“The US drone fired three missiles and hit a house used by militants. Five militants have been killed,” A senior security official in Peshawar said. An intelligence official in Miranshah also confirmed the attack and the toll. The Monday attack is the second in three days, following a similar strike in North Waziristan on Saturday which killed four militants, the official said.

The nationalities of the militants killed in the Monday attack were not immediately clear, but intelligence officials in the area said most of those killed were Afghans. Residents in Miranshah said militants linked to the Haqqani network were using the house as a training camp. The missile attack also badly damaged a nearby house, injuring 13 people including civilian women and children, an intelligence official in Miranshah said.

The words she has elected to use have been sensible. ‘Let us discuss and air the differences as friends and partners and let us not magnify them to the extent of exclusion of many areas of agreement and cooperation.’

Topping the list of those ‘areas of agreement and cooperation’ are two things — which many here are loath to admit: one, dollars flowing directly from the US treasury and indirectly from the IFIs that have helped stave off disaster for the economy; and two, cooperation in the fight against Al-Qaeda which menaces the state here and poses a threat to regional stability. Neither has gained much traction with the public or created goodwill for the Americans because the focus has been on the other ‘sins’ of a profligate, not-very-competent Pakistani government and the American ‘hidden agenda’ to undermine Pakistan’s security and territorial integrity. Be that as it may, and in fact reversing public opinion in Pakistan in the near term may be a lost cause, it is good to at least see a softer side of American diplomacy, one that emphasises opportunities and not threats.

The News editor wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan, her first as US secretary of state, marks a fairly distinct break with the past. Unlike her tough-talking and deliberately abrasive predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, Ms Clinton went out of her way to be charming, open and to talk to a wide range of people. Her experiences in the US Senate also meant she brought in a mature handling of queries and a better understanding of how complex the regional situation is. The interaction with students at the Government College University in Lahore should have been especially instructive for the person who will be playing a key role in devising foreign policy in Washington. The students who lined up to question her were not hostile. But they made it clear they shared with the majority of citizens a lack of trust for the US and scepticism about intentions. To her credit Ms Clinton accepted there were good grounds for this lack of faith. Her assurance that the Obama administration represented real change is one that will need though to be proven through deeds and not just words. The sometimes startled response from the secretary of state to the far tougher questions thrown at her by a TV panel made up of top anchor people suggests the government functionaries she met in Islamabad may have offered up a typically sanitized picture of prevailing sentiments. It is, therefore, encouraging that despite the immense security concerns Hillary Clinton made it a point to see the ‘real’ Pakistan, also holding a meeting with Mian Nawaz Sharif in his home city.

But for all her pleasant smiles, Ms Clinton did not shy away from making some things quite clear. She stated that she believed the Al Qaeda leadership was indeed in Pakistan, she stressed an all-out effort on every front was needed against terrorism and she focused on how much Pakistan had to gain, especially in economic terms, by normalizing ties with India. If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true. For reasons buried in ideology, many of us, whether we draw influence from the right or the left of the political spectrum, have difficulty in suggesting that an alliance with the US could benefit Pakistan. It would also be naïve to assume that Washington wishes to ‘help’ Pakistan as an ally. International relations are after all geared around self-interest and self-preservation. There is nothing noble about Washington’s focus on Islamabad. But it is possible that at this particular moment in history the interests of both nations coincide. This is something we should use to our advantage.

Overcoming the militant threat and entering in to a less acrimonious relationship with India would benefit most citizens. There are segments that would stand to lose, but ways must be found to prevent them from subverting the interests of the majority. They have done so repeatedly through the decades since 1947. The current US setup seems to have recognized some of this. Ms Clinton also emphasized in this respect a dramatic change in policy from those of the George W Bush-led team. The Bush administration’s virtually blind backing for former president Musharraf created a number of the problems we face today. Our political leaders must assess the way we can most effectively counter these. In realistic terms, going beyond rhetoric or wishful thinking, it is inevitable that we will need to work with the US at least for some years to come. We cannot on our own hope to conquer that monster of terrorism that Washington’s policies helped create. Nor do we have the economic or moral wherewithal to do this. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to better understand concerns in Pakistan and to open wider the doors of communication. There are still plenty of reasons to be wary of US intentions. But for now, the opportunities for a more open relation laid out by the secretary of state need to be seized and utilized to pull our country out of the pit into which it has stumbled as a result of errors made in the past.

