How to clear the mess? Article by Imran Khan

Read the article in URDU

The reason why there is so much despondency in Pakistan is because there is no road map to get out of the so-called War on Terror - a nomenclature that even the Obama Administration has discarded as being a negative misnomer. To cure the patient the diagnosis has to be accurate, otherwise the wrong medicine can sometimes kill the patient. In order to find the cure, first six myths that have been spun around the US-led “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) have to be debunked.

Myth No. 1: This is Pakistan’s war

Since no Pakistani was involved in 9/11 and the CIA-trained Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, how does it concern us? It is only when General Musharraf buckled under US pressure and sent our troops into Waziristan in late 2003-early 2004 that Pakistan became a war zone. It took another three years of the Pakistan army following the same senseless tactics as used by the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan (aerial bombardment) plus the slaughter at Lal Masjid, for the creation of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). If our security forces are being targeted today by the Taliban and their suicide bombers, it is because they are perceived to be proxies of the US army. Iran is ideologically opposed to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban yet why are its security forces not attacked by terrorists? The answer is because their President does not pretend to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism in return for US dollars and support.

Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA officer and author of the book Imperial Hubris), writing in The Washington Post in April 2007, cited Musharraf’s loyalty to the US even when it went against Pakistan’s national interests by giving two examples: the first was Musharraf helping the US in removing a pro-Pakistan Afghan government and replacing it with a pro-Indian one; and, the second, for sending Pakistani troops into the tribal areas and turning the tribesmen against the Pakistan army. To fully understand Musharraf’s treachery against Pakistan, it is important to know that almost a 100,000 troops were sent into the tribal areas to target around 1000 suspected Al-Qaeda members - thus earning the enmity of at least 1.5 million armed local tribals in the 7 tribal agencies of Pakistan.

The most shameful aspect of the lie that this is our war is that the government keeps begging the US for more dollars stating that the war is costing the country more than the money it is receiving from the US. If it is our war, then fighting it should not be dependent on funds and material flowing from the US. If it is our war, why do we have no control over it? If it is our war, then why is the US government asking us to do more?

Myth No. 2: This is a war against Islamic extremists ó an ideological war against radical Islam

Was the meteoric rise of Taliban due to their religious ideology? Clearly not, because the Mujahideen were equally religious - Gulbadin Hekmatyar (supported by the ISI) was considered an Islamic fundamentalist. In fact, the reason the Taliban succeeded where the Mujahideen warlords failed, was because they established the rule of law - the Afghans had had enough of the power struggle between the warlord factions that had destroyed what remained of the country’s infrastructure and killed over 100,000 people.

If the Pushtuns of the tribal area wanted to adopt the Taliban religious ideology then surely they would have when the latter was in power in Afghanistan, between 1996 and 2001. Yet there was no Talibanisation in the tribal areas. Interestingly, the only part of Pakistan where the Taliban had an impact was in Swat where Sufi Mohammad started the Shariat Movement. The reason was that while there was rule of law (based on the traditional jirga system) in the tribal areas, the people of Swat had been deprived of easy access to justice ever since the traditional legal system premised on Qazi courts was replaced by Pakistani laws and judicial system, first introduced in 1974. The murder rate shot up from 10 per year in 1974 to almost 700 per year by 1977, when there was an uprising against the Pakistani justice system. The Taliban cashed in on this void of justice to rally the poorer sections of Swat society just as they had attracted the Afghans in a situation of political anarchy and lawlessness in Afghanistan. It is important to make this distinction because the strategy to bring peace must depend on knowing your enemy. Michael Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that the US is facing the same Pushtun insurgency that was faced by the Soviets in Afghanistan. According to him, as long as NATO is in Afghanistan, the Taliban will get a constant supply of men from the 15 million Pushtun population of Afghanistan and the 25 million Pushtuns of Pakistan. In other words, this Talibanisation is not so much religion-driven as politically-motivated. So the solution to the problem in the tribal belt today does not lie in religion and “moderate” Islam but in a political settlement.

Myth No. 3: If we keep fighting the US war, the super power will bail us out financially through aid packages.

Recently, the Government’s Adviser on Finance stated that the war on terror has cost Pakistan $35 billion while the country has received only $11 billion assistance from the US. I would go a step further and say that this aid is the biggest curse for the country. Not only is it “blood money” for our army killing our own people (there is no precedent for this) but also nothing has destroyed the self-esteem of this country as this one factor. Moreover, there is no end in sight as our cowardly and compromised leadership is ordered to “do more” for the payments made for their services. Above all, this aid and loans are like treating cancer with disprin. It enables the government to delay the much needed surgery of reforms (cutting expenditures and raising revenues); and meanwhile the cancer is spreading and might become terminal.

Myth No. 4: That the next terrorist attack on the US will come from the tribal areas.

First, there is an assumption, based purely on conjecture, that the Al Qaeda leadership is in the tribal areas. In fact, this leadership could well be in the 70 % of Afghan territory that the Taliban control. More importantly, given the growing radicalisation of the educated Muslim youth - in major part because of the continuing US partiality towards Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - why can it not follow that the next terrorist attack on the US could come either from the Middle East or from the marginalised and radicalised Muslims of Europe, motivated by perceived injustices to Islam and the Muslim World.

Myth No. 5: That the ISI is playing a double game and if Pakistan did more the war could be won.

