FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com

Dear Ahmed Rashid,
We met in Moscow in 1991. Please read my essay on PAKISTAN ARMY WAR ON TERROR IN WAZIRISTAN.It may be relevent to your articles.
http://www.epropertypak.com/forum/index.php?topic=3.0
Best regards,
Sultan Habib
former IGFC (NWFP)
Former Pak Ambassador in Pyongyang
and former Pak Defence Attache in Moscow.

Dear Ahmed Rashid,
We met in Moscow in 1991. Please read my essay on PAKISTAN ARMY WAR ON TERROR IN WAZIRISTAN.
http://www.epropertypak.com/forum/index.php?topic=3.0
Best regards,
Sultan Habib
former IGFC (NWFP)
Former Pak Ambassador in Pyongyang
and former Pak Defence Attache in Moscow.

Google is the best search engine Google

Google is the best search engine Google

Polls do not support conclusions:

KABUL, Dec 15 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Majority of Afghans support the government of President Hamid Karzai and the presence of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, suggest a new poll for WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Ninety per cent countrymen rate President Karzai positively. However, the poll finds the support was on the decline because majority of Afghans are frustrated with the slow pace of the ongoing reconstruction process.

Afghans also do not like the Taliban to stage a come back. Taliban remain overwhelmingly unpopular and few Afghans believe the religious militants are likely to regain power, despite the surge in their attacks on NATO forces in recent months, suggest the poll.

Regarding the presence of foreign troops in the country and their peacekeeping/counter-insurgency operations and reconstruction activities, most people believe they are doing well.

Seventy-five per cent have a favourable view of US forces and 77 per cent describe NATO forces as effective, says the survey. With the exception of a little number of residents of this central capital, majority of Afghans in the provinces can not differentiate between NATO and coalition/US forces and their job.

The survey says the numbers expressing strong approval are declining. The percentage rating Karzai very favourably has dropped 13 points from 68 per cent in 2005 to 55 per cent this last month of the current year.

HI EVERYONE!!!! I SAY HI>

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee

tgetg

i am studying afghanistan. I want the Tliban out of the World. I also want to vote for Nato. YEAH!!!!

whoooooo hoooooooooo

f;alskdjf;sldfjasl;dfjals;kjf

As a Pakistani, I wanted to commend Zain for supporting Pakistan so well on this blog. You are a true patriot and people like you should be running Pakistan (Even though Musharraf is good too).PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!

just leave few of them majourity of muslim world feel proud what osama did to u.s.a just because they are fundamentalist by nature from iraq to indonasia before 1100ad. land relate to hindu but know u can see what they do even in india there they survive with extremist motives if one think deeply they are not related to humanity they are something else .doesnt mateer if u behave like even mother to them the main problem remain same that you are not muslim.if situation like this continues than in world may be muslim rule or only muslim survive or the even name of islam wher destroyed from earth like guru gobind singh once teach them lesson

Dave!:

You have broached different issues with different dynamics behind them, but I'll try and offer my own reasoning as to why. Please realize that at no point do I defend the actions of those "fundamentalist and criminal mobs" that rioted and made the lives of the majority of Muslims hell.

"When there was the big issue with the Danish cartoons, i heard exactly ZERO Muslims defending the right to free speech of the cartoonists, as insulting and obnoxious as the speech was."

This was an issue that I wrestled with for quite a while. I personally back complete separation of church and state in any country and have been a strong advocate of doing away with policies in Muslim countries that do curtail speech under the garb of "blasphemy" or what have you. First, in most Muslim countries the clergy and fundamentalists have hijacked government policy to the point where if Muslims living in those countries HAD voiced support or even ambivalence, they would have likely been killed for being "infidels" and "blasphemers". The law enforcement agencies in these countries tend to run away and hide at the sight of a mob so you cannot depend on them. One thing my family repeatedly kept telling me when I went home was essentially to keep my mouth shut. So the issue of the Muslim "moderates", in their home countries, offering any visible opposition to the fundamentalists will remain a dream until our governments get their acts together to provide cover for peaceful protest, and that will take a long time.

The second point is that, on this issue at least, even the majority of Muslim moderates, citizens of the U.S and Europe, believe that the West is being hypocritical, insensitive and applying double standards. Akbar Ahmed (Islam Under Siege) offered an argument that made sense to me. His argument was that all societies and cultures have taboos. Yes even the U.S has its taboos. You cannot openly use the "N" word, and while racism may still be present, it's blatant, and even, implied expression is considered an unacceptable and outrageous act. So is anti-Semitism (Of late Mel Gibson and Michael Richards come to mind). Countries in Europe have laws under which you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. My point is not to criticize any of those "taboos", but to draw a parallel that, for Muslims, "insulting" the prophet is "taboo". You cannot apply the "apples to apples" comparisons when looking at different cultures, other than to better understand the differences between them.

