Barack Obama an emerging US presidential candidate for Democrats, who is a graduate in political science from Columbia University, wants the US to strike inside Pakistan on the pretext of reliable intelligence as he said on one of his speeches on terrorism: ‘I understand that President Musharraf has his challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in the mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’.

The statement has come in the wake of Pakistan’s own battle with the extremist elements in the country which reached its apex as Pakistani armed forces undertook a military operation against the militants in the heart of the capital that were holed up inside a local mosque. The military operation also resulted into a series of suicide bombings and militia attacks by the militants on the security forces and Pakistani citizens. Another outcome of the operation was a collapse of the pact signed last year between tribal areas of North Western province, which have been the hot beds of militancy, and the government for not allowing foreign (Afghan) militants to use Pakistani soil to re group or carry out attacks against coalition forces that are fighting the so called Taliban elements in Afghanistan.

On the larger domestic front, the Musharraf regime came under severe criticism by the domestic media and civil society for not handling the Mosque issue in a swift manner as the military operation of Red Mosque also resulted in a number of civilian casualties, as they allege. Obviously, both the media and civil society referred to those young women and men, as civilian casualties, who have been taken hostage or indoctrinated to participate in the standoff against security forces by the militants and some of whom in the wake of the operation perished. However, for the comfort of American political leadership President Musharraf did act against the militants despite a high risk of collateral damage.

Recently, it has become evident that despite Pakistan being ruled by a Military man, the civil society and the media is largely free as this is the same media and civil society who protested against the removal of Chief Justice of Pakistan early this year. The recent restoration of Chief Justice by the Supreme Judicial Council is partly attributed to the struggle of Pakistani civil society and steadfastness of Pakistani media against state pressure. During the Chief Justice episode, there has also been a visible support of Pakistani media and civil society by American media and political leadership to recognise the right of Pakistani people to establish rule of law in the country. However, as the Red Mosque episode shows, Pakistani people and its free media and courts do not see things as black and white as to what is generally presented by American media and political leadership regarding many a issues facing Pakistan. On the issue of extremism they are in unison with president Musharraf but also understand the vulnerability of one man rule to handle such issues effectively.

Thus the subtle mention of the analogy between Red Mosque operation and Chief Justice movement is to clarify that it is not President Musharraf who faces challenges but it is the country it self which faces many challenges.

To put things in its historical context, after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991, Americans left the region leaving Pakistan to deal with war trodden Afghanistan. Afghan war had also affected Pakistani population living in its North Western border areas as it was exposed to active culture of militancy aimed against the red army. In 1990s, Pakistan faced many challenges in its domestic front also. It was a young democracy where institutions were largely corrupt as the country came out of yet another extended period of military rule by General Zia who had intensified the role of religion in state affairs which would then sow the seeds of fundamentalism and greater sectarian fractionalisation in Pakistan. Instead of helping the country strengthen its democratic practices through economic aid, the subsequent governments in Pakistan in 1990s faced increased level of sanctions by the US to put pressure on the country to leave its nuclear ambitions. Pakistan secured one of its borders by promoting Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which was also supported by Saudi Arabia- a long term US ally and was on its verge of recognition by the US itself months before 9/11. The support for Taliban regime by subsequent Pakistani governments was done to ensure some kind of stability in the region, whereas any economic assistance was largely unavailable to carry out institution building in Afghanistan as Pakistan itself was faced with resource crunch. This is the brief of 1990s.

9/11 gave US strong pretext to go into Afghanistan and capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, an alleged mastermind of 9/11 attacks and leading the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda. Since the Taliban sided with the terrorists; Americans went in to Afghanistan to dismantle their government and thus soon afterwards established a pro American government lead by Hamid Karzai. Since then, neither Osama bin Laden is captured nor the key Taliban leadership and the fight against Taliban are still going on in Afghanistan which, as Barack Obama has mentioned, has taken lives of 3000 American soldiers. However, things still look quite in control regarding American war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, when compared to another front Bush administration opened up in Iraq all on the basis of some actionable intelligence that suggested that Sadam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), and the threat was becoming imminent if US did not act.

