ANP: Never say die!

By Benazir Shah
ZoneAsia-Pk

HE’S LOST 819 OF HIS PARTY COLLEAGUES TO TERRORISM, AND SURVIVED AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT IN 2008. WE RECENTLY SPOKE WITH ASFANDYAR WALI KHAN, CHIEF OF THE TALIBAN-THREATENED AWAMI NATIONAL PARTY, WHICH GOVERNED KHYBER-PAKHTUNKHWA PROVINCE UNTIL MARCH, ABOUT SATURDAY’S ELECTIONS AND MORE. EXCERPTS:

The ANP has been mercilessly attacked by the Taliban in the run-up to the elections. As a result your party has been unable to campaign freely. At any point, did you consider not participating in the May 11 polls?

In the last four years, our party has lost a total of 819 workers. Why are we being targeted? Simple: [the Pakistani Taliban] want to keep us out of the elections. For Pakistan these are not just any elections, the new Parliament will have to deal with 2014, when NATO and ISAF forces withdraw from the region. When 2014 comes around, they do not want liberal people to be in the government. These forces want a free hand to do whatever they want, but they will not keep us out. This is not just a war between ANP and the Taliban or Asfandyar Wali and [Taliban kingpin] Hakimullah Mehsud, this is a war between two mindsets. The liberal, progressive, and democratic are on one side. On the other end are those who ruled Afghanistan and later surfaced in Swat. If we back off now, we let them win. The more the elections are delayed, the more bloodshed there will be. It is not going to get any better.

How is your party campaigning?

We cannot run advertisements like the other parties. We just don’t have that kind of money. It is common knowledge how much these [cable news] channels charge for broadcasting ads. Our local workers move door to door. The day Haroon and Ghulam Ahmed Bilour were attacked in Peshawar [on April 16], we lost 17 workers. The very next day pamphlets were distributed in the city warning people not to hoist any flags of the ANP or display its posters and stickers. And the same evening in Peshawar, Nowshera, Charsadda, Swabi, and Mardan our party circulated thousands of stickers. The stickers had the party’s [electoral] symbol on it, which is the lantern, and a slogan, “Country or Coffin.”

Your partner parties the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and Pakistan Peoples Party have also been specifically targeted by the Taliban.

There is some misunderstanding. ANP has not gone into an electoral alliance with the MQM. PPP, MQM, and ANP have borne the brunt of terrorist attacks. We thought that if we got together to raise our voice against the bloodshed, the impact would be different. But let me clarify, again, that this is not an electoral alliance. It might not help the situation, but the three of us share an enemy. The people of Pakistan had been fooled for a very long time in believing that Karachi is the turf of the MQM and ANP. Now at least everyone knows the truth.

Is it accurate to say that the bloodshed in Karachi over the past five years is a result of turf wars among militias affiliated with the ANP, MQM, and PPP?

If I had a Pakhtun militant wing in Karachi, would I be targeted the way I am today? Please do not push us to the wall. That is my biggest fear. Do not push us to a situation where we decide to defend ourselves. The day we start defending ourselves, things are going to take a very ugly turn! If I had a militant wing in Karachi, I don’t think anyone would have had the guts to attack me.

‘The true referee of the electoral showdown is Hakimullah Mehsud.’

Will election results accurately reflect voters’ choice?

Let me make it very clear, ANP has been shoved into a wrestling ring with its hands tied. The opponents stand across from us and their hands are free. Until now, we were under the impression that the referee for these elections was the chief of the Election Commission of Pakistan, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim. I have the utmost respect for him. But the true referee of the electoral showdown is Hakimullah Mehsud. Look at his statements, he’s “allowed” Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl), Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf to hold public rallies, and he’s not “permitted” ANP, MQM or PPP to do the same. Is this his decision to make? Mehsud has clearly defined his friends and his foes.

After the attack on Haroon Bilour, you wrote to the Election Commission demanding more security. What became of that?

Copies of the letter were also sent to the president, the caretaker prime minister, and to the chief justice. Nine days lapsed and nothing happened. There wasn’t a word from the ECP. On the 10th day, Ebrahim showed up on television claiming he never received any such letter. That is the last I heard of that. The Election Commission is telling us to make our own security arrangements. Use your own untrained security guards, they say. Now, if these untrained security guards are enough to guard me and my candidates, then they must be capable of also guarding the country? The government took my security away in a very awkward manner, at 9:30 p.m. one night, without even informing me. The security that had been provided to me consisted of one policeman and four guards. The Election Commission denies it ordered it, but then there is written evidence proving it requested all security be withdrawn.

Will you accept the election results without any hesitation?

