Is Pakistan the next target?
Is Pakistan the next target?
Mohammad Jamil
Top military commander Admiral Mike Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani and Chief of the Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani with a view to easing tension in the wake of rising air strikes and at least one ground assault at Angoor Adda. This was his second meeting with General Kayani in less than three weeks as the two had met aboard USS Abraham Lincoln in the Indian Ocean on August 26. Mullen had perhaps misunderstood the gesture of Pakistan’s reiteration of cooperation in war on terror. Anyhow, both civil and military leaders have categorically stated that Pakistan would not allow any operation within its territory. A day earlier, Pakistan Army spokesperson Major General Ather Abbas had said: “Pakistan’s security forces have been ordered to open fire on the US troops if they launch another raid across the Afghan border and that no incursion is to be tolerated.” Indo-US-Israel nexus continues with its pernicious propaganda and malicious intent and accuse the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of supporting Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. It is unfortunate that despite arresting and killing hundreds of militants the US is not satisfied with the performance of Pakistan’s security forces. The US and its allies do not realise that when more than 70,000 better equipped US and Nato forces together with equal number of Afghan army have failed to control the situation in Afghanistan how can they expect from Pakistan to eliminate terrorists or seal 2,400 km border between the two countries. The infecundity of the US forces, ISAF forces and the Afghan forces is evident from the fact that during the last seven years they have neither been able to rein in Taliban nor establish the writ of the state throughout Afghanistan. It appears that the US has some ulterior motives to destabilise and denuclearise Pakistan, as it cannot digest a Muslim nuclear state. In the past, air strikes by the US and Nato forces were few and far between but since the elected government is at the helm, frequency of air strikes has increased manifold and there was at least one ground assault this month. Pakistan has taken a very serious view of violations of its border and sovereignty and has launched protests but to no avail. For over one year, the US has been accusing Pakistan army of either not doing enough to rein in the Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. Though President Bush continued to support former President Pervez Musharraf yet other members of his administration, the US lawmakers and international media were involved in maligning him and demanding that ISI should be dissolved. On Tuesday, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher has said: “The Pakistani spy agency needs reform but there is no indication this is happening yet. But it has to be done,” The sinister designs of the US and its allies are quite obvious from such statements. They have also been raising alarms that Pakistan’s nuclear assets could land into the hands of terrorists. Pakistan has reiterated again and again that it possessed adequate retaliatory capacity to defend its nuclear strategic assets and sovereignty. Pakistan has many a time categorically said these assets are in safe hands and under strong multi-layered, institutionalised decision-making mechanism. Anyhow, the US is not willing to listen to any reason or logic, and the US government has been steadily working on conducting operations inside Pakistan’s territory. On March 2 2008, Senator Carl Levin, Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee had said that the panel would press the Defence and State departments to consider taking military action against alleged al Qaeda camps inside Pakistan.The problem is that the arrest of Osama bin Laden is one of the primary objectives of the President Bush and if he achieves this objective, his Republican Party stands a good chance to regain its plummeted popularity and win November elections. Anyhow, the negative propaganda campaign launched by some members of the Bush administration, President Hamid Karzai, and especially India accusing ISI of any minor to major mishaps has conveyed an impression that the ISI is the best secret agency in the world. In an article captioned ‘The central front’ carried in this week’s Time, Aryn Baker writes: “Though Pakistan has lost several thousand soldiers in the war against Islamic insurgency, many US lawmakers believe it is not doing enough. Western military leaders in Afghanistan have accused the ISI of actively supporting the terrorist groups that are behind attacks on foreign forces and civilian targets, such as a suicide blast at the Indian embassy in Kabul.” In hindsight, one could say with confidence that had Pakistan not become frontline state against Communism and especially after the Soviet forces had landed in Afghanistan, the US would not have been a superpower today to push Pakistan against the wall today. During the Cold War era the world was relatively peaceful, as it was divided into Western and Communist camps Either of the two superpowers – the US and USSR – protected the countries within their area of influence, as such the chances for adventurism were remote. After disintegration of the USSR, the only superpower came out with the new world order and wished to run the world according to its whim and fancy. After the defeat of Communism, the US was looking for another enemy to keep the West united, and it found in Islam, which was obvious from President Bush’s various statements after 9/11. The Western countries, their intellectuals and media continue demonising Islam for acts of terrorism by a small minority of fanatics, extremists and terrorists. As a matter of fact, the tirade started with Samuel P. Huntington’s article on inevitability of clash between civilisations. The “Clash of civilisations” was published in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1993, which helped form series of attitudes opposing Islam. And given its intellectual and doctrinal nature, it had the greatest negative impact on the governments and the people of the western countries. He wrote: “The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not primarily be ideological or economic. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating the civilisations from one another. European communities will share cultural features that distinguish them from Arab or Chinese communities.” There is no denying that the conflict of interests and values exists in the world but instead of projecting it as intractable efforts should be made to achieve inter-religion harmony by understanding each other’s point of view. Furthermore, there is need for a just world economic order to remove disparities and deprivations, which are responsible for hunger, disease and crimes in the developing countries – the underlying causes for terrorism and the conflicts. Samuel Huntington had drawn the ‘battle-lines’ but it has yet to be seen as to when Arab and Chinese would forge unity to implement pseudo-intellectual’s ‘academic laboratory theory’. But should there be conflagration, in the presence of a dozen declared and undeclared nuclear states with credible delivery system, nobody would be safe not even the superpower. And there would remain no concept of victor and the vanquished.
Mohammad Jamil
Top military commander Admiral Mike Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani and Chief of the Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani with a view to easing tension in the wake of rising air strikes and at least one ground assault at Angoor Adda. This was his second meeting with General Kayani in less than three weeks as the two had met aboard USS Abraham Lincoln in the Indian Ocean on August 26. Mullen had perhaps misunderstood the gesture of Pakistan’s reiteration of cooperation in war on terror. Anyhow, both civil and military leaders have categorically stated that Pakistan would not allow any operation within its territory. A day earlier, Pakistan Army spokesperson Major General Ather Abbas had said: “Pakistan’s security forces have been ordered to open fire on the US troops if they launch another raid across the Afghan border and that no incursion is to be tolerated.” Indo-US-Israel nexus continues with its pernicious propaganda and malicious intent and accuse the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of supporting Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. It is unfortunate that despite arresting and killing hundreds of militants the US is not satisfied with the performance of Pakistan’s security forces. The US and its allies do not realise that when more than 70,000 better equipped US and Nato forces together with equal number of Afghan army have failed to control the situation in Afghanistan how can they expect from Pakistan to eliminate terrorists or seal 2,400 km border between the two countries. The infecundity of the US forces, ISAF forces and the Afghan forces is evident from the fact that during the last seven years they have neither been able to rein in Taliban nor establish the writ of the state throughout Afghanistan. It appears that the US has some ulterior motives to destabilise and denuclearise Pakistan, as it cannot digest a Muslim nuclear state. In the past, air strikes by the US and Nato forces were few and far between but since the elected government is at the helm, frequency of air strikes has increased manifold and there was at least one ground assault this month. Pakistan has taken a very serious view of violations of its border and sovereignty and has launched protests but to no avail. For over one year, the US has been accusing Pakistan army of either not doing enough to rein in the Taliban and al Qaeda operatives. Though President Bush continued to support former President Pervez Musharraf yet other members of his administration, the US lawmakers and international media were involved in maligning him and demanding that ISI should be dissolved. On Tuesday, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher has said: “The Pakistani spy agency needs reform but there is no indication this is happening yet. But it has to be done,” The sinister designs of the US and its allies are quite obvious from such statements. They have also been raising alarms that Pakistan’s nuclear assets could land into the hands of terrorists. Pakistan has reiterated again and again that it possessed adequate retaliatory capacity to defend its nuclear strategic assets and sovereignty. Pakistan has many a time categorically said these assets are in safe hands and under strong multi-layered, institutionalised decision-making mechanism. Anyhow, the US is not willing to listen to any reason or logic, and the US government has been steadily working on conducting operations inside Pakistan’s territory. On March 2 2008, Senator Carl Levin, Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee had said that the panel would press the Defence and State departments to consider taking military action against alleged al Qaeda camps inside Pakistan.The problem is that the arrest of Osama bin Laden is one of the primary objectives of the President Bush and if he achieves this objective, his Republican Party stands a good chance to regain its plummeted popularity and win November elections. Anyhow, the negative propaganda campaign launched by some members of the Bush administration, President Hamid Karzai, and especially India accusing ISI of any minor to major mishaps has conveyed an impression that the ISI is the best secret agency in the world. In an article captioned ‘The central front’ carried in this week’s Time, Aryn Baker writes: “Though Pakistan has lost several thousand soldiers in the war against Islamic insurgency, many US lawmakers believe it is not doing enough. Western military leaders in Afghanistan have accused the ISI of actively supporting the terrorist groups that are behind attacks on foreign forces and civilian targets, such as a suicide blast at the Indian embassy in Kabul.” In hindsight, one could say with confidence that had Pakistan not become frontline state against Communism and especially after the Soviet forces had landed in Afghanistan, the US would not have been a superpower today to push Pakistan against the wall today. During the Cold War era the world was relatively peaceful, as it was divided into Western and Communist camps Either of the two superpowers – the US and USSR – protected the countries within their area of influence, as such the chances for adventurism were remote. After disintegration of the USSR, the only superpower came out with the new world order and wished to run the world according to its whim and fancy. After the defeat of Communism, the US was looking for another enemy to keep the West united, and it found in Islam, which was obvious from President Bush’s various statements after 9/11. The Western countries, their intellectuals and media continue demonising Islam for acts of terrorism by a small minority of fanatics, extremists and terrorists. As a matter of fact, the tirade started with Samuel P. Huntington’s article on inevitability of clash between civilisations. The “Clash of civilisations” was published in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1993, which helped form series of attitudes opposing Islam. And given its intellectual and doctrinal nature, it had the greatest negative impact on the governments and the people of the western countries. He wrote: “The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not primarily be ideological or economic. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating the civilisations from one another. European communities will share cultural features that distinguish them from Arab or Chinese communities.” There is no denying that the conflict of interests and values exists in the world but instead of projecting it as intractable efforts should be made to achieve inter-religion harmony by understanding each other’s point of view. Furthermore, there is need for a just world economic order to remove disparities and deprivations, which are responsible for hunger, disease and crimes in the developing countries – the underlying causes for terrorism and the conflicts. Samuel Huntington had drawn the ‘battle-lines’ but it has yet to be seen as to when Arab and Chinese would forge unity to implement pseudo-intellectual’s ‘academic laboratory theory’. But should there be conflagration, in the presence of a dozen declared and undeclared nuclear states with credible delivery system, nobody would be safe not even the superpower. And there would remain no concept of victor and the vanquished.
