It would appear that the world media is now beginning to slam the future of Pakistan, with claims that their history has left little to no option of anything other then a disasterous future. The Wall Street Journal has written an article which has focussed on the history of nuclear arms within the country, and the prospects for their future.

Today the arsenal is under the control of its military leaders; it is well protected, concealed and dispersed. But if the country fell into the wrong hands—those of the militant Islamic jihadists and al Qaeda—so would the arsenal. The U.S. and the rest of the world would face the worst security threat since the end of the Cold War. Containing this nuclear threat would be difficult, if not impossible.

The danger of Pakistan becoming a jihadist state is real. Just before her murder in December 2007, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said she believed al Qaeda would be marching on Islamabad in two years. A jihadist Pakistan would be a global game changer—the world’s second largest Muslim state with nuclear weapons breeding a hothouse of terrorism.

The mention of the ‘Muslim’ state is a worrying one which could almost be claimed as racism. The article makes out, and does little to stopped what has now become a pre-concieved stigma in the western world in regards to terrorism. There can be little doubt that the media has promoted, since the events of September 11 2001, the Muslim religion has been dragged through the proverbial mud. While, most of the media have been unrelenting on the faith, some news sources such as BBC  have been somewhat more honest, as seen in this report.

Lobna Ismael is the daughter of Egyptian immigrants to the US. She is a Muslim and she wears the traditional headscarf, the hijab.

“There’s been a range of backlash toward Arab and Muslim Americans,” she says.

“It has included verbal assaults, it has included physical assaults. We had a woman who just recently was walking down the street and wearing hijab, and was stabbed and called a terrorist. We’ve had our mosque defamed with graffiti and people shooting bullets into the windows of our mosque.”

“Particularly after the 9/11 attacks, we in the law enforcement community have obviously geared up to be on the lookout for terrorism. And I guess the immediate reaction might have been to look at Muslims in a sceptical way,”

The Wall Street Journal article in question not only refers to Pakistan as a Muslim problem once, but twice, further on in the article.

Americans should stay away from idle talk by politicians and pundits about “securing” Pakistan’s weapons by force. Such chatter is not only unrealistic but actually counterproductive. It makes the atmosphere for serious work with Pakistan on nuclear security harder, not easier. It gives the jihadists further ammunition for their charge that America secretly plans to disarm the only Muslim state with a bomb in cahoots with India and Israel.

However, once one looks past all of the messaged regarding race and religion, the article does delve into the history of Pakistan as a volatile state, in particular in regards to nuclear weapons. The following passage is only an introduction to the long line of history which the article speaks of. In doing so, he is able to identify and justify his opinions for where the country is headed.

The origins of the Pakistani nuclear program lie in the deep national humiliation of the 1971 war with India that led to the partition of the country, the independence of Bangladesh and the destruction of the dream of a single Muslim state for all of south Asia’s Muslim population. The military dictator at the time, Yaqub Khan, presided over the loss of half the nation and the surrender of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers in Dacca. The Pakistani establishment determined it must develop a nuclear weapon to counter India’s conventional superiority.

The new prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, convened the country’s top 50 scientists secretly in January 1972 and challenged them to build a bomb. He famously said that Pakistanis would sacrifice everything and “eat grass” to get a nuclear deterrent.

The 1974 Indian nuclear explosion only intensified the quest. Mr. Bhutto received an unsolicited letter from a Pakistani who had studied in Louvain, Belgium, Abdul Qadeer Khan, offering to help by stealing sensitive centrifuge technology from his new employers at a nuclear facility in the Netherlands. Over the next few years—with the assistance of the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)—Mr. Khan would steal the key technology to help Pakistan produce fissionable material to make a bomb.

The article is also paticulary scathing on the Pakistani government and their agencies, in particular in regards to the connections of the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to numerous terrorsit groups, not the least of which those who were behind the Mumbai hotel sieges towards the end of last year.

Another ISI-backed group, Lashkar e Taiba, was behind the terror attack last November in Mumbai that kept the city in chaos for 60 hours. Again the specter of war between two nuclear weapons states was on the global agenda. Again India showed remarkable restraint in response to provocation from Pakistan, grounded in the reality that New Delhi has no attractive military options for retaliation against an opponent armed with nuclear weapons.

The article appears to make it clear that was has been for a long time a big issue for India is now set to be a big issue world wide.

In short, Pakistan’s acquisition of a nuclear deterrent has worked to intimidate its opponent and to allow Pakistan to harbor terrorists who attack India and even to initiate limited military operations. What is not clear is how long India will tolerate such behavior. There are many in India who argue Pakistan must be taught a lesson for Mumbai.

