The Independent & Omar Waraich are wrong

It used to be that journalists used to write and truth and stand behind their stories. Today the “so called opinion writers” simply regurgitate false stories, quoting nebulas sources and shady characters. The story published in the independent is full of holes. Mr. Waraich may have an exe to ground, but the least he could have done was quote Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto correctly. Mr. Waraich didn’t even get the most simplest of his tasks right. Mr. Waraich’s entire story is based upon the Seymour Hersh, whom he calls “a respectable journalist”.

Mr. Hersch writes for a magazine that oscillates between the National Inquirer and the written version of the elitist NPR. What can one expect from a magazine that bills itself “the best magazine in the world—perhaps that greatest that ever was”.

Mr. Hersh is “respectable” in fits and starts. His claim to fame was the sensational expose of the Mail Lai massacre of innocent villagers in Vietnam. Since then his pieces are replications of same of similar articles. For example Mr. Hersh’s current article on Pakistani nukes closely resembles the article he wrote while President Pervez Musharraf was in office. That article caused much consternation between Islamabad and Washington with president Musharraf confronting the American president with a copy of the New Yorker. Mr. Bush vehemently denied that any “Delta Force” was poised to take over Pakistani. That story by Mr. Hersh turned out to a lot of bluster. Mr. Hersh’s articles on Tehran’s Nuclear program and the impending US attack on Iran also were of the sensational variety. Mr. Hersh tells a good yarn. For the past three or four years Mr. Hersh has repeatedly published stories about how the US and or Isreal was about to attack Iran. Mr. Hersh’s articles seemed to be well researched and identified the warship movements (real or imaginary), the trips of US officials to various capitals (incidental or deliberate), the placement of US and Israeli war planes (cross-referenced or creative license, and the so called Saudi complicity in the Israeli attack. Well it has been eight years since we have reading Mr. Hersh on the attack on Iran—the Bush presidency came and went and the Obama presidency is will into its first term. However the attacks have not really materialized—except for the subversive activities that have been conducted by Mossad, the CIA and MI6 in Khuzistan (Arabistan) and Sistan.

Mr. Hersh after commenting on the story on the Abu Ghraib prisons made the wild accusation that he had proof of women’s rape centers in Iraq, and once the pictures of the raped women were exposed, the entire Middle East would explode. The pictures or proof of the “women’s Abu Ghraib” never actually materialized.

So on balance one doesn’t know what to believe. 

Both the US and the Pakistani governments have denied the stories.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- The United States has no intention of taking control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal as Islamabad deals with a growing insurgent threat, Washington said.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh writing in The New Yorker implies Washington and Islamabad have made arrangements that "would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis."

Gen. Tariq Majid, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for the Pakistani military, bluntly rejected the allegations, noting Pakistan had the resources to protect its nuclear material, Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reports.

"Our security apparatus has the capacity and is fully geared to meet all conceivable challenges, therefore we do not need to negotiate with any other country to physically augment our security forces, which in any case, we believe, are more capable than their forces," he stressed.

His comments were echoed by Ian Kelly, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, who told reporters that while Washington does offer assistance in terms of security and other initiatives, there are no plans to seize Pakistani nuclear materials.

"We have confidence in the ability of the Pakistani government to provide adequate security for their nuclear programs and materials," he said. "And we have a number of security assistance initiatives that are focused on strengthening counterinsurgency capacities to foster stability."

Mr. Warachi’s article in Reuters should of course be re-classified as opinion and taken out of the news story arena.

REUTERS

Pakistan's nuclear-capable air-launched Ra'ad cruise missile is paraded in Islamabad during National Day in 2008

Pakistan's military has angrily insisted that its nuclear weapons arsenal is safely protected and denounced claims that it is secretly negotiating with the United States to allow teams of American specialists to provide added security in the event of a crisis.

In a rare public statement, General Tariq Majid, chairman of Pakistan's Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, said claims that it was discussing "understandings" with the US that could even see the specialists spirit sophisticated nuclear triggers out of the country to prevent them falling into the wrong hands were "absurd and plain mischievous". "There is absolutely no question of sharing or allowing any foreign individual, entity or state, any access to sensitive information about our nuclear assets," he added.

His comments came after the publication of an article in The New Yorker by the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh which claimed that deepening concern within the Obama administration about the situation inside Pakistan had persuaded Washington that more needed to be done to protect the stockpile of a country that it considers an important regional ally.

