THE

CRUSADES
OF

21ST CENTURY

BY RIAZ AMIN
Vol-V

CONTENTS
CHECK LIST4
FIFTH ANNIVERSARY..7
IRAQ IRAN ITCH..35
TROJAN HORSE...66
FRONTLINE SUSPECT95
BLASPHEMER BENEDICT...116
IN THE LINE OF FIRE ..143
NO END IN SIGHT..171
TALIBAN TANGLE.211
KIMS KILOTON.232
MISTRUSTED ALLY..258
INCREDIBLY STUPID272
CHENAGAI TO DARGAI...299
PUSHED TO PONDER329
ARROGANT MODERATE.366
UNVEILED BY VEIL..386
ONESIDED WAR.403
GATES NOT EXIT..428
IN PERPETUAL PURSUIT476
DONKEY DOCTRINE507
GOTM AND LYNCHEDM..539
ONLY ONE OPTION..565
SOFT IMAGE HARD FACTS582
SUBDUING SHIITES..608
BEYOND MAIN BATTLEFIELD..632
WINNING WAYS ...658
TERRORIZED TERRORIST683
AMERICAN IMPERIALISM707
WAY FORWARD ...733
2

HELMET vs WIG: ROUND-I ...757

HELMET vs WIG: ROUND-II ..780
HELMET vs WIG: ROUND-III .805
HOT PURSUIT HOT SOUP ...843
HELMET vs WIG: ROUND-IV..........871
BEYOND OIL FIELDS904
SURGE SANS PURGE.....932
SPRING OFFENSIVE..962

CHECK LIST
The Crusades, referred to as war on terror, have been going on for
about half a decade. The wagers of this holy war have been changing its
name off and on, but never spelled out its aim in clear terms, but the aim has
been quite evident from the manner in which the war has been conducted.
The aim is to administer collective punishment to Muslims with a
view to securing their complete submission. This aim encompasses long list
of goals. After five years of war, it is time to prepare a check-list for the
progress made by the Crusaders in the context of some of their goals.
Taking the war to Muslim lands: This was the first and foremost
goal for ensuring the safety of the civilized world. It has been accomplished
successfully notwithstanding the cost effect. All the fighting and bloodshed
is now going on in lands inhabited by Muslims.
Punishment by persecution: It has been so extensive that the
Crusaders have not bothered about the body count. According to the
surveys and estimates, more than one hundred thousand Muslims, mostly
civilians including women and children, have been killed in each year of the
war; and about the same number have been wounded out of which large
percentage has been maimed for life.
Destruction of military capabilities: This is essential for subjugation
of people who oppose the West even by word of mouth. It is applicable to
state and non-state entities. It has been accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq
through direct action, as regards Hamas and Hezbollah; it has been done,
and being done, by the watchdog called Israel. Iran, Syria, Somalia and
Sudan are the next possible targets. The case of the Citadel of Islam has been
deferred because it has shown complete subservience to the Crusaders.
Denial of nuclear capability: This is part of the above goal.
Possession of weapons of mass destruction of any kind by any Muslim
country is considered a serious threat to the civilized world. The Crusaders
have succeeded in coercing Libya to give up its nuclear programme and
plans to destroy Irans nuclear installations had been on the table. The case
against Pakistan has been prepared but action has been deferred for the time
being.
4

Destruction of infrastructure: It is a multi-purpose goal. It creates a

state of shock and awe; causes lasting pain and agony; makes the occupation
acceptable; and above all necessitates reconstruction which allows
multinationals to grab assets of the destroyed nation. It has been done
remarkably well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. In Sudan and
Somalia, it has been achieved by supporting Christian militias and warlords
respectively. In Iran, Syria and Pakistan, it will be done later.
Occupation: Physical occupation of hostile countries is necessary for
accomplishing some of other goals, particularly for taking control of the
natural resources. Two countries have been occupied and selective
occupation of Palestinian Territories has been consolidated. Lebanon has
been partly occupied by creating a buffer zone manned by NATO forces. The
need for similar action in Darfur is being pressed. De facto occupations of
Chechnya, Kashmir, Thai south, and Muslim areas of Philippines have been
virtually legitimized.
Countering resistance: The resistance can be put up in many ways
which makes the task of defeating it quite cumbersome. It requires multiple
assaults on military, economic, political, diplomatic and psychological
fronts. The crux of the goal lies in breaking the will to resist. This has been
accomplished fairly well in the context of ruling elite of Muslim World, but
in case of Muslim masses the war has proved counter-productive.
Demonizing the concept of jihad: This relates to the above goal.
Major effort of the psychological warfare has been devoted to undermine
this concept as it inspires Muslims to struggle for self-preservation. Muslim
elite has accepted the Crusaders contention and generally rejected this
concept on various pretexts, but Muslim masses have not.
Preserving disunity of Muslims: This facilitates the accomplishment
of other goals; therefore, the focus has been not only on preserving the
disunity but also in aggravating it further where possible. Sectarian and
ethnic divides have been successfully fanned and exploited by the
Crusaders. In Iraq, Shias are used to counter Sunni resistance and in
Lebanon, it is other way around. In Afghanistan, ethnic diversity has been
exploited to great advantage. Keeping in view the usefulness of this, new
divisions, like enlightened moderates and obscurantist, are being created.
Crushing of freedom struggles: The oppressed Muslims are main
source the trouble for the civilized world and its allies. All these struggles
5

have been equated with terrorism. Most of these have been crushed through
crackdowns, man-hunts, choking sources of their funding, and blocking the
supply of arms.
Distortion of Islams image: The practice of Islam in its purest form
is considered a serious threat to the values of the so-called civilized world.
As Islam is not practiced in purest form anywhere in Islamic World, so in the
ongoing clash, the focus has been on obliteration of the visible signatures of
Islamic civilization.
This had been going since the end of Cold War; the 9/11attacks have
given impetus to this campaign. The onslaught has been launched on a broad
front; from condemning the Sharia, the very foundation of Islamic
civilization, to ordinary issues like veil and design of a mosque.
The existence of privileged westernized minority, a legacy of the
imperialism, has been of great help in facilitating the achievement of this
goal. These elements now claim to be enlightened moderates and are willing
to incorporate western ideas into Islamic teachings to give it a soft image.
All the achievements or successes as Bush would like to call them
in the context of goals listed above have been facilitated by using the hoax
of high-sounding values like democracy, freedom, liberty, human rights,
justice, peace, fair play, and freedom of speech. In practice all these values
have been rendered meaningless as far as Muslims are concerned.
16th September 2006

FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
The ritual of commemorating anniversary of attacks on America on
11 September 2001 is primarily meant to convey to the world that
Americas resolve to fight and defeat terrorism is intact. On the eve of 9/11,
the Monster also conveyed, by threatening to target US allies in Gulf and
Israel, that it was alive and well.
th

This year, however, the anniversary was commemorated by the

Americans alone. Most of the sympathizers in outside world had either
changed their mind after seeing US administrations exploitation of the
tragedy for fulfillment of its imperialistic designs, or they had been
blessed with their own similar tragedies to commemorate.
British have 7/7, Spain has Madrid bombings, India has 7/11and
Russia has Beslan killings. Muslim allies in Bushs holy war have their own
days; Indonesia has Bali bombing, Bangladesh has serial bombings, Egypt
has Red Sea tourist resorts attacks, and Jordan has hotel bombings. Turkey
can pick and choose from quite a few and Pakistan being frontline state has
the choice to choose randomly from one of the many.
The adversaries of the Crusaders have plenty of them. Afghanistan has
dozens of civilian massacres committed as collateral damage. Iraq could face
difficulty in making the choice, so it can celebrate its liberation from a
home-grown and off-shore fostered dictator, almost on every day of the
calendar; Solar or Lunar. Lebanon has been blessed with month-long tragedy
recently.
The war is still going on and the chief Crusader has promised many
more such days by saying that the war could go on for long. Therefore, at
some stage every participant of this holy war will have its own day or days
to commemorate.
The analysts, with the advantage of hindsight, were of the view that
all that has happened since 9/11 is an unending spree of telling lies. Some
analysts have opined that even 9/11, or its use as pretext, was a Big Lie. The
war has nothing to do with terrorism and even if it does, the US and its
willing partners have failed to defeat it.

BIG LIE
The event caused a number of reputable construction engineers to
raise their eyebrows. They saw it as a controlled demolition, as did Dr
Steven E Jones, physicist and archaeometrist of Brigham Young University,
who has done a major investigation on his own. He asks, why this
possibility was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission and other
governmental investigating agencies at the time? They accepted the
Commission finding that it was an al-Qaeda attack. Thats been the
controversial wisdom ever since.
Alexander Cockburn talked of conspiracy theories while referring to
attack on Pearl Harbor. I think there is strong evidence that FDR did have
knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to
launch an attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt thought it would be a relatively
mild assault and thought it would be the final green light to get the US into
the war.
Of course its very probable that the FBI or US military
intelligence, even the CIA, had penetrated the al-Qaeda team planning
the 9/11 attacks; that intelligence reports some are already known piled
up in various Washington bureaucracies pointing to the impending onslaught
and even the manner in which it might be carried out.
Oliver Stone made a film on 9/11. Ruth Rosen termed it as a Big Lie.
He argued, during World War II, the predecessor of the CIA, the Office of
Strategic Services, described how the Germans used the Big Lie: They never
allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that
there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives;
never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him
for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a
little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later
believe it.
This is, in fact, just what the Bush Administration has been doing
ever since 9/11. As a result, in 2005, an ABC/Washington Post poll found
that 56% of Americans still thought Iraq had possessed weapons of mass
destruction shortly before the war, and 60% still believed Iraq had
provided direct support to al-Qaeda prior to the war. In June 2006, Fox
News ran a story once again dramatizing the supposed links between 9/11
and Iraq. And, as recently as July 2006, a Harris poll found that 64% of
8

those polled say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to alQaeda.
The Bush Administrations Big Lie has worked very well. Dick
Cheney, the point man on this particular lie, has repeated it year after year. In
a similar way, George Bush has repeatedly explained his 2003 invasion of
Iraq, which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11
Neither these, nor so many other administration statements had a
shred of truth to them. Even the Presidentadmitted on September 18,
2003 that there was no evidence the deposed Iraqi dictator had had a hand in
them.
Most of the controversy over World Trade Center has focused on
whether, as the fifth anniversary of the attacks approaches, it is still too soon
for a cinematic depiction of these horrendous events I myself dont think
its too soon for such a film; but I do worry that, powerful and evocative as it
is, it may, however inadvertently, only deepen waning support for the war
in Iraq. That is the purpose the film is meant to serve.
To offer a faithful recreation of that historical catastrophe, however,
Stone owed viewers the whole truth, not merely a brilliant graphic portrayal
of what happened and how it affected the lives of some of those involved. As
it ends, a written postscript appearswhose last line is: Were going to
need some good men out there to revenge this.
I wanted to shout out: Dont you mean Afghanistan? Then I
imagined the satisfaction Dick Cheney and sole-loser Senator Joseph
Lieberman would take in this not-quite-spelled-out linkage of 9/11 and Iraq.
I kept waiting for what never came even a note in the postscript reminding
the audience of those who had actually committed the crime. This is where,
by omission, Stones film ends up reinforcing the administrations Big
Lie.
If at all George W Bush has proven anything beyond any doubt
during his incumbent presidency, it is that a person with less than
appreciable or rather questionable personal attributes and behaviours
such as lying, habitual distortion of facts, factual manipulation,
manufactured truth and misinformation, sleaze, outright prejudice,
stubbornness and an extremely narrow sense of justice, lack of visionary
ideas and less than average intelligence can ascend to the high office of the

President of the United States and stay there for eight years, wrote Dr
Haider Mehdi. A more tragic aspect of this phenomenon is that he can also
gather a team of advisors of similar caliber and characteristics at the helm of
affairs and go on a rampage against humanity, undeterred.
Americans lack of understanding of other cultures and values, their
disrespect and disregard of people different from them and their
unenlightened obsession with Americanism as superior to all others is a
unique phenomenon undermining the sociological foundations of a supertechnological society. We are faced with a monster powerful and gone
absolutely mad at the same time. Anything in its way is likely to be
destroyed and that is exactly what George Bush and his neocon
administration have been doing for the last six years.
The News commented on the speech of the liar on fifth anniversary.
Much of what he said goes to show that there is still no realization in the
US government of the fact that some of Americas own policies may well
have fueled terrorism worldwide and that unless biases in such policies are
eliminated the situation is not going to get any better. Drawing on the good
versus evil theme something that has served many an American politician
well with its clear Biblical allusion President Bush said that on Sept 11,
Americans saw the face of evil. But it seems that to fight this evil,
many evil actions had to be taken by America. What should one say to
the thousands of Iraqis and Afghans whose loved ones died when their
respective countries were invaded by American military forces? Did they
also not see a face of evil as did those who were tortured so ruthlessly at
Abu Ghraib? By using such language Mr Bush is clearly implying that
America has the moral high ground in its fight against the terrorists.
This is dangerous and is proof of Mr Bushs immaturity because he
obviously chooses to ignore the fact that America itself allows considerable
leeway and space for dissent and debate on grounds of opinion and ideology.
If America is now going to spend the rest of this and the next generations
time hunting down foreigners who follow an ideology different to it then it
will have to fight much of the rest of the world which vehemently opposes
its policies. Bushs buddy Blair is no different.
The Nation wrote, it is a question worth pondering as we look back
on the disastrous path down which George W Bush has led the country, and
contemplate what it will take to set this nation right again. Seizing on the
fears of traumatized citizens (and abetted by media hype) this
10

administration used and is still using the images of 9/11 to advance

its partisan agenda The Bush Administration has exploited the tragedy as
a licence for an endless war against endless enemies.
At long last, however, it appears that Americans are beginning to
distinguish between the need to combat terrorism effectively and a
messianic crusade in the Middle East. Three out of five now think the war
in Iraq made a terrorist attack in the United States more likely, Another sign
that people are seeing through the White House lies.
Would the world really be all that different now if there had been no
9/11? There would have been no invasion of Afghanistan and probably no
second term for President George W Bush Bush would have had great
difficulty in persuading the American public that his first-term achievements
merited a second kick at the can, wrote Gwynne Dyer.
Would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Co have succeeded in
invading Iraq anyway? That was high on their agenda from the moment they
took office, but without the 9/11 attacks eight months later they would
have had great difficulty in persuading the American public that
invading Iraq, a country on the other side of the world that posed no threat to
the Unites State, was a good idea. Whereas, after 9/11 it was easy to sell the
projectso no Afghanistan, no Iraq and probably no Israeli attack on
Lebanon either
Without 9/11 there would still be a terrorist threat, of course,
because there is always some terrorism. Its rarely a big enough threat to
justify expanding police powers, let alone launching a global war
against it, but the fluke success of the 9/11 attackscreated the illusion that
terrorism was a major problem.
Economically, 9/11 and its aftermath has had almost no discernable
long-term impact And strategically, the relations between the great powers
have not yet been gravely damaged by the US response to 9/11. There may
even be a hidden benefit in the concept of a war on terror.
It is a profoundly dishonest concept, since it is actually directed
mainly against Muslim groups that have grievances against the various
great powers The main risk at this point in history is that the great powers
will drift back into some kind of alliance confrontation. Key resources are
getting scarcer, the climate is changing, and the rise of China and India

11

means that the pecking order of the great powers is due to change again in
the relatively near future.
Part two of the Big Lie was enacted in invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Ian Williams wrote, It was under the guise of the war on terror that
Iraq was invaded. The alleged weapons of mass destruction were a legal
distraction: For most Americans the real justification of the war was the
fiction that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks.
Interestingly, under the fog of the war on terror, the one place that the term
was justifiable.
Gulf News commented on the recent US Senates decision to de-link
Saddam from al-Qaeda. What a pity it has taken the Senate so long to
acknowledge what was known almost from the outset when the Bush
Administration decided to ramp up its aggression against Iraq. Forewarnings by Middle East experts, not only in the US although they are few
and far between but from the Middle East region that the information given
to intelligence services from exiled Iraqis carried an agenda, were ignored. It
was seen to be more convenient for the administration to believe the
necessity of invading Iraq, for a number of reasons not least to ensure a
continued supply of Middle East oil to the oil-profligate economy of
America.
Stephen Fleischman opined that the Big Lie was because of the oil.
The war in Iraq is the best example of an oligarchy at work produced and
managed to make money and to secure the remaining reserves of oil in the
world. As they say, the worlds oil has peaked. Its all downhill from here,
so we better grab it before somebody else does. To do this, we have got to
keep a perpetual war spinning in the best oil-producing areas.
With Iraq as a pivotal base, the oligarchy is planning to stay there
into the foreseeable future. Any talk about drawing down troops is just
that, talk a tease offered for the 2006 mid-term elections. Using Iraq as a
military base also explains the moves on former Soviet statesin the
Russian orbit-targets of the giant oil conglomerates.
Oligarchies operate in secret. They spawn conspiracy theories.
The 9/11 World Trade Towers collapse, for example. That garnered more
than a million references in Google; enough conspiracy theories for
everyone.

12

S Nihal Singh wrote, two blunders stare the United States in the face
as it takes stock of events five years after Nine Eleven Bushs description
of his actions as a war on terror gave a wrong focus and nearly destroyed
its legitimacy by conflating it with subduing Iraq.
Bush and his neoconservativeshave distorted his war and lost
America the high ground on which to counter terrorism. The American habit
of describing events and situations in hyperbole and superlatives does
not help Indeed, the conclusion most people will draw is that the America
response to Nine Eleven has been unfocused and exaggerated and has led it
to the cul-de-sac of a circular argument Five years later, the most striking
aspect of the Iraq invasion is how the US is bogged down and has seen the
limits of its power in achieving its self-declared objective of spreading
democracy.

OTHER LIES
The lies, other than the Big Lie, told during the span of five years are
so numerous that it is difficult to list them just as the Crusaders found it
difficult to record the number of people killed in war and dropped the idea of
body count. However, some lies were not be missed by the keen observers
and two of those are worth mention.
The Crusades started with Afghan Lie related to defeating al-Qaeda
and Taliban. This holy lie has degenerated into ugly reality. Declan Walsh
reported, many Afghans are skeptical of Western efforts to hunt Bin Laden.
Several said he was being sheltered by the US. Osama is their golden
cow, said Mr Muhammad, the teacher. Killing or capturing him will
destroy their system of worldwide colonization.
Ian Williams wrote, American troops have now pretty much
abandoned Afghanistan, the host country of uncaught Osama bin Laden, and
handed over operations to NATO. Simply labeling groups as terrorists
and demonizing those who think more deeply about it, stops odious
comparisons that may challenge prevailing prejudices.
S Nihal Singh expressed similar views. The US has already
unburdened much of the task of fighting the resurgent Taliban in

13

Afghanistan to NATO, which is being refined as the American version of

the French Foreign Legion in fighting Washingtons wars
Taliban remain undefeated and the fight against them has been
rendered to nothing more than random killings of innocent Afghan civilians.
The occupation of Afghanistan has adversely affected neighbouring Pakistan
in many ways; Imtiaz Alam mentioned one of those. The war in
Afghanistan has spilled over into our borderlands. The process of
Talibanization continues unabated. The process of liberalization and
democratization has become a hostage to the expediency of perpetuating
army rule. The war against terrorism is being used to keep civil society
hostage to the grand designs of the garrison, on the one hand, and
religious extremism, on the other. Private militias that threatened the writ of
the state are still being patronized and have been rewarded in North
Waziristan, whereas the secular nationalist forces in Baluchistan are being
militarily suppressed.
The latest lie pertained to dubbing Hezbollah, like Hamas, as terrorist
organization. This lie was found very soon. What do Nelson Mandela,
Michael Collins, Archbishop Makarois, Meacham Begin, Yasser Arafat,
Yitzhak Shamir, Eamon DeValera and Jomo Kenyatta have in common,
asked Ian Williams. As everybody knows, but few remember, they were all
vilified as terrorists, by the British or American authorities.
I have appeared on several Fox and MSNBC shows recently where
the hosts acknowledge that Israel is failing in Lebanon and that the invasion
was a mistake, not least because there is no exit strategy. But then I find
myself under attack because I will not describe Hezbollah as terrorist.
The easy innovation of terrorism whether by journalists or
political leaders is not merely sloppy use of language. It is precisely
targeted phrasing and intended to terrorize dissent. Especially in the binary,
Manichean mindset of the United States and Likudnik Israel, once a group
has been labeled terrorist it becomes the epitome of evil; to suggest that
any of their arguments have any validity makes one a terrorist supporter.
According to Kofi Annan, who was trying to get governments to
agree on a definition at the United Nations last year, an act is terrorism if it
is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a
government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any
14

act. It is concise and precise and clearly excludes much of what Israel,
the US and other governments have tried to brand as terrorism.
But even here, there is room for clear thinking. Under the
prospective UN definition, Irish Republican Army attacks against Security
Forces may have been criminal but they were not terrorist actions. A
phoned-in warning usually preceded even the IRA made such a mess of the
warnings so often that their campaign carried inevitability of deaths and
injuries that certainly put its actions inside Annans definition.
For years Israeli leaders have called Palestinian leaders terrorists,
because they did not want to deal with them or indeed with the people they
represented. In recent weeks, Israeli forces have kidnapped some thirty-eight
elected Palestinian representatives, because they deemed them terrorists.
Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists, and in Israels view Palestinians
or Lebanese vote for them and support them.
The abuse of the concept has reached its nadir in the amphorous
war on terror, which currently covers any military operations that the
United States, Israel, Russia, and anyone else trying to jump on the bloody
bandwagon should wish to undertake, not to mention any rolling back of
civil liberties and international law that entails. Dead dissidents, or even just
passersby from Chechnya to Zinjiang, from Uzbekistan to Gaza, Abu Ghraib
to Lebanon, become posthumous terrorists as soon as their killing is
reported.
While it certainly was not the most clever action that Hezbollah has
perpetrated, taking two Israeli soldiers prisoner was not terrorism,
although raining Katyusha rockets indiscriminately down on civilians
certainly is a form of it.
But how is that different from Israeli planes and artillery killing
civilians in Lebanon or, for that matter, in Gaza? Israel claims that the
civilian deaths are collateral damage of attacks on Hezbollah, but apart
from the morality and legality, the math defies these excuses. Current
Israeli deaths run roughly one civilian dead for two military dead. The far
higher Lebanese casualties are running at around ten civilian dead (including
three children) for every claimed Hezbollah victim.
Israels retaliation with its recklessness for civilian life has won
overwhelming Lebanese and Arab support for Hezbollah, and has in one

15

short month reversed Israels diplomatic gains across the world, while totally
isolating the United States and Tony Blair Mesmerized by the word
terrorism, as I said, it appears that the Bush Administrations higher
mental faculties, never really in top gear, have been totally paralyzed.
But that is no reason for the rest of us to succumb.
S Nihal Singh opined that this lie has also backfired. And the
toppling of Saddam Hussein and the prolonged war Israel has fought with
the Hezbollah in Lebanon has had the unintended consequence of
increasing Irans influence Israels Lebanon venture has made it even
more vulnerable to Arab rage and, instead of winning America friends
have increased the distance between the rulers and the ruled in the Arab
World.
The Washington Post observed the war was straying from its stated
objective of defeating terrorism and advised, Bush could do the country a
great service by using the remainder of his term to put the war against
terrorism on a sustainable long-term course. But lumping disparate
threats together, insisting on tactics that alienate allies and violate
fundamental American values, and using the war as a partisan bludgeon
makes for an unpromising start.
Doug Bandow advised either side of the divided in America.
Although the US should focus on protecting American interests,
Washington should be constrained by moral principles. That is, the US
should take into account the interests of other people around the globe.
Though there are many reasons why the US is hated around the
world, the perception that the US already is at war with them is why some
people work so hard to kill Americans and American friends. Liberals must
do more than rename neoconservative policies. They must develop a
better foreign policy.
The Christian Science Monitor warned of the consequences of
equating terrorism with Islam. If the war against jihadist terrorists lasts
another five years, its possible that issues such as the US in Iraq will be
history. What will remain; most likely the largely unreported war of ideas;
not the one between Western and jihadist values, but among Muslims
over Islam.

16

Terrorist group such as al-Qaeda can only be made to fade away if

they are seen as irrelevant to the Islamic faithful who now side with them
and provide recruits and money winning that contest of visions within
the Islamic community will take more than armies and spies. Ideas do
matter in some wars, even more so than the quality of military leaders,
weapons, and tactics.
The US must ultimately rely on the power of persuasion by those
Muslims who stand up for Islam as a religion of peace, not one that relies on
terror, or fear. That is the main front in this war. Many Muslim groups,
mostly in the West, have found the courage to take such a stand. They reject
the idea that any Muslim can issue a fatwa justifying terror.

THE TRUTH
Looking back, it would be hard to say whether the years have been
spent in something meaningful or constructive. Many would agree that the
world is a more dangerous place and that the United States is nowhere close
to winning the war against terror, wrote the News. The war, which has no
frontiers and which has co-opted many countries, costs America billions of
dollars and thousands of lives and yet it is nowhere near coming to any
logical conclusion.
The Muslim communities in such cases have, by and large, tended to
veer further to the extreme. There is also a perceptive rise in sympathy for
religious causes, which is fine, and extremist organizations, which is not.
Different wars and indigenous struggles have been enveloped in the
larger war on terror, with the west immediately siding with the nonMuslim side in most instances on the grounds that the Muslim side is being
fought by organizations which it considers to be terrorist in nature. In this
complex web of wars and struggles, the US has adopted a policy that is
overly simplistic and has multiple implications.
While conspiracy theorists may argue that with the threat of every
terrorist attack the US administration gets further strengthened, the reality is
simpler. The US and its allies have only worsened the situation through
their responses to the September 11 attacks. Five years is a long enough
time to realize this. The interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been
nothing short of a disaster.

17

To find the truth, it is important to analyze the liar. Only twice did
reality intrude on this meticulously constructed and carefully choreographed
image: first after the terrorist attacks of September 11, and then exactly four
years later, following Hurricane Katrina. Those two events represent the
zenith and the nadir of Bushs presidency, observed Gary Younge.
Today he stands between the two anniversaries that have come to
define his tenure. Last week marked a year since Katrina flooded New
Orleans, exposing his administration as aloof and incompetent an
impression from which he has never recovered, Next week will revive
memories of a commander in chief who was tough and resolute an image
he is desperate to resurrect.
On both anniversaries the dead will be commemorated. But the
public discussion of why they died and what should be done to prevent more
similar deaths reflects two very different notions of what kind of superpower
America aspires to be. They are, if not contradictory, at the very least in
conflict If these anniversaries reveal a lot about Bush, they also tell us
a lot about America.
On both occasions Bush displayed not a commanding presence
but a conspicuous absence. On hearing of the terrorist attacks he finished
reading My Pet Goat to schoolchildren in Florida before zigzagging around
the country for fear that he too would become a target. This did little to
inspire confidence in the nation in its hour of need.
The late Washington Post columnist Mary McGory concluded: Bush
said the attack was a test for the country. It was also one for him. He
flunked. He did not arrive in New York for four days. In New York,
Newsdays Ellis Henican pleaded: I know were all rallying round the
president now, and here Ive been, rallying like everybody else. But the
hours are passing. The body count is rising. The question cant wait much
longer. New York has a right to know. Where are you, Mr President?
The fact that, after just five years, this is remembered as his finest
hour is a triumph of image over reality. The nation felt the need for a
strong leader. When he was found lacking, his consigliore Karl Rove
projected one.
Shireen M Mazari opined that the war is all about imperialism
targeting Muslim lands. What we are witnessing today is a most dangerous

18

ignorance accompanying US imperialism, which seeks to destroy existing

structures in the Muslim World targeting primarily the Middle East and
Gulf region, including Pakistan and Afghanistan Leslie Gelb and Peter
Galbraith have been writing about the need to create three states out of
Iraq and other analysts have followed suit as the US gets more deeply
pulled into the Iraqi quagmire which it created by invading that country.
Ralph Peterstalks of boundaries project that would redress the socalled wrongs suffered by the most cheated population groups all
Muslim of course. He says that borders have never been static through the
centuries and in true imperial fashion goes about suggesting how,
presumably the sole superpower, the US, can set about changing the
borders of the Muslim World.
Of course, like any sanctimonious imperialist, Peters couches the
new US imperialist design in terms of righting historical injustices
though why the US should set itself this task without being asked by anyone,
is inexplicable. But if we were to take Peters on his intent, then surely the
US should begin by undoing the historical injustice to Native Americans
who now have only officially sanctioned reservations to call their own in
North America. And what about asking major US allies like Britain and
Australia to do likewise? Britain should give independence to Scotland and
Wales and return Northern Ireland back to the Irish Republic. Australias
original white settlers, who were mostly convicts sent to the faraway penal
colony and killed a large part of the native aborigine population, should
return Australian territory to the aborigines, while New Zealanders must
restore ownership of their country to the indigenous Maoris.
Peters cannot be ignorant of this history but makes no suggestion of
giving back the Palestinians all their lands. He should know that if he is
examining how a better Middle East would look; he should focus on
righting the great injustice done to the Palestinian people. Ironically, the
Israelis have adopted a policy of lebensraum or living space and have
sought to continuously expand their borders such are the lessons learnt
from history.
His ignorance comes out clearly when he refers to the need to break
up Saudi Arabia to create a separate Muslim super-Vatican out of the
holy cities of Makkah and Madina to be ruled in rotation by the worlds
major Muslim schools and movements. To begin with, the Vatican model is
good for one school within Christianity that of the Roman Catholics. Can
19

one imagine the Pope periodically handing over the Vatican to the
Archbishop of Canterbury or the Orthodox Church?
The punitive factor is also present when Peters talks of how the
unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as
Pakistan the latter being the only Muslim nuclear state! He proposes that
Jordan be expanded at Saudi expense and the Shias populating the coastal
oilfields of Saudi Arabia be given control of this area while Yemen would
take some of the Saudi territory adjacent to it. All this so that the House of
Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.
As for Pakistan, Peters ignorance is highlighted when he talks of
compensating Afghanistan, for its loss to Persia in the West, with
Pakistans NWFP. Had he studied history, he would have known that people
have moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan, not the other way round. So if
there is to be territorial adjustment, Pakistan should be gaining more
territory. But then Pakistan is a nuclear power and this rests uncomfortably
with Christian America!
Andrew Murray expressed similar views before concluding that
imperialism was failing. The new imperialism which will for ever be linked
to the names of Bush and Blair has taken just five years to hit the buffers of
popular opposition and moral ignominy. Imperialism has moved from the
realm of political jargon to be the central issue of our time and is seen
as such everywhere beyond the ramparts of the neoconservative/Labour
alliance.
In Iraq, the great testing ground for liberal interventionism, the
pitch of resistance to the armies of occupation, along with the failure of a
parade of handpicked premiers to deliver even a faade of stability, is,
according to the New York Times, leading George Bush to consider
abandoning his democratic experiment in favour of, presumably, a
dictatorship.
But, he opined, the plan was not working. In Afghanistan, to which
British troops were rushed nearly five years after regime change was
imposed, the Karzai government is floundering in epic levels of
corruption. It has reinstated the power of opium-funded warlords, the
suppression of whom was perhaps the Talibans only popular achievement.

20

And despite Blairs determined green light to Israels attack on

Lebanon, the long, strong arm of the US in the region as the Israeli
commander Sima Kadom describes his country has had to retreat with its
objectives unmet. No one seems to be rushing to pick up the Whitemans
burden either. British troops are now back east of Suez, with a vengeance.
The Blair years have been a study in the failures of the Anglo-Saxon
powers capacity to remake the world in their own interests by force even
the prime minister seemed to acknowledge that wearily in California earlier
this month.
But the opponents of imperialism are by far the more numerous.
Nearly two-thirds of the public believe British foreign policy is too
subservient to the US and that the foreign occupations are a failure. The
strength of the anti-war movement over the past five years, drawing fresh
support during the Lebanon War, testifies that this sentiment goes much
further than opinion polls.
The pro-war bloggers and lecturers who produced the Euston
manifesto earlier this year have recently been reduced to providing a
platform for Blairite ministers to promote privatization, just as their stateside
super hero Christopher Hitchens backed George Bushs re-election in 2004.
Empire is of course no longer something that simply happens
over there. Its fault lines run through every British community, with the
wars in the Middle East and South Asia now accompanied by a campaign
against the new enemy within, the Muslim people of Britain.
The Big Lie, Iraq, has been the main cause of the failure of
imperialistic designs. Howard Zinn wrote, the United States, in three years
of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with
day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed
objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. President Bush,
strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in
Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Heresy character, his words equally
boastful, his military machine impotent.
Presumably after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president
was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four
years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in
much of the country.

21

War in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of

large number of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is
why a war on terrorism is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by
nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more
deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.
If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, and
then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the
terrorism of war. And. if military retaliation for terrorism is not only
immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their
calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.
The Crusaders stampede has crushed the United Nations. Adel Safty
commented, the United Nations came into existence in 1945 determined
to avoid the mistakes of the League and promising global leadership based
on universally shared human values and ideals. However, the veto power in
the Security Council and the Cold War meant that the UN would reflect the
real-politick balance of power brought about by the military realities of the
results of the Second World War.
The decision of the US and UK to invade Iraq, in 2003, after failing
to obtain a specific authorization from the UN Security Council was a
dramatic reminder of the use of the Security Council to advance the national
interests of the great powers This democratic deficit and the parochial
pursuit of imperial interests by the great powers are thwarting the
aspirations of global institutions to provide leadership that reflects
common human needs and concerns.
The lingering effects of 9/11 reach out far beyond the worlds
airports. They have penetrated the very heart of many communities in the
West, and, perhaps most dangerously of all, contributed to the intolerance
and hatred that, in a vicious cycle, can give rise only to more terrorism and
more mayhem, observed Kamila Hyat.
The problem goes far beyond the issue of racist jibes in schools or on
the streets, or the other petty acts of discrimination that non-whites living in
any western society inevitably face at one time or the other As Muslims
face greater hostility, they have reacted by turning inwards, towards
their own community. Most noticeably in the UK, this has often meant the
local mosque, or study circles that have cropped up in many homes. For the
young in particular, these gatherings have played a part in channeling the
22

rebelliousness of many immigrant communities living in a hostile

environment, towards violence.
Attempts to stop such violence bring the kind of raids on private
homes seen recently on television as police stormed into houses in several
localities in the UK. As the uniformed men and women entered homes, from
the street corners, other children, other young men and women watched
and many made it clear where their sympathies lay as TV teams spoke to
them about the operation.
At a wider level, this cycle of violence is a reaction to the injustice
seen in the Middle East, the perpetration of which has been made possible
by the US and its allies. In this new order of the world, Washington has
emerged in the perception of many Muslims as a prime enemy, and the
fact that some of these Muslims live in the midst of western societies
complicates matters for them.
Disproportionate hype about the monster called terrorism has resulted
in creating perpetual fear in the civilized world. Simon Jenkins was of the
view that what has changed, grotesquely, is the aftershock. Terrorism is 10
percent bang and 90 percent an echo effect composed of media hysteria,
political overkill and knee-jerk executives action, usually retribution
against some wider group treated as collectively responsible. This response
has become 24-hour, seven-day-a-week amplification by the new politicomedia complex, especially shrill where the dead are white people. It is this
that puts global terror into the bang. While we take ever more extravagant
steps to ward off the bangs, we do the opposite with the terrorist aftershock.
We turn up its volume. We seem to wallow in fear.
Were I to take my life in my hands this weekend and visit Osama bin
Ladens hideout in Wherever-istan, the interview would go something like
this. I would ask how things have been for him since 9/11. His reply would
be that he had worried at first that America would capitalize on the global
revulsion, even among Muslims, and isolate him as a lone fanatic.
He would agree, as did the CIAs al-Qaeda analyst in Peter Taylors
recent documentary, that the Americans have done his job for him. They
panicked. They drove the Taliban back into the mountains, restoring the
latters credibility in the Arab street and turning al-Qaeda into heroes. They
persecuted Muslims across America. They occupied Iraq and declared Iran a
sworn enemy. They backed an Israeli war against Lebanons Shias. Soon
23

every tin pot Muslim malcontent was citing al-Qaeda as his inspiration. Bin
Ladens tiny organization, which might have been starved of funds and
friends in 2001, had become a worldwide jihadist phenomenon.
I would ask Bin Laden whether he had something special up his
sleeve for the fifth anniversary. Why waste money, he would reply. The
western media were obliging re-enacting the destruction and screaming,
turning the base metal of violence into the gold of terror. They would
replay the tapes and rerun the footage ad nauseam, and thus remind the
world of his awesome power, Americans are more afraid of jihadists this
year than last year. In a Transatlantic Trends survey the number of them
describing international terrorism as an extremely important threat went up
from 72 percent to 79 percent.
Bin Laden might boast that he had achieved terrorisms equivalent of
an atomic chain reaction: a self-regenerating cycle of outrage and foreign
policy overkill, aided by anniversary journalism and fueled by the grim
scenarios of security lobbyists. He now had only to drop an occasional CD
into the offices of al-Jazeera, and Washington and London quaked with fear.
The authorities could be reduced to million-dollar hysterics by a phial of nail
varnish, a copy of the Quraan, or a dark-skinned person displaying a watch
and a mobile phone The best way to commemorate 9/11 is with silence.
Instead, Bin Laden must be laughing.
The war has enraged the Muslim World, observed Dan Murphy. The
US-led Iraq war and American support for Israels bombardment of Lebanon
are serving to fertilize anger in segments of the Muslim World. And, they
say, this means that al-Qaeda may no longer be the primary enemy, but that
disparate groups of young radicals who are imitating their tactics are
emerging as equally potent threats.
The open-ended nature of this war, and feelings of public
vulnerability generated by reports of plans like the one emanating from
London, are creating great skepticism among US allies about the
effectiveness of its tactics.
The populations of Americas Arab allies, like Egypt and Jordan,
are largely against US foreign policy and more inclined to blame America
for the violence in the region than the terrorists who carry out attacks.

24

Rahimullah Yusufzai opined that the conduct of war has strengthened

the resolve of the forces resisting Crusaders onslaught. Five years after
9/11, the US is still in a revengeful mood. It has spent its fury on waging
two full-fledged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is reportedly preparing to
launch the third one against Iran American connivance was visible in
Israeli attacks against Lebanon and the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority in
Gaza.
Along with military offensives and occupation of foreign lands, the
US has also formed an irritating habit of weighing in through unwanted
interference in the affairs of weaker nations. The doctrine of regime
change and pre-emptive strikes against so-called rogue states for advancing
American objectives is increasingly becoming part of international
diplomacy.
Those opposed to US policies have also become more violent and
determined while resisting occupation of their countries or indulging in
terrorist attacks. Their tactics have become brutal and their propaganda
focused and sophisticated While exacting revenge, both the US and its
allies and their Islamic rivals have surprisingly adopted almost the same
approach by justifying civilian deaths as collateral damage.
John Pilger opined Hezbollahs resistance against Israel indicated the
return of peoples power. In Lebanon, the pattern (of return of peoples
power) continues. An armed resistance of a few thousand strong has
humbled the fifth-most powerful army in the world, which is supplied and
backed by the superpower. That much we know. What is not known is the
extraordinary and decisive part played by the unarmed people of
southern Lebanon. Reported as a trial of victims, the spectacle of people
heading back to their homes was an epic act of defiance and resistance. On
13th August, as the Israeli Army advanced in southern Lebanon, they warned
people not to return to their homes. This was defied almost to a man, woman
and a child, who abandoned the refugee centres and headed south, jamming
the roads and flashing victory signs.
An eyewitness, Simon Assaf, described gangs of local men along the
route clearing paths by dragging away the piles of electric cable, rubble and
twisted metal that littered the highway. A new stream of cars would rapidly
form through every breach in the rubble. There were no army or policeit
was the locals who directed traffic, guided cars past dangerous craters and
pushed buses up dirt tracks around collapsed bridges. As they neared their
25

homes, the refugees would form great processions. Town after town, village
after village was reclaimed. Powerless to confront this human wave, the
Israelis abandoned their positions and began fleeing to the border. This flood
of people emerged out of an unprecedented mass movement that grew
up across the country as the bombs rained down.
The Lebanese resistance, armed and unarmed, is from the same
wellspring as other movements throughout the world. Each has learned to
put aside its sectarian differences in the face of a common enemy
rampant empire and its proxies
There is no difference in principle between the peoples movement
that saw off the Israeli invaders and the stirring of people everywhere as they
become aware of the real meaning of the ambitions and hypocrisy of Bush
and his vassal, who want us to be ever fearful of and cowed by
terrorism when, in truth, the greatest terrorists of all are them.
This significant change led Richard Cohen to say, I hear Osama bin
Laden laughing He laughs, the madman does, whenever George W Bush
says, as he has over and over, that America is winning this war on terror.
Bin Laden knows better. He has already won.
From bin Ladens standpoint this has been a glorious victory,
made possible, it has to be said, by the totally unforeseen incompetence of
the Bush Administration. It was so intent on going to war in Iraq that it
would not finish the job in Afghanistan. So, to bin Ladens absolutely
amazement I am guessing here the United States took on his enemy, the
secular and ungodly Saddam Hussein, whom bin Laden himself would
gladly have murdered.
How did bin Laden get so lucky? How did he get so fortunate in his
choice of enemies? The Bush Administration not only validated his
wildest dreams dreams that even some of his aides thought were
unrealistic but went even further.
And here at home, here in the United States of America, it will be
long time before lots of people trust their government again. Little
wonder that 16 percent of respondents said in a recent poll that it was very
likely that the government played some role in Sept 11 attacks to justify a
war in the Middle East.

26

Jason Bruke opined, by the end of this decade, there is no doubt we

will have other sad anniversaries of other terrible events to be mindful of.
There is a sense that history, far from being ending, is accelerating. That
the centre cannot hold: That the individual counts for nothing.
Bin Laden was in one sense right. His life or death doesnt
matter, but not for the reasons he thought. He meant that the attacks of 9/11,
the culmination of a series of attempts which began in the late 1990s to use
spectacular violence to spark a general uprising of the worlds Muslims, had
been largely successful. And, he felt in December 2001, his work was more
or less over.
Five years later, it is clear that, in this, he was wrong In
countries that have suffered violence, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq,
there has been a strong counter-reaction to the atrocities of recent years. The
number of young men attracted by violence in the UK is larger than it was a
decade ago, but is still statistically insignificant.

RECEIVING END
The rulers in Islamic World appear too be deaf and dumb to the
ground realities pointed out by analysts like Dr M S Jillani. Systematic
violations against Muslims around the world had convinced one and many
others of the same mindset that a process of ethnic cleansing against the
Muslims was being carried out globally. There is no dearth of evidence to
the fact that the campaign is led by the pseudo-ideological group of
neoconservatives in America who have been using the President of the
United States for their sinister plan of worldwide pandemonium of
unprecedented proportions.
The frequency and persistence of anti-Muslim rhetoric and activity
oblige one to conclude that Huntingtons prediction about clash of
civilizations was valid to the extent that the clash would be planned and
triggered by the West to annihilate non-Western civilizations, especially
those which had demonstrated the potential to challenge the Western way of
life. Islam has been isolated as the biggest threat real or perceived.
Every effort has been made to destroy the military capabilities of
the Muslims, subjugate them economically, corner them politically,

27

infiltrate them culturally and, finally, demoralize them psychologically and

socially. But to the surprise of most thinkers in the West, Islam and the
Muslims have been flourishing rather getting stronger and more
circumspect.
The countries that rose from their ashes following the atrocities
unleashed on them by the US has helped to strengthen the conviction of the
people that the Western onslaught under the leadership of the United States
might hurt deeply but the will of the people of the devastated lands is
mightier. So within a short time, they transform destruction into victory of
the spirit. The latest demonstration of this defiance can be seen in Lebanon.
However, there does not seem to be any letup in the war on
Muslims. Mr Bushs outburst about war on Islamic fascists was followed
by a number of acts which were as foolish as the busted case of the plot to
blowup airplanes flying to the United States. Since it had been concocted to
deflect world opinion from the beating being taken by the Israeli military at
the hands of Hezbollah, it was allowed to recede into background as soon as
there was a ceasefire.
Around the same time, the future map of the New Middle East was
released by a US think-tank. The real purpose of making it public must be to
record reaction of the Muslim regions in Asia, Middle East and Central Asia
to the plan. This is an old routine. The map was also meant to put a few
ideas in the minds of politicians and government leaders of the region.
Bush had been talking about redrawing the map of Islamic World since long,
which couldnt have been without existence of such maps.
The latest in this routine has been the appearance of Osama bin
Ladens tapes depicting preparations of the 9/11 attack. Tapes, such as this
one, are released by an Arab channel at times suitable to the United States.
One such tape, which twisted the almost sure result of last election of the
President of the United States, was full of threats to America. The timing
was such that angry voters, in a bid to strengthen the incumbent President,
voted for Mr Bush, upsetting all projections and polls.
It shows Osama, his two important deputies and some warriors going
about their normal chores (like chopping wood and slicing vegetables), and
walking around some rugged mountains. The tape becomes suspect as
Osama had no need to inform the world about life in one of his training
camps five or six years ago. It is made still more suspect as the US
28

government has gone an additional mile to certify that the tape was
authentic. The tape does not serve any purpose except turning peaceful US
citizens into enemies by reviving the Osama factor in their minds.
But the tape does provide fresh ground to the US government to
strike the Muslim harder. This can only mean more humiliation, more
restrictions, more scrutiny, more discrimination and more Guantanamos for
the Muslims at the hands of the United States and its cronies.
Shireen M Mazari said, if we were to recollect how many absurdities
have become official Bush Administration policies, then we should take this
(redrawing of boundaries) seriously and take measures to counter this
agenda before it is fully operationalized. I say fully because if one looks at
the instability both within Muslim states that fall into the GME region and
within the region, one can see the beginnings of the operationalization of
this new imperial design.
How to counter such designs from succeeding? A two-pronged
strategy for all these states: One, strengthen the domestic consensus through
greater civil society participation. Political solutions to political grievances
of all segments of civil society so that the space is not available for outsiders
to exploit. Two, to evolve defence treaties among Muslim states
The correct solution lies in accepting Peters premise of righting
historical injustices, but not the solution he has suggested. The injustices
can only be addressed by total or at least regional political unification of
Muslim countries, as against what Peter has suggested which amounts to
further aggravate the historical injustices.
The seemingly deaf and dumb rulers of Islamic World, mostly puppets
and allies of the Crusaders, are not oblivious to realities enumerated above,
but their interpretations are different from those of Dr Jillani and others like
him. Patrick Seale equated the plight of three Muslim rulers with that of
Olmert. In Islamabad, Kabul, Baghdad and Occupied Jerusalem, four heads
of government are facing grave, possibly terminal, difficulties largely
because of their alliance with the United States.
It is worth noting that he equated these Muslim rulers with Olmert. In
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is riding a tiger of separatism and
sectarian conflict which the latest Pentagon report at last recognizes as a
civil war. The country has fallen apart in an orgy of slaughter.

29

In Israel, a rising tide of criticism is threatening to drive Prime

Minister Ehud Olmert from his office, and bring down his ruling coalition.
His criminally destructive war against Hezbollah in Lebanon planned and
waged in conjunction with the United States has plunged the Jewish state
into political turmoil and into agonies of self doubt. The major pillars of
Israels foreign and defence policy have been shaken, together with the
myth of IDFs invincibility.
In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai put in power and propped up
by the United States and the West is rapidly losing public support. There
is already speculation that his four and half year rule may be coming to an
end.
In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf is being hounded by
critics on all sides by Islamic opponents at home, by exiled politicians
such as the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and by British security
officials All of them are worried about only one thing; preservation of
their rule in respective domains.
Richard I Armitage and Kara L Bue showered some praise on the man
in the mainstream. The United States gave Pakistan a stark choice
Musharraf chose to stand with America, and since then he has taken
tremendous steps to fight Islamic extremists and move Pakistan toward
enlightened moderation.
Pakistan has worked closely with the United States, sharing
intelligence and capturing and handing over many terrorists, including top
al-Qaeda leaders. It has sent more than 70,000 troops to the Afghan border
and conducted successful operations to flush out foreign fighters. Hundreds
of Pakistani troops have been killed in these efforts, and thousands
injured.
Perhaps more important, General Musharraf has shown that he
understands the seriousness of dealing with the root causes of extremism,
making real efforts to improve economic and educational opportunities He
solved the countrys crippling debt crisis and loosened regulations on
business, paving the way for an economic growth rate rivaling Indias. With
mixed success, he has worked to free the judiciary from religious control and
to loosen the grip of Islamic extremists on madrassas, the prevalent religious
academies.

30

But they also ended up demanding more. Yes, much remains to be

accomplished, particularly in terms of democratization. Pakistan must
increase efforts toward a lasting peace with India and eliminate the homegrown jihadists who threaten that peace. And, given the exposure of arms
bazaar run by its top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, it must prove
itself a reliable partner on technology transfer and nuclear non-proliferation.
Rahimullah Yusufzai was of the view that the post-9/11
developments turned our uniformed President, General Pervez
Musharraf, from an outcast shunned by Western governments to a
darling of the US and its allies. After General Ziaul Haq, who went on to
rule for 11 yearsMusharraf became the second Pakistani General to
benefit from the US need for a strong military ruler in Islamabad to help it in
defeating the enemies.
President Musharraf had to undertake a number of changes in
foreign and domestic policies to qualify for US and Western support.
There was a U-turn in the countrys Afghanistan policyoffers were made
to New Delhi for resolving the Kashmir issue Militant jehadi groups were
banned and some of their leaders put behind the bars temporarily. Plans were
unveiled to reform madrassas The Presidents pet project of enlightened
moderation too received more than adequate attention and steps were taken
in line with this thinking.
On the downside, the Musharraf government got away with human
rights abuses. The war on terror came handy while dealing with Islamic
hardliners as the Western governments and organizations didnt bother to
take up such cases They were also allowed to rig elections and give a
civilian faade to client governments because it suited the West to deal with
strong dictatorial rulers instead of representative regimes answerable to their
people
Islamic Worlds ruling elites focus on self preservation speaks loud
about the regrettable fate of the OIC. Dr M S Jillani wrote, one does not
wish to waste breath on pleas to strengthen the OIC or creating new Muslim
organizations. The performancehas been so disappointing and shameful
that even the mention of an international Muslim body hurts.
Muslims in the coming centuries have a choice: either they take
cognizance of the dangers lurking all around and strengthen themselves
economically, militarily, and morally and solve mutual problems to forge
31

lasting and genuine unity, or be ready to lose their identity as Muslims

and accept servitude of the West for all time to come.
One can feel ones own frustration and despondency over inaction of
the worlds Muslims to respond to such threats and to prepare themselves to
face them. Rhetoric apart, there is no alternative to awakening and
action. And in the face of the recent crisis of leadership it will have to start
with individuals who would provide Muslims with leadership that has a
commitment to the Ummah.
Robert Fisk opined that response of common Muslims is different
from their rulers, even of those who live in America. He wrote his
impressions after attending the annual convention of American Muslims,
oddly, its the Muslim converts rather than the Muslim-born Americans
who are toughest on Bush. He wants eternal war, a young man with
brown beard but very bright blue eyes yes, he was from Vermont hissed
at me. He talks shit and we have to listen to this and promise to be nonviolent or someone will point the finger at us.
On their own, as thin minorities in the towns and cities of the United
States, Americas Muslims perhaps six million of them can feel under
siege, distrusted and even hated. At the convention centre, however, they
are in a self-confident majority, Sunnis for the most part Americas Shias,
who may be in the majority over all; dont have the same organizing abilities
at present
Salam al-Marati he is one of the few Muslims I meet who actually
was born in the Arab World, in the Baghdad suburb of Qadamiyeh is
director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Los Angeles
advocacy group which repeatedly urges American Muslims to work with the
authorities against violence but who sees other dangers and other targets for
Muslim political anger: the pro-Israeli lobbyists who ostentatiously insist
that the vast majority of American Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding but
that a network of Islamic terror exists across the nation.
Daniel Pipes is a bite noire, as is Steven Emerson, a freelance
journalist who grinds out article after article about the American jihad for
such august papers as The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, more and
more reads like The Jerusalem Post. Emerson and his work are taken apart
by al-Marati and his colleagues in a widely circulated booklet entitled

32

Counterproductive Terrorism: How Anti-Islamic Rhetoric is Impeding

Americas Homeland Security.
Those representing pro-Israeli groups continue to intimidate and
marginalize those who are critical of Israeli policies by claiming this is
pro-terrorism, al-Marati says with a mixture of anger and weariness. This
is to the detriment of America, to the detriment of countering terrorism.
Ahmed Rashid expressed his views on performance of groups
resisting Crusaders onslaught in Islamic World. The extremists are
successfully facing off against the overwhelming technological apparatus
that modern armies can bring to bear against guerrillas. Islamic extremists
are winning the war by not losing and they are steadily expanding to create
new battlefronts.
If this is indeed a long war, as the Bush Administration says, then
the United States has almost certainly lost the first phase. Guerrillas are
learning faster than Western armies, and the West makes appalling strategic
mistakes while the extremists make brilliant tactical moves.
As al-Qaeda and its allies prepare to spread their global jihad to
Central Asia, the Caucasus and other parts of the Middle East, they will
carry with them the accumulated experience and lessons of the past five
years. The West and its regional allies are not prepared to match them.

CONCLUSION
Led by the desire to avail opportunities presented by the tragedy of
9/11, Bush Administration did not realize that it was committing a blunder
by invading Iraq. More than three years after the occupation of the land of
two rivers, the Crusaders find themselves in quagmire about which their
under-trial adversary had warned.
Resistance in Iraq, resilience of Hezbollah shown during recent Israeli
attack on Lebanon, resurgence of Taliban, and tenacity of Iran has created
numerous problems for the imperialistic designs of America and its coalition
of the willing. But, intoxicated by their military might, they are not prepared
to change the course; however, change of strategy is under active
consideration.

33

The absence of any opposition from the ruling elite in Islamic World
instead, their unconditional subservience has encouraged the Crusaders to
enlarge the scope of ongoing Clash on Civilizations. In view of the rhetoric
like Islamic fascism, the end to the war in foreseeable future seemed
improbable.
The irony is that Muslim rulers and intellectuals, despite the ongoing
atrocious war against Islam and its followers for the last five years, still
prefer to side with America. They not only reject the existence of the
Crusades but also keep looking towards America for solution of their
problems. This approach promises more miseries for the Muslim masses.

16th September 2006

IRAQ IRAN ITCH

On 21st August, Bush expressed concern over Iraqs slide into civil
war. Twelve days later he had second thought and said that there was no civil

34

war in Iraq. Annan mildly defined the quagmire the US was in: US can
neither stay nor leave Iraq. He termed Iraq occupation a real disaster. White
House disagreed with him.
Criticism of Bush Administration over war in Iraq continued. The
critics also blamed the puppet regime of Nouri al-Maliki for doing nothing
to improve security improvement. US Administration, however, remained
determined on staying the course.
Addressing the military veterans in Salt Lake City, Bush said, if
America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences
would be absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst
enemies They would have a new sanctuary with huge oil riches.
Having weakened Hezbollah through services of Israel the occupation
forces in Iraq focused on disarming Shiite militias. This was considered
essential before tackling Iran. Tehran, however, stood firm on its nuclear
programme causing continuous embarrassment to America.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Bloodletting in Iraq has become a free for all for business. On 10 th
August, 35 people were killed and 122 wounded in suicide bombing in
Najaf. Eighteen more were killed across the country. Four dead bodies were
found. Three US soldiers were killed and dead bodies of helicopter crew
were found. More than 2,000 dead bodies were taken to morgue in July.
On 12th August, more than 60 people were killed in various incidents
of violence including a clash with occupation forces. Two US soldiers were
also killed and US forces claimed capturing about 100 al-Qaeda men. Next
day, at least 34 people were killed across Iraq. A cleric was kidnapped.
Governor of Mosul escaped an attack. Gang plotting to kidnap Prime
Ministers family was nabbed.
At least 48 people were killed in violence across Iraq on 14 th August.
Three days later, at least 18 people were killed in various incidents of
violence across the country. On 19th August, an American soldier was killed
in combat in Anbar province.

35

On 20th August, gunmen ambushed Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad killing

57 and wounding over 140 others. Clashes were reported in other parts of
the city. Security forces arrested 30 suspects. Next day, US military
announced the killing of four soldiers in various incidents.
At least 13 people were killed in insurgent attacks across the country
on 22 August. Two days later, two US soldiers and at least 14 Iraqis were
killed in separate bombings and shootings. On 25 th August, nine more Iraqis
were killed.
nd

At least 26 Iraqis were killed on 26 th August. US tanks fired at a

mosque. Oil pipeline was blown up near Baiji. Next day, 24 people were
killed in Baghdad and 20 dead bodies were also found. In Kirkuk, 11 Iraqis
were killed in suicide bombings and 14 people were killed in Khales. Two
US soldiers were killed in separate incidents.
On 28th August, 81 Iraqis were killed and 126 wounded in clash with
Shia militia and US-led forces and in other incidents of violence; eight US
solders were also killed. Next day, the government struck a peace deal with
militia and hours later 74 people were killed in fire at a fuel pipeline outside
Diwaniyah. At least 14 people were killed in Baghdad. Five US soldiers
were killed in separate incidents. Iraqi government and militia agreed on
ceasefire.
Insurgents killed at least 77 people and wounded more than one
hundred in shootings and bombings on 30 th August. Next day, rockets rained
on Baghdad killing 50 people and wounding 200 others. On 1 st September,
two US soldiers died of wounds received earlier; raising the death toll to 17
in six days and death toll of blasts on 31st August rose to seventy.
On 2nd September, 11 Pakistani and 3 Indian pilgrims were killed
while they were on their way to Karbala. At least 20 Iraqis were killed in
other incidents of violence across the country. Pentagon announced that
there were three thousand casualties in Iraq every month. US transferred
Abu Ghraib to Iraqi authorities. Next day, local al-Qaeda chief, Hamid Juma
Faris, was captured and later seven more al-Qaeda men were also captured.
At least 24 Iraqis and two US soldiers were killed in violence across Iraq.
At least ten US and two British soldiers were killed on 4th September
in different incidents. About 20 Iraqis were killed in violence and 200 were
arrested. Thirty-five dead bodies were found from Baghdad and elsewhere.

36

Two days later, seven Iraqis were killed in violence and 24 convicted
terrorists were hanged by the government.
On 7th September, ten Iraqis were killed and 20 wounded in a blast in
Baghdad. Two US soldiers were killed by the insurgents. Two days later, 13
Iraqis were reported killed and nine dead bodies were recovered.
On 10th September, 27 people were killed and 17 wounded in violence
across the country. Iraqi authorities claimed killing al-Qaeda militant, Jaafar
al-Lybi. Next day, at least 29 Iraqis and one US soldier were killed in
various incidents.
Five persons were killed and 13 wounded in violence on 12 th
September. Next day, two US soldiers were killed in clash in Anbar province
and dozens of people were killed in various incidents of violence and 65
dead bodies were found by Police.
On 14th September, 43 people were killed in violence and 20 dead
bodies were found. Two US soldiers were killed in separate incidents near
Baghdad. Next day, fifty-one dead bodies were found. Two US soldiers were
killed and one went missing and 25 others were wounded in a suicide
bombing attack.
Ellen Knick Meyer reported, Baghdads morgue almost tripled its
count for violent deaths in Iraqs capital during August from 550 to 1,536
appearing to erase most of what US generals and Iraqi leaders had touted as
evidence of progress in a major security operation to restore order in the
capital Separately the Health Ministry confirmed Thursday that it planned
to construct two new branch morgues in Baghdad and add doctors and
refrigerator units to raise capacity to as many as 250 corpses a day.
Since the spring, as sectarian violence has mounted; monthly counts
of civilian casualties have reached the highest levels of the war, topping
1,800 at the Baghdad morgue in July. At least 3,438 Iraqis were killed across
the country that month, according to Iraqi government figures, nearing that
total of roughly 5,000 for the entire first year of the war.
Proceedings of trial of Saddam continued. On 21 st August, the accused
defiantly refused to enter a plea on charges of genocide over a brutal
crackdown against Kurds. Two defence lawyers left the court in protest
against confrontation between their client and the judge.

37

Two days later, a Kurdish mother, who had lost her son to a poison
gas attack, told the court of chemical horror. On 13th September, prosecutor
in Saddam trial demanded resignation of the chief judge for being too lenient
with defendants.
Meanwhile, the Kurds made use of the prevalent environments to
press for autonomy. On 3rd September, Maliki expressed his annoyance over
Kurds who had brandished the threat of secession in a growing row over
flying the Iraqi flag at government buildings in Kurdish areas.
But three days later, Iraqs dominant Shiite political alliance submitted
to parliament a draft law for division of the country into autonomous
regions. On 11th September, Sadr movement broke with its Shiite allies and
announced its opposition to a draft law for setting up autonomous region in
Iraq.

CRITICISM
Despite all the denials both of US officials and of members of the
Maliki cabinet, this is civil war, and it is a war that was started by the Bush
Administration, wrote Sami Moubayed. First, it is clear evidence that the
Baghdad Security Plan of the Iraqi prime minister has completely
failed. It was a plan much trumpeted by Bush and Maliki because it called
for the creation of more Iraqi-run checkpoints to search for arms, explosives
and gunmen.
Second, the staggering Iraqi death toll means that the Sunni
insurgency has not been broken or even weakened by the death of its
leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And third, the transfer of full responsibility
for security to the Iraqi government seems as far away as it has ever been
since the invasion of 2003.
For two years now the Americans have been denying that Iraq is on
the verge of civil war. Last week, however, two US generals spoke to
Congress about situation in Iraq. And they spoke about civil war.
General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, said, I
believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it, in
Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could
move toward civil war.

38

Amid all these problems, there is the danger of the Hezbollah

Model being adopted in Iraq. Muqtada, who has been a nightmare for the
Americans since they invaded, has all the credentials to create such an
organization in Iraq, modeling himself after Hezbollah leader Hassan
Nasrallah.
Muqtada is young. He is well connected in the religious
establishment, he hails from a prominent Shiite family and he has a large
following among Iraqis. Like Nasrallah, he is opposed to both the US and
Israel. Like Nasrallah, he is an Arab nationalist at heart who does not want to
see Iraq divided. The only difference is that Muqtada wants to establish a
theocracy in Iraq.
If it happens, and Muqtada decides to end all restraint, he could
immediately bring down the Maliki cabinet. Or he could withdraw his
ministers from the government and replace them with non-entities, and
transform the cabinet into a political dwarf unable to make any real
decisions. In this event, what would govern the state of affairs under
Muqtada would be the power of the sword on the Iraqi street.
One of the things cemented in the minds of the Americans after the
war in Lebanon because of the stunning strength of Hezbollah is that
they do not want an Iraqi Hezbollah The Americans want to control his
rapidly rising popularity. They see the bitter reality that now they have to
deal with Lebanons Hezbollah. They truly wish that it was not there, but
have not been able to defeat it or destroy it, neither with United Nations
resolutions, nor through domestic Lebanese dialogue, nor through the
military might of the Israeli army.
Brain E Humphreys, who served in Iraq as a Marine infantry officer in
2004 mentioned a major flaw in approach of the occupation forces. At the
deeper level, the motives of the local populace remained largely invisible to
us, as people smiled one minute and attempted to blow us up the next. We
knew little or nothing about their grievances and aspirations or where
the political fault lines ran in the cluster of small cities in the Sunni Triangle
we were tasked with pacifying.
We experienced many periodic spasms of violence that seemed to
come out of nowhere before disappearing again. Of course they came from
somewhere, but it was a somewhere we didnt understand Perhaps
understandably for a conventional military force trained to focus on the
39

enemy, our primary intelligence focus was on the insurgents. Much less
attention was paid to the larger part of the population. Although we were
a visible and sometimes forceful presence, Im not sure we were a truly
influential one.
Now, watching the latest news dispatches from Lebanon, I find
myself comparing our efforts to introduce a new order in Iraq with
Hezbollahs success as an effective practitioner of the art of militarized
grass-roots politics. Frankly, its not a favourable comparison for us.
The lessons should be clear. To engage in insurgency or counterinsurgency fancy terms of grass-roots politics by other means one must
be willing and, most of all, able to work in the underbelly of local politics,
as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon. It is the politics of getting people jobs,
picking up trash and getting relatives out of jail it gives that force a mental
map of local pressure points and the knowledge of how to press them
benignly or otherwise to get desired results.
Some may say that this is just standard insurgency-counterinsurgency
doctrine. True, but one has to ask why Hezbollah has been able to pull it
off in Lebanon, while young Americans continue to endure a host of
nasty surprises in Iraq.
Tom Engelhard was of the view that the single most basic fallacy
underlying the present American catastrophe in Iraq is the belief that the
US can somehow solve the countrys problems, however extreme and
intractable they may seem; that, in short, we are part of the solution in Iraq,
not part of the problem. Once youre thinking that way, its always a matter
of setting the latest incorrect or inept tactics right, or of changing a policy
that has been incompetently put into operation by unprepared administrators
wielding too few resources too poorly.
But the belief in the power of the United States to solve problems
for others by force reflects a deep-seated imperial mindset that exists
not just in the Bush Administration, but among the mainstream critics as
well.
So many situations in our world make a mockery of all attempts at
prediction; and yet Iraq, since March 2003, has seemed otherwise. There is a
terrible logic to the situation in that country, which has only worsened
incrementally under three-plus years of American (and British) occupation.

40

Whatever the promises, whatever the turning points, whatever the

provisional good news offered at any moment, the situation in that country
(and the region) only gets worse.
As long as Americans believe that Iraq is some kind of imperial
Rubiks cube, where whats at stake is hitting on just the right combination
of tactics, plans, and political mix inside Baghdads Green Zone, as long as
we believe that we are indeed part of the solution, not part of the
problem, matters will only continue to worsen.
Commission of war crimes is another reason. Josh White, Charles
Lane and Julie Tate wrote, The majority of US service members charged in
the unlawful deaths of Iraqi civilians have been acquitted, found guilty of
relatively minor offenses or given administrative punishments without trials,
according to a Washington Post review of concluded cases. Charges against
some of the troops were dropped completely.
Though experts estimate that thousands of Iraqi civilians have died at
the hands of US forces, only 39 service members were formally accused in
connection with the deaths of 20 Iraqis from 2003 to early this year. Twentysix of the 39 troops were initially charged with murder, negligent homicide
or manslaughter; 12 of them ultimately served prison time for any offense.
Top military officers, military lawyers, experts and troops say the
number of homicide cases prosecuted probably represents only a small
portion of the incidents in which Iraqi citizens were killed under
questionable circumstances. Officials also say privately that some cases have
not been investigated thoroughly because there has been a tendency to
consider Iraqi civilian deaths an unintended consequence of combat
operations.
The homicide data have caused concern among some human rights
advocates and experts on military law, who say the low conviction rate and
seemingly lenient punishments may be sending the wrong signal, both to
US troops and to the Iraqi people.
Plundering in the name of reconstruction is yet another reason. As I
document in my new book about the reconstruction of Iraq, Blood Money,
the record suggests that the accountability administration has let the war
profiteers run amok, wrote T Christian Miller. Consider this astonishing
fact: For the past three years, the US military has been spending $ 1 billion a

41

week in Iraq. During much of the time, the Pentagons inspector general, the
largest, most important watchdog in the US government, has had exactly
zero inspectors on the ground in Iraq.
The lack of oversight has encouraged fraud, waste and abuse. It
has threatened our soldiers and Iraqis. And it has turned Iraq into a Wild
West, a place without law, a judge or even a traffic cop. It is not as if there
has been a lack of leads. He went on to quote some documented cases
namely; Custer Battles, Blackwater, and Zapata Engineering.
The above list does not even include the Big Stuff, documented in
audit after audit by the Special Inspector General for the Reconstruction of
Iraq: shoddy workmanship by Parsons; questionable accounting by Bechtel;
missing equipment of Halliburton; an astounding $ 9 billion in Iraqi funds
overseen by the United States never properly accounted for. Not a single
corporate executive or government contracting officer has faced the
music in any of these cases.
Correct approach demands humility not arrogance. The Guardian
wrote, there are often 70 or more fresh dead bodies in Baghdads morgues
each morning. Far from being reduced by the efforts of the Americans, the
British and the Iraqi security forces, the figures for civilian deaths, now
mainly communal killings, were the highest for many months in June, and
are believed to be still rising.
The people of Baghdad note every day the ominous signs of descent
into communal violence. One week the gunmen go after the bakers, forcing
those of the wrong sect to close up and leave, and murdering them and
their workers if they do not. The next, they turn to newspaper and magazine
stalls, demanding that the wrong titles be removed from sale. Again, death
is often the price for disobedience. In the mixed areas of the city, families
are packing to move to safer areas, a process which has not yet become a
full-scale exodus but which certainly could become one.
Yet American policy drifts haplessly on. President Bushs line has
been aptly described as one of stridently claiming to be seeking victory
while in fact merely trying to avoid defeat until the burden can be passed to
the next administration. The Democratic party could be opening up the
argument, but its carefully triangulated formula for Iraq rests on the
assertion that everything would instantly get better if there was a timetable
for a phased American withdrawal.
42

The experts may be on better ground when they advise negotiations

with the less extreme Sunni insurgents and, through intermediaries, with
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who refuses to talk directly to the Americans. Such
negotiations, some suggest, would have to be paralleled by approaches to
Iraqs neighbours which would demand a degree of humility America has
not hitherto displayed. But humility may be what a crisis as desperate as
this requires.
However, arrogance persists, as noted by Arab News. He is still
wedded to the power of rhetoric and spin over the recognition of an
unpleasant reality. As long as Bush insists that the insurgency is being
beaten, he can avoid any idea that Americas intervention in Iraq has been a
disastrous failure, both for Iraqi people and, in his own terms, for the war on
terror.
This is a president who has only managed one apology in six
years and that was just last week to the people of New Orleans for his
administrations woeful response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster A year
earlier. It did not look easy for him, nor did his promises of rebuilding the
shattered city and learning the important lessons convince many.
With his bungled intervention in Iraq, apology is apparently
unthinkable. Too many thousands have died and so many billions have
been squandered. To accept error would carry a high risk, if only to Bushs
dubious place in history books. Yet admitting his failure, accepting the tragic
bloodbath his policies have engendered may actually be the most positive
move Bush could make for the Iraqi people. At the moment the Iraqi
government is being forced to live a lie. US officials have come down hard
on any Iraqi ministers tempted to tell it like it is. It therefore stands to reason
that any new initiative to confront the insurgency will perforce have to be
based on falsehood which will hobble the effort from the first step.
Notwithstanding the arrogance, Bush is at loss, Khaleej Times opined.
Despite taking its sweet time coming, the neocon lobbys bungling of Iraq
case right from the fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction argument to the
inability to contain the insurgency that is reducing the country to rubble is
fast coming to light. Now the White House is at a loss regarding its future
course in Iraq as both staying and leaving are fraught with difficulties. They
may have cleverly exploited public anger following 9/11 with their good
versus evil and staying the course claims, but it seems that try as they
might, the Republicans are not likely to avoid the axe this time around.
43

Critics started crying: No more staying the course. Iraq has suffered
through an even worse month. Since June, more than 3,000 Iraqis have been
killed each month, and the rate continues to rise. While Lebanon is now
trying to pick up the pieces, Iraq is falling apart at an accelerated pace,
wrote the New York Times.
As Americans debate where to go from here on Iraq, one thing should
be clear. Staying the course until President Bush leaves office 29 months
from now is not an option. It is no longer even clear just what course
America is on. Most of what Washington now claims to be doing cannot
withstand the most elementary reality test.
Even partitioning of Iraq wont work. Brain M Downing opined, the
effort to westernize Iraq and the region has failed. Insurgents and foreign
fighters are as strong as ever and demonstrate a surprising ability to adapt
tactically. Meanwhile, the coalition grows smaller and smaller. There is a
little chance that al-Malikis coalition will be able to do anything but issue
proclamations from a Baghdad fortress to heedless and increasingly
violence-prone populace.
Sectarian violence has become so intense in recent weeks that it is
likely only a matter of time until one horrendous incident or another triggers
full and open combat between sectarian forces. Reports are surfacing that
Shias in the coalition are pressing for partitioning, which would raise
still more problems for our occupation.
Democracy, too, is no solution. The New York Times wrote, he
(Bush) has described a world where Iraq is a young but hopeful democracy
with a unity government that represents its diverse population. Al-Qaedatrained terrorists who are terrified by the sight of an old man pulling the
election lever are trying to stop the march of progress. The United States
and its friends are holding firm in a battle that will decide whether freedom
or terror will rule the 21st century.
Establishing democracy at the heart of the Middle East no longer
qualifies desirable as that would be. Where Mr Bush sees an infant secular
Iraqi government, most of the world sees a collection of ethnic and religious
factional leaders, armed with private militias, presiding over growing strife
between Shiites and Sunnis. Warning that American withdrawal would
embolden the enemy is far from an argument as long as there is constant
evidence that American presence is creating a fearful backlash throughout
44

the Muslim World that empowers the fanatics far more than it frightens
them.
The Washington Post opined, the president is right that a precipitate
withdrawal from Iraq, or one that ignored conditions on ground, could lead
to a far worse situation than now prevails their. But what is striking is Mr
Bushs failure to acknowledge that the scenario he describes already
substantially exists.
The situation in Iraq is a lot more complicated and ambiguous than
what Americans are hearing described by the Bush Administration in this
electoral season. While that is predictable given this administrations record
of distorting and politicizing its accounts of the war, its particularly
unfortunate now. Defending US interests in Iraq in the coming months and
avoiding the catastrophe Mr Bush warns of are going to require
navigating a political and military minefield in which there are no clear
lines between friends and enemies or between democracy and
totalitarianism.
Theres no question that al-Qaeda militants are among the forces
fighting US troops. But the administrations labels cant easily describe
most of the conflict, which is a multi-sided struggle for power, territory
and resources among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.
Gulf News opined, with separate factions vying with each other in
different parts of Iraq, with murders and mayhem being carried out daily, it
is a very nave view to believe there is no civil war occurring in Iraq.
That it does not affect the whole of the country does not make it any less a
civil war; nor does the fact the US will not call it what it is.
The plunge into civil war has resulted in differences between the
Puppets and Americans. Firas al-Atraqchi observed, relentless violence in
Iraq is being matched by serious political rifts emerging between US
command and the Shia-led Iraqi government. While the military,
supported by White House officials, continues to stress that Iraqs security is
dependent on a strong and viable Iraqi national army, Shia members of
parliament are calling for decentralization of the armed forces.
For the moment, US forces seem to be treading carefully when
selecting targets. Although al-Maliki promised the Iraqi people that he would
aggressively pursue the disarmament of all militia and said no one but the

45

government should maintain an armed force, the US military is being told

the Mehdi militia are off-limits.
The Americans are playing along. Over the past week, US military
officials have characterized al-Sadr as a man growing in power and too
dangerous to take down. They say he commands a loyal following of 10,000
fully armed militia members. No one wants a repeat of the Sadrist uprising
in Najaf in 2004, they say.
Most Iraqis agree that security in the capital cannot be achieved as
long as the Mehdi militia is allowed to carry weapons and in police
neighbourhoods at will Many of the sectarian killings today are blamed on
the Mehdi militia.
Adding further turmoil to the political pot is news emerging from
Iraq Tuesday that Shia and Kurdish parties are preparing to force Iraqi
parliament speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani, a Sunni, to step down. The
political gambit will likely further alienate the Sunni community,
already calling for a revision of the constitution.
The detente on dividing Iraq, meanwhile, is gaining ground. On 11th
August, Education Minister Khudayar Khuzai, member of the Shia coalition,
said parts of the country should be cut off to stem the tide of terrorism. He
called for a format resembling Iraqi Kurdistans autonomous partition
from the rest of Iraq.
Occupation forces were now focusing on reining in Shiite militias.
Peter Symonds wrote, Nasir al-Saadi, a spokesman for Sadrs parliamentary
bloc, told the New York Times that the army had attacked (Diwaniyah)
Mahdi-dominated neighbourhoods late on Sunday night, damaging homes
and killing civilians. Iraqi soldiers were backed by Polish troops and US
warplanes, which bombed at least one alleged militia position.
The US-led military command in Baghdad issued a statement
declaring that the Iraqi army and police had successfully fended off an
attack by large number of terrorists in three districts of Diwaniyah. In
comments to Associated Press, however, army captain Fatik Aied said the
gun battles had broken out when Iraqi soldiers launched raids in the citys
southern suburbs to flush out militants and seize weapons Asked about the
clashes with Iraqi soldiers one Mahdi militiaman involved in the fighting

46

told the New York Times: We know they are our brothers, but the
Americans are pushing them against us.
A series of articles have appeared in the US press vilifying Sadr,
blaming his Mahdi Army for the escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq and
urging the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to take a tougher
stance A Washington Post article entitled Sadrs militia and the slaughter
in streets accused the Mahdi Army of the arbitrary murder of Sunnis.
In the wake of the Diwaniyah clashes, Time published an article
yesterday entitled Failing the test against Iraqi militias. Pushing for a
sustained offensive, it commented: For weeks the US and Iraqi militaries
have been striking piecemeal at an enemy they are not even allowed to
name: Muqtada al-Sadrs Mahdi Army. And after fierce clashes Monday, it
appears that Iraqs government and military is only willing to go so far in
their efforts to rein in the powerful Shiite militia.
The US-backed attacks in Diwaniyah are clearly a dress rehearsal
for further attacks on the Sadrist movement particularly on the huge
slums of Baghdads Sadr City. These Shiite suburbs have virtually been a
no-go area since the Mahdi Army fought pitched battles with US forces in
2004 in the capital and the southern cities of Najaf and Karbala.
Any offensive against the Mahdi Army will rapidly provoke a
crisis in the Maliki government, which rests on a coalition of Shiite
fundamentalist parties. The Sadrist movement has 30 parliamentarians and
five cabinet ministers, including key portfolios controlling government
services A military assault on Sadrist strongholds would also rupture the
countrys highly factionalized security forces. Shiite soldiers, many of whom
are ex-militiamen, may simply refuse to fight against the Mahdi Army.
Since the 2004 clashes with the US military, Sadr himself has
attempted to maintain an increasingly difficult balancing act between his
social base among impoverished Shiites, on the one hand, and support for
the US puppet government, on the other. While he felt compelled to
condemn the US-Israeli war on Lebanon and to warn the US against any
attack on Iran, Sadr has tried to rein in his Mahdi Army and dissociate
himself from more radical elements in the ranks of his movement.
The denunciations of Sadrs state within a state reflect the fear
that Shiite working class enclaves such as Sadr City can become the focus

47

for the eruption of a radical movement directed at the US occupation of Iraq

and its militarist policies throughout the region. The danger for Washington
is all the greater as it escalates its confrontation with Iran.
The New York Times, wrote, Iraqs elected government is
dominated by two Iranian-backed Shiite fundamentalist parties. They
are backed on the streets of Baghdad and in the Shiite south by two
Hezbollah-like armed militias. In Parliament, their power is reinforced by
two Kurdish separatist parties, also with their own militias, which have been
allowed to run Kurdish northeast like an independent state within a state.
Washington doesnt complain too loudly about these militias, because
without them, the Iraqi government would be even weaker than it is now.
But as long as they are allowed to enforce their murderous brand of vigilante
justice, it is ludicrous to claim that Iraqis enjoy democracy or the rule of
law.
And the mayhem in Baghdad continues unabated. Local policing is,
in fact, a job that only Iraqis can do successfully. But almost three and a half
years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, there is still no Iraqi force
capable of taking this on. And it is hard to see how the present Iraqi
government will ever field such a force, as long as its power depends on
armed sectarian militias that fuel the Baghdad violence. Things in Iraq are
not going to get better themselves. The answer is not blind perseverance in
staying a course that has demonstrably failed.
A fortnight later the news paper pressed Maliki to act against Shia
militias. Iraqs prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, has a problem. His
power depends on two armies. One is Iraqs national army, trained and
supported by the United States. The other is the Mahdi Army, a radical Shiite
Militia loyal to Mr Malikis most powerful political backer, Moqtada alSadr.
This week open warfare broke out between these two armies. Mr
Maliki can no longer put off making an essential choice. He can choose
to be the leader of a unified Iraqi government, or he can choose to be the
captive of a radical Shiite warlord. He can no longer pretend to be both.
The fighting began when the Mahdi Army took to the streets to
protest the arrest of several Sadr loyalists. At a point, according to an Iraqi
general, Mahdi fighters killed a group of Iraqi soldiers in a public square.

48

After hours of fierce fighting, Shiite politicians worked out a ceasefire with
Mr Sadr. But no one sees this as an isolated incident or imagines it will
not soon be repeated.
The underlying political reality is that Mr Maliki owes his job to an
alliance between his own Islamic Dawa Party and Mr Sadrs faction. (If
you see a parallel to the way Hezbollah has shielded itself from being
disarmed by the Lebanese government, so does Mr Sadr. A few weeks ago
he rallied tens of thousands of his supporters in Baghdad to cheer
Hezbollahs rocket attacks against Israeli cities) The White House and the
Pentagon keep assuring Americans that despite the obvious problems, the
Iraqi Army is becoming increasingly capable of taking over basic defence
responsibilities. But evidence continues to mount that it is not.
Puppets counter questioned the US as observed by Jackson Diehi.
Abdel Abdul Mahdi, who has been one of Americas key allies in the
attempt to replace Saddam Husseins totalitarianism with a democratic
political system... now Iraqs vice president was here to deliver a message,
and ask a question, on behalf of Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who
remains Iraqs single most influential figure Sistanis message to Bush,
Mahdi told a group of reporters I joined last week, was that Iraqis are
sticking to the principles of the constitution and democracy. But the
Ayatollah wanted to know if the United States is still on board as well.
Its a critical moment. We want to be sure that we understand
perfectly whats going on, and what is the real strategy of the United States
in Iraq, Mahdi said. We read in the press about different perspectives and
attitudes. Thats why we want to be clear whether there is a Plan B.
As Mahdi sees it, American and Iraqi agendas are more broadly out
of Sync. Whether or not they support the government and the war
Americans are looking for ways to quickly reverse or escape from the
deteriorating situation they see on the ground.
Mahdi, Sistani and other Shiite leaders in the government in the
government dont share Washingtons perception of a downward spiral.
They also dont buy the American sense of urgency the oft-expressed idea
that the new government has only a few months to succeed. Consequently,
the many ideas for silver bullets tossed around in the US debate mostly dont
interest them.

49

Our options as Iraqis are that we dont have an exit strategy or

any withdrawal timetable, Mahdi said somewhat bitterly. We simply go
on It is a process, and brick by brick we are working on it.
Gulf News wrote, the signing of pact of honour by hundreds of
Iraqs tribal leaders is seen as a move towards reconciliation by
optimists. Yet doubters claim if the tribal leaders were truly interested in
ensuring harmony and peace in their nation, they would have long ago set
aside their ethnic or tribal differences and jointly worked towards achieving
those aims, without the necessity of a special meeting called by the Iraqi
prime minister.
In the past four months alone, over 10,000 Iraqis were killed by civil
disturbance and insurgency, and it has to be assured many of these leaders
know who is responsible. Perhaps, now, having publicly pledged themselves
to a pact of honour they will do the honourable thing and act against the
insurgency and violence.

PENTAGON REPORT
During the period, the latest Pentagon submitted a report accepting
some of the harsh ground realities in Iraq, which drew attention of the
critics. Paul Graig Roberts said, Pentagon told Congress what Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and propaganda organs such as Fox News never tell
the American public, namely:
The Sunni-based insurgency remains potent and viable despite
spiraling Sunni-Shiite violence and beefed up US forces.
Since the last report three months ago, Iraqi casualties from sectarian
clashes the Pentagons euphemism for civil war have soared by
more than 50 percent.
From May when the new Iraqi government was established until
August, the average number of weekly attacks increased sharply to
800.

50

 Since the previous report, Iraqi daily casualties have jumped by 50

percent from 80 per day to 120 per day. Currently at the rate of 43,800
per year from violence.
Who is going to tell Bush that the war is lost? Is Rumsfeld going to
tell him? Is Cheney going to tell him? How can they tell him after all the
bravado and false reports? If Bush and his neoconservative cabal were
judged by their performance they would be ridden out of town on a rail.
If a court of law judged their actions, they would walk the plank.
Having lost the Iraq War, the neoconservatives are determined to
initiate war with Iran Alarmed by the neoconservative drive to start a war
with Iran before the US can extricate itself from the Iraq catastrophe, the
CIA firmly declared that any Iranian nuclear weapon is a decade away. This
undermines the neoconservatives urgency to attack Iran now.
Neoconservative fanatics tried to discredit the CIA with a recent
report by the House Intelligence Committee Republican staff written by
neoconservative Frederick Fleitz, a protg of neocon heavyweight John
Bolton, a person active in concocting the false case of war against Iraq.
Fleitz alleges that the CIA is a know-nothing agency that lacks the ability to
assess Irans ability to make nuclear weapons. Neocons also dismiss the
findings of the IAEA
Khaleej Times wrote, in what is perhaps the first such admission, the
Pentagon seems to concede that as the focus of violence in Iraq has
assumed a predominantly sectarian nature from targeting of government
and occupying forces, to the more traditional Shia-Sunni rivalry it has
increased considerably, with security forces growing increasingly
helpless.
The Pentagon report comes on the heels of unprecedented lows for
Mr Bush regarding the Iraqi occupation. Recently, for the first time in the
three-year campaign, more than 50 percent Americans interviewed to gauge
public opinion believed going to Iraq was a mistake. Then, another firsttimer most Americans failed to connect the occupation with the so-called
war against terrorism. Now, with the Pentagon airing similar concerns, few
are expected to buy the neocon rhetoric, which is still without credible
result.

51

On a more concerning note, there really seems no way out of the

orgy of death and destruction underway in Iraq. Till the insurgency
focused on the occupying forces and the regime installed by them, the
argument that their leaving Iraq would restore some sort of normalcy held
considerable weight. But as sectarian enmity has been revoked, there seems
no way in sight of bottling the genie. As such, the American mission stands
failed. The big question: Is the normalcy in Iraq, or in any Muslim country,
is the mission of the Crusaders?
James Cogan observed, amid this carnage, the social conditions
facing Iraqis are disastrous. Unemployment is estimated by one agency at
18 percent, and underemployment at another 34 percent. At least 15.4
percent of the population lacks adequate food according to the UN World
Food Programme. As many as 25.9 percent of children are afflicted with
severe or moderate stunting in their physical growth. Inflation over the year
from June 2005 to June 2006 was 52.5 percent Pentagon indicates that
public perceptions are generally more pessimistic than they were a year
ago. A majority of people fear that a full-scale civil war is likely to break
out.
In largely Sunni areas of western and central Iraq, there is
overwhelming hostility toward the Maliki government and distrust of the
Iraqi security forces. Sunni communities have come to regard the Iraqi
police forces as little more than potential Shia death squads. The
Pentagon referred at various points to the influence within the Ministry of
the Interior police and the Iraqi police of the Mahdi Army and the Badr
Organization militia
The report also noted that the new Iraqi military is permeated with
communal divisions. The majority of commanders of the 114 battalions in
the US-recruited Iraqi Army command only soldiers of their own sectarian
or regional background. The majority of the government troops are Shia and
Kurdish, many of whom are former members of sectarian militias and have
little loyalty to the Baghdad government.
Summing up the security environment in Iraq, the Pentagon report
concluded: Rising sectarian strife defines the emerging nature of
violence in mid 2006the core conflict in Iraq changed into a struggle
between Sunni and Shia extremists seeking to control key areas in Baghdad,
create or protect sectarian enclaves, divert economic resources, and impose
their own respective political and religious agendas.
52

US imperialism, however, has no solution to the communal

catastrophe it has created. Instead, the Bush Administration and American
media are using the Pentagon report to justify preparations for steppedup operations by the US military and the Iraqi government forces against
the Sadrist movement and its Mahdi Army militia.
The Sadrists are viewed as a threat in Washington not because of
any particular role they have in sectarian attacks, but because their
supporters among the Shia working class and urban poor in areas like Sadr
City in Baghdad are hostile to both the occupation of Iraq and the
broader US aggression in the Middle East.
Within days of the Pentagon report being released, Iraqi government
troops, backed by US aircraft, were ordered to attack an alleged rogue cell
of the Mahdi Army in the city of Diwaniyah, to the south of Baghdad.
Dozens of troops and militiamen were killed in what was widely regarded as
a dress rehearsal for an assault on Sadr City.
No section of the US ruling elite dwells on how or why
sectarianism has come to define life in Iraq for obvious reasons. The
fundamental causes are the policies and methods of the US occupation. The
invasion in 2003 was consciously aimed at destroying the existing state and
shattering national institutions such as the army and public service that
provided the base of support for the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.
Sunni, Shia and Kurdish organizations are waging brutal campaigns
to secure control over as much territory as they can. The operations of the
death squads and militias in Baghdad a mixed city of close to six million
are to some extent aimed at dividing the city into homogenous Sunni and
Shia areas The occupation forces are, in the main, simply standing by
as this process takes place. Partition of the country, in fact, continues to be
called for by leading American analysts as a means of securing US interests.
The primary objective was long-term dominance over Iraqs oil
resources and territory and the subjugation of its population. If achieving
them meant hundreds of thousands of people being killed or forced from
their homes as the country divided into three or more mini-states, US
imperialism would have no hesitation in implementing such a plan.
The findings of report reflect poorly on occupation forces. It should
have compelled those to whom it was submitted to counter question as to

53

what the coalition forces had been doing for the last three and a half years.
But no such response has been reported. It seemed that it was taken as
progress report describing how well the Crusaders have annihilated a
Muslim nation once considered a threat to Israel and other US interests in
the region. The recipients of report must have accepted it in the right spirit.
Rice was not disheartened by the report. Sidney Blumenthal wrote,
this May, as the situation in Iraq drastically worsened; Rice told senior staff
that she wants no more reporting from the embassies. She announced in a
meeting that people write memos only for each other, and that no one else
reads them. She said she wouldnt read them. Instead of writing reports, the
diplomats should sell America, she insisted. We are salesmen for
America.
Iraq fiasco has led to criticism conduct of war on terror in general.
Our generals deserve considerable blame. They surrendered with
hardly a murmur, the principle of going to war only when Americas
security was at stake, which had enjoyed doctrine status under Weinberger
and Powell, observed Brain M Downing.
In Iraq, our generals put aside the lessons of counter-insurgency
and rely on massive firepower, which even the precision guided munitions
devastated large portions on Fallujah and Ramadi, creating ruins reminiscent
of Stalingrad and Hue They round up thousands of innocent Iraqis
unfortunate enough simply to be near a car-bombing, detain them for
lengthy periods, and submit them to systematic humiliation and torture
It is time for our generals to speak out. Our politicians, with rare
and estimable exceptions, spout only insipid dialogue from page-worn
scripts. Most of the public, urged on by media, simply cheers or hisses
from their seats, unable to feel personally involved in events and unable to
comprehend the unfolding tragedy
Their demurrals are true, but irrelevant and pusillanimous. It is
difficult to believe such men earned Combat Infantryman Badges. The war a
mistake from the moment we crossed the Iraqi frontier three and a half
years ago, from its inception
It is time for our senior officers, active or retired, men who
understand war and cannot be daunted by the cut and run gimmick, to
make it clear to the public and the politicians, perhaps through a joint

54

statement, that the war in Iraq is lost, that we are squandering young
lives, and that we must withdraw in short order.
Our generals owe this measure of patriotic dissent the term is not
simply a leftist catch phrase to Americas military institutions, which are
badly over committed and rapidly losing public trust. They owe it to the
nation and Constitution they swore to defend, which supersedes
subservience or acquiescence to any administration, let alone one as
unschooled in world politics and military matters as the present one.
Ralph Nader wrote, as Mr Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld each said once in the aftermath of
9/11, dictatorships, destitution, poverty and hopelessness are breeding
grounds for the emergence of terrorists. But Mr Bush, Mr Cheney and Mr
Rumsfeld are not following the logic of such a recognition in perpetuating
their failed and perilous policies overseas.
The Bush regime simply has no standards for failures in its
operations because it has no intention of ever admitting their failures and
changing course. The no-fault Bush and Cheney have every intention of
continuing the loss of the lives of American soldiers and the bloody
casualties among Iraqis until they hand the situation in Iraq over to their
successors in January 2009. Mr Bush has said as much a few weeks ago.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Iran not only defied the Western powers over its nuclear programme,
but also kept causing irritation to them. Holocaust cartoon fair opened in
Iran on 15th August. Khatami said Iranian missiles were ready to hit Tel Aviv
in case war is imposed. Next day, however, foreign minister said Iran was
ready to discuss suspension of its sensitive nuclear enrichment work.
A group of former high ranking military officials and diplomats urged
Bush to open negotiations with Iran, warning that the use of military force
would have catastrophic consequences for the region. On 19th August, Iran
launched large-scale military exercises. Nejad said that policies of Blair
regime were hurting UK governments standing with Muslims.
On 20th August, Iran vowed not to suspend nuclear work as deadline
neared and test-fired a short-range missile. Two days later, Iran blocked UN
55

inspection of underground nuclear site. China opposed the proposed curbs

on Iran.
Tehran replied to the incentive package on 23 rd August, but US gave
thumbs down to Irans response. Iran said it would soon announce
breakthrough in nuclear technology. Next day, Germany and the US declared
that reply of Iran was not enough.
On 25th August, Russia ruled out UN curbs against Iran for the time
being. Next day, Ahmedinejad said, we are no threat to anyone, even Israel.
Israel, which is threat to every country of the region, responded by saying it
was not fooled by the assurance.
Iran test-fired a non-detectable missile launched from a submarine on
27 August. Next day Iran dismissed US threat of sanctions. Tehran said
Holocaust was meant for embarrassing Germany. Iran planned to discuss
nuclear issue with India before UN deadline.
th

On 30th August, Iran and China discussed nuclear issue and Tehran
expressed confidence to see off Western pressure. Two days later, Nejad said
that Iran will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights. On 5th September,
China wanted talks with Iran despite the expiry of UN deadline. Iran test
fired laser-guided bombs during war games. Bush compared Nejad to alQaeda.
France termed Irans response insufficient and urged it to assume
nuclear responsibilities. On 10th September, Iran declared that enrichment
suspension is a thing of the past. Annan feared the standoff could lead to
war. US was pushing for imposition of sanctions on Iran, said Rice.
On 13th September, Khamenei told the visiting Maliki that occupation
forces should leave Iraq to solve problems of Iraq. Next day, UN inspectors
protested to the US government and a Congressional committee about a
report on Irans nuclear work, calling parts of it outrageous and dishonest.
The letter recalled clashes between IAEA and the Bush administration
before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. China urged Iran to cooperate with
IAEA.
Gulf News wrote, the booming sound of war drums is being heard
again. Keeping a distance from each other, American and Iranian leaders are

56

beating the drums and trying to bury diplomacy. They are digging in to
defend their rigid and controversial policies.
Bush does not want any rival to challenge Israel, that too someone
with nuclear capability. By a similar token, Iran, which is having justifiable
concerns over the intention of the US and Israel, does not want to give up its
nuclear capability as it fears the US-Israel nexus.
Iranian politicians justify their action by pointing to the recent
Israeli war against Lebanon; imagine what would happen to Iran if Israel
attacked it the way it did in Lebanon, they say. As such, the US and Iran are
sticking to their guns on the nuclear issue. The world will not benefit from
the escalation of tension and should look for a different and simple formula:
Make the Middle East free from nuclear weapons.
The Daily Star wrote, Irans current standoff with the international
community may be nothing more than a ruse designed to obtain concessions.
But it is viewed by many governments as an attempt to buy time for the
development of nuclear weapon. Between those two perspectives lies a
vast gulf with the capacity to produce dozens of different
miscalculations by one or more parties. The war between Israel and
Lebanon offers a convenient reminder of how easy it is for such
misunderstandings to spin out of control. Time is running out for this part of
the world to recognize that unless it changes course, a nuclear war at some
point in the future is not just an alarming possibility: It is a virtual certainty.
Patrick Seale opined that Iran has strong negotiating position. It
seems that Iran remains determined to master the uranium fuel cycle. It
argues, with some justice, that it has every right to acquire this
technology for peaceful purposes under the NPT, of which it is a signatory.
This is a strong negotiating position, which will be difficult to
fault. Irans strategy appears to be to master nuclear technology under the
watchful eye of international inspectors, if need be but without actually
proceeding to bomb making. That threshold could be passed rapidly if and
when Iran faced an imminent threat of attack.
In the circumstances, it may be that the world will have to settle for
what Iran is offering that is to say a carefully monitored nuclear
programme for peaceful purposes. Iran would, nevertheless, retain the
option in an emergency of quitting the NPT and switching its nuclear

57

programme from civilian to military uses. It needs to be stressed that Iran

could never use a nuclear weapon against Israel or indeed anyone else,
without committing suicide as a nation.
Israel still refuses to accept any form of a balance of power, or of
a balance of deterrence, with states or non-state actors in the region. In spite
of the severe setback it suffered in Lebanon, Israel has still not accepted that
its policy of dominating its neighbours by military force needs to be
abandoned.
Maziar Bahari was of the view that the war in Lebanon has made it
impossible for the Islamic Republic to enjoy the same calm. Hezbollah has
become a liability for Iran. Weakened, it now needs Irans petro-dollars
and rockets to regain its strength. At the same time, Israel and the United
States are scrutinizing the transfer of arms and money from Iran to
Hezbollah more closely than ever. The next shipment of arms from Iran to
Hezbollah may result in direct confrontation with Israel and the United
States.
The bearded men in the saunas must be sweating more than usual,
even though in public they toast Hezbollahs victory with glasses of
pomegranate juice. The Islamic Republic is coming to the point where it
has to choose: destroy itself by repeating the same old slogans, or come up
with new definitions for itself, its friends and foes.
Kaven L Afrasiabi commented on Irans difficulties in responding to
the proposed package of incentives. Iran faces a dilemma. It can neither
fully accept nor reject the package on incentives Also, Tehran cannot
weed out undesirable aspects of the package, as they all revolve around the
central question of Irans nuclear enrichment programme.
There is a big string attached, namely the demand for the full
suspension of Irans enrichment-related activities and the termination of
construction of a heavy-water reactor in Arak. Irans Atomic Energy
Organization said on Monday that it would start operating the plant in the
near future, describing it as one of the countrys greatest achievements.
There are suggestions that enrichment could be suspended after
the talks, and not as their pre-condition, and also of interim suspension and
a standby option. The last is borrowed from the United States own
experience of putting one of its largest enrichment facilities on both cold and

58

warm standby, incurring a substantial cost, principally to prevent the

equipment from decaying and keeping scientific personnel on payroll.
Of course the US wants none of that, and senior government
officials have promised a swift UN reaction should Iran reject the package,
and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has demanded a firm response that
would not contain shades of gray.
Iran, however, is desperately looking precisely for that. There is,
after all, a real threat of a US military strike, corroborated by the US media
recently, which has not disappeared as a result of the war between Israel and
Hezbollah.
The US is formidable, having knocked out in a couple of weeks an
Iraqi nemesis that Iran could not dislodge after eight years of fighting. A
total rejection of the US-backed package clearly paves the way to a
greater danger of a US military strike, and only a vocal minority wishes for
such a scenario.
Before events spiral out of control, the international community
could stop the clock on the artificial deadlines and work instead to assure
Iran of the viability of the promises reflected in the package, including
security in the Gulf.
Iran has by all indications not yet reached a comfortable consensus
on where to go with the proposed list on incentives, and its response of
Tuesday may in retrospect turn out to be premature and unripe. A ripe
answer may take weeks, certainly not enough time to build bombs, yet
entirely sufficient to weave the thread of compromise into the fabric of the
Iranian answer.
Mustafa El-Labbad wrote, Iran has accepted the incentives
package, but by means of its counter-proposals and requests for clarification
on certain issues it is simultaneously asking for more. It is signaling that
while international offers have only partially met its expectations it also
seeks to avoid full suspension of its enrichment activities. In all events, it is
not prepared to suspend these operations in advance of negotiations and in
exchange for vague promises
Tehran has ensured itself reasonable cover to protect it from
potential military strikes. In this, it has used a set of regional pressure

59

cards on its campaign, but without overplaying its hand and entering into a
face-to-face confrontation with the US.
Still, Irans major strategic problem in its handling of the nuclear
issue is sitting in the White House. Every decision the Iranians have taken
with regard to either digging in their heels or demonstrating flexibility has
had to be carefully calibrated with the incumbent of the Oval Office in mind,
because he George W Bush ultimately, has the power to push final
agreements through and to ensure their translation on the ground.
Rasha Saad opined, Iran just threw the ball in the court of
Western powers Western powers remain tight lipped about the contents
of Irans written response. According to France, it will take a few days to
assess the 21-page response US President George Bush has yet to examine
the Iranian reply, according to a White House spokesperson.
Days before delivering their reply the Iranians remained as defiant
as ever Not insignificantly, Iran also staged massive military war games
to test new weapons and tactics against a potential enemy, as reported by
state television.
The Iranian file shot back to the forefront of world attention as the
ceasefire in Lebanon came into effect. The fact the Iranian-backed
Hezbollah resisted Israels vicious war on Lebanon and scored what many
Arab and Western analysts perceive as a major victory over Israels military
gave Iranians hope that the US might reconsider its stance vis--vis Iran.
The Japan Times wrote, if Iran is merely stalling for time to present
the world with a nuclear fait accompli, then the world and the United
Nations in particular must be ready to force Tehran to meet its
international obligations.
Irans strategy is clear: It seeks to divide the five permanent
members of the Security Council. It is no secret that China and Russia are
more sympathetic to Irans claims that its programme is peaceful. Both
governments want to preserve their influence in Tehran, a regional power.
The key question is how European governments will respond.
While Britain, France, Germany and the United States have said they are
studying the Iranian offer, London, Paris, and Washington are reportedly
convinced that Tehran is stalling for time. The Europeans are likely to be

60

hesitant about resorting to sanctions, given their trade relations with Iran, the
worlds fourth largest oil exporter.
But there is no credible alternative to a firm stance. No one
disputes an NPT signatorys right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
But the acquisition of that technology also creates obligations: The recipient
cannot divert it for military uses.
US stand is not justified. Virginia Tilley wrote, why is Mr
Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized? Need we
ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US
or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the
disinformation campaign about Mr Ahmadinejads statements has been
bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Irans (nonexistent)
nuclear weapons programme.
The current fuss about Irans nuclear enrichment programme is
playing out so identically to US canards about Iraqs WMD that we must
wonder why it is not meeting only roaring international derision. With
multiple agendas regarding Iran oil, US hegemony, Israel, neocon fantasies
of a new Middle East the Bush Administration has raised a great
international scare about Irans nuclear enrichment programme.
Nevertheless the campaign to demonize Iranian regime continued.
David Ignatius reported, seeing Ahmadinejad up close, you appreciate the
fact that he is a formidable politician. He played a roomful of 150 journalists
like a master performer. He has the look of a bantamweight fighter
compact and agile, punching well above his weight. He is quick on his feet,
answering a broad range of questions, including some critical ones about the
Iranian economy, but he came away unscratched. He speaks more softly than
youd expect, making jokes and, on this occasion, avoiding some of his
usual anti-Israel bombast. But the hard edge is never far away. His eyes can
twinkle one moment and then suddenly become dark as night. My strongest
feeling at the end of his performance was: He may be cocky and eccentric,
but dont underestimate him.
Sometimes the attempts to demonize were rendered clumsy. Shirin
Ebadi was interviewed by Der Spiegel after Iranian government had
declared her human rights centre in Tehran illegal. The Nobel Laureate was
asked about Iranian governments decision. She regretted Iranian
governments decision and added: Its the people of Iran that have to gain
61

their own freedom and human rights improvements. Military actions or

other punishments against Iran will make the situation for political
reformists and human rights advocates in Iran a lot more difficult. I dont
think that Iranian human rights advocates need help of that sort from the
governments of the West.
The Crusaders kept pressing for unjust sanctions. Mayada al-Askari
opined, if the UN and the US impose sanctions on Iran, many Iranians
babies will die, people will go hungry and Iran will suffer badly. I will
rephrase Der Spiegels caption: How will you pull out this time if you start
with Iran? Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a very determined country. And
after Iraq and Lebanon, the US truly has a very small group of friends in
these whereabouts. The solution, alas, lies on the negotiation table.
Alexander Cockburn asked, will Bush bomb Tehran? Ive never
thought so. You know the arguments. The US Army is dead against. A US
attack on Iran might prompt Muqtada al-Sadr to lead a Shia uprising that
would sever US supply lines from Kuwait. The US forces in Iraq might have
to flee north into Kurdistan or bunker down in their desert bases.
But now well informed fellows in Washington say that an attack
might well be in the offing. The War on Terror is the only card the Bush
crowd has ever had that worked for them, and the only riposte from the
Democrats is that they could play the same card better.
The Guardian opined, Iran has benefited from US actions in both
Afghanistan and Iraq, where Shia groups once exiled in Tehran have come to
power in the aftermath of Saddam Husseins overthrow. The catastrophic
war just fought between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, partly playing
proxy roles for the US and Iran, can be counted a big success for the latter.
Taken Irans readiness to exploit (and foment) trouble in the ever volatile
Middle East (easily done), the prospect of its acquiring nuclear weapons
is alarming even if no balance (taken the huge disparities between its likely
future and Israels current capabilities) less alarming than one of American
or Israeli air strikes of the kind that destroyed Iraqs nuclear reactor in
1981.
The US too was buying time. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh observed, there
is strong evidence that the US administrations recent public statements that
it is now willing to negotiate with Iran are highly disingenuous: they are

62

designed not to reach a diplomatic solution to the so-called Iran crisis,

but to remove diplomatic hurdles toward a military solution.
The Bush Administrations case against Iran is eerily reminiscent
of its case against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion of that country.
Accordingly, the case against Iran is based not on any hard evidence
provided by IAEA, but on dubious allegations that are based on even more
dubious sources of intelligence.
The US administrations case against Iran is weak, its objectives of a
military strike against the country are so fuzzy, and the odds against
achieving any kind of meaningful victory are so strong that even
professional military experts are speaking up against the plans of a bombing
campaign against Iran.
Justification of increased military spending in the post Cold War
period has prompted the beneficiaries to be even more creative in
manufacturing new sources of danger to US interests to justify unilateral
wars of aggression. It is not surprising, then, that a wide range of new
sources of threat to US national interests has emerged
The military-industrial-Zionist alliance is represented largely by the
cabal of neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush Administration. The
institutional framework of the alliance consists of a web of closely knit
think-tanks that are founded and financed primarily by the armaments lobby
and the Israeli lobby.
These think-tanks which might appropriately be called institutes of
war and militarism are staffed and directed mainly by the neo-conservative
champions of the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, that is, by the
proponents of unilateral wars of aggression. There is strong evidence that the
major plans of the Bush Administrations foreign policy have been
drawn up largely by these think-tanks, often in collaboration, directly or
indirectly, with the Pentagon, the arms lobby, and the Israeli lobby.
Why is Iran so confident despite the collective pressure of all the
Crusaders? M J Akbar enumerated the parameters of Irans current
confidence:

63

 The Pentagons infantry capability is seriously degraded by Iraq and

Afghanistan. Even the British, who always brought up the tail, have
stopped wagging.
Israels failure to destroy the Hezbollah despite overwhelming air
power has made the old wisdom the new wisdom: air power alone
cannot bring victory.
The two most powerful militias in the region are allies of Iranboth
are also functioning members of their respective governments and
so leave America in the unhappy position of not knowing quite what
to do.
The credibility of both America and its principal ally in the region,
Israel, has been damaged. There is a new mood in the air.
Washingtons seemingly inexhaustible treasury has been discovered
to have limits.
The sanctions aimed against Iran are either innocuous or unimplementable.
The News suggested, the only sensible approach for the US would
be to accept Irans right to pursue its nuclear programme, which Tehran
says is meant for production of energy. As for fears in Washington that Iran
would produce nuclear weapons if it were allowed to do it unhindered, the
Bush Administrations isolation over Iran is mostly based on its discredited
claims about Iraqs possession of weapons of mass destruction. Besides, it
has presented no real evidence that Iran plans to arm itself with nuclear
weapons.

CONCLUSION
The superman residing in the White House has bugs in his bed. Bugs
are always irritating whether one is a superman or ordinary one. The
strength, even of a superman, does not help in an encounter, particularly
when they do not prove to be as ordinary as they appear. It is not so easy to

64

get rid of these bugs because these have acquired immunity to the
insecticides used by the superman for years now.
Iraq has intruded through the under-garments thereby becoming
source of constant itching. The superman has been pretending that it does
not hurt, but it does. That is why there are now complaints about the
watchman (Maliki) who did nothing to save the bed from getting infested.
Iran has not yet crept in, but it has been causing irritation to the
exposed body parts of the superman. Recently it has pinched too hard with
the help of Hassan Nasrallahs Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nasrallah-types hurt
badly and that is why there is pressure on the watchman to disarm
Hezbollahs equivalents inside Iraq.
17th September 2006

TROJAN HORSE
Even after the passage of two weeks of cessation of hostilities, Israel
refused to end blockade of Lebanon. Perhaps, according to the classified
clauses of UN Charter a blockade does not constitute a hostile act. On 30 th

65

August, Lebanese prime minister refused to have any direct contact with
Israel. Next day, conference in Stockholm promised $ 500 million to
Lebanon.
On 2nd September, a Palestinian group vowed to target all nonMuslims. It was apprehended that clearing Lebanon from cluster bombs
could take a decade. Next day, during his visit to Tehran Annan won Irans
support on Lebanon.
Qatari plane landed in Beirut on 4th September despite Israeli
blockade. Israel invited bids for construction of 700 new housing units in
West Bank, while Olmert said he wanted dialogue with Abbas. Next day,
four persons were killed and four wounded, including a senior Lebanese
intelligence officer, in roadside bombing in southern city of Sidon.
Hezbollah will only use arms in time of war, said Nasrallah.
On 6th September, Annan hoped that Israel would end blockade in two
days. Seven Palestinians were killed in air strikes and raids by Israeli forces
and ten persons were arrested. Next day, Israel lifted the blockade of
Lebanon, which was greeted with dismay in Israel as it happened without
securing the release of two soldiers. Palestinian political group declared
Blair persona non grata.
Ships arrived at Beirut on 9th September after lifting of sea blockade.
Syria agreed to allow deployment of EU troops on border after discussion
with Italian Prime minister. Pakistan agreed to send de-miners to Lebanon.
Next day, Blair met Abbas in Ramallah to discuss revival of peace process.
Israeli ministers urged Olmert to contact PA.
On 11th September, hundreds of Lebanese protested against Blairs
visit. Lebanon planned to sue Israel for compensation over oil slick. Hamas
and Fatah reached a deal to form national unity government. Abbas urged
civil servants to end strike.
Three militants and a Syrian security personnel were killed in attack
on US Embassy in Damascus on 12th September; America thanked Syria.
One Israeli soldier was killed by gunmen. Hezbollah urged the government
to resign and vowed not to abandon its weapons. They planned the
assassination of the resistance in collaboration with the Americans and
Israelis, said Hezbollah MP, Ali Ammar.

66

On 13th September, Hamas ministers resigned to open way for unity

government; Haniyeh will remain prime minister in the new cabinet. The
newspaper Haaretz reported that more than 1.2 million cluster bombs were
fired into Lebanon by Israel.
Five Palestinian intelligence personnel were killed by unknown
gunmen on 15th September. Next day, Hezbollah demanded that UN should
stick to defending Lebanon from Israel. But, the peacekeepers were coming
to defend the aggressor.
On 17th September, NAM condemned terrorism and Israeli attack on
Lebanon. Israeli cabinet allowed a probe into war. Next day an Israeli court
deferred a decision on whether to release 21 officials from the Palestinian
ruling Hamas movement pending examination of their case. France warned
against Hezbollah presence in southern Lebanon. On 19th September, Israel
army chief said his troops would quit southern Lebanon by 22nd September.
Analyst kept condemning the unjust destruction of Lebanon as
destruction of Gaza Strip continued unabated. Zionist Israel, in close
coordination with the Crusaders, worked relentlessly to achieve the
remaining goals through diplomacy, in which peacekeepers would play
important role.

WAR CONDEMNED
Cesar Chelala reported on war crimes committed during the war.
Civilians were harmed not only as a result of direct attacks but also as a
consequence of the destruction of vital infrastructure attacks were also
carried out against fuel stations and commercial enterprises. Hospitals,
particularly in the south of the country, have sustained shelling damage, and
their continued operation has been affected
Does this evidence indicate a deliberate IDF strategy to destroy
roads, power systems, civilian homes and industry, rather than just
collateral damage? On July 13, Israels Defence Forces Chief of Staff LtGen Dan Halutz stated: Nothing is safe (in Lebanon). It is as simple as
that.

67

If these actions were deemed to have fallen into the category of war
crimes, those responsible would be subject to criminal accountability
anywhere in the world through the doctrine of universal jurisdiction Given
the scale of human rights abuses, Amnesty International has called for the
establishment of a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry into
violations of international humanitarian law by both Hezbollah and Israel in
the conflict.
It has asked that the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights
Council request the UN Secretary General to establish a panel of
independent experts to carry out this investigation. The creation of that
commission could bring some sanity to an otherwise hopeless situation.
Rosa Brooks wrote, Roth noted that the Israeli military appeared to
be treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone, and he observed that
the failure to take appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and
combatants constitutes a war crime. The backlash was prompt. Roth and
Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical
behaviour, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and anti-Semitism.
Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch or with Roth knows this
to be lunacy But whats most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth
and his organization isnt that its savage, unfounded and fantastical. Whats
most troubling is that its typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash
enough to criticize Israel can expect to counter.
Samar Fatany said, international humanitarian organizations and the
UN have issued strong statements of condemnation against Israeli brutality
in Palestine and Lebanon and accused Israel of war crimes. This
development must have caused a stir in Israel and prompted Israeli officials
to form a special legal team to provide protection for officials involved in
war crimes in Lebanon. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has urged top
officials against making inflammatory statements that might be used
against them in legal proceedings abroad.
However, Israeli arrogance and brutality seem to have no limits.
In case of confrontation with Syria, we will lift all limits that we imposed
on ourselves in Lebanon when it comes to using our force, Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert said recently on Israeli military radio.

68

Uri Avnery was of the view that there was, of course, a difference
of night and day between Hezbollah and us. How can one compare? After
all, Hezbollah launched rockets at us with the express intent of killing
civilians, and did indeed kill some thirty of them. While our military, the
most moral army in the world, took great care not to hurt civilians, and
therefore only about 800 Lebanese civilians, half of them children, lost their
lives in the bombardments which were all directed at purely military targets.
In Goethes Faust, the devil presents himself as the force that
always strives for the bad and always produces good. I do not wish, God
forbid, to compare the media to the devil, but the result is the same: by
its enthusiastic support for the war, the media deepened the feeling of failure
that came afterwards and which may in the end have a beneficial impact.
Israelis criticized their leadership because it failed to deliver.
Joshua Mitnick commented, many Israelis said the country does not need to
wait for Mr Olmerts investigation, proposed Monday, to accept the
resignation of top leaders for failing to deliver the decisive military victory
they promised over Hezbollah Shiite Muslim guerrillas based in southern
Lebanon.
Yossi Beilin, head of the leftist Meretz Party in the Knesset, said
yesterday Mr Olmert wavered and faltered in every step of this war,
while members of his party called the proposed inquiry a fig leaf. the way
in which he conducted this war brings shame to his office, Mr Beilin said.
Criticism in Israels freewheeling press has also been harsh. Attila
Somfalvi, a columnist with the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, said the main
desire among ordinary Israelis today was for revenge against countrys
leadership.
Now, critics like opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu have
argued that the withdrawal strengthens Israels enemies. A recent poll in
Yediot Ahronot indicated that if elections were held today, the balance of
power in Israels parliament would shift to right-wing parties and that Mr
Netanyahu would probably become prime minister.
Khaleej Times opined, Israels calculation of breaking Hezbollahs
back by destroying Lebanon was dangerously flawed. Israels relentless
air strikes leveled most of the beautiful Mediterranean country but couldnt
break the Lebanese peoples will to survive in the face of heavy odds.

69

As Henry Kissinger, a former US secretary of state and staunch

supporter of Israel, admitted in Khaleej Times last week, the Lebanon War
has changed the Middle East and its classic power equations for ever. Israel
cannot continue to use its brute force to dictate terms to its neighbours,
especially Palestinians, any longer.
It seems clear that Israel has followed a rather counterproductive
strategy, noted Octavous Pinkard. It might be able to target and eliminate
weapon caches, arrest and incarcerate leaders of various Hezbollahs armed
wings, level hideouts and otherwise damage Hezbollah as an organization.
But the means being used to achieve those ends could very easily lead to a
dangerous circumstance transformation of Hezbollah from a marginal
organization to a pervasive ideology. Organizations can be destroyed;
ideologies have staying power.
Hezbollah is despised in most parts of the Middle East, but this
Israeli campaign (and Hezbollahs ability to withstand it) will likely breed
far more support and sympathy for Hezbollah and its cause than Israeli
leaders could have imagined.
The sad reality here is that both Israel and the United States have
initiated policies that have jeopardized many of the security interests
those policies aimed to protect. As importantly, the costs of these failures
will be borne, in part, by allies who will see their levels of insecurity rise,
not subside, in the wake of Washingtons incompetence and Israels lack of
restraint.
Hameed Akhtar Niazi wrote, Washingtons biased blatant
stratagem not to let the UN pass a resolution for cessation of hostilities
until Israel succeeded in inflicting a fatal blow on Hezbollah is nothing short
of exceeding callousness. That Israel could not succeed in destroying
Hezbollah in 33 days speaks volumes about the tenacity of its leadership and
limited manpower.
The US attitude towards Syria is illogical and unjust. William
Dalrymple observed, Syria is a one-party police state, it is one that tends to
leave its citizens alone as long as they keep out of politics. And if political
freedoms have always been severely, and often brutally, restricted as is
also the case in most of the USs ally states in the region Assads regime
does allow wide-ranging cultural and religious freedoms, which give
Syrias minorities a security and stability far greater than their counter parts
70

anywhere else in the region. This is particularly true of Syrias ancient

Christian communities.
The Assads are Alawite, a Shia Muslim minority seen by orthodox
Sunni Muslims as heretical, and disparagingly referred to as Nusayris, or
little Christians: indeed their liturgy seems to be partly Christian in origin.
The Assads have stayed in power by forming in effect a coalition of religious
minorities, through which they were able to counterbalance the weight of the
Sunni majority. In Syria the major Christian feasts are national holidays;
Christians are exempt from turning up to work on Sunday mornings; and
churches and monasteries, like mosques, are given free electricity. This
is unknown anywhere else in the Middle East.
It would be tragic if the British now assisted the US in destabilizing
not just Iraq and Lebanon, but also Syria, as Sabah Mansur puts it: Bush
brought nothing but killing, violence and mass emigration not just to
Iraq but to Afghanistan and Palestine also. Now we just pray he leaves Syria
alone. For us it is the last place of refuge.
Muslim elite was condemned for its role, or no role, in war. The
assault on Lebanon was meant to pave the way to further aggression against
Syria and Iran. That makes the reaction of those Arab leaders who
denounced the Lebanese resistance all the more emetic. Their spurious
claims that this was merely a Shia issue or that threats to bomb Iran are a
Persian problem should be met with nothing but contempt, opined George
Galloway.
In backing Israel against Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance,
they sided with the enemy who is garroting the Palestinians in Gaza. While
these leaders humiliated themselves before Washington and Tel Aviv, the
name Sheikh Sayed Hassan Nasrallah was on the lips of millions from Rabat
to Riyadh It is not only in the Arab and Muslim world that confidence is
surging forward that there is an alternative to domination by the US, global
corporations and their local junior partners.
Uri Avnery focused on Israeli leadership. Ehud Olmert has found a
convincing proof of his great victory over Hassan Nasrallah: I am touring
the country freely while Nasrallah is hiding in his bunker!
It is said that the style is the man, and by these words Olmert shows
his quality (or lack thereof). At the moment, dozens of Israeli airplanes and

71

helicopter gunship are standing by, ready to kill Nasrallah if he as much as

shows himself. Nasrallah does not have a single airplane or helicopter to kill
Olmert. The vast material superiority of the Israeli army over a guerrilla
organization is no achievement of Olmert but Hezbollahs ability to
survive the massive onslaught of our army is certainly the achievement of
Nasrallah.
And, by the way, why would Nasrallah want to kill Olmert? After all,
why should he mind Israel being led by a failed politician, whose
incompetence has been proved and who most Israelis say should go?
Most Israelis do not buy this spin. They still believe that we did not
win the war, that the deterrent power of the Israeli army has been hurt, that
the Lebanese army and the International Force that will be employed
along the border will not do our job for us after our own army failed to
do it.
True, for the time being the result of this war in Israel has only been
feelings of anger, frustration, insult and humiliation: Why couldnt we
overcome a small terror organization? Our political leaders have proved
to be foolish, our military leaders incompetent. Things must be put in
order.
But I believe that gradually a new conviction will form in the public
mind: that this war marks the end of the days of easy victories. That from
now on, in any new war our rear will be exposed: That our army is not
almighty, as we were led to believe. And mainly: that the war did not solve
anything, that perhaps the solution is not military and we would do better
talking with our neighbours.
True, it is not easy to arrive at such a conclusion, which demands an
emotional and ideological revolution. That will take time. But one need not
be a university professor to get there. Simple common sense is enough, as
well as the experience that has accumulated during the last decades. Many
people, including those usually described as the common people, have
both, thank God.
About a week later, he added, on the sixth day of the war the army
chiefs had told the government that all achievable aims of the war had now
been achieved, and that nothing more could be attained (such as the return of
the prisoners, the restoration of the armys deterring power, the disarming of

72

Hezbollah etc.) In other words, that even from a purely military point of
view, there was no point continuing the horror, which nevertheless went on
for another 27 days and nights.

FORGOTTEN FRONT
Hostilities ceased in Lebanon, but not in Palestine. Genocide is
taking place in Gaza. An average of eight Palestinians die daily in the
Israeli attacks on the Strip. Most of them are children. Hundreds are
maimed, wounded or paralyzed, Ilan Pappe wrote.
The inhuman living conditions in the most densely populated area in
the world, and one of the poorest human spaces in the Northern Hemisphere,
disables the people who live in it to reconcile with the imprisonment
Israel has imposed on them ever since 1967.
Some access to the outside world has allowed as long as there were
Jewish settlers in the Strip, but once they were removed the Strip was
hermetically closed. Ironically, most Israelis, according to recent polls, look
at Gaza as an independent Palestinian state that Israel has graciously allowed
to emerge.
As with the ethnic cleansing operations the genocidal policy is not
formulated in a vacuum; ever since 1948, the Israeli army and government
needed a pretext to commence such policies Even before the Abduction of
Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army indiscriminately bombarded the Strip. Ever
since the abduction, the massive killing increased and became systematic.
The plight of Palestinians was generally ignored. Patrick Cockburn
observed, this bloody conflict in Gaza has so far received only a fraction
of the attention given by the international media to the war in Lebanon
Gaza has been essentially reoccupied since Israeli troops and tanks come and
go at will. In the northern district of Shajhayeh they took over several houses
last week and stayed five days. By the time they withdrew, 22 Palestinians
had been killed, three houses were destroyed and groves of olive, citrus and
almond trees had been bulldozed.
Israeli troops entered the Gaza industrial zone to search for tunnels
and kicked out the Palestinian police. When the Israelis withdrew they
were replaced not by the police but by looters. On one day this week there
73

were three donkey carts removing twisted scrap metal from the remains of
factories that once employed thousands.
The Israeli assault over the past two months struck a society already
hit by the withdrawal of EU subsidies after the election of Hamas as the
Palestinian government in March. Israel is withholding taxes owed on goods
entering Gaza. Under US pressure, Arab banks abroad will not transfer funds
to the government.
The Israeli siege and the European boycott are a collective
punishment of everybody in Gaza. The gunmen are unlikely to be
deterred. In a bed in Shifa Hospital was a sturdy young man called Ala
Hejairi with wounds to his neck, legs, chest and stomach. I was laying an
anti-tank mine last week in Shajayeh when I was hit by fire from an Israeli
drone, he said. I will return to the resistance when I am better. Why should
I worry? If I die I will die a martyr and go to paradise.
Arab World as well as Fatah was criticized for the sufferings of
Palestinians. Patrick Seale wrote, many would argue that the reason much
of the Arab World is in a disastrous situation today a prey to foreign
invasion, occupation and political dictation is because it greatly enfeebled
by inter-state rivalries, personal antipathies and sectarian schisms.
There is much talk these days of Fatah and Hamas forming a
government of national unity at last. At the time of writing they had not yet
reached agreement on the attribution of key cabinet posts and were still
squabbling over their joint political programme.
An intelligent leadership of Fatah would have gracefully accepted
electoral defeat and agreed to serve under Hamas, and an intelligent Hamas
leadership would have found the form of words necessary to reassure the
international community that it was ready to give up violence and work for a
political settlement.
Instead, Fatah tried hard to undermine Hamas and regain its power
and privileges, while Hamas stuck doggedly to its ideological position of
non-recognition of Israel which, in the current situation, is something of a
meaningless luxury This is an eleventh hour opportunity the
Palestinians must not miss. It is essential for them to present a united front.
They must work all out to end the boycott and force Israel to the negotiating
table.

74

Hamas was also criticized. Khaleej Times alleged that if Hamas

would have realized that acts of provocation achieve nothing at a time
when the Palestinian people and the state machinery are practically on the
brink under economic and military siege, the Israeli leadership would also
have come to terms with the fact that aggression will not make ends
achievable.
Ramzy Baroud opined that Palestinians could not be blamed. How
could the Palestinian kidnappers be so outdated in their rhetoric, yet so
skillful in producing a faultless PR disaster, handing Israel the most
convenient illustration as of yet, of al-Qaeda-like mindset of Palestinians?
The kidnapping episode will certainly be milked for all its worth while
the deliberate targeting of the two Reuters journalists by the Israeli
army will hardly register for more than a day or two as a fleeting item.
The fault lied with the so-called peace brokers. Noam Chomesky was
of the view that the basic outlines of a solution to the Israel-Palestine
conflict have been supported by a broad international consensus for 30
years: a two-state settlement on the international border, perhaps with minor
and mutual adjustments.
The Arab states formally accepted this proposal in 2002, as the
Palestinians had long before. Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has
made it clear that though this solution is not Hezbollahs preference, they
will not disrupt it. Irans supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei recently
reaffirmed that Iran too supports this settlement. Hamas has indicated clearly
that it is prepared to negotiate for a settlement in these terms as well The
US and Israel continue to block this political settlement, as they have
done for 30 years, with brief and inconsequential exceptions. Denial may be
preferred at home, but the victims do not enjoy that luxury.
US-Israel rejectionism is not only in words but, more
importantly, in actions. With decisive US backing, Israel has been
formalizing its programme of annexation, dismemberment of shrinking
Palestinian territories and imprisonment of what remains by taking over the
Jordan Valley the convergence programme that is, astonishingly, called
courageous withdrawal in the US.
The core issue the Israel-Palestine conflict can be settled by
diplomacy, if the US and Israel abandon their rejectionist commitment.

75

Other outstanding problems in the region are also susceptible to

negotiation and diplomacy.
Blair was an accomplice, argued Ismail Haniyeh: Despite Israeli war
crimes against our people and assassinations of our leaders, the Palestinians
introduced to the region one of the most transparent democratic experiences
ever. The response of the British government has been to back the US
and Israel in imposing boycotts and sanctions, in a blatant act of
collective punishment Palestinian people have endured an effective state
of siege and economic and diplomatic boycotts, and the Israeli military
machine has been given free rein. During July and August, Israeli occupation
troops killed 251 Palestinians, about half of them civilians without a word
of criticism from the British government.
Mr Blair plans to visit our country this weekend. Is this a public
relations exercise as he enters his last days of premiership, or is bringing
some new initiative to break the deadlock created by his and his friends
policies? It might have been an opportunity for me, as the elected Palestinian
prime minister, to have one-to-one discussions with him, but that is not
possible, since his government has decided not to recognize mine.
Here in Palestine we wonder what the British public thinks of the
Blair government conduct that has brought about untold hurt to the
Palestinian people. We know why our people are being collectively
punished. It is because we refuse to give up our right to freedom and
independence.
At the heart of our regions problems is the Israeli occupation,
which has brought about endless suffering and disasters. If you wish to do
the right thing, Mr Blair, then work for the end of occupation without further
delay.
The world body meted out discriminatory treatment to Palestinians.
For Manal Alafrangi it is quite puzzling. Why the international community
is handling Israeli aggression on Gaza differently from Lebanon. The United
Nations came to the decision that the attacks on Lebanon must stop and that
international peacekeeping forces must be stationed near the borders to
monitor the situation, but this has not even been suggested for Gaza due to
Israelis absolute refusal. Having peacekeeping forces would expose
Israeli crimes and human rights abuses.

76

The Palestinian economy has been crippled and the people have
reached the maximum point of frustration. What is the aim behind it? A
social explosion is definitely on the cards as the UN humanitarian
coordinator suggested whereby people will react and will do so very
strongly. Israel is ultimately hurting itself by acting so unjustly towards
the Palestinian people.
Through the war of Lebanon, we were able to verify that Israels
claim to having to defend its security was just a code for its unlimited
aggression. Shouldnt the international community learn from that lesson
and start to see that Israeli actions in Palestine have been equally as
illusory and deceptive.

BLACKMAIL/COERCION
Cessation of hostilities marked the beginning of arm-twisting,
blackmail and coercion. The Crusaders focused on disarming Hezbollah.
The Daily Star observed, the current talking points of US officials include
an assertion that Washingtons support for Beirut is dependent on the
latters taking bold steps to disarm Hezbollah. This is accompanied by a
tacit threat that if Sayyed Hassan Nasrallahs organization continues to exist
in its current form, Israel will resume its offensive against Lebanon this
time with even more of a green light from an increasingly impatient
America.
From the perspective of many Lebanese, being Americas friend
carries precious few benefits. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has done his
utmost to respect US wishes on a variety of fronts, only to be sent away
empty-handed whenever he has asked for anything in return. American
policy vis--vis the devastating war with Israel was no more than a highly
purified version of this formula, with Washington repeatedly claiming that it
was concerned about the stability of Sinioras government but
simultaneously helping the Jewish state to mete out more and deadlier
punishment.
Lebanon and the wider Middle East need a powerful force to help
local fires from spreading across the region. The United States has the
might and the influence to supply such a stabilizing influence, but it has thus

77

far lacked two other necessary qualities; even-handedness and

consistency.
Fanning differences and exploiting divisions within the ranks of
adversary were time-tested tools of coercion. Dmayma Abdel-Latif wrote,
General Michel Aoun held Prime Minister Fouad al-Sinioras government
to be solely responsible for Israels 34-day war on Lebanon This
government did not act responsibly during the war. It is the worst
government Lebanon has seen in its recent history, Aoun said. He pointed
out that during the war the state was absent.
As to whether the Siniora government is genuinely working towards
lifting the Israeli blockade of Lebanon imposed since the beginning of the
war, Aoun is doubtful. The current government is no more than a tool of
pressure on the Lebanese people to accept any rough deal the
international community and Israel are offering them.

Demonizing the adversary has been the practice of holy

warriors. Obsessed with Hezbollahs performance, Henry A Kissinger
focused on dubbing it illegitimate and stressing upon the need to sideline it
one way or the other. He argued, the ceasefire should not mark the end of
the war.
Two misconceptions dominate public discussion on the crisis in
Lebanon. The first is that Hezbollah is a traditional terrorist organization
operating covertly outside the law. The second is that the ceasefire marks an
end to the war in Lebanon. Neither of these views is valid Hezbollah is,
in fact, a metastisation of the al-Qaeda pattern. It acts as an overt state
within a state. It commands an army much stronger and far better equipped
than Lebanons on Lebanese soil.
We are witnessing a carefully conceived assault, not isolated terrorist
attacks, on the international system of respect for the sovereignty and
territorial integrity. The creation of organizations like Hezbollah and alQaeda symbolizes that traditional loyalties are replacing national ones.
The driving force behind this challenge is the jihadist conviction that it is the
existing order that is illegitimate, not the Hezbollah and jihad method of
fighting it. The Crusaders are amply demonstrating their respect for
sovereignty and territorial integrity in Iraq.

78

A ceasefire does not end this war; it inaugurates a new phase in

it. This twin assault on the global order, by the combination of radical states
with transitional non-state groups sometimes organized as militias, is a
particular challenge in the Middle East, where frontiers denote few national
traditions and are not yet a century old. But it could spread to wherever
militant, radical Islamic groups exist.
The crisis in Lebanon is a classic case of the pattern. By the rules of
old international order, the war technically took place between two states
Lebanon and Israel which, in fact, have very few conflicting interests
The real goals of the Lebanese war were transitional to overcome the
millennia-old split between Sunnis and Shias on the basis of hatred for Israel
and America The conflicting interests referred should include Israels
desire to extend its border to Litani River.
Hezbollahs likely next move will be an attempt to dominate the
Beirut government by intimidation and using the prestige gained in the
war, manipulating democratic procedures. In such a situation, Iran and Syria
will be in a stronger position to shape the rules of the ceasefire than the UN
forces, which as experience shows are likely to be withdrawn when
terrorist attacks inflict casualties.
Hezbollah, which took over southern Lebanon, and Hamas and
various jihadist groups, which marginalized the Palestinians Authority in
Gaza, disdain the schemes of moderate Arab and Israeli leaders. They
reject the very existence of Israel, not any particular set of borders.
One of the consequences is that the traditional peace process is now
in shambles. After being attacked with missiles from both Gaza and Lebanon
launched by non-state jihadists, Israel will find it difficult to view
unilateral withdrawal as a road to peace The Jew could not resist
suggesting Israel not to vacate occupied territories.
Some new road map must emerge to underpin the comprehensive
Mideast policy that must follow the Lebanon war To deal with the crisis
produced by the combination of non-state fanaticism and state power
politics, a joint project among America, Europe, and the moderate Arab
states is needed to work out common approach.
Everything returns to the challenge of Iran. It trains, finances, and
equips Hezbollah, the state within a state in Lebanon. It finances and

79

supports the Sadr militia, the state within state in Iraq The challenge is
now about world order more than about adjustments within an accepted
framework.
A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must
become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with
such projects leaves one Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best
minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war
merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear
armed Middle East.
But the European allies need to accept that this process should
not be driven by domestic politics or media pressure. It has to include a
bottom line beyond which diplomatic flexibility cannot go and a time limit
to prevent negotiations from turning into a shield for developing new
assaults. He wanted total commitment and unity of the Crusaders on either
side of the Atlantic.
Even critics of the war like Robert Fisk frequently criticized
Hezbollah. Jonathan Cook commenting on his dispatches, wrote, possibly,
in an attempt at even-handedness, Fisk has also muddied the picture in
relation to the actions of Hezbollah and thereby contributed towards the
very mythical narratives he seeks to undermine.
This was done in a predictable hiatus in each of his stories that
overtime developed into a writers tic by repeatedly accusing the Shiite
militia of both provoking the war with Israel and intending Lebanons
destruction. Uncharacteristically, Fisk failed to offer us the evidence on
which these conclusions were based Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan
Nasrallah, deserve the fairest hearing we can give them, especially as their
voices are systematically excluded from a Western press that identifies with
Israel.
The problem is in his constantly aired statement that Hezbollah
provoked this war by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three
others Left as simple statement of fact, it could be allowed to pass
without comment. But Fisk repeatedly adds a series of further
insinuations: that Hezbollah wanted Israel to attack, that it planned the war
(not just that it planned for the war), that it knew precisely the scale of
destruction Israel would unleash, that it was following Syrias orders, and
that by implication Syria and possibly Hezbollah wanted Lebanons
80

destruction. Fisk does harbour strong anti-Syrian feelings and therefore for
Hezbollah as well.
Syria was also demonized, but some critics resisted from joining the
mad rush. Joe Key while commenting on terrorist attack in Damascus wrote,
what seems least likely is that the attack on the American embassy was
simply the product of a few individuals, motivated purely by hatred of the
United States and American policy. Of course this cannot be entirely
eliminated as a possibility, but it is in the nature of such organizations as
Jund al-Shams that they are heavily infiltrated and are extremely susceptible
to the manipulations of this or that outside power. Both American and
Israeli intelligence agencies have a long history of manipulating these
groups.
This is not to suggest that the attackers on Tuesday were themselves
working for sections of US intelligence. Individually, they were likely
motivated by a combination of anger over American intervention in the
Middle East, combined with the reactionary ideology of Islamic
fundamentalism.
Many Muslim analysts bought the lines of the Crusaders. Walid M
Sadi, a Muslim and definitely a Sunni, told Lebanese to follow dictates of
the Crusaders. Lebanon is now entering a new era. The country has to
comply with binding UN Security Council resolutions and a large
international force is deployed on its territory to police its borders on land
and sea. The country is scrambling to cope with the new developments and
this is where Siniora and Berri, standing shoulder to shoulder, can still
help save Lebanon.

PEACEKEEPING
Despite the UN resolution for deployment of peacekeepers, Israeli
retained certain Lebanese areas. This could be attributed to the age-old
Israeli habit of defiance. In this case, however, it was aimed at recovering
from the humiliation suffered at the hands of Hezbollah.
Gulf News, in view of the belligerence of Israel, apprehended more
mischief. Israeli troops still occupy several posts inside Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah had said it will give diplomacy time to force the Israelis to

81

withdraw. But the fighters are ready to do the job to liberate the occupied
land, a senior group official said last week.
The continuing Israeli occupation of Lebanese land is the major
obstacle to the desired implementation. There is no legal or logical pretext
for such stubbornness. Hezbollah has so far committed itself to the ceasefire
and in fact assisted the deployment of the Lebanese army and UN
peacekeepers in the south. Therefore, Israels insistence on holding on to the
few posts it occupies only threatens to spark a new conflict.
Annan had waited for the US to decide about peacekeeping, but it
would be difficult task for him. Al-Ahram Weekly wrote, In what may well
be his last official trip of the region, Annan desperately needs to instill as
new perception of the UN among the Arab people. During the early stages
of his tour, Annan attempted but failed to project an image of a more
effective UN. His arrival in Lebanon failed to end Israeli-imposed blockade
of the country and he hedged the question of the status of two Israeli captive
soldiers and hundreds of Lebanese prisoners.
Annan made the right decision and sent out a good message when
he decided to include Iran and Syria in his tour. The fact is that to make the
best out of such a positive move, Annans talks both in Tehran and
Damascus will need to go beyond the communication of well-known and
long-eschewed US demands on the political and security conduct of both
countries.
The ability of the UN and its secretary general to positively
contribute to peacemaking efforts in the Middle East would certainly
help improve the image of the organization that has for long been seen in
the region as a mere affiliate body of the US State Department and
Washington-based Jewish lobby groups.
Annan rightly focused on peacekeeping, declining to indulge in
disarming Hezbollah. Kofi Annan yesterday made it clear that the
disarming of Hezbollah would not be part of the new 15,000-strong
UNIFIL forces remit to undertake this exercise, wrote Arab News. The
future of Hezbollahs weapons is therefore rightly a matter for Lebanon to
decide the organization and the elected Lebanese government, in which
Hezbollah holds two ministerial portfolios.

82

In line with the thinking of the Sunni Arab rulers, the newspaper
asked Nasrallah to disarm Hezbollah. There is, however, no place for
Hezbollahs militias in Lebanons future. Its victory will turn to dust if it
gives Israeli hawks the excuse to pulverize the luckless Lebanese still more.
The price of the check to Israeli aggression has been unacceptably high for
Lebanon. Further violence will serve no purpose. If Nasrallah is wise, he
will take advantage of this high point in Hezbollahs fortunes, use the
momentum that has been created to convert its voice entirely into politics
and now work with the Lebanese government and the UN for a lasting
peace.
Peacekeepers will certainly ensure protection of Israel. Robert Fisk
during interview to Amy Goodman said, theyre there as a buffer force to
protect Israel. Thats why theyre there. If they were a buffer force to
protect Lebanon, they would be on the other side of the border inside Israel,
wouldnt they? Or theyd be on both sides. But theyre there to protect
Israel. Israels lost enough men, so now the Europeans can die for Israel
instead, and probably will.
Israel definitely expected much more from the multi-national force. M
B Naqvi opined, the Israelis for their part want two things: one, there
should be a multinational force, supposedly to enforce cessation of
hostilities in southern Lebanon, along with the Lebanese troops that have
already been deployed The second thing that the Israelis want is for
Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah. But the real expectation of the Israelis
is that the international force should have the teeth and their victim should
be Hezbollah.
Few European powers are ready to commit their troops to this
operation. There is no agreement on what the multinational forces real
mandate should be from the UN and whether it would restrain both sides
equally or only one side, viz Hezbollah. The Americans and the Israelis
actually want the multinational force to do what the Israelis had failed to do
themselves, which is to keep Hezbollah at bay so that it does not rain rockets
on Israeli territory while Israel may continue to make its forays in Lebanon
and punish Hezbollah.
After the stalemated war Israel wants all that it had ever wanted,
viz decimation of Hezbollah fighters and making the organization irrelevant.
As it happens, the UN resolution is ambiguous and is indeed defective.

83

Already Israel claims that this resolution permits it to take preventive

defensive action a misuse of the word defensive.
The real danger is that the Israelis will insist, with the US standing
behind them, that the Lebanese government orders its army to disarm
Hezbollah. This is, as noted, beyond the capacity of the Lebanese Army to
do anything. Why would an international force do what Israel could not?
Therein lurk many dangers.
If the US and Israel want the Lebanese government to do what is
being demanded of it then a civil war is written into the plot. Why? because
there is no way that Hezbollah can be tackled except through a civil war
in which at least pro-west Maronites take on Shias as such with the help of
Israel as was the case in the 1970s. The thoughtful people in Arab lands
should beware. This is a real danger.
Hameed Akhtar Niazi opined, the Israelis would obviously enjoy
watching its deployment it will be time for the West to take the casualties
but Hezbollah is likely to view its arrival as a proxy Israeli army. It is,
after all, supposed to be a buffer force to protect Israel not, as the Lebanese
have quickly noted, to protect Lebanon and the last NATO army that came
to this country was literally blasted out of its mission by suicide bombers.
Western media kept pressing for the need to police Syrian border. The
New York Times wrote, Israel is inching toward doing the right thing by
agreeing to lift its blockade of Lebanons airports Reopening Lebanon is
an essential first step to rebuilding its battered economy. But if the fragile
peace is to hold, more must be done to police the border with Syria, the
main route for Hezbollahs arms.
A deal is in the works to place a limited number of German advisers
at key border crossings with Syria to provide technical support to Lebanese
troops. These advisers will need to be ready to step in quickly working the
phones or if that fails perhaps calling in UN strikes to turn back convoys.
If not, the Israelis have made clear they will do it.
But monitoring is unlikely to work without some Syrian
cooperation. Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Damascus last week
and said he got President Bashar al-Assads pledge to block weapons
smuggling. Mr Assad, who has tried to bully Lebanon into banning foreign
peacekeepers from his border, was silent Getting Syria to cut Hezbollahs

84

supply lines will take concerted international pressure and the possibility of
easing its isolation.
The Europeans, whose troops would have to face a rearmed
Hezbollah, need to deliver the message directly to Damascus. So does Bush
Administration this is one urgent diplomatic issue that the White House
cannot subcontract.
Despite reservations on the resolution, Iran assured Annan of its
support. Mottaki, Irans foreign minister, said after a meeting on September
2: Despite whatever objections we have to the Resolution (1701) you will
have, Mr Secretary General, our full cooperation. Reported Sir Cyril
Townsend and went on to distrust Tehran: Is that the truth?
From now on Hezbollah is not going to receive even a rifle from
Iran? I would doubt it: Too much is at stake for Iran and Hezbollah. For
many years there has been a remarkable lack of joined-up government in
Tehran. For example, it has appeared that Irans intelligence agencies
operate a different foreign policy to that of the Foreign Ministry.
Iran is going to be a big headache for the United Nations for
many years to come. It has great strategic importance. It is powerful and it
is also unstable. I cannot rule out a possible attack on its nuclear facilities by
the Americans in the last months of an unpopular and remarkably foolish
Bush Administration.
Israel-US-UK Axis was still working to bypass UN. Al Ahram Weekly
commented, given their humiliating political and to an extent military
defeat before Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere, these three countries
(Israel, US and UK) seem to be more interested in initiating a political
process that could grant the three governments a political face- saving
without really committing them to a process that would entail serious talks
and inevitable concession.
It was perhaps this spontaneous awareness of the bad intentions of
Tel Aviv, Washington and London that turned the recent tour of Britains
scorned Tony Blair to the Middle East into an unwelcome diplomatic event.
In Lebanon for the first visit of a British prime minister in almost 25 years,
Blair was received with angry protests that reminded the world of the
involvement of this demising politician in the invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq and Israeli military assaults on Palestine and Lebanon.

85

But beyond the anger of Lebanese protesters, Blairs visit was rightly
scorned in several Arab diplomatic quarters as an attempt to fudge the
collective Arab effort to engage the UN Security Council in mediating
future Arab-Israeli talks. Blairs attempt to escape his domestic quagmire by
a foreign policy victory was bound to fail if he based his bid on the notion of
talks for the sake of talks or an attempt to deepen the rift between Syria and
Lebanon.
To sum up, excerpts from the views of Linda S Heard are reproduced.
Following an agreement by the German cabinet for the deployment of
warships off Lebanon last Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Kerkel said: This
decision was made in view both of our particular responsibility for
Israels right to exist and for a solid solution for peace in the region
Germany is further considering sending 2,400 military personnel to beef up
the UNIFIL force and there are German security based at Beirut Airport.
There are plans to deploy similar experts along Syrian border.
When one takes into account Merkels speedy defence of the Popes
recent speech that disparages the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam
and her close relationship with Israels main ally, the United States, then
Lebanon should be very wary of German participation in the United
Nations contingent.
If Merkel is keen to protect Israels right to exist then German ships
should weigh anchor off Haifa and any German soldiers should be barracked
on the Israeli side of the border. Merkels eagerness to protect Israel is
surely an insult to Lebanon
Put simply, off Lebanons coast there is moored a flotilla of French,
Italian, Greek and British ships with German craft on the way, all ostensibly
to deter arms shipments to the Lebanese Shiite militia, Hezbollah. In other
words, the responsibility of imposing blockade has been transferred
from Israel to the Crusaders.
At the same time, Syria is coming under pressure to allow EU border
guards along the frontier between it and north Lebanon. Israel says its
complete withdrawal from Lebanon is conditional on the border being
secured while Congress is withholding promised US aid to Lebanon until
UNIFIL troops are sent to the Syrian frontier.

86

UNIFIL is looking more and more like a Trojan horse, ready to

rob Lebanon of its hard fought sovereignty in order to protect its neighbour
and foe. And while there is a worldwide consensus that Israel lost the
conflict militarily, the West is poised to hand Israel much more than a
consolation prize.
If, as some pundits have suggested, Israel undertook this war of
choice in reaction to Hezbollahs killing and abduction of its soldiers as a
prelude to a possible attack on Iran, then Israels objective have been
achieved.

LESSONS/PROSPECTS
Israeli invasion of Lebanon was highly traumatic for its population.
But it has produced two very positive results, observed Hameed Akhtar
Niazi. First, it had succeeded in exploding the myth of Israeli armys
invincibility. Second, Hezbollahs valiant defence against Israel has united
Shias and Sunnis In addition, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, its leader, is now
hero not only of Lebanon but also arguably of the entire Arab World,
perhaps of the entire Muslim World.
George Galloway wrote, practically the only person in the world who
claims Israel won the war is George Bush and we all know his definition
of the words mission accomplished. Reports that the Hezbollah leader,
Hassan Nasrallah, expressed regret this week at having underestimated
Israels response to the capture of two of its soldiers were misleading. In
fact, Nasrallah thanked God that the attack came when the resistance
movement was prepared, as he was convinced Israel would have otherwise
invaded later in the year at a time of its choosing.
If the fierce thicket of the Iraqi resistance stopped the Bush war
spreading to Syria then the extraordinary Hezbollah victory has surely
made the world think again about an attack on Iran. But the main and
maybe the most welcome shift in the 40-year-old paradigm of the IsraeliArab conflict is the puncturing of the belief in a permanent and
unchallengeable Israeli military superiority over its neighbours and the
hubris this has induced in Israeli leaders from the sleek Shimon Peres
through the rough-house of Benjamin Netanyahu to the stumbling Mr
Magoo premiership of Ehud Olmert.

87

Dina Ezzat said, off the record, Arab diplomats admit to learning
two key lessons from the Lebanon War: that Arabs are too weak and too
divided to be able to force Israel or any international player to consider Arab
interests; and that there are unmistakable signs of a different regional order
appearing that Arabs need to play within or be from now on irrelevant. The
new regional order, they say, will necessarily include an acceptance of the
growing influence of the three non-Arab Middle East countries Israel, Iran
and Turkey each of which appears to have a bigger say in regional affairs
than Arab countries do collectively.
Syriaagreed to increase the number of guards on its border with
Lebanon For this declared commitment, Syria was offered a promise from
Annan that it will be rescued from isolation. Iran, too, is playing along
The growing acceptance of a period of change on the side of all players
surely prompted Annan to report a successful mission and to indicate a true
opportunity for peace and security in the Middle East.
If in the Middle East international involvement is paramount, Arab
countries will have to give up on plans to take fate into their hands.
However, Arab diplomats are assuring observers that Arab states will
benefit. One must wonder that how leaving ones fate in hands of others
could benefit ones interests.
Ashraf Fahim dwelled on the impact of the war. Hezbollah faced
down the Israelis, with its small guerrilla force out-manoeuvering Israeli
units at every step. For example, the elite Sayaret Maglan unit wrote Uzi
Manihami in the Times of London were astonished by the firepower and
perseverance of Hezbollah, said one Maglan soldier: Evidently they had
heard that an Arab soldier is supposed to run away after a short engagement
with the Israelis.
The United Statesnow faces an even greater crisis of credibility
than it already did, is such a thing is imaginable. And ironically, the war has
given even greater momentum to the Islamist movements already bolstered
by Americas ham-fisted policies in Iraq, Palestine, Iran and elsewhere.
Egypt is a perfect example. Here Hezbollahs success against Israel
and Hosni Mubarak governments failure to support the Shiite militia have
emboldened the opposition. The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypts largest
opposition group, has been a particular beneficiary Egypt may not be
the regional force it once was, but most analysts would still agree that where
88

Egypt goes, so may the Arab World and in that sense, the war doesnt
augur well for the US.
Some analysts had imagined the Sunni-Shiite divide widening over
the war But the Arab public has shown none of officialdoms
squeamishness about throwing its lot in with Shiite Hezbollah, and state
rhetoric has shifted to take public sentiment into account.
The Kefaya movement, for example, which campaigns for Mubaraks
ouster, is the ideological opposite of the more powerful Brotherhood. They
were, nevertheless, of one mind when it came to Lebanon, with Kefaya
marching the Brotherhoods bluster with its own petition to procure a
million signatures to abrogate Egypts peace treaty with Israel.
There is no great mystery as to the reasons the Islamists win
elections; they run against failed political systems; in a region strangled
by corruption they are considered incorruptible; they provide social services
where governments fail; they dont compromise when it comes to standing
up to the US and Israel; and especially after Hezbollahs victory, they are
seen as capable on the battlefield the royalists and republicans hold
summits, the Islamists blow up Merkava tanks.
Another key to their success has been the moderation of their
goals and willingness to work within the system and with their ideological
opponents. In some cases, that includes adopting their opponents rhetoric.
Nasrallah has done himself no harm by peppering his speeches with appeals
to Arab nationalism. Nasrallah has dropped references to an Islamic Lebanon
to when allies of all denominations.
For all the obviousness of its self-inflicted wounds, the Bush
Administration is in a public state of denial. Speaking on August 29, Rice
seemed as if she had, Van Winkle-like, slept through the past three years or
so.
Noam Chomesky feared that war could have a dangerous impact. It is
no secret that Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to
create Hezbollah and Hamas, just as the US violence has expedited the rise
of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror. The latest adventure
is likely to create new generations of bitter and angry jihadis, just as the
invasion of Iraq did.

89

Rami G Khouri expressed a possible impact in his advice for

Hezbollah and Hamas. The Arab worlds two leading self-styled Islamic
resistance movements Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine
seem to be moving in different directions, buttheir ultimate goal is a
national order that reflects their societys valid concerns on political
legitimacy, sovereignty, ideology and social values. Above all their success
reflects their ability to respond to the real needs of their constituents, rather
than promote any sort of Islamic society or espouse revolutionary rhetoric
and wage perpetual war.
After achieving the two striking feats of driving the Israeli Army out
of South Lebanon in 2000 and fighting it to a draw in 2006, it has no room
left for military endeavours, and nothing more to prove on the battlefield
It asserted itself in recent years by defying five parties: a weak Lebanese
central government; other Lebanese political groups; Israel; the United
States; and the dominant regimes in the Arab World. In turn, these forces
have now physically and politically hemmed it in. The Israeli Army will
destroy all Lebanon after the next provocationand Lebanese and Arab
political leaders want Hezbollah to engage and integrate fully into the
national governance and security system.
The parallel lessons from Palestine are instructive and sobering. The
Palestine national resistance movement against Zionism and Western powers
since the 1930s has passed through erratic stages of success and failure
Hamas overall trajectory, however, has been more difficult than
Hezbollahs. This is mainly because it has fought simultaneously a brutal
Israeli military, Fatah, Arab governments that fear it ilk and the US and
Europe who have tried to break it through sanctions and other means. Yet
Hamas has also performed poorly in many cases, unable to build on the
credibility and legitimacy it has achieved since its founding less than two
decades ago.
Hamas has been through tough moments before, including
assassinations of its leaders, mass deportations and jailing of its members, as
well as the current political and economic boycott by Israel, the US and
Europe. In light of the lessons of Hezbollahs performance in Lebanon,
Hamas must now adjust quickly or risk the same self-inflicted fate as
Fatah and the PLO.
Hamas needs to examine its own ways in order to achieve success by
being more accountable to its constituents, rather than faithful to fiery or
90

emotional slogans. The performances of Hezbollah and Hamas in the

months ahead are worth monitoring, for they will impact greatly on
political trends throughout the Arab World.
Mike Whitney opined that Hamas can change but needs help. We
have to accept that change is possible for things to get better. Groups, like
people, are capable of transformation. Hamas has made significant changes
in its approach, but it needs help from the Bush Administration. They need
to know that Bush is serious in his support for a two-state solution and
that they will be treated fairly if the stop their attacks on Israel.
The administration has an opportunity to mitigate the hatred it
has sown through its cynical support of the war on Lebanon. It can change
directions, revise its failing policies and make an honest attempt to resolve
an issue that continues to consume the hearts and minds of every Muslim,
Christian and Jew in the Middle East.
Removing Hamas from the State Departments list of terrorist
organizations is a win-win situation for everyone. It legitimizes the
Palestinian election, it moves Israel closer to a negotiated settlement with the
PA, and it elevates the Bush Administration in the eyes of its critics.
Washington can still play a central role in this long-running conflict, but it
will take bold action and perseverance.
The Hamas parliament represents the national aspirations of the
Palestinian people. Israel has no right to disrupt or disband the government
unless it poses a clear threat to its national security. As long as Hamas is
willing to maintain its truce, it poses no such danger and should be
allowed to carry out its responsibilities.
Arab News urged Palestinians to forge unity. On the outside,
statements from both sides indicate that not only will there be such a
cabinet mix soon but that it will also be set up with little, if any, friction.
Fatah officials say their movement, which has about 45 seats in the
Palestinian Legislative Council (Hamas holds nearly 70), to cite one
example of cooperation; insist that the next prime minister be a Fatah
member. For its part, Hamas insists that its main preoccupation is the
national cause, and that it has never put its immediate interests before that of
the Palestinian people.

91

The current Palestinian teachers strike makes it abundantly clear

that Fatah and Hamas are still rivals. As hundreds of Hamas-supported
gunmen deployed around schools in Gaza unsuccessfully try to persuade
teachers and students to return to their lessons, in the West Bank, activists
from Fatah stand in front of schools to enforce the strike.
But such is the situation in Gaza that a realignment of power has
now become essential if there is to be change. According to the Palestinian
Authority, 234 Palestinians have died with 1,267 injured as a result of the
now 10-week-long Israeli incursion in Gaza. Israel seemed close to
succeeding in bringing regime change in Palestine.
There were no signs of change in Israels attitude. Jackson Diehi
commented on Israeli Foreign Ministers visit to Washington. Livni spent
hours in conversation with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and other senior officials, with the goal of
coordinating positions before the expected onslaught of diplomacy at the
United Nations. The bottom line, one official said, is that there will be no
major diplomatic initiative.
There are some important substantive reasons, including the simple
fact that the end of Israeli unilateralism means an Arab partner is needed
and the Palestinian Authority is not really ready for a serious peace
process.
There are also powerful political problems here and in Israel.
With his presidential capital rapidly waning, Bush is focused on finding
solutions for Iraq Olmerts government is reeling from the war in
Lebanon, besieged by critics who say he failed to deliver on promises to
cripple Hezbollah
Israelis have their own designs, particularly for Palestinians. Uri
Avnery observed, in the corridors of powers in Jerusalem the cry is going
up: Help! Peace is upon you, Israel! A terrible enemy is conspiring to
impose peace on us. He is advancing against us from two sides, in a giant
pincer movement.
One arm of this offensive is the Palestinian Unity Government that is
about to be set up. The other is the decision of the Arab League to revive the
Arab Peace Plan. From the point of view of the Government of Israel,

92

this offensive is far more dangerous than all of Hassan Nasrallahs rockets
put together.
The National Unity Government is designed to restore public order
and to break the international blockade The second arm of peace offensive
isroughly: the entire Arab World will recognize Israel and make peace
with it, if it withdraws to 1967 borders and makes it possible to establish the
State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Against this danger of the Arab peace mongers, the Olmert
government is calling up all its forces. In spite of the fact the entire political
and military leadership is now busy in fighting for its survival after the
Lebanon fiasco, it is uniting in the face of this frightening menace. Tzipi
Livni was sent head over heels to the United States, in order to avert the
danger.
Israel and the US will, therefore, declare that the Arab peace
plan is damaging peace, because it contradicts the Road Map. The
Palestinian unity government, when it is set up, must be boycotted, because
it does not explicitly state that all its members recognize the State of Israel
Therefore, the blockade of the Palestinian population must go on, until it
sinks to its knees.
Israel was not expected to respond positively to Palestinian moves.
The danger is that Olmert is so shell-shocked that he will be unable to
respond creatively to a potentially significant development: the creation
of a unity government in the Palestinian territories that would recognize
Israels right to exist and include Hamas, the rejectionist movement that now
controls the Palestinian parliament, wrote L A Times. No one would ask
Israel to deal with people who demand its destruction. But if the Palestinian
side is willing to talk and willing to compromise, Israel owes it to itself to be
alert to that possibility.

CONLUSION

93

This was one of the ugliest wars. It will be rightly condemned but not
for too long, because Israel could wage an uglier than the ugliest wars. May
be the Palestinians have been deliberately kept out of the mandate of the
peacekeepers for this purpose.
In addition to protection of Israel the UN peacekeeping force will
enforce the blockade on behalf of Israel and the US. It was because of that
Linda S Heard called UNIFIL a Trojan horse, ready to rob Lebanon of its
hard fought sovereignty.
Muslim ruling elite, particularly in Arab World, were not perturbed by
the presence of Trojan horse since many of them have likened living with
majestic-looking animal. They will learn no lesson from the war and instead
will work to neutralize the gains of Hezbollah.
20th September 2006

FRONTLINE SUSPECT

94

Most part of the period under review, Musharraf spent visiting world
capitals explaining and reassuring his commitment to war on terror. First, he
went to Kabul, where on 7th September he addressed a big gathering of
parliamentarians and urged them to stop blaming Pakistan for insurgency in
Afghanistan.
Then he went to Europe to answer queries on the North Waziristan
deal and other issues relating to Islamic extremism in Pakistan. He then
proceeded to Havana where he secured another round of the peace process
after convincing Manmohan about his sincerity. The two leaders agreed to
set up a joint mechanism to fight terrorism.
He finally landed in the United States of America where he had hectic
schedule to answer questions regarding the peace deal in particular and the
war on terror in general. The questions were asked not only by the
government officials but also by media and members of various think-tanks.
He was able to secure an assurance from Rice that the US was not yet
looking for post-Musharraf phase.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Pakistans endeavours for Afghan peace continued. Following
incidents were reported during the period:
A man suspected of spying for US was shot dead in Miranshah on 9th
September. Next day, a pro-government tribal elder was shot dead in
Wana.
Fourteen suspected Taliban were arrested in Quetta on 13 th September
in a raid on a private hospital. Aziz and Karzai inaugurated TorkhamJalalabad Highway constructed by NHA. Rockets were fired at
Jalalabad before arrival of the two leaders.
Next day, SDO working with local government was kidnapped in
North Waziristan.
Four female staff workers on NCHD were wounded when their
vehicle was blown up in Bajaur agency on 19th September.

95

 Two governmental officials were among three people killed by

unknown gunmen near Wana on 20th September. Ten tribesmen
suspected of sheltering Taliban were arrested in Alwara Mandi, North
Waziristan. Next day, an Afghan refugee suspected of spying for US
was killed in North Waziristan.
On 23rd September a French newspaper claimed Osama died of
typhoid in Islamabad. Allama Sajid Naqvi claimed he knew
whereabouts of Osama but refused to disclose. King is dead, long live
the king!
Two soldiers were wounded in rocket attack in Wana on 24th
September. Karzai once again sighted Osama in Pakistan.
On 26th September Commander Dadullah said Osama is alive and
Musharraf said he is in Kunar.
Local Taliban opened an office in Miranshah on 27th September. Three
persons were killed by unknown gunmen in South Waziristan. Three
tribesmen suspected of link to attack on US base were freed.
Peace deal with tribesmen of North Waziristan kept earning mixed
response. Some quarters in Afghanistan hailed the agreement. On 8th
September, Bush said the peace deal in Waziristan does not allow safe
haven to terrorists.
US media faulted Waziristan agreement; even Rumsfeld said can
folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate
peace with terrorists. A senior Pakistani official assured Rumsfeld that the
truce wont debar army from surgical strikes.
Commander Dadullah said that we had told Pakistani Taliban not to
fight army, reported Rahimullah Yusufzai on 16 th September. Four days later
Musharraf rejected the censure of the peace deal. On 27th September, US
official claimed that Taliban attacks have tripled since Pakistans peace deal.
The same day, Latif Afridi claimed Mulla Omar backed the truce.
Blame game continued as hither-to-fore. On 15th September, Dutch
official alleged that Taliban from Pakistan were disturbing Afghan peace.
Pakistan denounced Vermeijs comments. In his address to the UNGA on
20th September, Karzai urged tackling the problem stemming from terrorist
96

sanctuaries beyond Afghan borders. Next day, Musharraf said Afghanistan

was not doing enough.
On 26th September, Musharraf warned of Taliban popularity and
repercussions if Pakhtoons are not given due share in power. Karzai called
on Pakistan to close extremist madrassas. Next day, Musharraf termed
Karzais demand regarding madrassas as foolish.
Suspicions about peace deal and hurling of accusations obviously
ended up in talk about strikes across Durand Line. MMA Senator Khurshid
Ahmad expressed concern over the reported claim of the US Commander
that US troops can enter Pakistan at will in search for Osama bin Laden or
others.
On 21st September, Bush said he would order military action inside
Pakistan if intelligence indicated that Osama or other top terror leaders were
hiding there. Foreign Office said US cant come hunting for Osama. Two
days later ISPR joined by saying that foreign troops wont be allowed to
hunt Osama in Pakistan.

Peace deal received unprecedented attention of the government

officials, media, analysts and think-tanks the world over. Nasim Zehra
commented, significantly, the key members of the international team in
Afghanistan the Americans and the British, see reason to support the
deal. Before finalizing the agreement, Pakistan had discussed its elements
with them.
The Pakistan deal cannot be a response to the Taliban challenge
that confronts Kabul. In fact Afghanistan is on an upward spiral of death
and destruction. NATOs late August Operation Medusa in Southern
Afghanistan has resulted in the deaths of 450 Afghans. The Taliban response
was the suicide bombing outside the US Embassy in Kabul that left 16 dead.
Targeted killing of Paktias governor then followed.
Meanwhile, outside the official circles, there is growing criticism
of the deal. Analysts also remain suspicious of Pakistans intentions. They
say Pakistan is not genuinely trying to clean up; that Musharraf is merely
playing a balancing game. The criticism is combined with sensational new
features on the million dollar question Osama and Mulla Omars.
Pakistans chronic critic Seling Harrison claims that the deal made it very
foolish to think (the US) could make Pakistan an ally against the Taliban.

97

Peace doesnt flow from killing fields. Killing fields accentuate

existing fault-lines. Pakistan experienced that in 1971 in Bangladesh. In
varying degrees Palestine and Kashmir testify that wars between force and
peoples dreams throw up no victors, Convictions and causes survive
destruction of people and structures. Causes are strengthened by those who
die for them.
M S Hassan from Karachi also expressed suspicions over the deal.
The agreement, it seems, has been forced by the militants on to a
government, which has clearly been made to choose the path of least
resistance by caving into the dictates of the local Taliban. This has been the
sad story of this government which succumbs to pressure be it from the
mullahs, militants, manipulating politicians and of course, the military.
The agreement will further render credence to the general
perception that the current Pakistan government has been playing on
both sides of the street in the war against terror, borne by the fact that not a
single leader of the Taliban has ever been arrested in Pakistan. The North
Waziristan agreement will provide greater space, mobility and operational
capability to the Taliban to spread the Talibanization virus to the other parts
of the NWFP province and beyond.
Rahimullah Yusufzai wrote, perhaps no other peace agreement
anywhere has attracted so much attention. It isnt some kind of an accord
between two nations but even then it has been commented upon by powerful
world leaders and the international media. President George W Bush, vice
president Dick Cheney, foreign secretary Condoleezza Rice, defence
secretary Donald Rumsfeld and American military commanders in
Afghanistan thought it fit to discuss the treaty between Pakistan government
and the Pashtun tribes in North Waziristan. British deputy foreign minister
Kim Howells rushed to Pakistan to find out more about the agreement, top
European Union diplomats invited President General Pervez Musharraf to
Brussels to get briefed on it, and Afghanistans embattled President Hamid
Karzai raised it in his two one-on-one meetings with the visiting Pakistani
President in Kabul.
For many, the accord signed in the first week of September was
unexpected. They could never imagine that the Pakistani government
and its military would strike a peace deal with tribal Islamic militants who
had killed scores of soldiers and pro-government elders and were allegedly
harbouring wanted foreigners.
98

For those keenly following the events in North Waziristan, the

peace accord wasnt unexpected. They were aware that a 45-member Loya
Jirga, or grand tribal council, had been working since the first week of July
2006 to broker peace between the government and the militants in the
troubled tribal region.
Though the government maintained that it didnt constitute the Loya
Jirga, it soon became evident that political agents in all seven Federally
Administered Tribal Agencies (FATA) proposed the names of tribal elders
and religious scholars who were eventually named as members of the jirga.
North Waziristans political agent Dr Fakhre Alam Irfan signed the
peace agreement on behalf of the federal government and the Governor of
NWFP Lt Gen Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai, who played a key role in
constituting and facilitating the Loya Jirga to peacefully end the conflict in
North Waziristan.
It is obvious that this agreement is an improvement on the three
peace accords signed earlier in South Waziristan, including one with late
commander Nek Mohammad in Shakai in April 2004, another with
commander Baitullah Mahsud in Srarogha last year and the third with the
so-called Wana Five, the commanders from Ahmadzai Wazir tribe led by
Haji Mohammad Omar who succeeded Nek Mohammad. Those agreements
were vague and didnt stop the militants from sponsoring target killings,
forming parallel administration in Waziristan and exporting their
Talibanization drive to settled areas.

Blame-game is an effective tool of coercion. Ajmal Shams,

President of the Afghan Mellat Party (Shams Faction) observed, the initial
euphoria (about Waziristan peace deal) has already started diminishing with
several consecutive suicide attacks only a day after President Musharraf
returned home. If Musharraf really means business then Afghanistan is
definitely expecting to see a reduction in Taliban insurgency in the near
future because actions speak louder than words.
Shireen M Mazari expressed her disgust over accusations and
coercive approach of the Crusaders and on Pakistans meek response to
these. Be that as it may, as far as Pakistan is concerned, it can never do
anything right. The latest accusations come once again from that antiPakistan newspaper, the Washington Post, which now claims that the key
to the whole resurgence of the Taliban is simply Pakistan.
99

A US spokesman in Kabul haughtily declared in a style reminiscent

of imperialism that the truce deal signed by the Pakistan government in
North Waziristan would be monitored. Even more disturbing is a news item
that appeared in an English newspaper which said that a special US unit can
enter Pakistan at will to hunt for Osama. Have we been so cowed down by
America that we are now formally undermining our sovereignty
voluntarily to it? According to this report, which cites, yet again, the
Washington Post, complaining that Pakistan will permit only small numbers
of US forces to operate with its troops, and therefore US troops say they
have too little to do.
The Post continues its litany against Pakistan by declaring that not a
single senior Taliban leader has been arrested or killed in Pakistan since
2001, but how many Taliban leaders have been identified and named by
the US post-9/11, apart from Mulla Omar? Clearly, the newspaper is
confusing the Taliban with al-Qaeda
In all this, it is strange that given the US and Europes vocal
condemnation of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, there has been little
condemnation of the act of terror against Muslims as they were praying
at a mosque, in western India. The Mumbai blasts were lead stories in the
Western media but where were the headlines reporting the death of over 40
Muslims, with dozens more wounded, in Malegaon caused by a series of
bomb blasts?
The killing of Muslims by Hindu terrorists seems to be acceptable
to the West even as they rant and rave against Islamic militants. The BushBlair combines silence is the most damning. Similarly, the US and the
Karzai government ignoring the office of the BLA in central Kabul is a clear
signal that both these players are giving this terrorist outfit at least their tacit
blessing.
Afiya Shehrbano found an interesting aspect of the blame-game.
Other ironies that crowd the headlines these past few days include the
rumour that Osama bin Laden has died of typhoid illness in Pakistan. It
would be bitter irony if it was true its not terrorism that will kill you
in this country, but competing diseases. The futuristic military powers of
the first world combined with entire sections of our military devoted to
hunting this man could not compete against the archaic force of the bacillus
salmonella typhus that so many Pakistani consume on a daily basis and
suffer the consequences.
100

Carey Schofield was of the view that greater public

acknowledgement of the role played by Pakistan in the common struggle
against terror would strengthen the hand of those who want to continue this
policy. Pakistani officials have been frustrated to be told by the British
counterparts that they hesitate to be fulsome in thanking Pakistan
Western governments are uneasy about regimes headed by a soldier.
But it is unlikely that any alternative Islamabad government will be able to
cooperate as fully with the western powers as President Musharraf. ProAmerican, pro-British policies are unlikely to win votes with Pakistan in its
current mood. It might well be much harder for any other head of
government to cooperate as fully with the West in the security and defence
sphere.

Musharrafs visits to various countries were widely commented

upon. The News wrote about his visit to Kabul. Musharrafs visit to
Afghanistan seems to have been quite fruitful and could herald a welcome
shift in the mostly wobbly relations between the two neighbours. He is right
in saying that it all boils down to a matter of trust: that both sides must learn
to trust each other and take united action against Taliban and al-Qaeda
fighters In this context, the exchanges that took place between General
Musharraf and Mr Karzai in Kabul provide hope and could place relations
between Islamabad and Kabul on an entirely different and forward path.
Time is often the best judge of things and this would seem
particularly true of what has been agreed upon in by General Musharraf and
President Karzai. Perhaps, both sides have realized that hurling allegations
and counter-allegations have not achieved anything and that if they were to
stop and make an effort to use their resources jointly to fight the menace it
might make a difference.
About the visit to Europe, the newspaper opined, Musharrafs
remarks about the Taliban before a seminar on Kashmir held at the European
parliament in Brussels on Thursday that they represent a danger greater than
al-Qaeda provides some food for thought. The president told his audience
that the Taliban were more dangerous because they were, as he put it,
rooted among the people which was not the case with al-Qaeda.
During his speech, the president made a particular mention of the
deal that the federal government has struck with local militants in
Waziristan, claiming that it was an important step towards cutting off
101

recruits to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But again, this view ignores the
presence of so-called local Taliban on his side of the border, and the fact that
the deal seems heavily attacked in their favour.
One suspects the president will be questioned on during his visit to
the US, where the deal with the militants has its fair share of critics and
skeptics. The president spoke quite vigorously about the need to reject and
fight Pakistans growing Talibanization but again there seems to be a
contradiction between words and deeds as far as the federal government
is concerned on this issue.
The argument is that if the government is now content with leaving
the local militants alone as long as they do not cross over into Afghanistan,
then what was the point of sending in the army to fight them a fight that
lasted well over two years and which cost the lives of many soldiers,
militants as well as local people who had nothing to do with the conflict.
The contradiction between words and actions extends beyond FATA
to other key matters as well. The ongoing dilly-dallying and pandering to
the religious parties to obtain their support on proposed legislative changes
to the Hudood ordinances by the government, which already has a sufficient
parliamentary majority to get this bill passed, is a good example of
appeasement of extremists. Women Protection Bill is aimed at killing two
birds with one stone.
In his enthusiasm, he sometimes makes comments that are best
avoided, observed Rahimullah Yusufzai. His recent statements in Kabul
and Brussels would be alright if made by a scholar. But such forthcoming
utterances arent appreciated and taken in spirit in which they are made.
Musharraf has already found out that his governments peace
agreement with the Utmanzai tribes and some of their more militant
members in North Waziristan would be hard to sell to western governments.
It appears that most of his energy during his ongoing visit to Europe and
the US will be spent defending the agreement. He faced the same
challenge when he paid a two-day visit to Afghanistan last week.
As president Musharraf has been lately arguing, there cannot be a
military solution to such disputes. In his view, the military buys time and
facilitates a political solution. It is sad that this realization has dawned on
the president and his government after loss of so many precious lives of

102

our soldiers and tribes people and irreparable damage to the fragile
economy of Waziristan.
It is clearly a peace accord with the militants, who showed their
military muscle and forced the government to accept their power and
negotiate an agreement with them. President Musharraf too should stop
claiming that his government signed the peace accord with moderate tribes
rather than with militants.
Those critical of the North Waziristan peace agreement should
remember that the same government concluded similar treaties with
militants in South Waziristan no doubt the North Waziristan peace accord
is comprehensive and was reached through the efforts and guarantees of a
respected loya jirga. It is an improvement on previous peace accords and a
mechanism has been put in place to monitor and implement the loya
jirgas decisions.
It is another matter if this peace agreement will deliver all that the
government has been aiming for. On the surface, it seems to be a
temporary way out to tackle a ticklish issue. None of the peace accords
until now have stopped target killings of pro-government tribal elders and
those allegedly spying for the US. This one too may not put an end to such
mysterious assassinations.
With reference to the visit to US, Shakir Hussain wrote, this is an
election year in the US for the Senate. General Musharraf might not realize
that explaining his U-turn on the tribal areas after so much chest-thumping
over the last four years about the writ of the state is going to be a tall order.
Having aligned himself so closely with the Bush Administration, he has
made a grave tactical error because this election is going to be about the
Democrats pummeling the Bush Administrations track record on fighting
terror.
Imran Husain opined, the Americans are nifty play actors, note
Hollywood thrives, so let us not for a moment be fooled into thinking that
either the US administration or the people and press bought everything that
was thrown at them. They will watch, observe and keep us dangling for as
long as it suits them. But for the moment, they will not do anything to
annoy us. We are after all, playing their game, albeit perhaps not entirely
according to prescription. Anyway, that option of taking us apart brick by
brick or various other methods allegedly conjectured remains well within
103

their grasp, should we err. There is no defence against that, at least not one
apparently visible. So the president unequivocally confirmed that he has no
deal with the Taliban, in fact quite the opposite.
Nasim Zehra commented on Washington Summit. The fact that many
of the al-Qaeda operatives and Taliban have been present in the area
does not mean that Pakistan will find itself in the eye of the terrorism storm
that bothers not only the West but also all the Muslim states and Muslims
who oppose killing of innocent civilians. Pakistan is indeed one of the key
players tackling the infrastructure dimension of one of the gravest threats
that human civilization faces. Others, including the political and the
ideological dimensions of the terrorism threat, have to be tackled principally
by the United States.
Within the Pakistan-US context seven conclusions can be drawn
from the Musharraf-Bush summit. One, that Pakistan remains critical to the
US war on terrorism. Two, the Americans increasingly see Musharraf as an
indispensable ally. Three, the Americans are finally appreciating the
complexity of the challenge at hand in Pakistan and also in Afghanistan.
Four, after the American failures in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, they are
hoping to be tutored by Pakistan in some successful ways of dealing with
conflict and insurgency. Five, Washington is now viewing Pakistan as a
partner in resolving the aggravating politico-military situation in
Afghanistan and less as a problem. Six, Pakistan seeks to create space for
Musharrafs exhort to use this current Pakistan-US nexus to promote
Pakistans interests. Seven, American support helped to strengthen
Musharrafs domestic standing in an uncertain political context.
Behroz Khan reported, the support and sympathy of local
tribesmen with the foreign fighters, locally known as mujahideen,
is weakening. The emerging figure, in the forefront against these foreigners,
is Maulana Sadiq Noor, a local cleric and a Jihadi and having the backing of
another powerful militant leader, Commander Gul Bahadur. Both the leaders
have asked the foreigners to leave North Waziristan it is notable that
Maulana Sadiq Noor was among those who invited and protected these
foreign nationals in the region.
Though the main concentration of foreigners is in South Waziristan,
where their number runs into thousands, they are still in hundreds in the

104

North Waziristan. The Mirali sub-division of the agency hosts bulk of them,
where tension is mounting between them and the locals.
It was last week when a few local youngsters were asked by a group
of foreigners to offer their evening prayers and stop smoking. The local
youth felt offended and clashed with the foreign militants in Hormaz and
Hamzooni villages near Mirali resulting in the killing of two Uzbeks. The
youngsters dragged the bodies of the foreigners to the seminary run by
Maulana Sadiq Noor, who did not mind the killing of the outsiders, but was
apparently upset the way the bodies were tied with pick-up tucks, an
eyewitness informed.
Equipped with the latest communication system and arms, JUI-Fs
armed force is patrolling streets to ensure security and make their presence
felt. Having been in the forefront of brokering the peace deal, the JUI-F
leadership is out to seize the opportunity by activating its subordinate
wings. Thus it held an impressive public meeting in Miranshahwhich for
the first time was attended by politicians from outside FATA.
In an interesting development, hardcore criminals, battle-hardened
fighters and head-strong youngsters have come together to form what is
known as a Charsi Group (band of hashish smokers). This group ensures
implementation of the decisions made by the clerics, and particularly
respects Maulana Sadiq Noor.
The Crusaders continued harbouring their prejudices. The
prejudices relating to dirty bomb however remained dormant. On 7 th
September, IAEA lauded Pakistans nuclear command and control steps. The
IAEA report revealed that out of 827 confirmed incidents, involving nuclear,
radioactive materials and radioactively contaminated material from 1993 to
2005, Pakistan is not included in any of these incidents. But, such reports
wont redress the concerns of the Crusaders.
Meanwhile the father of the Islamic bomb was shifted to Karachi on
7 September and two days later, he was successfully operated upon.
Durrani said Dr AQ Khan was in good spirits. On 17 th September, he was
shifted to his sisters house.
th

On 14th September, a US think-tank hurled another accusation just as

Musharraf was about to embark on visit to America. Pakistan was blamed
for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalists from Afghanistan to Bangladesh. A

105

week later, Musharraf disclosed that the US had threatened to bomb Pakistan
back to stone age after 9/11.

PEACE PROCESS
The Kargil hero shook hand with Manmohan Singh in Havana on 16 th
September. Two leaders agreed to revive peace talks. They also agreed to
work out a mechanism to fight terrorism jointly. Musharraf termed the
outcome of his meeting with Singh as victory for peace. Singh pinned hope
on joint anti-terror mechanism.
On 20th September, Kasuri said that India has given some proposals on
Kashmir issue. Three days later, former defence minister of India, Fernandez
disclosed that India knew about attack on Musharraf and had informed
Islamabad two days in advance. On 24 th September, Singh said joint
mechanism would test Pakistan on its promise to stop cross-border
terrorism.
There was nothing worth mention in the context of confidence
building process but plenty of actions and statements negative to
confidence building. On 8th September, Hindu extremists avenged Mumbai
blasts. At least 37 people were killed and 50 injured in three bombs which
exploded as Muslims came out of mosque in Malegaon of Maharashtra state.
Two days after the attack, police was yet to make any arrest, but
Indian media and the government did not blame Pakistan for that. Gilani
accused Hindu groups of Malegaon bomb blasts. Manmohan placed
terrorism at the top of the agenda for his talks with Musharraf. On 16 th
September, Maritime Security Agency arrested 25 Indian fishermen.
Meanwhile, perpetration of state terrorism in IHK continued unabated.
Following incidents related to Kashmiris armed struggle were reported:
Two Kashmiri youths were killed by Indian troops on 7 th September.
Two days later, two police officers and a civilian were killed in a clash
in the Valley.
Five freedom fighters and a civilian were killed in the violence on 10 th
September. Next day, a policeman was killed in landmine blast in
Kulgam district.
106

 On 15th September, Gilani and Shabbir were placed under house

arrest. Two days later, an Indian soldier shot dead one colleague and
wounded two others in Karna district.
Gilani and Hizb dismissed Pakistan-India agreement to resume
dialogue terming it meaningless. Six freedom fighters and a woman
were killed in violence in the Valley on 20th September.
At least 12 people including 8 freedom fighters were killed in
violence on 21st September. Four days later, woman constable was
among eight people killed in the Valley.
Three policemen and six Kashmiris were killed on 26 th September in
separate incidents. An Indian army officer was killed in a gun battle.
Zafar Guru, convicted in attack on Indian Parliament building, was
ordered to be hanged.
Indian army officer was killed in a gun battle in IHK on 27th
September. At least 12 people were injured and admitted in hospital
after they beaten by Indian soldiers.
Khaleej Times wrote, Musharrafs detractors point out Pakistan
hasnt got anything from India. And there is a growing impression in the
country as well as in divided Kashmir that now that there is peace in Jammu
and Kashmir, Delhi has lost interest in talking the K word. In the end, the
General is seen as having given away too much for too little.
This does not augur well for the peace process. This is especially not
good for Musharraf. He will find it hard to stick to his commitments to
India and carry on the dialogue if it can be still called that; which would
not be in the interest of India. For no future leader of Pakistan can be as
flexible and decisive in his dealings with India as Musharraf has been,
despite the military background.
M Badar Alam opined that the Havana meeting was least likely to
produce results unless the two sides stop interpreting the joint statement
selectively. Some inside accounts reveal that this turn-about is not all that
sudden The joint anti-terrorism mechanism that Pakistan and India have
come up with after the Havana meeting is what everybody had already
agreed on even before Musharraf and Manmohan sat down to talk.

107

Even the wording of the joint statement was not impromptu. It

was carefully prepared in a couple of meetings before the summit one
between two security advisors, Tariq Aziz and M K Narayanan, and the other
between two foreign secretaries But since the Havana summit, the two
sides have chosen to interpret the joint statement selectively, as the always
do.

HOME FRONT
Political front remained active. On 7th September, arrest warrants of
Benazir and Zardari were issued by session Judge Islamabad. Five days
later, Sher Afgan revealed that division of Punjab into two provinces, upgradation of division to provinces, and appointment of Lieutenant governors
were under active consideration.
PML-N MPs handed over their resignations to Zulfiqar Khosa on 14 th
September. Division of Punjab will weaken other provinces, warned
Asfandyar. Bilour also criticized the plans to divide Punjab.
On 24th September, country-wide power breakdown led to spreading
of rumours like wild fire about toppling of Musharraf regime. Next day
Musharraf boasted; Pakistan is no banana republic. He said coup gossip was
figment of sick mind.
Mir Jamilur Rahman commented on MMAs threat to resign. The
right-wing alliance of religious political parties, has been threatening to
resign from the assemblies on one pretext or the other A party in power
need not feel threatened by the resignations of the opposition members.
On the contrary, it would benefit by the decrease in opposition members.
The constant vilification campaign against the government may have its
advantages but it wears out with the passage of time.
As regards division of Punjab, it would have been better if at the time
of formulation of devolution of power plan the governments at divisionallevel were established instead of district-level. This would have taken care
of, not only of prejudices against Punjab, but also the problems faced by the
governments at district-level, being too small an entity to be called as
government. As regards concerns of Asfandyar and Bilour, these were for

108

reasons other than those mentioned by them. Division will deprive them of
a whipping-boy.
Dr M S Jillani observed, the saga of great September Blackout and
the imagined coup detat lasted about seven hours, yet it exposed the
weakest part of our psyche quick excitement, irresponsibility towards
society and the nation, lack of effort to know facts, casualness of media to
control damage, absence of plans to meet emergencies, and the lack of a
system to bring popular persons on television quickly to explain the
assuage.
Sarmad Bashir commented on Musharrafs remark of banana republic.
The question remains whether the present regime has the guts to
withstand the impending American onslaught on our soil. The nation has
very serious doubts about it and it is not without a rationale. But our sacred
saviours should not ignore the fact that the more they allow their leadership
to capitulate to the American pressure, the faster the country would move
towards instability.
To ward off this doomsday scenario the army will have to
seriously think about withdrawing to the barracks it belongs, leaving it
to the democratically elected government to decide how to deal with the
challenges facing the country and safeguard its sovereignty. The nation has
to be relieved of the dilemma of drawing excitement from the rumours of the
incumbent military ruler having been replaced by another adventurist.
Unrest in Baluchistan persisted as the government focused on
controlling post-Akbar Bugti situation. Following events were reported:
On 11th September, four electricity pylons were blown up in Bolan
Pass area disrupting electricity to half of Baluchistan. Shahzawar, a
son from Akbar Bugtis fourth wife, claimed to be the successor of the
deceased. His claim might trigger family feud.
Next day, three people were killed in landmine blast in Loti gas-field.
Baluchistan government decided to compensate losses during rioting.
Five rockets were fired at Machh city on 13 th September. Five days
later, at least five persons were wounded in a blast in Quetta.

109

 Kalat was rocked by bomb blast on 20 th September. Next day, Grand

jirga of Baluch sardars condemned killing of Akbar Bugti, demanded
halt to military operation and decided to approach ICJ on Baluchistan.
On 23rd September, two persons were killed and 20 wounded in a
bomb blast in Dera Ghazi Khan. Next day, gas pipeline was blown up
cutting supply to parts of Quetta.
The Baluch are swiftly becoming irrelevant in the competitions
between world powers and are being crushed in Pakistans presentation of
Baluchistan as a territory up for grabs for commercial exploitation,
commented Nafisa Shah.
The military reasserts its political power by giving the US all the
space to establish its bases, while at the same time, offering the land of
Baluch to China to establish their first warm-water foot-hold in the Indian
Ocean. The military then must always clear the debris of nationalisms and
insurgencies through their short term brute force. It is then, no wonder that
the targets of the Baluch are the intrusive ugly pipelines, the grid
stations, the roads, the port, and the army men, all seen as serving other
people and other places. And perhaps, the centre can expect everlasting
fighting as a mode of the area, because of the geographic access to
vanishing, consolidating and remerging, that this vast hilly territory with
labyrinths of mountain passes and obstructions allows.
In the context of soft image, Women Protection Bill consumed most
of the energies of the government and opposition. On 7 th September, the
London-based Imam Khomenei of MQM lectured in favour of Hudood
Amendment bill and blamed so-called religious leader of depriving the
women of their basic rights. The government and MMA agreed to form nonpolitical Ulema committee to study the bill and make recommendations,
before presenting it in the assembly.
On 11th September, MMA and Ulema body agreed to redraft the bill.
Government and religious alliance differed on the bill, whereas PPP and
MQM decided to wait and see. Next day, Altaf Bhai refused to accept
changes incorporated by Ulema in the bill.
On 13th September, the government once again delayed the
presentation of Womens Protection Bill as more time was needed for

110

deliberations on objections raised by MMA. MQM and PPP announced

opposition to the bill amended on advice of the Ulema.
Hudood politics frustrated oppositions anti-government plan,
reported Ansar Abbasi on 15th September. Women Protection Bill, with six
amendments as proposed by the Ulema Committee, will be sent back to the
National Assemblys select committee for reconsideration. On 20th
September, Dr Javed Ahmed Ghamdi resigned from the Council of Islamic
Ideology in protest against bypassing CII while drafting and evaluating
Women Protection Bill.
Misbah Ranas ordeal continued. On 8th September, Lahore High
Court ordered Police not to take Misbah into custody. On 19 th September,
Misbahs Scottish mother lodged an appeal against the decision granting
temporary custody of the girl to her father. A week later, the court asked
Misbah to surrender her passport.
The News, strong believer of Enlightenment rather than moderation,
enlightened the nation by publishing a photo of Pakistani-origin Mariyah
who landed the title of Miss Bikini. This was not appreciated by most
readers. Some sections of the media and intellectuals believe that
enlightened moderation rests in depriving the Pakistani women of the last
thread of clothing, or in simple words; the nudity.
Two more events are worth mention. On 14th September, gates of
National Assembly were closed as opposition members showed solidarity
with families protesting against their missing kiths. Ten days later,
Musharraf went all the way to Paris, Texas, for medical check-up in his
brother-in-laws clinic.
Crackdown against militancy also continued. On 9th September,
Rangers arrested a suspected militant in Karachi. Turabis alleged killer died
in a mysterious blast in Dara Adamkhel. Supreme Court upheld death
sentence of 12 convicts in the case of attack on Musharraf. Militants also
struck back; two MQM workers were gunned down in Karachi on 20 th
September. Next day a Shia leader was gunned down in Sargodha.
Sufyan Sultan urged the support for Women Protection Bill. For
almost three decades Pakistanis have been told that the Hudood ordinances
are sacred, and those who denounce them are traitors to Allah and His
Messenger. In fact Hudood laws reflect neither the spirit of the Quraanic

111

message nor even the consensus of the possible fuquha. Instead they are
the product of a political experiment gone wrong, with Ziaul Haq as the
proverbial mad scientist and the Pakistani awaam in its familiar role of
guinea pigs.
The News wrote, it is important that the proposed amendments, in
their original form, are passed as soon as possible; failure to do so means
that the persecution faced by thousands of women in this country is not
going to end any time soon. Besides it projects a very dismal image of
Pakistan abroad, which is not good given that in any case the country is
often portrayed in the western media as a hub of extremism.
In another editorial, the newspaper argued, there are several cogent
reasons why the government could have (and indeed should have)
chosen to bypass the MMA. The first and most obvious is that it enjoys a
clear majority in both houses If numbers were a problem even the PPP
had said that it would have voted with the bill
As for the governments explanation that it wanted to pass the bill
with consensus, one is constrained to ask that if in constitutional
amendments (which continue to maul the Constitution to this day) have been
bulldozed in parliament, without even being discussed or debated by the
opposition, why was there no need for bipartisan consensus on such a crucial
piece of legislation?
Ghazi Salahuddin observed that it is instructive that the religious
alliance and the social activists for liberal causes agree on one thing that
the proposed amendments are unacceptable. While the orthodox Islamists
are opposed to any amendments, the liberals have demanded a total repeal of
the laws. New York-based Human Rights Watch has urged Musharraf to
seize the moment and repeal the laws in their entirety.
Again and again, Musharraf raises the banner of enlightened
moderation. We can expect that tone to be raised during his visit to America.
However, his eloquence is often reduced to the inarticulate murmurs of
leaders like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.
Dr Masooda Bano opined, the reality of any attempt to amend or
repeal the Hudood law is that the party who gets to do it will get
recognition for being liberal and pro-women internationally, and the fact

112

is that this recognition rather than genuine desire to elevate women is the
primary push behind.
Mir Jamilur Rahman was of the view that the game being played in
Islamabad in the name of womens protection has turned into a farce and
mockery of democracy. The consensus on national issues is welcome but
not at the cost of forfeiting ones rights as a majority party. The PML is the
ruling party and the PPP and the MQM are its coalition partners. This
coalition has the right to legislate for the good of the people, and it is for the
parliament to determine what is good for the people. The parliament is the
sovereign body as far as law making is concerned. What it decides matters,
and what is decided outside the parliament is of no consequence.
Burhanuddin Hasan wrote, the deputy parliamentary leader of MMA
in the National Assembly, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, has declared that their
legislators will not resign unless all the opposition political parties form a
grand alliance. This is undoubtedly a convenient escape route for the MMA
to go back on their threat, but it is a rare opportunity for the government
to act. Since the grand alliance proposed by Hafiz Hussain Ahmed is not
possible as the PPP and some other ARD parties do not support the MMA in
the bill, the MMA will never resign.
Adbl Wahid Osman Belal from Karachi wrote, if the purpose is to
reach a consensus and conformity with the injunctions of the Quran and
Sunnah, the heavens will not fall. Instead of showing haste all parties
concerned should display a spirit of accommodation, cooperation,
magnanimity, patience, tolerance and understanding instead of making it a
point of prestige to score an advantage.
Oval episode kept echoing. Mohammad Aslam from Islamabad wrote,
Inzimam protested against the penalizing of the Pakistan team for ball
tampering by umpire Darrel Hair without any evidence. The ICC is now
reportedly considering a forensic examination of the ball to prove the
charge. Darrel Hair did not penalize the Pakistan team on the basis of any
forensic evidence. His action was entirely arbitrary and smacked of bias.
How then, can a subsequent examination of the ball justify the umpires
action? Is it not a ploy of the ICC Chairman to bail out his country mate?
Inzi protested because his team and the countrys honour were at stake. It is
now for the PCB to back him completely. The PCB should not hesitate to
withdraw from the ICC championship if any action is taken against
Inzimam.
113

David DSouza from Rawalpindi wrote, according to newspaper

reports of September 8, the ICC Chairman, Malcolm Speed, has clarified
that it was not entirely accurate to say that Pakistan will be cleared of
ball tampering charges simply because there was no video evidence. He
went on to add, if video evidence was the only criteria, taking the analogy
of crime, we would not be able to prove a lot of murders and half the jails
would be empty.
So do we see the writing on the wall? A clear direction for the chief
referee, Ranjan Madugulle, to follow in regard to Inzimams hearing later in
the month on charges of ball tampering, and bringing the game into
disrepute.
But isnt the above statement of the ICC Chairman is moral and legal
violation of all norms, considering that the matter is, so to speak, subjudice?
Isnt it about time that the PCB takes not only Darrell Hair, but now,
also Malcolm Speed to court? Or, are we still going to continue to be
diplomatic and let poor Inzimam suffer the consequences, and also bring
the country to shame, by getting a permanent label of cheats stuck to our
name?
Mehrin Klani from Islamabad wrote, I totally agree that we need to
promote Pakistans image as a friendly, anti-war, anti-terrorist and an allfor-peace country but to achieve that we dont have to stoop so low as to
have semi-naked women contesting on behalf of Pakistan.
The News with reference to Musharrafs remarks on curbing
extremism wrote, it is to be said that part of the responsibility for rising
intolerance, extremism and sectarianism lies with successive governments
The current government has been particularly disappointing because it is
continuously trying to appease the religious right, and has an unduly
antagonistic approach in dealing with progressive political elements.
Kamila Hyat condemned governments failure in check the
perpetration on injustice. It seems at times a kind of war has been
unleashed on ordinary people by those in positions of power, including
ministers and advisors, who attack them, all guns blazing. At two incidents
have recently come to light which highlight the extent to which these men
are willing to go to prove that they hold absolute power over their subjects
the citizens of Pakistan.

114

The incidents referred to were of Ghazal Shaheen, who passed her

MA examination and on return to her village was abducted along with her
mother by men belonging to higher castes. The other incident related to
abduction, beating and humiliation of a young journalist, Umar Soomro,
from Umerkot for filing stories against local feudal.
These stories are of course only a small sample of the contempt
with which those in power treat their own people. And the message has of
course seeped down through the ranks. The cases of police beating up people
or raping women in custody seem to increase each year The horrendous
atrocities committed against people unable to defend themselves indicates
those in power are indifferent to their plight.

CONCLUSION
Net outcome of a long foreign trip can be summed up in few lines.
Karzai accused Pakistan of cross-border terrorism in UNGA and neutralized
the projected impact of Musharrafs recent visit to Kabul.
Keenness for interaction with Indian leaders, called composite
dialogue has given birth to joint mechanism which will provide India yet
another platform to hurl accusations.
In America, he mostly indulged in self-projection. He succeeded in
convincing the US about his indispensability, as was evident from the
statement of Rice. But, Pakistan remains a frontline suspect.
There was no change in US policy in the context of Pakistans
interests. Bush made it clear that the US would strike inside Pakistan as and
when required. Musharrafs acceptance that lower ranks of defence forces
were vulnerable to extremism implied that Pakistans demonized bomb is
already in the hands of extremists.
28th September 2006

BLASPHEMER BENEDICT

115

Pope Benedict XVI denounced Islams concept of Jihad on 13 th

September and said harsh words about the concept of mankind given by the
last Prophet, Muhammad (PBUH). Muslim World reacted spontaneously and
Vatican issued an apology which in itself was condemnable.
Iran said apology was a good gesture but not enough. A senior
Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said that Pope Benedicts remarks
were an act of madness and the leader of the Catholic Church had disgraced
himself.
Musharraf called for ban on defamation of Islam. In his address to
General assembly he said: It is imperative to end racial and religious
discrimination against Muslims and to prohibit the defamation of Islam.
Bush said his country was not on war with Islam.
Turkey announced that there will be no change in Popes scheduled
visit. On 3rd October, two Turks hijacked Turkish airliner to protest against
Benedicts planned visit to Turkey.
Protest rallies were held all over the Muslim World. Muslims rulers
showed remarkable tolerance to Popes blasphemous remarks. However,
Muslim scholars and analysts did not digest the insult and responded
befittingly to Benedicts unscrupulous remarks.

BAD CHOICE
Benedict faltered in choosing a quote to support his argument as well
as in selecting the time for his holy sermon. He quoted a king of Middle
Ages whose successors threw the church out of statecraft. He raised a
sensitive issue at a time when the world was going through an
unprecedented period of violence and his statement could fan that further.
The fallout from Pope Benedict XVIs remarks on Tuesday, in which
he quoted a medieval Byzantine emperor talking extremely disparagingly
about the ethics of Islam, will be far-reaching and potentially disastrous
unless the pontiff makes an immediate retraction. The remarks were
astonishingly ill judged opined Jordan Times. How the highest Christian
authority on earth could be quoting such gibberish on Islam at such a time?

116

Did he think that if it came from his authoritative position, somehow

it would be less insulting than from a bunch of unknown Danish cartoonists?
The Popes theme on his talk was about the need to reconcile faith with
reason. An admirable thesis, certainly, and especially so at a time when
irrationalism couched in religious language is stirring strife and conflict
around the world.
But if the Holy See was casting about for historical examples, then
why turn to Islam? Perhaps he could have recounted the cautionary tale
of Galileo Galilee who was hounded by the Catholic Church for daring to
suggest that the earth was in fact not at the centre of the universe.
Or he could have pointed to the blood thirst of the witch-hunts
and the Inquisition. Perhaps he could even, had he been looking for an
example pertinent to our time, have examined what led one of his
predecessors to declare, out of the blue, a murderous holy war on Muslims
that came to be known as the Crusaders.
Instead, the pontiff chose to quote words that, while they will remind
millions of Muslims of the Crusades, they will only do so by affirming the
suspicion of many that that is exactly what the West is now engaged in
again. The Vatican needs to come out with a far better clarification of these
remarks than it has so far mustered. And fast.
James Zogby wrote, The 14th century source he cited was no angel,
and the period in which he ruled, sandwiched, as it was, between the bloody
Crusades and the equally bloody Inquisition could have provided Benedict
with enough material to make his point without resorting to a sweeping
mischaracterization of Islam.
Listening to or reading the poisonous utterances of Osama Bin
Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Musab al-Zarqawi or any of those who are
being called al-Qaedas second generation makes it clear that there is a
problem that Muslim must address But listening to Christian evangelists
such as Pat Robertson and a whole host of other preachers or Israels Rabbi
Oveida and that countrys other racist ideologues makes it clear that there
are problems all around.
M S Hasan from Islamabad diagnosed the cause of going wrong in
Holy Sees choice. There is also the issue of age which can sometimes
impair ones judgment and ability to think rationally, without giving

117

onto emotions and the temptation to play to the gallery, so to speak. Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) was the most magnanimous, generous, tolerant and
forgiving personality, this world has ever seen. In this context, we should all
forget and forgive the Pope and his remarks. Islam is above pettiness.
Tariq Ali was of the view that the pope had done it by design. The
Bavarian is a razor-sharp reactionary cleric. A man who organizes his own
succession to the Papacy with a ruthless purge of potential dissidents and
supervises the selection of Cardinals with great care leaves little to chance.
I think he knew what he was saying and why. Choosing a quote
from Manuel II Paleologos, not the most intelligent of the Byzantine rulers,
was somewhat disingenuous, especially on the eve of a visit to Turkey. He
could have found more effective quotes and closer to home. Perhaps it was
his unique tribute to Oriana Fallaci.
In a neo-liberal world suffering from environmental degradation,
poverty, hunger, repression, a planet of slums (in the graphic phrase of
Mike Davis), the Pope chooses to insult the founder of a rival faith.
Pope is a person who shuns dialogue and reconciliation. Philip Pull
Ella reported that last February, Benedict effectively beheaded the
Vatican department for dialogue with Islam by removing its president and
merging the department with the Vaticans culture ministry. Archbishop
Michael Fitzgerald, one of the Churchs most experienced hands at dialogue
with Muslims, was sent to Cairo in what was widely seen a demotion. This
amply proves that the Pope, like the Christian worlds political leadership
led by Bush is also not inclined towards any dialogue with Islamic
fundamentalists.
That was why the Vatican tried to ignore the reaction of Muslims.
Karen Armstrong observed, the Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim
outrage occasioned by the Popes words, claiming that the Holy Father had
simply intended to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the
other religions and culture, and obviously also towards Islam.
But Popes good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam
is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings
together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish
cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists would

118

ordinarily make common cause with the Pope. Yet on the subject of Islam
they are in full agreement.
The Popes remarks were dangerous, and will convince many
more Muslims that the West is incurably Islamophobic. Jesus had told
his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the
Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the
Middle East that Islam first became known in the West as the religion of the
sword.
The Pope has expressed deep regrets over the reaction of Muslims
to his derogatory remarks. Once again, this is a clever play with words
opined Ishaque Qureshi from Islamabad. His deep regrets should be over
his remarks, not over the reaction that naturally followed Secondly, he
quoted harsh remarks of a past emperor against the Holy Prophet (PBUH).
Usually this is done when one concurs to some degree with the statement
being referred to. There could be no other logical explanation for this. On
this count he has failed the Muslims.
Khaleej Times wrote, untenable is the lame argument by the Vatican
that the Popes remarks have been misinterpreted or misunderstood by the
worlds 1.6 billion Muslims. Anyone who can read the simple English
translation or its original would have no difficulty in making sense of the
Popes deeply flawed and disturbing indictment of Islam. After all, there
is little ambiguity in simple adjectives and words like evil and inhuman to
describe Islam, as the Pope did cleverly quoting a Byzantine emperor.
By using such unacceptable and stereotypical epithets with regard to
Islam, the Pope spoke like neocon zealots of the US right. In fact, this is
part of an increasing tendency around the world to stigmatize and distort
Islam with words like Islamic fascism, Muslim fascists and Islamic terror
etc.
Which is why its not easy to accept the qualified apology issued by
the Pope yesterday and forgive and forget the whole unsavoury business. His
explanation that they were not his views and that the speech was only
an invitation to respectful dialogue is self-defeating. You do not initiate
respectful dialogue with disrespecting words, do you?

BY DESIGN

119

Popes comment against Islam goes to prove that West is

engaged in a war against Islam, opined Ali Ashraf Khan. This utterance
in a very planned manner goes to prove that Pope Benedict XVI may have
thought it timely to fire a shot to show his allegiance with Churchs dogmaCrusade against Islam and blaming Jihad and sword as Islamic sins in a bid
to give the West an excuse for suppressing Muslims by depicting them as
terrorists.
By quoting Emperor Manual II, who is known to have been under the
threat of Turks, and in doing so, Pope was trying to fan hatred against
Islam perhaps in a bid to avoid his trip to Turkey, which might be haunting
him to see Constantinople, once the seat of power of Byzantine Dynasty
under Muslim rule and finding it difficult to explain his negative attitude
towards Turkeys entering the European Union.
At this point in time when George W Bush is finding it difficult to
escape the wrath of the people at large, that Pope Benedict XVI has also
tried to jump into the fire bandwagon against Islam with such utterances,
which not only lack proper knowledge of Islamic history and its great
contribution in the development of present world. It was clear from the
moment Benedict XVIs name was out as the new Pope that would be a
hardliner. Lets be very clear about it: what he said was nothing spectacular
from him or the Catholic Church: this is their accepted pinion about Islam.
The fact remains that their Islamophobia dates back to the time of
Crusades, and is entwined with their age-old anti-Semitism. Some of the
early Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the
Jewish communities along the Rhine Valley.
If one reads the following extract from Pope Urban II address, there
should be no difficulty in tracing the actual roots of terrorism and then
to fix responsibility for all these crimes against humanity My most
beloved brethren: urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God
chief bishop and prelate over the whole world Although, O sons of God,
you have promised more firmly than ever to keep peace among yourself and
to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for
you to do The Pope further motivated them to go on Crusade by saying
this to his audience: All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or
in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I
grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a
disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should
120

conquer a people, which has faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious
with the name of Christ!
Pope Benedict XVI should have at least dwelled into the history
of Vatican in relation to Crusades before blaming Islam in such a heinous
manner. Almost 1000 years ago, before al-Qaeda decided to wage Jihad
against the West, the head of the Christian church instigated his followers to
fight against Muslims promising them remission of all sins and a straight
journey into paradise, what a disgraceful way of blaming their own sins on
others and calling Islam as fascist, while hiding their own real face.
Why, all our Muslim rulers are apologetic about the Western tirade
against Islam in one form or the other. Islam is a religion of peace and
history has proved that Holy War is not an Islamic invention.
Shireen M Mazari saw no room in popes remarks for
misinterpretation. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not
and you shall not be condemned. Forgive and you shall be forgiven
Chapter 6, The Gospel according to St Luke. It is unfortunate that the Pope
did not recall these words of Christ, from his Sermon on the Mount to his
twelve chosen Disciples, before he cited a Byzantine emperors
condemnation of Islam and its Prophet (PBUH) Having read the text of
his speech in full, there is little room for misinterpretation in the manner
in which the Byzantine emperors quote was used that is, to support the
Popes concept of Islam.
The so-called apology is not related to the content of the Papal
assertions, only on the fact that these assertions had caused pain and anger to
the Muslims. So effectively, the Pope is standing by what he stated. It is
interesting that he forgot to recall the violence of the Crusades and the
Inquisition.
There are enough problems within his own Church for him to
discourse on rather than holding forth on Islam. It is difficult to recall any
Muslim preacher, no matter how extremist, holding forth on Christian
doctrinal issues in a condemnatory manner.
Clearly the present Pope has a more political agenda or at least
he seems to be unwillingly giving religious cover to the political anti-Islam
Bush agenda. Fortunately, the Muslim leadership has responded
forcefully

121

Sami Moubayed opined that Pope has joined the campaign of

insulting and offending Muslims. It is unbelievable that we still have the
energy to dig up these ancient arguments, use them to arouse emotions, riot
like madmen, and foster hatred in both communities. It is equally
repugnant that the Pope would make such a miscalculated remark,
knowing perfectly well how much disgust it would cause in Muslim
communities around the world.
More dangerous than what the Pope is saying, however, is the
eulogy being made in the Western press to Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci,
who died last week in Florence. A rude woman by all accounts, Fallaci once
interviewed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini shortly after the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in February 1979.
She was annoyed by him forcing her to cover her head with a chador
Provoking him with sensitive questions about politics and religion, she
then famously asked: how do you swim in a chador? An infuriated
Khomeini snapped back: Our customs are none of your business. If you do
not like Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it. She said: Thats very
kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I am going to take off this stupid,
medieval rag right now.
The pope apologized for his mistake. He said he had not intended to
offend the Muslims. Fallaci did not apologize. She died happy that she had
been offending Muslims and insulting them for 30 years. And in bidding
her farewell, the Western world is hailing her as a symbol of freedom of
speech.
M Abdal Hameed from Lahore wrote, the Vatican has joined the
clash of civilizations. The Pope could not be so nave as not to have realized
the implication of what he was saying. And nor could the people working for
him fail to anticipate the strong reaction from the Muslim World.
The war is already on in the US. We may forgive President Bush for
inadvertently uttering the word crusade. But what the Vatican certainly did
not realize was that what it said could well make life difficult for
Christian minorities in Muslim countries.
Jyoti Malhotra wrote, the war on terror has just claimed its most
celebrated victim: Pope Benedict XVI. Dont get me wrong, nothings
happened to His Holiness, God bless him. But his remarks on how you will

122

find things only evil and human in Islam, via a 14 th century Byzantine
emperor, has marked him out, at least in the East, as agent who deliberately
weighed into the whole terror debate with the full force of
Christendom.
Truth is the much-misunderstood Benedict XVI knew exactly
what he was saying. He picked the timing of his speech well. Five years
and a few days after 9/11, when the whole world seemed to be revisiting the
paranoia and the terror of our times since New Work, the Pope spoke his
mind.
Both Bush and Benedict XVI chose their lines carefully. They
wanted to tell the rest of the world that they, in the West, the repositories of
the logic and reason and dissent and debate and democracy, would go to the
ends of the Earth to protect their quality of life against the havoc and
insecurity wreaked, for example, by terrorism.
They chose the clash among civilizations as their preferred,
Biblical metaphor. To think that the countries this side of the Suez, dont
have enough to deal with anyway, their palimpsest of religions and cultures
overlaid with dominating patriarchies. But instead of debating these
repressive religiosities for a thousand and one nights with major, moderate
opinion-makers in the Muslim World, the western world has chosen to
display their stock of shock and awe in Both Baghdad and Beirut.
The Pope knew what he was doing when he was weighing in against
Islam, back in the mother country some days ago. Perhaps Benedict XVI
should have remembered what another German son of the soil, Goethe,
once said: When ideas fail, words come in very handy.
This is a twenty-first century version of the Crusades, observed Ikram
Sehgal. The Pope gave credence to distorted beliefs based on
perceptions than on facts Since 9/11, persecution of Muslims across the
board has escalated in real earnest, the Pope should have been careful in
getting involved.
Even the words of Pope Benedicts public apology were carefully
crafted, regretting the Muslim reaction to his words but not regretting the
spoken words themselves. Even moderate Muslim resentment which
condemned (and still condemns) 9/11 feel that Muslims are being

123

deliberately targeted for religion alone, a twenty-first century version of

Crusades.
Demonizing the adversary is part of the strategy of the Crusaders. AlAhram Weekly wrote, the US war on so-called terror coincides with
another war waged by Western officials, artists, writers and clerics against
Islam and Muslims. It is wrong to categorize it as another war, because all
these, including the Pope, are prongs of the same Crusades.
The 9/11 attacks gave the US the pretext it needed to attack
Afghanistan and demolish Iraq. The onslaught on Arabs and Muslims needs
justification. This is what lies behind current attempts to demonize
Islam. Just as wars were being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and
Lebanon, the Western mainstream media waged its own war on Islam and its
prophet.
Bush once said he would launch a crusade Earlier this year a
Danish newspaper published offensive caricature of the Prophet (PBUH)
Pope Benedict XVI finally joined the charade The Times, not to be
outdone, said that Arabs needed to hear this message from the pope The
followers of Islam are being accused of being genetically violent and of
embracing a religion that spread by violence. These are false accusations.
Everyone knows that.
Niranjan Desai observed, at first, Vatican representatives claimed that
the Popes remarks were misconstrued and were not intended as an antiIslamic broadside, but were aimed at the West especially its tendency to
separate faith and reason. Later the defence was that any criticism of the
Popes remarks violated the Popes right to freedom of expression. Finally,
mindful of the extreme reaction to his remarks, the Pope expressed regret at
any offence he might have caused. It is significant, however, to note that
he has not retracted his statement.
Pope Benedict is a shrewd and ruthless ultra conservative
operative whose election as successor to Pope John Paul II came as a
surprise even to many seasoned Vatican observers; he is referred to as the
Rottweiler by his detractors precisely for these qualities. His track record
amply shows that he is a man who is not remotely afraid of controversy and
that he has very little sympathy or imagination for the other religious faiths.
His description of Buddhism (before he became the Pope) as auto-erotic
spiritually even today offends all Buddhists.
124

The Popes remarks have also not been seen in the larger context of
the Wests war on Islamic terrorism There have been a growing
demonization of Islam and a gratuitous reawakening of the most
entrenched and self-serving of western prejudices that Muslims have a
unique proclivity to violence.
Tick Kuhn quoted the example of Australia. John Howard has used
the Popes association of Islam with violence as another opportunity to
target Muslims, criticizing them for overreacting. This fits into a pattern.
Since July 2005, his conservative alliance Coalition Government has been
explicitly generating hostility to Muslims in Australia.
Howard raised concerns about the integration of Muslim migrants
and their acceptance of Australian values. As usual, the nature of values was
left vague. He focuses on tolerance, attitudes to women or democratic beliefs
of a small group of Muslim migrants is an appeal to prejudice. Much
higher numbers of Australian-born, Anglo-Celtic Christians have
bigoted attitudes towards and even physically assault people they regard as
different; harass or rape women or, more genteelly, oppose womens right to
control their own fertility; and support the authoritarian right.
Explicit targeting of Muslims in Australia indicates that the
government is worried about its prospects and the declining effectiveness of
its racist appeal. Particularly if the economy falters, in the run up to the next
federal election, John Howard will stoke up anti-Muslim racism as an
issue that is good for it.

