabad went on denail and the issue wnet from bad to worse. India intruded its aircrafts into the Pakistani air-bordr but Mr. Asif Ali Zardari tried to avoid the possible clash by calling it an outcome of a technical mistake. Interpol which is a global police agency termed the stance of India unsatisfactory. The Interpol Chief Ronald K. Noble visited Islamabad also after his visit to New Delhi on December 20, 2008. After that the clouds or possible war saw its decline. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mehmood Qureshi demanded Indian government to relocate its troops to peace-times position.

Condollezza Rice has been harsh on Pakistan but in today’s visit to India she will exert its pressure on India to tone down its pungent language. What the US all is doing to assign Pakistan the security over the Nato supply. Hence in the US interruption the threat of war is gradually coming down.

The India External Affairs Minister, Parnab Mukargee also discussed the issue with the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal durinh his visit to India on 26 December 2008.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is likely to visit Saudi Arabia in coming few months where he would request Riyadh to scotch funding Jihadi outfits in Pakistan. By now India has plying well but it has concerns over the statement of Obama.

When Barack Obama exposed that he will take a keen interest in Kashmir issue the next day, daily “The Pioneer” published an article as a reaction to his statement carrying the headline “Mr. Obama, Kashmir is not an issue”. Here it shws that India is creating obstacles in the solution of Kashmr issue. It is the major hatchet between the two neighbouring countries since partion of india in 1947.

It is Indian obduracy that compels it to make it a part of its constitution.

Indeed in Indian constitution it has been declare “Uttoot Ung—unbreakable organ” but it is the public of Kashmir who has the authority over the fate its land, the UN and the world community to solve the issue. Among the world community the US is the only power, which has the propensity to solve the Kashmir issue, and no doubt a ray and air of hope went over the heads of Kashmiris and Pakistanis that as Barack Obama has shown his interest in Kashmir issue, so a possible solution will come in way. The Mumbai mayhem disillusioned the Kashmiris and Pakistanis that it will remain still a hatchet between the two rival countries. There would be war between India and Pakistan but one thing, which was witnessed that New Delhi drubbed Islamabad in ambassadorial efficiency across the world. The statements and steps taken by our leadership caused us ridiculous and the image of Pakistan received a sever setback. Like the masses of Pakistan, China also is stunned with the attitude of our leadership that how it gave way to Indian pressure and how India succeeded in trouncing it in the UN.

The US and India have been making efforts to lasso ISI since May-June. But they got the opportunity after the Mumbai mayhem.

We are the runner in the war on terror not the US, India and the Taliban or Al-Qaida. The whole fiasco of Mumbai carnage was carried out very deftly and India succeeded in demonising Pakistan and banning Jamat-e-Dawa—formerly Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, which has been operational in Kashmir against the eight lakhs Indian troops. The Mumbai incident also affected the Kashmir freedom movement seroiusly.

India has been crying for it’s banning and found an opportunity now to eradicate this constant thorn out of its path. China has imposed a technical hold on this issue in the UN and had stridden to keep it postponed. But Pakistan heaped to the US and Indian pressure and beseeched Beijing to abrogate the technical hold. Beijing, which is also facing the trouble of Muslim separatist movement but still it tried to veto the UN sanction on Jamat-e-Dawa. The US pressurised Pakistan to soothe China over the issue. After that China accepted the bane on Jamat-e-Dawa. The US and India have been striving to keep such outfits and some of the retired ISI officials including Hameed Gul and three others to keep them in the UN terrorist-list. It was only China that has been trammeling their efforts. But now, Russia, Ukraine, India and even Iran have joined hands against Pakistan. The war on terror proved very dear to Pakistan but still it is in its deep slumber when it will awake to overcome the backlashes it will be too late. The war probably will not erupt but the clouds will remain hovering. Pakistan has a short possible leeway to rethink and re-chalk out its foreign policy before it is destabilised to the extent wherefrom there is no way to come back.

The US predator drones midnight attack on November 22, 2008 purportedly killed five people including Abu-al-Asr Misri and Rashid Rauf. It is the 46th incident of US reconnaissance and predator drones’ intrusion. The story of the US intrusion crept in into tribal regions during Musharraf regime but it went its zenith during PPP-led government. By now more than ten thousand Pukhtoons in tribal belt has been left dead and no less than 20 thousand physically disabled in the so-called war on terror. Yes the same war on terror, which has been detested by US intellectuals, who had the gumption of battering Mr. Bush for his sanguinary foreign policy and waging a war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the likely one in Pakistan. It has taken its initiation, which will surly touch its impetus in January 2009 after Obama inters White House. The Pakistan of Jinnah and Iqbal is under the intrigue of the belligerent and world’s only super power. But this is all possible for the US with the accomplice of Jinnah’s ostensible political heirs.

Iqbal wanted to endow his nation with essence of independence, self-ego and self-respect through his writings while Jinnah practically showed his nation how to live as an independent nation in world community. But their posteriors defaced their great names badly by American toadyism and roaming after begging with begging-bowls. They are moaning before England to exert the US to stop its ongoing series of drones’ attacks. Is it the way to live as a free and independent nation? Because our great Jinnah has given us a great legacy of self-respect but his descendants have adopted the other way—self-will-servility.

Once Sir Winston Churchill said Jinnah “if you were an English then I would have placed you in my cabinet”. What this tall and frail man of 52 Kg—Jinnah told him is ever remembering. Contrary to Churchill’s expectation he responded him; “no, if I (Jinnah) were an English then I would have kept you in my cabinet”. Though in those days he was not the Governor General of Pakistan but a representative of a subject (slave) nation—the Muslims of subcontinent. At that time Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He is the same Churchill, who took England to a safe harbour against the Hitler’s Germany when it was crushing country after country. But in present day world Pakistan has went politically bankrupt because the public has confidence in no party and no leader. Even Syria, which is geographically not greater than our province of Balochistan but how boldly it detested the American aerial attack, is exemplary for Pakistan. When it is asked of our Prime Minister that why we cannot begrudge the US intrusion in FATA and now the settled area of Bannu, which is near to Waziristan, the answer the public receives is too frustrating that Pakistan is a small country and cannot challenge the US. Yes, Mr. Cower Prime Minister it is true that Pakistan cannot fight America and the journalists and intellectuals will not prod you to do so but at least a nation must have courage to detest foreign intrusion as an independent nation. And Pakistan in reality is not that much small which the political oligarchs are trying too show. England, which has ruled over half of the world, is comparable geographically with our two provinces—Punjab and NWFP. For greatness of a nation, area and geographical size of a country is not measured but it has its own principal but like dearth of edible commodities and jobs there is also a dearth of such principal and great.