Should Muslims not be so thin skinned? Perhaps they should, but then what about the argument that Jews and Africans should stop making a big deal about anti-Semitism and racism. You could argue in their favor by recalling the holocaust, slavery and segregation as justification. But remember that you are not a Muslim, unable to see it through their eyes, and human emotions are a complex, maddeningly hard to describe, understand and sometimes quite primitive part of the human consciousness. For a lot of Muslims, as I have expressed before, there is this post 911 feeling of being discriminated against, for being alienated and despised and attacked for the actions of a few. The cartoon issue erupted in this atmosphere and I do not believe that it would have gained the traction it did had it not been for this sense of "duplicity" regarding the West that has festered for so many generations.

So, while I criticize and despise the "mobs" and "pray to Allah/Jesus/Moses" for their "eternal damnation in hell", I do think that the Muslim citizens of Europe and the U.S had a point in criticizing the cartoons.

"Frankly if it means that NWFP is given to afghanistan and balochistan is given more autonomy but there is no trouble in Afghanistan then US would be successful."

Lol. Right, the Pakistanis are just going to sit there while the "Allies" try and break the country up for their own misguided and unrealistic policies and aims. The Pakistanis may lose the "war of nations", but not before India and the few hundred thousand allied troops pay for it through nuclear strikes.

I thought I had addressed this ridiculous notion of attacking Pakistan early in this blog. You would end up creating another Iraq, but ten times worse. The Taliban, and other extremist groups, would have the entire 160 million nation and all its territory to recruit from, not just the tribal areas.

Well the US needs to be more firm with Pakistan, i.e. bring the threat of bombing Pakistan back to stone age on the table all the while US builds Afghanistan out of stone age.
Frankly if it means that NWFP is given to afghanistan and balochistan is given more autonomy but there is no trouble in Afghanistan then US would be successful.
It needs China and Afghanistan to cooperate here.
Pakistan is not an ally so we are better of dismantling their nuclear weapons and their military altogether.
Let Karzai have the upper hand in that region rather than Musharraf.
This military adventure may come in useful when/if US goes after IRAN

Zain
"You are generalizing and reducing the entire Muslim world into some sort of homogeneous entity or group that collectively believes and supports those philosophies and actions." Obviously i don't mean every single Muslim in the world thinks the same. Or that most are extreme. But here is how i see it. When there was the big issue with the Danish cartoons, i heard exactly ZERO Muslims defending the right to free speech of the cartoonists, as insulting and obnoxious as the speech was. When the topic comes to suicide bombings, what i read and hear are "Yes its horrible BUT its the only way they have to fight back against those more powerful". There should be no BUT. There should be no rationalization of such a sinister act. It should not be funded, supported, endorsed, excused or condoned. Salmon Rushdie should not have had to fear for his life and there should have been billions of Muslims saying so. But there weren't. Why? The prevailing thought in much of the Arab street was that the US "deserved" 9/11. Coming out against these things does not require the US government to do anything. Arabs and Muslims seem to have little problem practicing their freedom to gather and protest, why can't it be for anything on the list above?

Dave!:

You are generalizing and reducing the entire Muslim world into some sort of homogeneous entity or group that collectively believes and supports those philosophies and actions. By that alone your argument is unreasonable and I would hope that you agree with me. Of course I could have misunderstood you and I hope you will clarify if I have.

Further, I should clarify my own statement, I was speaking of the relationship between U.S Muslims and the government and how the onus is on the U.S government to show that it can be a responsible and trustworthy custodian of the responsibility they have given it through suffrage.

I still agree with you that it is the responsibility, and in the interest, of Muslims to report any suspicious activity. But I would second guess the decision to report a community member, friend or relative to the government on the basis of "suspicion" since I know that they would not get any due process or fair treatment whatsoever, and that the process would destroy their lives and their families.
That is why it is so important for the U.S to change its current policies and rebuild that trust with the Muslim community.

Zain
"I would say that the onus is on the U.S government to first show that it can act in a trustworthy and responsible manner"
I would say that the onus is on the Muslim world to reign in the extremists that think flying planes into buildings is a good thing, that suicide bombings are in anyway justifiable, that people should be killed because they do not happen to believe in the same god and that target people for practicing freedom of speech. Until the Muslim community decides for itself that these things are incredibly wrong and then acutally does something about it, i'm willing to give some leeway to measures that the US takes and take the consequences.

