HEC University Rankings in Pakistan

Summary:
Higher Education Commission in Pakistan released its first and only ranking of universities in Pakistan in October 2006. Prior to this HEC effort, there had been no formal attempts by any public or private group to establish a set of criteria and judge Pakistani institutions of higher learning. While this is a laudable first step in the right direction, it is clearly not the be all and end all of the universities' ranking process in Pakistan. It can be significantly improved. As expected, there is a genuine controversy swirling in Pakistan on the HEC ranking methodology and the results. This ongoing controversy may be the reason why the HEC skipped the annual rankings in 2007. The main criticism of the HEC assessment criteria is the emphasis of quantity over quality that unduly favors and rewards institutions with large graduate programs. Another key criticism is the lack of peer and employer assessments of the universities and their alumni.

NEDUET, being predominantly an undergraduate institution, is among the universities that have shown up near the bottom with a meager score of 18.65 out of 100. Since such rankings have only been done once, it is hard to say if the standards of any of the institutions on the list, including NED Engineering University, have risen or declined. You need at least two years of data to draw such conclusions based on the criteria used by the HEC.

NED Alumni Convention 2008:

A panel discussion about "Declining Academic Standards at NEDUET", planned for the upcoming NED Alumni Convention 2008 in the US state of Connecticut, apparently accepts NED University's ranking and assessment of HEC on its face value. As an NEDian myself, I am not advocating denial or defensiveness in response to the low rank of NED by HEC. Instead, I firmly believe that there is a need for further exploration of this subject before reaching any definitive conclusions about "declining standards" or making any recommendations.

Why Rank Universities?

Some readers might ask why should the universities be ranked? I am not certain as to the HEC rationale for it, but I can see several reasons why it is a useful exercise. First, it helps the students and their parents select the institution they should attend based on a set of criteria. Second, if the criteria are clearly laid out and objectively measured, it helps the universities identify areas of improvement to become better at educating students and conducting research. Third, it can be used by the industry and the employers to target specific students, programs and projects for hiring and research.

Ranking Criteria:

One-size-fits-all ranking criteria that lump together graduate and undergraduate programs in a variety of unrelated disciplines are not particularly helpful to any of the potential users including students, parents, employers, researchers etc.

As an example, the ranking criteria used by US News and World Report, the most widely used rankings in the United States, separate out undergraduate programs from graduate programs. The USNWR graduate program criteria have heavy emphasis on research and publications while the undergraduate program criteria do not. Other key criteria used by USNWR include peer assessment and employers' and recruiters' feedback on the universities and their alumni.

USNWR Undergraduate Criteria:

1. Peer Assessment 25% weight
2. Student Retention Rate 20%
3. Faculty Resources: 20%
4. Admission Acceptance Selectivity: 15%
5. Financial Resources: 10%
6. Graduation Rate: 5%
7. Alumni Giving: 5%

USNWR Graduate Program Criteria:

1. Peer Assessment (25%)
2. Recruiter Assessment (15%)
3. Mean GRE Score (6.75%)
4. Acceptance Rate (3.25%)
5. Student-Faculty Ratio (7.5%)
6. Faculty with National Academy of Engineering Membership (7.5%)
7. Doctoral Degrees Awarded (6.25%)
8. Research Activity (25%)

HEC's Ranking Criteria for NEDUET Assessment:

Faculty 4.44/27 ( NED at 2.28/9 on ratio of Ph.D.s on faculty, 0.04/4 on research grants)

Research 2.79/26 ( NED got 0.17/4 on research published, 0.10/3 on research papers/faculty)

Students 5.52/17 ( NED received 0/4.0 on number of Ph.D.s produced, 0.44/5.0 on Student admission selectivity, 1.12/3 on M.Phil/16+ yrs ed)

Facilities 4.4/15 ( NED got 0.88/4 on number of books, 0.30/2 on equipment costing over $2m)

Finances 1.5/15 ( NED scored 0/4 on non-recurring expenditure/student, 0.05/2 amount of money generated through own resources)

Total Score: 18.65/100 NED Rank: 10/13 engineering universities

Pakistani Universities' Standing in the World:

Some India watchers such as Fareed Zakaria, an Indian-American who often acts as a cheerleader for India in the US, have expressed doubts about the quality of education at the Indian Institutes of Technology. In his book "The Post-American World", Zakaria argues that "many of the IITs are decidedly second-rate, with mediocre equipment, indifferent teachers, and unimaginative classwork." Zakaria says the key strength of the IIT graduates is the fact that they must pass "one of the world's most ruthlessly competitive entrance exams. Three hundred thousand people take it, five thousand are admitted--an acceptance rate of 1.7% (compared with 9 to 10 percent for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton)."

