Pakistan ISPR On Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM)

Who is Manzoor Pashteen? What is Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM)?  What is Pashtun Nationalism?  Why did Pakistan ISPR spokesman Gen Asif Ghafoor warn them in a recent press conference? What are PTM demands? Did the Pakistani military action in FATA help or hurt the vast majority of FATA residents? Who are the "missing person"? Why are they missing? What must be done to resolve this issue? Is PTM insincere in using this issue as cover to attack the military? How has RK Yadav, retired officer of Indian RAW,  documented India's support of Pashtun Nationalists and other secessionist movements in Pakistan? Is PTM supported by foreign intelligence agencies to re-ignite insurgency in FATA?

Terror Death in FATA. Source: South Asia Terrorism Portal

Terror Deaths Across Pakistan. Source: South Asia Terrorism Portal

Why was Masood Azhar declared a "terrorist" by the UNSC sanctions committee? Is this a win for India's Modi? Did China abandon Pakistan by letting it happen as UNSC Permanent Member? Or did China coordinate its action with Pakistan to have references to Kashmir and Pulwama removed from the declaration?

Azad Labon Kay Sath (ALKS) host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with Sabahat Ashraf (ifaqeer) and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://youtu.be/rA68tYE4rV0




Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

PTM: The Lowdown on Manzoor Pashteen

History of Pashtun Nationalism and Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations

Ex-RAW Officer RK Yadav's "Mission RAW"

Social Media: Blessing or Curse For Pakistan?

Planted Stories in Media

Indian BJP Troll Farm

Kulbhushan Jadhav Caught in Balochistan

The Story of Pakistan's M8 Motorway

What Can Pakistan Learn From Sri Lanka?

Riaz Haq's Youtube Channel

PakAlumni Social Network

The Story of Pakistan's M8 Motorway Construction Amid Baloch Insurgency

Construction on the recently completed 893 kilometer long Gwadar-Ratodero motorway, also known as M8, was started by a Chinese contractor back in early 2004 on former President Pervez Musharraf's watch. The work was soon abandoned when three Chinese engineers were killed by a car bomb during the first week of May, 2004.  In 2003, a year before this incident, Indian intelligence agency RAW had recruited Kulbhushan Jadhav as an undercover agent. He was issued a passport under an assumed name of Hussein Mubarak Patel and sent to Chabahar in Iran to orchestrate insurgent attacks next door in Balochistan.

After the Chinese left the project, another contractor who was awarded the project could not continue M8 construction. Eventually, Pakistan Army's Frontier Works Organization (FWO) completed the project 13 years later in 2017. This success has come at great cost in terms of time, money and human lives. FWO has lost dozens of military and civilian employees and many more have been injured in insurgent attacks. Meanwhile, a combination of military and intelligence operations by Pakistan Army and serious infighting among militants have significantly weakened the Baloch insurgency.

Pakistan Motorways. Source: Pakistaniat.com

M8 Motorway:

The M8 motorway connects Ratodero in Sindh to Gwadar in Balochistan. It is 893 long and runs through Baloch cities of Khuzdar, Awaran, Hoshab and Turbat along its east-west route.  Its recently completed first phase has two lanes and an additional two lanes are planned to handle future traffic growth. The motorway passes over Dasht River and also provides access to Mirani Dam completed in 2006. It is the world's largest dam in terms of floodstock capacity of 588,690 cubic hectometer

Local Baloch residents now use M8 motorway on a daily basis. They say it has significantly reduced the time needed to travel from Gwadar to Turbat, and indeed, reduced the time for produce and supplies to be transported between cities, according a report in local Pakistani media.

Detailed M8 Map. Source: Scroll.in

Indian Support of Baloch Insurgency:

The current Baloch Nationalist revolt in Pakistan started in 2003, the same year that Indian intelligence agency RAW recruited Kulbhushan Jadhav and gave him a new identity as Hussein Mubarak Patel, according to Indian media reports. This was three years before the killing of Baloch leader Akbar Bugti on August 26, 2006. Jadhav was sent to Chabahar in Iran to orchestrate insurgent attacks next door in Balochistan.

Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested in Balochistan in 2016. He has confessed to orchestrating insurgent attacks on targets in Balochistan that resulted in deaths, injuries and destruction of property.

India's former RAW officers, including one ex chief, have blamed Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, arrested by Pakistan in 2016, for getting caught in Pakistan as a "result of unprofessionalism", according to a report in India's "The Quint" owned and operated by a joint venture of Bloomberg News and Quintillion Media. The report that appeared briefly on The Quint website has since been removed, apparently under pressure from the Indian government.

It is believed to be the strongest and longest of the insurgencies seen in Pakistani Balochistan which has had earlier bouts of it in 1948, 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1973-77.

State of Baloch Insurgency:

Baloch insurgency has been significantly weakened recently by the continuing military and intelligence operations of the Pakistan Army.  The other probably more significant reason for it is serious infighting among insurgent groups from various tribes,  according to pro-insurgent US-based Baloch analyst Malik Siraj Akbar and a former US military intelligence officer retired US Lt. Col. Ralph Peters who supports Baloch insurgency.

In a US Congressional hearing on Balochistan, Peters said the most serious issues with the Baloch independence movement is “deeply troubling” infighting, according to a report in HuffPost. He condemned such bickering; going so far as to assert: “they are quickly becoming their own worst enemies.”

Peters has also pointed out gross human rights violations committed by Baloch insurgents against civilians. He said, “I am very concerned with Baloch extremists. Killing teachers and doctors is just dumb. It might feel good as revenge but it is not going to win you friends in Washington. Assassinating these folks is just hurting their movement.”

Frontier Works Organization (FWO):

The Frontier Works Organization (FWO) is a branch of the Pakistan Army that employs both active duty military officers and civilians. It was commissioned in 1966 and its first major project was the construction of the Karkoram Highway, the world's highest road that connects Pakistan with China.  Since then, the FWO has  built motorways, bridges, roads, tunnels, airfields and dams in Pakistan.

FWO has successfully completed several large construction projects in some of the most hostile conditions ranging from rough hilly terrains to insurgency-hit parts in Balochistan and federally administered tribal areas (FATA).  This success has come at great cost in terms of human lives. Dozens of FWO's military and civilian employees have lost their lives and many more have been injured in insurgent attacks.

China Pakistan Economic Corridor:

Currently, FWO is engaged in several large infrastructure projects related to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. In addition to major road construction, FWO is building housing, water projects, power plants and oil refineries in different parts of the country.

Various militant groups, including Indian government proxies, are engaged in sabotaging CPEC. While some attacks have been successful, it is believed that the Pakistani military has been able to prevent many more. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of intelligence officers are believed to be working to manage the security situation all along the western route and in Gwadar.

