Agence France Presse is reporting: "Pakistan's army said Thursday that women and children may have been among those killed in the Red Mosque raid, as the burials of militants killed in the assault sparked angry Islamist protests. President Pervez Musharraf was due to address the nation in a bid to defuse tensions after the storming of the mosque in Islamabad, a fierce two-day battle that left at least 86 dead -- 75 compound occupants, mainly militants, and 11 soldiers."


PERVEZ HOODBHOY
Professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, Hoodbhoy is currently in the United States at Princeton University. He said today: "Lal Masjid underscores the danger of runaway religious radicalism in Pakistan. The Lal Masjid militants were given a free hand by the government to kidnap and intimidate. For months, under the nose of Pakistan's super-vigilant intelligence agencies, large quantities of arms and fuel were smuggled inside to create a fearsome fortress in the heart of the nation's capital. ... The Lal Masjid crisis is a direct consequence of the ambivalence of General Musharraf's regime towards Islamic militancy. In part it comes from fear and follows the tradition of appeasement. Another part comes from the confusion of whether to cultivate the Taliban -- who can help keep Indian influence out of Afghanistan -- or whether to fight them."

JUNAID AHMAD
ROBERT JENSEN
Ahmad is a member of the Progressive Muslims Network and works with the Center for Progressive Islam. Jensen is an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Both are currently in Pakistan, which is nine hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time.

Jensen wrote today: "For my first three days in Pakistan, no conversation could go more than a few minutes without a reference to the crisis at the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) compound. I had landed in Islamabad on July 8, and by then it seemed clear that government forces would eventually storm the mosque and the attached women's seminary to end the confrontation with fundamentalist clerics and their supporters."

Ahmad said: "Another aspect of the crisis mostly ignored in the press is that these events played out in Islamabad, home to the more secular/liberal and privileged elements of the society. While those groups might ignore such movements and conflicts in the outer provinces, many found it offensive that such an embarrassing incident could happen in the capital, where the world eventually would pay attention. So we hear about how this is bad for the image of Pakistan, with no comment about the lives of ordinary Pakistanis and the substance of what the country is about. Instead of talking about these fundamental questions of justice, many people wanted to see the incident ended to avoid further tarnishing of the country's image. It's like the obsession the United States has with simply changing its image in the Muslim world rather than recognizing the injustice of its policies."

LONDON: Former Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto and President Gen. Pervez Musharraf appeared to suffer a major setback in their efforts to reach a deal that would shore up his fraught re-election bid and allow her to return to Pakistan to contest parliamentary elections.

Bhutto held a news conference in London to blame Pakistan's ruling party for the standstill in the power-sharing talks and to announce that she plans to return to Pakistan from exile soon, even without an agreement.

In Pakistan, ruling-party officials blamed Bhutto for the failure of the talks, and one official said it would not let "a corrupt politician like her" return and take part in the nation's politics.

Bhutto said talks between her party and Musharraf's envoys had been 80 percent successful before stalling and that a Musharraf delegation had returned to Pakistan for consultations.

She provided few details, but in an interview with The Associated Press Saturday she blamed differences over increasing the sovereignty of Pakistan's Parliament and the holding of the next presidential and legislative elections.

She has yet to win a public commitment from Musharraf on two critical points — that he will step down as army chief and give up the power to dismiss the Pakistani government and parliament.

"We understand that there is severe reaction within the present ruling party to any understanding with the Pakistan People's Party," Bhutto said, in reference to her own party. "Due to that reaction, no understanding has been arrived at and we are making our own plans to return to the country."

She said, "We've taken the decision to announce on Sept. 14 the date of my return because we feel my return would be a factor for the stability of Pakistan." She said that announcement would be made in Pakistan.

"I will be going back to Pakistan very soon. ... I feel the stage is set for the restoration of democracy and I hope to go back to play my part."

Any collapse of the Bhutto-Musharraf talks would likely alarm Pakistan's Western backers, including the United States, which is hoping the next government will maintain Pakistan's efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Pakistan is now facing the risk of instability and turmoil as Bhutto and another former Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, prepare to return home.

