Pakistan

Mumbai Attacks

Bilal Qureshi — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:12:34 +0000

A brilliant work of investigative journalism by Jason Motlagh helps us understand that it is in the interest of everyone to try to solve issues by talking to each other instead of letting the nuts take advantage of our inability to commit to a constructive dialogue. Take for example the Mumbai tragedy. Right after the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, people in Pakistan declared it to be an Indian conspiracy and in India, it was generally agreed that Pakistan was behind this attack.

No need to further investigate.

However, what has emerged so far about the Mumbai attacks is much more complicated. There are details that are missing, and there are facts that don’t add up. Unsolved mysteries during the investigation have proved, once again, that at times, it is best to avoid commenting about events that are as complicated as the Mumbai attacks.

So far, we know that stateless actors were involved in carrying out these attacks. These people want nothing, but chaos and mayhem in Asia, and it is important to stop them without pointing finger at other.

Pakistan has been at the receiving end of these attacks for decades now. First, there were attacks when Pakistan was helping the West in Afghanistan while Russians were trying to conquer Afghanistan. Then, after 9/11, nut jobs from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are carrying out devastating attacks in Pakistan against the country that is fighting nihilists. If anything, Pakistan needs help - a lot of help and understanding from not only the Western countries, but also from its neighbors. This is not the time, especially for India and Pakistan to accuse each other of ‘not doing enough’ while the viscous and brutal enemy is determined to destroy both India and Pakistan. Therefore, it would be wise for Delhi and Islamabad to engage each other without doubting each other’s intentions.

Terrorist working to destabilize the region win if India and Pakistan continue to look at each other as the source of all evils in the world (or the region) and we can’t let that happen. Judging from my recent and a very long trip to Pakistan, I can say this with confidence that most of the country is interested in living in peace with India. They don’t want war or for that any type of conflict or even an argument with India. They just want to live in peace and I am sure the same can be said about the people in India. So, in my opinion, the tragedy of Mumbai should bring the governments and the people from both countries together because coming close is the only way to overcome suspension and acrimony towards each other.

War has never been the answer when we look at history. It can, and it does suppress the issues temporarily, but in the end, all parties have to come to the negotiating table to find answers and solutions for the problems.

Notwithstanding the hardcore chicken hawks on both sides of Pak-India border, there is hardly an issue that Islamabad and New Delhi won’t be able to resolve amicably, but for this, egos have to be controlled, finger pointing has to stop and honest and open environment is needed and I am sure that mature and cooler minds on both sides in both countries can make the argument for peace successfully. It is in the interest of everyone to shake hands instead of trying to slap each other.

With friends like these anchors, Pakistan doesn’t need enemies

Bilal Qureshi — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:33:51 +0000

با دوستان هایی از این دشمنان ما نیاز ندارد.

The meeting between Pakistan’s ‘super anchors’ and Hillary Clinton was, well, disastrous, not for America or Clinton, but for these talk show hosts.

Hillary was calm, controlled, measured and she answered all sorts of questions thoroughly and intelligently.

And unlike most of the panel, she was gracious, too.

First of all, Clinton should never have met these nut jobs in the first place. And if it was absolutely necessary to have a meeting, than, senior, sober, seasoned and established journalists should have been on the panel, i.e. Najam Sethi, Ijaz Ahmed (Daily Times) Ayesha Alam (Dawn TV) Beena Sarwar, and Ghazi Salahuddin etc for an interview that would have been substantive and mutually beneficial

But, what we witnessed was a text book case of ideologues disguised as journalists trying to defame and attack their subject instead of engaging her in an intellectual exercise, otherwise known as an interview. Too bad for these buffoons, Hillary come out of the interview with her sanity and her reputation intact, and these ‘anchors’ emerged as what we suspected them to be all along – clowns.

