It’s here again. Every time the power crisis takes a turn for the worse, the same farce plays itself out. The ministry of water and power produces the same ‘plan’ they have been producing for almost four years now: early closure of shops and commercial centres, two day weekends, no ACs in government offices before 11am. The prime minister ‘directs’ that emergency payments be released for fuel supplies to particular IPPs (independent power producers). The finance ministry squeals about ‘reforms’. The ministry of petroleum ‘directs’ PSO to expedite furnace oil deliveries, and in the case of KESC, to provide this furnace oil at ‘gas prices’.

Meanwhile a hectic schedule of meetings gets underway in the capital. The same faces from the industry are summoned, and in the same rooms, they’re asked the same questions to which they give the same responses they gave last time. The Islamabad rumour mill buzzes briefly about heads about to roll in the state-owned power companies.

Somewhere in it all, a ‘summit’ is arranged. All the cabinet clowns gather for their photo op and their opportunity to make a presentation, usually the same one that has been made by the ministry for years now. Of course most of the MNAs were not able to make it on time, we are told, because their vehicles were stuck in traffic caused by the power riots.

The backdrop to the whole stage is rioting on the streets, and the attendant footage carried by the channels. Even here, it’s beginning to get old. The footage looks remarkably similar to the last time a mob went on a rampage due to prolonged power outages. You see one shot of a burning distribution company office and you’ve seen them all. I recall seeing that shot back in late summer 2008, when rioters attacked the head office of Mepco and were chased by some gun toting employee of the company. Remember that?

It’s not possible for this drama to play out any other way. Under the pressure of street protests and turbo charged media invective, the government leadership ramps up the speed of their daily routines, but not the substance. So if they normally have three meetings in a week, for instance, they’ll now have six. The outcome is still nothing; after all, six times zero is still zero. But the pace of things tends to churn up a notch or two; nonsense in fast forward is still nonsense. At the end of the day, the same resolution is always found. A payment is made, under duress, to key stakeholders. The fuel starts to flow, the turbines pick up their RPM, and electricity begins to crackle through the aging Pepco transmission and distribution system. The riots melt away, tires burned by the rioters are swept to the sides of the road, and all promises to advance reforms and to reprioritise gas allocations are swept away too. Until next time.

This time it’s bigger, for sure. All the metrics of the power crisis are bigger and badder this time round. The size of the receivables and payables, the size of the deficit, the size of the crowds on the streets, the volume of the political shrieking, it’s all bigger. The only element in the drama that has shrunk this time; is the size of the inevitable payout, the Rs10 billion paid to PSO on October 4, is smaller than in the past, promising a far smaller window of stability for a far larger crisis.

This time, we’re told, they’re getting serious. This time they want to bring professional CEOs and CFOs into the distribution companies. They want to ‘fast track’ the induction of private management into the generation companies. “There will be no more sacred cows in the matter of bill recoveries,” said Naveed Qamar in his midnight press conference on October 4. What were “sacred cows” doing in the picture to start off with, Mr Minister?

I’m sceptical for one simple reason: why were these steps not taken two years ago at the so-called ‘energy summit’? Is it because the scale of the rioting didn’t match what we’re seeing now? And why weren’t things followed up after that summit, such as prioritising natural gas allocations for power plants? The simple truth is they’ll run around and talk about reforms, but the moment the emergency money disbursed to PSO gets the power plants chugging again, and the rioters go home, it’ll be back to business as usual.

dear asif your contribution to this forum is evergreen. whatever you share is always just brilliant. i always wait for your special posts. A bundle of thanks for your sincere and matchless efforts. keep it up. wishing you a bright future.

One of the most extraordinary features of human psychology is adaptation. The tolerance of the masses is being tested to the extreme. Every passing day the grim social scenario becomes even gloomier. The masses are seething with anger and revolt against the sharply rising prices, unemployment, poverty, energy shortages and misery. Apart from the rhetoric from right-wing populism, they are presented with no real choice to put an end to this agonising situation. The vacillating petit bourgeoisie in its characteristic haste and impatience goes for this populism but will revert back in the same manner. The mass movement is yet to explode. And the working classes will enter the arena when they see something genuinely related to the burning problems they are forced to endure in this rotting capitalist socio-economic system.

The ruling elite of all shades are harping upon issues that do not really concern the daily lives and the grievances of the people. The crisis of the judiciary and the contempt of courts are irrelevant to the vast majority of the masses, the memo scandal and the likes do not really matter to the people nor do the so-called threats to the sovereignty of a nation and state that gave the people only deprivation and wage slavery. Now the elite have come up with another gimmickry. It is the formation of new provinces in Hazara, the Seraiki belt and elsewhere. It is like inflicting even more wounds on society to divert from the pain of the previous ones. From a Marxist point of view it is the right of the masses of any nationality to have their own administrative units, autonomy and even secession, if it comes to that, and the majority wants that. The main aim is the emancipation of the exploited masses. But to exploit these sentiments to perpetuate their rule, the ruling classes of Pakistan are playing with fire. In a country where national oppression has been a curse throughout its history and is festering specially in Balochistan, to further complicate it shows that the bourgeoisie is losing its bearings.

Pakistan came into being not as a nation-state in spite of the Two Nation dogma, but it has comprised different nationalities as is inscribed in the words that make up its name. However, after almost 65 years of its existence it has failed to become a nation-state. Rather the antagonisms between different nationalities have aggravated. The secession of East Bengal was the first proof of the failure to create a nation on the basis of religion. The revolt in Balochistan against national oppression and the brutalities of the Pakistani state has been relentless. It re-emerges time and again, generation after generation. The imperialists are descending upon this mineral-rich region like vultures and have unleashed a proxy war killing the impoverished masses of Balochistan. The Punjabi elite have been in the forefront of the state enforcing Pakistani chauvinism. But they are also responsible for the monstrosities against the Punjabi masses. The vast majority of the 2.7 million that perished in the partition massacre were Punjabi workers and peasants. The Punjabi ruling elites have ever since ruthlessly exploited and squeezed the blood of the toilers of this nation. The first and foremost victim in their crime of nationalist exploitation of the oppressed nationalities has been Punjabi nationalism, language and culture. The reality is that the longest eastern and western borders of Pakistan segregate living cultures and same nations. In the west, the Durand Line of 1893 drawn by the British cleavage of the Pashtun nation where there was even no religious differentiation. These artificial boundaries cannot stand the vexing social and economic crisis that is pulverising society. But the national question cannot be solved on a bourgeoisie basis. The old nation-states of capitalism from Europe to the US are not able to bear the crisis of the mode of production that has transcended national frontiers and is compelled to operate on an international basis due to the technological advances and the expansion of capitalist exploitation. There is a crushing domination of the world market in every political unit. None can escape under capitalism. But for the emancipation of the toiling classes of the oppressed nationalities, it is necessary to target the enemy within of mass revolt. The reactionary theory of ‘reconciliation’ also applies to the political elites of different nationalities. The elites are roped into the plunder sharing gambit but as soon as the loot diminishes, the elite falls out, and apart from other issues they use the national question to enhance their share of the plunder. For national liberation it is vital for the toiling masses to steer the rivers of struggles against national oppression into the ocean of class struggle. The resolution of the national question cannot be achieved within the present geographical demarcations. One of Lenin’s greatest contributions towards mankind’s liberation was the resolution of the national question. Lenin wrote in 1920: “The recognition of the right to self-determination does not exclude either propaganda or agitation against separation or exposure of bourgeois nationalism.”

