Asinine and anodyne in '09?: The industry of conspiracy theory in Pakistan

Asinine and anodyne in '09?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Mosharraf Zaidi

The writer is an independent political economist

One measure of character is the ability to take responsibility for one's own fate and actions. No matter how many detractors and enemies may exist, any human enterprise--a business, an idea, or a country--must be able to ward off adversity in order to survive and thrive. A linear approach to problem solving, in short, is a useful tool to have. This is why the propensity of Pakistanis to explain their country's failures through conspiracy theories, and the propensity of Pakistan's friends to do the same is the most alarming of indicators.

Traditionally, the conspiracy theory of choice, for all calamities, is RAW. Whenever the US is providing vast sums of aid and assistance to the country, RAW is joined in its infamy in Pakistan, by the CIA. Where there is smoke, there is a cigarette, and so for every mention of the CIA, a generous dollop of Mossad references is also necessary. Like maple syrup over a pancake, British MI6 too is all over Pakistan. Since 1998 there is no doubt what the grand prize in the little game is: Pakistan's gold-plated, diamond-encrusted bling-bling nukes. What were they after before 1998? Since Pakistan didn't have nukes, one possibility may be that they were after our women. Whatever they were after, they've always been hard at work trying to contaminate the Land of the Pure.

In the last few years, traditional conspiracy theories to explain away the Pakistani state's difficulties are now supported by a spectrum of new ones. Pakistanis have now discovered that in fact its not only RAW, CIA, Mossad or MI6 that are trying to destroy Pakistan from within. It is also the ISI--even if inadvertently. Good or bad, whatever happens in Pakistan can now be traced to a heat-seeking ISI agent. It is they who are behind everything in Pakistan. Every politician is owned by them, every bureaucrat works for them. Every fancy license plate is a product of ISI largesse. Every profit-turning business is a beneficiary of a contract for phantom goods and services. Every mullah donates money, every burqa sold contributes revenue. New mosques are built by the ISI, but so are new malls, new parking lots and new soda fountains. Left to the right, north or south, up or down the ISI seems to have joined the ranks of RAW and CIA as the owners of the remote control that manages Pakistan's central nervous system, its skeleton, its muscles, its very heart and soul.

So on we go, on this merry-go-round of a national obsession with passing the buck to the invisible hand of seemingly divine structures. Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but who needs a shower and soap, when you have intelligence agencies? In 2009, it seems that spying is the new Lux. Spy work is next to godliness. Omni-potent gangs of secretive evil geniuses plotting the demise of all things Pakistan. The line begins in Langley, Virginia and ends at ISI headquarters in Islamabad.

If you are progressive and liberal, the ISI has ruined Pakistan's E Street drive to development and secularism. The ISI-Taliban-LeT nexus has driven nine-inch-nails into the Quaid's secular dream. If you tilt more to the right, the RAW-CIA-Mossad-MI6 quadrant has destroyed Pakistan's drive to keep the dream of the ummah alive. The kaafirs are plotting to derail Pakistan from the siraat-e-mustaqeem trail.

Conspiracy theories that blame intelligence agencies (local or foreign) for the breathtaking and oft-unbelievable life and times of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan exist because of intellectual laziness. It is easier to weave stories where the dots don't all connect, than it is to painstakingly make the linear connections required to understand a fascinating, resilient, creative, but deeply dysfunctional state. Audiences at home and abroad are more easily and cheaply titillated by a narrative that involves cloaks and daggers than they would be by new institutional economics, identity politics and random walks.

The habitual blaming of American and Israeli organizations for cancers that are deeply ensconced within the body politic and society of Muslims is not endemic just to Pakistan, but in fact to the global Muslim community. It is a tired and pathetic tactic, and it fails to conceal the deep crises of faith, gender, literacy and integrity that plague the Muslim experience all over the world.

Intelligence agencies exist to operate in secrecy. Contrary to their protestations, they almost surely behave outside the law at times. But the overwhelming evidence in Pakistan suggests that intelligence agencies--foreign or national--can only have made a marginal contribution to the rot.

For example, in the 2008 election, it surely could not have been an intelligence agency that forced the Election Commission of Pakistan to use the discredited 2002 voters' list. No intelligence agency stopped government from investing in power plants and the energy sector. It is not any intelligence agency that is stopping Pakistan from addressing climate change. Spy masters from India did not initiate the practise of establishing ghost schools, nor of hiring political pets as primary school teachers. The CIA is not stopping the federal government from reforming the BPS system of grading in government. Nor did Mossad force the Punjab or NWFP to dispense with the DCO system without conducting a credible analysis of the costs and benefits of a return to the colonial commissioner system. The MI6 does not kill mothers during childbirth, and the ISI does not cause gastrointestinal epidemics because of contaminated water. Spies aren't the ones that let the Securities and Exchange Commission slip from capable hands in 2004 to a revolving door of leadership ever since. No intelligence agency will be responsible for letting the current State Bank governor leave without any attempt to retain her, and no intelligence agency will be responsible when an incompetent sycophant is named to replace her.

Of course, the spies have been central to the conduct of overt and proxy wars in the South Asian region for donkey's years. That's what they do. They should certainly be scrutinized and held to account for their behaviour. Pakistanis however need to take enormous care in dumping their entire load of dirty laundry onto RAW, or the CIA, or Mossad, or MI6, or even the ISI.

There would never have been any possibility of Lashkar-e Taiba-training camps in Pakistan if the country enjoyed a 100 per cent literacy and school enrolment rate. There would be no recruitment pool for the Taliban if the economy generated enough jobs for the willing and able. Friday sermons would not be a source of fear and loathing across the country if Islam was treated with the respect any faith deserves, rather than as a political football for mullahs and heretics to kick around for personal and interest group gain. There would be no link between Pakistani citizens and domestic problems in the UK or India if Pakistani public policy reflected even a nominal degree of sensitivity to the ethos and aspirations of all of its citizens. And no RAW, CIA, Mossad, MI6 or ISI agent would represent a threat to Pakistan if Pakistan didn't represent such a major threat to itself. In 2009, Pakistan must dump the asinine and the anodyne. Ordinary Pakistanis must take responsibility to build an ordinary and functional Pakistan. (The News)

www.mosharrafzaidi.com

Also read:

Munir Attaullah: Conspiracy. Will anyone tell me who these terrorists are?

"RAW Totay": The conspiracy theory parrots. The supporters of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Taliban remember Lal Masjid and shed crocodile tears....

Everyone at fault, except us. Why is it that everything that goes against us becomes a conspiracy?

International conspiracies against Pakistan - an eye opener for conspiracy theorists

Read more...

Dumb questions invite dumb answers - By Aziz Ahmad

Dumb questions invite dumb answers

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 Aziz Akhmad The Mumbai attacks had not even ended yet, when a TV reporter of a Pakistani channel, armed with a microphone and a camera -- and a dumb question -- hit the streets. He pushed the microphone in the face of a young man who appeared, from his demeanour and speech, not to have spent too much time in school, and asked this question: "India has threatened to attack Pakistan (which, in fact, was not true), what would you say?" Since dumb questions are likely to invite dumb answers, the reply the reporter got was: "One Muslim is equal to 10 Hindus. Let India attack, we will teach them a lesson." Visibly satisfied with the answer, the reporter repeated the question to a few other people in the same crowd. Since bravado and chauvinism can be infectious, other responses were equally spirited. Semi-literate and misinformed people, however, do not have monopoly over dumb answers. Seemingly educated and responsible persons are equally forthcoming. A former federal minister, when prodded by a talk-show host with a similar question, had this to say: "What is the bomb for, after all? It is meant to be used, and not just stored in a cupboard" He then went on to warn the enemy ominously in these words: "Neither grass will grow there, nor bells would ring in their temples!" Shouldn't we count it a blessing that this federal minister lost the last election on both the seats he contested, and is no more advising the government in any capacity. God is merciful, after all. The same federal minister was on another talk show (obviously the increased competition among TV channels did not necessarily translate into quality of talk show guests) discussing the imminence of India-Pakistan war. This time he had this insight to share with his host and the audience: "Ho, ji, hum ne koi chooriaan pehn rakhi hain?" (Are we wearing bangles?) In other words, are we women that we would be afraid of a war? This is a terribly sexist comment, to say the least, and tells you where the man is coming from. We know from our own history and the history of the world that women can be as courageous, if not more, in the face of a threat as men. Didn't Benazir, Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Gandhi "wear bangles"? While Benazir ran circles around two military dictators and literally looked death in the eye, Margaret Thatcher humbled the Argentinian military junta in the Falkland war (1982), and Indira Gandhi, in 1971, tamed a chest-thumping general who called himself "Tiger". Ironically, a PPP senator also repeated the "bangles" comment a few days later on a different talk show. It seems the PPP-wallas didn't want to be seen lagging behind in the on-going macho contest. Another talk show host, who always wears a sad and helpless look and, for some reasons, reminds me of a Kola Bear, was out to stir the nuclear nest on his show. After his doom and gloom introduction, he called his panellists, a retired four-star general and a retired diplomat, over the phone and asked them about the possibility of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Both of them, sensibly, ruled out a war in the current circumstances and the general, to his credit, discouraged the host from even talking about a nuclear war. Disappointed with the answers, the "Kola Bear" climbed another tree, so to speak, in search of some juicy shoots. And he found them in the form another retired general, who is known for keeping his "horses ready" --- and galloping into nowhere. Listening to the general and the host for the next 15-20 minutes, one got the impression that the whole world was busy conspiring against Pakistan, and that the only way Pakistan could save itself from an imminent disaster was to keep its "horses ready". You must have noticed that many of the frequent guests on TV talk shows do not write. Writing requires, first, thinking, which is hard work, and then putting one's thoughts on paper or computer in a logical and coherent manner, which is still harder. Speaking, on the other hand, can be done without any of the hard work. Having been a student of communication, I recall three tips that communication gurus at business schools usually give to the talk show hosts and guests. Here they are, for whatever they are worth: 1. DO NOT promote your own agenda, ideas or story. You are the INTERVIEWER, not the SUBJECT of the interview. 2. Remember, you are there to help everyone learn something --- information, insight, analysis --- and not to vent your anger. 3. A great guest on a panel has energy, is conversational, and says either very intelligent or very stupid things. Yes, saying stupid things also makes a guest entertaining on a show (remember the 'long arm of the law'?). While I am writing these lines on Saturday night, another TV host (he had disappeared for sometime) on a late night TV show has just concluded his mournful sermon and announced the presence of his guest on the other end of the phone (Iss waqt hamaray saath line par mawjood hain …. ), guess who? Again, the former federal minister! Mercifully, the light went off as it does these days at 11 o'clock at night in this part of Islamabad. (The News) The writer is a consultant who divides his time between Islamabad and New York. Email: azizakhmad@gmail.com

