The Coming War in Pakistan
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 17, 2007

“Not until the military steam-roller has passed over the country (Waziristan) from end to end, will there be peace. But I do not want to be the person to start the machine.”

- Lord Curzon

What Lord Curzon, Britain’s viceroy in India from 1899-1905, discerned more than one hundred years ago, the Pakistani government is discovering today, as the fallout from its assault on the Red Mosque in Islamabad last week spreads to Pakistan’s lawless, tribal North-West Frontier Province, where a military showdown with the country’s Islamic extremist movement is taking shape. The mountainous Pakistani province includes the Taliban strongholds of North and South Waziristan, which al-Qaeda calls home and Western intelligence agencies call Osama bin Laden’s hideout.

The Red Mosque, described as the Taliban’s “ideological heartland”, was closely connected with that radical religious group and other Islamist militias in the NWFP. The Islamabad mosque supplied the Taliban with money and recruits from its madrassa (religious school) system to fight the NATO troops in Afghanistan, while the two brothers who ran the extremist religious institution called for jihad and Islamic revolution in Pakistan.

In retaliation for the Red Mosque’s violent closure last week, twenty-four Pakistani soldiers were killed in a suicide bomb attack on Saturday in the NWFP, while about 50 other people, including three Chinese nationals, also perished violently there since the beginning of the siege. Further strikes brought the death count of soldiers over the weekend alone to 60. The Taliban and supportive tribes have also renounced their peace deal with the Pakistani government, which exercises little authority in this province, where 20,000 tribesmen with rifles were reported to have staged an anti-government demonstration.

In addition, a local, radical cleric, Maulana Fazlullah who is described as the head of the outlawed, Taliban-allied Tehrik-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law) in the NWFP’s Swat district has called for his men to prepare for jihad. Fazlullah has been called “Maulana Radio” since he gets his radical messages out via 107 small, illegal F M radio stations, according to Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad. TNSM fighters have already closed roads into the Swat region and seized the important Karakoram highway, part of the ancient Silk Road, which is Pakistan’s main transportation connection with China.

In response to the deteriorating situation in the NWFP, the Pakistani government has sent thousands of troops with heavy artillery to the area where an offensive into the Swat Valley is expected any day. The Red Mosque’s closure was regarded as an important first step for any military action to be taken there. It not only eliminated the heart of the Islamic extremism movement in Pakistan, but also destroyed a powerful center of resistance to the army’s coming campaign. In 2004, the Red Mosque helped undermine the army’s offensive against al-Qaeda in Waziristan when the two sibling leaders issued a ‘fatwa’ (religious decree), calling on people not to say prayers for dead army soldiers or bury them in Muslim graveyards.

American military forces in Afghanistan are expected to take part in the effort to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda bases in the NWFP. Shahzad says a secret agreement has already been reached to allow American troops to launch ‘hot pursuits’ into Pakistan against Taliban fighters, and American warplanes and intelligence assets will undoubtedly be utilized. NATO intelligence, Shahzad says, has pinpointed four Taliban bases in Waziristan, from which attacks against its troops are organized and launched, that it wants taken out.

Shahzad also reports that American forces are currently building a base on a mountaintop at Ghaki Pass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which the jihadists have already unsuccessfully attacked to prevent construction. The purpose of the base is to supplement aerial surveillance and prepare for incursions into Taliban territory.

America has given Pakistan about one billion dollars annually since 2001 to fight the War on Terror and was dissatisfied with the results as regards the Taliban. Analysts maintain Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, was playing a double game regarding militant Islamic extremists in his country. While Pakistan had handed over about 600 Arab Islamists, among them many al-Qaeda members, to the United States since 9/11, it left the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban virtually untouched, and even covertly supported it against NATO in Afghanistan. The reason for this, these analysts say, is that Pakistan wanted to reestablish a presence in Afghanistan via the Taliban to counter the India-friendly Kabul government.

While America’s reported threatening to withdraw its support for Musharraf for his non-action against the Taliban may finally have gotten him to react, others believe the increasing size and strength of the radical Islamic movement in Pakistan, which worried the country’s establishment, were also instrumental in the crackdown. But just as instrumental in the Pakistani government’s launching its long-delayed offensive against the Taliban in the NWFP was its concern about its relationship with its all-important ally, China, which the jihadists may have been deliberately undermining.

