Social development: Terrorisms' antidote!

Pakistan had declared Osama bin Laden dead. However, to mark 9/11, Osama and a 11 minute video released by As-Sahab media production have now surfaced putting the Pkaistan claim to shame. The Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden described President Barack Obama as "powerless" to stop the war in Afghanistan, and Americans' inability to grasp why the 9/11 attacks occurred has "cost you a lot without any result whatsoever". This is not about Osama or his alive or dead status. It is also not about the threat ,which for the first time appears rather muted. There is a deeper thought in the statement.. a thought that is yet to be captured by America and its allies.

Edward Girardet, a world renowned journalist has commented in his new book that the war in Afghanistan can not be won by a military victory. Girardet says "My thesis is that no one can win a war in Afghanistan. You can win peace with development." Whether it is the LTTE in Sri Lanka or Troubled Kashmir or the pirates from Somalia, or the home grown Naxalite movement, Terrorism is a social issue stoked by political and monetary intent. "It's all about outside interest. Whether it is Pakistan, US, India, Russia or Iran, everyone is here for their interest. The parallels are numerous."

Girardet points out to the fact that the old mistakes being repeated over and over again! Quoting Girardet:

"The Mujahideen never fought fixed battles. The same thing is happening now. There's a problem with a conventional army trying to fight a guerrilla war. So when i hear the ISAF claiming that they have cleared an area of Taliban, it reminds me of the days when the Russians would make similar claim about the Mujahideen. And the truth is that you don't have the population on your side. Also, the Americans put a lot of money into aid but it was not monitored. All these things are happening again."

"Experienced people have been telling the international powers here to 'go slow, don't throw money at them, let Afghans consult Afghans, and get the community involved', but none of the big donors here have any patience. So it's not going to work. The Afghans are not dumb. They know exactly what's going on. And the most shocking thing is that most of the people in the higher and middle positions have no idea what this country is all about. My thesis is that no one can win a war in Afghanistan. You can win peace with development. "

If all the monies that were blown up in buying weapons, sending armies, deputing militias and cost of operations were simply put to a better use in developing these nations, the efforts would have built a public consensus on development and growth. That by itself would have weakened the terror idealogies. That would have won the war against terror!The best example of this was the elimination of Taliban from Swat valley because of loss of their idealogical base due to attrocities they committed in the area.

Instead millions of "war" dollars have been spent, usually not yielding any results decades after the first bullet was shot, the first man killed. The governments and international agencies would just had to control the "outside interference" and peace would have taken care of itself.

At the current juncture, Girardet is of the view that a sudden withdrawl of UN/US troops out of Afghanistan would create chaos in the country. He advocates for a well trained and well paid army and internal security force in Afghanistan. Girardet stresses the need to talk to Taliban, to the provinces, to the local communities and leaders and chalk out a plan of development. The only way out of the Afghan war is to work with the people of the country.

The same rule applies across all nations, people and communities in the world. "Give a man a reason to live and he will not resort to any terros tactics ever"

Reference posts:

http://newspaper-posts.blogspot.com/2009/06/taliban-loosing-its-social-and.html

http://newspaper-posts.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-terror-political-problem.html

Pakistan sees India when they see SWAT

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124823898093171403.html
What goes around comes around. A fundamental learning that Pakistan seems to have forgotten as they allege “Indian Links” to militant activities in their country. Reproducing Mathew Rosenburg article in Wall Street Journal: Pakistan sees India when they see WSJ.

Surrounded by aides and fellow officers, a large map propped up behind him, Maj. Gen. Sajjad Ghani lays out the battle plan for Pakistan's Swat Valley. He details how the Pakistani army swept in from the south and north in a "double pincer." He motions his pointer at the towns and villages where the fighting was fiercest and explains how the militants eventually melted away in the face overwhelming firepower.

Most of this is a well-worn narrative of the battle for Swat until Gen. Ghani, the commander of the northern half of the valley, turns to the alleged Indian role in the fighting.The Taliban, he explains, is "being directed, commanded and controlled by some of our hostile intelligence agencies being controlled by our neighboring country."