It is because from this now-to-be-free-nation there is no political character that has the gumption to respond to the US in a manly but positive manner that the ongoing series of drones attacks must be stopped and the war on terror, which has unleashed a deadly loss in men and material, is not ours. Contrary to the hopes and wishes every now and then the docile political elite in Pakistan has always tried to delude its nation into elusive and evasive explanations and called it our war.

For instance whenever there is a US drone attack in tribal belt, it is denied by the inter services public relations (ISPR) and the government. In this regard the press conference of Munsif Afridi, the spokesman for Amar-bel-Maroof (one of the three local Taliban outfits) speaks volumes when he explained the US drones attack in valley Tirah, a far-flung area of Khyber Agency wherein at least 8 people were mowed down and injured no less than five. The next morning the ISPR’s denial proliferated the entire press. The same day when I went through the statement of its denial a curiosity popped up in my mind to check out the credibility of the news. My brain reeled with the words of my source when he told me that he is right now in the funeral prayer of a lady who succumbed to news of her only nephew, which was killed in the incident of valley Tirah. Second example is the news, which obliterated the matter about the killings of Rashid Rauf and Abu-al-Asr Misri when the local populace told the journalists that those who were targeted and killed were the local people and not foreigners. So the denials and the song of foreign inclusion have badly tarnished the image of elected government. Similarly the news went controversial in Britain where its public demanded explanation about.

Prior to the incident, a news for public and allegation for government emanated from ‘Washington Post’ that the present government in Pakistan has a clandestine deal with the US, which allows American drones for selected surgery in the tribal belt? Under the deal, the government in Pakistan has no right for calling explanation from the US but it can go merely on denouncing the drones intrusions.

The newspaper has named the deal, ‘don’t ask and don’t tell’, which enables the US to attack tribal belt in pursuit of Al-Qaida activists.

But the denial-addicted government, in its typical style, rebuffed the news of the paper a mere allegation against the democratic government.

If the news of the ‘Washington Post’ has no tinge of reality then why it does not come up with a neat and clear stance instead adopting the path of equivocal and hoax explanations.

The public has no concern with it, whether the news report of Washington Post is allegation or a reality but it wants an immediate halt to the on going series of US predator drones incursions. After getting votes with the slogan of peace the role of ANP has been under battering but Minister for Railways Bashir Ahmad Bilour exhumed the bitter realities that “the fire has been brought to this land by the government itself and not the masses. And it is not so easy to put a halt to it just with a magic wand and mere lip service. The government is fighting war on terror against the wishes of its public and it seems difficult that it will win over it.

The government must take the wishes and hopes of its public and it will have to scotch its dual policy”. Now it is necessary for the government to rethink and reshape its domestic and foreign policy instead keeping the current military operations and steering the old wagon of Musharraf’s reeking policy. At the same time it is a dream to hope for a seismic shift in our foreign policy until it rests with GHQ.

[Read Part 1 of this article here.]

Back to the issue of the US invasion on Afghanistan and its oil diplomacy, the correspondent of ABC, Mr. John K Cooley in his book ‘Unholy Wars’ unearthed that America and its multi-national oil companies were covetous after the untapped fossil fuel reserves in Central Asian States and Caspian Basin.

In 1993, a Californian oil company UNOCAL, negotiated for signing an agreement with the government of Turkmenistan. Afterwards the company signed an agreement with Ashkabad in approval for exploring a feasible place for the construction of oil pipeline. It was decided that this pipeline would run through Pakistan, America’s non-Nato ally in contrast to its stanch opponent Iran that wanted to channel Ashkabad’s energy. The same year Turkmenistan and Pakistan also signed an agreement to work in collaboration for their natural resources and to carpet a pipeline between the two countries. Here the question is, why the Taliban agreed to have a trading agreement with the government of Pakistan? Shibergan—a northern province of Afghanistan has been pumping natural gas to the then Soviet through Uzbekistan. Its reserves were estimated at 1,1000 billion cubic meters. The flow of natural gas remained continue even during the chaotic days of 1979 up to 1989. It is a well-known fact that Pakistan has been providing stilts to the Taliban by putting its own security at stack as we are witnessing for the past few years but for these obvious reasons. Fist it was dictated by Washington to do so. Second it wanted to erect Taliban an adamant power in Afghanistan against Indian influence. Third it was aware of the fact that in case world community and in specific the US does not recognise Taliban’s government as legitimate then they would not be in the position to claim for the controversial Durand Line because of their civil war. An indeed the Musharraf-led government did the same by sending its military to those areas where they have never been since the creation of Pakistan whereas Taliban remained absorb in baffling with the US forces. Fourth the Taliban and Pakistan were allies against Soviet so they wanted to recover the flow of natural gas to Russia from Shibergan through Uzbekistan. In that connection the Taliban and Islamabad had signed an agreement but it was irrespective of the deal which company succeeds in getting the transit rights.

“Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth which was published from Paris with the title “Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite” also endorsed the claim of Cooley that the Bush administration has struck many clandestine rounds of negotiation with the Taliban in August 2001. It says that behind all the efforts there was the only aim of clinching the belt of championship over the vast oil and gas reserves in Central Asia by meshing an oil pipeline from the rich oil fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, via Afghanistan, to Pakistan and Indian Ocean.

The co-authored book alleges if the Taliban had allowed the meshing and construction of oil pipeline and US monopoly over the huge reserves of the gas and oil, then America would have strode for the Taliban’s political recognition and economic assistance. The hurdle came when the Taliban refused to accept the US control over the reserves. During the negotiations the US representatives threatened the Taliban ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we burry you under a carpet of bombs’.