No, that will depend. It will depend on the results and how things shape up. As far as electoral alliances are concerned, it is still too early to decide that. Let me repeat, since this is a war between two mindsets, I will not go for an alliance with a party which belongs to the other camp. Let’s not name anyone. However, I would like to add that of late there is a new phenomenon arising before the elections. A few days ago, two Jamaat-e-Islami workers were caught with 90,000 fake ballot papers. Now new reports are emerging-I am still trying to confirm them-that a Jamaat aspirant’s house was raided and another 30,000 to 35,000 bogus ballot papers have been recovered. If these things start developing then there will be a big question mark on the upcoming elections.

What should be the chief priority of the next elected government?

Terrorism needs to be addressed immediately. One has to take control of the field. Right now, the ownership of the field is being challenged. We can continue to fight among ourselves about what we may want to plant in the field, but first we must own it.

Pakistan: Neither unwilling nor unable in Tirah Valley

By Zoon Ahmad Khan
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH

Tirah is a belt of valleys providing a convenient passage into Afghanistan, with a population of 1.5 million. Fertile for what Afghanis do best: opium, poppy fields have flourished in the region and the government has been for years trying to curb the epidemic. But the Tirah Valley people are slippery under the quivering thumb of the establishment since colonial times. It was in 2003 that the Pakistan Army entered the valley, that too after 9/11 and escalating Talibanization of the northern region when it was believed that Osama bin Laden could be hiding in one of these self governing regions.

For a month now, since March 2013, Tirah Valley has been making headlines. As over 300 militants have been eliminated and more than 30 army personnel have achieved martyrdom in less than thirty days. Due to fierce resistance, the military operation has gained momentum. Like the Swat operation, where Taliban had allied themselves with the local government promising better law enforcement and good riddance from the sloppy civil courts, in Tirah the emergence of TTP has also been gradual. Owing to poor infrastructure and isolation of the region (a tribal area that avoids foreign interference), news of the hundreds killed while resisting TTPs advancement in to the region, never reached mainstream media sources.

Three militant outfits are operating in the region presently: Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Islam (LI), and Ansar ul Islam (AI) . The AI and LI have been battling with each other in the region for more than seven years over sectarian differences. When the LI joined hands with the TTP, AI reached out to the Pakistan army to protect its position against its adversary. It is noteworthy that the AI, a militant organization, has previously been banned for protecting the area from foreign influence (i.e. the government). How this support for the AI is any different from that of the Taliban back in the 1980s is not clear. For Pakistan, at the moment, fighting the Taliban is more crucial. What demons this war gives birth to can be dealt with later perhaps.

The TTP has not taken over the valley overnight, nor without assistance. Since last June, one step at a time the Tirah tribes have been coming under their fold. Even today, as the army marches against the Taliban with bursting force, launching aerial assaults to drive the Taliban out, few know the gravity of the situation. Few realize the dire consequences of this belt coming under full control of anti-state outfits. Thousands of the valley’s inhabitants have migrated out of their homes towards Peshawar. What will become of them and their families knowing the situation of IDPs amidst a fragile economy is another burden we are temporarily ignoring for a false peace of mind.

With three vital entry points: into Peshawar, Orakzai and the Khyber Pass (the main passageway for NATO supplies) the valley is an important stronghold for the TTP. With no road access, the army was initially only relying on aerial assaults. So far with scanty news, all we get a few days later is a death count of militants versus soldiers. Nothing about civilian casualties. Turns out we have an alternative for the drone strikes that have caused much discord between us and the United States. But the problems with an operation where only Pakistani blood is being spilt are manifold.

These quandaries can take the shape of a thought process. Firstly, Tirah was not above the regular drone drill. Rather the area has been a frequent target. Yet the LI joined hands with the Taliban, killed hundreds of civilians while fighting the local AI, took over the entire region over the course of a year. All of this while drone strikes were happening with unhampered discretion. Should this not make us question the effectiveness of drone strikes? The AI , temporary partner of the Government of Pakistan in this operation, is not our friend either. It is these temporary alliances with local militant outfits, and keeping our enemies ‘closer’ that has strengthened them to begin with. Before the Taliban took over completely, Ansar-ul-Islam were adamant that they could handle the situation. But with stiff resistance from TTP backed LI. Eventually the Pakistan army was forced to step in and save the region. The main question that arises from such situations is: why should we trust the security of such volatile and strategically important regions with militias who are not completely supportive of the government?

Initially when the wave of conflict erupted last month, media and ISPR reported that two militant groups were at war with each other and the death toll from both sides was being reported as “militant death toll”. TTP extended full support to LI, and AI was almost driven out of the region and increased TTP influence in the region was becoming evident. It was at this point when civilian casualties escalated and mass migration from the Tirah Valley started that the army stepped in. With General Elections only days away, it would have been catastrophic if hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the valley had become IDPs. Additionally with Peshawar well within the range of rocket launchers the threat of TTP advancement in to the developed regions of the country had become too real. The AI-Army alliance is strategic and passing. Whether the army death toll includes the AI, or they aren’t dying at all is not certain. It is possible that the militant death include the AI, TTP, and LI, which would quite literally be true.

