Mr. Zardari is in trouble, no doubt on that. Behind the scene political maneuvering from military establishment resulted in media campaign against his person. But on the other hand he is himself responsible for much of his shortcomings. The way he handled the judicial crisis for short term gains was his biggest mistake which shattered the public trust, if there was any, on his leadership abilities. I will give him some points on Musharraf issue as it is first time in our history that a former Army chief is registered for murder and habeas corpus. But his media managers completely failed in proper communication of the historical significance of these FIRs. Someone might view this in the context of judicial activism rather than any initiative on behalf of Zardari as well.

Prima facie, the reluctance of Zardari over the annulment of 17th amendment has more to do with Nov 2010, when he will appoint new COAS. Till that time he wants to retain his position as Supreme Commander of Armed Forces. The annulment of remaining clauses would not be that difficult. His comfort level with Gen Kayani has been badly deteriorated since the infamous press release of ISPR criticizing Kerry-Lugar bill. Although we can trace it back to Kayani's intervention in the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Choudhry. The promotion of Gen Kayani as a most influential person (top 20) in western media outlets before and just after the said reinstatement can be considered as another reason. The "Time" placed him even before Barack Obama in this year's parade of most influential's. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote his intro in the same list. This of course disturbs the delicate balance, in a country like Pakistan, between Civil and Military establishment, where all previous High Treasons were supported by US military aids.

The Nov 2008 Mumbai attacks also damaged the relationship badly. Civilian government took that event as another Kargil adventure with obvious strategic purposes; to put the newly formed government in back foot with respect to its relationship with neighboring India and check any efforts to control security apparatus. Mumbai attack was dubbed as Pakistani response to attack on Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on 20th September 2008 in some security circles. Yet again something of that sort and scale was imminent after July 2008 attack on Indian embassy in Kabul. India and Afghanistan blamed that attack on ISI. Even the so called friendly Taliban blamed the attack on Indo-Pakistan rivalry in spite of their readiness to accept all sort of Headline making violence within Afghanistan. A friend of mine told me after the said attack in Kabul that according to Indian diplomatic circles, Pakistan had crossed the Rubicon. There are of course justified security concerns of Pakistan's military establishment in ever growing Indian interests in Western flank of borders. The report submitted by Lt. Gen. McChrystal, the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan and the ISAF, late September this year, appears to admit that concerns. Under the rubric of "External Influences" he had made following observations:

"Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India."

This clearly reflects his apprehensions on rising Indian involvement and the likely repercussions on curbing the militancy within Afghanistan and in the region. But hold on! We missed a very important link in the whole chain of events as they unfolded. It is the President's interview to the Wall Street Journal, published on 4th Oct 2008, which caused a stir and eyebrows to rise in GHQ. In that interview Mr. Zardari, who had taken the charge of President a month before, proclaimed that ""India has never been a threat to Pakistan". He further added that his democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad. That was a very ambitious statement to say the least if not wrong altogether, in the given circumstances. And within a short span of two months he was realized otherwise by the "hidden hands". Similar escapade was witnessed in Kargil in May-July 1999 when Nawaz Sharif tried to break the ice with India in Feb same year. The attack on Indian parliament in Dec 2001, when Gen (r) Musharraf tried a similar rapprochement in July of that year, conformed to the same pattern.

The government decision to send ISI chief to India after Mumbai attacks, which some Indian media tried to portrayed as being summoned, backfired too. ISPR, though it had disowned ISI in case of Najam Sethi arrest in 1999, released another statement showing ignorance of any such move.

The other reasons of misgiving may include government notification of 26th July 2008, just 20 days after the attack on Indian embassy in Kabul, to place ISI under the control of Interior Ministry. The presence of Rehman Malik, the timing of the decision and the huge stakes involved in the premier intelligence agency made it impossible for the Army to easily swallow the move. In less than 24 hrs, a verification reversed the content of earlier notification.

