Friday, October 31, 2008

Expanding War, Contracting Meaning: Andrew J. Bacevich

Expanding War, Contracting Meaning
The Next President and the Global War on Terror
By Andrew J. Bacevich

A week ago, I had a long conversation with a four-star U.S. military officer who, until his recent retirement, had played a central role in directing the global war on terror. I asked him: what exactly is the strategy that guides the Bush administration's conduct of this war? His dismaying, if not exactly surprising, answer: there is none.

President Bush will bequeath to his successor the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone. To defense contractors, lobbyists, think-tankers, ambitious military officers, the hosts of Sunday morning talk shows, and the Douglas Feith-like creatures who maneuver to become players in the ultimate power game, the Global War on Terror is a boon, an enterprise redolent with opportunity and promising to extend decades into the future.

Yet, to a considerable extent, that very enterprise has become a fiction, a gimmicky phrase employed to lend an appearance of cohesion to a panoply of activities that, in reality, are contradictory, counterproductive, or at the very least beside the point. In this sense, the global war on terror relates to terrorism precisely as the war on drugs relates to drug abuse and dependence: declaring a state of permanent "war" sustains the pretense of actually dealing with a serious problem, even as policymakers pay lip-service to the problem's actual sources. The war on drugs is a very expensive fraud. So, too, is the Global War on Terror.

Anyone intent on identifying some unifying idea that explains U.S. actions, military and otherwise, across the Greater Middle East is in for a disappointment. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid down "Germany first" and then "unconditional surrender" as core principles. Early in the Cold War, the Truman administration devised the concept of containment, which for decades thereafter provided a conceptual framework to which policymakers adhered. Yet seven years into its Global War on Terror, the Bush administration is without a compass, wandering in the arid wilderness. To the extent that any inkling of a strategy once existed -- the preposterous neoconservative vision of employing American power to "transform" the Islamic world -- events have long since demolished the assumptions on which it was based.

Rather than one single war, the United States is presently engaged in several.

Ranking first in importance is the war for Bush's legacy, better known as Iraq. The President himself will never back away from his insistence that here lies the "central front" of the conflict he initiated after 9/11. Hunkered down in their bunker, Bush and his few remaining supporters would have us believe that the "surge" has, at long last, brought victory in sight and with it some prospect of redeeming this otherwise misbegotten and mismanaged endeavor. If the President can leave office spouting assurances that light is finally visible somewhere at the far end of a very long, very dark Mesopotamian tunnel, he will claim at least partial vindication. And if actual developments subsequent to January 20 don't turn out well, he can always blame the outcome on his successor.

Next comes the orphan war. This is Afghanistan, a conflict now in its eighth year with no signs of ending anytime soon. Given the attention lavished on Iraq, developments in Afghanistan have until recently attracted only intermittent notice. Lately, however, U.S. officials have awakened to the fact that things are going poorly, both politically and militarily. Al Qaeda persists. The Taliban is reasserting itself. Expectations that NATO might ride to the rescue have proven illusory. Apart from enabling Afghanistan to reclaim its status as the world's number one producer of opium, U.S. efforts to pacify that nation and nudge it toward modernity have produced little.

The Pentagon calls its intervention in Afghanistan Operation Enduring Freedom. The emphasis was supposed to be on the noun. Unfortunately, the adjective conveys the campaign's defining characteristic: enduring as in endless. Barring a radical re-definition of purpose, this is an enterprise which promises to continue, consuming lives and treasure, for a long, long time.

In neighboring Pakistan, meanwhile, there is the war-hidden-in-plain-sight. Reports of U.S. military action in Pakistan have now become everyday fare. Air strikes, typically launched from missile-carrying drones, are commonplace, and U.S. ground forces have also conducted at least one cross-border raid from inside Afghanistan. Although the White House doesn't call this a war, it is -- a gradually escalating war of attrition in which we are killing both terrorists and noncombatants. Unfortunately, we are killing too few of the former to make a difference and more than enough of the latter to facilitate the recruitment of new terrorists to replace those we eliminate.

Finally -- skipping past the wars-in-waiting, which are Syria and Iran -- there is Condi's war. This clash, which does not directly involve U.S. forces, may actually be the most important of all. The war that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made her own is the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Having for years dismissed the insistence of Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, that the plight of the Palestinians constitutes a problem of paramount importance, Rice now embraces that view. With the fervor of a convert, she has vowed to broker an end to that conflict prior to leaving office in January 2009.

Given that Rice brings little -- perhaps nothing -- to the effort in the way of fresh ideas, her prospects of making good as a peacemaker appear slight. Yet, as with Bush and Iraq, so too with Rice and the Palestinian problem: she has a lot riding on the effort. If she flops, history will remember her as America's least effective secretary of state since Cordell Hull spent World War II being ignored, bypassed, and humiliated by Franklin Roosevelt. She will depart Foggy Bottom having accomplished nothing.

There's nothing inherently wrong in fighting simultaneously on several fronts, as long as actions on front A are compatible with those on front B, and together contribute to overall success. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Global War on Terror. We have instead an illustration of what Winston Churchill once referred to as a pudding without a theme: a war devoid of strategic purpose.

This absence of cohesion -- by now a hallmark of the Bush administration -- is both a disaster and an opportunity. It is a disaster in the sense that we have, over the past seven years, expended enormous resources, while gaining precious little in return.

Bush's supporters beg to differ, of course. They credit the president with having averted a recurrence of 9/11, doubtless a commendable achievement but one primarily attributable to the fact that the United States no longer neglects airport security. To argue that, say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq have prevented terrorist attacks against the United States is the equivalent of contending that Israel's occupation of the West Bank since in 1967 has prevented terrorist attacks against the state of Israel.

Yet the existing strategic vacuum is also an opportunity. When it comes to national security at least, the agenda of the next administration all but sets itself. There is no need to waste time arguing about which issues demand priority action.

First-order questions are begging for attention. How should we gauge the threat? What are the principles that should inform our response? What forms of power are most relevant to implementing that response? Are the means at hand adequate to the task? If not, how should national priorities be adjusted to provide the means required? Given the challenges ahead, how should the government organize itself? Who -- both agencies and individuals -- will lead?

To each and every one of these questions, the Bush administration devised answers that turned out to be dead wrong. The next administration needs to do better. The place to begin is with the candid recognition that the Global War on Terror has effectively ceased to exist. When it comes to national security strategy, we need to start over from scratch.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His bestselling new book is The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).

Foreign Policy Challenges for the New US President - Taliban in Pak-Afghan Border Areas

Foreign Policy Challenges for the New US President – Part I
Exploiting a lack of jobs, the Taliban rises in Pakistan’s border region, threatening US strategy

Imtiaz Ali; YaleGlobal, 31 October 2008

NEW HAVEN: Gul Mohmmand Jan, a middle-aged man from the Bjure Agency in Pakistan’s tribal region, works odd jobs as a day laborer to support his six children. The tribal belt’s economy is based primarily on agriculture, but with effectively no private sector, work is scarce and compensation low. Jan sent two older sons to a local public school – a room in a mosque – but as Jan’s health failed, his sons were forced to leave school and work to cover the family’s cost of living.

Both boys started as day laborers like their father, but employment was inconsistent. They soon found the only regular work was as paid fighters with the Pakistani Taliban. It’s now two years since they joined the militia, a path all too common in Pakistan’s tribal belt.

Once dormant in Pakistan’s tribal areas, militants are stronger than ever, largely due to economic desperation and a failure of both Pakistan’s government and the international community to provide viable alternatives.

For complete article, click here

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Book Review: A splash of civilizations

Book Review: A splash of civilizations
By Dr. Mohammad Taqi

Title: A Medical Doctor Examines Life on Three Continents - A Pakistani View
Author: Dr. Syed Akhtar Ehtisham; Publication date: September 12, 2008; Publisher: Algora Publishing NY; ISBN-10: 0875866336


Dr. Ehtisham’s chronicle of the events he witnessed and became part of, in his life lived on three continents, is not a roller-coaster ride. It is however, a fast-paced train journey that takes the reader from the villages of northern India, all the way to upstate New York. The peek out of the window on to Ehtisham’s canvas, arouses a curiosity to read and discover more about the tumultuous and epoch-making happenings narrated by this orthopedic surgeon who is not shy to hide the indelible Marxist imprint, received in his formative years in Karachi, from reflecting in his approach to issues such as the collapse of housing market in the USA.

The police retaliated by opening fire on a group of students in front of Paradise Cinema in Saddar. Twenty-six students were killed. Nainsuk Lal, a boy-scout helping an injured striker, was the first fatal casualty. Several flags got soaked in blood. The public joined in the protest. The city was paralyzed and life came to a halt. All leaders of the opposition, trade unions and student groups condemned the police brutality ……. Writes Ehtisham in his account of the early days of the student movement in what was then the West-Pakistan. The venue was Karachi, the capital of Pakistan, and the protests were organized by the two year old Democratic Students Federation (DSF). Chapter 8 of the book highlights, and indeed dedicates the whole work to, the students’ movement in Pakistan. Ehtisham himself was intimately involved in founding and organization of another earliest politically aware students’ outfit in Pakistan National Students Federation (NSF) .

