PAKISTAN - THE MAIN SOURCE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS - NEEDS TO BE KICKED HARD TO COOPERATE MEANINGFULLY!

The recent terrorist attacks in Indian city of Mumbai has clearly brought out that Islamic terrorists not only find safe haven in Pakistan, they are also being trained and deployed by Pakistan's ISI. This has been put beyond any shade of doubt by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone captured terrorist in Mumbai.

This terrorist has written a three-page letter to the Pakistani High Commission, stating that as a citizen he was entitled to seek legal help from his own country to fight his case in Indian courts. The document finally settles the debate about the origins of Kasab and his fellow terrorists, and also establishes that the Mumbai attack was planned and launched from Pakistani soil.

US is rightly worried about threats to its own citizens from such attacks, Why? Because, these terrorist acts are supported and abetted by ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency. This is the same agency which helped, in concert with CIA, in creating and training Taleban to fight the Russians during their occupation of Afghanistan.

It is no secret that ISI has factions which still sympathises with Taleban, Al-Qaida and the Islamic terrorists. One of the main reasons why US and NATO forces have not been successful to that extent in Afghanistan, and there is resurgence of insurgency is because the Taleban supporting faction of ISI provides necessary intel and logistics to the adversaries of US/NATO forces.

The reason for American worry is that the pro-Taleban faction of ISI may be covertly supporting some Taleban operation to strike within US. There seems to be some warnings already to this effect. One may ask, why this faction of ISI would support such an act to take place in US? The answer is simple: As long as the Al-Qaida remains alive, ISI would continue to have some leverage with US. Musharraf used this leverage very effectively for his survival.

ISI virtually acts as an autonomous organisation reporting only to the Army chief of Pakistan. This agency is rarely in control of democratically elected Prime Minister or President of Pakistan. Former President Musharraf could control ISI by virtue of having the Army Chief's post at the same time.

Also, the continuance of Taleban and Al-Qaida assures unmitigated flow of funds for ISI, these funds are used by ISI bosses to amass their personal wealth and also to carry out it covert operations in various countries, including India. These covert operations are used by ISI bosses as bargaining cards vis-a-vis their political masters for furthering their own careers.

However, whenever Pakistan is asked to cooperate in actions meant to take out the Taleban/Al-Qaida, it enthusiastically responds but only through glib verbiage. But what happens on ground actually depends on what the controlling factions of ISI decide to do. Generally, the action on ground is just a sham to show to the American masters that Pakistan is cooperating.

Moreover, Pakistan is also the breeding ground of new terrorists - they are created in the hundreds of madrassahs operating in that country. These institutions are providing a steady supply of half-mad radical Muslims ready to die for any 'jihad'. They just need to be brainwashed as the captured terrorist in Mumbai calls it "I was misled, Lashkar's devils ensnared me." (Lashkar is a terrorist outfit supported by ISI).

These madrassahs produce jihadis with newer ideas to operate, the recent one being termed as 'asymmetric tactics'. This tactics was in evidence in the killing of 3 British soldiers in Afghanistan by a 13-year old suicide bomber.

If US, Britain and other west European powers want to be safe from potential Islamic terrorist attacks, they will need to kick the ISI real hard to make it kneel and cooperate in fighting Islamic terrorism. The kicking needs to be done literally using the booted foot, and in the form of most uninhibited tongue lashing through to turning the screws militarily and economically.

Pakistan cooperates best when it is kicked with hobnailed boots. History testifies to this. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his commander-in-chief Hari Singh Nalwa used this philosophy to subjugate and stamp out any potential opposition from the then areas of what constitutes today's Pakistan and Afghanistan (including the border areas between the two countries). It appears this truth has finally dawned on Bush administration but only too late.

As well, it seems President-elect Obama knows a bit of the history, that's why he did tough talking saying "we will stamp out any attempt to repeat Mumbai-like killings." May be he knows the Pakistanis better than the previous American presidents.

So, in summary if US and its western allies want to see an end to the Islamic terrorism in the world, they got to kick Pakistan in to submission and force it to cooperate in real sense in war against terror. But if US continues to allow itself to get fooled by sweet-worded assurances of Pakistani leadership and the ISI, there will be more American blood to be shed - whether in Afghanistan or on the US soil itself. One hopes this will not happen because US would have seen through by now the Pakistani sham and its habit of lying shamelessly.

"TEAM OF RIVALS' MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST RECIPE FOR OBAMA

It is interesting to read that people are finding similarities in names of rumoured appointees to President-elect Obama's cabinet and what former President Abraham Lincoln did during his cabinet formation process. Induction of some of Lincoln's rivals in his team has been called "team of rivals".

In Obama's case his Democrat race rival Hillary Clinton's name is doing rounds for Secretary of State's position. In fact, Mr. Obama has already chosen one of his rivals - Democrat nomination race rival Joe Biden - as his running mate.

It seems Mr. Obama derives lots of inspiration from former President Abraham Lincoln and it is possible that he may be thinking seriously about co-opting some of his 'rivals' in his cabinet or for some important position in his administration.

However, one hopes that the similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln would end at team formation level only.

What I am alluding to is that Dei Gratia there would be no similarity between the two with regard to end of their political careers. Media reports indicate that a certain section of American society is not able to reconcile to Obama's victory for American presidency.

Let me illustrate this point. MSNBC ran a report on Nov 15 titled "Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - From California to Maine, 'hundreds' of incidents reveal racism in America". Two sections of the report particularly caused some unease and concern. One stated - "One (incident) was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: "I hope Obama gets assassinated."

The other stated - "Potok (Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes), who is white, said he believes there is "a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them."

One hopes that Mr. Obama will be provided impregnable protection by the concerned security agencies and he will be able to usher in the 'change' that he wants to bring in the country.

Back to his "team of rivals". Mrs. Clinton for Secy of State is in my opinion not a good strategy for simply the following reasons: Did Senator Clinton really do something notable in foreign policy matters? What is her claim to fame in terms of diplomatic achievement, and what did she do in her career, including when she was First Lady, to justify that she has some special acumen for full-time diplomatic assignment?

Media reports say that John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration for Secy of State position. John Kerry?!! Does he have the necessary rapier-like sharpness and the grasp to justify even shortlisting? In 2008 he appears too dull and out of depth to merit any consideration.

Of all the names, Bill Richardson seems to be the best candidate of them all. He has undertaken 'real' diplomatic assignments; he has good grasp of energy issues too. He seems to be slightly less sharper though than he used to be 8 years ago.

I wonder, is there no one else in whole of US who could be talent scouted for this position, say, someone like Condi Rice? If the eventual appointee has to be from someone who endorsed and/or campaigned for Obama, in that case Richardson seems to be the best bet.

If at all, Mrs. Clinton could be assigned to overhaul the health care system because the campaign rhetoric of both Clinton and Obama on health care issues were almost same. For this assignment any baggage of Bill Clinton will most likely not be an impediment for Hillary - neither during the cabinet nomination process, nor during discharge of her job. To be honest, Bill can be a real nuisance. He is too shrewd to be corralled.

Let us hope Obama's well wishers and able advisers will guide him to zero in on most appropriate choices to fill his cabinet positions. As well, President-elect Obama and his family will be suitably protected from all potential dangers and hazards. The world is waiting with bated breath for Mr. Obama to step in to White House and help usher in changes the world desperately needs.