Read more...

Evidence of Ansar Abbasi's lies about General Shahid Aziz - An analysis

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17248

GHQ had strongly opposed handing over Pakistanis to US

ISLAMABAD: Lt Gen (retd) Shahid Aziz, who served as the Chief of General Staff (CGS) from Oct 2001 to Dec 2003, revealed that the Army as an institution was in complete dark about what was going on between Washington and Islamabad on the war on terror and the GHQ and top Army commanders had strongly opposed the handing over of Pakistanis to the US, but Musharraf did so on his own.

Shahid Aziz confirmed that though the office of the CGS in the GHQ was considered to be the nerve centre in the Army, the GHQ did not know most of the controversial things Musharraf did, including the handing over of Pakistani nationals to the Americans.

All attempts to get an official version of the Pakistan Army through the director general of the ISPR could not succeed until the filing of this report.

The retired general told The News on Saturday that while the Pakistan Army used to catch the targeted foreigners and locals and handed them over to the ISI for interrogation, they were handed over to the Americans without the knowledge of the Army.

The Army, he said, had made it clear that no Pakistani would be delivered to the US authorities while the problematic Arabs would be deported to their respective countries.

"We did not know for a long time that the Pakistani nationals were being handed over to the Americans by the ISI," he said, adding that it caused a lot of resentment in the top echelons of the Pakistan Army when they found this was happening. He said that Musharraf had got the ISI engaged to collaborate with the American CIA without the knowledge of the rest of Pakistan Army.

Musharraf, during his rule, had also allowed the US drones to use the Pakistani airspace for intelligence sharing besides permitting the American intelligence agencies, the CIA and the FBI, to recruit their agents in the tribal belt of Pakistan, he said.

Shahid Aziz disclosed that the drones were permitted to use the country's airspace despite strong opposition from the GHQ, but still General Musharraf granted this permission.

Interestingly, the same drones have carried out most of the US-led coalition strikes inside Pakistan, killing hundreds of people, including innocent women and children. He disclosed that during his tenure, there had been no agreement between the Pakistan Army and Washington on the war on terror, rather Musharraf was directly dealing with the Americans.

Shahid Aziz, who enjoyed an exceptional reputation in the Army, disclosed that when initially consulted after 9/11, the top commanders had decided that the Pakistan Army would remain out of the conflict.

However, later because of compromises by Musharraf, the Army was dragged in and the situation was such that one hand of the Pakistan Army did not know what the other hand was assigned or doing.

Musharraf had compartmentalised the Army to such an extent that even the CGS would not know many things directly assigned by the Army chief to other departments.

Shahid Aziz, who also served as the chairman NAB but resigned early last year when asked to close the special NAB cell probing corruption cases against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, explained that since the former Army chief was also in the government, the Army as an institution was not consulted on many things that were being agreed between Islamabad and Washington.

After 9/11, he said, the Army was told that Washington did not want foreigners like Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

When the issue was discussed in the GHQ, he said, the Army decided to ensure that these foreigners, most of them had settled in Pakistan, were forced to remain quiet.

.........

Analysis by Saleem

Ansar Abbasi is such a sold-out animal and a Liar that he openly said on Hamid Mir TV discussion program (something I heard myself) unashamedly, with his makruh smile on his cursed face, that Journalists should have their own opinions and agendas when reporting, and should promote that agenda using whatever means, including lies, misreporting, twisting the facts, etc. According to this rascal, he believes that lies are acceptable from Journalists to change public opinions according to their liking.

He was giving his comment after one journalist commented that since last few years, many journalists in Pakistani media were doing bias reporting and were spreading misinformation to misguide the public, something journalists should not do, as their job is to bring truth to the people and let the people make their opinions. Ansar Abbasi made comments to justify the role of journalists who were lying, misinforming, twisting facts and doing bias and selective reporting, so that to misguide people and make them change opinions.

Even though I knew that many crooks on payroll of corrupts calling themselves journalist are actually liars and agents, but it was most surprising for me to see one of these rascals openly defending lies, misinforming, misreporting, twisting the facts, and fulfilling agendas. I felt puking on his face but I decided not to make my TV dirty because of this rascal whose face looks cursed anyhow (Allah kee her ayesay jhotay per lanat hotie hay jo dusroon ko misguide karnay kay liya jhoot bolta hay. ... and if anyone do not believe me, try to look at his face carefully)

Just look at his reporting and think. I am sure that only someone with no brain would accept what he wrote ... about his interview with Shahid Aziz. Read carefully, think and one would find that most of that interview is BS, full of lies and ridiculous claims. Discussed in GHQ ... Army ... all this BS Ansar Abbasi writes for pea brained Pakistanis to misguide them and fool them ... but problem is that ... it seems this Rascal liar Ansar Abbasi does not know the difference between GHQ, Army and Army Chief ... because when we talk about Army we talk about Army Chief ... and when we talk about GHQ we talk about office of the Army chief. Musharraf was Army Chief ... so his person (and no one else) was not only representing Army but GHQ was his office. If he use to discuss anything with others in army, it was not required but a courteous gesture. If Musharraf had decided anything, he did not needed to explain to others, and thus whatever army or GHQ decided, it was Musharraf decisions and no one else. Now think of these facts and read the above interview to find it not only absurd and ridiculous, but something funny too.

Fact is that, Musharraf was first army chief who use to discuss things with his corps commanders, else all past army chief in Pakistan never even use to discuss anything with their juniors, neither they need to. Second is that, Musharraf was first head of state as well as army chief who discussed many things with corps commanders about government, that no past rulers ever discussed. It was greatness of Musharraf that he use to take all on board, else such things has never happened before in Pakistan neither anyone could expect same from Gen Kiyani or any future Army chiefs (not only in Pakistan but anywhere in the world).

........

Well, I have never seen a Journalist except this guy Ansar Abbasi who was proudly justifying on TV that it is fine for a journalist to be bias, do selective reporting, promote agendas and try to change public opinions, instead of doing unbiased reporting. So, when I see someone giving respect to him or his reporting, it amazes me

.....

For you, all Liars, corrupts and crooks in Pakistan are most upright, honest, decent and patriotic in the country ... as long as he BS against Musharraf or those you want.

Meray Bhai, I do not know what value you have but just imagine, you are calling a person 'honest' whom I saw saying on TV that journalists should have agenda and should be bias in their reporting. This guy, Ansar Abbasi believes on lying and misguiding innocent people who read or hear him. Is that honesty? But then, I should not say much as there are many who love dishonest liars and get misguided by them. For instance, there are people who love NS and his team of liars, considering NS as great leader, knowing that NS was lying blatantly that he went to Saudi Arabia without any deal. Some support this liar and say that he made deal under duress. What a beautiful duress it was that he left prison to live in Palace, still ... obviously excuses of these people are ridiculous.

It is obvious that Nawaz is liar and was blatantly lying when he claimed that he left for Saudi Arabia without deal, because he was not under duress when he was claiming that he left for Saudi Arabia without deal as he claimed that from Saudi Arabia and London. If he was not liar, he should have at least said that he did went to Saudi Arabia because of deal, though that deal was under duress

.....

There are many journalists who are blatant liars and on payroll of corrupt politicians, but I never said anything about them other than that they lie and do propaganda (or regarding Shahid Masood that he is Sazishi)? Only exception is Ansar Abbasi, and even him just after recent program I saw on TV with him in the program. Why is that? It is because no journalist I have seen came on TV defending their lies and agendas of misguiding masses except Ansar Abbasi. That is the reason I wrote that he is Rascal. So you should not blame me that I am upset of him because he was anti-Musharraf. Actually, I am not even upset with him, as he is not worth to get upset. Only thing is that I have no respect for him because he is not only liar and on payroll of corrupt politicians, but he openly admits that he is bias in his reporting and have agenda.


Similarly, I call PMLN as party of liars but I have not labelled any other party as party of liars, because even though leaders from all parties lie, still they are not as blatant Liars as leaders of PMLN. Even in PMLN, I have never taken name of their leaders as Liars, crooks and thugs except Nawaz. Similarly, I only took name of Nawaz, Ahsan Iqbal and Ishaq Daar as Liars, why? It is because I have heard them lying blatantly and continuously on TV. I do not name any other leaders as liars because I have not heard others lying blatantly and continuously.

Hence, when I name someone, I have reasons for that, that is nothing to do entirely with my own personal feelings or whim. As for some people here on this forum, including Spock the righteous, they call names and abuse others just because of their own whim.

........
So what do you guys have to say about this?

Source: Jang Group Online


......

Ajju says:

^^^ It seems like the said general is actually pro-Mush but Ansar abbasi presented his own views as general's views by twisting the interview. Classic yellow journalism.

........

Saleem says:

Brother, thank you for the clarification of Lt Gen Shahid Aziz, exposing Rascals like Ansar Abbasi. Obviously many must have missed the clarification (as I would have if you did not put it here), and obviously Rascals like Ansar Abbasi and many others like him have succeeded in doing propaganda full of lies, but still it is nice to expose them and their true stinking faces. InshaAllah, these people and their partners, who lie and do propaganda to misguide innocent people, would burn in hell forever.

Read what Rascal Ansar Abbasi wrote ... read what I wrote about Ansar Abbasi, that this guy is crook and misguide people with twisted reporting, lies and agenda. Now, here is what clarification came from Shahid Azia. Why clarification was needed is obvious, because Ansar Abbasi is rascal and twisted the interview. Purpose of Ansar Abbasi was to misguide innocent readers, and obviously those who trust this Rascal (unwittingly) and had no opportunity to read what Shahid Aziz Actually said, would get misguided.

Things to note from what Lt Gen Shahid Aziz said (against lies what Rascals like Ansar Abbasi propagates) is that: It was policy of president Musharraf that Musharraf vigorously emphasised to all that ... no Pakistani would be handed over to Americans, plus Pakistan would try to send all foreigners first their own country (actually, what I know is that Musharraf gave general amnesty to all foreigners if they surrender and want to live in Pakistan. Only those foreigners were attested who did not surrendered, and when arrested their country were approached to take them and when their contrary declined to take them than only they were handed over to Americans). Shahid Aziz also said that when we learned of Pakistanis in Guantanamo Bay, we felt remorse. According to Shahid Aziz, the possibility of these Pakistanis in Guantanamo Bay is that they must have got arrested in Afghanistan.

Lt Gen Shahid Aziz also said that at no point military was unaware of anything that was related to Military and military was involved. He also said that decision to ditch Taliban was made with careful consideration and taking all pros and con into equation, something only those could understand who were in the position at that time. Throughout Lt Gen Shahid Aziz not only defendend President Musharrad decisions but appreciated it showing high regards of the decisions and role or President Musharraf throughout. He also said that Pakistanis should be thankful of President Musharraf that he steered Pakistan out of crises getting us 7 valuable years after 9/11 and made Pakistan stronger strategically today. He further said that Musharraf only cooperated with USA to certain limit, and never cooperated beyond that limit.

Now it is sad and disgusting that a Liar and a Rascal like Ansar Abbasi twisted everything what Shahid Aziz said and did all to misguide innocent Pakistanis so that he can fulfil his agenda of maligning an honest man. From what Shahid Aziz wrote and the reality, one can judge the character of this disgraced person Ansar Abbasi, and people like him in Journalism as well as in other places. Worse is that, many Pakistanis are becoming victim of such propaganda and lies by number of thugs like Abbas Ansari in Journalism and becoming misguided.

http://jang.com.pk/jang/sep2008-daily/16-09-2008/main3.htm

......

Aalsi says:

LOL. Looks like Ansar Abbasi has been exposed as a not so credible journalist. Rather than writing objectively, he is twisting facts to possibly show his personal dislike for the former president Great Pervez Musharaf, the greatest Pakistani leader since Quaid-e-Azam.


http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/296761-ex-general-defends-army-blames-musharraf-2.html
Read more...

Hussian Haqqani gives Kashif Abbassi some good spanking.

Kashif Abbasi is a media juooni: The TV face/ mouth pieces of Taliban in Pakistan.


Regime of ‘hostile’ TV anchors
Daily Times - Saturday, June 21, 2008

Two particular encounters on two TV channels Thursday night revealed the mind of the “misplaced or hostile anchor” in Pakistan. The first was a discussion among a group of TV journalists on the accusation levelled against them that they are no longer impartial in their conduct of talk shows and tend to favour a political stance. The “consensus” was that encroachments on institutions of representative democracy by military rulers could not be viewed with impartiality, and that a show of partiality was dictated by the anchors’ loyalty to the Constitution. One opinion was that this obligatory partiality must be accompanied by “objectivity”; but it was not clear how the state of being “objective” could be reconciled with the state of being “partial”.

The other discussion was an interview with Pakistan’s ambassador Mr Hussain Haqqani by a TV journalist noted for his acerbity of approach and bias. The topic was the attack made by NATO-ISAF forces inside Mohmand Agency which resulted in the death of 13 Pakistani troops, souring Pakistan’s relations between Washington. The ambassador, while acknowledging his duty to bring the umbrage of Pakistan to the notice of the Washington Administration in the most forceful of terms, also charged the TV person with the obligation of looking objectively at the situation in which Pakistan found itself. He asked him if he took account of the ground realities in the Tribal Areas where the war against terrorism was clearly in the national interest of Pakistan. The ambassador argued for “realism” in the handling of such crises as the one resulting from the attack in the Mohmand area. But the TV anchor demanded that Pakistan approach the United Nations for a solution to the problem of the growing breach of Pakistan’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity”. The ambassador pointed out that the Security Council was an arena of power play, not a kind of Supreme Court where all plaintiffs were equal. The TV anchor then fell back on the argument of “national pride” and claimed to represent the people of Pakistan, arguing in favour of Pakistan opting out of the international war on terrorism. He had no answer, however, to the question about what Pakistan would do after that, after its various trouble spots are bombed by a combination of forces united inside the US Security Council.

The patriotically “partial” TV anchors began by opposing a military ruler and are now caught in a situation of political bias under democracy because of the dictates of their partiality. The 2008 elections have delivered a political battlefield where elected parties are trying to move together despite their different recipes and solutions. What should the TV anchors do now? Normally, they should have moved back and become neutral, letting the discussions be fairly judged by the viewers, but they continue to pose as arbiters and decide on their own such matters as the “mandate” of the 2008 elections, the “immorality” of the NRO, and the rough dismissal of President Musharraf from his job. But when matters are in dispute between elected parties and in parliament, it is the duty of the media to remain impartial in order to allow the people to make their own judgements.

While highlighting the “complaints” against the TV channels, one must be clear, however, about the over-all role played by our electronic journalism. Despite their early “philosophical” gropings, the TV channels are a sine qua non of our lives and their foibles of “partiality” are dwarfed by their achievement of creating awareness among the people on all other economic and social matters. For example, in Punjab, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif is taking action, correctly, after watching TV reports on the malfunction of government institutions.

A sense of pride and sovereignty may take nations into war and humiliate them without making them understand what went wrong. This happened to Germany in the Second World War and in recent times to Serbia whose people, proud and sovereign, hate the world today for not understanding why they were killing Bosnians and Kosovars. But states don’t only feel aroused emotionally. They can also be cold-blooded. They can be motivated only by their self-interest whose pursuit might negate the state’s pride and sovereignty. When Iran and America confront each other, both tend to fly off the handle. In contrast, in Europe, where many nationalist wars were fought in the past, few feel as aroused.

Why shouldn’t a state feel emotional? Because being emotional may be contrary to its national interests. These interests are almost always economic. This is perfectly understandable because as long as a nation is prosperous and not dependent on outside creditors, its pride and sovereignty remain intact. But if a state is neglectful of its economy and pursues other emotional goals either unrelated or hostile to its economy it is bound to impose suffering on its people through the growth of poverty. And nothing removes pride and sovereignty from a nation more cruelly and quickly than poverty. Let us not forget that the organisation which kidnapped and beheaded the American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 called itself National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtOYSEhdWMQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GxmWsWmtA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3fanwU4Blo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSyY2ZWXsH4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh5vOhew0aE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WIaagFjVFA&feature=related

Some Comments:

H Khan
I have kept Hussian Haqqani in disdain for quite sometime but here he gave Kashif Abbassi some good spanking.

FarazA
LOL... kashif took some serious beating... this little patheritc chaos creater wasn't able to answer a single question asked by Haqanni. Amazing journalist


H Khan:

This Kashif Abbassi represents the height of pathetic journalism in Pakistan. As one could see he has no training in journalism and how journalist should present themselves in front of dignitaries. Journalistic protocol has not even touched these types of idiots.

Kashif was interviewing Pakistani Ambassador to the USA in his office (which is the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington D C) while he was wearing some faded jeans.

My no means this was an interview but a solid ruthless bashing by Hussian Haqqani and he made Kashif Abbassi an example out of.

abaig:

True, this Kashif Abbasi (I've stopped watching his arrogant programs) interviewed Foreign Minister of PML-Q govt Khurshid Kasuri, some one year back. He was his usual arrogant and was in no mood to listen to the 4 point agenda Khurshid Kasuri gave on Kashmir. After some time, Khurshid Kasuri asked Kashif some questions back asking for solutuions to Kashmir problems .... leaving kashif answer-less and shame-less!

In this interview also, he rightly pointed out that we are emotional nation and we do not understand that we must expect equal footing ONLY if we are equal in heights and standing to USA. Eyes to eyes can be seen with someone equal to us!

The basic thing that these guys lack is "TEHZEEB" to talk to any dignitary. They think they're over-smart. Governor Salman Taseer rightly says, "They'll come to their senses, if their salaries are reduced from 10,00,000 to 10,000"

SSAAD:
Clue less idiots like Mr. Abbasi should at least google things before they start their stupid, populist rants. The way he shamelessly got his ass handed to him by HH should be an eye opener for him. Essentially HH told him to keep his trap shut!

I see Hamid Mir, Kamran and this idiot as all in the same league of BS, populist, wanna-be hard talking journalists without having the fundamentals of journalism or even common knowledge under their belts!

dara Says:
November 19th, 2008


I don’t understand what that Kashif Abassi the brave warrior thing is?
I agree up to the fact that we need to criticize and question government people, but when answer has received then there is no need to argue and being judgemental.
Kashif Abbasi sounds like immature and partisan. Every one has opinion and Kashif has aright to have one but as anchor you put a question but never react to answer the way kKashif does.

I hope you take my critical analysis in good faith.
Read more...

Realities of Pakistan's woes not apparent to all

THE RECENT bombing of the Marriott Hotel in the heart of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, underscores the menace of religious fanaticism that now threatens Pakistan also. When the air cleared, 70 people lay dead and close to 300 wounded. The incident sent shock waves through not only Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also through the power corridors of Washington.

Afghanistan is a quagmire, and a decisive military victory in that country is not possible. Pakistan has been accused of not doing enough to curb al-Qaeda and the Taliban operating from the sanctuaries in its tribal areas and thus being indirectly responsible for the failure in Afghanistan.

In reality there are four different wars being waged from the tribal areas of Pakistan. There is the war against the occupation forces in Afghanistan. There is a war against the Pakistani government and the Pakistani army. There is a war, supported by elements in the Pakistani army, to contain Indian influence in Afghanistan. And now the war has spilled over and is being waged against the common man in Pakistan who does not subscribe to al-Qaeda and the Taliban brand of Islam.

U.S. lawmakers have been, for the last few years, very critical of Pakistan and have questioned the wisdom of giving Pakistan $10 billion over the last six years while not having much in return to show for it. This simplistic money-for-action equation, however, is nave at best and hypocritical at worst. Let us step back and examine on-the-ground realities that may be different from what appears from Washington and even from Islamabad.

The situation in the tribal areas of Pakistan, complex as it is, can be pared down to three important interlocking elements.

First, there is a pervasive anti-American feeling among Pakistanis, just as there is elsewhere in the world. These sentiments cut across all segments of society. There is also a pervasive feeling that the war on terror is in fact a war against Islam. These sentiments have hardened since my three-part report published in The Blade in May, 2005, on the subject.

Second, the shouts of jihad against the occupation forces in Afghanistan aside, most Pakistanis are religious, but not militant or fanatics. As such, they are no different from, say, observant Christians, Jews, or followers of other religions.

The pivotal piece in this equation is the fact that the ouster of foreign forces from Afghanistan is not the ultimate aim of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The aim is to control Pakistan and establish a Taliban-style government in the country. That end point, in their limited worldview, would solve all their socio-economic ills.

So why can't the majority of Pakistanis see through this charade and realize that in the long run they stand to lose not only their moderate to liberal way of life but their country as well? I am sure the experts in the White House and the Pentagon continue to mull this critical question.

The answer lies in the peculiar mind-set that believes that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The deep resentment felt toward American foreign policy and its effects on the people in the Middle East and South Asia is enough for ordinary people to withhold criticism of al-Qaeda and the Taliban even though they disagree with their harsh and uncompromising interpretation of religion.

For the people of Pakistan in general and for those Pakistanis living along the northwest frontier in particular, the al-Qaeda-Taliban fight against the occupation forces in Afghanistan is not their fight.

Since al-Qaeda and the Taliban have framed this fight in religious terms and exploited the prevailing anti-American sentiments in Pakistan, the attitude of most Pakistanis can be explained by the German word schadenfreude, which means taking pleasure in the misery of others.

But the recent foray of the Taliban into the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan is making them think twice about the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-
friend mind-set.

The enemy of my enemy also proves to be my enemy when he indiscriminately bombs civilians, orders the closing of girls' schools, forbids barbers to shave beards, and forbids women to venture outside their homes.

This is happening in the Swat Valley in the north and in many other districts of the province. In Peshawar, the provincial capital, their activities are limited to forcing the closing of video and music shops.

The writing is clearly on the wall.

Dr. S. Amjad Hussain is a Toledo surgeon whose column appears every other week in The Blade.
» E-mail him at aghaji@buckeye-express.com
» Read more Dr. Hussain columns at www.toledoblade.com/hussain
Read more...

Javed Chaudhry - the mouth piece of Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba, the champion of yellow journalism in Pakistan

This site has moved to http://criticalppp.com/archives/331, click this link if you are not redirected
Read more...

A postmortem of anti-democracy journalists; A mirror to Ansar Abbasi, Kashif Abbasi, Hamid Mir, Mushtaq Minhas and other supporters of Taliban.

Freedom of press? My foot.

Abbas Ather





Read more...

The anti-PPP forces, ISI, the right wing and the pro-Taliban elements in Pakistan - By Ayaz Amir

Is there anything more to see?
Friday, October 24, 2008
By by Ayaz Amir

Of all our leaders thrown up by the vicissitudes of events, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto alone had the talent and drive to reverse these trends and build a new Pakistan as he vowed to do when he assumed power in December 1971 after the army's catastrophic defeat in East Pakistan (by then Bangladesh). But his autocratic tendencies, honed to an unusual degree, earned him bitter enemies. And he went to war in Balochistan when as a popularly-elected leader he should have sought conciliation and co-existence with the elected leaders of that province. He had put a lid on dissent but when that lid had to be lifted when elections were held in 1977, emotions long suppressed burst into the open, assuming the shape of an agitation which from protest against election rigging was transformed into a movement calling for the establishment of Islamic rule.

In one of his many policy blunders Bhutto had chosen a seemingly compliant junior general as the army chief. Little could Bhutto have known that Gen Ziaul Haq was a closet maulvi, a hidden fundamentalist. He bided his time and struck when Bhutto's fortunes were at their lowest ebb in the summer of 1977. On seizing power Zia proclaimed Islamisation as his aim and sought to create a religious constituency for himself by patronising religious elements, especially the right wing Jamaat-i-Islami which was close to his heart, and fostering a cult of false and hypocritical religiosity which still has Pakistan in its grip.

The first Afghan 'jihad' (1979 onwards) against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan had a profound impact on Pakistani society. It proved to be http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifPakistan's introduction to a new culture: one based on the Kalashnikov rifle and the heroin trade. Pakistan's ISI was the conduit through which assistance was funnelled to the Afghan 'mujahideen'. As a result of this involvement the ISI evolved into a behemoth with its fingers and tentacles in every aspect of national policy.

Since the rallying cry of the Afghan resistance was Islam, and since Islamist parties to varying degrees were the spear-carriers of that struggle, the trend towards religiosity or religious revivalism started earlier by Zia was strengthened. Talibanism – whether in the form of the Lal Masjid contingent, Maulvi Fazlullah in Swat or Baitullah Mahsud in Waziristan – are but manifestations of a phenomenon which has grown these past 30 years, ever since that fateful movement against Bhutto in 1977.

The use of F-16s and helicopter gunships won't reverse this trend. If anything, fighting this war as an appendage or pawn of the United States distorts the whole argument by portraying the Taliban as holy warriors pitted against an evil empire. If we are to meet this challenge we have, as a matter of tactics if nothing else, to (1) keep the US at a distance and (2) strengthen the competence of the Pakistani state. Else we are lost.

Indeed, the first requirement of our present situation is for the state to function better. For that to begin happening we have to put an end to the culture of nepotism, cronyism and corruption which have become the hallmarks of our style of governance. If key appointments are not to be made on merit, if cronies and hangers-on who may have rendered private services in the past but who have little otherwise to recommend them for high state offices are not shown the door, if the size of the government, bloated beyond all reasonable measure, is not reduced, if fat (and there is plenty of it around) is not cut, if wasteful expenditure (and there is plenty of that too around) is not eliminated, if the governing class (and this means all parties) don't begin to look more serious, we are not going to come out of our present troubles.

We say these are not ordinary times. Why don't we then take extraordinary measures to make people realise that the captains and pilots on deck are serious? Let the cabinet look like a war and not a passenger train. We can do without a new GHQ in these dire times and why do we want refurbished F-16s? Fighting India is no longer an option in anyone's mind. Do we need F-16s to use against our own tribesmen?

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry (remember him?) for all his faults, and he may have had many, touched people's hearts by taking on the mighty and protecting the poor and defenceless. Ordinary people looked up to the Supreme Court because of this. Our various leaderships have yet to galvanize the nation in a similar manner.

Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Read more...

The blood thirsty beasts of the conservative parties in Pakistan, namely: Jamaat Islami, Imran Khan, Hamid Gul, and other agents of ISI and Taliban...

By Asadullah Ghalib
Read more...

From Ballot to Bullet: The Sazishi (Junooni) Group of ISI, Bureaucracy and the PPP Phobia...

(Nazir Naji)
Read more...

Partners in crime: Ex-Servicemen’s Association (the new face of ISI sponsored thugs)

Partners in crime

Amir Mir

Hardly a fortnight after Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani directed the officers of the Pakistan Army through an official letter not to indulge in politics and pay heed to their professional responsibilities, a group of prominent ex-servicemen – retired military officers including high profile retired generals, air marshals and admirals – have come down hard on President Musharraf for unnecessarily dragging the army into politics and have asked him to immediately resign as the head of the state and hand over power to the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

Since assuming the command of the 600,000-strong Pakistan Army from General Musharraf in December 2007, the 55-year-old career officer General Kayani has kept a relatively low profile, although he seems to be trying to keep the military out of politics, unlike his predecessor, Musharraf. The Pakistan Army, in the very first decade after the creation of Pakistan in 1947, became a politicised army – the power behind the throne in national politics and thus soon seized political control. Thereafter, the army intervened frequently to seize political power and imposed military rule for protracted periods; the military coups of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan were followed by a pro-jihad Zia regime that lasted for 12 long years and an anti-jihad Musharraf regime. Therefore, having tasted political power, the Pakistan Army had ceased to be apolitical.

However, the unusual directive by the new chief of a highly politicised army has been widely welcomed as it represents the overwhelming public sentiment that the army should go back to the barracks permanently by withdrawing itself from the national political arena for the good of the country. The directive shows that the new army chief wants to systematically reverse some of the most significant policies of his predecessor, who had to take off his uniform in December 2007 under intense international pressure. Two months down the road since assuming the command of the army, General Kayani has issued two key directives: prohibiting army officers from meeting with politicians and ordering all those officers who hold posts in civilian agencies on deputation to resign from those positions.

Hardly a couple of weeks after General Kayani issued these directives, a group of retired military officers, formed an organisation of ex-servicemen, welcomed the initiative taken by the new army chief to depoliticise the army and urged their colleague, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, to hand over power to the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. These developments reflect increasingly strong challenges Musharraf faces after taking off his uniform. The group of retired military men, including former army chief Mirza Aslam Beg, former ISI chief Lieutenant General (retd) Hamid Gul, former Air Chief Marshall (retd) Asghar Khan, a former Corps Commander Rawalpindi Lieutenant General (retd) Ali Quli Khan, a former Deputy Chief Martial Law Administrator Lieutenant General (retd) Faiz Ali Chishti and many others asked Musharraf on January 31 in Islamabad to resign in the supreme national of the country.

An open letter signed by more than 100 retired military officers – all members of the All Pakistan Ex-Servicemen Society, an organisation working for the welfare of retired military personnel, stated that all the four state pillars have suffered at the hands of Pervez Musharraf during his eight year rule, be it the judiciary, the executive, the media or the legislature and, therefore, he should quit the presidency in the supreme national interest. “Musharraf should step down and hand over power to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who is still the constitutional head of the Pakistani judiciary,” said Air Marshall (retd) Asghar Khan while talking to newsmen at the gathering of the ex-servicemen. Speaking on the occasion, General (retd) Aslam Beg, who headed the military from 1988 to 1991, said Musharraf had tarnished the image of the armed forces and called on all ex-servicemen to help restore it. “We should work together to strengthen democracy by trying to remove the only impediment in its way – Pervez Musharraf.”

A few days later, on February 5, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, a large number of the former military officers staged a demonstration near the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi to protest against President Pervez Musharraf’s policies and asked him to resign. The unprecedented protest rally was held a day after the Monday suicide bombing close to the GHQ, which killed 11 people, including some military personnel. Newspaper reports say the participants of the demonstration chanted full-throat slogans like ‘Go Musharraf go’, ‘No Musharraf no’, ‘We want a commission on Kargil’, ‘Musharraf must resign’, etc., while marching towards the GHQ. The retired generals vowed that they would continue their protest until President Musharraf quits power.

However, on his part, however, Musharraf has rejected the demand, describing it a call from “disenchanted job seeking retired generals who had been kicked out by him”. Federal Information Minister Nisar Memon too rejected the resignation demand by the ex-servicemen, saying the ex-servicemen should remain within their limits, otherwise action could be taken against them. Interestingly, the leading lights of the ex-servicemen’s organisation had themselves been amongst those responsible for dragging the army into politics. To begin with, Asghar Khan enjoys the distinction of having written a letter to General Ziaul Haq in 1977, literally inviting him to stage a military coup against Bhutto, which he eventually did. Faiz Ali Chishti became the deputy Martial Law Administrator when Zia had imposed Martial Law. Mirza Aslam Beg had been involved in manipulating the 1990 elections by distributing a hefty amount of Rs 140 million amongst a group of anti-PPP politicians through the then ISI chief and a part of the ex-servicemen society, Lieutenant General (retd) Asad Durrani and last but not the least Hameed Gul enjoys the distinction of having founded the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) in 1990.

Interestingly, however, Asghar Khan, Aslam Beg, Faiz Chishti and many others present at the gathering of the retired officers, when reminded of their meddling with politics while being in uniform and asked if they wanted to apologise to the nation for their own, they simply refused. Except for retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, none other retired khaki personnel showed the moral courage by making an admission of guilt. Gul not only admitted the wrongdoings he had committed as a spy chief, he also submitted a formal apology to the nation and said he was ready for any punishment. “I am ready for a trial or even hanging,” Gul told the gathering in open door proceedings. His words, however, failed to move the other architects and backers of martial law who were sitting on the stage.

While refusing to show remorse for their past conduct, Asghar Khan, who was presiding over the meeting, got annoyed when asked about his “dirty past” and asked to apologise. “These were individual acts of power hungry generals and they are the ones who should be asked to apologise,” he responded. He did not respond when a journalist questioned the moral authority of the retired generals to preach others when they did not feel embarrassed on the wrongdoings of their past. Khan refused to take questions on self-accountability when reminded that he himself was among the strong supporters of Zia’s martial law and the person sitting next to him, Lieutenant General (retd) Faiz Ali Chishti, was Commander 10 Corps when Zia had taken over and later collaborated with him in all his acts. Questioners also mentioned General (retd) Aslam Beg under whose stint as the army chief the Mehran Bank scandal took place and the then president had nominated his successor three months before Beg’s retirement as a pre-emptive measure keeping in view his political ambitions.

Interestingly, Asghar Khan had petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan in June 1996, accusing the ISI of manipulating the 1990 general election results in favour of the IJI. And those made respondents in the case were Mirza Aslam Beg and Asad Durrani, ex-Director-General of ISI Directorate, both sitting on stage with Asghar Khan and making fiery speeches against the army’s indulgence in politics. In his written reply submitted with the Supreme Court, General (retd) Aslam Beg had stated: “More serious damage has been caused to the reputation and the good will of the Armed Forces by Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan in bringing the petition before this Honourable Court and raising an issue before the apex Court, which of course would receive great publicity and would cause greater damage by scandalisation in the media...dragging the ex-service chief to the courts on a letter may be detrimental to the prestige, honour and dignity of the institution he has once represented…Asghar Khan has approached this august court with ulterior motives and his representation is based on obvious malafides…”

However, despite repeated reminders about their past intervention in national politics, neither Asghar Khan showed the grace to confess any wrongdoing nor did Aslam Beg, Asad Durrani and Faiz Chishti. Speaking on his own behalf and the three others, Asghar, who had demanded of Zia during the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) movement in 1977 that Bhutto should be toppled and hanged publicly at the Sihala Bridge, said: “Whatever has happened in the past has happened and the media should stop browbeating the past.”

However, one is constrained to ask if these khakis were unaware of the spirit of the oath they had taken while joining the army, which explicitly prohibits them from indulging in politics: “I, with a sincere heart and God as my witness do solemnly swear that I will be faithful to the State of Pakistan and protect the Constitution of Pakistan, which reflects the wishes of the people of Pakistan. Further, I will not indulge in any political activity and will perform my duties in the armed forces with full faith and honesty. I will go where and howsoever I am ordered to by land, air or sea and that I will obey all lawful orders given to me by my superiors without regard to any dangers and threats to my personal safety. May God be my protector and witness! Amen.”

The writer is the former editor of weekly Independent, now affiliated with foreign media.

http://www.thepost.com.pk/Previuos.aspx?dtlid=143450&src=Amir%20Mir&date=08/02/2008
Read more...

Mullahs, Ulama, religious scholars in Pakistan are creating confusion in the war on terror. Khurshid Nadeem asks some important questions...

Mullahs, Ulama, religious scholars in Pakistan are creating confusion in the war on terror. Khurshid Nadeem asks some important questions... Who has the right to declare jihad? what does Islam say about those groups which intend to create a state within a state etc.

However, it is highly unlikely that the majority of Mullahs, who have earned millions of American-Saudi dollars in the so-called jihad (fasad) of Afghanistan and now through terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan, will pay heed to the questions posed by Mr. Khurshid Nadeem.



Read more...

Hamid Mir, the media face of Taliban suggests that Pakistan is facing terrorism because Mullah Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid was shown in Burqa on PTV

In his op-ed in Daily Jang, Hamid Mir, the media face of Taliban suggests that Pakistan is facing terrorism (suicide bombings etc) because Mullah Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid was shown in Burqa on Pakistan Television. What a fool is this Mr Hamid Mir and also any one who believes his cover up stories...


Read more...

ISI Rogues, Real or Imagined?

Friday, August 1, 2008

http://www.riazhaq.com/2008/08/isi-rogues-real-or-imagined.html

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was involved in the recent deadly bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to a report in the New York Times.

In response to the NY Times report, Ms. Sherry Rahman, Pakistan's information minister, was quoted by AP as saying: "Years of backing an anti-Soviet jihad has left its mark. There are probably still individuals within the ISI who are ideologically sympathetic to the Taliban and act on their own in ways that are not in convergence with the policies and interests of the government. We need to identify these people and weed them out."

Later, Ms. Rahman claimed she was quoted out of context by a western wire service (AP) and added, "There is no question of any purge in the ISI. The government has already stated that there are no links or evidence of ISI involvement in the Kabul bombing. It was in the past during the Afghan jihad against Soviet forces that a few pro-Taliban elements had found their way in, and with the change in policy have been firmly rooted out."

Given the past record of ISI's deep involvement with militants in Afghanistan and Kashmir, it is quite plausible that there are rogue elements within the ISI up to their old tricks again. After all, which intelligence agency in the world has been pristine in making a clean break or in its dealings with unsavory characters, regardless of the nationality or state policy?

The American CIA has been the subject of purges more than once since its creation after World War II. First, under Admiral Stansfield Turner appointed by President Carter, in late 1970s. The second time, more recently, by Porter Goss after the 911 terror attacks and Iraq intelligence debacles. And yet, the CIA continues to be under suspicion for highly questionable practices carried out by CIA operatives with or without the approval of senior officials. Not the least of these criminal actions are kidnappings, imprisonments, torture and murder of many innocent people around the world. Some of these actions involving British, Canadian and German citizens have been well documented recently. It is alleged that the ISI and other intelligence agencies have collaborated with the CIA in kidnapping citizens of Pakistan and other countries as a part of the ongoing "war on terror". Hundreds of Pakistanis have gone missing in the last few years.

Pakistan's ISI also had a major purge ordered by President Musharraf in 2002 after 911 when Pakistan changed its policy toward the Taliban. It is not clear how complete this purge was, given the long history of a very large number ISI operatives who were embedded with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda elements for a long time. In fact, Gen. Akhtar Abdul Rahman, Pakistani ISI’s head from 1980 to 1987, regularly met with bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan; the CIA essentially micromanaged Afghanistan’s opium production; the ISI trained militants to attack the Soviet troops; well over 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992 in camps constructed and overseen by the CIA and MI6, with the British SAS training future al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other terrorist skills.

The New York Times, the source of the latest report about ISI, does not have a particularly stellar record of credibility. The disinformation campaign by Judith Miller, one of its key reporters, is still fresh in the minds of many people. The truth is that this campaign was used by President Bush and Vice President Cheney in making the case for war in Iraq. The fact that NY Times reports clearly contributed to building up the case for Iraq war is particularly alarming, as it suggests the possibility that these reports would be used to justify another war.

Regardless of the credibility of the New York Times, it is important for Pakistan government to take the issue of rogues in the ISI seriously and review its practices. It must conduct its own thorough investigation and purge any one found to be engaging with the Taliban to aid in acts of terror. Pakistan's President, the military brass and the Prime Minister must not tolerate any breach of discipline in carrying out the policies established by the democratically elected government. This is the only reasonable course of action for Pakistan to protect its own national interest and enable democracy to take root in Pakistan. There can be no success in the war on terror unless the ISI is made accountable to the people of Pakistan.

Posted by Riaz Haq at 5:18 PM

SOME COMMENTS

Anonymous said...

When there is discourse about ISI-Taliban relationship there is always a decoy argument that CIA helped create Taliban-Al-queda.This is entirely false. The CIA only financed Afgan Mujahideen indirectly through ISI with help of Saudi intel.The ISI diverted some of the slush funds from the campaign like it is doing now to fund its own war in Kashmir.Hizbul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Toiba,Jaish-e-Mohamed are fully controlled and trained by ISI. The Arabs led by Osama and misc didnt like Americans anyway and had their own funds and recruited fighters from across the arab world through declaration of fatwa for jehad in Afghanistan. The ISI-Army was playing a double game from day one from 2001.The storming of combat-outpost of Americans through a sophisticated conventional attack opened American eyes to the possibility of SSG retired/serving personnel plus the bombing of Kabul embassy.The larger question is,whether the ISI-Army agenda is inline with interests of state of Pakistan. The systematic ceasefire violations along LoC,co-ordinated bomb attacks in Indian metros,re-igniting Kashmir insurgency are all pointing to one direction.Escalation to precipitate a conflict with India so that the Army pre-eminent position and credibility is back in minds of ordinary pakistanis and diverting the anger to India.

The Iraq 2003 war was fully justified according to me well in line with American interests.Of course, there is always a need to sell the strategic concepts to naive common man. The so called free market economy need predictability,continuity and stability.Saddam Hussein was an irrational person,he fought wars according to his whims and fancies and not for strategic interests of Iraq unlike US or Russia.The ~60% energy security of US is in Kuwait-Saudi Arabia-UAE. He showed his lunacy by striking Kuwaiti oil fields in 90s and constantly had his eyes on Saudi Arabia.Anyway realpoliticks is no morality tale.
August 1, 2008 9:48 PM

Riaz Haq said...

Anonymous,
Who do you think were the Mujahedeen? They were mainly Afghan refugees, Pakistani tribals, and Arab fighters who poured in from the Arab world. These same people were bankrolled, trained and equipped by a combination of Americans, Saudis and Pakistanis, and later constituted Taliban and Al-Qaeda. There was heavy involvement of the US and the British special ops along with Pak military in training them with AK-47s, RPGs, Stingers, improvised explosives etc.

As you can read in Charlie Wilson's war (or watch the movie), there was a matching funds agreement between Saudis and Americans to fund the war.

There was ample supply of out-of-work fighters after the Soviets pulled out. These fighter had no other skills but to fight and the ISI used them to start an insurgency in Kashmir and to support Taliban in taking over Afghanistan who hosted Al-Qaeda. The US completely abandoned the area and left it to the ISI to manage, leading up to 911.

ISI became very powerful, and it influenced events in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan and India. This was a disaster for the entire region.

As far as Iraq war is concerned, I believe it was an unnecessary war based on falsehood. It has become a huge, expensive distraction for the US and a boon for Al-Qaeda in its recruiting drive. It has hurt US interests badly.
Read more...

ISI WITHIN ISI: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK - By B. Raman

On July 26,2008, the Pakistan Government placed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) under the direct control of the Interior Division.

2.A notification issued before the departure of Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani for Washington for talks with President George Bush,said: “In terms of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of Business of 1973, the Prime Minister has approved the placement of the Intelligence Bureau and the Inter-Services Intelligence under the administrative, financial and operational control of the Interior Division with immediate effect.”

3.de jure, the ISI and the IB were working y under the Prime Minister, while the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) was being overseen by the Interior Minister, but de facto, they were reporting to President Pervez Musharraf till the elected Government under Gilani came to office in the last week of March,2008.

4. Since then, the Gilani Government was under pressure from the US to act against what had come to be known as “the ISI within the ISI”----- that is, a group of military officers in the ISI who were allegedly helping the Taliban in Afghanistan and the anti-India jihadi terrorist organizations.

5. In December,2003, Musharraf escaped two attempts to assassinate him at Rawalpindi allegedly mounted by Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda elements with the complicity of some junior officers of the Army and the Air Force. The failure of the ISI to detect this conspiracy led to fears that there are elements in the ISI, which are opposed to co-operation with the US even against Al Qaeda.

6.Dr.Aamir Liaqat Hussain, the then Minister of State for Religious Affairs, gave expression to these fears in an interview to the "Daily Times" of Lahore on May 5, 2005. He warned that Musharraf had a lot of enemies ‘within’ who could make an attempt on his life again at any time. He said that there were certain elements within the forces who could attack the General. He added: “No common people could attack President Musharraf, but certainly there are elements in the forces who can launch yet another attack against him. There is an ISI within the ISI, which is more powerful than the original and still orchestrating many eventualities in the country.” He added that he feared a threat to his own life because he supported Musharraf's call for an enlightened and moderate Islam and had been given the task of preparing the texts of sermons advocating enlightened and moderate Islam to be used at all mosques of the Armed Forces.

7. Fears that this “ISI within the ISI” had become even stronger since then increased after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in the last week of December,2007. Many police officers suspected that it had got her killed with the help of Baitullah Mehsud, the Amir of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), but Baitullah has strongly denied that he had any role in her assassination.

8. According to Pakistani Police sources, they had strong reasons to suspect that this “ISI within the ISI” had organized the unsuccessful attempt to have President Hamid Karzai assassinated in Kabul in the last week of April,2008, and to have the Indian Embassy in Kabul blown up in July,2008.

9. While there has been talk of this ‘ISI within the ISI” since May,2005, nobody has so far been able to identify the officers constituting it. Senior Pakistani Army officers deny its existence and describe the allegations of Dr.Aamir Liaqat Hussain as a figment of his fertile imagination.

10. The transfer of the ISI and the IB to the Interior Ministry was seen by senior Army officers as an attempt by Asif Zardari to make Rehman Malik, his close confidante, who is designated as the Adviser to the Interior Ministry with the status of a Cabinet Minister, the Czar of all intelligence agencies directly reporting to him.

11. The proposed transfer met with a storm of protests from the ISI itself and from the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Army due to the following reasons:

Senior Army officers were outraged that the Director-General of the ISI, who is a Lt.Gen, should be asked to work under Malik, a retired police officer, who held a post equivalent to the rank of a Major-General when he was in service.

All the papers regarding Pakistan’s clandestine procurement of nuclear and missile technologies from China and missile technology from North Korea are in the ISI. The interrogation of A.Q.Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, in 2004 under US pressure was done by Lt.Gen.Ehsan-ul-Haq, the former DG of the ISI. All the papers relating to L’Affaire A.Q.Khan are in the ISI. In the wake of the recent allegations by A.Q.Khan about Musharraf’s prior knowledge and approval of his dealings with North Korea, the attempt to remove the ISI from the control of the Army was viewed by Musharraf and other senior Army officers as an attempt by the US to get access to these papers through Malik.

Similarly, the proposed transfer of the ISI, which is responsible for covert operations against India and Afghanistan, was viewed by them as an attempt by the US to have access to details of these operations.

12. Following these protests, the Government reversed the notification within 24 hours and restored the status quo ante. The Government issued another notification which said that the earlier notification had been ‘misunderstood’ and that the ISI would “continue to function under the Prime Minister”.“The previous notification only “re-emphasised the need for more coordination between Ministry of Interior and the ISI in relation to the war on terror and internal security.” It said a detailed notification would be issued later to clarify the situation.

13. Annexed is an updated version of article on the ISI, which I had written for an Italian journal in the last week of January,2008. (30-7-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretriat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director,Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com

ANNEXURE

THE INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE OF PAKISTAN

The Intelligence Bureau (IB) of undivided India, which was created by the British colonial rulers, to collect domestic political intelligence was largely a police organization. It had no responsibility for the collection of foreign intelligence.

At the time of the partition of India in 1947, its personnel, assets and records were divided between India and Pakistan. Most of the Muslim police officers serving in the IB of undivided India chose to join the IB of Pakistan. Others stayed behind in the IB of India.

The Government of independent India placed its IB under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs and expanded its charter to make it responsible for the collection of internal as well as foreign intelligence. This position continued till September 21,1968, when the Government of India bifurcated the IB and converted its foreign intelligence division into an independent organization called the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW). The R&AW was placed directly under the Prime Minister and was made part of the Cabinet Secretariat, which functions under the Prime Minister.

Like the IB, the R&AW too was initially a largely police organization with a small number of military officers taken on deputation to handle military intelligence. Since then, the predominance of police officers has been reduced and more officers unconnected with the police have been inducted into the R&AW. It is a largely civilian organization with a small number of military officers.

The evolution in Pakistan took a different path. The IB of Pakistan, which is part of the Ministry of the Interior, was initially a largely police organization and was given the responsibility for the collection of internal and external intelligence. However, following complaints from the Army about the poor performance of the IB and its police officers during the first Indo-Pakistan war of 1947-48 over Kashmir, the Government of Pakistan created a new organization called the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate and made it responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence.

The ISI was placed under the control of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and its personnel were taken from the three wings of the armed forces. It became a military-dominated intelligence agency.

Initially, the ISI had no responsibility for the collection of internal intelligence, which continued to be collected by the police officers of the IB. This position started changing after the Army started meddling in politics in the late 1950s. Field Marshal Ayub Khan ( President during 1958-69), who distrusted the police officers of the IB, made the ISI responsible for the collection of internal intelligence too having a bearing on national security. He also created in the ISI a Covert Action Division to provide assistance to the tribal insurgents in India’s North-East.

The internal intelligence role of the ISI was further strengthened under the late Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) and then under the late Gen.Zia ul Haq (1977-88), who overthrew Bhutto and seized power in 1977. Both Bhutto and Zia used the Political Division of the ISI for the collection of intelligence about their political opponents and the ethnic and linguistic minorities. While the police officers of the IB continued to perform their internal intelligence collection role, the reports of the ISI were given greater credence than those of the IB.

Under Z.A.Bhutto and Zia, the role of the Covert Action Division of the ISI was expanded and strengthened in order to enable it to assist Sikh and Kashmiri separatists in India and radical elements in the Indian Muslim community. The assistance was in the form of funds, training and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives.

Z.A.Bhutto also ordered the creation of a new Division in the ISI to assist the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in the clandestine procurement of nuclear technology and equipment from abroad. This Division played an active role in helping Pakistan acquire a military nuclear capability.

Thus, when Zia overthrew Bhutto and seized power in 1977, the ISI had three important roles---collection of internal and external intelligence, covert action in India and clandestine procurement of nuclear technology and equipment.

The internal political intelligence Division of the ISI came under considerable criticism after the death of Zia in a plane crash in August,1988. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) of Mrs.Benazir Bhutto won the elections held thereafter. The ISI, then headed by Lt.Gen.Hamid Gul, strongly opposed her taking over as the Prime Minister. It alleged that she was in touch with India when she was living in political exile in the UK and hence projected her as a security risk.

Under US pressure, the Army and the ISI agreed to her becoming the Prime Minister on condition that she would not have anything to do with the nuclear programme. Even after she had assumed office, the ISI kept disseminating reports alleging that she was an Indian agent. The ISI’s animosity to her increased when she abolished the internal political intelligence Division and ordered the Covert Action Division to stop supporting the Sikh separatists of India. However, she gave it a free hand in J&K.

The ISI’s animosity to her resulted in her dismissal by the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in August,1990, and fresh elections. During the elections, the ISI, with money allegedly donated by a private bank, assisted the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) of Mr.Nawaz Sharif and the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) in their election campaign and worked against the candidates of the PPP.

The PML and the JEI won the majority of seats. After taking over as the Prime Minister, Nawaz ordered the re-establishment of the internal political intelligence Division of the ISI. He also made Brig.Imtiaz, who used to head the Political Division of the ISI before 1988, the Director of the IB. Thus started the process of the militarization of the IB. This has continued since then and acquired momentum under President Pervez Musharraf.

Since 1990, there have been allegations that the Political Division of the ISI has been interfering in the conduct of the general elections in order to get candidates critical of the Army defeated through rigging and other means. These allegations gained force under Musharraf. In 2002, he was accused of misusing the ISI for ensuring the victory of the Pakistan Muslim League faction headed by Mr.Shujjat Hussain, which supported him. In the run-up to the elections on February 18,2008, there were similar allegations of the misuse of the ISI by him to influence the results.

De jure, the ISI is supposed to report to the Prime Minister, but de facto it generally reports to the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) and keeps the Prime Minister in the dark about its activities. There were, however, three instances when the heads of the ISI were more loyal to the Prime Minister than to the COAS and this created tensions in the relations between the Prime Minister and the COAS.

The first instance was during the first tenure of Mrs.Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister (1988 to 1990). To reduce the powers of the ISI, to re-organise the intelligence community and to enhance the powers of the police officers in the IB, she discontinued the practice of appointing a serving Lt.Gen, recommended by the COAS, as the DG, ISI, and, instead appointed Maj.Gen. (retd) Shamsur Rahman Kallue, a retired officer close to her father, as the DG in replacement of Lt.Gen.Hamid Gul in 1989 and entrusted him with the task of winding up the internal intelligence collection role of the ISI and
civilianising the IB and the ISI.

Writing in the "Nation" of July 31,1997, Brig.A.R.Siddiqui, who had served as the Press Relations Officer in the
army headquarters in the 1970s, said that this action of hers marked the beginning of her trouble with Gen.Mirza Aslam Beg, the then COAS, which ultimately led to her dismissal in August,1990. Gen.Beg stopped inviting Kallue to the Corps Commanders conferences and transferred the responsibility for covert action in India from the ISI to the Army intelligence directorate working under the Chief of the General Staff (CGS).

The second instance was during the first tenure of Nawaz Sharif (1990-93) as the Prime Minister. He appointed as the DG,ISI, Lt.Gen.Javed Nasir, a fundamentalist Kashmiri officer, though he was not recommended by Gen.Asif Nawaz Janjua, the then COAS, for the post. This created friction in the relations between Nawaz Sharif and his COAS, who excluded the ISI chief from all important Army conferences.

The third instance was during the second tenure of Nawaz Sharif (1997-99) when his action in appointing Lt.Gen. Ziauddin, an engineer, as the DG,ISI, over-riding the objection of Musharraf led to friction between the two. These instances would show that whenever an elected leadership was in power, the COAS saw to it that the elected Prime Minister did not have effective control over the ISI and that the ISI was marginalised if its head showed any loyalty to the elected Prime Minister.

In the 1990s, there was a controversy in Pakistan as to who really controlled the ISI and when was its internal Political Division set up. Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan, former chief of the Pakistan Air Force, filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the ISI's Political Division accepting a donation of Rs.140 million from a bank for use against PPP candidates during the 1990 elections. Testifying before the Supreme Court on June 16,1997, Gen. (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg claimed that though the ISI was manned by serving military officers and was part of the Ministry of Defence, it reported to the Prime Minister and not to the COAS and that its internal Political Division was actually set up by the late Z.A.Bhutto in 1975.

Many Pakistani analysts challenged this and said that the ISI, though de jure under the Prime Minister, had always been controlled de facto by the COAS and that its internal Political Division had been in existence at least since the days of Ayub Khan, if not earlier.

After the elections of 2002, Musharraf kept the ISI directly under his control and did not allow the elected Prime Minister to have any responsibility for supervising its work.

During the 1980s, the Covert Action Division of the ISI was used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US for recruiting, training and arming not only Afghan Mujahideen, but also fundamentalist elements of Pakistan for fighting against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The Saudi intelligence agency recruited over 6,000 Arabs in West Asia and North Africa and sent them to the ISI for being trained, armed and infiltrated into Afghanistan. All the funds and arms and ammunition from the CIA and all the funds from the Saudi intelligence for use against the Soviet troops were channelled through the ISI. Among the Arabs brought in and trained were Osama bin Laden and his supporters. The ISI’s links with bin Laden and his operatives thus started from the 1980s with the knowledge and approval of the CIA.

The withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1988-89, which was due to the jihad waged by the Afghan Mujahideen, Pakistani jihadis and the Arabs under bin Laden, strengthened the reputation of the ISI. During the same period, the ISI helped DR.A.Q.Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, in the clandestine procurement and transport of nuclear equipment for the Kahuta Uranium Enrichment plant, which enabled Pakistan to acquire a military nuclear capability with the technology given by China and the equipment procured by the ISI. The US closed its eyes to the nuclear procurement activities of the ISI because of the CIA’s dependence on it for the jihad against the Soviet troops.

Differences started appearing between the CIA and the ISI in 1990. These were due to the CIA’s unhappiness over the non-co-operation of the ISI in its efforts to buy back from the Afghan Mujahideen the unused shoulder-fired Stinger missiles supplied to them for use against Soviet aircraft. The CIA’s concerns over the ISI were enhanced by reports of Pakistani assistance to Iran in the nuclear field starting from 1988 and Pakistani contacts with China and North Korea in the nuclear and missile fields.

In 1993, the Clinton Administration forced Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, to remove from the ISI Lt.Gen. Javed Nasir, the then Director-General, and some of his officers because they were seen as non-cooperative in its efforts to buy back the Stingers. Nasir was a Deobandi fundamentalist, who belonged to the Tablighi Jamaat, a Pakistani organization to preach Islam, which was assisting the jihadi organizations in their recruitment drive in Pakistan and abroad.

In 1994, during the second tenure of Benazir as the Prime Minister, the ISI and Maj.Gen.Naseerullah Babar, her Interior Minister, acted jointly in encouraging the formation of the Taliban in order to restore law and order in Afghanistan, which had collapsed after the Afghan Mujahideen came to power in April,1992. By September,1996, the Taliban, with the ISI’s help, succeeded in capturing power in Kabul and extending its control over all the Pashtun areas.

Initially, the CIA closed its eyes to it because UNOCAL , the US oil company, was interested in the construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan and was facing difficulty in going ahead with this project due to the break-down of law and order. The US interest in seeking the assistance of the Taliban for the UNOCAL project disappeared after the UNOCAL itself abandoned it as not feasible. In 1996, Osama bin Laden and his advisers shifted from the Sudan to Afghanistan when the Taliban had not yet captured power in Kabul.

After capturing power in Kabul, the Taliban welcomed the presence of bin Laden and encouraged him to shift from Jalalabad to Kandahar. He was permitted to start his training infrastructure in Afghan territory. Alarm bells started ringing in the US over the developing nexus between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the role played by the ISI in training the Taliban and reports of the resumption of the contacts of bin Laden with his old friends in Pakistan in the ISI as well as in Pakistani fundamentalist organizations.

The US concerns over these developments increased after bin Laden formed in 1998 his International Islamic Front (IIF) For Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People and Al Qaeda organized explosions near the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam on August 7,1998. The US Cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghan territory on August 20,1998, were not effective.

From then on, there was increasing pressure by the US on the Government of Nawaz Sharif to either pressure the Taliban to hand over bin Laden to the CIA or to permit the US Special Forces to mount a special operation from Pakistani territory to kill or capture bin Laden. Nawaz did not do either as he was afraid of the repercussions in Pakistan if he collaborated with the US against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

After overthrowing Nawaz Sharif and seizing power in October, 1999, Musharraf appointed Lt.Gen.Mahmood Ahmed, a close friend of his, as the DG of the ISI. The US was unhappy over what it viewed as non-cooperation by the ISI in its efforts to have bin Laden killed or captured. Before it started its military strikes on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghan territory on October 7,2001, it pressured Musharraf to replace Lt.Gen.Ahmed as the DG of the ISI. Musharraf appointed Lt.Gen.Ehsan-ul-Haq as the DG. He was succeeded by Lt.Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, who has since taken over as the COAS from Musharraf. The present DG is Lt.Gen.Nadeem Taj.

Kiyani tried to keep the ISI out of political controversies. In recent months, it is the IB which is becoming increasingly controversial after Musharraf appointed Brig (retd) Ijaz Shah, a close personal friend of his, as its Director and inducted a number of retired army officers into it. He also placed the IB under the control of Shaukat Aziz, his confidante, who was the then Prime Minister. Before her assassination, Benazir used to complain that the threat to her security mainly came from Ijaz Shah, Lt.Gen.(retd) Hamid Gul and Chaudhury Pervez Elahi, former Chief Minister of Punjab, all the three of them Zia loyalists. She did not make any complaint against the ISI. However, since her assassination, there have been allegations by her party members that junior officials of the ISI might have also been involved in her assassination in addition to those named by her when she was alive. Ijaz Shah resigned after the elections.

The ISI has always had three operational priorities. Firstly, the annexation of Kashmir through covert action; secondly, acquiring a strategic depth in Afghanistan through a Government which would be favourable to Pakistani interests; and thirdly, to help the Government in its clandestine nuclear and missile procurement efforts.

These priorities have not changed. That is why it has refrained from taking action against the Pakistani jihadi organizations, which are active in India and against the Neo Taliban of Afghanistan, which is operating against the US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan from sanctuaries in Balochistan and the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

While pretending to extend unconditional co-operation to the US in its so-called war against terrorism, Musharraf kept the co-operation confined to action against Al Qaeda operatives based in Pakistani territory. Even the co-operation against Al Qaeda is restricted to action against Al Qaeda sleeper cells operating from non-tribal areas. He did not take any effective action against Al Qaeda sanctuaries in the FATA or against the leadership of the Neo Taliban, headed by Mulla Mohammad Omar, its Amir, operating from the tribal areas of Pakistan. Nor did he act against the terrorist infrastructure directed against India.

In December,2003, Musharraf escaped two attempts to assassinate him at Rawalpindi allegedly mounted by Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda elements with the complicity of some junior officers of the Army and the Air Force. The failure of the ISI to detect this conspiracy led to fears that there are elements in the ISI, which are opposed to co-operation with the US even against Al Qaeda.

Dr.Aamir Liaqat Hussain, the then Minister of State for Religious Affairs, gave expression to these fears in an interview to the "Daily Times" of Lahore on May 5, 2005. He warned that Musharraf had a lot of enemies ‘within’ who could make an attempt on his life again at any time. He said that there were certain elements within the forces who could attack the General. He added: “No common people could attack President Musharraf, but certainly there are elements in the forces who can launch yet another attack against him. There is an ISI within the ISI, which is more powerful than the original and still orchestrating many eventualities in the country.” He added that he feared a threat to his own life because he supported Musharraf's call for an enlightened and moderate Islam and had been given the task of preparing the texts of sermons advocating enlightened and moderate Islam to be used at all mosques of the Armed Forces.

The sympathies of many serving and retired officers of the ISI and the Army for Al Qaeda, the Neo Taliban and the Pakistani jihadi organizations and the unwillingness or inability of any Government of Pakistan to act against them are coming in the way of the success of the so-called war against global jihadi terrorism.
Read more...