Of course, if the Pakistani state becomes a jihadist state, then the extremists will inherit the arsenal. There would be calls from the outside to “secure” Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, but since no outsider knows where most of them are located, these calls would be a hollow threat. Even if force was used to capture some of the weapons, Pakistan would retain most of them and the expertise to build more. Finally, Pakistan would use its weapons to defend itself.

U.S. options would be severely limited by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We would need to work with India, Afghanistan, China and others to isolate the danger.

While there is no question there is some truth to what has been written throughout this article, it may even across as a fear and smear campaign against the Pakistani state. The article at time portrays racist issues and paints a very negative picture for the future of Pakistan. At the same time it should be noted that there is some extremely negative connotations written in regards to the I.S.I. It is also cleafr that the article is written from a strong American perspective, with words such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ when references to American options are made. Whether this has an effect on the messages portrayed throughout the article is questionable.

According to the most recent United Nations numbers, about 2.4 million Pakistanis have registered as displaced persons since May 2. Currently, the clashes are concentrated near Mingora, the valley’s largest city.

While at the start of this conflict the media seemed consigned to simply reporting the facts, such as “Bomb Blast Kills 16 in Peweshar,” there is a new angle which seems to be aiming at involving much more of the civillian side, both in a humanitarian manner, and their involvement with fighting. CNN has also reported in a manner that now seems to be evoking a sense of emotion.

But fighting in the valley over the past three years has made people’s lives “worse than hell,” one former resident told CNN.

The 50-year-old man asked that his name be withheld because he fears retribution from the Taliban. He fled Hazara Gul Jaba Aligama, a village 5 miles (8 kilometers) west of Mingora, on Sunday.

Meanwhile, The Jamestown Foundation – a media company that claims to be “without political agenda” has claimed that the Pakistani millitary is now beginning to use any remaining civillians that have not yet fled the region.

While the government has asked the local people to help the military in identifying Taliban hideouts, the Taliban have been broadcasting warnings against supporting the military.

What we are now beginning to see is the media covering the Pakistan situation in a new light. Previously, the media had been in full support of the Pakistani millitary without a negative connotation, which the local government received all of the horrible press for their apparent instabilty. Now, however the media is beginning to present the Pakistani as just as unreliable, and somewhat ‘terrorising’ in their own manner to society, as CNN has pushed across in their report regarding the Pakistani refugees.

The group got as far as Chakdara, a town controlled by the military near the southern end of the valley, where a curfew prohibited them from traveling further, the men said. Those displaced have no food or water and are depending on handouts; they have received nothing from the military.

Women were staying in two school buildings, Shah said, but men and children were out in the heat with no shelter. Civilians feel betrayed at being told to move, he said, then stopped at Chakdara.

The army has been bombing civilian areas from jets and helicopters, said the 50-year-old who asked not to be named. Shelling continues round the clock.

Shah said gunshots, artillery and mortars could be heard as the exodus took place.

Painda Khan, a Mingora shop owner who lives in the village of Shahgai Saidu Sharif, said that out of his 22-member family, one person has been killed by military shelling and another one is missing. Ten of his relatives fled with him to Islamabad.

Khan, who estimates his age at between 65 and 70, told CNN life around Mingora was so desperate, he cannot put it into words. Both he and the 50-year-old man said no food or water remain besides what has been stockpiled. There is no power, and all land lines and cell phones have jammed, and citizens have been confined to their homes by military curfews.

Shah said he has no issues with the military operations, but doesn’t understand why civilians have to suffer as a consequence. Over the past two years, he said, the majority of casualties in Swat have been civilians — some 2,700 of them. CNN was not able to independently confirm this toll with the Pakistani military.

The 50-year-old blamed both the Taliban and the military, saying it seems they are both enemies of the people. The Taliban, he said, are using locals as human shields and infiltrating the civilian population, shooting from in their midst. In retaliation, the army fires back indiscriminately without differentiating between militants and noncombatants. As a result, he said, civilians make up the majority of the dead.

While the non mainstream media organisation The Jamestown Foundation appears to be no where near as harsh as CNN in their latest report in Pakistan, they are certainly not hiding the fact that the Taliban are winning this war, and the manner in which they are doing so, combined with the CNN findings (above) into the Pakistani military could cause a large civilian backlash within the region.