The article also claimed that the threat could come from Islamist elements within the military or intelligence establishment as well as militants. It quotes a former US intelligence official as saying: "The Pakistanis gave us a virtual look at the number of warheads, some of their locations, and their command-and-control system ... We got their security plans, so we could augment them in case of a breach of security."

Mr. Warachi took the Hersh article and applied what would be called “mirch masala” (spices) using creative license and pronto he had an article for the Independent—another paycheck earned.

What Mr. Warachi forgot to mention is the fact that most of the Omar quotes are actually false. Pakistani nuke facilities have not been attacked thrice. There is no truth to this charge. One attack on the employees of PINSTECH riding in (Saddar Rawalpindi not withstanding).

This is not the first time that concerns have been raised about the security of Pakistan's arsenal, estimated to contain between 80 and 100 warheads, as the country continues to be rocked with militant violence. Earlier this year it was claimed that facilities connected with the nuclear programme had been attacked on three occasions in the past two years, leading Pakistan to insist that there was no danger to its weapons.

Professor Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford, whose report earlier this year was dismissed by Islamabad, said there were two main threats: from militants carrying out increasingly sophisticated attacks and seemingly armed with inside information, and from the "collusion" of those inside the military with militant Islamist sympathies. "If you look at the military there is no doubt that it is shot through with Islamist sympathisers and has increasingly moved away from the West as it has been asked to turn its guns on its own people," he added.

Pakistan has long bristled at suggestions that its nuclear arsenal, guarded by a half-million-strong army and a three-layer National Command Authority security system, could slip into the hands of Taliban militants. Government officials point to statements from senior American and British counterparts as proof that the Islamic world's only nuclear deterrent is not imperilled.

Beating a  dead horse is a favorite past time of negligent writers who want to sensationalize old dead stories. The bogey of the Pakistani nukes always fills dead space on a slow news day. Mr. Waraich can keep brining up the meeting minutes of the “Flat earth Society”—that won’t make the issue pertinent to the planet. If Mr. Warachi had any semblance of journalistic ethics he would have checked out the false stories he quoted in a cavalier manner. Mr. Waraich also did not have the courtesy of contacting the Pakistani Defense Department of the Ministry of Foreign affairs and get their side of the story. Of course he has an agenda—he is a tool for the dissemination of bad propaganda against Pakistan. The same newspapers pushed the “proof” of WMDs in Iraq. Today these very same pages “find” new scoops on Pakistani or Iranian nukes.

But the question is a nagging one, and returned last month after militants subjected the Pakistani army hq in Rawalpindi to a 22-hour siege. While the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that the attack was evidence that militants "are increasingly threatening the authority of the state," she insisted: "We have confidence in the Pakistani government and military's control over its nuclear weapons." Mrs Clinton's "confidence" may owe something to the fact that since the attacks of September 2001 the US has done much to help Pakistan secure its arsenal. Two years ago it was reported that Washington had spent $100m to boost security and improve the vetting of those working with nuclear weapons. Such efforts may have been hampered by legal restraints in aiding a country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but there was also concern about sharing too much sensitive technology – including the so-called "permissive action links" or Pals, a system used to prevent a device from detonating without proper codes.

The New Yorker report, which has also been denied by Anne Patterson, the US ambassador in Islamabad, claimed that this summer a highly classified military and civil emergency response team was put on alert after getting a report that a Pakistan nuclear component had gone missing. The team, Hersh claimed, was scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base, outside Washington, and apparently dispatched to Pakistan. By the time it was revealed that the report was false the team had already reached Dubai.

A Pentagon spokesman in Washington confirmed that the US was providing some training and equipment to Pakistan to improve its nuclear security but denied any intention to seize its nuclear arsenal. And analysts said it was all but inconceivable that Islamabad would acquiesce. One Western expert on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, who asked not to be identified, said: "The Pakistanis would not share this nuclear information with the US. And to believe you can send in a couple of helicopters full of snake-eaters [special forces troops] and get the weapons simply does not work."

Mr. Warachi the effulgent Google jockey has once again proved the axim “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. This particular article is of the couch potato variety has little to offer except regurgitation of old hackneyed rhetoric that is dated and incorrect.