ANGRY RESPONSE
`
Muslims were enraged by Benedicts statement and predictably
reacted angrily. But, despite the gross provocation, they strengthened their
argument with reason unlike the blasphemer pope who, while highlighting
the importance of reason in faith, forgot to bear in his mind the point he
wanted to make and selected words of disgruntled king of the dark ages.
Tariq Ali opined that the reaction in the Muslim World was
predictable, but depressingly insufficient. Islamic civilization cannot be
reduced to the power of the sword. It was the vital bridge between the
Ancient world and the European Renaissance. It was the Catholic Church

125

that declared War on Islam in the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily. Mass
expulsions, killings, forced conversions and a vicious Inquisition to police
the cleansed Europe and the reformist Protestant enemy.
The fury against heretics led to the burning of Cathar villages in
Southern France. Jews and Protestants alike were granted refuge by the
Ottoman Empire, a refuge they would have been denied had Istanbul
remained Constantinople. Slaves, obey your human masters. For Christ is
the real master you serve said Paulin establishing a collaborationalist
tradition which fell on its knees before wealth and power and which reached
its apogee during the Second World War where the leadership of the
Church collaborated with fascism and did not speak up against the
judeocide or the butchery on the Eastern Front. Islam does not need pacifist
lessons from this Church.
Violence was and is not the prerogative of any single religion as the
continuing Israeli occupation of Palestine demonstrates. During the Cold
War the Vatican, with rare exceptions, supported the imperial wars; the
US Cardinal Spellman was a leading warrior in the battles to destroy
Communism during the Korean and Vietnam wars. The Vatican later
punished the liberation theologists and peasant-priests in Latin America.
Some were ex-communicated.
Not all Christians joined in the crusades old and new. When Pope
Urban launched the crusades the Norman king of Sicily refused to send
troops in which Sicilian Muslims would be compelled to fight against
Muslims in the East Today most Catholic prelates in the West (including
the Bavarian in the Vatican) and politicians of Centre-Left/Right worship
the real Pope who lives in the White House and tells them when black is
white.
Nizamuddin Dehlvi from Jaranwala wrote, The Pope has not only
shown his ignorance of our faith and history but a dark mentality
reminiscent of the Middle Ages. His words are deeply disturbing to the
Muslims all over the world and have the potential to widen an already
existent political rift between Islam and Christianity
Such a quotation has no room in todays multi-religious world. It is
absolutely wrong to connect violence with Islam, which is religion of peace.
People like Osama and Zarqawi are the product of the injustices of the US

126

foreign policy. The Pope seems to have very little understanding of Islam
and its history.
Ahmed Sheikh said, I believe our columnists of the Islamic World
should show their contempt by the use of ridicule, which will be very
effective in the medieval Vatican. Remember a word of ridicule dishonours
more than a word of dishonour. I think the Pope should always be referred
to as His Naziness instead of His Holiness. He was, after all, a member
of the Hitlers Youth Force.
It is Christianity that preaches violence not Islam, argued Israr-ulHaque. Let us turn to the Bible and see how far such a radical rejection of
religious motivation has been embedded in the text of the Bible itself.
Let us see how far the doctrine of war and peace has propounded in the
Bible
It is the religion of Christianity, generally thought to be a religion of
peace and love, which much more than the religion of Islam, has legitimized
and glorified the cult of violence. The old Testament of Bible in its chapter
20, verses 16 and 17 glorifies war and sanctifies the complete
annihilation of adversaries thus: But in the cities of the people which thy
Lord and thy God doeth give for inheritance thou shalt save alive nothing
that breaths and further but thou shalt utterly destroy them namely the
Hittites, Agonists.
The above Biblical commencement not only call for complete
annihilation of adversaries but also rules out any possibility of coexistence
of the non-christens with the christens. The Bible also exhorts to sell
garments to buy arms.
It was the Pope whocalled upon the Christians to wage bloody
crusades against the Muslims not only to retrieve Jerusalem but also to
destroy the evils of Islam. This was for the first time that faith-impelled
large-scale violence and bloodshed took place as ordained by the Pope
himself. No wonder that this faith-impelled violence and bloodshed soon
gave way to the Inquisition-based violence and bloodshed.
As against this violence prone teachings and traditions of violence
and bloodshed the Islamic jihad as ordained, has to be waged strictly
under the conditions clearly spelled and has to be conducted in a
comprehensively controlled manner. Runs the Divine commandment:

127

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits,
Allah does not love transgression. (II: 190)
The Islamic World once again finds itself under the siege by the
western powers. Whereas the previous crusades by the Christian powers
were fought on the asking of the Popes. The present so-called war on terror,
which is deep down war on Islam, is being fought by President Bush as he
himself claims on the asking of God Himself. Bush would like the world to
believe that it was God who asked him to attack Afghanistan and later
Iraq.
The present US administration, dominated by the neocon hawks in
pursuit of the US National Security has embarked upon the remaking of the
Middle East, to begin with and ultimately the entire Islamic World, if
necessary by force of arms, according to the US values and interest. In
remaking the Islamic World, they want to superimpose a life that is not
compatible with Islam.
A columnist in the US conservative journal National Review held out
a more dire threat to Islam; we should invade their countries, kill their
leaders and convert the Muslims to Christianity. Reverend Franklin
Graham has said, Islam is a very evil and wicked religion. Daniel Pipes,
appointed by President Bush as director of the Institute of Peace has said
that the main objective of the war on terror is to reform Islam into a
moderate, modern and pro-American religion. He further insists that Islam in
America must be an American Islam. By militants Islam Pipes means Islam
which seeks to enforce Sharia, which in his opinion is contrary to modern
practices and thoughts.
Violence is not only preached but also accepted by Christianity, said
Zakria. Using the terms jihad and holy war, the Pope said: Violence was
incompatible with the nature of God How does his vie reconcile with
the central Christian doctrine of crucifixion, which is based on gruesome
violence?
The doctrine claims that Jesus, the only begotten son of God was
tortured to death in order to redeem the sins of mankind. Commonsense
tells us that God has sufficient powers to save his son or anyone from such
torment. But he deliberately did not; otherwise there would have been no
crucifixion. Therefore, the violence inflicted on Jesus was part of the Divine

128

scheme, intrinsically linking violence to the central doctrine of Pauline

Christianity.
The God permitted such ghastly violence on his son, then violence
could not have been contrary to his nature as suggested by the Pope. It
seems that the Pope has overlooked his central religious doctrine from
the New Testament that is based on bloodshed. Furthermore, the Old
Testament has ample examples of indiscriminate violence, with explicit
reference to killing everyone including women and children.
The Pope has made a fundamental error in terms of theology
because, it is irrational and impossible to try and devolve into the nature of
God, as the created human beings cannot comprehend its creator, the
uncreated. All we can recognize is the existence of God.
Everyone is asking why did the Pope turn a blind eye to the
Christians right under his nose? Like the Catholic Tony Blair, he claims
that he had divine guidance/inspiration to invade and murder Iraqis. Yet the
infallible Pope did not have the will and the moral courage to actively
restrain and oppose the fallible Tony Blair from murdering innocent people
in distant lands, after lecturing about how he deplores violence.
Now, how does crucifixion work in terms of guidance for the
followers? Because the notion of killing an innocent man (Jesus) for the
crimes of others is diametrically opposed to the natural concept of justice,
which dictates that we only punish the guilty party? Pope referred to
reason, logic but his fundamental doctrine of crucifixion is irrational.
It could be argued that crucification is an example of some kind of
human sacrifice that is seen in some of the ancient religions and it is alien to
monotheism. In the context of the current political situation, the event
could also be viewed as a suicide operation, where Jesus willingly
sacrifices himself to clean the sins of mankind! Let us not forget the
feminist, who could also argue that if sacrificing a man was sufficient for
both genders, then surely women are lesser being according to the
Catholic/Christian doctrine.
The Pope used the derogatory and bigoted remarksimplying
that only Islam endorsed forced conversion and only the Muslims have
done this in the past neither is true. Islam forbids forced conversion and
the Muslims have never practiced this in the past. This type of propaganda

129

sounds like the words of a Medieval Pope who waged the bloody crusades
and kept Europe in the dark for centuries.
Why did the Pope not lead by example, by self-criticizing
Christianitys violent past and present before commenting on the other
faiths? During the Bosnian war when the Christian Serbs were raping and
pillaging the Bosnians for simply being Muslims, the Vatican and the Pope
was hypocritically silent.
It is well-known that the Vatican collaborated with the Nazis.
Adolph Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic, he was raised as a
Catholic, and later as head of Germany continued to affirm his Christian
faith. Talking about the Nazis, the Pope in his earlier years served the Nazi
regime.
The official line now is: he was forced to join the Hitler Youth at the
age of 14, as was required of young Germans of the time, but he was not an
enthusiastic member. However, we will never know how enthusiastic the
Pope was as the Nazis lost the war if they had won, we would have seen
a different Pope Benedict altogether.
If the apology was genuine it would present another dilemma,
as words of the Pope are infallible according to Vatican and the millions
of its followers. So how can the infallible Pope even admit to making a
mistake and hence apologize, especially to those infidels who are outside the
fold of Christianity.
Burhanuddin Hasan wrote, Pope Benedict in a speech in his home
town in Germany called jihadi Islams justification for terrorism. Here the
Pope has conveniently glossed over the crusades which Christians fought
against Muslims under the leaderships of popes. He has also overlooked the
genocide of six million Jews by Hitler in his own country of Germany.
Adele M Stan said Benedicts statement in itself was an act of
violence. At best, the address delivered by the pontiff to what the Vatican
calls representatives of science at Germanys University of Regensburg is
an act of mischief rooted in Chauvinism. I cannot see how any Catholic of
good-will one who values peace over war, or favours compassion over
condemnation can accept the Popes actions in delivering such remarks
as in any way divinely inspired, especially if one applies to Benedict the
very standard he sought to illustrate with his once-removed insult of Islam.

130

To throw a rhetoric bomb such as that the Pope tossed into the
teeming cities of the Muslim World is to commit an act tantamount to
violence. It appears to be a taunt designed to provoke a response, and
provoke one it did. In the ensuing uproar, the Pope has issued a string of
explanations for his comments, as well as what can only be viewed a nonapology apology (Im sorry youre so upset).
Developing in our own time has been the idea of a current clash of
civilizations between the West and the Islamic World Add to these
profound differences a recent history of Western colonial domination, the
resulting economic domination by the West, as well as Americas present
assertion via bombs and occupation of Western ideals as universal and
superior to all others, and the recipe for worldwide Muslim rage is
complete.
The irony of the Popes anecdote, of course, is its focus on the spread
of Islam through violence, and the omission of the spread of Christianity by
the same means During the 15 years between 1980 and 1995, the
United States engaged in 17 military operations in the Middle East, all
directed against Muslims.
Dr Syed Javed Hussain observed, the tone and phraseology and
apology tendered by the office of the Pope makes it extremely doubtful
whether the Pope had called for dialogue between religions in good
faith: if it were so he should not have been so provocative in the first place
and secondly he should not have questioned the understanding of his victims
that he did not mean this or that.
The Pope must have been carried away by his proselytizing spirit
to compromise his common sense to such an imprudent level as to call in
question the faith of over a billion peaceful people while authenticating the
saying of king whose own religious credentials and scholarships are open to
question: truth does not gather authenticity from authority, it gets this from
erudition, learning and integrity of a scholar.
The Popes vitriol against Islam is not without its ramifications. He
has already created a lot of bad blood among peaceful Christian-Islamic
communities living together all across the globe Does the pontiff
understand that a great disservice has been done to humanity in the name
of truth and peace?

131

Memona Sajjad analysed the issue in some detail. One needs to

consider the Benedict XVI Papacys silence over the injustice, oppression
and naked violence Western leaders unleash on Muslim lands with that
inspired signal from God. Looking back, it was the Roman Catholic
Church which, long believing that He who takes up the sword must perish
with the sword, sponsored relentless warfare in the Crusades. In 1099 when
Palestine fell to the Crusaders, the victorious holy armies brutally attacked
non-combatants who had taken refuge in the holy places, not leaving even a
single hostage alive. We all know how the Spanish clergy, monitoring
planned genocide, purged remnants of Muslim civilization from Spain. We
see the Western civilization, with all the thrust on peace and pacifism that
Christianity has, at the head of all major confrontations and man-made
devastation the world has witnessed; the Crusades, the World Wars, the
ruthless colonization of lesser people, the wiping out of an entire race of
American aborigines (Red Indians), and now the Holy War on Terror.
The essence of Islamic Jihadic philosophy is that it sees force and
strength as a weapon to resist and diminish the influence of evil, and to
uphold and stand up for the good and true. When you have something
valuable and worthwhile, when you have the Elixir and the panacea for the
world with you, you are morally bound to share it, to spread its cult in order
to beckon mankind towards the progression out of darkness towards the
light. You cannot sit and watch vicious, malevolent attempts to snuff it out
and dampen it down, because you like its beauty, believe in it, love it, value
it. Therefore, the readiness to defend it and expound it is a natural part of
being Muslim; therefore, Jihad.
By making this concept of physical struggle for the most worthy
cause a part of its religious fundamentalists, Islam recognizes the
relationship between ideology/morality and strength, and sanctifies it. In
fact, it elevates this struggle to the highest virtue, thus instilling the desire
and the readiness for absolute sacrifice for the worthiest cause. This is what
creates the values of selflessness and sacrifice, courage and conviction that
engender true, meaningful and enduring greatness and heroism the
impregnable spirit of the selfless believer. This creation of the mujadid
character is the formula for change for better. It is this creation of heroism
and the readiness to prove it through acts of sacrifice that makes human
effort change the Old Order and makes the peace of the Moral Order
prevail.

132

And it is this realistic, active moral vision of Islam that creates the
idea of the Holy War a far cry from secular warfare that destroys and
oppresses, subjugates and terribly exacts. Strength thus becomes virtue,
as it aims at creating moral order, stemming chaos, anarchy and suppression,
recovering human values out of the quagmire of moral chaos, reinstating
respect for human life that comes with a belief in One God (tauhid). This is
the Holy War that does not sit and watch human blood being lost in vain to
vile, mean primordial instincts; that waters the flowering of a new era with
its own life and blood.
A comparison is eye opening. Hold in the balance the Crusades
mentality that cannot even draw a line between combatant and noncombatant as opposed to the Prophets (SAW) army who fought war as an
act of faith, careful not to blemish their cause with unfair excesses It was
this spirit at the heart of the Muslim ideology that made the struggles
Muslim armies waged throughout their history outstandingly shorn of the
vile practices of war.
When, in Umars (RA) tenure, Muslims in Syria had to leave under
pressure of the Romans, the Christian citizens came into the streets in
mourning, shedding tears of sorrow. The Bishop swore saying: I swear by
this Sacred Book, if we were ever given a chance to choose our own leaders,
we will choose these Arabs.
On the contrary, ideologies and systems that outlaw the use of
force show the gapping loophole of such an approach in the arena of
implementation. It doesnt work, leaving people scot-free to use whatever
means can guarantee an easy victory. It is this silence about the right to use
force that leads to all becoming fair in love and war, as religion has not
defined the motives and parameters for you. A Western war officer writes on
effective war strategies: When bombing, the victims must necessarily
include women and children and other non-combatants, for, the strategy of
warfare dictates that only then can the enemy be intimidated, pressurized
and forced to surrender as soon as possible.'
The distinction is clearer than can ever be explained, the concept of
Holy War, when seen unbiased in its purity is sacred. It is moral vision
translated effectively into practical terms. When the prefix holy is
removed, war is reduced to brute-force, naked barbarism, hegemony, greed,
lust, devouring fanaticismand an unholy mission for the extinction of the
lesser and the unwanted.
133

Jihad must not be disowned simply because we, with our narrowness
of vision can no more see it for what it is. Disassociating oneself from it is
dangerous, cruel, blind, foolish, careless, and criminal. It should also not
be disowned, like the rulers of Muslim World, for want of the courage or
means to wage it and instead seek refuge in enlightened moderation or to
seek soft image.
Yes, Mr Pope, one of Islams great contributions was to infuse
strength and earthly pragmatism into the spirituality of religious
doctrine to make it viable. And by God, it was monumental achievement.
That is one reason why Islam is strength, and strength in that virtue It is
the only religion that makes social activism and the willingness to physically
struggle for it a part of its very fundamentals. It is the only religion that can
see the role of religion not in the hermits humble hut and the cave dwelling
of a sage or a Christ altar, but in such secular arenas as the court of law and
the battlefield as well.
Perhaps that is what my Beloved Prophet (SAW) has the most
enduring legacy religious and secular than any other religious figure.
That is why Islam is no sterile spirituality but a vital, all-encompassing
Code of Life. And that is why Shaw said that if any faith had the capacity to
survive till the end of time, it would be Islam.
S M Hali reproduced some comments of prudent persons in the
Christian and Jewish worlds:
E J Dionne: The irony is that the Pontiffs comments came in a
lecture, which was to defend the rationality of faith and God. The
Pope made a big mistake, creating problems for himself, his
church and the West.
Madeline Bunting: Pope Benedict is being portrayed as a nave, shy
scholar who, only 18 months into his papacy has stirred up
unprecedented controversy. Pope Benedict XVI deeply offended
Buddhists with a callous remark. The current anger of Muslims is
comparable to the anger and disappointment felt by Jews after his
visit to Auschwitz in May. Given his own involvement in the Hitler
Youth movement as a boy, and his Auschwitz address, in which he
implied that Jews were themselves bit players bystanders at their
own extermination.

134

 Gwynne Dyer: Pope Benedicts comments about Islam should be

weighed in the context of earlier statements and actions. After 9/11
attacks five years ago, the Catholic leader told Vatican Radio that the
history of Islam contains a tendency of violence. Just before he
became Pope last year, Benedict declared that Turkey should not be
allowed into the European Union because its Islamic culture is
incompatible with Europes Christian culture.
Uri Avnery: There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to
impose Islam on the Jews. Under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain
enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere
else until almost our time. Every honest Jew who knows the history of
his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which
has protected the Jews for fifty generations, While the Christian world
persecuted the Jews and tried many times by the sword to get them
to abandon their faith.
Uri Avnery had also said that the struggle between the emperors
and the popes played a central role in European history and divided the
peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some emperors dismissed or expelled a
pope; some popes dismissed or excommunicated an emperor. One of the
emperors, Henry IV, walked to Canossa, standing for three days barefoot in
the snow in front of the popes castle, until the pope deigned to annul his
excommunication.
But there were times when emperors and popes lived in peace with
each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present
pope, Benedict XVI, and the present emperor, George Bush II, there
exists a wonderful harmony. The recent speech by the pope, which aroused
a world-wide storm, went well with Bushs crusade against Islamofascism,
in the context of the clash of civilizations.
Gary Younge wrote, we should not be in denial that some young
Muslims have become attracted to extremism and fundamentalism in recent
years, but nor should we be in denial about why that should be. Muslims did
not invent terrorism, nor did they introduce it to this country. Indeed, as long
as Britain has occupied foreign lands, it has been vulnerable to sporadic acts
of violence on its own soil The war (in Iraq) didnt invent
fundamentalism; nor did it introduce it into Britain. But it has clearly
exacerbated it.

135

RECONCILIATORY STANCE
Some quarters adopted reconciliatory approach while rejecting Popes
remarks unequivocally. Arab News urged for dialogue despite popes
blasphemous act. Perhaps the best response is for the Muslim World to rise
above the occasion. Those who are calling for the cancellation of the
Popes visit to Turkey in November this year his first official visit to a
Muslim country are simply misguided and wrong.
On the contrary, Jews, Christians and Muslims must leverage this
incident and this visit by redoubling their efforts in interfaith dialogue and to
dispel misconceptions about each others faiths. In this respect, the visit
assumes an even greater importance, and let us hope the Sheikh-ul-Islam in
Ankara takes the opportunity to generate the spirit of dialogue between
Islam and Catholicism. Pope had claimed the same that he intended to
initiate inter-faith dialogue.
Essa bin Mohammed al-Zedjail urged Muslims to accept their failings.
The irony is, and that really made things worse, that such damaging
remarks were made by a man at the helm of the Vatican, somebody
supposed to have a clear understanding of Islam and Muslims and one who
always calls for a dialogue between religions and the necessity to renounce
violence.
Ironically, Islam has been seen and interpreted by the West
through the conduct of some Muslims who misused religion as a means of
achieving their objectives and goals. This misunderstanding has increased
the gap between Islam and the West, particularly after the attacks of 9/11,
which has put Islam and violence in a single basket despite the fact that
Islam is a religion of harmony, peace and pure love.
Obviously, we must confess that as Muslims we have to shoulder a
major part of the responsibility for such incidents, as we have not been
able to introduce the real picture of Islam to the West and have let others
paint an unreal image of our religion.
Let us admit that we have turned a blind eye to our
responsibilities as responsible Muslims. Whenever someone insults Islam
we suddenly wake up to strongly resist and denounce in anger and then go
back to a deep slumber.

136

Europe needs to correct it perceptions through dialogue, opined Tariq

Ramadan. The unquestionable sincere love and reverence Muslims have for
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) notwithstanding, we are well aware how
certain groups or governments manipulate crises of this kind as a safety
valve for both their restive populations and their political agenda.
In fact, mass protest characterized primarily by uncontrollable
outpouring of emotion which in the process ends up providing a living
proof that Muslims cannot engage in reasonable debate and that verbal
aggression and violence are more the rule than exception.
The whole exercise was rather elliptical, lacking in clarity, superficial
and even a bit clumsy, but was it an insult for which formal apology should
be demanded? Is it either wise or just for Muslims to take offence at the
content of the quote simply because the Pope chose it while ignoring
daily questions they faced for the last five years on the meaning of
jihad and the use of force.
Pope Benedict XVI is a man of his times, and the questions he asks
of Muslims are those of the day: questions that can and must be answered
clearly, with solid arguments. To start with, we must not accept the jihad
be translated as holy war. Our priority should be to explain the principles
of legitimate resistance and of Islamic ethics in conflict situations, not to
encourage people to protest violently against the accusation that they believe
in a violent religion.
In taking up the question of faith and reason, and in emphasizing the
privileged relationship between the Greek rationalist tradition and the
Christian religion, the Pope attempts to set out a European identity that
would be Christian by faith and Greek by philosophical reason. Islam, which
apparently has no such relationship with reason, would thus be foreign to the
European identity that has been built atop this heritage. A few years ago, the
then Cardinal Ratzinger set forth his opposition to the integration of
Turkey into Europe on similar basis.
Muslims must, above all, respond to; they must challenge a reading
of the history of European thought from which the role of Muslim
rationalism is erased, in which the Arab-Muslim contribution would be
reduced to mere translation of the great works of the Greece and Rome. The
selective memory so easily forgets the decisive contributions of
rationalist Muslim thinkers
137

Neither Europe nor the West can survive if we continue to attempt to

define ourselves by excluding, and by distancing ourselves from the other
from Islam, from the Muslims whom we fear. Perhaps what Europe
needs most today is not a dialogue with other civilizations, but true
dialogue with itself.
A Razzak Loya from Karachi opined that there was nothing new in
Benedicts act. I feel that Muslims the world over are reacting to the
blunder. Human history is littered with insults against faiths as old as the
faith itself. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) suffered harsher treatments in his
own home town and among his own clan But forbearance was the virtue
of the Messenger of Allah.
Khaleej Times wrote, indeed, in saying he is very sorry that his
reproduction of a Byzantine emperors take on Islam offended most of the
worlds 1.6 billion Muslims, he did not accept that he was wrong to quote
it in the first place.
At a time when there is a growing tendency to link international
terror with Islam and the gulf between the Christian West and Muslim World
is at its widest, one would expect respected religious figures like the Pope
to bridge the chasm, not deepen it.
Muslim World would do well to accept the pontiffs explanation
in good faith and move on. What can be looked forward to is renewed
effort to respect sensitivities on both sides. The Popes case now should
concentrate on rebuilding a bridge that he, wittingly or unwittingly, helped
reduce to dust.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal put the issue in right perspective by recalling the
circumstances in which the Byzantine emperor wrote his views which were
quoted by the Pope. This narrative helps in understanding the worth of the
remarks and the reasons for the Pope to select these golden words.
The little-known emperor, whom the Pope has chosen to call
erudite, was anything but erudite; he was a closed-minded emperor of an
empire that was falling apart and certainly no friend of Islam and Muslims
whom he saw as the worst enemies of his empire. Held prisoner by the
Ottomans for a while, he saw his empire crumbling and witnessed the siege
to his imperial capital, Constantinople, by the Turks. He attempted to stir
emotions against Islam and Muslims in 1399 in order to seek help to protect

138

his falling empire. He traveled to Rome, Paris, and London to get help from
his brethren in faith in his life-long mission to fight against Islam. He signed
a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans, agreed to pay tribute to the Ottoman
sultan, and died on July 21, 1425.
The Pope invoked the words of the emperor to serve as the
standing point of his reflections on the issue. He resurrected the seventh
conversation between the emperor and the almost-absent Persian from the
text which is to be found in a version edited by Professor Khoury. In this
conversation the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war, the Pope
told his audience, and then went on to state that the emperor must have
known that aya 256 of surah 2 reads: There is no compulsion in religion.
Then the learned Pope said that the according to the experts, this is
one of the surahs of the early period, when Muhammad (PBUH) was still
powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the
directives developed later and recorded in the Quraan concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded
to those who have the Book and the infidels, he addresses his
interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about
the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: Show
me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find
things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword
the faith he preached. After having expressed himself so forcefully, the
emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith
through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God, he says, is not pleased
by blood and not acting reasonably is contrary to Gods nature. Faith is
born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs
the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.
To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons
of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.
This quotation from the popes speech leaves one struggling with
the question of his understanding of Islam. To begin with, regardless of
the popes excerpts, the second surah of the Quraan (Suratul Baqarah) is not
an early surah of the Quraan; it was in fact revealed in Medina at a time
when Muslims were in full control of the Arabian Peninsula and not when
Muhammad was still powerless and under threat. Second, to consider the
Prophetic mission of the Prophet (PBUH) in terms of an individuals

139

struggle, even to treat him as a man who is once powerless and under
threat and who then gains power and strength is totally contrary to Islamic
understanding of a prophets mission. According to Islam, God has chosen
certain men to act as his messengers to humanity and once a man has been
chosen to perform this function, his individual power of strength have little
meaning left; he is acting under Divine Commands.
To be sure, the current perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the West
are not merely the result of CNN and Fox News; they are the handiwork of
generations of churchmen and academics who have followed in the footsteps
of people like Emperor Manuel II. One only has to read a work like Islam
and the West: The making of an image by Norman Daniel to see the
contributions of the Church in cultivation of the deep hatred of Islam and
Muslims in the contemporary West.

REVIEW
Popes statement is part of the psychological warfare in the ongoing
Clash of Civilizations or Crusades. Psychological war depends a lot on
bypassing the reality by creating myths and misperceptions. Some of the
misperceptions pertinent to this episode are enumerated below.
One: Pope is meant for promoting inter-faith harmony. There is hardly
an instance where a pope has done so; on the other hand, throughout the
history the Church has been instigating for the use of violence against
followers of other faiths. Thus, it was a deliberate attempt by the Pope to
ridicule Islam and those who follow it.
The Pope, who has been a professor of theology, fully understands the
prerequisites of the prophethood. He ignored these by design to convey that
he did not accept Muhammad (PBUH) as Prophet of Allah. Therefore, the
issue of inter-faith harmony is set aside altogether and instead the Pope has
dubbed Islam as some kind of cult promoting evil practices.
Two: Benedict lacks the correct understanding of Islam. As mentioned
above, a professor of theology cannot be lacking in this knowledge.
Benedict fully understands that the concept of jihad does not suggest
initiation of violence; instead it urges to fight for defeating the violence. He
knows that this is the strongest strand of Islamic faith. No other religion has

140

its equivalent. He also knows that it is the rallying point for the Muslims to
stand against the injustice dispensed by the Christian West.
The Crusaders have been trying to demonize this concept by labeling
it as terrorism but without any significant success. Therefore, the Church has
joined hands with the State to achieve this goal. Blessings of the Church
could also reinvigorate the spirit of Crusades in whose ranks the signs of
fatigue are becoming conspicuously visible.
When the pope joins hands with the State, it grants the Crusades a
religious legitimacy to fight against the evil of Islam. He has sanctified the
Crusaders violence against Muslims with a view to mustering support for
the ongoing Crusades at its critical juncture.
Three: The use of force (violence) is against the Divine Nature. How a
man who has been living unnatural life could pass the judgment as to what is
natural to mankind? He also ignored the violence perpetrated by the
followers of Christianity throughout their history and one being perpetrated
at present. He and other followers of Christianity believe that the means of
violence used by them airplanes, ships, tanks and guns are compatible
with Divine Nature, but suicide bombers are not.
God forbids use of force in general, but urges its use to fight against
evil within well-defined parameters. Such use of force is for the good of
humanity, unlike the perpetration of secular violence to promote political
and economic interests of some; at the cost of the bulk of humanity.
Today followers of Christianity are perpetrating violence against
Muslims which justifies the calls for jihad. Unfortunately, the rulers of
Muslim World have no guts to give such call. Most of them, scared of
getting pushed back to Stone Age, have accepted jihad-terrorism equation
and have joined the ranks of the Crusaders bearing cover name of war on
terror. This is the greatest success of the West in the ongoing Clash of
Civilizations.
Therefore, some non-state groups have dared to accept the challenge.
Their defiance is considered a serious threat to the interests usually
referred to as values of the civilized world as well as despots in the
Muslim World. Obviously these groups have to be labeled as terrorists and
crushed.

141

Four: That the ongoing war is for promotion of peace. Muslims are
blamed for lacking in values essential for peaceful co-existence. This is not
true. Reality is to the contrary. Starting from Spain to the recent ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia, the Crusaders have been indulging in ethnic cleansing.
Vehement rejection of peaceful coexistence was amply demonstrated
in annihilation of natives of America and Australia and frequent persecution
of the Jews in Europe. Peace has no place in empire building. Even today
Europe and Australia are heading towards cleansing these two continents of
the Muslim immigrants through integration or expulsion.
Today the Christian Whites are fully involved in all-embracing war
against Islam, not in promotion of peace. This war cannot be won without
degrading Islam as a religion for which services of Vatican have been
acquired who has shown that he is a willing partner in this holy coalition.
Five: Western democracy is the finest political system and
Christianity is the most tolerant faith. Keeping the ground realities in view,
one has reasons to doubt the both. If their version of democracy can produce
the leaders like Bush and Blair and the Christianity can produce a Pope like
Benedict XVI and many homosexual priests, this political system and the
faith are far from being perfect.
As regards Benedict, he had been a quiet Pope as compared to his
predecessor. He enjoys respect only by virtue of his status, but whenever he
opened his mouth, he annoyed some part of the humanity. This reminds one
the famous saying of Sheikh Saadi; Ta mard sukhon naguftey bashad, Aib-ohunrish nahuftey bashad.
Popes right to freedom of speech cannot be denied, but one expects
that anyone in papal dress would exercise this right differently from the one
attired in a clowns dress. As regards the stature of the Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH), a Nazi clown quoting a disgruntled emperor of dark ages can do
no harm to the respect that the Prophet (PBUH) enjoys.
The Pope said sorry, but insisted on his noble intention of rejecting
religiously-motivated violence from any side; thereby, he stood by his view
on linking jihad to terrorism. Seeking apology from a strong-headed person
was a mistake. In his apology he dispensed more insult.
5th October 2006
142

IN THE LINE OF FIRE

Salesmanship skills are essential to the success of a diplomat or a
statesman. Musharraf was at his best in demonstrating these skills during his
long tour of the United States. However, these were not meant for achieving
ends of diplomacy, but for promotion of his business; the field to which this
terminology actually belongs to.
Sales promotion campaign started through interviews and press
conferences before the launching of the book: In the Line of Fire. It was
the only biography ever published by a serving General in Pakistan and,
perhaps in the world.
On 25th September, CBS revealed that Musharraf chose to right his
memoirs while in office fearing he would not live long enough to do so after
retirement. The same day the author was quoted by the Reuters figuring out
that fighting US was suicidal after 9/11. He also disclosed that Armitage
hand threatened to bomb Pakistan back to Stone Age. Armitage denied, but
admitted: I had a very strong conversation with the intelligence chief.
Next day, Musharraf said most of the people in fact were against my
writing this book at this moment, but like good military leader, I took the
decision (being fond of bold decisions) against the major part of their
advice. Meanwhile, the media in Pakistan tried to contact Lt Gen
Mamood Ahmed, but former ISI chief was not available to give his version
of the bombing threat. The author had also talked about handing over
hundreds of al-Qaeda men to the US.
Chaudhry Nisar said that the nation wanted to know about the amount
the CIA paid for handing over the 350 al-Qaeda activists. The amount is in
State Bank or in personal account of Musharraf. He also accused him of
lavishly spending the government resources on launching of the book.
On 27th September the author claimed: Whatever I have written, I
have been talking about it publicly throughout, including Kargil, nuclear
issues and Dr AQ Khan affair. There is no breach of Secret Act at all. PPP
said publication of memoirs was a breach of presidential oath. Book will
prove Musharrafs Waterloo, claimed PML-N.

143

On 29th September, Benazir said publishing of the book was a cheap

attempt to gain popularity by endangering the countrys vital national
interests. It is regrettable that General Musharraf is abusing his official
position to boost his personal interests. Millions of rupees from state
exchequer are being spent on financing the state visit to the United States,
which has virtually become a promotional tour of his book.
Two days later, Siddiqul Farooq of PML-N attempted at delivering a
counter-punch by launching his book Kargil: Adventure or Trap. According
to the author:
India knew Musharrafs plan for the Kargil operation when Vajpaee
came to Pakistan on Dosti Bus. The motive of the visit was to prove
to the world that India wanted to make friendship with Pakistan.
The decision to pull back troops from Kargil was taken during the
Musharraf-Zinni meeting held on June 26, 1999 after which
Musharraf tried to convince Nawaz Sharif to withdraw troops.
India reaped benefits and Pakistan suffered losses. Musharraf has
proved to be an incompetent general.
On 2nd October, Dr Khans daughter said that suggestions that her
father asked her to go public on Pakistans nuclear secrets were ludicrous.
She claimed that the letter was for her mother giving details to be released in
the event of something happening to Dr Khan. The letter gave his version of
what actually transpired and requested my mother to release those details in
the event of my father being killed or made to disappear. She said the letter
mentioned people and places but contained no nuclear blueprints or
information.
The same day, Ali Kuli denied advocating for imposition of martial
law. My view was that the army should be firm and fair in dealing with all
situations. I certainly advised General Jehangir Karamat not to resign as
Army chief but I didnt ask him to stage a coup and impose martial law.
On Kargil he said, it was an unprofessional decision As the
architect of Kargil, he must answer critical questions for sacrificing so many
soldiers. I am sure Kargil would continue to haunt him for the rest of his
life I would say Kargil has damaged the Kashmir cause. It was a disaster
bigger than the East Pakistan tragedy. At that time, Pakistan at least had

144

some friends but on Kargil we were friendless. There was no way we could
defend this tactless move.
Sartaj Aziz rejected Musharrafs claims on Kargil Operation. I would
like to say some of the things said about Kargil in the book were not correct.
I would agree with some of the things he has written about Kargil, but not
all. He disagreed that the gains made by army were lost by politicians, and
also that the operation helped bringing back the Kashmir issue to
international focus; instead it led to disruption of the dialogue with India.
Next day, US Ambassador in Islamabad said his country and the
international community want to get more about the proliferation activities
of Dr Khan. He told editors and senior journalists in US Embassy, I do not
think that any of us have the whole story. Not the international community
and not Pakistan.
Ali Kuli Khan issued a rejoinder. With reference to remarks about his
person, he said, I also have discovered its numerous lies, half truths and
misleading statements One hoped that with the passage of time and with
exposure to high positions, he would have shed his complexes, but this is
obviously not so. He concluded his rebuttal saying; I could say a great deal
more on most of these subjects but, since it goes against the spirit of national
security, the whole issue needs to be put to rest.
In the context of Kargil he said, I am totally amazed at such ostrichlike behaviour when the whole world considers Kargil to be the worst
debacle in Pakistans history and where countless innocent young lives were
lost for nothing; absolutely nothing!
I regret to say that the conception and planning at the highest level
had been poor; in fact so poor that the only word which can adequately
describe it is unprofessional Kargil Operations were not conceived in its
totality, with the result that apart from bringing ignominy to Pakistan, it also
caused unnecessary misery to a lot of innocent people.
The account of General Musharraf regarding Kargil is inconsistent
and has raised more questions than it has answered. We must have a full
blown independent inquiry into the Kargil debacle.
Nawaz also demanded constitution of a commission to probe Kargil
debacle. PPP termed the book a bundle of lies. The book triggered lot of

145

controversies and on 5th October there was yet another controversy over
spelling and grammatical mistakes in the book; Musharraf blamed the
publishers.
The book indeed opened Plenthoras box. Out of the controversial
issues described in the book, four are worth discussing in detail, e.g. Kargil,
Armitages threat, handing over of al-Qaeda men to the CIA, and Khans
nuclear shop, but first some general comments on the book.

GENERAL
General Musharraf seems to have literally, put himself in the line of
fire, by launching his much-publicized memoirs. Many questions have
arisen during the various debates regarding the different aspects of this book
and the circumstances of its launching wrote Akbar Jan Marwat from
Islamabad.
Now the whole incident is in the presidents book, with all its details.
When it was to come out so soon, why did the president mention the
incident in his interview with CBS? It seems he did this so that demand for
his book would soar. The more people talk about it, more media coverage
will be given and more copies will be sold, wrote M Abdal Hameed from
Peshawar.
The story about Pakistan being bombed back to the Stone Age had
all the ingredients that a publisher loves. Since the publishers parent
company, Viacom, also owns CBS, an interview was planned for its
popular television programme, 60 Minutes, as a part of promotion.
Bilal Masood from Karachi said, it wasnt the right time to launch a
book when the president is still in a position of power. Secondly, even if he
was keen and wanted the world to learn the truth about him and the country
he leads, he should not have been so frank as to put himself in the line of fire
of different people and governments, friends and foes alike. For the good of
the country and himself, he should not have made statements and
revelations at this stage which can create foreign policy problems for his
government and Pakistan.
Shazia Saleemi from Sweden wrote, Mr Musharraf is a record
breaker indeed, in many senses. No doubt our commando saviour wants to
146

do things differently, very differently. Probably thats why the country is

not doing so well. Without quibbling over petty details, a couple of questions
must be asked: Does the constitution of Pakistan allow the president of the
country to have another job? Do rules and regulations of the Pakistan army
allow a sitting army chief to write a book for commercial gain?
Farhatullah Babar was of the view that memoirs, particularly those
written by major actors and participants of great historical events, provide an
important view of history itself. But when written by an actor still in the
thick of the action it lacks objectivity. That is one reason that memoir
writing is left to when one has retired and has the benefit of hindsight and
introspection.
It is hard to imagine any other head of state or public functionary
having penned his memoirs and then setting out on a promotional tour
assisted by a dozen federal ministers and several dozens officials and
hangers-on. The exact amount spent from public funds will not be known
until the information has been asked in the Parliament but it must run into
millions.
The CBS Corporation owns Simon and Schuster that published the
book. Clearly therefore the comment on the TV channel was part of the
publishers promotional drive. In seeking to promote the book even
President Bushs caustic comments, President Musharraf goes by the
book seemed to pass Musharrafs comprehension.
There is also a question of whether a public functionary and that too
the president or the army chief can come out publicly on critical issues some
of which may still be in the domain of secret and classified information and
must wait for several years before it can be made public. More so because
such public discourse will have a profound impact on foreign policy;
indeed on all state policies.
Mir Jamilur Rahman opined that there was nothing wrong in writing
while still in office. It may be the custom but there is no law that forbids
anybody writing a book while in service. Musharrafs autobiography
would not have received the reception it did had he written it after
retirement.
He added, in his memoirs, President Musharraf has taken an
unnecessary dig at Zulfikar Ali Bhutto describing him as hypocrite and

147

the worst ruler Pakistan has ever had. He writes that Bhutto was the first
ruler who gave importance to the clergy by succumbing to its demands. He
banned alcohol and gambling and declared Friday as the weekly off although
he did not believe in these things
Ikram Sehgal agreed with Jamilur Rahman with some reservations.
Every person in the world has an inherent freedom of expression, those in
positions of power have every right to lay out the facts as they have lived it,
it is also a moral responsibility to do so. The important guideline to
remember is that the facts must be credible, the timing of launching the book
and the possible reaction not only to themselves but to the state. One has to
choose carefully what can be aired (and when), the damage control thereof
has to be wargamed, we cannot afford to give ammunition to our
detractors.
Kamila Hyat was of the view that the profile that emerges of the man
is not unexpected. Musharraf evidently sees himself as a Rambo-style
hero, narrating with much bravado his escape from bids on his life and
claiming almost sole credit for rescuing Pakistan from economic ruin, for
placing Kashmir on the international agenda through the Kargil war and for
a series of other achievements.
The fact that Musharraf, a man who lacks nothing in self-esteem,
sees himself almost like a comic book hero, able to single-handedly
overcome challenge after challenge, goes to explain a fair deal about his
style of leadership. Quite obviously a man who honestly believes all this to
be true cannot comprehend why he should be subjected to criticism or
understand why it may at times, be wise to enter into a process of
consultation and discussion, rather than charging ahead with unilateral
decisions.
His increased impatience over the years with anyone who disagrees
with his proclamations has been evident to all who have watched the former
commando through his long tenure in office. Most recently, the measures
to combat dissent have become increasingly desperate. One facet of this
desperation is demonstrated through the chain of disappearances recorded
across the country, with hundreds of people spirited away by intelligence
agencies.
But more than the nature of the man himself, it his qualities as a
statesman or the lack of them that are a cause of gravest concern.
148

Musharraf is clearly a man who takes pride in his direct talking and his
bluntness. These are both, in certain circumstances, commendable qualities
but there must be some doubt as to whether they are necessarily virtues for a
man who holds the seat that Musharraf continues to occupy today.
President Musharraf seems to believe he today stands atop a
mountain, beyond which no other peaks lie to be conquered. This is a
tremendously sad example of self-delusion by a man who seems
increasingly to have lost touch with reality.
Masooda Bano wrote, why a sitting president should write about such
sensitive material, that also a seemingly deliberate attempt to malign
selected actors in the process, is clear: the book seems to be yet another
shot at gaining international popularity, which has been the mainstay of
the Musharraf government since its inception.
The book has been written and launched with intent to further
demonstrate General Musharrafs support for the US war on terror
and on one level the mission has been accomplished. Musharraf got high
exposure to the US media, including appearance on a controversial comedy
show and got the same response in UK. However, it is also nave to think
that the US or the British dont understand General Musharrafs way of
working.
Mazhar Ali Shah from Nowshera said, before the Generals book
others like Benazir Bhutto and Wali Khan have also written books. The only
similarity between these books is flights of imagination. Neither of them
could defend certain gross inaccuracies in their books, and probably the
same will happen now. The importance of these books is that discerning
readers can sift the chaff from the grain to get an accurate idea of the real
situation.
His detractors too must read it in order to pinpoint its flaws, urged
Rahimullah Yusufzai. They wont be disappointed because the book suffers
from a number of errors, factual and historical. Still it is obvious that no
book in Pakistans history has aroused so much interest and controversy.
There have been complaints galore that the President in his maiden
book has indulged in self-glorification. For most Pakistanis, it isnt
surprising that their present ruler believes he is infallible and his policies
flawless. None of our rulers have ever conceded having made mistakes and

149

to expect someone as boastful as President Musharraf to do so would be

nave.
The very act of writing a book while still in power and openly
discussing issues that until now were a taboo explains the confidence of a
man who doesnt feel accountable to anyone. One cannot even imagine a
military officer below the rank of chief of army staff or a civilian duly
elected to high office penning such a book and getting away with it.
Everyone is in the line of fire and, predictably, all those hurt by his
barbs are reacting by issuing rejoinders and accusing him of telling halftruth We get to know about his adventurous military career even if
sometimes he is bragging to add colour to the story.
One cannot fail to notice the familiar loathing that most Pakistani
military officers have for our politicians in the manner in which President
Musharraf has depicted most political leaders in his book. The late Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto is referred to as hypocrite who said one thing and did the
opposite.
The general-turned-writer has even found fault with the obedience
of Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif to their father, Mian
Mohammad Sharif, because he felt as prime minister and chief minister of
Punjab the two should have outgrown the obtrusive control that the patriarch
of the family exercised over his sons.
There is no direct criticism of the presidents political allies,
apparently due to the fact that he still needs them for giving a civilian faade
to his military rule. But he has shown them their worth by candidly writing
that he contributed to the formation of PML-Q through his trusted adviser
and college-mate Tariq Aziz.
The General has also needled some of his army colleagues. There
is some criticism of army chiefs General Abdul Waheed Kakar and General
Jehangir Karamat for manipulating the system of promotions to extend
favour to his course-mate and competitor Lt Gen Ali Kuli Khan. The lastnamed is rubbished as a mediocre officer who got promotions and prized
jobs ahead of him due to his political connections.
The Nation opined, although General Musharraf is known for candid
expression of his views, the fact of incumbency must have weighed with

150

him as a restraining factor lest his revelations and assessments have an

adverse bearing on relations with powerful countries whose feathers had
been ruffled in the interest of the state. There could also be reservations, for
entirely different reasons, about the internal issues the book deals with. Thus
it would automatically be taken as being a less than frank and open
account of his experiences and views.
AFP reported the views from India. Hes rewriting history with an
eye on the 2007 elections in Pakistan he wants to project himself and the
army as entities to be counted on, said security analyst Uday Bhaskar. All
that he is saying is a pack of lies, he attacked us and then lost thats the
reality, said Brajesh Mishra.
The Reuters reported that foreign editor of Times of India, Chidanand
Rajghatta said, the book is full of chest-thumping machismo and selfaggrandizement. Musharraf seems unrepentant about most things that
matter in India; be it Kargil, terrorism, or infiltration.
He added, it seems the whole thing about being an ally in the war on
terror and his peace moves is more out of convenience than conviction. It
reeks of unrepentant military adventurism and Washington, New Delhi and
Kabul have to note that. Jaswant Singh said: Quite often, when you
occupy high office, the distinction between fiction and fact, gets
obliterated. This is fictional.
Praful Bidwai wrote, the original force that drove the tsunami of
publicity for the book came from its controversial content. The books
release was one of the greatest state-financed publicity exercises undertaken
anywhere. It will be debated for long time.
So how does the book appear from across the border to someone
committed to democracy, peace and India-Pakistan reconciliation? Its best
understood through four themes or rubrics: bragging, mis-assessment,
blunt truth-telling, and fantasy.
Musharraf clearly sees himself as an infallible leader of
extraordinary talent. He presents himself as a victim of circumstances,
who nevertheless unfailingly makes the right decisions that will eventually
rescue Pakistan from chaos and bring it glory, like in Kargil.

151

Some, like Kamran Saeed from Lahore, showered praise on the

author. Although I could not read it all but a glance portrays the real
personality of Musharraf. Being a candid, open and fearless person he has
the courage to share even the love affairs of his childhood. In todays
world of hypocrisy how many people would dare to share those hidden
secrets so openly.
Except for those who are looking for publicity and nobody can deny
the fact that President Musharraf has already been the most admired
person by the western worlds leaders and media, his style of narration
highlights a real fighter with a strong professional will to overcome any
hurdle.
A lot of people might differ in opinion while quoting the reasons of
immature statesmanship but everyone should remember that the essence of a
real autobiography lies in nothing other than the truth and the whole truth. I
think President Musharraf deserves a salute for such a daring and honest
effort.
MAK Lodhi wrote, Musharraf is, indeed, the product of crises and he
will remain a man of crises. He is likely to remain in the line of fire for quite
some time. He performs best when he is in the line of fire He has to
perform many more feats yet.
Air Cdre Jamal Hussain opined, there are restrictions on serving
officers/government servants on writing publicly. They can however do so
with the approval of the competent authority. So who would be the
competent authority for the COAS? The President of course. And who is
the President? The COAS himself. Commonsense dictates that if
Musharraf the COAS had decided to have his memoirs published, he must
have done it with the consent of the President of Pakistan and since he is
currently the President of Pakistan; he had the approval of the competent
authority. So what is the fuss about?
There is not one major issue in the book which the President had not
articulated in his speeches at some point and therefore those who accuse
him of divulging state secret are either blissfully unaware of what
constitute state secrets or are simply trying to mislead the gullible public
for their personal agendas.

152

KARGIL KARNAMA
The author claimed that Kargil operation was launched to pre-empt
imminent Indian attack in the Shaqma Sector. Kargil operation was flawless
and a tactical marvel. He blamed Nawaz for squandering military victory by
accepting ceasefire in Washington.
The Kargil episode brought the country close to another full-scale
war with India and for that reason highlighted the Kashmir dispute but it
raises several questions. Did the brinkmanship in any way help the cause?
Was it able to garner international support for a just resolution? asked the
Nation.
Has there been any pressure on India to abide by its commitments and
give Kashmiris the right to determine their own future? On the contrary, the
sole superpower has favoured it with a coveted deal on nuclear technology,
reinforcing New Delhis atoot ang intransigence, while Pakistans
several initiatives have failed to make it budge from its stand.
Farhatullah Babar was of the view that Musharrafs accounts of the
events particularly those relating to Kargil have come out at a time when
former Prime Minister Mr Nawaz Sharif has also publicly stated his position
on it. Mr Sharifs public statement that prime minister was deliberately
kept in the dark by his army chief is a very serious accusation that
cannot be dismissed lightly. Reacting to it General Musharraf recently
displayed pictures featuring the former prime minister in a military briefing
and addressing troops sitting on a heap of snow near Kargil. Those pictures
have also been included in his memoirs seeking to convince the readers that
the prime minister was on board.
But the publication of silent pictures in the book of a briefing does
not prove what was actually said in the meeting. One would have thought
that in a serious and historical write-up like the memoirs he would
courageously address the issue of the complete breakdown of
communication between the civilian and military leadership on Kargil
instead of merely regurgitating the unbelievable official press releases
Musharrafs account however is hopelessly incomplete and lacks in
credibility as it skirts nagging questions.
MAK Lodhi observed that the chapter about Kargil, however,
invokes more questions than answers. That it was heroic tale of valor, true.

153

That it was nailing down the enemy and an excellent tactical victory, true.
But why the strategic aspects were ignored and why its fallout could not
be foreseen. Had the planners not learnt any lesson from 1965 and 1971
wars with India?
Looking back, one has to speak the truth. Hassan Nasrallah, the
Hezbollah leader, has said that if he had known that the capture of two
Israeli soldiers would lead to such a horrendous bombing of Lebanon, he
would not have done it. One has to face the reality ultimately and
confess.
Rahimullah Yusufzai wrote, there is also the alarming claim by the
president that Kargil operations were a landmark in the history of the
Pakistan Army, conducted flawlessly, a technical marvel of military
professionalism. As the architect of Kargil, he could say anything he
wants but military strategists and historians may not agree with him
that it was due to Kargil that some movement on resolving the Kashmir
dispute was achieved.
Most analysts believe Kargil damaged the Kashmir cause and
subsequently forced Pakistan to take U-turn not only on its policy on
Kashmir but also in its relations with India The alleged U-turn on
Kashmir and ties with India was entirely of our own making and Kargil
certainly influenced that shift.
Mir Jamilur Rahman said, Kargil will keep on haunting Pakistan
and its establishment unless the people are told the truth, not in bits and
pieces but in its entirety. It is for the first time that General Musharraf has
told us that Kargil operation was a preemptive measure that Kargil operation
was a defensive manoeuvre to forestall an Indian attack.
General Beg said that only four generals knew of the Kargil
operation Nawaz Sharif and General Musharraf had developed serious
differences on the Kargil operation. If Nawaz Sharif had succeeded, Beg
said, the four generals might have been court-martialled.
Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad opined, a lot of what General Musharraf says in
his autobiography In the Line of Fire about Kargil underlines the need to
hold an independent enquiry into the operation by an independent
commission.

154

He accepts, albeit implicitly, two of the accusations leveled by

Mian Nawaz Sharif. First, the operation was kept secret to the extent that
even the navy and air force chiefs were not briefed about it until the Indian
response bordered on war hysteria or in other words things became serious,
a situation the planners of the operation had evidently failed to visualize
He also implicitly concedes the charge of high casualties among the troops
while still calling it a myth and explaining it away as a result of a longer and
more intense operation compared to the earlier Pak-India wars.
What transpires is that those who planned the operation had not
rightly calculated the Indian reaction. They were looking at it only from a
limited military perspective while the Indian side planned its response in a
broader framework. India turned it into a full-fledged war as it benefited it
internationally.
India subsequently succeeded in persuading the world that Pakistan
had helped the militants to cross over and used them as a cover to launch the
military operation. New Delhi henceforth used the issue of cross border
infiltration as a cornerstone of its diplomatic offensive. Instead of
internationalizing the Kashmir question, the operation put Pakistan
permanently on the defensive on the issue of cross border infiltration.
Among the gains achieved by the offensive according to Gen
Musharraf is that it pre-empted Indias plan to conduct some operations in
our Northern Areas. How credible or significant was the threat and whether
the operation launched in Kargil was the best way to deal with it
remains to be probed.
There can be no two opinions about the dedication of the Pakistani
soldiers but if the operation is to be judged from its outcome, Pakistani
troops were finally evicted from the positions they had occupied after
supreme sacrifice. Why was this allowed to happen also need an
independent probe?
The third gain is mentioned rather briefly. The last paragraph of the
chapter comprising a single sentence, and coming as an afterthought, runs
like this: I would like to state emphatically that whatever movement has
taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due
considerably to the Kargil conflict. Has any meaningful movement really
taken place on the issue beyond a number of CBMs? The News also felt
the need for verification of facts through inquiry.
155

Musharrafs book seems to have opened up a veritable Pandoras Box

on many controversial matters. One of them seems to be Kargil on which we
now have at least three versions President Musharrafs, Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharifs and Indias. Given that all three differ vastly from each
otherit is only reasonable that there be an impartial inquiry conducted
into what happened in 1999 so that the people at least know what actually
happened and what the truth is.
One has to say that after Kargil ended, the Indian side did at least
hold an inquiry into it and stock was taken of various intelligence
blunders. No such thing happened in Pakistan, with people divided, some
calling it a major and impressive military tactic while many others saw it as
something needless that would unnecessarily provoke a larger and muchbetter armed neighbour.
Kargil may have been controversial and certainly has its detractors
but it was an important episode in his countrys history and the people of
Pakistan need to know the truth about it. This will also lay to rest all
claims and counter-claims of those who wish ill of Pakistan and believe that
it has something to hide on Kargil.
Indian officials, media and analysts unanimously disagreed with the
author on this issue. Praful Bidwai wrote, for Musharraf, his Kargil
operations were a landmark in the history of the Pakistan Army not least
because only 5,000 Pakistani troops joined combat in support of the
freedom fighter groups and compelled India to employ more than four
divisions, with the bulk of theartillery coming from strike formations
located elsewhere. The Pakistani performance will be written in golden
words.
Musharraf presents Kargil as a defensive manoeuvre to pre-empt
Indias offensive operations along the Line of Control conducted
flawlessly, a technical marvel of military professionalism He claims that
Indians, by their own admission, suffered over 600 killed and over 1,500
wounded. But our information suggests that the numbers are at least twice
as high.
The India government says Kargil was carefully planned. Pakistani
troops crossed the LoC, but sustained big losses: documents like identity
cards, pay books and other identification papers revealed that as many as
seven Northern Light Infantry battalions (more than 7,000 troops) were
156

involved The Indian army recovered 249 bodies, of which only five were
accepted by Pakistan, and the total Pakistani casualties of 725 killed
included 45 officers and 68 Special Service Group personnel.
We may never know the truth given the fog of India-Pakistans
prolonged hot-cold war. But Musharrafs account of Kargil isnt the truth.
Kargil wasnt a victory by any yardstick. Pakistan was forced to withdraw
from the territories it captured.
Another example of mis-assessmentPakistan held the military
advantage. So Clinton could have been persuaded to side with Pakistan. In
fact, India had by then taken Tololing and Tiger Hill. Pakistan was widely
seen as irresponsible the aggressor who crossed the LoC. Kargil brought
Pakistan ignominy and highlighted the nuclear danger in the
subcontinent.
The most worrisome fantasy is Musharrafs view, stated most
emphatically, that whatever movement has taken place so far in the
direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is owed considerably to the Kargil
conflict. This takes ones breath away.
Air Cdre Jamal Hussain defended the man in the line of fire.
Historical evidence abound where skirmishes and wars have broken out on
misperceptions. Kargil was perhaps one such event. To discount it as a
figment of imagination will not be fair.
Dr Shireen Mazari had rightly observed that when the incursions
beganthe Indians assumed the aggressors wereKashmiri freedom
fighters. Pakistan Army was pleased with their deception plan and
decided to play along insisting throughout the crisis that the intruders were
indeed freedom fighters and not regular members of Pakistan Army.
Dr Mazari laments that this single decision was to prove tragic very
costly causing immense damage both in the military and diplomatic levels.
Pakistan Army could not openly engage the enemy and even the PAF could
not be employed without first accepting the responsibility for the
incursions.
On the question of how muchChaudhry Nisar in a TV interview
admitted that Nawaz was given a briefing on Kargil but he was told that only
guerrillas had infiltrated across and occupied the heights and Pakistan Army

157

was only providing logistic support and strengthening their forward defences
in that sector. Even if this is true, for the PM not to have surmised the
gravity of such a proactive act and the likely Indian reaction speaks
volumes for his IQ or the lack of it.
A more plausible explanation could be that Nawaz Sharif was fully
on board and was reasonably well aware of the situation and he too was
convinced that the gambit could succeed. He would then emerge as the
undisputed genuine tiger of Pakistan rather than the paper tiger as depicted
in his election symbol. When the plan misfired, his pretence of ignorance is
unfathomable, to put it mildly. Somehow, Jamal while defending the author
admitted that the plan misfired.

ARMITAGES ARM-LOCK
Commenting on back to Stone Age remarks Lt Gen Asad Durrani
said, such remarks may well sell your book but it creates more
controversies. I dont see any good impact on relations because of this
book, rather it could harm them.
MAK Lodhi wrote, Mr Armitage may deny bombing Pakistan to
Stone-Age comment but the truth remains that the US use threats for
Pakistan to turn its back on Jihadists, after a 20-year dip into the dark recess
of religious fundamentalism, obscurantism, Talibanization and conversion
into a theocracy.
When Musharraf was asked by the media in the US to clarify his
shocking revelation about Armitage he suggested they read his book. One
finds it difficult to believe, but one really wonders if the president made such
a startling revelation of something he had kept secret to sell his book.
But does this help to improve our image? asked Azhar Mukhtar Sindhu
from Bahawalpur.
M Ismail Khan from Islamabad wrote, as things stand today, Pakistan
cooperated and is now Americas closest ally in the war on terror. Was
Musharraf coerced into the global hunt against terrorists? No, replies
Pakistans foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri. Musharraf too has stated that
his decision was in the interest of the country. Then why Musharraf has
disclosed it now after five years?

158

M Daud Butt from Lahore observed that the surprising disclosure by

General Musharraf makes it clear that Musharraf was forced into
becoming a frontline state in the war on terrorism. It is also clear that
Musharraf was not independent in policy-making and was dictated by Bush.
We were under the impression that the Pakistan government had
taken action on its own since this was the only wise option to avoid both the
Taliban and India. The latest revelation conveys a different raison detre for
choosing to go for US support; it smacks of cowardice and submission. It
would have been more prudent if Mr Musharraf had not made it public, and
maintained a commando posture wrote A Q Anjum from Rawalpindi.
Despite a rude and insulting threat, Pakistan still went along, when
the normal reaction should have been to tell the US to go to hell. Pakistan
has been cooperating not out of fear but in its own national interest. When
you want us to do more, you are only exposing your own inability to do
anything opined M Abdal Hameed from Peshawar.
Rahimullah Yusufzai opined that the disclosure that wrestler-turneddiplomat Richard Armitage arm-twisted Pakistan to accept the US dictation
on adapting its Afghan policy in line with American needs in the aftermath
of 9/11 exposed Islamabads vulnerability to blackmail and damaged our
self-esteem.
Musharraf, our commando-general, waited five years to highlight the
US officials rude and undiplomatic choice of words instead of protesting it
there and then. No doubt he had quickly made up his mind to throw
Pakistans lot with the US and do its bidding even at the cost of alienating
significant sections of the countrys population but a protest at that time
could have reassured our people and reminded the world that we are a
self-respecting nation.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar said, and at the end of the day, the issue that
sparked the media frenzy is a non-issue; it is no secret that Pakistans
military junta joined the war on terror bandwagon in typical mercenary
fashion after Bush & Co had disclosed what would be gained and lost by
various hypothetical Pakistani positions. There is therefore, nothing new in
the revelation that Armitage delivered a rather blunt message to the effect.
The only thing that can be said for certain in the wake of this episode
is that Pakistani politics have become more of a sham than even the most

159

cynical of cynics may have imagined. Perhaps most astonishing is the

straightforward naivet of General Musharraf in making the book the
central focus of his visit.
The most telling indicator of the sentiments and feeling of
disempowerment amongst ordinary people was the widespread rumour of a
change in government in the aftermath of the massive nationwide power
failure this past weekend.
Khusro Mumtaz commented, this time around General Musharraf
tells the television news-magazineArmitage had threatened to bomb
Pakistan back to the Stone Age if the country refused to cooperate with the
US on its war on terror. He then goes on to say that he found the remark rude
and insulting. However, as history has shown us, that did not prevent him
from immediately folding in the face of the intimidation.
Im really not sure what the General hoped to gain by this revelation
five years down the line. He likes to claim that he is a man of vision and is
able to convert every crisis into an opportunity But his 60 Minutes
interview paints him not so much as a statesman but as a man who was
cowed into submission by a superpower.
I also doubt if the 60 Minute interview added much to the Generals
luster overseas, particularly the US. There is a difference between a willing
ally and a coerced one. George Bush and his White House staff always
have known the truth of the matter and its been well-known for some
time that there was definitely an element of coercion in Americas dealings
with Pakistan
I personally think General Musharraf tried to dodge the tricky issue
of his 60 Minute interview by using his book contract as an excuse. But he
only made the situation worse by doing so. I dont think Ive ever seen a
press conference involving world leaders and heads of states being used as
a forum to sell books before.
Kamran Shaukat from Lahore wrote, after 9/11, Musharraf led
Pakistan government to take U-turn on the Afghan policy. If now the United
States takes a U-turn on its policy on Afghanistan and starts supporting them
for any reason will Pakistan too change its stance and start supporting them?
The question here is, do we have our own national interests or is making
Uncle Sam happy the only national interest we have?

160

Humaira Maslihuddin from Islamabad suggested, I really think

General Musharraf should rename his book U-turn. It was precisely due
to his U-turn that he was saved from being in the line of fire. Men like
Ahmadinejad, Hugo Shavez and Hassan Nasrallah are the ones who stand
courageously in the line of fire, their heads held high.
The general must also explain in a sequel to his book why
Armitage was not declared persons non grata and barred from entering
Pakistan after his outrageous threat which the general most benignly called
crude. I once again moan the insipid role of the foreign office how not to
entertain public enemies in the President House after they make threatening
remarks like the one Armitage made to then ISI director general.
Adnan Rehmat wrote, the Pakistani prime minister will not have to
cry like the Lebanese prime minister. So promised the incumbent Pakistan
Air Force chief Clearly army chief and President General Pervez
Musharraf doesnt share the air chiefs confidence that Pakistan can
withstand a major aggression, especially it can possibly be from the
United States a friend who when angry can be your worst enemy.
A controversy has erupted over the appropriateness or otherwise of
the Stone Age remark and whether Pakistans response was too hasty or
undignified or not If Armitage indeed said what Musharraf says he said, it
represented not just a crude exhibition of affordable state arrogance but a
climb-down to crass indifference to a traditional friend and its interests
and capabilities.
What if tomorrow US thinks Iran needs to be attacked because
Tehrans clerical regime is just as bad as the erstwhile Talibans? Will
Musharraf the soldier again war-game the US and reach the conclusion that
his army cannot possibly take on the American military might and take yet
another decision in national interest to ditch another ally?
The deepest issue here is not institutional interest to remain in power
masqueraded as national interest but a subject Musharraf has not even
touched in the context: popular legitimacy. Is it any surprise that
Ahmedinejad, Chavez and Nasrallah defy the same US might and its
proxy allies
Is it any wonder, then, that the only time the US threatened to bomb a
country to the Stone Age other than Pakistan was Vietnam? At least

161

Vietnam put up a heroic and ultimately successful fight that still gives the
US nightmares.
From across the border Praful Bidwai opined, Musharraf is equally
boastful when he explains why he changed his stance on terrorism, the
Taliban and al-Qaeda after 9/11: Armitages undiplomatic language had
nothing to do with my decision. He changed his mind not because he
believed in the war on terror, but because it was in the national interest
and Pakistans self-preservation Whatever the merits of this logic, it
bears testimony to enormous hubris: you dont war-game America
unless youve a gigantic ego.
Air Cdre Jamal Hussain was one of the odd defenders of the
author. President Bush promptly denied any knowledge of such message as
does Richard Armitage. Fortunately President Musharraf by stating that the
message was conveyed to him indirectly through his Intelligence Chief left
enough room for plausible denial by both Bush and Armitage without
contradicting President Musharraf.
Did Armitage really use these very words or did his message imply
it? Considering the blind rage of the American administration after 9/11 and
the cowboy mentality of both Bush and Armitage, one would not be
surprised if Armitage is guilty as charged.
Shorn of diplomatic niceties, Colin Powells with us or against us
message conveys a threat not dissimilar to what Armitage is supposed to
have articulated to the Pakistani Intelligence Chief. Why such a message
was not conveyed to Malaysia The reason was obvious a full fledged
military campaign through land and air against Taliban in Afghanistan could
only be mounted through Pakistan.
Opponents of General Musharraf never tire of accusing him of
capitulation under the American threat based on a single telephone call. The
General in his book clarifies that his decision on joining the Americans was
based on very hard and realistic analyses of the pros and cons of accepting
or rejecting the American proposition.
The Generals inside information on how the momentous decision of
change of track on the Taliban policy was reached is very informative and
should put to rest any further debate on the subject. Unfortunately, that is

162

highly unlikely as the real motive of the opposition is to embarrass and

destabilize the present government.

TRADING HUMANS
Damaging is the presidents disclosure that the CIA paid millions
of dollars in reward-money to the Pakistan government, or functionaries of
the state as the Americans are insisting, for capturing and delivering alQaeda members to the US. In fact, one remembers former interior minister
Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat divulging information sometime back about CIA
payments to members of law-enforcement agencies for catching wanted
terrorists and militants. With one stroke of the pen, the president has lost the
high moral ground and not many will henceforth believe him if he continues
to claim that Pakistan was fighting the war on terror in our national interest
and not for the sake of America wrote Rahimullah Yusufzai.
Masooda Bano observed that the most importantly, it is a sad reality
that the leader of the nation can be proud to claim that his government has
willingly handed over suspects to US custody for monetary rewards. Not
only was the government violating the basic rights of these people handed
over without prior judicial investigation, it was actually willing to selling
anyone, as long as it was getting paid for it.
These so-called suspects were abducted from their homes and at
times public places by the intelligence agencies Testimonies from those
who were abducted, tortured, sent to Guantanamo Bay and later released,
show that in many cases, till the very end, the US or Pakistan government
could press no charge against them since the evidence against them was
flimsy or none at all.
Testimonies of some of the cases, in fact, indicate that at times, in its
desire to show its commitment to the US forces, the Pakistani agencies
grabbed anyone that they thought could somehow be implicated.
Gulsher Panhwer from Johi wrote, it is said that one main factor in
the downfall of President Ayubs era was his autobiography Friends not
Masters. Now our president-cum-army chief of staff has launched his book
In the Line of Fire.

163

About the head-money, as the international and a section of national

press dubbed it, CIA army received for packing off terror suspects, have
already made enough bad blood and compelled the president to deny that he
ever made such comments. He replaced the words with equally more
complex and ridiculous sentences that the money was paid to the agency.
The Pakistani nation has been disgraced as a third party working
only to extract monetary gains; this falsifies the presidents previous claims
that we are doing all this for our own national interest; where has the money
gone; we are as poor as before 9/11.
Burhanuddin Hasan observed, one thing which may have hurt
President Musharraf is his over-exposure on the US media including a
comedy show in which he was the first-ever head of state to appear. In some
cases, when senior American journalists asked him incisive questions, he cut
a sorry figure and had to retract some of the statements in the book such
as the payment of reward money by the CIA to the Pakistani government.
Pakistani political personalities criticized in the book are striking back and
receiving space in the world media.
Rahimullah Yusufzai advised the author to stop speculating at least
from now on. This time President Musharraf has tried to be more specific
while speculating about bin Ladens possible hideout. In his controversial
book, In the Line of Fire, he has mentioned Afghanistans eastern Kunar
province as being the most likely hiding place for the elusive al-Qaeda
leader.
In a later interview, the president supplemented his argument by
arguing that al-Qaeda had pockets of support in Pakistans Bajaur
Agency bordering Kunar province. Though he didnt elaborate on this line
of argument, he probably is of the view that bin Laden from his hideout in
mountainous Kunar would be able to fall back on support from al-Qaeda
cells in Bajaur in case he is cornered
This is not the first time that Kunar has been mentioned as a possible
hideout for bin Laden. The weekly, Newsweek, and a few other Western
media organizations have for quite some time speculated that there could be
no better place for him to hide than the thickly forested Kunar mountain
ranges.

164

The fact that President Musharraf was quick to add in his book that
he wasnt sure about bin Ladens presence in Kunar explains the care he
and other world leaders and military commanders must exercise while
speculating on the whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leader.

KHAN THE CULPRIT

When the President talks about the leakage of nuclear secrets, while
the principal accused is held in custody and not allowed to communicate
with the news media, his version would be regarded as one-sided story
opined the Nation.
As it is, Dr A Q Khan as well as those who are allowed to come in
contact with him are not permitted to utter a single word on the subject for
the inquisitive public to know the full background of the operation he had
been allegedly conducting. The sensitive operation of which he is being
accused is supposed to be of such an extensive scale that one wonders
whether it could have been carried out without a pretty long list of other
important functionaries assisting him, or at least turning a blind eye. The
argument that others involved in proliferation should be exposed is
compelling.
The News wrote, On this issue, Dr Khans personality, the
president makes some telling but harsh remarks. He said the man,
publicly perceived as the father of Pakistans atomic bomb, possessed a
great talent of self-promotion and publicity and led the public to believe that
he was building the bomb almost single-handedly. He was such a selfcentered and abrasive man that he could not be a team player However,
the interesting, or should one say ironic, part about these remarks is that
even if the presidents opinion of Dr Khan was accepted as being close to the
truth, much of the reason why the country thought that he was the father of
the countrys nuclear programme is because of the way he was projected by
the government-owned media and also indirectly by the military itself.
The book also says that Dr Khan managed to ship 18 tons of nuclearrelated equipment out of the country. On this the president was asked in
detail during an interview that he gave to CBS with the interviewer
repeatedly asking him how could such a large amount of equipment leave
a closely-guarded nuclear installation without the military or the

165

governments knowledge. The president explained this by saying that this

must have been done in several separate shipments Surely, Dr Khans
admirers and there are many of them in the country will take issue with
these remarks and at the very least a controversy is bound to heat up in the
coming days.
Whether his book will lay to rest lingering doubts on this matter
particularly in the US where some members of the US Congress aided by
Washington think-tanks believe otherwise remains to be seen. Also, we
have not heard Dr Khans side of the story so far.
Farhatullah Babar expressed similar views. On the issue of nuclear
proliferation his account is one-sided. He insists that Dr AQ Khan acted
alone in running the network of a nuclear black market and gave away to
others centrifuge designs, centrifuge parts and even centrifuges. By
Musharrafs account AQ Khan shipped two dozen of centrifuges Who
will believe that huge centrifuge machines were taken out of heavily
guarded nuclear facility and loaded on a C-130 on orders of AQ Khan
alone? Or accept the claim that the military and intelligence agencies
guarding the nuclear facility were there only to safeguard them from outside
attack?
Mehreen Imtiaz from Lahore observed with grief; it is bizarre to say
the least when a political head of a country comes up with such statements.
A hero can never rise to the status of being a hero unless he receives
acclamation from the people and the mighty and political factions. So how
can someone once regarded as a nuclear mogul all of a sudden become a
traitor and that too with undesirable traits? As they say some secrets are
better kept as secrets.
Mir Jamilur Rahman was of the view that the issue of Dr AG Khan
and his proliferation activities would also continue haunting us until we
have satisfied American quest for the whole story. Every now and then,
there is a demand from the Americans for more feedback from Dr Khan
especially with reference to Iran and North Korea.
The Americans supported by western countries will continue
demanding more information. It will be difficult to resist such a demand for
long. They refuse to buy our chapter closed stratagem. We better come
out with some better explanation than chapter closed.

166

Kamila Hyat said, the presidents undiplomatic insinuations that the

Indian uranium-enrichment programme could be based on a copy of
Pakistans centrifuge design, apparently provided to them through the
network run by Dr AQ Khan, is not likely to go down well particularly in
India.
Praful Bidwai wrote, an astounding example is the claim that India
probably stole uranium enrichment technology from AQ Khans Dubaicentered global network Khan ordered the manufacture of 200 P-1
centrifuges that had been discarded by Pakistan in the mid 80s. These were
dispatched to Dubai for onward distribution. The Dubai-based network
had employed several Indians, some of whom have since vanished. So,
there is strong probability that the Indian uranium enrichment programme
may also have roots in the network and could be a copy of the Pakistani
centrifuge design.
Vanishing Indians dont quite make the claim convincing. More
important, Indias uranium enrichment efforts and centrifuges designs go
back to early 1980s. Its another matter that that programme hasnt been
hugely successful.
MAK Lodhi agreed with the author on this issue. About
controversies involving Dr Qadeer, the president hasnt said anything
contrary to the general belief and reality about the scientists ways of
running nuclear affairs. He only goes into a little more depth Like other
Pakistani greats, Dr Qadeer had also drawn an inner circle of trusted officers
around him and funds for him flowed like water from all sources. There may
have been a few senior officers of the army privy to the underworld nuclear
market that Dr Qadeer had been running but Musharraf tries to limit the
collateral damage to the institutional setup of Pakistan Army.

REVIEW
One-on-one exercise of hurling allegations against each other between
two course-mates has been most damaging for Armys image. This reflected
the extent to which professionally jealous individuals could degenerate:
taunting each other like proverbial women with complete disregard to their
rank and stature. Has the author, by making such unscrupulous remarks,

167

done any service to Pakistan, the Army or even to his person? This has only
prompted some to doubt the fairness of promotion system in the Army.
The fact remains that some ambitious senior officers in armed forces
do overstep the limits of decency in their endeavour to project themselves
far more than their actual worth and many of them also succeed in that, but
majority of the officers simply bound themselves to the call of duty leaving
the rest to the system.
Three factors, apart from luck, matter in ones excelling in the military
career, just as in many other professions, i.e. God gifted talent, hard work
and PR. Those who leave it solely to their talent do not cover much distance.
Those who harness their inborn talent through hard work go up to the middle
distances and a little beyond. Those who keep using brasso (metal polish) of
PR, not occasionally but throughout the service, have bright chances of
reaching the higher echelons. As regards reaching the solitary top slot, it is
matter of luck and at times of intrigue because the factor of professional
competence is over shadowed by other considerations.
Some critics invoked the provisions of Secret Act which is not quite
convincing. Justification of common sense, as mentioned by Jamal is
invalid. This is applicable to some extent if Musharraf had written this book
as COAS, but not so when he wrote it as President. Commonsense in the
latter case says that the COAS Musharraf must have drawn his favourite
handgun and told the President Musharraf to pick his pen and start writing.
The people have the right to know the truth. Pakistan belongs to its
people and they should not be kept in dark by stretching the necessity of
secrecy too far. But the truth cannot be expected to come from the parties
involved; instead it would be better that if it comes from impartial inquiries.
In the context of Kargil, the most contested point relates to keeping
the head of the government in dark. This could be a deliberate and expected
from the higher echelons of the army which had decided to topple the prime
minister if he misbehaved with COAS once again.
Nisars admission as referred to by Jamal pertained to the time when
the heights had already been occupied. It cannot be taken as prior approval
which a COAS is obliged to get before embarking upon such adventure. As
regards Nawazs IQ, or lack of it for surmising the gravity, it is more

168

applicable to the military commanders with decades of training and

experience than a politician heading the government.
Militarily, the operation was brilliantly executed at tactical level for
which the credit goes to the courage and commitment of junior officers and
soldiers. Strategically, the operation was a complete fiasco for which only
two men could be held responsible corps commander and the COAS
who failed to evaluate the implications in entirety.
There is no doubt that the wrestler-turned-diplomat had pushed the
brave commando off the deck into the mainstream. As he splashed to keep
afloat, the onlookers kept applauding him. Unlike the proverbial Sardar, he
did not wait for reaching back to the deck to ask as to who had pushed him
to perform this brave feat, because he knew who did it.
Musharraf is not Omar Mukhtar who was an Islamic terrorist. He
fought against Italian occupation forces being an obscurantist, who could not
read the writing on the wall. Had he wargamed the consequences of
refusing collaboration with Italy, he would have avoided the gallows and
lived few more years.
Had Omar Mukhtar been alive, Musharraf could educate him how to
war-game such situations within the short duration of a long-distance
telephone call? Having done that one could merrily indulge trading brethrens
in faith and make millions of dollars. But there was a gapping difference in
perceptions of the two men; one was a fundamentalist obsessed with
liberation of his country and the other was only worried about saving him
and his empire, no matter how.
The brave commando has always been mindful of Pakistans dire
economic condition. Therefore, he decided to indulge in human trading to
earn millions of dollars. But true to Pakistani tradition, he too indulged
selling MUNBER DOO terrorists.
Hundreds of families are still searching for their missing kiths and
some of them keep protesting in Islamabad to draw official response. At
least an official should be deputed to convey to them that they have been
sold for handsome price and part of that should be shared with them.
As regards Khans network of nuclear business, the facts will not be
known until the accused is released from house arrest and he decides to give

169

his version roping in the accomplices. It is for this reason that the Crusaders
keep pressing for access to the culprit.
Musharraf has tried to project himself as Mr Perfect who is always
right and can commit no mistake. All the good things that happened during
his tenure have been because of him and for all that which went wrong, he
has pointed finger towards someone else; in doing that he has revealed that
he is no different from average human being.
He named his memoirs In the Line of Fire with the unstated
intention of extricating himself from the Line of Fire. He may or may not
achieve this aim, but in doing that he has certainly pushed Pakistan and its
people into the Line of Fire for times to come.
He certainly wants to be remembered beyond his time. In his
endeavour to find a place in history he has succeeded but only partially. He
will find place in history for services he rendered in the Crusades waged
against Islam and its followers. Therefore, he will surely be remembered; not
in his words but in those critically chosen by the historians.
10th October 2006

NO END IN SIGHT
Never ending bloodshed has virtually de-sensitized Iraqis, but it has
been hurting the occupation forces. Britains army chief grumbled about it
by saying that the presence of British troops in Iraq was exacerbating
security problems on the ground and they should be withdrawn soon.

170

He immediately came under fire for interfering in politics. He was

constrained to sign a retracting statement after he was summoned to
Ministry of Defence. From across the Atlantic two Republican senators
called for new US strategy in Iraq and from other side of the globe
Australian Foreign Minister said no one wants foreign troops in Iraq.
After making Israels northern border secure by creating a buffer zone,
Rice asked Hamas-led government to recognize Israel. The US also
launched a plan to help opponents of Hamas. Israel vowed not to let Gaza
become second Lebanon but most of the Palestinians favoured use of
Hezbollah method on Israel.
Olmert and Saudi VVIPs reportedly held a secret meeting as interests
of the two countries merged in the context of Hezbollah. Israeli Prime
Minister, however, ruled out another early fight with Hezbollah, but an
Israeli minister wanted swift killing of Hassan Nasrallah.
Lebanon War forced the US to go for sanctions against Iran as interim
measure. The Senate extended sanctions against Iran on 30 th September and
next day Bush signed sanctions bill; Tehran condemned. Ten days later,
sanctions plan for Iran was sent to the UN as well.

BLEEDING IRAQ
Reports about bloodshed in Iraq were carefully scrutinized and only
those were allowed to be trickle out which could help demonizing the
resistance. On 16th September eight people were killed in violence across the
country and 39 dead bodies were found. Next day, at least 27 people were
killed and about one hundred wounded in various incidents on violence
across the country. A US sailor died of wounds received in firing in Anbar
province. Police found 24 more dead bodies in Baghdad.
At least 85 people were killed in various incidents of violence on 18 th
September. Next day, sixty-two people were killed. On 20 th September, 63
people, including three US soldiers, were killed.
On 21st September, 43 people including a US soldier were killed. Two
days later, a militant group said it killed ten Pakistani and Indian pilgrims. At
least 38 people were killed and 34 wounded in truck-bomb blast in Sadr City
and five dead bodies were recovered. One US and a Danish soldier were also
171

killed. Security of Shiite province of Dhi Qar, second province, was handed
over to Iraqi forces.
On 24th September, nineteen people, including a US soldier, were
killed. Next day, 22 people were killed in various incidents of violence.
British forces claimed killing top al-Qaeda operative in southern Iraq. At
least 27 people, including three US soldiers, were killed in violence on 26th
September. Three days later, 12 more people were killed. Gunmen killed two
relatives of the judge in Saddam trial.
On 30th September, curfew was imposed in Baghdad amid fears of
suicide attacks on Green Zone. The US threatened to cut funding of Iraqi
police. Next day, gunmen kidnapped 26 workers at a food plant. Two US
soldiers and at least ten Iraqis, including a mayor were killed. Two girls were
killed by US tank fire. Turkey sought US help to take concrete action against
Kurdish rebels.
More than sixty people were killed on 2nd October, including 50 dead
bodies found around Baghdad. Three US soldiers were also killed. Next day,
nine US soldiers were reported killed in various incidents. At least 60 Iraqis
were killed and 15 dead bodies were also found.
At least 21 Iraqis were killed on 4th October. Next day, Iraqi security
sources claimed that al-Qaeda leader, al-Masri was killed; US forces denied.
At least 27 people were killed on 6th October. On 8th October, US occupation
forces killed 30 insurgents after their tank was hit and destroyed. At least 20
Iraqis were killed in other incidents across the country. One US soldier was
also killed.
On 10th October, at least 33 people were killed in various incidents
and sixty dead bodies were found. Two US soldiers were also killed. Next
day a study revealed that 655,000 people had been killed since invasion of
Iraq; Bush rejected the figure.
On 12th October, 34 people, including a US soldier, were killed in
violence. Next day, at least thirty more people were killed. On 14 th October,
17 people were killed and 26 dead bodies were found. Nearly 100 people,
including four US soldiers were killed across the country on 15th October.
Tom Engelhardt reported that the war has directly killed a minimum
of 62,000 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the

172

sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on Earth Last week,
the US Senate agreed to appropriate another $ 63 billion for military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose costs have been averaging $ 10
billion a month so far this year.
Kaleem Omar mentioned that Iraqs infrastructure is in ruins. Its
educational system, once the best in any Arab country, is in shambles. Terror
stalks the streets of Iraqi cities and towns, and sectarian killing have become
the order of the day. Oil production has plummeted, and a once-prosperous
country is in danger of becoming a basket case Yet Bush continues to
insist that the Iraqi people are now free an astonishing contention given
the fact that the country is occupied by more than 160,000 foreign troops;
vast majority of them Americans.
Mohammad A Salih reported, September was one of the bloodiest
months for Kirkuk, with an unprecedented number of attacks. For many, the
message behind the attacks is to stop implementation of Article 140 of Iraqs
constitution, and to inflame sectarian strife in the city.
Kurdish leaders want to speed up action over Article 140 in the hope
of bringing Kirkuk into a Kurdish autonomous region. There is little time
left for implementation of Article 140, but if there is goodwill in Baghdad,
then this remaining time is still enough, Mohammad Ihsan, minister for
extra-regional affairs in the Arbil-based Kurdistan regional government, said
in a statement.
Interference by neighbouring countries, most notably Turkey, is
believed to have complicated the situation and rendered a solution more
difficult. Turkey claims it acts to protect the Turkoman community in
Kirkuk, but not all Turkomans welcome its intervention.
The Asian Age wrote, a new study estimates that US President
George W Bushs illegal occupation of Iraq has resulted in the death of
650,000 Iraqi civilians. Both Washington and London, predictably,
dismissed the casualty figures as inflated. One must not forget that these are
not part of any jihadi propaganda, but the result of painstaking research
conducted by experts from John Hopkins University, arguably one of the
best universities in the United States.
Gulf News wrote, the US should be held accountable for the ongoing
loss of countless lives. It is the occupation power and security is its

173

responsibility. But Annan seems to have forgotten the basic principles of the
organization that he leads.
Saddams trial was pressed on. The new chief judge in the genocide
trial of the accused stamped his mark by expelling the former Iraqi leader
from court on 20th September during a stormy hearing which also saw the
defence team walk out. Six days later, Saddam was thrown out of the court
third time in as many hearings.
Meanwhile, a US report said Iraq War spawned terrorism. Iraqi clerics
assembled in Makkah and sought reconciliation. Another issue related to the
occupation was loud-thinking about autonomy or even division of Iraq. On
26th September, Iraqi lawmakers clashed over autonomy law. A week later,
Rice urged Kurds to work for peaceful and unified Iraq.

COMMENTS
Criticism of war increased with each passing day. Most criticized
aspect was conduct of the war. Iraq is indeed an epic tragedy not
witnessed in the past many centuries opined Khaleej Times. Even the great
tragedy of Palestine cannot be compared to what is unfolding in Iraq. While
the Arab and Muslim World clearly knew where it stood on the question of
Palestine-Israel conflict and who the aggressor is, Iraq defies all such
classifications.
By their incredibly inept handling of the post-invasion situation, the
occupying powers have unleashed a hideous monster of sectarian
bigotry. They have managed to achieve what successive regimes of
Mesopotamia failed to do: The division of Iraqi people on sectarian and
ethnic lines.
Three years after the Operation Freedom, the Bush Administration
remains clueless about ending the bloodshed in Iraq. Except for the
regulation rhetoric declaring Iraq as the main front in the so-called war on
terror from time to time, the administration appears to have no credible plan
or strategy to end the suffering of Iraqi people.
The News commented on the recent intelligence report. Perhaps, the
report is a way to set that right and possibly for the intelligence agencies to

174

at least state their concerns on Iraq for the public record. It is no secret that
for much of its time in office, the Bush Administration, especially his
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has not seen eye-to-eye with the
military on any important matters. This report, also, in a sense is a reflection
of this schism.
Ralph Nader was of the view that the drafters of this new approach
know that applying it on the ground requires more soldiers, more smarts and
fewer profiteering, bungling corporate contractors Invaders who occupy
another country are obliged under international treaties to keep order
and safeguard the rights and safety of civilians By engaging in sectarian
politics and playing favorites, among their publicized blunders, the Bush
occupation sowed the seeds of the upheavals that are tearing the country
apart at an increasing pace.
Gulf News observed, there is much that is wrong in Iraq and much
that is not being done to put an end to the political, religious and ethnic
infighting taking place on a daily basis, with around 100 civilians being
killed every day. The US Administration tends to take the rather complacent
view that everything is working according to their plans, yet it has been
known almost from Day One that the US had no plans following their
invasion. And that fact is still evident some three years later.
Patrick Cockburn had similar impressions while quoting the example
of Mosul. In and around Mosul, the third largest Iraqi city, some 70,000
Kurds have fled their homes so far this year. Many have run away after
receiving an envelope with a bullet inside and a note telling them to get
out in 72 hours.
During the first year of the occupation General David Petraeus, the
US commander of the 101st Division, tried to conciliate the many officers
and officials of Saddam Husseins regime who came from Mosul. In the long
term the experiment failed. When US Marines stormed Fallujah in
November 2004, most of the police in Mosul resigned, and insurgents
captured 30 police stations and $40m worth of arms almost without firing a
shot. The US was forced to call in Kurdish peshmerga fighters to retake
the city.
The US and Kurds still co-operate. The Americans are highly reliant
on Kurdish intelligence to search for guerrillas. But they are also conscious
that a recent confidential Pentagon poll leaked to ABC television showed
175

that 75 percent of Sunni Arabs in Iraq supported armed resistance. The US

forces, who used to have four bases in the city, have now retreated to
one large base at the airport.
Woodwards latest book was widely quoted by the critics and media as
proof of Bush Administrations incompetence. Linda S Heard wrote, now
Bob Woodward, one of two reporters who exposed Nixons Watergate
scandal, has weighed-in by publishing a book titled State of Denial that
describes the Bush Administration as dysfunctional and fractured.
On the subject of Iraq Woodward is particularly illuminating. He
claims that in 2005 Bush was determined to keep US troops in Iraq and
reports him as saying even if Laura and Barney (Bushs dog) are the only
ones who support me. Woodward further asserts the Bush
Administration has deliberately kept the American people in the dark
when it comes to the level of violence suffered by the US troops. To support
his contention he cited May 2005 intelligence assessment that the Iraqi
insurgency was proliferating even as Bush was boasting publicly of
progress.
Gulf News opined, Woodward has written previously since 9/11 on
the White House, but in those books he was largely uncritical. This time he
paints a disturbing picture of a White House misleading the American
public about the true picture of the Iraq catastrophe.
He argues that the White House disregarded warnings from
advisers in the autumn of 2003 that it needed thousands more troops to put
down the insurgency. He paints a picture of a divided administration where
Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld barely talk to each other.
Of course, there is nothing in the book that is new to the Iraqis. More
than anyone, politicians and journalists, they know the true state of the
country they live in And while books are written and the political pundits
discuss them on TV chat shows and White House spokesman rush to the
podium under the bright camera lights, the Iraqi people continue to suffer.
The Washington Post said, in-depth accounts of journalists are
beginning to provide a detailed picture of what has gone wrong in Iraq and
why. Most recently, The Posts Bob Woodward reports in the book State of
Denial how Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld monopolized
administration planning for Iraq, repeatedly misjudged the tactics and

176

resources needed for success, and ignored reports from his own top aides
about how the war was going wrong.
Mr Bush himself refused to take one of the essential steps needed to
remedy the resulting mess replacing Mr Rumsfeld despite repeatedly
being advised to do so by his own chief of staff, among others. The result, as
Mr Woodward describes it, is a defence secretary who has lost the
confidence of the military he directs. Even more disturbing isa president
who, with two years left in his term, seems unable to come to terms with the
damaging and dangerous situation he has helped to create much less
imagine a way out of it.
Tom Curley condemned deliberate suppression of media on
presumption of being hostile. Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer who
helped the Associated Press win a Pulitzer Prize last year, is now in sixth
month in a US Army prison in Iraq. He doesnt understand why hes there,
and neither do his AP colleagues.
The Army says it thinks Bilal has too many contacts among
insurgents. He has taken pictures the Army thinks could have been made
only with the connivance of insurgents. So Bilal himself must be one, too, or
at least a sympathizer.
It is a measure of just how dangerous and disorienting Iraq has
become that suspicions such as these are considered adequate grounds
for locking up a man and throwing away the key But Bilals incarceration
delivers a further bonus. He is no longer free to circulate in his native
Fallujah or in Ramadi, taking photographs that coalition commander would
prefer not to see published.
Both official and unofficial parties on every side of a conflict try to
discredit or silence news they dont like. That is certainly the case in Iraq,
where journalists are routinely harassed, defamed, beaten and
kidnapped. At last count, 80 had been killed.
Saddams trial was also considered a failing of the occupation forces.
The New York Times wrote, the trial is likely to spawn more cynicism
and division after the Iraqi government fired the courts chief judge this
week for allegedly being too sympathetic to Mr Hussein. Sunni politicians
immediately accused the Shiite and Kurdish dominated government of

177

violating the independence of the judiciary. Legal experts raised similar

fears.
The credibility of the process was already in serious doubt after
Mr Husseins first circus-like trial. One chief judge quit after Iraqi officials
publicly criticized him for not doing more to restrain Mr Husseins
outbursts. Three members of the defence team were murdered.
As a consequence of the misconduct of the war, regional countries
no more trusted the US. The Guardian commented. Rices recently
completed six-day trip to the region, which included her sixth visit as
secretary of State to Israel and the Palestinian territories, probably ranks
her least productive. She spent most of her time talking with leaders who
dont trust her about issues theyd rather not discuss.
Rice met with leaders of eight moderate Arab governments whom she
had hoped to persuade to join US efforts to thwart Irans nuclear ambitions.
Instead, they were interested in pushing for a solution to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict.
No visit by a US diplomat could begin to ease the discord that has
wracked the region for decades. If there were a silver bullet for solving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the war in Iraq, it would have been fired long
ago The worry now is that every step, including by the administration,
is going in the wrong direction.
The critics were almost unanimous in concluding that invasion and
occupation of Iraq has promoted terrorism. Linda Heard opined, if
Bushs wars had gone to plan then either a pacified Iraq ruled by a puppet
government or a weakened Iraq divided into three would have fitted the bill.
But instead Iraq has become a magnet for extremists, a recruiting tool for
terrorist groups while its continued occupation elicits anti-Americanism
throughout the region.
The al-Qaeda movement is both amorphous and mutating but one of
its key features is the time scale in which it operates decades not years. In
doing so, it is looking to future generations of support, and some analysts
have pointed to the way in which parts of Iraq have taken on the role of a
combat training zone for the jihadis of the future wrote Paul Rogers.

178

The actual situation may be more complex, and there may often be
conflicts between foreign paramilitaries and Iraqi nationals. Even so, there is
abundant evidence that Iraq is serving this long-term function. After
Lebanon War the Crusaders fears have multiplied.
The Asian Age said, President Bushs persistent claim that the
overthrowing the Iraqi regime, he has made the region and the world a safer
place has also proved false. Now even the US National Intelligence Estimate
has acknowledged what the world has all along insisted, the President
Bushs illegal war has created many more terrorists, destabilized West
Asia and destroyed US credibility in the world.
Though the findings of the report are far from surprising, what might
raise some eyebrows is that this is the first official US assessment of
international terrorism since the Iraq War began. For three-and-a-half
years the US has not sought to discover what makes a terrorist This
long wait for an assessment, now matter how nave, is the true surprise.
The latest intelligence report commonly referred to as NIE was widely
quoted while discussing the issue of terrorism. Arab News wrote, a
classified US intelligence examination of the effects of the Iraq War
indicates that it is making the threat of terror worse. Such a finding surely
did not require a famous intelligence body; any layman in any country could
have told the world the war in Iraq has definitely increased the threat of
terrorism and has helped fuel radicalism everywhere in the world.
By stating the Iraq War has triggered more, not less, terrorism, the
30-page document known as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is
stating the obvious. The documents conclusion is that al-Qaeda has now
mutated into a global franchise of semi-autonomous cells. Rather than
contributing to eventual victory in the global counter terrorism struggle, the
war in Iraq has made Iraq and its immediate vicinity as well as the world a
more dangerous place than before the war began.
The Guardian opined, the row about the US intelligence estimate is
about honest analysis and political spin. Pakistans president, Pervez
Musharraf, is not known for plain speaking: still, his blunt view, expressed
in Washington this week, is that the invasion of Iraq has been indeed made
the world a far more dangerous place. General Musharraf and American
spies are right. Messrs Bush and Blair are wrong.

179

Mike Whitney said, NIE carries great weight because it represents the
unanimous judgment of all 16 of the American intelligence agencies. The
documents findings cast doubt on the central tenet of the war on terror,
that is, that terror originates from a radical ideology (Islamo-fascism) which
fosters an irrational hatred for modernity, western-style democracy, and
personal freedom. The NIE proves that the Bush-Blair theory of terror is
hopelessly flawed and that violent jihad is actually fueled by occupation and
injustice. Terrorism is a reaction to foreign policy. It has nothing to do with
hating our freedom. The NIE confirms this simple truism.
The long-term effects of the report are impossible to calculate. The
Bush agenda is predicated on the Big Lie, that we are under attack and that
we must fight them there, if we dont want to fight them here When we
consider relentless manoeuverings of the media, it is gratifying to see that
Americans are finally beginning to recognize the truth behind the
imagery. Fortunately, there are limits to the effectiveness of propaganda
regardless of how adroitly it is employed.
Americas enemies should be thrilled that Don Rumsfeld is still
overseeing all operations in Iraq. His incompetence is only matched by his
astonishing inability to learn from his mistakes. Its plain that America will
not prevail with Rumsfeld in command.
Cesar Chelala observed, the effect of the Iraq War on the fight
against terrorism has been the subject of intense debate since its
beginnings. What makes the conclusions of this report particularly valid is
that these estimates are produced by the intelligence community and are
approved by director of national intelligence John Negroponte.
The National intelligence Estimates, in contrast, confirms a National
Intelligence Council 2005 study that concluded that Iraq had become the
training ground for the next generation of terrorists and that veterans of
the Iraq War may become the leaders in a global Muslim holy war against
unbelievers Their findings also confirm the conclusions of the Council on
Global Terrorism, an independent research group that stated, there is every
sign that radicalization in the Muslim World is spreading rather than
shrinking.
Gorton Ash mentioned the cause of the spread of terrorism. Heres
what I think I see. Its not just an increasingly clear acknowledgement that
the United States faces more jihadist terrorists than it did five years ago and
180

that, under the American-led occupation, Iraq has become their training
ground, rallying cry and cause celebre to quote the secret April 2006
national intelligence estimate partially leaked to national papers at the
weekend and partially declassified by the Bush Administration
What Im picking up goes deeper. Its a growing sense not merely
that the war on terror cannot be won by military means alone the Bush
Administration has always acknowledged that, at least in principle but that
it has, in these first five years, relied too much on guns and soldiers, and
made too little of the other instruments at its disposal.
The most subservient ally of Bush could not escape the criticism.
Arab News wrote, during his slavish support for the Bush invasion of
Iraq he said: If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to al-Qaeda and sectarian
death squadswe wont be safe; we will be committing a craven act of
surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril.
Not for one moment did Blair betray any understanding that it was
the invasion itself that plunged Iraq into its present chaos. Al-Qaeda only
moved in its killers after Saddams ouster. Die-hard Baathists retreated to
long-planned arsenals and found a ready supply of fighters from police and
army, which the Americans so precipitously disbanded after their initial
victory. The Shiite militias and death squads only arose after al-Qaeda thugs
and Baathist insurgents repeatedly attacked their community.
Even while Blair was speaking, the world was digesting a formerly
secret US intelligence report that made patently clear that, contrary to what
the Bush Administration continues to insist, the Iraq invasion has boosted,
not reduced the menace of terrorism, while the occupation of an Arab
country by foreign troops has produced a rallying point for jihadists around
the world.
Britains security agencies have always argued that the Iraq invasion
is a significant factor behind the radicalization of young British Muslims
opined Richard Norton-Taylor. Patrick Cockburn after a journey to Iraqs
Taliban Republic noted that Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world.
Inability of the occupation forces caused frustration and blaming
the puppets. The Washington Post wrote, a bipartisan Iraq Study Group
set up by Congress delivered a blunt message to the four-month-old Iraqi
coalition government, which has been slow to take desperately needed steps
181

toward national reconciliation. The government of Iraq needs to show its

own citizens soon, and the citizens of the United States, that it is deserving
of continuing support, said former representative Lee H Hamilton Unless
that message is heeded, the sacrifice involved in holding US troop levels
steady for another six months in lives, above all is likely to be wasted.
The New York Times opined, in the real Iraq, armed Shiites and
Kurdish parties have divided up the eastern two-thirds of the country,
leaving Sunni insurgents and American marines to fight over the rest. Prime
Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki and his national unity cabinet stretch
out their arms to like-thinking allies like Iran and Hezbollah, but barely
lift a finger to rein in the sectarian militias and death squads spreading terror
across Baghdad and the Shiite south.
Suspicion about Shias loyalty in case of attack on Iran was another
reason to pressure Maliki for their disarming. The temptation to see the
Shia as a homogeneous community is perceptible in the current debate on
whether Shia loyalties are restricted to Iraq or may be offered to Iran
Although nationalism is a factor to be taken into account, it is not enough to
explain the behaviour of Iraqi Shia during the war with Iran opined
Peter Harling and Hamid Yasin.
Threats of alternative Iraqi government were sounded. David Ignatius
wrote, there has been growing talk among Iraqi politicians about a
government of national salvation a coup, in effect that would impose
martial law throughout the country. This coup talk is probably unrealistic,
but it illustrates the rising desperation among Iraqis as the country slips
deeper into civil war.
Top officials of the Iraqi intelligence service have discussed a plan in
which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would step aside in favour of a fiveman commission that would suspend Parliament, declare martial law
and call back some officers of the Old Iraqi Army.
As sectarian violence has increased, the disillusionment has spread to
some Shiite and Kurdish politicians as well. Some are said to support the
junta-like commission, which would represent the countrys main factions
and include former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who is still seen by
some Iraqis as a potential strongman who could pull the country back
from the brink.

182

Another explanation is Americas increasingly vocal frustration

with Maliki and the perception in Iraq that he has been given a deadline to
crackdown on militias, or else. Finally, the rumours may reflect ongoing US
efforts to reach out to former Baath Party leaders and insurgents in an effort
to stabilize the country.
Linda Heard spoke for the man under pressure. Many of his
(Malikis) problems stem from the fact that competing militias have
infiltrated the Ministry of Interior, the Iraqi military and the police. He
further faces a daily balancing act between the good of his own people and
having to kowtow to US interests. In light of such complexity, foreign
interference and competing interests, what is to be done?
Firstly, Iraqis need a strong secular leader, a kinder and nobler
version of Saddam Hussein or former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi if you
like. Such a paragon would need to have the interests of all Iraqis at heart
and must eschew sectarian bias Most of all he should be somebody all
Iraqis could trust to build a better future. Iraq needs a man who is able to
rally everyone around him, in the way that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah
managed to do during the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict.
Dennis Ross suggested, such an outcome (stability) wont materialize
on its own. To be sure, it could emerge after a prolonged civil war, which is
the path we are heading down. Three interconnected initiatives might
create a more acceptable path for management either this outcome or at
least our own disengagement from Iraq:
First, its time for the Bush Administration to insist that a national
reconciliation conference be held and not be disbanded until
agreement is reached on amendments to the constitution.
Second, a long-discussed regional conference with all of Iraqs
neighbours should be held. None of them Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
Syria, Turkey wants the Bush Administration to succeed in Iraq.
Third, President Bush informs Maliki that we will not impose a
deadline for withdrawal but we are going to negotiate with his
government a timetable for our departure.
Apart from pressuring the puppet government, the occupation forces
pondered about other options, including division of Iraq. Peter Harling
183

and Hamid Yasin while commenting on division of Iraq said, people still
say Iraq will surmount its division, but it is no longer clear what its national
identity means. In practice, the arbitrary violence, nepotism and
unprecedented corruption all demonstrate how important non-national
loyalties have become.
Moves for autonomy were part of the plan to disintegrate Iraq.
Nermeen al-Mufti reported, parliament has held two sessions to discuss
federalism after Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani decided to substitute the
Kurdish for the Iraqi flag. Parliament also reviewed the introduction of a
federal system in the countrys central and southern areas, something
that Shia leader Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim is pushing for.
Khalid al-Atiya, deputy parliamentary speaker for the Alliance List,
called federalism a step toward partition. Mahdi al-Hafez of the Iraqi List
said the untimely introduction of federalism could damage the future of
Iraq and undermine national unity.
Mohammad Akef Jamal opined, the situation in Iraq cannot
tolerate federalism at this time, as it will divide even the groups unified
currently in the parliament. The Unified Iraqi Coalition Bloc is not a
political party, but rather a group of several political organizations, some of
which oppose federalism intensely Other blocs represented in the Iraqi
parliament believe that discussing federalism now will put an end to the
national reconciliation project
These moves were most worrisome for Turkey. W Robert Pearson
said, all the countries in the region with sizeable Kurdish populations would
oppose the creation of an independent Kurdish state, fearing territorial
claims and divided loyalties among their ethnic Kurds. Turkey worries
most of all.
It was just in 1999 that Turkey brought to a close a 20-year battle
with its Kurdish insurgency in which more than 30,000 people died. And
since the beginning of the Iraq War, Turkey has watched the same
insurgency renew a guerrilla campaign.
Meanwhile, its decision not to allow the US to launch a northern
front to invade Iraq via Turkey cost Ankara both its influence in northern
Iraq and any chance to cooperate with the US in shaping post-war Iraq. In

184

fact, Turkey may be punished by creating an independent Kurdish state

in Iraq.
Demise of Iraq is imminent, opined M B Naqvi. What can be greater
crisis than the invasion, occupation, nationalistic resistance and sectarian
strife that looks like to last God knows how long. No meaningful effort is
being made to save Iraq. No one is trying to persuade the Kurds, Sunnis and
Shias to live in a revived Iraqi state. It seems the international community,
including the UN, is sure of Iraqs demise.
But the demise of non-traditional Arab state, Iraq, will hugely
benefit another unnatural state: Israel. Iraq was the most anti-Israeli state
that was sustaining the anti-Israel resistance by various Palestinian groups.
Destruction of Iraq will be a boon for Israels long-term security.
A consequence of Iraqs disappearance will raise the stature of Iran.
Iraq was the strongest and fairly big Arab state that, to a significant extent,
balanced Iran. Another salience of Iraqs demise will be the creation of
another Shia state, contiguous to Iran That creates a dilemma for the US.
The critics of occupation argued for pullout of US forces as they saw
no reason for staying the course. There are now two reasons why there will
be increased public opposition to continued US presence in Iraq. The first is
the specter of American failure to achieve its goals in Iraq a world without
terrorism and a Middle East without dictatorship. There is a limit to how
long Americans can continue to support failure and watch thousands die on
daily basis. The second reason is the growing realization that there was no
linkage between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. While Americans do
not win the war on terror there is no other option on that score they may
not wish to continue to lose in a war that was optional to begin with, opined
Muqtedar Khan.
The New York Times wrote, beyond the futility of simply staying the
course lies the impossibility of keeping the bulk of American ground forces
stationed in Iraq indefinitely. They have already been there for 42 months,
longer than it took the United States to defeat Hitler. The strain is
undermining the long-term strength of the Army and Marines,
threatening to divert the National Guard from homeland security and
emboldening Iran and North Korea.

185

Joshua Holland argued in the context of Iraqis. Majorities of Iraqis of

all sects want their government to request a US withdrawal. Seven out of
ten want a deadline within a year, while just one in ten want the US to
remain until the security situation approves the Bush Administrations
line. Even two-thirds of the Kurdish population long the strongest
supporters of US policy agreed, although many Kurds want a two-year
window.
Helena Cobban strengthened this argument by saying, if Washington
announces a firm and short timetable for pulling the troops out of Iraq, we
can expect that Iraqs most significant leaders will work hard to make
that happen in an orderly and peaceful way. As they do so, they may also
discover new ways of working with each other and we should encourage
such cooperation.
Neighbouring countries will also need to be involved, both in
facilitating the US exit and in negotiating rules of the game in Iraq and in the
broader region in the post-withdrawal phase Redirecting Washingtons
focus toward diplomacy has never been more necessary. It is the only
way now, to restore order and stability to a world system that has been badly
battered by the reckless US militarism of the past five years.
Tariq Ali was of the view that Anglo-American armies need to be
driven out. The reality is that there is only one way to halt this spiral of
violence: the path refused by Sistani in 2004, and now taken up once again
by Muqtada al-Sadr a national agreement between Sunni and Shia
leadersto secure the expulsion of all occupying forces from the country
without further delay ado. Cut off the head of the snake and remove all
evil, as Muqtada exhorted on returning from Lebanon to a shattered
Samarra and Baghdad.
The expeditionary armies from America and Britain could not last
a month in Iraq, if the Shia at large followed the example of their Sunni
compatriots. Indeed, it would take only a vote in the puppet parliament
demanding the immediate withdrawal of foreign forces to make the position
of Washington and London untenable.
Given the modern history of Iraq, there would still be many grave
tensions in the relations between the two communities, not to speak of the
recent role of the Kurds as the Gurkhas of the invader The Anglo-

186

American armies need to be driven out of the country, bag and baggage,
for Iraq to have any future.
The Asian Age criticized adamant Bush. Even now he refuses to
withdraw the American troops from Iraq claiming that he will do so only
after bringing the raging carnage to an end. The new study has, however,
proved that it is the continued presence of the occupying forces which is the
cause of the mayhem.
Bush drew strength from arguments like the one given by David
Ignatius. The issue raised by National Intelligence Estimate is much
grimmer than the domestic political game. Iraq has fostered a new
generation of terrorists. The question is what to do about that threat The
Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next.
They act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the
sands of Anbar province if the United States pulls out its troops.
Heres a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single
government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and
Syria that favours a rapid US pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the
region is that a retreat now would be disastrous consequences for
America and its allies.
The Democrat who has tried hardest to think through these problems
is Sen Joseph Biden. He argues that the current government of national unity
isnt succeeding in holding Iraq together and that America should instead
embrace a policy of federalism plus that will devolve power to the
Shiite, Sunni and Kurds.

ISRAEL ON RAMPAGE
Israel has launched two-pronged state terrorism. The prong directed at
Palestine is continuation of the process that started about six decades ago,
which was intensified after Hamas won general elections. On 21st
September, Israeli forces killed five Palestinians including a woman.
Israel rejected demand of Abbas for release of militant leaders. Two
Palestinians were killed in Israel air strike on 5th October. A week later, five

187

more Palestinians were killed. Israeli forces killed four Palestinians in Gaza
on 13th October.
Sanctions against Palestine remained in place with a view to toppling
Hamas-led government. Israel opposed any relaxation during recent visit of
Rice. Hamas remained steadfast as was evident from Haniyehs rejection of
conditions imposed by the so-called Quartet for resuming direct financial
aid to the PA.
However, Hamas has shown willing to share the responsibility of
governance through formation of unity government. On 24th September,
Abbas and Haniyeh agreed to renew stalled talks on the issue. On 29 th
September, thousands of activists demonstrated in support of Hamas-led
government which led to heightening the factional tension. Fatah said
Palestinian unity government was in jeopardy.
On 1st October, seven people were killed and 75 wounded when Fatah
fighters clashed with Hamas in Gaza over non-payment of salaries. The
clash stoked fear of civil war. Violence also erupted in the West Bank city of
Ramallah where Abbas supporters entered offices of the Hamas-led
government and started a small fire. By 3rd October the death toll in clashes
rose to ten.
Woodwards book was widely appreciated for revealing inside stories,
but George S Hishmeh found a major inadequacy. Woodward depicts a
Bush Administration in the words of one reviewer as crippled by
incompetence, split by infighting and overseen by an arrogant and clueless
president What is sorely missing from the otherwise fascinating book is
the role of the pro-Israel neoconservatives in tirelessly agitating for the
war. There was only a passing reference to Paul Wolfowitz as the chief
neoconservative intellectual architect of the war.
There were several snippets in the book that would be intriguing
to readers in the Arab World, especially the view that some Arab countries
are not as forceful as they could be with any US administration on the
Palestinian question, as one senior State Department official said in a roundtable with Arab journalists.
Hamas has been blamed for all the miseries suffered by Palestinians
because of the unjust sanctions economic strangulation to be correct. Sami
Moubayed said Haniyeh has failed to deliver. Haniya was born to lead the

188

Palestinian underground, not the state of Palestine. He was trained as a

resistance leader, not a statesman, and he thinks, acts and reacts to events
around him, like one rather than like a seasoned politician.
When Hamas came to power, I wrote that this would ruin the
Islamic resistance group. History is filled with examples of resistance
groups that had an unblemished record in the underground which was ruined
the minute they became masters of the state.
When Hamas became government, however, it won the animosity of
the Palestinians because it failed to bring higher wages (in this case it
brought no wages), better public works, finer hospitals and was unable to
bring security to the Palestinian Territories. And it was deprived the honours
of waging war against Israel.
Hamass dilemma is that its leaders are no longer able to stand as
freedom fighters because of their commitment to statesmanship, nor are they
able to come across as statesmen because of their history and ideological
commitment to resistance Haniya, a courageous man with unblemished
record and an unwavering commitment to the Palestinian cause, never
imagined that the prime minister-ship would be so difficult and
destructive both to him and Hamas.
On September 11, he agreed to create a national unity cabinet with
President Mahmoud Abbas. Haniya backed out when Abbas delivered his
speech at the United Nations on September 21, when he said that the
upcoming unity cabinet would recognize Israel. The following day,
Haniya snapped back at a Friday prayer in Gaza saying he would not
endorse a cabinet that recognizes Israel. All Hamas was willing to do was a
long-term 10-year ceasefire with the Israelis, but not recognition.
Tariq Ali opined that all the efforts of the West are now focused on
toppling and breaking Hamas. Measured on the scale of IDF killings,
Palestinian strikes have been few and far between. The asymmetry was
starkly exposed during Hamass unilateral ceasefire, begun in June 2003,
and maintained throughout the summer despite the Israeli campaign of raids
and mass arrests which followed, in which some three hundred Hamas
cadres were seized from the West Bank
What has actually distinguished Hamas in a hopelessly unequal
combat is not dispatch of suicide bombers, to which a range of competing

189

groups resorted, but its superior discipline - demonstrated by its ability to

enforce a self-declared ceasefire against Israel over the past year.
The real grievance of the EU and US against Hamas is that it refused
to accept the capitulation of the Oslo Accords, and has rejected every
subsequent effort, from Taba to Geneva, to pass off their calamities on the
Palestinians. The Wests priority now is to break this resistance.
Whether Hamas could be so rapidly suborned to Western and Israeli
ends may be doubtful, but it would not be unprecedented. Hamass
programmatic heritage remains mortgaged to the most fatal weakness of
Palestinian nationalism: the belief that the political choices before it are
either rejection of the existence of Israel altogether, or acceptance of the
dismembered remnants of a fifth of the country. From the fantasy
maximalism of the first to the pathetic minimalism of the second, the path is
all too short, as the history of Fatah has shown. the test for Hamas is not
whether it can be house-trained to the satisfaction of western opinion,
but whether it can break with this crippling tradition.
To do that would require the Palestinian national cause to be put on
its proper basis, with the demand that the country and its resources be
divided equally, in the proportion to two populations that are equal in size,
not 80 percent to one and 20 percent to the other, a dispossession of such
iniquity that no self-respecting people will ever submit to it in the long run.
The only acceptable alternative is that outlined by Virginia Tilley in this
issue: a single state for Jews and Palestinians alike, in which the
exactions of Zionists are repaired.
Jordan Times was of the view that Abbas is party to toppling of
Hamas. Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, meanwhile, seems
willing to go along with anyone who wishes to talk to him except the
people that really matter, his own elected government. That can only be a
recipe for disaster.
Nothing can be achieved if Palestinians continue bickering, or worse,
among themselves. Aware of this, the international community truly
interested in progress, ought to allow Abbas and Hamas room for
manoeuvre; the same room it is so happy to allow Israel. But the
international community, led unflinchingly by Washington is unwilling to
give Abbas and Hamas any space to compromise.

190

Unity government is a step towards toppling of Hamas and thats why

like a predator smelling blood, Washington has translated Hamass
willingness to go some way to compromise not as moderation but as
weakness observed Ramzy Baroud. He added, such bloody-minded shortsightedness will backfire.
Walid M Sadi suggested, the best viable option is to hold new
parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories because Hamas, the
ruling majority, can no longer govern under the existing internal and external
pressures, be they economic, fiscal or political.
Palestinian voters may cast their votes differently in the second
round of parliamentary elections after experiencing economic and political
hardships; they may be now amenable to electing a new legislature that
would accept Abbas political term reference vis--vis Israel and the outside
world. If Palestinians again vote for Hamas, the process of holding reelections the dose could be repeated till Palestinians vote differently to the
likings of Israel and the US.
Ramzy Baroud condemned the intrigues to topple Hamas and warned
of the consequences. Abbas and mainstream Fatah behind him must
have realized that the harder Hamas is hit, the stronger its popular
support grows, thus undermining Fatahs own chances of political recovery.
Although Hamas has called for a national unity government from the start, it
did so from a position of strength, and with a hint of arrogance. Now a
national unity government is its only outlet to the world: without it, neither
the survival, as a relevant political movement, nor achieving any of its
declared objectives are as secured as it may have seemed in the heat of
victory.
But amid the rush to form a government, key questions wont be
laid to rest: Who will speak on behalf of the Palestinian people
internationally? Who will formulate their foreign-policy agenda? And who
will be entrusted with the task of defending or redefining their national
constants the refugees right to return, the end of Israeli occupation,
preserving their water rights, removal of all settlements, borders, etc? Will it
be Abbas, chairman of the PLO, or the elected legislative council and
government?
If the peace settlement fails to adhere to the democratic concept,
according to which Palestinians wish to govern themselves, then Palestinians
191

should ready themselves for another Oslo-style agreement, imposed from the
top and rubber stamped by the PLOs executive committee, long-devoid of
its democratic principles and dominated by the elitist few.
In another analysis he added, to differ is only human, indeed. But
when political and ideological differences within the Palestinian leadership
turn into wide chasms that split further an already weakened and oppressed
society in urgent need for national cohesion amid incessant and sadly
successful attempts to splinter its national identity then one must question
the wisdom and merit of such leadership that would allow for, in fact,
instigate such a travesty.
Mainstream Fatah is desperate to reclaim its past position, even if
unity with Hamas means the sparing of the Palestinians further humiliation
and misery. Hamas, wrangling with the taxing nature of politics, is sending
mixing messages, injudicious ones from abroad, and more realistic, yet often
indecisive ones at home.
After the bloody Hamas-Fatah clash, the Daily Star wrote, the leaders
of Hamas and Fatah both bear direct responsibility for the Bloody Sunday in
Palestine this week. Nearly a month of political arm-wrestling between
the two parties has failed to produce a unity government that would
allow all Palestinians to rally around a national cause. The bloody Sunday
has been the aim of the Crusaders with whom the coward Arab rulers have
been conniving.
While the Palestinian factions were busy fighting with each other on
Sunday, no one noticed that 50 Israeli tanks were pushing their way into
northern Gaza. Thanks to the fact that all eyes were on the internecine feud
between Fatah and Hamas a battle that, compared to other challenges
facing Palestinians, boils down to pretty differences the Israel militarys
incursion passed without a hitch.
Hamas and Fatah have no hope of confronting the external challenges
that face the Palestinian people so long as they remain embroiled in their
deadly internal feuds. And as long as the two factions behave as though
they live in a land of gangs, they are inviting the rest of the world to
treat them as such. Who could even think of creating a Palestinian state
now, knowing that it would be ruled by thugs who have no regard for the
rule of law, let alone for each other?

192

The Palestinian people, who deserve much better, have no choice

but to blame their leaders for their plight. Hamas and Fatah are not just
fighting over control of the government and the terms of a unity deal; they
are playing with the fate of some 9 million Palestinians around the world.
In yet another article he said, it must be admitted that while the
inhumanity and apathy towards the plight of Palestinians is part-and-parcel
of the Wests general attitude toward the historically ill-treated nation,
thanks to internal Palestinian division and ineffectual power-struggles,
Palestinians are being reduced and humiliated with full cooperation of
their own leadership.
All this is attributable to Americas unjust policy. Martin Doerry,
Gerhard Spari and Bernhard Zand interviewed Bashar al-Assad who urged,
America must listen. It must listen to the interests of others. But the US
government has no interest in similarities, no matter how obvious. Think of
the war against terrorism. In my view, Washingtons approach can be
compared to a doctor constantly banging away at a tumor instead of
removing it surgically. Terrorism is growing instead of declining. We both
suffer from it, but the United States doesnt want to cooperate with us.
There can be no peace in the Middle East without Syria. The
Lebanon and the Palestinian conflicts are inextricably linked with Syria. I
have already mentioned the 500,000 Palestinian refugees. Were we to
resolve our territorial dispute with Israel over Golan Heights alone, we
wouldnt achieve stability? We would only be taking away the Palestinians
hope and would be turning them from refugees to resistance fighters. This is
why Syria is so determined to achieve a comprehensive peaceful solution.
They have the right to return, at least to Palestine. You would have to
talk to the Palestinians about that. What we are talking about now is their
return to the Palestine state which is something George W Bush, also
speaks about; but raises questions. What sort of this state is at all; a
sovereign state or just a few specks of land covering a few square
kilometers?
Jonathan Cook criticized this Israel-US policy. If Peretz and others
are to be believed, the gunmen could have done themselves and the 1.4
million people of Gaza a favour and simply executed Shalit weeks ago.
Israel doubtless would have inflicted terrible retribution, such as the

193

bombing of the Strips only power station except, of course, it had already
done that to avenge Shalits capture.
But, with the Israeli soldier dead, there would have been no
obstacle to sitting down and talking. Yet, as we all know, there would have
been. Because Israels refusal to negotiate and its crushing of Gaza long
predates the capture of Shalit.
The international communitys economic blockade of the Strip, for
example, has nothing to do with the seizing of the soldier; that was
because Gazans had the temerity to cast their vote for the politicians of
Hamas in March.
In other words, Israel has always found reasons for oppressing,
destroying and killing in Gaza, whatever the circumstances. Let us not forget
that Israels occupation began four decades ago, long before anyone had
heard, or dreamt of Hamas.
But more strangely, observers have also failed to note both that
Fatah, first under Arafat and then Abbas, agreed to all three conditions years
ago and that Fatahs compliance to Israeli demands never helped
advance the struggle for statehood by an inch.
Gulf News wrote, no one could argue about any morals or the right of
Israel to live while taking part in such a cold-blooded massacre. For more
than 8 months now, more than a million Palestinians are left without any
money, even to buy their basic needs. History will remember the silent
spectators and the perpetrators of the Palestinians plight for their
crimes as murderers of the 21st century.
Ramzy Baroud warned of the consequences of this policy. If
Palestinian democracy prevails, withstanding intense Israel-AmericanPalestinian pressure, then US foreign policy will suffer its greatest loss yet,
whose outcome will reverberate across the region. The Palestinian
democratic experience thus must fail, even if the price is politically backing
embattled President Abbas and his fractious followers, equally desperate not
to lose this decisive battle against Hamas.
Rices visit to the region was neither intended to reinvigorate the
peace process nor to support the voice of moderation in the region. It
was meant to ensure the fortitude of her allies and secure and extend the

194

collective punishment of the Palestinian people until they repent and throw
out their democratically elected government, a scenario that was tried with
success in Nicaragua in 1970s, though at a very high price.
Patrick Seale on the eve of Rices third visit to the region since latest
Israeli aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, wrote, thanks to Israels
cruel repression and also to the irreconcilable rivalry between Fatah and
Hamas, the situation in occupied Palestinian territories, and especially in
Gaza, is on the very edge of a catastrophic explosion.
The dreadful misery of population besieged, starved and murdered on
a daily basis by Israeli air and artillery strikes is a terrible stain on the
conscience of the world and particularly of the United States, Israels chief
backer. He spared the Arab rulers, perhaps, thinking that they have no
conscience Will she insist that Israel stop murdering innocent Palestinian
civilians; stop expanding its colonies; and commit itself to the creation of
an independent and viable Palestinian state? Nothing could be further
from her mind.
Sir Cyril Townsend opined that there would be no change in hard-line
policy. Western capitals such as Washington, London, Bonn and Paris have
not yet found an answer to how to deal with an important militant group like
Hamas, which has won legitimacy through a peaceful election that had high
turnout and was internationally recognized for its fairness.
I think it is a safe bet that the Quartet is itself divided. Washington,
in effect under orders from Tel Aviv, will seek to maintain a hard-line.
Europe dislikes the argument used against it that it is punishing the
Palestinian electorate for voting in a manner that upset Europe. In any case it
wants to resume aid and as soon as possible. My belief is that slowly but
surely progress is being made.
Second prong of Israels state terrorism is also not new, but it is
activated periodically as was done in July-August. Destruction of Lebanon
will keep its people busy for long time and placing of the Crusaders in the
buffer zone, created by snatching territory of Hezbollah, will ensure
Israels security.
No major incident or event was reported in the context of this prong,
except that on 23rd September, Lebanese Army was posted on Israeli border
for the first time. Meanwhile, the unexploded bomb-lets hindered Lebanons

195

recovery. On 27th September, UN urged end to blockades of Gaza and

Lebanon. Next day, the Lebanese government mulled filing a complaint to
UNSC over Israels failure to withdraw from southern Lebanon.
On 1st October, Israeli troops vacated south Lebanon except the area
around the village Ghajar. Italy offered mediation to help Lebanon-Israel
prisoners exchange. No body talked of numerous challenges which Lebanon
faced to its economic revival. Analysts, however, kept commenting on
Lebanon War.
After the Lebanon War, Nasrallah is seen as threat by many, observed
Gulf News. The estimated million or more Lebanese who turned up to
listen to Shaikh Hassan Nasrallah on Friday demonstrated the level of
support this fiery leader has gained in the past couple of months. Claiming
that the 33-day war against Israel was a victory for Hezbollah, his message
was aimed not just at those gathered to hear him, but also at all Arabs in
the region as well as the Israelis.
Without doubt, Nasrallah is now seen by the man in the street as a
leader of the masses and an inspiration to change. But it is a change that
will be less than welcome by the duly elected government of Lebanon,
which Nasrallah claims is incapable of defending the country.
Nasrallahs speech will also be looked upon with great misgivings
elsewhere in the region where changes are being made, albeit at a
somewhat slower pace than a revolutionary may desire, but at least at a pace
that will bring all people walking at the same speed, and not in discord.
But Nasrallahs claim of victory over Israel, apparently forgets his
earlier admission that he would not have kidnapped the Israeli soldiers had
he known the response that came. There are also Lebanese, keeping silent
this moment probably in grief at their losses, who would question the price
of Nasrallahs claim of a victory.
Amir Taheri talked about Nasrallahs problems. Assuming that he
wants to transform Hezbollah into a political party, and also assuming that
such a move is not vetoed in Tehran, Nasrallah still faces tough problems.
The very name of his movement, Hezbollah (Party of God) assumes that
religion, contrary to what he was saying last Friday, is at the heart of
politics. As usual Taheri laid emphasis on giving up God and religion to be
accepted into the folds of Western democracy.

196

At the time that Nasrallah was addressing the south Beirut crowd one
of his senior aides was making a speech in Iran, also celebrating the great,
divine, strategic victory He then claimed that Hezbollahs war against
Israel had frustrated plots made by the infidel against Iran.
To be sure it would be futile to demand that Hezbollah sever ties
with Iran. Such a move, even if approved by a majority of members, could
be suicidal. What can be done, however, is to end all ambiguity with regard
to Walayat al-Faqih and dreams of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic
Republic affiliated to Iran.
The way to do it is simple: Nasrallah should publicly declare that,
although he may be personally a follower of the Iranian Supreme Guide,
Hezbollah as a whole is not beholden to the Walayat al-Faqih in Tehran. He
should also declare that although he regards the Islamic Republic as the ideal
form of government, he does not wish to impose it to the multi-religious
Lebanon.
Israel still wants to crush Hezbollah. Arab News said, the politics of
brute force collapsed in Lebanon. Israel had hoped to revive the deterrent
power it had long depended upon, but emerged from the war with the
mystique more shattered than ever. Israels air forcein spite of the
enormous destruction it wrought, failed to crush the will of the Lebanese.
While Israel sees the deployment of Lebanese troops and a beefed up
UN force to southern Lebanon as a success, most Israelis share a sense of
unfinished business. Most believe that the fight with Hezbollah is not over
once and for all, especially after Hezbollah rejected international calls for it
to disarm.
Some analysts kept mentioning the war crimes committed by Israel.
Cesar Chelala wrote, in the recent report entitled Fatal Strikes: Israels
Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon Human Rights Watch
reported: By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and
civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws
of the war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets the extent
of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the
commission of war crimes.
Lebanon has repeatedly called for the release of information on the
places that Israel dropped those weapons (cluster bombs). The Israelis have

197

refused to release this information. Since the truce was declared, several
people have been killed and dozens wounded by these bombs. The US
should make clear to Israel that it must provide complete information on the
use of these weapons in Lebanon to avoid further civilian deaths in the
beleaguered country.
Inam Khawja was of the view that the result of the Israeli
misadventure in Lebanon has definitely weakened the American
position and prestige in both the Arab and the Muslim worlds. The US
position has been weakened in Iraq and Afghanistan, because, now the myth
of arms superiority and air power has been shattered and has made the Iraqi
and the Afghan opponents of US occupation think that if Hezbollah can do it
why cant we.
The past few weeks have seen the stiffening of Irans stance on
Uranium enrichment, which is their internationally accepted right It
would be the height of foolhardiness to start another misadventure in
Iran especially in view of the strong opposition to it by Russia and China. It
is also very unlikely that this time even UK will agree to it, considering the
political problems that Blair is facing in the Labour Party and his impending
replacement with Gordan Brown.
One the eve of Rices visit to the region Patrick Seale said, Lebanon
is still struggling to recover from Israels 33-day assault. The tragedy is that
the war has not united the nation. The various factions and sectarian
groupings are once again at each others throats with the ever present
threat of a return to civil war.
The crisis demonstrates yet again the weakness of the Lebanese state,
plagued by the confessional system on which it rests. Lebanon needs
radical political reform and a renewal of its political leadership, but who
can do the job? Not, it would seem, men now in power.
Does she understand that Syria needs to be assured that it will
recover the Golan Heights before it commits itself to a stabilizing role? Has
she grasped that Iran has certain legitimate concerns and ambitions? Does
she recognize that Hezbollah is a resistance movement about a quarter of
Lebanons population? Without Hezbollah, Israel would still be occupying
southern Lebanon, as it did for 22 years.

198

Khaleej Times wrote, high on Rices real agenda is the formation of

a broad coalition of Washingtons traditional allies and friends to help
the so-called war on terror. The US is cleverly trying to rope Israel too into
this coalition against terror. Another important business on Secretary Rices
to-do-list is the Iran question. Washington is keen to enlist the support of
Arab and Gulf states in the campaign against Tehrans nuclear programme.
Indeed, the US sees the two issues the coalition against extremist
groups in the Middle East (read Hamas and Hezbollah) and the front
against Irans nuclear ambitions as being inter-linked. They are indeed
interlinked as Washington and Israel view Irans vociferous support to
Hezbollah and Hamas as part of the bigger problem.
US and other western allies may have grown weary of the old
argument that historical wrongs and injustice inflicted on the Arabs and
Muslims are fuelling the crucible of Muslim anger. But this is indeed true.
Every time the Palestinians are hunted and driven out of their homes and
their own land, new converts are added to the ranks of extremists.
Gulf News opined, her main objective, as she said in Jeddah, was
helping young governments in places like Lebanon, Iraq and helping the
Palestinians, but most of all, helping the moderate forces in the region.
Apparently, Rices tour was prompted by the outcome of the Lebanon
war and Irans quest for nuclear weapons. In plain words, to scare the Arab
leaders of Iran-Hezb threat so that they dash to the lap of Uncle Sam.
Rice returns to the region with a renewed effort to establish a
moderate bloc to counteract the extremist forces in the Middle East.
The extremist forces that are targeted by Washington this time are Iran,
Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. The outcome of this new alignment will be
another regional war with disastrous consequences.
US was still pursuing the policy of divide and rule, opined Hassan
Nafaa. The Americans, in turn, failed to achieve their political
objectives and Rice, mid-wife in chief of the new Middle East that was to be
born from the rubble of Lebanon, never did hear the cries of the Middle
Eastern infant she was expecting to deliver. True, Rice did manage to deliver
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which gave Israeli political
advantages that it had not secured militarily on the ground.

199

The US did succeed in packing 1701 with a number of political

landmines that could be triggered at any moment. Now the American
diplomatic machine is on the move again, even as the Israeli war machine
for the time being, at least has ground to a halt, and everyone is wondering
what Rice has up her sleeve this time.
Some observers believe the Middle East has already begun to
change in the direction that Washington wants and that US diplomacy is
essentially consolidating the road Israel began to pave in Lebanon.
According to this camp Rices visit has only one purpose to rally the
forces of moderation in the region behind the US in its fight against the
forces of extremism.
Other observers, while agreeing that the Middle East is changing,
argue that it is the opposite direction to what Washington desires. Rice,
they say, is here on a damage limitation exercise following the Israeli
debacle in Lebanon and her aim to seek ways to revive a peace process that
the Arabs had officially declared dead.
From her statements to the press before she left it is relatively simple
to deduce what she intends to market during her trip. She will say the US is
now convinced that a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to
stability in the Middle East and the first step towards curbing terrorism,
foremost among which is Iran, are the main reason why a settlement has not
yet been reached.
During her visit, Rice will try to mould these ideas into a concrete
plan to be carried out on the ground and that takes on board several lessons
learned from the war against Lebanon. Lesson one is that there are limits to
the use of military force and that using Israel as the USs military arm tends
to work for the forces of extremism rather than against them.
We can, therefore, expect Rice to press for a coalition between
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Its purpose will be to support the forces
of moderation in the theatre of confrontation Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq
on the grounds that only by eliminating the forces of extremism will it be
possible to weaken the Syrian-Iranian alliance, the foremost obstacle to a
peace settlement that will usher in a new, moderate and stable Middle East.
Some Arabs were in agreement with Israel and the US on Lebanon
policy. Amin Howeidi explained the reason. For the time being, Hezbollah

200

remains a cohesive militia in possession of 20,000 rockets. No wonder,

Israel wants it decimated. I see some Arabs going along with Israels
request to disarm Hezbollah. My advice for them is to think again. There
is no sense in giving up something so effective without quid pro quo.
As things stand, the implementation of 1701 could turn Lebanon
into an international protectorate, a country that cannot receive weaponry
from abroad. Resolution 1701 gives Israel a sense of security, it is true, but it
is a false sense of security for the recent bout of fighting proves that all of
Israel, and not just the northern parts, is within missile range.
The strategic balance has shifted for Israel. In case you havent
noticed, it has changed for the Arabs too. Granted, the resistance cannot
throw Israel into the sea. After all, the combined force of Arab armies failed
to do so for so many years. But the resistance has been effective and thats
what matters.
Lets be cold-headed for a bit now. Weve got an asset in our hands,
and we must not sell it short. We need to bargain, but first lets hold on to
our bargaining chips. The Israelis want security and so do we. But we cannot
grant them absolute security. We must make them settle for reciprocal
security Lets not give up our fighting assets, for well perhaps need to use
them once again.
Israels opponents in Palestine and Lebanon remain divided, which
facilitates their adversarys task. Al-Ahram Weekly explained, for both
Lebanon and Palestine the future is strewn with peril. In each country the
people are divided over what to do next. In Lebanon, there are two
movements: the 14th March movement and the resistance. In Palestine,
Hamas and Fatah differ on almost everything.
In Lebanon, the countrys two main movements are divided on the
interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, in much the same
fashion as they disagreed on Resolution 1559 in the past. In Palestine, the
nation is divided over the formation of a government of national unity, with
Hamas insisting that the national reconciliation document is the best way
forward and Fatah arguing that without accepting the terms of the Quartet
everything will be lost.
In Lebanon, the 14th March movement wants a state that would end
Lebanons involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. That camp ultimately

201

seeks normalization with Israel, in line with the trend common in the rest of
officialdom in the Arab World. The resistance movement sees this as
capitulation. Its proponents, mainly Hezbollah, want a state that can defend
itself and reject normalization if it so wants.
In Palestine, Hamas is sticking to maximum Palestinian national
aspirations. It defends the Palestinian right to return to the struggle for
Jerusalem and to regain all occupied land Fatah is not happy with that.
So far, the two opposing movements, both in Lebanon and
Palestine, dont seem able to bridge their differences In Palestine,
many warn that the current rift may lead to civil war. What would happen if
the Lebanese and Palestinians dont find a way to reconcile their
differences? The answer is obvious. Israel will benefit. Israel doesnt want
either nation to have a cohesive identity or a united national front.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Iran remained under pressure but stood its ground. On 16th September,
Bush warned UN against giving more time to Iran. China reasserted Irans
right to nuclear energy. Two days later, the United States softened its stand
after France showed reluctance to impose sanctions on Iran.
On 2nd October, Iran warned Japan it has just two days of last-ditch
talks to give a final answer on whether to go ahead with a two billion dollar
contract to develop its largest onshore oil field. Seeing it in conjunction with
IPI gas pipeline, one feels that sanctions against Iran are already imposed.
Iran decided to open its nuclear sites to foreign tourists in a bid to
show that its nuclear programme is peaceful. On 9 th October, Iran warned of
retaliation if formal sanctions were imposed. Next day Tehran condemned
atomic arms after North Korean nuclear device test. Israel wanted tough UN
action against Iran. Tehran warned to limit nuclear checks if sanctioned.
War-mongering against Iran continued opined The Nation. The playbook is familiar: Pump up the threat, use the media as a conveyor and
watch public opinion swing toward war. A campaign of this sort has been
under way for weeks. In late August the staff of the GOP-led House
Intelligence Committee released a report on Iran that depicted it as a
pressing strategic danger. Iran probably has a biological weapons program
202

and likely has a chemical weapons research and development program, it

said. More alarming, the report stated that Iran was definitely seeking
nuclear weapons and enriching weapons-grade uranium. It conceded that US
intelligence lacked crucial information on Irans WMDs, but it warned
intelligence analystsabout Irans WMD capabilities and not to shy away
from provocative conclusions. In other words: dont wait for hard-and-fast
evidence to pronounce Iran a nuclear threat.
The report was born of an agenda: to whip up public support for
military action against Iran. Its principal author was Frederick Fleitz, a
former CIA official who had worked for hardliner John Bolton at the State
Department Pardon our suspicion, but this whole deal appears to be an
end run orchestrated by a Boltonite keen on clearing the way for military
action.
Doug Lorimer called it yet another Big Lie. Bushs claim that Irans
LEU research activities pose a grave threat, however, was undercut by
a report in the August 31 Washington Times that the US military is
operating under the assumption that Iran is five to eight years away from
having the technical capability to produce weapons-grade uranium.
With the US military bogged down in a highly unpopular counterinsurgency war in Iraq, Washington is not in a political or military
position to even credibly threaten an Iraq-style regime change war
against Iran, let alone actually launch such a war.
Col Dan Smith expressed similar views. As the elections approach,
the administrations interpretation of Irans activities deserves closer
scrutiny. Iran is not so much defying the international community, as the
administration alleges, but defying the US interpretation of the
international communitys positions. Its development of nuclear energy can
be monitored sufficiently to detect and significantly retard, if not prevent,
development of nuclear weapon in the short to medium time frame In
November, the voters will weigh in on the Bush Administrations Middle
East policy. They ideally will focus more on the war in Iraq and the potential
war in Iran than on the price of gas at the pumps.
Media and intellectuals were selling the Big Lie. Ramzy Baroud
wrote, The intellectual arrogance and logically flawed reasoning of the
American media is often a cover for its inducible ignorance. Reducing a
conflict to that of Ahamedinejads character and overstating the political
203

worth of his personal views, divert attention from the real conflict at hand,
and helps Republican warmongers further cement their drive for war.
This must not mean that Irans intentions are unadulterated either; the
temporary alliance Iran had reached with the US, vowing to assist or at least
not upset its military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, are all
characteristic of a country with pure political and strategic attitude, not
necessary to guarantee universal justice, but primarily to advance its own
interest.
It is vital that the Iran-US row, regardless of its future direction or
level of escalation, be understood for what it really is: a clash of interests
between a superpower no longer so fearsome and an aspiring regional power
with clear objectives and aims. Its neither about Americas burning
desire to safeguard democracy and the human race from mad Iranian
mullahs, nor is it exactly about Irans quest for a just world.
Oil was seen as major factor in US approach. Mike Whitney said,
White House hawks and their corporate colleagues realize that the only way
to manage the explosive growth of Americas greatest competitor, China,
is by seizing its primary source of energy. The hand that controls the oil,
rules the world. Thus, Iran has become a strategic imperative for US plans of
global domination.
Ibrahim Nafie was of the view that because of the same factor the US
wont attack Iran because its ally Japan has plans to invest a lot in Iranian oil
exploration. Iranian government and the majority-owned Inpex Company
are about two weeks away from a final agreement over a joint project to
develop the Azadijan oil field, said to be the largest untapped oil field in the
world. Certainly the Japenese would know that their investment and
such a huge one at that in the Iranian petroleum industry would not go
over well in Washington, which has been pushing for sanctions
It is also obvious that Tehran is fully aware of this and that the
Azadijan deal will deliver a powerful message to the effect that
international interests sharply conflict with Washingtons desire to
impose sanctions on Iran.
The Japanese have found a formula for overcoming this wariness.
The formula can be summed up in the Japanese foreign ministers statement
to the press: The two issues (the development of new oil sources in Iran and

204

the Iranian nuclear programme) are entirely separate, however important

they both are Referring to the talks then in progress over the Azadijan
field, he said, I dont think we should abandon the deal just because
thats what America wants In all events, to Japan another type of
pressure now seems to have proved weightier, especially in view of the
rising global demand for oil and the fact that the price per barrel has more
than doubled since 2004.
War is not the right option, opined Paul Craig Roberts. A number of
experts have concluded that despite the Bush Administrations desire to
attack Iran, the suggestion would be too rash and the consequences too dire
even for the irrational Bush Administration.
Many experts point out that at a time when generals are calling for
more troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be ill-advised for Bush to
add Iran to the war theatre. Experts note that Iran is well armedcan
direct its Shiite allies in Iraq to assault US troops.
Diplomatic experts point out that the US is isolated in its desire for
the war with Iran and has no ally except Israel, thus validating Muslim
claims that the US is Israels instrument against Muslims in the Middle
East.
Economic experts point out that the impact of the price of oil would
be severe and the economic consequences detrimental. With the US
housing bubble deflating, now is not the time for an oil shock.
How can Bush Administration war plans be reconciled with expert
opinion that the consequences would be too dire for the US? Perhaps the
answer is that what appears as irrationality to experts is rationality to
neoconservatives.
The Bush Administration could bring Congress around by
announcing a Gulf of Tonkin incident or by orchestrating a terrorist
attack. However, this is unnecessary as Bush has prepared the ground for
bypassing Congress with his propagandistic allegations that Iran, by
arming Iraqi insurgents, sponsoring terrorism, and building nuclear
weapons
Tariq Ali was of the view that it is unlikely that the Pentagon or its
proxies would risk an attack. At present, Iran has little more than primitive

205

groping towards the technology needed for nuclear self-defence. Yet these
are being presented as a casus belli by Bush, Blair, Chirac and Olmert,
whose own states are armed with hundreds in the American case,
thousands of nuclear weapons. Whining and caviling over the small point
of Vienna protocols, however warranted, is a futile pursuit for Iranian
diplomacy. The country would do better to choose the right moment and
simply withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Of all the anachronistic
emperors in the world, it is the most brazenly naked. There is not a shred of
justification for the oligopoly of the present nuclear powers, so
hypocritical it does not dare even speak its name Israel, with 200 nuclear
bombs, is never mentioned. There will never be nuclear disarmament until it
is broken.
To face up to the enemies ranged against Iran requires a coherence
and discipline of which there is little sign at present. With their own
operational habits and doctrines to the fore, the Iranian clerics have played a
profoundly divisive role in keeping the Shia parties and Sistani, Tehrans
bearded queen on the Iraqi chessboard, pitted against the resistance forces. A
de-confessionalized alliance of forces from Tehran to Damascus, via Basra
and Baghdad, would both damp down communalist conflict and strengthen
Irans position. Little in the recent Iranian record suggests the countrys
ruling institutions are capable of dealing with imperial arrogance when they
confront it, other than with a hydra-headed incompetence. However,
circumstances may now be forcing them into decisions they have so far
sought to evade.
It will not be easy to dress up surrender to Western threats as
dignified national wisdom. It will not be difficult to turn Shia crowds and
militias against the Western occupation across the border. Tehran controls
more significant hostages today than a mere embassy. It is unlikely, if the
country kept its nerve, that the Pentagon or its proxies would risk an
attack.
Even sanctions wont work, opined Asaad Abdul Rahman. As is
evident now, both diplomacy and European commercial incentives have
failed to wean Iran off its enrichment activities. Whatever sanctions are
applied assuming that both Russia and China will fall in line will have zero
chance of persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
President Bush, on the other hand, vowed that he will not leave office
without first ensuring that Iran cannot become a nuclear power. He has
206

probably given the leaders of Israel a similar promise. That means that he
is committed to attack Iran militarily before the end of his second term
if all other means fail which they are it seems destined to fail.
David Ignatius opined Iran was not defying international community.
So far, there is no smoking gun, said an intelligence analyst from one
Western nation. Nevertheless, the United States, Israel and some European
countries remain convinced that a covert weapons program exists The
clock is still clicking. Thats the real import of these new intelligence
findings. Iran and the West still have time to find a diplomatic solution
to the nuclear showdown. This genie isnt quite out of the bottle.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi wrote, a recent report, in fact, shows that the vast
majority of US citizens are opposed to the military option and favour a
diplomatic solution On Irans part, on the other hand, there is danger of it
boxing itself into predetermined positions that tie the hands of the nuclearnegotiation team led by Larijani.
Again, the perils of nuclear populism are discernible here, whatever
their advantages. And since Irans outspoken president has gone on record
opposing the suspension of uranium-enrichment activities even for one day,
this in turn raises the prospect for another option not seriously considered
so far, the standby option.
Khaleej Times also suggested solution through dialogue. Javier
Solana has held four rounds of talks with Irans nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani. And both EU and Iran view the negotiations as positive and leading
to peaceful resolution of the issue. This is a long and delicate process and the
world community cannot expect an early and positive outcome. What is
important is the peaceful engagement between Iran and the West must
continue until a solution is found.
But any solution to the Tehran tangle is unlikely to materialize unless
either of the two main parties, Iran and US, demonstrate greater pragmatism
and reason The Middle East cannot afford another dangerous showdown.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi talked of a prudent US policy toward Iran.
Hypothetically it would be along the following lines:
Announce that the military option is off the table.

207

 Pledge to respect Irans sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Pledge to implement the terms of any and all incentives proposed by
the US and its allies.
Pledge to pursue a more even-handed policy toward the Middle East
peace process.
Pledge to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate aspect of the Lebanese
political landscape.
Consider supporting Irans idea of a multinational consortium
producing low-enriched uranium inside Iran.
Notwithstanding the prudent suggestion, America will still sell that
Iran is bigger threat than Israel. Ehsan Ahrari said, Rice is in the Middle
East again to shore up Arab support against Iran She may be
appealing to the legendary Arab-Iranian rivalry to sell the US agenda of
shoring up the Arab opposition to Irans alleged aspirations to develop
nuclear weapons. The United States has tried to play that card before. The
newest wrinkle in this ongoing strategic power game is that Israel is
reportedly also reaching out to moderate Arab states of the Persian Gulf
region by focusing on Iran-phobia.
The administration of President George W Bush is under pressure
to create the semblance of doing something in the Middle East. That
decision seems to have been reached in the wake of recent controversies
stemming from the leak of National Intelligence Estimate about the Iraq War
and in response to journalist Bob Woodwards claim in his book
Arab states know these facts. But they are also cognizant of the reality
that Bush is desperately looking for some breakthrough in the Middle East.
That breakthrough is certainly not coming from Iraq, where the threat of
civil war remains high, as spirals of sectarian violence continue to ascend.
Rice will not flinch at reminding the Arab side that Iran is a
greater threat to their security than Israel, that the Bush Administration
is willing to revive the long-moribund Palestine-Israel peace process and
that they must focus on siding with Washington about containing Irans
rising influence, which it would use to create political momentum leading
toward the eventual development of nuclear weapons.
208

As much as the Arab states do not trust what the Bush

Administration says about the peace process, they also know that they
have no other option than to rely on the promises of an intensely pro-Israeli
US administration that it will create momentum for the renewal of a
dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The Bush Administration and Israel are waging a two-front
diplomatic offensive with moderate Arabs to create a united front
against Iran. While Rice is making a high-profile visit to the region, Israels
diplomats are approaching the Arab sheikhdoms for a rapprochement
through secret channels.
If Arabs know one very harsh reality about the US and Israel, they
know that neither of these actors will offer any concessions to the Arab side
unless they are really convinced that their bargaining position has eroded
perceptibly.
Fareed Zakaria urged Crusaders not to act rashly. Instead of getting
scared and spooked, America should view Tehran with a healthy dose of
calm and confidence. Irans fortunes will wane. Oil prices might head
downward; Iraq could become less of a burden one way or other; Arab
regimes will get more assertive in responding to the rise of Iranian power.
Watching Ahmedinejad at a private meeting last week, I was struck
by how little he conformed to the picture of a madman. He was smug, even
arrogant, sometimes offensive, but always calm and intelligent; we need
clever, compelling arguments of our own. Instead we have tended to
threaten bully and intimidate. No wonder hes winning the public
diplomacy.

CONCLUSION
There is no end in sight to bloodletting in Iraq as there is no sign of
any change in Bush Administrations intention of staying the course in Iraq.
But, there were signs that Americans have started feeling the pinch. It was
because of the casualties suffered by their soldiers occupying somebody
elses land. The credit of this realization, undoubtedly, goes to Sunni Arabs
of Iraq.
More than that, it has started dawning upon them that human will
cannot be subdued with indiscriminate application of brute force.

209

Determined people can be eliminated but cannot be subjugated. And, gone

are the days when natives could be eliminated like Red Indians in North
America and Aborigines in Australia, it cannot be done in 21st century.
Israel and the West were now focusing on toppling of Hamas. Fatah
led by Abbas has collaborated with enemies of Palestinians for reasons best
known to them. Abbas is not the lone collaborator; many rulers of Arab
World have also joined hands.
Western media continuously instigated anti-Hezbollah feelings in
Lebanese. Impression is being created that common Lebanese are against
Hezbollah because of the miseries it brought by starting war with Israel. At
diplomatic level, the government led by Siniora is being coaxed to disarm
Hezbollah. Secret meetings between Saudi and Israeli leaders were meant
for formulating a strategy to deal with the common enemy.
America seemed aware of the negative impact of the Lebanon War on
its future plans for regime change in Iran on the pretext of nuclear issue.
Rice had extensive consultations during her recent visit of the region to
carve a coalition of moderates. This is aimed at wedging a lasting ShiaSunni divide in Islamic World.
15th October 2006

TALIBAN TANGLE
The conduct of occupation forces from NATO countries amply
demonstrated that the European powers have not forgotten their imperial
habits. They see no other way to untangle the Taliban tangle except use of
indiscriminate force. This has resulted in more resentment. On 27 th August,
Afghan Ulema sought end to arrests and bombings. Three days later, Afghan
parliament flayed killings of civilians by coalition forces in Kunar province.

210

While analyst pointed out flaws in strategy of the occupation forces,

the US and its puppets in Kabul blamed Pakistan for Afghan problems and
now NATO countries have started doing the same more aggressively. Even a
peace deal with tribes of North Waziristan was seen with suspicion and
resultantly Governor NWFP was summoned to Washington to prove his
innocence in facilitating the peace deal with enemies of the civilized world.
Resurgence of Taliban, though not as threatening as projected by the
Western media, kept ringing alarm bells. Violence in Afghanistan is most
severe, said Annan. Karzai requested Canada not to abandon his country.
Afghanistan is a hard nut to crack, acknowledged Blair. Even India was
concerned over resurgence of Taliban. A Russian General threw the spanner;
British troops will be driven out from Afghanistan.

INSURGENCY
Resistance against occupation forces and operations to curb that
continued. On 20th July, one person was killed in a blast in Kabul. Three
days later, 19 Taliban suspects were killed and 17, including two Pakistanis,
were arrested in an operation in Helmand. One civilian was killed in suicide
attack in Kandahar. Three policemen were killed and three kidnapped in
attack on a post in Ghazni. Three daughters of a postman were killed in
Khost. Three Danish soldiers were wounded in landmine blast in Helmand.
A pharmacist working with a relief group was shot dead along with
his driver on 24th July in Ghor province. Three policemen were killed and
seven wounded in an attack on a post in Farah province. Police shot dead
three persons in the same area who did not stop at a check-post. Two
coalition soldiers were wounded in suicide bombing in Kandahar. One US
soldier was killed in Kunar.
Two people were killed and four wounded in bomb blast in Kabul on
25 July. Seven militants were killed in a clash in Paktika province. More
than 600 Afghan were killed in last six weeks. Karzai condemned killing of
two aid workers in Ghor province. US-led forces claimed killing 25
suspected Taliban and 20 more were wounded in an air strike in Helmand
province. Taliban said that except for one, the rest were all civilians.
th

211

A helicopter crashed near Khost on 26th July killing four people on

board. Two Dutch soldiers were among 16 killed in a civilian helicopter
crashed. Taliban claimed shooting down the helicopter. Next day, one girl
was killed and two children wounded in landmine blast in Kabul.
On 29th July, Taliban claimed kidnapping a Lebanese in Zabul who
was working for a US firm. Next day, Afghan forces killed six Taliban in
Paktika. One suspect was killed in landmine blast near Kandahar City. USled forces bombed and killed 20 suspected Taliban in the ongoing operation
called Mountain Thrust. Defence Ministry spokesman claimed that to-date
613 suspects had been killed, 87 wounded and about 300 arrested. He added
that about 13 to 16 civilians were also killed.
At least 10 suspected Taliban were killed in a raid in Helmand
province on 30th July and 13 were killed in other incidents in the same
province. Seven people were killed in clash between supporters of Dostum
and Malik in Faryab province. Next day, eight people were killed and 16
wounded in car bomb blast near Jalalabad.
Taliban attacked a Danish camp in Helmand province on 2 nd August
and wounded a soldier. NATO forces bombed a hideout in retaliation and
killed 18 suspects. Next day, a suicide car bomber killed 21 people and
wounded 13 in Kandahar. Six soldiers were wounded in an ambush south of
Kandahar. A Canadian soldier was killed and another wounded in roadside
bombing in Kandahar province. Later, three NATO soldiers were killed in an
ambush in the same area. Ten rebels were killed and two policemen
wounded in a raid.
On 4th August, the US-led coalition forces killed 25 suspected Taliban
in Helmand province. Two bombs exploded near NATO patrols in southern
Afghanistan, but caused no damage. Two oil tankers supplying US airbase at
Bagram were burnt on Jalalabad-Kabul highway. Twelve policemen
involved in highway robbery surrendered to Taliban fighters in Zabul.
A British soldier was killed during operations in Helmand on 6 th
August. Afghan forces claimed killing 17 insurgents. Next day, Taliban took
control of police headquarters in Sangin in Helmand province.
US-led forces killed 4 Taliban in a clash near south-eastern border on
8 August. Next day, at least 15 Taliban were killed after attack on a base in
Nuristan province; two US soldiers and an Afghan policeman were
th

212

wounded. One British soldier died in road accident near Kabul. Four persons
were killed in a clash between two factions of warlords in Faryyab province.
Abducted Lebanese engineer was freed.
On 10th August, nine policemen and 12 Taliban were confirmed killed
in clash near Kandahar. Next day, coalition forces claimed killing three alQaeda men and arresting three others in Khost province. Taliban rejected the
claim.
Two persons were killed in a blast in Spin Boldak on 12th August.
Three US soldiers were killed and as many wounded. Next day, 20 people
were wounded in mortar fire which targeted an Indian road construction
camp in Kunar.
On 14th August, one policeman and 11 Taliban were killed in a clash.
Seven people were killed in other incidents. Next day, the US-led forces
claimed killing one al-Qaeda man and capturing 13 in a raid in Khost
province. Taliban killed six policemen in an ambush in Farah province.
Taliban held 15 health workers in Kandahar area on 17th August and
then released them. Unmanned NATO plane crashed in Zabul. Next day, ten
Afghan policemen were killed in US air strike; Karzai condemned the
incident. Sixteen people were killed elsewhere in the country. A US soldier
was killed in landmine blast and another wounded in suicide bombing.
On 19th August, four US soldiers and two Afghan troops were killed
and another six US soldiers were wounded in two separate clashes in the
countrys east and south provinces. Afghan police officer, a tribal elder and a
former Mujahideen commander were killed in separate incidents. Six
policemen and four Taliban were killed in a clash in Nimroz province.
On 20th August, the coalition forces killed 71 suspected Taliban in air
strikes and artillery fire during a clash in Panjwai district of Kandahar
province; four policemen and one soldier were also killed and three officers
were missing. One British soldier was killed and three wounded in an
ambush of a patrol in Helmand province.
Occupation forces used aircrafts and artillery to kill nine suspected
Taliban and wounding six more on 21 st August in Helmand. Three people
were killed in Paktika. Next day, five policemen were killed in an ambush in

213

Paktika province. Suicide bomber attacked a Canadian convoy; there were

no casualties. US-led forces captured three al-Qaeda suspects in Khost.
US-led forces killed seven al-Qaeda militants and a child in Kunar
province on 24th August; Police chief said that those killed were all innocent
civilians. Taliban denied mediation talks with the government or US-led
forces. Two days later, 30 people, including two French soldiers were killed
in fighting. Karzai demanded thorough investigation into the killing of
eight people by coalition forces in Kunar province.
On 28th August, 17 people were killed and over 50 wounded in suicide
bombing in Lashkargah; later four more died of wounds. A Turkish road
worker was killed on his way to Herat from Kandahar. Next day, 19 Taliban
were reported killed. Danish troops killed 25 Taliban militants in Uruzgan
province and detained three others.
Three policemen were wounded in suicide attack in Zabul on 31 st
August. NATO forces bombed two Taliban positions in Helmand province.
Next day, district head of Muqar in Ghazni was shot dead by Taliban. A
Dutch pilot was killed in F-16 crash in central Ghazni.
Fourteen British personnel died when an aircraft crashed near
Kandahar on 2nd September. Taliban claimed shooting down the aircraft.
NATO forces launched Operation Madusa in southern Kandahar province in
which four Canadian and about 200 people, including civilians, were killed
by 3rd September. Five prisoners escaped from a jail in Ghor. A vehicle of an
Indian road construction company was blown up in Nangarhar.
Two British soldiers and one Canadian were killed and four NATO
troops were wounded in separate incidents on 4th September. Twenty-six
Taliban were killed in air strikes in Helmand province. Next day, NATO
forces claimed killing 50 to 60 Taliban Pashmol district of Kandahar.
Two pro-government clerics were shot dead in Lashkargah on 6th
September. A man was publicly hanged in Garmsir district of Helmand for
his involvement in a murder. Two days later, 16 people, including 2 US
soldiers and 5 foreigners, were killed in suicide bombing in Kabul; Taliban
owned responsibility. Four Italian soldiers were wounded in Farah province.
On 9th September, NATO troops claimed killing sixty Taliban in the
ongoing Operation Medusa in Kandahar province bringing toll to more than

214

three hundred. One NATO soldier was also killed and houses of Taliban
were demolished.
NATO forces killed 94 more Taliban on 10th September in Kandahar
province in the ongoing Operation Medusa, bringing the toll to more than
four hundred. One coalition soldier was also killed during the operation and
another was killed in Zabul. Governor of Paktia and three others were killed
in suicide bombing. Next day, 92 more Taliban were killed, bringing the toll
in Operation Medusa to more than five hundred.
On 12th September, Coalition forces claimed capturing two
commanders of Hekmatyar. Next day, NATO forces killed 40 more
suspected Taliban in the south. Taliban fighters killed four policemen and
wounded 11 others in Farah province on 14th September.
Taliban claimed capturing a district in Farah province on 15 th
September. Next day, NATO forces killed 17 suspected terrorists in Uruzgan
by dropping two small bombs on them. A commander complained to
Karzai about killing of his brother in Balkh by ISAF.
A suicide bomber wounded three American nationals and two Afghans
in Kabul on 17th September. Another suicide bomber killed a Pakistani and
wounded 11 Afghans in Kandahar. Next day, four Canadian soldiers, seven
policemen and same number of civilians were killed in three suicide attacks
in Kandahar, Kabul and Herat. NATO general claimed that offensive against
Taliban in Kandahar province was a success. Taliban extended execution
date of three kidnapped Turkish engineers to allow the Turkish firm to make
up its mind to quit working in Afghanistan.
On 19th September, Taliban executed one of the kidnapped Turkish
engineers. Next day, 34 suspected Taliban and a policeman were killed in
five incidents in central and southern Afghanistan. General James Jones said
probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of around 1,000 were killed in
Operation Medusa. But you can go up to two or three hundred. If you said,
1,000, it wouldnt surprise me. The language used reflected the occupation
forces attitude towards lives of Afghans.
On 24th September, sixty more Taliban were killed in separate clashes
in Helmand province. Two former commanders surrendered arms in
Laghman. Several officers were held for trafficking arms and ammunition to
Taliban. Reportedly warlords had joined hands against NATO.

215

Women affairs chief, Hama Jan, was killed in attack by two suicide
bombers in Kandahar on 25th September. US military claimed killing ten
Taliban in Paktika. Two policemen were killed in a suicide blast and a
coalition soldier was wounded. Taliban claimed killing border police
commander in Khost.
On 26th September, 18 people were killed and 18 wounded in suicide
bombing in Lashkargah. One Italian soldier and a child were killed in
suicide attack on a convoy near Lashkargah. Next day, twenty people were
killed in various incidents.
Four Afghan policemen were killed in Faryab province on 29th
September and one ISAF soldier died in a roadside blast in Kandahar
province. Next day, 12 people were killed and more than 50 wounded in
suicide bombing near Ministry of Interior in Kabul.
On 2nd October, a suicide bomber blew himself next to convey in
Kabul wounding six people including three NATO soldiers. Taliban attacks
led to 14 deaths in Kandahar. At least 12 people were killed in other
incidents across the country.
Next day, sixteen people, including two US, one NATO and four
Afghan soldiers, were killed in various incidents in Kunar and Kandahar.
Taliban told British troops to evacuate Musa Qala or be ready for attacks.
One tribal elder in Nangarhar was arrested for criticizing US forces.
On 5th October, US soldiers burnt houses and killed cows in Kunar
province. Mojaddedi accused that ISI was threatening to kill Taliban leaders
residing in Pakistan if they joined reconciliation process. Next day, a Police
commander escaped bid on life in Farah province. Five persons were killed
in suicide bombing in Nangarhar on 9 th October. Next day, at least ten
policemen and three civilians were wounded in suicide bombing in Kabul.
Three workers were kidnapped in Paktika on 11th October. Next day, a
suicide bomber targeted a vehicle carrying Afghan troops in Khost and
wounded 16 people including two soldiers. Three persons were wounded
when a car bomb hit a US convoy also in the same province. NATO forces
killed 20 suspected Taliban after attack on their convoy in the south.
Eight civilians and one NATO soldier were killed in a suicide
bombing attack in Kandahar on 13th October. Next day, an Italian journalist

216

was kidnapped by gunmen in southern Afghanistan. Five Taliban were killed

when they attacked and set ablaze an Afghan check post near Pak-Afghan
border opposite Kurram Agency.
Seven people were killed in Taliban attacks across the country on 15 th
October. Taliban denied abducting Italian journalist and also denied hand in
Shia lawmakers killing in Kandahar. Next day, US troops killed 3 militants
in Ghazni. Suicide bombers struck in Kabul and Kandahar killing 3 persons
and wounding six. Eight Afghans were beheaded by Taliban for spying.
Provincial MP was killed in Kandahar province. NATO forces claimed
killing a Taliban commander and 15 others in Uruzgan on 17th October.

OCCUPANTS
Bulk of occupation forces was now provided by NATO countries.
They assumed the responsibility with resolve to defeat resistance at all costs
thereby proving NATOs relevance in 21st century. It did not take long to
dawn upon them that their new role was not that easy, but they endeavoured
to prove their relevance through use of brute force.
Formal take over of responsibility started in southern Afghanistan
which was completed in second week of July. Change of command was
completed on 6th October and with that imperialism transformed into a
corporate business.
Soon after taking over southern Afghanistan NATO went on offensive
against the resistance groups and the first thing they realized was the
inadequacy of troops. NATO planned to double its military strength in
Afghanistan, but the response from member countries was half-hearted.
Signs of fatigue started showing up particularly in Blairs best in the
world. During first week of August it was reported that UK troops were at
the brink of exhaustion. Three weeks later, they confronted logistic
difficulties as British forces were using up missiles, rockets and spare parts
at a faster rate than expected.
During first week of September, after the plane crash, Britain admitted
that its forces were stretched. Next week an officer reportedly resigned from
the British army in protest at its grotesquely clumsy campaign against the
Taliban in Afghanistan. He said: The strategy is not working.
217

Canadian opposition urged withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Australia first agreed to send more troops, but then changed mind. Howard
defended his decision to pull out Special Forces from Afghanistan. The
coalition of willing was showing signs of stress.
Despite the difficulties, NATO remained determined to stay the
course. On 15th August it was reported that NATO was likely to strike an
agreement with Afghanistan for long-term stay; the enduring partnership.
NATO vowed to tame Taliban in six months.
After carrying out operations with high sounding code names in which
Afghans were killed indiscriminately on slightest provocation, NATO
pledged to crush Taliban. According to the Reuters dated 11 th October, the
number of attacks by Taliban in their heartland in southern Afghanistan fell
significantly since massive NATO military operation in the area.
Indiscriminate killings caused resentment. On 6th September, Afghan
legislators requested NATO forces to avoid civilian casualties. On 1 st
October, a commission appointed by the Afghan government found that 53
civilians were killed in operation carried out last month. Blair blurted
Afghans suffered more under the Taliban. He inadvertently accepted that
Afghans were still suffering at the hands of the Crusaders, though at lesser
scale according to him.
Occupation forces occasionally talked of pacification through aid. On
20 July, NATO chief urged world not to neglect Afghans. About four weeks
later, he reminded that Afghan aid is too slow and ineffective. On 8th October
a NATO official warned; Afghans may switch to Taliban unless their lives
improve.
th

Taking a clue from Pakistans peace deal with tribesmen, on 1st

October British troops struck a deal with Taliban in Musa Qala in Helmand.
According to the deal both sides agreed to vacate the area. Analysts observed
that Taliban were ready to strike such peace-deals at this moment only to
regroup and restart their attacks next year.
Next day, Taliban denied deal with UK forces in Helmand. They
claimed that fighting stopped for a week on request of local people. This
response to deal was quite different to the deal in Pakistan where Taliban
had claimed that they had encouraged tribes to strike the deal. On 6 th
October, Afghan government ruled out talks with Taliban.

218

With all financial sources of Taliban choked, their survival was

obviously linked to drug money. Occupation forces had been working
relentlessly to control poppy cultivation and drug trafficking. Over one tonne
of opium was seized near Herat on 25th September.
US warned Afghanistan could be taken down by booming drug
trade. Poppy cultivation is a major enemy, said Karzai. But pressure was
growing on him to take tough action to curb rampant official involvement in
the drug trade after the UN announced 60 percent rise in opium cultivation.
Corruption was another contentious issue. On 15 th October, Mujadeddi
threatened to quit Karzai government after he had issued arrest warrants for
Herat mayor over corruption.
Concern was growing in US about performance of Karzai
government. Insecurity threatened reconstruction works which already
suffered due to meager funding by donors. Over 800 South Koreans left
Afghanistan by 6th August. Attacks on schools increased six-fold and by 3rd
October, three hundred schools were closed in Kandahar province alone. UN
complained that violence against women was widespread.
Taliban kept issuing threatening statements. On 18th July, they vowed
to intensify attacks. Five days later, they urged Muslims to resist US and
Israel. On 4th September, Taliban claimed that they have acquired better
weapons and have infiltrated big cities.
Reportedly, Tahir Yuldash, commander of the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan said his men were fighting alongside al-Qaeda and Taliban. On
7th October, Taliban asked foreign forces to quit Afghanistan. Four days later,
a commander said hundreds of suicide bombers were ready and 78 suicide
attacks had been carried out this year.

COMMENTS
Taliban had learnt a lot, in addition to getting inspiration, from Sunni
Arabs resistance against occupation of Iraq. They were likely to get more
inspiration from Lebanon War. Abdullah al-Madani feared that they would
exploit this war. Taliban have wasted no time in the past to exploit
certain external developments to present themselves as true defenders of
the faith against the so-called Western anti-Islam conspiracies, and
consequently to win the sympathy of Arabs and Muslims.

219

Among events the Taliban capitalized on were the Abu Ghraib

incident in Iraq, the Danish cartoons insulting Prophet Mohammad (PBUH),
and the desecration of Holy Quraan in Guantanamo. The analyst ignored the
fact that all these were outrageous anti-Islam acts for entire Muslim World.
Jangvi, one of the Talibans top 10 commanders, said that his mens
morale had been boosted by the successful attacks against the government
and coalition forces and that his movement would soon launch an
unprecedented offensive He added that the new military campaign would
give optimum results and would send a message to all Muslims that jihad in
Afghanistan has reached a significant level and it is time again to help the
resistance with manpower and money.
Resurgence of Taliban led the experts and analysts to ponder about the
causes of resurgence and suggest measures to control it. M Ashraf Haider
enumerated some factors which account for the resurgence of security
threats to Afghanistan: Coalition forces concentrated on hunting al-Qaeda,
which allowed Taliban to regroup/reorganize. Afghanistan has received less
per capita in reconstruction and security assistance. Establishment of law
enforcing institutions has been neglected by occupation forces.
Rahimullah Yusufzai identified some factors which revived and
strengthened Talibans resolve. The Taliban, Hezbollah and the fighters
forming the desperate Iraqi resistance are few in number and poorly
equipped but they are undeterred on account of faith in the worthiness of
their cause. This belief would keep them going even if they gradually run
out of steam. The strength of their resistance would depend primarily on the
support they are able to receive from their communities.
Taliban cannot operate in a hostile environment. They need local
support to survive and plan attacks on the enemy. The NATO forces and
their commanders appear to have grasped this truth and they have
formulated plans to win over support of the local population All this looks
good on paper and could even work if the plans are executed properly and
honestly. But things could go wrong, as is the case right now in Helmand
and other southern provinces.
Robert Scheer opined, the Bush Administration has, for half a
decade, celebrated its overthrow of the Taliban and subsequent national
elections in Afghanistan, but if this is democratic nation-building then the
model must be Colombia, the narco-state where the political process masks
220

the real power held by drug lords and radical insurgent. Afghanistan is
dominated not by the government in Kabul but by a patchwork of
warlords, terrorist groups and drug traffickers completely addicted to the
annual poppy harvests profits.
The White House was again trumpeting that we have deprived alQaeda of safe haven in Afghanistan and helped a democratic government
rise in its place. Considering that Osama bin Laden himself is still reputed
to be hiding somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and Afghan
President Hamid Karzai is desperately dependent on the support of drug
lords and warlords to prevent renewed civil war, such claims are blatant
fraud What the Bush Administration will not confront in Afghanistan, or
in Iraq, is that its ill-conceived and disastrously executed nation-building
schemes are sinking into the swamp of local and historical realities.
Use of indiscriminate force by occupation forces was fueling the
resentment. Dad Noorani wrote, General David Richards indicated that the
ISAF under NATO command would continue to use the heavy firepower
the coalition had employed in recent months in response to an escalation in
militant attacks. We will retain the capability and will to strike ruthlessly at
the enemies of Afghanistan when required, he said.
But the key question many Afghans ask is whether NATO countries
are capable and willing enough to win the war against the insurgents and
their local and foreign backers NATOs greatest difficulty in the south
lies in ending foreign support for the insurgents.
Ann Jones said, American, British and Canadian troops find
themselves at war with Taliban fighters which is to say Afghans while
stunned NATO commanders, who hadnt bargained for significant combat,
are already asking what went wrong. The answer is a threefold failure: no
peace, no democracy, and no reconstruction.
The News observed, of late the Taliban have become so daring they
have begun giving secret interviews to foreign correspondents in villages
situated not too far from Kabul. One reason for the grim security situation
perhaps the chief reason is that the Afghan armed forces remain weak
and ineffectual, and therefore have a secondary role in the protection of
security and in the fight against terrorism.

221

Also, the Taliban are unlikely to yield to anything short of the foreign
troops leaving Afghanistan, or if they are offered some kind of powersharing agreement. Pakistan may be troubled country itself, but at least it
fights its own battles.
In another editorial the newspaper said, the handover does not seem
to have had an auspicious beginning as far as Pakistan-Afghan ties are
concerned, with at least one major British newspaper publishing a claimed
exposure, quoting unnamed NATO commanders who participated in
Operation Medusa, of how Pakistani intelligence agencies are still helping
the Taliban, who allegedly use Baluchistan to regroup and recuperate.
Gwynne Dyer wrote, after taking heavy casualties, Pakistan has
agreed with the tribes of Waziristan to withdraw its troops from the lawless
province, giving the Taliban a secure base on Afghanistans border. Karzai,
seeking allies who will help him survive the eventual pullout of Western
troops, is appointing gangsters and drug-runners as local police chiefs
and commanders. The end-game has started, and the foreigners seem
bound to lose.
Only one chance remains for them. The futile war on drugs will
drag on endlessly elsewhere, but if they legalize the cultivation of opium
poppies in Afghanistan and bought up the entire crop at premium prices
they might have just broken the link between the Taliban and the farmers.
The Guardian wrote, the government has struggled to explain what
seems to be a bad case of mission creep from one originally billed as
providing security for reconstruction and development, to full-scale combat
operations in which large numbers of Taliban are dying. It can point to
improved governance, economic growth and social progress, though the
worst ever poppy crop figures can be offered only as grim evidence of
the scale of a long challenge ahead.
According to Zama Coursen-Neff Taliban are not alone in their war on
education. Setarehs village is far from Taliban areas in Wardak province,
which is controlled by warlords ostensibly loyal to the government. But a
district official told me that it was the local warlords thugs who planted the
landmine (in a school).
Just like Maliki in Iraq, the puppet in Kabul was also blamed. The
New York Times wrote, Mr Karzai cannot deliver security and

222

development without sustained and effective international help. But he

should be doing a lot more to curb the corruption of his political allies
and appointees.
Their ostentatious greed has widened the gap, and sharpened political
antagonisms, between the favoured few and the desperately poor majority in
one of the worlds least developed countries. Such venality is a gift to
austere Taliban recruits.
Americans are coming to see the war in Iraq as something apart from
the war against 9/11-style terrorism and a distraction from it. The war in
Afghanistan has always been an essential part of that larger struggle. That
makes it a war that America simply cannot afford to lose.
Puppet regimes seemingly Islamic actions were criticized. Christina
Lamb in her article expressed concerns about approval of the proposal by
Karzais cabinet to re-establish the notorious Department for the
Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which was first introduced
by Taliban and its conduct was extensively used by the West to demonize
Taliban regime.
Babak Khalatbari opined, Afghans are increasingly demanding new
ways to establish order. One current idea of reinstalling the religious police
has broad support among the people as well as politicians. Even President
Karzai supports the idea Despite these (past) experiences, 71 percent of
around 300 passers-by questioned in a survey conducted by the Konard
Adenauer Foundation in Kabul favoured reinstalling of the religious police.
Even among the 33 women questioned, only 18 percent opposed bringing
back the religious police. A full 88 percent of the 40 police surveyed were in
favour of behaviour watch-dogs. Support is even higher in the countryside,
presumably, than in Kabul.
Faced with this groundswell of public opinion, politicians are likely
to approve a return to religious police. Aref Noorzai, a member of the
parliament, expects approval from 80 percent of his colleagues Its the
start of the vicious circle. Unless the security situation improves, public
opinion will radicalize. The demand for reinstalling religious police by
many Afghans could damage the young Afghan state irreparably.
Occupation forces and the puppet regime blamed the across-border
terrorism. The New York Times wrote, the Taliban, operating from cross-

223

border sanctuaries in Pakistan, have exploited Washingtons strategic

blunders and Mr Karzais disappointing performance to build its political
and military strength, particularly in the southern region where it first began
its drive to power more than a decade ago.
Ali Ahmad Jalali observed, the recently announced extension of
NATOs security mission to cover the whole of Afghanistan comes as a
peace deal between the Pakistani government and the pro-Taliban militants
in the North Waziristan border area has led to a major increase in
militants cross-border attacks.
ISI was singled out to blame for involvement. The News wrote,
meeting between the NATO commander in Afghanistan, General David
Richards, and President Pervez Musharraf seemed to have gone well. If the
ISI point was indeed discussed in the meeting, it certainly made no mention
in the official public version of what transpired at that meeting.
The report, which basically presents the view of the Afghan
government, said that Baluchistan was the hub of assistance, and that the
Taliban were using it for resting and recuperating after launching attacks
inside Afghanistan. Pakistan was understandably quick to react to such
reports angrily denying them and this is good because it should be clear to
everyone that supporting the Talibandoes not serve Pakistans
interests in any manner whatsoever.
Ikram Sehgal opined, surprised by the Taliban response on the
ground, the knee-jerk reaction of NATOs commanders, partly to hide their
own shortcomings in the field, has been to blame the ISI. They have got it
wrong; this sort of activity cannot remain hidden for long.
It is true that the Taliban are getting help from the Pakhtun areas in
borders contiguous to Afghanistan, Pakistan is doing its best, at grievous
cost in casualties, to stem this. There is no way to completely restrict
tribals traditional affinity and blood relationships. Enough weapons and
ammunition are stored hidden within Afghanistan for many decades to
come.
From time to time seriously wounded insurgents have been
apprehended in Quetta in out-of-the-way medical clinics. Logistics support
emanating from Quetta and Peshawar is only possible in a surreptitious

224

manner and has no official sanction, either from ISI or the civil
administration.
The joint jirga idea is an exercise in frustration; it will allow
unscrupulous tribal chiefs to play both sides while blurring the sanctity of
the Durand Line as a frontier demarcation. A radical change of attitude and
direction is needed.
The New York Times made some recommendations to turn things
around. The first step must be enhanced security, so that foreign and
local civilians can carry out reconstruction projects. That will require a large
and long-term foreign military presence, with a large American component.
Unfortunately, Washington is headed in a different direction.
The plan is for European and Canadian NATO forces to step in and
provide security for civilian teams in southern and eastern Afghanistan while
the remaining Americans concentrate on fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
This is a new variant of the Bush Administrations misbegotten theory
that Americans should be war-fighters and leave nation building to others.
There are two big problems with this. First, in violent situations
like that in southern Afghanistan, NATO can assure security only if America,
its leading member, provides reconnaissance, transport and combat support.
Second, the idea that American troops are there not to bring security to
Afghans, but to hunt down the Taliban and too bad if Afghan civilians are
caught in the cross-fire is a disastrous approach to counter insurgency
warfare. It has not worked in Iraq and it is not working in Afghanistan.
Washington made the mistake of premature disengagement once
before, after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal. That opened the door to the
Taliban, al-Qaeda and Sept 11. If America now means to be serious about
combating international terrorism, it cannot make the same mistake twice.
Khaleej Times said, two-day meeting of defence chiefs from 26
NATO member states in Poland to commit extra troops points at mounting
problems for the coalition. That NATO commanders are expected to call for
2,500 additional soldiers, significantly higher than the number proposed a
few days ago, also indicates that fighting the resurgent Taliban is getting
tougher.

225

Key NATO members are already heavily involved in Lebanon, so

reinforcements will be hard to come by. Far from making good the
smokeem out claim, the Afghan campaign has gone off track. Frankly
speaking, Afghanistan will remain without peace as long as the coalition
fails to politically engage the genuine representatives of Afghan people.
The Guardian urged reconsideration of the strategy. The criterion for
judging NATOs mission should not be the alliances institutional credibility.
The only thing that matters is whether it can help extend the reach of the
central government in Kabul for normal life and economic prosperity and
at what price.
If more forces are simply reinforcing failure, if Afghanistan is
doomed to become a latter-day Vietnam, then there is little point. British
commanders who claim to have the upper hand will need to convince
skeptics they can improve on the disastrous US performance in Iraq and
Israels war against Hezbollah. The lesson is that in asymmetrical
conflicts it is the nimbler side with local knowledge which will prevail.
The mantra that failure is unthinkable belongs to the realm of
propaganda. But the meaning of failure needs examining: a NATO
withdrawal would mean a resurgence of the Taliban across the country,
not just the south, threatening the democratically elected government
While some of these issues figure in increasingly audible grumbling
from the British military, there is still little questioning of the overall
objective, rather an insistence that the right resources must be deployed and
that NATO must deliver them. Now ordinary citizens want to be certain
that our politicians and generals really know what they are doing.
Simon Tisdall wrote, the NATO secretary generals appeal followed
an unsuccessful attempt to drum up more support from leading members
such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain in Warsaw at the weekend.. A
formal force generation conference will be held today But promises
notwithstanding, NATO might struggle to find the extra soldiers
Even if NATO obtained all the troops it wanted, its current southern
strategy would not achieve its stated aims and should be reconsidered,
said Ayesha Khan In fact, its destabilizing the area. It has sidelined the
state-building and reconstruction agenda. It has sidelined the disarming of
militias The US has made the south the frontline in the war on terror.

226

NATO came into this thinking peacekeeping, not conflict operations. They
did not foresee the complications
NATO was inducted into Afghanistan with the aim of preparing this
military alliance for challenges of 21st century. Howard LaFranchi
commented on the prospects. Some observers worry that demands on
NATO are surpassing its abilities and jeopardizing its transition
process. The Afghanistan assignment, which involves 16,000 NATO-led
soldiers now and a projected 25,000 by the end of the year, has the
leadership of some member countries holding their breath, as NATO forces
face increasing attacks and an entrenched enemy.
But officials here say the growing violence was to be expected as
units moved into more of the country beyond the capital of Kabul. And they
say that assignments like Afghanistan and even Iraq, where NATO operates
a training centre for security forces, are preparing the alliance for the 21st
century functions envisioned in its transition.
Some analyst opposed undertaking Afghan mission with wrong
perceptions. Simon Jenkins opined, what made Tony Blair think he could
beat them with just 4,000 soldiers? The Soviets lost with 120,000. This
expedition ranks among the stupidest in recent British history and
there is serious competition. It was undertaken under the aegis of NATO,
designed for a different purpose and notorious for incoherent decision.
This meant British forces would not be masters of their fate but at the
mercy of a caravanserai of some 36 nations in Kabul, most with no intention
of getting hurt These British soldiers are not fighting against terrorism
or dying for democracy. They are dying because the Americans
wanted
British ministers involved in this war are way beyond their pay
grade. Asked by Lord Astor last year about the troop balance between Iraq
and Afghanistan, the Defence Minister Lord Drayson (recreation: swordfencing) replied dismissively: My lords, I am sure that noble lords will want
to join me in congratulating the noble lord on his birthday Within three
months of their full deployment, British troops have reportedly had to
abandon the platoon house strategy of securing bases in isolated towns and
villages. They were being pulverized by Taliban mortars.

227

When the Taliban seized control in 1994, they offered the country a
sort of order, and even prosperity, based on opium (Wrong statement as
Taliban had controlled opium like no one has done so far). There is no
doubt that they will return, at least to the south. Kabul cannot stop
them. NATO certainly cannot. For Blair and Reid, architects of the current
deployment, to lump the Taliban in with al-Qaeda, 9/11 and the Sunnis in
Iraq is an invitation to false strategy.
Finding a way out of this morass is near impossible. British policy is
in hock to Blairs NATO machismo, and early withdrawal is hard to imagine.
Since British troops cannot conceivably defeat the Taliban, sending
reinforcements will merely add to the latters target list.
After the crash of British plane Peter Preston wrote. forget old WMD
debacles, if you can, for heres something arguably worse: simple idiocy
without duplicity. We were supporting the Karzai government in Kabul. We
had aid workers, reconnaissance officers and spooks on the ground. Yet we
wandered into this killing field, eyes open and mouth blathering
emptily. And the blather continues.
It continues when Des Browne, the Scots lawyer now deemed for
MoD purpose, denounces the typical dishonesty of the Taliban claiming a
hit. (What, pray, has honesty got to do with a war like this?) It continues
when Tony Blair yet again talks about vital missions. It continues when
David Cameron pops up to declare that Afghanistan cannot be allowed to
slide back into being a failed narco-state and global exporter of terrorism at
the mercy of a resurgent Taliban Do you count criminal elements that
join in the mayhem because they work for drug warlords who want to carry
on trading? Can you keep track of itinerant Chechens and Saudis dropping in
for a scrap?
What, if it met in frank secrecy, would any sentient NATO conclave
conclude about this mission improbable? That Afghanistan, over centuries,
has been the graveyard of occupying forces, however benevolent their
intention: a great-game venue for losers only That people who hoped for
something better have slowly lost heart and belief. That Karzais Kabul
regime is mired in cynicism and stuck with a writ that doesnt run much
beyond the citys boundaries.
Welcome to the quick sands, then. Welcome to a border that can
only become more lethally porous as Pakistans military regime grows
228

feebler. Welcome to a growing bind back home as army recruitment falls

ever further behind target as young men reckon the risks of death too high.
Graham Usher wrote, Brigadier Ed Butler was blunt. The violence
in Afghanistan is now worse than in Iraq Canadian Defence Minister,
Gordon O Connor, was more sober in his assessments gleaned from a tour of
NATO Canadian troops in Afghanistans restive southern provinces. We
cannot eliminate the Taliban, he said simply.
For Pakistan analyst, Mahir Ali, the signs are familiar, with the
Americans starting to cut the same retreat from Afghanistan as the
Soviets did before them. Nor, given the current rate of attrition, does he
believe NATOs labours at sustaining the Karzai regime (will) prove any
more fruitful that the Red Armys efforts to prop up Babrak Karmal and
Najibullah.
Abdullah al-Madani identified the reasons for NATO not doing well.
Why is NATO not doing well in Afghanistan compared with its success in
the Balkans? The following points may provide an answer:
First, unlike Balkans, situations in Afghanistan are harder to deal with
due to factors such as the country and the people.
Second, Afghanistan is bordered by countries with regimes or
influential forces that have no interest in seeing NATO achieving any
success there.
Third, one of the major sources of the Talibans strength id funds
generated from its promotion of opium cultivation.
American record has not been brighter, according to John Chuckman.
The record of Americas forces since World War II is depressing. In dozens
of quickie invasions against weak opponents, Americans indeed have
prevailed, but when faced with tough and determined enemies, they have
remarkably often been defeated or stalemated.
The failure of Americas military could be explained by the notion
that failure is only what happens when you seek the wrong success. A
poorly-governed people, as Americans certainly are, keeps being sent to
wars in which they have no vital interest or commitment. Whatever the
reason, the record is unmistakable.

229

Except in the bizarre mind of George Bush, the Taliban is not a

terrorist organization. So when one of them is killed, does it really
represent victory? Or is it viewed by many in Afghanistan as murder by
unwelcome foreigners? Clearly, this is the view of many because the Taliban
is becoming stronger, surprisingly so according to expert observers.
NATO countries in general do not accept Bushs tale about
everyones security depending upon success in Afghanistan for the very
good reason that it is false. On the other hand, those supporting the US in
Afghanistan are following Bushs interests, whatever those are, for Im
not sure Bush ever has had a clear grasp of what he is doing himself.
Kamal Matinuddin observed that situation has worsened and
consequences are dangerous. Taliban have apparently regrouped. They
have changed their way of fighting and gone beyond hit and run tactics.
They are now prepared to stay and fight. They have become more
sophisticated and more motivated as suicide attacks have increased.
NATOs forces in southern Afghanistan have met with success only if
the number of Taliban killed is to be taken into account. President Musharraf
rightly observed that if the killing of Taliban is not checked it could turn
into a Pushtun mobilization against foreign invaders
Warlords still call the shots. The governments authority is,
therefore, severely curtailed. Opium poppy cultivation has reached new
heights. Drug-trafficking prospers, as many of the cabinet ministers are
themselves involved in this trade.
Bush must now move beyond the al-Qaeda and Taliban-phobia in
Afghanistan. He must try and win the hearts and minds of the Afghans and
enter into negotiations and peace agreements with them. Not withstanding
the comments of a NATO General in Afghanistan that the violence has
increased three-fold after signing the agreement, it is encouraging to note
that Bush has decided to enter into negotiations with the moderate Taliban.
Although Rice considers that the US government owes it to the
Afghan people to help them finish the job but she must realize that killing
the Taliban is not what the Afghan people are looking for. They want
peace to return to their country.

230

Max Hastings opined, if the West fails, a heavy responsibility will

rest with Germany, France and Italy, which pretended to be willing to
contribute yet refused to act with conviction. We should surely forget past
blunders and address ourselves solely to the future. If the Karzai regime
cannot be sustained, unspeakably barbaric Islamist fascists will regain
power in Kabul. This would be a triumph for al-Qaeda, a disaster for the
global struggle against terrorism

CONCLUSION
Taliban have undoubtedly kept the occupation forces quite busy, but
the issue Talibans resurgence has been deliberately blown out of all
proportions. This has been done with multiple intentions; firstly to convey to
the US that its European allies have undertaken a challenging task.
Exaggeration of Taliban threat also helps in keeping the NATO allies
resolve intact and serves as justification for asking the partners for more
troops if need be. The reality, in fact, is other way around. The NATO forces
have become more aggressive and resorted to extensive use of brute force
and indiscriminate killings.
This hype also serves the purpose of keeping Pakistan on its toes.
Hurling accusations of cross-border terrorism on Pakistan is part of the
aggressive strategy of occupation forces. Pakistan will continue to be asked
to do more.
18th October 2006

KIMS KILOTON
A fortnight before North Korea carried out atomic explosion;
Armitage had said Pyongyang may test a nuclear weapon by the years-end.
On 1st October, two Koreas agreed to resume military talks after 5-month
pause. Two days later, North Korea announced it would carry out its first
nuclear test in response to what it called a US threat of nuclear war and
sanctions.
The US hurled yet another threat of going to the UNSC. On 6 th
October, the UN asked North Korea to drop nuclear test plan. Next day,
231

World powers adopted Japenese-drafted statement urging North Korea to

cancel nuclear test.
The inevitable happened on 9th October; North Korea carried out
atomic bomb test. North Korea gatecrashes N-party, read the headline of
the Daily News next day. The test was carried out underground in coal mines
area. The world was taken by surprise despite that Pyongyang had warned
that it would carryout the test.
The explosion had an effect of shock and awe on Bush, who
repeated routine threat but at the same time he indirectly requested
Pyongyang not to transfer the technology to others. Any transfer of nuclear
weapons or material to states or non-state entities would be considered a
grave threat to the United States. Rice discussed the issue with antiproliferation partners.
North Korea called it historic event because the test had been carried
out safely for the betterment of security and peace. KCNA News announced
that the nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and
technology, 100 percent. North Korean ambassador to the UN said: We
should be congratulated. Back home, Kim promised more explosions. South
Korea said the North has plutonium for seven bombs.
The bang soured what would have been a moment of joy for new the
UN General Secretary from South Korea, Ban Ki-Moon. Analysts observed
it more dangerous than India and Pakistan becoming nuclear powers.
Pakistan termed it as a destabilizing act and denied any link because its
nuclear programme is uranium-based and North Korean explosion is
plutonium-based.
Next day, while his boss cribbed against Kims bomb, Blair defended
Indias nuclear plan. The Big-5 and Japan said more talks were needed to
agree on a package of tough sanctions to punish North Korea for its nuclear
test and force it to resume stalled disarmament talks.
On 11th October a French scientist said Pyongyangs nuclear test may
never be confirmed. Bush said America wont attack. North Korea sounded
war alarm over sanctions and threatened more nuclear tests insisting that it
was ready for talks. Musharraf denied nuclear link with Pyongyang and
rejected examining A Q Khan over North Korean nuclear link.

232

Next day, Russia and China signaled that they would oppose tough
sanctions against North Korea. Experts observed the existing NPT has
become obsolete in view of North Korean nuclear weapons test and
advocated revision.
On 13th October, China and South Korea agreed to deal with North
Korean challenge jointly. Pakistan again rejected proliferation charges. Next
day, sanctions were imposed by UNSC on North Korea. Pyongyang rejected
Security Council resolution. The final resolution was softened from
language authorizing searches, but was still unacceptable to China, which
said it would not carry out any searches of North Korean ships.
New UN Secretary General, Ban, said on 15 th October, if necessary, I
will take my own initiative which will include visiting North Korea and
meeting North Korean leaders. A Japanese politician said Japan needs to
discuss whether it should possess nuclear weapons in response to North
Koreas claimed nuclear test.
Next day, Pakistan announced it will abide by UNSC resolution on
North Korea. Iran rejected UN sanctions against North Korea. Meanwhile,
the US was looking towards Japan and China for implementation of
sanctions. Two days later, Rice called for swift action on sanctions against
North Korea. Iran and North Korea are top threats to world peace, said
Germany.
On 19th October, South Koreans protested on arrival of Rice in Seoul
demanding dialogue with the North and no sanctions. Two days later, DPRK
said US was pushing the region to brink of war. Rice blamed Pyongyang for
escalation of tensions. Japan planned to monitor ships to North Korea.

INEVITABLE
The international community cannot pretend it had no
forewarning wrote the Hindu. Since 2003, when Pyongyang announced its
decision to quit the NPT, it has not been under any legal obligation to
forswear the production or possession of nuclear weapons.
Khaleej Times said, if the North Korea has gone ahead and armed
itself with nukes, President Bush must take some credit for it. That historic
speech of his after September 11 events when he warned the world that you
are either with us, or against us and promised action against the so-called

233

axis of evil must have convinced dear leader he should lose no time to
build the bomb.
Khalid Mustafa from Islamabad wrote, according to my rough
estimate, 65 percent of the credit goes to US. The Koreans deserve the
appreciation of the whole world. They are now in better position against
any foreign threat The right on N-tests must not be confined to any
superior country or particular regions.
Air Cdre Azfar A Khan from Rawalpindi wrote, the inevitable has
happened at last. North Korea has tested a nuclear device. The main reason
for the nuclear test by North Korea is that this reclusive state was pushed
to the wall by the US. The US kept rejecting North Koreas long-standing
demand for direct talks and threatened of still tougher sanctions. Pyongyang
was also apprehensive of possible military action by the US, though the idea
is far-fetched. The crackdown by the US on the financial dealings of North
Korea was the last straw.
Simon Tisdall blamed the US administration for its unjust tactics.
The September deal brought sighs of relief across Asia and in Washington,
where right-wing newspaper editorials hailed a triumph of US policy. It
spawned talk of a new era of strategic cooperation between the US and
China, a denuclearized Korean peninsula of North and South Korea But
the celebrations were premature. For reasons that remain unclear, the US
treasury department chose almost the exact moment the deal was struck
to move against a Macau-based bank called Banco Delta Asia.
US officials announced the bank could face punitive action under US
banking rules and Patriot Act anti-terrorism laws over suspicions that it was
being used by North Korea for money laundering and counterfeiting. They
described the bank as a willing pawn facilitating North Koreas
criminal activities. The full implications of the treasurys allegations,
publicized on September 15 last year, took time to sink in. But the effects
were dramatic Worried that they too could become targets for US
penalties and be cut adrift from the international banking system, other
regional banks took fright. One by one they halted dealings with North
Korea.
According to a Wall Street Journal investigation, led by reporter
Gordon Fairclough, accounts belonging to 20 North Korean banks as well as
those of 11 trading companies and nine North Korean individuals were shut.
234

Millions of dollars were frozen. Within weeks much of North Koreas

legitimate international trade had ground to halt and the country was
scrambling to secure foreign credit and loans, the newspaper disclosed.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan recalled that the US Senate refused to ratify
the CTBT but expected the rest of the world to sign and ratify it.
Pakistan was heavily sanctioned but Israel was permitted to accumulate a
large nuclear arsenal.
North Korea and Iran have been asserting their right to master the
nuclear fuel cycle while maintaining degree of ambiguity about their
ultimate intentions. Both these countries have faced threats of regime change
from the US. While Iran has reiterated its peaceful intentions, North Korea
gave up ambiguity with a defiant nuclear test on October 9 The case of
North Korea raises the question if the current practice of using intimidation
to force aspirants to nuclear technology to abandon it altogether really serves
the cause of non-proliferation.
The tone and tenor of nuclear diplomacy with North Korea have
largely been determined by the US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill
Clinton were willing to explore a negotiated solution while Bush relied more
on pressure and coercion. It was easy to include North Korea in an axis of
evil and threaten it with pre-emptive war
Coercion has, therefore, taken the form of sanctions which
Pyongyang has tried to get lifted by using its nuclear programme as a
bargaining chip. Clinton gave negotiations a chance but the Bush
Administration demanded compliance without much quid pro quo
Pyongyang has characteristically decided to dare the international
community to face the consequences of isolating it further. Given its fragile
economy, it will pay a heavy price but would the world be able to cope with
a failed nuclear state?
Shireen M Mazari wrote, the Bush Administration has totally
undermined international law and international norms of behaviour by its
unilateralist actions in Iraq and in the policies of illegal confinements,
international abductions and renditions. Blair has called the North Korean
irresponsible and it is certainly that; but surely the Bush-Blair combine
has set the new benchmarks for such irresponsibility.

235

North Korea cited the US singling of this country, along with some
other axis of evil states, for a preemptive nuclear strike as well as a US
threat of a blockade and military punishment. So in strict international law
terms, the North Koreans have not contravened any legal obligations
even as they have defied the international community, especially their
friends.
Hassan Tahsin was of the view that the stand adopted by China and
Russia, the two Security Council members with veto power is a major factor
that encouraged North Korea to go for a nuclear arsenal though the
country has serious economic problems.
During its early industrial boom decades ago North Korea attempted
to make use of its achievements in technological fields to develop peaceful
nuclear technology and the ballistic missiles industry which became one
of its major economic resources. However, the US was deadly against the
Korean ambition and named it a rogue state along with Iraq and Iran.
A hurriedly prepared resolution was passed in 1995 to keep the
protesting non-nuclear countries. It offered to provide the required help to a
victim country if it is a signatory. It also specified that help would be given
only after they suffered the attack
Third World countries however pointed out that the resolution did not
say emphatically that the use of nuclear warheads is a threat to international
peace and security. The resolution did not provide for any mechanism to
counter the situation in which a country comes under nuclear threat. It also
did not specify any commitment by the nuclear powers to take measures
to defend other countries when a nuclear attack takes place.
The resolution, which was the final outcome of the nuclear powers
desire to extend their mastery over other countries, has been viewed with
suspicion by the Third World countries because of the apparent double
standard involved in it.
The powerful countries failed to implement the guarantees
mentioned in the resolution. They refused to transfer the nuclear technology
for peaceful applications to other countries. The US behaved in a dictatorial
manner and was very harsh to the countries that did not obey its writ.

236

Ramzy Baroud opined, just as the war on Iraq failed to bring stability
to the Middle East and secure US economic interests there, the breakaway
from diplomatic efforts to engage North Korea have helped produce an
irrevocable scenario, where the latter now effectively possesses semiusable nuclear capabilities If the issue were treated with sincerity, political
consistency, yet unity and firmness from the outset, the region would not
have had to endure such trepidation.
The Washington Post did not agree. The Norths latest provocation
produced the usual claims that the United Sates was somehow at fault for
failing to engage the dictatorship. Yet the Bush Administration has made
it clear that it will be open to a broad security dialogue if the North
returns to the multi-party negotiations it has boycotted for the past year
Gwynne Dyer opined, North Korea has just done which would be
characterized as a cry for help, like a teenage kid burning his parents
house down because hes misunderstood. Granted, its an unusually loud cry
for help, but now that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il has got our
attention, what are we going to do about him?
Kim Jong-Il is not crazy. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, who has negotiated with him, says he is well informed and not at
all delusional. He pretends to be unstable because his regimes survival
depends on blackmailing foreign countries into giving it the food and fuel
that it cannot produce for itself. Rogue nukes are a big part of that image, but
like any professional blackmailer, he would hand them over for the right
price.
He added that Kim inherited this strategy from his father. In 1994 he
inherited a country from his father Kim Il-Sung that was already in acute
crisis Kim needed the support of the military and the party officials who
controlled North Koreas command economy, and derived their power and
privileges from it. Radical economic reforms would threaten their positions.
Kims inheritance was far from secure, so he left the economy alone and
used the threat of going nuclear to extort aid from foreign countries.
Kim Il-Sung died in July 1994, and it was his son who approved the
Framework Agreement with the United States that October in which the
US promised to send Pyongyang half a million tons of oil a year and
eventually to build the North Koreans two nuclear reactors.

237

China, South Korea and other neighbours also sent grain, other food,
and medicines. Kim Jong-Il won some breathing space to consolidate his
rule but then following a series of floods and droughts, Kim Jong-Il played
the nuclear card again.
John Feffer observed that the recent nuclear test is the logical
consequence of the Norths policy over the last four years. It developed a
nuclear program to deter US attacks, but it also needed a bargaining chip
to trade for status, cash, and other goodies.
The nuclear test is a signal to the international community that
North Korea refuses to be disrespected, have its sovereignty abridged, or
suffer a full-frontal military assault. But the test also serves various internal
purposes. The staff of the countrys nuclear complex scientists, military
officials, and government representatives has an important stake in seeing
their project through to completion The recent test might have been just a
lot of TNT or it could have been a very small weapon tested unsuccessfully.
However, from North Koreas point of view, the perception of deterrence is
more important than reality.
Ronan Thomas said, with this weeks reported nuclear test at Gilju,
Kim Jong-Il has pushed past the doorman at the worlds nuclear club. The
membership committee appears powerless to act. The Gilju test, if true, is
surely no surprise, given Kims long-proclaimed desire to inoculate his
regime from external attack.
Rosa Brooks opined, elsewhere in the axis of evil, things are also
looking good. With the world otherwise occupied, the authoritarian Iranian
regime has continued to suppress dissent and advance its own nuclear
program, and its surely heartened by North Koreas great leap
forward Al-Qaeda must be pleased by the news too. Because Kim has
always made clear his willingness to sell lethal technologies to the highest
bidder, al-Qaeda has another potential purveyor if nuclear weapons.
If the axis of evil keeps making great leaps forward, we may some
day see an Asia where a nuclear North Korea is a major power-broker, a
Middle East where a nuclear Iran is a major power-broker, and a destabilized
world where terrorist groups hold states hostage through their possession of
nuclear technologies.

238

Praful Bidwai observed, the explosion underscores some plain

unvarnished wisdom: the best way to deal with problem cases like North
Korea is to discard nuclear weapons as a currency of power by pursuing the
global nuclear disarmament agenda. The alternative is to risk a more unsafe
world with yet more nuclear-armed states.
North Korea shows that a small, poor, economically and politically
isolated country, which recently experienced famines, can build nuclear
weapons if it is determined to. Splitting the atom requires neither high
science nor very advanced technology.
The science is more than 60 years old, and the technology no more
sophisticated than what a car garage has once you have fissile material or
reactors. The test sets terrible example. Some 40 countries have significant
civilian nuclear programmes, which can be diverted to make weapons.
Why did North Korea test? It has a long history of conflict with
South Korea and the United States More recently, President George W
Bush torpedoed the reconciliation process between the Koreas. In 2002, he
named North Korea an axis of evil state and reneged on aid promises.
On October 3, Pyongyang foreign ministry said: A people without a
reliable war deterrent are bound to meet a tragic death and (loss 0f)
sovereignty This is a bitter lesson taught by the bloodshedin different
parts of the world. The blast followed six days later.
William Langewiesche wrote, whats done is done, and though we
may protest and bluster, there is very little US can do to stop it from
proceeding. Rather than making a show of our weakness, we would do well
to calm down. After all this is not unexpected; the fact is, the spread of
nuclear weapons is, and always has been, inevitable.
This is a trend that began even before the fall of the Soviet Union,
but its accelerating in a world where countries must turn to themselves for
protection and where the US, especially after the invasion of Iraq, is seen
as an aggressor and a threat. For these reasons and others, new nuclear
players are emerging to challenge the rules of the game.
Earlier this year in Moscow, a Russian nuclear official put it this way
to me: Nuclear weapons technology has become a useful tool, especially
for the weak. It allows them to satisfy their ambitions without much

239

expense. If they want to intimidate others, to be respected by others, this is

now the easiest way to do it.
Nasim Zehra was of the view that most sellers of this deadly
technology, even from the alleged A Q Khan ring, are now on the loose. All
but the Pakistani scientist A Q Khan held unaccountable. The international
approach of cops, looking selectively for the thieves robbing nuclear
technology, are unlikely to bring order.
For the insecure it is a weapon of security, for the relatively secure
their nuclear bombs are tools of enforcing peace and stability. For the peacenicks they spell annihilation. For the realists a nuclear bomb is the deterrent
toboth, the arrogant and the errant state. So a nuclear bomb is a differing
reality for differing perspectives.
M B Naqvi argued that proliferation is aided by reason. Who can
forget the US already has an alliance a series of inter-connecting treaties
with Australian and Asian powers that spans from South Korea through
Japan, Taiwan to Australia and several other arrangements with South East
Asian countries and has the effect of military alignment that only needs an
enemy But this grand line up exists.
The fact cannot be ignored that possession of nuclear weapons is
thought to be a sufficient deterrent to being aggressed against. North Korea
will perhaps feel safe against an American-led invasion by threatening to
nuke American troops in South Korea or in Japan. Well, that is the accepted
wisdom, though it may not apply in every situation
Proliferation is aided by reason. International relations are not
based on sweet reasonableness or morality or international law. What counts
is military (especially also nukes) power. The stronger you are the better
terms you get.

CONDEMNABLE
Nuclear blast is a condemnable act and condemnation, obviously has
to start from Kim. Gwynne Dyer observed that Kims crude tactics were
always intensely irritating to the other parties to the Six-Power Talks on
North Koreas nuclear weapons, and now they are furious with the little
dictator. Even China, North Koreas only ally, called Pyongyangs test
stupid.

240

The News opined, a major argument that goes against North Korea
exploding a nuclear device is based on simple economics. The country does
not have any trade with the rest of the world and the majority of those who
live under its totalitarian regime have a poor standard of living Clearly, in
such a situation, for any government placed in as precarious an economic
position as North Koreas, to embark on a nuclear weapons programme and
conduct a nuclear test is to show a complete disregard for needs of its
people for basic necessities and other socio-economic development.
Babar Mufti from Islamabad wrote, by any standards North Korea is
in deep trouble. Its economy has collapsed. Foreign aid feeds its people and
in the last decade almost a million people died because of severe food
shortages. In addition, the UNSC has now unequivocally condemned the
nuclear test and has started contemplating tough financial and trade
sanctions on this already impoverished nation. The only friend China seems
to be also abandoning them. This is bound to result in more hardship for
the common people who are already without basic facilities.
Khaleej Times said, it appears as though one of the worst nightmare
scenarios of the Cold War years have finally come true. A nutty dictator
with nukes let loose threatening global peace! Kims xenophobic rhetoric
and his quirky lifestyle even remind some of Nazi dictator Hitler. But
despite his weapons of mass destruction and idiosyncrasies, Dear Leader
hasnt proved himself to be as evil as Fuhrer; at least not yet. He hasnt
invaded or attacked neighbouring countries, at least not so far.
However, there is little doubt the fact that his dangerously isolated
and unstable regime poses a serious threat to the world peace. What
makes the Stalinist regime a clear and present danger is the fact that it finds
itself under siege at home and abroad.
William J Perry argued, North Koreas declared nuclear bomb test
programme will increase the incentives for other nations to go nuclear,
will endanger security in the region and could ultimately result in nuclear
terrorism.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi observed that Iran has officially blamed the United
States for North Koreas nuclear test While short of hailing Pyongyangs
move, Tehrans reaction appears to be tilted in North Koreas favour
and depending on the backlash against North Korea, it remains to be seen
how North Koreas actions will influence Iran.
241

Geo-strategically, the North Korea nuclear crisis benefits Iran in

several ways. First, it may translate into a costly US force buildup in the
Korean Peninsula Second, Iran, which has purchased North Korean
missiles in the past, may opt to strengthen military relations with North
Korea Third, China, which relative to Russia has been quiet on the issue
of Iran sanctions, may now find itself hard-pressed to support the United
States bid for sanctions against Iran.
Ramzy Baroud said, considering the US-North Korea protracted
standoff, one can only imagine how foolishly disposed Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein must now feel that he didnt pursue a more determined programme
of weapons of mass destruction. Even if one would accept Irans claims that
its nuclear programme is constructed for peaceful purposes, one has no
wonder if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is willing to
reconsider the overriding intent of his nuclear ambitions.
M Abd al-Hameed from Lahore wrote, a nuclear threat by Iran will
send shivers down the spines of neighbouring Arabs, who have much
more to fear, in view of the mutual hostility over the centuries Real
planning will have to be done in West Asia. Saudi Arabia and Egypt should
start work immediately on development of nuclear energy The Americans
will, no doubt, make a lot of noise but will not do anything against Saudi
Arabia.
Ehsan Ahrari mentioned the common apprehension of the West.
North Korea will become a regular source of transfer of nuclear knowledge
to countries that have expressed an interest in developing peaceful nuclear
programs. Finally, it should be asked whether Pyongyang would be willing
to sell a dirty bomb to the likes of al-Qaeda. After all, both North Korea
and al-Qaeda share an intense hatred for the lone superpower.
Kim Jong-Il might well be thinking along lines of AQ Khan, the
founder of Pakistans nuclear programme. Khan by his own admission in
2004, at one time ran a nuclear bazaar aimed at proliferating nuclear
weapons know-how to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
What concern the international is that North Koreas potential
consumers i.e. countries which have conducted business with Kim in
terms of purchasing cruise missiles A report published in 2005 by the
Congressional Research Service stated that North Korea earned about US $1
billion through arms sale during 1997-2000 Despite UN sanctions
242

expressly prohibiting most arms sales, weak enforcement and oversight

could allow North Korea to return to the market. To start with, it could sell
conventional arms, including ballistic missile supplies.
The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle for the past several
decades. As countries national security is threatened especially those not
protected by the American or Russian nuclear shields they might be
compelled to develop their own nuclear umbrellas.
As long as it is not persuaded to unravel its nuclear weapons
program, which could be achieved by offering it legitimate security
guarantees, North Korea as a pariah state remains a dangerous actor
which could be looking for openings to Strike back at the lone superpower
when suitable opportunities arise.
M B Naqvi feared that Japan may go nuclear in reaction to Kims
possession of a nuclear device. No one else in Asia, except anti-nuclear
campaigners, will feel threatened by North Koreas bomb. After all,
North Korea is a small country that is not inimical to most Asian countries.
All its militancy is directed at Japan that had mistreated it so badly in the
past that its scars are still visible The threat most Asians will feel is the
Japanese reaction to it and to a smaller extent South Koreas. These two
powers might opt for building their atomic weapons Proliferation is
inherent in the situation anyhow.
One thing can be said about the Japenese reaction to the North
Korean bomb. A certain amount of common sense and a sense of
proportion needs to be deployed: North Korea is no real threat to Japan
North Koreans perceived threats to their own security should explain its
behaviour; it has reasons to fear the US-Japan military alliance. It is still
formally in a state of war with the US.
As soon as the prospect of Japan going nuclear becomes closer,
there will be real turmoil throughout Asia. Japans conduct in twentieth
century, beginning with defeating imperial Russia and occupying the Korean
areas and going on to invade China are a painful memory for most Asians.
Kim was condemned not only for his act but also on the basis of all
kinds of apprehensions and speculations. But far more than that the double
standards of those preaching non-proliferation also deserve stronger
condemnation. The Hindu wrote, it is undeniable that the preaching and

243

practice of non-proliferation is all about double standards, different sets of

rules applying to different states in a global system ought to be controlled
by the US. Thus, by definition, condemnation of Pyongyangs adventurism
by a nuclear weapon is based on double standards, you may say hypocrisy.
The Government of India might see North Koreas action as greatly
weakening the prospect of the India-US civil nuclear cooperation deal
winning approval in the US Congress. But even allowing for this, New
Delhis condemnation of the October 9 test as being in violation of its
international commitments, jeopardizing peace, stability and security on
the Korean Peninsula and in the region and as highlighting the
dangerous and clandestine proliferation sounds a bit rich.
If on May 11 and 13, 1998 India violated no international
commitments because it was not a state party to the NPT, North Korea can
claim it acted in line with Article 10 of the NPT, the escape clause that
stipulates: Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the
right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decodes that extraordinary events,
related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme
interests of its country
John Chuckman said, North Koreas test is magnified in its effect by
several circumstances. First, war in the Korean peninsula has never
formally ended, and American troops might well be vulnerable to even a
school bus with a nuclear device. Just that thought is probably horrifying to
many Americans who are not used to being challenged abroad, but Im sure
North Korea has already been warned that that would constitute national
suicide.
Two, the test comes when Bush has been exploring military
means to end Irans work with nuclear upgrading technology. There is no
proof that Iran intends to create nuclear weapons, but, being realistic, I think
we have to say its likely.
Third, what many analysts fear from North Korea is its selling
weapons or technology to terrorists. North Korea sells a good deal of its
limited military technology to others, although this does not make the
country in any way special, the worlds largest arms trafficker by far
being the United States. Many would argue that Americans weapons
have supported terror, those used in Beirut, for example, ghastly fleshmangling cluster bombs dropped on civilians.
244

Shireen M Mazari observed, ever since the Bush Administration

came to power and undermined the 1994 Framework Agreement the Clinton
Administration had signed with North Korea, there had been certain
inevitability to what eventually happened on Monday. The Bush
Administration had shown a deliberate reluctance to accommodate the
North Koreans through diplomatic negotiations despite the limitations of
the military option for the Korean peninsula. Instead of accommodation and
negotiation, the US and its core state ally, Japan, had hardened their stance
against North Korea.
The success of Six Party Talks was crucial for China within the
context of international diplomacy, just as it was critical for the US to
ensure that China did not succeed on this count. If one examines the
course of these talks, one will see how the US played along but gave not an
inch of flexibility, which could have allowed this diplomatic move to
succeed. The test by North Korea has of course shown the failure of these
talks and with it of Chinese diplomatic effort.
For the US, the North Korean test has allowed it to undermine
China at the diplomatic level in its region and to put pressure on China
to go along with more punitive agenda against not only North Korea but also
possibly Iran within the UN Security Council.
The failure of the six party talks will make China reluctant to
undertake such proactive initiatives in the future which again suits US
interests since a regionally more active China threatens the continuation
of unipolarity especially given Chinas commitment to multilateralism.
John Feffer recalled, five years ago, when George W Bush took
office, North Korea didnt claim membership in the nuclear club. Its
plutonium processing facilities were frozen. It was even willing to negotiate
away its missile program.
Instead of pursuing the diplomatic route, the Bush
Administration tried to ignore Pyongyang. Then came the schoolyard
taunts such as lumping North Korea together with Iraq and Iran in an axis
of evil. When indifference and insult failed to move the isolated East Asian
country, the administration accused North Korea of enriching uranium To
top it off, Washington began to squeeze Pyongyang economically with
sanctions.

