Daily Times Editorial Sept 28, 2013

Maturity in peace process In two separate incidents in Indian-held Kashmir, attackers killed police and army personnel on Thursday in the latest in a series of recent incidents across the Line of Control (LoC) causing tension between India and Pakistan and threatening the composite dialogue both countries have been struggling to restart. According to reports, the attackers were wearing Indian army uniforms. Three militants attacked a police station in Samba, about 10 kilometres from the boundary with Pakistan, killing five policemen. They then hijacked a truck and struck an army camp in the vicinity, killing one civilian and three soldiers, including a Lt-Colonel. After hours of fighting, the gunmen were killed by the Indian security forces. In the other incident, the Indian army stated it had killed more than a dozen militants out of a group of 30 it alleged had crossed over from Pakistan into northern Kashmir. The operation against the rest is still ongoing, according to local commanders. Opposition Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) leaders immediately jumped into the fray, reiterating their opposition to restarting talks with Pakistan. They demanded that the scheduled meeting between Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Dr Manmohan Singh on September 29 on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session be cancelled. However, saner voices were to be found in the ranks of the ruling Congress Party and Indian-held Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. The latter squarely nailed the attacks as an attempt to derail the peace talks. The former, represented by the prime minister, home and foreign minister, all said the ‘spoilers’ would not be allowed to hold the peace process, and thereby India, Pakistan and South Asia hostage to their vested interest in continuing conflict. The Pakistan foreign office too reiterated its belief in the continuation of the dialogue. Civil society groups in both India and Pakistan, some of whom have been in the forefront over many years in seeking peace and normalisation between the two countries, also called for continuation of the talks and peace process, adding the two countries should sign a no-war pact. The situation in India and Pakistan presents contrasting situations as far as peace and normalisation of relations are concerned. In India, ironically, the BJP presents a different face in government from what it is these days displaying in opposition. Who can forget the historic visit of former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to Pakistan in 1999 when the Lahore Agreement was signed with then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. That historic breakthrough of course was sabotaged by Pervez Musharraf with his Kargil adventure. These days it is not the regular army that carries out forays and raids across the LoC but an array of Kashmiri and other jihadi groups. The distance BJP has travelled since then may be ascribed to domestic political considerations, particularly the looming general elections in India. But it does betray the opportunism often on display by politicians for purely expedient reasons and while flying in the face of history’s imperative that India and Pakistan learn to live together as civilised neighbours while talking through their mutual differences, including Kashmir. Fortunately things have moved in a more positive direction in recent years in Pakistan. There is now hardly any mainstream party that does not subscribe to the idea of peace and amity with India. This marks a tremendous shift in the anti-India-laden political rhetoric of past years. If there are holdouts in the hate India brigade, they represent marginal religious and right wing groups with more clout within the power corridors than is justified by their numbers, merely because of the hangover of the hate India rhetoric of the past. Even more marginalised as far as popular support is concerned are the jihadi armed groups that are the prime suspects in the kinds of provocation that of late have been occurring. So while the major opposition party in India, the BJP, blows hot and cold, depending on whether it is sitting on the treasury or opposition benches, in Pakistan the anti-India lobby has been in retreat for many years, having been bypassed by history and its dictates. What is noteworthy and appreciable in the present attempt to derail the meeting in New York of the two prime ministers and the subsequent reset of the composite dialogue is the mature response of the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and the Congress government in seeing through the provocation and reiterating their commitment to the talks. In that sense, India-Pakistan relations seem on the cusp of breaking with the past when provocateurs could all too easily derail peace efforts by the odd incident of provocation. In that sense, maturity seems to be dawning on both sides, along with the realisation that terrorists neither have any faith nor country. They are the common enemies of both countries and therefore need to be tackled together in close consort.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 25, 2013

