Are Pakistanis ready for more bloodbath?

Musharraf's agreement with Taliban-friendly tribesmen has proven to be just as bad as Afghanistan warned.

The Los Angeles Times said in its November 6, 2006 editorial.

There is no doubt in my mind that Afghanistan is going to be soon upgraded from a back-burner to a center-stage issue once Bush succeeds in camouflaging American defeat in Iraq into a face-saving, gradual retreat and call it a "victory" under the cover provided by James A. Baker III's bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Preventing Pakistan's western neighbor from falling into the hands of a resurgent Taliban will become a top priority for the Bush administration. To succeed, Bush will demand more and more cooperation from General Pervez Musharraf.

Even though Musharraf is trying his best, by killing innocent Pakistanis and destroying madrassahs, to prove to his masters that he is their trusted ally the editorial still casts a lot of doubt on Musharraf's claim that he had "stopped supporting the Taliban after its 2001 ouster". Citing Jane's Intelligence Digest, the editorial says that

Musharraf's agreement with Taliban-friendly tribesmen has proven to be just as bad as Afghanistan warned. The evidence is now overwhelming that the Pakistani security service — the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI — and probably the senior military leadership are tolerating, if not backing, Taliban forces. Washington has been turning a blind eye to this problem, reluctantly concluding that there is no alternative but to support the flawed but friendly Musharraf as the only practical bulwark against a radical Islamist takeover of a crucial nuclear state. Islamabad is clearly hedging against what it sees as a hostile, pro-India government in Kabul and an inevitable Western abandonment of Afghanistan by keeping its old Taliban ally as a viable option.

It confirms

what Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been fuming about for months, that ISI sponsors Taliban training camps and jihadist madrasahs have multiplied along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

The editorial blames Musharraf for selling "out Afghan and U.S. interests" by signing an agreement with tribal leaders in North Waziristan on Sept. 5.

The editorial also mentions that Musharraf has not told Washington the truth about the other party in the deal.

Perhaps he didn't expect his Western friends to read the agreement in the original Urdu. According to those who have, Islamabad's official representative signed an agreement not just with Waziristan tribal leaders but with the "local mujahedin" — a vague term — and with the Taliban. The agreement spells the plural of the word "Taliban," which means students, in the Arabic way, as "Talaba".

The editorial is urging Bush that if he

has any red lines left, he should be furious that Pakistan is legitimizing the very Taliban it has pledged to eradicate

and

the Taliban has not kept its part of the bargain. Attacks have multiplied since the deal was signed.

The editoria is not satisfied with Musharraf trying

to make amends by ordering airstrikes on one Taliban-run madrasa last week, triggering a bloodbath

and insists that

it will take far more to persuade the American public and Congress of the wisdom of providing Pakistan with $3 billion in military and other aid each year while Pakistani territory, tribal or not, gives sanctuary to Taliban fighters who kill U.S. and NATO soldiers and destabilize the Afghan government.

Are Pakistanis ready for more bloodbath?