US Invasion Of Pakistan?

If we can even begin to believe anything Musharraf ever says then America has already invaded Pakistan. That is what he in effect told Singapore's newspaper The Strait Times on January 11 this year. The paper reported him saying that "Musharraf, Pakistan's embattled president, warned that any unilateral intervention in his country by coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan would be treated as an invasion".

The Washington Post reported today that the United States controlled Predator aircrafts have already struck at least three times in Pakistan over the past two months (on March 16, killing about 20 in Shahnawaz Kot; on Feb. 28, killing 12 in the village of Kaloosha; and on Jan. 29, killing 13 people in North Waziristan) but the United States "has escalated its unilateral strikes" ... "in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country."

A Pentagon spokeman Bryan Whitman said: "Pakistan recognizes that we fight a common enemy when it comes to terrorists."

But how is Musharraf reacting to this invasion of his country? With a "tacit understanding" and by "providing better information to guide the strikes." And he is doing it at a time when he is on his way out; his cronies have lost elections big time; and a new prime minister who has sworn in and has told US President Bush that a broader approach to the "war on terror" is necessary, including political solutions. His army chief General Ashfaq Kayani is also in cahoots with him in closing his eyes to the American invasion.

A senior American official described the strikes as a "shake the tree" strategy.

Are two senior US diplomats, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs Richard Boucher, in Pakistan just to make sure that the "tree" does not "shake" too much?

President Bush called Gillani on Tuesday, and basically threatened him that "fighting extremists is in everyone's interest," according to a White House spokesman. A former State Department policy planning staffer Daniel Markey, who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the new leaders are being "pulled in opposite directions by their electorate and the Bush administration."

But Americans are not content with the Drone strikes. They "need exploitation, troops on the ground."

Musharraf is not concerned that these "strikes only encourage militants to undertake retaliatory actions in urban areas" as it has happened in Rawalpindi, Lahore, and Islamabad.

Pakistan has become "a killing field" as Nawaz Sharif has put it. Pakistan has lost hundreds of army and civilian personnels, including some generals, and innocent people. A former prime minister has been assassinated. This Mush-Bush policy has brought war of terror to Pakistan's streets.

The newspaper has quoted a tribal (Pashtu) saying: 'Kill one person, make 10 enemies". And that is what this ludicrous strategy is doing. The paper has also quoted Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. saying: "You might take out a bad guy in one of these strikes, but you might also be creating more foot soldiers. This is a war in which the more people you kill, the faster you lose."

Is America moving to 1954 Iran situation in Pakistan? Many people are thinking on this line. Dana Priest, the Washington Post intelligence reporter, who was online todya for live discussion on national security, was asked a similar question by some one from Ogden, Utah:

The story in today's paper about us hurrying up and doing a lot of bombing in Pakistan makes me flash back to Iran in 1954, when we were worried that the democratically elected government there might not be our most vigorous ally against Communism, so we engineered an overthrow. Here we are again, worried that democratically elected people might not be as helpful as the dictator who supported us as long as we kept him well paid. That overthrow, for short-term gains, caused long term misery, not the least of which is the development of the extremists who took over, and now run, Iran. Please convince me I should not be worried. History has a way of repeating itself.

Dana Priest: There's no way the US would attempt to overthrown the newly elected Pakistan government as we did in the Iranian case. First of all, and most importantly, with what support internally? The Army? no. The intel services? no. Plus, you have the pesky press, which you didn't have as much back then. The whole thing would be chronicled for all to see and the backlash would be huge everywhere.

Zardari's First Coup de maitre

Asif Zardari, with his measured and calculated moves, has shown himself, so far, to be a political tactician of grand proportions. Since he took over the party with a little noticed coup no one expected him to be this mature politically. At least I did not.

Yesterday his move to contact MQM head honcho Altaf Hussain was a stroke of genius. He had Altaf take his candidate Farooq Sattar out of the game without his consulting with his erstwhile partners in the PML-Q. With that one move he chopped Musharraf as well as Amin's political legs and decimated Chaudhries of Gujrat. At the same time he diluted Nawaz Sharif's power in central government by taking MQM on board and decreased its nuisance value in Sindh, at least for the crucial early days of PPP's government there. He is set go either way on judges issue.

