Archive for category Foreign Policy

COMMENTARY: US SERMONS IN MOTHER INDIA

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Foreign Policy on May 8th, 2012

COMMENTARY

U.S. diplomatic efforts to persuade Pakistan to reopen NATO supply lines to the Afghan war are proving no match for the anger against the US Policies in the region, with Pakistani lawmakers increasingly unwilling to support a decision that risks them branded as friends of Washington.

Opposition legislators are demanding that the U.S. end its drone strikes against civilians and perceived, but not verified militants, as a precondition, complicating U.S. strategies for winding down the 10-year war, just weeks before a major NATO conference in President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Relations between the U.S. and Pakistan have been marked by mistrust since the two countries were thrust together following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have bankrupted Pakistan. America needs Pakistan’s support against al-Qaida – needed to keep the alliance more or less intact.

That changed in November when U.S. airstrikes deliberately killed 24 Pakistani troops, to intimidate Pakistan, but blamed it on error on the Afghan border, triggering nationwide outrage and retaliation from Pakistan, which suspended diplomatic contacts and blocked vital land routes for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

US is using pressure tactics by embracing India, more tightly, to an extent where India is the IT arm of US Industry. To India, this is a win-win situation, it has neutralized Pakistan, as a 60 year, US ally, while not lifting a finger to support US effort against the Taliban. Ajay Shukla in India’s Business Standard, writes:

“ In New Delhi today, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, addressing an international seminar on Afghanistan, declared that India would support the process of “reintegrating individuals with the national mainstream”, code for dialogue with the moderate Taliban (1).”

India, also funds the so-called Pakistan Taliban, who, are it’s surrogates in fomenting violence in Pakistan, like bombing, assassinations, and kidnapping. This is a tit-for-tat tactic for pressurizing Pakistan, not to provide moral and diplomatic support in International Forums, like the UN and UNESCO.

Also, for the information of many armchair, internet Zionists and Indian lurkers, India is a very fickle nation, which keeps changing its 115,000 gods, it would have no qualms of changing its friends like Israel. If it served India’s interests, it will spit out Israel in seconds. It still retains a Palestinian Consulate, and had a soft corner for Yasser Arafat.

330 million gods (2)

It is said that Hindus believe there are 330 million deities

Islamic rulers in Moghul India did not force Hindus to convert, although, Hinduism’s beliefs conflicted, with the Muslim Deen, of One, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omnicient Creator of All Universesand Creations.

Qur’anic Treasures Hidden in Surah Ikhlas (Purity)
(Holy Qur’an 112:1-4)

Surah Fatiha (The Opening Chapter) of the Holy Qur’an is the important Surah of the Holy Qur’an and no Muslim prayer is complete without it. It is therefore the most repeated Surah of the Holy Qur’an. After the Surah Fatiha, Surah Ikhlas is the most important and most often repeated Surah of the Holy Qur’an. The importance of this Surah has been described in the following hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)¹:

Muslims in the sub-continent have learned that Mother India which changes its gods, like changing diapers on a new-born baby, is a fickle mistress.

Analysts also say being frontline alley in war on terror has severely destroyed Pakistan’s social fabric and its economy. Pakistan has suffered badly by being allied to US. It is always in cross-hairs of Israeli-Indian lobby in the US Congress. After, losing 30,000 soldiers and civilians, Pakistan is demonized in the New York/ Washington/LA based US Press Pundits, who care less about US interests, more about Israel’s interests. All US newspapers Opinion and Op/ED pages are fabricated by this group. Pakistan has a snowballs chance in hell in debunking these forces. India, which has NOT lost a single soldier in the US, Afghan War effort is sitting like a smirking monkey who has grabbed an apple from toddler. India has not moved a finger to help the US War effort, but, US Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton is Lady Gaga in New Delhi, with friends. the US, Pakistan does not need any enemies.

Pak Afghan Relationship

Modern generation in Pakistan often ask two key questions:

1) Is Afghanistan a friend or foe?

2) Is ensuring peace in the war torn country responsibility of Pakistan?

Analysts also say being frontline alley in war on terror has severely destroyed Pakistan’s social fabric and its economy. Some even to the extent of saying that Pakistan has been fighting the proxy war of United States for more than four decades. Ironically, the relationship between Pakistan, Afghanistan and United are so badly intertwined that even if Pakistan wishes it can’t pull itself out of a bizarre war which is not likely to yield any result.
When Pakistan was dragged in war against USSR, the impression created was that once Afghanistan was conquered the next target would be Pakistan. Many eyebrows were raised because Afghanistan was the only country that opposed Pakistan’s entry in the United Nations. After USSR pulled its forces out from Afghanistan the country suffered the worst civil war for a long time. During resistance against USSR, often labeled Jihad, Taliban emerged the binding force. However, after 9/11 the United States declared Taliban the worst enemy because they has provided asylum to Osama bin Laden. Pakistan was once again forced to join war against the same Taliban it has supported for years.

Many Pakistan analysts are also not happy with the role assigned by the United States to Pakistan and its arch enemy India. Pakistan has been assigned the responsibility to cleanse Afghanistan and India is playing the role of developer/trainer. Northern Alliance of Afghanistan has always considered Pakistan a foe but now even Taliban and Pushtoons disapprove double standard followed by Pakistan.
Pakistan’s want peace in Afghanistan and also believes it has a role in installing of any government there. However, critics have two opposite opinions, one group says enough is enough and the time has come for Pakistan to disassociate itself from the bizarre war. The other group still believes that Afghanistan is Pakistan’s responsibility. They fear that the United States is intimidating Iran so that an preemptive assault could be made against the country that has endured 10 years of war and more than three decades of economic sanctions. They also fear that in case of an assault on Iran, Pakistan’s soil and airspace will be used.
Their appreciations have based on the evidence that a banned outfit, Jundullah, having its base in Pakistani Balochistan has been involved in undertaking cross border terrorist activities in Iranian Balochistan. Reportedly Iran has caused, prosecuted and hanged Jundullah activists, including its chief. Pakistanis strongly believe that Jundullah is fully supported by the intelligence agencies of those countries which are adamant at destroying nuclear facilities of Iran.
However, some critics say Pakistan has to be extra sensitive about its sovereignty; it also had to make sure that no part of its territory was used against any other country as well. But they also say if sovereignty gives certain rights to a nation, it also places responsibilities on it. All efforts must concentrate on stabilizing Afghanistan because no other country had suffered as much from instability there as Pakistan.
According to veteran diplomat Riaz Mohammad Khan, everyone has burnt his fingers in Afghanistan and Pakistan can’t be an exception. The country has a role to play in the Afghan conflict. Asking for such a role causes doubts in international diplomatic circles about Pakistan’s intensions. Therefore, Pakistan will have to tackle the Afghan issue with certain level of confidence that no other state can take over its role.

ref

No Comments

US HURTING ITSELF LONG-TERM IN PAKISTAN, BY BEING IDENTIFIED WITH CORRUPT & HATED ZARDARI REGIME

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Foreign Policy on May 1st, 2012

US policy makers are their own biggest enemies. By blindly supporting the most corrupt regime in Pakistan’s history, they are not only alienating Pakistani public, but also germinating more anti-US sentiment among THE. This policy of sheer ignorance of reality of the situation is akin to an ostrich-like head in the sand attitude. This is happening in a nation, which has one of the best intelligence agency in the world, the CIA, which provides factual analysis of global situation to policy makers. But, no intelligence in the world can succeed, if the policy makers ignore their briefs and follow an ad hoc approach. It is unfortunate, that a nation like the US, which has produced some of the greatest minds of century, should follow such a naive and ignorant approach.

Naive US Policies create an environment, where rational thinking Pakistanis, end-up, if not supporting, but sympathizing with enemies of US. US policy makers must wake-up and STOP SUPPORTING THE CORRUPT ZARDARI REGIME. FATA region has become a crucible for birthing fanatics, because of sheer ignorance of US foriegn policy makers. How can US win hearts and minds of Pakistanis by supporting the most hated man in Pakistan, Asif Zardari? From Gilgit to Karachi and from Thar to Khuzdar, tales of Zardari and his cohorts robbery of Pakistan’s resources abound. His son, who keeps a low profile but part of the same corrupt machine fondly hopes to be next in line to rule the country. Both of these ignorami do not realize, that earning the hatred of Pakistani people can lead to disastrous consequences. In Pakistan Army, there is seething anger against Zardari and his gang of crooks, who have hijacked Pakistan.

How exposing corrupt regimes can serve US security

Foreign corruption undermines development, US interests, and ultimately US security. The fight against foreign corruption and the success of US policy are linked. That’s why the US needs to implement country reports on corruption to increase transparency and encourage change.

By William Courtney, Louise Shelley, and Kenneth Yalowitz / May 25, 2011

Corruption in many foreign countries, ranging from Pakistan to Mexico, directly threatens American security interests. It’s high time for the US government to recognize this and attack the problem head on, starting with the issuance of annual country reports. Like the widely praised US Department of State country reports on human rights, the corruption summaries would name names and detail abuses. Some foreign leaders will object, but this risk is worth running.

The fight against foreign corruption and the success of US policy are linked.

In Afghanistan, the legitimacy of President Hamid Karzai is undermined by a half-brother who is said to be a drug lord and crooked power broker.

In Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zadari has only a tenuous hold in part because of his notoriety for greed. In one case, he reportedly obtained a $200 million kickback from Dassault Aviation, and in another, a Swiss court convicted him of money laundering.

The 2010 Transparency International index of corruption perceptions reveals a striking correlation. Places where US troops are fighting and dying, or where America faces serious nuclear threats, are among the most corrupt. Of 178 countries ranked, the bottom one-fifth includes: Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

How country reports will help US interests

How can country reports on corruption serve US interests?

First, exposing corruption may reduce security risks. If over the years more had been done to unveil corruption in Pakistan and Afghanistan and help those countries to develop and reform, conflicts there might be diminished.

No Comments

America: The ally from hell

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Foreign Policy on April 1st, 2012

In Washington, the Pakistan-bashers are having a field day avoiding U.S. responsibility

Protesters hold up a burning mock drone aircraft during a rally against drone attacks in Pakistan. (Credit: Reuters/K. Pervez)

If there is one thing Republican presidential candidates agree on, it’s the treachery of Pakistan. Rep. Michele Bachmann leads the pack. At last week’s GOP debate, she called Pakistan “violent” and “more than an existential threat” to the United States, because it is “a nation that lies, that does everything possible that you could imagine wrong.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Pakistan has “shown us time after time that they can’t be trusted.” He called for a cutoff of aid, a line that drew applause from the audience. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said on Sunday that America might have to “look for a new partner in the region” and also suggested a cutoff in aid might be in order.

It is not only GOP leaders who are obsessed with Pakistan. “The Ally From Hell,” screams the cover of this month’s Atlantic. New York’s Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman called Pakistan “perfidious” recently, saying the country was not an ally, a friend, a partner or a teammate. “Pakistan is on its own side, period,” Ackerman said at a House Subcommittee Hearing on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

One would think from all this talk that America’s behavior vis-à-vis Pakistan has been pure and good. But the reality could not be further from the self-righteous claims persistently emanating from Washington’s complainers. America has acted no better than Pakistan in the relationship, and may even have been the worse partner. Understanding the fury over NATO’s recent killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers requires a deeper look at the relationship.

Let’s begin near the beginning. Within days of the 9/11 attacks, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was deputized to meet with a Pakistani official. According to Pakistan’s then-President Pervez Musharraf, Armitage said that Pakistan, if it did not cooperate unconditionally with the United States, needed to be prepared to be “bombed backed to the stone age.”

Armitage was only reinforcing Secretary of State Colin Powell’s message to Musharraf, which included a list of demands, among them full use of Pakistani airspace, closure of its borders with Afghanistan, and use of its territory as a staging base. In return, Pakistan was granted loads of cash — and the pleasant experience of not being bombed back to the stone age.

“If the signals America gave Pakistan had been subtle, they would have been ignored,” says Anthony Cordesman, who frequently advises the U.S. government on the South Asia/Middle East region. Maybe so, but the ultimatum delivered to Pakistan established unrealistic expectations on what could be delivered. No understanding was made of Pakistan’s own interests. No attempt was made to consider Pakistani public opinion. Pakistan was not treated as an ally. It was treated as a vassal.

Had those endeavors been undertaken, Pakistan’s subsequent actions and double-talk might have been foreseen. For, while America might demand subservience and unqualified support for its campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban, Pakistan has its own concerns. These include staying strong in a mortal struggle with India; reckoning with climate change (and the possibly related massive flooding); managing the uneasy tension between scores of different ethnic groups; and maintaining the difficult relationship between the powerful military and the civilian government.

Any arguments about Pakistan’s behavior that do not take these needs into consideration are incomplete at best. “To judge an ally by how it serves another nation’s interest at the expense of its own” is simply foolish, says Cordesman, a strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

And yet that is what consistently happens in the U.S. chattering classes. Pakistan is spoken about as if it is simply an empty land devoid of independent needs. Remarkably, Huntsman’s comments about Pakistan — he called it “merely a transactional relationship” — came the day after news of the NATO airstrikes. Something is deeply wrong with the foreign-policy conversation in Washington when Pakistan is reprimanded as a poor ally after 24 of its soldiers are killed by an American-led coalition.

Not that the deaths were unprecedented. The New America Foundation reports that 283 drone strikes in Northwest Pakistan from 2004 have killed somewhere between 1,717 and 2,680 individuals. It estimates a civilian fatality rate of 17 percent, even relying on the dubious press accounts that often describe almost anyone as a “militant.” While these deaths usually get short shrift in the American media, that is not the case in Pakistan.

“American foreign policy has created a fragile situation in Pakistan,” reads a recent blog post by a contributor to Dawn, a Pakistani daily. “Pakistan’s participation in this so called ‘War on Terror’ has shaken its foundations to the core.” On the website of the News International, the largest English paper in Pakistan, all five of the most-commented articles deal with NATO’s attack on the Pakistan soldiers.

Most commenters support the words of Pakistan’s prime minister, who warned after the attack that it would be “no more business as usual” in Pakistan’s dealings with the United States. NATO’s most recent mistake has magnified the problem, but America’s territorial incursions into Pakistan resulting in civilian deaths routinely dominate the media. In Pakistan, America is the ally from hell.

Now it should make more sense why members of the Pakistani military might not have informed Americans of Osama bin Laden’s presence: They did not want U.S. incursions on their territory.

Violating Pakistan’s sovereignty is only part of the problem. Pakistan is so deeply divided that forcing it to kowtow to American wishes naturally stirs up nationalist resentments that undermine the country’s stability. In his new book, “Pakistan: A Hard Country,” the journalist Anatol Lieven writes that U.S. pressure is one of the few things that can actually jeopardize Pakistan’s stability. Pakistan is not the failed state media commentators make it out to be, Lieven writes, but U.S. pressure threatens to make it so.

“No conceivable short-term gains in the Western campaign in Afghanistan or the ‘war on terror’ could compensate for the vastly increased threats to the region and the world that would stem from Pakistan’s collapse,” Leiven writes. And yet short-term gains are the focus of almost all of American commentary on Pakistan, and much of American policy.

Much, but not all. There is reason to believe that a good chunk of U.S. official fulminations against Pakistan’s perfidy are for show. “In my experience, they are all too well aware” of Pakistan’s limited ability to act as we want it to, “even if they are not going to state it publicly,” says Cordesman, who has worked for the Departments of Defense and State, and on NATO’s international staff.

A December 2009 cable from WikiLeaks supports Cordesman’s view. Sent by then-Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson to the State Department in 2009, the cable argues that drones are effective in killing al-Qaida henchmen, but will not succeed in entirely eliminating the terrorist group’s leadership. In the meantime, “Increased unilateral operations in these areas risk destabilizing the Pakistan state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis within Pakistan without finally achieving the goal [of eliminating the al-Qaida and Taliban leadership].”

Destabilizing Pakistan is the worst option of all. It is a large nation with nuclear weapons, situated between Afghanistan, China, India and Iran, with a sizable contingent of anti-American sentiment. Few things should be more disturbing to American minds than the prospect of Pakistani disintegration.

And yet that is exactly what the hawks who so loudly denounced Pakistan’s perfidy risk achieving. Remember that the next time you hear about the country’s halfhearted support for American operations in the region. Better to be halfhearted than half-brained.

Jordan Michael Smith writes about U.S. foreign policy for Salon. He has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.

Ref

No Comments

‘US Congressman’s Balochistan resolution ill-informed, unacceptable’

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Foreign Policy on February 19th, 2012

Embassy rejects US Congressman’s resolution on Balochistan, terms it ‘ill-informed and unacceptable’.

WASHINGTON: Reacting strongly to a US Congressman’s introduction of a resolution on Balochistan, the Pakistani Embassy rejected the move as “ill-informed and unacceptable”.

“We reject this ill-informed move and the Congressman’s misplaced concern on Balochistan, which is a part of the Pakistani Federation,” the Embassy said, commenting on Representative Dana Rohrabacher’s move in the House on the rights of the people of Balochistan.

A statement issued by the Embassy reminded sponsors of the move that Balochistan has a “directly elected provincial assembly of its own and has due representation in the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan.”

“The resolution seeks to cast doubt on the territorial integrity of a member of the United Nations and a friend of the United States, and is totally unacceptable.”

The Pakistani Embassy made it clear that “Balochistan’s affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan, and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these [issues].”

“We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say, provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Embassy statement added.

WASHINGTON: Reacting strongly to a US Congressman’s introduction of a resolution on Balochistan, the Pakistani Embassy rejected the move as “ill-informed and unacceptable”.“We reject this ill-informed move and the Congressman’s misplaced concern on Balochistan, which is a part of the Pakistani Federation,” the Embassy said, commenting on Representative Dana Rohrabacher’s move in the House on the rights of the people of Balochistan.A statement issued by the Embassy reminded sponsors of the move that Balochistan has a “directly elected provincial assembly of its own and has due representation in the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan.”“The resolution seeks to cast doubt on the territorial integrity of a member of the United Nations and a friend of the United States, and is totally unacceptable.”The Pakistani Embassy made it clear that “Balochistan’s affairs and issues are an internal matter of Pakistan, and it is for the people of Pakistan and our democratic institutions to address these [issues].”“We would advise those behind this resolution to reserve their concern and solicitude for problems closer to home. Needless to say, provocations such as these will seriously impact the Pakistan-US relations. We value this relationship but not at the cost of our dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Embassy statement added.

Ref

No Comments

Pakistan Taliban Leader Reportedly Killed in U.S. Drone Strike

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Foreign Policy on January 15th, 2012

The report coincided with sectarian violence — a bomb blast in eastern Pakistan that killed 14 people in a Shiite religious procession.

The claim that the Pakistani Taliban chief was killed came from officials who said they intercepted a number of Taliban radio conversations. In about a half a dozen intercepts, the militants discussed whether their chief, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed on Jan. 12 in the North Waziristan tribal area. Some militants confirmed Mehsud was dead, and one criticized others for talking about the issue over the radio.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters.

Pakistani Taliban spokesman Asimullah Mehsud denied the group’s leader was killed and said he was not in the area where the drone strike occurred.

In early 2010, both Pakistani and American officials said they believed a missile strike had killed Hakimullah Mehsud along the border of North and South Waziristan. They were proved wrong when videos appeared showing him still alive.

The Pakistani Taliban is linked to attacks against U.S. targets. They trained the Pakistani-American who tried to detonate a car bomb in New York City’s Times Square in 2010 and is tied to a suicide bombing that killed seven CIA agents at an Afghan base in 2009.

There was no claim of responsibility for Sunday’s bombing that killed 14 people during a Shiite observance in Punjab province in the east — the latest of a series of sectarian attacks in volatile Pakistan.

Hundreds of Pakistani Shiites gathered in the town of Khanpur in Punjab province for a traditional procession to mark the end of 40 days of mourning following the anniversary of the death of Imam Hussein, a revered seventh-century figure.

The explosion went off as the mourners left a mosque, said District Police Chief Sohail Chatta. The bomb appeared to have been planted ahead of time in the path of the procession, he said.

The Pakistani Taliban and other Sunni extremist groups have in the past claimed responsibility for the bombings of Shiite religious sites and ceremonies. Many Sunni extremists in Pakistan regard Shiites as heretics.

The Taliban and other groups have carried out hundreds of bombings over the last five years that have killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians as part of a campaign to install a hard-line Islamist government.

The attacks are so common that the country’s interior minister in December actually thanked the Taliban for acting on what he said was a “request” not to stage attacks during the Shiite rituals of Ashoura that month.

Punjab law minister Rana Sanaullah said police investigators were still examining the area of Sunday’s bombing for clues. Security was provided for the procession, but it was breached, Sanaullah said.

The continuing strikes by presumed religious extremists come during a political crisis that pits the Pakistani civilian government against the military, sparking rumors of an impending coup.

Last week the military warned the government of possible “grievous consequences” ahead, and President Asif Ali Zardari took a one-day trip to Dubai that renewed speculation that he might flee the country.

Analysts say the military may be looking for the Supreme Court to push out Zardari rather than risk an outright takeover.

Intercepted militant radio communications indicate the leader of the Pakistani Taliban may have been killed in a recent U.S. drone strike, Pakistani intelligence officials said Sunday. A Taliban official denied that.The report coincided with sectarian violence — a bomb blast in eastern Pakistan that killed 14 people in a Shiite religious procession.The claim that the Pakistani Taliban chief was killed came from officials who said they intercepted a number of Taliban radio conversations. In about a half a dozen intercepts, the militants discussed whether their chief, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed on Jan. 12 in the North Waziristan tribal area. Some militants confirmed Mehsud was dead, and one criticized others for talking about the issue over the radio.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters.Pakistani Taliban spokesman Asimullah Mehsud denied the group’s leader was killed and said he was not in the area where the drone strike occurred.In early 2010, both Pakistani and American officials said they believed a missile strike had killed Hakimullah Mehsud along the border of North and South Waziristan. They were proved wrong when videos appeared showing him still alive.The Pakistani Taliban is linked to attacks against U.S. targets. They trained the Pakistani-American who tried to detonate a car bomb in New York City’s Times Square in 2010 and is tied to a suicide bombing that killed seven CIA agents at an Afghan base in 2009.There was no claim of responsibility for Sunday’s bombing that killed 14 people during a Shiite observance in Punjab province in the east — the latest of a series of sectarian attacks in volatile Pakistan.Hundreds of Pakistani Shiites gathered in the town of Khanpur in Punjab province for a traditional procession to mark the end of 40 days of mourning following the anniversary of the death of Imam Hussein, a revered seventh-century figure.The explosion went off as the mourners left a mosque, said District Police Chief Sohail Chatta. The bomb appeared to have been planted ahead of time in the path of the procession, he said.The Pakistani Taliban and other Sunni extremist groups have in the past claimed responsibility for the bombings of Shiite religious sites and ceremonies. Many Sunni extremists in Pakistan regard Shiites as heretics.The Taliban and other groups have carried out hundreds of bombings over the last five years that have killed thousands of Pakistani troops and civilians as part of a campaign to install a hard-line Islamist government.The attacks are so common that the country’s interior minister in December actually thanked the Taliban for acting on what he said was a “request” not to stage attacks during the Shiite rituals of Ashoura that month.Punjab law minister Rana Sanaullah said police investigators were still examining the area of Sunday’s bombing for clues. Security was provided for the procession, but it was breached, Sanaullah said.The continuing strikes by presumed religious extremists come during a political crisis that pits the Pakistani civilian government against the military, sparking rumors of an impending coup.Last week the military warned the government of possible “grievous consequences” ahead, and President Asif Ali Zardari took a one-day trip to Dubai that renewed speculation that he might flee the country.Analysts say the military may be looking for the Supreme Court to push out Zardari rather than risk an outright takeover.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/15/pakistan-taliban-leader-reportedly-killed-in-us-drone-strike/#ixzz1jZcGrOpX

No Comments

Not Found

Archive for category Foreign Policy

COMMENTARY: US SERMONS IN MOTHER INDIA

US HURTING ITSELF LONG-TERM IN PAKISTAN, BY BEING IDENTIFIED WITH CORRUPT & HATED ZARDARI REGIME

How exposing corrupt regimes can serve US security

Foreign corruption undermines development, US interests, and ultimately US security. The fight against foreign corruption and the success of US policy are linked. That’s why the US needs to implement country reports on corruption to increase transparency and encourage change.

How country reports will help US interests

America: The ally from hell

In Washington, the Pakistan-bashers are having a field day avoiding U.S. responsibility

‘US Congressman’s Balochistan resolution ill-informed, unacceptable’

Pakistan Taliban Leader Reportedly Killed in U.S. Drone Strike