As a student of Karachi's NED University of Engineering and Technology in 1970s, I had similar assessment of my alma mater (and other UETs) in Pakistan as Zakaria's characterization of the IITs in India. NED Engineering College in 1970s was "decidedly second-rate, with mediocre equipment, indifferent teachers, and unimaginative classwork". However, given the fairly strict merit-based admission process, I found myself mostly surrounded by some of the best, most competitive students who had graduated with flying colors from Karachi's intermediate colleges and ranked very high on the Board of Education examination to make it into NED College. It was indeed the creme de la creme of Karachi's youth who have later proved themselves by many accomplishment s in various industries, including some of the leading-edge high-tech companies in America. Even in the 1970s, there were a small number of students admitted on non-merit-based special quotas. NED University today, however, appears to have significantly expanded such special, non-merit-based, quotas for entrance into the institution, an action that has probably affected its elite status, its rankings and the perceived quality of its graduates, while other, newer institutions of higher learning have surpassed it. Some of the special categories now include sons and daughters of employees, children of faculty and professional engineers and architects, special nominees from various ministries and an expanded quota for candidates from rural areas and the military.

Looking at the top 500 universities in the world, one can see a few universities from China, Japan, Singapore and India and a few more from Muslim nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. The notable institutions from South Asia include several campuses of the Indian Institutes of Technology and Pakistan's National University of Science and Technology (NUST), University of Lahore, Karachi University and Lahore's University of Engineering and Technology. The top Pakistani school on this list is National University of Science and Technology (NUST) at #376, followed by University of Lahore, University of Karachi, and UET Lahore. Many new universities are now being built in several Muslim nations in Asia and the Middle East, and they are attracting top talent from around the world. For example, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), scheduled to open on Sept. 23, is the country's attempt to create a world-class research university from scratch. It's hiring top scholars from all over the world. "Our goal is to kick-start an innovation-based economy," says Ahmad O. Al-Khowaiter, the university's vice-president for economic development. "We need a couple of success stories, and we think this will lead to one (collaboration with IBM Research)."

Conclusion:


With the score of 18.65/100, NED University, the oldest institution of higher learning with many successful alumni and an illustrious history, is ranked at number 10 out of 13 engineering universities in Pakistan. NED University has been assessed by HEC on criteria that favor universities with strong graduate programs that award a large number of Ph.D. and M.S. degrees. It ignores recruiter (employer) assessment that speak to the quality of NED University alumni. It also discounts the accomplishments of NEDians diaspora that attest to the quality of education they received at NEDUET. Clearly, the NEDUET's low ranking is based on its lack of a strong graduate program. Under the current HEC criteria, more Ph.D. faculty and students enrolled means higher ranking. More research papers means bigger score. In fact, it would not be inaccurate to say that HEC is using the number of PhDs at various institutions as a proxy for the state of higher education in Pakistan.

It may be useful to encourage more and bigger graduate programs enrolling and producing more PhDs. But there is a danger in playing the numbers game. The quantity must not be allowed to degrade quality. Encouraging production of more Ph.D.s and research papers by HEC and its financial incentives have come under heavy criticism by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy and many others (See related links below). It has led to lowered standards for Ph.D.s and instances of plagiarized papers at Punjab University ranked number 2 among general universities, just below the top-ranked Quaid-e-Azam University with a large number of Ph.D. faculty members and students. According to Professor Hoodbhoy, there are as many as 18 PhD students registered with one supervisor in QAU's Physics department! In the QAU biology department, that number rises to 37 for one supervisor. HEC incentives have helped dilute PhD qualifying exams to the point where it is difficult for any student not to pass. HEC is reportedly paying as much as Rs. 5000 per month per Ph.D. student to supervisors as incentive to produce more Ph.D.s in Pakistan. HEC grants to universities are also based on the number of Ph.D. students enrolled.