If Talibanisation is growing in Pakistan because of the covert support of ISI in the tribal areas, then surely the growing Taliban control over Afghanistan (70 % of the territory) must be with NATO’s complicity? Surely a more rational understanding would be to see that the strategy being employed is creating hatred against the US and its collaborators. Aerial bombardment and its devastating collateral damage is the biggest gift the US has given to the Taliban. According to official reports, out of the 60 drone attacks conducted between 14 January 2006-April 8 2009, only 10 were on target, killing 14 alleged Al Qaeda. In the process almost 800 Pakistani civilians have been killed, while many lost their homes and limbs.

Despite its military surge effort, the US will eventually pack up and leave like the Soviets, but the “do more” mantra could end up destroying the Pakistan army - especially the ISI which is being targeted specifically for the mess created by the Bush Administration in Afghanistan.

Myth No. 6: That Pakistan could be Talibanised with their version of Islam.

Both Musharraf and Zardari have contributed to this myth in order to get US backing and dollars. Firstly there is no such precedent in the 15-hundred years of Islamic history of a theocracy like that of the Taliban, outside of the recent Taliban period of rule in Afghanistan. However, as mentioned earlier, the Taliban’s ascendancy in Afghanistan was not a result of their religious ideology but their ability to establish order and security in a war-devastated and anarchic Afghanistan.

In Swat, the present mess has arisen because of poor governance issues. Also, it was the manner in which the government handled the situation - simply sending in the army rather than providing better governance - that created space for the Taliban. Just as in Balochistan (under Musharraf) when the army was sent in rather than the Baloch being given their economic and provincial rights, similarly the army in Swat aggravated the situation and the present mess was created.

What Pakistan has to worry about is the chaos and anarchy that are going to stem from the radicalisation of our people because of the failure of successive governments to govern effectively and justly. Karen Armstrong, in her book The Battle for God, gives details of fundamentalist movements that turned militant when they were repressed. Ideas should be fought with counter ideas and dialogue, not guns. Allama Iqbal was able to deal with fundamentalism through his knowledge and intellect. The slaughter of the fundamentalists of Lal Masjid did more to fan extremism and fanaticism than any other single event.

Pakistan is staring down an abyss today and needs to come up with a sovereign nationalist policy to deal with the situation. If we keep on following dictation from Washington, we are doomed. There are many groups operating in the country under the label of “Taliban”. Apart from the small core of religious extremists, the bulk of the fighting men are Pushtun nationalists. Then there are the fighters from the old Jihadi groups. Moreover, the Taliban are also successfully exploiting the class tensions by appealing to the have-nots. But the most damaging for Pakistan are those groups who are being funded primarily from two external sources: first, by those who want to see Pakistan become a “failed state”; and, second, by those who wish to see the US bogged down in the Afghan quagmire.

What needs to be done: A two-pronged strategy is required - focusing on a revised relationship with the US and a cohesive national policy based on domestic compulsions and ground realities.

President Obama, unlike President Bush, is intelligent and has integrity. A select delegation of local experts on the tribal area and Afghanistan should make him understand that the current strategy is a disaster for both Pakistan and the US; that Pakistan can no longer commit suicide by carrying on this endless war against its own people; that we will hold dialogue and win over the Pushtuns of the tribal area and make them deal with the real terrorists while the Pakistan army is gradually pulled out.

At the same time, Pakistan has to move itself to ending drone attacks if the US is not prepared to do so. Closure of the drone base within Pakistan is a necessary beginning as is the need to create space between ourselves and the US, which will alter the ground environment in favour of the Pakistani state. It will immediately get rid of the fanaticism that creates suicide bombers as no longer will they be seen to be on the path to martyrdom by bombing US collaborators. Within this environment a consensual national policy to combat extremism and militancy needs to be evolved centring on dialogue, negotiation and assertion of the writ of the state. Where force is required the state must rely on the paramilitary forces, not the army. Concomitantly, Pakistan needs serious reforms. First and foremost we have to give our people access to justice at the grassroots level - that is, revive the village jury/Panchayat system. Only then will we rid ourselves of the oppressive “thana-kutchery” culture which compels the poor to seek adjudication by the feudals, tribal leaders, tumandars and now by the Taliban also - thereby perpetuating oppression of the dispossessed, especially women.

Second, unless we end the system of parallel education in the country where the rich access private schools and a different examination system while the poor at best only have access to a deprived public school system with its outmoded syllabus and no access to employment. That is why the marginalised future generations are condemned to go to madrassahs which provide them with food for survival and exploit their pent up social anger. We need to bring all our educational institutions into the mainstream with one form of education syllabus and examination system for all - with madrassahs also coming under the same system even while they retain their religious education specialisation.

Third, the level of governance needs to be raised through making appointments on merit in contrast to the worst type of cronyism that is currently on show. Alongside this, a cutting of expenditures is required with the leadership and the elite leading by example through adoption of an austere lifestyle. Also, instead of seeking aid and loans to finance the luxurious lifestyle of the elite, the leadership should pay taxes, declare its assets and bring into the country all money kept in foreign banks abroad. All “benami” transactions, assets and bank accounts should be declared illegal. I believe we will suddenly discover that we are actually quite a self-sufficient country.

Fourth, the state has to widen its direct taxation net and cut down on indirect taxation where the poor subsidise the rich. If corruption and ineptitude are removed, it will be possible for the state to collect income tax more effectively.

