US Worries About "Loose WMDs" in Pakistan

"Imagine if the (swine flu) spread were intentional, not natural, and the virus’ lethality had been artificially enhanced. Pakistan has many dangerous diseases and pathogens under its control. The Nunn-Lugar program can help secure the pathogen strains to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands. Equally important, the U.S. can assist Pakistan in establishing a system designed to detect, characterize and respond to outbreaks of infectious diseases," US Senator Richard Lugar, ranking member of the US Senate's foreign relations committee, said last week.

While Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability is well known, the country has had no publicly known chemical warfare (CW) program in the past. Pakistan has also signed and ratified the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and remains a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in good standing, according to NTI. Pakistan is self-sufficient in the production of chemicals such as sulfuric acid, caustic soda, soda ash, and chlorine. However, it relies on imports for most of the raw materials and intermediates for dyes, pigments, paints, varnishes, pesticides, plastics, and fertilizers. Although Pakistan likely has the technical capability to produce choking, blood, blister, and nerve, agents for use in chemical warfare, the Pakistani government is legally committed to refrain from developing, manufacturing, stockpiling, or using chemical weapons.

Although allegations have been leveled against Pakistan for conducting research into biological warfare since the early 1990s, Pakistan is not suspected of either producing or stockpiling biological weapons (BW). However, it is generally believed that Pakistan has a well developed bio-technology sector that is capable of supporting limited biological warfare-related research and development. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Defense stated that Pakistan "had the resources and capabilities appropriate to conducting research and development relating to biological warfare," and "was conducting research and development with potential biological warfare applications." But the U.S. government has not presented any evidence to corroborate its assertions, according to NTI.

Raising alarm about Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction and NBC weapons capability, Senator Lugar is advocating extending the 18-year-old Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to secure and eliminate nuclear materials and other potential WMD ingredients in Pakistan.

"Initially, Nunn-Lugar was restricted to the former Soviet Union. In 2003, I wrote legislation, signed into law by the president, authorizing the Nunn-Lugar program to operate outside the former Soviet Union," Lugar said in a statement. "This authority can and should be used to expand significantly our cooperation with Pakistan in the nuclear arena as well as in other critical areas."

Lugar is not alone in sounding the alarm about Pakistan. The French officials have also chimed in. "Today the Taliban are making progress not just in Afghanistan but in the Pakistani interior itself, and at the end of this road there's a stock of nuclear weapons," said Pierre Lellouche, France's special envoy to Pakistan.

Taliban militants "are nibbling away and fear is settling into people's hearts," Lellouche said. "We shouldn't think of columns of Taliban descending on the capital. It's more complicated than that. We are seeing the rampant Talibanization of areas close to the capital, a mental Talibanization".

It appears from the increasing discussions in the West that many Pakistanis' fears about attempts to denuclearize Pakistan are no longer seen as just baseless propaganda or extreme paranoia. Some of the popular conspiracy theorists believe that the US and its western allies are deliberately trying to create the nuclear "threat perceptions" as an excuse to take away Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Speculations are rampant about Pakistan's denuclearization efforts by the West. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad and one of the few open critics of Pakistan’s nuclear program in the country, told DW-World that many argue that the Americans are exaggerating the Taliban issue: “There are growing conspiracy theories here that actually the Taliban have been put up by the Americans so that the country is destabilized and, looking at the destabilization, well, then it becomes logical and necessary for the Americans to come in and seize our nuclear weapons.”

At a White House press conference earlier this month, US President Barack Obama said that he feels confident that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.

According to The Times of India, a reporter insisted on a more precise reply, asking if in the worst case scenario, the US military could secure the nuclear weapons. Obama responded, "I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands. Okay?"

During his recent US visit, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari said Islamabad is not adding to its nuclear arsenal as it does not need any more, but it would not disclose the location of its weapons to the US. Pakistan is "not adding to our stockpile as such", Zardari said on NBC's Meet the Press host. "Why do we need more?"

India's interest in disarming Pakistan is also raising concerns in Pakistan. Respected American South Asia expert Stephen Cohen of Washington's Brookings Institution has recently told his audience: "Not a few Indian generals and strategists have told me that if only America would strip Pakistan of its nuclear weapons then the Indian army could destroy the Pakistan army and the whole thing would be over."

Based on the the ongoing expression of fear in America and Europe, it seems almost certain that the US has contingency plans in place to relieve Pakistan of its nuclear weapons if Washington feels that the Islamic nation's nuclear arsenal is about to fall into the militant hands. According to Fox News, the US commando units in Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) have been training in Nevada desert to carry out President Obama's order to secure Pakistani nukes. "We have plans to secure them ourselves if things get out of hand," Fox quoted a U.S. intelligence source who has deployed to Afghanistan as saying. "That is a big secondary mission for JSOC in Afghanistan." JSOC is made up of three main elements: Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange. JSOC was instrumental in Iraq in finding and killing Abu Musab Zarqawi, the deadly and most prominent Al Qaeda leader in the Middle East.