During this course the Executives of UNOCAL oil company offered the Taliban a bounteous and generous cut of the profits of the oil and gas through the US clandestine official approval, in case they allow its pumping through the pipeline via Afghanistan to Pakistan and then through Indian Ocean to America.

BBC also has expounded the issue that radio Kabul had reported the representatives of the UNOCAL and BRIDAS have circumambulated Kabul. The report said that it was the tug-of-war between the two companies that created a political fray for Afghanistan. The Taliban minister for information and culture Muttaqi Khan in November 1997 explained ‘we have argued with both the companies on transit rights adding that by now it is not clear and the three neighbouring countries will decide collaboratively for a lucrative and fruitful deal with one of the two companies’.

At length the moment came when the Taliban nodded to the Argentine oil company BRIDAS for they wanted to mitigate the US monopoly. But this decision earned the wrath of Washington. The US apparently in pursuit of Al-Qaida, under ‘The Operation Enduring Freedom’, invaded Afghanistan on 7th October 2001.

Within a span of only three months the US forces carried out more than five thousand air raids wherein at least five hundred thousand bombs were rained including the most fatal bombs ‘Daisy Cutters’. It is a substantial reality that Bush and his administration have a strong oil background having close links with oil corporate.

For instance, Dick Cheney has been president of Halliburton, a company responsible for running the services of oil industry. Now there must not any doubt that it was the greed of the oil industrialists merged with the personal interest of Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney that Washington decided to cover Afghanistan under the carpet of bombs.

In this invasion there has been also a tinge of ‘new world order’, which was orchestrated by his father in 1992 after the fall of USSR. This new order was chalked out for the nourishment of the US dominance across the globe.

William Blum in his book ‘Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower’ claims ‘it is not the first incident the US unleashed a bloodbath through intrigue rather it has attempted to eradicate 40 countries from the surface of the globe’.

Blum alleges that America has invaded 20 countries of the world and almost supported dictatorship in every country, with a few exceptional cases. He has audaciously compared president George W. Bush with Hitler. The world witnessed his rule of great blood game and cried frantically for a human to be there in White House instead a devil. Now his political drop scene is hovering upon his head and the world especially third world community hoped that the advent of Obama would herald a positive change.

But Obama’s reiterations that he will send more troops to Afghanistan dashed their hopes to ground. Afghan president Hamid Karzia is rightfully demanding for the timeframe of the troop’s evacuation. And if Obama thinks that might is right then surly he is badly mistaken for might is not always right. And this use of might has been very deadly but for Afghans not the US or Al-Qaida.

And according to some allegations it will remain here till 1936, which shows that the future of this land is utterly bleak because of the imperialist designs of the US and it makes no difference for the inhabitants of the region that who is the president of the US—Bush or Obama. (Concluded)

The writer is a FATA-based freelance journalist.

During his election campaign he has repeatedly reiterated that he will withdraw US forces from Iraq and half of the withdrawn forces (4500) would be sent to Afghanistan. After trouncing his republican rival John McCain in presidential election, the US president-elect Barack Obama, as a first step of his enunciation, has called for evacuation of its forces from the land of Iraq. The process would be completed with in a span of 16 months. He has been a harsh critic of Bush foreign policy but what is, that, which has compelled him on deploying more troops in Afghanistan. Does America really want to bring true democracy to Afghanistan, (a land of eccentric traditions) and want to hamstring the influence and strength of Al-Qaida?

Does it want to uplift the social and economic conditions of a tattered country, which has fought for more or less thirty years, which has to fight a long way further?

Whether it was the solo and personal decision of late General Zia-ul-haq to initiate a holy war against the then USSR, or he was doing it at the behest of his American counterpart.

The assassinated Benazir Bhuttu and General Naseerullah Babar reared Taliban on his or her own initiatives or it was the dictation of the US?

Whether America was against Talibanisation from the very out set or something occurred, which, the US could not digested? For asking there is a torrent of questions but for understanding the full story why America invaded Afghanistan, there are a few factors, which are surely helpful in understanding the great intrigue of invasion. Among them all, the US economic interest factor stands prominent. It is no denying the fact that no Afghan national was involved in 9/11 attacks on the twin towers of the US then what was there that goaded the Washington on invading Afghanistan?

When the Taliban were getting triumph after triumph with the secret backing and succor of Pakistan, the US felt it a hazard for capitalism for which it had fought with the USSR.

Islamabad assured Washington that king Zahir Shah is popular among majority of the Taliban and it will exert on them to re-empower him. Thus Islamabad embanked the Taliban against the US possible aggression. Here, some of the journalists started writing Afghanistan as the fifth province of Pakistan. Because there was no need to have a passport to visit Afghanistan and similarly the Taliban were given a special privilege in Pakistan. The ties between the Taliban and Pakistan can be jugged of the fact that once I was at lurk for a non-stop vehicle from Torkhum border-gate to Islamabad, that a Taliban pick-up vehicle appeared at the gate and luckily I was given a hitch-hike by them.

But to my surprise during the whole course of journey no security personnel could dare to stop the vehicle while traveling from Torkhum to Islamabad.

But it was a herculean task to muster up the scattered eight different factions of Taliban under a single flag of Zahir Shah. The Peshawar accord and Islamabad accord could not weld them into a homogenous whole. But this factor is not so convincing in paving the way for the US aggression.

The second factor, which provoked the US on invasion, was the presence of Usama bin Laden and his purported involvement in the attacks of 9/11. But this factor is also not so convincing.

Because, on one hand he was the production of American anti-socialist strategy, on the other the US has been a major haven for the insurgents of Asia, Europe and Cuba. One prime example is that only in Florida, there is a glut of Cuban insurgents. In such a case it has no legal right to decimate and destroy an entire nation and a country in the pursuit of a single man or a faction. If the US is justified in it then the Cuba has such kind of right to attack America, and indeed it did not do it. At least the Cuba had the legal right to file a case in the international court of law against American CIA. For, it was involved in Che Guevara’s execution on October 10, 1967, in La Higuera, Bolivia. Then why did it attack Afghanistan?