A crucial requirement for moving towards stability would be the disarming of all militant groups - which will a real challenge for the leadership but here again, the political elite can lead by example and dismantle their show of guards and private forces.

Finally, fundamentalism should be fought intellectually with sensitivity shown to the religious and heterogeneous roots of culture amongst the Pakistani masses. Solutions have to be evolved from within the nation through tolerance and understanding. Here, we must learn from the Shah of Iran’s attempts to enforce a pseudo-Western identity onto his people and its extreme backlash from Iranian society.

The threat of extremism is directly related to the performance of the state and its ability to deliver justice and welfare to its people.

Source: The News

Rise of Pakistan

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The war in Afghanistan

by Javed Hussain

AFTER the air bombing campaign had routed the Taliban in 2001, euphoric shouts of victory resonated across the United States, the loudest coming from the White House and the Pentagon.

But these were short-lived as the characteristic Afghan resistance began. Eight years on the American servicemen and women in Afghanistan are gasping for breath because their former president, who was also their commander-in-chief, and his staff had underestimated the enemy.

Not only that, they had also committed two strategic blunders, the consequences of which are being suffered not only by their servicemen and women, but also to a much greater degree, by the Pakistani people and their servicemen. Their strategic thought was distinguished by their stunning mediocrity.

The first blunder was to allow the Taliban to escape to Pakistan. Had they secured the Durand Line crossing sites prior to initiating their air-bombing campaign, this could have been pre-empted. The second blunder was to place their main military effort in the wrong direction — Iraq, which left the main theatre, Afghanistan, undermanned. They had several years after the resurgence of the Taliban in 2002 to correct their strategy, but their obsession with Iraq blinded them to the operational requirements in Afghanistan.

Instead, they found it politically and militarily expedient to blame Pakistan for their failures, and thus started their ‘do more’ refrain that continues unabated, even though Pakistan has done far more than them, and in the process, suffered more than all the countries put together in the coalition.

...

The Americans went to Afghanistan to fight a war. They should plan to win it — unless they want to be known as a superpower defeated twice by guerillas. Blaming Pakistan and prodding it to ‘do more’ would not win the war for them.

Full Article: DAWN.COM | Pakistan | The war in Afghanistan

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Rah-e-Nijaat... What Next?

Pakistani army is advancing at a fast pace in south waziristan. Resistance by the opponent group is far less than expected. Question arises that why is the resistance that low when it was considered a safe heaven for the armed militants residing there for so many years? Answer to this question becomes evident if we note that american checkposts in afghanistan along the south wazriristan border were removed within a few days after the start of the operation (Reported Here). So we can easily conclude that the militants have moved to afghanistan (obviously they'd have, they were provided the chance by the troops on eastern border of afghanistan).

Once the pakistani army successfully completes the operation and takes full control of south waziristan we might see any or both of the following:
1. America will force pakistan to start an operation in north waziristan
2. Pakistan will ask america to take the responsibility and fight the militants pushed by the pakistani army in afghanistan. And pakistan should obviously pressurize, america used to continuously asking pakistan to do more and do more. Now the militants attacking pakistan have fled in the territory controlled by america. America should now act :)

Keeping the pakistani diplomacy in mind, 1 is more probable :) and 2 is very very less probable. But still pakistan can (and might) ask america at agency level.

Btw the removal of posts from afghan side and the following excerpt (Full Story) make me believe that america did not want pakistan to attack the (pakistan's enemy) militants in south waziristan (text in blue is not part of the excerpt):

"The United States has long pressed for a military offensive in Waziristan, claiming that it has become an Al Qaeda safe haven. And as the Pakistani army launched the offensive, two top US officials, Centcom chief Gen David Petraeus and Senator John Kerry, visited Islamabad to consult military and civilian leaders.

The US media claim that the two leaders encouraged Pakistan to continue the offensive. But the reports also claim that key differences between the US and Pakistan on how to tackle the insurgency remain unresolved.

It seems that pakistan wanted to go all out (as it is going now) and america wanted somethings else.

The media note that during his meeting with the two US officials, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani emphasised the need to speed up delayed payments of more than $1 billion to support its military and called on the US and Nato to stop infiltration from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

Seems that america wanted to pressurize pakistan by delaying the payments

US critics, meanwhile, continue to accuse Pakistan of only targeting those insurgents that threaten its own security while ignoring those who threaten Afghanistan.

another indication that america did not want pakistan to fight the south waziristan militants with full force... it seems tht some american plan is being affected... may b they wanted the pakistani army to stretch out instead of succeeding in the battle ( i.e. going step by step). And obviously it is the duty of pakistani army to fight the insurgents tht threaten its security in its territory. If someone threatens americans in their controlled territory, americans should learn how to handle them within the america controlled territory... there is no use of cryin and blaming pakistan... 

American officials also disagree with Pakistan’s claim that the Haqqani network — termed by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, as the second-greatest threat to US forces there – is not in Fata. It mainly operates from Afghanistan.

The media, however, acknowledge that US generals understand why Pakistan is trying to befriend Waziristan militant leaders like Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir.

‘Gen Petraeus and Gen McChrystal understand that opening up on other fronts wouldn’t benefit the Pakistan Army,’ says one such report.

‘The American generals believe that Pakistan can afford to ignore the smaller guns — like Hafiz Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir — for the time being.’"