In case you didn't get it, that's code for India. And he doesn't stop there. He calls the town of Matta, a major Taliban stronghold in Swat, the "Benares of terrorism," using the old name of Hinduism's holiest city, Varanasi.

To outsiders, such comments are easily dismissed as the unscripted remarks of a conspiracy-minded soldier who has spent a lifetime preparing to fight his country's larger and more powerful rival.

But spend enough time in Pakistan, and you'll hear it expressed over and over again by everyone from street-side tea vendors to university students to senior officials. Most who offer up the theory seem to genuinely believe it. They see the Taliban's advance in Pakistan as part of a larger Indian conspiracy to encircle the country by building ties to the U.S. and Afghanistan, never mind that the Taliban is fighting U.S. and Afghan forces.

"Some circles believe that the Indian consuls in Afghanistan, fully supported by the U.S., are creating mayhem and sabotaging peace in Pakistan," wrote the Daily Express, an Urdu-lanaguage newspaper, in a June 30 editorial. "The Pakistani army should come down hard on anyone who is playing in the hands of foreign powers, including Baitullah Mehsud," the nominal leader of the Pakistan Taliban.

Rarely is any evidence proffered or India directly named. The comments usually come off as ham-handed attempts to deflect from Pakistan's own failures, as India itself often is quick to blame a "foreign hand" in atrocities before there has even been time to gather evidence. (Sometimes, of course, the foreign hand is at play – witness Mohammed Ajmal Kasab's confession Monday in Mumbai.)

Ironically, Pakistan's blaming India for its problems in Swat may actually, and unintentionally, have served a useful purpose in the broader anti-Taliban push. The idea that fighting the Taliban is tantamount to fighting India appears to have helped drive a massive turnaround in Pakistani public opinion, giving the government and the army the backing it needs to aggressively fight the militants.

"We've externalized an internal problem," says a senior Pakistani official who's often been critical of the government's ambiguous relationship with Pakistan's myriad Islamist militant groups.
The official doesn't believe predominately Hindu India is backing one of the world's fiercest Islamist movements, calling the suggestion "nonsense." And he says there's no organized effort to paint the Taliban as India's proxy even though many officials and generals "really believe it."
Still, "it's helped at a time when we really need the help," he says.

Some of the shift in public sentiment away from the peace accord with the Taliban signed in February undoubtedly is due to the Taliban's brutal rule of Swat. One widely circulated video showed the militants flogging a teenage girl accused of having an improper relationship with a man.

The Taliban also began to move into neighboring districts, raising alarms among Pakistan's urban middle and upper classes, some of whom sympathize with the Taliban but few of whom want to actually be ruled by the militants.

But anti-India sentiment has clearly played a role in rallying the Pakistani public and, perhaps more important, the deeply nationalistic military to support a broad anti-Taliban offensive. Such sentiment, however, also suggests that Pakistan won't lead a full-scale clampdown on all the country's myriad Islamist militant groups, many of which had long been used by Pakistan as proxies in Afghanistan and India's part of Kashmir. It's not all Islamist militants that are the problem, the thinking goes, just those being used by our enemies.

That helps explain why many Pakistanis opposed the Taliban in Pakistan yet at the same time support, to some degree, the Afghan Taliban, which is seen as distinct. It also explains why the Afghan Taliban and its allies still rely on safe havens on the Pakistani side of the border.
In fact, ask a Pakistani civilian or military official what the biggest problem in the region is, and only the rare few tell you it's the Taliban. Most say it's the presence of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces next door.