Was it the Islamic styled fast-response judicial system of Taliban, their religious mentality or their tough purdha system for women that invoked its invasion on Afghanistan? The answer is surly ‘no’. If it were the case then it must have attacked, its friend Saudi Arabia, for it has also the same Islamic tradition with a dynasty instead democracy. Then why America does not attack it? It is very recent that the Bush administration also fabricated a plan to attack Saudi Arabia but it is not a part of this current discussion.

If religion is a great threat for America then unlike Usama (who epitomises religion in the eyes of the US), Che Guevara was a stanch atheist (a symbol of apostasy), so why did the US destroy him. It is because the US always fights for its hegemony and want to hoist the flag of capitalism and its supremacy across the globe. The person who was stanch supporter for socialism (Che Guevara) was executed and the person who is a stanch anti-socialism (Usama), is under the pursuit of the US.

If America really wanted to kill Usama then CIA has the mastery of intrusion and intrigues. It has executed Che Guevara in Bolivia for his revolutionary vision, and Z.A Bhuttu in his own country for introducing nuclear programme in Pakistan through the hands of its own superseded military General.

If it can knit intrigues against President Suikarno of Indonesia and president Nasser of Egypt,Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, Cuban Socialist leader Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, then it could have assassinated Usama also. Thus it is clear that imperialist power always keeps its economic interests dear than any thing in the world. It has nothing to do with religion, culture or democracy. For it has always bolstered up dictatorship in Pakistan with no exemption of Taiwan. For bolstering up two-China policy, Washington had supported a military dictator Gen. Chiang Kai-Shek in Taiwan. It was after a great deal of hues and cries of Beijing that Carter buried the hatchet for sometime and that too for the sake of its own economic interests.

After the Soviet disintegration and the emergence of Central Asian States, all the natural resources near river Caspian were laying underutilised. Washington, like a hovering hawk wanted to swoop on that underutilised pool of natural gas and oil.

We have been hearing it since long and this perception is so common that even a layman can utter a few words about it. But it is necessary to explain it whether it is a rumour or a reality. Once addressing a seminar on “ Oil and Gas Industry” arranged by the CATO Institute, US Vice-President Dick Cheney exposed “God has accumulated the natural resources in those countries whom we have no good ties. This is the reason we sometimes go to those areas where we rarely go. Then it is our compulsion to interfere in their affairs. Anyway we prefer to go where there is business we prefer to go there”.

He pointed out that the pool of natural resources in gulf states are fast depleting so for Washington the entrails of river Caspian and its adjoining areas can be a good alternative. It has a pool of worth four trillion in US $ dollar. He wondered that he could not believe the river Caspian and its adjacent areas will get such a strategic prominence. Now it is obvious that for the US there was no option save invasion, to plunder such a huge natural pool of entrails. It wanted to have access to it by meshing a pipeline via Afghanistan. It was in 2001 when “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth” which made its debut as a collaborative work by French writer Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, that divulged the causes of American invasion.

The book says that Washington wanted to raise Taliban as a power among Central Asian States and thus it dreamt for meshing pipeline from former Soviet States via Afghanistan. For the purpose America wanted to bring conformity among the different factions of Taliban. Thus it prodded Islamabad to play its role and many rounds of talks among small and major eight outfits of Taliban were carried out.

The US was acting on a policy of conformity until the Taliban defied its dictations in 2001. It is not the notion of a layman rather it is the out come of Brisard and Dasquie’s joint observations and efforts. The former has been a high profiled official at the French Secretariat Service while the later is a prominent name in journalism. The book says that Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) Deputy Director John O’Niel resigned on account that the US had always ignored the presence of Usama in Afghanistan. Frustrated with this, O’Neill had gone public, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi/al-Qaeda connections because of the Enron pipeline deal.

It is then, the US roared with furry when the Taliban put some conditions before Washington for carpeting pipeline via Afghanistan.

Thus America could not condone their unforgivable crime and decided to exterminate the Taliban.

(To be continued)

The writer is a FATA-based freelance journalist.

There has been a great deal of discussion on this hour of multifarious challenges.

Starting from terrorism, financial crisis, price-hiking, judicial crisis, good governance, restoring the 1973 Constitution in its genuine form, the cabinet issue with a queue of politicians for getting ministries, ruler’s foreign trips and the their prodigality, joblessness, to the US drones intrusions, there is a long list of afflictions. Contrary to the cries of politicians, the series of crises is intrinsic rather than extrinsic. When a party comes in power, its president, prime minister along with its beneficiaries shares the bacon equally with great relish. When the party fame starts waning, the news start trickling down that the party had been involved in corruption and defalcation. When Musharaf was in power, he had given a piece of land (reckon it in acres not feet), to the gang of MMA government. The piece of land was already allocated for Army in D.I Khan. But there was no name of any army-men or martyrs in the list of its receivers.

The nation is not weeping that why the former president Pervaiz Musharraf gave it to the MMA, as a bribe, for prolonging his issue of uniform which he had promised the nation that he will shed by 2004. But it’s weeping, why the news was kept under a thick layer of darkness for such a long time? Since long every leader has entrapped the nation in linking the challenges and problems to the blunders and dishonesty of the past government’s, coupled with extrinsic plots instead seeking ways and means for overcoming it.

Right from the out set of the acquisition of Pakistan, the elite of the country is addicted of begging and then lavishly using it, just with a few exceptional characters. When the saddle of the country was in his hands, Nawaz Sharif, used state treasury on foreign trips but his adversary Musharraf, after toppling his government went ahead of him. He clinched the title of championship and trounced his predecessor Nawaz in the race of foreign trips.

Every second month, he circumambulated the Khana-e-Kaaba (The House of Lord), with a flock of his yes-men and photojournalists.

It was then the duty of those journalists to manage for space in front pages of newspapers to achieve the wish-image of their present. During his regime a retired Army official, who was running a private hospital at Rawalpindi, beguiled a naïve kiln-lady-worker into selling her kidney for getting rid of loan and its interest, which she had taken for the treatment of her son.