The Way Forward:

HEC has made a good start by attempting to formalize a process by which academic institutions can be judged and ranked. But the HEC must not stop at rev 0. It must continue fine-tuning the ranking criteria and the process to provide better and more useful feedback to the institutions. HEC must initiate and manage the effort to make Pakistan's institutions of higher learning more competitive internationally, and help the students become better prepared to make greater contribution to society by responding to major national challenges such as the energy and food crises, poor governance, bad urban planning, climate change, etc. Just producing more PhDs will not be particularly helpful to a nation beset by multiple crises. I think it's important for the HEC to establish separate criteria for undergraduate and graduate engineering programs to be fair to all colleges and universities including NED University of Engineering and Technology. There should be two separate rankings published for undergraduate and graduate engineering programs. These should be completely separate from non-engineering universities. At the same time NEDUET should work to beef up its graduate program with more resources in terms of faculty, facilities, student enrollment and research and publications aimed at overcoming the major national challenges of the day. NEDUET leadership needs the vision to pick one or two major national challenges and respond to them by developing the expertise and excellence required to succeed. The NED alumni can, and should, help in this endeavor with a lobbying effort to improve NEDUET leadership and governance, an alumni-managed endowment fund and alumni-sponsored industry alliances around the world.

Related Links:

Higher Education in Pakistan

World's Top 600 Universities' Ranking

NED Alumni Convention 2007

Pakistani Universities: Problems and Solutions

Reforming Pakistani Universities

Plagiarism at Punjab University

HEC Scholars

More Speed Than Traction

Global University Rankings Video

HEC Postpones Ranking Universities

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

A Chinese View of Crisis in Pakistan

As the world's news media, commentators, pundits and bloggers obsess with the US presidential election's impact on Afghanistan and Pakistan and anticipated South Asia policy changes in Washington, it seems that the view from China, Pakistan's most reliable ally, has not gotten much attention. Being a neighbor and an emerging superpower, China is at least as important to Pakistan as the United States, if not more so. Currently, China is the biggest buyer of the US treasury bonds that fund the massive US budget deficits. China holds about $520b of US government bonds amounting to about 20% of the total US foreign debt. Without China's willingness to buy and hold US debt, it will be extremely difficult to bail out the ailing US economy.

Not only is China a major arms supplier to Pakistani military, but it also provides substantial economic aid as well. Unlike the United States, China has been consistent in its support of Pakistan for several decades under various governments. It should be noted that former President Musharraf's approval ratings in China remained high in spite of Pakistanis' rejection of him in the recent elections.

Here's a piece by Rao Bo of China View that discusses Pakistan's current situation:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Pakistan seems to be poised for a showdown with the militants as President Asif Ali Zardari has reiterated his resolve to eliminate terrorists.

Pakistan’s security forces have been pounding militants’ hideouts, triggering a backfire from militants. But a new wave of the old threat of terrorism has gripped the country and suggested that Pakistan is far from ready for a showdown with militants.

A suicide bomber rammed an explosive car into the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorist Squad of police in Islamabad amid unprecedented security measures taken by the administration for the ongoing joint session of parliament.

The two houses of the parliament started a joint in-camera session in a bid to review the current law and order situation and evolve a national consensus on its strategy to fight terrorism on Wednesday.

However, local media reports suggested that all opposition groups in the parliament have expressed dissatisfaction with the briefing on security situation and the quality of answers to their questions. The session was suspended and is expected to resume next Monday, with a consensus nowhere in sight.

Security has been put on the highest alert in the capital Islamabad recently, which has nearly become a deserted city with little traffic on roads.

The security measures are justified by the surge of terrorist attacks. At least 11 bombing attacks have taken place across the country since Zardari was sworn in as president on Sept. 9, leaving more than 100 people dead.

Despite condolences and condemnation, Zardari appeared to have ignored the consequences of the attacks.

The anti-America sentiment prevails among the people of Pakistan and Zardari is well aware of it. Talking to a U.S. media recently, Zardari said that it was difficult to become a friend of the Untied States.

