User:Bilal kaghani/Article on terrorism publication

'Pakistan’s Role in War against Terrorism'	          Terrorist attacks against US on September 11, 2001 and US response suddenly changed the geopolitical situation of South Asia and Central Asia. Pakistan located at the crossroads of these two regions was affected profoundly. Al-Qaida and Taliban administration of Afghanistan were directly made responsible of these terrorist attacks, on Washington and New York.

Geo strategic location of Pakistan and links with Taliban administration could not absolve Pakistan to remain unaffected immediately after the attack. Moreover, Pakistan was among the three countries, which recognized the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Any effort of US and world coalition against Taliban could not have been succeeded without active cooperation of Pakistan.

After declaring Al-Qaida and Osama as prime suspect President Bush said, “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or with the terrorist”. Taliban were asked to handover Osama and close down bases of his Al-Qaida network or face the consequences. The rest of the world was told that there could not be any neutral on the war against terrorism. So the world states clearly told that, they must choose sides; they can either be with US in its war against terrorism or on the side of terrorism. They could not be neutral.1

Pakistan due to its strategic importance and close relations with Taliban was asked to cooperate. President Musharaf due to four critical concerns; Pakistan’s security and stability from external threat, the revival of economy, its nuclear and missile assets and Kashmir care decided to join US coalition on war against Terrorism. Pakistan agreed to list of demand provided by US to Pakistan for cooperation. Pakistan took U-turn in its policy. It abounded. The Afghan policy, that depended on friendship of and support for Taliban, and decided to ally itself with the US in the war against terrorism.

Taking the nation into confidence, President Musharaf addressed on September 19, 2001, he said, “The decision we take today can have for reaching and wide-ranging consequences… This act of terrorism has raised a ware of deep grief, anger and retaliation in the US. There first target from the day one is Osama Bin Laden’s movement Al-Qaida… The second target is Taliban that is because Taliban have given refuge to Osama and his network… The third target is a long war against terrorism at international level. Pakistan is being asked to support this camping. What is the Support? There are three important things in which America is asking for our help. First is intelligence and information exchange, second support is the use of air space and the third is that, they are asking for logistic support from us…

We know that whatever are the US intentions, they have the support of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly in the form of resolution for war against terrorism, and this is a resolution for war against terrorism, and this is a resolution for punishing those people who support terrorism… If we talk wrong decision in the crises it can lead to the worst consequences. On the other hand, if we take right decision, its result will be good. The negative consequences can endanger Pakistan’s integrity and solidarity. Our critical concern can come under threat. When I say critical concern, I mean our strategic assets and the cause of Kashmir… On the other hand we can reemerge politically as a responsible and dignified nation and all our difficulties can be minimized.2

After gaining world support and Pakistan’s conformation of cooperation in war against terrorism, US decided to take military action against government of Taliban. US along with coalition forces attacked Taliban on October 7, 2001.

US Attack on Taliban:

The US from the very start of terrorist attacks began to form a coalition against terrorist and after gaining World support on September 20, US moved 100 fighter planes to M.E bases for use in Afghanistan. Operation was named Operation Infinite Justice, but the name was changed to Operation Enduring Freedom, after critics said it might be misunderstood since God alone had the power to implement Infinite Justice.

On September 21, 2001 President Bush rejected the Afghan Ullema Councils decision in which they asked Osama to leave Afghanistan voluntarily as a solution of the problem. The two aircraft carriers deputed to move towards the region and their crew was told to be prepared on sea for six month. The two aircraft carriers were Kitty Hawk and Theodore Roosevelt.3

By the beginning of October, 2001 and despite repeated international demands, the Taliban had not surrendered Osama or any member of Al-Qaida.On 7 October the US commenced military operation. In a televised address, President Bush said that US was acting because the Taliban had ignored the ultimatum to surrender suspected terrorist leaders, including Osama, and close terrorist camps. “None of these demands were met, and now Taliban will pay a price”. The US formally justified its action as ‘The exercise of its inherent right of individual and collective self defense,’ in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, ‘designed to prevent and deter further attack on the US’. Most states implicitly accepted this justification at the time.