Taliban: Loosing its Social and Idealogical base

In an earlier post http://newspaper-posts.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-terror-political-problem.html, i had discussed terror and militancy being a social problem foremost. It is only when the conditions in the society favour radical thought do people and societies favour such radical and exteremist steps. Thus, weeding out terrorism involves striking at its social and idealogical roots to make an impact. It is a commonly accepted fact, that Taliban and Al Qaeda have recieved the patronage of the peoples of the frontier provinces in Pakistan and Afghanistan that has blunted the effects of the US, Pakistan and NATO forces. However, relentless fighting, harsh Sharia laws, belligerence and intransigence and relentless blood shed of the Taliban has started eating into its own social base amongst the people in FATA. Mathew Rosenburg and Zahid Hussain (Wall Street Journal) cover the tribes' dissent and anger with the Taliban.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- When the Taliban began filtering into Gul Khan Mehsud's town along the Afghan border nine years ago, residents offered food, shelter and ammunition.
"How could we turn them away? The Americans were killing them. We wanted them to fight," says the 38-year-old from South Waziristan, one of the tribal regions that border Afghanistan and arguably the Taliban's most important stronghold in Pakistan. "We thought the Taliban would help us."

People carry a man injured in a suicide bombing at a mosque Friday in the Upper Dir district, west of the Swat Valley in Pakistan. Military leaders in the country say they are hoping anger among residents at the Pakistan Taliban will help fuel an anti-militant campaign and a coming offensive.
Instead, Mr. Mehsud was forced from his home in South Waziristan earlier this year after the Pakistan Taliban, which grew out of the militants who fled the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, accused one of his cousins of helping the U.S. plot missile strikes from drone aircraft.
Mr. Mehsud now lives with nearly two dozen relatives in two rooms in this city, the gateway to the tribal borderlands. "I didn't want to be shot," he says.
With Pakistan on the brink of taking its anti-militant campaign to the tribal areas on the restive border with Afghanistan, civilian and military leaders in Islamabad are banking on growing anger with the Pakistan Taliban among tribesmen such as Mr. Mehsud, whose Pashtun ethnic group straddles the frontier and lives in the core of the insurgency in both countries.
Popular support for the insurgents has undermined years of attempts to subdue the border areas, where the Taliban hold sway and al Qaeda operates openly. Residents who have fled report an intensifying reign of terror. The region is largely off limits to outsiders -- foreigners and Pakistanis alike -- and there are signs of growing disgust with the Taliban's hard-line tactics.
Pakistan's military hopes to channel that disenchantment behind its coming campaign in North and South Waziristan, which is likely to be grueling. An estimated 15,000 militants from the northwestern mountains of Pakistan and parts of eastern Afghanistan have massed in the area before an offensive expected to begin in the next month or two.
Anger at the Taliban in tribal areas mirrors a broader anti-Taliban sentiment across Pakistan that backed the military's recent offensive in the Swat Valley, a onetime vacation area overrun by the Taliban in the past two years.
The military launched its assault in Swat, which is roughly 100 miles from Islamabad, about a month ago after the Taliban violated a peace agreement that gave them control of the area.
Pakistan's top brass say the army has cleared militants from most of Swat, but there still are pockets of resistance in the valley and sporadic violence in areas around the region. On Friday, a suicide bomber killed at least 30 people attending afternoon prayers at a mosque in the Upper Dir district, a remote area to the west of Swat. According to Pakistani officials, there was no immediate claim of responsibility, but one local government official blamed the Taliban, saying it was likely in retaliation for the Swat offensive.