"What needs to be communicated is that, not only is it their responsibility as a member of the human race to report this, but its in their best interest if they want to not get targeted, looked upon suspiciously or profiled."

I agree it is in the responsibility of every citizen to report suspicious criminal activity, but the Muslims were never really given that chance were they?
In the immediate aftermath of 911 the U.S government initiated special registration for all non citizens who were from Muslim countries.

I had a good college friend "vanish" for six months on his way back from Texas after Summer recess. His family spent thousands of dollars traveling to the U.S in a vain attempt to find him. He was finally released from detention when U.S law enforcement decided that he was just a college student. Most people in the Muslim community have stories like these to narrate.

So I would have to say that the U.S DOES have the wrong policy. It has already succeeded in alienating a large part of the Muslim community. Perhaps with the Democrats in power, we can now start rebuilding those bridges again. I would say that the onus is on the U.S government to first show that it can act in a trustworthy and responsible manner, unlike its behavior post 911 to enable the kind of open cooperation you mentioned. Right now, people are too afraid to report anything because the lack of accountability and due process could quite possibly result in they themselves getting implicated and "vanishing".

I don't necessarily believe that the US has the wrong policy, i think that implementation of that policy has been absymal - there is a difference. I would agree that it will be hard to win an "Idea War" if one is "racially profiling Muslims". Perhaps if one is criminally profiling people based on recent terrorist history, that might be better description. While it is critical to work with the Muslim community, quite honestly, people (regardless of who they are) should be tipping off law enforcement if they have info on terrorist acts - its just the right thing to do. The more terrorist acts there are that are committed in the name of Islam or for an Arab cause, the harder its going to be on the Arab and Muslim communities. What needs to be communicated is that, not only is it their responsibility as a member of the human race to report this, but its in their best interest if they want to not get targeted, looked upon suspiciously or profiled.

While the US exports lots of things, miracles are not among them so expecting the US to solve the so-called "root cause" is just not going to happen. And i say "so-called" because the formation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda had little, if anything, to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

"It's not my grandmother that is a threat to taking over or blowing up a plane. It is, unfortunately, consistently young middle eastern Muslim men."

But that is precisely where the U.S is currently losing that "war of ideas". I am a Muslim in America and my experience with the Muslim community has shown a steep decline in the trust between Muslims and the U.S government. There is a sense of alienation and not belonging that I had never felt before 911. Racial profiling is not the answer. Good intelligence and a good, working relationship between the Muslim community and law enforcement based on trust, not fear, is how I believe this issue should be tackled.
The London plane bombers were tipped off on by someone close to them in the Muslim community.

"It wastes valuable time and resources and compromises the safety of everyone to focus on everybody when there is a profile to look at."

There are 1 billion plus Muslims in the world, several million in Wetern Europe and the U.S. They are Black, White, Hispanic, Arab, South Asian, Asian..
It wastes valuable time and resources by trying to profile millions of Muslims as well. Fight the root causes; solve the Israeli Palestinian issue equitably (and that means full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory, not 97%, and a return to the 1967 borders. It is the one issue that stands as a litmus test of U.S intentions for Muslim.

You cannot win a "war of Ideas" when you are racially profiling Muslims, advocating invasions and military action unilaterally for "regime change" and essentially, through inaction, supporting and condoning an occupation of Muslims. That is why the performance so far, as you put it, is abysmal.

That is where the "war of ideas" part of the conflict comes in. If one thinks the US is doing poorly in the military aspect, the term abysmal comes to mind when talking about "ideas". Bush has the right thoughts (he described the multifaceted war on terror very early on), he just is unable to communicate them to the rest of the world (or country for that matter).

Most people know that not all middle eastern Muslims are terrorist. But most terrorists these days are middle eastern Muslims. You say racial profiling - i say sensible security. It's not my grandmother that is a threat to taking over or blowing up a plane. It is, unfortunately, consistently young middle eastern Muslim men. It wastes valuable time and resources and compromises the safety of everyone to focus on everybody when there is a profile to look at. It's not that Islam is the problem, its that the people who are the problem happen to be Muslim. Policies must be implemented that balance rights and freedoms with safety and security. Getting the US message out on the Muslim street explaining all this is paramount, but currently not happening.

Dave & Bikram:

I agree with Dave that the "war against terror" as it is being fought right now is not a war of "religions" or "civilizations"; at least from a policy point of view. Despite Bush's "crusade" gaffe, I do not believe that either Afghanistan or Iraq were invaded because of religious reasons. There is the danger, however, of perception overpowering policy and good sense.