Journalism is one of the most sacred and respected profession in the world. But in Pakistan, especially the electronic journalism has sunk to a low never before imagined or witnessed anywhere in the world. What we have in Pakistan is, for the most part, Taliban apologists and Osama admirers working to scare people in submission. That is, people of Pakistan must follow the advice and the argument made by these anchors on TV instead of using their own judgment. These so-called anchors want Islamic power (whatever that means) to come together, ideally in Pakistan (because Pakistan HAS THE BOMB) and lead a jihad in which India, America and Israel are defeated and Muslims run the world with their headquarter in Turkey, just like the good old days! Isn’t that simple?

Of course not being able to ask anything important, significant or even intelligent during an interview is not a crime. And, sadly, people in Pakistan are used to not been able to hear anything positive or constructive when they turn on their television. The men and the women who occupy anchor chairs in Pakistan these days have really lowered the bar on what is acceptable.

Nonetheless, when these anchors preach day after day that they have all the answers and America is the enemy and then, these super anchors are given an opportunity that is the mother of all opportunities – interview America’s Foreign Minister, Hillary Clinton, the public does have the right to expect a superb show, and the country does expect to find answers to the all the problem that these super anchors raise day after day, night after night on their shows. Also important to remember, especially for these anchors is that failure on this occasion is not even option – these super anchors must step up to the plate. And that is precisely why when Hillary sat in front of Pakistan’s super anchors; everyone in Pakistan expected it to be a showdown that these super anchors have been begging for and preparing for a long time. But as expected, these super anchors tanked and tanked big time.

Wow, talk about humiliation and embarrassment.

Pakistanis finally got a chance to see that these people know nothing, they are wrong about everything, and all their claims about pretty much anything they discuss can’t be taken seriously. These people, the super anchors had Clinton, alone, in front of them, cornered and they had the awesome opportunity to openly and publicly confront Clinton (because Zardari and Gillani are not capable of doing it, of course). So, did these super anchors confront Clinton? Of course not. Did these people ask her anything that merits a serious answer? No, not a single word that was worth her time. But forget that, they couldn’t even get her to admit that Drone attacks are wrong or they would be stopped. Clinton did say to these people that if you don’t want our money, i.e. Kerry Lugar, please, by all means, don’t, Pakistan doesn’t have to take the money if it hurts Pakistan’s ego. This as for as I know is called a slap in the face, and it was well deserved by these super anchors. Also worth mentioning is the much talked about issue of one of the anchors failed attempt to exaggerate the amount of money that a former Soviet State charges the United States. And he didn’t exaggerate this number by 10/20 percent – he went for the kill, and he exaggerated the number from $50 million to like $500 billion or something similar, but this is why it is critical to be accurate. Hillary stopped him, rather amusingly that the money that the United States pays is not $500 billion, but $50 million a year. Aha, this is what you’d call a slap in the face, métaphoriquement parlant!

So, if you look at it, it was not an interview. There were hardly any questions, but long speeches and incorrect analysis by the anchors and Clinton sat there, enjoying herself. It reminded me of a conversation with an Indian businessman I had while flying to DC from Qatar recently. He said, “we don’t have to do anything to hurt or harm Pakistan because Pakistanis are doing a great of job of destroying their own country.” Sadly, after watching the Hillary’s interview with Pakistan’s super anchors, I instantly understood what he meant.

With friends like these anchors, Pakistan doesn’t need enemies.

Bilal Qureshi

Washington, DC

Musharaff, Ch. Nisar and Zardari

Bilal Qureshi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:29:42 +0000

Musharaff gives an interview using unkind words for Zardari and Ch. Nisar defends Zardari.

Really?

Ch. Nisar has two passions (if you read what he has been saying after he became the opposition leader): attacking every Zardari and attacking everything America. Therefore, it was very strange to read that Ch. Nisar huffed and puffed about Musharaff’s trash talk vis-à-vis Zardari. But why would Ch. Nisar defend Zardari? The answer is simple – Ch. Nisar has run out of anti American rants.