The US deployed aircraft carriers battle groups with some 500 fighter’s aircraft, large number of troop’s marines and Special Forces (SF). Air strikes were undertaken by large range B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers. British, German and French Special troops also joined US forces. The initial attacks focused on Kabul, Kandhar and Jalalabad.4The main targets were anti-aircraft systems, military head-quarters, terrorist training camps, military airfields and television building. The Taliban leadership had already vacated all government and military buildings. Taliban leadership vowed to defend their land and urged that they would fight the American the way they fought the Russians.5

When operation started against Taliban President Musharaf appealed the coalition forces for targeted bombing so that it might come up with minimum causalities. However during the bombing many innocent civilian were killed. President Musharaf on 8, October, 2001, said, “The operation, I believe is targeted. These are the assurances and that is the desire of all the forces participating in the action against Afghanistan. I hope and coalition forces desire that this operation should not be perceived as a war against Afghanistan or the people of Afghanistan. It is an action against the terrorist, terrorism, their sanctuaries and their supporters.” 6The attacks not only killed thousand peoples but also millions fled to Pakistan and Iran to save their lives.

The air strikes continued during November and December the initial priority of coalition was to secure central of Afghanistan airspace in order to prevent attacks against coalition aircraft. Priority targets included, early warning radars, surface to air missile sites, anti aircraft artillery, airships and aircraft. Taliban were estimated to have about 20 multi role ground attack fighter aircraft (Soviet-made mig-21s and Su 22s) and small number of transport and attack helicopters. They were old model of soviet era and their effectiveness was very low. No coalition aircraft were engaged in air-to-air combat during the operation. Taliban air defenses were reported to have been rendered largely in effective by the air strikes of the first night, and all but one of the Taliban’s airbases was disable on the second night. By mid of the October the collation was confident of its control of Afghanistan’s airspace.

The coalition forces than shifted their attention for peroration for ground campaign. The coalition was hesitating to deploy large number of ground force because they knew Soviet unsuccessful ground war after 1979. The collation forces than rely on allies within afghan opposition. Northern alliance, the leading opposition force within Afghanistan especially in military terms and having 15000 armed fighter as well as heavy weapons such as artillery and tanks, so help was sought by them. US provided them funds for weapons and for recruitment of new fighters.7 US also provided funds to northern alliance to bribe the Taliban commanders. President Bush sanctioned $ 100 million in this connection, as relief aid.8As the air campaign continued, the US-led collation partners initially reluctant to offer decisive support to northern alliance. A rapid victory for northern alliance might have rested in the sort of factional fighting that occurred in Afghanistan in early and mid 1990. The US wanted to promote anti-Taliban opposition and also wider agreement on post war regime. At the end of October and beginning of November US carried and “carpet bombing” of Taliban and al-Qaeda frontline positions north of Kabul and in Mazar-i-Shrif and Talogan. On 30 October General Tommy Franks met with Northern Alliance commander-in-chief General Muhammad Qassem Fahim in Dushmbe, the capital of Tajikistan, resulting in agreement to improve cooperation between US and northern alliance. They agreed on doubling the number of US Special Operations Forces (SOF). Russia’s supply of equipment to northern alliance also played important role. Russia quipped Uzbek and Tajik Special Forces and Russia soldiers commanded the tank and helicopter force that attack Taliban frontlines.9 On the evening of 9 November 2001, Taliban fighting capacity weakened due to US bombing and ground attack of Northern Alliance at Mazar-e-Sharif front. Mazar-e-Sharif was seized by N.A and come under the control of Rashid Dostam. Once Mazar-e-Sharif had fallen Northern alliance in taw days took towns across northern and control Afghanistan, including Samangan, Bamian, Toloqan, Baglan, Heart and Shindand. In many cases rather than fight, Taliban forces fled surrendered, negotiated dead with the northern Alliance or simply swapped sides.

The Taliban left the Kabul during the night of November 12, 2001. Northern alliance forces entered with 200 troops taking control of key buildings. Northern alliance entered the city with horrible scenes of chaos, man killing and celebration of victory by shaving off people beards.10 Northern alliance violated its commitment, which it made US that for not entering the icy before the establishment of the broad-based government. Pakistan government also took the entrance of Northern Alliance in Kabul as a serious offence. The US Defense Secretary conceded at a news conference that he could not guarantee the statement of President Bush with President Musharaf about the entering of ground forces.11

Thus US-led war against Taliban regime killed thousand of innocent people and increased humanitarian disaster, and threatening millions of lives. After September 11, Pakistan became part of US-led coalition war against terrorism. US operations are continuing against war on terrorism and search of Osama and Al-Qaida leaders is also going on till now. After the fall of Taliban government, Hamid Karzai was sworn in as the interim head of Afghan government on 22 December 2001 under the “Bonn Accord” 12