The new tagline for justifying drone strikes is ‘Unwilling and Unable’. The US claims that Pakistan is both, unwilling and unable to get rid of terrorists, and hence drones, are a final resort to secure their own national interest is justified. How they come up with new justifications for overstepping the boundaries and disrespecting sovereignty is fascinating. But after delegating the responsibility of keeping the terrorists out to anti-state elements, who haven’t pledged any loyalties to the region, what can we say about Pakistan’s sovereignty? Some argue that more than delegating authority the military and political establishments’ apparent absence was more about respecting the existing status quo that has been for centuries.

The expanding terrorism in the Northern areas can be solved not by drone attacks or killing the terrorists alone, rather by better law enforcement and presence of state sponsored security. The operation that Pakistan army troops are sacrificing their lives for concerns the US’ national security as well. After the drone method has proven ineffective and immoral both countries should look into alternatives. The US needs to decide: in or out? If out then they should completely rely on what the Pakistan army executes. But if they believe we are unwilling and unable then they must join in any battle against the Taliban, even if some blood will be spilt. But this would mean allowing US troops into our territory, and that is another breach of our sovereignty. And hence the dearth of solutions. As the army continues to sacrifice lives, while we acknowledge the courage it takes to execute such an operation, we must realize these lives and those of the civilians can be saved if preventive measures are taken. The upcoming government must get all local and foreign stakeholders on board and strategize better governance in the northern areas of Pakistan. The gun is only a temporary solution.

New US drone strike on Pakistan after two months

Two people suspected of being militants were killed Sunday morning in the volatile North Waziristan tribal region by what Pakistani and Taliban officials said was a drone strike.

If confirmed, the attack could be the first American strike in Waziristan in two months – one of the longest operational pauses since the drone campaign started in earnest in mid-2008. American and Pakistani officials are at odds over whether two previous attacks this year were American drone strikes or some other kind of violence.

Two Pakistani officials, one in Peshawar and another in the tribal belt, said that missiles fired from a drone operated by the C.I.A. hit the two people in the village of Degan, about 20 miles from Miram Shah, the main town in North Waziristan.

“Details are sketchy,” the senior official in Peshawar said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We don’t know the identity of those killed, and our local contacts say the bodies were unrecognizable and beyond recognition. We don’t know if they were locals or foreign militants.” That official said the two people who were killed had been traveling on a motorcycle when the missile struck, but the official in the tribal belt said they were on horseback. There were some reports that three people were killed in the attack.

A Taliban spokesman in Miram Shah confirmed that two militants on a motorcycle had been killed in a drone strike. “I cannot confirm their nationality and group affiliation at the moment,” the spokesman said by telephone.

The timing and nature of the previous two reported strikes in Waziristan have become a matter of controversy between Pakistan and the United States.

Last week, American officials denied any involvement in two strikes that Pakistani officials and the news media had reported as C.I.A. drone strikes, on Feb. 6 and Feb. 8. Afterward, an American official quoted in The New York Times said that at least one of the attacks could have been a conventional airstrike by the Pakistani military. That claim was rejected by Pakistani officials.

The last drone attack that was recognized by both Pakistan and the United States, albeit unofficially, was on Jan. 10.

Separately, the police in Lahore said that they had arrested 150 men in connection with an attack on a Christian colony on Saturday in which about 170 homes and 2 churches were burned.

Ominous Silence

Recently the Parliamentary Committee on National Security decided to take Pakistan’s foreign policy to the floor of representatives and argue and debate relatively au courant terms of engagement with USA. While the opposition did sneer at the fact that these recommendations are not binding,non-state actors aka DPC,JI and Al- Zawahiri warned against re-opening NATO supply routes and announced that they won’t shirk from ‘spilling blood’ if the Parliament does give in to US pressure,the fact that for the first time national security and foreign policy was going to be debated and discussed instead of dictated was laudable,with millions of dollars riding on the big question of how far we are willing to go.

Yet the big question was relegated to the back burner at the fourth sitting of the joint session. While questions riddling the common man may not be big enough for our high handed politicians to address,recent developments in the country marked by an escalation of violence that doesn’t have Taliban written all over it is serious enough to have everything else take the back seat.

