Musharraf, Kasparov and the Tree of Terrorism

Russian Grandmaster's question about terrorism makes Pakistani General uncomfortable

If Russian President Vladimir Putin is paying any attention to the international exploits of his chief political rival, he may well feel just as uncomfortable as former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did recently.

Speaking alongside General Musharraf at a conference in New Delhi, Kasparov asked him a question that made him noticably skittish.

In the question, Kasparov likened terrorism to a problematic tree. He noted that when dealing with such a tree -- perhaps one whose roots threaten to grow through the foundation of a house -- the best strategy wasn't to periodically trim the leaves, but rather to deprive it of its water source.

Reportedly, Musharraf attempted to avoid answering the question, insisting that the Pakistani government doesn't provide support to terrorists, and insisting that it was the Afghan drug trade that was supplying terrorists.

Kasparov's terror tree has recieved support from Pakistan's military, mainly from the Inter-Intelligence Service (ISI). While Pakistan's official policy -- both under Musharraf's regime and under the current Pakistani People's Party government -- is to oppose terrorists, it hasn't always done a convincing job of doing this in practice.

Of course, it's another thing if the tree proves to be somewhat useful. Islamic militancy and terrorism has certainly been a fruit-bearing tree for Musharraf -- it's helped him justify coup d'etats in Pakistan.

The ISI has been known to provide material support to terrorists. Whether its out of sympathy for their aims or because the Pakistani military has found them useful -- justifying ever-higher annual expenditures on miliary spending -- is a bit more a complex matter.

Even if Musharraf's administration never directly provided material support to terrorist organizations his half-hearted attempts to control them have certainly proven to be a form of support all their own.

It's important to note that the administration of current Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani hasn't done any better. Their practical hand over of the Swat region to the Taliban will provide shelter to Taliban and other Islamic Militants that will strengthen their operations throughout both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

General Pervez Musharraf could have cut off the water supply to the tree of terrorism long ago -- if only by controlling the Pakistani border.

Sadly, Gary Kasparov seems to be one of the few leaders willing to stand up and tell him as much. Vladimir Putin must be a little worried to see that his unelected rival is a stronger international leader than he is.

Time For the Commonwealth to Step Up to The Plate

The time to stop violence in Pakistan is now

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has the toughest job in the entire world right now.

Of course, it isn't as if the job wasn't hard enough before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first woman to lead a Muslim country, had previously described herself as the person Muslim extremists fear most.

She may have been right, as an Al Qaida-linked Pakistani extremist attacked Bhutto as she attended a Pakistan People's Party rally in Rawalpindi.

Since Bhutto's death, the powderkeg that is Pakistan has exploded, as PPP supporters have taken to the streets and rioting.

Musharrif has some heavy lifting ahead of him, as his government has promised to bring the Al Qaida militants responsible for the attack on Bhutto to justice.

However, he need not do it alone.

Word has begun to circulate that NATO may assign additional troops to reinforce the Pakistani border in order to prevent Taliban and Al Qaida militants from passing back and forth at will.

This is a good start.

However, this is also an opportunity for the Commonwealth to pitch in stabilizing a critical member state by way of a peacekeeping mission. With 58 member states with a combined up a grand total of 1.9 billion people, (although India alone constitutes one billion of this number -- but more on this shortly) the Commonwealth could certainly muster manpower to spare.

Fielding Commonwealth peacekeeprs in Pakistan would carry the added benefit of fielding a multicultural force less likely to be deemed an occupation force by Pakistani locals.

To top it off, at least Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, has a fully trained, fully equipped and reliable military. Commonwealth forces would merely be reinforcing them.

Of course, engaging the Commonwealth in Pakistan is far from a perfect solution. Participation by troops from India, in particular, could only exacerbate the violent situation, and for obvious reasons.

There are also valid questions as to whether or not many African countries, in particular, could afford to dispatch forces to Pakistan. Britain, Canada and Australia would certainly be obligated to help out financially in order to make this happen.

Commonwealth engagement in Pakistan would also have a positive effect on the war in Afghanistan, as insurgents would have fewer places to hide out when necessary: certainly a plus in the books of many. Anything that can help end the conflict in Afghanistan sooner can certainly be regarded as a good thing.

The Commonwealth is certainly an organization that could use a boost to its international credibility. Flexing some muscle in Pakistan, as some other commentators have suggested, could provide just such a boost.

Musharraf would do well to call some friends to help him with his heavy lifting.