He has finally nominated a Makhdoom (Yousaf Raza Gilani) from southern Punjab to combat the anticipated Resistance from Makhdoom of Hala. As soon as the the announcement was made Makhdoom Amin Fahim folded without a whimper in his interview on Aaj TV channel. He said he was standing with the party in this decision and he will especially come from Karachi to cast his vote for his 'friend' and has already congratulated him. He said though that he was not consulted by the party.

Gilani has been officially nominated as the candidate for prime minister. He is a vice chairman of Pakistan People's Party and a former National Assembly speaker (from 1993 to 1997 - during Benazir Bhutto's second term as prime minister). He later spent four years in prison on charges of making illegal government appointments.

He will certainly be elected prime minister with an overwhelming majority - a lot more than two third - I believe.

After the MQM coup Zardari did not need the chairman of the party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who has asked to return to Pakistan for a short break from Britain to announce the decision himself. Farhat Ullah Babar announced the 'unanimous' decision.

The question is why he did not let Makhdoom Amin Fahim get nominated? Does he has his own eyes on the seat and Gilani would be only a stop-gap prime minister and Zardari would take over the post after entering parliament via a by-election? Is Gilani too pliable and Amin was not?

If he proves his critics wrong, once again, as he has done so far in the last three months after the assassination of his wife, by letting Gilani stay in power for the next five years without interruption then he is bigger than what he is thought of. If he does decide to use his extra ordinary power for the benefit of Pakistan as he has done so far then it is good omen for the future of Pakistan.

A New Pakistan

The Washington Post in its editorial on Sunday, March 16, writes that the two largest political parties in Pakistan, the Pakistan People's Party and the Muslim League, are ready to take "a major step" toward democracy by agreeing to implement the Charter for Democracy that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif hammered out in 2006. They have decided to form a coalition government. They "plan to reform the constitution to eliminate autocratic powers accumulated by Mr. Musharraf following his 1999 coup against a democratic government" and more importantly, they plan to "restore the 63 senior judges" - including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - "illegally fired by Mr. Musharraf in November in a second coup intended to ensure himself another term as president".

But there is one huge and last hurdle in thier way: President Pervez Musharraf, and President Bush.

Musharraf wants to keep clinging on and Bush wants to keep supporting him. Bush is hte only support he is left with. His source of all power, the position of the army chief is gone. His hand-picked party has been routed in the elections after he received their votes for his own re-election just before they went to contest the elections and lose big time.

The editorial exhorts President Bush "who claims to believe that the replacement of autocrats with secular democratic governments is a key U.S. interest, should act on his own principle. He should tell Mr. Musharraf either to accept the decisions of the new government and courts, or step down".

There is hope that when the judges are "restored to the bench and controls imposed by Mr. Musharraf on the media are removed, Pakistan could have the most liberal and open political system in its history. That is the long-term solution to the assault on the country by the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other Islamist fanatics, who so far this year have carried out 16 suicide bombings and killed more than 500 people -- making Pakistan almost as violent as Iraq."

Would President Bush and Busharraf will listen?

Bush Must Stay Away From His Crumbling "Buddy"

The New York Times in its editorial of March 15, 2008 has dubbed the electoral defeat of General Musharraf's hand-made Q party as "a stern rout of President Musharraf" himself and has given a timely advice to President Bush who "stubbornly supported Mr. Musharraf as he ran roughshod over the Constitution and Pakistan’s people" and "still seems to be betting that Mr. Musharraf will survive" to stay away from the crumbling dictator and support the newly emerged leaders - Mr Zaedari and Mr. Sharif - who have joined forces to form a coalition government and "who say they will want real constitutional democracy and the rule of law".

By not interfering in "Pakistan’s democratic processes" President Bush can "prove his commitment to democracy — and real stability", the editorial says.

The editorial has also endorsed Senator Joseph Biden's proposal of "tripling nonmilitary aid to $1.5 billion"..."for projects that would strengthen Pakistan’s battered institutions and improve the daily lives of Pakistanis".

The editorial has asked the "army that helped put Mr. Musharraf in powe" to "fully divorce itself from politics" and has "the intelligence services" to "end their double-game".

