Counterterrorism Challenges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pakistan's security forces are struggling to confront these domestic militants. As this Backgrounder points out, efforts are underway to reform the forces but challenges remain both in terms of willingness to fight some of these militant groups as well as capabilities. Security forces, especially the army and the police , have increasingly become the target for the militant groups. In October 2009, militants attacked the army headquarters in Rawalpindi and held around forty people hostage for over 20 hours much to the army's embarrassment.
These attacks have heralded a new period in army and ISI relations with many of these militant groups, say analysts. Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, says since the bloody encounter between Pakistan's security forces and militant Islamic students in Islamabad's Red Mosque in 2007, there has been a pattern of some of these groups previously under state patronage, breaking away from the state. He says Pakistan's security establishment is now trying to figure out how to control them.
Most analysts believe that even though the Pakistani army and the ISI are now more willing to go after militant groups, they continue some form of alliance with groups they want to use as a strategic hedge against India and Afghanistan. But Pakistan's security establishment denies these charges. In October 2009, ISI Chief Ahmad Shuja Pasha said: "The ISI is a professional agency and does not have links (Daily Times) with any militant outfit including the Taliban."
In particular, U.S. officials would like Pakistan to crackdown on the leadership of the Afghan Taliban believed to be based in Quetta and two major factions of the Afghan insurgency led by veteran Afghan warlords, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. These, U.S. officials believe, are actively engaged in supplying fighters in Afghanistan. Analysts believe these groups do not engage in direct attacks against the Pakistani state in lieu of political cover inside Pakistan. Pakistan denies these charges. However, Coll says, there is some shift in Pakistan's strategy of supporting groups against India and to project influence in Afghanistan. "There is more debate and more ambivalence," he says. "Overall, the Pakistani establishment is moving in the right direction but it will take a very long time to undo the pattern that has been established so far."

the meaning of terrorism

What is terrorism? What does it involve? Who does it involve? In my mind, terrorism is, "evil, horror, and violence. It is the cruelty of killing mass numbers of people for illogical reasons." The Encyclopedia of Britannica describes terrorism as, "the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals, to attain a political objective." The FBI further describes it as either being, "domestic or international terrorism; domestic terrorism being the illegal or threatened use of violence within the United-states or without foreign direction in furtherance of political or social objectives; and international terrorism being violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United-States, or any state." Clear, precise, and factual; yes. But emotionally correct, no.
Terrorism has struck all through history and around the world. Even in ancient Roman times, emperors such as Tiberius and Caligula dealt with terrorism by using banishment, and execution towards those who opposed their rule. Later in the 1860's a terrorist group called the Ku Klux Klan was formed by Southerners to terrify former slaves and prevent them from voting or run for office. In the 19th century, Western Europeans, Russians, and Americans adopted terrorism, and believed that the best way to get what they wanted was to assassinate people holding high positions of power.

In the 20th century, terrorism went through some great changes. The use of new technology such as automatic weapons and electrically bursting explosives encouraged terrorists to act violently and provided them with an easier way of attacking. At the time, attacks were mainly from groups trying to undermine or overthrow existing political institutions. However, today terrorism exists with different causes and purposes in mind. It has been used in anti-colonial conflicts such as in Ireland, Britain, Algeria and France. It is used when settling conflicts between different groups in possession of homeland such as Palestine & Israel. It is also used in religious disagreements in the case of the Catholics & Protestants in Northern Ireland and in internal conflicts between revolutionary forces and established governments, for example: Malaysia, Argentina, Iran, and Nicaragua.
Terrorism went from numerous attacks in the 20th century, to less frequent but more destructive assaults in the 21st century. The threat of terrorism has now become more deadly. But the Americans soldiers, the freedom fighters as some people call them are fighting back with no mercy. As Herr expresses in his book, "the battle grew into the bloodiest of the spring", "4,000 had been killed... it was another American victory." Over the past couple years; terrorists have developed new tactics such as portable bombs, suicide operatives, and weapons of mass destruction. These have been known to result in hundreds, not to say thousands of people being injured or killed. Some people even become terrorist, or are forced into terrorizing for reasons that they do not even know. As Michael Herr mentions, "Every day people were dying because of some small detail that they couldn't be bothered to observe." Take September 11 2001 into consideration, when two airplanes were hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center and another into the pentagon. In just two hours, families were torn apart, courage was tested, and the world was shaken forever. The hijackers had probably believed that they were dying on that plane for their country, but sadly did not know the true and exact reason for their presence, or their life for that matter. At the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton said, "I visited Ground Zero right after we were attacked. I felt like I was standing at the Gates of Hell. I hope no American ever has to witness a sight like that again."

What is terrorism? What does it involve? Who does it involve? In my mind, terrorism is, "evil, horror, and violence. It is the cruelty of killing mass numbers of people for illogical reasons." The Encyclopedia of Britannica describes terrorism as, "the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals, to attain a political objective." The FBI further describes it as either being, "domestic or international terrorism; domestic terrorism being the illegal or threatened use of violence within the United-states or without foreign direction in furtherance of political or social objectives; and international terrorism being violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United-States, or any state." Clear, precise, and factual; yes. But emotionally correct, no.
Terrorism has struck all through history and around the world. Even in ancient Roman times, emperors such as Tiberius and Caligula dealt with terrorism by using banishment, and execution towards those who opposed their rule. Later in the 1860's a terrorist group called the Ku Klux Klan was formed by Southerners to terrify former slaves and prevent them from voting or run for office. In the 19th century, Western Europeans, Russians, and Americans adopted terrorism, and believed that the best way to get what they wanted was to assassinate people holding high positions of power.
In the 20th century, terrorism went through some great changes. The use of new technology such as automatic weapons and electrically bursting explosives encouraged terrorists to act violently and provided them with an easier way of attacking. At the time, attacks were mainly from groups trying to undermine or overthrow existing political institutions. However, today terrorism exists with different causes and purposes in mind. It has been used in anti-colonial conflicts such as in Ireland, Britain, Algeria and France. It is used when settling conflicts between different groups in possession of homeland such as Palestine & Israel. It is also used in religious disagreements in the case of the Catholics & Protestants in Northern Ireland and in internal conflicts between revolutionary forces and established governments, for example: Malaysia, Argentina, Iran, and Nicaragua.
Terrorism went from numerous attacks in the 20th century, to less frequent but more destructive assaults in the 21st century. The threat of terrorism has now become more deadly. But the Americans soldiers, the freedom fighters as some people call them are fighting back with no mercy. As Herr expresses in his book, "the battle grew into the bloodiest of the spring", "4,000 had been killed... it was another American victory." Over the past couple years; terrorists have developed new tactics such as portable bombs, suicide operatives, and weapons of mass destruction. These have been known to result in hundreds, not to say thousands of people being injured or killed. Some people even become terrorist, or are forced into terrorizing for reasons that they do not even know. As Michael Herr mentions, "Every day people were dying because of some small detail that they couldn't be bothered to observe." Take September 11 2001 into consideration, when two airplanes were hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center and another into the pentagon. In just two hours, families were torn apart, courage was tested, and the world was shaken forever. The hijackers had probably believed that they were dying on that plane for their country, but sadly did not know the true and exact reason for their presence, or their life for that matter. At the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton said, "I visited Ground Zero right after we were attacked. I felt like I was standing at the Gates of Hell. I hope no American ever has to witness a sight like that again."

Terrorism: Major threat to Pakistan’s National Security

In the new literature on national security, internal factors are equally and sometimes more important than the traditional factors. The state of Pakistan at the moment has a stronger challenge to its security from the internal factors as compared to external. Pakistan faces multi forms of terrorism, no other country in the world is entangled in this problem as the Pakistan of today. Ethnic terrorism which led to the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 resurfaced again on the question of linguistic differences in the some parts of the country but has been brought under control with the mainstreaming of ethnic political parties. Nationalist terrorism has mainly been witnessed in province of Balochistan at regular intervals and mainly revolves around the issues of exploitation of resources and threat to the political identity and culture of minorities sub-nationalities. Sectarianism in Pakistan was an extended version of rivalries between Northern Alliance and certain Sunni factions in Afghanistan and an aftermath of Iran & Iraq war, Jehadi terrorism which emerged in the post 9/11 scenario is by far the most serious threat to Pakistan so far because of its role as the front line state in war against terrorism. The tension between ultra conservative and moderate followers of Islam is mounting and weakening the sate structure. It is beyond the capacity of a single person or a one time effort to eradicate the deep rooted problem from the society. An institutional mechanism with wide ranging participation on regular and permanent basis is the only way to fight this menace.

No doubt for centuries national security has been the basic and paramount concern of the nation states. While achieving enduring security has remained to be the most cherishable reward for states, over the years the concept of security has developed and considerably changed. Since its inception, Pakistan has been facing the challenge of national security. Traditionally, the threat to Pakistan’s security has been external. However, today it can be arguably asserted that the major threat to national security in Pakistan emanates more from internal sources rather than external. The most serious threat facing Pakistan at the moment is

1

posed by terrorism and the focus of our national efforts to ensure lasting security should be addressed to these internal factors.

Pakistan is facing the menace of terrorism in multiple forms. Pakistan at present is facing the most unique, difficult and gruesome faces of terrorism. No other country in the world is so deeply entangled in this problem as the Pakistan of today. All text book categories of terrorism confront Pakistan.

Pakistan had the first taste of ethnicity in the very early period of its being when the whole eastern wing agitated on the question of one national language – Urdu. The discontent established itself into a political movement and led ultimately to the unfortunate events of 1971 resulting in dismemberment of the state. The political struggle organized on ethnic lines gave a harrowing display of ethnic terrorism when militant organization like Mukti Bahni started eliminating West Pakistanis and specially the Punjabis. In the recent history of ‘New’ Pakistan, ethnicity emerged again in the wake of language riots. This time in the province of Sindh where Urdu speaking urbanites of Karachi and Hyderabad clashed with native Sindhis. The quest of Mohajirs – migrants in the wake of partition – for a parallel political identity as the fifth sub nationality along with the native Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtuns and Balochs lead to large scale bloodshed and terrorist activities. The ethnic terrorism took hold of major urban cities for nearly a decade in late 80s and 90s but it has subsided for the time being partly due to rejuvenated economic activity and mainstreaming of the ethnic groups but mostly due to political stability giving enough economic and political space to the major players.

India concerned over spurt in terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan: PM

India Sunday expressed its serious concern over the spurt of terrorism in neighboring Pakistan and war-ravaged Afghanistan, saying peace is threatened in South Asia. "We are very worried about the rise of terrorism in our neighborhood, particularly what is going on in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. We have a vital stake in peace, progress and stability of these countries and other countries of South Asia," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said here. Claiming that though India has been a victim of terrorism for long, the world woke up only after terrorists brought down the twin trade towers in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, the prime minister said: "I sincerely hope that among the processes, which require sustained international cooperation, dealing with terrorism figures very high on the priorities of all civilized countries of the world." Terrorism in India got global attention when 10 militants carried out deadly attacks in Mumbai last November, which killed over 170 people. Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the only terrorist caught alive in the mayhem, admitted that Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba masterminded the attacks.

News316- new post

A hostile ally

Oct 29th 2009 | ISLAMABAD
From The Economist print edition
Clinton flies into a war zone

A VISIT to Pakistan this week by Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, was greeted in the grimmest possible fashion. A suicide-bomber exploded a car packed with explosives and killed over 100 people in a crowded bazaar in Peshawar, in North-West Frontier Province. The presumed culprits, the Taliban, have also reached the capital, Islamabad. On October 22nd an army brigadier was ambushed outside his house and killed by two gunmen on a motorcycle. In two bloody weeks more than 250 people have died in suicide-attacks in Peshawar, Islamabad and Lahore. Security agencies are warning of more murder to come.
Mrs Clinton visited Pakistan for several important reasons. She wanted to assure Pakistanis that America is no longer just a fair-weather friend. Rather, it is here to stay and support Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and poverty. A bill signed by President Barack Obama on October 12th grants Pakistan $7.5 billion in assistance for development and to alleviate poverty in the next five years.

However, that act of apparent generosity was spurned by most Pakistanis as “insulting and intrusive” because of conditions attached to it, which implied that Pakistan’s army and security agencies were complicit in harbouring terrorists and undermining the civilian government of President Asif Zardari. Egged on by the army, the Pakistani press, its mindset forged by years of state-sponsored jihad against the infidels—the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and India in the 1990s—has assailed the legislation as “dishonouring” Pakistan and serving only American interests. Indeed, until very recently, the predominant view was that the war against the Taliban was America’s fight, not Pakistan’s. Against this backdrop, Mrs Clinton came to Pakistan not just to pledge support in counter-terrorism but to prop up its fledgling democracy.

But first she has to resolve continuing strains in her country’s relationship with Pakistan’s powerful army. America has welcomed its campaign against militants in South Waziristan. But it wants the army to go further and to take the offensive in other parts of the tribal areas, where the Taliban and al-Qaeda have safe havens from which they are attacking NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan.

American pressure has been stepped up in the days leading to the presidential-election run-off in Kabul on November 7th. The Americans hope that Pakistan’s efforts can help bolster turnout. But the Pakistani army is loth to divert too many forces from the Indian border, until the peace process with India makes some progress.

Poland has joined the ranks of countries accusing Pakistan of inaction, if not outright complicity in terrorist activity, following the beheading few days ago of a Polish national by the Pakistani Taliban.In a furious response that has stunned the international diplomatic community, Polish justice minister Andrzej Czuma on Monday blamed Pakistan's ''apathy'' in tackling terrorism for the killing of a Polish geologist who was kidnapped by the Pakistani Taliban from Attack town in Punjab."The structure of the Pakistani government is behind this apathy. The Pakistani authorities encourage these bandits," Czuma told a Polish news agency, even as the horrific killing recalled the similar beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.Speaker Bogdan Borusewicz said his decision is not an unfriendly gesture toward Pakistan but was made after taking into consideration ''the situation in which our countryman was murdered.'' Other European countries also expressed revulsion at yet another beheading in Pakistan. It is also possible a Polish prosecutor will go to Pakistan to secure potential evidence there.The Polish case offers Pakistan yet another opportunity to prove its bona fides in the war on terror amid continuing questions in the international community about its seriousness. Whether it is the Mumbai carnage or the London subway blasts or the beheading of Pearl and now of Piotr Stanczack, Pakistan has not distinguished itself with its dodgy investigations seemingly aimed more at protecting the perpetrators rather than bring them to justice.Many of the accused in such incidents, including Omar Saeed Sheikh, Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi, Yusuf Muzammil, and Zarrar Khan are reported to be ISI assets who live under the intelligence agency’s protection, while Pakistan’s civilian dispensation drums up red herrings while privately pleading it is not fully in control of the agency or that it has been infiltrated by rogue elements.With its constant denials, fudging and prevarication, Pakistan’s government has laid itself open that it is complicit in such acts of terrorism. There is immense distrust among the U.S and its allies about Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI and how far it is in cahoots with the jihadis it fostered for long.