Without reading further just sign this petition, or else please read on.
Watch this presentation for a while.
Any form of terrorism is a threat to world peace. Period. You all know my stand on Terrorism. They are stated here and here. Long before the West realized Pakistan was the epicenter of Terrorism India and Israel had already recognised it and suffered it for decades. Please see my article written 6 years ago. Has anything changed? Absolutely NO! Regarding the above said petition following is the communication from an organization fostering US-India ties.
-----------------------------
Dear friend:
Following a visit to Pakistan, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that the Pakistani government has pledged to cooperate in rounding up suspects of the Mumbai terror attacks who operated from Pakistani territory or were of Pakistani origin.
According to reports sourced from news agencies and published in EXPRESS INDIA today (http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/US-India-Weve-proof-of-ISI-role-in-Mumbai-attacks/394263/):
**Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, who was in Pakistan on Wednesday, is believed to have told his Pakistani interlocutors that Washington had enough evidence to show a Pakistani hand in the attack, the sources said.
**Sources also refuse to believe that the Pakistani army did not have knowledge of the Mumbai operation given that ISI is controlled by it.
**At the same time, sources do not believe that the civilian government in Pakistan is involved in the attack. In fact, one view is that the civilian government itself may be a target of the strike which may be used by the army to heighten tensions with India to return to power
Thus, the crucial question is: Does Pakistan’s government have the ability to go after the suspects of the Mumbai carnage wilthout civil authority regaining effective control over Pakistan’s army and the ISI? With Pakistan so heavily dependent on American largess both for military supplies and social and economic sustenance and with Pakistan’s finances in intensive care under IMF’s supervision, can there be a better time for America to exercise its powerful leverage to get the military (and ISI) ensconced securely under civilian control?
Friends of both India and Pakistan in the US need to impress upon Congress that NOW is the time to make Pakistan’s democracy secure and safe from any future threats of a military take over. Once that task is accomplished, it will be easier to prepare and execute a strategy to finish off the terrorists. Without fulfilling this precondition, nothing can stop Pakistan from continuing to be the epicenter of terrrorism in the world.
It’s NOW or NEVER.
The US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) has formulated an action plan to respond rapidly to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The action plan includes working with several key Members of Congress to develop an effective response from the US, supporting a Congressional Resolution condemning the attacks, supporting US-India counter-terrorism legislation, and organizing a Congressional Briefing on the origins of the terrorist attacks and the best way for the US to proceed. Further, USINPAC has launched a petition calling for changes in US aid to Pakistan to be signed by Indian Americans across the country. The petition will be presented to Congress.
USINPAC spoke with India Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), who will be authoring a Congressional Resolution condemning the attacks. It has said it will help Rep. McDermott gain Congressional support for the resolution. Further, it will work with Rep. McDermott to organize a Congressional Briefing on the terror attacks as soon as Congress is back in session. It’s important to gain Congressional support for US-India counter-terrorism legislation being authored by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY).
We need to get massive participation on this petition to demonstrate to the US Congress and the administration the anger, pain, and desire for action on the issue of terror camps in Pakistan that is being felt by the Indian American community.Please read and then sign the petition immediately to reflect your response to the Mumbai Attacks and forward it to at least 10 people you know!
To access the petition, please visit http://www.petitiononline.com/USINPAC9/petition.html
Cheers,
Ram Narayanan
US-India Friendship
http://usindiafriendship.net/
____________________________________________________________
PS: After signing the petition, please forward this message to all your friends and relatives living in the United States.
Following a visit to Pakistan, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that the Pakistani government has pledged to cooperate in rounding up suspects of the Mumbai terror attacks who operated from Pakistani territory or were of Pakistani origin.
According to reports sourced from news agencies and published in EXPRESS INDIA today (http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/US-India-Weve-proof-of-ISI-role-in-Mumbai-attacks/394263/):
**Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, who was in Pakistan on Wednesday, is believed to have told his Pakistani interlocutors that Washington had enough evidence to show a Pakistani hand in the attack, the sources said.
**Sources also refuse to believe that the Pakistani army did not have knowledge of the Mumbai operation given that ISI is controlled by it.
**At the same time, sources do not believe that the civilian government in Pakistan is involved in the attack. In fact, one view is that the civilian government itself may be a target of the strike which may be used by the army to heighten tensions with India to return to power
Thus, the crucial question is: Does Pakistan’s government have the ability to go after the suspects of the Mumbai carnage wilthout civil authority regaining effective control over Pakistan’s army and the ISI? With Pakistan so heavily dependent on American largess both for military supplies and social and economic sustenance and with Pakistan’s finances in intensive care under IMF’s supervision, can there be a better time for America to exercise its powerful leverage to get the military (and ISI) ensconced securely under civilian control?
