The third of Pakistan's new Agosta 90B submarines, PNS Hamza. Photo: DCN.
Enough troops...US won't end airstrikes...
MINGORA, Pakistan (AP) Pakistan's president is insisting that his army has enough troops in the northwest to handle the fight against Taliban militants. He tells NBC that his country's existence is at stake there. Tens of thousands more civilians fled the fighting there today during a brief lifting of a curfew.Pakistan's army says it's killed hundreds of militants since the offensive began last week.
WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama's national security adviser says the nation can't fight with "one hand tied behind our back." So, he's refusing to rule out any action in Afghanistan, and says the U.S. won't end airstrikes there. James Jones tells ABC that the U.S. will continue to act based on the best intelligence available. Afghanistan's president appealed for an end to those strikes after raids that were blamed in the deaths of dozens of civilians.
...What becomes apparent is that the Pakistani public is faced with a hydra-headed monster, and it is unable to agree on which is the greatest of all evils. Do we, the people, react to the lack of governance at the centre and the occupation of our territories by an ideological group? Do we, as a Muslim majority, protest the perversion of Islam at the hands of violent, suicide-bombing militants? Do we, as feminists, decry the violation of women’s rights? Or do we, as humanists, focus on the plight of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people who for too long have been written off as collateral damage? Indeed, understanding the paralysis of civil society in the face of the Taliban onslaught lies at the heart of the identity crisis that Pakistan has faced since its inception....
This is the common dilemma of separating church and state and yet in Muslim countries it is nearly impossible to find such a divide. To allow such 'co-mingling' of priorities with extremist groups still in force around the globe, the need for such separation is vital. However, if candidates of such countries were 'monotone' in their appearance how does one know exactly whom is being elected? Or does it matter? Is such a statement bigoted?
The analogy to the USA elections of 2000 and 2004 can be drawn. While the country, especially the election of 2000 expected an election of a President void of religious bias, it took place anyway. Once G. W. Bush was elected the landscape of the governing body in the federal authority changed and took on a unilateral Christian Conservative undertone following the flogging of the American electorate on September 11, 2001 by al Qaeda.
In countries such as Pakistan where the people desperately want peace within their borders that emulate democratic principles and freedom, the potential dangers of militiants coming to power are all to present allowing destabilization and bloodless coups.
The words of President Zardari while visiting the USA were clear. It was while his wife, Benazir, was Prime Minister that the first rumblings of destabilization occurred allowing Musharraf his claim to authority. The Pakistani people have to separate religious extremism from a benevolent religious authority. Radical religious dogma must be viewed as a threat to Pakistan's sovereignty and civil rights. Religious theology cannot be a government directive, nor should the courts reflect such bias.
It seems plainly obvious to me, the Pakistan President Zardari has a very easy task. He needs to promote the 'understanding' that citizens of Pakistan don't have to choose between religion and democratized principles within their lives. They can have both. Sorting out the 'understanding' for Pakistani citizens can be as simple as 'consenting' to have 'the best' of both while separating the authority of religion from government.
Free elections should be 'safe elections' with candidates that are trustworthy with proven benevolent human rights records.
In Muslim countries where democracy is welcome as a government and elections occur, there needs to be a 'qualifying' movement through the ranks of the political theater. In countries where violence, destabilization, civil and human rights violations are more than possible, the candidates need to qualify for elections proven in their loyality to the capacity they have shown for benevolence to the country. The people that vote, should not fear to vote and mistakenly place a violent authority in its ranks, so much as a 'strong' authority. There is a huge difference between candidates that 'strongly and determinately' govern as opposed to those that promote violence as a methodology.
In countries, such as Pakistan, the electorate still await education to the process of securing their country away from violence. They need a trusted figure, such as Benazir's spouse, President Zardari, to 'chat' with Pakistan openly regarding the decision of 'good choices' rather than 'partisan choices.' If peace is to work in Pakistan and Civil Rights take the prominent place in every election, the President needs to 'help' the citizens 'accept' responsible decision making through addresses to the country on 'processing progress' as opposed to 'reacting to events.'
Progress toward Civil Rights is far different and more predictable than 'sudden' proclamation. Democracy is not a violent or sudden process, it is a transitional process. President Zardari will find a way to talk to the people of Pakistan. He'll make it happen.
....That said, there are many Pakistanis who openly describe themselves as anti-Taliban. But what exactly does that mean? Opposition to Talibanisation has been interpreted in myriad ways: anti-violence, pro-education, pro-nationalism, anti-sectarianism, pro-democracy and more.
Reframe the question in a religious context and the debate is endless. Some Pakistanis are outraged at extremist interpretations of Islam. Others are advocating that democracy be upheld and a separation of church, rather, mosque and state be enshrined in the constitution once and for all....
