Hindutva Terror to Spark India-Pakistan War?

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned in New Delhi today that Al-Qaeda is trying to destabilize the whole of South Asia hoping to provoke a deadly war between India and Pakistan, according to the BBC. In addition to Al-Qaeda, he has pointed the finger at the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba as groups seeking to spark conflict between India and Pakistan, or to provoke instability in Pakistan.

Mr. Gates is only partially correct. Conspicuously absent from his list of the region's "bad guys" are the Hindutva terrorist outfits who are implicated in a series of bombings designed to fan the flames of hatred between Hindus and Muslims and then blame Pakistan for their handiwork. As India's minister P. Chidambram put it recently, "The tactics of the jihadis have been copied by militants belonging to other groups too, not excluding militants professing the Hindu faith."

In a new book titled "Who Killed Karkare?"(published by Pharos Media), the author and former Maharashtra police chief S.M. Mushrif says a nationwide network of Hindutva terrorists that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy India's secularism and to reshape it into a theocratic state like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Mushrif has constructed an alarming picture out of former Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s indictment of alleged Hindutva terrorists like Lt. Col. Purohit, Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and others. It showed a major nationwide conspiracy with international support to destabilize the secular democratic Indian state to be replaced by a Hindutva state run according to a new Constitution. For that the conspirators were prepared for a massive bloodbath, using bomb attacks on religious places to trigger an anti-Muslim holocaust.

These Hindutva terror groups, and their affiliates, have carried out a number of bomb blasts across India in the last few years, and tried to pin the blame on Indian Muslims or the Pakistan's intelligence service ISI. Mushrif describes nearly a dozen blasts conducted by Hindutva terror groups of different stripes. He argues that a section of India’s intelligence services, a small group in the armed forces and parts of different state police forces have been compromised and infiltrated by these elements, a development that bodes ill for the future of the country, and the region. Some of the blasts, such as the bombing of Samjhota Express, had been falsely blamed on Pakistan's ISI to try and heighten tensions in South Asia. The circumstances around the assassination of Mumbai anti-terror squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karakare, who was pursuing some the major Hindutva figures involved in the bombing campaigns in India, have not been investigated. Demands by Karakare's wife for independent investigation and transparency have been ignored.

Mushrif believes that it is not Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh or Rahul Gandhi who actually run India on a day-to-day basis. Rather, it is a "power establishment" that is in charge of India, and it does not want to expose the Hindutva terrorists. One example is the blasts in Samjhauta Express, which the IB said was carried out by Pakistan’s ISI. Mushrif quotes a report in The Times of India that said, “the Center had blamed the ISI on the basis of the IB’s findings.” However, during a narco-analysis test under Karkare, Lt. Col. Purohit had admitted having supplied the RDX used in the blast. The IB, which draws its power from its proximity to the Prime Minister (its director briefs the PM every morning for half an hour), did not want Karkare’s investigation that blew the cover off the IB’s shenanigans, to continue.

In a recent article titled "Procrastinating on Hindutva Terror", Subash Gatade describes a number of bomb blasts carried out by Hindutva groups in India, and talks about how the investigators have been dragging their feet on such incidents where the perpetrators attempted to frame innocent Muslims. Among others, the author describes Goa and Malegaon blasts which were blamed on Muslim youths. Here is what it says:

In a writeup in Indian Express (8 Nov, 2009)"Goa Bombers Tried To Leave Muslim Imprint" the reporter even quotes another police officer on the condition of anonymity " The material was enough to spark communal trouble in Margao and extremist elements from outside would have found it easy to aggravate it." A close look at the plan to 'leave Muslim imprint' had echoes of earlier attempts by Hindutva terrorists of different hues to spark communal tension. The Malegaon bomb blast in 2008 which saw the exposure of the wide Hindutva terrorist network - thanks to the efforts of a committed officer like Hemant Karkare - had also seen similar actions by the fanatics. In fact the members of Abhinav Bharat had parked their explosive laden motorcycle below the defunct office of the SIMI in Bhikhu Chowk, Malegaon. The Nanded bomb blast in 2006 had also seen fake beards and dresses normally worn by Muslims at the house of the terrorists who had died in the bomb blasts.

