Rice: Pakistan must control border area

"The White House is pressuring Pakistan to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban operatives in the lawless border area with Afghanistan that President Bush recently said was "wilder than the Wild West."

The move comes amid growing concern in Congress and the administration that terrorist forces are regrouping in the border area and preparing for a spring offensive in Afghanistan.'

Too bad President Bush and Condi won't do anything about cracking down on the lawlessness around our own borders in the "Wild West." Do as I say,not as I do.

""He expressed serious U.S. concerns on the intelligence being picked up of an impending Taliban and al-Qaida 'spring offensive' against allied forces in Afghanistan,"

....Ole Musharraf seemed surprized the Americans actually discovered something they weren't supposed to know....

.....The Americans are learning fast....

This is OT.

If the US can't control it's border how can Pakistan when it doesn't even want to control it?

Update on the Mexifornia article.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022307.html

Notice it says Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city. With one tenth of all Mexican nationals living there.

People constantly complain that American's only know one language, unlike Europeans. Well that one language will soon become Spanish, since Mexico is not teaching their students a second language, like English, even though they KNOW that many of them WILL use the language when they leave for the US. Unlike many Americans who never travel outside the border.

No doubt Mushy Raff will take his usual vigorous action. This means he'll dine with Mullah Omar only three times a week instead of the usual four times.

Can anyone explain?

Is the border recognized by either country? Are the tribes who live in that area (whether or not they support terrorists) effectively binational, moving back and forth across the border at will? We hear how Pakistan must control its border but what about Afghanistan? Don't the Afghans bear equal responsibility?
Do both countries treat the border region as a no-go zone? If neither government will exercise sovereignty then do we (or anyone else who is threatened) have the legal right to go in there and do what they won't?

Vice President Dick Cheney made a surprise visit to Pakistan...

‘Surprise visit’ is newspeak for ‘If this was a scheduled visit, there’s a good chance that we’d get blown up’. Offical visits to Iraq all seem to be surprises. Didn't visits to Pakistan used to be scheduled?

PMK,

The Pathans in the border areas won't do squat. They are notoriously independent and won't take s*** from the Pakistani government. In fact, the tribal areas are not really part of the country. There is virtually no Afghan government control outside of Kabul so they can't do anything about the border areas either.

And as for Americans doing the dirty work to lower their casualties, I don't know what the legality of that is. Perhaps someone in the military can enlighten us, because if American troops don't want to be shot at from behind Pakistani lines, then they will have to go in there.

The problem is Pakistan is controlling the border areas even into China where Zawahiri is living in luxury.

America has allies in Pakistan, but we also have bushels of enemies helping al Qaeda and the Taliban.

s_sgt; I think that Russia’s Muslim population is majority Sunni. It seems like Russia’s support is primarily to Iran, maybe with the goal of creating a Shia counterbalance to their own Muslim population. If they can de-stabilize our efforts and make a buck while they’re at it, it kind of makes sense.

I remember being taught in High School that the USSR’s goal was to take Iran for the oil and to establish a warm water port.

The idea that al Qaeda only has sanctuary in Waziristan is bs. Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured? Rawalpindi, right next to the capital. Where was Ramzi Binalshibh captured? Karachi. Where was Abu Zubeida captured? Faisalabad. Where was al Libi captured? Mardan, somewhat east of Peshawar and north of Islamabad. Major cities to look forward to for future captures should include Lahore, Multan and Peshawar.

None of these cities are in Pakistan's 'wild west/tribal areas/Waziristan': all of them are in Pakistan's mainstream cities. So quit buying into the Paki claim that the problem is restricted to border areas.

Here is an article from March 7, 2001, before the 9/11 attacks, and before Pakistan became our "staunch ally" in the subsequent "war on terror." Worth reading, worth having people in the Pentagon, State Department, and Congress read again and again:

“CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban”

LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."
Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.
Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."
Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.
Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.
The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."
Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."
Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."
Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.
It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (IANS)

Selig Harrison was right. He has remained right. If someone is consistently right, and almost everyone else is consistently wrong about a matter, at what point should that person be listened to with attention and respect?

