How do you see the future of Pakistan post Benazir. I am afriad Jehadis will dominate in coming days?

Global, like attack everywhere, pre-emptive like, simultaneously?

MOHAMMAD ALLAM,

Answers to your questions

(1) Who destabilised the Middle East? The USA with the complicity of a few misguided Pakistani Generals and their long-standing complicity with the CIA. They destabilised not only the Middle East and West-Central Asia, but, pushed to the edge by a devilish India, they even caused the breakup of their country, with East Pakistan going its own way.

(2)If you are a Pakistani, do yourself a favour and do some introspection instead of looking for a scapegoat for your problems, before even Indian Muslims, who still sympathise with you, turn against you. If you are an Indian (Hindu or Muslim, that's up to you), you could get your country to stop killing Christians and Muslims. Nobody likes killers like Narendra Modi.

(3)The Islamic value of communitarianism and brotherhood and solidarity with the oppressed will NEVER die. Its ever-strengthening triumphal march is superbly well analysed in Peter Turchin's book "War&Peace&War". Visit "Nature" Magazine's website for one of Turchin's masterful analyses of the evolution of cooperastive strategies at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/abs/nature04470.html

Nature is the best existing scientific magazine.

To,
Mohammad Mallick
Ask this fellow
1.who destablised the middle east by secrect pact with America and allies to capture Iraqi power?
2.why not can we seen a hand of Iranian intelligence to divert the attention of usa from iran to pakistan and finished the pakistani danger in case of iranian clash with saudia Arabia?
3 who igniting the mind of muslim youth with false and false slogan of islamic brotherhood and spreading the fundamental creed in islamic world?

I am afraid that, coming from an Iranian (albeit too young to have had his worldview at least partly moulded by his country's glorious Revolution) who is a Research Fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Management, this opinion piece is disappointing.

When Mr. Barzegar insinuates that 'the al Qaeda organisation, the Taliban, or the intelligence elements who created both (the ISI and the CIA, Mr. Barzegar or only the ISI?)' is responsible for Benazir's assassination, he fails to answer the question which so many knowledgeable observers (but most lucidly Juan Cole) unfailingly raise : "Whom are we talking about when we use the term al Qaeda?". Let's be clear : orders did NOT come from Osama Bin Laden or Ayman el Zawahiri or Mullah Omar. Now, cognoscenti have rightly argued that 'al Qaeda' has grown to be a notion that mobilizes groups of Muslim activists who resent western meddling in Muslim societies' aspirations and struggles to evolve a 'third way' of governance between capitalism and communism that embodies what is best in the Islamic tradition of communitarianism, whereby the gaping wound separating the rich 'oppressors' and the indigent 'oppressed' that imperialist conquest of Muslim lands brought would be healed. That an independent group of thoughtless militants may have actually carried out the folly of assassinating Benazir is likely -- a folly that may have been mentioned as desirable, but would never have been actually carried out, by a main group of militants close to the thoughful nexus that Mr. Barzegar refers to as 'al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the intelligence outfit that created both'.

This much said, the question whither Pakistan is beat answered by the post-1070 evolution of Iran. In a comment I posted a while ago on a tribute in these same pages by one of Benazir's compatriots, I draw the parallels between the backgounds of Benazir Bhutto and Iran's Ali Shariati, and the evolution of their worldviews. I point out that Benazir Bhutto's often contradiction-ridden worldview and life parallels those of Ali Shariati, in that where Benazir is simultaneously characterized as "Daughter of the West" (Tariq Ali) and "Daughter of the East" (self-styled), Ali Shariati also, while immensely valuing his Islamic inheritance and communitarian solidarity-based traditions, was fully captivated by the political theories of Frantz Fannon and Sartre. He devoted his life to the elevated aim of explaining and providing solutions for the problems faced by Muslim societies through traditional Islamic principles interwoven with and understood from the point of view of modern sociology and philosophy. Benazir also wanted to modernize Pakistan while avoiding what Shariati called 'occidentosis'.

Both Shariati and Benazir come from privileged families that lived in communities that flourished without cacophonous grudge in their rural, agriculture-based and handicraft-centered lifestyles, living in harmony with a benevolent landlord and respectful of tradition. But aware of the divide in welfare levels, they both wanted to share with their compatriots the benefits of the best western-inspired professional education that they had had, and that promised technology- and science-driven modernization without the evils of ‘occidentosis’.

Around the time of the Iranain Revolution, Khomeini himslef endorsed the approach of Ali Shariati, acknowledging that every fiber of Shariati's being pulsated to the rhythm of Islamic glory, even as he was fully receptive to modernity, science and technology. As an illustration of yet another false contradiction, Shariati is still held up as an icon by Khomeini's nemesis, Salman Rushdie! As it had been for Ali Shariati, so it has been for Benazir Bhutto. Benazir is also adulated in Pakistan, althogh at times with similar ambivalence.

To those Iranians and students of the Iranian Revolution and its aftermath who are familiar with the latest refinements of Enlightenment thinking that are currently taking place among intellectuals, Ali Shariati, and, indeed, Benazir Bhutto, exemplifies that post-modern refinement of the Enlightenment.

Benazir was on course to be the successful standard-bearer of that movement, for her country Pakistan as well as for the Muslim world, had the hand of an irredeemable obscurantist not struck three days ago.

That agenda, which Ali Sagariati and Benazir set, will after the period of mourning, get an immense boost as an after-effect of Benazir's martyrdom.

"Sunday, December 30, 2007; 4:45 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban militants fired rocket-propelled grenades from their vehicles at a convoy of private security guards on Afghanistan's main highway, killing six guards and two police officers."

Contractors kill for money, so they die for money. No free lunch, they pay for it one way or the other. In their case, death.

Duh, ....really again?

What do you mean by "our" unfinished war? Are you speaking as an Iranian or an American?

Second, it appears that the entire movement and the "political party" in Pakistan was essentially one person, Mrs. Bhutto as some sort of a party leader for life. Hardly a democratic set-up.

The funny thing is that America, UK and about 1/3 of Pakistanis were betting on one person as their next "democratic Dear Leader". Absurd!

The way forward is to cut thru the fog. Pakistan should either be a real and clearly defined dictatorship or a real democracy. When the world wants to have it both ways, it will get neither in practise.

This is plainly not very good. The author, though has a middle-east background, lacks some necessary knowledge of the matter.

"Bhutto’s declared policies – such as promoting democracy, creating moderation, tackling militancy and Islamic extremists, and bringing stability in Pakistan’s domestic politics and foreign relations – all worked against the interests of al-Qaeda and the Taliban."
-Musharref has cracked down harder on the Taliban and insurgents then Bhutto ever did. Bhutto said that herself on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

"After all, democratization will weaken the position of violent extremist groups. By creating chaos and insecurity as major obstacles to fostering democratization, these groups are trying to survive and justify their acts of terror."
-Commonsense would lead one to think terrorists would prefer operating under a democracy where laws are slow in legislating and implementing; as opposed to a dictator where people can go missing, people who are accused are jailed, no due process, and laws are his words.

The author does mention they are opposed to democratization because it weakens Islam, yet when compared to the dictator Musharref and his practices of forcing the tribal areas to submit by the barrel of a gun, democracy would sound pretty good.

If the democratisation of Pakistan aims at weakening the Islamic traditions then Ms Bhutto was any muslims's target.The cat is out of the bag. The civilisational agenda is true after all.

So,this extremely naive person teaches international relations at Harvard? No wonder why the U.S. foreign policy is in tatters!!!

Let's get some figures: Pakistan is a muslim country with 160 million people. Three out of four Pakistanis oppose their military's fighting islamic extremists; 90% oppose the idea of foreign troops landing in Pakistan to hunt down Al-Qaeda; Osama bin Laden is seen as a freedom fighter by 82% of Pakistanis; and only one out of twenty Pakistanis has a favorable opinion about the United States.

And this guy is suggesting an international coalition to go into Pakistan and exterminate Al-Qaeda. How laughable!!!

By the way.... It's the nukes, stupid!!!

The only reasonable thing western nations could do now is.... convince Musharraf to dismantle the nukes, before it is too late.

Just a few facts first: “Afghanistan” doesn’t really exist, in the sense it is less a country than a line of political demarcation on the map, similar to the case of Yugoslavia and Iraq. It is the result of the Durand line being drawn by a British general in 1893 in delineation of how far imperial India could control Central Asia, and this only after two disastrous campaigns beyond the Khyber Pass which pretty much made the issue clear. According to a CIA analysis, the people who live there are roughly 42% Pashtun, 27% Tajik, 9% Hazara, 9% Uzbek, 4% Aimak, 3% Turkmen, 2% Balochi, and 4% from other mid-Asian tribes, all with different languages, cultures, and histories. In the last hundred years or so, the Pashtun have largely had internal control because they are the largest ethnic group, secondly because they have a strong national identity and a warrior culture, and thirdly because most Pashtun do not live there. Roughly three-fifths of the Pashtun populations reside in Pakistan, providing what may be thought of as strategic depth, with a base of power that is both local and “transnational”. Many in history have attempted to control this area. None to date have succeeded.

What exactly is the U.S. trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? Most would say to prevent al-Qaeda and “Taliban” resurgence by the establishment of a stable central government adherent to this goal. Before the feasibility of this effort is approached, it is useful to briefly review how we got there, and to note one most salient fact.

During the Soviet war effort in Afghanistan, the CIA financed and armed a transnational Islamic grouping to bleed the Soviets by a force of Muslim mujahadeen, self-professed holy warriors fighting a jihad against godless communism. They would never give up and were not afraid of death. Men with only a rifle or other weapons as they may physically carry or devise on the scene, are formidable no matter what else you may care to think of them.

Perhaps most importantly, we apparently did not know or possibly care that within the context of Islam the larger purpose of the mujahadeen was to defend the Ummah, meaning the “Community of Believers”, thus Islamic world interests as Muslims saw them to be, and to avenge injustices and humiliation forced upon them. After ten years of quagmire the Soviets went home, the various warlords of the resistance took to fighting among themselves, and generalized chaos ensued. In due course, the Pashtun coalesced under the name of Taliban, a word meaning “students of religion” and came to dominate most of Afghanistan except the Panshir valley where a notable Tajik leader, Ahmad Shah Masoud, held power.

Our problems only arose after certain resident Arabs of the anti-Soviet mujahadeen led by Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization, focused in their resentment at American foreign policy and with Saudi foot soldiers, formed and executed the 9/11 plot. The rest is current events.

It is nearly certain any American administration would seek to destroy the leadership and structure of those responsible for the shock of the collapsing twin towers and an exploding Pentagon. So we invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Pashtun Taliban and for a while went after bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization, thereby to protect the USA from further plots like 9/11. There was no thought at the time that our purpose could only succeed by building a stable western-style and liberally based political system, a possibly unending nation building commitment, and fundamentally changing the ethos of the Pashtun peoples.

Honestly ask yourself: If we only think in terms of the “Taliban” label, do we understand what may be a far more complex situation? Can the western backed and funded Kabul administration, whose writ barely extends to the limits of the city, gain effective control of the country if it is seen by many there as a foreign imposition? Can western military forces kill enough Pashtun to accomplish a successful outcome? Can air strikes on guerilla forces blending into the population that also kill large numbers of civilians on a regular basis, crush or inflame the will of the armed resistance? Can infrastructure projects engender Pashtun acquiescence if they see things in terms of foreign armies forcibly and fundamentally changing their culture? Can we uproot the narco-based economy which now funds the resistance if it is almost entirely the basis of their very survival? Can the government of Pakistan forcibly alter any part of this equation if it too is increasingly seen by Pashtun on both sides of the Durand Line as a western proxy and cannot even control its own ungoverned areas where most Pashtun reside, not to mention bin Laden? If Afghanistan is the Good War, exactly how and when can we win it?

tarquinwalton@cs.com

This is precisely what was pointed out by the Obama camp, the war in Iraq and those who voted for it must be held responsible for their faulty judgement. We diverted attention and resources from the real enemy and here we are. Can we say we have the right experience. I can understand now why the Clinton and Edwards camp have reacted angrily to the call for a debate on this issue, they both voted to put us in this terribly situation. None of them deserve a vote of confidence.

The terrorist have again discredited themselves. That is obvious to all. They may last for a while, but they are on the wrong track for any popular support.

"It is not hard to understand who is behind this terrorist act" even though "It does not matter who conducted this criminal act..."

Of course it does not matter in the least, does it?

In the case of JFK, did it at all matter who conducted that criminal act?

In the case of Martin Luther King, did it in the least matter who had conducted that criminal act?

In the case of Robert Kennedy, did it ever matter?

Of course not. Such "incidents" never matter.

Harold Pinter (Nobel Lecture):

"Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? ... The answer is yes they did take place ... But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest...very few people have actually talked about them ... It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."

Witness: "... the United States and the West ... sought moderation and western-style democratization (in the region)..."