Already the perception, among a large majority of the Muslim street, is that the "Christian West" IS intent on destroying or subjugating Islam. The Iraq invasion, to them, is the latest manifestation of this continued "war against Islam". The non-existence of WMD's cemented that belief. The general distrust of Western intentions though, has built up over time. Colonialism by European (primarily Christian) countries, the breakup of the Ottoman Caliphate by Europe, which as decayed a regime as it was, still represented a "proper Islamic government" (a Caliphate) to a lot of Muslims, the creation of Israel and now the efforts to punish Iran, another "Islamic" country. In Muslim eyes all this adds up and it is not ancient history either.

I believe the danger though, is when people in the West start buying into this "evil other civilization" nonsense as well. In my opinion the signs are already there. Increasing percentages of people in the U.S and Western Europe view Islam as the problem and stereotyping, racial profiling and a general intolerance of Muslims seems to be on the rise and it is becoming harder and harder for politicians to ignore the their constituents and advocate logical, rational policy. The Dutch Burqa ban for example. When barely fifty women wear it, what was the point of making such a big deal out of something that would so obviously be interpreted as "them vs us".

The Muslim world in recent history, due to various factors, has unfortunately lagged behind the West in tolerance and enforcing basic human values, but if both sides fall prey to this, then we really are in for a clash of civilizations.

Bikram,
Most people in the US do not feel that the war on terror is a war pitting Christians against Muslims. In fact, I think that most Americans could care less about what religions are practiced in the US or Pakistan. Americans do care if someone, in the name of a particular religion (currently its Islam) spends their days trying to come up with ways to kill Americans. Then they care. If there is a religion that is intolerant of others (i am NOT saying that Islam necessarily is - i know too little about it to know), then its a war between that religion and everybody else - Christians, aethiests, Buddists, Jews, etc. There is a thought here that certain interpretations of Islam fall into that intolerant category. While the US was founded by a bunch of Christians, it is not a Christian state. And as far as losing the war on terror, most in the US don't really understand that we are in a war - a war that has to be fought offensively and defensively from a military perspective and a war of ideas. I think you are right that we are currently losing and your suggestions are good. But until a majority of Americans actually believe that we are at war and understand what it means, we will continue to lose.

America is losing this war against terror, and it is a very very bad news for the free world. However, I do not think that Islam or say Pakistan/Afghanistan is winning this war. No body is winning this war. The earth, the pollution and all those urgent things that matter the most than a fight for a religion has been sidelined. These are bad days and the only solution is to fight against the virus of organised religion of Islam and Christianity. American need to understand that they cannot fight Islam with their christ. It was tried by Coptic Egyptian and they failed. It was tried by Balkan and they failed. Only way to fight Islamic terror is to secularize the Islamic world. In this regard, first thing that America need to do is to ask Saudis and Pakis to give equal right to everyone including atheist and homosexual. And, organisation like Islamic bank, OIC etc. must be banned. America must show the courage to stand for the freedom and liberty and not for Christ. Otherwise, in this battle field of Islam and Christ, the entire world and its future is at risk.

Dave:

"So let's see, if the US leaves after its own interests are met, that's wrong."

My statement was a follow up on my criticism of your suggestion that, come what may, Pakistan should put the rebellion down by force. You suggested that even if the outcome was civil war in Pakistan, the Pakistani Government should continue to tow the line wrt U.S and NATO policy. I obviously disagree with the military only approach, but even if Pakistan were to follow that policy and pay whatever price it has too, there is no guarantee that the world community will provide any support, or help us rebuild after the dust settles (if by some miracle we actually succeeded).

Since I do not think that the dust would settle for a very, very long time, we would essentially become a failed state like Iraq.
So why do it? You said it your self, "if the US leaves after its own interests are met". Pakistan's interests are not being met under the current policy. We should advocate a change in direction to our "allies" at every opportunity possible and refuse to take any measures that will destabilize our own nation.

Push the three "E's"...
Engagement, economic development, education.

Zain and Walter,
"U.S behavior does not inspire much confidence in their hanging around for too long after their own specific objectives are met."

So let's see, if the US leaves after its own interests are met, that's wrong. If the US stays around past when its interests are met, it gets criticized for being an interloper/ colonizer/ meddler/ occupier/ world policeman (take your pick). US objectives were definitely not met in Vietnam, Somalia or Iraq. And quite frankly, when there was a cold war with the USSR, from the US point of view, the rest of the issues in the world were secondary. Over the years the US has hooked up with various people/groups/countries (some good guys and some bad) because they were also enemies of the US enemies (the enemy of your enemy is your friend). The merits of that can be debated but it is anything but unpredictable or unique to the US.

