INDIA - VISION 2020

2020 - status quo scenario

Pakistan’s population has grown to 220 million in 2020, 80% of children coming out from madrassas spewing venom on US, Israel and India. Poverty, climate change and militancy have taken firm grip with the military ruling either directly or indirectly.

Gilgit and northern areas have become a district in Pakistan and China military presence is fixed. Gwadar port has become a Chinese Navy docking point.

With above, Pakistan will with impunity engage in terrorism inside India knowing fully well that India has been finally surrounded by Chinese forces and will not be able to do much. And Pakistan will up the ante across the length and breadth of India, bleeding the economic progress and reducing the Indian elephant into a cancerous carcass exacerbated by incompetent, pliant and corrupt politicians too busy to look at the large picture.

If the above scenario is not acceptable to us, then one has to act today – so that in future our children have a better and safer India to live in.

2020 - the way forward

Today, Pakistan is not a country but a piece of land ruled by the military. PERIOD !

While India looks at cracks in Pakistan based on religious divisions (sunni, ahmediya, shia etc) or entho-linguistic division (Sindhi, Punjabi, Balochi, Pushtun) – it has overlooked a major crack inside Pakistan that can be exploited. India has been trying to weakly exploit the ethno-liguistic divisions in Pakistan but different PMs and Home Ministers of India have had differences of opinion on the policy driven by what they deemed “we can live in peaceful co-existence”. How do you live in peace when the vast majority of Pakistani population is fed a daily diet of hatred -which enslaves people to this ideology which is then exploited by the army through its various arms including terrorist groups under its wings?

Hence, Paksitan is a bane to the civilized world as it exists today. The people of Pakistan are like any other people around the world – if they are well educated, well rounded individuals. But Pakistan today, is a basket case of terrorism, spewing cheap foot soldiers dreaming of creating Khorasan and starting wars over the world through Ghazwatul Hind.


Read Ghazwatul Hind before proceeding further by clicking on the link.

The biggest crack Pakistan has is Gini co-efficient. The mix of wealth and the organized poverty it is leading to. More poverty = more terrorist foot soldiers. Wealth and land is in the hands of 1000 or so feudal lords and their extended family. Such is their clout that they are the politicians, the judges, the senior bureaucrats. Justice system for the poor simply do not exist and this alienation too is exploited by the terrorists.

Gini Co-efficient:

A Gini Coefficient of 0 would indicate equal income for all earners. A Gini Coefficient of 1 would mean that one person had all the income and nobody else had any. Thus, a lower Gini Coefficient indicates more equitable distribution of wealth in a society, while higher a Gini Coefficient means that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people. Sometimes, the Gini Coefficient is multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100 ('Gini Index').

According to a US State Department report, released in 2006, the Gini Coefficient for Pakistan is 68.0 Such high rates are deemed good for revolutions.

The single most devastating factor for increased income and wealth inequalities in Pakistan remains the regressive tax system. Incidence of tax on the poor in the last 10 years has increased substantially (by about 35 per cent), while the rich are paying almost no direct tax on their colossal income and wealth. A study conducted by the Centre for Research on Poverty and Income Distribution (CRPID), 63 per cent of poor in Pakistan fall in the category of 'transitory poor'. The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has also admitted in its annual reports that the standard definition of 'transitory poor' includes those households that are below the poverty line for most of the time, but not always, during a defined period.

The remaining 32 per cent and five per cent of the population that subsist below the poverty line are 'chronic' and 'extremely poor', respectively. 'Chronic' and 'extremely' poor are those households that are below the poverty line all the time during a defined period. Similarly, on the other side, 13 per cent and 21 per cent of total non-poor (above the poverty line) are classified as 'transitory vulnerable' and 'transitory non-poor', respectively.

This portrays an alarming situation, as more and more people are moving from the 'transitory' category to the 'chronic category', courtesy inequitable distribution of income and wealth, monopoly over assets and regressive tax policies.

Ayman Al Zawahari is not wrong when he calls on the poor of Pakistan to start the revolution against this feudal class. They have done precious little during the floods, and most likely siphoned off millions of aid dollars into their overseas slush funds. It is strange how the short term goals of Indian intelligence and Al-Qaeda are similar – mainly overthrow of Pakistan Army and its feudal class. That is where our goals merge and end.

India has spectacularly failed to rally these poor peasants into an insurgency group tackling the rich feudal lords. Islam does not lend itself to Maoist philosophy, however right against wrong through Quran was not exploited. India has seen Maoist insurgencies in swathes of land where this income distribution is at its worst.

Click to read leftist view emanating from within Pakistan

That being said, it is a question of liquidating 1000+ soft targets in Pakistan to bring about social anarchy – much to the glee of Al-Qaeda. Let super powers fret whether Al-Qaeda will be able to exploit this and get their hands on nukes. India should not be worried about this.

Shaking the ground below the US / EU:

As long as the situation remains under the control of Pakistan Army, no Western nation will come to India’s aid to the rot it faces on its western border. Only if the situation appears to slip from the grasp of Pakistan Army will these countries wake up and dust off contingency plans that were prepared a while back. It is India’s duty to bring in social anarchy inside Pakistan without a single missile being fired from this side and to let the West sweat as Pakistan Army loses grip over Pakistan.

The flood would have shown Indian military planners the devastation it can cause to 1/5 of land mass of Pakistan. It knows what non-military vice grip it can hold over Pakistan. Time to open the tap towards social anarchy and leading to liquidation to over 1000+ feudal landlords to be blamed on rising peasant resentment and exploitation.

At the same time, India knows if there is Mumbai 2 – it will have to act, notwithstanding Peter Bergen’s version. But then India will be acting on Pakistan’s time (or even on US time – David Headley was an US asset) . India knows Mumbai 2 will happen – is waiting to happen.

Question is - Do we let another Mumbai 2 happen – assuming the best vigilance can stop 96 out of 100 attempts ( a fairy tale – but even assume this to be true) – 4 will never be detected. But do we wait for this to happen on their time when they are ready?

Integration of PoK:

Or dare I write here, we make Mumbai 2 happen on our time, on our terms. Its so easy to run an operation inside Pakistan against India through contacts inside Afghanistan. Any of the groups will be eager for shahadat. I am willing to extend here and hope that the next Mumbai 2 be known to us – so that we act and achieve a goal. The goal is not to eliminate terrorist camps – but to take over PoK and integrate it with India.

Chinese interest:

However, we must let Chinese interest remain – let the Karakoram highway be there and allow movement of oil & gas into China. The leverage of the road opening will be directly linked to Chinese behaviour on our border. If the Chinese are quiet, the road remains open. But the road will not allow Chinese arms to come to Pakistan – that is clear. It’s a one way energy corridor for China, be it oil or gas grid. But it will pass through Indian Kashmir – and yes token transit costs that can be swapped with Indian tourists going to Kailash Mansarovar.