The final nail in the coffin was the Kerry-Lugar bill. The pure American legislation was indoctrinated as a bilateral agreement. Fabulous clauses were invented out of it to create a general disturbance and anxiety among common people. The roll of some anchors and traditional allies of the establishment like Jamat-e-Islami cannot be overemphasized. Hillary Clinton correctly advised the genuine critics of the legislation to at least read it before making comments on the same. A careful reading of the 'Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009' exposes the real motivation behind this engineered outcry against the bill. I shall discuss here all relevant clauses having any serious impact on bilateral security relations. Let's start with clause 3.2 under the heading of "Findings":

Since 2001, the United States has contributed more than $15,000,000,000 to Pakistan, of which more than $10,000,000,000 has been security-related assistance and direct payments.

This clause, in general, represents the history of our financial relationship with US government. As you may observe, the major chunk of the aid in past eight years remained military oriented. This finding is tried to be addressed by Obama administration in clause 4.3 which admits that the assistance should not "disproportionately focus on security-related assistance". Moving forward we find a reference of Muridke and Quetta in clause 3.6 as following;

the FATA, parts of the NWFP, Quetta in Balochistan, and Muridke in Punjab remain a sanctuary for al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Terikh-e Taliban and affiliated groups from which these groups organize terrorist actions against Pakistan and other countries.

Though there is no problem mentioning TTP, but pointing out Muridke and Quetta have obvious security implications for Pakistan. Besides Quetta which remains in headlines for quite a few months now because of presence of "Taliban Shura", the reference to Muridke is even more disturbing. The importance of Kashmir issue in our security calculus is evident and the role Lashkar-e-Tayyiba is playing in these calculations is apparent now for more than 20 years. But even more important question is what "official" Pakistani position is on this issue? LT was banned not by any civilian government, and they could not even imagined doing so, but by a military ruler back in January 2002 after the attack on Indian parliament. Later on they were put on Consolidated List of terrorist organization under resolution 1267 of UNSC on 2nd May 2005. The organization was listed under the category of "Entities and other groups and undertakings associated with Al-Qaida". This is a joke though as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba never remain affiliated with Al Qaeda and is entirely engaged in Kashmir. On 10 Dec 2008 the list was amended to include "Jamaat-ud-Dawa", a political and charity front for the same organization. This was declared a diplomatic debacle by some analysts because China did not block it though vetoed three similar moves in the past.

Coming back to Taliban, It is interesting to note that the operations of Sirajuddin Haqqani from Pakistani are in focus for a long time now. In 2006 Haqqani issued circular urging militants to continue jihad against the US and the Karzai government in Afghanistan, but opposed attacks in Pakistan. He pointed out that "fighting Pakistan does not conform to Taliban policy...those who [continue to wage] an undeclared war against Pakistan are neither our friends nor shall we allow them in our ranks." Though he later appeared to retract his support for Pakistani military in an interview to CBS but still it is largely believed that he continues to get support from Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen during his visit to Islamabad last year reportedly provided the Pakistani government with intercepted communications between ISI and Taliban. The US national security advisor Gen. James L. Jones said recently that the United States regarded tackling Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan as "the next step" in the conflict in Afghanistan. Pakistan engagement with Afghani Taliban is based upon the premises and calculations that eventually US will withdraw from Afghanistan. In that case present "Pro-Indian" regime of Karzai won't be able to take on Taliban fighters in absence of US troops. There are few alternative views also. Some analysts believe that by continuous assistance to Taliban, Pakistan will be able to force dialogue between them and US. It will result in a more inclusive Afghan government. There are some recent reports which indicated that a sort of exchange of ideas took place between Taliban and US. The talks were brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Taliban confirmed informal exchanges. Other freaks say that this continuous support is a behind the scene agreement between the armies of US and Pakistan. This liaison is meant to support the Military-Industrial Complex and future strategic interests in the region, markedly in China, Iran and future energy corridors. The recent attacks in Iran evinced an area of engagement where US, Pakistan and Taliban can be seen in the same basket. But we were discussing Kerry-Lugar bill.

The next in the list viewed as offensive are sub clauses C.1, C.2 (a) and C.2 (b) of Sec 203 on "Limitations on Certain Assistance". According to this section no security related assistance and Arms transfer will be available for Pakistan till Secretary of State makes the certification that Government of Pakistan is:

1. "providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with" nuclear proliferation.

2. "ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups"

3. Preventing "Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries.

The word "ceasing" in the next clause is considered objectionable because it implies any ongoing support for extremism within military circles. Is this support a reality of fancy? It's a long debate but Nov 2 2007 interview of Benazir Bhutto with David Frost shed some light in these dark and mysterious territories. Benazir blamed elements within intelligence circles conspiring to assassinate her. The name of Brig (r) Ejaz Shah and his relations with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh were quoted as an evidence for this close nexus. Brig (r) Ejaz Shah was Sector Commander of ISI Punjab when Omar Sheikh was released from the Indian custody in exchange for passengers aboard hijacked Indian Airlines flight 814 on 31st Dec 1999. Omar Sheikh was in Indian custody since 1994 for his alleged role in kidnapping 4 western journalists from New Dehli. Gen (r) Musharraf revealed in his book "In the line of fire" that Sheikh was originally recruited by MI6 for its Jihadi Operations in Balkans while he was studying at London School of Economics. At some later stage of his dubious career he became double. His name later on flashed again when Dawn reported on 9th Oct 2001 that FBI investigators had discovered the close relationship Sheikh Omar was maintaining with the then DG ISI Lt Gen Mahmud. It was reported that he transferred $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, one of the lead terrorist of 9/11 hijackings, from UAE, on the instructions of Gen Mahmud. Last time I saw his name previous December when it was surfaced that the same guy was running clandestine terrorist operations from his jail barracks, having the luxury of three cell phones, 18 different SIM's and six batteries. The most sensational part of the story was the disclosure that he called Gen (r) Musharraf on his personal cell phone and threatened to kill him. It was only after receiving this threat Musharraf left for Britain. He was even in contact with Maj Gen (r) Faisal Alvi, the former GOC of SSG, who was later killed on Nov 18 last year. It is interesting to note here that Gen Alvi confided with a British journalist, Carey Schofield, just four days before his murder that certain high ranking officers in Army were going to murder him. He accused same officers for cutting the deals with Baitullah Mehsud and Pakistani Taliban. His other regular contacts from the jail include Atta-ur-Rehman, a Lashkar-e-Jhangvi operative involved in the murder of Daniel Pearl. How could a person, sentenced to capital punishment in a sensitive case, with such a grievous past, enjoy such facilities in jail and got personal cell numbers of such high officials is indeed puzzling. But in any case it explains the rationale behind the relevant clause in Kerry-Lugar bill.

The clause 13 of Sec 302 is disturbing too because it suggests that US will object to any reallocation of Pakistani resources towards the nuclear program which were originally intended for other sectors but diverted only after US aid made available for these sectors through Kerry Lugar bill. Does this clause hamper any routine and regular funds available for our nuclear program? Certainly not. It just requires Secretary of State to report biannually if US funds are indirectly supporting Pakistani nuclear expansion.