245

Pyongyang has refused to cry uncle. Instead it has replied in kind.

With its missile launches in July and its recently announced nuclear test,
Pyongyang has demonstrated that it can be a stubborn and as enamored of
military play-things as the Bush Administration.
With such a miserable track record in inducing behaviour change,
why has the United States continued to speak loudly and wield a big stick
against a hornets nest like North Korea? It might be, like North Koreas
recent test, a fundamental calculation. The Bush Administration, after all,
has shown a pathological inability to learn from its mistakes, or there
might be a deeper, more malign intent at work.
At first, the Bush Administration followed the logic of its
predecessors. It looked at North Korea through the prism of Eastern Europe.
With a little nudge, the regime was supposed to topple just like the
communist governmentsand then containment-plus tactics of the Bush
Administration.
Heres what the problem with the strategy of pointless talking
was: North Korea was not satisfied with cat-and-mouse maneuvers. Its
economy reeling and its population malnourished, the North Korean
government wanted a deal. And the only thing worth trading that it
possessed or that the world thought it possessed was a nuclear program.
Simon Jenkins targeted all the big five. They have had nuclear
weapons for half a century and refuse to give them up, dishonouring the
1970 treatys second pillar on disarmament The treaty was always
hypocritical, policed by those whose security it confirmed. It has been a
vehicle of superpower convenience.
What is more alarming is that North Korea appears to possess both
the wherewithal to build a working bomb and the long-range missiles to
deliver it. Kim Jong-Il is acquiring effective nuclear capability At this
point the argument moves from capability to intent. The West has not
moved against India or Pakistan because it does not see them as threats.
Irans ruling elite is devious but not mad Iran is a big, pluralist country, a
classic case for containment and engagement, not ostracism and war.
North Korea is a different matter. It is reasonable to ask why
Britain and America went to war against weapons of mass destruction
in the wrong country Iraq in 2003. It is also reasonable to wonder

246

whether the present crisis might have been avoided had George Bush not
wrecked President Clintons mild engagement policy towards North Korea
and opted instead for belligerence and rhetoric.
Juwairiayah Naeem from Islamabad opined Kims act was not all that
condemnable. I send my heartiest congratulations to North Korea on
carrying out its successful nuclear test. North Korea in spite of being an
impoverished nation has set an example for countries that have shown a
callous indifference to the sufferings of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And
to those Muslim countries who lack the audacity and choose to remain allies
of a country that has caused turmoil and terror to all of humanity.
Leaders like Kim Jong-Il and Mahmood Ahmadinejad are what
the world look up to. With the death of over 600,000 Iraqis, Bushs war has
become the biggest carnage of the 21 st century. He himself has emerged as a
sadist who will go to any extremes to own all possible oil resources and to
subjugate the entire world to establish Global Domination even if it means
loss of lives of own people.
Dr Jamaluddin Ahmed from Lahore opined, it is the inherent right
of all self-respecting sovereign nations to bolster their defences in any
way they can by conventional methods or by nuclear means. We have seen
in the recent past how militarily weak countrieshave been battered by the
US and European countries and Israel into submission.
Muhammad Riaz from Australia wrote, Korea has done nothing
wrong. It has taken good action in the interest of the country and its own
people. No one has the authority to object to North Koreas pursuit of
nuclear armaments. We congratulate North Korea on its first ever nuclear
test.
Ronan Thomas wrote, arms races are easier to turn on than turn off. A
glance at the historical record of arms races past is sobering and salutary for
the present. Todays international policy makers would do well to consider
their perilous track record The historical lessons learned from arms races
and nuclear weapons acquisition still pertain. Possession of nuclear big
stick gives a country more confidence, not less, especially in times of
crisis.

247

ACTION OPTIONS
Kims Kiloton has shaken those who aspired to build a global empire.
As they contemplated the options of action against North Korea, the analysts
pointed out the discardable measures. Khaleej Times opined, punitive
measures alone can never rein in the regime. After all Pyongyang has
been a pariah all these years. Another wave of sanctions is hardly likely to
make it fall on line. Sanctions will only end up punishing the already
suffering people of North Korea.
Praful Bidwai wrote, the world has condemned the North Korean
test. But it has few options to deal with Pyongyang. Military force is not
one. President Bush has ruled it out not out of magnanimity, but
compulsion. The US is bogged down in Iraq.
John Feffer asked, will an attack on North Korea be the
administrations October surprise? He added, the rally-around-the-flag
effect of bombing North Korea would be overwhelmed by the sheer scope of
the immediate consequences, not to mention the longer-term drawback
The Pentagon has also confessed that it would have great difficulty
eliminating the dispersed facilities in North Korea.
Jonathan Power opined, public opinion in Europe certainly, but also
in much of the rest of the world, seems to have an intuitive understanding
that: a) war over alleged nuclear weapons capability is hypocritical whilst
the US (and Britain and France) is so over armed; b) is doubly hypocritical
given the Wests long tolerance (only relatively recently curtailed) of
exporting the ingredients of making weapons of mass destruction; c) is triply
hypocritical given the blind eye it turned to Iraqs use of chemical weapons
against Iran and the Kurds and Israels manufacture of a large nuclear
arsenal.
Khaleej Times wrote, even if the US and its Western allies resolve to
hit the North Korean installations, China will not agree to such a dangerous
course of action. China is too close to North Korea for comfort. Its right to
insist military action against North Korea is unimaginable.
Proposed sanctions are hardly likely to make a terrible difference
to the already isolated and insulated North Korea UN sanctions have
an uncanny habit of punishing ordinary and innocent people while sparing
the powers that be.

248

The News observed, disagreement has sprung between China and

America, with the latter insisting that the former do all it can with its power
to enforce the sanctions. The measures require that all ships leaving any
North Korean port be stopped and checked by ships of UN states to ensure
that no nuclear cargo is being transported. Quite rightly and wisely, China
has expressed its reluctance to go along with the inspections bit because
it fears that this might lead to unnecessary provocation
The best thing that should be done right now is for all the other UN
states to quietly follow Chinas lead and not do anything that Kim Jong-Il
could see as provocation. Also, the advice of Secretary General designate
Ban Ki Moon, that US Secretary of State should hold direct talks with North
Korean leadership.
Fareed Zakaria opined, sanctions by themselves have had little
success in nuclear arena. Consider the countries that have chosen to give
up either their nuclear weapons or a nuclear programme: Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. In all these cases
what worked was mainly a positive incentive, not punishment On the
other hand, punishment decades of sanctions had no effect on India or
Pakistan. So far it has had no effect on Iran or North Korea.
The most recent case of denuclearization is Libya. Many in the Bush
Administration see it as a prime example of the power of coercion Theres
no doubt that American power, including the strike against Iraq, played a
role in persuading Gaddafi to give up his quest for nuclear weapons. But
why did it work with him and not North Korea or Iran?... There is a short,
selected version of the story. There were other factors at play. But
undeniably, direct negotiations and the carrots that Washington and London
offered played a pivotal role in changing Gaddafis mind.
The Hindu wrote, the resolution demands that the Democratic
Peoples Republic of Korea abandon all nuclear weapons and existing
nuclear programmes in a complete, variable and irreversible manner and
rejoin the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it quit legally, after due notice in
2003. The goal of securing de-weaponization in a dangerous neighbourhood
may be laudable but the demand that Pyongyang rejoin the NPT is legally
untenable and ultra vires the UN Charter.

249

Pyongyang has said it is willing to be persuaded to renounce its

nuclear weapons. Harsh sanctions and provocative incidents on the high seas
will make the isolated Kim Jong-Il regime more, not less defiant.
Simon Jenkins was of the view that the stupidest policy would be
one of economic sanctions. This never works, impoverishing peoples while
rendering their rulers ever more embattled and paranoid; nothing in history
so props up dictatorship as economic siege.
Jonathan Power suggested that America has no choice but to find a
way to become credible again. Moreover, it has no choice but to look with
a fresh eye at the arguments of the nuclear dissenters. Its main point is that
there is a risk that nuclear weapons will be used by accident or by a rogue
commander. Its second argument is that nuclear deterrence is at best an
unproved point The core argument of the nuclear disarmers is that the
continued possession of nuclear weapons is unnecessary and therefore
immoral.
The only two cases where arguably nuclear weapons appear to work
as a deterrent are Israels vis--vis the Arab world and North Koreas vis-vis the US. Yet Israel was effectively invulnerable to a major conventional
attack before it became nuclear armed and its decision to pursue nuclear
weapons had the counterproductive effect of persuading Iraq and perhaps
Iran to try to develop theirs.
If ever there was a right moment to nuclear disarmament, this
must be it. There is little real enmity between the old superpower rivals and
indeed between both of them and up and coming China This must be the
time to get a grip on the issue of big power nuclear disarmament, for without
that there is simply no credibility when dealing with the would-be nuclear
proliferators of the Third World.
Lt Col Muhammad Ashraf from Rawalpindi wrote, North Korea is
a sovereign country. It has the same rights to become a nuclear power as the
other countries have. The Big Brothers allow themselves to be the sockets of
huge nuclear arsenals and deny the same right to others. Justice demands
either all nations become nuclear or none should remain so.
Praful Bidwai said, the time has come for a radically different
approach, which reforms the global nuclear order by honestly implementing
the two-way bargain on which it was originally based. Under the bargain, the

250

non-nuclear weapons-states agreed not to make or acquire nuclear weapons

and subjected themselves to IAEA inspections. In return, the NWSs
committed themselves to serious negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons
worldwide The remedy lies in negotiating a return to the global
disarmament agenda.
Ramzy Baroud asked, how will Washington respond to Kim Jong-Ils
latest grandiose act is still unclear, but it will most likely be consistent with
the United States own political agenda? He argued that both South Korea
and Japan dont deserve to be held hostage to lethal US-North Korean
games.
There is so much at stake for the economically vibrant Asian Pacific
Rim countries; knowing what we know about the risk of allowing the
United States to meddle in other regions affairs and the disastrous Iraq
tragedy it helped spawn, these countries must rely on their own diplomatic
channels to bring an end to, as opposed to further exasperate, the Korean
crisis.
Shireen M Mazari opined, it would be mistake for the US and its
cowboy allies to pursue a more hard-line approach towards Iran unless
the US wants to use the nuclear issue as a pretext for redrawing of the
borders of this region Meanwhile, the North Korean test comes at a time
when the leadership of Japan has passed on to a hard-line revisionist leader,
Shinzo Abe, who is already seeking to alter the Japanese Constitution so that
Japan can become a stronger military power.
M J Akbar, in his comments, summed it at all, Rice, who foresaw
mushroom clouds in Iraq, grits her teeth in her best schoolmistress manner
and threatens severe sanctions against North Korea. Is this the same
administration that spat on sanctions as a pathetic UN-type wobblyknee answer to dictators and demons?
Is this the Bush-Rice partnership that keeps threatening to go to war
against Iran for enriching uranium and urging multilateral talks when
North Korea becomes a nuclear military power? Or shall we put it another
way: in Bushs mind, nuclear North Korea can be trusted because it is not
a Muslim country and Iraq and Iran could not be and cannot be trusted
because they are Muslim nations?

251

I told you curiosity could be injurious to a columnists health. It is

clearly fine to be fascist in George Bushs worldview, even a nuclear
fascist. What you cannot afford to be, as long as Bush is on fire, is an
Islamic fascist.
Bush had a chance to act militarily against North Korea, in 2003,
when Kim Jong-Il withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and
announced that it would go ahead with its weapons programme. A strike
might have been successful because it was believed that all of North Koreas
nuclear weapons were in one known location. What did George Bush do?
He invaded Iraq instead.

ONLY DIALOGUE
It is unrealistic to expect that the punitive measures included in the
UNSC resolution alone will induce North Korea to give up its nuclearweapons programme. The US, Japan, China, South Korea and Russia need
to pursue diplomatic means while faithfully executing the sanctions. In
particular, they should seek ways to open direct talks between the US and
North Korea within the framework of the six-party talks wrote Japan Times.
The world community has no alternative but live with another
nuclear weapons state. After all, we had been living with seven of them all
these years. Indeed, it is this paradox that must have forced North Korea to
develop the Bomb, wrote Khaleej Times.
The News argued, countries such as Australia that are now
advocating sanctions should remember that North Korea is already among
the most isolated and closed countries in the world The world community
needs to immediately engage in a dialogue with the country before it decides
on any further rash decisions.
Masha Lipman opined the dialogue is compulsion rather than a
choice. In the face of obvious danger, the three major players are either
hamstrung or unwilling to live up to their status. The US has been fatally
distracted since September 11, and as a result has little capacity to deal with
Iran and North Korea, or Pakistan for that matter. China is the only state that
could make substantial headway with North Korea but fears the
consequences of a collapsing regime and a failed state on its border.

252

Russia seems more cornered with its own narrow interests: it

backed the UN Security Council sanctions this weekend only after horse
trading with the US that, disgracefully, saw the Americans agree to support
an unrelated Security Council resolution involving Georgia, one that allows
Russia to continue its military involvement in the troubled region of
Abkhazia
Donald Kirk observed, the North Korean plan for a nuclear test
has thrown the United States and Asian friends and allies into disarray,
just when intense, close cooperation may be the only antidote to a regional
crisis of unpredictable consequences.
All sides, from Washington to Tokyo to Seoul and Beijing, are
condemning the threat made by North Korea on Tuesday that it planned to
test a nuclear weapon. Admittedly they have protested with varying degrees
of intensity, but the fact is they are as far as ever from agreeing on what
to do about it.
While South Korean officials intent themselves with the vague
warnings of consequences and talk of a strategic contingency plan, they
want nothing to do with Boltons plea for going beyond words and
adopting sanctions designed to cripple North Korea.
The US dream, as espoused by Bolton in the UN, is for the Security
Council to come up with another resolution, one that would make the threat
of a nuclear test the justification for severe sanctions designed to bring the
government of Kim Jong-Il to its knees and force him to come begging to
the six-party talks
Gulf News opined China could play key role in negotiations.
Washington seems to rely more on sanctions than on a credible policy
towards the hermit state. The Bush White House has ruled out any direct
dialogue with Pyongyang, a huge departure from the Clinton White House
that was, six years ago, on the verge of a breakthrough visit to North Korea.
But as with almost everything in the Far East, China is the trump
card, the sole international ally of North Korea. Beijing wields enormous
if not absolute influence over Pyongyang and it is to China that both
Washington and Tokyo will now look.

253

Trying to deal with Pyongyang is guaranteed to be an exercise in

frustration but it is only option. There are compelling reasons, not least
humanitarian, to carefully engage North Korea despite its bellicosity. North
Korea is wrong to threaten a nuclear test but that must not be an excuse to
justify diplomatic inaction.
Nasim Zehra wrote, the Chinese maintain they want to resolve the
crisis peacefully rather than aim for exacting revenge. Supported by the
South Koreans, Beijing wants a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The
Chinese foreign ministry has said punishment is not the goal. Accordingly
Beijing is against punitive actions against North Korea. For Beijing the
ultimate objective of any move has to be to maintain peace and stability on
the Korean Peninsula. They realize pushing Pyongyang too far could prove
to be destabilizing.
China could be attracted by advantages of reuniting two Koreas. Arab
News opined, North Korea has become a liability to the Chinese ally. It
only survives on Chinese credits for the oil and food that Beijing dispatches
to keep the countrys economy afloat. Its one-million-strong army is as much
a threat to China as it is to South Korea. The prospect of a nuclear-armed
Pyongyang has probably convinced the Chinese that it is time to put a halt
to the dangerously unpredictable Kim Jong-Il regime.
Seoul and Beijing have been enjoying excellent relations recently. A
reunified Korea would pose massive short-term economic challenges,
undoubtedly far greater than those encountered when Germany reunited in
1990. However, ultimately, China would have a vibrant market of over 70million people on its doorstep andand reliable trading partner and ally.
The biggest boost to China from reuniting the Koreas would be
that such a demonstration of its power and influence would radically boost
its international standing. Possibly Beijing has deliberately allowed the
situation with Pyongyang to reach this pitch before it has intervened
decisively.
Focus should now be on preventing North Korea from using its
bomb. Charles Krauthammer said, deterrence is what you do when there is
no way to disarm your enemy. You cannot deprive him of his weapons, but
you can keep him from using them. We long ago reached that stage with
North Korea.

254

Everyone has tried to figure out how to disarm North Korea. It will
not happen. Kim Jong-Il is not going to give up his nukes. The only way
to disarm the regime is to destroy it. China could do that with sanctions but
will not. The United States could do that with a second Korean War but will
not either.
So we are back to deterrence One marker, preventing a direct
attack on our allies in the region, was straight forward, if bland: I reaffirmed
to our allies in the region, including South Korean and Japan, the president
said in a nationally televised statement, that the United States will meet the
full range of our deterrent and security commitments.
Hence Bushs attempt to codify a second form of deterrence: The
transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state
entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we
would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such
action.
Given the fact that there is no other nuclear power so recklessly in
violation of its nuclear obligations, it shall be the policy of this nation to
regard any detonation of a nuclear explosive on the United States or its allies
as an attack by North Korea on the United States requiring a full retaliatory
response upon North Korea.
The Washington Post stressed upon the need to formulate a new
international protocol on nuclear materials. Weaker countries, such as
Libya, can still be bribed or bluffed into giving up weapons programme that
hasnt advanced very far. A new international protocol on the production
of nuclear materials is a possibility worth pursuing. But states such as
North Korea and Iran can be stopped only if powerful coalition of countries
emerges against them, combining the United States and Europe with Russia,
China and regional power.
As the diplomacy at the United Nations last week once again
demonstrated, neither China nor Russia regard stopping the spread of
nuclear weapons as essential Beijing and Moscow have worked to water
down the measures, narrowing the list of sanctions and eliminating
references to force.
The Hindu wrote, in the assessment of the IAEA, there are close to
30 countries that can be considered virtual nuclear weapon states; in

255

other words, they have the technological capability to convert their civilian
nuclear programmes into weapons programmes in a matter of months.
If nothing concrete is done to check proliferation, then according to
Simon Jenkins it is tempting to conclude that the world must just get used
to a new generation of nuclear states As we live with 10, perhaps we
must live with 40, struggling to reduce tension, minimize risk and help guard
against accidents.

CONCLUSION
Continuous hurling of threats to coerce and arrogantly refusing to talk
can never lead to amicable solutions. When face to face dialogue is
discarded, the messages are conveyed using other means as North Korea did
on 9th October. In fact, Kim seemed to have extended a helping hand to Bush
who has been searching for WMDs for few years; he said heres one.
Bush, however, will not dare going beyond imposition of certain
sanctions. He will not act unilaterally to invade, occupy or even carry out a
surgical strike as he has been doing in case of Muslim countries, because a
Buddhist or Hindu bomb, unlike a bomb of an Islamic country, is not
considered a dirty bomb.
Nuclear weapons are certainly dangerous for the security of humanity
and need condemnation irrespective of who possesses them. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons should also be checked, but it would not be
possible as long as America and other big powers are not prepared to give up
their stockpiles.
If the big brothers are sincerely concerned about the safety of
humanity, they must disarm themselves rather than using them to intimidate
others. It is not difficult considering that they have successfully banned
chemical weapons and even landmines, and they should do so for
elimination of nuclear weapons which promise nothing but destruction at
massive scale.
In case that does not happen, the weaker nations should listen to the
advice of Mohathir, who suggested that more Muslim countries should
acquire nuclear capability. He cannot be blamed of instigating nuclear
proliferation. In fact, this will ensure security and also save them from
256

coercion by the West. If Arabs are wary of Iranian bomb, one or two of them
should have their own bombs rather than opposing Irans nuclear
programme.

27th October 2006

MISTRUSTED ALLY
On first anniversary of the devastating earthquake on 8th October,
Pakistani nation remembered victims of the calamity. Despite the fact that
still a lot has to be done, the entire nation felt proud of the manner in which

257

all its segments responded to the challenge and helped their brethrens in
distress. The nation also thanked the world for timely help.
Musharraf, the devout soldier in war against terror, while addressing a
public gathering in the affected area, availed the opportunity to stress upon
elimination of extremism. He said that the extremism is to force ones
viewpoint on others. He ignored the fact that America and he as its front man
have been doing exactly that.
Despite the services rendered by him, the Crusaders still do not trust
him because his identity is linked to an Islamic republic. At times he was
constrained to express his annoyance as he recently did when British media
criticized ISI; the spy men of the dictator. He rebuked by saying that without
ISI the West would be on their knees. Astonishingly, in practice he prefers
himself to be on his knees instead of bringing his critics onto theirs.
The peace process awaited its resumption after Musharraf-Manmohan
meeting in Havana. On the home front nothing extraordinary happened;
usual political bickering continued, Baluchistan remained comparatively
quiet, and the rulers pursued their agenda of enlightened moderation.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Despite the peace deals with pro-Taliban tribesmen, the battle for
Afghan peace continued. Following incidents were reported:
A US spy was killed in Mirali on 28 th September. Next day, security
agencies picked up an Afghan religious scholar and a Gitmo-returnee
from Peshawar on 29th September. He had recently published his book
and blamed Pakistani secret services for atrocities and playing in the
hands of the US.
On 30th September, Afghan and Pakistani border security forces
clashed. Next day, six wounded Taliban were arrested from a private
hospital in Quetta. An oil-tanker carrying fuel for US troops was set
ablaze by a bomb blast near Chaman. Militants fired rockets at
military base in Wana.
Fifty-one Afghan were held in Chaman for illegal entry on 5th October.
Next day, rocket was fired on a convoy of oil-tankers in Dara Adam
Khel.
258

 A religious leader was shot dead in Tank on 7th October. Local Taliban
were blamed for communal clash in Orakzai Agency in which more
that twenty people were killed. Three more people were killed on 7 th
October.
On 11th October, a driver who was close to militants was kidnapped
and killed in North Waziristan. Rockets were fired at headquarters of
Baizai sub-division of Mohmand agency.
Armed clash between two factions in Tirah Valley claimed our lives
on 12th October.
Next day, border security forces deported 124 Afghans who entered
Pakistan illegally near Chaman. Eight Pakistanis were released from
Gitmo and Bagram.
On 16th October, Afghan intelligence claimed the suicide bomber
involved in foiled attack was trained in Pakistani tribal area where the
government had struck a peace deal.
On 20th October, seven people were killed and 35 wounded in bomb
blast in Peshawar. Two soldiers were killed in rocket attack on a post
in South Waziristan. Next day, Chief Minister suspected foreign hand
behind explosion in Peshawar.
The Crusaders from Britain, like the two neighbours of Pakistan,
targeted ISI. British think-tank alleged that ISI was indirectly supporting
Taliban and recommended its dismantling. Musharraf expressed annoyance,
but accepted UK explanation over the allegation. He also suspected that
retired spies might be helping Taliban and vowed: we will get hold of
them.
Abizaid arrived in Islamabad on 6th October on two-day visit.
Commanders from the United States, Britain, Canada, Denmark and the
Netherlands wanted their governments to tell Pakistan to stop supporting the
Taliban. Next day, Abizaid praised role of Pakistani agencies in anti-terror
campaign and Musharraf said intelligence sharing is vital to fight terror.
On 8th October, it was reported that NATO commander, British
General David Richards was to confront Musharraf with evidence of
presence of Mulla Omar in Quetta and presence of training camps in which
259

ISI was involved. Next day the visitor rebuked reports of evidence and tough
message. Musharraf reassured British General of his full collaboration
against Taliban.
Earlier Musharraf and Karzai had agreed to summon grand jirga on
either sides of the border in which both the leaders would participate. Other
events worth mention were the start of registration of Afghan refugees;
rejection of Durand Line as border by Pushtuns on both sides; and
statements of two Pakistani politicians.
Well get bombed, if Waziristan is not buckled, said Benazir.
Asfandyar alleged that Waziristan accord had worsened Pak-Afghan ties.
Uncertainty loomed over North Waziristan as tribesmen and foreigners
flexed muscles against each other, reported Behroz Khan.
Rahimullah Yusufzai opined that the peace deal would be difficult to
sell. Pakistan must also remember that its peace deal with militants in South
Waziristan signed in April 2004 in Shagai was sabotaged by the US when it
eliminated the pro-Taliban commander Nek Mohammad by firing a missile
from the CIA-owned pilot-less Predator plane after tracking down his
hideout through his satellite phone Another disturbing aspect of the
armistice in North Waziristan is the role of Afghan Taliban in ensuring that
the deal is signed. This would be seen as evidence of the linkages between
the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.
A week later, he wrote, though still under fire for making peace with
militants who until now were being hunted and bombed, President
Musharrafs government appears keen to ensure success of the deal in
North Waziristan and then strike similar agreements in other tribal areas.
British military appears to have taken cue by indirectly
arranging a deal with Taliban commanders through tribal and village
elders in Musa Qala district in the southwestern Helmand province If
successful, the new policy with some adjustments keeping in view
Afghanistans peculiar situation would be a continuation of the Pakistani
peace deal in North Waziristan.
Musharraf-Karzai differences have been spoiling the show. Gulf
News wrote, five years on, the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan dont
even keep each other at arms length and are involved in a bitter spat over
growingviolence in their respective countries. Although united by faith,

260

the two neighbouring frontline states in the war against Taliban and al-Qaeda
have drifted apart so much that the chasm between them is filled with
vitriol.
Their animosity is a worrisome factor for Bush and his neocondirected foreign policy. The American president knows well that a failure to
bring Karzai and Musharraf together can defeat his anti-terror strategy and
damage his presidency. And fail he did at the first hurdle when he invited
them to break bread at an Iftar gathering in the While House Karzai and
Musharraf did not even look at each other. Worse, the body language was
intimidating.
Shireen M Mazari commented on accusations hurled at ISI. It seems
our conciliatory tone has been mistaken for an inherent psychological
weakness, with all and sundry attacking the country and its institutions. The
British have had the temerity to suggest we dismantle the ISI when it is their
intelligence setup that has been hand in glove with internationally illegal
activities such as aiding and abetting renditions and secret CIA abduction
flights to name just a few.
What of the CIA? Surely if any agency deserves to be dismantled
it is this institution which has had a consistent record of political murders
and instigation of regime changes abroad even much before 9/11 and
which now seems to have carte blanche to do as it wishes across the globe.
In any case, the purpose presently is primarily to point out that the
self-appointed guardians of political morality that is, US and UK have
a far worse record so they should lead by example and dismantle their
agencies guilty of all kinds of illegal and often murderous activities.
Unfortunately, even as the state is tough on its own citizens here, it
seems to have allowed itself to become the whipping boy for all the
Wests failures in the war on terror. Clearly, the assumption that the British
would fare well in Afghanistan simply because historically they had
experience in the country, was an absurdity to begin with.
The News did not approve the role played by ex-ISI men. It cannot
be denied that there have been a succession of former ISI chiefs and senior
officials many of them retired and leading a life of religious piety, panIslamic zeal or both who have openly espoused an anti-US course of action
and have criticized the government for backing what they think is the wrong

261

side in the war on terror. Clearly these figures have been minor irritants
for the president eager to portray the ISI in a positive light to a fiercely
hostile world media.
The West still considered Pakistan as a breeding ground for terrorism.
Saad Sayeed reported that articles on madrassahs and training camps in
Pakistan are rife in the Canadian press with analysts using terms such as
land of jihad and rampant radicalism to describe the country and its
political climate. Pakistan is slowly becoming the mentor and creator of
international terrorism in the eyes of North Americans due to the medias
portrayal of its domestic policies.
The criticism of Musharraf in the Canadian media is certainly
subjective and from a self-interested perspective. There is not a shred of
objectivity to the analysis but this does not take away from the fact that
some of the allegations are in fact quite accurate. General Musharraf has
made deals with the JUI and other unsavoury elements
M B Naqvi opined that blaming Pakistan was the result of some
fearful apprehensions. A specific American grouse against Pakistan
concerns Afghanistan. Doubtless Taliban use Pakistan territory as staging
posts for their war on foreigners in Afghanistan. Powerful and resourceful
people provide them shelter and help them keep supplied. Karzai, NATO and
American commanders are not entirely wrong, as Musharraf admits. But
American dislike of Taliban, despite their culpability in acquiescing in using
them, is genuine. But it is largely the fear of what will happen if the
Taliban and their mentors inherit Pakistan with its army and atomic
arsenal. It is too horrible to contemplate it will be a great threat to Israel and
American interests.
Musharraf-controlled Islamabad cannot do much to discourage the
growth of Taliban. Talibans domestic politics is winning them
supporters. They are becoming a state within the state in at least some areas
of NWFP and Baluchistan.
Pakistani rulers had adopted a lofty and arrogant attitude as the
strongest Muslim state of the twentieth century. They unashamedly believed
they were the natural leader of the Islamic World and Kabul had better come
under their protection; they adopted the British stances towards
Afghanistan that were plainly imperialistic.

262

Rahimullah Yusufzai commented on the proposed joint Jirgas.

While the embattled Karzai government would be willing to undertake any
course of action to enable it to deal with the resurgent Taliban, the idea to
hold Loya Jirgas on both sides of the border could be interpreted as an
endorsement of the new Pakistani policy to empower the tribal elders and
strengthen traditional centres of power to confront the growing influence of
Taliban.
For five years, the attitude of the Crusaders, despite the services
rendered by Musharraf, kept smacking of distrust and deep rooted
prejudices. We are active in Pakistan in the context of terrorism, said
Cheney. However, F-16 deal was confirmed in a signing ceremony held in
Rawalpindi.
On 18th October, Blair warned the brave commando of serious
consequences for Pakistan if the killer Briton is hanged. Musharraf acted
obediently and quickly; Britons execution was postponed for two months.
Two days later, Kasuri revealed that Musharraf was looking at ways to
pardon the Blairs Brit.

PEACE PROCESS
Singhs gracious acceptance of the invitation to visit Pakistan revived
the stalled peace process, which when in motion has been nothing more than
look busy, do nothing. As regards confidence building measures, it was
Pakistani Prime Minister who made a move by allowing import of 302
more items from India.
There were plenty measures negative to confidence building. On
30 September, Mumbai police blamed Pakistani intelligence agencies and
militants for blasts in last July. He claimed that evidence related to the group
involved, the place where training was imparted, who masterminded the
blasts, and the quantity of explosives brought from across the border.
Despite all the evidence dug out by Mumbai police, Pakistan rejected the
charges.
th

On 1st October, India said it would share evidence with Pakistan which
has been found by its investigators. Next day, Pakistans Foreign Ministry

263

pledged to take action if India produced any evidence to show that

Pakistans spy agency was involved in the Mumbai train bombings.
Manmohan asked Pakistan to fulfill its anti-terror promises. Indian
claim of evidence was unfounded, said Sherpao. On 22 nd October, India
admitted that it had no strong evidence of Pakistans involvement in
Mumbai bombings.
Indian police arrested an Indian official for handing over classified
documents to an official of Pakistan High Commission on 21 st October.
Pakistan rejected espionage charges. Three days later, Pakistans High
Commission officer was asked to leave India.
Other negative actions included killing of two persons in a HinduMuslim row over slaughtering of a cow in Mangalore; arrest of 22 Indian
fishermen by Pakistan; Indian plans to buy Israeli Spyder missiles; India
entering into an arms purchase agreement with Russia; and Indian
accusation of Pakistani spies infiltrating its army.
Meanwhile, perpetration of state terrorism in IHK continued.
Following incidents were reported:
Protests against Afzal Gurus death sentence continued and by 29th
September, 90 Kashmiris had been arrested.
At least 50 people were injured and 200 arrested on third day of the
protests on 30th September. Protests continued next day over Gurus
death sentence.
On 3rd October, two suspected fighters were killed by security forces
on a tip off. Next day, three Indian policemen were killed in attack by
freedom fighters. Killing of two civilians in Gadool Village sparked
protests.
Ten people, including seven security personnel, were killed in a daylong gun battle in the heart of Srinagar on 5 th October; 16 commandos
and 6 civilians were also wounded. Next day, Indian Army confessed
killing two civilians in Kokernag.
Eight fighters and three soldiers were killed in violence on 8th October.
Next day, 11 Kashmiri protesters were arrested in the Valley.

264

 On 10th October, one freedom fighter and four soldiers were killed and
five soldiers wounded in a clash. Two days later, protests were held in
Srinagar over killing of a youth.
On 13th October, top Indian court clipped presidents powers of pardon
as Gurus mercy petition awaited consideration. Two freedom fighters
and an Indian soldier were killed in the Valley. Two day later, a
policeman was killed by freedom fighters in Srinagar.
Two policemen were killed in clashes on 17th October. Two days later,
five more people, including an Indian soldier were killed. India
delayed execution of Gurus execution.
Four Kashmiris were killed by occupation forces on 21 st October. Two
days later, an Indian soldier killed two colleagues before killing
himself in Jammu.
Fighters killed three people in the Valley on 27 th October. Strike was
held on 58th anniversary of the occupation of the Valley.
The government in AJK asked Pakistan to insist on core issue, instead
of trade. Gilani refused to attend Iftar party hosted by Pakistan High
Commissioner in New Delhi. Afzal did not get fair trial, claimed Indian
rights group. India will burn if Guru is hanged, warned Farooq Abdullah.
G A Gulzar opined that the crux of dialogue process is nothing but
the Livingston proposal. If this model is implemented Pakistan will not
gain anything, India will lose nothing and the axe will fall on the
Kashmiris who may lose everything.
Seema Mustafa had an advice; Pakistan will have to move beyond
Kashmir to understand the virtue of peace, and see if the benefits of this
outnumber the tension with India. It will also have to think out of the box,
not for solutions with India, but for a change in its own outdated mindset.
President Musharraf will have to disband the terror groups, throw terrorism
as an ideology out with the baby and bathwater, and then sit down and see
what can become part of a long term dialogue with India, and what are the
issues that can be resolved in a shorter span of time.
M Ismail Khan commented on Gurus death sentence. In this case,
what is at stake is Indias democracy and the integrity of its justice system
265

which is being seen as having failed to give a fair hearing to a helpless

suspect. Gurus death will be the demise of whatever trust is left between
the state of India and its proclaimed citizens in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir. It would be another opportunity lost for goodwill and
reconciliation so desperately needed for a negotiated peace in South Asia.
Shireen M Mazari observed that the recent accusations against ISI
have pleased India. There seems to be new belligerency in New Delhis
tone, with accusations against Pakistan and its ISI coming out fast and
furious. With such an approach, it hardly seems likely that there can be any
rational dialogue with the Indians unless we take dialogue to mean
succumbing to Indian demands on how to resolve the outstanding conflicts.
Perhaps that is what India is seeking to do with its aggressive rhetoric and
accusations.

HOME FRONT
On political stage yet more scenes of mistrust within ruling coalition
were enacted. Arbab Rahim said he was not informed about the Island City
project. Punjab Chief Minister barred opening of new MQM offices after
reports that street crime has increased in areas where the party opened
offices recently. A high-level meeting had to be held to settle PML-MQM
rift over opening of MQM offices in Punjab.
Demonstrations were held and activists arrested as PML-N observed
black day an anniversary of military coup led by Musharraf. Government
and PPP were in close contact, disclosed Shaikh Rashid. Fahim denied deal
with the government. LHC granted bail to Yusuf Raza Gilani. The US
expressed satisfaction over transition of democracy in Pakistan.
Shafqat Mahmood criticized Musharrafs remarks of banana republic
over nationwide rumour of coup against him. There is so much in our
history, that can help us decide whether we are a banana republic or
not. Not a single government since independence has been changed in the
normal way. Since the death of Quaid-e-Azam and the murder of Liaqat Ali
Khan every government in our history has either been kicked out or as in the
case of Zia, the incumbent died. Normal transfer of power has just not
happened. Among our civilian and elected prime ministers, one was shot,
another hanged and two are languishing in exile.

266

Imtiaz Alam observed that Pakistan is, perhaps, moving towards yet
another round of turmoil. The Musharraf era has passed its zenith and it is
now on the decline. Yet he wants to perpetuate its control beyond what it
was during the 2002 elections. The regime is running high on self glorifying
assumptions and is totally cut off from the ground realities. If the regime
makes more such mistakes there is a possibility that the pent up anger and
frustration borne silently by the people will show its visage either before the
elections or immediately after if they are held under the present framework
and design.
Shaheen Sehgal opined that Bush being pushed in the line of fire may
not augur well for Musharraf. There is a widespread perception in the
Pakistani-American community, as well as back home, that if the political
power of Bush weakens after the November polls, the ripple effects on
General Musharraf would be equally damaging.
After Musharrafs recent royal visit to the Bush kingdom, the
situation is going to change in about five weeks. with Bush caught up in his
own home troubles, possible impeachment, indictments, trials and God
knows what, General Musharraf will need a quick change of strategy to
depend less on Washington and to strengthen his political base at home.
Dr Masooda Bano was of the view that the talk of contacts with PPP
was part of the Musharraf strategy to ensure his political survival. The
question then is why the Musharraf government feed the press about such
negotiations between the PPP and the government when there is little
likelihood of a real deal. The answer is partially that these negotiations help
Musharraf assure the US that he is making all efforts to bring back
secular parties to marginalize the role of Islamic parties.
Under these circumstances, when there are rumours of a deal
between Musharraf and the PPP, it gives the public the feeling that
Musharraf is there to stay, since the party will only undertake such a
dramatic move if it is convinced that there is absolutely no chance of
Musharraf being removed from the scene in the near future.
Mir Jamilur Rahman supported the return of Benazir and Nawaz
Sharif. The image of Pakistan as a tolerant and moderate country would
improve tremendously if Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are allowed
to enter the election arena. This will be a grand move towards national
reconciliation. After holding absolute power for seven years and planning to
267

hold on to it for another 5 years, President Musharraf should not apprehend

that skies would break loose if Bhutto and Sharif were to return to Pakistan.
Ashraf Malkham commented on MQM-PML row. Matters appear to
have been resolved between PML-Q and MQM. But behind these goody
goody statements issued by both sides was a clear message: both parties
have to work a lot to amend their poor working relationship.
In Baluchistan, grand Baluch Qaumi Jirga met with Khan of Kalat
on 2 October to review implementation of the decisions taken by the jirga
held on 21st September. The Jirga decided to move ICJ over Akbar Bugtis
killing. We wont accept obstacles in development of Baluchistan, vowed
Musharraf. On 13th October, Prime Minister announced Rupees 19.5 billion
package for Baluchistan and the government showed willingness to talk to
Khan of Kalat.
nd

Meanwhile, terrorist activities showed marked decline. However,

following incidents were reported:
On 2nd October, over one hundred Murri Boluchs surrendered arms in
Kohlu. A police building was damaged in a blast in Khuzdar. Next
day, three security forces personnel were killed in firing incident in
Bambore Top area of Kohlu.
Gas pipeline was blown up in the area of Mangli on 4 th October. Two
days later, another gas pipeline was blown up in Quetta.
Two bombs exploded in Quetta on 12 th October. Two days later, six
persons were killed in attack on a mosque in district Khuzdar. Four
terror suspects were held in Kohlu on 18th October.
Gas pipeline was blown up in Sui area on 23rd October. Three days
later, gas well in Pirkoh was hit by terrorists.
Political analysts think that the issue of taking the matter to ICJ
would only politicize the issue. The retrospective fact that three unions of
Kalat states i.e. Mekran, Kharan and Lasbela states had already annexed to
Pakistan by revolting against the then Kalat state would be revisited wrote
Muhammad Ejaz Khan.

268

Ali Ahmed Kurd, Secretary General Pakistan Bar Council is of the

view that if the ICJ entertains the plea of Kalat state against Pakistan, both
Pakistan and Kalat would come to loggerheads and in the light of 1948
accord the status of the two would be revisited.
Joint director HRCP Kamila Hyat is of the view that the ICJ may not
entertain the case as it deals with cases pertaining to member states of
the UN. Kalat is not an independent state presently and it may be
interpreted as an internal political matter of a sovereign state i.e. Pakistan.
She suggested that the federal government should sort out the issue by
redressing the grievances of Baluch peoples.
Rahimullah Yusufzai opined, it will be hardly surprising if the issue
of the denial of Baluch rights finds mention at the world stage. The matter
will no doubt be internationalized if the Baluch national jirga manages to
seek the attention of international forums in future. This could show
Pakistan, already known as a politically unstable state beset with problems
of law and order, in bad light.
The News wrote on Baluchistan package recently announced by the
Prime Minister. While the government may be doing this with the best of
intentions, the chances of it helping the common man in Baluchistan are
slim. The province is suffering from a deteriorating law and order situation
and little is being done to address the root-causes of this.
The Baluch tribal leaders, who wield considerable political influence,
have decided to highlight their problems outside Pakistan as they claim the
centre is not listening to them. Instead of questioning their patriotism, the
centre needs to address some of the complaints.
In the context of Pakistans soft image, Inzamam was cleared of
ball-tampering charge on 28th September but was served ban of 4 ODI for
refusing to play. Had he not lacked the ability to war-game; he would not
have saved his, his teams and his countrys image. Next day, Amnesty
International slammed abuse of terror suspects in Pakistan by the war
gamers.
Lahore High Court sought details on Hafiz Saeeds detention on 11 th
October. Six days later, the court ordered his release. After release, Hafiz
Saeed said he was a victim of Indian smear drive. Some other incidents
related to extremism were reported as under:

269

 Blast in Ayub Park and recovery of abandoned rockets in high security

area of Islamabad led to speculations that Musharraf was once again
in the line of fire. Seven people were injured in a blast in Peshawar on
5th October.
Two more rockets were recovered in the capital on 7th October. Three
days later, two activists were indicted for masterminding bombing of
US Consulate.
On 12th October, police arrested a terror suspect in Lahore. Masked
men killed a man of Shia community in Jandola on 20th October.
Mastermind of Pindi-Islamabad blast and rocket plot was arrested on
23rd October. Rocket suspects included son of an ex-army officer.
M Ismail Khan commented on Amnesty Internationals accusation.
The question is why did AI choose to have a go at Pakistan, especially
when there are many other critical issues such as the humanitarian crisis in
Darfur, unexploded cluster bombs in Lebanon, death and destruction in Iraq,
Palestine, Afghanistan, where many more human lives are being lost than
the so-called alleged human rights violations of suspected killers in
Pakistan.
Amnestys red herring has succeeded in bringing at least one
immediate reaction from across the border. The Mumbai police have
suddenly found out that the Pakistan intelligence agency the ISI was behind
the recent train bombings. After going through Amnestys report India must
be fancying the chance of buying a terrorist or two from Pakistan.
Kamila Hyat wrote about the least discussed aspect of the soft image.
With hundreds of illegal immigrants sent home each year, and thousands
others attempting to flee, official policies need to address the reasons why
such desperation exists, even at the risk of life. The hundreds sent home each
year represent only a small percentage of those who try to get away. Others
land up in the shadowy underworlds occupied by illegal immigrants in
nations such as Thailand or Greece, some languish in jailswhat these
desperate people see as a road to hope, some die or are killed by border
patrols.
Only when the scale of the demand for illegal migration is reduced,
will it be possible to curb the immoral activities of gangs who exploit people
270

by promising them work overseas. The problem as such needs to be

tackled not just by cracking down on human smuggling operations, but also
by looking at the reasons that compel so many to try and leave the
country through any means possible, so that their fears and concerns can,
over the coming years, be addressed and efforts made to try and resolve
them.

CONCLUSION
The Crusaders in occupied Afghanistan will never trust the frontline
ally as long as they keep facing the resistance from Pushtuns, commonly
called as Taliban. Pakistan will remain on the receiving end continued to be
urged to do more.
The only way out is to tell the much maligned ISI to revive their old
contacts with various resistance groups and advise them to war-game the
situation they face and give up their struggle for the sake of an old friend.
But in view of all that the old friend has done in last five years, the chances
of convincing them are bleak.
India and Pakistan have agreed to revive the peace process, but in
doing that they have created yet another bottleneck of the so-called joint
mechanism to fight terrorism. This mechanism will, at best or worst, serve
Indian cause. It will start demanding extradition of wanted persons and that
too without paying any dollars.

29th October 2006

INCREDIBLY STUPID
For the first time Bush acknowledged a possible parallel between the
raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War. He, in reply to a question about
650,000 Iraqis killed in the war, said, I applaud the Iraqis for their courage
in the face of violence. His answer prompted Missy Comely Beattie to
remark: we have a man with his finger on the button who is incredibly,
dangerously stupid.

271

On 5th November, Iraqi court sentenced Saddam Hussein to death for

crimes against humanity. The verdict came two days before mid-term
elections in America. The timing and the legal process through which the
verdict came, earned harsh comments.
Formation of Palestinian unity government remained elusive. On 18 th
October, Hamas dismissed Abbass idea of temporary cabinet. Israel
intensified perpetration of state terrorism to pressure Hamas-led Palestine,
which constrained Annan to urge Israel to respect civilians right.
More than two months after the cessation of hostilities, southern
Lebanon remained littered with millions of cluster bombs. Israel also
acknowledged using phosphorous bombs in Lebanon. The world generally
showed no interest in helping Lebanon in reconstruction.
Efforts to demonize and isolate Iran continued. On 18 th October,
Olmert sought Putins help against Iran. Tehran vowed to retaliate against
UN nuclear sanctions and Khamenei warned Arab states to stay united amid
US plots.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
As intensity of insurgency continued increasing, the media
coverage of the bloodshed became selective. Only following incidents were
reported in this part of the world:
On 16th October, sixty-five people, including 7 US soldiers, were
killed in violence across the country. Next day, twenty people were
killed in bomb blast.
Ten US soldiers were killed in various incidents on 18 th October. Next
day, at least 70 people, including two US soldiers, were killed and
about 100 wounded in various incidents across Iraq.
On 20th October, 30 more people, including a US soldier, were killed.
Next day, at least 40 people were killed and 50 wounded in violence.

272

 On 22nd October, 35 more people, including 3 US soldiers were killed

and 60 wounded. Next day, fifteen people, including 5 US soldiers
were killed in violence across the country.
US troops killed four firemen on mistaken identity on 24th October. An
Iraqi officer working as translator with US forces went missing. Next
Day, 29 people were killed in a clash with US troops and other
incidents; ten persons were also arrested.
On 26th October, 31 people, including 8 US soldiers were killed in
clashes and other incidents. Next day, at least 47 more people were
killed in violence.
On 28th October, 20 Iraqis and a US soldier were killed in various
incidents. Gunmen kidnapped 11 Iraqi soldiers in Kirkuk. Next day, a
popular Iraqi state television presenter, a Kurd, and her driver were
kidnapped and killed. In Basra, 17 police instructors and two
translators were killed by gunmen. US forces killed 17 suspected
militants near Baqouba.
At least 80 people were killed or found dead on 30 th October; one US
soldier was also killed bringing the toll to 100 in the month. Next day,
20 people including 3 US soldiers were killed in various incidents.
Gunmen kidnapped 40 people. Maliki ordered US forces to lift
blockade of Sadr City.
On 3rd November, 39 people including 7 US soldiers were killed in
bomb blast in Baghdad and incidents of violence. Fifty-eight dead
bodies were found. Next day, Iraqi police claimed killing 53 al-Qaeda
fighters in an encounter.
In the context of other aspects of the occupation, the realization by
American leaders of mistakes committed during invasion and occupation of
Iraq was most significant. For the first time Bush acknowledged a possible
parallel between the raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War.
Reportedly, the US was reconsidering security plan for Baghdad. Bush
consulted top generals for changes in Iraq strategy.
Notwithstanding the realization of mistakes, the US remained
adamant. White House rejected change in policy on the day Bush accepted

273

possible parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. The US reiterated that death
toll of Marines wont shake its resolve. On 25 th October, Bush said, we will
not leave Iraq before the job is done.
On 5th November, Iraqi court sentenced Saddam Hussein to death for
crimes against humanity. The verdict came two days before mid-term
elections in America. Shiites celebrated and Sunni Arabs resented the
verdict.
There were some other events worth mention. Maliki asked US to
release a Shiite activist. Iraqi clerics signed a peace deal in Makkah. A Shiite
leader called for division of Iraq. Saudi Arabia warned US against abrupt
pullout from Iraq.

COMMENTS
According to American the buck stops where Bush stands today in
political hierarchy. As the man showed the inability to handle the buck,
critics resorted to Bush-bashing. One cannot doubt the ability of the man
to create mess, but his team also contributed a lot in doing that; and one of
them is Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld is not a good leader. In fact, he is a very bad leader.
Leadership is predicated on three basic factors: Strong moral character,
sound judgment, and the ability to learn from ones mistakes. None of these
apply to Rumsfeld. As a result, every major decision that has been made in
Iraq has been wrong and has cost the lives of countless Iraqis and American
servicemen, commented Mike Whitney.
Security? Reconstruction? De-Baathification? Dismantling the Iraqi
military? Protecting Saddams ammo-dumps? Stopping the looting? Body
armor? Coalition government? Abu Ghraib? Fallujah? Even oil production
has been slashed in half Every facet of the occupation has been an
unmitigated disaster. Nothing has succeeded. Everything has failed. Never
the less, Rumsfeld assures us that these things are complicated and that we
should just Back off.

274

The American people are way ahead of Rumsfeld on the issue of

Iraq. Nearly 70% now believe that war was a mistake and a clear majority
is looking for candidates who will support a change in policy.
The media has been steadfast ally to the Bush troupe and given them
a free pass throughout the conflict. They successfully drew an Iron Curtain
around Iraq and kept the public from knowing about 650,000 men;
women and children were savagely butchered in Bushs Petrol-War
Rumsfelds plan for a new kind of war that depends on high-tech, laserguided weaponry, massive counterinsurgency operations, and a submissive
embedded media has fallen on hard times.
Arab News wrote, Bush has always cast his intervention in Iraq as a
part of the fight against terrorism. To even suggest that he now work with
two terrorist countries in order to sort out the mess that his own policies
have created in Iraq is humiliating. Meanwhile, no amount of face-saving
spin-doctoring can conceal that a withdrawal would be a defeat. Bushs
place in history will not be that of the heroic, vengeful scourge of
international terror but of the blunderer who used his superpower might to
destroy a military minnow and then had no idea what to do.
Missy Comley Beattie observed, during his October 11 news
conference, while speaking to White House reporters, Bush was asked about
the recently released survey by researchers of the John Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health which found that more than 650,000 Iraqis have
died in the war His answer: I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in
the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society so wants to be free
that theyre willing totolerate that level of violence.
What can you say about a president who makes a statement that is so
incredibly stupid? The answer is that we have a man with his finger on the
button who is incredibly, dangerously stupid. In fact when you hear him,
or read that hes said this, you find it almost incomprehensible to process the
words the sheer moronic stringing together of nouns and vowels that he
utters to support his actions.
Joshua Holland explained the cause of mans incredible stupidity. If
the US invasion of Iraq had occurred during the colonial era a hundred years
earlier, the oil giants, backed by the US forces, would have simply seized
Iraqs oil fields. Much has changed since then in terms of international

275

custom and law Its clear that the US-led invasion had little to do with
national security or the events of September 11
But serious planning for the war had begun in February of 2002,
as Bob Woodward revealed in his book In February of 2001, just weeks
after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying
for Saddams ouster gathered in White House to participate in Dick
Cheneys now infamous Energy Task Force.
As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation, a map of Iraq and an
accompanying list of Iraq oil foreign suitors were the center of discussion.
The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil
deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of
suitors revealed that dozens of companies from thirty countries but not the
United States were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for
rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth At the same time, a
top-secret National Security Council memo directed NSC staff to
cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force
At the State Department, planning was also underway. Under the
auspices of the Future of Iraq Project, and Oil and Energy Working
Group was establishedthe Bush Agenda was Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum,
who would serve in Iyad Allawis cabinet during the period of the Iraqi
Governing Council, and later as Iraqs Oil Minister in 2005. The group
concluded that Iraqs oil should be opened to international oil
companies as quickly as possible after the war.
Big Oil didnt just want access to Iraqs oil; they wanted access on
terms that would be inconceivable unless negotiated at the barrel of a
gun. Specifically, they wanted an Iraqi government that would enter into
Production Service Agreements (PSAs) for the extraction of Iraqs oil.
In a subsequent article, he added, the occupation authorities would
have to steer an ostensibly sovereign government to the outcome they
desired and theyd have to overcome any resistance they encountered from
the fiercely independent and understandably wary Iraqis along the way.
Dealing with the most likely points of opposition began almost
immediately Bremer fired hundreds of ministry personnel, ostensibly as
part of the program of de-Beatification. But, as Antonia Juhasz, author of
the Bush Agenda, told me, it wasnt an indication that they were a party to

276

Saddam Husseins crimes they were fired because they could have stood
in the way of economic transformation.
That was true at the top as well. Serving as oil minister in the Iraqi
Interim Government was Thamir Ghadbhan, a British trained technocrat
who at one time had been Chief of Planning under Saddam Hussein and was
widely respected for his political independence and his opposition to the
previous regime (Saddam had ended up in imprisoning him at Abu Ghraib).
Despite working closely with American advisors, Ghadbhan was replaced
with Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, a close associate of Ahmed Chalabi, the
exile favoured by some war planners to run the country as a kindlier and
gentler but no doubt just as corrupt version of Saddam Hussein.
He told the Financial Times that he personally favoured PSAs and
would give priority to US oil companies, and European companies,
probably. But, Uloum would latter publicly protest the elimination of
fuel subsidies, a key provision of the countrys economic restructuring,
saying: this decision will not serve the benefit of the government and the
people.
Chalabi, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time, took over the
job himself (supposedly as acting Minister for 30 days, but his term would
last a year). Chalabi had no previous experience in the oil biz, but was
reliable, pro-Western figure with little in the way of nationalist zeal to
get in the way of being a good lap-dog. As leader of the Iraqi National
Congress, he had said he favoured the creation of a US-led consortium to
develop Iraqs oil fields.
Khaleej Times opined that Bushs admission was well short of the
reality. In a rare confession during his interview with ABC...the president
admitted that as in Vietnam, America faces a stepped-up level of violence
in Iraq; stepped-up level of violence, Mr President? This is an all-out and
free-for-all civil war, which has already claimed 655,000 Iraqi lives
In fact, when the Americans finally go home and history of this war
is written, Iraq will go down as a campaign far worse than Vietnam. Of
course, the US casualties in Iraq are nowhere near what America suffered in
Vietnam at least not yet.
Washingtons Vietnam adventure took a long time to unravel. It took
almost a decade and the vision of many military and political veterans to

277

mess up Vietnam. It didnt take the neocons in the Bush Administration

long less than a year to squander the enormous goodwill the
occupation forces initially enjoyed.
Arab News blamed Bush for bloodbath in Iraq. Americas friends and
allies in the region tried to warn the Bush White House that once the fateful
decision was taken to overthrow Saddam, the real problem lay not in the
military operations to oust the dictator but in what came after. Bush did not
listen.
Three years on, Iraq has become a bloodbath for many more
Iraqis than US troops. Al-Qaeda operatives, who were not present in the
country under Saddam, have poured in. George Bush created a battlefield for
them where they could confront the hated US head on Clearly the White
House from start to finish has ignored the advice of these experts.
Dr Syed Javed Hussain commented, Bush must be proud of his
creation of New Iraq to cruise along to create New Middle East. What he
has gained by unleashing forces of evil on Iraq in the name of democracy,
humanity, safety and security since the fall of Baghdad in 2003 is in the
knowledge of everyone except the conceiver of the New Middle East plan.
A great deal of treacherous, diabolical and inhuman thinking must
have gone into the plan that has brought the Iraq situation to the present
stage. If Mr Bush was not proactive in bringing disaster on Iraq he certainly
was instrumental in many ways in bringing the nation to the edge of an
abyss. The division of Iraq should never have been an option. Only for
myopic, debased and morally depraved leaders economic interests
supersede all other considerations There are perceptions on Iraq that
need our attention:
Firstly, Bush acted against the dictum that dishonesty of purpose earns
only temporary laurels: one cannot fool all the people all the time.
Secondly, Mr Bush is adamant not to learn from his mistakes. He has
committed one mistake after another but has always claimed to be
right.
Thirdly, the US vendetta in the Middle East throws a challenge to the
regional states that are extremely suspicious of its designs in the
region.

278

 Fourthly, contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi people the division of Iraq
has been on agenda for a long time.
The Hindu observed that the man was still adamant in rejecting the
ground realities. There was no likelihood of the occupation forces ever
achieving their objective of pacifying Iraq despite their changing the
tactics repeatedly. In the most recent of these tactical shifts, US commanders
concentrated troops in Baghdad with a view to stabilizing the capital as a
prelude to replicating the plan in the rest of the country. Now they do not
contest what the whole world knows the plan has failed.
As the situation in Iraq deteriorates inexorably, President George
Bush strives hard to give a positive spin. He did lapse recently into
admission that he was not satisfied with the way his policy was unfolding.
Almost simultaneously and in total contradiction, he insisted his forces
were winning.
Richard Holbrooke was blunt in telling the man that buck cannot be
kept in waiting. Dear Mr President; as soon as the midterm elections are
over and regardless of their outcome you will have to make the most
consequential decision of your presidency, probably the most complicated
any president has had to make since Lyndon Johnson decided to escalate in
Vietnam in 1965, and far more difficult than your decisions after Sept 11,
2001.
He then talked about the choices for the US. Broadly speaking,
you have three choices: Stay the course, escalate or start to disengage from
Iraq while pressing hard for a political settlement. I will argue for the third
course, not because it is perfect but because it is the least bad option.
Your real choice comes down to escalation or disengagement. If
victory however defined is truly your goal, you should have sent
more troops long ago. You and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld say
that the commanders in Iraq keep telling you they dont need more troops,
but, frankly, even if technically accurate, this is baffling. Plain and simple,
there are not, and never have been, enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the
mission.
This crisis is far too acute for recrimination. If we are still at war
during the 2008 campaign, as seems likely if you do not change course, it

279

will benefit neither party but will leave your successor with the same choices
you now face, but under far worse circumstances.
The Guardian opined, every option carries risks: phased
withdrawal, the most likely choice, could worsen security and increase
violence. Talks with Sunni groups will anger the Shia-dominated
government and powerful players such as Mahdi Army. The partition
option would probably trigger ethnic cleansing on a larger scale than
anything yet seen.
The danger in the current mood is that America desperately wants to
wash its hands of Iraqs bloody mayhem, but is paralyzed because it does not
dare. Britains choices are simpler but there is no sign Tony Blair is ready to
risk decoupling himself from Mr Bushs march of folly.
There is something profoundly selfish arrogant even about
Americas Iraq debate, though it is about 2,700 dead and many thousands of
wounded as well as the prestige of the worlds only superpower. But this is
not just about geopolitics. Whether or not this war is Americas Vietnam,
Iraq is first and foremost about Iraqis. The Americans will be gone, sooner
or later and we will hear more about that after November 7.
James Cogan wrote, the immediate obstacle, however, is the
resistance among the Shiite parties, particularly elements within the Sadrist
movement, to any deal with the Sunni elite the support Sadr enjoys stems
from the fact that he articulates, albeit in a limited fashion, popular demands
for an end to foreign military occupation, the right of Iraqis to
democratically decide their own future and the maintenance of state control
over oil resources.
The Shiite masses will not accept peacefully the change of
course being formulated by figures like Baker. While Sadr has
demonstrated he is prepared to accommodate himself to the US domination
over Iraq, he has been unable to disband the Mahdi Army militia Maliki is
likewise beholden to the Shiite masses The confrontation between the US
military and the Shiite militias is clearly being prepared.
Pepe Escobar was of the view that the Bush Administration needs
somebody to sign the law. The nation of Iraq as it emerged out of British
imperial design in an artificial construct that can only be tamed by a
hardcore strongman a la Saddam. It has to be our strongman

280

Vast swaths of the US electorate have now understood how the whole
Iraqi adventure has been built on lies Inevitably, the current mediatargeted avalanche of Iraq-related newspeak had to be also meaningless.
This includes phased withdrawal, empowering the Iraqi government,
putting security ahead of democracy and partitioning Iraq. Sure realism in
international relations would reach new highs (or lows) with the US
ordering by decree that a sovereign nation must dismember itself.
Compared with it, the current carnage in Baghdad which is already divided
anyway would be a Disney flick.
William A Arkin talked of the benefits of leaving. If we withdraw, the
argument goes, unimaginable massacres will replace the orgy of violence,
the country could split up, the region engulfed in violence and terrorists will
find a new sanctuary in which to flourish Given the trends, and given the
American consensus that we will not appreciably increase the US military
commitment to get to the next level; these are likely outcomes even if we
stay.
What the current debate ignores is the benefits of leaving:
Americans stop dying and getting injured for a lost cause and the American
mood improves, the bad guys are denied an excuse and an easy target, the
American military is strengthened through defeat, the door is opened for a
new discussion about the proper way to fight terrorism.
Americans will be humbled when we leave Iraq. Lets recognize
this is a bitter pill we must swallow now. It ironically will improve our
standing in much of the world as we admit that we need the worlds help. It
will force us to make a reality of our empty pledge to pursue non-military
solutions to the challenge of terrorism.
Khaleej times wrote, it seems the only path to an ultimate solution is
for the US to signal a phased withdrawal. That would augur well for the
Iraqi government too. With the American departure imminent, the Iraqis
would know that it would be up to them to sort out their differences,
with minimized external influence.
Patrick Seale opined, the choices in Iraq for the United States and
Britain is no longer between staying or leaving. It is a choice between an
honourable exit and a scuttle that is to say a precipitate and undignified
withdrawal, most probably under fire, as occurred in Vietnam a generation
ago Few policy-makers in Washington and London are yet prepared to
281

accept this gloomy conclusion. It is too unpleasant to contemplate, and too

damaging to the self-regard of a superpower and its principal European ally.
Quite apart from the human tragedy, the other costs to Iraq are
beyond computation the hundreds of thousands that have fled abroad,
including much of Iraqs middle class; the internally displaced numbering
close to one million; the colossal physical damage to buildings and
infrastructure; the loss of oil revenues; and perhaps above all the splintering
of Iraqi society by the violence resurgence of sectarian conflict.
In both the US and the UK, a serious rethinking of policy is under
way Following are some tentative suggestions:
The US and the UK should announce a firm date for a full military
withdrawal from Iraq.
Iraqs neighbours must be involved in the search for an Iraqi
settlement.
Their involvement could begin by taking the form of a high-level
conference in a neutral, non-Western location say Singapore or
Malaysia to call for cessation of hostilities, thrash out power-sharing
regime; and form a contact group.
The contact group would then summon the leaderswith the aim of
securing their public commitment to the agreed compromise.
An Iraqi national army free, as far as possible, from political, ethnic
or religious affiliations must be reconstructed and given the task of
restoring public order.
The United States should commit itself to contributing $ 10 billion a
year for five years to an Iraqi reconstruction fund.
Willian E Odom was of the view that only a complete withdrawal
of all US troops within six months and with no preconditions can
break the paralysis that enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles
to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and
the public.

282

Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The
public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the presidents
conjured set of illusions: That we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq;
creating democracy there; preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; making
Israel more secure; not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain
But reality no longer can be denied. It is beyond US power to
prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran
throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to
neighbouring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American.
Burhanuddin Hasan observed, the US presidents dream to crush the
insurgency in Iraq and bring what he calls freedom and democracy to the
country seems to have gone sour. He has no other choice but to cut and
run. In fact in a recent TV interview Mr Bush compared the Iraq situation
with Vietnam for the fist time.
Simon Jenkins addressed British leaders on exit strategy. The debate
must contemplate the painful but not unfamiliar experiment of imperial
retreat. As in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia the moment is delayed but the
deed will be efficient. The Baker commission, appearing in full after
Novembers congressional election, realizes the senselessness of the present
bloodbath. It reportedly accepts that the continued presence of foreign
forces does not prevent but adds to the chaos.
A measure of the collapse is the astonishing suggestion that America
find a new regime in consultation with Iran and Syria. This can only mean
accepting some kind of confederacy, looking to the shadowy militias,
warlords and sheikhs for provincial and regional leadership.
What is humiliating for Britons is that not a whisper of such lateral
thinking can be heard from the government. Downing Street is
intellectually numb, like a forgotten outpost of a crumbling Roman
empire. It can see the barbarians at the gates yet it dare not respond as it
knows it should because no new instructions have arrived from Rome.
Willian E Odom agreed with the suggestion of involving neighbours
for clearing the mess. The answer is four major initiatives to provide
regional stability and calm in Iraq. They will leave the US less influential
in the region. But it will be the best deal we can get. First, the US must

283

concede that it has botched things, cannot stabilize the region alone and
must let others have a say in whats next.
The second initiative is to create a diplomatic forum for Iraqs
neighbours. Iran, of course, must be included. Washington should offer to
convene the forum but be prepared to step aside if other members insist.
Third, the US must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared
interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle East. The
price for success will include dropping US resistance to Irans nuclear
weapons program.
Fourth, real progress must be made on the Palestinian issue as a
foundation for Middle East peace. The invasion of Iraq and the US tilt
toward Israel have dangerously reduced Washingtons power to broker peace
or to guarantee Israels security. We now need Europes help. And good
relations with Iran would help dramatically. No strategy can succeed without
these components.
Arab News wrote, the president may (or may not) be aware of that
this sudden upsurge of North Vietnamese violence, largely unpredicted by
US intelligence, proved to be the straw that broke the political back of
Washington. It was down hill from there as popular support for the war
plummeted, largely due to the increasing number of body bags being flown
home Now Bush seems to be thinking outside the box in an effort to
avoid what would be considered by his own party, and even members of his
innermost circle, as cutting and running.
Bakers suggestion that Syria and Iran now be involved in trying to
stem the violent chaos in Iraq recognizes the pivotal role the former could
now play, not simply in Iraq but in the Lebanon and also in a Palestinian
settlement Damascuss long and close relationship with Tehran means
that it could play an invaluable role as the middleman in a drive to
convince the Iranians to curb the increasingly confrontational activities of
the Shiite militias.
Simon Jenkins opined, America must leave Iraq without
preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can
clear up the mess. This advice comes not from some anti-war coalition but
from the Iraq Study Group under the former Republican secretary of state,
James Baker

284

For all the abuse which Europeans regularly heap on the American
political process, it has one strength; its capacity for course-correction. A
constitution heavy with checks and balances enables it to respond to new
circumstances with brutal pluralism.
The debate must contemplate the painful but not unfamiliar
experience of imperial retreat The Baker commission, appearing in full
after Novembers congressional election, realizes the senselessness of the
present bloodbath.
The Hindu talked of Puppets inability to handle the situation.
The hope was that the regime would, at the minimum, assert effective
control over the army and police and take on the burden of providing
security to all Iraqi citizens without discrimination.
Washington indicated it would consider a phased withdrawal of its
troops from the occupied country once this condition was progressively
fulfilled. That premise, it is now blindingly clear, was flawed. The Maliki
regime does not appear in the least interested in setting up the
democratic and non-discriminatory order that the United States is
supposed to favour.
The Washington Post was blunt in blaming the puppet. The United
States cannot afford to abandon Iraq or the government of Nouri al-Maliki
But US policy must account for the fact that Mr Malikis administration
has not been able to stop the acceleration of sectarian warfare, in many
cases waged by militias linked to parties in the government. Nor has it taken
the bold steps that might pave the way for a political settlement; such as an
amnesty for insurgents and concessions by majority Shiites to minority
Sunnis on the distribution of oil revenue or limitations on federalism. A
revised US strategy must aim to jump-start political accord and militia
disarmament.
But it must also provide for the possibility that decisive progress will
not be achievable soon. It should position the United States to defend its
interests during a protracted conflict, with levels of troops and other
resources that will be sustainable, It should reach out to Iraqs neighbours
and other governments with an interest in stabilizing the country.
Abdulkhaleq Abdullah was of the view that the US as well as Shiites
have to be blamed for the mess. Both the US administration and the Iraqi

285

leadership share the responsibility for the deterioration of the situation in the
country. According to Alberto Frenandez, public affairs officer at the US
Deparment of the State, his countrys policies in Iraq were stupid and
arrogant. It is time for the Iraqi leadership to admit that its conduct is
extremely stupid, corrupt, selfish, unwise and misled.
To serve their own interest, the Shiite elite have made Iraq a field of
fierce conflict between Tehran and Washington. Therefore, this group holds
responsibility for the deterioration and chaotic conditions The Shiite
elite do not have its own agenda but upholds either the dubious American
plan or the sectarian Iranian plan. However, both the American and Iranian
plans fail to meet the wishes of the Iraqis who have been suffering a lot due
to the narrow-minded and faulty policies of their new leaders who are no
better than the previous ones.
Khaleej Times commented on Makkah Document. The 10-point
Makkah Document, issued by 29 prominent scholars and leaders from both
Sunni and Shia schools, call for immediate halt to the ongoing sectarian
killings in Iraq. Drawing the Quranic verses and the Prophets teachings, the
declaration points out that spilling Muslim blood is absolutely forbidden.
It is difficult to imagine what could happen if the nightmarish
anarchy that threatens to tear apart Iraq today is unleashed on the rest of the
Muslim World tomorrow. Which is why the Muslim World must stop
viewing the unholy mess in Iraq as something that is the headache of the
United States and so-called the coalition of the willing that it claims to
lead.
It is a nightmarish scenario indeed but it remains a distinct
possibility. This is why we would like to believe that Makkah Declaration
would be taken seriously by Iraqs Sunnis and Shia leaders and political
parties.

ISRAEL ON RAMPAGE
Since the cessation of hostilities on Lebanese front, Israel focused on
Palestine. Following incidents of state terrorism were reported:

286

 Israeli troops killed four Palestinians in Gaza on 18 th October and Tel

Aviv threatened to retake Gaza-Egypt border.
Seven Palestinians were killed and 23 wounded on Eid Day. On 26 th
October, Israeli forces killed two Palestinians including a policeman.
Meanwhile, a Spanish journalist was kidnapped by gunmen.
Israeli troops killed three Palestinians in West Bank on 27 th October.
Three days later, one more Palestinian was killed.
Israeli forces killed two Palestinians in Gaza Strip on 31st October.
Next day, 8 more Palestinians and an Israeli were killed in Gaza Strip.
Israeli cabinet rejected large-scale operation in Gaza Strip.
On 3rd November, 12 Palestinians including two women were killed
by Israeli forces. One Palestinian minister was arrested by Israel.
Israeli troops killed ten more Palestinians on 4th November, which
brought the toll to 45 in the ongoing offensive.
Palestinians efforts for forming a unity government were affected by
Israels barbaric acts. Haniyeh and Abbas failed to reach consensus to end
political crisis, but Palestinian factions pledged to end internal violence. On
18th October, Hamas dismissed Abbass idea of temporary cabinet.
The worlds attention focused on the unfolding disaster in Iraq, on the
resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan and on how to moderate Irans nuclear
ambitions three problems for which no credible solutions have yet been
proposed the Palestinians continue to bleed, starve and suffer
unimaginable humiliations and hardships under Israels pitiless rule
wrote Patrick Seale.
He added, there is no greater obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and to Israels integration into the region, than the
nearby half a million Israeli colonists in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem The relentless erosion of the rump of Arab-Palestine has
created the militant movement Hamas and has aroused hostility to the US
throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
Another mistake, made under Ronald Reagans presidency, was to
allow Israel to invade Lebanon in 1982, killing over 17,000 Lebanese and

287

Palestinians. The invasion and occupation created the militant movement

Hezbollah.
A third mistake was the failure to re-establish friendly relations
with Iran in the 27 years since the Ayatollah Khomeinis Islamic revolution.
It is now paying for that mistake by Irans defiance over the nuclear issue.
A fourth mistake which dwarfs the other was Americas rash and
intemperate reaction to the traumatic terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. It was driven by a wish, in the heat of the moment, to teach the Arabs
a lesson about Americas military power.
What should the US now do? It should regain the independence of
its foreign policy by freeing itself from the pressures of lobbies and
special interest groups. It should punish those responsible for gross human
rights abuses, such as torture.
Arab News once again warned Palestinians against their internal
difference. The differences between Fatah and Hamas might in the end
be impossible to bridge. Hamas leaders are holding on to their ideological
agenda As for the idea of holding US-funded early elections with the
purpose of ousting Hamas and bring in Fatah, it is difficult to imagine how
this could bring the type of settlement the Palestinians are looking for. The
ploy is more likely to strengthen Hamas instead of weakening it. It could
well precipitate civil war.
Yet the differences that exist between the two factions revolve
basically around means, not aims. It makes little sense to draw an
imaginary line dividing what we are calling moderates and what we are
calling extremists. Everyone, including Hamas, is prepared to negotiate a
peaceful settlement.
However, Israel is trying to compensate for its setback in Lebanon by
getting tough on the Palestinians in Gaza. Figures from the last three months
of Israeli violence in Gaza indicate the policyIsrael wants to ensure that
the wanton killing of Palestinians remains as cost-free as it has been up to
now. Recent signals from Israel suggest it has nothing to offer as a basis
for a settlement that would be acceptable to either Fatah or Hamas.
To conclude, excerpts from two articles of Uri Avnery are reproduced.
Is it possible to force a whole people to submit to foreign occupation by

288

starving it? That is certainly, an interesting question. So interestingly, indeed,

that the governments of Israel and the United States, in close cooperation
with Europe, are now engaged in a rigorous scientific experiment in
order to obtain a definitive answer.
The laboratory for experiment is the Gaza Strip, and the guinea
pigs are the million and a quarter Palestinians living there. In order to meet
the required scientific standards, it was necessary first of all to prepare the
laboratory.
He then recalled the events related to setting up of the laboratory
starting from Sharons uprooting of Israeli settlements to ensure proper
experiment without pets roaming about. After that all entrances and exits
were sealed. The entire Strip was closed of by a highly effective fence.
There remained a sole connection with the outside world: the Rafah
border crossing to Egypt. It could not just be sealed off, because that would
have exposed the Egyptian regime as a collaborator with Israel. A
sophisticated solution was found: to all appearances the Israeli army left the
crossing and turned it over to an international supervision team.
So everything was ready for the experiment. The signal for its
beginning was given after the Palestinians had held spotlessly democratic
elections But Palestinians flunked the test. Instead of electing good
Arabs, devotees of the United States, they voted for very bad Arabs,
devotees of Allah. Bush felt insulted.
He went on to narrate the poor economic state of the Palestinians at
the time of the start of the experiment and how they have been further
starved by Israel, America and Europe since elections. He added, To round
off the picture, the Israeli Air Force bombed the only power station in the
Strip, so that for a part of the day there is no electricity and the water
supply
What are the governments of Israel and the US trying to tell the
Palestinians? The message is clear: You will reach the brink of hunger, and
even beyond, if you do not surrender. You must remove the Hamas
government and elect candidates approved by Israel and the US. And, most
importantly: you must be satisfied with a Palestinian state consisting of
several enclaves, each of which will be utterly dependent on the tender
mercies of Israel.

289

At the moment, the directors of scientific experiment are

pondering a puzzling question: how on earth do the Palestinians still hold
out, in spite of everything? According to the rules, they should have been
broken long ago!
In his second article, he said, the army chiefs, bankrupted in
Lebanon, are making a big effort to create a new fear: Hamas in the Gaza
Strip. Now, here we have an immediate and terrible danger; tons and tons of
regular explosives are coming in through tunnels. Any moment now,
Hamas will be equipped with modern anti-tank weapons, as well as antiaircraft missiles. Hamas is building underground fortifications. Isnt it
scary?
The military and political parrots in the media are fully mobilized.
This entire media parrotry is repeating the bloodcurdling message
morning, noon and night: Gaza is becoming a second South Lebanon! We
cannot wait! The army must go in, occupy the Strip, or at least parts of it! ...
But the public is not really buying it. It is hard to create fear when the enemy
is not able to shoot back. Our aircraft and tanks and brave boys are killing
there without hindrance. So what is there to fear?
In Lebanon, economy and security concerns were over-shadowed
political crisis. More than two months after the ceasefire, southern Lebanon
remained littered with millions of cluster bombs. On 22 nd October, Israel
acknowledged using phosphorous bombs in Lebanon.
Peacekeepers kept trickling in and on 20th October, Turkish troops
joined UN peace force. The West and its Arab allies continued talking about
disarming Hezbollah. Egypt accused Hezbollah of sparking war. On 1st
November, Nasrallah hinted that talks with Israel over prisoners swap have
made some progress.
Analysts continued commenting on Lebanon War. Mustafa el-Labbad
wrote, now, in light of its military/political debacle in Lebanon, Israel has
shown that it is incapable of filling the void created by Bush
Administration policy failures. More importantly, this capacity has called
into question Israels ability to fulfill the proxy role it has performed for the
US since 1967.
Herein resides the true strategic significance of the recent war against
Lebanon, for which reason it merits being classified as a turning point

290

between two eras in the history of power balances in the Middle East
The situation presents a unique opportunity for such regional powers as
Egypt and Saudi Arabia to take advantage of the outcome of the war on
Lebanon to reassert an Arab role and to redress regional balances.
Atul Aneja observed, led by Iran and supported by Syria and
Hezbollah, a formidable combination has therefore emerged in West Asia,
challenging the status quo. Aware of this Ms Rices mission was to cobble
together an anti-Iran Arab alliance. It was here that the Americans
attempted to play the Sunni-Shia card.
Not surprisingly, Ms Rice has tried to establish a platform where key
Sunni players in the region were present. In Cairo, she met Foreign
Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and the United
Arab Emirates along with the envoys from Jordan and Egypt. The Iranians
have not missed the basic thrust of what has been described as the sixplus-two conference. The Iranian daily Tehran Times noted: In the meeting
(in Cairo) Rice tried to build an Arab coalition against Irans peaceful
nuclear activities.
Lebanese, however, were still encountering hazards left behind by the
war in the form unexploded munitions. James Brooks wrote, on September
26, the UN announced that the number of unexploded cluster bomblets left
in southern Lebanon by Israeli forces may be three times higher than
previous estimates. A million or more anti-personnel weapons may be
strewn across a region one-third of Rhodes Island Israel has yet to
respond to repeated requests for information about the locations of its cluster
bomb strikes in Lebanon. UN demining experts say this has made their job
far more difficult.
Two hundred thousand people cannot return to their homes due to the
severity of destruction and massive quantities of unexploded ordnance and
cluster bomblets covering their communities Since the beginning of the
ceasefire less than two months ago 20 people have been killed and 120
others have been injured by cluster bomblets and unexploded ordnance.
UN humanitarian coordinator David Shearer wants to know why the
IDF deployed 90 percent of its cluster bombs during the last 72 hours of
the conflict, while the UN ceasefire resolution was being approved UN
officials are reportedly dumbfounded. What could explain Israels intention

291

in such an act, when peace was at hand? As if Shearer didnt know the
answer?
Jan Egeland pretended similar ignorance. Whats shocking and, I
would say to me, completely immoral is that 90% of the cluster bomb
strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there
would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end of this.
Since then, the true dimensions of the problem have become even
clearer: 770 cluster-bomb sites have now been identified. And the current
UN estimate is that Israel dropped between 2 million and 3 million
bomblets on Lebanon, of which to a million have yet to explode.
In fact, it is estimated that there are more unexploded bomblets in
southern Lebanon than there are people. They lurk in tobacco fields,
mixed with rubble. They are injuring two to three people every day,
according to the United Nations, and have killed 20 people since the
ceasefire in August.
Dropped so late in the war, its hard to imagine what purpose could
possibly have been meant to accomplish. Instead, they seem to have been
dropped as a final, gratuitous act of violence in a war waged against an
entire population To direct such violence at one community, one
religious group, one minority and to deny them the ability to return safely
home was what this war was all about.
Saree Makdisi observed, of all statistics to emerge from Israels
recent war on Lebanon, the most shocking concerns the number of cluster
bombs that Israel dropped on or fired into Lebanon Cluster bombs are, by
definition, inaccurate weapons that are designed to affect a very wide area
unpredictably. If you dont discriminate between civilian and military targets
when they are dropped, they certainly do not discriminate in the months and
years after the end of hostilities, when they go on killing and maiming any
one who happens upon them.
Curt Goering said, cluster munitions are not banned weapons, but
their use in civilian areas violates the international ban on the use of
indiscriminate weapons After initially denying that it used cluster bombs,
Israel later said that all weapons they use are legal. But the military purpose
of their use in these circumstances is inexplicable. Although Israel has

292

provided some maps of the affected areas, the UN say it has still not
provided specific coordinates that would expedite clearing.
As with the movement that led to 1999 global treaty banning
landmines, there is mounting international pressure to stop the use of cluster
munitions altogetherThe Review Conference examining the Convention
on Certain Conventional Weapons meeting next month in Geneva is a key
opportunity to build momentum for the international ban.
Robert Fisk reported on use of uranium-based munitions. Scientific
evidence gathered from at least two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri, the
scene of fierce fighting between Hezbollah guerrillas and Israeli troops last
July and August, suggests that uranium-based munitions may now also be
included in Israels weapons inventory and were used against targets in
Lebanon.
Dr Chris Busbys initial report states that there are two possible
reasons for the contamination. The first is that the weapon was some novel
small experimental fission device or other experimental weapon (e.g.
thermo baric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation
flash The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional
uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than
depleted uranium.
Israel has a poor reputation for telling the truth about its use of
weapons in Lebanon. In 1982, it denied using phosphorous munitions on
civilian areas until journalists discovered dying and dead civilians whose
wounds caught fire when exposed to air. I myself saw two dead babies who,
when taken from a mortuary drawer in West Beirut during the Israeli siege
of the city, suddenly burst back into flames.
Israel officially denied using phosphorous again in Lebanon last
summer except for marking targets even after civilians were
photographed in Lebanese hospitals with burn wounds consistent with
phosphorous munitions. Then last Sunday, Israel suddenly admitted that it
had not been telling the truth.
Many Lebanese, however, long ago concluded that the latest
Lebanon war was a weapons testing ground for the Americans and
Iranians. Just as Israel used hither to unproven US missiles in its attacks, so
the Iranians were able to test-fire a rocket which hit an Israeli corvette off

293

the Lebanese coast, killing four Israeli sailors and almost sinking the vessel
after it suffered a 15-hour on-board fire. What the weapons manufacturers
make of the latest scientific findings of potential uranium weapons use in
southern Lebanon is not yet known.
The Washington Post indulged in speculating about another war.
Though the European-led peacekeeping force in Lebanon may give that
shattered region a respite, the danger is growing of a new eruption of
fighting between Israel and the Palestinians and maybe even between
Israel and Syria.
Judging from what Israeli raids have been uncovering in the Gaza
Strip, Palestinian militants are eager to imitate what they perceive as
Hezbollahs success in standing up to the Israeli army in the villages of
southern Lebanon and Irans agents are just as eager to help them.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who considered himself a
winner of the war, is still sounding belligerent, warning publicly of
possibility of war between Israel and Syria. Israel responded this week by
carrying out military maneuvers on the Golan Heights Feelers by Syria
about peace talks with Israel have been shunned.
Hasan Tahsin opined, it is quite unlikely that Israel would entertain
any offer for peace while Olmert is setting the stage for a military
showdown with Syria and throw the region into a state of war There are
Israelis who believe that the peace with Syria would be a severe blow to
Irans presence stance. They argue that a Syrian government with friendly
relations with Israel would not allow any Palestinian group to operate from
Syrian territories and thus would persuade the Palestinians to return to
reason. Israeli peace activists also believe that a friendly Syria would pave
the way for comprehensive peace in the region.
The Israeli newspaper Haartez believes that Assads concern for
peace is genuine and he is willing to hold talks with Israel. It is only the
unreasonable conditions laid down by the Israeli premier that drive the
Syrian president to look for military options.
A Syrian-Israeli peace means Israels total pullout from the Golan
Heights and it could be done only by a strong Israeli government. If it
happens it would be in the interest of Israel and bring the simmering
Palestinian issue close to a settlement.

294

The Daily Star wrote, the White House is accusing Hezbollah, Iran
and Syria of seeking the illegitimate overthrow of Prime Minister Fouad
Sinioras government, parroting a theme long championed by a very recent
visitor to Washington, Chouf MP Walid Jumblatt. The simplistic charge
dovetails with much of the current US approach to the Middle East, but it
also lends credence to the theory that Bush Administrations Lebanon policy
is so flimsy as to be alterable by the last person who gained audience with
the president or one of his top advisers.
Few pieces of real estate on Earth are subject to the gambits and
gambles of more outside parties than Lebanon. The players include Iran
and Syria, to be sure, but America and Israel are also pulling a variety of
levers in their attempt to shape this countrys future to their benefit. Coupled
with the roles being played by France and Saudi Arabia, all of this attention
from outside the country is pulling Lebanon apart as more powerful actors
seek to further their regional agendas. What has been missing is a Lebanese
agenda, carefully conceived and clearly articulated, that might start to build
a truly national constituent.
The political figures who established the state made their share of
errors, but at least they had clear ideas of what they wanted Lebanon to be
and how much they were willing to compromise in order to accommodate
the desires of others. The same cannot be said of todays politicians, who
keep their constituents in the dark and try to impose their views on their
opponents without even bothering to define what they are.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Crusaders efforts to isolate Iran continued. On 18th October, Olmert
sought Putins help against Iran. Two days later, Ahmadinejad predicted
Israels collapse. On 22nd October, Iran vowed to retaliate against UN
nuclear sanctions. Next day, Iran expanded nuclear centrifuge programme.
Khamenei warned Arabs to stay united amid US plots. On 26 th
October, Russia opposed draft resolution for imposition of sanctions on Iran.

295

Next day, Iran started work in second nuclear fuel network. Ahmadinejad
again warned of firm response to sanctions.
Iran fired ballistic missile during war games on 2 nd November. Next
day, Iran test fired three more new missiles. The United States should get the
message and should stop conducting manoeuvres in the Gulf, an Iranian
admiral said after his navy had tested new missiles.
We should not wait inactively for the creation of a situation in which
Israel, Iran and perhaps Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will possess
nuclear bombs. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and is spreading
throughout the world opined Uri Avnery.
In order to forestall the danger, the main effort should be to make
peace with the Palestinian people, and with the entire Arab world. People
like Ehud Olmert may delude themselves that the Palestinian problem can be
isolated from global and regional processes. But the problem is influenced
by many factors, which are in constant flux.
If the elected leadership of the Palestinian people signs an agreement
with us announcing the end of the conflict, and if the entire Arab World
makes peace with us along the lines of the Saudi initiative, the rug will
be pulled out from under the Ahmedinejads everywhere.
Jon Sawyer wrote, to be sure, war with Iran is nowhere near as
inevitable as the neoconservative proponents of aggressive action would
make it appear here at home, meanwhile, public opinion surveys show
little appetite for another go at preventive war.
Michael T Klare observed that despite the Israeli inability to
emasculate Hezbollah with airpower during the Lebanon fighting this
summer, American air and naval officers, I suspect, believe that they can
inflict punishing damage on the Iranians with airpower alone, and do so
without suffering significant casualties in return. I also suspect, that wellconnected neo-conservatives, are whispering this message into the ear
of Bush.
And what about all forms of retaliation one might expect from the
Iranians, like an upsurge in Shiite disorder in Iraq and chaos in oil markets?
These and other likely Iranian responses are also said to be deterring a US
military strike. But the Iranians will be incapable of such coordinated

296

action...anyway there are contingency plans in place to deal with the fallout.
Or so say the neo-cons, I would imagine.
So I believe that the common wisdom in Washington regarding
military action against Iran is wrong. Just because American forces are
bogged down in Iraq, and Rice appears to enjoy a bit more authority these
days, does not mean that realism will prevail at the White House soon, I
fear, it will be irresistible.
Amir Taheri, as usual, exaggerated the apprehensions, the outcome of
his pervert mindset. Ahmadinejad may provoke a clash with the United
States by heating things up in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon before the end
of the year The Lebanese branch of Hezbollah could ignite the war against
Israel in conjunction with radical Palestinian groups backed by Tehran.
Failing that, a virtual takeover of the Lebanese government by Hezbollah
and its Christian allies, held by ex-general Michel Aoun, could also give
Ahmadinejad the boost he needs.
Ahmadinejad has also been heating things up in Afghanistan. Much
of the recent upsurge in fighting in south-western Afghanistan has been
attributed to the supposedly revived Taliban. The truth, however, is that most
of the latest mischief has come from elements of Hizb Islami that
depends almost entirely on Iranian support.
But in Iraq that gives Ahmadinejad his biggest hope of success.
This could come in number of ways. The latest call by the Commander of
the British Army Sir Richard Dannatt for a quick withdrawal from Iraq has
already been seized upon by Ahmadinejad as a signal that the coalition led
by the US is unraveling. There are two other issues that might help
Ahmadinejad frustrate the efforts of his rivals.
The first is again linked to Iraq and consists of speculation that the
US might appeal to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq Such a move
would endorse Ahmadinejads claim that there cannot be peace in the region
without Iran in a leadership position.

CONCLUSION
The situation has become worrisome for the holy warriors who
invaded and occupied Iraq. Bush Administration is openly criticized now for
297

creating the mess. The major cause of impending failure (defeat) has been
mentioned by the analysts.
Rumsfeld has been blamed for not inducting sufficient troops for
consolidating the initial success. The justification for deploying lesser
number of troops was to avoid casualties. Occupation troops planned to get
the job done using Iraqis against Iraqis. To this end they fanned sectarian
hatred which resulted in civil war and Americans had no solution for that.
So, they now find themselves in quagmire, once mentioned by Saddam.
Palestinians have been accused of imitating Hezbollah which stood up
to the Israeli army in the villages of southern Lebanon. This is merely a
pretext for perpetration of state terrorism by Israel which seemed determined
to topple Hamas at all costs.
The needs of Lebanese have been ignored by the West. The focus is
on disarming or weakening Hezbollah and strengthening pro-American
regime. Iran and Syria remain rogue states which are blamed for interfering
in Lebanon; thus the speculations about another war.

7th November 2006

CHENAGAI TO DARGAI
A madrassa in Chenagai village of Bajaur Agency was attacked at
dawn on 30th October with three missiles fired from a pilot-less Predator
plane. Eighty of the 83 students and their teachers present in the compound
were killed, remaining three were seriously wounded.
TNSM leader Maulana Faqir Mohammad escaped as he was not
present in the madrassa at the time of attack. Faqir denied presence of

298

foreign students and using the madrassa compound for imparting military
training to terrorists to be. Senior provincial minister, Siraj and MNA from
the area resigned in protest. Qazi said US was involved.
DG ISPR, while answering media queries was cock-sure about certain
things; it was purely a Pakistani feat; all those killed, except three were
terrorists of Pakistani or foreign origin; intelligence was shared; and the
seminary was fore-warned but activities did not stop. In reply to a question
as to why the madrassa was attacked on the day a peace deal in the area was
to be signed, he replied peace talks and terror activities going side-by-side
cannot be tolerated.
Next day, protest rallies were held in NWFP. Qazi was not allowed to
visit the madrassa. NWFP Assembly condemned the federal government for
the bombing and some MPAs blamed US. Mulla Faqir said we have been
deceived. We will take revenge. He also said that if we are wanted by
Americans; Americans are wanted by us.
Security forces claimed al-Zawahiri frequently visited the madrassa.
Musharraf said all those killed were all Islamic terrorists and those denying
it are lying. Timing of the attack shocked UK, because Prince Charles was to
visit Peshawar on that day.
On 1st November, Baluchistan Assembly adopted resolution against
Bajaur raid. Rights group urged a probe. DG ISPR blamed religious
elements seeking political mileage from Bajaur attack. US backed Pakistan
on strike and praised Musharraf.
Rahimullah Yusufzai reported that issues such as existence of
military training camps run by militants, misuse of madrassas or presence of
wanted foreigners in the area would have been effectively tackled had the
undertaking been signed on the day of strike.
That is the reason that almost everyone in Bajaur is refusing to
believe in the Pakistan Armys claim and instead is convinced that the
missiles were launched by the US military through its pilot-less Predator spy
plane. They have no doubt that the US is opposed to peace agreements with
militants Surprisingly, the leader of the tribal militants Maulana Faqir
Mohammad said he still wanted to conclude a peace agreement with the
authorities and contribute his bit for peaceful and prosperous Bajaur.

299

A US spy was found dead in Bajaur on 2 nd November. MMA mulled

moving the Supreme Court on Bajaur killings and Amnesty International
wanted a probe. Next day, protest rallies were held against and MMA
warned of jihad. Reportedly, armed helicopters again started escorting
convoys in Waziristan fearing retaliation against Bajaur bombing.
On 4th November, Information Minister said the parliament would be
taken into confidence over Bajaur. Foreign Office denied remarks attributed
to Kasuri in which he allegedly said that the United States is a sole
superpower and that; Pakistan had little choice in such matters.
Protests against killings continued in NWFP. Yousaf Ali compiled a
detailed list of the victims. It showed that all the deceased, except three
including principal of seminary, were under the age of 20, out of which 16
were 7-12-year old.
On 7th November, Shahid Orakzai, a freelance journalist, filed a
constitutional petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the killings
in air strike on the seminary. Women MPAs of MMA and ANP protested the
attack.
The visiting Boucher announced no change in US policy on Pakistan.
Musharraf while presiding corps commanders conference vowed to crush
terrorism. Pakistan is not a stooge of US, said Durrani. Official spokesman
rejected the list of victims published in print media and issued its own list
refuting the facts depicted in Yousaf Alis report.
Suicide bomber struck back on 8th November to avenge Bajaur
bombing. Attack on training area of a battalion of Punjab Regimental centre
in Dargai killed 42 recruits and wounded 40 others. Local Taliban claimed
responsibility and threatened more attacks to avenge the carnage in
Chenagai madrassa.
Musharraf was grieved and he vowed to hunt down terrorists.
Information Minister asked politicians to rethink issue of terrorism. America
condemned suicide bombing. In Pakistan the army suffered from backlash
against Mushs war on terror, wrote Shaheen Sehbai.
Next day, DG ISPR said there would be no change on policy of peace
deals. Peace jirga will be functional in Bajaur soon, said governor. Search
for suicide bombers accomplice was abandoned. Siraj made surprise

300

appearance in Bajaur. US Ambassador said US-Pakistan war against

terrorism will intensify as result of Dargai terrorist attack.
Extremism will be crushed with full force, Musharraf vowed on 10th
November. Dargai incident wont affect peace deal, reiterated Sherpao. Sher
Afgan claimed Bajaur madrassa was run by Jamaat-i-Islami. MPA from
Dargai sought change in government policy.
Next day, while addressing a public gathering, Musharraf referred to
Bajaur and Dargai incidents and warned against dangers. He urged people to
vote for progressive forces. Security forces claimed defusing seven missiles
in lower Dir.
Maulana Liaqats opposition to peace deal may have led to air strike,
reported Behroz Khan. The Washington Post reported Pakistan had little
choice but to bomb the Bajaur School after they received overwhelming
proof from US intelligence sources that it was being used as a training
center. Hekmatyar blamed US for Bajaur attack.
We have killed Maulvi Liaqat and we will kill Maulvi Faqir, vowed
Musharraf on 13th November. He ruled out political dialogue with these
forces. Bush rang up Musharraf and assured him US support for his fight
against terrorism. But, Shaukat Aziz asked US to think about exit strategy
from Afghanistan. Government invited Opposition MPs to briefing on
Bajaur. Fact-finding mission of lawyers found no signs of terror training at
the site of bombed seminary.
Next day, MMAs Sahibzada Haroon Rashid formally resigned from
National Assembly in protest over Bajaur strike. Ten TNSM activists were
declared proclaimed offenders. New York Times claimed that the trail of
organizing, financing and recruiting suicide bombers for attacks in
Afghanistan traces back to Pakistan.
On 15th November, ANP activists led by Asfandyar managed to enter
Bajaur Agency to show solidarity with tribesmen. Two days later, villagers
started work to reconstruct madrassa. Ex-MNA Haroonur Rashid was barred
from entering Bajaur Agency. A suicide bomber blew himself in Peshawar
injuring three policemen.
Chenagai and Dargai are not too far away from each other. Action and
reaction phenomenon in the ongoing so-called war on terror is also not new

301

thing. But, the retaliatory suicide bombing at Dargai was the first-ever attack
on the institution of the army and the people rightly apprehended dire
consequences.

POST-CHENAGAI VIEWS
Whatever the government claims there is no reason to go for such
an unwarranted butchering of those most of whom, if not all, were the
citizens of Pakistan. Even if they were militants, miscreants or terrorists
there was no reason to kill them in such a cold-hearted manner wrote Ansar
Abbasi.
Musharraf said, they were all militants using weapons doing military
training within the compoundanyone who says that these people were
innocent Taliban (religious students) is telling lies. No evidence
substantiating the governments claims was available on the site of the
brutal attack. None of the reports confirmed the presence of any kind of
ammunition.
Even in South Waziristan, such a huge number of militants were not
killed in just one military operation. The Americans, and the West, might be
very happy about it and the White House statement that it supported
Pakistans deadly air raid speaks volumes about their feelings.
The incident might have also further raised President Musharrafs
image abroad. Again the White House statement praising Musharraf for
showing determination to fight terrorism is a relevant quote. But what
national interest did it serve? How could such incidents serve the interests
of the Pakistan Army as an institution and improve its image in the eyes of
the people?
One might not get any answer to many such questions boggling the
minds of Pakistanis. However, one thing is sure that Americas interest is
served at the cost of our own national interest. The Americans seem to not
want peace in Pakistan.
A weak and vulnerable Pakistan is in Americas interest. The
timing of the incident coincided with the proposed peace agreement between
the Pakistani security forces and the militants in Bajaur in line with
September 5 truce Have we fallen into a US-trap?
302

Akbar Jan Marwat from Islamabad wrote, the attack on a madrassah

in Bajaur agency needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The
act of targeting over eighty people by firing missiles is perhaps the most
inhumane act of the present regime. The official explanation given by the
government and its functionaries has lots of holes and many people do
not believe it.
In any event, the Pakistani authorities by owning up to the
barbaric and shameful air strikes have suffered a gross loss of
credibility. The North Waziristan deal has effectively been neutralized,
along with it has vaporized the prospects of any future deals on similar lines,
between the Pakistani government and the local tribes.
Shafqat Mahmood did not believe governments version. There is
obviously more to this business than we are being made to believe. It is not
as simple as Pakistan Army helicopters destroying a terrorist hideout in the
early hours of the morning. I may be wrong but I cannot believe that the
Pakistan Army would kill in cold-blood so many of its own people which
included children. Its intelligence agencies obviously knew that this was a
madrassah and not a terrorist camp in the classic definition of the term.
Unless the army has drastically changed, I cannot believe the official
version of the events.
NATO spokesmen have been saying for some time now that the
number of attacks on their forces has increased after the peace deal. They
also believe that stepping back of Pakistani forces provided a safe haven for
the Taliban and al-Qaeda to regroup. Their frustration was increasing and
it was only a matter of time before they launched strikes into Pakistani
territory.
It would also be worth recalling that when Bush was asked whether
he would pursue Osama and other terrorists if they were located in
Pakistan he had said yes. In other words, the American military has a
sanction and latitude from its commander-in-chief to take whatever military
action it deems fit, to prosecute the war against terror.
The News opined, the manner of the raid and the conflicting
eyewitness accounts, the high death toll (the highest since 9/11 of any antimilitant operation carried out by the government) and not to mention
operation reports by at least two leading US news networks that a US drone

303

may have been involved in the missile attack create for a very difficult
situation for Islamabad.
The manner and intensity of the raid would make one think that there
perhaps was intelligence which led the government to believe that there
may have been a high-value target at the madrassah sort of similar to
an air strike in Bajaur earlier this year, whose target was supposed to be none
other than Ayman al-Zawahiri.
On Tuesday, the Washington Post carried a story which quoted
Pakistani officials as saying that the missile attack was launched after US
intelligence reports that senior al-Qaeda figures were hiding there. That
would perhaps be the only plausible justification from the governments
point of view for bombing a whole building outright since ordinary militants
could have been arrested and prosecuted.
Rahatullah Khattak from Peshawar wrote, the massacre that took
place in Bajaur the other day should be acknowledged as a routine
intelligence blunder otherwise any patriotic Pakistani will interpret the
action as a mere tactic to placate the West. At least the president should
respond in his usual sincere guise and own up to the facts rather than
hoodwink the nation and lose whatever little credibility.
Azam Khalil accepted official version but added his own explanation.
He concluded, apparently the government had been watching the activities
in the madrassah and was armed with irrefutable evidence that combat
training in lethal weapons was being given to militants who frequented the
facility.
The government also has in its possession evidence that the
management of the madrassah received dirty money from al-Qaeda and
some persons who acted as Indian front men. Another fact that cannot be
overlooked was that while all other madaris were closed due to the
completion of their exams during Ramazan after which they normally
reopen for fresh admissions by the tenth or fifteenth of Shawwal, this
particular madrassah remained open due to the training programme.
However, in case a mistake was made due to whatever reason and
some innocent people lost their lives the government should accept
responsibility and immediately put in place a fool proof mechanism that will
prevent such a thing from happening in the future.

304

Alongside the Americans, the Indians have also purchased the

loyalties of some of the so-called jihadis who provide them the useful
information that forms the nexus of all their planning with the support of the
Afghan government. The government was aware that some of the
madrassahs played host to the people who have received training at one or
more of these training camps in Afghanistan.
Therefore, it will be quite appropriate for Pakistan to tell Karzai to
close these camps and if he fails to comply send in either Special Forces or
the air force to destroy these facilities. It is equally important that action
across the border is taken otherwise the problems in Pakistans tribal belt
and Baluchistan will drag on It seemed that he is braver than the brave
commando.
Another aspect of the bombing related to its legality. Barrister Faisal
Khan Toru from Islamabad wrote, the Pakistan Army, as we are led to
believe, conducted this operation after issuing a warning to the militants
and keeping the madrassah under watch for few days. Can any punitive
action, let alone taking the lives of eighty-two human beings, be taken
on the basis of uncorroborated intelligence reports, without carrying out
any formal judicial proceedings or, at the very least, providing any
opportunity of hearing to the accused?
By mercilessly bombing a religious seminary, has the Pakistan Army
not condemned eighty-two innocent people without allowing them their
constitutional (and Islamic) right of proving their innocence? Inciting or
engaging in terrorism is, at most, a criminal offence, triable under the law of
the land. Why these alleged terrorists were not indicted under the Pakistan
Penal Code? Why they were not allowed access to legal counsel and
provided a right of representation? Is our judicial system so inept that it
cannot effectively deal with such matters, or is it a deliberate attempt on the
part of the executive to give the army a free hand in playing the role of both
a judge and an executioner? If the judiciary is truly an independent
organ of the state, then why are the higher echelons of our judiciary
silent upon such blatant high-handedness? Should the responsible persons
not be taken to task?
Fatima Bhutto said, the state has responsibility, not only to speak
truthfully, but also to act honourably. If those madrassah students and
teachers were indeed planning to launch an Osama bin Laden-style attack on
free and innocent people, then they should have been caught and dealt
305

with. Warrants should have been produced for their arrests, lawyers should
have been appointed for their defence and a trial should have been
conducted.
Nasar Kamal Yousafzai wrote, the government has failed to justify
its Bajaur action in terms of the following facts. 1) No warning was given to
the so-called terrorists. 2) No military, paramilitary or police forces were
sent to the said place/spot in order to make arrests. 3) The deaths violate the
basic principles of natural justice. 4) The provincial government was not
taken into confidence in this respect.
M Saleem Chaudhry from Karachi opined, as the Musharraf
government is not ready to institute an inquiry commission of
parliamentarians or the apex court to probe into the tragic event nor
providing concrete evidence for the official version, the only course left is to
conduct a poll through a research organization
Musharraf had only one answer to all the questions raised by the
critics: theyre lying. The News commented, while normally good
attributes, sometimes it is better not to be so blunt and straight forward. One
is of course referring to President Pervez Musharrafs remarks following the
air strike on a madrassah in Bajaur agency on Oct 30. He said that all those
who died were militants, not innocent madrassah students, and that the
military had been monitoring them for the past six to seven days. In remarks
probably directed against the MMA leadership, particularly those coming
from its constituent Jamaat-e-Islami (which has considerable influence in
Bajaur), the president said that those who were saying otherwise were
telling lies.
All that, however, still does not justify the use of force and the
decimation of a whole building. The government should understand that
questions some of them valid are being asked relating to the attacks
technical matters and some of these raise serious doubts about its origin.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar observed, it is true that Pakistani state and its
American patron are collaborating and that their mutual interests are served
by conducting intermittent strikes against the tribal population. However,
these interests are not exactly the same, and the collaboration is based on an
understanding on both sides of others interests, even if the Americans are
indubitably the dominant partner in the relationship. What is unambiguous
is that the interests of the Pakistani people are entirely different from
306

either that of the Americans or the Pakistani state oligarchy. As long as

the existing state structure remains intact, the peoples interests will always
be a threat to national security and law and order.
Saad Sayeed was of the view that Chenagai incident was part of the
whole sham of a war on terror. We are ready to acknowledge that the
groups fighting for the liberation of Palestine are doing so because they are
not being provided basic rights by the Israeli government. Why is it so
difficult to envisage the same when it comes to those who were killed in
Bajaur that is if they were guilty at all?
There is one fact that all Pakistanis must come to terms with: the
country is currently engaged in a civil war. There is an unceasing conflict
that is taking place in Baluchistan and has resulted in a chauvinistic feudal
lord being turned into a martyr. And now there is the Bajaur tragedy which
will doubtless fuel even more violence.
It is equally certain that the government will deny any
responsibility for the backlash, just as the US does when questioned about
the vindictive brutality of its foreign policy. As if we are not familiar with
the old adage that violence breeds even more of the same. But governments
bent on maintaining their power love to engage in such banal simplicities.
So many of the countrys liberal elite enjoy sitting in their living
rooms wondering why people are turning to religious fundamentalism as a
means of expressing their resentment. The fact that religious groups such as
the JUI and JI, despite their motives, are the ones going into regions like
FATA and helping the wounded and grieving, while the rest are content in
sending meager donations without getting their hands soiled in the blood
soaked mud, does not seem to cross their minds. People will respect those
who show concern and provide physical aid, those who display some
interest in their needs. That is too much to ask in country dominated by the
military machine and divided along class lines.
They know that this whole sham of a war on terror is about
power and wealth that its no more than colonialism revisited. Most of us
dont realize this because we are too apathetic to engage in what Albert
Camus calls the great adventure of the mind. If we did, we would realize
that there are people dying everyday and we are complicit through our
inaction.

307

Every Pakistani was rightly worried about the negative effects of the
killings. Nauman Ali Khan from Peshawar wrote, keeping in view the series
of events, followed by the Bajaur incident, one can presume that the
Pakistan Army is fully prepared to take action and cope with any
situation provided it is against its own countrymen.
Bhroz Khan also feared retaliation. There is a tense calm in the
village, but the anger and fear of the people has not subsided yet.
Relatives, students of the religious madrassa and people of the village are
busy in collecting belongings and body pieces from the debris of the threeroom madrassa, which the military leadership claimed was used as a facility
for military training. The one and half kanal madrassa, which also housed a
mosque, could hardly be a training facility, but the new twist in the story that
suicide bombers had to report here, has raised many eyebrows.
Although, major towns of Bajaur agency mourn the killing of a
wanted religious figure, Maulana Liaqat, his comrades and young students
of the madrassa, the situation in Chenagai is totally different. Old, young
and small children shout Allaho Akbar and Sabiloona Sabiloona, AlJihad, Al-Jihad (Jihad is our mission), when they see strangers, mainly
journalists, intruding this remote area.
Kamila Hyat opined that the incident could harm national harmony.
While the people of Pakistan may never learn the facts, the incident has
exposed a great deal. In the first place, it is quite obvious that no one
believes what the Pakistan authorities say. The strident insistence that the
Pakistan Army carried out the attack and that the seminary was a training
camp for militants, have been met only with incredulity.
The fact of the matter is that the raid in Bajaur has delivered an
immense set-back to all efforts to combat terrorism. The refusal of
authorities to permit journalists into the area has acted only to fuel
speculation and rumour.
Any victory in the war on terror can be attained only if people stand
together in a bid to end violence. This will not happen until those in power
decide to show greater trust and respect for citizens of the country and
made more transparent the entire campaign against terror which has been
continuing now for the past five years.

308

The consequences of this have already been confronted by the people

of Pakistan and unless there is a dramatic change in government policy, there
is a danger that the current frictions will be aggravated resulting in a still
greater threat to national harmony and integrity.
Media and most analysts saw the diminishing prospects of future
peace deals and fate of those already signed. The News wrote, the timing of
the raid is intriguing as well because the head of the madrassah who was
killed in the attack a TNSM leader was said to be preparing to sign a
peace deal with the government, along the lines signed recently in
Waziristan. In fact, nine TNSM activists, according to reports, had
recently been released by the government as preparation for the deal.
On Monday, a US congressional report said that Taliban activities
along the Afghan-Pakistan border had increased in the two months since
the Waziristan deal. Seven weeks after the deal was struck, the rate of
Taliban activities in neighbouring Afghanistan appears much increased and
some reports say the militants are failing to uphold their commitments, it
said. Clearly, a similar deal in Bajaur would not have gone down too well in
Washington or even Kabul.
On one hand the government has to face the pressure to do more
from its allies in the war against terror and on the other hand it has to face
seething discontent at home when such attacks are conducted. Its not
exactly in a very enviable position. But one thing is for sure: extremism,
militancy and support for jihadi outfits have to be eliminated and for that
government doesnt need any dictation from the US or any other
country because this is very much in our national interest.
Rauf Klasra observed, the United States has finally lost patience
and begun to ask President General Pervez Musharraf to stop making
new deals with Taliban within Pakistan and killings of 80 people in Bajaur
might have direct link with this fresh pressure London Times commented
that Musharraf had no option, just rocks and hard places. There seems no
coherent plan, as he switches from peace deals with tribesmen to attack
them, it said.
Shareen Sehbai said, the hard fact that the Bajaur seminary attack on
Monday came a few hours before the second treaty was to be signed means
that no more such agreements will be signed and the fate of the
Waziristan pact has been sealed. It is back to war in the tribal territory and
309

it seems ominous that US forces themselves will fight this war, whether
General Musharraf likes it or not. It is thus a very hard and crucial time for
Pakistan because Bush Administration is already desperate on the war fronts
abroad and threatened with a political coup at home on November 7.
The News expressed similar views in a subsequent editorial. As far as
Pakistan is concerned, it is too early to predict what is going to happen. A
senior US official currently visiting the country did say that the election
results will have little by way of change on Americas relationship with
Pakistan, and he may well be partially right. However, there are some
nuances between the Republicans and the Democrats It is quite possible
that matters such as the peace agreement in parts of the tribal areas reached
between the local tribes and the Pakistan government may come under
closer scrutiny.
General Hameed Gul said, Musharraf has bought himself a big
trouble by taking the blame of American pre-emptive strike in Bajaur
agency, and someone, in future, might try him for killing its own people
like Saddam Hussein.
Shafqat Mahmood opined, this puts Musharraf in a very, very
difficult position indeed. The people of Pakistan and I suspect some within
his own military will not accept Pakistans territorial integrity to be so
callously undermined. And yet there is not much that he can do to reign in
the Americans. They will keep praising him and doing exactly as they
please. Clearly, he has not been able to barter his so-called special
relationship for sovereignty over Pakistans territory. Other side knows the
secret of this special relationship and is cashing it well and proper.
The views of the analysts are concluded by reproducing excerpts from
the articles of Rahimullah Yusufzai and Dr M S Jillani. The former wrote,
the Bajaur tragedy, enacted in a small seminary in Chenagai village in the
Momand area of Bajaur agency on the morning of October 30, will surely
go down as one of the most ill-advised and provocative acts in the US-led
war on terror.
As is evident, the West is mostly concerned about the safety of its
own soldiers and is, therefore, critical of peace deals that the Pakistan
government concluded earlier with militants in South Waziristan and North
Waziristan and was now close to signing with pro-Taliban tribesmen in
Bajaur.
310

Pakistan was acting in its own interest through peace agreements but
the western nations wanted Islamabad to pursue the same aggressive
methods that had destabilized the tribal belt on the Afghanistan border,
inflicted suffering on its own people, and led to the death of almost 700
soldiers and many more civilians.
Even if one were to believe the claim that the Pakistan Army was
responsible for the attack it would be worthwhile to discuss one by one the
reasons put forward by security officials, or intelligence agents in plain
words, in a briefing given to journalists in Islamabad and reported in the
national media on November 1.
One claim is that the seminary was located in some remote area
where a ground operation wasnt possible or was riskier. Nothing could be
farther from the truth. Chenagai village is less than 15 kilometers from
Khar, the headquarters of Bajaur, and could be easily reached by road.
The claim about frequent visits by Dr al-Zawahiri to the madrassah is
also hard to confirm The al-Qaeda leader would be a fool to frequent a
seminary which is not far from the seat of the government in Bajaur and
where more than 80 young students are housed. The seminary isnt located
in some mountainous area or close to the Afghan border as is often claimed.
Another claim made by the intelligence agencies is that no child
or teenager was killed in the attack. Survivors Abu Bakar, Said Wali and
Noor Rahman, now under treatment in a Peshawar hospital, are claiming that
students aged seven to 20 and all Pakistanis were killed in the assault.
They are also denying that the madrassah was being used for military
training or that foreign militias used to visit it.
In another article he added, it is no secret that the TNSM is proTaliban and sympathizes with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Its
young and emotional leaders dont hide their adoration of Taliban leader
Mulla Mohammad Omar and have been publicly supporting the Taliban-led
resistance against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. But the TNSM has
lost popular support after its emotional decision to send volunteers to fight
alongside the Taliban in Afghanistanthough the attack on its seminary
would revive its political fortunes.
In fact, the TNSM, or the black turbans as its followers were
known, is now mostly confined to Momand tehsil, which borders

311

Afghanistans eastern Kunar province. That is one reason for the TNSMs
willingness to strike a peace deal with the government. Maulana Faqir
Mohammad knows that his support base is small and the killing of his
deputy Maulana Liaqathas further eroded his strength.
The government should seize the opportunity and strike the deal by
first taking some confidence-building measures, including regretting the
attack and compensating the aggrieved families. The proposed peace
agreement, in fact, contains a series of undertakings by the Mamond tribes
not to harbour local or foreign militants
Dr M S Jillani wrote, Bajaur, in the eyes of Washington, may be a
small incident in its worldwide adventures, but it may be start of a new
phase in the complex mechanism of the war on terror: Wiping out the entire
educational institution recognized fairly widely as a place imparting
religious education is no ordinary event for people of the region. It could
lead to the annihilation of any other institution medical, scientific, higher
or primary education if intelligence agencies of a dominant power raise
suspicions about its nature. He quoted the example of a pharmaceutical
factory in Sudan.
Incidents like Bajaur can happen at the discretion of local or regional
foreign commanders charged with the task of bringing about democracy in
uncivilized countries in the name of eradicating militancy and saving
democracy. If this trend takes root, hell can break loose in the field and
the frontline countries. History tells us that such arbitrary acts happen
when the invading army becomes desperate to gain some victory even if it
has to be the slaughter of unarmed innocent citizens, women and children.
As leader of the West, USA is going to encourage policies which
are harsher, event-related and thus more irrational. They will be driven
more by frustration, stealth from US citizens, and pushing through of the
American agenda without caring for consequences.
Incidents like Bajaur are indicative of more knee-jerk actions in
all countries where the US has initiated the democratization process. This
scenario does not auger well for the developing countries, as they will be
subjected to bullying and manoeuvring which suits the major economic and
political powers.

312

To conclude, if the extent of blatancy of the only superpower is to be

seen, the coincidence of the announcement of Saddam Husseins death
sentence and the mid-term elections in the US two days later should serve as
an eye-opener. Bajaur was the first victory to impress voters. Expect
more as casualties mount in Afghanistan and Iraq.

POST-DARGAI VIEWS
The views expressed after Dargai suicide bombing start with excerpts
from an article written by Rahimullah Yusufzai. In the course of nine days,
Pakistan suffered two tragedies and there could be more If this doesnt
prompt the nation to pause for a moment and rethink our priorities and
strategies to prevent further harm, then there is little doubt that all of us have
willingly embarked on the path of self-destruction.
Though no evidence is available yet, it appears that the suicide
attack against soldiers at the Dargai is retaliation for the assault on the
Bajaur religious school. An anonymous caller affiliated to some obscure
group of Pakistani Taliban has already claimed responsibility for the attack
and described it as revenge for the Bajaur bombing. As the Pakistan Army
had claimed responsibility for the missile strikes on the madrassah, it is
possible that those seeking revenge specially targeted the soldiers busy in
their morning drill at the unfenced parade ground outside the old Dargai
Fort.
It is worth remembering that al-Qaedas main battleground is the
Middle East and its battle cry until recently was liberation of Palestine from
Israeli occupation and the pullout of Western troops from Saudi Arabia. Iraq
is the newest al-Qaeda territory, thanks to US invasion and occupation of the
country. By claiming to have broken the back of al-Qaeda, which isnt really
true, our military rulers have unnecessarily pushed Islamabad into a
direct confrontation with bin Laden and his allies, who are present in
many Islamic countries including Pakistan.
As for Taliban, our government would do well to maintain its
distance from Afghan affairs instead of declaring war on Taliban and adding
to the growing list of Pakistans enemies. Taliban are Afghans and they are
against the government of President Hamid Karzai and the US-led coalition
troops who brought it to power. Our task as dictated by the US and its NATO

313

allies is to deny sanctuaries to the Taliban Post-Bajaur and Dargai, it is

time to reflect so that the tragedies that have struck Pakistan in recent
are prevented in future.
Ansar Abbasi quoted views of some retired generals who did not
approve of strike on madrassah. Hamid Gul: The Dargai incident is the first
ever of its kind in the history of Pakistan Army. He sees the American hand
behind all that is happening in the tribal areas of Pakistan and dubbed the
Pakistani government as Washingtons hired hand. Pakistan must stop
serving the American interest.
Assad Durrani: The Dargai attack is an expected outcome of what had
happened in Bajaur. Those who had attacked the Pakistan Army training
centre consider the army a partner of American forces involved in the
Muslim killings here, Dargai attack is actually the consequence of our post9/11 policy under which we have been killing our own people and handing
them over to the Americans to earn bounties. He demanded a major review
of Pakistans US-dominated anti-terror policy and an apology to people of
tribal areas.
Talat Masud: The Dargai attack is the first-ever major incident of
insurgency directed against the institution of Pakistan Army. It happened in
retaliation to what had occurred in Bajaur last week. Pakistan Army is seen
as an extension of the US and NATO forces operating in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This perception is an extremely dangerous sign.
Jamshed Gulzar Kiani: The government has too far exceeded the
limits to recover easily from the sorry state of affairs the country is
finding itself right now. When you start using state of the art weapons
against your own civilians then the latter could only resort to the Dargai like
suicide attacks.
Dr Masooda Bano said, from the start of the military operations in
the tribal belts on the behest of the US, questions have been raised not
just about the moral and legal justifications of these operations, but equally
importantly about their consequences. Internationally, we have seen the war
on terror fail in controlling militancy. The Bush Administrations policy, to
rely on a war rather than on dialogue or diplomacy, has left Iraq and
Afghanistan mired in bloodshed.

314

In Pakistan, if one needed a final verdict on the efficacy of military

operations in curtailing militancy in the tribal belt, Wednesdays attack on
an army training camp in Dargaiis proof that such a strategy is
failing. Even more worrying is the fact that it is Pakistan (heading) to a
deadly divide between the military and its people.
Both the attack and counter attack is threatening Pakistans
stability so why is the government not thinking of these consequences when
planning its operations. It has to be remembered that every time a military
operationoccurs, it increases sympathies for that cause. The people who
die are someones sons, fathers, brothers, uncles, colleagues and friends.
It is clear that using force is not a solution for curtailing militancy.
All signs, at the national as well as international level, are that rather than
curtailing militancy, the current war on terror has made the world a more
unsafe place than ever. The government needs to realize the dangers of the
game it is playing.
Shafqat Mahmood opined, with the Dargai attack, the rules of
engagement have changed forever. This is the first time that a Pakistan
Army establishment has been attacked within the country. Is this the
beginning of a wider conflict with the blowback of the Afghan war coming
home to our towns and cities? It would be tempting to believe that this is not
so. We tend to put the conflict in the tribal areas and in Baluchistan in
separate boxes, distinct from the rest of the country. But the targets of our ire
or to use official terminology, the militants and miscreants, may have begun
to discover our soft underbelly. I still hope and pray that this is not so but
they may have decided not to play the game by our rules. They may have
concluded that the appropriate response to attacks on them is to take the
conflict outside the war zone. Is the Dargai attack the opening salvo of this
strategy?
This situation in the country is incendiary, to say the least. General
Musharraf, preoccupied with ensuring five more years of rule for
himself, tends to push every problem under the carpet but it is becoming
increasingly difficult. The Americans, who are his principal backers, are not
making it easy as they continue to pressure him to take the fight to what they
describe as Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan.
He could tell the Americans, first privately and then publicly,
that any attack on our territory is unacceptable. This does not mean that
315

we declare our intent to militarily take on the coalition forces in Afghanistan

or that we are no longer ready to fight radical forces in our territory.
If we do not do even this much, not only will the Americans and
their allies not have any respect for us, we will continue to find ourselves
in embarrassing situations. They will keep pushing the boundaries of what
we can take and their freedom of action on our territory will keep
expanding.
I do not think that our bargaining position with the Americans is so
weak but we believe it to be because military rulers do not draw their
strength from the people. Throughout our history, military dictators have
considered American backing as a sin qua non or essential ingredient for
their survival But now our international backers are violating our
sovereignty.
If there is any chance for us to stand tall as a proud and independent
nation, it is not only important but it has become imperative to have genuine
democracy in the country. Only leaders with popular mandate and force
of the people behind them will have the courage to stand up for principles
of national sovereignty.
In another article Shafqat added, what is worst for Musharraf
administration is that the Americans are less satisfied with its performance
today than they were some time ago. The military has lost over seven
hundred soldiers and a great deal of goodwill, yet our allies make no bones
about their unhappiness with our effort. The situation is likely to become
even more complicatedthe democratic controlled congress is likely to up
the pressure on Pakistan to do more. Where this more will land us is not
difficult to imagine.
Two aspects immediately stand out for me. Only real democracy
has the potential to heal the wounds of the nation. This is not possible unless
General Musharraf takes the necessary decision to relinquish power for the
sake of the nation.
Secondly, we must at least normalize one border so that we can
concentrate on problems on the other side. To me the answer is clear. We
must go the extra mile to seek peace with India. Only this will give us the
space and the benefits to begin constructing a modern nation.

316

Rahimullah Yusufzai talked of lack of security measures at Dargai.

It is possible that extraordinary security measures were put in place to
protect top government officials but not much was done to secure vulnerable
places such as the military training and parade ground of Pakistan Armys
Mardan-based Punjab Regiment in Dargai.
Col Riaz Jafari from Rawalpindi wrote, a repercussion such as
what happened at Dargai was bound to happen and should have been
anticipated by all, especially the armed forces that are located near Bajaur
agency. Agreed, the recruits training area was in the open, close to the main
road and not protected by a wall, yet some effective arrangements for a
controlled perimeter access could have been put in place.
Allowing a free run to an alighting passenger wrapped in a chaddar
hiding explosives underneath, from a roadside bus stop to the middle of the
thick of a company of recruits performing their routine daily training speaks
volumes about the laxity of the required safety measures.
Gulzar Rasool Khan from Peshawar opined that Pakistan was
sustaining the spillage of the past deeds. Our president on his recent trip
abroad delivered a speech in Europe in which he said that when the then
USSR attacked Afghanistan it was Pakistan who gathered the Muslims from
different countries, trained them and equipped them with modern weapons
like AK-47. Most of them were Pashtuns who sacrificed their lives for
Islam Now they are called militants and they were not an organized force
that can go back to its barracks after finishing its job. Therefore, we are
sustaining the spillage of these armed combatants.
Khusro Mumtaz was of the view that the rulers were aping Bush
and neocons. I dont know whats worse: that we get involved in a coverup or that we take American intelligence at its word, the same intelligence
that called the presence of WMD in Iraq a slam dunk. And we all know
how that eventually panned out. I guess well never know the truth. Of
course, we can take our government at its word that it was all our own doing
or we can try and work out if the official story makes any sense.
Unfortunately, our leadership isnt learning any lessons from the fate
of Dubya and his neocon clan. Recent government actions are beginning
to obviously echo those of the Bush and his hawkish advisors. Diplomacy
has gone out of the window and force seems to be favoured option witness

317

our options in Baluchistan

notwithstanding).

and

Waziristan

(the

recent

accord

The rhetoric from the top now has a familiar ring to it as well
anybody who disagrees with government pronouncements is deemed to be
lying, theres talk of teaching lessons, and of people not knowing what
hit them and is beginning to sound like either you are with us or against
us and shock and awe. But when you push peoples backs against the wall
they will start pushing back.
Zain Mankani from Karachi opined that Chenagai bombing proved
counterproductive. Some simple-minded people have suggested through
their letters that the suicide attack on Pakistani troops in Dargai proves that
those killed in the Bajaur attack were indeed terrorists. If those with this line
of argument are people with families, it should not be difficult for them to
understand how such incidents radicalize those whose children and loved
ones fall victim to missiles and guns. This does not prove they were
terrorists to begin with. Rather, it shows that the totalitarian approach of
the government has turned them into militants just as US imperialism is
creating militants across globe.
Nazeer Abro from Hyderabad wrote, it is all our own blood which
has been spilt. The state should have established its writ through rule of law
in Bajaur It does not suit our national interest to pit our armed forces
against their own people.
It is unfortunate that the brotherly ties that bond our valiant soldiers
with their civilian brethren have been strained, because of repeated military
rule. Violence breeds violence, and hence the state cannot justify
resorting to violence against its own people. The only constitutional role of
our national armed forces is to defend us against external aggression.
Brig Munir Saeed from Rawalpindi advised, we must not live in
the illusions created by the war on terror and must have clear strategy,
otherwise things will get darker. We should work for the prosperity of our
people and make a strategy to alleviate poverty. Law and order is worsening,
street crimes have reached new heights, prices are soaring, justice is
normally delayed, police atrocities are rampant and nobody is accountable.
And now the law enforcing agencies come attacking which is not a good
omen.

318

Zulfiqar Gul from Swat said, we all are shocked by the Bajaur and
Dargai tragedies. One thing is clear: you cannot please others by setting
ablaze your own house. If North Korea, Iran and Syria could handle US
hostility for years, why are we struggling with its friendship? Pakistan
governments policy of war on terror has many loopholes that need to be
looked into and fast. We cannot let this madness go on for too long.
The News observed, the government itself is in a terrible bind over
its participation in the war against terror. It does seem to know that fighting
extremism and terrorism is very much in its own interest but the geostrategic situation in its northwest, the radicalization of its domestic political
and much of its civic life and the rampant distrust that is found in many
Pakistanis of US policies all create a situation where things can become
problematic.
What Islamabad needs is an undertaking from Washington that it
will respect the two sides equality in its bilateral alliance with this country
and will not take measures that compromise Pakistani sovereignty. If
anything, America should be told that this in the end will hurt America
because it amounts pressure on Islamabad and has the potential to impair its
ability to fight terrorism.
Mohammad Arslan from Lahore wrote, the US government and its
president who started the war on terror and extremism were finally rejected
by their own people. This is because what they have done so far lack
morality, truth and justice. Americans have realized that the so-called war
on terror has not made their land any safer and has probably done the
opposite.
It should be an eye-opener for our general who has carried these
slogans from George Bush and raises them on every forum. But just as the
US military is faced with consequences, our jawans and countrymen too are
paying a price. It is high time we did some reality check because, as the US
midterm elections proved, these slogans have run out of steam. Moderates
are those who are elected by the people of Pakistan, whoever they are, and
not those who are favoured by the West.
Omer Khan from Kabul urged, Pakistan as well as Afghanistan has to
get rid of these extremist elements. The extremism is here in Pakistan and
the army has to do more to root out terrorism from the country. If this is
not done soon, the world which already believes that Pakistan nurtures
319

terrorists will isolate the country as the hub of terrorists. So, even ordinary
Afghans have started asking more from Pakistan and hurling threats of
isolation.
Rahimullah Yusufzai observed, countrys ruling and opposition
parties are in no mood to make compromises and work for national
reconciliation. The death of 122 young Pakistanis in the Bajaur and Dargai
tragedies also didnt have the desired effect to prompt our ruling and
opposition figures to rise above their narrow political agendas and take steps
to prevent further bloodshed.
Judging from the reaction of opinion makers and builders in the
aftermath of the Bajaur and Dargai tragedies, there is a possibility that both
secular and religious political parties were taking positions with an eye
on the next general elections.
Despite the complacence of political leaders, analysts kept urging
them to act, and act rationally. Dr Irfan Zafar from Islamabad wrote,
circumstances seem to be following their natural scientific course based on
Newtons Third Law which states that for every reaction, there is an equal
and opposite reaction. Bombs or bullets cannot kill faith, beliefs and
convictions. The only thing that works in these difficult situations is
engagement/dialogue and that is where mediation and mutual trust to
strengthen the federation comes in.
Brig Farooq Hameed Khan said, while the perpetrators of this
crime should not go unpunished, there is a need to engage in a serious
dialogue with all major political religious forces, so that militancy in
seminaries is contained and violence between the security forces and
extremists minimized in line with our national interests.
Imtiaz Alam opined, the battle of ideas cannot be fought with guns.
It is fought in open debates and dialogues to win the hearts and minds of
the people without the coercive power of the state Musharraf can militarily
fight the terrorists but he cant fight religious extremism with the barrel.
Only liberal, secular and enlightened democratic forces can set a liberal
agenda for Pakistan and defeat religious extremism through an open and
democratic contest.
If Musharrafs commitment to his ideological cause is sincere, then
he will have to compromise his political design for the sake of

320

democracy. By allowing truly liberal and enlightened forces an even

playing field he can create` the necessary condition for the real ideological
battle. Let the religious right be taken on by the secular and liberal forces
who can still defeat them in a free election. Without this compromise,
Musharrafs cause is bound to be defeated.
Ghazi Salahuddin said, this would be the correct approach if
political means take precedence over the use of force. However, he
(Musharraf) said on Friday in Lahore that extremism and terrorism will be
crushed with force and a handful of extremists would not be allowed to
hold society hostage.
As we talk about terrorism that, in effect, is a celebration of violence,
we should not ignore the power of public opinion in a democratic setting. An
election, to be sure, is the only convincing measure of the wishes and the
will of the people. The American people have spoken in their mid-term
elections and what they have achieved is something that force could
never accomplish.
One lesson is that democracy can induct even revolutionary shifts
in a countrys sense of direction without any violence or social unrest. But
democracy is not just elections, though free and fair elections have a
foundational importance in its working The way forward is being blocked
by Bajaur and by Dargai.
Mir Jamilur Rahman wrote, on one side is the Afghan government
whose writ hardly runs beyond the municipal limits of Kabul. On the other
side is the public opinion in Pakistan which may not be pro-Taliban but is
certainly is not against the Taliban. The Taliban are perceived here,
especially in FATA, as Mujahideen fighting against the foreign occupation of
Afghanistan. One can hardly dispute their mission of liberating
Afghanistan from foreign occupation. But they endanger the security of
Pakistan by using Pakistan territory as their launching pad.
Pakistan is walking a tightrope. Such a situation will continue as long
as Taliban are not subdued, which presently does not seem to be happening.
Until that were to happen, the tribal belt would remain in turmoil and the
Government of Pakistan would remain in fix.
Musharraf has urged the ruling party and ministers to counter the
propaganda of anarchists effectively and be more vocal against terrorism and

321

extremism. The fact is that the whole nation had to join hands to defeat
terrorism This task would become easier if the two strongest moderate
forces, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, are allowed to return to Pakistan.
M Ismail Khan talked of need to integrate tribal areas with rest of the
country. The contradictions cannot get more brazen. The people of all the
seven tribal agencies send their elected representatives to Pakistans
parliament but the laws made by the same parliament have no jurisdiction
over the represented areas. It must be the only federally administered area
in the world where people enjoy representation without taxation and are
allowed to provide tribal hospitality and a safe haven to all kinds of antistate elements and activities in total indifference to the interest of the rest of
the country.
There is no quick-fix recipe for change and that too in a tribal setting.
But if the government has the right policy framework and makes sincere
efforts for gradual assimilation, the tribal areas can be brought back from the
brink. Many states such as China and India have successfully integrated a
number of tribal and cultural groups using a combination of
constitutional, economic and political means. The issues facing tribal areas
can best be addressed under a provincial setup, for which either the tribal
areas should have their own assembly or they should be made a part of the
provincial assembly of NWFP.
Ikram Sehgal hoped for the best in view of results of US elections.
The electoral balancing act in the US is good for Pakistan and certainly
for the US Changes in the US tactics on the ground will mean less
emphasis on military initiatives. In Afghanistan, the way to go will be to
open a channel of communications with the Taliban and trying to separate
them from al-Qaeda, encouraging their entry into the world mainstream
The US should turn to economic initiatives, making businessmen and
industrialists out of smugglers and hired guns, after all Islam supports
commerce, and that is not a tongue-in-cheek remark.
Shaheen Sehbai did not agree with Ikram Sehgal. Islamabad and
General Musharraf are about to face the toughest challenges, pressure
and threats coming from Washington as they have never before. The focus of
the war on terror is going to swiftly shift to Afghanistan and Pakistan as
US involvement in the Iraq winds down and this will turn Pakistan into a hot
seat.

322

For instance one potent recommendation of the 9/11 Commission

was to identify and prioritize terrorist sanctuaries. On page 367 the report
says: The US government must identify and prioritize actual or potential
terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep
possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national
power. We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can
help.
The follow-up reportominously observed: We cannot afford to
allow failing or failed states to become home bases for tomorrows
terrorists, and then proposed that the National Security Council Office for
Combating Terrorism, the National Counterterrorism Centre, the State
Department, the Department of Defence, and the CIA should, as a priority
matter, agree on which countries are terrorist sanctuaries, and which
countries have the potential for becoming such sanctuaries. Together these
organizations should develop and implement comprehensive strategies for
responding to terrorist sanctuaries and potential sanctuaries.
The Pakistani predicament has been aptly summarized by one Paul
Wolf (not Paul Wolfowitz, the neocon World Bank chief) in an internet blog.
He wrote: I think that Pakistan is in a tight corner. I expect the US to
take further military action in the tribal belt. Musharraf by accepting
responsibility for Bajaur, has gone out on a limb. The next time the US
attacks innocent Pakistani people in Pakistan, is he going to blame it on the
Pakistani army again? How long this strategy will work? It seems like
sometime he would get caught and it could be proved that the US was
attacking inside Pakistan. In the long run, this drags Pakistan into the Afghan
conflict and may even cost Musharraf his job or even his life.

REVIEW
Missile attack in Chenagai was similar to the one at Damadola in
January this year, but there were a few dissimilarities. First, in Chenagai a
religious seminary was targeted and the Crusaders had been demanding such
action since long because they had been insisting that madrassas were used
as terrorist training facilities. The attack vindicated Crusaders viewpoint.
Was this madrassa really used for imparting military training to the
terrorists? Some established evidence ruled out such possibility. No arms
and ammunition were found at the site. Madrassa was managed by Maulana
Liaqat, who was considered a moderate in TNSM leadership.
323

All those killed were young students, except the incharge of the
madrassa. The lists of the deceased compiled by media men and the agencies
disagreed on the ages of those who were killed; thereby creating doubts
whether they were students or the terrorists. But once thing has been
established beyond doubt; there were no foreigners as claimed by ISPR on
the day of attack.
The targeted madrassa is in a village which is located right on the road
and very close to the fort manned by FC permanently. In no way it could be
an ideal location for a terrorist training camp what to talk of top al-Qaeda
men visiting it frequently.
Normally, after an operation in which so many genuine terrorists were
killed, the government would have airlifted journalists and reporters to the
site to prove that attack was justified. In this case media men were denied
access to the site. Only two or three media men, who reacted fast, were able
to reach the site. Why was the media access denied?
It only proved that even the agencies were not sure that the seminary
was used as terrorist training camp. This, however, might have been used as
staging post to guide and motivate the young men who wanted to fight
against the occupation forces alongside their Pushtun brothers.
These fighters can be easily launched into Kunar province from the
area where Chenagai is located. Launching of the fighters must have been
disclosed by the Pakistanis apprehended by occupation forces and later
confirmed through spies. The silence of religious parties which support
Afghans right to resist occupation also corroborated the fact that this place
was used for sending the fighters across the border.
This leads to the question of US involvement in the missile attack. But
first a few words about the legitimacy of the resistance against occupation
forces. Resistance to occupation is a legal right of the Afghans, but the
Crusaders have dubbed it as terrorism.
This contradiction in perceptions has spilled over the Durand Line.
Pushtuns living in Pakistan consider it moral obligation to assist there
brethrens in Afghanistan. For them it is jihad which they have been waging
for almost three decades. But, the government of Pakistan, being an ally of
the Crusaders, has to call it terrorism. In any case jihad has been equated

324

with terrorism in the ongoing war. Even the rulers in Islamic World do not
differentiate between jihadis and terrorists.
Because of the divergent perceptions, the rulers think that those who
go cross the border to fight against occupation forces or aiding them are
terrorists and be eliminated. The people of the area think that the rulers are
wrong because they are siding with the West which has waged Crusades
against followers of Islam.
US involvement in the missile attack is certain as such attacks serve
only their interests. But, then why was DG ISPR so emphatic in denying that
and instead Pakistan owned the responsibility? It seemed that the frontline
state was left with no choice but to accept the responsibility.
Americans have been all along quite emphatic about striking inside
Pakistan as and when required and they have done so in the past on many
occasions. Bush has repeatedly said that US would strike inside Pakistan,
without prior information, whenever there is a target worth striking.
In addition, this attack was carried on the day a peace deal was to be
signed; and occupation forces in Afghanistan had disapproved the earlier
peace agreements. The Governor NWFP was summoned to Washington to
explain the rationale behind peace deals, but it seemed he failed to convince
the Bush Administration about his peace offensive.
The attack was also carried out about a week before midterm elections
in the United States. Bush needed a visible success to show to the voters.
Moreover, Musharraf was also under pressure to prove that he was still
committed to the war on terror. Hence; the attack coincided with Prince
Charles visit to Pakistan. The guest must have been pleased because it
served the interest of his best in the world fighting against Taliban in
Afghanistan.
It can be inferred from the foregoing that once Americans decided to
attack the madrassa using a Predator, they informed Pakistan government in
accordance with an understanding that might have been reached after
Damadola attack. The strike in January had caused lot of embarrassment to
Islamabad.
Once informed, the government decided to own the attack for which it
showed activity before and on the day of attack by flying helicopters over

325

the area. It seemed that this time the Americans had assured that they would
desist from habitual boasting and keep quiet and let Musharraf do that.
In any case the issue as to who fired the missiles is quite irrelevant.
Even if it has been done by Pakistani forces, the aircrafts, helicopters and
weapons used are supplied by the US and the killing serves interests of the
US only. In view of these realities, the strike by Pakistan Army becomes
even more shameful.
This act of Pakistani forces is just like the acts of Israeli forces with
one glaring difference; Israelis attack and kill suspected or assumed
terrorists across Israeli borders and Pakistani forces do it in own territory to
kill own people. As regards the real task of the armed forces, the brave
commando has ruled out military options against others since long. Yet, he
might have found another feather for his cap, but this time the feather is that
of a predator called vulture.
The US praised Musharraf and that is what matters more than
anything else. One saw such acts of devotion and dedication in films,
wherein a lover owned the crime of the loved-one to save him or her; but
brave commando has shown us one in real life.
He claims that all the killings and other actions that his regime has
taken in five years of war on terror have been in the interest of Pakistan. The
secret of this analogy lies only in strategizing that Pakistans interests are
dependent on American interests: all that is good for America is good for
Pakistan. Therefore, any action that is appreciated by the White House is
good for Islamabad.
Musharraf also often claims that majority of Pakistanis is moderate
and not extremist. One cannot disagree with him. But, if he thinks that the
majority also approves of Americas war on terror, in which Mush is being
used as front-man, he could not be more wrong.
His information minister claimed that Pakistan is not a stooge of US.
In fact, it enjoys far bigger status. Therefore, raising the issue of Pakistans
sovereignty after every strike by the US is futile. There is hardly anything
left to be compromised; it is just like a whore complaining about breach of
her chastity.

326

Since the publication of his best seller, Musharraf has been frequently
accusing his critics of lying. His arrogance is on the rise. He frequently
threatens to crush the terrorists with force. He ignores that extremism and
terrorism can only be won over by other means, but to crush one has to
outclass them both in extremism and terrorism.
We have killed Maulvi Liaqat and we will kill Maulvi Faqir, said
Musharraf. He sounded just like Bush; who had been saying similar things
while refusing to talk to the enemy. Bush today finds himself in a quagmire
even after using far more brute force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called
terrorism has not been crushed.
The soldiers, if they have really killed so many terrorists in one strike,
deserve highest gallantry awards, because even the brave commando himself
might not have killed so many enemies in his entire distinguished military
career spread over four decades. But it wont be done for security reasons.
DG ISPR had blamed religious elements seeking political mileage
from Bajaur attack; whereas, attack was meant for Bush to take some
political mileage in November elections. In fact, the opposition parties could
not seek political mileage for fear of being labeled as supporters of the
terrorists.
On the other hand, Musharraf openly resorted to politicking on blood
of innocent people. In doing that he did not care about the constitution which
stresses upon the president to remain neutral. He blamed MMA for indulging
in terrorism which has very dangerous implications.
A few words about the Agent of the President in NWFP; he had no
shame in accepting that he was informed about the attack on people with
whom he had been negotiating a peace deal. The deal was to be finalized on
the day of attack, under his brokering. Even if he was informed, he should
have either opposed the attack or resigned.
Suicide bombing in Dargai was more of revenge than act of terrorism.
In exercise of age-old tribal tradition someone, who might have lost a dearone in Bajaur, struck with vengeance in Dargai. Interior Minister, instead of
accepting the mistake of Bajaur operation, insisted that Dargai attack
vindicated that the terrorist in Chenagai were killed in time, otherwise there
would have been many terrorist attacks like this. He, however, desisted from

327

claiming that no attack on any military training centre in last sixty years was
also due to timely strike at Chenagai.
Chenagai and Dargai are not distant apart, but two attacks have
widened the gulf between the people of the area and the rulers. They seem to
be on the collusion course. Musharraf, thinking like neocons and sounding
like Bush, seemed to be pushing Pakistan towards situation like Iraq and
Afghanistan. There seemed no realization that this approach has brought lot
of disgrace to America despite its military might.
Information Minister asked opposition politicians to rethink issue of
terrorism. He couldnt dare telling Musharraf to rethink strategy of war
against terrorism. It is time for Musharraf to restrategize after seeing the
treatment meted out to Bush and his buddy by their respective people. More
than that people of Pakistan from all walks of life ought to pick up the
message regarding how to treat the leaders who are led by their ego.
19th November 2006

PUSHED TO PONDER
Midterm elections in the United States were a major event during the
last three weeks. Two other events, one each preceding and succeeding the
elections, i.e. award of death sentence to Saddam and resignation of
Rumsfeld; were also linked to the elections one way or the other. The latter
was taken as an indication that Bush was forced to ponder about his
approach to foreign policy.

328

The success of Democrats in midterm elections led to speculations

about possible shift in foreign policy of the Bush Administration.
Committees and commissions vigorously explored the options and analysts
gave their viewpoint, but Iraq kept bleeding.
There was no let for Palestinians as well. Israeli brutalities continued
unabated and the US provided full support to state terrorism perpetrated by
Olmerts regime. The US did not allow even the condemnation of Israel and
vetoed a UNSC resolution in this context, from which it can be inferred as to
how much change in US policy can be expected.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian elements were kept under
diplomatic pressure by blaming them for endangering democracy and proAmerican regime of Siniora. Syria and Iran were blamed for interfering in
Lebanon. Irans nuclear programme, however, did not emerge high on
priorities of the Crusaders during the period.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
The bloodshed in Iraq continued but was reported by the media
selectively. On 6th November, five US soldiers were killed including two
who died in helicopter crash. Two Iraqis were killed and six wounded in a
separate incident. Two days later, at least sixty people, including two US
soldiers were killed. US Forces claimed capturing 41 al-Qaeda operatives.
On 9th November, 35 people were killed in a series of bombing in
Baghdad and other incidents elsewhere. Some TV channels put the toll at 76.
Next day, 26 people including 5 US soldiers were killed in various incidents.
Iraqi Health Ministry accepted loss of 150,000 lives in the war.
On 11th November, 24 people including two US soldiers were killed in
various incidents. Next day, 82 more people were killed; three US and four
UK soldiers were also killed. Seventy-five dead bodies were also found.
At least 40 people, including two US soldiers, were killed on 13th
November and ten dead bodies were also found. Next day, at least 90 people
were killed in violence and 150 were kidnapped from a university.

329

On 15th November, at least 20 people including four US soldiers were

killed. Next day, 32 more people including four US soldiers were killed. US
troops killed 11 Iraqis on 18th November.
At least 53 people were killed in attacks across the country on 19 th
November and gunmen kidnapped deputy health minister from his home in
Baghdad. Next day, 81 people, including two US soldiers, were killed across
the country. Two ministers escaped attempt on life.
Midterm elections in the United States marked the end of
Republicans unilateralism at home. Bush Administration had anticipated the
loss of political ground to Democrats and had shown willingness to
reconsider Iraq war strategy.
On the day of polls, 7th November, the committee which was set up by
US authorities after the invasion of Iraq to purge former Baath Party officials
from public life was reported contemplating to recommend allowing most of
them to take back their jobs. Two days later, Bush said he was open to
suggestions on Iraq.
On 11th November, Pentagon commanders admitted that they were reevaluating strategy in Iraq to determine what changes are needed to get
ourselves more focused on the correct objectives. Next day, Bush agreed to
change course on Iraq and the Democrats wanted US troops to start pulling
out in six months.
During visit to Hanoi on 17th November Bush drew a parallel between
Iraq and Vietnam. He said the Vietnam Wars lesson for todays confounding
Iraq conflict is that freedom takes time to take roots. He still seemed
adamant not to end the occupation of Iraq. Three days later, Syria said,
foreign troops pullout is must for stability of Iraq.
Meanwhile, cover-up of war crimes committed by the Americans
continued. US soldier, James Barket, was sentenced to life imprisonment for
rape and murder of 14-year old Iraq girl, but he was granted the possibility
of parole. He was one of the five soldiers who had broken into a house who
also killed the girls parents and six-year old sister. The remaining criminals
remained unaccounted for.
However, after the exit of Rumsfeld, an association of lawyers
defending detainees held in Guantanamo contemplated filing of a suit

330

against him for his alleged role in sanctioning torture. On 14 th November,

civil rights activists filed suit against Rumsfeld in Germany.

SADDAM TRIAL
The award of death sentence to Saddam was widely commented upon.
On 7 November, Iran urged Iraqi government to ensure Saddam is hanged
and not to cave into any pressure. HRW questioned the legitimacy of the
trial. Commenting on the award of death sentence to Saddam, the News
wrote, a close-look at the process that delivered the verdict reveals that
Iraqs first major post-Saddam trial made it all look as if the judgment was
manipulated to suit the interests of the occupying forces. For example, it
was quite clear once the trial started that there was significant political
interference as far as the presiding judge was concerned.
th

Also for one year, Saddam did not have access to a lawyer and many
complaints made by the lawyers, once he was allowed access to legal aid,
went unheard by the court. Given this background, one has no hesitation in
saying that the verdict is a product of the efforts of handpicked judges,
jurors and prosecutors, operating under the instruction of a government
whose autonomy is severely and explicitly circumscribed by the Bush
Administration which wanted the decision on the eve of the elections.
James Cogan observed, the American ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay
Khalilzad, hailed the death sentence against Hussein yesterday as an
important milestone in the building of a free society based on the rule of
law. President Bush declared that the verdict was a milestone in the Iraqi
peoples efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.
The cynicism of these statements is staggering. Numerous leaks to
the US media indicate that officials like Khalilzad have spent the past
several months plotting a coup against the Shiite-dominated government of
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and its replacement with some form of
military junta.
Even as Hussein is sentenced to hang, the US political
establishment is discussing putting many of the Baathist killers and thugs
that underpinned his regime back in power, in exchange for ending their
guerrilla war against American forces and agreeing to an arrangement for the

331

US corporate plunder of Iraqs oil resources. The prelude to any move to

rehabilitate the Baathist elite be a bloodbath by the US military against the
Shiite militiamen in areas like Sadr City in Baghdad who paraded in the
streets yesterday to celebrate the outcome of the Saddam trial.
The Guardian said, if Saddam does go to the gallows it will remove a
defiant symbol for Sunni insurgents but may create a martyr to spur
them to greater efforts. His execution by what is seen by too many as a
US-backed Shia puppet regime will be grist to the mill of both Sunni Arab
nationalists and Islamists elsewhere and setback faltering reformist efforts.
There are two other issues to consider. If Saddam is dead he cannot
answer the charges he should face for the Anfal campaign, for crushing the
Shia and Kurdish rebellions in 1991, for invading Iran and Kuwait If a
new Iraq is ever to emerge from the ruins of the old, eschewing judicial
murder would be a good start. National reconciliation should matter more
than sectarian retribution, however understandable the desire for it. The
US and Britain wont like to hear Saddams answer to the wars with Iran
and Kuwait for reasons too obvious.
Khaleej Times wrote, honestly speaking, the proceedings of this socalled court and its outcome have been totally predictable. This is nothing
but a kangaroo court and the justice it has dispensed is victors justice at its
worst.
While vehemently condemning Saddams crimes against his people
and against humanity, we must point out that this trial cannot be seen in
isolation of the unjust war that has been imposed on Iraq and its
unfortunate people.
Saddam is the first leader from the Arab and Middle Eastern
countries to be deposed and put in the dock like an ordinary criminal; which
is why it was absolutely critical to make the whole process of trying the
former Iraqi leader and his men transparent and completely fair; which
hasnt the case in this trial.
While the court saw a change of three judges during the past one
year, two lawyers defending the former dictator and other accused were
assassinated, as a warning to others. So this trial has been anything but
fair and honest.

332

Also, the timing of this verdict is significant. It is no coincidence

that the Saddam verdict has come two days ahead of crucial mid-term
elections in the US. The besieged Republicans set to lose big time,
according to opinion polls were desperately hoping for some last minute
miracle to rescue them.
Max Hastings said, rationally, we know that Bush and Blair want
virtuous things for the country: democracy and personal freedom. Yet so
incompetent has been the fulfillment of their policies on the ground that the
leaders of Britain and the US now possess no more credible mandate
than that of Iraqs local mass murderers.
To justify hanging Saddam, Bush and Blair needed moral ascendancy
which they have forfeited. His execution will appear to be merely another
dirty deed in the endless succession that has taken place in Iraq since 2003,
backed by our bayonets.
Now the president will preside over a hanging that will be as
much his handiwork as if he pulled the lever, with Blair performing the
usual associated functions attaching the hood, tightening the knot and
otherwise making himself useful. In Texas this sort of thing is no big deal.
But in Britain we have got out of the habit. Blair may need coaching.
It seems remarkable that yesterday the two major political parties of a
country that abolished capital punishment 40 years ago expressed
satisfaction at the prospects of a hanging up the road, conducted by
surrogates. How can Britain as a nation refuse to hang its own
murderers, while being so eager to support the hanging of other
peoples?
Los Angeles Times wrote, the conduct of Husseins trial on this or
other charges fell short of American norms (such as the right to a trial by
jury) and also lacked the imprimatur of the International Criminal Court. As
we have argued before, the legitimacy of the proceedings would have been
enhanced if respected foreign jurists had joined their Iraqi counterparts on
the bench. Some of these deficiencies may be rectified in the appeals
process, which must be thorough and painstaking.
Not content to pronounce that justice had been done, Bush gushed
that the sentencing of Hussein was a major achievement for Iraqs young
democracy and its constitutional government. Where Bush and Iraqi Shiites

333

discern simple justice in Husseins comeuppance, the countrys Sunni

population sees sectarian payback by the Shiite-dominated government of
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said that Hussein is finally facing the penalty
he deserves.
Gwyne Dyer opined that Saddam is not a hero, and Iraq would be a
better place if he had never been born. In any properly constituted
international court, he would have been found guilty of the same charges he
faced in Iraq. But in an international court there would have been due
process of law, and the Iraqi government could not have replaced judges,
who wanted to respect the rights of the defendants, and the defence lawyers
would not have been murdered, and as a result the trial would have had
some credibility. The trial in Iraq did not.
There was one obvious reason why the United States did not want
Saddam to face the same kind of impartial international tribunal that
tried Serbias President Slobodan Milosevic and will soon try Charles Taylor
of Liberia. Such a tribunal would have the right to see documents and hear
testimony that would reveal the extent of US complicity in Saddams
crimes in the earlier phase of his career, when the Reagan administration
was supporting Iraq in the 1980-88 war against Iran. Hence the kangaroo
court in Baghdad, and all the grotesqueries that ensued.
Linda S Heard was of the view that Saddam has lost his relevance
in a country more interested in the lurid sex exploits of an evangelical
church leader said to be close to President George W Bush and a
Republican senators raunchy e-mails sent to young boys.
Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman repeatedly threw defence lawyers out of
his court forcing the accused to be represented by court-appointed attorneys,
who knew little, if anything, about the case. At the same time, anonymous
witnesses were allowed to give evidence from behind curtains, while
deceased victims allegedly turned up in Iran and Algeria very much
alive.
More importantly, government figures have repeatedly prejudiced
the case with their comments. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice
President Adil Abdul Mahdi have both called for swift execution even before
Saddam was judged guilty.

334

Whether the trial was fair or otherwise appears to be of little concern

to Iraqs occupiers, however. Never mind that Britain is vehemently against
the death penalty to the extent of asking Pakistan to stay the execution of a
British-Pakistani and twisting Washingtons arm not to sentence British
shoe bomber Richard Reid to death.
Member of Saddams legal team Bushra al-Khelil might think
differently. She told al-Jazeera that Americans approached her to
persuade her not to launch a vigorous defence of Saddam and revealed
that Americans and Britons work in and around the court itself.
Robert Fisk commented, so Americas one-time ally has been
sentenced to death for war crimes he committed when he was
Washingtons best friend in the Arab World. America knew all about his
atrocities and even supplied the gas along with the British, of course yet
there we were yesterday declaring it to be, in the White Houses words,
another great day for Iraq.
Its difficult to think of a more suitable monster for the gallows,
preferably dispatched by his executioner, the equally monstrous hangman of
Abu Ghraib prison, Abu Widad, who would strike his victims on the head
with an axe if they dared to condemn the leader of the Iraqi Socialist Baath
Party before he hanged them.
But we cant mention Abu Ghraib these days because we have
followed Saddams trail of shame into the very same institution. And so by
hanging this awful man, we hope dont we to look better than him to
remind Iraqis that life is better now than it was under Saddam.
Death is now visited upon even more Iraqis than Saddam was able to
inflict on his Shias and Kurds and yes, in Fallujah of all places his
Sunnis, too. So we cannot even claim moral superiority. For if Saddams
immorality and wickedness are to be the yardstick against which all our
inquiries are judged, what does that say about us?
Now in theory, I know, the Kurds have a chance for their own trial of
Saddam, to hang him high for the thousands of Kurds gassed at Halabja.
This would certainly keep him alive beyond the 30-day death sentence
review period. But would the Americans and British dare touch a trial in
which we would have not only to describe how Saddam got his gas

335

And dare we go so deep into this betrayal of the Iraqis we loved so

much that we invaded their country? then we would have to convict
Saddam of murdering countless thousands of Shia Muslims as well as Kurds
after they staged an uprising against the Baathist regime at our specific
request thousands whom we betrayed by leaving them to fight off
Saddams brutal hordes on their own.
Ayaz Ahmad from Rawalpindi wrote, the American reporter from
Baghdad, Michel Alex has acclaimed that for the first time a head of a state
has been tried for crimes against humanity by his country of origin under
international law. He went on to praise the precedence as a warning for
future despots. Excellent! We will agree.
Now we wait the trial of George W Bush by the American courts
for crimes against humanity and for murder of over five thousand times
more Iraqis and almost 3,000 Americans in Iraq. The same international law
should be applicable to the American despot. Lets see if the American
system and the American people have the courage and the stomach to do the
right thing.
Aijaz Zaka Syed opined, Saddams epic crimes pale into
insignificance when compared to what the coalition of the willing has
visited on Iraqi people and the Middle East in the name of saving the world
from the Weapons of Mass Destruction that never existed. The monumental
lie on which this war has been built is enough to try those who ordered and
executed it.
Three years on, it is still hard to believe that the civilized world in the
21 century allowed a peaceful country to suffer one of the most devastating
wars in history based on a preposterous lie and did nothing Bushs free
Iraq dies every day with the killing of a hundred people on an average.
People are not safe even in the security of their homes. Bushs dream of
democratic Iraq has become an endless nightmare for Iraqi people and the
Middle East. The country which was once one of the most advanced in the
region is today a large never-ending killing field.
st

Fatima Bhutto said, as I heard the verdict come in on television last

Sunday night there was one question running through my mind: as we
condemn Hussein to death for his crimes against humanity, when will
we ask for Donald Rumsfeld to be indicted for his war crimes? When will

336

George W Bush be taken to the dock and made to answer for his
spearheading the unjust and brutal occupation of Iraq?
While were trying Hussein for his massacre of Shias in Dujail and
his assault on Iraqi Kurds in the Anfal attacks, when will we start talking
about the US Marine Kilo Companys massacre of innocent women and
children in Haditha last November, which is being compared to Americas
My Lai massacre in Vietnam? What about Fallujah? What about Abu
Ghraib? What about burning of Baghdad Library? What about
If Hussein must be condemned for the massacre of at Halabja then so
must Rumsfeld. His resignation is not simply enough. Officials say Hussein
will be executed by 2007 is it too much to ask that the death penalty,
which is completely abhorrent, be commuted to a life sentence and that he
has a new cellmate or two by then?
Hasan Suror observed that perhaps it has not been widely noticed that
the reactions of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and United States
President George W Bushs to the death sentence against Saddam Hussein
has been in striking contrast to their shoulder-to-shoulder complicity in
the events leading up to it.
Cynical Blair-watchers suspect that this was yet another performance
from master performer an elaborate and well-rehearsed act to cover up
British complicity in what is widely regarded as a deeply flawed legal
process designed to produce precisely this sort of a verdict.
Few believe that deep down Mr Blair would have any qualms about
the verdict, but in view of Britains official stand against capital punishment
he could not be seen to be publicly endorsing it, though by saying that it was
a matter for Iraqis to decide he pretty much let it be known that if Mr
Hussein were to be executed then so it be. In any case, Mr Blair seldom
gives a straight answer to a straight question and, as on previous occasions,
he left his audience guessing One journalist said: Actually the Prime
minister was saying: read my lips. And his lips said: good job done, boys
in Baghdad but dont expect me to say it loudly.
Babar A Mufti from Islamabad wrote, Saddams death sentence
comes as no relief for the people of Iraq who have been living amidst a
warlike situation for years now. If anything, the Saddam verdict would lead
to more terrorist attacks, violence and de-stability in the region.

337

Saddams trial and his sentence serve only as a grim reminder of the
age-old tradition of victors justice. He is being punished for killing 148 of
his own countrymen, but who would arrest and bring before court those
who have killed 650,000 Iraqis?
While commenting on Saddams trial some analysts have been
pointing out the requirement of punishing other war criminals; Rumsfeld
stood head and shoulder above all of them. Marjorie Cohn framed a long
charge sheet for his prosecution.
Rumsfeld has come under fire from many quarters, not the least
of which was a gaggle of military officers who had been clamoring for his
resignation. Bush said he decided to oust Rumsfeld before Tuesdays voting
but lied to reporters so it wouldnt affect the election. Putting aside the
incredulity of that claim, Bush likely wanted to see if there would be a
changing of the legislative guard before giving Rumsfeld his walking
papers.
Rumsfelds sin was not in failing to develop a winning strategy
for Iraq. There is no one winning in Iraq, because we never belonged there
in the first place. The war in Iraq is a war of aggression. It violates the
United Nations Charter which only permits one country to invade another in
self-defence or with the blessing of the Security Council.
Prosecuting a war of aggression isnt Rumsfelds only crime. He
also participated in the high levels of decision-making that allowed the
extrajudicial execution of several people. Willful killing is a grave breach of
the Geneva Conventions, which constitutes a war crime
Rumsfelds crimes dont end there. He sanctioned the use of torture
and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which are grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions, and thus constitute war crimes. Rumsfeld approved
interrogation techniques...widely considered forms of torture.
Even though Rumsfeld didnt personally carry out the torture and
mistreatment of prisoners, he authorized it. Under the doctrine of
command responsibility, a commander can be liable for war crimes
committed by his inferiors if he knew or should have known they would be
committed and did nothing to stop or prevent them.

338

The war criminals must be brought to justice beginning with

Donald Rumsfeld. On November 14, the Centre of Constitutional Rights,
the National Lawyers Guild, and other organizations will ask the German
federal prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation into the war crimes of
Rumsfeld and other Bush Administration officials.
The News said it indirectly; though this resignation is a welcome first
step, it should lead to the establishment of an investigation into how such a
senior member of the Bush cabinet get away with fabricating evidence to
justify a sovereign countrys invasion. In many ways, this resignation also
symbolizes the trudging move towards accepting reality. Bush and his
posse, particularly Rumsfeld, were famous for their incredible denial of fact
that the situation in Iraq was slipping, if not already, out of control. Now,
however, that reality is much too stark to ignore.

COMMENTS ON IRAQ
Most analysts focused on the outcome of the US midterm elections.
Jonah Goldberg opined that Republicans lost because of scandals and
incompetence, not conservative ideology. Of all these arguments, the only
two you are likely to hear ad nauseam are: too much of social conservatism
and too much of war.
Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair had similar views. On
Tuesday anti-war and anti-free-trade candidates prospered. The voters
want the US out of the Iraq and they want decent jobs The furthest the
national Democrats have wanted to go on the war has been to attack its
management. Not the principled position of Cut and Run as urged by Jack
Murtha just over a year ago.
Analysts generally speculated about the possible impact of
Democrats victory. Timothy Garton Ash wrote, from now on, given the
result of these mid-term elections, the mess that the United States faces in
the Middle East, the scale of global challenges American foreign policy
will have to be more bipartisan at home and more multilateral abroad
Time is up for Bushs foreign policy. The United States must now try to
forge a bipartisan, multilateral approach.

339

Eleaner Clift opined, the impetus for a change of course in Iraq will
almost certainly come from the Republicans, who will not want to endure
another bloodletting in two years if the war is not resolved. Why should
Democrats shoulder the burden of solving Bushs war when theyve been
left out of everything else? Republicans have run the Congress with an iron
fist, excluding Democrats and bringing legislation to the floor only when it
can command a majority of the minority, meaning Republicans only. It
will be tempting for Democrats to exact revenge for a decade of
mistreatment, but that would just trade one set of bullies for another.
Jonathan Freedland said, from now on, the neoconservatives will
have to give way to the foreign policy realists those who believe
America projects itself in the world partly through force but also through the
patient, pragmatic work of alliances and diplomacy.
When he was in his pomp, when he still believed the war in Iraq was
mission accomplished, Bush was asked by Bob Woodward if he had
consulted Bush Sr on the conflict, You know, he is the wrong father to
appeal to in terms of strength, the president said. There is a higher father
that I appeal to Now, chastened by three and a half years of mayhem in
Iraq and the double repudiation of losing the House and (almost certainly)
the Senate, he has had to not to God but to the men who served his dad.
How could the new defence secretary reject proposals he helped
draft? A leaked account of those proposals last month suggested both a
phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and, even more strikingly,
engagement with Syria and Iran aimed at bringing the violence to an
end The first position is wholly at odds with Bushs insistence until very
recently that the US would stay the course in Iraq; the second clashes with
the entire axis of evil approach of the administration, which has cast both
Syria and Iran into outer darkness.
The new Democratic committee chairman could hold aggressive
hearings into the serial errors of the past five years: worthwhile, but on their
own they would risk backlash from voters hungry for action rather than
partisan bickering. So the Democrats need a plan. Trouble is, they are
divided among themselves on Iraq
Lawrence H Summers wrote, predictions are more difficult in
international arena, which is likely to be important. Americans have
rejected a foreign policy that dangerously combines bellicosity and
340

futility. Donald Rumsfelds resignation as Defence Secretary suggests that

the president has revived the message.
Forming an effective strategy for Iraq and addressing the troubled
world will require bipartisanship. Here, the history of past repudiation
elections provide grounds for cautious optimism This is a dangerous
moment in the world as after any midterm election since 1946. Whatever
else happens, we can hope that a transformed Congress and a chastened
president will, in the future as often in the past, but an effective way
forward.
M J Akbar opined, the answer to triumphalism is good, old-fashioned
realism. It took defeat at home to wake up from what can literally be
described as his dream-world. But he could be more formidable awake
than he was when drugged by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld, if he accepts the rationale of realism in the remaining two years
of his term.
Bush has spent the last three years waging war against Iraq. He will
need, at the very least, to spend his next two years doing something even
more dramatic; discovering the difficult route to peace with Iran and
healing the very deep, very painful wounds that Israel has inflicted upon
Palestine. That would be a genuine triumph.
James Mann wrote, does the appointment of Gates represent a change
of philosophy, the triumph of realism over neconservatism? That doesnt
quite work, either. Rumsfeld was never a neoconservative; he was an
obstreperous contrarian, committed not to putting forward any particular
philosophy but to aggressively challenging whatever ideas his bureaucratic
opponents and critics put forward. Gates is being characterized as a
realist, but his record is more complex than that, too. He was an ardent
Cold War hawk who did not shrink from moral judgments.
David Ignatius expected something different. Rumsfelds gift was his
brilliance and intellectual toughness. He kept his head up even as the war in
Iraq went from bad to awful. In that, he was a harder man even than one of
his predecessors, Robert McNamara, who in his final year running the
Vietnam War began to crack privately under pressure. Rumsfeld embodied
an old injunction: Never let them see you sweat.

341

But the downside with Rumsfeld was so great that few people are
likely to remember the upside. He came to symbolize not simply the
failure of the Iraq War but also the arrogance and lack of accountability. He
had a knack for dropping phrases that came to symbolize what was wrong:
You go to war with the Army you have and Back off.
Gates represents the return of Bush 41 people and ideas to the Bush
43 administration. The elder Bush rescued Gates after he was rejected as
CIA director in 1987 because of his role in the Iran-contra scandal, bringing
him to the National Security Council staff then appointing him CIA director
in 1991 The new secretary will bring something else to the table, and it
may be a crucial factor in the months ahead He will go to the Pentagon
with an invisible mission statement that can be summed up in two words:
exit strategy.
Lawrence R Velvel was of the view that Donald Rumsfeld should
have been gotten rid of years ago. He has messed up for a long time. But in
the last analysis it is not Rumsfeld who is responsible for the debacle in Iraq.
It is his boss, Bush, who desired to pursue Rumsfelds policies and who let
the disaster occur. It is the man who doesnt read, doesnt elicit conflicting
opinions, gets rid of those who offer them, is obstinate, bullies people, until
just a few days ago was determined to stay the course, is grossly
dishonest, lied about Rumsfeld until Tuesday by saying Rumsfeld would
stay (a lie ignored by almost all in the media), and is, in general, a 60 year
overgrown frat boy.
Having lived a life in which his chestnuts have always been pulled
out of the fire of failure by daddys friends and wannabe friends (Robert
Gates anyone?), Bush is not accustomed to taking blame for his mistakes
and eff-ups. He is, to put it bluntly, a 60 year old spoiled brat. So due to the
election results, he decided to pin the tail on Rumsfeld, to try to shift all the
blame to Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld had to go lest George be blamed for
the Iraq debacle.
By getting rid of Rummy and hiring Gates, Bush supposedly was
signaling openness to working with the Democrats, to rethinking the Iraq
policy, and all the rest of it. Indeed, turning off his combative, frat boy, Imgonna-smash-your-face-in persona, he turned on, once again, his good-oldboy, Im-really-a-good-guy, Im-all-charm persona Meanwhile, the
Democrats, to make themselves look good, are falling for this or at least

342

playing along with it. They are making all kinds of noises about working
with the President, about making nice with George, etc.
In playing along with Bushs new or, more accurately, renewed
nice guy persona, the Democrats will set themselves up for a big fall if
they fail to keep a couple of things in mind. One is that the people of this
country want a major change in what the Executive Branch is doing.
HDS Greenway observed, the midterm elections, the dumping of
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, and the speed with which America
appears to be changing its course in Iraq, and perhaps its entire policy
toward adversaries and allies, has taken the British by delighted surprise.
Anti-Americanism in England has reached its peak with the Bush
Administration, and the war in Iraq is even more unpopular in Britain than it
is in the United States Blair is seen here as being in the same lame-duck
position as Bush, and his adversaries are angry that he managed to avoid a
British inquiry into his taking the country into Iraq, even though he is
willing to testify before James Bakers Iraq Study Group via video link up.
Now that Bush has all but announced his surrender of the Iraq policy
to Baker and the Iraq Study Group, the first casualty may be the old axis of
evil approach whereby you dont speak to your adversaries The second
casualty may be the plans to bomb Iran, which only a few weeks ago
seemed like a real possibility before the end of the Bush Administration,
with Rumsfeld and Cheney favouring confrontation over negotiation.
Perhaps Blairs moment has come to have some real influence over
American policy, which he never had when Cheney and Rumsfeld were fully
in charge.
In the long run long after the dust of Iraq has settled Tony Blair is
surely right when he says that the future of the world will always be better
off with close Anglo-American cooperation, and that anti-Americanism is
not in Britains true national interest.
Mathew Norman said, his master across the seas lies paralyzed on
Pennsylvania Avenue from Tuesdays collusion with the Democratic
juggernaut, the mayhem continues to worsen in Afghanistan, and what might
indulgently be termed his policy on Iraq is about to be obliterated by
Rummys successor at the Pentagon.

343

Over in Washington, meanwhile, the powers are now as separated as

could be. For the first time in years, we can look enviously across the
Atlantic at a political system with an inbuilt defense mechanism capable of
punishing a rogue leader by shackling him to a hostile legislature.
As the next two years will illustrate, American democracy, for all its
failings, remains a vibrant force for self-examination. There, a Democratdominated Congress will investigate the Iraqi casus belli to death, making
his remaining time in the White House an abject misery for a president
powerless to trot out the intelligence-insulting gibberish emanating from
Blair last week that any inquiry would undermine troop morale.
Some analysts were not optimistic about the outcome of elections and
remained critical. Dr Muzaffar Iqbal wrote, anyone with a minimum level
of intelligence could tell that in a polity like Iraq, the only way to maintain a
minimum degree of law and order is through the army and police; yet both
institutions were destroyed within a few days of US occupation. Then
there was the systematic looting and plunder of the resources
Whatever the initial designs of those who invaded and destroyed
Iraq, the future looks very bleak. It seems it is only a matter of time that
Iraq as it has been known so far wick cease to exist, with momentous and
unpredictable consequences for the entire region. Perhaps this is what
George Bush, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice meant when they talked
about building a new Middle East.
Paul Craig Roberts observed, it only took six years for Americans to
comprehend George W Bush and the Republican Party and to realize that
the Republicans were not leading America in any promising directions.
The American prosecutors of the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg
emphasized, as Robert Jackson put it, that Germanys crime was not in
losing the war but in starting it. Under the Nuremberg standard, to launch a
war of aggression is a war crime. It is punishable with death sentence.
As the wars are crimes, they must be stopped. Having overthrown a
stable secular regime in Iraq, the US and its craven allies have no recourse
but to accept that Iraq will break into three statesand Turkey will have
to deal with the situation without US interference.

344

The US and Britain no longer have any role to play in the Middle
East. As the King of Jordan predicted, there is now a Shiite crescent that
runs from Iran through Iraq into Lebanon. This Shiite crescent is the most
powerful force in the Middle East The US has neither the resources, nor
the finances, nor the credibility to intervene. The Israelis have isolated
themselves with their genocidal policies against the Palestinians. Intelligent
Israelis are already sending their children out of the country.
Adel Safty did it by mentioning the missing similarities in IraqVietnam comparison:
The first of these missing obvious similarities is that both wars were
started on the basis of blatant lies.
The second most obvious similarity between Vietnam and Iraq
resides in the general lines of rationalization invoked to justify the war
in both cases.
Thirdly, the most consistently absent feature from the Iraq-debate, is
the simple truism that peoples inevitably oppose those who seek to
subjugate, occupy, and dominate them.
Puppets and Shia militias were also criticized. Arab News wrote, if
the Iraqi interior ministry police were indeed involved in the seizure of some
1000 men from a Baghdad higher education facility this week, the crime is
frightening illustration of the terrible straits in which this already mauled
and brutalized country finds itself. It has long been known that mainly
Shiite militants have infiltrated the ranks of the police and army.
With the arrest of five senior Interior Ministry police officers, it is
beginning to look as if this spectacular terrorist crime may actually have
been carried out by members of the force itself. There is a great deal of
confusion, both as to the number of men originally kidnapped and the
number since released, in what appear to have been police raid. It is by no
means clear if some of these unfortunate innocents may in fact have been
slain because of their communal or religious background.
The greatest blow, however, is to ordinary decent Iraqis of all
backgrounds, who want only to get on with their lives in peace. The
appalling truth now is that they can no longer trust anyone except their
families and their long-standing friends. The most powerful weapon in the

345

terrorist armory is not the bomb, nor even the suicide bomber, but the
collapse of trust in the police, the pre-eminent symbols of law and good
governance in the civilized society.
Khaleej Times opined, Maliki scolded Iraqi parliament yesterday
accusing the lawmakers of allowing their sectarian loyalties to undermine
their national interests. The prime minister is spot on. But he will have to
be a little more specific and begin by asking his coalition partners to
rein in their militias.
The analysts explored the options, though there was nothing new in
options suggested. Max Boots said, various face-saving options have been
proposed to accomplish this elusive end: Strike a deal with Iraqi political
factions on key issues, such as sharing of oil revenues. Reach an
accommodation with Iraqs neighbours, particularly Iran and Syria. Divide
the country into separate Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni zones. Keep the country
whole but replace its infirm democracy with a vigorous dictator.
Given how dire the situation has become, no option can be ruled out,
but we should not fool ourselves that any of these plans has much chance of
success. All founded on the fact of the radical atomization of Iraqi society
Bad as the situation is today, it could get a lot worse if we simply pull
out. The probable result might be labeled civil war, but it would bear scant
resemblance to our own Civil War. It wouldnt be two sides fighting one
another; it would be a war of all against all.
Not a pleasant scenario. But we need to be honest with ourselves
about what is involved in an unseemly dash for the exits. By all means, try
to apply a political Band-Aid to Iraqs gaping wounds. Just dont be under
any illusion that it will hold. Only the presence of American troops keeps
the patient alive just barely.
Stephen Julias and Max Fraad Wolff talked about striking a deal.
Mission and method have now failed so dramatically as to be unsustainable
for the US president and his remaining allies A new ethos will flow from
Washington toward a jilted world and recently damned evil dictators. It
will be along the lines of lets make a deal.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Baker and Lee H Hamilton, will
conclude that the US needs to make deals with Syria, Iran and the rest of a

346

timid world to assure that the US can escape Iraq without a total loss of its
long-term interest.
Gone will be the stated policy of liberty and democratic revolution in
the Middle East. The continued economic costs in lives, prestige and
perceived omnipotence are simply unacceptable. A new, cost controlled
cooperative agenda will be announced as allowing the US to meet its real
central objectives and move on to victory in the war on terror.
The most visible change will be in the office of the secretary of
defence The Iraq Study Group will take over Iraq planning and advising.
It will likely present the president with clear policy options that contradict
the rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq.
Los Angeles Times urged inducing Iraqi factions. After the gains
made by Democrats in an election rightly viewed as a referendum on Iraq,
Bush needs to do more than accept Rumsfelds resignation.
Characteristically, Bush sent a mixed message at Wednesdays news
conference...but he continued to define victory in utopian terms
Bush also suggested that he might find common ground with
victorious congressional Democrats who had demanded a new approach to
Iraq. The circle may be squared by the elder Bushs chief consigliore, James
A Baker III, who is presiding over the so-called Iraq Study Group which
not coincidently counts one Robert Gates among its members.
It still would be preferable if Washington could find a way to
induce Iraqi factions to pull back from civil strife and establish a stable,
democratic and multi-religious state. But that may be impossible. If Bush
feels he must camouflage lowered expectations in the language of victory,
his newfound collaborators in the Democratic Party and the voters who
selected them are unlikely to object.
Jermey Greenstock supported involvement of Iraqs neighbours.
There has to be a new initiative. The United States wounded though it is on
this issue, has to shake off denial and pessimism and achieve what only a
superpower can. The internal and regional dimensions of the Iraq tragedy
must be brought together in a conference that reaches beyond the narrow
objectives of financial burden-sharing. The binding substance is Gulf
security.

347

All the neighbours of Iraq must be invited The United States is

the country that must take the initiative. While it has the hardest corner to
turn; it also has the strength to succeed in this effort. But if Washington tries
to dominate the agenda for such a conference, it will not work. Even at such
a vital point, the United States needs to take a step back.
A new dynamic could be created and a new hope offered, with no
participant able to say truthfully that the collapse of Iraq is in its particular
interest. Without this regional element, there can be no catalytic change.
The conservative alternative is hard, but it will prove the American capacity
for powerful diplomatic leadership.
Dlawar AlaAldeen discussed the option of division of Iraq. The
more important question is: what are the least dangerous alternatives? The
obvious options, which will have been considered by the Baker
commission on Iraq, include:
Allowing the current situation to evolve naturally: a high risk strategy
with no end to a civil war.
Suspending the constitution and parliament, allowing a dictatorial
minority rule for an unqualified period.
Changing the constitution to centralize power in Baghdad, allowing
majority (Shia) domination of Iraq.
Dividing Iraq into several federal entities, capable of self-governing
but loosely united within Iraqi boundaries. Finally, dismember Iraq.
It is most unlikely that the US will be able to contain violence in
Iraq without the help of Iraqis. This can only be accomplished by
implementing the constitution, allowing local authorities within each
province to fortify their boundaries and take control of their security and
day-to-day affairs. Therefore, in reality, the Baker committee has little
option but to recommend the least popular but moral natural choice. This
would involve supporting the Iraqi government to implement the current
constitution, dividing Iraq accordingly into small federal units, securing a
lasting peace and conducting a programmed withdrawal of coalition troops.
Iraq has never been truly united and never will be. Kurdistan is an
independent state in-waiting. Its birth was delayed, not by Turkey, Iran or the

348

Arab World, but by the cold-war world order. Things have changed in the
post-9/11 world order. Preserving Iraqs territorial integrity, at the
expense of the Kurds, is no longer an option.
William S Lind thought there was only one option. In the absence of
any good options, politicians of both parties in Washington, not waiting to
hold the bag for the inevitable failure, will be able to agree only on a series
of half-measures. We will train still more Iraqi troops or police, ignoring
that both are mostly militiamen for one or other faction. We will pull our
troops back into remote bases, where most already stay, remaining in Iraq
while the civil war boils up around us. We will try to get the regional powers
to help us out, despite the fact that those who would cant and those who can
have no reason to do so. We will steam in circles, scream and shout, hoping
desperately forrescue that is unlikely to appear.
In a reality neither Republicans nor Democrats will dare face, we
have only one option left in Iraq. That option is to admit failure and
withdraw. We can do it sooner, or, at the cost of more American dead and
wounded, we can do it later, Obviously, sooner is better, but that would
require a bold decision, which no one in Washington is willing to make.
Sydney Blumenthal was of the view that adoption of new options
should start at home. The neocon logic in favour of the Iraq War was that
the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad: an invasion would install an
Iraqi democracy that would force the Palestinians to submit to the Israelis.
Now near-unanimity exists on Bakers commission to reverse the formula.
Baker even summoned Tony Blair to testify on Tuesday in order to
support a restart of the Middle East peace process. If Baker were to propose
that, he knows although he will not explicitly say so that its enactment
would require the firing of neocons on the national security council and
Cheneys staff If Baker actually advocates what he thinks, Bush will have
to either admit the errors of his ways and his fathers men or cast them
aside once again.
The Guardian wrote, Baker the respected Texan, who served the first
President Bush, seemed inclined in taking on this task to look at all the
responsibilities, all the options, even if they came from those who have been
highly skeptical about the Bush Administrations war plan Thats good,
and it would be smart for the president to adopt the same attitude. History

349

will be the judge of the wisdom of going into Iraq in the first place. Now is a
time for unity in pursuit of success.
There are sharp differences between Democrats in Congress and
military leaders, but ultimately it is the commander-in-chief who will make
the crucial calls. With American soldiers still dying, theres no time for
petty bickering among politicians. There is time only for resolve, for
action, for policy-making that deals not just with Iraq, but with global
terrorism.
To conclude excerpts from M S Jillanis article are reproduced. A
good beginning towards a greater acceptability of America as a friendly
nation has been made by inviting suggestions for a change in its policies. If
one as a disillusioned old friend may, the following issues need attention.
First, the US has badly mauled the United Nations by invading Iraq
despite Security Council resolutions. This will call for more civilized and
friendly attitudes towards the world body including the appointment of a less
abrasive representative at the UN.
Second: A vast majority of nations believe that terrorism in the world
was the direct result of the terror let loose by Israel in Palestine and its
patronage by the US. This made America a pariah among many Muslim
countries There should be steps to correct this condition.
Third: The world is literally fed-up with Americas role as policeman
of the world. Nobody including many people of the United States
understand the need of intervention by a super-power in every street corner
brawl around the world, in most cases without any US interests at stake?
Fourth: The US tries to bully every other country. In most cases,
cultural differences make sincere US gestures look much harsher than what
they are meant to be. An ordinary American is generally perceived as a
friendly person This contradiction needs to be corrected.
Fifth: The war on terror has created bad blood between governments
and the governed all around the world. People have been hauled up and
made to disappear, without a charge and without intimation to their
families.
Sixth: A strong impression has been created that American is a
conservative Christian state driven by Jewish lobbies. One, with the
350

knowledge of the people of America may not agree with this entirely. But
realities on ground happen to confirm this impression.
Seventh: Start withdrawing US soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan
as a signal for Iraqis and Afghans to stand on their feet, and to bring the
American boys and young ladies back homes.

ISRAEL ON RAMPAGE
Palestinians continued suffering from brutalities of Israel forces.
Following incidents were reported in last fortnight:
On 6th November, the death toll in Gaza reached 50. Next day, eight
more Palestinians were killed before Israel made a tactical move of
pulling out from Gaza.
Israeli forces killed 24 Palestinians, including women and children, on
8th November. Abbas said Israel destroyed peace chances.
Two Palestinians were killed in Israeli air strike on 9th November.
Olmert called the delay attack a mistake in which 14 members of a
family were killed while asleep.
On 10th November, Israel went on high alert amid fear of suicide
attacks. Next day, the US vetoed UN draft condemning Israel for Gaza
attacks. Abbas told Israel that it would have no peace or security until
it withdraws to the border it had before the 1967 Arab-Israel war.
On 15th November, Arab nations called for UN probe of Israeli attacks
on Beit Hanoun.
Israel troops killed five Palestinians and wounded three on 18 th
November. Next day, one person was killed and nine injured in Israeli
strike in Gaza.
Israel admonished the UN and said; dont teach morality. Israeli
troops killed one Palestinian and wounded 8 others on 20th November.

351

Efforts for forming unity government made some progress as

negotiating teams of Abbas and Hamas reached an agreement. On 10 th
November, Haniyeh hinted at his resignation. Two days later, Abbas and
Haniyeh agreed on appointing Muhammad Shbeir, former head of Gazas
Islamic University, as new prime minister. Hamas said new government
wont recognize Israel.
Massacre at the hands of Israeli forces at Beit Hanoun was widely
criticized. Sami Abdel-Shafi said, for the past week, the Gaza Strip city of
Beit Hanoun has been made a ground zero by Israeli armyBeit
Hanoun was left with no men between the ages of 16 and 45 in the wake of a
massive forced round-up by Israeli army Women and children in the city
sent urgent calls for help through Gaza radio stations.
On Friday morning, scores of women marched through Beit Hanoun
in a spontaneous rush to aid friends and loved ones after hearing their pleas.
Unarmed, they were shot at by Israeli soldiers from their tanks; two
women were left dead and others were severely injured.
Even to those who never supported Hamas, it is impossible to ignore
such a huge double standard: the outside world accepts Liebermans
appointment as deputy prime minister, despite his extreme views, while it
boycotts the Palestinian Authoritys elected Hamas administration.
One can only wonder at Olmerts insistence that his deputy will not
diminish whatever prospects remain of peace. Israels offensive against
Gaza punish an entire populationsubjecting tens of thousands of
residents to oppressive military measures represent the reality of Israels
policy, whatever its stated objectives.
Ramzy Baroud reported, I lost my whole family; is there anyone who
is still alive? Any one, screamed a Palestinian mother from Beit Hanoun as
she fell in the arms of her neighbour. My husband, my sister, my children,
my mother she counted what seemed like an endless list, but I swear in
the name of God, we will not surrender; this is our land and here we
shall live and die.
But history is of no lesson to Israel; it shall remain isolated in its
antiquated, ideologically racist, and inherently theological ideals, operating
alongside of the law and of morality. Be not surprised, however, when
more crude rockets burn their way toward Israel in coming days and

352

weeks, and equally expect many more hideous suicide bombings to detonate
in crowded Israeli streets, creating further suffering.
The Guardian wrote, experience suggests that even if the Beit
Hanoun slaughter turns out to have been accidental, and Palestinians
were to accept that, it will still be remembered as an Israeli atrocity
Israels actions, as in Lebanon this summer, have ignored the obligation to
act in proportion to the threat
This violence is not only a terrible reminder of the dangers of
deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It also deepens the crisis
further by bringing an unnecessary suspension of talks between Hamas
and President Mahmoud Abbas on the formation of a national unity
government, needed to prompt the US and EU to ease their sanctions and
end the debilitating siege of more than a million Gazans. Is Israel really
concerned about Gazans?
The News opined, tank attack on a residential neighbourhood in a
town in a Gaza Strip is a grim reminder of the barbaric ways of the
Israeli Army The carnage was so terrible that even President Bush was
forced to state that he was deeply saddened.
Bush expressed the hope that the investigation Israel has started into
the killings will be completed quickly and that appropriate steps will be
taken to avoid a repetition of this tragic incident The presidents
lukewarm response to the Beit Hanoun tragedy makes it clear that he is
going to stay the course on the Middle East problem too. In fact if anything,
things may become even better for Tel Aviv since the Democratic Party
has historically been close to Israel.
Arthur Neslen said, true, the bloodletting was seen by some as
retaliation for a series of provocations. But the momentum for vengeance,
even if meant destroying a long-standing ceasefire, proved unstoppable. Yet
the international community was strangely obliging.
President Bush stressed the obligation to pursue people who murder
women and children. Those organizations whose raison detre is to murder
innocent people and to destroy the peace process, he said, must themselves
be eliminated. There should be no compromise with terror The European
Commission was less pro-active but also condemned what they described as

353

an unacceptable. More than that, their communiqu noted, it was an attack

on all the forces working for peace.
They were not, of course, reacting to todays events in Beit Hanoun
but a comparable atrocity three years ago. In the days following the bombing
of Bus No 2 in Jerusalem on August 19, 2003, the Israeli cabinet declared
an all-out war on the leadership of Hamas and other terrorist
elements.
It is not clear whether Hamas now has the ability to step up their
actions as they once did. So the circumstances are different. But there are
one or two chilling similarities. Khaled Meshal, for example, has already
repeated Haniyehs maximthat Hamas will retaliate by deed, not by
words.
The Israeli foreign minister Livnis statement also had an air of
de ja vu about it: Israel has no desire to harm innocent people, she said
but only to defend its citizens. Unfortunately, in the course of battle,
regrettable incidents such as that which occurred this morning do happen.
Al-Ahram Weekly wrote, Peace in Galilee, Grapes of Wrath, Summer
Rain and now Autumn Clouds: these are the infamous code names of the
genocide that Israels war criminals are unrelentingly waging against
the Palestinians while they tell the world that their aim is to end Palestinian
resistance. Operation Autumn Clouds, now in the second week, is not going
to end Palestinian resistance in Gaza; no Israeli government has succeeded
in doing so for more than 40 years.
Olmert was far more successful in dividing Israel and undermining
his own standing. His invasion of Gaza is a futile attempt to regain
popularity and restore confidence in the army and this is something the
Palestinians must understand. Efforts to form a government of national unity
must continue with utmost urgency.
Khaleej Times asked, why should Israel do otherwise? Who is it
going to stop its brave soldiers? After all, Israel has got away with murder
for the past half a century. And it will continue to get away in the time to
come.
Rather than passing those perfunctory and completely pointless UN
resolutions, persuading the US to rein in Israel may be much more

354

useful. Arab and Muslim members of the UN and others must convince
Washington that Israels ruthless campaign against Palestinian people is
unacceptable and must be stopped right away.
Arab News opined, the US veto sends all the wrong signals. It means
Israel literally gets away with murder, that the US has granted
legitimacy to the massacre and sending a green signal for Israel to carry out
even more massacres.
Manal Alafrangi observed, the reaction from across the Western
world has been appalling At the UN level, there was a typical reaction:
The US vetoed UN Security Council resolution urging an immediate
withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and condemning the Israeli attack,
thus showing an American backing for such crimes.
This lobby (AIPAC) has penetrated every angle of the US
government system. Just look at the latest midterm elections; AIPACs
official website states that theyve reached nearly every lawmaker elected as
part of an effort to educate political candidates on the value of the USIsraeli relationship.
It doesnt require an expert to see that Israel has not promoted
peace or stability in the region, having fought several wars against Arab
states. Their ongoing conflict against Palestinians is demonstrative of the
fact that this country is but a source of major contention in the Middle East.
Yet the Israeli lobby ensures such a perception is out of sight for the active
US government.
The US yet again turned down an opportunity to become actively
involved in restarting peace talks or even brokering an immediate
ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians following Israels attacks on
Beit Hanoun.
David Howell urged solution of the long-outstanding dispute. This is
where America must look at itself and ask what it really wants. The key is
for the outside powers, backed by American resources but not by America
alone, to guarantee the security to which Israeli citizens have an
undoubted right, but without sanctioning the repressive Israeli
occupation or pulverizing invasion of surrounding territories.

355

All this requires the most intimate cooperation among a range of

global powers, including Arab neighbours, Asian forces and European ones.
Israel will just have to accept its final departure from the West Bank
and the arrival of effective and massively resourced international
guarantors.
In Israel itself there seems to be a growing body of opinion that
recognizes this as the countrys best and only future. But the biggest change
of heart has to begin in the US. There now has to be the fullest possible
engagement of American policy brilliance and innovative resourcefulness in
cracking the Israel/Palestine problem.
Perhaps the best thought to offer this giant but wounded nation at a
difficult time is that it is also in the whole worlds direct interest, barring a
few misguided mavericks, to see America prospering, confident and exiting
Iraq with dignity from a calmer Middle East, rather than damaged and
dragged down in some post-Vietnam-like mood of introspection and
humiliation.
The US, however, was busy doing something else. Jonathan Steele
said, the US is arming Mahmood Abbass Fatah organization for a
confrontation with Hamas that risks plunging Gaza into all-out civil war. It
wants thousands of rifles to be sent to Fatah from Egypt and Jordan, and is
seeking to persuade Israel to permit the Badr Brigade, a pro-Fatah militia
stationed in Jordan, to cross into Gaza.
Joseph Massad discussed this issue in some detail. Not only are the
US and Israel financially backing the open preparation for a coup to be
staged by the top leadership of Fatah (and in the case of Israel allowing
weapons transfers to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbass
Praetorian Guard), but so are the intelligence services of number of Israel
and US friendly Arab countries whose intelligence services have set up shop
openly in Ramallah more recently, making their long standing and major,
though understated, involvement in running the Palestinian territories more
open and shameless. Indeed the intelligence delegation of one such Arab
country has rented out a multi-storey building in Ramallah to conduct their
operations.
Israel has helped this effort all along by kidnapping and arresting
Fatah members who resist the collaborationist policies of the top leadership.
As for the leadership itself, it has periodically purged members of Fatah who
356

oppose its policies, and marginalized those in the Diaspora who continue to
resist them.
Abbas and these three have undertaken not only to launch massive
strikes by the Fatah security thugs that they have armed to police the
territories on behalf of Israel, and strikes by the bureaucracy that staffs the
PA ministries, but also have coerced large numbers of Palestinians,
including teachers and professors, under the force of guns, to hold a strike
against Hamas, when most of them had voted for Hamas in the first place
and refuse to strike.
In addition, Abbas and the Fatah/PA triumvirate have organized
demonstrations in Ramallah by middle-class Palestinians, including
housewives, who brought out their pots and pans, in a scene borrowed from
1973 Santiago, in demonstrations against Hamas
The plan is that the Fatah/PA rulers would do their utmost to
provoke Hamas to start the war at which point Fatah, with the aid of the
intelligence services of friendly Arab countries, as well as assistance from
Israel and the US, would crush Hamas and take over. Indeed, the first
unsuccessful round took place when the Israeli government kidnapped a
third of the Hamas government Fatahs planned coup is not only based on
the popularity of Hamas and its electoral victory but also on Hamass
increased ability to defend itself against Fatah forces.
As US was busy in finding solutions the Yankee way, France, Spain
and Italy sprang a surprise by proposing a peace deal. Patrick Seale wrote
that Israel has promptly shot it down. The crime in Israeli eyes, was that
the plan was elaborated and announced without prior coordination with
the Israeli government.
Its architect widely believed to be Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spains
foreign minister The plan has five components:
Immediate cessation of all types of violence between Israelis and
Palestinians, including terrorism.
Formation of a government of national unity in Palestine.
Exchange of prisoners, including Gilad Shalit, and several dozen
Palestinian deputies and ministers.

357

 These three stages would be followed by a meeting between Olmert

and Abbas which would open the way for the deployment in Gaza of
an international mission of observation.
This, in turn, would be followed by the convening of an international
peace conference in the medium term.
Way back in 1975, Henry Kissinger, then US secretary of state, gave
Israel a pledge valid to this day that the US would not take any
initiative in the Middle East without first clearing it with Israel. The
result has been to give stranglehold over Americas Middle East policy.
Israel is also strongly opposed to any international presence in
the occupied territories which might limit its ability to assassinate
Palestinian activists or to bomb, raid and invade at will. It wants absolute
freedom to deal with Palestinian terrorism as it chooses and without
constraint.
At the end excerpts from articles of Ramzy Baroud and Uri Avnery
are reproduced. Ramzy Baroud wrote, regardless of its flaws, no other
national struggle in the world has become, or has been inadvertently made to
become, a symbol of so many things to so many different people as the
Palestinian struggle has. And yet, despite the intricate layers of sense and
understanding that have sought to encapsulate the Palestinian struggle,
Palestine itself lingers in the worlds consciousness merely as a symbol.
In the United States, Palestine takes on a plethora of unique and often
deadly meanings. Its a prophecy waiting to be fulfilled and a market for
politicians wishing to sell their will to the highest bidder. Its a major and
everlasting news headline that, despite its ominous presence, seems to teach
and evoke nothing except the intentional misinterpretation of the facts.
When Palestine is discussed, examined and scrutinized, the frame of
reference is hardly the one invoked when any other similar conflict is
discussed. Its resolution is rarely seen pertinent to international law or
human rights edicts and is barely understood as it should be in terms of
power and strategy. Rather its a subject of flared imaginations, religious
fantasy and fictitious constructs.
If Palestine continues to be understood or misunderstood outside
its proper frame as a national struggle for rights within the appropriately

358

corresponding international context, then little can be expected from any

attempts to remedy its ailments.
In another article he added, attempts to coerce the Palestinians into
submission have not always manifested themselves in the crude forms of
tanks, the withholding of aid or the denial of freedom of movement. These
efforts were at times more imaginative and shrewd, through the
sponsoring of factionalism, the purchasing of the integrity of politicians, or
pressing Palestinians themselves to promote foreign agendas, whether
knowingly or not.
Coupled with the collective punishment unleashed on Palestinians by
the ever-indifferent international community namely Israels friends in the
West and a few Arab and Muslim allies such creative methods often reaped
the desired results, albeit for a little while. I became familiar with one of
these attempts recently in London.
It was recently revealed that a few individuals affiliated with the
Hamas government and Hamas-dominated parliament, were allowed
entry into Britain. News of the visit was first unveiled by the disingenuous
Israel media, which concocted a skewed version of the event, claiming that
the delegation met with Israeli academicians in London. The leak was
erroneous, but not in its entirety. The breakthrough visit, as was viewed by
several observers, was timed to coincide with another visit made by a
Palestinian figure, who had indeed met with Israelis. The hope was for the
government delegation to join the meetings as a first step toward breaking
the ice.
Rest of the meetings in London, and later in Belfast, were not
entirely innocent either. Hamas, a government under siege, though backed
by most Palestinians, is losing its grip on power. The Palestinian economy is
in complete tatters, factionalism and chaos are taking hold to the point that
predictions of civil war are becoming part of mainstream life in Gaza.
Even before the advent as the major political party in the Occupied
Territories in January 2006, Hamas was long wagered on the support of
the Arab and Muslim world. That has proven to be a fatal mistake, since
popular displays of solidarity with the Palestinian people on the streets of
Karachi or Tripoli dont necessarily reflect the full and unconditional
backing of the Pakistani and Libyan governments.

359

The meetings in London were held under the guise of dialogue,

where Hamas would articulate its position to an exaggeratedly sympathetic
audience; who, in turn, would lobby politicians for a change in course. The
content of the meetings, despite the overt secrecy, was partially leaked,
allowing for the following deductions.
Firstly, neoconservative elements have for long envisaged an arc
of Islamic extremism that goes all the way from Tehran to GazaHamas
would eventually become a major component in this arc, due to the symbolic
importance of the Palestinian problem to Muslims worldwide, and the direct
nature of its conflict with Israel.
Secondly, the attempt to overthrow Hamas with the help of
disgruntled elements within its rival Fatah has failed; a popular uprising
due to the collective punishment and pressure on the Palestinian peopleis
too slow and uncertain strategy.
Thirdly, since Washington has raised its conditions for engaging
Hamas much higher than the latters ability to compromise, it was not
possible for the Bush Administration to talk to the Islamic movement
openly.
Fourthly, the discussions in London were clearly geared toward
wooing Hamas to reveal its moderate face, to off-set and perhaps
challenge the extremists in Damascus. This would create yet another rift
within the Palestinian camp
Finally, if history is of any relevance, Palestinian rights are not
personal property to be haggled with by one government and inherited
by another. Palestinian territorial rights, especially those of occupied East
Jerusalem, the removal of all Jewish settlements, the Wall, and the Right to
Return for Palestinian refugees are not political decisions to be made by
Hamas, Fatah, or any other Palestinian faction, no matter how widely
represented.
Uri Avnery said, thank God for the American elections, our ministers
sighed with relief. They were not rejoicing at the kick that the American
people delivered to George W Bushs ass this week. They love Bush, after
all. But more important than the humbling of Bush is the fact that the news
from America pushed aside the terrible reports from Beit Hanoun.

360

Accident said a pretty anchor-woman on one of the TV news

programs. Tragedy, said her lovely colleague on another channel. A third
one, no less attractive, wavered between event, mistake and incident.
It was indeed an accident, a tragedy, an event and an incident. But most
of all it was a massacre. The word accident suggests something for which
no one is to blame like being struck by lightening. A tragedy is a sad event
or situation, like that of the New Orleans inhabitants after the disaster. The
event in Beit Hanoun was sad indeed, but not an act of God it was an act
decided upon and carried out by human beings.
Immediately after the facts became known, the entire choir of
professional apologists, explainers-away, sorrow expressers and pretext
inventors, a choir that is in perpetual readiness for such cases, sprang into
feverish action There were also arguments like: They can only blame
themselves. As usual, it was the fault of the victims. The most creative
solution came from the Deputy Minister of Defence, Ephraim Sneh: The
practical responsibility is ours, but the moral responsibility is theirs. If they
launch Qassam rockets at us, what else can we do but answer with shells?
The world did not pay much attention to the massacre, because it
happened on US Election Day. The results of the election may sadden our
leaders more than the blood and tears of mothers and children in the
Gaza Strip, but they were glad that the election diverted attention.
A cynic may say: democracy is wonderful, it enables the voter to kick
out the moron they elected last time and replace them with a new moron.
But lets not be too cynical. The fact is that the American people have
accepted, after a delay of three years and tens of thousands of dead,
what the advocates of peace around the world including us here in Israel
were saying already on the first day: the war will cause disaster.
The change will not be quick and dramatic. The US is a huge ship.
When it turns around, it makes a very big circle and needs a lot of time
unlike Israel, a small speed-boat that can turn almost on the spot. But the
direction is clearthe American army have to start leaving Iraq.
Hezbollah and its allies resigned from the government of Lebanon on
11 November; Prime Minister rejected the resignation. Two days later
Lebanese cabinet approved UN court for Hariris murder. Next day, proSyrian opponents called for a change of government after it adopted a UN
th

361

plan to try suspects in the murder. These events indicated that pressure on
pro-Syrian elements was being exerted relentlessly.
Syria and Iran were continuously blamed for interfering in Lebanon.
Peter Brookes was of the view that if Hezbollah pulls it off, forget about the
prospects of a democratic, Western-leaning Lebanese government. Instead,
Iran and Syria will be calling the shots in Beirut. The White House
sounded the alarm last week, warning of mounting evidence that Syria,
Iran and Hezbollah are preparing plans to topple Lebanons democraticallyelected government.
If Hezbollah does get what it wants, forget about ever seeing it
disarm, as required under numerous UN resolutions. Instead, well see more
trouble along the Lebanese-Israeli border as soon as peacekeepers disappear.
Syria will turn this summers military victory over Israel into a
political one, avenging its 2005 leverage over Israel and helping keep its
man, Lahoud, in place.
If Hezbollah brings down Lebanons government or blackmails its
way into a reshuffling of power, Iran will gain a larger-than-ever say in
Lebanons affairs. Indeed well confront an emerging arc of Iranian
influence across the Middle East.
The Washington Post wrote, as was the case in the summer war with
Israel, Hezbollahs new offensive is backed by Iran and Syria and serves
those governments agenda as well as its own. The Shiite Islamic party is
demanding that it be given enough seats in Mr Sinioras cabinet to provide it
with a veto over all major decisions.
To its credit, the Siniora government rejected Hezbollahs
intimidation, and the 18 remaining ministers approved the tribunal
unanimously. But the crisis is far from over. Hezbollah is threatening to
begin street demonstrations that could easily lead to violence. That would
serve the interests of the increasingly radical Iran-Syria axis, which is
attempting to prevent the spread of democracy in the Middle East, drive out
the West and ultimately destroy Israel. Quite shamelessly the western media
still keeps talking about democracy.
The response to this vicious campaign should be the same
concerted multilateral action that followed Mr Hariris assassination last
year and that forced Syria to withdraw its army from Lebanon. First the

362

Security Council should act swiftly to establish the tribunal and begin
criminal proceedings. It should also consider other actions against Syria,
including sanctions, if Syria continues trying to block the formation of the
tribunal and sponsoring political violence in Lebanon.
Bernhard Zand indulged in Narallah-bashing. According to
Nasrallah, the government, dominated by anti-Syrian alliance that emerged
from the countrys March 2005 Cedar Revolution is seeking to make
UNIFILoccupy Lebanon and disarm the resistance. The Hezbollah leader
called it a dangerous plan and of a sort that could transform Lebanon into
another Iraq and another Afghanistan, adding that it stemmed from IsraeliAmerican demand.
As much as Nasrallah accuses the current regime of acting as puppets
of a foreign power, he could just as easily be charged with the same
transgression. Hezbollahs demand that it be given a blocking minority in the
government is clearly an Iranian decision, Sunni leader Hariri angrily told
Nasrallahs representative.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Iran kept resisting Crusaders pressure taking advantage of their selfcreated troubles. On 8th November, Moscow rejected parts of UN anti-Iran
draft sanctions. Two days later, Bush extended freeze on Iranian assets. Next
day, Mottaki said Iran was considering enrichment of uranium in Russia.
On 13th November, the US rejected direct talks with Iran. Next day it
told Israel that Irans nuclear plan is the biggest threat, in other words it was
an instruction to be prepared for action when required. On 15 th November,
Ahmadinejad said Tehran will resist to end on nuclear plan. Next day, he
announced that Iran was close to final nuclear step.
On 17th November, Russian Foreign Minister said UNSC should not
be misused against Iran. Two days later, Tehran summoned Argentinean
envoy over issue of Rafsanjanis arrest warrants. Iran is not in hurry for talks
with US, said Mottaki on 20th November. The same day, Iranian militia
threatened to strike Gulf States with suicide bombers, if US attacked.
Henry Kissinger suggested to the Crusaders as what to do with
Iran. Divisions among the negotiating partners inhibit a clear sense of
363

direction Even the minimal sanctions proposed by the E-3 have been
rejected by Russia.
The European negotiators accept the importance of preventing the
spread of nuclear weapons. But they govern societies increasingly loath to
make immediate sacrifices for the sake of the future witness the difficulty
of passing legislation on domestic reform. Europes leaders know that
their publics would not support military action against Iran
Having cursed the Europeans the Jew went on to coax Russia.
Russias position is more complex. Probably no country not even the US
fears an Iranian nuclear capability more than Russia, whose large
Islamic population lies just north of the borders of Iran. No country is more
exposed to the seepage of Iranian nuclear capabilities into terrorist hands or
to the jihadist ideological wave
Because of its conviction that Iran will be a formidable adversary and
its low assessment of the American effort in Iraq, the Kremlin doubts that
the US has the staying power for a prolonged confrontation with Iran and
chooses to avoid manning barricades on which it may be left alone. In
consequence, Moscow has shifted its emphasis towards Europe and, on
Iran, operationally shares Europes hesitation.
The nuclear negotiations with Iran are moving towards an
inconclusive outcome. The Six eventually will have to choose between
effective sanctions or the consequences of an Iranian military nuclear
capability and the world of proliferation it implies.
He then threatened that Israel could exercise the right to self-defence.
Tehran surely cannot ignore the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike
if all negotiation options close More likely, the nuclear issue will be
absorbed into a more comprehensive negotiation based on geopolitical
realities. It is important, however, to be clear as to what this increasingly
fashionable term implies.
A diplomacy that excludes adversaries is clearly a contradiction
in terms. But the argument on behalf of negotiating too often focuses on the
opening of talks rather than their substance. The fact of talks is assumed to
represent a psychological breakthrough. The relief supplied by a change of
atmosphere is bound to be temporary, however.

364

To the extent that talk becomes its own objective, there will emerge
forums without progress and incentives for stonewalling. If, at the end of
such a diplomacy, stands an Iranian nuclear capability and a political
vacuum being filled by Iran, the impact on order in the Middle East will
be catastrophic.

CONCLUSION
There has been lot of talk about change in the policy of United States,
particularly in the context of Iraq. Analysts have been exploring the way out;
some suggested phased withdrawal, some wanted complete pullout of
occupation forces, and a few even cried cut and run.
Loud-thinking about finding a way out did not mean that American
felt trapped in Iraq and wanted to end Iraqs occupation. America has no
intention to give up its plan to impose liberty and democracy on Iraqis.
This goal, however, will now be pursued with combination of diplomatic
and military means. There will be change in the course not the destination, in
other words, a change in strategy not the goal.
Israel and the US, supported by Europe and even by some Arab
countries, have launched multi-pronged offensive to crush Hamas militarily
and finish it politically. They have been arming Fatah to topple Hamas,
failing which they wont mind triggering of civil war.
In Lebanon, similar goals were being pursued by the Crusaders.
Hezbollah and other pro-Syrian elements has been the obvious target, but
Hamas-Fatah-like confrontation had not yet materialized.

