As you’ve probably heard through the usual channels, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has resigned in the face of impending impeachment charges. This is the first step, and a good one, toward reforming Pakistan’s political structure, but the security situation in Pakistan is still very dire. You have the Taliban civil war in the tribal regions, ever escalating tensions with their nuclear-armed foe India, and an internal power struggle with their own intelligence services over ties to jihadi groups. But for just a moment, we’re allowed to be at least satisfied that the brutal dictator, whose contemptible negelect led to the assasination of Benazir Bhutto, has finally stepped down.

The story is by now a cliche. For years, the Bush Administration has had a “Musharraf Policy” instead of a Pakistan policy. Even while US troops suffered withering insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, Musharraf was simultaneously cutting deals with the Taliban and American weapons manufacturers. When his power was threatened democratically, Musharraf declared a state of emergency, which Washington backed, and promptly gunned down his detractors in the streets and put his most powerful political opponents under house arrest. Most damning of all, Musharraf refused to give Benazir Bhutto adequate security and protection, all but handing her over to the jihadis for assasination. The fact that these same jihadis are trained and supported by Musharraf’s own intelligence services makes him doubly accountable.

But there is some small justice in this democratic process. Though weak, Pakistan’s parliament is exerting power and control. And best of all, Musharraf is denied the usual pomp and circumstance of a dictator falling. He won’t be made a farsical martyr like the sadist Saddam Hussein, and neither will he be the supernova flame-out of Benazir Bhutto. Instead he will suffer the same humiliating defeat that cruel and lousy democratic leaders have known for a long time: A peaceful transfer of power. No lights, no cameras, just Musharraf and his rotten destroyed reputation all alone to digest. The terrible murder of Bhutto should be enough to haunt his nightmares for years to come, and that’s just the beginning of a long, long rap sheet.

And hey, let’s not forget, the same thing will happen to Bush in just a few short years. That’s something the whole world can celebrate.

Popularity: 96% [?]

From BBC via Intellibriefs:

Mir Balaach Marri, alleged head of the banned Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), was killed in Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence sources told the BBC.

Mr Balaach’s brother, Sardar Gazain Marri, said he had learnt of the rebel leader’s death on Tuesday evening.

“Some of his comrades informed me he had been martyred,” he told the BBC.

“I cannot disclose the location as it would further threaten the lives of those with him.”

Sardar Marri says he believes his brother was killed in an army operation in Balochistan.

“I believe there were a clashes in the province on Tuesday in which Mir Balaach was killed.”

However, intelligence officials in Pakistan told the BBC the rebel leader had been killed in Afghanistan.

They also declined to discuss the circumstances surrounding his killing.

Analysts say the killing could have been the result of a covert operation.

This story is especially intriguing because of the dispute over whether Marri was killed in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Pakistan has long insisted that the Baloch separatists are affiliated with the Taliban in Afghanistan (which also has a sizable Baloch population), and therefore they must be crushed. However, because the Baloch populations stretch from Pakistan all the way into southern Iran, and because they happen to be flush with natural gas and minerals, the US has long taken an interest in the BLA. In fact, it’s been widely rumored that the CIA, and possibly Mossad, have been actively aiding Baloch terrorist cells in southern Afghanistan and Iran. Of course Pakistani Intelligence insists that Marri was killed in Afghanistan, implying that he was there fighting for the Taliban.

Is it possible that, to facilitate and expedite Pakistani General Musharraf’s internal crackdown on opposition, the US gave the Pakistani military actionable intelligence against Marri, who may or may not have been our ally against both Iran and the Taliban? If so, it shows some lack of resolve on the part of the US Administration, given that the strategic value of an independent and capital rich Balochistan far outweighs the short term tactical benefits of an appeased Pakistani dictator. There is much to the story of Balochistan that remains to be told.

For more on Balochistan: Exiled Gov’t (semi-official) - SAAG - BlueBloggin - BalochWarna - MIPT

Popularity: 3% [?]