The occupation of the Karakoram highway indicates this. A huge free trade agreement between China and Pakistan came into effect earlier this month, of which this transportation route is an important piece. According to a Pakistani development analyst, the Pakistani government plans to spend $300 million to expand the highway and develop other transportation routes with western China and the Central Asian countries, so that they can “not only access the Pakistani market, but also reach out to the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, Europe, etc through Gwadar Port in southwestern Pakistan.” Such vastly important projects affecting Pakistan’s economic future would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out with thousands of armed, anti-government jihadists in the area.

Just as important, Pakistan regards China as its most important ally in its rivalry with India that has seen the two countries fight three wars in almost sixty years. One journalist noted that the government’s tolerance and attitude towards the Red Mosque’s numerous acts of civil disobedience and defiance changed when its activists kidnapped six Chinese women in late May and accused them of being prostitutes. The Chinese government, apparently, was not amused. It was probably even less amused when three Chinese nationals were murdered in the NWFP in response to the Red Mosque siege.

Nevertheless, a military offensive into the NWFP will be very difficult and very costly. The mountainous terrain in Waziristan is among the most demanding in the world for military campaigns and excellent for guerilla warfare, while its martial tribesmen, the Mahsuds and the Wazirs, are very formidable fighters. The British discovered this during the Raj when the Waziristan tribes wiped out a British brigade as late as the 1930s; and the British Army of India had to station more soldiers there just to keep the peace than in the rest of country altogether.

The tribesmen are very militarily skilled from constantly practicing warfare among themselves and in blood-feuds. Their code of honor, called ‘pukhtunwali’, noted one former Pakistani official, causes them to deliberately make non-economic and non-rational choices “in an attempt to uphold group honor, unity and loyalty”, so they will fight even against what appear to be the overwhelming power of a modern army.

The Wazirs and Mahsuds will regard the coming war against the Pakistani army and NATO as a jihad, in which they will fight as well as they did against the Soviets in Afghanistan and against India in Kashmir in 1947. The Taliban and al-Qaeda jihadis are already inspired with their own Islamic fanaticism. Al-Qaeda also desires a big war with the Pakistani army, since it hopes to mobilize all of Pakistan to topple Musharraf, one its long-cherished goals. One report states al-Qaeda even regards the coming conflict as the beginning of the last battle before the end of time that the Prophet Mohammad predicted.

But, as the British showed, the tribes cannot resist, even on their own territory, a modern army that is willing to undertake a long, determined campaign. However, such a campaign will be very costly, as Lord Curzon rightly surmised, while at the same time correctly understanding there would never be any peace without one. But with Pakistan’s NWFP now serving as headquarters for worldwide jihad, it is no longer only a local peace that an American/Pakistani military steam-roller will ensure, but that of the rest of the world as well.

Iraqi Forces Continue to Improve, Build Trust in Local Population, Admiral Says
By Carmen L. Gleason
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 16, 2007 – Local trust in Iraq security forces is leading to a record number of seizures of weapons caches throughout the country, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq said during a press conference yesterday.

For example, more than 500 villagers outside the new security outpost near Taji have formed a grassroots movement to run al Qaeda out of the community, said Navy Rear Adm. Mark Fox.
Since the outpost was established June 24, neighborhood watch groups have made reports resulting in the discovery of four caches of mortar rounds, makeshift mortar tubes and improvised explosive device timers, he said. Last night one such report led soldiers from Multinational Division Baghdad to destroy a car-bomb factory filled with deadly materials.
"It's an illustrative example of the value of neighborhood watch programs and the trust the Iraqi people have in their local security forces," Fox said. "Because of their commitment, many are being vetted for training as future police or security officers."
"We've seen a significant drop in the number of citizens murdered in Baghdad," Fox said, although nine indirect fire attacks on July 12 hit several Iraq neighborhoods.
These indiscriminate attacks are a perfect example of the nature of a brutal enemy, the admiral said.
"The attacks show the same disregard for civilian life that turned the Iraqi population against al Qaeda," Fox said. "The Iraqi people themselves realize that their best interests are not being served by these extremist groups...and the Iraqi people are turning against them."
The increasing trust, along with the steady growth of Iraqi security forces and additional coalition forces, is making a difference on the ground, he said. To date coalition forces have helped to train and equip more than 349,000 Iraq security forces.
"Iraq security forces are getting stronger every day," Fox said. The Iraqi security forces reflect the quality of their leaders. There are well-trained, well-equipped and well-led units within the Iraqi security force, but there are also units that still need to improve, he said.
The job of the coalition is to help prepare the Iraqi army and police to establish a level of security and stability they can sustain on their own. Fox emphasized that while the fight is hard the Iraqi forces are in the fight along with coalition forces.
"Their losses reflect their commitment, courage and sacrifice," he said. In June alone, Iraq security forces, working as a first line of defense, sustained three times more casualties than coalition forces.
Long-term solutions will ultimately be Iraqi solutions, Fox said. This is a joint fight with Iraqi and coalition troops working and fighting together to protect the Iraqi people and create conditions for political progress to take root.
Quoting a commander from the 3rd Infantry Division serving in Iraq, Fox said, "The Iraqi forces we are fighting alongside are truly improving every day. They are out there and (they) are doing a phenomenal job."

