Can Lakers repeat their victory?

In volatile Artest, Lakers add wild card to their title defense By David Leon Moore, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles Lakers are ready to begin their quest to repeat as NBA champions. And the media are on alert, from TNT, which is all about what happens on the court, to TMZ, the gossip outlet that hopes to get plenty of mileage out of volatile forward Ron Artest and the marriage of forward Lamar Odom to reality-TV celebrity Khloe Kardashian.

"The Hollywood media is different than the sports media," Lakers veteran guard Derek Fisher said last month.

Of course, the Lakers are accustomed to both.

This is a team that once had its two biggest stars openly feuding (Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant) and a coach (Phil Jackson) the author of a book extremely critical of one of those stars (Bryant again).

But Bryant has been above the fray of late. He has his four NBA championships, his 2008 MVP award, a good relationship with the coach (still Jackson) and, unlike the old days, the respect of his peers as the unquestioned leader of the team.

And he has all the complementary parts, it would seem, to lead the Lakers to a repeat title:

• A young, healthy big man in the middle in 7-footer Andrew Bynum, 22 today, who might or might not be ready to become an All-Star this season.

• A versatile second offensive option in forward Pau Gasol (18.8-point career average).

• A crafty, tough backcourt mate in Fisher.

• A potential Sixth Man of the Year in Odom.

• Experience off the bench in guards Jordan Farmar, Shannon Brown and Sasha Vujacic; energetic big reserves Josh Powell and DJ Mbenga and small forward Luke Walton.

Then there's the wild card — Artest — who will try to contribute what departed free agent Trevor Ariza did last season (defense, energy, hit open shots) — only better. He'll try to do it without losing his cool, which he has done in the past, most notably serving a 73-game suspension while with the Indiana Pacers in 2004-05 after igniting a brawl between players and fans at The Palace of Auburn Hills (Mich.).

Artest, who turns 30 in November, was also front and center in the testy playoff series last season between his Houston Rockets and the Lakers. He was ejected twice and had one confrontation with Bryant that could have — but didn't — turn ugly.

Five months later, they're teammates, seeking a championship together, and both are confident this will all work out.

There are those who have their doubts, however.

Reggie Miller, a former teammate of Artest in Indiana and now a TNT NBA analyst, said recently what some Lakers fans fear.

"I understand what Ron can do and how he can help a team out," Miller said. "I also know how he can hurt a ballclub with his misguided actions.

"Ron doesn't have to do a lot on this team, and I hope he recognizes that he's not the second or third option on this team offensively. If he recognizes that ... the Lakers will win the championship."

Just two days before the start of the regular season, Artest spoke at the Lakers training compound and said he has no individual goals and he was totally into following Bryant's lead.

"Statistics don't really show what type of basketball player I am," said Artest, averaging 16.1 points and 5.1 rebounds for his career. "That's why I don't have to average 20 points and I can still be one of the guys that every team wanted going into free agency. There are a lot of guys who average more points than me or jump higher, but who would teams rather have?

"Whatever Kobe wants, that's what we're reaching for. Kobe's the leader of the team. We're going to follow Kobe. ... It's pretty simple. Just do what's asked of you by Coach Jackson and follow Kobe on the court."

What Bryant, 31, wants is another championship.

"We have the talent to win another one," he said. "If we don't, it's because of our lack of focus or something else or an injury."

He seems to be right about the talent. The "something else" will bear watching.

Pakistani “Indus Valley” predated Indian Hindu Aryan culture’

The noted epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan made some sound observations which echo the writings of one of the most prominent historians of our time Dr. Dani. Like Dr. Dani Dr. Mahadevan clearly says that the Hindu Aryan culture was distinctly different than the culture of the Indus Valley Civilization which was not Hindu. The IVC did not worship the “Hindu” Pantheon in any sense of the word. The IVC was mostly restriction to the valley of the Indus—however at the tail end of the civilization some of it dispersed into areas beyond the IVC. The map of the original IVC resembles the map of Pakistan as it exists today.

TIRUCHY: The Indian society was composed of elements inherited from groups speaking different languages, because of which it was a composite entity, observed Iravatham Mahadevan, noted epigraphist.

Delivering the History Congress endowment lecture at Tiruchy on Friday, he said that the Indus Valley civilisation predated the Aryan civilisation. While this civilisation was urban, the Vedic culture was rural and pastoral, he added. The Indus seals depicted many animals, like horses and chariots with spoked wheels, which were defining features of the Aryan-speaking society.

Religious worship in the Indus valley focussed on a buffalo-horned male god, mother goddesses, the pipal tree and the serpent, he said.

He added that these practices were known to have been derived from the aboriginal population and were totally unknown to the religion of the Rig Veda.

He explained that the Aryan mode of worship was centred on the fire altar, while the Dravidians had water as the base. He said the Great Bath at Mohenjodaro was a direct forerunner of the temple tanks of Hinduism.

The decline and fall of the Indus valley civilisation is generally attributed to natural causes, such as adverse climatic conditions, tectonic upheavals, changing and dried-up river courses, lowered fertility due to over-exploitation and increased salinity of the soil, he explained. Loosening of social and ideological bonds and internal strife could be other factors that had contributed to the eventual disintegration of the Harappan community, he added.

He said there had been fewer Aryans who had migrated and that they were considerably less in number to the vast indigenous population of the Indus valley civilisation. But, he added, the Aryans became dominant when the Harappans fragmented into smaller units in the absence of a central leadership.

A part of the Harappan population also migrated southwards from the Gangetic region, which is recorded in old Tamil literature, he said.

They gained prominence among the late Neolithic people in south India and later founded the Megalithic and Iron Age civilisations, which formed the base for the Chera, Chola and Pandya kingdoms, he said.

He discussed Aryan and Dravidian legacy in the linguistic sense, without a racial or ethnic connotation. The two cultures intermingled and merged, giving rise to a composite society, he said.

He said that some experts pointed to the presence of only a few Dravidian words in the later sections of the Rig Veda and as such it was deduced that the Indus valley civilisation was Dravidian.

Explaining this anomaly, he said that the highly trained priests of the Vedic age would not have preferred loan words in sacred hymns. ‘Indus Valley predated Aryan culture’. Express News Service. First Published : 11 Oct 2009 03:14:00 AM IST. Last Updated : 11 Oct 2009 07:59:17 AM IST

Ahtizaz Ahsan: Attorney General or Governor?

The capital is buzzing with rumors about the Minus one formula. Mr. Ahsan himself did not kill the rumors. He did say that Mr. Zardari’s wings are about to be clipped (58-2b).

Ahtizaz Ahsan is one of those mercurial figures that rose to prominence on the back of the old guard of the Pakistan Peoples Party. He is a consummate PPP stalwart and refused to resign the party despite being rebuffed by Mr. Zardari and despite the fact that his party’s leadership was a major impediment to the restoration of the judiciary.

I used to be a great fan of Mr. Ahsan—his book “The Indus Saga” was exactly what I had been writing about for decades. His first edition of the book is very patriotic and brings out another dimension of Pakistani unity and nationhood—which I labeled the “Geographic Two Nation Theory”. The Geographic TNT basically states that the Pakistan has been in existance for 5000 years and the nomenclature and current state of Pakistan is the latest avatar of the Indus Valley.

Mr. Ahsan’s book based on on local and regional nationalism says the same thing. Of course Mr. Ahsan wants to propagate the secular perspective, and the 2nd edition of his book dilutes the nationalistic banner that he carried in the first edition.

I would like to state an interesting anecdote. We were in front of the UN protesting the rule of Mr. Musharraf and the restoration of the judiciary. I asked his son to autograph his book and give it to me. Just to remind him, I forced a ten dollar bill on the young Ahsan. I saw him a year later and asked him “you owe me ten dollars”. He smiled and said the book was out of print and he was trying to get it.

I must admire the man, he never said no.

A few months later I met Mr. Ahsan at a Chaudhry Iftikhar rally in New York. I asked him about the book. He said his son had requested the autograph but the book was out of print. A few more months passed. One day, a package arrived with a fresh off the press brand spanking new book—duly autographed by Mr. Ahsan for me. The book had Mr. Ahsan’s son’s card. He works for an American consulting company in strategy. But the fun part was that the young Ahsan had stapled a ten Dollar bill to his card with a sincere apology about the delay.

Of course the book is one the treasures in my book collection.

The anecdote goes to show the honesty of the man and his son. They actually got the book republished because this unknown fan had asked for it. What a guy!

Aitzaz Ahsan for the first time in nine months met the top leaders of the party in the backdrop of the current political situation.—Photo by Reuters

ISLAMABAD: Aitzaz Ahsan, a senior PPP leader who has been sidelined by his party for the past two years, met President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Thursday and was reported to have been offered the offices of the attorney general and the Punjab governor.

