As matters now stand, Paks suspect that the US is contemplating coercive actions that may reduce levels of friendship with that country. If that happens, it will mean that the late Osama bin Laden's
... who sleeps with the fishes...
strategy for bringing nearer the 'battle of Khorasan' would have succeeded.
However,
denial ain't just a river in Egypt...
unfortunate Pakhtuns in Afghanistan, Fata, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa
... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central...
and Balochistan will continue to suffer violence and death. With the recent murder of President Karzai's brother Ahmed Wali, one can foresee the end of talks with the Taliban.
With an upset Pak military and a despondent President Karzai, it would appear that the US exit strategy in Afghanistan is in pieces.
Is it according to some insane design that each day a new insult is heaped upon Pakistain? The ranks of US supporters in Pakistain must be dwindling by the day. If the current trend continues, pretty soon Islamabad may be declared part of the Axis of Evil, replacing Iraq.
The uncharacteristic remarks made recently by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Mike Mullen accusing the government of the murder of journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad are surprising. The murder, though abominable, is hardly a military matter. After all, in the past, Gen MacArthur and more recently Gen McChrystal were removed from their posts for making political statements.
The accusations against the security establishment after the discovery of Bin Laden in Abbotabad add to Pakistain's discomfiture. These charges leave no doubt that the intent is to embarrass the ISI or other arms of the security apparatus. But what if the US is wrong in its suspicions? What if the Pak intelligence services were actually unaware and incompetent?
The US 9/11 commission brought out many failures of its own intelligence network when it was found that the hijackers involved had been living undetected in the US for years. It was found that the FBI had even warned Washington that one of the Islamic fascisti was taking flying lessons and was dangerous. Yet the intelligence system failed to react. Could the US institutions then be condemned for complicity?
It was recently reported that
North Korea paid a bribe to Pak generals to obtain nuclear secrets. The central piece of this drama was a letter written in English purportedly by a North Korean and indicating the payment of a bribe.While the authenticity of the letter is unclear, we should be concerned. In February 2003 Gen Colin Powell, then secretary of state, told the UN Security Council: "My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information ... [that] the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism."
It is now known that Mr Powell had spoken inaccurately for no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. However,
Houston lies southeast of Dallas...
his accusation became the justification for launching a war against Iraq that killed thousands of people. No one was held accountable.
As one US commentator suspiciously noted, the source of the leaked North Korean letter is former Financial Times journalist Simon Henderson. Mr Henderson did not say how the letter came into his possession. What we do know is that he works for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy which was founded by Martin Indyk, the former research director of the powerful American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a primary American pro-Israel lobby group that has been known to influence US policy.
It is remarkable that when it comes to disseminating American government propaganda, even advocates of journalistic ethics have no inhibitions about publishing what appear to be half-truths. Nobody in the US seems to really care whether any of the accusations levelled against other nations are true or not.
Clearly, the US would not be so desperate unless it badly wanted something from Pakistain. Or is this an attempt to shape public opinion in the US to undertake coercive action against Pakistain?
The latter is less likely because if Pakistain does not assist the US in disengaging from Afghanistan, it will be stuck -- and this is a result that President B.O. can ill afford for it may well cost him an election. It would appear, then, that the US wants Pakistain to do its fighting for it.
If the US wants to disengage from Afghanistan in an orderly manner, it needs Pakistain's help. An upset Pakistain military will
not provide that. Thus the stoppage of US assistance of $800m to the military for its past operations is bizarre. In the 140th Corps Commanders' meeting the military has decided not to seek further US assistance in the war on terror.
Clearly, the Pakistain military will end many joint operations and perhaps initiate peace deals with the hard boys. If this happens, American casualties in Afghanistan will increase.
The induction of Leon Panetta
...current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997 and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993....
as defence secretary and the constitution of his new team do not augur well. The Pakistain military seems set now to follow an independent and more nationalistic strategy against the hard boys. One of the first steps will be the drawdown of forces in Fata and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
The US policymaking establishment has lost direction in the Af-Pak region and has begun making ill-considered decisions that will harm the chances of peace in the region. More sanity needs to prevail in US-Pakistain relations, if the US exit from Afghanistan is to be orderly.