Well on the pretext of such actionable and reliable intelligence that one of world’s worse dictators, who had a history of using Chemical Weapons, and who also strikes a cord with anti Israel sentiments would soon be able to get his hands on WMDs, was an issue of immediate concern for US leadership and thus not only Republicans but also Democrats including Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq in 2003.

Thus US went into Iraq but soon it became clear that Sadam Hussein never went any where near to achieving nuclear capability and it was an intelligence failure to suggest otherwise which was even accepted publicly by the then secretary of state Collin Powell. Four years down the road, Iraq war has transformed into one of biggest foreign policy gaffe by Bush regime and American forces are bogged down into a conflict which has become bloodier with each passing day. Iraq has also become the new strong hold of Al- Qaeda as is alleged by the US. Now Americans cannot leave the country before bringing some kind of stability, where as conditions are not getting any better.

So it is not a surprise that the issue of Iraq would be a key determining factor in next US elections. Obviously, on the face of it, going into Iraq on the pretext of WMDs can only be attributed to an intelligence failure which had misled many US senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, to vote for American invasion in Iraq. Now a viable strategy to neutralise the situation in Iraq is the paramount concern for the US and it is expected on the hindsight that Democrats may come up with a better plan.

However, looking at Obama’s statements on foreign policy, it appears that not much has been learnt from Iraq war as he is one of the serious candidates for the 2008 American presidency and must have many aides to provide him with an objective update and analysis especially regarding America’s front line ally on its war on terror. It is quite clear that Obama has put objectivity aside and is following the foot steps of George Bush to at least promote yet another of US foreign policy blunders.

One immediate lesson from Iraq should be that the best and most reliable intelligence would come only from the relevant authorities who are cooperating on the ground especially in Pakistani case where US is also indulged in multi million dollar defence and economic cooperation deals. Secondly, it should be known to the concerned US authorities and also the larger American politic that there are stronger sympathies for the so called Taliban in tribal belts of Pakistan or even larger Pashto speaking population of Afghanistan. As many in the larger world including many of Obama’s vote banks resent American invasion in Iraq, there is also a strong disapproval among Pakistani population regarding US foreign policy excesses. In such an emotional charged environment, which has been present more so in tribal belts of Pakistan where the population has been more prone to adverse effects of any conflict going on in Afghanistan, a military option becomes highly unlikely to curb militancy. A long term strategy of carrot and stick needs to be adopted which is also being pursued by the Musharraf’s government.

However, there are also some cautious and strong voices to reprimand Obama mindset, as already a vocal response has been made by Senator Hillary Clinton, who is also leading Obama in the race for 2008 presidential election. She has asked for restraint and warned not only her Democratic rival but also Bush administration not to isolate President Musharraf on the issue of extremism. Though, Barrack Obama has rebuked Hillary Clinton but his point is self contradictory when he reminded the Americans that she also took part in authorising Iraq war.

It is clear she was misled by what was then an actionable intelligence which later turned out to be incorrect. However, Obama still wants to work out with any such actionable intelligence to carry out a military strike in Pakistan which may then have larger consequences for the country, without first understanding the dynamics of conflict in the region. Hillary has seemed to learn her lessons and has been more cautious and analytical regarding the utilisation of intelligence.

The issue of extremism needs to be understood in its right historical context. The challenge of fundamentalism is an outcome and not a cause in itself in Pakistani case. Pakistan in last few years, partly due to US aid and economic cooperation, has achieved a prosperous outlook. Though good macro economics has yet to transform into enhanced social development, Pakistan is moving at the right direction. After the restoration of Chief Justice, courts are expected to work independently. Thus a vibrant civil society, free media and independent judiciary is expected to bring Pakistan closer to long term economic development with a steady move to strong political institutions. Where as on the American side, it appears that Senator Hillary Clinton is all set to become the next American president, where as Obama has indeed proven to be a foreign policy novice when compared to her Democrat counterpart.

World leaders promote a vision and adopt such policies which bring enhanced global harmony and Hillary Clinton looks more suitable to work for it as a next American President.