However, in an interview to a private TV channel, Mr Ahsan neither confirmed nor denied the offer.

‘He has been offered the office of attorney general and now it is up to him to accept it or not,’ a senior member of the PPP told Dawn.

Political analysts termed the meetings significant, especially against the backdrop of the current political situation and removal of Latif Khosa as attorney general.

These were the first formal meetings between Mr Ahsan and top leaders of the PPP in nine months after the party had suspended his membership of the Central Executive Committee on ‘disciplinary grounds’ in February.

Political observers believe he was suspended for supporting Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry during the emergency and his suspension by former president Pervez Musharraf.

Mr Ahsan, who had met Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani three months ago, advised the president to transfer all his ‘politically undesired powers’ to institutions.

‘This is the only way to save the system and democracy.’ Talking to reporters before the meetings, Mr Ahsan said the president enjoyed immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution even if the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance lapsed.

His tone was soft and remarks were favourable for Mr Zardari when he said no court could summon the president in any case.

‘If NRO is abolished, all cases suspended under it will revive. The state machinery, including police and the National Accountability Bureau, can also take action, but no court can summon the president,’ he said.

In reply to a question about the cases against President Zardari outside the country, Mr Ahsan said the president would have the protection under the ‘principal of sovereign immunity’ and no court could summon him.

On being reminded that the president did not enjoy immunity in the case of mala fide acts, he referred to a LHC’s judgment of 1979 on Sadiq Qureshi’s case and said that if it was proved that any action of the president was mala fide, only then he could not get immunity under Article 248.

‘But this has nothing to do with his (president) actions prior to holding the office of the president,’ he added.

Mr Ahsan said he had always opposed the NRO and also suggested to PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto not to get benefit under the ordinance. Aitzaz offered post of governor or AG By Syed Irfan Raza Friday, 06 Nov, 2009

I fully support Mr. Ahsan for the Attorney General’s position—it will be a great honor for Pakistan to nominate one of its best lawyers as the Attorney General. Of course, the next step would be the leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party. Ahsan is no Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto but he is a true populist, and his feelings for the poor of Pakistan overcomes his perceived lack of patriotism.

Its time to try a new face. We have had no luck with the present NRO and SRO lot.

Clinton flickers: “star power” fails & to win over Pakistanis or achieve diplomatic victories

*Personal diplomacy wins friends but no quick results
*Missteps complicate Mideast peace discussion

WASHINGTON, Nov 5 (Reuters) - When Hillary Clinton took the job as President Barack Obama's top diplomat, some analysts said she might be too big for the State Department.

In the public eye for decades as political wife, U.S. first lady, senator and finally presidential candidate, Clinton's career has won her admirers at home and abroad, making her one of the brightest stars in the Obama administration.

But after a turbulent tour of diplomatic trouble spots this week, it is clear that Clinton's star power alone cannot solve some of the world's intractable problems.
"The administration has a host of major problems in the region, running from Pakistan in the east to Israel in the west, yet none of these issues has become a signature issue for her," Jon Alterman, a Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an email message.

"She did what she had to do over the weekend, but it wasn't entirely clear that her heart was in it."

Clinton had two objectives on her 9-day trip to Pakistan and the Middle East: repair the fraying U.S. relationship with Islamabad, and build support to relaunch peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Neither was a slam dunk, although U.S. officials said hopefully they saw some signs of progress on both fronts after days of Clinton's hectic personal diplomacy.
Asked at a Cairo news conference to weigh the trip's achievements against its disappointments, Clinton herself showed no hint of doubt.

"Of course I think I made advancements," she said. "Every issue that we touched during the trip is complicated and difficult. If these were easy questions with simple answers, I would not have made this trip."

GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH
In Pakistan, Clinton struggled to persuade skeptical audiences that Washington, which many Pakistanis blame for their country's costly struggle against religious insurgents, was a reliable long-term partner.

"Good intentions are not enough in fixing a relationship that historically has been flawed," said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistan expert who directs the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

Clinton won praise for speaking candidly about a relationship complicated by widespread Pakistani anger over conditions attached to a massive new U.S. aid bill.
But a barrage of hostile questions from students, tribal leaders and women's groups thrown at her illustrated the depth of distrust many in the fragile, nuclear-armed state still feel toward the United States.

"If Washington is ever to enlist Pakistan as a reliable ally, it's going to have to do a much better job of explaining itself," a New York Times editorial said. "Mrs. Clinton's trip was an important start -- but only a start."

ALL ABOUT DAMAGE CONTROL

The Mideast phase of Clinton's trip produced even fewer tangible results.
Seeking to build pressure to resume stalled peace talks, Clinton infuriated Arabs by endorsing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer to "restrain" Israeli settlement activity on the West Bank -- but not to freeze it as Palestinians demand.
The remainder of the trip was about damage control as Clinton tried to persuade Arab foreign ministers and the media that U.S. opposition to settlements had not really changed.

U.S. officials say Washington wants the Palestinians to follow Israel by dropping preconditions for talks and begin formal negotiations where all issues, including settlements, borders and the future of Jerusalem, can be addressed.

"Their ability to advance their position increases dramatically when they are at the table," one senior U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussion.

But the outrage over the U.S. shift of emphasis on settlements showed that even a politician as accomplished as Clinton can err in the maze of Middle East peace discussions.

U.S. officials said Clinton continues to work toward resumed peace talks, although they concede that it may require the biggest star, Obama himself, to seal the deal.
"The president has the biggest gun. And it can be deployed effectively at the right time," one official said. Reuters. ANALYSIS-Clinton star power flickers in diplomatic arena Thu Nov 5, 2009 11:00am EST By Andrew Quinn
(Editing by Alan Elsner and Patricia Wilson)

Hillary Clinton’s Ugly American language

It came as no surprise to Rupee News that Clinton has been trolling the internet to try to figure out what Pakistan and Pakistanis are saying about her. If she has been visiting obsequious and complaint sites recommended to her by Mr. Hussain Haqqani then it is no surprise that Secretary Clinton landed herself in the soup that she finds herself in.

If she genuinely read Pakistani sites like The Nation (Editor Shireen Mazari), Pakistani Ka Khuda Hafiz, and Rupee News, then she have actually gotten some real feedback. Some of her post-trip statements were a bit subdued and she did try to clarify some of her most controversial statements.

If Ms. Clinton continues to use the clichés that Pakistanis hate then she will actually be be expediting the downward slide in US-Pakistani relations. Mrs Clinton should know better. Her state department should tell her that clichés like “Al-Qaeda has Safe havens” (should be hide outs), “lose territory” (is taken as a US threat to Pakistan), “nuclear weapons in danger” (fuels theories about real US intentions in Pakistan), “Al-Qaeda is in FATA” (supports Pakistani opinion that this is a US war not Pakistan’s war), “Existential threat to Pakistan” (taken as a direct threat from the us to Pakistan), “Pakistan paranoia about India is unfounded” (Pakistanis do not want lectures on who the enemy is), “India is not Pakistan’s enemy” (Pakistanis do not accept that India is not an enemy), “Pakistan must do more” (Pakistanis retort—the US must do more) really turn off Pakistanis. If Mrs Hillary Clinton

Describing the response to her candid engagement with the Pakistani civil society as “overwhelmingly positive,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the U.S. is building a strong base for ties between the two nations. She also made a subtle contrast of her frank discussions on mutual security concerns in Pakistan with the one-sided tone of the former U.S. Administration, that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks sought to pursue relations on “with us or against us” basis. “The reaction that I got in Pakistan was overwhelmingly positive and I’ve been reading a lot of the blogging and the reaction on the press in part because they’re not used to anyone from the United States Government coming and opening herself to their concerns,” Clinton told National Public Radio traveling in Cairo.

“They (the Pakistanis)’re just used to saying to having somebody say, take it or leave it, with us or against us, go forward or not. And so I think we’re building a stronger base for our relationship,” she noted recounting her talks in Pakistan, which was the first stop of her ambitious nine-day trip to the broader Middle Eastern region. Hillary Clinton also argued that her remarks on Pakistanis not being able to know about al-Qaeda leaders whereabouts were not meant to cast a doubt on the Pakistani government’s anti-terror commitment but were part of an open conversation she was trying to have with the Pakistani people about each other’s concerns.

“No, not at all, no. I mean, as you saw, the whole purpose of my trip was to try to clear the air with the Pakistani people and government, to reassert our support for Pakistan, particularly in this very difficult conflict they’re engaged in with the Taliban, and to listen and absorb all the criticisms they have. “They had this sort of pent-up frustration with the United States. And as you know and as you saw, I listened and understand and tried to convey understanding of all of their questions about our policy, going back years.

