America’s defective strategy in rooting out terrorism
Khalid Khokhar

WHILE al Qaeda and the Talibans are synergizing efforts to destabilize Pakistan, the recently “proposed American strategy” to launch a direct attack into country’s tribal region to destroy extremist hideouts would be seen as a blunder on the part of pentagon policy makers. In the wake of volatile scenario after the assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a number of Bush’s top national security advisers discussed the proposal on January 6, 2008, which is part of a broad reassessment of the U.S. strategy to fight out terrorism. According to the New York Times’ reports, the Bush Administration is planning to give more freedom to the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct clandestine operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The U.S. Government has not formally presented its proposals to Pakistan. Nevertheless, reacting to these “baseless reports” appeared in New York Times, Pakistan warned that any unilateral action by a foreign country in its territory on the pretext of flushing out al Qaeda or other militants would be treated as an “enemy attack”. Pakistan is fully capable to oust Al Qaeda terrorists from their hideouts in the tribal areas and will not let American forces hunt al-Qaeda and Taliban militants on its soil. It is a flawed US strategy proposal, as any major military action by US troops could further antagonize openly hostile Pashtun tribesmen against Islamabad and could cause widespread ethnic tensions in Pakistan. On the other side, US strategists may face a wider revolt from Afghanistan’s Pashtun ethnic majority that had grown alienated because of indiscriminate bombings, economic deprivation and a lack of representation.
The main objective of US-led war on terror was to eliminate al Qaeda responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people on American soil during 9/11 tragic incidents of terror. The irony of the fact is that despite spending billions of dollars, US Administration is not significantly closer to that crucial goal even after six years of warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason may be “American strategic blunder” of diverting its attention from war in Afghanistan to Iraqi expedition at a most crucial time. Al Qaeda took full advantage of this mistake to reorganize. Having failed to finish off al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Washington now finds itself fighting Qaeda-affiliated groups on multiple fronts. Al Qaeda’s comeback in Pakistan is a devastating indictment of President Bush’s fatally unsound strategies. Despite of the warning by some of U.S. military strategists, Bush Administration did not refrain from making “repeated blunder” of rooting out terrorism through “military measures” alone.
There’s no doubt that a long fight lies ahead in neutralizing ‘al Qaeda presence’ inside Pakistan. The task is challenging but that’s absolutely going to have to be addressed. In order to address the situation, Pakistan welcomes any international help in the fight against terrorism, but would not allow foreign troops to take direct action on its territory. Pakistan is fighting the global war on terrorism not only in support of U.S. goals but also for Pakistan’s national interest and is determined to clean-up its tribal areas before the trouble “spills over” into the settled areas. Pakistan has done well against Al Qaeda element. It has deployed more than 85,000 troops along the Pak-Afghan border to tighten the net against Al-Qaeda. Pakistan Army has conducted numerous military operations against Al Qaeda terrorists in Waziristan and has killed 400-500 militants including 200 foreigners. While commenting on the role of Pakistan in combating extremism on his recent visit to Pakistan, John D. Negroponte, the Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia said that Pakistan had made “great, great sacrifices” in the “war against terror,” and the U.S. valued its contribution greatly. Admiral William J Fallon, head of US Central Command has sought greater Pakistan cooperation in fighting terrorists in the tribal areas. Pakistan is ready to cooperate with international community in areas of intelligence sharing, technical cooperation and provision of equipment. The main U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Pakistan consists of a multiyear package of economic development and military assistance. The military component aims to bolster training and equipment for Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, which operates in the tribal areas, and to step up training of elite Pakistani Army units by U.S. Special Forces. But, Pakistan has not and will not allow any foreign country to intervene in its internal affairs.
In order to fulfill the sole objective of defeating terrorism, the west must begin to see things through the eyes of their supposed enemies, and realise that today’s conflicts, having resulted from desperation and despair, can be solved through economic development rather than war. The root causes that contribute to flourish extremism, are denial of justice, non-fulfillment of grievances, inequitable distribution of wealth. The President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf is right in saying “The military might is not the ultimate answer — you can kill people, (but) you are not going to achieve anything”. All of these problems can be solved only through long-term sustainable economic development. Yet the United States persists in fighting terrorism through military means only rather than addressing the underlying conditions. The US foreign policy is ineffective because its military options have been taken over diplomatic possibilities. The US is spending around $800 billion in 2008 on security, compared with less than $20 billion for economic development. Only 10 percent of $10 billion of US aid to Pakistan has gone for development and humanitarian assistance. Many Pakistani analysts and think tanks emphasise that US aid to Pakistan is highly militarised and centralised with very little reaching the vast majority of Pakistanis. None of it helps to address the underlying problems of poverty, child mortality, water scarcity, and lack of livelihoods in places like FATA. These tribal areas are over populated places are bulging with people facing a tightening squeeze of insufficient rainfall and degraded pasturelands. Naturally, many join radical causes. Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world. Understanding the importance of delivering essential services to the people of the FATA, the US has provided a 750-million-dollar aid package to Pakistan under 2.3-billion-dollar FATA Sustainable Development Plan (FSDP), to be used to support programs in capacity building, livelihoods, agriculture, micro and small and medium enterprises, health, education and infrastructure development in the FATA. Besides, democracy is the best way to counter the causes of terrorism as well as its consequences. To combat terrorism, the political institutions coupled with economic development should be reinforced so that Pakistan is able to address the real issues facing the people, otherwise the country would remain a potential source of discontent and despair. The west should reassess their “latest proposal strategy” as a military-based strategy is making matters worse. It needs to be replaced with economic and human development of the tribal areas.