Peshawar attack fallout In the aftermath of the Peshawar attack on a church congregation in which over 80 people were blown to pieces and another around 170 injured, the Christian community throughout the country has taken to the streets with a vengeance. Most protests have proved peaceful, the efforts of church leaders and other well wishers of our Christian brothers proving successful. In some instances though, despite appeals for calm and to remain peaceful, the understandable anger and frustration of the protestors has found expression in destruction of property, burning tyres and blocking highways. The authorities’ dilemma becomes that if they act against the protestors to restore law and order, they run the risk of being accused of sprinkling salt on the wounds of the Christian community. And if they do not, they may end up being accused of being weak and ineffective. This is a classic trap as far as managing angry and justified protest is concerned. The protestors’ anger is directed first and foremost against the PTI’s government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and by implication against the PML-N’s government at the Centre. They are critical of these two parties for their ‘soft’ approach to the terrorists, based on placing their desire for talks with the terrorists centre-stage. The Christian community under attack however, is first and foremost demanding protection for its churches and other institutions, which they fear may be further targeted. And they are still sceptical of the usual noises from the police and other law enforcement agencies that the security of their places of worship has been stepped up. The group that has claimed responsibility for the Peshawar church carnage calls itself TTP-Jandullah. The main TTP of Hakeemullah Mehsud has attempted to distance itself from the attack. According to the federal interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali, not much is known about this TTP-Jandullah and it does not appear to have any presence in this region. Now the logical corollary of this statement made by Chaudhry Nisar in the National Assembly is that either TTP-Jandullah has now established its ‘presence’ in this region, or it is a 'front' and the real culprits are still the usual cast of suspects who, fearing a backlash from this horrendous mass murder, are erecting a smokescreen to camouflage the real authors of this atrocity. The governments in the Centre (PML-N) and in KP (PTI) are coming increasingly under pressure from the army, political forces, Pakistani public and world opinion to strip the blindfold from their eyes and see the ground realities for what they are. Peace can only be established through talks if both sides are willing to give peace a chance. The TTP, after killing Major General Sanaullah Niazi, stated that it was still in a state of war with the Pakistani authorities, there was no ceasefire so far, therefore their attacks such as the one that killed Major General Niazi will continue. These two governments must gird up their loins and prepare, with the help of all stakeholders, including the armed forces, political forces and public opinion, to take on the violent fanatics who refuse to be reasonable or open themselves up for peaceful solutions. This by no means should be interpreted as closing the door on talks. That door must always remain open, even during hostilities with the recalcitrant groups, to leave room for some groups to come in from the cold. However, those of a different mindset, who want to hold the state and society hostage to their aims through asymmetrical warfare, as a prelude to overthrowing the state and instituting their version of an Islamic emirate, must be deal with with an iron fist. Talks in any case run the risk, amongst others, that even in the unlikely event that negotiations for peace succeed with the umbrella TTP, the dozens of small groups that owe nominal allegiance to the TTP but in practice operate autonomously would not necessarily feel bound by any decision of the central TTP, as the recent case of the Punjabi Taliban ‘seceding’ from the TTP’s control proves. A protracted, difficult and tricky fight against terrorism lies ahead. Counter-insurgency in guerrilla-infested areas such as FATA on the basis of the army and paramilitaries, and intelligence-led police counter-terrorism work in the rest of the country, especially in the cities, while leaving room for peaceful solutions, seems the nuanced path ahead. The government in Islamabad has to lead in this endeavour. It remains to be seen if it is up to the challenge.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 21, 2013

Cry Karachi Federal Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali told the National Assembly (NA) on Thursday that 10 percent of the job regarding the targeted operation in Karachi had been completed, but there was still a great deal to be done. The next phases, the minister asserted, would be more intense. As a result of the operation, Chaudhry Nisar revealed, the terrorists were running out of the city. Certainly if the reports of gangsters and wanted people’s arrest from Hub, Balochistan and Murree, Punjab are to be believed, it seems the gangsters and terrorists regard the better part of valour to be to ‘disappear’ in the face of perhaps an operation with the greatest political will since the 1992 operation in Karachi (also carried out by a PML-N government). The minister also clarified that he had not stopped intelligence reports from being submitted in the Supreme Court (SC) because they included the name of the Mohajir Republican Army (MRA) but because the report was not worth submitting. Intelligence on the MRA, which has claimed various terrorist acts, does not point in the direction of the MQM. He said further that the report on the MRA was not prepared by this government but the previous one, which included the MQM. Dilating on the ongoing operation, Chaudhry Nisar told the House that the Rangers had so far conducted 400 targeted operations, while the police had carried out 1,000 actions in Karachi so far. From this account, it can be gathered just how difficult and protracted the task of cleansing Karachi of terrorists and other law breakers is going to be. This is an affliction that has accumulated over decades, transmogrifying along the way into a multi-layered problem involving terrorism, political turf wars and criminal activities. The protagonists are not only the known terrorist organisations, they also include, apart from criminal gangs, the armed wings of political parties as well as sectarian groups interested in denominational bloodletting, as the grenade attack on an Imambargah on Wednesday highlights. While the interior minister was informing the NA about the Karachi operation, the issue was resonating in the hallowed chambers of the Supreme Court (SC) too. The