Secretary of State Clinton still has some equity left in Pakistan. She should park the bad jargon which she uses for domestic consumption. She forget that most Pakistanis are also watching CNN, Fox and NBC. The Pakistani Diaspora is tuned in to every word she says. The free Pakistani press reports on each and every word said about Pakistan. Pakistan has more news channels than entertainment channels. Pakistanis are news junkies—nothing goes past them. They have elephant memories. the events of 47,71,80 and 2001 are very fresh in the minds of all Pakistanis. Pakistan remembers the Pressler and Symington amendments. If Mrs Clinton wants a fresh page, she should learn some manners and take a course in diplomacy

“But at the same time, I wanted to stress that we’re looking for a partnership, and they have to listen to our concerns as well as we listen to their concerns.”
“I feel strongly that as we move forward in these very complex areas that pose real concerns to our national security, concerns to partners like Pakistan’s security, that it is important to make clear to the people not just the leaders that we have to speak openly with each other.”

At one point Ms Clinton jokingly said that she has a Pakistani roommate. Of course like many of Clinton’s statements, this was also a half truth.  Huma a half-Pakistan has been feeding her some of the feedback. However the problem with Huma is that she is totally divorced from the Pakistani mainstream and lives in a cocoon—trying to create a message of harmony based on “gora worship” rather than the harsh reality of the Pakistani Diaspora and the Pakistani people.

If Mrs Clinton genuinely wants to improve relations with Pakistan, she has to retrain her entire administration in learning a new vocabulary and dumping the old “Ugly American” jargon. If Mrs Clinton wants Pakistanis as partners in peace, she has to respect the wishes of the Pakistanis. The entire world condemns the drone attacks. If she continues to work with a compliant leadership in Islamabad and continues her failed policies, she cannot hope to win the hearts and minds of Pakistan. If Mrs. Clinton is seen closely allied with a corrupt president, a treacherous ambassador, and an obsequious Pakistani cabinet then she has no chance of improving relations with Pakistanis. Without the support of the Pakistani people, the US cannot win the war in Afghanistan and it cannot be on top on the Global War on Terror (GWOT)—which is seen as the Global War on Islam (GWOI).

If Mrs Clinton wants peace in the region, she has to accept the long standing Pakistani advice of working with the moderate members of the Taliban, reducing Indian influence in Afghanistan, solving Kashmir, rapid construction of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ), immediate sanctioning of an FTA with Pakistan—and a massive Marshall plan for Pakistan. The US should build 5000 schools and 1000 hospitals. The US image will dramatically change if the US build 20 American Universities in Pakistan (like the ones in Beirut). The US image will dramatically transform, if American sent some real aid to Pakistan (ten times of what was sent to Afghanistan). The US would make some real inroads into Pakistan if the US Ambassador to Pakistan was a Muslim American (who is not a Neocon progeny of Hussain Haqqani vintage). Secretary of State Clinton could improve relations with Pakistan if she dropped deprecating Pakistani ideas and nationhood.

TTP Hakim tells defectors “You will go to hell”

• Facing annihilation desperate TTP Chief Hakeem urges followers not to flee battlefield
• you cannot leave the battlefield without permission from your commander..Such people will go to hell." Hakimullah Mehsud

The TTP is fleeing the battlefield. Thier leader is threatening their own forces. The defeat US forces in Afghanistan are astonished how the Pakistanis did it. Many wonder why the Pakistan Army was so successful in eliminating the TTP from Swat and now South Wazirisitan. I asked a Pakistani Colonel whom I met last week. He had been serving in the FATA area and hails from FATA. To protect his identity, I will not use his name. The Colonel said that the Mongols, Macedonians, Russians, British and the Americans were unable to defeat the tribals because they were not from that area. The Colonel said “I am a Pakhtun and a Mehsud, I hail from the same village. the TTP gets its arms from foreigners, the ones we all hate. I get my uniform and arms from the Pakistan Army which we all love. I will not run away. I will not return to Macedonia, Moscow,  London or Washington. I will stay and fight the TTP terrorists. It is either him or me. I have time on my side. The words carried some weight because the Colonel had bullet wounds to prove his battle hardened resolve. The TTP cannot survive the onslaught of the combined tribes of FATA, plus the arms of the Pakistan army.

I challenged him about foreign involvement. He confirmed Delhi’s involvement. He said the entire army knew this. He said those who did not believe that India was behind the terror in Swat and FATA were those people who would deny light even though it was daylight. He say such people would not accept any amount of proof. He was sure that it was India behind the terrorists.

He was very critical of the US and ISAF role in Afghanistan. He bitterly complained that right in the heat of the battle when the Pakistani attack was being executed, the US and ISAF troops left their posts and ran away. They should have cordoned off the area and supported the Pakistan Army, but the US forces abandoned their posts and left. The Colonel became angry when the talked about this duplicity and incompetence of the American forces. he also said that the fleeing TTP would become a problem for the US forces in Afghanistan now—because the US had the chance of killing them but chose to run from the battlefield

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — The leader of the Pakistani Taliban urged his fighters to stand fast against a military offensive in tribal South Waziristan, warning them in an intercepted message obtained Thursday that cowards will go to hell.

Pakistani forces launched an offensive in mid-October to crush the Taliban in the semiautonomous region along the Afghan border that is believed to be the main stronghold of the militants and their al-Qaida allies.

"Remember this is the commandment of God that once fighting starts with the enemy, you cannot leave the battlefield without permission from your commander, and don't look for excuses to run away from the fighting," Hakimullah Mehsud told his followers in a speech Tuesday broadcast over a wireless radio network. Of those who do run away, he warned, "Such people will go to hell."

Pakistani intelligence officials shared a recording of the speech with The Associated Press, possibly to promote the idea that the militant leader is concerned about desertions in the ranks.

"We are in jihad and we should not pay heed to the whispers of Satan. We should sacrifice our lives for Islam so that we can feel pride on the day of judgment," Mehsud said.

The military says hundreds of militants have been killed in the offensive — including 28 in just the past day — and that hundreds more have been wounded. While the speech could indicate the militants are on the defensive, a Taliban spokesman insisted earlier this week that the group had not lost even a dozen fighters.

While refugees fleeing the area have reported heavy fighting, details are impossible to confirm. South Waziristan has been sealed off to outsiders since the offensive began. Journalists have only been allowed in on carefully orchestrated government trips.

Meanwhile, missiles believed fired by U.S. drones killed two alleged militants Thursday in a northwestern tribal region, intelligence officials said, while Pakistani soldiers battled Taliban fighters in a neighboring area along the Afghan border.

The attack indicated the U.S. will not abandon a favorite tactic against Islamist extremists despite Pakistani concerns that the missile strikes anger insurgents who have agreed to stay neutral as the army wages an offensive against the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan.

The missiles hit a house in Naurak village in the North Waziristan tribal area overnight, killing two alleged militants, the two officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media on the record.

However, local tribesman Inayat Wazir told The Associated Press by telephone that the house was empty and no one had died. It was not immediately possible to verify either claim due to the dangerous nature of the region.

The area struck is believed to be under the control of Hafiz Gul Bahadur, a warlord involved in fighting U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan's military has struck a deal with Bahadur — saying they would leave him alone as long as he stayed out of their way in South Waziristan as they fight the Pakistani Taliban, the network the government blames for most of the suicide bombings in the country.

Pakistani military officials could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday, but in the past officials have said the country would prefer there be no outside interference as it takes on the militants.Pakistan Taliban chief urges troops to fight army By ISHTIAQ MAHSUD (AP) –

As we hear the reports of the TTP fleeing the battlefield, the words of the brave Pakistani Colonel ring i our ears. He was vocal, confident and full of resolve. He reiterated the strategy of the government of Pakistan. He stated his political ideas and clearly reflected the ideas of the jawans. The Colonel represented the voice of the army—and it was strong and bold. He knew his men could fight. He also knew who couldn’t. The American kids don’t know how to fight. They yearn to return to their barracks so that they can enjoy beer and talk to their girl-friends and watch movies. I yearn to defeat the TTP, because the TTP is destroying my livelihood and is supported by the enemies of Pakistan. The colonel was assuredly very confident of his victory and repeatedly told us all that India was the main culprit in the unrest in FATA and Balochistan. The Colonel said that the Pakistan Army was successful in defeating the TTP because the people of Swat and Malakand Agency supported the army and the entire nation stood behind the army. The Colonel said that the bombing of the civilians were the acts of desperation by the militants. The Colonel was very confident that the RAW sponsored insurgents would e wiped out of Waziristan very soon. 

This was no pussyfooting armchair analyst. This Colonel had recently been in a 40 minute pitched battle with the terrorists. He not only survived the battle, his morale was higher than the Hindu Kush and he was returning to the war with enhanced support from the Pakistani Diaspora. We all saluted the gazi and wished him well.

I brought my son and introduced him to the colonel. He appreciated the efforts of Rupee News to get the truth out and said he would forward our address to the General in the area. He had tears in his eyes when he talked about how proud he was of the patriots who supported him and the army.