Walter:

"America has
no permanent friends but permanent interests. Karzai, Al Maliki etc should know that because the Americans are unpredictable"

I completely agree. In my opinion, the Pakistani establishment has not forgotten how the U.S ditched them after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. An impoverished country was left to take care of millions of refugees. Afghanistan was left devastated and in rubble. As far as the U.S was concerned, "Mission Accomplished".

Quite honestly, whether it be Vietnam, the Israeli-Arab crisis, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia,... U.S behavior does not inspire much confidence in their hanging around for too long after their own specific objectives are met. No need for us to put our necks (literally, with the Taliban and other fundamentalists!) on the line for such an "unreliable" partner.

Dave:

The analogy does not fit. The dynamics of modern warfare, especially the guerrilla warfare practiced by the Taliban, are completely different. The civil war was arguably a war between two "nations", both with established command and control and a central leadership. There was a finish line; a defeat of one army by the other.A conflict with the Taliban or/and tribals in Pakistan would be asymmetrical warfare and there would be no such goal post.
The Taliban would essentially continue doing what they have been; finding succor among the locals, ambushing from the mountains and launching rockets and suicide bombers at civilian targets. If the U.S and NATO, with all their military might and resources, cannot quell rebellions in Afghanistan and Iraq, then there is no realistic chance of Pakistan succeeding either. Not in the sort of terrain we have on the Pak-Afghan border.

Push the three "E's"...
Engagement, economic development, education.

The American problem.

The Americans embraced Musharaf of Pakistan despite the world condemnation to the fact that he had come to power using a coup de tat.

The same Americans supported Sadham during the 1980's war.They armed him,trained his soldiers,they did everthing for him ,he was their friend.What then went wrong.

The Americans armed the Taliban during thier war with Russia.They armed the taliban,assisted the Taliban from behind the lines.They did everything.What then went wrong.

We hear Bin Laden was on American payroll.We do not know as what but probably as an agent of some sort.Today they want him like nobody's business.What went wrong.

Now the same Americans who put Karzai to power after the toppling of the Taliban are saying he is involved in drug trade.They are already after his head.Karzai should be prepared to run to the caves shortly.With the widespread belief that the Taliban are back the Americans just like in Iraq are in a quandary.

America has
no permanent friends but permanent interests.Karzai,Al Maliki etc should know that because the Americans are unpredictable

Walter Manamike

Zimbabwe

I'm not saying that a civil war is wanted or that I wish it on anyone (or that the US should encourage one). It just seems to me, that unfortunately, sometimes it's needed when there are fundamental issues dividing countries. The US practiced "pragmatism and survival" for over 60 years - then we needed a civil war to settle major fundametal differences between the North and the South. The North tried to bring the South into "mainstream" US via engagement and economic developement. But it did nothing to settle things. The war was horrific. But it, for the most part, settled the issues.

Sardony:
No can do. You cannot just create states in hostile regions by dispossessing the indigenous population, invade and destroy countries (infrastructure and systems of govt.), destabilize the entire surrounding region and then just walk away. Like it or not the U.S has a responsibility, in one way or another, to fix what it has broken with its arrogant attitude of spreading, as you put it, "America's #1 ness".
If you still decide to leave, then remember who to blame when the next 911 happens.

Dave:

I have no interest in seeing family and friends getting blown up, shot, kidnapped and tortured as people are being in Iraq. If that means Pakistanis have no backbone, then so be it. I call it pragmatism and survival. A nation will do what is in its own national interest, not yours. It was in our national interest to throw in our lot with the U.S after 911, and we have delivered quite a bit. But if NATO continues to insist on a purely/primarily military solution to the tribal unrest, then I hope the Pakistani government chooses to go its own route. I must add that it is not in the interest of moderate Pakistanis to have this semi-autonomous region continue to fester as it is, but in my opinion the main vehicle for change should be engagement, economic development,backed up by some sort of government sanctioned force to maintain a semblance of peace and order as reforms try and take root, and a gradual integration of these areas into mainstream Pakistan.

America has no allies over there. In the end we will stand alone. Lets leave. Help nations who ask and want our help. There are many. Why push ourselves on countries who will never understand our way of life. America is #1, but, we still donot understand how anyone doesn't want to be like us. Accept it America and move onward and upward.