However, with the plummeting economy the national question will further aggravate and unless a revolutionary Leninist policy is adopted, the ruling classes will use the national question to break the class unity of the movement to overthrow this system of class and national oppression. Even the most acknowledged experts of capitalism in Pakistan are pessimistic about the economic prospects. Shahid Javed Burki, a former finance minister and economist at the World Bank wrote recently: “Coming on top of an exceptionally weak year, the economy in 2012 is not likely to do better than its lacklustre performance in 2011…Ten million people will be added to the already large pool of poverty. The rate of unemployment will increase with the impact felt to a large extent in the urban areas — particularly in the large cities. The rich will continue to isolate themselves by creating islands of prosperity in the midst of general poverty. This, as we know, is a recipe for social and political turmoil. I do not see easy times ahead for Pakistan in 2012.”

The condition of the masses will further deteriorate. Without an equitable distribution of wealth, transformation of property relations and a collective ownership of the means of production, economy, agriculture and mineral resources by the working classes, no administrative changes in the present system can end the plight of the people. This tumour of capitalism that is inflicting so much agony and pain to the living body of society has to be surgically removed. The only way to achieve this success is through a Socialist revolution.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

What conflict situations are most at risk of deteriorating further in 2012? When Foreign Policyasked the International Crisis Group to evaluate which manmade disasters could explode in the coming year, we put our heads together and came up with 10 crisis areas that warrant particular concern.

Admittedly, there is always a certain arbitrariness to lists. This one is no different. But, in part, that serves a purpose: It will, hopefully, get people talking. Why no room for Sudan -- surely a crisis of terrifying proportions? Or for Europe's forgotten conflicts -- in the North Caucasus, for example, or in Nagorno-Karabakh? You'll see also that we have not included some that are deeply troubling yet strangely under-reported, like Mexico or northern Nigeria. No room, too, for the hardy perennial standoff on the Korean Peninsula, despite the uncertainty surrounding the death of Kim Jong Il.

No reader should interpret their omission as meaning those situations are improving. They are not. But we did feel it is useful to highlight a few places that, to our mind, deserve no less attention. What follows is our top 10. At the end -- and just to remind ourselves that progress is possible -- we've included two countries for which we, cautiously, feel 2012 could augur well.

SYRIA
Many in Syria and abroad are now banking on the regime's imminent collapse and assuming everything will get better from that point on. The reality could turn out to be quite different. As dynamics in both Syria and the broader international arena turn squarely against the regime, many hope that the bloody stalemate finally might end. But however much it now seems inevitable that President Bashar al-Assad will leave the stage after his regime's terrifying brutality over recent months, the initial post-Assad stages carry enormous risks.

On the one hand, the emotionally charged communal polarization, particularly around the Alawite community, has made regime supporters dig in their heels, believing it is "kill or be killed," and their fears of large-scale retribution when Assad falls are very real. On the other, the rising strategic stakes have heightened the regional and wider international competition among all players, who now view the crisis as an historic opportunity to decisively tilt the regional balance of power. In that explosive mix, the first cross-border concern is surely Lebanon: The more Assad's ouster appears imminent, the more Hezbollah -- and its backers in Tehran -- will view the Syrian crisis as an existential struggle designed to deal them a decisive blow, and the greater the risk that they would choose to go for broke and draw to launch attacks against Israel in an attempt to radically alter the focus of attention. "Powder keg" doesn't begin to describe it. The danger is real that any one of these issues could derail or even foreclose the possibility of a successful transition.

IRAN/ISRAEL
Even if Iran and Israel somehow manage to sail safely past the rocks of the Syrian crisis, the enmity between them over the nuclear issue could blow them very dangerously off course. Though sanctions against Iran and saber-rattling all around intensified at the end of 2011, some may see this as merely the continuation of a long-term trend in the epically poor relations between Iran and Israel.

Two factors make 2012 a possible turning point for the worse, however. First, the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency report is particularly unambiguous: It may not have turned up significantly new evidence of Teheran's intention to build a nuclear weapon, but it did highlight more clearly than ever before Iran's obfuscation and unwillingness to cooperate with the international body. Second, the U.S. elections will force support for Israel onto the U.S. domestic agenda even more than usual, and generally create a favorable environment for Israel to act, with any number of unexpected, unintended -- and potentially disastrous -- consequences.

AFGHANISTAN
A decade of major security, development, and humanitarian assistance from the international community has failed to create a stable Afghanistan, a fact highlighted by deteriorating security and a growing insurgent presence in previously stable provinces over the past year. In 2011, the capital alone saw a barrage of suicide bombings, including the deadliest attack in the city since 2001; multiple strikes on foreign missions in Kabul, the British Council, and U.S. Embassy; and the assassination of former president and chief peace negotiator Burhanuddin Rabbani. The prospects for next year are no brighter, with many key provinces scheduled for transfer to the ill-equipped Afghan security forces by early 2012.

The litany of obstacles to peace, or at least stability, in Afghanistan is by now familiar. President Hamid Karzai rules by fiat, employing a combination of patronage and executive abuse of power. State institutions and services are weak or nonexistent in much of the country, or else so riddled with corruption that Afghans want nothing to do with them. Dari-speaking ethnic minorities remain skeptical about the prospects for reconciliation with the predominately Pashtun Taliban insurgency, which enjoys the backing of Pakistan's military and intelligence services. The Taliban leadership in Quetta seem to reason that victory is within reach and that they have simply to bide their time until the planned U.S. withdrawal in 2014.

PAKISTAN
Throughout 2011, Pakistan's relations with the United States were sliding from bad to worse, and NATO's deadly yet apparently accidental bombing of Pakistani soldiers in November turned a miserable relationship into an all but openly hostile one. Partially as a result, but also due to the Pakistani military's support of militants operating in Afghanistan, ties between Islamabad and Kabul are fraying. The elected government has made some progress in its rapprochement with India, moving to normalize trade relations. Yet the process remains hostage to the military's continued support for militant groups such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the renamed Lashkar-Tayyeba, responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Another terror attack could result in all-out war between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.