Shireen Mazari challenges Hillary venom against Pakistan

HILLARY Clinton's love affair with Pakistan was short-lived. Back in the US she flatly denied the charge that India was sparking unrest in Balochistan. She also observed that since Pakistan could criticise the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the US also had the right to protest Al-Qaeda's presence on its land and demand action against it. Furthermore, she went to the extent of saying that Islamabad had gone into the fight against militancy of its own accord out of the threat it faced from the terrorists.

The tone and tenor of her words convey the usual tendency of viewing Pakistan with a jaundiced eye. Keeping in view her trip, her interaction with people from all walks of life, many fell prey to wishful thinking. Some might have even assumed her assurance of turning a new page on Pak-US relations was genuine. Her posturing has now brought all those living in a fool's paradise back to reality. But the sight of the US Secretary of State or any other official for that matter spewing venom against
Pakistan should not worry us anymore. This is part and parcel of the old practice of ditching and stabbing us in the back. On the Kerry-Lugar Act, far from accepting the fact that the Act runs counter to our sovereignty, she further upped the ante by badmouthing Pakistan as a terrorist safe-haven.

So far as her statement that it is Pakistan's own war, the truth is that soon after the 9/11 we had gone along with the US literally at gunpoint. The country was warned either it was with the US or with the terrorists. And slowly but surely, we were sucked into a deadly maelstrom. Suicide attacks became more frequent afterwards. The US then forced us into signing our death warrants by compelling us to
resort to the use of force rather than dialogue with the tribals. To add insult to injury, it started bombing our tribal areas in violation of our sovereignty and international law. The real purpose was to brush its failure in Afghanistan under the carpet. Focusing on Pakistan and labelling it as the centre of all terrorist activity was a much more convenient way of doing away with the 'Afghanistan syndrome'. Equally distressing was to see her laugh away the Balochistan crisis and India's role in it.

Couldn't she recall US Gen Stanley McChrystal, who had observed that increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan would exacerbate regional tensions and would encourage Pakistan into countermeasures?

At this point in time, if our leaders look around, there is no dearth of countries, which have carried themselves with integrity and grace in their relationship with the US. A rethink of our 'friendship' with the US is definitely in order.

Clueless Clinton’s crafty Charm schemes flop in Pakistan

Asking Hillary Clinton to wage a “Charm Offensive” is like asking Dracula to smile. As soon as the vampire opens his mouth on can see his blood sucking teeth. Similarly Mrs. Clinton cannot help herself. She thinks herself as the paragon of all truth whereas the “little brown boys” are diabolical, mischievous, dirty, unscrupulous and lie all the time. Ask her any question and her paradigmic bias gets her into trouble. The two events that were supposed to ring her in touch with the Pakistani people were total fiascos. She might as well have stayed home. Rupee News actually wrote an article on this subject—if she was going to repeat her Anti-Pakistani rhetoric, she might as well as stay on the Potomac and not face the blowback from her klutzy comments.

Here is a Telegraph which correctly defines the situation.

Her visit was intended in part as a charm offensive in a country steeped in anti-American sentiment.

Pakistanis seem utterly uncertain whether the US is a friend or foe. Recognising the problem of "misperception", Mrs Clinton's visit has focused on trying to put the US message directly to the people of Pakistan, rather than the usual routine of meeting top officials.

But the PR blitz appeared to have little effect on entrenched public opinion that blames the US for Pakistan's extremist menace. By Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Published: 6:41PM GMT 30 Oct 2009. Hillary Clinton faces angry criticism of US in Pakistan

If the Secretary of State expected a group of stereotypical docile and suppressed women whom she could lecture away—then Mrs. Clinton surely she would have been surprised by the audience—she got an earful from angry Pakistani women.

An interview with several women who are prominent Pakistani television anchors, broadcast live, turned into a pointed, sometimes raucous back-and-forth…as they parried with Mrs. Clinton. They criticized American drone strikes in Pakistan, said the military presence was stirring unrest and expressed their doubts about whether the United States had a long-term commitment to Pakistan. New York Times. By MARK LANDLER and JACK HEALY. Published: October 30, 2009

Mrs. Clinton did not hold an open press conference where the Pakistani media could have rally asked her some questions. The harbinger of democracy shied away from the Pakistani press. The US press has given wide coverage to the Hillary interaction which was supposed to be stage managed and choreographed.

The UK Guardian reported the following questions.

One tribal leader who met her yesterday said afterwards he was impressed. But in a television interview later, one woman in the audience said the drones amounted to "executions without trial".

Another asked Clinton if she considered drone strikes to be an act of terrorism similar to the bombing that killed over 100 people in Peshawar on Wednesday. Declan Walsh in Islamabad.guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 October 2009 18.37 GMT. Hillary Clinton wraps up tough mission in Pakistan

The New York Times reported the following questions that were asked of the Secretary of State—who still holds to the wrong notions about Pakistan—fed to her by her incompetent generals who are looking for excuses for their colossal defeat in Afghanistan

• One of the women said that Pakistanis were experiencing “daily 9/11’s,” and an audience member asked Mrs. Clinton whether the drone strikes amounted to acts of terrorism.
• “Your presence in the region is not good for peace,” one of the men in attendance told Mrs. Clinton, according to The Associated Press, “because it gives rise to frustration and irritation among the people of this region.”
• Why did the United States abandon Pakistan after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, they asked.
• Why did the Bush administration support the previous military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf? What about reports in the Pakistani news media that American contractors illegally carried weapons in Islamabad? Even her fans have come armed with spears.
• A young woman, a medical student, thanked Mrs. Clinton for being an inspiration to women, then asked how the United States could justify ordering Predator strikes on targets in Pakistan without sharing intelligence with its military. New York Times. By MARK LANDLER and JACK HEALY. Published: October 30, 2009

Mrs Clinton was silent about the drone attacks

The CIA-operated drone strikes have been enthusiastically embraced by the Obama administration, which considers them a key tool in disabling al-Qaida's ability to plot attacks from its tribal safehaven.

The US has carried out over 80 strikes since 2006, half of them since the start of this year. One such strike last August killed the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

But the civilian casualties inflicted by the drone strikes, and the perceived infringement of sovereignty, enrages most Pakistanis. The attacks enjoy only 9% support, according to a Gallup poll taken last August.

The level of civilian casualties is hotly disputed. But one recent study by the New America Foundation estimated that US drones have killed between 750 around 1,000 people in Pakistan since 2006, about one third of them civilians.

The deep public hostility to drones feeds latent anti-Americanism and leaves the Pakistani government in a difficult position. The Guardian

The Daily Telegraph reported the following:

Mrs Clinton was again pushed on to the defensive. One tribesman told her: "Your presence in the region is not good for peace".

A day earlier, in a session with students in the eastern city of Lahore, America's top diplomat was told by a student: "The US has betrayed Pakistan. That's a fact."

However the comments of a journalist, Asma Shirazi, during an interview broadcast live on Friday typified the strength of criticism Mrs Clinton faced.

"We are fighting a war that is imposed on us. It's not our war. It is your war," said the journalist.

"You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan."  By Saeed Shah in Islamabad, Published: 6:41PM GMT 30 Oct 2009. Hillary Clinton faces angry criticism of US in Pakistan

In a meeting with selected Pakistani journalists she went bonkers, way out in left field, when she said strange hallucinating stuff (perhaps a hangover from her hippy days in “Arkansaw”. Pig Soee (how they call the hogs in Arkansas—and also the University sports chant), but were are not in Kanasas anymore Toto. Her words about “if Pakistan wants to shrink her territory” will ring in the ears of the people of Pakistan for a long time. He silly comments about the Pakistani leadership knowing the whereabouts of the Al-Qaeda leaderships certainly didn’t sit well with the Pakistani government and Army. Reports say that these two issues were brought up during the meeting with Chief of Army Staff Kiyan and the ISI Chief Pasha.

ISLAMABAD – Addressing a roomful of Pakistani women Friday afternoon at the National Art Gallery here, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made every effort to connect with her audience. But after enduring multiple security checks and waiting over four hours for the secretary to arrive, most women left unimpressed.

“Frankly, it was a waste of my time,” said one assistant professor from the Fatima Jinnah Women’s University (FJWU) in Rawalpindi, who asked not to be named. “[Clinton] wasn’t interested in hearing the about the layman’s problems or the reality of our daily lives.”

That caused many, such as Shazia Marri, the information minister of the Sindh province, to leave the meeting frustrated that their concerns were not heard. “Emancipated women in Pakistan have a clear point of view that did not come across,” she said.

The local media has described Mrs. Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan as a “charm offensive.” Her town-hall meeting with female activists, lawyers, journalists, parliamentarians, and businesswomen from across the country was meant to conclude the trip on a high note, particularly in the wake of Wednesday’s car bomb attack on a Peshawar market that killed 117 – mostly women.