Summary:

The construction of the recently completed 893 kilometer long Gwadar-Ratodero motorway, also known as M8, was started by a Chinese contractor back in early 2004 on former President Pervez Musharraf's watch. The work was soon abandoned when three Chinese engineers were killed by a car bomb during the first week of May, 2004.  In 2003, a year before this incident, Indian intelligence agency RAW had recruited Kulbhushan Jadhav as an undercover agent. He was issued a passport under an assumed name of Hussein Mubarak Patel and sent to Chabahar in Iran to orchestrate insurgent attacks next door in Balochistan.

After the Chinese left the project, another contractor who was awarded the project could not continue M8 construction. Eventually, Pakistan Army's Frontier Works Organization (FWO) completed the project 13 years later in 2017. This success has come at great cost in terms of time, money and human lives. FWO has lost dozens of military and civilian employees and many more have been injured in insurgent attacks. Meanwhile, a combination of military and intelligence operations by Pakistan Army and serious infighting among militants have significantly weakened the Baloch insurgency.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Ex RAW Officers Blame Kulbhushan Jhadav For Getting Caught

Gwadar vs Chabahar Ports

UAE Eyes Pakistan's Dasht River Water

Pak Army Chief Guarantor of CPEC

Pak Army's FWO Completes Over Half of CPEC Western Route

Riaz Haq's Youtube Channel

PakAlumni Social Network

American Military Presence Destabilizing "Af-Pak"

“What we figured out is that people in the Pech (Afghanistan) really aren’t anti-U.S. or anti-anything; they just want to be left alone. Our presence is what’s destabilizing this area.”

The above quote is attributed in today's New York Times to US military sources explaining their decision to withdraw from a valley in Afghanistan's Kunar province.

This decision follows the killing of 65 civilians, including 50 women and children, in a recent NATO air strike in the Kumar province, as reported by the BBC. As is normal in such increasingly frequent incidents, the US and NATO disagree with the Afghan government and deny civilian deaths. But Afghans are convinced that NATO routinely bombs and shoots innocent people - and that belief is one of the things that keeps the insurgency alive.



I think the conflicting Afghan and American narratives of such incidents can easily be extended to what is happening in US predator strikes in Pakistan's FATA region. Such strikes from the sky are creating a much more dangerous situation by killing many innocent civilians and fueling the revenge attacks that are destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Research by New America Foundation found that civilians made up 32 percent of deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan. This count appears to be low, as its data is taken from major U.S. and English-language Pakistani news outlet reports and accepts their characterizations of "civilians" and "militants."

The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) conducted an on-the ground investigation of American drone strikes (from 2009 and early 2010), and concluded that the nine attacks they surveyed produced a total of 30 civilian deaths (10/10). The CIVIC report points out that Pakistani media outlets, based on government figures, put the civilian death rate from drones at about 90 percent.

The increasing deaths of innocent civilians from American CIA drones are not helping enhance the security of the Americans or Pakistanis. On the contrary, such illegal and immoral tactics are fueling more revenge attacks by suicide bombers in Pakistan. It's become a macabre war of the drones pitting American Predators and Reapers on one side against the suicide bombing human drones on the other side, with devastating carnage of mostly innocent civilian Pakistanis. There has been at least one case of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad who cited drone deaths in Pakistan as his reason for wanting to harm innocent American civilians.

It is time for the US to recognize that its continued military presence and CIA's covert war "is what’s destabilizing” not just a small valley in Kunar province but the entire region. The people in the region are not inherently "anti-U.S. or anti-anything; they just want to be left alone". And the sooner America recognizes this reality, the better it will be for the peace and security of the Americans and the people of the entire "Af-Pak" region.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Can US Afghan War Remake Pakistan?

Blackwater Bribing in Pakistan?

Jihadis Growing in Tenth Year of Afghan War

Valuing Life in Afghanistan and Pakistan

US Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

$50 Million Per Dead Taliban

Obama's High-Tech Warfare

Newsweek Defends Drone Hits

Campaign For Innocent Victims in Conflict

Feudal Punjab Fertile Ground for Pakistani Jihadists?

The conventional wisdom holds that Pakistani jihadists come mainly from the radical Wahabi madrassas that proliferated in Pakistan's tribal belt near the Afghan border during the US-Saudi-Pakistani supported campaign against the former Soviet Union. Most of the world attention has, therefore, been focused on the efforts by US and Pakistan to try and contain the influence of NWFP's Deobandi Islam. Some of the madrassas have been forced to shut down while others have been attacked by US and Pakistan. As part of the effort to improve economic opportunities, Pakistan has set up FATA Development Authority and the US and international financial institutions are planning to fund reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZ) to deny recruits to the Jehadist outfits.

In addition to Shia Islam, which accounts for 15-20% of the population, there are primarily two schools of thought among Sunni Muslims in South Asia. Barelvi and Deobandi. Barelvi, or Ahle-Sunna, is a movement of Sunni Sufism that was founded by Ahmed Raza Khan of Bareilly, Rohilkhand India (hence the term Barelvi). Barelvis are a sizable portion of the Hanafi Muslim communities in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa and the United Kingdom, besides having a presence in other places around the world. Deobandi is a Sunni Islamic revivalist movement which started in India and Pakistan and has more recently spread to other countries, such as Afghanistan, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The name derives from the town of Deoband, (Uttar Pradesh) India, where the school Darul Uloom Deoband is situated. Deobandis follow the fiqh of Abu Hanifa and the Aqidah of Abu Mansur Maturidi. Deobandi Islam is quite similar to the Wahabi Saudi Islam.

Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan, is considered the home of the followers of the sufi saints who taught a tolerant, loving version of Barelvi Islam. Deobandi Islam (patterned after Saudi Wahabism) is not common in Punjab's rural landscape. But Mumbai attacker Ajmal Qasab's story, published in March 16 issue of Time magazine, suggests that the rising expectations of young Pakistanis and the deprivations they suffer in feudal Punjab are helping the mainly NWFP-Deobandi-inspired Jihadi outfits in their recruiting efforts. Here's an excerpt from Time that implies feudalism drives young men like Qasab to join the terror outfits:

"Faridkot is not the hardscrabble village conjured up by common perceptions of extremist origins. It straddles a paved road about 2 1⁄2 hours' drive from Lahore, and two new gas stations mark the village boundaries. Beyond those are factories and fertile farmland. There is even BlackBerry service. But it is, undeniably, the sort of place that fosters frustration. Feudal landlords own the farmland, and villagers feel trapped by the status they are born into. The good life is tantalizingly close, yet for most residents still unattainable. For men like Qasab, one of the best ways out is jihad. "In a developing country, youngsters who are sensitive, concerned, they talk about 'How do we change what is going on here? How do we get rid of corruption?'" says (Pakistani psychologist Sohail) Abbas. "And if in some sense you find that jihad can help you in those aims, then why not?" It's a convolution of the adolescent craving to stand out. And Pakistani society, steeped in nihilistic passions fostered by the state sponsorship of jihad, condones it."