Friends of both India and Pakistan in the US need to impress upon Congress that NOW is the time to make Pakistan’s democracy secure and safe from any future threats of a military take over. Once that task is accomplished, it will be easier to prepare and execute a strategy to finish off the terrorists. Without fulfilling this precondition, nothing can stop Pakistan from continuing to be the epicenter of terrrorism in the world.
It’s NOW or NEVER.
The US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) has formulated an action plan to respond rapidly to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The action plan includes working with several key Members of Congress to develop an effective response from the US, supporting a Congressional Resolution condemning the attacks, supporting US-India counter-terrorism legislation, and organizing a Congressional Briefing on the origins of the terrorist attacks and the best way for the US to proceed. Further, USINPAC has launched a petition calling for changes in US aid to Pakistan to be signed by Indian Americans across the country. The petition will be presented to Congress.
USINPAC spoke with India Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), who will be authoring a Congressional Resolution condemning the attacks. It has said it will help Rep. McDermott gain Congressional support for the resolution. Further, it will work with Rep. McDermott to organize a Congressional Briefing on the terror attacks as soon as Congress is back in session. It’s important to gain Congressional support for US-India counter-terrorism legislation being authored by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY).
We need to get massive participation on this petition to demonstrate to the US Congress and the administration the anger, pain, and desire for action on the issue of terror camps in Pakistan that is being felt by the Indian American community.Please read and then sign the petition immediately to reflect your response to the Mumbai Attacks and forward it to at least 10 people you know!
To access the petition, please visit http://www.petitiononline.com/USINPAC9/petition.html
Cheers,
Ram Narayanan
US-India Friendship
http://usindiafriendship.net/
____________________________________________________________
PS: After signing the petition, please forward this message to all your friends and relatives living in the United States.
____________________________________________________________
*updated*
Email from usindiafriendship from on 12/12/2008
The enormous danger that the nation of Pakistan presents to the entire world today is vividly captured in THE NEW YORKER article by George Packer which is reproduced in full below. Here are two quotes:
**The report [bipartisan US Commission on "World at Risk"] includes chapters on biological and nuclear risks, and one titled “Pakistan,” which would seem to suggest that the nation itself is a kind of W.M.D.
**The core problem is that Pakistan is no longer really a country, if it ever was. “Our Pakistan strategy is hopelessly at odds with reality,” David Kilcullen, a former counterinsurgency adviser to the State Department, said. “We treat it as an earnest but incapable ally in the war on terrorism.” In fact, some civilian elements of the government are American allies; some military elements are American enemies. The wild northwest, where Islamist militants have extended their control and created a safe haven for Al Qaeda, has thwarted those who would govern it for a long time.
There is a lot more in the article that the US and the world need to understand, digest and act upon urgently.
Another piece by Philip Jenkins in THE NEW REPUBLIC titled, "Clerical Terror: The roots of jihad in India", traces the origin of terrorism in South Asia and the Middle East to a pre-partition India-born Muslim cleric called Maulana Mawdudi(http://www.tnr.com:80/toc/story.html?id=f1dba11c-0b2d-4e10-b2fc-2416a7fb2f7b&k=17840). While the analysis is interesting, his conclusion that "At a minimum, it [the incoming administration] should spend at least as much time seeking a settlement in Kashmir as in Palestine," is absolutely wrong.
I discussed Jenkins’ conclusion with four Indian, and one Indian American, experts. This is what they say in their e-mails:
First, the doyen of India’s strategic affairs experts, K Subrahmanyam:
QUOTE:
I had earlier written to you that partition of India and Kashmir issue
were the real beginnings of clash of civilisations thesis. Palestinian
issue too was based on two nation theory and clash of civilisations
thesis (propounded by the Zionists). India opposed both partitions but
came to terms with realities. But neither India nor the rest of the
world can afford to pursue the clash of civilisations thesis in an
open ended way. Maudidi originally opposed partition of India. He
migrated from Nizam’s Hyderabad [in India] to Pakistan to preach jihadism.
