Musharraf is the only option?
The RUSI analysis alas reflects more of the Whitehall - Westminster "village" (London, UK) thinking than a hard look at the options. The final sentence is telling:
'In real terms, however, no one other than Musharraf will have the power to take decisions that will affect the future of this struggle'.
Since Pakistan has consistently followed a "stop & go" policy since 2001 over GWOT and internal militancy - led by the man at the top, Musharraf, this is hardly encouraging. Yes, he is a brave man; yes, he has the power and has he taken the decisions? Yes, consistently *stop & go". I leave aside incompetence of junior ranks, Rashid Rauf's escape for example, and the suspect divided loyalties of ISI.
What happens when Musharraf goes, peacefully rather a violent departure (which cannot be excluded)?
Sorry RUSI analyst the time is past for comfortable words.
davidbfpo
Elections mark a new beginning
The International Crisis Group's resident analyst in Islamabad, at a meeting in London recently took an optimistic view.
Militancy has been spreading since 2002, as space was ceded to them by the state and the absence of active secular parties. The "Mullah" parties lost support, note some stood and otehrs boycotted the election, as unlike recent elections this was free and fair on the day. Observers had noted pre-vote rigging and ex-ISI officers now admit the '98 & '02 elections were rigged.
Note whilst the election had a low turnout (32% is the figure I recall), in NW Frontier Province there was a 46% turnout (where a "Mullah" party had been in power and lost control of the provincial government).
The crisis of governance in Pakistan, with the State of Emergency and rising political violence, had been contained by the election and the militants had been defeated at the ballot box. I especially liked the phrase "Suicide attcaks do not win hearts and minds".
Poloitical agreement was needed (still undecided today) on the supremacy of parliament, constitutional democracy - with the Presidents power to dismiss governments removed and resoring judicial independence.
There was no a clear national will - shared by the public and parties - and a legitimacy to tackle extremism; all parties recognised the need for stability.
The role of the US & UK post-election was being criticised in the local press as de-stabilising and interfering with the political process. The same people, I expect this meant diplomats, had only weeks ago been working with President Musharraf and the army - who had not supported democracy till the very end.
The transition to democracy would be a "bumpy ride".
A different view from Pakistan
Yesterday in London a retired senior Pakistani Air Force spoke to a small meeting on The Talibanisation of Pakistan. He had a different view compared to the ICG analyst, but was also optimistic.
Pakistan had a pluralist tradition since independence and 99% of the population is "moderate" who reject extremism. 'A nation makes war and the election is a good sign. We cannot alone foot the bill'.
It was vital to drop the phrase 'Islamic terrorism', this phrase infuriates many and assist AQ's ideology. To identify and reduce the root causes, there was no military soloution - that does not win minds. 'The Army is not short of resolve, it is ready to do it's job and is doing it' (numerous threads comment on this and would be sceptical on this). Grasping history and language was necessary.
The blame for extremism could be attributed to the Afghan War, against the Soviets, when the USA 'created the monster of extremism and then walked away' (a point few outside Pakistan I'd expect to agree with).
There were 100 AQ leaders in Pakistan and 5000 Taliban fighters who crossed the porous boder into Afghanistan' by implication from sanctuaries in Pakistan.
Six steps were outlined:
1) The US / UK must not send troops across the border
2) Appreciate the Pakistan Army is involved in a bloody conflict, with 1k dead
3) The collateral damage from bombing no longer just had a local impact
4) Pluralism is needed by Pakistan (as envisaged by it's founders)
5) Pre-emption is only a tactic
6) The roots causes include resolving the Palestine question
davidbfpo
Pakistani Taliban - NEFA report
Eight page open sourced report on militancy in NWFP and FATA on this link:
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscel...alysis0308.pdf
(Not sure about NEFA's bona fides, although some contributors are credible).
davidbfpo
US diplomats get the cold shoulder
Under the headline A Balancing Act in Pakistan
The new government in Islamabad has wasted little time making clear its disapproval of Washington's policy toward Pakistan and its strategy on counterterrorism. The visit by two top U.S. State Department officials on the same day the new Pakistani prime minister was sworn in was widely criticized in Pakistan. New York Times correspondent Jane Perlez writes that the three-day trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte "turned out to be [a] series of indignities and chilly, almost hostile, receptions," signaling challenges ahead in engaging Pakistan's newly elected government.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._pakistan.html
davidbfpo