Dave: The linkages you claim dont exist. In today's globalized world a "Link" can be found in any event. This does not make Pakistan guilty of anything. We Pakistanis do not want a civil war in our country, and you dont know what exactly you are asking for either. you just want to see killing and destruction, which will create more terror and extremism.

Sumit: Oh you forgot your India's creation and support for Mukti Bahini and Tamil Tigers?? Even today the Tiger and Maoist rebels get most of their weapons and money from India.

Eric: Americans like you appreciate nothing and dont deserve our help or any allies.

The things everyone says about Pakistan are all true; it is a terrorist sponsoring regime and NOT a friend of the US. The BUSH admin., for all its mistakes, knows this but they also know the only plausible alternative in Pakistan is a Islamic fanactical regime that has a nuclear weapon. Therefore, Musharaf has the trump card. We had a better chance of success in Afghanistan when the same militants were trying to kill Musharaf because then are enemy was his enemy. Now he has cut a deal with the extremists; he will not go after them if they don't go after him. I hate Musharaf.

The US is rich,armed and dumb. It can win battles not wars.

The U.S. tried its best to exploit the ethnic divisions (racism is what the U.S. knows best) amongst Afghans to get them to divide and fight each other, all the while as they set up a phony government and military bases throughout the land. It took the Afghans a few years to see the corruption the foreigners caused in their society, the lies they told the people, the civilians they slaughtered, and the religions they preached to their children behind closed doors. With their backs against the wall, Afghans are uniting under the brotherhood and sisterhood of Islam which has the cures to each and every one of the society's present ailments. Once the unity is in full force, Afghanistan will have a true Islamic society free from corruption and foreign intervention.

It is clear for everyone that who invented the Taliban and who defeated Taliban that was Pak which plays two faces politics in the world.

Now that the amount and dollars which received Pak from US for handing over their mothers and father to US, is finished and now thinking to find another way for receiving dollars from US.

Zain,
I hear you, but, someone in that part of the world needs to get a backbone and do the right thing. There should be no talking with the Taliban. Come down against the Taliban and other radicals both with actions and ideas. If that means a civil war then that's what it means. This is no easy task. Improved economics alone are not going to change the attitude of the tribes. Letting the Taliban have a safe haven only postpones the inevitable fights that will occur. An appropriate JFK quote: "When written in Chinese, the word 'crisis' is composed of two characters--one represents danger, and the other represents opportunity." To all that grow pessimistic, focus on the opportunity.

At present, it is Canadian troops who are bearing the brunt of the combat - and taking many casualties - in the Kandahar region. Their task has been made much more difficult by the fact that the USA, which previously had responsibility in the Kandahar area went on a poppy eradication campaign, guaranteeing that anyone involved in that industry would turn against NATO and be sympathetic to the Taliban.

To be successful, or at least sustainable, the mission needs to be precisely focused on combatting the Taliban and protecting the local people who of course will say good things about the Taliban if they are being watched by them, as they are.

Hopefully, the Canadians are now worrying more about protecting the local people, helping them out with civil aid, and not destroying the crops of the farmers. The "war against drugs" (in various countries) has gone on for decades, and is unwinnable. If we mix that in with the campaign against the Taliban then that too will be unwinnable. The US obsession with the war against drugs is putting NATO in a very difficult positiion in Afghanistan.

Amazing. I re-read the article and yet what I'm seeing in the responses is a continuation of the same ethnic discourse that has continued for God knows how long. Hey folks, this is about the U.S.! Not about your continued drama that has drawn us into your continuing saga because of a cluless president. Had the United States dealt with 9/11 properly, your diatribes hence would be a non-issue. Take responsibility for your cultural failures! Take responsibility for your peace and prosperity...

Afganistan was also an invasion just like Iraq.Our troops went there to hunt Bin Ladin and what happened instead? They created more taliban and now they have a problem there to.IMO they should also get our troops out of there.Give the taliban more attention and you get more taliban...Why cant they get that??? Why blame Pakistan when our leaders created the problem?

Sumit,

What else would you suggest Pakistan do? Like I mentioned earlier, Pakistan risks unleashing a civil war by using too much force. There are already ethnic tensions in Pakistan that would be exacerbated by such a conflict breaking out. Though India would be quite happy with such a scenario, I fail to see how an unstable Pakistan is a step forward in the "war against terror". Why doesn't Karzai accept the Pakistani offer to fence or/and mine the border? It would make monitoring and enforcing the border much easier and take away the excuse of blaming lack of Pakistani effort from the equation.