Iran & Gilgit:

Iran will not have forgotten the brutality with which Pakistan, then under Pervez Musharraf joined hands with Osama bin Laden to kill local Shias of Gilgit and bring in hordes of Sunnis to settle down to have a better ratio skewed towards to Sunnis. India on liberating, PoK must ensure that these Punjabi Sunnis return to their lands in Pakistan and India allows opening of a consular office of Iran in Gilgit. We must return the Zahedan favour.

In one shot, India will have locked China & Pakistan in a game that will be based on equality and based on mutual respect. Paksitan will greatly feel the pinch of all water originating regions falling into India – the Indus water treaty notwithstanding. Climate change can be blamed for man-made disasters too – to keep Pakistan guessing.

If we are able to pull this off, 2020 will see a better neighbourhood that is based on hard geopolitics and leverages.

PAKISTAN - STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM

Can someone define what makes a state get the tag "State Sponsor of Terrorism"?

ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency has been caught red handed with the following - these are documented evidence - some of which are publicly available in Wikileaks. Most of what has come out was already known to every Indian anyway.

a) Funding 26/11 attacks in Mumbai - purchasing boats etc to carry out the attacks.

b) Funding 1000 motorbikes to Haqqani group to carry out suicide attacks inside Afghanistan.

c) Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) runs a training facility in Quetta, and train Pakistani activists from Jamyat-Ul-Talabah and Harakat Islami Kashmir as well as Chechens, Uzbeks, Afghans and Arabs.

d) Pakistan Army SSG Commando - Ilyas Kashmiri goes underground and surfaces as Commando Head of Brigade 313 - the feared unit of Al -Qaeda.

e) A dead Taliban leader in Afghanistan was found to be a Pakistan Army Major but this was covered up by Britain.

It is a matter of time before people in West realize that Al-Qaeda mentorship passed from CIA to ISI and Osama bin Laden (if alive) is just a mere puppet in the hands of ISI. For plausible deniability ISI maintains its links to Al-Qaeda and Taliban thru divisions outside of official divisions.

An interesting article in Indian Express: "CIA watched ISI tap phones, help suicide bombers"

The Article:
=======

Washington's claim that it gave a heads-up to New Delhi on the leaked Af-Pak documents is loaded with irony. For, what these papers show is that Pakistani spy agency ISI supplied suicide bombers in Afghanistan with explosives-strapped motorcycles and listened in on telephone networks to supply them crucial information — all right under the nose of the US intelligence establishment.

In a threat assessment report dated August 27, 2007, one of the many leaked by Wikileaks, the US intelligence establishment admits it has information that all calls made to the largest mobile phone company in Afghanistan, Roshan, are routed through Pakistan.

With a non-existent landline network, most telephone users in Afghanistan — including coalition force members and foreign nationals — are dependent on this mobile network.

“Reporting from February 2007 indicates Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) is currently collecting and databasing all Roshan calls and numbers from Afghanistan. Reportedly, when a Roshan user places a call to any number — either inside or outside Afghanistan — the call is re-routed through Pakistan,” the intelligence report says.

However, no course of action was charted out even though the report went on to say that the ISI is known to share information with Taliban insurgents.

“Elements of the ISI and insurgents have cooperated in the past and it is possible that intercepted cell photo data can be passed to insurgents on a regular basis,” the report says.

While phone-tapping can yield information that can be used by insurgents, there is more evidence in the leaked documents that US was aware of ISI’s direct funding of Taliban insurgents and suicide bombers.

In May 2007, another intelligence report on the activities and plans of the Haqqani network reveals that the US was aware of ISI’s funding of suicide bombers. “On 25 April, 2007, ISI sent 1000 motorcycles to Mawlawi Jalaludin Haqqani for suicide attacks in Khowst and Lowgar Province,” the report says.

Yet another report dated March 2009 — just before Kabul saw stepped up violence — reveals that the US was aware that Pakistan had ordered Taliban fighters to intensify attacks in the Afghan capital.

“Several Taliban commanders leading approximately 100 armed fighters, along with 15 Chechen, have entered Afghanistan, passing through Iran. These have been appointed by Pakistan to conduct attacks, including suicide attacks, in Kabul Province,” the threat report says.

While former ISI chief Hamid Gul has denied that he was involved with the Taliban, US intelligence reports say he attended meetings with the top leadership of the terror organisation in 2006 and instructed them to target coalition soldiers and “make the snow warm in Kabul” with repeated attacks.

A December 2006 report says that Gul procured 50 mines for distribution to Taliban fighters for use against targets in Kabul.

“During this meeting, Gul claimed he dispatched three unidentified individuals to Kabul city to carry out IED attacks during the Eid celebration...reportedly Gul’s final comment to the three individuals was make the snow warm in Kabul, basically telling them to set Kabul aflame,” the report notes.

Another intelligence report reveals that US is aware of an ISI- run training camp in Quetta that is training Taliban fighters.

The report dated August 16, 2006, says that in a meeting in Quetta, which was attended by both Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden, instructions were given to six suicide bombers to target different parts of Afghanistan.

“Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) runs a training facility in Quetta, and train Pakistani activists from Jamyat-Ul-Talabah and Harakat Islami Kashmir as well as Chechens, Uzbeks, Afghans and Arabs,” the report says.

In a December 2007 intelligence report, inputs were received that the ISI could possibly be using children to carry out suicide attacks in Kabul and Khost.

“Extremist leaders in Pakistan, in coordination with a Pakistani intelligence agent (ISI), allegedly planned to send three children to conduct suicide attacks in the Afghan cities of Kabul and Khost on or shortly after the Eid ul-Adha holiday on 20 December 2007,” the threat report says.

On Hamid Gul, the last report on his meetings with the Taliban leadership is in January 2009 where he is described as planning operations to get suicide bombers into Afghanistan.

“Hamid Gul encouraged the AAF (Anti Afghan Forces) leaders to focus their operation inside Afghanistan in exchange for the government of Pakistan’s security forces turning a blind eye to the presence of AAF commanders and fighters in Pakistan,” the report says.

========================

In our penchant to blame ISI, we forget it actually reports to Pakistan Army and is headed by a 3 star general - which makes him obligtory to report to the 4 star general in Pakistan Army.

Which means - everything ISI does, has the sanction of Pakistan Army.

Which makes it a state policy of Pakistan.

Hence Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism.

But hold your horses - that is not how the real world works. Pakistan Army General Kayani's term has been extended by an unprecedented 3 years. And this is ostensibly been done to please the US - as is winds down its operations in Afghanistan - it needs a General it can rely on.

Hence Pakistan will never become a state sponsor of terror - cause USA will not allow it. USA has its own national interest for which it will do what it feels is right. Fine, but where does that leave India?

India, if it thinks USA will help it against Pakistan, it won't beyond moral boosting words that gather sound bites and looks good in newspapers. Behind it all, USA is plying Pakistan with military hardware it knows will only be used against India. USA / UK will never allow INDIA to have a common border with IRAN.

If India starts looking at its national interest only - US too will bend its knees instead of us always bending over backwards to accomodate the Anglo American empire !!

FAISAL SHAHZAD TIMES SQ BOMBER - A MERE SYMPTOM OF THE DISEASE THAT IS PAKISTAN

TIMES SQ, NYC - PIC TAKEN MY ME

Another Pakistani wanted to be the next Ramzi Yousef - the first bomber of the World Trade Centre. He is Faisal Shahzad, the son of Babur ul Haq, Air Vice Marshal of Pakistan who retired from active military duty in 1992 and later joined the civil aviation industry.



Last September ,Najibullah Zazi, a US legal resident of Afghan origin, was caught for plotting an attack on New York's subway system. Stand alone operations will be the way forward for would be terrorists in the US to evade profiling.

With a solid background, Shahzad is not your typical impoverished brainwashed terrorist from the rugged mountains or harsh hinterlands. These are city bred, educated – more in the mould of Omar Saeed Sheikh.

Zia ul Haq can take his bow today. His experiment to glue Pakistan through Islam has been singularly responsible for Islamizing the Pakistan Army, legitimising terrorist groups for the cause of “quom” and supplanting bigotry in education institutions across Pakistan – this we are talking of schools, colleges and institutions in cities and not madrassas. That madrassas have been breeding ground for insular, indoctrinated Islamic foot soldiers is a bygone conclusion.

Shahzad’s generation grew up in a Pakistan where alcohol had been banned and Islam had been forced into schools and communities as a doctrine and a national glue.

“It’s not that they don’t speak English or aren’t skilled,” a Pakistani official said. “But in their hearts and in their minds they reject the West. They can’t see a world where they live together; there’s only one way, one right way.”

What it did, was bring the vision of Islam (that too wahabbi – deoband variety) into the mindset that found similarity across the typical militant, the fire-spewing mullah, the Pakistan Army and across the average citizen bred on Urdu language papers.

There were sane voices like Pervez Hoodbhoy – but they get drowned out these days, a few get beaten up in college premises if they even question student bodies affiliated to the terror groups. What is fascinating to note is that these student bodies that are affiliated to banned terror organizations are being headed by boys whose fathers have a military background.

“Nuclear weapons are only as safe as the people who handle them,” >Pervez Hoodbhoy, an eminent nuclear physicist in Pakistan, said in a talk last summer at a Nation and Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy forum in New York. For more than two decades, Hoodbhoy said, “the Pakistan Army has been recruiting on the basis of faithfulness to Islam. As a consequence, there is now a different character present among Army officers and ordinary soldiers. There are half a dozen scenarios that one can imagine.” There was no proof either that the most dire scenarios would be realized or that the arsenal was safe, he said.

Is it any more of a surprise to hear stories like this:

1997: DEA agents arrested a senior Pakistan Air Force officer trying to sell 2 kgs of heroin in a Mc Donald’s outlet in New York City.

In the same year a Thai diplomat got nabbed carrying two suitcases filled with heroin into the UK. He told his British interrogators that he picked up the suitcases at an ISI safe house !!

1983: A young Pakistani smuggler was arrested in Norway carrying 3.5 kgs of crystal heroin. He was Hamid Hasnain, President Zia ul Haq’s personal banker.

June 1986: A Pakistani Army Major was arrested while driving from Peshawar to Karachi carrying 220 kgs of high grade heroin. Two months later an Air Force officer was caught with a similar amount and he claimed it was his 5th mission!

In both cases the Pakistan military swiftly removed its men from police custody and before any investigations could start, let alone trials, the two officers made highly suspicious “escape”.

1988: President Zia ul Haq’s pilot Maj. Farooq Hamid was arrested in drug charges and released. At that time Lt. Gen Fazle Haq was known as Pakistan’s Noriega for providing protection to the heroin trade.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi termed abortive New York bombing as a blowback of US drone attacks along Pak-Afghan border. "This is a blowback. This is a reaction. This is retaliation. And you could expect that. Let's not be naive. They're not going to sort of sit and welcome you eliminate them. They're going to fight back."

Mehmood Querishi almost ends up justifying the attacks. In the hearts and minds of the Islamists across Pakistan – they would have cheered had the bomb gone off and killed scores of “infidels” in their land.

Something ominous is happening in Pakistan. With 12 hours of power cuts a day, no industry to feed the nation, ethno-linguistic groups clamouring for more autonomy, Pakistan Army is reviving the Islamist parties again to keep the disenchantment of the population under check and keep the spittist entho-linguistic groups under control and glue of Islam. This, in turn, is legitimizing terrorism and making Pakistan a terrorist spewing nation.

Faizal Shahzad is a case in point. In a 6 month crash course he has become a terrorist well versed in the art of wiring and triggering explosives. It is this asymmetric force that the world will have to counter going forward.

The US is relying on the Pakistan Army. But it is the Pakistan Army that is fuelling this Islamic resurgence. It knows no other way – their top officers are brainwashed Islamic bigots.

What then is the goal?

Simple. Establish Sharia in Pakistan (and then the globe!!) – not what the founding father of Pakistan wanted. Islamists want to replace secular and traditional law and customs in Pakistan's tribal areas with their version of the sharia. This goal, which they share with religious political parties such as Jamat-e-Islami, is working for a total transformation of society. It calls for elimination of music, art, entertainment, and all manifestations of modernity and Westernism.

Recently the assassination of ex – ISI officer Khalid Khwaja darkened the Islamists agenda further inside Pakistan. He was, after all, one of the founding members of the Taliban movement. He died at the hands of the Taliban who thought him to be a CIA stooge. A few weeks before his abduction, he met Taliban leader Waliur Rehman Mehsud in North Waziristan and handed over a list of some militants and alleged that they were working for Indian spy agencies. Within a few hours of that meeting, the vehicle of Waliur Rehman was attacked by a US drone but the Taliban commander survived. Waliur Rehman immediately informed the Punjabi Taliban to be careful about Khwaja, who then decided to trap him.

Interestingly Khalid Khwaja introduced Nawaz Sharif to Osama bin Laden. In an interview Khwaja stated: The most historic was the meeting in the Green Palace Hotel in Medina between Nawaz Sharif, Osama and myself. Osama asked Nawaz to devote himself to "jihad in Kashmir". Nawaz immediately said, "I love jihad." Osama smiled, and then stood up from his chair and went to a nearby pillar and said. "Yes, you may love jihad, but your love for jihad is this much." He then pointed to a small portion of the pillar. "Your love for children is this much," he said, pointing to a larger portion of the pillar. "And your love for your parents is this much," he continued, pointing towards the largest portion. "I agree that you love jihad, but this love is the smallest in proportion to your other affections in life."

These sorts of arguments were beyond Nawaz Sharif's comprehension and he kept asking me. "Manya key nai manya?" [Agreed or not?] He was looking for a Rs500 million [US$8.4 million at today's rate] grant from Osama. Though Osama gave a comparatively smaller amount, the landmark thing he secured for Nawaz Sharif was a meeting with the [Saudi] royal family, which gave Nawaz Sharif a lot of political support, and it remained till he was dislodged [as premier] by General Pervez Musharraf [in a coup in 1999]. Saudi Arabia arranged for his release and his safe exit to Saudi Arabia.

Interestingly, Pervez Musharraf, now in Britain in a de facto exile, stated that Nawaz Sharif is a Taliban in disguise.

In Pakistan, who is an Islamist, who is a Taliban in disguise or who is with Al-Qaeda is now getting merged and difficult to distinguish. The nation is sinking into an abyss of hatred for all things un-Islamic (strictest version). The nation has failed to provide its citizens with any positivity and employment or a decent standard of living. It lives by nurturing hatred for everyone else, harsh form of Islam to glue an ever fractious society – a doomsday country about to implode in our lifetime.

Faizal Shahzad is a symptom – a by product of the disease that Pakistan has managed to infect itself with.

And Hakemullah Mehsud, notwithstanding his letter of support to Dr Afia Siddiquis’s sister vowing a spectacular response inside US, will always find able bodies like Faizal dime a dozen inside US and Europe.

It is my "guess" that the wired money from Dubai to fund the SUV purchase that was used in the abortive attempt in Times Sq. will give useful leads - which I feel the US will "hide" from the public eye, but use it to good use in its negotiations with Pakistan behind closed doors.

Expect more Faizal Shahzads. The next bomber in USA will most probably be an academician, living long under the radar, in the US.

It is because the Islamists did see the decline in superpower status of the US coming. They calculated that US derives its power from dollar which is a function of purchasing power of the citizens and a base currency specially for oil&gas. It is this dollar that fuels the military machine. In this downturn, what better way to hurt the investment sentiment and erode the purchasing power - than to stage a few spectacular bombings inside the US and cause the dollar to erode faster - leading to a faster decline of the superpower! While others keep plugging away to de-roster the US dollar as reserve currency !!

INDIA & ISRAEL LOOK ON AS USA WOOS THE ISLAMISTS

With its traditional all weather friendship ties with Israel, the US has courted controversy and ill will in the Islamic world inspite of its close ties with S Arabia, Oman, Kuwait etc. Those were seen by the Arab world as purely a lust for oil.

US’s ties with Pakistan was also a necessity brought about by its proximity to China (Nixon’s famous visit to open up China to US though Pakistan) and then to drive out the Red forces from Afghanistan.

If you read my earlier article on Sir Olaf Caroe, it will become immensely clear the great game strategy has been to never have:

a) Russia come anywhere near Afghanistan
b) India to have any shared borders with Afghanistan

If that were so, Russia would have access to warm waters and oil and gas contracts to not only Europe (which it already does) but to the lucrative markets of India, China and the rest of the world. The Central Asian oil and gas is at stake.

Three important points:

1. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to sell US Nuclear Reactors to IRAN in 1976 - and now in 2008 they want to bomb "suspected" nuclear reactors. The greed to give US Nuclear Reactors to Iran - a country flush in natural oil & gas will need a new definition for the word "greed".

2. The then US Assistant Secy of State for South Asian Affairs, ROBIN RAPHAEL went on to state – “The Taliban capture of Kabul is a POSITIVE STEP.” On December 4th 1997, the representatives of Taliban were invited guests at the Texas headquarters of UNOCAL to negotiate support for the pipeline.

3. In Condi and the boys, Russel Baker states: "George Shultz, who was on the board of Chevron, introduced her to Chevron's chairman and CEO, who took her to lunch and, Shultz said, "inside of fifteen minutes concluded that she would make a terrific board member." She was a good choice. Chevron was engaged in a $10 billion oil-field development project with Kazakhstan, and Rice, who happened to know its president, traveled to Kazakhstan for Chevron in 1992. She turned thirty-eight years old that year. In the following year Chevron named a 129,000-ton supertanker the SS Condoleezza Rice."

The US politicians always viewed the world from the narrow context of unipolarity, domination, oil, commerce and ruthless self-interest.

It is these very same principles that it driving its current policies in Asia and the Islamic world. With its superpower status diminishing and loathe to give space to either Russia or China, the US is courting the Islamic world. Also factored in this is the ruthless calculation and a message to the Islamists – this hand of friendship lasts as long as mainland USA is safe from terrorism. Message implicit to Islamic nations is – play your regional games as long as it does not hurt US interests in the region. Which is why LeT is often given a cursory glance by these same US friends of ours.

US is hence, by default, re-setting its ties with Israel and India – its traditional so called allies – democracies in the sea of despotic nations. But democracy means balderdash to the US, as it eyes the globe in its prism.

Hence Pakistan gets pivotal role to Afghanistan, India gets short changed. It tries, a bit late, to talk to Putin and the Iranians to start the old troika support to Northern Alliance elements. India may be a bit late. Pakistan has managed to get a lot of support from many of the erstwhile Northern Alliance groups. Pakistan has managed its relationship with Iran with finesse and its playing the US to the galleries.

India has, by toeing the US line blindly, axed its own feet by supporting Abdullah Abdullah who ran against Hamid Karzai. Karzai was an ardent Indian supporter and India stabbed this good relationship simply to please the US. Our foreign policy is in the hands of politicians who have been bought out by highest bidders and national security is an alien word to them.

Not even bringing to the table discussions on the armaments that US is supplying to Pakistan ostensibly to fight the Taliban, but every security analyst worth his salt knows its ultimate target is INDIA.

So much so that the latest Kabul blasts had US special represenative to Af-Pak Holbrooke commenting : “Indians were not the target of the killing” – when it was anything but so, as later LeT & Pakistan’s role came out (probably with even US blessings).

The US went out of its way to erase the role Pakistan played in 9/11. Read it here: BEFORE THE NEXT 9/11 - PAY THE SENATORS OFF!!

AND THE LATEST - PAKISTAN A NUCLEAR PROLIFERATOR - A Q KHAN A LeT & AL - QAEDA TERRORIST - NOT A PROBLEM SAYS THE USA

US says it is open to nuke deal with Pakistan - The idea that Pakistan deserves its own nuclear deal to overcome a trust deficit with the United States was first proposed by Georgetown University academic Christine Fair. "More so than conventional weapons or large sums of cash, a conditions-based civilian nuclear deal may be able to diminish Pakistani fears of US intentions while allowing Washington to leverage these gains for greater Pakistani cooperation on nuclear proliferation and terrorism," Fair argued in a newspaper article earlier this year.



Israel gets shortchanged just as the bunker busting missiles were being delivered. Debka reports: Shortly after Vice President Joe Biden's Israel visit ended on March 11 in high dudgeon over the approval 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, US president Barack Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munition- JDAM already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. This step is the pointer to a US arms embargo for preventing Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites. A lot of US angst is happening publicly over Israel’s policy on resettlements etc.

Israel has to deal with Russian misadventure too – regarding sale of S-300 anti aircraft missiles to Iran. Mossad managed to avert a potential disaster in the making had these missiles managed to land in Iran. Telegraph UK reports: “Russia's Kommersant daily cited a senior Kremlin source. The revelation appeared to support maritime and military experts who have claimed the ship was carrying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles for Iran, that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, found out, and that the Kremlin was given time and space to stop the delivery and cover it up in order to save face.”