Pakistan -US Cooperation in war on terrorism:

Although Pakistan claimed that it will not permit US to use Pakistan soil to launch ground attack on Afghanistan. As President Musharaf said on 22 October, 2001; “The ground reality is that we have provided them with intelligence exchange, logistic support and airspace. The action in Afghanistan is being taken from the Gulf and Central Asian Republics. It is not from Pakistani soil. We have only provided logistic support to them, and they are negotiating about certain rescue missions from here”. But indications were that Pakistan totally acquiesces in US demands. The use of Pakistani Soil and airspace by US force was described as “logistic support”13

However, the fact sheet of the US State Department of the period and other sources gave details of Pakistan’s cooperation as follows.

(a)	Provision of Air Bases / Airfields:

In order to meet the requirement of US and coalition forces, Pakistan provided five air bases. However, emergency plan could land any were in Pakistan. Average 0.4 million liters of fuel per day has been provided to US forces as well as all other services on the bases used by them a total number of 57800 sorties generated from Pakistani soil.14 Shahbaz Air Base Jacobabad is one of the new airports in Pakistan, which can be used both for military and Commercial purposes. Pakistan has agreed for a long term American military presence at Jacobabad. According to reports, as of mid October 2001, Seven US C-130 cargo / troop carrying aircraft, with some helicopters were at Jacobabad air base. Approximately 250 Marines were stationed at the air base for the mission and by the end of November; hundreds of US soldiers were housed in the 42 aircraft hangers at the air base. Pakistan faced several protests at the Jacobabad air base b y opponents of the US air strikes on Afghanistan. The US has done extensive construction work to renovate the base, including the installation of radar equipment. Pakistan partially reclaimed the base in 2002 in the wake of growing tensions with India.

Dalbandin airfield falls in the province where several Pakistanis share ethnic and religious kinship with Taliban. It was used as forward refueling base for US Special Operations helicopters operating in Afghanistan. The US forces retained the exclusive use of Dalbandin and Shamshi, a small airstrip near the convergence of the borders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.

In February 2002, Pakistan and the US signed an agreement on defense cooperation. According to the agreement, Pakistan has agreed for the US forces to use its military equipment for training, jointly military maneuvers and other military exercises. Pakistan has also agreed to provide food, water, medical services, transportation and communication to the US forces for the operations in Afghanistan. A stats of Forces Agreement has also been signed between the two countries, which provided US military personnel and non-military people with the same privileges as US diplomatic staff in Pakistan.15

(b)	Provision of Air Corridor:

In order to facilitate launching of air corps into Afghanistan, Pakistan provided 2/3 of its air space as air corridor to the US and Coalition forces.

(c)	Naval Facilities:

Pakistan navy provided landing facility to the coalition ships at Pasni. According to US Marine Corps Gazette of June 2002. The coalition naval operations at Pasni were the largest amphibious operations in size, duration and depth, the Marine Corps had conducted since the Korean War. In all 8000 marines, 330 vehicles and over 1350 tons of equipments and logistic were off loaded and then sort of Kandhar, from Pasni. To facilitate the operation ISAF in Afghanistan, the Karachi airport and seaport facilities along with logistic support have been extended. Pakistan partially reclaimed the Pasni base in January 2002. By the year 2002 more than dozen US military helicopters were parked at Pasni.

(d)	Deployment of Forces:

Initially two Army Corps along with large number of FC troops was deployed along with western border. Total of 6000 regular troops and 55000 pera-military personal were deployed on sealing of western border, internal security duties and protection of various bases used by coalition forces. Because of effective security arrangements by Pakistan, not a single beach of security has occurred around the bases used by the coalition forces.

In spite of threat of war on our eastern borders, army still today continue to retain 3 x brigade size regular forces along with 40 x FC wings, total approximately 45000 troops along Pakistan Afghan border.16 Since October, many major military operations have been carried out in Waziristan. Heavy contingents of Pakistan armed forces, commandos, ground forces and heavy gunship helicopters participated in operations. The operation resulted in a large number of causalities. In fact, the military operations in South Waziristan in March 2004 was claimed to be the largest army operation in the tribal areas since Pakistani independence in 1947.17 Till now Pakistani forces are busy in Swat and tribal areas for maintaining government write with in Pakistan against local Taliban. Pakistan’s ISI has helped in various phases of operation.18

Pakistan’s military, intelligence, and law enforcement agency are cooperating closely with the US and other nations to identify interdict and eliminate terrorism both within Pakistan and abroad. To date, hundreds of suspected operatives of these groups have been successfully apprehended with the cooperation of Pakistani authority. Among those captured in 2003 were Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11 attacks and Walid Bin Atlash, a prime suspect in the attack on the USS Cole in October 2002. When several militant and sectarian groups that had been banned in 2002 began operating under now aliases, the Pakistani government banned them as well.