Pat,

And once you had an alliance with India, what then? Invade Pakistan ala Iraq? A nuclear Pakistan with a hundred and sixty million people and a society flush with millions of illegal weapons (not a proud stat.). What would you do? Even if the invasion was completed without Pakistan launching nuclear weapons you would create a bigger mess than Iraq. The taliban would just as eagerly move into the rest of Pakistan finding willing recruits not just through religious fundamentalism, but also inflaming the anti-India sentiment.

I would really like some of you criticizing the Pakistani governments efforts to suggest something that will not ignite civil war in Pakistan.

The issue still is the attitude of the tribes on the Pak-Afghan border. Without a change in that there is no hope of winning this war.

To Mr. Anonymous,

Where do you get the idea of racism from? Is the primary ethnic group in the tribal areas not Pashtun? I also specifically referred to those Pashtun who refuse to give up their draconian and archaic "customs" and "traditions". In other posts, I have just as harshly condemned some of the practices in the villages of Punjab and Sindh and the role of Punjabi and Sindhi feudals in perpetuating the social backwardness of those areas.

Being a "proud" people does not give anyone the right to hold the rest of the country hostage because they are too "proud" to give up their medieval customs. I notice you did not respond to my comments regarding the Pashtun in the tribal areas giving safe haven to drug smugglers, gun runners and terrorists. Does that mean that you support their right to continue to do that because these tribals are a "proud" people? Does that mean you support their practices of keeping their women locked up without access to education and justice?

Once again read my post more carefully. I specifically criticized those Pashtun who refuse to change, as I would those Punjabi's, Sindhi's, Balochi's and Mohajir.

As I read through the comments and the learned opinions of all, I'm struck with the thought that had Mr. Bush (and his 8 oz. brain trust) pursued Osama Bin Chillin' and "stayed the course" in Afghanistan, perhaps we wouldn't be "bogged down trying to extract" ouselves from Iraq. Then too, maybe the whole discussion about the Taliban roarin' back in Afghanistan would be moot.

Instead, Afghanistan seems to be loosing and we're begining to hear a chorus from this administration about how Iraq is not taking responsibility; a precusor to the US "cutting and running" . Imagin that, a country we invaded under false pretenses, a country we failed to plan for reconstruction after the "mission accomplished", having the audacity of "not taking responsibility" so HaliBush, Inc. can politically "extract" itself from a huge failure all the while telling us what we're seeing isn't really what we're seeing...! 9/11 was proper justification to go after the Taliban. Instead, we chase paper tigers befitting a paper administration. And... whatever happened to ol' Osama? How come the mastermind of 9/11 isn't even part of any of our national discourse? Had Mr. Bush spent a quarter of what 's been spent in Iraq, he could of had Osama caught, stuffed and hung on a wall in his playroom at the ranch in Crawford...

To Mr. Zain,
Please keep racism away from this forum. I don't know what is your political agenda but you seen to be a Punjabi/Wahabi/Mohajir (Urdu speaker migrant in Pakistan and their off springs who left Indian during the 1947 partition) chauvinist. Before you try to malign a proud people you should look at your own past and present.

On a serious note, Mr. Rashid's analysis is absolutely correct and to the point. He is the only patriotic Pakistani who is trying to say and write the right things. I think it is high time for Pakistan's civil and military establishment to revise its racist and colonial policies. The Pashtuns and Baluch in Pakistan will not be willing to live in Pakistan as slaves of Punjabi/Wahabi/Mohajir alliance.

It is high time for Pakistanis to do some soul searching. Racism and ethnocentrism is never the answer.

Bush screwed this up, just like he screwed up the
Iraq thing, the palestinian peace plans, etc...

It was insanity to depend upon Pakistan as an ally
against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda when Pakistan
had helped create them.

The US needed to form an alliance with India (Jerks they may be,
but a secular democracy they are),

The conflict between Pakistan & Afghanistan has ethno-political overtones . Since 1947, Durand line the boundary between the two has not being recognized by any of the successive Afghan regimes. On top of this, the meddling by Pakistan in Afghanistan for "strategic depth" and superpower rivalries in Afghanistan & the ongoing global war on terror have added extra dimensions to this conflict. India has strongly supported a strong Afghanistan & Pakistan resents this deeply seeing it as Indian influence in its "backdoor", adding another layer of complexity to the dispute between Pakistan & Afghanistan.
Pakistan has focused its policy towards attaining "strategic parity" with India, "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, strong strategic security relationship with China to offset US pressure and growing engagement with USA based on its surrogate role in the "war on terror".
Pakistani policymakers--most notably the dictator General Musharraf and other key members of Pakistan's military establishment--have kept pursuing what they refer to as a "war of a thousand cuts" against India. Pakistan is at a fundamental strategic disadvantage to India. Not only has Islamabad been engaged in a game of catch-up since India detonated its first nuclear device in 1974, but the country lacks India's strategic depth.
Hence this dual policy of giving lip service to the war on terror while backing Taliban in an effort to retake Afghanistan and get "strategic depth". It is time world wakes up to the double game of Pakistan.