Given Pakistan’s troubles, it doesn’t really matter who said what. What matters is if anything is being done to save the country. Ironically, it is the army, yes; the same army that has overthrown democratic governments in Pakistan, the same army is being hailed as the institution engaged in fight to protect Pakistan. Less than two years ago, army officers in Pakistan were scared to wear uniform in public, but today, they have become heroes. Good, at least someone is liked in the country.

Because everyday people are dying in bombings across Pakistan, it is important that we don’t get distracted by what one aspiring politician is saying about other politicians in Pakistan.

Musharaff, as we know, has good things to his credit and there are some terrible mistakes associated with his tenure. But, he served his country to the best of his knowledge and abilities and Pakistan has to learn to move forward, even if is not acceptable for the Ch. Nisar and his party, PML (N).

Fareed Zakaria Interviews Musharraff

Zainab Jeewanjee — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:45:37 +0000

Pervez Musharraf was on Fareed Zakaria GPS this morning discussing the Af-Pak situation in two segments. The second segment focused on Pakistan where Zakaria prefaced Q&A by reminding viewers that General Musharraf is an “authentic representation of Pakistan’s military” and that his comments will reveal that the situation in Afghanistan is rooted in a “60 year geopolitical rivalry that we just walked in to, and its between between India and Pakistan“. Sounded like grand stuff.

And Zakaria jumped right in. He began with questions on whether the Pakistan military is as committed to eliminating terrorists in the north who launch cross border attacks as they are to obliterating terrorists in the South who are responsible for domestic assaults. He said the military “never seems to get around to attacking North Waziristan who attacks India or Afghanistan because they were supported in the past”. Musharraff made clear that during his tenure, he insisted on drone technology needed to obliterate terrorists from both regions, especially given Baitullah Mehsud who assassinated Bhutto and that terrorists were never supported by the military or any government policy. He mentioned that ISI “ingress” in terrorist groups is standard procedure practiced by all Intelligence operations, clarifying that “ingress” is not be equated to “support”, rather it’s standard maintenance of contacts with such groups for the states advantage.

When questioned about the widespread notion that Al Qaeda leader Mullah Umar is in Pakistan, Musharraf said it’s “200% wrong” explaining Umar would have no interest in leaving a safe haven in the northern areas where Taliban has de-facto control for Quetta where US and Pakistani intelligence/ military roam rampant. It was a reasonable response and Zakaria’s questions sounded increasingly implicative.

Zakaria probed the notion saying that the “Afghanistan government and intelligence say he’s in Pakistan” to which Musharraff firmly explained “don’t talk about the Afghan government and intelligence. By design, they mislead the world, they talk against Pakistan because they are entirely under the influence of Indian intelligence”.

Wow, he just said it. It’s often documented in Pakistani media that Indian intelligence is widely responsible for insurgencies in northern areas of Pakistan and the province of Balochistan by way of material support, but rarely is that view expressed in mainstream U.S. media. Former Foreign Minister Sharifuddin Pirzada recently explained to me that warming of relations between Delhi and Kabul come at a direct expense of Pakistan because of such subversive, Indian led dealings with Afghanistan. Similarly, Musharraf explained he has provided “documented evidence” of this activity in the past.

From the first question on Pakistan’s commitment to uprooting cross border terrorism, to the question on Mullah Umar, Zakaria elicited Musharraf into discussion of a supposed ”geopolitical rivalry” between India and Pakistan wherein Afghanistan is used as a “client state” by either nation as a buffer against, if not to subvert one another. And although I can’t say that is entirely untrue, Zakaria approached today’s interview with this preconceived notion, and overstepped neutrality by implicating Pakistan in the process.

Poor Pakistan

Bilal Qureshi — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:51:24 +0000

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

We all know that Pakistan’s overall situation has been dedeteriorating for decades and it has entered a critical phase. And, regretfully, it seems that there is nothing that is going to reverse the tide in Pakistan.Therefore, people are asking - can democracy work in Pakistan? I don’t know the answer, but it sure seems that the overall mood in the country is awfully sour and if things didn’t change, which they can’t, people would come out on the streets demanding answers, but in reality, it would be a call for the army to come forward and take over. This is exactly how it has happened in the past and if Pakistan’s past is any guide as how Pakistan is going to move forward, it seems that the history is about to repeat itself.