Whereas The Nation’s editor chose these words for her visit to Pakistan:

IF Secretary Hillary Clinton suspected Pakistan of hiding the truth about Al-Qaeda, she would have known by the time she left for home that those with whom she had interacted here had not been so enamoured of her rationalisation of questionable deals between the two governments. They had been, in fact, put off by her evasiveness when confronted with questions of concern to them and doubted her explanations in equal measure. Imagine as high a US official as Secretary of State visiting a frontline state in the war on terror, who is unfailingly kept abreast of important developments by the vast official propaganda machinery! And then imagine Ms Clinton being unaware of the incident of US diplomats caught roaming around with unlicensed arms on the streets of Islamabad at 3 O’clock in the morning. Remember that since they hold diplomatic passports, it becomes a direct concern of the State Department whose portfolio she holds. She must have felt embarrassed while pleading ignorance, no doubt, though schooled in diplomatic norms first as the First Lady and now as the top US diplomat she managed to hide her embarrassment well. But she must have felt that her remarks cut no ice with the audience. The same story would hold good for her assurances that the Kerry-Lugar Act did not impinge on Pakistan’s sovereignty.

When Secretary Clinton met PML-N leadership, including Mian Nawaz Sharif, Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, during her visit to Lahore on Thursday, she found the discussion centring round Washington’s disregard of Pakistani nation’s sensitivities. Be it the drone attacks that callously destroy innocent lives, occasionally taking out an Al-Qaeda operative, or the humiliating conditionalities of the Kerry-Lugar Act, or be it the loose canon Xe Worldwide (Blackwater) and its subsidiaries – all reflect painful onslaught on Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the face of stark facts, her denials just did not work. Apart from expressing reservations on these issues, which Mian Nawaz asked Ms Clinton to remove, he also drew her attention towards President Obama’s thesis (now lying buried under the Indian pressure) that peace in South Asia hinges on a just solution of the Kashmir dispute.

Generally her visit was not all threatening as it has been during the Bush administration, however, United States has to do a lot more if it wants Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror in the region. Pakistan has lost and losing the lives of men women and children many folds than any other partner in the war on terror.

This is what Dawn’s editor has to say about Rehman Malik’s comment about the involvement of India in Balochistan:

Talking about Indian involvement in terrorists activities in Pakistan, the Interior Minister Rehman Malik has come down hard on India. ‘We have solid evidence that not only in Balochistan but India is involved in almost every terrorist activity in Pakistan,’ Mr Malik recently claimed. On Balochistan, it is understood that, despite denials by both sides, Pakistan handed over a dossier on Indian activities there at the meeting between the Pakistani and Indian prime ministers in Sharm el Sheikh in July 2009, capping a long series of complaints on the issue by Pakistan.

What is notable about the claims of Indian involvement in Balochistan is that the international powers have not downplayed them. On the issue of Indian involvement in ‘almost every terrorist’ act in Pakistan, however, Mr Malik’s claim would appear to be an exaggeration, for it is well known that there are non-state actors inside Pakistan whose goal is to destabilize the state for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with India; indeed, many of those non-state actors regard ‘Hindu’ India as an even bigger enemy.

Be that as it may, we believe that the gist of Mr Malik’s blunt comments on India is correct. Whatever India may or may not be doing inside Pakistan, it is clear that the Indians are still unwilling to move out of the accusation mode. From the prime minister downwards, hardly a few days pass without some statement on ‘Pakistani’ involvement in yet-to-be-committed terrorist acts inside India. Puzzlingly, the Indians appear to be content with issuing public warnings and seem uninterested in sharing intelligence with Pakistan on the planning of such attacks. Surely, whatever doubts the Indian government has about Pakistan’s bona fides as a partner in the fight against terrorism, it has a bigger duty to try and thwart future attacks. Only public warnings but no intelligence-sharing seems to run contrary to the fulfillment of that duty.

More generally, the Indian pressure is counterproductive for two reasons. One, Indian cage-rattling is liable to distract the security establishment here just as the Pakistan Army is locked in battle with militant groups. True, India’s concerns are about the Kashmir-centric, anti-Indian militants, whereas the Pakistan Army is focused on fighting the anti-state militants. But consider this: many of the groups the army is fighting today are the same ones it was willing to ‘shield’ only a few years ago. Clearly, then, the Pakistan Army’s security calculations are not inflexible. Second, the problems between India and Pakistan go beyond militancy and involve genuine disputes. Ignoring the latter will not help defeat the former; India must recognize this and re-engage a Pakistani government that has repeatedly expressed its willingness to talk.