Like Ajmal Qasab, other unskilled and barely literate workers from rural Punjab are trying to find ways to escape the hard life under their feudal rulers. Some, like Qasab, go to major Pakistani cities in search of a better life and come in contact with Jihadi outfits like LeT. Others try and find employment in the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy describes the impact of exposure to the Arab world as follows:

"Villages (in Punjab) have changed drastically; this transformation has been driven, in part, by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other sects, who they do not regard as Muslims. The Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than the Pukhtuns, are now beginning to take a line resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from the recent decisions of the Lahore High Court."

It appears that the radical Islam is now spreading beyond its traditional home in NWFP and FATA to Pakistan's heartland of Punjab. It is also clear that the new generation of Pakistanis do not want to accept life under a feudal or tribal system that denies them basic human dignity.

While the efforts to create and fund reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZ) in FATA are desirable and welcome, what is really needed is an international Marshall Plan style effort toward transforming Pakistan from a feudal/tribal to an industrial society. Such an effort will face major hurdles from the feudal leadership of the major political parties in Pakistan. However, if it is successfully implemented, new opportunities will open up for the nation's young population to offer them better alternatives to joining Jihadi outfits or seeking work in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Related Links:

Qasab's Journey in Time Magazine

Feudal Shadow in Pakistan Elections

UN Millennium Goals in Pakistani Village

Saudi-ization of Pakistan

Pakistan's FATA Face-off Fears

FATA Reconstruction Opportunity Zones

Pakistan Power Centers: Feudals, Clergy and Military

FATA Raid Charades Endanger Pakistan and World

Is there a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on US Predator strikes inside Pakistan? Has Pakistan assured United States that any Pakistani protests against US drone attacks are meant for public consumption inside Pakistan? Are the reports of mistrust between US and Pakistani military a figment of of the US media imagination to defame Pakistani military? Has the policy of secrecy recently been violated by Dianne Feinstein when she revealed that the Predator drones attacking in FATA are flown from a Pakistani airfield? Do Pakistanis believe the farce of Pakistani government's public statements of protest, anger and dismay at the US policy? Are there any lines agreed between US and Pakistan differentiating direct ground incursion by US special forces and Predator attacks from the sky?

Let's try and answer the above questions by examining the events on the ground.

In September, 2008, a team of US Navy Seals was dropped by helicopter in the area of Angoor Adda in South Waziristan. There was a reported firefight between the US commandos and Pakistani soldiers on the ground. It was followed by an air strike which killed several Pakistani soldiers and civilians that the US said were militants.

The Angoor Adda raid by the US Navy Seals brought a stern warning to the US from Pakistani military. "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan," said Pakistan's Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani in a strong statement after the incident.

The US commando raid was a surprise to Pakistanis and Kayani's warning was genuine. It was conveyed to the United States by Pakistan loudly and clearly in both public and private. As expected, it was heeded by the Americans. Since the September 2008 incursion by the US Navy Seals, there have not been any more reported ground attacks in FATA by American commandos.

However, the Predator strikes inside FATA and Pakistan's public protests present a different story. The frequency of Predator air-strikes on suspected Taliban and Al-Qaida targets has dramatically increased recently. Hardly a day goes by without reports of such strikes by US drones operated by the CIA. And Pakistani government led by Zardari routinely protests strikes by US armed drones that reportedly take off from Shamsi airfield near Jacobabad in Pakistan, as visible on Google Earth until very recently.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the American drones knows that these machines fly low and slow making them easy targets for any military with a minimally sophisticated air defense system. Even if one disregards the Feinstein revelation and assumes that such contraptions fly out of Afghanistan, Pakistani military is clearly conveying the message that such drone strikes are deliberately tolerated by choosing not to shoot them down. In fact, it is easy to conclude that Pakistani military not only knows but approves Predator missions in FATA. And people who suggest that CIA does not trust Pakistani military and does not share information about drone flights and strikes are either being deliberately disingenuous or just smoking Afghan poppy.

Why is this game of Charades being played by US and Pakistan? Who are they fooling? Measured by the flagging support for war on terror, they are certainly not fooling the people of Pakistan. And the situation next door is not any better. Rising casualties of Afghan civilians are turning the Afghan people against the US military and the Karzai government and strengthening support for the Taliban. After seven years of US presence, many Afghans now believe that the Taliban offered them a much better sense of security and law and order when they ruled the nation until 2001. Last October, Christian Science Monitor reported on how the Taliban handled complaints from villagers near Kabul about a gang of thieves. The Taliban's parallel government in Logar Province – less than 40 miles from Kabul, the capital – tried and convicted the men, tarred their faces, paraded them around, and threatened to chop off their hands if they were caught stealing in the future. The thieves never bothered the locals again.

A serious but unintended and extremely dangerous consequence of the US air strikes in FATA is that the militants are moving further inland from FATA in to Pakistan's settled area such as Swat and threatening to destabilize the entire country. A destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan will be far more dangerous to the US, the region and the world than anything we have seen in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Obama response to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan is to order more Predator strikes and thousands of more US troops. This assumes that the problems are mainly the lack of firepower and of troop strength. But it's likely to have the opposite effect. More Predator strikes and more troops mean more fighting which will lead to more American and Afghan civilian casualties. And it will only increase the public opposition to the US presence there, and make the entire region a much more powerful magnet to draw more global Jihadists from around the world. These "holy warriors" love nothing better than to kill the American soldiers and achieve "martyrdom" for themselves.

It is clear from the developments over the last several months that the US needs a complete overhaul of both its overall strategy and tactics. Just the planned troops surge alone will not suffice. There has to be a comprehensive new strategy for political dialog, reconstruction and smart counterinsurgency tactics in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Related Links:

WorldFocus on Afghanistan

Pakistan's Prospects

Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Obama's South Asia Policy

Military Occupation of Kashmir

Bruce Riedel Interview

Clues to Obama's South Asia Policy

Imran Khan To Obama: Leave Afghanistan!

Famous Pakistani cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan has written an open letter to President Barack Obama urging him to withdraw US and NATO forces from Afghanistan. The letter was published by Forbes magazine on January 29, 2009. In addition to being a celebrity in the cricket-playing world, Imran Khan is a philanthropist and an idealist whose political party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, has not been able to find much traction among the average Pakistanis. Pakistan's political system, dominated by the feudal and tribal leaders, is rigged against leaders such as Imran Khan. Based on all the recent polls, however, Imran Khan's views on Afghanistan appear to reflect popular opinion in Pakistan which is overwhelmingly against the US presence in the region. It is the elected leadership that is out of step with the vast majority of Pakistanis.