But, can army change or improve anything? Once again, history tells us, no, army can’t do anything. However, this vicious cycle of democracy and dictatorship in Pakistan has made it possible to dream about ‘help’ and the public has started hearing the boots. And, who can blame the generals? It is very tempting to suggest that Pakistan is in danger of disintegrating; military operations in N.W.F.P and Baluchistan, diminishing water and electricity, stagnant economy, multiplying foreign debt, out of control inflation, lack of jobs for alarmingly naive and unprepared youth for today’s complex business environment and a government that is fighting for its life and survival. Therefore, the stage is set for a savior -

Dieu merci!

By the way, those who think that the West won’t accept or deal with ‘men in uniform’ are about to get a lesson in Cambia priorità because after tough statements and angry press releases, everyone in Washington, London, Berlin, Paris and Riyadh is going to accept the case of intervention and all will back to normal.

Given Pakistan’s history, I don’t entirely blame Zardari and Gilani for their upcoming unceremonious packing from Islamabad. Actually, it is impossible to govern Pakistan and no one has been able to leave gracefully either from the Prime Minister House or from the President’s House in Pakistan. I hope I am wrong and the current government completes its term, but, it seems highly unlikely.

So, people of Pakistan, be prepared to be saved, again!

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”. - (Julius Ceasar Act III, Scene II).

Bilal Qureshi

Washington, DC

“Friends not Masters”

Zainab Jeewanjee — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:36:36 +0000

Amidst drastic worsening of the Af-Pak situation with US forces suffering our deadliest months and Pakistani civilians and military bearing the brunt of terrorist assaults, Secretary Clinton arrived in full diplomatic force last week. She made media rounds sitting down for Q&A sessions with everyone from major news outlets to universities. But even the Clinton charm and expertise was met with vociferous skepticism. Before concerns on the Kerry Lugar bill could be adequately addressed, Clinton’s statements seem to have only riled increased trepidation in Pakistan:

Hamid Mir of GEO News peppered her with questions regarding illegally armed US diplomats roaming the streets of the capital and continued drone attacks. His questions reflect macro concerns that sovereignty is inherently undermined in cooperating with the United States. And at the Government college in Lahore, Secretary Clinton faced what I thought were even tougher questions:

VIDEO: Students Question Hillary

Students identified a worsening War on Terror is akin to the Vietnam quagmire and suggested it’s time we focused on winning hearts and minds.

Another student echoed widespread skepticism of US/Pakistan cooperation citing failures of previous engagement during the Soviet Afghan War and how again “forcing Pakistan to take action that we might not want to take” is a legitimate concern among masses. Another said bilateral relations are marred by a subsequent “trust deficit” with Secretary Clinton responding that American’s have a similar lacking faith in Pakistan.

That mutual distrust, as disappointing as it is on all ends, is tame compared to what Clinton expressed to Newspapers in Lahore:

“Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002….I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to”

And that was just on security. On society and development she criticized ”At the risk of sounding undiplomatic, Pakistan has to have internal investment in your public services and your business opportunities”

Ouch, thinks Pakistan. If Hillary’s mission in Pakistan was to rally support of cooperation with the United States amidst rapidly increasing skepticism of D.C.’s policies, the rhetoric has fallen short. In fact both Pakistani and American media are growing weary of the alliance:

Video: Chris Matthews on Pakistan

Chris Matthews, in trademark rambunctiousness goes to town on Pakistan’s efforts in the War on Terror. But simplistic, irrelevant comments from his guests subtract from any substantive debate on the issue.

No offense Mr. Matthews, but just a brief look at a history book, closer reading of ground realities, or even quoting Hillary in context of the entire situation would have made for a more substantial segment. The panelists actually liken U.S. engagement of Pakistan to a Sigfreid and Roy Act. It’s laughable and renders the aforementioned student questions more articulate and informative than this discussion.