The owner of the hospital brazenly said this inhuman sentence that it’s the gift of God that a human has two kidneys and in case of poverty s/he can sell it. The event went unnoticed until the BBC leaked it, and it was then, the public gave vent to its resentment. When PPP was in opposition it used to beat the drums against the profligacy of the rulers on foreign trips. But now the same PPP and its leadership have fallen prey to this leper. The headlines in national and local dailies regarding the flight of the two top leaders of the present government eclipsed the importance of the news events of suicide bombing incident, death toll in Swat and Bajuar, the suicide of tow youngsters of 18 and 22-year because of poverty. The caravan of the president with a legion of 300 VIPs was to make its flight to Saudi Arabia. While, the same day, the Prime Minister along with his gang was on its verge of flight to Turkey.

If we analyse the record of his foreign tours during his rule of 9-10 months, it is obvious that the new government towered above its predecessors in its marathon of foreign trips and shopping. It is estimated, if the president keeps his pace with such a ratio the day is not so that his name will find place in the “Gainer’s Book of World Records” for winning and making a new record in this race. Before embarking on his flight the president gave a tiding of enlarging his cabinet to 55 ministries to his nation.

The US, the solo super power that is striding to bring the entire world under its ambit of influence, has only 15 ministers for running state affairs while here is a flock of 55 ministers. It shows as if our country is four times greater and influential in world community than US.

England has been running it affairs by 12 ministers for the past century and plus but no leader could dare to increase its numbers. It is only here that every leader considers this land of gullible masses as its own exploratory laboratory.

Canada, which is the second largest country of the world by virtue of its area, has a cabinet of 38 ministers. Brazil, which is the largest country of Southern American, keeps only 23 ministers. China, which is an emerging power of the world, where our legion of beggars went for mendicancy, has 25 ministers. France, which can boast for a pool of GDP, more than the entire Muslim block of 57 countries, allows only 21 ministers to run state affairs. Iran, which is striving hard to win a mirror image in world community, has 31 ministers. This is the difference, which has divided the globe into developed or first world and developing or third world. Now, it is obvious that it is the ministerial profligacy of the governments, which has sapped the resources and economy of Pakistan. When Zardari went to participated in UN Security Council, the minister for information Sherry Rehman started singing that the president set an example of political frugality by making flight in economy plus class of the plane. The same minister was never tired of beating the drums that the president has not taken any unwanted person on his tour to china. Actions speaks louder than louder than words so where are her tall claims now. Though the holy Quran has declared it succinctly “Innal Mubbazereena kanu ikhwanashayateen—those who are squanderers, are the bothers of devils”.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhuttu, second legend character in Pakistan’s political history, is still under battering just for a laps for violating the traffic rule at a chowk of Rawalpindi when he ordered his driver “don’t stop, go ahead, for I am the prime minister of Pakistan”. But history did no condoned his trail off, though he was endowed with a host a qualities. But they are doing it with such a political jugglery that the nation has been deceived for a couple of times but every now and then the political class is the winner and the public is the runner.

Today, even for a low profiled political figure, roads are blocked for hours of hours, but the pubic is in no position to grudge this discriminatory attitude of the leaders. It is totally numbed with mind-reeling price hiking and poverty, thus it cannot come out in the streets against its leadership. Because of this pro-upper-class ruling system the rich and tycoon class is rising with a catapulted speed while the poor and slum class is tumbling with a windfall.

The definition of democracy in Pakistan must be the government of oligarchs by the oligarchs for the oligarchs. It is the backlash of this oligarchy that today the entire nation is hugged with a congregational suicide. It is not an individual that is committing suicide rather no body is safe across the country, which is in a sense congregational suicide of the society itself.

No body is born-poor or born-rich rather it is the class conflict that has brought this discrimination among human. The nation has sustained nearly every political party in their office but it is futile to hope for a positive change in the country. To dream for an emerging Pakistan, will come true only, when there will be new faces and entirely new leadership instead these political conjurers. In other words the story would be running for centuries unabated, with no sign of betterment for working class in the country, where the quandaries of poor will go unsung.

The writer is a FATA-based freelance journalist.

The political administration under the tutelage of FATA Secretariat and SAFRON, has raised no less than 11 local lashkar to combat terror in Swat, Bajaur, Muhmand Agency, Orakzai Agency and so on.

But the strategy proved nothing more than a footnote rather than a milestone.

Journalists from across the width and breadth of the country raised a great deal of hues and cries against the raising of the local lashkars and their armament, on account that it will erupt an epidemic of civil war.

But the policymakers and those who are in high echelon politics were in a stupor. This card of raising local lashkars had been used by the political administration back a decade plus in Khyber Agency, when Usama Bin Laden along with his exponents had taken shelter in Tirah, a far-flung valley of Bara Division. Before that he had sought refuge in Chora, a hamlet clustered around by mountains of Jamrud Division. The local people called the caves wherein they stayed, ‘Da Usama Goray’—a typical local word used for Usama caves.

The attempt was a success because the local lashkar expatriated him along with his foreigner supporters and set ablaze the houses of those who had given him a shelter and the Political Administration demonised them using an extensive series of propaganda. Among them the then tribal elder Gul Abad Khan was also shot dead during Jirga.

Thus the area was scoured of the militants. Usama, then, fled away to Afghanistan where he stayed until the US sprayed the hook and nook of the country with the most fatal and latest bombs in pursuit of Al-Qaida but he was found nowhere. Now the political administration is using the same old card, which is, now not only out of tune but detrimental as well for the tribal social order.

The ground realities at that time were totally different than present ones. At that time it was the matter of only Khyber Agency and now it is the matter of entire tribal belt.

Now 98 percent of the Taliban are local and there are lots of factors, which have turned them adversary to its own land. The first one is FCR, which has been in promulgation for the last one hundred and nine years, has added much more to their sense of deprivation. The second factor is the already existent glut of jobless youth whose parents are either in Gulf States or in F.C, where they cannot go ahead of a Naik, Hawaldar, or hardly S.M.

The third factor responsible for all the chaos is their notion of invincibility and the misleading and elusive titles excessively used in text books and media as “ the land of hospitality, the land of tradition, the gallant Pathan and faithful tribal.”