The biggest dangers for Pakistan, however, come not from external sources but rather from within. The transition from dictatorship to democracy is not at all consolidated, and the military still control crucial areas of foreign and security policy. Radical Islamism is destabilizing and even dominating the country at times, with violent attacks on leading liberal political figures shaking what little confidence anyone may have had that Pakistan can escape disaster. Yet there is still some hope, because radical Islamists lack popular support, and the two political parties that are likely to win the next general election in 2013 (provided the democratic transition is not disrupted by the military) -- the ruling PPP and the opposition PML-N -- have the capacity and the political will to take the country back to its moderate moorings.

YEMEN
Yemen stands between violent collapse and a thin hope of a peaceful transfer of power. Under increasing pressure from international and regional actors, President Ali Abdullah Saleh finally signed a transition agreement on Nov. 23. Under the agreement, he immediately transferred significant authorities to his vice president and is scheduled to officially leave office after early elections that are scheduled for Feb. 21. This was an important first step, but one that fell far short of solving Yemen's problems.

Many challenges remain, including holding signatories responsible for implementing the transitional agreement, adequately addressing unresolved issues of political inclusion and justice, and improving dire economic and humanitarian conditions. Moreover, tensions between Yemen's competing armed power centers, particularly Saleh's family on one hand versus defected general Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar and the (unrelated) powerful al-Ahmar clan on the other, remain unresolved and are a potential flashpoint for further violence. One of the most challenging tasks during the first phase of the transition will be securing a durable ceasefire, removing all military and armed tribesmen from urban centers, and beginning meaningful reform of the military and security forces.

It's a tall order, and international actors have a part to play. Threats of targeted sanctions against Saleh and his family from members of the U.N. Security Council played a part in bringing some regime hard-liners to the negotiating table. Now, with an agreement signed, implementation requires that pressure must be applied to all sides: Saleh and his supporters on one hand and the opposition parties and their affiliates on the other. For now, support has coalesced around Vice President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who, according to the agreement, will be the consensus candidate in the February elections. As a relatively neutral figure, Hadi may encourage some measure of compromise and security.

Adding to the uncertainty over Yemen's future are southern activists whose demands may yet range from immediate independence to a federation of North and South Yemen, and Houthi rebels in northern Yemen who seek greater rights for their community and a degree of local autonomy. And, while politicians negotiate in Sanaa, government forces and local tribesmen are in an ongoing fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Abyan governorate. The one certainty is that the struggle for Yemen will last long into 2012.

CENTRAL ASIA
Several states in the region are surviving on luck: their infrastructure near collapse, their political systems eaten away by corruption, their public services almost nonexistent. On top of all this, Tajikistan, for example, now faces a growing security threat from both local and external insurgencies, something it has almost zero capacity to contain. Adding to the country's woes, relations with neighboring Uzbekistan are at an all-time low, with their long-running water dispute no closer to resolution and occasionally deadly border incidents threatening to spark deeper violence.

As for Uzbekistan itself, Washington increasingly relies on Tashkent for logistics in Afghanistan, but the brutal nature of the regime means it is not only an embarrassing partner but also, ultimately, a very unreliable one. Already there has been at least one attack on the rail line transiting U.S. material through the country. Given how U.S.-Pakistan relations seem to hit a new low every week, Washington may feel it has little choice, but it certainly seems to be "out of the fire and into the frying pan" at best.

Then there is volatile Kyrgyzstan. Without prompt, genuine and exhaustive measures to address the damage done by the 2010 ethnic pogroms in the south, the country risks another round of mass violence. The ultranationalist mayor of Osh, Melis Myrzakmatov, who has in the past claimed that Bishkek's writ does not extend to the southern city and now muses out loud about creating a municipal police force independent of the Ministry of Interior, will no doubt continue to fire shots across the bows of the central government in 2012.

BURUNDI
Reassuring declarations from the government in Bujumbura sound hollow, as the end of the Arusha consensus, which concluded the civil war in 2000, combined with the deteriorating political climate that followed the boycott of the 2010 elections, have contributed directly to an escalation of violence and insecurity. The elements of the peace deal are being dismantled one by one. The not-so-hidden struggle between the opposition and the ruling party, combined with the government's intensifying repression, is leaving ever more victims since the 2010 polls. Independent media are harassed by the authorities, who are allegedly commissioning targeted assassinations. At the same time, state corruption is on the rise, governance indicators are in the red, and social tension is mounting as living conditions deteriorate due to rising prices of basic commodities. Unless the government takes measures to reverse these trends, Burundi could edge toward renewed civil war in 2012.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Joseph Kabila has been re-elected president and officially sworn in, but that's unlikely to satisfy his political opponents, particularly supporters of opposition candidate Etienne Tshisekedi. The vote was badly flawed, with reports of pre-marked ballots, voter intimidation, localized violence, widespread mismanagement and fiddled results. The election commission and Supreme Court were also stuffed with Kabila loyalists, rendering their arbitration worthless in the eyes of an angry opposition that may be marginalized for the next five years if legislative election results are also mishandled.

The election standoff is a symptom of larger trends. In his five years in power, Kabila has stacked many national institutions in his favor, leaving his opponents with few avenues to pursue grievances peacefully. International players have also quietly disengaged from Congolese affairs. Despite the sizable U.N. presence in Congo, and the involvement of donor countries like the United States and Britain, together with the European Union, little has been done to check Kabila's consolidation of power.

As calls for international arbitration fall on deaf ears in Kinshasa and most Western capitals, Congo's electoral authorities appear unable to salvage any sense of credibility from results. Kabila's illegitimate mandate threatens not only Congo's peace and stability. The muffled international response to the flawed polls, and the silent acquiescence of regional leaders, bode ill for democracy across the continent. If only the African Union reacted to stolen elections with the outrage it reserves for coups -- both are, after all, equally unconstitutional changes of government -- politicians might at least think twice before rigging.

KENYA/SOMALIA
It is too soon to tell whether Kenya's recently launched military campaign in southern Somalia will succeed in defeating al-Shabaab -- the militant Islamist group that formed during the fragmentation of the Islamic Courts Union, which controlled most of southern Somalia for part of the last decade -- or end up a protracted and messy conflict. Now that Kenya will become part of the African Union's mission in Somalia, however, it looks like it is there for the duration. Its prolonged presence in southern Somalia could be very unpopular, and the risks for Kenya's internal stability are very real. Following the launch of the campaign in mid-October, al-Shabaab immediately threatened retaliatory attacks. The possibility of an al-Shabaab terror campaign has to be taken very seriously and there is a palpable sense of unease in Nairobi. In late October, the organization carried out two grenade attacks in the capital on Kenyan, not Western, targets. A Kenyan al-Shabaab member was jailed for the attacks. Since then there have been a number of incidents near the border with Somalia.

