The Laying to Waste of the World: a Memory of I.H Burney

nasah-425

[Jamaate Islami’s Rabbani is NOT ACCEPTABLE as the “head” of the government” of Afghanistan.]

Isn`t he the UN accepted President of Afghanistan?

If so,who cares what YOU think,you little twit.

``Pak cabbie in US wins $55m lottery``

He can now buy what is dear to every Paki - an F-16

Re: Romair

I think that if your line of thinking keeps dominating Pakistani foreign policy, you will leave India little choice but to turn the heat directly on Pakistan. The examples that you cite of `armies tiring` were all foreign countries occupying countries that were geographically separate from them. I can tell you this -- Indian pressure on Pakistan will mount to such levels that the seemingly ludicrous options that I outlined (including diverting river waters in a country where population growth rate is 3.3% annually) will gain greater currency.

Romair:

Basically, what I get from your statement is that the present situation will continue till the Indian Army is worn out. The thinking in India is that we will stick around forever, and ultimately a situation will come where the Kashmiris are so fed up with their misreable lives, that they will yearn for peace under any costs, including staying in India.

The only difference in the freedom movements that you mentioned is that it was not the occupying army that got tired out but the population of the country. In USSR, it was the lack of political will, in USA widespread anti-government protests by ordinary people, veterans, college students etc. I don`t even agree with the analogy of India in Kashmir like US in Vietnam, but even if I was to disregard the theoretical aspects, I don`t, in a practical sense, see a peace movement in India.

A man of Gandhi`s stature was killed for giving away too much in 1947. At present, and for that matter, the near future (next 10-15 years at least) I don`t see a leader who can give away Kashmir without popular opinion, and I don`t see any signs of popular opinion either.

Anyways, this was a good interaction, wherein I can see where you guys are coming from at least in an operational perspective. I think the situation on the ground will reflect the emphasis and influence of the Islamists in the insurgency.

Shammi:

``Your idea of instigating terrorism against the Pakistani middle class to let them feel the pain is a very difficult choice to accept.``

Well, it`s just a hypothetical paradigm. Unlikely to adopted as policy, but worth examining for usage. Your point that ordinary people get hurt is besides the point. Any conflict, only ordinary people get hurt. That is not an issue in statecraft, unless it can actually affect the outcome on the ground.

``Romair, lives in an imaginary world where he thinks that these options are not available to the Indian government. And if strategists like him continue to take advantage of innocent Pakistani people`s lack of a voice in political affairs, then I am afraid that India will be forced to exercise some of the above unpleasant options.``

Now you contradict yourself. Regardless of what Romair says, are you going to stick by your morals or not? If you are, then regardless of what Pakistan says and does, you will limit yourself in retaliation. If you feel that a limit has been crossed, and morals are not an issue anymore, then my point of targetting the elite of the enemy country becomes valid too.

``Romair has consistently projected the APHC as the `true representatives` of the Kashmiri people, yet will disregard their recent call for a ceasefire and cessation of violence, by maintaining that `Pakistani volunteers` should be given unhindered access to infiltrate under cover of artillery fire.``

Romair is a Pakistani. His opinion is built around what is best for his country. Why get upset about it? That is the norm, accept it, and build your opinions on what benefits your country the most. Instead of blaming Romair for his views, you can simply point out the contradictions, and be satisfied in your mind that you are right.

Fuzair #447
``If the Kashmiris (or the Sikhs or the Nagas or the whatnots) truly wish to be independent, why won`t the Indian government allow it?`` ``You are free to do whatever you like as long as it is the same as what we want you to do?``

Fuzair, the answer in the context of Khalistan, jihadis, ULFA and others is what Indians want other Indians to do is more relevant than what Pakistanis want other Indians to do.

hobbyt on the Aqil Shah board was talking of Jaish-e-Mohammad founder Masood Azhar being in Indian jail.
http://www.chowk.com/bin/showr.cgi?f=ashah_nov0201&n=310#reply82

``The Maulana had spent five years (I believe) in Indian jails without trial. Now, you are greatly concerned with the law, perhaps you can tell us, stopped specifically for what crime? Saying you are going to wage war against US and India is no crime. Would be democrat, have you so little regard for the freedom of speech? I know; its free speech when left says it is. You say things people may find objectionable, should you be stopped?``

Masood Azhar is not an Indian and cannot demand freedom of speech in India to say he is going to wage war against India nor propagate war against India in India. Expecting Indian democracy to provide such freedoms to Pakistanis is going to ridiculous lengths. If he were an Indian citizen, then he would have the responsiblities of an Indian citizen, not just rights.