The political administration must delve into the responsible causes first, and then to devise a strategy. One thing, which is too odd, is that the eruption of these outfits did not occurred over nights. What had occurred to the political administration at that time when these religious groups were making their appearances one after another? Why the administration had given so a long leeway to them in taking a stranglehold across the FATA? Whether the administration was in hibernation and playing tip-cat or conniving the whole show? These are the questions, which some times pop up doubts, and questions in the mind of public.

Now the situation is so convoluted that no body can dare to trammel their path. Like the eruption of these outfits, the raising of local lashkars has ensued enmity not only among different tribes but also among the members of one family.

On hand if one brother is supporting the Taliban, on the other the second brother is the arch supporter of local lashkar and the third is the most deviant because he wants to opt for silence and neutrality. If one cousin has affiliation with one faction the other has close ties with another one. And the most hazardous aspect of raising local lashkars is that even the war on terror would be over but it will be hard enough rather impossible to bridge this cleavage brought by this move among the members of one clan. The jobless glut of population especially youth is getting closer to the militants. Even if today there is a source of fair jobs for them the day is not so far that they will detach themselves from militants factions.

But instead the political administration sowed the seed of hatred among the tribal, which resulted at tribal social disorder and anarchy. The most serious backlash of this strategy was witnessed on 10th October 2008, when in Orakzai Agency a suicide attacker blew himself up and mowed down more than 150 lashkar activists, who were mustered up to for Jirga to orchestrate a mesh against the militants. After the raising of local lashkars we have seen nothing pragmatic but a rise in suicide attacks. A few days back 12 out of 65 under hostage local lashkar activists were killed in Swat.

A suicide attacker blew his vehicle at a security check post in Bannu that claimed two lives and injured 12 others on Oct 29, 2008. Thursday, 30 Oct witnessed the death of 10 militants only in Swat. In Muhmand Agency, the same day, 5 militants were fired to death.

2 civilians lost their lives when the security forces opened shelling on the hideouts of the militants in Kabal and injured 14 others. Amid the chaos the militants killed a police ASI Swat. When the first in-camera joint session of the two houses was held the militants in Bajaur beheaded an F.C soldier.

Now one can feel how the residents of the area especially children, women and the old, are constantly passing through the agony of fear. Sitting faraway and debating over it, one cannot feel the miseries and the intensity of the situation until it is seen with open eyes.

Lenin once said that if you want to have exertion in East then enter through the door of religion. His maxim has still a weight of its own because in this era of change and modernity, it has a strong hold on the masses. And the people who want to have influence on the public adopt this path. Every dawn that comes bring the news of a new organisation of new militants.

Ironically, every militant group emerges as the sole enemy for America but they have turned the lives of their own brothers into a hell. If the US is their enemy then after 9/11 how much attacks, these outfits have brought out. Surly none. And surly they cannot, but what is mostly wept is that it has opened the floodgates of miseries and afflictions for its own compatriots. One can easily smell that it is a never-ending series of decimation and carnage of the Muslims by the Muslims but under the garb of US enmity. And this never-ending series of violence has been well exploited by the religious branded parties in achieving their ends.

Such outfits, for their defense, usually recite the Hadith (the saying of holy Prophet) that when ever you see an evil, put an end to it by force if you have courage for that, if cannot then detest it with your tongue, if cannot then at least abhor it in the inner heart and this the lowest degree of one’s faith. If every individual adopt the same path so the society will hug the marsh of anarchism and civil war. We cannot say that they are not cognizant with fact that it is the responsibility of the state instead an individual. But we can say that they are exploiting it for achieving their ends. At the same time they forget about the model presented by Hazrat Umar, who established police force, state treasury (Bait-ul-maal)—wherefrom even the non-Muslims poor were given scholarships, nationalised most of the things for the purpose of pubic welfare and State. After the submission to the supremacy of Almighty God, he was ardent supporter of State supremacy.

He went so far that even grazing fields were brought under the tutelage of State for the Mulsim Army’s horses. Once a Suhabi was grazing his private horse at the nationalised meadow, thus Hazrat Umar snubbed him and asked that do you know that it is allocated only for the horses of Muslim Army. The Suhabi showed his incognizance with apology and led his way. [Continued]

The writer is a FATA-based freelance journalist.

Afghan Press Author: Ima Kabiri

The Doha Debates are a unique venture in the Islamic world, providing a battlefield for conflicting opinions and arguments about the major political topics of the world while they have become the Middle East’s forum of choice for many prominent statesmen.

While governments around the world tighten restrictions on press freedom, the Doha Debates openly dissect the vital issues of the Middle East in front of its people and on global TV.

The Debates enter into their fifth series in September 2008 and are chaired by the award winning, former BBC correspondent and interviewer Tim Sebastian Televised eight times a year by BBC World News.

The latest Doha Debate voters at the Doha Debates overwhelmingly concluded that Senator John McCain is not the best candidate for protecting Middle Eastern interests by 87% to 13%.

A lively audience at Qatar Foundation’s Doha Debates yesterday conclusively warned America that a victory by John McCain in the US Presidential election would damage relations with the Middle East.

First to speak for the motion was Danielle Pletka who gave an impassioned defence of McCain’s intentions in Iran, Iraq and the rest of the region. Danielle Pletka, Vice President for Foreign and Defence Policy Studies at the American Institute for Public Policy Research, supported the motion, suggesting that Senator McCain was the only Presidential candidate who would not “walk away” from Iraq, leaving the region to return to sectarian violence.

She said Obama was constantly changing his opinions and had even offered to negotiate “unconditionally” with Iran.

She added that Barack Obama did not have the necessary experience to be a successful leader and said that his “inconsistency” on such important issues as the Israel-Palestine conflict was a worrying indication of possible indecision in future.

“The rest of the world will benefit from a strong US,” she argued, claiming that “if our country were to turn inward then I think the region would be worried about losing the protection the US offers.”
“And it is irresponsible to leave Iraq as Obama proposes to do; if we leave the country in the state it is now, then the door is open for Iran to take over and that is not a good thing for the region either,” she added.

Michael Signer, former foreign policy adviser to Democratic Senator John Edwards’ presidential campaign during 2007- 2008 was the next to speak, and he put forward a number of arguments for why Obama’s policies would benefit the US and the Middle East.