22nd November 2006

365

ARROGANT MODERATE
Blair visited Islamabad and announced substantial increase in
remunerations for the services rendered by Pakistan in facilitate the
occupation of Afghanistan by NATO forces led by a British General. A
United Nations committee hailed Pakistans efforts against terrorism.
Armitage, however, warned that Afghan violence may jeopardize stability in
neighbouring Pakistan and have a knock-out effect on India.
The revived peace process with India failed to make any
breakthrough. However, the pretext of strengthening India for containment
of China was exposed. India and China pledged to double trade to $40
billion by 2010. Hu Jintao also offered strategic cooperation to Pakistan and
two countries vowed to take ties to new heights.
On home front, the nationalists became more active despite the
setback in Baluchistan. The pursuit of soft image touched new heights, or
lows, during the period. Women of Pakistan were protected by passing a
bill by the National assembly; Mirza Tahir was freed; a UN team probed
Samis madrassa in Akora Khattak; and above all Faisal Mosque went
without Azaan during Blairs visit.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Pursuit of Afghan peace continued in accordance with the wishes
of the Crusaders. Following incidents of militancy and actions by the
government were reported:
Two miscreants were killed while planting a bomb near girls college
in Darra Adamkhel on 30th October.
On 3rd November, a cleric was killed in Waziristan for spying for the
US. Next day, masked men killed an elder in South Waziristan. A
tehsildar was kidnapped in North Waziristan.
A lashkar of about 600 pro-Taliban tribesmen burnt three houses in
Shakai area of South Waziristan on 6th November for harbouring

366

foreigners. Seventy Afghans refugees were detained for questioning

about recent car bombing.
On 7th November, two rockets were fired at jirga in Wana which was
attended by the Governor. Three days later, four anti-militant
campaigners were killed in a roadside blast, an army camp was
attacked with rockets and a pro-government tribal elder escaped bid
on life in North Waziristan.
US spy was killed in Miranshah on 19th November. Jirga warned
tribesmen against sheltering foreigners.
Police arrested 38 suspected Taliban in Quetta on 21 st November. Two
policemen of Nowshera who went missing while tracking down a
wanted Afghan were reported to be in custody of Jalalabad authorities.
On 22nd November, 120 Afghans were handed over to Afghan
authorities at Chaman border. Police investigators confirmed foreign
hand in rocket attacks in Peshawar.
Masked gunmen killed a tribesman in Bajaur on 27 th November. Next
day, militants attacked journalists shop in Miranshah. Two UNHCR
officials were kidnapped near Peshawar. Pamphlets warned locals in
Bajaur against educating females.
The blame-game continued. On 31st November, Kabul claimed
capturing Pakistani suicide bomber. Four days later, Dutch Foreign Minister
visiting Kabul wanted Pak-Afghan border sealed. This prompted Mariana
Baabar to report that Pakistan has convinced NATO to seal Afghan border
and Karzai had also been brought on board. Within 24 hours she realized
that her optimism was unfounded. On 7th November, Afghanistan rejected
the proposal to fence Durand Line.
Tripartite Commission in a meeting held in Kabul on 11th November
agreed upon setting up joint intelligence centre to be based in Kabul. A week
later, Pakistani and NATO military leaders discussed terror fight in a
meeting held in Netherlands.
The same day, Blair arrived in Pakistan to talk about terrorism and
Afghanistan. He hinted at major policy shift on terror. Musharraf called for

367

multi-faceted approach against Taliban. Prime Minister of Pakistan wanted

inclusion of invisible Afghan stakeholders in talks.
On 20th November, Fazl offered his services to mediate between
Taliban and Karzai. The same day, Supreme Court returned petition on
attack on Bajaur seminary for being not entertain-able. A week later,
Asfandyar blamed mullas for killing 3 million Pashtuns.
Meanwhile, Hekmatyar alleged that India has been allowed to use
Afghan soil against Pakistan. Mushahid Hussain said Hekmatyar can play
vital role in Afghanistan. On 26th November, hundreds protested in Khaar
against arrest of ex-MNA Shahzada Haroon Rashid.
Pakistan should pay heed and not allow itself to be forced into
democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq style, wrote Lubna Jarar Naqvi.
Pakistan would be happy to settle its own internal problems, with sagacious
advice from outside but with the right to accept or reject it at will. It should
be allowed as a sovereign country to deal with its internal matters
without large-scale massacres and executions carried out by allied
friendly forces.
The prejudices of the master against the obedient servant remained
in place; however, there were only two incidents of overt display. The US
Senate passed a bill to allow export of nuclear technology to India. India and
Pakistan were constrained to reject gas price suggested by a consultant.
Shireen M Mazari availed the opportunity and wrote an open letter to
the visiting Charles Windsor conveying popular sentiment in Pakistan in
particular and Muslim World in general. Prince Charles, your visit to
Pakistan is a trifle mystifying, but the traditional Islamic and South Asian
traditions hospitality you will not find the Pakistani state wanting on that
count. In fact, to prove the states commitment to the US-led war on
terror, your visit was marked by the bombing of a madrassah in Bajaur,
which also led to death of many innocent children. But then Muslim
civilians have become the usual collateral damage in this increasingly
contentious war.
So on the issue of the war on terror you can assure your countrys
leaders that Pakistan is going even beyond the extra mile and at great
cost to its own citizens despite the continuing Pakistan-bashing and armybashing at the hands of the British media and defence establishment,

368

including your rather ill-informed Defence Academy, which produces

factually incorrect analysis with dangerous repercussions.
As for the stated main purpose of your visit interfaith harmony,
which could also be linked to multicultural harmony, surely at this point in
time you would have done better to speak on this to your countrymen,
especially your political leaders, After all, with the veil being seen as evil
and every Muslim student being spied Not that our declared Islamic
society is perfect but you should begin preaching in your own backyard
first. What are the British values your political elite want all British citizens
to commit to? Are they white Christian values or truly multicultural values,
which means accepting the diversity of your society?
Of course, to some extent Britain will remain a Christian rather than
a secular society since Queen is head of the Church of England. But we have
been told by your publicists that you want to be seen as a defender of faiths
so perhaps you could remove the blasphemy laws in your country or at least
make them applicable to all religions rather than just Christianity. As for
preaching peace and tolerance, there has been much focus on the role of
war in Islam. But what about warlike battle hymns in the Church of
Englands hymn books?
So interfaith harmony seems to be more urgently required in your
own realm, but as far as we in this Islamic country can see you have
maintained a strange silence as your countrymen have unleashed a concerted
attack on Muslims from their dress to their beliefs. If British Muslim
youth are alienated there is a fault within your society that is responsible
for this, not a two or one week visit to Pakistan.
While you remain concerned on this subject of interfaith harmony,
how about visiting your Dominion, Australia, where the prime minister has
drawn the Muslim community into a farcical and ridiculous controversy
which has brought out the worst on both sides an obscurantist cleric on the
Muslim side and a rabidly anti-Islamist prime minister and white Christian
Aussies on the other. Given that the Queen is still the head of the
Australian realm, it would be better to first establish interfaith
harmony in that disturbed realm. Also, perhaps you could remind them
that Australian values in terms of the Whites may not be worth propagating
given how the foundation was laid and the massacre and practical
elimination of the Aborigines from mainstream Australia. Of course you see
the Aborigines when you visit officially because they are made to appear in
369

their tribal costumes to dance before you. But do tell Mr Howard to examine
Australian values with true honesty before upbraiding Muslim Australians
for not imbibing these values.
Ihsan Aslam wrote, I cant take it anymore, Ive had enough. The
stress of being a Muslim in Britain is getting too much. All we want to do
is to lead ordinary lives. Yet, with the constant media glare and the daily
demonization of the entire community, they wont let it be. Like the ongoing
US bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq and the resultant civilian casualties,
Muslims in Britain are daily subjected to bombardment by the media and
political leaders falling over backwards to join the bandwagon of targeting
Muslims. Please leave us alone! This is the world of the civilized people
and the ideal of enlightened moderates in Pakistan.

PEACE PROCESS
The resumption of composite dialogue was marked by the meeting
of foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan held on 14 th November in New
Delhi, in which wide ranging talks were held. Next day, India and Pakistan
agreed on 3-member anti-terror mechanism.
Musharraf expected substantive talks with Manmohan during latters
scheduled visit to Pakistan. On 25th November, Kasuri during a private visit
to New Delhi saw progress in Siachen talks; only political will was needed
to clinch the deal. Next day, it was reported that India had asked Pakistan to
authenticate the positions of troops on the glacier which would lead to the
de-militarization of the area. On the other hand, Pakistan said it was waiting
for Indian response on its proposal on Siachen.
There were plenty of actions and statements negative to
confidence building during the period:
On 3rd November, Indian Army cautioned government against Siachen
deal resulting in failure of yet another round on back channel
diplomacy.
India urged Pakistan on 7th November to remove hurdles in free
trade. Next day, 27 Indian fishermen were arrested and boats were
seized by Pakistan.
370

 Indian airports were put on high alert on 9 th November after al-Qaeda

threat.
On 11th November, Pakistan rejected Indian plea for transit facility to
import sheep from Afghanistan.
Delhi will press Islamabad to rein in militants, said Mukerjee. On 15 th
November, India provided Pakistan the evidence of its involvement in
terror attacks in India.
Pakistan test-fired Hatf-5 missile on 16th November. Three days later,
India tested nuclear-capable missile; Pakistan arrested 22 Indian
fishermen; and India violated SAARC decision on visa facilitation.
Indian nuclear plants are at risk of terror attack, said Patil on 22 nd
November. Next day, Singh said terrorist attacks are spreading beyond
Kashmir.
On 27th November, India carried out first-ever successful test
interception of a ballistic missile.
Meanwhile, perpetration of state terrorism in IHK continued.
Following incidents were reported:
Yasin Malik was seriously wounded by Indian Special Forces on 28th
October. Two days later, Indian forces claimed killing close aide of
Salahuddin.
On 1st November an India soldier gunned down a colonel. Three days
later, Indian army chief disclosed that one hundred soldiers have
committed suicide in IHK during last five years.
Three Kashmiris and two security forces personnel were killed in IHK
on 7th November. Six soldiers were wounded in a separate incident.
Guru submitted mercy petition to Kalam on 9 th November. Next day,
five people were killed and fifty wounded in grenade attack on a
mosque. Five girls were killed in cluster bomb explosion in Kel area.

371

 Two Indian soldiers and two Kashmiris were killed on 13th November.
Next day, 28 people were wounded in two separate bomb blasts in
Srinagar and northern Kashmir.
Eight Kashmiri youths were killed by Indian security forces on 15 th
November. Next day, two persons were injured in a blast near
Mirwaizs house in Srinagar.
Two Indian soldiers were injured in grenade attack on 19 th November.
Next day, three Kashmiri youths were killed.
Two fighters were killed by troops and one engineer was shot dead on
21st November; two soldiers were wounded.
Gilani escaped attempt on life on 23rd November. Two days later,
seven Indian soldiers including an officer and two freedom fighters
were killed in two clashes.
Security forces claimed killing three fighters on 27th November. Next
day, an Indian Army major and Hizb commander Sohail Faisal were
killed in an encounter in Bijbehara.
Kashmiris kept waiting to see some progress on the fate of their
homeland, but they themselves remained divided. On 29th November, Mufti
proposed separate assemblies in Jammu, Kashmir and Laddakh. Hurriyat
rejected self-rule as an Indian agenda. Salahuddin termed self-rule
document of slavery.

HOME FRONT
Political arena remained active to some extent. On 11th November,
Opposition stayed away from meeting on provincial autonomy. Asfandyar
said issues have gone beyond concurrent list. He succeeded in assembling
top Pashtun leadership to peace jirga held on 20th November. The peace jirga
vowed to bring stability to FATA.
On 13th November, NWFP Assembly passed Hasba Bill; Opposition
staged walkout. The News editorial criticized NWFP Assembly for passing

372

a needless law. Opponents of the bill mulled challenging it in Supreme

Court. NWFP government may be sacked, threatened Saifullah.
NWFP Assembly condemned removal of Islamia College image from
currency note. Imran launched anti-Musharraf campaign on 18th November.
Benazir convinced Nawaz against resignations, but differences between
Nawaz and Benazir deepened after Abida and Fakhr joined PPP.
Rahimullah Yusufzai commented, Jirgas are becoming fashionable
and bigger and those unfamiliar with the name and the tradition are getting
to know it better. Still all these jirgas will be unable to deliver if those
sponsoring them use the event as a vehicle to achieve narrow political goals.
Jirgas succeed when parties to the conflict get an equal hearing and
decisions are made independently and by consensus. That is unlikely to
happen in the prevailing circumstances. So we could have as many jirgas
as we want to but none would be able to deliver until those sitting on the
jirgas are authorized by the powers that be, Whether Afghanistan, Pakistan,
the US and NATO, or non-state actors like al-Qaeda, to take any decision for
the sake of peace.
On Hasba Bill, he wrote, the MMA as the democratically elected
ruling coalition is entitled to move bills and enact laws that would enable it
to fulfill promises it made to the electorate in the election campaign and all
democratic forces should accept the right of provincial assemblies to
legislate for the good of the people.
Mounting a political challenge to the MMA should be appropriate
way to expose the hollowness of its promises as well as its flawed strategy
instead of putting up legal hurdles through federal government interventions
to block its march. As the Hasba bill in its present shape is a meaningless
piece of ineffective legislation, one feels the MMA government would
have gained more politically had it delayed its passage through the
provincial assembly. It could then have claimed that the federal government
created hurdles in adopting the Hasba bill and passing on its benefits to the
people. After the passage of the bill, it would not be able to come up with
any more excuses as to why it failed to enforce Shariah even after remaining
in power for five years.
Shaheen Sehbai wrote about Musharraf-Benazir efforts for political
understanding. If Benazir is benefiting from political statements and
exhortations of Musharraf, the General does not seem to mind. Last
373

week Musharraf and BB came politically and publicly too close for comfort
for many on the Womens Protection Bill, discomforting a hefty group of
Musharrafs own friends and allies. Benazir supported the bill and
Musharraf thanked her party on national TV while addressing the nation. All
this was happening when a sizeable chunk of Musharrafs political base, the
PML-Q opted to stay away from the Womens Bill.
Musharraf cannot and would not take off his uniform on a
promise made by Benazir that she would help in his re-election as a
civilian, constitutional president. The moment he does that, he and
everybodys aunt knows that he becomes another Ghulam Ishaq Khan.
So, howsoever similar their policies and professions, Musharraf and
Benazir need credible third party guarantees and it is here that the role of
the Americans becomes critical as both seem to have some trust and
confidence in Washington. The UAE and other Arab rulers may also have
some say in this regard.
To achieve this formidable goal, interested Americans, who may be
officials, retired officials, diplomats or businessmen have to follow a track-II
or track-III level diplomacy and it is where the former ambassadors and
think tankers become relevant and useful. That is why long US visits and
stays of Benazir and husband Asif Zardari could be understood.
Nothing concrete has emerged as yet, it seems, but contours of
what is wanted by all the sides are clear. Musharraf wants another term as
president, Benazir wants to return to Pakistan, contest free and fair polls and
become prime minister again, if elected. Americans want them both to join
hands against the extremists.
On 16th November, Musharraf vowed to retaliate fiercely to Baluch
militants during his address on inauguration of Mirani Dam in
Baluchistan. Insurgency in the province had considerably decreased;
however, following incidents were reported:
Two security personnel were hurt in landmine blast in Pirkoh area on
31st October. Next day, two FC troops were killed while defusing a
landmine in Dera Bugti.

374

 Three persons were killed in bomb blast in Quetta on 2 nd November.

Intelligence agencies spotted Akbar Bugtis son in Kabul and asked
Afghan authorities to hand him over.
One FC soldier was killed and another wounded in exchange of fire in
Kahan area on 13th November. Two persons were killed in bomb blast
in Samungli area near Quetta.
Security forces recovered 17 rockets from Chaghai area on 16 th
November. Next day, a constable was shot dead by gunmen in Quetta.
Sabotage bid was foiled as explosives were seized in Quetta on 24 th
November. Three days later, two persons were injured in landmine
blast in Dera Bugti.
Akhtar Mengal was placed under house arrest on 28th November. BNP
leaders were arrested ahead of planned anti-government march.
Expressing his views in a TV programme anchored by Kamran Khan
on 8 November, Lt Gen A Qadir Baluch repeatedly referred to Akbar
Bugti as Shaheed, which reflected one thing beyond doubt that he
considered himself a Baluch first and a Pakistani later or may be not even
later. This indicated the mood of Baluch elite.
th

In the pursuit of soft image, Women Protection Bill stole the show.
The government and MMA stuck to their respective stands on the bill on the
eve of NA session. On 15th November, National Assembly passed WPB.
Ruling party and its allies rejoiced, PPP supported, PML-N, PONM and PTI
abstained, and MMA opposed but delayed the resignation. Shujaat vowed
resigning if any clause of the new law proved against Quraan. US declined
to comment.
Next day, MMA decided to quit from National Assembly over WPB,
however, Hafiz Hussain resigned in protest. Council of Islamic Ideology said
the bill was not referred to it. Ansar Abbasi reported that Law Minister Wasi
Zafar while justifying the WPB said, this is in accordance with the scheme
of the PPC, and the evolving standards of decency, which marks progress of
a maturing society. Some western capitals and NGOs have been using these
very words for Quraanic punishment of whipping. Mufti Muneebur Rehman
said this statement amounted to blasphemy.

375

On 17th November, thousands of MQM activists marched in Karachi

to hail passage of WPB. MQMs Khominei addressed them from London
and suggested that all seats in assemblies falling vacant due to pending
resignations of MMA should be filled by women who supported the bill.
The passage of WPB received prominent coverage in US media. The
US formally hailed passage of WPB. The presidency saw no crisis if MMA
resigned en bloc. Durrani rejoiced on observing that the religious alliance
was falling apart.
On 22nd November, in recognition of the tremendous support to the
cause of women rights in Pakistan, the White Ribbon Campaign in
collaboration with Womens Empowerment Group International named
Musharraf for the White Ribbon Man of the Year Award 2006.
Mirza Tahir, a murderer Brit of Pakistani origin, was another test for
Pakistani leaders enlightened moderation. On 30th October, Charles raised
Britons case with Musharraf. Ten days later, a Dubai-based businessman
offered jobs to relatives of the slain driver, reported Rauf Klasra. Back-door
diplomacy seemed working.
At last, the brave commando came up to the expectations of the
Crusaders. Britain hailed clemency for Tahir. Blair and Charles thanked
Musharraf. On 17th November, Mirza Tahir was released a day before the
arrival of Blair in Islamabad and he was flown out of the country
immediately. The News editorial not only appreciated the pardon of Mirza
but also suggested abolishing capital punishment.
During the visit of Bushs poodle to Faisal Mosque, the use of
loudspeaker for prayer call was not allowed and the people gathered for
offering Asr prayer, barring a few, were ordered to vacate the mosque.
Surprisingly, the media of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan saw no news
value in this most unfortunate incident.
On 23rd November, NWFP Assembly unanimously condemned the
reported restriction on azaan and Asr prayers in Faisal Mosque, during
Tony Blairs visit. Members also condemned desecration of Islamic flags by
a multinational company which owned a shop in the capital. Zubaida
Khatoon of MMA suggested condemnation of the apologetic attitude of the
rulers for earning a bad name for Islam and Pakistan.

376

Four days, later, the point of giving up Azaan during Blairs visit was
raised in the Senate by Rehmatullah Kakar in the absence of Interior
Minister. When Sherpao arrived, Afgan brought the point to his notice, but
he preferred not to dilate on it.
On 22nd November, UN Counter Terrorism Committee led by Joel
Sollier visited (probed) Darul Uloom Haqqania at Akora Khattak. The
committee looked into education system, Syllabus and sources of funding
for three-and-half hours.
Samiul Haq urged the team to come up with clear definition of
terrorism. He blamed Bush and also the UN for spreading hate against
Muslim all over the world. He said the UN has played key role in damaging
the image of Muslims all over the world.
Surprisingly, Maulana wanted a definition of terrorism even after
presence of a team of experts probing his madrassa. The team had and
perhaps will never visit an institution of religious education of any other
religion.
The team while visiting the library wanted that books should be
translated in English, so that the contents could be verified easily. The team,
however, accepted that it found no evidence to corroborate what it had heard
in New York about this madrassa.
Earlier, on 14th November, Shakeel Anjum reported that Police in
Islamabad helped beating a driver by a South African for hitting his car.
Reaction of witnesses summarized Pakistanis state of mind in prevalent
environments. We only thought a joint team of US and Pakistani security
agencies had captured a terrorist, wanted by the FBI. When the driver
proved to be innocent, South African tried to bribe him for keeping quiet.
There were some other events relevant in the context. On 9 th
November, Mufti Musharraf issued a fatwa that performing arts are in
accordance with the teachings of Islam. The same day, three Pakistanis were
handed over to Scotland court and 600 deportees from Oman arrived in
Karachi.
Next day a concert was held in Karachi to pay tribute to Daniel Pearl.
The Supreme Court sought report on missing persons by December 1. Ten
days later, a BBC reporter went missing in Islamabad, who was freed by the

377

abductors next day. The incidents of militancy and legal actions to curb it
reported during the period were:
One person was killed and 15 hurt in bomb blast in Quetta on 28 th
October.
Three days later, Sindh High Court acquitted four convicts in US
Consulate suicide bombing case. The same day, two militants were
sentenced to death in Karachi for sectarian killings.
Hafiz Saeeds close associate was slain in Lahore on 11th November.
Six days later, 24 people were injured in a blast in Lahore.
Khaleej Times observed that the Hudood Ordinances, a relic of
military rule of the late president Gen Zia-ul-Haq, had been rightly seen
as unjust and discriminatory towards women. The most controversial and
criticized among the Hudood Ordinances had been the one dealing with rape
and adultery. According to the ordinance, women victims of rape needed to
persuade four male eyewitnesses to the offence, failing which they were
thrown into prison and charged with adultery.
This piece of legislation has been cleverly and repeatedly exploited
by the countrys traditionally feudal and male-dominated society over the
years to subjugate, suppress and victimize women. And this is not something
that has been spawned and hyped up by true blue, pro-West liberals. This is
an unpleasant reality that needs to be acknowledged and confronted by
Pakistans leaders, political parties, the media and society as a whole.
While we respect the MMA and other Islamists of their concern that,
under pressure from the West and liberal womens groups, the government
may be bringing in a law that goes against the tenets and spirit of Islamic
Sharia. However, as President Musharraf argued in his nationwide address
on Wednesday, new law does not in any way challenge or undermine
Islamic teachings. Islam is based on reason and stands for justice, equality
and rights for including women. In fact, its this religion that restored dignity
and respect to women
Babar Sattar wrote, what we are witnessing today is the evolution of
Islamic law and tradition being shaped by politics rather than intellect,
making it more blinkered and intolerant. The argument being made here is
not the traditionally liberal one that Islamic law being the law of a dynamic

378

eternal religion needs to be capable of addressing the needs and concerns of

evolving society and thus capable of evolving itself through ijtihad, but that
the Islamic tradition is being evolved only through ijtihad performed by
radicals, thus making it more bigoted and retrogressive.
If the interpretation and evolution of the law of Islam continues to
be inspired and informed by the contemporary politics of fear and hate,
the Islamic legal and moral code will continue to suffer grievously.
However, declaring radical Muslim groups as terrorists and clamping down
on their hate literature cannot alone defeat this backward trend. The only real
solutions require a sustained long-term effort
What we need is rigorous religious scholarship that extrapolates
moral principles underlying the Quraan after understanding the sociocultural and historical context in which the divine commandments were
revealed and then finding solutions to contemporary problems by applying
such principles.
There are at least three pre-requisites for such scholarship and
debate within Pakistan. One, engendering a culture of tolerance that
encourages questioning the views of those in authority Two, ensuring a
state of security wherein questioning and challenging entrenched Islamic
viewpoints does not immediately get you being labeled an infidel Three,
focusing obsessively on the state and quality of education so that the
findings of religious scholars are accessible to ordinary people and that they
are able to critique the prevailing brand of popular Islam
Deccan Herald observed that the bill was still short of the
requirement. The amendment deals only with the issues of rape and
adultery under the Hudood Ordinance, leaving untouched other Draconian
measures related to drinking and theft. It only tinkers with the Hudood
Ordinance instead of repealing it in toto. The use of word Draconian says
all about the mindset of the critics about laws which bear the word Hudood
as part of their name.
The News commented on the threat of resignations. Whatever the
real reasons for such a decision to resign, it would make most lay people
think that the alliance is all rhetoric and no action, because it failed to
come good on its earlier pledge. Maybe to escape censure, one MMA MNA
has publicly said that he has resigned.

379

One hopes that MMA can see the irony in its predicament, for which
it needs to blame only itself. The alliance took what it believed to be the
moral high ground on the issue of changing the Hudood laws (of course
many others would see opposition to amending a terrible law as anything but
moral) but has negated that stand by refusing to abide by its pledge to
resign.
Mir Khalilur Rahman wrote, MMA should rest assured that no
political party will join it in its anti-Musharraf movement. In the context
of the WPB, the PPP has shown that it is a level-headed and moderate party
and will support Musharrafs policies in the parliament if they are for the
good of the people.
Farooq Hamid Khan said, resignations are a sign of defeatism and
a retrograde step. In doing so the MMA will least serve the cause of
democracy. The more prudent approach would be to remain steadfast in
parliament and continue to fight political battles on the floor of the house
and not on the streets of Lahore or Islamabad. Nothing can be more
irresponsible and disturbing than the threat to mobilize the public agitation.
Nasim Zehra was of the view that there are definite signs that
Pakistans political landscape is undergoing change. Popular national and
regional parties such as the PPP, MQM, ANP and PkMP are gathering
momentum. In the coming days they will directly compete with the religiopolitical groups for the soul of Pakistan and of Islam. The Islamic
contestations in Pakistans political space will no longer be restricted to the
religio-political parties.
Pakistan has the intellectual capacity, the democratic zeal and the
political culture required to lead a reformation. Its civil society groups,
religious scholars, media and even popular political parties make the agents
of change After all in a world where brute force dominates all else, where
the weak will be damned to exploitations and marginalization, where only
those born with a silver spoon will experience the joys of life, where
immediate and momentary needs determine human relations, where the
physically weak, the aging and the economically disadvantaged find no
security zones, where the divide between the well-informed and the illinformed will forever expand, in that context only anger, hate, and violence
can flourish.

380

Hence the objective of Islam was to guide change in this context

Muslims were obligated to regulate their lives across the entire spectrum of
human interaction, in accordance with the principles of justice, scholarship,
discipline, tolerance, modesty, aesthetics, hygiene, accountability, kindness
and consideration To resolve conflicts and problems Muslims were
obliged to follow principles of fair play. In Pakistan for too long the
principles of fair play have been missing. The passage of a Womens
Protection Bill is a significant step towards establishing that fair play.
Some analysts talked of political goals linked to this bill. Shahed
Saadullah wrote, it must have been difficult for Ms Bhutto to support the
bill and still claim her just position in opposition politics. She is too shrewd
a politician not to have realized the problems that this may give rise to,
and the fact that she decided to go ahead nevertheless and support the bill is
a measure of her political courage as well.
Imtiaz Alam opined that the Womens Protection Bill has turned out
to be a catalyst, upsetting the current alignment of forces and
stimulating ideological polarization in the country. And with the elections
around the corner, the MMA, an astute front of political manipulators behind
a pious garb of political Islam. MMA has chosen to take a course of
confrontation. Despite being rejected by the Supreme Court, the Hasba bill
has again been passed by the NWFP Assembly to enable the MMA to go
back to the electorates once again with slogans of Islam.
Shafqat Mahmood wrote, once the politics is out of the way, the true
test of whether this bill protects women or not will come in implementation.
For this the onus is entirely on the judiciary. Can it rise to the challenge?
Meanwhile look for more overblown rhetoric on this and other matters
as the election season comes around.
It is not the case of what is good for the people, but what is good for
the party and its leadership. In the prevalent international environment PPP
wants to tell the US that this party is moderate, secular and whatever else the
US likes it to be. This is in acknowledgement of the reality that no
leadership in the third world can survive without the support of the US and
the West.
As regards MMA, it was once tricked by Musharraf by making a false
promise about his uniform, and now it seemed that it is being tricked by PPP
from the platform of ARD and in collaboration with PML-N under the garb
381

of Charter of Democracy. MMA is virtually being isolated by the political

forces which know that the secret of success Pakistani politics: key is held
by the White House.
Musharraf knows this secret better than anybody else and that is why
he has been vehemently pursuing the goal of enlightened moderation. The
driving force behind pushing the passage of the bill is political ambitions of
the rulers than the ends of justice. That was why one found that throughout
the process the ruling gang of moderates had been more arrogant than the socalled extremists.
After passage of WPB, Musharraf lectured the nation on Islamic
jurisprudence and the way he explained the finer points of the bill, one can
expect that his next book will be on Islamic jurisprudence, though many
may be expecting a book on military profession. The foreword of the new
book will be written by Altaf Khominei. Both the Bhais are adequately
qualified to show concern over the women implicated in Zina.
Rahimullah Yusufzai compiled a report on reaction of the bereaved
family after the release of Mirza the murderer. Late cab-driver Jamshed
Khans younger brother Gul Rabi said every member of his extended family
was pained by President General Pervez Musharrafs unjust decision to
commute the death sentence of a man convicted for murder.
Pain of Pakistanis is not more important than the pleasure of the Brits.
In any case, more than Musharraf, it is the judicial system of the country
which causes pain to Pakistanis as it couldnt dispense justice in this case in
almost two decades.
Yusufzai added, Haji Sohbat Khan, an uncle of Jamshed who fought
the costly legal battle to have Mirza Tahir convicted and hanged, said he and
his aggrieved family would have got a better deal had they not been poor
Habibullah another uncle of Jamshed, was in shock and very angry. It is a
bigger tragedy for us than the murder of my nephew. Why dont the
government slaughter 10 members of our family instead of making us die a
slow death?
Gul Rabi argued that President Musharraf had acted illegally to
commute Mirza Tahirs death sentence He said the family resisted
every offer of blood money and refused to make a compromise with Mirza
Tahirs familyas it would have been dishonourable.

382

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Mushahid Hussain also came to us

and suggested we make a compromise with Mirza Tahirs family. We also
heard that an Arab Sheikh in Dubai wanted to offer us 50 visas and jobs to
make us forgive the murderer. We werent interested in anything except to
seek justice for Jamshed We lost because we are poor. It is a victory for
pounds sterling.
Mirza Tahir had given three contradictory statements in court to
justify murdering Jamshed in self-defence He also refuted Mirza Tahirs
claim that he voluntarily gave himself up at the police station after
murdering Jamshed.
We are holding consultations whether to approach the Supreme Court
or not. We have to decide if it is worthwhile to fight another legal battle
after having seen how court judgments are flouted. Besides, does anyone
in our country possessed power to bring back Mirza Tahir to Pakistan to face
trial, questioned Sohbat Khan.
The News appreciated the fatwa on performing arts. One cannot
agree more with President Pervez Musharrafs remarks made at the
inauguration of a performing arts festival in Lahore on Thursday that
cultural activities are not un-Islamic. He is also correct in saying that
pursuit of culture and governments promotion of it helps improve the
countrys negative image overseas.
To put it a bit more bluntly, we have over the years become a nation
of kill-boys and look down on anyone who wants to have a bit of cultural
entertainment Its very good thing when the head of state makes it a
point to attend a performing arts festival and then proceeds to say on
record that pursuit of cultural activities is not in any way un-Islamic.
M B Naqvi viewed it differently. Pakistans strongman President
Pervez Musharraf has given a fatwa that fine arts are not un-Islamic.
Therefore they should be promoted. That will promote a modern and
moderate Islam. And this will help project a soft image of a modern and
moderate Pakistan. Musharraf today is a great salesman of what he
thinks the US demands.
Noreen Haider commented on the case of some of the missing men.
Faisal had done his B Sc Engineering from GIK Institute He was son of
Muhammad Gul Faraz late professor of Atchison College Lahore and

383

received his initial education from that college. Incidentally, none of the two
institutions have semblance of a madrassa which are generally blamed for
promotion of extremism, militancy and terrorism.
On July 30, he was supposed to go to Rawalpindi. He had booked a
seat of Daewoo Bus for Peshawar for 12 noon, where he was going with Mr
Masood Ahmed Janjua presumably on a Tablighi mission. His family did not
know about the Tablighi mission or the trip to Peshawar.
Masood Ahmed Janjua 47, educationist and businessman, is also
missing ever since. Owner of CIT College Rawalpindi and Vital Travels
Agency Islamabad, he was also the General Secretary of Hamza Foundation,
a welfare institute in Islamabad Both Faisal Faraz and Masood Janjua
were supposed to catch 12 Oclock Daewoo Bus but they never made it to
the bus station. Nobody has seen them since. They simply disappeared.
In August 2006, a petition was submitted in the Supreme Court of
Pakistan by Amina Masood Janjua and Zainab Khatoon. They submitted a
list of 16 people whose families have come together on a joint forum to
locate their loved ones.
The Supreme Court on Friday November 10, 2006 gave a deadline to
the government for the retrieval of several missing people, who are believed
to have been detained by intelligence agencies for their alleged links with
jihadi outfits.
Talking to TNS Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah said: we are
working on the case and the data about missing people is being tabulated. As
many as 41 cases have so far been brought to our notice and we are doing
efforts to locate them.
Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan provides that to enjoy the
protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable
right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the
time being in Pakistan. All hopes are now pinned on the Chief Justice
of Pakistan who has given December 1 as the deadline for the case.
The stoppage of Azaan in Faisal Mosque, in pursuit of enlightened
moderation or soft image, was a most shameful act, and more than that it
was so because the media and intellectual generally preferred to remain
silent over it. Wasnt it an incident of extreme intolerance?

384

When Blair, deputy-in-chief of the Crusaders, arrived late at the Faisal

Mosque, the security men tried to stop the prayer. Imam insisted and the
security men did not allow the use of loudspeakers for Azaan and expelled
Namaazis barring a few. A Whiteman, who happened to be present there,
remarked that such thing cannot happen in a Church back home. The
incident amply reflected the state in which the government is; it accords
priority to security of a man with his hands soaked in hundreds of
thousands of Muslims, over perseverance the sanctity of the mosque and
important rituals of prayers.

CONCLUSION
Musharraf has been totally committed to serving the Crusaders
through bloodletting in the name of Afghan for peace and to the pursuit of
peace process with proxy crusader, India. There were no signs to believe
that Musharraf would falter in its resolve in near future.
At home, Musharraf vehemently pursued enlightened moderation as it
serves his political goals. Passage of WPB and the declaration that
performing arts are not un-Islamic are aimed at securing the support of the
West for perpetuation of his rule. The pardon of killer Brit is also a part of
the same pursuit. The two enlightened moderates had worked hard to get the
killer released simply because the two killers, Blair and Charles, had pressed
Musharraf to set him free.
The issue of the missing men is definitely linked to human trading
which, according to Musharrafs best-seller, is the easiest way to make
money. It also indicated that the CIA with the assistance Pakistani agencies
has been granted complete freedom of action.
To say prayer in the presence of a Crusader is an act of extremism, if
not terrorism, for those who preach enlightened moderation. But, if one
would dare ask Musharraf to comment, he would reply that they were telling
lies; Blair himself had heard Azaan. He is, undoubtedly, the most arrogant
moderate.
30th November 2006

385

UNVEILED BY VEIL
Ridiculing the traditions and customs of different societies of the
Muslim World is part of the ongoing Crusades. This is an all-encompassing
clash, which goes far beyond the military campaigns launched in different
parts of the Islamic World. Military action is meant only to inflict collective
physical punishment and taking control of the natural resources of Muslim
lands.
On cultural front the focus of the Christian West is on demonizing
Islam as a religion. In this holy war, all forces of the state, non-state and the
Church have joined hands. Within the demonizing plan, suppression of
women in Islamic countries is the favourite theme of the propagandists.
One of the cultural traditions, the observance of parda by Muslim
women, has been ridiculed vehemently in the last five years. When the
Crusaders wanted to change Talibans regime in Afghanistan, the moving
tent (burqa) was a favourite topic for western media. After occupation of
Afghanistan, burqa survived but Taliban could not be blamed for that. It is
now the free choice of the liberated Afghan women.
But this free choice when exercised by Muslim women in Europe is
considered a threat to values of civilized world and also an obstacle to the
integration of Muslim immigrants with European societies. Some countries
led by France made strong moves to counter the threat posed by the
headscarf. Of late, Britain has struck hard against veil and niqab.
On 5th October, Jack Straw told Muslim women to avoid wearing
headscarf. Next day, he reiterated his opposition to Muslim women wearing
veil. British media backed Straw over the issue. On 10 th October, Tony
Blair put his weight behind Straw.
A teacher was suspended for wearing veil in school in Britain on 14th
October. A British minister supported sacking of the teacher. Three days
later, Muslim medical students were barred from wearing niqab while
talking to hospital patients. Next day, Blair portrayed veil as mark of
separation.

386

On 11th November, it was reported that Netherlands planned to clamp

complete ban on veil. Three days later, a priest in Britain joined the battle
against veil. He declared that it is in conflict with his countrys values of
cultural decency. On 24th November, Muslim teaching assistant, who was
suspended for refusing to remove her veil in the classroom, was sacked.

VIEWS
Opposition to the veil worn by Muslim women in Europe is just a
reflection of the deep-seated prejudices of the Christian Europe against
followers of Islam. Dr Muzaffar Iqbal experienced one facet of the
prejudices during his visit to Spain. He wrote, today, the mosque of
Cordoba stands as a symbol of something far greater that Islamic
architecture. This extraordinary mosque, which has remained an enduring
source of inspiration and reflection for countless poets and writers (including
Iqbal whose poem on the mosque is a masterpiece), today stands as a symbol
of Europes dilemma which it has unwittingly created for itself: what to
do with Islam and Muslims.
As if to present an immediate example of European intolerance,
Spanish guard rushes toward my fourteen-year-old son as he stands in a
corner to offer two rakah prayers The Spanish guard incessantly argues
that this is not a mosque. I point toward the prayer niche, the beautiful
columns, and the entire layout of the marvelous structure where once
hundreds of men, women and children prayed, but he sees nothing but the
artificially placed dark spider-like building of the Church in the middle of
the mosque. It is a church, he insists.
Our arguments become heated; many other guards rush toward us. I
insist on our inalienable right to pray in a building that was constructed for
that purpose; they insist that it is not allowed. Who does not allow it? I ask.
The authorities. Can I talk to the authorities? No, they are not available.
Finally they physically stop the prayer and surrounded us wherever
we go inside the mosque. They cannot throw us out of the building, but that
is exactly what is on their minds. One more move on our part, and they will
have the excuse needed to take that ultimate step.

387

This episode is a reflection in miniature of the situation of

Muslims in Europe today. Some twenty millions of men, women, and
children living in this self-proclaimed centre of the civilized world are facing
a slow and steady build-up of intolerance, mass hysteria, and state laws
which may cut-short their precarious lives built on dreams, hopes, and sheer
hard labour over three generations.
Islam and Muslims in Europe have become a dilemma for
Europe, which it does not quite know how to deal Europe is passing laws
that are making it harder for Muslims to practice their religion. The extent of
intolerance is such that even a little piece of cloth on the head is considered a
threat.
Michael Shank opined that Muslims are the prejudiced-du-jour is not
particularly noteworthy from the historical perspective since Muslims
merely take their place as marginalized recipients after the innumerable
prejudiced-du-jour before them. What is particularly noteworthy, deeply
troubling and morally inexcusable, however, is that in an era where antidiscrimination leagues prevail, the world has managed to implicitly
condone a surge of anti-Muslim sentiment.
This is wrong and must be remedied immediately. In a world where
personal freedoms are given primary import, Jack Straws careless remarks
about the niqab, unless couched with consistent analysis of all that might
impede non-verbal communication, appears prejudiced. The real visible
statement of separation and of difference, therefore, that makes it more
difficult for people to acknowledge each other is Britains proclivity for
a Muslim prejudiced-du-jour. Not the niqab.
Tom Clifford wrote, Bush and Blair are not alone, they have set an
ominous tone that trickles down, seeps into the crevices of prejudices
and strains the political landscape. We have senior Labour politicians in
Britain and Europe talking about the niqab as a threat to Western values.
When your prejudices are wrong it is time to change your prejudices.
No niqab, veil, training shoes, purple socks, boxer shorts or polka-dot
bikinis are a threat to civilization. There may be practical reasons not to
wear the niqab but no item of womens clothing should ever be construed
as being a threat, unless the devil really does wear Parda.

388

Civilization is threatened by nuclear weapons, massed armies and

disease, poverty and ignorance. The niqab has never invaded another
country on false pretences, it has never been responsible for the deaths of
thousands of innocent civilians, and it has never sexed up a dossier.
Chris Marsden observed that the veil debate that is somehow
spontaneously preoccupying the people of Europe is rather the deliberate
cultivation of anti-Muslim prejudice by Europes ruling elites, with the
support of the mass media and broad sections of the right-wing and
nominally liberal chattering classes. Its aim is to transform Muslims into
scapegoats to blame for and divert attention from mounting social problems,
and to legitimize the governments claim to be waging a battle for
democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its repressive measures
imposed as part of the self-proclaimed war on terror.
It has become routine for Blair and other government figures to
proclaim Islamic fundamentalism to be an existential threat to western
civilization. But more recently this is being portrayed explicitly as a
struggle between Christianity and Islam. The Pope led the field with his
assertions that Christianity was the foundation of European civilization and
his recent speech inferring that whereas Christianity was promulgated by
reason, Islam used violence.
Madeline Bunting accused Straw of unleashing storm of prejudice and
intensified division. She said that singling out women who wear the niqab
as an obstacle to the social integration of Muslims is absurd and
dangerous.
The Guardian mildly supported Straws argument. When the
questioner is a senior minister and those who are being questioned are
female Muslim constituents who wear the full veil, the potential for
resentment and misunderstanding is extreme indeed. That means that
there is undoubtedly a requirement for clarity and consideration. But that
does not mean there is a necessity for silence.
Mr Straw made it clear that in raising the issue he was not
questioning the right of women to wear the niqab if they chose. He accepted
that wearers may have made a choice of their own (although social pressures
may also be immense). But he pointed out that the use of the full veil has
consequences, both for the wearer and for how the wearer is seen. It puts

389

a literal barrier between citizens, an obstacle to interaction rather than a

bridge between people and in that it adds to social divides that already exist.
The niqab may bring benefits but for a wearer there may be costs too
in terms of contributing to and advancing in society. Mr Straw is no less on
such a womans side than those who defend her choice. Anger is
inappropriate.
Some will argue that a minister who helped plan and execute the Iraq
War is not best placed to challenge Muslims on how they behave, and it is
true that British and US policy in Iraq and beyond has played a role in
fuelling a sense of exclusion and anger. But the tensions surrounding
multiculturalism do not all stem from that war and their solution now
must lie in dialogue, not the repression of free thinking.
Afiya Shehrbano did not agree by saying that the apologists, as well
as the racial supremacists of the British National Party have found a believer
in Straws socio-biological explanations of cultural difference. Could
Straw actually be suggesting that we can accurately read all those people
whose visage is uncovered and understand motives from facial expression?
Is the implication that only veiled women are likely to be deceptive and
hence are a security threat? And what is his response to the Muslim women
who wondered what they should understand of his BBC radio speeches
when they (his constituents) can hear him but cannot see his face?
Paul Cruickshank said, having spent time getting to know young
British Muslims, I believe that comments like Mr Straws will be
counterproductive. That is because the niqab is a symptom and not a cause
of rising tensions. Few young Muslim women in Britain are forced by their
families to wear the niqab The young British South-Asian Muslim women
who veil Saudi-style are rejecting not just mainstream British society, but
their parents and grandparents accommodation with its values.
Frustrated by unemployment rates more than double those of
members of other religious groups, put off by stereotyping in the news
media, and estranged from British foreign policy, many alienated Muslims
have turned to more overt forms of religiosity to express a contrarian
identity.
That sense of besiegement, not wardrobe decisions, is refueling
the real problem that British politicians should be addressing, which is the

390

creeping fundamentalism and Islamist radicalism of a significant portion of

Britains Islamic youth Thousands of young British Muslims are left
wondering what is their real status in the British society.
Burhanuddin Hasan opined that the issue is not that the veil is unIslamic. It is true that some extremist political parties have corrupted the
teachings of Islam for their own misguided political agendas e.g. the Taliban
and their abuse of womens rights to education. In Britain today the real
issue is that Islam is being attacked on all fronts and its teachings
grossly misrepresented by those who are striving to score political points.
Chris Marsden. It is imperative that working people and all those
concerned with the preservation of democratic rights come forward to
politically combat the attacks now being waged against Muslims in
Britain and throughout Europe.
The Guardian, however, observed, few Muslims feel comfortable
about becoming the chief political preoccupation of the day, but that is how
many will feel that they are seen after the past week. Gordon Brown, Harriet
Harman and Tessa Jowell all went out of their way to give vocal support to
Mr Straws original comments, giving the impression that the government
attaches disproportionate importance to the veil. Yesterdays trumpeted
plans to map out extremist Islamic hotspots came alongside the
announcement of reforms to the admission rules for religious schools that
ministers must have known would be seen primarily in the context of Islam.
This followed a weekend where minister Phil Woolas demanded a
teaching assistant be sacked for wearing a veil at work, second-guessing an
employment tribunal that must decide on whether or not her dress is
hampering her work, where the facts seem to be disputed. Tory home affairs
spokesman David Davis has piled in too, warning that British Muslims
risked falling into voluntary apartheid. Perhaps afraid of being called
racist, the Conservative had said little on these issues, but now Labour has
given them cover.
Linda Heard criticized the Church for joining the debate on the issue.
Its surely an odd line for the Vatican to take when for centuries the
nuns habit was pretty much all-encompassing. Members of some orders
went a step further spending their entire lives in seclusion without speaking.
Is there anything more separating than that?

391

The veil has long been perceived as a garment to protect a

womans modesty and this is the main reason Muslim women choose to
wear it today. It is true there is no compulsion in Islam for women to cover
their faces and, indeed, there is an ongoing debate among Muslims whether
this trend is advisable but surely this is a matter for the individual concerned
rather than the state.
And if that isnt the case, why isnt it? How could it possibly be
acceptable for people to wear a Dracula or Frankenstein mask to a party but
unacceptable for Muslim women to don the veil out of cultural or religious
conviction?
In truth, there are very few Muslim women in Europe who wear the
full face-veil and none to my knowledge have been responsible for any
violent incident. Estimates suggest the new law would only affect around 50
women in the Netherlands, for instance. So, in this case, why are these
women being targeted in such a high-profile fashion? In reality, the veil is a
mere pretext for something that goes far deeper growing European
bigotry against Islam emanating from governments, which is dangerously
permeating down to the level of the street.
The patron is government actions are having the opposite effect of
that intended. In many European countries, including Britain, Muslims feel
under siegea them and us situation is being created where formerly
none existed. Holland, in particular was always famously tolerant of ethnic
and religious minorities. Its great pity that attitudes toward Muslims have
changed so dramatically.
Chris Marsden. The Church of England has now also declared that
Britain should be seen as a Christian country, while the head of the British
Armyspoke of the Islamic threat to Britains Judeo-Christian way of
life The result of this poisonous climate has been a spate of attacks by
the right-wing elements who feel strengthened by this official endorsement
of their anti-Muslim prejudices. Muslim organizations have said there is a
surge in physical and verbal racist attacks, particularly on women having
their head coverings or veils removed by force. Mosques and Islamic centres
in Falkirk and Preston have been firebombed and attacked by stone-throwing
gangs.
The Washington Post observed that sometimes the bigots portray
their crude attacks on Muslim beliefs and culture as a defence of freedom
392

of speech as when a Danish newspaper last year chose to publish

gratuitously offensive cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Sometimes they claim to be promoting better communication, as when
British parliamentarian Jack Straw recently asked Muslim women to remove
their veils when visiting his office. Luckily for the enemies of cynicism and
disingenuousness, there is also the Dutch government which no longer
bothers to guise its ugly prejudice.
On November 17, just five days before Wednesdays hard-fought
general election in the Netherlands, the incumbent centre-right government
promised that, if reelected, it would introduce legislation to ban the wearing
of burqas and other facial coverings in most public places, including courts,
schools, trains and even streets. The ruling Christian Democratic Appeal
party finished first in the voting, but the makeup of the next government
remains unclear The point is symbolic: A country famous for tolerating
prostitution, drug use, euthanasia and public nudity considers Muslim
veiling beyond the pale.
Like other Europeans, the Dutch have reason to worry about
terrorism; the country has been traumatized by the assassinations of a
prominent right-wing politician and a right-wing filmmaker in the past few
years. But attacking Muslim culture as opposed to those who practice
or promote violent acts is no way to diminish the threat. It wont be
surprising if more Dutch Muslims respond to their government by putting on
burqas or by answering intolerance with intolerance.
Los Angeles Times wrote, the Netherlands, famously tolerant of
prostitution and drug use, wants to outlaw face veils in public places.
Same-sex marriage, euthanasia, drug use, prostitution in the Netherlands
those are perfectly fine. But the one thing the Dutch apparently will not
tolerate is what they perceive to be intolerance. In defence of their cherished
tradition of gudgeon which loosely translates as to live and let live the
Dutch are ready to force the assimilation of Conservative Muslim
immigrants, who are deemed tolerant of fabled Dutch tolerance and must
therefore no longer be tolerated.
If anything, the proposed law which is being justified on security
grounds could backfire by encouraging more immigrants to reach for their
veils. And it risks further victimizing women by forcing them to stay
indoors. A tiny minority of the roughly 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands

393

are conservatives enough to be affected by the proposed ban, but the

message to all of them is loud and clear; and menacing.
Dutch anxiety about immigrants rejection of Western culture is
understandable. The nation is still traumatized by the 2004 killing of
filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who made a film critical of Islam. But to force
assimilation is to fight intolerance with intolerance. It is all about taking
revenge.
Shehryar Ahmad wrote, the western media maligns Muslims, Islam,
and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) with slanted, incendiary, and at times
downright racist reporting on Muslims and Islam. (They) are backward,
inflexible, misogynistic, retrogressive, xenophobic, barbaric, and generally
at odds against common human values.
Daud Abdullah opined that the corrosive effect of the political and
media onslaught against British Muslims is having its impact on all sections
of society. What is claimed to be an assertion of free speech and democratic
rights is rapidly becoming the demonization of a community. Once they
are dehumanized, who cares for their democratic, civil or human rights?
Not only is it dangerous for the media to vilify and demonize an
entire community, even if they are only 3% of the population as British
Muslims are; so too it is pure brinkmanship for ministers to fan these flames.
By their nature politicians are an opportunistic breed.
When in modern British history has a community been subjected to
such intrusion and nationally fomented aggression? Muslim parents are
lectured on parenting, imams are ordered to monitor their worshippers and
women are told what to wear. Profit and political advancement now seem
to depend on defamation of Muslims and their faith.
What is going on is an abuse of power, an echo of what took us into
the quagmire of Iraq from which the political and media attack on
Muslims is evidently intended to be a distraction. The governments refusal
for so long to recognize the link between its own disastrous foreign policy in
the Muslim World and the extremism it was fomenting is now fuelling the
flames of Islamophobia.
While sensible quarters in the West criticized those who tried to make
an issue of non-issue, enlightened moderates like Lubna Hussain from

394

within the Ummah condemned wearing of the veil. I have lost count of the
times that I have been admonished, advised, politely reminded to cover my
face. My usual stance is one of insolence. I invariably refuse with a Why
should I? partly because I cant stand being told and partly because to draw
a veil over my face just because someone has told me to and not due to
religious conviction is nothing short of hypocrisy. Concomitantly, I have
had many confrontations with those self-appointed vigilante types who want
to give me free spiritual guidance.
Ironically, she and many like her refuse to give the same right of
insolence or defiance to those who wear veil against the wishes of
vigilante types, who want to impose (not propose) free guidance for
enlightened moderation.
Another lady, Samar Fatany said I am truly disturbed and troubled by
the attitudes of some Muslim women in the West who are alienating
Islam from the rest of the world and fueling hatred of Islam. The current
debate in Britain over the wearing of the face veil is an issue that needs to be
addressed and confronted within the Muslim World Muslim women
cannot remain idle spectators and watch silently as others defame their
image and distort their identity. They cannot remain indifferent or act as if
the veil controversy is not their concern.
In order to correct misconceptions of people in other countries, we
need to provide them with a more accurate picture of the position of the
majority of Muslim women in the global community. We have a duty to
ensure that the rest of the world does not make a blanket judgment on
all Muslims and that we do not make a blanket judgment about the rest of
the world.
Dr Farrukh Saleem indulged in interpreting Islamic teachings to
support the argument of enlightened moderate ladies. Does the Quraan
require women to wear a niqab? Does the Holy Quraan require women to
wear an all-enveloping, Saudi-style outer garment that hides all but eyes? To
be certain, there are 177 Ayahs about women in the Quraan. No one requires
women to wear a niqab. Not one requires women to cover themselves in an
all-enveloping outer garment. Not one requires seclusion for women.
The operative Quraanic term in 24:30 and 24:31 is modesty; first for
men and then for women. The definition of modesty changes with time
and varies regionally. A skirt in the heart of Lahore will be immodest. An
395

all-enveloping batman-style burqa in the heart of Paris will also be

immodest and thus against the prescription of Quraan.
Niqab is not indigenous to Pakistani Muslim society and neither is a
miniskirt. Shouldnt they both be rejected with the same degree of
persistence? For Pakistan it is an imported form of sectarian dress and
symbolizes the growing role of Saudi-style Wahhabism in Pakistan. To be
sure, niqab has nothing to do with the religion of Islam. Someone intelligent
once said: Islam is in the heart of the believer, not on the piece of cloth
wrapped in various fashions based on cultural practices.
Vanita Sharma wrote, although I am not Muslim, I have great respect
for women who wear the hijab. However, my feelings about the veil are
mixed. On the one hand, I do not think that a woman should have to veil her
face. But, on the other hand, this is my personal view and I do not have any
right to impose that opinion on another woman. If a Muslim woman
interprets Islam as saying that she must wear a veil and she wants to
observe that, then that should be her right, her choice and should be
respected. That is what real freedom means.
Showing your face is not the most important feature that defines
British culture. More relevant is how (until now) in Britain, women have had
the freedom to dress as they wish. The argument that women should not veil
is challenging this idea. For if a woman is free to show as much of her
body as she wants, then a woman must also have the right to cover up as
much as she wants.
The veil is clearly a controversial issue that has divided opinion in
the UK and has potential to increase racial tensions, but this is all the
more reason why it needs be rigorously discussed. If Muslims and nonMuslims are afraid of talking about such issues, we are more at risk of a gulf
appearing between us.
S Alladin from Karachi, while disagreeing with the enlightened
moderate views of Burhanuddin Hasan, wrote, what he thinks of hijab to
burqa is his personal opinion but what he quotes from the Holy Quraan is in
fact his own arbitrary interpretation. I am in my early 20s and I was not
forced by any mullah to wear a hijab, yet I wear one. I had not noticed its
importance until I observed Muslims in a foreign country. The
enlightenment of which Mr Hasan speaks is nothing more than a loss
of identity.
396

It is stated clearly in the Holy Quraan, Surah al-Ahzaab (33:59): O

Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers
to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they
should be known (as respectable women) so as not to be annoyed
Demoralizing a nation means taking away its peoples identity and
this is exactly how (Muslims) became slaves to a western power three
centuries ago. I reckon Mr Hasan would never know what it is to be
stared at, nor would he understand how hijab protects a womans
dignity and honour, simply because he is a man.
Michael Saba wrote, it is not that we wear the burqa (veil) because it
is shameful to go without it, but because it is beautiful to go with it. This is
a quote of an Arab Bedouin woman from Oman in the book entitled Behind
the Veil in Arabia by the Norwegian anthropologist Unni Wikan.
Here is how Wikan saw the veil in the Arab Muslim context in Oman
through the eyes of local women. She states, ingeniously fashioned to cover
same select parts of the womens face is a design that serves exquisitely to
enhance her individual beauty, yet properly to cover her when in the
presence of strangers before whom she feels shy, the burqa epitomizes
female modesty and pride. It is an integral part of the womans self, like no
other garment, her burqa she handles in complex ways, time and again every
day, to communicate to the world her sense of being a beautiful, modest and
honorable woman as well as her personal feelings of ease or embarrassment
in a given situation. This is clearly a very difficult outlook on the veil from
that of Straw and Blair.
How big an issue is the veil worn by Muslim women in reality?
First of all, how many people does it really affect? In the United States,
various estimates are given for the number of Muslim citizens. Lets take the
conservative number of about five million Muslims. That is about 1
percent of the total US population. Of that number, lets assume that half are
female and of that half, another half is old enough to wear the veil. The
figure given for the percentage of Muslim women actually wearing veils is
usually less than 2 percent That figure becomes less than 4/100 of 1
percent of American Muslims
The real flames of this debate are being fueled heavily by the
neocons and their allies. The neocon-oriented publication National Review

397

Online recently held an online symposium titled An Unveiling. Extreme

views were held by all those participating in the symposium.
Muslimsare a threat for two reasons: 1) the average Muslim
woman in Europe has 3.5 children compared with an average 1.4 for native
Europeans, which means that in a few years, they will become majority
and 2) European Muslims are among the most radical and Islamist in the
world. Rather than assimilate into European society, many European
Muslims are insisting that Europe change.
So the debate over the evil devolves into the threat of Muslims
ultimately outnumbering native Europeans. This sounds so very familiar
to the racist statements one hears from Israel regarding the potential
demographic bomb of Arabs eventually outnumbering Jews in Israel.
Shireen M Mazari urged the Muslim World to read the intent of evil
forces unveiled by the veil. Since the Danish cartoon issue, a pattern seems
to be emerging from the US and Europe where there appears to be a
concerted two-pronged effort to harass and discriminate against Europes
Muslim population and undermine assertive/strong Muslim states. One
cannot simply label it a coincidence that even as British politicians began
abusing the veiled Muslim women, a Danish outfit chose to show a film on
the blasphemous cartoons and so-called analysts in the US and the UK
began to launch a new campaign against the state of Pakistan, while the
French lower house of Parliament seemed to embark on a new path of
rewriting the history of Muslim states, beginning with Turkey.
Perhaps one is being too much of a conspiracy theorist, but if we
examine the manner in which the US build up a campaign based on either
outright lies before the international community at the UN, or misstatement
of facts and rather flimsy evidence to finally launch its invasion of Iraq, we
in the Muslim World would do well to see patterns on intent appearing
well in time.
Continental Europe has become overtly anti-Islam since 9/11 and
there are cities like Rotterdam where designs to build mosques have been
rejected because they are too Islamic. Has anyone in Muslim Pakistan
objected to the building of a church because its design was too Christian?
Even more absurd, the Europeans are now deciding on an acceptable
dress code for their Muslim citizens and the logic of this can eventually

398

lead to a forced exodus of European Muslims to their ancestral lands

so that the white Christian identity of Europe is restored. Of course that is
the hope but it may be more difficult to achieve and what might happen
instead is the increasing polarization in within European societies
We need to see it in the wider context of British governments efforts
to get Muslim parents to spy on their school-going children and now the UK
education department is proposing to have lectures in universities spy on
Muslim students. This reminds one of the Nazis making Germans spy on
Jews.
Within this new oppressive European environment, the demonization
of strong Muslim states is a natural outcome. Coincidently, two of the
targeted states, Pakistan and Turkey, also happen to be the countries of
origin of a large amount of the ancestors of the present European Muslims.
Both Turkey and Pakistan are also strong nationalist states, sensitive
to the defence of their sovereignty. Of course, they are being attacked in
different ways, but a deliberate targeting is now becoming only too apparent.
What used to be more covert is now becoming more overt and the
move of French lower house of parliament to declare it a crime to deny the
genocide of the Armenians by the Ottomans is a reflection of this.
In another article Dr Mazari added, as for the whole veil controversy,
the Brits have once again succeeded in their divide and rule approach
because Muslims are now arguing whether or not the veil is Islamic. Frankly
it does not matter either way because what is important is that some Muslim
women seek to wear it and they must have the right to do so for whatever
reason cultural or religious or hyper modesty. There are multiple issues
involved here and Muslims should not get diverted on a meaningless
debate on whether the veil is prescribed in Islam. It is certainly not
proscribed.
How can a state that professes secularism and liberalism define what
dress can or cannot be worn by its citizens? And for an Anglican Bishop to
regard the veil as a breach of norms of decency If anything is a
breach of decency it is the minimalist dress worn by some in nonMuslim societies so perhaps the Bishops of England should focus on that
aspect of dress or lack of it! This is another dangerous development that
seems to be coming to the fore in England using migrant Church and

399

political leaders to attack the Muslim migrant communities social and

religious sensitivities.
Adding to the Becketts bigotry, the top US general in the Middle
East declared last week that Islamic militancy could lead to World War III.
General Abizaid referred to militant ideologies, again within an Islamic
context, as being similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and
1930s. Now if he had referred to the wide spectrum of militant ideologies
that are similar to the European fascism of the interwar period, one could
have given his views serious consideration rather than regarding them as just
the frustrated mutterings coming from in the wake of the US quagmire in
Iraq. Because, we have many militant ideologies that are frightfully
reminiscent of Nazism and Italian fascism. Apart from al-Qaeda, there is the
Israeli fascist partyalready in power in Israel that seeks a total expulsion
of Arabs from Palestine to create a pure Jewish state of Greater Israel and we
are already witnessing the almost daily massacre of Palestinians.
General Abizaid is right to some extent because extremism and
intolerance are flourishing today globally as never before. However,
there is also a need to see where violence and war are raging presently: In a
US-invaded Iraq; in a military-focused, one-dimensional war against
terrorism in Afghanistan; and in Palestine and Lebanon where the US has
given carte blanche to Israeli aggression and occupation. And the terrorist
threat has been aggravated in Muslim and non-Muslim states because of the
inability to deal holistically with the problem of terrorism and its root
causes.

REVIEW
The dress is one of the inventions of mankind which distinguishes
them from other species inhabiting this planet. The purpose of dress is much
more than merely seeking against climatic conditions. If dress grants a clear
distinction to human beings from animals, then it had to be as sober and
modest as possible.
If womens dress has to serve the purpose of preserving the modesty,
then it must cover all parts of her body the exposure of which can in any
way lead to any kind of compromise in this context. This is the basis of

400

Islamic concept of womens dress; commonly termed as parda in this part of

the world.
There are however differences in interpretations about mode and
extent of the parda vis--vis womens dress. In addition to the
interpretations, the rich cultural heritage of the vast Islamic World has added
to the variety to the women attires worn for this purpose.
Headscarf, chaddar, veil, burqa and niqab are various forms of parda
observed by Muslim women in different countries. There is nothing wrong
with any of these dresses as long as the purpose remains the same, i.e. the
desire to preserve the feminine modesty.
But there is something grossly wrong with this concept as it is in
direct clash with the values of the civilized world. The argument against
parda is that it is imposed on women, which is a violation of the spirit of
basic human rights.
A free and liberated woman must have the right to decide as to what
parts of her body should be covered and more than that what parts of her
body she would like to expose. In exercise of this right the emphasis has
shifted more to what parts of womans body should be exposed and how.
Resultantly, the purpose of preserving modesty of woman through her
dress has become irrelevant. The dress is now all about making the woman
attractive. This has led to dress-shows (minus dress) and cat-walks to exhibit
those parts of her body which make her more attractive, and possibly
seductive.
All this is encouraged in the civilized world in the name of cultural
advancement, but in reality the very purpose of the dress is compromised for
promotion of commercial interests for which professional models are used.
The display of semi-dressed women for promotion commodities having
nothing to do with women is sheer exploitation of the so-called better-half.
In fact, this modern concept of dress if it qualifies to be termed as
concept precipitates the animal instincts of lust rather than human instincts
of dignity and modesty. Therefore, veils, chaddars and burqas have no place
in the Animal Farm which is called civilized world.
The newly born generation of enlightened moderates within the
Islamic World, which is impressed by the values of the civilized world, is
401

eager to modernize Islamic culture by replacing its heritage with that of the
West. Intellectuals of this creed endeavour to re-interpret Quraan and Hadith.
They not only argue that there is no clear-cut of definition of parda in
Islam, despite the fact that Islamic teachings are clear that a woman should
cover herself barring face, hands and feet. Some of them, who are more
enlightened, transgress by advocating the woman should have the right to
decide about the length of their skirts.
In their blind pursuit of imitating the values of the civilized world
they are unable to see what the veil worn by a very small minority of
Muslim women has unveiled. The Christian West earnestly working to strip
Muslims of all signs of their identity no matter how insignificant that might
be.
4th December 2006

402

ONESIDED WAR
The ongoing Crusades against the Muslims are one-sided because no
Islamic country has called for jihad against the evil forces unleashed by the
West. Or, at best it can be called a war between non-state forces and the
states perpetrating terrorism.
In the Middle East and Afghanistan these non-state actors are resisting
the occupation forces of the Crusaders. But, elsewhere in Asia the freedom
movements of Muslims have been nearly crushed mostly in connivance of
the Muslim rulers.
The Crusaders are now focusing on the Dark Continent. Annan
warned Sudan saying its leaders could be held to account over the rejection
of UN peacekeepers for Darfur. Blair urged EU role to stop Darfur fighting.
As regards Somalia; Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti and
Saudi Arabia were being implicated in supply of weapons or supplies,
including food, uniforms, fuel and doctors, to the Islamists.
In America, Bush Administration enacted new law to legitimize the
ugly conduct of war. In Europe, France passed a law prescribing punishment
for those who deny genocide of Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Meanwhile,
Europe battled against the threat posed by the veil worn by some Muslim
women immigrants. This issue has been discussed in the previous article.

AFRO-ASIA
In the Far East, the government and rebels in Philippines failed to
break deadlock in talks. On 16th October, three persons were wounded in
bomb blast in Mindanao Island and security forces launched hunt for
terrorists. Nine days later, forces captured a local Muslim extremist who had
helped detain three kidnapped Americans in 2001. On 1st December,

403

communist insurgents killed four soldiers. Four days later, US sought

custody of Marine convicted of raping a woman.
In Thailand, a Malaysian official was killed in the south on 16 th
September. Next day, four people were killed in a series of bomb blasts. Six
people were shot dead on 17th October. Next day, Thai Prime Minister,
Chulanont stated his desire to resolve insurgency through peaceful means.
Four people were killed in the south on 21 st October. Next day a
soldier was killed in bomb blast. A Buddhist couple and their daughter were
killed on 28th October as the Prime Minister visited the area. On 2 nd
December, the PM apologized to Muslims for past governments hard-line
policies, which he called stoking unrest in the rebellious region. Next day,
Thailand dropped cases against 92 Muslims.
On 8th November, Prime Minister supported Islamic law in south and
ruled out separation. A fortnight later, suspected Islamic militants killed four
people and burnt a school. Nine people, including two soldiers, were killed
on 26th November. Two days later, Thai and Malaysian army chiefs
discussed violence in Thai south. Five people were killed on 30th November.
Malaysia continued helping Thailand to crush insurgency.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia anti-Bush protests caused traffic jams on 17th
November. Five days later, an Indonesian court jailed an Islamist for
assisting a wanted terrorist.
In Sri Lanka, Tamil Tigers hacked 11 Muslims on 18 th September. In
Bangladesh, Indian guards had killed 18 Bangladeshis by 14 th September
during last ten weeks. Resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in the country
remained a matter of concern for the civilized world.
B Gautam, writing in the Japan Times opined, Islamic radicalism
appears to be the greater threat. Militancy has grown in recent years,
targeting leftists, secularists and intellectuals plus religious minorities, such
as Christians and Hindus. Bombings and suicide missions are on the rise.
The principal beneficiary of the political unrest has been the
increasingly influential Islamist fringe, led y legitimate parties such as the
Hamaat Islami and extending to the violently militant Jagrata Muslim Janata
Bangladesh and the Jamaat-ul-Mujahedin Bangladesh, reports the

404

International Crisis Group, adding that Islamic militancy has flourished in a

time of dysfunctional politics and popular discontent.
Husain Haqqani recommended ways and means to contain Islamists.
At a conference on Bangladesh held in London and organized by the British
think-tank, Policy Exchange, and the US think-tank, Hudson Institute, I
emphasized the need for consensus between the Awami League and the BNP
on the following five points:
Rebuild Bangladesh democracy by ensuring free and fair elections
and observance of the constitution in letter and spirit.
Contain radical Islam through democratic means. This would return
Bangladeshs Islamists to their fringe or minority status, taking away
the disproportionate power they have now acquired.
Avoid temptation of tolerating or accepting radical Islamist ideology
as a pressure tactic in settling political conflicts within the country, for
example BNP painting the Awami League as Hindu agents.
Shun temptation to look upon radical Islamists as an instrument of
foreign policy, such as containment of India.
Make a distinction between piety and Islamic observances, on the one
hand, and radical or violent invocations of Islam on the other.
Strangely, according to him piety and Islamic observances are two
different things.
In East Timor, fighting erupted at a refugee camp on 9 th September.
Airport was closed after clashes in Dili on 25th October. Four youth were
killed in two-day violence ending 16th November.
In Australia, a mosque in Sydney was subjected to drive-by shooting
on 30 September. On 27th October, Australias highest Islamic cleric refused
to resign for remarks comparing scantily-clad women to uncovered meat.
Two days later, Howard warned that clerics comments could do lasting
damage to the Muslim communitys relations with rest of the nation.
th

Haroon Bukhsh said, has anybody else noticed the increasing

popularity of Australias other great sport? We may be oblivious to its
presence since its promoters have yet to agree on its name. Not sure what I

405

am talking about? Ill give you a clue: politicians love it, intellectuals
champion it, the media cant get enough of it, and the public is falling
for it: Oh, of course, Muslim bashing!
But in this modern politically correct world, we cant call it that. We
call it asserting Australias values: Integration, border protection, and homegrown terrorism. We call it anything but Muslim bashing The Australian
public is increasingly being served a smorgasbord of politically charged
rhetoric, an outpouring of invective masquerading as public debate.
From questions of loyalty, discussions over identity, sermons about values,
or warnings against extremism, the current discourse surrounding Islam and
Muslims is presented in the context of an existential threat to the Australian
way of life.
No longer is the objective the capture of Osama bin Laden or the
dismantling of terrorist infrastructure. Rather we are told the primary
objective of the war on terror is now the defeat of Islamo-fascism, an
evil ideology that seeks to return the world to a dark 7 th century medieval
version of Islam the aims of which are apparently shared by a section of
the Muslim community in Australia.
The debate over values is not one that can be conducted under a
climate of fear and intimidation It seems that the world desperately
needs today is a war on ignorance, not a war on terror. As the current
debate serves only to close our minds, we all have a responsibility to keep
them open. We may choose to be indifferent to the growingMuslim
bashing.
In mainland Asia, obviously, North Korea remained in the
limelight. On 27th October, the US said it was ready to meet North Korea if it
returned to six-party talks. Five days later, North Korea agreed to resume
talks but no quick deal was expected.
On 3rd November, the US was reported preparing plans to attack North
Korea. Pyongyang feared more pressure after Democrats victory. China,
however hoped for constructive role from US Congress. On 13 th November,
North Korea accused the US of deploying atomic bombs in South Korea.
Five days later, Japan and the US discussed speeding up missile defence
talks.

406

On 19th November, North Korea threatened nuclear war in response to

pre-emptive strike. Five days later, Japan urged North Korea must come to
talks. Pyongyang rejected offer of bilateral talks with Japan. On 3 rd
December it was reported that North Korea had offered Russia exclusive
rights to its natural uranium deposits in exchange for Moscows support at
six-party talks aimed at de-nuclearizing Pyongyang.
Glyn Ford observed that while the rest of the world realizes the
dangers of a misstep on the Korean Peninsula, powerful forces in Tokyo
and Washington want the sword of Damocles to hang a little longer. In
Japan, a revision of the US-imposed Constitution to remove the peace
clause will only work with a fearful public, and North Korea provides that
fear. The US politicians and the military-industrial complex jockey to sell
star wars technology.
One way to tame US hostility is to provide multiple guarantors of any
settlement. The clever thing for China and the two Koreas to do would be to
widen rather than narrow the number of participants in the six-party talks,
even if they only had observer status initially. This might force Japan and the
US to end their procrastination as well as give the North Koreans the
confidence to start the long march toward a comprehensive settlement.
China-bashing on account of human rights continued. On 20th
November, Beijing rejected US concerns over state of religious freedoms in
China. However, the main worry of the West remained Chinas growing
economic strength and political influence in Asia.
After Chinese leaders visit to India, the Guardian wrote, though
there have been plenty of mutual compliments during the visit, India and
China remain wary of each other, acting out a cold-war style rivalry in
which an advantage for one is taken by the other as a threat. None of that has
changed this week.
The newspaper, however, added, from Europes perspective, the
rivalry between China and India in places like Burma or Sudan matters less
than the fact that both are investing heavily there, frustrating western
efforts to isolate the regimes in Rangoon and Khartoum. And with
yesterdays confirmation that bilateral trade, worth only 1bn Sterling as
recently as 1998, will reach 30bn Sterling by 2010, the two Asian giants are
increasingly shaping the global economy too. The rise of China and India is
no longer some far-distant prospect.
407

In the Middle East, two policemen were killed in Saudi Arabia in

an attack in Jeddah on 7th December. A court in Kuwait upheld death
sentences of four al-Qaeda suspects on 13th November. In Egypt, police
found more than two tones of explosives in three caches in the Sinai
Peninsula on 4th November. Shiite opposition won more than 40 percent in
Bahrain parliamentary elections. Jordan convicted eight Islamists for antiUS plots on 18th October. Jordanian court sentenced three Syrians and one
Iraqi to death on 7th December for firing rockets on two US warships in
Aqaba Bay in August 2005.
Four bombers and a security guard were killed on 15 th September
when Yemen foiled suicide attacks on oil installations on 15th September.
Four days later, a major terrorist over US attack plot was arrested. Security
forces killed a top al-Qaeda suspect on 1 st October. Four weeks later, eight
al-Qaeda linked arms smugglers were arrested.
Turkey was experiencing the consequences of Iraq war which it had
feared right at the outset. On 13 th September, a bomb blast in Kurdish region
of Turkey killed ten people. Justus Leicht reported that besides Istanbul, the
bombers targeted the tourists designations of Marmaris and Anatalya. A
group claiming itself TAK (Liberation Falcons of Kurdistan) claimed
responsibility. In its letter, it called on foreigners to stay away from tourists
areas in Turkey. As long as the leader of the PKKremains in jail, bombs
will go off everywhere in Turkey, the note threatened.
On 29th September, Turkish Prime Minister rejected jailed Kurdish
leaders suggestion of ceasefire. On 12th October, Turkey received a surprise
gift from the community it has been longing for joining. France passed a law
prescribing punishment for those who deny genocide of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks. Turkey said the law would be severe blow to bilateral ties.
On 16th October, Turkish Prime Minister felt uneasy over armys
pledge to fight Kurdish rebels to the last armed terrorist. A month later,
Turkey froze military relations with France in retaliation to law about
Armenian genocide. This action wont affect ties with NATO.
On 26th November, Turks protested against Popes visit as the security
was tightened far more than Bush. Four days later, Benedict resorted to
veiling his true person. During visit to a mosque he turned towards Kaaba at
the suggestion of the Muslim cleric accompanying him and remained in that

408

position for few seconds with his eyes closed. On 1 st December, he appealed
for religious understanding.
In Africa, the US was reportedly wooing Libya for support against
al-Qaeda. In Algeria an Islamist group singled out France as its sworn
enemy and placed itself at al-Qaedas orders.
In Sudan, the group that had signed Darfur peace deal accused Sudan
Army on 30th September, of attacking its headquarters. Five days later,
Sudan welcomed UN support for AU force in Darfur. On 9 th October, UN
reported that hundreds of people were killed in attack by militias in Darfur.
Sudanese government drew up plan to disarm pro-government militia
in Darfur. Rebels in Darfur wanted resumption of talks. On 22 nd October,
Sudan expelled UN envoy for criticizing the Sudanese government of
handling Darfur crisis. EU flayed expelling of the peace envoy.
Bush Administration reportedly looked set to pull back from its
muscular approach to end what it calls genocide in Darfur. On 4 th November,
the UN blamed Sudanese government for killing 50 civilians. A fortnight
later, army launched major offensive against Darfur rebels.
On 28th November, Sudan spurned AU-UN peacekeeping mission in
Darfur. Next day, Annan urged HR forum to urgently address Darfur. On
2nd December, UN official reported that more than 150 people were killed
and 400 wounded in the town of Malakal after days of fighting between
former rebels and government forces. Two persons were killed in attack by
pro-government militia on 5th December.
Graig Timberg reported that Gari commanders from the only rebel
group that signed a peace accord in May for Sudans Darfur region are
prepared to resume fighting if African Union peacekeeping troops leave
as scheduled at months end and are not replaced by a United Nations
force Rebel commanders predicted that such a resumption of combat
would spell the end of Darfurs tattered peace agreement and quickly
escalate fighting to an intensity not seen since the early days of the conflict
in 2003 and 2004.
Abdulrahaman Abdallah, a commander of the rebel groups military
police, said that without a strong international force here, the government

409

will go back to its strategy, which is genocide, and inevitably we will go

back to bush.
The New York Times urged the Crusader-in-Chief to act against
Sudan. Mr Bush must leave no doubt who is most responsible. Sudans
president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is blocking the Security Council from
sending some 20,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, saying that would insult
Sudans sovereignty. Mr Bush should call on all countries including those
like China that have been shielding Mr Bashir to demand that Sudan drop
its position. He should also say that he will press for broad international
sanctions if Mr Bashir does not quickly reverse his position. But Mr
Bush cannot stop there. A credible presentation would include an assumption
of responsibility. His administration was the first to label the Darfur killing
genocide, and he can be proud of that. But that was two years ago, and US
officials have paid only intermittent attention since then.
The Guardian wrote, it is a relief of a sort that the African Union is
to strengthen and extend by three months its small, ineffective
monitoring mission in Darfur. The extra time will give the international
community the EU and NATO can help the chance to finance and equip
it so it is better able to help slow the escalation of the worlds worst
humanitarian crisis.
It is worth restating some fundamentals: mass killings, rape, and
ethnic cleansing cannot be tolerated just because they are perpetrated by a
regime that is disliked by the US or other western governments. Nor are
such crimes acceptable because Khartoums enemies, including rebels split
over Mays peace deal, also commit atrocities. Universal values are
universal, not just binding on Christians, Jews or Muslims, on governments
but not on non-state actors such as the Janjaweed militia. What are
American and British 150,000 troops doing to stop killings in Iraq?
William G ONeill opined that the responsibility to protect means
that if a country cannot or will not protect its citizens from genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing, then it must accept
support or assistance from other nations to end the violence. While the
sovereignty of countries to regulate their own internal affairs is respected, it
is conditional and not absolute. When peaceful means are exhausted and
leaders of a UN member state are manifestly failing to protect their
populations, then other states have the responsibility to take collective

410

action through the Security Council. All this is happening in Iraq under
sponsorship of America.
Gamal Nkrumah reported, Sudanese President Omar Hassan alBashir addressed the General Assembly and reiterated the Sudanese
government position that it was strongly opposed to the deployment of
foreign peace-keeping troops in Darfur.
Al-Bashir criticized the international media for serving ulterior
motives. He warned that international media gives the false impression
that the whole of Darfur is in chaos. He added: our position is that the
force of the African Union should continue in Darfur.
Darfur, indeed, dominated discussion in several forums of the UN
this week. In most discussions it was clear that the gap is difficult to bridge
between Western nations and Sudanese authorities. If anything, the gulf
seems to be widening. We want him to cooperate, yelled an angry US
Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.
In Somalia, the Islamists marched on major port of Kismayo on 13th
September. Five days later, six people were killed and several wounded
when a car exploded outside Somalias parliament in Baidoa. Al-Qaeda was
blamed for the suicide bombing. Next day, a Catholic nun was killed.
On 3rd October, Somali militia vowed to retake key port from
Islamists. Two days later, Islamists claimed across border shelling by
Ethiopia and Ethiopian border was closed. On 9 th October, they declared
jihad against Ethiopia after its troops assisted transitional government in
capturing a town.
On 16th October, Islamists banned private radio station for airing US
agenda. Five days later, heavy fighting erupted in Somali town of
Burahakaba. Reuters reported that Somalis prepared to flee with rise of the
Islamists. On 29th October, Islamists rejected Kenyan mediation offer.
Rival factions in Somalia reached tentative deal on 11th November.
Four days later, the UN accused Iran and Syria of providing arms to
Islamists. Eritrea slammed US for fanning conflicts in the region. On 18 th
November, Islamic Courts ordered residents in Mogadishu to vacate all
buildings and land occupied by them.

411

Ethiopia and Somalia were heading toward war, reported AFP on 23 rd

November. Islamists said they were ready to defend country from invasion.
The UN said impending war affected relief efforts in Somalia. The Western
media again reported that Ethiopia was poised to attack and on 30th
November, Ethiopian parliament approved action against Somali Islamists.
Gamal Nkrumah reported, the transitional Federal Government
(TFG) of Somaliaand the Islamic Courts have finally patched up. After
three days of serious negotiations, both sides affirmed an earlier truce and
signed a deal, part of a broader accord. The deal was struck under the
auspices of the Arab League in the Sudanese capital Khartoum The
intervention of the Arab League was of vital importance. The venue of the
talks was also critically important: the Sudanese government is regarded as
Islamist enough to please the Islamic Courts of Somalia.
Even though the peace deal was widely hailed as a success, it
remains to be seen whether peace will hold. There is a lot of ambiguity
about the details of the deal. What is clear, however, is that the Islamic
Courts militia and the forces of the TFG are to be amalgamated into the
nucleus of a national army.
In a subsequent article he added, the Islamic Courts do not constitute
the only danger to the Somali transitional government. Powerful warlords
also constitute a grave threat to the TFG. Last week, Mohammad Ibrahim
Habsade announced that militiamen would forcibly expel members of the
TFG from Baidoa.
Islamic Courts leader, Sheikh Sherif Ahmed, said the attack was most
likely an Ethiopian plot to justify its military presence. The Ethiopian
ambassador to Egypt vehemently denied the charge The Islamic Courts
leaders have persistently warned that Ethiopia is propping up the TFG.
Aweis says that without Ethiopian backing, the Somali government will
most certainly fall. Ethiopias rival Eritrea, on the other hand, is regarded as
a strong supporter of the Islamic Courts.

AMERICA
The UN human rights chief urged the US on 8 th September to abolish
secret jails. Next day, Bush responded by saying that CIA terrorism

412

detention centres are invaluable. He was followed by Rice claiming that

the US was safer now, but not completely safe.
While addressing the UNGA on 20th September, Chavez said what no
Muslim ruler could dare saying. The devil came here yesterday. It still
smells of sulphur today. He was referring to Bushs speech and added, he
came here talking as if he were the owner of the world. About the UN, he
said: I dont think anybody in this room could defend the system. Lets be
honest. The UN system born after World War II collapsed. Its worthless.
These lines were only the preamble. He said a lot specially focusing
on Bush and successive American leaders and accused them of perpetrating
terrorism all over the world by quoting specific incidents of terror like that
of Cuban plane in which 73 innocent people were killed and the hijacker was
living in America under state protection.
On 24th September, Venezuelan Foreign Minister was detained at New
York airport; later the US regretted the incident. Chavez disclosed that Bush
had ordered his murder for devil remark. Such orders were the main reason
for Muslim rulers to keep their mouths shut.
Demonstrations against US war in Iraq were considered a potential
terrorists activity by the Department of Defence, according to documents
obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under Freedom of
Information Act.
On 17th October, Bush signed anti-terror law which legalized secret
CIA prisons, harsh interrogation practices and military trials. Four days later,
six Muslim imams were removed from a US Airways flight and questioned
by police for hours before release.
Two court decisions in two days jeopardized Bushs authority to carry
out preemptive actions against suspected terrorists and collaborators inside
the US. A court in Los Angeles in its judgment struck down Bushs authority
to designate groups as terrorist organizations. In another case a court in
Portland agreed to pay two million dollars to a Muslim who was wrongly
arrested and jailed by the FBI.
Galal Nassar observed that hatred to the West has doubled since
9/11 as Muslims across the world listened to President Bush making

413

references to crusades and Islamic fascism. Insults to Islam and to Arab

and Muslim moral and religious principles have mounted since 9/11.
The US war on terror is still continuing. The US has further plans
to interfere in the domestic affairs of Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, Egypt, and Syria. The Iranian nuclear crisis, the Korean nuclear
Crisis, Somalia, and Darfur all remain a source of possible conflict.
How does the US plan to deal with those new tensions? The US is
unpopular, bogged down in conflicts half-way across the globe, and
suffering immense losses. What does it hope to achieve? Perhaps one day
well know.
The hatred for the US is not confined to Islamic world as was evident
from the Hugo Chavezs speech in UNGA. Linda Heard wrote, many
Americans believe the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez crossed the
line when before the UN General Assembly he referred to the US president
as the devil, while pretending to catch a whiff of sulfur. Even Democrats
who are no friend of George W Bush are up in arms
If Bush can send his air force and armies to do their worst in foreign
climes, then his victims or potential victims can hardly be expected to
remain silent. This is not to say there isnt an argument for saying the UN is
hardly the correct forum for such theatrics.
There is also another point of view that should be considered.
Judging by the five minutes standing ovation that the Venezuelan leaders
speech elicited (cut from the official UN video), Chavez was merely
reflecting a general anti-American trend within the body of nations In
truth, there is little doubt that the United States government is worried.
The situation was no different within the US. James J Zogby, after
participating in a two-day meeting for Arab-American leadership, drew
following conclusions from the proceedings of the meeting:
US policy in the Arab World is in deeper trouble than some
policy-makers either understand or can admit.
If you talk or dictate to people, refusing to listen to them or admit
even self-evident problems, people will talk back at you. But if you

414

engage with understanding and respect, then real dialogue can take
place.
For understanding to occur, relationships must be cultivated.
Neither Arab-Americans nor the State Department were well served
by the failure during the past several years to convene more regular
meetings.
Despite internal complexities, Arab-Americans are a cohesive
community and deserve to be treated as such.
Bush Administration is aware of the hatred and that is why it has been
tightening its internal security by taking tough measures. Khalil el-Anani
commented, Americans should be asking their president to explain what
he has achieved from his war against terrorism. They should demand to
see the balance sheet from the red alert they have been living under for the
past five years and they should insist upon answers to such questions as to
whether the US is going to remain captive to this state of alarm for the rest
of the century, whether their president can now guarantee that another 11
September doesnt happen
The first victims of the war on terror are not Afghanistan or Iraq or
even the Islamic World, which has been identified as the battle theatre.
Rather, they are the American people themselves, who have fallen prey to
the rash ideological fantasy of the neo-conservatives.
Five years of the war on terror have wrought a bitter harvest, and
no amount of honeyed words, phony tears over Americans dead in Iraq, or
idle boasts that Republicans have succeeded in making America safe, can
sweeten that bitterness. There are many reasons why Americas war on terror
has failed.
This transformation is what inspired Walter Russel Meads search for
a convincing explanation for Americas post-11 September foreign policy.
Among the questions he asked himself was whether Bush and his clique had
correctly defined American interests and whether they had properly tailored
the role the US should play in the new millennium. Mead holds that Bush is
an anomaly in the conduct of US foreign policy.
These measures have not created the desired impact as observed by
Ikram Sehgal. The threat level has increased dramatically after 9/11, the

415

recurring nightmare for western analysts being the possibility of nuclear,

biological and chemical attacks on large populations. Advancement of hightech, particularly in IT and the internet, has made counter-terrorism that
much more difficult.
Michael Kinsley opined that it was due to unjust pursuit of immoral
war on terror. Barney Frankmade an excellent, bitter and unfair joke
about conservatives who believe in a right to life that begins at
conception and ends at birth. This has been adapted for use against various
Republican politicians ever since. In the case of President Bush, though, it
appears to be literally true.
James Ridgeway listed five scandals that could put Republicans in
jail: the loss of Iraq War, discoveries by 9/11 inquiries, domestic
surveillance, oil-related scandals, and making money through corruption.
Bush Administration has been enacting laws to legitimize its illegal
actions and Military Commissions Act was the latest. The News commented,
possibly the most widely-held argument against such stringent laws is that
they will only be counter-productive, that the number of would-be
terrorist will only increase since such policies may well breed frustration
and resentment among communities and ethnic groups who may feel singled
out as a result of legislation.
An equally valid and solid argument is that many of the provisions of
the new law run contrary to the tenets of natural justice. For instance,
under the new law, suspects can be kept in detention indefinitely without
even being told under what charge they are being detained. In fact, all that
CIA has been doing previously has been legalized.
The other argument against the enactment of such a law is that Mr
Bush is desperate now that his Republican Party is predicted to suffer major
defeats at hands of the Democratic Party in the coming November 7 election
and wants to use this legislation to raise his personal (and by that his
partys) standing in the eyes of American public.
Dr M S Jillani wrote, the Military Commissions Act is the law to
legalize actions like illegal detentions, inhuman methods if interrogation,
illegal prisons, denial of communication, intrusion of privacy, unaccounted
disappearance of suspects, and intimidation in its worst form.

416

Jennifer Van Bergen opined that the MCA (Military Commissions

Act) is an unprecedented power grab by the executive branch
According to former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman, who
opposed the Act, the primary impact of the Military Commissions Act is not
to establish military commissions, but to attempt to eliminate any judicial
checks on the Executives conduct of the conflict against al-Qaeda.
Congress has now, in effect, struck down these Supreme Court
decisions that struck down previous executive decisions and actions. What
next? The first challenges to the numerous provisions in the MCA will
undoubtedly be about the habeas corpus-stripping provisions.
No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or
consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf
of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the
United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is
awaiting such determination.
Another MCA provision likely to be challenged will almost certainly
be the section that allows the use of secret evidence where disclosure would
be detrimental to the national security. Challenges to the use of secret
evidence were made in the immigration context long before 9/11.
Another troubling provision allows coerced testimony to be
admitted into evidence where the military panel decides it is reliable and
possessing sufficient probative value and the interests of justice would best
be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

EUROPE
In the context of Clash of Civilizations, the Europe battled against the
threat posed by the veil worn by some Muslim women immigrants. This has
been discussed in the previous article. Europe also kept dealing with
Islamic militancy sternly. On 11th September, explosives were seized in
Denmark. Two days later, Britain police found hundreds of guns in a raid in
Kent. By mid September, at least 444 Pakistanis were held in British jails.
Danish TV aired blasphemous video on 6 th October. Four days later,
German police arrested an Iraqi al-Qaeda suspect. On 12 th October, a British

417

man confessed bombing skyscrapers in New York and Washington to kill as

many people as possible. Danish party placed blasphemous cartoons on web.
On 3rd November, France dismissed 70 Muslim workers employed on
airport. Three days later, suspended Muslim airport workers filed a lawsuit
against Interior Minister. Next day, a Muslim security officer was removed
from duty in Britain. On 10 th November, MI 5 warned government against a
big security threat from Pakistan-based al-Qaeda. About a week later, action
was launched on campuses in UK against Muslim students.
When rulers in the Islamic World preached religious harmony, Hanif
Kureishi observed that Europe was in spate of religious discrimination.
Muslims are far more aware than we are of our self-deceit, of the spiritual
price we pay for our freedom. They can see that the beautiful ideas we are
peddling democracy, free speech, individualism bring considerable
negatives with them. If the West is trying to sell these excellent ideas they
are also, like a sleazy salesman, failing to mention there obverse what it is,
as it were, that you see when you turn the pretty picture round.
The repressed is returning: There is new and virulent racism, in the
form of religious discrimination. This is at the very moment when real
religion has come back to the West with a vengeance. This is not only
because it is being imposed on us by medieval who we should never have
tolerated, but because we are seduced by it. If the homegrown British
bomber is our headache, he is also our symptom.
Khaleej Times commented on sacking of Muslim workers in France.
The once liberal and multicultural European country, home to the largest
Muslim community on the continent, has barred more than 70 Muslim
baggage handlers at Charles de Gaulle airport from entering secure areas
The security clearance of the Muslim airport staff has been withdrawn
as they are as a potential risk to passengers. It is said that the Muslim
staff had been under surveillance for several months.
Do the French authorities then have any credible evidence to back
their suspicion? The only evidence against the airport workers in
question is their Muslim identity. The only other evidence against these
usual suspects is the fact that they originally come from Pakistan and
Afghanistan and have frequently visited these countries of their origin.

418

And now one European country after another appears to be

taking its cue from the US. If France is keeping its Muslims away from
secure areas, Britain is watching then in true Orwellian fashion But
instead of trying to understand the sources and reasons of anger and
frustration among young Muslims, Western countries are further alienating
the Arab and Muslim world by actions such as these. Europe seemed
prepared to get rid of Muslims unless they adhere to its values.
The News looked at the plight of the Muslims in Britain. The
alarming thing to note for British authorities, according to the official, is
how more and more people are moving from passive sympathy for
extremists and terrorists towards taking part in such acts themselves and that
this is happening because of radicalization and/or indoctrination by friends
and families. It is clear that the British government is fearful of this rising
threat; the only problem is that it needs to draw a very clear line between
terrorists and British Muslims in general.
The danger is that if this is done insensitively, meaning that all
Muslims are cast in a negative light and seen as would-be terrorists, then the
pace of radicalization and indoctrination will increase further. Those
who indoctrinate thrive on perceived discrimination in policies followed
regarding Muslims or Islam and use this to recruit people to their extremist
cause.
The way forward encompasses many things. It would help, the
West as well, if conflicts such as Palestine were resolved, if the biases in
American policies towards Israel were addressed, if issues relating to attire
were sensitively handled, if leaders of Britains Muslim community played a
role in bringing an element of moderation and realized that religion does not
justify acts of violence and terrorism against innocent people.
Ali Alatas, Andri Azoulay and Desmond Tutu wrote, a year ago, the
UN secretary general established the High-Level Group for Alliance of
Civilizations to help challenge this myth and recommend concrete measures
to build bridges among communities worldwide. Our groups report,
which we are presenting to Kofi Annan, debunks a number of
misconceptions and confronts some uncomfortable realities.
First, there is no basis, in our opinion, for the claim that
civilizations are set on an inevitable collusion course. Civilizations are not

419

solid, monolithic blocs; rather, they are the result of complex mutual
exchanges and constant cross-fertilization among cultural groups.
Second, the history of relations between Muslim and Western
societies is not primarily one of conflict. Historically, under Muslim rules,
Jews and Christians were largely free to practice their faiths and many rose
to high political positions.
Third, we firmly reject the claim that the roots of the widening rift
between Muslim and Western societies lie in religion or culture. Rather, they
are to be found in politics. In our view there are two key factors feeding the
current climate of suspicion and fear that mars relations across
communities. According to them first factor is the ongoing conflicts, e.g.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second factor is the oppression of non-violent Muslims.

MUSLIMS
Mahathir and Shaukat called for Muslim unity on 16th September. A
day earlier, Mahathir Mohammed had said that Muslim nations in the
Middle East should arm themselves with nuclear weapons to deter Western
enemies from attacking them.
Bush, the Crusader-in-chief, was pleased to appreciate Muslim rulers
ability of war-gaming. He had no worry about the unity of Muslim World,
because it was no more than a mirage. He asked the Muslims hor sunao by
greeting them on Eid-ul-Fitr.
World Islamic Economic Forum session in Islamabad ended on 7 th
November with resolve to establish an Islamic Free Trade Area for uplift of
the Ummah. The same day, Dr Shaikh had urged Islamic World to replace
rhetoric with solid results.
The Crusades remain unchallenged by the Ummah, barring some
groups of Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists who are accused of
threatening world peace. The News observed, President Bush has come out
with a sort of explanation for his remark last month which left the world
aghast, drawing sharp criticism from even western commentators: that the
United States is at war with Islamic fascists.

420

If America did indeed seek peace, it wouldnt have sabotaged efforts

for a ceasefire after the Israel attack on Lebanon in July, and not egged Israel
on in its invasion rather than asking it to withdraw. And he would have given
a timetable on his own forces withdrawal from Iraq. On the other hand, the
same day that Mr Bush told the General Assembly of Americas desire for
peace, the chief of the US Central Command, Gen John Abizaid, spoke of
the possibility of an increase in the number of US troops in Iraq.
Khaleej Times observed that it was an all-out war against the socalled Islamic fascism. It was the Danish cartoons last year, its Danish
video this year. Then there was this opera in Germany that took the concept
of artistic licence too far when it showed the beheading of the Prophet of
Islam (PBUH) besides that of Jesus and Buddha. Last week, prominent
French newspapers published an incredibly painful article by a Jewish
scholar about the Prophet (PBUH) of all sorts of absurdities.
Can you blame the anguished Muslims if they see a clever and
concerted campaign being conducted across the continent to vilify their faith
and its revered figures and teachings? And can you blame the Muslims if
they come out on the streets, from Morocco to Malaysia, in anger and
frustration? Whatever the explanation for these growing attacks on Islam
and Muslims, they could have dangerous and far-reaching consequences for
the whole world.
Fahimi Howaidi wrote, clashing with Islam and what it teaches is
apparently this seasons fashion in Europe. No one seems surprised by this
and sadly, few consider the consequences. Every two or three weeks, the
media carries a new addition to the saga of clash of civilizations. We
Muslims thought at one time that the clashes were limited to the US and
were a form of reaction to the 9/11 attacks. We soon noticed, however, that
the clashes had crossed the Atlantic and were becoming common in Europe.
These events changed the way we Muslims look at Europe and the
way that Europeans look at us. People in the Middle East believed until
recently that Europe was different from the US because it is
geographically closer to the Arab World and therefore was more
understanding and sympathetic. In addition, the Zionist community and its
related organizations have greater influence on the media in the US than
Europe.

421

There have been attempts to circulate all kinds of baseless antiMuslim stories that had no purpose other than to inflame passions and
incite misunderstanding and hatred. Possible hazards of large Muslim
communities living in the West were emphasized and this widened the gap
between Islam and the West not only in the West but also in the Muslim
World. It also stifled a great deal of communication between the two. The
West, of course, is not the entire world and there is much of the world that is
neither Western nor Western-sympathetic.
What can we do to counter this campaign? Every time Im asked this
question, I remember that the Jewish relationship with Europe has been full
of bitterness, prejudice and hatred. The persecution that Europe inflicted
upon the Jews is among the darkest in the history of both Europe and the
Jews Despite this background, the Jews have succeeded in convincing the
West that Israel is their ally and Israel is an outpost of the Western values
and civilization surrounded by Arab enemies. In fact, the West (Christians)
by creating Israel has killed two birds (Jews and Muslims) with one stone.
The Arab World can definitely benefit from strengthening ties
with the West but we have to be cautious and careful. We must study and
seek answers to questions that have been asked but never answered
satisfactorily. What led the West to initiate a campaign to humiliate Muslims
and their beliefs? How can we diminish the gap between us and maintain
bridges of communication? What parties in the West can we establish a
certain level of understanding with in order to gain fairness and justice?
Despite accusing the Crusaders of deliberately fanning hatred by
constantly ridiculing Muslims, the analyst ended up asking Muslims to mend
their ways. We must also understand that in order to be respected and
appreciated we have to set a good example, worthy of trust. We have to
examine ourselves closely and not only discover but admit our flaws and
shortcomings. We have to overcome our imperfections before we ask others
to see the good in us.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal was of the view that Muslim communities in
Europe need support of Islamic World against the tyranny. For Muslims, the
current situation is unprecedented in their long history; they have always
gone to other lands as conquerors and rulers. For the first time in history,
some twenty million Muslims are now living in non-Muslim societies as
minorities, struggling to have basic rights.

422

Most western European countries insist on integration. This

insistence is in direct conflict with their own claims of being civilized and
enlightened societies, for what they actually asking is for some of their
citizens to become invisible members of a society in which every other
group is visible; even those who belong to the fringes of society have rights
to be visible, but not Muslims.
Under the disguise of fighting extremism and terrorism, these
European states have invented their own form of terrorism. An
electorate system of espionage, infiltration into the community, and visible
and invisible control of mosques and mosque-committees has been devised
to ensure that Muslim communities remain under state surveillance.
For European Muslims, the present situation demands that they learn
to survive in a hostile environment. Their communities are composed of
diverse racial and cultural elements, with a great deal of internal disharmony,
and certain voices from within are actually calling for a European
Islam just the kind of thing the state wants to see.
No Muslim country has paid much attention to the plight of
European Muslims. Beyond the violent, irrational, and short-term street
demonstrations against cartoons or the Popes recent speech, there is little
understanding of the real issues involved.
It can be argued that the plight of European Muslims is an internal
matter of those states and thus cannot be taken up at any international
forum. This argument is false for two reasons. Europe (and the United
States) has never respected the boundaries Second, and more importantly,
Muslims cannot remain aloof from the situation of their brethren
Muslim communities in Europe need support against the tyranny
of their own states; their plight is not the internal issue of these states but a
human rights issue. They face a situation which has far-reaching
consequences for the entire Muslim World.
Their own states were, however, incapable of facing the Crusaders
tyranny even in their respective homelands as was evident from the
comments by Gulf News. The aftermath of 9/11, whose fifth anniversary
was recently marked, left some people defining their world through the
narrow confines of struggle against radical Islam. Meanwhile, Afghanistan,
Iraq and the shameful collaborative silence by the US and Britain to events

423

in Lebanon left many people viewing the West as being engaged in a onedimensional war against Muslims. The war on terror does not seem to
take account of terror inflicted on Muslims.
Fawaz A Gerges wrote, in past few weeks I have interviewed scores
of Muslim activists, human-rights advocates, Islamists, liberals and ordinary
citizens. Most have been telling me that the West, particularly the United
States, is waging a modern crusade against Islam From high school
teachers to taxi drivers, America is seen as a new colonial power. Few
Muslims accept the American narrative that touts democracy and freedom.
They view Americas military presence in the Arab heartland as a sinister
plot to divide the world of Islam and subjugate Muslims.
Khurshid Anwer from Lahore also mentioned the consequence of this
one-sided war by quoting General Hamid Gul who says the Hezbollah the
organizations like it are the last best hope of the Muslim World against the
machinations of the sole superpower. If the Muslims let this opportunity to
prepare for the final Armageddon slip by, they will themselves be
responsible for their enslavement. The whole Muslim World will be one
large Palestine, with Israel free to capture or silence any one, who do
not toe the US/Israel line.
Dr M S Jillani urged, the rulers and the governments of the Muslim
countries should win the hearts of the people by respecting their wishes,
governing them with justice and taking them into confidence on all matters.
He drew attention towards lessons from the experience of Lebanon, which,
according to him, may serve as a small basis for addressing the predicament
of Muslims in their own lands and the world:
A cornered, oppressed and threatened population can fight and win
over a much larger and stronger enemy, if provoked by danger to its
well-being and freedom.
Sectarian beliefs and even major religious divides disappear if
nations integrity is challenged.
A small country embroiled in serious conflict is made to stand alone.
Those who profess their allegiance to its cause in times of peace
hardly if ever, come to its help.

424

 The Lebanon War has reconfirmed the identity of enemies of Islam

and the Muslims.
The war reiterated that rulers of Muslim nations cannot be trusted to
even put their weight behind a stricken Muslim nation, and the people
of such countries are not prepared to do anything about their
situation.
It has reaffirmed the time-honoured belief that a war can be won only
if the local population is supporting the army.
It has proven the need to have a strong military machine in every
Muslim country
The Muslim World must establish new international institution as the
present international organizations have failed to defend Islam and the
Muslims intellectually, politically and militarily.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan was of the view that Iraqs agony is perhaps the
most dramatic reason for despondency in the Muslim World today. But there
are factors that make it possible to pick up the unfinished task of fostering
greater cooperation in it.
The Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, are already engaged in
diversifying their relations. There is a growing recognition of the fact that
for reasons beyond their control exclusive reliance on western powers has
become problematic and that they need to locate themselves better in a
globalizing world. China, India and Russia are emerging realities in this
world.
There is also a new self-awareness in several non-Arab Muslim
states. Turkey has a new measure of cultural and religious opposition in
Europe to its membership of the European Union. Its regional interests, as
indeed, regional fears, are under a new spotlight Like Turkey, Pakistan has
a large army and is also the only Muslim nuclear weapon power. Malaysia is
a political and economic success with a place amongst the top 20 trading
nations of the world Indonesia is rich in natural resources and has taken
important strides towards national consolidation. Non-Arab Muslims
account for about 65 percent of the worlds Muslims and offer a reservoir of
trained manpower.

425

Even under the dark shadow of events in Palestine, Iraq and

Afghanistan, it may well be time for a new partnership in the Muslim
World. It is time to find out how far the OIC can be instrumental in
improving cooperation in trade and investment.
It is also time to ensure that resources are directed to the
strengthening of forums appropriate to the challenges of the 21 st century.
Cultural interaction needs to focus on universities, research institutes and
think-tanks and not just on narrow, parochial theological studies.
In the Citadel of Islam, Shireen M Mazari noted that it is
unfortunate the US has claimed it has had a hand in formulating the
Women Protection Bill For many of us, US designs for Muslim World
have nothing to recommend them and the manner in which the US has been
treating Muslims totally outside any legal and human considerations
hardly commends them as an ally of the Ummah. And yes, many of our own
NGOs receive funding from US-oriented agencies. That is why it is so
essential to have more transparency with regard to all NGO funding and
agendas. The learned analyst ignored the fact that for the rulers in Islamic
World Hudoodullah the limits prescribed by Allah can be violated as
against the limits laid down by the superpower, called America.
Khaleej Times wrote, although Musharraf has been unduly harsh
on semiliterate clerics blaming them for projecting Islam as a religion that
fosters militant extremism, it is hard not to agree with the thrust of his
message. The Muslim World is indeed passing through one of the most
difficult phases in its eventful history. Never before has it faced such
relentless assaults on so many fronts.
Despite the fact that Islam and its 1.6 billion followers stand for
peace, reason, justice and freedom, all kinds of absurd accusations continue
to be hurled at them with increasing ferocity. While some semi-literate
clerics and zealots can be accused of misinterpreting Islam it would be
simplistic to blame the extremists for all our woes.
Although this has been stated ad nauseam, we must point out that
historical injustices against the Arab and Muslim world and centuries of
colonialization and exploitation by imperial powers have played a seminal
role in creating the current gulf between the Muslim World and the
West If leaders like Musharraf are serious about the restoration of Muslim

426

Worlds image, they should persuade their friends and allies in the West to
help resolve questions such as Palestine sooner than later.
Another important area that cries for attention is the media. Despite
its rich human and material resources, Muslim World has inexcusably
neglected this front. Islam and Muslims are misrepresented in the world
media because there is no one to represent them. Its as simple as that
This has to change, if we are keen to present our real and better picture
before the world.

CONCLUSION
Benedict the blasphemer appealed for inter-faith understanding during
his visit to Turkey. He never gave such sermon in any European country. He
remembered the need for this understanding only when he visited a Muslim
country. But, who needs understanding more than his Nazi-ness?
The Crusaders will continue pressing Khartoum till it agrees to allow
them to have a foot-hold in Sudan under the garb of peacekeeping. Similarly,
the Islamists in Somalia have been demonized by the western media to
prepare the grounds for final act to secure the Horn of Africa located at the
southern end of the Red Sea.
Paul Craig Roberts said that the fact that Americans tolerate crimes
against humanity by their own leaders is evidence that Americans are
exceptional only in their hubris. This statement is equally applicable to their
ancestors in Europe. As regards Muslim elite, it has dug itself deep into the
hole defeatism pretending to seeking inter-faith harmony.
9th December 2006

427

GATES NOT EXIT

Results of November elections, removal of Rumsfeld, Iraq Study
Group Report, and above all Bush showing some openness to suggestions
raised expectations of war critics about possibility of change in the US
strategy in Iraq. They hoped that Bush might give up unilateralism
incorporating diplomacy in his overall strategy.
Bush Administration, however, did not disclose its intentions, which
led to more speculations. Meanwhile, the much hyped ISG Report was
presented at the end of first week of December. Immediately, Talabani and
Olmert rejected the report.
Bloodletting in Iraq continued unabated, but Israel and Palestinian
Authority reached a ceasefire agreement. This truce did not promise peace
for the Palestinians, because the stage has been set for factional fighting
between Fatah and Hamas.
Political situation in Lebanon remained uncertain and, of course, Syria
and Iran were relentlessly accused of interfering in internal affairs of the
country by supporting Hezbollah. The issue of Irans nuclear programme
was kept also simmering, but Tehran held its ground.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Iraq kept bleeding, but the media reported little of the agonizing
bloodshed. At least 20 people were killed in various incidents on 21 st

428

November. Next day, seven people were killed in a blast. The UN announced
that 3,709 civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since
March 2003.
In worst attack since the war, insurgents killed 152 people and
wounded 236 others in Sadr City on 23rd November. Three US soldiers also
perished and occupation forces were accused of shooting four civilians to
death.
At least 40 people were killed in violence on 24 th November in which
revengeful Shia militiamen burnt four Sunni mosques untroubled by a
curfew enforced in the capital by US and Iraqi forces. The death toll of Sadr
City bombing rose to two hundred.
At least 55 Iraqis were killed on 25th November, including 22 killed by
US troops. Next day, at least 22 people, including 3 US soldiers, were killed
in various incidents of violence.
At least 35 people, including three US soldiers, were killed on 27 th
November. Next day, 65 more people, including 3 US soldiers were killed.
Over one hundred people were killed in various incidents of violence of Iraq
on 30th November. The toll included 86 dead bodies found in last 24 hours.
On 1st December, 30 people were killed in various incidents. Next day,
at least 57 people, including one US soldier, were killed in violence. On 3 rd
December, 27 people, including three US soldiers, were killed; eight Iraqis
were killed in retaliatory air strike by the US forces.
More than one hundred Iraqis were killed on 4 th December in various
incidents. The US forces lost 10 soldiers including casualties due to
helicopter crash; 3 soldiers were missing and 2 were wounded. Next day, 44
people were killed; two US soldiers were also killed and five wounded.
On 6th December, at least 38 people, including one US soldier, were
killed in various incidents of violence. Next day, eleven US soldiers were
killed in different incidents.
After suffering heavy casualties at the hands of insurgents, the US
occupation forces retaliated by bombing two houses in the village of Taima
on 8th December. The US forces claimed killing 18 terrorists. Police said all
the victims were civilians, including women and children.

429

At least 17 people were killed in violence on 9 th December. Next day,

more than sixty people were killed in different incidents of violence; most of
them were executed after capture. Saddams nephew escaped from prison.
On 11th December, 26 people, including 4 US soldiers were killed.

Other events of significance related to the occupied Iraq are

enumerated in chronological order. On 21st November, Iraq restored
diplomatic ties with Syria and the US asked Syria to stop insurgents flow
into Iraq. Annan said USA was trapped in Iraq.
On 24th November, Sadr threatened to quit Iraqi government if Maliki
meets Bush next week in Jordan. Next day, OIC appealed to Iraqi groups to
stop spilling blood. Cheney went to Saudi Arabia for consultations. The US
had been involved in Iraq War longer than it was in World War II.
Malikis motorcade was pelted with stones when he visited the
bombing site in Sadr City on 26 th November. Next day, Iraqi President,
Talabani sought Irans help on curbing bloodshed in Iraq. Britain indicated
intentions to cut in troops in Iraq.
On 28th November, Annan said civil war in Iraq is imminent. Talabani
while visiting Tehran again sought Irans help for stability of Iraq. Some
experts opined that Saudi Arabia could arm and fund Sunnis in Iraq if US
pulls out. Iraq War was costing US $76 billion annually.
Judge ejected and ordered arrest of Saddams defence lawyer for a day
on 29 November. Two days later, Bush found that there was no graceful
exit from Iraq. On 3rd December, Annan said unrest in Iraq is worst than
civil war.
th

On 5th December, Rumsfelds successor, Robert Gates admitted that

US was not winning in Iraq. He blamed Iran for unrest in Iraq, but said
military action against Iran would be taken as last resort. Meanwhile, Bolton
US ambassador to the UN resigned.
Baker-Hamilton report was presented which proposed that by early
2008 at least half of the US troops should be moved to non-combatant
positions to train Iraqi troops instead of fighting insurgents on the street. It
also urged that Washington should hold talks with Iran and Syria. Bush
rebuffed key recommendations from the ISG but announced a new Middle
East peace push after talks with Tony Blair.

430

WAR CRITICISED
Criticism of invasion and occupation of Iraq had started even before
the start of military action and has been intensifying with each passing day,
particularly after November elections in the US. The points raised by the
analysts can be broadly categorized in two; one pertaining to the plight of
the occupied and the other pertaining to the frustration of the occupier.
Once the strongest country in the Arab World, Iraq has suffered
immense destruction at the hands of the Crusaders and the people now
continue suffering from civil war. Patrick Cockburn observed, Iraq may be
getting close to what Americans call the Saigon moment, the time when
it becomes evident to all that the government is expiring. They say that the
killings and kidnappings are being carried out by men in police uniforms and
with police vehicles, the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zabari said to me
with a despairing laugh this summer. But everybody in Baghdad knows that
the killers and kidnappers are real policemen.
It is getting worse. The Iraqi army and police are not loyal to the
state. If the US army decides to confront the Shia militias it could well find
Shia military units from the Iraq army cutting the main American supply
route between Kuwait and Baghdad
The US and British position in Iraq is far more of a house built on
sand than is realized in Washington or London, despite the disasters of the
past three-and-a-half years. George Bush and Tony Blair show a unique
inability to learn from their mistakes, largely because they do not want to
admit having committed any errors in the first place.
Civil war is raging across central Iraq, home to a third of the
countrys 27 million people. As Shia and Sunni flee each others
neighborhoods; Iraq is turning into a country of refugees In Baghdad,
neighbouring Sunni and Shia districts have started to fire mortars at each
other.
Duraid al-Baik opined, knocking down Saddam regime was a simple
quest but has been complicated because of exaggeration and bad
intelligence. It is ignorance and naivety that has prevailed throughout
the war in Iraq and still characterize American decisions today.

431

Instead of limiting the damage and focusing on how to remedy the

situation in Iraq, Abizaid has been moving around the world to warn his
audience that Islamist militancy a broader version of al-Qaeda will lead
the world to another world war if the West fails to unite against it.
There is no Islamic militancy. There are desperate people, not
necessarily poor, but desperate because of what they see and suffer. This
group happens to be Muslims. They see their brethren killed in raids in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and in the core of the Islam-West conflict,
Palestine. The scenes of killing are bombarding their heads day and night.
Abizaid, in spite being of Lebanese descent, who speaks Arabic
fluently, could not understand why killing a child in Afghanistan would
move a family in Mauritania. And why bombing a shelter housing Shiite
families in Qana in Lebanon moved people in the streets of Indonesia.
The process of Iraqs virtual disintegration, which is part of the
Crusaders grand design of redrawing the borders in the Middle East, had
already begun with grant of autonomy to the Kurdish region. Jonathan Steele
wrote, Kurds are waiting for the referendums, promised for the next year
under Article 140 of the new Iraqi constitution. They would allow people to
vote to join Kurdistan. Not just in Kirkuk, but in all other disputed territories
there is supposed to be a census in July and a referendum in November
The International Crisis Group, an independent think-tank, proposes
a similar plan for special status, though only for 10 years. Western officials
call it a non-starter, since it would require amending the constitution. They
expect the referendum issue will ultimately be decided by a political bargain
in Baghdad, rather than Kirkuk. Iraqs majority Shia government will do a
deal with the Kurds to delay the crunch.
How that will be sold to the increasingly impatient Kurds is crucial.
Without clear milestones towards an eventual vote, or major concessions on
other issues dear to the Kurds, there could be a political and social
explosion in Kirkuk. On the other hand, holding an unprepared vote and
letting Kirkuk join Kurdistan against Arab and Turkoman wishes could add
ethnic conflict to the citys current insurgency.
In that case Kirkuk would no longer be the story of a war deferred.
The ethnic cleansing already under way in Mosul could accelerate and
spread to Baghdad, where some 100,000 Kurds still live. Iraq is already

432

suffering from a war between insurgents and the Americans, and the Sunni
versus Shia clashes which flow from it. Can it survive the horrors of war
number three?
Ron Jacobs mentioned what Iraqis got after getting liberated from
oppressive Saddam regime. In the past couple of weeks, the news has
reported the deaths of several Iraqi women and children from US airborne
bombs and missiles. This is no accident. As the use of US air support to
support Iraqi government forces on the ground increases (and US ground
forces pull back), there are bound to be more such casualties. Like Israel
and previous Pentagon leaders, the current US command refuses to
accept blame for these deaths, choosing instead to blame them on the
actions of the resistance forces.
When a pilot drops his load of bombs or fires his deadly missiles on a
street of houses, or when a gunner unleashes a barrage of bullets from his
Vulcan Gatling gun at the rate of 6,000 bullets per minute on a group of
people running away from the helicopter he is in, this is not an accident. It is
part of the strategy of pacification a policy that George Orwell pointed out
goes something like this: Defenceless villages are bombed from the air, the
inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the
huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.
The pretence that US Galahads were going to come in and save Iraqi
and Afghani women from the more medieval practices of certain Islamic
fundamentalists is over. Now, those women and their children are being
killed indiscriminately by the US bombs and missiles. Some are even being
raped by US soldiers. There is no moral right in arresting people without
cause and then torturing them. Nor is there any moral right in denying a
population electrical power and security while the occupiers live in air
conditioned comfort with colonialist trappings. In short, there is nothing
moral about the US wars on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. And
there never will be.
Linda S Heard observed that the situation is far worse than Saddam
era. The UNs Director General Kofi Annan told the BBC that he agreed
with Iraqis who claim life in Iraqis worse than it was when Saddam was
in power saying their kids could go to school and come back home without a
mother or father worrying am I going to see my child again?

433

Libertarian columnist Ilana Mercer in her article At least Saddam

kept order has this to say. To be fair, Saddams last major massacre was
in 1991, during which only 3,000 Shiites were murdered, she writes,
adding thats less than the monthly quota under democracy.
Jonathan Chait writing in the Los Angeles Times goes one step
further. Bring back Saddam Hussein, he says. He believes the restoration
of order requires a large-scale psychological shock and the return of
Saddam Hussein a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear
would do the trick Without sticking words on the pens of Ilana Mercer and
Jonathan Chait, I would imagine their columns were meant to be
condemnation of the US administration rather than in praise of Iraqs former
dictator.
Possibility of a defeat haunted the occupiers. Col Dan Smith heard
echoes of Vietnam in Iraq: Although not often alluded to, the lack of
physical security and of a reasonable degree of predictability in Iraq after
April 10, 2003 was the beginning of the Americanization of the conflict. In
both South Vietnam and Iraq, the lack of security compelled large scale US
intervention running concurrently with the assistance effort. But in Iraq the
fault lies entirely on the White House and the Pentagon for dismantling the
only institutions that might have served as nationalist rallying points able to
fill the vacuum created by the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Gulf News observed that it is plainly obvious that America has run
out of go-it-alone options. But if Iraq is to have an option, as a selfgoverning, functioning state, then Washington must get involved in a
dialogue with Iran and Syria and other neighbouring countries that have a
legitimate interest in stability there.
This carries inherent risks, namely Iraq becoming a satellite of
another country. But it is also wrong to deny that neighbours of Iraq do not
have an interest in the countrys stability. Acknowledging this is not
tantamount to defeat for the US and it offers a glimmer of hope. Simply put,
what other options are there?
Patrick Seale was quite blunt in his assessment. No one can seriously
deny that the United States is now facing the possibility of a strategic
defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It may not be defeat in the conventional
sense of a military rout, a forced withdrawal of troops or an abject surrender,
but it is certainly a failure to meet declared American objectives.
434

Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney opined, Iraq looks like a

defeat in part because the Bush administration fell into the same trap as
the Johnson administration did, raising expectations of imminent victory by
declaring, mission accomplished before the real work had even begun.
And, as with Somalia, fighting shadowy insurgents in Iraq while propping
up a weak government engenders negative memories of Vietnam.
Perceptions of success and failure can change the course of history. Reeling
from the supposed disaster Tet, the United States began to withdraw.
Even a semblance of defeat would blow off American dreams. M B
Naqvi saw that happening already. The world is witnessing a decline of
the influence of the only superpower. The limits of its power are now
apparent, though its military sinews are stronger today than anytime before.
Similarly, the mini-superpower that Israel was in the region remains as
strong as it ever was and no comparable Arab state has emerged. But its
ability to go on suppressing Palestinians and grossly abusing their human
rights while also punishing Hezbollah is not likely to last long. Even the
Baker task force on Iraq is set to recommend that America put some distance
between itself and the Israelis by forcing them to make serious political
concessions on Palestine. This is something new: the political advantages
that superior military strength usually ensured are subject to diminishing
returns.
Martin Jacques expressed similar views in some detail. George Bush
is being routinely condemned as one of the worst presidents ever and his
Iraq policy no longer enjoys the support of a large swath of the American
establishment. The neoconservatives suddenly find themselves isolated and
embattled: Rumsfeld has been sacked, Cheney has gone quiet; the likes of
Richard Perle are confined to sidelines.
Before our eyes, the neoconservative position is disintegrating. Its
foreign-policy tenets have been shown to be false. As is now openly
admitted, they have brought the US to the verge of disaster in Iraq, which is
why the American version of the men in grey suits has ridden to the
rescue.
In future the US will be forced to share its influence with regional
powers such as Iran, with the EU and no doubt in time, with emerging
global players such as China and perhaps even Russia. Such a scenario may
well mean that the key alliance that has shaped the Middle East since 1956

435

between the US and Israel will no longer be so pivotal and could be

increasingly downgraded.
What is true regionally is also the case globally. We are reminded
of how even the most powerful and, indeed, the most knowledgeable can get
things profoundly wrong. It is worthwhile recalling the longer-term global
context of the American defeat in Vietnam. It did not signal any serious
upturn in the fortunes of the Soviet Union; this was already in a state of
economic stagnation and growing political paralysis that was to become
terminal in the 80s
A few years later we can see the full absurdity of this position. Far
from the US being in the ascendant, deeper trends have moved in the
opposite direction. The US might enjoy overwhelming military
advantage, but its relative economic power, which in the long run is
almost invariably decisive, is in decline.
An increasingly multipolar world requires an entirely different
kind of US foreign policy: far from being unilateralist, it necessitates a
complex form of power sharing on both a global and regional basis. This is
not only the opposite of neoconservative unilateralism; it is also entirely
different from the simplicities of superpower cooperation and rivalry in
bipolar world of the Cold War.
Decline of Bushs popularity was another worry of the Crusaders.
Robert Fisk said, how does he persuade himself as he apparently did in
Amman yesterday that the United States will stay in Iraq until the job is
complete? The job Washingtons project to reshape the Middle East
in its own and Israels image is long dead, its very neoconservative
originators disavowing their hopeless political aims and blaming Bush,
along with the Iraqis of course, for their disaster.
Historys deniers are many and all subject to the same folly:
Faced with overwhelming evidence of catastrophe, they take refuge in
fantasy, dismissing evidence of collapse as symptom of some short-term
military setback, clinging to the idea that as long as their generals promise
victory or because they have themselves so often promised victory that
fate will be kind.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, almost as loyal a retainer to
Bush as Sahaf was to Saddam, receives the same false praise from the

436

American president that Nasser and Brezhnev once lavished upon their
generals. I appreciate the courage you show during these difficult times
About the only truthful statement uttered in Amman yesterday was
Bushs remark that theres a lot of speculation that these reports in
Washington mean theres going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq
(but) this business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it
at all. Indeed, it has not. There can be no graceful exit from Iraq, only a
terrifying, bloody collapse of military power.
Bush even appeared oblivious of the current sectarian map of Iraq.
the prime minister made clear that splitting his country into parts, as some
have suggested, is not what the Iraqi people want, and that any partition of
Iraq would only lead to an increase in sectarian violence, he said. I agree.
But Iraq is already split into parts. The fracture of Iraq is virtually
complete, its chasms sucking in corpses at the rate of up to a thousand a
day.
Even Hitler must chuckle at this bloodbath, he claimed in April of
1945 that Germany would still win World War II, boasting that his enemy,
Roosevelt, had died much as Bush boasted of al-Zarqawis killing while
demanding to know when Gen Wencks mythical army would rescue the
people of Berlin.
How many Wencks are going to be summoned from the 82 nd
Airborne or the Marine Corps to save Bush from Iraq in the coming weeks?
No, Bush is not Hitler. Like Blair, he once thought he was Winston
Churchill, a man who never ever lied to his people about Britains defeat
in war. But fantasy knows no bounds.
Arab News talked of war crimes committed by the occupiers.
Saddam Hussein faces gallows for the murder of 148 towns-people from
Dujail in 1982. In two days 202 Iraqis were slaughtered in an orgy of
violence in and around Baghdad. Will anyone ever stand trial for the
latest obscene crime or will it merely be the trigger for new, equally
loathsome crimes perpetrated in vengeance?
Bushs ambassador to the UN was frequently accused of undermining
the world body, who had to resign ultimately. The Guardian wrote, outside
the depleted ranks of Americas neoconservatives, few tears are likely to be
shed over John Boltons resignation as US ambassador to the United

437

Nations. Mr Boltons political fate was effectively sealed, like that of

Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, when the Republicans suffered their
crippling defeat in the Congressional elections
Mr Bolton was a polarizing figure who intimidated others to
support his hawkish views. But his influence went far beyond Baghdad and
preceded the fall of Saddam Hussein. His blunt speaking and abrasive
manner were harnessed to a visceral hostility to multilateral institutions and
agreements he saw as inhibiting Americas pursuit of its own vital interests.
Mr Boltons disdainful excesses helped Americas worst enemies
such as the North Korean propagandists who called him human scum. He
was wrong to scorn European diplomatic efforts to curb Irans nuclear
ambitions The US may find the UN more helpful to a lonely
superpower without Mr Bolton at the Security Councils horseshoe-shaped
table. The UN (note to Ban Ki-Moon) will be more used to the world it is
supposed to serve if the secretary-general speaks his mind more often and
before it is too late.
Rumsfeld was also remembered by The New York Times for his
contribution to the Iraq War. The field manual, the armys basic guidebook
for war, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, quietly jettisons the single
most disastrous innovation of the Rumsfeld era. That is the misconceived
notion that the size and composition of an American intervention force
should be based only on what is needed to defeat the organized armed forces
of an enemy government, instead of also taking into account the needs to
providing security and stability for the civilian population for which the
United States will then be responsible.
Almost every post-invasion problem in Iraq can be directly traced

to this one catastrophic planning failure, which left too few troops in Iraq
to prevent rampant looting, restore basic services and move decisively
against the insurgency before it took root and spread.
The critics were more or less unanimous about the need for change in
the strategy. Iraq requires a regional settlement, opined Patrick Seale. In
Iraq, a full-scale civil war between Sunnis and Shiites raises the dreadful
possibility of sectarian strife spreading beyond Iraqs borders. This, in
turn, could increase tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran and possibly
trigger their intervention on opposite sides in Iraq.

438

It seems clear that the war in Iraq requires a regional settlement

that is to say a settlement to which all Iraqs neighbours, Turkey, Iran,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan contribute in their different ways
and to the best of their ability. They all have a vital interest in a stable,
unitary and peaceful Iraq.
An urgent diplomatic initiative is required perhaps in the form of a
regional conference in which Iraqs neighbours, without foreign
interference, thrash out an agreed power-sharing formula for Iraq and then
use their influence to persuade the warring parties to accept it.
Robert Scheer argued that the final collapse of our puppet regime in
Vietnam did not produce the domino effect of other nations surrendering to
communism any other than a US withdrawal from Iraq will inevitably to the
spread of terrorism. That is why the wiser voices in the Bush dynastic circle
Daddy Bushs clean-up crew, led by James Baker are calling for
involving Syria and Iran in the effort to stabilize Iraq.
David Ignatius opined, the administration is wary of the bold
strokes, such as engaging Iran and Syria, that are likely to be proposed by
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Administration officials are all for
engaging Iran in principle, but they think that under current conditions its
likely to be a dead end.
As Administration officials review Iraq strategy, one failed element is
the policy of Sunni outreach pursued by the US ambassador to Baghdad,
Zalmay Khalilzad. Some officials have concluded that Khalilzads
approach made Iraqi Shiites fear that America was abandoning them,
without achieving any meaningful reduction of the Sunni insurgency The
administration seems to be leaning toward a more polite version of this pick
a winner approach, which is to support the Shiite-led government and an
Iraqi army that is overwhelmingly Shiite
Sami Mubayed was of the view that involvement of Iran was vital in
this context. The key to stability in Iraq is in Iran, not in Syria. The
Iranians know it. They are bidding their time and want to be invited by the
Americans to enter Iraq, in a manner similar to the green light given to Syria
in Lebanon during the uncivil war in 1979.
The Americans, perhaps realizing this reality a little too late,
decided to talk to Syria in the hope that it could use its moderate influence

439

on the Iranians. This is why British Prime Minister Tony Blair, shortly after
a visit to Washington last month, sent his special envoy to Syria. Blairs
envoy asked the Syrians to cooperate the Iraqi government.
The Syrians, however, cannot end the insurgency. But they can
minimize the damage. They can also talk to Iran. Already there have been
Iraqi efforts to deal with the Iranians Their efforts to end the uncivil
war in Iraq will succeed only when the following conditions are met:
Continued US support for Syrias new policy towards Iraq.
The US must broker a rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia
to ensure complete Iraqi Sunni obedience.
Changing Iraqs Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He has failed to
bring law, order and security
Gulf News argued that involvement of Arab countries was more
important. Arab nations can no longer afford to stand to one side and
allow the daily carnage in Iraq to continue. There must be involvement by
Arab leaders and negotiators if it is ever likely the country will return to
some semblance of normality. It is obvious that the US-led forces, combined
with the newly trained Iraqi army and police, are totally incapable of getting
on top of the situation.
For without concerted action by Arabs to help a brother nation, it is
likely the conflict in Iraq will continue without end. Arab associations at
various levels of inter-government co-operation should demonstrate their
unity with Iraqis and help them attain peace through action, not merely
quietly spoken words of support.
The News observed that Muallems visit to Baghdad could be a first
step towards this end but it had some apprehensions. Now a leading Middle
Eastern official has joined that clamour, making the call in an improbable
place. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said in Baghdad earlier this
week that America should give a timetable for a withdrawal. The very fact of
his unprecedented visit to the Iraqi capital followed by an announcement
that both countries would be restoring diplomatic relations is reflective of
the global readjustment following Nov 7s upset on Capitol Hill. Here is the
chief diplomat of a country formerly in danger of intervention by the
Americans speaking in the capital of the neighbour his own government

440

considers under occupation. The dramatic nature of Mr Muallems call

diminishes the irony of the fact that the US-installed government of Iraq
is itself increasingly unhappy with its foreign backers.
The day Mr Muallem arrived in Baghdad, terrorists kidnapped a
deputy minister in Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikis administration,
emphasizing the delicate nature of law and order in a country on the brink of
a sectarian and ethnic civil war from which it may not even emerge as a
single country.
Khaleej Times wrote, whatever the Syrian regimes motives, there is
no doubt that the move by the neighbours to bury the past and make a clean
start would help Iraq return to peace and stability. It also augurs well for the
Middle East. In fact, all countries in the neighborhood should do all they
can to help their Arab and Muslim neighbours.
Under Ahmadinejad, Tehran has been on an ambitious drive to win
friends and influence people. It already has considerable influence over the
Shia governing alliance in Iraq which allows Tehran to remind
Washington from time to time of its enormous nuisance value.
Honestly speaking, the US is not in a position to choose its friends
and allies in Iraq. It will have to engage Iran, Syria and everyone else
involved if it is keen to restore some kind of working peace and order in Iraq
and get out at the first opportunity. Beggars cant be choosers.
The Hindu talked about neighbours limitations. While the al-Saud
and Hashemite monarchies do have linkages with the Sunni tribes of
western Iraq, they do not appear to be in any position to exert effective
influence so long as there are occupying forces and a western military
presence in the region. A significant section of the fighters from this sect
owes allegiance to al-Qaeda that is vehemently opposed to monarchies and
their extra-regional sources of support.
Iran and Syria will naturally be pleased with Washingtons indirect
acknowledgement that they do have a legitimate role to play in Iraqi affairs.
But the Shia militias are not tight-knit organizations and the fighters are
unlikely to heed the advice of foreign governments.
Although the apprehension is that the withdrawal of the occupying
forces will intensify sectarian strife, the US and the United Kingdom

441

having made a horrifying and criminal mess of Iraq and the life of its people
have little option but leave the Iraqis to their own devices.
Many analysts proposed withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.
Eugene Robison opined that foreign troops were part of the problem. Good
lord, if even Henry Kissinger now says that military victory in Iraq is
impossible, pretty soon George W Bush really will be left with just
Laura and Barney on his side.
And Kissinger? The oracle who has been dropping by the White
House regularly to whisper sweet nothings into the presidential ear, urging
him to hang tough? The sage who wrote in August 2005 that victory over
the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy is now listing Bushs
conditions for withdrawal a stable government, ruling all of Iraq, with the
ability to control the violence and pronouncing them unattainable. Will
anyone be surprised if Henry the K soon reveals that he knew the whole
thing was folly all along?
Meanwhile, the neocon architects of the war are making a
spectacle of themselves in their undignified flight from the sinking ship.
Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelmen, Michael Rubin they all take pretty much
the same line, which is that the invasion was a great and noble idea but that
the White House and the Pentagon bungled it horribly.
If we are ready to acknowledge, as Kissinger does, that the
presidents goals in Iraq will never be accomplished, then how do we justify
the American lives that will be lost next year, next month or next week,
while the phases of a face-saving withdrawal run their course?
If American troops begin pulling out tomorrow, Iraq surely will suffer
a terrible spasm of bloody violence. But if we wait a year and then pull out,
there is no reason to expect any different outcome. Quite the contrary: The
longer we stay the more lawless and chaotic the country becomes.
Rosa Brooks wrote, at this point, our presence is manifestly making
things worse. Ask the Iraqis, who ought to know. In a poll released this
week, 78% of Iraqis told researchers that the US military presence is
provoking more conflict than it is preventing; 71% said they wanted US
troops out within a year

442

We can withdraw quickly or slowly, all at once or in stages, but

we should withdraw. If it makes anyone feel better, we can call it strategic
redeployment, and we can and should look for ongoing ways to use our
financial resources and our technical expertise to help ordinary Iraqis and
any legitimate, nonaggressive Iraqi government.
The News opined that the fact is that the issue of withdrawal from
places such as Iraq presents a situation of damned if you do and
damned if you dont. A phased withdrawal is something on which
Washington should start serious thinking now.
Bob Herbert argued, with no obvious personal stake in the war in
Iraq, most Americans are indifferent to its consequences This
indifference is widespread. It enables most Americans to go about their daily
lives completely unconcerned about the atrocities resulting from a war being
waged in their name.
Since the vast majority of Americans do not want anything to do with
the military or the war, the burden of fighting has fallen on a small cadre of
volunteers who are being sent into the war zone again and again The war
has now lasted as long as the American involvement in World War II. But
there is no sense of collective sacrifice in this war, no shared burden of
responsibility. The soldiers are fighting, suffering and dying in a war in
which there are no clear objectives and no end in sight, and which a majority
of Americans do not support.
Alexander Cockburn said, what political Washington cannot yet quite
comprehend is that Iraq is not Palestine; cannot be lectured and given
schedules. America is not controlling events in Iraq. If the Shia choose to cut
supply lines from Kuwait up to the northern part of the country, the US
forces would be in deep, deep trouble. When the Democrats take over
Congress in January, they should vote to end funding for anything in Iraq
except withdrawing US forces immediately.
The arguments were also made against the pullout. The News wrote,
the most alarming indication that Iraq is approaching a sectarian
breaking point is the latest trend of attacks on mosques of the Iraqi capital,
including historic buildings which had survived the 13 th century Mongol
destruction and slaughter.

443

The ground reality suggests that if there was a sudden pullout, with
no planning and no transfer of authority and power to the Iraqi army and
police, we could well have a situation like in Afghanistan following the
Soviet pullout.
Mohammad Akef Jamal observed, Bush refuses to talk about
anything save his military victory in Iraq, despite General John Abizaids
warning to the Congress against a timetable for the withdrawal of the US
troops from Iraq since he believes that a political solution will result only
from a military victory.
Former US secretary of state Henry A Kissinger, who regularly
advises President George W Bush on Iraq, said that a full military victory
was no longer possible in the war-ravaged country. He thus has joined a
growing number of leading conservatives who are openly challenging the
administrations conduct of the war and its positive forecasts.
Kissinger, however, sounded a warning that a hasty withdrawal
from Iraq would have disastrous consequences not only for Iraq, but
also for its neighbouring countries within large Shiite populations At
present, the US cannot withdraw its forces from Iraq. The escalating
violence in Iraq might push the whole area into a state of instability.
Moreover, the US cannot carry the brunt of a strategic failure and its
repercussions on the future of its policies.
Arab News argued, the American can be blamed for creating this
disaster, of course, but they are not perpetrating the ever-increasing
daily savagery. Blaming Washington, as Mahdi Army leader Moqtada Sadr
did yesterday is devious nonsense. The US-led occupation forces have
certainly failed spectacularly to create a stable Iraq. However, the way things
stand at the moment, their withdrawal probably sooner rather than later
will remove a primary restraint (perhaps the only one at this moment)
against the possibility of an all-out civil war.
That is why ordinary Iraqis, though always unhappy with the
foreign occupation, now dread the moment it will end. Sadr also called
yesterday on Sunni religious leaders to issue a fatwa against the terrorists in
their communities. This is highly desirable and should have been done
months ago. However it is equally right that Shiite religious leaders should
back it with their own fatwa against the murderous violence being done by
Shiite militants.
444

Such arguments were mainstay of the arrogance of Bush. Ron Jacobs

wrote, as the US closes in on the opening day of its new Congress, the
possibility of voters getting a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq grows
dimmer and dimmer. George Bush continues to insist that US forces will
remain in country until their job is done. What that job is exactly seems to
most to be a secret known only to certain members of the White House, but
the key to it all is the desire for the US to reshape the world in order to, as
this an excerpt from the Project for the New American Century statement of
principles reminds us, preserve and extend an international order friendly to
US security, (and) prosperity.
Gary Younge looked at it differently. Those who lied their way into
this war are now trying to lie their way out of it. Franci-German
diplomatic obstruction, Arab indifference, media bias, UN weakness, Syrian
and Iranian meddling, women in niqabs and old men with placards all have
been or surly will be blamed for coalitions defeat.
Withdrawal, when it happens, will be welcome. But its nature and the
rationale given for it are not simply issues of political point-scoring. They
will lay the groundwork for what comes next for two main reasons. First,
because, while withdrawal is a prerequisite for any lasting improvement in
Iraq, it will not by itself solve the nations considerable problems Second,
because unless we understand what happened in Iraq we are doomed to
continue repeating mistakes elsewhere.
Dr M S Jillani did not expect any positive change in Bush
Administrations strategy. Domination of the Congress by the Democrats
as such is not going to bring about much change in American policies.
The most that may happen is what has already taken place in the form of
Donald Rumsfelds departure, which in substance is nothing more than
window-dressing.
G Pascal Zachary apprehended the possibility of escalation of war and
commented, escalation is always seductive option when war aims go
unmet. After taking casualties and losing ground, an occupying army can
look on the prospect of reinforcements with enthusiasm. For the political
overlords of a war going badly, escalation carries an immediate appeal by
raising hopes of ultimate victory, as the enemy collapses in the face of
increased forces and firepower.

445

In the case of Iraq War, the appeal of escalation is linked to the

widespread, if erroneous, belief that the US never committed adequate troop
levels to pacify Iraq The gruesome lesson from the Korean War and
Vietnam show that nothing will be accomplished by sending more
troops to Iraq, other than adding to the 2,876 soldiers killed and leaving
more dead civilians.

ISG REPORT
The much awaited report of Iraq Study Group was widely commented
upon even before it was formally released. Gordon Robinson said, as date
for the release of the Groups report has approached, however, we have
begun to see some pushback from the president. Most notable was his
derisive reference to the search for a graceful exit from Iraq
The lesson, in retrospect, is that it is useless to offer graceful exits
and face-saving measures to someone who genuinely believes theyve
done nothing wrong to begin with. The problem, however, is not simply
with the president and his approach to problems. It concerns our entire
political culture here in the United States. We are an impatient society,
always searching for quick and direct solutions to problems, regardless of
their complexity.
The problem is not just the presidents intransigence. It is also the
Democrats lack of ideas coupled with their belief that a neat and honourable
solution to this mess really exists. It is this, more than anything else that
feeds the unreality surrounding the Iraq debate in the US.
We call for engagement with Syria and Iran without considering
whether either country actually wants to sit down with us or what we would
have to offer if they did negotiations, after all, are supposed to be a two-way
street. We continue, in short, to treat Iraq as an issue of domestic rather than
foreign policy. Something we can ignore except in moments of crisis, not
something we have to work on day in and day out.
Washington Post was of the view that the report foresees a year-long
shift of US forces from fighting insurgents and preventing sectarian war to
advising and supporting an Iraqi army that would take responsibility for
those missions. If all went well, most combat units would withdraw by early

446

2008, but a robust American force would stay on to guard against the
collapse of the Iraqi government, to fight al-Qaeda and to deter intervention
by Iraqs neighbours.
The report outlines a broad attempt to solve the problems of the
Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the related
disputes among Israel, Syria and Lebanon worthy goals that have eluded
this and every US administration over the past four decades
There are other useful recommendations in the report, including
an increase in reconstruction aid to Iraq, which is close to running out,
and improvements in intelligence-gathering. There is also a proposal to push
the Iraqi government toward meeting milestones on the way to political
reconciliation by threatening to withhold aid or withdraw troops if it does
not. The pressure for action is certainly needed.
Whats missing from the study group report, unfortunately, is any
evaluation of what should be done if the new strategy does not work if,
despite the stepped-up training, diplomacy and pressure for Iraqi political
reconciliation, the incipient civil war intensifies or the army and government
remain too weak to survive on their own. In that all-too-likely scenario,
Democrats would probably press the troops withdrawals to proceed
regardless, while Mr Bush has said he will not pull out troops off the
battlefield before the mission is complete.
The Post, in a subsequent review said, the Iraq Study Groups
recommendations for shifting US military tactics in the war are specific,
focused and aimed at incremental improvement over the next few months;
they are also close to what the Pentagon and Iraqi government already were
hoping to achieve. By contrast, the groups diplomatic strategy is
sweeping and untethered to reality.
Start with the supposition that resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict
is somehow central to ending the chaos in Iraq. In fact, even if the two-state
solution sought by the Bush Administration were achieved, its difficult to
imagine how or why that would cause Sunnis and Shiites to cease their
sectarian war in Baghdad or the Baathist/al-Qaeda insurgency to stand
down.
Mr Baker, who pursued a Mideast diplomatic strategy 15 years ago
focused in large part on Syria, also conjunctures that its regime can be

447

flipped, so that it abandons its current alliance with Iran and support for
extremist movements in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The
problem with his theory is that since 1991 Syria has acquired a new leader:
Bahar al-Assad is very different from his father, Hafez, with whom Mr
Baker negotiated.
Parts of the Baker-Hamilton diplomatic agenda make good sense,
including its suggestion for a contact group of Iraqs neighbours, including
Iran and Syria. The Iraqi government already has embraced the notion,
proposing a regional conference in Baghdad, and President Bush would be
wise to get on board
By the same token, the administration ought to continue its efforts to
promote the creation of a Palestinian government capable of undertaking the
peace negotiations that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered last
month. It should also continue to press hard for UN sanctions against
Irans nuclear programme and seek sanctions against Syria if it
continues to flout UN resolutions calling for it to cease its meddling in
Lebanon.
Eric S Margolis wrote, the report, prepared by a blue-ribbon panel of
Republican and Democrat moderates, found the security situation in Iraq
grave and deteriorating. US Iraq policy has failed. Iraq is in chaos. The
panel flatly contradicted claims by President George Bush and VicePresident Dick Cheney the war was going well.
The Iraq Study Group achieved three important goals. First, it
told Americans what they have not heard for the past six years: the truth. The
war in Iraq is lost. Its time to retreat from this debacle. Second, the ISG
provided protective cover for legislators to oppose powerful domestic
special interest groups advocating continued occupation of Iraq, and war
against Iran. Third, it made clear a fair solution must be found to the
festering Israel-Palestine dispute, which lies at the heart of Middle East
tensions and terrorism.
The report is coming under intense fire from pro-Israeli neocons,
who still yearn for war against Iran, even though the war they engineered
against Iraq is the worst disaster in modern US history. Its ill-effects will be
felt for a generation.

448

This sensible, balanced report is Americas logical exit strategy

from the raging inferno neocon arsonists ignited in Iraq. It gives Bush
political cover if he is wise enough to use it to reverse his ruinous Iraq
policies before Republicans again pay the price in 2008 presidential
elections.
Jonathan Steele wrote, the Baker panel recognizes, as does Bush, that
the central plank in US policy in Iraq over the next two years has to be a
dramatic reduction in US casualties. At the present rate, in only a few days
more Americans will have died in Iraq than on 9/11; if you add the US death
toll in Afghanistan that point has already been reached. Bushs war on terror
has killed more Americans than Bin Ladens terror.
What Baker proposes is essentially a continuation of what Bush
is already doing trying to reduce US deaths by moving troops out of the
frontline while avoiding any commitment to a full US withdrawal. Baker
fails to consider an early withdrawal objectively, describing that option as
precipitate and premature.
Bush rejects the Vietnam analogy He will have to announce a
timetable for pulling out US troops, not just from combat duties but
from Iraq. Keeping them in bases without any pledge of a final withdrawal
will not only keep the nationalist insurgency alive; it will allow Iraqs
political leadership to shelter under Washingtons wing and pursue their
sectarian rivalries indefinitely.
Baker is right to suggest a regional conference to promote stability in
Iraq, but its precondition has to be an early end date for the last US soldier to
leave no later than December 2007. Otherwise the conference will fail.
Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will attend whatever happens. Syria and
Iran will not, and they are the key players. Without a clear, rapid timetable
for the US to go, they would risk looking like collaborators in the
occupation, a role they reject.
Baker argues that a US withdrawal would leave Iraq in chaos, leading
to a terrorist enclave in the largely Sunni western provinces or a civil war for
control of Baghdad. Equating change with catastrophe is the oldest trick.
In spite of the ferocious inter-communal clashes the recent months, the
Sunni-Shia split is still under potential political control.

449

The Iraqi parliament adopted a national reconciliation plan this

summer to which most parties at least paid lip service. The Americans
have been talking directly or intermediaries with former Baathists and other
insurgent leaders. These are hopeful signs. The earlier US effort to detach
Sunni politicians from the resistance has not worked. What is clear is how
far-reaching an amnesty the US and Shia politicians will offer.
With the prospect that it could appoint a genuine unity government
committed to peace, this internal conference is the right way to go. But as
with the regional conference the precondition for its success has to be a
clear commitment from Washington that it is leaving Iraq. Fudging the end
date or hoping it need never be promised will not end the war. Baker is
not suggesting anything as radical as this, of course. No one should ever
have thought he might.
Paul Craig Roberts opined that as the Iraq civil war (euphemistically
termed sectarian violence) intensifies, both US and Iraqi casualties have
sharply increased. Thirty-five US troops have been killed in the first week of
December. Iraqis are dying at each others hands at about 100 per day, with
many more wounded by bombs.
The report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has made it plain
as day that the US has accomplished nothing in Iraq except the
destabilization of the entire Middle East Yet, the White House Moron says
that it is better for 100 US troops and 3,000 Iraqi civilians to die every
month than for him to admit that he is wrong.
The same stupid American people elected a Congress that is too
corrupt to impeach a president who is a liar, a war criminal, and a
tyrant. Instead, they are prepared to let Bush off with a mere mistake, a
courtesy denied to President Clinton. Lying about sex is an impeachable
offence. Lying about war is a mere mistake.
How do you justify sacrificing your life for a war which is not
only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing
keeping us there is one mans power, and his ego. US Marine Philip Martin
says he joined the Marines to protect the US Constitution, not to serve as an
imperialist storm trooper.
I couldnt believe my ears when I heard talking heads worrying about
Bushs comfort level with Iraqi Study Groups unanimous report; Bushs

450

comfort level? What about the comfort level of the Iraqis and Americans
who are losing family members while idiot talking heads worry about
Bushs comfort level with the facts!
This disastrous war is a testament to the irresponsibility of the
America people and their elected representatives. There were, of course,
many dissenters. But the majority was too lazy and irresponsible to take the
trouble to be informed. Most Americans allowed themselves to be deceived
and emotionally manipulated. The consequence of this failure of the
American people has been brutal for countless people and their families in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon and for thousands of American families who
have suffered because Bush sent US troops on a fools mission.
As long as Bush remains in office, the neoconservatives will
demand more wars. In the current issue of Foreign Policy, neocon Joshua
Muravchik stridently insists that Bush bomb Iran before he leaves office.
Muravchik urges his fellow neocon warmongers to pave the way for the
bombing of Iran and to be prepared to defend the action when it comes.
Martin Kettle said that a crucial lesson of the entire Iraq War has
been that bad forms of government contribute significantly to bad decisions.
Bush has been unforgivably incompetent. Blair has centralized and
personalized too much. Both men came into office suspicious of the systems
they inherited and eager to change them. This was understandable but in
retrospect mistaken. It meant there were fewer effective ways for reasoned
objections to affect the decision-making process.
The obvious lesson for any successor is to try to avoid such hubris.
But will the suspicious and centralizing Gordon Brown submit his decision
to a more collegiate and rigorous system of scrutiny, giving equal weight to
the views of all departments and officials? I leave the answer to you.
Patrick Seale observed, the battle lines are now drawn between
Americas old foreign policy establishment and the ideologues who have led
Bush by the nose since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the
Americas heartland.
No one can yet tell which side will prevail or whether Bush will
agree to a radical change of course. In fact, nothing is less certain. Israel has
already rejected the main conclusions of the report and its many friends in
Washington in Congress, the US administration, the media and in the citys

451

numerous right-wing think tanks are already mounting a robust campaign

against it.
The neocons main ally is the president himself not because he
necessarily shares all their views but because of his rigid personality. He is
more than usually stubborn and is exceedingly reluctant to admit that
his Middle East policy was founded on error, wishful thinking and
fraudulent intelligence.
Moreover, although certainly not an abstract thinker, Bush is not a
pragmatist either. He tends to think in clichs, such as the forward march of
freedom, or axis of evil or the global war on terror, which have little
relation with reality. Nevertheless, these dangerous simplifications have
provided the umbrella under which the neocons have pursued their
agenda.
The Baker-Hamilton report is totally at variance with the policies the
neocons have pressed for and which Bush has followed. He went on to
support his observation by quoting that the report stressed on multilateralism
at regional and global levels.
The White House, Baker said, should not treat the report like a
fruit salad, picking out the bits it likes and discarding the rest. In pressing
for global approach, the report is very explicit: it calls for renewed and
sustained commitment (by the US) to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on
all fronts, including the creation of a Palestinian state and return of the
Golan Heights to Syria.
This approach is anathema to Israel and its friends. Israels Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert has already rejected it, claiming that the ArabIsrael conflict has nothing to do with the Iraq war. His fear is that Israel
will be asked to pay the price in territorial concessions for Americas bid to
win Arab help in stabilizing Iraq.
The Guardian said, it should not have been necessary for Tony Blair
to go all the way to Washington to hear that the situation in Iraq is now
grave and deteriorating, as James Baker and his colleagues determined
in their damning indictment of George Bushs policies. The spin from
Whitehall is satisfaction that the study groups recommendations are in line
with UK thinking though that only raises the troubling question of why
Britain, as an unswervingly loyal but increasingly lonely ally, has so far been

452

able to wield so little influence on the catalogue of disasters that has passed
for American strategy.
Weakened by his mid-term election defeat, the president has little
choice but to act on at least some of the Baker recommendations. Mr Blair is
thus likely to be pushing at a door that has already been forced open by the
American public and political establishment. But it would be a grave
mistake to exaggerate how much he is likely to be able to achieve now. Selfserving delusions about the Middle East have already done untold
damage. New one must be avoided.
It may make sense for the prime minister to argue for engagement
with Iran and Syria though there are reasons to assume that it will not
produce very much very soon. Tehran is happy to see the US discomfited
in Iraq as long as instability there does not spill across the border; its
influence is relatively limited. It is hard to see Syria detaching itself from its
alliance with the Islamic Republic or dropping support for Hezbollah in
Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
Mr Blair is on firmer ground in arguing, as he often has before, that
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core issue in the Middle East, the
source of widespread Muslim resentment of the West and, like Iraq, a
recruiting sergeant for jihadists. It is quite true, as a defensive Ehud Olmert
argued yesterday, that Israel is not the only source of instability in the
region. But its unresolved conflict with the Palestinians is a bitter and
dominant one and helps feed all the others.
Robert Fisk observed, collapse and catastrophe are daily present
in Iraq. Americas ability to influence events has been absent for years.
And lets just re-read the following sentence: Violence is increasing in
scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias,
death squads, al-Qaeda and widespread criminality. Sectarian conflict is the
principal challenge to stability.
Come again? Where was this widespread criminality, this sectarian
conflict when Saddam, our favorite war criminal, was in power? What do
the Iraqis think about this? And how typical that the American media went
at once to hear Bushs view of the Baker report rather than the
reaction of the Iraqis, those who are on the receiving end of our selfinduced tragedy in Mesopotamia.

453

What could Washington have done with Iraq if it had offered

American citizenship to every Iraqi? There would have been no insurrection,
no evidence, no collapse or catastrophe, no Baker report. But no; we wanted
to give these people the fruits of our civilization not the civilization
itself. From this, they were banned.
And the result? The nations we supposedly hate Iran and Syria
are now expected to save us from ourselves. Given the ability (sic) of Iran
and Syria to influence events and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the
United States should try to engage (sic) them constructively.
Dr Masooda Bano opined, acknowledgement by the 10-member
group of the failing US policies in Iraq is important though not new. The
US voters had already confirmed that the American public is finally
awakening to the dangers of the war through not necessarily because of the
continuing death toll of Iraqis but due to the rising number of deaths of
American troops and heavy financial costs of the war on the US exchequer.
The important question now is how. And as expected there is no easy
answer to this. The Iraq Study Group report, which was presented to
President Bush and the Congress prior to public briefing, proposes a threepronged strategy: Slowly move the US combat forces out of Iraq;
pressurize Iraqi government to deliver better especially on security
conditions; and launch a new and enhanced diplomatic effort in the
region
The desire for shift in Iraq policy within America is of course a
positive development but it has taken Americans too long to realize the
failure of raging wars without a clear purpose and a strategy. It has to be
remembered that Bush did enjoy high rating within the American public for
the initial years after the war. However, the key element here is that finally a
widespread recognition does exist in the US of the failure of the American
intervention in Iraq and the need to finding the best way to curtail the mess
that has been created.
To clean up all this mess is not easy. It is difficult to identify what
should be the first step. Reducing the US involvement in area is an important
step but it should not mean that the US should be able to wriggle out of
the responsibilities that it must shoulder for planning such a failed strategy
of dealing with Iraq.

454

Therefore, the US should shoulder the burden of reconstruction of

this country till there is some stability. But more of this support should be
through financial commitment from the US while giving the decisionmaking authority to the UN and the multilateral bodies. So far, the US has
tried to get the UN to bring the money and extra troops while keeping the
actual decision making powers and planning for Iraq in its own hands. It is
now time to reverse the balance.
At the same time, the idea of involving regional players in diplomacy
to curtail the mess in Iraq is important. However, these issues have to be
dealt with care. It is wise to involve Iran and Syria in any diplomatic
dialogue to develop solutions for Iraq but it has to be remembered that there
are limitations in this too. Due to the long period of war between Iraq and
Iran, the Sunni Iraqis are generally not positive about Irans involvement in
Iraq.
The bottom line is that the mess created in Iraq by the Bush
Administration is not easy to clean up Thus, five years on from
September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq remain highly susceptible to hosting
militant groups. But a complete and immediate pull out from these countries
is not an option for the US.
The News wrote, in some cases, the report is pragmatic and serves
as a rebuke to the Bush Administrations handling of Iraq and of the
Middle East in general. Suggestions that the US get actively involved in
resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict (which includes forcing Israel to give
up the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria) and involve both Iran
and Syria in getting some movement forward on Iraq are welcome and need
to be heeded by Washington
As for as Iraq goes, the report specifically calls for giving a kind of a
deadline to the Iraqi government to resolve sectarian conflict in the country
or face a complete cut-off of all forms of US aid. As things stand presently,
the Iraqi governments ability to do this seems extremely limited and things
for it are made difficult by the very presence of foreign soldiers in the
country. In that sense, the precondition of peace before a phased
withdrawal seems unrealistic and difficult to achieve especially given the
fact that the ability of the Iraqi army and police to take control of the internal
security situation on their own remains questionable.

455

Gulf News wrote, the ISG reiterated what has been known for a
couple of years in the Middle East. It is that there is no miracle cure or
magic wand that can be waved, to put an end to all the problems. If there
was, it would likely have been waved to set the clock back three years, and
take a different decision, not to go into Iraq. But there was worse: the ISG
recommends talking with Syria and Iran parts of Bushs axis of evil to
find a way out of the problem in Iraq. Already it can be seen that this is a
line Bush is unlikely to pursue.
Nasim Zahra said opined that reversing the Iraq blunder will not
be easy for the United States. Yet there is a way to limit the damage. The
regional countries including Iran and Syria must be involved in arresting the
violence inside Iraq.
The internal and external dynamics overlap and create the present
havoc within Iraq. Reorienting the external and internal dynamics alone
will undo the destructive dynamic. Washington needs to facilitate this
process of reorientation; not only for the sake of the people of Iraq, but for
regional and global peace as well.

ISRAEL AND HAMAS

Israeli defence forces continued their oppression against Palestinians
to punish them for electing Hamas to power. Following incidents were
reported during the period:
Israeli troops killed four Palestinians on 21 st November. Two Italians
were kidnapped in Gaza. Next day, one Palestinian was killed and
another wounded by Israeli forces. On 24th November, Israelis killed
seven Palestinians, including three Hamas-men.
On 26th November, Israel and Palestinian authority reached ceasefire
agreement. A week later, a teenager was killed by Israeli troops.
Two Palestinians were wounded by Israeli firing on 10th December.
Next day, Israel blocked a UN human Rights mission to Beit Hanoun.
Haniyeh visited Egypt to negotiate prisoners swap. Rice and Abbas
called for complete Middle East truce. Haniyeh vowed not to recognize

456

Israel. Hamas accused Abbas of bullying and on 11th December, Abbas

hinted at early polls and Hamas opposed.
The News condemned the state terrorism perpetrated by Israel.
Authorization by the cabinet of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of
targeted military operations against institutions led by Hamas is a
barbaric decision and amounts to legitimizing state-sponsored terrorism. As
part of approval for this plan, Israeli forces will carry out targeted killings
of those it suspects of being behind militant attacks, especially Palestinian
rockets fired into Israel.
Targeting Palestinian leaders will only make the situation worse and
history has shown that the Palestinians will not take it down and will
retaliate as they should. The question that Israel and its supporters,
especially America, need to ask themselves is; why are the rockets being
fired? Why is there so much frustration and resentment against what Israel
does in the West Bank and Gaza? Unfortunately, this is something that
neither Tel Aviv nor Washington are prepared to ask or answer.
Norman G Finkelstein said, the Israeli army has been rampaging
through Gaza theres no other word to describe it killing and
demolishing, bombing and shelling indiscriminately This is disgraceful
and shocking collective punishment.
It is at times like this that we expect human rights organizations
to speak out Were this record not shameful enough, HRW crossed a new
threshold at the end of November. After Palestinians spontaneously
responded to that unknown voice on a cell phone by putting their own bare
bodies in harms way, HRW rushed to issue a press release warning that
Palestinians might be committing a war crime and might be guilty of
human shielding. (Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against
Military Attacks.)
In what must surely be the most shocking statement ever issued by a
human rights organization, HRW indicted Palestinian leaders for supporting
this nonviolent civil disobedience: Prime Minister Haniyeh and other
Palestinian leaders should be renouncing, not embracing, the tactic of
encouraging civilians to place themselves at risk Is it war crime to
protect ones home from collective punishment? Is it human shielding if a
desperate and forsaken populace chooses to put itself at deadly risk in order
to preserve the last shred of its existence?
457

It took weeks before HRW finally issued a report condemning Israeli

war crimes in Lebanon. Although many reliable journalists were daily
documenting these crimes, HRW said it first had to conduct an independent
investigation of its own.
Ramzy Baroud asked, if the idea was indeed to shield Israel from
Palestinian attacks, then why is 80 percent of the wall being built on
ethnically cleansed Palestinian land? Why encircle the Palestinian
population of the West Bank from east and west, and those of Qalqilia from
all directions? Why do thousands of Palestinian school kids have to stand for
hours in front of their gated villages to acquire permission from an Israeli
soldier to allow them access to their schools and back?
Ethnic cleansing is indeed back on the Israeli political agenda, as
Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli politician who has for long advocated the
ethnic cleansing of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, was recently appointed
as Israels new deputy prime minister.
Gershom Gorenberg wrote, the Peace Now research suggests that the
practice of simply building Israeli homes on the land of others with no
legal basis is much more widespread. The vast majority of settlements
have been built since 1979. Because government has refused to reveal what
land is covered by old requisition orders, it is impossible to know how much
land has simply been overrun. At the new Elon Moreh, for instance, 65
percent of the land is Palestinian-owned, according to the Peace Now report.
Was any of that land formally requisitioned before 1979?
Chuck Freilich was of the view that for more than an opportune time
for renewed diplomacy, we may be witnessing the death pangs of the
Middle East peace process, with significant ramifications for US policy
in the region and even globally.
The peace process was the mechanism that enabled this diplomatic
feat, though the Arab belief that only the United States could deliver Israel.
As long as the hope persisted that the United States would be able to attain
for them what force could not, they were willing to tolerate its containment
policy and support for Israel. When confronting the core issues (recognition,
end to conflict, refugees, territory, Jerusalem), reality hit a wall, and the
illusion shattered.

458

Gwynne Dyer observed, over 350 Palestinians have been killed in the
Gaza Strip since mid-summer, versus two Israelis: One soldier killed in Beit
Hanoun early this month, and one civilian killed in Sderot last Wednesday.
Yet no amount of pain seems to deter the Palestinians, and now the
rockets are getting accurate enough to hurt Israelis.
Peter Preston opined that Israel was paying no heed to ISG Report.
There is no halcyon world where dominant Israelis and compliant
Palestinians can be left alone to work out a deal. Everything connects in
notion and often in practice. And Olmert fears that, which is why he moves
so swiftly to exclude Iran and Syria; for including them brings pressure to
his door.
Be clear. This is, absolutely, the reverse of the Baker plan. This is
the abandonment of whatever wisdom the independent study group has to
offer. Who needs enemies to sabotage prospects of a wider peace when
friends do it instinctively?
Accept that American attachment to the Israeli cause is total as
Baker himself makes clear. Bring no more peacekeeping American troops.
The hinge and the question, though, is how far that attachment should wreck
everything else? Israel could be propelled into regional talks. It floats on a
sea of US subsidy. It is, in many ways, the real 51 st state. But it does not
agree with Baker that there are no military solutions here. Nor will it
commit to the necessary level of political engagement. Does more violence
on the ground follow automatically, then? Its a sad, sad way to abandon
hope.
Jimmy Carter gave the reason behind US bias. It would be almost
politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced
position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with
international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for
Palestinians. Very few would ever design to visit the Palestinian cities of
Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the
beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the
editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States
exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments
expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
Israel and Hamas were finally persuaded to agree on ceasefire. The
Guardian wrote, a ceasefire is in place in Gaza after five months of fighting
459

that has taken many Palestinian lives and left people on the Israeli side of the
border, despite relatively low casualties, in a state of fearful insecurity. The
Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has spoken of his governments
readiness not only to release Palestinian prisoners and restore blocked
funds to the Palestinian Authority, but to proceed in time to comprehensive
negotiations aimed at the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian
state in the West Bank.
This is a different kind of talk from Mr Olmert, representing,
potentially, an abandonment of the strategy he inherited from Ariel
Sharon, which was to give what Israel was ready to give and lay down what
Israel intended to keep on the terms determined by Israel alone, without real
negotiations with the Palestinians. It is a strategy that was discredited by the
outcome this year in southern Lebanon and Gaza, which in both cases
proved that mere physical separation, accompanied by punitive action in the
event of attacks on Israel, was no substitute for a true settlement between the
two peoples.
Ceasefires in the Middle East have short lives, and this one could
even be over by the time President Bush, with whose visit it was probably
timed to coincide, arrives in Amman tomorrow for talks with the Iraqi prime
minister and the Jordaian king. But if it lasts it could deliver Gaza from the
suffering
Arab News talked about problems related to the truce. There are, of
course, so many things that can go wrong. For the Badr Brigade to be
deployed into the Gaza Strip from its current training base in Jordan will
take time; this 1000-strong force, loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, would
be tasked with ensuring that militant rocket attacks into Israeli territory do
not begin again. Unless Hamas militants and the administration in Gaza are,
however, prepared to honour the truce and support the brigades operation, it
will be impossible to carry out. Hamas has created its own Executive Force
of 6,000 men for local policing because it does not trust the regular police,
whom it suspects of sympathizing with the rival Fatah party.
It is hardly surprising that many in Gaza in particular suspect they
are once again being set up by the Israelis for another bloody fall. Why
is the outside world insisting on unity when the outside world has allowed
the Palestinians to be beaten and broken into factions like ever before? Why
could the world not have worked for peace with Palestinians when they were
largely united under the Fatah leadership?
460

And why is Israel suddenly talking peace? It may have been

defeated and humiliated by Hezbollah in Lebanon, but its military is still
powerful, as witnessed by the devastating shelling of, and attacks on, Gaza.
Could it be that Ehud Olmert is simply helping Washington out by producing
a truce to coincide with the arrival in the Middle East today of President
Bush and Condoleezza Rice? This way Bush will not look entirely useless as
he faces the bloody wreckage of the Iraq
Israelis sign-up to the truce may be supposed to give Bush one
diplomatic win in the midst of his disasters. Olmert can present Israels
well-rehearsed reasonable face to the world patience despite Palestinian
provocation, giving peace a real chance and allowing Palestinians to set their
house in order at last. All the time, Olmert knows that, as has happened so
often before, Palestinian hotheads can easily be goaded into an attack which
would justify Israels apparently sorrowful and reluctant return to its normal
business of oppression and occupation. Its a script we are familiar with.
Al-Ahram opined, Palestinians strongly support the ceasefire; many
are suspicious of Israels intentions. Their caution is not without
justification. On the very day the ceasefire went into effect, Israels
occupation army assassinated two Palestinians, including a 60-year-old
woman in northern West Bank town of Qabatya. The killings prompted
Fatahs armed wingto fire a Qassam rocket on a Jewish settlement.
Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz told the Israeli media that the
ceasefire agreement didnt cover the West Bank. The Palestinian
Authority and various resistance factions rejected Peretzs statement, the
factions warning Israel that the ceasefire would collapse immediately if the
Israeli army continued to carry out assassinations in the West Bank Israeli
officials, apparently worried that the international community would blame
Israel in case the ceasefire collapsed, have indicated that a ceasefire in the
West Bank could be worked out with the PA.
Another important factor contributing to Palestinian skepticism with
regard to the ceasefire is the fact that the mechanism of the occupation is
itself a constant and unrelenting act of provocation This is not to say
that Palestinians dont wish to see the ceasefire hold and be consolidated. On
the contrary, the vast bulk of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, have
welcomed the ceasefire in the hope that it will enable them to restore a
semblance of normality to their shattered lives.

461

It is still far from certain if the ceasefire is an integral part of a larger

package that includes a prisoner swap between Israel and the Palestinians,
a renewal of talks, the lifting of harsh Western sanctions on the Palestinian
government, the formation of Palestinian national unity government and
possibly the deployment of the Jordan-based Palestinian Badr regiment in
the Gaza Strip to monitor the ceasefire as has been reported in the Israeli
press. What is clear is that Hamas has of late been adopting a moderate
tone, not only in form but also in substance, to some extent.
Interestingly, Haniyehs visit to Cairo the first ever seems to have
been facilitated by Hamass positive posture and perceived flexibility,
not only with regard to the ceasefire, but also its willingness to allow the
holding of serious final status negotiationswhich amount to a de facto
recognition by Hamas of the Arab initiative and also, indirectly, of Israel.
In short, Hamas, by accepting the ceasefire, authorizing Abbas to
conduct negotiations with Israel and voicing content with a Palestinian state
on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, has effectively succeeded
in hurling the ball into the Israeli court This is probably what Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert understood when he agreed to the ceasefire,
and more importantly, spelled out his own proposals for peace during a
speech he delivered in southern Israel, marking the anniversary of the death
of Israels first prime minister, David Ben Gurion.
Speaking in general terms and avoiding specifics, Olmert said Israel
was extending its hand to the Palestinians for peace. He added that Israel
was willing to withdraw from a lot of territories and free many
Palestinian prisoners and allow the creation of a viable and contiguous
Palestinian state.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan commented on conditional offer a dialogue.
Ehud Olmert went to Ben Gurions grave in a remarkable imitation of the
deceptive style of the inventor of Middle East terrorism loaded an offer of a
dialogue, (not substantive negotiations), with Mahmoud Abbas with
heavy preconditions.
If the Palestinians, he says, set up a new government that would
undertake to fulfill the principles of the Quartet, a government that would
realize the roadmap and bring about the release of Gilad Shalit, he would,
then, meet Abbas to start a serious dialogue.

462

Israel may, as result of this dialogue, evacuate many territories and

the colonies established therein. Olmert did not even hint at ending the
siege and observing an end to aggressive action in the West Bank. He
may be able to deflect the disquiet in the West with his offer but it carries
little hope for meaningful, result-oriented negotiations.

ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH

Situation in Lebanon remained unstable during the period. A
prominent Christian politician, Gemayel was shot dead in Beirut on 21 st
November. Hariri accused Syria of murdering Gemayel. As the tension
persisted during mourning of slain politician, Lebanese government
approved UNs tribunal for Hariris murder.
On 1st December, thousands of Hezbollah and pro-Syrian factions
staged rally against West-backed government of Siniora. Two days later,
Hezbollah supporters wanted Sinioras resignation. Lebanons political crisis
showed no sign of easing, with the pro-Syrian opposition pressing on with
its protest campaign against the government.
Meanwhile, Israel kept close watch of the political situation in Beirut
as Hezbollah-led campaign against the government would have direct
consequences for the Jewish state. On 4th December, one person was killed
during protests in Beirut and Lebanese army was placed on high alert.
On 8th December, Nasrallah vowed protests until Siniora quits. Siniora
accused Hezbollah of plotting coup. Shia and Sunni clerics showed
solidarity. Two days later, Hezbollah agreed to Arab League plan to resolve
the crisis. Siniora vowed to overcome crisis.
Meanwhile, unexploded munitions kept causing serious hazard. By
25 December, four members of international de-mining team were
wounded by landmines laid by Israel. Israeli army chief was criticized in
report of Lebanon War probe. On 3 rd December, Israel approved completion
of pullout from Lebanon.
th

Lebanons latest assassination has underscored how dangerously high

the Middle East stakes have risen in the years since 9/11 and the Iraq
invasion and how intricately interconnected are the regions multiple,
ongoing tragedies, observed Simon Tisdall. But while illustrating the
463

problem, Pierre Gemayels death also underscored the persisting, corrosive

lack of an agreed solution. Those who hope for peace are grasping at straws.
Those who seek only greater destruction are gaining the upper hand.
The immediate, inevitable accusations of Syrian culpability, aired
from Washington to Brussels to Beirut, raise the crisis to another level. Tony
Blair sent his chief policy adviser to Damascus recently. It was a diplomatic
opening that supposedly presaged renewed, positive engagement by
President Bashar al-Assads regime in peace-making from Palestine to Iraq.
The latest act of blood in Lebanon will make it just a bit harder
today than yesterday to find a peaceful way of resolving what Mr Blair
calls the regions central problem the Israel-Palestine conflict. Officials
say the prime minister is still planning a regional foray with the foreign
secretary, Margaret Beckett, before the end of the year.
The Guardian wrote, the murder of Mr Gemayel is a dangerous
development for Lebanon and the wider Middle East. Viewed from Beirut,
it threatens to further undermine the already shaky pro-western government
of Fouad Siniora following the resignation of six pro-Syrian Shia ministers
who are aligned with Hezbollah.
Whoever killed Pierre Gemayel, there is an ominous symbolism in
the choice of target The regional implications may be no less alarming.
The suspicion that Syria is again trying to destabilize Lebanon will make it
hard for the US, Britain and France to improve relations without abandoning
the Beirut government.
Syria matters to the US and Britain because it is a player in Iraq,
turning a blind eye as Sunni fighters cross its border. James Bakers Iraq
Study Group is expected to recommend talks with Syria as a way of
weakening the insurgency and stabilizing the region for an eventual US
withdrawal. It was characteristically depressing instance of one step forward,
two steps back on Tuesday when Syria restored diplomatic ties with Iraq
hours before the Beirut murder.
Patrick Seale was of the view that this accusation of a new heinous
murder comes just at a time when Syria was on the point of re-engaging with
Europe and the United States and when Hezbollah was hoping to reap
political rewards.

464

The murder of Pierre Gemayel has had the immediate effect of

paralyzing Hezbollah and throwing it on the defensive: it can no longer
consider bringing the supporters out on the street in peaceful
demonstrations, as it had planned and announced, to press its demand for a
national unity government.
Similarly, the murder is a great setback for Syrian diplomacy. It
occurred when Syrias foreign minister, Walid al-Muallem, was in Baghdad
where he announced the resumption of diplomatic relations between Syria
and Iraq, after a beach of a quarter of a century.
In these circumstances, it seems hardly likely that Syria eagerly
seeking dialogue with the West, emerging from isolation, and pressing hard
for the US to relaunch the Middle East process would put all this in
jeopardy by ordering a squalid murder of a relatively unimportant
Lebanese politician.
On the other hand, Syrias enemies Israel and its Lebanese agents
first among them would have every motive to seek to check Syrias
return to international respectability and to prevent the restoration of
Syrian influence in Lebanon, even in a milder form than before.
Linda S Heard wrote, a Lebanese minister is shot at point blank range
and the US ambassador to the UN John Bolton almost had apoplexy
trying to indict Syria for the crime without actually mouthing Damascus.
The pro-Zionist presidential appointee was later unable to contain himself
warning there would be a serious problem if Damascus were to be
implicated.
In light of this heinous crime one might congratulate the UN Security
Council on its forthright stance if it werent for the fact that the same body
recently stood by while Israel assassinated over 1,200 Lebanese civilians
and some 400 Palestinians. It hesitated to call for an immediate ceasefire.
There was no probe into their deaths. No investigation into Israels use of
cluster bombs, depleted uranium, land mines or white phosphorus. And of
course, when it comes to the killing of Iraqi civilians and journalists by US
troops; the UN is famously deaf, dumb and blind.
Its clear, therefore, that UN condemnation or censure isnt dependent
upon the severity or scope of the actual crime. A country with a favoured
status due either to its military might or economic sway can literally get

465

away with murder while Syria, long thought of as a low hanging fruit, is
the perennial butler immortalized in Who dun it? Novels.
In the case of Gemayal its hard to see how Syria, struggling to
emerge from isolation, can possibly benefit from the death of this young
man, and why would any government use an exotic radioactive substance as
an assassination tool when rat poison or dioxin would have done just as
well?
In a world of false flag operations carried out by shady third
government intelligence operatives, its almost impossible to see the wood
for the trees. In any event, the UN has once again been exposed as an
organization that operates on the basis of political expediency rather
than any empirical sense of justice or impartiality.
Robert Fisk criticized the Hezbollah-backers; for a world which has
decided to support Lebanons democracy, this is grave news. The
resignation of five cabinet ministers, two from Hezbollah and three from
Amal, cannot bring down the government (which needs eight ministers to
resign in order to destroy it), but it means that the largest religious
community is no longer officially represented in government decisionmaking. The Hezbollah are warning of demonstrations which could tear the
country apart.
Its not that simple, of course nothing in Lebanon is but its
enough to frighten the democratically elected cabinet of Fouad Siniora,
Hariris friend and confident, and even more the Americans who
supported democracy in Lebanon and then cared nothing for it during
this summers Israeli bombardment of the country.
The Christians probably account for fewer than 30 percent of the
Lebanese population, and the Sunnis who largely support them through the
leadership of Hariris son, Saad create a majority which the Shia cannot
outnumber. But Syria and Iran the armourers of the Hezbollah are
waiting to see what the United States will offer them before cooling the
Lebanese oven.
Uri Avnery opined that much nonsense is being spoken and written
about that country, as if it were a country like any other. George W Bush
talks about Lebanese democracy as if there were such a thing, others speak
about the parliamentary majority and minority factions about the need for

466

national unity to uphold national independence, as if they were talking

about the Netherlands or Finland. All these have no connection with
Lebanese reality.
At best, Lebanon is a loose federation of mutually suspicious
communities, at worst a battlefield of feuding groups which hate each
others guts. The annals of Lebanon are full of civil wars and horrible
massacres. Many times, this or that community called in foreign enemies to
assist it against its neighbours.
Between the communities, there are no permanent alliances. One
day, communities A and B get together to fight community C. The next day,
B and C fight against A. Moreover, there are sub-communities, which more
than once have been known to make an alliance with an opposing
community against their own.
The main communities are the Christian, the Sunni-Muslim, the
Shiite-Muslim and the Druze. The Christians are divided into several subcommunities, the most important of which are the Maronites. The Sunnis are
brought to Lebanon by the (Sunni) Ottoman rulers to strengthen their hold,
and were mainly settled in the large port cities. The Druze came to find
refuge in the mountains. The Shiites, whose importance has risen over the
last few decades, were for many centuries a poor and down-trodden
community, a doormat for all the others.
The loyalty to the community comes before any other loyalty
and certainly before any loyalty to Lebanon. When the rights of a
community or sub-community are menaced, its members rise up as one in
order to destroy those who are threatening them.
As in almost all Arab societies, the hamula (extended family) plays a
vital role in all communities. Loyalty to the Hamula precedes even loyalty to
the community, according to the ancient Arab saying: With my cousin
against the foreigner, with my brother against my cousin. Almost all
Lebanese leaders are chiefs of the great families.
Amir Taheri observed that it is clear that two visions of Lebanon are
now in open conflict. One vision sees Lebanon as a frontline bunker in a
war of civilizations aimed at cleansing the Middle East of infidel
presence and paving the way for the emergence of a new bloc of Islamic

467

powers led by Iran. The other vision depicts Lebanon as a haven of

modernity, business and fun. It is the bunker against the beach.
The two visions have supporters and opponents within every one
of the 18 communities that together form Lebanon. The two visions even
cause divisions within families. Even before it emerged on the map as a
nation Lebanon had a chequered history in which periods of prolonged calm
alternated with outbursts of violence.
History also shows that almost all of Lebanons internecine feuds
have been due to foreign intervention. There can be no major and
prolonged infighting in Lebanon without the involvement of outside powers.
As the history of the last Lebanese civil war is pieced together, it becomes
clear that the tiny country on the edge of the Mediterranean has been a
battleground in broader regional conflicts.
Two events forced Hezbollah to abandon that posture. The first
was the summer war that flushed it out of southern Lebanon, depriving of its
principal operational base against Israel The second reason why
Hezbollah is making a direct bid for power lies in Irans new regional
defence doctrine.
Last summers war in Lebanon had nothing to do with Lebanon.
It was a dress rehearsal for a bigger war between the Islamic republic and
the US If there is a new war with Lebanon as its first theatre, it is not
going to be limited to essentially small operations as was the case last time.
The party of the bunker is trying to topple the Fouad Siniora
government and replace it with one of its own. But the Siniora government
is as determined to hang on to power. Thus, Lebanon may end up with two
rival governments. And, that, in practice, means no government.
In another review he observed, three war clouds hang over the
Middle East. The first represent the possibility of American or Israeli
military action against Irans nuclear installations. The second represents the
threat of a fresh civil war in Lebanon. The third points to the growing threat
of military clash between Israel and Syria.
The reason why the most imminent war in the region might
involve Israel and Syria rather than Iran and the United States is that the
putative adversaries are basing their rival strategies on the Tennessee turkey-

468

shoot rules. Under the rule the hunter of wild turkeys always starts by
bringing down the laggard in the targeted flight of birds, then proceeding to
shoot the others one by one until the leading bird is hit This means that
both the United States and Iran, as the true adversaries in the undeclared war
now raging in the Middle East, seek to control Lebanon.
Iran believes that whatever flash point it might provoke in Lebanon
would remain limited to that country. The US, on the other hand,
understands that losing Lebanon to its arch adversary in the region would
doom all chances of seeing Iraq through to some level of stability that would
allow an orderly American withdrawal.
The struggle for Lebanon has already started in its crucial
political phase. The Islamic republic, acting through Hezbollah and its
Maronite allies led by ex-General Michel Aoun, is trying to destroy Prime
Minister Fouad Sinioras government through internal hemorrhage.
The likeliest scenario, however, looks different. Rather than watch
with folded arms as Iran and Syria annex Lebanon, Israel would feel obliged
to take action. It is clear that Syria would be the immediate target of such
action. The message would be simple: make a move against Beirut and you
will get hit in Damascus!
Osama al-Sharif wrote, Lebanon is polarized yet again, with
alliances changing sides at dazzling speed. Christian leaders are divided
among themselves with pro-Syrian president Lahoud refusing to budge and a
pro-Hezbollah Michel Aoun making a difficult bid to replace him The
anti-Syrian March 14 alliance has lumped one-time bitter enemies, Druze,
Sunnis and Maronite Christians, in one trench.
The complicated and bloody reality of the Lebanese situation
does not leave much hope for a peaceful political settlement finding any
takers at present. But it is indeed strange that while all fingers point to Syria
and Iran as being responsible for the current crisis, few have dared question
the possibility of Israel standing to gain the most from the deteriorating
situation in Lebanon. With its long history of belligerence against Lebanon,
maybe someone should!
Jeffrey Steinberg also wrote about escalation of war in the region. To
make sure that this Iran war happens before Team Bush leaves office,
the neo-cons are working through their one reliable partner remaining

469

inside the regime Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheneys office remains
Neo-con Central, with David Wurmser and John Hannah still on staff. Elliott
Abrams remains the Cheney mole at the National Security Council.
According to Middle East and Washington sources, this crew was
responsible, earlier this year, for trashing all efforts by the Syrian regime of
Bashar Assad to reopen direct peace talks with Israel, talks that no Israeli
regime prior to that of Ariel Sharon, would have flat out rejected, no matter
how much pressure came down from Washington More recently, they are
reportedly pushing a covert weapons-smuggling operation into the West
Bank, arming Fatah factions to launch what would rapidly become a fullscale civil war against Hamas.
Arab sources have added that in his recent trip to Washington,
Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt was given a similar offer of
covert military aid to take on Hezbollah inside that war-ruined nation,
which still hasnt recovered from 15-year civil war. Such covert operations,
aimed at provoking the neo-cons beloved perpetual warfare throughout the
Eastern Mediterranean region, so the recent change, does not necessarily
interfere with the game.
Several senior Washington intelligence veterans, and one regional
vice president of a major US defense firm, say that their greatest feat
between now the New Year is a Gulf of Tonkin incident, a provocation
covertly arranged originating from Washington, that would provide the
pretext for war. The most likely target of such a scheme: Iran.
Noting the rumours, officially denied by both sides, that Prince
Bandar had secretly met in Jordan with a top Israeli government official,
Farida Ghitis wrote that a handful of Middle East observers were not
surprised to hear of possible talks between Israel and the kingdom. Thats
because they predict a major realignment will reshape this region.
Despite the war clouds looming around, Syria was not faltering on its
stand on various disputes in the region, particularly on Iraq, as noted by
Imad Moustapha. Let us be clear: Syria is not looking for a deal with the
US administration on any issue. The situation in Iraq is a matter of
paramount concern to Syria, particularly the unprecedented levels of death
and destruction and the possibility of Iraq disintegrating, which would have
terrible repercussions for the entire Middle East.

470

Thus Syria has the will and the capacity to assist in Iraq. This help
is imperative to Syrian national interests. Syria can cooperate on security
issues with the Iraqis and can give considerable support to their political
process But Syria recognizes that no magical solution exists to
instantaneously achieve the desired objectives. A rigorous and
comprehensive approach is required. This approach should include a
reconsideration of US policy in Iraq, starting with the recognition of the
necessity to include all parties involved
A solution should also include US acknowledgement that the
majority of Iraqis regard the occupation as only exacerbating the situation
and causing further violence and instability. A US plan for withdrawal
should be on the table Syria believes that engagement of all parties will
ultimately become inevitable and the only route forward. Until this
happens, all parties will continue to lose. Above all, if it does not happen,
Iraq will continue to pay the terrible price for such lack of vision.
Khaleej Times commented on the latest show of peoples-power.
Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators were camping in the centre of
downtown Beirut for a second consecutive day yesterday demanding the
resignation of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Ironically, it was similar
display of people power that helped Siniora and his party came to
power last year, riding on anti-Syrian wave in the wake of Rafik Hariris
killing. This time around, though these street protests are seeking to bring
down the Fouad Siniora government.
This is time for unity and peace. This is time to join hands for a
common cause. This is no time to plat politics or settle old scores All
parties concerned including Hezbollah must sit down and talk, if they have
any issues to discuss and settle. Street theatrics like these will only
strengthen the enemies of Lebanon. The present government being pro-US
is already in league with enemies of Lebanon.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
The Crusaders commitments in war on terror in Iraq and
Afghanistan and against Hamas and Hezbollah allowed Iran to stand firm on
its right to acquire nuclear technology. However, the West kept the issue
simmering despite Tehran holding its ground.

471

On 24th November, Larijani said Israel cant dare attack Iran and AFP
reported that Russia had started rocket deliveries to Iran. Next day,
Rafsanjani desired Pak-Iran security cooperation. Ahmadinejad urged Arabs
and Afghans to evict occupiers.
On 1st December, ElBaradei called for flexibility in talks with North
Korea and Iran. He said sanctions alone are no solution. Two days later, Iran
passed a law requiring immigration officials to fingerprint US passport
holders. On 5th December, Nejad warned EU against backing proposed UN
measures and threatened to downgrade relations. Holocaust conference
opened in Tehran on 11th December.
Caught in the quagmire of Iraq, the Crusaders were forced to defer the
nuclear issue and instead devote more time and effort to counter the growing
influence of Iran in the region. The tussle between Iran and the United
States for influence in West Asia is gathering momentum observed Atul
Aneja. The two countries are already set on a collision course in at least
three theatres: Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Citing Irans
nuclear ambitions, the US has tried to rein in the five permanent members of
the Security Council and Germany in a de facto alliance against Tehran.
However, its efforts to contain Iran through an international coalition
have not worked out well so far Despite their shared interests with the
Americans in containing the rising tide of Iranian influence in West Asia,
the Saudis have not refrained from pushing their own regional agenda.
While Iran and the US compete for influence all over West Asia, their
level of animosity peaks in Iraq. The Iranians have consolidated their
influence in Iraq through a string of powerful Shia organizations. They have
trained the well-armed Badr corps belonging to the Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Iranians exercise considerable clout over the
semi-secret armed wing ofMalikis al-Dawa party. Finally, the Iranian
secret services have apparently infiltrated the Iraqi police force The surge
in Iranian influence in Lebanon has jolted the American establishment.
David Ignatius wrote, Ali Larijani, Irans national security adviser,
said in an interview that a US plan for removing occupation forces from
Iraq would be considered a sign of a change in strategy. In that case, he
said, Iran would definitely extend the hand of assistance and would use its
influence to help solve the problem.

472

His tone was triumphlist: In his view, America is bogged down in

Iraq and in dire need of change, while a newly confident Iran is
positioning itself as a dominant power for the region. When we face a
strategic stalemate, we can break it only by changing the strategy itself,
Larijani said in his speech. He explained that Americas choice was to stick
with a failing strategy of unilateralism, tinker with it to retard the process
of defeat, or replace it altogether with a new strategy of interdependence
that recognized Irans primacy as a regional power. By embracing a new
strategy, he said, the United States would bring psychological calm to the
region and help America to behave in a more rational way.
On the nuclear issue, Larijani said that UN Security Council
sanctions resolution reportedly drafted this week by Russia and France
would not stop Irans uranium enrichment efforts. I announce: This is not
effective, he said.
As for the idea of a regional peace conference involving Iraqs
neighbours, Larijani told me he favored a smaller group of countries that are
committed to the new paradigm in Iraq flowing from its democratic
elections and constitution both of which enfranchised Iraqs Shiite
majority. We are against a tribal democracy, he said.
Farah Zia opined that Washington had been resisting the option of
direct talks with Tehran on its nuclear programme is now being told to do
exactly the same regarding Iraq. By none other than the Baker-Hamilton
Commission which has recommended Syria in the talks too. The axis of evil
is nearly complete.
Leading among insurgents is the Mahdi Army led by Shiite Muqtada
al-Sadr. The anti-occupation Sadr, whose group has a presence in the
parliament as well, has gained in influence if not in stature and has become a
lot more powerful than the grand Ayatollah Sistani.
This brings Iran in the picture again the Shia in one country
supporting the Shia majority next door (US intelligence officials have been
saying that Iranian-backed Hezbollah trained members of the Mahdi Army
in Lebanon), But the accusation comes laced with an optimism
distinguishing the Persian and Arab identity of the Shiites in the two
countries. It is this ambiguity about how Iran figures in the US policy on
one hand it is seen as exporting a largely impotent revolution to a people
who do not identify with the Persian brand of Shiism, and on the other it is
473

seen as continuing to support insurgents that needs to be rethought in

clearer terms.
Sixty percent of Iraqis and ninety percent of Iranians are united
by religion. They share a religious history; nine out of ten ayatollahs at
Najaf are from Iran, including Sistani, who adopted Najaf as his spiritual
home and never returned. Similarly, Imam Khomenei who is known as a
Qom cleric was also a Najaf graduate.
Thus, from the US perspective, a dehyphenation of its Iran and
Iraq policy is not possible; precisely because of these historical and
geographical ties. As a consequence of the recent exchanges, the two
countries are already cooperating in trade, energy, industry, pilgrims
exchange running into thousands, and illegal migration etc.
From the look of things, it seems the Iraqi government is developing
relations with Iran, irrespective of the US policy. Why else would Foreign
Minister Hoshiyar Zebari tell the press in May 2006: Iran doesnt claim that
they want to obtain a nuclear weapon or a nuclear bomb, so there is no need
that we ask them for any guarantee now. A future US policy in the region
may thus look at both the countries not as enemy countries anymore.

CONCLUSION
The sole intended aim of recommendations made by Iraq Study Group
seemed saving the American blood. Even recommendation of involving the
neighbours, which has been generally taken as preference of multilateralism
over unilateralism, has the same aim as the report has not suggested end of
illegal occupation of Iraq.
Therefore, even if the recommendations the report are implemented in
entirety, there will hardly be any respite for the Iraqis, and democratically
installed puppets will also come under immense pressure. By involving the
neighbours, the US will only intend securing acceptance of the de facto
occupation of Iraq.
It should not surprise anyone as to why Talabani and Olmert have
rejected the report promptly. Bush will not abandon Kurds and Israelis. The
replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates should not lead to rise of hopes,
because some gates are not meant for exit.
474

After sufficiently mauling Lebanese and Palestinians, Israel has

agreed to ceasefire. It is also because that all has been set well in place to
trigger factional fighting in Lebanon and Palestine. The same was done by
the US in Iraq by fanning Shia-Sunni strife deliberately to exhaust the
fighting stamina of Iraqis.
The resultant bloodshed by Shiites and Sunnis has apparently become
a nuisance for the occupation forces. In fact, the Crusaders are not concerned
about spilling of Muslim blood. To the contrary, they will avail this
opportunity too crush Shiite militias before striking Iran.
13th December 2006

475

IN PERPETUAL PURSUIT
Pakistan remained in perpetual pursuit of peace for the Crusaders in
occupation of Afghanistan. More it endavoured, more accusations of not
doing enough were hurled, but Pakistans resolve to serve the Crusaders was
not dented.
Pakistan also relentlessly pursued the peace process with its
neighbour in the east. Musharraf went more than an extra mile in search of
seeking some positive response from India. He showed extraordinary
flexibility for resolution of Kashmir dispute.
In an interview to an Indian TV channel, he gave in more ground to
India to earn its willingness to address the issue of Kashmir. Pakistans
information minister denied that the latest proposal meant a policy shift;
however, the proposal was thoroughly debated by the analysts.
At home, Musharraf vigorously pursued his political objective of
ousting the obscurantist forces from the political arena. The government
also worked relentlessly for acquisition of soft image for Pakistan.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Curbing Pashtun tribesmens anti-occupation militancy for ensuring
Afghan peace is the major assignment of the frontline state in the US war
against terror. Following incidents were reported during the period:
More than 1,100 Afghans were held in drive against criminals in
NWFP on 29th November.
Second bomb went off in two days inside a police check-post near
Peshawar on 4th December. Next day, Crocker handed over 2,500
bulletproof jackets to FC.
Ninety Afghans were arrested for entering Pakistan illegally on 11th
December. Afghan refugees ransacked NADRA centre in Jalozai.

476

 Pakistan arrested more than 500 Taliban in 2006 and most of them
were handed over to Afghan authorities.
On 17th December, authorities arrested 15 more Afghanis for illegal
entry into Pakistan. Three days later, Afghanistan freed ten Pakistanis
held for illegal entry.
A Khassadar was killed in attack on APAs vehicle near Miranshah on
22nd December. Two days later, a paramilitary soldier was killed in
Bajaur for spying on militants.
Pakistan also took various measures to control cross-border
movement. Registration of Afghan refugees was one and by 19th December
one million refugees have been registered. Pakistans tolerance of presence
of refugees on its soil by itself has been a great service to the Crusaders
occupying Afghanistan.
Pakistan also issued documents to Afghans to have a check on their
movement. Afghan authorities did not approve of these documents which
were simply an aid to distinguish normal Afghans from Taliban. On 22 nd
December, Afghans tore apart the documents issued to them immediately
after crossing over to Afghanistan from Chaman. Pakistan expressed deep
concern over the outrageous act.
Lately Pakistan government tasked the Army to carry out selective
fencing and mining of Afghan border for checking cross-border movement.
Kabul rejected border fencing and mining. Some elements within Pakistan
also opposed the fencing plan.
There was no let in hurling accusations against Pakistan regarding
presence of terrorist camps in tribal areas and their cross-border infiltration.
Kasuri visited Kabul during second week of December, but talks over jirgas
remained fruitless. The visitor complained that accusations hurt us, but the
host insisted that Afghan patience was wearing thin.
On 11th December, ICG alleged that appeasement policy of Pakistan
has led to establishment of Taliban base in tribal belt. Next day, Karzai
blamed Pakistan for Taliban insurgency. He also alleged that Pakistan wants
to enslave Afghanistan. Blaming Pakistan for Afghan trouble is unfair,
responded Mushahid.

477

On 15th December, Foreign Office stated that militancy is an internal

problem of Afghanistan, while Musharraf discussed regional issues with
the EU Envoy. Taliban rejected Karzais charges against Pakistan. On 18 th
December, Afghan General Khair Mohammad was arrested by intelligence
agencies for spying for Pakistan. Next day, Afghan security forces claimed
arresting a Pakistani spy.
Shireen M Mazari commented on the accusations by the puppet
regime in Kabul. Mr Karzai from a besieged Kabul seems to be losing
increasing touch with reality and his daily diatribe against Pakistan which
sounds ever more fanciful. The latest was his claim that Pakistan wanted to
enslave the Afghans. Given that it has always been Afghanistan that has had
irredentist claims against Pakistan, his statement is trifle absurd. Our passion
for having the Afghans free of all shackles has been proven time and again
from our support for the war against Soviet occupation, an occupation with
India, now Karzais great supporter refused to condemn; to our allowing
the Afghan refugees free access across our country; to our support for a war
against terror which is proving to be costly for us on many counts thanks to
the erroneous policies of the US and its western allies. Had we wanted to
enslave the Afghans, our policies would have been very different. In any
case, at present Afghanistan has so many occupying/liberating forces that Mr
Karzai needs to look closer within his own country to see who is enslaving
whom.
She urged that in terms of strategic interests, Pakistan needs to take a
long hard look at what is happening. There is the continuing belligerent
rhetoric coming out of the Karzai government and from some members of
the US legislature, as well as the media. Clearly a justification for hot
pursuit into Pakistan is being sought as well as an attempt to lay the
grounds for a more prolonged intervention by NATO into Pakistans tribal
belt. This cannot be acceptable for Pakistan and it is time the government
began building the fence along the international border with Afghanistan.
The News wrote, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his
government need to get serious if they want to solve their disputes with
Pakistan You need to move on and you need to speak directly to
Islamabad instead of shedding tears for public and media consumption.
Or else, Pakistanis in general will believe that Kabul is not serious about
resolving its issues with Islamabad and only wants to malign it
internationally.

478

The newspaper also cautioned the Government of Pakistan. Suicide

bombings and other forms of pseudo-religious violence may be the most
hideous face of fanaticism. But the most unfortunate aspect, and one for
which there can be no sane justification, is the fanatics hostility to learning,
especially their increasing antagonism to female education. Importing the
practice from the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, the so-called
Pakistani Taliban in the NWFP has begun bombing girls schools and
colleges in various parts of the province to frighten parents into keeping
their daughters away from education.
There is something else Pakistan should not disregard, if the fanatics
campaign in the NWFP receives even modest success; the danger could very
well spread to the rest of the country. The extremists are motivated,
organized, equipped and armed, and the Talibans victories in Afghanistan
against US and NATO forces are a growing source of inspiration for
them.
Imtiaz Alam endeavored to identify the reason behind the blamegame. What is being ignored is that: a) While fighting the Taliban and alQaeda, Pakistan is on the verge of losing its tribal areas to a variety of
radical elements most of whom are being confused with the real Taliban a
Taliban victory. b) The level of resistance put up by the Taliban demanded
additional NATO forces in the South which have not come two more
victories for Taliban. c) That the Karzai and Musharraf governments are
quarrelling is a victory for Taliban. d) That the war against terrorism is
being seen as occupation another victory for Taliban. e) That the US and
its allies are stuck in the illegal occupation of Iraq was and is a big trophy
for the Taliban. f) That the Karzai and his allied forces failed to deliver some
solitude to the Afghans goes to the credit of the Taliban. All this asks for
the re-evaluation of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistans
role in it.
Indeed, Pakistan must keep off from replaying the old time
Mujahideen games in which we lost everybody and were left with no
friends despite doing so much for them in their hour of trial. Above all, we
must take out the other half of our erstwhile Afghan policy, which perhaps
we are still keeping alive, that Afghanistan can provide us with a strategic
depth. It has, rather, turned out to be strategic ditch. And we should get out
of it. At best, we must gradually clear our tribal areas of all kinds of

479

extremists and avoid alienating tribes or pushing them into the lap of the
Taliban.
Rahimullah Yusufzai opined that the Western military commanders
and commentators want the Pakistan Army to expose itself to harm so
that the US and NATO troops are protected. That is what our military was
doing until now but better sense prevailed once it lost up to 700 soldiers in
Waziristan and military operations alienated large sections of tribal
population. Subsequently, efforts were launched to peacefully bring an end
to the conflict by holding dialogue with the militants with the help from
traditional jirgas made up of tribal elders and religious scholars.
Under the changed policy, Pakistan must look after its own
interests first and attempt peaceful resolution of disputes instead of
killing its citizens through the use of superior firepower and exposing its
soldiers to retaliatory strikes by militants. The government certainly needs to
do more to establish its writ in the tribal borderlandsbut this ought to be
done gradually because the tribal areas have been traditionally semiautonomous and its freedom-loving Pashtun inhabitants have offered
sacrifices to protect their independence and way of life.
Farhatullah Babar wrote, we need to change our geopolitical
approach to Afghanistan to frame an Afghan policy. We must stop thinking
in terms of Afghanistan as the fifth province of Pakistan or a country that
provides us strategic depth. The policy of treating Afghanistan as strategic
depth long nurtured by invisible operators has brought us face to face with
strategic threat.
The Afghan policy must be brought into the public domain. It
should be extricated from the invisible security agencies and the foreign
office should be allowed to play its role under parliamentary supervision.
That is the only way to resolve the dilemma of our Afghan policy.
Shaheen Sehbai visualized that perforce Pakistan has to do more as
would be demanded by the Crusaders. The focus of US operations will shift
more troops and stronger bipartisan political will. Mr Bush will try several
options to check the growing strength and control of the Taliban over remote
Afghan territories. Mr Hamid Karzai and General Musharraf will thus be
key players in the new Afghan strategy and both will have to do a lot more
that what they have been offering so far.

480

When US diplomats decide on a shifting of focus or a change of

course in Afghanistan, it would be just the right time for Islamabad to
add some sense of realism to its own policy. After all not all Pakhtoons in
Afghanistan are Taliban and that has been recognized. All Taliban, likewise,
may not be al-Qaeda.
The offensive stink of Crusaders prejudices against Pakistan was felt
during the period in the form of EUs draft report on Kashmir. Mariana
Baabar reported on the report entitled Kashmir: Present Situation and Future
Prospects prepared by European Parliaments Committee. It is one of the
most controversial reports to be written by a third party on Kashmir, where
even European NGOs working in Kashmir have severely criticized it for its
biased findings.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz termed European Parliament report on
Kashmir disappointing. Meanwhile, US authorities decided to scan USbound containers at six foreign ports; Port Qasim will be one of them. On
18th December, Bush signed nuclear deal with India.
Shireen M Mazari commented on another report published in
England. Recently, the Foreign Policy Centre (EPC) in London publicized
the holding of an event on Why Baluchistan matters: Insurgency and the
politics of military rule in Pakistan. The event is to take place in the House
of Commons on December 4, 2006. There are six speakers listed for the
event, out of which three are Pakistani Asma Jehangir, Javed Mengal and
Senator Sanaullah Baluch.
Having checked with Asma last week, I discovered that, as she put it,
I have neither been invited and nor will I be going to London. Nevertheless,
it is interesting to note that only one viewpoint from Pakistan has been
sought in what is clearly an intrusion into our internal affairs.
This suspicion is bolstered by the write up in the copy of invitation
from the FPC which makes a clear distinction between the Baluch and
Pakistan which as a Baluch I find insulting. Of course, reference is made
to resource-hungry China.
Like some other government-funded institutions, the FPC also gets
funding from foreign governments and the corporate sector. In this context,
it should be interesting for Pakistan to note that apart from the Norwegian,
Danish and Swedish governments, the FPC is also funded by the Brunei

481

government. Among the corporate sponsors are Nestle and Reuters. Given
the large market Nestle has in Pakistan, do our people know that Nestle is
also funding Pakistan-bashing agendas as is our ally, the state of Brunei?
Even gift of horses sometimes could be counter-productive.
All in all, clearly the British government has an agenda for
Pakistan that is negative and damaging for our country. It is time the
Foreign Office protested strongly to the British Foreign Office and sought an
explanation as to what the FPC is really up to especially when it deliberately
distorts facts
If one were to make a rational educated assumption it would be that
this FPC programme on Baluchistan is linked to the US-UK agenda of
redrawing borders of the Greater Middle East which sees the establishment
of a large Kurdish state and an independent state of Baluchistan carved out
from Iran and Pakistan.
It seems that our pliancy towards demands from the UK and our
reticence to be more assertive on crucial issues has been misconstrued
by the British as a sign of weakness. Meanwhile our tolerance for abuse at
the hands of foreigners seems to have reached new heights in contrast to
our intolerance within the domestic context.
Apart from our tolerance, our self deprecation also continues ad
nauseum. So we see ourselves as being uncivilized because our men stare at
foreign women, but what about the Brits spitting at and abusing burqa-clad
Muslim women in their country? Where is the real dangerous intolerance for
diversity? It is time we looked more questioningly both at the official and
civil society levels as to what the British agenda is towards Pakistan and
Pakistanis beyond the occasional appeasing rhetoric.
Shireen also commented on the report of Mariana Baabar. The EU
Rapporteur on Kashmir, Baroness Nicholson has shown in her report
Kashmir: prospects that politicians of British origin continue to be
afflicted by three major traits on their now-dead imperialism duplicity,
deceit and deception at least when it comes to Pakistan and Kashmir.
To call it controversial is giving it too much credit. Before one
goes to the highly questionable process which finally produced this report,
Let us look into some of the passages of the report that prove my contention
regarding the content.

482

The preamble is interesting in that it specifically refers to certain

European Parliamentary resolutions, including those on the EU-India
strategic partnership and EUs economic and trade relations with India as
well as the 2004 resolution on the situation in Pakistan. So right from the
start, the bias is built in given that the Indo-EU strategic partnership is a
major factor motivating the report as is the issue of Pakistans internal
matters a biased start if ever there was one!
For those still willing to give some benefit of objectivity to the
Baroness, the section on the October 8, 2005, earthquake should be an
eye-opener. While the Pakistan government is berated for its inadequate
response which, according to the Baroness, allowed extremists to move in,
the Indian government is commended for its competence in the emergency
despite Indian press and eyewitnesses accounts to the contrary.
The fact that Pakistan has not usurped AJK and made it an integral
part of Pakistan as India has done, quite contrary to UN Resolutions, which
incidentally are cited as a reference point for the Report in the preamble, is
condemned also by the Baroness. In contrast, there is not a word about the
suffering of the Kashmiris in Occupied Kashmir after over a decade
under the repression of Indian security forces.
In fact as one goes through the Report, there is less on ways to
bring about a resolution of the Kashmir dispute and more on
condemning Pakistan including on issues unrelated to the dispute such as
the Hudood Ordinance and the difficult situation faced by homosexuals!
Just out of curiosity how many homosexuals did Nicholson interview to
come to this conclusion? These are just some of the examples of the truth
distortions and incorrect statements contained in the Report.
Why is that? Because the objective of Baroness Nicholson is not to
suggest conflict resolution beyond the legitimation of the existing status
quo. In fact, the Report of the Baroness echoes the ideas of the Delhi Policy
Group (DPG) publication on Framework for a Kashmir Settlement which
cleverly seeks to force a solution within the Indian Constitution.
The DPG also helped the Baroness organize a post-Report
Conference in Brussels where, inexplicably, the Afghanistan ambassador
was invited! It is absurd for a European Parliamentary rapporteur to be
publicly aligning with a party which has a direct linkage to the issue of the
rapporteurs report. But it was absurd for Nicholson to have been appointed
483

rapporteur in the first place she apparently volunteered her services

given that she is a founding member of the EU Parliaments Friends of
India Group.
It is not that there is something inherently devious about Nicholson,
but in the context of South Asia and Kashmir she is simply following
British imperial tradition a tradition that renders her highly biased
and unsuited as a credible rapporteur on Kashmir. Therefore, her
appointment and the strange manner in which the Report was written begs
the question as to what is the EU agenda on Pakistan and Kashmir. Shireen
knew the answer, but left it to the readers to infer.
M Ismail Khan wrote, the EUs foreign relations team should
understand that at a time when Islamabad and Delhi are working hard to
pull the composite dialogue process forwarda controversial resolution in
the European Unions Parliament would only severe the purpose of
hardliners and warmongers in Delhi and Islamabad, who have been
gritting their teeth over the prospects of peace and stability in South Asia.
The draft report being deliberated is based onone-woman factfinding mission to the earthquake hit areas in Azad Kashmir and to the
Indian-administered Kashmir in mid 2006 Her decision not to meet
Hurriyat Conference leaders and other moderate, pro-independence
figures during her visit has cast a shadow over the report.
The rapidly changing geopolitical environment owing to the
situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the war on terrorism and the rise of China
as an economic powerhouse have all contributed in drawing attention
towards Kashmir as a regional problem with global implications.
It seems to have borrowed heavily from the latest Human Rights
Watch report while describing Azad Kashmir as a poverty-ridden,
neglected region lacking basic social, economic, legal and democratic
infrastructure. The EU report is conspicuously quiet on the state of
democracy, human rights and socio-economic plight of the people in the
Indian-administered Kashmir.
A controversial EU resolution on Kashmir at this point of time is in
nobodys interest. The report emphasizes heavily on the post-earthquake
collaborative opportunities, something unfortunately already lost in practical
terms.

484

The second big point raised is the riparian context of the

Kashmir dispute. Water is surely important but to declare rivers as the
central issue in the Kashmir dispute is stretching the truth. One will have to
keep in mind that there is a water accord up and running between the two
countries and the Indus Water Treaty has sustained all kind of upheavals and
occasional wars.
There is a need to strike a better balance between security outlook
and historical evidence and between political underpinnings and economic
opportunities in order to encourage the two countries to learn from the
European experience, particularly in conflict resolution. Ideally, the EU
resolution should support the ongoing dialogue process between the two
countries and encourage them to make the process result-oriented.
Imtiaz Alam talked about prejudices on nuclear issue. Undoubtedly,
the granting of an exception by the US to India is a great leap forward,
regardless of the NPT and other non-proliferation regimes. It is
discriminatory in essence vis a vis Pakistan not being considered for
similar treatment on the grounds of the A Q Khans proliferation network
that has been busted and lack of a consistent democratic set up, being
repeatedly condoned by the US. But it is definitely in conflict with Indias
ambitious nuclear designs.

PEACE PROCESS
Manmohan welcomed Musharrafs proposal on Kashmir and accepted
invitation to visit Pakistan. But Pakistan was once again told to stop terror
support. On 20th December, Manmohan envisioned interlinked destinies
and welcomed all ideas that contributed to ongoing peace process.
Peace process, however, remained entangled in confidence
building measures, which, too, were not very many. India and Pakistan
signed shipping protocol on 15th December. A week later, two countries
released detained fishermen; Pakistan freed 70 and India 57. Pakistan and
India once again agreed to conduct joint survey of Sir Creek. On 27 th
December, Singh pledged to help Indian Muslims in getting jobs.
Steps and statements negative to confidence building were
many. On 29th November, Pakistan Army successfully launched Shaheen-I
485

missile. Next day, a Pakistani belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba was named as

main accused in Mumbai blasts. A week later, India accused Pakistan of
harassing its diplomats.
On 9th December, Coast Guards arrested 18 Indian fishermen and
Pakistan conducted a successful launch of short-range ballistic Hatf-III
missile. Musharraf claimed that Pakistan can withstand a nuclear strike. On
26th December, India unilaterally refused to oblige the SAARC visa sticker
regarding stay and free movement of distinguished Pakistanis.
Perpetration of state terrorism in Indian Held Kashmir continued.
Following incidents related actions by freedom fighters and occupation
forces were reported:
Twenty personnel of security forces were wounded in a blast in the
Valley on 2nd December. Two days later, five Kashmiris, including a
woman, were killed by occupation forces.
Three persons were killed in IHK on 8th December. Next day, one
soldier and two Kashmiris were killed in violence.
Two Kashmiris were killed on 11th December. By Mid-December at
least 180 Indian soldiers had been killed in the year 2006.
Five Kashmiris were killed on 16th December. Next day, Kashmiris
protested over killing of the village head by Indian troops.
Occupation forces killed three suspected freedom fighters in two
separate clashes on 18th December.
Six people were killed and four injured in two incidents of shootouts
and a bomb blast on 24th December.
Four people, including two senior freedom fighters were killed in
clashes on 26th December. Next day, a taxi ferrying Indian troops was
attacked near Srinagar killing the driver and a soldier.

Kashmiri leaders of JKLF sensed betrayal over the statement of

Musharraf, who had said; in his opinion independence is not a solution to the
future of Kashmir. Kashmiris also denounced the biased report prepared by
Emma Nicholson. IHK Governor said Pakistans proposal of rendering LoC

486

irrelevant is acceptable to India. On this side of the LoC, AJK president said
Jihadis groups would announce ceasefire if India withdraws troops from the
Valley.
During the period the analysts remained focused on Musharrafs latest
flexibility shown in an interview with an Indian TV channel. Shafqat
Mahmood opined that Musharrafs willingness to give up the principle of
plebiscite for Kashmir is no small matter. This had been fundamental
pillar of Pakistans Kashmir policy for fifty-nine years. If the General says
that under the right circumstances he can give it up, it makes a huge shift in
militarys thinking.
Let us be clear. A majority of the people and important political
leaders like Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were always keen for peace
with India. It was militarys hard line approach that stood between them and
complete normalization. With General Musharraf and by implication the
military ready to go where civilians feared to tread, there is finally a
chance for peace in South Asia.
This does not mean that Pakistan and its military can do it alone. The
Indians will have to respond and give up sticking to nitpicking details
which translate into intransigence. Their leadership needs to recognize the
historic opportunity that has opened up with a strategic shift in Pakistani
militarys thinking and must respond before it is too late.
The News wrote, the earth-shaking revelations contained in President
Pervez Musharrafs recent interview to an Indian news channel has been
followed by a detailed comment by a spokesperson of the Foreign Office
who told the press on Monday that Pakistans stand on Kashmir remained
unchanged, though it did come with the qualifier that it was the legal
position that was the same.
The Foreign Office perhaps needs to realize that de facto Pakistan
has adopted a new position on Kashmir, one that shows a great degree
of flexibility and reflects a willingness by the Pakistani military and state to
go the extra mile in search of permanent peace with India. In that sense,
what the president had said recently which actually began with an
interview he gave last August to an Indian weekly assumes considerable
significance and one cannot understand the Foreign Offices semantic
wrestling with it.