Karachi’s turf wars and ‘day of mourning’ turned into days of mourning for many families torn asunder in the ANP- MQM crossfire. Grievances festered to the point that henchmen came out to burn effigies of their bosses/representatives and demanded a ‘Swat like’ military operation in the pestilent localities of Lyari,Katti Pahari,North Nazimabad,Benaras,Shah Faisal,Korangi,Malir and Kasba which is in flames today. Rehman Malik splutters out condemnation and vows vengeance every time this happens,yet his faux crackdown did little than tweak whiskers the last time. They’re back,bigger,stronger and armed to their teeth,playing out the aftermath of post Soviet-Afghan war like it happened yesterday. The complicated politics of Karachi will not disentangle on its own like our government hopes it will. Even the top echelons are playing favorites in this cat eat mouse game. Maybe a stringent de-weaponisation crack down is what Karachi needs. Take the lion’s teeth away and it can only meow.

Sind’s epicenter might be a festering pustule,but is Punjab safe from the epidemic? Mass hysteria over endless hours of load shedding,ensued right after Punjab had come to terms with the fact that gas and CNG were relics of past glory. The government’s economic policy clearly isn’t geared towards bolstering the industrial sector as Faisalabad learnt last year;it isn’t agro or livestock oriented as one quarter of Pakistan thrust under the poverty line,that tries to forage for scraps to eat will tell you. A country that hasn’t yet experienced the organic shift from agricultural to manufacturing sectors can’t possibly have a thriving service sector either,it’s easier to picture our economy as a formless entity floating aimlessly in space towards a black hole.

Two provinces down,the third,the biggest in terms of land mass and smallest in terms of population has fingers crossed for balkanization of the region. The level of intrigue and mystique surrounding the third province is interminable. News of bounty being announced for the death of Punjabis straying in Balochistan filters out now and then and people are gripped with fear. The media and other political parties,with PTI at the fore of it have endless capacity and breath to waste on spewing criticism at the government and every preceding government in the past,reinforcing the point that balkanization might indeed be the best solution. Give the Sardars their barren play ground. A province where every provincial assembly member is given an amount set in millions for development in their constituency,but still posts an abysmal income per capita of USD 183 (PKR- 16287) per year cannot blame the federal government for the insurgency and having an ‘apathetic’ attitude towards the province. Not when the Sardars are known for smuggling weaponry worth millions from across the border and run a thriving black market with the parliament’s blessings.

KP once the adorned bride of the country is now the easiest target for terrorist activity,planting seeds of anarchy and home to the largest population of displaced people in the country. It is a province of diametrically conflicting facets where development has taken a back seat because drone attacks and military operations trying to weed out terrorists must rip the place apart first. The Northern Province has seen traumatic times in the past decade,from earth quakes,to floods,to mass terror and ensuing military operations. They have killed and been killed a thousand times over to the point where the peaceful stalemate of Kashmir is an enviable situation compared to Pakistan.

An ominous silence hangs like noxious fumes in the country poisoning corrupting and suffusing the air with mass hopelessness. Will this state of chaos lead to an ultimate implosion removing Pakistan from the equation,may be a revolution along the lines of Arab Spring which can only lead to more instability and is an unlikely possibility as it requires Pakistani’s to first and foremost unite. Building a state requires a skeleton of institutions,the sinew and muscle is later augmented by nurturing the body around the skeleton. What we need is not verbal diarrhea from political parties that have the ability of infusing hope in the populace or promises of rooting out corruption in nine days by politicians creating demigod like personas. It begs merit and sincerity to the people of the country. It requires the level of even headedness and authority that Lee Kwan Yew and Mahathir Mohammed displayed when their countries hit rock bottom. More importantly we the people need to realize we cannot be played against each other to fill some elusive character’s coffers or play out their fantastical ideologies. Pakistan isn’t a lost cause,not yet,not by a long shot. Our external affairs can take a back seat for the moment,we cannot act like jilted lovers and have no one to blame but ourselves,let’s take on the responsibility for slaying these self created dragons ourselves too.

The 2014 endgame

By Sabina Khan

US President George W Bush had said right after 9/11 that God had told him to invade Afghanistan. Ironically, this righteous claim sounds similar to the ones made by terrorists under the pretence of jihad. After ten years of war to install a democratic government and free the men and women in the conflict ridden country, what has actually been accomplished in Afghanistan? Is the world a safer place now that the US is preparing to withdraw their forces? Has terrorism been eradicated? As the 2014 troop withdrawal deadline nears, these questions deserve consideration.

In response to the 9/11 attacks, Bush called for an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda’s sanctuary. Long-term objectives of the effort comprised establishing a democracy and eliminating circumstances which led to terrorism. Being unable to convince the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, the US strategy evolved to include killing and capturing their leaders, Mullah Omar being high on that list. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban insurgency picked up and the death toll began to increase. Opium production flourished during this period as there were few other sources of income.

When US President Barack Obama took power in 2008, he shifted the focus back to Afghanistan and redefined the objectives. In 2009, he deployed an additional 30,000 troops and stated that his goal in Afghanistan was to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda”. In 2009, Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated that “at a minimum, the mission is to prevent the Taliban from retaking power… and turning Afghanistan potentially again into a haven for al Qaeda and other extremists”.

