Pakistan is under words attacks by Americans, what ever concerns we’ve with present leadership of Pakistan, but we’re with you against any foreign elements.
Pak Sar Zameen!!
Pakistan is under words attacks by Americans, what ever concerns we’ve with present leadership of Pakistan, but we’re with you against any foreign elements.
Pak Sar Zameen!!
AWARDS AND HONORARY DEGREES
It’s reported in New York Times on 23rd November,2008. This report shows that where are we exactly today? How the world is thinking about us? How are we responding to this situation?
A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.
That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. It has fueled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the United States really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms.
“One of the biggest fears of the Pakistani military planners is the collaboration between India and Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan,” said a senior Pakistani government official involved in strategic planning, who insisted on anonymity as per diplomatic custom. “Some people feel the United States is colluding in this.”
That notion may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years. But as the incoming Obama administration tries to coax greater cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against militancy, it can hardly be ignored.
This is a country where years of weak governance have left ample room for conspiracy theories of every kind. But like much such thinking anywhere, what is said frequently reveals the tender spots of a nation’s psyche. Educated Pakistanis sometimes say that they are paranoid, but add that they believe they have good reason.
Pakistan, a 61-year-old country marbled by ethnic fault lines, is a collection of just four provinces, which often seem to have little in common. Virtually every one of its borders, drawn almost arbitrarily in the last gasps of the British Empire, is disputed with its neighbors, not least Pakistan’s bitter and much larger rival, India.
These facts and the insecurities that flow from them inform many of Pakistan’s disagreements with the United States, including differences over the need to rein in militancy in the form of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The new democratically elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, has visited the United States twice since assuming power three months ago. He has been generous in his praise of the Bush administration. But that stance is criticized at home as fawning and wins him little popularity among a steadfastly anti-American public.
So how will the promise by President-elect Barack Obama for a new start between the United States and Pakistan be received here? How can it be begun?
One possibility could be some effort to ease Pakistani anxieties, even as the United States demands more from Pakistan. That will probably mean a regional approach to what, it is increasingly apparent, are regional problems. There, Pakistani and American interests may coincide.
American military commanders, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the American war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors.
Mr. Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Pakistan to focus on the real threat — the Qaeda and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country.
“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.
But such an approach faces sizable obstacles, the biggest being the conflict over Kashmir. The Himalayan border area has been disputed since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and remains divided between them.
Pakistan’s army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the Indian-administered part of the territory.
After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan reined in those militants for a time, but this year the militants have renewed their incursions. Talks between the sides made some progress in recent years but have petered out.
Pakistanis warn that the United States should not appear too eager to mediate. First, they caution, India has always regarded Kashmir as a bilateral question. India, they note, also faces a general election early next year, an inappropriate moment to push such an explosive issue.
Second, some Pakistanis are concerned about the reliability of the United States as a fair mediator. “Given the United States’ record on the Palestinian issue, where the Palestinians had to move 10 times backwards and the Israelis moved the goal posts, the same could happen here,” said Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister who has watched Kashmir closely.
It was discouraging, Mr. Khan said, that the United States ignored the importance of the huge nonviolent protests by Muslims in Kashmir against Indian rule this summer. “Anywhere else, and they would have been hailed as an Orange Revolution,” he said, referring to the wave of protests that led to a change in the Ukrainian government in 2004.
Exhibit A for the Pakistanis is India’s nuclear deal with the United States, which allows India to engage in nuclear trade even though it never joined the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan, with its recent history of spreading nuclear technology, received no comparable bargain.
The nuclear deal was devised in Washington to position India as a strategic counterbalance to China. That is how it is seen in Pakistan, too, but with no enthusiasm.
“The United States has changed the whole nuclear order by this deal, and in doing so is containing China, the only friend Pakistan has in the region,” said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani Army general.
Further, Pakistan is upset about the advances India is making in Afghanistan, with no checks from the United States, Mr. Masood said.
India has recently made big investments in Afghanistan, where Pakistan has been competing for influence. These include a road to the Iranian border that will eventually give India access to the Iranian port of Chabahar, circumventing Pakistan.
India has offered training for Afghanistan’s military, given assistance for a new Parliament building in Kabul and has re-opened consulates along the border with Pakistan.
The consulates, the Pakistanis charge, are used by India as cover to lend support to a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan Province. (Baluchistan was even made an independent state on the theoretical map, which accompanied an article by Ralph Peters titled “Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look,” originally published in Armed Forces Journal.)
Both India and Pakistan in fact have a long and destructive history of, gently or not, putting in the knife. Exhibit A for the Indians is the bombing in July of its embassy in Afghanistan, which American and Indian officials say can be traced to groups linked to Pakistan’s spy agency.
If the Obama administration is indeed to convince Pakistanis that militancy, not the Indian Army, presents the gravest threat, it will not be easy.
The commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, got a taste of the challenge this month, when he visited Islamabad and sat down with a group of about 70 members of Pakistan’s Parliament at the residence of the United States ambassador, Anne W. Patterson. Their attitude showed an almost total incomprehension of the reasons for American behavior in the region after Sept. 11, 2001.
“A couple of the questions I got were, ‘Why did you Americans come to Afghanistan when it was so peaceful, before you got there?’ ” General McKiernan recalled during an appearance at the Atlantic Council in Washington last week.
“Another one,” he said, “was, ‘We understand that you’ve invited a thousand Indian soldiers to serve in Afghanistan by Christmas.’ ”
There was no truth to the claim, he told the Pakistanis. “We have a lot of work to do,” he told his audience in Washington.
Indeed, among ordinary Pakistanis, many still regard Al Qaeda more positively than the United States, polls find. Talk shows here often include arguments that the suicide bombings in Pakistan are payback for the Pakistani Army fighting an American war.
Some commentators suggest that the United States is actually financing the Taliban. The point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, they say, leaving the way open for the Americans to grab Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Recently, in the officer’s mess in Bajaur, the northern tribal region where the Pakistani Army is tied down fighting the militants, one officer offered his own theory: Osama bin Laden did not exist, he told a visiting journalist.
Rather, he was a creation of the Americans, who needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and encroach on Pakistan.
Pakistan, these days facing a number of crises, these include judiacary crises, suicide attacks, TTP’s stance, economic depression and energy crises. It’s a critical time in the history of Pakistan. But the most critical crises is external one, Pakistan is being to trap by USA in order to monitor Iran and China from this channel. India is also part of this game thats why they have started bombing on control line. Now Pakistan is unsave from its east and north-west borders.
The question arises what Pakistan is doing to tackle this crises? It seems they even don’t want to realize it.
Here is a report of ‘Economist’ which is showing that Pakistan is involved in terrorist attacks in Afgahnistan.
WITNESSES said a blinding cloud of dust filled the air after a car exploded at the entrance to the Indian embassy compound in Kabul, early on July 7th. The dust cleared to reveal scenes of carnage in which, as with most suicide attacks in Afghanistan, civilians were the main victims. With 41 dead and 139 injured, it was the deadliest attack in Kabul since the American-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban in 2001. Many of the victims had been queuing for Indian visas but the dead included two Indian diplomats.
The Afghan security forces’ improving capability seems to be helping to cut the number of successful suicide attacks in Kabul. But the bombers who do get through seem more sophisticated than before and more aware of the publicity value of high-profile targets. The Taliban denied responsibility for the latest attack. In the past they have avoided admitting culpability when large numbers of civilians have died.
Within hours of the blast Afghan officials were making thinly veiled insinuations against Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. “Everything has the hallmark of a particular intelligence agency that has conducted similar terrorist acts inside Afghanistan in the past,” said President Hamid Karzai’s spokesman.
India’s press and some of its officials reached the same conclusion, though the Indian government made no public attack on Pakistan: officials said they were too worried about provoking the collapse of its fragile new democratic government to start a new round of sabre-rattling between the two regional foes.
Afghan officials had no such qualms. A long-running war of words between Kabul and Islamabad over the alleged role of the ISI in the Taliban insurgency has intensified lately. President Karzai rather unrealistically threatened in June to send the fledgling Afghan army into the tribal areas of Pakistan to hunt Taliban militants.
Western officials acknowledge privately that at least elements of the ISI are engaged in aiding and training the Taliban. But, to sow dissension between Afghanistan and Pakistan, attacking India might be attractive to the Taliban anyway. And, of the big foreign embassies in Kabul, analysts say that India’s offered among the least-protected targets. Some observers also point out that it serves the interests of Mr Karzai’s government to focus anger against Pakistan in the build-up to the 2009 presidential elections, given public disquiet over huge food-price rises, the uneven distribution of foreign aid and government corruption and incompetence.
If the ISI were involved, it would not be hard to imagine possible motives. In recent years India has become a big donor to, and trade partner of, Afghanistan. Pakistan has become alarmed by India’s growing clout. Pakistan has historically sought to keep Afghanistan as a client, providing “strategic depth” in the event of an Indian invasion. Pakistan in turn accuses India of spookery along the Afghan-Pakistani border and of supporting separatists on the Pakistani side. In his latest book, a leading Pakistani commentator, Ahmed Rashid, gave a warning that India’s growing influence since 2001 had “stirred up a hornet’s nest in Islamabad, which came to believe that India was ‘taking over Afghanistan’.”
After 9/11 Pakistan is under attack of suicide bombs. These suicide bombs help in great deal to destablize Pakistan. Our "Pious Government” always blames Pakistani based Taliban. Even the murder of Bibi, they claimed that it is done by Bait Ullah Mehsood. But in several attacks they even a single time bother to investigate the issue. Its a big question mark on the Previous and present govt. May be they don’t want to investigate because they themselves have somehow to link with this ‘game’.
Below there is report in ‘Times of India’. It spreads the spectrum of this ‘game’. It is alarming report for Pakistan. According to this ‘game’ it is planned to not only to destablize Pakistan internaly but now in second stage of this ‘game’ the circle aroud Pakistan is being drawn closer and closer.
Why is India a persistent target for the Taliban in Afghanistan? India is one of the largest donors of reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, and has regained a substantive part of the strategic foothold it lost in the country when Pakistan-backed Taliban took over.
It is also one of the strongest supporters of the Karzai government, which has no takers in Afghanistan’s other neighbour – Pakistan. In fact, India’s influence is now spread across the spectrum in Afghanistan, which is not music to Pakistani ears.
India’s presence in Afghanistan is mainly to strengthen and stabilise the country with its varied development and reconstruction projects.
This directly comes up against Pakistan’s own interests in Afghanistan, which is to keep it on the boil so that Islamabad can use its Taliban surrogate to re-install its presence there. Pakistan, therefore, has strong motive to target Indian interests in Afghanistan.
In fact, there is almost unanimity in the conclusion that it was ISI’s Taliban groups who were behind Monday’s attack, despite nobody claiming responsibility for the blast.
The Afghanistan interior minister was clear in saying the attack was carried out "in coordination and consultation with an active intelligence service in the region”.
No prizes for guessing there. India’s $750 million presence in Afghanistan is the surest obstacle for Pakistan to regain what it calls its "strategic depth” against India. The Taliban – which has regained in strength and lethality in the past couple of years, largely under the direct control of Pakistan – has, therefore, increased its attacks on Indian interests in Afghanistan with growing frequency.
Ahmed Rashid writes in his latest book, "India’s success in Afghanistan stirred up a hornet’s nest in Islamabad which came to believe that India was ‘taking over Afghanistan’.”
As the Taliban come under pressure from NATO and the US, it’s becoming clear that its easiest targets in the region will be India.
Analysts, however, say India will be Pakistan-backed Taliban’s favourite target because this is another face of Pakistan’s tried and tested proxy politics by terrorism that it practises against India.
It’s therefore no coincidence that the Indian defence attache, Brig R D Mehta, was targeted in Monday’s attack. The implication is clear: Pakistan and Taliban want India out of Afghanistan.
Security analyst Ajai Sahni of the Institute of Conflict Management said, "The ISI-backed Taliban will not allow any Indian consolidation in Afghanistan, nor will they allow any stability in Kabul.” A stable Afghanistan fuels thoughts of a Pashtunistan in Pakistan which is Islamabad’s recurring nightmare. Just last month, Karzai stoked those fires, saying Afghanistan wanted to "rescue” the Pashtuns in Pakistan.
Pakistan continues to believe India is behind this.
Meanwhile, terrorism analyst B Raman told TOI: "The vehicle-borne suicide bombing that we saw today has been used to devastating effect by the al-Qaida in Iraq.”
The Al-Qaida remnants, who have returned to Afghanistan, have transmitted the technique to the Afghan Taliban. It is far more effective as a bombing device than an explosives-strapped person.” This, he said, shows clearly the growing involvement of Al-Qaida against India.
But India needs to stay in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan’s stability is in India’s national interest. For if Pakistan is allowed to have full sway of Afghanistan, India’s security will be severely threatened – Taliban and Pakistan’s other pet terror groups might find it hard to travel to the US, but India is the easiest target in the region and remains Pakistan’s pet hate.
Therefore, analysts said India urgently needs to take two steps. These are: intensifying its own security in Afghanistan – all Indian projects and interests need to be protected much better; and, improving security cooperation with the US.
For instance, the Indian embassy in Kabul was armed itself with hesco barriers only last week, after a heightened threat perception. It should have been done years ago, because India’s vulnerability is not new. Indian personnel on the frontlines need much better protection. Raman said, "A vulnerability assessment of all Indian missions and offices is urgently called for.”
India cannot walk away from Afghanistan because India’s and the region’s security depends on it. But India can do a much better job of protecting itself in Afghanistan.