487

Seema Mustafa observed, recently, we have seen a pattern emerge in

Indo-Pakistani dealings over Kashmir: Pakistan urges India to begin
serious negotiations to resolve the issue in hopes of gaining territorial
adjustments. India reacts coldly and instead negotiates with the All Parties
Hurriyat Conference
This is part of the analysis of Stratford, the US based intelligence
think tank that has analyzed the four-point formula offered recently by
Musharraf to India for a resolution of the Kashmir issue. The analysis
suggests a level of awareness that the offer has less to do with Kashmir
and more to do with President Musharrafs own efforts to deflect
attention from his growing insecurities at home, and bring the Kashmir
issue back on the burner
Significantly, Stratford has taken note of the fact that the NATO
forces have not been able to contain resurgent Taliban activity in
Afghanistan and President Musharrafs stock at home is particularly low at
the moment. In making this offer publicly, he has sought to project Pakistan
as the flexible partner willing to do business as against the rigid India, but
more important than that, he has used a non-existent proposal to try and
gather support from within Kashmir. He has also tried to deflect criticism
about Pakistans support for militants
Kashmir leaders have reacted predictably to the proposal. And
much of what Stratford has observed is in play already. The media is already
carrying reports about a possible dialogue between the Hurriyat leader
Mirwaiz Omar Farooq and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, with President
Musharraf having been successful in bringing Kashmir back onto focus.
It is unlikely that even a seemingly impulsive leader like the
Pakistani General will announce proposals that are under the active
consideration of both governments. Stratford might be right in interpreting
the proposal as a desperate ruse by President Musharraf to divert attention
from his own problems, or conversely, the intent is indeed to put the
proposal into the public discourse and judge the reactions from both
sides.
The new part of the Musharraf proposal then is the joint mechanism
that, by the way, has been under discussion in the back channels, although
not in quite the form that the General seems to suggest. In that his is more in
the nature of a final announcement that a government in India will find
488

difficult to propose until and unless it is preceded by joint mechanism on

seemingly unobtrusive and more acceptable issues So what can emerge
sooner than we think, are proposals for both Kashmirs to set up
universities or hospitals through joint mechanisms that will include
representatives from New Delhi and Islamabad.
The tragedy of the story is that while New Delhi is engaged in
vigorous talks with Pakistan on the possible solution for Jammu and
Kashmir as this will bring international acclaim, it is doing little to nothing
to establish strong and irreversible links with Srinagar. Various
interlocutors are at work, but there has been little to suggest that the gap in
communication has been bridged. Distrust and suspicion continue to mar
relations
In its misguided wisdom, New Delhi has taken the view that a
solution to Kashmir must be announced in Islamabad. This solution will
never be permanent or lasting or even acceptable. The solution has to come
from within. The question is not of making borders irrelevant; no matter
how beautiful that sounds, but of at least ensuring that the borders are
permeable and not rigid walls coming between the people.
Demilitarization will follow if we are able to bring peace to
Jammu and Kashmir from within. This needs a responsive pro-people
strategy, secular policy, and direct action. Sounds simple but this is a
formula for peace that no government in New Delhi has been willing to
accept.
Nasim Zehra opined, none what Musharraf is saying in completely
new. He is attempting to encourage the Indians to move forward. His moves
do convey some salient features of dynamic Kashmir policy. Musharraf is
not compromising the Kashmir position, nor is he unilaterally altering
Pakistans position on Kashmir. He is merely using toolkit available to
Pakistan diplomacy, backchannel and CBMs and a maverick positioning
to encourage change in Indian position.
Praful Bidwai was of the view that Musharrafs formula envisages
porous borders in Kashmir with freedom of movement for the people;
exceptional autonomy or self-governance just short of independence
within each region of Kashmir; phased demilitarization of the entire former
state of Jammu and Kashmir; and finally, a joint supervisory mechanism,

489

which draws representatives from India, Pakistan and all parts of Kashmir,
which oversees this plans implementation.
Of the four, the last idea is completely new and assumes a high
level of cooperation between India and Pakistan. Its likely to prove the
most contentious. The Bharatiya Janata Party has opposed it and said that
Pakistan cant be trusted for joint supervision.
This doesnt argue that the other four points wont be bitterly
contested in both countries. Each one of them raises a host of questions. For
instance, what will be the content of self-rule or self-governance? Will
the pattern be identical or vary from sub-region to sub-region? What
happens to the existing autonomy arrangements?
Given the state of Kashmirs finances even in Indian Kashmir,
about four-fifths of the states salary bill is paid by the central government,
who will fund the self-rule government and ensure its viability? Which
judicial tribunal can determine if the rules of self-governance have been
adhered to or violated?
Through what processes and phases can the LoC become
irrelevant? What kind of identity documents would be needed by people to
cross the border? How free will be the movement of goods? How soon can
even the first step of troop reduction, eventually leading to demilitarization,
be taken given the level of violence prevalent in Indian Kashmir?
What will be the scope, functions, powers and composition of the
joint supervisory mechanism? What if a dispute arises over its decisions?
Who will settle it? How does joint supervision differ from joint
consultative mechanisms on the environment, water sharing and
management, or tourism proposed in the past?
All these issues could prove contentious, thorny, and even
intractable in the short run. But its undeniable that the formula is worthy
and furnishes a solid basis for serious and potentially fruitful negotiations to
resolve the Kashmir issue.
Shaheen Sehbai argued in favour of one-sided flexibility shown by
Musharraf. Readers must honestly think straight for the next five
minutes. The scenario is:

490

 Kashmir is under control of 500,000 or 800,000 Indian troops who

are not going anywhere soon.
Pakistan has tried in the past and cannot conquer it by military force
in the future.
The Kashmiris have fought the Indian Army well and have offered
thousands as martyrs but right now the trend is to talk to New Delhi
and find a face-saving exitKashmiri leadership is divided.
Both India and Pakistan have been dragged down in providing their
billion-plus population even basic needs of a decent life, thanks to
their militaries deployed in Kashmir.
The army in Pakistan did not let the politicians reach a solution or
even seriously discuss one in the past
The jihadis in Pakistan, whoever they are, are ready to fight and can
inflict some damage but cannot regain even a part of Kashmir.
The Indians have offered maximum autonomy to the Kashmiris in the
past only to go back on their offers. They may come back to it.
Politicians of all shade in Pakistan my cry themselves hoarse but
cannot achieve a military or political solution.
Only Pakistan Army can negotiate a face-saving exit if the army chief
so wants.
If President Bush can discuss an exit strategy after just three years in
Iraq, why cant Pakistan from Kashmir after 60 years. So, according
to this US-based intellectual, Pakistan is as good an illegal and
immoral occupant of Kashmir as the US is of Iraq.
Right now we have General who is ready to make a deal with India,
even an embarrassing one, which mind you, he probably would not
allow any politician to make.
The window and room for manoeuvre for the General is limited to
just a few months as he has to go into his re-election by the end of
2007.
491

With these undeniable ground realities, what options are left for
Pakistan? General Musharraf has thus been trying his best to reshape the
discourse and has been occasionally releasing his trial balloons to prepare
Pakistani for a solution, some solution, may be an embarrassing one. He
meant that Pakistan should accept Indian dictation, which would certainly be
more embarrassing than the status quo.
He has talked about moving past the UN resolutions, making the
borders irrelevant, opened up the disputed territory to trade and travel, spoke
about Pakistan having no claim on Kashmir as an integral part, talked of the
future and not of the past.
The fact is that a possible solution will not be liked by our
emotionalists and sentimentalists. It has to be either confirmation of the
status quo at best, or some minor, very minor, adjustments which India can
market at home. But even this solution can only be reached by a Pakistani
Army chief who is willing to take the risk to go for it.
Only if, the Indians would help Musharraf at this stage to reach a
solution quickly; and not embarrass him so much that he shirks away. They
must realize that this window of opportunity is very limited. It may never
come again.
M B Naqvi had similar views. Now that India has been brought to the
negotiating table two rounds of negotiations having failed, a third, or is it
fourth, may soon progress President Musharrafs initial indication is that
the likely Kashmir settlement is to be basically on Indias terms. This
arrangement could have been arrived at five, 10 or 15 years ago. The
reasons why Musharraf now proposes to recognize Indias sovereignty
over Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh are based on hard realism,
though that is something painful for patriots to admit.
A war with India is now out of the question. Pakistans minimum
nuclear deterrent and the conventional arms preparedness together do not
make war with India a practical proposal. The experience of the 2002 crisis,
with the armies of two countries eyeball to eyeball, showed that a nuclear
war between these two neighbours is no longer possible for either side. Note
that India had credibly threatened to invade Pakistan knowing that Pakistan
was a nuclear power; George Fernandes had threatened that India can absorb
Pakistans first strike but would retaliate massively and destroy its seven or
eight industrial-military centres.
492

There was obvious truth in it. This means that Indias larger
deterrent has more deterring power than Pakistans smaller one.
Therefore, Pakistan cannot take the initiative to start another war and
whichever way another war starts; it will not be to Pakistans advantage.
That changes the whole complexion of Kashmir dispute: now no solution
can be predicated on military force. Musharraf knows it and good that he is
proceeding on this basis.
Barrister Hamid Bashani said, Musharrafs recent statement about
self-governance, demilitarization and joint-management of India and
Pakistan over Kashmir offers a realistic solution to the dispute. According to
the proposal the militarized frontline dividing Kashmir would be converted
into a soft border, while both sides of the state would be demilitarized and
offered self-rule. But Senator Khursheed termed governments policy on
Kashmir is no more than a surrender to India.
Khaleej Times said, while appreciating Pakistani President General
Musharrafs bold Kashmir initiative, we dubbed it equivalent of tossing the
diplomatic ball into Indias court. Apparently, Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh has played a just as well intentioned volley in return.
Of course, considering the make-up of the Indian polity, Dr Singh
can hardly be as forthcoming as General Musharraf the latter enjoying
complete authority and the former heading a coalition government in a deeprooted democracy. Therefore, his words will be shrouded in politically
correct diplomatic nuances, which need careful deciphering.
So when a fortnight after General Musharraf offers an unprecedented
breakthrough, Dr Singh offers a peace treaty of his own, the pieces of puzzle
begin to fall in place. That is so especially since the Indian premier also goes
on to confirm that there are no issues the two sides cannot solve with an
open and friendly mind.
It is also obvious to both New Delhi and Islamabad that for the
conflict over Kashmir to become a thing of the past, both countries long held
positions will need to be departed from. The benefits of such a course would
be two-fold. First, it would put an end to the tremendous strain on money
and precious lives on both sides. Second, it would usher in an era of mutual
trade and economic uplift of which both sides are on a feverish hunt.

493

HOME FRONT
On political front, Musharraf vigorously pursued the election
campaign to oust obscurantist political elements in next elections the
schedule of which has yet to be announced. On 8 th December, addressing a
gathering of women, Musharraf urged them to reject extremists in polls.
Ten days later, Musharraf once again asked the public gathering in
Khanewal to reject liars and hypocrites in next elections by voting for
truthful enlightened moderates. On 27th December, Tariq Azeem hinted at
second term for Aziz and continued role for Musharraf and Shujaat.
On 6th December, explosives were found outside CM secretariat in
Peshawar; IB man involved in the incident was probed. Three days later,
Fazl termed the incident of involvement of IB man in placing explosives as a
botched attempt to assassinate Chief Minister of NWFP. Three days later,
Senator Gul Nasib blamed the Centre for recent blasts in Peshawar. MMA
decided not to resign from assemblies and Fazl claimed that MMA has foiled
Centres conspiracy by refusing to resign.
Rahimullah Yusufzai commented on the incident in which an IB man
was arrested over his suspected involvement in placing explosives in the
vicinity of chief ministers house. The incident has raised number of
questions and there cannot be easy answers. The MMA government in
NWFP and chief minister Durrani feel insecure and see a conspiracy
everywhere even if there is none
All this doesnt mean that the IB, or other intelligence agencies,
arent guilty of overstepping its mandate. Pakistan has so many secret
services, which are mostly in business to serve the interests of military
rulers, and occasionally civilian governments, that one loses count. For sure
a few of them look after the interests of the state and the nation but others
spend most of their time and resources in consolidating the power of the
rulers by triggering defections from rival political parties, manipulating
elections, creating like-minded and largely self-serving groups, and making
unwanted people disappear.
There is no doubt that intelligence agencies including the IB would
be keen to cause a split in the MMA, as well as other political parties, or

494

create problems for the MMA-run government in NWFP in a bid to reduce

the level of threat to the rule of President General Pervez Musharraf. That
should explain chief minister Durranis fears regarding the IB and its sister
secret services. No wonder then that he and his ministers have started
believing that the IB personnel were involved in the seven bomb explosions
that have mostly targeted Peshawar since mid-September.
Shafqat Mahmood wrote about PPP-government deal. The fly in the
ointment for the PPP is that once it has committed itself to the General, there
is no assurance that he will live up to his part of the deal. Such an assurance
we are told will come from outside. The guarantor would be the United
States. It sounds a little far-fetched that the US would become such a
committed party in our domestic politics but stranger things have happened.
Subsequently, he argued that Americans dont really believe that any
of the civilians who could come in through true democracy have the capacity
to deliver on their objectives. Although one keeps hearing that the opinion is
beginning to change in Washington regarding Musharraf, all indications are
they still think that he and the military are their best bet in Pakistan. They
would however love Musharraf to have greater legitimacy and some
measure of popular support.
Azam Khalil said, it is easy to analyze the coming political scene
where the most difficult position is going to be that of the maulvis who can
now only dream of winning the seats they won in the last elections. They
will be cut to their original size and face certain defeat at the hands of their
old political foes like the ANP and the PPP. The maulvis now will be
fighting for political survival.
On 7th December, Musharraf vowed to rectify prolonged neglect of
Baluchistan. Next day, Information Minister claimed that Baluchis have
rejected anti-Pakistan elements and Musharraf said he had no regrets over
Akbar Bugtis killing. Following incidents related to militant Baluch
nationalists were reported:
One person was killed in blast in Naushki on 2 nd December. Shutter
down strike was observed in Baluchistan on the call of BNP. Next day,
four persons were injured in landmine blast in Dera Bugti.
On 16th December, 22 Marri militants surrendered to the government
in Sibi. Three days later, former guerrilla commander, Bangan Khan,
495

who had surrendered to the government, was killed and five of his
associates injured in landmine blast near Sangsela.
Eleven people were wounded in a bomb blast in Quetta on 20 th
December. Three days later, gas pipeline was blown up in Dera Bugti.
On 26th December, Akhtar Mengal was arrested and sent to jail by an
anti-terror court; Nawaz condemned his arrest.
In the context of soft image, Women Protection Bill, which became
a law during the period, was widely talked about by those who enacted it
and those who still continue opposing it. On 30 th November, CII members
met Musharraf and supported the bill.
This was a move to counter the recent observation of Ulema that some
clauses of the bill were contrary to the teachings of Islam. These Ulema had
been consulted to reach an agreement with MMA and one of them, Mufti
Muneebur Rehman, had requested President for a meeting with Ulema
before signing the law.
The same day, MMA activists and police clashed in Gujrat during
rally against WPB; Information Minister termed the rally a failure. On 1 st
December, Musharraf signed the bill. Next day, Fazl criticized CII for
commenting on legislation without reviewing it.
On 3rd December, Ulema met Shujaat and cited four clauses for
amendment. Imam from Gujrat did not resign on this count as promised by
him after the passage of the bill. MQM protested Shjaat-Ulema meeting.
They consider the word of their Imam Khomeini is final. Next day, Afgan
backed MQM protest. PML-Q apologized to MQM over meeting with
Ulema and ruled out any compromise or flexibility on the issue. Altaf Bhai
asked PML-Q: are we your coalition partners or opponents?
On 5th December, President and prime minister addressed
congregation in Convention Centre to take political mileage of passage of
WPB. Musharraf termed the MMA members as hypocrites and urged women
to reject them in next elections.
Shujaat was kept waiting by Ulema for second round of talks on WPA
on 9 December. They informed him that they had planned interaction with
th

496

other political parties including MQM. Next day, thousands of supporters of

Islamic parties protested in Karachi against WPA.
A freelance journalist challenged WPA in the Supreme Court on 11th
December. Four days later, the Supreme Court stopped implementation of
Hasba Bill on the request of the president, who sought opinion of the Apex
Court under its advisory jurisdiction that the bill violated certain provisions
of the Constitution. On 21st December, another freelance journalist
challenged the WPA in PHC. Next day, a protest strike against WPA was
held in Karachi. MQMs Imam Khomenei declared the strike held against
WPA as un-Islamic.
The issue of missing persons kept tarnishing the already tarnished
image. On 1st December the Apex Court was informed that 21 out of 41
missing persons were traced out and ten of them had reached their homes.
The court directed the government to trace out remaining missing persons in
two weeks. On 9th December, human rights activists staged a protest rally;
Misbah Rana participated in the protest. Shujaat assured early recovery of
missing persons.
Misbah Irams problem remained unresolved. On 29th November,
Judge Saquib Nisar ruled that Misbah should be returned to her Scottish
mother. If Musharraf could pardon a murderer for the sake of soft image, the
court must do that on its own rather than bothering Musharraf to over-rule its
verdict. On 7th December, he filed an appeal in Supreme Court.
There were more events relevant to soft image. On 29th November,
only three days after the government had announced that Dr Qadeer was hail
and hearty, his sister said that her brother was unwell and needed 24-hour
medical care. On 20th December, a court in Karachi ordered the government
to explain as to why Majid Khan, a returnee from Gitmo, was arrested and
handed over to the US. Musharraf, however, had already rendered the
explanation in his biography; it was part of the business of human trading.
Other events worth mention were:
On 30th November, Privatization Commission filed a petition for
review of the Supreme Courts ruling on Pakistan Steel Mills.
On 6th December, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals of the sixarmy officers, which were filed two years ago. Army took two years
to inform the court that the accused officers were punished legally.
497

 One person was killed in Karachi on 15 th December when protest

called by Pashtun jirga turned violent.
On 18th December, MQM Haqiqi leader, Athar Usmani, was gunned
down in Rawalpindi and DIG Abid Ali was killed near Mattani at
midnight.
On 22nd December, Rashid Rauf slammed injustice in court. This is
wrong and an injustice. Its all fabricated.
Professor of Gomal University was killed by unknown gunmen on
23rd December. Next day, four people were shot dead in DI Khan after
the burial of slain professor.
One man was killed and two wounded in bomb blast in Peshawar on
26th December.
Analysts kept commenting on Women Protection Law. Ansar Abbasi
wrote, the propaganda of great achievement to alleviate suffering of
women has also held its sway on a quite a few newspaper columnist and
commentators. A respected columnist, who was among the first ones to
welcome the passage of the WPB by the National Assembly, when
approached had no explanation to offer when asked if he knew what the bill
contained.
The best analysis has been offered by Justice Mufti Muhammad
Taqi Usmani. An expert in Islamic jurisprudence, Hadith and Tasawwif,
Usmani was a judge at the Sharia appellate bench of the Supreme Court of
Pakistan till recently, and discussed the WPB clause by clause in the
columns of Jang. His contention is that the WPB is un-Islamic and
promotes adultery and obscenity. Referring to the propaganda that
because of the controversial Hudood laws thousands of rape victims have
had to face jail on charges of adulterythe Judge said that during his 17
years of stinthe did not hear even a single case of this nature.
He also quoted an American scholars research on the Hudood
laws. The later had claimed that woman who feared conviction under section
10 (2) frequently brought charges of rape under 10 (3) against their alleged
partners. In such a situation the Federal Shariat Court, he wrote, found no
circumstantial evidence to support the latter charge but nonetheless

498

convicted the male accused under section 10 (2). The woman however was
exonerated of any wrong-doing because of reasonable doubt.
When the bill was under consideration in the select committee of the
National Assembly I contacted a Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarian
MNA to know her views on the rationale for decriminalizing adultery and
fornication in Pakistan. The PPPP MNA justified by saying that when the
civilized world did not consider sex with consent a crime there was no
reason we in Pakistan should do otherwise.
The News observed, PTV showed him (Shujaat) along with two
ministers, and the leader of the PML in the Senate and the partys secretarygeneral receiving a delegation of clerics who handed the party chief a
memorandum outlining six reported objections to the bill. Initially some
may have seen this to be a way to keep the clerics who are the most
vehement opponents of the WPB engaged but the argument does not make
sense now that the bill has been signed into law.
The only motive that one can decipher as far as the PML-Q chiefs
insistence on telling the ulema that all un-Islamic clauses will be taken out
and that a pending bill to promote womens rights will see to it is that it
either shows his personal views on such matters and/or reflects the changing
political situation with the impression that there are or may be moves by
presidency to make some kind of alliance with the PPP before or after the
next election. It means the bill is aimed more at political ends than
protection of women.
M Sher Khan opined, the government pulled out all the stops in an
effort to get the mullahs on board at every stage of the passage of the bill to
forge a consensus, forgetting the old adage that if you once give in to
blackmail, there will never be an end to the ever-increasing demands from
the blackmailer. Finally the treasury benches had to go it alone, and
wonder of wonders, the heavens did not fall. Some parties in the
opposition jumped on board, while the mullahs threatened to resign en
masse from the assemblies, but it was evident to all observers that this was
but merely a hollow threat, knowing full well that once any one is hooked on
the perks, pay and privileges of being an elected representative, only a saint
with the highest standards of morality and probity will ever part with the
office.

499

The issue of missing people was widely commented upon. Noreen

Haider reported the progress on Supreme Courts order that directed the
government to trace out the missing persons. Ten of those have resurfaced
and are free men. The government, however, did not seem to have any
answers for the questions as to where these people had been? Who had them
as captives? What charges were leveled against them? Under which law they
were held? Who is responsible for the treatment meted out to them during
their captivity?
Ali Sher said: I had just gone to the market to get an exhaust fan
when some men stopped me in the middle of the road and asked me to
accompany them. Ali Sher believes that fighting in Kashmir for one and a
half years as part of 313 Harket-e-Jihadul Islami was the reason of his
abduction.
Tariq said: All I know is that it is perhaps because of two Arab
families of widows and children who stayed in my house as my guests for
a few months. They had nowhere to go and I offered them my home to stay
in for a short while. That good deed has cost me two and a half years
Atiff Idrees an MBA student in Lahore was also abducted from
Wahdat road Lahore and taken to an undisclosed location. They kept asking
me about al-Qaeda. I had no knowledge of anything they asked. All I did
was to facilitate some Afghan and Arab families looking for
accommodation and helped find them houses on rent.
All these people who have returned are the lucky ones who have been
united with their families and friends. But they are just a few in the long list
of hundreds of missing people without a trace for long. Most of the affected
families are not even sure about raising their voice for the fear of the
lives of the other family members. Some have been threatened also.
Fatima Bhutto commented, with the absence of a body and no press
conference listing the crimes of the accused to contend with, the state is
officially distanced from any acts of violence or barbarism. They cannot be
held accountable for what you never saw; silence and invisibility greatly
benefits the brutality of the state. It is a terror enacted wholeheartedly on
the populaces imagination as opposed to their bodies. You could have
disappeared and no one would ever know what happened to you; your guilt
presupposed over your innocence without having been tried in a court of
law, condemned to a life or death forever unseen and unsung.
500

On Monday seven men who had disappeared two years ago were
finally released, no charges had been proven against them. Four other men
were also found and returned to their homes in Swat, Kohat and Hazara.
Oops! Just kidding! They werent al-Qaeda operatives after all, sorry about
that whole hide and seek thing, here are your family members back Youre
welcome! The Supreme Court didnt find this weeks unexpected
developments in justice for the disappeared is set to take up several other
cases detailing illegal abductions filed by relatives of Pakistans many
missing men.
The News said, the issue of disappearances of dozens of individuals
for months and in some cases years, with family members having no idea
where they have gone but suspecting that they might have been picked up by
intelligence agencies, and with the police also not helping the complainants,
is perhaps one of the darker consequences of Pakistans alliance with
America in the war against terror. Many of those who have disappeared, it
can be safely presumed, were picked up because of alleged involvement
with terrorists or al-Qaeda.
Mere suspicion of being involved in terrorism or in planning a
terrorist act should not be grounds enough for indefinitely detaining an
individual without trial. The list that the petitioner submitted also includes a
well-known businessman who is being detained at Guantanamo Bay, and he
is among 21 people whose whereabouts the interior ministry official claimed
the government had no knowledge of.
Kamila Hyat wrote, the quest for justice, then, it seems, never stops.
Even years or decades later, families of the disappeared have kept up their
search. A similar determination is growing today in the country as people
unite to combat disappearances. As such, it would be wise for authorities
to remember that people cannot simply be whisked away for there will
always be those who refuse to forget, and who can through their own
courage persuade others to join their struggle to find them.
Khaleej Times commented on courts decision on custody of Misbah.
From the proceedings of the case in question, its apparent that contrary to
Misbahs mothers allegation that her daughter was abducted, the girl
traveled to Pakistan of her own accord, and for all intents and purposes
wishes to live with her father. Yet the court has ordered her return to honour
a protocol between Pakistan and the UK requiring police and judicial

501

authorities in both countries to help resolve disputed cases concerning

children brought from Britain to Pakistan.
While it remains to be seen whether Pakistans Supreme Court will
entertain an appeal from the girls father, it is pertinent to analyze the
spillover of the entire episode. Such cases set important precedents,
therefore it is important to incorporate the view of the child or children
whose custody is being fought over. If abiding by protocols amounts to
hurting the interest of the child, who has already been hurt owing to the split
of the family, then perhaps such agreements need revising.
Rauf Klasra compiled a report on public reaction in Britain on the
court decision. The UK nationals have come out in the open to offer their
moral support to Misbah at the centre of big controversy since she fled to
Pakistan couple of months back as they have termed her forced handing
over to her mother and stepfather as worst kind of violation of human
rights and asked her mother to let her daughter live where she likes.
How common Britons have felt the pain of Misbah can be judged
from the single fact that just in one day, Times website has over 60
comments from the readers on the girls story. Barring a few who thought
Misbah should return as she would suffer in a suffocating society like
Pakistan once she grows up, most of the readers have passionately
supported the right of Misbah to stay with her father and family in
Pakistan.
For many Britons the decision of Misbah to fly to Pakistan is
shocking as they perceive it a kind of country where women have no basic
human rights or they have to follow a strict code of life and spend lives
within four walls of a house. These people have also wondered that what
was going wrong with the British society that the girl was even ready to
accept all strict values and traditions of an eastern society instead of
staying in a country where she enjoyed freedom and civil rights.
Answer is simple; a family is the basic unit of a society and that
element is still far more intact in eastern societies as compared to the West.
And that unit provides more security, affectionate too, than the so-called
right to enjoyment provided by the Western societies.
Dave Hill asked: Can there be much doubt that a judge in Lahore
has done what 12-year-old Misbah Rana was dreading? I will be a

502

prisoner on Stornoway, she says. The only way they will get me out of
here is to drag me kicking and smearing. I will struggle when they come to
take me away from the dads house The judge only said that I have to go
back within seven days right at the last minute and then he left the room. I
wasnt allowed say anything to him. I was just crying and crying when he
did that.
She claims that before running away with an older sister to Pakistan
in August, her mother hadnt allowed her to keep in touch with the rest of
her family: There were no phone calls, no emails, I wasnt even allowed
texts. They do not let me be a Muslim and do my prayers. My mum says
God doesnt exist. If I have to go back I am going to run away. I know my
brothers mobile number by heart and my dads.
Two issues in particular have been brought sharply into focus by the
desperate affair of Misbah. When it first became a story it exposed
unanswerably the medias damaging readiness to leap to the conclusion
that Muslim men are crazed extremists, a point a few journalists have been
big enough to acknowledge
Now that shes been told she must return to Scotland within seven
days, the second issue has been crystallized once more: the rights of children
after family breakdown. In this case, there are far more shades of grey. It is
important to stress that the Lahore ruling was not about where Misbah
should live but her fathers culpability in her absconding from her mothers
care in breach of a ruling by a Scottish court. This cannot be casually
ignored it will be a catastrophe for her and, in the end, maybe the
worse for her mother too.
What will happen next? Misbahs mother has said she is elated.
Misbahs father has said he intends to appeal. No surprises there. Of greater
significance, though, in terms of Misbahs future, is the comment by her
mothers lawyer in Pakistan that Misbah should get a chance at the Court
of Session (in Scotland) to say who she wants to live with.
Analysts also expressed their views on other issues related to soft
image; secularism is one of them. Dr Masooda Bano wrote, since
September 11, Pakistan has assumedly been put on a secularization
agenda. General Musharraf time and again reminds people of his nation of

503

enlightened and liberal Islam. There have been subtle as well as brutal
attempts at curbing religiosity.
On the subtle side one of the main moves remains the liberalization
of the electronic media where quite ironically replicating the Indian soap
operas and liberal female dressing has become the hallmark of progressive
and liberal mentality. On the more aggressive side, the government has
tried to demoralize the madrassahs through verbal condemnation,
police raids, and more recently military attack. But is Pakistan more
secular today than before September 11?
Interviews with madrassah leaders and students and visits to
madrassahs in various parts of the country suggest that government reforms
have not dampened the pull of madrassahs; the number of madrassahs and
their students is continuing to grow.
Similarly, the female madrassahs are continuing to multiply
dramatically. Unlike male madrassahs, students in female madrassahs even
pay tuition fee. The willingness to pay a fee of Rs 200 to 300 is important as
it shows a higher commitment of parents to send their daughters to
madrassahs: this counters the standard argument that only poverty
stricken people send their children to madrassahs.
The fact is that the condemning of madrassahs under the present
government is generating more reaction that support for reforming them
within the community. Even an average Pakistani traditionally views
seminaries as responding to the poor and promoting a limited understanding
of Islam. But, at the same time people support these madrassahs and donate
to them as they realize that these provide an important service of training a
religious cadre, which serves the daily needs of Muslims Many of these
ordinary people would have willingly supported reforms in madrassahs, but
the governments crude handling of the issue and strong association of the
reforms with US, had led to complete failure.
Khan A Shamshad from Karachi wrote, the so-called educated, under
the influence of a foreign system, encouraged and supported by the
government and media which looks beyond the news, miss no opportunity to
scorn and humiliate religious scholars who are accused of being antiprogress. The so-called liberals and intellectuals seem to want to convert
Pakistan into an open society on the lines of Scandinavia.

504

They regard Islam as a conservative influence which does not meet

the requirements of a modern society. Therefore, concerted efforts are
being made to destabilize and gradually break all opposition to liberal
reforms which would convert Pakistan profoundly into a secular state.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal talked about the shortcomings of contemporary
mullas and wished for a Mullah of 21st century. No one expects a
madrassah-trained mullah to take charge of any of the contemporary
state institutions, elected offices, or professional jobs. They can only
occupy the run-down building attached to a mosque and call it their home.
These are obvious realities of our times.
If the religious leadership of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were to
initiate a process of regeneration of institutions, learning, and character
building, they could produce a new generation of mullah the twentyfirst century mullah. This person can alter the entire social, political, and
economic landscape of South Asia in one generation.
It is obvious that such a mullah has to acquire the same two
characteristics which were the honour of his predecessors: learning and
piety. But is the path through which a twenty-first century mullah can gain
these two characteristics clear to those who are in the business of producing
mullahs? The answer in clearly in the negative.
Shireen M Mazari criticized the undue emphasis on tolerance in
pursuit of soft image. She argued, rightly and convincingly, that Pakistanis
have more religious tolerance than those who accuse them of intolerance.
We continue to give open access and facilities to foreign scholars who
continue to heap abuse on us with equal regularity. Yet we give them the
access they seek to give their works credibility despite the biases and half
truths contained in some of their writings. When will we learn to deny such
biased scholars the free access they seek? More important, would our
scholars get similar access to officialdom in the US?
On the issue of tolerance, my daughter made an interesting
observation the other day when she commented that all our urban centres,
including Peshawar, sell Christmas decorations and cards, and create a
festive environment around Christmas time; but in Europe one does not see
any public commercial display of Eid cards or Eid bangles and so on. Yet we
are labeled as intolerant while the Europeans are supposed to be the tolerant
ones; how true.
505

Pakistans Christian population comprises under two percent of our

total population, yet Christmas celebrations are given time on state TV and
there is no dearth of public displays of Christmas trees, Qantas, decorations
and so on. In contrast, take the case of Europe: in France, Muslims comprise
almost 10 percent of its total population yet there has never been a public
display of any Eid festivity. This cannot be the result of the French secular
creed since Christmas festivities are very public and December 25 is a public
holiday not so Eid of course. As for Germany, its Muslim population
comprises almost four percent of its total population and the same absence
of Eid in terms of public holiday and public displays is seen there. Coming
to Britain and we all know the massive Christmas lights and commercial
hype. Now Muslims comprise 3 percent of their non-Christian community,
so should they not have some public display of Eid and perhaps a public
holiday or two? Getting TV time would probably be asking for too much
from the secular Europeans! So before Europe cashes in on its labels of
tolerance and secularism, let it take a hard look at what it is really all about.

CONCLUSION
Pakistan will continue to be blamed for not doing enough for
restoration of peace and stability in Afghanistan as long as Pushtuns
(Taliban) keep resisting occupation of their homeland. Pakistans efforts to
pacify its tribesmen through peace deals are likely to be sabotaged by the
occupation forces in Afghanistan.
Musharrafs unwarranted pragmatism or flexibility has encouraged
India to stick to its negative stance. As geopolitical situation continues to tilt
further in favour of India, it can afford to wait, till the General made
flexible by the Armitage, could move beyond the status quo and permit
India to negotiate the future of AJK and Northern Areas instead of IHK.
On home front the soft image will remain elusive. The issues like
missing persons will keep haunting the so-called enlightened moderates
despite rendering great service in terms of protection of women. The CIA
men assisted by the agencies of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, who are above
domestic or international law, will keep damaging the image and
unfortunately, mulllas will be blamed for that.

506

28th December 2006

DONKEY DOCTRINE
After serving the interests of the superpower for a decade, Annan,
couple of weeks before relinquishing the august post of UN secretary
general, said America must not sacrifice its democratic ideals while waging
war against terrorism; human rights and the rule of law are vital to global
security and prosperity. His remarks did not please the superpower.
The United States, even without Annans reminder, was mindful of the
problems confronted by it in the Middle East. In view of that the puppets,
Maliki in Iraq, Abbas in Palestine and Siniora in Lebanon were screwed to
act with urgency in accordance with Bushs new policy. All of them have
been trying to come up to the expectations of the Crusaders.
Iraq Study Group made numerous recommendations to Bush
Administrations for minor corrections in the course. Bush apparently did not
seem impressed by guidance provided by the acquaintances of his father; he
rejected the guidance from wrong father.
Israel had rejected ISG Report out rightly, because it apprehended that
adoption of recommendations would impede its plan to sort out Hamas and
Hezbollah. On 13th December, Olmert admitted possession of nuclear
weapons and Arab League sought world action against Israeli nuclear
weapons. International community responded from the platform of UNSC
by imposing sanctions on Iran. Israel called for further action.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Bloodshed in Iraq continued unabated. On 12th December, at least
70 people were killed and 235 wounded mostly in two suicide bombings in
Baghdad. Next day, at least 37 more people were killed in violence.
At least 12 people were killed in violence on 14 th December. Next day,
three US soldiers were killed. On 17th December, 17 people including three

507

US soldiers were killed and 25 ICRC workers and visitors were kidnapped
by gun men.
Former Iraqi minister escaped from Baghdad jail on 18 th December.
Next day, 22 people, including two US soldiers were killed in the violence.
At least 23 people were killed on 20th December.
Suicide bomber killed 15 policemen and wounded 15 others in
Baghdad on 21st December. Next day, four US soldiers were among eight
people killed in violence. On 23rd December, three US soldiers were killed
and another wounded in roadside bombing. Two US soldiers were killed in
other incidents.
On 24th December, seven policemen were killed in suicide bombing in
Baghdad. Four footballers of Iraqs top league were wounded in mortar fire.
Three peopled were killed in Samawa. Iraqi police claimed arresting killer of
14 Pakistanis.
At least 36 people were killed in violence in on 26 th December. Next
day, an Iraqi politician of al-Sadr was shot dead by the US troops after
implicating him terror attack in Najaf.
Five US soldiers were killed on 28th December bringing the toll in the
month to 101. Two day later, 77 people, including three Marines, were killed
in post-Saddam carnage. Seven people were killed in violence on 31 st
December.
On 3rd January 2007, the US troops killed six people. Next day, 26
people were killed and 50 wounded in different incidents. In 2006, 64
journalists were killed in Iraq.
Thirteen people, including a US soldier, were killed in violence on 5 th
January. Next day, Iraqi Army claimed killing 30 militants and arresting
eight in a raid in Baghdad.
At least 40 people, including two US soldiers, were killed on 7 th
January as crackdown against militias was launched after Maliki got
drubbing from Bush on telephone on the issue of Sadr militia.
As regards other events relevant to occupation, the new Secretary
of Defence, Robert Gates paid a surprise visit to Baghdad on 20th December.
A fortnight later, he announced that he was replacing General Abizaid with
508

Adm Richard Fallon. So, the Richards in Central Command and in

Afghanistan give the Crusades a historic holy touch. General Casey was also
replaced by General Dave Petraeus in Iraq.
On 20th December, Bush admitted that the US was not winning in
Iraq. Two days later, al-Qaeda offered a deadline of one month to pullout
free of attacks. About a fortnight later, Bush decided to name Vice Admiral
Michael McConnell as new spy chief to replace Negroponte and Zalmay
Khalizad was likely to be appointed as US ambassador to the UN to replace
John Bolton.
Hawks advised Bush not to reduce troops and Democrats asked Bush
to come out with plan to end Iraq War. A US general urged maintaining
balance in planned crackdown in Baghdad. Meanwhile, on 26th December
the panel of Iraqi judges upheld death verdict of Saddam Hussein.

ISG REPORT
The analysts kept speaking for and against the contents of the report.
The money spent on its deliberations should have been redirected to some
worthier purpose, such as figuring out once and for all how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin, opined Max Boot. Its much-vaunted report was
an anti-climactic combination of banalities and stay-the-course
recommendations leavened with generous dollops of wishful thinking.
The groups report begins with the obvious: The situation in Iraq is
grave and deteriorating. Everyone knows that (even, probably, in his heart
of hearts, President Bush), but no one is sure what to do about it, and the
group doesnt help any.
Its flagship recommendation has been described as calling for the
departure of US combat troops within a year, but it says nothing of the
sort this is the policy Bush is already following: As Iraqis stand up, we
will stand down.
The report demands that Iran should stop the flow of arms and
training to Iraq and that Syria should control its border with Iraq, but it
gives no idea of how these elusive goals could possibly be achieved. The
report does not recommend letting Iran go nuclear or letting Syria subjugate
Lebanon, which would most likely be the price of any deal.
509

The intellectual bankruptcy of the report is revealed in its long

section calling for a renewed and sustained commitment by the United
States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. What is this doing in a report
on Iraq? Do the study members imagine that if Israel made nice with Hamas,
that this would lead Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites to stop slaughtering one
another?
Patrick Cockburn observed, it is sad that its authors, chaired by
James Baker and Lee Hamilton, share one great misconception with Mr
Bush and Mr Blair. This is about the acceptability of any foreign troops in
Iraq. Supposedly US combat troops will be withdrawn and redeployed as a
stiffening or reinforcement to Iraqi military units. They will form quickreaction forces able to intervene in moments of crisis.
Mr Bush and Mr Blair have always refused to take on board the
simple unpopularity of the occupation among Iraqis, though the US and
British military commanders have explained that it is the main fuel for the
insurgency. The Baker-Hamilton report notes dryly that opinion polls show
that 61 percent of Iraqis favour armed attacks on US forces.
The other great flaw in the report is to imply that Iraqis can be
brought back together again. The reality is that the country has already
broken apart the future of Iraq may well be a confederation, rather than a
federation, with Shia, Sunni and Kurd each enjoying autonomy close to
independence.
There are certain points on which the White House and the
authors of the report are dangerously at one. This is that the Iraqi
government of Nouri al-Maliki can be bullied into trying to crush the
militias (this usually means just one anti-American militia, the Mehdi
Army), or will bolt from Shia alliance.
Al-Ahram Weekly wrote, many predicted the Baker-Hamilton Iraq
Study Group would advise President Bush to cut his losses and pull out of
Iraq, pulling the carpet from beneath the government it has installed in
Baghdad. Instead, the 79 recommendations the group produced
encourage the US president to sink deeper into the Iraqi morass.
Democrats and the Republicans have no regrets about the
occupation, only about the way it was managed. Baker-Hamilton
described their recommendations as pointing a pathway to success, avoiding

510

the word victory of which Bush is so fond. They recommended dialogue

with Syria and Iran as one of the painful sacrifices that will have to be
made.
The report does not seek a quick and honourable exit for US
troops from Iraq. All it offers is an exercise in damage-limitation. It took
months to debrief government officials, Congressmen and over 100 Iraqis,
all of them pro-occupation, but withdrawal, whether in one stage or several
stages, requires one decision When Nixon admitted defeat in Vietnam, he
pulled out within two months.
The Commission has done Bush a great service. It has given the
US president the chance to formulate a bipartisan policy and thus salvage
what remains of his popularity. There is nothing in the recommendations that
Bush is likely to feel bound to reject, but he doesnt, as Baker noted, have to
deal with the report as a package deal. The US president is now engaged in
talks with Congressional leaders in the House and is likely to announce a
new strategy
The US is not going to engage the Iraqi resistance in dialogue.
President Bush plans to lean mainly on the Shiites and Kurds. This is
why he invited Abdl Aziz al-Hakim for talks, but postponed the visit to
Washington by Tareq al-Hashimi, the Sunni representative in Iraqi
presidency The US wants to bolster its occupation of Iraq and Bush is not
going to sneer at an offer for help from anyone. The Arab World is full of
people willing to help the US president out.
Tom Engelhardt said, the Iraq Study Group, too like every other
mainstream gathering of advisors, officials, or pundits fixed the
intelligence Before they even began, Bush family consigliore Baker and
cohorts ensured that, while the ISG would be filled with notable movers and
shakers from numerous previous administration, no one on it, nor any expert
team advising it would represent the one point of view that a majority of
Americans have by now come to support actual withdrawal of all US
forces from Iraq on a set timeline.
Commentators also talked about possible response to wisdom
showered on Bush. Uri Avnery wrote, Bush is an irrational person, perhaps
the very personification of irrationality. Instead of drawing the logical
conclusion from what had happened and acting accordingly, he set off in the
opposite direction. Since then he has just insisted on staying the course.
511

Baker calls for the end of the Bush approach and offers a new and
thought-out strategy of his own. Actually, it is an elegant way of extracting
America from Iraq, without it looking like a complete rout However,
the baker can only offer a recipe for the cake. The question is whether
President Bush will use the recipe and bake the cake.
Ihsan Aslam said, if we look at the findings of the recent Iraq Study
Group, it is already not clear how much of an influence the report will have
on President George W Bush. Instead of troop reductions, we might end
up with more American troops in Iraq. Being a deep thinker, Bush
recently confirmed, I have not made up my mind. I thought he and his neocon minders had plenty of time to concentrate their minds on Iraq. I mean in
the time before they invaded the country.
Marwan al-Kabalan observed Bush pondering or meditating. The
New York Times reported thatBush would delay presenting any new
strategy for Iraq until early next year. The main reason for the delay, it is
argued, is the division within the Bush Administration over what policy line
should be adopted.
There are in fact two key options the Bush Administration is
deliberating right now for a new strategy in Iraq. The first is what the
Washington Post has dubbed 80 percent solutionCheney is pushing for the
argument that the US should abandon efforts to win over Iraqs Sunni
minority and settle for good ties with Kurds and Shiites.
The second option is advocated by the State Department and backed
by the US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. They are lobbying for
propping up moderate Sunnis and encouraging them to stand by the
government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Advocates of this approach
fear that backing Shiites against Sunnis would mean virtually handing Iraq
over to Iran on silver platter.
During the two-hour meeting in Riyadh, King Abdullah, made it
clear to Cheney that he cannot stand idly watching Iraqi Sunnis being
subjected to ethnic cleansing. It is also believed that Riyadh has lobbied in
Washington to arrange for a meeting between Bush and Iraqi Vice-President
Tariq al-Hashimi, an influential moderate Sunni with close ties to Saudi
Arabia.

512

Having heard this position loud and clear, the Bush Administration is
very unlikely to ignore Saudi concerns over Irans rising influence in the
region. In fact, the Saudi-Iranian conflict has left a profound mark on the
politics of the Middle East in recent months. Iran and Saudi Arabia have
found themselves locked in the middle of a conflict over almost every
Middle Eastern problem. The US government cannot afford to ignore this
conflict and will have to take it into account when it comes to deciding on
the new strategy for Iraq in the next few weeks.
Ben Connable warned, if US forces conduct even a phased
withdrawal before the full certification of Iraqi Army battalions, those units
incapable of sustaining independent operations would be forced to pull back
alongside their minders, or collapse as their logistics lifelines disappeared.
Most local police forces would scatter, be co-opted or slaughtered, as
they were in 2004.
Insurgents of all stripes would make the most of the combined
American and Iraqi withdrawal, harassing the departing convoys with
homemade bombs and small-arms fire. Videos of insurgents dancing the
streets would become prevalent. No public relations campaign could succeed
in painting an early phased withdrawal as anything but a strategic defeat.
Redeployed in large bases far from the enemy centres of gravity,
American troops wouldnt be able to keep insurgent groups from forming
semi-conventional units. This pattern has repeated itself countless times
across Iraq and follows historic guerrilla-warfare models: Insurgents
exploit any safe haven to strengthen and train their forces. The longer
they are left alone, stronger they become.
For some, the collapse of Iraqi society into Hobbesian mayhem is
inevitable no matter how many American troops remain on the ground. A
few argue that disintegration of the Iraqi state actually would bring about the
national catharsis that seems so elusive today that absolute civil war
would be a greater good.
This cold calculus ignores the very real impact of an American
withdrawal on the people US soldiers now protect. Any debate that does
not consider the bloody reality that America would leave in its wake
does a disservice to the people of Iraq and the troops who have fought so
hard to defend them.

513

James J Zogby observed, the Bush Administration was staying the

course, and not much else, the hyperactivity of recent weeks has been
striking. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld resigned; Bush traveled to
Jordan to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki; a number of internal
secret memos have been leaked, revealing the deep concerns of key Bush
Administration officials about the war effort; and the president has
authorized both the Department of Defence and the National Security
Council to undertake reviews of their own.
All this, I believe, has been done in order to dilute the impact of
the ISG report and allow the president to choose from a menu of options
more to his liking. To make it clear, National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley said earlier this week: The (ISG) report will be an important input,
but as you would expect (the president) is going to get inputs from a number
of sources.
Bush said much of the same: One of the key points is that Im
getting a lot of advice documentsthese are frank assessments by different
members of my administrationmy attitude is I ought to absorb and listen
to everything thats being said. What all this appears to be setting the
stage for is confusion, obfuscation and more of the same.
Los Angeles Times wrote, bigger, Bush now seems to believe, is
better. Amplifying an earlier comment in an interview with the Washington
Post, the president said at a news conference Wednesday that Im inclined
to believe that we need to increasethe present size of both the United
States Army and the United States Marines.
The US remains the worlds sole superpower, but the nation no
longer has enough men and women under arms to shoulder its
responsibilities The scary truth is that with roughly 150,000 troops tied
down in Iraq, the US is hardly in a position to react effectively to a major
crisis elsewhere.
A significant increase in soldiers and Marines could be accomplished
with ramp-up recruiting and pay incentives Secretary Gates should be
more aggressive and advocate the addition of 100,000 more troops, which
would cost in the neighbourhood of $20 billion not an exorbitant amount
in Pentagon terms.

514

Khaleej Times noted clear signs suggesting that the administration is

seriously considering short-term force-expansion. New defence secretary
Robert Gates was in Iraq yesterday to assess the idea. That, coupled with
Blairs suggestion of further isolating the country with unquestionably the
greater on-ground influence in Iraq suggests that the war on terror
proponents are more comfortable pursuing their own original course of
action.
It is important to note that fighting the new ideological war with
weapons and strategies of what has effectively become the old system is
proving disastrous. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have become text book
cases of the limits of military might in the face of an elusive enemy.
Bushs new strategy will mark the last ditch attempt on the part of
forces of moderation to prevent total-loss in this stage of the ideological
battle. Should it fail to turn things around, the whole world, especially the
Middle East, will become much more unstable. Therefore, it is advised that
diplomatic engagement rather than isolation be given more weight in the
coming days.
Claude Salhani opined that should the president accept some of the
ISGs 79 recommendations, it would mean cutting back on US troops in Iraq
in considerable way. And that would mean beginning a casual pullback from
Iraq. And that, in turn, would be perceived by Bush as a defeat, something
the president is not ready to accept. So Bush, with about two years left in
his second mandate wants to go out with a bang. A big bang. And for that
you need a bigger army. And you need more boots on the ground.
Bushs idea would be to flood Iraq with US troops in such a way
that would overwhelm the bad guys. There would be American soldiers
every which way you turned. The logic is that the superior numbers of
American troops will have a better handle on the situation and by the time
Bush leaves office in 2008, he would be handing over to his successor a
much more subdued Iraq.
This is what should have happened at the outset of the US military
intervention in March, 2003. An overwhelming military force at the
beginning of the war would have made a big difference, when numbers
mattered But remember, then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld was
opposed to sending more troops. But now, more than three years down the

515

road, injecting several tens of thousands of US troops into Iraq presents

more of a disadvantage.
Musa Keilani identified the reason for negative response. The effort
is mounted by the powerful American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), which has understood, and rightly so, that Israeli interests would
be seriously undermined if the White House were to pursue the key
recommendation made by the Iraq Study Group.
Despite all denials and protestations, reality is that the crises the US
faces in the Middle East are directly or indirectly linked to the unaddressed
Arab-Israeli conflict. This is one of the major thrusts implicit in the ISG
Report which, in essence, suggests that without finding an equitable solution
to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US has little chance to succeed in its efforts
to contain the crisis in Iraq.
An immediate result of the AIPAC effort, which is backed by
influential pro-Israeli figures in the neoconservative camp in Washington, is
US President George W Bushs blanket refusal to accept the ISG call for
an exit from Iraq within a time frame, and to bring Iran and Syria into a
regional effort to address the root causes of the challenges that the US faces
in the Middle East.
The wisdom of Bakers approach was underlined further when Saudi
King Abdullah told US-President Dick Cheney that Israels aggressive
policies and occupation of Arab territories were at the root of the instability
in the Middle East. These are not exactly revelations. They were known
not only to the Arabs but to the Israelis as well for many decades.
That explains the consistent negative commentaries that appear in the
mainly neoconservative propaganda machinery about the ISG Report.
Among the suggestions are some that say the reports recommendations aim
at depriving the Bush Administration of manouverability in foreign policy
and leading the US into a humiliating defeat and loss of face in the
Middle East and of course in the broader international scene.
Robert Scheer was critical of negative response to ISG
recommendations. Succumbing to the Bush fantasy that freedom is
fertilized by firepower, a vision that has mucked up Iraq beyond recognition,
Gates told CBS that as the president has made it clear, we simply cannot
afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a

516

calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger
Americans for generations to come.
This from a man who recently made sense, during his confirmation
hearings, when he told members of Congress that we are not winning this
war, despite having committed, proportionally, as many troops as we did in
Vietnam. But now, as a rising chorus of obsessed hawks calls for a surge in
US troop deployment in Iraq a call echoed even by some prominent
Democrats Gates endorses the staying-the-course strategy for
compounding the Iraq failure rejected by the voters.
All this despite the fact that the ISG Report correctly underscored
that the real failures in the Mideast have clearly been political, not
military. The accurate subtext of the report is that the continued US military
presence in Iraq is the key source of chaos in the region inflaming
religious fanaticism from Beirut to Baghdad and leaving the United States
dependent on the tyrants in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to now bail us out.
Democrats continue to play the dangerous game of supporting
Bushs escalation. Particularly alarming were the remarks on Sunday of
incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsing a buildup as long as
it aims at getting the troops home by 2008; If the commanders on the
ground said this is just for a short period of time, well go along with that.
Reids strategy is as obvious as it is opportunistic: This is a
Republican war, goes the thinking, and the Dems will give the
Republicans all, the rope they need to hang themselves in 08. This seems
a deeply cynical position, when you consider that the Pentagon just
announced that attacks on American and Iraqi targets are at their highest
levels, with a 22 percent leap from just this summer.
Diane Christian wrote, some like Henry Kissinger; say victory is our
only option. They cling to the figure of war and winning. The story for them
is not about Iraq but about our loss of face and power. Which means that
rape, like torture and terror, remains our strategy. This means we are caught
in the compulsion of our action and unable to break free. Until we cant
anymore keep up the rape.
Americans seem blind to the brutality of violent action but supersensitive to sexual acts. So perhaps the rape analogy might penetrate the

517

obdurate callous war story we perpetrated and persist in. Rape is harder to
spin, closer to skin, ugly. Accurate.
No face-saving fiction is credible now. We need to face our face as
rapist and despoiler and change it. However well-meaning and heroic we
might wish to appear, intentions cannot transform the actions of barbarism
and terror. Rape is a love story only for sociopaths.
David Ignatius asked, what is satisfactory and achievable outcome in
Iraq? Thats a question we all should have examined more carefully in 2003,
and were back to that same issue now as President Bush reviews a change
in strategy. I worry that in this debate Bush will be tempted anew to seek
a military victory that is unrealistic and might not be desirable even if it
were possible.
The Pentagon military leadership swallowed its doubts about the
achievability of the presidents goals back in 2003, but not this time To
these skeptical commanders, a surge is not a strategy for victory so much
as one of postponing the inevitable More training of the Iraqi Army isnt
going to work if the barracks are on fire.
A sensible Iraqi strategy would draw in neighbouring states, such
as Syria and Iran that share our interest in maintaining a unitary Iraqi state.
That was a key recommendation of James Baker and Lee Hamilton and their
commission, and they were right.
To a White House dreaming of military victory in Iraq, these
real-world options smack of a sellout. Rather than using the BakerHamilton process to rebuild consensus for a viable Iraq strategy, officials are
taking potshots at the surrender monkeys Now, thats dangerous.

CRITICISM OF WAR
The analysts kept commenting on various aspects of Iraq fiasco. Arab
News wrote about Annans remarks. Annan allowed no note of rancor to
creep into his speech, in stark contrast, Republican neocons immediately
launched a vituperative personal attack on Annan himself Rice
compounded the administrations folly by saying that Annan had missed the
opportunity to highlight the positive role that the United States has played in
the region and in the war on terror. Just what, an informed person might ask;
518

did Rice expect Annan to say: That after six years of the Bush
Administration, the Palestinians are happy to be imprisoned and bombarded
within their own country by the Israelis? That as a result of US-backed
Israeli aggression against Lebanon, Hezbollah has not been strengthened and
does not threaten to plunge the country back into civil war? That the Iraqi
government is entirely content that the only function it can truly carry out
has to do with ministerial stationery within the Green Zone? That as a result
of the Afghan and Iraqi invasions, the back of international terror has been
broken and the world is a safer place?
Maqsudul Hasan Nuri observed, it seems that the era of American
dominance in the Middle East that started in the 1950s is slowly but
surely winding down. After the demise of the Soviet Union the US wielded
a privileged unipolar status for more than fifteen years. The Iraq moment
has changed all this and is now ushering in an incipient multipolar structure
where the US will have to share influence in the region with the EU, Iran,
China and perhaps Russia.
The Crusaders pressured Maliki and Khaleej Times supported them.
Owing to the burden of command, it is now up to Nouri Malikis
government to take rapid steps to sort out the mess, especially since little
coming from Washington is making a positive contribution. As George
Bush prepares to announce his new Iraq policy, the Maliki
government must ponder one of its own, lest there is nothing left in Iraq to
govern.
Earlier, the newspaper had appreciated one of Malikis moves.
Common sense at last appears to have dawned on the present rulers of Iraq.
At a national reconciliation conference in Baghdad yesterday, Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki reached out to the alienated Sunni community,
appealing to ex officers and other top guns of Saddam Hussein era army and
security officers to join Iraqs newly raised army.
However, none of this will work if the government and the
governing Shia alliance do not rein in the numerous militias being run
and controlled by political parties that are part of the alliance Scores of
bodies with their hands tied behind their backs are daily discovered in
Baghdads Sunni neighbourhoods.
The Iraqi government and its American minders cannot win the trust
and confidence of the Sunni community and parties unless their security
519

concerns are adequately addressed Only honesty of intentions and

commitment to fairness and justice can bring back peace and order
M Shahid Alam saw the reason behind such advice coming from Arab
World. The developments since Iraq invasion have seriously exposed the
vulnerability of Americas Arab client state. Scared of the consequences of
US defeat and the imminent withdrawal from Iraq, they have been
forced to ally themselves more closely and openly with Israel ambitions in
the region. These client states do not now possess even a patina of
legitimacy. In desperation, Saudi Arabia is pinning its hopes on using its oil
wealth to incite an Islamic civil war.
Gordon Robinson addressed American people directly. It is time for
the American people to understand just how big and complex a mess we
have gotten ourselves into. It is time to understand that no good solutions
remain, and that easy solutions if they ever existed fell by the wayside a
long time ago.
The president began pushing back against the ISG Report before it
was even published and, according to most recent reports, is considering
pouring more combat troops into Iraq. This is a far cry from the phased
withdrawal and shift in emphasis from fighting to training that lies at the
core of the ISGs recommendations.
The report is not a panacea, but it is a good start toward what we
really need: the educating of both President Bush and Rep Reyes on the
complexities of the situation. It is appalling that we have to do that with our
leaders nearly four years after we invaded Iraq. But until those in power
and their cheering sections on the left and right understand that there are
no easy solutions to Iraq, we cannot hope to begin the painful process of
bringing something good out of this debacle.
Rosa Brooks wrote, no one loves him. His favorability ratings in the
US are lower than theyve ever been, and our closest allies, the British, think
he poses a greater danger to world peace than either President Kim
Jong Il of North Korea or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
George W Bush has a problem, and its called Iraq, the country
that just wont go away. There is no satisfying way to solve this problem
either. Withdraw? No good: too humiliating. Stay the course? More dead

520

Americans and more dead Iraqis. Surge? We dont have enough troops, and
we dont have a strategy for using them anyway.
The troops in Iraq are causing trouble, complaining about a lack of
strategy, lack of equipment, lack of clue as to what theyre doing there and
what theyre dying for. Solution: Make our troops disappear from Iraq
by bringing them home.
Tariq Ali opined, none of the scenarios being canvassed in
Washington, including by the Democrats, envisage a total US withdrawal.
That is a defeat too unbearable to contemplate, but the war has already
been lost, together with half a million Iraqi lives. Trying to delay the defeat
(as in Vietnam) by sending a surge of troops is unlikely to work.
Eugene Gholz and Benjamin Calentino were of the view that just as
troops on Iraqi streets have provided a rallying point for the insurgency, the
United States military presence throughout the region has been a key
element in al-Qaedas recruitment campaign and propaganda. If
America withdrew from Iraq but left behind substantial forces in
neighbouring states, al-Qaeda would focus its attacks on American troops in
those countries
Worse, the continued presence of our military personnel across the
region will continue to incite extremists to attack American cities. Osama
bin Laden repeatedly stated that the presence of American forces on the holy
ground of the Arabian Peninsula was a primary reason for 9/11.
Hassan Tehsin opined that Bushs insistence on staying the course is
because of the ultimate aim of the Crusaders which is larger than Iraq. It is
ridiculous to suppose that Israels problems with its neighbours are more
important to the US than its own strategic interests. Israel is no more than a
tool in the US strategic scheme to strike at the Arab countries that
refuse to toe the US line.
In fact, the real motive for the US occupation of the Middle East
is to stop the growing power of Muslims and weaken Arab countries, as
well as putting an end to the increasing trend of people, particularly blacks,
embracing Islam in the US and Western Europe.
The US should understand that it would be very tough to continue the
occupation of Iraq, where tribal and religious interests count a lot. More

521

than two-thirds of Americans are now gradually waking up to the

realities and want the pullout of their soldiers from Iraq because they do not
want their children to die in Iraq and because they do not believe the White
House spin-doctors.
Robert Parry visualized that the first two or three months of 2007
represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle
East, as George W Bush will be tempted to double-down his gamble in
Iraq by joining with Israels Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing
British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence
sources say.
Since the Nov 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have
conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface to have little
purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov 13; Blair visited the White
House on Dec 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec 18.
All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war
broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favour. Bush and Blair
spearheaded the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that has since turned into a
disastrous occupation. In summer 2006, Olmert launched offensives against
Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, drawing international
condemnation
The three leaders also find themselves cornered by political
opponents. Bushs Republican Party lost control of both the House and
Senate on Nov 7; Blair succumbed to pressure from his own Labour Party
and agreed to step down in spring 2007; and Olmert is suffering from
widespread public disgust over the failed Lebanese war.
Yet, despite these reversals, the three leaders have rebuffed advice
from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies
and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries
Instead of heeding Bakers advice to begin a drawdown of US troops from
Iraq and start talks with Iran and Syria, Bush rejected the notion of a
graceful exit and then set unacceptable preconditions for talks with Iran
and Syria.
Though not making much sense as a way to quell the civil strife in
Iraq, a US military buildup could help protect American interests in Iraq if
Israel attacks on Syria and Iran touch off retaliation against US and British

522

targets For Bush, this idea of expanding the war outside Iraq also is
not new. Since spring 2006, Bush reportedly has been weighing military
options for bombing Irans nuclear facilities, but he has encountered
resistance from senior US military officers.

ISRAELI FRONT
Israel aided by its mentors remained committed to ousting Hamas.
On 14th December, Israel blocked Haniyehs entry from Egyptian border,
who was reportedly carrying large sum of cash. The same day, Israeli court
refused to ban targeted killings.
Next day, Hamas accused a strongman in the Fatah Party of
attempting to kill Haniyeh, in which a bodyguard was killed and his son
wounded. Abbas regretted shots fired at the convoy of Haniyeh. Thousands
of Palestinians rallied in support of Hamas and at least 20 people were
injured as police fired at protesters.
On 16th December, Abbas called for early elections. Hamas threatened
to boycott early polls. Next day, residence of Abbas was attacked by Hamas
activists and a young Palestinian was killed in factional fighting in Gaza
Strip after Abbass call for early polls.
Abbas vowed to go ahead with early polls. Russia gave cautious nod.
On 19 December, five Palestinians were killed in factional fighting in Gaza
Strip. Next day, despite the ceasefire agreement, violence flared up and two
men of Fatah were killed; raising the toll in four-day fighting to thirteen.
th

On 24th December, Israeli cabinet released $10 million for Palestine

and Israel mulled release of some Palestinians. Four days later, an Israeli
security official claimed that Egypt has sent weapons to Fatah through
Israeli territory.
Zawahiri asked Palestinians to turn against Mahmoud Abbas. On 3 rd
January 2007, five persons were killed in factional fighting in Gaza. Next
day, Israeli troops killed four Palestinians and wounded 20 as Olmert went to
Sharm el-Sheikh for talks with Mubarak to restore peace process.
On 5th January, Palestinian leaders called for peace amidst factional
clashes. Mubarak-Olmert meeting revealed deep disagreements on various
523

issues. The US was obstructing Israel-Syria peace, alleged Mubarak. Next

day, Abbas declared Hamas force in Gaza illegal. Hamas announced that it
would double its armed force. On 7th January, Fatah supporters held a rally in
Gaza as show of force.
ISG Report had linked the solution of the US problems in Iraq to
settlement of Arab-Israel conflict and involvement of Syria and Iran in the
dialogue process. Patrick Cockburn opined, as for talking with Iran and
Syria or acting on the Israel-Palestinian crisis it is surely impossible for
Mr Bush to retreat so openly from his policies of the past three years,
however disastrous their outcome.
Uri Avnery observed, since 1967 and the beginning of the
occupation, several American Secretaries of State have submitted plans to
end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All these plans met the same fate: they
were torn up and thrown in the trash.
The same sequence of events has been repeated time after time: In
Jerusalem, hysteria sets in. The Foreign Office stands up on its hind legs
and swears to defeat the evil design. The media unanimously condemns the
wicked plot. The Secretary of State of the day is pilloried as an anti-Semite.
The Israeli lobby in Washington mobilizes for total war.
Patrick Seale wrote, neocon camp rejects any notion of linkage
between the savage war in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is
because the one thing it fears is that the US might pressure Israel to
withdraw from the Palestinian occupied territories and from Syrias Golan
Heights in the context of a peace settlement. And yet, the evidence of
linkage between the various Middle Easts conflicts is overwhelming In
recognition of this obvious fact, Baker and his colleagues called for
renewed and sustained commitment (by the United States) to a
comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts. Does the case still need to
be argued?
Bush should heed Bakers advice in order to rescue his
presidency and his own place in history. He should embrace the
comprehensive strategy advocated by the Iraq Study Group. It is the only
way, in the words of the report, to restore Americas standing and credibility
in that part of the world.

524

Christian Parenti was of the view that the ISG Report suggests the
unsuggestable: it may be time to rein in Israel. Its a measure of how
degraded political discourse has become that to even suggest this draws
vicious attack. But facts are facts, and the Baker-Hamilton commission is
correct in assessing that Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation
from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts. To put
it simply, all key issues in the Middle Eastare inextricably linked.
The Crusaders kept Abbas under constant pressure to weaken Hamas.
Manal Alafrangi said: There is little doubt that Abbas is at the receiving
end of major American pressure to weaken the Hamas-led government
and regain some authority within the Palestinian leadership. With the US
Secretary of Staterecently visiting the region, surely it was brought to
Abbass attention that the US backup could be ended if things do not go
according to American and Israeli calculations.
It could be added that Israel also wants to see Hamas removed
from power and they want to see it happen in a horrid way. Their campaign
to isolate the Palestinian territories from the outside world has been
extremely triumphant. For them, everything is going exactly according to
plan.
What is more, the call for early elections is a major setback to the socalled process of democratization in Palestine and in the Arab World. If
anything, the unilateral and unchecked announcement by Abbas is a
direct insult to the Palestinian people, who made the choice to go with
Hamas for power.
Haniyeh is right in pointing out that the pressure from Abbas to
accept the Western conditions made Hamas realize that they do not want
the formation of a national unity government; they want to expel Hamas
from the government Lets take a moment here to see if the removal of
Hamas from power would move things forward for the sake of forming a
Palestinian state. At minimum it should be asked, will it change the fact that
Israel still does not admit that it is an occupier of recognized Palestinian
land?
History shows that long before the Islamist organization entered
politics and engaged in the PNAs decision making process, the Palestinian
government (and people) suffered equally from Israeli injustice as well as
US and European abandonment.
525

They came to power at a time of the breakdown of the peace process,

the expiration of the Oslo framework, the outbreak of the Intifada, and
Israels unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Reducing their role or
ridiculing them by calling for early elections will only result in chaos and
civil unrest and as always, the Palestinian people will be the victims.
Khaleej Times added, President Abbass new bid to resolve the
current crisis by calling for elections at the earliest, too, is hardly going to
bring peace. As expected, Hamas has rejected the call, dubbing it a clever
Fatah move to reverse Hamass heavy January-election victory. If anything,
the presidents gambit will lead to more violence and hence more
insecurity for the common man there.
If their inability to form a national unity government was not
embarrassing enough, the resort to confrontation to settle differences
shows political immaturity of a very high order. Owing to the burden of
command, the first order of business should be to cease fighting, and
convince the people that upholding Palestinian rights against the illegal
Israeli occupation is at the top of the agenda.
In another editorial the newspaper wrote, the world would have
appreciated Israels gesture of releasing Palestinian cash if the $100 million
were really meant for humanitarian purposes. But since its just another
politically motivated move to check Hamas, it amounts to little more
than the old-fashioned financial bait to buy over Fatah. It comes after
increased US-EU pressure on the Israeli establishment to support PA
President Mahmoud Abbas, who is their best bet yet of pushing Hamas off
the board.
It is noted with concern that the Wests and Israels rush to hold
early elections can only be seen as a ploy to increase disharmony within
the Palestinian authority, even the prospect of a civil war. That much is
apparent because not only has the violence of recent days not stopped them
from persisting with this course, but there is also a manner of urgency in
pushing Abbas to lean more heavily on the elections issue.
On a more important note, Israel, the US and the EU seem to have
totally removed from the equation the fact that Hamas came to power
following a legitimate election, which reflected the public mood of bringing
to office a party capable of telling the West how it is in Palestine.
Furthermore, they seem not to consider at all how they would respond if
526

the same people bring the same party to power again. Simple, repeat the
dose till the patient dies.
Manal Alafrangi opined, Abbas never tried to camouflage his
disappointment at losing to the Islamic organization in last Januarys
elections. We have seen his attempts at destroying Hamas intensify within
recent months but especially since US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
visited the region last month.
It is unfortunate that the latest bloody clashes between Hamas and
Fatah members are threatening not only the Palestinian people, but also any
existing plans of ending the Israeli occupation and moving towards the
attainment of independence and Palestinian-hood.
Without any regard for consensus between Palestinian groups, Abbas
ultimately announced his decision to call for early elections, thus proving he
is governed not by the national interest of his people but by pitiful political
calculations and international guidance that comes of from the US, Israel,
and to a much lesser extent, Europe.
The question is; how can Abbas attempt to replace a government he
does not lead or even represent? For a long time now, the Palestinian
National Authority lost its credibility for failing to provide any sort of a way
forward for the Palestinian case, whether it is, addressing Israeli occupation,
resolving the question of Palestinian refugees, ending the expansion of
colonies on Palestinian land, or securing eastern part of the occupied
Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
Why arent we hearing confessions by Abbas regarding his failures as
president, negotiator, and one of the endorsers and authors of the Oslo
Accords? After all, it was Abbas and company who agreed on immense
concessions that have cost the Palestinians irreparable damages. These are
the same people who couldnt even get Israel to admit that it is an occupier.
But theyve criticized Hamas for not recognizing their occupiers.
It is not difficult at present to realize that Fatahs way of dealing with
Israel and its Western allies has unquestionably failed. Keeping that in mind,
Hamas which is accused of failing to govern, deserves a fair chance sans
the economic embargo and internal fighting.

527

What is alarming at this point is the fact that this coup attempt is so
blatant there is no longer need to cover up. It is being done so openly and
arrogantly to the extent that even the Israelis are showing support for
Abbas and his party.
It seems there is a trap being set up for the two Palestinian
factions, with Fatah unsurprisingly succumbing to Israeli and Western
pressure at the expense of the well-being of the Palestinian people and the
stability of the Palestinian territories Unless this crisis is addressed with
maturity and seriousness, the Hamas-Fatah conflict could end up having a
deep impact equal to the one they have with their occupiers and that is
exactly what their enemy wants to see.
Stopping of Haniyehs convoy and subsequent attack were part of the
pressure-game. Arab News wrote, the events at Rafah on the Gaza Strip
border in the past two days where first Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail
Haniyeh was stopped by the Israelis from returning home with $ 35 million
in cash and was then caught up in a blazing gun battle between his own
Hamas forces and those of his rival Fatah are profoundly shocking.
Hamas has effectively thrown down the gauntlet by saying it was an
assassination attempt by Fatah, even claiming that Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas was in part responsible. This is a frightening and
dangerous allegation, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It is
frightening because it indicates the present extent of Hamas hostility to
Fatah and of President Abbas himself and dangerous because it invites
retaliation. The Palestinians are now faced with the reality that their
president is, as a result, potentially more threatened by Hamas than by
the Israelis.
Who benefits? Not the Palestinians. It is the Israelis who will be
delighted who are delighted with the present situation that allows them
to sit on their hands and make no concessions. But what use it is if the world
blames Israel for triggering it all? Palestinians will still be doing their deadly
work for them, killing each other and suffering even more.
Al-Ahram Weekly opined, it is tragedy that at this historical juncture
the Palestinians are engaged in a bitter infighting. The attack on Palestinian
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyehs convoy, which came under fire as he
crossed the border from Egypt to Gaza, was unjustified and totally

528

unacceptable. It was an evil deed designed to exacerbate the tensions and

sow the seeds of hatred and caustic recriminations.
The Palestinian must never forget the hidden hand of outside forces
with dubious agendas. Israel is the only power that could possibly benefit
from the factional fighting of the Palestinians, because fratricide among
the Palestinians irreparably weakens the Palestinian cause.
Israelis, too, in the long run cannot benefit from a divided Palestinian
political establishment. It is in Israels long-term interest to negotiate
with a solid and unified Palestinian political leadership. Perhaps, in the
short-term the Israelis might make much political capital out of the
Palestinian infighting. But that is short-sighted view of events. The Arab
weekly, forgets that because of the Arab Worlds disunity, Israel retains the
ability to convert short-term gains into long-term.
Khaleej Times commented on Blairs talk of peace process. And now
you have Tony Blair coming along to pontificate to the Palestinians to
revive the peace process with the Israelis. What peace process, Mr Blair?
Theres no peace process whatsoever in the Middle East. There hasnt
been one for the past many years. And how incongruous Blair sounds
lecturing on peace to people who have nothing to feed their hungry
children! If the US and Europe are indeed keen to revive the peace process
and Palestine-Israel dialogue, they must first persuade Israel to lift the
economic and political siege of the Palestinian Territories. There can be no
lasting peace in the Middle East as long as Western double standards vis-vis the Palestine-Israel conflict are not dropped.
Israel wants nothing but instability. Christopher Vasillopulos asked,
why would Israel want instability in its region? There are many
reasons. The first is that Israel fears Arab solidarity would lead to systematic
support on behalf of Palestinians, including pressuring Americans, whose
interests in oil turn their domestic political attachments to Israel and their
racist antipathy to Arabs.
The second reason is that Israel requires America to be a hostage to
the Middle East. Every American casualty, in their view, ties America to
Israel in an anti-Arab crusade. The so-called war on terrorism is but political
cover for Israels need for American body bags.

529

The third reason for Israels preference for instability concerns

terrorism. Israel benefits from terrorism, despite the fact that Israelis often
suffer from terrorist attacks. Since 9/11, terrorism has tied the US to Israel so
tightly that it is virtually impossible to separate an Israeli official
pronouncement from a White House declaration.
Indulging in indiscriminate killing sprees is one way to ensure
instability. After yet another incident, Gulf News wrote, one more incursion
into Palestinian territory by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) helps cast
even more doubt on the seriousness of Israels intentions to find peace
What is astonishing is this blatant action was undertaken by a major general
in the IDF, without the prior knowledge or approval of either the Defence
Minister Amir Peretz, or the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
It therefore raises questions as to exactly what authority the army is
given in such tactical and sensitive matters. With relations between Palestine
and Israel being at the centre of many of the disturbances in the Middle East,
it is shocking to realize that the very harmony between the two nations
could rest upon the whims of some hot-head in the IDF.
Olmert went to Egypt, to try keeping President Hosni Mubarak as
much onside as possible, but Mubarak is finding that increasingly more
difficult Olmerts overtures to Mubarak to help in restoring the peace
talks are likely to fall on deaf ears, and rightly so. It will not do any good
to see the Egyptian president cozying up to Israel while Olmert still has
blood on his hands.
Triggering civil wars is one way to keep the region instable. Masha
Lipman observed, the danger now is of a Palestinian civil war, a dire
prospect for a people who have suffered so much already. The weekend call
by President Mahmoud Abbas for new elections came after he failed to form
a unity government. Polls suggest a majority of Palestinians back his choice.
It is clearly in their interests to have a functioning administration that can
deal with their enemy and end the cruel and debilitating siege of Gaza.
But Israels Ehud Olmert sounding unusually dovish in a recent
speech has to be made to understand that Palestinian militancy and
desperation will not disappear until Palestinians have the prospect of a
viable and independent state, not disconnected Bantustans separated by everexpanding Jewish settlements.

530

Ramzy Baroud, however, was optimistic about popular resistance

against all odds. Israeli oppression has crossed the traditional boundaries of
daily murders and small-scale land confiscation. Under the deceptive
disengagement from Gaza smokescreen, West Bank lands are being
vigorously expropriated while Israels Imprisonment Wallis swallowing
up whole towns and villages.
This reality, as history has taught us, is only a prelude to another
popular Palestinian response, which is already echoing in the angry
chants of destitute farmers whose lands are being effectively annexed by the
encroaching Israeli wall.
Regardless of how historians choose to chronicle the Second
Palestinian Uprising, it will always be remembered by most Palestinians, as
well as by people of conscience everywhere, as fight for freedom, human
rights and justice. It will remain a loud reminder that popular resistance is
still an option and one to be reckoned with at that.
In a subsequent article Ramzy Baroud criticized all parties responsible
for miseries suffered by the Palestinians. Its all too convenient for the BBC
website to describe the ongoing bloodshed between Hamas and Fatah
supporters in the Gaza Strip as inter-factional rivalry and its equally fitting
for the Washington Post to narrate the same unfortunate events which have
left many Palestinians dead and wounded as if they are entirely detached
from their adjoining regional and international milieus.
Also puzzling are calls made by leading moderate Arab leaders to
fighting Palestinian factions to convene in this Arab capital or that to settle
their differences and to achieve an increasingly elusive ceasefire, as if they,
the Arabs who cowed down to US pressure to ensure the success of the
debilitating sanctions imposed against the democratic Palestinian
governments havent contributed, actively and knowingly to the
unfolding crisis in Palestine.
This is all but atypical, where Palestinians will be gently or harshly
reprimanded for failing to sort out their differences in a more civilized
manner, where they will be taught a lesson or two by some self-righteous
American commentators about the true meaning of democracy, where they
will be reminded that they are their own worst enemies and that they never
miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Nonsense.

531

What is taking place in the Occupied Territories, particularly in Gaza

Strip has much less to do with inter-factional rivalries and a lot more
with regional and international power plays, in which some foolhardy
Palestinians decided to involve themselves for the sake of maintaining
personal and factional gains.
Those who might find it justifiable to oust a theocratic regime by
any means necessary, even by an assassins bullet, fail to realize that despite
Hamas religious posture, it has done very little so far to divert from the
dictates of democracy, they seem more keen on adhering to the secular
Palestinian Constitution than Abbas himself.
Indeed, this is not a war between religious zealots and democratic
secularists; far from it. However, its a battle of many meanings, each
tailored and defined to suit the interests and manage the concerns of the
many parties involved, and indeed, they are not all Palestinians.
Hamas did not come to power on the back of American tank, like
more or less the pro-Washington regime in Iraq, or via an Israeli sanctioned
and armed political system of corruption and elitism, like the one concocted
following the signing of Oslo in 1993. It is neither imposed nor
manipulated its way to power. It was the outcome of an overwhelming
democratic process, ironically enough, a part of Americas democratic drive
in the Middle East
The Bush Administration, which immediately toned down its
democracy rhetoric following the Palestinian elections, was hell-bent on
toppling Hamas. Although for Israel no matter who is at the Palestinian
helm, Israel can never admit to having a trustworthy peace partner.
The Israelis seemed to be enjoying and had actively exploited
Palestinian chaos for it represented a historical opportunity to consume
Palestinians in endless internal strife, and even better, a civil war. And as the
Arabs followed Washingtons orders and as the Europeans waited for further
instructions, Palestinians fell into the trap, turning one of the shining
moments for democracy in the region, to one of extreme irony, agony
and possible defeat.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah is the enemy of Israel like Hamas in
Palestine. But the responsibility of tackling Hezbollah has been delegated to

532

the Crusaders and accepted gleefully. Siniora has been consistently pressed
to act against Hezbollah.
Mindful of his limitations, Siniora sought Russian help on 15 th
December to defuse crisis in his country. The same day, EU warned Iran and
Syria to adopt responsible stance. Two days later, Olmert rejected Assads
call for talks and instead planned to step up building settlements in Golan
Heights. Arab League failed to strike deal on Lebanon crisis.
These very descriptions citing one external backer or another as a
mark of political identification illustrate the fundamental problem Lebanon
must overcome, opined Robert Grenier. Call it the Lebanese Disease:
rather than sorting out their differences internally and addressing the
fundamental injustices at the heart of their disputes, the Lebanese
constantly look to outsiders to gain an advantage over their rivals.
Only the Lebanese can cure themselves of this disease, but a bit
enlightened self-interest on the part of the Western-backers primarily the
United States and France would greatly help. It may seem counterintuitive, but the best hope for American interests in the Middle East is
not to isolate and minimize Hezbollah, but to further integrate it
politically, socially and militarily into the Lebanese state.
As Hezbollah becomes more enmeshed in Lebanese politics,
however, domestic political considerations will become increasingly
influential in its calculations a tendency that should be encouraged.
Indeed, the closing stages of last summers war provided a fleeting
opportunity for the Beirut government to gain a greater measure of state
control over Hezbollah.
It has long been obvious that the Shiites are under-represented in
Lebanons complicated power-sharing arrangements. In return for a
greater measure of political representation for Shiites, Mr Siniora could have
insisted that Hezbollahs militia be brought under some sort of state control
perhaps as a sort of home guard for the south, with its fighters under the
command of senior officers drawn from the Lebanese armed forces.
This sort of overarching agreement would not have been easy to
reach, and it would be nave to suppose that somehow the Hezbollah
leadership would allow itself to be totally stripped of control of its militia
overnight. But its involvement in Lebanese politics since the summer has

533

already brought discernable changes in Hezbollahs attitude and behaviour.

Its leaders understand that if they want to influence the policies of the state,
they will have to accommodate the interests of other religious groups and
political factions.
Matien Khalid wrote, the confrontation in Beirut, branded coup
detat by Siniora and the widow of an assassinated Maronite Christian
President, has taken Lebanon to the precipice of civil war. The fragile
sectarian equation, the traditional warlord politics of money and patronage
dominated by clans like the Gemayels/Jumblatts and Sinioras technocratic,
pro-West elected government, all seem doomed.
Hezbollahs blood feud with Israel, its umbilical cord to Irans
theocratic elite in Qom, its formidable arsenal of missiles and its militant
anti-Zionist, anti-American ideology will define the destiny of Lebanon.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Conference on the Holocaust was wrapped up on 12 th December with
participants claiming that mass slaughter of six million Jews in World War II
did not happen. Ahmadinejad predicted that Israel would disappear like the
USSR. Next day, Iran said Olmerts confession about possession of nuclear
weapons is real threat to stability in the Middle East.
On 16th December, Ahmadinejad emerged stronger after municipal
councils vote. Iran offered nuclear technology to Arab states. A week later,
UNSC imposed sanctions on Iran. Israel called for further action and Tehran
vowed not to halt nuclear programme.
On 24th December, after the imposition of sanctions, Iran vowed to
install 3,000 more centrifuges. Three days later, Irans parliament adopted a
bill to review ties with IAEA. During first week of January, it was reported
that Israel was planning to strike nuclear installations of Iran; Tehran vowed
to retaliate.
Japan Times commented on Holocaust conference held in Tehran.
What connects Irans nuclear ambitions and Holocaust denial? With equal
fervour, Irans president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defends his countrys
right to develop its nuclear capacity and challenges decades of Holocaust

534

research. How should Ahmadinejads denial that Iran intends to pursue

nuclear arms be judged in light of his Holocaust denial?
Ahmadinejad feels the power that comes with re-writing history. He
enjoys taunting the West with the past that he denies. He understands the
temptation of evil, the lure of the forgetfulness. Above all, he is a practical
man. It does Ahmadinejad no good for Europe to maintain a sense of
history that must put it at cross purpose with Iran.
Ahmadinejads purpose is simple: find the weak spots in the chain
that links Europe to its past and, through this past, to Israel and America.
Europes choice is equally clear: to accept absolution for this past from the
president of Iran, or to determine whether the standard of truth that he
applies to history is the same as he applies to nuclear weapons.
The Guardian criticized Bushs messenger. Tony Blair waited until
the final stop of his Middle East trip to deliver his big message about the
state of the region. He declared in Dubai that Iran was at the heart of a
monumental struggle between the forces of moderation and the forces
of extremism.
Many of the prime ministers critics think he has done quite enough
damage in the Middle East already, should now concentrate on limiting
that, and have the humility to stop making sweeping pronouncements that
might do even more. His thesis subsumes too many discrete issues under one
roof, portraying a clash not of civilizations but of ideologies.
The problem with blaming Iran for all the ills of the Middle East
is the same problem as blaming the Soviet Union and its satellites for every
cold war conflict. Moscow supported the ANC in its struggle against
apartheid. East Germanys Stari trained PLO men. Cuba backed left-wing
guerrilla groups in Latin America.
Mr Blairs thesis also ignored the fact that the nervous Sunni
kingdoms and republics he wants to form an alliance of moderation are
hardly beacons of moderation themselves If the US and Britain
understood in the frozen depths of the Cold War that they had to talk to their
Soviet enemy, surely Iran is too serious a player in todays Middle East
to be addressed solely through the rhetoric of confrontation?

535

The Washington Post commented on Russias role in the context of

sanctions against Iran. The administration has spent nearly four months
seeking Russian consent for the initial measure, yielding again and again to
Moscows intransigence Meanwhile, the administration agreed to support
membership in the World Trade Organization for Russia, a concession
Moscow made clear was necessary to obtain its vote.
Having surrendered on almost every point, European ambassadors
announced that the Security Council would vote yesterday The result of
this cynical policy is that any UN resolution against Iran will be a
pyrrhic victory for the United States. The message to Tehran is not that it
faces isolation or economic ruin if it fails to respect the Security Councils
order; it is that it need not fear sanctions.
The Hindu opined, just as there is no such thing as being a little
pregnant, there is, in the high-stakes game of coercive diplomacy the
United States is playing with Iran, no such thing as mild sanctions. It is
true that Russia and China worked hard to water down some of the punitive
provisions of Resolution 1737, passed unanimously by the UN Security
Council on Saturday. Nevertheless, the first set of sanctions imposed a ban
on the sale of enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water-related equipment
and technology, as well as the freezing of assets of select Iranian entities and
scientists is enough to set the Iranian crisis firmly on the path of further
escalation.
The initial indication from most European capitals was that this
might be an acceptable compromise but Washington leaned on its allies to
reject what was a sensible way out of the current impasse. In opting for the
logic of calibrated confrontation built into UNSC 1737, the Bush
Administration hopes to push Tehran into taking a drastic retaliatory
step such as ending cooperation with routine IAEA inspections or perhaps
even withdrawing from the NPT. This, in turn, would provide the US an
excuse to demand tougher sanctions based on its own timetable.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan wrote, the UN Security Council has finally
adopted a considerably diluted resolution setting out non-military
sanctions to curb Irans nuclear and ballistic missiles programme. A US-led
group of nations will seek satisfaction in the possibility of harsher sanctions
in future.

536

Iran must intensify the initiatives of Mohammad Khatami, a former

Iranian president, to reassure all its neighbours that it seeks cooperation and
not confrontation. The neighbours should also carry conviction in Tehran
that they are not a part of the siege planned by the US Isolating Iran
would tilt Irans internal politics in favour of its hard-line factions. The
entire region has a tryst with the 21 st century but it can keep it only by
creating a more harmonious climate of inter-state relations.
Azmi Bishara saw the possibility of military confrontation. One can
rub ones eyes in disbelief upon reading a commentary in Haaretzarguing
in favour of an Israeli alliance with moderate Sunni regimes or moderate
secular dictatorships against Islamic democracy, which would mobilize an
Islamist grassroots movements hostile to Israel, and against the Iranian Shia
axis. Shlomo believes that confrontation with Iran is inevitable.
However, rather than putting all other issues on hold and focusing
solely on Iran, Israel should use the present time to neutralize the Arab
World, and the obvious means towards this end is to defuse the Arab-Israeli
conflict and, thereby, drive Iran of one of its major instruments for
mobilizing support. Accordingly, he urges, Israel should strive to reach a
settlement with the Arabs
Linda S Heard opined, American and Israeli machinations have once
more put this region under threat. Following months of barking from Bolton
the bulldog the United Nations Security Council has unanimously passed a
resolution designed to slow the Iranian nuclear programme Moscow
held out the longest and only caved in after a call made by George W Bush
to the Russian President Valdimir Putin. One is driven to wonder about other
topics discussed: Russias proposed WTO membership, perhaps?
In the meantime, Britains Tony Blair has become an expert flipflopper. Just a few weeks ago he was advocating unconditional direct talks
with Iran then he went to Washington where he was assigned a new
message: Iran is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East by supporting
terrorists in Iraq, attempting to oust Lebanons democratically-elected
government, and denying the Holocaust.
In the meantime, the US and Britain are moving warships to the Gulf
to join the aircraft carrier Eisenhower and the US is set to send more troops
to neighbouring Iraq This is naked aggression with the possibility of a
disastrous outcome yet another all-out war.
537

Right-wing Israeli elements that view Tehran as an existential

threat have been pushing for a preemptive strike on Irans nuclear
facilities for some time, warning that if the US doesnt move Israel might do
this job itself. The US Vice President Dick Cheney has made similar
warning noises in the past.
Israeli and right-wing American spokespeople are working the wipe
Israel off the map statement as hard as they can as evidence that Israel is
seriously menaced. Its ironic that while Iran does not possess that kind of
capability Israel does and showed its willingness to use it in 1973 and
when the country was on nuclear alert.

CONCLUSION
It seems that the Iraq Study Group wanted exactly that which Bush
did in response to their study. This group was headed by the acquaintance of
Papa Bush who must have known the Baby Bush well. The Commission
should have also known that if one wants a donkey to move forward then
one must push it backward and similarly if backward movement is intended
then it has to be pulled forward.
Newton must have also invented one of his laws of motion on this
observation of donkeys habit. Republican donkey should be no exception.
Having read this ground reality correctly, the commission talked of
withdrawal which was enough for the donkey to go for the surge. The trick
worked; the reaction was equal and opposite.
Both Palestine and Hezbollah have been successfully brought on the
verge of civil war. In the case of former, Hamas and Fatah are dangerously
poised to get on to each others throat. However, in the case of latter,
presently calm prevails on the surface, but the situation has the potential to
explode any time.
As regards Iran, it appears from the impatience shown by Bush that he
feels running short of time for applying military option against Islamic
regime. The restraint shown by him is because he cannot strike Iran
without first crushing the Shiite militias in Iraq.
8th January 2007

538

GOTM AND LYNCHEDM

In second half of December, Saddam in a letter to Iraqi people said
that he would go to the gallows as a sacrifice and he called on them to
unite against their enemies. I sacrifice myself. If God wills it, He will place
me among the true men and martyrs.
On 29th December, a lawyer for Saddam told AFP that he believed that
Saddam would be executed on 30 th December; US officials denied. White
House said: This is an issue for the Iraqi government. We are observers to
this process. Mushahid Hussain warned that Saddams execution would
aggravate the situation in Iraq.
Saddam was executed in early hours of Eid day. Members of a small
group of dignitaries who formally witnessed the execution said Saddam
showed no sign of remorse in the final moments before being hanged. He
refused to wear hood over his head before the noose was wrapped around his
neck by the executioners. Saddams last words were: I hope you will be
united, and I warn you not to trust the Iranian coalition.
He was holding a copy of Quraan in his hands that he wanted to have
sent to a man called Bander. National Security Adviser, Rubaie said he did
not know who Bander was. Rubaie also said that the death came rapidly. It
went like a blink of an eye. He died very, very quickly. It couldnt have been
quicker. He added, this was a 100 percent Iraqi process. There were only
Iraqis present; no foreigners. The Americans were not present at the
execution.
Iraqs death penalty was suspended by the US military after it toppled
Saddam in 2003, but the new Iraqi government reinstated it two years later,
saying executions would deter criminals. A man whose testimony led to
Saddams conviction and execution said he was shown the body because
everybody wanted to make sure that he was really executed.
Saddams dead body was flown to his hometown of Tikrit in a US
helicopter. His daughters said, they were very proud as they saw their father
facing his executioners so bravely, standing up. Sunnis in Tikrit lamented
his death. Baath Party urged revenge. Shiites in Sadr City danced in the
streets and fired guns in celebration.

539

Bush said Saddam received a fair trial the kind of justice he denied
the victims of his brutal regime. It is an important milestone on Iraqs
course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself,
and be an ally in the war on terror. Britains Beckett said Saddam has been
held to account for at least some of the appalling crimes he committed
against the Iraqi people.
Germany said dealing with crimes committed under an earlier regime
is an important contribution to reconciliation and a national dialogue in
Iraq. Polish spokesman said, this should serve as warning to all those who
would like to follow in Saddam Husseins footsteps. French foreign minister
simply took note of the execution. Vatican termed it tragic. Putin
expressed regret that international opposition to the execution was ignored.
Libya declared three days of national mourning. A Syrian legislator
said, what Saddam has perpetrated is no different from what is currently
being perpetrated in Iraq. Saudi Arabian TV said, there is a feeling of
surprise and disapproval that the verdict has been applied during the holy
months and the first days of Eid al-Azha. OIC appealed to the Iraqi people
to stay calm.
Irans deputy foreign minister said, Saddams crimes in the eight-year
war against Iran, such as chemical bombardments, remained unanswered
because of the hasty and unfair trial. Kuwait welcomed the execution. Israel
hailed the execution. An Israeli minister said, to each dog comes his day.
Shaukat Aziz termed execution very sad incident. Foreign Office,
Shujaat, PPP, and Qazi criticized hanging. PML-N said the execution
exposed US terrorism. In India, Muslim and communist groups held angry
protests. Karzai said, Eid is a day for happiness and reconciliation. It is not
a day for revenge.
International Federation of Human Rights said, one explanation is
that the United States, which pulled all the strings in this process, preferred
to see him tried for a purely Iraqi crime, rather than seeing all the
international links from which he benefited played out in court.
Saddam was laid to rest quietly in his home village of Awja on 31 st
January. One of the mourners said, the path of Arab nationalism must
inevitably be paved with blood. Um Abdullah, a Sunni teacher said, I have
five kids and I will teach them to take revenge on Americans.

540

Images of execution captured on a cell phone appeared on internet.

One voice said, the tyrant has fallen, damn him. Another voice was heard
shouting Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada. A witness said, you have destroyed
us. You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution. Saddam
answered, I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your
enemies, the Persians and Americans.
Iraqi government ordered tracking down of those who filmed
Saddams hanging on cell phones which made execution look like a
sectarian lynching rather than court-directed punishment as Shia guards
shouted Moqtada, Moqtada.
Rauf Klasra reported, British media says four tubby, short and
masked executioners of Saddam Hussein, dressed in leather jackets, were
looking more like al-Qaeda killers. Even though Saddam had shrunk in
stature since the days of his pomp, he towered over them, wrote The Time.
Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, had signed the death
warrant before going to celebrate his sons wedding and the presidential
council had endorsed it. The America jailers who had custody of Saddam
were ordered to surrender him to the Iraqi government. They offered him
tranquilizers but Saddam refused.
One of the guards present asked Saddam Hussein whether he was
afraid of dying. Saddam said, Why would I? I spent my whole life fighting
the infidels and the intruders. In reply to another guard, he said: This is my
end. I started my life as a fighter and as a political militant. So death does
not frighten me.
Gilani led an anti-US protest rally in Srinagar after Eid prayer. Protest
rallies were also held in NWFP over execution of Saddam. UN urged
Baghdad not to hand aides of Saddam. On 4th January, execution of two of
Saddam aides was postponed. Investigators arrested two guards for filming
Saddams execution.
Mubarak said the execution of Saddam was shameful, unthinkable and
turned out the ex-dictator into a martyr. No one will ever forget the
circumstances and the way in which Saddam was executed. They turned him
into a martyr, and the problems in Iraq remained.

541

Even before they carried out the hanging, I conveyed a message to

President Bush. I am asking, I said, that if this is what is going to take place
soon, dont do it at this date. Why did they have to hurry? Why hang him
when people are reciting their holiday prayers? And then they publish
horrific images, primitive photos.
Blairs silence over Saddam execution dismayed the Brits. But, Pakis
were indifferent to Musharrafs silence. In Iraq, thirty people were injured
on 5th January in protest rallies against execution of Saddam. Next day, the
puppet government threatened to review diplomatic ties over criticism of
execution of Saddam which is its internal matter. On 7 th January, Blairs
office said prime minister believed the manner in which Saddam was
executed was completely wrong.
Saddams half-brother and ex intelligence chief, Barzan, and former
judge Awad Hamed al-Bander were executed on 15th January. Barzans head
was chopped by the rope. Normally hangmen ensure that enough force is not
created on the rope to sever the head. Government adviser Bassam alHusseini said the damage to the body was an act of God. A defence lawyer
termed it shameful.

TRIAL
Since the start of proceedings, a lot has been said by the analysts
covering all aspects of the trial. But even while commenting on the
execution, the analysts could not ignore recalling the manner in which the
trial was held. Most of them talked about the motive of the trial.
The Independent raised few questions about the motive. Did other
factors influence Mr Bush? Was he seeking revenge against the guy who
tried to kill my dad a reference an alleged plot to kill the presidents
father during a visit to Kuwait in 1993 or was there a broader strategic
rationale
Deccan Herald answered the question. The end was implicit in the
beginning. A secret memo entitled Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq was on his
table. Predetermination, then, has been the ongoing theme of the events that
led up to the execution. Regime change was no more than a euphemism

542

for political vengeance and the assassination of a man who tried to kill my
dad.
Abdallah El-Ashaal talked of short-term political motive. Putting
Saddam in trial was good in a way. For one thing, it showed Arab leaders
that the Americans can turn against anyone regardless of how much that
person had been dedicated to them. But in the US, the sentencing of
Saddam did little to revive the political fortunes of the Republicans.
The US used Saddam for years. And it is squeezing the last benefits it
can get from the former dictator. What scares me is that Washington may be
contemplating another adventure in Iraq, one in which Saddam would be
freed and allowed to become part of the countrys political life. The only
thing that makes such scenario out of the question is that Iraq has changed
beyond recognition Washington used Saddam because he was a
dictator with all the myopia and misjudgment this term implies.
M J Akbar opined, there is a great deal hidden in Saddams grave.
Was this one reason why he was denied a trial at the International Court of
Justice in The Hague, a privilege granted to the Serbian butcher Slobodan
Milosevic? Saddam and his lawyers would surely have had the freedom to
assert a wider argument at The Hague, in a court devoid of kangaroos. That
kangaroo court in Baghdad is now an indelible America-inflicted scar across
the face of the Middle East.
It is not the defeat of Saddam, or his death, that has driven Iraq into
chaos. It is a myth that Iraq needs despotism to keep it united The present
havoc is a direct consequence of occupation, an inevitable insurrection
against foreign troops on Iraqi soil, and a polity fractured by ethnic interests.
The full account of this malfeasance will be written, but only after the
occupation is over in a few years.
Robert Dreyfuss, however, felt that some secrets will never be known.
Not a single journalist interviewed Saddam. As far as we know, he wrote a
memoir in prison. The countless secrets that he had, about thirty-five years
of his leadership, he was taken to the grave. Decades of history have been
lost, irrecoverably. Perhaps one of the reasons for the hurried rush to the
gallows, even before a series of other staged, show trials could be arranged,
was to make guarantee that Saddams secrets never see the light of the
day.

543

Ray Hanania observed that there is an underlying message in the

dictate of the American-controlled court ruling that the Arab and Islamic
worlds should carefully examine. It is a simple and dangerous message. If
the United States can murder the leader of another nation, regardless of how
unpopular he might have been, the reality is that the United States can, at
any time, invade any of the other Arab and Muslim countries, too. And they
can murder the individuals they accuse of crimes without ever prosecuting
those fabricated or exaggerated accusations in a court of law.
If Bush can murder Saddam, then he has the power to
assassinate the leader of any nation, a practice that was abandoned years
ago and only revived under this administration. Remember, past American
governments have lied to start other wars, including Vietnam with Gulf of
Tonkin incident.
They engaged and conspired in the murder of democratically elected
leaders including in Iran where they backed the Shah of Iran and organized a
coup to replace a democratically elected leader who was critical of American
foreign policy. The American-anointed Shah went on to become one of the
most ruthless murderers of our time, killing, imprisoning and torturing
thousands of Iranian civilians, all while the United States looked the other
way.
Shehzad Ahmed Mir from Islamabad wrote, somehow I could not
help imagining George Bushs face in place of Saddams as he was being
taken to the gallows. Saddam was a dictator who some believe was placed
by the Americans themselves to counter Irans growing influenceand
when he turned those teeth against his masters after the invasion of
Kuwait, he was conveniently disposed off, being projected as a monster.
And then came quick and callous hanging.
Brig Farooq Hameed Khan from Lahore noted: The US loves to
support dictators when it needs them the most but ruthlessly dumps them
when its interests have been served. Saddam was once their man but got no
credit for his allegiance when he had outlived his utility for the US.
Zulfiqar Ahmad from Chitral explained as to why it was done. This is
an act of terror by people hungry for the oil in Iraq. The puppet government
of Iraq did this. It shouldnt be recognized by any country. The execution of
Saddam without a fair trial, and that too on the day of Eidul Azha, is meant

544

to be a lesson to all those standing up against the superpowers, that this

will be their end.
Iqbal Unus from Islamabad opined that Saddam was sentenced for
crimes against humanity for allegedly ordering the killing of 148 Shiites,
although it is also alleged that he was responsible for killing scores of
Sunnis and Kurds too. Singling out a case of 148 Shiites most probably was
done to promote a hidden agenda of the occupiers for sectarian strife.
Praful Bidwai observed, President Bush welcomed Husseins hanging
as an important milestone on Iraqs course to becoming a democracy. This
will convince large numbers of people throughout the world not just
Muslims that the US was complicit in the processes that led to the
hanging Three considerations seem to have motivated Washington to
be complicit in Husseins elimination. The first was to prevent Husseins
possible emergence as a power-centre and consummate regime change.
A second consideration is to do with exit plans being discussed in
Washington in the light of the Baker-Hamilton report. Iraqs partition on
ethnic lines is no longer excluded. A deepening of the Shia-Sunni rift caused
by Husseins hanging could promote this option.
A third consideration may be even more pernicious: to humiliate the
USs enemies. When Henry Kissinger was asked why he supported the Iraq
War, he replied: Because Afghanistan wasnt enough. In the conflict with
radical Islam, precipitated by 9/11, he said, they want to humiliate us. And
we need to humiliate them. Many American policymakers share this view.
They wanted to create a demonstration model out of Hussein to show that
America will destroy anyone with the termity to flout its authority.
Editorial Board of the News commented, the most fundamental
political motive of the Bush Administration is its desire to kill a major
opponent, openly, before the eyes of the world, simply to demonstrate its
ability and will to do so. In the view of the White House, Saddam is an
abject lesson to any future opponent of American imperialism: defy the will
of Washington, and his bloody fate could be yours.
The execution also provides the Bush Administration with an
event it can claim as proof of US success in Iraq, a diversion from the
grisly daily toll of Iraqi and American deaths. The media coverage of the
execution has largely overshadowed reports on the death toll among US

545

soldiers, which hit 100 in December and will likely top the 3,000 mark for
the war as a whole before the month is out.
The state killing is intended to give at least a short-term political
boost to the beleaguered regime of al-Maliki, which is increasingly
unpopular and unstable. The Bush Administration has been pressing alMaliki to break with the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of his
principle allies, and endorse a US-led military crackdown on the Mahdi
Army, the Shiite militia loyal to al-Sadr.
Executing Saddam provides a means for Maliki to burnish his
credentials with the Shiite majority, who suffered most from Husseins
rule, while going ahead with plans for intensified violence against the
predominantly working class eastern suburbs of Baghdad (Sadr City), a
centre of Shiite opposition to the US occupation.
Another important political consideration is that the execution of
Hussein brings the legal proceedings against the former Iraqi leader to
an end before any detailed examination of those crimes in which successive
US governments played a major role. The case of the execution of 148 Shiite
men at Dujail in 1982 was selected to be tried first because the victims were
linked to Dawa, the party of Maliki and the preceding US-backed prime
minister, Ibrahim Jafari, and because there was no direct US involvement.
With such sinister motives, to expect the trial to be fair was asking for
moon. With predetermined punishment and timing of the execution, the trial
had to be mockery of justice. Abdallah El-Ashaal wrote, Washington
has turned Saddams trial to a pathetic piece of theatrics. The US chief of
intelligence, the secretary of state, and the secretary of defence all visited
Baghdad recently to make sure that Saddam would be sentenced in time for
the midterm elections.
Editorial Board of the News also observed, rather than a tribunal
modeled on Nuremberg, where the surviving Nazi leaders received far more
extensive due process rights than were accorded Hussein, the proceedings
in Baghdad resembled a Stalinist or Nazi show trial with a puppet judge,
a predetermined verdict and a sentence carried out in the dead of the night.
Palvasha von Hassell wrote: Why did the US decide to let a panel of
Iraqi judges from its close Iraqi allies who would be most likely to assume
guilt instead of trying to prove it, try Saddam? There are many answers to

546

this question. An internationally-led tribunal would not have permitted

the death penalty, which is what the American-led coalition had decided
was to be Saddams fate.
Another reason is the USs distaste for international institutions like
the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction it has always avoided.
Last but certainly not least, the Anfal trial in which the charge against
Saddam of having used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 wont
be taking place now after all.
A man accused of international crimes is falsely tried under
inadequate state law and thrown to his enemies, who are encouraged to
revenge themselves in a kind of lynch justice which was, after all,
popular in America not so long ago. It is a sign of the corrupting, not
civilizing influence that western powers can have.
A man whose many contributions to his country are completely
overlooked in favour of the crimes he is supposed to have committed, to turn
him and his family into near-animals in the public mind. How many times
have we heard Bush & Co piously repeating how many of his people
Saddam is said to have killed? And is the number of Iraqis needlessly
killed by their illegal war in Iraq not possibly as high?
Shafqat Mahmood opined, the powerful can get away with
everything including murder. The American electorate may express its
disapproval of Bush in the midterm elections. But he still has no fear of
being tried in a court of law for the death of hundreds of thousands of people
in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Somalia.
Both Saddam and Milosevic were bad people, involved in many
atrocities but they ended up in court rooms not because of their crimes.
Their real fault was that they lost wars and it is only the defeated that
are held to account. This is what history tells us. The powerful can unleash
terrible devastation, indeed kill and maim millions but no one can touch
them.
Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were responsible for horror after
horror in Vietnam War. No one knows for sure but almost three million
Vietnamese and Cambodians and Laotians were killed directly or
indirectly by the Americans and their allies. Yet these Americans
presidents died peacefully in their beds.

547

Some conscientious people like Bertrand Russel set up peoples

tribunals to indict them for their crimes but it made no difference to Mr
Johnson or Mr Nixon. They all got state funerals. Among the living Henry
Kissinger, the arch culprit for many American atrocities and interventions is
alive and kicking. Indeed, in a travesty of travesties, he was asked to speak
at that peaceful man Gerald Fords funeral. This was a sad way to honour his
memory. Shafqat would have found Ford no different from Johnson and
Nixon had he remembered East Timor.
Dr Irfan Zafar wrote, with the execution of Saddam, surely justice
has prevailed. However, what about the people who actually made these
chemical weapons for military purposes and the ones who gave them to
the Iraqi dictator to use them on his own people. Will their prosecution and
execution follow? It surely will be a test of international justice if it exists.
Robert Fisk said: History will record that the Arabs and other
Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question
that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the
narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers what
about the other guilty men?
In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001
we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalized and killed the
innocent we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddams
shame at Abu Ghraib and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible
crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.
Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the
greatest war crime he has committed to the deaths of a million and a half
souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with
which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did.
And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted
uranium shells and our bunker buster bombs and our phosphorous, the
murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of
anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of victory
our mission accomplished who will be found guilty of this?
Azam Khalil said: There can be no two opinions about the brutality
of his regime, but the method employed to kill him also cannot be
condoned. To begin with the trial of the former dictator was seriously

548

flawed and instead of a due process of law the executive issued orders and
the judge was dictated on a day-to-day basis.

EXECUTION
Three aspects of the execution were widely commented upon, i.e. the
haste, the timing and the manner. Gwynne Dyer opined, it was not the Iraqi
government but its American masters that chose to execute Saddam Hussein
in a great rush as soon as the first sentence was confirmed, thus
canceling all the other trials on far graver charges that awaited him. The
current Iraqi government had nothing to hide if those trials went ahead; the
United States government did.
Fair enough; and the trial for the gassing of the Kurds actually got
started a couple of months ago. Other trials, for his savage repression of the
Kurdish revolt in 1988 and the Shiite revolt in 1991, were already scheduled
to happen in the New Year. But none of that came to pass.
With all of Husseins other crimes to choose from, why on earth
would you hang him for executing the people suspected of involvement in
Dujail plot; because the United States was not involved in that one. It was
involved in the massacre of the Iraqi communists (the CIA gave Hussein its
membership lists). It was implicated up to its ears in Husseins war
against Iranseconding US Air Force photo interpreters to Baghdad to
draw Hussein the detailed maps of Iranian trenches that let him drench them
in poison gas.
Its as if they had taken Adolf Hitler alive in 1945, but ignored his
responsibility for starting World War II and his murder of six million Jews
and just put him on trial for executing people suspected of involvement in
the July 1944 bomb plot.
The Guardian expressed similar views. Their anger will be added to
by Kurdish distress at being cheated of their time in court. The execution
was hurried through after a trial for anti-Shia crimes but before the
gassing of Kurds had even reached trial For all the talk of Iraqi
sovereignty, the former leader was tried by a special tribunal shaped by
western forces, and was kept by the US until the final hours before his
hanging.

549

Ray Hanania opined that the reason they want to rush to execute
Saddam is so that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney can protect themselves,
hoping that the death of an unpopular dictator the US helped arm and train
might disappear after they leave office.
Editorial Board of the News wrote: The execution of former Iraqi
president Saddam Hussain serves not justice, but the political purposes of
the Bush Administration and its Iraqi stooges. The manner in which the
execution was carried out hurriedly, secretively, in the dark of night,
in a mockery of any semblance of legal process only underscores the
lawless and reactionary character of the entire American enterprise in Iraq.
There were continual communications back and forth between the
government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which nominally controlled
the judicial proceedings, and the American military authorities who had
physical control of the prisoner and delivered him to the execution site in the
US-controlled Green Zone.
It was signaled by al-Maliki himself after a special tribunal
pronounced the death sentence on November 5, when the Iraqi prime
minister declared that Hussein would be executed before the New Year. In
rush to impose the penalty on that timeline, Iraqi officials ignored both
elementary principles of judicial fairness and even their own constitution,
which requires confirmation of death sentence by the current president, Jalal
Talabani.
About the timing of the execution the News wrote: We wanted him
to be executed on a special day, the dawn of Eid-ul-Adha, Prime Minister
Nouri al-Malikis national security adviser Mouwaffiq al-Rubaie told staterun television Mr al-Rubaie made another contestable statement:
Saddams execution was one hundred percent Iraqi and the American side
did not interfere. However, it is an American judge who late Friday rejected
a last-minute appeal by the lawyers of Saddam Hussein, who had been in US
custody almost to the end.
I A Rehman opined, the hangmen knew what they were doing
because newspapers reports from Baghdad before the hanging did allude to
the possibility of the hanging being put off till after the Eid-ul-Azha. There
were also reports that Saddams execution on Eid day was considered by
some depraved minds as a festival gift.

550

Arab News observed, many on the so-called Arab Street are

wondering why the butcher of Baghdad had to be hanged on the
morning of Eid al-Adha Hours after Saddams corpse was removed from
its swinging rope, Iraqi MP Adnan Pachachi a man who admits that he is
against the death penalty expressed similar sentiment. Why, he asked. Why
on a day honouring sacrifice and concern for fellow man did such an
execution have to take place?
Shakir Lakhani from Karachi wrote, by executing Saddam Hussein,
Bush has proved that he is a bigger barbarian than the late president of Iraq
as well as those whom he accuses of being terrorists. It really made me sick
to see Muslims celebrating when a sick, helpless man was hanged on one
of the holiest days in the Islamic calendar.
Brig Farooq Hameed Khan from Lahore opined that the West has
shown gross disregard of Muslim sensitivities by arranging Saddams
hanging on a major Islamic festival. If a western leader were to meet a
similar fate on Christmas day, the Wests reaction can be well imagined.
Fahad Zafar from Saudi Arabia wrote, what happened on the morning
of Eidul Azha in Baghdad was disgusting This was total insensitivity
towards the feelings of millions of Muslims all over the world. I wonder
if Bush and Blair made any last minute checks of Saddams pocket for
WMDs, before he was led to the gallows.
Rahimullah Yusufzai opined, hanging Saddam on a day of rejoicing
when the majority of Muslims, particularly in the Arab World, were
celebrating Eidul Azha was a provocation that could have been easily
avoided. The very timing of the execution alienated many Muslims and
even those who had no sympathy for the fallen Iraqi leader started sharing
the pain that his family and supporters felt on account of the ghastly way in
which his life was taken. It was like pushing all of them into Saddams
camp.
Those aware of Muslim traditions are aware that certain things arent
done on such auspicious occasions. More importantly, it reminded mostly
devout Muslims of their helplessness in the face of American power. One
found ordinary people commenting as to how the mighty US had made fun
of Muslims on a day when they were preparing to celebrate one of their
most important religious festivals.

551

Muhammad Riaz from Malakand said, all civilized people respect

each others civilizations and holy events but Bush and civilization are two
different words. He has enlarged the gap between the Muslims and
Americans and has hurt all Muslims This incident also shows how weak
the Muslims are.
Ihsan Aslam addressed Bush directly to show his disgust. I almost
choked as I heard the morning news about Saddams hanging or lynching in
my life. Thank you, uncle, for enlightening me. Is this the kind of
enlightened moderation youd like to spread in the 21st century?
It is instructive, uncle, that even the otherwise hawkish Telegraph
had this to say in its leader on Tuesday: when a dictator of exceptional
brutality is shown dying with dignity and no little courage at the hands of
hooded thugs, the martyrs crown surely beckons. Even more inflammatory
as far as Iraqs Sunni minority is concerned was his flouting of the Iraqi
law that executions should not take place during the Eidul Azha
holiday.
One reads about people asking, what were you doing when you
heard about assassination of J F Kennedy? or where were you when John
Lennon was shot? Uncle what will I tell my grandchildren about the day
when the mass murderer Saddam was killed? Ah, I remember my childit
was the holy month of Haj and the day of the great Eid festival, the day of
joy and forgivenessand death, destruction and hell in Iraqthat was the
day.

The manner in which Saddam was executed and his execution

publicized was quite deplorable. Gulf News wrote, the Iraqi government
ignored the pleas of the majority of the international community in their
request not to carry out the death sentence. It obviously saw no advantage in
keeping him alive, only for antagonists to portray Saddam as a figurehead to
be supported and followed.
Anwar Ali from Rawalpindi condemned the world community. A
most apt and realistic remark over his hanging came from an Indian
politician named Amar Singh on an Indian TV channel. He said when
America dropped two atomic bombs over Japanthe world community
proved itself to be extremely callous and hardly a voice was raised against
the barbaric act. This barbarity did not move the American people simply
because those dying were non-whites. The rest of the leaders of the then
552

international community also did not find anything wrong in this barbaric
act of the Americans.
And even now when Bush stands charged of being guilty of killing a
total of more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians, even our own president did not
utter a single word of condemnation of the timing and manner of
Saddam Husseins execution by a regime under the tutelage of George
Bush.
The News wrote, the proceedings of former Iraqi dictator Saddam
Husseins execution captured on camera, including footage of his dead body
dangling from the rope and his neck bent almost at right angles, will surely
further the sectarian divide in his country. Equally worrying, it gives further
credence to the perception that this was a man who was put to death not out
of any sense of providing justice but rather out of cold-blooded
vengeance.
The Iraqi government should have known the sensitive nature of the
execution and should have ensured that no cameras or other such devices
which can support cameras such as mobile phones were allowed inside the
jail premises. What has also happened now is that people who may not have
any sympathy for Saddam have been moved to pity and empathize with the
dictator Of all the miscalculations that have been made to date since
the invasion of Iraq nearly four years ago, the odds are that this may be the
gravest of all.
M J Akbar said: The inexplicable haste, and the shoddiness with
which he was hanged has become, thanks to a grainy video and millions of
television screens, the final testimony in the first example of victors
prejudice masquerading as low in this century. This is not an arbitrary
interpretation.
Burhanuddin Hasan wrote, analysts believe the entire sordid drama
could not have been possible without the tacit consent of the Shia-led
Iraqi government, which was determined to hang Saddam before the dawn
of 2007, also Eidul Azha The bottom line is that Iraq is being destroyed
bit by bit as Mr Bush looks on helplessly. He can neither win nor accept
defeat. But sooner or later he will have to accept the inevitable consequences
of his misjudged and rash aggression against Iraq.

553

Ihsan Aslam said, as The Guardian leader Death on camera said the
other day, like the image of Saddams statue being toppled in 2003, and
pictures of torture from Abu Ghraib prison, the illicit pictures of his death
will come to define the conflict, evidence of just how disastrous the whole
project has proved. Seeing the mobile camera pictures of Saddams death
reminded me of the grisly extremist videos showing the killing of
hostages.
Uncle, we have stooped so low just to confirm that the dictator has
indeed been killed. Its too late in the PR game for your Major General
William Calwell to say on Wednesday that you would have done things
differently than your stooges in Iraq. Dont you admit it, uncle that youve
truly messed up Iraq big time when you rode into Baghdad with your posse
on the pretext of looking for WMDs. Time to head home, dont you think?
Uncle, I know you liken yourself to the gunfighters in old cowboy
films, but did it have to be this way. You know, uncle, hangem high and be
done with the bugger wasnt the only option. But, then, you were known as
Texecutioner and the death penalty governor when you were governor of
Texas Like the gunfighters, youre very quick on the draw, arent you,
uncle? Ive read that you spent 15 to 30 minutes in deciding to execute
someone when you were governor.
If Saddam deserved to swing, uncle, and as the wicked witch of
London, Aunty Margaret Beckett, believes that Saddam has been held to
account, what about the ones who helped make him the monster he
undoubtedly was. His death raises more questions rather than your pious
belief that it was an important milestone on Iraqs course to becoming a
democracy.
A one thoughtful person commented in a British newspaper website:
Does it become crimes against humanity when you kill and murder your
own people? What is it when you invade another country illegally and
kill, murder, rape, and torture their citizens? But thats recent stuff, what
about the more distant past?
The obituary in the Telegraph is equally interesting: Yet despite
Saddams failure to destroy Iran, and his appalling disregard for the rights of
his people and his atrocities against the Kurds, he was still regarded by the
West as the best bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. British and

554

American firms vied with one another for Iraqs plump rearmament
contracts
Jamal Khan from Mardan observed that the excitement that some of
the countries like US, UK and France showed on this execution is also
unthinkable. Because these countries, especially the UK, are against the
death penalty The other serious crime committed was the filming of the
episode.
Deccan Herald opined that reactions to the way in which Saddam
was executed range from shock and indignation to the milk-and-water
demands by the human rights people for an overhaul of the judicial system
in Iraq. In a country overtaken by every kind of chaos neither of these
reactions is particular relevant. But surpassing them in irrelevance is Bushs
comment that the hanging of the Iraqi leader should have been more
dignified. How does one kill a man with dignity?
Is it conceivable that he knew nothing about what was afoot? The
story that Maliki, the Iraqi PM, bullied minor US officials to push through
the execution immediately, while Khalilzad, the US ambassador and Casey,
the US military commander were conveniently absent is difficult to
swallow.
And an integral part of this problem is the depth and intensity of the
hatred between the two rival Islamic sects which Bush has either
ignored or unwittingly stoked up the other day by hanging Saddam. Taunts
and jeers were a part of the Guantanamo spectacle. That they were part of
the execution should cause no surprise.
The Guardian commented, the way in which Saddam died may not
alter the underlying morality of his execution, an act which Britain should
have opposed more firmly than it did. But the manner of Saddams death,
ridden with chaos and malice, has made the act much more divisive and
dangerous. It was justice delivered in its crudest form, by hooded men
taunting Saddam with Shia slogans, the distillation of a fractured and lawless
country The possibility that the pictures were recorded by senior Iraqi
official, as Saddams prosecutor Munkith al-Faroon suggested, underlines
the decayed state of what passes for central authority in the country.

IMPACT

555

While visualizing the possible impact of Saddams execution, the

analysts specially focused on three aspects: One, how Saddam will be
remembered; two, the likely impact of his death on Iraq three, the message
his execution carried for rulers of Islamic World; first, Saddam.
Robert Fisk wrote, Tom Friedman now a messianic columnist of
The New York Times who perfectly caught Saddams character just before
the 2003 invasion: Saddam was, he wrote, part Don Corleone, part Donald
Duck. And, in this unique definition, Friedman caught the horror of all
dictators; their sadistic attraction and the grotesque, unbelievable nature of
their barbarity.
But that is not how the Arab World will see him. At first, those who
suffered from Saddams cruelty will welcome his execution But they
and millions of other Muslims will remember how he was informed of
his death sentence at the dawn of the Eid ul-Azha feast, which recalls the
would-be sacrifice by Abraham, of his son, a commemoration which even
the ghastly Saddam cynically used to celebrate by releasing prisoners from
his jails.
Handed over to the Iraqi authorities, he may have been before his
death. But his execution will go down correctly as an American affair
and time will add its false but lasting gloss to all this that the West
destroyed an Arab leader who no longer obeyed his orders from Washington,
that, for all his wrong doing (and this will be the terrible get-out for Arab
historians, this shaving away of his crimes) Saddam died a martyr to the
will of the new Crusaders.
I A Rehman opined, it was necessary to ignore the lesson of history
that political foes are not overcome by sending them to gallows. Caesar alive
was less dangerous than the consul stabbed to death by his courtiers. A
politically motivated judicial verdict followed by hanging has never finished
off a political figure. Indeed, it has often made the victims of judicial
murder into heroes.
Brig Farooq Hameed Khan from Lahore wrote, Saddams legacy is
one of violence, hate, death and destruction driven by ambition and lust for
power. But his final moments of life will long be remembered for the
courage with which he walked the gallows and faced death with dignity and
grace.

556

M Tariq Qureshi from Karachi said: Now that we have witnessed the
rise and fall of Saddam, the question arises whether he was a hero or a fall
guy. In my opinion, he was the latter. Yes, without doubt he was a hero in his
death. Few men can stand up to death as he did. In his last moments, he
achieved what he might have craved all his life. Also in the end he proved,
victory can go to the vanquished.
George Galloway wrote, Saddams riposte to the jeering of the
prosecution lawyers: Let the monkeys laugh in their trees, the lion walks
on, was cheered in every coffee house in Arabia. It is this Saddam whose
memory will live on The foolishly videotaped pictures of Saddam
twisting on a rope fashioned by the illegal occupiers who overthrew him will
return to haunt those who directed them. Of course, there are those for
whom even to mention such points is tantamount to apologia.
Rahimullah Yusufzai said: The element of sacrifice inherent in the
philosophy behind celebrating this Eid fitted well with Saddams last
statement that he would be sacrificing his life for Iraq. His defiance even in
the face of death in the footage of his last few minutes before his hanging
added a mystique to the life and times of the strong-nerved man that he
always was. He died bravely, staring death as he told his four executioners,
and left a legacy that would continue to inspire his supporters and many
others resisting foreign occupation of their homelands.
Senior Iraqi government officials are being accused of filming last
glimpses of Saddams life with their cell phones. They could have done it for
record or for making money but the footage has worked to Saddams
advantage. One is surprised to read articles and comments criticizing the
filming of Saddams brutish execution on camera.
One could say that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay prisons shouldnt have been filmed and shown because it
was ugly and humiliating. But the fact is that those who dared to film the
abuse the prisoners deserved praise for exposing the practice and thereby
ensuring that remedial measures are taken and those abusing the men in their
custody are taken to task.
Many would argue that Saddam has met his fate and deserved to die
after having ruled the Iraqi people brutally. But there are some who have
reasons to mourn his death. Iraq under Saddam was a united country
with Shias, Sunnis and Kurds living in relative peace. The Baathist regime
557

of Saddam was secular and leftist in its orientation and it did a lot to make
Iraq a welfare state with some of the best social sector indicators in the
Middle East.
M J Akbar said: Alive, Saddam Hussein was helpless against
George Bush. Dead, Saddam could leave Bush helpless. His memory will
pour fresh fuel on a hundred existing fires. The defeat and death of Saddam
is a narrative with one author: George Bush. Saddam was the quarry, Bush
was the hunter. The hunter changed the rules of this jungle when every
reason was exposed as an excuse. When the quarry was trapped, all rules
were abandoned in the pursuit of death.
Bushs formal statement welcomed the death of Saddam as an
important milestone on Iraqs course to becoming a democracy that can
govern, sustain and defend itself. There is an implicit admission in that
sentence, that a democratic Iraq needs a dead Saddam In death,
Saddam has become a symbol of resistance to American hegemony. This
is perhaps the height of irony, since, for most of his time in power, his
enemies accused Saddam of being an American cats paw in the region.
The second aspect commented upon pertained to his deaths impact
on Iraq. It is testimony to the calamitous Bush/Blair policy that they have
succeeded in awakening among so many Iraqis warm memories of life under
Saddam compared with the hell that is Iraq today, wrote George Gallloway.
With each day that passes, the full magnitude of the Iraq folly will
become clear.
The News opined, Iraq appears to face a frightening prospect after
the execution: the widening of the sectarian and ethnic divide in a country
where ethnic-cleansing is so intense in many parts of that the mayhem that
took place in Yugoslavia pales in brutality. The Gulf region and Iraqs other
neighbours like Syria would be fortunate if the sectarian strife did not spread
there following the probable worsening of the Iraqi chaos.
Robert Dreyfuss was of the view that in life, even in prison, he
inspired many loyalists to fight for his legacy; but his death is certain to
spark even fiercer violence, not just from his remaining lieutenants and
broader Sunni Arab community in Iraq. It pushes any hope of Sunni-Shiite
reconciliation farther away, inflames passions on both sides and solidifies
the image of the United States in Iraq as a bloodthirsty occupier.

558

His death will, of course, inspire the religious Shiites into

intensifying their jihad, cementing their belief in the righteousness of their
cause. Far more important, however, it will spark a burning desire for
revenge among the Sunni Arabs, and not just among Baath Party veterans.
A political accord for national reconciliation, always an iffy
proposition, is now even more difficult to achieve, in the wake of
Saddams execution. The Shiite religious bloc, were it not intent on an allout victory that humiliates the Sunni community, might have held out a life
sentence for Saddam as part of a deal that included amnesty for
insurgents
Azam Khalil opined that he may have met his fate, but by hanging
former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Americans have succeeded in
sowing a seed for strife in yet another Muslim country. The Americans
along with some other countries in the west were pursuing a policy to divide
the Muslim World on ethnic and sectarian lines so that it became easier for
them to exploit the rich natural resources or even occupy them and enjoy the
economic benefits that come with it.
The western world must remember that in case they use dubious or
extremist methods as tools for the achievement of their short-term strategic
goals they may succeed, but then they will have no power to tame the genie
of extremism after they achieve their objectives. The Americans may in the
short term play on the sentiments of various religious leaders to achieve
what could be called their sinister goals, but in the long run when
pragmatic religious scholars prevail the Americans will face isolation
For the Muslim World, the dignified death of Saddam who refused
to seek the mercy of the occupiers leaves a lesson and that was to rise and
unite against this new imperialism instead of being divided and thus remains
weak before the forces of exploitation.
Arab News wrote, no Iraqi was safe from Saddams violent rule,
Sunnis included. Saddam ruled Iraq by intimidation not inspiration. His
ouster removed the fear but did not create the inspiration. Americans
have only made matters worse. Their bone-headed invasion unleashed the
rivalries that Saddam never tried to settle but simply suppressed with utmost
brutality.

559

Shlomo Avineri observed, to the Shiite majority, long brutally

oppressed by Saddam and all previous Sunni-dominated Iraqi regimes,
Saddams death symbolizes their attainment of political hegemony.
Moreover, the triumphlist rejoicing is a cruel reminder that when the
oppressed become liberated, they can very easily turn into oppressors
themselves.
To the Sunni majority, pushed from power by the American
invasion and giving vent to their frustration with daily attacks on the Shiite
population and their holy sites, Saddam will remain a hero for a long time
to come. The Kurds who, like the Shiite, were victimized by Saddam for
decades quietly cling to their de facto independence in the north, making
sure that they will never again come under Arab rule.
None of this augurs well for the future of what we should get used
to calling the former Iraq. Indeed, the Washington debate surrounding
how to fix Iraq is irrelevant, because something that does not exist any
longer namely, Iraq as a functioning state cannot be fixed A coherent
Iraqi state whether unitary, federal or confederal will not grow out of a
society in which one part of the population views Saddam, rightly, a
gruesome oppressor, while another part reveres him as a hero and martyr.
Patrick Cockburn wrote, the old nostrum of Winston Churchill that
grass may grow on the battlefield but never under the gallows is likely
to prove as true in Iraq as it has done so frequently in the rest of the world.
Nor is the US likely to be successful in claiming that the execution was
purely an Iraqi affair.
Somehow many senior US officials have convinced themselves that
it is Mr Sadr, revered by millions of Shia, who is the obstacle to a moderate
Iraqi government. In fact his legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Shia Iraqis,
the great majority of the population, is far greater than the moderate
politicians whom the US has in its pocket and who seldom venture out of the
Green Zone An attack on the Shia militia men of the Mahdi Army could
finally lead to the collapse of Iraq into total anarchy. Saddam must already
be laughing in his grave.
Gulf News advised Iraqis. The world looks to the Iraq government
and, most importantly, Iraqis to come to terms with what all along was
known would be Saddams end once he was found. The time has come for

560

the people of Iraq to put aside their differences, be they tribal, ethnic or
religious, and work for peace and stability in the country.
Adnan Zahoor from Peshawar said the same thing to all Muslims. It
is pity that Muslims cannot unite on anything. They are always divided one
way or the other. Before blaming anyone else, we should also think about
ourselves. It is just one event; it has a long history and background. We have
brought this upon us. Who got Saddam arrested? Who hanged him? Who
looted shops when the US invaded Iraq? So if we want to avoid hanging any
Saddam Hussein again, we will have to get united and show some
character and morale, individually and nationally.
Saddams execution undoubtedly carried a strong message for the
rulers in Muslim countries. Dr Obaidullh from Peshawar wrote, in 2003,
when Saddam was captured and his teeth were examined, I wrote the
following letter in The News and it was published. I wrote: We have a ritual
in Peshawar about our sacrificial animals when kids decorate them, mark
various patterns with henna on them, garland them and put various bells in
their necks and hooves. However, come the day of sacrifice, and the animals
will be laid down on the floor and slaughtered for eternal gains.
The same thing happens with third world dictators. They are
pampered, helped with ammunition, money and advisors to eliminate
unwanted enemies. Same thing happened to Saddam Once the imperial
job was done came the day of sacrifice and Saddam was caught like a rat
from a sewer.
Little did I know that the great sacrifice would be made on the holy
day of sacrifice? But it did happen? I wish our so-called enlightened
moderates, crying hoarse other peoples slogans, stop and re-think their
future.
Ihsan Aslam told the same thing to enlightened moderates but
addressed them in their masters slang. It was one of your predecessors
wasnt it, uncle, who said of a Latin American dictator: He might be a
sonofabitch, but at least hes our sonofabitch? We all know that Saddam
was OK as long as our sonofabitch. Thank you for this wisdom, uncle.
Thank you very much, indeed, as it will serve as a warning to all dictators,
puppets and poodles to remain uncles sonofabitch.

561

Zafar Shah from Peshawar wrote, while Saddams death is mourned

by and celebrated by many, it should be a lesson for third world leaders
who see America as their saviour but are often ditched when the push comes
to shove.
Sayed Sayef Hussain from Rawalpindi said, Americas euphoria at
this execution was all too loud and they would like to believe, like
establishments of the third world dictators, that they can befool the whole
world at their sweet will Why the Americans feel so satisfied? Was
Saddams going to the gallows giving them any chance of silently rinsing
their sins? Saddam Hussein was once Americas stooge. Today, those who
feel good that they are in the good books of America should take heed
from this.
M I Skaikh from Islamabad drew a different lesson for those who
have dug themselves deep into their hole out of fear. There are Muslim
heads of states who tremble at the warnings of a Western head of a state or
even an assistant secretary of state His execution timed during Haj and
Eid may or may not help the dwindling fortunes of Bush and the neocons, or
to lead to promote the unnatural Shia-Sunni division. But it has no doubt
made the man an icon of bravery for Arabs and Muslims. His lasting legacy
is utter self-confidence which is so meager even in leaders of richer and
nuclear Muslim states.
As regards Americans, Jack Weatherford opined that they excelled
Genghis Khan in destroying Iraq. In his final televised speech to the Iraqi
people in 2003, Saddam Hussein denounced the invading Americans as the
Mongols of this age, a reference to the last time infidels had conquered his
country, in 1258. But the comparison isnt very apt unlike the Mongols,
the Americans dont have the genius of Genghis Khan.
K S Daksinha Murty opined, the task was unfinished as long as
Saddam was alive. Despite being out of power, he was perceived to have the
strength, charisma, and the backing to become the focus point of resistance
against the US invasion occupation. Sections in the US establishment even
feared he could garner anti-US sentiment in Iraq and stage a come back.
It was fairly clear Saddam would not be spared by his captors, and
that he was living on borrowed time. Now that the US establishment has
succeeded in removing Saddam forever from the physical world, it is bound

562

to turn its attention to the next important item on its agenda to secure
unshakeable control over supplies of oil from Iraq.

REVIEW
Trial of an accused is held to establish the guilt in accordance with the
law and to determine the punishment appropriate to the gravity of the
offence committed. In Saddam Husseins case both of these had been
predetermined. The West through media trial had convicted Saddam well
before the invasion of Iraq. His punishment had also been decided: the man
who tried to kill my dad had to be hanged.
If that be the case, then why was he not killed like his sons? Had he
been eliminated that way, there would not have been much of hue and cry.
The world would have accepted it as an action necessary for the liberation
of Iraqis and by now would have forgotten about it.
Why did the Crusaders prefer to go through the lengthy judicial
process? The trial was not meant for meeting the requirements of law or
ends of justice. The trial was necessary for two reasons; one, to further
demonize the Monster to give semblance of legitimacy to the illegal
occupation and destruction of Iraq; two, shift the responsibility of his
execution onto the shoulders of Iraqis using services of the puppets.
To exonerate the invaders and illegal occupants from any accusation
of their involvement in crimes committed by Saddam the case for his trial
was selected carefully out of the long list of crimes committed by him. An
Iraqi court was preferred over an international court for the same reason;
hence, everything, from trial to execution, was mere mockery of justice.
Saddams execution on a special day of Eid-ul-Azha was part of the
Crusaders evil plan to ridicule Islam and its followers. Unfortunately, the
Shiite puppet regime in Baghdad collaborated with the Crusaders because of
their hatred for Saddam.
This hatred was amply reflected during the proceedings of his
hanging. In a way, it was unique execution in which the masks were worn by
the hangmen instead of the man being hanged. Saddam, despite the crimes
committed by him, acted in more dignified manner than his killers.

563

Filming of the execution was very well planned with the sinister aim
of fanning the sectarian hatred. The cries of Moqtada, Moqtada were meant
to show that it was all Shias doing and Americans had nothing to do with
the hanging. It also indicated as to who would be the next target of the
occupation forces.
A lot has been said and written about the impact Saddams execution
was likely to create. Most analysts were of the view that his killing would
fan sectarian hatred resulting in more bloodshed and thereby creating more
problems for the occupation forces.
The Crusaders couldnt ignore such possibilities. They must have
analyzed these thoroughly and concluded that the situation in Iraq could not
get worse than the existing one. If at all it does, there is nothing to worry as
long as the killings are restricted to Iraqis.
In fact, surge in sectarian animosity suited their plan for Iraq. The
sectarian hatred so fanned would obviously lead to division of Iraq, which
fits well in the overall plan to redraw borders of Arab and Muslim countries.
Most importantly, the execution of Saddam will carry a stern message
for the rulers of Muslim countries. It will serve as warning to those who
oppose Americas imperial designs and it will also strengthen the resolve of
those who have allied with America. Every time they try to re-evaluate their
policy, they would reach the same conclusion that their survival lies in
complete submission to the Crusaders.
Of course, the execution of Saddam is matter of shame for entire
Amah, because the Crusaders can create dictators from within Amah, use
them for promotion of their interests, and then lynch them if they refuse to
toe their line.
16th January 2007

ONLY ONE OPTION

564

The Crusaders from Europe took charge of the occupation of

Afghanistan from the US with a pledge to succeed at all costs. Defeat was
no option. What would constitute a defeat in Afghanistan? It has not been
defined, but is quite evident. Failure in securing complete submission or
elimination of the enemy would constitute defeat.
In pursuit of this mission the NATO forces have been relying on
indiscriminate use of military might particularly the airpower. Every Afghan
killed in air strikes was declared suspected Islamic terrorist and considered
as a step towards securing the submission of Afghans.
This approach is based on misperceptions about psyche of the
Afghans, who kept striking back at the occupation forces despite inadequacy
of the military means their disposal. Resultantly, peace and stability
remained elusive forcing the UNSC mission to say that Afghanistan is
becoming a failed state.
And after every attack by the insurgents, the occupation forces cried
wolf and sought more reinforcements. Even Bush urged European allies to
send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact, with tremendous airpower already
available, the reinforcements in terms of ground forces were neither needed
nor were dispatched in large numbers.

FIGHTING
Operation against Pashtuns resisting occupation continued. On 18th
October, 14 suspected militants were killed in air strike in Nuristan province.
A school was torched in Badakhshan. Afghan Army showed reporters the
bodies of 24 men killed in Paktia a day earlier.
Next day, four people, including one British soldier, were killed and
two British soldiers were wounded in suicide attack in Helmand. A captured
Pakistani Taliban said mullahs sent him to fight. Next day, Taliban killed
eight Afghans working for US military base in Asadabad.
On 22nd October, NATO forces killed 15 Afghans in Zabul province.
At least 32 people were killed in a clash between two rival factions in Herat.
Two days later, three children were killed in NATO forces mortar test fire
error. On 25th October, 38 suspected Taliban were killed in Kandahar area.

565

Death toll of suspected Taliban in NATO operation reached 48 on 26 th

October. Next day, death toll in battle in southern Afghanistan reached 60,
which included 25 civilians. Karzai offered conditional talks to Mulla Omar;
who rejected Karzais offer.
NATO forces killed 70 suspected Taliban in Uruzgan on 29th
October. Next day, 55 suspected Taliban and a NATO soldier were killed in
firefight and air strike in Zabul province.
Three NATO soldiers were killed and one wounded in a roadside
bombing in Nuristan on 31st October. A suicide bomber killed a policeman in
Ghazni. Three NATO troops were wounded in a clash in Kunar. Next day,
occupation forces killed three terror suspects and captured one in a raid in
Khost province.
On 2nd November, two men of National Geographic TV were
evacuated to Germany after they were injured in a landmine blast. Next day,
6 policemen were killed and eight wounded in attack by Taliban. Italian
journalist was freed three weeks after his abduction.
Two Pakistani drivers were killed and another wounded in attack in
Paktia province on 4th November. Two days later, suspected Taliban
kidnapped four aid workers in Paktia.
One NATO soldier was killed and two wounded in bomb blast in
southern Kandahar province on 7th November. Four persons including a
policeman were killed in other incidents. Troops claimed arresting five
Saudis and Pakistanis in Khost. Three Afghan aid workers were released.
Taliban uprising in Kandahar has been quelled, claimed Canadian
minister on 8th November. Next day, three policemen and 34 Taliban were
killed in clashes with NATO-led forces. Ten persons were killed as NATO
forces bombed area opposite South Waziristan on 11th November.
Reportedly al-Qaeda operative Abu Nasir al-Qahtani who had escaped
from Bagram prison was arrested from Khost. On 16 th November, gunmen
kidnapped a businessman in Farah and later killed him. Next day, a speeding
vehicle of NATO killed 2 Afghans in Girishk.
On 25th November, Taliban claimed that a suicide bomber attacked a
foreign troops vehicle in Logar killing all in the vehicle; interior ministry
said only three civilians were injured. A bomb exploded in Kabul. Taliban
566

detained two Pakistani journalists in southern Afghanistan. Occupation

forces killed five suspected insurgents in Kandahar province.
NATO forces killed 50 suspected Taliban in Uruzgan province on 26 th
November; one NATO soldier was also killed. Twelve persons were killed in
suicide bombing in Paktia. Taliban released two journalists. NATO forces
warned Afghans to avoid its convoys. Next day, a suicide car bomber
attacked a NATO convoy near Kandahar and killed two soldiers.
NATO forces backed by warplanes and gunship helicopters killed ten
Taliban on 1st December in Helmand province. Police killed six Taliban in
Zabul. On 3rd December, the government claimed that 160 Taliban had
surrendered in different parts of the country. Taliban claimed downing a
NATO helicopter in Uruzgan province.
NATO forces killed more than 80 suspected Taliban in Helmand
province on 4th December. The operation was launched in Musa Qala after
loss of a helicopter despite a peace agreement with elders of the area. A
suicide car bomber killed two persons in Kandahar and NATO forces
retaliated by resorting to indiscriminate firing in which three more people
were killed and 16 wounded.
Six people, including two Canadian soldiers, were wounded in suicide
attack on a NATO convoy in Kandahar on 5 th December. One British soldier
was killed and another wounded in fighting in southern Afghanistan.
Chinese construction camp was attacked in Badghis.
On 6th December, a suicide bomber killed two Americans and five
Afghans outside a US security firms office in Kandahar. Next day, two
persons were killed and seven wounded when a suicide car bomber attacked
a NATO convoy in Kandahar. Two more persons were killed in other
incidents.
On 9th December, 11 people, including one British soldier, were killed.
Four women and an old man were killed in Kunar. Next day, six soldiers
were killed in road-side bombing to Paktia. Two NATO soldiers were
wounded and four vehicles damaged in attack in Zabul province and four
civilians were killed in NATO air strike.
US-led troops and warplanes killed nine suspected Taliban, including
a commander, in Farah province on 11th December. Next day, a suicide

567

bomber attacked governors office in Lashkargah killing eight people. The

US bombing killed four people in Khost.
Two persons were killed in suicide bombing on 15 th December. Next
day a NATO soldier was killed in roadside bombing in Laghman province.
On 17th December, Governor Kandahar claimed that Taliban commander
Wali along with 30 others was killed three days ago in NATO air strike in
Punjabi district. Taliban kidnapped five engineers in Ghazni province. Seven
Afghans were freed from Gitmo.
US-Afghan forces killed four and captured ten Taliban in raids in
Kandahar province on 18th December. Next day, Taliban killed two spies in
Kandahar province. Several people were killed in NATO air strike. NATO
forces killed 50 Taliban in Kandahar province on 20 th December. Next day,
seven people were killed in roadside bombing near Herat City.
A Member of Parliament escaped attempt on his life in Kabul on 23 rd
December; one person was killed and seven wounded in suicide attack.
Coalition forces claimed top Taliban commander, Mulla Akhtar Mohammad
Usmani was killed in recent operations; Taliban denied.
Five suspected Taliban were killed in air strike in Helmand on 24th
December. US claimed that identity of the slain Taliban commander was
confirmed. Two days later, two persons were injured in a bomb blast in
Jalalabad. NATO forces claimed killing a Taliban commander and another
militant in Laghman province on 27 th December. One driver was killed in
attack on convoy of oil-tankers.
Taliban and NATO forces clashed in Helmand province on 28th
December and a British soldier was killed in landmine blast. People
protested as two civilians were killed by US troops in a raid in Nangarhar in
early hours of the day.
Occupation forces killed 17 suspected Taliban in Helmand province
on 1 January 2007 and three were killed in another air strike in Uruzgan.
Next day, Taliban rebels torched a school in Nangarhar province. NATO
admitted too many civilians were killed in 2006.
st

A roadside bomb killed five Afghan soldiers and wounded four others
in Uruzgan on 3rd January. Karzai ordered probe into killing of two civilians
by the US troops in Nangarhar province. He must be kidding! Six people

568

were killed in clash between rival groups in Paktika on 7 th January. Next day,
Six Afghan soldiers were wounded in suicide attack in Paktika. About 4,000
people were killed in 2006.
On 10th January, NATO forces killed a man working for them as his
vehicle approached their convoy at high speed. Next day, 25 Taliban
militants surrendered in Herat and Badghis provinces. NATO forces killed
150 suspected Taliban in Paktika province in which air and artillery fire was
used extensively. Fifty suspects were killed on night 9/10th January.
On 12th January, 16 civilians and 13 suspected Taliban were killed in
NATO air strike in Helmand province. US troops killed a civilian at a check
point near Jalalabad and wounded a man and his wife. Next day, one NATO
soldier was killed in southern Afghanistan. A suicide bomber attacked a
convoy near Kabul destroying vehicles and wounding two foreigners and an
Afghan. Five Afghan soldiers of border police were killed in landmine blast
near border in the south.
Oil tanker traveling from Chaman was targeted by roadside bomb on
14 January. Afghan authorities were able to show only eight dead bodies of
Taliban fighters of Paktika although they had claimed killing 150. A British
soldier was killed and several others wounded when NATO forces came
under Taliban attack in Helmand province on 15th January. A rocket was
fired in Kabul and a bomb exploded in Khost injuring four people.
th

Three Afghan soldiers were killed and four wounded in roadside

bombing in Khost on 17th January. Taliban spokesman, Dr Hanif was
arrested in Nangarhar.

OTHER ASPECTS
British General, the commander of occupation forces in Afghanistan,
blamed US for Taliban resurgence. NATO forces alleged increase in cross
border infiltration. Pakistan was blamed after every insurgent attack on the
occupation forces. This aspect has been covered in articles on the frontline
state.
Brutality, with beastly touch, remained the hallmark of the nature of
occupation. Mention of only one incident should be enough to prove the

569

point. On 27 October, two German soldiers were suspended following the

publication of photographs of troops playing with a human skull.
Four days later, three German soldiers admitted to desecrating human
skeletons. Since then nothing was heard about the suspended German
soldiers. It can be assumed that they must have been admonished for playing
with skulls, instead of rolling fresh heads.
HRW alleged NATO forces were not doing enough to protect
civilians. The voices of dissent over operations in Afghanistan were raised.
On 29th October, Blairs favourite general, Lord Guthrie branded Afghan
War as cuckoo. Majority of Brits wanted troops withdrawal. Across the
Atlantic, rallies in Ottawa urged the government to bring troops home.
The month of November began with NATO chief demanding a bigger
role of EU-UN in Afghanistan. NATO forces claimed compensating Afghans
with cash and aid. NATO chief said Afghans need more foreign aid. But a
top UN official warned that NATO cannot defeat Taliban.
On 17th November, NATO apologized after a speeding military vehicle
killed 2 Afghans in Girishk. About civilians killed during operations NATO
Commander Richards told Afghan lawmakers the people who are trying to
impose a different way of life on this country hide and fight from amongst
your people. He added it is difficult to distinguish between civilians and
enemies when the bullets start flying.
On 20th November, Blair visited troops in Helmand to boost their
morale. He placed Afghanistan at the heart of global war on terror. Two days
later, NATOs top commanders urged member countries to strengthen force
in Afghanistan. A week later, NATO countries met at Riga but shied away
from sending more troops to Afghanistan. In December, Czech troops took
over command of Kabul airport. Four NATO states agreed to send more
troops as occupation forces shifted focus to Taliban leaders.
The US confined itself to the role of a sponsor of occupation, in
addition to providing air support to ground forces which were mostly from
European countries and keeping Pakistan under constant pressure to do more
to facilitate the occupation of Afghanistan.
The US also kept urging NATO allies to send more troops. Bush
Administration vowed that the outcome of November elections wont affect

570

its commitment. In mid January 2007, Robert Gates, the successor of

Rumsfeld, visited Kabul and Kandahar.
The Puppet Regime in Kabul failed to come up to the expectations of
their masters, their people and their neighbour, Pakistan. On 13 th November,
Helmand elders demanded removal of governor and police. Karzai resorted
blaming others for his failings.
On 19th November, he accused the West and some neighbours of
deliberately promoting terrorism and religious extremism in his country
and called upon the world to fight the scourge jointly to make the region an
example of peace and prosperity.
On 2nd December, Karzai and Prime Minister Stephen Harper
reiterated their commitment to NATOs security assistance role in
Afghanistan, alongside Afghan National Army troops, in fighting
international terrorism and extremism.
Karzai unveiled an Action Plan on Peace, Reconstruction and Justice
on 11 December. He urged Afghans to be united to salvage their land which
world community could not rescue. The children of this land could be
rescued by promoting unity in our ranks, he said. We should know the
enemy and should not run away from defending the soil. If the enemy is
from within, we should use the law to tackle with him, and if it is outsider,
we should stand against them till we rescue the land.
th

Karzai failed to exercise any control over warlords as their support

was essential for his political survival. Resultantly, warlords enjoyed
complete freedom to indulge in activities once effectively curtailed by
Taliban. On 9th November, Revolutionary Afghan Women Association
reported that 11-year old daughter of a widow was abducted, raped and then
exchanged with a dog by warlords in Kunduz area.
Apart from the occasional one-sided interaction with his masters,
Karzai Regime remained inactive. The only achievements reported during
the period were seizure of 15 tonnes of drugs and banning of an Indian film
made in Afghanistan. Thus, he had plenty of time and energy to hurl
accusations at Pakistan.
Resistance groups, apart from carrying out military operations, took
measures to maintain contact with media so that their voice could be heard.

571

Mulla Omar threatened increase in Taliban attacks. He asked NATO to stop

fighting for US and quit Afghanistan.
Hekmatyar said pullout of foreign forces is the only way to end
violence. On 9th December, Taliban said they might join proposed tribal
councils aimed at ending mounting violence in Afghanistan, if they were
asked. Taliban leaders, however, vowed a bloody 2007. Hamid Gul predicted
defeat of America in Afghanistan.
Taliban spokesman, Dr Hanif was arrested in Nangarhar. The
governor claimed recovering packets of anthrax from the place of arrest. He
also claimed recovering an important letter from his possession bearing
execution orders of commander Dadullah, who has been accused of being
part of a conspiracy that led to killing of senior Taliban commander, Mullla
Akhtar Usmani in air strike in Helmand a few weeks ago.
Apparently, the claims of the governor were an attempt to sow discord
in Talibans command structure. Taliban denied all the claims of Afghan
government and without wasting time appointed Zahidullah Mujahid as their
new spokesman.

CRITIQUE
The British troops had resorted to the Imperial strategy by signing a
peace deal some time back. Zarar Khuhro commented, so if you cant beat
them and you cant join them, what do you do? You make a deal with
them. This is precisely what has happened in Musa Qala and Singeen, where
British forces quietly (or so they thought) concluded an agreement by which
both they and the Taliban would withdraw their forces. Sounds familiar? It
is, far more importantly, no less a person than Bill Frist, leader of the Senate
majority has floated the idea of engaging the Taliban politically, meeting a
predictable response.
Jonathan Steele observed, there are encouraging signs that the
message is getting through in Afghanistan. The best news for a long time
was this weeks decision by British troops to pull out of the Musa Qala
district of Helmand. A ceasefire brokered by tribal leaders has brought peace
on the Musharraf model.

572

If the deal can be replicated throughout the south, there is hope.

Britain and NATO will never achieve military victory or pacify
Afghanistan. Local reconciliation and power sharing are the only basis on
which the job creation and rural development can at last go forward. In this
task foreign armies have no place.
Musa Qala peace deal was one-time tactical move made by the
occupation forces, which had no intentions to pursue it elsewhere. They
mainly relied upon militaristic strategy. They believed that resistance
groups could not match their military might which they could use
excessively and indiscriminately without any fear of accountability.
After one of the incidents of inflicting collateral damage, the News
commented: While there is much debate over the actual fatality figures, and
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has announced an inquiry into the
regrettable incidents, the trend of innocents being victimized is starkly
indicative of the ineffectiveness of NATOs chosen strategy in the
country.
With the recent botched attack on the Taliban, it seems that the
organizations think tank has reverted back to a primarily militaristic
strategy the consequence of which is there for all to see. This latest
incident does nothing but further disenchant the Afghani civilians from their
liberators.
Gulf News observed, Afghanistans President Hamid Karzai has not
quelled public outrage with his appointment of a commission of inquiry.
Instead, he has only fuelled resentment and reinforced his image as
Washingtons puppet by trying to find excuses for the excesses of foreign
troops.
NATO must know that these conservative communities, governed by
tribal lore, may not understand the language of democracy but are
comfortable with deals and payoffs as demonstrated by the limited success
of British troops in Musa Qala.
Khaleej Times wrote, NATO has apologized for causing heavy
civilian casualties as part of its blitz in southern Afghanistan. The deaths
reportedly occurred with NATO troops called in air and artillery strikes
during fighting in Panjwai district, near Kandahar. While NATO has
confirmed 12 civilian deaths, along with dozens of Taliban fighters, Afghan

573

officials say that most of those killed on Tuesday more than 60 had
been women and children.
Ironically enough, even as NATO issued this belated apology after
President Hamid Karzai expressed his sadness over the Panjwai killings,
there are reports of more fighting and greater number of casualties.
NATO claims that 70 militants were killed in fighting with International
Security Assistance Force yesterday. Now who knows how many innocent
bystanders may have been there among those militants?
Earlier, the newspaper had warned that such brutalities could prove
counterproductive. If NATO claims last month of having routed the
Taliban from the Panjwai district of Afghanistans Kandahar province were
true, why did it need to bomb the place for 4-5 hours on Eid Day?... That the
relentless bombardment ended with as many as 80 civilian deaths (mostly
women and children) typifies the occupying forces incompetence with
regard to the terror-war and utter inability in reining in the Taliban.
The truth is that the entire outgoing year has been a continuously
mounting disaster for NATO. Soon after the resumption of fighting in spring,
it became clear that the ousted Taliban regime had regrouped and laid an
effective strategy of resurgence during the winter, when fighting usually
trims down.
Now, the Karzai administration faces a very crucial test, as implied
by NATO commander British General David Richards; frustrated, bankrupt,
hungry, and poverty and disease stricken Afghans may well turn to the
Taliban if Kabuls promised development stays at bay much longer. And
considering ground realities, not many would bet on Kabul.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal observed that whatever the dynamics of local and
international politics, Afghanistan is now heading toward a long drawn
out war, with no end in sight. It is no more a Taliban war; it is an Afghan
war against foreign troops, something that Afghans seem to have done
throughout their history.
Beyond the limited view of politicians who have sent their armies
equipped with the most advanced weapons on the planet to a country where
people still live their entire lives under the shades of pomegranates, the
human tragedy of this new Afghan adventure does not stop at the
obscene photos of German soldiers posing with skulls; the scars run deep,

574

into the very heart of a region which was until 1979 the most enchanting
place on earth.
Kate Clark analyzed as to why the situation in Afghanistan was
troubling. This autumn, I traveled to areas of the north that are under no
threat from the Taliban. After five years of international support, they
should be havens of democracy, human rights and prosperity. Yet, the
situation there is just as troubling.
This was not a Taliban attack. Locals blamed relatives of a
commander from one of the mujahideen factions of the old Northern
Alliance who had been killed by NATO fire after a patrol came under attack.
Elsewhere, in another apparent revenge attack, armed men had come in
the night and set fire to a school.
The complaint of many locals in Badakhshan and elsewhere is
that their lives are still controlled by the old factional networks. In the
north-east, every state official I met was a former mujahid, almost all from
the same Jamiat-i-Islami faction. This is not to say there are no decent
former mujahideen commanders in positions of high office
Civilians complain that ISAF never challenges local commanders
because force protection protection of its soldiers comes before
protection of Afghan civilians. In Faizabad, for example, the most powerful
commander has the contract to guard the NATO base. It is a strategy
favoured by many of the foreign forces and UN agencies nationwide, but for
local people, seeing former militiamen guarding a foreign base is hardly
encouraging.
Colonel Martin Robrech said: The problem is that our mandate
doesnt allow us to take away any former commanders. This is a purely
Afghan problem Its up to Kabul and up to the government and if they
need the support it will be provided. No request for action, he added, had
ever been made.
The pervasiveness of the old militia networks was not inevitable
when the Taliban collapsed. In 2001, the decision to arm and support the
Northern Alliance and other tribal and mujahideen groups, despite their
history of war crimes, brought a speedy victory over the Taliban.

575

Afghans have never had much faith in the state, which traditionally
concentrates on taxes and conscription. However expectations did rise after
2001, with talk of democracy, human rights, and aid. What has emerged is
a state that cannot or will not protect its citizens, and in some places
actively abuses them Even those who benefited most from the antiTaliban invasion are often now disgruntled. In the Panjshir Valley, the
political heartland of Shura-i-Nazar, people were discontented about aid,
services and jobs.
Sharon Smith opined that US stated goals in Afghanistan were
based upon a set of lies equivalent in scale to those used to justify the
war on Iraq. Lie number one: The overthrow of the Taliban brought a
flowering of democracy to Afghanistan.
Lie number two: The war on Afghanistan aimed to liberate Afghan
women. After the fall of the Taliban in November 2001, President Bush
gallantly ceded airtime in his weekly radio address to First Lady Laura
Bush, who claimed: Because of our recent military gainswomen are no
longer imprisoned at homes.
Lie number three: The Taliban could not be negotiated with and
was therefore overthrown for providing a safe heaven for terrorists. Five
years later, the US appears ready to negotiate with the undefeated Taliban.
Zarar Khuhro observed that regardless, despite what noises the
Democrats may make in the run-up to the election, the fact is that controlling
the Afghanistan situation is now beyond the will and ability of the coalition.
Due to the arrogance, shortsightedness and sheer stupidity, they have
successfully snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Khaleej Times wrote, when will the coalition of the willing realize
that it is fighting a lost war in Afghanistan. A la Iraq? But that may not be
correct. Bogged down in Iraq, the US realized long ago that it couldnt
win on the Afghan front, just as Soviet Union did before it; which is why
Washington has passed the thankless job rather cleverly on to the NATO
forces.
The News opined that the bitter Afghan winter is upon all
protagonists in the conflict but as the weather improves with the passage of
time, it is quite possible that unless a political solution is worked out, the
number of attacks on foreign soldiers will only increase. The Taliban

576

chief is at pains to point out that the hard-line movement is not ethnic in
nature but has the support of non-Pashtun Afghans as well. The reality
probably lies somewhere in between.
Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Pashtuns all need to understand that if
they tolerated each other, perhaps, Afghanistan would not be in the mess it is
today. Of course, it is also very easy to point fingers at other countries,
and though some of this may be justified, the solution really is to rely less on
foreign helpers and patrons and more on themselves.
Los Angeles Times indulged in Pakistan-bashing. Without
enough Western troops to suppress them and without a central government
strong enough to project power to its territories that Taliban was bound to fill
the vacuum. The United States has done little diplomatically in the last five
years to establish a meaningful border between Afghanistan, which does not
recognize the international border known as the Durand Line, and Pakistan,
which has abandoned any effort to control the tribal areas on its side of
the border. The editor was coaxing Bush Administration to disregard the
border defined by the Durand Line?
M B Naqvi feared that Pakistan could succumb under constant
bashing. There are hints that if Pakistan does what NATO wants, more
western aid will come its way. It wants Pakistan to prosecute the terror war
jointly with it in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the question of hot
pursuit by the alliance troops into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas
in Baluchistan and NWFP was reportedly discussed. Joint conduct of a
war implies that troops of all allies can move in the territory of other
allies.
The News responded to one the accusations hurled by the puppet in
Kabul. Karzais statement that terror attacks are undermining relations
between his country and Pakistan and that his people are running out of
patience is nothing more than an irresponsible and frantic venting of
frustration. Such remarks, especially with Foreign Minister Kasuri visiting
Kabul to discuss bilateral relations, are of little constructive value.
Clearing the air, not inflaming it further, should be the principle aim
in order to begin a practical effort to curb terrorism. Instead of moving
towards such an endeavour, Mr Karzai insists on passing the buck to
Pakistan, and he does in public, with considerable frequency Wish as
much as he (President Karzai) may, the Taliban arent going to go away and
577

the solution to reducing their influence must involve a political element as

well.
In a subsequent editorial the newspaper wrote, Taliban leader Mulla
Mohammad Omars threat in a reported message on Friday that his followers
would drive out US and coalition troops from Afghanistan, is a sign of his
growing confidence after the Talibans recent successes. The military
successes of the fanatical militia are less alarming than the popularity it has
gained because of US excesses in Afghanistan. Even the fieriest critics of the
Taliban would find unacceptable the brutalities committed on suspected
terrorist at Bagram airbase.
It would be easy to ask that the United States prepare an exit strategy
for Afghanistan and leave as soon as possible. But in a situation where the
imbalanced US policies have created widespread resentment in the unruly
region, that would be an irresponsible demand. On the other hand, it would
be equally unrealistic to look forward to the Americans changing their
policies But Washington could at least realize its follies in Afghanistan.
The unfortunate thing is that President Bush is giving no sign of
fulfilling even that modest expectation.
Indiscriminate use of excessive military force and Pakistan-bashing
had one aim; to secure a cheap victory. Los Angeles Times opined that
fierce fighting between NATO and Taliban forces in a wide swath of the
south has conspired with drought to destroy farmers crops. Both the drought
and the renewed warfare were predicted. The Bush Administrations failure
to prevent either disaster stems from its stubborn view that Afghanistan can
be fixed on the cheap.
During second half of November, Blair visited Afghanistan to stress
upon the importance of Crusaders victory in that country. Simon Jenkins
commented on this visit. What is it about a desert that drives men mad? On
Monday morning the prime minister stood on the Afghan sand and said:
Here in this extraordinary piece of desert is where the fate of world
security in the early 21st century is going to be decided.
Talib Afghanistan was no more a threat after 9/11 than were the
American flying schools at which the 9/11 perpetrators trained. So what is
Blair getting at? He once confessed to his hero, Roy Jenkins, that he
regretted not having studied history at Oxford. He never spoke truer

578

word. The concept of world security as holistic and vulnerable to incidents

such as 9/11 is nonsensical.
He has already had to switch tactics from winning hearts and minds
to American-style search and destroy, blowing up villages with 1000lb
bombs. British commanders are describing successes in terms of enemy
kills. They should recall that Victorian officers in the Punjab were told that
such boasts would be treated as a sign of failure, not success. Such killings
infuriated the population and presaged revenge attacks. Has the British army
learnt nothing?
The use of word terrorism to imply some grand military offensive
against the West may sound good in White House national security
documents and Downing Street speeches. But terrorism is not an enemy or
an ideology, let alone a country or an army. It is a weapon, like a gun or a
bomb. It is not something that can be defeated, only guarded against.
What is sad about Blairs statement is not its strategic naivety but
the psychology behind it. Why have the leaders of Britain and America felt
driven to adopt so wildly distorted a concept of menace? Max Rodenbeck
offers plausible but depressing answers. They include the short-term
popularity that war offers democratic leaders, the yearning of defence chiefs
and industries to prove the worth of expensive kit and, in Iraqs case, the
influence of neo-conservatives and of the pro-Islamic lobby, seeing a chance
to set a superpower on Israels enemies.
All this is true, but I sense a deeper disconnect. The West is ruled by
a generation of leaders with no experience of war or its threat. Blair and his
team cannot recall the aftermath of the Second World War, and in the Cold
War they rushed to join CND. They were distant from those real global
horrors. Yet now in power they seem to crave an enemy of equivalent
monstrosity
Tom Clifford wrote, the Afghan desert and its inhabitants, renowned
for their hospitality, were not, are not and never will be a threat to world
security. If Afghanistan is so important to all our security why are there so
many warlords returning? Why is the opium trade booming? What is,
though, a threat to world security are two politicians who have lost the
plot and the war or wars.

579

Despite their earnest desire for quick victory, European countries

hesitated in sending more troops to Afghanistan. Some analysts suggested
EU must share the responsibility with NATO forces. Robert E Hunter wrote,
NATO has bet the alliance on Afghanistan. No amount of
transformation or partnerships or anything else will matter much if NATO
fails for the first time in its history even if that failure is not of its own
making.
Allied leaders must also act on the knowledge that NATO does not
have the skills, resources or experience to take full charge of meeting
Afghanistans requirements for external civilian help. That task must belong
to the European Union, the one institution with the collective means, skills,
resources and potentially the leadership to relieve NATO and ISAF of
burdens for which they are not suited.
At Riga, NATO should challenge the EU to take the proper share
of responsibility for success in Afghanistan. This will require the EU to
contribute money, manpower and officials on the ground of the rank and
stature of ISAF commanders in an equal partnership with NATO.
European countries met at Riga to address problems in Afghanistan.
Sir Cyril Townsend commented on the outcome of summit. The NATO
summit made some progress over the numerous caveats operating among its
troops in Afghanistan. It has been like having a football team in which
only a few players are authorized to tackle the other side! It seems in
future France, Germany, Italy and Spain might allow their forces to move
outside their own area of operations when needed. Gen David Richards must
be allowed far greater flexibility.
Rahimullah Yusufzai opined: The NATO summit was long awaited
and even billed as an event that would take decisions to shape the world in
accordance with the wishes and agenda of the US and its Western allies.
Analysts were hinting that it would reinforce NATOs commitment to
stay the course in Afghanistan and plan military strategies to root out the
Taliban and al-Qaeda and extend the writ of the Karzai government to
provinces and districts in the south where it had little presence.
The NATO summit has achieved mixed results. It gave go-ahead
signal to make the 25,000-strong NATO Rapid Response Force (NRF)
operational that would be sent to hot spots in the world. It doesnt require
much imagination to conclude that this force made up of troops provided by
580

NATO member countries on a six-month rotation basis, would be the

military muscle for securing Western interests and sorting out regimes and
non-state actors threatening the US and its allies.
However, the Riga summit failed to quickly deliver the 2,500 extra
troops needed to beef up the NATOs 32,500-strong force for effectively
coping with the Taliban challenge. Some promises were made for providing
the required soldiers and weapons and the restrictions imposed by bigger
NATO memberson deployment of their troops from the safer northern and
western provinces to the Taliban-infested south
The debate on removing the caveats, or restrictions, on NATO
troops deployment has been so intense that German soldiers operating as
road-builders and traffic sergeants in the northern Kunduz province were
taunted as cowards and the government of France, Italy and Spain were
accused of lacking commitment to jointly defend Western civilizations from
attacks by Islamic extremists
There have been suggestions by a growing number of well-meaning
western analysts for entering into a dialogue with the Taliban and
encouraging them to become part of mainstream political process in
Afghanistan
The efforts of occupation forces to secure a cheap victory through use
of brute force proved to be counter-productive. Syed Saleem Shahzad
observed, popular support has turned noticeably in the Talibans favour
in many regions. However, the invitation by the tribes people to the Taliban
to return to the plains of the southwest was the real surprise of the year and
outweighs all the successes of the spring offensive A step closer to Kabul:
As they have in conflicts over the centuries in Afghanistan, winter snows
will bring any meaningful fighting between the Taliban and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization-led forces to a halt.
This will be the time for planning, and all roads lead to Kabul. Since
the 18 century this has meant taking Kandahar first the Taliban also did
so before they took the capital in 1996. The Taliban have apparently decided
that they will follow this tradition, but overpowering US air power and the
sophisticated weaponry and technology of the NATO forces rule out any
conventional confrontation Instead, the Taliban will attempt to isolate
Kandahar-Herat highway to the west, and the road leading east to
Kabul. That is the battle to come.
th

581

Consequently, even more troops are not likely to achieve the desired
goal, observed M B Naqvi. The Taliban cannot be fought with tanks and
helicopter gunship; that way for each dead Taliban, three new recruits will
replace him to their ranks. This is the lesson of both Afghanistan and Iraqs
wars. Military means are wholly inappropriate against ideology. More
troops and equipment are thrown in, in an un-winnable ideological war,
the more certain becomes the eventful defeat.
Messer Bush and Blair ought to see with a clear eye that the two
nation states of Iraq and Afghanistan have been destroyed, perhaps for good.
It is now time to think of the troubles that will multiply in the Middle East
and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Redrawing maps of areas that have
seen successive civilizations is too risky an affair. History is not tamed beast
that does tricks on the masters word of command.
Farooq Khan suggested an alternative solution. If the NATO and
American forces have failed to bring peace in Afghanistan then the United
Nations need to step in and take direct charge to restore permanent
peace in this war torn country. The following strategy is recommended:
All foreign forces to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan.
A UN brokered ceasefire in Afghanistan amongst the groups in power
and Taliban leadership should declare an end to all hostilities
including all forms of terrorism, militancy and resistance.
UN should be mandated to ensure a smooth transition to a full
democratic set-up in Afghanistan with participation, power sharing
and appropriate representation of all forces including moderate
Afghans, ethnic groups and the Taliban.
UN peacekeepers from Islamic countries should be deployed in
Afghanistan for maintenance of law and order and see through the
orderly transition to a government of national unity.
All remaining foreign fighters including remnants of al-Qaeda should
lay arms and be granted amnesty. They should be given a safe passage
to their country of origin or be allowed to settle in Afghanistan as
ordinary citizens.

582

CONCLUSION
Europe has re-embarked on its quest for fulfillment of its chronic
imperialistic ambitions. Afghanistan is its first destination. The royal journey
begins with mission no defeat. The strategy too has imperialistic touch: use
high-tech military power indiscriminately, obviously not for winning over
the Afghans, but to secure their unconditional submission.
Afghans, call them Pashtuns, Taliban or Islamic terrorists, too have no
option but to keep resisting the occupation forces. Their mission is to
liberate their homeland from illegal occupation of the Crusaders. They lack
the resources to throw out the occupation forces, but their strength lies in
their cause.
The setting promises no victory or no defeat for any side but a longdrawn struggle; which in turn threatens the security of the region in general
and Pakistan in particular. Pakistan will remain under constant pressure from
the Crusaders and their Puppet because of the acts of their adversary;
Taliban.
19th January 2007

SOFT IMAGE HARD FACTS

Pakistan remained committed to the peace in Afghanistan, but the US
spy chief alleged that al-Qaeda was still operative in Pakistan. Negroponte
said in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that eliminating
the safe haven that the Taliban and other extremists have found in Pakistans
583

tribal areas is not sufficient to end the insurgency in Afghanistan, but it is

necessary.
To further reward the frontline state in war on terror, the US Congress
debated a bill linking military assistance for Pakistan to its commitment to
fight terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Despite the fact that US
administration mulled asking Congress to drop this provision, the new law
promises more trouble for the strategic partner.
The draft EU report on Kashmir was so biased that by 11th January,
different parties had proposed 452 amendments in it. Subsequently,
European Parliament decided to postpone adoption of controversial
resolution on Kashmir. Meanwhile, Manmohan sought lasting treaty with
Pakistan. Sardarji was definitely on fast-track; he wanted to have lunch in
Lahore and dinner in Kabul after taking breakfast in India; for him the
settlement of issues could wait.
Information Minister, Durrani declared that present assemblies will reelect Musharraf in September or October. Opposition termed it an
unconstitutional and undemocratic move. The ruling elite continued
projecting Pakistans soft image, but quite unconvincingly.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Pakistan remained committed to Afghan peace. Following incidents
were reported during the period:
A bomb exploded in Tank on 28 th December. Two days later, rocket
was fired at Levies Post in Bajaur. Afghanistan refused to release two
Pakistani policemen who had trespassed into Afghan territory about
two months ago.
One person was killed and a minor girl injured in retaliatory firing by
the Khassadars after their post near Ghalanai was attacked on 5 th
January 2007.
Commission headed by Sherpao got the go-ahead signal for
organizing jirgas and keeping liaison with Afghan Jirga Commission.

584

 Pakistan Armys gunship helicopters were used for destroying trucks

suspected of carrying arms and ammunition across the border on 11th
January; operation was carried out in conjunction with NATO forces
operation in Paktika province. General Richard praised Pakistans
contribution in reducing Taliban activities in Afghanistan.
On 13th January, thousands of people held rally to mark first
anniversary of Damadola strike. Two days later, four people were
killed in a blast in Jalozai refugee camp.
Congressional delegation led by Hillary Clinton met Musharraf in
Lahore and commended his role in war against terror.
On 16th January, Pakistan military carried out air strikes on suspected
hideouts of militants in South Waziristan. ISPR said up to 30 foreign
militants and their local facilitators were killed. Tribesmen said only
eight civilians were killed.
Next day, military outposts were attacked in South Waziristan and
demonstration was held in Tank on second day. ISPR said injured alQaeda fighter was being hunted.
On 20th January, Pakistan authorities detained 118 Afghan Hajis at
Karachi who used Pakistani passports for pilgrimage.
Three policemen were injured as their vehicle was blown up near
Tank on 21st January. Female teacher in Dara Adam Khel was asked to
wear veil by local Taliban.
On 22nd January, a suicide car bomber attacked a military convoy near
Mirali killing four soldiers and a woman and wounding 27 others.
Militants denied involvement. FC troops seized ten rockets near
Chaman border.
The same day, gunship helicopters of US-led coalition forces attacked
Pakistani border post in Shawal area killing one soldier and wounding
two others. Islamabad protested the ferocity of friendly fire, hoping
that its allies might say sorry.

585

 Foreign Office invited summoned according to official version US

and British envoys to lodge protest over a cup of tea against attack on
the border post.
On 24th January, fifteen rockets were fired on FC post in South
Waziristan. Nine rockets fired from across the border landed around
another post in North Waziristan. Three policemen were kidnapped
from a post in Tank and 130 Afghan refugees were arrested in new
drive in Peshawar. NATO refused to accept killing of Pakistani soldier
until completion of investigation.
On 25th January, 183 more Afghan Hajis with Pakistani passports were
detained. Students of seminaries in Mardan protested arrest and
torture of two religious students from Swat by military personnel.
Pak-Afghan-NATO intelligence centre opened in Kabul. Defence
secretary said allied forces were still using some airports in the
country for their occupation of Afghanistan.
Militants killed a policeman in an ambush in Tank on 26 th January and
rockets were fired at police quarters. A suicide bomber blew himself at
the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad hours before the Indian Republic Day
reception was to be held; two persons were killed.
Fifteen people, including police chief, were killed and 30 wounded in
a blast in Peshawar on 27th January.
The partners, for whose peace Pakistan has risked, own peace, kept
hurling accusations at frontline state in war on terror. A day after
Negropontes testimony, a US General said top Afghan insurgents were
operating from Pakistan. Kabul hailed US comments on al-Qaeda in
Pakistan.
On 15th January, Pakistan rejected US spy chiefs allegations and said
pre-emptive strike would be unacceptable. Pak Army rejected US Generals
claim that Taliban were operating from Pakistan. Rejecting US Generals
claim, Musharraf reminded him unprecedented sacrifices of Pakistan in war
on terror.
Two days later, NATO secretary general asked Pakistan to stop
movement of militants across Afghan border. Afghan authorities once again

586

claimed that Mulla Omar is in Pakistan. On 18th January, Negroponte

reiterated that Pakistan must address the issue of sanctuary for Taliban.
Musharraf felt cross-border pressure and issued a warning against
cross-border activity. Islamabad denied Mulla Omars presence in Quetta.
Three days later, Karzai alleged that Pakistani circles are behind violence
in Afghanistan. Pakistans Foreign Office resorted to counter-allegation by
claiming that Mulla Omar is operating from Kandahar.
During his visit to five Arab countries, on 22 nd January Musharraf
discussed with Mubarak the presence of Arab militants at Afghan border.
Two days later, he termed US allegations of abetting Taliban preposterous.
On 26th January, Kabul accused Pakistan of using terror as tool and Canada
wanted more help from Pakistan on Afghan border. Next day, the US once
again accused Pakistan of providing refuge to Taliban.
In addition to deployment of thousands of troops along Afghan border,
Pakistan decided to take other measures to check cross-border movement;
selective fencing and mining of the border was one of them. Karzai and the
UN rejected border fencing and mining plan. In Pakistan, Asfandyar and
other Pashtun leaders also opposed the plan.
The UN and Canada mounted pressure on Pakistan against mining of
the border. Kabul wrote a letter to UN chief expressing deep concern over
Pakistans plan to mine and fence the disputed border. Two days later,
Boucher during his visit to Islamabad evaded questions on the issue.
Pakistan installed Biometrics system at the busiest crossing point at
Chaman. On instigation of Afghan authorities, Afghans protested against
installation of this system and other measures to control cross-border
movement. Next day, border crossing at Chaman had to be closed
temporarily.
During first week of January, Shaukat Aziz visited Kabul. Karzai,
after meeting with the guest, said, I explainedabout terrorism, about the
burning of schools unfortunately, the gap in ties is increasing between
Afghanistan and Pakistan It is with a lot of regret that relations face a lack
of trust. Aziz said Pakistan would go ahead with its plan to fence and mine
parts of the border with Afghanistan.

587

Khaleej Times criticized the unjustified bashing of Pakistan. It

deserves appreciating that despite the continuous not-doing-enough charge,
General Musharraf has perhaps the best record so far of the war-on-terror
leaders. His jirga deal with the tribals and stress on a new approach of
negotiating with the Taliban show he realizes only too well the dangers of
sticking with the current military-operation only policy something that is
lost on both the West and Kabul.
It is also important to address accusations regarding the involvement
of Pakistans security agency ISI in the Afghan scenario, something which
both Washington and Kabul should be the last to question. Facts are
facts and need voicing at least as many times as criticism that misses them
Cruel as the Taliban were, they did put an end to war and destruction that the
present leaders did not care to then and cannot seem to now.
The News wrote, Karzai of Afghanistan wasnt making a startling
disclosure when he complained that his countrys relations with Pakistan
were worsening. Nor did he depart from a sort of tradition that he has
established in the five years since he was installed by the United States,
that of blaming Pakistan for his countrys problems, though he did it
obliquely on this occasion.
Kabul only resorts to the destructive, utterly unhelpful option of
blaming Pakistan and rejecting initiatives from Islamabad. The truth is that
Mr Karzais government has never even attempted to ascertain why the US,
NATO forces and the Afghan soldiers they have trained and armed, are
helpless against the alleged Pakistani-backed violence and sabotage.
Nasim Zehra opined, Afghanistans journey to recovery is likely to
be difficult journey. Yet for Pakistan the only policy option is to provide
substantive support and to remain engaged at all times in dialogue with
Afghanistan. For Pakistans own interest and the interest of the entire region,
Afghanistans rapid recovery and reconstruction has to be a priority goal.
Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri expressed similar views. A realization that
Afghanistans travails spring from past foreign interventions and
occupations, including the present one, should be the guiding factor for an
enlightened foreign policy. The art of foreign policy is to maximize gains
under better circumstances and limit damages under adverse conditions. This
is a challenge that Pakistan will have to confront in the coming years.

588

Shireen M Mazari wrote, in this coming year, Pakistan should expect

to come under increasing hostility from the US and UK as NATO comes
under increasing attack in Afghanistan. Since the US still refuses to accept
that its military-focused strategy for the war against terror has failed to show
desired results, countries like Pakistan need to do some serious
reassessment of their own anti-terrorism strategies
Short of renouncing our Muslim identity and surrendering our
sovereignty, nothing we do will please the West as far as the war on terror
is concerned, so it is time to focus on our national priorities and cooperate
with the US and NATO as far as our own interests are not undermined
which means that military transgressions of our sovereignty should be totally
unacceptable.
Pakistans plan for selective fencing and mining of the border was
opposed without convincing justifications. Fasi Zaka said, it looks like
Pakistan may be able to give the jollies to those whose dreams of exploding
grass munchers were scuttled if we go ahead by fencing and mining our
borders with Afghanistan. The Afghans arent happy with the situation.
Obviously so, their own country is riddled with landmines and now their
neighbour is threatening to change them from a landlocked country to a
mine-locked one.
Rahimullah Yusufzai wrote, Pakistans proposal to fence and mine its
border with Afghanistan is seen as a frantic move, aimed at scoring points
in a high stakes game between the two countries in fact, doubts began to
emerge soon after the proposal was floated when some government officials
argued that Islamabad had no other option but to lay mines and fence the
border in view of the non-stop allegations by Kabul about cross-border
infiltration.
Khaleej Times commented, since its the government in Kabul that
points at the incursions as the basis of the biggest threat to its stability, its
reaction that rather than the proposed approach, both countries should tackle
terrorists in a real manner is that much more difficult to understand,
especially since it stops short of elaborating on a viable alternative.
The News wrote, the criticism of the plan to mine parts of the border
may be justified on humanitarian grounds since experience suggests that
primary victims of land mines are not military fighters but the civilian
population, especially children. However, it would be good if the
589

international community and especially Kabul and the countries which have
sent their troops for the NATO force currently in Afghanistan see the good
faith in Pakistans move to fence and mine the border.
The point, however, is that instead of indulging in frequent criticism,
it would be good if Kabul and its allies were to provide some practical
suggestions on how to end the alleged cross-border infiltration and also took
some action at their own end to catch Taliban fighters when they engage
Afghan and/or NATO forces.
M Ismail Khan commented on holding of jirgas. The insistence on a
jirga comprised of tribal heads from across the Durand Line when there are
two elected governments functioning in the two sovereign nation states
seems a deliberate attempt to rekindle sentiments of tribalism and could
further complicate matters for Pakistan. This is precisely the reason
Islamabad must try to stick with an established legal and constitutional
mechanism to conduct its relations with Afghanistan, including issues
related to border infiltration and terrorism.
The latest air strike in Waziristan was criticized. The News wrote,
hours after US Defence Secretary Robert Gates spoke in Kabul of a US
intention to take up a surge in cross-border insurgency allegedly
originating in Pakistan, the Pakistani army launched an air strike on a
suspected militant target in South Waziristan The same day, President
Musharraf declared once again that Pakistan will eliminate terrorism at all
cost. But there are claims that at least eight of the victims were civilians,
including a ten-year-old boy.
Given the danger they pose to the rest of Pakistan, as well as to
Afghanistan, such attacks have a great deal of justification. But the
occurrence of the incident at this precise moment would give the
impression that it was timed to coincide with Mr Gates trip to Kabul,
particularly in view of the US and Afghan governments charges that
Pakistan is not doing enough for the suppression of terrorists.
Khaleej Times termed it thankless task. Perhaps Kabul and
Washingtons frustration at Pakistan for not doing enough is second only to
Islamabads itself, directed at the two for not understanding enough. The
latest air strikes in Pakistans South Waziristan area bordering Afghanistan
are indicative of the lengths to which Islamabad is pushing the terrorwar agenda, despite mounting domestic opposition.
590

Right from the get-go, when General Musharraf approved of

unstinted support, Pakistan has been on the receiving end of more bad
news than good. The ever-increasing refugee-influx notwithstanding, much
of the financial pat-on-the-back was eaten up by the economic fallout of
political and social unrest created by domestic hard-line elements.
Furthermore, to hold Islamabad responsible for the growing strength of the
insurgency misses the point, as it is a phenomenon that is in no way
Afghanistan or Pakistan specific.
Pakistan is doing the most with the least to gain neither
freedom, nor deliverance from dictatorship nor strategic interests. Yet it
plays along lest the job is left half-done, with wider negative implications.
But Islamabads aggravation at constantly being asked to deliver more which
invariably entails disapproval at home, especially ahead of general elections,
is understandable.
Farhatullah Babar wrote, on Tuesday last army helicopters used laserguided missiles to strike against what was claimed to be hideouts of
suspected militants in a remote village of South Waziristan Agency killing
25-30 miscreants including foreigners. Local tribesmen and Tribal
members of the Parliament belonging to the region have however rejected
the militarys version and claimed that those killed were local wood-cutters
and not foreigners.
The village was raided just when the US Defence Secretary
Robert Gates had arrived in Kabul for talks with President Karzai. In the
past also such strikes almost perfectly coincided with high profile visits of
foreign dignitaries. Such coincidences have not been lost sight on the
people. They are seen as showing evidence of our taking on the foreign
terrorists on our territory.
Why is it that no one believes the militarys version even as the
regime tries hard to convince its own people or the NATO commanders or
European and US governments? A reason for this lack of credibility with our
own people is that the military spokesman refuse to give any evidence that
shows that foreign militants indeed have been taken out in the strikes
Whatever it was Bajaur I or Bajaur II or now the border village in South
Waziristan not a single piece of evidence has been made public that shows
that foreign militants indeed were the target.

591

Imtiaz Gul suggested that dialogue over use of force should be

preferred. That people (Afghans) hate foreigners and many of whom also
view the army as invaders and agents of infidels, is not their fault. It is the
culture that they grew up in. For them, their religious belief and social
responsibility vis--vis other fellow beings is more sacrosanct than the calls
by the government to shun extremists.
Growing demands of the US and Afghans (though the Afghan leaders
themselves are also aware of the intricacies) must not lead to attack on
beliefs and culture. Aggression will only reinforce them. Peaceful
engagement and gradual canvassing, without offending the cultural
values, might work in the long run. Rushed approaches could sink our
frontier regions and those adjacent to them in the turmoil that Afghanistan
finds itself in.
Ikram Sehgal apprehended that despite services rendered for the
Crusaders, Pakistans turn will come. The public airing of US intelligence
reports about Pakistan being an al-Qaeda haven by John Nergoponteand
Robert Gates, a former CIA chief and now secretary defence, should be a
wake-up call for Pakistan. If one looks at the build-up for Iraq, and now Iran,
the similarity is striking. Both the intelligentsia and the masses of
Pakistan seem to believe that Pakistans turn will come, the US$ 64,000
question is, when?
With the likelihood that Pakistans support for Iran, even though
ambivalent could become material because of public reaction, would
western planners leave Pakistans nuclear assets in place? One cannot
discount that possibility, the outside danger is that India could decide on a
final solution for Pakistan, its airpower striking at our nuclear sites, or
even suspected ones. Some may dismiss this doomsday scenario as alarmist,
one prays that it is.
The treatment meted out to the frontline ally speaks loudly about the
prejudices of the Crusaders harbour against it. Some of the events in this
context, other than the above, reported during the period were as under:
On 3rd January 2007, RAND study suggested that the US should
suspend aid to Pakistan over human rights violations, despite the fact
that most of the violations were committed for winning the terror war.

592

 The draft EU report on Kashmir was so biased that by 11th January,

different parties had proposed 452 amendments in it. A fortnight later,
European Parliament decided to postpone adoption of controversial
resolution on Kashmir.
Three days later, evidence regarding the reason behind this bias was
reported wherein an Indian businessman pledged two million Pounds
to Blairs party.
The US House of Representatives approved a legislation asking
Pakistan to build effective institutions for secular education.
Following the course set by Bush Administration, Russia agreed to
build four new nuclear power plants in India. The agreement was
signed on 25th January in New Delhi during Putins visit.
Next day, Pakistan, Iran and India agreed on gas pricing formula; US
announced opposition to the project.
The US administration mulled asking Congress to drop provision in a
new bill linking military assistance for Pakistan to its commitment to
fight terrorism.
The time to pay price of being an ally of the Yankees was nearing.
Shireen M Mazari opined, the US intent towards Pakistan has now
become completely unambiguous and it is a threatening and hostile
design the US is unfurling in the context of its frontline ally in the war on
terror. For the US, it is of no significance that this countrys leader has put
his life on the line of fire for the erroneous military-centric strategy the US
continues to dictate in the war against terror; or that some innocent citizens
of Pakistan have paid with their lives for this cause, while others have had
their kith and kin disappear to feed Americas insatiable appetite for
punishing Muslim extremists.
The more Pakistan and its leadership have sacrificed in order to
deliver al-Qaeda to the US and be the most committed ally in the war against
terror, the more abuse has been hurled at it from the US both the political
elites and media and its Afghan puppet, Hamid Karzai. After all,
surrounded by foreign forces it is hard to assume that Karzais diatribe

593

against Pakistan has come without the acquiescence, if not actual

goading, of the Americans.
She then mentioned the AQ Khans case of nuclear proliferation;
publication of article suggesting redrawing of boundaries of Islamic
countries, including Pakistan; and frequent violation of Pakistans territorial
sovereignty, and added: Now the US has effectively moved to threaten
Pakistan directly. In the second week of January, the Democrats in the
House of Representatives put forward a bill providing recommendations for
the implementation of the recommendations presented by the 9/11
Commission. Without following procedural niceties, the bill was passed by
the House on January 12. The section of Pakistan effectively takes PakistanUS relations back to the Pressler days
What is interesting is that the language used in this bill is similar to
the language used by John Negroponte His accusation that Pakistan is a
major source of Islamic extremism and a safe haven for Taliban and the
home of some to terrorist leaders seems to have been almost lifted from the
text of the bill passed by the House The threat is further heightened
because as in the bill, Negroponte also raised the proliferation issue
alongside the extremists problem.
On India it is clear that present US policy-makers approve of
Indian interventions in other South Asian states. Very approvingly,
Negroponte declares that New Delhi seeks to play a role in fostering
democracy in the region, especially in Nepal and Bangladesh and will
continue to be a reliable ally against global terrorism. And we thought we
were that ally.
The point is that by now we should accept that the US intent towards
us is threatening and overall negative But the reality is that the US does
need us in the war on terror in Afghanistan so we have leverage on that
count for the moment. Why are we then not using it?
At what stage of the US threats materialization will we begin to
use our counter-leverage? Have we become so overwhelmed by a
psychological confidence deficit that we cannot take such a step? If that is
the case, then the threatening design laid out in various US analyses that
preceded the Congressional bill itself and John Negropontes statement
against Pakistan, will begin to unfold.

594

Shandana Minhas commented on the latest US bill. I was chucking so

hard at this, I only skimmed the article reporting US Senate approval is the
only hurdle remaining in the passage of a bill making further military aid
to Pakistan contingent upon our doing more to counter the Taliban and
al-Qaeda, and another asking Pakistan to hand over Dr A Q Khan.

PEACE PROCESS
The so-called peace process was stuck. On 3rd January, Musharraf met
EUs chairman of the foreign relations committee and requested him to help
solve Indo-Pak dispute. Ten days later, foreign ministers of two countries
held extensive talks in Islamabad and agreed to have more extensive talks
next month in New Delhi. Kasuri disclosed that Pakistan has given detailed
plan for solution of Siachen issue. The process of confidence building had
also slowed down. India and Pakistan exchanged lists of nuclear installations
and facilities on 1st January 2007. Six days later, Pakistan freed 115 Indian
fishermen.
There was no end to acts negative to confidence building. On 12th
January, in unison with America, India said that rebels were still operating
from AJK. Pakistan placed an order to buy 700 air-to-air missiles from US
Company. Next day, India blamed and Pakistan denied violation of ceasefire
along the LoC. Hindu-Muslim riots erupted in Banglore on 21st January.
On 26th January, Shaukat Aziz said there wont be any trade with India
without resolution of Kashmir dispute. Meanwhile, following incidents were
reported from IHK:
Police chief was gunned down by a suspected militant near Srinagar
on 30th December.
Indian Army killed four people in the Valley on 4th January 2007. A
JCO shot dead a soldier after a scuffle in the barrack. One imam was
abducted by the gunmen in Hindwara. Ten persons were injured in
anti-US protest in IHK. Gilani was booked in sedition case in Jammu
only a couple of days after he had led an anti-US rally.
Two civilians were killed and 36 wounded in a grenade attack in
Shopian on 6th January.

595

 Two freedom fighters, two civilians and a policeman were killed in

different incidents on 8th January.
Indian troops martyred two youths in fake encounters in Rajouri and
Handwara on 12th January.
Three Kashmiris were killed and five Indian soldiers were wounded is
separate incidents on 13th January. India Supreme Court upheld Gurus
death sentence.
Grenade was thrown at Mirwaizs house in Srinagar on 15 th January.
Eight days later, three BSF soldiers were killed and seven wounded in
an attack.
Kashmiri leaders faced no difficulty in remaining abreast with the
so-called peace process. Gilani termed the ongoing dialogue eyewash. Sajid
Ghani Lone unveiled unification plan for Kashmir with defence as joint
responsibility of Kashmiris, India and Pakistan.
The visit of APHC delegation led by Mirwaiz was an important event
towards carving consensus on the issue. The delegation arrived in Pakistan
on 19th January. Musharraf assured the visitors of complete support. Next
day, Mirwaiz said that talks without Kashmiris wont help. He urged
Kashmiris to adopt unanimous approach.
On 23rd January, the visiting APHC delegation met opposition leaders
and Mirwaiz urged the government to take politicians into confidence on
Kashmir. Next day, he claimed to have met several jihadi leaders in
Islamabad and urged militants to support peace process. On 27 th January, he
said, next few months are crucial for resolution of Kashmir dispute.
Qazi Hussain Ahmad strongly opposed governments ever-shifting
stance on the core issue. At the negotiation table the Indian side insists that
the dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi was that the whole of the
Kashmir state was an integral part of India but Pakistan was occupying some
of its territory and negotiations should be held to vacate it. This attitude
clearly shows that Delhi is not ready to even display some kind of serious
discussion to solve the Kashmir dispute, what to talk of taking practical
steps in this regard.

596

It is most unfortunate that Islamabads deviation from its

principled stance reflects it weakness and amounts to accept Indian
hegemony. The present military rulers have clearly displayed it that they are
devoid of the required capabilities to resist unjustified foreign pressure and
they have been gradually retreating from protecting the interests of Islam
and Pakistan. Their continuous retreat has now put at stake what Quaid-eAzam had declared as Pakistans jugular vein, The colonial powers have
been working on an agenda to cut Pakistan away from the Muslim World,
and confine her to South Asia to put her under Indian hegemony.
It is under the same perspective that we hear the talk of cutting
Pakistan to size, and Washington declares Delhi its strategic partner by
signing nuclear cooperation agreements while on the other hand Pakistans
nuclear programme is being rolled back and the world is terrified by dubbing
it as the Islamic bomb. Their objective is to make India the regional super
power to counter Chinas development and influence, and freeing Delhi from
any threats from Islamabad is a prerequisite. The efforts to forge a trade
and cultural partnership between Pakistan and India are part of the
same plan.
The Islamabads blind following to this agenda is not only
violating her national interests but also alienating Kashmiri people from
Pakistan that could seriously jeopardize Pakistans security. Overwhelming
majority of both Pakistani and Kashmiri people have rejected Islamabads
strategic retreat from her principled stance, UN resolutions, and moral
obligation to back Kashmirs freedom, which amounts to violating her own
vital interests.
Muhammad Badar Alam expressed optimism. Insiders believe for
the first time the two sides are not talking at cross-purposes during these
secret negotiations. They are talking about the same set of ideas the fourpoint proposal extended by Pervez Musharraf involving shared sovereignty,
self-governance, softening of the Line of Control and withdrawal of troops
though significant differences remain about the definition and interpretation
of the terms involved.
The News commented on Indian suggestion of a peace treaty with
Pakistan. This is the second time that the prime minister of India has spoken
of a peace treaty with Pakistan If rhetoric and catchy slogans
automatically translated into achievement, then the two countries would
have resolved their issues long time ago.
597

Eventually it all boils down to Kashmir and here Dr Singh would do

well to listen carefully to what President Pervez Musharraf has been saying
in this matter, gradually bending over backwards Pakistans position so that
some kind of solution may be reached. Not only that, the Indian prime
minister will have to stand up to the considerable opposition that is
bound to surface within the more hawkish sections of his own
government as well as parts of Indian media.

HOME FRONT
On political front, the ruling elite remained pro-active. On 28 th
December, Durrani and Shujaat brushed aside talk of a second term for Aziz
for now. Two days later, Musharraf urged people to vote for moderate
political forces against extremists.
Shujaat ruled out compromise with PPP. On 10 th January, while
addressing the graduating doctors of Army Medical College, Musharraf
asked them to vote for enlightened moderates. A week later, Durrani
declared that present assemblies will re-elect Musharraf in September or
October. Opposition termed it an unconstitutional and undemocratic move.
On 18th January, three Patriot MPs joined PML-Q. Next day, Ejaz Bokhari,
an MP of MMA followed their footsteps.
On 9th January, ten people were hurt in blasts at JI rally in Nowshera;
Qazi blamed federal government for involvement in explosions and Durrani
regretted Qazis statement. Next day, ANP won NA seat from Bajaur, which
fell vacant after resignation by MMAs member as protest over bombing of
madrassa. This indicated that the nationalists were regaining the grounds lost
to religious parties in last elections.
Imran demanded interim set-up before general elections and suggested
General Karamat as care-taker prime minister. On 22 nd January, Police in
Bahawalpur registered FIR against Imran Khan and Liaqat Baloch and 12
others for staging and anti-government rally and instigating the general
public against rulers.
On 27th January, s court in Gujranwala issued arrest warrants on Qazi
in case of delivering provocative speeches. Achakzai sought MMAs help to

598

bring peace to Afghanistan. Its his style of implicating mullas in insurgency

in Afghanistan.
Information Ministers declaration about re-election of Musharraf
drew the attention of the political analysts. Omar Hassan Sajjad wrote, the
question whether an assembly elected for five years can elect the president
for a longer period appears to be main objection to the existing assemblies
electing the president. There cannot be any dispute that election to the office
of president is to be held not earlier than 60 days and not later than 30 days
before expiration of the term of the president in office. This is the mandatory
language of Article 41 (4) of the constitution. This being so and keeping in
view the fact that the term of General Pervez Musharraf will expire on
November 15, 2007 the election of the president must be held between
September 15 and October 15, 2007.
Mir Jamilur Rahman observed, the opposition knows that it does not
have a strong legal case against the election of the president by the
existing assemblies. Therefore, it is most probable that it will not try to seek
judgment on this issue from the courts. It will try other means.
Nasim Zehra said, heres the irony. General Musharraf believes that
he can reform Pakistani society and Pakistani politics without any
consistent rules. He believes in extending his political base without
playing by set rules, without a credible system in place. The reality that runs
parallel to his attempt to reform is the reality of Pakistans politics with no
rules of the game, no national leaders, patronage, nepotism and the military
being engaged in controlling the political arena.
The current system cannot be invested without political, moral or
legal credibility. It faces no immediate risk of being dismantled but is
capable of graduating into a credible structure which can provide lasting
political stability and the healing touch an ideologically and emotionally
fractured country needs so badly. Musharraf must begin his second round
as president in partnership not confrontation with popular national
political parties.
Adnan Rehmat opined, Musharrafs attempt at re-election cannot
be upheld on either principled or practical grounds. He wants Bhutto and
Sharif neither to be parliamentarians nor prime ministers but wants himself
to be both army chief and president. He wants term limits on political
leaders but an open-ended tenure for himself.
599

Dr Qaisar Rashid wrote, even if a satellite office of the European

Union is going to be established in Islamabad, to look over the freeness and
fairness of the forthcoming general elections, it is sheer hypocrisy on the
part of the West in general to neglect the dual office issue and not help
address the matter of the exiles. If these are internal matters of Pakistan, then
the holding of free and fair elections is also an internal issue of this country
about which the EU need not bother and spend money on.
Burhanuddin Hasan picked up an idea from the oath-taking by the
Muslim public representative in the US. Keith Ellions bold and historic
decision to take oath on the Holy Quraan makes me wonder why our rulers
and politicians do not take their oaths with the Quraan as their
witnesses. It is because they fear that in that case their conscience will
probably not allow them to break their vows so easily as they do otherwise.
The analyst assumed that politicians, in Pakistan too, have the commodity
called conscience. However, if you ask them they would reply that we in
Pakistan are more secular than the US.

Baluchistan was steadily returning to normalcy. On 23rd January,

over 1,200 Marri tribesmen completed necessary military training imparted
by the government for security of Chamalang coal mines. However, some
incidents of militancy were reported during the period:
Army troops backed by helicopters dismantled several rebel bases in
the mountainous Zain Koh area on 29 th December. Rebel spokesman
claimed shooting down one helicopter.
BNP acting president and 8 others were taken into custody on 4 th
January 2007. Five days later, two security personnel were killed in an
ambush in Bolan Pass.
Militants fired five rockets in Kohlu and Bakhtiarabad areas on 23 rd
January. Next day, a bomb was defused in Mastung. Two persons were
killed in rocket attack in Sibi on 27th January.
The ruling elites pursuit for acquiring soft image through
enlightened moderation met more setbacks than successes. Addressing
millions of Haj pilgrims on 28th December, Grand Mufti said there is no
room for the so-called enlightened moderation doctrine in Islam. His
comments affected the news-value of the most significant event in Muslim

600

calendar; therefore the daily News spared only one-column space. His
proclamation that Islam is already the most enlightened and moderate
religion must have annoyed the so-called enlightened moderates in Pakistan.
Musharraf, the preacher-in-chief of enlightened moderation, vowed
to purge Pakistan of extremism. On 10th January 2007, he warned Ummah of
sectarian strife in the coming years, but he did not name the forces which
were fanning and exploiting sectarian differences. He could dare not blame
the strategic partner.
The issue of missing persons further scarred the image. On 28th
December, Police forcibly stopped the procession of the families of missing
persons in Rawalpindi. PPP condemned police action against people
peaceful protesters.
On 3rd January 2007, Prime Minister asked families of missing
persons to lodge FIRs. Five days later, the Supreme Court criticized
authorities for insufficient efforts to trace out the missing persons. Imran
Khan appealed to Supreme Court for recovery of missing persons.
On 22nd January, the Supreme Court was informed that the remaining
16 missing persons were not in the custody of any intelligence agency. The
chief justice told Deputy Attorney General: You are not taking the matter
seriously. Amna Masood Janjua said some of the released persons have been
again picked up by the army.
On 4th January, the Government of Punjab lifted ban on kite-flying so
that the Basant could be celebrated befittingly on February 25. Next day,
the Supreme Court took strong exception to Punjab governments decision in
violation of courts directive and served notices to chief secretary and
advocate-general to appear in court and on 22nd January the court rejected
Punjab governments plea for allowing kite flying in the province. Apex
Court was showing symptoms of obscurantism.
Meanwhile, annual Lahore marathon was held under extensive
security arrangements. Soldiers were ordered to participate in the race to
give it a touch of Long March for soft image. Musharraf vowed to defeat
extremism and project soft image of Pakistan through marathons.
At last the better sense prevailed; Misbahs mother agreed to withdraw
custody claim on assurance that her daughter would regularly visit Scotland

601

to meet her mother. The enlightened moderates, though had contributed

nothing to end the ordeal of Misbah, could yet claim a success.
Other incidents which marred the image during the past one month
were as under:
A Shia leader was shot dead in Peshawar on 4th January 2007. Next
day, a court in Rawalpindi remanded Rashid Rauf in custody over
London plot.
Punjabs Additional Advocate General, along with seven others, was
gunned down in Lahore on 12th January.
Four rockets were fired at Hangu by unknown militants on 23 rd
January. Two days later, two persons were killed in blast in Hangu.
On 24th January, a report revealed that migrant men in Lahore had
raised HIV risk. This should be accepted gleefully by the seekers of
the soft image.
On 27th January, Rauf Klasra reported on the trial of racist murder of
a Pakistani. One killer was heard saying: I wonder if Ive got Paki juice on
the bottom of my shoes? Another killer boasted: Ive bricked him in the face
twice. It deserves the Paki bastard right. Musharraf, if has read this report,
should consider changing his habit of lecturing Pakistanis about moderation
and tolerance. Let Blair lecture his best in the world to show a bit of
moderation and tolerance.
Naveed Ahmads report published in the News revealed the extent to
which the enlightened moderates have gone in pursuit of soft image. It also
amply proves as to how Islam is being modernized to meet the challenges of
21st century.
Higher Education Commission (HEC) has hired a pioneer supporter
of Muslim lesbians and gays as associate professor in none other than
Asuluddin (Islamic Jurisprudence) faculty in women campus of International
Islamic University (IIU) The female professor was promoted to deputy
dean of Asuluddin faculty (women campus) on January 9. Her questionable
religious interpretations sparked protests by female students some time in
December but the HEC-hired foreign professor had left by then for New
Zealand.

602

She is an active member of Washington-based al-Fatiha organization

which claims to be dedicated to Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, intersex, questioning, those exploring their sexual orientation or
gender identity, and their allies, families and friends.
When contacted on telephone, HEC Chairman Dr Atta-ur-Rahman
said he did not know Dr Ghazala personally. This is the first time that I
have heard Dr Ghazala Anwars name. Ghazala Anwar is not the only
Muslim female propagating controversial practices. The others include Dr
Mona, Raheel Raza, Pamela Taylor, Nakia Jackson. In a Juma prayer in
Toronto held on February 19, 2006, Pamela Taylor acted as Imam, with
former Mufti of Marseilles, Sohaib Ben Cheikh in congregation.
Dr Ghazala Anwar was contacted by the News in New Zealand to get
her version. Her email reply confirmed her enlightened interpretation of
Islam. As an imperative of my faith in a Compassionate and Merciful
Creator, I extend my support to the right of all creatures human and nonhuman to live their lives in the light of their inner knowing, according
how they were created by the Creator and their fullest potential.
I support the nations current efforts to protect the rights of women
and of religious minorities and I have faith that this right shall be extended
to sexual minorities as well. The rules of ethical living regardless of their
gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. Similarly the rights of all must
be respected. This is Islam.
This controversy provides us with an opportunity to exercise our
conflict resolution skills, to develop rules by which we can discuss and
disagree about topics that might be sensitive or volatile, and to resolve the
issue in a manner that our relationships are enhanced.
Noreen Haider reported, the campaign has so far been able to gather
108 families of the missing people. The actual figure of the disappeared
runs into hundreds but not all of them have come forward for fear of their
own and other family members safety.
The institutions named as respondents simply denied custody of
missing people. The court was informed in clear words that the
intelligence agencies were not under the operational control of the
government and therefore there is little that can be done.

603

The agencies have released over a dozen individuals. These people

were mostly released on motorway interchanges. Anonymous phone calls
were made to a family member who was told too pick the missing person
from a particular bus stop. Those released were too shaken to tell details
of their whereabouts or the events of captivity.
Most importantly the released people have given written statements
that they saw or met other missing people in detention at various places.
This is a sure sign of hope for the families who are renewing their efforts for
the release of their loved ones.
On December 28 families of 106 missing people, mostly women and
children, gathered outside Flashman Hotel Mall Road Rawalpindi The
unarmed peaceful protesters were harshly treated Muhammad Bin
Masood was among the crowd recording the march with his video camera
when, he claims, two policemen pounced on himand stripped him. He
tells that he was kept half-naked, hungry, beaten and bruised in Civil Lines
Police Stationenough material to raise a few questions.
Mir Jamilur Rahman wrote, the matter is getting serious by the day.
The relatives of the missing persons would not rest until they have found out
the truth, whether good or bad. This case has the potential of snowballing
into political agitation. The families may not want it to happen but the
politicians would not miss the opportunity to exploit it to their advantage.
Farhatullah Babar observed, in November last when the deputy
attorney general informed the Supreme Court that a comprehensive report on
the missing persons had been prepared but was not produced before it
because the interior secretary was not available to sign it. The apex court
then sternly warned the government to come out with full and accurate
information about missing persons by December 1. However, full and
accurate information was not provided even at the last hearing less than
a week ago.
The News opined that the remarks of the Chief Justice of Pakistan
towards the deputy attorney general during a hearing into cases filed by
relatives of missing people encapsulate the nations frustration on the
issue. During the court proceedings, the chief justice told the government
representative that he should not act like a post office and that he needed to
take matter seriously. The fact that the highest judicial officer in the land

604

has made such comments reflects very poorly on the governments ability to
trace these missing people.
If one examines the evolution of this issue and how it has of late
managed to grab media headlines, one will find that until this recent pressure
to locate these missing people came to the fore, the government had
consistently denied any knowledge over the issue. In fact, only recently a
very senior member of the government, when asked about the matter, was
quoted as saying that in many cases those who had gone missing had
done so willingly to stay out of harms way.
During Tuesdays hearing, the deputy attorney general was unable to
respond to affidavits filed by individuals who had been released and who
claimed to have seen number of the missing people in the custody of
intelligence agencies Even if those detained have been incarcerated for
reasons of national security or because they may have links to terrorist acts,
that does not take away their right to be present before a court of law where
they are told of the charges that they have been arrested for and where they
are given a chance to defend themselves.
Annual Lahore marathon race has been projected by the ruling elite as
milestone in pursuit of soft image. Kamila Hyat wrote approvingly: The
fact that people from all backgrounds came together for the marathon is, in
todays society, a triumph in itself. So too is the fact that the right-wing
fanatics who have threatened the event in the past, were largely absent this
time around. The tawdry, and extremely small, protests they staged prior to
the race impressed no onethe right of women to run has become an
issue, this represents some small victory.
M S Hasan from Karachi opined, on the eve of the third Lahore
international marathon, the heading of a report on the sports page of your
newspaper dated Jan 13 read: Marathon to showcase Pakistans image
abroad. What an irony since our real image was showcased in the US
Senate some 24 hours before the commencement of the Lahore
marathon. This was done by Americas director of national intelligence,
John Negroponte, who told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Pakistan
was a haven for extremists and al-Qaeda.
In Punjab, our image was showcased in Lahore when in broad
daylight a senior government official was gunned down on one of the
busiest thoroughfares of the city, along with seven other people. Our
605

countrys image has also been showcased by its ranking as one of the most
corrupt countries in the world.
Syed Jawaid Hussain from Multan was of the view that the Lahore
marathon is a sports event, which should only be projected as such. It
does not symbolize or project an image on enlightened moderation, as the
president or the Punjab chief minister were trying to claim.
The real image of this regime was projected by the recent
humiliating photographs of 17-year-old who was literally undressed by
the Rawalpindi police, and physically maltreated. His only crime was that he
wanted to hand a letter to the vice chief of the army staff in Rawalpindi to
bring attention to the disappearance of his father, allegedly picked up by the
governments intelligence agencies The hype about the marathon is
unfounded. The citizens of Lahore have been celebrating Basant and such
other events for ages. This has nothing to do with the states so-called
enlightened moderation policy.

CONCLUSION
The fact that the Gates did not come to Islamabad before or after
visiting Kabul indicated that the ally was now considered more or less like
an adversary of the US. Yet during his stay in Kabul, Islamabad used fighter
jets and gunship helicopters to destroy suspected hideouts in tribal areas to
earn favours on the Crusaders. This brave act is not likely to bear the desired
results, except a nod for the second term for Musharraf.
The Supreme Court asked the government to trace out the missing
persons without considering the fact that kidnapper could not be expected to
trace out the kidnapped. And what if they have been sold to America as
confessed by Musharraf confessed in his book?
The Supreme Court rightly banned kite-flying, because the image
acquired with the blood of innocent people can only be that of a vampire and
not the soft one. There are better ways to acquire soft image than splitting
the throats of motorcycle riders.
Naveed Ahmads report about Dr Ghazala was quite revealing.
According to her interpretation, Islam does not differentiate between human
beings and animals or beasts. She believes that Islam grants the right to
606

exploit fullest potential and the right to live in the light of inner
knowledge. It is unfortunate that the enlightened moderates can go to the
extent of employing such perverted persons to teach in IIU.
She and her employers ignore the fact that human nature or instinct or
inner knowledge is a mix of good and evil. Islam clearly teaches its
followers to exploit the good lying in its nature and curb the evil lying
besides the good; and Islam spells out the rewards for the former and
punishments for the latter.

28th January 2007

SUBDUING SHIITES

607

The decision to send more US troops to Iraq is, apparently, aimed at

stabilizing Baghdad. In fact, these reinforcements indicate that the
occupation forces have shifted focus from Sunni Arabs to Shiite militias.
These militias are better organized fighting outfits and thus for subduing
militant Shiites more troops are needed.
Situation in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon kept deteriorating. The
Crusaders plot for igniting Fatah-Hamas armed confrontation has started
unfolding. Three persons were killed in factional fighting on 26 th January
and sporadic exchange of fire continued afterwards. Forced by the gravity of
the situation, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia invited Hamas and Fatah for
talks in Makkah.
The Crusaders shift of focus to Shiite militias also revealed the
possibility of escalation of war. After weakening Shiite militias, Bush could
initiate military adventure against Iran pushing the entire region into turmoil.
This resulted in Musharrafs hectic visit to five Middle East countries.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Bloodshed in occupied Iraq continued. At least 73 people, including
two US soldiers were killed on 8th January. Next day, 50 more people were
killed and 21 arrested in clashes between fighters and US-led forces in
Baghdad in which fighter jets and gunship helicopters were used. Thirty-two
Turkish construction workers were killed in plane crash.
At least 32 people, including three US soldiers were killed on 10 th
January. Next day, fifteen more people, including one US soldier, were
killed. US forces raided Iranian consulate and arrested five people. A
journalist was killed in Baghdad on 13th January.
On 14th January, 27 people, including a US soldier, were killed and 40
dead bodies were found. Next day, seven people, including a US soldier,
were killed in violence.
At least 150 people were killed and 180 wounded in violence. Maliki
blamed followers of Saddam for the killings. So it is now between followers
and executioners of Saddam. The US said 34,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006.

608

Bombs and mortars fire hit Kirkuk and Baghdad on 17th January
killing 25 people and injuring scores others. Next day, 130 people were
killed across country out of which one hundred were killed by Iraqi forces in
an encounter with the insurgents.
Ten people, including a US soldier, were killed on 19th January. Next
day, 20 US soldiers were killed; 13 in helicopter crash, 5 in clash in Karbala
and two in roadside bombing in Baghdad. Three Shiites, including a
spokesman of Moqtada, were arrested by the US troops from Sadr City.
On 21st January, 17 people, including 5 US soldiers, were killed in
various incidents. Next day, 117 people, including two US soldiers were
killed in violence. The US confirmed that its helicopter was shot down.
At least 50 people, including three US soldiers, were killed on 23 rd
January. More than 600 men of Moqtada were arrested in an operation. Next
day, Iraqi government announced killing of 30 militants in ongoing
operation in Baghdad launched as per Bushs new strategy. Eight US serving
and ex-soldiers were killed in various incidents.
On 25th January, 28 people, including two US soldiers were killed in
various incidents. Next day, 30 more people, including two US soldiers were
killed in the violence.
On 27th January, at least 29 people were killed in blasts and air strikes.
Next day, the US and Iraqi forces killed 250 gunmen in a battle in Najaf.
Three US soldiers were also killed and a helicopter was downed. In other
incidents more than 60 people were killed and 54 dead bodies were found in
Baghdad.
As regards other aspects of the occupation, Bush admitted that
mistakes were committed in Iraq War. He ordered induction of 21,500 more
troops to make Baghdad safe by retaining the cleared areas. Some top
military commanders were replaced. He also warned Maliki of risks of
losing US support if Shia militants were not controlled.
US troops will leave Iraq in coffins, vowed a Sadr aide on 12th
January. However, nine days later, Sadr group ended two-month long
boycott of the Iraqi government. Zawahiri mocked Bush over his new Iraq
strategy. Why dont you send 50,000 or 100,000? Dont you know that the
dogs of Iraq are impatient to devour the carcasses of your soldiers?