Musharraf hopes elections expected this autumn will win him another five-year term as president.

But with the general's popularity plummeting and challenges to his rule growing, he has turned to Bhutto for help to broaden his public support.

On Wednesday, Bhutto said Musharraf had agreed to resign from the military before running for re-election as part of their negotiations. On Thursday, government officials said he had made no such deal.

Musharraf, who has governed Pakistan virtually unchallenged for eight years after seizing power in 1999, and Bhutto — who has led the opposition Pakistan People's Party from exile — both need each other's support.

According to Pakistani law, Musharraf must stand for re-election by the national and provincial assemblies between Sept. 15 and Oct. 15, and parliamentary elections have to be held by mid-January.

After serving as prime minister in the 1990s, Bhutto's government collapsed amid allegations of corruption and misrule, and she left Pakistan in 1999 to avoid arrest. She is still facing charges and wants them to be dropped to smooth her return to Pakistan.

In return, her party would abstain from — but not disrupt — the presidential election, then take part in the parliamentary ballot.

She also wants Pakistan's ban on prime ministers serving for a third time to be lifted, which would allow her, as well as Sharif, to run again for prime minister.

In Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, Musharraf's spokesman declined to comment about Bhutto's news conference Saturday.

But Azim Chaudhry, a senior member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q party's central executive council, blamed Bhutto for the failure of the talks, saying "she was asking too many concessions."

"Our party was not ready to allow a corrupt politician like her to return to Pakistan and take part in politics against us," he told the AP. "She wanted that the president should not have the power to dissolve the Parliament. She wanted that we should scrap corruption cases against her, and this is what we didn't accept."

Are Musharraf's Days Numbered as Head of Pakistan?

Bhutto to return to Pakistan despite no deal yet with Musharraf

international herald tribune article


Any collapse of the Bhutto-Musharraf talks would likely alarm Pakistan's Western backers, including the United States, which is hoping the next government will maintain Pakistan's efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaida.



The "next government"?????

What does Washington know about the upcoming elections???

Things that make ya go hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

toeg wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2007, 4:23am:


Including and ESPECIALLY the U.S.!

WASHINGTON: A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.

If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan, a Pentagon spokesman said, a force that could grow by dozens under the new approach.

The proposal is modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Anbar Province in Iraq that has been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. But it raises the question of whether such partnerships can be forged without a significant American military presence in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes.

Altogether, the broader strategic move toward more local support is being accelerated because of concern about instability in Pakistan and the weakness of the Pakistani government, as well as fears that extremists with havens in the tribal areas could escalate their attacks on allied troops in Afghanistan. Just in recent weeks, Islamic militants sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban have already extended their reach beyond the frontier areas into more settled areas, most notably the mountainous region of Swat.

The tribal proposal, a strategy paper prepared by staff members of the United States Special Operations Command, has been circulated to counterterrorism experts but has not yet been formally approved by the command's headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Some other elements of the campaign have been approved in principle by the Americans and Pakistanis and await financing, like $350 million over several years to help train and equip the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force that now has about 85,000 members and is recruited from border tribes.

A more peaceful world will be possible only when Americans and others begin to see things through the eyes of their supposed enemies, and realise that today’s conflicts, having resulted from desperation and despair, can be solved through economic development rather than war.

Many of today’s war zones — including Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan — share basic problems that lie at the root of their conflicts. They are all poor, buffeted by natural disasters — especially floods, droughts, and earthquakes — and have rapidly growing populations that are pressing on the capacity of the land to feed them. And the proportion of youth is very high, with a bulging population of young men of military age (15-24 years).

All of these problems can be solved only through long-term sustainable economic development. Yet the United States persists in responding to symptoms rather than to underlying conditions by trying to address every conflict by military means. It backs the Ethiopian army in Somalia. It occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. It threatens to bomb Iran. It supports the military dictatorship in Pakistan.