In his recent speech, Obama announced that 33,000 troops are being withdrawn by the summer of 2012 and that transition of power to Afghan security forces will be complete by 2014. Currently, Afghanistan’s newly-formed military consists of 150,000 soldiers but their ranks are scheduled to swell up to 260,000 in time for the 2014 deadline. Despite Nato’s efforts to train Afghan soldiers to read and write at the third grade level, almost 90 per cent of the recruits in the Afghan military are illiterate. High levels of desertion and infiltration also plague the Afghan security forces, which adds another aspect of uncertainty with the transition of power. Moreover, several insurgent groups remain firmly established in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, which border Pakistan’s tribal areas. Consequently, cross-border incidents have risen between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Several hundred militants crossed into Pakistan and conducted attacks in Upper Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand. In retaliation, Pakistan fired rockets on the border to target militants crossing over. Needless to say, relations between the two neighbours are troublesome.

This September marks ten years since the atrocious events of 9/11. Bin Laden is dead but al Qaeda remains very much alive. Conflict has spilled into Pakistan with death and destruction becoming a daily part of life. Meanwhile, the US has come full-circle and is now negotiating with the Taliban and preparing to allow them back into the official government. A recent and well-timed UN resolution draws distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban. The pretext being that the Taliban only focus on conducting attacks in their own country unlike al Qaeda who carries out attacks worldwide. Thus, the Taliban have been removed from the UN sanctions list in order to help the US with their reconciliation efforts. These games do little to conceal the fact that the Afghan government is corrupt and poor. On top of that, their security forces can switch sides at any moment if enticed with money or threats. Despite the US government’s desire to keep Pakistan separate from their negotiations with the Taliban, it is time to face reality, the situation along the porous border remains and will continue to be a challenge for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hence, a comprehensive regional solution is required for long-term peace instead of a rushed secret backdoor deal which will certainly be short-lived. Our neighbour has been in a state of continuous conflict since the late 1970s. The ultimate resolution involves education and economic development, which entails long-term dedication and commitment from interested parties that are directly affected by the war in Afghanistan.

Pendulum of war

IN the past couple of weeks, Al Qaeda and its franchises have come back with a vengeance, attacking Pakistan, its security forces and the public. This also appears to be a prelude to an increase in violence in Afghanistan in the near future.

An important aspect of these new series of attacks is their concentration on Islamabad, Peshawar and locations along the Durand Line. In their latest onslaughts on urban centres, militants have used both improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. Clearly, the militants are in good health and pose a serious existential threat to Pakistan.

The new attacks are significant in that they convey a message to Pakistan and the combined forces of more than 43 nations deployed in Afghanistan, that the recent loss of Osama bin Laden and one of Al Qaeda`s foremost commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, have not stripped it of its fighting abilities. The attacks also reflect the resilience and institutional capacity of the second tier of the insurgent team which is proving itself adept at meeting new challenges.Another factor that has added significance to the recent militant activity is the capacity of Al Qaeda and its various branches in Pakistan and Afghanistan to carry out multiple border incursions, as seen in Dir, Kurram and South Waziristan, within a short span of time.

Add these capacities to the assumed presence of militant cells within the Pakistani security services and serious questions are raised about whether the strategy followed so far in dealing with the militants is actually effective. The militants` ability to field insurgent groups of up to 300 men, as seen in the two recent attacks on Dir in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is worrying.

According to local officials, a Taliban force of more than 200 fighters who were armed with light and heavy weapons and some of whom wore military uniforms attacked a police station in Shaldalo village of Upper Dir on June 1. The incursion was resisted by the Pakistani police and paramilitary forces and the engagement lasted several hours. Pakistani helicopter gunships took part in forcing back the militants – 23 security personnel were killed and the Taliban are said to have suffered casualties, but no dead bodies were recovered.

The Taliban had earlier launched a similar attack on April 22, when more than 400 fighters attacked a police post in Kharakhai in Lower Dir district. They overran the outpost while killing 16 Pakistani police personnel. Both attacks originated from across the border in the Afghan province of Kunar, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have established safe havens after the US forces made a questionable withdrawal from Kunar and Nuristan in March 2010, creating a security hazard for Pakistani forces.

The Taliban have learnt that if they are relentless in their resistance, the US does withdraw. In leaving Kunar and more specifically the strategic Korengal valley, the US followed the path taken by the erstwhile USSR when it too withdrew from this part after the Mujahideen attacks became deadly. This was heralded as the beginning of the end of Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Does the loss of control over Kunar and Nuristan also herald a similar retreat by the US from Afghanistan?