The tribal areas -- remote, mountainous and untamed by outside authority for centuries -- represent a far greater challenge. Pakistani intelligence officials say the top leaders of the Swat Taliban have retreated, along with hundreds of followers, to North and South Waziristan.
North and South Waziristan are part of the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a rugged region cut off physically and politically from the rest of the country. Unlike Pakistan's four main provinces, the region has historically been under only loose federal government control.
There still is broad popular support in the area for militants fighting U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan. And the Pakistan Taliban hasn't lost its allure among the tens of thousands of people whose relatives were killed or homes were flattened in military attempts to reassert authority in the tribal areas.
"Each time there is badly aimed artillery firing or the Americans fire missiles, if one person is killed, all his brothers and sons and cousins join the Taliban," said Hazrat Muhammad, 36, who last year fled fighting in the Mohmand tribal area near South Waziristan.
Even among those, such as Mr. Muhammad, who say they now oppose the Taliban, there's deep distrust of the government, which has done little for the tribal areas since Pakistan was created six decades ago.
In social and economic indicators, the region trails the rest of Pakistan. Per-capita annual income is about $500 -- roughly half the national average -- and literacy hovers under 20%.
Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former official who served as top administrator for both Waziristans, said the people "don't want the Taliban. But they don't want the army. They want to go back to their old ways."
The old ways allowed Islamabad to govern through a network of moderate tribal elders, known as maliks. Pakistani law didn't apply to the tribal areas, and the army stayed out of the region.
The system, which originated more than a century ago when Britain ruled the subcontinent, was upended by the Taliban and al Qaeda after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Hundreds of maliks were killed or forced to flee, and the few government officials in the region brought to heel.
The army sent in soldiers in 2003, but they did little to restore civilian authority. A new generation of Taliban warlords filled the vacuum, banding together in 2007 to form the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and fight Islamabad.
The group's most powerful commanders are based in the Waziristans. Among them: Baitullah Mehsud, the nominal leader of the Pakistan Taliban.
In one indication of the growing anger at the Pakistan Taliban, a rival from within Mr. Mehsud's tribe is gathering fighters to challenge the commander.
"The government is an enemy," said Gul Khan Mehsud. "First the Taliban must go. Then the army should go," he said. Asked who would then govern the tribal areas, he replied, "We can work that out ourselves."

Zardari's begging bowl

In over 11 previous posts, I have written on the central issue plaguing Pakistan- An inept and corrupt leadership (sans influence and control) playing puppet to army/ISI powers playing puppet to a larger and high orthodox Islamic order (Taliban being one of the faces of this front). It is indeed a shame that the world watches as Pakistan deteriorates into an Islamic Anarchy. The human, economic, trade and infrastructure indexes in the Pakistan are retrogressing to put it mildly. For a long tiem now, it has been running on IMF and American aid. However the spends have not shown any "developmental" returns.

While Zardari goes about begging for aid from the developed economies, there is little he can show as real time development during his 1.5 year tenure. Forget the state, a justice for his wife's assassination is pending. Zardari has proven to be a very weak and vacillating leader of a country, which at this time needs a visionary, dare- all statesman leader more than anything. The greatest acheivements that Zardari can talk about is his tenure as far as Pakistan is concerned is the success of his aid accumulation efforts. US has aided him, so has the IMF, so has China and now Japan. $1 billion aid to Pakistan has been promised by Japan and US to support economic reforms and developmental assistance.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US-Japan-pledge-1bn-each-to-Pak/articleshow/4412576.cms
Furthermore, Zaradari has set claims to such aids as a measure (pay back) for Pakistan aiding the "war against terror" on its soil. According to Zardari "If we win, you win. If we loose, you loose" can be construed as a thinly veiled persuation tactic.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Zardari-seeks-aid-like-Marshall-Plan/articleshow/4412121.cms
On a subject such as winning and loosing, Zardari prefers silence on why he would agree to sharia laws and let Taliban "rule" a part of the Pakistani territory. It only proves a complete breakdown of the security systems in Pakistan and the helplessness of Islamabad in managing this muck that they have gotten themselves in.

As if a $7.5 billion civilian aid and $3 billion military assistance is not enough, Pakistan’s envoy to the US Husain Haqqani has sought $30 billion under Marshall Plan to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.$30 billion is far less than the current stimulus packages being doled out to banks and other US companies. “Despite the economic issues that the world is facing, the cost of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan is going to be minuscule (compared) to the bailouts being given to American car companies and AIG (American International Group),” Haqqani was quoted.Kerry-Lugar bill has proposed tripling of the non-civilian aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year, he said Pakistan needs $5 billion a year for the next five years from the US and its allies to build local law enforcement of about 100,000 men, strengthen counterinsurgency against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and persuade average citizen that the US-led war on extremism is Pakistan’s war and essential for the country’s survival.