The Islamic bomb: Pakistan's pride

* Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was determined to deny rival India a nuclear monopoly. In 1965, the future prime minister said: "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry." In 1972 he gave the go-ahead to a nuclear programme. Today, Pakistan is estimated to have 80 to 100 weapons.

* Bhutto was toppled in 1977, but the dictator who hanged him followed the same nuclear compulsions. During General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's rule, Dr A Q Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's bomb, boasted to a senior Indian journalist that Pakistan was "a screwdriver's turn away from developing an Islamic bomb".

* Strenuous US efforts to halt the programme failed in the 1990s. When in 1998 India staged tests, Pakistan responded in kind. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's popularity briefly soared, but severe sanctions ensued.

* In 2004, Dr Khan tearfully confessed that he had sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He was dismissed but later pardoned; the US was barred from interrogating him. Today he is no longer under house arrest, but his movements remain restricted. UK Independent. US 'wants to guard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal'. Omar Waraich

US wants to guard Pakistan’s Nucleaer weapons. Concern that weapons could fall into enemy hands prompted drastic plan, claims 'New Yorker' report By Andrew Buncombe and Omar Waraich in Islamabad Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Mr. Waraich banks on unconfirmed reports and innuendo. A similar article on the Israeli Nuclear plant got the journalist life imprisonment from which there is no escape. If Mr. Waraich had sensationalized the US or UK nukes in the same manner, he would have either been sent to Gitmo or been a victim of the Patriots Act—never to be heard from again.

His attack on a vulnerable country has huge implications for all people of Pakistani origin. Mr. Warach does not realize that it is exactly this sort of nonsense that creates Anti-Pakistanism and Pakistanphobia which impacts people’s earning power, employment and affect the lives of millions.

Challenging Saad Khan’s treason

The Huffington Post is a left leaning blog. It was started by Ariana Huffington. It has a strong anti-establishment, pro-Democratic and anti-Republican bias. Actually it caters to the leftist core of the Liberals. So far so good. For reasons known only to Zeus and Apollo, “The Huff” is also very anti-Pakistani. Its always been that way. There are several reasons for it. Arian Huffington is of Greek origins, so she may hate all Muslims. There are many Jewish democrats who write for the Huff. Now these Pakistanphobes have found a little brown boy to do their bidding.

When Brown-trash begin to speak English they immediately dive into “gora worship”. These wannabe WOGs “Western Oriental Gentlemen” are so enamored by Washington and London that they sell their country and their souls for a hay-penny (half-penny). It is incredible that an army that has lost 5000 of its soldiers with ten of thousands injured would be called a “half hearted” participant in a war that kills Pakistani children everyday. It is all the more astonishing that a Pakistani sitting in Islamabad would publish weekly diatribes against the very people who are definding this guy. Only an ignoramus who has been totally brainwashed would say the things Mr. Saad Khan says—or someone who is doing it for profit.

Pakistan has lost 5000 sons and daughters in the line of duty. More than a thousand civilian lives have been wasted because of America’s war in Afghanistan. Thousands have been injured. See this report from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSCOL515980). “Half hearted effort”—my ***. There was no terror in FATA, Swat and Pindi before 2004 when the drones began. Mr. Saad Khan needs to get a life.

“Ingrate Inc.” (a conglomerate of Neolibs, Neocons, Indophiles, Pakistanphobes and their 5th column acolytes) do not recognize the sacrifices of the Pakistan people. They will continue the “do more mantra”. Mr. Saad Khan simply parrots his masters voice in his columns in the Huffington Post. Anti-Pakistanism is profitable business. Being Islamphobic is even more profitable. He has found a small corner of fame and is milking it for all its worth.

Of course Mr. Khan would have his readers believe that those who walk the minefields of Swat and FATA and those who brave the rain of bullets in Tank and Waziristan are somehow making half hearted attempts.

There is a war raging in Peshawar, Islamabad, Quetta, Lahore and Karachi. The innocent civilians are dyeing. All Mr. Khan has to say is to delve in treacherous rhetoric against Pakistan.

Mr. Saad Khan’s “column” is a literal transcription of the daily talking points from the US State Department and 10 Downing Street. If one wants to read the talking points, read them from the original. The Neocon and Neolib copies are not as good as good and not as spicy.