“The withdrawal is a great victory for us,” said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid in April 2010, when the Taliban forces occupied US posts in Korengal and Pech valleys. “The area is very, very important for us. Its mountains provide a good hideout, it can be used as training ground and lead our operations from the region there.” The severity of attacks on Pakistani territory in 2011 has proved him right.

It is not understood why Isaf commander Gen Petraeus told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15 that the Taliban`s momentum had been reversed in most areas of Afghanistan. At best, the situation is fragile and easily reversible. The situation on the ground seems to contradict the general`s hopeful projection.

Gen Petraeus added that America`s “core objective” was to “ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for Al Qaeda”. Yet the two attacks on Dir clearly show that Al Qaeda has become a formidable presence in this part of the Hindu Kush and that the US has not been able to deny it this sanctuary.

For Pakistan, the policy options are either to conduct hot pursuit into Afghanistan, or to fence the Durand Line to protect itself against attacks. To do nothing is dangerous.

Due to this security threat from Afghanistan, the recent Pakistani gains in Swat, Buner, Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand appear to be tenuous. It is also clear that the insurgents are now deeply embedded within the region.

So, what next?

The following predictions can be safely made: the gains made by the Pakistan military in Swat, Dir and Bajaur will be tested; it is also clear that while the Pakistani military holds sway in the valleys, the mountains mostly belong to the militants. Yet while the Hindu Kush range provides them with advantages, it also limits the type of war that they can wage: they cannot field large groups. However, the mountains give them the ability to easily change their axis of attack more quickly than the military, which is dependent on a long supply chain.

Furthermore, public opinion in Pakistan that is favourable to the militants allows them to receive a steady supply of volunteers. These factors provide them the ability to conduct a war of attrition against Pakistan for a long time to come. They also have the ability to extend insecurity to other parts of the country to lessen the pressure against them.

Taliban Warning: ‘Stay away from rallies, briefings’

LAHORE: The Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan has issued a warning to journalists to stay away from demonstrations and briefings, media representatives said on Tuesday.

The Taliban said they could not guarantee the safety of journalists who covered demonstrations, rallies and news briefings because the group could target these events. It was not clear whether the warning was issued in a press statement or delivered by telephone. Journalists, however, confirmed that they had received the threat.

Afghan withdrawal won’t be a “hand-off”: Petraeus

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan from next July will begin with a general “thinning out” of forces rather than any large-scale drawdown, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces said on Tuesday.

U.S. General David Petraeus gives his speech during a change-of-command ceremony at the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul July 4, 2010.

Critics say U.S. President Barack Obama’s strategy to begin pulling out troops has backfired, sending a signal to the Taliban that the United States was preparing to wind down at a time when U.S. and NATO forces were suffering record casualties.

It has also alarmed Afghan leaders, a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai last week saying the Taliban threat has not been eliminated and any timeline for withdrawal would only “invigorate” the Islamist insurgents.

U.S. commanders have since tried to allay fears the timeline would not represent a wholesale departure.

The withdrawal timetable however is certain to come under close scrutiny in a White House strategy review of the Afghan war in December, which Obama called for last year when he announced the July 2011 plan and 30,000 extra troops.

Petraeus said the last of those extra troops would be in place in “the next couple of days”, taking the total number of foreign troops under the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) umbrella in Afghanistan to almost 150,000.

He said guidelines had been drawn up recently for the transition and repeated the pace of withdrawals would “depend on conditions” on the ground, mainly the readiness of Afghan forces.

“These guidelines recognise that this is a process, not an event, in other words it will typically represent a thinning out of ISAF forces, not a hand-off per se,” Petraeus told Reuters and two other news agencies in Kabul.

“In some cases, that transition dividend, in other words the forces no longer required, will go home, in some other cases they may be reinvested in a contiguous area, let’s say within the same province to address security issues in neighbouring districts.”

NATO NERVOUS

Critics lined up last week to question the withdrawal timetable, with retiring U.S. Marine General James Conway saying that setting a date would be a morale boost for the Taliban, who believe they can wait out NATO forces.

There is also nervousness among Washington’s NATO allies, who are coming under increasing pressure from a sceptical public to get out of a war they are not winning.

Adding to such fears, U.S. Lieutenant General William Caldwell said last week the training of Afghan forces still faced big hurdles and that it would take until late October 2011 to build up the police and military to a level where they could take over security in more than just isolated pockets.

“… the transition likely will occur in districts initially rather than in entire provinces, although there may be some provinces where this may be possible,” Petraeus said, adding this would likely not be possible in hard-fought areas.

Petraeus repeated comments made on British and U.S. television last week that areas of progress were being made despite increasing violence across Afghanistan.

“There’s no question the Taliban are fighting back, but the toll on the Taliban leadership has been very hard,” he said of recent campaigns in the south, east and north.

Military deaths have hit record levels this year, with at least 475 killed so far in 2010, compared with 521 for all of 2009. ISAF announced on Tuesday five more troops had been killed in the past 24 hours.

OPINION SPLIT

Supporters of Obama’s July 2011 say it conveys a needed sense of urgency to Kabul that Afghans must quickly ramp up the size of their security forces for a gradual handover.

But the strategy has certainly split U.S. opinion, even among Obama’s Democrats, and will come under close scrutiny during mid-term Congressional elections in November.

The credibility of Washington’s partner, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, will also come under scrutiny, particularly after a fraud-marred presidential vote last year.

While he is not running, Karzai’s leadership will be tested at a parliamentary election on Sept. 18, as will his commitment to good governance and stamping out the corruption that has dogged Afghan public life for decades.

Petraeus stepped cautiously around questions about Karzai’s leadership, saying advances had been made since last year’s poll, in which a third of Karzai’s votes were thrown out as fake.

“President Karzai has been very clear in a variety of public pronouncements … that corruption undermines the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people,” Petraeus said.

“That legitimacy is very important to capitalising on the security advances and to enabling a host of other activities.”

He said ISAF and international partners were trying to encourage the development of good governance rather than governance that “preys on the people”.

Afghanistan base attacked by Taliban

Taliban insurgents, including at least two suicide bombers, attacked a foreign base in a city in west Afghanistan, witnesses and officials said, with several casualties feared.

The Italian-run base in Herat attacked by Taliban insurgents.

One witness reported seeing the bodies of several troops wearing foreign uniforms and saw smoke rising near an Italian-run, joint civilian and military provincial reconstruction team (PRT) base in Herat. Nato and Afghan officials were unable to confirm any casualties among Afghans or foreign troops.

A second witness told Reuters it appeared an unknown number of insurgents had entered a seven-storey building near the PRT and opened fire on the base from there.

Interior ministry spokesman Zemari Bashary said at least two suicide bombers had launched the attack outside the PRT in Herat, a normally peaceful city close to the border with Iran. He said no details about casualties were immediately available.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi said four suicide bombers were involved, although the militant Islamists often exaggerate claims involving attacks against foreign and Afghan targets.

Italian troops form the bulk of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the area but there was no immediate confirmation of casualties from ISAF. A spokesman for ISAF in Kabul said the force was aware of reports of the attack and was looking into them.

Television pictures from Herat showed at least two vehicles destroyed by explosions and troops scurrying for cover. Violence has spiked across Afghanistan since the Taliban announced at the beginning of May the start of a spring offensive.

Attacks have taken place in cities across Afghanistan in recent weeks. The Afghan government and security forces and foreign military targets singled out in increasingly bold assaults as militants attempt to show they retain to the capacity to launch major strikes.

US commanders had warned to expect a surge in violence as insurgents attempted to hit back after US-led ISAF troops and Afghan forces made major gains in operations in the Taliban heartland in the south over the past 12 months.

Italy has about 3,880 troops serving in Afghanistan, the majority of them in the west, making it the fifth-largest contributor to the Nato force.

Violence across Afghanistan last year reached its worst levels since the Taliban were toppled by US-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, with record civilian and military casualties.

Will bin Laden’s death free the Taliban to make peace?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to suggest that the death of Osama bin Laden offered a unique opportunity for a wider settlement in a region riven by warfare and insurgency.

“Our message to the Taliban remains the same,” she said Monday. “You cannot wait us out, you cannot defeat us, but you can make the choice to abandon al Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.”

That has been a long-cherished ambition of U.S. foreign policy — to delink the “good” Taliban from the “bad” Taliban and al Qaeda as a way of bringing peace to Afghanistan. As Clinton put in a speech to the Asia Society in February, the Holy Grail was to “split the weakened Taliban off from al Qaeda and reconcile those who will renounce violence and accept the Afghan constitution.”

Achieving that goal has become all the more urgent with the looming deadline to begin the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan, and President Obama’s goal to complete that withdrawal in 2014. Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has argued that the West had effectively announced the date of the end of the war; and that was an invitation to the insurgents to bide their time.

Now — “post OBL” – the omens may be more encouraging. The secretary of state apparently thinks so.

Events across the Middle East, she said Monday, are changing the political landscape. Muslims are “rejecting extremist narratives and charting a path of peaceful progress based on universal rights and aspirations,” she said.

A deathblow to al Qaeda?

And there is polling to suggest that the appeal of al Qaeda’s message among Muslims around the world has sharply eroded, according to regular polling by the Pew Research Center. Even in Pakistan, only 18 percent had confidence in bin Laden in 2010, compared to 52 percent in 2005.

Jihadist online forums were full of hand-wringing in January and February that the uprisings in the Middle East had passed them by, while offering a variety of strategies for co-opting or taking advantage of the unrest.