In her interactions with Pakistani women, Clinton tried to engage in personal-level diplomacy. Explaining how the US would support democracy in Pakistan, Clinton discussed the importance of “habits of the heart,” such as tolerance and compromise, which could be ingrained within families and by teachers in schools. Addressing concerns about aid delivery, she described how the US government organized a team of female Pakistani-American doctors to treat internally displaced women. And in a rare digression, she reminisced about an exchange of family photographs with the late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Clinton attempted a relaxed manner, with an aside about having a Pakistani roommate. But her jokes about visiting Pakistan and not discussing security for once failed to win over the crowd. Pakistani women – much like the country’s youth and professionals, whom Clinton met in similar meetings in Lahore on Thursday – seemed more keen on discussing security issues. The questions that met with most applause from the audience were on US drone attacks, alleged American designs on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and whether the US intended to pressure India to settle the long-standing Kashmir conflict.

Several audience members said Clinton’s answers did little to allay their concerns or skepticism. “The responses were as expected,” added Ameena Saiyid, the managing director of Oxford University Press. Christian Science Monitor. In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm professional women By Huma Yusuf | Correspondent 10.30.09

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to stage manage the message, and apparently it backfired. The blowback from arrogance and hubris can be significant. One only has to look at Tehran, next door. There was a time when the US Ambassador thought himself the Viceroy of Iran, and ran the country like his personal fiefdom. The Iranian Revolution was the obvious result of this sort of micromanagement. History shows that the “Uglay American” image led to the Cuban Revolution, the Chinese Communist takeover and the radicalization of the the Middle East and the October Revolution in Russia. Venezuela is also a prime example of a country sick and tired of being meddled in. Today Ms. Clinton heard first had what Pakistanis think. She should have been on a listening mode. She was on a lecturing mood. Pakistanis, as evidenced by the Christian Scient Monitor report are not in the mood to listen to lectures.

Many women, including Zainab Azmat, a resident of the South Waziristan tribal agency, currently lecturing at Peshawar’s Institute of Management Sciences (IMS), complained that Clinton’s answers were too “reserved.” Ms. Azmat added that the intention of the meeting was unclear. “Why were we here? What did they want us to ask? What did they want to convey to us?” she asked.

It didn’t help that many women objected to the format of the discussion, which was moderated by five female news anchors. Before Clinton arrived, one State Department representative explained that the format aimed to imitate the popular talk show, ‘The View.’

But it seems the women were not all convinced that the show is what the meeting most closely mirrored. “This meeting was as micromanaged as our country’s internal affairs,” quipped the FJWU professor. “[The Americans] were trying to retain the upper-hand in the conversation.”

Fariel Salahiddin, a financial consultant with Ministry of Information, still found the visit valuable, however. It is “admirable that Clinton is making this effort to reach out,” she said. Christian Science Monitor. In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm professional women By Huma Yusuf | Correspondent 10.30.09

Here carefully crafted message of “love” fell apart when as soon as she opened her mouth.

"Al Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002," she told a group of Pakistani journalists Thursday. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." She added, "Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."  Hillary Clinton Talking to Pakistani journalists—also reported by CNN. Secretary of state urges openness between U.S., Pakistan. October 30, 2009 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)

This is exactly the kind of verbiage that ruffles Pakistani feathers and acts as a catalyst to increase Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. The use of the wording “safe havens” is a very unwise choice of words. It depicts connivance and complicity between Pakistani officials and the terrorists. Obviously the there is no such complicity—as evidenced by the assassination of the Education minister and the bloody attacks in Islamabad, Lahore and Peshawar. To suggest any sort of liason with the murderers and thgus is silly and counterproductive.

In the CNN interview Friday, Clinton said she was not suggesting that someone inside the government might be complicit with al Qaeda or might be failing to follow through in fighting the terrorist group.

"No, no," she said. "What I was responding to is what I have been really doing on this trip, which is there exists a trust deficit, certainly on the part of Pakistanis toward the United States, toward our intentions and our actions. And yet we have so much in common, we face a common threat. We certainly have a common enemy in extremism and terrorism, and so part of what I have been doing is answering every single charge, every question." Secretary of state urges openness between U.S., Pakistan. October 30, 2009 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)

Mrs. Clinton did seem to backtrack, after the bloodhounds of CNN cornered her. However instead of apologizing for the bad choice of words, she fell into the trap of justifying her comments and became very defensive. She forgot where she was—all in plain sight of the Pakistanis. She forgets that CNN is watched and heard in Islamabad also. Her message to her domestic constituency in America was seen as a horrible message in Pakistan.

Trust "is a two-way street," she added. While Pakistan's military operation has been "extremely courageous in both Swat and now in South Waziristan, success there is not sufficient," she said. "... I just want to keep putting on the table that we have some concerns as well. And I think ... that's the kind of relationship I'm looking to build here."

Asked whether she had underestimated the level of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, Clinton said, "No, because I've been following the research and the polling that's gone on for a couple of years. I knew that we were inheriting a pretty negative situation that we were going to have to address." That's why she wanted three days in the country, "a long trip for a secretary of state," she said.

"I wanted to demonstrate that, look, we are not coming here claiming that everything we've done is perfect. I've admitted to mistakes by our country going back in time, but I've also reminded people that we've been partners and allies from the beginning of Pakistan's inception as a country. Pakistan has helped us on several important occasions, and we are very grateful for that. So let's begin to clear the air here."

The Obama Administration has to make some serious changes, if it wants the US point of view and the American message to reach the Pakistani people. Congressmen Charlie Wilson and Rohrabacker were able to get through a positive and helpful message. Congressman Findley is well respected in Pakistani circles. President Reagan’s son may conjure up positive images of an era which bode well for Pakistani-American relations. Pakistanis in general had great hopes for Mr. Obama’s message of change. They are dissappointd by the rise in drone attacks—which blowback as bombs on Pakistani civilians. Mr. Obama may still have some equity left—but time is running out. A Pakistani revolution would sweep up the complaint leaders, just like the Shah of Iran and make Islamabad as inhospitable for Americans Tehran is for the US right now.

Kerry only partially right: Rhetoric and Anti-Pakistan cliches obscure good message

John Kerry has tried to smooth relations with the government of Pakistan but he remains at odds with the Pakistani people because of the language he uses. “Existential threat”, “Al-Qaeda HQ in Pakistan” “Do more”, “Nukes safe?” and “Safe havens in Pakistan” are anathema to Pakistan and Pakistanis.

All these incorrect clichés  need to be purged from the American vocabulary. “Existential threat” is taken as a veiled threat and is not acceptable to any sovereign nation—specially a nuclear powered one.

• “Al-Quaida” (if it still exists) is not headquartered in Pakistan—Islamabad purged the ranks and 300 of the top leadership is in Guantanamo. No organization under the name Al-Qaeda is allowed in Pakistan. The leaders are on the run and hide in nooks, crannies and caves in many parts of the world, including, Germany, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia etc.
• Nothing rankles the feathers of Pakistan than the mention of the security of Pakistani nukes—and the total silence on the safety of Israeli and Indian nuclear weapons. Hamas and Hizbullah are a few miles from Israeli nukes. 40% of India is controlled by the Maoist Naxals. However no US leader mentions the security of Indian weapons. A plane load of US nukes was mistakenly sent to Taiwan—and broken arrows (lost nukes) wasn’t discovered for days. Pakistanis are appalled that the US has the gall to question the safety of Pakistani pride and honor.
• Pakistani areas may be “hideouts” but are not “safe havens” for any terrorist. The semantic difference may be a fine line, but “safe haven” show malfeasance and toleration for terrorists by Pakistan and “hideouts” show that the terrorists are being chased and are hiding.

When US politicians talk about duplicity, they forget the duplicity of America when it imposed a non-Pakhtun and Anti-representative government in Kabul. Whenever an American politicians uses the three clichés, the good message is lost. Whatever else the politician says is then thrown into the “Anti-Pakistan” waste paper basket.

WASHINGTON: The United States has enormous stakes in Pakistan’s stability and must assist the country economically and militarily to help it overcome serious challenges, and at the same time make it clear to the Pakistanis that Washington respects their sovereignty, Senator John Kerry advocated.

‘We need to make it clear that we respect their (Pakistanis) sovereignty,’ he stated at the Council on Foreign Relations while speaking about US policy toward the region in the light of his visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan last week.

Kerry, co-author of a $7.5 billion five-year economic aid measure and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Pakistan should be given vital breathing space to deal with its difficult problems. ‘These are serious challenges,’ he added.

The Democratic lawmaker appeared to favor a narrowly focused strategy for Afghanistan and warned against destabilising effect of any larger Afghan strategy on nuclear-armed Pakistan, which he praised for its massive ongoing anti-militant campaign in South Waziristan.