Today Maulana Hafiz Said, the leader of Lashkar preaches recovery of all
territory where Muslim rule once prevailed. Just now Kashmiris have
voted in an unexpectedly large numbers in the ongoing
elections.Therefore there is no comparison between Palesine and
Kashmir. Nor can India yield on the clash of civilisations issue which
is what a surrender on Kashmir will mean. Maudidi thesis is not just
about Kashmir but Islamic conquest of the world. If the west had any
sense they should know where they should take a stand and stop the
jihadi aggression.
UNQUOTE.
Major General (Retd.) Afsir Karim, an expert on terrorism and editor of AAKROSH (Asian Journal on Terrorism and Internal Conflicts) says:
QUOTE:
To bracket Palestine problem with Kashmir shows a total lack of understanding of the Kashmir problem. Kashmir is the target of Islamic fundamentalist forces that are based in Pakistan. Terrorism is being pursued by Pakistan as an instrument of foreign poicy to weaken and destabilize India. Annexation of Kashmir is one important part of that plan but is not the last or final step. When Pakistan talks of a solution it means handing over of the state to them. That would give them tremendous strategic advantage and weaken India’s strategic capability.... increase Pakistan’s overt and covert capabilities against India. The solution lies in maintaining the present boundaries intact and stopping all terrorist activity against India. This will bring peace between the two countries. It is doubtful any US administration will be able to achieve this without ousting the roots of jihadism from Pakistan and that looks impossible today.
UNQUOTE.
Third, Professor Madhav Nalapat, Vice-Chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University:
QUOTE:
Mr Jenkins is correct in that those active in Kashmir are linked to Al Qaeda, hence the US and other developed democracies need to act against them, not wink at their depredations the way they have done thus far. But as for a withdrawal of India from Kashmir ending subcontinental jihad, Mr Jenkins does not - or will not - read Urdu [language], so he is unaware of the statements and tracts of the agencies carrying out jihad against India. These are clear that Kashmir is only the appetizer. The main course will be India. And that until Wahabbi rule ( a la Aurangzeb) gets imposed, the jihadis will not stop
Should he be among those friends of the Pakistan army in the West who seek India’s withdrawal, Mr Jenkins should simultaneouslydemand a quota of 10 million immigrants into Britain as the share of the UK in the rehabilitation of the millions of Indians who will become refugees as a result of the carnage and chaos pan-India that would follow a jihadi victory in Kashmir. He needs to devote his talents towards seeking ways of defeating the Taliban in Pakistan. These days, NATO is becoming so panic-stricken that all it is talking about is how to charm Mullah Omar into a (temporary) ceasefire. Watching the alliance in Afghanistan is to be reminded of the Soviets, who made the same mistake. That of not hitting at the head of the snake, which is Pakistan
Please see my two most recent articles in www.upiasia.com ["The Pakistani army’s phony war on terror"http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/12/10/the_pakistani_armys_phony_war_on_terror/2465/ and "Mumbai 11/27: the Pakistan army’s alibi"http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/12/01/mumbai_1127_the_pakistan_armys_alibi/2993/].
UNQUOTE.
**The report [bipartisan US Commission on "World at Risk"] includes chapters on biological and nuclear risks, and one titled “Pakistan,” which would seem to suggest that the nation itself is a kind of W.M.D.
**The core problem is that Pakistan is no longer really a country, if it ever was. “Our Pakistan strategy is hopelessly at odds with reality,” David Kilcullen, a former counterinsurgency adviser to the State Department, said. “We treat it as an earnest but incapable ally in the war on terrorism.” In fact, some civilian elements of the government are American allies; some military elements are American enemies. The wild northwest, where Islamist militants have extended their control and created a safe haven for Al Qaeda, has thwarted those who would govern it for a long time.
There is a lot more in the article that the US and the world need to understand, digest and act upon urgently.
Another piece by Philip Jenkins in THE NEW REPUBLIC titled, "Clerical Terror: The roots of jihad in India", traces the origin of terrorism in South Asia and the Middle East to a pre-partition India-born Muslim cleric called Maulana Mawdudi(http://www.tnr.com:80/toc/story.html?id=f1dba11c-0b2d-4e10-b2fc-2416a7fb2f7b&k=17840). While the analysis is interesting, his conclusion that "At a minimum, it [the incoming administration] should spend at least as much time seeking a settlement in Kashmir as in Palestine," is absolutely wrong.