Kenya has a sizable ethnic Somali and wider Muslim population, most of whom are critical of the government's military campaign in Somalia, the more so for its associations with the Western-led counterterrorism struggle. There is significant risk that the military campaign exacerbates already worrisome radicalization in Kenya, particularly if it goes badly and civilian deaths mount.
In response to the threat of al-Shabaab attacks on Kenyan soil, the Kenyan government has launched a massive sweep in ethnic-Somali majority areas, aiming to flush out the group's supporters. Although the police and security services have mostly shown restraint, local leaders in the northeastern border region have already accused the military of excessive force. The real test will come if al-Shabaab carries out a major attack in Kenya. There are fears this would trigger a draconian crackdown on ethnic Somalis in Kenya, with grave consequences for intercommunal relations and societal cohesion and harmony, especially ahead of general elections this year, the first since the 2007 polls sparked widespread ethnic violence.

VENEZUELA
Venezuela's homicide rates are among the highest in the hemisphere -- twice those of Colombia and three times those of Mexico -- despite largely escaping the world's attention. Rates were rising even before Hugo Chávez assumed power. But under his 12 years they have skyrocketed, from 4,550 in 1998 to 17,600 last year. The victims are predominantly poor young men -- killed for as little as a mobile phone, caught in gunfire between gangs, or even subject to extrajudicial killings by security forces.

Criminal violence has not yet permeated the country's politics. But signs ahead of presidential elections next year are ominous. The regime itself has armed local civilian militias to, in its own words, "defend the revolution." Thus far it has failed to tackle corruption within the security forces, or their complicity in crime. Arms are easily available -- reportedly more than 12 million weapons circulate in a country with a population of only 29 million. Impunity is a major driver of violence, with judicial independence eroded through sustained attacks by the government. According to some estimates, fewer than one in 10 police investigations ever leads to arrest.

It's not yet clear who will face off against Chávez for the presidency, nor do we know the extent of political space in which candidates will be able to contest for office. But with the president's ailing health adding considerable uncertainty, bitter enmity between him and some opposition leaders, and Venezuelan society polarized, militarized and lacking credible institutional conflict-resolution mechanisms, next year could prove testing indeed.
Now for the good news. Here are two countries whose 2012 is looking relatively bright.

TUNISIA
The victory by the moderate Islamist An-Nahda Party in October's elections is a victory for democracy. Of course, no one would underestimate the major challenges the nation still confronts. There is a continuing threat of violence, whether from agents provocateurs bent on discrediting An-Nahda, the more radical Salafists marginalized by the An-Nahda victory, or working class towns and cities in the country's interior, which have been largely sidelined since the fall of president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and where the economic, social, and security situation continues to worsen. Small vestiges of the old regime in ministries and the Constituent Assembly, while weak, could still play a spoiler role. New business elites, meanwhile, appear only too quick to adopt the poor practices of their predecessors. The new government will have to move quickly away from wrangling over transitional details -- prime ministerial powers, constitutional reform and new elections -- and concentrate on reversing the country's economic decline and tackling corruption and unemployment.

Still, having held the first free, competitive election to follow the onset of the Arab Spring -- in a relatively transparent manner and in an atmosphere of enthusiasm -- it is clear that Tunisians already have much to be proud of. If the country's relative stability and evident progress could be a beacon to the rest of the wider region, that would be no bad thing.

MYANMAR
The government's pledges on reform are being fulfilled: The military has moved out of front-line politics; top opposition figure Aung San Suu Kyi was released, is engaging with the government at top levels, and is set to run in elections; many other political prisoners were also released; there are livelier debates in parliament that are even broadcast on TV; and some previously banned websites are now unblocked. There is a major opportunity for this long-suffering country to continue in a positive direction in 2012.

The outside world, particularly the West, needs to respond by engaging further and dropping counterproductive sanctions that have harmed civilians without loosening the junta's grip on power. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Myanmar in early December was the right move at the right time, but it is not enough. Key next steps to watch for from the regime include releasing all remaining political prisoners, passing a new media law that would curtail censorship, and signing ceasefires with armed ethnic groups that would be a key step towards ending abuses by the military in these border conflicts.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Although Republican candidates running for their party’s presidential nomination will criticise the Obama administration’s strategic shift to scale back the American military, few should doubt that Washington intends to retain the superiority it currently enjoys, even if doing so will prove costly.

In the latest Pentagon policy paper, Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defence, President Barack Obama called for “agile and flexible armed forces”, which would gradually replace large-scale army capabilities.

While overwhelming army assets emphasised ground warfare, which dominated the post-9/11 era and was, for all practical purposes, a legacy of Cold War strategies, the past decade illustrated why the paradigm was difficult to sustain. How will the new emphasis on ‘smaller conventional ground forces’ serve American interests?
Of course, and by all accounts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq impoverished the wealthiest country in the world, creating an unprecedented global financial crisis.

Simply stated, Washington no longer enjoyed the financial resources to spend over a billion dollars each week per campaign, an untenable luxury even in the best of times. Still, the new blueprint was not just about money, but focused on long-lasting technological changes too. In fact, while the US military was slated to lose up to half a million troops — settling around one million personnel in 2022 divided equally between combat and support staff — these men and women would henceforth concentrate on advanced technologies, including cyber-warfare and missile defence capabilities.
Naturally, the US would still be ready to maintain a robust nuclear deterrent, confront terrorism and protect the US homeland, but much more of the tasks assigned the military would focus on the latest technical advances that were under development.

China challenge

The focus would be on meeting the new challenges of an emergent Asia dominated by China, which was and remains America’s challenger (and banker), though one wondered whether Washington could easily “turn the page on a decade of war”.

To be sure, the vision of a modern military based on speed and stealth, rather than overwhelming and heavy army capabilities, was a long-term objective of military strategists analysing global trends. Ironically, the implementation of such a vision was a priority for former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld, who first embarked on the plan in early 2001 but was thrown off course by the 9/11 attacks and, more important, by the angry US responses in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the so-called War on Terrorism. President George W. Bush’s infamous “bring-it-on” moment of bravado came as close to silly brinkmanship that one could fathom but that was then.

A decade later, Obama and his generals demonstrated single-minded resolve to get back to non-partisan plans that articulated long-term strategic ambitions, which translated into concrete national security goals.

Sticking to the plan proved beyond the shadow of doubt that Obama was not a closet socialist but as much of a conservative as his predecessor, even if he excelled in entertaining loftiness.

His declaration that “we’ve succeeded in defending our nation,” was comical when one assessed the significant damage that the Patriot Act, for example, inflicted on citizens whose First Amendment rights were literally emasculated.

Sadly, rhetoric was standard fare in what passed for news cycle policies inside the Washington Beltway, especially in an election year. Far more important was the Obama administration’s long-term initiatives, which perfectly illustrated a gradual evolution that spanned half a century, and that confirmed that Obama was a pure product of the establishment.

As Obama affirmed, the world faced “a moment of transition,” even as he requested a $662 billion (Dh2.42 trillion) budget for the Pentagon for fiscal 2013, a sum that exceeded the next 10 largest national defence budgets on the planet combined. On that score, at least, nothing changed.

