It is high time we call a spade a spade: We must face up to the fact that the Establishment hierarchy is performing “mercenary services” at the behest of Uncle Sam and the NATO in return for some big bucks. They are sowing the seeds for a bitter harvest.

I really wish that the govs of India and Pak learn to live with each other, and if these two join hands against terrorism and move forward as two proud nuclear peaceful nations of South Asia, then no US or Russia would be able to exploit us.

I have enjoyed your writings, too, and I do believe that you have honest reason for your believe, even if it turns out to be mistaken, as I believe. Your argument to me (”in the light of history…”) for why current events cannot come just from India or local sources seems to hinge on the notion that Pakistan would have no trouble dealing with those sources, while it cannot stop a much more powerful foe, assumed to be the US. I see two problems with this argument:

-The more-powerful foe in your argument doesn’t have to be the US. There are powerful enemies of the US (who would also happily sacrifice Pakistan) who would have much more logical (though evil)reasons to wish instability within Pakistan, precisely to *harm* the US.
-By your logic, countries can easily subdue less-powerful foes, but by this logic, America should not be caught in such an unholy mess in Iraq, and should have no threat from terrorists. On the contrary, terrorism is a means of waging “asymetrical warfare” against a much more powerful foe. A bomb costs much less than the building it destroys. A bomber may operate freely inside a country as long as the bomber is secretive enough to remain unknown by the authorities. Against uniformed armies, your nation and mine can defeat weaker foes, but armies are of little use against terrorists or ununiformed guerillas. These hidden fighters for chaos cannot “win” in the sense of taking control, but they can easily continue to disrupt the control of the stronger force, as long as they have a pool of adherents to their ideas who are willing to lose all for the fight to go on.

Within America, the Neocons are not subtle about their objectives. For example, well before 9/11, it was clear in the press that they wanted war with Iraq, and 9/11 was a convenient excuse for the war they already wanted. Even the worst of these neocons (Ann Coulter comes to mind), in my own reading, have not been so crazy as to covet war with Pakistan, or to covet a chaotic environment where terrorists might get control of your nuclear weapons, which America might then only stop (if it could stop it at all) with a war effort on the scale of World War II. Whenever even a hint of war hits the news, the US stock market (whose interests are dear to all, including the neocons!) takes a dive, and if Pakistan fell into chaos, I can guarantee that the stock market would take a bigger dive than we’ve seen since the great depression, to the personal cost of all those rich neocons, even if you think nothing at all of their morality. The terrorists in Pakistan are our *common* enemy, however much our nations disagree on other matters, and it is the tragic fact of life that forces who want only chaos and death can persist in evil against stronger opponents.