Much has been made about US pressure on General Musharraf to doff his uniform, restore constitutional order, and crackdown on Taliban militants in the tribal regions of Pakistan. How has the Pakistani government responded?

From Long War Journal via Time

Sufi Mohammed is one of the most dangerous Taliban leaders in the Northwest Frontier Province. As the leader of the outlawed Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM - the Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad’s Sharia Law). He is said to have “close links with the administration of the Lal Masjid,” according to Sharif Virk, the chief of police for the Northwest Frontier Province as well as senior al Qaeda leaders.

Time Magazine reported Sufi was released “in hopes that he can help calm the situation” in Swat and Shangla, the neighboring district which the Taliban overran last week. Sufi’s release was endorsed by General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the Director General of military operations in the region. “Shuja calls it part of the ‘political effort’ needed to accompany the military campaign,” Time reported. “Brute use of force alone would only take us backwards,” said Shuja.

It seems like odd timing to release a senior Taliban leader now. The article continues…

The release of Sufi is a clear sign the Pakistani government and the military are prepared to cut a deal with the Taliban in Swat and Shangla. The formation of a “peace jirga” is another. On November 18, Dawn reported local tribal leaders and members of the political parties have formed a peace jirga to end the fighting in Swat.

How has this so far escaped the attention of Washington? It could be that they haven’t noticed one single prisoner out of over 3,000. The LA Times has this:

More than 3,000 people jailed in Pakistan under emergency rule have been released in recent days, the Interior Ministry said today, the latest sign that embattled President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was rolling back some of the harsher measures he has taken against his opponents.

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema put the exact figure of those freed in recent days at 3,416 — including lawyers and political activists — and said more than 2,000 people remained jailed.

“The process has started. More are being released today,” Cheema said of the releases. He said those still in detention “would be freed soon,” though he said the cases of some facing criminal charges could take longer.

One could presume that out of those 3,000 released, more than just Sufi Mohammed are aligned with the Taliban. After all, the LA Times goes on to report that the prisoner release doesn’t include higher-ranking members of the opposition. In addition, the crackdown itself continues.

The release of political opponents in Pakistan came hours after judges hand-picked by Musharraf quashed legal challenges to his disputed re-election as president. Still, many high-ranking party activists and leaders, such as former cricket star Imran Khan, remained in prison. Khan began a hunger strike Monday to protest emergency rule.

And while some people were being showed out of detention facilities, others were being led in.

In the southern city of Karachi, police detained about 150 journalists today after clashing with them during a protest against the state of emergency, witnesses said. Two reporters were seen bleeding from head injuries.

Police also detained 23 journalists after they tried to hold a rally in the southern city of Hyderabad to protest press restrictions, said Ali Hassan, a local journalist who was present at the rally.

It appears that, though the stated goal of emergency rule is to curb the Taliban and facilitate democracy, General Musharraf is actually, and apparently quite purposefully, doing exactly the opposite; Strengthening the Taliban and demolishing democratic opposition.

One wonders how long US patience with Musharraf will last beyond the current administration. The US cannot withdraw aid earmarked for the war on terror, and Russia and China will support Pakistan’s strategic interests if the US will not. If Musharraf continues to fracture Pakistan internally, the US may be left with no other choice than to allow India to once again swallow up its breakaway western province.

Popularity: 2% [?]

From Intellibriefs via Indo-Asian News Service (subscription):

India appears to have failed in persuading principal military ally Russia to stop China from supplying RD-93 aircraft engines to Pakistan for their Joint Fighter-17 (JF-17) Thunder programme, a report in Jane’s Defence Weekly says…

Earlier this year, China handed over two JF-17 fighters to Pakistan with the RD-93 engines under the equal partnership agreement between the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex. Pakistan plans an initial production schedule of 16 JF-17s.