Standing by the United States on the issue of war on terror, the Pakistan People’s Party-led government will have to shoulder responsibility for the worsening security situation, which will inevitably undermine people’s confidence and trust on the party.

In addition, it is undeniable that the poor law and order situation in the country has shattered investors’ confidence, exacerbating its economic crisis characterized by widening trade deficit, shrinking foreign reserve and depreciating Pakistani currency.

Zardari has rejected compromise with militants and vowed to eradicate terrorism, without giving details about his strategy.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has clarified on many occasions that it is the last choice to use force in fighting terrorism. However, Pakistan is left with no other choices as its ally frequently conducts cross-border attacks in its tribal region.

Pakistan’s security forces launched a major offensive in Swat valley, a stronghold of pro-Taliban militants last October. The military claimed at the end of 2007 that it had controlled the area that was cleared of militants.

Nonetheless, attacks still occur in Swat frequently, a sign that the militants are still there.

The Pakistani government has made it clear that it has been combating terrorists on its own interest and the terrorist attacks will not deter its resolve to eradicate terrorism. But the question is: Can it afford the showdown?

This report was edited by Wang Yan

Related Links:

US-China Engagement in Pakistan

China-Pakistan Military Ties

India's Deep Love for Bush

US-India Nuclear Deal

China Support for Pakistan's Sovereignty

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

Is US Headed Toward Dangerous Regional War?

Heeding the lessons of another war
By Maleeha Lodhi and Anatol Lieven
Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Forty years ago, the United States began to mount raids into Cambodia and to undermine the government of King Sihanouk in order to cut Vietcong supply lines.

As a result, America's war with Vietnamese Communism spread into Cambodia, leading to the triumph of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. But these horrors occurred after the U.S. itself had quit Vietnam and after the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam had collapsed. Washington's widening of the war benefited neither America nor its local allies.

The U.S. is now making the same mistake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If continued, ground incursions by U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the Taliban and Al Qaeda risk drastically undermining the Pakistani state, society and army.

Many Pakistanis are berating their new civilian government and the military for being too supine in their response to the American actions. There have also been public calls for NATO supply lines through Pakistan to be cut, which could cripple the Western military effort in Afghanistan. The latest dreadful terrorist attack in Islamabad illustrates the danger of a wider conflagration and the price Pakistan is paying for its role as a U.S. ally.

The dangers involved in Pakistan are greater even than in Cambodia, where the disasters were contained in one country. The current war has already been driven into the Pakistani heartland. If turmoil increases in Pakistan then the forces of extremism will be strengthened, in the region and the world. Thus the long term implications of "losing" Afghanistan pale into insignificance when set against the risk of "losing" Pakistan.

Nor would undermining Pakistan, whether intentionally or not, in any way help the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan. Pakistan has six times Afghanistan's population and is a nuclear state. The Pashtun population of Pakistan is greater than that of Afghanistan, and provides a large number of Pakistani soldiers. Far from saving Afghanistan, present U.S. strategy toward Pakistan will only risk sinking Afghanistan itself in a whirlpool of regional anarchy.

Instead of this approach, the U.S. and NATO should adopt a radically new strategy for Afghanistan that relies more on soft power. The approach should be based on the recognition that Afghanistan cannot be transformed along Western lines and that the U.S. cannot maintain an open-ended presence in that country without destabilizing the entire region.

Afghanistan must sooner or later be left to the Afghans themselves to run. Local actors should take the lead in carrying out counter-insurgency, as Western forces and an overwhelming reliance on military force are liable only to multiply enemies.

The terrible effects of bombardment on the civilian population have become a potent factor behind the will of many Afghans to resist what they see as an alien military occupation.

The next U.S. administration therefore should announce a return to America's original objective, that of hunting international terrorist networks and preventing them from creating safe havens in Afghanistan. This should in fact be America's only core objective. The attempt of the West to "transform" Afghanistan is already meeting the same fate as the Soviet attempt to do so. It is strengthening the insurgency, by creating the impression of a threat to the Islamic way of life and local tradition.

Instead of continuing with what is in effect a purely Western approach, Washington should initiate serious regional talks on Afghanistan's future.

The United States and the West need to remember that however long their forces stay in Afghanistan, sooner or later they will leave, while Afghanistan's neighbors will always remain. Tragically, their policies have in the past generally been directed against each other, with disastrous results for the people of Afghanistan.

