The pressure exerted by the US government on the Pakistan army and government is making things worse, pushing Pakistan to a journey towards the unknown. The ruling classes in Pakistan are happy that they are being provided massive “aid” to fight the militants, despite the fact that the country is being run on the loans extended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Peter Symonds, a frequent contributor to Global Research, wrote an article that was published on May 16, 2010 titled: 'America’s War on Pakistan: US Warns Pakistan of Severe Consequences'. It reads: 'The Obama administration has seized on the failed car bombing in New York’s Times Square on May 1 to insist that the Pakistani military step up its war on Islamic militants and extend its operations into North Waziristan. The US demand is being backed by thinly disguised warnings of economic reprisals and military interventions'.
In a CBS interview recently, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We’ve made it very clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan was to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences.” Under interrogation, Shahzad has allegedly admitted training in Taliban camps in North Waziristan, although the amateurish character of the bombing attempt indicates otherwise. A Tehrik-e-Taliban spokesperson has denied any involvement. Is the alleged terrorist an agent provocateur providing an alibi to proponents of “Long War” to intrude into Pakistan after Iraq and Afghanistan?
An American analyst wrote recently that the US leadership itself creates a monster, then inflates it and then fights it. How true is it for Osama bin Laden?
Clinton is also insisting that Pakistan and India shun their differences. Nobody differs from such pious assertions. But how come Clinton, or for that matter any other US leader, suddenly becomes a peace nick? The motive seems to be simple: Pakistan armed forces should concentrate on “war on terror” rather than look with scepticism towards India with which it had fought four unproductive wars during the last 62 years.
General Kayani is reluctant to open another front in North Waziristan. “It seems Pakistan would undertake an operation in the North Waziristan, but at the time of its choosing. The Pakistan military wants to consolidate its position in Orakzai, Khyber and Bajaur before launching an attack in North Waziristan. It may take a couple of weeks, if not months,” Rizvi believes.
“Pakistan’s economy is on the verge of collapse, with gross domestic product falling from more than 8 per cent growth in 2005 to under 3 per cent last year. More than $3.5 billion in US economic and military assistance is in the pipeline, and a nearly $8 billion International Monetary Fund agreement and a $3.5 billion World Bank financing package are pending,” writes Symonds.
Faced with a severe energy crisis, hundreds of thousands of loom workers in Pakistan are likely to be laid off. Inflation has crippled not only the working classes but even the middle classes. One find thousands of low-income employees having food at free food centres run by eminent social activist Abdus Sattar Edhi because they can’t buy food with their meagre salaries.
The ruling elite look the other way. The economic and political turmoil can push the people of Pakistan towards anarchy since forces that could resist malignancy either do not exist or are too weak and fragile.
In a CBS interview recently, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We’ve made it very clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan was to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences.” Under interrogation, Shahzad has allegedly admitted training in Taliban camps in North Waziristan, although the amateurish character of the bombing attempt indicates otherwise. A Tehrik-e-Taliban spokesperson has denied any involvement. Is the alleged terrorist an agent provocateur providing an alibi to proponents of “Long War” to intrude into Pakistan after Iraq and Afghanistan?
An American analyst wrote recently that the US leadership itself creates a monster, then inflates it and then fights it. How true is it for Osama bin Laden?
Clinton is also insisting that Pakistan and India shun their differences. Nobody differs from such pious assertions. But how come Clinton, or for that matter any other US leader, suddenly becomes a peace nick? The motive seems to be simple: Pakistan armed forces should concentrate on “war on terror” rather than look with scepticism towards India with which it had fought four unproductive wars during the last 62 years.
General Kayani is reluctant to open another front in North Waziristan. “It seems Pakistan would undertake an operation in the North Waziristan, but at the time of its choosing. The Pakistan military wants to consolidate its position in Orakzai, Khyber and Bajaur before launching an attack in North Waziristan. It may take a couple of weeks, if not months,” Rizvi believes.
“Pakistan’s economy is on the verge of collapse, with gross domestic product falling from more than 8 per cent growth in 2005 to under 3 per cent last year. More than $3.5 billion in US economic and military assistance is in the pipeline, and a nearly $8 billion International Monetary Fund agreement and a $3.5 billion World Bank financing package are pending,” writes Symonds.
Faced with a severe energy crisis, hundreds of thousands of loom workers in Pakistan are likely to be laid off. Inflation has crippled not only the working classes but even the middle classes. One find thousands of low-income employees having food at free food centres run by eminent social activist Abdus Sattar Edhi because they can’t buy food with their meagre salaries.
The ruling elite look the other way. The economic and political turmoil can push the people of Pakistan towards anarchy since forces that could resist malignancy either do not exist or are too weak and fragile.
Read these article :-
No comments:
Post a Comment