It is baffling as to how such huge aid moneys are routinely routed to Pakistan, even while western states express shock, anger, grief and admonishment at Islamabad's mis-governance.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6898150&page=1. As of 8th April 2009, Taliban broke the "peace deal" between themselves and the government that was drawn in March, 2009. As of 10th April, Taliban fighters were barely 60 miles (97km) north-west of Islamabad.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090090259
http://www.zeenews.com/South-Asia/2009-04-09/522070news.html
http://www.livemint.com/2009/04/10000833/Time-distance-and-Taliban.html

It is time for the international forum to see beyond Islamabad's diversionary tactics and be satisfied with the aid lumpsums that they deliver to Islamabad. There is a real problem out there and it is for the average Pakistani citizen that the international community now needs to react and call for a broader military action in Pakistan. Else the whole country is in a real danger of descending into lawless fiefdoms, much the same as Afghanistan fate.

Now is the Time for Barrack Obama

Over most of 2008, i watched Barrack Hussein Obama overcome herculean odds to become the next president of United States. To me the preliminaries where he fought Hillary Clinton were a greater test of the person than the actual Democrats versus Republicans election against John McCain. For most of the part, Obama never faltered with his message of change must come to America. John McCain's choice of his deputy, the pin up Sarah Palin, was a significant cause of his defeat.



However, this blog does-not deal with that. It deals with Obama, the successor of Bush. For 6 and a half years, Bush was a buffoon on the most important seat in the world. As the president of US, Bush actions were not only jibbed, laughed at, cartooned and caricatured; the enormity of his policies and mistakes have made the world a whole lot more unsafe then it was before. A failed War of Terrorism which saw him burn up trillions without any effect, a domestic economy reeling under the financial crisis, the fall of the wall street and the big american firms, failed agreements: there is precious little to show on his result card, as Bush bows out. I would assume that in the history of American presidency Bush was the most lampooned president ever (not withstanding the Media multiplication). Little wonder then that George W Bush, the 43rd President of America ends his term in a manner of a lame duck with a fitting tribute to his 8 years at the oval office, a size 10 boot. (From Iraq with love). The world lays seize to very real threats such as climate change, terror and a long depression. Mr Bush retires with a next to zero score on his report card. His eccentricities and funny ways have not helped his cause and reputation either. Love to see this comic strip called Bush in Big Brother or something.

At this time, the world and the american citizenry looks upto Obama with hope and encouragement. They see him to be an agent of Change, a politically savvy, self aware and intelligent spokesperson. One that the world needs so badly at this time. Apart from his persona, Obama has won hearst and minds with his actions. I singularly find, the appointment of Hillary Clinton to his team as a masterstroke. Hillary is too good an administrator to miss in any team that roots for change. Her inclusion into the cabinet signals that Obama means business and if that means teaming up with his arch nemesis to lead US out of the woods, he wouldnot bauly at it. (I wish the Indian politicians learnt a few things from Obama). As Obama prepares to take over the white house, he has a manifold agenda which includes putting some order back to the mess Bush is leaving behind and activating an agenda which propels change for better. Obama faces a stiff challenge in many and more fronts...
1. Leading the US out of the economic mess that it is. From being a recession that is worst in the last 80 years to a real time deflation threat. Obama and the Fed will have to look at means and measures to put the super economy of US back to the wheels.
2. The Big three are going under. The Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Meryll Lynch, AIG, Citigroup and many more are on Fed respirators. It is going to be a tough bullet to bite as Obama would presides over "how to overhaul the economy?". This has very powerful implications on the way people are going to see him in US as well around the world.
3. Climate is one of the most important issues facing the world. The tussle between the developed and underdeveloped world over Carbon emissions are going to be another critical test for Obama. How would he balance that?
4. The power centres in the world are shifting to China and India, both emerging strong and fast. How does US react and recognise these new kids on the block?
5. Terror is a real threat looming large. How would US handle delicate situations like the Afghan - Pak - India conflict / dilemna. Currently US is playing the peace monger but the relevance of the new kids along with the terror situation is going to be formidable challenge.
6. US has messed up in Iraq and it looks like it is following course in Afghanistan. Will there be a significant chnage in the American way of dealing with Terror now on? Its Obama's turn to decide.