Another Indian writer, Yoginder Sikand, has been following the story of Muslims framed by India's police and intelligence agencies in various incidents of violence. Here is what he wrote:

For several months now, almost no week passes without the media reporting about 'dreaded Muslim fundamentalists' being picked up by the police and allegedly confessing to being involved in bomb blasts or plots to engineer violence across India. It is not my argument that all of these reports are cooked-up and dished-out propaganda. Some of these stories must be true, and those behind such acts must be caught and punished. But, the fact remains, many of these stories circulating in the media are wholly fabricated, and these are being manufactured and highlighted for a particular motive: to fuel anti-Muslim passions and, thereby, justify various forms of discrimination and oppression—even murder—of hapless Muslim citizens who, far from having anything to do with terrorism, are victims of terror—of agencies of the state, especially the police and Hindutva terror outfits.

Earlier this month, Indian Occupied Kashmir's People's Democratic Party leader Mehbooba Mufti alleged that the recent Srinagar hotel attack was an attempt by "some government agency" to sabotage the efforts to withdraw troops from the state. “Maybe some militant groups don’t want the troop withdrawal, maybe somebody in the agencies don’t want the troop withdrawal. So I think for their interests, they become one at this point of time. But I would say that the withdrawal of troops is the best compliment that you can pay to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have voted in huge numbers,” she added.

Recently, India's Vice President Hamid Ansari has called for greater "oversight and accountability" of the operations of the nation's intelligence agencies by the Indian parliament. Ansari also said that, just like in other democracies like the US and the UK, the “concerned agencies should make public their mission statement, outlining periodically their strategic intent, vision, mission, core values and their goals”.

As India constantly highlights the terror of green variety, it must not ignore its own homegrown terror dressed in saffron. The terror of either hue has the potential to spark a deadly conflict in South Asia that can easily spin out of control, and completely devastate the region.

Related Links:

Who Killed Karkare?

Procrastinating on Hindutva Terror

India's Guantanamos and Abu Ghraibs

Hindutva Government in Israeli Exile?

Growing US-India Military Ties Worry Pakistan

Taliban or Rawliban?

The 21st Century Challenges For Resurgent India

What Irked Purohit?

Hindu Rashtra ideology was driving force for Malegaon conspirators

Hindutva Terror Strikes India

The Rise and Rise of Mangalore's Taliban

Malegaon Files

Hindu Nationalists Gang Up on Musharraf at Stanford

Can India "Do a Lebanon" in Pakistan?

Priest Survivor: Hindu Radicals are Terrorists

Dawn of Hindutva Terror in India

Ajmer Blasts: Revisiting Hindutva Terror

Hindu Militants Copying Jihadi Tactics

Who Shares Blame for Islamabad Marriott Bombing?

According to media reports, suicide bombers killed more than 53 people (including the Czech ambassador) and injured more than 260 in an attack on the 290-bedroom Marriott hotel in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad at 8pm on Saturday night. Overwhelming majority of the victims were Pakistanis and Muslims celebrating the holy month of Ramadan. Witnesses believe a truck carrying 600kg of explosives could have totally destroyed the hotel if it had been able to ram past the security barrier. It was followed by at least another explosion. The bombs blew a 30-foot crater in the road in front of the hotel, which is popular with foreigners, diplomats and businessmen, and ignited gas cylinders in the kitchens. According to witnesses, security staff at the front of the hotel, where the blast was strongest had "simply been vaporised".

Mr. Sadruddin Hashwani, the hotel owner, says at least 700 people were in the hotel at the time of the attack, many enjoying iftar, the traditional meal at the end of the day-long Ramadan fast. The blasts caused the ceiling collapse in a banquet room where up to 300 people were eating, but another 300 eating under a marquee to the rear survived. The hotel has been attacked twice in the past and an attempted suicide bombing was foiled by a security guard in 2007. It was one of the worst terrorist attacks in Pakistan in over a decade.