609

Bush in his annual address to both houses of the representatives

pleaded for support for his new strategy in Iraq. Next day, a Senate panel
rejected Bushs new Iraq plan. Iraqs Vice President attending Devos
meeting said occupation of Iraq was idiotic.
Meanwhile, Musharraf visited five Arab countries to discuss Bushs
new policy for the region. The aim of his visit remained unclear as to
whether it was to muster support for Bushs new policy or to secure
consensus to oppose it because of its dire consequences.

THE SURGE
One might have thought this report would have been welcomed by all
those policymakers and armchair strategists who got us into the war to begin
with, wrote Paul Kennedy while commenting on the ISG Report. Yet after a
brief period of subdued mutterings, the American hawks have come back,
with their favourite daily, The Wall Street Journal, leading the charge; in
fact, the very day after the study groups meeting with President Bush, the
Journals lead editorial was titled The Iraq Muddle Group.
The Baker-Hamilton report is a fudged job, the arch-interventionists
say; it is the work of politicians born to compromise. There should be no
appeasement, no retreat, no surrender. Since this is a fight to the death, the
only thing to do is stay the course, with, if necessary, a further surge of
troop reinforcements. And indeed, since these are the sentiments President
Bush himself shares, it is no surprise that he announced a new strategy of
sending around 20,000 more troops to Iraq, essentially rejecting the BakerHamilton recommendations.
Jim Lobe observed that both Democrats and Republicans
expressed regret that Bush appeared to reject the central
recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group particularly its call
gradually to withdraw US combat troops, tie future support for the Iraqi
government to its efforts at healing the sectarian divide At the same time,
military analysts said the 21,500 troops Bush plans to add to the 132,000
already deployed to Iraq are unlikely to succeed in their mission to pacify
Baghdad and al-Anbar province.

610

The changes in command had indicated Bushs intentions well before

he announced those publicly, observed Michael T Klare. Part of the
explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White House to
sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey who
had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting greater
responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual
American withdrawal.
But theres more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and
served a tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need
for a regional solution to the crisis in Iraq one that inevitably requires
some sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq
Study Group.
If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda,
Abizaid is exactly the man youd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US
forces and strategy in the region. But if thats not on the agenda, if youre
thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral
Fallon is exactly the man youd want at Centcom Recent moves
should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation
in the Iraq War.
Los Angeles Times wrote, The president said he will order an
additional 21,500 US troops to Iraq, to be deployed mostly in Baghdad, and
their goal will be to help Iraqi forces make the city safe. This is hardly new.
Just last summer to much fanfare, Maliki announced something called
Operation Together Forward to provide security to all neighbourhoods of
Baghdad.
To his credit, Bush acknowledges this. Many listening tonight will
ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to rescue Baghdad
did not, he said. Here are the differences. In earlier operations, Iraqi and
American forces cleared many neighbourhoods of terrorists and insurgents,
but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This
time, well have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been
cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interferences prevented
Iraqi and American forces from going into neighbourhooods This time,
Iraqi and American forces will have green lightMaliki has pledged
that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

611

Max Boot appreciated the new strategy for Baghdad but observed that
the reinforcements being sent were still not enough. This is a classic
counterinsurgency approach focused on securing the populace, and it has
never really been tried before in the capital. It could work, especially if the
surge is long lasting and if its coupled with other vital steps such as
increasing the number of American advisors in the Iraqi security forces,
instituting a biometric identity card to make it easier to detain terrorism
suspects and enhancing the capacity of the Iraqi legal system to incarcerate
more violent offenders.
If everything goes right, large swathes of Baghdad could gradually be
brought under control. Then American and Iraqi units could pursue a
spreading inkblot strategy another classic counterinsurgency concept
to increase the pacified zone outward.
Of course thats a big if. It may be that we still dont have enough
troops to successfully carry out this strategy. It may be that we dont have
the will to see it through. It may be that we dont have enough reliable Iraqi
partners. But considering the massive investment we have already made in
Iraq, and the lack of good alternatives, it seems worth one final effort to see
if we can salvage something from this dire situation.
Michael Young wrote, the essence of the surge plan is for the US to
remove armed militias from Baghdad quarters, after which Iraqi forces
would take control of the areas. Among the problems with the scheme,
two in particular will be defined by specifically Iraqi factors. First,
Maliki will have to sign off on any decision to crush Mahdi Army A
second potential problem is the apparently significant reliance on Kurdish
troops to help make the surge work The effort to reduce Sunni-Shiite
tension could end up partly turning against the Kurds.
Arab News opined that the new initiative speaks volumes about
desperation yet is a sure path to damnation President Bush clearly still
has no workable endgame in sight. The inevitable consequence of trying to
impose peace by force on an increasingly resentful population is either that
the peacekeepers have to stay on indefinitely or there will be withdrawal
followed by chaos.
Zbigniew Brzezinski had five broad observations on Bushs speech in
which he unveiled his new strategy. It provided a more realistic analysis of
the situation in Iraq than any previous presidential statement. It
612

acknowledged failure, though it dodged accountability for that failure

by the standard device of assuming personal responsibility.
The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of
limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to
win the war militarily. It will engage US forces in bloody street fighting
that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil
The decision to escalate the level of the US military involvement
while imposing benchmarks on the sovereign Iraqi regime, and to
emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the
administration with two options once it becomes clear as it almost
certainly will that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to
adopt the policy of blame and run The other alternative, perhaps already
lurking in the back of Bushs mind, is to widen the conflict by taking
military action against Syria and Iran.
The speech did not explore even the possibility of developing a
framework for an eventual political solution. The search for a political
solution would require a serious dialogue about a joint American-Iraqi
decision regarding the eventual date of a US withdrawal with all genuine
Iraqi political leaders who command respect and wield physical power.
The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era.
America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is
over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is
the fatal flaw of Bushs policy.
Jonathan Freedland said, so now we know what the much-vaunted
new Bush strategy for Iraq amounts to: throw more gasoline on fire. Its
conceivable that Bush is, in fact, planning an eventual withdrawal, but
hoping that one last push will give him something he can call victory as a
finale. Psychologists spot similar behaviour in compulsive gamblers who,
when in trouble, increase their bets, hoping to win that will allow them to
leave the table with dignity. They have word for such thinking: delusional.
But once hes in No 10 he (Blair) have to do better than stating the
obvious about the barbarism of life in todays Baghdad. He will have to
make a clean break from this most terrible chapter in British and
American foreign policy and set out a new, radical strategy for the war

613

against jihadism, one that understands that you dont catch the terrorist fish
by machine-gunning them from the sky.
Khaleej Times opined, failure to achieve the aim on the streets of
Baghdad, Basra and Mosul would translate into political, economic and
military repercussions that are already beginning to shake Washington from
the core. It would amount, literally, to an embarrassing blunting of
Americas influence, reputation, and indeed, superpower status.
So, when Bush chooses more muscle from the possible options, he
does it at a great risk, especially since, according to polls, two out of three
Americans express cynicism about the move. On a more important note, his
post-November policy betrays more recklessness than nervousness. That
much is apparent from military advances on all war on terror fronts, which
now also includes Somalia.
In another editorial the newspaper added, by instinct, Bush is not the
one to accept defeat; hence; his call to the Congress to give him yet another
chance to retrieve the situation in Iraq. The question before the Senate panel
is this: how will an addition of 20,000 troops, meant for deployment in
Baghdad, help reverse the scene? What about the rest of Iraq? Can one treat
blood cancer with a heart surgery? Yet, the likes of Dick Cheney have a
problem: they are far from being realistic; hence the continuing hectoring
and his insistence to outwit the Senate and go ahead. With the Democrats
fighting fit, the desperation in the Bush camp is all too obvious. The buck,
it would seem, doesnt stop anymore with the president. Bush has only
two options: either to sit back and suffer; or to create conditions to launch
himself and America into more (mis)adventures, if only to enable him to
continue holding centre-stage.
H D S Greenway observed, in all the debate about surge, the
negative effect of foreign troops on the Iraqi population have been
underestimated. Petraeus himself has said that any army of liberation has a
certain half-life before it becomes an army of occupation. The US Army in
Iraq has long passed into the latter category, and thank you for letting us
search your house isnt going to cut it Foreign troops crashing into homes
is especially harmful in the Arab World, and with Kurdish troops now
coming into Baghdad to help with the surge, even more of the troops
breaking in doors will, in effect, the foreign.

614

John Walsh said: Given the balance of forces at play, it is difficult to

discern what Bush is likely to do in the coming days and months He is
certainly under enormous pressure to alter course, and may have to do so no
matter how much he recoils from it. He may even do so after a surge which
could be used as a smoke screen for a policy shift. But escalating the
conflict even temporarily will sink his ratings below 30 percent and make
him the most unpopular president in history.
The News wrote, there really is little to suggest that sending in more
reinforcements to Iraq will somehow turn around a sectarian war currently
being fought there. Over 3,000 US troops and hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis, most of them non-combatant civilians, already perished. The
patience that President Bush is asking of his compatriots wore out a
long time ago.
Bobby Muller wrote, it is time for the US Congress to ensure that the
voice of the American people including the voices of those who have
served in Iraq and before are heard. Clearly, President Bush missed the
central lesson of the November elections and the Iraq Study Group: that
Americans want a dramatic change in course in Iraq, one that does not
include deepening the US involvement there.
Linda Feldman and Peter Grier were of the view that despite Bushs
repeated pleas for Americans to give the plan a chance, including in the State
of the Union, he faces increasingly bipartisan challenges to the Congress.
The biggest blow came on Monday, when Sen John Warner of Virginia the
top Republican on the Armed Services Committee introduced a resolution
opposing the plan. Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relation Committee
began consideration of a resolution rejecting Bushs plan, with strong
support from committee Democrats and at least one Republican, Chuck
Hagel of Nebraska.
Even supporters of the plan are challenging the president over Iraq in
ways unheard of before. One supporter in the House, Republican leader John
Boehner, is calling for a monthly report from the administration that
would gauge progress on military, political, and social benchmarks set for
Iraq.
Scott Ritter opined that until American politicians from either party
show that they care more about the lives of the men and women in the armed
forces who operate in harms way than they do about their own political
615

fortunes, we will remain in Iraq. It takes courage to stand up against this

war when the tide of public opinion continues to hold out hope for
victory. Doing the right thing is a thing of the past, it seems. Doing the
politically expedient thing is the current trend. The American public may
have articulated frustration with the course of events in Iraq, but this feeling
is derived more from a frustration at being defeated than from any moral
courage over getting involved in a war that didnt need to be fought in the
first place. Congress takes its cues from the American people, and until the
American people are as outraged over the mere fact we are in Iraq as they
were over the rising costs of the conflict human, moral and financial then
Congress will continue to dither.
To this day, we have never had a thoroughgoing national debate
over Bushs entire misguided war on terror, or Americas deeply flawed
Middle East policies, opined Gary Kamiya. As a result, for many
Americans the premises behind the Iraq War remain unchallenged, and
disagreements over that war are merely over the way it was executed.
The Bush Administration has tried to keep the dead and wounded out
of sight, and the media, cowed by taste rules and patriotism, has mostly
played along. The result is an abstract war, a play war, a dream war.
Together, these factors mean there will be no serious anti-war movement
here, which in turn means that Democrats will not muster the courage to stop
the war.
So now we must wait. Wait until the smoke and chaos and hatred
have driven us away. Wait until we have asked another persons kid to be the
last person to die for a mistake. But there is one thing we can do while we
wait. We can stretch out fingertips and imagination and try to at least make
this unreal war real. We can truly support our troops, whom many of us
will never know, by doing everything we can to end this war.
The Hindu was quite pessimistic. One of the cardinal tenets of
military theory is that commanders should not reinforce failure. With United
States President George W Bush deciding to add 20,000 soldiers to the
occupation army in Iraq, he is clearly ignorant of this principle. The
augmented force has been set to the task of pacifying Baghdad and the
province of Anbar. This is much of the same mission that the 132,000strong US military has been trying to accomplish since August 2006 with
nothing to show for its efforts.

616

While the Democrats in the two Houses of Congress have tabled nonbinding resolutions the Presidents decision, they might not be able to
prevent him from going ahead with the plan. What seems clear is that in the
remaining two years of his second term, this American President will
continue to compound the blunders his administration has committed in
Iraq and beyond.

OTHER ISSUES
Bushs claims to be fighting a war to establish democracy in Iraq
are belied by the fact that his administration is shredding what remains of
democratic institutions in the Unite States and arrogating to itself
unprecedented powers, observed World Social Forum.
The conclusion drawn by the American people were expressed at the
ballot box last November. In the only forum where the official political
structure permits them to express their opinions, millions of people voted
for Democratic congressional candidates, not because they had great
confidence in the Democratic Party, but because they wanted to voice their
opposition to the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq.
The response of Bush, Cheney & Co has been to abandon any serious
effort to manipulate or sway public opinion and to declare, as Cheney did
last Sunday, that the job of the president is to ignore public opinion and
wage war in defiance of it. Cheney dismisses the outcome of the election
as irrelevant to the policies of the government.
America people, Cheney maintains, cannot be trusted to have the
stomach for the measures required to secure continued US control over Iraq
and its vast oil resources. The president, therefore, must substitute himself
for people. Or as Brecht remarked, when the people turn against the
regime, the regime must elect a new people.
Nor is the Democratic Party any alternative to this flat rejection
of popular sovereignty. The Democratic alternative as voiced by Hillary
Clinton and set down in the Senate resolution disapproving US military
escalation is anything but an authentic expression of the mass opposition to
the war.

617

In order to continue and escalate the fight for this goal, which is
supported by both of its parties, the US ruling elite must move against
popular sentiment and rule undemocratically. Conversely, the antiwar
majority must move and reject both the Democrats and Republicans and
strive to unite people internationally against imperialist war and the system
that produces it.
After their recent visits to the region, Gulf News observed that Rice
and Gates were beating around Bush. Both are spending the weekend at
Camp David, briefing George W Bush on their visits to the Middle East. It is
unlikely to be a narration of happy incidents, for very little was achieved,
despite Rice saying her trips to Israel and Palestine were successful.
Gates who also went on to Afghanistan to apprise himself of
events there and Rice were endeavouring to get Middle Eastern countries
onside with Bushs new policy towards Iraq. That policy also includes
ventures towards Iran only helped increase the unease that leaders in the
region have on escalating the Iraq War and tensions in the region
Doubtless both Rice and Gates will be assuring Bush that their visits
were successful and supportive. It would be so if it was known exactly
what was they were meant to be supporting.
The New York Times opined that hortatory statements are unlikely to
change Mr Bushs mind or Mr Malikis behaviour, so the Congress will
likely have to go further. Both houses will need to find ways to use their
power including the power of the purse to do what Mr Bush refuses to
do: set and enforce deadlines for the Iraqi government to disarm militias,
share oil revenues and integrate the Sunni middle class into Iraqi life.
Funding limits that simply freeze the number of troops, like the one
Senator Edward Kennedy now proposes are inadequate. The much more
difficult challenge is to figure out ways to compel Mr Bush to come up
with a policy that has at least some chance of letting American troops come
home without leaving total chaos behind.
Ikram Sehgal was of the view that Iraq is no longer capable of
remaining a federation; at best it can survive as a confederation, even that
will require sacrifice from all sides. Turkey will have to be satisfied that the
Kurds do not have larger ambitions, and the peripheral Arab states will
apprehend that no super-Shia state emerges in conjunction with Iran. While
the Kurds have a defined area, the Shia-Sunni divide has yet to be properly
618

mapped out. The leaders of Iraq will have to bite a bitter bullet. As the
western powers have discovered, Iraq is difficult to swallow, even with oil to
lubricate the morsels.
M B Naqvi wrote, to control the consequences of a Shia-Sunni
conflict is sure to be very hard. This conflict was greatly facilitated by the
simple American device of talking in terms of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds
as entities to be satisfied. Recognizing them as separate entities and dealing
with them separately and helping them become modern communalisms,
reignited the historical hatreds of all the three communities.
It can be said that the bullet has already been fired; the genie is out of
the bottle. The civil war in Iraq is indubitably gaining momentum. It would
mean that Iraq will have to be divided and probably three separate states
would emerge as probably the invaders had meant to do, to start with.
Syed Mohammad Khatami suggested the following for improving
situation in Iraq:
Terminate the occupation, cut off the root cause of the conflict, and
thereby disarm violent extremism.
Strengthen the foundations of democracy in Iraq and support the
establishment of security, intelligence, and law and order by the
government.
Engage in a concerted effort at reconstructing Iraq and helping the
central government respond to the demands of the oppressed people.
Khaleej Times talked about an issue not discussed hither-to-fore.
Supporting the Palestinian cause was one of the few good things that
Saddam had done during his leadership of Iraq; and giving shelter to these
men and women was part of his pro-Palestinian policy, which is rather the
pan-Arab policy. A change of regime in Iraq is no reason for these men and
women, and their children, to be driven out of their homes and hearths and
made to starve in the inhospitable environs of a no-mans land.
Syrias stand is that it has done its bit by taking some 250
Palestinians in May, over and above the existing strength of 435,000
refugees of the same stock, and that its the other Arab nations turn now.
Theres merit in the argument; this is a collective responsibility. Thats why

619

all eyes are now on the Arab governments in the region. The
Palestinians in Iraq need our attention.

ISRAELI FRONT
The Crusaders and Israel have successfully set the stage for infighting
in Palestine. Having done that, they started pretending as well-wishers of
the Palestinians. During second week of January, Rice met Abbas with a
solution of the problem; Abbas rejected any temporary solution.
On 19th January, Israel released $ 10 million to Palestine. It also
deferred to build a settlement in a former army base in occupied West Bank.
Nine days later, Israel named Ghaleb Majadleh, a Muslim, as cabinet
minister but without a portfolio.
Abbas arrived in Syria on 20th January for crucial talks with Meshaal.
The very next day, holding of meeting between Abbas and Meshaal ran into
problems. On 22nd January, the two Palestinian leaders met but failed to
make breakthrough. They, however, agreed to continue the dialogue.
Fatah aims to aggravate its conflict with Hamas through its attack
on Hamass executive forces, opined Manal Alafrangi. After initially
agreeing to integrate the Hamas unit into existing security forces, President
Mahmoud Abbas decided to reshuffle the security forces and its leadership
and to consider the executive force, officers and members, illegal and
outside the law.
He added, it is unclear whether he ever seriously considered granting
the executive forces a legal status. Hamass response: To double the strength
of its executive forces to 12,000 especially given the recent reports of
American involvement in the shipping of guns to the Fatah-controlled
security forces.
Mark Perry and Alistair Crooke wrote, US Deputy National Security
Adviser Elliot Abrams - whom Newsweek recently described as the last
neo-con standing has had it about for some months now that the United
States is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to
ensure its failure In the immediate aftermath of the Palestinian elections

620

won by Hamas last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian

businessmen in his White House office with talk of a hard coup.
Musa Keilani observed that the recent visit of Rice was linked to the
same plan. A key point Rice is expected to discuss with Abbas is how the
US could step up assistance to Fatah and enable the group to stage a
coup against the democratically elected Hamas government Senior US
administration official Elliot Abrams is an ardent advocate of the need for
the US to fund, arm and train Fatah fighters against Hamas, which in turn
appears to be ready for any eventuality. Rice is an Abrams follower in this
respect and she seems to believe that Abbas could be pressured into
disbanding the Hamas government, and call elections.
Arab News commented on Rices quick-fix solution. In the present
situation in the Middle East, it is extremely tempting to go for quick fix.
Given the year-long drift in peace efforts since Hamas won parliamentary
elections, starting to outline the final contours of an Israeli-Palestinian peace
deal looks bright in the surrounding dark, but a state with temporary
borders will spell the end of the Palestinian cause.
Mir Jamilur Rahman expressed his views on Musharrafs initiative for
the Middle East. Musharraf has started a very arduous journey, a journey
which he is certainly capable of undertaking. His visit to five Arab countries
was an exploratory one. He had to find out for himself if frontline Arab
countries would support his efforts. President Musharraf would have to
cross many bridges before he can come up with a formula for PalestineIsrael reconciliation backed by broad consensus from the Ummah. Until
now, the Muslim countries are only engaged in rhetoric against Israel.
In Lebanon, Nasrallah accused the United States on 15th January of
blocking efforts to form a national government in Lebanon. Two days later,
Israeli army chief resigned over Lebanon War. Khaleej Times termed it yet
another victory for Lebanon, but refrained from being specific about
Hezbollah.
Thousands of Shiites and Christians protested in Beirut against
Siniora regime on 23rd January. Two persons were killed and scores wounded
in clashes between rival factions. Siniora blamed Syria and Iran for the
protest rally. Two days later, four people were killed and 28 wounded in
factional clashes in university in Beirut and the same day the donors pledged
$ 6 billion in aid to Lebanon.
621

Amir Taheri is a die-hard anti Tehran regime and all those who can be
linked to it. He endeavoured to demonize Hezbollah. Sinioras government
has a much broader base. It is supported by nearly half of the Christian
community, some pro-Arab and anti-Iran Shiite groups, the Druze, and a
number of smaller communities. Most observers agree that in general
election the Siniora coalition would win around 60 percent of the votes
This is why Hezbollah has withdrawn from the political process and
taken to the streets. The calculation is that most of Sinioras supporters are
middle class people with no experience of or desire for street politics.
Hezbollah militants, however, are experts in the politics of
violence and trained for street fights. Some look forward to martyrdom.
Burning cars, setting up street barricades, throwing Molotov cocktails,
attacking adversaries with knives and clubs, ransacking government
buildings, and, bringing out the guns, when and if necessary, are arts in
which Hezbollah excels.
Hezbollahs campaign to destroy the Siniora coalition through street
pressure has failed. It has also failed to provoke the national army to get
involved in the violence, thus risking disintegration on sectarian lines. To be
sure, Hezbollah could continue the confrontation for many weeks, if not
months. It has lots of money, mostly from Tehran, and thousands of
unemployed youths to man street barricades for $2 a day.
Hezbollah is also using President Emil Lahoud, the man installed and
susta8ined by the Syrians as Lebanons head of state, as an irritant against
Siniora. Using his constitutional powers, the usurper refuses to sign
government edicts; thus paralyzing segments of the administration.
Simon Tisdall feared that the things could go beyond demonizing the
adversary. Among many other potential obstacles to peace, two stand out.
One is the possibility that Mr Olmert battered by a bank scandal and the
resignation of the army chief of staff, may not last much longer as Isreals
prime minister and that ensuing, prolonged political turmoil will deny the
Palestinians a partner for peace.
The other, more frightening scenario, discussed by commentator Aluf
Benn in the Haaretz newspaper, is that Mr Olmert might order the
assassination of Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in Lebanon,
or the bombing of Irans nuclear facilities, as a way of restoring his
leadership.
622

During this period Talabani visited Damascus. Marwan al-Kabalan

thought he might have carried a message of his master. Bush Administration
might have agreed to Talabanis visit, who spent years in exile living in
Syria, to test waters with Syria and see how much it is ready to help the US
in implementing its new strategy in Iraq. The Bush Administration might
have also asked Talabani to convey a stern message to his Syrian hosts
that they have to cooperate further if they want to avoid more isolation.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Bush Administrations hostility toward Iran increased significantly.
Rice disclosed that raid on Iran Mission in Baghdad had been approved by
Bush. This raid was part of the plan to manufacture some evidence about
Tehrans interference in Iraq.
On 19th January, Democratic leaders warned Bush against attacking
Iraq. Tehran said its forces were ready for any threat. Iranian military carried
out war games which would include tests short-range missiles. Meanwhile,
Musharraf went to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to discuss
American surge with possibility of strike against Iran.
On 23rd January, Nicholas Burns said that sending second aircraft
carrier to the region is to tell Iran to back off from Persian Gulf. Four days
later, Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa warned that attack on Iran
will drag Middle East into hell. Russias security chief mulled holding talks
with Ahmadinejad. DPRK denied nuclear-link with Tehran.
Amir Taheri, the provocateur, coaxed Crusaders to hurry not merely to
attack Iranian Islamists, but also to annihilate them completely. The
confrontationists, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believe that
the Bush Administration, in its sunset phase, will not dare launch any
major military operation against Iran. According to this view, the most that
Bush can do is to order air and missile attacks on the countrys nuclear
installations. That would damage the project, perhaps setting it back by a
year or two.
But it would enable the revolutionary faction within the
Khomeinist regime to marginalize its conservative rivals and consolidate
its hold on power. Once the American attack is over, Ahmadinejad would

623

produce TV footage of babies burned by American napalm, and old widows

weeping over the ruins of their mud huts.
Last summer, the tactic worked for the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah
that went on to claim an unprecedented victory in the history of Islam over
the Infidel. So confident is Ahmadinejad that the US has become a
toothless tiger that he has ordered a series of operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq to test the Americans.
Taheri went on to argue that recent trouble in southern Afghanistan
was due to Hekmatyar and in southern Iraq it was because of Mahdi Army.
He also quoted Irans support for Hezbollah. He concluded, wounded but
alive, Ahmadinejad would claim the leadership of the Muslim World in
a global struggle to change the destiny of humanity. Taheri desired that the
Crusaders must eliminate Nejad like Saddam.
Dariush Zahedi and Omid Memarian, both Iranian expatriates and
working in education institutions in the US, urged Bush Administration to
take on Nejad because his political standing in Iran was on the decline. The
absence of valid and reliable polls on the popularity of president meant that
many more among the Iranian elite though becoming more lukewarm
towards Ahmadinejad even before the December elections were ready to
give him the benefit of doubt. Now with his image deeply frayed, criticism
of his policies in the parliament will become louder, and he will find it
more difficult to enact his legislative agenda.
Moreover, as in the United States, various committees in the majlis
will begin to delve into misdeeds that have occurred under his watch
including the misappropriation of $ 300 million during Ahmadinejads
period of service as Tehrans mayor. In short, Ahmadinejad will find it
increasingly difficult to govern.
It is likely too that the voices of Ahmadinejad and his allies will
become muffled in Irans collective decision-making institutions such as the
supreme council for national security that governs the settlement of disputes
regarding the nations foreign and domestic policies.
But Ahmedinejads temperament and political character mean that he
is most unlikely to go gently into the night. In this light, his racketing-up of
international tensions by intensifying anti-Israel and anti-American

624

rhetoric is an attempt to regain the political initiative and deflect

attention from his inability to deliver on his promises to the electorate.
Although UN sanctions will undoubtedly hurt Iran, they will not
bring the regime to its knees This then, appears to be Ahmadinejads
calculation: that an exacerbation of tension in the security environment
surrounding Iran will play into the hands of his clique by galvanizing the
Iranian public and compelling the countrys fractious ruling elite to close
ranks behind the most militant and radical elements in the Tehran regime.
The terrible danger of this approach is that, combined with the
interests and objectives of its strategic rivals the United States and Israel, it
will bring closer the prospect of pre-emptive assaults on Irans nuclear
installations. Irans decision to accelerate its nuclear programme in defiance
of IAEA, and the unfolding in Iraq as the presidential election 2008
approaches, are crucial factors in this perilous mix.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be smiling for now but the interest of
stability and security in the Middle East and beyond, the democratic
movement in Iran, and Americas image in the Muslim World, all require a
change of course on both sides before disaster strikes.
Dan Plesch opined that it is Bush not Nejad who wants confrontation.
The evidence is building up that President Bush plans to add war on Iran
to his triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is every sign, to judge
by his extraordinary warmongering speech in Plymouth on Friday, that Tony
Blair would be keen to join him if he were still in a position to commit
British forces to the field.
Theres strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that
Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue in the country
and the world in a very acute way, said NBC TVs Tim Russet after meeting
the president. This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to the
Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents. These include
Patriot anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, and cruise-missile-firing
ships.
Bush has said he will destroy the Syrian and Iranian networks in
Iraq. These may include Moqtada al-Sadrs militia, but are also likely to
target the Iranian-created Badr brigades, now wearing Iraqi police uniforms.
In the south, the withdrawal of British troops to Basra airport looks more

625

like a preparation to avoid a Shia backlash than handover to the government

of Iraq.
The US director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, explained
that the threat to launch Hezbollah against Israel was the main deterrent to a
US attack on Iran. Although politically Hezbollah scored a major victory in
holding off the Israeli army last summer, in fact it was badly damaged. The
Iranian regime seems prepared for confrontation, perhaps confident
Washington is bluffing.
Paul Craig Roberts observed that Bushs latest lies were indicative of
his intentions. The Bush Regimes latest big lie is that the US is not
winning in Iraq because of Iran. The Iranians are acting in a very
negative way, alleges the moderate Gates. Iraq, the target for the escalation
in US troop levels, has dimmed in importance. In the few days since Bushs
surge speech, Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice, and national security advisor
Hadley have said far more about Iran than about Iraq. In 2003, the same
technique was used by the Bush Regime to shift the publics attention from
Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.
Clearly, the Bush Regime expects that it can again deceive the
American public. There is no doubt that Iran will be attacked. The Israeli
government and the neoconservatives have been demanding it. The question
is: why is Bush, who is confronted with failure in Iraq, willing to compound
his problems by attacking a more powerful Muslim state that the US has no
prospect of being able to occupy?
Here is a victory scenario: Bush and Cheney will claim that their air
attack on Iran succeeded in destroying Irans (non-existent) nuclear weapons
program. The victory claimed by the Bush Regime and the propagandistic
US media will make America safe from nuclear attack. This will restore
Bushs popularity
Bush needs a short-run victory, and Iran will let him have it in
order to gain the long-run victory. The consequences for the US, Israel, and
the US puppet regimes in the Middle East will be catastrophic, but they will
not occur in the short-run.
If the Regime overcomes its defeat with a victory in Iran, you are
with us or against us will take on new life, and we will find out who are

626

those intended for the Halliburton-built detention camps constructed in the

US at great cost without tax dollars.
Bareth Porter drew the similar inference from the propaganda
offensive. The initial rhetoric from Bush suggesting a possible intention to
expand the Iraq war into Iran or Syria in response to alleged Iranian and
Syrian support for anti-coalition insurgents had been followed by
clarifications and new details that point to a very carefully calibrated
propaganda offensive aimed at rallying his own political base.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last
week, Rice refused to answer a question from Chairman Joe Biden on
whether the president has the authority to conduct military missions in Iran
without Congressional approval. That provoked expressions of alarm from
both Democratic and Republic senators.
The contrast between the general impression of steely resolve toward
Iran conveyed by Bush and the usual clarity about the limited geographical
scope of the response points to a sophisticated two-level communications
strategy prepared by the White House. For those who get their news from
television, the message conveyed by Rice was one of effective action against
the Iranians supposedly causing harm to US troops; for the Congress and the
media, the message conveyed to reporters was much more cautious.
Col Sam Gardiner opined that Bush has already made the moves
toward confrontation. We know there is a National Security Council staffled group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just
like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a
strike against Iran. Watch the outrage stuff.
I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the
bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan. I think we will read about the
deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq
being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard
against any Iranian movements into Iraq.
As one of the last steps before a strike, well see USAF tankers
moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the
US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that
happens, well only be days away from strike.

627

The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans
to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we
need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead
to a Greater Middle East War.
Scott Ritter pointed towards the force behind this propaganda. I
would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives, and the
Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran Summon the American-Israeli Public
Affairs Committee, or any other lobby promoting confrontation with Iran, to
the forefront, so that the warnings they offer in whispers from a back room
can be articulated before the American public. Hold these conjurers of doom
accountable for their positions by demanding they back them up with hard
fact. See if the US intelligence community concurs with the dire warnings
put forward by these pro-war lobbyists, and if doesnt, ask who, then, is
driving US policy toward Iran.
Arab News observed: This is an administration that is completely
uninterested in talking and sees the only way to gain its end by
confrontation and violence. Therefore, as second carrier group masses into
the Gulf and senior administration officials, including Rice, still talk darkly
about not ruling out military option against Iran, wiser heads are right to be
concerned about where events are heading. The Iranian approach might have
been a ploy. Tehran has proved a master of diplomatic manoeuver. But if the
White House were serious about seeking, rather than imposing, solutions in
the region, it could at least have explored the Iranian offer.
Patrick Seale observed, on a recent visit to the Middle East, the US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought to mobilize the six members of
the Gulf Cooperation Council, plus Egypt and Jordan, to join the US in
confronting Iran Leading Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
are, of course, concerned by the rise of Iran and of militant Shiism, but
they are even more alarmed at the possibility of a US/Israeli war against
Iran, which would inevitably inflict heavy blows on their own societies.
Some experts believe that if the US were to attack Iran, Iran might
respond by firing missiles against US bases in Iraq and the Gulf, Hezbollah
might attack Israel, and Israel might invade Syria, igniting a full-scale
regional war with devastating consequences for all concerned.
In the last few weeks, a decision appears to have been taken to get
tough with the regime in Tehran which, in the words of Cheney, is said to
628

pose a multidimensional threat to the United States and its allies To

counter this multidimensional threat, the United States is adopting a
multi-pronged strategy. It is seeking to cripple Irans banking system, as
well as the financing of its external trade, by pressuring international banks
not to deal with Iran. It has urged several major companies to stop trading
with Iran.
It has moved two aircraft carriers the Eisenhower and the Stennis
to within quick sailing distance of Iran to counter Irans own missile
capacity and naval power, and it has ordered Patriot missile defence systems
to the GCC states. The US has also taken steps to prevent Iran from blocking
oil shipments from the Gulf The US is also planning to stiffen sanctions
against Iran if it fails to suspend its uranium enrichment activities by
early February, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 1737 of
December 23.
Adel Safty talked about problems faced by the US and the alternative
it has. Bush is bogged down in Iraq, unpopular at home, fighting multiplefront war against vaguely defined enemies and under assault from influential
opinion makers who accuse him of obduracy and delusion. An American
strike against Iran under these conditions is difficult to plan for
publicly; but an American-supported Israeli strike against Iran is not.
Israeli leaders seem to have reached similar conclusion and began
a concerted campaign of propaganda and intimidation. Shortly after it
became clear that Bush had been weakened by the outcome of the
Congressional election in early November, Israeli accusations against Iran
intensified.
David E Sanger wrote, Administration officials that while all of Mr
Bushs advisers have signed on to confrontation with Tehran; there is
considerable debate about how far to push it. Some Iran experts at the
State Department have warned that encounters between Americans and
Iranians inside Iraq could strengthen the hand of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad by allowing him to change the subject from his failure to
produce jobs and the rising cost of nuclear defiance.
David Ignatius opined, the administrations tougher stance against
Iran arguably has already produced some results. Irans firebrand
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be in political trouble with the
ruling mullahs, in part because his reckless talk alienated other Muslims. But
629

the strongest leverage against Iran appears to be the Wests unified

diplomatic coalition.
Roger Howard talked of reciprocation. The threats to deny any
country its alienable rights, or the means to defend itself against nuclear
neighbours, are always likely to fall on deaf ears. And to talk to Iranians in
such terms is likely only to inflame their worst fears. If Iranians are to
change their attitudes, America and its allies need to change theirs.
To dissuade the Iranians from pursuing either goal nuclear energy
or warheads Washington would have to make massive concessions. It
would need to fit the issue into a wider Middle East picture and find ways of
making Iran feel less threatened. In return for cessation of uranium
enrichment, or for more effective guarantees that it would not be used for a
weapons programme, Washington could offer not only to lift all sanctions
but also to drop calls for regime change and undertake not to meddle in
Irans domestic affairs.
Ayman El-Amir had an advice for the Arabs. Whatever the spin the
US may put on its eventual exit from Iraq, there is no avoiding the universal
conclusion that its invasion was a dismal failure. This will embolden
terrorists and jihadists, strengthen autocratic regimes that will gleefully view
US departure as a regression of the call for genuine democratic change, and
enhance the influence of Iran which will come into indirect, and possibly
direct, confrontation with Israel. US military presence that will be left
behind in the Gulf region will create a casus belli for nationalist forces
opposed to foreign military presence on Arab territory. It will also
undermine regimes loyal to the US and that increasingly will be viewed as
collaborators with a foreign military power.
The only alternative Gulf Arab countries can afford is to build
their own military power, with the US assistance, to deter Iran, reward the
US arms industry with generous contracts and avoid being caught
unprepared in any future conflict between Israel and Iran. This attitude is
already fuelling an arms race in the Gulf region that may escalate into nonconventional weapons acquisition.

630

CONCLUSION
Like a typical man from the Wild West, Bush still believes that
solution to all disputes flows from the barrel of gun. He, therefore, has
decided to reinforce the US occupation forces in Iraq. The reinforcements
are apparently meant for restoring peace and stability in Baghdad, but in
fact, the surge is aimed at crushing Shiite militias.
Call it by any name, the stage has been set for civil war in Palestine
and Lebanon. The Crusaders prefer to it call Shia-Sunni clash. The
Crusaders allies in Islamic World tend to agree with them for reasons of
their survival, but, this is not Shia-Sunni clash.
It is a clash between anti-Crusaders and pro-Crusaders elements. In
Iraq Shiites are collaborating with the Crusaders and Sunni Arabs are against
them. In Lebanon it is other way round. In Palestine, there are no Shiites, so
it is between pro-US Fatah and anti-US Hamas. The aim of the Crusaders is
to keep Muslims busy in cutting each others throats.
The plan for carving out a new bloc of moderate countries has the
same aim: to divide the Islamic World on permanent basis, under banners of
Shiite crescent and Sunni crescent. Musharraf undertook a hectic tour of
like-minded countries in the recent past. It is not clear as yet that whether
his mission is to guard against this division or facilitate it. Keeping the past
record of their rulers in view Muslim masses have little to be optimistic.
30th January 2007

631

BEYOND MAIN BATTLEFIELD

The region between Palestine and Pakistan constitutes the main
battleground of the ongoing Crusades. Within this region Iraq and
Afghanistan are under physical occupation; Palestine and Lebanon are
partially occupied in one form or the other; Syria and Iran are under constant
threat; and Pakistan too is under perpetual pressure despite being strategic
partner of the Crusaders.
The Crusades have also continued beyond the main battleground. In
Asia, the crackdown against Islamic militancy was reinvigorated in the
Fareast and in the civilized world actions to curb Islamic terrorism
continued. The real surge was seen in Africa where Somalia was occupied
by Ethiopian forces with the intimate support of the US.
The Crusaders also worked on a sinister plan to perpetuate disunity of
Muslims by creating crescents of Shiite and Sunni Islam and to pitch the
followers of two major sects against each other. The irony is that some likeminded moderate Muslim rulers seemed to be falling into the trap.

AFRO-ASIA
In the Far East, the war against Islamic terrorists experienced
resurgence. In Philippines following incidents were reported in last two
months:
On 10th January 2007, seven people were killed and 18 injured in
bomb blasts in the south.
Police captured huge rebel bomb depot on 25th January. The
government planned stepping up the crackdown on Abu Sayyaf.
Five people were killed in clashes in the south on 28 th January. Next
day, military and Muslim rebels agreed on truce.
On 4th February, Muslim rebels released a top General, a senior
official and 20 aides after holding them for two nights in their camp in

632

a remote island in the south. Two day later, MNLF rejected

disarmament proposal.
Surge was also seen in Thailand. Following incidents were reported
during the period:
A Muslim was shot dead and a school was burnt in the south on 8 th
December. Army chief denied that Muslims were fleeing from the
south.
A Buddhist priest was killed in the south on 29 th December. Two days
later, two people were killed in series of bomb blasts in Bangkok on
the eve of New Year, but for a change Muslims were not blamed for
the terrorist act.
A Muslim leader was among three killed in the south on 3 rd January
2007. A week later, the government extended emergency rule in
Muslim south.
Abu Sayyafs senior leader was wounded in fighting on 16 th January.
Army claimed killing one militant. Next day, Philippines Army
claimed that senior commander; Abu Suleman of Abu Sayyaf was
killed.
Three persons were killed and six wounded in attacks on 24th
February. The government considered introduction of Sharia law in
Muslim-majority south.
Three persons were killed in the south on 25th January. Four days later,
five more people were killed.
In Indonesia a court jailed a militant on 13th December over bombing
of Australian Embassy. About a week later, Indonesian Supreme Court
overturned conviction of Bashir who was jailed on terror charges.
Meanwhile, a court jailed an Australian for four years on charges of sexually
abusing teenage boys.
In Mainland Asia, an Uzbek court jailed two Islamist extremists on
20 December. In China police killed 18 suspects and arrested 17 on 5 th
January 2007 during a raid on a camp run by East Turkistan Islamic
Movement (ETIM) in western mountain region.
th

633

North Korea agreed to resume talks first time since nuclear test.
Japan urged DPRK to quit nuclear ambition. Week-long diplomatic
negotiations on North Korean nuclear programme ended on 22nd December
without making any progress; DPRK linked disarming with lifting of
sanctions.
Moon pleaded for patience. On 17th January 2007, Bolton declared
that six-party talks on North Korea have failed. (So, Iran should be
attacked.) The same day, Russia asked US to lift sanctions on DPRK. On
20th January, the US and DPRK agreed to restart six-party talks.
Gulf News commented on the nuclear row with DPRK. There is a
real threat that harsh UN sanctions against the country will be introduced
and North Korean vessels on the high seas have been intercepted. This is a
powder-keg scenario and both sides are trying to stop matches being lit,
which is why the talks are being held.
If they fail, conflict will not be the automatic result but it could be a
consequence. East Asia is under starters orders for a nasty arms race. If
these negotiations fail to produce a more complaint North Korea, and no
one is optimistic that they will, then their collapse will sound like a
starters gun launching a sprint to arms. North Korea already has the
bomb and Japanese politicians have indicated that their country could be
close to developing one.
Arab News observed that the harsh truth is that North Korea has
won the race to nuclear armament and is now protected from outside
military intervention. The way it has managed this, by an adroit mix of
bluster, obfuscation, delaying tactics and determination, will no doubt be of
considerable interest to all other powers that are themselves thinking of
going nuclear.
But North Korea now faces a different challenge. In as much as
anything good has come out of the destructive power of the nuclear
weaponry held by the established nuclear states, it has been purely in terms
of deterrence. The terrible consequences of using these horrific weapons can
therefore protect his dictatorship, but it is going to be of any other use?
Maybe Kim has an idea that with missiles aimed at Beijing, the
Chinese will be less inclined to carry out their threats to strangle his
dictatorship by cutting off flow of food and power on which it relies The

634

basic conundrum for Pyongyang is that it now has a new powerful loaded
gun with which to threaten everyone but once it pulls the trigger, the regime
and maybe hundreds of thousands of its citizens, are dead.
Robert Carli opined that this is hard for Americans to understand,
having read or heard nothing from North Korea except its propaganda,
which for years seems to have called for weakening, not maintaining, the US
presence on the Korean Peninsula. But in fact American departure is the
last thing the North wants; because of their pride and fear of appearing
weak, however, explicitly requesting that the United States stay is one of the
most difficult things for the North Koreans to do.
If the United States has leverage, it is not in its ability to supply fuel
oil or grain or paper promises of non-hostility. The leverage rests in
Washingtons ability to convince Pyongyang of its commitment to
coexist with the DPRK, accept its system and leadership and make room
for the DPRK in an American vision of the future of Northeast Asia.
In countries of the Middle East, other than those included in the
main battleground zone, Saudi Arabia received eighteen Saudis released
from Gitmo on 15th December; eleven of them were freed five days later and
the remaining were set free on 26th December. On 3rd February 2007, ten
persons were held in Saudi Arabia on charges of funding terror.
In Egypt, an Islamist leader and students were arrested on 14 th
December. A month later, Egyptian minister of religious endowments
forbade his ministrys religious counselors to wear the face veil. Turkey
detained 46 people on 29th January 2007 for suspected links with al-Qaeda.
In Africa, the Crusaders succeeded in toppling Islamists in Somalia.
This is discussed separately. Sudan was also kept under pressure. On 21st
December, AFP reported that Sudanese Army had killed 200 rebels in
Darfur. Two days later, Sudan agreed to deployment of UN peacekeepers in
Darfur. On 24th December, Seven people were killed in clash between
government troops and rebels. New UN Secretary General, Moon urged
patience in Darfur and pressed Sudan on deployment of peacekeepers.
During last week of December, Khaleej Times urged Sudan to agree to
deployment of peacekeepers. If President Omar al-Bashir is ready to
take a step backward, chances are that it will make his nation take a
step forward. There was optimism in the air yesterday that Sudans leader
635

will ultimately relent and agree to the deployment of a hybrid UN force in

the rebel-infested Darfur
Such is the message that has more or less been conveyed by Sudans
officials to the UN, in whats seen as Khartoums willingness to mend ways
and bow before international pressure. In the event, it would mean Bashir
has seen the writing on the wall: that there is no other way to bring about
peace in the land harried by civil wars in its south and west.
Peace is, of course, a matter of first priority. But, there is need for
more positive action. If anything, Bashir must build on Sudans strengths,
which are many; its rivers, the vast swathes of fertile lands, able men and
educated elite.
After occupation of Somalia, Howard LaFranchi commented: By
routing Islamist rebels, Ethiopias action also holds geopolitical implications
for the war on terror. And in the midst of these developments, the
government of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir could find the
pressure off for accepting a robust United Nations-mandated security
force for Darfur, experts say.
The international interest in Darfur is not going away. But at a
broader level, Bashir must realize that theres only so much time in a day
and so much energy that diplomats can put into one region, says Stephen
Morrison If a roiling crisis in the Horn of Africa puts Darfur and Sudan
into the back pages and becomes a major preoccupation in the Security
Council for a couple of months, it may be just what Bashir needs to drag
things out Some experts say Sudans ability to resist UN force in Darfur is
another example among many of waning American influence in Africa.
Brain Brivati was of the view that Sudans problems, like most of the
third world countries, are legacy of the colonial era. The Sudan Political
Service, which governed the area during colonial rule by the British, treated
Darfur as a little piece of authentic Africa in which it could play king. This
institutional condescension created a template of indifference with which
post-independence governments in Darfur have continued to operate.
During Sudans long civil war, the Darfur region was further isolated.
When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in January 2005, a
quick Darfur Peace Agreement was also put in place, but it did nothing to
meet the needs and demands of the people of Darfur.

636

How can the international community respond to crimes against

humanity that are products of post-colonial politics and ideologies but also
rooted in imperial legacies? First, we should admit that we are not an
international community but a set of competing interest groups.
In Nigeria, five hundred Nigerians were burnt alive near the city of
Lagos, while trying to steal oil from ruptured pipeline. They paid high price
for getting meager share of their own oil monopolized by the multinationals
of the civilized world. In January 2007, Nigerian militants captured an
Italian and then freed as goodwill gesture.
Michael Watts wrote, the spectacle of an oil nation in which
desperate poor city dwellers scramble to scoop petrol and kerosene from
ruptured or tapped pipelines stands at the heart of the abject failure of many
oil states, what Stanford political scientist Terry Karl calls the paradox of
plenty. He goes on to blame the governments of these oil-rich countries
without making a mention that how the civilized misappropriates this wealth
by striking exploitive deals for exploration and extraction.
Nigeria produces over 2 million barrels of oil a day (currently valued
at roughly $40 billion per year) which accounts for 90% of its exports
earnings and 80% of government revenue A multi-billion dollar oil
industry is however a mixed blessing at best, and for most Nigerians
nothing more than a fairytale gone awfully wrong.
What, then, is the real story behind the horrors of Abule Egba? Lets
begin with the fact that in the days before the explosion, fuel was almost
impossible to find in Lagos and other cities across the country The brutal
reality of life in the Nigerian petro-state is that fuel for everyday use is
one of the countrys scarcest commodities.
What might strike the American reader as a bizarre and potentially
deadly, popular livelihood strategy, namely oil theft, exposes the rank
underbelly of Nigerian development. The poor quality of oil pipeline
infrastructure and their close proximity to human habitation has long been a
matter of concern for Nigeriancommunities in the oil producing and
consuming regions. In fact the recent Lagos disaster is business as usual.
Oil theft referred to locally as bunkering is a very large and well
organized business in Nigeria all under the watchful eye of the Nigerian

637

navy and coast guard. At present prices, this oil mafia controls a black
economy worth billions of dollars annually.
In Libya a court awarded death sentence to five Bulgarian nurses on
19 December on charges of spreading HIV-AIDS. Khaleej Times observed,
Libya is facing an awkward situation: which is that, on the one hand, the
issue being so grave, it is incumbent upon the state to fix the responsibility
on someone. On the other, if the medics are let off, the blame will logically
and automatically shift to the establishment including, and more
prominently, to Muammar Gaddafi himself With strong backing the
medics get from the West, it is unlikely that they can be the ultimate
scapegoats. Were yet to hear the last word.
th

PROXY OCCUPATION
The Crusaders had been focusing on Somali Islamists since their
emergence. They found a willing partner in Ethiopia and encouraged this
predominantly Christian country to invade and occupy Somalia. On 21 st
December Islamic leader in Somalia declared a state of war in the country.
Two days later, Reuters reported that Somali Islamists have sought global
Muslim help for jihad, whereas by then Ethiopia had already launched its
offensive against Somalia.
On 24th December, Ethiopia launched air strike on several towns of
Somalia. Two days later, Ethiopian Prime Minister said more than 1,000
people were killed and 3,000 wounded in week long fighting in Somalia in
which Islamists were pushed out of the capital. On 31 st December, two
persons were killed in explosion in Mogadishu.
By the end of the month, Ethiopian troops surrounded last stronghold
of Islamists in the south. Three days later, disarmament started in Somalia
and Kenya blocked Islamists from crossing over the border. Meanwhile, the
US naval forces had deployed off the Somali coast to prevent leaders of
defeated Islamists militia from escaping.
On 4th January 2007, Somali militiamen fired a rocket at oil truck near
Mogadishu wounding several people. Next day, the US wanted deployment
of African peacekeepers in Somalia. On 6th January, hundreds of people

638

protested the presence of Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu and occupation

forces fired in the air to disperse the crowd.
The US gunship helicopters killed 31 civilians in southern Somalia on
9 January. The US claimed that it has right to kill terrorists involved in
embassy attacks years ago. Somali Prime Minister consented to the
Americans right.
th

On 11th January, clan elders said that more than hundred people were
killed in the US air raid in the south. Next day, at least three people were
killed in fighting outside presidential palace. On 15 th January, two persons
were killed in fighting in Mogadishu.
On 16th January, Somali government lifted ban on media. Next day,
Somali parliament sacked Speaker for having links with Islamists. On 21 st
January, Kenya returned about 30 Islamist suspects to Somalia. Two days
later, Ethiopian troops began pulling out of Mogadishu.
On 24th February, two persons were killed and several wounded in
mortar attack on Mogadishu airport. Three days later, Ethiopian troops near
Mogadishu came under mortar fire. Next day, two persons were killed in
attack on a police station. On 31st January, a former warlord was elected as
Speaker of the Somali Parliament.
Human rights groups condemned Kenyan authorities for wrongly
detaining and denying at least eight suspects accused of supporting Somali
Islamists access to lawyers and medicine. The known detainees included an
American, four Britons and a pregnant Tunisian woman.
Bob Naiman and Patrick McElwee wrote, now, the Washington Post
reported this week, the administration has given a green light for
Ethiopia to send troops into Somalia to make war with the Islamic Courts
Union (ICU) Former State Department official John Prendergast says US
support for Ethiopias military incursion has incalculably strengthened the
Courts appeal to Somali nationalism.
The Post reports a widespread view in Ethiopias capital that Prime
Minister Meles is using the conflict in Somalia to distract people from
internal problems and to justify further repression of opposition groups.
Ethiopian opponents of war say Meles is playing up the claim that there
are al-Qaeda operatives within the ICU to maintain support of the US,

639

which relies on a steady flow of Ethiopian intelligence some regional

analysts say is of dubious value.
Until this week, the escalating conflict in Somalia had not drawn
much attention of the US press. If the situation is allowed to spin out of
control, yet another civil war could be added to the list fostered by the
Bush Administration
The Guardian observed that the Ethiopian troops, tacitly backed by
the US, had been operating unofficially in Somalia for several months.
Addis Ababa has now openly sent its tanks and planes across the border as
the beleaguered and largely powerless UN-backed transitional government
in Baidoa was facing defeat by the Somali Council of Islamic Courts.
The SCIC has brought a semblance of authority to the swathes of
the country it controls, having strengthened its position enormously by
capturing Mogadishu in June. As the Taliban once did in Afghanistan, it
provides stable government of a sort through rough, ready and uneven
application of Sharia law.
The Bush Administrations nods and winks to Ethiopia can be
compared to its encouragement of Israels war against the Lebanese
Hezbollah this summer. In the view of the International Crisis Group, it has
given a green light for Ethiopias policy of containment by intervention.
The right course is to press for an immediate ceasefire and powersharing talks between what passes for the Somali government and the SCIC
rebels. International mediation could help provide security guarantees
to Ethiopia, which should withdraw its forces at once. Anything else
would be to court disaster for a country that has already suffered enough.
The Japan Times wrote, whatever the motivation, Ethiopia launched
a full-fledged invasion in late December, routing the UIC and installing
President Yusuf in Mogadishu. The transitional government forces took the
lead and, with Ethiopian backing and some American support, managed
to drive the remaining Islamists into exile where they have promised to wage
an insurgency against the government and turn the country into another Iraq
or Afghanistan.
The Hindu concocted the justification for the occupation of Somalia.
The government might need a viable peacekeeping force sooner than later;

640

the Islamists have threatened to launch a guerrilla campaign. While many of

the Councils fighters seem to have returned to their families, a hard core
known as the Shebaab could spark off an insurgency from a territory close to
the Kenyan border. The assertion by the United States that the Somali
Islamists have an al-Qaeda connection might be an exaggeration. However,
the Council, which comprised a network of local mosque leaders, did sweep
to power in Talibanesque mode. Had the Islamists remained in control,
there was the risk of Somalia becoming a base of operations for terrorist
outfits.
Khaleej Times viewed it differently. After fifteen years of murderous
chaos, Somalia was on the brink of peace. The Union of Islamic Courts
(UIC) had achieved what the squabbling warlords had failed so signally
to do. They had brought stability and an end to violence in the capital
Mogadishu and large areas of the country. They had managed this purely by
force of arms. There has been widespread support for their advance simply
because of the stability and end to insecurity that they promised. The
warlords had had their chance.
Tragically, as has happened so often in Somalias history, outside
forces believed they had a vested interest in the country. Ethiopia has
long considered Somalia within its sphere of influence, not least as part of its
ongoing conflict with Eritrea.
Thus Addis Ababa has thrown its military weight behind the rump of
warlord government in Baidoa. It is widely assumed that for their part, the
Eritrean have been assisting the UIC. Ethiopia did itself little service by
denying flatly that there were more than a few military adviser assisting the
warlord government.
Inevitably, the greatest impact of these clashes has been on luckless
civilians who are fleeing the fighting. Somalis, stricken first by drought and
more recently by floods, are in little position to sustain themselves. Already
the International Red Cross is predicting a major refugees exodus and
another potential humanitarian disaster.
The world body was once again used as an office that issues
legitimacy certificates for occupation of Muslim lands. Gulf News wrote,
the UN Security Council failed on Wednesday to reach agreement on a
simple non-binding resolution to urge an end to the bloody conflict in
Somalia. According to reports, the United States and Britain, among others,
641

object to a paragraph in the non-binding statement that demands that all

foreign forces immediately withdraw from the territories of Somalia and
cease their military operations in the war-ravaged Arab country. Just a
reminder: these are the two Great Powers that stopped the Security Council
for more than a month to call for immediate ceasefire in the Israeli war
against Lebanon last summer.
The US and Britain know very well that by giving Ethiopia a free
reign over Somalia will only deepen the miseries of the poor country and
prolong the armed conflict. It will be natural for various groups to take up
arms to fight the occupation and its allies in the interim government.
Cameron Duodu said: In the African Union (AU), which has its
headquarters in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, US policy is already
causing enormous confusion. For months the AU has been trying,
unsuccessfully, to persuade the UN Security Council to bolster the AU force
in Darfur, Sudan. Yet within days of Ethiopias invasion, the Security
Council, under US instigation was able to pass a resolution asking for an AU
force to be sent to Somalia. Clearly, the US wants to legitimize the
invasion by placing it under the umbrella of the very AU that it has
humiliated for months.
Arab News condemned the US air strike on a border village in the
south. Those who survived in the little southern Somali village of Hayo,
close to the Kenyan border, will not forget. In the early hours of yesterday,
their world was blown apart by the devastating weaponry of a C-130 attack
plane. First reports suggest that there were widespread casualties with the
village littered with the corpses of people and animals.
It seems clear that many villagers perished in the attack along,
perhaps, with al-Qaeda supporters. We have to ask, however, why if US
spies had definite information on the terrorists, they did not wait until they
were on the move again and then attack them. Laying waste a village made it
inevitable that there would be innocent people.
On the wider canvas, the open emergence of US involvement in
Somalia indicates Washington now believes it has a golden opportunity to
strike a major blow against international terror. Initial UIC protests that
Somalia was not a haven for international terror were undermined when alQaeda figures called on fighters to go to Somalia to support the UIC against
the Ethiopian attack. With the US naval presence off the Somali coast now
642

considerably enhanced by the carrier Eisenhower, the Americans will hope

to interdict any attempt by al-Qaeda to flee the country by sea.
Bush may be happy to turn Somalia into another shooting gallery for
his war on terror. It will nonetheless be yet another woeful error. What
Somalia needs now is international peacekeepers and a chance to
rebuild, instead of a vengeful and destructive US military.
Jonathan Freedland wrote, when everyone from the American
electorate to the US military brass, along with a rare consensus of world
opinion, cries out with one voice to say enough of the war in Iraq, Bush
heads in the opposite direction and decides to escalate. When his army
chiefs complain of desperate overstretch in the war on terror, he opens
up another front.
On Sunday night the US military launched an air strike not on Iraq
or Afghanistan, but on southern Somalia. Some reports last night claimed
that the bombing has continued ever since if you didnt know that Somalia
was on the enemies list if youre finding it hard, what with Syria and Iran
and North Korea, to keep track of Washingtons foes, dont blame yourself.
These days the axis of evil is expanding faster than the European Union,
with a couple of new members added every January.
Not that we mock. At first blush, the Somalia raid (or raids) looks
like just the kind of action that a global war on terror should entail, had it not
been diverted by the unrelated nonsense about WMD and Iraq. After all, the
Americans say they aimed their fire on Sunday at al-Qaeda bigwigs, thought
to be responsible for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania.
If the Americans have bungled, and civilians have been killed, then
the recruiting impact for al-Qaeda and others will be even greater. And the
precedents suggest such raids from the sky are horribly inaccurate It
hardly helps appearances that Washingtons partner in this adventure is the
government of mainly Christian Ethiopia. For this was not just a simple
police operation, but part of a wider US intrusion into a messy, complicated
conflict.
The Guardian opined, the issue here is not Washingtons right to
strike back at its sworn enemies, but how many innocents are wiped out in
the process. One of the instruments used was extremely blunt, an A-130

643

gunship which strafed a village near the Kenyan border. The tactic is well
proven in Afghanistan and Iraq; kill everything that moves within given
coordinates and then see who you have got afterwards.
The test of the US operation is not whether it killed the right people,
but whether an attack generating mass casualties has advanced or
squandered the opportunity to create a stable government in Mogadishu,
backed by multinational peacekeeping force.
Saad Sayeed wrote, the Bush Administrations brazen approach to
world politics therefore threatens to create new conflicts and escalate present
ones on a level unmatched even by Ronald Reagans sordid legacy. With the
bombing of Somalia, the US has reaffirmed its with us or against us
stance and demonstrated that African and Middle Eastern lives carry no
weight on the scales of geo-strategy.
Analysts apprehended negative effects of occupation of yet another
country of Muslim World. Salim Lone wrote, the United States, whose
troops have been sighted by Kenyan journalists in the region bordering
Somalia, next turned to the UN Security Council. In another craven act
resembling its post facto legalization of the US occupation of Iraq, the
Council bowed to US pressure and authorized a regional peacekeeping force
to enter Somalia to protect the government and restore peace and stability.
This is despite the fact that the UN has no right under its charter to intervene
on behalf of one of the parties struggling for political supremacy, and that
peace and stability had already been restored by the Islamists.
The Ethiopian military presence in Somalia is inflammatory and
will destabilize this region and threaten Kenya, a US ally and the only
island of stability in this corner of Africa. Ethiopia is at even greater risk, as
a dictatorship with little popular support and beset by two large internal
revolts by Ogadenis and Oromos. It is also mired in a military stalemate with
Eritrea, which has denied it secure access to seaports. The best antidote to
terrorism in Somalia is stability. Instead of engaging with the Islamists to
secure peace, the United States has plunged a poor country into greater
misery in its misguided determination to dominate the world.
Cameron Duodu opined that the Ethiopian invasion will certainly
be resisted by Somali patriots. It will initially be classified as successful
because it will establish a semblance of law and order. But the routed UIC,

644

although weakened by internal squabbles, will seek safe havens nearby,

regroup and woo back its supporters.
The UIC knows that when faced with a conventional army backed by
an air force, the best option is to disappear into the undergrowth or behind
the desert dunes. The Somalis have been disappearing like that for
centuries, always coming back to harass those who claim to have defeated
them.
General John Abizaid, commander for the US central command, is
reported to have visited Ethiopia last month, after which Ethiopia moved
from providing the Somali government with military advice to open armed
intervention The US objective is to safeguard access to the Red Sea for
its oil tankers, and to prevent al-Qaeda cells being nurtured in Somalia or in
Ethiopia, which has a sizeable Muslim minority. Now, by allowing the US to
persuade it to invade, Ethiopia has signaled to the Islamic World that it is
willing to join the US in its war on terror.
The News wrote, indeed, according to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi
of Ethiopia, there were several Pakistanis among members of the opposition
Islamist forces captured in Somalia. Somalias control by religious
extremists was certainly no solution for the country, which has been without
a government since the death of dictator Mohammad Siad Barre in 1991.
But their forced expulsion through the use of alien forces can only
strengthen the hands of the extremists.
The basic point is that the sovereignty of another country is being
trampled underfoot by the Americans, who are obviously there also because
the country straddles the Horn of Africa and is close to key shipping lanes as
well as the Suez Canal. However, just as President Bush insists on the
widely opposed surge in occupied Iraq, it is unlikely he will relent on
Somalia.
Tanvir Ahmed Khan observed, Washington is using Ethiopia, a
Christian country, to extend its war against Islamofascists to the Horn of
Africa. Regrettably it is being done as part of a unilateralist and poorly
defined and undifferentiated war against terrorism. It may well turn out to
be another counter-productive venture that would add a religious
dimension to the existing mix of antagonisms.

645

The Japan Times wrote, driving the UIC from power could merely
open the door to another period of mayhem. The Ethiopians want to
withdraw from Somalia as soon as possible, and there is little indication that
the transitional government has the credibility to remain in power long after
that A critical first step is maintaining the order that the Islamists
imposed. That will require disarmament, a difficult task under the best of
circumstances. Ethiopia has lost its credibility by intervening and Mr
Zenawi fears being sucked into an insurgency.
The New York Times talked of consolidating the occupation. To
make the most of this opportunity, Washington needs to move quickly, along
with Arab and African leaders, to try to broker a political compromise
between responsible leaders of the Islamic Courts Union, which was evicted
from power last month by the Ethiopians, and the internationally endorsed
transitional government installed in its place.
If the transitional government is to survive, it will have to strike a
deal with moderate Islamists. The person it needs to talk with is Sheikh
Sharif Ahmed, who is No 2 in the movement and by most accounts a
reasonable man. He is currently in Kenya after apparently getting an
American guarantee that he would not be deported back to Somalia. The
newspaper never talked of a deal before the occupation of Somalia.

US AND EUROPE
America is the mastermind behind the ongoing Crusades. With the
intentions of escalating the war further, the US felt the need to create
separate strategic command for Africa. This is primarily aimed at ensuring
better planning and execution for building empire in the lands of blacks and
the land having black gold.
At home, Bush Administration freed 18 detainees from Gitmo on 17th
December. The process of tightening of security at home focused specially
on Pakistanis. On 21st December, a Pakistani was convicted by the federal
jury in New York for aiding Sikh militants. On 9 th January 2007 a Pakistani
was awarded 30 years in prison for his alleged involvement in plot to blow
up New York subway station. A Pakistani student was convicted in Houston
on 31st January on charge of possessing firearm.

646

Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the ongoing US war on terror. The

Republicans leadership clearly wants to leave to the next president a legacy
that would tie him to its policies and make a change of course impossible. If
so it is not just a tactical blunder but a recipe for an even greater disaster.
And yet I think the possibility of change is still there. The
administration and Congress still have the time to forge it. They should
begin with the Middle East. Not only should America start pulling itself out
of the Iraqi quagmire, but it also needs to return to a constructive policy in
the region.
If Americas leaders have the foresight and the courage to look at the
world as it really is, they would choose dialogue and cooperation rather than
force. What is needed is not a worldwide web of military presence and
intervention, but a restraint and a willingness to solve problems by political
means.
After all, the world has changed dramatically even when
compared to the early 1990s. It has become even more interconnected
and interdependent Although the Islamic World is finding it difficult to
adapt to new realities, its adjustment will continue and this great civilization
will insist on being treated with respect.
Crackdown against Muslim extremists in Europe continued.
Following incidents were reported during the period:
In Spain, five Islamists were arrested on 3 rd January 2007 over their
suspected link to terrorism.
On 12th January 2007, German court refused to take up the appeal of a
Moroccan convicted of helping three of the 9/11 bombers.
Fear gripped Muslims in Britain, particularly from Pakistan as on 17 th
January media started aggressive coverage of trial of 21 suspects
allegedly involved in 7/7 bombings.
Two days later Dutch Foreign Minster said you have to look at the
factsthey (Muslims) have different genes from ours. They are less
tolerant.

647

 Five men, including two British Pakistanis, were arrested in raids in

Britain on 23rd January.
Eight British of Pakistani origin were arrested in Birmingham on 31 st
January on charges of plotting to abduct and carry out beheading of a
Muslim soldier. Terror probe was extended to Pakistan.
On 2nd February, an inquiry was ordered after detecting al-Qaeda
mole in UK defence ministry.
One person was injured in packet explosion in London on 5 th
February. Two days later, Britain launched a fund to fight Muslim
extremism.
In early December, Britains Foreign Office urged the government
officials to stop using the US term war on terror amid concerns that it
angers British Muslims and undermines government aims. This was an
indirect acceptance of the fact that the ongoing unjust war hurts Muslims.
A report from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism catalogued
a disturbing climate of Islamophobia in Europe. Gudrun Kramer observed
that in any comparison with Europe whether during the Christiandominated Middle Ages, the Reformation or the era of totalitarian (which,
we might remember, post-dated the Enlightenment) Islam emerges as the
clear moral victor With a few highly publicized exceptions, religious
tolerance is still exercised in predominantly Islamic societies.
Demonizing Islam and its followers continued while the Muslim elite
kept talking of tolerance and enlightened moderation. Burhannudin Hasan
opined that Muslims have become the target of hostile propaganda
especially by the western electronic media, which has been projecting Islam
as a religion preaching hatred and its leadership as promoting the cult of
terrorism.
Yet the intellectuals like him refuse to accept existence of the
Crusades and go on to advise the Muslims to mend their ways. It is
therefore imperative upon us to present before the world the true,
multifaceted and vibrant Muslim culture from Morocco to Indonesia and
Europe to Australia and the Americas. To achieve this objective there is
urgent need for a satellite Ummah TV channel to give voice to the

648

Muslim World and to present before the world the views of the Ummah on
issues facing the globe.
Moneeza Ahmed noted that the western propaganda has put the
Muslims on the apologetically defensive. Have you noticed that whenever
the western media reports an Islamic terrorist or an extreme Islamist, they
usually follow the profiling the person as a very religious. Usually, if it is a
man he will have a beard, usually be a regular at the local mosque and
maybe would also be an active member of the Muslim community. The
person is usually portrayed as someone who likes his faith. But is there
anything wrong with that. Apparently, the West thinks so.
For Muslims who want to explain that they are not terrorists and just
plain religious, explain it by saying: Oh I am not an extremist, I dont
follow Islam to the extreme, I am a moderate Muslim. As Muslims however
we are taught to pray, fast, give zakat, help our neighbours and friends and if
following my faith, it doesnt automatically make me an individual who
believes in killing all non-Muslims and blowing up people, cars and
buildings.
Then why are we apologetic and explain that we are moderate
Muslims? Why is our president always proud to claim that Pakistan is a
nation of moderate Muslims? We should be proud to call ourselves
individuals who follow Islam to the extreme without worrying that we
would be labeled as fanatics.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal observed that it is not the western media alone that
is distorting the image of Islam and its followers. He felt that the so-called
secular Muslims and the enlightened moderates within the Ummah were
equally responsible for this.
Secular Muslims come in various varieties, hues and shades;
some are more secular than Muslim, others are more Muslim than secular
and there is wide range between these extremes. What distinguishes them
from ordinary Muslims is a mystery. They claim that their faith is a private
affair and hence any prying into matters related to their beliefs is taboo. But
they call themselves Muslim hence one would expect that the least they
would accept is the Book of God that all Muslims hold to be an incorruptible
revelation

649

This much they do accept and this is their passport for entry into
the community of believers. But their Quraan is a book that needs to be
re-interpreted anew for the twenty-first century. This means that they
would like to read the Book in a manner that is different from how it has
been read over the last fourteen centuries. In other words, many among them
aspire to be a Muslim Martin Luther. In fact, several leading members of this
community of secular Muslims are competing for the title of a Luther of
Islam.
The most important representatives of this community live in
Europe and the US where they have found sanctuary in educational
institutions. Their research and scholarship stands in stark contrast to the
likes of Bernard Lewis; the attempt to demolish the house of Islam from
within. To be sure, they are not ignorant about Islam; on the contrary, they
often have command over Islams primary sources and know various aspects
of Islam more than regular Muslims. What is different in their case,
however, is the interpretation of some of the most basic concepts of Islam.
The most important area of interest for these scholars is Islams
encounter with modernity. This is a wide open field which provides them
the maximum leverage to propagate their beliefs. They appear as harbingers
of a new version of Islam from which certain fundamental doctrines, such as
jihad, need to be subtracted. They construct their version of Islam in
opposition to what the Western media often calls medieval, reactionary,
exclusive, narrow, or madrassah Islam. In contrast, their version is called
enlightened Islam. This Islam is elastic; it can co-exist with almost
anything.
There are numerous lines of academic research these secular Muslim
scholars pursue, but increasingly their area of interest has focused on the
Quraan. As opposed to Orientalists, they do not openly question the divine
origin of the Quraan, but they wish to subject it to a scientific inquiry.
Their methodology is rather simple. First they challenge the authority of the
mullah to interpret the Quraan. Then they attempt to establish their own
scholarly authority by using a jargon that makes sense in the Western
academy. They ask: What does it mean for a text to come from God? The
Quraan is a book consisting of some 6,000 verses in Arabic. This is an
Islamic credo, and at the same time we have to know that some principles
are universal and eternal, but some prescriptions should be understood in the
specific context of Arabia of the seventh century. Having established this

650

principle, they open a wide road for themselves to discard what does not suit
their ideological commitments.
At the deepest level, what sets secular Muslims apart from normal
Muslims is a deeply engraved and thoroughly disguised pride a disdain to
submit to anyone, including the Creator. This disdain expresses itself in
different modes, such as their lack of respect for any authority, their derision
for centuries of Islamic scholarship, and their self-claimed role of reinterpreters of Islam. For them, the past needs to be destroyed, in order to
live in the present and prepare for the future. This means giving up concepts,
practices, even laws that do not suit their vision of twenty-first century
Islam. Thus, concepts as such as Muslim Ummah, the community of
believers as distinct social entity rooted in the vision of Islam, is
anachronistic. It is incompatible with global village that the world has
become, they claim. Dr Muzaffar was not right in saying that they disdain
to submit to anyone, because these secular Muslims do submit to worldly
powers quite willingly.
Left to their own understanding, and devoid of any integral links with
the tradition, they attempt to understand Islam through their own limited and
often flawed intellect, using personal whims, desires, fancies, and interests
as the basic criteria to interpret primary sources of Islam. They reject what
does not suit their needs, often through a circumvent process; for them, the
only way to progress goes through a destructed Islam in which everything
is relativized
The emergence of secular Muslims on the global scene is a new
phenomenon in Muslim history. They are always present in conferences,
symposia, workshops, and on talk shows where they present their vision of
Islam in the context of discussions on a wide range of subjects from
political events to the relationship between Islam and science. Where
possible, they often begin their speeches or articles by Muslim bashing in
the name of revisiting certain basic assumptions of Muslims. Then they go
on to recast Islam in their own manner. In doing so, they are attempting
to demolish the house of Islam from within. Their success produces more
secularized Muslims and the process goes on.
Philip Bond and Adrian Pabst opined that fanaticism was not confined
to the religion alone. Common to virtually all versions of contemporary
religious fanaticism is a claim to know divine intention directly, absolutely

651

and unquestionably. As a result, many people demand a fresh liberal

resistance to religious totalitarianism.
But it is important to realize that this reduction of a transcendent
religion to confirmation of ones own personal beliefs represents an ersatz
copy of liberal humanism. Long before religious fundamentalism, secular
humanists reduced all objective codes to subjective assertion by making man
the measure of all things and erasing God from nature.
Although the cultured despisers of religion are once again making
strident appeal to secular values and unmediated reason, they do not realize
that the religious absolutism they denounce is but a variant of their own
fundamentalism returned in a different guise.
Philosophically, if one wants to defend the idea of objective moral
truth, it appears ineluctably to require some sort of engagement with
theology. For if there are universals out there, we need to explain why they
care about us or indeed how we can know them at all. And if human beings
do not make these truths, then it seems an account of the relationship
between ultimate truths and human life can only be religious.
Thus we are witnessing a real intellectual return to religion that
cannot be reduced to the spread of fanaticism. It is also becoming clear
that secularism reinforces rather than overcomes both religious
fundamentalism and militant atheism. In the new, post-secular world,
religion cannot be eliminated and, properly figured, is in fact our best hope
for a genuine alternative to the prevailing extremes.

MUSLIMS
Mahathir condemned Bush and Blair as child-killers and war
criminals in his interview to al-Jazeera, telecast on 5th February. Earlier, he
had desired to form a war crimes tribunal to focus on victims of abuse in
Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. In fact, he was only drawing attention towards
the crimes committed against humanity; otherwise he understood quite
clearly that war crime trials could not be held without possessing and
applying requisite military strength. Muslim World cannot even dream of
that in foreseeable future.

652

During the second half of January, Musharraf visited five Arab

countries in the Middle East to have consensus on a new peace initiative in
the wake of ever increasing threat of escalation of war. After that he went to
Indonesia and Malaysia. On 1st February, while visiting Kuala Lumpur, he
said new Middle East plan is worth a try. He then visited Iran, where
Ahmadinejad backed Middle East peace initiative after one-on-one meeting
in Tehran on 5th February.
With the Bush Administrations plans to escalate the war in the region,
the Islamic World faced grave threats possibly with far-reaching
consequences. M Shahid Alam wrote, the war that Western powers
primarily US, Israel and Britain began against the Islamic World after
September 11, 2001, is about to enter a new more dangerous phase of
their early plans for changing the map of the Middle East have begun
to unravel with unintended consequences.
The battle lines in this civil war have been drawn. The principal
American-Israeli surrogates in this Islamic civil war showed their colours
last July when Israel launched devastating air attacks against Lebanese
civilian targets in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by
Hezbollah. Almost instantly, Cairo, Riyadh and Amman condemned the
Hezbollah action. On the opposite side there is the crescent of resurgent Shia
power stretching from Lebanon, through Syria, and Iraq, into Iran.
Iraq is already the theatre of this Islamic civil war. Last July, one of
the aims of the Israeli destruction of Lebanons civilian infrastructure was to
spread this sectarian war to Lebanon. That gambit failed miserably. Now
Saudi Arabia is threatening to expand its support for Sunni insurgents in Iraq
and de-stabilize Iran by raising its oil production.
The determining factor in this war will be the Sunni populations
under the thumbs of the Arab potentates. It is doubtful if the anti-Persian and
anti-Shia rhetoric will succeed in swinging them around to support
governments they have long hated, especially now as their alliance with
Israel becomes overt. There is also the risk that in fuelling the Sunni
insurgency in Iraq, the Saudis will strengthen al-Qaeda and their allies who
are sworn to bring down the US-friendly Arab potentates. Moreover, if there
is a real war in the region, the pseudo Arab states in the Gulf have no
fighting ability they can bring to this conflict. In that event, does the US
have the forces to occupy Iraq and also defend its Arab clients in the Gulf?

653

Shireen M Mazari criticized the Muslims for their oblivion to the

threats looming large. Here we are in the Muslim World, more intolerant to
each other than of the enemies outside. Thus we have many Arab states
dialoguing with Israel despite the violence and abuse Israel heaped on the
Arabs not just the Palestinians and despite the occupation of Arab lands
by an expansionist Zionist entity. In contrast, there is no dialogue between
the Arabs of the Gulf and Iran to resolve some of their outstanding
disputes. Is it not strange that no Muslim state has taken the initiative to
rectify this omission?
No wonder then that we are easily exploited by the West for their
agendas especially post-9/11 when one clear agenda that has emerged in
West is to weaken and restructure the Muslim World of the so-called greater
Middle East. Central to this agenda of restructuring the Muslim states of
the greater Middle East, being pushed with the US in the lead, is to
accentuate the Shia-Sunni divide. In Iraq, we have been seeing this play
ever since the US invasion of that country.
Another dimension of Americas policy of accentuating the sectarian
divide within the Muslim World is aimed at building a Sunni bloc which will
isolate Shia Iran in an effort to deny it any operational space in the Middle
East.
The US feels it can effect regime change in Iran from outside. At the
moment many Iranian dissident groups are being trained and supplied
by the US to destabilize Iran even as the US is seeking to fight terrorism
elsewhere. Most recently, there is news coming out of the UK (where else!)
that the US is also looking to encourage an Iranian Baloch cessionist
movement.
For Muslim states to fall victim to this dangerous policy will only
serve to harm their own interests in the long run. US commentaries in
their official institutional journals seek to redraw maps of the Muslim states
of the greater Middle East and Gulf States are special targets of this
redrawing
It is time to alter qualitatively the interaction within the Muslim
World and Muslim societies. Pakistan, by need, must move to play the role
of an intermediary between the Arab states and Iran since we cannot
afford to opt for any one side.

654

Why blame the US and its Western allies in playing the sectarian
card. We Muslims need to heal our cleavages ourselves so that others
cannot exploit our differences. One does not expect the Shia-Sunni divide
in terms of belief to be overcome, but what one should expect from Muslims
is respect and tolerance for beliefs of other fellow Muslims so that within
our Muslim states each one of us can conduct our religious rites without fear
or persecutionfor unless we learn humility, tolerance and acceptance of
the other from within the Ummah, we will always be prey to external
exploiters and subjugators.
Musharrafs recent initiative indicated the realization in Muslim ruling
elite about the possibility of escalation of war. M B Naqvi expressed his
apprehensions about this initiative. The new Arab-Israeli alliance against
Iran has far too many evil potentialities for the Arabs. A war fought against
Iran under American, Israeli, Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and other Gulf
sheikhdoms colours will have totally unforeseeable consequences.
Irrespective of its military outcome, a war that looks like an ArabIran war will revive an ancient feud and passions will certainly run high;
but the most fearful aspect of that Arab-versus-Ajamis is that it coincides
with the oldest schism in Islam. Such a war will deepen that divide and can
cause a gargantuan conflagration. Rivers of blood can flow and huge ethnic
cleansing can result, if this war is not prevented.
Here is a million dollar question: would Pakistan, a closer friend of
the Saudis that used to enjoy a certain oil facility, now expired, sign on as an
honorary Arab, if there is such a thing. The recent tour of President Pervez
Musharraf to the main Arab members-to-be of this alliance has raised
questions about the purpose of his role. During the tour he has visualized
recognizing Israel if it agrees to a two-state solution to the Palestine problem
and the Arabs are satisfied. It is not clear which Arab satisfaction is being
sought. He seems to be anxious to join this quest of an Arab-Israeli peace,
ignoring any number of issues to be solved at home.
There is far greater need for a peace movement in Pakistan. We
need a simple uncontrolled democracy, a commitment not to get involved in
dangerous troubles elsewhere. Let us live in peace and amity with
neighbours. The sad thing is that these things are considered as platitudes
and disregarded. But they remain urgent needs. Peace within and peace
without is what we cannot do without.

655

Burhanuddin Hasan wrote, President Musharraf has himself

expressed doubts about the success of his initiative. If the OIC has failed to
unite Muslim leaders on a course of action in the Middle East, what is the
guarantee that another forum will? The Muslim Ummah can never unite so
long as it ignores the Quranic edicts: This ummat of yours is one; Hold
fast all of you together and do not separate: As for those who split their
religion into sects and become schismatic, no concern at all hast thou with
them. This is a dire warning which the Muslim Ummah has been ignoring
and has thus been suffering.
There is an urgent need to energize and strengthen the OIC, which
due to lack of funds and authority remains confined only to meetings and
statements. It has not taken any worthwhile initiative like the one President
Musharraf intends to take.
In this age of powerful electronic media, which plays a very
important role in moulding a nations attitude, there is need for a
multilingual satellite TV channel for the Muslim Ummah to counter the
hostile propaganda of powerful western media projecting Islam as a
religion of hatred and terrorism and sowing seeds of rift and conflict among
Muslims.
The need for the Muslim voice to be heard had been felt since long.
While the Muslim countries, individually and collectively, failed to take any
concrete steps to have a strong electronic media on their own, in private
sector, however, al-Jazeera started its English language telecasts.
Hasan Suror wrote, at last, there are signs that tectonic plates are
starting to shift with the launch, in the past one month, of two high-profile
international English language channels, both avowedly designed to
challenge the Anglo-US global media dominance. Although it is too early
to kick off the celebrations, the arrival of al-Jazeera (English) and
France-24 is an important development and if the trend catches on, it
could change the face of television news and transform the way we see the
world.
Actually the lead was taken by China when it launched an
independent global English language channel CCTV9 two years ago to
cover world events from a Chinese perspective and bring greater diversity
to the global information flow. It advertises itself as a window on China
and the world and Beijings answer to Western media giants.
656

With the launch of al-Jazeera (English) in November and France-24

earlier this month, there are now three alternatives international English
news channels to choose from. Clearly, these are not enough and there is no
doubt that, thanks to years of conditioning, millions of people will
continue to watch the BBC and the CNN out of sheer habit. But it is a
beginning.
In terms of manpower and resources, the three new channels are
small change compared to the giants they have set out to challenge.
Nevertheless, they are brave efforts. A few more such enterprises and they
could make a significant difference to world broadcasting.

CONCLUSION
The Crusaders have occupied yet another Islamic state. It all happened
without even semblance of protest from any quarter of the Muslim World.
The manner in which Somalia was conquered amply indicated the likely
response of the Ummah in case another country is invaded and occupied by
the Crusaders.
Muslim experts and intellectuals, like Tanvir Ahmad Khan, still feel
shy, or perhaps ashamed, of acknowledging the existence of the Crusades.
The analyst, with reference to Ethiopia, said that religious dimension has
been added to the ongoing war. This dimension had existed all along. As
regards mix of antagonism on the part of Muslims, his apprehension is
unfounded because Muslim Worlds rulers have given up the option of Jihad.
As regards Musharrafs initiative, there is no harm in trying from a
forum other than OIC, provided the aim is to seek redress of the grievances
of the Muslims. This would imply telling the Crusaders to stop waging wars
in Muslim World and instead resolve the political disputes. This is essential
to promote peace, but if the intention is different, then this initiative will
achieve nothing, and perhaps cause more damage.
9th February 2007

657

WINNING WAYS
Bush had repeatedly told the Americans that the United States must
win in the Middle East. Out of the options available for winning he decided
to intensify the military action in Iraq. In other words, he increased the
stakes with the hope to square the losses.
After fierce factional fighting between Hamas and Fatah Saudi Arabia
mediated. Palestinian working groups met in Makkah and agreed to form
unity government. Israel and the US decided to continue economic blockade
of Palestinians despite the accord on formation of new government.
Bush Administration remained hostile towards Iran. In response, Ali
Khamenei warned that Iran would hit back at American interests worldwide
if attacked. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said US is within Irans firing range.
ElBaradei feared chain reaction to Iran conflict.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
There was no let in the bloodshed in Iraq. At least 36 people were
killed in various incidents on 29th January. Next day, more than 90 people
were killed and over one hundred injured in various incidents.
At least 69 people, including three US soldier, were killed on 31 st
January. Next day, at least 70 people, including a US soldier, were killed in
acts of violence.
On 2nd February, 14 Iraqis and six US soldiers were killed. Next day,
138 people were killed and about 400 wounded in a truck bombing and
shootouts. Four US helicopters crashed/shot down in last couple of weeks.
On 4th February, 44 people were killed in various incidents and 33
dead bodies were recovered from different localities of the capital. Next day,
47 Iraqis were killed as operation for securing Baghdad was launched; two
US and one British soldier were also killed.
At least 17 people were shot dead in violence on 6 th February. An
Iranian diplomat was kidnapped by men in Iraqi Army uniforms. Next day,

658

fifteen Iraqis were killed and seven Americans were killed as a Chinook
went down near Baghdad.
On 8th February, 65 people were killed, including 5 coalition soldiers
out of whom 4 were Americans. Next day, 35 people including three US
soldiers were killed. Seventeen people, including three US and another
coalition soldier, were killed in various incidents on 10th February. A
helicopter of American security agency crashed.
At least seventy people, including a US soldier, were killed on 11th
February. Next day, more than eighty people, including one US soldier were
killed in various incidents.
At least 15 people were killed on 13th February. Next day, 32 dead
bodies were recovered and 15 people were killed in violence. Six car bombs
exploded in Baghdad on 15th February killing 20 people. In the ongoing
operation in Baghdad 14 foreigners from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria
were arrested.
Five persons were killed in violence on 16th February and 24 dead
bodies were recovered. Next day, ten people were killed in two bomb blasts
in Kirkuk; nine more, including a US soldier, were killed in violence
elsewhere. Occupation forces claimed recovering arms cache which included
50 surface-to-air missiles.
Car bombings killed more than 60 people and more than hundred
were wounded in the heart of Baghdad on 18 th February. Two US soldiers
were killed in separate incidents.
The occupation forces primarily relied upon the use of airpower in
counter-insurgency operations. Nick Turse reported that while some aspects
of the air war remain a total mystery, Air Force officials do acknowledge that
US military and coalition aircraft dropped at least 111,000 pounds of bombs
on targets in Iraq in 2006. This figure, 177 bombs in all, does not include
guided missiles and unguided rockets fired, or cannon rounds expended
Moreover, it does not include munitions used by the armed helicopters of the
many private security contractors flying their own missions in Iraq.
The latter weapon, Guided Bomb Unit-12, a laser guided bomb with
a 500-pound general purpose warhead, was the most frequently used bomb
in Iraq in 2006, according to CENTAF statistics provided to Tomdispatch

659

In 2006, Marine rotary-wing aircraft flew more than 60,000 combat flight
hours, and fixed-wing platforms completed 31,000. They dropped 80 tons of
bombs and fired 80 missiles, 3,532 rockets and more than 2 million rounds
of smaller ammunition.
As regards other aspects of the occupation, the most significant of
all was Bushs resolve to win in Iraq. The US forces resorted to blaming Iran
and Syria for supporting the militants fighting against the occupation forces.
On 29th January, Bush asked Iran to quit Iraq.
A special briefing of the media was arranged to show them the
evidence of Irans involvement in Iraq. It was also reported that Moqtada
al-Sadr has fled to Iran. On 14th February, borders with Syria and Iran were
sealed for three days as operation in Baghdad was launched. Meanwhile,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid surprise visit to Iraq to ensure that
the puppet regime remained committed to support crackdown against Shiite
militias.
Opposition to Bush plan echoed in the House of Representatives. On
6 February, however, a resolution opposing sending extra troops to Iraq
failed to advance for want of requisite number of votes. Three days later, an
independent US think-tank urged retreat from Iraq terming the situation
there beyond repair.
th

On 16th February, the US House of Representatives planned to rebuke

Bush over his Iraq strategy; 246 of the 434 House members voted for the
motion. Next day, however, US Senate voted against debating Iraq War
rebuke. Two days later, Blair said UK and US were not responsible for
sectarian violence in Iraq.
With the US decision to reinforce occupation troops in Iraq and
speculations about the escalation of war, Musharraf decided to test his
statesmanship. He had visited five Arab countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran
and Turkey to consult their rulers on his initiative. On 11th February, he
discussed Mideast peace with Mubarak on telephone.
The world bodys intelligence report foresaw civil war in Iraq. Turkish
Foreign Minister feared that creation of a Kurdish state may stir up
separation in his country. The US did not pay any heed to such reports and
apprehensions; but kept covering up the war crimes committed by its
soldiers. On 18th February, a Marine was sentenced to eight years in prison

660

for killing an Iraqi civilian; the severest punishment awarded so far to a war
criminal.

COMMENTS
Despite Bushs insistence on military solution, analysts and media
kept suggesting change in policy. Khaleej Times wrote, Bushs new Iraq
strategy is already bearing fruit. Even ahead of the additional 21,500 troop
deployment, Iraqs insurgents and splinter groups have responded by
stepping up attacks, killing and maiming on a continuously increasing
scale Failing an immediate and comprehensive change of policy, there
will be precious little chance that Iraq will ever be brought back from
the brink.
Sam Rosenfeld and Mathew Yglesias observed: The American
experience in Iraq over the past two and a half years create a retrospective
light on the 90s interventions, bringing into relief an important lesson about
US limitations that had been too easily overlooked and that the dodgers
refuse to face even now: Military power can force parties to the table, but
it cannot secure an enduring peace or a social transformation. The US
military is good at exactly what one would expect an exemplary military to
be good at: destroying enemy forces while keeping collateral damage to
historic lows. Consequently, we have the ability to eject hostile forces from
areas where the lack a strong base of popular support. But in none of those
places have we yet been able to achieve what we are likewise failing to
accomplish in Iraq: the sudden transformation of a society.
The New York Times wrote about the debate in House of
Representatives on Bushs strategy. Yesterdays vote, in which 17
Republicans joined the Democrats to produce a margin of 246 to 182, was
the easy part. It takes no great courage or creativity for the politicians to
express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly
unpopular and unpromising military escalation. Even if the Senate manages
to overcome its procedural self-hobbling and approve a similar resolution,
the war and the mismanagement will go on.
The next necessary steps will require harder thinking and harder
choices. The Congress needs to do what Mr Bush is refusing to do: link
further financing for the war to the performance of Iraqs Shiite-led

661

government, which is making no serious effort to rescue its country from

civil war.
Instead of camouflaged troop squeezes, Congress needs to grasp the
problem straight on and do what the administration wont do. It must
impose tough requirements and deadlines on the Iraqi government, and
link the future of all American troops in Iraq to the timely achievement of
these goals.
Noam Chomsky opined that no positive change was possible until the
Americans change the domestic society and culture substantially. No one
should underestimate the force of the long-standing goal of US foreign
policy to sustain its control over this regions crucial resources. Authentic
Iraqi sovereignty can hardly be tolerated by the occupying power, nor can it
or neighbouring states tolerate Iraqs deterioration or a potential regional war
in the aftermath.
For Americans, then, one urgent task is to work to change the
domestic society and culture substantially enough so that the reasons why
the war began and is pursued, and the actions that should be taken now, can
at least become a topic for serious discussion.
Harry Lang observed: What is striking about the current debate in
Washington whether to surge troops to Iraq and increase the size of the
US Army is that roughly 100,000 bodies are missing from the equation the
number of American forces in Iraq is not 140,000, bur more like 240,000.
What makes up the difference is the huge army of mercenaries
known these days as private contractors. After the US Army itself, they
are easily the second largest military force in the country. Yet no one
seems sure of how many there are since they answer to no single authority.
Indeed, the US Central Command has only recently started taking a census
of these battlefield civilians in an attempt to get a handle on the issue.
The private contractors are Americans, Brits, Iraqis and a
hodgepodge of other nationalities. Many of them are veterans of the US or
other armed forces and intelligence services, who are now deployed in Iraq
and Afghanistan and other countries to perform duties normally carried
out by the US Army, but at salaries three times greater than those of
American soldiers.

662

The work as interrogators and interpreters in American prisons; body

guards for top US and Iraqi officials; trainers for Iraqi army and police; and
engineers constructing huge new US bases. They are often on the
frontlines. In fact, 650 of them have been killed in Iraq since the 2003
invasion.
A point, which brings us back to the discussion about increasing
American troop levels in Iraq: It would seem that the Pentagon could
outsource a surge by a simple accounting sleight of hand, quietly
contracting for another 10,000 or 20,000 mercenaries to do the job, and the
Congress and press would be none the wiser.
Arab News pointed out an issue that has not been discussed by the
observers so far. Behind the bombs and bloodshed that is post-US invasion
Iraq, there is another tragedy being played out. The United Nations High
Commission for Refugees reports that the region is facing its worst refugee
crisis since the Palestinian expulsions of 1948. Up to two million Iraqis
have already fled to neighbouring countries. More are abandoning their
homes, according to UN estimates, at the rate of 50,000 a month and the
number of those leaving is increasing.
Washington of course wishes to paint Damascus in the worst possible
light as a fosterer of the insurgency in Iraq. It is good, however, that an
objective body such as the UN should conclude that the Syrians have been
most welcoming to Iraqis, despite the challenges for the Syrian people
that this generosity has created.
Robert Fisk wrote about yet another aspect which has not received the
attention of the analysts. For the first time, one of Iraqs principal insurgent
groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire The present terms would be
impossible for any US administration to meet but the words of Abu Salih
al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance
Movement show that the groups have taken more than 3,000 American lives
are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation
army Al-Jeelanis group, which also calls itself the 20 th Revolution
Brigades, is the military wing of the original insurgent organization that
began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003.
Discussions and negotiations are a principle we believe in to
overcome the situation in which Iraqi bloodletting continues, al-Jeelani
said in a statement that was passed to The Independent. Should the
663

Americans wish to negotiate their withdrawal from our country and leave
our people to live in peace, then we will negotiate subject to specific
conditions and circumstances.
Al-Jeelani suggests the United Nations, the Arab League or the
Islamic Conference might lead such negotiations and would have to
guarantee the security of the participants. Then come the conditions:
The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as proof of
goodwill.
Recognition of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of
its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people.
The negotiations must take place in public and an internationally
guaranteed timetable for all agreements would be needed.
The resistance must be represented by a committee comprising the
representatives of all the jihadist brigades.
The US must be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most
senior commander.
Indeed, the insurgent leader specifically calls for the dissolution of
the present government and the revoking of the spurious elections and
the constitution He also insists that all agreements previously entered
into by Iraqi authorities or US forces should be declared null and void.
But there are other points which show that considerable discussion
must have gone on within the insurgency movement possibly involving the
groups rival, the Iraqi Islamic Army. They call, for example, for the
disbandment of militias and the outlawing of militia organizations
something the US government has been urging the Iraqi Prime Minister,
Nouri al-Maliki, to do for months.
Al-Jeelani described President George Bushs new plans for
countering the insurgents as political chicanery and added that on the
field of battle, we do not believe that the Americans are able to diminish the
capability of the resistance fighters to continue the struggle to liberate Iraq
from occupation

664

The resistance groups are not committing crimes to be granted a

pardon by America, we are not looking for pretexts to cease our jihadwe
fight for a divine aim and one of our rights is the liberation and
independence of our land of Iraq.
There will, the group says, be no negotiations with Mr Malikis
government because they consider it complicit in the slaughter of Iraqis
by militias. But they do call for the unity of Iraq and say they do not
recognize the divisions among the Iraqi people.
Kamal Matinuddin analyzed the so-called initiative of the Pakistani
president. Musharraf is pursuing a very noble cause and if it succeeds he
will have done a great service to Islam. He has a big task ahead. He has
embarked on a mission of a strategic realignment by strengthening of the
moderate forces and neutralizing the hardliner Muslim state.
We wish the president all the luck in his latest endeavours but he
must keep our own limitations in mind, while attempting to bring about
peace in the Middle East:
Pakistan is in no position to influence the strategic interests of the
great powers in the Middle East.
For the efforts to succeed Musharraf will need the total backing of
the United States. The fears that this attempt is only to get the United
States out of the quagmire and not to find a solution to the Middle
East crisis must be allayed.
Iran and Syria, which support Hamas and Hezbollah, must be taken
on board The telephone call to Ahmadinejad and the presidents
recent visit to Iran were necessary to put their minds at rest.
Creating like-minded Muslim countries may be seen as instrumental
in dividing the Ummah into hardliners and moderates, which should
be avoided. Analyst did not suggest a clear mechanism to avoid this
division while creating a block of moderates and leaving hardliners
with on option but to form one of their own.
Since all the countries visited, except Iran, have a Sunni majority it
must not also be seen as grouping the Sunni states against the
countries which have a Shia majority. The West has already divided
665

Islamic Crescent into two and most of the Arab moderates seemed to
have consented to this division.
The United States has to be convinced that use of force alone does
not solve problems. It only encourages the extremists to redouble their
efforts at achieving their goal. Analyst ignored the fact that
Musharrafs initiative coincided with Bushs plans to escalate the war.
Opposition should be brought into the picture so that they do not give
the efforts a different twist and thus sabotage the efforts by the
president; provided such twist does not exist already.
One must be careful not to raise expectations so high so that if the
mission fails we are not too disappointed.
What is more important for us today is to solve our own political
crisis and to find a peaceful solution to the unrest in the Tribal Areas and
Baluchistan. Extremism and sectarianism, leading to a spate of suicide
bombings have reared their ugly head. Efforts and time must, therefore, be
spent in dealing with those who are promoting these criminal acts, before we
undertake to solve other peoples tribulations. We do not have the political,
economic and military clout to play a major role in the Middle East
playground.

ISRAELI FRONT
Bloodletting in Palestine continued mostly in the form of factional
fighting instigated and materially supported by the Crusaders. Following
incidents were reported in last three weeks:
On 29th January, three persons were killed in suicide attack in the city
of Eilat in Israel. Four Palestinians were killed in factional fighting.
By 30th January, at least 38 Palestinians had been killed in the recent
factional fighting between Hamas and Fatah activists.
On 1st February, Israel killed three Palestinians and six were killed in
factional fighting.

666

 Fierce clashes took place in Gaza on 2nd February in which 25 people

were killed before Abbas and Meshaal declared ceasefire.
Despite the agreement on ceasefire, activists continued fighting
wounding eight people on 3rd February. Gun battles continued next
day and at least two more people were killed.
By 5th February, the toll in factional fighting rose to 63, while Hamas
and Fatah prepared for Makkah talks. On 8th February, Olmert rejected
call to consider halting of digging close to Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Israeli riot police stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque on 9 th February during
Juma prayer sparking violence in which 20 Palestinians and 15 Israeli
policemen were injured. Israeli officials claimed that it was a preemptive strike as they had reports that people in the mosque (all over
45-year) were up to mischief over excavation near the mosque.
On 11th February, Israel resumed construction work despite protests.
Israeli cabinet had ordered construction to continue.
On 15th February, Israel welcomed Turkeys suggestion to send a team
of experts to see excavation works. Next day, dozens of Palestinians
were arrested as they protested after Juma prayer.
Realizing the gravity of the situation, Saudi Arabia offered mediation
which was welcomed by Hamas and Fatah. Talks between rival Palestinian
groups started in Makkah on 7th February. Next day, Palestinian working
groups agreed to form unity government. According to deal seven posts will
go to Hamas, six to Fatah, four to other Palestinian parties and five to
independents, including foreign affairs and interior.
On 9th February, Palestinian leaders signed unity government deal in
Makkah. Next day, Hamas reiterated that the new unity government wont
recognize Israel. The Quartet insisted on conditions for support, i.e.
commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of
previous agreements.
Haniyeh and his ministers resigned on 15 th February and Abbas asked
him to form new government as per Makkah agreement. Next day
Palestinian officials said that the US has warned Abbas that peace talks with
Israel will go nowhere if his Fatah faction forms a unity government with
667

Hamas. Rice, however, denied such warning but said Washington has
reserved judgment until the government was formed.
A US envoy met Abbas on 17th February after the latter had voiced
support for the Palestinian unity government. Abbas told the US that he can
do no more. Next day, Israel and the US agreed to continue economic
blockade of Palestinians despite the unity government.
A lot has been said about US-Israeli backing of Fatah to end Hamasled government, Ramzay Baroud, however, blamed Palestinians for falling
prey to enemys conspiracy. The US-Israeli backing of Fatah merely
exposed the perpetual weakness that have marred Palestinian society for
generations
It is indeed more than disheartening to see that Palestinians have
themselves surrendered readily to the Israeli and American designs, allowing
their revolting factionalism to morph into a near civil war which has already
harvested many lives. Those responsible for the violence blame that can no
longer be placed on a cluster of individuals must have forgotten that their
infighting is taking place in an occupied land, besieged by Israeli fences and
walls, and under the watchful eye of Israeli intelligence, who must be
brimming with glee as Palestinians are shamelessly slaughtering one
another, a job that has far a long time been reserved for Israel.
Ismail Patel opined that this conspiracy would backfire. Hamas has
held true to its core beliefs while it has been in power and as a result, in the
eyes of many Palestinians it has become a symbol beyond its political
existence and something they will defendisolating Hamas is
counterproductive and unsustainable.
Hamas has become the backbone of Palestinian resistance and
survival against a brutal and heavily armed occupier and at an international
level, despite castigation as a terrorist organization; it is hailed as a
resistance movement against modern day colonialist oppression.
The Washington Post commented on Makkah talks. The Bush
Administration seems to be encouraging the Saudi diplomacy: The State
Department praised the kings hosting of the Palestinian talks. In fact the
Saudi initiatives, even with so-far-uncertain results, refute the premises of
the administrations own policy of sharply dividing enemies from friends.

668

Ramzy Baroud opined that Palestinians believe that the agreement is

sufficient to end the state of chaos in the Occupied Territories and to
convince the international community that enough concessions have been
made and that the time has come for the sanctions to be lifted.
The final judgment on the Makkah agreement is likely to be
pronounced after two significant meetings: a tripartite summit that would
bring together Rice, Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Feb
19, and two days later, a crucial meeting in Berlin of the Quartets
ministers.
Khaleej Times wrote, Hamas and Fatah have honoured their word of
not leaving the holy city of Makkah before finalizing a truce deal and
making substantial progress towards forming a unity government, which is
appreciated as a step in the right direction Much of the credit for this
practical and urgently needed step goes to Saudi King Abdullah, the actual
broker of the deal. Fittingly the talks were held in a palace overlooking the
Haram Mosque, the home of the Kaaba, where King Abdullahs call for
both sides to listen to reason has yielded a positive outcome.
With sanity apparently making its way back to Palestinian leaders,
attention should revert to their most basic question the struggle against an
unjust and unjustified occupation. Saudi Arabia has played the big brother
role in good earnest. And with numerous Muslin countries rallying to
have the Israel-Palestine issue settled; the missing element was
Palestinian unity.
As testing as the recent past has been, the coming days will
probably pose the toughest trial for the Hamas-Fatah duo. They have to
exhibit political maturity of the highest order to prevent the truce from
collapsing and advancing the Palestinian cause at the same time.
Khaleej Times also saw silver lining even in the dark clouds of Israeli
excesses. When it comes to playing with Muslim sentiments, Israel takes
the cake. The ongoing excavation work near an entrance to the compound of
Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islams third holiest place, is a case in point.
Mahmoud Abbas Fatah faction has already warned that any damage
to the mosque would end the ceasefire with Israel in the Gaza Strip holding
since last November. Interestingly, as Hamas and Fatah hold crisis talks in
the holy city of Makkah, the formers leaders unity call to all Palestinians

669

to protect the mosque might just lay the foundations of peace between
the rival factions.
Musa Keillani commented that Arab and Muslim protests against
what Israel describes as routine repair work to replace a collapsed earth
mound at Al-Aqsa Mosque are not simple expressions of anger. They stem
from suspicion that Israel is trying to physically undermine the mosque,
with a view to advancing its push to replace it with a Jewish temple.
There could be different interpretations of the Israeli intentions, but
the occupation forces should know that Al-Aqsa is deeply embedded in the
core of the political conflict with the Palestinians and it is an issue that
touches every Muslim and Arab. Therefore, the Israelis should have desisted
from pursuing whatever work they were doing when world Muslim leaders
warned them against it.
Obviously, Israel took those warnings as yet another Muslim
challenge to its occupation of the Holy City, the third holiest in Islam after
Makkah and Madina, and therefore it decided not to yield. Having been in
Physical control of the city and being in possession of enough military
power, Israel feels it is free to do whatever it feels like doing in the occupied
city, and that it would not and should not allow Muslim sentiments to find
expressions there.
The News wrote, Sharons confrontational visit to Al-Haram alSharif in east Jerusalem, the compound where Al-Aqsa Mosque is situated,
launched the current Palestinian Intefada. Never since the appalling event in
September 2000 was there a greater provocation at the site than the storming
of the holy site by Israeli troops. The visit amid Palestinian protests enabled
the man who was then leader of the opposition to become prime minister in
the general elections of January 2001. The calculation behind the action
by Mr Sharons successor, Ehud Olmert, is more ambitious than just
electoral. It is intended, from all appearances, to scuttle Thursdays Makkah
accord between the ruling Hamas party of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh
and President Mahmoud Abbass al-Fatah.
If the Bush Administration really wants to prevent a further
worsening of the already grim situation in that region, it should begin by
asking Ehud Olmerts government in no uncertain terms to immediately
stop the construction which, according to Israel, is of a ramp damaged in

670

a 2004 snowstorm. Even if the ramp is 60 meters away from the mosque it
would be best to suspend all work so that rising tensions can be claimed.
Linda Heard opined that Muslim sensitivities and suspicions are
heightened when it comes to Israeli tampering in the area due to the fact
religious Jews believe under the Haram Al-Sharif lies evidence in the form
of artifacts that Solomons Temple once existed in the same spot. So far, no
artifacts have been found to support this premise, which has not been
accepted by Muslims Both messianic Christians and Jews dream of the
day when the temple is rebuilt for different reasons and in some cases have
partnered up toward this common goal necessitating the destruction of AlAqsa Mosque.
Olmerts stubborn resolution to continue with construction and
excavation even after he has been warned that a third intifadah may result
begs these questions. Why would he risk bloodshed and bad relations with
Jordan and Egypt for the sake of a new walkway when he can simply
renovate the existing structure? What is he really up to and who, if anyone,
is pulling his strings?
Israels Department of Antiquities has admitted it is actively
searching for artifacts before the new walkway is built, which
strengthens the arm of critics who say the walkway is merely a pretext for
excavation. Late on Sunday, the mayor of Jerusalem postponed the bridge
construction until opposing arguments can be heard but the salvage
excavation has been given the green light to continue.
George S Hishmeh said: One would think that the Israeli government
would have avoided this inflammatory issue, responsible for earlier bloody
events, until the Palestinian put their house in order in preparation for the all
important tri-lateral meeting next week It would have been more logical
for Israel to invite representatives of large Muslim community to certify
the urgent need for the repairs and oversee the work undertaken to avoid
the clashes that took place inside the sanctuary.
Nicola Nasser talked about the background of the issue. Al-Buraq is
the Arab-Islamic name of al-Aqsa compounds western wall, which the Jews
called the Wailing Wall before changing it to the Western Wall (of the
Temple Mount, a widely-spread knowledge that has yet to be vindicated by
historical fact or archeological findings) after the creation of Israel in 1948.
The Israeli Occupying Power after its overwhelming victory in 1967
671

confiscated by force the keys to Babal-Magharibah from the Islamic

Waqf to make them ever since Israels Achillesheel or Johas nail to
claim its imposed partnership on the Haram Al-Sharif, later using that selfproclaimed partnership at the Camp David negotiations in 2000 to demand
joint sovereignty over the mosque area.
Jordan says Israeli excavations violate the peace treaty with Israel;
according to this treaty the Jewish state accepted Jordans custody of the
Islamic and Christian holy places in eastern Jerusalem. The OIC says they
are a flagrant violation to international law and that the occupying state is
irreconcilable to alter the shape of religious and historical sites. Palestinians
say the Israeli excavations are in violation of the status quo accord that
governs Jerusalem since the British mandate
Amr Mussa summed up the whole controversy or more closer to the
truth the whole conflict; the latest Israeli excavations are only an episode in
a 60-year old Israeli pre-planned non-stop effort to follow up the ethnic
cleansing that will erase the Palestinians from the world memory as it wiped
out their country from the map of the world.
Whatever name you give to it being construction,
modernization, renovation, Judaization or archaeological excavations
a process of cultural cleansing of Jerusalem has been going on in the
Holy City since Israel occupied it in 1967.
As compared to the other fronts, Lebanon remained comparatively
quiet. On 8th February, Lebanese and Israeli troops exchanged fire. Five days
later, six people were killed in bomb blasts in two buses near Beirut on 13 th
February.
Both Lebanons leaders and major external players have focused their
agendas on the issues that divide Lebanese instead of those that can bring
them together, observed James Zogby. In this regard, the US bears a
special responsibility. By reducing itself to a side in Lebanons internal
partisan conflict, the US diminishes its role and becomes a part of Lebanons
problem.
Tobey Harnden, US Editor of the Telegraph wrote, the Central
Intelligence Agency has been authorized to take covert action against
Hezbollah as part of a secret plan by President George W Bush to help the
Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and

672

Congressmen have been briefed on the classified non-lethal presidential

finding that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the
prime minister, Fouad Siniora.
The finding was signed by Mr Bush before Christmas after
discussions between his aides and Saudi Arabian officials. Details of its
existence, known only to a small circle of White House officials, intelligence
officials and members of Congress, have been passed to the Daily
Telegraph.
The secrecy of the finding means that US involvement in the
activities is officially deniable Mr Bushs move is at the centre of a
fresh drive by America, supported by the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia,
Jordan and Egypt as well as Israel, to stop Iranian hegemony in the Middle
East emerging from the collapse of Iraq.
Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador
to Washington, is understood to have been closely involved in the
decision to prop up Mr Sinioras administration and the Israeli government,
which views Iran as its chief enemy, has also been supportive.
Theres a feeling both in Jerusalem and Riyadh that the antiSunni tilt in the region has gone too far, said an intelligence source. By
removing Saddam, weve shifted things in favour of the Shia and this is a
counter-balancing exercise. Prince Bandar, now King Abdullahs national
security adviser, made several trips to Washington and held meetings with
Elliot Abrams, the senior Middle East official on the NSC.
Bush Administration officials have spoken of their desire to promote
mainstream Arab states and have even spoken of the existence of a Sunni
crescent in the Middle East. But there is tension between this policy and the
support for Nouri al-Malikis Shia-led government in Iraq, which has links
to Shia death squads and Iran.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
The Crusaders hostility toward Iran increased during the period.
ElBaradei, with a view to defusing the mounting tension, suggested
timeout in the showdown over Irans nuclear ambitions, with the UN

673

suspending sanctions and Tehran halting uranium enrichment at the same

time; the West rejected.
On 1st February, AFP reported that Chirac was double-minded over
nuclear Iran. He downplayed and retracted on threat from Tehran.
Meanwhile, GCC official mulled opening talks with IAEA for its plan to set
up a civil atomic programme.
Iran test-fired Russian air defence missiles and launched new war
games on 7th February. Next day, Tehran test-fired land-to-sea missiles as the
war games ended. Gates said the US was trying to ease tone in dispute with
Iran.
On 11th February, Ahmadinejad promised nuclear news in two months.
Iran warned that its suicide drones can hit the US Navy. The US accused
Iran of interfering in Iraq and Iran dismissed US charges of bombings as
baseless propaganda.
A car loaded with explosives targeted a bus carrying Irans
Revolutionary Guards near Zahedan on 14th February killing 18 Guards. Two
days later, another car bomb exploded in the same area. OIC backed Irans
nuclear programme. On 17th February, during her visit to Baghdad, Rice held
Iran responsible for arms smuggling into Iraq.
The IAEA may have found Tehran guilty of some small
transgression, but it has not found any evidence suggesting the Islamic
republic was making nuclear bomb, observed the Asian Age. But
disregarding all this, the US is preparing to attack Iran, because Mr Bush
is desperate to divert the attention of the American people from the
disastrous occupation of Iraq. Some defence analysts even suspect that the
21,500 additional forces being sent to Iraq are actually meant for Iranan
unfazed Bush Administration seems bent on totally destabilizing the region
by invading Iran.
In the absence of any evidence regarding Irans plan to make nuclear
weapons, the US propagated another pretext. Bernhard Zand wrote,
Washington has started raising the volume on allegations that Iran is
supporting groups in Iraq with money, military training and weapons.
Still, no concrete evidence has come to light for the crucial allegation that
the military aid was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Iranian
government

674

Tehran has chosen to deny them. Mohammed Ali Hosseini has said
the United States has a long history in fabricating evidence an argument
the US authorities were surely expecting after their intelligence debacle in
Iraq The question now is which of the two arguments will have a greater
public effect in the coming weeks: Washingtons not-implausible charge that
Iran is massively intervening in Iraq, or Tehrans not-implausible suggestion
that slide shows prepared by US intelligence should be taken with a grain of
salt.
One line of speculation says the US wont attack Iran alone because
the Bush Administration lacks support from within his country. But would
Israel? Ehud Olmerts administration lacks internal support, too, but an Iran
with nuclear weapons would pose an existential threat to Israel Many
analysts underestimate the Americans diplomatic tangle with Iran,
while overestimating the lone superpowers military and operational
possibilities in the Gulf.
Gareth Porter discussed this new pretext in some detail. The briefing
in Baghdad displayed a number of weapons or photographs of weapons said
to have been found in Iraq, including what were called explosively formed
penetrators (EFPs), which the officials said were smuggled into the
country by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. The RPG-7s
and 81-milimeter mortar rounds shown to reporters did indeed have
markings showing that they had been recently manufactured, and there is no
reason to doubt that those weapons were manufactured in Iran.
The argument for Iranian official responsibility assumes that such
weapons are so tightly controlled that Shiite groups could not purchase them
in small numbers on the black market in Iran, Syria or Lebanon. It is well
documented, however, that the Shiites have resorted to black-market
networks to obtain EFPs.
By insisting that the Iranian government was involved, the Bush
Administration has conjured up the image of a smuggling operation so vast
that it could not occur without official sanction. In fact as Knights points out,
the number of EFPs exploded monthly has remained at about 100,
which clearly would not require high-level connivance to maintain a flow
of imports.
The Power Point slides presented to the press in Baghdad ended with
a slide that in essence confirms that the evidence points not to official
675

sponsorship of cross-border weapons smuggling but to private armstrafficking networks In fact, the slide reveals that the smuggling is
handled by what it calls Iraqi extremist group members, not by the
Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The oral presentation
accompanying the Power Point indicated that the smuggling had been
carried out by paid Iraqis, without specifying who was paying them,
according to the New York Times report.
The final bullet point of the slides says, Quds Force provides support
to extremist groups in Iraq by supplying money, training and propaganda
operations. But its silence on the question of supplying weapons to groups
in Iraq represents a serious blow to the credibility of the Bush
Administrations line.
The EFPs used against US and British troops in Iraq were the
centerpiece of the briefing. But the anonymous US officials did not claim
that the finished products have been manufactured in Iran. Instead they
referred to machining of EFP components referring to the concave metal
lids on the device as being done in Iran.
But Knights presents evidence in Janes Intelligence Review that
Iraqi Shiites have indeed manufactured both the components for EFPs
and the complete EFPs. He observes that the kind of tools required to
fabricate EFPs can easily be found in Iraqi metalworking shops and
garages.
He also notes that some of the EFPs found in Iraq had substituted
steel plates for the copper lining found in the externally made lids. Knights
calculates that the entire production of EFPs exploded thus far could
have been manufactured in one or at most two simple workshops with
one or two specialists in each one in Baghdad area and one in southern
Iraq.
Praful Bidwai wrote, the US has stepped up the daily barrage of
propaganda alleging that Tehran is providing Iraqi insurgents lethal
weapons, in particular, explosively formed penetrators devices. It claims
Iranian EFPs have killed 170 Americans since June 2004.
The presumption that Iraqs Shias are at war with America is
preposterous. The two main Shia militias are controlled by leading parties in
the ruling pro-US coalition. It makes little sense for strongly-Shia Iran to

676

arm Iraqs mainly Sunni insurgents. Its the Sunni militias that proactively
target US troops.
Meanwhile, the US is planning aggressive air patrolling along the
Iran-Iraq border. All these offensive moves are calculated to provoke.
Amidst Irans own missile tests, provocations could escalate, or can be
engineered into, overt conflict.
International communitys best bet lies in holding Iran down to its
commitment to putting all its nuclear activities under strict inspections. But
Bush & Co and Israels Ehud Olmert think otherwise. They have drawn up
plans for devastating attacks upon Irans nuclear installations, and its
main military facilities too. One plan identifies 400 targets.
According to The New Yorker and The Sunday Times, the US and/or
Israel may even use tactical nuclear weapons. Bush is under strong
neoconservative pressure to attack Iran not just to de-fang its nuclear
capability, but to bring about regime change.
An attack is the surest guarantee that Iran will develop nuclear
weapons and withdraw from the NPT. Bombing Natanz and Isfahan will
set the nuclear programme back by five years. It wont destroy Irans
capability to rebuild the facilities.
An attack will probably further jeopardize the prospects of
peace taking root in the Middle East, especially Palestine-Israel, and
severely undermine hopes for stability in Iraq. Iran can create massive
trouble for the US in Iraq.
Paul Craig Roberts observed that part of Israeli/neoconservative plan
has already been achieved with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and
spread of sectarian strife in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. If Iran can be
taken out with a powerful air attack that might involve nuclear weapons,
Syria would be isolated and Hezbollah would be cut off from Iranian
supplies.
Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to
achieve its aims in the Middle East If the US withdraws its troops from
Iraq, as the US military and foreign policy community recommends and as
polls show the American public wants, the only effect of Bushs Iraq

677

invasion will have been to radicalize Muslims against Israel, the US, and US
puppet governments in the Middle East.
Now is the chance the only chance for Israel and
neoconservatives to achieve their goal of bringing Muslims to heel, a
goal that they have been writing about and working to achieve for a decade.
This goal requires the war to be widened by whatever deceit and treachery
necessary to bring the American public along.
Francis Fukuyama opined the neocons have learnt nothing from the
catastrophe. He drew three lessons from the war on terror, before
commenting on neocons plans for Iran. American military doctrine has
emphasized the use of overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively,
to defeat the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy
invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is almost
always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those people who have to
make a break with hardcore fighters and deny them the ability to operate
freely.
A second lesson that should have been drawn from the past five years
is that preventive war cannot be the basis of a long-term US nonproliferation strategy. The Bush doctrine sought to use preventive war
against Iraq as a means to would-be proliferators of approaching the nuclear
thresholdthe likelihood of preventive war actually decreases if a country
manages to cross that threshold.
A final lesson that should have been drawn from the Iraq War is that
the current US government has demonstrated great incompetence in its
day-to-day management of policy. One of the striking things about the
performance of the Bush Administration is how poorly it has followed
through in accomplishing the ambitious objectives it set for itself.
The failure to absorb Iraqs lessons has been evident in the
neoconservative discussion of how to deal with Irans growing regional
power and its nuclear programme It is easy to outline the obstacles to a
negotiated end to the Iranian programme, but much harder to come up with
an alternative strategy. Use of force looks very unappealing.
Marjorie Cohn opined that any offensive military action against Iran
would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that
members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is

678

a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution
reaffirming the United States legal obligations and informing the Bush
Administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action
against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider
actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offences.
Ramzy Baroud said: One must assume that any attack on Iran is
both irrational from a military viewpoint and self-defeating from a
political one. However, the quandary with any political analysis of this
subject that consults reason or even Machiavellian realpolitik is that it fails
to consider history, and in this case, recent history which taught us that the
Bush Administration functions in a vacuum, separate from commonsense or
any other kind of sense.
Indeed, the US is again back on the same self-destruct mode, in the
name of national security, regional stability, staying the course and all the
rest. Reality cannot be any further from the truth, however A war against
Iran will further exasperate the instability of the region and compromise
the security of the United States, at home and abroad. It might also be the
end of American military adventurism in the region for some time, but at a
price so heavy, so unbearable.
Uri Avnery wrote, its not the past I am writing about, but the future.
At this moment, people in Washington and in Jerusalem are thinking about a
war in Iran. Not if it should be started, but when and how.
If this is to be an American war, its consequences will be many
times more grievous than the war in Iraq. Iran is a very hard nut. The
Iranian people are united. They have a glorious national tradition, a highly
developed national pride and a tough religious ideology. One can bomb their
oil facilities, but it is a big country, not dependent on a sophisticated
infrastructure, and it cannot be subdued by bombing alone. There will be no
alternative to a military attack on the ground.
Bush is already preparing for the war. This week he instructed his
soldiers in Iraq to hunt down and kill all Iranian agents there. That is
reminiscent of the infamous Kommissarbefehl of June 6, 1941, on the eve
of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, in which Adolf Hitler ordered

679

the summary execution of every captured political commissar of the Red

Army. Since the commissars were not uniformed soldiers, every commander
who carried out the order became a war criminal.
Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond observed that recklessness, not
prudence, has been the hallmark of this administrations foreign policy.
Beyond this, the president and vice president subscribe to what some call the
unitary executive, which is a fancy way of saying they believe the
Congress cannot prevent the president from doing almost anything he
wants.
What to do? Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on
Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or
orders or supports a provocative act by the US or an ally designed to get Iran
to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever.
Alexander Cockburn asked: Is there room for sanity here? The best
hope will be for Iran to finish its testing cycle, declare mission accomplished
and figure out some sort of face-saving halt in its programme by February
21. Can we hope for prudence from the White House? Bush is a nutty guy. It
was his insistence on democratic elections in Iraq that put the Shias in
control. Now hes blaming Iran for trying to capitalize on the consequences.
This is not a regime that thinks things through very sensibly.
Dan Plesch opined that American military operations for a major
conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend
far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush
to destroy Irans military, political and economic infrastructure overnight
using conventional weapons.
The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared
battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for
Operation Freedom Iran. Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central
Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT
(Theatre Iran Near Term).
Vice President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with
the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages
along Irans Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at NATO, in the
Pentagon and are in-charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any
of these posts before.

680

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at

least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from
the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military
technology has taken smart bombs to a new level.
New bunker-busting conventional bombs weigh only 250lb.
According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb quadruples the
firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as
2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and
300 individual points to within a meter of accuracy using the global
positioning system.
With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known
position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of
weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George
Bush will not want to stand accused of using little force and allowing Iran
to fight back The whole of Iran is now less than an hours flying time
from some American base or carrier.
Marwan al-Kabalan talked about other sides recklessness. Khamenei
is said to have been alarmed by scenarios about possible US strikes against
Iran that would not only destroy its nuclear facilities but would also remove
the Islamic regime.
Khamenei has concluded that Irans national interest has been
undermined by the hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose
inflammatory rhetoric and threats to destroy Israel have left Iran increasingly
isolated and facing serious economic consequences. This re-evaluation of
policy is, in fact, a further demonstration of Iranian pragmatism, which has
always been a trademark of Irans foreign policy.
Zarrar Khuhro, hoping against the hope, wished for some prudence
from the Muslim rulers. It is pointless to make appeals to Muslim unity in
order to avert this potential catastrophe, but appeals to pragmatism can be
made. Saudi Arabia needs to engage Iran and not needlessly antagonize it.
The long-term survival of the House of Saud does not lie in an
unquestioning American alliance and nor can their oil wealth and ideology
alone guarantee the prime position in the Muslim World. Saudi Arabia needs
to realize that its position as the land where Islam was born gives it a place
of honour in the Muslim World, but not necessarily a supreme leadership
role.
681

Iran, for its part, needs to make all-out effort to contain sectarian
violence in Iraq, and being in a position of relative strength, needs to
alleviate the concerns of its western neighbours. It is true that Iraq has been a
windfall for Iranian interests, but unless Iran can convince the Arab states
that it is not the enemy, Iraq may well prove Irans destruction. Moreover,
President Ahmadinejad would do well to pay attention to growing
discomfort at home over his foreign policy and his perceived lack of interest
in domestic issues. It is possible that through a miracle this catastrophe may
yet be averted, but if history is any judge, we may have to wade through
rivers of blood to arrive at that miracle.

CONCLUSION
It is too early to expect the positive impact of the new strategy
launched in Iraq. At the initial phase of the intensified counter-insurgency
operations, obviously, there will be surge in bloodshed. The occupation
forces rightly hoped to see some positive impact in couple of months.
For every excess committed against Arabs and Muslims, the Wests
and Israels military prowess is blamed. No one suggests that Arabs and
Muslims should have requisite power, at least, to defend themselves against
excesses. If it is not done, then they should be prepared to accept excesses
against their second and first holiest shrines. Can they stop the Crusaders
and the Zionists from inflicting such excesses in the present state of
preparedness?
The Crusaders have postured aggressively in the region. With the
deployment of additional naval and ground forces, the US can launch
military offensive against Iran in matter of days. When will the US attack?
In the present state of its forces engaged in war on terror the Bush
Administration cannot afford to rush into Iran as it did in case of Iraq.
20th February 2007

682

TERRORIZED TERRORIST
Pakistan claims to be frontline state in war on terror, but the Crusaders
and the proxy crusaders consider it as a vast sanctuary of extremism and
terrorism. Barring the ruling elite led by Musharraf, Pakistanis are treated as
terrorists or potential terrorists.
On the western front the Crusaders occupying Afghanistan constantly
accused Pakistan of supporting the insurgent Pashtuns. Of late, Pakistan has
been threatened cut in remunerations for not doing enough and the US-led
strikes on terror camps in its tribal areas.
On eastern front, despite the ongoing peace process, Pakistan received
physically and mentally shattered and shocked passengers of Samjhota
Express at Wagah on 19th February. The occasion resembled more with the
arrival of refugees after partition of the Subcontinent than realization of
benefits accruing from the composite dialogue hyped by Pakistani leaders.
At home, the rulers remained engaged in defeating extremism using
all possible means. In one of the incidents in which CDA, in pursuit of the
soft image, demolished a mosque. This rash action caused embarrassment to
the rulers who were constrained to resolve the issue with the help of
obscurantist mullas.

SERVING CRUSADERS
The frontline state in war on terror remained committed to Afghan
peace. Following incidents were reported during last four weeks:
Rockets were fired at Levies Post in Bajaur Agency on 28 th January.
Pakistan handed over 131 Afghans to Kabul authorities.
Gunmen killed an employee of grid station in Jandola on 29 th January.
One soldier committed suicide in South Waziristan. Two days later,
the investigators linked the recent suicide bombings to Taliban.
Three government officials were shot dead in North Waziristan on 1 st
February. Authorities arrested 11 militants in Karachi and Hyderabad
linked to Baitullah Mahsud.
683

 A suicide bomber rammed his car into military vehicle near Tank
killing two soldiers and wounding six others on 3 rd February. A man
was killed while planting a bomb near Lakki Marwat.
Two tribal elders were killed in blast near Khar on 5th February. Nine
Afghans were held in Peshawar for traveling on fake passports.
Two US spies were shot dead in North Waziristan on 6th February. A
militant was shot dead by security men when he tried to enter
sensitive area of Islamabad Airport; three security personnel were
wounded in shootout.
Intelligence official was shot dead in FR Kohat on 7th February.
Mortar shell fired from Afghan territory wounded two FC soldiers
manning post near Angoor Adda. Gunmen snatched two trailers near
Lakki Marwat.
On 7th February, tribesmen of Qamar Din Karez claimed that NATO
and Afghan forces crossed into Pakistan in hot pursuit and killed a
local a day earlier; Pakistani authorities were investigating.
Police recovered 12 bombs and explosive jacket in D I Khan on 9 th
February. Next day, a watchman was wounded in explosion in the
compound of ICRC in Peshawar.
Barbers in Bajaur warned not to shave beards. On 14 th February it was
reported that the bomber of Islamabad Airport had links with Taliban.
Next day, police defused a bomb in Bannu.
Surgeon in-charge of Health Department in Bajaur Agency was killed
and three health workers wounded in roadside bombing on 16th
February.
Suicide bomber attacked a court in Quetta on 17 th February; 15 people
including civil judge and eight lawyers were killed and 35 wounded.
Information did not rule out foreign hand in the attack.
By 18th February, the authorities had detained 50 persons for probe in
Quetta suicide blast. Chief Minister hinted at Afghan link. Offices of

684

Al-Rashid Trust and Al-Akhtar Trust were sealed. The government

said the action was taken under UN resolution.
Beheaded body of a US spy was found in North Waziristan on 20 th
February. Next day, a tribal elder was shot dead in Tank.
Army convoy was attacked near Kurram Agency on 22nd February;
one soldier was wounded. Authorities claimed averting four major
terror attacks in different parts of the country and arresting 19 suspects
who were controlled by someone in tribal area along Afghan border.
Next day, the Governor NWFP said 40-50 foreigners have left North
Waziristan.
Despite fighting for the peace and stability of occupied Afghanistan,
Pakistan was blamed for insurgency in Afghanistan as hither-to-fore. On 2nd
February, while addressing a news conference in Islamabad, Musharraf
denied Pakistans hand in resurgence of Taliban. He, however, demanded
immediate repatriation of Afghan refugees; announced phased fencing of the
border. It took him more than five years to realize that Afghan refugees
could become a problem for Pakistan at some stage due to continued
presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
On 11th February, the US reiterated that Islamabads approval is not
required for retaliatory attacks inside Pakistans territory. US Commander in
Afghanistan admitted that US forces in Afghanistan do fire shells into
Pakistan. He also alleged that Waziristan deal led to increase in cross border
incursions. ISPR said border violations wont be allowed (but will be
tolerated if carried out). Next day, Pakistan angrily rejected US
commanders statement.
The US may designate Taliban as foreign terrorist outfit, reported
Saleh Zaafir on 17th February. Next day, Kabul angrily rejected NWFP
Governors statement in which he had alleged that Afghan people support
Taliban insurgents.
On 19th February, the UN special envoy in Kabul sought clarification
from Pakistan over NWFP Governors remarks regarding Taliban. A US
official alleged that al-Qaeda is setting up training camps in Pakistan and
Pentagon advocated direct attacks on camps in North Waziristan. Governor
Baluchistan said that unrest in his province is linked to Afghanistan. Next
day, Pakistan dismissed US remarks over al-Qaeda camps in tribal areas
685

terming those as absurd. On 21st February, the US State Department

reiterated that al-Qaeda continues to operate along Durand Line.
The blame-game is meant for pressurizing the frontline state to do
more and more. To this end, the stick is swirled frequently along with
occasional dangling of carrots. Pakistan is indispensable ally in war against
terror, said Crocker on 29th January. Two days later, EU offered 200 million
euro aid and Scheffer denied NATO was trying to pressure Pakistan. On 1 st
February, NATO commanders hailed Pakistans role in war on terror. Next
day, the US handed over 8 Cobra helicopters to Pakistan.
On 12th February, Gates visited Islamabad and showered praise on
Musharraf. He, however, vowed that the US is in Afghanistan for a long
haul. Main aim of his visit seemed to seek Pakistans support in the spring
offensive which the US planned to launch against the groups resisting the
occupation of Afghanistan.
On 15th February, Bush said US will continue supporting Musharraf.
The same day, Abizaid held farewell meeting with Musharraf in Islamabad.
After the meeting he patted Pakistan for its role in the Crusades. He too
must have coordinated the spring offensive against Taliban. Three days later,
Musharraf asked the world to do more in war on terror.
Pakistan, however, continued using political means to pacify its
tribesmen. On 8th February, a 21-member jirga led by Senator Maulana Saleh
Shah, met Commander Baitullah Mahsud who denied involvement in attacks
and was assured to abide by peace agreement.
After a long silence, the Opposition leaders spoke against Pakistans
collaboration with the Crusaders. On 16th February, Fazl asked the
government to denounce its partnership with Americas war on terror in
Afghanistan. Two days later, Senator Ibrahim Khan of JI alleged that suicide
bombings are the result of Afghan policy. On 22 nd February, a jirga in
Mohmand Agency accused Afghanistan of unrest in the area and Opposition
in NA called for withdrawal from the US war on terror.
Bruce Hoffman opined: Just as we underestimated al-Qaeda before
September 11, 2001, we risk making the same mistake now. Although alQaeda is often spoken of as if it is in retreat a broken and beaten
organization incapable of mounting attacks, its leadership cut off, living in

686

caves somewhere in remotest Waziristan the truth is that the

organization is not on the run but on the march.
It has been able to adapt and adjust to the changes imposed on its
operations by the US-led war on terrorism and re-establish its command
and control over international terrorism from the sanctuary it has
established in Pakistans North Waziristan.
Shireen M Mazari criticized the US actions threatening Pakistans
sovereignty. The growing perception is that the writ of the government in
terms of safeguarding our territorial sovereignty can be challenged at will
by US and NATO forces and our citizens can be taken into custody by these
forces with no regard for Pakistans laws or sovereignty
There is now a pattern to such events. First, we have a wrongful
action, then its defence by the wrongdoers and finally someone rushes over
to try and appease the leadership of Pakistan as happened this time round
with hurried visit of Robert Gates. But Gates himself revealed the
condescending and abrasive approach the US has towards Pakistan
when, having arrived early, he refused to wait for his Pakistani counterpart
and instead simply took off to meet the President. Obviously Gates was not
concerned about diplomatic niceties regarding Pakistanis!
There are those in Pakistan who actually feel that the Pakistan
government should continue making these verbal rejoinders even as the US
and NATO continue to violate our sovereignty with impunity, as this is the
only way to keep the tribals under pressure and that in any case there is little
Pakistan can do in terms of concrete action to stop these incursions.
This is dangerous logic because it also sends a message to the Pakistani
citizens of the tribal belt that their government can do nothing to protect
them from foreign military action on Pakistani soil. This can hardly be
conducive to bolstering the writ of the state in these areas just when the
Pakistani state is trying to open up the area and bring it into the mainstream.
The Pakistani military has to move beyond mere rhetoric and
demonstrate its will to defend its territorial integrity in the face of a
challenge by US/NATO forces as also by locals seeking to defy the law of
the land. So some punitive action has to be undertaken to restore the
governments credibility within the domestic policy.

687

Arrogance of the masters has encouraged the puppet to be obstinate.

Tanvir Ahmad Khan observed, sadly, President Karzai failed to appreciate
the promise of the visits to his capital by Foreign Minister Khurshid
Kasuri and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. Their undiminished goodwill for
Afghanistan will, however, still help build peace. This task is difficult but
not impossible.
Sayed Salahuddin Ahmed from Karachi wrote about another puppet
which sought explanation from the Governor NWFP. The UN
representative is not supposed to seek clarification from the government that
has already done something, unlike others who only talk rhetoric in public
I think it is time the UN representative recalled his basic duty of
enduring peace under the UN umbrella rather wasting time in seeking
clarifications. The history, however, tells us that the UN is exactly meant for
seeking explanations from weaker countries on behalf on the US.
Dr Obaidullah from Peshawar was critical of governments approach
in fighting somebody elses war. In this very moment in the history of
Baluchistan and NWFP, especially the tribal areas, there are government and
military excesses going on; bombardment of innocent civilians and rounding
up of the weak and the frail are daily routines. Our government goes the
extra mile in pleasing the Uncle Sam and owns up to carrying out missile
attacks which maybe the Americans have done. Does anyone care what
happens to the survivors of these incidents?
Imagine a young man of 25 whose whole family has been wiped out.
This man could be attracted to taking revenge and he well be brainwashed
into doing this by becoming a suicide bomber. In that mindset, he may well
not care at all for his own life, his primary aim being inflict maximum
damage on those who have killed his family.
In our tribal society, if revenge is taken after three decades, it is
still not too late. I remember once a man managed to take revenge for his
grandfathers murder by shooting the perpetrator in broad daylight and
immediately surrendering to the police. He did not care that he would be
hanged, which he eventually was.
After suicide attack in a court in Quetta, the Dawn wrote: One can
understand the constraints that Pakistan faces in doing more to halt such
attacks But one must also question the rationality of the approach that
Islamabad has so far taken in countering terrorism. By launching attacks
688

on so-called jihadi camps and allowing intelligence agencies arbitrarily

(apprehend) people believed to have links with religious militants, it has
often ignored legal norms. This only provides more fodder for the Taliban
and other religious elements to promote their cause among those who are
already unhappy with the states high-handedness. Needless to say, this is
not the best way of enlisting the peoples support for defeating terrorism and
reining in extremist elements.
Khaleej Times opined, while holding the active war fronts their
expansion activity seems to concentrate on Pakistan for the present, where
there have been a series of suicide blasts in the Islamabad, Peshawar and
now in Quetta. The attack on a courtroom marks a shift from the
conventional hits on hotels, places of worship and police personnel. The
idea behind targeting the judiciary is plausibly sending a message to the
regime, that continued action in the tribal areas will be met with attempts to
destabilize the government.
Some odd critics, however, praised Musharraf for his collaboration
with the Crusaders. Mir Jamilur Rahman wrote, the leader leads and is not
led as President Musharraf has shown time and again. His decision to wage
jihad against terrorism after the 9/11 tragedy was not popular but later events
proved how right he was. He saved the country from an impending
catastrophe by joining the world community against terrorism and
extremism.
The prejudices of Crusaders against Pakistan remained in place.
Following incidents were reported during last four weeks:
Pakistan protested on moving of the discriminatory bill in the House
of Representatives. Washington assured softening of the aid bill.
World Bank and Asian Development Bank imposed stringent
conditions on funding of the dams.
For India it remained a matter of pick and choose; a US General
advised India to choose F-16 instead of F-18.
On 19th February, the US named three Pakistanis, Chaudhry Abdul
Majid, Abdul Hakim Murad and Muhammad Tufail as al-Qaeda men;
all linked to charity organizations.

689

 Pakistan signed another safeguard pact with IAEA on 23rd February.

Babar Sattar commenting on the latest bill on aid to Pakistan opined
that another honeymoon is almost over. This legislation brings back
memories of the infamous Pressler law, which was enacted in the 1980s
and required the US presidents certificate stating that Pakistan was doing all
it can to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.
History is important for it puts the present and the future in
perspective. The boom-bust cycle in Pakistan-US relationship is not the
product of erratic US policies, but a consequence of Pakistans failure to
understand this multi-faceted policy. Americas immediate-term strategic,
national security and financial interests in the region always take priority
over all other interests and policy objectives.
The new draft legislation will act as a bridge between the immediateterm US interests in the region and its long-term priorities, affording the
Bush Administration the flexibility it needs in dealing with Pakistan at
the moment but also laying out a policy framework that will enable future
administrations to squeeze the noose when the services being offered by
Pakistans armed forces in the war on terror are no longer crucial.
Adnan Rehmat wrote: Question: Which country has the most
dangerous government in the world today (that is directly or indirectly
aiding terrorism)? Answer (in respondent percentages): Iran 40 percent,
North Korea 35 percent, United States 9 percent, Pakistan 7 percent, Saudi
Arabia 3 percent, Sudan 2 percent, China 1 percent and Iraq 1 percent.
Question: Which countries are likely to transfer nuclear
technology to terrorists in the next three to five years? Answer: North
Korea 73 percent, Pakistan 44 percent, Iran 40 percent, Russia 12 percent,
Israel 1 percent, United States 1 percent and others 10 percent.
The unflattering dubious prominence of Pakistan in these two
responses comes from a unique Terrorism Index 2007 developed by
prominent American magazine Foreign Policy in association with the Centre
for American Progress who surveyed 100 of Americas top foreign policy
experts Republicans and Democrats alike.
Its participants include people who have served as secretary of state
and national security advisors, senior White House aides, top commanders in

690

the US military, seasoned intelligence officers, and distinguished academics

and journalists. Eighty percent of the experts have served in the government
more than half in the executive branch, 26 percent in the military, and 18
percent in the intelligence community.
The irony is that Pakistan is riven by terrorism resulting from its
participation in efforts for a free and safe world and has been for
decades at the receiving end of terrorism and yet is invariably placed among
the first ranks of states that sponsor or export terrorism. While it may
certainly be at the giving end when it comes to terrorism, Pakistan is
simultaneously at the receiving end also. Not just now but has been for
decades.

PEACE PROCESS
Musharraf had been showing unwarranted flexibility on the core
issue; despite that Shaukat Aziz on Solidarity Day vowed not to compromise
on Kashmir. Nawaz said Musharraf is damaging Kashmir cause and Qazi
opined that only Jihad can resolve Kashmir issue.
The only achievement of the composite dialogue was signing of a pact
on 21 February to avert nuclear accident risks. Two days later, Pakistan and
India agreed on gas transportation cost mechanism, but Delhi expressed
concerns about security of pipeline in Baluchistan.
st

Meanwhile, the neutral expert announced his verdict on Baglihar

Dam on 12th February. The mere fact that third party was involved in
resolution of the dispute proved the futility of bilateral dialogue. Both India
and Pakistan claimed that their view was upheld by the verdict. Pakistan said
that its three out of four objections have been accepted. India claimed that
the expert overruled all the objections raised by Pakistan, except asking
India to lower the proposed height of the dam by one-and-a-half meters.
Khalid Mustafa reported that neutral expert in his final determination
subscribed to Pakistans three points of difference out of four but upheld the
Indias point of view on the design of spillway gatesIndia can still regulate
water of Chenab River through spillway gates.
A team of legal experts has started working out a case on the design
of spillway gates keeping in view the verdict of neutral expert Under the
691

treaty, the Court of Arbitration would comprise seven members. India and
Pakistan would select two members each and three members jointly India
has already announced the deadline for completion of Baglihar hydropower
project by December 2007 and Pakistan expected that India would abide by
the experts decision.
The terrorist attack on Samjhota Express topped the events negative
to the process of confidence-building. Two incendiary bombs exploded in
Pakistan-bound security-sealed Samjhota train at midnight 18/19 February
near Panipat in Haryana. The fire burnt 68 passengers alive, some of them
beyond recognition, and 13 others were wounded.
India government remained silent for hours after the incident, but
Indian media started the trial and blamed Kashmiri freedom fighters for the
attack. Pakistans Information Minister offered all-out support to India in
probe and Pakistan asked India to share the findings on the inquiry.
The attack was dubbed as an attempt to derail peace train and leaders
of the two countries vowed not to allow the attack to affect dialogue. But,
had it been in Pakistan, the response from New Delhi would have been
different. AFP reported with concern that anti-India Jamaat-ud-Dawa set up
a mobile operating theatre and had 15 ambulances at Wagah and the group
suspected involvement of Shiv Sena.
Next day, Chief Minister of Haryana and New Delhi police pointed
finger towards two Pakistani groups; Jaish and Lashkar. Police chief said a
Pakistani passenger was being questioned over his link to train blasts. Police
released sketches of two suspects who disembarked minutes before the
blasts. The sketches were prepared on information provided by Pakistani
passengers. How did they disembark from a non-stop train, remained
unexplained?
On 21st February, India declined joint probe into terror attack, but
assured Pakistan about sharing the findings. Indian Intelligence Bureau
claimed that a (recorded) phone call from Delhi to Azad Kashmir just after
the attack could provide an important lead to the terrorists.
Next day, seven more dead bodies were delivered at Wagah border.
Kasuri stressed upon joint investigation. Foreign Office vowed not to allow
interrogation of injured persons, but India was already doing that. India
decided to bury the remaining 30 unidentified dead bodies declining request

692

for their transportation to Pakistan. The injured Rana Shaukat sent an SOS
from Safdarjung Hospital expressing his discomfort at the continued
harassment by the Indian security forces. On 23 rd February, Shaikh Rashid
said Indian Railways was least interested in Samjhota Express tragedy.
Other events negative to the confidence building were eruption of
Hindu-Muslim riots in Lucknow on 29th January; Indian accusation of cyber
attack by Pakistanis; test-fire of Brahmos cruise missile and Shaheen-II
missile capable of carrying nuclear warhead up to 2,000km. Meanwhile,
state terrorism in IHK continued. Following incidents state terrorism and
retaliatory attacks were reported:
Ten people were injured and 40 arrested as police broke up Muharram
procession in Srinagar on 28th January. Yet another BSF soldier
committed suicide.
Abbas Ansari and 150 activists were arrested during Ashura. Grenade
was hurled at residence of Mirwaiz on 1st February.
On 3rd February, two senior police officials were held in IHK on
charges of fake encounters.
Three former militants were killed and seven civilians injured in two
separate incidents in IHK on 4th February.
Three Kashmiris, including two in fake encounters, were killed on 8 th
February. One pro-Indian politician was also killed. Seven soldiers
were killed in roadside bomb blast in Chhattisingpura.
Three Kashmiris were killed in fake encounters on 10 th February. Four
days later, occupation forces claimed killing two freedom fighters
near Srinagar. Reportedly, security forces killed five innocent
Kashmiris and labeled them as rebels.
Two more Kashmiris were martyred in the Valley on 16 th February.
The New York based Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern
over stepped-up violations in IHK.
Three Indian soldiers were killed and two wounded in Doda on 20 th
February.

693

Commenting on the verdict of neutral expert, Muhammad Badar Alam

wrote, it was the fourth objection that mattered the most as far as
Pakistans worries about Indias ability to control the waters of the Chenab
were concerned. Professor Lafitte, while telling India to reduce the height of
the dam and curtail the capacity of its reservoir, has upheld Indias right to
build a gated spillway on the Chenab. Though he has termed the design of
the gates incorrect, the fact that India can now build a gated structure on a
river whose waters exclusively belong to Pakistan under the Indus Waters
Treaty leaves Pakistans main problem unaddressed.
The changes he suggested in the design of the dam are ostensibly
aimed at preventing the Indian side from using the dam for irrigation or
controlling the waters to an extent where it can release or stop them on will
to the detriment of agriculture in Pakistan. If the changes in the design can
guarantee that these two things dont take place Pakistan in fact need not
panic and accept the verdict without considering appealing against it.
India claims that the changes in the design suggested by the Swiss
expert are minor and will neither impact the quantity of the power to be
generated through the dam nor will they adversely impact the speed of work
on it. If all goes as India likes it to, the dam is scheduled to start producing
450 megawatts of electricity from Baglihar Dam by the end of this year.
Pakistan, in effect, only has a few months if it wants to test the impact of
the changes in the design.
The presence of an external player with the authority to monitor the
implementation of the treaty and mediate or adjudicate on any differences
over it may have given the two countries sufficient ground to keep their
cool: They must have calculated that even if worse came to the worst, the
third party would not allow either India or Pakistan to interpret the treaty as
they chose, according to their respective perspectives This should be valid
even after the dam is constructed. If Pakistan can produce irrefutable
evidence that India is using the dam not in accordance with the provisions of
the treaty, the third party should not be difficult to move.
Times of India wrote, there are lessons to be learnt from the
resolution of disputes over the Indus waters. One, an incremental
approach to solving territorial disputes between India and Pakistan might be
far more profitable than trying to crack the entire gamut of issues,
particularly Kashmir.

694

New Delhi needs not to be chary about international mediation

on bilateral issues. Though this might be costly, the expenses outweigh the
price of letting these issues simmer. One of the lingering Indo-Pak disputes
is over Sir Creek, which marks the maritime border between the two
countries If Indian and Pakistani surveyors are not able to agree on the
border, it should be left to an international panel just as in case of
Baglihar.
A day after the attack on Samjhota Express, The News wrote, both
countries and India particularly should understand that dilly-dallying or
perceived lack of progress only serves to strengthen the hawks and
opponents of peace on both sides. As far as motive is concerned, the
attackers could be from an array of opponents of peace process; from the
militants in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir who have opposed the
ongoing dialogue and taken a hard line on the four-point plan put forward by
President Pervez Musharraf to the Shiv Sena/VHP/Bajrang Dal combine
which has time and again expressed opposition to the peace talks.
Two days later the newspaper added, Indian police on Tuesday
blamed the attack on the Jaish-e-Muhammad and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. It is
worth mentioning here that many in the Indian security and law enforcement
apparatus consider these two jihadi outfits as operating with the full support
and assistance of Pakistani intelligence agencies and hence the government.
Clearly, laying the blame, with the train wreckage quite literally still
smouldering, is as bad an example that one is going to get of jumping the
proverbial gun. One may well ask the police what evidence they have in
their possession to be making this allegation especially since there has not
even been enough time to conduct a proper investigation.
In the trademark fashion of the amateurs who run it the Indian home
ministry has once again planted a story blaming Pakistani-based jihadi
groups for the bombing of the Samjhota Express, February 19, commented
Pioneer. It has been hinted at sleeper cells of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and
Jaish-e-Mohammad and pointed to an allegedly incriminating phone call to
Kashmir. Of course, it has offered no corroborative evidence, and is unlikely
to do so.
In making these ham-handed, unproven allegations, Mr Patils
Ministry is only damaging the credibility of the Government of India
and opening itself to the charge from both international observers and
domestic voters that it is only blaming Pakistan because it either has no idea
695

as to the identity of the terrorists or has something to hide. At the global

level, this will end up bolstering Pakistans case that India unfairly points
fingers at it after every terrorist outrage in the neighbourhood and, when
pushed, offers no hard facts but only refers to mysterious and meaningless
phone intercepts.
Tavleen Singh wrote: Nobody denies that secrecy is an important
weapon in security operations. But when secrecy becomes a veil for
incompetence, shoddy investigation and serious lapses in security, it
becomes dangerous. Behind the thick veils of secrecy that conceal homeland
security, we now face the grim reality that jihadi terrorism has spread its
horrific tentacles right down to our formerly peaceful southern Indian states.
Whole swathes of central India are now in the grip of shadowy Maoists
whose names we do not know. When it comes to the Nexalites, the same
questions arise. Who are these guys? Why do we not know their names and
faces?
Praful Bidwai opined that it is in Indias own interest to investigate
the Panipat episode and other terrorist attacks jointly with Pakistan. It
should pursue this in the coming weeks and months. Despite their
differences, both India and Pakistan have a stake in taking on fanatical
groups. If their leaders are wise, they would stop looking for villains
exclusively across the border and treating each others agencies as the prime
suspects in any terrorist attack, unless they have hard evidence.
Najmuddin A Shaikh wrote, Pakistanis have been victims of terrorism
on their own soil for many years now. In recent weeks, the number of
terrorist incidents has increased exponentially. Samjhota marks the first time
that Pakistanis have been targeted on foreign soil. Many feel that our fight
against terrorism has had a regional dimension only because we are
partners in the global war on terrorism.
Kuldip Nayar was of the view that the terrorists who set fire to the
two bogies through bombs had wanted to reignite the smouldering
hostility between India and Pakistan. Their attack on the Samjhota
Express was symbolic.
Jawed Naqvi asked who carried out the bombings that killed 68
innocent men, women and children and why? It seems unlikely that the
answers to any of these questions would be known by March 6, when

696

officials of the two countries assemble in Islamabad to discuss this and

similar issues under the joint anti-terror mechanism.
After discussing the possible suspects from within India, he concluded
by asking Pakistan to do more. In the final analysis, however, the quest for
a colour blind cat would be essentially incomplete if Pakistan doesnt heed
its call to pursue mice of all hues. In that case, there is this pending issue of
terror camps which even the most neutral observers say do exist in the
territory under Pakistans control. It must now quickly unleash the cat
there to make the March 6 meeting purposeful.
Pakistanis reacted to the incident with obvious grief and anger. Gul
Zaman from Paris wrote, these attacks should bring home to many
within Pakistan the fact that Pakistan is a safe haven for all Muslims,
irrespective of their origins. It is a country where we can live as first class
citizens and enjoy the fruits of freedom. Those who indulge in attacks on the
Quaids Pakistan should wake up.
M Faisal Jan from Peshawar said that every crime has a motive and
every injustice has a backlash. As most of the people traveling in the train
were poor Pakistani Muslims, the only people who have to gain from such
a bombing are supporters of Hindutva and hardliner Hindu
fundamentalists. Their only aim is to inflict pain and suffering on as many
Muslims as the Hindus who suffered in the recent Mumbai train bombings.
Nazeer Abro from Karachi wrote, the muted response of some of our
political elite to the outrageous massacre of over 70 innocent Muslims on
board Samjhota Express is mind-boggling. What is the reason behind the
silence of vociferous men like Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Altaf Hussain,
Farooq Sattar and other nationalist leaders? Does not the murder of poor
people traveling in a third class bogey stir their emotions, or will they brush
it aside as if this was their destined fate? Even the governments
spokespersons are apologetic, more mindful not to annoy India, than caring
for the sentiments of their own population.
Lt Col Iftikhar Ahmed from Karachi said: It is matter of great
concern that Hindu extremists and their extremist organizations like the
RSS, Hindu Vishva Parishad and many others have a free hand in India and
there is no check on their activities. One of their leaders, Bal Thackery,
openly advocates violence against Muslims. It is time that a very strong
protest is lodged with the Indian government and a demand made to ban
697

all Hindu extremist organizations that advocate violence and hatred against
Muslims.
Pakistan has shown undue exuberance for people-to-people contact in
which two elements played major role; Punjab chief minister Pervaiz Elahi,
who for some reasons has fondness for Sikhs of Indian Punjab and MQM
whose activists have relatives in India. Rest of the nation, barring some
Hindus in lower Sindh, is not much keen about this so-called confidencebuilding measure.
The exuberance of the government can be judged from the fact
that rail track to Munabao was laid in short period of six months at the cost
of Rs 2 billion and by employing large manpower meant for maintenance of
rail tracks; thereby neglecting the main artery of rail communication. On the
other hand India kept the rail service suspended for six months because
monsoon rains had caused some damage to Rajhistan section.
Whatever the motive of attackers might be, their act has exposed the
hollowness of the so-called composite dialogue. In words of Shaikh Rashid
the peace process is nothing more than a DHAKOSLA (fraud). The train
bears an intriguing name; SAMJHOTA. Those who invented this name had
the word peace in mind, but in reality it means nothing more than
compromise.
In fact, Pakistan has been pressured to involve itself in this fraud.
The Crusaders want Pakistan to improve its relations with India whatever
the cost might be. Therefore, the composite dialogue is a soft name given to
the perpetual process of coercion. The brave commando and his team have
been following the instructions of the Crusaders in letter and spirit.
This process has failed in achieving even the preliminary objective
of confidence building. Mistrust prevails as ever before as could be
judged from: it took three days in allowing a C-130 to air-lift injured from
New Delhi; three of injured were detained for interrogation; the survivors of
the train tragedy were detained at Attari for six hours till the Prime Minister
of India intervened to end their agony; no list of passengers have been
provided; sketches of the suspects were released just after 24 hours of the
incident; Pakistans high commissioner was not allowed to see the injured
people; the doubts were raised by the talk of missing passengers who never
boarded the train; and above all fingers have been pointed toward the victim
for the terror act.
698

Strangely, Pakistani authorities even Indians needed a catastrophe

like the one near Panipat to know the conditions in which the passengers
traveled in friendship train. The warmth of friendship felt at Deewana was
enough to char the bodies of 68 passengers.
The Asian age commented on the fake encounters carried out by the
Indian occupation forces in IHK. That the murders were planned and
carried out to make the perpetrators eligible for rewards and
promotions and that the victims were described as terrorists killed in
legitimate encounter-insurgency operations, betray the extent to which fake
encounters are resorted to as a cover for sinister deeds. Who knows how
many murders or wanton killings have been passed off in the past as
products of routine encounters?
The Army cannot afford to attempt any cover-up or come to the
defence of its officers who have sullied the image of security forces and lent
credibility to recurring complaints of breaches of human rights by the Army.
The misdeeds of its officers must be probed thoroughly and the guilty
punished.
Ayaz Amir wrote about the core issue which has been distorted
beyond recognition. This is where the present regime in Pakistan is
following the wrong tack. Its off-the-cuff proposals on Kashmir, most of
them liable to the charge of being half-baked, amount to Kashmir
revisionism. Why should Pakistan indulge in this exercise; in return for
what?
In any case, the right of self-determination is not a saleable
commodity. Taiwan may not become part of China for a thousand years.
China will still not revise its position on Taiwan. The Kashmiri people may
be denied their basic right for 500 years. This still will not give Pakistan the
right to barter away what belongs to the Kashmiri people.

HOME FRONT
On political front, one-man election campaign continued.
Musharraf while addressing the gathering at opening ceremony of Okara bypass on 3rd February asked the people to vote for enlightened moderates.

699

Two weeks later, he addressed a public gathering in Faisalabad and asked

people to vote for kings party.
Meanwhile, PPP decided to contest elections under Musharraf. On 9th
February, six PPP activists were killed in ambush near Attock. Four days
later, another Patriot, Tanveer Hussain, joined PML-Q. Shujaat announced
that talk of deal with PPP was now a history.
MMA decided not to resign from assemblies. This was a politically
correct decision, because had they resigned the government would have
gone for by-elections and MMA had to boycott those; thereby allowing freerun to ruling parties. With MMA out of the assemblies, it would have been
easier for the current assemblies to re-elect Musharraf without a fuss.
Insurgency in Baluchistan remained at low key. However,
following incidents were reported:
Gas pipeline was blown up near Sibi on 28th January. Three security
personnel and a civilian were wounded in two blasts in Sui area on 3 rd
February.
By first week of February, over 400 ferraris surrendered in Kohlu with
arms. Gas pipeline was blown up near Quetta on 10 th February. One
person was killed and two wounded in landmine blast.
Gas pipeline was blown up near Dera Bugti on 14 th February. Six days
later, Minister of State, Yar Mohammad Rind escaped attempt on his
life by gunmen in a village 90 miles east of Quetta.
Rocket attack on a grid station near Quetta on 24 th February caused
power breakdown.
Explosion damaged railway track and a rocket hit a power grid near
Quetta on 25th February.
With the terrorist attacks in Iran near Pakistan border a new front was
opened to the embarrassment of Islamabad. On 18th February, Iran
summoned Pakistans envoy over two car bomb blasts near Zahedan. The
Crusaders were certainly using Pakistans territory to instigate Iran. Tehran
also offered guarded response to Musharrafs Middle East initiative.

700

Shafqat Mahmood apprehended more to come if the US attacked Iran.

Our region has been destabilized since the American attacks on Afghanistan
and Iraq but we may be entering another very dangerous period. The
possibility of an American bombing campaign against Iran is real and only a
resurgent Congress and force the public opinion may be able to stop Bush. If
they do not effectively mobilize, the Bush Administration will certainly
attack Iran.
Does this impending fight have any bearing on what is happening in
Pakistan? Clearly, the American surge in Iraq and increase in NATO strength
in Afghanistan means that some kind of a defining stage is being reached in
these two conflicts. Add to this the possibility of a destabilized Iran, and you
have an arc of instability reaching all the way to Pakistan. With so much
conflict around it, how can we remain immune to its fallout?
Forces opposed to American designs in this region might feel that
a destabilized Pakistan is better for them because it would then have
difficulty becoming an effective American partner. Whether suicide
bombings have the potential to achieve such a purpose is seriously doubtful.
But, people make mistakes and have faulty analyses. We may be in for a
rough ride.
Ruling elites pursuit for soft image continued, but it encountered
more setbacks than achievements. The issue of missing persons kept
simmering. On 6th February, a human rights lawyer claimed that missing
persons were held with intelligence agencies in brazen defiance of the apex
courts orders. HRCP condemned terror disappearances.
On 14th February, Attorney General informed the Supreme Court that
six more missing persons have been traced out. He also told the Court that
security agencies have denied that Janjua is in their custody. Families of over
a dozen missing persons held a memoriam in the house of Amina Masood
Janjua on 25th February.
Lahore will fly kites to celebrate Basant, insisted provincial
government on 2nd February. Basant kites claimed three lives in Lahore a day
prior to two-day celebrations permitted by Punjab government in violation
of court orders.
On 24th February, Lahorites celebrated first day of Basant with
(religious) fervour, reported correspondent of the News. Next day, 11 more

701

people, mostly children, fell prey to the soft image seekers who bulldozed
their way to celebrate Basant despite. Five were killed a day before and
about 700 were injured during the two-day celebrations. The question is:
Will someone get FIR registered against those who lifted the ban for murder
of the innocent people?
Crackdown against militants of different kinds continued. Following
actions by law enforcing agencies and the militants were reported:
Three persons were killed in suicide attack in D I Khan on 29 th
January. At least 12 people were wounded when rockets landed near
imambargah in Bannu. Provincial minister suspected foreign hand in
Peshawar suicide bombing.
On 31st January, curfew was imposed in Hangu as four people were
killed in attacks in last two days.
Police arrested two militants of LJ in Rawalpindi on 15 th February.
Next day, three suspected suicide bombers were arrested in Karachi.
Three LJ activists were arrested in Karachi on 17 th February. About
280 people were held in Rawalpindi by 19 th February in crackdown
against terrorism.
On 20th February, police arrested two terror suspects involved in
killing of Azam Tariq, Bin Yamin and fifty others in Islamabad and
Multan. Two suspected suicide bombers were arrested in Hyderabad.
A woman minister of Punjab was murdered in Gujranwala.
Three suspected suicide bombers killed themselves in Chichawatni on
24th February as their motor cycle hit a road bump.
Other events relevant in the context of soft image, reported during
the period, were as under:
On 1st February, Higher Education Commission sacked Dr Ghazala
after the report of Naveed was published by the News.
Next day, Musharraf claimed that mosques were not being razed but
relocated.

702

 On 13th February, Shujaat moved a bill in the National Assembly on

anti-women customs.
The News gleefully projected the celebration of Saint Valentine Day
in Pakistan as a success against the obscurantist mullas.
The Supreme Court partially accepted presidential reference against
Hasba Bill on 20th February.
It was reported by the print media on 25th February that President
informed Chief Minister of Punjab through a letter about 53 high profile
gambling and prostitution dens in Lahore. These dens are being run with the
tacit support of some Punjab cabinet members and MPAs of PML-Q.
Reportedly, the ignorant chief minister approved strict legal action.
The president should have appreciated their efforts in contributing
towards promotion of tourism and the so elusive soft image. After all
prostitution and gambling are used for this purpose the world over and this
has also been evident from the concerns voiced by some quarters over
banning of alcohol. If for some reason Musharraf had decided to show his
concern over social vices, he should have also included the Qabza groups
about which the chief minister has plenty of personal knowledge and
experience.
Mullas once became the target of critics in the wake of demolition of
mosque in Islamabad and occupation of children library by girl students in
retaliation. Zain Mankani from Karachi wrote, today all manner of criminal
activities, like cold-blooded murders and illegal construction and
occupation of property are being perpetrated in the name of religion by
maulvis who actually dont have any idea about the actual ideology of
Islam Instead of indulging in indiscriminate bombing villages, the
government should invest in education and strive to eradicate ignorance,
which is the root cause of these radical and un-Islamic ideologies.
Burhanuddin Hasan opined that the present atmosphere of religious
extremism and sectarian hatred in Pakistan is the main cause of divisive
tendencies in our political leadership. At this stage when the threat of the
Taliban is looming on the countrys borders we cannot afford to deliver the
youth once again in the clutches of the maulvis who produced the Taliban
through their distorted vision of Islam and their teachings.

703

Amir Zia wrote on the issue of suicide bombings. It seems ironic that
suicide bombers consider it a religious duty to die for vague political causes,
getting motivation from a highly distorted and myopic interpretation of
Islam. This is not just tarnishing the image of Islam, but causing
immense damage to our national interest as well as the political causes
of Muslims the world over. Suicide bombings are a new phenomenon but
the damage to Muslim causes has been caused since decades; who was
responsible for that?
Murder of Zill-e-Huma was widely condemned and rightly so but
maulvis were dragged-in quite wrongly. Mir Jamilur Rahman wrote, the
murder of Zille Huma is a direct challenge to the policies of President
General Musharraf. The mullah is against the empowerment and
moderation; he sees his downfall and therefore wants to keep the country in
a perpetual state of obscurantism. The mullah wants his writ to prevail. He
does not value democracy because it hampers his designs to absolute power.
A criminal act of a mentally deranged person, who had been indulging
in crime since the days of Benazir Bhutto, has been thrown into the court of
obscurantist elements; the term concocted by the enlightened moderates
after they allied with the Crusaders. By blaming misinterpreters they are
doing no service to Islam, but providing yet another pretext to the West to
malign Islam and its followers.
Dr Irfan Zafar from Islamabad observed that the accused, Maulvi
Sarwar, had previously been booked and tried for the murder of six women
of easy virtue but was acquitted for want of sufficient evidence. What else
could be expected from a killer who could get away scot-free with six
murders? The real culprit here is not the killer but our flawed justice
system.
The Dawn was of the view that this is the direct outcome of the
relegation of the fundamentals of Islam love, brotherhood, tolerance, peace
and general good to a secondary lace and a misplaced emphasis on Islam
as a political doctrine that brooks no opposition, tolerates no dissent and
seeks conformism with resort to violence, even if the victim is an innocent
person like Zill-e-Huma. It is wrong to consider this a law and order
problem. Ignorance and bigotry have gone deep into society, and those who
can reverse the situation are the non-political ulema, if there are any. The
governments responsibility is that it should not surrender to bigotry and,

704

instead, encourage such of the ulema as have the moral and intellectual
strength to take on the challenge.
The decision of government to include history of pre-Islam era in
school/college text books was made into another issue of a non-issue.
Religious political parties fell prey to their habit of opposing the
government. Hussain Gulraze Mir from UK wrote, history is something
people, nations and countries have to live with, and one cannot just discard it
simply on the basis of religion. After all, whats wrong with teaching who
ruled our land a thousand years ago?
Hashim Qureshi from USA opined, I do not understand how
learning about the past would contribute negatively to being Muslim. To
have such insignificant, egocentric and baseless discussions in the National
Assembly just shows how clueless our leaders are in this time of action and
development. In fact, the real value of Islam becomes glaringly evident
once you learn about the social and moral values of the post-Islam period.
From across the eastern border, Nirupama Subramanian appreciated
the religious tolerance of the ruling enlightened moderates in Pakistan. For
the first time, the Pakistan government is making the effort to restore a
Hindu temple complex dating back to the 6 th century in Punjab province,
spending big money in the process. Pilgrims from India were visiting the
temple from 1983, barring a longish break in the last decade following the
destruction of the Babri Masjid, but this time the government involved
itself in the celebrations of Shivarati at the temple.
The Musharraf regime is also making other visible efforts to project
Pakistan as an Islamic republic that is accommodative of ethnic and
religious minorities, and is interested in preserving its plural heritage. For
instance, there were few more unique sights in Islamabad last Diwali
than that of the top brass of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid)
wearing big bright tilaks on their foreheads and sarops-like silk scarves over
their salwar-kameez, celebrating the festival at the party office More
instances come to mind, such as the commissioning of the first Sikh in the
Pakistan army, and Lahore getting its first Sikh traffic constable.
It is difficult to discern whether the analyst was appreciating or
taunting by making the above observations. However, one thing is certain
that in Pakistan the 3 percent religious minorities were always treated better
than more than 20 percent minorities in India out of which most are
705

Muslims. The difference from the past is that the present ruling elite has
focused on projection of some of its actions to build an image of enlightened
moderation. In pursuit of this goal, the regime is spending big money to
restore temples and demolishing mosques and madrassas what to talk of
contributing a single penny to the largest NGO in the world.

CONCLUSION
Despite the colossal contribution towards stability of occupied
Afghanistan, Pakistan continued to be treated as a nation of terrorists or
sponsors of terrorism. Resultantly, the frontline state in war on terror or the
strategic partner of the Crusaders, Pakistan now finds itself as the most
terrorized terrorist.
As usual, the immediate response to terror attack on Samjhota Express
was that the peace process should not be derailed. Islamabad, for a change,
should have waited for a similar statement from New Delhi, but it was too
much for the tolerant Pakistani rulers what to talk of pointing a finger
towards terrorist Hindu groups. No doubt, India will share the findings, quite
blown up, if any Pakistani or Kashmiri link to the terror attack is established.
Nothing will be shared if the culprits are Hindu extremists.
Mullas will be cursed for all acts of militancy in the country, just as
Pakistan will be accused of all acts of Taliban in Afghanistan. Most of the
suicide bombings are undoubtedly linked to governments policy on war on
terror. It is also true that suicide (bombing) is against the teaching of Islam;
just as un-Islamic as collaboration with the Crusaders to kill innocent
Muslims.
26th February 2007

706

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
The ongoing war is referred to by different names except the correct
one which was given by its initiator; George W Bush. He called it Crusades.
All other names were the result of second thought, because in this war many
Muslim collaborators had to fight against Islamic terrorism along side the
Crusaders; hence, the name Crusades could have caused some
embarrassment to them.
The names so given helped in camouflaging intentions of the wagers
of the war, but not for too long. The analysts pondered to determine the
possible aim of the war and most of them concluded that the aim was to
build an American Empire.
In September 2002, Jay Bookman had written: The lure of empire is
ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit
terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the
disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at
the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at
that time, in large part because the American people have never been
comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
The events of September 11, 2001, gave those advocates of empire a
new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating
whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States
will play in the years and decades to come, Jay added.
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision
knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always
high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher
still. Thats what this is about.
The 9/11 attacks, however, undoubtedly rekindled the desire to build
an empire, with fire of revenge added to it. America decided to avenge the
9/11 terrorist act by administering collective punishment to the perpetrators
who happened to be Muslims.

707

Herein some of the aspects of American imperialism are reviewed

with the help of three documents. First, a research paper entitled Neocon
Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq written by
David Ray Griffith. In his thesis he proved that this war is all about building
an American Empire for which the opportunity provided by the tragedy of
9/11 was fully availed.
Second, a chapter from Chalmers Johnsons book, Nemesis: The Last
Days of the American Republic in which the author gave details of overseas
military bases of the US. These details portray the American method of
building an empire, which is quite different from the method adopted by the
European empire builders in the past.
Third article Why the US is not leaving Iraq written by Ismael
Hossein-zadeh. He brought out an interesting characteristic of this brand of
imperialism; the profiteering. In this age of economics, the element of profit
has to be the motivating factor for all human activities, including the war.

GAME PLAN
According to David Ray Griffith the American agenda of neocon
imperialism is at least decades older than the 9/11 attacks. He enquired;
what was this agenda? It was, in essence, that the United States should use
its military supremacy to establish an empire that includes the whole world
a global Pax Americana.
He found out that three major means to this end were suggested.
One of these was to make US military supremacy over other nations even
greater, so that it would be completely beyond challenge The second
major way to achieve a global Pax Americana was to announce and
implement a doctrine of preventive-preemptive war, usually for the sake of
bringing about regime change in countries regarded as hostile to US
interests and values. The third means toward the goal of universal empire
was to use this new doctrine to gain control of the worlds oil, especially the
Middle East, most immediately Iraq.
Neo-conservatism in its early decades was a multi-faceted
phenomenon, but the focus here is on its foreign policy. Neoconservative
foreign policy was originally oriented around opposition to Communism.

708

This fact meant that the end of the Cold War produced a crisis for
neocons. In 1991, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Podhoretz said that he
was not sure what Americas purpose should be now that the threat of
Communismhad been decisively eliminated. Five years later, he even
published a eulogy to the movement, declaring it dead.
As soon as the Cold War ended, this cause was taken up by others. At
the close of 1989, Charles Krauthammer, one of the best known neocon
columnists, published a piece entitled Universal Dominion, in which he
argued that America should work for a qualitatively new outcome a
unipolar world.
The first effort to turn such thinking into official policy came in
1992, which was the last year of the presidency of George H W Bush and
hence also the end of Dick Cheneys tenure as secretary of defence. Before
leaving office, Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of defence
for policy, preparedwith the help of his top assistant, Lewis Scooter
Libbya draft of the Pentagons Defence Planning Guidance (DPG).
Although this draft came to be known as the Wolfowitz plan, it is
important to recognize that it was Cheney who, in Dorriens words, hatched
the original unipolarist blueprint in 1992. Indeed, as Nicholas Lemann has
reported in the New Yorker, the DPG draft resulted from a secret team that
Cheney had set up in the Pentagon to think about American foreign policy
after the Cold War.
The recognition that this unipolarist blueprint was inspired by
Cheney is important in light of the unprecedented power that he would
exercise in the second Bush administration. As presidential historian
Douglas Brinkley would say in 2002: Cheney is unique in American
history He is vortex in the White House on foreign policymaking.
Everything comes through him.
The most important development within the neocon movement in the
1996 was William Kristols founding, in 1997, of a unipolarist think tank
called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Closely related
to the American Enterprise Institute ideologically and even physically and
financially, PNAC differed primarily in focusing entirely on foreign policy.
In September of 2000, just three months before the Bush-Cheney
administration took office, PNAC published a 76-page document entitled

709

Rebuilding Americas Defences (RAD). Saying that at present the United

States faces no global rival, RAD declared that Americas grand strategy
should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position and thereby
to preserve and enhance the American peace. To enhance the American
peace means, of course, to increase the size of the American empire.
PNAC neocons thereby took key positions in the Vice Presidents
Office, the Pentagon, and the (only semi-independent) Defence Policy
Board. They did so well primarily because of Cheney, who was put in charge
of the transition team, and secondarily because of Rumsfeld, after Cheney
chose him to lead the Pentagon.
It was their agenda And it was 9/11 that allowed this agenda to
be implemented. As Claes Ryn said, the neoconservatives have taken full
advantage of the nations outrage over 9/11 to advance their already formed
drive for empire.
The tool for fulfilling this drive for empire, neocon have always
held, is military power. To a great extent, in fact, the neoconservative
movement began in reaction to the widespread view after the Vietnam War
that American military power should never again be used for imperialistic
purposes. In early 1980s, rejecting the lefts conclusion that force had
become obsolete as an instrument of American political purposes, Norman
Podhoretz argued that military power constitutes the indispensable
foundation of US foreign policy, adding that without it, nothing else we do
will be effective.
Given the fact that the US military was already dominant on the land
and the water and the air, the new component needed was dominance in
space. Space dominance was described in a 1997 document entitled Vision
for 2020, published by the US Space Command, a division of the Air Force.
The unique mission of the Space Command is to dominate the space
dimension of military operations. By merging this space superiority with
land, sea, and air superiority, the US military will have Full Spectrum
Dominance.
In addition, this document says, given the global nature of our
interests and obligations, the United States must maintain its overseas
presence of forces and the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in
order to achieve full spectrum dominance. This statement gives support to
Bacevichs observation that after the end of the Cold War, the Department
710

of Defence completed its transformation into a Department of Power

Projection.
Besides arguing for increased spending across the board, RAD
argued in particular for increased funding for the US Space Command;
saying that the ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the
aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern,
high-technology warfare, it advocated not only missile defence but also
placingweapons in space. The weapons, moreover, are not simply for
defensive purposes, but also for the ability to conduct strikes from space,
which will give the US military a global first-strike force.
This development of space-based weapons was presented as simply
one part, albeit probably the most important part, of a more general
transformation of the military that exploits the revolution in military
affairs (RMA), which has been made possible by information technologies.
This RMA transformation of the military was said to be sufficiently
important to consider it a separate mission.
The emphasis in RAD on exploiting the RMA to transform the
Pentagons approach is no surprise, since one of the participants in the
project to produce this document was Wolfowitz, who had long before fallen
under the spell of Albert Wohlstetter (one of the models for Dr
Strangelove). Wohlstetter had been the main early proponent of the ideas
that came to be dubbed the revolution in military affairs by Andrew
Marshall, who later became the main proponent. Marshall, who at this
writing was still serving as the RMA guru in the Pentagon, numbers
Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld among his disciples.
Rumsfeld, in fact, was at the same time heading up a special
commission to make recommendations about the military use of space. This
Rumsfeld Commission, endorsing the idea of military transformation,
including the weaponization of space, said that the United States should
employ space systems to help speed the transformation of the US military
into a modern force able to deter and defend against evolving threats
directed at(our) forward deployed forces.
The attacks of 9/11 were widely referred to as a new Pearl Harbour.
President Bush reportedly wrote in his diary on the night of 9/11: The Pearl
Harbour of the 21st century took place today. Immediately after the attacks,
many people, from Robert Kagan to Henry Kissinger to a writer for Time
711

magazine, said that America should respond to the attacks of 9/11 in the
same way it had responded to the attack on Pearl Harbour.
The attacks of 9/11 also reduced Congressional resistance to
providing increased funding for Pentagon programmes. On the evening of
9/11 itself, Rumsfeld held a news briefing on the Pentagon attack. At this
briefing Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, was asked: Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in
Congress have voiced fear that you simply dont have enough money for the
large increase in defence that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile
defence Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in
this country to increase defence spending? Congress immediately
appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later
with few questions asked.
The attacks of 9/11, moreover, aided those who favoured a
transformation of the military along RMA lines. In the weeks before 9/11,
Bacevich reports, military transformation appeared to be dead in the water,
because the military brass were wedded to existing weapons systems, troop
structure, and strategy.
The conviction that 9/11 provided an opportunity was also reflected
in NSS 2002, which said: The events of September 11, 2001opened vast,
new opportunities. One of the things for which it most clearly provided an
opportunity was the doctrine of preemptive-preventive war.
The doctrine in question, which involves attacking another country
even though it poses no immediate threat, is technically called preventive
war. This doctrine, which violates international law as reflected in the
Charter of the United Nations, is to be distinguished from what is technically
called preemptive war, which occurs when Country A attacks Country B
after learning that an attack from Country B is imminenttoo imminent to
allow time for the UN to intervene.
This doctrine of preemptive-preventive war had been advocated by
neocons long before 9/11. It was contained already in the Cheney-Wolfowitz
Defence Planning Guidance of 1992, which said that the United States
should use force to preempt and preclude threats In 1997, PNACs
Statement of Principles argued that to exert global leadership, America
needs to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.

712

Although these neocons were anxious to have their doctrine of

preemptive-preventive war accepted as national policy, this did not occur
during the Clinton presidency or even during the first eight months of the
Bush-Cheney Administration. After 9/11, however, it did. The events of
9/11, observes Bacevich, provided the tailor-made opportunity to break
free of the fetters restricting the exercise of American power.
The idea of preemptive-preventive war, which came to be known as
the Bush Doctrine, was first clearly expressed in the presidents address
at West Point in June 2002 (when the administration started preparing the
American people psychologically for the attack on Iraq). Having started that,
in relation to the new threats, deterrence means nothing and containment
is not possible. Bush even took aim at the traditional understanding of
preemption, saying: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have
waited too long.
However, although the West Point speech provided a first statement
of this new doctrine, it was in NSS 2002, published that September that the
new doctrine was laid out at some length The document itself, saying that
our best defence is a good offence, also states: Given the goals of rogue
states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive
posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the
immediacy of todays threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could
be caused by our adversaries choice of weapons, do not permit that option.
We cannot let our enemy strike first.
With this argument, the authors of NSS 2002 tried to suggest that,
since this doctrine of anticipatory preemption simply involves adapting a
traditionally recognized right to a new situation, it involves no great change.
But it does. According to the traditional doctrine, one needed certain
evidence that the other country was going to launch an immediate attack.
According to Bush Doctrine, by contrast, the United States can attack
another country even if uncertainty remains and even, more flagrantly, if
the United States knows that the threat from the other country is not yet
fully formed.
The novelty here, to be sure, involves doctrine more than practice.
The United States has in practice attacked several countries that presented no
imminent military threat. But it always portrayed these attacks in such a way
that they could appear to comport with international law.

713

Max Boot, a neocon who has become well known through his
newspaper columns, has described NSS 2002 as a quintessentially neoconservative document. Now that the basic ideas of this document have
been laid out, we can see the accuracy of his observation. We can also see
the importance of a still little-known fact: that Philip Zelikow, who would
later become the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, was chosen by
Condoleezza Rice to be the primary drafter of NSS 2002.
In the light of Zelikows close relationship with the Bush
Administration and especially his authorship of NSS 2002, we cannot take
seriously the claim of the 9/11 Commission that it sought to be
independent. As executive director, he had tremendous power to shape the
work of the Commission, deciding which issues it would investigate and
which not, and he was primarily responsible for the final form of The 9/11
Commission Report. The Family Steering Committee, which represented
families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, vigorously protested his
appointment, calling for Dr Zelikows immediate resignation and for the
Commission to apologize to the 9/11 families and America for this massive
appearance of impropriety. But these calls were dismissed.
There is no mention of imperial interests that might have served as
motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to have orchestrated or at least
permitted the attacks of 9/11. The Zelikow-led Commission did not, for
example, mention that PNACs Rebuilding Americas Defences had
suggested that the transformation of the military, through which unipolarity
could be enforced more effectively, could occur more quickly if there were
to be a new Pearl Harbour; it did not mention that the administration had
had plansto attack both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11; and it did not
mention that 9/11 had been described as presenting opportunities by Bush,
Rice, Rumsfeld, and, in fact, NSS 2002.
After explaining the evolution of so-called Bush Doctrine, the author
dwelled on possible imperial motives for 9/11 within the Bush-Cheney
administration, by discussing the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq. The first
victim of this claimed right to go on the offensive was Afghanistan, he
wrote.
Although the attacks of 9/11 were, according to the official story,
planned and carried out by a non-state organization, al-Qaeda, rather than
some state, the Bush-Cheney administration used the attacks as a pretext to

714

launch attacks on statesattacks that had been planned before 9/11.

The jurisdiction of this switch was provided by Bushs address to the nation
on the evening of 9/11, in which he declared: We will make no distinction
between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour
them.
This was a pretext rather than the real reason for attacking
Afghanistanas illustrated by the fact that when the Bush Administration
had an opportunity to take bin Laden alive, it showed no interest. A week
after 9/11, the Taliban said that it would hand OBL aliveif the United
States presented proof of his involvement in 9/11. But Bush refused to
provide any such evidence, saying that there would be no negotiations or
even discussionwhy?
There are probably two answers to this question. First, there is
much evidence that the Bush Administration did not want bin Laden, either
dead or alive. One part of this evidence consists of several reports that the
US military in Afghanistan deliberately let bin Laden escape more than
once. A second reason is that the Bush Administration, besides knowing that
bin Laden was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, evidently decided that it
could not even marshal convincing (albeit false) case that he was (as
suggested by the fact that, after a White Paper presenting this proof was
promised, it was never produced). More recently, the FBI, in response to a
query as to why does not list 9/11 as one of the crimes for which bin Laden
is wanted, has said: The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin
Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence
connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
To understand the real reasons for the attack on Afghanistan, one
needs to look at some developments prior to 9/11. One such development
was the publication in 1997 of Zbigniew Brzezinskis book The Grand
Chessboard: America Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. As the
subtitle shows, Brzezinski, while not a neoconservative, shared the neocons
concern to maintain and enhance US primacy. Portraying Central Asia,
with its vast oil reserves, as the key to world power, Brzezinski argued that
America, to ensure its continued primacy, must get control of this region,
which would mean establishing several military bases there.
Brzezinski also identified American democracy as an obstacle and
the way to overcome that. The American people would be willing to make
the economic and human sacrifices needed for imperial mobilization, he
715

suggested, if there were a truly massive and widely perceived direct

external threat. The kind of threat he had in mind was suggested by his
statement, earlier in the book, that the public was willing to support
Americas engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect
of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
Be that as it may, a more specific motivation for the post-9/11 attack
on Afghanistan was provided by the pipeline war that was going on. The
Bush-Cheney administration supported as had the Clinton-Gore
administration until 1999 UNOCALs plan to build an oil-and-gas pipeline
through Afghanistan, which was in competition with plans from oil
companies based in other countries.
When the Bush Administration came to power, however, it decided to
give the Taliban one last chance. This last chance occurred at a four-day
meeting in Berlin in July 2001. Representatives of the Bush-Cheney
administration, trying to persuade the Taliban to share power with USfriendly factions in a unity government, reportedly gave the Taliban an
ultimatum: Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury
you under a carpet of bombs. When the Taliban refused, the Americans
reportedly said that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead
before the snows started in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the
latest.
The fact that 9/11 provided the necessary condition for the war in
Afghanistan was stated by both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. In 2004,
Wolfowitz told the 9/11 Commission that if the Department of Defence had
asked Congress for permission to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11, this
request would not have been taken seriously. Rumsfeld, telling the
Commission that it can take a tragedy like September 11 to awaken the
world to new threats and to the need for action, said that prior to 9/11 the
president could not have convinced Congress that the United States needed
to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban.
Afghanistan and the surrounding region was not, however, the
primary target in the sights of the Bush-Cheney administration. That target
was Iraq. Several neocons, including some who became central members
of the Bush-Cheney administration, had been wanting to bring about regime
change in Iraq ever since Saddam Husseins occupation of Kuwait in 1990

716

But this idea was opposed by President Bush along with General Colin
Powelland it was not carried out.
In 1992, Albert Wohlstetter, who had inspired Perle and Wolfowitz
and other neocons expressed exasperation that nothing had been done about
dictatorship sitting on the worlds second largest pool of low-cost oil and
ambitious to dominate the Gulf.
In 1996, the Clean Break paper, written for Israel by Perle and
other neocons, proposed that Israel remove from power all its enemies in the
region, beginning with Saddam Hussein. This 1996 document, in the opinion
of Arnaud de Borchgrave, president of United Press International, provided
the strategic underpinnings for Operation Iraqi Freedom seven years later.
In 1997, Wolfowitz and Khalilzad published a statement arguing that
Saddam Must Go. In 1998, Kristol and Kagan, in a New York Times oped entitled Bombing Iraq Isnt Enough, called for finishing the job left
undone in 1991. Wolfowitz told the House National Security Committee
that it had been a mistake in 1991 to leave Saddam in power. Also, writing in
the New Republic, he said: Toppling Saddam is the only outcome that can
satisfy the vital US interest in a stable and secure region.
Given the fact that Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other
neocons were given central positions in the Bush Administration, it is not
surprising to learn, from two former members of this administration, that it
came to office intent on attacking Iraq. Paul ONeill, who was secretary of
the treasury and hence a member of the National Security Council, has said
within days of the inauguration, the main topic was going after Saddam,
with the question being not Why Saddam? or Why Now? but merely
finding a way to do it.
Even 9/11, by itself, was not a sufficient basis for getting the
American peoples support for an attack on Iraq. Not for lack of effort by
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. On the afternoon of 9/11 itself, Rumsfeld said in a
note to General Richard Myers the acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that he wanted the best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.
(Saddam Hussein) at same time. Not only UBL (Usama bin Laden).
Colin Powell, however, argued that both the American people and
other countries would at that time support an attack on Afghanistan, to do
something about al-Qaeda, but not an attack on Iraq, since there was no

717

evidence that it had anything to do with 9/11. He added, however, that after
a successful campaign in Afghanistan. A war on Iraq would become
more feasible. Bush accepted this argument.
A lengthy propaganda offensive would also be needed. This
propaganda offensive involved convincing a majority of the American
people of the truth of two false claims: that Saddam Hussein had been
behind 9/11 and that he possessed, or soon would possess, weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear weapons, with which he could attack
America.
Much of this channeling was done by the Bush-Cheney
administration, especially Bush and Cheney The administration was
greatly aided in this propaganda offensive by neoconservatives outside the
government, who linked their preexisting agenda (an attack on Iraq) to a
separate event (9/11).
That this propaganda campaign would be successful would have been
predictable. As Herman Goring, one of the top Nazi officials, said: It is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked.
The crucial precondition for the war on Iraq was a psychological
state of mind in the American public one of fear and anxiety combined
with a desire for revenge that would countenance the new doctrine of
preemptive-preventive war. This state of mind was abundantly created by
9/11the propaganda offensive directed at Saddam Hussein was rather
easily able to channel this fear, anxiety and desire for revenge into a
widespread feeling that a war to bring about regime change in Iraq was
justified.
The purpose of writing this paper by David Ray Griffith was to
prepare a case by producing evidence for impeachment of President George
W Bush on the basis of unjustified invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. He
concluded: This evidence includes many reasons to conclude that the
official accounts of the World Trade Center collapses, the attack on the
Pentagon, the crash of the United Airlines Flight 93, and the failure of the
US military to intercept the other flights cannot be true. This evidence also
includes many reasons to conclude that The 9/11 Commission Report
involved a systematic cover-up of dozens of facts that conflict with the
718

official conspiracy theory about 9/11, according to which the attacks were
conceived and carried out entirely by al-Qaeda evidence that instead points
to official complicity.
What motive could they possibly have had for arranging attacks on
their own citizens? Having suggested that the motive was to have a pretext
to turn the neocon agenda into national policy, I should add that it is
probably only the neocons in office, and even only some of them, who
should be suspected of involvement in the planning for 9/11. To say that 9/11
allowed the agenda of the neocons in general to be implemented does not
imply that many or even any neocons outside the government were involved
in the planning for, or even had advance knowledge of, the attacks of 9/11.
No genuine investigation has been carried out to this day. If Congress
would authorize such an investigation, the American people, I am convinced,
would see that the grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney are even
stronger than those that have been part of the public discussion thus far.
They would also see that the reasons for opposing war in Iraq are even
stronger than those publicly discussed thus far, because it was from the
start an imperialistic war based on a false-flag operation (as well as
additional lies).

THE METHOD
No imperialistic desire can be fulfilled without acquisition of requisite
military power. For building a global empire, the military power so
possessed has to be matchless; the United States has that. More important
than mere possession, is placing of that power on ground for quick
realization of the ambition. Chalmers Johnson in his book, Nemesis: The
Last Days of the American Republic has devoted a chapter to this aspect of
the power manifestation, the excerpts from that are reproduced hereunder.
Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by
counting up colonies. Americas version of the colony is the military base;
and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much
about our ever more all-encompassing imperial footprint and the militarism
that grows with it.

719

The total of Americas military bases in other peoples countries

in 2005, according to official sources, was 737, reflecting massive
deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bushs strategy of
preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go
up.
Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized
American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 mostly air and naval
bases for our bombers and fleets almost exactly equals Britains thirtysix naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898.
During fiscal 2005, the military high command to our overseas bases
some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of
dependents and Department of Defence civilian officials, and employed an
additional 81,425 locally hired foreigners.
The worldwide total of US military personnel in 2005, including
those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306
Defence Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its
overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks,
hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that
it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as
covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making
the Pentagon easily one of the worlds largest landlords.
These numbers, although staggeringly big, do not begin to cover all
the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2005 Base Structure Report fails,
for instance, to mention any garrisons in Kosovo (or Serbia, of which
Kosovo is still officially a province) even though it is the site of the huge
Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 and maintained ever since by the KBR
corporation (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root), a subsidiary of the
Halliburton Corporation of Houston.
The report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq (106 garrisons
as of May 2005), Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, even though the
US military has established colossal base structures in the Persian Gulf and
Central Asian areas since 9/11. By way of excuse, a note in the preface says
that facilities provided by other nations at foreign locations are not
included, although this is not strictly true. The report does not include
twenty sites in Turkey, all owned by the Turkish government and used
jointly with the Americans. The Pentagon continues to omit from its
720

accounts most of the $ 5 billion worth of military and espionage installations

in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force
bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire
would probably top 1,000 different bases overseas, but no one possibly not
even the Pentagon knows the exact number for sure.
In some cases, foreign countries themselves have tried to keep
their U.S. bases secret, fearing embarrassment if their collusion with
American imperialism were revealed. In other instances, the Pentagon seems
to want to play down the building of facilities aimed at dominating energy
resources, or, in a related situation, retaining a network of bases that would
keep Iraq under our hegemony regardless of the wishes of any future Iraqi
government. The U.S. government tries not to divulge any information about
the bases we use to eavesdrop on global communications, or our nuclear
deployments, which, as William Arkin, an authority on the subject, writes,
have violated its treaty obligations. The US was lying to many of its closest
allies, even in NATO, about its nuclear weapons, hundreds of bases, and
dozens of ships and submarines existed in a special secret world of their own
with no rational military or even deterrence justification.
In Jordan, to take one example, we have secretly deployed up to five
thousand troops in bases on the Iraqi and Syrian borders. (Jordan has also
cooperated with the CIA in torturing prisoners we deliver to them for
interrogation). Nonetheless, Jordan continues to stress that it has no special
arrangements with the United States, no bases, and no American military
presence.
The country is formally sovereign but actually a satellite of the
United States and has been so for at least the past ten years. Similarly, before
our withdrawal from Saudi Arabia in 2004, we habitually denied that we
maintained a fleet of enormous and easily observed B-52 bombers in Jeddah
because that was what the Saudi government demanded. So long as military
bureaucrats can continue to enforce a culture of secrecy to protect
themselves, no one will know the true size of our baseworld, least of all the
elected representatives of the American people.
In 2005, deployments at home and abroad were in a state of
considerable flux. This was said to be caused both by a long overdue
change in the strategy for maintaining our global dominance and by the
closing of surplus bases at home. In reality, many of the changes seemed to
be determined largely by the Bush Administrations urge to punish nations
721

and domestic states that had not supported its efforts in Iraq and to reward
those that had.
By the end of the 1990s, the neoconservatives were developing their
grandiose theories to promote overt imperialism by the lone superpower
including preventive and preemptive unilateral military action, spreading
democracy abroad at the point of a gun, obstructing the rise of any nearpeer country or bloc of countries that might challenge US military
supremacy, and a vision of a democratic Middle East that would supply us
with all the oil we wanted. A component of their grand design was
redeployment and streamlining of the military. The initial rationale was for a
program of transformation that would turn the armed forces into a
lighter, more agile, more high-tech military, which, it was imagined,
would free up funds that could be invested in imperial policing.
What came to be known as defence transformation first began to be
publicly bandied about during the 2000 presidential election campaign. Then
9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq intervened. In August 2002, when
the whole neocon program began to put into action, it centered above all on
a quick, easy war to incorporate Iraq into the empire. By this time,
civilian leaders in the Pentagon had become dangerously overconfident
because of what they perceived as Americas military brilliance and
invincibility
In August 2002, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld unveiled his
1-4-2-1 defence strategy to replace the Clinton eras plan for having a
military capable of fighting two wars in the Middle East and Northeast
Asia simultaneously. Now, war planners were to prepare to defend the
United States while building and assembling forces capable of deterring
aggression and coercion in four critical regions
A seemingly easy three-week victory over Saddam Husseins forces
in the spring of 2003 only reconfirmed these plans. The US military was
now thought to be so magnificent that it accomplish any task assigned to it.
The collapse of the Baathist regime in Baghdad also emboldened Secretary
of Defence Rumsfeld to use transformation to penalize nations that had
been, at best, lukewarm about Americas unilateralism The result was the
Department of Defences Integral Global Presence and Basing Strategy;
known informally as the Global Posture Review.

722

President Bush first mentioned it in a statement on November 21,

2003, in which he pledged to realign the global posture of the United
States. He reiterated the phrase and elaborated on it on August 16, 2004, in a
speech to the annual convention of the veterans of Foreign Wars in
Cincinnatiand made a series of promises that sounded more like a
reenlistment pitch than a statement of strategy.
Bush said: Over coming decade, well deploy a more agile and more
flexible force, which means that more of our troops will be stationed and
deployed from here at home. Well move some of our troops and capabilities
to new locations, so they can surge quickly to deal with unexpected
threats
On September 23, 2004, however, Secretary Rumsfeld disclosed the
first concrete details of the plan to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
With characteristic grandiosity, he described it as the biggest restructuring of Americas global forces since 1945
Though this may sound plausible enough, in basing terms it opens up
a vast landscape of diplomatic and bureaucratic minefield that Rumsfelds
militarists surely underestimated. In order to expand into new areas, the
Departments of State and Defence must negotiate with the host
countries such things as Status of Force Agreements, or SOFAs In
addition, they must conclude many other required protocols, such as access
rights for our aircraft and ships into foreign territory and airspace, and
Article 98 Agreements. The latter refer to Article 98 of the International
Criminal Courts Rome Status, which allows countries to exempt US
citizens on their territory from the ICCs jurisdiction. Such immunity
agreements are congressionally mandated by the American ServiceMembers Protection Act of 2002, even though the European Union holds
that they are illegal.
Still other necessary accords are acquisitions and cross-servicing
agreements or ACSAs, which concern the supply and storage of jet fuel,
ammunition, and so forth; terms of leases on real property; levels of bilateral
political and economic aid to the United States (so-called host-nation
support); training and exercises arrangements and environmental pollution
liabilities.

723

THE RETURNS
The motivation for empire-building can be political, racial or
religious, but an economic gain has always been the main factor. Invasion
and occupation of other peoples lands began with plundering and ended up
in perpetual misappropriation of their wealth and resources. American
imperialistic designs are not much different, despite their superior values
and compassion for humanity.
American imperialism, however, has another distinct feature because
it happens to be in the Age of Economics. It has a touch of corporate
imperialism, wherein even the war in itself has an element of profiteering.
Ironically, in this pursuit of earning profits the purchasing power of both
invaders and invaded is targeted. Ismael Hossein-zadeh discussed this aspect
in his article entitled Why the US is not leaving Iraq.
In the light of the fact that by now almost all the factions of ruling
elite, including the White House and the neoconservative war-mongerers,
acknowledge the failure of Iraq war, why, then do they balk at the idea of
pulling the troops out of that country?
Perhaps the shortest path to a relatively satisfactory answer would be
to follow the money. The fact is that not everyone is losing in Iraq. Indeed,
while the Bush Administrations wars of choice have brought unnecessary
death, destruction and disaster to millions, including many from the United
States, they have also brought fortunes and prosperity to war profiteers. At
the heart of reluctance to withdraw from Iraq, lies the profiteers
unwillingness to give up further fortunes and spoils of war.
Pentagon contractors constitute the overwhelming majority of these
profiteers. They include not only the giant manufacturing contractors such as
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, but also a complex maze
of over 100,000 service contractors and sub-contractors such as private army
or security corporations and reconstruction firms. These contractors of
both deconstruction and reconstruction, whose profits come mainly
from the US treasury, have handsomely profited from the Bush
Administrations wars of choice.
Meanwhile, the American people are sidetracked into a debate over
the grim consequences of a pre-mature withdrawal of US troops from Iraq:
further deterioration of the raging civil war; the unraveling of the fledgling

724

democracy; the resultant serious blow to the power and prestige of the
United States; and the like.
Such concerns are secondary to the booming business of war
profiteers and, more generally, to the lure or the prospects of controlling
Iraqs politics and economics. Powerful beneficiaries of war dividends,
who are often indistinguishable from the policy makers who pushed for
the invasion of Iraq, have been pocketing hundreds of billions of dollars by
virtue of war. More than anything else, it is the pursuit and the safeguarding
of those plentiful spoils of war that are keeping US troops in Iraq.
A highly profitable and fast growing industry that has evolved out of
the Pentagons tendency to shower private contractors with tax-payers
money is based on its increasing practice of the outsourcing of the many
of the traditional military services to private business. In 1984, almost
two-thirds of (the Pentagons) contracting budget went for products rather
than services By fiscal year 2003, 56 percent of Defence Department
contracts paid for services rather than goods.
What is more, these services are not limited to the relatively simple
or routine tasks and responsibilities such as food and sanitation services or
building maintenance. More importantly, they include contracts for services
that are highly sophisticated, strategic in nature, and closely approaching
core functions that for good reason the government used to do on its own.
The Pentagon has even hired contractors to advise it on hiring
contractors.
As the Pentagons manufacturing contractors such as Lockheed
Martin make fortunes through the production of the means of death and
destruction, they also create profit opportunities for service contractors such
as Halliburton that, like vultures, follow the plumes of the smoke of
destruction and set up shop for reconstruction.
The fact that powerful beneficiaries of war dividends flourish in an
atmosphere of war and international convulsion, should not come as a
surprise to anyone. What is surprising is that, in the context of the recent US
wars of choice, these beneficiaries have also acquired the power of
promoting wars, often by manufacturing external threats to our national
interest. In other words, profit driven beneficiaries of war have also evolved
as war makers, or contributors to war making.

725

He mentioned some cases of unsavory business-political

relationship and then added: There are strong indications that these
dubious relationships represent more than simple cases of sporadic or
unrelated instances of some unscrupulous or rogue elements. Evidence
shows that contracts of the construction of Iraq were drawn long before the
invasion and deconstruction of that country had started.
Here we get a glimpse of the real reasons or forces behind the Bush
Administrations preemptive wars. As Klein puts it, a government devoted
to perpetual pre-emptive deconstruction now has a standing office of
perpetual pre-emptive reconstruction. Klein also documents how (through
Pascuals office) contractors drew reconstruction plans in close
collaboration with various government agencies and how, at times,
contracts were actually pre-approved and paper work completed long before
an actual military strike.
In close cooperation with the National Intelligence Council, Pascuals
office keeps high risk countries on a watch list and assembles rapidresponse teams ready to engage in prewar planning and to mobilize and
deploy quickly after a conflict has gone down. The teams are made up of
private companies, nongovernmental organizations and members of think
tanks some, Pascual told an audience at the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies in October, will have pre-completed contracts to
rebuild countries that are not yet broken. Doing this paperwork in
advance could cut off three to six months in your response time.
No business model or entrepreneurial paradigm can adequately
capture the nature of this kind of scheming and profiteering. Not even
illicit businesses based on rent-seeking, corruption or theft can sufficiently
describe the kind of nefarious business interests that lurk behind the Bush
Administrations preemptive wars. Only a calculated imperial or colonial
kind of exploitation, albeit a new form of colonialism or imperialism, can
capture the essence of the war profiteering associated with the recent US
wars of aggression. As Shalmali Guttal, a Bangalore-based researcher put it,
we used to have vulgar colonialism. Now we have sophisticated
colonialism, and they call it reconstruction.
Classical colonial or imperial powers roamed on the periphery of the
capitalist centre, discovered new territories, and drained them off of their
riches and resources. Today there are no new places in our planet to be
discovered. But there are many vulnerable sovereign countries whose
726

governments can be overthrown, their infrastructures smashed to the ground,

and fortunes made as a result (of both destruction and reconstruction). And
herein lies the genius of a parasitically efficient market mechanism, as well
as a major driving force behind the Bush Administrations unprovoked
unilateral wars of choice.
Not only does the new form of imperial or colonial aggression,
driven largely by the powerful interests that are vested in the armaments
industries and other war-based businesses, bring calamity to the vanquished,
but it is also detrimental and burdensome to the victor, namely the imperium
and its citizens. Contrary to the external military operations of past empires,
which usually brought benefits not only to the imperial ruling classes but
also (through trickle-down effects) to their citizens, US military
expeditions and operations of late are not justifiable on the grounds of
national economic gains.
War profiteering is, of course, not new; it has always existed in the
course of history of warfare. What makes war profiteering in the context of
recent US wars of choice unique and extremely dangerous to the world
peace and stability, however, is the fact that it has become a major driving
force behind war and militarism.
It follows that US troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq as long as
antiwar voices are not raised beyond the premises and parameters of the
official narrative or justification of the war: terrorism, democracy, civil war,
stability, human rights, and the like. Antiwar forces need to extricate
themselves from the largely diversionary and constraining debate over
these secondary issues, and raise public consciousness of the scandalous
economic interests that drive the war.
It is crucially important that public attention is shifted away from the
confining official narrative of the war, prepared by the corporate media and
political pundits, to the economic crimes that have been committed because
of this war, both in Iraq and here in the United States. It is time to make a
moral case for restoring Iraqi oil and other assets to the Iraqis. It is also
time to make a moral case against the war profiteers plundering of our
treasury, or tax dollars. To paraphrase the late General Smedley D Butler,
most wars could easily be ended they might not even be started if profits
are taken out of them.

727

REVIEW
The desire to build an empire has afflicted the ruling elites
throughout the human history. Modern day democratically elected rulers are
no different from the emperors and kings of the past in nourishing this desire
and realizing it if they have the means to avail an opportunity.
European countries had excelled in empire-building during the last
three centuries. Their empire-building prowess was, however, drained by the
two great wars during the first half of the 20th century. After Second World
War, they decided to give up large chunks of their empires. The vacuum so
created resulted in Cold War between the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic; the two great powers vied to establish
their hegemony over the weaker nations.
The Cold War ended with the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan and
subsequent disintegration of the USSR, leaving the world arena wide open
for the US to wage imperialistic wars of choice. Their intentions were amply
reflected in the talk of Clash of Civilizations, End of History and American
Century.
The United States used its capitalist wisdom in its choice for building
an empire. Obviously, it was not the remains of the defeated Soviet Union;
Russia. There were no economic incentives in colonizing tundra spread over
span of over ten thousand kilometers.
It couldnt be China either, because its one billion people could offer
little to the empire-builders. Similarly, India too would not offer much,
because its resources had been drained exhaustively by the British Empire
for about two centuries.
It has to be an area which promises attractive returns in the era of
economics and that happened to be the Islamic World; particularly the
countries of Middle East, Central Asia and Africa with abundance of energy
resources in terms of fossil fuel; hence the talk of Clash of Civilizations.
Islamic World also lies in the vicinity of major sea-lanes traversing through
Suez Canal, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and strait of Malacca; the control of
which would fully facilitate establishment of global hegemony.

728

Having determined the area to be colonized, the next question to be

answered was that who could be the possible rivals or who could resist the
empire-builders. The present day Russia cannot aspire to be a rival of the
lone superpower of the world.
Inward-looking China is too engrossed in sorting out its internal
problems, in other words, in setting the own house right; therefore it
nourishes no imperial designs. India has hegemonic ambitions, but it utterly
lacks the economic and military power to qualify as a rival.
Europe can be a rival because of the historic and psychological
inclinations, but it has racial and religious bonds with America. Therefore, it
has been incorporated into American imperialistic designs and so has been
other descendents of Europeans like Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The resistance could come from within the target area. However,
majority of the ruling elite in Islamic World has no will to oppose American
empire building. Instead they willingly accept the presence of the empirebuilders on their soils under one excuse or the other. Even the rulers in the
Citadel of Islam have war gamed the consequences of confronting the
builders of America and thereby accepted the inevitable by siding with it.
The question is, then, who is the rival? These are some regimes which
oppose the US hegemony and non-state forces that exist within Muslim
masses which despise Yankees. The regimes that have the guts to challenge
America have been dubbed as Axis of Evil or rogue states and non-state
groups as terrorist out-fits.
Out of the rogue regimes three, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia have
been toppled and the one in Palestine has been nearly finished. The plans for
tackling three regimes in Iran, Syria and Sudan are on the table. The list of
rogue states, however, remains open-ended.
Al-Qaeda tops the list non-state rivals and the empire-builders are
fighting against it all over the world. There are other groups of local
dimension; like Taliban in Afghanistan, Baathists or Sunni Arabs in Iraq,
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic courts in Somalia. All of them are being
targeted politically, economically and militarily.
The real threat or rival is the widespread opposition to the American
hegemony in Muslim masses. This rival is unarmed and unable to challenge

729

the combined might of the Crusaders, particularly when their own rulers
have ruled out this option. The small numbers which somehow support
resistance to the US are dubbed as religious extremists or Islamic terrorists.
The superpower with host of willing partners and collaborators from
within Islamic World, however, finds it hard to defeat this rival.
There are quite a few special features of American imperialism as
discussed by the authors of three documents, parts of which have been
reproduced above. There are others which have been missed by most
analysts, but before coming to the missing ones, a few words about the
employment of contractors as brought out by Chalmer Johnson.
The author has elaborately covered the tasks performed by these
contractors. The purpose of outsourcing these responsibilities is to shed the
logistic bulk of the occupation armies. In other words, it is meant to improve
teeth-to-tail ratio of the US forces deployed in battle zone.
Apart from performing the logistic support role, some of the
contractors are employed as hired-killers or mercenaries; thereby adding to
the teeth of the US forces. In addition contractors hired individually, they are
also hired in bulk; for example, Pakistan gets monthly payments for the
troops deployed along Durand Line to kill militants trying to move across
the border. Similar payments are made for provision of ground facilities and
logistic support as well.
The author has not mentioned the millions of part-time contractors
employed in the US bases on payment of daily wages. They provide multiple
services to occupation forces at considerably cheaper rates. These
contractors represent the hordes of camp-followers of the past which used to
trail behind the invaders and conquerors.
One of the features, not discussed by many, is the psyche of the
Americans. In fact, they are not Americans but descendents Europeans who
were the misfits in their own societies. They abandoned their countries to
snatch America from the real Americans; the Red Indians.
This trend continues to-date. People from all over the world seek
citizenship of land of opportunities because they fail to adjust with their
ancestral societies for one reason or the other. Many of them are asylum
seekers fearing persecution in their countries of origin; in fact, they are
fugitives like those who ran away from Europe.

730

This historic background has been a major factor in evolution of

American psyche. Some of its traits are; the lack of peaceful co-existence,
tendency to grab someone elses property, belief in power of the gun in
doing that, perpetual quest for finding such opportunities, and creating
opportunities if there is lack of it; in short, they adore the principle of might
is right.
The doctrine of preemptive-preventive wars is the outcome of the
quest for finding opportunities. This is a national version of a value which
was practiced by individuals in the Wild West, wherein the one who could
draw his weapon first and shoot on the slightest suspicious of others move.
The shooter could find it later, if deemed necessary, as to who had been
killed by him and what his move really meant. Quick draw and sharp
shooting was accepted as the best way of winning. This principle lies at the
core of the US version of pre-emption in the ongoing war for American
Century.
Of course, Americans refuse to accept that there is any darker side of
their imperialism. For them it is a struggle for securing victory of the good
over evil or at least it is portrayed as such by their propaganda machine. This
propaganda has led to misperceptions about their intentions. Many
observers fail to note the difference in what they say and what they mean
and the difference in what they preach and what they practice.
First and the foremost is the projection of the ongoing imperialistic
campaign as different wars; Afghan war, Iraq war, Lebanon war, and so on.
In fact, it is one war which has targeted Muslim World. Ironically, Muslim
rulers have been made to believe that these wars are not linked and are
waged for different reasons.
Another misperception relates to the recent talk of split in coalition of
the Crusaders; for example, pullout of British troops from Iraq is taken as a
sign of crumbling of the coalition. It is not true. If British government is
withdrawing some troops from Iraq, it is sending similar number of troops to
Afghanistan. The Crusaders stand united in building the corporate empire.
Yet another misperception pertains to the pretexts of invading and
occupying other countries. One of them is that some unstable rogue states
pose threat to world or regional peace and stability. Only those countries are
considered stable which work for safeguarding American interests.

731

The same is true for other pretexts. The right to disagree is one of the
essentials of the democracy, but not so when it comes American policy in
dealing with regimes and people who disagree with Americans. The same is
true for frequently used terms like justice, freedom, liberty, and peace.
8th March 2007

732

WAY FORWARD
Bush identified that the way forward in the Middle East in staying the
course by inducting more troops in Iraq. The only significant change was
that he agreed to involve Syria and Iran to improve security in the occupied
land. Representatives of the two evil regimes sat with the US officials in
Baghdad and discussed the way forward. But, there was no respite for the
Iraqi people.
The calm on Lebanese front allowed Israel to concentrate on
Palestinians. Despite the Makkah Agreement on formation of unity
government, Abbas remained under pressure to sideline Hamas, he however,
seemed to be withstanding the pressure. On 10th March, he extended
deadline for formation of unity government by two weeks on the request of
Haniyeh.
IAEA in its report revealed that Iran has expanded its uranium
enrichment against the deadline given to close its nuclear programme. The
US and the West reacted promptly to tighten the screw further by imposing
more sanctions and by keeping the plan to attack Iran on the table.

OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
The surge of US troops made no impact on the bloodletting. At
least 62 people, including three US soldiers were killed in various incidents
of violence on 19th February. Next day, at least 15 more people were killed
and 150 wounded in different incidents; 20 dead bodies were also found.
On 21st February, 26 people were killed including 13 killed in blast in
Najaf. One US soldier was also killed and 25 dead bodies were recovered.
Next day, 39 people, including an American soldier, were killed in various
incidents.
On 23rd February, 19 people, including four US soldiers, were killed in
incidents of violence. Sistanis son was detained at Iranian border by the US
troops and then released.
A truck bomb killed 37 and wounded 64 near a Sunni mosque in the
town of Habaniya on 24th February and ten people were killed in other
733

incidents. A suicide car bomber attacked a checkpoint near the house of Shia
leader al-Hakim. The US military spokesman said 426 suspected militants
had been detained in the ongoing crackdown. US military defended the
arrest of al-Hakims son.
A suicide bomber killed 40 people and wounded 35 in a college in
Baghdad on 25th February; about twenty more people were killed in other
incidents. Next day, Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi and a cabinet minister
were wounded in a bomb blast in which four people were killed. Twentyfour people were killed in two bomb blasts, 12 were killed in clashes with
US-led forces and 81 were arrested in the ongoing crackdown.
On 27th February, 53 people, including 4 US soldiers were killed in
various incidents. In a separate bombing 18 children were killed in Ramadi.
Next day, at least 23 more people were killed.
Seven people were killed in an attack in Fallujah on 1st March; one US
soldier was also killed. US-led forces claimed arresting 30 suspects. Next
day, 42 Iraqis were killed, including 14 policemen shot dead in revenge of a
rape. Three US soldiers were killed in separate incidents.
Eight Iraqis and three US soldiers were killed on 3 rd March. The USled forces claimed arresting 60 suspects and one Iraqi died in US custody.
Next day, 16 more people were killed in violence and 31 dead bodies were
recovered. The US-led force launched crackdown in Sadr City.
On 5th March, 51 people were killed and more than 80 wounded in
various incidents and 30 dead bodies were found by police. Next day, more
than 120 people were killed, including 90 in twin car bomb attacks near
Hilla. Nine US soldiers were killed in two separate bomb attacks. Militants
stormed a prison in Mosul and freed 140 detainees.
On 7th March, 52 people, including three US soldiers, were killed in
violence. Next day, eight more people were killed in violence. The US-led
forces killed one and captured 16 suspects on 9th March.
Thirty-two people were killed on 10th March in various incidents.
Next day, more than seventy people, including one US soldier, were killed
across the country.

734

Out of the other events in the context of occupation of Iraq, the US

invitation to Syria and Iran to attend meeting in Baghdad to deliberate on
stability of Iraq was the most significant. This indicated that Bush has been
softened enough to seek help from Axis of Evil to rescue him from the
quagmire or, perhaps he has more mischief up his sleeves.
Regional security conference was held in Baghdad on 9th March.
Maliki urged neighbours not to interfere in internal matters of Iraq (only
trans-continental interference is permitted). Iran and Syria attended the
meeting which decided to set up three committees on the issues of security,
refugees and energy.
Some of the events during the last three weeks, other than the regional
conference, were as under:
Crocker, US ambassador in Islamabad was confirmed as new
ambassador to Iraq.
On 21st February, Britain decided to pullout 1,600 troops thereby
reducing its troops from 7,100 to 5,500.
The US military planned to counter new insurgent tactics blamed for
sowing chaos in Iraq.
The US soldier accused of raping an Iraqi girl and killing her family
got 100 year imprisonment on 23rd February.
On 1st March, Allawi threatened to quit government accusing officials
of sectarian bias.
Foreign ministers of Arab League met in Cairo on 4 th March and
demanded political solution of Iraq and asked the UN to give
timetable for pullout of occupation troops.
General David Petraeus said that there is no military solution for Iraq
and there is no need to send more troops.
The judge, who sentenced Saddam to death, reportedly fled Iraq and
sought asylum in Britain. He deserves British or American nationality.

735

COMMENTS
The new security plan for Baghdad aims, among other things, to
eradicate much-feared death squads, wrote Nermeen al-Mufti. The
arrest of Hakem al-Zamli, deputy minister of health and a close associate of
Moqtada al-Sadr, is a sign that the government is determined to curb the
activities of death squads, said commentator Raad al-Hadithi.
The Sunnis have regained control of Halima al-Saadiya Mosque in
Al-Sadr City, which had been seized by al-Mahdi army a year ago. This too
is an indication that al-Malikis government has given in to US pressure
and is no longer protecting al-Sadr supporters, al-Hadithi added.
The new US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is said to
have a list containing the names of Iraqi officials suspected of collaborating
with Iraq in attacks against US forces The US is convinced that Iran has
a hand in the escalating violence.
In another article the analyst added: Political commentators say that
al-Sadr, who didnt appear in al-Kufa Mosque in the last Friday prayers,
may have left the country for fear of being detained. Rumours stated that
the US authorities would press charges against him in connection with the
killing of Abdul Maguid al-Khuei in Najaf in April 2003.
Other security plans are being implemented around the country. UK
forces have launched their own security plan in Basra Meanwhile, US
forces continued to shell the villages of Diyali and the city of Ramadi. The
towns of al-Ratba and Haditha, both close to Syrian border, remain under
siege.
Kirkuk remained tense due to sporadic acts of violence. Arab clan
leaders have voiced their opposition to a decision by the Normalization
Committee to deport Arab families that came to the city as part of
Arabinization campaign of the former regime in the early 1980s.
Robert H Reid opined that the furore over the US detention of the son
of Iraqs most powerful Shia politician delivers a clear message to the US
dont push the Shia too far. This is a lesson that takes on added importance
as the Americans seek to curb Irans influence while cultivating the very
Shia organizations with the closest links to Tehran.

736

After discussing that how the US planned to exploit Shia-Sunni divide

for occupation of Iraq, the analyst added: America needs the major Shia
parties, including SCIRI, if it hopes to restore enough stability to
withdraw its troops with its own honour intact. The US has understood the
delicate nature of its relationship with Shia parties since the early days of the
US occupation. The Americans cultivated Shia leaders, including al-Hakims
father.
And the US revised its formula for handing over power to the Iraqis
several times at the insistence of Iraqs top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani even though many US planners feared the consequences. The
price of a pro-Shia strategy was to alienate the Sunnis and perhaps
invigorate the insurgency. But the alternate would have been worse: a twofront war.
The US got a taste of that during two uprisings by anti-American
cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in 2004. US troops killed thousands of al-Sadrs
Mahdi army militia before Shia clerics and politicians negotiated
ceasefires US commanders were eager to accept them because they
needed the troops to fight the Sunnis. The Americans looked the other way
when al-Sadrs fighters simply hid their weapons to fight another day.
Blairs decision to pull out some British troops was widely
commented upon. Tom Raum observed: Even as Bush sends more
American forces to Baghdad, long-time war ally, Tony Blair is pulling
British troops out. Denmark is leaving. Lithuania says it may withdraw its
tiny 53-troop contingent. Bushs alliance is breaking up
The British troop reduction weakens the image of the coalition
and further isolates the US, said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at
the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. This is a war of
perceptions. Furthermore, Cordesman said: I think that we have to
understand that virtually every month that goes by, Iraqi tolerance for a US
presence declines.
The coalition may have outlived its usefulness, suggested John
Pike, a defence analyst at Global Security Org, a suburban Virginia think
tank, Initially, the coalition of the willing served to legitimize the United
States going in the absence of a United Nations mandate. Once we were in
there, it served to legitimize the new and improved Iraq government. Now,

737

most coalition partners are helping to secure regions that can take care of
themselves.
Bartle Breese Bull wrote, this isnt the first reduction in the British
contingent, which originally numbered 40,000. But it comes at a time of
spiraling violence in Iraq and emboldened opposition in Washington to
Bushs disastrous war. It also comes as Blair is preparing to leave office,
painfully aware that popular fury over the war threatens to overwhelm his
entire legacy. The British announcement has already served as the catalyst
for other departures
The White House strove to cast Blairs political necessity as a sign of
some progress in Basra, Iraqs second largest city, which British forces
have had military responsibility for since the invasion. Vice President Dick
Cheney even more disconnected from reality chimed in that the British
pullback shows that there are some parts of Iraq where things are
going pretty well.
Blair knows better, and candidly acknowledged that Basra is not
how we want it to be, but said that it was time for the Iraqis to write the
next chapter in Basras history. Blair also insisted that the situation there is
very different from Baghdad, where, he said, an orgy of terrorism has been
unleashed his out-the-door endorsement for President Bushs troop build
up in the capital.
Khaleej Times observed that by recalling the first bulk now, and the
second by late summer while the rest would stay until 2008 Tony Blairs
government marks the first split with the White House since the ill-fated
war against terrorism was brought to Iraqs borders. And as much as Iraq, the
decision is going to be received well inside Britain as well.
But as much as ending the occupation is the step forward in Iraq,
both British and the Americans have to be mindful of a sudden departure. It
is important that any withdrawal be steady and phased. Seemingly
taking a leaf out of the Baker-Hamilton book, the British are doing just that.
Paul Rogers wrote, what is really significant is that just at a time
when US forces are surging elsewhere, and the US government is highly
critical of Iranian involvement in the insurgency, the British forces are
evacuating the very part of Iraq with the closest physical and social
connections with Iran. Notwithstanding the Bush Administrations public

738

acceptance of the British decision, the reality will be deep unhappiness

in Washington. There will also be hope that the British forces will at least
stay on to guard the crucial supply-routes from the port of Umm Qasr
towards Baghdad.
The fact of Tony Blairs close relationship with President Bush raises
the question: why this parting ways in policy between London and
Washington? It is almost certain that the answer lies in some very blunt
speaking behind the scenes by some of the most senior people in the
British army to their political leaders in the ministry of defence and 10
Downing Street. The former were, to put it bluntly, no longer willing to be
landed with an impossible task From the perspective of (say) 2011-12,
when the United States has finally had to admit defeat in Iraq, it may well be
that the British decision this week will be seen as making the beginning of
the end.
The problem of refugees was also analyzed by some observers.
Patrick Seale wrote, Syria and Jordan are the immediate victims of the
flood of Iraqi refugees. They have literally been overwhelmed and, in the
view of UN experts, have now reached saturation point. Once again the
figures are approximate, but each country is thought to have taken in about
one million Iraqis with more coming over the borders every day.
Food prices have soared, rents have risen sharply together with the
price of real estate. Public services are at breaking point. It is estimated that
30 per cent of Iraqi children in Syria are not attending school, because
schools are already grossly overcrowded The rich Arab states should
donate generously to the UNHCR, Syria and Jordan deserve help, while the
United States and Britain should be shamed into paying for the destruction
and human misery they have caused.
Samantha Power suggested some measures to stop genocide in Iraq.
Although it has a familiar and thus unsatisfying ring to it, the most viable
long-term route to preventing mass atrocities is to use remaining US
leverage to bring about a political compromise that makes Iraqi Shiites,
Sunnis and Kurds feel economically stable, physically secure and adequately
represented in political structure.
Instead of simply lining up behind Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
Malikis government in the hopes that it will one day decide to stop ethnic

739

cleansing, recent withdrawal proposals in Congress use the leverage of the

proposed redeployment to press Iraqis to reach a political solution.
If this political pressure fails and US forces remain unable to stave
off an ever-widening civil war, the US should go further and announce its
willingness to assist in the voluntary transport and relocation of Iraqi
civilians in peril.
The administration must help secure asylum for those Iraqis and
there are millions who fit this bill who have a well-founded fear of
persecution Astoundingly, the US took in just 202 Iraqis last year and,
although the maximum for this year was recently raised to 7,000, this is still
not sufficient.
Finally, if we are serious about preventing further sectarian horrors,
the US must send a clear signal to the militias and political leaders who
order or carry out atrocities that they will be brought to justice for their
crimes.
Sheila Samples observed that the US intentions were to the contrary.
In his testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Acting IG Thomas Gimble acknowledged, albeit in bewildering
doublespeak, that Fieths office had indeed developed, produced and then
disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda
relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with
the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers.
Given that more than 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered, more
than 2 million families are broken and displaced, and 3,379 coalition troops
have been blown to bits, Gimbles limp concession that what these creatures
did in manipulating intelligence to go to war was neither illegal or
unauthorized is almost as bizarre as the media refusing to investigate such
criminal activity. Almost as bizarre as Wolfowitz grinning admission in
Vanity Fair two months after the attack: We settled on one issue, weapons
of mass destruction, because it was one reason everyone could agree on.
Almost as bizarre as the American Enterprise Institutes Michael Ledeed,
who boasted in 2002: We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia The real issue is not whether, but how
to destabilize.
Yifat Susskind observed that the US has been, and is still, encourging
and supporting sectarian strife. The US military, preoccupied with battling
740

the Iraqi insurgency, simply ignored the reign on women. In fact, the US
enabled these attacks: in 2005, the Pentagon began providing the Badr
Brigade and Mahdi army with weapons, money, and military training in
the hope that these groups would help combat the Sunni-based insurgency.
Today, we are told that these militias are a threat, that they have used
Iraqs police and security forces to wage a sectarian civil war, and that
new formations of radical groups are attacking US soldiers. Bushs new
Baghdad security plan is aimed in part at reining the Mahdi Army in
particular, though the group has been systematically torturing and killing
women for more than three years.
A new covert White House policy exposed last week by journalist
Seymour Hersh is funneling money to Sunni jihadist groups like the one
that is threatening Houzan Mahmoud. The idea is to use these groups to
combat militant Shiite forces allied with Iran and active in Iraq and Lebanon.
Its the same old disastrous logic: support your enemys enemy even if
they have ties to al-Qaeda.
The administration is now backing a different horse one that is just
as woman-hating and anti-democratic. As Houzan said: Perhaps Bushs
speeches about bringing democracy to Iraq made people of the US feel
better about the war; but the US has only replaced Saddams secular
tyranny with an Islamic tyranny.
Marina Hyde asked will the time ever come, one wonders idly, when
our revisionist historians consider the ravings of Comical Ali? The idiocy of
most of his statements will, admittedly, endure. Footwear-based supremacy
has not been achieved, despite the much-vaunted boast that the Iraqis would
be waiting for the coalition forces with shoes. But the smile fades when
recalling other pronouncements. Do not be hasty because your
disappointment will be huge, the old crazy warned. You will reap nothing
from this aggressive war, which you launched on Iraq, except for
disgrace and defeat. We will embroil them, and keep them in the
quagmire, he said later, adding that they cannot just enter a country of 26
million people and lay besieged to them! They are the ones who will find
themselves under siege.
Praful Bidwai wrote about Musharrafs indulgence in affairs of the
Middle East. Bush has shifted from plan to plan without thinking things

741

enough. The latest way forward is an awkward, half-hearted attempt at a

final big push by inducting 21,500 more US troops into Iraq.
The USs core objectives were to secure access to West Asias
energy resources, begin the modernization of the Middle east, promote
Israels security, establish (and make acceptable) its world hegemony, and
reduce the global spread of terrorism. All of these stand defeated or
compromised. Within ten months of Iraqs invasion, the US achieved what
an Egyptian called a miracle: It has made people regret the downfall of
Saddams regime.
Even worse is the external impact of Iraqs occupation in particular,
through the political radicalization of large numbers of Muslims and spread
of jihadi terrorism the world over. Iraqs occupation has made the world
considerably more unsafe.
It took no great historical insight or prophetic vision to see that the
occupation would foment anti-western sentiment and violence the world
over. Like the continuing injustice heaped upon the Palestinian people by
Israel, Iraqs occupation is seen by many Muslims many others too as
proof of the Wests Islamophobia and its racial and arrogant attitude towards
the Middle East. This has led to backlash through a rising incidence of
terrorism.
This makes it imperative that all countries which respect their
autonomy and independence distance themselves from Washingtons plans
for the Middle East. President Pervez Musharraf is taking a huge risk
through his own version of support for greater Middle East Initiative.
He stands warned.

ISRAELI FRONT
Israel experienced calm on its northern frontiers as Lebanese were
living in constant fear of civil war, reported AFP. Israel delayed release of
report on Lebanon War. The only development reported on 9 th March was
that Syria had deployed rockets along Israeli border.
The calm on Lebanese front allowed Israel to focus on Palestinians.
On 19th February, Rice and Olmert rebuked Abbas in tripartite meeting for

742

not delivering on Hamas ouster. Rice, however, acknowledged that Muslim

concerns about excavation near Al-Aqsa Mosque were justified. She sought
Arabs backing for moderate Palestinians, indirectly directed them to
abandon Hamas and support Fatah.
On 21st February, the Quartet met in Berlin amid mounting pressure
from international community to recognize Palestinian unity government.
The same day it was reported that by Peace Now that Israel is building 3,000
new settler homes.
Three days later, Jordans king urged that the new Palestinian
government must accept demands of the Quartet. Abbas sought Chiracs help
in peace process. During his visit to Moscow on 27 th February, Khaled
Meshaal was assured that Russia would work for lifting aid blockade against
Palestinian Authority.
On 6th March, Israeli and Egyptian foreign minister held talks in
Jerusalem over prisoners. Next day, Jordans king during his visit to
Washington asked US to take risks for peace in the Middle East. Abbas and
Haniyeh agreed on composition of unity government and Abbas extended
deadline by two weeks for formation of unity government. Meanwhile,
killing of Palestinians continued; following incidents were reported:
An Israeli settler was found dead in Ramallah on 19 th February. Two
days later, Israeli soldiers disguised as Palestinians killed the leader of
Islamic Jihads armed wing in West Bank.
Three Palestinians were killed and 15 wounded in fresh shootings on
24th February.
A Palestinian was shot dead and his son wounded by Israeli soldiers
on 26th February in the ongoing crackdown in Nablus.
Israel killed three Palestinians in West Bank on 28 th February and
scores were wounded. Israel pressed on with its offensive in Nablus.
Israel further tightened economic blockade of Palestinians.
Israeli soldiers clamped curfew in Nablus on 25 th February; six people
were wounded and 20 arrested.

743

 Israeli police arrested an Islamist leader in Jerusalem on 7th March.

Four days later, one Palestinian was killed and several wounded in
factional fighting.
Makkah Agreement on formation of unity government continued to be
commented upon widely. Arab News wrote, the US may be withholding
final judgment on whether a Palestinian national unity government
constitutes an acceptance, either directly or by implication, of Israel and
Americas conditions. All the signs from Washington, however, are that the
US is unimpressed. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is demanding an
explicit statement of recognition rather than the Hamas decision to respect
past Palestinian peace deals which do seem to imply recognition of Israel
without actually saying so. So what was supposed to be a summit meant to
restart peace talks after more than six years of fighting, discuss the borders
of a future Palestinian state, the fate of Jerusalem, and the right of return of
Palestinian refugees, may now be downgraded to one in which Abbas
spends his time trying to defend last weeks Makkah deal and persuade
the US and Israel that he has not sold out to Hamas.
Uri Avnery observed that the US and their European satellites are
boycotting the Palestinian government and starving the Palestinian
population. They have set three conditions for lifting the blockade. On the
face of it, it makes sense; in reality, none at all; because all these
conditions are completely one-sided.
If one thinks that peace is more important for Israel than expansion
and settlements; one must welcome the change in the position of Hamas as
expressed in the Makkah Agreement and encourage it to continue along
this road. The King of Saudi Arabia, who has already convinced the leaders
of all Arab countries to recognize Israel in exchange for the establishment of
the state of Palestine across Green Line, should be warmly congratulated.
But if one opposes peace because it would fix the final borders of
Israel and allow for no more expansion, one will do everything to convince
the Americans and Europeans to continue with the boycott on the Palestinian
government and the blockade of the Palestinian people.
Michael Jansen opined, the failure of three-way meeting has,
unfortunately, weakened Abbas at a critical juncture in the building of the
Hamas-Fatah coalition. This is certainly what Israel wants and anything
Israel wants Israel gets from the Bush Administration. Both Israel and
744

the US are unhappy about the Mecca Agreement because neither wants a
Palestinian unity government. They understand that such a government will
divide the international community Rice was quite frank about the Mecca
Agreement when she said it complicated the agenda of the three-way
meeting.
The Jordan Times wrote, when Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini
says the Mecca Agreement was a disappointment to all those who wanted to
separate extremists from moderates, she disappoints all those who believe
that the Mecca Agreement is the first step in the right direction.
The simple truth is Israel is not ready or willing to go to
negotiations. The simple reason is that Israel stands to gain little in the short
term from entering such negotiations and less from signing an agreement
that would respect the minimum demands of Palestinians and international
law.
Arab countries have their own responsibilities in ensuring the
success of such an agreement, but they are powerless to encourage it. It
is, therefore, a little rich for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to
intimate that Arab countries are not doing enough.
Osama al-Sharif observed: For months now Egypt, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia had tried to contain Palestinian differences and reconcile Abbas and
his Hamas rivals. When the Saudis managed to bring all parties together in
Makkah few weeks ago it was seen as a last attempt to avert civil war. A
deal was reached that, under the circumstances, deserved a chance and,
was definitely better than the alternative.
Israeli reaction to it was not surprising. Any accord that unified the
Palestinians and could lead to stability in the Occupied Territories is
anthemia to Israel. Americas response, on the other hand, was not only
precipitous, but aggravating. Not only had the US punished the Palestinian
people for practicing their democratic right under the most difficult of
circumstances, but it appeared to goading them towards self-destruction.
Abbas has been faulted before for his indecisiveness and reluctance,
but in Makkah he agreed to a course of action that prevented civil strife and
left the door open for future compromises. He needed Arab and international
support to bring an end to Palestinian suffering, which is now his top

745

priority. To be bumped off in this way by Rice is unwarranted. For her to

seek ways to destroy the latest accord is unforgivable.
Khaled Amayreh opined, along with the rest of the Palestinian
political class, Hamas is increasingly apprehensive that the Bush
Administration may be unwilling to allow the process to be completed
without attempting to foment more problems, hence their determination to
form the government as quickly as possible, before corrosive American
efforts go too far.
Hamas leaders in both occupied Palestine and the Diaspora have
vowed to save and shield the government of national unity from foreign
pressure. Damascus-based Hamas official Mahmoud Abu Marzuq, who
describes the national government as an important achievement based on
partnership has warned against incessant American efforts to sow
sedition and discord not only in Palestine but throughout the Middle
East.
Haniyeh publicly praised Abbas for resisting pressure to dissociate
himself from the Mecca pact applied by US secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during their meeting in
Jerusalem on Monday 19 February.
Abbas,
while
showing
frustration
with
Washingtons
misunderstanding of the Mecca Agreement, shows no signs of bending to
American pressure. Speaking in Amman, following talks with King
Abdullah II on Wednesday, Abbas said he was completely convinced of the
validity and correctness of the Mecca Agreement, adding that Israels
understanding of the agreement is completely wrong.
Alistair Cooke and Mark Perry observed: The biggest loser in
Makkah, however, was not Fatah, but Elliott Abrams. Abrams program
of arming Fatah first to spark a hard coup and then, when it was clear that
that would not work, a soft coup has failed. Abrams convinced the
Quartet, the Europeans, the Israelis, the Saudis and even some Palestinians
that this program to undermine Hamas would succeed. Give us one year, he
had said. Now one year later, two important supporters of this program the
Saudis and the Abu Mazen government have changed their views. The
Europeans are not far behind.

746

Linda S Heard opined that Israeli stance is unreasonable. This

situation could be equated to a man, whose home is taken over by
squatters. The squatters have guns and the man has only stones. The
squatters imprison and starve the man in his own basement and will only
agree to talk about handing over one of the bedrooms when the man agrees
to recognize the squatters rights to his home and throws away his rights
together with his stones.
Unfortunately when the man shouts for help he discovers that the
police are firmly on the side of the squatters and even urge the squatters to
make the mans life as difficult as possible. When the man calls upon his
friends and neighbours to come to his aid, they throw a little food over
the wall now and again; call out a few words of encouragement hoping that
the squatters and their friends dont decide to call on them. Im sure that
Israelis will object to being called squatters but under international law they
are indeed squatting on land occupied in 1967.
There is absolutely no legal basis for the continued Israeli
occupation of that land, which is easy to forget when we are constantly
bombarded by US and Israeli propaganda as to Israels victim-hood when
the true victims in this story are the Palestinians.
Israel and the US have also threatened to sideline Abbas; the one
person with whom they always maintained they could do business. Put
simply, short of prostrating themselves and allowing Israel to trample all
over them the Palestinians just cant win.
In another review the analyst added: Signs that the Bush
Administration isnt out to further better relations between Israelis and Arabs
came recently when, according to reports, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert was instructed by the White House not to pursue talks with
Syria.
Its time for the US to stop playing with peoples lives and liberty
under the guise of being an honest broker to further its own strategic goals. It
should allow the peoples of this region to solve their own problems and
dictate their own future. Enough conflict and bloodshed! There is another
way so lets kick aside the obstacles and grasp it with both hands.
Patrick Seale observed: Although attempts are being made in Europe
and elsewhere to relaunch the peace process, Israel has no intention

747

whatsoever of concluding a peace with the Palestinians which would involve

withdrawing to anywhere near the 1967 borders. It will stop at nothing to
prevent serious negotiations taking place.
It would take extraordinary courage and personal commitment for a
US president to halt Israels creeping annexation of Palestinian land
because of the overwhelming support for Israel in the Congress, in the
American media and in Washingtons many right-wing think-tanks; because
of major funding by American Jews of both Democratic and Republican
election campaigns; and because of the powerful influence the pro-Israeli
officials embedded inside the US administration.
Bush meanwhile is wholly absorbed by the calamitous war in Iraq, by
the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, and by his dangerous game of
chicken with Iran. This is where the legacy of his presidency will be decided
as well as the future of Americas hegemony over the vital oil-rich Gulf.
As his record of neglect of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the past six
years has shown, he sees no strategic threat to American interests if it
remains unresolved. In his view, Israel can be left to settle the conflict in its
own time and on its own terms.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Flexing of muscles on Irans nuclear issue continued. On 19 th
February, Revolutionary Guards launched three-day war games with a
succession of missile tests. A man who confessed to involvement in terrorist
attack near Zahedan was hanged in public. Russia delayed work Bushehr
nuclear reactor because Iran was behind with payment schedule.
On 22nd February, IAEA in its report revealed that Iran has expanded
its uranium enrichment instead of abiding by the deadline given to close its
nuclear programme. The West reacted instantly. Senior British government
officials feared that the US would attack Iran. Cheney threatened by saying
that all options against Iran are open. Tehran brushed off Cheneys threat of
military option.
On 24th February, Irans Revolutionary Guards killed 17 rebels near
border with Turkey. Next day, Iran fired first rocket into space. Rice said
Iran does not have to reverse its nuclear programme for talks; it only has to
748

suspend. Australia and New Zealand called on Iran to be open over nuclear
weapons. Beckett said Iran must stop enrichment for talks.
Iranian troops killed 17 more Kurd rebels in West Azerbaijan in a
clash on 1st March; four soldiers were also killed. Next day, Democrats
proposed a law to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. Subsequently, GCC
warned against attack on Iran. Pakistan also opposed use of force.
On 3rd March, Ahmadinejad held talks with Saudi ruling elite in
Riyadh which raised expectation about defusing sectarian tensions in Iraq
and Lebanon and also preventing the Irans isolation. Ahmadinejad said
foreign ministers meeting in Islamabad is a matter of concern for Iran.
On 5th March, IAEA refused to give guarantee that Irans nuclear
programme is peaceful. Three days later, the watchdog approved major cuts
in aid to Iran. Tehran said the cuts wont affect enrichment work.
Of late, the US had started blaming Iran for bloodshed in Iraq with a
view to adding another pretext to deprive Iran of its imaginary nuclear
bomb. The US, however, failed to sell this idea. The Dawn observed, unlike
the Iraq case, powerful sections of the American media have expressed
skepticism about the Bush Administrations intelligence reports about
Irans involvement in Iraq. Even the New York Times no friend of Iran
has questioned the authenticity of the intelligence reports being fed to the
media and warned against another disastrous war.
To attack and destabilize a large country like Iran, located in the heart
of the Middle East, would be more than disastrous. This will be insane and
spawn an anti-American wave that will sweep off all moderate Muslim
regimes and hit American interests everywhere in the Middle East. That in
such a scenario America will be able to install a compliant, Shah-like,
regime in Tehran is not only to ignore harsh geopolitical realities but to
take leave of ones common sense.
Masha Lipman opined that there is little doubt that Iranian weapons
are being used in Iraq. Iran fought a bloody eight-year war with Baghdad
and has ever since provided support for co-religionists in Iraq battling the
Saddam Hussein regime. That is likely to include weapons, training and
funding. Iran has good reasons to meddle in Iraq. It would like its Shiite
allies to have more influence in Iraqi politics. It wants the Baghdad
government to remain weak so that it cannot threaten Iran and Tehran is the

749

major power in the region, and it would like to see the US tied down and
embarrassed. But it is another thing altogether to assert that the supreme
leadership in Iran has sanctioned direct attacks on US forces a move akin
to a declaration of war.
No matter what the rationale, the US is ratcheting up the pressure on
Iran. The additional military presence makes more likely the possibility of
an accidental conflict or the provocation of an accidental confrontation:
The arrest of Iranian officials at a disputed facility it is unclear if it was
entitled to diplomatic protection some weeks ago could have provided the
trigger.
It is the loss of US credibility and the extraordinary skepticism about
US motives that surrounds every American action. That is the most chilling
outcome of this mess. For all the resentment of US hyper power, the truth is
that US leadership is required to get results in many international crises.
There has always been some resistance, but there has rarely been the
sheer distrust and outright opposition that prevail today. That is not
good for the US or the world.
Simultaneously with blaming Iran for interfering in Iraq, the US
worked for regime change in Iran from within, as observed by William
Lowther and Colin Freeman. In the past three years there has been a wave
of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and
assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials. Such
incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the
north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the
south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 percent of Irans 69 million
population
Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIAs
classified budget but is now no great secret, according to one former highranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday
Telegraph.
Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups
share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up
repression of minority rights and culture The Baluchistan-based Brigade
of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is

750

a volatile Sunni organization that many fear could easily turn against
Washington after taking its money.
A row also broke out in Washington over whether to unleash the
military wing of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian
opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the
Iranian regime The group is currently listed by the US state department as
terrorist organization, but Mr Pike said: A faction in the Defence
Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current
Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage.
At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than
irritants to Tehran, but US analysts believe that they could become
emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a
prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council
deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a
second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off
Irans southern coastal waters.
These developments led to apprehensions that the confrontation with
Iran was around the corner. Khaleej Times wrote, the US is trying to put
just enough pressure on President Ahmadinejads regime to get the latter to
move some pieces back. But since Irans ruling elite shows little chances of
doing that, and the country is still not in violation of the NPT, it seems the
confrontation is finally at hand.
In the interest of achieving the desired end that is, halting Irans
nuclear ambitions and bringing peace to the region it is urged that the
door of diplomacy not be closed at this particular point of time. The
success of North Korean talks in Beijing have only recently demonstrated
how even the most upstart of regimes listen to reason when engaged with
properly.
Con Coughlin observed that the pace of military planning in Israel
has accelerated markedly since the start of this year after Mossad, the
Israeli intelligence service, provided a stark intelligence assessment that
Iran, given the current rate of progress being made on its uranium
enrichment programme, could have enough fissile material for a nuclear
warhead by 2009.

751

Last week Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that he
had persuaded Mei Dagan, the head of Mossad for the past six years and one
of Israels leading experts of Irans nuclear programme, to defer his
retirement until at least the end of next year. Mr Olmert has also given
overall control of the military aspects of the Iran issue to Eliezer Shkedi,
the head of the Israeli Air Force and a former F-16 fighter pilot.
Noam Chomsky wrote about the aim of intended aggression against
Iran. For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and
remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is
a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is
understood to be an instrument of global dominance.
Iranian influence in the crescent challenges US control. By an
accident of geography, the worlds major oil resources are in largely Shia
areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and
Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washingtons
worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the
worlds oil and independent of the US.
He concluded that the US has inadvertently pushed Iran to acquire
nuclear capability. The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to
develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will,
as long as the target is defenceless.
Pepe Escobar expressed similar views. Bush and Cheney got their
oily cake and they will eat it, too. Mission accomplished: permanent,
sprawling military bases on the eastern flank of the Arab nation and control
of some of largest, untapped oil wealth on the planet a key geostrategic
goal of the New American Century. Now its time to move east, bomb
Iran, force regime change and what else? force PSAs (production
sharing agreements) down their Persian throats.
The Nation opined that the American people havent paid enough
attention to the possible escalation of the war. Those who think it
impossible that Americans will wake up one morning to the news that US
forces have attacked Iran, ostensibly to protect the troops in Iraq, havent
paid enough attention not just to this administration but to American history.
In the spring of 1970, after weeks of leaks and veiled pronouncements,
President Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia claiming this would

752

reduce US casualties in Vietnam by removing enemy sanctuaries. The

bloodshed continued for another five years.
Margaret Kimberly, however, saw that American people were in
league with Bush Administration primarily for lack of comprehension.
Most Americans were always dumber than people in the rest of the
world and their stupidity is getting worse by the day. They worship white
supremacy; religious fundamentalism and capitalism are mostly responsible
for the ever lowering collective IQ.
The United States government is still waging a war of aggression in
Iraq because of willful American arrogance. Most Americans need little
encouragement to occupy other nations, kill people and steal resources.
They knew that Saddam Hussein had no connection to the terror attacks that
took place on September 11, 2001. Yet they were quite pleased to be dumb
and politicians heaved a collective sigh of relief when they got the go ahead
from a happily clueless public.
American stupidity will be front and center on the world stage
when the Bush Administration attacks Iran It isnt very likely that
Americans will get smarter anytime soon. Politicians know that appealing to
their worst instincts is usually a winning formula.
Dennis J Kucinich observed: With Democrats in charge of the House
and Senate, the President might have trouble starting another war. In
light of the vote by the House of Representatives to disapprove of the
Presidents escalation in Iraq and the mounting opposition to the war in Iraq,
the Presidents new assertions about Iran hold the key to an attempt to
bypass congressional approval for another military conflict.
He, however, concluded that despite possible difficulty in Congress,
Bush could still manipulate a way forward. There are additional reasons to
believe the President is setting us on a path to another war. In his
primetime address to the nation last month, the President ordered a second
battle group led by aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf. The
administration has armed Irans Arab neighbours with Patriot missiles, sent
minesweepers to the Persian Gulf and ordered an increase in the national
strategic oil reserve to guard against potential oil embargoes.
Ramzay Baroud wrote, as the voice of reason, from a traditional
viewpoint, is being hushed or sidelined, the war mongers hold on

753

Washington is still as tight as ever, one of whom is Israel and its dedicated
friends on Capitol Hill.
Evidently, Israel is a prime cheerleader for war, and most likely
Israeli agents are working overtime to provide the needed case for war;
at least we know, through news reports that Israeli agents are actively
involved in Iraq and there is a possibility that they have penetrated the
Iranian domain as well, through the northern Kurdish areas.
Analysts also warned of the consequences. Irfan Asghar wrote,
according to a study concluded by the Centre for Strategic and International
Studies, even a large-scale attack could leave much of Irans
technological base intact and allow the country to eventually reconstitute
an underground nuclear programme Tailpiece: It would be very difficult to
debar a determined Iranian regime from going nuclear either by military
means or by sanctions. And the world will have to learn to live with a
nuclear Iran.
Touqir Hussain opined: It is not conceivable that with a regime
change Iran could become democratic in the American sense of the world,
but will likely remain nationalistic and autonomous in foreign policy
matters. An attack on Iran will make a permanent enemy out of Iran
whatever the complexion of the regime. This is another reason to discount
the possibility of a military attack, not to mention the oil crisis it may trigger
and possible terrorist attacks on America or its interests.
M Abdul Fazl said, the Sunni front of pro-American Arab states that
the US intends to organize for the next phase of its domination in the Middle
East may not be of much help to it in the event of a war with Iran. All these
states are comprador regimes kept in power by Americas own backing.
Their populations are mostly anti-America. In case of war, the leaders of
these states would be too apprehensive of their own internal problems to be
of any help to the US. Sectarian division and violence, on which the US
depends much to weaken anti-Americanism, is possible only when there
is a division within the ruling class. This situation obtains in Lebanon
only.
M B Naqvi was of the view that not all friends and allies of
America favour the thought of American military strike(s). Pakistan is
one of them. It will be adversely affected and wants only diplomacy to be
used. So will India, so will perhaps Karzai.
754

The Iranians can, in the opinion of many, cause a lot of damage in

the Middle East. At the very least, they can strengthen Hezbollah and
Hamas, can help beef up the defences of Syria and perhaps can try and tilt
the balance in Iraqs civil war.
But the dynamics of the Iraqi civil war and the interplay of Iranian
policies with the likely Arab support for American actions are likely to
promote and exacerbate a general conflagration in the region. There will
be much disorder It is also an open question whether future US
administration can give up neo-con doctrines of unilateralism and preemption.
The Christian Science Monitor talked of the alternative of stringent
sanctions. The current sanctions, imposed two months ago, simply
restrict the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran and freeze assets of
Iranian companies and individuals involved in nuclear work. What shocked
Iran more was that the Council took action at all. Sundays rocket launch
could simply be a move to negotiate a deal.
But keeping unanimity among the five permanent UN members is
crucial to ratcheting up the pressure. A next set of sanctions will require
sacrifice by European firms doing business with Iran. Any new sanctions
should include travel bans on senior Iranian officials.
A united front in a second round of sanctions will send a
powerful message more powerful than rockets or nuclear weapons can
that the world wants Iran to change course, focus on its economic problems,
and seek influence in other ways.
M Ismail Khan had an advice for Iranian president. It may be correct
that, like George W Bush, he also needs a strong and ruthless enemy to
silence the voice of reason at home. But sometimes Ahmadinejad should
observe silence himself in order to keep millions of the great Iranian people
and their five-thousand-year-old civilization out of harms way from inferno
alighted by a bunch of destructive individuals running a country with less
than three hundred years of history, for it could engulf areas beyond the
Persian Gulf and destroy much more than what the oil can earn.

755

CONCLUSION
Iran and Syria joined the regional conference held in Baghdad hoping
for release of pressure on them. They also wanted to send a message that
they can help in solving the security problems in Iraq, but by implication
thereof, they could be implicated in creation of the existing mess at the first
place.
Abbas has resisted the pressure exerted on him by the Crusaders and
the Zionist regime. Palestinians are now close to formation of unity
government in accordance with Makkah Agreement, but Israel, the US and
most of their European allies wont be satisfied with partial ousting of
Hamas.
There has been lot of talk about imminence of strike against Iran, but
it all seemed to be part of overall pressure tactics. It is unlikely that the US
would attack Iran without stabilizing Iraq or, at some stage, may decide to
pull bulk of its troops from there and then embark upon Iran adventure.
12th March 2007

756

HELMET vs WIG
ROUND-I
This is the era of preemptive strikes; a doctrine invented by the
mighty to prevent the weaker adversaries from nourishing any notion of
defiance. The civilized nations practice this doctrine in inter-state relations,
but third world countries prefer to apply it internally.
On 9th March, the brave commando of Pakistan applied this doctrine
to prevent a wig-wearing non-state rogue from causing any harm to his
supreme interests. While sitting on the Machaan of the Army House-cumCamp Office, he sent out the parties to beat the area starting form
Constitutional Avenue and bring the chirping hooded-bird towards Army
House. It was done quite efficiently.
What happened inside the Army House remained mostly unclear, but
it is told that the man sitting on the Machaan graciously gave the choice to
the cornered hooded-bird to either quietly slip away and hide in the safety of
scrub or fly at the risk of being shot at with COAS-President double barrel
shot gun. To the astonishment of the man on the Machaan, the hooded-bird
went for the option that put shooting skills of the Team-Helmet to test.
This was how the duel between the man wearing the helmet and the
one wearing the wig, started. The round-one of the duel started at Army
House on 9th and ended in the Supreme Court building on 13 th March; the
succeeding paragraphs contain the description of and commentary on the
round-one.

EVENTS
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was
summoned to Army House on 9 th March where Chief of Army Staff
confronted him with some allegations against him and sought his
explanation. Once his explanation failed to satisfy Musharraf, he was told to
choose between voluntary resignation or face a reference in the Supreme
Judicial Council (SJC); he opted for the latter.

757

Thereafter, he was detained in Army House for sufficient time to issue

orders to make him non-functional; appoint and swear-in Justice Javed
Iqbal as the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ); and make arrangements of Justice
Iftikhars house-arrest. Justice Javed Iqbal was made ACJ because the senior
most judge, Justice Rana Bhagwandas was in India and Musharraf regime
was in no mood to seek his extradition.
Reportedly, the charges against the CJP were similar to the contents of
an open letter addressing the CJP written by Naeem Bokhari. In his letter,
before listing his grievances and protests, he mentioned instances of misuse
of government airplanes, helicopters, accommodation, funds, and the case of
his son Dr Arsalan who drives a BMW. Bokhari was perturbed over
contradictions in his verbal and written judgments; unworthy treatment of
lawyers; and accused him of arrogance, aggression and belligerence. He also
objected to CJPs indulgence in Media Circus by taking up direct notices of
cases which could have been left to lower courts.
Majority of the opposition leaders and lawyers termed removal of the
CJP as unconstitutional, unlawful, unfortunate and politically motivated
action to subvert the judiciary. Meanwhile, the Registrar Supreme Court, Dr
Faqir Hussain gave up or was forced to give up the charge of his office.
On 10th March, PBC cancelled Naeem Bokharis licence. Lawyers
boycotted courts throughout the country and planned a strike on 12th and
black day on 13th March. Qazi called for a meeting of the opposition leaders
over the issue of CJP.
Information Minister denied that the CJP was under house arrest;
whereas his entire family was under preventive detention. A sitting judge
of PHC said that action against the CJP was taken on his complaint and not
because of Naeem Bokharis letter. Chief Minister of Sindh claimed it was
because of him. The SJC decided to hold in-camera hearing.
Next day, Air Marshal Asghar Khan became the first man to meet
the CJP, who wanted open hearing of his case. He also told that CJPs
phones and TV links were cut off and newspapers were not provided.
Information Minister claimed that Asghar Khans visit has proved that the
CJP was not under house-arrest and anybody could meet him. As regards
open hearing, he said it was a matter to be decided by the SJC. He was not
aware about phones, TV and newspapers, but promised to find out the facts
and inform the nation accordingly.
758

Four judges of the Supreme Court also met the CJP, who remained
determined to defend himself. A PML-N team led by Chaudhry Nisar was
stopped from meeting the CJP. Benazir Bhutto slated the suspension of the
CJP. Attorney General of Sindh said constitutionally Justice Iftikhar is still
the CJP, therefore removing of national flag from his residence and deletion
of his data from website was not correct.
Naeem Bokhari denied writing the open letter on behest of the
government. It was reported that three members of the SJC faced charges
similar to those against Justice Chaudhry. Two of them are Supreme Court
judges and the third from Punjab who had his two daughters admitted in
medical college on CMs quota and got his son-in-law appointed as deputy
secretary in the provincial secretariat.
Lawyers held country-wide protest rallies on 12 th March. In Lahore,
police baton-charged the rally; 17 people were injured and 50 arrested. Some
lawyers moved LHC against detention of the CJP. APC leaders were
prevented from meeting the Chief Justice. Earlier APC meeting held in
Qazis residence decided to work for the cause of independence of judiciary
by supporting the lawyers.
Information Minister threatened that government would come into
action if anyone tried to create any hindrance in the functioning of courts
and tried to impede judicial process. He also said that deletion of CJPs
name from the website was a technical fault which has been rectified. He
preferred to remain silent on removal of national flag. Wasi Zafar said that
reference against the CJP was not a sudden step.
Information Minister and other government representatives, appearing
before the media, frequently countered the criticism by referring to the
attack on judiciary during Nawaz Sharifs era. They kept doing that despite
reminding them that all those who were involved in that attack are now part
of the ruling junta of enlightened moderates, including Chaudhry brothers
from Gujrat.
The SJC viewed with serious concern the spate of news items,
comments, views and statements appearing in the print and electronic media
on a highly sensitive issue. The SJC advised the print and electronic media
not to resort to either publishing or airing any comments on the subject
reference, which could be viewed as prejudicial to the proceeding before the
Council.
759

A judge of LHC sought reply from PEMRA over the operations of two
private television channels after taking up a petition filed by a lawyer. In his
petition, the lawyer had submitted that respondent channels were telecasting
derogatory information about current national issues especially in relation to
the reference filed against the CJP. He prayed the court that the government
and PEMRA be directed to initiate punitive action against both TV channels
and such other channels and cancel their licences.
Tariq Butt reported: It will be unique prosecution first condemned
then tried. The legal community has questioned it across the board. Justice
Chaudhry has turned out to be the first Chief Justice of Pakistan, who has
been put in the dock this way. But he has stood his ground.
Ansar Abbasi reported that long-drawn-out persuasions by top brass
of Pakistans elite intelligence agencies and high-ranking officials failed to
convince resolute Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to step down,
before a presidential reference was filed against him.
A family source close to the non-functional chief justice quoted
Justice Iftikhar as saying that during the critical Friday meeting with the
president, he was given two options by General Pervez Musharraf resign
or face the reference.
After suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar told the president that would
never step down, the source revealed almost 18 officials, including the top
brass of the intelligence agencies kept on swaying him, one after the other,
to avail the first option but he chose the hard one.
The source, who is still in contact with the chief justice and his
family because of a not yet tracked communication means, said that Iftikhar
had also told his sympathizers that the charge sheet read by the president
was the replica of the much condemned open letter of a Supreme Court
lawyer, who, it is generally believed, was written as a precursor to the
reference.
One obvious change he immediately noticed as soon as he was
boarding his staff car was the missing of the chief justices flag from his
official limousine. Acting Chief Justice, Justice Javed Iqbal, took the oath of
his office at a time when the chief justice was in the Army House.

760

Legal fraternity observed black day across the country on 13 th March.

NWFP Bar Council boycotted courts, staged protests and suspended
membership of pro-government lawyers. Complete strike was observed in
Quetta. Courts in Punjab and Sindh could not function because of the strike.
Reference against the CJP was challenged in Bahawalpur High Court.
APHR also flayed action against Justice Iftikhar. The Opposition
staged a protest march in Islamabad. PPP preferred to remain in low-profile
on the issue. Private TV channels widely covered the days events and the
SJC cautioned against media trial.
Fakharuddin G Ibrahim became the third person to refute the contents
of Naeem Bokharis letter, Akram Shaikh and Sher Afgan had done that
earlier. He clarified that courts written decision can be different from the
one announced verbally. Naeem Bokhari claimed that he had discussed the
contents of his letter with Senator Babar Awan of PPP before its publication.
Babar refuted the claim of Naeem.
Shujaat, who had been abroad during the period, when asked by
foreign media for comments declined to do so by muttering a few words
which were deciphered as if he meant that he wont like to indulge in a
matter between the army and the judiciary. Unfortunately, he was caught by
the media when he was without the services of sentence completer.
The able Information Minister back home clarified that Shujaat was
misquoted. The leader of the PML-Q refrains from commenting on matters
related to the army and the judiciary. He, as usual, preferred to ignore the
fact that the President had acted on the advice of Prime Minister.
The most bizarre incident, which took place on preceding night,
involved the learned law minister; Wasi Zafar and journalist Ansar Abbasi
during VOA programme Round Table which was broadcast live. The
minister indulged in abusing the journalist.
Wasi Zafar was asked to comment on the ugly incident, who out
rightly denied using abusive language. He insisted that all that he had said
was in reply to what the journalist had written in his report more than a year
ago. When he was informed that audio of the incident was available on the
website of VOA, he repeatedly asked the anchor of the programme to
broadcast that tape so that the whole nation knows the facts. Geo TV did that
to the utter disgust of the entire nation.

761

The CJP was at the high noon of his judicial career when he got into
the heavily fortified and barricaded Supreme Court building for his trial,
read a headline of The News. Earlier, the CJP had refused to travel in official
car to go to the court and preferred to walk in the company of his wife.
When he reached near Baluchistan House, police officials pulled him by
collar and took him inside. His wife was also mishandled. He was kept there
for about two hours and Zafarullah Jamali tried to defuse the situation. He
was then taken to the court in a Police vehicle.
Panel of lawyers defending the CJP, which included Aitzaz Ahsan and
Munir A Malik, was not allowed to enter premises of the Supreme Court till
the start of formal hearing. Aitzaz Ahsan informed the media that complete
reference (charge sheet) was not provided to the CJP or his counsel; only
annexures were provided and some of those were obliterated.
The hearing was put off till 16th March, after the defendant challenged
the legality of the composition of the SJC in writing, arguing that there are
serious charges against three of its members. His written reply also said that
Justice Javed Iqbal has been appointed as acting chief justice contrary to
Article 180 of the Constitution, which provides that ACJ can be appointed
when the office of the CJP is vacant or the CJ is absent or is unable to
perform the functions of his office due to any other cause.
I have serious objection on his being member of the SJC for the
above reasons and I dont have expectations of fair inquiry from him. Thus
his name should be excluded from the panel in the interest of justice and fair
play. In view of these objections I am of the opinion that SJC is not duly
constituted and is incapable to hold inquiry against me.
He preferred a public inquiry arguing that the reference is based, in
letter and spirit, on open letter written by Naeem Bokhari, which has already
been publicized widely. Therefore, there should not be any
objection/observation in holding public inquiry. He also challenged the
order of the SJC which restrained him to work as Supreme Court Judge and
Chief Justice.
Such powers are not available at all to a fact-finding inquiry
commission/council as such powers are available to courts and can be
derived only from the constitutional provisions and the law. In my
understanding and as per the interpretation if the Constitution under Article

762

209 no such powers are available to the council, as it is not exercising the
power of the court.
Justice Iftikhar said that Supreme Court staff attached with him is
reportedly missing and had been kept at an unknown place. I believe that
they have been detained just to fabricate evidence against me. I have also
learned reliably that my chamber was also sealed and reportedly files lying
therein have been removed and some of them have been handed over to ISI
under the supervision of newly appointed registrar. Such act is contrary to all
norms and practices. I being CJP am entitled to occupy my chamber along
with my staff.
Justice Chaudhry said his children are not allowed to go to school,
college and university. I am not getting facility of telephone, cable and
DCL. Similarly, I along with my family members have been deprived from
basic amenities of life i.e. medicines and doctor etc.
He added that by noting these agonies, which are being suffered by
him, he doesnt want to seek any relief from the SJC except that the March 9
unconstitutional order passed by the SJC has persuaded him to show distrust
on its formation because of the manner under which he has been dealt with.
He said that he doesnt expect a fair inquiry particularly with reference to the
SJC chairman and its two other members.
After the hearing, CJ again refused to travel in official car and came
out of the court from the gate used by public in a car driven by a lawyer
from Rawalpindi who happened to be MNA of PPP. Durrani in his press
conference blamed CJ for acting like a politician.

COMMENTS
Media, analysts and the general public instantly reacted to the incident
despite the shock and awe effect of Musharrafs commando action. They
commented on the possible motive of the president, the manner in which the
issue was handled, particularly conviction of the CJP before the initiation of
the trial/inquiry.
The recently issued statements by individuals like Ijazul Haq about
postponement of elections and implementation of emergency are beginning
to make sense, wrote Dr Humayun Bashir from UK. The message from
763

military dictator is loud and clear: from now onwards he means business; as
Faiz said: Chalee hay rasam kay koi sir uttha kay na chalay.
Ibaad Hakim from London observed: The jury is still not out on CJ
Iftikhar Chaudhry and he is innocent until proved guilty, but I expect all
kinds of excruciating evidence to be found against him. I plead to the
Supreme Judicial Council to set aside all biases, all pressures and not be
coerced into making the incorrect decision. I must add that the chief justice
is not above the law and if there is substantial evidence, then appropriate
action must be taken against him. Although the government has not given a
detailed explanation, it seems it is not the chief justice who has been the one
to abuse his power.
Babar Sattar opined, if the judicial office or a judge under inquiry
was required to be temporarily suspended by implication, the Constitution
should have explicitly provided for such suspension just like it provides a
mechanism for the replacement of a member of the Supreme Judicial
Council under inquiry. If a president subject to impeachment proceedings
can continue to hold office, there is no reason why the chief justice
cannot, so long as he is not found guilty of misconduct by his peers and
removed by the president.
Khosro Tariq from New York observed that the sordid saga of
Pakistani politics continues, unfolding in the same surreal and
outlandish fashion that has been its trademark for the past 60 years. The
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has been rendered, according to the Law
Minister Wasi Zafar, non-functional from performing the duties of his
office by a presidential order. After doing so the president has referred the
matter to the Supreme Judicial Council.
The procedure requires a decision by the Supreme Judicial
Council to the effect: (a) that the judge is incapable of performing the
duties of his office or has been guilty of misconduct, and (b) that he should
be removed from office.
Only then may the president remove the judge from office. The
president cannot remove the chief justice on his discretion. The
constitutional provisions are clear on the matter and anyone labeling the
language of this article of the Constitution anarchic or befuddling is
fooling no one.

764

The recent letter to Justice Chaudhry from the pro-government

lawyer Naeem Bokhari circulating in the media and the remarks by Justice
Wajihuddin Ahmed seem to be parts of a carefully orchestrated plan to
remove the Chief Justice of Pakistan from his office.
The reasons for the removal of Justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry are, in my mind, the blocking of the handover of Pakistan Steel
Mills, his suo motu actions regarding missing persons cases and, above all,
his repeated assertion that no individual is above the Constitution.
The News wrote, it would be fair to assume that many people will
see this run of events with suspicion. In fact, some have linked it to a
statement made by leading politician recently linking a possible declaration
of a state of emergency as a justification for extending the National
Assembly by one year. Many will also link the action taken by the
government with the fact that the chief justice was a strong proponent of
judicial activism and some of this may have stepped on powerful toes. For
example, the Supreme Court struck down the Pakistan Steel Mills
privatization deal which was an embarrassment for the government, took
strong note of the New Murree project which had strong vested interests
backing it, and of late had been regularly hearing petitions filed by relatives
of citizens claiming that the latter had been detained incommunicado by
government intelligence agencies. During the course of these hearings,
revelations came to light which again caused some embarrassment for the
government because some of the disturbing allegations seemed to have been
correct.
Some jurists, among them former Supreme Court judges and
lawyers of considerable standing, have questioned the governments
decision to suspend the chief justice. They say that while the filing of the
reference is very much within the presidents power under Article 209, the
matter of suspending the highest judicial officer in the land is not. The
argument a cogent one runs along the following lines: it is cannon of
justice that no one should be condemned unheard and that suspicion is not
something envisaged under the said article.
Of course, common sense would require that any judge against whom
a reference has been filed with the SJC and if he is eligible to be member of
the SJC should himself step aside. However, so the argument goes, this is
not something that Article 209 is categorical about. Of course, there is also
the general observation being made across the board that the allegations
765

mentioned in the letter may be difficult to prove other than the posting of
Justice Chaudhrys son for which there may well be documentary
evidence
These arguments and counter-arguments are bound to go on and may
well intensify in the coming days but one thing is for sure: what happened
on Friday is certainly not a red letter day as far as the state and its
relationship with the judiciary is concerned. One now waits anxiously for the
SJCs meeting scheduled for this Tuesday provided nothing further
happens before that.
The Dawn expressed similar views while reviewing the plight of the
judiciary throughout the history of Pakistan. With the Chief Justice of
Pakistan having become non-functional, another sordid chapter has been
added to the judiciarys chequered history. Ghulam Mohammad began
the process of destroying the foundations of Pakistans constitutional and
democratic structure, but he is not known to have interfered with the
judiciary.
Indeed with his arbitrary actions that shook the very foundations of
Pakistan, Ghulam Mohammad had laid down a perverse tradition which
military and civilian despots have used shamelessly to prolong and
consolidate their rule by resorting to extra-constitutional methods.
After mentioning the Ayub and Zia eras, the editor added: The most
shocking part of Pakistans judicial history is the post-Zia period when
the popularly elected prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif,
showed scant respect for the concept of an independent judiciary and staffed
it with yes-men.
Now coming to Fridays episode, one is appalled to see the
photograph of a General in uniform calling the countrys chief justice to
his camp office as if the latter were a suspect in a case of embezzlement,
thus stripping him of the dignity to which he was entitled to by virtue of the
office he held. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was then not
allowed to return to his office and was escorted home.
Since the charges are sub judice and commenting on them would
constitute contempt, one cannot but take note of the background
against which the chief justice was made non-functional and the

766

judicial activism that to be associated with his name since he became chief
justice in June 2005.
More important, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that some of
his verdicts had irked the government and for that reason it did not wish
an independent chief justice to be in office at a time when the apex court
could be called upon to decide vital constitutional issues in the light of
continued reports that President Musharraf will retain the two offices and
that the existing assemblies will re-elect him as president for another term.
In some other cases, too, he had been bold like reversing the sale of
Pakistan Steel, stopping the decision of the Capital Development Authority
to run a public park into a mini golf course, and taking suo motu actions to
make some highly progressive and popular decisions concerning human
rights, women and environment.
While SJC will, no doubt, decide upon the case whose outcome will
have profound consequences for the future course of law and Constitution in
Pakistan, the nation is appalled that those who impose accountability on
others and imprison politicians are accountable to no one. Is not the
nation justified in wondering why the men in khaki consider themselves
above accountability? He who seeks justice must come with a clean hand is
an old axiom. The generals seek to dole out justice to others, but they
themselves are not prepared to present themselves before an impartial,
civilian tribunal to defend their actions.
A larger question is Pakistans image. The government has been
very keen to project a soft image for Pakistan, and there is no doubt that this
country gets bad press abroad, often because the good here does not make
news, while terrorism, honour killings and gang rapes hit world headlines.
But then the nature of the regime in power is a major factor in giving the
country a good or bad image. Fridays treatment of the chief justice is hardly
the episode that will cast Pakistan in a better image abroad.
Adeel Hussain from Rawalpindi wrote, now we see yet another
feather in the cap of our rulers What I want to highlight is that if the
allegations contained in a letter are going to be the basis for removing the
Chief Justice of Pakistan then we have a revolution at our door step. On
these bases, just about anyone in government can be removed from his
or her post now.

767

Naeem Sadiq from Karachi opined, while the Chief Justice of

Pakistan is going to explain the allegations contained in the presidential
reference against him to the Supreme Judicial Council, it may be equally
important to hold accountable the Interior Ministry, Police and other
government functionaries who bent the rules too rapidly and facilitate if
that were indeed the case his son.
Humayun Bashir from UK wrote, Musharraf is known for making
statements through his attire in Islamabad, New Delhi and the world over.
His choice of wearing a khaki uniform and making the venue the Army
House for meeting the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on March 9 speaks
volumes of the unfortunate nature of the whole episode. The Pakistani nation
holds its breath, all around the world, in shame.
Imtiaz Alam commented that although the contents of the reference
has not been revealed to the press, it is said to refer to the chief justice
allegedly demanding protocol, being rude to lawyers, and requesting favours
for his sons transfer from the health department to FIA and finally to the
police.
Except for the favour granted to his son, which is primarily the fault
of the competent executive authority that must have waived the normal
procedure, if at all granted, can become the basis for cleansing of the
judiciary, then who doesnt know how many will have to be and should be
referred to the Supreme Judicial Council. There are numerous complaints
lying against many judges 23 according to one newspaper report but
no reference has so far been made except Juistice Iftikhar.
The legal fraternity has, rather, counter-charged the executive for
victimizing the chief justice who, according to the bar representatives, is
being punished for the judgments and orders he passed, such as in the Steel
Mills case and human rights cases of disappeared persons. Bar leaders also
say that Justice Iftikhar has been made non-functional because of several
constitutional cases expected to come up before the apex court in 2007.
When the matter goes to the Supreme Judicial Council, which will for the
first time hear a reference against the CJP, it will again place the brother
judges to the test of history.
Indeed some eyebrows were raised over the CJs high profile style
that is not such a big crime that he should be sent home for. What has
made the Bar more furious is the manner in which Justice Iftikhar has been
768

suspended, given that the Constitution doesnt lend the president the
authority to make a judge of the superior courts non-functional.
In Pakistan, the struggle for an independent judiciary is as long as the
struggle for democracy The battles for independence of judiciary,
restoration of democracy, acceptance of freedom and liberty of individual, a
free media and rule of law are inseparable. Real democracy is not what we
are witnessing under yet another military rule. Nor can enlightened
moderation be the substance of constitutional liberalism Whatever the
judgment of the SJC in Justice Iftikhars reference, the independence of
judiciary must not be compromised in any manner.
Zahid Jamshed from Lahore wrote, our heads are further raised
among the community of nations by showing yet another piece of excellence
of our accountability system which even did not spare the highest echelon of
our judicial hierarchy. This promptness of dispensation of justice has further
placed us in a unique and enviable position vis--vis other civilized nations
of the world that have always trumpeted the beauty of their systems and
institutional strengths. This fact is amply demonstrated by our worthy
president who, while acting on the judicious advice of the prime
minister, did not deem it appropriate even to wait for the return of the
senior most judge from abroad and acted swiftly against the misconduct
of the sitting chief justice.
Amatul Baseer from Islamabad observed: The March 10 edition of
your newspaper (The News) was all about the dismissal of the chief justice
of Pakistan. One of the charges mentioned in the paper was nepotism. Most
ironically page 5 of the newspaper carried a picture of the PIA chairman
inaugurating the cafeteria at the airlines office in Islamabad with the
airlines Islamabad manager in attendance. A similar charge of nepotism
could have been brought against the said manager (who) happens to be that
ministers son-in-law. Can it not be argued then that this minister too
used his influence to induct his son-in-law into the national airline?
M B Naqvi was of the view that the president does not like disorderly
or disobedient persons; he has not made the formal inaugural speech of a
new Parliament for three years running because he finds the deputies of the
parliament disorderly. They shout, hoot, and refuse to listen to the august
person in silence. On the other side was Iftikhar Chaudhry whose record is
one of judicial activism. He did tread on many sensitive toes.

769

The suspended CJP had caused serious embarrassment to the

government. He frustrated the sale of Pakistan Steel Mills, the largest
industrial undertaking He demanded information of the hundreds of
missing Pakistani citizens.
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry thought nothing of embarrassing the
government too many times for the sake of providing relief to unimportant
people. He has been punished before the SJC even tried to examine the
presidential reference filed against him. This is a disgrace to all citizens, not
only to the members of the legal fraternity.
That the chief justice was not toeing the government line and was
careless about saying and giving judgments that the government did not
like is the real reason why he was sacked. But why now and why not a
fortnight earlier or month later; there is a telltale quasi-explanation.
A particular writ petition has been filed with the Supreme Court,
challenging the constitutional vires of what the government is openly
planning to do: the latter wants the president to be re-elected by the existing
assemblies a second time just before they are to complete their tenure. The
petition also mentions that the government is likely to postpone the election
due this year. That too is undesirable. Also included in the impugned
government intentions, is that the president wishes to continue to remain as
the chief of army staff indefinitely after being re-elected. How would the
CJP have reacted to this petition? What would have been his judgment? This
is a matter of great political importance for Musharraf and the system form
he has devised. Could it be that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was not likely
to take a line that would have satisfied the presidents desire?
The top courts, to their shame, always upheld a military coup
detat. Justice Chaudhry was the first CJP to refuse to toe the
government line, although earlier some individual judges have also said no
to arbitrary oaths. Some legal experts disgraced themselves by justifying
extra-constitutional actions of freebooters.
Now what view should the common citizens take is a question that
faces all thinking types. They cannot support such actions but there are very
few means available to them to oppose it. The government of the day is not
greatly bothered about the opinion of those who are not with it.
Unfortunately, ordinary citizen cannot do much because there are no

770

strong political parties that would mobilize them and channelize the
peoples voice to some effect.
On 13th March, the News commented on what happened after
initiation of legal action against the CJP. The events since Friday make
extremely depressing reading for anyone remotely concerned about the
state of the nation. The continued virtual house arrest of the suspended Chief
Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, is a black spot on
this government that will be difficult one would say almost impossible to
erase from public memory.
The government has clearly overstepped its authority. Justice
Chaudhry, if Article 209 has been followed and read properly, has had a
reference filed against him for misconduct and misuse of office. However,
preventing him from meeting people and restricting his and his familys
movement, and not letting him establish contact with anyone outside his
residence gives the impression as if the government considers him a
dangerous criminal who is a clear and present danger to society. What the
government has been doing since Friday is only going to exacerbate the
crisis and lower its credibility already quite low in the eyes of (it can be
safely said) most Pakistanis because they will think that if this can happen to
a chief justice of the Supreme Court then ordinary citizens might just as well
forget about receiving their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process
and a fair hearing.
No one should defend a judge, no matter how august he may be, if he
indulges in conduct unbecoming of his office and misuses his official
powers. But allegations should not be equated with proof and conviction
something that the governments actions against is the case and the
method and process outlined in the Constitution need to be followed. This
constitutional method does not have any provision for physically restricting
a judge under investigation from moving about freely and stripping away his
officially entitled privileges the latter can be done only after the
investigation has been carried out and a recommendation for removal made
by the Supreme Judicial Council and acted upon by the president.
There is one other point as well: ministers should not consider the
people of this country to be bumpkins who cannot see what is going on.
When told that Air Marshal Asghar Khan had met Justice Chaudhry who
told him that he (Justice Chaudhry) had no access to phone, TV or
newspapers, one member of the cabinet expressed surprise and then went on
771

to say that this itself was a proof that the chief justice was free to meet
people. Surely, the hordes of journalists, politicians and well-wishers
standing outside the gates of Justice Chaudhrys official residence and
denied entry by the security staff posted there speak of an entirely contrary
situation, one that really puts official claims that he is free to meet anyone to
shame.
The government needs to extricate itself from this ugly situation
before it spirals out of control. Any delay in repairing the damage can only
convince most Pakistanis that they live in a country that has all the makings
of a police state. Also, equally importantly, the government needs to
understand that for the sake of its own credibility this farce needs to come to
an end.
The next day, the paper added: The nation finds itself in a singularly
unenviable position today. A lot can be debated on who is behind things
coming to where they have. For instance, the footage shown on television
of dozens of Islamabad police constables literally trying to herd suspended
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry into a waiting car so that he does not walk to
the Supreme Court building or, the uncalled for and unprovoked lathi-charge
by police on a group of lawyers holding a peaceful protest in Lahore on
March 12.
On the same day that this happened, it was reported that the states
electronic media regulator warned two private channels to stop relaying
footage of policemen beating the lawyers at the Lahore rally. A petition has
also been filed by a lawyer with the Lahore High Court pleading the latter to
direct the electronic media regulator to order private TV channels not to
show footage that compromises the national interest or is prejudicial to the
maintenance of law and order.
Unfortunately, it seems that government in this country has not
learnt a thing from the past. Would the heavens have fallen if Justice
Chaudhry was allowed to walk on foot? Surely, those at the helm of affairs
do understand that this overbearing treatment of him and his family has
elevated the status of the suspended chief justice over and above what even
the government could have ever imagined.
The opening of these new fronts is only going to exacerbate the
situation. Often, in times like this, events have or acquired a momentum
of their own and then things begin to get out of control even of the
772

government Surely, all this cannot be blocked and censored and if it is,
Pakistan will become a laughing stock in front of the entire world and the
claim of real democracy will become a joke unto itself.
If the government cannot withdraw the petition filed against Justice
Chaudhry with the Supreme Judicial Council, it must at the very least allow
him unhindered access to go wherever he wishes and meet whomever he
wants. Also, the lawyers are attacking as they have said quite rightly not
because it is about a single senior judge but because the shabby manner in
which the suspended chief justice has been treated (those government
spokesmen, many of them ministers, who say that this is not the case and
that he is a free man should instead see the TV footage of hordes of
policemen literally preventing Justice Iftikhar from even walking in a
straight line on Tuesday afternoon) and they equate it with an undiluted
attack on the judiciary. This view is shared by most Pakistanis
Muhammad Riaz from Malakand wrote, referring to the protests of
lawyers and opposition leaders on the sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry, the information minister said in a press conference
that this tantamount to contempt of court, as the case is pending before the
Supreme Judicial Council. If the remarks against the reference constitute
contempt of court, then what about the remarks of the rulers in favour of the
reference? Are there two laws; one for the government and the other for
the opposition? The suspension of the chief justice is not an ordinary event.
Do not be too proud. Pride hath a fall.
Nasim Zehra wrote: Questions were being raised as to the
Establishment was worried that the CJPs judicial activism could cause
problems for General Musharrafs re-election by this assembly, etc.
However, there was a general expectation that the president would use his
constitutional authority to file a reference against the CJP with the Supreme
Judicial Council. It was expected to be a politically tame event.
Interestingly, the presidents decision to move a reference against him
in the Supreme Judicial Council on charges of misuse of power and
misconduct credibility did not become the focus of the initial reaction.
Instead, the move to render the chief justice ineffective and keeping him in
the presidents Camp Office for six hours did. At the Camp the prime
minister and other men wielding state power also met the chief justice. News
of other moves, including the prevention of the CJP from going to the
Supreme Court, his being kept under virtual house arrest, the removal of the
773

flag from his residence, the attempt to cut off his contacts with the outside
world and the fork-lifting of official cars from his residence, began trickling
out. In short, he was treated like a criminal, and indicted man.
Here the man who constitutionally should be held in the highest
esteem in the country as its chief justice was being ousted and his
replacement appointed the way former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had
removed the army chief through a bizarre high jacking attempt on Oct 12,
1999 Here the new man was hurriedly appointed while the serving chief
justice was in the Camp Office.
It is difficult to detect any support in non-official circles for the
presidents move to suspend the CJP. It has irked the nation. Not for
unthinking and merely emotional reasons. The nations verdict against the
way the CJP is being treated is based on national and valid reasons.
One, the president moved unconstitutionally to suspend the CJP.
He does have the authority to move a reference against him, but no clause,
however ingenuously interpreted, gives him the authority to do so. So any
action which is partly unconstitutional is essentially unconstitutional. People
are therefore critical of an unconstitutional move.
Two, people disapprove of the blatantly immoral application of
state force in dealing with the CJP against whom the president was planning
to file a reference. State force was applied to treat him like a criminal. The
message that the immoral application of state force is sending to the people
is also being rejected The more the state power acted to indict him, the
more the media and the legal community and the people stood by to defend
the man.
Three, the way the handling of the CJPs affair has yet again
made a mockery of legal and constitutional process is being rejected by
the public. In the Camp Office obviously the CJP disagreed with what he
was being advised to do, or he must have been refuting the charges or may
have been posing counter-charges Establishment decided to sit in
judgment and treat him like an indicted man. This act immediately killed the
constitutional process in place to remove a judge indulging in alleged
misconduct and misuse of power. Instead, the Establishments own
reasoning replaced the process.

774

Four, the public is questioning the move as one that is

inconsistent with the norms of fair play. With widespread abuse of
constitutional power and authority, with virtually every person on Pakistans
power scene keen for illegal perks and privileges, the popular question
revolves is that why single out the CJP; also, what about those who have
facilitated the CJPs alleged misuse of power and abuse of authority?
The only way forward for the government on the CJP saga is for the
Establishment to back off from its high-handed, unconstitutional way. The
CJP must once again be a free citizen. The hearing in the Supreme Judicial
Council must follow the legal course. The option of gagging the media in its
holding of an objective discussion on the CJP affair is obviously no option.
The Establishment, instead, must reflect on the choice of its candidates for
high positions and its subsequent disenchantment with them. What ails its
own approach is its own positioning in Pakistans power scene.

REVIEW
In Pakistan, like many other countries where rulers run short of
legitimacy or credibility, intelligence agencies always maintain files on
individuals in higher echelons of power. Maintenance of such files is
necessary to discipline the high-ups, who are considered prone to violation
of the rules, because of the power they wield.
The judiciary, and even the army, is no exception to this rule of
effective governance. Such files are maintained even in the GHQ, which
are kept in cabinets bearing TOPSEC stickers and taken out only at
appropriate time. There might be one on General Musharraf as well unless
destroyed for being no longer required.
Intelligence agencies accomplish this task as a routine, but at times
they are directed to focus on a particular individual when the man on the top
apprehends some mischief from that individual. There are reasons to believe
that such instructions were passed immediately after the case of Pakistan
Steel Mills privatization was decided by the Supreme Court. The CJP was
suspected of mischief.
Justice Iftikhars indulgence in judicial activism further strengthened
the apprehensions of the chief executive. In his exuberance the CJP

775

overlooked that his activism could pitch him against the all-powerful
executive. His activism in the context of missing persons almost
confronted him with an ally of the Crusaders, whose interests are
inextricably linked to the missing persons. His negligence towards these
realities proved fatal.
When the ruling party and its allies mulled re-election of Musharraf
by the present parliaments and postponement of general elections, they
apprehended a threat from the CJP as some writ petitions had been submitted
to the apex court on this count.
Some able advisers from Kings party suggested to get rid of the CJ
before he could create problems by entertaining some constitutional
petitions. Musharraf might have been hesitant, but his able advisers
convinced him that the CJP would succumb to pressure and prefer to resign.
The President-cum-COAS, who laid undue trust in military muscle to
make up for the deficiency of legitimacy and credibility, chose to wear
uniform, the dress considered right to intimidate the CJP. He always wears
uniform for show of force or for one-man flag march. But, to the utter
surprise and disappointment of the advisers and the advised, the wig-bearing
man opted for confrontation with the man in steel helmet.
It was height of optimism on the part of the rulers that the man
heading the prime judicial institution could be coerced on the basis of
allegations, the kind of which can be leveled against any Grade-19 officer of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Ironically, one of allegation pertained to
misuse of aircraft. The man who pointed his finger towards the CJP,
President General Pervez Musharraf had a thousand miles round trip to have
a meal with his cousin during his visit to the US and, in fact, the entire trip,
the longest of his tenure, was for the marketing of his book rather than
anything else.
The allegations that have come to the limelight, unofficially so far,
have no substance. Misappropriation, misuse of public funds and property,
and nepotism by rulers and public servants is so common in Pakistan that
these merit to be incorporated in the law of the land under the principle
underlying the customary law. The position of a father or an uncle is the
criterion that outweighs all other merit-related factors to compete even for an
ordinary post. The exceptions are too few; only the daughter of brave

776

commando can afford not to disclose her parentage in bidet or CV, while
applying for a job.
In fact, activism of the CJP had become a source of embarrassment for
the government. He was considered a rogue and regime change was
warranted. Therefore, a preemptive-preventive strike was launched. The
agent of the lone superpower, however, soon found out that the doctrine of
shock and awe was not working and the soft-looking nut was hard to crack.
The Chief Justice could have avoided the ignonamity and disgrace, to
which not even SHO is subjected, had he had the means like those
possessed by a the COAS in terms of corps and divisions. He also had no
experience of war gaming and because of that he chose the hard way which
could lead him to the Stone Age, but he wont slide back to that Age where
the wig and the helmet did not exist. In short, it can be called a clash not of
civilizations, but judicial activism and political ambitionism.
With the unexpected refusal of the CJP to resign, the situation went
out of control. President and his advisers, who had taken it for granted that
the CJP would bow out, were caught unprepared. They had no contingency
plan for the situation that arose with the refusal of the CJP. Resultantly,
every action of the government that followed due to the inability of the
CJP to war-game the situation was taken haphazardly utterly lacking the
forethought.
The immediate irritant for the President was that despite the reference
to Supreme Judicial Council, Justice Iftikhar would remain the CJP till
opinion of the SJC is forwarded to him. It was feared that the CJP might
cause further embarrassment to the government. The solution that came to
their mind was that he should be made non-functional, placed under house
arrest and a suitable acting chief justice should be appointed. Having done
this, a press note was prepared hurriedly in which a glaring language mistake
was made by stating that the CJP was called by the president.
The successive ruling elite in Pakistan have remained afflicted by
adhocism, the present enlightened moderate elite proved to be no
exception. It passed the verdict on the reference well before forwarding it to
the Supreme Judicial Council. This was another preemptive-preventive
move lest the SJC was tempted to act otherwise. This may appear unique
instance to the civilians in Pakistan where the verdict came before the start

777

of the case hearing, but their soldier brothers know it well that in army the
punishment is decided well before the arraignment of the accused.
It is premature to visualize the long-term impact of this episode,
however, it has starkly exposed the worth of the enlightened moderates
ruling elite. Herein, one can comment on two ministers; Law Minister, Wasi
Zafar and Information Minister, Muhammad Ali Durrani.
Those who are in the legal profession know it well that law lays great
emphasis on the language. Each clause of the law, even each word, is
selected carefully to convey correct and precise meaning reducing the
chances of misinterpretation as far as possible.
The law minister is the highest representative of the government on
law matters and thereby supposed to be well-conversant with niceties of the
refined language. The competence of the law minister in the cabinet of
enlightened moderates can be judged from the fact that he cannot interpret
correctly the phrase of long-arm of law, used for conveying the sense of
supremacy of the law. He confused it with big-arm which is verbatim
translation of a vernacular phrase used in abusive language.
The information minister is an opposite version of enlightened
moderation. He is specimen of Mian Mithu, who does not budge from the
memorized lines. Mian Mithu always welcomes the visitors by saying good
morning whether it is evening or midnight.
It goes to his credit; however, that he does not deviate from what has
been tutored by his master. For Mian Mithu the truth is what his master
teaches him; therefore, he cannot be blamed for lying. The poor soul only
ignores all facts, except the loyalty to the master.
There is no denying of the fact that it is the compulsion of the
dictators to keep men like Wasi and Durrani around them. These men are
primarily employed as watchdogs to guard their masters from the dangers
lurking in their vicinity by barking, though some of them also bite. But,
more often than not, they also cause discomfort to the master.
As regards the soft image, it is better to forget about it. However, one
must take note, not of the missing persons as it would be risky venture, but
of some missing links. Where is Justice Bhagwandas? Has he been detained
by the Indian government or flying kites at unknown place after having

778

given the ruling against kite-flying? Where are the experts like S M Zafar,
HUMZULF of Naeem Bokhari, who act as vanguard to defend interests of
the military rulers? Why is Benazir, who does not miss an opportunity to
oppose Musharraf, so silent on the issue?
There is no doubt what the final applaud would be: Well done Wig!
Helmet is the winner. But one should hold back that acclamation. At the end
of first round, one must appreciate the CJP and his supporters for out-scoring
the mighty. Moral victory belongs to them.
14th March 2007

779

HELMET vs WIG
ROUND-II
The round-one ended with the CJPs objection to the membership of
three out of five members of the SJC. This objection necessitated an
adjournment for consideration of the points and to decide whether the
members objected upon would opt for stepping aside or otherwise.
The next hearing was fixed for 16th March. The SJC, perhaps, was
mindful of the tempo of the events of first round; therefore only three days
were given for the second round. With tempers running high, short duration
on second round promised one thing for certain; the intensity with which the
events would follow.
The lawyers stood firm on their cause of independence of judiciary
and agencies of the executive resorted to blatant foul play. When some
sections of the electronic media gave wide coverage to the events and
exposed the foul play on the part of the so-called law enforcing agencies, the
government turned hostile towards these sections of the media. The roundtwo ended with ransacking of the Geo TV office in Islamabad giving an
unfortunate turn to the episode.

EVENTS
A day after the first hearing, Supreme Court took notice of
manhandling of the Justice Iftikhar. Islamabad IG, DIG, SSP and DSP were
ordered to appear before the court on 19 th March. AJC said strict punitive
action would be taken against the officials involved in manhandling of the
CJP. He, however, did not know the schedule of return of Bhagwandas. We
dont know whether he would extend his leave or not.
Lawyers continued boycott of the courts. Punjab Bar Council
cancelled membership of a provincial minister and several pro-government
lawyers. Chief Minister reacted by threatening to take care of those who
cancelled the memberships.
A judge in Bahawalpur resigned in protest against manhandling of the
CJP. It was the job of our elders to do. They have not done this. Now I have

780

to do it. In Peshawar, lawyers decided to boycott courts daily for one hour.
In Sindh, lawyers besieged Provincial Assembly over Chief Ministers
remarks against the CJP.
LHC was moved against PEMRA and the government for restraining
the freedom of press. Naseerullah Babar asked Musharraf to do some soul
searching. Chaudhry Nisar accused PPP for not playing due role in protests
and hinted at postponement of APC meeting in London.
Information Minister blamed the Opposition for spreading rumours.
Aitzaz Ahsan was stopped from meeting the CJP at his residence. Prime
Minister returned from Uzbekistan after cutting short his visit. Khalid Anwar
denied representing government in CJPs case.
On 15th March, Musharraf, while attending a self-projection event in
Gujranwala said he would accept SJCs decision. He vowed to personally
announce on TV and reveal striking facts the same day, or a day after the
decision is received. He accused his opponents of politicizing the issue
through lawyers and threatened to expose their designs. He also alleged that
such elements did not want democracy to grow in Pakistan.
Many political activists and leaders of political parties were arrested
in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore and other cities in a massive government
crackdown. However, Hussain Ahmed Qazi managed to escape the
detention.
PEMRA chief said telecast of three TV channels was disrupted due to
technical fault; however, the government banned Geo TVs programme Aaj
Kamran Khan Key Saath. Tariq Butt reported that Wasi Zafar was likely to
be axed. The SJC issued guidelines for visitors intending to visit the
Supreme Court on 16th March, the day of hearing of the reference.
Token hunger strikes by lawyers continued in many cities across the
country. Chief Minister of Punjab ventured to hold a meeting to counter
actions of various Bar Councils. He summoned pro-government lawyers and
union council members from all over the province; even Patwaris were
instructed to attend the meeting wearing black coats.
The Supreme Court was moved on whereabouts of Justice
Bhagwandas. An eminent lawyer filed an application for exclusion of CJ of

781

Punjab High Court from membership of SJC, because there are serious
allegations against the Justice.
Some politicians met Justice Iftikhar at his residence. PPP demanded
open trial of the CJP, but its leaders generally avoided joining the protest
rallies organized by other opposition parties. Nawaz Sharif appealed for full
participation in protest on 16th March.
The US showed deep concern over the issue of Chief Justice and
similar concerns were expressed by UK. A leading UK newspaper, The
Times, advised Musharraf, good general always knows when to retreat and
this is his turn to prove himself a good general as Pakistan is literally
without the rule of law.
On 16th March, rallies were held in support of Justice Iftikhar. Police
and protesters clashed incessantly in Islamabad and Lahore. Sialkot Bar
Council suspended membership of 12 pro-government lawyers. Lawyers
planned countrywide wheel-jam on 21st March.
Differences between PPP-PML-N surfaced on the issue of protest,
despite the fact that PPP expressed solidarity with lawyers. Wasi boasted that
opposition would fail in its motives. This was evident from the crackdown
against opposition leaders in which dozens of leaders of JI, PML-N and TI
were arrested; no prominent leader of PPP was amongst the detainees.
When the SJC assembled to hear the case, the senior council of the
defendant submitted an application requesting for postponement of the
hearing till 26th March, because the defence could not prepare due to the
restrictions on meeting the CJP. The SJC took notice of violation of its order
regarding freedom of the CJP and issued fresh orders in this context.
The SJC adjourned the hearing till 21 st March. From this adjournment,
the legal experts inferred that none of the three judges, whose membership
was objected to by the CJP, had agreed to step aside. The SJC was headed by
Justice Javed Iqbal and other members of the council were; Justice Abdul
Hameed Dogar, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Justice Iftikhar
Hussain Chaudhry and Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed. Six-member defence
Council was headed by Aitzaz Ahsan but names of prosecutors, except
Khalid Ranjha, remained unclear.

782

The round-two ended with Punjab police stealing the show. A police
party attacked Geo TV and the News offices in Islamabad, smashed and
thrashed whatever or whoever came in its way. After accomplishing the
mission, the party shouted slogan of Punjab police Zindabad outside the
destroyed target and the man in charge of the party reported to someone on
walkie-talkie that the mission has been accomplished.
Durrani visited the site on direction of Musharraf who had seen the
footage of the police operation on TV. Durrani condemned the incident
immediately on arrival standing amidst the wreckage. Later on, he alleged
that it was a conspiracy to sabotage the government.
Some time later, Musharraf regretted the incident on telephone. He
apologized and promised stern action against the culprits within 24 hours,
while boasting that freedom of media and upholding human rights has been
the plus points of his government. Subsequently, prime minister also
apologized followed by Wasi Zafar who said sorry to Geo and Ansar Abbasi.
Police attack on Geo office was widely condemned by the government
and the opposition. The community of electronic and print media was
enraged by the organized terrorist attack on Geo office. CPNE termed the
attack unprecedented.
Judicial inquiry was ordered to establish the facts. Authorities
suspended 14 policemen involved in the attack as part of the stern action
promised by Musharraf. Meanwhile, Geo office in Karachi was searched
after a false bomb-alarm.

COMMENTS
Analysts, media and common people widely commented on the
ongoing saga of unfortunate events. Their views mostly pertained to roundone, but some of them reacted to police attack instantly, first, views of
common people in and outside Pakistan.
With the unceremonious ouster of its chief justice the apex court has
been humiliated by those masters who always enjoyed the judicial
backing of the highest tribunal of the nation, wrote Bashir Malik from
Islamabad. It is high time therefore for the highest magistrates to stand up

783

and pay back the enormous debt, piled up since the 50s, which they owe to
the people of Pakistan. The Honourable Lords should refuse to surrender
their partially retrieved independence to the predators that are out to grab
whatever power is available under the Pakistani sun.
The opposition parties must also close their scattered ranks and
look beyond petty differences. Pakistan needs a fresh definition. This is the
time to pronounce that belated definition. The turncoats around the
dictatorship will run away if they find out that the tide is turning against
them. They will desert the military ruler at the slightest sign of a change in
the wind.
Dr A P Sangdil from Norway observed, suspended Chief Justice
Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, when summoned to the army house, sat
before the uniformed General as a condemned man, just like Dr Abdul
Qadeer Khan. What a pity! In public memory, both men will live standing
tall; the rest will fade away.
Ghazala Minallah from Islamabad opined, the judiciary is supposed
to be the backbone of any civilized society which is precisely why our not so
civilized country is permanently crippled, since its backbone is broken time
and again. As a nation our heads should hang in shame Had it not been
the great role played by the lawyers fraternity, I would have seriously come
to the conclusion that as a nation we are genetically devoid of any
conscience. I believe that there is a curse on us, since we live in a country
whose protectors and defenders are the ones we have to watch out for.
For the first time in a long time we had a judge who was at least
doing some good for the downtrodden people of this country. He was
sensitive to all kinds of issues such as the environment, human rights, rights
of women and other issues on the one hand and on the other hand he was
also giving judgments such as the Steel Mills case and more recently the
missing persons issue. It was the latter which was the cause of his
downfall.
Once again our Constitution has been abused and so has our judiciary
and we, as a nation, are at cross-roads just as our judiciary is. Do we
stand by and watch this assault and turn a blind eye or do we do what we can
within our individual limits to save this sinking ship? At this point in time,
the trump card lies with the members of our superior judiciary. Today it is

784

Justice Iftikhar; tomorrow it could be someone else. I appeal to the

honourable judges of the Supreme Court to put a stop to this.
Dr Amjad Nazir from California wrote, it has established the reality
that Pakistan is a country where judiciary can be forced to dance to the tune
set by military. The chief justice, who has rendered some bold judgments,
has unfortunately become a victim of his verdicts.
Abid Minhaj from Lahore observed: This bold man was perhaps
the only person in this country with the backbone and in a position to
hold the government accountable when it faltered. And for this, he like so
many other citizens of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has been taken to
task on charges of misconduct and abuse of power.
How many generals and sitting ministers have allegations of
corruption and abuse of power looming over their heads? Its funny how
nothing happens to them so long as theyre serving the governments
interest. Amongst the first to harp about how the president was justified in
his unconstitutional actions against the chief justice was our law minister,
the same person who humiliated, and whose son assaulted, members of the
public he serves.
M S Hasan from Karachi opined that this sordid and tragic episode
is unfortunately reflective of a state of mental bankruptcy of the
government which obviously has shown its inability in handling the situation
with any degree of dignity or even astuteness. All this will only serve to
further weaken the judiciary, rule of law, human rights, freedom of
expression, and end up tarnishing the image of the country.
Athar Minallah from Islamabad observed, the CJP being manhandled
by a bunch of uniformed bullies and the expression on their faces shows
their contempt and arrogance. Such a scene could only be possible in a
complete police state.
The symbol of our judiciary, our freedoms and fundamental rights,
the person who gave the poor and the weak a voice and made them
understand the meaning of suo moto, is being manhandled and pulled by the
hair by the same bullies who once feared him. The government through its
conduct has already made it too obvious that the matter has been
adjudicated and decided while the proceedings are a mere formality.

785

If we miss this opportunity and the silent majority does not rise to
protect the independence of judiciary, the rule of law and the dignity of the
last court of justice, there will be no other chance. Some political leaders are
trying to make us believe that this is a struggle between the judiciary and the
army. Do they want a civil war for their personal benefits? This is certainly
not a struggle between the two institutions, but has more to do with
personal ego.
Azmat Abbas Syed from Lahore opined that what is happening is a
defining moment for the entire civil society. History is perhaps being
written as never before. We all have a choice now to confront what is before
us or be condemned forever to mourn this tragic moment. While history
waits to pronounce judgment, we must counter this aggression with the
fullest force of the people. We owe this to our future generations.
Arshad Mahmood from Mardan was of the view that we still need to
go a long way to have a free and fair judiciary without any pressure from the
government. However, seeing the unprecedented resistance by the masses
and particularly the lawyers community I hope that this incident may
bring the country on a path towards real democracy where judiciary is
actually free.
Adnan Gill from Rawalpindi opined, the nature of the regime in
power is a major factor in giving the country a good or bad image. Last
Fridays treatment of the chief justice is hardly an episode that will cast
Pakistan in a better image abroad. In fact, it will have a negative impact on
the world and add to the impressions that Pakistan is just another state where
the rulers word is the law.
Col Riaz Jafri was one of the few who indulged in interpreting the
Constitution to justify Presidents decision. He said, I think referring the
matter to the SJC is to uphold the sanctity of the judiciary in the country
rather than destroying it, as some of the pseudo intellectuals would want to
believe.

Analysts condemned the unfortunate incident in unison. In what

seems to amount to complete contempt for orders passed by the SJC, the CJ
and his family, were once more shut into their home after leaving the court
and a delegation of lawyers who had been granted permission earlier in the
day to meet him were stopped at the gates, observed Kamila Hyat.

786

What has been as distasteful as the events surrounding the CJs ouster
have been the attempts by the government spokesmen to make fools of
people. Their handling of the matter has only aggravated anger amongst
people who have been treated with utmost disdain by their representatives.
These representatives have produced the most imbecilic
explanations for all that is happening, and often in the most hostile tone.
For instance, even as it is obvious the CJ was sealed off from the world
following the wild police chase that took place as he tried to reach the
Supreme Court after his meeting with the president, senior government
officials have insisted it is he himself who is choosing who to meet, and
refused to say why his phone lines, cell phone connections, cable TV links
or other access to the outside world had been suspended.
Still worse, for reasons best known only to the government, the
federal law minister has spent long periods of time speaking to the media
and succeeding only in worsening the situation. His use of crudest
language while speaking on a Voice of America Urdu Service radio panel
talk has hardly acted to endear either to the public or journalists, who has
now begun to threaten quite openly.
In the same context, reports of warnings and threats to the
electronic media channels who have performed a top professional job in
bringing the unfortunate situation created by the government to the people,
from both the Pakistani Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and other
quarters, expose further growing official patience with the concept of the
freedom of expression.
The reports that at least some members of the federal capital, who
may with greater skill or at least with greater grace be able to handle
dealings with the media, are reluctant to step into the controversy due to
their own reservations over the situation, further complicates the picture for
the government.
In this situation, as the political parties now move into the picture, it
will be instructive to see to what extent they can take people with them. The
ability of even a party of mass popular support like the Pakistan Peoples
Party to draw on the kind of street power they commanded in previous
decades is a matter of increased conjecture, and this now seems to be
coming under test.

787

The fact though is that by creating the current situation in the

country, by in effect expressing resentment against a CJ who adopted an
independent line on a number of issues, the government has effectively
plunged itself into crisis. It would appear that the possibility that the CJ
would not cave in to pressure from a president in military uniform and
resign instantly had not occurred to the (liking of) powers that be. For the
present though the crisis continues, and its final outcome is yet to emerge as
all eyes remain focused on Islamabad.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar opined, the chief justice could not possibly
have been seen as a genuine threat to the military, notwithstanding the
clear differences that have emerged between the government and the CJ on
key issues such as the status of missing persons. It is important to bear in
mind that even if a relatively pronounced trend of judicial activism has been
identified in recent times, the overall political environment in the country
does not lend itself to meaningful change.
After all the military has become less and less concerned with the
niceties of impersonal government and the levels of resentment even
amongst those who share a commitment with the military towards
preventing major social and political upheaval have risen markedly. Yet, it is
important to bear in mind that even if the current regime were to be replaced,
the working people of Pakistan that constitute the vast majority of the
population remained alienated from politics, and stand to benefit little from
the kind of reconfiguration of the existing power-sharing arrangement that
would likely emerge in the near future.
It is good that the unbridled attack on the little remaining
independence of the higher judiciary has been greeted with widespread
protests and left the Musharraf government as isolated as at any other
time in its seven and a half year tenure. But if things return to normal in a
couple of weeks, the regime will have successfully reduced yet another
potential rallying point of the forces of democracy to a short-lived media
frenzy.
Rahimullah Yusufzai observed that feeling confident and convinced
that he is not accountable to anyone, President General Pervez Musharraf
was apparently unable to gauge the level of opposition to his
controversial move to suspend Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry
of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and send a reference against him to the
Supreme Judicial Council. As it appears, most Pakistanis have not supported
788

the presidents decision and this became clearly evident with the outpouring
of sympathy and goodwill for the wronged chief justice.
President Musharraf until now has survived every challenge to his
rule. Seven and a half years after his bloodless coup detat against Nawaz
Sharif, he has managed to restrain the loyalty of the armed forces and built a
political constituency for himself by patronizing the PML-Q and other likeminded parties. He has also set up and strengthened a system of local
councils that is inherently indebted and loyal to him.
With help from the National Accountability Bureau and the
intelligence agencies, he has triggered defections and weakened opposition
political parties. Like Nawaz Sharifs second term in office as prime
minister after his heavy mandate electoral victory in 1997, President
Musharraf has gradually and systematically removed any hurdle to his
quest for absolute power.
There were certainly political motives for the removal of Justice
Chaudhry and one would not be wrong by suggesting that the move was
aimed at taming the judiciary, already under pressure, with an eye on the
coming elections for the president and parliament.
However, the future political scene will be determined by the
ongoing judicial crisis now gripping the country. It would be nave to
attach too much hope with the ongoing agitation spearheaded by the
lawyers community. The power game in Pakistan is heavily stacked in
favour of the all-powerful military, which has intervened frequently to
protect its interest and has time and again ruled the country by co-opting
politicians and giving them a share in the government.
Chief Justice Chaudhry had earned gratitude of many helpless
citizens by taking suo moto notice of violation of their rights as reported in
the media or brought to his attention through letters. No wonder then that
relations of missing persons, who disappeared as a consequence of the
controversial war on terror, and others who benefited from Chief Justice
Chaudhrys judicial activism, are now praying for his victory in the tussle
with the rulers.
For once, PML-Q head Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain was right when
he said that this was a tussle between the military and the judiciary. As
a seasoned politician, he knew what he was talking even though his intention

789

was to absolve himself and his party of any responsibility in the judicial
crisis that has engulfed the country.
But it is an unequal battle because the military is united behind its
commander-in-chief General Musharraf and the judiciary, particularly those
holding positions in the superior courts, is divided. It is true that lawyers
have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the judiciary and enjoy the support of
political parties and the masses. However, the judges would have to rise to
the occasion if they want the judiciary to survive as an independent
institution.
Shafqat Mahmood was of the view that this outrage in the country is
not about the mistreatment of an individual by the name of Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry, it is about the humiliation of the Chief Justice of
Pakistan.
The individual has many human failings; pride, arrogance,
showmanship, filial devotion beyond propriety and an egotistical love of
pomp and show. But, the highest judicial office in the land is beyond
reproach. It personifies a civilized nations aspiration for justice, fair play,
and the rule of law.
An individual can abuse the office for personal gain and can be held
to count but it is a delicate matter and has to be handled with care. A
curious procedure has thus been prescribed in the law to ensure that while
the individual is punished the office is not demeaned.
This important distinction is too obtuse for our current rulers.
They have no capacity to transcend the failings of an individual and
understand the symbolism of the august office he holds. It is for this reason
that they have treated him like a common criminal.
Some may argue that he was called by the president, as if this makes
it all right. There is no provision in the law that allows the president to
summon the chief justice. If he has a complaint against him, he has every
right to refer it to the Supreme Judicial Council but nothing more.
He cannot act as a prosecutor or a judge. The stand taken by the
governments inept media people that the president merely wanted to inquire
about the charges is legally wrong. The Supreme Court is an independent
pillar of the state and not subordinate to the president.

790

The imagery of this fateful meeting has added to the public ire.
Iftikhar Chaudhry was not called to the presidency but to the Army House. It
was also not a coincidence that Mr Musharraf was in his military dress. The
chief justice was being intimidated by the only symbol that our rulers
understand, the power of the uniform. And when he refused to buckle
down and resign, he was confined for four hours until all the necessary
arrangements to strip him of office had been made. The rest of the drama is
too bizarre to even believable.
The most heart-wrenching photograph is of a sub-inspector of the
Islamabad police holding the chief justice of Pakistan by his hair and
forcibly pushing him into a car. This may bolster someones macho image
of himself but it is terrible blot on the dignity of this nation.
Mr Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has been charged with
misconduct. This assumes that the charge-making authority has in its mind
certain standards, certain norms of behaviour regarding the highest judicial
office in the land. How can one square these pious determinations with the
treatment meted out to the chief justice of Pakistan. It can only mean that the
charge-making authority itself has no respect for the Supreme Court.
Let Mr Chaudhry be accused and tried by his peers. But those who
have mistreated the chief justice of Pakistan are guilty of greater
misconduct. They have brought the apex court of the land into disrepute
(disgrace). The insult is not to the person of Mr Chaudhry. It is to the
Supreme Court of the country. Who will hold them to account?
It has begun to reveal itself as protests gather momentum across the
land. The media was the first to be targeted and some channels were
forcibly taken off the air. Newspaper editors also got veiled threats to play
down the reaction. It is to the medias ever-lasting credit that it refused to
buckle under.
Midnight raids by police have also begun. Some arrests were made in
Lahore and more will follow. Civil society is now in direct conflict with raw
power. At the fore front are, of course, the lawyers who are deeply offended
by the treatment meted out to the judicial institution. Their courage has
revived ones faith in the inherent strength of the nation. But, the hurt is
greater than that.

791

I have never seen the civil society so outraged. In every place, in

every gathering, there is nothing but condemnation of what has happened.
This is not politics as the clairvoyant information minister would like us to
believe. It is beyond that. People are angry and it is not because they support
this or that political party. They have just had enough of the strangulation of
everything that was sacred in this land.
The conventional wisdom is that he will be able to ride out this
storm. Through a combination of state power and inducements, the sting
will be taken out of the protests. The black mark will forever remain
against Musharrafs name but he will hang on to power. It is safe for the
pundits to say this because this is the most likely scenario. But, events have
a curious way of making all the predictions wrong. If the political parties can
get their act together and the civil society remains as incensed as it is at the
moment, stranger things have happened.
Pervez Musharrafs hold on power depends on unstinting support
of the military. Will it remain as strong in the face of public pressure?
History tells us otherwise. Ayub was ditched by his peers and so was Yahya.
If the public challenge is strong enough he will also not last.
Dr Masooda Bano observed: The lawyers community, which has
led this resistance, has shown remarkable courage and resilience. They
have shown that the judiciary and the constitution have for too long been
manipulated by the executive, especially the military, and that it is high time
the executive should give the judiciary its due place.
To judge the motivation of the government, there are two
observable indicators: One, the nature of charges made against him in the
reference; two, the process through which the reference has been filed. Both
indicators give strong indications that the motivation of the government to
initiate the reference is open to question. To begin with, the government
seems to be still in the process of preparing the written reference while this
should have been the first step if the reference was to be filed in a
constitutionally appropriate manner.
If General Musharrafs action was motivated by genuine concerns
about the conduct of the chief justice then as senior lawyers and judges have
repeatedly explained, the proper way would have been to file the
reference against the chief justice while allowing him to remain in office
till such time that a decision is taken.
792

The rush to suspend the chief justice, to appoint an acting chief

justice, and then to follow up with actions such as lifting the chief justices
cars and putting him under house arrest all indicate an ulterior motive
rather than genuine concerns about his personal conduct. Moreover, the
whole episode seems to be a signal to all judges that if they start to show a
bit of independence they can also be removed as easily.
Clearly, the president seems to have been taken by surprise this
time, especially by the response of the general public. The resistance put up
by the lawyers and supported by the media has shown that the militarys
continued exploitation of civilian institutions has reached a point where the
public is very frustrated and is now even gaining the courage to openly
retaliate.
The open reaction by the lawyer community is actually a
culmination of a general frustration with the sitting government. This
resistance has been most inspiring and encouraging as it has shown that the
civil society is not dead in Pakistan. Also, it shows that there are credible
individuals within the lawyer community, which have been putting their case
in the media very articulately.
Finally, the incident also shows that the failure of the political
parties to mobilize the public on the streets is also because of lack of
courage shown by the leaders of these parties. In the current situation, what
has helped the lawyers unite is that the issue is very focused and clear and
the fact that the movement has built up such a strong momentum in itself
helps sustain the movement further. Whatever the outcome of the judicial
proceeding against the Chief justice this resistance is for sure a good first
step towards curtailing the militarys ever expanding role within Pakistan.
Ishtiaq Ahmed wrote, there is widespread condemnation from all
quarters and the legal fraternity has been protesting all over the country
despite being lathi-charged by the police in some places. Starting legal
proceedings against a sitting judge accused of abuse of power is not wrong,
but virtually dismissing the chief justice before the SJC has given its
verdict does not sound correct.
The concoction of non-functional reminds me that we have never
run out of our ability to devise terms and expressions that can be deployed to
disrupt the normal procedure of government and due process of law by
subterfuges such as the so-called doctrine of necessity something which the
793

minority during the apartheid of the white government in South Africa

suffered as it denied the people their equal rights as citizens I wonder
which fellow suggested non-functional to Musharraf this time.
Ours is a history consistent in only one sense: we have an unbroken
record of undermining all those institutions of the state which are meant
to establish the rule of law, sustain the division of power, and implement a
system of checks and balances which enhance democracy and free citizenry.
What really is the main reason for this decision to declare the chief
justice non-functional? Among the reasons being mentioned are that Justice
Chaudhry had been, while hearing such petitions, asking the governments
various intelligence agencies to produce in court all those who had
disappeared.
While it is too early to say anything about the real motives, as a
political scientist I deplore that this development is most unfortunate for
Pakistan in terms of its evolution as a normal polity. Institutional theory
which currently enjoys centre-stage in political science emphasizes the
centrality of institutions for the promotion and consolidation of democracy.
Unfortunately our sixtieth year of independence is still too soon for hoping
that we have crossed the threshold from oriental despotism into the era
of democratic states.
Dr M Ashraf Adeel opined that the whole world is closely watching
these events and the prestige of the country and its people is hanging in
the balance. Everybody is wondering, one last time, whether or not the
people of the country and its genuine leadership at all levels has the ability
to govern in a legal and constitutional way. It should go without saying that
the independence of the judiciary, with concomitant ability to deliver justice
to all concerned, is the ultimate test of constitutional governance. If the
courts are not independent and cannot deliver justice, then such a society is
doomed, both internally and externally in terms of image.
In the chilling circumstances of the ruination of the office of the chief
justice of the country, there is no alternative but to ask what does the
establishment, the people, the political parties, and the civil society
leadership want in Pakistan? Apparently, the establishment believes that
turning all institutions into rubber stamp institutions is the only way for
it to govern in this day and age. This mindset does not deserve any
consideration at all and is obviously self-destructive. The power-intoxicated
794

elite of the establishment is rotten to its core and would demolish itself
under its own weight sooner rather than later. The more important question,
therefore, is what do the people and political parties in the country want?
The people and political parties must come together in total
solidarity to defend the institution of justice in the country. If they miss
this opportunity, they are going to have to live without civil and human
rights for many more decades. Political parties in the country must stand
firm for constitutional governance at all levels.
Civil society leadership at all levels needs to defend the civil and
human rights of the people at all costs and in all sections of the society. You
cannot divide civil rights giving them to some and not to others. If civil and
human rights can be snatched from one section of the citizenry, then they
will be snatched from other sections in due course. The religious right in
Pakistan needs to grasp this truth. But, liberal or conservative, all must
realize that everyones rights are sacred and can be/must be defended
through an independent judiciary in the country.
One must add a laudatory word for the legal community in the
country. They have been outraged by the unconstitutional action against the
chief justice and have come out to defend the independence of the judiciary
with their blood. Their commitment to the protection of justice has added a
new chapter to our judicial history. Their struggle is the only redeeming
feature of the current situation for the image of the country abroad It is
also critical for the restoration of the dignity of the judiciary in the country
and must succeed. It can succeed if it remains focused on its goal of
defending the judiciary and is not deflected in any other direction.
Babar Sattar said, the general public furor is welcome, not because it
will instill political instability in the country or possibly cure an egregious
regime, but because it is a sign of life that the nation is not torpid just yet
and has a collective conscience and a sense of justice intact.
The nation is angry for multiple reasons. First, General Musharraf
has done to the chief justice what he accused Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
of doing to him. He justified his unconstitutional action by saying: It is
unbelievable and indeed unfortunate that, a few at the helm of affairs in the
last government were intriguing to destroy the last institution of stability in
Pakistan by creating dissention in the ranks of the armed forces of Pakistan.

795

The analyst indirectly demanded that Musharraf should now grant the right
to the CJP to say the same about judiciary.
Second, while the legal verdict in the case against the chief justice
has to be passed by the Supreme Judicial Council, the public verdict has
absolved him of wrongdoing and excused his interest in protocol and cars.
This sudden burst of support for the chief justice is not inexplicable. Justice
Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry seemed to lack the qualities of a model judge
when in authority. Yet in his fall from grace he has been exceedingly
graceful and has exhibited integrity. He has stood up against the entire
machinery of the state, endured intimidation and still not capitulated.
This has had multiple consequences. A, it has endeared the chief
justice to the ordinary people who relate to him as one of their own, fighting
tyranny and resisting unlawful authority, that is a routine spectre of their
lives. B, it has vindicated the chief justice, as the courage exhibited in taking
a stand against the Musharraf regime, apart from reflecting personal
fortitude, is also seen as proof that the regime has no incriminating evidence
against him that could succeed blackmailing him or cowing him down, and
C, it has ignited a new wave of insecurity among people who have witnessed
the mortifying consequences of the head of a state institution falling out of
favour with the ruling regime and landing on the wrong side of state
authority.
Third, the highhanded attitude of the state machinery
accompanied by shameful mendacity of the regimes consigliore has
been shocking. The blatant and repeated untruths being uttered by ministers
regarding the treatment and facilities being offered to the chief justice has
wrecked the credibility of the regimes spoken word.
The position embraced by the fraternity of lawyers amid this
judicial crisis is commendable. Each lawyer is first and foremost an officer
of the court. He bows down before the judge and addresses him as a lord in
reverence to the seat of justice occupied by such judge. But if the head of
justice can be molested in public eyeit reduces to nothingness the concept
of rule of law that lawyers are obligated to serve and uphold. While harsh
judges are disliked, what is disliked more is a judge who lacks
independence. If the state is seen as getting away with penalizing the
independent judicial mind, it will mark the demise of the rule of law.

796

The only stakeholder in this sordid affair conspicuous by its

absence is the judiciary itself. Reportedly only one magistrate from Punjab
resigned in protest over the treatment of their chief justice. It is the morality,
ethics, and sense of fairness of each individual that informs his/her personal
and professional decisions. But if this chief justice affair has one message
for judges, it would be that it is principled actions and not positions of
authority that bestow dignity and respect on individuals.
The Constitution of Pakistan is an unfolding narrative. It is 17
lawyers in the Supreme Court clad in judicial robes that determine what it
means. It is for them to rule whether or not the appointment of the acting
chief justice is in violation of Article 180, whether or not the Supreme
Judicial Council has been properly constituted under Article 209, and what is
the constitutional standard of misconduct on the basis of which any judge
could be deposed of constitutional tenure. No responsibility could be more
momentous than one to determine the ultimate standard of fairness and
justice for a community through the interpretation of the Constitution.
A justice of the US Supreme Court put it aptly when he said, we are not
final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.
Mir Jamilur Rahman was of the view that Chief Justice Chaudhry
had won peoples approbation for his proactive judicial role in deciding
important public complaints. The lawyer community admired him for the
swift disposal of cases and his forthright decisions.
The credibility of the government has taken a steep fall.
Governments insistence that the Chief Justice Chaudhry is not under arrest
and he is free to see anybody he likes was belied by the facts. His house was
cordoned off by a heavy contingent of police and nobody was allowed to see
him without permission from above. The security officers roamed inside
the house depriving the residents of their privacy
The government has accused the opposition political parties,
especially the Muthidda Majlis Amal, of politicizing the issue of Chief
Justice Chaudhry. To politicize could have three meanings: One, give a
political character to an otherwise non-political issue. Two, make (people)
politically aware. Three, engage in or talk politics. In the context of Chief
Justice Chaudhry all these three definitions might apply to the opposition
politicians. But it is neither illegal nor unethical to take advantage of a
government howler. The government does it all the time but the opposition

797

does not complain because it is considered an integral part of politics: To

belittle the opponents.
Lawyers all over Pakistan have stood up for Chief Justice Chaudhry
not for political reasons but to defend the independence of judiciary. They
think that the highhanded treatment meted out to the Chief Justice is a
harbinger of worst things to come They are not playing politics by
showing solidarity with the non-functional Chief Justice. In fact, the lawyers
are not a cohesive force politically.
Mir had also criticized governments actions to gag media, perhaps,
hours before Punjab police was to raid Geo TV office in Islamabad. Media
freedom was given a terrible jolt when the government banned Kamran
Khans talk show on Geo television It has also been reported that a couple
of private TV channels were taken off for screening unsavoury events. A few
other channels have been advised to rein in their talk show hosts or face the
consequences.
Freedom of independent TV has been dealt a serious blow for
discussing just one single issue of Chief Justice Chaudhry. One shudders to
think what will happen during general elections which are round the corner.
Would the sitting government, headed by General Pervez Musharraf, try to
restrain critical appraisal of its performance by executive orders through
PEMRA?
The News, one of the victims of terror act, in its editorial dated 17 th
March wrote: The scale of the attack and the damage that it caused suggest
that the police could not have carried out this operation without orders
from above. Clearly, the channel and the newspaper were targeted for their
outspoken and candid coverage of the crisis arising out of the suspension of
the chief justice pf Pakistan. The federal minister of information and
broadcasting, whose job as chief spokesman of the government and its
actions has come under increasing fire for trying to present a picture that
does conform to reality, was at the scene soon after the attack happened and,
astonishingly, the police seemed in no mood to obey even his orders
This view is certainly strengthened by the events of the past few
days. The governments electronic media regulator, PEMRA, had been
issuing verbal as well as written warnings to the proprietors of television
channels to avoid coverage of the crisis. In fact, Geo TVs show Aaj
Kamran Khan Kay Saath was banned on Thursday and while the reasons
798

were not explicitly mentioned, its courageous coverage of the crisis clearly
rankled.
It will be hard for the government to deny that this unprovoked and
unprecedented attack happened without prior knowledge and even tacit or
explicit approval If anything, circumstantial evidence and accounts of
eyewitnesses claiming to have heard the marauding policemen reporting to
senior authorities on their walki-talkies all suggest that they were carrying
out orders. In one fell swoop, the government, which till now has been
praised for being relatively tolerant of media criticism, has lost much of its
credibility and goodwill.
The president and the prime minister have condemned the attack in
the strongest possible terms. However, this condemnation will not erase
the doubts in the minds of many Pakistanis that the episode could not
have happened without the blessings of those who hold real power in this
country. The only way the government can show, that it is serious about
upholding the freedom of the press is not by words alone but through strong
and decisive action.
Rauf Klasra quoted Financial Times in his report: FT criticized
Musharraf governments attack on Geo and other TV channels to stop them
from operating when they showed the footage of lawyers being beaten on
the Lahore roads and has claimed that this attack on press has exposed the
tall claims of Musharraf that he was more tolerant towards media as
compared to his predecessors.
Its hard to know how long the Americans will keep on
pretending that Musharraf is their man, says a European diplomat. If
protests against Musharraf intensify, our American friends may have to look
for other men on the ground, says FT.
FT writes Gen Musharrafs political weakness will, in time,
inevitably undermine his relations with the US, his chief patron, and
prompt Washington to look for ways to bolster the credibility of its ally,
possibly by encouraging the general to co-opt one or other of the two exiled
political leaders in a broad coalition.
Some individuals expressed their disgust over law ministers use of
abusive language, the exposure of which by Kamran Khan could be linked
with attack on Geo office. Dr Irfan Zafar from Islamabad wrote, the

799

minister had earned notoriety when he and his son had thrashed a person
at the Karachi airport in 2005, who objected to the ministers son jumping
the queue. Later, he slapped a waiter of a five-star hotel in Islamabad over a
trivial matter. There are no words to really describe what has been aired and
listened to by millions of VOA listeners. At stake here is the reputation of
the government whose ministers can reach such a low level of indecent
verbal abuse. Had this happened in any civilized country, the official would
have been sacked right there and then. God save Pakistan.
Ahmed Ali Yousaf from Quetta wrote, I was shocked when I heard
our federal minister of law, Wasi Zafar, abusing a senior journalist on a
Voice of America programme. I believe this is a most shameful act on the
part of the minister. One wonders how such incompetent and uncouth people
come to hold such positions of high dignity in our country.
M S Hasan from Karachi opined, his proficiency, command, delivery
and clarity of the language he uses will put street urchins to shame, while
his demeanour and conduct would upset even a rock. No doubt, Mr Wasi
Zafar is a remarkable man of unusual, outstanding skills and matchless
linguistic attributes To his cabinet colleagues, members and leadership of
the ruling coalition political parties and to the bosses of the honourable law
minister, suffice it to say that a man is known by the company he keeps.
Mazhar Butt from Karachi wrote, I heard the federal law minister
talking on the Voice of America in a language nobody can appreciate. If the
chief justice could be removed due to charges such as being rude to the
lawyers, what does one say about the conduct of the said law minister?

REVIEW
From the moment the duel between Wig and Helmet had started, the
latter has indulged in foul play. The CJP was not the only victim of rough
play; even the spectator who jeered and booed the foul play were targeted,
though the lawyers bore the brunt of the ferocity of the rulers.
Out of the spectators, some sections of electronic media were
identified as anti-government cheer-leaders and thus targeted applying the
principle of mob control. The media, which had exposed outright foul play,
had to be silenced and that happened on 16th March.

800

It has been said since times immemorial that power intoxicates and
corrupts, but after this sordid episode it can be added that power also has
maddening effects. Musharraf regime lists freedom of expression at the top
of its plus points, if that is what it can resort to regarding plus points, one
can imagine to what extent it might have gone in minus points.
Wasi Zafar is the embodiment of foul play. Some sections of the
media optimistically reported that he would be sacked. The attitude of law
minister, undoubtedly, warrants his sacking at the minimum, provided the
regime has not been completely denuded of prudence and sanity.
But, that seemed improbable, after the governments retaliation
against those who exposed the unbecoming conduct of the law minister.
Kamran Khan of Geo TV was the first casualty of the retaliation. He was
stopped from airing his Talk Show and forced to utilize his time by reciting
prayers for sanity in ranks of the ruling elite.
More the Team-Helmet indulged in foul play, more loudly the people
shouted in favour of the Wig; why? Notwithstanding the charge-sheet
against the CJP, his judicial activism has been liked by the masses. This was
like fresh air for the people who had been suffocated and frustrated by rulers
who utter noble words but act to the contrary.
As already said, the nation saw the culmination of foul play by the
Team-Helmet in the form of terrorist attack on Geo office. Immediately
after receiving report of mission accomplished, Musharraf having inflicted
shock and awe, apparently changed direction to win hearts and minds.
The fact that Musharraf condemned police assault on Geo TV office,
the only act to be regretted to date, implied that he approved all others
excesses committed by the government agencies. Mild apologies from him
and other members of the government, including Prime Minister, Durrani
and Wasi are meaningless when seen in the context of other events.
All these incidents are part of the campaign which included actions
like sudden disruption of telecast of various channels, cutting off Internet
connections and telephones, and banning of programmes. Police cannot be
blamed for these actions, not even for attack on Geo office. Police only
carried out the orders.

801

A government official immediately denied the terrorist assault by

saying that police had entered Geo office to search for two rioters who were
seen entering its premises. Mujeebur Rahman Shami had rightly said that
had the cameras not caught the policemen on rampage, the statement of this
official would have been the line adopted by the government.
This was a naked aggression against another activist who this time
happened to be the media. The attack was carried out with vengeance similar
to which the world has been well acquainted in last five years. One cannot
expect a servant of lone superpower to act differently from his master.
No one should know it better than Hamid Mir, who has wide
experience of covering Afghan and Lebanon wars. He has been in dangerous
situations for many times, but the incident of Islamabad, which he faced
bravely, will definitely be remembered by him with grief because it
happened in the capital of Islamic Republic of Pakistan ruled by selfacclaimed enlightened moderates.
Soon after the end of second round, the Team-Helmet declared
unilateral media-specific ceasefire. Such ceasefires are violated at will by the
stronger party. Wasis appearance on the TV late at night on 16 th March was
part of the ploy of apologies. The selection of the time for rendering
apology; his wide open eyes like a nocturnal predator bird which is taken as
symbol of wisdom in the West; and his blank face devoid of any reflection of
remorse or regret did no commensurate his words. He was, perhaps, told to
do so and he agreed to save his ministry and remain in position to slap and
abuse someone, somewhere, someday.
Another aspect of this heinous crime is the talk of conspiracy
theories. Information Minister immediately remarked that this act was
intended at sabotaging the government. Who could sabotage the
government of enlightened moderates, except the obscurantist?
This is not the only conspiracy against Musharraf regime; there have
been numerous conspiracies since March 9; conspiracy of the press note,
conspiracy of detaining the CJP for four hours in Army House, conspiracy of
not preparing the reference in time, conspiracy of placing the CJP under
house arrest, conspiracy of manhandling the CJP, conspiracy of banning and
interfering TV programmes, conspiracy of threatening media men of the
consequences, and one can keep counting till cows come home as they say.

802

Even Wasi Zafars induction and retention in the cabinet is a

conspiracy hatched by someone to sabotage the government. If on this
eighteenth day of March 2007 one asks Musharraf, the Patron-in-Chief of
Cricket, that why did Pakistan cricket team failed to make it to second round
of the World Cup by losing to Ireland, he would talk of conspiracy: the
bearded players of the team have links with obscurantist forces in Pakistan.
The fact is that talk of conspiracy theories provides an immediate
cover to the failings, incompetence or bad intentions of the government
agencies. This is also a favourite pretext of the dictators to suppress their
opponents. Anyone who criticizes any act of a dictator can be blamed for
conspiring against his regime and might of the state can be unleashed to
crush conspirators. Somehow, the dictators tend to ignore that the most
dangerous conspirator is the nincompoop who lurks around the master in the
garb of an obedient servant.
Irrespective of the fact that Team-Wig was out-scoring the TeamHelmet, Musharraf seemed confident about the final verdict. This was
evident from his intriguing statement given in Gujranwala in which he said
that he would inform the nation on TV about the verdict of the SJC and
expose the designs of those who have been trying to politicize this issue.
Musharrafs statement gave an impression that he knows the text of
the verdict of a case well before the beginning of formal hearing. By
jumping to the conclusion, he exposed his own designs well before he could
expose the designs of his opponents.
This was also evident from the casualness with which both president
and prime minister took the virtual removal of the CJP as non-issue or no
issue. After making the CJP non-functional, the latter proceeded to
Uzbekistan and the former went to southern Punjab to address some
election rallies organized on the pretexts like laying foundation stones of
milk plant which would bring white revolution. What was left in the arena
was in the kind of Wasi and Durrani.
One must conclude by attempting to answer a question lurking in the
mind of every Pakistani: what is the way out of this quagmire into which
the entire nation has been pushed by its able rulers? There seems to be no
way out, but second pondering would reveal that the way forward lies in
way backward.

803

However, this requires prudence, humility and moral courage, instead

of arrogance and recklessness. Musharraf should realize that his crackdown,
irrespective of his justifications, has enraged almost every Pakistani barring
his puppets. He must assess the gravity of the situation; make a decision in
the spirit of his own slogan; Pakistan First and then address the nation and
say:
I had initiated action against the CJP in good faith after due
deliberations. Now that the people have disapproved my action, I withdraw
the reference against the CJP. I also dismiss the present government and will
hold fresh elections within three months under an interim government, and
let the new government decide the action to be taken in the context of the
reference.
It is not asking too much from a prudent, humble and patriotic man,
who believes in Pakistan first. If he could war-game and throw towel when
he saw himself in the line of fire, he should realize that by attacking a
judicial activist he has risked bringing entire nation in the line of fire.
But, it certainly amounts to asking too much from an arrogant dictator,
who places his own ambitions above the national interests. Prospects are not
bright; because his slogan has degenerated into Musharraf First. The
reasons are that his internal and external bases of power are intact. At home,
there has been no dissent in the army. The superpower still considers him as
our guy, because CJPs handling of the case of missing persons had
reflected negatively on the ongoing Crusades.
18th March 2007

HELMET vs WIG
ROUND-III

804

Round-three began with Team-Helmet taking a giant leap forward

from foul play to forgery. The government announced that the CJP was sent
on forced-leave. This forgery was considered necessary for countering
criticism of virtual dismissal of the CJP through concoction of terms like
non-functional and suspended. A lie always invites more lies.
The same day Punjab police invaded LHC and the next day the rulers
organized get-together on a feast in Prime Ministers House. During
informal discussions over the feast, the ruling junta realized the negative
impact of the overt foul play on their part.
Damage-control measures were initiated by the President himself
starting with an interview to Kamran Khan. This was followed by the
instructions to the law enforcing agencies to avoid confrontation with
protesters which were implemented during strike on 21 st March. The same
day Minister Durrani invited the lawyers for dialogue.
Meanwhile, hearing of the case was adjourned till 3 rd April, through a
wrongly worded note. Justice Bhagwandas also decided to appear in the
scene. He returned to Karachi from New Delhi on 21 st March. His return
promised a fresh turn in the events.

EVENTS
On 17th March, Ministry for Law, Justice and Human Rights, headed
by Muhammad Wasi Zafar, released a press note saying that the Chief
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was sent on (forced) leave under
Section 2 of the Judges Compulsory Leave Order 1970, validated in 1975
under the validation of Law Act 1975.
Musharraf said some elements have been conspiring against him and
the government for the last few days (commencing March 9). Pervaiz Elahi
assured the president that crisis would end soon. Prime Minister went to Geo
office on salvage mission and promised stern action against the culprits.
Lahore police shelled with lawyers and teargased premises of the
court to disrupt advocates convention; in the ensuing clash 55 lawyers were

805

injured. Three office bearers of PML Lawyers Wing in Peshawar resigned

from party membership. Black Day was observed in Baluchistan.
Countrywide protest day was observed on MMAs call. JI gave
ultimatum to government over arrest of its leaders and workers. Nawaz
Sharif assailed crackdown on lawyers convention. Benazir condemned
lawyers arrest and directed party leaders to be in Islamabad on 21st March.
Altaf Bhai threatened to part ways with the government over police
excesses against lawyers and mediamen. Col Anwar Afridi announced to
surrender his medals in protest of suspension of the CJP and attack on Geo
office. Attack on Geo office echoed in western media and US State
Department.
Acting Chief Justice took notice of action against lawyers, but advised
them to protest in civilized manner; if they would throw stones on police,
they should expect similar response from law enforcing agencies. In reply to
a question, he said that he would quit office on return of Bhagwandas.
Next day, Musharraf said reference against the CJP was sent after he
failed to satisfy him, which was necessary for promotion of rule of law. This
was done in the spirit of speedy justice. He did not say that he also
announced the punishment when the CJP refused to resign. Prime Minister
said the government would successfully come out of the crisis soon.
Reportedly, judges in Punjab were directed to dismiss cases of the lawyers
boycotting the court proceedings.
Arrested lawyers were freed in Lahore on orders of Chief Justice of
Lahore High Court. Acting Chief Justice said everyone has access to the
CJP. Altaf Bhai said MQM was not taken into confidence over the CJP issue.
London meeting of APC was postponed because of the CJPs case. PPPPML-N differences were making ARD irrelevant reported Asim Yasin.
Pakistanis protested attack on judiciary and media in London. The
Washington Post lambasted Musharrafs democracy as defiant Pakistani
media blew off fig leaf of democracy in Pakistan.
On 19th March, Geo aired an interview of Musharraf by Kamran
Khan. The President tried to justify all his actions since the fateful day of 9 th
March. He justified the unconstitutional act of making the CJP nonfunctional by saying: I am not a law man. I am a simple soldier. I act on

806

advice. I was told it was legal. He avoided confessing that it had become
necessary after refusal of the CJP to resign. He was neither asked nor did he
mention that this unconstitutional act led to the latest forgery of sending the
CJP on forced leave.
About restricting the CJP to his house he said: I do not go into these
minor details. I am not involved in this. But, he did agree that some of the
actions were unwarranted. About Bhagwandass leave and his absence at
critical juncture he said: I do not indulge in such wrangling.
About the magnitude of the protest by lawyers, he said very few
lawyers had come out. He even doubted that the protesters who came out
were genuine lawyers by saying that hottest selling item now a day is black
coat. Kamran, as mark of respect for the head of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, did not mention that bulk of the stock from the market was
purchased by his name-sake for Patwaris and councilors.
About attack on Geo office, he reiterated his condemnation of the
action while urging that Minister Durrani must be praised for his bravery. He
indirectly accused Geo by advising media not take sides. He said that action
has been taken against all members of police party, but action against any
senior is not appropriate because if they are held responsible for the actions
of their subordinates, they would be hesitant take any action in future.
In reply to Benazirs low profile in the present episode, his reply gave
an impression the he has kept the door open for PPP leader, as regards
Nawaz Sharif he referred to the legal aspects. He blamed religious parties
for all the missing persons.
The same day, the Cabinet endorsed reference against the CJP.
Foreign Office asked world to stay out of the CJP row. Policeman who led
police attack disappeared. Ansar Abbasi reported an effort to persuade the
CJP to agree to a middle ground enabling his honourable reinstatement.
However, the chief justice in his response has stated in categorical terms that
he would not enter into any such deal.
Acting CJ said that instead of concentrating on little fish in
manhandling of the CJP, the big fish should be netted. He wanted the Shark
not Sardines. He also took suo moto notice of police action against
journalists in Lahore.

807

Lawyers continued boycott of courts and hunger strike. Seven judges,

including Justice Jawwad S Khawaja of the LHC, resigned in protest. ANP
staged hunger strike at every district to protest reference against the CJP.
Qazi demanded dissolution of assemblies.
Next day, the SJC adjourned the hearing of application of the CJP,
scheduled till 3rd April. Defence panel was shocked at adjournment of
hearing. Aitzaz Ahsan said the SJC had rejected his request for adjournment
till 26th March saying that the Council wanted speedy disposal of the case,
but now it has postponed it without any convincing compulsion.
He also objected to the wording of the notice regarding adjournment
which gave wrong impression that the hearing was adjourned on the request
of the CJP. It was also against the normal practice because adjournments are
usually announced on the day of hearing.
The text of the much guarded reference against the CJP was displayed
on BBC website. Out of 45 allegations, 35 pertained to Dr Arsalan, son of
the CJP; three each pertained to protocol and use of transport in excess of
entitlement.
Missing inspector involved in attack on Geo office was arrested.
Deputy Attorney General and two civil judges of Sindh resigned in protest.
A judge of Peshawar High Court was appointed to probe manhandling of the
CJP. Supreme Court also ordered probe into police action against lawyers.
Lawyers observed countrywide strike on 21st March, despite the
adjournment of hearing. Protests were generally peaceful except in Quetta
where police used tear gas and baton-charged the protesters. Minister
Durrani thanked lawyers for ignoring the opposition and invited them to
dialogue on all issues.
Political parties also carried out rallies but lawyers stayed away from
politicians and within political parties, PPP stayed away from other political
parties to preserve its identity and moderate image. PPP Parliamentarians
demanded withdrawal of the reference. The CJP demanded open trial.
Bhagwandas returned to Pakistan as. On way back to home he went to
the cockpit of airplane and talked to unnamed people on radio. On arrival in
Karachi, he refused to comment on judicial crisis but said he would talk in
writing after taking oath as Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan.

808

Ansar Abbasi compiled a report contesting that the CJP was given a
raw deal by accusing him of misuse of official transport which is a norm in
ruling elite. He proved his point with facts and figures. Law secretary said
the government has more material against the CJP than what has been
provided in the reference. The directive urging district court judges to
dismiss cases of protesting lawyers was withdrawn. The US once again
called for end to judicial crisis.

COMMENTS
During third round, people from all segments of the society expressed
their views frankly. Midway through the round Musharraf gave an interview
to Geo TV which resulted in a discernable shift in the focus of the observers,
who generally rejected Musharrafs attempt to justify actions of the
government.
The comments prior to the interview can be sifted into four parts
keeping in view the issues discussed; one, the reference and the ensuing
crisis; two, attack on media; three, the conduct of ministers; and four,
general comments by learned people on various aspects of the entire
episode; first, the comments on the reference and the ensuing crisis.
If there is no respect for the judiciary then there is no rule of law,
justice, fair-play and equity in a state, opined Abdullah Usman from
Peshawar. Justice cannot be dispensed with to common man if the chief
justice of a country is dragged by his collar by the police. There should be
supremacy of rule of law and it is high time the people demand it.
Ibaad Hakim from London wrote, my President you were well within
your constitutional rights to file a reference against the chief justice.
However, the manner in which action was taken against him worries your
people. The treatment given to the countrys highest judicial officer was not
deferential to his post. You might argue that you have strengthened an
institution. But, looking at the reaction of your people, Mr President, you in
fact have weakened a nation.
Lal Zada Khan from Peshawar observed that the current judicial
crisis in Pakistan has not surprised persons like me. In fact, by requesting the

809

president of Pakistan to file a reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan

the prime minister has killed two birds with one stone.
In the present scenario there are two aggrieved parties. If on the one
hand the Chief Justice of Pakistan has been made to leave his office
unceremoniously, on the other hand the president has earned the bad name
for being responsible for all the mess. On the contrary the prime minister,
who actually triggered off one of the worst judicial crisis in Pakistan,
appears to be least affected person so far.
Dr Sara Haque from Islamabad was of the view that the recent action
taken by Pervez Musharraf against the Chief Justice of Pakistan is a true
reflection of his enlightened moderation.
Azmat Abbas Syed wrote, every crisis brings in its wake a potential
for rebirth. The silver lining of the present highly-charged executivejudiciary imbroglio is that it provides all segments of Pakistani society,
particularly the judiciary, and a historical chance of redemption. We can all
redeem ourselves of our past sins of 60 years which has brought Pakistan in
the pass This may be our last chance to put our society and state, once and
for all, back on the track of the rule of law. History awaits our verdict.
Justice Wajih-ud-Din Ahmed, former Supreme Court judge who
refused to take oath under General Musharrafs PCO was interviewed by
Asad Jamal for The News on Sunday (TNS). He said: The way the CJP is
being treated is just not tolerable. Honestly, our judges take themselves
lightly. That is why they are taken lightly. Let me also mention that Justice
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has been a PCO judge who has towed the line
of the administration to a large extent. Yet the government deals with the
chief justice, a citizen of this country, in a manner which is unconstitutional
and against the principles of natural justice.
As for the SJC, could they not wait for Rana Bhagwandas the
senior-most judge after the CJP to return? He has obviously not gone to
North Pole but only to India. Did the government want to have a Supreme
Judicial Council of its own choice?
There is an obvious conflict of interest involved here. Have the
present judges of the Supreme Judicial Council not become disqualified
themselves by becoming a party to a questionable oath-taking of acting chief
justice This is very serious matter. Then other extraordinary things also

810

happened; the Supreme Court Registrar was removed, they all huddled
themselves together immediately after the ceremony on the March 9, all
arranged by the federal law secretary.
The SJC does not enjoy the status of a court but is only an
enquiry tribunal. It cannot act for contempt of court proceedings as
envisaged in the Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan. In any case, any
order denying freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution is void. Since any
instructions prohibiting freedom of information would tantamount to
denying a constitutional right, therefore such orders and instructions can
only be seen as unconstitutional. Also SJC cannot issue instructions to
another institution such as PEMRA.
My concern is that things might get out of control and they might
not somehow be used as they were used in 1977 against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
The protest was started by the lawyers but then it got out of their hands and
led to the derailment of democratic process and rule of law. The government
must retrace its steps and withdraw the reference.
Aitzaz Ahsan, senior counsel of the CJP, was interviewed by Noreen
Haider for TNS. Excerpts from his interview are reproduced. I think his (the
CJPs) activism together with the cases of the missing people and
Pakistan Steel Mills were the main reasons for the move. But, its also a
fact that the government wants favourable judgments only.
He was asked why is Justice Bhagwandas not showing up, is it also
part of the plan? Ahsan replied: It certainly seems so now. His silence is
very significant.
This may well be a turning point in the history of our country. But we
do not want to politicize the issue. I am his attorney and I am fighting a legal
battle. The allegations against him are baseless, without any substance
and I am very sure that I can present a very strong case in favour of the CJ.
Munir A Malik, counsel of the CJP, was interviewed by Zeenia
Shaukat for TNS. In reply to Shujaats remarks, he said: I think it reflects a
sad state of affairs. (Under the scheme of the Constitution) the Army is
subservient to the judiciary. All the members of the Armed Forces have
taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Chaudhry Shujaat
claims to be the head of a major political party. Does the ruling party want to
sit as a silent spectator?

811

When asked about presidents decision to send reference to the SJC,

he replied: The methodology is mala fide. You file the reference first and
virtually declare the Chief Justice guilty The executive has to admit that
the methodology was in violation of the Constitution. In the presence of a
Chief Justice, there cannot be an acting chief justice The provisions of the
Article 209 have not been complied with here. They ought to be complied
with.
Hamid Khan, another counsel of the CJP, was interviewed by
Shahzada Irfan Ahmed for TNS. In reply to query about Bhagwandas, he
said: This is the mystery that no one has been able to solve. No one
knows where he is. Even his family does not have a clue about his
whereabouts. It appears the government knows where he is and is
intentionally blocking his way to the SJC. There should be no doubt about
Justice Bhagwandass eligibility to head the SJC. He has held the office of
acting chief justice of Pakistan whenever the chief justice went abroad.
There is no provision in the Constitution that bars a non-Muslim from
holding the office of the Chief Justice.
TNS asked him to comment on complaints of Chief Minister of Sindh
and other government functionaries. He replied: These complaints are
baseless. Who gives a right to someone to say that the Chief Justice
wrongfully used a plane of a chief minister? The planes have been bought
from public money and are not the property of any single individual; if one
state functionary can use them, then why not the other? The Chief Justice of
Pakistan is the third highest constitutional office after the president and the
prime minister. Going by the book, his protocol must be far more than the
chief minister who should come much lower in the list. If WAPDAs
chairman can have a plane for his exclusive use and every lieutenant general
a helicopter at his disposal, I cant figure out why they cant see the chief
justice use one of them.
The crisis is not as big as the one thats in the making. God forbid
if the dictator succeeds in his designs, our country will be in a state of
turmoil. Therefore, we must join hands to avert that. I would request the
judges not to succumb to any pressure. If they cant rise to the occasion,
anti-democratic forces will become stronger and people will lose confidence
in the judiciary.
Federal Minister for Information, Muhammad Ali Durrani was
interviewed by Usman Ghafoor for TNS to have the official viewpoint. As
812

per practice the names of interviewer and the interviewed are abbreviated to
save column space and interestingly, ministers name could not be
abbreviated in any other way except MAD. Excerpts from his interview
prove that the abbreviation is not off the mark.
TNS: In hindsight, do you think the matter could have been handled
differently?
MAD: Well, if one wanted to go about thing according to the Constitution,
then this was the only.
Comments: According to MAD, if anything untoward has happened it was
because of the Constitution.
TNS: The general feeling is what the urgency was? Dont you think if the
government had waited till Justice Bhagwandass return, this would have
lent the issue a more impartial and fair complexion?
MAD: See, the whole issue is subjudice. And, I repeat, everything that
happened was in accordance with the Constitution.
Comments: Answer couldnt be more off the mark than this. He was beating
about the bush, as they say. Had he replied that skies would have fallen, the
answer would have been acceptable with a pinch of salt.
TNS: The non-functional CJ has already stated that he was in detention and
deprived of his personal staff, whereas the government has been denying the
allegations?
MAD: The government is only dishing out facts, not denials. And, by the
grace of God, weve been proved right
Comments: Only MAD could have dared to seek Gods grace for such
blatant lie.
TNS: Can the government afford this chaotic situation at a time when the
country is expected to play a key role in the international political arena?
MAD: Let me make this very clear that there is no such thing as chaos
in the country. If there is chaos somewhere, its in the minds of the
opposition leaders.

813

Comments: The reply should be weighed keeping in view that it has come
from Mr MAD.
TNS: Apparently, some members of the federal cabinet have recently
expressed the view that the president was ill advised to take up the issue at
this juncture? Comment.
MAD: All these stories are made up. The ministers, till they were allowed
to speak to the media, made appearances on different TV channels and
expressed their views. I dont think there was any difference of opinion
on the issue ever.
The governments attempts at strangulation and intimidation of
media were widely condemned. Can any legal wizard tell me the meaning
of contempt of court while the country is ruled by the law of necessity?
asked Bashir A Malik from Islamabad. I am interested in an answer to my
question because the Supreme Judicial Council has issued a warning to the
print and electronic media to refrain from commenting on issues concerning
the reference filed by the regime against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad
Chaudhry. I may be wrong in concluding that anybody can be charged
with contempt of court if he or she is on the wrong side of the rulers who
are answerable to none under the law of necessity. Legal experts can correct
me if my judgment is wrong.
Babar A Mufti from Islamabad wondered: What sort of democracy is
this when the constitution, parliament, judiciary and now the medias
autonomy is subject to military supremacy which is dictatorial in nature and
amounts to despotism? The attack on Geo TV is not a solitary incident. It
is indeed the culmination of threats that journalists associated with Geo
TV have been receiving of late.
Adnan Adil was of the view that the crisis triggered by the CJPa
removal seems to have spiraled out of governments control. In a knee-jerk
reaction, it has started putting the blame at medias doorstep. The fact is
that the TV channels have reported extensively on the circumstances in
which the Chief Justice was restrained from work as a judge and the
treatment meted out to him outside the courtroom, saying very little about
the actual presidential reference against him. The content of this reference
was not known to the Chief Justice and his lawyers till after the first hearing
in the council.

814

While the government seems so sensitive about reporting of the

lawyers protest against the top judges suspension, one wonders what stops
it from moving against lawyer Naeem Bokhari who had circulated a letter
containing a long list of allegations against the sitting Chief Justice Iftikhar
Chaudhry and then repeating these accusations on a TV channel after filing
of the presidential reference. When a party has been allowed to publicly
level allegations against the judge, why not give the judge and his
supporters the right to present their defense in public?
Senior journalists, like president of Pakistan Federal Union of
Journalist, Mazhar Abbas, opposed the trials in-camera proceedings and
demanded the trial should be held in open for the sake of removing doubts of
the people. Others say that a bar on the reporting of in-camera trial in the
SJC will severely limit the coverage of the issue as all aspects of the story in
one or other way revolve around the Councils hearing.
Javed Jabbar former information minister commented on attack on
Geo office. Coming exactly one week after the beginning of this bizarre and
terrible phase of our history with the removal of the chief justice and the
disgraceful manner in which he was treated, this new horror is a symptom
of the deep crisis into which we have descended. The government should
take immediate punitive action against those responsible including those
who gave the orders for this reprehensible attack and those who carried it
out.
Shazia Tasneem Farooqi from Karachi wrote, millions of TV viewers
around the world watched the massacre of media sovereignty in Islamabad
under the fortified canopy of law The people of this country will always
remember this day as one of the darkest of this current government.
Mohammad Ali from Karachi opined, the way this attack on the
media offices was carried out reeks of being preplanned, and would not be
possible in the countrys securest city, Islamabad, if the attackers didnt have
the backing of the highest authority.
What soft image and enlightened moderation are we talking
about when the lawmakers and the newsmakers are dealt with as though
they are criminals? What form of justice can an ordinary person hope for,
when the two most important instruments and pillars of democracy that can
provide justice and represent freedom of expression are endangered by none
other than the state?
815

Whatever freedom of expression had been allowed in these eight

years of enlightened moderation was destroyed in a matter of minutes by
the right of freedom of suppression that the police apparently enjoy.
Maisha from Islamabad wrote, the sacking of Punjab police officials
means that low-level officers are being made scapegoats. What is the
justification of an inquiry when each and every action of the attack on Geo
was recorded and aired? If the government is sincere in its intentions, then as
a first step, the information minister should resign He cannot deny the fact
that this action of the policemen is a deliberate attempt to give the message
to print and electronic media to behave or else.
Iram from Islamabad observed that the truth is that this is the only
tool which allows the public to have any awareness of the events going on
around them and gives the full picture. If the media is threatened or its
freedom is curtailed in any way it is a weakness of the government. The
government cannot grant freedom of the press and then snatch it away as
soon as that freedom plays a substantial role; it would mean the freedom
granted was merely an illusion.
Sheeba Ajmal from Peshawar said: We have to start thinking now
whether we want to be treated as inhumane citizens of this country who have
absolutely no concern of what is going on at this crucial time or do we need
to stand up and speak up for the right of what is called constitution. Do we
want to live where people are forced to write, hear and watch things
that the government wants them to see and understand?
It is high time we think about what we want and decide whether we
would sacrifice our personal interest for the countrys interest? The media
has every right to inform the people of what is going on at this very
crucial time.
The twin Ministers, left hand and right hand opening pair of
Musharrafs team, were also criticized though not as harshly as they
deserved. M S Hasan from Karachi wrote, with reference to the question
asked in the editorial, that whether the law minister will tender his
resignation over this sordid episode or will he be made to step down by
his superiors, let me make a prediction: neither will happen. The entire
leadership of his ruling party and his superiors will rally around to defend
and protect him for, as the saying goes birds of a feather, flock together. In

816

the event, either the law minister resigns or is made to quit the federal
cabinet, I will most humbly eat my words.
Fakhar-e-Alam from Lahore observed, the way the worthy law
minister reacted in a talk show was blatant proof of how democratic our
politicians are. The un-parliamentary acts and words have become a rule for
the said minister. Let the minister realize the wider implications of his
gestures and words as fortunately or unfortunately he is representing
Pakistan and the whole world is watching and listening.
Hafiz Sultan Ahmad from Islamabad opined, the Federal Law
Minister Wasi Zafar has now earned yet another feather for badmouthing a journalist, in addition to the two already tagged to his cap one
for slapping a poor waiter in a five-star hotel in Islamabad, and another for
being an acquiescent spectator to the barbaric thrashing of an innocent
airline passenger at the hands of his son at Karachi airport in 2005.
Nagina Roobi from Islamabad wrote, Wasi Zafar our infamous law
minister used filthy language for an honourable journalist before the whole
world. Drastic action against the minister should have been taken for this act
as he destroyed the image of our country. No action taken speaks volumes
for the incompetence and lack of responsibility of the government on a
very serious matter. It is sad that the respectable people of our country are
being humiliated by these culprits.
Masood Hasan observed that while the country was rocked by a crisis
some place at 7.5 on the Richter scale, Minister Durrani was spin-doctoring
better than Shane Warne. Amidst a storm of hailstones the size of golf balls,
he stood without flinching an eyebrow and declared that indeed all was calm
and it was a sunny day. As thunderbolts crashed in the skies and men in
black coats emerged like lost tribes of ancient penguins, the minister stood
calmly while a benign smile played on his lips.
Minister Durrani was quick to whip out his scimitar and declare in
thundering tones that other than Lahore, every court was open and working.
Obviously his geography is different from ours, but thats not a crime in
Islamabad. It also meant that we are incapable of distinguishing right from
left or black from white and have the same IQ for which cabbages are
famous. As the police and the black coats clashed and sounds of clubs
striking balding pates, echoed across the nation, Minister Durrani looked a

817

hundred TV cameras in the face and without blinking declared that all
was indeed well.
It is now believed that all this was perhaps an extremely complex
illusion that seemingly afflicted the entire country because as Minister
Durrani explained with genuine distress, the opposite was actually the real
truth same as the Generals real democracy.
Not to be outdone in such interesting times, the next Proud to be
Pakistani was none other than Slapper Wasi, a man who delivers the
finest slaps at a moments notice. While it wouldnt be a bad idea to name a
mental sanatorium in his honour in his native Jaranwala the bar council
has cancelled his licence so even Jaranwala has a conscience.
Both ministers have lied through their teeth to the extent that
new dentures may be required. Both are living examples of what brilliant
people run our lives. The people have thrown away the scripts and all it has
taken is one brave man to stand up for what he thinks is right. In the
governments pristine book we may have reached a planet where all
enlightenment is moderate and all moderation is enlightened, but things are
falling apart and this was part of the script when the CJP was shamelessly
interrogated for five hours. To lie at all costs is the norm and to abandon all
civilized behaviour the only sure way to success, but there is a glimmer of
hope that this can be tossed aside. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesnt?
As for those rusting and broken principles like truth, integrity and
decency, I regret to inform you that they have been slapped out of existence
and can no longer be found. However if you wish to locate the Snitch of the
Year, you might have better luck. These are interesting times and a
reminder that we are hostages in our own land.
Most analysts did not restrict themselves to a particular aspect of the
confrontation between Team-Helmet and Team-Wig. The gravity of the
situation created by the rash action of the president and its aggravation by
the foul play of his team warranted analysis covering all aspects starting
from the background and ending up with its possible impact. Excerpts from
the comments of some analysts are reproduced.
The movement against the governmental attempt to remove a Chief
Justice who could no longer be taken for granted has revealed a reservoir of
courage, anger and attachment to the ideal of an independent judiciary that

818

has surprised many, observed Salman Akram Raja. It is moments of

resolve like the present that create a bond between the people and the
spirit of the constitutional order. The people then came to own their
Constitution which can no longer be tampered with by every opportunistic
wayfarer riding a tank.
It is clear to all that the reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan
was filed not merely because his conduct had allegedly transgressed the
limits of judicial propriety: transgression of constitutional limits has hardly
ever been an issue with the Musharraf regime that has systematically
mangled the spirit as well as the text of the Constitution, in order to create a
governance faade that now fools no one. The force of the peoples fury
has obviously rattled the government.
To say that the filing of the reference by the president was his
constitutional prerogative is to miss the point of the mass revulsion
altogether. The existence of a power is one thing; the decision to use it is
another. No law against contempt of court bars the people and the media
from scrutiny of this decision.
While the manner in which the Chief Justice of Pakistan has been
treated has appalled the nation, even more horrifying is the realization that
there is nothing to protect a judge from being targeted by an increasingly
arrogant president. The president nods, a puppet prime minister not
accountable either to his cabinet or the parliament produces the desired
advice, the president acts and the targeted judge becomes non-functional.
The present saga, and the lack of confidence expressed by the Chief
Justice in some of the members of the Council, suggests that there is clear
need to review the constitutional mechanism that leads to the filing of a
reference. Clearance of the proposed reference by a non-partisan
parliamentary committee would appear to be an acceptable reform.
In telling the nation that the countrys chief adjudicator can be
shunted out and hounded like a criminal the regime has assaulted the
peoples last bastion of hope. The anger that has descended all across the
country springs out of desperation. The present reference has shamelessly
brought down the barrier of self-restraint that had, in the past, prevented
irked administrations from resorting to this stratagem for getting rid of a
tiresome judge.

819

Ayesha T Haq opined that indeed our state of apathy is so deeply

ingrained that it is really thanks to the incredibly brave efforts and
principled stand taken by the lawyers and round the clock on the spot
reporting by those of our media that refused to be cowed down by threats
from the government that we have taken cognizance of this latest courage.
The enthusiasm with which the police set upon citizens who were
exercising their constitutional right to protest is reminiscent of scenes from
the Quit India movement which after great sacrifice eventually led to the
British leaving India and the birth of Pakistan as an independent state. It is
incredible that a chief justice of the country could be kept under virtual
house arrest with no access to counsel, telephones or television, that his
children were not able to go to school, that he was roughed up
That despite claims of having created a free press the government
busied itself with issuing gag orders and unveiled threats to those who
did not comply. That for those who didnt understand the orders and threats
there was always those diligent and enthusiastic police officers to beat up
reporters and smash up the offices of newspapers and broadcasters
My other favourite was when the law minister was asked to confirm
whether or not the advocate general of Sindh had resigned and he said he
had not resigned but had been dismissed. Unfortunately for him his
colleague in government had not read the same script and the law minister
was immediately contradicted by the information minister who stated that
the advocate general had resigned but had withdrawn his resignation.
All this doublespeak has done nothing to improve the
governments case and the issue of the chief justice has grown beyond the
chief justice. It is seen not only as an attack on the judiciary but has
extended to the press and has made civil society painfully aware of its own
vulnerability.
The soft image of Pakistan looks like it has gone for a six. Those in
charge need to remember that there are certain things you just dont do you
dont tug on supermans cape, you dont spit in to the wind and you never
underestimate the citizens.
Dr Farrukh Saleem as usual relied on facts and figures. Of the 245
countries on the face of the planet there are 202 sovereign states. From
within the 202 sovereign states, the Supreme Court of Pakistan is the

820

only court in the world to have given cover to military rulers under its
novel law of necessity theory.
Under Rule of Law the source of all authority within the state is the
law of the land. Under Rule of Man, the source of all authority within the
state is the man who rules. Using the same principle, states can be divided
up into pre-modern and modern, pre-modern is where the source of
authority is the man who rules while modern is where the source of authority
is law of the land.
Under Pakistans Rule of Man model of governance when a conflict
between the gun and the law is adjudicated upon, the gun has a history of
winning. This is exactly what the CJP wants to reverse. He wants the law to
win. This reversal cannot take place in a vacuum either. There is so much
that needs to be reversed. The CJP wants the source of all authority within
Pakistan to be the law of the land. The 14 kilometer gap between our de
facto (in reality) and de jure (as per the law) governments needs to be
reversed the de facto government currently resides in Rawalpindi while the
de jure is in Islamabad. Then theres the president, our de facto ruler, and the
prime minister the de jure. That also needs to be reversed as per the law of
the land. To be certain, no such reversal can take place in vacuum.
Is our civil society prepared for the transition from pre-modern
to modern, from Rule of Man to Rule of Law? The answer lies in the
fact that of the 159,660,500 citizens of Pakistan Mr Athar Minallah is the
lone citizen to have filed a petition condemning the Rule of Man.
Ghazi Salahuddin commented, come to think of it, our official
policies, pronouncement and manipulations remain totally out of sync with
the needs and expectations of the people. As if the peoples opinion does not
at all matter. Not only that, there seems to be a conscious effort to insult
the intelligence of the people and to subvert any remnants of pride and
confidence that they may have retained from the days of populist politics.
Another dimension of this willful deception is the sorry spectacle
of how a few ministers can tell lies, straight-facedly. Watching, for
instance, Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani on various talk
shows this past week compelled you to suspend your disbelief. You could
take it as excellent comedy if it had nothing to do with the lives and future of
all of us. At the other end of this ministerial masquerade is Law Minister

821

I was very impressed by the analysts of a bearded taxi driver of

Karachi who hails from the Frontier. This was before the attack on Geo. I
first thought that he was a member of the radical brigade. But he professed
to be a friend of the Tableeghi Jamat. He began by saying that if the chief
justice of the country could be treated like that then the poor people like
him could not expect any justice or respect from the government. And this
is what others had also suggested in their own way. The attack on Geo
belonged in the same category.
This driver of a rather decrepit yellow-top taxi who said he was
unlettered, went on to argue that the government was doing these things to
create terror (khauf) in the hearts of the common people As an aside,
let me admit that this particular conversation improved my impression about
the wisdom of the common people, the proverbial awam who are not
generally allowed to have a voice.
The News wrote, as for Saturdays actions by police, they were
mostly unprovoked again, this time beginning when lawyers were
prevented by the police from going inside the premises of the LHC to attend
an all-Pakistan convention organized by the Lahore High Court Bar
Association. The police lathi-charged the lawyers and fired tear gas shells
and this rash action eventually snow-balled into a full-fledged street battle
between the unarmed lawyers and the Punjab police constabulary.
The question that one would like to ask is why cannot the
government let the lawyers meet if they want, why it cannot be okay with
people protesting whatever it is they wish to protest against, provided it is
peaceful and does not disturb public order. Surely by now, it should have
realized that an all-out confrontation with either the lawyers community
or the media is going to be a futile if not downright negative exercise in
that it will only serve to further exacerbate an already tense situation and that
this heightening of tension will only damage the governments own
credibility and lower its image in the eyes of Pakistanis in general as well as
the outside world.
A blanket prohibition impedes the peoples right to be informed
on all matters related to the chief justices suspension Also, by
prohibiting any coverage of the issue, a situation may well arise in which,
because of absence of any information, rumours begin to gain currency and
that only serves to destabilize things further.

822

Some analysts, while acknowledging civil societies right to protest

governments high-handedness, feared that the present movement may fade
even before gathering the momentum. Fatima Bhutto wrote, Martin
Niemoeller, a German theologian and anti-war activist, was made famous by
a poem he wrote during the Nazi takeover of Europe:
First they came for the socialists, and I didnt speak up, because I
wasnt a socialist. Then they came for the trade unions, and I didnt speak
up, because I wasnt a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
didnt speak up, because I wasnt a Jew. Then they came for me, and there
was no one left to speak up for me.
Now theyve come for the lawyers. In an unprecedented and
unconstitutional move the president suspended the chief justice a week
ago The rule of law has effectively been suspended in Pakistan, but the
call to take the streets has been heeded primarily by lawyers weve got
nothing to do with it, us non-lawyers, were safe arent we?
The situation today is tense; it could be the press who gets attacked
next. It could be the professors after that. And may be then, if we do not
stop thinking of our struggles as separate from each other and make the
mistake of not banding together, there will be no one left
Themrise Khan wrote, not including token hunger strikes outside the
press club or a handful of placards barring groups outside the Parliament
now and then; Pakistan has rarely witnessed mass protesting against
vagaries of any sort Complacency seems to run in our veins now as the
blood has long since dried upor has it?
From the highest judicial and legal authorities, past and present, to
advocates and lawyers from the lower courts, the backlash has been intense
and out on the streets. For a while it seemed that the culture of silence
pervading our informed and un-informed citizens had finally decided to
speak up.
But the key issue which faces the legal community at this moment is
how long they can maintain their momentum? As with everything else in
our weary society, the fear of being silenced looms above this small but
determined group of protesting lawyers. The fear is of not just losing support
along the way, but more so of being controlled by the use of sheer brutal
force used by the establishment.

823

Protests cannot be successful through protests alone. As has been the

case with most other causes for rights and justice, support has not been
forthcoming from other inter-related political and social circles. Pakistan
has always fallen victim to the sectoral bug. Problems (is that) different
sectors stay isolated within those sectors.
The lawyers themselves are currently reacting more through emotion
than through organization. The protest movement in Pakistan has been
subjugated for so long, that it has lost its effectiveness and sting. A day
after the chaos, it was business as usual in Islamabad. The lawyers protests
have had their high points though.
However the numbers are still too few, too scattered and too
disorganized. As an observer remarked, if protesters were so passionate
about their cause, a revolution in Pakistan would have been done and dealt
with by now. They say that the current system is promoting so much
exclusion of those on the periphery. They have had access to both the long
and short arm of the law, despite the shortcomings and limitations of our
judicial system. But if even this section of our politico-social fabric can be
beaten down by force, bureaucracy and restraint, then what chance is there
for anyone else to make a difference?
Chris Cork had similar views but was not pessimistic. The frisson of
activity generated by the actions of the government in respect of the chief
justice has indeed united for now a disunited political opposition. It has
generated much heat but not a great deal of light and has given a
considerable fillip to the reputation of the national media, print and
electronic, who despite threats and now physical assault have displayed both
courage and tenacity in the way these events have been reported and
recorded. Yet look around you
He quoted his chat with shopkeepers of Fauji Chawk. The crisis,
crisis, they saidwhat crisis? There is no crisis. This is all happening far
away and it is just politicians and lawyers and you media people who are
making this crisis. Yes, it is a terrible thing, this thing about the chief
justice, but what can we do? We are powerless. Everything is in the hand
of god and we can do nothing.
Phone calls around the country in search of The Crisis to friends and
colleagues in three of the four provinces brought the same litany of
powerlessness, the lack of an ability to mobilize or intervene, a belief that
824

little or nothing would have changed once the dust had settled and the
scribbling and chattering classes moved on to the Next Big Thing; the price
of eggs, perhaps.
There is, it would seem, a national state of learned inability
gripping ordinary people outside the players on our screens and in our
newspapers. The unity displayed by lawyers and politicians and the media
has yet to stir the vast grassroots population into a protest that cuts across
caste and tribe, faith and sect. Unity for the man and woman in the street, is
as yet marked absent.
Gripping as the legal and political dramas may be to a significant
minority, the real gravitas of the crisis has not yet percolated the psyche
of the average citizen beyond a rueful sense of awareness that Pakistan has
once again done itself no favours. This is so common and unremarkable that
it has yet to stimulate anybody outside lawer-ing and politicking to any sort
of direct action. Even the shameful behaviour of the countrys law minister
using language that would make a stevedore blush live on talk-radio evokes
not much beyond a response limited to Oopsthere he goes again almost
as if it were normal for senior officer of governance to use unprintable
language on air.
That there is a crisis seems undoubted. Whatever the rights and
wrongs of matters regarding the chief justice, there is a crisis that seems to
have the potential to spark, to jump the inability gap. Today, there are
mutterings. Tomorrow there may be a few more. Learned inability could
begin to transform into direct action a mass movement, even and the
giant might awaken. Heaven help us all it does.

Musharrafs interview to Kamran Khan failed in achieving the

intended goal of securing some relief in criticism. A day after the interview,
Hamid Mir invited Aitzaz, Asfandyar, Bhindar and another spokesman of the
government to his TV programme; Capital talk. Asfandyar was not satisfied
with explanations given by the President in his interview.
He candidly narrated the joke about an imam leading a prayer, who
was seen by a man not familiar with Muslim way of praying. The man
wondered as to what has happened to these people and then watched them
with curiosity and concluded that it was the fault of the man in front of the
congregation; all of them did what that man was doing. Asfandyar was
referring to Musharrafs attempt to shift the blame onto his subordinates.
825

Aitzaz refuted that postponement was requested by the defendant. He

wondered that the Council had now fixed the next hearing for 3 rd April.
About charges he used the word BAIHOODA and vowed to blast those with
legal arguments.
The News devoted entire editorial column to comment on what
Musharraf said in his interview. It was good to hear from the president
himself, during the course of his TV interview, that there are no plans to
call the army, impose a state of emergency or delay general elections. There
were fears among some quarters that following his recent remarks that
there was a conspiracy which he later clarified was meant to indicate that
there was one against the country and not him per se.
The defence taken by the president that the reference was filed not
out of retaliation against Justice Iftikhar taking an active interest in cases of
disappeared persons or for his judicial activism will be seen by many people,
especially the skeptics and cynics, as more of an exercise in damagelimitation Now one hopes that the ministry of defence will be more
forthcoming with information on these people as and when hearings for
these cases resume.
As for the whole episodehis explanation for this was that the
government had not thought the whole filing of the reference through and
that perhaps some mistakes were made However, one wishes to point out
here that these were major mistakes, and of such a nature that they tended to
tarnish the governments name and credibility and created a judicial crisis of
epidemic proportions. To say that the crisis became what it did because it
became politicized a point that has been made repeatedly by the prime
minister and other senior state functionaries as well misses the argument
that it was the governments ham-handed way of dealing with the whole
episode which made possible this politicization in the first place.
The attack on the office of Geo TV and the News, too, found mention
in the presidents interviewthe question still remains if a police
inspector could have the audacity to carry out such an attack of his own
accord. Since the president has said that he is personally monitoring the
investigation, the best thing would be to wait and hope that the real
perpetrators behind this attack on press and media freedom are caught and
punished.

826

The issue of Justice Rana Bhagwandas and what will happen once he
returns is before us. One hopes that the constitution will not be violated in
this regard. Also, the present status of Justice Iftikhar is unclear, with the
law minister now saying that he has been sent on forced leave a change in
the governments earlier stance and perhaps a tacit admission that the
president indeed does not have the constitutional right to suspend him before
the reference against him is heard and decided upon by the Supreme Judicial
Council.
Imtiaz Alam opined: Not a conspiracy against anyone, this is the
popular urge that is finding its fullest democratic expression in the
protests of the lawyers community over the coup against the Chief Justice
of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. What are the prospects and character
of the lawyers movement and where would it possibly lead?
While the CJP has been vindicated for his steadfastness to stand up to
the executives pressure, the SJC faces a dilemma: if it is not constituted
due to conflicts of interest charged by the CJP against his three honourable
brother judges, the findings on the reference will carry little or no
legitimacy; and if the SJC is reconstituted and throws out the reference, it
will have serious consequences for both the executive and a section of
judiciary.
The unanimity of the bar is so overwhelming that it has assumed
brutal proportions. Lawyers aligned with the executive or standing on the
wrong side of the fence are being thrown out of the precincts of bar and their
licences being cancelled. The executive, on the other hand, is making a
fool out of its own acts. The pitiable offers that the two chief ministers of
the Punjab and Sindh are offering to the lawyers while unleashing the police
force on the peaceful demonstrators in black coats have flown back into their
faces.
The procession is being led by the defenders of law, the most
articulated section of civil society the bars, not by anti-democratic
clerics. Nor are they coming out of mosques with slogans to enforce sharia;
they are coming out of the courts and the bar rooms. In fact the
constitutional-liberal lawyers have taken the lead over the MMA clerics who
in fact sanctified the man in uniform becoming the president of the republic.
Although the focus of the bars battle is on the independence of
judiciary and it is still mostly confined to lawyers, it is very quickly
827

transforming into a struggle for full restoration of democracy and

constitutional rule sans militarys involvement in politics and attracting
other vibrant sections of civil society to assume a mass character. Just on the
second appearance of the CJP, the media was coerced to join the storm
The kind of media solidarity so promptly seen on television is a
reminder to those who had panicked and will continue to panic as the
agitation grows. When police are ordered to suppress peoples right to
express and assembly by force, then the baton charges cant distinguish
between a journalist and other protestors.
If the administration resorts to violent means, as it is inclined to, the
movement will also turn violent. Already the executives case has been
rejected at the bar of public opinion. Its spokesman, a bad mouthed law
minister and a soft-spoken but apologetic information minister, have further
ruined its case in front of most renowned and respected legal experts. Losing
the battle of ideas, the executive is now meekly taking refuge behind the
instructions of SJC not to discuss the CJP case in the media.
So far two rounds have taken place. The first round was on the
legitimacy of the reference. The executive lost the test of public opinion in
the very first round. Having won the first round and assuming high moral
ground, the bar won the second round by not succumbing to the wrath of the
executive and succeeded in breaking the barricades. The momentum is
building up at such a scale that in just the second appearance of the CJP
before the SJC the crowd was about to lift his vehicle on its shoulders.
So far the extremists have kept out of the movement. The efforts by
the MMA to hijack the movement will be disruptive. Similarly, the
signatories to the Charter of Democracy, instead of becoming a tale of
the clergy or being tempted by a deal, should come forward with a clear
agenda on the charter of peoples rights and their own conduct. People are
not happy with their past conduct and they will have to assure them that they
will behave in the future.
The responsibility lies on the bars in keeping the direction of the
movement towards a republic, if it wants a real democratic set-up to emerge
where peoples fundamental rights are guaranteed. There is the possibility
that this movement that has started from attack on the judiciary may fizzle
out, if the executive promptly decides to retreat or other sections of civil

828

society do not join the movement and it fails to keep the momentum Not
all movements are fated to succeed, but they do leave an imprint on history.
Ch Shaukat Ali, ex-federal secretary asked, who is behind these
intrigues as said by the president himself and with what purpose is a
question that needs to be answered. However, I am sure the present
government will be unable to provide an answer to this because it is part
of the problem and not of the solution.
He went to suggest that like Afghanistan, a council of elders should
immediately be constitutedact as a think-tank and suggest strategies and
measures to defuse the present crisis. If the chief justice is removed or
retired, none of the actions of the president including the forthcoming
election in Pakistan will have credibility in or outside the country.
Afifa Sheherbano observed that on one hand, the head of state and
his cohorts are distancing themselves and abdicating from their liability in
the chief justices suspension, and subsequent coercive tactics to control
the judiciary and media. At the same time the same state, through its
executive, has inflicted bloody violence against the resistance from
representatives of its fraternal pillars.
The media revealed the mindset of the regime regarding the concept
of politics. Repeatedly and ironically, the government accuses political
parties of politicking the issue. Whereas politics, in popular discourse, had
always been deemed a dirty game, now it seems to have become a dirty
word too. We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that somehow
democracy hangs in the air and has nothing to do with political activity
or resistance or freedom of expression.
The trouble with expediency is that over the course of time, it
allows unlikely adversaries to become unrepresentative heroes. Thus the
same men of dubious honour who jumped all over the idea of a uniformed
president over seven years ago, with full awareness and academic
knowledge of the havoc wreaked by our military institution with reference to
our socio-economic politics, still chose to support, serve and sustain a
militarized regime. One is not talking about the PML-Q but sadly those
technocrats who remain accountable to no one for propping up the regime
long before the opportunist politicians gave up obsequiously.

829

Lack of politicization has also meant that we allow ourselves to

be ruled by the liberals as the preferred lot to those labeled talibanized
forces. What we fail to acknowledge is that leading lawyers, bureaucrats and
editors institutionalize non-democratic principles, inequality and injustice
within their estates. The state recognizes and exploits this. Thus on
privatization of state assets, influential lawyers and bureaucrats reaped
private benefit without bad conscience someones got to do the job.
The state can appropriate the constitution and the media to some
extent but only history has knowledge embedded in it to which we can have
equal access. This history shows us that we have been an occupied nation
by military adventurists and their own brand of democracy. This imposed
democracy doesnt work and today the resistance is gaining momentum,
hopefully for those who have resisted, challenged, disappeared and been
silenced rather than those who have benefited from this dictatorship. General
Musharraf is right there is a conspiracy against him its called
democracy.
Shireen M Mazari wrote, the sight of those who are supposed to
uphold the law and protect the citizens actually mauling the Chief Justice
and his wife revealed the sorry state of the law enforcement
bureaucracy. Violence is clearly endemic in them and certainly no ordinary
citizen will feel safe now the little that they may have done so earlier. But
what has been the states response; a few inquiries but no rolling of the
heads yet.
As if the physical abuse of the CJ was not enough of a national
disgrace, we saw the police run amok in what was clearly a pre-planned and
officially ordered at what level is the real question assault on the Geo
and The News offices. The apology from the President was a gracious
gesture and rush to the scene of the crime by the information minister and a
day later by the prime minister was a clear reflection of their desire to
disassociate from this ugly incident. But then there is a glaring question
of who ordered the attack, because it was clearly on the orders of
someone?
The violence perpetrated by the police certainly has had an impact.
After all, the ordinary person can now see how threatened he is at the hands
of the very people who are paid out of taxpayer money to protect him/her.
The fear that is being spread across the land with regard to police
violence seems to be a deliberate policy.
830

Of course, no force is used against such lawbreakers. Instead all the

force is reserved for those who seek to peacefully protest or those who seek
to fulfill their mandate of reporting such protest. What a place we live in.
Certainly enlightenment and moderation have no place within our law
enforcement set-up. And no heads have rolled in the Geo case either
although in any civilized and decent society, the interior and information
ministers would have resigned. In this contest, the less one says of the law
minister, the better since his violence and abusiveness is becoming
legendary. Never mind the ridicule that brings upon this poor country.
Adnan Sattar was of the view that Pakistans Information Minister
Muhammad Ali Durrani is perfectly cut out to serve a discredited
regime. He has got sycophancy down to fine art. No matter how indecently
the regime acts, he is always ready with a sweet explanation. And
remarkably enough, he manages to keep moral qualms neatly at bay all the
while.
In the wake of non-violent protests against the chief justices
removal, Durrani was repeatedly heard telling the lawyers, legal experts,
politicians and activists not to politicize the issue. Advice to the same
effect has also come our way from the prime minister and General
Musharraf himself. While legal injunctions against commenting on matters
subjudice can be understood and should be respected, one wonders what
right do the rulers have to tell people what they should and should not
organize political struggles around.
These official statements implicitly seek to impose on people a very
narrow and an exclusive legal interpretation of the events surrounding the
chief justices suspension. They seem to be emanating from a misplaced
belief that the government can hush the rising crescendo of public
distrust and anger by stripping General Musharrafs action of all
political context and background. Nothing would suit the regime better
than a muted populace willing to stand by as a silent spectator while it mops
up all opposition to its present and future ambitions.
While presidential reference against a chief justice is indeed
unprecedented, the regimes spin doctors would do well to remember that
there is nothing unusual in a political struggle centred on a legal contest.
Politics and law are not mutually exclusive zones or water tight
compartments. More often than not, an oppressive regime gets exposed
through deconstruction of law and legal procedures or filing of test cases.
831

The engagement with law can sometimes bring immediate practical

results
Speaking on Geo TV on March 13, Justice Retired Fakhurrudin G
Ibrahim, one of the most respected jurist in the country, who undoubtedly
knows more about law than Mohammad Ali Durrani or Wasi Zafar, said: If
people gave up protesting now, they might as well forget about an
independent judiciary.
It is for lawyers, journalists, political workers and ordinary men and
women to decide what the parameters of their struggle are, what they decide
to remember, what socio-political-legal context they see the issue in, and
how they interpret the events unfolding in the echelons of power. These
rough and jagged beginnings may well transform into a coherent and
powerful struggle against dictatorship.
Nasim Zehra opined that the state in its arrogance of power and
supported only by its own political party the PML-Q in its wisdom
deployed mindless force and clever-by-half manipulative tactics. The lawyer
community supported by the public and politicians rose to say no. They
refused to be bought off or intimidated. This resistance was an important
first significant message to the ruling class from the civil society that
everything is not fair and acceptable in the game of power.
In his recent interview to Geo General Pervez Musharraf has asked
for restraint and sought reconciliation. His questionable explanations and
justifications for state excesses not-withstanding show some rethink within
the establishment. Faced with a near unmanageable political and moral
situation in which the public outcry against the government and in favour of
the CJ was on the increase, and the lawyer communitys agitated ranks were
swelling and a string of resignations from judges had begun, this was the
only option left for the government. The concrete indicators of a changed
government stance will be the reconstitution and transparent proceedings of
the Supreme Judicial Council. If the government does in fact retrace its steps
only then can it ensure that the self-inflicted wound of March 9 will prove
fatal.
Whatever our wishes and desires, the fact is that the power struggle
in Pakistan has not graduated from the rudimentary level. Whatever the
expectation of the people, the power contestants have generally refused to
remain subservient to the checks and controls defined by the Constitution
832

and the rule of law; the more the muscle power, the more the blatant use of
controls. Hence the basest display of power struggle is what we witness.
The most significant fact that flows from the recognition of this baselevel power contest is that the more persuasive elements of power that win
the hearts and minds of the people, that build a nation, that ensure justice
and compassion in a society, that invest value to a vote, that promote
collective sensitivity to justice, do not flourish in such a power contest.
Justice, accountability, competence, wisdom and humility are those
persuasive elementsthat are all but missing.
Muscle power and gun power are the ultimate deciders in a base
level power contest. Hence another important aspect of a base level power
contest is that words become irrelevant for the power contestants. That is
exactly what we witness in the post March 9 events in Pakistan.
There are no grey in the ruthless treatment of the chief justice
and mindless use of force by the state, certainly no grey as was found in the
coup detat of October 12, 1999. Then the public was divided. That is not the
case this time. Hundreds took to the streets to take part in the unscripted
resistance. And it seems to have produced results. It forced a rethink within
the establishment and also some retraction from their original blunder.
Obviously none of this is cast in iron neither the retraction nor the rethink.
The struggle to hold power wielders accountable is always a continuing one;
at least until the power contestants are not made to accept the rule of law and
the Constitution as sacred.
Meanwhile for the government the next marker on its
performance sheet is the election. The government will be kept on a tight
leash by the media as it monitors the preparations for the elections. An
interesting signal of what maybe some change in the establishments
thinking was General Musharrafs statement in his Geo interview that the
fate of the leaders sitting abroad will be determined according to the legal
position. A settlement with PPP has always remained a possibility.
It may be too early to state that Pakistans institutions will be stronger
for the resistance that its people have put up. All this has happened in spite
of the inadequacies of Pakistans mainstream politics. Not because of it.
Developments post-March 9 have shown that Pakistanis can rise to the
occasion. Its a good Pakistan Day gift that we have given ourselves; all
power to the people of Pakistan.
833

M B Naqvi was rightly harsh in expressing his views. The Supreme

Judicial Council is certainly a constitutional organization but it is not a court.
What it is doing is in the nature of an inquiry, the report of which is to go to
the president who then may take action. Whether an inquiry can claim to
have a courts privileges is moot.
Anyway, what can be prohibited is a discussion on the validity of the
charges. Political circumstances in which charges are framed and being
heard can and should be discussed. What cannot be banned is enumerating
a cases circumstances or the likely fallout from it without pre-judging the
charges truth and otherwise. In this case the governments treatment of the
CJ can be freely faulted.
The governments actions in trying to force the media to show or not
to show footage, is a fit subject for comment. Even more condemnable is the
goonda action of the Punjab police in vandalizing the Geo, News and Jang
offices and manhandling of journalists. Indications are there that the
government intends to restrict as much of the freedom of media and
press as it can.
The governments intentions in this regard cannot claim the benefit of
doubt. Governments the world over are not entitled to any benefit of
doubt: their behaviour should be transparent. The media commentators
ought to be ruthless vis--vis the government; why? Because governments
have too much power to act, right or wrong. Its wrong actions can bring
contumely or harm to the Pakistanis.
The government claims it has allowed a lot of channels and FM radio
stations to function, but this is not proof enough that it is comfortable
with the freedom of expression. It behaves strangely: you can say what you
like as in a tower of Babel while the regime will ignore it. But it belabours
difficult journalists.
While one does not defend excessive arrogance or love of pomp,
insistence on due protocol can also be a demand of the office he occupied.
As for the question of the CJ influencing other senior officers regarding his
sons postings, if this was malfeasance, then all those who obliged should
also be proceeded against as well.
He was bold, fair and always gave relief to the wronged, took
praiseworthy action about disappeared citizens or stopped the privatization

834

of Pakistan Steel Mills. He certainly could be harsh on evasive officials. But

this is an open assault on the independence of the judiciary. It needs
investigation by all responsible citizens who believe in transparent
governance.
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was in fact adjudged by the government as
having committed unspecified offence and punished before any inquiry or
judicial process. Who in the government has the authority to so punish a
citizen in this manner without first hearing his side of the story, let alone the
CJ? Under the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution, no
government can presume a citizen guilty without due process.
Some facts about the CJP need to be repeated. Here was a judge
who used to spend extra time working to clear the backlog of cases in the
apex court. He was also given to take suo moto notice of any wrongdoing.
He could embarrass or even needle the government over the disappearances
of hundreds of Pakistanis. They usually said it could not find them. The
aggrieved families say that they were picked up by intelligence agencies.
Intelligence agencies remain mum. Even the Ministry of Defence said in
open court that it does not have operational control over military intelligence
agencies.
Opposing government is the done thing in civilized societies;
politics is a duty of citizenship; it is both the privilege and duty of citizens
to hold the government to account and make it respect laws. Politics is vital
to democracy. No government should be allowed to hound a difficult CJP.
The political agenda of the government is known; the government is
planning to re-elect the president from existing assemblies that are going
home later this year. Could it be that the government foresaw there would be
writs in the Supreme Court against that re-election? Anybody can visualize
what would have been this CJPs line of thinking
An even more serious question is whether bureaucracies, civil and
military, are planning to rob the media of their freedom to report and
comment, thus subordinating two pillars the judiciary and media. The
country has to remain on guard, especially now.
Zarar Khuhro opined that there are three broad explanations of why
the deplorable attack on the Jang Group took place, and they are as
follows: Number one: The attack was ordered and/or sanctioned by General
Musharraf himself. Number two: The attack was carried out by elements
835

loyal to Musharraf and eager to curry his favour, without his explicit orders.
And finally number three: That there is a broad conspiracy to discredit
Musharraf and the attack was carried out at the behest of the conspirators as
part of this master plan.
In any case, regardless of which explanation for the attack on Geo
you subscribe to, there is but one conclusion to be reached, and that is that
Musharrafs hold on power is slipping. If he ordered the attack himself then
clearly he is in such a weak and insecure position that he feels he cannot
retain power in the face of an independent judiciary and press. Worse, it
smacks of hubris and an increased inability to tolerate dissent, which is
generally the beginning of the end for any ruler. If an attack of this
magnitude was ordered by his subordinates without this knowledge, then it
shows how little control he has over the tools of the state. Finally, if there is
indeed a conspiracy, then for the conspirators to act so openly speaks
volumes about their strength relative to his.
It does no good for Musharraf to complain, as he did recently, that he
gets the blame for everything that goes wrong. This government is a oneman show, and if he is willing to accept the praise for what good his
government has done, then he must accept blame as well. After all, he is
COAS as well as president; where else does the buck stop if not his dual
desk? The fact is that Musharraf is largely responsible for his own problems,
and for squandering his once considerable political goodwill.
He speaks of enlightened moderation and praises liberal political
forces, but it was the obscurantist that voted for the 17 th Amendment that
kept him in power. He speaks of the need for society to confront extremism,
but his government is unable to eject madrassah students from a childrens
library On the other hand, a news network is attacked simply for reporting
the truth and Javed Hashmi remains behind bars
Musharraf is belatedly discovering the perils of allying with
opportunists, because their only allegiance is to power and the benefits they
can accrue from wielding it. If, for whatever reason, they feel that power is
slipping from him they will abandon him in a heartbeat and seek new
masters. The very people who now sing his praises in public meetings will
turn on him with relish.
Even in this situation, there is a way out for Musharraf. He has
apologized to Geo, but he needs to go further and apologize to the entire
836

nation. If he speaks of conspiracy, then it falls upon him to expose the

conspirators, which, for a man of his resources, should not be difficult. The
action was taken by the Punjab police, apparently on orders of the SP. It
would be a simple matter to find out who ordered the SP (some obscurantist
or enlightened moderate).
It would be golden opportunity to get rid of the loutish Wasi
Zafar, and perhaps the uninformed Mr Durrani as well. Ideally, he
should go on to announce the forming of a broader political consensus,
which would of necessity include the PPP. If the conspiracy theory holds,
this would at least buy him the time. A good general should know to pick his
battles, and to retreat when necessary. Crucially, a good general should know
that to fight on too many fronts simultaneously is a recipe for disaster.
Dr K Tausif Kamal from Yemen was of the view that for the state of
our countrys supreme judiciary to have come to such a sorry pass is due to
some measure through fault of the judiciary itself, which must share the
blame. Of course, there can be no denying that the root cause of this
catastrophe, the crux of the matter is a generals unbridled ambition and an
armys insatiable lust for power.
General Musharraf is certainly not the last army chief to stage a coup,
topple the civilian government and seize power, and partly because the
judiciary has shown them the way as how to legalize and consolidate
usurpation of power. However, it does seem clearer that the days of this
regime in continued power are over. The maxim that you can fool some of
the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time is aptly
applicable in case of Pakistan.
M Azhar Khawja from Lahore indicated a way out. I have a solution
to these crises for the government. The president should immediately file
references against all the big wigs who have been misusing their
authority/offices to include their past record.

REVIEW
Musharrafs appearance in Kamran Khans talk show was an
important event of this round. In his interview Musharraf was not forth-right
for which the brave commando is known. At times his facial impressions

837

betrayed his statements. He, however, sounded confident of controlling the

prevalent situation.
While commenting on the magnitude of the protest, Musharraf said he
had himself seen by peeping through the window of his office that there was
nobody on the road leading to the Supreme Court building. Kamran should
have informed Musharraf that it was due to the fact that all entries into
Islamabad were barricaded starting from limits of the CDA to GT Road and
Motorway right up to Lahore and Attock Bridge to stop anyone wearing
black coat or suspected of being a lawyer; and in enforcement of this order
the police even detained men wearing black coats who were escorting their
children to schools.
The President was also sarcastic in saying that black coats were in
great demand now-a-day. And, if the protest was as non-existent as claimed
by Musharraf, Kamran should have asked him that then why did police
attack Geo TV office to stop coverage of empty streets? He should have also
informed the President that black coats have been lifted in bulk from market
by his name-sake ruling Punjab and distributed among Patwaris and
Councilors who were directed to attend government-sponsored meetings of
the lawyers.
Musharraf, using the pretext of being a simple soldier, not a law
man tried to pass the blame of unconstitutional moves onto his legal
advisers. He being a gunner should have remembered the first rule he was
taught as officer in-charge of a battery of guns (gun position officer). The
rule is: the officer in-charge is responsible for everything that happens or
does not happen, when it is supposed to have happened in the gun position.
The rule does not change with the size of the gun position, which in
his case now is entire Pakistan. If, somehow, he had forgotten a thing he was
taught more than four decades ago, he should have at least learnt something
from his present master. American presidents while in office firmly believe
that the Buck stops at their desk.
Even as a simple soldier he should have understood the simplest of
the simple points that he was bound under the Constitution to refer the
reference to the SJC once it has been sent to him by the prime minister. Why
then he ventured to seek explanation from the CJP? The analysts have
rejected this and other excuses like this almost unanimously.

838

Musharraf, as usual, reiterated that it was his prerogative to be in

uniform when he met the CJP. Irrespective of the rationale given by him to
wear uniform on the occasion, the fact that the civil society has observed it
as an act of intimidation and the manner in which it has been criticized and
condemned amply conveys their disgust for the uniform.
Musharraf must ponder for a while that how much damage he has
caused to the institution of army by remaining in uniform for whatever holy
reason. Army and the civil society should not be alienated under any
circumstances, because neither can survive without support of the other.
For the first time, Musharraf avoided saying that there is no place in
future politics for Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. It seemed that he has tolerated
enough of opportunist enlightened moderates around him, and was inclined
to tell them, enough is enough, but he is hesitant to say so because of nonexistence of alternative political-base which could support him. King is
hostage of the party he created.
Kamrans soft questions gave an impression that he was more
interested in lifting of ban on his Talk Show by allowing Musharraf to justify
his regimes excesses, rather than informing the nation of truth. This
inference is based of the fact that some half-statements were accepted
without counter-questioning. It could also be observed from the postinterview telecast of Geo TV that police attack on its offices has had
softening effect on this channel; there was noticeable change in the text and
tone of its coverage.
This interview was the first exposure of the captain of the TeamHelmet, who in this case had preferred not to lead from the front. His
ministers, who have been fighting from the front, had already been exposed
by the media and critics.
Hafiz Sultan Ahmad from Islamabad has termed Wasis bad-mouthing
a journalist as a feather in cap. Who knows that the feather-crazy has already
collected one more clandestinely? There could be the involvement of his
big hand in the attack on Geo office.
Durrani is one of the two openers, who is Minister of Information and
Broadcasting by official designation. In reality he utterly lacks information
or rejects it when someone tries to inform him. He, however, is a vigorous
broadcaster of the official line, who does not feel embarrassed even if he has

839

to repeat the line thousand times. Therefore, it is appropriate to call him

Minister of Broadcasting or Durrani the Broadcaster.
Similarly, Wasi Zafar is supposed to be Minister of Law, Justice and
Human Rights. The expertise with which he has handled the legal aspects
of the case clearly reflected that he has no knowledge of law except that
what is spoon-fed to him by clever bureaucrats in law ministry and even that
feed he invariably spells through the sides of his mouth like an untidy
infant. His conduct in public amply proves that he is completely devoid of
the sense of justice as well as respect for rights of other human beings.
Therefore, he does not qualify to be called by any other designation except
Unlawful, Unjust and Inhumane Minister.
This round started with an act of forgery by law man of the simple
soldier. The CJP from now on was on forced leave. Wasi, in reply to a
question by ARY-One TV regarding sending the CJP on forced leave now,
corrected that the CJP is not sent on leave now but he was sent on leave
from day-one. Hurrah!
The law ministry has now resorted to forgery by issuing post-dated
orders. This forgery was necessitated by the virtual dismissal of the CJP by
concocting expressions like non-functional and suspended. No doubt, the
truth does not require repetitions or explanations; a lie invariably leads to
more lies for cover-up. This is nether the first or the last lie of the
government of the enlightened moderates.
In this round the Team-Helmet was also forced to bring change in the
strategy. At the end of the round, Minister Durrani invited the lawyers for
dialogue. His invitation for dialogue on all issues is synonymous to the
doctrine of composite dialogue being practiced by India.
It is clear that lawyers are struggling for one issue only, but Durrani
has invited lawyers to discuss all issues. Governments new strategy aims
at obscuring the core and the only issue in the dust of all issues or at least
by starting a never ending process of confidence building measures.
Shamelessly, the rulers treat their own people just as India treats Pakistan.
The earlier spate of apologies, which was erroneously termed as
gracious by some analysts, was also based on mala fide intentions. These
apologies were meant only for the media, because after having committed a

840

wrong act the rulers realized that standing on weaker legal and moral
grounds they could not afford confrontation with the media.
Nevertheless, the government learnt the hard way and at high price
that foul play may have helped in thrashing the adversary, but certainly, not
in outscoring the opponent in a legal contest being watched by the entire
world. Therefore, it decided to abstain from out right foul play as was
evident on 21st March when police avoided confrontation with lawyers
protesting all over the country.
Adjournment of the hearing till 3rd April, apart from other reasons,
was also part of the new strategy and aimed at decelerating the momentum.
True to its track record, the rulers could not desist from creating confusion
on this simple procedural issue. Cleverly, the word on was used for of to
create an impression that hearing was adjourned on the request of the CJP.
The council of the CJP denied making any request for postponement
and rightly objected to it very strongly. In short it might be inferred that this
has been yet another conspiracy; and this time it is certainly of the rulers, by
the rulers and for the rulers.
There were some other developments during this round which
warrant comments. The kite-crazy government of Punjab issued a directive
to courts to dismiss cases of those lawyers who were boycotting. Instead of
condemning this act, one should appreciate that the directive was issued in
the spirit of administering speedy justice for which Punjab has been known
from the times of Ranjit Singh.
The media coverage of the return of Rana Bhagwandas created an
impression that a nation of 160 million, mostly Muslims, eagerly awaited for
him to come home. The nation hoped that he would rescue them from the
tyranny unleashed by a new Islamic sect of enlightened moderates founded
by Musharraf.
Out of political parties in the opposition, PPP remained in low profile
and, when came out it only registered symbolic protest to preserve its vote
bank. It stayed away from other political parties, particularly MMA; why?
Its leader did not want to be equated with Islamic extremists to avoid any
possibility of losing support of the US and/or hampering the chances of a
deal with the rulers in Pakistan. This also indicated that the PPP leaders

841

believed that this movement has bleak chances of success and the key to
power corridors in Pakistan is still held in Washington.
The disarray in opposition political parties led to apprehensions that
this legitimate movement might fade away. The rulers also seemed hopeful
of controlling the situation not because of its inherent strength but from the
fact that they have mauled the masses to the extent that they are no more
capable of launching a sustained movement.
22nd March 2007

842

HOT PURSUIT HOT SOUP

On 26th February, Dick Cheney paid surprise visit to Islamabad. The
US media reported that the visitor had carried a strong message for Pakistan
but Foreign Office spokesperson claimed that the visitor came to consult
Musharraf on international issues of mutual interest. Cheney asked Pakistan
to do more, particularly for Crusaders spring offensive against Taliban.
Musharraf told the US to fight terror jointly. He termed the proposed
legislation on aid to Pakistan discriminatory. British Foreign Minister also
visited the capital and then went to Peshawar to get briefing of tribal areas.
All these indicated that the message Cheney brought related to veiled threat
of hot pursuit across Durand Line.
A week later, Indian defence minister threatened hot pursuit
operations across Line of Control. Pakistani foreign office countered by
threatening effective response. Next day, Indian defence minister denied
making statement on hot pursuit; nevertheless, the message had been
conveyed.
These hot pursuit threats were aimed only to get maximum
cooperation from Musharraf in curbing the struggles of Pushtoons and
Kashmiris against occupation of their respective homelands. Apparently,
Musharraf still fitted well in the scheme of outside forces. Internally, in the
absence of political leadership, he faced no threat to his rule, until he acted
against a perceived threat from judiciary and landed in hot soup. That
episode has been covered separately.

REVING CRUSADERS
The Crusaders threats have had the desired impact; Musharraf regime
continued striving for Afghan peace. Following incidents were reported
during last four weeks:
Rockets were fired at police post near Bannu on 26 th February. A
militant was killed and three policemen wounded in a clash near Tank.
Family planning office was set ablaze in Upper Dir.

843

 The same day, security forces captured Mulla Obaidullah Akhund,

deputy of Mullah Omar, from Quetta in a raid along with eight others.
Officials said the arrest was not linked to Cheneys visit.
A Pakistani border post near Lowara Mandi was attacked by the US
and Afghan forces on 27th February and the US aircrafts violated
Pakistan air space; DG ISPR had no information about the violation.
A US spy was beheaded in South Waziristan on 28 th February. Elders
of Mohmand Agency asked for repatriation of Afghan refugees.
Afghan refugees refused to vacate Jallozai camp.
On 1st March, four soldiers were killed and ten were missing when an
avalanche hit their post established for Afghan peace in Tirah Valley.
Federal Interior Secretary feared more terrorist attacks.
Afghan and Pakistani troops exchanged fire in Mohmand Agency on
2nd March. Pakistan and NATO remained non-committal, but Taliban
conceded capture of Obaidullah after denying initially.
On 3rd March, three people including two policemen were wounded in
a grenade attack in Tank. An Afghan linked to suicide attack in Quetta
was arrested. A US spy was shot dead in North Waziristan. Two
Russians were among five arrested in Taftan area.
Blasts destroyed barber shops and music store in Khar area on 4th
March. The US forces targeted a border post near Lowara Mandi.
Two persons were killed on 5th March in North Waziristan for spying
for the US. Tank City police station came under rocket attack. FIA
arrested 25 Afghans near Quetta.
Tribesmen and foreign militants clashed in Azam Warsak area of
South Waziristan on 6th March; 17 people, including 12 Uzbek, were
killed. The latest clash started when some people opened fire on progovernment elder Saadullah Darikhel killing his two cousins and a
passerby.
A close companion of Baitullah was captured in a joint raid by
Pakistani and Afghan forces in Pakistani territory near Lowara on 7 th

844

March. Tensions persisted in South Waziristan after yesterdays clash,

but reports of Tahir Yuldashevs arrest were not confirmed.
Two rockets struck Miranshah on 8th March first time after the
September 5 peace agreement. Police claimed arresting a suicide
bomber in Tank. An oil tanker carrying fuel for coalition forces was
blown up near Landi Kotal.
Another US spy was shot dead near Miranshah on 9th March. Next
day, a soldier and three militants were killed in a clash at border in
remote area of North Waziristan. NATO forces promised help in
recovering the missing Pakistani soldiers.
Six people were killed mysteriously along border of Waziristan and
Kurram agencies on 12th March. Next day, two rockets hit Miranshah
and a US spy was beheaded in Wana.
On 14th March, two policemen were returned by Kabul after four
months. Three days later, Bajaur jirga promised security at Afghan
border.
One person was killed when music shops were attacked in Mardan
and Peshawar on 18th March. Next day, ten people were wounded in a
clash between tribesmen and Uzbeks near Afghan border. A policeman
was shot dead in Tank.
Tribesmen and foreign militants, mostly Uzbeks, clashed in Azam
Warsak area on 20th March; 46 people, including 35 Uzbeks were
killed. This clash started after two school children were killed in firing
by foreign fighters a day earlier. Rockets were fired at Miranshah.
Toll in the clash between tribesmen and foreign fighters rose to 127 on
21st March and the fighting was still going on. Reportedly the foreign
fighters wanted a ceasefire but tribesmen were not willing. A US spy,
an Afghan national, was killed in Bajaur.
Fighting continued raging in South Waziristan on 22 nd March as the
death toll rose to 155.
Jirga-brokered truce held in South Waziristan on 23 rd March. It was
also reported that apart from killings, tribesmen had also captured 65
845

foreign fighters. Two rockets landed in Bannu City and gunmen

snatched a government vehicle in Tank.
An FC soldier was wounded in grenade attacks on two conveys on
24th March near Bannu and Bakakhel. Fresh clashes erupted in South
Waziristan.
Do more mantra helped in getting forced labour from frontline state
which, however, remained under illusion of strategic partnership. On 26th
February, Canada asked Pakistan to stop infiltrators. Next day, State
Department issued a consolatory statement defending Musharraf over
accusation of not doing enough.
Meanwhile, British Foreign Minister, Beckett combined her
diplomatic effort with Dick Cheney. Governor NWFP informed her that
more troops would be deployed along Afghan border. She, in turn, supported
fencing of the border and said UK aid was not linked to war on terror.
On 28th February, Musharraf screamed the Cheney-fed war cry and
asked foreign fighters to leave the tribal areas. Crocker visited Foreign
Office in Islamabad but purpose of his visit remained secret; presumably it
was in connection with Cheneys remarks before journalists that he had
conveyed tough message to Musharraf. Rice and General Peter Pace
indicated that the US will not launch direct military strikes at al-Qaeda
targets inside Pakistan.
On 2nd March, US Senators called for direct attacks on al-Qaeda
targets inside Pakistan. The US Ambassador in Islamabad feared the
pressure tactics could lead to Musharrafs ouster. Next day, the US alleged
that Madrassas were being misused.
Democrats urged Islamabad on 8th March to intensify campaign
against terrorists and threatened to block delivery of F-16s. In Islamabad,
Crocker said, Pakistan is doing remarkable job in war on terror. Next day,
the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence termed the
proposed US law linking aid to war on terror as insult to Pakistan and
threatened to stop cooperation with the US if Congress adopts the bill.
Mushahid Hussain and Shaikh Rashid also gave similar statements.
On 14th March, Robert Gates said North Waziristan peace deal was not
working. Next day, Boucher arrived in Islamabad with a bone, filled with

846

marrow worth $750 million, as reward for services rendered by Pakistan to

the Crusaders. A week later, Rice said NWFP is a hotbed of extremism. On
24th March, Musharraf assured out-going Crocker that the war on terror
would go on.
The puppets in Kabul kept emulating their masters. On 3rd March,
Spanta accused Pakistan of using terror as its foreign policy. Shaukat Aziz
assured that Pakistan would continue cooperation for stability of
Afghanistan. On 20th March, Kabul claimed capturing a Pakistani Army
officer in Paktia with map and other documents; Islamabad rejected the
claim.
On 12th March, Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed on various issues
pertaining to the formation of a Grand Jirga Commission. At the end of the
meeting held in Islamabad, Pak-Afghan peace jirgas decided to meet on
regular basis; next meeting will be held in Kabul in April.
The period under review started with Cheneys visit to Islamabad
with talk of a strong message from Washington. The News wrote, according
to the report in The New York Times, quoting unnamed intelligence and US
government officials (implying that it must have been deliberately leaked),
the Bush Administration intends to send a clear warning to Pakistan that it
needs to do more, especially in combating the Taliban in the FATA
Pakistan does seem to be doing all that it can and proof of that is
evident in the dear price that its government and its citizens are paying for
this costly involvement in the war against terrorism. The Americans need to
understand that there is only so much that the government and people
of Pakistan will take of these constant do more refrains. A lot is already
being done and it can be enhanced with increased cooperation and
encouragement, not deadlines and demands.
Najmuddin A Shaikh commented: As statements by some local US
commanders in Afghanistan have revealed, the Americans stand ready to
carry out such strikes and have in fact done so in the past. Cheney may well
have implied that unless the Pakistani authorities could ensure greater
respect for the agreements they had signed with the tribal leaders, the
Americans may take action on their own.
Separately it would also be logical to assume that Cheney has
asked for the dismantling of the Taliban Shura headquarters which

847

American analysts insist is based in Quetta. He may have promised

American assistance in securing the closure of the refugee camps which
Pakistan insists provide sanctuary to the Taliban, but may well have
suggested that this should not distract from the principal task of shutting
down the Taliban operations that were being carried out in the area, either
inside or outside the camps.
Since one of the American objectives in providing economic aid to
Pakistan is to assist Musharraf in his battle against the growth of extremism,
Cheney may well have asked how this battle is faring given the recent
terrorist attacks and the occupation of a government library by girls from the
Lal Masjid seminary in Islamabad.
Given the current chaotic situation in Afghanistan, the increasingly
cocky statements from Taliban spokesmen about the successes they are
expecting in Afghanistan, the flat refusal of the NATO allies to provide
additional troops or to deploy existing troops in the South of Afghanistan,
and the failure of the Karzai government to win any hearts and minds in
south and east Afghanistan, it was to be expected that there would be
additional pressure on Pakistan from the US and the UK to be of more
assistance in keeping their soldiers from harms way.
The Dawn wrote on Musharrafs threat to foreigners immediately
after Cheneys visit. The government is on the horns of a dilemma. It
may talk tough; there may be heavy civilian casualties, which it cannot opt
for. If it does not act tough, the militants, foreign or local, will continue to
kill.
It is regrettable that the religious parties are not playing the role
expected of them. They have influence with both foreign militants and tribal
elders, but their focus has been on such inanities as mixed marathons and
hijab. Terrorism, which is eating into the vitals of Pakistan, seems to be of
no interest to them. It is in the largest interest that the government and
the MMA move away from confrontation and make joint efforts to pacify
the tribal belt.
Mariam Alvi from Karachi opined that the problem lies within
Afghanistan. If the United States, with all its resources, cannot secure
the Bagram airport base (which has total perimeter of perhaps few
kilometers) against intrusion by a terrorist, how can Pakistan, with its
limited technological resources, be expected to effectively police 2,500
848

kilometers (most of it difficult mountainous terrain) of its border with

Afghanistan.
Mariana Baabar expressed her views on the issue with reference to
attack on Bagram airbase. Nothing, it appears, is going to stop the strong
willpower of the militants, who so easily penetrated into what should have
been on Tuesday the most foolproof security cordon that the US could have
laid around the Bagram base The incident comes hours after US President
George Bush sent a tough message to President Pervez Musharraf warning
him of an aid cut off if he did not live up to his commitments made with the
Bush Administration last September.
One wonders if there was any message to his military commanders
and President Hamid Karzai whose failed military and political policies have
seen the Taliban come knocking on the front door of a US army base. It will
not be long now as has been the practice to find some sort of a
Pakistani link to the terrorist attack.
Cheneys visit was part of the overall coercion plan in which has been
constantly asked to do more. The Dawn opined that the least the
Americans can do is to stop pointing finger at their own ally; this will only
trigger more anti-American feelings here, with the government seen as a
stooge of the US and not one taking steps on its own to root out the menace
that threatens Pakistanis today no less than others.
Unless sanity and realism prevail in Washington, the world will
remain a very dangerous place, indeed. There is no reason to infer that
Americans do not comprehend this simple point, yet they still keep blaming
Pakistan for reasons too obvious.
Imtiaz Alam talked about reasons and implications of US demands of
do more. If this spring is going to witness a bloodier battle between the
Taliban and coalition forces, it is going to bring much greater fall out on
Pakistan who does not have the means and capacity to secure such a long
and porous border with Afghanistan and stop Talibans movement on both
sides. Facing the onslaught by the ISAF, Taliban are bound to retreat to their
sanctuaries on both sides of the border forcing the NATO-led troops to hot
pursuits across the Durand Line into Pakistans tribal areas.
This will further exacerbate the dilemma President Musharraf is
facing: if he does the job himself, he alienates his own tribes; and if he lets

849

the coalition forces do the killing on our territory he invites a big political
backlash at home. And if the Taliban succeed in causing greater casualties to
the ISAF and expanding the insurgency to the broader regions with the
support of the local people at the grassroots, the Musharraf government will
be in trouble if it tries to go beyond its capacity to deliver what the coalition
forces would fail to achieve.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan was of the view that in the Pakistani perspective,
it looks like an orchestrated campaign by some US officials, NATO
commanders and the Kabul regime to coerce Musharraf to commit his
army to a more aggressive, but largely undefined, role in eliminating the
Taliban.
Pakistanis feel that the crescendo of recent critical comments is a
prelude to the expected flare up in fighting in Afghanistan in the coming
spring months. The current hype about an impending Taliban spring
offensive may be a pretext for NATO offensives that have already begun.
Key American and British visitors to Pakistan have ruled out any talks with
Taliban. As in the past, future setbacks in imposing a purely military solution
would probably be blamed on Pakistan.
Perhaps no inter-state alliance in the last half a century has seen
greater fluctuations than the one between Pakistan and the United States
The current alliance began almost under duress as a senior American official
allegedly warned Pakistan on the fateful September day to choose between
compliance and Stone Age.
At the end of the day, it depends upon Musharraf succeeding in
altering the nature of his partnership with President Bush. He needs to
shift it from a unilateralist audit of his performance in complying with
American demands to joint decision-making that fully incorporates
Pakistans regional insights. Musharraf needs better resonance in the White
House on Pakistans national interest and greater American sensitivity to
Muslim sentiments. The people of Pakistan refuse to disconnect from the
concept of a transitional Ummah. Musharraf can ignore this factor only at
his peril and the United States has to accept it as an important determinant of
Pakistans foreign policy.
Shahid Javed Burki wrote: How should Pakistan respond to the
squeeze that is beginning to be applied? Here it must try and make
America understand better the dynamics in which Pakistan is involved
850

in its northern (western) areas. Islamabad must persuade the West in

particular the United States that it must not repeat the mistake it made in
Iraq. It must make it understand the social, cultural, political and economic
dimensions of the lives of the people who inhabit the tribal belts on either
side of Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
In teaching the Americans about this area it should emphasize that
the people who live there belong to the fiercely independent Pashtun
ethnic group. This group has a population of some 40 million of which about
25 million are in Pakistan, about 13 million in Afghanistan and two million
scattered all over the world.
These people have been left behind socially and economically on
both sides of the border for different reasons. They have fallen behind other
ethnic groups on the Afghan side because the way the new political system
was structured in Bonn in 2002 this happened at the expense of the
Pashtuns and need to be redressed.
Nasim Zehra wrote, there are significant developments insofar as
they indicate the extent of the challenge that confronts Pakistan battling
within and outside as well. It is a state; a people and a government that are
under attack from within and from the outside. We are paying for the
blunders of our own past and of the others including the Soviet Union and
the United States.
The state must move in a transparent manner in its rightful pursuit of
establishing internal sovereignty. It cannot flagrantly violate the rights of
its citizens without justification within constitutional norms. Fighting
terrorism cannot provide a carte blanche to the state to act indiscriminately.
If it does so under external pressure, it alienates the citizens it needs as allies
to fight terrorism.
Ayaz Amir opined that our external dangersare not insurmountable.
We can even get the measure of our American friends and, without rubbing
them the wrong way, tell them what is possible and what isnt. But ending
the malaise which is eating into the spirit of the nation and making it listless,
thats our real problem.
We need to close ranks and stop portraying a picture of a house
divided and almost at war with itself. For this the army leadership has to get
out of its self-created shell and reach out to the nation. Again, this is easier

851

said than done. The General, the pivot around which this system revolves, is
a prisoner of his political preferences, his fears and prejudices. Can he reinvent himself at this late hour?
It would also help if Pakistani journalists given to parroting the
American line on Afghanistan (friendship deterring me from naming them)
were to stop insinuating that elements within Pakistani intelligence
community are helping the Taliban. If they are helping the Taliban, there
would have been no need to get 700 of our soldiers killed in Waziristan.
Currying favour with foreigners is a time-honoured Pakistani pastime
but it shouldnt be carried to the extent where it begins to harm the country.
Let the New York Times and the Washington Post say what they will. We
should be more careful about our own utterances.
As already said, the do more demands are part of the US policy of
coercion, which is pursued by Kabul, Washington and NATO in unison by
hurling accusations at Pakistan; Imtiaz Gul enumerated a few. On March 3,
Afghanistans Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta once again accused
Pakistan of using terror as its foreign policy. I wish that the international
community wouldnt give rewards to countries that are supporting the
Taliban. Spanta told lawmakers in Kabul.
Two days earlier, Radio Free Europe/Free Afghanistan reported about
60 Pashtoon tribal elders from FATA met with Afghan authorities in
Jalalabad and suggested that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and NATO-led
forces in Afghanistan have put too much trust in Pakistans government.
Malik Abdul Sabor Afridi, the head-delegate said Karzai and NATO should
talk directly with the tribal leaders instead of relying on Pakistani
officials.
We are not giving safe haven to the enemies of Afghanistan or to the
enemies of the international community, Afridi said. We have evidence
that these terrorists and militants (from the Taliban and al-Qaeda) are
getting help from Pakistans military and intelligence services to create
training centres, Afridi told the radio, essentially a propaganda organ being
funded by the United States and some NATO allies.
Analyst went on to point out Cheneys message and the bill before
the Congress and added: On the face of it, Bush Administrations officials
are using the prospect of congressional intervention as leverage to encourage
852

Islamabad to crack down on militants. All these developments essentially

single out Pakistan for the surge in suicide-bomb attacks
In retrospect it looks evident that Cheneys visit was the result of
probably of some statements of General Musharraf made at a press
conference early February immediately after his Mid-East tour; Musharraf
said for the first time that everybody else is also responsible for controlling
and eliminating terrorists and I expect others also to do the same instead of
blaming us for the problems inside Afghanistan.
This statement was probably interpreted as a change of tactics by
Musharraf, thereby alarming Washington of the possible consequences (the
source of terrorism in Pakistan might multiply if Pakistan backs down, was
the apprehension). So, Cheney came to tell us that while, we stand by
Musharraf and trust him, he and his forces are expected to be stricter
with the militants.
This visit interestingly had coincided with a comprehensive study by
the Centre for Strategic and International Studies Unlike the American
and European military leadership, this report refrains from squarely blaming
Pakistan alone for Afghanistans simmering ills. Pakistan as a source of
violence, it says, is just one of the so many factors that bedevil Afghanistan
currently. Little do the US military and intelligence outfits realize that
their arrogance and lack of respect for local sensitivities have bred
unusual resentment among Afghans as well as Pakistani tribesmen.
Accusations have now been reinforced with threats of aid cut.
Karamatullah K Ghori observed that Pakistan is being threatened with aid
cut-off because the policy makers in Washington have concluded that
Pakistan is vulnerable. Which may well be the case; Pakistans economy is
heavily dependent on the aid injection and may feel the pinch if the tap was
turned off. Islamabad would be well advised to look at its Achilles heel and
take early precautions and remedies to blunt the latest thrust a very unkind
cut, indeed from its mentors in Washington. If the past were any guide,
Washington wouldnt postpone dumping Pakistan by a day, once its
utility was deemed done.
The News wrote: If discontinuation of aid to governments is really an
effective formula, the prime candidate for this is the administration of
President Hamid Karzai. In more than five years since the US intervention in
Afghanistan, the presence of American and NATO forces in the country and
853

the all-round assistance it has received, his government has completely

failed to suppress the Taliban and al-Qaeda the main sources of terrorism
in the two countries.
Aid cut threat is in addition to the already hyped threat of cross border
hot pursuit strikes. Mahmood Shah, who is considered as an expert on
matters related to tribal areas, however, opined that the US cannot afford
implementation of this threat.
The US cannot afford escalation of hostilities and its troops being
bogged down in Afghanistan. This would be disastrous for its global strategy
in terms of prestige, authority and supremacy, (if) it is poised to take direct
action and seems to be contemplating a spring offensive of its own inside
Pakistan.
The militants would welcome such an escalation. The more
Americans enlarge their area of operations, the more they would expose
themselves to militant attacks. If it becomes unbearable for the militants in
FATA, they would shift their bases and operations down country to the
NWFP, thereby drawing in more US-led counter-insurgency measures.
The history of the area repeated itself. Every operation mired the
military forces deeper into the quagmire that is Waziristan. With US
pressure building and militants unrelenting, the army realized that the task
was not simple. It, therefore, embarked on a simultaneous policy of
negotiations with the tribal populace and the use of force, but with a
disjointed approach.
Shah went on to suggest that Pakistan, in any case, has to set its own
house in order. In this scenario what needs to be done can only be
mentioned briefly here:
Relevant provisions of FCR be made appeal-able to a special bench
of the high court constituted for the purpose.
Political parties be allowed to operate in FATA to counter the
ideological thrust of pro-Taliban elements.
In order to ensure that only those maliks who have confidence of
their respective tribes are assigned responsibilities, the institution of
malak be made elected and funds be allotted and regulated through

854

them by the political agent. This would give internal autonomy and a
participatory role to the elected people at micro level and keep a
leverage of the administration over the tribes at the macro level.
Levies as opposed to khasadars be raised in the Waziristan, thereby
not only generating employment but also creating a disciplined force
with roots amongst the tribes.
Efforts of intelligence agencies need to be coordinated at the field
level with them giving real time information to the political authorities
to devise plans.
A system of regional coordination between the tribal belt and
adjacent settled districts needs to be put in place as both these areas
have inter-linked issues. At present, no such linkage is available
between their respective law enforcement and intelligence networks.
It is time the main clauses of the North Waziristan peace agreement
were revisited with the consent of the people to achieve the intended
objectives.
The most effective check against the setting up of parallel
administration is service delivery by the government in terms of
justice, fair play, development, security and a sense of identification,
ownership and tangible benefits to the people.
Shafqat Mahmood was of the view that despite the spate of threats,
the US has no choice but to stick with Musharraf. The issue then is likely to
remain a bone of contention between the Americans and Pakistan. Musharraf
will continue to claim that enough is being done while the Americans will
want more Where does this leave the American-Musharraf alliance? It is
in rocky territory now and I dont see any real change in the future. But,
since the Americans do not see any other choice for the moment, they
are likely to stick with him. This will remain Musharrafs only space for
manoeuvre until they find some one else.
Shobori Ganguli wrote, one need not be a crystal gazer to predict the
chaos Pakistan will sink into if Gen Musharraf is destabilized, not because
he is a highly popular leader but because Pakistani society and polity are
exploding. While it is easy to accuse Gen Musharraf of mismanagement it is
also true that it is difficult to arrest Pakistans downward spiral into
855

fundamentalism. Any attempt by the Americans to weaken Gen

Musharraf at this juncture would be disastrous for the Americans and
Pakistan itself as the jihadis will have a free run, and most certainly for the
subcontinent.
Handicapped by the myopia and paranoia, the US is unable to gauge
the unease Gen Musharrafs successor will inherit. Already, American
credibility and goodwill are at all-time low in Pakistan because Musharraf
could not restore democracy. If the Americans now preside over
Pakistans collapse, little will redeem them or indeed Pakistan whose
fragile stability American interference will perilously shatter.
Simon Tisdall was of the view that this problem would continue
aggravating because of Bush. And there should be no doubt about who
carried most responsibility for these developments, the New York Times said
this week. Al-Qaedas comeback in Pakistan is devastating indictment of
Bushs grievously flawed strategies and misplaced Iraq obsession. Unless
the president changes course, the dangers to America and its friends will
continue to multiply.
If there is any problem in Pakistan which relates to insurgency in
Afghanistan that is Afghan refugees. The occupation forces must accept
return of these refugees if they are sincere in tackling this menace. These
refugees should be accommodated in camps established well inside
Afghanistan and treated as internally displaced persons. But, the Crusaders
for their own comfort want them to remain in Pakistan.
Najmuddin A Shaikh suggested some immediate measures to tackle
the problem of Afghans in Pakistan who support their brethrens resisting
occupation of Afghanistan. In the first instance Baluchistan there
should be no qualms about the use of military force against the Afghan
city dwellers since most of them are in any case illegal residents. A clear
warning should be issued to their patrons in or outside the provincial
government that protecting such elements would carry legal and political
penalties.
The movement of residents of the refugee camps should be
restricted with the traditional elders of the camp being served clear notice to
clean out the alleged facilities that exist in the camps or in their immediate
vicinity and to monitor the activities of the identifiable extremist elements.
This should be done pending the closure of the camps and the shifting of the
856

refugees to new sites where a rigorous official army screening and control
procedure should be put in place before the shifting.
In the meanwhile the monitoring of cross-border movement through
the biometric system and the fencing of relatively inaccessible border areas
must continue. In the tribal areas we have to recognize that military
solutions are not possible against our own people.
To conclude, remarks of Shafqat Mahmood are quoted. We are one of
the seven nuclear powers in the world. We also have one of the largest
standing armies and have spent billions on our navy and air force, yet we are
in no position to protect our sovereignty. I would be the last person to
advocate a conflict with the United States because it would be foolish. But it
is a sad thought, that should it decide to invade our territory there is
nothing we can do to stop it. We are at its mercy and it is only its goodwill
that this has not happened so far.
No wonder then that our ambassador in the United States has been
reduced to saying that if American forces attacked inside Pakistan, the
Musharraf regime would fall. Isnt it strange that the only threat we can
use to deter the Americans is that their friend Musharraf will not able to last
in power? Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind.
The News wrote on the latest eruption of fighting in South
Waziristan. There are some conflicting reports that suggest that the fighting
is not necessarily between foreign and Pakistan-based pro-Taliban militants.
These link the current fighting to the death of an Arab militant, suspected to
be linked to al-Qaeda, who was recently killed. The Arab was an ally of the
local tribesmen who blamed the foreign militants for his death. The former
are led by a cleric who is known to be a Taliban sympathizer and the
accusations against the foreign militants triggered a gun battle between the
two sides.
As for the high casualty figures and reports that most were Uzbek
militants, one should say that this isnt something really to mourn over
because it is widely believed that these elements are affiliated with the
declared Uzbek Tahir Yuldashev and his Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
and their presence in Pakistan is bad for the country.
While the result of the fighting is unclear as is the actual motive
behind it, one thing is clear: foreign militants need to be ejected from this

857

country and their local sympathizers either need to give up their ways and
surrender to the authorities, or the government needs to take them on and
force them to give up.
The prejudices of the Crusaders against frontline state, an ally or
strategic partner remained in place. On 27th February, Emma Nicolson fumed
during debate on proposed amendments in discriminatory report on Kashmir
prepared by her. These amended proposals appear to have come out straight
from Pakistan. Please do not overturn the work that has been done, she
pleaded.
On 22nd March, the European Union passed the amended report on
Kashmir. The report has come down heavily on human rights situation in
IHK, but also asked Pakistan to ensure more democracy in AJK, Gilgit and
Baltistan.
Another reflection of the prejudice was seen in banning of PIA flights,
though incompetent PIA was guilty of providing the pretext. On 28 th
February, some European countries discontinued PIA flights for reasons of
Aviation Safety without giving anything in writing. Five days later, EU
imposed ban on all but seven PIA planes. PIA chief termed EU ban
discriminatory despite the negligence of aircraft maintenance on his part.
On 7th March, it was reported that a German spy, who had been
arrested earlier when he was returning from tribal areas, was shifted to
Islamabad. Michel Peuna, 30-year old Muslim convert stayed in a militants
camp for about one month. He was being interrogated for his possible links
with other spy agencies amid reports that the CIA was moving fresh
personnel to hunt for Osama. Other incidents which smacked of bias were as
under:
Two experts wanted accountability of $10 billion US aid given to
Pakistan in last five years.
On 6th March, a US report alleged that Islamabad restricts citizens
right to change government. Next day, seventy-two Pakistani
deportees arrived from the US.
The US was considering a law to punish oil companies that deal with
Iran which would make construction of IPI gas pipeline difficult. On

858

23rd March, US energy secretary called for abandoning the IPI gas
pipeline project as it could help Iran in building nuclear weapons.
Next day, UK denied visas to Sami, his son and secretary citing antiWest sentiments as the reason.
Commenting on the ban of PIA flights, Ikram Sehgal wrote: One is
extremely proud of PIAs pilots and cabin crews. They are still among the
best in the world. What has been done for them? Hiring air hostesses from
abroad of the Malika Shararat kind at ten times the local salaries may shore
up male passengers morale, it is hardly the way to shore up cabin crews
morale.
A thorough evaluation of the situation is necessary, also to ensure
that PIA keeps flying. The marketing man has done all that he could do to
shore up the airlines image. The airline does not need someone adept at
creating perceptions but someone who is conversant with and capable of
dealing with the nitty-gritty of operations.
Abrar Hussain from Faisalabad observed that emphasis has shifted
from keeping the airline totally self-sufficient to outsourcing everything.
When Air India placed an order to Boeing and Airbus for delivery of
passenger planes, the Indian government ordered for 30 percent of the value
of planes to be sourced within the country. Industry officials are expecting a
huge windfall for local manufacturers
In contrast, PIA has outsourced even routine repair of parts to
foreign vendors. Today it only replaces finished sealed components. Even
basic work like passenger seats, gallery refurbishing is outsourced by the
airline. When it was making profits all this was done by the airline itself.
Today the airline is again in self-denial. The airline cannot improve
with this mindset and Islamabads lukewarm reprimand is ineffective. Even
if the president of the country, as has been reported, intervenes and buys
time out, this is not a remedy. The problem lies with the airline
management that is not conversant with aviation

859

PEACE PROCESS
The process seemed to be moving only to those who gazed too hard;
just as a bush would appear to be moving to one who focused his eyes for
too long in the darkness of the night. On 6 th March, Pakistan and India
discussed in the meeting held in Islamabad as to what could be achieved
through joint anti-terrorism mechanism.
Next day, India and Pakistan agreed to share information as part of the
anti-terrorism mechanism. India, however, gave no information about
Samjhota Express attack. Pakistan, however, gave comprehensive dossier to
the Indian delegation about systematic involvement of Indian security
agencies in terrorist acts in Baluchistan. India denied aiding militants.
Fourth round of the composite dialogue started in Islamabad on 13 th
March. Next day it ended with Pakistan submitting number of Kashmirspecific CBMs. The same day, India claimed arresting two suspects over
attack on Samjhota Express. A week later, talks on joint survey of Indo-Pak
border, held in New Delhi, remained inconclusive.
As usual, the actions and statements negative to confidence building
were in plenty:
On 26th February, India withdrew the tariff concessions unilaterally
which had been extended to Pakistan under SAFTA. Next day, India
denied tariff relief withdrawal.
India increased defence budget by 7.8 percent. Pakistan test-fired
Hatf-II ballistic missile on 3rd March and its Coast Guards arrested 12
Indian fishermen along with five boats.
On 4th March, Shaukat Aziz sought information on Samjhota probe.
Jawed Naqvi from New Delhi reported that India was not likely to
share hard evidence with Pakistan on train blasts.
Pakistan test-fired cruise missile Babar on 22nd March. Three days
later, India test-fired air-to-air supersonic missile.
Perpetration of state terrorism by occupation forces in IHK
continued despite marked decline in attacks by the freedom fighters or the

860

so-called cross-border terrorism. Following incidents were reported during

the period:
Three Kashmiris were martyred by occupation forces on 26 th February
and eight Indian soldiers were killed in bus accident near Jammu.
On 28th February, seven Indian policemen were charged for killing
civilians in IHK in fake encounters.
Hizb commander and his guard were killed in on 2 nd March. Next day,
ICJ urged India to scrap draconian law which has given sweeping
powers to security forces to curb insurgency.
On 5th March, one person was killed by occupation forces and 20 were
wounded in use of force on protesters; 16 were also arrested.
Kashmiris protested against murder of a youth by occupation forces
on 6th March and forces arrested 11 Kashmiris.
Next day, Indian forces claimed killing a top militant last week in an
encounter in which three soldiers were wounded.
Indian troops claimed killing four terror suspects near LoC on 8th
March. Three days later, Indian troops shot dead three suspected
fighters. Hizb said India is not serious in solving Kashmir issue.
Two Indian soldiers were killed in clashes in on 18th March. Two days
later, six freedom fighters and two Indian soldiers were killed in gun
battles.
Due to the absence of any significant development in Indo-Pak peace
process the analysts focused on other issues out of which the suspension of
the Chief Justice of Pakistan drew attention of everyone. Hence, the peace
process merited no attention no comments.