BLA - A threat to world peace
Ahmad Shah Baloch


THE arrest of Faiz Baluch and Hyrbyair Marri by British Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command from north-west and west London on 4 December 2007, on the charges of “commissioning, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism”, clearly shows the seriousness of UK in their fight against terror. Both of them were held on two accounts under Terrorism Act of 2000: firstly, inciting people to commit an act of terrorism, and secondly, possessing “a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing” contrary to the Firearms Act. During the raids on the homes and offices, the police recovered large quantities of documents, DVDs, computer files and a cash of £4,000. The two London residents are senior commanders of Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) – an international terrorist group that is banned in Britain by the then home secretary John Reid in July 2006. The BLA has been responsible for attacks on the infrastructure such as gas pipelines, power stations, electric pylons as well as bomb blasts where innocent civilian have been victims. Due to targeted military operation aganist the armed militants in Balochistan, many BLA activists sought political asylums or refuge in the European countries. These political asylum seekers under the garb of “aggrieved party” are sponsoring the foreign-based organizations of Pakistani origin responsible for committing acts of terrorism inside Pakistan. Hence, they pose an alarming threat to the international peace and stability. Realizing its threat, the British police have apprehended the miscreant element which is a welcome sign. This will provide an impetus to other European countries to check the activities of BLA in their respective countries. It will be pertinent to mention here, that the western societies, being the proponent of human liberties and human rights should be careful in granting political asylums or refuge to those individuals having false account. When they escape to a new country, the credibility of the asylum seekers must be established and police of the concerned country be also consulted. The duo arrested was granted asylum in Britain in 2002, despite of the fact that the account forwarded by these two incumbents was false and exaggerated.
The BLA has claimed responsibility for most of the attacks in reaction to the ongoing developmental activities in the province meant to improve the life-style of the common people. Look at the education, health, and other social indicators in the province. These essential amenities are embarrassingly low compared to other even less developed areas of the country. The Government is trying its level best to bring the area into socio-economic mainstream so that fruits of progress trickle down to the common man. But, few ego-centric sardars with the help of BLA want to disrupt developmental process by attacking vital installations. The story of resistance in the area is a long one. First, Balochs have grievances against the federal Government which relate to exploitation of natural resources, in particular Sui gas, without adequate compensation. Second, the Baloch people also fear that the mega projects, in particular the Gwadar port city, would invite an influx of population from other provinces reducing the ethnic Baloch to a minority at some stage. Third, building of cantonments in the three most sensitive areas of Balochistan, is perceived as an attempt to control the resources. It is to say, if they have some genuine grievances against the policies of the Government, they should raise it at the forum of national assembly instead of going to streets. It is beyond comprehension that how few feudal sardars without backing of the general masses can make the country ‘hostage’. The multi-billion dollar deep sea port in the coastal district of Gwadar, being built by the Chinese contractors, has provided myriads of opportunities to the Baloch people. The political analysts say that such paradoxical interpretations of the phenomenon by the “vested group” would only impede any solution to the Balochistan problem. The solution to the people’s issues lies in the distribution of the dividends of development equitably. The attacks on important national installations orchestrated by “miscreants,” has only alienated people and created new problems that only affected the poor people, further squeezing their opportunities for sustainable livelihoods.
The international terrorism, no matter when, by whom, where, and in what form, is a grave threat to the world peace and security. It has shown that the world is not peaceful, so it is extremely necessary to strengthen international cooperation. Every country should take same position on condemning and fighting terrorism resolutely. Any person who carries out acts of terrorism should be punished and terrorist activities should be cracked down. All the foreign-based organizations consisting of nationals of Baloch origins, supporting/funding the asylum seeker miscreants should be taken to the task by the counteer-terrorissm authorities of the respectice country. All the Balochi websites operating in western countries responsible of fanning anti-Pakistan sentiments, are tantamount to inciting people to commit acts of terrorism, should also be precluded. The BLA is the creation of Indian intelligence agencies, which are trying to create instability in the areas bordering Iran and Afghanistan. In the larger interest, the effective counter-terrorism requires Indian support and cooperation with Pakistan authorities to help create an environment of peace and tranquitlity. Terrorism can be beaten when moderate forces mobilize themselves to isolate and defeat its perpetrators. Therefore, it is ripe time that the rebel tribesmen should disarm themselves as a first pre-condition before a “meaningful dialogue” process takes place. The Government, in its turn, must take measures to dispel the feelings of alienation of the Baloch, bring the nationalists into mainstream politics, create local stakeholders in the province’s development, and to assuage their overall grievances.