Selig Harrison should be the adviser on how to deal with Pakistan.

Why isn't he?

Another Harrison piece on the need to change Pakistani behavior in Baluchistan, a place that, like Kurdistan, deserves at the very least autonomy, and better, from our point of view, would be complete independence:

May 26, 2006

Selig Harrison says no US aid to Pakistan till it stops military activity in Baluchistan
by Priscilla Huff

Washington: Noted American expert on South Asian Affairs, Selig Harrison, has urged the Bush Administration to withhold U.S. aid to Islamabad until Pakistan ceases military activity in Baluchistan.

Speaking at a seminar organised by the United States Institute of Peace, Harrison, who is the director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, said: "In my view, future US military and economic aid to Islamabad should be withheld until Musharraf (Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf) stops his military repression of Baluchistan and enters into serious negotiations with Baloch leaders.”

Harrison expressed the view that “Pakistan is likely to become increasingly ungovernable in the absence of a political settlement with the Baloch."

He warned that continued military confrontation in Baluchistan could well intensify the long-simmering ethnic unrest in neighbouring Sindh and involving a variety of anti-Musharraf groups around Pakistan.

But despite the serious international implications the Baloch issue has not found mainstream attention in Washington.

Harrison blamed the lukewarm response to the near isolation of the region, particularly by the military, which has led to a huge sense of ambiguity about Baluchistan. Harrison said with conflicting reports and disputed claims of chemical weapons and rights abuses, it’s tough to know exactly what's going on.

“This time it is harder to pin down the facts. We know that Pakistan still gets Sui gas from Baluchistan to meet 22 per cent of its gas needs. We know that the central government has consistently refused to pay fair royalties for that gas to Baluchistan for its development. But just what is happening militarily right now in Pakistan and Baluchistan is really not clear, because the army itself doesn't even officially acknowledge that there is an operation in Baluchistan and hasn't admitted that and so its been able to keep most journalists out,” he said.

But Harrison is convinced it is a policy the US needs to change as a stable Pakistan was in Washington’s strategic interests, particularly with respect to its war on terror.

“This policy in my view should be reversed, not only to stop the carnage, but also because the United States has a major strategic stake in a peaceful accommodation between Islamabad and Baloch leaders,” Harrison said.

Frederic Grare, an expert attached with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace further said the issue could become a cauldron of fresh tension with neighbour Afghanistan, which has been at a bitter war of words with Musharraf over the rebel issue.

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan deteriorated sharply this year after Afghanistan said Taliban insurgents were able to operate from the safety of Pakistani soil.

Many Afghans blame Pakistan for supporting the Taliban, or at the very least turning a blind eye to Taliban operating from Pakistan lawless border regions.

Pakistan, which is battling Taliban and al Qaeda-linked militants on its side of the border, denies helping the Taliban.

“A number of people refuse to see the reality of the problem and this is much more important than any foreign intervention per se. You know the risk...of mutual recrimination between Afghanistan on one side, Pakistan on the other, because of this Baloch issue may eventually degenerate and clearly it will be an additional incentive for the two countries to continue this war of words and again, we know where we are now, we don't know where we will be in some time to come, so this is definitely something I would not take lightly,” Grare said.

Balochs complain of a lack of political representation and resent their resources being used to benefit Pakistan's other regions, most notably the populous Punjab province.

Many of the tribals in the area have taken up militancy and have been fighting for more autonomy and control over Baluchistan oil and gas resources for decades but they intensified their campaign over the past year.

In a taped message senator Sanaullah Baloch, a top leader of the Baluchistan National Party (BNP), said the message was clear that his people must have the ownership of their homeland.

“There is a clear demand from the Baloch intelligentsia, Baloch politicians, Baloch political workers that the international boundaries created between Baluchistan, that divide Baluchistan should be softened and the people of Baluchistan be allowed to govern their territory and their regions and their state declared as a non-nuclear region, a de-militarized region and the ownership of the resources of the region should be accepted for the people of Baluchistan,” he said.