I discussed Jenkins’ conclusion with four Indian, and one Indian American, experts. This is what they say in their e-mails:
First, the doyen of India’s strategic affairs experts, K Subrahmanyam:
QUOTE:
I had earlier written to you that partition of India and Kashmir issue
were the real beginnings of clash of civilisations thesis. Palestinian
issue too was based on two nation theory and clash of civilisations
thesis (propounded by the Zionists). India opposed both partitions but
came to terms with realities. But neither India nor the rest of the
world can afford to pursue the clash of civilisations thesis in an
open ended way. Maudidi originally opposed partition of India. He
migrated from Nizam’s Hyderabad [in India] to Pakistan to preach jihadism.
Today Maulana Hafiz Said, the leader of Lashkar preaches recovery of all
territory where Muslim rule once prevailed. Just now Kashmiris have
voted in an unexpectedly large numbers in the ongoing
elections.Therefore there is no comparison between Palesine and
Kashmir. Nor can India yield on the clash of civilisations issue which
is what a surrender on Kashmir will mean. Maudidi thesis is not just
about Kashmir but Islamic conquest of the world. If the west had any
sense they should know where they should take a stand and stop the
jihadi aggression.
UNQUOTE.
Major General (Retd.) Afsir Karim, an expert on terrorism and editor of AAKROSH (Asian Journal on Terrorism and Internal Conflicts) says:
QUOTE:
To bracket Palestine problem with Kashmir shows a total lack of understanding of the Kashmir problem. Kashmir is the target of Islamic fundamentalist forces that are based in Pakistan. Terrorism is being pursued by Pakistan as an instrument of foreign poicy to weaken and destabilize India. Annexation of Kashmir is one important part of that plan but is not the last or final step. When Pakistan talks of a solution it means handing over of the state to them. That would give them tremendous strategic advantage and weaken India’s strategic capability.... increase Pakistan’s overt and covert capabilities against India. The solution lies in maintaining the present boundaries intact and stopping all terrorist activity against India. This will bring peace between the two countries. It is doubtful any US administration will be able to achieve this without ousting the roots of jihadism from Pakistan and that looks impossible today.
UNQUOTE.
Third, Professor Madhav Nalapat, Vice-Chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University:
QUOTE:
Mr Jenkins is correct in that those active in Kashmir are linked to Al Qaeda, hence the US and other developed democracies need to act against them, not wink at their depredations the way they have done thus far. But as for a withdrawal of India from Kashmir ending subcontinental jihad, Mr Jenkins does not - or will not - read Urdu [language], so he is unaware of the statements and tracts of the agencies carrying out jihad against India. These are clear that Kashmir is only the appetizer. The main course will be India. And that until Wahabbi rule ( a la Aurangzeb) gets imposed, the jihadis will not stop
Should he be among those friends of the Pakistan army in the West who seek India’s withdrawal, Mr Jenkins should simultaneouslydemand a quota of 10 million immigrants into Britain as the share of the UK in the rehabilitation of the millions of Indians who will become refugees as a result of the carnage and chaos pan-India that would follow a jihadi victory in Kashmir. He needs to devote his talents towards seeking ways of defeating the Taliban in Pakistan. These days, NATO is becoming so panic-stricken that all it is talking about is how to charm Mullah Omar into a (temporary) ceasefire. Watching the alliance in Afghanistan is to be reminded of the Soviets, who made the same mistake. That of not hitting at the head of the snake, which is Pakistan
Please see my two most recent articles in www.upiasia.com ["The Pakistani army’s phony war on terror"http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/12/10/the_pakistani_armys_phony_war_on_terror/2465/ and "Mumbai 11/27: the Pakistan army’s alibi"http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2008/12/01/mumbai_1127_the_pakistan_armys_alibi/2993/].
UNQUOTE.
Fourth, General Ved Prakash Malik, retired Chief of Staff of the indian Army and now President of the ORF Institute of Security Studies in New Delhi:
QUOTE:
Jenkins ignores the reason why the US and other nations have given the call for global war on terrorism. It is to protect modernity and progressive, democratic way of life from outdated beliefs and radicals who will not accept that and wish to force their beliefs on all others through terror.
It is a recognized fact that the more likely targets of global terrorism are the democratic societies. It is so because pluralism, peaceful co-existence, dialogue as the basis of resolution of differences, adult franchise as the optimal means of organizing internal affairs of the nations: these are an anathema to the terrorist groups. Such democratic societies challenge the very cause and rationale of the terrorists' existence.
The State of J & K joined India the day the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession with India on October 26, 1947, in the presence of the popular leader Sheikh Abdullah. However, we must be realistic and realise that re-writing of boundaries after 62 years, particularly in the current strategic environment, is not possible. A forcible attempt will not resolve but compound the problem along with a lot of bloodshed.