The United States should instead seek to shape a regional concert that will stand some chance of at least containing Afghanistan's problems in the long term. None of this will be easy; but a continuation of present U.S. strategy promises only widening turmoil in the region, or at best war without end.

Source: International Herald Tribune

Maleeha Lodhi is a fellow at Harvard and former Pakistani ambassador to Washington and London. Anatol Lieven is a professor at King's College London and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation.

Related Links:

FATA Face Off Fears

The Battle of Bajaur

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate?

McCain, Obama Clash on Pakistan, US Economy, Energy Policy

In a town hall setting, US presidential hopefuls took questions from an audience of over 100 uncommitted likely voters selected by Gallup organization. In particular, the two candidates clashed over Pakistan, US economy and energy.

Pakistan:

On Pakistan, the two candidates repeated their well-known positions articulated in the first debate and their policy speeches. As usual, Senator McCain advocated working with Pakistanis to win their support while Senator Obama insisted that the US must go after Al Qaeda and Taliban inside Pakistan. Senator McCain chided Sen Obama for talking loudly about going into Pakistan which will likely lessen support in Pakistan to go after the terrorists. He reminded Obama and the audience of President Theodore Rossevelt's motto to "talk softly but carry a big stick". Here's an excerpt of the transcript:

Katie Hamm( Audience Member): Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Obama: Katie, it's a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, Katie , thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly -- talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with -- the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy -- very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation -- but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and -- and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

Obama: Tom, just a...

Brokaw: Sen. McCain...

Obama: ... just a quick follow-up on this. I think...

McCain: If we're going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

Brokaw: No, I know. So but I think we get at it...

McCain: It'd be fine with me. It'd be fine with me.

Brokaw: ... if I can, with this question.

Obama: Then let's have one.

Brokaw: All right, let's have a follow-up.

McCain: It'd be fine with me.

Obama: Just -- just -- just a quick follow-up, because I think -- I think this is important.

Brokaw: I'm just the hired help here, so, I mean...

Obama: You're doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible.

McCain: Thank you very much.

Obama: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."

This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.

McCain: And, Tom, if -- if we're going to go back and forth, I then -- I'd like to have equal time to go -- to respond to...

Brokaw: Yes, you get the...

McCain: ... to -- to -- to...

Brokaw: ... last word here, and then we have to move on.

McCain: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn't think so.

I understand what it's like to send young American's in harm's way. I say -- I was joking with a veteran -- I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him.

I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I'm going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.

And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.

Brokaw: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan.

The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.

If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

Obama: I'll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we're going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. [David] McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan -- Taliban offenses.

We're also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, "You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that's necessary."

I don't think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it's just not responsive right now.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, briefly.

McCain: Gen. Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.

And I've had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Sen. Obama is correct on.

We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.

But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Sen. Obama said wouldn't work, couldn't work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.

He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that's the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.

And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that's happening in Iraq today.

So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.

Financial Crisis

On the current financial crisis, Senator Obama blamed the wave of deregulation during the Bush years under Republicans for the current crisis. He accused Sen McCain of supporting the deregulation that precipitated the current crisis. In response, Sen McCain accused the lack of oversight by the Democratic Congress and Democrats' long-standing support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in helping promote easy home loans to those who could not afford them. Here's the transcript on this part of the debate:

Clark: Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.

McCain: Well, thank you, Oliver, and that's an excellent question, because as you just described it, bailout, when I believe that it's rescue, because -- because of the greed and excess in Washington and Wall Street, Main Street was paying a very heavy price, and we know that.

I left my campaign and suspended it to go back to Washington to make sure that there were additional protections for the taxpayer in the form of good oversight, in the form of taxpayers being the first to be paid back when our economy recovers -- and it will recover -- and a number of other measures.

But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis.

But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.

And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some -- and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.

Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Sen. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history -- in history.

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

But Fannie and Freddie were the catalysts, the match that started this forest fire. There were some of us -- there were some of us that stood up against it. There were others who took a hike.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans.

If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country.

So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Now, I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history, not surprisingly. Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system.

Sen. McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the fact that he is a deregulator. On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we've got a sub-prime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.