In the Arab world, the trend of American involvement was also quite clear as Obama recognised the post-9/11 era over, with Washington increasing military sales to allies who would be called upon to assume a greater share of the burden.

With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, coupled with major successes against criminal elements that plotted death and mayhem, Washington was ready to rely on allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and others to act as a first line of defence against regional hegemonic powers.

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi would now be freer to purchase advanced weapons systems while Doha could host the Taliban. Taboo contacts between various American officials and Islamists became routine, which meant that one could actually speak with foes, rather than simply drop bombs over their heads. Naturally, threats would be taken seriously, but no one was under any illusions that the ideological threat that replaced Communism during the past decade — Islamophobia — has now run its course.

In Sustaining US Global Leadership, Obama shifted American power projection towards China and the Asia-Pacific region in general, and while no one contemplated a new policy of ‘containment’, Chinese officials probably factored in their inevitable rise putative American reactions. While it was too early for China to challenge the US militarily, Beijing’s strides for parity were on course, something that Power Inc could no longer simply dismiss. Remarkably, Obama and his generals understood that challenges to American supremacy were now in the making, which is why they polished costly plans that intended to secure mighty capabilities.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

As if two wars, both justified by bogus claims against two Muslim states, were not enough to satisfy the appetite of the neo-cons and their Israeli patrons, the US is on track for a third offensive in the 21st century against an Islamic country.

The US cyber war against Iran is in full swing. All important Iranian data, including that relating to its nuclear development projects, has been penetrated nearly effectively. The sanctions are having a telling effect on Iran’s economy. Such wide-scale sanctions are only applied in wartime. The obvious goal is to strangulate the Iranian economy.

Meanwhile, Iran is being encircled from all sides by military bases. These include bases in Turkey, Central Asian countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The joint US-Israeli plan to carry out assassinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists goes on unabated.

A concerted effort is underway to pressure countries to minimise import of Iranian oil. Special emissaries have been sent to countries including Japan and China to ask them to reduce imports of oil from Iran in a relentless campaign to rob its economy of its most vital source of revenue.

The US Persian Gulf fleet has been strengthened as a warning to Iran against any attempt to contemplate closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the event of escalation of hostilities. At the same time, there is a constant interaction with neighbouring Arab countries to secure their support for a military strike against Iran.

Barring one, all Republican hopefuls for the party’s nomination for this year’s presidential election have supported a military strike against Iran in accordance with the dictates of Israel. Such is the Israeli influence on the US politics, its economy and its media.

The latest report of the IAEA clearly states that no evidence has been found of Iran’s enrichment of uranium for military purposes.

Unless wiser counsel prevails in Washington and the West, a showdown is imminent. A military strike would damage Iran’s nuclear capability and would, at best, delay the programme of development of weapons-grade uranium, if that is the US intention. But it would have profound implications for the security and economies of the countries of the region. Oil prices would soar, benefiting many cartels. Relations between Iran and Arab countries of the region would sharply deteriorate. Iran’s military response, even if it is limited in scale, would destabilise the area still further, enormously worsening its economy.

There would be some voices for a change in Iran but a majority of the population would stand with the government in opposition to the US. Anti-America sentiment in the region will be at fever pitch. Many in the Arab world would show their disgust with their governments’ support for the US policy against Iran and such a sentiment could very well trigger another Arab Spring. The increased tensions between the Arab countries and Israel will jeopardise any slim chances of peace negotiations.

The Israelis and their American backers will have achieved a transient success at a huge long-term cost.

Will Pakistan show the same intrinsic weakness or will it support a friend and a neighbour in its hour of crisis? Will it look the other way as the US and Israel pulverise Iran’s nuclear installations? Such a course will have far-reaching, long-term consequences for Pakistan.

Not that anything substantial would be expected of Pakistan but even political and diplomatic support would be a brotherly gesture that Iran will long cherish.

Pakistan’s policymakers have to take time off from domestic crises to focus attention on the emerging scenario, which could have serous implications for this region.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

It would be flabbergasting to listen to IHK Sikh leader Parkash Singh Badal’s recent press talk in which he startled the Pakistani public that the poultry feed Pakistan is importing from India carries pig’s fat-contents, which are ‘not known’ to Pakistani trade officials. It is further interesting to know that currently what we are using in everyday kitchen and meals like onion, tomatoes, cucumber, karailas and even beef is all being imported from India. This is how the trade with India has taken roots. Unofficially there is a lot of import from India going on, and a deliberate smuggling program is going on that includes drugs, CDs, cell phones, cloth and many other things. The drugs being ‘pumped into’ the country are reportedly creating effects which lead to addiction and resultant stress.

While we need to look at what is going on in the bottom of the trade, we need to keep an eye on the Afghanistan-India trade agreement to which Pakistan has to play a major part of its role being the conduit in between. Many opine that the last year’s bilateral transit trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan, under the pats of Hillary Clinton, was because Afghanistan is a landlocked country and therefore it has right of transit and Pakistan is morally as well as under the international rules of the game bound to give it route facility to trade with India and other regional countries. Many contest that the Transit Trade Agreement is essentially a political document, which is a re-evaluation of Old ATTA under the changing regional dynamics, because presence of only the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and not a single representative of the Indian government vis a vis the Memorandum of Understanding and particulars of the Transit Trade Agreement speak volumes for the different Protocols of APTTA, Arbitration Tribunal and issues to be worked in the agreement.

Though APTTA has been challenged in the Lahore High Court, yet there is a need to deliberate upon in detail about giving India access to Central Asia through Pakistan, compromising its own security and sovereignty and questioning the Chinese link with Pakistan. There is a need to rethink giving transit right to India and go for a new agreement as the alternate Indo-Afghan trade routes may not suit the powers that be and therefore they are poised to use the recent trade agreement as an engine for pushing towards the Great Game agenda, even after the possible US exit from Afghanistan. The $1trillion reserves in Afghanistan is not an ordinary disclosure and the US eagerness to have India in the post-exit Afghanistan through Pakistan is not only the part of plan but an attempt to explore other than Karachi-Gawadar routes up to Mumbai and Madras for draining out those reserves in collaboration with other stakeholders.

While Pakistan’s open door policy has grave complications, Pakistan must have shown in forceful manner its unwillingness to allow trade as a confidence building measure (CBM). The rejection of APTTA by Pakistan’s business and trade community, FPCCI’s demand from revision of the draft agreement and opposition by the political parties in the country must have been paid heed to as the double front confrontation is practically unaffordable for Pakistan in which Indians would be given edge to encircle Pakistan under the patronship of its western collaborators. The US-NATO-ISAF-Afghan authorities had repeatedly rejected the Pakistani proposal of fencing the Pak-Afghan border, saying that it was not plausible but the motives behind the move now seem clearer.