Any attempt to create an independent state, geo-strategically placed as it would be, will cause permanent damage to strategic stability in South Asia. That would make it worse than Afghanistan.
To my mind, the only possible solution is to convert the Line of Control into an international border and to keep that soft to enable ethnic groups on either side to interact with each other, without jeopardising sovereignty and security of the respective states. Such a solution is impossible with ongoing cross border terrorism and with present level of confidence and trust between India and Pakistan.
UNQUOTE
And finally a Kashmiri expert, Dr Vijay Sazawal:
QUOTE:
The author's conclusion would imply that terrorism is driven by political considerations rather than a messanic desire to bend the world in line with misguided beliefs of a few. By rationalizing such acts as somehow related to issues of conv enience is utterly wrong. The terrorist organizations are fighting for a Caliphate and have waged wars in Chechnya, Iraq and elsewhere unconnected to Kashmir.
UNQUOTE.
UNQUOTE.
Perhaps the best recent article on the subject of Kashmir and the region has come from Lisa Curtis,Senior Research Fellow for South Asia at the Heritage Foundation. It is titled, "U.S. South Asia Regional - Not Kashmir - Envoy Needed" (http://www.heritage.org:80/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2158.cfm). She says:
**President-elect Barack Obama's recent assertion that the U.S. should try to help resolve the Kashmir issue so that Pakistan can focus on reining in militancy on its Afghan border is misguided. Raising the specter of international intervention in the dispute could fuel unrealistic expectations in Pakistan for a final settlement in its favor. Such expectations could encourage Islamabad to increase support for Kashmiri militants to push an agenda it believed was within reach. Such a scenario is hardly unprecedented: Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf initiated the Kargil incursion into Indian-administered Kashmir in 1999 precisely to raise the profile of the Kashmir issue and to encourage international mediation.
**Instead of narrowly focusing on Kashmir, the incoming Obama Administration should assume a much wider view of the region's challenges. Such a broad approach would recognize that Pakistan's focus on Kashmir is a symptom of broader issues, including the impact of India's emergence as a global power and the Pakistani army's continued domination over the country's national security policies.
**The Indians would be unreceptive to direct international mediation on Kashmir. Any such move in this direction would raise suspicions in New Delhi that Washington is reverting back to policies that view India only through the South Asia lens rather than as the rising world power it has become. This perception could hurt the Obama Administration's ability to build on major gains the Bush team made in improving what Vice President-elect Joe Biden has himself called one of the most important bilateral relationships for the U.S. in the 21st century.
**A high-profile regional envoy can play a productive role in simultaneously easing both Pakistan-Afghanistan and Indo-Pakistani tensions by prodding the countries to move forward with confidence-building measures, like the recent opening of a road between Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Initiatives such as the establishment of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan can also help defuse regional tensions. ROZ legislation now before the U.S. Congress would create industrial zones to produce and export textiles and other items to the U.S. duty-free, helping to integrate the Afghan and Pakistani economies. Initiatives like ROZs will give each country a vested interest in the stability of the other and help defuse conflict that fuels support for radical ideologies and terrorism.
**But perhaps the most important task of this regional envoy would be convincing the Pakistani military to give up its policies of relying on violent extremist groups to achieve its foreign policy objectives in the region. In order to defuse the Indo-Pakistani crisis over the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan must shut down the Kashmir-focused groups it has spawned and that increasingly have links to international terrorism, including most likely the atrocities in Mumbai.[Her article was written before Indian and American intelligence agencies conclusively proved LET's responsibility for the Mumbai carnage].
**LET has not only succeeded in bringing two nuclear-armed nations to the brink of war; it ultimately threatens Pakistan's own future--a fact recognized by the country's civilian leaders. Therefore, it is time for the military establishment to recognize the threat these groups pose for Pakistan and act decisively to shut them down. Eradicating groups like LET will not be easy and will likely involve further bloodshed, but last week's attack made it clear there can be no other course of action: The longer Pakistan waits, the stronger these groups become.
**President-elect Obama rightly recognizes the need for the U.S. to engage in more robust regional diplomacy to defuse deep-seated animosities and to generate economic and trade initiatives that build support among local populations for uprooting the terrorists among them. But he must avoid falling into the trap of seeking to appoint a Kashmir-specific envoy, which could backfire by fueling unrealistic expectations of those who wish to change the status quo as well as undermine the great potential of the U.S.-India relationship.
