Supreme Court's NRO Ruling and Political Scenario in Pakistan

Nations are made out of a group of people who unite for a common cause. They give the power of representing them in the legislature to a body of men. These men are vested with powers. The famous adage goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Man is not a perfect creature in its conduct and is vulnerable to committing excesses. The touchstone of morality for men holding a public office as a trust should be more strictly followed. As spiderman said , “ with greater power comes greater responsibility ”. In order to restrict the abuse of power, proper measure of accountability are essential.

Pakistan’s chequered history offers little evidence of any accountability of the powerful ruling elite. The few examples that it furnishes are more of a political victimization rather than across the board accountability of all. Our leaders have a history of getting away with corruption and unconstitutional measures at one pretext or another. This has set a precedent for their successors to follow suit with impurity. The guardians of our constitution have been an accomplice in legitimizing military takeovers and producing innovations like the infamous doctrine of necessity.

The recent lawyers and civil society’s movement saw the chastisement of judiciary and its resurgence as a force to reckon with. It also saw the return of a democratic government after striking a deal with the dictator to close all corruption cases against PPP leaders. Some other people also took advantage of this law which was termed as NRO. This law came to be excessively resented among the masses due to its highly discriminatory nature.

It was challenged in the supreme court by some people . Our active media debated it at length unveiling the contours of this ‘black law’. This caused public resentment to rise to levels where not even to benefaciaries felt comfortable to back it. The court hearing turned out to be a one-sided affair with SC unanimously declaring it void ab initio. This ruling was termed historic by the people but for the people who stand to lose from it, it has grave consequences

This was a unanimous decision by a SC’s larger bench comparing of judges from all the province. It is widely hailed among the people and gives them hope that their money might be recovered for the first time. It also warns future rulers that they should be more careful while plumdering the national wealth in the future. The system of accountability will receive an impetus as a result. It will go a long way in strengthening our weak institutions. It has practically proven that nobody is above the law. In the current scenario it presents several threats as well.

The major party to stand accused is the government. It will be a big challenge for the government to prosecute itself. The detractors of this decision claim that the SC is overstepping its constitutional bounds. They claim it to be against the principle of separations of powers. Some skeptics have tied the fate of one man to the future of our fragile democracy. PPP government accused the establishment f derailing the democratic process. They have decided to oppose this decision aggressively. They have launched a campaign terming it as anti-sindh evoking provincial sentiments. All these steps seen to be leading to a confrontation of institutions of the state.

This law was not based on justice and was directed at providing special treatment to the few. Its repeal by SC gives PPP on opportunity to prove itself innocent and gain a badly needed political mileage. They will gain nothing by opposing it on whatever grounds since it has already eroded their moral authority beyond repair. It will be a great success of our democracy if PPP let the decision be implemented in its letter and split. It is a landmark decision having weight of the public behind it. If the perpetrators are punished, it will lead to a long awaited chastisement of our political ranks.

An Ode to a Terrorist!!

Oh draconian brute!

Neither you belong to philanthropy,

Nor you are an animal

For even wildest ones, of them all

Are not to this gamut cruel.

Then who you are?

Oh alien being!

With such malicious aspiration

You slay the ones who want to live

For themselves and their children.

Oh ruthless demon!

Who is your god?

What creed do you believe in?

For no doctrine prevails today

Exonerating such dismay.

Oh sanguinary brat!

Come flaunt your clique,

You reckon you got the audacity?

Come speak to me; the altruism

Who has suffered to utmost capacity.

Oh bloody terrorist!

Come show your filthy face!

Display your evil breeds!

For you have enlivened the courage

Instilling the bravado spirit in me

Through all your bloodless deeds.

Its your fiasco and not mine

As I got to defy your relentless crimes

By sacrificing the precious lives

Which yet had to live……..

By oblation of the flowers yet to blossom

By besieging the stars yet to shine

By killing the infant yet to born

Nothing can indemnify

The massacre I came along

The holocaust I have born

Yet, I live up everyday

With no grotesque mind

With no dejected soul

Oh sordid beast!