None of these military actions addresses the problems that led to conflict in the first place. On the contrary, American policies typically inflame the situation rather than solve it.

Time and again, this military approach comes back to haunt the US. The US embraced the Shah of Iran by sending massive armaments, which fell into the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Government after 1979. The US then backed Saddam Hussein in his attack on Iran, until the US ended up attacking Saddam himself. The US backed Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets, until the US ended up fighting bin Laden. Since 2001 the US has supported Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan with more than $10 billion in aid, and now faces an unstable regime that just barely survives.

In a stunning article on aid to Pakistan during the Bush administration, Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet demonstrated the disastrous nature of this militarised approach — even before the tottering Musharraf regime’s latest crackdown. They show that even though Pakistan faces huge problems of poverty, population, and environment, 75 percent of the $10 billion in US aid has gone to the Pakistani military, ostensibly to reimburse Pakistan for its contribution to the “war on terror,” and to help it buy F-16s and other weapons systems.

Another 16 percent went straight to the Pakistani budget, no questions asked. That left less than 10 percent for development and humanitarian assistance. Annual US aid for education in Pakistan has amounted to just $64 million, or $1.16 per school-aged child.

The authors note that “the strategic direction for Pakistan was set early by a narrow circle at the top of the Bush administration and has been largely focused on the war effort rather than on Pakistan’s internal situation.” They also emphasise that “US engagement with Pakistan is highly militarised and centralised, with very little reaching the vast majority of Pakistanis.” They quote George Bush as saying, “When [Musharraf] looks me in the eye and says...there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al-Qaeda, I believe him, you know?”

This militarised approach is leading the world into a downward spiral of violence and conflict. Each new US weapons system “sold” or given to the region increases the chances of expanded war and further military coups, and to the chance that the arms will be turned on the US itself. None of it helps to address the underlying problems of poverty, child mortality, water scarcity, and lack of livelihoods in places like Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, Sudan’s Darfur region, or Somalia. These places are bulging with people facing a tightening squeeze of insufficient rainfall and degraded pasturelands. Naturally, many join radical causes.

Reporter Jonathan Rugman points out how, as the gunman fires, Bhutto's hair is lifted and her shawl seems to rise as she falls inside her car.

"These images ... apparently [contradict] the official version of events," Rugman asserts.

"As more such images come to light," he says, "they will fuel the anger of protesters both here at the scene of the crime and around the country who feel that they've been lied to by the government and that there's been a deliberate coverup of what amounts to a massive security failure to protect this country's best known politician."

Authorities initially said that Bhutto died from bullet wounds, and a surgeon who treated her said the impact from shrapnel on her skull killed her. But, Rugman points out, no blood was found on the bulletproof car -- and, every other passenger in the car survived. The video clearly shows three policeman to the left of the car, doing nothing to hold back the crowd. Was the government trying to cover-up a security lapse? Those close to the president say that was not the case.

"We do things here [quite differently]," says Senator Tarif Azeem, a friend of President Musharraf, citing Bhutto's want to "be amongst the crowd" as the reason why she stood through the sunroof without much security around her.

Officials have rejected calls for independent foreign inquiry, although they have offered to exhume her body if requested. According to Rugman, the government's actions suggest they may be hiding something.

"[The truth] really matters in a country where scores of people have died in protests against Mrs. Bhutto's death and indeed against the circumstances of Mrs. Bhutto's death," Rugman says, adding that the "great fear" in Pakistan is that the assassination will go unsolved.


This video is from Channel 4 News, broadcast on December 30, 2007.

Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said on Thursday that the United States is "ready, willing and able" to conduct joint combat operations in the troubled region if Islamabad agrees.

However, Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, has dismissed all talk of combined offensives with US forces in Pakistani territory.

February 18, 2008

A CounterPunch Exclusive
An Interview with Imran Khan on Today's Parliamentary Elections, the Future of Musharaff and the Hope for a Democratic Pakistan
Free Pakistan
By WAJAHAT ALI

ALI: Ok, first question. The polls in Pakistan for the General Election are now officially closed. Here's the question on everyone's minds around the world: First: Will these elections be free and fair? Second: Will the results represent the pulse and wishes of the people?