The Pakistani military launched a major crackdown against militants in Baluchistan after a rocket attack on December 14 during a visit by President Pervez Musharraf to the town of Kohlu.

Baloch nationalists say almost 200 people have been killed. The government has not commented on casualties but analysts say the militants' figure could be exaggerated.

The crackdown has coincided with the announcement of plans to privatise two gas distribution firms in Baluchistan, which is home to Pakistan's main gas fields.

Pakistan's top rights group as well has slammed Musharraf’s regime over the “war-like situation” prevailing in the region.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) last month rejected government claims that it was not using regular armed forces in a crackdown in the southwestern province launched last month after rocket attacks by tribal militants.

The group said it had "received evidence that action by armed forces had led to deaths and injuries among civilians" and that "populations had also been subjected to indiscriminate bombing".

The HRCP team has also found widespread instances of 'disappearance', of torture inflicted on people held in custody, and on those fleeing from their houses."

This is OT a bit (but still concerning Muslims). Did anyone here who has seen the film "Babel" think the Morocco part was PC? I'm interested in hearing JW opinions concerning this film.

How it should be done !

It is actually quite an amusing video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_xQBm-7sVg

The last piece, in which Harrison notes something that almost no one knows, not in Congress, not in the press, not it seems among many others -- that since 9/11/2001 the Bush Administration has given Pakistan the equivalent of $27.5 billion dollars. That makes Pakistan, after Iraq, the largest recipient per annum of American aid. The next time someone begins to squawk to you about "all that aid to Israel" -- an unshakeable ally in the war of self-defense against the Jihad (as of course it must be, given it is also the victim of the earliest, and best-publicized, of the Lesser Jihads begun after World War II (along with that against Hindus in Kashmir), but growing Muslim wealth and power has, of course, made for dozens of Lesser Jihads all of which should be correctly seen as local manifestations of the same impulse arising out of the texts, teachings, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam.

27.5 billion dollars from Ameria to Pakistan? For what, exactly? What has been the great achievement? How is Al-Qaeda doing in Pakistan? Why, it is doing just fine, thank you. An occasional pretend pinprick, nothing serious, a handful of people possibly killed, often the wrong people. Much huff-and-puffing for the endlessly -- at least until now -- gullible Americans, who have decades of trusting faith in those fine Pakistani generals, those terry-thomased mustachioed ramrod-straight graduates of Sandhurst, or at least that was how those American generals who for decades preferred them to the Indians, to Nehru and Menon and Mrs. Gandhi, saw them, and by the way, wasn't Islam a "bulwark against Communism"? And wasn't Saudi Arabia, just like Pakistan, the true-bluest friend America could ever have? What, me worry?

Someone in Congress, and someone running for office, and many in the press, should be asking this question: what have we got for that $27.5 billion tossed off to Pakistan? Years ago, with American military money, the Pakistani ISI funded "Doctor" A. Q. Khan in his little projoect, the results of which, in Pakistan itself, and also in those countires it helped, such as North Korea and Iran, are by now well-known. But it doesn't stop, does it? Right now the Americans are supplying Pakistan with F-16s, capable of doing all kinds of damage, carrying all kinds of weapons. Why? How long do the endlesslly creduous or terminally confused (about Islam, about everything having to do with Islam) get to run things? When will someone start pulling the dimwitted from their well-appointed sinecures in the "intelligence" services, and allow for a takeover by those who are well-versed in the doctrines and practice of Islam, who cannot or will not be fooled, not by Musharraf, not by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, not by kinglet Abdullah of Jordan, not by Mubarak, not by any Sunnis, and not by any Shi'a akin to those -- Chalabi, Allawi, Kanan Makiya, Rend al-Rahim -- who managed to assure the Americans that once they deposed Saddam Hussein all manner of things would be well.

pWhat have we got for that $27.5 billion? Al-Qaeda is not "on the run" in Pakistan, or for that matter, the Taliban are not "on the run" in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was never damaged very much by the Pakistani forces. How could those forces, deeply Islamic (see General Malik's book on Jihad), have acted against those who are the brave paladins of Islam? Oh, a few cosmetic operations, designed to keep the Americans happy and supplying that money, cancelling those debts, sending those F-16s and all the other goodies that the army wants -- that's okay. That's understandable. But nothing real need be done. Musharraf could hardly believe it himself, but it turns out to be just as the Arabs always said -- you can get away with anything with the Americans. They're the dream customers in the souk. They'll never get it. They'll never understand. So keep on fooling them. Keep on buying time. Keep on pocketing that aid and those planes. And of course, watch as the Taliban come back, as they have, in Afghanistan. Watch, as they have, the Al-Qaeda forces regroup -- still under the same effective management -- after the Americans have spent, in the last five years, all over the world, close to a trillion dollars (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in continued Jizyah-aid to Egypt, Jordan, "the Palestinians," and in hugely expensive "Homeland Security" measures which never seem to include anything that might make Americans the slightest bit more aware of the doctrines of the belief-system of Islam that underly the need for that Homeland Security, or, supposedly, for all those incredible aid packages and expenses in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other places where "hearts and minds" are to be won through the expenditure of Infidel money, money, money.

The hideousness of it all will not end until the smug bearers of Stupidity have their goddess publicly exposed, and themselves smitten in public debate. And if they try to raise themselves up from the ground with still more idiocy, then let them be smitten again. They are a menace. They are causing tremendous squandering and waste with their miscomprehension, their wilful ignorance, their trustingness, their cruel waste of men, money, materiel. Smite them again, show up the hollowness of their phrases ("cut and run" for example), the shallowness of their analysis, the obtuseness of their understanding.

I agree Pakistan must control their border, but then so should:

America, Mexico, Canada, Jordan, the Palestinians, Iraq, Syria.

Condi should pay attention to those also.

"I keep writing that I don't understand Russia's attitude of supporting the mujahideen since they will backfire on them as they did us ..."

Russia's support of terrorist sponsoring nations has already backfired on them. In a little town called Beslan. Hundreds of innocent children paid the price for Putin's cupidity.

Pakistan is terror central. They are terrorism's finishing school as funded by the Saudis. The only thing keeping Musharraf in power is the ugly prospect of truly radical Islamists gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

27.5 billion dollars from Ameria to Pakistan? For what, exactly? What has been the great achievement? How is Al-Qaeda doing in Pakistan? Why, it is doing just fine, thank you.

Bravo Hugh, Bravo. You are spot on, mate. When 911 happened, i thought Pakistan's chickens have come home to roost. But i was dumbfounded when Musharaff was hailed as a 'Frontline ally on the War on Terror'. Was dismayed at all the media patronage he got here. And then came Danny Pearl's (of WSJ) murder. I felt like crying when i saw SOS Colin Powell defending him. Then came Abdul Qadir Khan's confession and then came 911 Commissions report. It seems to me that the government (both) have taken an oath to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil about the State of Pakistan. I know VP Cheney has been there and has some tough words for buddy Musharaff. But doesn't make me feel that the powers that have learned any lessons. In fact i have given up on that happening. I have seen leader after leader, government after government (including the current Indian govt.) so eager to cover up for Pakistan. It did not come as a surprise to me when i learned that the Pakistanis had played their games to remove any reference to Pakistan from the 911 Commission report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp

Hugh,

The not so recent, as revealed by Harrison's writings, myopia of US foreign policy, in our relationship to countries currently dominated by the belief system of Islam, is quite disheartening.

Although being in full agreement with your sentiment that the smugly stupid, currently mis-leading this country in so many ways, be smitten in debate, subsequently ostracized and ultimately stripped of power and relegated to positions suitable for the supremely imbecilic....how can this actually be achieved?

Assuming that this is all attributable to ignorance, and I for one, do not believe that to be the case anymore, how can reason be sold to the unreasonable?

Is a return to refined isolationism any form of a solution? Cutting off all military and economic aid to, hell at this point every single Middle Eastern country, with the obvious exception of Israel? How can this be successfully employed, if it can at all?

Ms. Rice is a "shining" example of another in a long list of "dim bulbs". How can the US expect Pakistan to do anything about their border, when we here in the US can't or won't do anything about ours? This is not a comparison of the two governments, but just an example of another exuse for Pakistan in their "see how hard it is to do" rebuttal.

So far, the candidates in the race to lead the US in 2008 are indicative that absolutely nothing good or benficial, for the US at least, will occur regarding our near-future foreign policies application. Likewise, the necessity of the US to fully comprehend and develop a foreign policy template in response to the belief system of Islam, not the oft, ill-used amorphous term, terror, is also in doubt.

In lieu of a nuke landing in the US, for I don't even think one landing in Israel will provide the reality-check that the US needs, and apparently has needed, according to Mr. Harrison....what effective action can be taken?

Is a newly-minted definition of isolationism do-able, or even an option?

darcy,

I haven't seen Babel, but it gets 2 thumbs down at
Libertas, a Forum for Conservative Thought of Film.
I found the Libertas website from a link at FrontPage - highly recommend.

For a slightly unique perspective of the PC of the Left, you might find value at One Cosmos today.

Bob smites the KosKids today in
"Planet of the Apes of God: The Subhuman Agenda of the Stick-Wielding Kosmonkeys"

Pakistan should control their Afghan border at least to the same level that we control our Mexican border.

3 months after 9/11, Pakistani trained terrorists suicide bombed the Indian Parliament. The Indian military mobilized for war. They did computer war game simulation of a possible nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, and an Indian general commented on the results. He said that India will take very heavy casualties, but will survive, while Pakistan will simply cease to exist. Then Rumsfeld made a special trip to the region to pull Pakistan's bacon out of the fire and pressure India not to respond militarily.

If Rumsfeld instead encourages India to act militarily, the whole war on "terror" ends right there. I don't see any good reason to prop up Musharaf if there is a state in the region which given full American support can contain, even destroy Pakistan, if Pakistan gets out of line. And I don't think Pakistan under Musharraf can be trusted to not provide a nuclear weapon to terorrists, but it will be harder to prove and take necessary against them if they do, then it would be against someone like the nut in Iran that acts quite openly.

I think it's beyond ridiculous after 9/11, when Pakistan commits a flagrant act of war against its' neighbor, for our defense secretary to go over there to make sure that neighbor doesn't nuke Pakistan.

Pakistan is just one coup d'etat away from becoming a nuclear armed fundamentalist state. Then all hell will break loose.

WASHINGTON - Dozens of high-level officials joined in a White House drill Saturday to see how the government would respond if several U.S. cities were attacked simultaneously by bombs similar to those commonly used against American troops in Iraq.
[...]
Homeland Security Council that she heads mapped out in advance a massive disaster involving improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, in 10 U.S. cities at the same time, using a combination of large and small towns,
From AP Sunday Feb 25

I guess they are more concerned in Washington than we thought.

Of course Iran is telling Hezbullah to attack if they (Iran) are attacked......
President of Iraq signed a deal with the Kurds about equal sharing of the oil revenues (apparently most of the oil just happens to be under the Kurds' feet) and the same day he has to go to Jordan for emegency medical treatment.???
But now he is all right and the rumors of a heart attack were "baseless" (chickenheart, Maybe?)
I don't think anyone over there is playing the cards in their hands, only the ones in their sleeves.

Someone just sent me this news item related to who controls Pakistan's northwest...

"Reuters: This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan, Taliban Minister of Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military action against Al-Qaeda continues, Taliban authorities will cut off America's supply of convenience store managers.

And if this action does not yield sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by American Express and Motel 6 managers."

It's getting ugly.

The U.S. must also control its own (Mexican) border area. Does it?

Posted by: US_infidel

You bet it does!! The Justice Department is right there ready to throw the book at any Border Patrol agent who DOES HIS JOB! They control our border, but not in the way Americans want them to.

This time plan shoud not go awry.

In late 80s United States as the co-sponsor of Afghan war and the ‘Islamist force’ called Mujahideen of Pan-Islamic organisation were marching hand in hand and rallying at a close quarters to dislodge Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Pursuing the planned covert operation against Soviet Union, United States had earlier encouraged Russians to invade and occupy Afghanistan. Soviet Union had fallen prey to US covert move and invaded an Islamic country- Afghanistan. This made the conservative Islamist in Afghanistan to raise a 'cry for Jihad' in order to oust the Soviet aggressors and to free their home land.

The aim of both the adventurist namely, United States and Pan Islamic Organisation- Mujahideen were to seek a strong surge of Islamic Jihad movement to carve it as a policy weapon in Afghanistan and use it against Soviet Union. Both were targeting the lucrative world economic rich and full of natural resources lands of Central Asia. (Most of these lands were the former Islamic Republics; previously engulfed by the Soviet Zars and were since kept insulated from outside world.) US if success full, will hold the dominance in the area and be in control. On the other hand Islamist were happy to gain back their Islamic countries and thus form a major; Islamic Super Block of future. After giving a colossal defeat to Soviet Union, as planned, in the selected rugged battle fields of Afghanistan and the expected break up of Soviet Union; they both will move forward and grab these break away and vulnerable lands at their will.

The lightening blows of Mujahideen and their furious attacks unleashed havoc on the Soviet encampments. They not only struck violently and defeated Soviet Union but its Empire also came down crumbling and collapsed for good. The bravery and valour of Mujahideen warriors in their Jihad movement had brought a historic change on the face of this earth. Mujahideen made Soviet Empire to collapse and made United States the sole super power in the world.

The entire operation was conducted, supported and executed by single country Pakistan. (Of course with the financial and material help from USA and Saudi Arabia.) Fairness of the business demands that Pakistan being the beneficent of USA in making her the sole super power has to be treated with respect and dignity.

Pan Islamic forces are the equal partners and share holders of the spoils of Afghan war but both the war partners failed to live by the rules and wanted to go their own way to claim their…‘lion shares’.

US were well aware that 'cry of Jihad' turned Afghanis into diehard sturdy warriors in Afghan war. US used the volatile surge of Jihad movement generated among Muslims during war as her policy weapon and spent millions of dollars and paid to the recipients for maintaining it as such. Although US previous plan went awry but she wanted to use it again and thus took a fresh start by invading Iraq. But this time US has moved rather against it...by using this policy weapon, in reverse fashion; sitting on the other side and labelling Mujahideen (Taliban) as opponents, terrorists meddling in US affairs and interfering in US interests in Middle Eastern Block. US declared a war against them;-- the ‘Global war on Terror’; But in fact, 'Global war on terror' is a betrayal and a baseless move; being pushed on false pretexts with the aim to exterminate the old friends, for the reason that they may be a hindrance in wading the way through.

The diehard, sturdy Mujahideen warriors may not be converted into humbled and submissive identities so easily; by merely turning all US guns on them; under the divisive pretext of global war on terror. Both the parties; know this very well that ‘Global terrorism’ is a cock up. It is put together on false pretext and is a flawed exercise of an oppressor ought to go awry.

It requires wisdom, zeal and magnanimity of a diehard, and a resilient visionary to lead the world as a lone super power and to deal with such like situations and scenarios; and certainly, not by indulging into extermination of old acquaintances and beneficent... friends. Unfortunately the traits of a leadership requiring of wisdom, zeal and conducting itself with magnanimity; US administration simply does not posses it. Matter of fact is that US has got nothing to give to…the world.

The present day scenario in the Middle East and in view of our concern of distressing atrocities being committed daily in Iraq war; our media is very successful and very conveniently, keeping us in its grip all the times. The twisted depictions and falsification of news by the media is the real problem. Where as, in fact it is only the rapacious greed of United States and her craving to mark her dominance as a lone super power around the world and her remorseless exercise of extermination of its opponents forces i.e., Islamist is the only issue faced by the world.

Some how we all are the victim of the onslaught of this media, which is continuously dissecting us and pushing us on to... two different poles; mainly the poles of two religious identities; of Islam and Christianity. We are being pitched against each other for nothing. The religion, at it self (all the denominations) may not be having anything to do with such like wars.