Let me tell you

I live my triumph

You live your thwart

As you live a heartless life

And I keep going with my humane heart……

By: Madiha Malik

Madiha Malik is a very very talented poet!!!

What Failure in Afghanistan?

By Fareed Zakaria

Monday, October 12, 2009

At the heart of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for a major surge in troops is the assumption that we are failing in Afghanistan. But are we really? The United States has had one central objective: to deny al-Qaeda the means to reconstitute, to train and to plan major terrorist attacks. This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years. Al-Qaeda is dispersed, on the run and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s. Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks. Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low. All this is not an accident but rather a product of the U.S. presence in the region and efforts to disrupt terrorists, track funds, gain intelligence, aid development, help allies and kill enemies.

It's true that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated considerably. While it is nothing like Iraq in 2006 -- civilian deaths are a tenth as numerous -- parts of the country are effectively controlled by the Taliban. Other parts are no man's land. But these areas are sparsely populated tracts of countryside. All the major population centers remain in the hands of the Kabul government. Is it worth the effort to gain control of all 35,000 Afghan villages scattered throughout the country? That goal has eluded most Afghan governments for the past 200 years and is a very high bar to set for the U.S. mission there.

Why has security gotten worse? Largely because Hamid Karzai's government is ineffective and corrupt and has alienated large numbers of Pashtuns, who have migrated to the Taliban. It is not clear that this problem can be solved by force, even using a smart counterinsurgency strategy. In fact, more troops injected into the current climate could provoke an anti-government or nationalist backlash.

It's important to remember that the crucial, lasting element of the surge in Iraq was not the influx of troops but getting Sunni tribes to switch sides, by offering them security, money and a place at the table. U.S. troops are now drawing down and yet -- despite some violence -- the Sunnis have not resumed fighting because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is courting their support.

The United States and the Afghan government need to make much greater efforts to wean Pashtun tribes away from the most radical Taliban factions. It is unclear how many Taliban fighters believe in a global jihadist ideology, but most U.S. commanders with whom I've spoken feel that the number is less than 30 percent. The other 70 percent are driven by money, gangland peer pressure or opposition to Karzai.

And when we think through our strategy in Afghanistan, let's please remember that there is virtually no al-Qaeda presence there. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged what U.S. intelligence and all independent observers have long said: Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, as is the leadership of the hard-core Afghan Taliban. (That's why it's called the Quetta Shura, Quetta being a Pakistani city.) All attacks against Western targets that have emanated from the region in the past eight years have come from Pakistan, not from Afghanistan. Even the most recently foiled plot in the United States, which involved the first Afghan that I know of to be implicated in global terrorism, originated in Pakistan. Yet we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every dollar in Pakistan.

There's little evidence that Pakistan's generals have truly accepted that they must defeat all the jihadis in their country (as opposed to just those who threaten the Pakistani state). But they have been more cooperative and active in the past year than ever before. A civilian government, the jihadi takeover of the Swat Valley, a change in public attitudes and increased American aid have all contributed to a more effective U.S.- Pakistan relationship. Greater energy, attention, and resources will surely yield even more.

What about the argument that Osama bin Laden and his minions will simply shift back across the border if the Taliban is allowed free rein? Well, they haven't done so yet, despite the pockets of turf the insurgents control. And it is easier for us to deny them territory than to insist that we control it all ourselves -- we can fight like guerrillas, too. Remember that the United States and its allies have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Keeping them there is the right commitment, one that keeps in mind the stakes, but also the costs, and most important, the other vital interests around the world to which U.S. foreign policy must also be attentive.

Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International and the author of "The Post-American World." His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.

My Analysis

I think Fareed's article commits gross misjudgment of the Afghan quagmire on several counts. He paints nice picture of a losing cause as admitted by Gen. McChrystal. He is content with killing 14/20 top leaders whereas statistics show much grimmer situation on the ground this year than at any time during the eight year struggle.