Arguing for sustained support for Pakistan, Senator Kerry also drew attention to the contrast in $30 to $1 ratio of what the US spends in Afghanistan and what it gives to Pakistan.

Senator Kerry ruled out any American combat troops on Pakistani soil, asserting that Islamabad can best overcome militant challenges through a homegrown approach.

‘We’re not going to send troops by any significant numbers of any kind to Pakistan. We may have some people training or helping if that’s something they (Pakistanis) decide they want,’ he said.

Kerry said the Obama administration is working to strengthen Islamabad’s ability to deliver on economic and security challenges.

‘The outcome is going to be determined by the Pakistanis themselves making a choice about whether or not they are going to stand up to the Taliban and assert their democratic values. I believe they will. I think they are,’ said Kerry in an interview with the Fox News channel.

‘And I think the White House is trying to figure out the best ways in which to empower them to do that. It can’t be an American-driven policy. It can’t have an American imprint or footprint. This really has to be homegrown, and that’s what we’re really working with the Pakistanis to achieve.’

‘If they (Pakistanis) are left in a place where their efforts are viewed as being our efforts, we’re all in trouble. We can’t tell them what to do. We can’t be viewed as orchestrating this in some way. This really has to be a plan that is based on our ability to assist them to do what they decide they want to do and need to do. And, yes, we have mutual interests.’

‘This is a country with a history and with an ability to be able to deliver – in some cases more rapidly than others. They now need to get coordinated. They have a new civilian government. They have had a military leader for the last eight years or so. They went to the polls. They elected this leader. He’s only had a short period of time under very difficult economic circumstances to really get things moving. Our hope is that they are now getting on the track and beginning to make the commitments necessary to win back their own country.’

He particularly highlighted the anti-militant resolve achieved at public level under the democratic Pakistani government.

‘The good news is that many Pakistanis recognize that they face an existential challenge within their border. The Pakistani military has demonstrated a firm resolve with its current offensive against Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan (border tribal area) and they deserve great credit for that.’

He also noted the Pakistani military is pushing back militants from the country’s northwestern areas they had infiltrated into.

‘We need to be doing as much as we can do and that involves Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to assist the Pakistani military as they go after domestic extremists,’ he added, underscoring the need for coordinated efforts against remnants of al-Qaeda.

‘We need to be doing a better job of explaining ourselves, we need to be much more sensitive to their sensibilities as to how we can proceed.’

He saw an opportunity in the current refugee exodus from Waziristan toward improving the image of the United States through humanitarian assistance.—APP

New York Times: Taliban types & Pakistanphobia

The New York Times in its latest story finally has been able to comprehend the basics of the raging battles in West Asia. However Souad Mekhennet is only partially right. He still doesn’t have the full picture. As explained in these columns The “Taliban” are a misnomer. The original Afghan “Taliban” are all decrepit old men---today’s “Taliban” are a conglomeration of 38 insurgent groups that carry varying degrees of loyalty to the local warlords.

Of course the US media long used to the “the-only-good-Muslim-is-a-dead-Muslim” paradigm is incapable of discerning the nuanced differences among the various groups—simply because it does not serve the vested interests to differentiate between the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Afghans, the Pakhtuns and the Hazaras.

Ms. Clinton: Want to stop Anti-Americanism in Pakistan–Halt Anti-Pakistan statements

LKB2-Military places more restrictions on Pakistan

Did Blackwater attack Islamic University? Students think so

Pakistan must take a U-turn–an emphatic no to Obama’s war

WASHINGTON — As it devises a new Afghanistan policy, the Obama administration confronts a complex geopolitical puzzle: two embattled governments, in Afghanistan and Pakistan; numerous militias aligned with overlapping Islamist factions; and hidden in the factions’ midst, the foe that brought the United States to the region eight years ago, Al Qaeda.

But at the core of the tangle are the two Taliban movements, Afghan and Pakistani. They share an ideology and a dominant Pashtun ethnicity, but they have such different histories, structures and goals that the common name may be more misleading than illuminating, some regional specialists say.

“The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion,” said Gilles Dorronsoro, a French scholar of South Asia currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

This week, Mr. Dorronsoro said, as the Pakistani Army began a major offensive against the Pakistani Taliban, many Americans thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban, the force that is causing Washington to consider sending more troops to Afghanistan.

At stake is not just semantics. Grasping the differences between the two Taliban forces, and their shifting relationships with Al Qaeda, is crucial to understanding the debate under way in the White House situation room. Though both groups threaten American interests, the Afghan Taliban — the word Taliban means “religious students” — are the primary enemy, mounting attacks daily against the 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Washington’s biggest fear is that if the Afghan Taliban overrun the country, they could invite Al Qaeda’s leaders back from their Pakistani hide-out.

Alex Strick van Linschoten, a Dutch researcher who lives in Kandahar, in the heart of the Afghan Taliban’s power base, said that while leaders of the two Taliban groups might say that they share common interests, the two movements are quite separate.

“To be honest, the Taliban commanders and groups on the ground in Afghanistan couldn’t care less what’s happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border,” said Mr. Strick van Linschoten, who has interviewed many current and former members of the Afghan Taliban.

In fact, the recent attacks of the Pakistani Taliban against Pakistan’s government, military and police, in anticipation of the army’s current campaign into the Pakistani Taliban’s base in South Waziristan, may have strained relations with the Afghan Taliban, said Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence officer who tracks Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the United Nations.

The Objectivity of world class newspapers is tarnished when they focus on the reports of the defeated US general playing the blame game. Like Westmoreland in Vietnam, General Petraues and McChrystal are in constant search of the ghosts of the “Ho Chi Minh” trail (now called the Quetta Shura). The US politicians are unable to differentiate between the “Taliban” because they would then have to take ownership for the creation of the new Franken steins—the new “Khemer Rouge” (TTP). We have been writing for a decade about the spillover of the US war in Afghanistan. Reams have been written about the “Cambodiazation” of Pakistan. Today the Pakistani people are suffering because of the excesses of the worst terror organization in the world—the Indian sponsored and Delhi abetted TTP. India behind most terror attacks: Pakistani Interrior Minister Rehman Malik

The Afghan Taliban have always had a close relationship with Pakistani intelligence agencies, Mr. Barrett said recently. “They don’t like the way that the Pakistan Taliban has been fighting the Pakistan government and causing a whole load of problems there,” he said.

The Afghan Taliban, whose group is by far the older of the two forces, have been led by Mullah Muhammad Omar since he founded the movement in 1994. They seeks to regain the power they held over most of Afghanistan before being ousted by the American invasion of 2001.

In an interview this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity, an Afghan Taliban commander expressed sympathy for the Pakistani Taliban, but said, “There will not be any support from us.” He said the Afghan Taliban “don’t have any interest in fighting against other countries.”

“Our aim was, and is, to get the occupation forces out and not to get into a fight with a Muslim army,” the commander added.

Before 9/11, the Afghan Taliban hosted Osama bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Qaeda, but the groups are now separated geographically, their leaders under pressure from intensive manhunts. On jihadist Web sites, analysts have detected recent tensions between Al Qaeda, whose proclaimed goals are global, and the Afghan Taliban, which have recently claimed that their interests lie solely in Afghanistan.

Mr. Dorronsoro, the French scholar, said the Afghan Taliban were a “genuine national movement” incorporating not only a broad network of fighters, but also a shadow government-in-waiting in many provinces.

By comparison, he said, the Pakistani Taliban were a far looser coalition, united mainly by their enmity toward the Pakistani government. They emerged formally only in 2007 as a separate force led by Baitullah Mehsud under the name Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or Students’ Movement of Pakistan.

After Mr. Mehsud was killed by an American missile in August, a fellow tribesman, Hakimullah Mehsud, took over after a period of jockeying for power in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Another complication for regional terminology: most leaders of the Afghan Taliban are based in Pakistan, directing their forces from hide-outs across the border. Mullah Omar and his top deputies are believed to be in or around the southern Pakistani city of Quetta. Two other major factions in the Afghan insurgency are led by veteran Afghan warlords, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who are in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where the Pakistan Taliban is strongest.

Al Qaeda’s leaders, including Mr. bin Laden, are believed to be hiding in the same tribal areas of Pakistan. While it has been weakened by American missile strikes, the terrorist network nonetheless is believed to have provided support for the Pakistani Taliban’s strikes against the Pakistani government.

For the United States, regional experts say, the long-term challenge is to devise policies that peel away as many militants as possible from both Taliban forces, isolating Al Qaeda and other hard-liners and strengthening the Pakistani and Afghan governments. But for a non-Muslim superpower, widely resented in the region, that is a tall order.