Nonetheless, it seems former Pakistani President Ayub Khan’s book suggesting cooperation based on the idea of each being “Friends not Masters” is now a shared sentiment in this alliance . So the dilemma remains: increasing skepticism polarizes Islamabad and D.C. I just hope it spurs realization that winning hearts and minds on both ends is imperative.

On Jinnah, Democracy, Leadership & Current Affairs in Pakistan

Zainab Jeewanjee — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:26:02 +0000

An Interview with the Honorary Sharifuddin Pirzada

I had an opportunity to chat with Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada who served as former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Attorney General, Senior Advocate to the Supreme Court, member of the first National Security Council of Pakistan and an Advisor (with a rank of Federal Minister) to various Pakistan PMs. He also served as secretary to Pakistan’s founder Mohammad Ali JInnah and held position as the only Pakistani to serve as Secretary General at the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Click Here to Watch the Interview

Q & A BREAKDOWN

PAST LEADERS: Jinnah

2:39 - 3:17 - Former BJP Parliamentarian Jaswant Singh authored a book on Jinnah that is receiving a lot of controversy, having actually worked with Jinnah, can you share your thoughts on the book ?
3:20 - 4:42 - In recent interviews, Singh has said Muslims in India are “robbed of their psychological security” and basically downtrodden. He says what Jinnah should have done is left some advice for Indian Muslims who stayed back and didn’t migrate to Pakistan after partition, what do you think Jinnah might have said?
4:44-6:01 - He also refers to Jinnah as a “nationalist” not at all Anti-Indian, please expand
6:01-7:34 - Referring to politics, when Jinnah split from the Congress party eventually formulating a two state idea later in his career, were there any politics referring to Nehru or Gandhi that had an impact on decision making? Jaswant Singh makes a mention to some, what does your experience tell us?
7:35: - 8:15 - You’ve mentioned previously that Jinnah was a self made man, more details?
8:15 - 8:55 : Tell us about your experience with Jinnah, its a rare treat for us to have your insight
8: 55 - 9:22 - Further details, conclusion on Jinnah.

“Jinnah had the Charm of Churchill, Dignity of de Gaulle, Magnetism of Mandela, and Objectivity of Obama”

CURRENT LEADERS : Musharraf

9:23 - 10:47 - Shifting to current leaders now, lets talk about Musharraf. You’ve got great experience, tell us about your work with the former General and Leader of Pakistan.
10:48 - 11:55 - How did your work with Musharraf expand during his tenure?
12:56 - 13:45 - You served on the national security council & as senior advisor to Gen. Musharraf, tell us howthe context of national security in Pakistan changed after 9/11. Specifically what came on the agenda, what were the immediate concerns and interests and what drove the decision to behave the way Pakistan did at the time?
13:45 - 15:48 - Recent polls indicate a majority of pakistanis think Musharraf should be punished for treason as per laws under article 6 of the Constitution, how do you feel about that?
15:48 - 14:55 - Do you think it’s a valid case that Musharraf be tried for treason?
14:54 - 15:38 - Regarding an increasingly free media in Pakistan, please offer further insight
15:38 - 16:16 - There’s a contention that the currently free media be attributed to Benazir Bhutto’s regime wherein sateilite technology allowing expanded media was put in place, while others assign credit to Musharraf. Can you clarify this?
16:16 - 18:39 - Do you think it was the state of emergency and sacking of the judiciary that caused Musharraf to lose elections?
18:42 - 19:35 - Final question on Musharraf, what do you think his legacy would be?

“The Media is very free in Pakistan, and Musharraf is to be given a great deal of credit for that”

CURRENT LEADERS : Zardari

19:48 - 20:55 - Recent military achievements in SWAT and international trade deals penned by Zardari paint a somewhat rosy picture for the future, what are your thoughts on him so far?