The public posturing and ground realities with two of its closest democratic nations makes it amply clear that US is out to woo the Islamists for its Great Game. And largely India and to a lesser degree Israel will have to fend for themselves in the ensuing tragedy that is yet to unfurl.

When will India learn – US is a mistress that seduces with the promise of a huge orgasm – which never comes and will never in future either!!

ISI's KARACHI PROJECT

Indian Express: The ISI has put together a team of Indian jihadis in Karachi, and is waiting to launch them into the country on a terrorist project, alleged terror suspects David Coleman Headley and Mohammad Amjad Khwaja have told their interrogators.



Headley was arrested by the FBI in Chicago in October last year, and is accused of recceing Mumbai and other Indian cities for the Lashkar-e-Toiba as part of the preparations for 26/11. Khwaja, belonging to the Harkat-ul Jihad-i Islami, was arrested on January 18, and is being held in Hyderabad.

Headley has described the “Karachi project” to FBI interrogators, details of which have been shared with New Delhi, sources said. He is believed to have said that both the ISI and the Lashkar have been training Indian nationals in terrorist activities, and using them for anti-India “projects” from time to time.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has also been able to unearth significant details about Headley’s movements in Pakistan through his e-mail correspondence. Contents of his Gmail account were shared with New Delhi following an official request to Google.

Details of Headley’s movements in and out of India show that he flew into Mumbai from Karachi and returned to the same city twice over the last three years — once in late 2006, and then again in April 2008.

Evidence of the ISI-Lashkar Karachi project has also come independently from HuJI man Khwaja, who was picked up by Chennai Police on his return from Saudi Arabia on a Pakistani passport. Top sources said Khwaja has told his interrogators that a large number of highly-indoctrinated jihadi Indian nationals have been housed in the Pakistani port city.

Khwaja is understood to have revealed that he met alleged Indian Mujahideen terrorists Amir Raza Khan and Riyaz Bhatkal in Karachi, both of whom are staying in the city’s Defence enclave, probably under the ISI’s protection.

Khwaja, who visited Mecca and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia before he was arrested, is believed to have confessed to planning the October 2005 attack on the STF office in Hyderabad, but has been silent on his suspected role in the Mecca Masjid and Gokul Chat blasts in 2007.

Khwaja is learnt to have provided details of HuJI operations in Bangladesh, and the outfit’s coordination with Lashkar leaders based in Manshera and Muridke in Pakistan. The Hyderabad Police are expected to approach the court for permission to carry out a narco test on him shortly.

Meanwhile, a team of officers from Bangalore are also expected to interrogate Khwaja in connection with his revelations on Riaz Bhatkal, who, along with his brother Iqbal, are believed to have joined hands with hardline elements from the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) to carry out the bombings attributed to the Indian Mujahideen between 2006 and 2008. Much of the planning and preparation for these attacks took place at the port town of Bhatkal near Mangalore.

Khwaja is of interest to the Karnataka Police also on account of his alleged interaction with Amir Raza Khan, the gangster-turned-jihadi (from our good old KOLKATA) who is believed to have played a crucial supporting role in Indian Mujahideen operations.

(Interesting note: This is the same Amir Raza Khan who kidnapped the Kolkata businessman Partho Roy Burman. From the proceeds of the ransom money, the ISI and Al-Qaeda executed the 9/11 by channelling this money through hawala).

ISI & Lashkar e Taiba dream of the Indian subcontinent thus:



BuA: The ultimate plan for ISI remains the same as that of Lashkar - flying the green flag of Islam over Red Fort. To that extent , do read my earlier article on this issue : GREATER PAKISTAN

HEADLEY IS AN INTELLIGENCE ASSET OF THE US THAT DID NOT (REPEAT NOT) GO ROGUE !!

Daood Gilani aka David Headley is an American agent who did NOT go rogue. He worked for the notorious counter intelligence wing of the DEA (US). He successfully penetrated the Lashkar e Toiba and even alerted his US masters about the pending 26/11 which was actually set to take place in September.

FBI managed to warn its Indian counterparts of a planned attack in Mumbai in September 2008. The’s FBI accurate intel about that operation has been corroborated by Azam Amir Kasab, the only surviving terrorist from Mumbai, who admitted under interrogations that the attack was originally set for September but had to be aborted. The Indians thought the FBI alert for September was so specific—even mentioning target hotels, including the eventual main target, the Taj Mahal Palace—that the Bureau might have an informant inside a Pakistani terror group. Indian intelligence believes that it was Headley who passed along that info to the FBI. But then, his information to his American handlers suddenly dried. By the time the terrorists eventually pulled off the successful November attack, U.S. intelligence agencies were caught flat-footed.

An asset who was in the loop till September 2008 does not go rogue suddenly before November 2008.

A few anomalies and truths:

Anomalies:

1. US has a habit of getting its terror suspects caught in other countries so that they get the 3rd degree torture to get the truth out. And Pakistan fits the bill given the close co-operation between US & Pakistan. The ideal thing would have been for Headley to reach Pakistan and have him arrested there and get tortured there – away from the prying eyes of US justice system. Did this happen – No !

2. If Headley was an asset that went rogue – why deny Indian intelligence agency access to this rogue agent? If he is rogue – then he is rogue ! Why then have Indian intelligence agencies not been given access? And extradition of Headley, even though a treaty exists between US and India – is just not going to happen

A truth:

1. Indian intelligence agencies were on the “tail” of an American connected with 26/11. This they followed up along with the Bangldeshi trail and were on the verge of getting to Headley which is when the US picked him up. And put him in custody so that he is kept safe from Indian intelligence agencies. KOSHER !!!

2. Omar Sheikh Saeed who called up the Pakistan President posing as India's Home Minister then - Pranab Mukherjee ostensibly threateningly was aimed to rachet up tension to start a war. Now Omar Sheikh Saeed is a known British intelligence asset who travelled to London twice after being freed from Kandahar hijacking - yet never even picked up. And he is wrongly serving sentence in Pakistan for killing Daniel Pearl (Khalid Sh Md killed him) - again keeping him safe from interrogators of other countries. KOSHER AGAIN !!

Headly - US intelligence asset. Omar Sheikh - British intelligence asset. Working in close co-ordination. Throw in Ilyas Kashmiri the ex-SSG Commando who was trained by Michael Vickers and you have the recipe for interesting times.

A side note I am not tired of mentioning. Most terrorism in Central Asia has been tracked back to members of Hizbut Tahrir. It is a banned organization in several of these Islamic nations. Yet, it is head quartered in UK - it is nurtured by the UK. Take your guess as to why this is so.

What may happen?

Headley will be undergoing coaching and Indian agencies will be given limited access and will be under strict orders of what can be asked and what cannot. The red lines will be Headley’s connections to US agencies and work he undertook as part of that. He will only say about LeT’s role in 26/11 – nothing beyond that and that too filtered versions.

What about T Rana – his accomplice?

Terror suspect Tahawwur Hussain Rana complimented members of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), saying they did a "good job" during the terror attacks in Mumbai last year, US prosecutors have alleged.