Source:

Only one terrorist named Aqeel alias Dr. Usman was captured alive. He was the ringleader as well. He was reportedly behind the attack on Sirilankan Cricket Team in Lahore, Pakistan also.

It might be surprising to know that all the terrorists were wearing suicidal bomb jackets including Aqeel. The other terrorists blew themselves when they were about to be captured. However, Aqeel took off his explossives and exploded them. Then he hid himselve in the false ceiling of the building. Unlucky for Aqeel that the false ceiling could not hold him for long and he fell on the ground and hit his head on the floor and got injured. He was then arrested.

Here is a lesson for all those brain washed men and women that their leaders who are teaching them to kill themselves in the name of religion or whatever wil try their best to save their lives when it comes to giving lives. The terrorists leader Aqeel who was leading the group saved his life where as I am sure he mush have encouraged the others to kill themselves. It these terrorists are working for a nobal cause that they are willing to give their lives, then why the leader saved his life? Simply because it is very easy for these terrorists to use others and play with their lives. Their leader will try their best to save their lives.

The other lesson learnt from these attacks is that without the help of the common Pakistani citizens, it is not possible to stop these terrorists. The terrorists who attacked GHQ lived for fome three months in a house near Islamabad and no body noticed their activities. It is very important for every Pakistani citizen to keep their eyes and ear open and report any susupicious activties. That is the only way to fight and defeat these terrorists.

There have been few more terrorists attacks in Pakistan in the city of Lahore, Pakistan since the attack on GHQ. These activities should open the eyes of the sympathizers of these terrorists groups and I hope that people will be more active and vigilant now. With full commitment, will and resolve to defeat these killers, the Pakistan can come out of this mess as victorious and even stronger.

So far the principle result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan following the events of 9-11 has been the destabilization of Pakistan. That breakdown is peaking with the events in what AP calls the “Swat town” of Mingora—actually a city of 375,000 from which all but 20,000 have fled as government forces moved in, strafing it with gunships. We’re talking urban guerrilla warfare, house-to-house fighting, not on the Afghan border but 50 miles away in the Swat Valley. We’re talking about Pakistani troops fighting to reclaim the nearby Malam Jabba ski resort from the Tehreek-e-Taliban, who since last year have been using it as a training center and logistics base. We’re talking about two million people fleeing the fighting in the valley and 160,000 in government refugee camps.We’re talking about the Pakistani Army sometimes fighting over the last year to retake towns from Taliban forces in the Buner region of the North-West Frontier Province that are closer to the capital of Islamabad than the Afghan border. And while the Talibs apparently lack popular support, even among the Pashtuns (who are 15 % of the Pakistani population—26 million and 42% of the Afghan population—14 million) they have been able to inflict embarrassing defeats on the army.

He further writes:

The Army had been deployed before against Indian forces. But the disproportionately Pashtun force had never confronted or been trained to confront fanatical Pashtun jihadis—particularly when the issue was the implementation of the Sharia. Not surprisingly it performed badly and Islamabad wound up cutting a deal in February to implement Islamic law in the Swat Valley. U.S. Defense Secretary Gates can criticize that judgment in stating, “We want to support [the Pakistanis]. We want to help them in any way we can. But it is important that they recognize the real threats to their country.” And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can tell Congress, “I think the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists [by making a peace deal in Swat]. Changing paradigms and mindsets is not easy, but I do believe there is an increasing awareness of not just the Pakistani government but the Pakistani people that this insurgency coming closer and closer to major cities does pose such a threat.”

It’s easy to lecture about such things, to judge the actions of another government facing a crisis. But isn’t it obvious that what Clinton has since at least April been calling Pakistan’s “existential threat” wouldn’t be closing in on the cities of that country had the U.S. not responded to 9-11 with the knee-jerk bombing of Afghanistan and the toppling of the Taliban? President Pervez Musharraf has recalled that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told him soon after 9-11 to “prepare to go back to the Stone Age” if he didn’t cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism. The existential threat to Pakistan was the Bush administration!

Read full article by Professor Gary Leupp.

These days we have been hearing from Pakistani government and other many intellectuals that Pakistan army is fighting the war for the very existence of Pakistan. However, as more and more people are being killed, this war is causing destablization of Pakistan.