Here is the complete editorial:

Leaving Musharraf Behind

Parliamentary elections in Pakistan last month delivered a verdict that was just clean enough to be credible — a stern rout of President Pervez Musharraf’s party. Now, rivals Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, the leading opposition politicians, have further defied expectations by joining forces in a deal that could force Mr. Musharraf from office.

Assuming the agreement holds, the new Parliament, set to convene on Monday, would reinstate the Supreme Court judges whom Mr. Musharraf fired last year in a desperate bid to hold on to power. Once reinstated, the Supreme Court is likely to do exactly what Mr. Musharraf feared: invalidate his re-election. Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif also agreed to pass legislation stripping the former army chief of the power to dissolve Parliament and appoint military leaders.

As a monthlong surge in suicide bombings attests, this is a dangerous time for Pakistan, which has both nuclear arms and a far too cozy relationship with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If Mr. Musharraf is ousted as a result of Pakistan’s democratic processes, that is Pakistan’s decision. The United States should not interfere.

The Bush administration stubbornly supported Mr. Musharraf as he ran roughshod over the Constitution and Pakistan’s people. The administration has promised to work with whatever government emerges, but it has refused to take a position on reinstating the judges and still seems to be betting that Mr. Musharraf will survive.

That may happen, but it must not stop Washington from supporting Mr. Zardari, Mr. Sharif and other secular moderate leaders who say they will want real constitutional democracy and the rule of law. President Bush can prove his commitment to democracy — and real stability — in Pakistan by vastly increasing nonmilitary aid for projects that would strengthen Pakistan’s battered institutions and improve the daily lives of Pakistanis.

Senator Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has proposed tripling nonmilitary aid to $1.5 billion annually for schools, roads and clinics and providing an annual $1 billion “democracy” dividend — as reward and encouragement for Pakistan’s new government to stay on a democratic path. That is a good starting point.

Extremists will capitalize on any sign of weakness, and Mr. Musharraf and his rivals must make the political transition as free of conflict as possible. The army that helped put Mr. Musharraf in power — and stayed out of last month’s elections — must fully divorce itself from politics. Instead, it should focus on retooling its skills to confront Al Qaeda, the Taliban and homegrown insurgencies — all are increasingly powerful. The intelligence services must end their double-game with the militants.

What happens in Pakistan directly affects Afghanistan. The two share a lawless border; neither can withstand much more upheaval.

Pakistan’s new civilian leaders are undeniably flawed — both Mr. Zardari and Mr. Sharif are seriously tainted by corruption. But they deserve Washington’s support as they try to set their country on a new course. They do not have a lot of time to get it right. Every suicide bombing is a reminder of the extremists’ strength and how determined they are to see democracy fail.

9 March 2007 - Black Day

Last year on March 9 Musharraf with all his arrogance and in full military regalia gave a cut to the body of justice and Pakistan when he "summoned" the chief justice of Pakistan to his Army Chief's residence in Rawalpindi and while sitting among a bunch of barefaced cronies including the Prime Minister, the intelligence chiefs, and other accomplices and tried flagrantly to coerce the judge to resign or he would be suspended on corruption, misconduct, abuse of authority and nepotism charges.

In that cut the chief justice put a seed of defiance when he uttered a little, two-lettered word - 'no'. From that tiny seed sprouted a delicate seedling of courage and hope and overnight it grew into a towering and gigantic tree which gave cooling shade and motherly shelter to the deprived people of Pakistan who had been burning in the scorching sun of smothering martial law and tyrannical military rule.

The whole population of Pakistan erupted into a spontaneous explosion of euphoria and resentment simultaneously. Euphoria, for the simple fact that someone had found enough courage, at last, to stand up to the bullies and pit bulls of establishment. Resentment, for being kept in a position of oppression and suppression for so long by so few.

Pakistanis stumbled upon an accidental hero and and unlikely leader. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaoudhry was not in any conceivable way an exceptional man or judge or anything. In fact, he took an oath under a Provisional Constitutional Order himself after Musharraf unconstitutionally and illegally toppled a democratically elected government with two-third majority and suspended the Constitution. He treaded gingerly and negotiated carefully his way through the judicial landmines to avoid stepping on any sensitive, super-size toes. He knew his limitations under the circumstances and knew perfectly well where not to wander. He was not uncompliant in any way, shape or form. He was simply doing what he could not shrink from without casting any doubts on his integrity or inviting any suspicious looks.

His judicial decisions were a mixed bag. He stopped the selling of the Steel Mills to one of the friends of the prime minister rendering the whole process was being done "in indecent haste" and then referring it to the Council of Common Interests. When Musharraf wanted to stop a provincial-assembly-passed bill from becoming a law he brought the case before Chaudhry and he obliged him by casting it "unconstitutional" and then ordered the Governor of the NWFP to not sign it. In the "Disappeared Pakistanis" case he was most careful not to do more than just asking for comprehensive reports from federal agencies about the whereabouts of the missing people. His main focus remained on cases which were not otherwise difficult but were very popular: he started taking suo moto notices of cases ranging from prices of vegetables, words of lyrics, traffic congestion, one-dish meals on weddings, ban on kite flying, gang rapes, respect for consumers paying utility bills at commercial banks.

But even then he was thought by Musharraf to be tantalizing close to what the regime thought was too independent and too dangerous a stance and which could have caused him trouble down the road. His court was likely to rule, in the next several months, on Musharraf’s re-election in uniform from the assemblies that were close to the tail end of their term and were going out for new elections of their own - in which most of the members were crushingly defeated on February 18, 2008.

Musharraf threatened him to tender his resignation. But once the Chief Justice said 'no' the people of Pakistan rallied to his support starting with lawyers. Throngs of people came to swell his rallies and lined to see him on his way to addresses the bar councils of various cities. They were so many that his motorcade was forced to slow down to such a speed that it took him 25 hours to travel the same distance it normally takes 4 hours. The ebullient rallies, demonstrations and well-attended meeting and boycotts were not a sign of love for him but were a tribute to his one-time defiance. They were not as much pro-Chaudhry as they were anti-Musharraf.

The rest, as they say, is history and detail.

That cut that was inflicted upon the body of justice and Pakistan by Musharraf was supposed to bleed them to anemia or death. But the seed of defiance planted in it by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhrt has given us a towering and gigantic tree of well organized Lawyers' Movement, a rejuvinated and energized civil society, a dynamic and vigorous media, and an alive and kicking parliament. It has also given us Eitizaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmad Kurd, Munir A. Malik, Justice Tariq Mahmood, and a scores of other unsung heroes including sixty or so judges who refused to take oath under the new P.C.O.

From that one cut has emerged the towering tree of energetic society bent upon changing Pakistan's political and judicial face for once and all. That one cut has also given Musharraf a political death by a thousand cuts. He is on his way to the trash heap of history and oblivion.

We have, no doubt, achieved a lot in past one year. But there is still a lot more ahead that we have to strive for: an independent judiciary, rule of law, strengthening of all the institutions, and the respect for human rights.

Unfortunately Chief justice and his peers are still incarcerated behind barbed wires. That is one reason Eitizaz Ahsan, the great new-found leader has asked us to commemorate this day of 9 March as a Black Flag Day and rest of the week as Black Flag Week.

That is how nations make history and remember their heroes and the milestones in their history.

11 More American Demands On Musharraf - Is He Reay To Capitulate?

Pakistan's daily newspaper 'The News" broke a story by Dr. Shireen Mazari on 8 March and confirmed it on 9 March that Bush administration made a set of eleven demands on Musharraf, probably through US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, America’s highest-ranking military officer, who visited Pakistan twice in a month - on February 8 and March 3. The director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and the Central Intelligence Agency director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, also made a secret visit last month that was later made public.

Admiral Mullen did not discuss any specifics of the various proposals being drawn up by the American military to assist Pakistan. But he did say as he arrived in Pakistan on Monday, that the United States had developed “a fairly comprehensive plan” of assistance. Was it this plan he was talking about?

Americans know their man in Islamabad. He has a history of putting his knees on the ground. They know he is at his weakest point in his life. He capitulated in 2001 when he was not this weak. They know he needs them more than ever before. Which means he is vulnerable to their blackmailing and may bend his knees again.

This is the same person who had kowtowed before - on 13 September 2001 - when he was presented with those seven infamous demands by US Secretary of State Colin Powell via a "positive" telephone call. American were apprehensive that Musharraf would only accept one or two of their demands but were astonished when Musharraf decided to give "unstinted cooperation" because, as he claimed then, it was necessary to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear assets and its Kashmir policy. Later he claimed in his book that his friend Richard Armitage, then the Deputy Secretary of State, had threatened ISI chief General Mahmood in Washington to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age. Remember?

General Mahmood, on the other hand, in his visit to the State Department on September 13 and in his second meeting with Armitage had already acquiesced when he was handed over a single sheet of paper with seven demands. The general, who was known for his hard-line pro-Taliban position and wasb one of the chief architects of October 12 coup against Nawaz Sharif's elected government, glanced through the paper for only a few seconds and replied: "They are all acceptable to us." The prompt response took Armitage by surprise and he, not believing his ears, said: "These are very powerful words, General. Do you not want to discuss with your President?". "I know the president's mind," replied General Mahmood.

But this time around Americans are not asking for assisstance against Afghani neighbors. It is Pakistan's turn. They are asking for a Tora Bora in Pakistan.

The Seven Demands were nothing compared with the Eleven Demands they have given Musharraf this time. Have a look at the earlier demands:

1) Stop Al-Qaeda operations on the Pakistani border, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan and all logistical support for bin Laden;

2) Blanket over-flights and landing rights for US planes;

3) Access to Pakistan's naval bases, airbases and borders;

4) Immediate intelligence and immigration information;

5) Curb all domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States, its friends and allies;

6) Cut off fuel supply to the Taliban and stop Pakistani volunteers going into Afghanistan to join the Taliban; and

7) Break diplomatic relations with the Taliban and assist USA to destroy bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network.

Now look at the Eleven new ones:

1) Grant special status to the US personnel who is already in or will be coming to Pakistan - the same that is granted to the technical and administrative staff of the US embassy.

Which means complete diplomatic immunity.

2) The US personnel be allowed to enter and exit Pakistan on mere National Identification (such as driving licence) and without any passports or visas.

Which means that they can come and go without any record at their port of entries or exits.

3) Accept the legality of all US licences, which would include arms licences.

Which means they don't have to have their guns registered in Pakistan.

4) All these personnel be allowed to carry arms and wear uniforms throughout Pakistan.

Which means they will be free to roam about on Pakistani streets as they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

5) US criminal jurisdiction be applicable in Pakistan to US nationals.

In other words, these personnel would not be subject to any Pakistani law.

6) Exemption from all taxes, including indirect taxes like excise duty, etc.

They can bring anything to sell and take anything they want.

7) Inspection-free import and export of all goods and materials.

No record can be kept of what they would be bringing in or taking out of our country – including archaeological finds, artifacts of historical nature and national inheritance as well as any sensitive materials, even nuclear weapons.

8) Free movement of vehicles, vessels including aircraft, without landing or parking fees.

9)Selected US contractors should also be exempted from tax payments.

They can make all the money building what they will destroy first and then leave without paying any taxes.

10) Free of cost usage of US telecommunication systems and all necessary radio frequencies.

All the Pakistanis still have to get licences and pay fees to use the same, though.

11) Waiver of all claims to damage, loss, or destruction of Pakistani property, or death of Pakistani personnel or armed forces or civilians.

They will have, effectively, a licence to kill whoever they want in Pakistan.

It is obvious that if these demands, or any one of them, is accepted by this weakened regime of general Musharraf, Pakistan's honor and sovereignty will clearly and directly be undermined.

US presence in Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan has undermined the sovereignty of these countries and it has become a source of major resentment and embarrasment because there are frequent cases of US soldiers and marines raping young school girls and women and getting away with it because they are not subject to the local laws. In Japan they occupy limited space. In Pakistan, however, the demands to make the US personnel above the Pakistani law would not be limited to confined spaces and territories but throughout the country!

The sneaky way the whole affair of American demands on Musharraf has been kept shrouded in mysterious secrecy by Musharraf regime until the lid was blown off by Dr. Shireen Mazari shows Musharraf has still not stopped doing secret deals with his overlords in Washington.

Musharraf has already shown tendency to stoop to any level for a few more days in power or a few more dollars in his pocket. There are chances that he could cave in once again and accept these unacceptable and humiliating and dangerous demands.

He must be stopped by asking him to leave. As long he is holding the seat of president Pakistan will remain in danger.

One Way To Perform Constitutional Roles

Is it the indelibly etched, lingering, and haunting memory of the ubiquitous military boots in the corridors of civilian power for thirty years (out of the total sixty of Pakistan's life) that makes the Pakistani nation pay more attention to what the army chief is saying than it should deserve otherwise under normal circumstances?

Or is it the aggrandized power the occupiers of this post over the long, dark years have gained at the expense of the civilian rule that makes them jittery and jumpy?

Whatever the case may be, the way every Pakistani is dwelling on every single word of Ashfaq Kayani's latest statement to figure out the exact meaning of his statement and the intention behind it shows the abnormal level of fear and uncertainty a few words from that quarter can generate in their minds and hearts.

I am talking about the speech the army chief made on Thursday at a Corps Commanders’ conference.

He rejected suggestions of any rift between the military and his ex-boss, retired general and embattled President Pervez Musharraf. He pointed out that any kind of schism, at any level, under the circumstances would not be in the "larger interest" of the nation.

In other words he is standing behind his man.

At the same time he insisted that the armed forces would stay out of politics and they should not be "dragged into any unnecessary controversy".

Is he preempting any such effort or he is publicly warning someone who is already doing so? Is there any unnecessary controversy going on somewhere we don't know of?

Is he talking about the controversy of Musharraf egging on his Q-MQM cronies to stay put and wait for their soon-coming-turn? And it is being done, of all places, in the occupied Army House that actually belongs to Kayani and not to Musharraf.

Is he talking about the support Musharraf is giving to his trounced Q-MQM friends by giving them hope that it won't be long before there will be rift between Zardari and Nawaz Sharif?

Kayani also "reaffirmed that the army stands fully behind the democratic process and is committed to playing its constitutional role in support of the elected government". He also called for a "harmonised relationship between various pillars of the state, as provided in the constitution, in order to maximize national effort."

How he can "stand fully the democratic process" and play his "constitutional role in support of the elected government" by standing behind Musharraf? He did not elaborate. But isn't it oxymoron to stand behind two opposing poles?

Is he inclining towards assuming the wrongly established "constitutional role" of a referee and a power broker as chief of staff?

Is he telling the victor parties to stay away from his man? Is that the only way, in his mind, to bring harmony between various pillars of state?

If that is the case then it is very very dangerous path to take and does not bode well for Pakistan and its people. I don't blame them if they feel jittery and jumpy.

One way he can stay out of politics and let the politicians do their job without him breathing over their necks is to stop releasing the statements about what he is being said and done in top commanders meetings.

Musharraf: The Real Problem

He is skinless, vulnerable and hunkered in a place - the Army House, the government residence of the chief of army staff - where he does not belong any more. Some of the vanquished and humiliated cronies, finding nowhere to go, have gathered around him and are trying desperately to bask in the fading glow of his vanishing power. Week-kneed among them have already shifted their loyalties or are busy licking their wounds in their kennels.

He, at least for now, has failed the see the writing on the wall which is clearly saying to him: get the hell out of here!

He is busy brooding and conspiring and scheming because he is not comfortable with the situation that has emerged.

He should give the parties that have won elections a chance to get to the meat of the things and focus to ameliorate the mess he has helped create in the eight years of his terrible rule. Rising food prices, the threat of terrorism, inter-ethnic tensions are the real and present danger. But he somehow seems bent upon adding to the woes by remaining in office and becoming a problem himself.

He seems oblivious to the fact that the lawyers' movement he managed to unleash by stepping out of the constitutional bounds has become a reinvigorated and revitalized political force. Media is vibrant and back with vengeance. Muslim League Nawaz is showing virulent aversion to serve under him. 63 judges dismissed by Musharraf as army chief with an executive order are waiting in the wings to be reinstated as victors have pledged. Six senators from Q League have already said that they would break ranks with the party and vote according to their their newly awoken conscience on coming motions. Even slippery Mushahid Hussain, the general secretary of the Q-League, has said he will vote to curtail the president’s powers to dissolve Parliament.

He thinks he still retains one powerful weapon handed to him under controversial constitutional amendments: to dissolve Parliament and dismiss the government; and the right to appoint and remove the top officials of the armed forces.

He should do a favor to Pakistan and its people and leave and let the elected representatives concentrate on the problems he piled up during the dark days of his rule before it is too late.

Would he?

From Musharraf To Pakistan

Joe Biden, the Democratic senator from Delaware has written an op-ed in the New York Times.Afghanistan. Pakistan. Forgotten. He says:

THE next president will have to rally America and the world to “fight them over there unless we want to fight them over here.” The “over there” is not, as President Bush has claimed, Iraq, but rather the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That is where those who attacked us on 9/11 came from, where the attacks in Europe since originated and where Al Qaeda is regrouping. It is the real central front in the war on terrorism.

Afghanistan is slipping toward failure. The Taliban is back, violence is up, drug production is booming and the Afghans are losing faith in their government. All the legs of our strategy — security, counternarcotics efforts, reconstruction and governance — have gone wobbly.

If we should have had a surge anywhere, it is Afghanistan. And instead of eradicating poppy crops, which forces many farmers to turn to the Taliban, we should go after drug kingpins.

We also need to make good on President Bush’s pledge for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. In six years, we have spent on Afghanistan’s reconstruction only what we spend every three weeks on military operations in Iraq.

Afghanistan’s fate is directly tied to Pakistan’s future and America’s security. When President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan concluded that we were not serious about finishing the job in Afghanistan, he began to cut deals with extremists in his own country.

As a result, the border area remains a freeway of fundamentalism: the Taliban and Al Qaeda find sanctuary in Pakistan, while Pakistani suicide bombers wreak havoc in Afghanistan.

The recent Pakistani elections gave the moderate majority its voice back and gives the United States an opportunity to move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy. To demonstrate to its people that we care about their needs, not just our own, we must triple assistance for schools, roads and clinics, sustain it for a decade, and demand accountability for the military aid we provide.

If Afghanistan fails or Pakistan falls to fundamentalism, America will suffer a terrible setback. The candidates should tell Americans how they will handle what may be the next president’s most difficult challenge.

Kiss of Death

NYT

U.S. Plan Widens Role in Training Pakistani Forces in Qaeda Battle

The United States military is developing a plan to send about 100 American trainers to work with a Pakistani paramilitary force that is the vanguard in the fight against Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas, American military officials said.

Pakistan has ruled out allowing American combat troops to fight Qaeda and Taliban militants in the tribal areas. But Pakistani leaders have privately indicated that they would welcome additional American trainers to help teach new skills to Pakistani soldiers whose army was tailored not for counterinsurgency but to fight a conventional land war against India.

Even though the training program would unfold over several months, it is being disclosed at a time of heightened operations in the unruly tribal areas along the Afghan border. At least eight people suspected of being Islamic militants were killed Thursday in a triple missile attack on a house used for training in the tribal areas.

For several years, small teams of American Special Operations forces have trained their Pakistani counterparts in counterinsurgency tactics. But the 40-page classified plan now under review at the United States Central Command to help train the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force of about 85,000 members recruited from ethnic groups on the border, would significantly increase the size and scope of the American training role in the country.

United States trainers initially would be restricted to training compounds, but with Pakistani consent could eventually accompany Pakistani troops on missions “to the point of contact” with militants, as American trainers now do with Iraqi troops in Iraq, a senior American military official said. Britain is also considering a similar training mission in Pakistan, officials said. A spokesman at the British Embassy here declined to comment.

“The U.S. is bringing in a small number of trainers to assist Pakistan in their efforts to improve training of the Frontier Corps,” Elizabeth O. Colton, a spokeswoman for the United States Embassy in Islamabad, said in an e-mail message. “The U.S. trainers will be primarily focused on assisting the Pakistan cadre who will do the actual training of the Frontier Corps troops.”

Ms. Colton declined to specify how many American trainers would participate or where their bases would be. But Defense Department officials said that the number of American trainers could grow to about 100. Along with intensified missile strikes in Pakistan against suspected militants, the increased training program is another sign of the Bush administration’s growing concern and frustration with Pakistan’s failure to do more about Al Qaeda’s movements in the tribal areas.

The proposed expanded training program is modest compared with the training efforts under way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is said to offer scant likelihood of blossoming into a much larger American combat presence. American officials are also acutely aware of Pakistani sensitivities to any United States military presence in the country, even trainers, and spoke largely on the basis of anonymity because of the diplomatic concerns and because the plan had not been formally approved.

Until now, American officials have worked closely with President Pervez Musharraf on counterterrorism policies, including training programs. The landslide victory by Pakistan’s opposition parties in last month’s parliamentary elections adds a degree of complication and confusion to any long-term military planning of this sort because it is unclear to what extent new leaders, like Asif Ali Zardari, the head of the victorious Pakistan Peoples Party and the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, will embrace those policies.

American officials are also taking a number of other steps to help increase Pakistan’s long-term ability to battle a newly resurgent Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in the tribal areas.

At the request of Pakistan’s new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Central Command two weeks ago sent a four-member intelligence team, led by a lieutenant colonel, to work closely with Pakistani intelligence officers in Islamabad. The Americans are helping with techniques on sharing satellite imagery and addressing Pakistani requests to buy equipment used to intercept the militants’ communications, a senior American officer said.

The United States is also helping to establish border coordination centers in Afghanistan just across the Pakistan border, where Afghan, Pakistani and American officials can share intelligence about Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups in and around the tribal areas.

The Pentagon has spent about $25 million so far to equip the Frontier Corps with new body armor, vehicles, radios and surveillance equipment, and plans to spend $75 million more in the next year. Over all, a senior Bush administration official said, the United States could spend more than $400 million in the next several years to enhance the Frontier Corps, including building a training base near Peshawar.

The training proposal now under review at Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., which oversees military operations in the Middle East and much of South Asia, is subject to the approval of the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, and top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Admiral Fallon said in an interview at his headquarters last week that additional trainers would be part of “a comprehensive approach” to address Pakistan’s security needs. “They want to do as much of this as they can themselves,” Admiral Fallon said.

Pakistani officials said they were aware of the Pentagon’s general offer for more trainers, but were not familiar with the details of the Central Command plan.

That document, titled “Plan for Training the Frontier Corps,” envisions a combination of Special Forces and regular Army troops working with the Frontier Corps in basic marksmanship, infantry skills and counterinsurgency techniques, Defense Department officials said.

Until recently, the Frontier Corps had not received American military financing because the corps technically falls under the Pakistani Interior Ministry, a nonmilitary agency that the Pentagon ordinarily does not deal with. But American and Pakistani officials say the Frontier Corps is drawn from Pashtun tribesmen, who know the language and culture of the tribal areas, and in the long term is the most suitable force to combat an insurgency there.

American and Pakistani officials acknowledge that it will take several years to build the Frontier Corps into an effective counterinsurgency. American officials say they have seen some Frontier Corps members wearing sandals on patrol and wielding barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with little ammunition.

The need for the training is evident. In January, hundreds of Islamic militants attacked a paramilitary fort in the restive South Waziristan tribal region in northwest Pakistan, killing 22 soldiers and taking several others hostage. A Pentagon official said the fort was overrun in part because the commander had failed to range his artillery properly before the attack.

“Pakistani military operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas have had limited effect on Al Qaeda,” Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. “Pakistan recognizes the threat and realizes the need to develop more effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism capabilities to complement their conventional forces.”

Robert L. Grenier, a former director of the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center, told a panel of the Council on Foreign Relations last week that any high-profile American military presence in the tribal areas or the neighboring North-West Frontier Province would be “the kiss of death.”

But Pakistan, he said, would welcome small numbers of trainers who kept a low profile, and were not involved in combat operations. “To an increasing degree as they see that it doesn’t cause the sky to fall, they will be willing to accept low-level support from the Americans, particularly in the form of training,” said Mr. Grenier, a former C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad.

Mr. Grenier added that the role American trainers played would rest largely with General Kayani, the new army chief. “He’s a very conservative, very cautious fellow,” Mr. Grenier said. “He will want to make his own decisions as to what is sustainable and what is not in the way of U.S. support.”