Bush’s last hurrah
Claude Salhani

MUCH of the 53 minutes it took President George W Bush to deliver his last State of the Union address - with 70 rounds of applause interrupting its delivery – the president spent a good portion talking about Iraq. But if you expected the president to voice regret for the deaths and destruction caused by the war, you are betting on the wrong man. There was no hint of remorse in his voice, no look of sorrow for the destruction which befell Iraq and its people. Quite the contrary, Bush remained adamant that he had done the right thing. Still, compared to previous speeches, the president’s address this year was more toned-down, lacking the usual catch phrases, as in the past when the president called North Korea, Iraq and Iran the “axis of evil”. Although Bush warned “the United States would not rest until this enemy has been defeated”.
But Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, described Bush’s speech as “a much more sober and realistic discussion of the foreign policy challenges facing America”. Maloney did have some problems with Bush attributing the surge to the real shift we have seen in Iraq, saying, “There has been a shift, but I think we can recognise the shift is as much a product of a change in decision-making calculus by some of the key actors, particularly Sunni militias and Shia militias.” In fact, the shift of allegiance among many of the Iraqi Sunnis is primarily due to the fact that the United States simply bought their loyalty with US dollars. As an Iraqi journalist recently told me, “In the long run nothing has been solved in Iraq. We are still very much in a wait and see mode. Anything can happen.”
Maloney also noted, “We are not seeing any real carry-over in terms of political progress. Most of the really hard issues for Iraq remain unresolved at this time.” Indeed, Bush’s rendition of the current state of Iraq was far more optimistic than reality on the ground in Baghdad and the rest of the country. The president painted a far prettier picture than what is really going on in Iraq, describing the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds as “beginning to come together”. He made no mention of Mosul, to where violence seems to be shifting. On the question of a US troop pullout from Iraq, Bush did not give a completely honest assessment of the situation. The president said that 20,000 US troops were to come home in the months ahead. Yet what he left out of his speech was the fact that even after the withdrawal of those 20,000 soldiers and Marines, the number of American servicemen and women serving in Iraq would remain higher than it was before the “surge”. The Middle East peace talk came almost as a footnote. On the Middle East, Maloney said: “The peace process was almost an afterthought in the president’s speech. In fact, other than saying that it was high time a democratic Palestine can live in peace next to a democratic Israel, there was little substance in the president’s mention of the Middle East’s longest running dispute.—Khaleej Times