Proof of Indian hand South Waziristan: army

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has found concrete evidence of India’s involvement in militancy in South Waziristan and decided to take up the matter with New Delhi.

This was disclosed by Information Minster Qamar Zaman Kaira and military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas at a press briefing on the progress of operation Rah-i-Nijat here on Monday. It was the first time in recent times that Pakistan had pointed fingers at India from a forum having representation of political and military leadership.

Mr Kaira said although it had been decided to raise the issue with India, Pakistan would not deviate from the peace process.

Gen Abbas said a huge quantity of Indian arms and ammunition, literature, medical equipment and medicines had been recovered from Sherawangi area, near Kaniguram. He said the Foreign Office had been informed and the matter would be taken up with the Indian authorities through diplomatic channels.

Sources in the Foreign Office said a dossier containing proofs of India’s involvement in South Waziristan would soon be handed over to officials in New Delhi.
KANIGURAM TAKEN: Gen Abbas said security forces had secured control of Kaniguram, a redoubt of Uzbek fighters.

He said there were fortified positions and bunkers in the area which were being used by militants in possession of modern weaponry. The entire area had been cleared of mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Five truckloads of arms and ammunition were recovered from the area on Monday, he added.

Full Story: DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Proof of Indian hand South Waziristan: army

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Displaying More than 500 results from IEEE Xplore

It is possible to have more than 500 records in search results at IEEEXplore. But using the IEEEXplore 'Organize Results' settings one can view 500 records at max. In order to view the records beyond 500 one needs to change the following fields in the query string (which is a part of the URL):

1. maxdoc
2. page
3. ResultStart

For example you have 1000 records in total and you want to view the results from 501 to 600 (if you display 100 records per page) then these fields will be set as follows:

maxdoc=1000
page=5
ResultStart=500

The URL will look almost like this:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?queryText=..what ever..&ResultCount=100&maxdoc=1000&..many parameters..&page=5&ResultStart=500&..other parameters..

OR

only change the URL of the first page of the results. change the 'maxdoc' field and set it to the maximum records retrieved in your search.

Search Results Format in IEEEXplore

If you are the facing the problem that maximum of 100 records can be displayed from the search results returned by IEEExplore then please go to 'Organize Results' section on the search page where you submitted your search string and change the maximum number of records to 500 in the 'Maximum' field. From this page you can also change the number of records to be displayed per page.

See the following:

"You can change these specifications to view your results in a different format. IEEE Xplore keeps your specifications active until you change them.

Your options are:

• Citation format consists of document title, author, publication title, and bibliographic information. Citation & Abstract format also includes the first 30 to 40 words of the Abstract.

• Maximum sets the total number of results found. Choices are 100, 250, and 500.

• Display...results per page sets the number of results displayed per page. Choices are 25, 50, and 100.

• Sort by sets the criteria for ordering the results. Choices are Relevance (how well the result matches the search query as determined by IEEE Xplore), Year (numerical order by publication year), and Document Title (alphabetical, ignoring leading articles such as "a", "the", and "an").

• In...order sets the sort order. Choices are Descending (high to low) and Ascending (low to high).

"
copied from IEEE Xplore Help. The link has further information regarding this.

Authoritarianism or Democracy?