Related Sites:
Multinational Force Iraq

July 16, 2007
Politicus
Sarkozy’s Ambitions Reach Wide, but Where’s the Depth?

By JOHN VINOCUR
International Herald Tribune
PARIS

A newspaper in the American South once claimed readership and reporting that covered Dixie like the dew. In the league of cynical response, that line linked up with a put-down which lives on with real universality: yeah, a mile wide, and an inch deep.

France, since May 17, has a new leader who could well be called the omnipresident. With a breadth of reach that is extraordinary, and a burst of an energy that makes his predecessors over the last quarter century look paralytic, Nicolas Sarkozy has leapt into French life as the man who will change everything.

He has made clear that he will run every aspect of government, turning the prime minister's office into a kind of chief-of-staff position instead of the baffle it provided previous presidents from the drudgery and mess of daily, incremental politics.

He has widened the political affiliations of his cabinet members and appointees to include Socialists, women, and minorities, casting himself as the open-minded gatherer of the nation and tolerant symbol of all of France (while devastating the mainstream-left opposition in the process).

He has presented a catalogue of wall-to-wall change and ambition: leadership in Europe; new leverage for France in the world; an economy that trashes the traditional rigidities of French capitalism; an institutional makeover that would streamline government in the name of modernity — and, obviously, facilitate Sarkozy's will to put his mark on all things.

The goals stretch enormously wide. For now, according to a poll last week, 52 percent of the French say they aren't shocked by Sarkozy's omnipresence.

You could call it a running, leaping, remarkably successful start that has blanketed France in a mood of hopeful expectation it hasn't known in years.

The hitch is that on inspection the depth of Sarkozy's convictions — or in many cases their definition — has not become clear.

The mile-wide, inch-deep label would be cruel and hasty. Still, for early days, the contradictions are already there. Examples:

A university reorganization bill that won approval turned out to be a relatively business-as-usual undertaking that abandoned the student-selection and tuition provisions which reformers said were needed to lift the French higher education system from growing mediocrity to modernity.

Friends of Sarkozy privately rationalized away the bill's innocuousness with the thought that he could not risk student protests in the Paris streets this fall and winter when he's likely to confront labor unions with the job-market liberalization central to structural change in the economy.

Last week, when a whiff of renewal concerning French Middle East policy was in the air — Sarkozy quite reasonably referred to Hezbollah as "terrorist'' — the presidential bureaucracy reverted to form 24 hours later, reaffirming France's opposition to including Hezbollah on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations.

A day or two later, the president, who as the campaigning Sarkozy openly expressed his unwillingness to let Russia strengthen its strategic influence over Europe, was on the phone with Vladimir Putin. Gazprom had just picked Total, the French energy concern, to assist in the development of its vast Stokman gas reserves.

The deal limited Total's involvement to that of a hired hand, with Gazprom controlling 100 percent ownership of the gas the new field will produce. Much of France's requirement happily comes from non- Russian sources and nuclear power, yet the now presidential Sarkozy passed up on the occasion to express concern about a regime that uses gas and oil as a means of pressure on other EU members.

This was not a new France speaking out on what its new leader, two months earlier, said was on his mind.

Concerning the EU itself, Sarkozy's voice, rather than solely that of a nation embodying change and cooperation as its new European creed, alternately has been one of the old self-interested France, comfortable with slipping around its obligations as a team player..