Imran Khan reminds me of Ralph Nader. A recent documentary titled "The Unreasonable Man" chronicles the life of Ralph Nader. The title "The Unreasonable Man" comes from a famous quote attributed to the early 20th century British playwright George Bernard Shaw who said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." Like Nader, Khan is a well-meaning, well-respected, and honest political leader bringing out the issues of democracy, transparency, freedom from political corruption, civil rights and rule of law, that the mainstream parties do not particularly care about. But the presence of Imran Khan on the Pakistani political scene does offer hope for the future.

Here's the full text of the open letter:

Dear President Obama,

Your extraordinary ascent to the U.S. Presidency is, to a large part, a reflection of your remarkable ability to mobilize society, particularly the youth, with the message of "change." Indeed, change is what the world is yearning for after eight long and almost endless years of carnage let loose by a group of neo-cons that occupied the White House.

Understandably, your overarching policy focus would be the security and welfare of all U.S. citizens and so it should be. Similarly, our first and foremost concern is the protection of Pakistani lives and the prosperity of our society. We may have different social and cultural values, but we share the fundamental values of peace, harmony, justice and equality before law.

No people desire change more than the people of Pakistan, as we have suffered the most since 9/11, despite the fact that none of the perpetrators of the acts of terrorism unleashed on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, were Pakistani. Our entire social, political and economic fabric is in a state of meltdown. Our sovereignty, dignity and self-respect have been trampled upon. The previous U.S. administration invested in dictators and corrupt politicians by providing them power crutches in return for total compliance to pursue its misconceived war on terror.

There are many threats confronting our society today, including the threat of extremism. In a society where the majority is without fundamental rights, without education, without economic opportunities, without health care, the use of sheer force and loss of innocent lives continues to expand the extremist fringe and contract the space for the moderate majority.

Without peace and internal security, the notion of investing in development in the war zones is a pipe dream, as the anticipated benefits would never reach the people. So the first and foremost policy objective should be to restore the peace. This can only be achieved through a serious and sustained dialogue with the militants and mitigation of their genuine grievances under the ambit of our constitution and law. Since Pakistan's founding leader signed a treaty in 1948 with the people of the country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas and withdrew Pakistani troops, they had remained the most peaceful and trouble-free part of Pakistan up until the post-9/11 situation, when we were asked to deploy our troops in FATA.

Even a cursory knowledge of Pushtun history shows that for reasons of religious, cultural and social affinity, the Pushtuns on both sides of the Durand Line (which marks the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of their brethren on either side. The Pushtuns are proud of their history of resisting every invader from Alexander onwards, to the Persians, Moghuls, British and the Russians (all superpowers of their times) who were all bogged down in the Pushtun quagmire. So, no government, Pakistani or foreign, will ever be able to stop Pushtuns crossing over the 1,500-kilometer border to support their brethren in distress on either side, even if it means fighting the modern-day superpower in Afghanistan. Recent history shows how the mighty Soviet Union had to retreat from Afghanistan with its army defeated even though it had killed over a million Afghans.

To an average Pushtun, notwithstanding the U.N. Security Council sanction, the U.S. is an occupying power in Afghanistan that must be resisted. It is as simple as that. Therefore, the greatest challenge confronting U.S. policy in Afghanistan is how to change its status from an occupier to a partner. The new U.S. administration should have no doubt that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. As more innocent Pushtuns are killed, more space is created for new Taliban and even Al-Qaida recruits--revenge being an integral part of the Pushtun character. So, as with Iraq, the U.S. should give a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan and replace NATO and U.S. forces with U.N. troops during the interim period.

The Pushtuns then should be involved in a dialogue process where they should be given a stake in the peace. As the majority's stake in peace grows, proportionately the breeding ground for extremists shrinks.

The crucial lesson the U.S. needs to learn--and learn quickly--is that you can only win against terrorists if the majority in a community considers them terrorists. Once they become freedom fighters and heroes amongst their people, history tells us that the battle is lost.

Terrorism worldwide is an age-old phenomenon and cannot be eliminated by rampaging armies, no matter how powerful. It can only be contained by a strategy of building democratic societies and addressing the root causes of political conflicts. The democratization part of this strategy demands a strategic partnership between the West and the people of the Islamic world, who are basically demanding dignity, self-respect and the same fundamental rights as the ordinary citizen in the West enjoys. However, this partnership can only be forged if the U.S. and its close Western allies are prepared to accept and coexist with credible democratic governments in the Islamic world that may not support all U.S. policies as wholeheartedly as dictators and discredited politicians do in order to remain in power.

The roots of terror and violence lie in politics--and so does the solution. We urge the new administration to conduct a major strategic review of the U.S.-led war on terror, including the nature and kind of support that should realistically be expected of Pakistan keeping in mind its internal security interests. Linking economic assistance to sealing of its western frontier will only force the hand of a shaky and unstable government in Pakistan to use more indiscriminate force in FATA, a perfect recipe for disaster.

The stability of the region hinges on a stable Pakistan. Any assistance to improve governance and social indicators must not be conditional. For the simple reason that any improvement in the overall quality of life of ordinary citizens and more effective writ of the state would only make mainstream society less susceptible to extremism. However, if the new U.S. administration continues the Bush administration's mantra of "do more," to which our inept leadership is likely to respond to by using more force, Pakistan could become even more accessible to forces of extremism leading to further instability that would spread across the region, especially into India, which already faces problems of extremism and secessionist movements. Such a scenario would benefit no one--certainly not Pakistan and certainly not the U.S. That is why your message of meaningful change, Mr. President, must guide your policies in this region also.

Imran Khan is chairman and founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice), and served as an elected member of Pakistan's parliament from 2002-08. The captain of the Pakistan team that won the cricket World Cup in 1992, he founded the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, the biggest charitable institution in Pakistan. He is chancellor of the University of Bradford, in the U.K.

Here's an Imran Khan interview video clip on CNN:

Obama's High-Tech Warfare in Pakistan

Nine people are reported killed in the first CIA predator attack in North Waziristan since President Obama took office on Tuesday. There was another strike in South Waziristan but there have been no reports of casualties yet.

These strikes came shortly after Obama met his advisers, including General David Patraeus right after the general's return from a visit to Pakistan. It's the clearest indication yet that Obama will continue the Bush policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan at least in the immediate future. It also indicates that Pakistani leadership is willing to tolerate these attacks, in spite of strong Pakistani public opinion against it.

There were thirty reported US drone attacks in Pakistan in 2008. Given the inauspicious start of the Obama presidency with two strikes in two days, it is likely that the number of attacks will continue to grow and severely test the patience of Pakistani leadership and its people.

The ferocity of the Taliban fighters has already stretched the Afghan war into its eighth year, making it the second longest war in the American history. With the US decision to send another 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, it seems more and more likely that the Obama presidency will be defined by the Afghan war in the same way that the LBJ presidency was defined by America's deepening involvement in the Vietnam war engulfing the entire Indochina region. In some ways, the Obama challenge is much more difficult because of the dire economic situation that America is facing today. Naturally, there is focus on a more cost-effective approach with fewer American casualties in the US military to fight and win the Afghan war.

Obama's interest in high technology extends beyond his Blackberry and his use of online social networking. In addition to more US and NATO troops, Obama likes the fact that the US has reportedly built as many as 5000 predator drones and other robots that can be increasingly used in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater. The US Army is also actively recruiting more video-game-savvy drone pilots and robot operators, some of them in their late teens and early twenties for this high-tech warfare. The recently opened Army Experience Center in Philadelphia is a fitting counterpart to the retail experience: 14,500 square feet of mostly shoot-’em-up video games and three full-scale simulators, including an AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter, an armed Humvee and a Black Hawk copter with M4 carbine assault rifles. For those who want to take the experience deeper, the center has 22 recruiters, according to a report in the New York Times.

In his latest book titled "Wired for War", author P.W. Singer talks about a 19-year-old high-school dropout who is considered one of the best predator pilots in the US Army. This pilot was reportedly a champion video-gamer before being recruited. It is amazing that this young man is considered better as a drone pilot than the much better educated and battle-hardened US Air Force pilots. He has now been elevated to an instructor.

Here's what P.W. Singer says about the US armed drones:

Each Predator costs just under $4.5 million, which sounds like a lot until you compare it to the costs of other military aircraft. Indeed, for the price of one new F-35, the Pentagon’s ­next-­generation manned fighter jet (which hasn’t even taken flight yet), you can buy 30 Predators. More important, the low price and lack of a human pilot mean that the Predator can be used for missions in which there is a high risk of being shot down, such as traveling low and slow over enemy territory. Predators originally were designed for reconnaissance and surveillance, but now some are armed with ­laser-­guided Hellfire missiles. In addition to its deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Predator, along with its larger, more heavily ­armed sibling, the Reaper, has been used with increasing frequency to attack suspected terrorists in Pakistan. According to news media reports, the drones are carrying out ­cross-­border strikes at the rate of one every other day, operations that the Pakistani prime minister describes as the biggest point of contention between his country and the United ­States.

High-tech or low-tech, all indications are that the US war in Afghanistan and Pakistan will escalate and intensify into a regional war under President Obama. I hear the echoes of Indo-China in the words and actions of Obama in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here's a video clip of Obama selling the Afghan War to the Europeans:



Related Links:

Can Obama Win the Afghan War?

21st Century High-Tech Warfare

Obama's Kashmir Focus

Neocon Hitchens For Obama's Tough Pakistan Policy

Christopher Hitchens, a neo-conservative British author and journalist, has shown strong Islamophobic bias and, more recently, he has been speaking in support of Barack Obama's tough stance on Pakistan. He claims that "Pakistan Is the Problem and Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it".
He further adds, "American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less".

Christopher Hitchens used to identify with the liberal left. More recently, however, he has embraced mainly right-wing causes espoused by the American neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, most notably the Iraq War. Formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of both the United Kingdom and United States, Hitchens departed from the grassroots of the political left in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, but he has stated on the Charlie Rose show aired August 2007 that he remains a "democratic Socialist." The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his strong support of an interventionist foreign policy, and his loud criticism of what he calls "fascism with an Islamic face." He is known for his ardent admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and for his excoriating critiques of Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger, and Bill Clinton.

Here is what Hitchens wrote recently for Slate:

An excellent article by Fraser Nelson in London's Spectator at the end of July put it as succinctly as I have seen it:

At a recent dinner party in the British embassy in Kabul, one of the guests referred to "the Afghan-Pakistan war." The rest of the table fell silent. This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Even mentioning it in private in the Afghan capital's green zone is enough to solicit murmurs of disapproval. Few want to accept that the war is widening; that it now involves Pakistan, a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons.

"Don't mention the war," as Basil insists with mounting hysteria in Fawlty Towers. And, when discussing the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, most people seem deliberately to avoid such telling phrases as "Pakistani aggression" or—more accurate still—"Pakistani colonialism." The truth is that the Taliban, and its al-Qaida guests, were originally imposed on Afghanistan from without as a projection of Pakistani state power. (Along with Pakistan, only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban as the legal government in Kabul.) Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

We were all warned of this many years ago. When the Clinton administration sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan in reprisal for the attacks on our embassies in East Africa, the missiles missed Osama Bin Ladin but did, if you remember, manage to kill two officers of the ISI. It wasn't asked loudly enough: What were these men doing in an al-Qaida camp in the first place? In those years, as in earlier ones, almost no tough questions were asked of Pakistan. Successive U.S. administrations used to keep certifying to Congress that Pakistan was not exploiting U.S. aid (and U.S. indulgence over the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan) to build itself a nuclear weapons capacity. Indeed, it wasn't until after Sept. 11, 2001, that we allowed ourselves to learn that at least two of Pakistan's top nuclear scientists—Mirza Yusuf Baig and Chaudhry Abdul Majid—had been taken in for "questioning" about their close links to the Taliban. But then, in those days, we were too incurious to take note of the fact that Pakistan's chief nuclear operative, A.Q. Khan, had opened a private-enterprise "Nukes 'R' Us" market and was selling his apocalyptic wares to regimes as disparate as Libya and North Korea, sometimes using Pakistani air force planes to make the deliveries.

The very name Pakistan inscribes the nature of the problem. It is not a real country or nation but an acronym devised in the 1930s by a Muslim propagandist for partition named Chaudhary Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind. The stan suffix merely means "land." In the Urdu language, the resulting acronym means "land of the pure." It can be easily seen that this very name expresses expansionist tendencies and also conceals discriminatory ones. Kashmir, for example, is part of India. The Afghans are Muslim but not part of Pakistan. Most of Punjab is also in India. Interestingly, too, there is no B in this cobbled-together name, despite the fact that the country originally included the eastern part of Bengal (now Bangladesh, after fighting a war of independence against genocidal Pakistani repression) and still includes Baluchistan, a restive and neglected province that has been fighting a low-level secessionist struggle for decades. The P comes first only because Pakistan is essentially the property of the Punjabi military caste (which hated Benazir Bhutto, for example, because she came from Sind). As I once wrote, the country's name "might as easily be rendered as 'Akpistan' or 'Kapistan,' depending on whether the battle to take over Afghanistan or Kashmir is to the fore."

I could have phrased that a bit more tightly, since the original Pakistani motive for annexing and controlling Afghanistan is precisely the acquisition of "strategic depth" for its never-ending confrontation with India over Kashmir. And that dispute became latently thermonuclear while we simply looked on. One of the most creditable (and neglected) foreign-policy shifts of the Bush administration after 9/11 was away from our dangerous regional dependence on the untrustworthy and ramshackle Pakistan and toward a much more generous rapprochement with India, the world's other great federal, democratic, and multiethnic state.

Recent accounts of murderous violence in the capital cities of two of our allies, India and Afghanistan, make it appear overwhelmingly probable that the bombs were not the work of local or homegrown "insurgents" but were orchestrated by agents of the Pakistani ISI. This is a fantastically unacceptable state of affairs, which needs to be given its right name of state-sponsored terrorism. Meanwhile, and on Pakistani soil and under the very noses of its army and the ISI, the city of Quetta and the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas are becoming the incubating ground of a reorganized and protected al-Qaida. Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

Related Links:

Don't Mention Afghan-Pakistan War

Obama's Point Man on South Asia

McCain and Obama Debate Pakistan Policy

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate

Obama's Point Man on South Asia

Lately, Senator Barack H. Obama has been taking a tough, even hostile stance toward Pakistan. He is threatening to send US ground troops into FATA if there is "actionable intelligence" to end "terrorists' safe haven" inside Pakistan. His opponent, Senator John McCain has said Obama "doesn't understand" the situation in FATA and chided him for being naive and "talking loudly" about Pakistan. Many Obama supporters dismiss Obama's tough talk as merely designed to assert his commander-in-chief credentials to appease his critics.

Is Obama's tough talk just an act? Or is it based on considered advice from the experts of the liberal think tanks to whom Democrats generally outsource policy? While there is a small chance that Obama does not really mean what he says, it is also a fact that foreign policy experts such as Bruce Reidel are advising Obama on South Asia policy.

Riedel says that there will be a renewed focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan under an Obama presidency. “Obama is determined to put a lot more resources into the war in Afghanistan — and it’s overlapped into Pakistan — than either a McCain presidency would or the Bush administration did.” He adds that Obama sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as “the central front of the war against al Qaeda and the war against extremism.” Translation: The war in Afghanistan will escalate and expand into Pakistan.

Who is Bruce Reidel? What are his credentials? How does he view US role and policy in South Asia? Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution. He served with the Central Intelligence Agency for 29 years and retired in 2006. Riedel served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95). His areas of expertise include counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf security and India and Pakistan.

Riedel says Obama will take a tougher line with Pakistan, and make military aid conditional upon Pakistan’s performance in combating the Taliban and al Qaeda. But he disagrees with the view, prevalent in Pakistan, that Obama dislikes that country. Instead, he says that Obama is a strong critic of the “Musharraf-centric Pakistan policy” pursued by the Bush Administration. He believes that Obama is likely to be supportive of the present PPP-led government, unless it were to engage the Taliban, a move which would prove extremely unpopular in the United States.

On India policy, Reidel says, “The Democrats are much more likely to want to revisit the nuclear proliferation implications [of the nuclear deal]". He adds, "That would complicate the relationship with New Delhi.”

“There’s talk of a strategic partnership with India. The Obama campaign buys into that,” says Riedel. “As president, he will place the same priority on India as Bush did, and Clinton did before him.”

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention, Obama pledged to halt tax sops to companies that ship jobs overseas. If Obama sticks to this promise, it will mean trouble ahead for India's IT industry. India's software and services exports stood at about $40 billion during the financial year 2008, a growth of 29%, with US as its largest market. Can Obama really curb outsourcing? It seems unlikely.

In an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Riedel's candidate Obama seemed to agree with the narrative of the Indian lobby when he accused Pakistan of "preparing for war with India".

“If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Mr. Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year.

In a recent article, Riedel wrote that “fear of India is the driving force” behind Pakistan's pursuit of relationships with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism". He added, “The conflict with India affects all aspects of Pakistan's worldview and its self-image.”

"Coming to grips with Pakistan's obsession with India and Kashmir is critical to killing the monster," and the "time may be ripe in 2009 to move," Riedel writes, hinting at the likely policy of the new administration that is likely to be in office next year.

Answering a question about Pakistan and the war on terror at a meeting of Council on Foreign Relation, Riedel said, "Pakistan is an extremely dangerous and unstable country. We need to tread carefully. We need to get the Pakistanis to see this as their war. And that's going to require some major new initiatives on the American side. Commando raids and Predator strikes are not a long term solution to this problem".

If history is any guide, it can be fairly safely predicted that the a Democratic administration will pursue a punitive policy toward Pakistan while tilting heavily toward India, much more so than the Bush administration. Given the caution sounded by Bruce Reidel about Pakistan, the hope is that better sense will prevail in the potential Obama administration on policy toward Pakistan. However, if "President" Obama does follow through on his tough talk on Pakistan, there will be an expanded regional war involving Afghanistan and Pakistan leading to massive destabilization of the entire region and extremely dangerous consequence for the world.

Here is a comprehensive video on the origins and the positions of various parties involved in the Kashmir dispute presented by Pakistani Peace Activist Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy:



Related Links:

Reidel Interview at Council on Foreign Relations

Sunil Adam on Obama's Kashmir Policy

Who is Bruce Reidel?

Obama on Renewing American Leadership

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

"We're not going to win this war", Brig Mark Carleton-Smith, the UK's commander in Afghanistan's Helmand province, told London's Sunday Times this week.

"It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army." he added.

"If the Taleban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."

To appreciate this latest dose of ground reality from Brig Carelton-Smith, let us try and put it in historical perspective. The Brigadier represents a nation that has had a very long experience of running an empire and dealing with the Afghans as well as frequent encounters with the Pushtoons on the Pakistani side of the border. The British almost certainly understand the Pushtoons better than America and its NATO allies. They played the Great Game with the Russians for supremacy in Afghanistan and Central Asia for most of the 19th century. "The Great Game" as an accepted term was introduced into mainstream consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901). It ended just prior to WW I when the British made an alliance with Russia and reached an accommodation with Amir Abdur Rahman Khan in Afghanistan.

After reaching a virtual stalemate in two wars against the Afghans, the British got Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan in 1893 to come to an agreement to demarcate the border between Afghanistan and what was then British India (now North-West Frontier Province (N.W.F.P.), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (F.A.T.A.) and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan).

After concluding agreements with Russia and Afghanistan, the British repeatedly tried and failed to establish control of the tribal belt (known as Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA) now inside Pakistan. In the face of this reality, a new system of governance was codified by the British in Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) in 1901 and it remains in force today. It relies on Political Agents (PAs) appointed by the governor of NWFP (North West Frontier Province) on behalf of Pakistan's president. The PAs are the highest officials of the state of Pakistan in tribal agencies. They do not directly rule or administer, but they work with the tribal chiefs (maliks) using carrots and sticks to influence the tribes' behavior. The PAs provide money, infrastructure support and other incentives to the maliks in exchange for cooperation. When such cooperation is not forthcoming, the PAs withhold funds, levy fines and, in rare circumstances, threaten the use of military force to bring them in line. The bottom line is that the system relies on the PAs cooperation with the maliks. Without it, the governance model falls apart. Like the colonial British rulers of the past, no government in Pakistan has managed to take full control of FATA since the country's independence in 1947.

The words of the British commander clearly hint at the fact that, at best, the US and its allies can hope to reach a stalemate with the insurgents in Afghanistan in the absence of a political strategy. The political strategy necessary in a situation like this requires an understanding of the other side's position to negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement. Brute, raw military force and a corrupt Quisling government of Hamid Karzai will not suffice.

As fighting words come out of the mouths of US presidential candidates (particularly Barack Obama) about Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is time for the American people to listen to the voices of reason, such as the British brigadier's voice. Let us not be swayed by the political rhetoric of the moment. We need to start thinking about the end game in Afghanistan.

The Battle of Bajaur

"Fighting is going on and to help us, the army sent some gunships which fired at the militants, killing several of them," tribal elder Malik Younus told Reuters. "We can't tolerate lawlessness in our land. Everyone has to obey our tribal rules and they can't make our land a hub of terrorism," Younus said.

As the battle of Bajaur rages with great intensity, the questions are being asked as to the effectiveness and the ultimate outcome of the war on terror within Pakistan's border. Is there a well-conceived strategy behind it? Or is it being done just to get the Americans off Pakistan's back? Is it purely a military effort? Is there Pakistani political will behind it? Are the people of FATA in particular, and of Pakistan in general, being persuaded to support it? Can this battle lead to ultimate victory over terrorism in the region?

As far as the people of Bajaur are concerned, Pakistan government has been trying to turn tribal communities there against the militants and government helicopters have dropped leaflets in different parts of Bajaur calling for support, residents have reported.

A full-scale war is unfolding in Bajaur agency of federally administered tribal areas (FATA) in Pakistan. Pakistani military, aided by local tribesmen and tribal elders unhappy with the militants, is fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants. There are reports that tribal militias are being formed to fight the Taliban. These militias have the support of the Pakistani military, Pakistani-appointed Political Agents(PAs) and the traditional tribal elders who have been losing their power and influence since the 1980s, first with the Afghan "Jihad" against the Soviets, and then the subsequent arrival of the Taliban and Pakistani military in their villages during his decade.

The war is beginning to take its toll on the ordinary people in FATA villages, which may affect support for it in the absence of any effective measures to alleviate their suffering. According to a New York Times report, an estimated 250,000 people have now fled the helicopters, jets, artillery and mortar fire of the Pakistani Army, and the assaults, intimidation and rough justice of the Taliban who have dug into Pakistan’s tribal areas. About 20,000 people are so desperate that they have crossed the border from the Bajaur tribal area to seek safety in Afghanistan. This is the first time in recorded history that refugees are pouring out of Pakistan into Afghanistan.

In addition to the growing refugee crisis, there are reports of rising anger and resentment in Pakistan as the dead, wounded and displaced show up right on their doorstep. It is hard to find reliable casualty figures. But the International Committee of the Red Cross has flown in a special surgical team from abroad to work alongside Pakistani doctors and help treat the wounded in two hospitals. This is now a war zone,” said Marco Succi, the spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

It seems that the Pakistani military is attempting to win the support of the traditional tribal elders as part of its campaign to rid FATA of the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants. While winning FATA elders' support is necessary, it will not be sufficient. In addition to serious efforts to alleviate the suffering of the innocent victims of war caught in the cross fire, what is really required is a Pakistani government-led campaign to persuade a substantial majority of Pakistanis to support its efforts against terrorists who have wreaked havoc on Pakistani streets by a series of deadly suicide bombings this year.

Pakistan's campaign must emphasize that it is fighting this war for its own existence as an independent and democratic nation free of terror. Pakistan government must demonstrate by its actions that it does care for its people; that it is not accepting dictation from Washington to wage its concerted political and military campaign. President Asif Zardari and other leaders need to communicate, honestly and frequently, with the people of Pakistan on the aims and progress of the campaign in FATA. There can be no victory in this war without winning the hearts and minds of a substantial majority of Pakistanis. In the meanwhile, the US political and military leaders must control their actions and rhetoric to avoid being seen as the instigators of Pakistan's war against terror.

Here's a video clip of the news coverage of the battle of Bajaur:

Pakistan's FATA Face Off Fears

"I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes", said Senator John S. McCain in a recent presidential debate referring to Waziristan "agency" in Pakistan's FATA region.

Often described in the world media as "lawless" and "a terrorists sanctuary", Pakistan's FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) region, particularly Waziristan, has been the topic of news, discussions and presidential debates in the United State this year. There are reports that President Bush has authorized US special ops covert strikes inside FATA. US presidential candidate Barack Obama has openly advocated US ground troops incursions and air strikes in FATA. While many Americans, including several prominent politicians and candidates for high offices, have heard about FATA, their knowledge appears to be very sketchy and completely inadequate for making potentially dangerous policy toward Pakistan. Even the "experts" and Washington think tanks do not fully understand or appreciate the consequences of FATA incursions by the US military. So what is FATA? What is its history? Who lives there? How is it governed or not governed? Can it turn into another Vietnam for the US troops? Let's try and discuss answers to these important questions.

What is FATA?

FATA is Pakistan's federally administrated tribal area. It is bordered by Afghanistan to the west with the border marked by the Durand Line, the North-West Frontier Province and the Punjab to the east, and Balochistan to the south. It is considered Pakistan's "wild west" where the inhabitants have always loved their guns and their freedom. The region, with its gun-loving culture, fierce independence and religious zealotry, was instrumental in Afghan Mujahedeen's successful resistance against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the region contributed to the defeat and eventual fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. It became home to millions of Afghan refugees in the 1980s, many of whom grew up there. The region's seminaries (also called madrassahs) are believed to have given birth to the Taliban (literally meaning "students") who ruled Afghanistan until the US invasion of 2001.