According to a 10-page memo filed by US prosecutors in a court on Monday, Rana asked co-conspirator David Coleman Headley to "pass along a message for me" to LeT Member A, whom Rana had given the name 'Khalid bin waleed'.
"In the world, if there had been...a medal for command, top class," the documents quote as Rana saying.

It further adds that Headley then interrupts Rana and informs him that he already had passed that message and "I (Headley) took your (Rana's) name when I said it". Rana responded "there is no doubt, it is a very befitting name for him. Very good. Good job".

Headley then explained that while LeT Member A briefed the attackers on the targets, Headley identified a different LeT member by name as the trainer of the attackers."Training was by Abu Qahafa....this Jamaat (group) prepares people really well," he said.

Rana responded that "whatever mixture you guys have made, whichever person did it...yeah, there they stood their ground". Prosecutors added that "far from advocating non-violence, Rana's own statements reveal his support for the brutal killing of 170 people...It is quite clear that Rana is no Gandhi".

Hence – if FBI alerted India in September 2008 did it fail to alert deliberately in November 2008 or did it not know?

There are enough and more good reasons why someone in the US may have decided not to alert India in November, assuming they were again in top of the game and knew all its actors and actions. Assuming they did, what would US gain from a LeT attack on India? Logically this would seem opposite of what they are doing and what is strategic – the Indo-US relationship acting as a solid hedge against Islamists to its east and west and a growing China up in the north.

And an attack in India might prompt India to retaliate which would serve Pakistan – it does not want its soldiers to fight its Pushtun brethren and now estranged Pakistan Taliban in its north west. They will relocate their soldiers to their eastern border – thus quelling any chances of ethnic strife within Paksitan and Pakistan Taliban too joining Pakistan Army to fight the infidel Indians. It was not too long ago that when Pakistan attacked India right after partition, the first hordes that went into Kashmir were from the Mehsud tribe of Pakistan Taliban. It was also no idle remark when Shuja Pasha – ISI Head – said Baitullah Mehsud (now dead) was a strategic asset of Pakistan as he vowed to fight India should India attack Pakistan.

Given that an Indian attack on Pakistan will end up uniting all jehadi network behind Pakistan against the bigger enemy – India – why would US willingly allow 26/11 to happen?

US calculated two things – if India attacked, US wins. If India did not attack US wins. HOW ?

IF INDIA ATTACKED : US deduced given the military hardware and stocks that India possessed India was in no position for a prolonged war with Pakistan. At best it could blow up the empty camps of Lashkar e Taiba in Muridke. That would have cooled Indian popular anger and Pakistan would be made to bear this little humiliation without any counter attack. If that happened – US gains the upper hand by playing the mediator and more role in this strategic region than it is getting now. But US would not be very happy with this alone.

If India attacked well – multi fronts and in the cold start strategy suddenly – Pakistan might well have caved in. The US would have used its assets in Taliban to attack in Pakistan’s north west and multiple suicide bombings in city centres creating the ultimate chaos. The result – creation of Pushtunistan and Balochistan. In the Great Game for Central Asian oil and gas and mineral reserves, US plays its best move in the chess.
But sadly India did not do either – so what was the fall back option?

IF INDIA DID NOT ATTACK: The US needed supply lines through Pakistan to feed its troops as well as NATO troops in Afghanistan. And elements hostile to US designs in the region were bombing the supply route enough to make lives of the soldiers miserable and precarious. Other than a fistful of dollars and a take in the lucrative opium trade, the US & ISI could do no more. Some of the tribals were up for sale to the highest bidders but some were Islamists – clearly aligned to Sharia – and could not be bought. They might be pressured by ISI but beyond a point even ISI did not have the right toy for every elder.

How did Headley episode help US in this case?

Actually brilliantly so. Headley must have been played up by his contacts to attack the infidel India and like any Pakistani it did not take much of a prodding. In doing so he effectively infiltrated LeT – willingly and got in touch with serving Pakistani officers who were helping the Islamist cause. Headley himself was a product of elite Pakistani military school, being the son of a former diplomat and a cousin of the current Paksitan PM Gilani.

By getting full information of the extent of collusion between terrorists and terrorist organization with Pakistan Army – Pakistan could under any law be declared as a terrorist country. US may have well spoon fed and helped the contract to nurture only to one day take the knife and plunge into the heart of Pakistan for its own benefit. With US threatening to expose the detailed Paksitani Army links with terrorism and declaring Pakistan as a terrorist nation – it holds the ultimate stick. Now Pakistan Army is under the control of US – it will do its bidding – and if not – the US can brand Pakistan a terrorist nation.

But Pakistan Army after selling its soul to US and fighting in Swat and S Waziristan is now feeling the daily heat of bombings in its cities. It is not getting any better. Pak Army is having second thoughts in moving into N Waziristan or indeed moving on its assets – the Haqqanis etc. But US wants Pakistan to attack Haqqanis too. This is the breaking point we are looking at now.

With US wielding a big stick and Pakistan Army knowing that its links to terrorist organizations exposed – it is staring at an existential threat. If it fights, it will be branded as Pakistan acting as US agents. If it does not, it faces US ire and China is not ready yet to take up Pakistan’s side at the expense of US.



Expected a far better analysis from Stratfor - but there you have it - the US view which does not talk about Headley's alleged ties with DEA or even the work he did for them !

It is time for India to step in and play its historic role. It is time to think that a divided India too suits US. And yes, Col Purohit, the one connected with Abhinav Bharat said that CIA wanted a break up India too.

Break up of states does not mean a break up of India. The pink scarves of Telengana activists resembled the orange revolution that was paid for by CIA. Not making any connections here – just a thought.

Remember Ken Haywood

Ken Haywood's computer was used to send a "terrorist" e-mail minutes before bomb blasts in Ahmedabad, in July 2008. Reportedly, Haywood has links to Abdur Subhan Qureshi, alias Taufique Bilal and Tauqir, reportedly the top terrorist in India. Haywood returned to India in September 2008. (Ahmedabad blasts: Ken Haywood arrives in India 11 Sep 2008, 0215 hrs IST, C Unnikrishnan,TNN) In India, Haywood works for a firm called Campbell White, suspected of being a front for the CIA.

The Indian Express reported on 14 August 2008 that the company's Mumbai office 'is located in two small adjoining rented rooms on the ground floor of Sanpada railway station complex', and that 'the two rooms also serve as prayer rooms for Potter's House... part of the Christian Fellowship Ministries based in Arizona.'

A Post at 'Consortium of Indian Defence Websites' (Cached), 20 Aug 2008: "Haywood's fleeing immediately after the cracking of the Gujarat blasts and capture of the perpetrators is most suspicious. "His escape resembles that of our ex-R&AW traitor,who also escaped with alleged US help. It also indicates that we may have in our intelligence services moles/informants working for foreign agencies tipping off agents within the country.However,the fact the Haywood was working for a bogus 'missionary' outfit is doubly alarming. The role of US so-called missionaries/evangelical groups in India is very controversial,for they are playing a dual role in agressive conversions as well as being part of the CIA destabilisation plan for India.