The Taliban are smart enough to have exploited these outlets in their propaganda war against the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. They incite the local youth to rise up for jihad against the foreign armies and urge elderly men and women to give their moral and financial support to the cause of jihad. Typically, the broadcasts are made from mosques and madrassas where hundreds of men are present to listen to the FM Mullahs in person while women listen in their homes. The broadcasts are highly interactive – not only do men ask questions of the mullahs in these live broadcasts but women also send questions to be answered by the mullahs, who have successfully won a majority of the women over to their side by asking men to give women their legal share of inheritances, especially land.

However, no matter which ange the media may be covering these clashes with in regards to the portrayal of both the Taliban and the Pakistani army, there is no doubt the situation is worsening.  There are however, brief glimmers of hope by the western media, which seems at times intent on promoting the small amounts of progress which is being made within the region, ignoring the bigger issues. AFP has reported that the military has gained up to fifty percent of control of a town within the Swan Valley, while ignoring the other pressing issues throughout the entire region.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AFP) — Pakistani troops fought street battles Tuesday, struggling for control of Swat valley’s capital as fears grew of a looming catastrophe for people trapped by the anti-Taliban offensive.

As the punishing assault against the Islamist insurgents entered a fifth week, the military said troops had secured 50 percent of Mingora, the capital of the scenic northwest Swat valley and a crucial tactical battleground.

CNN it would appear however are presenting a much more negative connotation of the Pakistani millitary, highlighting the problems they are having in the region past the civillains, but moreso with the almost entire control the Taliban appear to have.

The Taliban takes over any houses vacated by civilians, he said, as well as their possessions.

The Taliban are ruling the Mingora area by fear, he said. Anyone who speaks up against them or does anything the Taliban doesn’t like gets killed within a day. Civilians’ bodies are left in the center of town, he said, with a note warning the Taliban is watching and anyone who tries to remove the body before a time specified in the note will be punished.

Taliban fighters and checkpoints can be seen in every village. The Taliban has seized all civilians’ guns and ammunition and planted mines in the roads, he said.

Some former Mingora residents are helping the Pakistani military identify Taliban hideouts in the valley, Khan said.

The debate appears to be continuing with the reasons behind the problems in the North-west of Pakistan also, with The Chicago Tribune reporting on the continued claims by the Taliban that the Americans wishing to implement troops into the region are behind their motivation for this stand off and continued terrorist attacks.

Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan said the militants were in control of “90 percent” of the valley and that they were responding to army violations of the peace deal, citing attacks on insurgents and boosting of troop numbers. He accused the government of caving to U.S. pressure.

In contrast to these claims however, this also at times appears to be in the pursuit of Jihad – a Holy war, with The Australian quoting the same Taliban spokesperson speaking of their wish to have the enforcement of Muslim law within the region, and that being their motivation behind the attacks.

..saying the militia’s “aides” would stay in the city and the Taliban would continue to fight for the enforcement of Sharia Law until “our last drop of blood”.

Whatever the case may be now in regards to what the motivation is, it is now clear to see that the fighting is continuing to worsen within the region, causing a huge humanitarian crisis. With this we have been provided which much more variety in regards to media coverage, with may different organisations putting across differing views on the Taliban, Pakistan military and the situation in general.

Pakistani Refugees flee the Swan Valley; Source: CNN

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the “failures” in the war in Iraq.   Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. 

Through this article, Tim Ryan has shown the view that the public is effected by the media. This in itself is a question of modern day journalism, whether public is effected by the media, or as is often seen throughout this blog, the media is a representation of the public.  It can be argued that the apparent split view on the war in the Pakistani/Afghan area in the media in what should be done, and the negativity surrounding it, is due to what societies views are. However this article expresses the ideology that the media has instead enforced these views to the public in regards to the war in Iraq.

 The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States’ efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents’ resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own.  Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Tim Ryan also expresses his frustration in the view that the media have only reported negative news regarding the war. This is something he may well have a valid point in making given that the coverage in regards to Afghanistan and Pakistan displayed in this blog has been mostly of a negative nature. This may well fit into the very popular belief that journalists are much more likely to write about negative stories as they will grab headlines. Ryan also notes that people die everyday, not neccisarily for a good cause, and thus questions why deaths at the war in Iraq have been covered so heavily.

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: “Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed,” or “More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly  from Obesity-Related Diseases”?  Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? 

 . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency.  Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies’ breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter’s last stand.  In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing.  Put one in the win column for the good guys, right?  Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.  Just yesterday, a major news agency’s website lead read: “Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad” and “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” True, yes. Comprehensive, no.  Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not.  Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents.  Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Ryan also displays some clear agendas in that he is becoming increasingly frustrated in the fact that the media is portraying their own people as the antagonists, while their enemy is presneted as the protagonists. It is here however the piece begins to fall apart when Ryan attempts to compare the coverage of abuse of prisoners withinin Abu Ghuraid Prison, to the torture of an American worker in Iraq. This comparison is somewhat questionable given the high media coverage by journalists when one of their own is taken kidnapped within Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also no way to justify the abuse which was given to prisoners within Abu Ghuraid Prison, and this part of the article begins to show raise question marks over whether this is simply a piece with an agenda for Tim Ryan to defend his own men.

What about the media’s portrayal of the enemy?  Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions?  What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of Fallujah?  Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib?

The article then continues to further fall apart when it goesa as far as to suggest conspiracy within the media and fails to ignore simple facts such as the ‘Iraqi Government’ which banned Iraqi media group Al Jazeera.

Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting.  Wonder where they get their information now?  Well, if you go to the Internet, you’ll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN’s home page. Very interesting.

Despite the serious question marks which can be raised over this article, and clear agendas which are being produced it does make some very serious points. Away from all of the violent speech of not only encouraging killing, but glorifying it, it does question the role of the media within society, and does hightlight the fact that the majority of the talk of the Iraq war, and as we can see indeed, the ‘War on Terror’ is about negativity within the media. The question must be asked then, are these wars really a failure, or just a picture painted by the media as Tim Ryan points out.

While this article is one of bias and centres around the War in Iraq, a lot can be taken from it in regards to the ‘War on Terror,’ and the violence within Pakistan. The talk of prison violence can be compared to that within Guantanamo Bay, and various Westeners have been taken hostage within both nations. It should be noted also that while the article is indeed from a few years ago now, many of the issues raised still hold true, and can be used strongly to evaluate the ways in which the media have cover National Defence and Terrorism.

The abuse within Abu Ghuraib Prison. Photo: New York Times

Suicide bombers have again hit in Pakistan. But why? Photo: Mohsin Raza; Reuters

It would appear that American Missile attacks on Pakistan and Afghanistan has claimed further lives as Pakistan and The United States move further towards a full scale war. BBC has reported that at least 27 people have been killed in a blast at a police checkpoint on Saturday.

A suicide bomber driving a pick-up truck has killed 27 people in an attack at a police checkpoint in north-western Pakistan, police say.

Most of the dead are reported to be police or soldiers and at least 62 people were injured.

Police say the bomber rammed his pick-up into a convoy at the checkpoint near the town of Hangu.

The fact that it has been reported that the attack appears to have been mostly on military and police continues the worrying trend within Pakistan. Late last month, Pakistani terrorists went on a rampage within a police academy killing seven people. This complete disdain for authority is a certain worry for any Western hopes for peace within the area,  given that it would appear that the terrorists look as  if they will answer to no-one.  The attacks on these officials also look set to continue which is a worrying trend, showing pakistan may now be the world’s number one problem right now.

A spokesman for Pakistani Taleban chief Baitullah Mehsud told news agencies by telephone that militants would continue its attacks on security forces.

The article itself is written as an informative hard news piece, and is therefore mostly free from bias. It shows both opinions, the fact that Pakistan is in trouble, which is definately best highlighted by the fact that these terrorists are believed to have crossed the border for Afghanistan and have played out multiple attacks over the past two years. This side of the argument does give forth the view that something desperately needs to be done before long as it would appear that following the political instability within the country, it may not be long until terrorists take charge, perhaps through the ‘domino theory’ which has been mentioned by Barack Obama (see blog post below).

The Pakistani Taleban, which is based in the nearby tribal areas, claimed responsibility for the attack.

The militants, who are allied to al-Qaeda, have carried out numerous such attacks over the past two years.

The article, being the factual piece that it is, also does well to present the other side of the story, the belief that many of these recent attacks may well have not happened had it not been for recent American attacks in the region and the plans to deploy more troops to no just Afghanistan but Pakistan also by Barak Obama.

A spokesman for Pakistani Taleban chief Baitullah Mehsud told news agencies by telephone that militants would continue its attacks on security forces.

“It was retaliation for the US drone strikes and security forces will have to see more attacks because our people have suffered many losses in the missile attacks,” he said.

Militants based in Pakistan’s north-west have launched attacks with increasing frequency in recent months.