Many Pakistanis are hearing echoes of the pre-Iraq war WMD propaganda to justify the US invasion of the Muslim Middle Eastern country in 2002. The continuing U.S. media campaign about Pakistani nukes are likely to further alarm people in Pakistan and reinforce their suspicions about the real US intentions in the region.

Here is a video about US WMD concerns in Pakistan:



Related Links:

Lugar Urges CTR Expansion to Pakistan

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

Propaganda Recycled: US Report Blames Pakistan For Future WMD Attack

Obama Confident on Pakistani Nukes?

US Plans to Secure Pakistani Nukes

India-Pakistan Military Balance

Pakistan Questions Safety of US Nukes

Are US Gentlemen Attempting to Annex Islamic Pakistan?

Indian Hostility Toward Pakistan

US Alarmed About Pakistani Nukes

Pakistan's Defense Production

Anti-American Attitudes and the Taleban Threat

By Pervez Hoodbhoy
The recent killing of eleven Pakistani soldiers at Gora Prai by American and NATO forces across the border in Afganistan unleashed an amazing storm. Prime Minister Gillani declared “We will take a stand for sovereignty, integrity and self-respect.” The military announced defiantly “We reserve the
right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression,” while Army chief, General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani, called the attack “cowardly.” The dead became “shaheeds” and large numbers of people turned up to pray at their funerals.

But had the killers been the Taliban, this would have been a non-event. The storm we saw was more about cause than consequence. Protecting the sovereignty of the state, self-respect, citizens and soldiers against aggression, and the lives of Pakistani soldiers, suddenly all acquired value because the killers were American and NATO troops.

Compare the response to Gora Prai with the near silence about the recent kidnapping and slaughter by Baitullah Mehsud’s fighters of 28 men near Tank, some of whom were shot and others had their throats cut. Even this pales before the hundred or more attacks by suicide bombers over the last year that made bloody carnage of soldiers and officers, devastated peace jirgas and public rallies, and killed hundreds praying in mosques and at funerals. These murders were largely ignored or, when noted, simply shrugged off. The very different reactions to the casualties of American and NATO violence, compared to those inflicted by the Taliban, reflect a desperate confusion about what is happening in Pakistan and how to respond.

Some newspaper and TV commentators want Pakistan to withdraw from the American-led war on Al-Qaida and the Taliban, to stop US fuel and ammunition supplies into Afghanistan, and hit hard against Afghan troops when provoked. One far-right commentator even urges turning our guns against the Americans and NATO, darkly hinting that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

There is, of course, reason for people in Pakistan and across the world to feel negatively about America. In pursuit of its self-interest, wealth and security, the United States has for decades waged illegal wars, bribed, bullied and overthrown governments, supported tyrants, undermined movements for progressive change, and now feels free to kidnap, torture, imprison, and kill anywhere in the world with impunity. All this while talking about supporting democracy and human rights.

Even Americans – or at least the fair-minded ones among them – admit that there is a genuine problem. A June 2008 report of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled “The Decline In America’s Reputation: Why?” concluded that contemporary anti-Americanism stemmed from “the perception that the proclaimed American values of democracy, human rights, tolerance, and the rule of law have been selectively ignored by successive administrations when American security or economic considerations are in play.”

Tragically for Pakistan, American hypocrisy has played into the hands of Islamic militants. They have been vigorously promoting the notion that this is a bipolar conflict of Islam, which they claim to represent, versus imperialism. Many Pakistanis, who desperately want someone to stand up to the Americans, buy into this.

This is a fatal mistake. The militants are using America as a smokescreen for their real agenda. Created by poverty, a war-culture, and the macabre manipulations of Pakistan’s intelligence services, the militants want more than just to fight an aggressor from across the oceans. Their goal is to establish their writ over that of the Pakistani state. For this, they have been attacking and killing people in Pakistan through the 1990s, well before 9/11. Remember also that the 4000-plus victims of jihad in Pakistan over the last year have been Muslims with no connection at all to America. In fact, the Taliban are waging an armed struggle to remake society. They will keep fighting this war even if America were to miraculously evaporate into space.

A Taliban victory would transport us into the darkest of dark ages. These fanatics dream of transforming the country into a religious state where they will be the law. They stone women to death, cut off limbs, kill doctors for administering polio shots, force girl-children into burqa, threaten beard-shaving barbers with death, blow up girls schools at a current average of two per week, forbid music, punish musicians, destroy 2000-year statues. Even flying kites is a life-threatening sin.