International relations donot fall within the scope of national constitutions, they are based on mutual cost-benefit calculations between these countries and are at the most bound by international law. Every citizen in the world cannot expect to be granted the rights of a US citizen in the US without accepting the US constitution, only US citizens can do so, the same with India and Pakistan.

Nice to see that this thread is also veering towards Kashmir. Let me ask a question to all the Indians and Pakistanis on this board.

Indians: If the Kashmiris (or the Sikhs or the Nagas or the whatnots) truly wish to be independent, why won`t the Indian government allow it? Isn`t that the whole point of being the World`s Largest Democracy? Or are you like the US--once in, you can never get out again? So democracy is a good thing only up to a point? You are free to do whatever you like as long as it is the same as what we want you to do?

Pakistanis: Why so gung-ho on self-determination/freedom for Kashmiris? What makes them so special? We denied it to the Bengalis, the Baluchis, the Muhajirs (``Jinnahpur,`` remember that?), the Sindhis, and so on. Not that all of these were equally valid/popular movements but the key point is that the Pakistani govt, whether military dictatorship or civilian rule or even Mr. Jinnah himself, suppressed them all. So, am I to assume then that the right of self-determination extends only to those Muslims who are a part of a non-Muslim majority country? Or is it because we are pretty sure that we would win any plebiscite in Azad Kashmir since our Kashmiris are pretty happy with Pakistan, at least they are happier than the average Sindhi or Baluchi.

So let me propose again that we accept the LOC as the international border and each side firmly squashes any separatist tendencies in its own part. Is it a deal?

Stuka #403: `` would like your views specifically on the ``critical mass`` issue, because I think, at the crux of it, that is where our perceptions differ.``

Critical mass in a freedom struggle is different from critical mass in an all-out war. The Kashmiri struggle itself has already achieved critical mass, as far as the struggle goes. Whether it will result in a success depends on many different variables. But the fact that the militant part of struggle has been going on for eleven years, despite the presence of the largest military force per square feet of any area in the world, is a good indication the struggle will continue.

Let`s divide the critical mass issue into three stages:

1) A desire for freedom: This issue is at, and has been at, critical mass since 1947. The people fighting the war, in Kashmir, right now are the grandchildren of the people who wanted independence for Kashmir in 1947.

This is the most important issue. If this stays alive, the struggle itself will go through different stages, of militarism and non-militarism, but the move for independence will stay alive. This is much like the critical mass issue for the independence of India from the British. It was alive all along, since the day the British took over (as shown in movies like Lagaan and 1942).

2) A powerful freedom movement: This is the second stage of critical mass. This requires strong leadership, international recognition, etc. This stage existed in Kashmir since 1947 as well. There is a freedom movement that has been going on in various militaristic and non-militiristic dimensions, for decades.

The Indian freedom movement reached this stage sometime in the early 20th century. That is when, through some coincidence, a large group of dynamic, ``native`` leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, etc. simultaneously appeared on the scene, providing the leadership. During that time, the world was also thinking about moving away from colonisations. The World Wars occured, etc.

3) A freedom war: This is the third stage. If this is successful, the country becomes free. If this is completely suppressed, the country goes back to stage two. If this is neither successful, nor unsuccessful, the area stays in a perpetual state of war. This state usually starts out as political negotiations, but reaches militancy, if their is no peaceful political success.

In case of Kashmir, the peaceful part had been goign on since 1947. It finally reached a state of indigenous militancy in 1989 (please read the work by Chritiana Lamb).

In case of the Indian freedom struggle, the British wisely decided to leave, when they realized the critical mass for militancy had been reached. Had they stuck around and tried to control India militarily, it would have been one of the bloodiest freedom movements in history.

It is important to remember here, that once militant critical mass has been reached (1989 in Kashmir), the success of the freedom movement never depends on the freedom fighter achieving military successes over professional occupying armies. It just depends on exhausting the armies out, as well as not making it worth the while of the occupying countries to stick around. The Soviets killed over 1 million Afghans. The Afghans only killed 15,000 Soviets. I believe the Vietnamese killed around 50,000 Americans. God knows how many Vietnamese were killed by the Americans. Similar ratios for Pakistanis in Bangladesh. Yet, in all the above freedom struggles, the local natives, won out, becasue it was not worth the while of the occupying force to stick around. Not because the locals won any major victories.