ZULFIKAR Ali Bhutto waged a long and hard struggle against Ayub Khan’s dictatorship. In retrospect one might say that, left to his own devices, he too would have opted for one-man rule — that is, his own. As head of the government he suffered democratic institutions and processes to the extent that he did for want of an option. He wanted his writ to prevail not only at the centre but in all of the provinces, and to that end he got rid of the NAP-JUI governments in Balochistan and NWFP, imprisoned their leaders, and manipulated the remaining local politicians so as to form PPP governments in these provinces. He had little tolerance for opponents or dissidents. I can think of none among them who did not end up in prison. But intolerance of the opposition was not something that Mr Bhutto had invented. It had been the order of the day before him and it did not cease with his departure from the nation’s political scene. Going beyond Ziaul Haq’s military dictatorship, we see that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif instituted bogus criminal cases against each other and imprisoned each other and associates during their respective tenures as prime minister. Following their return from periods of exile abroad in 2007, they admitted their past “mistake”, and promised never to persecute their opponents again. We cannot say what Benazir would have done with this promise, for she died in December 2007. After the elections on Feb 18, 2008 her party formed the government at the centre and in Sindh and entered ruling coalitions in Balochistan and the NWFP. PML-N put together a coalition, including some PPP notables, to form the government in Punjab with Mr Shahbaz Sharif at its head. True to its tradition, the PPP could not accept the fact that another party had come to dominate the government in Punjab. Party stalwarts , spurred on by Governor Salmaan Taseer, worked to dislodge it. Then the wheel of fortune turned in their favour: the Supreme Court found the Sharif brothers to be ineligible to hold public office. Consequently, Shahbaz Sharif ceased to be a member of the Punjab Assembly and chief minister. The normal procedure in this situation would have been for the governor to summon the provincial assembly to elect a new chief minister. Instead, governor’s rule was imposed on the province. Leaders of several political parties and many other observers have condemned Mr Taseer’s action as improper. Mr Nawaz Sharif has called it an unconstitutional and unlawful act and asked civil servants and policemen not to obey the resulting government’s orders. He has also called upon the people to come out on the streets to protest and agitate against the Zardari regime. The people in fair numbers are coming out and a mass movement appears to be taking shape. The governor on his part showed no signs of relenting. Within minutes of taking charge he replaced the chief secretary and the inspector general of police with officers of his choice, He locked the entrances to the provincial assembly to prevent members from meeting, and they along with the speaker, have been holding sessions outside on the building’s steps and adjoining grounds. Mr Zardari’s government seems to be assuming that the people marching on the streets will get tired in a few days and go home. This may or may not happen. Mass movements have come and gone but some of them have persisted until their ends were achieved: for instance the anti-Ayub movement (1967-69); Sheikh Mujibur Rehman’s autonomy movement in East Pakistan (1969-71); anti-Bhutto movement (1977); Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (went on for several years to oust Ziaul Haq but fizzled out before his death); and the anti-Musharraf movement (2007-08). Mr Taseer’s partisans told us that governor’s rule was a temporary expedient, and that the assembly would soon be called to elect a new chief minister. The intervening period would give the PPP managers time to do a bit of horse-trading and put together a majority in the assembly and form the next government. That may happen but it will not necessarily bring public tranquillity to Punjab. It will probably be said that the PPP has taken power through crooked manipulation, that it is an expression of Mr Zardari’s unbounded and unprincipled pursuit of power, and that it does not mean well for Pakistan. Professions of peace on the part of those who sponsor mass movements may be sincere. Our experience shows that when people in large numbers come out on the streets they will not remain content with chanting endearing slogans. Orators will use their way with words, highs and lows of voice and body language to arouse them and call them to action. They will then set private cars and buses on fire, break windows and plunder stores, clash with the police, kill and get killed. Supporters of the present government brand Nawaz Sharif’s protest movement as the politics of confrontation that is liable to strain the country’s fragile democracy beyond endurance. This is specious reasoning. People protesting on the streets are a part of the democratic tradition. They are a needed warning to rulers that they cannot get away with arbitrariness and usurpation of the citizen’s fundamental rights. There are times when it is beyond the government’s capability to meet the protesters’ demand. That is not the case in Pakistan at this time. Reinstatement of Iftikhar Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan, along with the related issue of judicial independence, is the principal objective of the lawyers’ movement and their intended long march. The same objective informs the PML-N’s plan for a protest movement. Mr Nawaz Sharif says he will call off his movement if Justice Chaudhry is reinstated. It is thus open to Mr Zardari’s government to reinstate the gentleman, send the protesters home and return our city streets to peace and tranquillity. It is possible that Mr Zardari’s personal pride and stubbornness are keeping his government from making this simple move to resolve the current crisis. If that is indeed the case, it is an awful shame that this government has chosen to keep the country in turmoil merely to appease a single individual’s ego, even if he be the president of Pakistan. The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

EMAIL

anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk Source: http://epaper.dawn.com/artMailDisp.aspx?article=08_03_2009_006_017&typ=0

A Series of Black Days

History of my country is filled with many black days, but the very recent ones have left me stunned, speechless and hopeless to some extent. The most recent black days are February 25, 2009 and March 03, 2009.

On Feb 25, a provincial assembly was holding its meeting and the governor of the province intervened by suspending the assembly on the orders of the head of the state. The point to be noted here is that the head of the state is co-chairman of a party which claims itself a custodian of democracy in Pakistan, projects itself as the largest party in Pakistan, preaches nothing but democracy, claims to have sacrificed for democracy more than once, and blah blah... The head of the state ignores the ongoing meeting of the provincial assembly, in which a new leader of the house was about to be selected, and orders the imposition of the Governor Rule in Punjab. The reason mentioned for this act was that the provincial government cannot be run constitutionally at this point in time. Which is not less than a joke, since the elected assembly was holding its meeting and the custodian of the house i.e. the Speaker had called for the next meeting as well. A few reasons for the imposition of the governor rule are obvious and a few are still hidden.One obvious reason is the wish of the PPP to rule the most populated province Punjab despite being a minority in the elected house as compared to the PML-N, i.e. approx. 29% seats as compared to the 46% of PML-N. By ruling Punjab, PPP can get (mis)use the resources of this province very effectively. The other reason is to sabotage the image of the PML-N and the Sharif Brothers by portraying them as the ppl responsible for the politics of agitation and the unrest in Punjab. Third and possibly the most important reason is to change the machinery of the Punjab Government so that the participants of the Long March can be dealt with. I am sure the PPP government will not hesitate to use the force against the peaceful and unarmed patriotic citizens of Pakistan. The hidden objectives of the governor rule cannot be identified so early, but the time will soon uncover the objectives. One thing I have noticed is the appointment of so many judges right after the imposition of the Governor rule. A recording by a DawnNews reporter clearly tells that these appointments are political.