Obama's aura is formidable (being the Time's man of the year)... the challenges presented are going to test every nerve in Obama as he takes over. It is scary to think but media and people over the world over rate this man... is he the Messiah he is supposed to be?

Is Terror a Political Problem?

Amir Ajmal Kasav.. i am sure he did not bargain for the amount of publicity and diplomatic stalemate that he has generated. At 21, Ajmal Kasav today is the face of the global Jehadi. he might be linked to the Mumbai terror plot, but in essence he could be the same person in 9/11 or in any of the other terrorist attacks world over.
I happened to go through an article some time back written by Swaminathan Iyer in ToI. There have been more proponents to the idea that we need to fight terror at its root: The Idealogy. The analogy given here is that of US covertly using propaganda to show the failure of Communist state to channelise and ferment a lack of trust on Russians during the Afghan Russia conflict. a Compelling thought there. By stamping out the idealogy of Jihad, one makes the movement irrelevant. A Brilliant political move! However, is the answer to this question just in the Politics of state and idealogy? I differ...
An interesting thought on poverty i read sometime back was "poverty was the lack of Economic activity" (which generates wealth and hence the antidote). Probably that is where the answer to the idealogy game is. Driven by hunger, death, malnutrition, unemployment, money, loss of identity... youth all over the world have explored various possible ways of expressing their rage and anger. India as a country is no exception to the rule. What of the naxalite movements in West Bengal, Andhra, Chattisgarh and other such states? What of Punjab and J&K? What of the Azamgarh terrorists who placed bombs in Delhi? The spectre of home grown terrorists is not new to India. We extrapolate the thought to the world. Regions strife with lack of economic prosperity, war, inequities in governance and social systems and civil unrests are the fermenting grounds for terror organization. Ajmal Kassav, a son of a pakore walla took the this path because of lack of economic progress. He was hardened and brain washed by Jihadis and then came the 26/11 terror. I dont condone Ajmal Kassav, but his case provides interesting insights.
Lack of economic progress creates poverty and frustration, which leads young men into the dark world for the lure of money or betterment. Soon these people are spotted and trained in Jihad. Little wonder then that the ravaged states of Africa and countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or war torn states produce the best jihadis.
Lessons for states and politicans: We have to make people a part of the economic progress. Only when all or most of the people in the lowest levels of the society are involved in functions that enable them to lead their lives better to end poverty and frustration would you be able to nip such idealogies in the bud. Give every man his chance to earn his own bread to the best of his capabilities and allow him to dream and grow for a better future.. that is the way to a world order in peace and stability. Politics and politicians, statesmen and leaders should try to empower societies and states to do so and by doing that you are taking away all and any reasons as to why would one end up frustrated and think about the world of crime.
As a footnote, i am reminded of Pierce Brosnan in "After the sunset" who says "you dont have to think about that (crime), if you are enjoying life (fruits of labour)..."

Next terror attack on US will originate in Pakistan, your thoughts?

My views of the non challant and myopic views of The US government in dealing with the terror crisis.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=51584&discussionID=658312&sik=1228546149185&split_page=1&report%2Esuccess=PdmtybENV2mnc3t3p8JpWuFiB1ZhaD9OnKUphCsu7LRNRYTOK1wrHHO_rcDN0rVBb1wuxUyPL-SZ
http://digg.com/world_news/Next_terror_attack_on_US_will_originate_from_Pakistan