If Mr. Saad Khan had any decency

The Pakistani military has launched a major offensive against the Taliban in the South Waziristan region. The area is home of the Pakistani Taliban; a terrorist outfit that conducts sabotage activities in Pakistan but remains aloof from the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. North Waziristan, on the other hand, is the hub of the Afghan Taliban and they maintain cordial relations with Pakistani intelligence agencies and even get some tactile support. Although the Pakistani military is claiming victory and has faced minimal resistance but there are no independent resources to verify these reports. The area has been walled off for journalists and they have to rely on government handouts.

30,000 soldiers in the heart of the TTP territory is by itself a victory, but “skeptical Suzy” (actually skeptical Saad) of course would rather believe it, if it came from the lips of Mullen and McChrystal. After all the old colonial masters used to speak English—the gospel of truth (WMDs in Iraq notwithstanding)

Additionally, there is a major crisis of people that have been displaced from the war-torn region. Secretary Clinton announced aid for the internally-displaced persons (IDP) and the Pakistani government has also announced a meager aid to these people. American military is also secretly complimenting the offensive by providing modern weapons and gadgetry to the Pakistani army. This is in addition to $7.5 billions given under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation.

Give a little and talk a lot about it. Expect the other to die for it. The meager “gadgetry” given to the Pakistan army is a joke. Pakistan needs 100 choppers, 100,000 machine guns, 100 drones, 150,000 bullet proof vests, 15,000 MARVs, 300,000 night vision glasses (for the Frontier Corp and the Frontier Constabulary)—all it got was a few USSR vintage obsolete choppers that do a half-assed job of surviving in the air. The so called “aid” (should be called stimulus package for US consultants under the nomenclature “aid to Pakistan”) is another joke. Half of it stays in the hands of US consultants, one fourth is spent on logistics—the $100 million or so that finally makes it to Islamabad is handed over to the Ambassador’s favorite NGO. While the US wasted $605 billion in Iraq, and $143 billion in Afghanistan, Pakistan the front line state gets $650,000 (actually only one fourth of that makes it to Pakistan)

Mr. Khan is simply quoting the US line—hook line and sinker. If Mr.Saad had been writing similar articles about the US army in Afghanistan, he would have already been sent on a grand vacation on the island paradise of Gitmo, and locked up in a monkey cage. Mr. Khan lives in Islamabad where the authorities may not have read his articles. Mr. Khan’s nonsense has to be challenged intellectually. What he says does not have merit.

What compels youth in Islamabad to succumb to pressure to write Pakistanphobic articles. Bad upbringing—poor academic performance, a few pegs of Red Label, a possible smile from a “goree”, magnetism of the almighty Dollar--and of course the lure of a possible Green Card. A few pennies can buy a dozen Saad Khans. the names of Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq will live in infamy. The name of Saad Khan will of course wither away in a few weeks. The harm he has caused will of course stay. All the Huff needs is a Muslim sounding name to write under—and Saad Kahn foots the bill. Patriotism is a rare quantity—and being Islamphobic is profitable. It was profitable for Hussain Haqqani, it was profitable for Pervez Hoodbhoy, and Ahmed Rashid--so it must be profitable for the young punks of Islamabad who hang out on Jinnah bucking for a drag on their favorite pot or a sip of their favorite whiskey (tharra—never Red label).

The bigoted readers need to confirm their Islamphobia—the ignorant ones don’t know any better—they all read the Huff—because it mostly reports on the Liberal left.

There are more than 80 TV channels in Pakistan. Most of them are news channels, the news channels outnumber the entertainment channels. Eight major outlets of the Pakistani media has self-imposed a code of conduct—without government interference. This deals with showing dead bodes and reducing the number of “breaking news stories”. Mr. Saad mischievously calls it censorship. Only imbedded reporters were allowed in Iraq and Afghanistan—there was no free press. Why is Pakistan criticized for conducting the war in a professional manner without the intrusion of the likes of Mr. Saad Khan.

Despite an all-out effort by the US government, the Pakistani military is still reluctant on taking the Taliban challenge head-on. There have been reports in independent media -- Pakistani media face a lot of restrictions to reveal secrets and have just self-imposed a tougher censorship policy -- that the Pakistani military tipped off the Taliban before the offensive. According to a report in BBC Urdu, Pakistani intelligence agencies might have struck a deal with the Taliban in this regard.