“Obama has the capacity to be genuinely transformative and to be a leader who will listen as opposed to lecture and will think before he acts,” he argued.

He also said:”McCain’s foreign policies could be judged by the current administration’s track record, which shows a “rash and intemperate” sentiment.” He also attacked the motion and the dangers a McCain victory would present.

Describing Barak Obama, the Democrat nominee, as “thoughtful and deliberate”, he said such qualities were of paramount importance during the present troubled times.

“It is time we had a president who thinks before he acts rather than acts before he thinks.” He said Senator Obama was an African-American who spent his formative years in Indonesia, a Muslim nation, and would be a president “who wants to understand and listen, rather than just talk.”

Dr. Saad al-Ajmi, former Kuwaiti Minister for Information and Culture, said he supported the motion largely because he feared that Senator Obama would pull US troops out of Iraq prematurely “before they had cleared up the mess they created.”

Al-Ajmi said that he had no interest in US domestic politics but was concerned with which candidate best dealt with the priorities of people from the Arab region.

“The most important issue is the Israel-Palestine conflict, and McCain has said he will follow the two-state solution which is the proposal supported by Arab leaders,” he said, adding that “if the US pulls out of Iraq, the country will descend into chaos.”

“And although we do not want war with Iran, we do not want appeasement either, and so I think McCain is the best man from the Arab point of view,” he added.

In an opening statement that drew loud applause from the packed 350-member audience, Hafez Al Mirazi, a former Al Jazeera presenter and currently vice chairman of Al Hayat Television in Egypt, warned Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, was from the same warmongering mould as Dick Cheney, Bush’s vice-president, “who happens to be a quail hunter.”

“Can you imagine what would happen if Palin, a moose hunter, reached the White House? It would be the same thing.

“What did Palin do when she visited Kuwait on her only trip to the Middle East? She practiced shooting,” Mr. al-Mirazi said in reference to a visit by Palin to US troops stationed there.

“A McCain-Palin victory would do to this fragile relationship what Lehman Brothers did to the markets.”

Al-Mirazi then spoke against the motion and argued that “anybody would be better in the White House than John McCain”.

“George W Bush has made both the US and the Arab world worse off than eight years ago, and his hawkish Republican mate, John McCain, will end up making him look like Mahatma Gandhi if he gets elected,” he said.

“Obama described McCain’s disagreements with Bush as ‘Robin disagreeing with Batman’, arguing that this is a worrying sign of how close the two are in terms of policy.”

He suggested McCain was eager to “fight and engage in wars” against Iran, Syria “and anyone who would oppose America.”

The debate was a lively one, with all the panellists contributing interesting insight into the problems the next US administration will face in the region, but at times it felt like a foregone conclusion with so much anti-Republican sentiment on display from the audience.

Most of the questions from the audience were directed to the McCain side, clearly indicating their preference for Barack Obama.

Change in the American Strategy in Afghanistan is a hot topic these days and is most probably aimed at creating a new hope in the increasingly becoming hopeless citizens of Afghanistan but if it is once again one of those Washington-made strategies, which are in many cases based on the false assumptions of people who are considered to be experts on Afghanistan while in reality they even do not understand the basic psychology of the Afghan society, will be a last pin on the coffin of Afghan hopes.

Any disheartening comments on in-pipeline new American strategy may be premature but if some of its pillars are what have been circulating in the news then it is extremely important that prior to its finalization it is given a very cautious second look.

Lessons learned from one experience can be very useful in any other similar exercise but only when both are in somehow similar environments. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries with different social, economical and political environments. A relatively successful surge in Iraq does not mean that such a surge will have the same success in Afghanistan, and the role of Sunni Iraqis who have had a big hand in weakening Al-Qaida in Iraq can not be played by tribal militias in Afghanistan in any way.

Al-Qaida members in Iraq were and are mainly non-Iraqi Arabs while Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are mainly Afghans and Pakistanis having roots in local community. Will the mostly illiterate and conservative Muslim Afghans and Pakistanis rise against the Taliban especially with the support of America?

A kind of local resistance against Taliban in some parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan is emerging and is in very early stages which should not be endangered by linking it with western support. If it is misperceived by common people than it may end up in that early stages but if it is indirectly strengthen with other mechanisms such as conditional development assistance it will get momentum.

A military surge in Afghanistan with a different terrain from Iraq will mean more collateral damage and more civilian casualties that will in turn further alienate common people from both the Government and international community.

Creation of tribal militias is a dangerous game, if it is being considered as part of an exit strategy than it may work otherwise its longer term outcome and impact will have wider adverse effects which will not be bearable for this war torn country. The tribal structure in the hot spots of insurgency is divided by different lines and the conflict of last three decades has seriously damaged this once unofficial structure of governance. During the communist regime, then during the mujahedeen era and finally during the Taliban regime, tribal leaders had been weakened and they have not remained as powerful as they were once and their vacuum has been filled by commanders which are now called warlords. Any other effort to further strengthen the warlords will mean a potential anarchism.

Talks with Taliban will have certain positive impact but it will not put an end to insurgency. Actually, it is hard to divide Taliban by pro Al-Qaeda and non-Al-Qaeda Taliban instead they can be distinguished as political and military wings. Even during the Taliban regime, the role of its political wing was not very influential. Negotiations with the political wing may weaken the ideology of talibanization and if brought to the main stream politics will be an affective achievement.

It will be better that new strategy focus on and the new American administration invest in the Afghan National Army, and increase the involvement of local communities in a comprehensive counter insurgency strategy through conditional development assistance. Under the current anti-narcotics strategy those provinces are being provided with alternative livelihood assistance that are free of opium or has drastically decreased its production. The same can be applied in the counter-insurgency strategy, and this approach has been successfully used in some community based projects in most volatile parts of the country where assistance has been given with the guarantee of security.

The claims by some journalists of western media who come to Afghanistan on short visits and stay in four and five star hotels are not evidence-based that the Afghanistan National Army is failing. In view of their numbers, equipments and resources and a parallel corrupt and weak civilian administration which have disappointed and alienated people from the Government, the achievements of national army are admirable.