I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.

A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we've got to reregulate, and nothing happened.

And Sen. McCain during that period said that we should keep on deregulating because that's how the free enterprise system works.

Now, with respect to Fannie Mae, what Sen. McCain didn't mention is the fact that this bill that he talked about wasn't his own bill. He jumped on it a year after it had been introduced and it never got passed.

And I never promoted Fannie Mae. In fact, Sen. McCain's campaign chairman's firm was a lobbyist on behalf of Fannie Mae, not me.

So -- but, look, you're not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers. What you're interested in is trying to figure out, how is this going to impact you?

This is not the end of the process; this is the beginning of the process. And that's why it's going to be so important for us to work with homeowners to make sure that they can stay in their homes.

The secretary already has the power to do that in the rescue package, but it hasn't been exercised yet. And the next president has to make sure that the next Treasury secretary is thinking about how to strengthen you as a home buyer, you as a homeowner, and not simply think about bailing out banks on Wall Street.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We're going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.

But most importantly, we're going to have to help ordinary families be able to stay in their homes, make sure that they can pay their bills, deal with critical issues like health care and energy, and we're going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren't driving the process and your voices aren't being drowned out.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, in all candor, do you think the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?

McCain: I think it depends on what we do. I think if we act effectively, if we stabilize the housing market -- which I believe we can, if we go out and buy up these bad loans, so that people can have a new mortgage at the new value of their home -- I think if we get rid of the cronyism and special interest influence in Washington so we can act more effectively.

My friend, I'd like you to see the letter that a group of senators and I wrote warning exactly of this crisis. Sen. Obama's name was not on that letter.

The point is -- the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans' workers are the best in the world. They're the fundamental aspect of America's economy.

They're the most innovative. They're the best -- they're most -- have best -- we're the best exporters. We're the best importers. They're most effective. They are the best workers in the world.

And we've got to give them a chance. They've got -- we've got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.

Energy:

On energy, Sen McCain emphasized the need to drill for energy in the US now to reduce dependence on foreign nations and help stabilize or cut prices. Obama responded by saying that the focus must be on promoting alternative, sustainable sources like wind and solar. McCain accused Obama of voting for a bad energy bill laced with pork and huge tax breaks for the oil companies. Here's the part of the transcript related to energy:

Brokaw: Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?

McCain: I think pure research and development investment on the part of the United States government is certainly appropriate. I think once it gets into productive stages, that we ought to, obviously, turn it over to the private sector.

By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.

You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel -- these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes.

I vote against them, my friends. I vote against them. But the point is, also, on oil drilling, oil drilling offshore now is vital so that we can bridge the gap. We can bridge the gap between imported oil, which is a national security issue, as well as any other, and it will reduce the price of a barrel of oil, because when people know there's a greater supply, then the cost of that will go down.

That's fundamental economics. We've got to drill offshore, my friends, and we've got to do it now, and we can do it.

And as far as nuclear power is concerned, again, look at the record. Sen. Obama has approved storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

And I'll stop, Tom, and you didn't even wave. Thanks.

Who Won?

Overall, I think Barack Obama fared well in a format that is known to favor John McCain. I would still give McCain a slight edge on his knowledge of the substance discussed and the points argued. Senator McCain made a bold proposal to allocate $300b to buy out bad mortgages, although he did not get into the specifics of it. Even as Obama criticized Musharraf and Pakistan for trying to negotiate peace with militants, I was disappointed that there was not much discussion on the broad consensus now reportedly emerging among US, UK, NATO and UN that the Afghan war can not be won by military means alone; that political negotiations are necessary.

Manmohan Professes India's Deep Love for Bush

"The people of India deeply love you", said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to President Bush on a recent visit to the White House.

The Prime Minister continued with the theme of affection and gratitude by adding, “In the last four and half years that I have been Prime Minister, I have been the recipient of your generosity, your affection, your friendship. It means a lot to me and to the people of India.”

Later, India's Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon explained: “I think, if you look at the public opinion polls, the ratings for President Bush are higher in India than in any other country. That is the factual basis.”

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll that Mr. Menon referred to shows that India tops the world in its admiration for President Bush who is deeply unpopular in the United States and most of the rest of the world. The survey found that 62% of Indians thought his second term as US president was positive for global security.

Another most recent PIPA poll conducted in 2008 shows that the one country with a majority expressing a positive view of Bush is Nigeria with 60 percent saying they have some or a lot of confidence. Indians also lean positive (45 to 34%). Interestingly, this year Chinese views have softened (41% positive, 45% negative)--with the number of those expressing positive views up 10 points since Pew's 2007 poll.

India has benefited from the Bush policies of closer economic and nuclear cooperation which led to India's rapid economic growth in recent years, and its acceptance as a legitimate member of the prestigious nuclear club, a distinction not bestowed on nuclear rival Pakistan. The US-led war on terror has also legitimized India's crackdown on Islamic and other insurgents and helped India regain influence in Afghanistan and South Asia. Bush's pressure on Musharraf was instrumental in reducing violence in Indian held Kashmir and India, a Musharraf policy that angered the Islamists who started targeting Pakistani civilians and military. Bush popularity is, therefore, based on concrete results India achieved from the support of the outgoing US president.

A grateful Prime Minister acknowledged Mr. Bush’s part in ending India’s nuclear isolation: “For 34 years, India has suffered from a nuclear apartheid. We have not been able to trade in nuclear material, nuclear reactions, and nuclear raw materials. And when this restrictive regime ends, I think a great deal of credit will go to President Bush. And, for this I am very grateful to you, Mr. President.”

President Bush's lame duck status was clearly on Dr. Singh's mind. Turning to Mr. Bush, Dr. Singh said with apparent sincerity: “So, Mr. President, this may be my last visit to you during your presidency, and let me say ‘Thank you very much’. The people of India deeply love you.”

The Americans clearly see India as a strategic partner and a counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia, Middle East and Africa. While the US has made the effort to cultivate close friendship with Indians, it is not clear how this partnership will unfold in terms of specific Indian policies to help the US.

Isolating Iran is one its goals where the US wants India's help. Energy-hungry India needs Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project to move forward. The US is clearly opposed to it. How will India respond to the US pressure? Alastair Scrutton, Reuters Chief Correspondent in Delhi, has addressed this in an analysis of the nuclear deal, saying those hoping that India will now fall into line with western policy will be disappointed.

Scrutton quotes Brahma Chellaney as saying that India will be reluctant to get sucked into U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.

“Now the (nuclear) deal has been sealed, India will have to mend ties with Iran,” Chellaney said. “For India’s strategy, to give up Iran would be a very difficult proposition … There is no way India can pursue an effective Afghan, Central Asian policy without Iran.”

I have a feeling that the I-P-I gas pipeline will be built with or without the US blessing. The reason is simple: Both India and Pakistan are energy-hungry and Iran is the closet source of abundant natural gas for South Asia. It is in their own best national interest to defy the U.S. on this particular issue. The only thing that is likely to delay it significantly is the deep distrust between India and Pakistan where U.S. can and must play a role regardless of the I-P-I project. It is in U.S.’s best interest to do so for its own economic and strategic interests in South Asia.

Collateral Damage or Unintended Consequence?

Fear of the unknown is as old as the human race. We tend to use a broad brush in characterizing as dangerous what we feel is unknown or different. It seems this way of thinking applies to most aspects of our lives when we fear something or someone, whether it is "militants" or "insurgents" or "communists" or "Islamic terrorists" or various kinds of people of different faith or color or nationality or ethnicity. It is this indiscriminate thinking that leads us to actions that cause "collateral damage" or create "unintended consequences" of the use of violence to solve problems.

For example, most of us believe all micro-organisms that live in and around us are harmful germs. We tend to overuse antibiotics and antiseptics to kill all germs indiscriminately. But the latest research is showing that such indiscriminate killing of germs is hurting us. A case in point is Helicobacter pylori bacteria. Among those born in the U.S. during the 1990s, only 5% or so still carry these microbes, largely due to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics.

After analyzing health records of 7,412 people collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Blaser and NYU epidemiologist Yu Chen reported this summer in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that children between three and 13 years old who tested positive for H. pylori bacteria were 59% less likely to have asthma. They also were 40% to 60% less likely to have hay fever or rashes.

To Dr. Blaser's way of thinking, antibiotics and other sanitation measures are eliminating the harm these bacteria cause at the expense of the protection they provide us, according to Robert Lee Hotz's Science Journal Column published recently in the Wall Street Journal.

The latest research shows that the human body teems with so many microbes that they outnumber our own cells ten to one. Large colonies of bacteria live in and around us in a symbiotic relationship with our bodies. "They are not simply along for the ride," says Stanford University microbiologist David Relman. "They are interacting with us."

Yet almost all of them are still unknown to science, since most cannot be grown and studied in the laboratory. In ways mysterious to medicine, this microbial menagerie of fellow travelers in and on us is controlling our health, affecting obesity, cancer and heart disease, among others, according to Robert Lee Hotz's column.

I think there is a profound lesson for our political and military leaders in the research results from Blaser and Chen. Let us not be indiscriminate in how we fight the war on terror that must be fought. Let us not be too cavalier about causing collateral damage in this necessary war. Let us think about the unintended consequences of this war. Let us be smart rather than indiscriminate in this war.

Zardari Stirs India Controversy, Wants $100b in Aid

Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's new president, spoke to Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal last week. His interview covered a wide range of subjects including the ongoing insurgency, Afghanistan, FATA, and relations with US and India. He repeatedly brought up the subject of financial help for his government from the US and the world to deal with Pakistan's growing economic crisis. He is clearly pleading for a US-led economic bailout of Pakistan to halt rapid deterioration and to consolidate his power.

Here are some of the key points Mr. Zardari made:

1. India is "not a threat" to Pakistan. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he said, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad."

2. Those fighting Indian rule in Kashmir are "terrorists". He spoke of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allowed that he had no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"

3. Pakistan has given consent to US air strikes inside FATA. Mr. Zardari seemed eager to downplay any differences with the U.S. "I am not going to fall for this position that it's an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend." The firing on the U.S. aircraft was, he said, merely an incident, "and while incidents do happen, they are not important." He went off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledged that the U.S. is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. "We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together."

4. With foreign reserves to cover only two months worth of imports and Pakistan's dire economic situation, he wants US and world's help to the tune of $100b to support his democratic government and its war against militants. "I need your help," he said more than once. "If we fall, if we can't do it, you can't do it." "Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . [to be] bad for a country," he says. "I'm looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me. It is not something I want to spend. But [it] will stop the [outflow] of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen's confidence?"

Brett Stephens characterized the economic crisis Mr. Zardari spoke of as "at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him."

Speaking of the recent Islamabad Marriott bombing, Mr. Zardari again brought the subject around to his economic problem. "If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asked. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."

5. He used phrases such as Pakistan's war is "my war," its fighter jets "my F-16s," its Intelligence Bureau "my IB." In recent weeks there have been reports that Pakistan has deployed F-16s against tribal insurgents, in part because the army's own frontier troops have been routinely routed in ground fighting. Their problems aren't simply tactical. "What kind of a joke is this that I cannot pay my security personnel more than the Talibs are paying?" he asked. "Those terrorists are paying their soldiers 10,000 rupees; I'm paying seven or six thousand rupees."

6. On the corruption issue, he said, it "has been used for a long time as a political tool," particularly by "radicals" trying to give democracy a bad name. Foreign investors, he said, have been coming to Pakistan for decades, and "none of them have complained about corruption."

A lot of what President Zardari said to Brett Stephens in this interview will be seen as highly controversial in Pakistan by the military leadership, policy think tanks and analysts, as well as the opposition parties. Much of it will likely be a surprise to Pakistan's foreign policy establishment, career diplomats and the government bureaucracy that has the responsibility of developing policy toward India and the United States. It seems that he was not briefed or, if he was, he simply chose to ignore the briefing he was given.

Does this interview signal a fundamental shift in Pakistan's posture and policies toward India and the US? On the face of it, it does seem so. However, only time will tell if and when such changes are practically implemented, and how they are received by Pakistanis, Indians and Americans. Regardless of Mr. Zardari's real intentions in strongly hinting at a major policy shift, it is unlikely that a US-led bailout of Pakistan would be forthcoming at a time when the US economy is headed into a recession, limiting the options open to any incoming administration in Washington.

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.