These student groups were to provide, in due course of time, some of the key ideologues and leaders of the political parties like the left-wing National Awami Party and the center-left Pakistan Peoples Party. Indeed the DSF would have among its ranks student leaders like Comrade Nazir Abbasi, who would be charged with “anti-state” activities by the civil-military bureaucracy of Pakistan and sent to gallows, thus making it the only students’ group in the history of Pakistan whose members were sentenced to death.

Ehtisham’s account of those heady days is incisive and absorbing but one finds it somewhat confined to the events in southern Pakistan. For example a statement that the student-wing of the Khudai Khidmatgar’s (Red-shirts) of the NWFP had been discredited post-independence is somewhat moot. There really wasn’t a student wing of the Red-shirts as such and their activities among the youth were organized under the aegis of Pakhtun Zalmay (The Young Pashtuns – compare and contrast with Komsomol). Pakhtun Students Federation on the campuses was a much later phenomenon.

Nevertheless, the details of the inception of the leftist student outfits are corroborated by other activists of the day such as Dr. S. Haroon Ahmed, Saleem Asmi and Mairaj Muhammad Khan. The fact that stands out about the DSF, when compared to other political movements before and after it, in the Indo-Pak subcontinent, is that it is the only group founded by medical doctors. Almost all other political groupings were started by lawyers or religious leaders.

A native Urdu-speaker himself, Ehtisham highlights the struggle of the Bengali students for the mother-language against a rather colonialist imposition of Urdu upon East-Pakistan. He notes with great pain but with obvious pride, the ultimate sacrifice by the Bengali students, including those from Dhaka Medical College, when twenty-five of them were killed by the Pakistani army on February 21, 1952. That day, is now observed as the International Mother Language Day throughout the world.

The book is a journey through four different civilizations and an analysis of three political economic systems. It is an engrossing story of the ancient civilization of India, forced to live side by side with a Turko-Persian and Arab Muslim civilization, and then reborn by way of vivisection as two modern nation-states. Ehtisham introduces his readers to the minimalistic culture of Indian village life mixed with the complexities involved, in the followers of two religions living live side by side. He takes us from the days of relative communal harmony and acceptance of diversity in the united India, through the British colonial policy of divide et impera to the culmination of religious fundamentalist indoctrination on September 11, 2001.

In providing the audience with a superb distillation of his lifetime's learning, Ehtisham evaluates the post-1947 nation-states struggling for their political, cultural and economic identity. As a doctor he makes acute observations about the impact of economic system of a country on its healthcare system and whether healthcare is a social service or a commodity.

Whereas it cannot be said that Ehtisham forewarned about the collapse of the US stock-market, he certainly did make the right observations – recorded no later than obviously the publication date of this work - about the bloodbath in the world financial markets and the writing on the Wall Street.

One must note that an occasional typographical error needs to be corrected in the future editions. For example, the number of students killed in Karachi was six, not twenty-six, the Dhaka students protest was fired upon on February 21 and not February 22, or that Shab e Bara’t is closer to Diwali, not Holi in its sub-continental character. Barring such minor omissions or the lack of a phonetic system for non-English words such as Na’na,da’da or Ashra’f , the book is a pleasantly easy read.

In a fast-paced style typical of the person Ehtisham talking to his disciples and colleagues, the author Ehtisham also keeps the readers trotting along through the pages packed with information, which a discerning eye might also find in the very informative footnotes. The book is a beginners’ guide to the Indo-Pakistani history, politics, religions and economics. Most, with some background in the Indo-Pakistani matters would hit the ground running, while for the western and the US readers it provides an opportunity to absorb the pointers given by Ehtisham and graduate to a more detailed reading of the subjects that interest them.

This examination by the medical doctor in a way is a rendition in prose, of Allama Iqbal’s poem “Iblees ke majlis e shura”, in which Lucifer juxtaposes different socio-economic systems like Socialism, Islam and Capitalism, and discusses the merits and de-merits of each , with his cohorts and advisers. Just as it is clear in the poem that Iqbal would make Islam come out on the top, it is fairly obvious that for Ehtisham the fall of neo-liberal capitalism is a foregone conclusion.

After following the author on his journeys through three continents, it is hard not to think of this verse by the poet-philosopher Mirza Abdul Qadir Baydil:

Har kuja raftam ghubar e zindagi derpaish bood

Ya rab een khaak e pareeshaan az kuja bardashtam

ہر کجا رفتم غبار زندگی درپيش بود
يا رب ايں خاک پريشاں ازکجا برداشتم

(Author teaches and practices Medicine at the University of Florida and can be reached at taqimd@gmail.com)

US risks overplaying hand with Pakistan strikes

ANALYSIS - US risks overplaying hand with Pakistan strikes
By Randall Mikkelsen, Reuters, October 30, 2008

WASHINGTON, Oct 30 (Reuters) - U.S. strikes at militants in Pakistan are stoking Islamabad's anger at a time analysts say the two countries must work more closely to fight militants in the region along the border with Afghanistan.

Pakistan's government summoned U.S. Ambassador Anne Peterson on Wednesday to protest missile strikes by pilotless aircraft in the border region. The protest came two days after a suspected U.S. drone fired missiles that killed up to 20 militants in that area.

"It was emphasized that such attacks were a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and should be stopped immediately," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in Islamabad.

The United States has shrugged off previous Pakistani protests, including over a raid by U.S. ground troops last month. It says the attacks are needed to protect U.S. troops in Afghanistan and kill Taliban and al Qaeda militants who threaten them.

But the Bush administration may have overplayed its hand by keeping up the attacks after elected President Asif Ali Zardari replaced resigned former U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf in September, analysts said.

"It is clear that the Bush-Musharraf strategy ... has only aggravated the crisis and the Taliban are in a stronger position today than before," said Hassan Abbas, a Harvard University researcher and former Pakistani legal official.

"Some major rethinking is in order," he said.

Said Thomas Houlahan, an analyst at the Center for Security and Science think tank: "If we had a plan to permanently alienate Pakistan, it couldn't be better than this."

The raids fuel an already high level of anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani public, which in turn puts pressure on the fledgling government.

"Washington D.C. needs to realize that the Musharraf era is over and the new democratic government needs public support for its actions," Abbas said.

STRIKES COUNTERPRODUCTVIE

Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, criticized what he called "impatient decision-makers" in Washington and said unilateral strikes are counterproductive.

"The new government does not need legitimacy through the war against terror. Its legitimacy comes from the vote it received from the people of Pakistan. Therefore, the new government has a different policy and a different outlook toward the war against terror," Haqqani said on PBS television's "Frontline" show Tuesday.

Pakistan is strategically essential to the United States, and provides key logistics routes into Afghanistan.

The government has little leverage to enforce its demands that the United States curb its attacks. Washington provides billions of dollars in economic assistance and the global financial crisis has hit Pakistan hard.

Nevertheless, greater communication between the two countries would help ease mistrust, analysts said.

"If they (cross-border attacks) are coordinated between the two sides, I think the government would understand and they would not be in a position where they are taken by surprise," former Pakistan Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said at the U.S. Institute of Peace this month.

The White House has promised this in the past, saying it was working to increase coordination. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, assured Pakistan in September it would respect Pakistan's sovereignty.

But that was followed by the ground raid, prompting Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood to complain of a U.S. "institutional disconnect."

Washington also needs to better reduce and apologize for civilian casualties caused by the strikes, said Karin Von Hillel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Both candidates to succeed President George W. Bush, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have indicated they would be willing to order strikes against militant leaders in Pakistan. Obama said the United States might have to act alone, while McCain emphasized working with the Pakistan government.

Obama has also called for a stronger relationship. "There is no alternative but to work with Pakistan," said Obama adviser John Brennan, who has held several senior intelligence positions. (Additional reporting by Paul Eckert; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Foreigners were the primary target of Marriott Bombers?

FIA finds foreigners were the target at Marriott
The News, October 30, 2008
By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: The authorities have identified the mastermind of the Marriott terrorist attack and have arrested some of his key accomplices, who have confirmed that the target of the deadly assault was the foreigners staying at the hotel.

The attackers reportedly belonged to Al-Badar, Harkat-e-Jihad-e-Islami and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi while the mastermind is a resident of Peshawar. So far the authorities do not have evidence of the involvement of al-Qaeda or Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan in the attack that killed more than 70, including four foreigners.

When approached, the DG Federal Investigations Agency Tariq Pervaiz, who is also the head of the joint investigation team probing the Marriott attack, confirmed to The News that the case had been solved.

He also admitted that it was also established that the target of the attack was foreigners staying at the Marriott. A senior Interior Ministry source also confided to this correspondent that the government had already been conveyed that the Marriott was chosen as the target for the worst ever suicide attack in the federal capital because of the presence of foreigners.