The Taliban agenda has no place for social justice and economic development. There is silence from Taliban leaders about poverty, and the need to create jobs for the unemployed, building homes, providing education, land reform, or doing away with feudalism and tribalism. They see no need for worldly things like roads, hospitals and infrastructure.

If the militants of Pakistan ever win it is clear what our future will be like. Education, bad as it is today, would at best be replaced by the mind-numbing indoctrination of the madrassas whose gift to society would be an army of suicide bombers. In a society policed by vice-and-virtue squads, music, art, drama, and cultural expressions would disappear. Pakistan would re-tribalize and resemble a cross between FATA and Saudi Arabia (minus the oil).

Pakistanis tolerate these narrow-minded, unforgiving men because they claim to fight for Islam. But the Baitullahs and Fazlullahs know nothing of the diversity, and creative richness of Muslims, whether today or in the past. Intellectual freedom led to science, architecture, medicine, arts and crafts, and literature that were the hallmark of Islamic civilization in its golden age. They grew because of an open-minded, tolerant, cosmopolitan, and multi-cultural character. Caliphs, such as Haroon-al-Rashid and Al-Mamoun, brought together scholars of diverse faiths and helped establish a flourishing culture. Today’s self-declared amir-ul-momineen, like Mullah Omar, would gladly behead great Islamic scholars like Ibn Sina and Al-Razi for heresy and burn their books.

Pakistan must find the will to fight the Taliban. The state, at both the national and provincial level must assert its responsibility to protect life and law rather than simply make deals. State functionaries, and even the khasadars, have disappeared from much of the tribal areas. Pakistan is an Islamic state falling into anarchy and chaos, being rapidly destroyed from within by those who claim to fight for Islam.

Pakistanis must not be deceived. This is no clash of civilizations. To the Americans, Pakistan is an instrument to be used for their strategic ends. It is necessary and possible to say no. But the Taliban seek to capture and bind the soul and future of Pakistan in the dark prison fashioned by their ignorance. As they now set their sights on Peshawar and beyond, they must be resisted by all possible means, including adequate military force.

Ahmad Rashid in Silicon Valley

Future of Democracy in South Asia:

The Indian Community Center in Milpitas, CA was the venue on June 11, 2008 for a panel discussion organized by Asia Society with well-known Pakistani author Ahmad Rashid, Stanford University Prof. Larry Diamond, UC Berkeley Prof. Pradeep Chibber, and Muhammad Humayon Qayoumi, President of California State University at Hayword. The discussion centered on "The Future of Democracy in South Asia" and it was moderated by Prof. Diamond. The event drew capacity crowd of over 100 attendees of many different ethnicities and origins in the US including Caucasian Americans as well as South Asians, East Asians and Central Asians.


Ahmad Rashid's presence was made possible by his ongoing book tour that brought him to Silicon Valley, California to promote his latest work "Descent into Chaos: The US and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia". Professor Diamond gave Rashid's book a big plug and stood in line with others to buy and get the book autographed by the author after the panel discussion concluded.

Introduction:

Larry Diamond moderated the panel. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and is the author or editor of more than twenty books, including Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq, and the newly released The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World.

As part of the introductions, Prof. Diamond mentioned Freedom House findings that about 2 billion people, almost a third of humanity, now live under some form of democracy. Half of this population lives in India, the world's largest democracy. He praised the work of the ICC in nurturing good relations between India as the world's largest democracy and the United States as the world's most powerful democracy. The panelists were introduced as follows:

Ahmed Rashid is a Pakistani journalist and best-selling author who has covered Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia for 25 years. He writes for The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The New York Review of Books, BBC Online, and The Nation and appears regularly on NPR, CNN, and the BBC World Service. His newest book is Descent into Chaos: The U.S. and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. Previous books include Jihad, Taliban (which has sold over 1.5 million copies), and The Resurgence of Central Asia.

Pradeep Chhibber is Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department at U.C. Berkeley. He is the author of The Formation of National Party Systems, Democracy without Associations: Transformation of Party Systems and Social Cleavages in India, and many articles. He holds an M.A. and an M.Phil. from the University of Delhi and a Ph.D. from UCLA.

Mohammad Humayon Qayoumi is president of California State University, East Bay. The author of eight books and over 85 articles, he was the senior advisor to the minister of finance of Afghanistan from 2002 to 2005 and sits on several boards of directors, including that of the Central Bank of Afghanistan. Dr. Qayoumi has a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from American University of Beirut and an M.B.A. in finance and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Cincinnati.