A political process had started a little time ago, and a group of stubborn persons derailed the process. Institutions were getting stronger (the resolutions in the assemblies and the positive debates in the assemblies etc.) and the (elected) President exercised his (so called) right when there was no need to exercise it. It would have been better if the Governor had invited the PML-N the largest party in the Punjab Assembly to show the majority on the floor. The governor could also have invited the PPP+PML-Q to do the same if he thought that the PML-N has lost the majority now. But he didn't do that because, it was not the case :)

On March 03, 2009 our guests and the ambassadors of goodwill, the Sri Lankan cricket players were attacked. It was a moment of shock for me to hear that, and I was praying for the safety of all the Sri Lankan players. They are such a helping lot, so friendly and co-operative people that they visited us when the world was not ready to visit us due to the possible risk to their lives. Sri Lankan Cricket had always responded positively to our invitations. And an attack on these ambassadors left me in a mixed feeling of shame, regret, anger, shock and uncertainty. Sri Lankans had not even imagined that they'd be attacked. Neither did I ever imagined that any cricket player can be attacked in this way in Pakistan. Why did the Sri Lankans imagine that? Because there are no such attacks in past, which prompted them to believe that sportsmen are not the targets of the terrorists operating in Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Why did I believe that such an attack will not be carried out in Pakistan? Because I live here, I know the love for the sport in the hearts of Pakistanis. I know that the cricket is played and loved even in the northern and western parts of Pakistan. I know the trend of attacks in Pakistan, where South Asians are not usually attacked. I know the respect and love the Pakistanis have for the Sri Lankan cricketrs. Both crickets have very friendly relations. Whenever there is a defeat against Sri Lanka, I do not see any angry faces as I see them when India beats Pakistan. When Pakistanis love cricket, respect the Sri Lankans as a whole, then who can it be to attack the ties between the two countries? Who can benefit from this? Who wants to pollute the image of Pakistan? Lets see.

Can it be Pakistan itself???
No. Only fools will believe that. Pakistan is not irresponsible and stupid that it contaminate its own image and worsens its position in the world.

Can it be Taliban???
May be. But why would Taliban attack Sri Lanka? Sri Lanka was neutral in Afghan Wars. Sri Lanka is neutral in current 'War on Terror' against the Pukhtoons (Afghani and Pakistani) and Muslims. But lets not close this option because the Taliban might use this to destabilize Pakistan.

India???
Yes. Look at the potential benefits India can have from these attacks. India can single out Pakistan. India can further spoil Pakistan's image in the whole world. India can use this event to convince the world that Pakistan is a failed state. India can recommend the world to attack Pakistan and capture its nuclear assets, the biggest threat to the Indian at the moment. India can itself justify its attack on Pakistan for the same reason. India can further delay the dialogue with Pakistan on the outstanding issues like Kashmir and the dams on Pakistan's rivers. India can specifically point out to the Sri Lankans that even you should not visit Pakistan, because we are working on a plan to prove Pakistan the most dangerous place on the earth, and your visits are affecting our plan.

America??
May be. To destabilize Pakistan and pressurize it to work according to the American plan in Swat etc.

Can it be Tamil Tigers???
Yes, but do they have resources to do such an act in Pakistan? I believe, No. But we cann't be sure about that. Lets not close this option yet. If we believe that these were Tamil Tigers, then it becomes even more clear that India is involved. It is not a hidden thing who created n supported the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). Attacking through the LTTE is equivalent to killing two birds with one stone for India.

Whoever did that, the event was so evil and horrific that I am not out of the shock after three days of the event. I am still unable to believe that someone attacked the Sri Lankan cricketers in Pakistan, to be more specific in Lahore where you can see cricket even on roads and streets .

One interesting observation from my side is: After the Mumbai incidents last November, there was a sense of fear in the Indian people. On the other hand peace was returning to Pakistan for the last few days. India does not want peace and stability in any of its neighbours (Look at its influence on all its neighbours except China). So India had to strike and it did.

Amish - An orthodox tribe, unlike orthodox muslims, allowed to live their own style

• Don't stare, gawk, or otherwise be disrespectful of the Amish.
• When driving, keep an eye out for slow-moving Amish buggies (especially at night), and give them plenty of room when following or passing. Keep headlights on low-beam and stay away from the horn, except for a short toot when passing, to avoid spooking the horses.
• Do not enter private property without permission.
• No photos or videos, please. Most Amish consider posing for photographs to be an unacceptable act of pride and do not allow pictures of themselves. The Amish will usually allow you to photograph their homes, farms, and buggies if you ask respectfully, but even this can be intrusive and is better avoided. If you must take pictures, consider a telephoto lens, and avoid taking any photos which include recognizable faces. A picture of the rear of an Amish buggy as it travels down the road probably won't offend anyone.
• Do not feed or pet horses that are tied to a hitching rail or harnessed to a buggy.
• Out of respect for their privacy, it is best to avoid approaching the Amish unless they appear open to company. They are just like you and don't really appreciate strangers knocking at their door. When you do have a need to approach a group of Amish, it is polite to speak to a male, if possible. If you are sincerely interested in talking to the Amish to learn more about their culture, then your best bet is to patronize an Amish-owned business and talk with the shopkeepers. Most Amish people enjoy talking with outsiders, if they don’t feel like they are regarded as animals in the zoo.

Amish Country - Dos and Dont's When Visiting Amish Country

dont be direspectful to amish, but be curteous :) it is their lifestyle, let them live the way they want to live... let them prevent their children from goin to school... let them violate(or go against) the laws of their govt. when it comes to muslims, everyone wants to civilize the ' uncivilized and barbarian fundamentals' if they want to live as per their understanding of their religion under their cultural obligations.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

An interesting discussion :) on recent afghan war

lightoftruth wrote: When will libs demand Obama pull out of Afgan instead of increasing our presence in that quagmire? What will libs do when Obama attacks Pakistan after the taliban takes it over?????

No one attacks a nuclear armed nation, & The Taliban will never take over Pakistan.