Sarkozy has talked up both a European industrial policy, which decoded comes out as reflexive French protectionism, and greater political involvement in policy making at the European Central Bank, which basically boils down to a desire to bolster French competitiveness through a cheaper euro.

At the same time — French exceptionalism redux — Sarkozy has temporarily (read: but maybe until his term ends in 2012) turned France's back on meeting the debt and deficit requirements of the EU Stability Pact.

Again, friends of the president say this has to be understood in the domestic political context as the kind of position that would play to French reflex and soothe public opinion while the deep reforms bringing France in line with the European Union's public spending guidelines are put to work.

By stealth?

Perhaps, because in addressing the country last week, Sarkozy talked about the necessity of a ''strong state.'' This falls on French ears as a promise of a free-spending, all-protective one.

Psychologically, at least, it's in total contradiction with the need to reduce the massive number of public sector jobs, and end the civil service anachronisms, like lifetime employment and retirement at 50- something, which have become the notional standards for all employment. Not for nothing do polls continue to show a risk-averse majority of French young people want to work for the state.

So, where and when do the breadth of Sarkozy's presidential presence, his considerable double-edged language, and — based on performance so far — the legitimate questions about the variable level of his commitment to change run into political reality, and/ or trouble?

One of his friends, who spoke recently to the president, had an indirect answer. He said:

"Mitterrand and Chirac, in their way, shared the same analysis: nothing should be changed in France. 'You can't touch the country or it will break.' That was their analysis. Sarkozy believes the people are saying, 'It's got to be now. Do what's necessary.'"

Pushed to name an hour for the hard, deep stuff to begin, another ally just laughed.

October, November? he was asked.

There was a long, nonargumentative pause. ''Nicolas has been terrific,'' the man said. ''It's a very impressive start.''

E-mail: pagetwo@iht.com

Copyright 2007

May 23: 2954

June 12 3195 11:45 p
June 13 3210 10:30p
June 14 3228 7:30p
June 15 3238
June 16 3249 11:45p
June 18 3274 8 a.m.
June 18 3288 10p.m
June 20 3350 11p.m
June 22 3371 8 a.m.
June 23 3381 10 a.m.
June 24 3408 10 p.m
June 26 3435 8 a,m.

June 27 3455 4p.m.
June 28 3465 9p.m.
June 29 3486 7p.m.
June 30 3501 11p.m.
July 1, 3547 11.p.m.
July 2 3585
JUly 3 3649 11 p.m.
July 6 3718 4p.m.
July 15 3830 10 p.m.
July 16 3885 11 p.m.

July 17, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Heroes and History

By DAVID BROOKS
I spent the first four days of last week interviewing senators about Iraq. The mood ranged from despondency to despair. Then on Friday I went to the Roosevelt Room in the White House to hear President Bush answer questions on the same subject. It was like entering a different universe.

Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored. While some in his administration may be looking for exit strategies, he is unshakably committed to stabilizing Iraq. If Gen. David Petraeus comes back and says he needs more troops and more time, Bush will scrounge up the troops. If GeneralPetraeus says he can get by with fewer, Bush will support that, too.

Bush said he will get General Petraeus’s views unfiltered by the Pentagon establishment. He feels no need to compromise to head off opposition from Capitol Hill and is confident that he can rebuild popular support. “I have the tools,” he said.

I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.

All this will be taken as evidence by many that Bush is delusional. He’s living in a cocoon. He doesn’t see or can’t face how badly the war is going and how awfully he has performed.

But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events we’re not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.

Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: “It’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.”

Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.

Conservatives are supposed to distrust government, but Bush clearly loves the presidency. Or to be more precise, he loves leadership. He’s convinced leaders have the power to change societies. Even in a place as chaotic as Iraq, good leadership makes all the difference.

When Bush is asked about military strategy, he talks about the leadership qualities of his top generals. Before, it was Generals Abizaid and Casey. Now, it’s Generals Petraeus and Odierno.

When Bush talks about world affairs more generally, he talks about national leaders. When he is asked to analyze Iraq, he talks about Maliki. With Russia, it’s Putin. With Europe, it’s Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and the rest.

He is confident in his ability to read other leaders: Who has courage? Who has a chip on his shoulder? And he is confident that in reading the individual character of leaders, he is reading the tablet that really matters. History is driven by the club of those in power. When far-sighted leaders change laws and institutions, they have the power to transform people.

Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.

Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush’s theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.