THE NEW YORKER article (please scroll down) bears out the thesis that the jihadis’ objective is not just to take over India but also far-flung places such as Spain!
Ram Narayanan
US-India Friendship
http://usindiafriendship.net/
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/15/081215taco_talk_packer
THE NEW YORKER
Risk Factors
by George Packer December 15, 2008
A few days after well-armed men mowed down scores of helpless people in Mumbai, an American commission released a report on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. “World at Risk” is one of those conscientious, bipartisan efforts, its importance signalled by publication as a trade paperback, whose sober findings and pragmatic recommendations momentarily give you the sense that every problem—even one as alarming as the likelihood that “a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013”—has a common-sense solution. The report includes chapters on biological and nuclear risks, and one titled “Pakistan,” which would seem to suggest that the nation itself is a kind of W.M.D.
According to intelligence reports, the attacks in Mumbai were carried out by terrorists who had received extensive training from the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba, or Army of the Pure. Its agenda has been to force India to give up control over the disputed northern mountain region of Jammu and Kashmir. More recently, the group’s leader, Hafiz Saeed, spoke of creating a Muslim south Asia—thus, the band that carried out the killings called itself the Hyderabad Deccan Mujahideen, implying a holy war extending down to the south-central Indian region that, in the late eighteenth century, marked the farthest limit of the Mughal empire.
The name has the ring of nostalgic grandeur common among jihadist groups elsewhere, with their historical claims on far-flung places like Al Andalus, also known as Spain. And the designated targets in Mumbai suggested an ambition on the terrorists’ part extending well beyond the local troubles of Kashmir: hotels, a café, a hospital, a train station; foreign visitors, well-heeled Indians, Jews. The terrorists tortured their Jewish victims. They demanded to know the caste and home state of Indians. They held conference calls with their superiors in Lahore and Karachi to determine whether or not a certain hostage should be killed. When the goal is a Muslim south Asia, the answer is almost always yes.
The operation was so skillful and deadly, complete with a maritime landing by inflatable craft, that one security expert said that Navy SEALs would have had a hard time pulling it off. The sophisticated tactics, as well as electronic evidence, point to the involvement of top Lashkar figures, and also, according to Indian sources, of current or former officers of Pakistan’s intelligence and military. So the murders have led to a familiar volley of accusations, denials, counter-accusations, and threats between the nuclear-armed governments of India and Pakistan. They have also inspired a degree of restraint on India’s part and pledges of coöperation on Pakistan’s that are less familiar and more encouraging.
In one sense, the most appropriate response—articulated by commentators and ordinary people after the terror was over—is to express solidarity with the victims, and also with the idea of Mumbai, which, like the idea of New York, represents a vision of society that is the opposite of the vision behind names like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hyderabad Deccan Mujahideen: impure, secular, modern, open. But moral revulsion doesn’t suggest an intelligent course of action. The attacks in Mumbai reveal the vexing complexity of the interconnected conflicts throughout south Asia. At the urging of the United States, Pakistan had moved six divisions from its eastern frontier with Indian Kashmir to fight militants on its western border with Afghanistan; now the terrorists have succeeded in inducing Pakistan to threaten to cut back its pressure on the tribal areas and redeploy its troops to the east. Islamist radicalism is the main spark that keeps inflaming these conflicts.
Some commentators have simply demanded that Pakistan rid itself of the virus of extremism that threatens its own security as well as its neighbors’. But which Pakistan is going to do it? The weak civilian government of President Asif Zardari? The two-faced security services? The tribal leaders along the Afghanistan border? The huge, overwhelmingly poor, tumultuous population? The core problem is that Pakistan is no longer really a country, if it ever was. “Our Pakistan strategy is hopelessly at odds with reality,” David Kilcullen, a former counterinsurgency adviser to the State Department, said. “We treat it as an earnest but incapable ally in the war on terrorism.” In fact, some civilian elements of the government are American allies; some military elements are American enemies. The wild northwest, where Islamist militants have extended their control and created a safe haven for Al Qaeda, has thwarted those who would govern it for a long time. Lord Curzon, the British viceroy of India at the turn of the last century, fumed, “No patchwork scheme—and all our present recent schemes . . . are mere patchwork—will settle the Waziristan problem. Not until the military steam-roller has passed over the country from end to end, will there be peace. But I do not want to be the person to start that machine.”