I think you are getting to much sugar in your diet Old mate, this is definately a sugar overdose post that you made.

In New Strategy, U.S. Will Defend Kabul Environs - UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE - NEWS - Forums

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Deal acceptable in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan: US

By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Feb 20: The United States has rejected the truce in Swat but US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday that Washington could accept a similar agreement between the government and Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

The US rejection was conveyed by its special envoy Richard Holbrooke who called President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday evening to tell him that the Swat deal was tantamount to surrender by Pakistan.

Later, Mr Holbrooke told CNN that the Pakistani leader had assured him that the Swat deal was only an “interim arrangement” to stabilise the restive region and that he had not yet signed an agreement with the militants.

In a separate briefing on Friday, Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Poland that the United States could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban rebels along the lines of the Swat deal.

Full story on Deal acceptable in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan: US -DAWN - Top Stories; February 21, 2009


:)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Liberal Fascism

By Nick Cohen
IT is undeniable that the best way to have avoided complicity in the horrors of the last century would have been to have adopted the politics of Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism.

Much can be said against moderate conservatives, but it has to be admitted that their wariness of grand designs and their willingness to place limits on the over-mighty state give them a clean record others cannot share.

Few of Goldberg’s contemporaries will grant him the same courtesy. He lives in a western culture where “smug, liberal know-nothings, sublimely confident in the truth of their ill-informed opinions” accuse him of being “a fascist and a Nazi” simply because he is a conservative. Meanwhile, the heart-throb-savant George Clooney can assert that “the liberal movement morally has stood on the right side”.

Behind the insults and the self-righteousness is the assumption that politics runs on a continuum from far left to far right. Goldberg sets out to knock down this false paradigm and show that much of what Americans call liberalism, and we call leftism, has its origins in fascism.

Liberal Fascism is not a clean blow to the jaw, but a multiple rocket launcher of a book that targets just about every liberal American hero and ideal. The title comes from H.G. Wells, the most strenuous intellectual advocate of totalitarianism on the early-20th-century British left. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti,” he told the Oxford Union in 1932, “for enlightened Nazis. The world is sick of parliamentary democracy. The Fascist party is Italy. The Communist is Russia. The Fascists of liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition of a far grander scale.”

Wells saw no difference between communism and fascism and Goldberg puts a compelling case that neither should we. Mussolini began as a socialist agitator. The Nazis were a national socialist party which despised bourgeois democracy and offered a comprehensive welfare state.

I agree that all totalitarianisms are essentially the same, and that far leftists combined with far rightists in the 1920s and 1930s and are doing so again now. But I had difficulties with Goldberg’s concept of totalitarian unity. Communists killed different people to fascists. If you were a peasant farmer in Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, they allowed you to live — as long as you did not cross them.

In America, flustered liberal critics have had far greater difficulty with the notion that they and their predecessors are the inheritors of ideas that began in the fascist movement. Goldberg certainly leaves them little left to be proud of as he provides an alternative history of an America that Simon Schama lacks the intellectual courage to confront.

He begins with Woodrow Wilson and shows that before Mussolini came to power, a Democratic president imposed a militarised state. When America entered the First World War, the progressives of the day used the conflict as an excuse to arrest dissidents, close newspapers and recruit tens of thousands of neighbourhood spies.

Beginning with the Black Panthers, multiculturalism has also placed racial and religious identity above all else and beyond the reach of rational argument. Fascism was a pagan movement, whose mystic tropes are repeated by new age healers, vegetarians and greens.

Repeatedly he insists that he does not want to allege that, for instance, Hillary Clinton’s admittedly sinister desire for the state to take the place of the family makes her a totalitarian, merely that her ideas come from the totalitarian movement.

Liberal Fascism is a bracing and stylish examination of political history. That it is being published at a time when Goldberg’s free market has failed and big government and charismatic presidents are on their way back in no way invalidates his work. Hard times test intellectuals and, for all its occasional false notes, Goldberg’s case survives. n

— The Guardian, London

DAWN - Editorial; February 11, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Distant planet is ‘an orbiting hell’

PARIS, Jan 28: Astronomers have observed a planet some 200 light years from Earth that, for a few hours, becomes 700 degrees Celsius hotter every time its elliptical orbit brings it close to its sun.

The scientists, in a study released on Wednesday, said they had generated the most realistic images ever captured of the exoplanet, the name given to planets outside our Solar System.

They used infrared data collected from Nasa’s space-based Spitzer telescope to gain pictures of a strange world exposed briefly to an inferno.

One image shows a thin blue crescent on the “dark” side of the planet, opposite its star, while the scorched side glows a deep, crimson red.

Known as HD80606b, the planet is a giant ball of gas that has four times the mass of Jupiter, the biggest planet of our system.

Researchers led by Gregory Laughlin of the University of California at Santa Cruz analysed data collected in November 30 hours before, during and after HD80606b’s closest approach to its star.

From the telescope’s vantage point, the planet passed behind the star — an event called a secondary eclipse — just before reaching its maximum temperature of 1,227 C (2240 F), hotter than molten lava.

It was an unexpected stroke of luck, making it possible to measure the exact temperatures of the star and the planet separately.

“This is the first time that we’ve detected weather changes in real time on a planet outside our solar system,” said Laughlin. “The results are very exciting because they give us important clues to the atmospheric properties of the planet.”