US's myopic views of the world is a substance of cartooning and folklore. The last count, US had spent 1 trillion dollars on its "war against terror" with little to show as results. A few hundred missiles, a few thousand corpses and a handful of terrorists killed is how the report card reads even today. It is singularly frustrating as to why would the policy makers blind themselves out on the larger picture. The threat today is Radical Islamic movement (not to be confused by Islam, the religion). While US marines try to nuke out the western province of Pakistan searching for Al Qaeda rats, the "radical islam" movement has augmented itself into agencies in the heart of Pakistan and elsewhere, where the idealogies of radical islam find blind supporters. As such stamping of AL Qaeda will not be an end to terror. AQ has already spawned many more cells which will take the "jihad" to the next frontier. Coming to the subject of Pakistan: Clearly the Army and the ISI hold all the chords of a puppet democratic government. As a state, 60 years post its making, Pakistan remains to be a failure. Its economy and society in tatters, this is state on the brink of anarchy, how ever hard the Pakistan government tries to supress the facts. Lawlessness and anarchy rule this land. No wonder then that Osama, Dawood, Azhar and other terrorists continue to live under the government/ISI patronage and operate freely from this land. In such conditions, the next terror attacks whether be London, New York or Mumbai are destined to originate here. Thus instead of state visits like that of Rice (i wonder what benefit does it bring to either India or Pakistan), the international community would have to bargain for a strike at identified Pakistani locations to purge it from these perpetrators of terror. One might have to factor in wholesome elimination of ISI as well. As long as this hard bullet is not bitten, US may choose to spend another trillion (which its own economy needs so badly) and yet be way off the mark in striking terror out forever. Dont expect the lame duck Bush to be doing anything more to help this. Am pinning my hopes on Obama.

Home Minister Shivraj Patil resigns

http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/30121747/Home-Minister-Shivraj-Patil-re.html

Shivraj Patil's resignation comes as a congress-scappegoat kind of situation to keep the media-opposition-citizenry at bay.However is resignation the just answer? For someone who has been willfully being letting easy on terror situations such as the Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Jaipur- Delhi blasts, the Mumbai attack was the last straw. But should he not be tried at the courts for failing to do his duties while at power? How many more men must dies in Bomb Blasts ( as in Jaipur, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Delhi) or in Terror Attacks(as in Mumbai) before we idenify that it is people like Shivraj Patil and there callousness to such events which result in the same destruction patterns repeated time and again.This man deserves being punished in the courts of law... or will it be his allegiance to the Gandhi clan which will over ride all national concerns yet again.Are you listeing Mrs Sonia Gandhi?

US suspects Kashmir-based group behind attacks: Official

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/US_suspects_Kashmir-based_group_behind_attacks_Official/articleshow/3774358.cms#write
I wonder just how many more 9/11s and innocent lives will it take for US and the international community to understand that it is the Al Qaeda and LeT which have perpetrated the terror. I wonder when the sense will dawn on the inetrnational community that Pakistan is under anarchy and is being run by a cartel of extremists, ISI and terror organizations. Pakistan will never be able to fight this cancer. It will take an international effort to get rid of this. Do we want more of such attacks happening at Paris, London, Brussels and other trade centres or can the civilized world move towards a definitive and coordinated attempt to get rid of this?

Can politicians ever stand united against terror?

As every Indian i too am deeply hurt by the terror attack on Mumbai. My response to a discussion on NDTV.com: http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/Election_Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20080074624&type=News

My heart fills up with pride for the valiance of the army, navy, NSG and Maharashtra Police men who have braved death. At the same time, i am ashamed of the political resolve in the country. In times of distress, two senior leaders L K Advani and Manmohan Singh could not present a united face of the Indian Politics to the extremists and the nation at large. I seriously hope that R R Patil, the Maharashtra Home Minister was inebriated when he made the comment on "such small incidences". Repeatedly, incidences such as blasts in Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi and now this terror attack at Mumbai. Our Home Minister is quick to "react" with his high level meetings. There is no end to this terror. As an Indian, i wonder to who or what purpose am i paying my taxes?
In days to come this will become an electoral issue with BJP, BSP, SP and others attcking Congress for its failure to tackle these situations. Question is... even when BJP was at power was it able to do anything post the "Attack on Parlaiment". So under what assumption will it be attacking congress for its "failures"?
The Elections are also a farce because for an ordinary citizen in the country the choice is betwen the devil and deep sea. WHy cant we have an accountable system on these issues? When will the qabbling political class wake up an address the real issues rather than bickering over each others short comings. Is this what you call a democracy?