Pursuant to its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions 1267, 1333, 1390 and 1455, Pakistan continues to work with the UN 1267 Sanctions Committee to freeze the assets of individuals and groups identified as terrorist entities linked to Al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Courts continue to respond to both international and domestic cases of terrorism. In April, 2003 an anti-Terrorism Court in Karachi convicted four defendants charged with organizing the bombing of the US Consulate in June 2002 in Karachi and in June 2003, convicted three men charged with the bombing in May 2002 that killed 11 French naval technicians. In November 2003, the same court handed down death sentences for three members of the banned Lashkar-i-Jhangri for planning and committing sectarian murders.19

US-Pakistan joint counter terrorism efforts have been extensive. They include cooperative efforts in border security and criminal investigations, as well as several long term training projects. In 2002, the US and Pakistan established the Working Group on Counter Terrorism and Law-Enforcement Cooperation. The meetings provided a ground for discussing ongoing US-Pakistani efforts, as well as a means for improving capabilities and cooperation. Pakistan provides significant assistance in the investigation of international terrorism, acting on leads provided to its counter terrorism and law enforcement agencies by the US and other nations.

Pakistan has signed 11 of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism and is party of ten. 20 Both the countries have kept a low profile on the contents of cooperation, given the sensitivity of Pakistan’s civil society on this issue and growing anti-US sentiment in the country. Both countries, however, have benefited from this cooperation.

In return of this cooperation, Pakistan got billions of economic aid and military aid as well. In the pre 9/11 period, Pakistan was suffering a negative image problem due to many factors such as; its support to Taliban, Corruption of political elites, bad economic condition, nuclear explosion, kargil conflict and a military corp., against a democratic government in 1999 and it led to international isolation. Due to international isolation various common wealth committees had kept Pakistan out of their meetings. Pakistan had also lost sympathy in US Congress, which lifted some of the Sanctions against only India, before 9/11. Pakistan international isolation ended after joining the war on terrorism. Sanctions were removed. Many leaders and high official of states like Japanese, British, Australian and US visited Islamabad and also President Musharaf won a lot of appreciation for his roles in war against terrorism.21

In October 2001, US Secretary for State Collin Powell visited Pakistan, and he called for peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem. Powell said, “We believe that the Kashmir issue is Central to the relationship and can be resolved, if all parties engage with a willingness to address their concerns to mutually acceptable ways”. Powell also discussed terrorism related issues with Pakistani officials.

In April 2003, the Bush administration rejected Indian remarks linking Pakistan to Iraq and urged that both neighbors to resolve their difference peacefully. The US State department Spokes Women Joanne Prokopowiez said that India must not use US-led preemptive war against Iraq as a pretest for an attack. She further said, “The US recognizes the very serious nature of the situation in Kashmir. Our joint statement last week with UK made clear our repugnance at the killing of innocent that have been taken place in Kashmir with alarming frequency”.

President Musharaf visited US in June 2003; both the leaders at Camp David discussed bilateral, regional and global issues. Two countries signed two agreements; one on trade and investment and other on science and technology. President Bush announced a $ 3 Billion five year economic assistance for Pakistan. During the briefing President Bush praised Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism, and said that US encouraged Pakistan and India to ease tension in South Asia and resolve all issue, including Kashmir. President Bush said, “The friendship between US and Pakistan is vital to the security and stability of South Asia and I am encouraged by the Progress President Musharaf and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee may have made in easing tension between Pakistan and India. I am hopeful that the two countries will deepen their engagement on all issues including Kashmir.22

Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali visited US in October 2003; this was the first visit one to one meeting. Both leaders pledged to fight against terrorism jointly. Mr. Jamali said, “Pakistan had been reciprocal as far as terrorism is concerned”. Mr. Bush said, “Prime Minister Visit gives him a chance to say publically, how much we appreciate the friendship of Pakistan and mutual desire to fight terror and to being stability and peace through out the world”.23 In a separate briefing, the State Department Spokesman Richard Bonncher told reporters that relation with Pakistan was very important to the US and it wanted this relationship to continue to work and develop, and US was working with Pakistan to make sure that we were doing every thing, we could to track down and eliminate the remnants of Taliban and Al-Qaida operative that may be in that area.24

US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited Pakistan and discussed bilateral relations, regional situation, Afghanistan and terrorism. Mr. Armitage made it clear that, Washington was interested in a partnership with Pakistan that was not merely based on global war on terror but one that covered the entire gamut: economic, Social and political issues. US Secretary of State Collin Powell visited Pakistan in March 2004, the main focus of the visit was on regional security, terrorism and economic cooperation. At the joint press conference with Khurshid Kushri, he said, “On the behalf of President Bush and the American people, I came to say that the United States is committed to a long term partnership with Pakistan. And I believe that in the current environment we have every opportunity to strengthen that relationship in strategic ways as we more forward”. He further announced to grant Pakistan the membership of an exclusive club of major non-NATO allies in recognition of its role in war against terrorism. On June 16, 2004 President Bush officially designated Pakistan to secure priority delivery access to defence articles, stockpiling of military hardware, and purchase of depleted uranium for anti-tank rounds, cooperation in defense military training, research program and loan.25

One of the most important advantages of the new status is that Pakistan would be able to receive American equipments that come under the clause of “excess equipment”. That is, weapons and equipments that the US might not need any more would be transferred at very normal prices. This would be in addition to the arms and equipments that the US would leave behind at facilities and bases it may have used any of its military operations. The status of non-NATO ally, earlier applied to Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Japan, Australia, South Korea and Philippines. All these nations have a bilateral defense agreement with the US and have access to modern US inventories. The status qualifies Pakistan for greater military aid and thus adds advantage to Pakistan in terms of defense & Security assistance.26

US Demands for Do More and Agenda of War on Terrorism: .                      Since the September 11, Pakistan is one of US most important partner in its war against terrorism. The government of both countries working closely to eradicate the menace of terrorism. Pakistan disabling Al-Qaida throughout the country, “Capture and kill policy” include the arrest and death of more than 700 Al-Qaida terrorist and dozen of other Taliban activists operating inside Pakistan.27 No other country has provided more intelligence support, capture more Al-Qaida terrorist, committed more troops than Pakistan. President Musharaf said, “We (Pakistan) have broken the back of Al-Qaida in Pakistan”.28

Pakistan has proved a valuable partner in war against terrorism. The progress has been at a high political cost and rising domestic pressure against government. Tow assignation attempts on other senior leader including Prime Minister Shokat Aziz and also former Prime Minister late Benazir Bhuto killed by terrorist, when she came back with a promise to fight the extremists even more vigoursly than President Musharaf. 29 All these attacks of terrorism by extremists, due to reaction of Pakistan’s partnership with the US on war against terrorism.

Though first suicide attack in Pakistan occurred even before 9/11 in 1995, when a Egyptian bomber Smashed his explosive – Laden truck into the embassy of Egypt, which killed 14 peoples. After 9/11 suicide attack started in Pakistan as a reaction to government decision regarding war on terrorism. In 2002 an attack on French engineers and than a series of bombing stated in Pakistan in which thousands people killed, military and foreigners were attacked in similar manner.30 Pakistani forces are engaged with local militants, which have been a high number of causalities on either side and resulted in the displacement of almost half million innocent people from affected area to camps established by provincial government.

Whatever cooperation Pakistan extends in the war against terrorism, every appreciation expressed by US would come with the advice on the need to do more about putting on end to, what is generally referred to as Cross-Border infiltration?31 The trust deficit despite Pakistan efforts in the war on terror among US and Pakistan lingers. The ‘do more’ policy of war on terror reviewed unfavorably by Pakistani officials, including the President Musharaf.

According to senior Pakistani official, the answer to US expectations and demands on increased Pakistani Counter-terrorism Cooperation is “What is the limit?” How much more Pakistan can do, given its internal security threats from “extremism, obscurantism, and religious bigotry”, and external challenges from neighboring countries remain to be seen.32 President Musharaf constantly reminded the world that Pakistan had made a “great sacrifice” in the war on terror. In April 2007, Musharaf also indicated Pakistan is being maligned by the west because of lack of understanding of the environment”, and that he had no other alternative but to continue counter-terrorism cooperation.33

The general perception is that US expectations of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism cooperation are unrealistic. Many Pakistani disagree with the US, war on terrorism, a three letter world they say have nurtured a culture of suspicion of US intensions, and fostered the growing of anti-Americanism across the Muslim world. A retired Pakistani General noted that there is “no clash of cultures” between the west and Islam; rather US policies that feed anti-Americanism and are seen as a destructive track policy”. A US retired Army officer also shared this view, he said publicly, “America and Pakistan are growing apart, and partly because US channels are anti-Pakistan”.34

Despite measured success against terrorists US concerns over “Pakistan Jihad Culture” cost doubt on the country’s ability and willingness to reign in terror. Mounting international pressure on Pakistan to eliminate the AL-Qaida, Taliban and jihadi groups that threaten US and Pakistani interest continue to exacerbate tension between two allies.

Apart from international threats to Pakistan, the country faces many setbacks and enduring obstacles. Additional factors of instability include the war in Afghanistan, on going fighting in the tribal areas against the foreign militants, India a meld Kabul affairs, Balochistan tension and Kashmir problem.35

The problem has been further compounded by the repeated violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by US forces in Afghanistan. Violation continue unabated even the top American political and military leadership repeatedly assured Pakistan that its sovereignty would be respected.36 President Bush on September 9, 2008, declaring Pakistan another battleground of American fight against extremism like Iraq and Afghanistan warned that “remote areas of Pakistan pose a new challenge to US”. Similar views that were expressed by Barack Obama. Recently US special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrook visited Pakistan. He delivered a stern message of Obama government that, eliminate the safe heavens of militants and the US will delivered the $ 1.5 billion, promised yearly in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. He also told about the safety of military convoys headed for Afghanistan, and equipping Pakistan armed forces with counter-insurgency paraphernalia.

The security-first policy approach of US may have wondering for many in the world that how is Obama administration different from Bush administration. President Obama has put talk of soft power options, but it appears that Pakistan would remain first and foremost security challenge. Consider the drone strikes on FATA, publically, Pakistan government and army oppose such strikes and denounce them as unlawful. On its part US maintain that the drone, Strikes are essential part of its strategy to counter the threat to Afghanistan from FATA.37

On February 11, 2009, US President Barack Obama telephoned; to President Asif Ali Zardari a day after his personal envoy met the Pakistani leaders with a message from his hoss urging Pakistan to be a “Stalwart ally” in the fight against terrorism. Ministry for Foreign Affairs issued a statement that two leader agreed on, the need for a strategy to try and resolve the regional problems. President Zardari expressed hope that, the new US strategy would be a “beneficial change for the world”, particularly for South Asia region and Pak-US relations. Obama administration also promised to triple US economic aid to Pakistan. President Osama said in a statement that his envoy Richard Holbrook was trying to encourage Pakistan to be “a Stalwart ally” and work in a regional fashion to root out those “safe heaved” in FAT.38

In a briefing in last week of March 2009, President Obama told that, US forces could tae action against terrorist within Pakistani area if necessary. The US Defense Minister also criticized Pakistani ISI, and warned that ISI should dislike himself from terrorist in Afghanistan. Similarly US Civil Society and army leadership are of the view that tribal areas of Pakistan are safe heavens of Al-Qaida and Taliban and government of Pakistan have no control upon them.39 US drone attacks are continuing in FATA and other parts of NWFP, and they are continuously violating Pakistan Sovereignty. If drone attack will not stop, it will be very dangerous for Pakistan’s sovereignty as a state.

The declaration of war on terrorism has provided US with an umbrella of opportunities to push forward its other agendas; the most important is to sustain its world dominance as the world sole supper power. To achieve this objective the US has to acquire control over the world energy resources in the Middle East, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia and maintain a higher degree of military superiority.40

Many scholars of the world view that, the war on terror is an excuse but real game is oil politics. The US tried to exploit these terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon for energy resources. September 11, provided US an opportunity to attack on Afghanistan and Iraq and to increase its military presence in strategic points throughout the world.41

President Bush, war against terrorism in Afghanistan and its moving to Iraq is a clear indication to capture oil resources. In case of attack on Afghanistan, US wanted to capture energy resources of Caspian Sea. The US was involved in Central Asia since the early 1990. One of the key concerns for US policy makers has been how to secure the oil and natural gas resources in the first half of 21st century. The Caspian sea resource has been estimated to hold 100 billion to 200 billion barrels of oil. Natural gas resources or reserves are estimated at 7.9 trillion Cubic meters.42