The Panel Discussion:

After the customary introductions, Prof. Diamond invited each of three panelists to speak on the topic for 10-15 minutes each. Mr. Qayoumi was the first speaker. He said democracy does not begin and end with free and fair elections. It must be anchored in rule of law and transparency of actions and budget/spending process to stop corruption. In most the nations considered free by Freedom House, there is no transparency in budgets and spending. He then proceeded to complain about the lack of US financial support to develop Afghanistan and described Pakistan as the "biggest exporter of terrorism". He questioned Pakistan's raison d'etre as a nation and dismissed it as just four ethnic groups with little in common except a passport and quarreling with each other and Afghanistan as just a buffer state. He blamed Pakistan for most of the problems in Afghanistan and drew applause from a section of the audience.

Mr. Qayoumi was followed by Ahmad Rashid. Mr. Rashid pointed out the two biggest early mistakes by the US in Afghanistan after 911. The first mistake was to tell Pakistan to go after Al-Qaeda exclusively and leave the Taleban alone, which allowed the Taleban to gather and regroup in Pakistan's tribal belt along the Afghan border. The second mistake was to farm out security to the Afghan warlords rather than strengthen the central government in Afghanistan.

Rashid said the resurgent Taleban have now become a major threat to both Pakistan and Afghanistan. He criticized the US policy of continuing to support President Musharraf after the crushing defeat of his loyalists and the Islamists in the recent elections. He said the Pakistani military still dominates Pakistan's foreign policy and it is also continuing to support Mr. Musharraf who is a threat to Pakistan's fragile democracy led by a secular party. He blamed the powerful military for undermining democracy in Pakistan during its 60 years of existence. He even brought up the possibility of another martial law in the near future with deteriorating political situation and the latest border incident between NATO and Pakistan that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.

Prof. Pradeep Chhibber praised India's democracy and mentioned all the surveys and opinion polls in India that reinforce broad public support for current democracy. However, the Indian democracy does face two key challenges. The first challenge is the complete absence of the government or state in large swaths of India. The second challenge is that the government often acts in inconsistent and arbitrary ways where it does exist. He went on to say that, in some parts of Chhattisgarh, the government relies on private militias to act on its behalf. He also acknowledged the existence of corruption and criminal elements among the politicians in India. He said about a third of Indian legislators have criminal records. Democracy is a process that must be allowed to continue in spite its messiness for it to eventually bear fruit.

Questions and Answers:

There was strong participation by the audience in the Q&A session that followed the speakers. This scribe addressed the following question to Ahmad Rashid, "Unlike Al-Qaeda, the Taleban do have roots among the people on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. Do you think the US and Pakistan should negotiate with some elements within the Taleban for peace, rather than rely solely on military means to defeat them?" Rashid said there should be negotiations, but only after "the Taleban sanctuaries end in Pakistan." Prof. Diamond did a follow-up by asking Rashid as to how can the sanctuaries be ended? Alas, Rashid had no answer to this question either during the Q&A or later at the book-signing in the lobby.

A couple of questioners asked whether Al-Qaeda was real and one even attempted to make fun of the Taleban as "75-year old students" of the madrassahs in Pakistan. These questions seemed to be tongue-in-cheek but those asking appeared to be quite serious.

There was a question as to why democracy has taken hold in India but not in Pakistan. Rashid suggested it was because of Pakistan's powerful military and its political and economic ambitions. Others thought it had to do with religion. The scribe offered that it may have something to do with the emasculation of the feudal lords in India through extensive land reform that never happened in Pakistan. One participant, a former president of TIE, proposed that Pakistan had to have strong military, disproportionate to its size, because of continuing hostilities with the much bigger neighbor India. The powerful military, needed for strong defense, has now become a liability in its quest for democracy. There was general agreement that democracy is a process that must be allowed to continue un-interrupted to work out its bugs and improve over time to serve the people.

South Asians in Silicon Valley:

The strong South Asian presence in Silicon Valley is helping bring focus to issues related to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the entire South and Central Asian region with the participation of US opinion makers such as Stanford Prof. Larry Diamond who is also a fellow at the Hoover Institution. The ICC is clearly playing a major role and showing a path to PACC, its Pakistani counterpart in the valley.

Pakistan Suspends Tribal Peace Talks

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has decided to suspend peace talks with tribes in north and south Waziristan. The apparent sticking point is the insistence by Pakistan, at the behest of the United States, that the tribal leaders agree to stop attacks on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal today, this move by Pakistan's new government could bolster ties between Islamabad and Washington as the Pentagon voices increasing concern that the Taliban and other al Qaeda-linked militant groups have used the peace talks, and accompanying cease-fire agreements, to intensify their military strikes inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan, consequently, will maintain its military presence in South Waziristan and continue to conduct offensive operations against militants throughout the tribal belt, unless they agree to the new terms set down by Mr. Gilani's government, according to officials familiar with the talks. This decision is likely to mean an end to the current ceasefire being observed by the militants and the military on the Pakistani side of the border. It raises the specter of the return of the suicide bombers to the streets of Pakistani cities.