US - PAKISTAN RELATIONS:

20:57 - 23:14 - There’s a US special envoy in the region, drone attacks continue, the west is pushing for rapid democratization and are heavily investing in counterterrorism through cooperation with Pakistan while Islamabad hopes to secure itself and expand economically in this engagement. But there’s a long history of cooperation but still a lot of skepticism on both sides, do you think current engagement with a new administration who promises more diplomacy will yield different results than we’ve seen in this alliance?
23:14 - 24:52 - What advice might you offer President Obama or the State department in terms of engaging Pakistan?

“Pakistan was member of SEATO and CENTO but certain conditions were not fulfilled and there is a strong section of Pakistan who has reservations with a cordial relationship with the United States”

PAKISTAN & THE MUSLIM WORLD

24:55 - 25:11 - Your position at the Organization of Islamic Conference?
25:13 - 25:57 - On the Israeli Palestinian issue, how do you assess the current two state solution that Obama has put forward? How viable is it?
25:57 - 26:25 - What is Pakistan’s diplomatic/official stance on the Israeli Palestinian Issue?e Islamic Conference
12:25 - 26:35 - What are the main priorities of the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

“The Palestinian Issue followed by Kashmir are of top priority to the Organization of Islamic Conference”

PAKISTAN BORDER RELATIONS : INDIA & AFGHANISTAN:

26:35 - 27:42 - Manmohan Singh & Prime Minister Gilani at the NAAM summit this summer agreed to bracket issues of Terrorism and move forward on peace talks and trade issues. Such rhetoric is not new, and might not reach fruition, so do you see anything being resolved in Kashmir anytime soon, without the help of the US?
27:44 - 28:44 - Elections in Afghanistan are being contested between Abdullah Abdullah and incumbent Karzai. Pakistan doesn’t seem keen on either because both signal a warming of relations between Kabul & New Delhi which is believed to come at a direct expense to Islamabad. How do you feel about that?

America can facilitate peace talks between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, but on the whole, people of Kashmir are still suffering and struggling. The approach of prime ministers has been positive, but an extremist element in India exists which doesn’t want this. To stop suffering in Kashmir, a solution must be reached.

PAKISTAN’S INTERNATIONAL FUTURE:

28:44 - How do you see geopolitics playing out in the next decade for Pakistan, given amplified US presence, including super embassies being constructed in Pakistan/Afghanistan, perpetually stalled relations with India, a very likely nuclear neighbor in Iran, and increasingly influential China and polarized Russia, what does Pakistan look like ten years from now?

“Pakistan in the next ten years must concentrate on democratic set up, economic development & maintaining cordial relatoins with Islamic countries. There are two great friends of Pakistan: Saudi Arabia, the other is China. That’s a good starting point”

Please, come forward and help

Bilal Qureshi — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:18:06 +0000

My heart sank when I read “ISLAMABAD: A wave of suicide bombings, coordinated grenade, bomb and gun assaults, and drive-by shootings blamed on militants has left more than 190 people dead in Pakistan so far this month.“ on Dawn. Is this the same Pakistan that some Western countries accuse of ‘not doing enough’ in the fight against terror? Yes, it is nauseating, but Pakistan has been accused of ’secretly’ working with the Taliban for reasons still unknown.

Unfortunately, so far, no one has come forward to accept his/her mistake about being wrong about Pakistan’s sincerity in the fight against the Taliban. Worse, the support that is being offered is still measured and cautious with room for later criticism, if necessary.

This is not right and this is not fair.

It is worth repeating, yet again, that Pakistan has paid the ultimate price for a war that Pakistanis neither wanted, nor was it started by Pakistan. Therefore, decency dictates that every nation and every country that is a target for the Taliban come forward to support Pakistan without ifs and but instead of repeating the same old tired line that ‘we are with Pakistan in this fight. In the words of an ordinary Pakistan’ “no, no, we don’t want you with us if you don’t give us the equipment and provide Islamabad with all the resources that are needed in this fight.” Rhetoric , not backed by concrete support is, well, useless to put it mildly.