The investigations have rejected all the claims made by different government high-ups that the target of the attack was the political leadership of the country, the Parliament House or the Prime Minister House.

It was found in the probe that the mastermind of the terrorist attack, still at large, was a chemical engineer and resident of Peshawar. He belongs to Al-Badar group and executed his deadly plan with the participation of activists of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

The DG FIA when asked also confirmed these facts, adding that the arrest of the mastermind and one of his key facilitators from Faisalabad would possibly reveal more facts. Tariq Pervaiz was hesitant to disclose the names of the mastermind and his key facilitator for the reason that it might delay their arrest. He, however, hinted that in the near future the government might announce head money to apprehend them.

Amongst those already arrested include a medical doctor, Usman, from a leading private hospital of Islamabad who was privy to the whole terrorist plot. The probe revealed that the deadly truck carrying explosive and driven by the suicide bomber, used the Margalla Road to reach the Constitution Avenue from where it took a right turn to hit the Marriott Hotel. The mastermind, riding in a red Toyota Vitz, piloted the suicide truck till the fatal vehicle took the right turn.

It was also learnt that the mastermind and some of his key facilitators were regular visitors to the Marriott Hotel where they had occasionally observed the presence of foreigners. A source said that even on the day of the attack, one of the collaborators visited the Marriott and reconfirmed the presence of foreigners. The authorities have established that the cause of the attack was the presence of foreign nationals.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A New Deal for Pakistan?

view: A new deal — Brain Cloughley
Daily Times, October 29, 2008

There are many approach avenues, and there are plenty of clever people in Pakistan who can choose the best ones. Let them be given free rein to do so, because Pakistan can rise on the skills of its people — or it can fall and fail if their potential is not properly developed

I arrived in Pakistan last week, on the day that India launched a rocket to the moon. On the way from the airport there was the normal traffic chaos compounded by ineffective security checkpoints, and on arrival in Islamabad there was a power cut. India appeared to be shining while Pakistan looked dark.

When I went to the Rawalpindi bazaars the atmosphere was bleak. Shopkeepers, some of them friends of almost thirty years, were not so much complaining as gloomily despondent. The price of staple foods was rising and the amount of shop trade was falling. The spectre of terrorism didn’t seem to present as much of a threat as the close and very personal one of actual privation. Where would it all end was the feeling. And no answer came.

The newspapers recorded further strife in the Frontier. There was a major ambush of a supply convoy in Swat, killing several Frontier Corps soldiers, and continuing operations in Bajaur. There were riots in Lahore over power cuts and excessive electricity charges. It seemed that the rupee was declining in value by the hour, and the International Monetary Fund, that fixer of last resort, was crafting a plan to help Pakistan out of its financial crisis.

This seemed to be shades of Britain in 1976 when the government had to call in the IMF in the middle of a similar financial predicament. As the BBC noted at the time “By the autumn, the pound was indeed plunging and the government called in the International Monetary Fund, the body co-founded by the UK to tackle economic crises. The IMF demanded massive public spending cuts in return for urgently needed loans.” There was, as in Pakistan at the moment, much despair and depression.

There came to my memory a chat I had with an army chief many years ago. A most likeable man, he had just returned from a visit to Malaysia and Singapore and came to a small dinner party in my house. He was not his usual outgoing happy self, and after dinner I asked him what was wrong, because he had told me the visit went well, so it couldn’t have been anything to do with his trip that had affected his spirits. He sighed unhappily and said that even though the visit had been excellent, there was one thing that was nagging at him. He had been shown a great many sights in Malaysia, and had been most impressed. He was equally admiring the lot of ordinary people, having had briefings from the high commission on this aspect. And he sighed again, and said “what really upsets me is that we could have been like that.”

He wasn’t being critical of the then government in Pakistan, he said, because it had been democratically elected and was no doubt doing what it could to improve the country’s economy, infrastructure, and social programmes. What concerned him was the fact that so many years had been wasted — which was an implied criticism of the years of military involvement in the country’s governance.

For complete article, click here

As America votes Pakistanis cast a wary eye: Maliha Lodhi

As America votes Pakistanis cast a wary eye
The News, October 29, 2008
Maleeha Lodhi

When the moderator in the vice-presidential debate earlier this month asked whether a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan posed a greater threat to the United States, neither Joe Biden nor Sarah Palin cared to take issue with the question. Nor did they point out that one of the two countries happened to be a longstanding friend of America.

Attitudes like this explain why, for all the attention the election campaign is receiving in Pakistan's media, many people are viewing it with deep cynicism. Indeed more and more Pakistanis believe that it won't make much of a difference whoever wins because the domineering American approach that they have become accustomed to, and dislike, is unlikely to change. This mood of cynicism has been reinforced by the latest dip in ties between the two countries. Dramatic ups and downs are a familiar feature in a relationship, historically characterized by almost predictable cycles of engagement and estrangement.

The new low comes in the wake of increasing cross-border incursions by US forces into Pakistan's border zones, where Washington believes a reconstituted Al Qaeda is now ensconced. These attacks have inflamed public opinion and evoked protest across the board. And for all Washington's public assurances about respecting Pakistani sovereignty, missile strikes have continued. This has only intensified questioning of Pakistan's support for the US-led war on terror, as evidenced in the recent debate during the special session of parliament.

For the Pakistani public the utterances of the two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama have neither been reassuring nor substantially different from each other, when it comes to how to deal with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both seemed to have vied with the other to demonstrate that they will come down harder on so-called terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, without however outlining a strategy on how they might elicit the consent and cooperation of Islamabad.

This tough talk may simply be campaign rhetoric, but it reflects for many Pakistanis a disturbing continuity with the approach of the Bush Administration, especially in its twilight months. People in Pakistan have also followed with great dismay the debates in which the candidates have shown a remarkable lack of understanding, much less appreciation, of the human and political price that Pakistan has paid for being a frontline state.

The most common Pakistani perception of the US today is that it is a self-centred power that shows little concern for the interests of other nations, and uses and discards its allies according to the demands of the moment. Historical experience testifies to this view. Relations between the United States have been episodic and transactional, driven by shifts in Washington's geopolitical interests, and never really regarded by the American side as intrinsically important.

For all this, Pakistanis recognize that the US will continue to be Pakistan's most critical bilateral relationship - other than China - even if they disagree whether or not the renewed focus on their region promised by both Presidential hopefuls, is a good thing or not. This in turn determines what expectations they have of the next president.

A key challenge for the new administration will be how to repair its image and standing in a country that is regarded as so critical to regional and global security. The way the US is perceived can, after all, affect the amount and quality of cooperation it can get from a Pakistani government. For example, the swift humanitarian assistance the US delivered after the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan helped at the time to change public views of America in a positive way. It underlined that it is not impossible to trump cynicism with a generous dose of altruistic medicine.

What Pakistanis would like to see above all is the US radically overhaul its strategy in the region, as the firm consensus is that present policy has failed. Instead of enhancing Pakistan's security and that of Afghanistan, Washington's militaristic approach has widened the conflagration. It has pushed the conflict deeper into the Pakistani heartland, destabilizing the country. Current US policy, with its over reliance on the military approach, has multiplied enemies and spread radicalization. If this is continued, it risks submerging the region in a whirlpool of chaos and anarchy and mire Washington in a war without end.

A new strategy is needed that is truly holistic, and one that relies more on soft rather than hard power. The first step is for the United States to redefine its goals. So far Washington's objectives have been so expansively framed and pursued as to make them unachievable. It has been trying to do several things simultaneously; eliminate terrorists, defeat the Taliban, transform Afghan society and take on tribal chiefs and traditions. This has resulted in a growing fusion between Pashtun nationalism and Muslim radicalism. It has also stoked the impression that the very presence of the US in the region is a threat to the Islamic way of life.

The United States should instead shift emphasis to political accommodation and development to win hearts and minds. Political solutions should replace bombing campaigns and efforts launched to bring the Taliban into a reconciliation process.

It also needs to demonstrate in deeds not words that it cares about the well-being of the Pakistani people beyond the elimination of terrorism and that it is willing to help in ways that Pakistanis want. Pakistan's stability depends not just on containing extremism and militancy but on strengthening the economy and on addressing its long running adversarial relationship with India.

The US needs to change the way it thinks about aid. All too often aid has been seen by Capitol Hill as a quid pro quo with Pakistan expected to deliver on what Washington wants in prosecuting the so-called war on terror. This has two problems. First it ascribes to the rather modest aid a salutary impact that ordinary Pakistanis have simply not experienced. Second it offends national sensibilities, as purely transactional relationships are seen to be devoid of principles and shared objectives.

Economic help should be construed more in trade terms than in aid. A transformative step would be to give Pakistan's clothing and textiles--the lifeblood of the economy-- access to the American market on a preferential tariff, in line with other countries from the developing world. Or waive tariffs altogether for a specified period. Increased trade and exports create jobs and durable income. Aid usually does neither.