It appears that the Pakistani military entered a deal with the Taliban where they agreed to avoid any "lose-lose" position. Pakistani military recaptured the territories while the Taliban retained their cadre, ammunition and organizational structure.

If the Pakistan Army took steps to avoid bloodshed, isn’t that good? Why the Yanks are doing the same in Falujah and Helmand? Didn’t they go to Mazaar Sharif with millions of Dollars in suitcases to win over the Northern Alliance? What is wrong with Pakistan talking to its own citizens? If peace deals fail, one should try again—after using the minimum amount of force.

Mr. Saad, Pakistanis bleed the same red blood as the blondes do. Pakistani blood is not for sale. Pakistan will only do what is in its own interest (Zardari notwithstanding).

Are the jawans of the Pakistan Army indentured servants of other flags. Did the generals not swear allegiance tot he Pakistani flag and the Pakistani flag alone? If the US and Afghanistan government can hold talks with the Taliban, why is such a big deal that Pakistan makes deals with its own citizens? Why are Pakistani peace deals considered capitulation to terror and Afghan, British and US peace deals considered overtures to win the hearts and minds of the people. Can Mr. Saad Khan not see the double standards here? Is is deaf and blind to the interests of Pakistan? Has he been so brainwashed that he now thinks of other interests as supreme and Pakistani interests subservient to other flags.

Did the Pakistani jawans sell their bodies for a few Dollars. Should the orders emanate from Islamabad or other world capitals. Shouldn’t the army take note of its own interests and the interests of Pakistan. Are the goals of the US and the Pakistani goals congruent. Should they be? If so, then why did the US install an anti-Pakistan government in Kabul and why does India have free reign in Afghanistan to plot, train, sponsor and arm mercenaries who are then sent to Pakistan.

In any case, South Waziristan offensive was announced in May but it actually started after a delay of five months. It was enough time for the Taliban to finalize their combat strategies i.e. tacitcal retreat. The Pakistani military has benefited from this deal but not the common Pakistanis. Terrorist attacks have become a daily affair and hardly a day passes when dozens of people do not lose their lives.

The “American Charge of the Light Brigade” in Afghanistan had obvious results—total defeat and annihilation of ISAF forces—more than 80% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the Taliban. If Mr. Khan had any clue about military tactics, he would have known that armies do not move on a dime. The logistics had to be arranged, and the targets chosen very carefully. Its not a US drone that sees a man with a turban a beard and a stick and begins dropping bombs. The Pakistan Army actually does ground work, and monitors the area planting spies, scouting the terrain, working with the locals—it then goes in.

Mr. Khan’s weekly diatribe against Pakistan is pretty disgusting. The stale putrid smell of treacherous treason stinks up the entire space—as bad as a skunk who spoils the ride of thousands of drivers. Raising the  Haqqanis bogey and trying to malign the Pakistanis about the TTP is a favorite technique of those who have lost the war in Afghanistan. Now they need patsys—someone to blame the defeat on. They seek the ephemeral “Ho Chi Minh” trail in Pakistan and try to discover “hideouts”—when 80% of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban. They talk about safe havens in FATA when Mr. Karzai cannot even control his section of Kabul. Mr. Khan has neither logic nor common sense on his side. He is happy about finding a spot on the Huff. Congrat Mr. Khan you made it---but at what cost. Your Faustian deals with the Huff pay little. Your soul should have more integrity and more value.

North Waziristan Taliban, under the leadership of Haqqanis, are still strong in their bases and gathering support from some elements of the Pakistani military. As the Pakistani Taliban have also joined them in recent weeks, they might launch major attacks in Afghanistan. Although the real perpetrators of this carnage remain in the "open closet", the lack of a concerted effort would hamper any half-hearted attempts of the Pakistani military. Saad Khan. Social and political activist in Islamabad. Posted: November 10, 2009 03:25 PM

Mr. Khan, you had a choice—you could use your writing power to enlighten people about the people of Pakistan. You chose to malign them. The choice is yours. Your fifteen minutes of fame will be over soon—but you have been part and parcel of Islamphobia which affects children of Pakistani origin in the West. Mr. Saad Khan, may God Bless and may he bring the love your own people into your heart. May you live long and prosper.

===========================

I will post this in the comments section of your column—of course you won’t print it—even if you do—the vultures will have at it—reducing the content to one liners…and so it goes

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