Pakistan American Brinkmanship

Pakistan is nervous; it cannot believe that the United States can turn on its ally so fast and so easy.  President Bush has proclaimed a new war theater in Pakistan alongside Iraq and Afghanistan. But President Bush is dead wrong; the nature of the war in the three countries in quite different.

 

In Iraq, the resistance to U.S. occupation is organized by sectarian militias that are not excluded from participation in politics; they even have representation in government.

 

In Afghanistan, the resistance is carried out primarily by the Pashtun majority, which is represented in government only by traitors and turncoats.

 

Pakistan is not occupied.  In Pakistan, the main terrorist organization – Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) – has political aims and it seeks to capture and control territory. The TTP is sponsored by the CIA, which provides it money, weapons and equipment.

 

All the three countries – Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan – are similar in that the American aim is the same: to fragment the nation and impose unpopular/weak governments that will bend to U.S. will. 

 

Although the story came out several weeks ago, the people of Pakistan are still stunned by the revelation that the TTP is CIA sponsored. The public first came to know of this in the newspapers that during the visit of Prime Minister Gilani to the U.S., his staff showed evidence of CIA support to TTP.

 

It Mr. Gilani some courage to tell U.S. that the ‘foreign support’ to Baitullah Mehsud came from the U.S.  One thought it would put the U.S. on the defensive that those being accused and targeted by America for cross-border raids have been trained and supported by the U.S.  Instead, the U.S. ratcheted up its propaganda against Pakistan.  Baitullah Mehsud moves freely throughout the region promoting terrorism that will justify American actions. His men possess the most-advanced communication and possibly even satellite intelligence.

 

Pakistan army took a long time to read the signs because it just could not believe that the U.S. could resort to such diabolical stratagem against its ‘ally’.

 

The Army Chief, General  Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, announced on September 10 that the coalition forces would not be allowed to operate inside Pakistan. His statement came within hours of the testimony by U.S. Chief of Joint Staff, Admiral Mullen, that the strategy for the war in Afghanistan had been revised and that targets in Pakistan would be struck without prior notice or warning to Pakistan. General Kayani expressed outrage at the U.S. helicopter raid near Angor Adda on the Pakistan Afghan border that lasted 30-minute; three houses owned by the Wazir tribesmen were the target of the raid that killed 23 people, including women and children. What added insult to injury was the report that Prime Minister Gilani’s National Security Adviser Major General (retd) Mehmud Durrani formally wrote to his U.S. counterpart Steven Hadley, on September 5, warning that Pakistan would not allow any foreign forces to operate on its territory. In his letter, Durrani made it clear that the rules of engagement of the coalition forces were well defined and there was no provision that allowed the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan to operate inside Pakistan.

On Thursday, September 11, the Pakistan Army was given permission to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country. The same day, the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S. also met some national security advisers of the Bush administration and got the assurance that the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan would not operate inside Pakistan or launch any strike. As if to rub salt in the wound, the same night the coalition forces launched another missile attack on Miranshah, killing more than 12 people.

 

What is happening? What is the U.S. up to? More importantly, what can Pakistan do?

 

Clearly, the U.S. is stung by Pakistan discovering who is the real enemy. Pakistan has decided to liquidate the TTP and is succeeding with popular support.  The U.S. should have been satisfied that the Pakistan Army is pursuing the TTP, but it is not. Clearly, the TTP is the excuse not the target. The American objective is to destabilize Pakistan. I refer to the article titled ‘The Destabilization of Pakistan’ by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research, Canada, in which it was revealed, before Feb. 18 elections, that U.S. sees an opportunity in the elections to advance its agenda and is supporting the terrorists inside Pakistan towards that end. He wrote:

 

“Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve US imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of ‘decentralization’ , to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan’s fragile federal structure.”…. ‘U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence. The official justification and pretext… to extend the ‘war on terrorism’. Concurrently, to justify its counter-terrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the ‘terrorists. ‘

 

It has become apparent that the insurgency in the FATA and elsewhere in NWFP is aided and abetted by the US. It wants to weaken the control of the federal government over the provinces and regions of Pakistan and it does not care whether it is achieved by Islamists or by ethnic nationalists. It supports the BLA as well as Baitullah Mehsud. It maintains its contacts with the MQM, the ANP, Baloch Nationalists as well as the JUI. It came to court the PPP as it concluded it was not overly concerned with ‘national interests’. The economic conditions have been deteriorating so fast that the economy is being described as close to ‘melt-down’. The only remaining condition yet to be met for ‘destabilization’ to become unstoppable is the ‘demonization’ of the Pakistan Army.

 

That explains why General Kayani’s defiant statement was quickly followed by another Predator attack. Now the ball is in General Kayani’s court; will he be the one to blink first? Will he be forced by his civilian masters – Zardari and Gilani – not to follow up on his promise and become subject of ridicule? But Pakistan has options. First and foremost, the objectives of the so-called ‘war on terror’ would have to be revised; it must henceforth deal exclusively with clearing FATA and Swat of TTP, and pacifying the area.

 

The approach of the people of Pakistan towards the U.S. has been transformed by the raid on Pakistan’s soil. Until now, they thought that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan was no threat to Pakistan. They had a benign view of the war despite the horrendous civilian casualties. They thought the war brought funds for development and democracy in its wake. Now the support for U.S. presence in the region is zero. The people see the United States as the main enemy; the so-called extremists are the proxies and surrogates of the USA.