SC, seized of the law and order situation in Karachi as the result of a suo motu notice two years ago, appears as frustrated as any other institution at the lack of implementation of its orders vis-à-vis Karachi, as well as the speculation regarding arms flows into Karachi from the sea as well as over land from the north. The SC thinks the arms flowing in from the sea come from India and Israel, while those from the north come from NATO, the US and Russia. While this may be true in terms of the origin and possible routes for smuggling weapons of all kinds into Karachi, it does not necessarily mean that these countries are interested in creating problems for Pakistan, as the conspiracy theory narrative tends to suggest. The fact is that just as in other parts of the world where insurgencies and terrorism have flourished, the troubled country or region acts as a magnet for all types of arms smuggling. The weapons mentioned in the SC list are available in the black market and therefore to jump to the conclusion that the make, manufacture and origin of the weapons reveals a sinister policy of destabilising Pakistan on the part of those countries may be a red herring. Regardless, the fact of easy weapons availability in Karachi is and should be the main point to focus on if the law and order situation in the troubled city is to be improved. The SC thinks the flow can and should be stopped, even if a curfew has to be imposed. While a tempting idea, there is no guarantee that a curfew, which would greatly inconvenience the citizens of Karachi and further erode its economic life, would necessarily help stem the flow of arms. The more difficult but perhaps more efficacious path is to conduct good investigation and intelligence to nab the weapons smugglers. One issue at least has been resolved by the DG Rangers withdrawing his sensational statement before the SC that some 1,900 NATO containers full of arms had ‘disappeared’ in Karachi. The finger of suspicion was pointed at Babar Ghauri, MQM’s Minister for Ports and Shipping during the previous government, but since the DG Rangers’ retreat, this seems to have turned out to be a damp squib. It would perhaps be unfair and premature to pronounce on the Karachi operation at this point. No miracles should be expected overnight. Inherently, the operation will be protracted and difficult. All it needs is the requisite political will to grasp this nettle firmly, finally.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 17, 2013

‘Peace’ talks? After the killing of Major General Sanaullah Khan, GOC Swat Division, along with a Lt-Colonel and a Lance Naik in a roadside bombing in Upper Dir on Sunday comes the news that the terrorists continue on the warpath. Two roadside bombs in Miranshah killed two soldiers while two members of tribal police were killed in an ambush on their convoy in Bannu. These developments have raised questions about the ability of the government to now proceed with its preferred option of talks to bring peace to the country. The icing on the cake are the preconditions the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) has put forward before it would be willing to engage in a dialogue. The two main demands of the TTP are that the military should be withdrawn from the entire tribal areas and TTP prisoners released. This, the TTP contends, is the ‘minimum’ required to develop trust and confidence as an earnest of the government’s sincerity in holding talks. The ‘maximum’ demands of the TTP, as is well known, are the imposition of sharia and allowing them to set up an Islamic Emirate in Pakistan as a whole. Since there has been no approach to them from the government so far, the TTP feels justified in declaring that since there is no ceasefire, attacks cannot and will not be halted. While Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has bravely underlined that bombs will not deter the government from the fight against the terrorists, his statement failed to pin the blame on the TTP for the General’s killing, a statement that did not even mention the perpetrators. That has led many observers to view both Nawaz Sharif and the PTI’s response to the attacks as ‘muted’. Both the PML-N and PTI fought the elections on a platform of overcoming terrorism through talks. The latter’s government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has gone one step further in announcing a phased withdrawal of the army from Malakand. No one doubts that the ground situation and the overstretched deployment of the troops requires the army to be withdrawn or redeployed elsewhere. However, a premature withdrawal of the troops who have sacrificed much to clear Swat and many other areas of the terrorists would undo all that has been achieved so far. The minimum requirement for such a withdrawal is that the civilian provincial government put in place its writ, administration and law enforcement regime in an efficacious manner to create confidence in its ability to ‘hold’ the cleared areas. The General and his colleagues’ killing in Upper Dir militates against any hasty actions on the basis of preconceived notions rather than the actual ground realities. The ‘muted’ response of the two parties who are advocates of a negotiating strategy suggest some embarrassment at the turn of events even before the first steps towards a dialogue have been taken. Neither party has indicated clearly what its negotiating stance would be, and whether the ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ demands of the TTP are acceptable to them. Clearly, the demands violate the very letter and spirit of our democratic dispensation and constitution. Even should they, by some stretch of the imagination, wish to concede the TTP’s demands, neither the law, constitution or political and public opinion would allow them to do so. A ceasefire, let alone peace, can only be envisaged at present on the basis of the TTP’s demands. Since these cannot be accepted, what are the ‘negotiators’ bringing to the table? Such vagueness does not a strategy