American policymakers must be tempted to agree. Years of U.S. efforts in Pakistan—military aid, air strikes, Special Forces operations, bilateral diplomacy, coaxings, warnings—have been patchwork, and they have failed. Different approaches, including ones suggested in “World at Risk,” such as putting more effort into development and governance in Pakistan’s northwest, or bringing other regional countries to the table, offer some promise. But, in Kilcullen’s words, “Iraq might be easier than this. It’s a very, very difficult problem, and we don’t have much leverage in it.”
In the days after the Mumbai attacks, the Washington Post reported that the Obama transition team was considering Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy to the region. The position would create a kind of civilian counterpart to General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, filling a diplomatic void in U.S. foreign policy that the military has occupied throughout the Bush years. The Administration has always regarded terrorism in the narrow terms of war, and this myopia led it to deal with the region’s countries in isolation from one another, so that the policy in Kabul sometimes contradicted the one in Islamabad, which in turn was undermined by the growing partnership with New Delhi, and all of them were hampered by the refusal to talk to Tehran, whose role in the affairs of its neighbors to the east receives little attention. A special envoy would have to see the problem whole.
Holbrooke is the most experienced diplomat in the Democratic Party, and the aggressive negotiating skill he showed in brokering the Dayton accords that ended the war in Bosnia is badly needed in south Asia. But a legacy of the Bush Administration is that America can no longer sweep in and impose a solution on a crisis. The answers for Pakistan lie largely in its own hands—that’s the most frightening thing of all. ♦
*****************************
THE TIMES OF INDIA
US lines up billions for Pak, ignoring terror links
26 Feb 2009, 1839 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
WASHINGTON : The United States is lining up billions of dollars in new economic and military aid to Pakistan despite reports that Islamabad is using American tax-payer money for deals with the Taliban and accounts of US arms ending up in the hands of the extremists.
Amid an ongoing review of the so-called Af-Pak policy initiated by the Obama administration, Washington, under pressure from influential Senator John Kerry among other lawmakers and lobbyists, is said to be considering a one-time $ 5 billion aid to Pakistan over and above the $ 1.5 billion annual package for ten years currently under review for passage through Congress.
Releasing a report by the think-tank Atlantic Council on Wednesday, Kerry, who is also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is in a position to pilot the aid package, raised the prospect of a total collapse in Pakistan if it was not helped urgently.
"If we fail, we face a truly frightening prospect: terrorist sanctuary, economic meltdown, and spiraling radicalism, all in a nation with 170 million inhabitants and a full arsenal of nuclear weapons," he said. "The stakes could not be higher, and [this] report could not be more timely."
The 27-page report calls for "a total of $4-5 billion above the (Biden)-Kerry-Lugar proposals and beyond the IMF and other loans from the US. and other sources," for Pakistan. Of this, it recommends, about $3 billion should go to the economic and social sectors directly. About $1 billion of fresh or redirected funds would go to security forces -- both military and law enforcement.
US government reports in recent times have detailed how Pakistan has misused billions in aid for a military build-up againstIndia instead of using it for the intended war on terror. Audits have also detailed million of dollars in fraudulent claims by the Pakistani military. Reimbursement to Pakistan have been halted for several minths because of this but are set to resume soon after the Obama administration has given a green signal pending further audits.
More recent accounts from Pakistan have described how high end US military equipment is ending up with extremists through arms bazaars in the country’s frontier. Earlier this week, reports from Pakistan detailed $ 6 million paid through back channels to the Taliban in the latest truce in Swat with more in the pipeline.
Reports of enhanced American aid to a suspect ally at a time of economic woes in the US has caused consternation in strategic circles.
"Not only is the United States paying the Pakistani government to abdicate territory to the Taliban, we get to fund the Taliban as well," said Bill Roggio, an expert in the war on terror, questioning the Kerry-Lugar proposal aimed to tripling military aid to Pakistan.
"It’s time for the US. government to ask if it is getting a good return on its investment. Considering that more than $3.8 billion of $5 billion of US. aid to Pakistan has gone unaccounted for and the Taliban is being funded by the US, perhaps the answer is no," Roggio, who runs the blog Long War Journal, added.
Kerry made no mention of any Pakistani transgression in his alarming presentation as he pushed for increased aid amid intense Pakistani lobbying in Washington. Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, its Army chief Pervez Ashraf Kiyani, and the ISI Director-General Shuja Pasha have been in intense consultations with US interlocutors this week to seek a bail-out for Islsmabad, warning that a meltdown in Pakistan can affect the neighborhood and the whole world.