As the atmosphere heats up and expands, it produces fierce winds — moving at five kilometres per second — that flow away from the day side towards the night side.

The planet’s rotation causes the winds to curl up into large-scale storm systems that gradually peter out as temperatures cool, Laughlin said.

HD80606b swings around its sun in an elliptical orbit every 114 Earth days. It is one of about a dozen so-called “hot Jupiter” extra-solar planets which spin on their axes in such a way that the same surface is always facing their respective stars.

The photo-like images were generated by a computer programme that calculated the colour and intensity of light coming from the glowing planet.

“These images are far more realistic than anything that’s been done before for extra-solar planets,” said UCSC researcher Daniel Kasen, who developed the programme.

When closest to its star, the sunlight beating down on the planet is more than 800 times stronger than at the far end of its egg-shaped orbit.—AFPDistant planet is ‘an orbiting hell’ -DAWN - Top Stories; January 29, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Recent Israeli offensive destroys rest of the palestinian economy

By Donald Macintyre
ISRAELI forces used aerial bombing, tank shelling and armoured bulldozers to eliminate the productive capacity of some of Gaza’s most important manufacturing plants during their 22 days of military action in the Gaza Strip.

The attacks, like those which destroyed an estimated 20,000 homes leaving some residential areas resembling an earthquake zone and more than 50,000 people in temporary shelters, destroyed or severely damaged 219 factories, Palestinian industrialists say. Leaders of Gaza’s business community — who have long stayed aloof from the different Palestinian political factions — say that much of the three per cent of industry still operating after the 18-month shutdown caused by Israel’s economic siege has now been destroyed.

Chris Gunness, chief spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, said that widespread destruction of “civilian economic infrastructure” was a strike “at the heart of the peace process” because “economic stability is an essential component of a durable peace.”

While the main impact of the destruction is likely to be on the already politically fraught prospects of medium to long-term reconstruction in Gaza, it will not make efforts to help Gaza’s many stricken and displaced residents any easier.

It is those humanitarian relief efforts for which the main British aid agencies are appealing for help in the advertisement so far barred by the BBC. The Unrwa is meanwhile separately pressing donors for $345m for immediate repairs to homes still standing and to its own damaged premises.

The destroyed factories include: Alweyda, the biggest Palestinian food-processing plant and the only one still operating in Gaza until the war; Abu Eida, the largest, and now flattened, ready-mixed concrete producer; and the 89-year old Al Badr flour mills, which have the biggest storage facilities anywhere in the Strip.

The owners of all three said on Saturday they were proud of their close and long-standing contact with Israeli partner firms and suppliers. Dr Yaser M Alweyda, owner and engineering director of the demolished food-processing plant estimated the total damage to his plant at $22.5m and accused Israel of wanting “to destroy the weak Palestinian economy”. He added: “They want to ensure that we will never have a state in Palestine.”

The air and ground strikes have compounded the impact of the total 18-month trade embargo, which Israel imposed in June 2007 after the civil war between Hamas and Fatah ended in the collapse of the short-lived coalition between the two rival factions and Hamas’s enforced takeover of the strip.

Amr Hamad, executive manager of the Palestinian Federation of Industries, said: “What they were not able to reach by the blockade, they have reached with their bulldozers.” He added: “Businessmen are not connected at all to Hamas and are very pragmatic and open-minded.

“They are the last layer in Palestinian society who believe in peace and the importance of the economy. They also believe that the only economic link should be with Israel,” Mr Hamad said.

Meanwhile the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, told his cabinet that with “typical moral acrobatics” the “terrorist organisations” were trying to lay the blame on Israel, and that “the State of Israel did everything in order to avoid hitting civilians.” Israel would ensure that soldiers and officers who took part in the operation would be safe from any tribunals investigating them, he said.

At the Al Badr mills in Sudaniya, north of Gaza City, owner Rashed Hamada, 55, said the company had been making wheat flour for bakeries right up until the attack on Jan 10. He strongly denied that his compound had been used by Hamas gunmen, and said it was clear the production line itself had been the target.

“It seems that the father of the commander had owned a flour mill,” he commented ironically. “He knew exactly where to hit. The Israelis .... used to encourage me to expand production here. Now they have destroyed it. I don’t understand why.”

Standing beside mangled and incinerated refrigeration vans and the burned-out ruins of his food factory and warehouses, located for ease of access to Israel between the eastern Gaza City district of Shajaia and the border 650 metres away, Dr Alweyda said that as well as the production lines, 26 vehicles had been destroyed.

The company, sole Gaza agent for Israeli milk products company Tnuva, had managed to keep biscuit production going up until the outbreak of war. The Israeli military said that it was still investigating allegations of civilian casualties and property damage.

— © The Independent
DAWN - Opinion; January 27, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Columbus' Mistake

THE next day after winning the Senate Foreign Committee’s vote, Senator Hillary Clinton while outlining her preferences said America needs the support of the world and the world needs American support.

This reminded me of a paragraph from Urdu ki akhri kitab, a book written by Ibne Insha, a short story writer and humourist. The paragraph says it all, “Earlier, there were nations in the world living in peace and harmony but Columbus discovered America. People say Columbus discovered it by mistake, if it is so it was his greatest mistake as he has departed but we are still paying for his mistake”.

H.K. NIAZI
Karachi

DAWN - Letters; January 21, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser