Pakistan PM Vows Victory Against Taliban
On Thursday in Pakistan, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani announced that the Pakistani government would seek no further peace deals with the Pakistani Taliban but was rather dedicated to defeating them and reasserting national sovereignty in the northwest of the country. The speech marked a major change in policy for the Pakistani government, which has fought militants in the Pushtun areas off and on for years. Gen. Pervez Musharraf was the first to attempt to conclude a truce with them, in 2006. A similar truce was proposed for the Swat Valley by the provincial government of the North-West Frontier Province, dominated by a Pushtun nationalist party earlier this year, but has decisively broken down over the expansionism of the guerrillas, who attempted to expand their territory from Swat into nearby Buner.
Nine Pakistani troops were killed in the hard fighting in Swat and Buner on Thursday.
In Washington, President Asaf Ali Zardari pledged that the offensive in Swat would go on until the situation returned to "normal."
Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kayani affirmed that the Pakistani military fully recognizes the internal threat to the country of the Taliban.
Although most of the pressure on Zardari to crush the Taliban militarily is coming from Washington, Pakistan's other major patron, China, also has a strong interest in the struggle. Militants of the Red Mosque in Islamabad took Chinese acupuncturists in Islamabad hostage in 2007. And, separatist Muslims from Xianjiang province have in the past received training in areas of Pakistan controlled by the militants. Some 60 Chinese companies are carrying out 122 projects in Pakistan, and there are 10,000 Chinese engineers and technical experts there. China would like to see the situation stabilize in part because Beijing wants less rather than more American military presence on its borders.
On Thursday, Pakistani authorities reported that 55 militants had been killed in Swat and that 300,000 inhabitants of the valley had been displaced by the fighting. (Isn't that sort of disproportionate?)
Aljazeera English reports on the Pakistani army's push into Buner near Swat, and the massive refugee problem that the fighting is creating.
Yesterday, , the same channel had reported that the roads in and out of nearby Swat Valley were blocked.
Apparently what is happening is that the Pakistani army is ordering the civilian population out of Swat and Buner, in hopes of having a clear shot at the Taliban, who thereby would be deprived of civilian cover. In turn the latter are trying to close the roads out, to keep the civilians inside so as to use them as human shields or as anonymous throngs into which they can melt where they are defeated by the army.
Riz Khan hosts a discussion of President Obama's summit with Hamid Karzai and Zardari.
For the repercussions on the UK's million-strong Pakistani community, see Michael Goldfarb.
For the odd hothouse atmosphere of hysteria in Washington that has helped to produce this sudden displacement of half a million people in the name of imposing stability, see Tom Engelhardt at Tomdispatch.com.
End/ (Not Continued)

|
4 Comments:
Any idea whether the ISI are on board with Gilani and Zardari? If not, I fear that the only effect of their "major change in policy" will be to end up like Benazir Bhutto.
.
Dr. Cole,
the stuff you write is so clear and logical and well-supported, I almost feel as if I should have been able to figure this out on my own.
You make complex interrelationships accessible to those of us who cannot invest in an area study.
God bless you.
your avid student
.
AFP: “The cost of fighting ‘the war’ [war?] in Afghanistan will overtake that of ‘the Iraq conflict’ [war?] for the first time in 2010, Pentagon documents show.” Of the $130 billion the Obama Administration is seeking in its 2010 budget for overseas missions, $65 billion will be allocated for Afghanistan-War and $61 billion for Iraq-War. Vice Admiral Steve Stanley remarked that, "This [budget] request is where you’re going to first see the swing" of not only personnel, but also dollars and matériel "from the Iraqi theater into the Afghan theater." Of course, We've always been at War with Them!, whoever they are, Over There, wherever that is: Midway through the book, the alliance breaks apart and Oceania, newly allied with Eurasia, begins a campaign against Eastasian forces. This happens during "Hate Week" (a week of extreme focus on the malice supposed of Oceania's enemies, the purpose of which is to stir up patriotic fervour in support of the Party). The public is quite abnormally blind to the change, and when a public orator, mid-sentence, changes the name of the enemy from EurAsia to EastAsia (still speaking as if nothing had changed), the people are shocked and soon enraged as they notice that all the flags and posters are wrong; so they tear down the old posters and replace them with new ones. This is the origin of the idiom "We've always been at war with..."
It seems to me the issue in Pakistan is by product of Bush confrontation with China. Bush administration was looking into squeezing China, it therefore allied with India and hence had to drop US's traditional alliance with Pakistan. Bush administration thought they could keep Pakistan in check by their support for India and probably paying off some of their leaders. Pakistan army let Taliban's lose to demonstrate their power. Now if you notice first foreign trip of Secretary Clinton was to China. Furthermore, With current economical crisis confrontation with China is simply idiotic. Hence, US and Pakistan alliance is re-established. Which basically means the Pakistan army is now getting their kickbacks again and they are all happy to put stop to whole Taliban episode that they started off. The real question is that can it be stopped, or did it went for too long and now has a life of its own.
I would think India would be the loser it all of this. What made Taliban's successful is that there is no economy in Afghanistan. I can't visualize any major investment in country either. Hence the environment is prime for some other group to take advantage of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home