The US supported martially Taliban because it was interested in obtaining Contact for the oil and gas pipeline from Turkmenistan for US, firm Unocal. Unocal’s vice President Chris Taggart appreciated Taliban’s occupation of Kabul. The US Spokesman Glyn Davies was reported to have said. “US can see nothing objectionable about the brand of Islamic law the Taliban has imposed”.43 Unocal, a US backed oil firm hired those consultants who were involved during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, US ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley and a former UN official Charlos Santes. 44 In this pipeline game, Taliban government wanted to receive rent for pipeline, also demanded from oil companies to build roads, water supplies, telephone lines and electricity power projects in the Country.45 When the deal was not final and US turned against Taliban when Mullah Omer began to negotiating with Bridas on oil firm of Argentina, for the construction of the pipeline from Turkmenistan.46

The second round of war against terrorism took place in Iraq. Before Iraq the innocent Afghani had savored the taste of war on terrorism, which was even more destructive than the terrorism itself. The tyrannical doctrine of pre-emption invented to justify the control of Iraqi oil, is now catch word of American foreign policy. In his January 2002, State of Union address, President Bush broadened the war on terror initiated in response to September 11, Mr. Bush said that the US would peruse two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps; disrupt terrorist plans, and regime that seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the US and the world. President Bush said that Iraq could provide weapons of mass destructions to terrorists or it could help those groups to develop their own weapons.47

In the case of Iraq, it was insatiable appetite of the US oil business for the countries 112 billions barrels of resources. Sadam Hessian has kept the American oil companies out of Iraq’s oil and gas field, while the Russian, French, Chinese, Italian and Algerian governments have reached oil agreement with Iraq.48

No country can hope to rule the world without controlling its access to oil. September 11 provided US with an excuse for sending its troops in Central Asia and Middle east to control oil resources. The US war against terrorism in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction proved fruitless. In October 2003, Weapons inspectors reported that tit has found no weapons of mass destruction, and later the head of the group, David Kay resigned and told Congress that “We were all wrong, probably” about the existence of such weapons.49

This has led to a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories, about who was really behind these terrorist attacks. People have different views and perceptions. Most of the view that the Bush administration actually attacked the twin towers itself. Some theories say that the failure of the US intelligence to prevent the attacks of 9/11 from taking place is proof that US government was itself involved. Some theories say that September 11 strategy was prepared most before the actual attack and logic of this incident of attack was for rousing Public opinion in favor of war.50

At present war against terrorism has also become diplomatic tool in the hands of powerful nations, to achieve their political objective, as the sanctions were used in pre 9/11 period to pressurize the countries for compliance to the agenda of powerful. Many countries are using the pretext of war against terrorist for their objectives.

Especially India and Israel have exploited the 9/11 incident to achieve their own interests against Kashmiri and Palestinian peoples, using brutal force in the name of war against terrorism. Authoritarian regimes especially in the developing countries are using pretext of war against terrorism to suppress political dissent and deny basic rights. The US has set the example of “regime Change” in Afghanistan, where the Pakhtoon majority was sideline and power was given to minority ethnic groups in the country that is why there is no peace in Afghanistan and same situation in Iraq.51

Currently the US have vested interest in assisting Pakistan, so long as the war on terrorism is driving force. Much analysis view that US will terrorism is driving force. Many analysis views that, US will engage with India, its long term strategic partner, because the Indian elephant is competitor against Chinese tiger. According to western source, Pakistan is key to US tactical interests but “India is the future”.

In a seminar by Pakistan Institute for International Affair (PIIA) in Karachi, many prominent Scholars worried that US – Pakistan Partnership was one sided relationship. This relationship only based on terrorism, and all express that bilateral relation is short - sighted and could be short lived. Senior US policy analyst described the US-Pakistan relationship as “alternating engagement and with drawl” and, a retire Pakistani diplomat indicate that neither any country have “shared perspective” nor continuity, larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision” beyond issues, specific problems and solutions.52

In short term Pakistan played its card well, by safeguarding its interests, for long term safeguarding its interests it depends on unfolding nature of war on terrorism. In this region Pakistan has also experienced the consequences of engineered acts of terrorism by Indian Intelligence agencies, like the attack of October 1, 2001 in Siringar on Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly, and December 3, 2001 in Delhi on Indian Parliament building 53 and recently attacks on Bumbai Hotels, to use them as a pretest for US – style preemptive strike against Pakistan.54 These events led to an-unprecedented level of troop’s deployment on the Indo-Pak border that brought two countries to verge of war.55 Suck types of acts may be expected from India in future.