By presenting the views of both the terrorists, which blame the American attacks, and the fact that terrorists have made it over the border to Pakistan, the article shows the two conflicting ideas, which we have been able to see presented seperately in various articles prior to this one, while covering the latest news story from the region.

The Speech under question. Source: C-Span

It would appear that the honeymoon period for U.S President Barack Obama is now evidently over. After enjoying mostly positive press over the first three months of his first term in office, it would appear that the escalating situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is beginning to bring him down. American news and opinion website Salon has recently written a very condemning article of the newly elected President and the manner in which he is treating the United States population regarding the information he is giving when it comes to Afghanistan. the article itself, while somewhat hypocritical, criticises Obama for a speech he gave recently surrounding the reason for the continued deployment of U.S troops to Afghanistan. The article is critical of what sounds like simple repeated reasons such as the ‘Domino Theory’ which were used throughout the Cold War.

He acknowledged that we deserve a “straightforward answer” as to why the U.S. and NATO are still fighting there. “So let me be clear,” he said, “Al-Qaida and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” But his characterization of what is going on now in Afghanistan, almost eight years after 9/11, was simply not true, and was, indeed, positively misleading. “And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban,” he said, “or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”

Obama described the same sort of domino effect that Washington elites used to ascribe to international communism. In the updated, al-Qaida version, the Taliban might take Kunar Province, and then all of Afghanistan, and might again host al-Qaida, and might then threaten the shores of the United States. He even managed to add an analog to Cambodia to the scenario, saying, “The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan,” and warned, “Make no mistake: Al-Qaida and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.”

This latter-day domino theory of al-Qaida takeovers in South Asia is just as implausible as its earlier iteration in Southeast Asia (ask Thailand or the Philippines). Most of the allegations are not true or are vastly exaggerated. There are very few al-Qaida fighters based in Afghanistan proper. What is being called the “Taliban” is mostly not Taliban at all (in the sense of seminary graduates loyal to Mullah Omar). The groups being branded “Taliban” only have substantial influence in 8 to 10 percent of Afghanistan, and only 4 percent of Afghans say they support them. Some 58 percent of Afghans say that a return of the Taliban is the biggest threat to their country, but almost no one expects it to happen. Moreover, with regard to Pakistan, there is no danger of militants based in the remote Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) taking over that country or “killing” it.

However, through trying to state that Afghanistan and surrounding nations are not under threat, and would indeed be able to survive without an American presence, the article then contradicts itself in it’s criticism of Obama. The article practically insinuates that without American troops the country would never have been able rebuild itself, and that Afghan troops themselves alone would struggle to resist the force of the Taliban within some provinces.

The Kabul government is not on the verge of falling to the Taliban. The Afghan government has 80,000 troops, who benefit from close U.S. air support, and the total number of Taliban fighters in the Pashtun provinces is estimated at 10,000 to 15,000. Kabul is in danger of losing control of some villages in the provinces to dissident Pashtun warlords styled “Taliban,” though it is not clear why the new Afghan army could not expel them if they did so. A smaller, poorly equipped Northern Alliance army defeated 60,000 Taliban with U.S. air support in 2001. And there is no prospect of “al-Qaida” reestablishing bases in Afghanistan from which it could attack the United States. If al-Qaida did come back to Afghanistan, it could simply be bombed and would be attacked by the new Afghan army.

While the article does make some extremely valid points in it’s criticism of Obama, in particularly in regards to the worrying trends of using the same excuses that were used for the Cold War such as the domino theory, it loses strong credibility due to the manner in which it contradicts itself. Nevertheless, the article is a clear representation that the honeymoon period is over for Barak Obama, and that he now needs to make solid ground in this war against terror in an effort to maintain the world’s stability.

It has become evidently clear that the media, and from this we can assume the world at large, can see there is certain trouble brewing within Pakistan and Afghanistan. It has become clear through multiple sources and types of media, that Pakistan is now extremely unstable, and is only further escalating the trouble within what has always been considered a dangerous region. The media has covered this in a manner which while clearly reporting the events and news, have pushed the agenda that something news has to be done. As this is currently a hot topic right around the globe, the articles on this topic do however vary greatly from opinion pieces to hard news articles.

The media do however seem to be however pushing different agendas differing on what their views are for each event. As has been covered in World Terror Scan, different sectors of the media has offered opposing views on issues such as how much blame must be laid on the Pakistani government, the need for troops in the region, and indeed whether more should be sent, the effect of U.S proposals to deploy more troops to the violence within Pakistan and how far is too far in solving the problems in Afghanistan. Positively though, it is healthy to see the media, and therefore likely, much of the world, sees that something needs to be done, it’s just a question of what.

The media does seem to be covering the issue strongly, with various articles world wide each day on the activities within the region. While most of the debate on how to fix this issue has been strongly covered, it would be an interesting piece if the media were to compile the views of many other world leaders who do not current have troops within the region, such as Japan, and also from countries such as South Korea who originally did deploy troops within the region but have since brought them home.

As a whole, the media have appeared to cover the incident well, often with two conflicting views to the one general consensus.

The media is continuing to linch onto the internal troubles within Pakistan and the manner in which this unstable nation is beginning to hamper the security of the world as a whole. Cartoons are now being dedicated to the issue within newspapers, and as can be seen as the one featured in this blog, it would appear that it is now generally agreed that Pakistan is becoming a significantly large promblem.

The cartoon, which was found in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday the 13th April 2009 depicts Pakistan as a ticking-time bomb which is sure to soon explode, and in the process is destroying all in it’s path, in particular any work that has already been done in Afghanistan. Notably, the soldier who is above the bomb only has so much time to fix the problems which are coprrupting both Afghanistan and Pakistan, before this explodes into yet another large war, or at the simplest, an escalation of the problems this earth is already facing as a community.

This blog continues along the recent shift in the media towards Pakistan as a bigger issue the Afghanistan, and continues to plot along the lines of general concensus that terror and instabilty in  Pakistan continues to reign, however it does not weigh into debate on how to stop it, only agreeing that something needs to be done.

The image of the soldier sitting above the ticking time bomb may however express some of the composer’s views. The soldier himself is mixing a mixing pot of Afghanistan and Pakistan, perhaps suggesting that in the composer’s eyes, the two countries are only becoming an interwined problem due to the Western Prescence within the countries. This would certainly agree with the view of many journalists who have written on the subject within the past few months, who, in their view, believe that the continued violence within Pakistan is largely as a result of the threat of an American presence within the country.

Whatever the case may be, this cartoon continues along the general theme within the media that Pakistan is now becoming the masin issue on the War on Terror in the Middle East.

Is this the man to lead Iraq into peace? Photo: Jared Moossy; Wall Street Journal

As problems continue to reign throughout Afghanistan, with soldiers deaths continuing and further violence in the region, questions continue to be asked on how to solve the issue.  One suggestion, raised last month, brought with it many questions also.

The Wall Street Journal reported that an ex-Warlord thought by many in Afghanistan to be one of the only hope for stability in the country, if he were to be elected President. The ex-warlord is known for his demanding styles, but has good records of success, currently in charge of one of the safest provinces, and helped take control peacefully when the Taliban was originally ousted.

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai, a semiliterate former warlord, has an autocratic style, a reputation for doling out government contracts to family and friends, and a personal fortune allegedly amassed via corruption and the opium trade.

Many in Afghanistan think he might also be the country’s best hope for stability.

As the head of one of the country’s most peaceful provinces, Mr. Shirzai has ensured that roads get built, opium poppies are plowed under, and the Taliban are held at bay.

That record in Nangarhar province in the country’s east has made him a serious presidential contender. It has also brought him praise from the U.S., along with a visit last summer from then-Sen. Barack Obama, who the governor likes to joke is a member of his Pashtun tribe, the Barakzais, because of his first name.

Mr. Shirzai is not the only warlord to be grabbing praise either. All around Afghanistan these ex-warlords are succesfully lowering violence in their areas safely, which is something the American presence is struggling to do.

Atta Mohammed Noor, a former warlord and now the governor of Balkh province, has won praise from U.S. officials for moving against opium producers. There is also Ismail Khan, the former head of Herat province. He was removed from office by Mr. Karzai in 2004 amid accusations of human-rights abuses and ignoring the central government, allegations Mr. Khan denies. Since then, the Taliban have made inroads into Herat and crime is flourishing there, prompting Mr. Karzai to consider reinstating Mr. Khan as the province’s governor, a senior Afghan official in Kabul says.

Former warlords with track records of providing for people in their provinces could be critical in the drive to undercut support for the Taliban, say U.S. and Afghan officials.

However, some ask how far is too far? The Wall Street Journalalso reports in the artice that at times he has allowed his personal gunmen to get into shoot-outs with local police, and it must be questioned how safe that would be for the country. Others argue if they could be trusted, as warlords will naturally do whatever is best for their people, no matter what is required.