But it is the clause C.3 in the section 203 which is the actual apple of discord combined with clause a.15 of section 302 on Monitoring Reports. Clause C.3 requires Secretary of State to certify that "the security forces of Pakistan are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan." The later clause asks Secretary of State to submit a biannual report in consultation of Secretary of Defense, describing among other things, "an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration." Though "Charter of Democracy" envisages same vision and stipulates same procedures for civilian rule in Pakistan but binding the civil aid with such reporting formats vexed the participants of Corps Commander Conference. In our dear Country still, Army doesn't consider itself answerable to the Supreme Commander of Armed Forces (whether its President or PM doesn't matter). Few analysts presented these clauses as a way of American oversight over our armed forces, which is just rubbish. Rather they ask for executive and parliamentary oversight and supervision on military promotions and budget which is a sine qua non of any democracy in the world. So it seems that the current campaign against the Kerry-Lugar bill is primarily directed against our civilian government in the disguise of sovereignty of country. Can someone asks these anchors why they are not coming up with any corruption scandals within ministry of defense as they were used to do during Musharraf regime? Or why no one is protesting over the fact that Shamsi Airbase in Balochistan is being used by US to launch drone strikes within Pakistani tribal belt with the obvious approval of our military command. Why ISPR is not announcing that it doesn't need any US Aid thus rendering any clauses in the said bill ineffective? The answers are plain enough.

The recent political turmoil can be seen in the context of Altaf Hussain's recent statement suggesting Zardari to resign and rare agreement with this suggestion by Munawwar Hassan, always at loggerheads with MQM in the past. It is yet another indication of who is actually pulling the strings. There is another point of view as explained by an analyst recently that the real purpose of putting these clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill was to ensure the confrontation between the government and Army as US has lost its appetite to promote democratic reforms in the region in short terms. She is more interested in saving the war in Afghanistan which is not possible without the active support from the Pakistani Army.

The other route available to President Critics to hit him is the infamous NRO promulgated by the Musharraf to arrange the safe return of late Benazir Bhutto under agreements made between various international players. The Supreme Court directed the federal government in his famous judgment against PCO to present the ordinance in parliament for approval. Fairly speaking, the structure of NRO is against the very nature of impartial and equal justice and infringes upon the rights and jurisdictions of court of law. The latest news, when I am writing this article, suggest that government has reversed her decision to move this ordinance in parliament. The consequences of this reversal would include opening up of corruption cases against many close associates of Zardari. President Zardari is himself immune to any prosecution till he holds his office.

So what's the way out for Zardari? Repealing 17th amendment as promised in charter of democracy and starting proceedings against Musharraf for the trial under article 6. This may take the heat off him. He may retain few rights under 17th amendment for a shorter period of time depending upon his negotiation skills. But the post-March period next year will still remain crucial for political democratic future of Pakistan given its transitory status. Till this moment Nawaz Sharif has played a very positive role in safeguarding democracy in the country and if he continues with that there are very visible chances of him sweeping the next elections.

The ongoing war against terrorist outfits was never an American war in the context of Pakistani society as some reporters want us to believe. Three years prior to 9/11, the government of Punjab published ads in leading newspapers of the country against Taliban government. Taliban were giving protection and support to fugitives involved in a spate of sectarian killings in Pakistan, including Riaz Basra. Hakeemullah Mehsud was leading sectarian violence in Kurram agency before taking over as Head of TTP. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi responsible for attack on GHQ is active in our country since 90's. So this is our own war against extremist militants killing Pakistani citizen well before we heard of Blackwater or September 11 attacks on US soil. Army has no option but to win this war. For achieving that purpose Gen Kayani needs to focus on the growing threat from extremist elements within Pakistan. And contrary to what is being said we need a concrete timetable as such wars cannot be fought endlessly. Any interference in politics by the Army will lead us to unbearable consequences and will be detrimental for the integrity and cohesion of the country. The recent attack on GHQ signals a very dangerous trend and the negotiations during the siege exposed who are the religious mentors of these terrorists' outfits. This has to be stopped because the venomous hatred among our youth for the Army is being spread like a virus by these extremist groups and if not checked and quarantined immediately, it would be too late.

I would end my humble submissions with a very straight question. Why Omar Sheikh and his comrades of Lashkar-e-Jhangivi including Attaur Rehman, Malik Ishaq and Akram Lahori are not hanged till this day? What are the purposes of keeping them alive?