Russia had contracted to supply China 100 RD-93 engines with an option of providing 400 more that, it now appears, are definitely being transferred to Pakistan as part of Moscow’s overall pressure tactics to keep India within its armaments fold.

What does this have to do with Biden’s Pakistan policy? Watch this video from JoeBiden.com and, at about 2 minutes in, Biden explains his views on US military aid to Pakistan vis a vis India

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfAjxivRgM]

In other words, China and Russia have seen to it that even if Biden is successful in cutting off strategic aid to Pakistan, it will not have the desired effect of damaging Musharraf’s credibility in the Pakistani military. If the US cuts off strategic aid to Pakistan, the military will still be well supplied with Strategic fighter, bomber, and support aircraft.

The current political situation in Pakistan has revealed that the Pakistani military is actually quite satisfied with Musharraf. If not, they would never have allowed their assets to be used in Musharraf’s coup/crackdown against the media, parliament, and judiciary. With the exception of an increasingly aggressive Benazir Bhutto, Musharraf has relatively few worries about revolution. Even the pro-Taliban elements in the tribal regions have been relatively appeased. As the Pakistani Army has diverted its resources to the crackdown, the Taliban has conquered a lot of new territory.

I personally respect Senator Biden for being the only candidate to take a realistic, nuanced perspective on Pakistan, as opposed to the seemingly hardline wait-and-see attitude of the other Democratic candidates or the Regime-centric policies favored by the current US Administration. This move by China and Russia leaves Biden a little more cornered on Pakistan policy. Does he ignore it, hope the story doesn’t make it into the mainstream press, and continue with his current policy? Does he propose other aid be cut off from Pakistan, aid not used strategically to counter India? Or, and this is the most difficult option, does he decide to take a much harder, and more public, stance against China, Russia, and their enabling of dictators?

For more on Gen. Musharraf: Official website - Wikipedia
For more on Pakistan’s Emergency Rule: BBC - Wikipedia - The Real News
For more on the Pakistan-India Security Strategy: Council on Foreign Relations - Foreign Policy In Focus - Danger Room

Popularity: 3% [?]

From Kavkaz-Center:

The US is considering a plan to create gangs of mercenaries from local population in the border areas of Pakistan to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban, emulating its tactics in Iraq’s Anbar province.

The plan would involve increasing the number of US trainers in Pakistan by dozens from the current number of around 50, and the direct financing of a separate tribal “paramilitary force” that has so far proved largely ineffective. Washington would also pay militias that agreed to fight al-Qaida and foreign “extremists”…

Some other elements of the campaign, approved in principle by the US and Pakistan, await funding. They include 0m (£170.7m) over several years to help train and equip the frontier corps, a “paramilitary force” that has around 85,000 members and is recruited from border tribes.

The Pentagon has this to add, from GlobalSecurity via Voice of America:

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says the idea of trying to engage Pakistani tribal leaders came from a visit to Pakistan by the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, Admiral Eric Olson. Admiral Olson is the lead defense official in the effort to increase international cooperation in the global war on terror, and to enhance the capabilities of partner nations.

“Admiral Olson went there,” he said. “He met with the Pakistanis. And they were both desirous of figuring out ways in which there could be greater cooperation. That’s it.”

Morrell says the Admiral’s staff at Special Operations Command developed some proposals, and the New York Times says those ideas are now being circulated among experts outside the Defense Department. But Morrell says the ideas have not been endorsed by Admiral Olson or anyone else.

Note that the Pentagon isn’t disavowing the report, they’re simply saying it hasn’t been officially endorsed. Additionally, given that the US policy in Anbar could be reasonably considered a success from a PR point of view, it’s only natural that they would look elsewhere to see if the same policy could be useful. However, it does raise some questions about the consequences of such policy, something that remains unknown even in Anbar. Are these militias pro-US or simply anti-Taliban, and at the heart of it, who is using whom?

Popularity: 2% [?]