Opponents say these strongmen also have track records of violence, corruption and a disdain for the rule of law — and thus raise questions about democracy’s place in Afghanistan. With Mr. Karzai’s administration virtually penned in Kabul, and the Taliban resurgent, there is growing debate among diplomats, Afghan officials and analysts over whether a central government can effectively secure the country. Some say a return to a looser federation of regions might ultimately be more viable, even if some of those regions are led by former warlords.

Some have even questioned the work he is doing. While he is getting results, the manner in which he is rebuilding his province ss questionable, given the amount of money he may be making out of this. However Mr. Shirzai is quick to deny these allegations claiming he recieves no more then the money allocated to him by the U.S Government.

Mr. Shirzai says his government has spent millions of dollars on reconstruction projects. He says some of the money came from his own pocket, but most was drawn from a toll of $38 to $57 per ton of cargo levied by his administration on trucks passing into Afghanistan from Pakistan through Nangarhar.

Some businessmen in Jalalabad say Mr. Shirzai is benefiting from the reconstruction efforts in at least one way: They say companies owned by Mr. Shirzai, his family and his associates have been hired to do most of the work. One company named frequently is the Jamal Baba Construction Co., part owned by Mr. Shirzai’s son, Jaan Agha. Mr. Agha couldn’t be reached for comment.

Mr. Shirzai says his son has done only one project for the provincial government — building a road in the Taliban-infested Tora Bora mountains — that four other contractors had been unable to complete. “He lost money on it,” Mr. Shirzai says.

 Mr. Shirzai denies allegations of any past or present corruption or involvement in the drug trade. He says he earns nothing beyond his government salary of about $36,000 a year.

It would seem once again this is an issue in which opinion is genuinly split. If it were to pay off, then it could lead to the end of a lot of violence, given the success he has already had in an area that was originally under Taliban control when he took the lead. However, if it were to fail, then even more violence could ensure, with even the President of the Democratic Afghanistan turning against America. It would seem not even Mr. Shirzai is sure on his opinion, although he does wish to help Afghanistan’s problems.

ma’s decision to send troops now over the Afghan border to Pakistan appears justified. As reported earlier in this blog it is now widely believed that Pakistan is becoming more and more politically unstable and this is beginning to show through the obvious Al-Qaeda presence in the country, as seen with continued terrorist attacks.

Many media organisations have been quick to support Obama’s decision using these terrorist attacks as a reason as to why troops need to enter Pakistan to shut Al-Qaeda down. The Voice of America reports that Obama’s decision to enter troops into Pakistan has been widely supported around the world.

The new U.S. regional strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan unveiled by President Barack Obama last week has won the backing of both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. And earlier this week, 80 countries and organizations attended a U.N.-sponsored meeting on Afghan security and reconstruction.

President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan includes a pledge to deploy more troops to defeat al-Qaida militants and their allies, but also includes a greater emphasis on region diplomacy and economic development.

In just the last week, yet another bomb blast in Pakistan killed another 48 people, as reported in the British newspaper The Telegraph.

A suicide bomb attack on a mosque in northern Pakistan killed 48 and left more than 70 injured after the two-storey building collapsed.

“It was a suicide attack,” he said. “The bomber was standing in the mosque. It’s a two-storey building and it has collapsed.”

Local residents said that a police post next to the mosque had received a bomb threat.

“It’s surprising, those who claim that they are doing jihad and then carry out suicide attacks inside mosques during Friday prayers,” Mr Khan said.

The incident took place after Friday prayers when the mosque was packed with worshippers.

 

 

 

 

This however, was not the only attck which has happened of late within Pakistan. On Monday, a Police Academy was surged by terrorists leaving at least 20 dead, as was reported by AFP.

At least 20 people were killed Monday after gunmen stormed a Pakistan police training school near the eastern city of Lahore, police officials told AFP.

“The number of killed is at least 20,” police sub inspector Amjad Ahmad told AFP outside the police training ground in Manawan.

Other police officials said the number of casualties may be higher given the heavy crossfire between the attackers holed up at the training centre and paramilitary troops who fanned around the perimeter of the ground.

“The number of casualties may be more,” said police official Rias ad Bajwa.

While many would suggest that these terrorist attacks only give further reason for the deployment of troops into Pakistan by Obama,  other articles suggest that this increase in terrorist attacks, such as the two in the last week, are moreso as a result of America’s planned entrance, and this is only resulting in more waste of lives, as AFP reports.

Extremists opposed to the Pakistan government’s decision to side with the United States in its “war on terror” have carried out a series of bombings and other attacks that have killed nearly 1,700 people in less than two years.