One can count on finger tips the positive implications of APTTA for Pakistan: i.e. it would generate income and employment opportunities, more trade would help curb smuggling, SAFTA & APTTA would tantamount to revisiting of the Sher Shah Suri link, security leverage would remain with Pakistan to exploit against India, and of course it would largely benefit the SAARC region to which Pakistan would be able to play its role. But the negative implications are innumerable; especially it would be like benefiting India at our own cost, it would compromise our strategic interests, it would make the whole Pakistan from east to west vulnerable, more trouble than benefits will come as Pakistan has lesser capacity to manage it; it would undermine Gwadar, Pakistan’s own industry, issues of Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, Water disputes and above all Pakistan-China interests. The high price benefit would be shared by foreign industrialists; giving air space to India and land route to neighboring country would damage Pakistan’s security interests as well as the economy and it must be noted that the economic interests can’t override security interests of the country. The agreement would force Pakistan’s security forces to police Indian goods and exemption from routine customs inspection would allow suspicious items, weapons smuggling and double the apprehensions amidst negative role of world media and western propaganda machinery against Pakistan in order to put Islamabad under continuous pressure, especially in the context of global heroine supply route. Moreover it would further accelerate the drug economy, give boost to smuggling and stretch the already flooded Bara markets to across Pakistan.

Very few in Pakistan know that last year, September 2009, India signed a similar trade route agreement with Bangladesh, again under the aegis of the United States of America, which is of a great importance for farther Indian states of Meghalia, Aasam and Taripura and their need for Indian integrity. Apparently it is aimed at giving access to Bangladesh through India to Nepal and Bhutan but for Bangladesh access to Nepal and Bhutan is useless. But economy experts believe that Bangladesh’s trade deficit with India is more than $ 6 billion dollars, which means Bangladesh is nothing less than a trade market for India.

One must not be betrayed by the idea that the enemy is ever a friend, ready to spend trillions of dollars for the well being of Pakistani people or Afghans. These all are part of India’s expansionist designs and the benefits of which it wants to get under the Pak-Afghan Trade Agreement. There is no denying the fact that wars in the past had been fought to capture the resources, meet own economic problems. The same rule works today with the difference that in past weak nations were physically attacked and their resources were captured, but in today’s times the rules of the game have changed: they win the wars without fighting wars and only through capturing trade and markets.

The Hindutva ideology of ‘Greater India’ is working on the same lines. They are not going to subjugate the subcontinent physically but economically. Nepal and Bhutan are already under its control. Bangladesh is its recent prey. Sri Lanka could also have been fallen into India’s lap, had Pakistan not helped Colombo to crush Tamils. In the Maldives markets, Indian currency is already being used. The country that stands in India’s way is Pakistan and the best way to capture Pakistan is the use of Afghanistan card through which the Indians as well as its collaborators will gain success to Central Asian states as well. If India succeeds in capturing the economy of Pakistan, which it has already threatened through controlling waters, then resolution of Kashmir or no resolution of the disputes will be of zero value. This is not only the Indian dream, but also the Hillary Clinton weapon the western media is talking about. Pakistan must be aware of the deception wrapped in the “Asian Highway Network”, and “South East Asia Sub-Regional Economic Cooperation Transport”.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Everybody who pays attention to these sorts of things knows Muslim societies are almost uniquely immune to the forces that have been driving down fertility rates on every continent for decades. But everybody, it seems, fell asleep before the final act.

Throughout the ummah (the Arabic term for the global Muslim community), the average number of children born to women is falling dramatically. (Apoorva Shah and I examine the evidence in detailhere.) According to the UN's Population Division, all Muslim-majority countries and territories witnessed fertility declines over the past three decades. To be sure, in some extremely high-fertility countries of sub-Saharan Africa (think Sierra Leone, Mali, Somalia, and Niger), declines have been modest. And in the handful of Muslim countries where a fertility transition had already brought childbearing down to around three births per woman by the late 1970s (think Soviet Kazakhstan), subsequent declines have also been limited. But in the great majority of the rest, declines in the total fertility rate have been jaw-dropping.



Indeed, as Table I shows, six of the ten largest declines in fertility in absolute terms for a 20-year decade period in the postwar era have occurred in Muslim-majority countries. What's more, four of the six are Arab countries, while five of the six are in the Middle East. No other region of the world comes close in the sheer speed of its transition.

Table 2 offers another way to look at this demographic revolution. Again, we rank the top-ten fertility declines for a 20-year period since World War II. But here, the rankings follow percentage declines rather than absolute declines. By this metric, "only" four of the top ten (and two of the top four) were Muslim-majority countries. But all countries on this list count as Olympic-class sprinters in the reverse-fertility race, all recording declines exceeding 63 percent. Much of the ummah now has fertility rates comparable to affluent non-Muslim populations in the West.

Fertility rates vary considerably among Muslim-majority countries, of course -- but so do rates in regions within most countries. Consider the United States. Algeria, Bangladesh and Morocco all have total fertility rates in the same ballpark as Texas, while Indonesia's is almost identical to the TFR in Arkansas. Turkey and Azerbaijan, for their part, can be compared to Louisiana, while Tunisia looks like Illinois. Lebanon's fertility level is lower than New York's. Meanwhile, Iran's fertility level is comparable to that of New England, the region in America with the lowest fertility. And no American state has a fertility level as low as Albania's.



All in all, 21 Muslim-majority countries with a combined population of some 750 million - nearly half the population of the ummah -- have fertility levels comparable to states in the USA. These numbers, remember, exclude tens of millions of Muslims in low-fertility countries (like Russia and China) where Islam is not the predominant religion. So it is likely that a majority of the world's Muslims already live in countries where fertility levels would look entirely unexceptional in an American mirror.

What explains this light-speed transformation? A century of research has detailed the associations between fertility decline and socioeconomic modernization, as represented by income levels, educational attainment, urbanization, public health conditions, treatment of women, and the like.
But that's not the whole story here. A path-breaking 1994 study by Lant Pritchett, an economist now at Harvard, made a persuasive case that the desired fertility level (as expressed, for example, by women of childbearing age in the Demographic and Health Surveys conducted worldwide in the postwar era) was the single best predictor for actual fertility levels in less developed regions. Indeed, 90 percent of the statistical variance in their fertility levels predicted on the basis of desired fertility alone.

This flies in the face of the conventional views of population policy specialists, in which (to exaggerate only somewhat) women mechanistically respond to changes in the socioeconomic environment. In particular, it seems to contradict the received wisdom that family planning programs make an important independent contribution to reducing fertility levels in developing countries: strikingly, desired fertility rates and the availability of contraceptives aren't that closely correlated. Social and economic factors, to be sure, may well indirectly affect desired fertility -- in fact, it's hard to imagine they don't. But at the end of the day, current fertility levels (in both Muslim and non-Muslim societies) seem to be a product of intangible factors (culture, values, personal hopes and expectations), not just material and economic forces.