KHAN: Number one, they are certainly not free and fair. Because the greatest pre-poll rigging ever in our history was done, where the whole State administration was pushing the pro-government, pro-Musharaff candidates. Every party has every day listed the ways the elections have been rigged for the past month. Secondly, it is the lowest ever voter turn out. In fact, I would say that 75% of the people have rejected the electoral process. They did not feel that if your Constitution is suspended, if 60% of your judges have been unconstitutionally sacked, your Chief Justice is under house arrest, then you cannot have free and fair election when the pre-conditions are not there. So, basically, people have rejected the election. If the people have come out to vote, then it is against pro-Musharaff candidates.

ALI: So, you're completely convinced that it's rigged against the Pro-Musharaff candidates?

KHAN: You can just do any random sampling. You can see that people who are coming in -- the PML-Q [Musharaff's party] if it wins, no one will accept the results. No one is going to accept the results.

ALI: Ok, so no one is going to accept the results. Here is the natural follow up question. Should we expect much violence and bloodshed following the announcement of the results?

KHAN: I think, as I said, there was a poll conducted and 58% of the people said that they would not accept the result if the PML-Q comes to power. 58%! And they would go out and demonstrate. This is from a poll done recently.

ALI: I need your thoughts on today's quotation by Musharaff, where he said, "Whatever the result, whatever the result, we will accept it with grace. Whoever is the prime minister, I will work with that person in a reconciliatory mode. We should end the confrontationist politics. Let's enter into a conciliatory politics." Do you believe him? Should the world believe him?

KHAN: No one in Pakistan believes him, because everyone knows he has gone back on his word so many times. He has no credibility. In the first election, in 2002, he said, "All I'm interested in is someone becomes Prime Minister, so I can play golf." And, he did actually anything but that. Again, again, he's making these statements, but he's going to rig these elections to the point where he thinks his party can still win. There was a statement out in the paper in an interview he gave where he said he thinks MQM [a Pakistan political party not expected to win] and PML-Q will win the majority seats and will win the elections.

ALI: Well, according to the polls, that's ridiculous.

KHAN: Absolutely. What I'm saying is what he says and what he's trying to do is two different things. We've heard all this -- he's made these false promises so many times that no one trusts him anymore.

ALI: The two main opposition parties, now this is a rumor, suggested they unite against Musharraf's party. This again is Benazir Bhutto's PPP led by her husband Zardari and Nawaz Sharif's [Pakistan's former Prime Minister recently returned from exile]. They said if they could capture two thirds of the seats in parliament and form a coalition, then they would win a two-thirds majority in parliament and take steps to impeach Musharaff. Is a united front going to be successful against Musharaff? Or, like you said, all is rigged and all is lost?

KHAN: Well, if there was a two-thirds majority, if they were free and fair elections, they would get it. But, they are not free and fair elections, I'll doubt they'll get the majority. But, there's always a fear in our minds that People's Party [Bhutto's party] might for the fourth time bail out Musharaff by doing a power sharing deal with him. Now, really, this is the next step. Are they going to do a power sharing deal with him?

ALI: That's the question on my mind and most policy experts and pundits as well. Is Zardari going to do a power sharing deal? Will a power sharing deal be engineered between the United States, Zardari's PPP, and Musharaff?

KHAN: Well, look, if [Zardari] does so, remember, not only will the People's Party be destroyed, but anyone who now does a deal with Musharaff will destroy himself. If the U.S. backs Zardari-- and people will know that if Zardari does a deal with Musharaff, they will know he's doing a deal to get off his corruption cases [Zardari is affectionately known as "Mr 10%" in Pakistan due the steep kickbacks he illegally pocketed during his wife's tenure.] And so, he will destroy his own party. I don't think even People's Party will accept him. People's Party won't accept that deal.