 

Second, the firm forthrightness of the Army Chief has made him popular and brought admiration for the armed forces, instead of being demonized. The PPP, which felt secure in power after the elevation of its co-chairman to the office of the President, is likely to feel threatened. The Prime Minster has already said that his Government would deal with the situation through diplomacy. But if the bombs continue to rain in FATA and more helicopter raids occur, the people would be outraged and demand retaliation. What would the Government do? It is time to be cool and act; diplomacy rarely works when it is mere talk. Since most of the raids are by air, Pakistan needs to deploy anti-aircraft weapons to protect outposts and villages. The U.S. and NATO would need to be informed that violation of air space would be considered ‘hostile’ and dealt with as such.

 

U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan depend on supply from or transit through Pakistan for a number of things. None need to stop but accidents do happen. After all, the U.S. did not solicit the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; they just let Baitullah Mehsud go through with what he was planning anyway. After deployment of anti-aircraft weapons on the border and ‘go slow’ strike on the tail from Karachi to Khybar, the ball would be in the U.S. court. It could take another step on the escalation ladder or sense might prevail.

 

However, Pakistan cannot afford to blink first. There will be rows between the civil and military leadership and it is hard to tell if the military advice would be accepted. But the Zardari Administration is already on the wrong side of the public opinion on the issue of restoration of the judges made dysfunctional by General Musharraf. He will be on the wrong side of the public opinion once again if he did nothing in the face of mounting casualties of soldiers and civilians a the hands of the USA.            

 

Mr. Usman is the Director of the London-based London Institute of South Asia. He cane be reached at usmankhalid@ lisauk.com

 

Indian Intelligence About the Delhi Blasts

Vicky Nanjappa | September 13, 2008 |

The Students Islamic Movement of India has done it yet again and this time the target was the highly-secure national capital New Delhi.

Intelligence agencies believe that with this operation, the trilogy of terror operations termed as Operation BAD has been accomplished by the SIMI.

Operation BAD as decoded by intelligence bureau officials stands for Bangalore, Ahmedabad and New Delhi.

Soon after the Ahmedabad blasts, a call was made allegedly from Sabarmati jail in Gujarat to Pakistan. The conversation was intercepted by the IB. The person who made the call (not named as it may hamper probe) told a person in Pakistan, Operation BAD had been successful.

Based on this intercept, the IB and the Gujarat police decoded the message and came to the conclusion that BAD stood for Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Delhi.

Gujarat Narendra Modi claimed that during his meeting with the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the National Security advisor he had warned them that investigations had revealed that Delhi would be the next target.

Intelligence Bureau sources told rediff.com that SIMI, which is using the name Indian Mujahideen now, is trying to stamp its authority on the terror network in the country.

While BJP governments were the target in Bangalore and Ahmedabad, Delhi was attacked as it was the capital and any attack here would give them international attention.

Furthering the probe into Operation BAD, the IB says that the call could have been made to Rasool Khan, a former Gujarat-based don who now is in charge of HuJI operations in India.

Khan, who is based in Pakistan, is said to be controlling the SIMI network in India.

The IB also says that a man from Hyderabad, lodged in the Gujarat jail, had made the call to Pakistan. In this connection, the Hyderabad police had raided the house of Moulana Nasiruddin and also arrested his son Jabir.

Islam: The Origins of Hijab

Although long seen as the most distinctive emblem of Islam, the veil is, surprisingly, not enjoined upon Muslim women anywhere in the Quran. The tradition of veiling and seclusion (known together as hijab) was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad, primarily through Arab contacts with Syria and Iran , where the hijab was a sign of social status. After all, only a woman who need not work in the fields could afford to remain secluded and veiled.

In the Ummah, there was no tradition of veiling until around 627 C.E., when the so-called “verse of hijab” suddenly descended upon the community. That verse, however, was addressed not to women in general, but exclusively to Muhammad’s wives:

“Believers, do not enter the Prophet’s house…unless asked. And if you are invited…do not linger. And when you ask something from the Prophet’s wives, do so from behind a hijab. This will assure the purity of your hearts as well as theirs” (33:53).

This restriction makes perfect sense when one recalls that Muhammad’s house was also the community’s mosque: the center of religious and social life in the Ummah. People were constantly coming in and out of this compound at all hours of the day. When delegations from other tribes came to speak with Muhammad, they would set up their tents for days at a time inside the open courtyard, just a few feet away from the apartments in which Muhammad’s wives slept. And new emigrants who arrived in Yathrib would often stay within the mosque’s walls until they could find suitable homes.

When Muhammad was little more than a tribal Shaykh, this constant commotion could be tolerated. But by 627 C.E., when he had become the supremely powerful leader of an increasingly expanding community, some kind of segregation had to be enforced to maintain the inviolability of his wives. Thus, the tradition, borrowed from the upper classes of Iranian and Syrian women, of veiling and secluding the most important women in society from the peering eyes of everyone else.

That the veil applied solely to Muhammad’s wives is further demonstrated by the fact that the term for donning the veil, darabat al-hijab, was used synonymously and interchangeably with “becoming Muhammad’s wife.” For this reason, during the Prophet’s lifetime, no other women in the Ummah observed hijab. Of course, modesty was enjoined on all believers, and women in particular were instructed to

“draw their clothes around them a little to be recognized as believers and so that no harm will come to them” (33:60).

More specifically, women should

“guard their private parts…and drape a cover (khamr) over their breasts” when in the presence of strange men (24:31-32).

But, as Leila Ahmed observes, nowhere in the whole of the Quran is the term hijab applied to any woman other than the wives of Muhammad.

It is difficult to say with certainty when the veil was adopted by the rest of the Ummah, though it was most likely long after Muhammad’s death. Muslim women probably began wearing the veil as a way to emulate the Prophet’s wives, who were revered as “the Mothers of the Ummah.” But the veil was neither compulsory, nor for that matter, widely adopted until generations after Muhammad’s death, when a large body of male scriptural and legal scholars began using their religious and political authority to regain the dominance they had lost in society as a result of the Prophet’s egalitarian reforms.