make. Even the welcome news of the release of seven kidnapped workers of the Gomal Zam dam, it now transpires, was less a gesture of ‘goodwill’ as initially touted, and more the result of paying a heavy ransom to the kidnappers, an offshoot of the TTP. The military cannot sanguinely contemplate the death of such senior officers at the hands of the TTP. However, the ‘muted’ response of the ruling parties at the Centre and in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa may reinforce their reluctance to pursue the struggle against the terrorists without political ownership and support. When one party, the PTI, is stuck on the refrain that if we opt out of the US’s war, everything will miraculously settle down (despite evidence to the contrary), and the other, the PML-N, seems transfixed in the oncoming headlights of the TTP without anything resembling an adequate response, the military is more than likely to keep its peace (but its powder dry) until the dialogue option has run its course without desirable results. There is little to inspire confidence that the fanatics of the TTP are reasonable or open to persuasion. The likelihood therefore is that eventually, after possibly much dithering, both the PML-N and PTI will be forced to accept the logic of using force against those unwilling to listen, let alone abandon their agenda of taking over the state and turning the country into a medieval hell, a la the Taliban five-year rule in Afghanistan. The vast majority of the people of Pakistan, including even those steeped in religiosity, do not want to be pushed backwards into a primitive state owing more to Wahabi and Salafist narrowness than Islam. The struggle for the country’s heart and soul has not just begun, it has entered what may turn out to be the protracted endgame against terrorism and extremism.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 16, 2013

Counter-terrorism struggle Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has called for the early formation of an Anti-Terrorism Force (ATF), for which no delay would be tolerated. While there are few details available at this point regarding the makeup, mandate and role of such a force, its formation has placed a question mark over the fate of the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) set up during the last government, but which remained virtually moribund for lack of focus and follow up. Also, of late reports have said NACTA was, as so many of our institutions tend to be, being used for unjustified recruitment of people not fit for the job. Given its chequered history and lack of proper setting up, let alone functioning, NACTA may well just wither on the vine, particularly if the government intends to place the new ATF at the heart of the struggle against terrorism. Irrespective of whether the old NACTA (or parts thereof) are salvaged or not, and whether ATF replaces it, both in the past and now the need is for a counter-terrorism organisation that is able to bring together under one umbrella all stakeholders in this critical task. That means, as we have repeatedly argued in this space, the setting up of a counter-terrorism organisation that unites the capabilities of all civilian and military, intelligence and security forces of the federal and provincial authorities, and brings together a common data base of all the intelligence available or to be collected in future on all the terrorist groups in order to discover their organisational structure, mutual links, areas and mode of operation, etc. This is doubly critical since the latest reports suggest there may be hundreds of groups operating autonomously in the name of jihad, with most but possibly not all sheltering under the umbrella of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). With the enemy displaying the characteristic of scattered small groups owing nominal allegiance to one platform but in practice operating autonomously, there is no escape from pooling the intelligence with the civilian and military agencies. Intelligence agencies inherently tend to be reluctant to share their information, even with sister organisations, and in Pakistan’s case the traditional suspicion of the military intelligence agencies about their civilian counterparts that they are unreliable, makes this inherently challenging task even more difficult. Difficult, but not impossible, provided the government and the military find the common political will to see this through as the critical input into the difficult anti-terrorism struggle. The ATF will be closely watched whether it fulfils these organisational and functional critical tasks. Meanwhile developments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) indicate just how tough the process of overcoming terrorism is in reality. On the one hand, the KP government has announced that the military will be ‘pulled out’ of Malakand, Shangla, Buner, Swat, Upper and Lower Dir and other areas of the seven districts that constitute Malakand division in a phased manner. If an answer was desired from the terrorists regarding this suggestion, it came swiftly the very next day of the announcement when a roadside bomb in Upper Dir killed Major-General Sanaullah and two senior officers. The TTP was quick to claim responsibility. The release of seven of the eight officers of the Gomal Zam project after two years by the terrorists as a gesture of ‘goodwill’ may be considered by some as a positive development as a result of the present talk about talking to the Taliban, but the killing of senior army officers, particularly Major-General Sanaullah, credited with being the moving force in the state’s recovery of its writ in Swat after the 2009 military operation, indicates a targeted killing intended to delay or sabotage any talk about talks. While it is undeniable that the best strategy against terrorism is to keep the door of negotiations open, the government and the security forces must keep their powder dry in the event of the dialogue offer either not taking off or not producing the desired results. A nuanced strategy that leaves no option unexplored seems best, but the Upper Dir bombing is a good and timely reminder of the treacherous terrain that is counter-terrorism.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 15, 2013