The same ratios and scenarios exist for the Indian military in Kashmir. As long as the militant movements reach critical mass (this is the critical mass I was talking about) meaning people are willing to die for their cause, and there is a third country support, freedom movements tend to be succesful. Some take longer than others, but they are successful. Due to this, the Kashmiri struggle is much different than Nagaland, etc. Nagaland, to the best of my knowledge has not reached the critical mass scale for militancy. Otherwise, there would be 500,000+ Indians soldiers there, as well.

sherdil #418 Looking ahead over the next few years, there would probably be an infusion of aid workers and of funds to try and change Afghanistan from the economic desert it has become after years of fighting and misrule. Do you see the Afghans sitting in refugee camps heading back to Afghanistan as a result? And how about those better off ones who are running businesses in Pakistan and living in proper houses in Peshawar? I think the Pakistan government should also try to benefit from some of the positive spillover effects these efforts will have, and also champion the cause of economic reconstruction within Afghanistan (as Musharaff did, to his credit, in the great speech he made before the UN some days back).

Sigalph to harimau

````Under Zahir Shah, Afghanistan actually moved forward. The Russians built him roads and the Americans not to be outdone built him a dam. American teachers were at Kabul university teaching the students English and science. Under Zahir Shah, 40% of Kabul`s doctors were women.````(harimau)

No monarchist myself -- butI fully agree -- that WAS the golden period for Afghanistan.

Daud`s ``revolution`` was totally uncalled for -- and then of course the quarreling leftists jumped in with their coed school reforms by the barrel of the gun – that was too much ``education`` too soon for the poor misogynous rural Afghans – the rest is a sordid history.

Even during Najeebullah’s times -- women were in majority -- in education and health sectors – apparently ``too many`` for the illiterate ``manly`` Taliban`s -- hormonal taste -- hence the banishment.

I am sure in any government in Northern Alliance areas -- Afghan women will and MUST be brought in the government -– I am not sure about the status of women in the Pushtun areas though.

Laura`s Bush`s tears for the Afghan women are a little too contrived too late -- by the way -- where were you honey, all these years?

saminashah#400 The WP picture was in the inside pages of the paper WP and so may not have been on their webpage. They also carried another memorable picture of a young woman with strikingly good-looking features and a slight, confident smile on her face, surrounded by a flock of ``blue cocoons`` from which she had obviously just emerged. For some reason she reminded me of one of those US ads (``Dare to be different``), except that this is real life.

Ref sigalph235 #: 435

re harimau 399

[You and I often disagree vehemently.]

But with you, it has never been uncivil.

Probably, the most disagreement is about Kashmir. But that is one subject no Indian will ever give grounds on.

[But on this you are right on. The `all of them are equally bad` club needs to read and re-read your...]

Thank you.

Perhaps one can see on TV comparisons of life under Zahir Shah and under the Taliban. Old photos taken in the 50s show women wearing skirts interacting easily with men at the University of Kabul. Zahir Shah knew his country had to move into the 20th century to survive as a viable society. He played off the Russians against the Americans, maintaining a balance and committing his country to no one side. His efforts at progress were resented by the mullahs but his approach was not as heavy-handed as the Russian attempt during 1979-1989 to modernize Afghanistan. Lacking massive funds, the progress was slow but it was steady. Zahir Shah`s rule was probably the golden period in Afghan history, with the country at peace with its neighbors and internally and with a sense of cohesion. But once you remove a King with true love for his land and his people - and who kept his religion his private matter, not a matter of state - and install the mullahs as the arbiters of law, you end up getting a theocracy that was as bad as the Inquisition.

The Pak government talks about the civil war between 1990 and 1996, completely and conveniently forgetting the fact that it was the ISI puppet and ruthless killer Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who fired close to 1000 rockets into Kabul (without regard for civilian deaths) who caused a majority of the deaths there. The crimes of the Pak government cannot be washed off by pointing to Northern Alliance ``atrocities``. The atrocities of ISI stooges is far greater than anything on the part of the Northern Alliance.

Thank God that Bangladesh had to endure only a year of Pak military brutality. Poor Afghanistan had to put up with far worse for the last 5 years.

Pakistanis, hang down your head in shame for what your country has done.

Shah----433

Truth can never be surface when it becomes a ``numbers game``(otherwise called western democracy).

The nation of traders(english) & tradesmen(Americans) would do anything to rationalise neo-colonialism.Polls & Figures are always quoted to suit the occasion.

Where everyone is free to express his opinion louder & louder and with body language too,is it any wonder that the ``usual suspects`` choose to be mute?

It would be interesting to see how many christains/jews have converted to fundamentalist secularism.A poll might help---but such questions are embarassing.After all Bush is a born-again christain himself.Why stir up the hornets nest for him.