Although the Atlantic Council report has several recommendations to temper Pakistan’s militaristic outlook, its embrace of extremism, and the need to promote peace with India, the proposed aid is not contingent on Islamabad living up to any benchmarks.
The report largely glosses over the Mumbai attack, in which 159 people including six Americans died, while empathizing with Islamabad for its predicament in initiating action against those who plotted the carnage.
"Pakistan must clearly do more to neutralize and control terrorist organizations operating on its soil and hence must meet some demands it believes are harsh and too biased towards Indian preferences," it says on the Mumbai attack, but adds, "Giving Pakistan leeway to do so on its own timetable may be a way out and prevent the government from being seen as doing so at India’s bidding."
_________________________________________________
US lines up billions for Pak, ignoring terror links
26 Feb 2009, 1839 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
WASHINGTON : The United States is lining up billions of dollars in new economic and military aid to Pakistan despite reports that Islamabad is using American tax-payer money for deals with the Taliban and accounts of US arms ending up in the hands of the extremists.
Amid an ongoing review of the so-called Af-Pak policy initiated by the Obama administration, Washington, under pressure from influential Senator John Kerry among other lawmakers and lobbyists, is said to be considering a one-time $ 5 billion aid to Pakistan over and above the $ 1.5 billion annual package for ten years currently under review for passage through Congress.
Releasing a report by the think-tank Atlantic Council on Wednesday, Kerry, who is also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is in a position to pilot the aid package, raised the prospect of a total collapse in Pakistan if it was not helped urgently.
"If we fail, we face a truly frightening prospect: terrorist sanctuary, economic meltdown, and spiraling radicalism, all in a nation with 170 million inhabitants and a full arsenal of nuclear weapons," he said. "The stakes could not be higher, and [this] report could not be more timely."
The 27-page report calls for "a total of $4-5 billion above the (Biden)-Kerry-Lugar proposals and beyond the IMF and other loans from the US. and other sources," for Pakistan. Of this, it recommends, about $3 billion should go to the economic and social sectors directly. About $1 billion of fresh or redirected funds would go to security forces -- both military and law enforcement.
US government reports in recent times have detailed how Pakistan has misused billions in aid for a military build-up againstIndia instead of using it for the intended war on terror. Audits have also detailed million of dollars in fraudulent claims by the Pakistani military. Reimbursement to Pakistan have been halted for several minths because of this but are set to resume soon after the Obama administration has given a green signal pending further audits.
More recent accounts from Pakistan have described how high end US military equipment is ending up with extremists through arms bazaars in the country’s frontier. Earlier this week, reports from Pakistan detailed $ 6 million paid through back channels to the Taliban in the latest truce in Swat with more in the pipeline.
Reports of enhanced American aid to a suspect ally at a time of economic woes in the US has caused consternation in strategic circles.
"Not only is the United States paying the Pakistani government to abdicate territory to the Taliban, we get to fund the Taliban as well," said Bill Roggio, an expert in the war on terror, questioning the Kerry-Lugar proposal aimed to tripling military aid to Pakistan.
"It’s time for the US. government to ask if it is getting a good return on its investment. Considering that more than $3.8 billion of $5 billion of US. aid to Pakistan has gone unaccounted for and the Taliban is being funded by the US, perhaps the answer is no," Roggio, who runs the blog Long War Journal, added.
Kerry made no mention of any Pakistani transgression in his alarming presentation as he pushed for increased aid amid intense Pakistani lobbying in Washington. Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, its Army chief Pervez Ashraf Kiyani, and the ISI Director-General Shuja Pasha have been in intense consultations with US interlocutors this week to seek a bail-out for Islsmabad, warning that a meltdown in Pakistan can affect the neighborhood and the whole world.
Although the Atlantic Council report has several recommendations to temper Pakistan’s militaristic outlook, its embrace of extremism, and the need to promote peace with India, the proposed aid is not contingent on Islamabad living up to any benchmarks.
The report largely glosses over the Mumbai attack, in which 159 people including six Americans died, while empathizing with Islamabad for its predicament in initiating action against those who plotted the carnage.
"Pakistan must clearly do more to neutralize and control terrorist organizations operating on its soil and hence must meet some demands it believes are harsh and too biased towards Indian preferences," it says on the Mumbai attack, but adds, "Giving Pakistan leeway to do so on its own timetable may be a way out and prevent the government from being seen as doing so at India’s bidding."
_________________________________________________