Pakistan needs to make periodic assessments of the developments, which are taking place in the country, region and around the world and adjust its responses accordingly in order to preserve its long term national interests. Pakistan needs to change its foreign policy regarding war on terrorism. New elected government should take concrete step in this regard.

References:

1.	Ijaz Khan, “Pakistan and the war against terrorism in Afghanistan: Choices, Pragmatism and the decision”. Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3, No. 4, Winter 2004,p.3. 2.	Fazal-ur-Rehman, “Pakistan and the war against on Terrorism” on www.articles/terrorism 911.htm. 3.	The Time magazine, 17 December 2001, P. 16 4.	Andrew Cottey, “Afghanistan and the new dynamics of intervention: Counter terrorism and nation building,” (SIPRI year book 2003) p. 172. 5.	Dawn, 10 October 2001. 6.	Dawn, 9 October 2001. 7.	Andrew Cotley, Op.cit. p. 173. 8.	The Economist, October 27, 2001. 9.	Andrew Coltey, Op.cit. 175. 10.	The Washington Post, November 18, 2001 11.	Dawn, 20, 2001 12.	The Time Magzine, op.cit P. 16 13.	S.H. Zadi, “The Taliban venture and the lessons for Pakistan”, Pakistan Horizon, Karachi, October 2001, p. 16. 14.	Pakistan-US-CENTCOM on http://www.informationclearing-house.info/Pakistan-US-Centcom.htm, p. 1. 15.	Shalini Chawla, “US and Pakistan, Evolution of Military Relationship Post 9/11:, Indian Defense Review 2005, p. 86. 16.	Pakistan –US-CENTCOM, op.cit p. 2. 17.	Shalini Chawla, op.cit. p. 87. 18.	US State Department Fact Sheet on http://USinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror.htm. 19.	Nirangan Dass, “Terrorist Organization of the World” (Delhi: Kalinga Publications 2005) p. 15. 20.	Ibid, p. 16. 21.	C. Mahaputra, “Pakistan Role in war against Terrorism” Cast and Benefits, on www.IPCS.org/htm 22.	Dr. M.Ishaque Fani, “US Pakistan Relations after 9/11: options and Compulsions, Pakistan vision, Vol. 5, No. 1, July 2004, p.7. 23.	Dawn, October 2, 2003. 24.	Dr. Fani, op.cit, p.74. 25.	Ibid, p. 85. 26.	Shalini Chawla, op.cit, p. 88. 27.	Farhana Ali, “US – Pakistan Cooperation: The war on terrorism and Beyond”, Strategic Insight, Vol. VI, Issue. 4, June 2007, p. 2. 28.	Ibid, p.2. 29.	LT. G. Hamid Nawaz, “The war on Terror: The way forward for Pakistan” www.Terrorism.Articles.htm. 30.	Terrorist Activities in Pakistan and US war on Terror on www.ITBusinessEdg.com. 31.	The News Islamabad, March 23, 2003. 32.	Farhana Ali, op.cit, p.1. 33.	Dawn, April 15, 2007 34.	Farhana Ali, op.cit, p. 2 35.	Ibid, p. 4. 36.	Hamid Nawaz, op.cit. 37.	Dawn, 12 February 2009. 38.	Ibid. 39.	Daily Jung (Urdu), April 5, 2009. 40.	Fazal-ur-Rehman, op.cit, p. 10. 41.	The Guardian, October 20, 2003 42.	Rizwan Zeb, “USA in Centeral Asia and the Caucasus (1992 - 2000), Regional Studies, Vol. XXII, No. 1, Winter 2003 – 04, p. 2. 43.	Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Kamal Mutinuddin, “Post 9/11 Afghanistan” South Asia Journal, 2005, p. 115. 44.	The Times of India, October 16, 2001. 45.	Ahmed Rashid, “A Path pared with pitfalls,” Economic Review, October 4, 2001, p.16. 46.	Kamal, op.cit, p. 115. 47.	Bush and Iraq on www.P.Bush/statements.html. 48.	The Nation, May 4, 2003. 49.	The Nation, July 15, 2004. 50.	David C Raport, “The Forth Wave: September 11 in the History of Terrorism”, (New York: Current Publications, 2001), p. 124. 51.	Dr. Shireen M. Mazari, “Defining Terrorism”, Strategic Studies, Vol. XXI, No. 4, Winter 2001. 52.	Farhana Ali, op.cit, p. 3. 53.	Dr. Fazal, op.cit, p. 10. 54.	Dawn, 25 January 2009. 55.	Dr. Fazal, op.cit, p. 10.