From Taliban's perspective this war is not fought around personalities as Washington portrays it to be (Osama Bin Laden) but an ideological fight. US has not done itself much good by conducting drone attacks or pushing Pakistan Army against the insurgents as Talibans continue to enjoy greater support among the decision makers due to several reasons. US is not a trustable ally as history has proven on several occasions and admitted by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator John Kerry among many others.

Equating reduced civilian deaths to relative peace in Afghanistan is an error of judgment. Washington tries to hide its military incompetence by blaming Karzai's corrupt regime which is nothing but a puppet government. It does not enjoy the confidence of Afghan people not because he is corrupt but because he is just a pawn in a greater game whose moves are orchestrated in Washington.

Fareed thinks that just by controlling Kabul or other bigger cities will do it for US. That is a misconception which is making them pay. How long are they going to stick around protecting bigger cities. Yes I agree with him that violence has been reduced due to presence of US troops in Afghanistan. I couldn't help but ask if US eternal presence is the solution to keeping Afghanistan peaceful, are Americans ready to commit to that?

Pentagon has fed Fareed with erroneous data which he easily seems to have digested. US would not be in a miserable position as it is today if it were for the money. Like I said its an ideological fight and as noted by a British expert on the region, "Pathans can only unite on religion and when they do, they set aside their differences". Economic motive is not a variable in this equation.

Pointing out Quetta Shura and shifting the theatre of war to Pakistan's Balochistan province has several other motives working behind it. US policy makers have been unilateral in their approach by addressing only their own national interests. This is what they are paid to do but here the problem is much more complex and requires allowing leverage to some of the other stakeholders as well. US not just needs to 'listen' to partners but also care for their interests in the region. They have been neglectign this and as a consequence allies like Pakistan's support have been half-hearted as they have to watch for their own interests(Indian threat in Afghanistan as admitted by Gen. McChrystal). As John Nash said while revising Adam Smith,

"The best result comes from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself and the group"

Sooner or later US has to pull out as regional neighbours and powers will never reconcile to US success in Afghanistan.

The Jinnah-Iqbal Bill: A Response to the Kerry-Lugar Bill

To implement the ideology of Pakistan purported by Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Iqbal, to promote an enhanced relationship of this nation with its ideology and for no ‘other’ purposes.

Be it enacted by General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani and the Armed Forces of Pakistan as a Representation of the Will of the People of Pakistan.

SECTION 1: TITLE
This Act may be cited as the ‘The Sovereignty and Dignity of the People of Pakistan Act of 2009’.

SECTION 2: FINDINGS
We, the people of Pakistan, make the following findings:


(A)

(1) The people of Pakistan have a long history of being used by the Unites States as a pawn in its plans for world domination. It is clear to us now that the Pakistani interest is not well –served by the meddling of the United States in the affairs of our state.

(2) The people of Pakistan will never give up their sovereignty, their dignity and will not let their government sell the country for so called financial ‘aid’.

(3) Despite the fact that Pakistan has been a major ally of the U.S in the so called ‘war on terror’ , the U.S continues to kill hundreds of Pakistani citizens in drone attacks which are seen as a major onslaught on the sovereignty of the Pakistani nation and a violation of our international borders.

(4) The U.S support for terrorist activities inside Pakistan, compounded by the hostile Indian presence on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past 8 years and any more of this outrage is unacceptable to the people of Pakistan.

(5) Despite the sacrifices and cooperation of the security forces of Pakistan, the United States continues to support and fund separatist movements in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), parts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan.

(6) The continued hostility of the United States towards the Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies of Pakistan, as well as the spread of disinformation regarding the Nuclear Assets of Pakistan.

(9) The ultimate U.S goals of destroying Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons and to exert complete control over the military institutions of Pakistan have now become very clear from the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

(B)

(1) In the long political history of Pakistan, Pakistanis have often been deceived by corrupt politicians in the existing ‘democratic’ structure. Section 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan clearly define that each candidate applying as a potential candidate for the Parliament needs to be someone who is honest, sagacious, righteous and ameen. It is quite evident that this section of the Constitution has not been implemented in the past as well in the current government.

(2) The current regime has failed to run the country and look after its people and has not been able to make timely decisions in order to protect the sovereignty of the Pakistani nation. Also, this present regime has been found to be in cohorts with elements that are hostile to the Pakistani State.

SECTION 3: OUR MESSAGE TO GENERAL KAYANI AND THE ARMED FORCES OF PAKISTAN: NEW RULES OF ENGAGEMENT WITH U.S AND NATO FORCES

(A)

(1) We support the patriotic elements in both the civilian and military establishments who have demonstrated the wisdom and courage to oppose the Kerry-Luger bill.

(2) We assure Gen. Kayani that he has the unequivocal support of every concerned citizen of Pakistan in taking a firm stand to protect the ideological and physical borders of Pakistan.

(3) The Pakistani nation is not for sale and we once again reiterate the resolve that this nation has had since its inception: that we will eat grass but we will stand on our own two feet and not bow to imperial masters.

(4) Based on the findings in Section 2, it is imperative that the current regime is forced to reconsider Pakistan’s Foreign Policy in terms of engaging with the Americans and other actors in the so called ‘theatre of war’ created by U.S presence in this region.

(5) We demand that the current U.S diplomats in Islamabad including the ambassador be expelled on grounds of interference with internal matters of Pakistan.

(6) We also demand the deportation of U.S contractors and mercenaries currently operating on Pakistani soil.

(7) We demand that the U.S embassy in Pakistan is reduced to 10% of its current size, both in terms of area and personnel.

(8) No Visas be issued to any American citizen without clearance from Pakistan’s security agencies.

(9) Pakistan does not need aid from the U.S or any other country. It is time that we used this opportunity to take a stand against corruption and injustice in Pakistan. The Kerry-Luger bill is a challenge to the Pakistani nation and it shall be met with dignity and honour.

It is time for the Pakistani nation to remember who we really are and our real potential. This bill is an attempt to subdue us into slaves of imperialist forces and is a bait to harness the ‘shaheens’ of this dignified nation.

Aye Taair-e-Lahooti us rizq say Maut achhee
Jis rizq say aati ho parwaaz mein kotahi

Let us join hands and implement the ‘Jinnah-Iqbal Bill’. This is what the people of Pakistan want and this is what the father of this nation strove for.

Pakistan Payendabad!

Analysis of Suicide Attacks

Suicide Bombing

World has seen unprecedented violence and destruction due to different reasons. World Wars fought in the earlier half of the 20th century are clear evidence of the fact that human lives were lost in millions. At the end of WWII, the western powers decided to form an organization called as The United Nations to settle disputes peacefully and not to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. It was decided that Europe will not be the theatre of war in the future. This gave a platform to the subject people of the western imperialist powers like France and Great Britain to strive for their independence and most of them succeeded in achieving it. It resulted in changing boundaries of different states resulting in injustice for some people like in the case of Palestine. This injustice due to several reasons resulted in discontent for people and they could not get their rights recognized by big states. A type of neo-imperialism continued by US and Soviet Union fighting proxy wars and manipulating smaller states. The discontented people resorted to different means to achieve their objectives primarily violence and terror.

-What is a Suicide Attack?

It is a type of an attack in which and attacker kills several people by blowing himself or herself up mostly in a public place in order to cause maximum damage. A normal practice seen in different parts of the world these days is that the attacker wears a belt with explosive material under his clothes. On reaching the target place, he blows himself up and in the process killing other people as well.

-Origins

The origin of these attacks can be traced back as far as possible in history as they existed in one or other form. A clear evidence of this in recent times is Kamikaze Attack of Japanese pilots on US Forces in Pearl Harbour. This was again tried by members of LTTE in Sri Lanka against the Sri Lankan forces and other cities under central control. Palestinians also used it against stronger Israeli forces in order to cause havoc which they could not cause by fighting due to stronger army of Israel and foreign support. Suicide attack has been a pervasive phenomena in Pakistan after US invasion of Afghanistan. They started against the Coalition Forces in Afghanistan as Taliban could not match the military strength of the invading forces. It spilled into Pakistan due to Taliban's anger over Pakistan's support of US War on Terror. It continues to destroy different places from Masjids to Shopping Arcades. It has caused huge damages in terms of human losses as well as damage to public and private property.

-Causes

Before we debate the damage it has caused to the socio-economic fabric of the country under attack, it is pertinent that we discuss the causes of suicide attacks. What reason can be so motivational that it makes a person ready to kill himself for that cause. Since Pakistan is the country which has suffered from more suicide attacks than any other country (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan), I will discuss it keeping in view Pakistan. These reasons are true for the most extant for other countries as well. After studying such attacks in different parts of the world, the underlying causes that we discover are as follows.

1. Social Injustice

It might sound like an irrelevant cause for a man to kill himself but if you live in one of the most backward places of a Third World country, it becomes relevant. After studying the profiles of people who volunteer for suicide attacks, it becomes evident that they come from one of the most neglected area of the country. In Pakistan, FATA(Federally Administered Tribal Areas) are one of the most neglected areas of the country. They were managed by a Political Agent during British times according to draconian Frontier Crimes Regulations or FCR. The practice continues to this day as the state fails to integrate this part of the country with the rest. This makes it a safe haven for terrorists as Washington continually stresses but the problem lies on the part of US and Pakistan policies. US cannot be blamed for neglect since they used these people during Afghan Jihad against Soviet Russia by inciting religious sentiments but Pakistan definitely deserves to be blamed for this. These people are deprived of all the facilities of life and are allocated a small quota in jobs. Literacy rates around here are abysmally low especially in women. Tribal system continues to this day and these people can hardly distinguish between them and their brethren on the other side of the borders. The reason we are discussing this is that almost all the suicide attackers used to this day comes from different parts of FATA or other Tribal areas. These are people who have had little education due to state neglect and could not distinguish between right and wrong.

2. Religious Fanaticism

British officers who served in the tribal areas observed that Pathan tribes are eternally at war among themselves. What unites them is their devotion to their religion Islam and they can be made to do anything by inciting this sentiment. This was seen in these people's resistance to Soviet invasion in 1980s when US and Pakistan Army used it to make these people fight as a strong militia. How these sentiments are incited is a question that can easily be answered by studying some of the tapes released by these terrorist organization highlighting their training techniques. They have benefited from Aristotle's concept of Tabula Rasa (blank slate) since they pick young men in their early teens as it very easy to prepare them to die for a holy cause. They play different songs urging them to fight for their lost land and push invaders out. They are told they will go straight to heaven and this is the easiest deal they have got from God.

3. Illiteracy

This is an extension of the first point as these people have continuously been neglected in every sector. It is true that education enlightens the mind and soul. These people lack in this area as government has paid little attention in this sector. While our defence budget has been on the increase, what suffered as a result has been the spending on education. This vacuum was filled by Madressahs (religious institutions) which stress on religious education only. Madressahs have been a key pillar of an Islamic society and its contributions have been remarkable. The negative side to this is that over the years, there has been a desegregation of secular and religious education. These Madressahs are run by Mullahs who are only learned in religous education. With the emergence of different sects, different conflicting schools of thought have emerged. There are some who have declared suicide bombings legitimate in Islam while others who happen to be a much bigger number have unequivocally denounced it. So, what is needed is that the world makes sure that these fragile parts of the world become literate according to UN's Millennium Development Goals. There is need for one agreed upon syllabus for people from Himalayas to Gwadar in Pakistan.

There are many other reasons but some of the main ones are those discussed below. Nationalism can be a strong force as seen in case of Kamikaze pilots and Pakistani soldiers' suicide attacks in wars against India.

How to stop suicide attacks?

This is a million dollar question that today's well equipped Armed Forces fail to answer. Can we stop it by constructing high walls or bullet proof vehicles? We might be able to reduce damage but when a person is ready to kill himself, you cannot predict or stop him from causing some damage. So, like any other problem, the remedy lies in solution to the reasons that has caused it. Temporary solutions are not durable as they can go on for decades. They do not need a big force to strike against US in Iraq or Afghanistan because a few hundred suicide bombers can cause much havoc. But the occupation forces cannot continue with their occupation for years for providing 'security' when the people do not want them. Eventually they will be at loss due to war fatigue and questions would be raised about it home. A long essay could be written on ways to stop them by different means but a simple answer to this complicated question is addressing the root causes of this problem.

US Imperialism in the garb of ‘Freedom of the World’

United States was formed on the principle of liberty and self-determination of the fate of the people of the American continent. American Revolution is considered to be an epic struggle for the rights of man. It was a struggle of the people of thirteen colonies against a world power i.e. the British Empire to free itself from the clutches of subjugation. The Revolution not only freed the people but also bonded them into a stronger bond of a united nation. The gifted leadership and its commitment to their founding principles made America a country which challenged the might of the world powers of the time in due course of time.

The first President of the United States, George Washington led America on a path that was free from any alignments. He gave the concept of neutrality in England’s war with France. Thomas Jefferson also advocated limited role for United States in world affairs. This policy was in consonance with the needs of the people as they needed to develop a strong and united nation. The continuous westward movement and the issue of slavery kept Americans busy at home. Even though they fought a war with England in 1812 but they refrained from any expansionism or exploration on other continents. This policy was given a more tangible shape when President Monroe presented his famous Monroe Doctrine in 1823 in his address to the Congress. Monroe Doctrine aimed at keeping European nations out of the affairs of the American continent in return for America’s avoidance of indulgence in European affairs. This did not restrain several American Presidents from interfering in the affairs of Latin American countries on different counts.

South’s greed for land in order to give strength to their advocacy for slavery in new states plunged America into a war with Mexico which later on led to annexation of Texas in 1840s. The Civil War fought between the North and South finally settled the question of slavery and United States was on the path for glory.

After the end of Civil War, production and growth rates were unprecedented and immigration also increased. Increased growth rates were evident from the fact that America surpassed all nations in production of different crops and its industrial output also multiplied. This called for new markets for American products as it was ready to supply its surplus to other countries. The reasons presented for the Spanish-American War in 1898 might have been different but this can be considered the start of American imperialism.US got Philippines and their presence there was applauded in the start but later on as a burden.

In the start of the 20^th century, President Roosevelt presented his Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It asked the Latin American countries to keep their finances in order so that Europeans can be kept at bay failing which US considered it as its right to intervene. US used it to intervene in different countries at different times. The rest of the time in the first half of the 20^th century, US were occupied with world wars.

After the end of the WWII, US entered into an ideological struggle with the Soviet Union called as the Cold War. This was the time when both countries fought proxy wars in different regions. This called for US political control of third world countries. US entered into alliances with different countries by offering aid or any other help to third world countries and stop the spread of communism. The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

The emergence of the United States as the sole power did not augur well for the rest of the countries especially the poorer parts of the world. A uni-polar world allowed US to maintain hundreds of bases to this day in different parts of the world. This was a form of neo-imperialism where the host countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan resented the presence of US forces on their soil. In Saudi Arabia, a bomb attack on the US forces in the city of Al-Khobar clearly demonstrated the resentment of the Saudi public to the continued presence of US armed forces. In Japan, charges of sexual harassment have been brought against US military men. This purpose of this continued US presence in different regions of the world is claimed to make the world secure and for the freedom of the people. The realist school of political thought preached by Hans Morgenthau disagrees with the incorporation of any ethical principles in political decision making.

United States has also faced strong criticism for its invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi people from the cruelty of Saddam Hussein. This freedom came at a huge price which the Iraqi people continue to pay in the form of about half a million lives. Why are so many people getting killed years after the death of Saddam Hussein if the purpose of the US invasion was to free Iraqi people and the only threat to their freedom was Saddam Hussein. Saddam was ruthless and exterminated his opponents but he did not kill even fraction of that many men in his perennial rule as many US killed in a short period of time.

The emergence of China and Russia and the forming of Shanghai Corporation Organization clearly shows that US poses a threat to the security of the East. China has clearly said that ‘concrete models of political institutions should not be exported’ in response to US efforts of imposing democracy on people living in different demographics. This is a form of imperialism to facilitate US hold on world affairs and enlarge their strategic net. US reputation and as a result of the financial crisis its power has suffered a huge blow. It continues to be the world power but now others are catching up too while US power is on the decline due to its over involvement in world affairs.

CSS Preparation Tips

It's an interesting question, rather a series of questions. Many newcomers inquire about time-space framework during their preparation phase. The answers to these most commonly asked quereies are, as far as I believe, as follows:

1-It's is very much possible that you pass rather excel in CSS and any other field in your first try if you have following ingredients which are considered as prerequisites:

*--- A clear aim in mind what are you going to do and how can it be achieved.

*--- A love, dedication, and craziness for your cause and goal post, i.e. css in this case.

*--- A firm and full-time commitment to css and denial of all other pleasures during the time period when you get into the preparation phase.

*--- A masterplan of exams preparation based on clear, sincere and correct guideline. It means finer details and all nuts and bolts.

*--- A workaholic spirit. A thirst, an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.

*--- A cooperative family and circle of friends.

*--- Avoidance of all discouragers, rumour-mongers, and jealous-of-bureaucracy type folks.

*--- Prayers of all your well-wishers, especially yours own and of your parents.

*--- As much extensive reading as one can do.

*--- A smart plan of the exam-preparation. Including at least three revisions.

*--- A thorough and deep understanding of all your subjects.

*--- Excellent communication skills, public relationing, a confident and humble personality and no arrogance at all.

*----Knowledge of all technologies (I mean tricks) of attempting written papers. It is extremely important besides full preparation of subjects and excellent grasp of your subjects.
Remember, the transfering of knowledge on the paper is an art and you must master it as well for a successful going.

*--- A firm grip on English languge as it is the key to success if you want to excel it.If you have a beauty of expression, a diligent insight into the subject matter and know the intricacies of communicating your knowledge to others , you can control and command the brain of the examiner.

*---Please stay away from those who discourage and those who may be appropriately termed as envious of css and rabble-rousers.

*--- Keep yourself upto date in all matters relating CSS. Don't be discouraged at any stage.

*---- As far as timings, it varies and depends on your abilities and preparation level. As a rule of thumb,it fluctuates between 8-15 hours a day.
There are times when you are fully energetic and put a lot of time into this business and sometimes you are exhaust and don't spend much time. But the golden rule is that do as much as you can absorb and reproduce well and beautifully. Don't do donkey work just to keep yourself satisfied that you are doing a great job.

*--- Just one month before the exams you need to through all your energy into the engine and give a nitro-boost. For this you must save your energy and the graph of daily time spent on studies should take-off slowly. If you spend a major chunk of your fuel in the previous month, you will be exhaust and soon feel feeble near the exams. But if you are taking off slowly near the exams just two months befor their starting, you will feel rejuvenated just before the exams.

*---- You must need not be voracious for as many books and bundle of notes. Just get some good material and try to have a full command.

Courtesy: ARGUS, www.cssforum.com.pk

Eight Years Later: US in Afghanistan

Eight Years Later

The United States in Afghanistan

By GABRIEL KOLKO

The United States scarcely knew what a complex disaster it was confronting when it went to war in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. It will eventually - perhaps years from now - suffer the same fate as Alexander the Great, the British, and the now-defunct Soviet Union: defeat.

What is called “Afghanistan” is really a collection of tribes and ethnic groups - Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and more - there are seven major ethnic groups, each with their own language. There are 30 minor languages. Pashtuns are 42 per cent of the population and the Taliban comes from them. Its borders are contested and highly porous, and al-Qaeda is most powerful in the Pashtun regions of northern Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. “The fate of Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably tied,” President George Bush declared in December 2007. This fact makes the war far more complicated, not the least because the enormous quantities of military aid sent to Pakistan are mostly wasted.

Worse yet, Pakistan possesses about 70 to 90 nuclear weapons and the U.S. fears some may fall into the hands of Islamic extremists. At least three-quarters of the supplies essential for America’s and its allies’ war effort flow through Pakistan, and they are often attacked. Moreover, a large and growing majority of the Pakistanis distrusts U.S. motives. The U.S.’s tilt to New Delhi after 2007, which greatly augmented Indian nuclear power, made Pakistan far more reluctant to do Washington’s bidding.

Afghanistan is a mess, complex beyond description, with mountainous terrain to match. Its principal problems are political, social, and cultural - in large part because Great Britain concocted it arbitrarily. There is no durable military solution to its many problems. As in Vietnam, the U.S. will win battles but it has no strategy for winning this war.

Above all, the regional geo-political context is decisive, involving, India-Pakistan relations - a factor that will prevail whatever the United States and its allies do. Pakistan’s most vital interest is seeing a friendly government rule Afghanistan - no matter who it is. They will not waver on this principle. The Pakistani military is adamant about making India its key focus, and while it is opposed to al Qaeda and the Arab membership, it maintains good relations with the anti-Karzai Taliban - with whom it worked when it fought the Soviets.

The power of Afghanistan’s nominal president, Hamid Karzai, barely extends beyond Kabul, and his inefficiency and corruption shock many U.S. leaders – though most of them, as in South Vietnam, are ultimately prepared to tolerate such failings. The Pakistanis regard Karzai as an Indian puppet, and however much many of its leaders dislike Pashtun separatism or the Taliban, they fear India far more. Their military is structured to fight India, not a counterinsurgency against the Taliban and its allies who operate within its borders.

Karzai, a Pashtun who nonetheless is far closer to Tajiks and Uzbeks, is indeed very cordial to India. Indian foreign aid to his government has amounted to over a billion dollars. His “re-election” earlier this month - at a time when he is increasingly unpopular - has been attacked as based on fraud. Former President Jimmy Carter declared “Hamid Karzai has stolen the election.”

This is only part of the context in which the U.S. has been mired for eight years, and Obama’s strategy of escalation will confront growing resistance both in Afghanistan and among the U.S. Congress and public. There are now over 100,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, mainly American, and more will not change the situation. Fifty-eight per cent of the American population was against the Afghan war in September this year, and in some NATO nations - particularly Germany, Great Britain, and Italy - opposition to the war is increasing. These countries will not send significantly more troops to fight there. Influential U.S. senators - who are still a small minority but an indication the war is becoming increasingly unpopular within the U.S. - are questioning Obama’s strategy.

Obama’s approach to winning the war is far too convoluted to succeed and it is dependent on factors over which he has scant control - not the least being the advice of one of his key advisers, Bruce Riedel, that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central all-consuming issue for al Quaida.“ This issue must finally be settled; the chances of that happening are close to non-existent. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, has warned Obama on several occasions that ”we are running the risk of replicating … the fate of the Soviets.” As the author of Moscow’s ‘Afghan trap’, he should know.

Still, Obama is likely to escalate. Apart from the “credibility” of American power being involved, most key American officers think, to quote chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, that “the main effort in our strategic focus from a military perspective must now shift to Afghanistan.” A few officers, mostly lacking influence, believe it will lead to disaster, and the American military commander in Afghanistan has warned that unless there is a rapid escalation of troops within a year the war “will likely result in failure.”

Meanwhile, Obama thinks he will win the war by escalation - an illusion that also marked the futile war in Vietnam. He also believes he can “Afghanisize” the war - like Nixon thought he could “Vietnamize” that conflict - even though recruits for Karzai’s army have little motivation apart from collecting their salary, and are scarcely a match for the Taliban - a quite divided, complex organization which today dominates much of the country.

A growing majority of the Afghan population now oppose the U.S. effort because they have led to frightful civilian casualties without attaining decisive military successes. “The mission is on the verge of failing,” a writer in the U.S. Army’s quarterly, Parameters, concluded last spring.

That, indeed, may be an understatement.