"Tehelka a few years ago revealed the fact that over 100 US so-called "Christian" evangelical groups/organisations were in fact bogus and part of CIA network."

OBAMA'S TRAVAILS - NEITHER INDIA NOR PAKISTAN HAPPY WITH STRATEGY

Article (c) STRATFOR

U.S. President Barack Obama’s long-awaited announcement on U.S. strategy for the war in Afghanistan is not sitting well in Islamabad or New Delhi. While Pakistan now has to figure out how to keep American forces from taking more aggressive action against jihadists in Pakistan, India does not want to deal with the messy aftermath of a U.S. military exit from the region in two years. Meanwhile, the jihadists operating in Pakistan have a greater incentive to create a crisis on the Indo-Pakistani border through rogue attacks in India — a scenario that could well upset Obama’s exit strategy from Afghanistan.

Analysis

U.S. President Barack Obama announced Dec. 1 the broad strokes of his administration’s strategy for the war in Afghanistan. In short, he said there are three main objectives:

1)deny al Qaeda a safe haven on the Afghan-Pakistani border,
2)halt the momentum of the Taliban offensive in Afghanistan with an additional 30,000 troops, and
3)train and build Afghan security and civilian forces to deal with the jihadist threat themselves.

Notably, Obama also refused to commit to a long-haul nation-building strategy in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he defined the endgame for the war and specified that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan could begin as early as July 2011.

Pakistani Concerns

Pakistan’s primary concern with the strategy has to deal with the first objective: denying al Qaeda a safe haven. It is well known that al Qaeda’s safe haven is not in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are concentrated, but in Pakistan, where Pakistani forces employ a much more nuanced method of distinguishing between “good” and “bad” jihadists.

Under the Obama plan, the U.S. military is evidently working on a tight timeline to demonstrate (prior to the 2012 U.S. elections) that al Qaeda has been defeated. The United States needs results and it needs them fast. Pakistan can thus assume that the United States is about to apply a lot more pressure on Islamabad to dismantle al Qaeda in Pakistan.

But Pakistan’s definition of “bad” jihadists does not mesh with that of the United States. Indeed, the targets of Pakistan’s offensive in Swat and South Waziristan have been those Taliban militants who have clearly turned against the Pakistani state, namely the Tehrik-i-Taliban movement. Al Qaeda and its allies, on the other hand, have strategically kept their focus on Afghanistan while maintaining a safe haven in Pakistan. If Pakistan widens the scope of its counterinsurgency efforts to include the militants on Washington’s hit list — particularly the Haqqani network, the Mullah Omar-led group of Afghan Taliban, Maulvi Nazir, Hafiz Gulf Bahadir and other high-value targets with strong linkages to al Qaeda — then the Pakistani military will be forced to deal with a bigger backlash.

Pakistan continues to deliberate over how the United States actually intends to achieve its objective of denying al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan.

In private discussions with Pakistani leaders, the United States has delivered an ultimatum to Islamabad: either give up its militant-proxy project and enjoy the political, economic and military benefits of an enhanced relationship with Washington or the United States will take unilateral action on Pakistani soil.

Such unilateral action would go beyond the CIA’s unmanned aerial vehicle strikes in the borderlands and likely entail sending in fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft with special forces for quick “get in and get out” operations against al Qaeda targets deep inside Pakistani territory. The United States carried out such an overt incursion in Pakistan in September 2008 in South Waziristan, which led to widespread popular backlash inside the country.

This type of unilateral U.S. military action is a redline for the Pakistani military. The impression STRATFOR has gotten from Pakistani military sources is that Islamabad is still quite confident that the United States won’t risk a serious destabilization of Pakistan in pursuit of its counterterrorism objectives. In fact, Pakistani officials have made it a point to paint a doomsday scenario for the United States should the Pakistani military be pushed to the edge in its fight against Pakistani jihadists while trying to hold a feeble government and shaky economy together.

Pakistan will thus try to hedge as best it can to keep U.S. forces at bay. The Pakistani military has a strategic imperative to continue along the current path and engage in limited military offensives against those jihadists who have turned on the Pakistani state while turning a blind eye to those jihadists whose efforts are focused on Afghanistan and/or India. But the United States is unlikely to tolerate Pakistan’s way of handling its jihadist threat, particularly now that U.S. forces are under a tight deadline to neutralize al Qaeda in Pakistan.

As U.S. pressure on Islamabad and the threat to Pakistani sovereignty inevitably increase in the months ahead, Pakistan will rely more heavily on intelligence cooperation with Washington to manage its relationship with the United States. STRATFOR’s Geopolitical Intelligence Report this week discusses in depth how the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and its jihadist allies is largely an intelligence war, one in which Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate could play a crucial role in penetrating al Qaeda and the Taliban. The more reliant the United States is on Pakistani intelligence to achieve its aims in Afghanistan, the better able Islamabad will be in convincing Washington that it’s better off leaving the Pakistani segment of the U.S.-jihadist war to the Pakistanis — or so Pakistan hopes.

At the end of the day, Pakistan cannot escape its fear that the United States will take more aggressive action on Pakistani soil with or without Islamabad’s consent.

Pakistan also has a deeper dilemma to contend with concerning its relationship with the United States. Though Pakistan’s alliance with the United States has often left Pakistan feeling betrayed, Pakistan still needs a great power patron with enough interest in the region, like the United States, to counter India. During the Cold War, Pakistan was the key for the United States in containing Soviet expansion in South-Central Asia. Today, Pakistan is the key to containing radical Islamism. In both cases, Pakistan has benefited from U.S. political, economic and military support in its attempts to level the playing field with India.

Though the U.S. partnership with Pakistan against the jihadists is fraught with complications, Pakistan still does not want the day to come when U.S. forces draw down from the region and leave it to Islamabad to pick up the pieces of the jihadist war. If the United States is sufficiently satisfied with its mission in the region by the summer of 2011 to draw down forces according to the timeline Obama laid out, U.S. interest in Pakistan will wane and Islamabad will be left in a difficult position. Pakistan is feeling especially vulnerable these days considering the United States’ growing strategic partnership with India next door.

Pakistan can therefore be expected to lay heavy demands on the United States to restrain India if Washington expects greater cooperation from Islamabad. Pakistan is already urging the United States to restrict Indian influence in Afghanistan, which is viewed by Islamabad as nothing short of an Indian encirclement strategy. Whereas India has been careful to specify that its support for Afghanistan is primarily economic, Pakistan remains convinced that the Indian presence in Afghanistan, whether in the form of consulates or construction companies, is simply a front for Indian Research and Analysis Wing intelligence agents to exploit the Baloch and jihadist insurgencies in Pakistan.

Moreover, Pakistan will continue to insist to the United States that it cannot devote more forces to combating the jihadist threat in its western periphery as long as it has to worry about the high concentration of Indian troops along the Indo-Pakistani border to the east. New Delhi, however, remains convinced that Pakistan continues to support militant proxies against India and is unlikely to heed any U.S. request to back off the border with Pakistan to assuage Islamabad’s concerns when the threat of another militant attack remains real and near.

Indian Skepticism

Obama telephoned Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the eve of his Dec. 1 speech to brief him on his strategy for Afghanistan. India publicly expressed support for the strategy, maintaining the image that U.S.-Indian relations are tightening following Singh’s official state visit to the United States the previous week. Privately, however, India has reason to be skeptical of Obama’s plan.

There is no getting around the fact that Obama is attempting to define an endgame for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, recognizing the need to free up the U.S. military for crises beyond South Asia. This is not to say that the United States will completely abandon the region or that the threat of militant Islam will not persist, but removing thousands of U.S. troops in the region certainly changes the equation in New Delhi’s mind. The last thing India wants is for the United States to draw down its commitment to Afghanistan (and thus ease up pressure on Pakistan) in two years, leaving New Delhi to deal with the aftermath. Indeed, when Singh met with Obama at the White House, he told the U.S. president to stay resolute on his mission in Afghanistan, warning that a U.S. defeat there would have catastrophic consequences.

India sees the benefit of developing a closer partnership with the United States but also wants Washington to do its part to convince Pakistan to give up its decades-long policy of supporting proxy militants against India. Now that Pakistan is experiencing the side effects of its own militant-proxy strategy, India’s hope is that with enough U.S. pressure, Pakistan can be induced to clean up its militant landscape. Yet if the United States is preparing its exit from the region, India may end up losing a valuable lever to use against Pakistan.

Jihadist Wild Card

New Delhi and Islamabad have different reasons to be concerned about U.S. strategy in the region, but there is one area of concern that is common to both: rogue jihadists operating on Pakistani soil.

Al Qaeda and its jihadist allies are examining Obama’s strategy just as intently as everyone else. These jihadists can quite easily deduce that more pressure will be brought to bear on their safe havens in northwest Pakistan, thus threatening their survival. There is a clear intent, therefore, for these jihadists to keep Pakistan focused on the Indian threat on its eastern border in order to alleviate the pressure on their jihadist bases in the northwest. The best way to do this is to create a conflict between India and Pakistan through a large-scale militant attack in hopes of inducing an Indian military response and possibly triggering another near-nuclear confrontation on the border.

Pakistan wants to avoid getting bogged down in a fight with India while trying to deal with its jihadist problems at home. Though Pakistan is trying to rein in many of its former militant proxies, it still has to worry about a number of rogues that could embroil Pakistan in a conflict that it did not ask for. The 2001 bombing of the Indian parliament and the 2008 attacks in Mumbai revealed signs of jihadist involvement that may not have been under direct Pakistani control. Pakistan can attempt to stave off such a crisis by sharing intelligence on militant plots and actors with India through a U.S. channel, but even with enhanced intelligence cooperation, an attack could still happen.

India is already bracing itself for such a scenario and is still grappling with the dilemma that any Indian military response inside Pakistan — even limited strikes — would risk emboldening the jihadists, seriously destabilizing Pakistan and bringing the region to the brink of a nuclear conflagration. India struggled with this issue in the wake of the Mumbai attacks and it appears undecided on how to react to another major attack. In any case, a crisis along the border can be expected, and it would be up to the United States to put out the fire.

The United States is already giving itself a limited timetable to complete its objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it needs Pakistan’s cooperation to make its strategy work. A crisis on the Indo-Pakistani border would certainly jeopardize those plans, since Pakistan would devote its energy to dealing with India (its primary existential threat) rather than al Qaeda and the Taliban. Throw the threat of nuclear war into the equation, and the United States has an entirely new challenge.

FULL TEXT OF OBAMA'S SPEECH AT WEST POINT ON AFGHANISTAN & B RAMAN'S REBUTTAL !

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

======

REBUTTAL BY B. RAMAN

President Barack Obama's Af-Pak policy ----Mark 2 as unveiled by him in his address to US military officer cadets at West Point on December 2,2009, has been marked by critical words for the Afghan Government and soft words for the rulers of Pakistan----- as if evils such as corruption, poor governance, narcotics production and lack of accountability are confined only to Afghanistan and one does not find these evils in Pakistan.

2. It is these evils long tolerated by successive US administrations that have landed Pakistan in the situation in which it finds itself today----- a breeding ground of extremism and sectarianism of every hue. The cancer of extermism and jihadi terrorism did not spread to Pakistan from Afghanistan. It spread from the madrasas of Pakistan to Afghanistan with the encouragement and often at the instance of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishments. The root of this cancer is in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The surgery has to start in Pakistan. This harsh reality has been played down in his address.

3. The Taliban, which nourished Al Qaeda and gave it shelter in Afghan territory, was born in Pakistani territory in 1994. Al Qaeda and the leadership of the Afgan Taliban escaped defeat by the US forces post-9/11 by taking shelter in Pakistani territory----- Al Qaeda in the North Waziristan area of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Neo Taliban headed by Mulla Mohammad Omar in the Quetta area of Balochistan.

4. From there, the surviving senior cadres of the two organisations moved to sanctuaries in the non-tribal areas. A recent report of the "Washington Times" has quoted retired US intelligence sources as saying that Mulla Omar and other leaders of the Neo Taliban have shifted to the Karachi area from the Quetta area to escape attacks by US drone (pilotless) planes in the tribal areas.

5. Many senior Al Qaeda leaders operated from the non-tribal areas of Pakistan----some even before 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was reported to have orchestrated the 9/11 strikes in the US from Karachi from where he shifted to Quetta and then to Rawalpindi, where he was ultimately arrested. Abu Zubaidah was caught in Faislabad in Punjab and Ramzi Binalshib in Karachi. One should not be surprised if it ultimately turns out that Osama bin Laden and his No.2 Ayman al-Zawahiri have also been sheltered in the non-tribal areas and that is why the US has not been able to get at them so far despite offers of huge rewards and the Drone strikes.

6. The command and control of both the Neo Taliban and Al Qaeda are now located in Pakistani territory. Obama said in his address at West Point: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. ...... We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear."

7. Strong words regarding the safehavens for terrorists in Pakistan. As in the past, strong words do not presage strong action to force Pakistan to destroy those safehavens.The Pakistani military operations in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan are meant to counter a threat to Pakistan's internal security from indigenous elements. They are not directed against the external activities of Al Qaeda. Nor are they directed towards facilitating the military operations of the NATO forces and the Afghan National Army in Afghan territory. The safehavens of organisations, which are seen as an asset and not as a threat to Pakistan, are being shifted from place to place to escape detection and action by the US.

8. If Obama is serious about wanting to start withdrawing from Afghanistan in dignity and honour by the middle of 2011, he has only two options. Either force the Pakistani rulers to act against the safehavens whether they are located in tribal or non-tribal areas or act against them with available US capabilities. The Obama Administration like its predecessor lacks the political will to do so.

9. Seeking partnership with a state perpetrator of terrorism is not the way of ending it. That is what Obama has done in his address. That is why his revised Af-Pak policy is unlikely to meet the objectives which he has set for the US and other NATO countries. Obama's West Point address contains the seeds of its pre-destined failure