Holding income and literacy constant, Muslim-majority countries actually seem to have significantlylower fertility levels than non-Muslim ones. Thus, despite more limited use of modern contraception (prevalence levels are approximately 11 percentage points lower than in non-Muslim countries, all else held equal), the ummah is looking ever more like other population groupings when it comes to fertility. To put it another way, where Muslim women want fewer children, they are increasingly finding ways to manage it -- with the pill or without it.

The quiet revolution in fertility now unfolding across the Islamic world is (so to speak) pregnant with implications for the future: it portends a radical revision of population projections for many countries; an unexpectedly rapid aging of many now youthful societies; and a new outlook for economic development in societies whose accomplishments to date in this realm have so often beendisappointing. But the fact that this hidden-in-plain-sight revolution has come as such a surprise should emphasize just how little we really understood about the societies beneath the frozen political autocracies that controlled so many Islamic populations over the past generation.

Indeed, the standard measures of development simply don't explain all the great demographic changes underway outside the mature, industrialized countries. In particular, proponents of purely material models of development are confronted by the awkward fact that the fertility decline over the past generation has been more rapid in the Arab states than virtually anywhere else on earth. Yet few people disagree that those same countries have exceptionally poor development records over the same period.

For over a generation, bien pensants in the international community have been sagely informing us that "development is the best pill." If this were really true, however, the great Middle Eastern fertility revolution could never have taken place. A new world is, quite literally, being born before our eye -- and we would all do well to pay much closer attention to its significance.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The United States must integrate its economy more fully with China and India to maximize their dependence on the United States for employment, innovation, and growth in order to cement its leadership role. This dependence not only increases the chances of a mutually beneficial alliance on terms more favorable to the United States, but it allows the United States to maximize growth by shifting an increasing share of its output to innovation, rather than slower growing goods and services. In effect, the United States must become the head to the world's body.

For fourteen years, I served as a partner at Bain Capital, working closely with Mitt Romney on making businesses stronger, in order to grow them faster and increase their value. We searched the landscape for unrealized investment opportunities and saw first-hand where the U.S. economy succeeds and fails. The United States will not succeed by manufacturing commodity-like products that can be used to transport low-cost labor around the world. Innovation is the source of its competitive advantage where other economies have achieved only limited success.

Remarkably many people have yet to realize that today's economy is very different than that of the 1950s. Then, the United States capitalized on the value of mass marketed manufactured goods, like automobiles. Growth was driven by large-scale companies that funded low-risk investments, which added capacity to meet growing demand. Individuals mattered less. But that economy slowed to a crawl long ago. Supporters of the Obama administration and its economic policies have found some refuge amid the tide of dismal economic news in the fact that the U.S. manufacturing sector has grown slightly in the past year. But the truth remains that America's future does not lie in making things -- it lies in conceiving of things, much of which others will make for us.

Today, with the advent of the Internet, 13 people can create Instagram and $1 billion of value in two years. Information and innovation from successful high tech startups, like Google and Facebook, drive growth. The talents of individuals, their willingness to take risks that produce innovation, payoffs for successful risk-taking, and the accumulation of equity needed to underwrite those risks, matter much more today than they did in the past. To maintain its faster growth, the United States must outsource production to low-wage economies, continue to transition to a local service economy to protect its wages from competition with low cost offshore labor, and pump up its growth rate by continuing to produce a disproportionate share of the world's innovation.

Concerns that the United States may not find alternative uses for its lesser skilled labor at comparable pay are overstated. If offshore labor were free, how much of it should the United States buy? All of it. At $1 an hour, it's effectively free. Cheap offshore labor is no different than any other productivity improvement that lowers cost. It makes the United States richer and stronger by increasing the relative value of its alternative endeavors -- both existing alternatives and new investments. When it competes with China for manufactured goods, the United States is attempting to make for $20 an hour what it can buy for $1 an hour. It should use the $19 of savings to employ additional nurses, school teachers, and waitresses -- positions that cannot be outsourced. Median incomes have grown 37 percent from 1979 to 2007, even more if we account for demographic shifts in the U.S. workforce, despite nearly a 40 percent increase in the U.S. workforce from increased immigration and record levels of workforce participation -- hardly an indication that the marginal product of labor declines as we employ more labor.

The problem is that China, which exports more than it imports, buys U.S. assets -- principally low-risk government-guaranteed debt -- instead of goods from the sale of their exports. When the U.S. economy is expanding, it uses those resources to grow services and investment that produce innovation. But in a recession, consumers and investors retreat from risk-taking and savings sit idle, slowing growth and increasing unemployment. The trade deficit the United States runs with countries like China exacerbates this effect, causing unemployment to rise and U.S. workers and their families to suffer. In effect, surplus exporters pulled employment from the United States at a time when more jobs are needed.

In the long run, both the United States and surplus exporters like China benefit from a more open U.S. economy. But currently, U.S. workers alone suffer higher and more volatile unemployment as a result of our largely unrestricted trade policies -- policies that allow large trade deficits during times of high unemployment. Successful integration of the U.S. economy with the rest of the world demands offshore economies sharing the burden of unemployment by buying goods, which employs U.S. workers, rather than assets during these times. The United States must insist on these actions by its trade partners in the short run, when economic conditions warrant it, as a quid pro quo for granting them access to U.S. markets over the long run. The alternative -- the government intervening to borrow this money from its trade partners, likely spending it less productively than the private sector to temporarily increase employment in the interim -- harms the United States' long term potential.

In the long run, open trade is valuable to the United States and its trading partners. Increased dependence will forge a mutually beneficial and enduring alliance with negotiating leverage benefitting the employer -- the United States -- relative to its offshore employees in China and India.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

In their collaboration over Afghanistan, India and United States have joined hands since the beginning of the new millennium. Apart from current Indian engagements, United States wants a major Indian role in Afghanistan in the post 2014 scenario. In order to implement their long-term agendas, these strategic partners are trying to undermine Pakistani role and its intrinsic commitment with the people of Afghanistan. On its part, Pakistan has always emphasised U.S and its NATO allies that, tackling Afghanistan needs altogether a different approach. Being a U.S ally, it sincerely suggested US to have a political engagement with the Taliban and other militant groups fighting against the US invasion in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, US consider the military operation, as the only option for the solution of Afghan crisis. Not only Pakistan, but also some of US military commanders like General McChrystal proposed a similar recipe to overcome the Afghan crisis.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning that, in 2009, Commander ISAF, US General Stanly McChrystal, made an assessment of situation in Afghanistan and sent a confidential report to Pentagon. In his assessment report, McChrystal, declared the then US strategy of dealing with Taliban and other militants groups as failing. He said in his assessment that, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term [next 12 months]… risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” He emphasized US for a renewed strategy to deal Afghanistan. At that time McChrystal realized that, while fighting insurgents, civilians of the area need protection and there was a need to have close interaction between ISAF and local populace in Afghanistan. He also recommended the Pentagon and State Department for a “More constructive engagement with Taliban fighters willing to talk.” In his opinion, the military operation are indeed creating more enemies, rather reducing them. In the same report, his assessment was that, “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us – physically and psychologically – from the people we seek to protect.”