pres.bush and co. SHOULD WAKE UP TO THE FACT..NO TROOP STRENGH BRINGS NO RESULTS

WHEN WILL WE REALISE THAT YOU NEED TO SECURE THE COUNTRY SO YOU CAN PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT...THIS IS NOT BEING DONE ..NOTICE SAME PROBLEM IN IRAQ...GO FIGURE.. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY WANT TO FAIL ONCE AGAIN

Like all the other miserable situations in the world, this one offers no rational options. If one subscribes to the notion that the world is doomed, the choices are to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible, or hasten it along. Imagine that we pull all our troops home from all deployments. Then we quietly tell all the heads of the countries that we suspect of harboring or aiding terrorists that if a nuke goes off on US soil we will take out one of their capitals (this is an extension of the cold war concept of mutually assured destruction). The gamble is that with that kind of threat, these miscreants passing for state leaders might just pound the radicals into submission. Let's face it, they are in a better position to take care of their own criminals and madmen that the whole of the West and all of its allies. Sure, this would plunge the world into chaos, but that is going to happen anyway. I know this is a nutty proposal, but can anyone offer an alternative that does not rely on the irrational assumption that we can reason with these people or that they can be marginalized? I sound like a right wing neocon, don't I? I assure you that I am not. All I can say is that I've given up all hope for humanity. We have never been able to use our rational abilities to solve our differences. We always resort to mayhem. God help us all.

Cite a source for your statements about majority opinion in Afghanistan or they're meaningless.

Regarding the comments made by waqar, above. I suppose that by "most afghans" you mean Afghani men. I cannot imagine that the Afghani women would welcome back the torment they endured under these "students". Sure the Afghani people would tell the Taliban that they want them back with a Taliban gun pointed at their heads. Just like the Germans all wanted the National Socialist party (Nazis) to be in power when questioned by a Nazi, I'm sure the Afghan people would tell the Taliban that they wanted them to come back for the same reasons: the threat of harm for the offense of disagreeing with the Taliban. Maybe if the Taliban had kept their barbaric ways within their own borders no one would have interferred. But the avowed aim of Al Qaeda ("the base" or "foundation" in Arabic) is to convert the entire world to Islam, no matter what it takes. (thankfully this is not the aim of Islam or the majority of Muslims). To further this aim, the Taliban and al qaeda have carried out attacks in other parts of the world. This makes it the business of those who have been attacked.

No one has a democratic right to blow themselves up and attack innocent men, women and children unprovoked. And once attacked, we all have a duty to prevent a repetition of that attach in the best way we know how, even given that the best way we "know how" may not ultimately be the best way.

If the Afghani people exercize their "democratic right" to return the Taliban to power, what happens if, after that, they decide they don't want them? Will the Taliban allow themselves to be "voted" out of power?

The enduring dilemma of a democratic, or free, society will continue to be: Does a free society have the "freedom" to do away with its freedom?

For what it's worth, I spent two years in Afghanistan and spoke with Afghanis every week at a local bazaar and in Kandahar City. I drank green tea with them, spoke with them, bought local rugs and other goods from them. I could not find a more hospitable people. They were consistantly friendly and gracious. Not one of the Afghanis I made friends with wanted the Taliban back. The only Afghanis who want the Taliban back are the Taliban themselves. I would just as soon welcome the Nazis back.

Dave USA, your comments are well taken. But I just wanted to add that Pakistan wasn't the only country supporting Taliban.

There were 3 countries who officially supported and recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. Those 3 are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. It is not coincidence that all 3 are allies of the U.S.

1) Pakistan through geography and intelligence;
2) Saudi Arabia through Wahabihism and limitless funds for Madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan to breed this fanatical brand of Sunni Islam; and
3) UAE with its financial/banking center harboring secretive accounts of terrorist organizations and criminal elements

have all made it possible for Taliban and Al-Qaeda to take over Afghanistan in the past and continue to survive today.

On a side note, one should look at Jordan, where days before hosting President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister, the puppet king is holding official court with the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Sunni Insurgents who continues to preach violence against the American troops, Shi'ites and anyone who takes part in the Iraqi Government. This guy has a sanctuary in Jordan.

Who we think are our friends are the ones who are doing us the most harm.