Given the mood on the street in Pakistan, it is not difficult to understand that this might be the last time that Pakistan’s public would allow the country to become a battlefield for global conflicts. Also, this is pretty much the last chance for not only for Pakistan to survive as a country, but also for the Western democracies to respond properly to a situation that has the potential to get out of hand.

No question this fight in Pakistan is Pakistan’s fight, but it was not always like this. Pakistan sided with Western countries and in the process, it became Pakistan’s war. Now, Pakistan can’t go forward alone and it can’t go back to the time when Moscow decided to invade Afghanistan. Just like Pakistan took a stand at the time of Afghan invasion by the Russians, it is time for the West to take a stand, united stand against the Taliban and in support of Pakistan instead of critiquing Pakistan from the safety and comfort of their distant countries. Everyone has to participate and only than Pakistan will defeat the thugs, once and for all.

But, Pakistan can’t do it alone, and this crucial, but simple factor must not be forgotten.

Equally important is the need to not get dragged in Pakistan’s domestic politics, especially for Washington. For example, Richard Hoolbrooke regularly meets with Nawaz Sharif and after every meeting, Nawaz Sharif and his team claim that Richard Hoolbrooke was reminded that Pakistan is not ready to give up its independence and Washington must respect Islamabad. Similarly, couple of days after Kerry met Nawaz Sharif, Nawaz Sharif declared that Kerry was unable to satisfy him. What? If you were not satisfied by Kerry’s explaining of Kerry Lugar or any other matters, why didn’t you tell us this at the time instead of hugs and kisses? Americans have to understand this difficult component of Pakistan’s impossible domestic politics when it comes to fighting the Taliban.

The current government has gambled everything by taking on the Taliban and now, there is no turning back. If Pakistan did not fully succeed in decisively crushing the Taliban, the threat to Pakistan would continue to resurface and it is not easy to launch massive operations like Wazirstan and Swat. World leaders should come forward to do their part in this fight against the Taliban. Remember, God forbid if Pakistan failed to defeat the Taliban, Washington, London, Paris, Tokyo and countless other countries would become the next target for the Taliban. Therefore, it is important to strengthen Pakistan, assist the current government, and not encourage pro Taliban leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan type characters by meeting with them.

Every Crisis is an Opportunity

Zainab Jeewanjee — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:27:14 +0000

Speaking to my grandmother whose in Karachi yesterday morning, she explained my cousins stayed home from elementary school as most schools had shut down this week. Karachi is the the largest, most bustling city in Pakistan, and despite being situated in the south, far removed from the hotbed of militants in northern Waziristan, terrorism has gradually spilled over from Afghanistan, crept into Pakistan and paralyzed the country. My grandmother described a city laden with tension where people live in a constant climate of uncertainty and increasing fear.

It was pressing to hear her tired voice describe the situation with a kind of detachment. Her tone was passive: an indication of hopelessness. And that hopelessness is not in reference to obliterating terrorists, because there’s little speculation on a military capacity to wipe out at most, 10 thousand terrorists. Rather, her passive tone is a worn out sound echoing 62 years of statehood rooted in insecurity. She’s seen Pakistan through three wars fought with India, including a civil war in the 70’s resulting in a cession of East Pakistan, one of the worlds largest refugee problems in the 1980’s and now the War on Terror fought on home soil. Her passivity is an exhausted acceptance of perpetual political insecurity.

">VIDEO: Terrorists Bomb an Islamic University in Pakistan

The aforementioned video shows a younger generation, not yet exhausted. They’re shocked, frustrated by what’s happening in their country as they passionately raise their voices in protest against extremist Islamic groups who oppress the country.

Most ironic is that extremist groups bombed the Islamic University in Islamabad where these young men study. Testimony to how grossly extremists propagate an inaccurate view of Islam that terrorizes Muslims everyday.

Reminding us how imperative it is that Pakistani and US forces focus on uprooting and not just obliterating terrorists. Pakistan is home to the worlds 6th largest population, and the second largest Muslim country. That’s a strategic demographic in the War on Terror and for future international security. Ensuring terrorism is uprooted in the long term will require a sustained, multifaceted, military and non military approach. Few will argue against the necessity of economic development, the question really is how to pay for it. I’ve mentioned before that the Kerry Lugar bill is a fair, but insufficient attempt at doing this, and ultimately, Pakistan itself must uproot terrorism.

This critical time is an opportunity for Pakistani politicians to take responsibility and bring forth a detailed agenda that rallies current masses. A specific, well publicized plan of action, accepting but not relying on outside assistance is Pakistan’s best hope at engaging its citizens to wipe out terrorism for the long haul. Hopelessness, frustration and desire for Pakistani’s to develop economically and free themselves from terror poses a widespread opportunity to supplement the military offensive with civil support. That support is the capital with which to begin an agenda to uproot terrorism.

Grassroots organizations, women’s and educational groups whose ideologies run counter to extremist groups should be actively highlighted by the media and politicians.

A more proactive approach that is clearly visible works on two levels. One, it aggregates support in the country against extremism setting a future stage for more moderate masses. Secondly, it alleviates international fears of Pakistan becoming a failed state. Because not only do citizens like my grandma need hope, but the international community also watches in concern for Pakistan to define itself in unity and diametrically against extremism.

Wazirstan Operation

Bilal Qureshi — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:23:13 +0000

Finally, the operation in Wazristan is under way, thank God. Pakistan is doing a good job of clearing every place that was a safe heaven for the nuts in and around Pakistan. Now, policy makers in Pakistan should not focus on achieving short term military objective. This war is not going to be easy and a lot of people believe that this is a generational issue as for as defeating the Taliban threat.

Obviously the military is going to easily defeat those who are going to take up arms against the army in Wazirstan, or at the very least, it is hoped that the army is going to defeat them. However, after the military moves out, how will the civilian population going to react to the future Talibans interested in making Wazirstan their home again? This is a very important question and I hope that the army and the civilian leadership in Pakistan have given it serious consideration. Remember, majority of the population not only in Wazristan or in Swat, but all across Pakistan is interested in living peacefully. And when thugs like the Taliban come, people try to not get into fights and quarrels with a group that is heavily armed and willing to brutally murder anyone who questions their legitimacy.

Second, this battle cannot be militarily if the population in Pakistan does not understand the overall danger that religious militancy poses to the country. Therefore, it is important that the Pakistanis are clear about the actual reasons that the army is battling the Taliban and every other force (internal or external) that tries to destroy Pakistan as a country.

Regretfully, there are voices, and these voices are loud, that is propagating that Pakistan is in turmoil because of some bizarre international conspiracy in the region. Pakistan has to aggressively counter this and other erroneous myths being pumped in Pakistan by those who are interested in turning back the clock and want to bring Taliban style government just like the Afghan model in Pakistan.

Given the recent attacks by the Taliban in Pakistan, it won’t be an exaggeration to suggest that the Taliban have become either desperate or terribly committed to bringing down Pakistan’s current set up. In fact, Taliban are convinced (based on their own claims) that they can take over the country if they keep up the pressure by non-stop attacks on Pakistan’s soil. But, it seems that the Pakistani society is not ready to accept the Taliban or their code of life as the norm in the country. As a result, the current battle will become extremely bloody and it has the potential to go on for a while, but, there is no doubt that in the end, Pakistan will overcome the thugs and nuts currently threatening Pakistan’s survival.

The current fight in Wazirstan should also remind Pakistanis about the dangers of not taking religious militias seriously, especially when these groups are in the process of formation. For example, if a group of people is saying, repeatedly, that they are interested in taking over the country, than it is the duty of everyone to pay attention. And if Pakistanis had been vigilant from the start, the country wouldn’t have to suffer as much as Pakistan is suffering today. But, it is never too late to do the right thing. Pakistan can, and Pakistan will win the current fight against the pathetic Taliban. But, never again should anything like this become an issue for Pakistan. The country must take steps, and by steps I mean everything that it takes to become safe and secure, period.