The support received by Taliban from both their external supporters and local people is greater qualitatively than that is received by Afghan army from international community and common people. There is a hope that with the declining oil prices the support of Taliban will decrease but it is again the responsibility of international community to dry up its stream that originates from the oil fields of gulf and reach to the tribal areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan through main urban centers of Pakistan. The proportion of money that Taliban may receive indirectly from narcotics is much lower than what they receive from Arab Sheikhs yet the later is mostly neglected in efforts aimed at drying up the financial support of Taliban.

No solution can be a good remedy for the bleeding wounds of the country that is being going through many natural and man-made disasters unless it is not produced in Kabul with extensive inputs from the people who have been in this country during the last three decades and not those who have come in parachutes.

atiq.nashna@gmail.com

Bush’s errand boy Mr. Musharraf, who recently was hosting a supper party to retired army officials at Rawalpindi belched his venom that his policy of allying the US in its war on terror was rational, apt and pragmatic. Along that he tossed off the recipe to the new government that it must expedite the pace of military operations in the cancerous region (according to him) of FATA. Rasi jal gayi par bal nahi gaya—“a rope may burn out but would not give its twist”. This Urdu proverb deems fit on Mr. Musharraf, whose party and his henchmen were trounced by the masses of Pakistan in general elections 2008. Now that Mr. Musharraf is out of the corridors of power then he must prefer for hibernation instead whipping the masses, especially those living in FATA. They are the sufferers not for their own faults, but because of your sagging policy. FATA is the same chunk of population which was considered the most faithful and lover of this land of Pakistan but now because of your wrong step it went against this land and turned adversary for its own Army. If there is no concrete idea for its solution then there must be a halt to such hurting words.

Already dooms day has befallen on tribals, wherein the more they try to curb this evil, the more it surges, the more they cry for help the more it drowns them. For on one hand the belligerent America has labeled FATA (a clear indication towards Pukhtoons) bitterest enemy to its interest than Al-Qaida and on the other its leadership (Asfandyar Wali) has sought a den at Islamabad to hide in.

Barak Obama, the would-be president of the US has also declared this land of FATA, the most dangerous on the surface of the globe and you also. So what is the difference between you and Obama.

Then why the FATA residents hearing these venomous and heart-rending sentences from that Mr. Musharraf, who kept Pakistan at the feet of US with just a threat-call from the former US Secretary for Sate Colin Powell.

What was that threat-call? It was nothing but just a repetition of villain uncle Bush’s dialogue when he threatened the world peace (in reality only a few countries including Pakistan) that “either with us or with our enemy”.

Huh! Mr. Musharraf you must have told them if you cannot tow out us from the stone-age then don’t menace such a nation who is already living in stone-age.

Though after getting their target, Colin Powell denied that he has threatened Pakistan with such a call.

But never ever connote it with American cowardice but take it as the keeping of Monroe doctrine so that they can show the world community that Americans are how much civilised for keeping his doctrine of—“don’t interrupt and don’t let others to interrupt you, for this is the civilised way of life”. But if today even President Monroe were alive he would have changed the order of his doctrine with such an order “interrupt but don’t let others to interrupt you, for this is the bold way of life” especially in the pursuit of oil—not Al-Qaida or Taliban.

And I think the US is inspired with the later order. This is the reason it is poking its nose across the globe, if not exaggeration. But interrupting its path is far more hazardous, even one cannot think to advise this turn-headed elephant.

Musharraf, if your policy was pragmatic then why the whole nation is damning you and today the policymakers are baffling in dowsing the fire you have brought to this land. Though you proved that it’s also your land by not escaping to foreign shelter, or it may be because there was no shelter in world community for a person like you. And willy-nilly you have to stay here in this troubled land.

Can you explain it why you brought this fire to your own land, if you can then a bereaved mother of the two unfortunate sons who lost her nascent buds in Bajaur, is asking you? Her elder son inspired with the couplet of Allama Iqbal

“ Shaheed ki jo maut he wo Qaum ki hayat he”—the death of a martyr is the life of nation—opted for joining army.

On the other hand her younger son, a student of 9th class inspired with religious and emotional appeals thus joined hands with a religious faction and blew himself up at the heart of a military convey and mutilated no less than a dozen soldiers including his elder brother. When the bloodstained dead body of her elder son shrouded in khaki uniform and her younker son’s head sans his body were kept before their mother, the pathetic moment of her life resulted at her insanity. Now her insanity is moaning, screeching and asking for the answer. The reality is, it is because of your reeking policy. Brother turned into enmy to brother. He is bleeding his brother but senselessly that is all the outcome of your step taken in a wrong direction. This is why it is said that a mistake can destroy a nation. Thus your mistake has destroyed your nation cap-a-pie.

Your land had the pride of hosting more than 3 million Afghan refugees for no less than 30-year but it went into futility within a blink of eye. And today your western frontier is the most prone for terror. In this direction, only a week the police nabbed 30 Uzbaks with two other tribals from Pkistan who were likely to fabricate a bomb explosion.

A few days back one of my friends called me from Afghanistan that it is your turn. And indeed every one is observing that it is our turn. Why, because you had provided air bases for US forces in Budbhair Peshwar wherefrom the US aircrafts sprayed the entire Afghanistan with fire. No doubt India had already offered America for such service, with no exemption of the former Soviet States. But at least you must have not accepted this stigma.

What was the crime of that bride whose bridegroom was taken away on his wedlock night by the local Taliban in Urozgan province in imputation for spying to enemy? After two days his decapitated head was found in the ruins of the environs. The same day the US troops treated the land of that village and took away the bride in charge with providing shelter for the Al-Qaida activists.

She was kept in a torture cell where she was bludgeoned to mental disorder.

What was the crime of that innocent 7-year old child whose father was killed by the local Taliban in indict with spying for enemy forces, just three days before the air raid of US forces, who sprayed his house with fire in arraign with providing a den for Usama and Co?

The child survived the air strike but lost his leg, his only source of consolation—his mother, with his four sisters. No country could dare to snub the US in the recently held UN Security Council meeting that why America has dragged third world counties into a hell of afflictions. And no human rights organizations agitated against it but sadly these incidents went unnoticed.

The writer is a FATA-based freelance journalist.