Somehow, Pakistan identified same shortcomings in US strategy of dealing with Afghan affairs right from its invasion in that country. However, US did not bother to listen this sincere Pakistani counsel. The super power rather sacked its own military commander (General McChrystal) for giving a realistic ground assessment. Now we can see that, US authorities are dying for the negotiations with the Taliban, Haqqanis and other warlords. Another irritant for Pakistan is disproportionately sponsoring India in Afghanistan. Ever since the start of Indo-US collaboration, Pakistan considers that, Indian engagement in Afghanistan has no rational. Pakistan conveyed its feelings to US. Pakistani apprehensions and logics as expressed by former Pakistani Foreign Minister, Qureshi are that Indian, “level of engagement [in Kabul] has to be commensurate with [the fact that] they do not share a border with Afghanistan, whereas we do … If there is no massive reconstruction [in Afghanistan], if there are not long queues in Delhi waiting for visas to travel to Kabul, why do you have such a large [Indian] presence in Afghanistan? At times, it concerns us.”

Incidentally, McChrystal highlighted the same aspect in his assessment report to Pentagon. He identified to US Government that, “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan…is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.” Again, both Pentagon and White House rejected McChrystal’s realistic assessment. Nevertheless, it is a reality that, unwarranted Indian role in Afghanistan was and is a cause of concern for Pakistan and later for the Afghan society. Contrary to the assessments and ground realities, United States is continuously encouraging India to play a greater role in Afghanistan. US State Department as well as Pentagon feel that, the current Indian role is not enough, therefore, United States would “welcome India playing a more active role in Afghanistan, a more active political and economic role.” In this regard, Mr Leon Panetta, US Defence Secretary is on record saying that, “India to take a more active role in Afghanistan as most foreign combat troops leave in 2014.” India has so far invested over $2 billion dollars in Afghanistan. It has also signed a strategic agreement with Afghanistan in October 2011, covering wide-ranging areas of cooperation.

It is worth mentioning that, former Indian Army Chief, General (retired), Shankar Roy chowdhury, who has been member of Indian Parliament too, visualizes that, Afghan war, indeed is a “war of necessity” for India. He is a strong advocate of the fact that, Indian Army should contribute in the building of Afghan National Army (ANA). In his opinion, this is “the obvious area on which India should focus in its own long-term interests.” This vision of a former Indian Army Chief and a Parliamentarian indeed depicts the Indian mind set. The question arises, as to why a military strategist of a country having no geographical contiguity declares Afghan war as the ‘war of necessity’ for its country.

Surely, he anticipates some benefits for India from this war. Certainly, he is not looking for the benefits; Afghan people are going to accrue from this over thirty years of foreign invasions and in fighting. After all war and instability in Afghanistan has brought miseries for the Afghans, whereas, others, particularly US and India, have achieved their strategic objectives. General Shankar Roy chowdhury, is interested that, India should play a part in the building of ANA. The question mark is; why India should invest on ANA. The simple reason is, to create an adversarial army along the western frontiers of Pakistan, where traditionally, Pakistan never deployed its Army. An Indian trained ANA will always be problematical for Pakistan, thus causing thinning out along Pakistan’s eastern borders with India.

Whereas there is a convergence of U.S and Indian interests in Afghanistan, both consider Pakistan as an irritant for persuading their strategic objectives. Pakistan has contributed a lot for the people of Afghanistan. These contributions include; financial support, facilitation in Afghan transit, housing millions of Afghan refuges ever since 1979, political and moral support. Indeed, in housing millions of Afghan refuges, Pakistan badly suffered internally. Through their investment after 2001, both India and United States are now trying to overshadow the Pakistani contributions and sacrifices, which are spread over the decades.

An economically impoverish Pakistan of today, cannot match this heavy US and Indian investment in Afghanistan. However, Pakistani financial assistance and other supportive activities are dedicated for its Afghan brethrens, whereas the Indian and US investment is not for the people of Afghanistan. Their long-term investment in Afghanistan is for their vested strategic interests, which they are pursuing while being in that country. Just for example, over 80% expenditures of US in Afghanistan are on the construction of its military bases and in the development of their related infrastructure needed for US and NATO forces. Analysts believe that, in the post 2014 scenario, “US has decided to maintain its six military bases in Afghanistan.” They also believe that, U.S not only seeks to protect Indian influence in Afghanistan, but would also “control the energy resources of Central Asia as part of secret agenda against Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia.”

There has been no positive change in the living standard of a common Afghan, even after almost eleven years of US invasion. Through Afghan territory, India is further deepening its ties with Central Asia and Caucasus. Its investment on ANA is strategic in nature. Its other investments in Afghanistan are through its companies, who will get reimbursement for a long-term. Indeed, both partners have concluded strategic partnership agreements with Afghanistan. In a way, Afghan soil has been leased to US and India for a foreseeable future and Afghan masses are practically their hostage. As a brother country, Pakistan can neither follow such an agenda nor allow others to exploit the current state of Afghan’s helplessness. Thus, in order to subdue Pakistan, both partners are resorting to well orchestrated propaganda campaign against Pakistan of supporting Afghan militants. As the propaganda was not enough, under the tight security of NATO and U.S forces, ANA troops along with Afghan militant groups, are physically attacking the Pakistani military positions along Pak-Afghan border. These Afghan troops and militants are also targeting the innocent civilian population of FATA.

Very recently, US Senator of the Republican Party, Mr John McCain has emphasized President Obama to remain careful in promoting the Indian cause in Afghanistan. The Senator believes that, “encouraging India to take a more active role in Afghanistan, while simultaneously criticising Pakistan could be a recipe for disaster.” Nevertheless, US must realize that its well-orchestrated propaganda campaign against Pakistan would not only be perilous for Pakistan but would also become detrimental to US interests in Afghanistan. U.S has experienced this during the suspension of its logistic supply via Pakistan. Furthermore, demonizing Pakistan for U.S policy failures in Afghanistan is also unfair and unjustifiable, thus must stop it forthwith. Pakistan’s unprecedented sacrifices in GWOT need fair recognition and suitable media projection. U.S and India must stop their discriminatory approach and negative projection of Pakistani role in Afghanistan. Rather, being an immediate and intimate neighbour, Pakistan should be encouraged to play a more leading and active role for bringing stability in Afghanistan. Such an approach will provide US a face saving for an honourable exit from Afghanistan, rather repeating its experience of Vietnam War of 1970s.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins