Why choose now to complain about Pakistan’s ISI?

Why now? Until this week, the ISI was an acronym for Pakistan’s powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, that was little known outside of South Asia. Now it’s all over the American media as the organisation accused of secretly helping Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the country it works for is a crucial ally in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The New York Times led the charge by reporting that the CIA had confronted Pakistan over what it called deepening ties between members of the ISI and militant groups responsible for a surge in violence in Afghanistan. It followed it up with a story quoting U.S. government officials blaming the ISI for an attack last month on the Indian embassy in Kabul.

The Washington Post and TIME, amongst others, ran similar stories. —Whenever you see a deluge of stories in the media quoting government or intelligence officials, it’s always worth asking why those unnamed officials have chosen this particular moment to speak out. The accusations against the ISI — denied by Pakistan are not new. India has complained for years about the role of the ISI in supporting the insurgency in Kashmir.

It threatened to go to war in 2001/2002 over a December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that it blamed on militants backed by the ISI, a charge denied by Pakistan. The debate within India at the time was very similar to the one you can find today in the U.S. media — how much do the ruling authorities in Pakistan control the ISI, and to what extent is it a monolithic disciplined organisation, and to what extent does it have renegade members who might follow their own agenda? More importantly, perhaps, in the current context, is how the Americans viewed the ISI.

The U.S. diplomats I knew in India had no illusions about the ISI, although publicly they refused to take sides as they tried – successfully as it turned out — to persuade Islamabad and Delhi to stand down from a conflict that threatened to undermine America’s post 9/11 efforts to tame Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, the CIA worked closely with the ISI to arm, train and fund the mujahideen. Between them they drove the Russians out of Afghanistan and helped bring down the Soviet Union. There can be no closer relationship between two countries’ spy agencies than that.

The CIA knows, and has long known, the ISI — perhaps better than any other country’s intelligence services. So I come back to my original question. Why turn on them now? There are, of course, obvious answers. Pakistan’s new government, elected in February, just made a botched attempt to bring the ISI under civilian control. Its subsequent retraction served only to highlight the power of the ISI. The Americans and their allies are suffering heavy losses in Afghanistan, while going into a presidential election where the war in Iraq, and the U.S. failure to hunt down al Qaeda and the Taliban, have become a major issue. But I can’t help but wonder whether those unnamed officials now so keen to talk to the media are spinning a line.

There have long been arguments within the CIA about how to handle the ISI, with agents based in Kabul generally arguing in favour of confrontation and those in Islamabad backing cooperation. So is what we are seeing in the U.S. media a reflection of a battle within the CIA over rival views on how to handle Pakistan and the ISI? Maybe. Or is it a reflection of actual events, including the increase in violence in Afghanistan, the renewed focus on Iraq/al Qaeda created by the U.S. presidential election, the speculation about whether the United States will send its troops into Pakistan to hunt down leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and heightened tensions between India and Pakistan over the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul? Maybe.

I am not asking these questions in the kind of rhetorical way that suggests that I already know the answer. I’m asking because I don’t know. But I am just a little bit suspicious when I see the media all heading in the same direction. It feels uncannily similar to the way the media quoted unnamed officials about WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq. Many countries had been suspicious of Saddam Hussein since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But having ignored that for years, there was suddenly a groundswell of opinion to remove him. Are we now seeing a similar groundswell against Pakistan?

Pakistan: Now or Never?

Will Obama’s Afghan plans survive Kashmir crisis?

Less than a month ago, Senator Barack Obama was saying that the U.S. war in Afghanistan would be made easier if the United States worked to improve trust between India and Pakistan.

“A lot of what drives, it appears, motivations on the Pakistan side of the border, still has to do with their concerns and suspicions about India,” he told a news conference in Amman.
The logic was in line with thinking expounded by U.S. analysts at the time who argued that elements within Pakistan will never completely relinquish support for Islamist militants in both Pakistan and Afghanistan as long as they believe they can be used to counter Indian influence in the region. Therefore end Pakistan’s insecurity about India, and support for militants will melt away, making the U.S. campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban much easier — or so the argument goes. At least that was the thinking barely a few weeks ago, as I wrote in an earlier blog on this subject.

The latest crisis in Kashmir has turned that logic on its head. After a dispute over land snowballed into some of the biggest protests since a separatist revolt erupted in 1989, India and Pakistan are back at each other’s throats, hurling allegations at each other. Rather than asking whether the two countries can be persuaded to make a durable peace, the question now is how bad the relationship can get. “India-Pakistan relations are getting perilously close to ground zero,” writes former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar in an Asia Times article.
Add in the domestic political instability in Pakistan, and relations between India and Pakistan have probably not been so combustible since they declared a ceasefire on the Line of Control dividing Kashmir in November 2003.
So where does that leave Obama’s plans for Afghanistan? How much does it assume U.S. efforts to “manage” Pakistan more effectively — including encouraging peace with India — will combine with his pledge to send more troops to Afghanistan to succeed in a campaign he has declared more important that Iraq? The blog New America Media went as far as to say that “Kashmir may be the key to Obama’s Counterterrorism Policy” – perhaps overstating the case but well worth reading to see how it all fits together.
And if India and Pakistan descend into the dark days before the 2003 ceasefire, and play out their rivalry across the region from Kashmir to Kabul, what is the fall-back plan? Sending even more U.S. troops to Afghanistan?

Kashmir: is this a re-run of 1989?

After months of relative peace which turned Kashmir into a near-forgotten conflict, the region has exploded again with some of the biggest protests since a separatist revolt erupted in 1989. What started as a dispute over land allocated to Hindu pilgrims visiting a shrine in Kashmir has snowballed into a full-scale anti-India protest, uniting Kashmiri separatists and reviving calls for independence.
The dispute has also pitted Muslims in Kashmir against Hindus in Jammu – the two regions which along with Ladakh make up the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir – in what is the biggest communal crisis faced by the central government in Delhi since it took office in 2004.

Little wonder then that analysts in India are describing it as a major crisis, with an editorial in the Hindustan Times calling it the greatest test for the central government since it took office.
And although some Indian analysts have accused Pakistan of stoking tensions in Kashmir, the protests look to be, at least in large measure, spontaneous.

So is this a re-run of 1989? At the time separatist sentiments – which had been simmering before 1947 when the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu maharajah from Jammu – erupted into full-scale protests which were primarily Kashmiri nationalist rather than religious. According to the Kashmiri version of history, India then tried to crush the revolt with a clumsy heavy-handedness that only inflamed Kashmiri anger further.

The revolt turned increasingly lethal and vicious — in part due to Pakistan’s involvement in supporting the separatists and to the Islamist influence of the mujahideen who had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. After Pakistan and India tested nuclear bombs in 1998, Kashmir was dubbed the most dangerous place on earth, bringing the two countries to the brink of war in 2001/2002.

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf is ready to resign rather than face impeachment but is seeking immunity from prosecution for imposing emergency rule, a coalition government official said on Friday.

Speculation has been mounting that former army chief Musharraf would quit since the ruling government coalition, led by the party of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, said last week it planned to impeach him.

A spokesman for the president has repeatedly denied media reports that he was about to quit, and he did so again on Friday.
But a coalition official said negotiations on the terms of the unpopular president's resignation were going on.
"He is ready to resign but he is putting conditions like indemnity for the November 3 action," said the official, who declined to be identified, referring to Musharraf's imposition of a six-week stint of emergency rule last year.

"Back-door talks are still going on. Things have not yet been finalised. Let's see what happens," said the official, who has knowledge of the talks.

The long-running crisis surrounding Musharraf's future has heightened concern in the United States and among other allies about the stability of the nuclear-armed Muslim state, which is in the front line of the campaign against militancy.

Uncertainty over his fate is unnerving investors, with the rupee setting a new low for the fourth session on Friday at about 75.70 to the dollar. Stocks are hovering near two-year lows.

Uncertainty over his fate has been unnerving investors, with the rupee weakening on Friday to another record low against the dollar, at about 76.30/40, for the fourth straight session.
But stocks, which have been hovering near two-year lows, rose 3.6 percent as investors cheered Musharraf's possible departure as a milestone that would ease political tension.
Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup but has been isolated since his allies lost a February election.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino referred to reports of Musharraf's resignation plan as a "rumour mill", adding that the United States considered the leadership of Pakistan an issue for Pakistanis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"BASELESS"

Musharraf's spokesman, retired Major-General Rashid Qureshi, said reports of a resignation plan were "baseless and malicious" and he knew nothing about any talks.
But Tariq Azeem Khan, a politician close to Musharraf and a former deputy government minister, said talks were going on.
"Well-wishers are trying to ensure that matters are settled amicably through discussions rather than going through a long, protracted impeachment process," he said.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Washington)

Pakistan's Musharraf could go to Turkey: report

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf could go to Turkey as British and American diplomats are attempting to find an exit for him before he is dragged through a humiliating impeachment process, The Guardian wrote on Thursday.

Turkey has long been the favored destination for Musharraf in exile, a report in The Guardian daily said.
Rumors that Musharraf is set to quit have been circulating in Pakistan for several days. He has suffered a collapse in support as three of Pakistan's four provincial parliaments have passed resolutions, with overwhelming backing, declaring him unfit for office. The fourth province is expected to follow soon.
The provincial votes were symbolic, but the formal process will begin early next week with an impeachment motion in the national parliament. It is clear that the ruling coalition now has the two-thirds majority needed to impeach him.
"Musharraf spent his childhood in Turkey, and speaks the language and loves the country," the report in The Guardian said. Musharraf is rumored to own property in Turkey, according to the report.
"But Turkey is a Muslim-majority country and he may become a target," the report also said.
The other countries that Musharraf could go are the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the Guardian added.
Musharraf, under mounting pressure to resign, called on Thursday for reconciliation to tackle economic problems and Islamist militancy.
But Musharraf's appeal apparently failed to check coalition government attempts to force him from power, with one senior official saying preparations to impeach the president if he refused to resign were on track.

Musharraf calls for reconciliation on Pakistan's independence anniversary

In his first public comments since Pakistan's governing Coalition said last week that it would seek to impeach him, President Pervez Musharraf has called for political stability.
President Musharraf was making an address to mark the anniversary of the country's independence.
He failed to respond to calls for him to step down or be impeached, instead calling for national unity and reconciliation.
"I wanted to say that if we have to fix our economy and fight terrorism then we need political stability in Pakistan and in my view political stability will come through a reconciliation approach as opposed to a confrontational approach," he said.

Inflation hits record high in Pakistan

Pakistan's overall annual inflation rate peaked at an all-time high of more than 24.3 per cent last month from about 21.5 per cent in June - a significant jolt to the country's consumers.
Analysts warned the inflation rate was particularly worrying for the poorest section of the population, given that prices of non-perishable food items rose about 35.4 per cent year on year in July while those of perishable food items rose about 22.8 per cent.

"These numbers are obviously of special concern to the government as it [the economy] remains in a difficult time," said Yasin Lakhani, former chairman of the Karachi stock exchange, the country's largest stock market. "Inflation has become a popular outcry everywhere in Pakistan."
The inflation numbers come just as the seven-month old government of Yusuf Raza Gilani, the prime minister, presses ahead with plans to impeach Pervez Musharraf, the president who has ruled Pakistan for almost nine years.

While the government claims to have sufficient support in the federal parliament to win the two-thirds majority of both houses needed for an impeachment motion, the mood on the streets is still divided. "Supposing President Musharraf is impeached, how does that help me on a daily basis?" asked Muhammad Riaz, a Karachi-based taxi driver.

While global economic factors, such as record oil prices, are partly responsible for the government's inability to curb inflation and manage the economy more efficiently, analysts also noted that a grim security situation was also to blame.

Yesterday, at least 14 personnel of the Pakistan Air Force were killed by a bomb outside Peshawar, the northern frontier city in the north west frontier province bordering Afghanistan.

Mullahs cannot win battle of

veil for women

Of all people, Gamal al Banna, a brother of the founder of Egypt’s Ikhwan al Muslimun, Hasan al Banna, has declared that “neither the Quran nor the authentic Sunnah demands that women wear the hijab or cover their hair”. This is going to disturb the hornets’ nest of Islamic ‘scholars’ of all stripes, who will now start condemning him for suggesting a relatively permissive order for Muslim women. Al Banna twists the knife a bit more, saying that “the veil is not an Islamic tradition, but a pre-Islamic one, when Arab women covered their heads and left the upper parts of their chest uncovered”. He thinks the relevant Quranic verse commands women to cover their chests, not necessarily their heads.

.................................................

The Arab world has gone where the Saudi conservatives wanted it to go. Nasserism was followed by veiled girl students at Al Azhar demanding the imposition of Shariah, and soon there were youths belonging to Gamaa Islamiyya willing to thrash women who refused to veil themselves in public.

When the Arabs came to Afghanistan in 1996 to fight for the Taliban, the call for “true Islam” was already a slogan that was heard loud and clear in Pakistan. Ironically, “true Islam” usually applies to women and had begun spreading with General Zia’s Hudood Ordinance, ordaining that women anchors and announcers on PTV cover their heads. But the ulema on the right of Zia wanted more. In fact they wanted nothing short of a “shuttlecock”, a brutally punitive covering that renders women half blind.Pakistan was reluctant to take the veil because of the embarrassing fact that Fatima Jinnah and Begum Liaquat Ali Khan were national icons without the veil, but

the order of the Taliban affected many parts of the country nonetheless.

After a few incidents on The Mall in Lahore, religious seminarians found that it was no use threatening Pakistani women to take the veil if the government was not willing and the Constitution allowed a woman to become head of government and state. But the environment was scary enough to force Benazir Bhutto to start fingering beads in public and Hasina Wajid of Bangladesh to wear a pious head-band. The Taliban whipped unveiled women in Kabul, but could not do so in Mazar-e-Sharif.

When foreign-inspired Islamists began beating up unveiled women in the Ferghana Valley in Central Asia, no one really took them seriously.The truth is that the veil has become involved in a discussion of culture, and Islam allows all kinds of regional and local cultures to flourish under Shariah. While all clerics agree on the covering of the “zeenat” of women, they can’t agree on the precise nature of the veil. Yet, as culture retreats in the face of extremist thinking, there are unhealthy signs of repression in societies heretofore known as liberal. Eastward of India, Islam was always seen as having a soft tolerant face given to it by early Muslim missionaries who grasped the importance of local cultures in people’s lives. Neither Bangladesh nor Indonesia could have dreamed 20 years ago that there would be violence against unveiled women.

Funnily, today the Pattani Muslims of southern Thailand — “revived” after their leader paid a visit to Saudi Arabia — proudly display prescriptive photos of a complete head-to-foot covering for women in a climate that is sure to suffocate them to death. Bangladesh has been bedevilled by jihadi militias in the north and south of the country acting as social police in the areas they control. The cleric, who has empowered himself at the cost of the government that feels less and less able to enforce a moderate Constitution, has been dealing out harsh punishments to women in the countryside, among people who had never known strict Islam. Bengali Muslim women complain that Bangladesh is falling under the interpretation by Maulana Maududi of a Quranic edict of the strict veil that was actually meant only for the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and that too in a specific case.

And although the spiritual leader of Sudan, Hasan al Turabi, has muddied the waters for the hardline clerics by saying that women are not required to cover their heads and faces, many Muslims in Sudan and Somalia still continue to circumcise their daughters!To impose the veil, a country needs theocratic rule, but theocracy doesn’t tend to last, as happened in Afghanistan. In Iran, where it survives, an imposed veil awaits the day of release. In Turkey, which punishes women who take the veil, at least one Islamic party went around illegally punishing unveiled women in cities where it had won the local elections. But today the Islamic party in government wants to join Europe where France disallows the veil as part of its cultural policy. If Turkey joins the EU, the Shariah will go, together with the veil and an interfering army! By choosing the veil as a battlefront, the clergy has made a fatal mistake in the Islamic world. This is a battle it can never win because no one agrees on the nature of the veil prescribed by Islam. *

Goodbye, Passwords.

You Aren’t a Good Defense.

THE best password is a long, nonsensical string of letters and numbers and punctuation marks, a combination never put together before. Some admirable people actually do memorize random strings of characters for their passwords — and replace them with other random strings every couple of months.

Then there’s the rest of us, selecting the short, the familiar and the easiest to remember. And holding onto it forever.

I once felt ashamed about failing to follow best practices for password selection — but no more. Computer security experts say that choosing hard-to-guess passwords ultimately brings little security protection. Passwords won’t keep us safe from identity theft, no matter how clever we are in choosing them.

That would be the case even if we had done a better job of listening to instructions. Surveys show that we’ve remained stubbornly fond of perennial favorites like “password,” “123456” and “LetMeIn.” The underlying problem, however, isn’t their simplicity. It’s the log-on procedure itself, in which we land on a Web page, which may or may not be what it says it is, and type in a string of characters to authenticate our identity (or have our password manager insert the expected string on our behalf).

This procedure — which now seems perfectly natural because we’ve been trained to repeat it so much — is a bad idea, one that no security expert whom I reached would defend.

The solution urged by the experts is to abandon passwords — and to move to a fundamentally different model, one in which humans play little or no part in logging on. Instead, machines have a cryptographically encoded conversation to establish both parties’ authenticity, using digital keys that we, as users, have no need to see.
In short, we need a log-on system that relies on cryptography, not mnemonics.

No more relying on our old companion “LetMeIn.”

India warns Pakistan from interfering in its internal matters

India on Tuesday sharply reacted to attempts by Pakistan to link the ongoing protests in Jammu and Kashmir to the peace process between the two countries. Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Pakistan's Foreign Minister, said that the current situation in Kashmir has affected the environment for talks with India.

Usually, when two rival nations try to work toward peace, their governments talk to each other.
And at least in an official capacity, that is still happening between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, even as the peace between them lies tattered. But the problem, the Indian side contends, is that by talking to the new civilian government of Pakistan, it is no longer negotiating with those who have the power to decide between war and peace.

“The real power,” said one Indian official, “is so far away from the structures the world deals with.”