The Bush administration and Mr. Gilani's government have intensified discussions over counterterrorism strategy in recent weeks. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen is in Islamabad for two days of talks with senior Pakistani military officers, including the army's chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani. Islamabad's new ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, has also met with senior Pentagon and State Department officials in recent days, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Gen. David Petraeus.

"These negotiations should remove a major impediment in U.S.-Pakistan relations," a senior Pakistani official reportedly told the Wall Street Journal.

The White House's National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday he couldn't comment on any continuing discussions between the U.S. and Pakistan on counterterrorism operations.

Mehsud to US: No Deal

"There can be no deal with the US." said Baitullah Mehsud at a press conference in South Waziristan this week as reported by the BBC.

If there's any thing that both Mehsud and the US administration agree on, it is outright rejection of any negotiations or deals with each other. Each side is determined to completely defeat and destroy the other.

Mehsud, a former US captive at Guantanamo, was released in March 2004 after the Americans determined that he would not pose a threat. But it seems that Guantanamo has turned him into a much bigger threat to Pakistan, US and the world than he might have been before he was captured in Afghanistan. Now described by some as more dangerous than Usama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar, Baitullah Mehsud keeps a much lower profile. He refuses to be photographed and keeps his face covered in public. He reaches out to his people through FM radio broadcasts. He crosses the border into Afghanistan at will to fight against the "crusaders." Baituallah Mehsud has been accused of ordering a series of suicide bombings inside Pakistan recently. Pakistani, US and British intelligence agencies also believe he orchestrated Benazir Bhutto's murder last year.

Here is how the BBC correspondent Syed Shoaib Hasan described his encounter with Mehsud this week: In our garden meeting, "Amir Sahib" (honored leader) - as Baitullah Mehsud is affectionately called by his men - smiles and shakes his head when this query is raised. Around us, dozens of militants armed to the teeth listen intently to their leader. The query: "Will your recent deal with Pakistan last?" The answer: "We do not want to fight Pakistan or the army. But if they continue to be slaves to US demands, then we our hands will be forced."

This answer makes it clear that this new deal and the latest ceasefire between the Taleban and Pakistan will be as fragile as the previous ones. Americans and NATO are players in this unfolding drama. They have to be part of any lasting deal. Just as the Taleban must be an essential part of any lasting deal. As long as they are unwilling, the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal belt will continue and will likely spill over into the rest of the region.

Gen Petraeus Says Pakistan Most Dangerous

At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings today, General David H. Petraeus, the newly-nominated head of the US Central Command, answered in the affirmative to a question by Sen Jack Reed if he agreed with the intelligence community and Chairman Mullen's assessment that the next terrorist attack on the United States would most likely come from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

With this answer, there seems to be consensus emerging in the United States that Pakistan's tribal areas represent the greatest terrorist threat for America. The US intelligence Community, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and future CENTCOM commander all agree that Pakistan is the greatest danger. There is also a seeming shift on diplomacy with Iran with General Petraeus agreeing with Defense Secretary Gates that the US needs a comprehensive approach to Iran that includes real diplomacy and engages on all issues. The US presidential candidate Barack Obama is already on record with his diplomatic outreach to Iran while at the same time calling for stiffer action along Pakistan-Afghan border.

As the Pakistani leadership currently focuses on restoration of judges, peace deals with the Taleban in tribal areas, and calls for UN inquiry into Bhutto assassination, this new consensus in the US has the potential to blind-side the newly elected government with sudden escalation along the border with Afghanistan. It is time for the new Pakistani leaders to start to pay attention to Pakistan's vital relations with the West and prevent any precipitous action by US and NATO along the Pak-Afghan border.

There is, however, some hope that a precipitous and purely military action along the western border can be avoided. The new CENTCOM commander General Petraeus believes in the use of diplomacy along with the military. “In most of the issues we'll address, a purely military approach is unlikely to succeed,” he noted, “and our strategy must recognize that.”

He said he’d seek to deal with the underlying causes of challenges in the region.

Sharia in Swat: Is This Appeasement?

Under a peace deal signed by the NWFP provincial government, the authorities say they will withdraw security forces and allow the pro-Taliban militants to impose Sharia law in Swat in return for promises to close training camps and end attacks. This is particularly astonishing as it involves secular nationalists of the Awami National Party that trounced the right wing JUI party in the last elections.

This announcement by Senior Minister of NWFP Bashir Ahmad Bilour followed a ceasefire announced by Taleban leader Baitullah Mehsud last month. There were also reports of a 15-point draft deal that called for an end to militant activity and an exchange of prisoners in return for the gradual withdrawal of the Pakistani military from part of the tribal region of South Waziristan.

The latest deal has been agreed in spite of the United States and NATO warnings to Pakistan against negotiating an agreement with militants along its border with Afghanistan.

The Bush administration has said such a deal would give the militants a free hand in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have long operated outside the central government's full control.

A previous deal reached with the militants by President Pervez Musharraf in 2006 was abandoned after accusations of violations by both sides and the US missile strikes on alleged militant targets inside Pakistan. The new deal is broader in the sense that it accepts the implementation of Shariah Law acceptable to the pro-Taleban elements in Malakand and Sawat.

Al Qaeda members as well as Taliban militants are believed to have taken refuge in North and South Waziristan, part of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, after US-led forces ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001.

This deal is likely to bring some peace and stability in the short term, if it is not immediately undermined by the US and NATO by missile strikes on targets inside Pakistan's tribal region along the Afghan border. However, it is likely to be seen as appeasement by many within and outside Pakistan who see this latest deal as the beginning of a slippery slope toward a full-fledged Taleban-style rule in the entire country. Such a scenario would put Pakistan in direct conflict with the West that could be very damaging to the interests of Pakistanis at large. It could mark the beginning of a brief period of peace followed by endless conflict involving US, NATO, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other regional players.

It is possible to avoid endless conflict and its devastating consequences for the entire South Asian and Central Asian regions and the world. However, this would require a broader strategy with political participation of the US, EU and the regional players. Pakistan can play a crucial role here by persuading its friends in the US and EU to go beyond the rhetoric of simply denouncing the Taliban as evil, refusing to engage with them politically and vowing to destroy them by military action alone. Unlike Al-Qaeda, the Taliban do have roots among the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal population. Such refusal adds to the "mystique of resistance and struggle" of the Taleban, in the words of Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria. Without dealing with the Taleban as a political entity, it is not possible to have a political strategy to fight and dilute the appeal of the Taliban or to marginalize the extreme elements within its fold.

The Afghan War: Is it Dangerously Escalating?

With America's Iraq front relatively quiet, the world's attention is beginning to turn to the forgotten war in Afghanistan grabbing the spotlight. Some of the recent headlines proclaim as follows:

Monday, March 17, 2008
A suicide bomber in southern Afghanistan killed seven people, including three civilians and three NATO soldiers, as the Afghan military and the ...
Source: Bloomberg

Monday, March 17, 2008
Despite New Highways, Afghans Drive at Own Risk.
Afghan drivers say the road, and other highways like it, are more like the Wild West.
Source: NPR

Monday, March 17, 2008
Missile Strikes Kill 20 In Pakistan;
Parliament Convenes amid Tensions with Musharraf;
110 Arrested in Connection with Bombing of FBI Agents
Source: Informed Comment

Monday, March 17, 2008
Air strike kills 9 militants following bombing in Pakistan, U.S. says
Source: Reuters

Sunday, March 16, 2008
Missiles from an unmanned drone flattened a suspected militant safehouse Sunday in Pakistan's tribal area along the Afghan border, killing 20.
Source: Associated Press

Thursday, March 13, 2008
Taleban Calling the Shots: In a country that is nearly wholly reliant on wireless communications (for lack of any land-line infrastructure), the main mobile networks (all privately run) have begun switching off service at night after attacks on 10 cell towers, the latest on Tuesday night. Score this round for the Taliban.
Source: Foreign Policy Passport

May 13, 2007
Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from the heavy U.S. and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance.
Source: International Herald Tribune

Most observers, including this scribe, see these headlines as a sign of dangerous escalation of the war in Afghanistan with growing likelihood of expanding into Pakistan and affecting the entire region. Not only are the Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan, they are boldly attacking with impunity inside Pakistan under the new energetic leadership of Baitullah Mehsud.

There are parallels here between the Afghan war and the war in Indochina which began in Vietnam but grew to engulf the entire region including Cambodia and Laos. In Indochina, the US became frustrated with the lack of progress against the Viet Cong and blamed the existence of Viet Cong sanctuaries in the neighboring countries. This was followed by the US invasion of both Laos and Cambodia, resulting in more than a million deaths in carpet bombing. A similar situation is developing here, if you substitute the Viet Cong by the Taleban. The growing US frustration against the Taleban is creating a dangerous situation with the US mounting more and more cross-border attacks into the tribal region of Pakistan.

In spite of their differences with the Bush policies in Iraq, the leading US presidential candidates seem to be in agreement with attacks on insurgent targets in Pakistan, paving the way for a possible "Gulf of Tonkin" type resolution in the US Congress. This situation makes it very likely that the war in Afghanistan will become a regional war outlasting several US administrations, just like the Indochina war did in the 1960s and the early 1970s. With the presence of three nuclear powers in this region, this time the regional war could be catastrophic for the entire region and the world. In such a situation, the US may not be able to pull out like it did in Vietnam. The US policy makers would be well advised to tread with care as they contemplate their policies and actions to deal with the Afghan insurgency.

Insights into a Suicide Bombing in Pakistan

While Pakistani authorities have had little success in catching perpetrators in most of the bombings, there have been several arrests in a November suicide attack on a Pakistan Air Force bus near an air base in Sargodha, 120 miles west of Lahore.

According to Associated Press, the probe by police and intelligence agencies into the attack provides insight into how the NWFP-based militant groups function and shows they are attracting recruits in other regions and ethnic groups.

Interrogation of a key suspect, a 19-year-old former madrassah student, Omer Farooq, who is accused of helping prepare the motorcycle-borne bomb used in the attack that killed at least eight people, revealed how he shuttled between his home village near Sargodha and South Waziristan during the planning.

A police report on his questioning obtained by the AP says Mr. Farooq learned as a youth how to handle guns and explosives at training camps in Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim region split between Pakistan and India. Islamic separatists have pursued a bloody insurgency in Indian held portion for years.

According to the report, Mr. Farooq said he took orders for the November attack from another Sargodha-based militant, Mohammed Tayyab, who provided the money to buy potash, an explosive material often used in Pakistan for making firecrackers.

Mr. Farooq said he and another militant recruit he refers to only as Bilal bought the potash at a market in Lahore. They transported it by public bus to Mr. Farooq's home, where he packed it into milk containers attached to a motorbike, with the help of the bomber, Mohammed Abid, whom he said came from Waziristan to stage the attack.

Mr. Farooq, who has not faced trial and does not yet have a lawyer, told of Mr. Tayyab warning them that the plan to attack a military vehicle was "an order of the high command," the report says.

"He added this is jihad and this is what we must do to secure the blessing of God. He threatened us, whoever tries to ditch the operation, his head will be cut off," the report quotes Mr. Farooq as saying.

Aftab Khan Sherpao, who was the top civilian security official in the outgoing national government, said that despite dozens of arrests of major terrorists in the six years since Pakistan abandoned its support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the suicide bombing network is spreading.

"The fact is that they are moving from tribal areas to the cities. They have carried out attacks in Rawalpindi, Sargodha and Lahore," Mr. Sherpao told the AP. "They are present in all of our major cities."

Authorities have blamed Taliban militant leaders like Baitullah Mehsud for the wave of attacks, including the Dec. 27 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mehsud operates from the lawless South Waziristan region, where al Qaeda leaders are also believed to hide.

Recruits for suicide bombings, which became a favored militant tactic in Afghanistan two years ago before spreading to Pakistan, often go for training in Waziristan before staging attacks, officials say.

But reaching into Pakistan's main province of Punjab, the country's business and farm hub where people have different ethnicity and language to the Pashtun tribesmen in the northwest, requires local help.

"You need to have the support of local facilitators to carry out such attacks, and no suicide bomber can operate without such support," Mr. Sherpao said.

Source: Associated Press

Radicals Target Pakistan Peace Jirgas

Fundamental Change in Tribal Order
The latest of a series of suicide bombings in Pakistan's north west frontier tribal belt targeted a meeting of the elders in Dara Adam Khel town. There were reports of 40 dead and scores injured. Traditionally, tribal leaders were held in high respect and their decisions were generally accepted by the tribal population in all matters. This attack further reinforces the belief that there is a fundamental shift taking place in the social and political order that existed for centuries.

The Origins of Change
During and after the Afghan war against the former Soviet Union in the 1980s, a large number new radical madrassahs have proliferated in Pakistan's tribal areas. Because of the power of these madrassahs, there seems to be a new dynamic affecting the traditional role and influence of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) elders. The radical young graduates of these madrassahs are not willing to accept the traditional role of the elders and their decisions in all matters. In addition to the latest attack in Dara Adam Khel, there have been many instances of tensions reported between the local tribal elders and the Taleban on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border.In December 2007, AP reported that suspected Islamic militants fatally shot eight tribal leaders involved in efforts to broker a cease-fire between security forces and insurgents in Pakistan's volatile northwest. Last year, there were also several reports of clashes between the tribal elders and the Al-Qaeda/Taleban operatives.

Will Democracy in Pakistan Cure Terrorism?
There have often been theories and claims made that democracy and talks with the tribals will bring peace in Pakistan. The facts seem to contradict such theories. Not only has there been progress in Pakistan toward democracy but the Musharraf administration has made serious efforts to engage with the tribal elders repeatedly to make deals that included withdrawing the Pakistani military from their areas. The results of such efforts have been an intensification of attacks in the tribal areas like Dara Adam Khel as well as the settled areas of Pakistan such as Swat valley.
The data from India and China also debunks the assumption that democracy is the answer to terrorism. According to one study conducted between 1976 and 2004 as quoted in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria, there were over 400 terrorist incidents in democratic India and only 18 in authoritarian China. This could be because the terrorists find it easier to plot and carry out such attacks in open societies. In the last five years, Pakistan has been a semi-open society, something between authoritarian China and democratic India. Making it more democratic would not fundamentally alter the situation emanating from the north west frontier region. If anything, it could make it worse if the newly elected civilian coalition government completely abandons the use of force in favor of negotiations.

The Taleban & Al-Qaeda
The Taleban and Al-Qaeda have both become part of the tribal society in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are a second power center after the tribal elders. And, I believe, there is an ongoing power struggle between the two. It is this power struggle that is largely responsible for the scuttling of several peace agreements that the Musharraf government made with the tribal elders in Waziristan region. It is this situation that makes it difficult for Pakistan to do what the US has done in Al-Anbar province in Iraq with the support of the tribal sheikhs there.

Ideas for Solution
The real solution has to be political and diplomatic in the long term. It's absolutely essential that the fundamental issues of poverty that attract people to the madrassahs are addressed. This will require massive spending on modern education, job creation, food, housing etc. The US and Saudi Arabia are quite capable of such spending, as they have demonstrated by their support during the Afghan resistance against the Soviets. Both abandoned the tribal belt after the defeat of the Soviet Union and left it to the Taleban and Al-Qaeda. In the meanwhile, both the Pakistani and the US governments must do everything possible to re-establish the role and influence of the tribal elders who want to make peace. At the same time, the war against the radicals challenging the authority of the elders must be conducted with sensitivity to avoid mass casualties of the ordinary folks in FATA. Indiscriminate bombing will not win any hearts and minds. It will only stoke the fires of revenge for a long time to come.

Who Is In Charge: Mehsud or Mullah Omar?

Americans have now been saying for several months that the Taleban and Al-Qaeda have shifted their focus of attacks from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan. "Al-Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistan people," US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Washington Post on Dec 21, 2007. Most of the recent activities including a big surge in suicide bombings in Pakistan seem to confirm this belief. It appears that Baitullah Mehsud has been the main commander leading the charge against Pakistani military and political leadership, while Mullah Omar has not been heard from. This is likely to change, if today's report in Asia Times On Line turns out to be accurate. ATOL is reporting that Mullah Omar has fired Baitullah Mehsud and decided to turn his attention for a major spring offensive against the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. Mehsud was expected to provide valuable support to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but instead he directed all his fighters against Pakistani security forces. This has apparently angered Mullah Omar who may personally take charge of the Taleban in Pakistan, in addition to his leadership of the Taleban in Afghanistan. This may also be an indication of split between Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan. As recently as Sept, 2007, Usama bin Laden called for a rebellion in Pakistan. The storming of the Red Mosque in Islamabad in July "demonstrated Musharraf's insistence on continuing his loyalty, submissiveness and aid to America against the Muslims ... and makes armed rebellion against him and removing him obligatory," bin Laden said in an audio tape.
While this change of targets from Pakistan to Afghanistan would help relieve pressure in Pakistan in the near future, the Americans and NATO are likely to continue to press President Musharraf to not let up on the Taleban forces to minimize the impact of their planned offensive in Afghanistan.

CIA Believes Mehsud Network Killed Benazir Bhutto

CIA Director Michael Hayden told the Washington Post that the former Pakistani prime minister was killed by fighters allied to Baitullah Mehsud. Mr Hayden did not reveal the sources for his claim. Apparently, CIA has come out with this conclusion based on their own independent intelligence sources and due diligence. With this CIA claim, there is now agreement between the Pakistani intelligence and the US intelligence on the identity of the people behind Benzair's assassination.
In fact, the CIA chief Hayden, goes further and believes it is part of a larger plan by combined Taleban-Al-Qaida forces to target Pakistani political leadership to destabilize Pakistan and take advantage of the ensuing chaos.
While there will continue to be alternative theories and claims of motives and conspiracies implicating Musharraf and PML(Q), there are reasons to believe that Taleban-Al-Qaida axis would want to eliminate Benazir from the scene. When Benazir returned to Pakistan earlier, it was widely believed that her return was sponsored by the United States. Her statements later confirmed that she would fully cooperate with the US in all matters including "war on terror", access to A.Q. Khan, allowing US troops to enter the Pakistani territory to fight the Taleban and Al-Qaida etc. These promises of collaboration with US went far beyond anything Musharraf was willing to do for the US. It was a no-brainer for Mehsud and his allies to see Benazir as a threat.