HOME FRONT
At home the politicking remained focused on general elections later
this year. On 28th February, Musharraf addressed a public gathering in

861

Larkana on the occasion of ground breaking ceremony of construction of a

bridge over River Indus, He asked the people to reject obscurantist and vote
for his party.
On 2nd March, Patriots joined PML-Q in bulk; 10 MNAs, five MPAs
from Punjab and three from Sindh. A week later, a federal minister from
MQM and Shujaat talked of postponement of elections by one year.
On 1st March, Benazir decided not to attend APC meeting to keep her
options open; particularly the Washington option. But, she planned to attend
India Today Conclave in New Delhi. Benazir, after refusing to attend APC
meeting, went to Washington where she urged the US to push Musharraf to
restore democracy. She also said that the General and his agencies were not
interested in curbing terrorism and claimed that only the moderate forces
like her party can defeat terrorism.
Rahimullah Yusufzai commented on the seasonal migration of the
bird-flu infected Patriots to the warm waters of Kings Lake. The PPP
Patriots thought it was patriotic to abandon the mainstream PPP even
after being elected on its ticket and join hands with General Musharraf after
the October 2002 elections to help form a stable PML-led coalition
government. In words of one of its leaders, Faisal Saleh Hayat, they left the
party when Benazir Bhutto refused to follow Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos liberal
and secular vision and instead insisted on implementing her personal
agenda.
Predictably, the PPP Patriots have been given a quiet burial by
merging it into the ruling PML-Q. It had little other choice in the
circumstances as members of the faction were hastily joining the PML-Q to
secure their political future without even waiting for the party chairman Rao
Sikandar Iqbal, president Aftab Sherpao and secretary general Faisal Saleh
Hayat to make up their mind.
To his credit, interior minister, Aftab Sherpao hasnt joined the PMLQ. His faction of the party was older and stronger than the PPP Patriots and
he is determined to contest the next polls from the platform of PPP-S, or PPP
Sherpao as it is commonly known, This shows his confidence as he tries to
maintain his separate political existence in the NWFP.
The mainstream PPP has done the right thing by refusing to take
back its defectors into the party fold. It would have been tempting to give

862

party tickets to candidates capable of winning assembly seats in accordance

with past practices but this would have sent the wrong signal to the PPP rank
and file and voters and set up wrong precedence.
Such characters abound in our political life and continue to
prosper because they have never been held accountable for betraying the
trust of voters and showing disloyalty to the political party that enabled them
to win their assembly seats.
The Dawn wrote: The evidence of pre-poll rigging which the
opposition fears is to be found not in such a minor non-event as the wellplanned disappearance of the Patriots; it is to be seen in the decision, made
official, that the existing assemblies will re-elect Gen Musharraf as
president for another term. Once this controversial re-election takes place,
the larger electoral exercise loses all meanings, for it does not really matter
who the prime minister will be in a new dispensation where the president
will call all the shots. No tears would be shed at the Patriot groups demise,
nor would anyone celebrate it except perhaps the Patriots themselves.
Militancy in Baluchistan kept simmering. Following incidents were
reported during the period:
Rail track was blown up near Dera Murad Jamali on 26 th February.
Next day houses of DCOs were attacked in Kalat and Mastung.
On 4th March a bomb exploded in Sibi College; there were no
casualties. Next day, railway track was blown up near Machh and gas
pipeline was blown up by bomb blast in upper Sindh.
One person was killed and 13 wounded on 7th March when a
motorcycle bomb targeted a pro-government elder in Sui area. Blast
near Quetta damaged railway track.
On 9th March, Police chief claimed improvement in law and order
situation in Baluchistan; there were only 31 terrorist attacks in
February.
Gas pipeline was blown up near Quetta on 12 th March. Two days later,
rockets were fired at a grid station near Quetta. A commander of BLA,
along with 18 others, was arrested after a clash near Pak-Iran border.

863

 Gas pipeline in Pirkoh area and railway track near Mastung were
blown up.
Five FC soldiers were killed and four wounded in an ambush in
Chagai district on 21st March. Two days later, gas pipeline was blown
up in Sui.
Events in Baluchistan took an undesirable turn during the period.
Pak-Iran relations suffered a setback when terrorists used Pakistani
territory for launching attacks inside Iran. Militants killed four Iranian
policemen and kidnapped one near border on 28 th February. Tehran
complained lack of cooperation from Islamabad; Pakistan rejected the
allegation. Two days later, a top Iranian cleric accused Pakistan of becoming
a terrorist sanctuary.
Shafqat Mahmood warned the government against deteriorating ties
with Iran. It would be very unwise of Musharraf to give even a semblance
of support to the Americans. It is an emotive issue and likely to raise the
temperature in Pakistan. If the government finds itself on the wrong side of
the public sentiment, it surely will be swept away. Musharraf has no real
threat now but if he makes mistake on Iran, the situation will change
dramatically.
Shireen M Mazari urged vigilance in the wake of the US military
built-up in the region. After all, the America aircraft-carrier, USS John C
Stennis, is anchored about 120 nautical miles off the coast of Pakistan. Now
the US may claim that this has nothing to do with Pakistan and that is not
even threatening Iran, but the reality is different. That there is a most serious
and direct threat being staged against Iran by the US is a given, but let us
look at the implications of this particular carrier for Pakistan. Clearly, it is a
veiled threat of use of force, which can be to either pressure Pakistan
further on Afghanistan, or to compel it to refrain from any adverse (for the
US) action in case of an attack against Iran.
Whichever way we look at developments in our neighbourhood, it is
apparent that even if Iran is the primary target for the US and its potential
coalition of the willing, Pakistan will also be targeted even if only as
necessary collateral damage. That is why we need to proactively ensure
that this design is thwarted and we are not willy-nilly compelled to become
an unwilling ally in what will be a self-destruct scenario for us. Already we

864

are paying a heavy price for the blinkered military-centric policies of the US
and NATO in Afghanistan. We cannot afford to do the same in the Iran-Gulf
context.
Apprehension of Shahid Javed Burki was far more serious. Pakistan
is about to hit a rough spot again. What happened in 1965 when the country
fought a sharp and brief war with India and again in 1989 when Pakistan,
working with the United States, was able to force the Soviet Union out of
Afghanistan, is going to occur again. History will repeat itself, perhaps
not this year, perhaps not also in 2008, but most likely in 2009 when the
reins of the American government will change hands in Washington.
The soft image remained elusive more than ever before. The major
blow was inflicted by the rulers themselves, when they decided to suspend
the Chief Justice of Pakistan on 9th March. This episode is covered in
separate articles.
Out of the reasons to sack the CJP, the issue of missing persons
emerged on the top. On 7th March, International Commission of Jurists asked
the Government of Pakistan to locate 137 missing persons. Next day, the
authorities informed the Supreme Court that 199 persons were still
untraceable.
Celebration of Basant in Lahore failed to serve the cause of soft
image. On 26th February, the obscurantist Qazi sought Supreme Court
action against Basant killings. On 1st March, the enlightened Chief Minister
of Punjab, after organizing for the murder of innocent people, paid
compensations to the families of the victims families. By next day, 227
people were held in Lahore for flouting ban on kite-flying. Obviously,
Chief Minister or Nazim were not amongst detainees.
Meanwhile, it was reported that senior government functionaries were
creating doubts about the credibility of the report sent by the presidency to
the Punjab government for strict action against the MPAs and ministers
allegedly patronizing gambling dens and brothel houses in Lahore.
Hide-and-seek between the government and extremists continued.
Following incidents were reported:
On 1st March, explosive laden car was found abandoned in Karachi.
Next day, a remote controlled bomb attack on the judge of an anti-

865

terror court in Multan left three people dead and several injured,
including the judge.
Five militants were arrested in Hyderabad on 3 rd March. Next day, a
suspect in high-profile murder of religious leaders was arrested in
Karachi.
Police arrested a leader of banned outfit in Dadu on 5th March. Three
days later, two gunmen shot dead an activist of Sipah-e-Sahaba in
Dera Ismail Khan.
Two persons were killed in sectarian violence in D I Khan on 9 th
March. Next day, two more persons were killed.
In view of rise in terrorist attacks, PAF and Naval chiefs asked for
bullet proof cars. On 16th March, five activists of Jaish were arrested
in Rawalpindi.
Six people were killed in sectarian clash in Tirah on 17 th March. Three
days later, Zille Humas murderer was sentenced to death.
The most damaging incident, apart from suspension of the CJP, took
place far away from the soil of Pakistan. Its cricket team lost the inaugural
match against West Indies on 13th March and five days later it was beaten by
minnows from Ireland. Next morning, the coach of Pakistani team was
found dead in his hotel room. Western media in general and Indian in
particular availed the opportunity to further tarnish the image of Pakistan.
Babar Sattar expressed his views on Basant. Celebrating spring with
music and mixed gatherings is not what is immoral. But promulgating a law
and legalizing an activity that allows merry-making at the cost of others
lives is. What is unforgivable is that in allowing kite-flying during
spring-fest the loss of innocent lives was within the reasonable
contemplation of the decision-makers and yet they exercised the discretion
the way they did and the citizens of Lahore collectively acquiesced. Would
General Musharraf, Pervaiz Elahi or Mian Amir Mahmood exercise
discretion in such a manner if their was a faint possibility that they might
lose a loved one? Would the rest of us acquiesce had we lost one?
Let these Basanti enlightened moderate allow someone to kill their
dear ones next spring on payment of twice the compensation paid to the
866

families of victims by Punjab Chief Minister this year. It is quite ironic that
actions of those fighting against the Crusaders for liberation of their
homelands, are strongly condemned, but slitting throats of own innocent
children is condoned on the pretext of merry-making and soft image.
Anjum Niaz commented on frequent blaming of the obscurantist.
Blame it on the beards? Thats being narrow-minded. The establishment
would have us believe that all our present ills creep from one source
the menacing mullahs. Women are the target so the populace is being told.
When the Jamia Hafsa students in Islamabad refused to quit but did
so after the government retracted, all and sundry cried foul. The only
columnist bothering to interview them and give their side of the story was
Dr Masooda Bano. Writing an objective piece in The News, she said, the
girls and teachers do not give you long lectures on how it is unIslamic to
demolish mosques; what they repeatedly talk about are critical political
issues of citizenship and rights What these girls repeatedly argue about is
that it is the continued exploitation of Pakistanis by those who claim
allegiance to Islam.
Blaming the thekedars of Islam (Musharrafs latest coinage) for
all the terrorism in our midst is too simplistic. Just because President
Musharraf has jettisoned the MMA on Americas behest after getting them to
approve of his appointment as president in uniform, does it mean we too
should don our dunces caps and like dullards agree with the president?
Heavens, no!
One final question: we label the bearded clergy as extremists, how
would we label the rising number (and still counting) of our men
supporting the goatee trimmed Saudi style? Have these goatees been
screened and declared safe?
Before the start of the World Cup, the Chairman PCB was annoyed
over the statement of Malcolm Speed about inclusion of Shoaib and Asif in
team for the World Cup. He decided to protest in writing, but on second
thought he annoyed Speed by dropping them from the team at the last
moment.
The vindictive Whiteman had been waiting ever since Hair-episode
for an opportunity to catch the Pakis red-handed. Dr Nasim denied that

867

opportunity. God, however, was kind on the Whiteman and provided an

unexpected opportunity in West Indies.
In one of the articles, it was sarcastically said that the loss to Ireland
could also be attributed to conspiracy theories just like those hyped by the
rulers in Pakistan to demonize the opponents protesting in the wake of the
suspension of the CJP. It was never realized that there were some who
seriously thought on these lines.
M Ismail Khan observed that in the liberal circles of the country, the
premature exit from the World Cup is seen as a good omen. This will help
separate cricket and religion, they argue. Over the years, the Pakistan
cricket team was increasingly looking like a Taliban outfit, with an overt
and unnecessary display of faith. Many young cricketers had started to look
at cricket as an article of faith and a war against the infidel, instead of taking
it as a secular and godless sport. The debacle will teach young players that
cricket is just a game and has nothing to do with religion.
Huma Yusuf urged for a rational view of this unfortunate setback.
Why should we bother reining in our cynicism with regards to cricket when
its dispensation is perfectly appropriate in matters of the state? After all, the
fun of Pakistani cricket has in a large part stemmed from the fact that field is
one of the only forums on which we can enact our nationality. Matches have
always served as a microcosm of the nation, its politics, people and passions.
These past two weeks, more than ever, have been a reminder of this fact, as
the collapse of the Pakistan cricket team seems to have happened, as if
on cue, to coincide with the collapse of the faade of Pakistani
democracy.
Kamila Hyat wrote: As protesters angered by Pakistans World Cup
exit have joined those already out on the streets, the wave of anger running
through the country has intensified. But there is far more to this anger
than merely the question of performance on a playfield, or the other
events surrounding it.
Cricket, for a country that only rarely experiences success,
symbolizes hope and the possibility of dreams being fulfilled. In an age of
growing unemployment, despair and rage, there is little else that provides
any grounds for optimism. Defeat as such comes as a reminder that in
cricket too, Pakistan faces the risk of decline and that the sport that has in
the past brought glory in the form of international triumph and acclaim,
868

allowing people to temporarily indulge in the pleasure of patriotic pride,

cannot always deliver.
Sport alone cannot meet their needs. It merely symbolizes the kind of
vacuum that exists in a society where despondency seems to exist
everywhere. The changes required in any society to defeat despair can
obviously not come instantly. They will need to be based, if they are to have
any long-term meaning, on a genuine desire to create a more even playing
field; to offer real learning to people rather than merely fill schools and to
offer opportunities in the form of jobs and launch of projects that can offer
employment.
Cricket teams defeat at the hands Ireland is undoubtedly an
unprecedented tragedy for the cricket-loving nation of Pakistan. But, in the
wake of this defeat the critics have ignored some bitter ground realities
while shifting the blame onto few.
Inzi has said sorry to the nation without reminding that the victory in
1992 was due his dashing innings in the semi-final and good contribution in
the final. Chairman PCB has also rendered his resignation without
mentioning that he had inherited the mess which could not be cleared in few
months. The critics did not realize that cricket cannot be seen in isolation
from the rest of the national affairs.
A major factor which has been overlooked by most critics is the
domination of the game by the Whiteman at international arena. It all started
at the Oval in last August which ended up in exposing the prejudices of the
Whiteman. Memory of Whiteman is not short.
What happened ultimately was inevitable. One just have to keep two
things in mind: One, the change in rules of dope tests which incorporated
targeted tests was meant to catch Shoaib and Asif who still had traces of
steroids in their blood. Two, the pitch for the second match of Pakistan was
the only green-top pitch in the World Cup matches to date, which was a
repetition of Mohali.

CONCLUSION
When the US House of Representatives considered a discriminatory
bill threatening stoppage of aid, President and Prime Minister of Pakistan,
869

who had been repeatedly boasting about breaking the begging-bowl, could
not hold back their resentment. The nation expected their leaders to say:
Thank you very much; you can keep your green-backs with you.
Unfortunately, they have only replaced the begging bowl with begging hat.
The increased pressure on Pakistan, led to drawing inferences about
the value of Musharraf for the Crusaders. Some apprehended that he has lost
his utility, but most opined that the US would still hang onto Musharraf.
That wont last indefinitely; sooner or later the Crusaders have to discard
him, despite the fact that he has obliged the Crusaders by inducting two
more brigades. He has to go for the goals which can be better achieved
without him.
The politicians, who had discarded PPP, for reasons quite obvious
decided not to remain patriots any more. Patriots can now be added to the
list of missing persons. Patriotism, in any case, is not the best of the
instruments to promote ones political interests.
26th March 2007

870

HELMET vs WIG
ROUND-IV
Beginning of the fourth round was marked by the adjournment of the
hearing by the SJC until 3rd April. This round was in fact an extension of the
third round necessitated by the tempo maintained by the Team-Wig which
was out-scoring despite the foul play by Team-Helmet.
The adjournment, however, provided time to either side to reconsider
their respective lines of action. Benazir and Nawaz met in London and
decided to support the lawyers movement for independence of the judiciary.
Musharraf appealed to the lawyers to give up their struggle.
Justice Rana Bhagwandas took oath as AJC. Team-Helmet launched a
crackdown and arrested hundreds of leaders and workers of political parties
to subvert the protest on 26th March. Having done that, Musharraf addressed
a public meeting in Liaqat Bagh, Rawalpindi to demonstrate that his regime
still enjoyed the public support.
The CJP addressed lawyers in Rawalpindi. He stressed upon the need
for rule of law through independence of judiciary and avoided talking about
political issues and the reference against him. Musharraf backers in
Washington also reassessed the situation and met Nawaz Sharif, Aitzaz
Ahsan and Chaudhry Nisar.
The much awaited proceedings of the SJC resumed on 3 rd April. After
hearing arguments of both sides for four hours, the SJC reserved its ruling
on the contested issues and adjourned till 13th April.

EVENTS
On 22nd March, Shujaat claimed that the opposition has failed in
politicizing the CJP issue. Wasi said President can scrap the finding of the
SJC if the CJP is found guilty. The learned minister picked up yet another
row with a senior police officer of Faisalabad Region while seeking a petty
favour. Having used abusive and filthy language, the minister moved a
privilege motion in the National Assembly. Chief Minister of Punjab

871

pacified the police officer and asked him to continue his job and try to
ignore such mishaps.
Justice Rana Bhagwandas was appointed as Acting Chief Justice.
Acting Chief Justice, Javed Iqbal appointed a Bahawalpur High Court judge
to probe police action against lawyers in Quetta. He also lauded the role of
lawyers and judges for supremacy of law.
Lawyers peaceful protest continued across the country. Assistant
District Attorney Khanewal resigned in protest. The Supreme Court Bar
Association chief responded to Durranis offer of dialogue by laying the precondition of trial of Musharraf on high treason.
Nawaz Sharif and Benazir met in London and gave call for
countrywide protest on 26th March. A senior US State Departments official
said exit of Musharraf was not on the horizon. Next day, MMA and ANP
agreed to respond to ARDs call for protest on 26 th March. Qazi vowed to
force Musharraf quit. Shujaat vowed to win elections with thumping
majority.
Musharraf while addressing Pakistan Day Parade asked lawyers to
give up protest and urged masses to help fight the threat of extremism. Umar
Cheema reported that the government was in search of a mediator for patchup with the CJP. Ansar Abbasi reported that majority of the ministers
brigade has buried their heads in sand in the backdrop of presidents
reference against the CJP.
On 24th March, Justice Rana Bhagwandas took oath as acting chief
justice; lawyers stayed away from ceremony. He said, the SJC will decide
about open trial; the issue of the CJP will be decided on merit; and we will
not disappoint the nation.
Ansar Abbasi reported that the CJP had shown complete faith in
Justice Bhagwandas. Sources said the CJP was of the view that reference
against him had no grounds to stand. I have some trump cards close to my
chest. About Bhagwandas he said, despite belonging to Hindu faith, Justice
Bhagwandas is more Muslim than Muslims.
Qazi said MMA cant accept Justice Bhagwandas as Acting Chief
Justice of Pakistan. The government machinery came into action to subvert
Oppositions protest rally scheduled for 26th March. About one hundred

872

leaders and workers of opposition political parties were arrested in

Rawalpindi.
Next day, Police detained hundreds of opposition activists in Punjab
on the eve of ARDs protest. Musharraf wanted the protests to be peaceful.
Prime Minister ruled out any possibility of withdrawal of reference. Justice
Bhagwandas said that there would be no change in the composition of the
SJC, except the exit of junior member from the Supreme Court, Justice
Sardar Raza. Rauf Klasra reported that popularity of Justice Iftikhar has
alarmed two former prime ministers residing in exile.
On 26th March, countrywide ARD rallies demanded reinstatement of
the CJP. Opposition parties asked President to resign and allow interim
government to hold free polls. Politicians vowed to continue protest till
ousting of the government. Qazi demanded trial of Musharraf.
Chief Minister announced that PML-Q would hold rallies and
meetings against the pressure being mounted against the SJC. But, Minister
Durrani claimed that the strike by political parties was a flop and lawyers
movement would also diminish soon. Durrani said Prime Minister would
interact with lawyers soon. Information secretary was axed to wash the sins
of Minister Durrani; Anwar replaced Lashari. Prime Minister claimed that
his government believes in supremacy of law.
Justice Javed Iqbal while presiding over the three-member bench
directed the government to submit a concise statement before the court by
April 10 in all the cases filed by the relatives of missing persons who were
allegedly picked up by intelligence agencies.
Umar Cheema made some interesting revelations in his report
published on 27th March. He reported the proceedings of dressing room
meeting of the Team-Helmet in which the team captain asked suggestions
from team-mates and gave them tips for improving their performance in the
ongoing contest. Team captain said that Qazi and Imran are spent forces,
unable to gather enough public support. As regards PPP and the JUI-F, he
said leave them to us to manage. Work on the lawyers, offer them jobs
and split them up.
Kasuri, left-out in this match, suggested holding an open trial of the
CJP. The team captain rejected his proposal of playing open game. The
judges must have taken note of it. Saleh Hayat, a contracted player,

873

acknowledged the tough time given by the CJP, but assured the captain that
the Team-Wig can be controlled.
Manzoor Wattoo, no more a playing member of the team,
recommended the need to have a contingency plan for any setback. The
captain did not like it. What are you talking about? There is no question of
withdrawal reference or retreat in this case.
Kamil Ali Agha, a player good at initiating the moves, suggested
filling 12 vacant seats in high courts with a view to neutralizing at least a
dozen leading lawyers. His proposal was accepted.
Wasi Zafar, the rough playing spear-head, suggested that 700 seats of
legal advisers in different government departments should also be filled.
Captain reacted sharply and wanted expeditious action, but other team-mates
apprehended that most of the seats would go to law ministers constituency.
When Agha and Wasi indulged indecently in bidding the number of lawyers
each could bring to presidency, Musharraf intervened and advised Wasi to
behave at least in meetings like this.
Waqas Akram Sheikh, not part of the playing eleven, suggested
fixing of the match. He advised the captain to order members of his team to
go back to their respective constituencies and influence the lawyers instead
of engaging in brainstorming session in drawing rooms. Captain liked the
idea and termed it a practicable solution.
Captain took serious note of the unnecessary support the sections of
media were offering to the Team-Wig, particularly on the allegation of
misuse of vehicles. According to him it is wrong to compare the CJP with
generals and ministers. The CJP must rise above these things, he said.
Addressing a public gathering in Liaqat Bagh, which was arranged as
show of force under the pretext of Shaikh Rashid Express Way, Musharraf
distanced himself from the issue of missing persons. Minister Durrani
claimed that Pakistan is a model of free media in South Asia. Sharif-ud-Din
Pirzada favoured open court hearing of the CJPs case. Symbolic protest of
lawyers continued throughout the country.
On 28th March, the CJP addressed lawyers at LHC Rawalpindi bench.
AJK Supreme Court judge and a civil judge also attended the address. The
lawyers strictly refrained from political slogans or gestures. In his address,

874

the CJP restricted himself to highlighting the importance of independence of

judiciary. He refused to talk about the reference against him.
Minister Durrani termed Opposition protest a complete failure and
vowed that movement of his party for supremacy of judiciary would
continue. Token strikes of lawyers continued.
Next day, it was confirmed that Wasim Sajjad was engaged as member
of the prosecution panel. District Council Abbottabad flayed government
action against the CJP. Fazl and Nawaz Sharif met in London and agreed to
support lawyers movement for independence of judiciary. Media watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders slammed curbs imposed on media in Pakistan.
President and Prime Minister met in camp office on 30 th March to
discuss political situation. Sindh Chief Minister denied existence of any
judicial crisis in the country. Pevaiz Elahi in a public gathering announced
that PML-Q would win next elections and elect Musharraf in uniform for ten
years.
Panel of lawyers to defend reference expanded to eight including two
Ranjha brothers, Wasim Sajjad, Amanullah Kanrani, Raja Abdur Rehman,
Raja Qureshi, Chaudhry Arif and the Attorney General. Inquiry report on
manhandling of the CJP was submitted by the judge of PHC.
Rauf Klasra reported from London that Americans seemed to have
finally decided to establish direct link with Nawaz Sharif. Next day, a fourmember delegation of Congressmen met Nawaz in London and favoured
Nawazs return to Pakistan.
Inquiry report on manhandling of the CJP held chief commissioner,
deputy commissioner, IG, SSP and other police officers responsible for the
incident. The report, however, overlooked the strangers around the CJP on
the fateful day who were alleged to be officials on intelligence agencies.
On 1st April, Nawaz Sharif said the US should have alliance with a
nation, instead of one man. He added that wrong impression has been
created and propagated that religious extremists would come into power
when Musharraf rule ends. The US officials met Aitzaz Ahsan and discussed
political situation and the issue of reference.
On 2nd April, hundreds of political leaders and workers, including
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, were arrested in Punjab to subvert protest rallies
875

scheduled for next day; some lawyers were also detained. A team of US
Congressmen met Chaudhry Nisar.
Full bench of the Supreme Court ordered framing a contempt of court
case against top officials of police and district administration for bringing
the authority of the court into ridicule. Hearing of petition challenging the
composition of the SJC was adjourned till next week. A petition was filed in
the Supreme Court on the issue of non-Muslim acting CJ.
Third day of April began with an earthquake of intensity of 6.2. The
SJC proceedings started with arguments from either side primarily on two
issues; composition of the SJC and the open trial. After four-hour hearing,
the SJC reserved the ruling and adjourned the till April 13.
After the hearing, some emotionally charged lawyers cursed the
leading lawyer on the government panel, Khalid Ranjha for defending the
reference against the CJP. Ranjha rushed to Rana Bhagwandas to complain,
the latter consoled the former and appointed the Registrar to inquire into the
incident.
The lawyers also rebuked Wasim Sajjad and Law Ministrys
spokesman; in case of the later, the lawyers pulled off his coat and called
him black sheep, but both of them did not react like Ranjha. Later on,
Ranjha threatened to resign from the panel unless he and his panel were
provided necessary protection.
The Team-Helmet made a new move by sending party of men in black
coats, mostly from Gujrat, led by parliamentary secretary of Punjab
Assembly to disrupt peaceful protest of the lawyers. When some members of
this party tried to get close to the vehicle of the CJP, the lawyers pushed
them away and on resistance some of the intruders were thrashed. A lawyer
from this party was also beaten for shouting pro-Musharraf slogan.
Country-wide protests were held despite the governments crackdown
in which hundreds of political leaders and workers were arrested. Protesters
demanded reinstatement of the CJP and resignation from the president.
Lawyers observed full day boycott of the courts.
In Islamabad, all roads leading to the capital were blocked by police
but most political parties managed to penetrate and showed their solidarity
with the CJP while maintaining their party identity. Police avoided its

876

habitual high-handedness, yet some protesters, including women, were

mistreated and a few lawyers were also arrested.

COMMENTS
During this round the analysts kept commenting on all the events
since 9th March; especially on the interview of Musharraf. While facing
the deepest political crisis of his regime, General Musharraf chose to tell the
people of Pakistan tales about the judicial debacle during a talk show on Geo
TV, wrote Babar Sattar.
The explanations lacked candour, the arguments were
unpersuasive, the logic flawed and the demeanour anxious. General
Musharraf is evidently not the harbinger of hope for the nation that he
claimed to be after his coup in 1999. Under his rule the Constitution
continues to be ravaged, political processes stifled, and civil society abused,
while the international image of the country continues to suffer.
There were at least three disenchanting themes that stuck out in
his interview that deserve comment. First is his self-evaluation of the
judicial catastrophe. The general maintained that the decision to sack the
chief justice was constitutional and only its media management was
deficient
The general was not being straightforward when he chose to
enumerate his legal obligation as president to consider and process a
reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan. It is not this obligation that is
being disputed, but his authority to suspend the chief justice pending such
reference, the humiliation and hostility hurled upon him in the process, and
adverse impact of the event on the independence of the judiciary. What the
general actually told the nation was that he did not foresee the indignation
that citizens would feel when they found him trampling over judicial
independence and rule of law, and that he still did not think it was wrong to
condemn the chief justice and mistreat him.
Second, the president blamed political parties for politicizing the
issue and warned them in characteristic military style against trying to use
this debacle to their advantage. But what does he mean when he alleges that
political parties are indulging in politics and why is it disdainful? What is it

877

that the president himself was doing in choosing to be interviewed by Geo

TV? What is it that he regretted not doing, in failing to manipulate the
national sentiment by feeding the citizens of Pakistan select facts on the
issue of sacking the chief justice? Is that not politics?
That politics as a concept is corrupt and undesirable has been
popularized by successive military regimes in Pakistan to discredit political
processes, political institutions and civilian governments. Politics is simply
the process of formulating and applying public policy, and relates to the
acquisition and application of state authority. Aristotle stated back in his
days that ethics and politics are closely linked and that truly ethical life can
only be lived by someone who participates in politics. What we need in
Pakistan is more politics and not less.
Political process can be corrupt or benevolent depending on how it is
used to further the interests of the community. Likewise political decisions
can be good or bad, legal or extra-legal, but such determinations rest on the
decisions themselves and not the fact that they are political decisions. The
Constitution is a legal document but it incorporates political values and
is the product of a political process. The law is simply a means to uphold
and enforce consensual political decisions and there are no bright lines
delimiting law from politics. On the contrary, there are clear limits, with
trespassing strictly forbidden, between politics and soldiering.
Third, General Musharrafs approach to accepting and assigning
responsibility for his regimes blunders seemed nave and self-serving.
He actually heaped the responsibility for the Geo TV attack on a lone
inspector who then went missing mysteriously. His theory of accountability
seemed to suggest that those in power who have decision-making authority
should not be held accountable lest they stop taking bold decisions, but it is
fine to persecute those who are responsible for executing such decisions.
The regimes maladroit use of a combination of conspiracy theories
and misunderstandings to explain its ineffable loutishness is nothing more
than a euphemism for refusing to take responsibility. Should the law
minister, the interior minister, the information minister not be held
accountable for unleashing this mayhem on the nation? What good it will do
to make scapegoats out of bureaucrats who are duty-bound to take orders, be
it an inspector or an inspector general? Should the general not have told the
nation that he is responsible in the ultimate parlance? Being a military man,

878

does he not understand the hierarchy and responsibility of command? Where

does the buck stop?
Engr S T Hussain from Lahore opined: General Musharraf is trying
his best to control the damage done by his overacting and unnecessary
move to remove the Chief Justice of Supreme Court on clumsy charges. One
fails to understand why he has to damage the image of Pakistan. When he
has justified wearing two hats Concentration of power in one persons
hand is always harmful for the country.
Fatima Bhutto wrote an open letter to the President. It was not an
interview as such, there were few prickly questions, and it was telecast
more like an audience with Pervez Musharraf. Looking dapper in your
grey flannel suit you appeared amiable and comfortable with the nations eye
upon you. It was a total charm offensive. Dear General, it was completely
insidious. Any military dictator worth his salt sees it as his indisputable right
to appear brash and authoritarian.
Speaking on television in simple, accessible language and convivially
joking with your interviewer your abrogation of the Pakistani Constitution
seems far less threatening, but far more dangerous in the long run because
though your actions are perpetually dictatorial your pose is
considerably well thought out. You are far smarter than a sub Saharan
dictator. Congratulations.
When asked about the spate of politically motivated
disappearances since 2001, the highest estimates placing the number of
disappeared activists and intellectuals at 4,000 Pakistani citizens, you
expressed outrage. Mock outrage, perhaps
You said that the people who have been wrongly labeled as
disappeared persons had actually left their families and homes of their own
free will. They snuck away to join the global jihad movement. They ran
away to become suicide bombers. What a shame, but its true. They make
videotapes before they blow themselves up, youd seen them. Theyve not
disappeared. Theyre terror recruits and invisibility is part of their cloak.
Speaking so confidently on the matter, you were almost believable.
But it is not true dear General, it simply is not true. I wonder if
youve had a chance to read Enemy Combatant a book heralded as a
fascinating prison memoir by The Times of London. Its author, Moazzam

879

Begg, a Briton of Pakistani origin spent three years shackled in Guantanmo

Bay after being hooded and handcuffed at midnight by Pakistani and
American officials who turned up at his house in Islamabad. Begg recounts
pleading with a Pakistani official, insisting that he had done nothing wrong
and asking that he be released from his illegal detention. You are here
because of the Americans Beggs guard told him Moazzam Begg didnt
leave his home of his own will; he was not fleeing to join a jihadi camp. He
was disappeared.
Then there came the meat of the matter your removal of the chief
justice. Again, you insisted that no wrongdoing had been committed on
your part. You told Khan that you handled the matter legally and
constitutionally. The problem, you said, was created on the ground. It was
the political opposition that made a big mess out of the situation by raising
slogans and creating public disturbance. Look at the pictures of the crowd
surrounding the chief justices car, you pointed out, look at the political
parties flags that surrounded it. I must confess, dear General, the pictures I
saw were of your police force theyre everywhere these days lathicharging lawyers. I saw pictures of men being kicked in the open street and
being tear gassed until they dispersed.
Im not a legal man you said, Im just a simple soldier. Bless
you. The people of this country have a tremendous respect for the simple
soldiers that fought for Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, and for those simple
jawans who worked tirelessly in the aftermath of the 2005 earthquake after
losing so many of their own. But youre not one of those simple soldiers
anymore.
Dear General this is not acceptable to the people of this
country. Enforced disappearances are not acceptable to the people of this
country. Constitutional truancy is not acceptable to the people of this
country Restore the rule of law in this country, restore a separation of
powers, and return the thousands of disappeared for any wrongdoings they
may have committed they can stand trial.
Ghazi Salahuddin opined that one measure of this ongoing crisis is
that the long interview of the president that was telecast on Geo failed to
provide the desired favourable spin on the story. On the contrary, it failed
remarkably as an exercise in damage-control.

880

Syed Mohsin Rizvi from Lahore desired that Geo TV wanted airtime
to be given to the CJP to establish the truth on following:
Justice Iftikhar has said he used to finish his judicial work by 11.30
am. When did he arrive at the generals camp office at Rawalpindi,
traveling from Supreme Court at Islamabad?
When exactly did the president order the filing of the reference with
the Supreme Judicial Council, making the chief justice non-functional
and when was Justice Javed Iqbal appointed as acting chief justice?
When and how did the two members of the Judicial Council from
Lahore and Karachi arrive and at what time did the Supreme Judicial
Council meet to admit the reference for regular hearing?
From the answers to these questions the nation may infer whether or
not all this was acted upon in haste. And my other question is that will the
same TV channel now also provide enough air time to Justice Iftikhar
Chaudhry? Having given time to the complainant, Geo is morally bound
to give time to the defendant.
Musharrafs tools of moderate governance also remained in the line
of fire. Despite having said a lot about the ministers, the critics could not
avoid recalling their conduct unbecoming. S M H Bokhari observed, Ansar
Abbasi having courageously tolerated the foul language of the federal
minister of lawwithout losing his cool has emerged as a better human
being and more civilized individual than the minister. Ansar Abbasi should
not accept the apology from a minister who has no control on his tongue and
emotions, nor should he shake the hand that the minister repeatedly used to
brutally assault a PIA passenger and a waiter.
In a TV show on March 17, the minister proudly announced that his
ministry under his guidance had prepared the reference against the chief
justice. One can judge the acumen of the minister who during the same
show was corrected by former high court judge Malik Mohammad Qayyum
that the government could not make the chief justice non-functional; it could
only send him on forced leave. That was done eventually but even this has
been challenged by another learned counsel, Afzal Haider, saying that this
rule lost its validity after 1973. On another point when the minister insisted
that his bar membership could not be cancelled by the Punjab Bar

881

Association, he was corrected by Justice Qayyum saying that it could be

suspended by his bar and later ratified by its executive committee.
The question is; what kind of quality advice could such a minister
be rendering to the government that has changed its stance several times
during the last ten days? It appears that the reference reportedly handed over
to the CJ on that fateful evening was still incomplete even on March 13
when it was given to the CJs counsel If the law ministry was in a hurry,
why was the prime minister so desperate to put it before the president
without due scrutiny?
Musharraf must now read the writing on the wall. Irrespective
what his cronies tell him; the situation is not normal and will not become
normal on its own. Some extraordinary steps are needed. The whole civil
society has been shaken out of its slumber and has been mobilized. It is
determined to assert itself now.
Since the president has started smelling a rat or rats; he should
get rid of them early. He should withdraw the reference if technically
feasible and restore the chief justice. He will stand taller in the eyes of the
people than ever before and may win peoples hearts. He should doff his
uniform and walk into the mainstream politics like other politicians. People
will elect him if they like him, otherwise he should step aside and not
impose himself on them.
M S Hasan from Karachi opined: The president is the victim of
inexcusable goofups, gross mismanagement, misperception of the
consequences, lack of political acumen, foresight and understanding of
grassroots dynamics, in the manner of the handling of the reference against
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, by the clueless Prime Ministers
Secretariat, and the woefully incompetent and short on constitutional and
legal expertise, the ministry of law and inept ministry of information, which
failed to disseminate the background, reasons and facts relative to the
reference and to sensitize the legal community in particular and the public in
general over the issue, prior to the filing of the reference.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz may have been a good banker, but
he is certainly not good at state bureaucracy and public relations and
communication related initiatives. Firstly, the Prime Ministers secretariat
did a shoddy job on the text and contents of the reference, failed to prime
and apprise the concerned or the legal community and the public.
882

Secondly, the reference was based on the slipshod work of the

ministry of law, headed by an individual whose understanding of the
constitution, legal language, knowledge, expertise and related prerequisites
are less than that of a judicial stamp-vendor at Jaranwala district courts.
Thirdly, the ministry of information messed up the entire issue by
not carrying out a well thought-out and effective public relations blitz to
forestall the severity of the onslaught by the opposition, the legal
community, the media and a bewildered section of the population. All this
could have been done astutely with relative ease, less mayhem and
imbroglio.
Incompetence of the ministers in planning was matched by the Police
in execution. Mahmood L Malik from Rawalpindi wrote, everyone should
raise their voices to outlaw the use of the lathi that is an offensive weapon
and which when wielded by an uncouth and illiterate policeman becomes a
lethal instrument The billions spent every year on improving the
functioning of the police force is now for all to see. It has been equipped to
control the people and do the bidding of the rulers.
Sardar Ali Aman from Chitral opined, Police officials are public
servants, paid from the public exchequer. They are supposed to perform their
legitimate duties without fear and favour. But as masters stand, they are used
(as) political pawns by vested interests. They are made to do illegal things
at the behest of the powers that be.
The people feel dejected and are rightly concerned about the
future of this country. The lawyers community has been agitating since
then. Political parties and the civil society have joined them in the agitation.
Seemingly the government was ill-advised to take a wrong course and
gamble away its remaining support among the population of the land.
Mir Jamilur Rahman wrote: The removal of Chief Justice Chaudhry
might have passed without creating big waves if a more loyal than the king
security officer had not grabbed the Chief Justice by his hair and grasped his
scruff to drag him to an official car like a common criminal. The slightlybuilt middle-aged Chief Justice was no match to the burly officer. The
officer ripped apart the collar of the black coat the Chief Justice was
wearing. This gruesome and mortifying scene was watched live in shock and
awe by millions on their TV sets. They felt nauseated and terrified.

883

However, this scene triggered an unprecedented reaction which had never

been witnessed before.
For the first time, the people of Pakistan saw the Elite Force of the
Punjab Police in action when about a dozen armed men of this force
attacked the Geo office in Islamabad, manhandled the staff on duty and
broke everything in sight. After few minutes, they disappeared like
commandoes after the accomplishment of the mission. As their bad luck
would have it, their forced entry and violent attack was fully recorded by the
Geo cameramen, preserving undeniable evidence.
The Elite Force is the replica of Storm Troops which was founded
by Adolf Hitler for the purpose of bullying his political opponents. Their
violent intimidation of political opponents played a key role in Hitlers rise
to power. The attack on Geo could be a precursor of more odious tasks that
would be assigned to the Elite Force during the coming elections.
Mir Jamilur Rahman also expressed his views on freedom of
expression. The attack on Geo has dealt a serious blow to media freedom of
which General Pervez Musharraf had been so proud. Talk-show hosts have
revealed that they are pressurized by the government about whom to invite
and whom not to invite in their shows. The truth is that press freedom has
not been a priority for the rulers, be they civilians or military. There have
always been a tug of war between the media and the government of the day
and it will continue albeit with short interruptions.
Ashraf Ali Chaudhry from Islamabad wrote, I am a great fan of
General Musharraf because he is the first Pakistani ruler who has given us
such freedom of expression But his latest action has disappointed me
and his other well-wishers beyond all limits. I sincerely feel that enough is
enough.
Adnan Rehmat observed that Pakistans major power wielders seem
to be formally acknowledging the emergence of media as a major organ of
accountability that needs to be respected. Musharrafs apology and instant
shows of support by lawyers, NGOs and political parties reflect this. There
seem to be a general acknowledgement that Pakistans courageous media has
assumed the lead role in national discourse.
Pakistans media has articulated well the concerns of the
disempowered citizens, seizing this role from the political parties by

884

mobilizing public opinion as well as intelligentsia the role that usually

political parties do but which have been otherwise rendered impotent by the
Orwellian establishment through forced exiles and intimidation of political
leaders and rendering the parliament the only other space where public
concerns can be articulated impotent.
The news from Pakistan is loud and clear: The media has emerged
as the prime voice of the people and has revealed, much to the dismay of
the Establishment, the suppressed but still alive spirit of the people. There is
no turning back.
Dr M Ashraf Adeel was of the view that those carried out assault on
the freedom of press must have acted out of ignorance alone. Otherwise,
they would have seen that, in the process of dehumanizing members of
society, the instruments of tyrannical power themselves get dehumanized
by losing their moral conscience.
Another implication of this attack on the freedom of press is that
power-that-be have not yet grasped the true meaning of the national outrage
over the assault on the office of the chief justice. The nation is outraged
because they want their self-respect restored. That basically means
restoration of the civil and human rights of all citizens through a judiciary
that cannot be coerced by the executive branch of the government. The free
press in the country only highlights this deep-seated desire of the people
behind their current outrage.
The crux of the right to free expression actually lies in seeing that
disagreements are a natural part of human societies. People can come to
form different perceptions and opinions on the same issues. When that
happens, it does not serve the cause of truth to suppress differences.
Indeed, it is through sharp but civilized differences of opinion that progress
in scientific thinking becomes possible in all areas of knowledge and
concern Free press provides the critical space that a society needs for such
disagreements to exist for social growth.
Being able to handle and allow difference of opinion is also related
with the level of a nations or an individuals moral and psychological
maturity. A society that cannot allow and tolerate multiple perspectives
on important issues in its life ends up being socially and intellectually
starved. Such a society slowly yields to violence and its ability to sustain
itself in competition to other societies gets severely damaged. A free press is
885

what some political societies have called a marketplace of ideas; and

multiple ideas in the marketplace create intellectual and spiritual sustenance
for a society.
The ongoing struggle in the country for the protection of judicial
independence is of critical significance for guaranteeing civil rights to our
current and future generations. It is a struggle that will either ensure intergenerational dignity and rights for us or, in case of failure; well be forced to
crawl in dust by many tyrants. A free press is a natural ally in such a
struggle. However, the press cannot be blamed for inciting people insofar as
it brings the truth to them.
The collective conscience in Pakistan has revolted against the
marginalization of the rights of the people by the powerful in the country.
People want their rights to be restored through an independent judiciary. The
press has not created the conditions which have systematically
marginalized the rights of the people themselves from the power equation
in the country. Some forces have been violating the constitutional rights of
the people over and over again and they are the ones responsible for creating
the conditions for people to start this struggle.
At this stage of the game and in this age of information revolution,
there is nothing the government can do, through intimidating the press,
to undo the conditions that have led to the start of the ongoing struggle. Free
press should not be consciously or unconsciously made into scapegoats.
Having provided an opportunity to the opponents by committing a
constitutional blunder, the government accused them of taking political
advantage by politicizing the issue. Air Cdre Azhar A Khan from
Rawalpindi was of the view that the opposition is trying its best to make
political mileage out of this unprecedented situation. It might try to settle its
long outstanding scores with the government irrespective of the harm it
could do to the country. The situation needs to be arrested right now. The
media should play its due role in this hour of need. The government should
put all other matters in the backyard and get down to resolving this issue of
national importance amicably as soon as possible.
Majority did not agree with governments argument on this aspect of
the episode. The News wrote, the president said that the whole matter
concerning the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was a
constitutional and legal one and the lawyers should leave it to the Supreme
886

Judicial Council to adjudicate on the presidential reference filed before it.

He also said that the legal community should avoid creating a law and order
situation out of the whole episode. On the face of it, one would in fact
wholeheartedly agree with what the president is saying However, the fact
of the matter also is that the government for several days violated the
Constitution itself.
The lawyers to whom the president was addressing his remarks
only exercised their democratic right to register a peaceful protest, but even
this was severely curtailed by the Punjab Government (by imposition of
section 144) which seemed more interested in kowtowing to the Centre on
this issue than in maintaining semblance of neutrality. Not only this, the
chief minister of another province also got into the act, holding even a press
conference where he commented freely on the conduct, or lack thereof, of
Justice Iftikhar. All this happened while the media, the political opposition
and civil society in general were asked to refrain from commenting on what
had now become a subjudice matter.
Imtiaz Alam observed that matching the ARDs protest call, and
despite General Musharrafs pleas not to politicize the CJs issue, Punjab
Chief Minister Chaudhary Pervaiz Elahi has also called for rallies in
support of the presidential reference against the chief justice.
All indicators suggest that the political battle over the reference
against the CJP will go on raising the political temperature in the days and
weeks ahead, despite legalistic pleas to keep the whole issue out of the
political bound. The real issue is not whether the removal of Justice
Iftikhar is political or not, even though the government would like to push
the issue under the legal carpet.
Having failed to sell its case, the government is taking refuge behind
the pseudo-pleas of not making a political issue out of a legal one. The
presidential action against the chief justice was, in the first place, a
political act in pursuit of absolute self-perpetuation. It was nothing but
power struggle par excellence that tempted him to sideline the chief justice
who, by his judicial activism, had started to strain the executives nerves.
Who could have stood the pressure had the chief justice not stood up
and had he not been backed by the bar at large? Again, this was a political
act, and a liberal act par excellence, of the bar associations that in fact
rescued a chief justice from losing his ground.
887

Even while retreating, the government is playing sophisticated

political game: from shifting the blame to the ministry of law and the prime
minister to trying to selling the legalistic argument of keeping the issue nonpolitical. The government has played its round of politics and when it is
the oppositions turn it has started crying foul.
What is, however, quite astonishing is that such a fundamental issue
of the independence and sanctity of the judiciary is being portrayed as nonpolitical. Then what else is political? All issues that affect in any way the
relationships of institutions, state and citizens and all legal and constitutional
issues that can potentially influence state and society are in essential
political. The politics of de-politicization of the masses is in fact one of
the authoritarian tools in the hands of arbitrary rulers.
Unfortunately, some bar leaders, and also some leading television
comperes and hosts have also bought this politically motivated non-political
line, as if the independence of the judiciary is the issue of bar alone. More
than the bar, the independence of the judiciary is the real concern of all
citizens including journalists, intellectuals, professionals and
entrepreneurs.
What is quite significant and distinctive about the current phase of
the movement is that it is purely a constitutional-liberal movement aspiring
for a republic. The consensus it has tried to build across all divides is around
the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the supremacy of the
Constitution. It is moving towards republicanism.
On the other hand the current military-led dispensation is promptly
losing the legitimacy of its case against the CJP. It has also lost the utility of
the political faade that it so painstakingly built and was banking on for its
long-term political designs. Its self-image of invulnerability has been badly
shaken and the capacity of the political setup it cobbled together to handle a
crisis stands badly exposed. Besieged under public pressure, its ability to
manoeuvre has been partially compromised.
There were serious apprehensions that in the movement born out of
the present crisis, the religious right would exploit some popular but
unrealistic notions against General Musharrafs realistic foreign policy
initiatives and is marginal pro-women reforms. But instead it is the lawyers
who have taken the lead in setting the movement in a constitutionalliberal direction.
888

If the movement grows it is bound to get divided, either in the

beginning or in the end, between two poles: whether Pakistan is to become a
republic at peace with itself and the world or a Taliban-like theocracy at war
with itself and the world The lawyers have shown the way, let the
people follow and decide once and for all through a genuine election
which way Pakistan must go.
In fact, the political parties have failed to take as much advantage as
they should have. Ghazi Salahuddin observed, there has been constant
speculation on why political parties are unable to bring people out on the
streets against this government. There can be many explanations about the
absence of a mass protest, including the weakness of a divided political
opposition. Some credit should also be given to the rulers for being ruthless
against demonstrators and the lawyers also had a taste of it in Lahore,
Islamabad and Quetta.
But the outpouring of emotion after March 9, thanks to the treatment
meted out to the chief justice in the initial days of the crisis, has certified a
great reservoir of discontent at the popular level. We do not know if the
political parties can invest this anger in a popular movement. As for the
rulers they are now surely aware of what the present crisis is all about.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar opined: The ordinary political activists of both
mainstream parties and smaller groups are committed to the building of a
larger political movement against dictatorship but are themselves
disillusioned by the antics of leaderships engaged in cynical bargaining in
the corridors of power There can be no doubt that mainstream parties
have acquiesced to a power sharing arrangement in which they concede
to the military the role of ultimate arbiter and then compete with one
another for fleeting shares of the proverbial pie.
In some ways then the current crisis is as much a test of the mettle
of the mainstream parties as it is of the military. The latter can be
expected to hold onto power and is neither concerned with nor obliged to
help develop a healthy political culture in Pakistan.
On the other hand, political parties will always be somewhat
answerable to the people, and are charged with the responsibility for
engendering change when people want it. There can be no doubt that the
primary blame for the state of politics in Pakistan lies with the military for
repeatedly thwarting the cause of democracy. But the perpetrator of the
889

problem very rarely fixes it. That is a task taken up by those who are willing
to sacrifice for what they believe. And if the current mainstream opposition
is not willing to take up this job, then it is time to start thinking about new
forces that will.
To counter the opponents from taking political mileage, the
government utilized the occasion of inauguration on Lyai Express Way, to
show its popularity amongst the masses. Ghazi Salahuddin commented on
the manner in which this popular support was mustered. The idea was to
show that Musharraf and party he has assembled with the help, mainly,
of turncoats and defectors, are very popular with the people. By the way,
do you remember that referendum that became the fig leaf of legitimacy to
the president?
Information to be gleaned from some reports published on the inside
pages presents a weird situation. Roads leading to Liaqat Bagh were closed
and only vehicles carrying the ruling party supporters were allowed to pass.
The district administration, it was alleged, had told the shopkeepers in the
area to pull their shutters down for security reasons. Hotels and restaurants
in the vicinity were vacated and the hotels were told on Sunday that they
would not rent their rooms for the next two days. During the meeting, police
and army personnel were deployed on rooftops.
As for official resources invested in the public meeting, an article
posted on BBCs Urdu. Com estimated, in a lighter vein, that the cost per
minute was about one million rupees calculated on the assumption that
the meeting continued for three hours. Reporter Wusatullah Khan, not a
novice by any means, took into account the publicity that had continued for
a week, dominated by full and half-page advertisements in newspapers and
the cost of security arrangements. The cost paid by the people because of
the disruption of their routine activities was definitely not included.
Musharraf availed this meeting to deny governments involvement in
missing persons. He failed to sell his innocence. The News wrote,
addressing a large public meeting in Rawalpindi on Tuesday, he said that
the government was not involved in the disappearance of anyone, that it had
no information on them and that it was in fact glad that the judiciary was
taking note of this matter.
However, what the president and the government are saying has
been hotly contested by many of the suffering families. Besides, there
890

appears to be strong circumstantial evidence which suggests that at least

some of those who are missing were indeed in the custody of the
governments intelligence agencies. For instance, after the cases were taken
up in court and the government given notice of the matter, some of those
who had gone missing returned to their families. Members of these families
then said that their loved ones who had returned had indeed been in the
custody of the intelligence agencies and had in fact seen others who were
being detained incommunicado.
It should be remembered that most of those missing whose habeas
corpus petitions are before the Supreme Court are not students but
adults so there possibility of jihadi groups keeping them incommunicado
greatly lessens. While one doesnt want to disbelieve the president, there is
after all circumstantial evidence of people who returned to their families
after the latter raised a hue and cry about their disappearance which was then
widely reported in the print and electronic media.
K Hussain Soomro from Dadu said: I am very surprised to hear the
presidents views about the missing persons according to him they left
their families and homes of their own free will The presidents view cant
be accepted at all. I was acquainted with two missing persons Asif Baladi
and Safdar Sarki both of who belong to nationalist movement in Sindh It
is very strange that a responsible head of state is making such remarks.
Before viewing the comments on the impact and fate of the
movement, some words of tributes to the lawyers who initiated the struggle
for the independence of judiciary. Analysts have been paying their
compliments to the men in black coats all along; herein some are reproduced
lest they are lost from sight in the heat of the other events.
Lawyers have shown a path to follow to the whole nation; they
have shown us how to come out, to fight for our rights, the rule of law and
institutions. Whatever situation Pakistan faces, their struggle is a guiding
principle for the general public to come out on the streets and fight for their
rights, and for the opposition to become sincere with this nation, wrote Dr
Azhar Mukhtar Sindhu from Bahawalpur.
Mir Jamilur Rahman opined, If a young judge resigns in the middle
of his career, he is sacrificing a lot for answering the call of his troubled
conscience, which is very rare in Pakistan. The resigning judges must have

891

been hurt tremendously to take such an extreme action that jeopardizes their
livelihood. But that is how nations and democratic traditions are built.
Babar Sattar observed: Amid skepticism regarding the ability of the
judiciary to protect its independence from being annexed by the executive,
Justice Khawaja has proved that judges are still capable of being folk heroes.
The importance of this resignation cannot be exaggerated. It establishes that
the Musharraf regimes attack on judicial independence is not a figment
of the lawyers imagination, and that members of the bench share the
anguish as well.
Despite being unostentatious and private, this act of protest is by far
the most forceful political statement by an individual during this crisis
that serves the cause of judicial independence and must be celebrated.
The true quantum of heroism is reflected in the courage to live by
inconvenient principles that seek personal sacrifices for larger collective
good.
The president and his cohorts heading the law, interior and
information divisions seem incapable of making the kind of moral statement
his lordship Justice Jawwad Khawaja has made. The least they can do is to
accept responsibility unequivocally for their colossal errors of judgment in
undermining independence of the judiciary.
Dr Masooda Bano wrote, the judiciary which had initially sat quiet
has also become alive and resignations from the judges are growing in
number with the resignation by Deputy Attorney General Nasir Saeed
Sheikh being the latest addition. These are people who are making a
conscious choice to let go their own material positions for a principle and
that demands public respect and appreciation.
There have been some odd exceptions as well, which did not approve
the lawyers reaction to constitutional move made by the president. A Q
Anjum from Rawalpindi wrote, the lawyer community is supposed to be the
most civic, the most lawful and law-abiding segment of the population
They cannot afford to be passionate as the law is reason free from passion.
Yet in the last two weeks we have seen them in very different manifestation.
They have thrown to the winds the time-honoured tradition of discipline.
They have taken to the streets. They have sucked in the political parties who
were desperately looking for some ground to come to the streets. The anti-

892

government furore started by the lawyers is being hijacked by the mischief

hungry opposition parties.
The discussion on possible impact and fate of the movement has to
begin with the mention of the prevalent situation in the country. Senator
Enver Baig, PPPP asked: Have we as a nation become such a bad people
that all kinds of underhanded, heavy-handed and backhanded law
enforcement tactics are necessary?
He went on to add that the ruling Coterie of Generals fails to realize
that todays struggles are waged in the full glare of television lights and with
developments and results tallied minute by minute on stock markets as well
as at bar of international public opinion Today we have become a
laughing stock of the entire world: the image of our beloved country lies
in tatters.
Dr Masooda Bano focused on the fate of the movement. Given that
the government excels in meaningful negotiations, the fear was that
pretty soon there would be some bargaining and either the lawyers
would split or Justice Chaudhry would cave in. However two weeks on
from the controversial reference the protest is still going strong with an
increasing number of resignations of the judges adding fuel to the fire.
What has made this movement gain respect and credibility
among the public is that after a long time there are people out in the streets
sacrificing their own interests to demand something, which is critical for the
interest of the country. The fact that one cannot identify any material
interests driving the lawyers and the judges, has lent the movement much
credibility.
The question that arises here is what the current protests by the
lawyers and resignations by the judges will lead to. There are no political
figures that are strong and credible enough to give leadership to this
movement and turn it into a movement for restoration of real democracy.
The street protests will simmer down sooner or later. The lawyers have to
return to their professional routines. Some argue that things will then return
to normal and nothing will change. However, it is a mistake to think that
this affair will be forgotten as so many of the governments past
blunders and abuses have been.

893

It must also be noted here that the current movement is not the first
time that some people have made sacrifices for their principles. We have
judges who have refused to take oath under the military governments and
have preferred to resign than to use the Constitution to protect the military
rule. Similarly, there are some politicians who do stand for some principles
and Imran Khan is one who enjoys much credibility. However, what has
made the difference right now is the scale of this protest, the unity
among the lawyers and support provided to them by the media.
Shafqat Mahmood opined: Civil society of the country, in its broadest
sense, has stood up to challenge a military strongmans unbridled exercise of
power. For the lawyers, this has been their finest hour. All over the country,
in small towns and big cities, in the higher courts or the lower, the black
coats have come out to fight for the independence of the judiciary.
The television channels in particular by their wall-to-wall
coverage have brought about a paradigm shift in here and now
reporting. This has not only had a far-reaching impact on popular opinion, it
has changed forever the way governments handle law and order.
No wonder that with the exception of Quetta, the government
decided to take a softer approach during lawyers rallies on Wednesday. It is
not that sanity has suddenly found a home in autocratic minds. Live
television has forced a change not only in tone and tenor but in coercive
methods. Coercion will remain, but it would have to be suitably
camouflaged.
One element slightly at a loss is the political parties. They have
started to lend their weight to the lawyers struggle but the lawyers are wary
of them. They dont want the politicization of their movement or for it to
be hijacked by politicians.
One fact cannot be disputed. Even if the government now
backtracks and finds a face saving way out of the current crisis, the
fundamentals will not change. The country will still be run by a military
strongman. And there so many contradictions in his personal situation that
without controlling the judiciary he cannot survive. Thus, any short-term
victory for the lawyers would be pyrrhic without the context of democratic
freedoms.

894

The judicial crisis is part of a bigger struggle for democracy. If

there is no democracy or only a fake veneer of it, judiciary just cannot be
independent. This current mobilization must force Musharraf to take off his
uniform and conduct free and fair elections in which everyone can
participate.
What does the future hold? In simple terms Musharraf will not be
forced out just by the lawyers struggle. If a broad movement against him
has to succeed, it must include traders, the transporters, the labrourers, and
the students. In other words, the people have to get involved or Musharraf
will surely survive. He will be weak and injured but he will survive.
An interesting aspect of the lawyers movement is that they and their
allies in the press and NGOs are just the kind pf liberal elements that
Musharraf has been directing his enlightened moderation at. And, after
seven and half years of relentless propaganda, it is they who are
spearheading a movement against him This can only mean that nobody
has been fooled by his repackaging of himself as a champion of
moderation and liberalism. The real liberal forces in the country, and no
one better fits this description than the lawyers, have put their faith in
democratic institutions of a liberal democracy and not in the pious words of
a military strongman.
Shafqat Mahmood was of the view that Musharrafs aura of
invincibility has been shattered, his desire to hang on to the uniform is no
longer certain, and his plan to get elected as president from the current
assemblies has become difficult if not impossible. His American backers are
also beginning to think to consider other options. While they are not yet
ready to give up on him, they realize that putting all eggs in one basket is
bad policy.
There is no way of knowing how the military is reacting but it cannot
remain immune to the ferment on the streets Should the movement
continue though, and if at any stage the army units are called out for law and
order handling, the mood will rapidly change.
While some realities have changed since this movement began on
March 9, they have not changed enough. The stories of Musharrafs
demise at this stage are decidedly premature. The army will back him till
such time it has to impose curfews and fire on its own people. If we reach
that sorry pass, he will be history
895

Musharraf has to reevaluate many steps he had been

contemplating. The obvious one are the issue of uniform and getting elected
as president from the current assemblies. Until three weeks ago, he saw no
difficulty in getting the current assemblies to reelect him Now this has
become very nearly impossible. Standing before him are the virtually
insurmountable hurdles of the courts and force of public opinion.
Once it becomes clear that he will no longer be army chief there
will be tough times all around. It is stating the obvious that a ruler must
have a strong power base to rule effectively. In a democracy, the ruling party
provides this strength and dictatorships are generally propped up by the
military. After he removes his uniform where will Musharraf draw his
strength from? The Q party?
One bad decision and this carefully constructed house of cards
has begun to unravel for General Musharraf. Some would argue that this
was bound to happen sooner or later. The beneficiaries of his period of rule
are few while a vast majority has seen little or no change in their lives. More
importantly, the liberal elements in the society, on whose silent support he
relied upon, always had difficulty coming to terms with the contradictions of
his rule.
Dr Farrukh Saleem observed that unenlightened immoderation of the
past sixteen days have shrunk our president-generals spectrum of
choices down to two: democracy or repression, ballot or bullet. Which one
it would be?
The president is weak, the opposition is divided. The president is
underestimating the opposition to his rule and the opposition is
overestimating its agitational sustenance. The chief justice has been our
chief justice; in this land of the Pure, with other custodians of law watching,
fundamental rights of chief custodian of rights have been grossly violated.
The court of public opinion, without waiting for the Supreme Judicial
Councils decision, has given its verdict. The mess that the government is
in is surely not a legal quagmire; its purely political; political because its
the consequence of the generals attempt to bend the law to achieve purely
political objectives.
Unenlightened Immoderation on top of the chief injustice has dealt
PPP an excellent hand to play. Benazir has been dealt good hands in the
past but didnt play them right. This time, the PPP has opted to side neither
896

with anti-Musharraf, PML-N, nor with anti-US, the MMA, counting instead
army and America as her instruments to power (at least two As out of
three).
Question: Who wants chaos on the streets? Answer: Qazi Hussain
Ahmed. Question: Who is against chaos on the streets? Answer: Musharraf,
Benazir and Bush. Chaos on the streets is not in Pakistans interest
Ballot is what is in Pakistans best interests.
The US is re-evaluating her tangent with Pakistan, the Taliban are
regrouping and the Pak Army can no longer afford to remain in the midst of
the political minefield it stepped into almost eight years ago. If we were to
rise above our faux democracy then for Musharraf to remain a powerbroker he would have to share that power because democracy is all about
power-sharing.
If ballot is the choice then PPP is in, uniform is out. If repression
is the choice then uniform is in, all else is out. Either way ballot or
bullet, democracy or repression the status quo is breaking down fast and
Musharraf stands to loose the unyielding grip he has had on each and every
aspect of Pakistani life since the second Thursday of October 1999.
Khaleej Times wrote, Pervez Musharrafs decision to defend
himself publicly shows hes beginning to realize the forces of the
outcry Interestingly, more than focusing on the rationale for the dismissal
which one would expect in such an exercise the president chose more to
attack his political opponents.
There is little doubt that the aftermath of the suspension took the
leadership by at least as much surprise as it angered the lawyers community
and beyond. Among other things, it gave government-critics unexpected and
welcome fodder to up the campaign of maligning the highest offices
occupants. That they would equate the ouster with the CJs looking into
controversial disappearings for which the intelligence agencies are being
held responsible should have been foreseen before crossing the point of no
return a fact that does not reflect too well on the presidents close circle
of advisers.
And on a more concerning note the General Musharraf himself,
scenes of police pumping rounds of tear gas at enraged lawyers and baton
charges against protesting public coincide with marked dip in his standing

897

before the international community. It is becoming increasingly difficult

for him to defend his oft-made claim of having introduced true democracy
in Pakistan.
For the general who continues to wield absolute power in Pakistan, it
appears that in tampering with the judiciarys autonomy he has taken on
more than he can handle, especially with the questionable credentials of
the people he has surrounded himself with. It will no doubt take a hard fight
for him to get clear out of this one. Musharraf will have to wriggle hard to
avoid axe that hes hastened. He may soon find the costs of his actions
outweighing the benefits by some margin.
M S Hasan from Karachi opined: It is the resentment, anger and an
acute feeling of having been let down by an administration that fed nothing
but false promises. It is very sad that the government has no credibility in
the eye of the common citizens. Not only this, but nobody trusts us
elsewhere in the world. One sincerely hopes that the government will now
wake up to reality, stop playing manipulative policy games and start
making good on its promises to prevent the current snow-balling of the
crises situation arising out of the judicial quagmire, from turning into an
avalanche.
But the real wake up call will only come once the masses decide to
come out of their slumber. Babar Sattar looked at this aspect. General
Musharrafs faith in the silent majority is unwavering the general
probably has reason to thank the silent majority, for silence sustains the
status quo. However, this is silence of different type, not to be celebrated
even by the ruling regime. This is the silence of resignation and despair, and
not one of indifference. The people of Pakistan are clamouring for change,
but are confronted with a crisis of leadership.
General Musharraf emphasizes in his memoirs that he is lucky. He
is. Not because he is endowed with faculties that have showered bounties
upon the nation or virtues that have enabled him to rise above politics of
power and self-perpetuation, but because he is living in times when
competing political actors are also characterized by mediocrity and
selfishness apart from having been tried by the nation and found wanting.
The anguish of the silent majority lies in the fact that they dont foresee a
meaningful change in the state of Pakistans affairs even beyond the
Musharraf days.

898

But then Pakistan also has a bulk of lay-people that view militarys
involvement in politics as a routine matter in this country In order to be
shaken out of its muted state, this segment of the silent majority needs
political leaders who have charisma, a vision and manifesto for a better
future (and not just hackneyed rhetoric), and an unblemished record. But
then does such breed of politicians exist at all?
This is not to say that Pakistan is incapable of producing leaders.
We just need political processes and traditions that are capable of finding
talent, grooming leaders and providing them opportunities to come to fore
There are leaders within our mainstream political parties whose true
potential is not being utilized due to bottlenecks created by their party
heads.
So long as leaders of the mainstream political parties insist on
perpetuating personal control instead of encouraging democracy and
competition within their parties, democratic values in the country will suffer.
Struggle for democracy is less appealing if all it entails is the replacement of
General Musharraf personified rule with that of Bhutto or Sharif. If Bhutto
and Sharif are earnest in their efforts to save Pakistan from its current
political turmoil, let them allow some very capable second tier leaders
within their parties to stake a claim for top political offices. Let them
renounce their claim to the office of prime minister and president and come
back to Pakistan to lead their respective parties in the forthcoming elections
without personal stakes No doubt this suggestion is too nave and too
radical. But unless our leaders prove that their political goals transcend
personal interests, the silent majority might not be forced out of its suffering
silence.
Ghazala Minallah from Islamabad appealed to the silent majority. It
is not an enviable position to be in, and for any conscientious judge it is
perhaps the ultimate test he could face in this defining moment in our
history. Will the judiciary bow down and get swept away with the tide of
indifference, or will these people swim against the current and strive to reach
out for that apparently unattainable goal called justice?
Deep down, I have this gut feeling that I should not give up hope.
The entire nation is awaiting this verdict for it is not only the CJ who is on
trial. Our entire future and that of generations to come is on trial. On this
note I wish to appeal to my fellow citizens. We cannot afford to sit in our
lounges and discuss this issue over cups of tea. We have already seen the
899

effect of the lawyer community taking to the streets. Please do not think
your coming forward will not make any difference. It will. And even if it
doesnt, you do not want to wake up one day and wish you had done
something when it might be too late We as a nation need to unite and
make our voices heard.

REVIEW
In must be acknowledged that the Team-Helmet has remained abreast
with the situation, primarily due to the media coverage of the events.
However, the enlightened ruling elite have failed to evolve an effective
strategy to check the tide caused by series of its own blunders.
The rulers, particularly in Punjab, failed in mending their way despite
the realization within their ranks that high-handedness has proved counter
productive. Before the protest scheduled on 26th March, Pervaiz Elahi
launched preventive-preemptive crackdown to round up political leaders and
workers to subvert the protest rallies. Similar crackdown was also launched
before 3rd April.
In addition to the crackdowns, on protest days the rulers simply
outnumbered the protesters by massive deployment of law enforcing
personnel on the streets of big cities. In Lahore, a protesting lawyer while
talking to reporter of the al-Jazeera TV pointed towards the men in uniform
and aptly remarked it looks like invasion and occupation of Lahore.
In a meeting held during this round, the captain of Team-Helmet held
a team meeting for refining the strategy. As reported by Umar Cheema, the
team captain urged team members to buy lawyers. In other words, he asked
bookies in Kings party to arrange for match-fixing.
On 3rd April, a party of freshly graduated lawyers from Gujrat Law
University was tasked to launch spoiling attack to disrupt and distract the
Team-Wig. Reportedly, most of them were not lawyers but they pretended to
be by wearing black coats. How true is the saying: Chor chori se jai per
haira pheri se na jai?
The simple soldier not so simple according to some analysts
must have had his doubts cleared as to why the black coats are in great
demand now-a-days. By the way, one would tend to recommend to the
900

simple soldier to reward one of the members of this party from Gujrat by
appointing him as law minister in place of the present incumbent; he might
deliver better than the man from Jaranwala.
One would also like to make a request to Ansar Abbasi. If the CJP is
accused of manipulating rules for his son Arsalan, it would be quite
appropriate to probe how Wasi managed admission in a law college, or
perhaps his entire academic record needs verification.
Musharraf has tried to distance himself from the issue of missing
persons. Nobody expects him to plead guilty and at the same time no one
can refute the fact that all these missing persons, one way or the other, are
the victims of war on terror.
For more than five years Musharraf has been reiterating his
commitment to the war on terror. He cannot go back on his confession made
in his book about making money by indulging in human trading. Of late, he
assured outgoing Crocker of his commitment to Bushs holy war against
Islamic fascism.
Even if his argument is accepted that the government agencies have
no hand in disappearance of hundreds of Pakistanis, he as head of the state
cannot be absolved from the responsibility of tracing them out. He being the
president and army chief, enlightened and moderate, bold and patriotic
should not rest till every missing person is traced out.
The people of Pakistan have the right to demand recovery of these
people, dead or alive, and penal action against those responsible for their
disappearance. They are not asking for moon; it requires much less time and
effort than that he devotes to running election campaign of a particular party.
It is quite disheartening to see him frequently refusing to accept the
responsibility. If he and his team persist on the present state of denial,
Musharraf should stop pointing his finger towards his political opponents
and calling them obscurantist. Let the people decide who is obscurant and
who is not.
Team-Helmet has been accusing the opponent of politicizing the issue
of reference against the CJP, while deliberately ignoring the fact that right
from the inception this action is political motivated. The ground reality is

901

contrary to the allegation; the opposition political parties have failed to take
any worthwhile political advantage so far.
The accusations of the ruling elite in this context are quite ironic. It is
just like first exposing ones posterior in public and then accusing others of
pinching. To take advantage of the blunders committed by the government is
inalienable right of the opposition parties. In fact, after creating such an
embarrassing situation for the entire nation the conscientious rulers would
have preferred to resign voluntarily.
One is reminded of the centre-page cartoon in The News dated 24 th
March on being in the line of backfire. To be In the Line of Fire is certainly
riddled with fatal dangers. The dangers in being In the Line of Backfire
may not be fatal, but it certainly blackens ones face.
While listing failures of the government, one must mention its success
against the electronic media. From the coverage since attack on the Geo TV,
most of the private TV channels noticeably showed the signs of fatigue. Like
other pillars of the state, the media has also realized that placing the national
interests ahead of own leads only to lose-lose situation.
Most of the analysts have expressed their fears about the fate of the
movement initiated by the in black coats. Their apprehensions are certainly
based on careful analyses of various factors, but more than that these are the
outcome of inherent impatience.
It must be remembered that it took seven years for the creation of
Pakistan after the passage of Lahore Resolution, yet the historians are of the
view that the goal set forth in the Resolution was achieved in remarkably
short time. Therefore, it should not worry the leaders of the present
movement if it takes a decade to liberate the nation from dictatorship.
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry paid tributes to the integrity of
the new acting chief of the Supreme Court, Rana Bhagwandas. The CJP
opined that Justice Bhagwandas is more Muslim than Muslims.
Bhagwandas might have reserved his ruling on this compliment.
The Supreme Court had ordered inquiry into manhandling of the CJP.
The judge who inquired into the incident definitely raised the level of
responsibility by naming top district administration and police officials of
Islamabad. This is something unusual to net the big fish instead of little

902

fish as the acting chief justice of Pakistan had desired, yet the inquiring
judge was well short of the mark. All those who have been named
undoubtedly fall in category of big fish, but these are dolphins not sharks.
Late in the evening of April 13, Khalid Ranjha threatened to resign
from the panel defending the reference on the pretext of safety of his person.
The real cause might be that Aitzaz Ahsan might have proved true to his
words; he must have started the blasting of the reference right from the first
hearing.
In the four rounds to date, the Team-Wig has completely out-scored
the Team-Helmet, despite the fact that the latter indulged in foul play. But,
these points wont be reflected in the official score sheets to be maintained
by the judges, because formal counting of has begun on 3rd April.
Undoubtedly, the Team-Helmet enjoys unmatched strength by virtue
of having government machinery, civil and military, at its back. The TeamWig is comparatively very weak, but it draws strength from its morally and
legally strong cause. The Team-Helmet has only a dozen Patriots in its rank
and file, but each member of the Team-Wig is patriotic.
4th April 2007

BEYOND OILFIELDS

903

The Crusaders remained focused on Muslims living in lands of

oilfields, but they did not ignore Muslims on other lands. The southern
regions of Philippines and Thailand experienced the surge after a lull of
few months. The US was able to coerce North Korea to sign an agreement
on rolling back its nuclear programme, which allows sparing all its military
might for war against Islamic fascism.
In Africa, the Crusaders had successfully arranged occupation of
Somalia and thus created conditions similar to Afghanistan and Iraq wherein
the Somalis have been left to bleed continuously. They kept pressing for
deployment of peacekeepers in Sudan, but Khartoum refused to allow such
deployment. Eventually, they came out with a novel idea of deploying UN
force in countries neighbouring Darfur.
The United States and Europe remained committed to improving their
respective home-land security against terror attacks. On 15th March,
Pentagon produced a confessional report of the century in which Khalid
Sheikh had confessed his involvement in every major terrorist act in the last
many years.
The ruling elite in Islamic countries remained clueless and helpless in
the ongoing Crusades in which every day perhaps every hour the blood of
Muslims, mostly innocent, was being spilled. Due to their inability this holy
war continued showing signs of expansion. Even Russian, Chinese and
Indian officials held a meeting in which they agreed to work closely to
combat terrorism.

AFRO-ASIA
The Far East saw surge after experiencing a quiet for some time.
During the last two months, following incidents were reported from
Philippines:
Two policemen were killed in an ambush in the south on 11th February.
Next day, clashes took place after troops raided a suspected base of
rebels.
One soldier and two policemen were killed in ambushes in the south
on 16th February.

904

 Ten communist rebels and two soldiers were killed in a clash on 2 nd

March. Four days later, four Muslim militants and a soldier were
killed in the south.
Muslim rebels shelled an army camp on 8th March. A week later,
Rebels blamed officials of Arroyo government for sabotaging peace.
An Islamic militant who had escaped from police custody was
rearrested on 17th March.
Nine soldiers were killed by a gunman in a military base in island of
Jolo on 8th April.
In Thailand, the government planned talks with Muslim insurgents.
Malaysia once again pledged help to end unrest in Thai south, but the
killings continued and the army chief called for declaring emergency.
Following incidents were reported during the period:
Two people were shot dead on 10th February in the south by suspected
Muslim rebels and three marines were wounded in road-side bombing.
A Muslim teacher was shot dead on 14 th February while four soldiers
were wounded in a bomb attack.
Insurgents killed eight people in the south on 19 th February and the
government warned of more terrorist attacks.
Nine people were killed in the south on 14 th March. Four days later,
three students were killed in attack on a school.
Fifteen worshipers were wounded in grenade attack on a mosque on
5th April. Next day, four people were killed in attack by militants.
Three people were killed by separatists on 9th April.
Shawn W Crispin commented: Insurgents have more recently
taken total control of remote areas in Narathiwat province where Thai
soldiers now reportedly dont dare to patrol, and the separatists aim of
purging the ethnic-Malay Muslim-majority region of ethnic-Thai Buddhists,
appears to be gaining ground, judging by the increasing number of
abandoned rubber plantations and Buddhist temples, on-the-ground
observers say.
905

Moreover, there are growing indications that the insurgents

technical capabilities are improving, particularly through the use of more
powerful IEDs. As the death toll mounts, government policies continue to
alienate the local population and military planners grapple with how to
respond, the conflict is fast morphing into what some on-the-ground
observers have started to refer to as Thailands little Iraq.
Entrenched mistrust and a culture of anonymity among certain
insurgent leaders have hobbled ongoing behind-the-scenes mediation
efforts, which apparently are or least were advancing on a few different
attacks. Military officials have admitted to that three years into the shadowy
conflict, and they are still not sure whom exactly they should be negotiating
with.
Rest of the region remained experienced quiet, except US Embassy in
Jakarta receiving a bomb threat on 1st March. India and Bangladesh agreed
to combat terror jointly. On 30th March, Bangladesh executed six terrorists
involved in bombing that killed two judges. Next day, at least 22 militants
were detained in raids.
Australia kept raising alarm on terror threat. Canberra urged Muslims
to sack the militant Mufti. Meanwhile, Australia consolidated occupation of
East Timor; only two incidents were reported. On 23rd February, Australian
troops opened fire on protesters in Dili killing one person. Ten days later
hundreds protested over arrest of rebel leader.
Islamic resurgence in Mainland Asia was almost strangulated as
was evident from the events reported during the period. China executed
Muslim deported by Pakistan. A court in Tajikistan sentenced a youth over
charges of extremism on 28th March.
Russia seemed to be in complete control of the region as Putins
statement of 10th February indicated. He slated the US for making the world
unsafe. He declared unipolarity unacceptable. A month later, European
Human Rights watchdog flayed Russia over Chechnya abuses. On 4th April,
Russia killed senior Chechen commander.
Patrick Seale commented on Putins remarks. For the United States,
his verbal onslaughts and political initiatives are highly alarming
developments. Putins remarks at a security conference in Munich earlier

906

this month provide important clues to Russias new strategy of challenging

American unilateralism.
Unipolarity, Putin declared bluntly, is not only unacceptable but is
also impossible in todays world. Putins conclusion was the following: I
am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must
seriously think about the architecture of global security. We must proceed by
searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in
the international dialogue.
Putins words need to be pondered in Western capitals because they
will strike a chord in many countries of the third world, even among the rich
allies of the United States, profoundly worried by the way the United States
appears to have lost its mind after 9/11, campaign against real and imaginary
enemies.
American commentators have interpreted Putins speech as signaling
a return to the Cold War. This is a mistake. Rather it is a call for a healthier
multi-polar international system, based on a balance of power and
underpinned by a balance of deterrence, in which conflicts are resolved not
exacerbated, in which the strong are contained and the weak no longer live
in fear.
Some Middle East countries such as Iran and Syria will no doubt be
immensely reassured by Putins remarks, but so will Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf states who are eagerly seeking to diversify their international relations
so as to reduce their dependence on a dangerously volatile United States.
Quite contrary to its militaristic militancy towards Iran, the US kept
cruising on diplomatic course to resolve nuclear row with North Korea. On
12th February, fifth day of talks in Beijing, chief US envoy threatened that he
was not prepared for more bargaining and there was no sign of DPRK giving
more ground.
Next day, six countries reached an agreement: Pyongyang will shut
down the reactor at the heart of its nuclear programme within 60 days and
allow international inspections of the site. In return it will receive 50,000
tonnes of fuel oil or economic aid of equal value.
The North will receive another 950,000 tonnes of fuel oil or
equivalent when it takes further steps to disable its nuclear capabilities,

907

including providing a complete inventory of its plutonium. One million

tones of fuel would be equal to $ 300 million. The steps for now do not
involve providing 2,000 megawatts of electricity that South Korea pledged
in September 2005 deal reached by the six countries.
The US negotiator, Christopher Hill was pleased with the agreement
and the US will begin the process of delisting DPRK as a terrorist state.
Japan refused aid to North Korea unless there is progress in a row over
abductions. On 17th February, a panel of Asian specialists opined that North
Korea wont give up nuclear weapons. Four days later, experts said that
North Korea can arm missile with nuclear warhead.
On 14th March, North Korea demanded that the sanctions must be
lifted before implementation of disarmament agreement. Five days later,
nuclear talks resumed with signing of deal between the US and North Korea
on frozen assets worth $25 million.
Six-party talks failed to make any progress on implementation and US
officials arrived in Beijing on 25th March for talks on frozen funds of North
Korea. On 7th April, another high-level US delegation prepared to go to
Pyongyang after Washington announced advances on nuclear issue.
When the talks, which led to an agreement, were in progress the Los
Angeles Times wrote, the United States and the world have lived with a
dangerous North Korea for half a century and a dangerously unstable North
Korea for more than a decade. What the world cannot live with is a
dangerously unstable nuclear North Korea. So a true disarmament deal
must be eventually struck. And if a taste of fuel oil, like a swing of Kims
favorite cognac, can begin the cycle of mutual concessions that will be
required, then the wisest course may be to pour just enough and not a drop
more to keep the North Koreans at the table.
The Japan Times wrote: The six-party talks have been fitful. There
were high hopes in September 2005 when the fourth round of talks
produced a declaration that identified basic principles for a deal. The Sept 19
Joint Statement stipulated that the six parties should take coordinated steps
to implement their agreement in a phased manner and in line with the
principle of commitment to commitment, action for action. Yet the very
day after the declaration was released, North Korea and the United States
showed deep disagreement about the terms of that agreement, its
requirements and the process by which it would unfold.
908

That divide was complicated by the imposition of financial

sanctions by the US North Koreas Oct 9 nuclear test underscored the
urgency of resuming negotiations. Washington and Pyongyang held bilateral
discussions within the context of six-party talks and the larger sessions
resume. After one break, the six agreed to a proposal revealed this week.
Anna Fifield observed: Diplomats and analysts alike are cautious
about the prospects for implementing the six-party accord forged in
Beijing on Tuesday, given North Koreas historical difficulty in keeping its
promises. Others detect in it a partial capitulation by a weakened
administration of US President George W Bush, badly in need of a
diplomatic breakthrough to set against his Middle East troubles.
Gwynne Dyer opined, the tentative deal on North Koreas nuclear
weapons programme on February 13 is worse than the deal that the Bush
Administration wrecked in 2005, and considerably worse than the one the
Clinton administration made but did not abide by in 1994 This deal lets
North Korea keep whatever nuclear weapons it has already built, plus
whatever others it can build with fissile material that it has already produced.
But its probably the best deal left.
Walid M Sadi was of the view that not only will North Korea keep its
already built nuclear arsenal as a fait accompli; it has also gained access to
economic aid in the form of fuel and foodstuffs. Above all, North Korea
has effectively ended its isolation in return for promises that take effect
some time in the future.
So why has the US accepted the deal? Washington must have
something up its sleeves, as it is difficult to believe it would yield so
much to North Korea in return for so few commitments from the
communist country. He identified following reasons for the US to accept the
deal which fell short of its plans:
The US must have decided that it is too late in the hour to roll back
the North Korean nuclear achievements.
North Korea does not pose such a strategic threat to the US and its
allies, especially after it has accepted to freeze any further production
of fissionable material that can be used for the manufacture of
additional nuclear bombs

909

 The US is occupied elsewhere in the world, overstretched militarily

and exhausted politically, so deflating the North Korean crisis allows
it to apply more pressure on other countries in the world.
It is the Iraqi-Iranian connection that preoccupies the mind of the US
President George W Bush, and he wants a freer hand to deal with the
alleged Iranian threat, which would be more difficult to obtain if the
North Korean file remained pending.
Philip Zelikow wrote, last weeks deal, skillfully negotiated by Rice
and Hill with their counterparts, delivers a plan for the early harvest. A
good, initial step was Rices careful phrase. The broader context in which
the agreement was reached helps explain what she meant. The United States
and its negotiating partners have successfully carried out a diplomatic
test.
The next two months will show whether the design remains valid.
Rice has agreed to a six-party meeting of foreign ministers, including the
North Koreans. We will see whether the Bush Administration and its
counterparts can launch the second stage, when the desired outcomes to be
produced from this diplomacy may finally come into view.
Tariq Fatemi opined, the North Korean deal has shifted the focus
to the Iranian nuclear programme. Unlike the former, Iran is several years
away from developing a nuclear device but still the US has demanded that
Iran suspend its enrichment activity before it is prepared to talk to Tehran.
Iran has also allowed access to UN inspectors and is legally exercising its
right under the NPT of developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes.
Those who have welcomed the agreement with North Korea have contrasted
it to the manner in which the Bush Administration has been threatening
Tehran.
Khaleej Times wrote, the threat of North Korean nuclear talks
collapsing will bolster critics arguments that the diplomatic victory of
sorts of the February 13 negotiations was artificial at best; more so
because the reason is a technical issue, pertaining to the timing of money
transfer worth $25 million held in a Macau Bank.
But this is not just a trivial technical matter; in diplomacy, too,
actions speak louder than words and much rather than unexplained reasons,
its most likely the element of mistrust coupled with the desire to keep the
910

upper hand that has prompted the West to delay the transfer, contrary to
earlier promises. But it needs noting that by sticking to the upper-hand
way of doing things, the West is harming its interests both in the short
and the long run.
The blame being directed at N Korea for stalling that process must
not miss the point that it was the Wests not making the promised money
transfer that gave the former an excuse to make all this rumpus. Before the
agreed upon April deadline passes, it is urged that the six-party participants
also play the same moves, like the US and UK that brought about the
amicable settlement in the first place. For any party to repeat the mistakes
and misadventures then would amount to being exposed as the party
that does not want peace.
The countries in the Middle East, other than those directly targeted
by the Crusaders, experienced comparative quiet. In Saudi Arabia three
French expatriates were killed on 26th February. Saudi forces killed
suspected murderer of French expatriates in Riyadh on 6 th April; one soldier
was also killed.
In Jordan three persons were charged on 7th March of plotting to
assassinate Bush. Militants in Yemen stepped up their fight against the
government for its pro-US policies in February. On 14th March, 12 soldiers
were reported killed in clashes with Shiite rebels in two days.
Seventy-two members of Muslim Brotherhood had been arrested in
Egypt by 15th February. Five days later the drive against Muslim
Brotherhood was stepped up. On 26th March, Egyptians voted for
constitutional changes which Mubarak considered essential for fighting
terrorism and his critics said the changes would curb basic freedoms. Next
day, constitutional changes were approved in low turnout referendum;
judges rejected the results.
On 17th February, seven people, involved in bomb blasts in Turkey in
2003, were sentence to life in imprisonment. Turkish military accused
Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq of actively backing Turkish Kurd rebels.
In Africa, focus remained on Sudan and Somalia. On 16 th February,
Sudan once again rejected UN mission for Darfur. Five days later, UN Chief
recommended deployment of 11,000 international troops in Chad and
Central African Republic bordering Darfur.
911

On 26th February, Sudan rejected ICC authority over Darfur. Next day,
after honourably acquitting Serbia, the ICC named a Sudanese minister and
a Janjaweed militia leader as the first war crimes suspects in the Darfur
conflict. On 28th February, UNSC wanted UN troops deployed on Darfurs
borders.
On 12th March, UN mission accused Sudan of orchestrating war
crimes in Darfur. Two weeks later, ten people were killed in clashes in
Darfur. On 28th March, Sudan again rejected UN peacekeepers. Five African
peacekeepers were killed in Darfur on 1st April.
Abdullah al-Ashaal commented on the scheme of redrawing the
borders of Sudan. There are irrefutably and tangible indications that, since
2003, Sudan has been the object of a partition process occurring
beneath the guise of a peace process that began with the Machakos
negotiations. These negotiations resulted in a framework agreement for a
settlement between Khartoum and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement
(SPLM), in accordance with which a referendum is to be held in the south
six years from the date the peace agreement goes into effect, which is to say
in 2011, over whether the south should remain part of Sudan or secede and
form an independent state.
President Bashir must certainly have realized that the southerners
would be little swayed by his governments policies, however sympathetic
they were to their demands in order to induce them to remain an integral part
of the nation, and perhaps he had already mentally prepared himself for this
type of political defeat. However, what he and other Sudanese officials had
not anticipated was not only that the SPLM would refuse to change its name,
but that it would also take this name as its literal objective: the liberation of
Sudan, in its entirety, from the Arabs and Muslims, whom it would drive
northwards into Egypt, thereby abolishing Sudans Arab-Muslim identity
and making it possible to bring the country into the fold of regional
alliance hostile to Egypt and to the Arab world.
Curiously, Egypt had not discerned the full dimensions of this
scheme, even when signs of its implementation began to stare it in the face.
To date, the following signs should have been impossible to miss and
misinterpret:
First, the SPLMs involvement in Darfur and the eastern Sudan crisis
betrays its determination to rebel against the notion of one
912

government over a united and indivisible Sudan, even though the

SPLM attained the office of vice-president and became a partner in
national decision-making processes.
Second, the SPLM has been furnishing arms, rumoured to come from
Israel, to the rebels in Darfur and encouraging other rebel movements
to reject the Abuja Treaty despite the many concessions offered by
Khartoum.
Third, the vast arsenals being accumulated in the south by groups
falling under the SPLM umbrella are further indication of the
movements resolve to secede, by any means, beneath the faade of a
local government that is being surreptitiously equipped for statehood.
Fourth, it is suspiciously odd that the SPLM vice-president of Sudan
should adopt stances diametrically opposed to those of the president,
especially as pertains to the presence of an international force
Fifth, the south has established full-fledged embassies in more than
25 countries and has invited countries to establish consulates in the
capital of the south.
Sixth, the souths media and official rhetoric leaves no shadow of a
doubt that they have made secession their only option. Furthermore
there is a conspiracy afoot in support of this objective, towards which
end Darfur and the Eastern Province are being incited to revolt against
the central government.
Seventh, despite the fact that the government of Sudan gave the
French-owned Total Petroleum company exploration and drilling
rights in the south, the government of the south concluded an
exploration and drilling contract for the same area with rival British
firms
In light of the foregoing evidence, it is difficult to imagine that
SPLM leaders have not already commissioned feasibility studies with the
purpose of assessing the repercussion, especially with regard to prospective
relations between an independent South Sudan and its neighbours.
With its occupation, Somalia was brought into the scheme of
perpetual bleeding of the Muslim countries which dared posing threat of any
913

kind to the Crusaders. Following incidents were reported during the last two
months:
On 9th February, Western and African diplomats met in Tanzania to
discuss reconciliation in Somalia and to send peacekeepers.
Three children were killed on 10th February in attacks in Mogadishu.
By 16th February, Kenya had arrested about 100 Somalis and half of
them were deported to Somalia.
Four people were killed in car bombing in Mogadishu on 18 th
February. Two days later, at least 16 more people were killed in
mortar and rocket attacks.
On 21st February, 12 people were killed in mortar fire in Mogadishu.
Two days later, clash erupted between Ethiopian troops and Somalis.
Eight people were killed in mortar fire and other incidents.
Thousands on civilians were moving out of Mogadishu after recent
attacks; mayor denied mass exodus.
Six bombs exploded in Mogadishu on 2nd March. Four days later,
mortar bombs landed as Ugandan soldiers landed as vanguard of AU
peacekeepers. The US warned of possible terror attack in Kenya.
An attempt to ambush AU peacekeepers left 12 Somali civilians dead
on 8th March. Next day, Ethiopian troops pulled out of southern
Somali port. Four people were killed in violence on 13th March.
Fighters clashed with Ethiopian troops in Somalia on 18 th March; two
persons were killed. Next day, Somali and AU troops secured
Mogadishu port.
At least 14 people were killed in fighting in Mogadishu on 21 st March.
Three days later, 11 people were killed when suspected insurgents
shot down a Somali plane.
On 25th March, Somali government said al-Qaeda has made a young
militant commander its leader in Mogadishu.

914

 Insurgents shot down an Ethiopian helicopter on 30 th March. Death

toll in offensive launched by Ethiopian troops rose to thirty-eight.
Hundreds of people were killed in three days of fighting, termed as
worst in 15 years. Fighting in Mogadishu continued on 1 st April
despite efforts for the truce.
On 2nd April, Ethiopian troops re-entered Mogadishu. By next day, at
least 380 people were killed in the fighting.
On 8th April, the NYT reported that Washington had allowed Ethiopia
to buy North Korean weapons secretly in breach of the UN sanctions.
Gwynne Dyer commented: Almost all Somalis see Ethiopia as their
countrys main enemy, and behind the Ethiopians they see the United
States. So when the Union of Islamic Courts that restored peace to the
ruined city last June was forced to flee in late December, and US aircraft
attacked retreating UIC fighters, resistance was inevitable. The attacks on
Ethiopians by various Somali factions, some linked to the Islamic Courts
and some to local warlords who returned to the city after the UIC was
chased out, have grown so frequent that most of the TFGs members have
withdrawn from Mogadishu back to Baidoa; their former provincial capital.
The plan was to replace Ethiopian troops with a multinational African
Union force as soon as possible, but the first Ugandan soldiers to arrive in
Mogadishu on March 6 immediately came under fire as well. Like his
father before him, President George W Bush has authorized a military
intervention in Somalia, and once again it will end in tears.
But there are two differences this time: The younger Bush is
committing no American troops. Its just a question of making sure that our
guy runs Somalia. Our guy, in this case, is Abdullahi Yusuf, one of the
many warlords to rise out of the chaos that has been Somalia for the past 16
years.
Since the Ethiopians took Mogadishu, the violence has returned
worse than ever, with warlords fighting each other to re-establish their turf
and everybody having a crack at the hated Ethiopians who respond with
artillery fire. The peace is a memory, and the notion that a few thousand
African Union peacekeepers are going to recreate it is a fantasy.

915

The Islamic Courts will go on fighting, but they risk becoming just
one more contender in the unending, multisided battle for control of
Somalia. They were the countrys best chance for an end to the killing,
but their moment has probably passed.
Harun Hassan wrote: The Somali capital, Mogadishu, has in late
March and early April 2007 been witnessing the heaviest fighting and most
woeful destruction since the start of the civil war in the early 1990s. A
local human rights organization recorded nearly 400 deaths and more than
500 wounded during just four days of fighting between the two sides.
A fragile ceasefire agreed between Hawiye clan elders and Ethiopian
officials on 2 April has brought a brief calm; the two sides are due to
reconvene on 6 April. There remains disagreement on at least two key
points relating to the Ethiopian army: its withdrawal from the areas it has
recently captured, and setting a timetable for its evacuation of Somalia as a
whole.
A further drawback of this deal could derail it in any case: the fact
that the Somali government feels excluded from it, and is unhappy with the
process or the result. In defence of the TFGs position, deputy defence
minister Salad Ali Jeelle has been pressing on the media its view that the
ceasefire agreement is non-existent.
The new round of reconciliation followed three months of unrest and
sporadic clashes since the entry of Somali government troops, backed by the
Ethiopians, into Mogadishu in January 2007. As the Mogadishu fighting
escalated in the early weeks of 2007, initial reports suggested that members
or supporters of the Islamic Courts Union were responsible for most of the
attacks. But in regard to the latest fighting at least, it is also believed that
several other groups Hawiye clan militias, supporters of Mogadishu
warlords who failed to secure positions within TFG, and independent Somali
nationalists have also been involved.
The Somali government claims that former members of the ICU are
active in Mogadishu and responsible for much of the recent fighting. For
their part, Hawiye elders have denied knowledge of any participation of the
ICU in their clans fighting. The Hawiye are now in a particularly
interesting and difficult position. They fear that the Somali president wants
to enforce disarmament in Mogadishu with the help of the Ethiopian troops;

916

the Hawiye regard this as unfair insofar as rival clans in Somalia would still
hold their weapons.
The Hawiye have played a delicate game amidst Somalias
intricate struggle of the past year: backing the ICU when it emerged in
spring 2006 to take power in Mogadishu, while now alert to a new balance
of power that could seriously undermine the clans longstanding and hardwon influence in Somali politics.
What seems to alienate the Hawiye more than anything is the
governments lack of discrimination towards its adversaries, its refusal to
distinguish between the ICU and those who supported them. One analyst
says that lots of people from all walks of life supported the ICU for different
reasons. But the TFG treats everybody as the same. It regards all of them as
ICU and does not deal with them.
Clan rivalry has been rife in Somali politics and a way of life for
Somali society, for a long time. It underpins much of the countrys factional
strife, reinforces its military and political stalemate on many occasions, and
guarantees the failure of so many conferences designed to reach a
settlement.
Clan prejudices, national weakness, international interference, a
country awash with guns can it get worse? It can. For to this destructive
mix, regional fragmentation must be added. The current confrontation could
see the further disintegration of an already fissured country. The existing
autonomous regions Somaliland, Puntland and the little publicized
Galmudug operate according to their own rules; and just before the Islamic
Courts emerged, there was talk of a Jubaland state in the southern region
towards the border with Kenya. Now for the first time, Hawiye intellectuals
are discussing the prospect of having their own regional administration.
The TFG has needed to back its military advance into the Somali
capital with a political breakthrough, and has so far failed. A central
reason has been the presidents consistent refusal to invite opposing groups,
including the ICU, to the proposed reconciliation conference. Only unarmed
groups will be allowed, he said during a recent visit to London.
If there is any hope of progress, it now lies in Mogadishu. In 2006,
the ICU won applause for taming Mogadishu. In 2007, the TFG wants to do

917

the same by force. It does not work, it could be 2008 before Mogadishu, and
Somalia, have a chance to turn the corner for the better.

THE WEST
While fighting the global war against Islamic fascism, the United
States did not ignore terror-related issues within its territorial limits. On
17th February, a Muslim was held in New York for funding terror training
camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
An imam was sentenced to 8 years in prison for aiding Hamas on 28 th
February. The Supreme Court ruled on 2nd April that prisoners of Gitmo
facility have no right to challenge their illegal detention. The US military
continued facing recruitment problems and resorted to compromising the
laid down recruitment standards.
Burhanuddin Hasan observed: According to another report, due to
shortage of personnel, the US military is accepting recruits with
criminal records in great numbers, raising new concerns about
compromising the mightiest fighting force in the world. Last year, the army
enlisted more than 69,000 men and women, with 11.7 percent of them
having criminal histories; the Department of Defences records show that the
army and Marines granted 65 percent more waivers in the last three years to
recruits with minor criminal records.
The incident which drew the attention of the media and analysts was
related to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. On 15 th March, the Pentagon released
the confessions extracted from him. He confessed beheading Daniel Pearl
and his involvement in 9/11 attacks along with almost every major terrorist
act in the last many years.
Los Angeles Times accepted the confessions and wrote, Shaikh
Mohammeds rationalization for his actions, it goes without saying, are
appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George
Washington against the British. Similarly bogus apologies have been offered
by, and on behalf of, terrorists from Belfast to Beirut. Those who make such
arguments believe them, and its distressing that plenty of people in the
Mideast will accept Mohammeds reasoning.
918

Whether you call it militant Islam, Islamic fascism or a clash of

civilizations, there is a movement that has declared war on the US and the
West. It is neither a figment of President Bushs imagination nor a byproduct
of the Iraq war. Americans disagree about how to engage the enemy, but its
existence is undeniable. So is the willingness of its adherents to kill and
die for the cause. The passage of time since 9/11 may have dulled our
appreciation of that reality, especially as partisan bickering consumes
Washington. By confessing and boasting about his crimes, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed has sharpened it.
Majority of the analysts challenged the validity of the confessions of
Khalid. Der Spegiel quoted German Conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung: Here we have an alleged super terrorist who claims to have been
responsible for pretty much every mega-evil that has afflicted the world in
recent years. This confession does more to render him untrustworthy
than anything else. It also makes him look like a psychopath seeking
infamy in the hour of his death. The audience wants to see the evidence
behind the terror plots he claimed responsibility for.
Paul Craig Roberts observed: The US government does not care that
innocent people have been ensnared, because the US government
desperately needs both to prove that there are vast numbers of terrorists and
to demonstrate its proficiency in protecting Americans by capturing
terrorists. Moreover, the US government needs dangerous suspects that
it can use to keep Americans in a state of supine fearfulness and as a
front behind which to undermine constitutional protections and the Bill of
Rights.
The Bush-Cheney Regime succeeded in its evil plot, only to throw
it all away by releasing the ridiculous confession by Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed. Will Bushs totalitarian Military Tribunal now execute Khalid
on the basis of his confession extracted by torture, or would this be seen
everywhere on earth as nothing but an act of murder?
If Bush cant have Khalid murdered, the US government will have to
shut Khalid away where he cannot talk and tell his tale. The US government
will have to replicate Orwells memory hole by destroying Khalids mind
and mind-altering drugs and abuse.
Rahimullah Yusufzai wrote, if one were to believe the Pentagon, and
there are reasons not to do so in view of its past record, Khalid Sheikh
919

Mohammed (KSM) planned and tried to execute every single major act of
terrorism in the world during the past decade and a half Jurists, human
rights activists and analysts, however, are skeptical about the claims
attributed to him with regard to his role in planning 31 terrorist attacks,
some of which were never executed.
KSMs sweeping confessions for plotting an incredibly wide array
of terrorist attacks could discredit the entire show. Who knows that
perhaps having realized that he has no chance to become a freeman again,
KSM did all this deliberately to question the legality of his impending trial
and mock the way Americas war on terror is being fought If this was his
objective, he seems to have succeeded.
Four years after he was nabbed, the slow-moving Pentagon has
provided the script of his statement before the military tribunal. The first
question that comes to mind is the trustworthiness of the KSM testimony.
Few people would be willing to accept that the confessions were made
voluntarily and not under duress.
The skepticism regarding KSMs confessions is so widespread that
the Pentagon may start regretting its decision to make public his
incredible testimony before the military tribunal (However), his legal
trial after those confessions should be a walkover for the prosecutors, more
so before a totalitarian military tribunal heavily biased against the accused.
His fate is, therefore, not difficult to guess and it would be a death sentence.
Not executing KSM now that he has confessed to so many terrorist acts
would also raise disturbing questions about the purpose of obtaining those
confessions.
Zbigniew Brzezinski opined that the US has been terrorized by the
war on terror. The damage these three words have done a classic selfinflicted wound is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by
the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against
us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines
neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an
enemy but a technique of warfare
But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase
was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant
reference to a war on terror did accomplish one major objective: It
stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason,
920

intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to

moblize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.
The sense of pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus
channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of
being at war. To justify the war on terror, the administration has lately
crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling
prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier US struggles
against Nazism and Stalinism Such war would then plunge America
into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also
Pakistan.
The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It
acquires a life of its own and can become demoralizing. America today is
not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl
Harbour We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very
susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United
States itself.
Fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass
media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The
terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are
necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their
task is to convince the public that it faces new threats.
That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly
debatable. Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a
journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd security checks
that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in
this capital and in New York City.
The atmosphere generated by the war on terror has encouraged
legal and political harassment of Arab Americans (generally loyal
Americans) for conduct that has not been unique to them. A case in point is
the reported harassment of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) for its attempts to emulate, not very successfully, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Social discrimination, for example, toward Muslim air travelers,
has also been its unintended by-product. Not surprisingly, animus toward
the United States even among Muslims otherwise not particularly concerned

921

with the Middle East has intensified, while Americas reputation as a leader
in fostering constructive inter-racial and inter-religious relations has suffered
egregiously.
In the meantime, the war on terror has gravely damaged the
United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the
rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the US military and of the Palestinians
by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the
United States in general. Its not the war on terror that angers Muslims
watching the news on television; its the victimization of Arab civilians. And
the resentment is not limited to Muslims.
A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a
deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to
terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more
productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary US war on
terror against Islamo-fascism. Only a confidently determined and
reasonable America can promote genuine international security, which
then leaves no political space for terrorism.
Fawaz Turki opined, what the US in effect has demonstrated in recent
years, since the neocons co-opted its foreign policy and egged it on to play
the role of a cop who shoots first and asks questions later, is the folly of
imperial hubris, in this case imperial hubris expressed in a unilateralist
posture.
The Crusaders in Europe stayed the course set by Bush
Administration for ensuring homeland security. Some of the incidents worth
mention, reflecting the mindset, are as under:
On 10th February, France placed ten Kurds under probe over terror
funding. A fortnight later, ICJ acquitted Serbia of Bosnian genocide.
A Swiss court convicted a Turkish militant leader on 9 th March over
denying genocide of Armenians and sent him to jail for 90 days.
On 20th March, Muslims protested after British schools were allowed
to ban veils. Two days later, three Pakistanis were arrested over their
suspected involvement in 7/7 attacks. They were charged on 5th April.

922

 Four Muslims were charged in Denmark on 28th March with planning

terrorist bombing. Three days later, police found 149kg explosives in
northern Spain.

MUSLIMS
Rulers in Islamic World continued showing their inability to
implement, or even conceive, any original ideas. To avoid the headscratching, they kept borrowing ideas from the West. The Crusaders had
come out with the idea of dividing the Ummah permanently under two
crescents; Shiites and Muslims by calling the former as extremist and the
latter as moderate.
Musharraf jumped into the arena as facilitator in forming the alliance
of moderates, which was not liked by those dubbed as extremists. On 18 th
February, Presidents of Syria and Iran were compelled to urge Muslims to
stay united against the US. A week later, Islamabad denied the efforts to
marginalize Iran and Syria.
OIC Secretary General attended the meeting of foreign ministers of
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan held
in Islamabad on 25th February to formulate common stand on issues faced by
the Ummah in the ongoing war. Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestinian
Authority, perhaps, were deliberately not invited because the Crusaders had
dubbed them as militant Crescent.
The meeting agreed on seven demands; the foremost was resolution of
Palestinian issue without delay on the basis of UN resolutions and other
peace initiatives and Israeli withdrawal from Golan Heights and Lebanese
territories. They demanded a Palestinian state with its capital in East
Jerusalem; expressed concern over latest violation of al-Aqsa Mosque;
welcomed establishment of Palestinian unity government; wanted territorial
integrity of Iraq; viewed with deep concern over the escalation of tension
over Irans nuclear programme demanded a negotiated solution; and above
all they vowed to fight all forms of terrorism and extremism. Obviously the
Crusaders version of extremism and terrorism is not included. Incidentally,
the day they deliberated on these issues, Israel launched the siege of Nablus.

923

On 4th March, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said that the recent
meeting of foreign ministers of seven Islamic countries in Islamabad caused
certain ambiguities and questions. Four days later, Musharraf told
Ahmadinejad on telephone that Irans interests are close to his heart. He
must not have told Nejad that he felt the toe of somebodys boot even closer
to his bottoms.
It seemed that sanity had at last prevailed. Saudi Arabia and Iran
agreed to fight sectarian strife, warning that it was the greatest danger facing
the region and the Muslim World. Meanwhile, Ekmeleddin disclosed that
OIC was considering formation of Muslim peacekeeping force. The only
action that originated from the platform of OIC was launching of US forum
to discuss common concern.
M Shahid Alam, in his analysis similar to the one carried out by
Zbigniew Brzezinski, opined that the global war on terrorism is primarily
directed at Muslims for building an American empire. Why did the United
States choose to frame its imperialist posture after 9/11 as a global war on
terrorism? Not a few have been puzzled by this way of justifying the new
projection of American power. Terrorism is a tactic, not a country; it is
tool, not an ideology or an end. How does one wage war against a tactic or a
tool?
Nevertheless, the frame was cleverly chosen. It was and remains a
most effective tool for mobilizing the American public behind the neoconservative project of using wars multiple and endless, if necessary to
deepen Americas global dominance to make it irreversible.
The rhetoric of terrorism had other uses too. Terrorists operate
without a return address, are ready to strike anywhere, and sometimes die
with their victims. Instead of tracking them down through surveillance and
police work, the United States has used the elusiveness of terrorists to justify
pre-emptive strikes and wars. In addition, since terrorists may be hiding
anywhere, the war against terrorism must be global.
Just as importantly, the United States has used its rhetoric of
terrorism to de-legitimize all forms of resistance The United States has
stretched this logic to de-legitimize all resistance movements that it views as
contrary to US interests.

924

Although the United States has almost exclusively targeted Muslims

in recent years, it continues to insist that Muslims per se are not the enemy.
They only target those who are terrorists and those who support terrorists.
It is a clever distinction that empowers the good Muslims who are on
our side mostly corrupt and despotic rulers to fight the bad Muslims,
who are terrorists.
It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that terrorism as the new cover
for a more invasive imperialism has quickly come to dominate the global
public discourse A Google search also reveals that the global war on
terrorism is directed primarily at Muslims. A search for exact phrases
that combined Islamic, Muslim, Moslem, and Islam end with
terrorism, terrorists, and terror yield a total 3.3 million hits.
Why is the talk of terrorism directed overwhelmingly at Muslims;
despite the rhetoric of a global war on terrorism? By now we know all too
well that this war is aimed at Muslims, mainly at Muslims in the Middle
East. This is a war of colonial pacification of Islamic lands: the Muslims
must be pacified to secure our oil wells in the Persian Gulf, and to
entrench Israeli hegemony over the Middle East. This is also a religious
war for the radical core of American evangelicals; it fits into their theology
of end times. We ignore this only at our own peril.
Dr Iqbal Syed Hussain was of the view that the hostility between
Islam and the West has been given new direction, inadvertently or by design.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been sacrificed at the altar of the
twin towers without ascertaining the causes and analyzing the situation.
Neo-conservatism and Islamophobic distortions have penetrated deep into
the fabric of western psyche. The whole mindset seems to have assumed
the features which are not compatible with rational thought and the
enlightenment that the West is believed to have conceived over the past
centuries.
Hostility between Islam and the West has been given new
direction and misleading theories like the clash of civilizations have been
evolved to sanction attacks, both verbal and physical, against the Muslims.
This has created reinforced barriers which have been made impregnable by
the growing wave of fundamentalism. Instead of bringing down the barriers
the adventurist steps as taken by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan have further
destabilized the normal life that is now causing all the problems.

925

As a result of growing gulf between the two sides the rhetoric of

confrontation has to be reined in to reduce the quantum of disaster which
might endanger the future of the planet. Muslims have been accused of
extremism, terrorism and almost all evils prevailing in the world
communities. The monumental struggle between the forces of moderation
and extremism has been largely attributed to the Muslims.
The West does not accuse the Jews and Americans for their blatant
policies and their hostile violation of genuine Muslim rights in the Middle
East. They are supported in spite of their brutal attacks against the
Palestinians and the US policies remain diametrically opposed to the basic
interests of Muslims in Palestine.
The rhetoric of confrontation goes on expanding its tentacles to
further pollute the environments and continually damage the spirit of
understanding and cooperation between the two sides. Islam remains the
most misunderstood religion in the world and the West persists in treating it
with bias and phobias.
Western intellectuals and literary circles in particular from the
medieval period onwards have been influenced largely by episodes which
were produced largely to propagate hostility towards Islam. Some of the best
known works of western literature are the epic poems such as the songs of
Ronald and ElCid. In recent years they have been supplemented with
cartoons, caricatures which have had a serious impact on polluting the
environment.
In a world of mass communications in which the western media
dominate it will be extremely damaging if the western critics continue to
propagate views which are distorted and pernicious. They will have to be
careful in writing and uttering statements which are based on bias and
hatred.
The West needs to be informed that the acts of few fanatics cannot be
cited to justify the claims of the neocons in Washington. The West has to
study the history of Islam which is based on love and humanity and
whatever the ivory tower theologians in the West claim does not represent
the realities of religion.
The West fully understands the implications, as enumerated above, of
what its doing. It is still bent upon doing that because it understands that in

926

the prevalent geopolitical environments, it can afford an all out confrontation

with Islamic World which is considered an enemy since ages.
Muslims have been pitched against each other on yet another pretext
as is evident from the views of Ghafoor Ahmed. The Muslim World is faced
with a protracted challenge from radical elements that have a propensity for
violence and scant regard for human rights, peace and security. It is
necessary to effectively counter the influence of these elements by
marginalizing them and strengthening the concept of moderation which
is an essential component of a Muslim society. The Islamic World must
realize the enormity of the danger that is looming large on the horizon
threatening its peace and security as a result of the extremist activities.
For obvious reasons, the Muslim World cannot abdicate its
responsibility for the preservation of its stability and security interests.
It should not, therefore, allow radical elements to misinterpret Islamic
teachings to support violent action. It must develop a strategy for prevention
of terrorist acts to save the lives of innocent people. The failure of the
Islamic World to address this important issue is fraught with serious
dangers.
Israrul Haque discussed the so-called alliance of moderates. The US
has now devised a stratagem of encouraging the pro-American Muslim
rulers to confront Iran and Hezbollah. These rulers in particular are being
groomed to flex their political and religious muscles in collusion with
Israeli military against Iran and Hezbollah. It is in this context that the
on-going US-engineered Shia-Sunni strife in Iraq provides the grist to the
mill of the warlike campaign against Iran in a bid to divide the Muslims in
general.
The Arab states may subordinate their hostility to Israel at least
temporarily to their even greater fear of Iranian domination opined Gary
Sick. This assessment is supported by several reports of meetings between
Arab and Israeli leaders recently. Israel in its annual meeting of national
security strategists on January 25 urged a coalition to deter Iran and
Hezbollah. All these US-Israeli maneuverings are calculated to trigger
off hostilities between the two sects and thereby create divisions in the
Muslim World.
Iran, instead of turning against Arab countries by calling some of
them American stooges, has chosen to seek understanding and reconciliation
927

with the Arab countries. Iran has sent its reputed negotiator Mr Larijani
to Saudi Arabia to seek its cooperation in averting the strife between the
Shia and the Sunni sects in Iraq and Lebanon.
That the seeds of sectarian strife were sown by the US to prop up its
own shaky presence in Iraq. Neoconservatives led by Dick Cheney have
come up with what they call an 80 percent Plan which envisages to target
Sunnis to the complete exclusion
The happy news is that dozens of Shias and Sunnis have offered
prayers together in a Sunni Mosque in the al-Sadr City have now embarked
on a movement to consolidate their unity. This marks a great setback for the
American presence in Iraq.
Tariq Fatemi wrote, while Pakistans initiative to hold a meeting of
foreign ministers from Muslim countries ahead of the Makkah Summit was
laudable, certain questions were raised. These related to the impression that
the meeting was arranged much too hurriedly and was not preceded by the
kind of consultation necessary to ensure its success. The omission of Iran
was another point of concern.
Five countries, out of the seven which attended the meeting,
happened to be in the war zone and these are not only allies of the US but
also provide the bases which the Crusaders are likely to make use of, one
way or other, if Iran is attacked.
There was at last a positive move, which was commented upon by The
Dawn. The meeting between the Saudi monarch and the Iranian
president could turn out to be seminal because they have agreed on a
common approach to the Iraqi question and decided to use their influence
with the governments in Baghdad and Beirut, and with militias and political
leaders, to emphasize the danger which an escalation of the sectarian
tensions poses to the Middle East.
While there is no doubt that others would like to fish in the
troubled waters, basically it is the responsibility of Arab governments and
leaders to avoid conditions that others could exploit. A worsening of the
sectarian conflict could lead to Iraqs break-up and possibly touch off a
process of the Middle Easts fragmentation. Mr Ahmadinejads visit to Saudi
Arabia and the concord with the Saudi king show the two leaders awareness
of the gravity of the situation and their resolve to prevent it.

928

The Hindu wrote: In concluding an agreement to work for

reconciliation between Irans President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saudi
Arabias King Abdullah have launched the much-needed regional
initiative to resolve the multiple crises afflicting West Asia. It can hardly
be said that Riyadh and Tehran are in accord on most issues and the
promised efforts might fall well short of expectations. The influence the
United States exercises over West Asian affairs is also likely to have an
adverse impact on the moves by the regional powers. For all that, the
Iranians and the Saudis must be commended for showing the gumption to try
and break free of the Bush Administrations agenda. There are already signs
of progress on the Palestinian front. Tehran appears ready to support the
Riyadh-brokered deal by which Hamas and Fatah are to set up a national
unity government.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal advised soul-searching. It will be a serious error to
conclude that the contemporary dilemmas faced by the Muslims are simply a
result of their colonization, for these dilemmas predate that violent storm
which arose from Europe and, taking Muslims by surprise, reduced the
power and glory of their three vast empires to dust; certain men of foresight
and understanding in the Safavid, Moghal and the Ottoman empires were
already conscious of the sapping of energy and vitality of their empires.
The contemporary dilemmas faced by Muslims are a continuation of
the historic process that started in the eighteenth century. They were not
recognized then in precise terms, because they had not yet taken the present
form.
Muslims now had to reassess their situation. The very nature of
their crisis changed drastically; what they faced at the beginning of the
eighteenth century was radically different from what they were facing at the
end of that century. This change was not merely the displacement of a threat
from a Nadir Khan to a British or French General; but a change in the very
nature of the threat. What they faced now was an encounter of a new kind.
It is, therefore, the two centuries prior to 1950 which hold the key to
a proper understanding of the dilemmas faced by Muslims today. What
happened during those two centuries has produced the fruits that Muslims
are now harvesting. This bitter harvest is not produced by a George Bush
or a Tony Blair; they are merely prolonging the process their forefathers
started in the eighteenth century. Likewise, the enlightened generals and
self-proclaimed moderate presidents and kings who now rule the Muslim
929

World, have not yet emerged from thin air; they are the product of the same
violent tide that disrupted centuries-old traditions, uprooted individuals from
the spiritual and intellectual world of their forefathers, and produced a
fissure with the primary sources of Islam.
At the root of the contemporary Muslim dilemmas is a fissure with
their own past. The world in which an educated Muslim lived in the
eighteenth century was filled with things, ideas, and lifestyle which had
emerged during the past millennium in an organic manner. The world in
which an educated Muslim lives today is totally alien to the past. Not
that one can stop the flow of history, but the extent of change is so enormous
that the past has been uprooted from its rightful soil. This erosion of history
expresses itself in numerous manners and is observable throughout the
Muslim World in the form of a cultural schizophrenia typical of memory
lapses.
In order to understand the dilemmas faced by Muslims today, one
has to rediscover the past and examine those processes which led to the
disappearance of the world of Saadi and Rumi. While one cannot expect
one million Iraqi refugees in Syria or the culturally dispossessed masses to
accomplish this task, one wonders what thousands of learned Muslim
scholars are doing with their learning.
The Ulema in particular are oblivious to this need. Still occupied
with minute details of rituals, they fail to realize that soon there will be very
few Muslims left to listen to their khutbas about where to fold hands in
prayer. Not that these details are not important, but the urgent necessity to
stop further erosion of faith and values is such a pressing matter that nothing
can be said to have precedent over it.
The road to recovery of any ailment is through understanding the
malaise. The road to recovery for the Muslim World is through
understanding the great transmutation of their world through their encounter
with the post-Renaissance West. This understanding can begin on a smallscale, through concerted efforts by groups of scholars who have the
intellectual resources to examine various facets of the transformation which
has reshaped the Muslim World during the past three centuries. These
scholars need to work independently of government controls, with integrity
and with the realization that their efforts are not merely theoretical
investigations but a process that affects the lives of millions of human
beings.
930

CONCLUSION
The global war on terror, in territories away from the oilfields, is
progressing to the satisfaction of the Crusaders. Continuous bleeding of
Somalia has been arranged through proxy and it is now at par with Iraq and
Afghanistan. Pressure on Sudan will continue.
The confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad are true reflection of
the nature of war on terror. Pentagon has surpassed its Pakistani ally wherein
confessions are extracted in drawing rooms of police stations; once the
interrogators break a criminal they add some unresolved cases to his list of
confessions. It saves lot of time and effort and at the same time adds to the
list of successes.
The Crusaders have succeeded in causing new kind of division in the
Ummah by creating moderates and enlightened too. Notwithstanding the
softness of the name, they are more extremists than the extremists. They can
only think of sidelining or isolating the extremists, because bringing them
into the mainstream requires them to shun collaboration with the real
spoilers of peace, security and stability in Islamic countries; the Crusaders.
No strategy which sidelines a part of the society, for whatever reasons, can
prevent extremism.
In fact, the people comprising this class, group or sect are aliens in
their own societies. They are refugees or internally displaced people, in far
more miserable plight than those who have left their homeland and live in an
alien territory while clinging to their culture. This class has voluntarily
abandoned its cultural values under the pretext of modernization,
enlightenment or with whatever name one may call it.
10th April 2007

SURGE SANS PURGE

931

The Bushs surge in Iraq has entered third month but for the occupied
or the occupiers it showed no sign of purge. In fact, it has brought no
significant change, negative or positive, for the ever-suffering Iraqi people.
The critics of the war, including Democrats, have however become more
vocal.
Israel tried hard to pre-empt formation of the unity government in
Palestine. Olmert publicly blamed for not fulfilling his promise to block
unity government which included Hamas. He, however, was able to
convince the US about the need for continuation of economic blockade of
Palestine.
During this period Nancy Pelosi visited the region, including a trip to
Damascus. Apparently, Bush Administration did not like her attempt to
establish contacts with Syria, but insiders believed that Washington wanted
to engage Syria, not because of change of heart but to further isolate Iran.
Tehran, despite the sanctions, remained steadfast on its legal right to
acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. During third week of
March, events took a dangerous turn when Iran captured 15 British sailors,
but tension was defused with the release of the best in the world after
twelve-day detention.

OCUPATION OF IRAQ
There was no let in the bloodletting despite change in US strategy.
On 12 March, 60 people, including three US soldiers, were killed in various
incidents. Two days later, 16 more people, including a US soldier, were
killed. Car bombs and shootings claimed 27 lives on 15th March.
th

Six US soldiers were killed on 16th March and one more next day.
More than 40 Iraqis were killed in last two days. On 8 th March, Fourteen
people, including a US soldier, were killed in violence. Eight US troops
were among 22 people killed in various incidents on 18th March. Next day,
29 people were killed in various incidents.
More than one hundred people were killed on 20 th March; including
two US soldiers and 39 terrorists. Saddams deputy, Taha Yassin Ramadan

932

was hanged. Next day, eighteen people were killed in different incidents of
violence.
On 22nd March, 18 people, including three US soldiers, were killed in
fighting. A mortar shell landed near the site where Ban Ki Moon was
holding a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister. Next day, 26 people, including
2 US, were killed in various incidents. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister was
wounded in a bomb attack.
On 24th March, 54 people, including two US soldiers, were killed
across the country. Next day, at least 50 people, including two US soldiers,
were killed in various incidents.
Five US soldiers were killed on 26th March in different incidents; nine
Iraqis were also killed. Next day, more than hundred people, including a US
soldier, were killed, out of them 55 were killed in suicide truck bomb attack
in Tal Afar.
On 28th March, more than hundred people were killed in various
incidents; out of these more than fifty were killed in Tal Afar when police
opened fire on protesters and 25 were killed in the US-led forces. Next day,
again more than one hundred people perished on third consecutive day; one
US soldier was also killed.
At least 47 people, including two US soldiers, were killed in various
incidents of violence on 30th March. Next day, 45 people, including a US
soldier, were killed.
Two truck bombers attacked a military base on 1st April; the number
of casualties was not reported. Next day, 63 people, including seven US
soldiers, were killed and over two hundred wounded in various incidents. On
3rd April, at least 49 people, including four US soldiers, were killed across
the country. Next day, 39 people were killed in incidents of violence.
Six US and four British soldiers were killed in three attacks on 5 th
April. A US helicopter was shot down. Ten Iraqi soldiers were killed in a
separate attack. Next day, 20 Iraqis and a US soldier were killed and 30
Iraqis and two US soldiers were wounded.
At least 67 people, including one US soldier, were killed on 7 th April.
Next day, 27 more people, including four US soldiers, were killed in
violence. The US forces claimed capturing a top al-Qaeda militant.
933

On 9th April, 25 people, including six US soldiers, were killed in

different incidents. Next day, 41 people, including four US soldiers, were
killed in various incidents. One of the attacks was carried out by a woman
suicide bomber in which 17 police recruits were killed. The US-led forces
claimed killing 20 militants on 11th April.
As regards other aspects of the occupation, there was hardly
anything worth mention except the protests against the war and demands of
pullout from Iraq. On the anniversary of attack on Iraq, protest rallies were
held in Europe and Tokyo. Even King Abdullah, who had sent his envoy to
Bush to expedite invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, slated illegitimate
occupation of Iraq.
On 9th April, thousands of Shias protested in Najaf on fourth
anniversary Iraqs occupation. Protesters burnt US flags and chanted Death
to America slogans. Banners termed Sunnis and Shiites as brothers as some
Sunnis had also participated in the protest. Moqtada al-Sadr appealed to
Iraqi Army and Mahdi Militia not to fall into Americas trap and urged local
security forces not to support the occupier because it is your enemy.
Los Angeles Times reported that the US has mulled pullout from Iraq
in case surge fails. Three days later, on 15 th March the US Senate rejected
withdrawal plan. About a week later, the US House of Representatives voted
to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq
(they hope that by then Republicans might have lost in presidential election
in July). Bush threatened to veto.
On 28th March, the US Senate endorsed troop withdrawal. Next day,
Putin called for a deadline on the presence of foreign troops in Iraq. On 30 th
March, the Senate voted 51-47 to tie Iraq War funds to withdrawal of troops,
despite Bushs threat of veto. Bush warned that the US troops would pay if
funding of the war is stopped.
Meanwhile, cover up of war crimes continued. A US soldier got 27
months in jail for abetting rape and murder. Puppet parliament approved the
return of Arabs settled in Kirkuk during Saddam era; a minister resigned in
protest. On 9th April, Turkish Prime Minister warned Iraqi leader, Barzani
who had threatened that Iraqi Kurds would retaliate to any Turkish
interference.

934

COMMENTS
Participation of Iran and Syria in Baghdad conference continued to be
appreciated. Khaleej Times wrote, no sooner than the Americans and
Iranians sat down on the same negotiating table for the first time in 30 odd
years had the ice already started melting. And that is exactly what the widely
represented Baghdad conference was designed for to get the feel of the
untried route, negotiations For the West to accept the tangent involved in
beginning the talks is proof in itself that, barring unforeseen provocation,
they wont stop. Else, the significant policy-shift would become difficult to
account for.
Both reason and precedent suggest that the talks will yield a more
positive outcome than the policies currently in place. That will perhaps
provide for the first opportunity of beginning a process that could ultimately
bring calm to Iraq. Of late two developments in the Middle East have
pointed a regional consensus of sorts These developments were Makkah
Agreement and Ahmadinejads visit to Saudi Arabia.
Caution is urged, though, since along with the potential plusses, the
high-level regional hustle and bustle also betrays some states desire to don
the dominant power broker robe once the dust begins to settle, Each must
realize that such dreams will remain just that, dreams, till a measure of
sanity is brought about in the overall equation.
Paul Craig Roberts commented on the brute nature of the occupation.
US troops routinely kill Iraqi civilians mistakenly or from frustration, but
the heavy daily casualties are the result of the civil war made possible by
the US overthrow of the Iraqi government. US troops per se are not
responsible for much of the daily toll, but the Bush Administration,
Congress, and the American people are.
How did the war on terror become a war of the Iraqi people? We
have heard every answer: intelligence mistakes, incompetence, and evil
machination. Whichever answer we take, the killing and destruction
continue It has recently come to light that the US government has
imposed an oil deal on the puppet Iraqi government that turns Iraqi oil
over to US and British firms for exploitation. Bush-Cheney have not
brought Iraqis democracy, but they have stolen their oil revenues.

935

The profits of the military-industrial complex are soaring, and

higher military budgets are being appropriated. The Cheneys Halliburton
stock options has not merely doubled or tripled but multiplied by a factor of
32.
The Israel lobby sees the war as enhancing Israeli hegemony in the
Middle East and making possible the completion of Israels theft of Palestine
from Palestinians. Thus, three powerful lobbies in America are the
beneficiaries of the devastation of Iraq. The combined power of these
lobbies makes it impossible for Congress to respond to the American people
and end the war.
Sami Ramadani criticized the US policy of divide and rule. The
success of the occupations divide-and-rule tactics and their insistence on
basing the new political and military structures on sects, religions, and
ethnicities is threatening the communal cohesion that was once the countrys
hallmark. This is a factor in the absence of a united movement, capable of
leading the struggle to end the occupation. The occupation has sown
divisions where there were none and transformed existing differences
into open warfare And is it any wonder that the long-suffering Iraqi
people find themselves at an impasse. Try catching your breath after decades
of brutal dictatorship, 13 years of economic sanctions and four years of an
obscene war.
But even in the absence of a unified anti-occupation front, the
resistance of Iraqi people has managed to thwart the worlds greatest military
empire. And there are signs of mass rejection of these sectarian forces, and
the possibility that public anger will translate into the very unity that is so
desperately needed. Rage against occupation and the collapse of public
services is sweeping the country, including Kurdistan. Similarly the
proposed corporate occupation of Iraq, disguised as a legal document to tie
the country to the oil companies for decades to come, has reminded the
population of one of the main reasons for the US-led invasion. It has also
reminded them what a self-respecting, sovereign Iraq looked like in 1961,
when the government nationalized Iraqs lands for future oil production.
Ramzy Baroud observed that based on their vision, the US
administration has hoped that its occupation of Iraq will reconfigure the
region and inspire a New Middle East. Four years later, the US-Israeli plan
is faltering. The stiff resistance in Iraq is costing the US its military

936

reputation and is strengthening the Iranian position, especially since Iran

has its own proxies in Iraq.
The US will leave Iraq; that should hardly be questioned. It
cannot possibly bear such financial and material losses indefinitely. The
New Statesman reports that caring for the war wounded alone will cost the
country $2.5 trillion in the next few decades.
But to ensure that such military chaos, such awesome losses of
irreplaceable lives on all sides are not repeated, one must not speak of the
Iraq War in too general terms: empire, oil and hegemony, and lose sight of
most relevant specifics. Israel and its benefactors have played and
continue to play a major role in all of this. Ignoring this fact for the sake
of not mixing the issues would simply mean fighting the right cause with
the wrong strategy, to say the least.
The Washington Post wrote, it would almost be comforting if Bush
had lied the nation to war, as is frequently charged but the president and
his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but
fundamentally believed as did the CIA the catastrophically wrong case
that then-Secretary of State Colin L Powell presented to the United
Nations.
The question Tell me how it ends? must be the first to be asked,
not the last. The answer wont always be knowable. But the discussion must
never lose sight of the inevitable horrors of war. Even now, though, many of
the lessons that others draw from Iraq do not strike us as obvious.
Rosa Brooks wrote about pressure from the Democrats. We ought to
give thanks that Congress has finally stopped dozing and decided to do
something to bring this disastrous war to close. In late March, both houses
of Congress passed bills to fully fund military operations in Iraq, with
timetables for the eventual withdrawal of US combat troops.
The president was quick to denounce the bills as unconstitutional
efforts by Congress to micromanage our military commanders and
handcuff our generals in the field. But this characterization of the
congressional bills suggests that in keeping with administration tradition
the president hasnt actually read them.

937

While the presidents war-related powers are dealt within a single

clause, the constitution outlines expansive congressional wartime powers, a
view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress is expressly
empowered to declare war. Congress also has the power to raise and support
Armies. Congress also is given the power to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces. With its Iraq bills, Congress
isnt micromanaging; its just fulfilling its constitutional
responsibilities.

ISRAELI FRONT
During the month ending 11th April, Israel focused on sabotaging the
formation of unity government in Palestine. On 15th March, Haniyeh
submitted the list of members of unity government to Abbas. Israel refused
to recognize new cabinet.
On 18th March, Israel called for boycott of unity government of
Palestinians as EU showed willingness to work with new government. Two
days later, a US official met Palestinian finance minister obvious with
threats of economic pressure. On 25th March, the UN chief visited Palestine
after getting instructions from Olmert, who had blamed Abbas for not
fulfilling the promise regarding unity government. Rice was also in the
region on peace mission. Next day, Abbas urged Rice to conduct proper
peace talks with Israel and Haniyeh refused to compromise on return of
Palestinian refugees.
Arab leaders had, until now, publicly rejected Israeli calls for changes
to the 2002 Arab peace offer, but Arab diplomats now said privately that
Arab leaders were seeking fresh ways to moderate their position without
being seen as giving in to Israeli or American demands.
On 28th March, Arab leaders met in Riyadh and unanimously decided
to revive five-year-old plan for peace (Saudi peace plan of 2002) with Israel
and launch a diplomatic offensive to resolve the Middle East conflict. Next
day, Israel rejected Arab peace plan.
Olmert called Haniyeh a terrorist and said peace is possible in five
years. On 1st April, he made a counter-move and invited Arab leaders to

938

peace conference in Jerusalem. Two days later, Arab League chief rejected
Olmerts offer of summit.
Meanwhile, in response to Zwahiris statement that it has sunk into
quagmire of defeat, Hamas said it still seeks destruction of Israel. Two
Palestinians were killed in factional fighting on 23rd March. A Palestinian
was killed in Israeli air strike in Gaza on 7 th April and one Israeli was killed
in retaliatory rocket fire.
Hassan Nafaa commented on unreasonable pressure on Hamas to
recognize Israel. There are several reasons the pressure to force Hamas
to recognize Israel lacks any legal justification. Firstly, acknowledgement
can only take place between representative units. Secondly, acknowledging
the state of Israel before the establishment of a clearly defined Palestinian
state would seriously harm the rights of the Palestinian people. Thirdly, by
its very nature recognition must be bilateral if it is not to turn into a contact
of compliance the legitimacy of which can all too easily be questioned.
I do not claim to be intimate with Hamas thinking, though I am sure
its leadership realizes that recognizing Israel may help remove the sanctions
placed on it. That, however, does not improve the chances of a real
sustainable settlement. It must also surely realize that recognition prior to
settlement would isolate Hamas from its popular base and lead to
political suicide, paving the way for the imposition of Israeli conditions
which would include turning the separation barrier into Israels permanent
borders and transforming what remains of Palestine into isolated cantons.
Arab News wrote, the Israeli government is clearly alarmed that there
is a desire abroad for this new Palestinian administration to be deemed a
success. Israel fears that eventually it will be forced to return to negotiations
when it would apparently rather not. By its very nature, recognition must
be bilateral. What is being proposed by Israel and the US is unilateral, not
mutual recognition. It is doubtful whether Israel will change its position on
final status issues even after recognition. The Palestinian government knows
that those who previously recognized Israel and offered everything that
could be imagined in the way of concessions gained nothing.
The Guardian wrote on unity government. Forming a Palestinian
unity government is a diplomatic achievement which caught Israel off guard.
If it lasts, Palestinian unity is a potent source of international legitimacy.

939

An Arab League meeting in Riyadh will increase the momentum the Saudis
gained in Mecca by negotiating the deal between Fatah and Hamas.
Al-Ahram Weekly opined that the formation of a Palestinian national
unity government ended a year of division that pitted Fatah and President
Mahmoud Abbas on the one hand against Hamas and its government on the
other. This development has created a new situation, one in which the
Palestinians can act, not only react.
The Palestinians could start by asking for the separation wall to be
demolished. They should ask for Israeli settlements to be dismantled. And
they could stress their inalienable rights in Jerusalem. This would be more
useful The Palestinians should reaffirm their priorities and stick to them.
The Quartet has been unfair to the Palestinians. It wanted
Palestinians to make concessions while offering nothing in return, aside
from assistance. The Palestinians need their land and this is what should be
the focus of any talks. The Palestinians should not stoop into begging, not
from the Europeans or the Americans or anyone else. And Arabs can help
them out. The upcoming Arab summit can do something to free the
Palestinians from financial pressure and provide a context in which
Palestinian national rights can be upheld.
Jonathan Freedland commented on meeting of Arab League. The 22
member nations of the Arab League are meeting for two days in Riyadh,
with the Arab-Israeli conflict high on their agenda. They are preparing to
make a remarkable offer: if Israel withdraws to its 1967 borders, pulling
out of the West Bank and Gaza, they will agree to a full and comprehensive
peace, including normal relations, between the entire Arab World and Israel.
How could Israel pass up such a great opportunity? The answer
is that it already has. The Arab League approved what began as the Saudi
peace plan when it met in Beirut back in 2002. Among the signatories then
were Libyas Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Thats right:
Saddam Hussein was ready to recognize the Jewish state.
This week its getting a second chance. Will Israel seize this
chance, whatever its origins? The Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert has hinted
that there are positive elements in it worth pursuing. That is certainly true
for him personally Olmert finds his premiership stalled and in ditch. He

940

needs an initiative and this could be it, says one Israeli government official
of the Saudi plan.
Still, only a reckless optimist would be hopeful. For one thing,
Israel retains major objections to the initiatives it currently stands. They
dont want to give back all of the post-1967 territories, preferring
negotiations, and maybe even a land swap, to arrive at final borders.
The key obstacle, though relates to the Palestinian refugees
displaced by Israels creation in 1948 and their descendents. The initial
Saudi plan, first floated six years ago, spoke only of a just solution to the
refugee problem. At Beirut the language hardened up, to include a demand
that Palestinians have the right to return to their homes inside Israel. Israel
insists that any such right would be impossible to implement, spelling the
demographic end of the country as a Jewish national home
There is, in fact, something the Arab World could do this week. It
was raised in an open letter written by Shlomo Gazit, the former head of
Israeli military intelligence, and addressed to the Saudi regime. The former
general called on the Saudis to bypass Olmert, appealing over his head
to the Israeli people directly. Follow the path taken by Anwar Sadat of
Egypt 30 years ago
Its a good idea, for it would call Israels bluff. The country always
says it wants peace; now the insincerity of that stance would be tested. If the
language on refugees and borders were loosened, thereby denying Olmert a
reason to say no, all the better
Uri Avnery expressed his views on the visit of Rice in his peculiar
style. Can a pantheress turn into a pussycat? Impossible, a zoologist would
say. But last week, we saw it happen with our own eyes. Condoleezza Rice
came here to teach Ehud Olmert, once and for all, who is boss. The President
of the United States wants to make order in the Middle East, and the
government of Israel has to fall into line. Two days later, nothing of the
threat remained. Olmert refused again. And what happened? Nothing
happened. The fearful pantheress slunk home, her tail between her legs.
In the ongoing debate about which is wagging which the dog its tail
or the tail its dog the proponents of the tail have won the day. In the
round just finished, Israel has won against the United States This bout
started with President Bush deciding, it seems, to clear the decks for action.

941

The US is preparing for war against Iran. For that purpose, it has to put an
end to the mess in Iraq, unify the pro-American Arab regimes and find a
solution to the Palestinian problem.
In the beginning, everything worked just fine. All the leaders of the
Arab countries gathered for summit meeting in Riyadh. The King of Saudi
Arabia was reconciled with Bashar al-Assad. Mahmoud Abbas brought
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh with him. President Emile Lahoud of
Lebanon, the protg of Syria and Hezbollah, took his place at the round
table Condoleezza arranged a showdown with Olmert and was ready to
submit an ultimatum. But it seems that at the last moment new
instructions came from the White House: let go and come home. It
appears that President Bush is even weaker than Olmert.
Khaled Amayreh expressed his views on the visit of German
pantheress. Olmert is likely to continue to recite his calls for peace and
repeatedly express his sincere heart-felt desire to hold talks with Arab
leaders. Meanwhile his government and army continue to rape the
Palestinian people and steal chunk after chunk of their homeland. It is a
strategy that will continue for as long as world leaders are willing to remain
silent in the face of Israeli recalcitrance.
This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made another
pilgrimage to Israel to ask for further atonement for the Holocaust. Merkel,
who only met non-Hamas members of the Palestinian government, blamed
the Palestinians for everything from the stalled peace process to crippling
Western sanctions on them. One Palestinian official described Merkels
behaviour as brazen and shameful.
The comments are concluded with excerpts from an article of Uri
Avnery on unity government. This event is a great blessing, not only for
them, but also for us if indeed we are interested in a peace that will put an
end to the historic conflict. For the Palestinians, the immediate blessing
is elimination of the threat of civil war.
Why is this good for Israel? I am going to say something that will
shock many Israelis and their friends in the world: If Hamas did not exist;
it would have to be invented. If a Palestinian government had been set up
without Hamas, we should have to boycott it until Hamas was included. And
if negotiations do lead to a historical settlement with the Palestinian
leadership, we should make it a condition that Hamas, too, must sign it. That
942

is the lesson history teaches us from the experience of other wars of

liberation.
If we strive indeed for a complete end to the historic conflict, we
must reach out for a solution that includes them, too. Therefore, I strongly
question the wisdom of Tzipi Livni and her colleagues, who demand that
the Saudis drop from their peace plan any mention of the refugee
problem.
Common sense would advise the exact opposite: to demand that the
Saudi peace initiative, which has become an official pan-Arab peace plan,
include the matter of the refugees, so that the final agreement will also
constitute a solution of the refugee problem.
The new Palestinian government is based on the Makkah
Agreement. It seems that it would not have been possible without the
energetic intervention of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia The
international background has to be considered. The President of the
United States is now busy with desperate efforts to bring his Iraqi adventure
to a conclusion that will not go down in history as a total disaster. For this
purpose he is trying to bring together a Sunni Front that would block Iran
and help to put an end to the Sunni violence in Iraq.
That is, of course, a simplistic idea. It disregards the enormous
complexity of the realities of our region. Bush has presided over the setting
up in Iraq of a government dominated by Shias. He has tried to isolate Sunni
Syria. And Hamas is, of course, a pious Sunni organization.
Under American pressure, the Saudi king has agreed to take
upon himself the leadership of the Arab World, after Egypt has failed in
this task. The king has persuaded Bush that he has to speak with Syria. Now
he is trying to persuade him to accept Hamas. In the meantime, no change in
the position of the Israeli government is noticeable.
Unfortunately, just at this moment, with a newly formed Palestinian
government that has good chance of being strong and stable, the government
of Israel is becoming more and more destabilized. Olmerts support rating in
the polls is approaching zero.
But even if Olmert manages to survive, his will be a lame duck
government, unable start anything new, and certainly no bold initiative vis--

943

vis the new Palestinian government. But if Bush supports us on one side,
and the Saudi king on the other, perhaps we shall after all take a few
steps forward; as people in this region say: Insha Allah, if God wills.
The UN chief urged dialogue in Lebanon on 30th March during his
visit to Beirut. Next day, Ban Ki-Moon vowed to work for durable LebanonIsrael truce. But, Israel deflated him when it refused to allow him to visit
southern areas on Lebanon.
Nancy Pelosi angered the White House by planning a visit to Syria.
She said that she would demand the release of Israeli soldiers from Syrian
President. After meeting Lebanese prime minister in Beirut, she arrived in
Damascus on 4th April. She said Syria was ready for talks with Israel. Syrian
had been ready to talk since long but Bush Administration had been asking
Israel not to have dialogue.
Jonathan Cook recalled the real goal of Israels war on Lebanon.
Lebanons devastation was apparently designed to teach both
Hezbollah and the countrys wider public a lesson Israel expected
Hezbollah to seize soldiers at some point and wanted to be ready with harsh
response. The destruction of Lebanon would deter Hezbollah from
considering another such operation in the future.
More interesting are the dates mentioned by Olmert. His first
discussion of a war against Lebanon was held on 8 January 2006, four days
after he became acting prime minister following Ariel Sharons brain
hemorrhage and coma. Olmert held his second meeting on the subject in
March, presumably immediately after his victory in the elections. There
were apparently more talks in April, May, and July It suggests that from
the moment that Olmert took up the reins of power, he was slowly brought
into the armys confidence.
The picture that emerges is of a long-standing plan of the Israeli
army, approved by senior US officials, for a rapid war against Lebanon
followed by possible intimidatory strikes against Syria, using the pretext of a
cross-border incident involving Hezbollah. The real purpose, we can
surmise, was to weaken what are seen by Israel and the US to be Tehrans
allies before an attack on Iran itself That was why neither the Americans
nor Israel wanted, or appear still to want, to negotiate with Assad over the

944

Golan and seek a peace agreement that could, for once, change the map of
the Middle East for the better.
It all sounds familiar. Iran wants the nuclear destruction of Israel,
and Syria wants Jerusalem to throw in the towel or so the neocons and the
useful idiots of the clash of civilizations would have us believe. The fear
must be that they get their way and push Israel and the US towards another
pre-emptive war maybe two.
Uri Avnery wrote, according to Olmerts leaks, Condoleezza Rice
called him just after the outbreak of the war and conveyed to him the
up-to-date American orders: It was indeed desired that Israel should deal a
crushing blow to Hezbollah, the enemies of Siniora, but it was absolutely
forbidden to do anything that would hurt Siniora, such as bombing Lebanese
infrastructure outside Hezbollahs territory.
That emasculated the general staffs plans. Instead of the massive
bombardment that would have destroyed the basic industries and facilities,
Halutz had to be satisfied with bombing the roads and bridges that serve
Hezbollah and the Shiite population. The damage was extensive, but not
sufficient to bring Lebanon to its knees.
Sami Moubayed commented on Pelosis visit. The final questions
arise from Pelosis trip to Beirut, before going to Syria. Speaking with
authority, she told the Lebanese that the US will not bargain over Lebanon
and that her visit to Syria ought not to be considered as meaning a
change in US policy concerning Lebanon. If Pelosi was not representing
the White House, how could she then give remarks on official US policy in
the Middle East?
Didnt the Bush Administration say that she did not represent the
official government in her Middle East tour? Or was she mandated to speak
officially on Lebanon, and unofficially on Syria? She then said from Beirut,
after meeting with parliamentary majority leader Saad al-Harriri, the road
to solving Lebanons problems passes through Damascus. She added
that her visit did not fall within the framework of illusions but great hope.
Amusingly, Lebanons anti-Syrian Future TV said that Pelosis trip
was intended to scold the Syrians and send them strong-worded messages
from Washington. She didnt seem to be scolding the Syrians at least not

945

on television and was very pleased with her visit to the Old City, where
she visited Umayyad Mosque, and described Damascus as wonderful.
The Americans have been searching for ways to re-engage the
Syrians in recent weeks. Pelosi in Damascus, showering the Syrians with
praise and confidence was an excellent way to do that Syria has no
ambitions in Iraq, unlike the Iranians, and has much to gain from combating
fundamentalism and refusing the partitioning of Iraq. King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia re-established his warm relations with Damascus, partly
because he realizes that the Syrians are pivotal for stability in the region.
However, by no means does the world want to end the Syrian-Iranian
alliance. On the contrary, it wants to invest in it to moderate Iranian
behaviour. Syria had announced mediation with the Iranians to set the
British sailors free. This is the testimony to what the Syrian can do to
influence Iran.
The Americans are very clear in what they want from Syria.
More is to come, the Syrians promise. They are now waiting to see what
the Americans will give back in return. The results might be seen when
Pelosi returns to Washington.
The New York Times wrote, so long as Bush continues to shun high
level discussions with this troublesome but strategically located neighbour
of Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, such Congressional visits can serve the usual
purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administrations
failed policies.
In the administrations perverse view, the only legitimate time for
negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues
Syrias support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open
border with Iraq have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the
main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a
set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place.
By initiating such talks, the administration would give itself a chance
of driving a wedge between Syria and Iran. That could strengthen
Washingtons efforts to restrain growing influence over Iraq. Further
isolating Iran might also persuade Tehran that the price of its nuclear
ambitions is too high.

946

Israel also has more to gain from talking directly with Syria. If it
wanted to, Damascus could curb arms supplies to Hezbollah fighters in
Lebanon and agree to a just peace on the Golan frontier. And if Syria chose
not to take these necessary steps, it would get blame it deserved.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
Nuclear row with Iran continued. On 12th March, Khatami urged
Tehran to compromise on nuclear issue. The same day, a British think-tank
opined that attack on Iran would have dire impact on Israel. Three days
later, six major powers agreed on imposing new sanctions on Iran and the
US opposed Iranian gas pipeline to India.
On 24th March, UNSC unanimously approved a resolution imposing
new sanctions on Iran. Next day, Iran cut cooperation with IAEA in
retaliation to fresh sanctions. On 27th March, two US naval fleets held war
games in the Persian Gulf. Pentagon said the exercises were meant for
reassuring allies and not aimed at confrontation with Iran.
Iran rejected conditional talks on nuclear issue. On 8 th April, Iranian
Foreign Minister said Iran had no plans to meet with US officials on the
sidelines of the next conference in Iraq. Tehran once again ruled out
suspension of its nuclear activities. Next day, Ahmedinejad announced that
Iran was producing enriched uranium on an industrial scale and he vowed to
defend Irans nuclear rights to the end. On 10 th April, Iran planned to further
expand its uranium enrichment programme.
On 23rd March, the events took unexpected turn when Iran detained a
group of British sailors who violated limits of Iranian territorial waters. Next
day, British sailors admitted illegal entry into Iranian waters. On 28th April,
Britain suspended contacts with Iran. Iran agreed to release women sailor.
Iran threatened on 31st March to start legal proceedings against sailors.
Britain insisted that they were captured from Iraqi waters and Bush termed it
an unforgivable act. Next day, protesters stoned British Embassy in Tehran
and demanded legal action against the sailors.
Britain said it was in contact with Iran on sailors issue. Iran
confirmed direct talks with UK. On 3 rd April, the US released Iranian
diplomat who had been held in Iraq some times back. Next day, Iran freed
947

captured British sailors while Ahmadinejad said Britain should have

apologized trespassing Iranian waters. Blair welcomed release of sailors and
thanked some Arab countries for their help.
On reaching home on 6th April, British sailors retracted from their
earlier statements. They said they were caught from outside Iranian waters
and were mistreated by Iranians. Next day, Tehran denied reports of
mistreatment of British sailors and instead; the freed Iranian diplomat said
he was tortured by his captors; the US denied.
On 9th April, British woman sailor told of Iranian threats. She has not
yet blamed Iranians of indecent behaviour like that Americans in Abu
Ghraib. Iran showed new footage of relaxing Britons. Two days later, Iran
showed footage of the wounds, as sign of torture, of an Iranian diplomat
who was released after two-month captivity in Iraq. Tehran linked
attendance in Iraq moot to release of its diplomats. Washington ruled out
freeing the Iranian diplomats held in Iraq.
The Japan Times commented on imposition of sanctions against Iran
over its nuclear programme. The vote is a proper step forward an
escalation of pressure but Irans continuing defiance means the world had
better be ready for, and prepared to respond to, more provocations from
Tehran.
There is a simple solution to this standoff. Iran can live up to its
international obligations and let the IAEA an instrument of the
international community and the UN itself do its job. A thorough
inspection of Iranian facilities is not a concession on Tehrans part: It is
required by its signature on the NPT. Failure to permit the IAEA to do that
risks undermining the global non-proliferation order.
More important, a failure by the Security Council to respond more
forcefully to this danger will do great harm to the UN itself. It will
convince other nations that the UN will not respond to governments that
challenge international peace and security. If the UN will not act, then they
will take it upon themselves. That is a recipe for international anarchy.
John Damien opined: It is no secret that the US Government wants
regime change in Tehran. Their problem is the inability of US military,
economic or diplomatic power to deliver The only feasible means of

948

damaging the political stability of the clerical regime is by attacking the

Iranian economy.
Stopping Iranian oil exports is an easy thing to do militarily. One
simply destroys the export facilities. Unfortunately, it could take years to
rebuild those facilities. If a new government were to take power in Tehran, a
lack of ability to export oil would become acutely inconvenient for
everyone. Better to find a way that allows the US to turn the exports on
and off at will. Indicting Iranian bound tankers would be ideal as virtually
all Iranian oil exports pass through the Straits Occupying several key
islands astride the shipping lanes themselves would be ideal.
Three such islands exist. Tunb al-Sughra, Tunb al-Kubra and Abu
Musa are small islands astride the shipping lanes on the Gulf side of the
Strait. Abu Musa rises to a height of 100m, giving an excellent view from
Bandar-e-Lengeh on the Iranian coast to Dubai in the south. Abu Musa and
al-Kubra have airstrips. The islands are claimed by both the UAE and Iran.
Iran has occupied the islands since the 1970s. The issue is an ongoing
concern of both UAE and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The UAE has taken
the matter to the World Court and the UN. In other words, a pretext to
capture these islands is in place.
The Navy and Marines would have to flush out possibly thousands of
anti-ship missiles stored in the surrounding area. Those operations would
involve landings by Marines and Special Forces. But they couldnt stay, and
they wouldnt want to. However, in the case of the Tunb islands, it can stay
if the UAE invites it to do so. There are no hostile locals to police and none
of the complications found in Iraq. If imperial dreams still haunt the sleep
of George Bush, then permanent US control of the Strait of Hormuz is
in the cards.
Tehran stood its ground as was evident Mottakis interview. De
Spiegel asked: Isnt it a serious mistake to underestimate the USs resolve?
Saddam Hussein experienced that first-hand. Mottaki replied: We
underestimate neither the US nor the Iranian people.
Spiegel: Does this mean that you would be prepared for an attack on
your nuclear plants? Mottaki replied: From the very start, we have
prepared ourselves for both a solution at the negotiating table and a
confrontation. Naturally we prefer the first option. We hate war. But we
also view resistance as our obligation.
949

About Iranian nuclear plan, Mottaki said: There have certainly been
some open questions with respect to the past. However, our current work on
the nuclear program is completely transparent. There are absolutely no
deviations from this program We are willing to answer all further
questions concerning the past and will provide the necessary assurances
and guarantees for possible future problems.
Spiegel asked: Could you imagine, as a compromise, negotiations
over outsourcing uranium enrichment to another country? Mottaki replied:
If we consider the history of treaties with other countries, then we have
serious doubts about that. He added, We cannot invest billions of dollars
in our nuclear power plants and then rely on the help of other nations to
produce and supply the fuel.
Simon Tisdall opined that Iran by taking a tough stance has helped
Israel. To say Iran has become an obsession for Israeli leaders is an
understatement. Tehrans sinister hand is seen in all the key problems facing
the country, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, and in
the fostering of what Professor Rubinstein calls Israels sense of
abandonment surrounded by a rising sea of Islamism What is termed the
Ahmadinejad phenomenon, after Irans anti-Zionist president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, represents by common agreement an existential threat. It is
radically altering the way Israel views its neighbourhood.
One result has been the effective downgrading of the Palestinian
issue. Officials welcome the latest US peacemaking efforts. But they say
ongoing low-level conflict can be managed almost indefinitely. Similarly,
Israels relations with Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, have
reached a sort of high in recent months, driven not by a developing affinity,
but by shared fear of Iran.
But perhaps the most startling shift of Israels outlook is its
increased willingness to internationalize the search for solutions,
whether in Lebanon, where it agreed to an enlarged peacekeeping presence
after last summers war, in Palestine, where it has sought EU and other help
in isolating Hamas, and in terms of improving relations with the UN.
Christoph Bertram wrote, there is a wise American saying: If you
are in a hole, stop digging. The six governments that are considering the
next steps to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb should heed that
advice.
950

Their condition for negotiating with Iran is a prior halt of its nuclear
enrichment activities. Only in exchange for Irans permanent renunciation of
enrichment will they provide major rewards from lifting all sanctions
and trade restrictions to security guarantees.
Tougher economic sanctions will not force Iran to comply; instead,
sanctions will merely hit this oil and gas-rich countrys trading partners.
More threats will only push the international community further along
the spiral of escalation and, possibly, into military action.
If six governments want to avoid the escalation spiral and curb the
proliferation dynamics, they need to change strategy and objective. Instead
of making a halt to uranium enrichment the be-all and end-all of their effort,
their central objective should be to subject the Iranian activities to as
much verification as possible.
James G Abourezk observed that the US media was guilty of blindly
supporting Bush. As we witness George W Bush almost on a daily basis
threatening to go to war with Iran over the nuclear issue, much of the
mainstream media has acted solely as his megaphone. There is not one
word said by anyone in the media about the willingness of Syria and Iran to
give up nuclear weapons. The catch here of course is that Israel would have
to disarm as well, which is why both the Bush Administration and the media
either have scoffed at, or have ignored completely the offer by these two
countries.
Most of the critics focused on the incident in which Blairs best in the
world entered territorial waters of an evil regime. The adventurous British
sailors were captured by the forces of evil. This forced Blair to run from
pillar to post.
Western media and analyst generally ignored the fact that British
sailors had committed a violation and instead blamed Iran for taking the
innocent sailors as hostage. Max Hastings wrote, the Iranians seem to
have planned this operation for days; probably, to exchange for their own
people held by the Americans, and would have been untroubled by a fire
fight. This statement creates an impression as if patrolling programme of
British sailors was prepared in Tehran.
In international relations, a reputation for recklessness has its
advantages. Iran is governed by people who seek to make mischief for
951

the West, and are largely indifferent to its consequences. More than that,
because of Iraq the British position is nowhere near as strong as it should be
in haggling to get its people back.
Whatever angry noises are being made by Britain, in many countries
this incident is regarded with indifference, or worse. Their governments and
peoples believe that our forces have no business in the Shatt-al-Arab in the
first place. Here is a new manifestation of the loss of moral authority
resulting from the Iraq policies of George Bush and Tony Blair.
In Tehran today it is likely that fierce exchanges are taking place
between the leadership factions about what to do next with their captives.
The likelihood is that, after extracting every ounce of perceived propaganda
advantage from their humiliation, Ahmadinejad will release them
Meanwhile, it appears simply another milestone on the rock-strewn path
trodden by Iran and the West for almost 30 years.
Ignore for a moment the prisoner seizure, a mere symptom of a
mindset. The fundamental issues are Irans commitment to terrorism, to
the destruction of Israel, and to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As long
as these persist, relations between Washington, London and Tehran will
remain glacial.
Pyotr Goncharov was of the view that Iran is a master of political
manoeuvring. Many experts have quoted the recent seizure of the Royal
Navy personnel as an example. In its unusual manner, Tehran has availed
itself of an opportunity to escalate tensions. But this time its manoeuvre
has failed. For the first time ever, the Security Council has unanimously
voted for tougher sanctions against Tehran. Maybe this will compel Iran to
think whether it should rush into war. One may not agree, because the
sanctions would have come even if there was no capture of British sailors.
Washington Post opined, Ahmadinejad and Irans hard-line
Revolutionary Guard Corps were the clearest winners in the affair. They
carried out an illegal attack against a major Western power and got
away with it. They recouped some prestige following recent reverses in Iraq
and in Irans domestic politics and they may have extracted some
concessions from their enemies
Meanwhile, the release of the captives prompted a predictable debate
in the West. Those who insist that dialogue and engagement should be the

952

only means of dealing with the Islamic regime cited the sailors release as
proof that quiet diplomacy can work We share those hopes. Yet the rosy
analyses play down the salient fact of the sailors case; Iran showed it
remains prepared to take aggressive and illegal action to defend its
nuclear program and other Revolutionary Guard interests.
Trita Parsi observed: From the outset, the British authorities have
insisted in stark categorical terms that the sailors were in Iraqi and not
Iranian waters. On Wednesday, the British produced GPS coordinates to
support their claim, even though the coordinates were from a helicopter that
London says hovered over the Indian ship that the sailors had inspected, and
not the GPS coordinates of the sailors themselves.
Iran was quick to produce its own evidence. The GPS unit of one of
the British sailors, confiscated by the Iranian authorities, shows that the
British were not only in Iranian waters at the time of the incident, but
that they had crossed over into Iranian waters on five earlier occasions
as well, according to Tehran.
Whether the British were in Iranian waters or not and whether the
Iranians believe the British were in Iranian waters or not, Tehran seems to
be using the incident to regain leverage over the West in confrontation
over its nuclear programme and its rising power and influence in the Middle
East.
Rather than an act of desperation resulting from the onslaught of
Western pressure, as some in Washington have interpreted Irans actions, the
arrest of the British sailors may have been a calculated measure to fight
fire with fire but without targeting the US directly.
The revelation of what Tehran says is the second letter by the sole
female sailor among the Brits, Faye Turney, seems to support this
interpretation. The letter concludes with a call by Turney for British troops
to leave Iraq The letters linking of the seizure of sailors with the larger
political disputes in the region lends support to the interpretation that Iran is,
at least at this stage of the dispute, seeking to regain the leverage it lost when
the US begin targeting Iranian officials in Iraq.
Iran may feel justified in responding to Washingtons pressure tactics
by targeting British troops in the narrow waterways between Iraq and Iran.
But its difficult to see an end to this duel for leverage. If Iran gets the

953

upper hand, Washington may further raise the stakes and embark on a
new set of provocative actions. And Washington regains the edge over Iraq;
chances are Tehran will respond in kind.
As each side increases the stakes in an effort to gain the upper hand
in a potential future negotiation, tensions in the region increase, as does the
risk for an uncontrollable escalation. Rather than improving their
negotiation positions, both sides are closing the diplomatic window,
through this risky game of one-upmanship.
Patrick Cockburn opined that Iran had reacted to an earlier evil action
of the US forces. A failed US attempt to abduct two senior Iranian
security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting
pistol for a crisis that ten weeks later led to Iranian seizing 15 British sailors
and marines Early in the morning of 11 January helicopter-borne US
forces launched a surprise raid on a long established Iranian liaison office in
the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior
Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still
holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The
Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing
the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian
security establishment.
The attempt by the US to seize two senior Iranian security officers
openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap
the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a
neighbouring Iran such as Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President Bush
making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: Iran
is providing material support for attacks on American troops. He identified
Iran and Syria as Americas main enemies in Iraq though the four-year old
guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly antiIranian Sunni Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US
allegations asking: So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide
bombers in the war-battered country?
Kathleem Parker looked at this episode from a different angle;
enrolment of women in armed forces, unfortunately some Muslim nations

954

have also started aping that. Not only does the Iranian president get to look
magnanimous in releasing the hostages, but he gets to look wise. And we in
the West get to look humiliated, foolish and weak.
Just because we may not feel humiliated doesnt mean were not. In
the eyes of Iran and other Muslim nations, were wimps. While the West
puts mothers in boats with rough men, Muslim men rescue women and
drape them in hijabs.
We can debate whether theyre right until all our boys wear aprons,
but it wont change the way were perceived. The propaganda value Iran
gained from its lone female hostage, the mother of a 3-year-old, was
incalculable.
Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so
that women can pretend to be men remains a mystery to sane adults. It
should be unnecessary to say that the military is not a proper vehicle for
social experimentation but is a machine dedicated to fighting and, if
necessary, killing.
But lets assume for the sake of argument that women, despite all
evidence to the contrary, are as capable as men in any battle. If our goal is to
prevail, shouldnt we also consider other ramifications of putting women
in combat and other positions of risk?
Comments from the Arab World had tinge of historic malaise for
Ajamis. Khaleej Times wrote, in all likelihood, the move came after much
deliberation in Tehran and also as a counter to the Americans holding
Iranians inside Iraq. Meant to gain political leverage at a time when
international opinion is stacked up against Western presence in the Gulf, the
Iranians apparently planned to time it right holding them just long
enough to gain a few points.
Continued defiance will quickly mount international pressure
against Iran and also erode some of that feeling of ill towards the
occupying forces that the Iranian position was looking to exploit to begin
with. Therefore, since Tehran is likely to come round to releasing the
persons eventually, it would save more face by doing so before international
opinion continues to mount against its stance.

955

With the uproar about its nuclear programme and the subsequent
sanctions, the standoff on the prisoner matter will only harden a combined
Western stance against Iran. Therefore, in the interest of all parties
concerned, especially the Iranian people, it is advised that the government
in Tehran incorporate more elasticity in its position on core matters of
dispute with the West.
Arab News urged, Iran should allow a British delegation or a human
rights organization to see the sailors and should consider granting consular
access to them. Tehran should also stop televising some of the sailors
allegedly confessing to, and apologizing for their transgressions, since this
can only fuel anti-Iranian sentiments in Britain and elsewhere.
What started out as an incident that could have been resolved right
then and there is now in its 11th day and has been growing into a major
confrontation. The affair is no longer bilateral as the Iranian Foreign
Ministry claims or perhaps wishes but has involved the UN, the EU and
now the US, plus several neighbouring (Arab) countries.
This episode was widely discussed in Pakistan which showed that
people closely link the destiny of two neighbouring Muslim nations. Shireen
M Mazari wrote: To hear the British media and government it would
appear as if Iran had done something illegal but the fact is that it is
Irans right to protect its territorial waters especially against threatening
vessels which UK naval vessels are, given the military built up in the Persian
Gulf and warlike posturing by the US and its British ally in the coalition of
the willing that invaded Iraq. Not for one moment did the British
contemplate that their sailors could have strayed or deliberately gone into
Iranian waters after all the British cannot make such mistakes, despite
historical record to the contrary. There is an arrogance that smacks of
imperialism in the way the British have been demanding the sailors release
instead of an admission that their men could be in the wrong.
As for Iran, are they adopting too uncompromising a posture? Not
when one sees how the US is building up its naval strike forces in the
Gulf In any event, within this milieu, Irans hard line is
understandable especially in the context of British sailors because Iran
has experienced an earlier trauma when the US guided missile cruiser
USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airplane on a regular flight to Dubai
Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 innocent people, including 66 children. At
the time, the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters, but such niceties of
956

international law that maintain a semblance of order in a system of sovereign

states are hardly a matter of concern for the US, which seems to regard
collateral damage in terms of foreign civilian lives as a mere statistic.
In the present scenario related to the arrested British sailors, what is
equally disturbing is the manner in which the EU has also demanded
that Iran release the British sailors immediately. Surely, they should first
verify the situation because if the Iranian position is correct, then its actions
are justifiable. Instead, the EU has adopted a rather imperial tone in the
manner in which it addressed the sovereign state of Iran. But then there is a
resurgence of imperialism presently and countries like Pakistan and Iran are
being targeted.
Zain Mankani from Karachi opined that the reaction to the detention
of fifteen British Navy sailors by Iran has exposed new levels of hypocrisy
in the international community. Firstly, it is ironic that there is so much
of hue and cry over the detention of the sailors who illegally entered Iranian
waters, but there is no protest at this level against the detention of innocent
people held without charge by the US for years.
Furthermore, it is strange indeed that the international community
has condemned Iran for airing footage of British sailor Faye Turney reading
the letter in which she apologized to the Iranian people for trespassing. The
British government has expressed concern over signs of coercion in this
regard. Such is the reaction now, whereas only a few days ago the Pentagon
released the alleged confession statement of Khaled Shaikh Mohammad, the
supposed master-mind of 9/11, which was in all probability extracted under
severe torture.
The News wrote: What is less obvious is that the return of the 15
British sailors and marines is a triumph of behind the scenes dialogue in
which the most prominent figures were Democratic House of
Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi and Syrian president Bashar Assad,
the alleged sponsor of terrorism and mischief in Lebanon and the Middle
East.
Ali Larijani, Irans hard-liner chief negotiator on the nuclear
question, was another key link. The development is, therefore, an
embarrassment for Washington, which came up with a grudging
welcome announcement of the detainees release by Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday. While British Prime Minister Tony
957

Blair expressed profound relief over the release, US Vice President Dick
Cheney insisted it was unfortunate (that the Britons) were ever taken in the
first place.
The freed British crewmembers profuse thanks to President
Ahmadinejad we apologize for our actions, said one, I can understand
why youre insulted by the intrusion, said another bear out Irans
position that the warship had entered its territorial waters. It isnt that
they were bribed or pressured into the admission. Much less tortured: its
Tehran, not Guantanamo or Bagram.
Nasim Zehra was of the view that diplomacy has saved the day.
Ratcheting up the rhetoric and remaining unmindful of the consequences
would have created a battle context in an already warring region. It is a
region whose vast areas are already exploding under the weight of the
external occupation and the internal political and social contradictions.
Resolving these events which are in fact the manifestations of this
underlying crisis without addressing the fundamental problems will simply
lead to increased destabilization of the region.
The silver lining to the UK-Iran crisis is that in its drop scene the
indispensability of dialogue as the primary instrument of dispute settlement
is affirmed. The sailors crisis again establishes dialogue as the only mode of
dispute settlement. More importantly it demonstrates that in times of
hegemony, assertion of sovereignty requires a determined attitude by the
state. Significantly Tehran did not blink on the fundamental.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal commented: What turned out to be a non-issue in
the end was, nevertheless, an important show of wits between Iran and
Britain a sort of overt manifestation of a new reality one could not have
even imagined a few years ago.
The actual location of the sailors at the time of their arrest is,
however, not the real point in this psychological war. The real conflict is
between a country which has not yet recognized that the days of its empire
have passed and a country that has regained its self-respect through a
revolutionary effort of unprecedented nature in modern history.
The Western world in general and Britain and the United States in
particular cannot understand why countries like Iran and Venezuela are no
longer afraid of them. They cannot understand that people in these countries

958

have suffered so much and for so long that they are no more afraid of
anyones terror of shock and awe.
One of the most important and often forgotten processes through
which Iranians have regained a new degree of self-confidence not to be
seen anywhere in the Muslim World is the rekindling of hope. What
Imam Khomeini did for Iran was not merely the overthrow of a dictator; his
most important contribution to Iranian history is this rekindling of hope. He
did this through a passionate recall of the historic role of Islam.
This strength and confidence is perhaps unimaginable for those who
base their might and power on cruise missiles and daisy cutters. This otherworldly source of confidence makes the gadgets of the worlds most
advanced armies mere toys. No one can threaten people who are not afraid
of dying.
The British sailors have gone home, but will Britain change its
attitude toward Iran? Will Blair, Bush and their kin recognize the new
historical reality that is taking shape around the world? Will they stop
their misadventures? They are carrying blood of thousands on their hands.
Will they recognize their misdeed in Iraq, where millions of human beings
are suffering because of what they have done?
Even The Hindu was critical of Wests attitude. Had the wider
military circumstances prevailing in the Persian Gulf not been so tense, the
world might have been more receptive to Britains claims that Iran has acted
wrongly in detaining 15 British service personnel for violating its territorial
waters. But the harsh reality is that Britain and the United States are in
illegitimate military occupation of two of Irans neighbours Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Over the past year, Iran has repeatedly complained over naval
and air intrusions by the two western powers. Terrorists have also staged
attacks across the border inside Iran. Under the circumstances, it is hardly
surprising that Iranian patience should be wearing thin. Iran was within its
rights to detain the crew and seek assurances that there will be no further
violations of the countrys sovereignty in future.
Blair showed all the judgment of a schoolboy in rushing with his
complaint to the United Nations Security Council Instead of raking up a
pointless controversy over why the Iranians released television footage of

959

their British captives one can only imagine the hysteria that would have
been generated about their safety in the absence of such footage Blair
should get off his high horse. The just course, an apology to Iran, is too
much to expect from those who have been engaged overtime in demonizing
the rulers of that country. But at the very least, Blair must quietly
acknowledge the possibility of his country being in the wrong.
At the end excerpts from an article written by Abbas Edalat are
reproduced. In 2004, a similar incursion involving British service
personnel in Iranian territorial waters was resolved in a matter of days,
with the guarantees that such incursion would not occur in future. Tehran has
certainly sought similar assurances over the past 13 days, which is
reasonable given the long history of British imperial domination in Iran in
the 19th century.
Tony Blair effectively dismissed the possibility of conventional
approach by announcing that there would be no negotiations and
suspending trade and diplomatic relations. Irans offer to release Faye
Turney was then sabotaged by the British government, which hastily
involved the UN Security Council and the EU, unprecedented in a case,
which could and should be resolved bilaterally.
The governments heavy-handed approach can only be explained in
the context of the US drive for regime change in Iran, which Blair has
supported for more than a year. The US and UK, prodded by Israel, have
been systematically pursuing a multi-pronged strategy to demonize and
isolate Iran.
Ahmadinejads decision to release the British detainees was a sign
of strength, and he further stated that he would be willing to reconsider ties
with Washington were President Bush to change his behaviour The UK
and other governments must pressure the US to drop its pre-condition of
suspension of Irans legal right to uranium enrichment, and enter into
negotiations on all points of conflict.

CONCLUSION
The continued bloodshed in Iraq shows that Bush Administration has
withstood the pressure exerted by its critics. The critics of war seemed to

960

have lost hope of seeing any change in the US policy. They seemed to be
now waiting for January 2009 when Bush would leave the White House.
The formation of unity government has brought no respite for the
long-suffering people of Palestine. Miseries of Palestinians are likely to
persist, primarily because of the unjust attitude of Israel and its backers, who
have now lost trust even in ever faithful Mahmoud Abbas.
By capturing the trespassers, Iran has amply demonstrated its will to
protect its sovereignty. And in doing that it has once against exposed the
hypocrisy of the West. Only the civilized world can afford to be so
shameless in shifting the blame onto others.
12th April 2007

961

SPRING OFFENSIVE
Throughout the winter the occupation forces have been raising alarm
about the so-called imminent Spring-offensive. The United States carried out
a quiet surge and raised the force level to 24,000, which is more than ever
since the induction of European peacekeepers.
Apart from the induction of additional US forces, Washington kept
pressing its NATO allies to send as many additional troops as possible. The
US also released weapons and equipment to improve efficiency of the
Afghan police and army.
Simultaneously with the above moves, the US, Europe and the puppet
regime in Kabul kept pressing Pakistan to induct more troops in its tribal
areas bordering Afghanistan. But, more than half of the month of April has
passed and there are no signs of Taliban offensive. Instead, the occupation
forces have been on the rampage making indiscriminate use its air power.
Certainly, this was the Spring-offensive they had been talking about.

INSURGENCY
During the last three months, insurgency in Pashtun provinces of
Afghanistan continued with fluctuating intensity. Ten persons were killed on
23rd January in suicide attack outside NATO base in Khost. Two days later,
Taliban killed an official in Khost. A vehicle carrying supplies for NATO
forces was attacked and damaged in Kandahar. A senior Taliban leader was
reportedly killed in an air strike in Helmand.
Taliban fighters killed a police officer and another man in Kandahar
City on 26th January. Two days later, son-in-law of former Afghan president
Rabbani was shot dead in Kabul.
NATO warplanes bombed a hideout in Helmand and killed 30
suspected Taliban during Ashura. Suicide bombers attacked in Torkham and
Herat; three soldiers and two civilians were wounded in second attack. A
policeman was killed and two wounded in a clash in Kandahar province.
Eleven Afghan soldiers were killed in attack in Farah province. A contractor
was killed and three persons wounded in Taliban attack in Kunar. Two
people were killed in roadside bombing in Panjwai district and in similar
962

attack employees of a Chinese construction company were targeted in

Faryab province.
Two Pakistanis were among 12 held in Ghazni province on 1 st
February. Taliban recaptured Musa Qala. Three days later, NATO forces
claimed killing a top Taliban commander in a precision strike in Musa Qala.
On 5th February, Taliban were warned by occupation forces to vacate
Musa Qala. Two days later, two bomb attacks in Kandahar province killed
six Afghan security personnel and three more were killed in Herat while
defusing a bomb. Coalition forces claimed capturing two al-Qaeda men in
Nangarhar. Three local workers of a construction company were kidnapped
in Uruzgan province. Taliban ruled out fresh talks on Musa Qala.
The US-led forces claimed killing two militants in Zabul province on
8 February. Two days later, Taliban killed four policemen and wounded
three in Kandahar province. NATO forces used gunship helicopters in an
operation in Helmand province and killed 15 Taliban on 12th February. Seven
suspects were killed in another operation.
th

NATO forces claimed killing 11 Taliban, including a commander, in

air strike in Musa Qala area on 14th February. Taliban vowed to launch
biggest ever offensive during spring season.
US troops killed one suspected militant and detained six in a raid near
Jalalabad on 16th February. Taliban executed five persons in Helmand for
spying for the US and two were executed in Kunar province. Next day,
NATO soldiers fearing a suicide bomber attack shot and killed an Afghan
when he ran between vehicles in a convoy near Kandahar.
A Chinook helicopter crashed in Zabul on 18th February killing 8 US
soldiers and wounding 14 more. Thirteen Canadian soldiers were injured in
vehicular pile-up in Kandahar. Gunmen killed five people in Paktia. British
troops claimed destroying three terrorist compounds in air strike in Helmand
and Afghan soldiers claimed arresting 11 Taliban at a checkpoint. In Faryab,
a translator working with German troops was shot dead. Two policemen
were killed in Farah province.
NATO commander rejected reports about Taliban offensive. Two
people were killed and 13 wounded when protesting auto-rickshaw drivers

963

clashed with police in Herat on 19th February. Taliban captured a district of

Farah province.
One Spanish soldier was killed and two wounded in Herat on 21 st
February. One NATO soldier was killed in southern Afghanistan. One
British and three Afghan journalists working for al-Jazeera were held
overnight by Taliban in southern Afghanistan and then released. Next day,
six people were killed and four wounded in an explosion in Kandahar. One
ISAF soldier was killed in Kunar province.
Amnesty International condemned Canadian troops for torture of
detainees and human rights violations. Taliban fighters set three oil tankers
on fire in Khost on 24th February and an employee of Customs was
kidnapped. Two days later, a policeman was killed and seven people
wounded in a suicide attack in Khost.
A suicide bomber attacked at the gate of Bagram airbase on 27 th
February killing 23 people, including three belonging to the occupation
forces. Dick Cheney, who was staying in the base, was temporarily shifted to
underground shelter. Occupation forces killed three civilians in Kandahar.
On 28th February, Afghan police killed one and wounded another
when they opened fire on people protesting against destruction of poppy
crops. Taliban named the suicide bomber who struck outside the Bagram
airbase as Abur Rahim from Logar province. Next day, three persons were
killed and 53 wounded in a bomb blast in Farah province.
Two persons were killed and 53 wounded in a bomb blast in Farah
province on 1st March. Next day, NATO forces claimed killing 12 Taliban in
a clash in Zabul. Two days later, the US troops killed 16 Afgan civilians
(later the figure was revised to 8) in self-protection after their convoy was
ambushed near Jalalabad.
Nine persons were killed in Kapisa province in air strike on 5 th March.
Taliban arrested a Brit and two others in Helmand province. The US military
erased footage of killings in Nangarhar province and justified the erasing on
the basis of extreme circumstances.
Next day, NATO launched the much hyped spring offensive in
southern Helmand province; 4,500 NATO troops and 1,000 Afghan soldiers

964

participated. Hundreds of Afghans protested in Jalalabad and Kabul over

killing of civilians by the US.
Coalition forces killed nine Taliban suspects in two separate incidents
in Helmand province on 7th March. Taliban commander Mulla Mahmood
was arrested at a checkpoint in southern Afghanistan. Colleagues of
abducted Italian journalist established contact with Taliban, but the captors
insisted that the captive was a spy. Provincial council condemned civilian
killings near Jalalabad.
Gunmen shot dead a German aid worker on 8 th March in Northern
Province of Sari Pul. Next day, Taliban demanded release of three of their
spokesmen held by Afghan authorities in return for release of Italian
journalist.
Seventeen people were killed in Taliban attacks in Ghazni and Khost
provinces. Four people were killed in Ghor province. Arrest of clerics
sparked protests in Nangarhar. Seven people were killed on 11 th March. Next
day, ten policemen were killed in Farah in roadside bombing on 12 th March.
Five civilians were killed in Kandahar province in an air strike.
A governor was killed in an ambush in Faryab province and 12 others
were killed in different incidents on 14th March. Next day, kidnapped Italian
journalist begged for life as Taliban deadline loomed. Five Afghan
policemen were killed and six were missing in Helmand province on 16 th
March, when NATO forces attacked their post mistaking it as a Taliban
camp. Three persons were wounded in a suicide attack in Kunar province.
Militants fired rockets on Afghan and coalition troops in Kapisa
province on 17th March. Taliban cut ears of four truck drivers as punishment
for supplying goods to a US base. UN called for release of Italian reporter.
Next day, two policemen were killed in a clash in Farah province. A UN
mine-clearer was wounded in an ambush north of Kabul. Taliban released
Italian reporter.
On 19th March, several people were injured when three vehicles of US
embassy were attacked by a car bomb. Five Taliban were freed in return for
Italian journalist. Next day, Dadullah claimed that prisoner swap was a huge
success, three commanders and two spokesmen, including those gifted to
Karzai by Musharraf.

965

On 21st March, Afghan security forces arrested the doctor in Helmand

who had negotiated release of Italian journalist in exchange of release of
important Taliban leaders. Next day, Afghan and NATO claimed killing 40
Taliban in a clash in Helmand province. The US and UK protested over deal
with Taliban for release of Italian journalist.
Taliban toll in the ongoing operation in Helmand province rose to 69
on 23 March; 7 policemen were also killed. Elsewhere, NATO forces
opened fire on a van which tried to overtake their convoy; shot dead a child
and over-ran another.
rd

On 24th March, Taliban attacks left 21 dead in southern and

southeastern Afghanistan out of which 16 were killed in Uruzgan, 9 Taliban
were also killed. Next day, 38 Taliban were killed in various operations. On
26th March, 19 Afghan militants were killed and NATO claimed offensive
against Taliban was succeeding.
Four policemen were killed in suicide attack in Lashkargah on 27 th
March. Next day, four people were killed and 12 wounded in bomb attack in
Kabul which targeted intelligence chief. Gunmen kidnapped a medical team
in Kandahar province.
Two NATO soldiers were killed in road accident on 29 th March. Two
days later, Taliban attack on a post in Uruzgan resulted in killing of five
Afghan soldiers and eight Taliban.
Seven security personnel were killed in Taliban attack in Kandahar on
1 April. Five people were killed and seven wounded in suicide attack on a
convoy in Laghman province. Taliban announced hanging of three spies in
Musa Qala. Seven suspected Taliban were killed in air strike on 1 st April in
Zabul province and six more were killed in a clash in Kandahar province.
st

The US-led forces claimed arresting a Taliban commander in a raid in

Arghandab district of Kandahar province on 2nd April. Taliban claimed
killing seven policemen and losing two fighters in Kandahar province. Three
persons were killed in roadside bombing in Paktika.
US-led forces killed ten and captured two suspected militants in
Helmand province on 3rd April. Next day, police detained 22 people in Herat
for their involvement in suicide bombing. Nine people including five Taliban

966

and two policemen were killed on 5 th April in Khost province. Next day, five
people were killed in suicide bombing in Kabul.
On 7th April, seven people were killed when Taliban attacked a
demining team in Farah province. Afghan government confirmed kidnapping
of two French aid workers last week. NATO-led forces captured Sangin
district which had been held by Taliban for long.
On 8th April, five NATO soldiers were killed in roadside bomb attack
in southern Afghanistan. A gunman killed two people in Khost. Taliban
attacked government office in Zabul. Taliban executed Afghan journalist
held by them after the government did not agree to release some jailed
insurgents within deadline.
A Pakistani engineer was killed in Ghazni on 9th April. Next day, four
suspected Taliban were killed in air strike in Helmand province and six
people were killed in other incidents. Looting by Afghan forces was reported
from Sangin district.
On 11th April, 13 suspected Taliban were killed in US air strike in
Helmand province. Two Canadian soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in
southern Afghanistan. Next day, 35 suspected Taliban were killed in air
strike in Zabul province.
On 13th April, Taliban and NATO forces clashed in Sangin district and
38 Taliban were killed in air strike; one NATO soldier was also killed raising
the toll to 12 in one week. Chirac sought Karzais help for release of French
aid workers.
On 14th April, 13 people, including seven policemen were killed in
bomb blasts in Khost and Ghazni. Next day, ten militants were killed, one
captured and 15 wounded in an operation in Paktika. Six suspected Taliban
were killed in Helmand province. Three security guards and a driver were
killed in suicide attack in Kandahar.

OTHER ASPECTS
The United States remained in-charge of the occupation of
Afghanistan, despite the fact that responsibility of holding certain areas was
delegated to NATO forces and other willing partners. The US kept coaxing
967

the partners to send more troops. On 26th January, Rice asked allies to launch
broad campaign against Taliban.
On 4th February, US General took over NATO command in
Afghanistan. Outgoing commander, General Richards said, we have proved
that NATO can and will defeat the Taliban militarily and, come the spring,
will set the conditions to defeat the insurgents again.
In speech before the American Enterprise Institute on 15th Februay,
Bush announced deployment of more troops in Afghanistan. The institutes
head in his introductory remarks termed Bush as the man who has waged
Crusades against Islamic fascists. He was welcomed by the audience with
resounding clapping.
Pentagon confirmed that 3,200 more troops were being dispatched.
Bush also announced to raise the strength of Afghan troops to 100,000 by
the end of 2008. Subsequently, NATO countries agreed to strengthen the
coalition to combat Taliban. UK pledged 800 more troops.
Hurling accusations at neighbours was part of the offensive strategy.
Pakistan was literally a frontline state in this context. These have been
discussed in articles related to Pakistan. Despite the accusations, Robert
Gates supported Pakistans Waziristan-style accords. Surprisingly, a former
governor of Farah province also accused Iran of interference.
The Crusaders as hither-to-fore stuck to militaristic approach and
shunned dialogue. However, the puppet Karzai was allowed talks with
militants to win over some factions or groups if he could. On 29 th January,
Karzai repeated his offer of dialogue to Taliban.
On 7th February, tribal elders from eastern provinces urged
negotiations with warlords and Taliban. Two days later, Taliban refused talks
on Musa Qala. On 8th March, Hekmatyar denied that he had made any offer
of unconditional talks to Karzai. On 5th April, Spanta ruled out talks with
Taliban, though his boss had accepted having contacts with militants.
Puppet regime left the security and reconstruction of Afghanistan to
occupation forces and devoted their time and energies to pursue their
agenda. On 1st February, Afghanistans parliament, which is filled with
warlords, approved a bill ruling out judicial proceedings against men

968

accused of rights abuses in the past 25 years of conflict. Spokesman Haseeb

Noori said it was in the interests of peace and reconciliation.
Two days later, UN opposed Afghan Parliaments bill giving
immunity for war crimes. On 20th February, Afghan Upper House passed the
controversial bill granting amnesty to war criminals. Three days later,
thousands demonstrated in Kabul to support the bill that would give the
warlords amnesty for war crimes. It seemed well arranged by the
beneficiaries of the law.
Other events related to the puppets were that on 2nd February Dobbins
in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee said: Taliban
resurgence is a failure of the US and Karzai government. Karzai
occasionally condemned civilian deaths in operations carried out by the
occupation forces.
On 7th February, Dostum was accused of plotting against Karzai.
Reportedly, Afghan strongmen had formed a united front against Karzai.
After arranging the release of French men, Karzai said no more hostage
deals and acknowledged holding of meetings with Taliban. On 10th April,
Afghan government banned al-Jazeera TV programmes.
Resistance groups, apart from carrying out attacks, ensured that the
occupation forces kept feeling their presence through their contacts with
media. A Taliban commander claimed that 10,000 fighters were waiting for
winter to end to launch big attacks against the US-led coalition forces and
their puppets.
Karzai reacted to this report angrily. He did not believe that 10,000
fighters were waiting for winter to end and said: Who is this Taliban
commander Hayatullah Khan who made this claim? I have never heard his
name On 25th February, formation of a new Taliban group named after
Tora Bora by the son of Yunis Khalis was reported. Five days later, a Taliban
leader claimed that Osama is alive and in contact with Taliban.
Reconstruction of Afghanistan was almost a forgotten issue. The
only aid package reported during the period was during the visit of Nancy
Pelosi to Kabul. The donation of hundreds of armoured vehicles and trucks
to Afghan army and start of reconstruction of Helmand Airport were the two
other instances, but these had more to do with the consolidation of
occupation rather than reconstruction.

969

Corruption kept eating up whatever aid that trickled into

Afghanistan. On 18th January, Afghan AG ordered arrest of five high ranking
officials for corruption. According to some estimates half of foreign aid is
stolen by Afghan leaders. On 7th February, Mayor of Gardez and two of his
aides were detained on charges of corruption.
The menace of drugs seemed beyond control of all the concerned
quarters. The Middle East and South Asia sub-committee of the US House
Foreign Affairs was told on 8th March that Karzais brother was the largest
drug-dealer in Afghanistan.

COMMENTS
While the country debates the Bush Administrations surge of
American troops into Baghdad, a similar American buildup has begun
in Afghanistan, The Washington Post observed. As in Iraq, it comes in
response to rapidly escalating violence, and in Afghanistan, too, one
question is whether the reinforcements are too little or too late.
By extending the deployment of a brigade of the 10 th Mountain
Division even as the 82nd Airborne begins to arrive the Pentagon will bring
the US troop level to 24,000. Thats 50 percent more than at this time last
year and about six times the number of American soldiers who were in
Afghanistan at the time of the battle for Tora Bora, in early 2002.
The relative good news is that the administration is making a
significant effort to correct a situation that, though deteriorating, remains
for better than that in Iraq. In addition to the extra forces, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice announced last week that the White House would seek
$10.6 billion in new funding for Afghanistan in the upcoming supplemental
budget a huge addition to the $ 14 billion in aid that has been spent since
2001. Most of the new money would go toward a big expansion of the
Afghan army and police, which would gain 150,000 new personnel, but $2
billion would be used for aid projects in a country where millions of people
have yet to see any benefit from the government that replaced the Taliban.
Ian Black wrote about NATO countries hesitation regarding the surge.
NATO member states face a stamina problem in Afghanistan, the IISS
says, though there are grounds for optimism despite a resurgent Taliban and

970

difficulties with Pakistan. NATO will have to stay for a long time to allow
stability, which then allows reconstruction, says Christopher Langton, editor
of the 450-page report.
Afghan security problems are complicated by a weak police force
and the issue of the eradication of the poppy crop. The removal of farmers
livelihoods, with no significant incentive or replacement livelihood
programme runs counter to efforts to win hearts and minds in many areas,
the report adds.
Bruce Riedel expressed his views on this aspect in an interview to
Raza Khan. I do not think the increase so far we have seen would
resolve the whole problem but I think they (the increased number of forces)
are essential in preventing the Taliban from achieving major successes when
they launch their offensive this spring and summer.
I think NATO should ask Muslim countries to help contribute
troops to the mission today. The NATO has a dialogue with several Muslim
countries, which goes back more than a decade. (It is) called Mediterranean
Dialogue and through this arrangement the NATO representative meet
regularly with Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Jordan and I think it
would be very helpful if NATO ask its Mediterranean partners to send troops
to Afghanistan I think troops from the Muslim countries from the
Mediterranean would be one of the best ways to help move forward to
stabilize the situation and help the people of Afghanistan.
President Karzai and Parliament of Afghanistan ought to be the ones
which make the decisions on what level reconciliations should be with the
individuals that have been associated with the Taliban. I do not think that
should be an American decision or the NATO decision. And in the end, I
would leave to the people of Afghanistan.
Syed Saleem Shahzad analyzed some aspects of the spring offensive.
Conscious of the Talibans planned offensive, NATO has attempted over
the winter to draw them out prematurely, to no avail. For instance,
during NATO operations to take Baaz Tsuka in Zari and Panjwai districts
south of Kandahar, the Taliban initially pulled back, then slowly returned to
the area once the heat was off.
Musa Qala is somewhat different, though, as it is the Talibans most
important foothold in the country, from where it draws support and vital

971

supplies. Other important districts in Helmand province, such as Nawzad,

Baghran and to some extent Sangeen, are dependent on Musa Qala as a
logistical base.
If the British do launch a vigorous campaign to retake Musa
Qala, and then strengthen their presence and conduct regular patrols, either
with British or Afghan National Army troops, the Talibans activities will be
badly disrupted. Indeed, it would be a tactical disaster as far as preparations
for the spring offensive are concerned.
At this stage the Taliban simply dont want to become involved in
a serious confrontation with NATO. But even if they retreat from Musa
Qala without a fight, the peace agreement will be in tatters and they will not
be allowed the virtual free rein they had under the ceasefire. Further, should
the Taliban resist, their peace agreements in other parts of the province will
likely be scrapped.
The Taliban would therefore be forced to engage in premature battles
in the southwest, and would have to shift the focus of their spring offensive
to the southeast and east. This would diminish the impact of the offensive, as
the Talibans support base is strongest in the southwest, from where they
were relying on a domino effect to spread their offensive to other areas of
the country.
As it stands now, Musa Qala has the potential to turn southwestern
Afghanistan, including Zabul, Uruzgan, Kandahar and Helmand, into a
battlefield much sooner than anticipated. Spring could come early in
Afghanistan, and it could be a very bloody one.
That has not materialized to date; why? Rahimullah Yusufzai
explained that to some to some extent. The Taliban suffered heavy
casualties in the past when they launched big attacks with 300 to 400 men
and they are unlikely to attempt similar offensives to capture towns, districts
and provinces. There would be certainly an increase in Taliban guerrilla
attacks in the spring and summer, the traditional fighting season in
Afghanistan for the last 28 years, and one would even see some big battles
in Taliban strongholds such as Helmand, Zabul, Kandahar and Farah. But
there is little possibility that they would be attempting large offensives to
evict US and NATO forces and set up a parallel administration. The
unprecedented security that the better armed and equipped foreign and
Afghan forces are putting in place in anticipation of increased Taliban
972

attacks will also mean more suicide bombings. That is the most effective
option available with the largely resourceless Taliban fighters who are up
against a far superior enemy.
Arab News wrote, it is very different picture to the one in Iraq, all the
more so because the Taliban do not have a significant support base or the
means to launch attacks on the levels of Iraqi insurgents. All the
indications are that the Afghans all the Afghans, Pashtuns included do
not want them back. What they saw of them they do not like. They do not
like foreign troops in their country either; but if those troops can bring peace
and prosperity, most are willing to tolerate them for the short term. But
things could still go badly wrong in a country where people put tribal
loyalties way ahead of national ones. Indiscriminate air attacks on their
villages have raised Pashtun resentment of NATO forces. It would be folly to
so push them into the Talibans embrace.
Kathy Gannon opined that dependence solely on militaristic strategy
was proving counter-productive. Abdullah Shah and his son performed
Hajj this January, courtesy of the Afghan government. President Hamid
Karzai himself arranged the trip. The invitation came after Shahs wife, two
daughters and three other sons were killed by a wayward NATO bomb in
Lagarnai, a village near here in southern Afghanistan.
Shah, in his 70s and wearing the white turban of a religious man,
accepted the trip, but not the message. Before the deaths, I wasnt with the
Taliban and I wasnt with the government, he said. But, I tell you, now
I am a Talib.
In the sixth winter since the US-led ouster of the Taliban government,
the radical Islamists are making a comeback. Their bold confidence was
apparent last week, when a suicide bomber killed 23 outside an air base
during Vice President Richard Cheneys visit there.
There are many factors. But citizens like Shah, the Afghan
government and key NATO commanders agree on this: the use of force is
sometimes excessive and errant. In Afghanistans tribal society a single
death no matter if NATO labels it enemy can create scores of sworn
foes. And NATO, like the Taliban, has killed hundreds.
With the spring thaw, fighting is sure to intensify. US Defence
Secretary Robert Gates promises NATO and coalition forces will go after

973

the Taliban rather than wait for them to strike. What we want to do this
spring is have this spring offensive be our offensive, he said.
Mohammad Khan, a villager in his 50s with dirt-caked hands from
scrounging through the rubble of his home, screamed abuse when he saw a
Western approach The offensive against the Taliban left the common
people with nothing but problems, he said. We hate the world community.
We hate America. We hate NATO. What good are they doing for us? What
good is our government doing?
Some, like Abdullah Shah, who lost so much of his family, cant be
won back. I dont care. They can kill me. What are the foreign soldiers
doing but killing us? He said, recounting the day his wife and children were
struck as they tried to flee. His youngest child, a ten-month-old baby, died
with his mother. From whom can they protect us? The looter? The
looters are the government and they are with the government.
Jason Straziuso wrote about one of the recent brutalities of the US
troops. The high number of casualties and fresh accusations that the
Marines fired on civilians along miles of highway (in Nangarhar) have
sparked rage everywhere from dusty streets to the halls of Parliament,
threatening to turn the support of wavering Afghans against US and NATO
troops and, more ominously, President Hamid Karzais fledgling Westernbacked government.
Chris Sands talked about the incompetence of the puppet regime.
Talks of gangs dressed in police uniforms smashing into houses and killing
the residents is surfacing in Kabul. Threats against the population are
spouted in the open now, not whispered behind closed doors. Devout young
men complain about alcohol and prostitution being easily available, calling
them direct attack on Islam and a reason to join the insurgency. Across the
country people say the government is powerless and corrupt, the
parliament ruled by warlords. They wonder when the development they
were promised will actually start.
Last Autumn an official at a large Western NGO told me he would
not be surprised if the situation gets so bad all foreigners have to leave
within a year or two. His colleague, who was tasked with helping plan the
groups potential evacuation, feared the airport in Kabul would be
inaccessible when the time came to flee.

974

Even the press statements sent out by the NATO-led ISAF during
recent weeks occasionally hint at reality. Each tragedy will be bitterly
remembered by a population still waiting for the peace, prosperity and
freedom it is meant to have.
To growing number of Afghans, the NATO-led forces are an
enemy similar to the Russians who tore this country apart in the 1980s.
People even blame suicide attacks directly or indirectly on the soldiers.
The puppet regime was focused on something important for it.
Richard May identified the reasons as to why Karzai should sign the new
law on war crimes. First, while most international groups feel that the
law is simply about absolving the most violent warlords, the fact is that
almost all Afghans have blood on their hands. In a country that has been
enmeshed in war for more than 25 years it is hard to find people who have
not taken up arms at some point of their live.
Second, political participation like the pro-amnesty rally is a good
sign for the future When the people of a country that has experienced
only war and tyranny for 25 years feel free to go to the streets to have their
voices heard, democracy is working.
Third, the rejection of the amnesty law could easily turn the
people against the government and the coalition forces that operate in
Afghanistan. Should Mr Karzai refuse to sign, it would convince many
Afghans that their government is more interested in the views of the
international community than that of its own people. Here the word people
represents warlords only and Karzai cannot afford their enmity.
Fourth, calls for justice tend to ignore the reality of the civil war.
When Westerners hear the term warlord they think of tyrannical criminals
who are self-serving instruments of death. But in Afghanistan things are
more complex. Most warlords came to power protecting their families, clans
and land from Soviet troops.
Out of the neighbours, Pakistan remained the favourite whipping boy.
Bruce Riedel, like many others, said: Pakistan has to play an important
role here as it has far too long tolerated Taliban and al-Qaeda activity in
its territory, especially Taliban activity. I think the NATO alliance needs to
encourage Pakistan to cease providing a safe heaven for the Taliban. I see
some of the US officials who have recently visited Pakistan have done so

975

Obviously, no one in Pakistan liked this. The News wrote with

reference to attack on Bagram Base. The immediate lesson from the failed
assassination is for the American and Afghans to put good measures in place
at least to safeguard the safety of their visiting leaders. But the incident
carries a more fundamental warning. Rather than accusing, and then
turning the screw on Pakistan in various ways for its alleged failings, the
US will have to make its military operations against terrorism really
effective.
More important, it should put some pressure on Mr Karzais
government for a change, to demand that it stand up to the Taliban on its
territory, rather than having its soldiers fire at Pakistani Army and Frontier
Constabulary posts. As for Islamabad, one has to admit that the future
does not look too bright, as far as its valiant-but-hardly-ever-appreciated
effort in fighting the Taliban is concerned.
Narita Farhan opined, while Afghanistan is passing through a phase
of uncertainty because of decades of violence and civil war, Pakistan is also
not stable because of political wrangling and other critical issues ranging
from water, to sectarian and ethnic discords. Major structural changes will
be required in policies particularly on political, economic and security
matters; if Pakistan and Afghanistan wish to live like friendly neighbours.
It is better for the war-torn country to concentrate more on its internal
situation, stabilize it first and then think of holding others responsible for its
own follies. Corruption, drugs and whatever is there, is an Afghan
problem and therefore the Afghans should not blame Pakistan. This
blame game must end.
Simon Tisdall observed: Egged on by the White House Mr Cheney
urged Gen Musharraf to do more to crack down on militants in tribal areas
such as North Waziristan. Gen Musharraf replied, as he has before, that he
was doing the maximum Pakistani impatience with US pressure
tactics is increasing, too. Officials say they are being blamed for the Wests
problems in Afghanistan and the inability of President Hamid Karzai to
control his country.
There is no magic wand in this situation, a senior Pakistani
official said. You cant keep asking us to bomb our own people. And if the
Americans do it, the collateral damage will be enormous. It will play into the
hands of the MMA.
976

The official said Islamabad had proposed the closure of Afghan

refugee camps inside Pakistan, believed to be the centers of Taliban
recruitment and support, and had increased border patrols and military check
posts to curb infiltration into Afghanistan. What more do they want us to
do? The political impact of any US bombing on the outcome of elections
and on President Musharraf himself (he must soon submit himself to
parliament for reelection) could be far reaching, the official said.
Eric Margolis wrote, Washington is increasingly blaming its
Afghanistan fiasco on whipping boy Pakistan, just as the Vietnam defeat
was blamed on infiltration from Cambodia and Laos. Recently, a remarkably
ill-informed Canadian defence minister foolishly proposed sending
Canadian troops into Pakistans tribal agencies to fight terrorists.
Picking fight with old, loyal ally Pakistan is both morally wrong
and fraught with untold dangers. The US has forgotten how it forced
another compliant military ruler, Egypts Anwar Sadat, into policies his
people hated. He was assassinated, to national joy.
Tariq Ali rejected escalation of the conflict into Pakistan for reasons
lying inside Afghanistan. Few tears were shed in Afghanistan and elsewhere
when the Taliban fell, the hopes aroused by Western demagogy did not
last too long. It soon became clear that the new transplanted elite would
cream off a bulk of the foreign aid and create its own criminal networks of
graft and patronage. The people suffered.
There is no way NATO can win this war now. Sending more troops
will lead to more deaths. And full-scale battles will destabilize
neighbouring Pakistan. Musharraf has already taken the rap for an air raid
on a Muslim school in Pakistan
NATOs failure cannot be blamed on the Pakistani government.
If anything, the war in Afghanistan has created a critical situation in two
Pakistani provinces It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an
Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500 kilometer
border that separates the two countries. The solution is political, not
military.
Washingtons strategic aims in Afghanistan appear to be non-existent
unless they need the conflict to discipline European allies who betrayed
them in Iraq. True, the al-Qaeda leaders are still at large, but their

977

capture will be the result of effective police work, not war and
occupation.
Azam Khalil pointed out a much ignored factor of increasing Indian
influence in Afghanistan. While the Americans are trying to evolve a new
strategy to resolve the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, the issues will not
go away until the Indian influence on the Afghan government is
removed. The Americans want closer Pakistan-Afghan cooperation to
contain the growing power of the Taliban forces, the efforts of the
Americans have not borne fruit.
Pakistan and the United States believe that money from the lucrative
narcotics trade was one of the reasons for the survival of the warlords and
Taliban forces. Some of these warlords had the support of the
government and also received military hardware from India.
Therefore the question of the Taliban resurgence is not a simple affair
of refuge for the fighters but it has economic and financial aspects as well.
Besides, powerful vested interests exist in sections of the Afghan and
Indian governments that may want to benefit from this.
Roger Morris drew a parallel with Soviet occupation from the suicide
attack on Bagram base. It was Bagrams runways that took wave after wave
of Soviet invasion forces whose masters expected a victorious, low-casualty
show of force lasting only months. It was Bagram that saw the last
Russian troops more than nine years later after some of the most savage
warfare in history and twice as many casualties as the Kremlin admitted.
Over a decade of carnage the base was a center of war and portent.
Trained by the Americans with the latest explosive devices and eventually
Stinger missiles, the Mujahideen constantly stalked Bagram. The latest
attack was in a tradition begun by US-directed car-bombing squads sent
to terrorize not only Soviet or Afghan military, but also civilians, including
Kabuls intelligentsia and university professors at sites like movie theatres
and cultural events.
It was all there at Bagram the consummate folly of corrupt clients,
the false valour of historical ignorance, and the presumption once again to
conquer the unconquerable in what the Greeks called land of bones a
loud boom indeed.

978

Dr Muzaffar Iqbal talked of UNs irrelevance in the context of

Afghanistan. He referred to Moons statement in which he had said: Suicide
members and Taliban fighters are crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan,
and Pakistan must take more action to stop the incursions.
One would not even comment on the content of his actual statement,
as it indicates a tainted understanding of the Afghan situation to such an
extent that Ban Ki-Moons name could easily be replaced, for instance, by
the US secretary of state, the Canadian foreign minister, or any minister of
foreign forces now occupying a large part of Afghanistan
Taliban or no Taliban, the aim of the Western powers is to transform
this ancient land and destroy its rich and varied spiritual and cultural
tradition. Already, Kabul and Kandahar have lost much (But) Afghans are
hardy people and the last place in the world to succumb to foreign forces
An organization such as NATO could not merely disappear without
further disgrace; it had to find a foe which would send it packing in the
right coffin. It has found one in Afghanistan.
As for details of Bans statement; it is nothing but meaningless
bureaucratic verbiage: Support from Pakistan, safe havens in Pakistan,
foreign hands all of these are empty words. Yes, there is a foreign hand in
the current Afghan disaster, but this hand is the very hand that feeds people
like Ban. And a man like him should be concerned with nothing more than
his next paycheck.

CONCLUSION
The events in Afghanistan to date have proved that the much hyped
Talibans spring offensive was merely a hoax. At best it was a cover up for
the planned NATO offensive against Taliban. The occupation forces
certainly want to retain Afghanistan for long.
Taliban are in no position to carry out operations which could be
termed as an all-out offensive. Whatever resistance they are putting up is the
maximum they can do. Their low-key resistance will continue and that will
be enough to tire the illegal occupants of their homeland, though that may
require no less than a decade.

979

The growing Indian influence is part of the grand strategy of the two
strategic partners; India and the US. This is part of the contingency plan;
though the Crusaders have no intention to leave Afghanistan, yet in case for
one reason or the other they have to pullout, the Indian will take charge and
for that Indian influence must be allowed to grow.
16th April 2007

980