The US also needs to overcome its traditional reluctance to become involved in the subcontinent's disputes. It should launch a diplomatic initiative aimed at reaching a broad accommodation between India and Pakistan, including a resolution of the 61 year old Kashmir issue. This would help shift the Pakistan army's focus from a conventional threat from India, long its overarching priority, to counter-insurgency.

For most Pakistanis however, the litmus test of the next American administration will be whether it is prepared to treat Pakistan with respect. In the final analysis this intangible may count for as much as finding the right mix of trade and aid that goes beyond advancing America's own interest. If there is a consensus in Pakistan about future dealings with the US, it is that the advent of a new Administration will offer a window of opportunity for Islamabad to recalibrate relations with Washington on the basis of national honour, respect and reciprocity. If the new American president could understand that, it would be a major step forward for such a critical relationship.

The writer is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics and a former envoy to the US and the UK. This was adapted from a commentary broadcast on the BBC

Monday, October 27, 2008

Developments in FATA and NWFP

Hope and fear in NWFP
The News, October 28, 2008
Khalid Aziz

FATA and the NWFP are in the midst of "interesting times." According to the Chinese such periods are unstable and bring a whirlpool of difficulties. Pakistan has entered a sinkhole of problems and will need adroit handling to prevent a further slide.

When Pakistan joined the war on terrorism in 2001 it conceived an impractical game plan of trying to play two contradictions against each other. Gen Musharraf had prevailed on the US to accept a policy of more lenient handling of the Afghan Taliban by military and intelligence operations inside Pakistan, compared to a more coercive treatment of foreigners and al-Qaeda. This policy was implemented by Gen Musharraf to keep intact the goodwill of the Pakhtun political forces in Afghanistan as an asset to balance the increasing influence of India, as well to avert the ethnic backlash of the Pakhtuns in FATA and the NWFP in sympathy for Afghan Pakhtuns.

As the US pressure increased on the Afghan Taliban inside Afghanistan they needed to create a new centre of gravity to prevent their movement from falling apart. Pakistan's duality regarding the Taliban came in handy and they turned the Pakistani strategy on its head and entered the political and military space in FATA, the NWFP and Balochistan from 2002. This was the period when many Taliban who fled the war in Afghanistan found refuge inside Pakistan. Pakistani ambivalence in dealing with this problem within its territory has come in for a lot of criticism from the US; this soft policy has been considered collusive and used as a proof of secret dealings between the militants and Pakistani intelligence services.

For complete article, click here

Also See:
New policy in FATA - Ayaz Wazir
U.S. AirStrike Kills 20 People in Pakistan - New York Times
US refrains from making ground raids into Pakistan: report- AFP
Pak-Afghan jirga for joint efforts against terror: Reconciliation, talks vital for lasting success: Qureshi

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Al-Qaeda and McCain Presidency

The Endorsement From Hell
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times, October 26, 2008

John McCain isn’t boasting about a new endorsement, one of the very, very few he has received from overseas. It came a few days ago:

“Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,” read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and often disseminates the group’s propaganda.

The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda’s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated.

“The transcendent challenge of our time [is] the threat of radical Islamic terrorism,” Senator McCain said in a major foreign policy speech this year, adding, “Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House.”

That’s a widespread conservative belief. Mitt Romney compared the threat of militant Islam to that from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Some conservative groups even marked “Islamofascism Awareness Week” earlier this month.

Yet the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.

“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,” said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

During the cold war, the American ideological fear of communism led us to mistake every muddle-headed leftist for a Soviet pawn. Our myopia helped lead to catastrophe in Vietnam.

In the same way today, an exaggerated fear of “Islamofascism” elides a complex reality and leads us to overreact and damage our own interests. Perhaps the best example is one of the least-known failures in Bush administration foreign policy: Somalia.

For complete article, click here

Marriott blast accused make ‘startling revelations’

Marriott blast accused make ‘startling revelations’
Daily Times, October 26, 2008

LAHORE: The Marriott hotel blast accused have made startling revelations during interrogation, Samaa TV reported on Saturday

They said that in winters they would go to Dubai and other Arab countries to earn money and return to Pakistan in summers to carry out jihadist activities.

According to the channel, during the investigation, the accused said that all of them were well educated, adding that their group also included some doctors and engineers. Most of the accused belong to Charsadda and Mardan while the one who financed the attack and made residential arrangements for the accused hailed from Faisalabad. daily times monitor

Pakistan Blind to the Taliban Threat?

ANALYSIS: Blind to the threat — Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
Daily Times, October 26, 2008
If the Taliban agenda was nothing more than the expulsion of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan their efforts to expand their domain to some of the settled districts of the NWFP makes no sense. And what is the justification of the sectarian violence in Kurram Agency?

The government and major opposition parties are euphoric over the unanimous passage of the resolution on militancy in the tribal areas during the joint session of parliament. They think that they have evolved a credible approach to dealing with the insurgency and its violent fallout in mainland Pakistan.

The government is pleased with the resolution because it can easily project this development as an indication of growing political harmony among Pakistan’s diverse political actors. Opposition parties had initially used the joint session to build pressure on the government. The PMLN leadership, for instance, criticised the government for its refusal to honour the commitment to restore all superior court judges through an executive order. The government also faced criticism for its inability to halt the current economic downslide. The unanimous resolution eases some pressure on the government for the time being.

For complete article, click here

Saturday, October 25, 2008

GOOD OMEN FOR SOUTH ASIA: India to support Pakistan in getting IMF help: Manmohan Singh

India to support Pakistan in getting IMF help: Manmohan Singh
The News, October 26, 2008

NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that Pakistan is in serious difficulties, adding we want to see a strong and successful democratic government in Pakistan.

He said, “India will support Pakistan government's effort to tide over a serious financial crunch by backing Islamabad's plan to seek help from the IMF.”

"I wish the new democratic government in Pakistan well. We would like them to succeed," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, a day after he had a one-on-one meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Chinese capital Beijing.

"Pakistan is in serious difficulties and is going to the IMF. We will support Pakistan getting help from the IMF," Singh told reporters who accompanied him on his visit to Japan and China.

Singh said he and Gilani discussed "all issues having a bearing on our bilateral relations and I would say that there was a near complete meeting of mind." However, Singh remained skeptical whether the new government in Islamabad can keep its promises.

During his meeting with Chinese Premier Hu Juntao, both countries agreed to achieve the trade target of $60 billion by 2010. They also expressed their willingness to launch a joint effort against terrorism.

Also See:
India will back Pakistan’s request for IMF assistance - The Hindu
Gilani and Singh pledge to combat terrorism - Dawn
Time and Money Running Out for Pakistan - TIME

Friday, October 24, 2008

Pakistan's Westward Drift By Pervez Hoodbhoy

Pakistan's Westward Drift By Pervez Hoodbhoy
September 09, 2008; Himal South Asian

'Alif' is for Allah
'Bay' is for bundooq (gun)
'Hay' is for hijab
'Jeem' is for jihad
'Tay' is for takrao (collision)
'Zal' is for zunoob (sin)


For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian Peninsula. This continental drift is not geophysical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its Southasian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the alluvium that had nurtured Muslim culture in the Indian Subcontinent for over a thousand years. A stern, unyielding version of Islam - Wahhabism - is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis and saints.

This drift is by design. Twenty-five years ago, the Pakistani state pushed Islam onto its people. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory; floggings were carried out publicly; punishments were meted out to those who did not fast during Ramadan; selection for academic posts required that the candidates demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and the jihad was emphasised as essential for every Muslim. Today, such government intervention is no longer needed due to the spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. The notion of an Islamic state - as yet in some amorphous and diffused form - is more popular than ever before, as people look desperately for miracles to rescue a failing state. Across the country, there has been a spectacular increase in the power and prestige of the clerics, attendance in mosques, home prayer meetings (dars and zikr), observance of special religious festivals, and fasting during Ramadan.

Villages have changed drastically, driven in part by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other Muslims who they do not consider to be Muslims. Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than were the Pashtuns, are now beginning to embrace the line of thought resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law (from one of the four schools of thought or jurisprudence within Sunni Islam) has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law.

Among the Pakistani lower-middle and middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement (which can be called 'Saudi-isation') that frowns upon every form of joyous expression. Lacking any positive connection to culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate 'corruption' by strictly regulating cultural life and seizing absolute control of the education system. "Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan; the sarangi and vichtarveena are completely dead," laments Mohammad Shehzad, a student of music. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is vehemently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba, religious fundamentalists who consider music haram. Kathak dancing, once popular among the Muslim elite of India, has no teachers left in Pakistan, and the feature films produced in the country are of next to no consequence. Meanwhile the Pakistani elites, disconnected from the rest of the population, comfortably live their lives through their vicarious proximity to the West.

School militarism

More than a quarter-century after the state-sponsored Islamisation of the country, the state in Pakistan is itself under attack from religious militants, and rival Islamic groups battle each other with heavy weapons. Ironically, the same army - whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad, and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - today stands accused of betrayal, and is targeted by Islamist suicide bombers on an almost daily basis. The militancy that bedevils Pakistan is by no means confined to the tribal areas; it breeds feverishly in the cities as well. Pakistan's self-inflicted suffering comes from an education system that propagates the jihad culture, which ceaselessly demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, designed to create in the minds of the school child a sense of siege and embattlement.

The process begins early. For example, the government-approved curriculum of a Class V Social Studies textbook prescribes that the child should be able to "Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat", and "Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan." The material placed before the Pakistani schoolchild has remained largely unchanged even after the attacks of 11 September 2001, which led to Pakistan's abrupt desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jihad. Indeed, for all the talk of 'enlightened moderation', then-General Pervez Musharraf's educational curriculum, passed down with some dilution from the time of Zia ul- Haq, was far from enlightening. Fearful of taking on powerful religious forces, every incumbent government has refused to take a position on the curriculum. Thus, successive administrations have quietly allowed the young minds to be moulded by fanatics.

As such, the promotion of militarism in Pakistan's schools, colleges and universities has had a profound effect on young people. Militant jihad has become a part of the culture in college and university campuses, with armed groups inviting students for jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The primary vehicle for 'Saudi-ising' Pakistan's education has been the madrassa. During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, madrassas provided the US-Saudi-Pakistan alliance that recruits needed for fighting a 'holy' war. Earlier on, this role had been limited to turning out the occasional Islamic scholar, using a curriculum dating back to the 11th century with minor subsequent revisions. The principal function of the madrassas had been to produce imams and muezzins for mosques.

The Afghan jihad changed everything. Under Zia, with active assistance from Saudi Arabia, madrassas sprang up across the length and breadth of Pakistan, and now number about 22,000. The free room, board and supplies provided to students has always constituted a key part of the appeal to join these madrassas. But the desire of parents across the country for their children to be 'disciplined', and to be given a thorough 'Islamic' education, is also a major contributing factor.

One of the chief goals of the Islamists is to bring about a complete separation of the sexes, the consequences of which have been catastrophic. Take the tragic example of the stampede in a madrassa in Karachi in April 2006, in which 21 women and eight children were crushed to death, and scores more injured; all the while, male rescuers were prevented from assisting. Likewise, after the October 2005 earthquake, as this writer walked through the destroyed city of Balakot, a student of the Frontier Medical College described how he and his male colleagues were stopped by religious elders from digging out injured girls from under the rubble of their school building.

The drive to segregate the sexes is now also influencing educated women. Vigorous proselytisers of this message, such as Farhat Hashmi - one of the most influential contemporary Muslim scholars, or ulema, particularly in Pakistan, the UK and the US - have become massively successful, and have been catapulted to heights of fame and fortune. Two decades ago, the fully veiled student was a rarity on any university or college campus in Pakistan. Abaya was once an unknown word in Urdu, but today many shops in Islamabad specialise in these dreary robes, which cover the entire body except the face, feet and hands. At colleges and universities across Pakistan, female students are today seeking the anonymity of the burqa, outnumbering their sisters who still dare to show their faces.

The immediate future of Pakistan looks grim, as increasing numbers of mullahs are creating cults around themselves and seizing control over the minds of their worshippers. In the tribal areas, a string of new Islamist leaders have suddenly emerged - Baituallah Mehsud, Fazlullah, Mangal Bagh and Haji Namdar among others - feeding on the environment of poverty, deprivation, lack of justice, and extreme
disparities in wealth.

In the long term, Pakistan's future will be determined by the ideological and political battle between citizens who want an Islamist theocratic state, and citizens who want a modern Islamic republic. It may yet be possible to roll back the Islamist laws and institutions that have corroded Pakistani society for over 30 years, and defeat the 'holy' warriors. However, this can only happen if Pakistan's elected leaders acquire the trust of the citizens. To do this, political parties, government officials and, yes, even generals will have to embrace democracy, in both word and deed.

Pervez Hoodbhoy is a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad.

CNN Commentary: Candidates should seek votes of Muslim-Americans

Commentary: Candidates should seek votes of Muslim-Americans
By Nafees A. Syed
Special to CNN, October 24, 2008

Story Highlights
Nafees Syed: Candidates are courting voters like Joe the Plumber
Syed: They should reach out to Muslim-Americans, who feel shunned
Obama may not be Muslim, but he should campaign for their votes, she says
Syed: I applaud Gen. Colin Powell for recognizing we are Americans, too


Editor's note: Nafees A. Syed, a junior at Harvard University majoring in government, is an editorial editor at The Harvard Crimson as well as a senior editor and columnist for the Harvard-MIT journal on Islam and society, Ascent. She is chairwoman of the Harvard Institute of Politics Policy Group on Racial Profiling. She grew up in Atlanta, Georgia.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- During this election, we have seen the spectacle of two presidential candidates fighting over one voter while snubbing an entire segment of the American population worthy of their attention.

We in the Muslim-American community look wistfully at people like Joe the Plumber, wishing that we too could be courted for our vote by the presidential candidates.

At the same time, we look gratefully at figures like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who reassure us that there is hope for greater acceptance of Muslim-Americans.

Over time, we grew to expect standoffish treatment from the Republican Party. Almost a decade ago, many Muslims, my parents included, supported President Bush for his humble foreign policy stances, strong family values and reaching out to the Muslim-American community.

Things have obviously changed since September 11, 2001, and we have grown used to anti-Muslim rhetoric from Republican candidates. We have run like refugees to the Democratic Party, only to find reluctant tolerance and hope that we will go somewhere else.

American civil rights activist and intellectual W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, "[The American Negro] simply wishes it possible to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly on his face."

Over a century later, I and many other Muslim-Americans feel the same, hoping that we can be accepted in America as both Muslims and Americans.

As a college student voting in my first presidential election, I have been inspired by Barack Obama's call for change. My campus is full of Obama posters, and several of my classmates have taken time off to work for his campaign.

There is no doubt Obama has the Harvard vote, but my vote will not be cast as enthusiastically as others.

This campaign means to me what it means for my classmates. In the next few years, the economy and American foreign policy will affect my generation unlike any other, and those concerns are the primary influences on my vote.

However, as a Muslim-American, I see some issues as more personal. I don't blame Obama for clarifying that he isn't a Muslim; if someone misidentified my religion, I would likewise point out the facts, especially if it was part of a larger smear campaign. However, as the first Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison stated, "A lot of us are waiting for him to say that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way."

Indeed, Obama's responses to accusations that he is Muslim should be more than just denial; they should be a condemnation of the prejudices that lace such accusations.

When I discuss this issue with fellow Muslim-Americans, especially ones who have dedicated significant time to his campaign, I immediately hear that he's just doing what he needs to do to win.

I respond skeptically to these arguments. Is it really politically necessary for Obama to avoid visiting mosques -- something that President Bush has dared to do -- while rallying support from churches and synagogues? Doesn't his careful distance from the Muslim-American community contradict his message of unity?

Still, others, my parents included, advise that it is best that we as Muslim-Americans avoid marring his campaign with our visible support at a time when any connection with Muslims would jeopardize his chances of winning. They reason that we have to politically isolate ourselves for the better candidate to win, a sacrifice we should make for our country.

I am unwilling to feign political apathy. All I want is for one of the candidates to assure me and the American public that "Muslim" and "American" are not mutually exclusive terms.

Colin Powell's recent interview with Tom Brokaw has left me with some hope. He highlights the flaw in the question of Obama's religion with the answer, "he is not a Muslim; he's a Christian. ... But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."

To prove his point, Gen. Powell recounted the story of Purple Heart- and Bronze Star-winning Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, an American soldier in Iraq who sacrificed his life for his country. He represents a Muslim-American community that is dedicated to its country and worthy of the presidential candidates' attention and respect.

It is a tribute to Gen. Powell's own dedication to his country that he would take note of the treatment of Muslim-Americans during the elections.

Thanks, Gen. Powell. You said the words that Muslim-Americans around the country were waiting to hear.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nafees Syed.

Defence as a public good - Ayesha Siddiqa

Defence as a public good
By Ayesha Siddiqa, Dawn, October 24, 2008

THE Pakistan Institute for Legislative Development and Training just held an international conference on civil-military relations in Lahore.

The institute put in a lot of effort bringing people from Turkey and Indonesia to talk about their experiences. One wishes they had also invited people from Bangladesh and Latin America to deepen the international flavour of the conference. Also, while there were quite a few PML-N parliamentarians present, the PPP was conspicuous by its absence. Even if provincial assembly members had attended the conference it might have given them a few ideas about the future of civil-military relations in the world, especially in Pakistan.

But perhaps the ruling regime thinks that it knows all or the issue is not a priority for the government. After all, some of the foreign-based Pakistani advisers of the present government tag civil-military relations as one of the lowest-priority issues.

The conference was refreshing in terms of the atmosphere and location. The audience in Lahore was involved in the discussion, improving the quality of debate. It was certainly exciting to see real people amongst the audience rather than the usual retired diplomats, bureaucrats and military officers who are abundant in seminars held in Islamabad. For their part, the Lahoris seem to have enjoyed the discussion including a debate on the army’s role, which has remained taboo for so many years. Thanks to the revolution in information technology and advancements in the media, military or civilian dictators now find it difficult to gag information and debate beyond a certain point.

It is hoped that things will improve further despite the one rather tense moment during the two-day conference. A bunch of retired army officers including one retired lieutenant general created a ruckus in protest against what they considered to be criticism of the armed forces. Like uncontrolled and ill-mannered children these grown-up men shouted for an opportunity to speak despite having had the chance to do so from the rostrum for a day and a half. In fact, the above-mentioned lieutenant general was one of the keynote speakers in the earlier session in which he had castigated political and military governments for their treatment of Balochistan. However, when it came to a rather academic discussion of the military he stood up and behaved in a manner contrary to what the organisation points to with such pride — discipline.

After seeing the attack launched by a few retired officers, one wondered what the retired brigadier meant when he proposed that military dictators or usurpers of power should be tried under Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution. Will they actually allow this to happen if they can’t stand a discussion?

One of the latest arguments in defence of the army is, why blame the entire institution for the fault of a few at the top? Such an argument is flawed on two counts. First, it ignores the fact that the military is a disciplined force and orders flow from the top and everyone in the hierarchy is meant to carry out every decision taken at the top. This could be an order to overthrow a civilian regime, usurp power or attack an enemy. Second, all personnel own the decision of the superior management. Those who differ with the policy to usurp power either speak out, for which they are phased out of the armed forces, or resign. Those who remain behind are partners in the decision as they share the benefits of being in the organisation.

The principle of individual morality and capacity to take independent decisions was upheld during the Nuremberg trials. During the trials of numerous general officers in Hitler’s army, the court disregarded their argument that they were merely carrying out orders and only the highest command was responsible for the decision to kill millions of innocent people. What about human conscience and the ability to differentiate between what is wrong and immoral and what is right and good for the community of human beings?

The above discussion dovetails into the larger question of defence as a public good. The state and society are bound in a social contract to provide for the military by accepting that defence is a public good and so part of the necessary expenditure of the state. That expenditure is financed by compulsory taxation, which is meant to pay for services provided to all. According to this definition, the people or the state cannot dismiss the military. Instead they have ownership of the institution.

This leads to another vital issue: when is defence a public good and when does it cease to be one? Defence is a public good so long as it is beneficial to the general public. When its benefits are restricted to a few hundred or thousand people, then it ceases to be a public good, which must be provided for all. Military officers are bound by their conscience and links with society and the state to judge what decisions are harmful to the state and society and what are not. In the case of the Second World War, the German officers and officials that killed innocent civilians were not providing public good but indulging in their own craving for power.

Establishing the principle of defence as a public good is also tied to the unwritten social contract between the state and society on the one hand and the state and the military on the other. The problem with mercenary militaries was that their personnel were tied to a social contract with those providing resources for the upkeep of the forces. In Europe this changed with the post-French revolution military which became a national armed force.

The people of Napoleon Bonaparte’s army were French citizens responsible for providing security as a public good for which they were remunerated and equipped as well. Whether the state wanted to expand its sphere of control to other territories, and thus create space for French commerce, or merely defend against a foreign army were objectives left to the political leadership that was responsible for organising resources for the armed forces.

The problem with some modern-day militaries, including Pakistan’s, is that the social contract which defines defence as a public good has been weakened because of the autonomy of the military and its independence in raising resources. Since the 1950s, the military has sought and received money from the US. So while the Suhrawardy and Bogra governments were keen to reduce defence spending, there was very little they could do in terms of reining in the autonomy of the army, which by then had established its independent channel of communication with Washington. The refurbishment of equipment, especially quality weapons, depended upon America which made military generals more independent in defining their priorities. Since then, no one has been able to put the genie back in the bottle.

At this juncture, it is vital for the nation to engage in debate on defence and to ensure that it serves the public good, if it doesn’t do so already.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

Also See:
INSIGHT: Military and or military as public good? —Ejaz Haider - Daily times, Oct. 24,2008

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Moved by a Crescent

Moved by a Crescent
By MAUREEN DOWD, New York Times, October 22, 2008

Colin Powell had been bugged by many things in his party's campaign this fall: the insidious merging of rumors that Barack Obama was Muslim with intimations that he was a terrorist sympathizer; the assertion that Sarah Palin was ready to be president; the uniformed sheriff who introduced Governor Palin by sneering about Barack Hussein Obama; the scorn with which Republicans spit out the words "community organizer"; the Republicans' argument that using taxes to "spread the wealth" was socialist when the purpose of taxes is to spread the wealth; Palin's insidious notion that small towns in states that went for W. were "the real America."

But what sent him over the edge and made him realize he had to speak out was when he opened his New Yorker three weeks ago and saw a picture of a mother pressing her head against the gravestone of her son, a 20-year-old soldier who had been killed in Iraq. On the headstone were engraved his name, Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, his awards — the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star — and a crescent and a star to denote his Islamic faith.

"I stared at it for an hour," he told me. "Who could debate that this kid lying in Arlington with Christian and Jewish and nondenominational buddies was not a fine American?"

Khan was an all-American kid. A 2005 graduate of Southern Regional High School in Manahawkin, N.J., he loved the Dallas Cowboys and playing video games with his 12-year-old stepsister, Aliya.

His obituary in The Star-Ledger of Newark said that he had sent his family back pictures of himself playing soccer with Iraqi children and hugging a smiling young Iraqi boy.

His father said Kareem had been eager to enlist since he was 14 and was outraged by the 9/11 attacks. "His Muslim faith did not make him not want to go," Feroze Khan, told The Gannett News Service after his son died. "He looked at it that he's American and he has a job to do."

In a gratifying "have you no sense of decency, Sir and Madam?" moment, Colin Powell went on "Meet the Press" on Sunday and talked about Khan, and the unseemly ways John McCain and Palin have been polarizing the country to try to get elected. It was a tonic to hear someone push back so clearly on ugly innuendo.

Even the Obama campaign has shied away from Muslims. The candidate has gone to synagogues but no mosques, and the campaign was embarrassed when it turned out that two young women in headscarves had not been allowed to stand behind Obama during a speech in Detroit because aides did not want them in the TV shot.

The former secretary of state has dealt with prejudice in his life, in and out of the Army, and he is keenly aware of how many millions of Muslims around the world are being offended by the slimy tenor of the race against Obama.

He told Tom Brokaw that he was troubled by what other Republicans, not McCain, had said: " 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no. That's not America. Is something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

Powell got a note from Feroze Khan this week thanking him for telling the world that Muslim-Americans are as good as any others. But he also received more e-mails insisting that Obama is a Muslim and one calling him "unconstitutional and unbiblical" for daring to support a socialist. He got a mass e-mail from a man wanting to spread the word that Obama was reading a book about the end of America written by a fellow Muslim.

"Holy cow!" Powell thought. Upon checking Amazon.com, he saw that it was a reference to Fareed Zakaria, a Muslim who writes a Newsweek column and hosts a CNN foreign affairs show. His latest book is "The Post-American World."

Powell is dismissive of those, like Rush Limbaugh, who say he made his endorsement based on race. And he's offended by those who suggest that his appearance Sunday was an expiation for Iraq, speaking up strongly now about what he thinks the world needs because he failed to do so then.

Even though he watched W. in 2000 make the argument that his lack of foreign policy experience would be offset by the fact that he was surrounded by pros — Powell himself was one of the regents brought in to guide the bumptious Texas dauphin — Powell makes that same argument now for Obama.

"Experience is helpful," he says, "but it is judgment that matters."

Consensus Anti-Terrorism Resolution in Pakistan Parliament

Historic 14-point anti-terrorism resolution adopted unanimously :

Nation united against terrorism: parliament
* Dialogue will be primary instrument of conflict resolution
* Redistribution of resources to resolve Balochistan violence
* Civil agencies will replace military in troubled areas
* Compensation for violence victims, rehabilitation for the displaced

By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal, Daily times, October 23, 2008

ISLAMABAD: In a historic resolution on Wednesday, the parliament said the Pakistani nation was united against terrorism and sectarian violence and would tackle the problem by addressing its root causes.

The 14-point resolution, drafted after two days of rigorous negotiations, was passed unanimously. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani moved the resolution, which he said would serve as policy guideline to the government in framing a national security strategy.

“Extremism, militancy and terrorism in all forms and manifestations pose a grave danger to the stability and integrity of the country,” the resolution said. “Dictatorial regimes in the past pursued policies aimed at perpetuating their own power at the cost of national interest. “We need an urgent review of our national security strategy and revisiting the methodology of combating terrorism in order to restore peace and stability to Pakistan and the region through an independent foreign policy.”

Dialogue: The parliament decided that “dialogue must now be the highest priority, as a principal instrument of conflict management and resolution”, but also said talks would only “be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the constitution of Pakistan and rule of law”.

The legislators decided that all foreign fighters, “if found, shall be expelled from Pakistan’s soil”.

The parliament vowed that Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be safeguarded. “The nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively,” the resolution said, but added: “Pakistan’s territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries.”

They also decided that “the development of troubled zones, particularly the Tribal Areas, and the NWFP must also be pursued through all possible ways and legitimate means to create genuine stakeholders in peace. New economic opportunities shall be created in order to bring the less privileged areas at par with the rest of Pakistan”.

Balochistan: On the problem in Balochistan, the resolution called for “a political dialogue with the people, addressing of their grievances and redistribution of resources shall be enhanced and accelerated”.

It said the federation must be strengthened “through the process of democratic pluralism, social justice, religious values and tolerance, and equitable resource sharing between the provinces as enshrined in the Constitution of 1973”.

Military: The state must ensure rule of law, the unanimous resolution said, and “when it has to intervene to protect the lives of its citizens, caution must be exercised to avoid casualties of non-combatants in conflict zones”. The legislators demanded that military be replaced with civilian law enforcement agencies in the conflict zones as early as possible, “with enhanced capacity and a sustainable political system achieved through a consultative process”.

The state must establish its writ, they demanded, but through “confidence building mechanisms by using customary and local [jirgas]”. Pakistan’s strategic interests must be protected “by developing stakes in regional peace and trade, both on the western and eastern borders”.

Compensation and rehabilitation: The parliament decided that the “mechanisms for internal security be institutionalised by paying compensation to victims of violence; and rehabilitate those displaced”.

The parliament also decided to form a committee to periodically review “the implementation of the principles framed and roadmap given in the resolution”. The committee will frame its own rules when it meets.

Also see:
Pakistan lawmakers urge security strategy review - International Herald Tribune
Parliament's role in fighting terror - Nasim Zehra, The News

What Colin Powell Also Said

What Colin Powell Also Said
His comments on Muslims in America bear repeating -- and repeating.
Washington Post, October 21, 2008; A16

NATURALLY, WHAT garnered the most attention on the day after former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama was its political significance. But we hope that another message that Mr. Powell tucked into his endorsement isn't forgotten.

Like many people before him, Mr. Powell rebuked those who have spread or fed the rumor that Mr. Obama is Muslim, and like many before him Mr. Powell reiterated that the story is false -- that Mr. Obama is and always has been a Christian.

Mr. Powell then took the issue an important step further. "But the really right answer," Mr. Powell continued on NBC's "Meet the Press," "is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

When a supporter at a rally told Sen. John McCain that his opponent couldn't be trusted because he is an "Arab," Mr. McCain responded, "No, ma'am, he's a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." A good answer as far as it went, but incomplete; what was missing was, "And what if he were Arab American? Is there any reason an Arab American shouldn't be president of this country?" Nor has it been easy for the Obama campaign to knock down the rumors without seeming to give credence to the idea that the rumors, if true, would be somehow disqualifying.

That's why Mr. Powell, unhindered by such calculations, deserves thanks for the lesson on tolerance. This is not, by its Constitution, a Christian country, or a Judeo-Christian country, or even a God-fearing country. It is a democracy where any "natural born Citizen" who has "attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" can be president. We need all the talent we can attract to government, and we hope every 7-year-old girl or boy keeps that in mind, along with Mr. Powell's words.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Police Affairs in Pakistan

Crimes and punishment
By Abdul Khalique Shaikh, Dawn, October 22, 2008

THE new government has immense challenges to meet. The most formidable of these myriad tasks is combating terrorism, which the president and the prime minister say is their administration’s top priority.

The internal, regional and international situation also makes it imperative for the government to successfully eliminate terrorism.However, the drive against terrorism is intrinsically linked to the government’s ability to establish the rule of law and to restore the writ of the state in various parts of the country.

No government which fails to control day-to-day conventional crime can expect to succeed at the enormous task of breaking the back of terrorism. The ongoing fierce battle against a highly organised network of terrorists cannot be won if the state apparatus is allowed to become too weak to defeat an ordinary criminal in the street.

Rule of law and writ of the government are prerequisites for attracting foreign investment, encouraging remittances from expatriates, halting the brain drain and preventing flight of capital. Thus even the economic woes of the country cannot be effectively handled without an unflinching commitment to maintenance of law and order. This cannot be achieved without putting in the kind of effort and resources needed to establish a professional, meritorious, well-paid, well-trained and motivated police organisation capable of rising to the occasion.

The writ of law can be established if the law enforcers successfully open up no-go areas, control illicit arms, regulate illegal immigrants and effectively stop the menace of land-grabbing, encroachments, traffic violations, day-to-day incidents of street crime and highway robbery. This must be coupled with concerted efforts aimed at addressing the pervasive fear of crime and improving police-public relations.

Success on this front will not be forthcoming until an efficient and effective police organisation is established in the cities as well as rural areas. Various governments at the centre and in the provinces have in the past expressed the desire to maintain order and peace but their actions never matched their words. Successive governments have paid only lip service to this pressing issue. The government of the day has to make it its top priority.

Over the last few years the police have been diverted from their primary task of preventing and detecting crime to assisting their political bosses in achieving their own agendas. Every successive government has used the police as a convenient tool to crush political opponents, bolster its position and settle personal scores.

The previous government’s policies, in particular, made the police subservient to local influential persons. In a bid to keep the main political parties out of power, handpicked police officers were deputed to key field assignments to embolden local influentials of the government’s choice.

Crucial positions in the police hierarchy were doled out as favours. Incompetent, unscrupulous and unprofessional police officers ended up in positions much beyond their limited capabilities. Such practices have made the organisation highly politicised and badly eroded the writ of the state.

In most urban centres the bulk of police resources is diverted towards the protection of ‘VIPs’. Escorts and gunmen for politicians, religious leaders, police officers, judges, civil servants and anybody who is somebody are a major drain on institutional resources. Some religious leaders and status-conscious politicians have more policemen in their service than the entire functional strength of a medium-size police station. This has to be discouraged.

From the man in the street to the English-speaking chattering classes, people are quick to lash out against the increasing lawlessness but make little or no effort to respect the law. From ordinary traffic violations to flagrant disregard for building-control regulations, we take pride in our ability to bypass clearly laid down laws.

If we exhort the government of the day to make a clear shift from a politically motivated agenda to a crime-control agenda, citizens must shun the feudal and macho mindset as well. There is a need to develop a culture where laws are enforced without fear or favour and no exceptions are tolerated. The motorway police can serve as a perfect model where no political interference is brooked and police officers enforce the highway code without any discrimination.

It is high time to take corrective steps and stop the relentless decline. The new government has to rise above conventional petty politics and institutionalise a culture of merit in the police organisation. The government can hope to get long-term results if it shows transparency and fairness in recruitment, promotion, reward and punishment, and discourages political interference in operational matters of law enforcement.

The police leadership and policymakers in the government need to ensure that the police are provided with latest the technology and equipment required for prevention and detection of crime. Use of scientific methods and forensic facilities will not only improve chances of detection but increase convictions in the courts and deter potential delinquents from offending. As things stand, policing is heavily dependent on the physical deployment of policemen. Surveillance through closed-circuit television (CCTV) and other electronic methods is almost non-existent.

Even some private hospitals and corporate offices have far more sophisticated security equipment than the police. The Karachi-based Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) has better gadgets and computer-based support than the capital city police of Karachi. Although the police have been provided huge quantities of automatic weapons and ammunition, the expenditure on modern surveillance, security and crime-detection equipment is proportionately much lower.

A neglected, ill-equipped, unprofessional, politically manipulated and operationally restrained police organisation is bound to fail in establishing the writ of the state. This will encourage armed groups to establish their areas of influence and create states within the state which may serve as safe havens for militant groups and terrorists. Consequently it will become extremely difficult for the law enforcers to police those areas. Conversely, an efficient, impartial and operationally independent police organisation will be capable of offering solutions to this pernicious problem in these trying circumstances.

The writ of the state can be established if enforcement of law is not subservient to political expediency. This challenge has to be met and it is still possible to do so.

The writer is a senior superintendent of police in Sindh.shaikhsp@yahoo.com

Tackling Taliban: How is Pakistan Doing?

‘Militants working as instrument of anti-Pakistan forces’
The News, October 22, 2008

PESHAWAR: Provincial president of Awami National Party (ANP) and peace envoy of NWFP government Afrasiab Khattak on Tuesday said that militants carrying suicide bombing are not doing any service for Islam.

He added that they in fact have become instrument of enemy forces striving to destabilize the elected democratic government in the country. Afrasiab expressed these views while addressing a ceremony arranged by Peace Foundation, an NGO, for distribution of cheques among some victims of suicide bombings in NWFP. The ceremony, held at Frontier House, was to be chaired by Chief Minister, Amir Haider but he could not attend the function due to an emergency meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari in Islamabad.

“Islam is a religion of peace and propagates the message of peace, but the militants are behaving totally against the teachings of our sacred religion,” Afrasiab Khattak said and added NWFP and especially Peshawar city were the headquarters of Gandhara civilization which also propagated message of peace to other parts of the world.

Pukhtoons, he said, are peace-loving people and the founder of ANP, Bacha Khan practically proved his ideology of `non-violence’ during their fight against the colonial rulers. Ironically, he continued, some vested elements have started causing disturbance in the province and are bent upon to attain their nefarious designs. These elements, he held, are pushing us back towards backwardness and illiteracy by forcing students for not going to school and other educational institutions. Afrasiab said earlier these elements created same situation in Afghanistan and according to some reports, he added, about three lac girl students could not go to schools in Afghanistan this year. The present government, he said, is striving to control the situation by taking action against the insurgents. He said earlier government made agreements with militants and faced all sort of internal and external pressure for continuation and success of the agreements.

“But the militants want to form a parallel government by setting up separate courts and other institutions which cannot be tolerated,” he said adding action was ordered against the culprits only after they violated the law and agreements signed by them. He said government was still ready for holding talks with those militants willing to renounce militancy and lay arms. He urged the masses to extend support to government in its fight against the militants and insurgents.

Earlier, MPA Alamzeb Khan addressed the ceremony and stressed the need for unity to fight militancy and insurgency. Chairman Peace Foundation Maqsood Ahmad Salfi also threw light on his organization’s efforts to maintain peace and help suicide victims. Afrasiab Khattak distributed cheques worth around rupees four lac among the victims of different suicide attacks in NWFP.

Also See:
Body formed to evolve national security policy - Daily Times
Taliban threats force artists to move to safer areas - Daily Times
Security forces capture Taliban stronghold - Dawn

Monday, October 20, 2008

Pakistan Secures China's Help to Build 2 Nuclear Reactors

Pakistan Secures China's Help to Build 2 Nuclear Reactors
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG
Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008

Pakistan has secured China's help to build two new nuclear-power reactors in a deal being touted as a counterweight to rival India's recently concluded nuclear pact with the U.S.

But in his first official visit to Beijing last week, new Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari apparently failed to nail down a firm Chinese commitment for another urgent need -- money to help replenish the country's sharply dwindling foreign reserves. With reserves at a six-year low, a Pakistani finance official said Saturday that Islamabad might seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund "as a last resort" to shore them up if it can't raise enough funds from other sources.

The nuclear deal with China would give Pakistan an additional 680 megawatts of power a year, or just over a quarter of the country's estimated current electricity shortfall.

China's leaders "do recognize Pakistan's need" for more energy, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told reporters in Islamabad on Saturday.

But more importantly, Mr. Qureshi suggested, the deal would help restore the balance of power in South Asia following a much more comprehensive nuclear pact between India and the U.S., which gives New Delhi access to international atomic fuel and technology markets. In exchange, India has agreed to open its civilian reactors -- but not its military nuclear program -- to international inspections.

"China is one country that at international forums has clearly spoken against the discriminatory nature of that understanding" between Washington and New Delhi, Mr. Qureshi said, according to the Associated Press.

With ties between Washington and Islamabad strained over the faltering battle against Islamic militants along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, Pakistan is increasingly turning to its long-time ally China for everything from help with propping up its teetering economy to boosting its woefully inadequate energy supplies.

Critics of the India-U.S. nuclear deal have argued that it could spark an arms race in South Asia by freeing up India's relatively small domestic atomic fuel supplies for use in the country's weapons program, a charge New Delhi denies.

Pakistani officials have pushed for a similar nuclear arrangement with the U.S. But Washington has repeatedly refused to discuss nuclear-energy cooperation with Pakistan, pointing to Islamabad's past record of clandestinely spreading atomic-weapons technology to countries such as Libya, Iran and North Korea through a smuggling ring run by scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the now-disgraced father of Pakistan's nuclear-arms program.

While Mr. Qureshi offered few details of the latest China-Pakistan nuclear deal, Chinese officials had previously said any agreement would be for peaceful energy purposes and would be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. The two new reactors are being added to the Chinese-built nuclear power plant in Chasma, a town in central Pakistan.

Despite the deep friendship, Mr. Zardari didn't appear to get an immediate pledge of help from China on the financial front.

Pakistan is seeking at least $5 billion to $6 billion from donors to shore up its dwindling foreign-exchange reserves -- down to about $7.75 billion from nearly $16.4 billion almost a year ago -- and to revive its ailing economy by boosting foreign investors' confidence.

Mr. Zardari is believed by diplomatic analysts to have asked China for $1 billion to $2 billion in a loan to Pakistan's central bank. Neither side has said whether any deal was struck, but Mr. Qureshi said Saturday that China would attend a so-called Friends of Pakistan donor conference next month in Abu Dhabi. He also said that China would invest $1 billion in various projects until June and that various Chinese organizations would invest in Pakistan's banking, mineral and industrial sectors.

Shaukat Tareen, an adviser to the prime minister, said that the country may seek the assistance of the International Monetary Fund if it fails to get the funds it needs. "We need $3 billion in the next few months, and efforts have been made to raise funds on time and we have received ample commitment from multilateral donor agencies and countries," Mr. Tareen said. "The next 30 to 45 days are crucial. ... We will seek assistance from the IMF as last resort."

While Pakistani authorities put the financing gap at $3 billion, the IMF believes it is $4 billion to $4.5 billion. Foreign-exchange reserves slipped to a six-year low of $7.749 billion in the week ended Oct. 11 as oil imports rose and the central bank sold dollars to prevent a sharp slide in the Pakistani rupee.

Mr. Tareen said the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank had agreed to give $1.5 billion each in the form of front-loaded concessional financing, with the money expected by June 30. In addition, the Islamic Development Bank and U.K.'s Department for International Development had agreed to double their assistance to $1 billion and £600 million ($1.04 billion), respectively.

—Gordon Fairclough, C.R. Jayachandran and Neelabh Chaturvedi contributed to this article.

Powell Rejects Islamophobia

Powell Rejects Islamophobia
Abed Z. Bhuyan, Washington Post, On Faith Blog

On NBC's Meet the Press this weekend, former Secretary of State Colin Powell formally endorsed Barack Obama in this year's presidential election.

Pundits will spend the next few days debating whether or not this endorsement matters. In truth, his endorsement of a politician matters less than his strong rejection of the Islamophobia that has tainted this race and that continues to exist unabated in many parts of America.

In a moment that would have made Tim Russert proud, Secretary Powell firmly renounced the divisiveness that has been perpetuated by his own party. During his interview, Secretary Powell exhibited a gravitas that has been unmatched thus far by politicians and pundits alike when it comes to an honest discussion of the state of a presidential race that has increasingly gone negative.

Since the beginning of this way-too-long presidential campaign Americans of conscience have longed for someone of such stature to repudiate the blatant bigotry towards Muslims. On Sunday Colin Powell lived up to his billing as senior American statesman.

I know I was not the only one moved to tears by the following remarks of Colin Powell:

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his counrty and he gave his life."


It is important that Secretary Powell's statement not be minimized to a political endorsement. It was so much more.

But despite the powerful imagery and language used by Secretary Powell, there are two unfortunate facts that accompany his statement. First, the fact that I was so moved by his statement highlights the fact that the many calls for denouncing bigotry towards Muslims have gone ignored. Many Americans, not only American Muslims, have been denouncing Islamophobia in the campaign for over a year, making comments from high-profiled public officials long overdue. Secondly, the portion of the endorsement that I chose to highlight above is likely to get lost in the news. That is because decrying Islamophobia, even though it seemed to be the most important reason for Powell's decision to endorse Obama, is simply not sexy. Very few in the media will give proper credit to Powell for rejecting prejudice towards Muslims. But of all the bigotries exposed in this election cycle, including racism and sexism, Islamophobia has been the most consistent and unchallenged.

Now, given today's political climate, not holding or seeking office makes denouncing Islamophobia a lot easier. Furthermore, it should be noted that Islamophobia is not something that exists only within the Republican Party. After all, the man who has been the target of these so-called smears himself has not issued as strong and direct a rejection as Secretary Powell did this weekend. When Senator Hillary Clinton was battling Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination, she certainly allowed the Obama-is-a-Muslim whispers to continue. Obama has frequently denied the claim that he is a Muslim only by presenting the fact of his Christian faith and not addressing the crucial subtext of the claim: that there is something wrong with being a Muslim.

With his endorsement coming largely as a result of Obama's ability to transcend party and race, Secretary Powell has raised the bar for whoever does win this historic election. Politicians of either party have been unwilling to denounce Islamophobia for fear of appearing both weak and willing to 'pal around' with 'terrorists.' By unequivocally attacking the bigoted tenor of the campaign, he struck at the heart of what politicians have for this entire political season felt a taboo subject to address.

In addressing the Powell endorsement in the coming days, one can only hope that both candidates Obama and McCain see it more as a rejection of heightened bigotry than as a mere endorsement of any one politician.

Abed Z. Bhuyan is a recent graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, where he studied International Politics and Muslim-Christian Understanding.