“At the moment the ground isn’t very well prepared for splitting the militant groups,” said Stephen Biddle, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who spent a month last summer in Afghanistan. “The security trends are running in their favor.”

Of course, if the United States’ enemies in the region are complicated, so are its allies. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai is seen as unwilling to take on corruption and tainted by fraud in the recent election, though he has now agreed to a runoff.

In Pakistan, with 172 million people, a population at least five times as large as that of Afghanistan, power is divided among the army, the intelligence service and two rival political parties — “four actors,” Mr. Biddle said, “each of which sees the threat from the others as bigger than the threat from the militants.”

Polls show that Americans, frustrated by the United States’ supposed allies and confused by the conflict, are losing their fervor for the fight. “The complexity of all this is hard enough for experts to understand,” said Paul R. Pillar, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst now at Georgetown University. “It’s not surprising if it baffles a lot of ordinary people.”  Insurgents Share a Name, but Pursue Different Goals By SCOTT SHANE. Published: October 22, 2009, Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Karachi, Pakistan. October 23, 2009

Sistan attack: Attempt to disrupt Iran-Pakistan ties

International Council of Security and Development (ISOC): Taliban control “virtually all” of Afghanistan

Perpetual Mimitic War: Strategy for continued Failure in Afghanistan Obama's Afghan 'Strategy' without an "Exit Plan" is a 'Straightjacket' named quagmire & defeat

Souad Mekhennet differentiates between the Taliban and the TTP. He however uses the opportunity to malign Pakistan and the intelligence forces. It is exactly this sort of Anti-Pakistanism in the US that mirrors itself as escalating Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. The US cannot win the war in Afghanistan without Pakistan.

Pakistan has repeatedly provided cheese for Western whines in Afghanistan. The perpetual complaints build a huge reservoir of “ingrate fever” which clearly manifests itself as Anti-Americanism. Silly comments by Ms. Clinton lecturing Pakistanis on who the enemy is the epitome of “Ugly Americanism”. When the US Ambassador behaves like the Viceroy of Pakistan, it is inevitable that Anti-Americanism grows. When veiled threats by General Petraeus are thrown at Islamabad with lines like “existential threats”, the Pakistanis don’t like it.

Pakistan: Why Ms. Clinton doesn’t get it Hillary Clinton admits to US support for Bin Laden & creation of Taliban

The rude US Ambassador Patterson in hot soup

Kerry Lugar Bill backlash: Pakistan rethinks Afghan policy & US alliance-Hit RAW hard in Afghanistan
We are running the risk of replicating the fate of the Soviets” Mr. Brzezinski Brzezinski: Don’t start new wars. Use diplomacy in Pakistan

Admiral Mullen is still wrong The crusty specious, Admiral is mistaken about Afghanistan

Bruce Reidel does not have a clue

Bruce Reidel started out as a low level operative in the CIA(?). He weasled his way into the Democratic party and some got the ear of Brack Obama. His initial analysis was good. It mimicd the ongoing reviews called by the outgoing Bush Administration which wanted to overhaul its Afghan policy and try to convert defeat into victory. Mr. Reidel however is no expert on Pakistan, and is not familiar with the culture, traditions and history of the republic. His recent rendition of Pakistani history, published in the Wall Street Journal displays a paucity of ideas, and a bankruptcy of vision and a total absence of understanding of the Pakistani ethos. His book has some edges, but one could overlook them because it had kernels of truth which could be tied together in a good bead story.
Mr. Reidel’s initial articles took a somewhat balanced view. He talked about a regional approach, and aptly described the resolution of Afghanistan, tied in to the resolution of Kashmir. He discussed the fact that the root cause of the problems lay in the disenfranchisement of the Kashmiris, and once that problem was solved and Pakistani’s Eastern borders secured, Islamabad would be more emendable to helping the US in the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Reidel also talked about “convincing” the Pakistanis into helping the US and he also discussed a Marshall plan for Pakistan and a the sacrosanct nature of the Durand Line.
Pick a rock, any rock, and you can find “experts” predicting gloom and doom. One wonders how much venom the bigots can spew. Judging by the decibel level of the doomsayers, one can always judge the level of frustration that they face. News about Pakistan is accompanied with the pugilistic doomsayers who come out in droves.
Mr. Reidel’s ”in depth” analysis of the Afghan war however was mostly based upon the writings of an unknown two bit teacher by the name Rashid Ahmed, a 3rd rate professor at an open admisison university of Pakistan which used to be called Islamabd University. In terms of academic standard or admission cireterio the campus on which Mr. Rashid Ahmed works in, the campus is known as a party campus, with dorms full of sixties type of hippies and a woman’s wing which has always been embroiled in scandal and mischief . Mr. Rashid Ahmed wrote what the CIA wanted to read. His book was very well received in the west, and he has now become a celebrity talking about this that and the other as if he is an authority on the Taliban or the Pakhtuns. He is neither. Mr. Ahmed Rashid is a pawn in the hands of Mr. Reidel. the Dollars make him repeat his master’s voice.
Over the past few months things changed. The Afghan review came out. It was pretty much a regurgitation of the old NEI, CIA and DOD reviews. The old policy was sold to the American public as new. Mr. Holbrooke was appointed as an envoy of Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of the original Pakistan and India envoy. After vociferous complaints by Delhi Kashmir was taken off the agenda. “K” may be part of Mr. Holbrooke’s silent agenda but it is not to be mentioned publicly. The Free Trade Agreement between pakistan and the US remains elusive as does the access of Pakistani Textiles to the US market. The ROZ has been placed on queue in the COngress and may appear on the agenda next year. Puny aid of $1.9 Billion is to be awarded to Pakistan, but half o fit will be spent on enhancing US embassies.
In other words the Neocon agenda continues with few nuanced changes.
The CIA has almost always been wrong on predicting major events. It has been a total failure in monitoring real and perceived enemies. Filling Gitmo, renditions and torture are not success stories that should be rewarded.
The CIA has once again come up with policy statements for the new President. In fact the new policy is partly based upon the recommendations of the intelligence agencies.
Selective Amnesia of Americans: Pakistan is the most mistreated friend in the world. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is the organization that gave us the fiasco of Bay of Pigs becuase it didn’t have a clue that the Cuban had Russian missiles hidden in their closets. By the time they found out it was too late. The CIA is the same organization that couldn’t predict the simple fact that the USSR was ready to implode, a fact known to almost everyone on the streets of Moscow or Kabul. Justifying the Banality of a brutal Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan: The Thinktanks attempt to complete the circle of complicity between a sycophantic press, and a non-inquisitive servile public. The nation is forced to accept the only argument that it is being repeatedly inundated with
The truth is out. Mr. Reidel is a bigoted racist who has brought the likes of Mr. Kilcullen to the forefront to wage war on Pakistan. Mr. Reidel’s rancid and hackneyed imperviousness to everything Pakistani blinds him to the large spectrum of vivacious Pakistani diversity, makes him deaf to the varied cacophony of Pakistani ideas, gangly numbs him to the inherently punier societal contradictions of the country, and helps him ignore the profound internal cohesion, so that he can surreptitiously inexerably and single-mindedly negatively highlight the putative and superficial dissonance of a highly complex society. Mr. Reidel can say nothing good about Pakistan. He can thus impugn them with being enmeshed and ensnared in everything that goes wrong with anything. Mr.Reidel has not spent a lot of time in Pakistan. He however claims to be an expert on Paksitan. Textbooks only get you so far. It is pedagogical to investigate the didactic provenance of his cabal and research the incipient truculence of his petulantly portentous and venomously vindictive and revanchist commentariat.
Pakistan cannot be handed the forced foster parentage of failed American policies in South Asia.
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)
Mr. Reidel’s recent article in the Wall Street Journal was a new nadir of his incompetence. That article and the compendium of his flummoxed ad hominem trope has serious errors in it, which is typical of the odiously conflated half-baked harebrained doctrinal tripe so pervasive in the open hunting season on Pakistan these days. Mr. Reidel is wrong, totally wrong on Pakistan.
The “Firm” participated in the Mossedegh snafu in which they an elected and popular prime minister and installed Reza Shah as emperor. The CIA is the same organization that didn’t have a clue about the popularity of Imam Khomeni and ’till the last moment continued to support the Shah of Iran. “The Company” is the same spy agency that tried to buy arms from Iran to fund the Contras in Nicragua. The CIA was unable to predict the USSR’s invasion of Afghanstan and it took them two years to join the Pakistanis in their war against the Communist invaders.
Mr. Reidel–stop this nonsense!
here are a few new players who have jumped on the Anti-Pakistan bandwagon. The Darth Vader plenipotentiary of the Neocons is the Australian Rupert Mrudock. The Neocon agenda was to implement the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC). This plan called for maintaining the supremacy of the US through violent conflict if needed. According to PNACers the destruction of the USSR accorded an opportunity to trample over smaller nations in order to encircle any future threats to America. Hence the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bad wars, sheer incompetence of the executers, and the stiff resistance given to the invaders brought many American policy holders to their sense. It is very consternating and most disappointing that the phlegmatic doyens and placid cognoscenti of the Obama Administration lacked the imperious intellect to reject this compendium of insipid depredation, and chose to egregiously reproduce the vapid pabulum and rambling crypto-racist putrid screed written by this doltish and vindictive votary of prurient scurrility.
The puerile headlines in the Hate-Pakistan press remind me of the old schoolyard song. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never harm me“. The risible rhetoric is amazing in its transparent bias and mind boggling in its obeisance to the Gods of mendacity. Congressman Denis Kucinich once remarked that “the American press is worse than Izvestia and Pravda” in kowtowing to the government line.
The misanthropic media has almost become an organ of the state and is used by the military to disseminate misinformation and outright lies. Headlines are added at the discretion of the editor. Many times the headlines are totally disconnected from the actual essay. Even the paragons of the left wing media like the New York Times were used like a fiddle to play the swan song of the WMDs. The list is long. The childish name calling is not limited to the New York Times Company. The juvenile vacuous, vapid chatter is as ubiquitous now as it was in the war mongering days that fueled the frenzy to attack Iraq. The New York Times apologized, but continues its venomous diatribes against Pakistan.
This polemicist’s troglodyte’s pauperized intellect, vacuity of ideas and teutonic bloviations are a prosaic and trite admixture of the clichéd and discredited Neocon assertions, unsubstantiated and facile aspersions, outright augean distortion, and pure unadulterated balderdash. Mr. Reidel has been caught “in flagrante delicto” with his pants down. His penchant for a revivified virulence of the macabre and ghoulishly political vaudeville shows a total lack of knowledge of South Asia and only a peripheral knowledge of Pakistan and Pakistanis.
The headlines use the worst words that they can find, despair, peril, dangerous, failed, disarray, implode, explode etc etc. Some Pakistanis worry about the use of the words. The real reason for the frustration is fear. They fear failure in the Hindu Kush. they are scared of getting thrown out of the Khyber, and they are frustrated by the lack of success in the Indus. All the huffing and the puffing has not enabled them to blow away the house.