The Brisbane Times also appears to be of the opinion that these latest terrorist attcks would more then likely not have occured if Obama had not decided to deploy troops to Pakistan.

Associate Professor Samina Yasmeen, director of the University of Western Australia’s Centre for Muslim States and Societies, believes the surge in Taliban violence in Pakistan may be a reaction to the Obama Administration’s fresh engagement with Pakistan.

“The recent attacks could be in response to US policy,” Professor Yasmeen said.

“When it looks like the Americans want to engage more with Pakistan, the militants may think that the only way to respond is to try to put further fear into people’s hearts.”

It would appear that as with many issues which focus around the war, terror and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan, opinion is split in the media, and therefore more then likely throughout society. It would appear that worldwide, the only general concensus which can be formed is that the violence needs to stop, its just how to do so, that is in question.

Obama has pledged more troops for Afghanistan Photo: Ron Edmonds; AP

While Rudd has been met with a chilly reception regarding the idea of sending more troops and the War in Afghanistan in general in Australia, it is interesting to note the manner in which the idea of Obama sending more troops has been received by the American press. It would appear the American Press, within which many of the media companies were pro both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are now also becoming disillusioned with battle in Afghanistan. Articles, such as this one in the Los Angeles Times, paint a very negative picture almost alluding to the fact that the war has already been lost.

He deflected Schieffer’s opening comment that “this has really now become your war, hasn’t it?”

“I think it’s America’s war,” Obama replied, saying it was a continuation of the effort launched after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Even with his plans for a military buildup, Obama has downsized policy goals for Afghanistan from the ambitions of the Bush administration, which envisioned the invasion as a prelude to democratization

However, in the Voice of America media publication, strong support is still shown for the course. While they acknowledge that the war may indeed be lost, they see it is as important that the war continue in order for the best compromisation be made for ‘the western world’

European Council on Foreign Relations defense specialist Daniel Korski says Afghanistan is expected to dominate talks among leaders celebrating NATO’s 60th anniversary April third and fourth on the French-German border.

“I think a lot of European allies, including France, are looking to the United States to roll out a new Afghan strategy that they can more comfortably buy into, and they will be looking at whether they can up their contribution, their military contribution, their economic contribution, after they have seen that particular strategy,” said Korski.

But many European citizens oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan. French analyst Philippe Moreau Defarges doubts Mr. Obama will convince their governments otherwise.

“It is clear the Europeans and especially the French are not ready to send more troops to Afghanistan,” he said. “It is clear that many of them consider the war in Afghanistan is lost. It is why they are wondering what kind of political solution [Obama] wants to propose and I think the debate will be how we can get out of Afghanistan without any kind of defeat.”

However, it is generally conceded that no matter how bad of a prediciment the war in Afghanistan may be, it is not Obama’s fault that this predicament has been left. The question asked in The Los Angeles Times indicates that this is only really now becoming partly Obama’s war, and as is alluded to in The American Chronicle

President Obama has been in office a scant sixty days, give or take. He inherited a collection of half-baked and totally uncontrolled issues, plans, and international foibles from the Bush Administration, who left office as the most unpopular man ever! There has been no grass growing under the feet of the Obama Administration as they press forward to untangle those carried forward IED´s from the Bush days. The relentless and oftentimes ridiculous right has not helped to quiet those left behind IED´s by offering any viable plans or working with the democrats, but merely tossed more criticism of what has been done out for debate.

As much as the economy has weighed heavily on this new Administration it is not the only problem that requires their attention and action. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan need leadership and procedures to wrap them up and create a stable platform from which to build peace to that war torn region.

Transferring troops to Afghanistan is an equally bad move. What we need to do in Afghanistan is to get out, secure their borders along with the international community and those countries that happen to be contiguous to Afghanistan to ferret out terror as it moves between those treacherous regions and threatens the safety and security of the world. Let the lessons here be that war can never effectuate a lasting and durable peace. War only begets more hatred and violence. Diplomacy must reign supreme!

It would appear now that even in America the general consensus is that even though  the war is believed to be a lost cause as Afghanistan and Iraq look to be heading down the same path that VietNam did, regardless of which leader is at fault. Given so often the media represents the general society, it would appear that the USA is split down the middle on whether this extra deployment of troops will perhaps better a negotiation, or will just lead to a further loss of life in vein. It can be assured though that even though it is generally agreed this is no Obama’s fault, he must act quickly to stop the downward plight of the American nation.