The total population of the FATA is estimated at 3m Pashto-speaking people (Pashtoons or Pathans), or roughly 2% of Pakistan's population. The people of the region share common language, culture and tribal traditions with their kin across the border in Afghanistan. Region's inhabitants' tribal ties are stronger than their national identities. In many cases, the Pakistan-Afghan border (called the Durand line, drawn by the British colonial officials) divides the tribes between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Only 3.1% of the population resides in established townships. It is the most rural administrative unit in Pakistan.

FATA consists of seven "agencies", each nominally managed by Pakistan government's "political agents". The agencies are named Khyber, Kurram, Bajaur, Mohmand, Orakzai, North and South areas of Waziristan and six FRs (Frontier Regions) namely FR Peshawar, FR Kohat, FR Tank, FR Banuu, FR Lakki and FR Dera Ismail Khan. The main towns include Miranshah, Razmak, Bajaur, Darra Bazzar, Ghalanai as Head Quareters of Mohmand Agency and Wana .

FATA Governance Model:

FATA is constitutionally part of Pakistan, but the Pakistani constitution says that the country's laws do not apply there- unless the president of Pakistan specifically decrees otherwise in certain circumstances. The tribes rule by the age-old jirga system that makes rules and dispenses justice. This governance model was developed by the British colonial government based on treaties with the Pushtoon tribes, and continued unchanged after Pakistan's independence. It relies on Political Agents (PAs), appointed by the governor of NWFP (North West Frontier Province) on behalf of Pakistan's president. The PAs are the highest officials of the state of Pakistan in tribal agencies. They do not directly rule or administer, but they work with the tribal chiefs (maliks) using carrots and sticks to influence the tribes' behavior. The PAs provide money, infrastructure support and other incentives to the maliks in exchange for cooperation. When such cooperation is not forthcoming, the PAs withhold funds, levy fines and, in rare circumstances, threaten the use of military force to bring them in line. The bottom line is that the system relies on the PAs cooperation with the maliks. Without it, the governance model falls apart. After repeatedly trying and failing to establish control, this system was codified by the British in Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) in 1901 and remains in force today. Like the colonial Britsh rulers of the past, no government in Pakistan has managed to take full control of FATA since the country's independence in 1947.

The American "Jihad" and FATA governance:

After the Soviet invasion in late 1970s and occupation of Afghanistan in 1980s, the US got heavily involved in Afghanistan and threw its support behind the Pashtoons resisting the Russian invaders. In fact, President Ronald Reagan invited some of the current Taliban leaders back in the 1980s to the White House and hailed them as "moral equivalents of America's founding fathers". Saudi Arabia also joined the efforts to evict the Russians from Afghanistan. According to Maximilian Forte, the Taliban expert Ahmad Rashid points out that the core and founding leadership of the current Taliban movement did indeed form part of the anti-Soviet mujahidin struggle.

In particular, the following Taliban names need special mention:

* Mullah Omar
* Mullah Mohammed Hassan Rehmani, the former Taliban Governor of Kandahar, “a founder member of the Taliban…considered to be number two in the movement to his old friend Mullah Omar”
* Mohammed Ghaus, former Foreign Minister of the Taliban
* Nuruddin Turabi, former Justice Minister
* Abdul Majid, former Mayor of Kabul
* and Jalaluddin Haqqani, much in the news lately.

That is only a partial list of the Taliban leadership which, with the exception of the last entry, was provided by Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, author and an authority on the Taliban.

The joint American-Pakistani-Saudi inspired "Jihad" against the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the power structure and governance in FATA. During this period, two new groups emerged to subvert the the traditional model: Military commanders and Mullahs. The military commanders who led the fight against the Soviets became increasingly powerful and influential because of their leadership abilities and competence as fighters and organizers. The mullahs, who were marginalized and ridiculed before the "Jihad", rose in status and influence because of the religious inspiration they provided for "Jihad". The power of the commanders and the mullahs was also bolstered by the large amount of funding from US, Saudi and Pakistani sources that they received and controlled in this period. The PAs and the maliks are no longer unchallenged as the de facto power brokers in FATA. The power is now more diffused.

Historically, the army only entered FATA at the invitation of the tribal leaders. More recently, however, the traditional tribal power structure has suffered powerful blows as the Pakistani military forcibly entered the tribal areas upon the urging of the Americans. These operations by Pakistani military have had very limited success at the cost of more than two thousand Pakistani soldiers' lives. The FATA tribesmen, familiar with the difficult terrain (rough and barren jagged hills, deep valleys, thousands of caves and mazes of tunnels) and having been well trained and equipped by the US and Pakistani special ops in the 1980s, have demonstrated their upper hand repeatedly in many encounters with Pakistani and US military along the Pakistan-Afghan border. According to various investigators and the press, most of the "militant" casualties claimed by US and Pakistani militaries have turned out to be non-combatants, often women and children, further fueling the anger and resentment of the locals.

US and Pakistani Options:

Clearly, the situation in FATA and Afghanistan must be dealt with to stop the Talibanization of the entire region with all its terrible consequences for the world. But the available options are not good. The use of raw, naked military power will not work. Turning this into a war between the US and Pakistan will only help Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Though long-term and difficult, the only viable and durable option for US and Pakistan is to try and restore the traditional role of the PAs and the maliks by strengthening their power and authority over their respective regions. This option will require a combination of lots of carrots and a few big sticks, with tremendous patience to achieve a lasting solution to one of the most difficult problems in the world. The FATA problems have developed in over two decades as unintended consequence of US-Pak-Saudi intervention in the Afghan "Jihad" of the 1980s. Quick and dirty solutions relying on powerful military force alone will quickly make the situation a lot worse than it is now.

Full-Scale US-Pakistan War:

Initially brief missions by US commandos in FATA will turn into a full-scale US invasion and war with Pakistan, leading to the US getting bogged down in a situation worse than Vietnam. Although it is a remote possibility, resort to tactical nuclear weapons by either Pakistan or the US or both sides can not be completely ruled out if the war gets very protracted and frustrating for all parties involved. Indian or Chinese intervention is also possible, even probable, if a large number of refugees start to pour out of Afghanistan and Pakistan into India and China. The law of unintended consequences will prevail, unless we learn from our past mistakes.

Plea for Sanity:

With Pakistani and US media scrutinizing every US incursion into Pakistani territory, this dangerous game can easily unleash pent-up anger on both sides. For the sake of world peace and security in South Asia, I hope and pray that sanity will prevail in Washington and Islamabad before the US goes too far with its limited, covert commando raids into FATA.

Related Links:

Origins of the Taliban

Violence, Governance and Islam in Pakistan by Jochen Hippler

Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan

McCain-Obama Debate Pakistan Policy

Radicals Target FATA Tribal Elders