Defeated Indian Army withdraws from Kashmir

The might of 800,000 soldiers was not enough to suppress the freedom struggle of the brave men and women who sought freedom from dominance and repression. After implementing the worst torture, rape and murder on the innocent civilians of the Srinagar and the Valley, Delhi has had enough. After killing 100,000 Kashmiris, have the Indians lost the stomach to kill more? The announcement to accept defeat and withdraw was not a gesture of chivalry, it coincided with a visit to Delhi by William Burns, the US Under Secretary of State. Apparently his silver tongue and President Obama’s letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were enough to persuade India to pull troops back from Pakistan’s border and restart peace talks over Kashmir. India’s army and the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) have been brutally repressing Kashmir since 1989.
India’s predominantly Hindu troops in Kashmir have often been accused of raping, kidnapping, torturing, beating and killing Kashmiris with impunity, especially since the uprising began. Times
One letter from President Obama forced the Indians to withdraw their forces, shut down the consulates in Afghanistan and put a permanent halt to the nuclear tests. One test and the Nuclear deal is off. One ounce of Uranium unaccounted for and Delhi gets sent to purgatory. Politicians in Islamabad complain about the micromanagement of Pakistani affairs. The micromanagement of India is even worse. She was told to explode the nuclear devices by President Clinton and now she has been told by Obama to withdraw from Kashmir. Of course these diktats to Delhi did not come directly from Washington, they came from Beijing via Washington. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was informed by the Chinese to stop the destabilization of Pakistan. Now the same message was given to US Treasury Secretary who was recently in Beijing. This time the Chinese meant business. Thus the letter from President Barack Obama to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh clearly spelled out a plan for the Indian government, withdraw from Kashmir and stop the mercenary activity in Pakistan.
NEW DELHI: The US said on Thursday that it wants the Kashmir issue resolved in line with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir – a statement that reflects Pakistan’s stance on the long-standing dispute.
Addressing a press conference after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns – on a three-day visit to India – stunned reporters by saying that the Kashmir issue had to be settled in line with the aspirations of Kashmiris. “It remains our view that a resolution of that issue has to take into account wishes of the Kashmiri people,” he said. Daily Times. US adopts Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir
We wrote about it in April 2009. We also continue to think that Richard Holbrooke is the US Ambassador for Kashmir, even though his official designation is “Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” (”K” for Kashmir is silent in his porfolio). President Obama’s administration has to show the electorate some results before the 2012 elections and before the British and the Canadians withdraw from Afghanistan. Time is of the essence. Everything has to fall in place. The Pakistanis have to cooperate, the Chinese have to be listened to, Russia has to be kept at a distance, the Indians have to follow, and Iran has to be cajoled. The bellicose statements on Pakistan over the past few weeks was part of the US plan to assuage Delhi and make it seem like they were coming down hard on the Pakistanis. In actual fact the public statements had nothing to do with relaity. The US Army and the Pentagon is working very closely with the Pakistan Army. Several helicopters have already been transferred to Pakistan, and all the modern equipment to fight an insurgency, night vision glasses, bullet proof vests, and some drones have been handed over to the Pakistanis.
US undersecretary od state for political affairs William Burns said, “Any resolution of Kashmir has to take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.” This line is a traditional Pakistan favourite, but has not been heard during the past few years of the Bush administration. The Indian government preferred not to commen. Times of India
The Times of India in the understatement of the year, says that the US stance on Kashmir has put another crease on Indian brow. The fact is that Delhi has not recovered from the epileptic seizure which it went into after receiving the Obama letter. Delhi gets some goodies for giving up Kashmir. The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton will visit Delhi towards the end of July. She will begin the negotiations on a reprocessing agreement. The Indians should have seen this coming after France approved a Nuclear deal for Pakistan which will be consecrated in September. That is the carrot for Pakistan for being good.
There are many things going on in South and West Asia. President Barack Obama plans to exit from Afghanistan by 2011, but he has to show results on the ground. He cannot show results on the ground without the help of Pakistan. Islamabad’s help can be bought only if it feels secure on the Eastern front. Hence the movement of Indian troops and planes away from the Pakistani border. To hide the retreat, Delhi moved them on the Chinese border, knowing full well that many generations of Indian planes have rusted on the airfields near the McMohan line without threatening a single Chinese. The movement of the troops is also dictated by the abject failure of the Stephen Cohen’s concoction called the “The Cold Start Strategy”. In 2002 and 2008, Bharati forces threatened Pakistan but could not cross the border. As the old Western adages go, never threaten if you can’t deliver, never bring a knife to a gun fight, and never cock your gun if you don’t intend to use it. World War IV hasn’t arrived, and enemies are not fighting with sticks and stones yet. Nuclear Mutually assured destruction (MAD) convinces many enemies not to issue empty threats. Pakistan’s 2nd strike capability, Hydrogen bombs and potent missiles have convinced India that she cannot cross the Pakistani border. She can yell Failed state from the highest steeples of Gharibabad and the deepest hold of Dharavi but the Lankans have proven that they can form the right alliances and defeat Delhi’s terror. Pakistan of course has learned the same lesson.
The Kashmiris and Pakistanis have won a decisive victory. It has forced one of the most arrogant armies to accept defeat and withdraw. Dlehi has also agreed to review the hugely unpopular Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which has made life miserable for the civilian population. Kashmir had exploded a couple of weeks ago after the rape and murder of two sisters. India had no choice, she had to accept the verdict of the people who are chanting “bhago bhago lashkar aya”, and “bhooka nanga Hindustan, dil seh piyara Pakistan”, “tijarat to bahana hai, Rawalpindi to jana hai”.
The retreat was deliberately announced before the the Manmohan-Zardari meeting on the sidelines of the SCO summit but had been agreed upon between Pakistan and India track II diplomacy that has been going on for several years. The blueprint for Kashmir was laid down by President Musharraf. However Pakistan is demanding a plebiscite under the auspices of the appropriate UN resolution.
Although this was a sort of placing-cards-on-the-table kind of visit, it was quite apparent that both sides are groping for something to hang the relationship on. Sources said, off the record, that another visit with nothing to show would signal serious drift in India-US relations. Times of India
The Times of India is right, the US and Bharat are drifting apart. The schism was very apparent when President elect Obama, and then President Obama did not call Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for a month. The rift was obvious when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton crossed out Delhi from her itinerary and visited China. Apparently the Chinese red her the riot act and asked her to stop destabilizing Pakistan, withdraw from Afghanistan and solve Kashmir. The Peoples Daily wrote several articles on the subject duly reported on this site.
President Barack Obama has taken some tough stances on issues. He is right on Palestine, and he is right on Kashmir.