Please do not expect clean `research` when tyranny reigns & CNN has been Pentagoned to tell the truth and nothing but the truth--so help me Satan.

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,2001531181,00.html

SUNDAY NOVEMBER 18 2001



Bin Laden run to ground as allied special forces close in



JAMES CLARK, DAVID CRACKNELL AND NICHOLAS RUFFORD ON THE SOUTHERN AFGHAN BORDER



Located to area of 30sq miles near border

Alliance forces tell British troops to leave





BRITISH and American special forces have narrowed their search for Osama Bin Laden to a hilly area of just 30 square miles in southeastern Afghanistan, defence sources revealed yesterday.

British SAS and American troops have been dropped by helicopter across the southern approaches to the area, near the Taliban city of Kandahar, to prevent Bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan.

As the manhunt triggered by the September 11 terrorist attacks on America intensifies, British soldiers have been involved in firefights with enemy forces around Kandahar.

``The plan has always been to deny Bin Laden space,`` said Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary. ``The space he has to operate in is now very limited indeed.`` The disclosure reflected a growing confidence in intelligence circles that they would find Bin Laden soon.

A British defence intelligence source said he was believed to be ``static`` somewhere to the southeast of Kandahar. ``For a variety of reasons we can be confident that he has not been able to move far.`` Last night the Taliban envoy to Pakistan refuted claims that Bin Laden had left the country with his wives and children. ``Osama is inside Afghanistan but I don`t know whether he is in our territory or the area controlled by the Northern Alliance,`` said Salam Zaeef.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has warned that Bin Laden might have access to a helicopter that could try to leave Afghanistan for a possible rendezvous with a private jet in Pakistan. However, America has imposed what it calls a ``total picture`` over the region, meaning that a mixture of satellite, spy plane and special forces cover should enable it to trace any movement on the ground.

The special forces arrived near Kandahar 10 days ago to block off escape routes and engage the enemy. ``It has been about aggression and surprise,`` said one source. ``We want to send a clear message that there is no safe way out to the rear of the Kandahar position.``

SAS troops have been operating observation posts in the hills and running search-and-destroy patrols. While they had killed a small number of enemy troops, the psychological impact of their presence had been ``disproportionately significant``, the source said.

Refugees fleeing skirmishes around Kandahar spoke of British and American special forces searching for Bin Laden in the mountains. One refugee said he had seen a British man questioning a Taliban deserter. Other Afghans crossing into Pakistan at Chaman said soldiers of western appearance were near the outskirts of Kandahar, a base for Bin Laden`s Al-Qaeda organisation as well as its Taliban hosts. Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces appeared yesterday to be preparing for last stands in the two cities still in their hands — Kandahar in the south and Konduz in the north. At Kandahar, tribal leaders opposed to the regime agreed to allow Taliban forces to leave the city but said thousands of Arabs, Chechens and Pakistani supporters of Bin Laden were staying to fight.

Thousands more were standing their ground in Konduz in the face of a Northern Alliance offensive expected today. They threatened to massacre civilians if the Alliance attacked.

British Special Boat Squadron troopers were carrying out reconnaissance at Bagram airfield, north of Kabul, to establish what repairs will be needed before it can be used as a forward command base.

Military planners want to fly 4,000 troops, including marines and paratroopers, into Bagram and the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. They would establish a 2-kilometre security cordon around both and would protect aid convoys travelling between the two cities against attack.

The plans were thrown into confusion yesterday, however, when Alliance commanders suggested that no more coalition troops would be welcome in the country. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, telephoned Dr Abdullah Abdullah, his Alliance counterpart, who said last night: ``If you are talking about the presence of thousands of fighting troops from outside Afghanistan, this is a major issue which has to be discussed. The events of the past few days showed that the forces which were capable of doing the job on the ground were the forces of the [Alliance].``

One minister confirmed there were now doubts over the plans for large numbers of British troops. However, Hoon insisted the problem would be resolved. Tony Blair is growing increasingly frustrated with the administration of President George W Bush for not pursuing diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives more vigorously.

A cabinet minister said: ``The Americans are interested only in trying to get Bin Laden and push the Taliban further back. Tony`s view is that now is the moment to get in there, both in terms of humanitarian aid and the diplomatic front.``

A recent story in The New York Times confirms that a tight-knit group of Pentagon officials and defense experts outside government is working to mobilize support for a military operation to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as the next phase of the war against terrorism. Times writers Sciolino and Tyler said the group, ``which some in the State Department and on Capitol Hill refer to as the `Wolfowitz cabal,``` (after its leader, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz) has ``largely excluded the State Department.. President Bush and Powell are facing an uprising among supporters of Israel in Congress who support the ``Wolfowitz cabal.``

The Oct. 19 issue of Forward, an influential Jewish weekly, reported that Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) defiantly declared that ``Israel is not going to be sacrificed for the war on terrorism`` and that Brett Heimov, an aide to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) had charged that while ``there hasn`t been a real selling out of Israel``, ``they [Bush and Powell] are waiting for that excuse and it hasn`t quite come yet.`` Forward also reported that an unnamed House staff member alleged that the Bush administration is giving Israel ``the cold shoulder`` by supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state and by attempting to build bridges to the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The refusal by Bush and Powell to blame Iraq for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has left Israel`s supporters in Congress and in the ``Wolfowitz cabal`` scrambling to generate support by both the public and in government policy-making circles for an all-out attack on Iraq-and then the remaining Muslim states that Israel perceives to be enemies to its survival. While the Times report admitted that ``Both Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney have said there is no evidence linking Iraq to the attacks`` of Sept. 11, Wolfowitz and his allies, such as Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, are promoting ``the need to turn to Iraq as soon as the initial phase of the war against Afghanistan and bin Laden and his organization is over.`` Amazingly, a two-day series of meetings of the Defense Policy Board, which included Wolfowitz and Perle, did not even brief Powell despite the saber-rattling tone underlying the board`s efforts. The Times reported that Powell was ``surprised`` and ``quite distressed`` to learn that the president`s deputy national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, inserted what was described as ``a far-reaching sentence`` into a letter sent to the United Nations Security Council threatening possible action against Iraq and other nations that Wolfowitz, Perle and their allies are alleging to be sponsors of terrorism.

What the Times writers did not mention are the following facts about Wolfowitz and Perle reported by AFP based on the pioneering investigative work of the late Spotlight correspondent Andrew St. George: Perle is perhaps the singular driving force behind a closely-knit group (including Wolfowitz) whose origins in the modern-day national security establishment go back to the 1970s when Perle was a top aide to the late Sen. Henry M. Jackson (D-Wash.). Not only was Perle a key ``inside`` player on behalf of the Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill, but he also played a critical part in the selection of a formal body - officially known as ``Team B`` - that functioned as a purportedly ``independent`` advisory council on intelligence estimates relating to Soviet aims and capabilities. In fact, the members of Team B were bound by their determination to make literally every aspect of U.S. foreign policy geared toward policies that would prove beneficial to Israel. Solid evidence compiled over the years by a variety of independent researchers in and out of government indicates that Team B exaggerated Soviet influence. Team B`s purpose in so doing was to advance the theory that Israel was vital to U.S. defense against the Soviets and that Israel therefore needed vast infusions of U.S. tax dollars.

Today Wolfowitz and Perle, working with a ``war party`` connected to the circles spawned by ``Team B,`` are using the new war on terrorism to force the military to carry out a geopolitical agenda that not only represents the interests of a foreign nation - Israel - but which could also be dangerous to America`s interests abroad.

Joining Wolfowitz and Perle as the self-appointed publicist for the ``war party`` is Perle`s fellow Bilderberg member, William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, a ``conservative`` journal owned by Rupert Murdoch, a longtime media front man for the allied financial interests of the powerful Rothschild and Bronfman families and other patrons of Israel. Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol propose broadening the targets of the war on terrorism to include not only Iraq, but also Syria and Iran - a formula for a global conflagration that would unite over a billion followers of the Islamic faith against the United States.

According to the BBC (8 Nov.) Secretary Powell has warned of military action against Iraq after the current campaign in Afghanistan. q

Subscribe Now: MG needs your support

Dear Sherdil:

You make a good case for the following:

``The one thing that will keep Afghanistan from splitting is the alliances now being formed among the Pushtun tribals and it is in the interest of the Northern Alliance to become part of this process. They risk being sidelined in the long term as the alliances take hold.``

However, an equally good case can be made of the vice versa -- especially when the Northern Alliance is in firm control of half of the country and is apparently united -- whereas the Pushtuns are in total disarray .... in that regard the less said the better -- one thing is sure -- plenty of work still for the ISI to keep itself busy ``uniting`` the Pushtuns.

Are you sure it doesn’t look like Afghanistan WILL split?

“Kabul is in the hands of Jamaate Islami” – now that should cheer up some tearful Pakistanis.