The title says it all. In its quest to pursue its global aims, China is keeping India tied to the pole by needling her in a geopolitical bind while maintaining a straight face. The discussions in various posts over the last week brought out Chinese dynamics in Pakistan, Burma and Nepal. This post also brings in the Sri Lankan narrative. Apparently, the two regional heavy weights are busy shadow boxing in South Asia with India kind of getting bitten by a China phobia. In strategic circles, Chindia is a four-letter word.
60 years on, there is nothing to show for these border disputes. Dutifully, the Indians, Pakistanis and the Chinese glare at each other – over colonial border issues. These border issues are less thanperipheral to our nations. We have allowed the past to hold our future as a hostage.
The pace with which China is getting actively involved in economic and military activity in the sub continent is a reminder that the Dragon wants to spread its signature across the continent and the Indian Ocean. The philosophy of five fingers and a string of pearls has long been nursed by Indian analysts. Despite volumes of literature being churned out on the subject, there is no tangible action institutionally to tackle the troubles spawned out by this Chinese maneuvering. Of late though, there is a growing awareness of this Chinese influence as India tries to catch up in Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. This though appears to be too little too late, especially when we have handed over the initiative in each of these countries to China. Then there is the added problems of the “all weather friend” attached to China in all these countries operating counter to Indian interests. The previous posts on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Burma are indicative of the space we have lost to China in South Asia including the Indian Ocean.
A recent issue of The Economist quotes Brajesh Mishra, former Indian national security advisor: Its (China’s) main agenda is to keep India preoccupied with events in South Asia so it is constrained from playing a more important role in Asian and global affairs’. But with or without China, India does embroil herself with her South Asian neighbours. Recent history indicates disputes with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A greater game is unfolding through a China Pakistan ploy to destabilise India as per K Subrahmanyam. “Both countries are interested in fragmenting India. Both have tried to encourage extremist and secessionist groups within the country in J&K, the North-east and the Maoist areas. It is therefore natural for China and Pakistan to attempt to ensure that US President Barack Obama‘s forthcoming visit to India does not take the Indo-US relationship further forward”. China wants to duplicate the Indo-US nuclear deal by offering two more reactors to Pakistan in defiance of the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines.
Then there is the feedback from these countries being subjected to this regional rivalry. This media report in Sri Lanka on the eve of visit of the Army Chief General VKSingh is largely reflective of how this shadow boxing is perceived in the region:
“China two weeks ago officially became the world’s second biggest economy, overtaking Japan. India last week announced an 8.8 percent economic growth in the last three months and is expected to reach 9 percent by the end of the year. Indian economic growth could touch 10 per cent in the next couple of years and may even beat China in the next four years, Dr. Kaushik Basu Chief Economic Advisor of the Indian Finance Ministry was quoted in The Hindu, last week.
These spurts in economic growth have made the once poverty stricken Asian giants to be considered the two leading economic superpowers of the 21st Century — if not in military terms — influencing and dominating countries near and far reminiscent of the Western colonial empires such as Britain, France and Germany did in the 18th and 19th Centuries.”
While the official circles discredit the “encirclement theory” by the Chinese, there is a growing realization in the strategic community of growing Chinese influence in the region. Reports of growing military and specifically naval cooperation with Burma as exemplified last month by port calls in Burma by Chinese war ships indicate an enhanced presence in the Indian Ocean region by the Chinese Navy. Hambantota is also a cause for concern. General Singh’s visit comes ahead of trips to Colombo by defence secretary Pradeep Kumar and foreign minister S.M. Krishna . This signals Indian keenness to regain lost ground in Sri Lanka – a ground lost due to ethnic characteristic of Sri Lanka’s war on LTTE in the face of domestic opposition.
The Sino Indian rivalry is, apparently, largely driven by the PLA where in the opaque but not monolithic CMC considers India as a potential threat to it’s interests in the Indian Ocean region. Needling India on Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh ties down India and suits domestic nationalistic fervor while pleasing Pakistan. Amongst all the theories doing rounds, this appears most plausible as it keeps India in check militarily while allowing China to continue with unbridled trade with India and through the Indian Ocean. As per Chinese experts, India intrudes into many of the issues the military sees as important: Tibet, Pakistan, Myanmar and naval security. The latter is rising Chinese strategic concern, writes Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation, because Beijing faces “an unprecedented reliance on the seas for China’s economic well-being”.
The Economist in an article titled “A Himalayan Rivalry” last month articulates the mulltidimensional and complex contours of relationship between the two neighbours. Of interest, apart from the routine boundary and water disputes, is the theory of India being persued by America as a bulwark against China. This worries Chinese the most and so they too have gone on supporting all India neighbours economically and militarily to complete the strategic encirclement of India.
While some experts rubbish this theory, there is a lot of substance in the argument as evident from Chinese actions in the region. The theory of encirclement can be played in a variety of ways depending on who is looking. While India feels encircled by China, China feels encircled by America. This aspect was covered in an earlier article on Encirclement. Then there are the growing Chinese worries of increased American influence in Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia to counter Chinese interests.
Pertinent amongst the Chinese fears are America’s historical records, since World War II, of strangulating it’s rival’s energy needs – be it Japan or Iraq. China fears a similar fate and thus has resolved its Malacca dilemmas through Pakistan and Burma. China’s economic rise as the world’s largest cheap labour platform has necessitated a vast expansion of its imports of raw materials from all corners of the globe. More than half its vital oil and gas is imported, mostly from the Middle East and Africa. For this reason, China is determined to secure its sea routes across the Indian Ocean through the South China Sea by building a blue water navy. The US is just as determined to prevent this happening, and to maintain its own naval predominance. However these indirectly or directly impige on Indian interests in the region and thus the cycle of animosity and jostling for influence intensifies.
China appears to be acting out of insistence of its military to keep India engaged regionally while it tackles the American influence in the region. My vote is in favour of a China attempting to de isolate itself from a larger encirclement while encircling India – a game that will never end. As Subrahmanyam says”
Times have changed, as has the international strategic milieu. Even while retaining Russia as a friend in the Asian context, India has to develop a new balance of power equation to deal with the challenge from China and Pakistan not merely to our external security but to our national development as a pluralistic, secular and democratic nation.
India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa andArthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.
This Indian ability to call the China Pakistan bluff through artful statecraft is critical to the present regional equation.
A small, 50-member Christian church in the United States state of Florida plans to burn Qur’ans, the holy book of Islam, on the ninth anniversary of the coordinated 9/11 terrorist attack. Led by Pastor Terry Jones, the group intends to burn 200 copies of the Islamic holy text at their location: the Dove World Outreach Center. The church has already prepared the firewood for the fire despite the worldwide reactions of outrage and dissaproval.
The news of the planned Qur’an burning comes with the raging fervor over the construction project of the ‘Ground Zero’ mosque. Pastor Jones remarked that the Holy Qur’an burning is not a message of ‘defiance’ against all Muslims but simply the Muslim extremists and terrorists. “Why don’t we send a warning to them? Why don’t we send a warning to radical Islam and say, don’t do it. If you attack us, we will attack you.”
As the video below shows, courtesy of Russia Today, Muslim populaces were outraged at Reverend Jones’ plans despite his best intentions. Effigies of Reverend Jones were burned as angry Afghans protested the planned book burning.
More than 100 death threats were reported to have been sent to the 58 year old Terry Jones which has prompted him and his aides to carry firearms for self-protection. Reverend Jones also spoke of the rampant vandalism of his “International Burn a Koran Day” signs out on church property.
The U.S. federal government along with the United States military command in Afghanistan warned that the Qur’an burning would enrage countless Muslims and drastically drag down the war’s progress in Afghanistan. Moreover the act would project the wrong image of America to the rest of the Muslim world; a terrible blow on U.S. President Obama’s efforts to mend relationships with the Middle East in his early presidency.
Other religious leaders condemned Jones’ plan as unproductive and a cry for attention. Some expressed concern for troops overseas as unnecessary violence over there wrought by unnecessary actions back here would be the last thing “any of our guys would want”.
New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque commented on the planned Qur’an burning as unpleasent but firmly said the Qur’an burning was to be protected “because of the First Amendment” which overrules the need for a burning permit in Jones’ area.
The Dove World Outreach Center stated it took the reactions and the government’s cautions “very seriously” but insisted it will still burn copies of the Qur’an this Saturday. The Christian pastor also said the burning was to honor the memory of the 9/11 victims. Which begs this question: would the Muslim individuals who died in the 9/11 attacks be pleased by the burning of their holy text?
The intensity of war in Af-Pak has picked up considerably in September beginning last week of August. The pattern indicates flexing of muscle by the Punjabi Taliban and TTP across Pakistan. The numbers in Pakistan include 108 civilians, mainly Shia minority, killed and 400 wounded. In Afghanistan the coalition forces were able to kill 64 “terrorists” of the Haqqani group in three separate incidents. It included the coalition forces repelling Haqqani attacks at Salerno,Chapman and Margah Forward Operating Bases. The events unfolded as enumerated:
On 23 August, the Taliban targeted mosques to take out pro-government leaders in coordinated attacks in South Waziristan, killing 25 people in three bombings and suicide attacks. The largest strike took place at a mosque in the town of Wana in South Waziristan. In the explosion, 18 people were killed.There have been 23 major attacks on mosques and other Islamic institutions in Pakistan since December 2007, according to information compiled by The Long War Journal.
On the same day Five terrorists and seven civilians were were killed when unmanned US strike aircraft fired three missiles at a compound in the village of Danda Darpa Khel, a village just outside of Miramshah in North Waziristan, according to Dawn.
On 26 August, the US struck targets with a predator attack in Kurram which killed four “terrorists”.
On 28 August coalition and Afghan troops beat back a complex Haqqani Networkassault on two bases in eastern Afghanistan, killing more than 20 fighters and a senior commander during and after the attack. The Haqqani Network “simultaneously launched” coordinated attacks on Forward Operating Bases at Salerno and Chapman. As per ISAF, 30 Haqqani Network fighters including 13 wearing suicide vests, were killed during the Aug. 28 assault on two US bases in Khost. On 02 September, as per ISAF press release, more than 20 members of the Haqqani Network were killedafter launching an early morning attack on Outpost at Margah in the Bermel district of Paktika province. On the same day unmanned US strike aircraft attacked compounds in two separate strikes in the Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan killing at least 15 Taliban as per media reports.
In the meanwhile, despite the floods, Shia minorities were attacked in two separate incidents in Lahore on 01 September and Quetta on 03 September. 29 people were reported killed and more than 200 people were wounded in bombings by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al Almi, another name for the so-called Punjabi Taliban, during religious processions. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in particular is well known for carrying out sectarian terror attacks against minority Shia, Ahmadis, Sufis, and Christians in Pakistan. In Quetta, a suicide car bomb was detonated in the midst of a Qods Day protest held by Shia Muslims who oppose Israel’s control of Jerusalem. 54 people( some reports claim 76) were killed and nearly 200 were wounded, according to reports from Geo News and Dawn. (Note: The figures have been compiled from the Long War Journal.)
On 01 September, the US government designated the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan as a terrorist entity, and named Hakeemullah and Waliur Rehman Mehsudas specially designated global terrorists. Hakeemullah and Waliur now have $5 million bounties out for information leading to their capture and prosecution. On 03 September the Pakistani Talibanthreatened to attack foreign aid workers delivering relief for the floods that have paralyzed much of the country.
Analysis – Pakistan’s Sectarian Violence
The patterns of these figures indicate the renewed vigour in conduct of suicide attacks and bombings by groups of all hues,backed by Al Qaeda, especiallythe attacks against religious minorities, to ignite a sectarian crisis in Pakistan. The Quetta attack immediately heightened tension between the Hazara ethnic minority – which is Shia – and the city’s Sunni majority Pushtun population. Immediately after the attack, armed Hazara men took over the streets in Quetta.
Lahore and what is happening there is important to Pakistan’s ethnic map. As per an analysis over Radio Australia by MJ Gohel, chief executive officer of the security research group, Asia Pacific Foundation,whoever wants to destabilise the country or the government has to go after Lahore. Militants in Pakistan believe that if they can turn Lahore into a battleground, then there is little to prevent the Taliban influence from spreading right across the entire country and turn it into a Taliban state.
The rise in violence levels indicates that Al-Qaeda-linked militants are exploiting the fact that the catastrophic monsoon floods that have engulfed Pakistan have put authorities under severe pressure. This gives them adequate levey to perpetuate sectarian clashes which when combined with the after affects of the floods would create the desired environment for further radicalisation of the society – an opportunity the Taliban are eagerly waiting for.
The procession in Quetta was in observance of Al Quds Day on the last Friday of the fasting period. Al Quds is the name of the historic mosque in East Jerusalem, which is under Israeli control since 1967. Ever since Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, Muslims all over the world observe the last Friday of the fasting period as Al Quds Day to remind each other that Al Quds is still under the control of Israel.This call was given by Ayatollah Khomeini in a message issued by him to all the Muslims of the world—-Shias as well as Sunnis—in August 1979. The Pakistan Taliban and the Sunnis in general believe that Shia Iran collaborated with US for the invasion of Sunni Iraq. The attacks on Shias observing Al Quds Day in Quetta were meant to punish not only the Shias of Pakistan, but also Iran. This would fan fires amongst Iran establishment to vitiate the environment further.
The Pakistan Army has not been silent through all this. As per claims in the The News , the Pakistan Army is selectively eliminating Taliban commanders and killing Taliban prisoners. While Taliban claims should be taken sceptically, there does appear to be some truth to this report. There have been several reports of Taliban commanders being killed months after being arrested. These could be the bad Taliban not colluding with the Pakistan Army. On ground this widens the rift between Taliban and the Pakistan Army against the theory of “Good – Bad Taliban”. The Taliban and their acolytes have the easier route of putting the establishment under greater strain by inciting the ethnic violence.
Apart from their role in Pakistan, the TTP under Hakimullah Mehsud, has become ambitious and has been engaging in executing missions in Afghanistan and overseas.This is evident from the US charge of Mehsud’s alleged involvement in killing of seven Americans at a CIA base in Afghanistan and the confessions of Shahzad the NY bomber.
Analysis Afghanistan
The attacks on ISAF posts and bases with suicidal intent exhibit growing confidence of the Taliban. Despite suffering heavy casualties they have maintained reasonable control in Kandahar / Southern Afghanistan and have increased their influence North of Kabul in Mazar-e-Sharief, KonduZ and Herat. There are also reports that they have joined hands or reached an understanding with various factional militant group in the North bordering Iran and the Central Asian Republic including factions of the erstwhile Northern Alliance. This has ominous portents for ISAF which is far too stretched with the ANA and ANP not yet totally effective. Infiltration of Taliban in Afghan scurity forces is another thorny issue. The forthcoming elections will provide Taliban and al Qaeda with adequate opportunities to discredit the process through violence.
The primary targets of predator strikes seem to be Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, and the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, especially North Waziristan – a terrorist training and breeding ground where the Pakistan Army has not launched operations as yet.
Roundup
The floods have changed the landscape of Pakistan but not the mindset. There are ominous signs that the combined effects of the floods, inefficiency of the civil government, still hawkish India centric focus of Pakistan Army and the upper hand gained by the militant groups in fanning the sectarian fires will result in a fractured future for the Pakistani polity – at least for now. The current trend of violence may continue.
The Pakistan Taliban has threatened to carry out attacks in the US and Europe “very soon”, two days after US added the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to its list of “foreign terrorist organizations”. “We will launch attacks in America and Europe very soon,” said Qari Hussain Mehsud, who is the Taliban’s top trainer of suicide bombers and Hakeemullah Mehsud’s top deputy.
Afghanistan awaits the surge after the Iraqi pullout and it would be interesting to see General Patraeus’s strategies including the plan for the end game.
Afterthought
Then there was the ISI claim of India being relegated by militant threat in Pakistan. No such luck. Amidst diverse reports on the subject, The Nation rubbished that the militant threat could ever overtake India as enemy number one. “There is no change in Pakistan’s stance vis a vis India”. The recent instance of Pakistan needlessly hesitant in accepting India’s flood relief very well exposes the typical Pakistani mindset. As per us, this claim is purely tactical; in their heart of hearts, their mortal enemy is still India. The Pakistani establishment has brought upon its people a virulently anti-Indian and doctored version of history. The venom is too deep seated and only an internal collapse and balkanisation of the Pakistan state can bring some genuine drift in the mindset. Under these conditions, the scenario of a lasting peace with Pakistan appears extremely remote. In the meantime Indian eyes are temporarily on the Dragon.
Analysts are an intriguing lot. They want to analyse, dissect and lay bare all aspects of an issue till the issue pleads for mercy. Indus Waters are one such issue which analysts are very fond of raking up as it attracts eyeballs being an Indo Pak affair. More so, the floods have focused attention of the world on the waters so why not bring it up?
The fact that there is a model for sharing resources of all the six rivers flowing into Pakistan through the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 is known. The fact is that the Indus water Treaty has so far stood the test of time. Few countries in the world have signed and honoured such treaties as the two nations have; a fact often forgotten. India has just accepted the Bagliar Award and Pakistan has accepted publicly India’s assurance of no diversion of Chenab waters. India also has the Ganges Agreement with Bangla Desh that has held in place regardless of ups and downs.
Some perspectives from an award winning essay are here. What at times remains hidden behind the facade of politicking on the issue is the management of these resource. Whether India or Pakistan like it or not the glaciers are melting. Soon, I can’t predict how soon, the flooding will cease to be the problem in favour of droughts causing mayhem of gigantic proportions.What will we share when the source dries out. Steven Solomon, the author of “Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization ”has this to say on the issue in The NY Times :
This is because a widespread water shortage in Pakistan would further destabilize the fractious country, hurting its efforts to root out its resident international terrorists. The struggle for water could also become a tipping point for renewed war with India. The jihadists know how important the issue is: in April 2009, Taliban forces launched an offensive that got within 35 miles of the giant Tarbela Dam, the linchpin of Pakistan’s hydroelectric and irrigation system.
and
The Pakistanis may never come to love us. But as the current spectacle of Islamic jihadists bringing emergency aid to flooded areas warns us, we can’t afford to ignore Pakistan’s looming freshwater crisis.
David Rothkopf writing in Foreign Policy(FP) argues that Obama should use his visit in November as an opportunity to get India and Pakistan to talk water and resolve other vexed issues based on a “Nudge” model by America. Nothing wrong with the argument theoretically. Will it also apply to Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and terror? In this complex and most dangerous conflict of interests between the two neighbours, reason has seldom had a chance. Some in the West strategic circles argue that the US government is still not doing as much as it should in terms of contributing at a systemic level to helping the Pakistanis and Indians turn this nightmare (floods) into a strategically significant trust-building event. An Indian view is here.
The American media overdrive focusing on water is a clear effort to get India and Pakistan to talk – somehow, in the best American interests. Water is just one such excuse through which the self appointed interlocutors may spur even track two negotiations by highlighting the acute shortage of fresh water in Pakistan.
However the American interests are not as important as putting up a review of water sharing in the region including India, Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. This is a big bite to be taken one at a time but finally the relationship between Indus river system, the Ganges and Tsangpo has to be strengthened to mutually benefit the region.
Of interest to note is that China has signed no treaty and also does not recognise the UN Protocol on water sharing by upper and mid riparians.
It thus has problems with Russia, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, India, Bangla Desh, and Pak on water sharing as all its decisions with respect to water have been unilateral. In light of this discussion, America’s polite intervention may be to score over public opinion in Pakistan. China it may not. Obama knows that the real problem is with the upper riparian, China, which US will not be willing to buck.
“What we need is a trans-boundary water opportunity analysis”. Transcending from “dividing” to “sharing” the resources, as articulated by A Rafay Alam, a respected Pakistani in the “News” in July this year. A bold piece considering the traditional rivalries between India and Pakistan where each side has an attitude focusing on a blame game. Then there is the mistrust that characterises Indo-Pakistani relations, gross mismanagement of water resources within Pakistan, outdated irrigation practices, poorly planned agricultural zoning, a rising population and resultant water scarcity that make “discussion” mandatory beyond Kashmir and terror. Whether the politicians on both sides will agree to such a discussion is a major stumling block towards creating a universally acceptable formula that creates a win-win situation for both the nations – even if it has to be brokered by Obama.
For Obama this may be a necessity borne out of diffusing tensions between the two nuclear neighbours as his “big-ticket” outcome of the Indian visit but for the region it is more a matter of survival. The fact that the West originated debate is being picked up in South Asia is a factor of Western world’s attempt to facilitate some progress on Indo Pakistan relations that have a direct impact on the “India Centric Pakistan”. This according to the West will open the doors for other bilateral issues to be resolved. Some in America see this as a strategic opportunity towards perception management post the floods.
Finally, however, the solution has to be based on an economic resource sharing formula that benefits both sides, as per observations of Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Memorial Prize winner for Economic Sciences this year for her study of shared resources. This may appear to be a motivated article from a Western world view but as is the case in all the water wars since biblical times, this is as good an opportunity as any other to get a move on the subject. However, the issue of upper and lower riparian meets a dead-end when it comes to China and whether Obama would want to push his luck here is a matter of debate.
Alam suggests a track II channel to discuss this issue till adequate political will is generated on both sides – I differ. The track II channel in an Indo Pakistani environment is prone to sabotage by the establishment as has been the experience in the past. This cat has to be belled despite her ferocity. It would also tilt international opinion in favour of the region – especially Pakistan.
Utopian, but if followed it may end up as a formula with China(??) and Bangladesh too – water for peace! An earlier discussion Water Wars had articulated a similar thought.
The foreign policy experts need to leverage this great resource to harbinger peace in the region.
The question nonetheless is, “Will Obama bite the bait and will hawks in India and Pakistan let him?”
Obama’s watered down version of “Mission Accomplished” statement originating from the Oval office, rather than a warship on high seas, is indicative of a lot that America has endured in Iraq and is likely to endure in Afghanistan. These wars were not Obama’s choices but inheritance. Inheritance that he was well seized of when he took the plunge for presidency. That Afghanistan today has turned into Obama’s Iraq is a well known fact. As the Time articulates:
In his 2007 Iraq address, Obama cited his own words from the famous October 2002 speech he gave opposing the then coming Iraq invasion: Obama warned that the war could lead to “a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” It was a prescient warning. But in a twist of fate, those words might also apply to Obama’s troubled war in Afghanistan. As if commemorating America’s inconclusive exit from Iraq wasn’t already hard enough.
The biggest criticism, though, is that President Obama fudged on his campaign promise to end the war and remove all troops from the country by May 2010. Perceptions of a ‘complete withdrawal” remain contested across the political landscape in US.
Then there is this major blot on the US interventionism in foreign countries from Vietnam to Afghanistan – America never went in either of these places with a clear end state in mind. Like in Vietnam,in Iraq, US fell into the trap of mission creep. Their initial rationale was to find and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
In their absence the US stayed on to topple Saddam Hussein’s government and dismantle his political party, military and government services. Once they had destroyed a brutal but none-the-less functioning government, they set up a U.S.-led Provisional Authority to replace it.
And then they stuck around to help write them a constitution, hold democratic elections, form a government, and train new military and security forces.
Afghanistan appears headed the same way but will be a much harder nut to crack. US is repeating the same mistakes here too – End State! But they have the advantage of Pakistan fighting with and against them in this war to complicate issues further. Interestingly, Iran remains the common factor in both these conflicts. The power vacuum that Obama leaves behind has been articulated well by Guardian in this post.
Answering the basic question of conditions conducive to a pull out, – the American perspective is clear – America seems to have had enough of this war in blood and money and wants out. Perfectly understandable after seven long years in combat for oil. Iraq has also paid in blood and oil for Saddam’s fictional weapons of mass destruction. An estimated expenditure of $ 750 billions ( more than a trillion if you count add ons in terms of managing the war casualties) has done little more than established the image of America as a war monger in a “War on Islam”, producing more anti american Jihadis in the bargain. This has magnified the threats to American homeland security manifold.
Iraq is still in a turmoil and suffers more civilian casualties at the hands of other Iraqis than the Americans. The Republic of Iraq or the Iraqi al Qaeda is more powerfultoday than ever. As per an APestimate the number of civilians killed in July in Iraq exceed the number of casualties in Afghanistan.
The Shia – Sunni divide is wider now than ever with Iran ready to extract its pound of flesh. The Kurds would be awaiting their turn in the governance model which will generate more conflict. More than 4,400 US troops have died in Iraq since the invasion, a number dwarfed by the estimated 100,000 civilians killed, according to Iraq Body Count.
As per Iraqi diaspora Saddam’s days were better in all hues of civil life. The systems worked and there was general happiness barring a few dictatorial glitches. Iraqis seemed unconvinced that the official end of US combat operations would herald an improvement in security. As per Middle East observers, the U.S. cuts and runs, have paved the way for Iran to declare victory. Iran has emerged the only beneficiary of the U.S. occupation and its withdrawal. Iraqis now think of their security, of their livelihood, of their wealth, their country’s future and the future of their children.While many Iraqis have welcomed the withdrawal, others say they believe it is happening too soon and that the country is not ready to manage its own security. Al Zazeera ran a debate on Iraq after America recently. The deliberations argued that peace would be fragile and America may have to return.
The withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq has begun and by the end of August there will be fewer than 50,000 left in the country. But although the so-called combat brigades may be gone, they are being replaced by equal numbers of contractors. And just this week, on one day alone, 13 separate attacks across the country provided a chilling reminder of the perilous conditions confronting the local forces.
With violence on the increase and politicians locked in a stalemate, can the Iraqiarmy ensure the country’s security or will US soldiers have to return?
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says that the conditions are conducive for a US draw down in an “Independent” Iraq,which as per Biden is not disengagement.
“If the politicians continue fighting on the chairs, the situation will get worse,” as per Salah Abu al-Qassim, 36, a trader in Shorja market in central Baghdad.
Much against Maliki’s claims the political situation in Iraq is still fragile. As per media reports,Iraq’s top army officer, Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari, warned on August 11 that a complete withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011 was premature, and urged politicians that the American military should stay until 2020.
Many believe that by 1973, the U.S. military had a formula in place that would end its involvement in Vietnam and ensure South Vietnam’s stability after the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Yet after the signing of the Paris peace agreement that year, Congress began cutting Nixon administration requests for military and economic assistance to South Vietnam. Two years later, Saigon fell to North Vietnam. Congress must not repeat the mistakes of the Vietnam era and cut off support to Iraq as our forces redeploy. Fortunately, the differences between post-combat Iraq and post-combat Vietnam are greater than their similarities. Only the most strident antiwar critics reject the success of the surge in Iraq. Even Obama, a onetime critic of the strategy, now recognizes its success.
Experts and think tanks in US would be busy finding similarities in lessons learnt in Iraq for application in Afghanistan.The main being the enormous difficulties of trying to force a country into a political system that the majority of its citizens neither want nor are prepared to sustain on their own.
Hopefully the 50,000 left behind don’t push their luck too far. We hope Obama’s prophecy of “a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences is proved wrong and this cycle of “invasion, surge and withdrawal” thought through as the biggest lesson of contemporary military history.
The latest round of events of snapping Defence ties based on rejection of Visa to a General has cast a shadow over the uneasy relations between the two Asian Tigers and has started a fresh debate on the Sino Indian relations.
The relations between the two neighbours have never been easy at the best of times, ever since the 1962 War. However despite booming trade between the two countries this recent bout of needling appears to be motivated. Of late China has increased the stakes in Arunachal Pradesh and issued “plain paper” visas to Indians born in Jammu and Kashmir. Then there was the uproar about Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh. Increased border violations have been noticed in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese activities in Indian neighbourhood – its plans to dam the Brahmaputra and extend the Tibet rail link into Nepal are other aspects of continuing Chinese assertiveness. The operationalisation of rail and additional air infrastructure in Tibet for the first time are again signals of an assertive China.
This post, though not related to the incident perse, throws some light on the dynamics of “and” or “versus” theories in the relationship between the two countries. Then there are colours of American and Pakistan relations painting this relationship.
What we hear least about is the tangled weave of national interests that means China courts Pakistan as a proxy for it’s own competition with India, to the point where Pakistani experts concede that, given a choice between alliance with the US or China, Pakistan’s military will choose China “every day of the week, and twice on Fridays”.
This relationship is at the back of a lot of Chinese man oeuvres in the region to keep America and India at bay.
As per Vikram Sood, the ex Chief of RAW, US and China have their own geostrategic rivalries to settle, and the Chinese may have assessed that their moment has come.
“Yet China remains concerned with its intricate trade and financial links with the US, and also with the security ofits trade and supply routes that transit the Malacca Straits. It has endeavoured to develop extensive land routesthrough Central Asia, but these are inadequate. It is a matter of time before China will make its presence more visible in the Indian Ocean. It has port facilities in Hambantota and Gwadar, and a presence in the Arabian Sea as it battles Somali pirates. China has expanded its contacts with Iran, more in competition with Russia than the US, it seeks mineral wealth in Afghanistan, its relations with Pakistan need no elucidation and it has developed strong ties with Burma.” This Burmese angle may resolve China’s Malacca Dilemma.
China’s enunciation of its strategic interests in South China Sea and the Yellow Sea through naval exercises as a caution on US – Korean enterprise in Jul 2010 is a reminder that China is now ready to assert itself. Thus while we may agonise over challenges across our land frontiers, we would be ignoring the new challenge in the Indian Ocean unless we plan countermeasures now. He further articulates that:
China pretty much owns Pakistan and will own Afghanistan within a decade. India would be better served, in my opinion, by turning its back upon both in their entirety, rather than shackle itself to a ball and chain designed by China. Although national pride demands that something, anything, be “done now” about terrorism, the truth is that such attacks are gnats stinging an elephant, doing more damage by distraction than by the pain they inflict.
The recent concessions by Pakistan to China over the Karakoram highway and now greater autonomy to PLA Army to operate in Gilgit and Baltistan underscores Pakistan’s need to play by Chinese rules in keeping India away. In the bargain connecting China to Iran for gas and trade.
As per this report in BBC, India can match China in next 20 years, if it retains its focus and manages its maritime interests unshackled from the tactical friction on its Western borders.China and India, accounting for roughly 40% of the 6.5bn plus people on PlanetEarth, are not merely the two fastest growing major economies in the world at present, but are among the few countries that have continued to expand at a time when the economies of most countries have contracted. The article also asks the pertinent economic question, “Can the lumbering elephant overtake the hyperactive dragon?” But that is an economic assessment of 2009 and even if were to happen, “Can the two march together – geopolitically?”
Check this out for the relationship matrix between India and China:
China has strategically allied itself with Pakistan in a geopolitical move against India which concentrates as much on economics as on military support – although in Pakistan’s military-heavy economy the two are inseparable. For instance, dredging the harbor at Gwadar has given both China and Pakistan an important economic asset as well as China an advance naval base. But the overall aim of Chinese sub-continent policy, and its alliance with Pakistan, is to cut off India’s overland access to Europe, the Middle East and Asia while enhancing China’s own.That’s why Afghanistan is the battleground for these geopolitical rivals. Between Pakistan and China, India is effectively blocked from land routes into the continent, effectively an island should its rivals wish it.
In deference to China and wooing Pakistan for an Afghan exit, America appears to have forgotten India almost entirely. Although Indians must pursue their own strategic independence, that’s no reason why America and India should not have closer ties which would help India see its national interests as more parallel to America’s. In that respect, George Bush got something right and Obama seems to be floundering.
However, the American people are howling at the gates of Congress to end these trillion dollar, decade-long wars of occupation and aggression, and there is simply no conceivable military solution to any of our problems – whether that’s Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or even Iran. Diplomacy has to be the way to go. Huffington Post of 25 Aug explains this. A must read into the political and diplomatic muddle that the triumvirate has gotten Pakistan into.
This is where Obama finds himself in a logjam if he does not take India on board. In the present geopolitical environment America has to find a regional solution to the Afghan mess and think beyond Pakistan. The two names that come to mind immediately are India and China. How, has been discussed in an earlier post “Afghanistan after America”. Economically though, China is edging past America to be the next super power which complicates this relationship.
Theoretically speaking, the two Asian giants need to come together to make this century a truly Asian one. But there are impediments of geopolitics, suspicion and of course Pakistan. Pragmatic realism demands a multiple track diplomacy with China and USA which fructifies “India and China” rather than “India Versus China”.
The irritants of the present must thus be tackled from a position of equality with clear Quid Pro Quo.
These faces of war in Afghanistan are a grim reminder that the Taliban are evolving their tactics better than the ISAF in this war on terror. The increased levels of sophistication and expertise in using IEDs and conduct of guerrilla warfare indicates the tenacity and vibrancy of the so called backward Taliban to contest all that is Western in this war. They have the most important attributes of a war on their side, “Time”.
This is the very commodity US is running out of. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the July 2011 date is set in stone, while the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Petraeus, articulates he might recommend against a withdrawal depending on conditions on the ground. With coalition patience running thin and the support for war hitting an all time low, the ISAF is forced to speed up operations against the Taliban. It is exactly this desperation of coalition forces which is being targeted by the Taliban. Lay back and attack at will on ISAF facilities and troops with the new and improved version of Guerrilla Warfare. Amidst mounting casualties, Vice President Joe Biden argues that they have not lost the war yet.
He says, “We now are only beginning with the right general and the right number of forces to seek our objectives”.
What force and what objective is what Biden is confused about along with a majority of coalition nations.
Whether Coalition forces are in Afghanistan for a war on Terror or are they to construct Afghanistan. The debate about whether the U.S. armed forces should be involved in nation-building was big in the 1990s, but the nation-builders have won the argument hands down.
The terminology has shifted, to be sure, from “nation-building” to “stabilization and reconstruction” missions, but these include efforts to improve governance and the economy as well as security and stability. A tall order in a country that has never understood democracy as a nation and has thrived and lived under it’s own tribal dispensations. It would do well to remember that the Afghans, through history, have not been defeated in reckon-able memory. That is a major departure from America‘s war in Iraq. The belief that Afghans like Coalition presence and the Taliban don’t, is a myth. The Afghans know that the coalition will go away but the Taliban will stay.
The coalition took 9 long years of attrition to surmise in the London Conference that “talking to” and not “fighting” the Taliban was the only way forward. This realisation has been forced upon the coalition by the resilience and convictions of the Taliban – that they can and will repeat history. Ahmed Rashid had articulated this aspect in February 2010 after the London Conference. Six months and Kabul Conference later, the coalition does not seem to have made much headway in talking to the Taliban – an aspect laboured on in an earlier post.
The involvement of Pakistan army in the floods has further weakened the ISAF operations on the Eastern front along Khyber Pashtunwala and Balochistan. The Taliban have used this opportunity to spread their influence in the North weakening the Plan B. According to this analysis in Washington Post by Rangin Dadfar Spanta, national security adviser of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Pakistan is the Afghan War’s real aggressor.
Amongst all this America seems to have little time to dismantle the al Qaeda in Af Pak region – the very reason they are in Afghanistan in the first place. The American estimates may indicate a low al Qaeda foot print but they still hold sway over a large population in the muslim world and especially in this region. They have a huge impact on the Taliban. As per one report, “The Pakistani madrassahs are still the big recruiting and training place. The Afghans go to a madrassah in Pakistan, where an Arab is typically like the dean, or headmaster, and learn how to fight.
Then the Afghan goes back home and teaches others to build bombs or fight — and gets paid handsomely for it.”. More on this can be read here. The al Qaeda, suspicious of the Taliban, has started participating selectively in the insurgency to maintain the pressure. They are also getting innovative with their tactics and techniques of war fighting, as is apparent in this article.
Over time and especially after the faulty analysis of situation reports of WikiLeaks, an impression is gaining ground in the West that Al-Qaeda has become a “afterthought” as troops battle the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to a Washington Post analysis of classified documents. This may spell doom for the coalition. The al Qaeda doesn’t figure in the WikiLeaks as these are situation reports where every hostile casualty might be treated as Taliban. The analysis of the thousands of documents from 2004 to 2009 back US claims that al-Qaeda has become a “marginal player on the Afghan battlefield,” as per an analysis of the Washington Post. Nothing could be farther than the truth.
The Coalition is in a quandary fighting this war on multiple fronts where its ally Pakistan is manipulating all the pieces of the Zigsaw puzzle, often to its own peril. The Taliban and al Qaeda signatures indicate a paradigm shift in their capability to continue with their Jihad against the infidels. Pakistan is currently down but is not willing to let go of the pie in Afghanistan for its misplaced sense of Strategic Depth against an Indian threat.
Patraeus would do well to address the issue of Taliban and Pakistan under an overarching umbrella of al Qaeda. The “build” phase may be out of context in Afghanistan – “stabilization and reconstruction” well that will take time and that is a commodity coalition is running out of.
Obama has inherited an America at war with itself in virtually all parts of the world. Somewhere it is kinetic where as at other places there are temporal wars being fought by America. All these are draining precious resources and are leading towards an early demise of the American Century.
Throughout its brief lifetime, America has constantly been in military conflicts both necessary and mostly unnecessary. Does the U.S.A still have a thin layer of imperialism left from the 20th century? Is the U.S.A addicted to war? Lots of people don’t like the war in the Middle East, but the U.S especially seems to be addicted to war in general throughout its history and even today in many parts of their society.
The U.S fought wars for their independence, against Mexico, Spain, and most especially Britain in the War of 1812. After World War II , the country has been in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, with unknown wars in Laos and Cambodia with some other military operations in the regions of Asia. Through the twentieth century’s worst nightmare, the dropping of atom bombs on Japan, America has been in conflict with Soviet Union and now the Muslim World. Prominent being the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan with deep involvement in Israel and Iran. Thus from Middle East to South Asia, America is deeply engaged in various forms of warfare.
Then the U.S got into the Gulf War, Afghanistan War, Second Gulf War, and bordered on nuclear war with the former Soviet Union.
Moreover, the U.S invaded, bombed, isolated, stripped, and had military presence in other regions in the world such as Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, the Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Libya, Panama, Grenada, Yemen, and other places.
The present quagmire the US finds itself in is a product of America’s phobia with the Islamic world, barring its standoff with China over Taiwan or the Koreas. The war on terror has turned out to be the worst nightmare for USA and is being construed in the Islamic Word as the “War against Islam”. The overall confusion of not wanting the Mosque at ground zero but acknowledging the legal right to do so and what the Islamic Public diplomacy has not done to exonerate any portion of Islam from complicity in the Jihad against America.
Obama has been trying to woo the muslim world but finds US on the verge of “Vietnamsing” Iraq and Afghanistan amidst public rage over the American involvement in long and bloody conflicts. While America has made little progress in both these countries over the last decade, it has fanned the fires of Political Islam across the globe. As per an opinion:
“Over a year ago, when US President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world from Cairo, the response from the region was generally optimistic. Many appreciated the American president’s gesture of respect towards Islam, as well as his recognition of the injustice done to the Palestinian people. Hope existed that he would show a markedly different approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The disappointment that followed was not just the natural lapsing of a honeymoon, but also a reflection of the Obama administration’s failure to follow through on its promises. While the postponement of the closure of Guantanamo Bay and a drawn-out exit from Iraq were undoubtedly a factor, it was on the Palestinian issue that the disillusionment was most bitterly felt, particularly after the administration softened its stance on Israel’s settlements.
This adjustment of attitudes was reflected in the recent Zogby poll, which showed that ‘hopeful’ sentiment about US policy in the Middle East dropped from 51 percent in 2009 to 16 percent in 2010, with a large majority–63 percent, rather than 15 percent in 2009–of respondents feeling ‘discouraged’ by Obama’s tenure. This is bad news for the administration, considering Obama had made America’s public diplomacy and its image in the Muslim world an American strategic interest its own right. This logic, adopted by Bush and Obama alike, posited that it was essential to convince the Muslim world that the ‘war on terror’ was not a ‘war on Islam’–which would be falling into the trap set by al-Qaeda and other fundamentalists who seek to ignite civilisational wars.”
Resultantly, the Iraq draw down is being hampered by fears of an Iranian takeover or domination in Iraq in a Shia Sunni war amongst the Islamic nations.The imbroglio in Afghanistan is fanning the fires of radical Islamic version of Taliban gaining ground to the detriment of peace in the region and the world. This inferno will not leave the West unscathed as the muslim diaspora across the globe gets radicalised by acolytes of al Qaeda duly supported and sponsored by Pakistan.
In Iraq, Iranian interference in ensuring a pro Iran government or a weak baathist government, is blackmailing the US to maintain a permanent presence. The dilemma of a power vacuum in Iraq being exploited by Shia Iran is the bane of US foreign policy. If this were to happen America would leave the region more radicalised than when it had first entered the scene. A similar scenario is being played out in Afghanistan where Pakistan is blackmailing America for a larger pie in the future solution. When compared, the startling similarities in the post pull out scenarios indicate a violent wave of turbulence sweeping through Middle East and South Asia. The Shia – Sunni divide will play a dominant role in continued destabilising of the region- an internal dynamic over which the Americans hold no sway.
The Israel – Iran standoff and fears of attacks against each other over the middle east crisis see America in an awkward position where the Public opinion wants US out of any Israeli misadventure directly or otherwise. The opinions on this war are strongly against Israel but if followed through have dangerous implications for America.
It is precisely this turbulence which has also encouraged China to enlarge its sphere of Influence in this region by supporting Pakistan and Iran. As brought out earlier in a post, this is a win win situation for China which has quietly upped the ante through its nuclear, military and economic power to muscle its way into the global real politic. This has tied America in knots, where it is fast losing its battles against the Muslim states while losing strategic space in the world to China.
It is in the backdrop of these dire situations across the globe that Obama is visiting India this November. An earlier post had arguedfor greater American strategic equation with India in the long run where it can counter the Chinese influence in the region across a range of geopolitical considerations. The American policy has to charter its path through this minefield of complex scenarios unfolding in Middle East and South Asia. Political Islam on the one hand and Dragon’s fire on the other. America would only be too keen to use India as a bulwark against China and that may happen but it is the spectre of Political Islam which should worry Obama in the short term.
Under these complex equations, India has to play its cards well in these wars, strategically and tactically.
Yes, we all know Google doesn’t have some kind of holiday-doodle for today, but today is still the 90th anniversary of the day when the 19th Amendement of the Constitution was ratified awarding female, American suffragists in the 20th century. As America began to put the horrors of World War One behind it, President Wilson urged Congressmen to support the long-proposed 19th amendment in 1918. Following that year, the House of Representatives passed the amendment (304 to 89 votes) onto the Senate which approved of the amendment with a vote of 56 to 25. At that time thirty six states were required to ratify the 19th amendment. As states from Texas to Maine approved, the final state ratification came to the Tennessee General Assembly.
Debate raged in the Assembly until the votes tied at 48-48. Harry Thomas Burn changed the tiebreak by voting in favor of the ninteenth amendment on August 18, 1920; strangely Burn announced he had cast that particular vote to be a “good boy” because his mother had requested him to ratify the proposed amendment.
Led in striking, parading, holding memorable events, lecturing, lobbying, and just practicing nationwide civil disobedience by the-now icons of the suffrage (and abolitionist) movement like Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone since the mid 1800′s, women were given the right to vote by a couple of statements the Ninteenth Amendment made.
Susan B. Anthony
“The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex… Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.
Long before the Ninteenth Amendment, other governments had given women the right to vote in elections, though with some strings attached in a few cases:
- 1893: New Zealand
- 1901: Australia
- 1906: Finland
- 1909: Sweden
- 1913: Norway
- 1915: Iceland & Denmark
- 1918: Russia, United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland
- 1919: Netherlands, Belarus, Luxemburg, Ukraine
Then, throughout the roaring ’20s, various countries including Ecuador and Armenia gave the women the right to vote. The stream of countries granting woman suffrage became a river especially after World War II when more than 30 countries gave women the right to vote. However, women in some countries were still not granted suffrage until the 1980′s, just a few decades ago. Very recently, Kuwait gave women the vote in 2005.
Kuwaiti women voting in Salwa. (Gustavo Ferrar/Associated Press)
Locations where women may not be allowed to vote are countries that do not have an electoral system such as North Korea and the UAE.
Relievingly, the list of countries barring women from voting is much more shorter in the 21st century while the list of nations celebrating anniversaries of a woman’s right to vote has considerably grown. While some will express shame at “how late” America or another country granted women voting rights, all of us have still made huge progress concerning women’s rights in retrospective.
After observing the thousands of Mexico’s federal troops battle against the Mexican drug cartels under the government of President Felipe Calderón, former Mexican president Vicente Fox decided to contribute his voice with other Latin American politicians’ in a movement to legalize drugs including marijuana. This decision comes a week after President Calderon called for debate on the legalization. Denying that he was supporting the abuse of various drugs, Fox stated that legalizing drugs would significantly lower the cartels’ influence and the prevalent violence.
“Radical prohibition”, Fox argued, “is ineffective”. The former Mexican president asserted that Mexico and its people had sustained “enormous losses” as a result of the ‘war on drugs’ led by both Calderónand the U.S government. Blatant ambushes on police forces, sporadic gang violence, and the ghastly deaths of more than 28,000 innocent civilians in just four years were reasons that Mexico “should consider legalizing the production, sale, and distribution of drugs” according to Fox on his Internet blog.
Fox detailed that the legalization of drugs will carry a heavy tax for its consumers to “break the economic structure that enables cartels to earn such tremendous profits”.
Although Fox himself sent troops to engage drug cartels in a few regions, he criticized his fellow PAN member and president Calderón’s large deployments of more than 40,000 federal troops that has sparked a steady escalation in drug-related violence since 2008. Vicente Fox recalls his presidency which had miserably handed drug policies. Some claim that Calderón’s policies seem to be on the same road.
Vicente Fox
Meanwhile, President Felipe Calderón announced he would still continue the military crackdowns on the drug cartels even if there is a rising trend in the violence. While the action against the cartels has indeed yielded some fruit of success, defeated drug cartels usually move underground and continue to operate in the ’market’ or simply get absorbed by more powerful cartels.
If a cartel is unable to run efficiently, it can move to a more destabilized Latin-American country without efficient law enforcement, something which has caused worry to Mexico’s neighbors in the south.
The president and his supporters believe that the legalization of drugs will lead to millions of narcotic addictions throughout the country. For now, the Mexican government’s policy mainly rests on a constant attacking mindset. This drug-policy draws primarily from the precedence of the Colombian government’s successful (and violent) military actions against its own drug traffickers.
César Gaviria Trujillo, former Colombian President in the early 90′s who had seen his share of drug-related violence, has the same thoughts as Fox despite his government’s success in battling narcotic organizations alongside other distinct statesmen. Every year, drug cartels in Mexico deliver large amounts of methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. It is estimated that Mexico is the top distributor of cocaine and marijuana to the U.S earning a whopping amount of at least $30 billon every year.
Then there is the feedback from these countries being subjected to this regional rivalry. This media report in Sri Lanka on the eve of visit of the Army Chief General VK
Singh is largely reflective of how this shadow boxing is perceived in the region:
appointed interlocutors may spur even track two negotiations by highlighting the acute shortage of fresh water in Pakistan.
Resultantly, the Iraq draw down is being hampered by fears of an Iranian takeover or domination in Iraq in a Shia Sunni war amongst the Islamic nations.The imbroglio in Afghanistan is fanning the fires of radical Islamic version of Taliban gaining ground to the detriment of peace in the region and the world. This inferno will not leave the West unscathed as the muslim diaspora across the globe gets radicalised by acolytes of al Qaeda duly supported and sponsored by Pakistan.