Beyond this cultural shift, there are other reasons the Taliban/al Qaeda linkage may now be weaker.

Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of “The Taliban” and “Descent into Chaos” wrote in the Financial Times Monday that “the Taliban do not owe al Qaeda anything now that Osama bin Laden is dead.”

No obvious replacement to succeed bin Laden

“Renouncing their links with al Qaeda and negotiating as Afghans rather than as members of an international jihad has just become much easier for the Taliban,” he added.

The Afghan Taliban, a home-grown movement whose principal goal is to expel foreigners, has never had that much in common philosophically with the Arab jihadists bent on using Afghanistan as the starting point in building a worldwide Caliphate. They have no record of terrorist acts beyond Afghanistan’s borders. To many observers, it was a marriage of convenience.

There may also be more prosaic reasons prodding the Taliban to distance themselves from the al Qaeda leadership. If the U.S. Navy Seals did indeed come across what CNN Terrorism Analyst Peter Bergen described as a “boatload” of evidence during the raid in Abbottabad, some of it may (just may) help in tracking down members of the Quetta leadership of the Taliban.

However, analysts say it’s by no means certain that the Taliban will perceive this watershed in the way that Clinton would wish.

The day before the operation that killed bin Laden, they declared the beginning of their spring offensive. They even made a point of warning that members of the Afghan Peace Council, established with great fanfare last year by President Hamid Karzai, would be targets. And they reiterated their central demand: “The war in our country will not come to an end unless and until the foreign invading forces pull out of Afghanistan.”

How U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden

The Taliban have been weakened in critical areas in the south of Afghanistan, losing strongholds in Kandahar and Helmand provinces and seeing scores of rank-and-file fighters give up the cause. But the fight in the east is as hard as ever — and non-governmental organizations in Kabul have also spoken of a growing Taliban presence in the north. U.S. commanders acknowledge that gains made so far have been fragile — and are reversible. A Pentagon report published last week said that expanding the Afghan government’s influence and control outside Kabul had not kept pace with recent security gains.

So there are few signs that the Taliban — even if they are tired of fighting — can yet be strong-armed into suing for peace.

In a report for the New America Foundation last year, Anand Gopal argued that the Taliban have been able to exploit the ineptitude of the government in Kabul.

“They were able to take advantage of growing disillusionment in the countryside,” he wrote. “In particular, the dominance of one particular set of tribes caused members of other, marginalized tribes to look to the insurgency as a source of protection and access to resources.”

The late Richard Holbrooke, who was the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, acknowledged that victory on the battlefield was not on the horizon, telling CNN’s Fareed Zakaria last October that “some kind of political element to this is essential, and we are looking at every aspect of this.”

Holbrooke also made the point that the Taliban did not have a single address, a principal interlocutor like Slobodan Milosevic or the Palestinian Authority. “There is a widely dispersed group of people that we roughly call the enemy,” he said.

Referring to the diffuse nature of the Taliban, Miliband argues the West needs to reappraise its goals in Afghanistan. He described Afghanistan as “a country of 40,000 villages and valleys,” where a political settlement needs to be “internal with all the tribes and regional with the neighbors.” That means a political role for the Taliban.

“We have to be absolutely clear, I think, that we do see a place for conservative Pashtun in the political settlement, helping govern the south and east of the country,” Miliband told the Council on Foreign Relations recently.

Some of the previous contacts between the Taliban leadership and the government in Kabul have been managed by Saudi Arabia. In September 2008, an eleven-member Taliban delegation went to Mecca for talks mediated by King Abdullah. CNN’s Nic Robertson reported at the time that the delegation was keen to stress that Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s spiritual leader, was no longer allied to al Qaeda.

But vigorous Saudi involvement might be problematic now given the Kingdom’s focus on its “near abroad:” the chaos in Yemen and conflict in Bahrain, where Saudi troops are now stationed. Add to that the deterioration in the Kingdom’s relations with Washington over the “Arab spring” and what the Saudis regard as a reckless abandonment by the Obama administration of long-time allies like former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Another complicating factor: Saudi Arabia is also looking to improve its relationship with Pakistan as a regional counterweight to Iranian expansionism, and Pakistan (which supported the Taliban when it ruled Afghanistan) very much wants a place at the table in any negotiation on Afghanistan’s future.

In the “plus” column, the initiative by Turkey — an increasingly assertive regional player — to allow the Taliban to open an office there, to help accelerate the peace process. But for now it’s just an initiative, not a reality.

So while bin Laden’s demise brings opportunities, there are also great obstacles in making it the first downpayment of a peace dividend. Clinton acknowledged as much when she said Monday: “Which way it breaks is not clear yet,” she said. “Managing these reactions will be part of our challenge.”