As usual, most Pakistanis find it hard to accept that the perpetrators of such a heinous act in Ramadan could be Muslim or Pakistani. It seems the whole nation is in a state of denial. The following music video titled "Yeh Hum Nahin" (It's not us) captures the common refrain heard in Pakistan:



The fact that the bombers were able to penetrate such a secure fortress inside Islamabad, and carry out the most deadly Marriott bombing just before an undisclosed Pakistani leadership dinner, shows that there are insiders involved. It’s an unfortunate fact that many Pakistanis (a significant minority) see this as jihad rather than the cold blooded mass murder of innocent people, while others sympathize with the perpetrators' cause or at least rationalize such dastardly acts by blaming America or the Pakistani military or someone other than the jihadis who carry out these murderous rampages. Just watch the apologists and the conspiracy theorists engaged in blame-America or blame-military or blame-anyone-but-us talk on Pakistani TV channels and you’ll see what I am talking about. To stop this senseless Muslim-on-Muslim and Pakistani-on-Pakistani violence, the people of Pakistan have to first acknowledge the reality of what is going on in their midst and purge violent jihadi elements. According to anecdotal evidence and some published polls, the support for war on terror is at a low point in Pakistan, in spite of the continuing killing of innocent Pakistanis. This is the sad reality of the denial and insensitivity within Pakistan. It has to change for sanity to prevail for saving innocent lives being lost on a daily basis. The tide of Pakistani public opinion must turn against the homegrown, violent, jihadi terrorists soon to stop the recurrence of more deadly bombings like the Islamabad Marriott's.

Is Aafia Siddiqui an Innocent Victim, or Dangerous Terrorist?

Who is Aafia Siddiqui? An innocent mother of three children or a cold-blooded al Qaida operative? Is she a victim or a perpetrator of violence? Is she guilty by association? The answers to these questions depend on who you ask and what you believe.

Common Pakistani Narrative:
According to most accounts heard in Pakistan, Aafia is an innocent victim of the US war on terror, swept up by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan and held in secret detention and tortured by the CIA since 2003. These accounts seem credible based on multiple sources and similar cases of people such as Moazzam Begg, a British citizen held and tortured for years in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Yvonne Ridley, a British journalist and recent convert to Islam, claimed she was told that a female prisoner had been held at Bagram Air Base in Kabul for years and, after sexual abuse and confinement, deteriorated physically and mentally. Ridley’s speculation that it could be Siddiqui stirred up the issue in the Pakistani media. She, and her three children, had been considered missing persons, like hundreds of other Pakistanis since 2001, by human rights advocates, until her appearance in a NY court yesterday on charges of terrorism and assault on US personnel. The whereabouts of her three children are unknown.

US and Pakistani Officials Narrative:
The US and Pakistani officials believe Aafia Siddiqui, 36 years old mother of three, has close connections with Al-Qaeda terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal, a Pakistani security official said she is the wife of Ammar al-Baluchi. He is a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who U.S. officials say was the matermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Ammar Baluchi is a cousin of Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Mr. Baluchi helped facilitate travel and financing of senior al Qaeda leaders, the official said.

Ammar Baluchi and Aafia Siddiqui married after she obtained a divorce from her first husband, Amjad Khan, the father of her three children, in 2003, according to the official. Mr. Baluchi was arrested soon after with a high-ranking al Qaeda lieutenant, Walid Bin Attash, who is believed to have organized the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

Aafia Siddiqui's Defense
Elaine Whitfield Sharp, a lawyer for Ms. Siddiqui's family, said there was "no evidence" of Ms. Siddiqui remarrying and that she thought it was extremely unlikely. Ms. Sharp said she was still trying to establish key details, but that the allegations in the complaint "don't pass the sniff test."


Future Implications
As you can see, the two narratives are completely at odds. Regardless of guilt or innocence of Aafia Siddiqui on terrorism charges, it is now commonly believed in Pakistan that she has been subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment and held without due process for a long time. Unfortunately, incidents such as these fuel resentment against the US and Pakistani military and strengthen the extreme elements in Pakistan to go out and commit more acts of terror claiming more innocent lives of mostly Muslims. The high-profile Aafia Siddiqui case is comparable to Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib in its potential impact on Pakistanis support for the war on terror. She has become the symbol of the extraordinary excesses of this war. She represents the recognizable face of the hundreds of missing Pakistanis since 911. Unless the US and Pakistani authorities come clean on this case, it will represent yet another blow to the US and moderate Muslims in the battle for the hearts and minds of the average Muslims, Afghani and Pakistani.

Here's a videoclip of TV coverage of Aafia Siddiqui's case:



Here's another video of Aafia Siddiqui and her son in Ghazni:

Obama's Election Poses Danger to the World

While Senator Barack Obama has been benefiting from his opposition to the unpopular war in Iraq and winning kudos for wanting to unconditionally talk with America's enemies, he has also been sounding more and more hawkish on Pakistan, a US ally. Governor Mitt Romney summarized it well last year when he said that Obama is essentially "saying he's going to sit down for tea with our enemies but then he's going to bomb our allies."

This aggressive stance by Mr. Obama raises some big questions: Is he going to end the war in Iraq and start a much bigger, far more dangerous and longer lasting war in Pakistan? Does he know that nuclear-armed Pakistan, a nation of 165 million people with about a million-man military, will be a far bigger challenge than Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran? Is he willing to radicalize moderate Muslims, destabilize Pakistan, and unwittingly aid the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in their quest to establish their extreme version of Islamic rule? Is Mr. Obama prepared for this local war in FATA to become a regional or global war? These questions are troubling many observers in the United States, South Asia and the rest of the world. Please read my post Is Obama's Recipe for Afghanistan Credible?

To put this in context, let us examine statements by US presidential hopefuls including Senator Obama, as reported in the press since last year:

Reuters Report, August 1, 2007: Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

Reuters Report, August 1, 2007: Clinton last week labeled Obama naive for saying he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela without preconditions in his first year in office.

ABC News Report, August 1, 2007: In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

Sioux City Journal, August 7, 2007: Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, that "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He said rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge" and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.

L.A. Times, Feb 20, 2008: Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama 'naive' today and...blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan.

AFP Report, July 15, 2008: White House hopeful Barack Obama Tuesday promised to shift the "single-minded" US focus on Iraq to a threatening "terrorist sanctuary" in tribal Pakistan, in a broad new blueprint for US foreign policy.

CBS News, July 24, 2008: Obama's decision to travel to two war zones while highlighting his relatively hawkish rhetoric on Afghanistan and Pakistan reflects an attempt to deal with a problem faced by every Democratic presidential candidate since the Vietnam era: The perception that he is not as strong as his Republican rival when it comes to national security.

It seems from these reports that Obama has a chip on his shoulder. He wants to show Americans that he will be "strong on national security". He is out to prove his critics wrong about perceptions of being "soft on terrorism" or "not ready to be commander-in-chief". Does Obama suffer from the same kind of complexes that George Bush (the wimp) and George W. Bush (the lightweight, lacking gravitas) did, leading to Gulf war I and the ongoing Iraq war? Is he likely to lash out at Pakistan, without fully comprehending the consequences, just to prove his detractors wrong about their characterization of him as "soft or terror" or "closet Muslim" or "weak on national security" or "not being commander-in-chief material"? These are some of the risks that America and the world face if Obama is elected US President based on his unusual success story or charismatic personality or his soaring rhetoric.

Until recently, I have been a strong supporter of Mr. Obama's campaign to be president. I have a strong desire to see a black man become president in my lifetime and open up opportunities for more people of color and women in these United States. My support has been based on his message of change after many years of war in Iraq and economic decline in the United States. However, as Mr. Obama begins to articulate his positions on issues, I am having second thoughts. I do not want to help elect another warmonger whose only change would be the change in the war venue. And this change in venue could be far more disastrous than the situation under current President George W. Bush or potential situation under a future President John McCain, who are both known entities with plenty of foreign policy and national security experience.

Strategy to Rehabilitate and Integrate the Taliban

As Pakistan struggles to deal with the insurgency in its tribal areas, it is important for the Pakistani government and its allies to have a clear strategy and action plan.

The Strategy

The first, and most important part of the strategy, is to distinguish between Al-Qaeda, who are mostly foreign fighters, and the Taliban, who have local roots on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border. The best way to deal with Al-Qaeda is to isolate them, and launch an all-out assault to defeat them, and drive them out of the tribal areas. Regarding the Taliban, it is important to clearly identify the groups that are irrevocably committed to violence and have a military strategy to deal with them. At the same time, Pakistan needs to pursue a political track with those Taliban and other militant groups who have genuine grievances and are willing to sit down and talk to resolve the issues. The strategy has to consist of both carrots and sticks with the militants who are local and show willingness for dialog. The sticks strategy has to be based on divide-and-conquer thinking. Understand the differences among the militants, and then deal with each group as appropriate. Here are some possible examples for the elements of a carrots strategy:

Rehabilitation for Jihadists

One example is the rehab schools for the jihadists in Saudi Arabia. These schools focus on fighting the Al-Qaeda misinformation and indoctrination about jihad. The curriculum addresses questions such as: What is jihad? Under what circumstances is it permissible? Who is authorized to declare jihad? And other similar questions. The inmates include many former fighters in Iraq and 108 Saudis released from Guantanamo Bay prison. The student inmates are taught that only the government has the power to declare jihad, not Al-Qaeda or any individuals or private groups, Afghan jihad against the Soviets was legitimate for Saudi citizens because it was authorized by the state of Saudi Arabia. The rehab school employs the services of Islamic scholars, Shariah experts, psychologists, and other staff to help the inmates adjust to life after militancy. The facility outside Riyadh consists of six compounds called resorts. Each has Sony Playstations, table tennis and other recreational facilities. The Saudi ministry of interior gives graduates jobs and pays them as part of rehab. In 18 months since the first class graduated, no one has re-offended yet, according to Saudi government.

Pakistan can use this model with appropriate modification to the program and add appropriate skills training to facilitate the return of the jihaists into society with jobs, families, housing and other things that normal citizens wish for.

Jobs for Jihadists

There must be a way for the jihadists to return to normal life, to have skills training, gainful employment and be integrated in society. There may be many different ways to accomplish this. But one that is working its way between Pakistani and US governments is the idea of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ).

The U.S. Congress is actively considering legislation to establish Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in Pakistan and Afghanistan that will significantly reinforce the Pakistani government's strategy to counter the insurgency. Under the ROZ strategy, a significant number of goods including some textiles, manufactured or grown in designated sites (the ROZs) in Pakistan's border area with Afghanistan, as well as in Afghanistan, will be able to enter the U.S. market duty-free.

According to a recent statement by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, successive US visits of Pakistani business delegations, as well as inquiries from businesses to the trade office at the Embassy confirm the strong interest of the private sector in this program. Experience with similar programs elsewhere in the world demonstrates their value in dramatically expanding exports. The export growth will generate much needed jobs and economic activity in the border areas, countering the recruiting efforts of the insurgents and contributing to stability there.

The ROZ initiative needs to gain congressional approval before it can be implemented. Bills have been introduced by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State (S. 2776) and by Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (H.R. 6387) and are working their way forward.

Conclusion:

The problem of Islamic militancy is a very serious one for Afghanistan, Pakistan and the western world. Most of its victims are Muslims, not westerners, although it poses a serious challenge for the entire humanity. It requires creative thinking and well-considered and durable solutions. The current blame game between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States will not help. Threats to launch attacks on Pakistan may serve temporary political objectives of some politicians. However, such disarray among the allies in the war on terror will only benefit the militants, rather than help rid the world of the serious threats we face. After issuing threats of attacking in Pakistan's tribal areas, US presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is currently in Afghanistan. His world tour is expected to take him to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Britain. The keys to ending the terrorist threat from the Pak-Afghan border areas are in Islamabad and Washington, not in Kabul or Iraq or Israel. By dropping Islamabad from his itinerary, Mr. Obama is sending the wrong signal to the world. Let's hope he and his campaign will realize and correct this mistake soon.

Radicals Target Pakistan Peace Jirgas

Fundamental Change in Tribal Order
The latest of a series of suicide bombings in Pakistan's north west frontier tribal belt targeted a meeting of the elders in Dara Adam Khel town. There were reports of 40 dead and scores injured. Traditionally, tribal leaders were held in high respect and their decisions were generally accepted by the tribal population in all matters. This attack further reinforces the belief that there is a fundamental shift taking place in the social and political order that existed for centuries.

The Origins of Change
During and after the Afghan war against the former Soviet Union in the 1980s, a large number new radical madrassahs have proliferated in Pakistan's tribal areas. Because of the power of these madrassahs, there seems to be a new dynamic affecting the traditional role and influence of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) elders. The radical young graduates of these madrassahs are not willing to accept the traditional role of the elders and their decisions in all matters. In addition to the latest attack in Dara Adam Khel, there have been many instances of tensions reported between the local tribal elders and the Taleban on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border.In December 2007, AP reported that suspected Islamic militants fatally shot eight tribal leaders involved in efforts to broker a cease-fire between security forces and insurgents in Pakistan's volatile northwest. Last year, there were also several reports of clashes between the tribal elders and the Al-Qaeda/Taleban operatives.

Will Democracy in Pakistan Cure Terrorism?
There have often been theories and claims made that democracy and talks with the tribals will bring peace in Pakistan. The facts seem to contradict such theories. Not only has there been progress in Pakistan toward democracy but the Musharraf administration has made serious efforts to engage with the tribal elders repeatedly to make deals that included withdrawing the Pakistani military from their areas. The results of such efforts have been an intensification of attacks in the tribal areas like Dara Adam Khel as well as the settled areas of Pakistan such as Swat valley.
The data from India and China also debunks the assumption that democracy is the answer to terrorism. According to one study conducted between 1976 and 2004 as quoted in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria, there were over 400 terrorist incidents in democratic India and only 18 in authoritarian China. This could be because the terrorists find it easier to plot and carry out such attacks in open societies. In the last five years, Pakistan has been a semi-open society, something between authoritarian China and democratic India. Making it more democratic would not fundamentally alter the situation emanating from the north west frontier region. If anything, it could make it worse if the newly elected civilian coalition government completely abandons the use of force in favor of negotiations.

The Taleban & Al-Qaeda
The Taleban and Al-Qaeda have both become part of the tribal society in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are a second power center after the tribal elders. And, I believe, there is an ongoing power struggle between the two. It is this power struggle that is largely responsible for the scuttling of several peace agreements that the Musharraf government made with the tribal elders in Waziristan region. It is this situation that makes it difficult for Pakistan to do what the US has done in Al-Anbar province in Iraq with the support of the tribal sheikhs there.

Ideas for Solution
The real solution has to be political and diplomatic in the long term. It's absolutely essential that the fundamental issues of poverty that attract people to the madrassahs are addressed. This will require massive spending on modern education, job creation, food, housing etc. The US and Saudi Arabia are quite capable of such spending, as they have demonstrated by their support during the Afghan resistance against the Soviets. Both abandoned the tribal belt after the defeat of the Soviet Union and left it to the Taleban and Al-Qaeda. In the meanwhile, both the Pakistani and the US governments must do everything possible to re-establish the role and influence of the tribal elders who want to make peace. At the same time, the war against the radicals challenging the authority of the elders must be conducted with sensitivity to avoid mass casualties of the ordinary folks in FATA. Indiscriminate bombing will not win any hearts and minds. It will only stoke the fires of revenge for a long time to come.

Who Is In Charge: Mehsud or Mullah Omar?

Americans have now been saying for several months that the Taleban and Al-Qaeda have shifted their focus of attacks from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan. "Al-Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistan people," US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Washington Post on Dec 21, 2007. Most of the recent activities including a big surge in suicide bombings in Pakistan seem to confirm this belief. It appears that Baitullah Mehsud has been the main commander leading the charge against Pakistani military and political leadership, while Mullah Omar has not been heard from. This is likely to change, if today's report in Asia Times On Line turns out to be accurate. ATOL is reporting that Mullah Omar has fired Baitullah Mehsud and decided to turn his attention for a major spring offensive against the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. Mehsud was expected to provide valuable support to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but instead he directed all his fighters against Pakistani security forces. This has apparently angered Mullah Omar who may personally take charge of the Taleban in Pakistan, in addition to his leadership of the Taleban in Afghanistan. This may also be an indication of split between Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan. As recently as Sept, 2007, Usama bin Laden called for a rebellion in Pakistan. The storming of the Red Mosque in Islamabad in July "demonstrated Musharraf's insistence on continuing his loyalty, submissiveness and aid to America against the Muslims ... and makes armed rebellion against him and removing him obligatory," bin Laden said in an audio tape.
While this change of targets from Pakistan to Afghanistan would help relieve pressure in Pakistan in the near future, the Americans and NATO are likely to continue to press President Musharraf to not let up on the Taleban forces to minimize the impact of their planned offensive in Afghanistan.