Getting dialogue back on track Pakistan and India’s desire to improve relations, as expressed by the PML-N government soon after coming to power and the positive response from Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh got derailed because of the incidents on the Line of Control (LoC) last month, starting with the killing of five Indian soldiers and then escalating into an exchange of firing from both sides. It is therefore a matter for satisfaction that Pakistan’s Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz and India’s External Affairs Minister Salman Khursheed in their meeting on the sidelines of the 13th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Bishkek has yielded some positive signs and statements. After the meeting, Sartaj Aziz expressed his view, or rather disappointment, that the peace process between the two South Asian neighbours has lost momentum and the composite dialogue has been arrested by the tensions on the LoC. That problem was addressed by the two sides through a reiteration of their resolve to respect the 2003 LoC ceasefire, which has held by and large, despite the odd incident. Sartaj Aziz emphasised to his Indian counterpart that the peace and dialogue process should not be held hostage to electoral considerations or derailed by a single incident. Both sides agreed to use the existing mechanisms such as the Directors General Military Operations (DGMOs) hot line and confidence building measures on the LoC. On the desired meeting between the two prime ministers on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York, Pakistan has suggested September 29 as the date for this interaction. On the other hand, Salman Khursheed underlined the need for a conducive atmosphere for the success of such a meeting. Inevitably, because of the recent tension on the LoC, all the old ghosts standing in the way of a Pakistan-India rapprochement were resurrected from the closet. The main issue of contention remains the lack of progress on providing closure to the Mumbai attacks. Sartaj Aziz attempted to reassure Salman Khursheed that a new prosecutor general was being appointed to pursue the case against seven men accused of training and guiding the Mumbai attackers. Also, a Pakistani Judicial Commission is scheduled to visit India on September 23 to cross-examine witnesses regarding the Mumbai attacks. This visit of the Judicial Commission has fallen foul of the ups and downs in relations generally, and therefore is much delayed. In this context, the two sides discussed post-Mumbai attacks developments to try and push the dialogue process forward. It should not be forgotten that the Nawaz Sharif government, soon after taking over the reins of power, had initiated back channel diplomacy to unfreeze the stalled dialogue and peace process. That interaction too seems to have yielded at least the melting of the ice. Pakistan’s argument that domestic political considerations such as elections, etc, and odd incidents like the LoC exchange should not be allowed to hold hostage or derail the dialogue and peace process cuts to the heart of the role of ‘spoilers’. In any peace process, let alone one so fraught and long standing as the Pakistan-India conundrum, ‘spoilers’ are forces with a vested interest in continuing conflict. In the Pakistan-India context, this includes various jihadi groups engaged in the Kashmiri struggle. Most knowledgeable observers are of the view that the raid across the LoC that killed five Indian soldiers and sparked off a brief but intense exchange of firing across the boundary may be attributed to such a group. In days past, any such activity, timed to take the wind out of the sails of any attempt to get the dialogue back on track, would have invited suspicion that the ‘deep state’ was behind it. In the current context, although these matters are wrapped in layers of obfuscation and even deception, it is not clear where the military establishment stands. If outgoing COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani’s formulation that the existential threat to Pakistan currently does not lie to the east but stems from the terrorist threat within is taken at face value, it would lead to the conclusion that the military understands the need for peace with India while Pakistan handles its terrorist problem. Only if the civilian and military stakeholders are in agreement on this as the way forward and the best direction to safeguard Pakistan’s best interests can the dialogue and peace process have any chance of success. At present, on the face of it, necessity seems to dictate just such a posture. Let us hope that the good atmospherics in Bishkek are carried forward to New York and the long delayed and derailed dialogue process is helped to get back on track in the interests of both neighbours, with the concomitant collateral benefit to the region and the world in terms of positing trade and economic cooperation.

Daily Times Editorial Sept 12, 2013

Obama’s quagmire before a quagmire It is a measure of the way the world is changing when we contemplate US President Barack Obama’s increasingly desperate efforts to cobble support for his desired military strike on Syria over alleged chemical weapons’ use by Damascus. The US President, in an unprecedented cul de sac over his plans, faces opposition from an overwhelming majority of allies, world opinion, the American people and the US Congress. When it became clear that even the British parliament rejected military intervention in Syria, and given the unlikelihood of getting his way in the UN Security Council because of the veto possibility by Russia and China, Obama turned in desperation to the US Congress for approval. That too looks dubious, since both the Republicans and the Democrats appear divided about plunging the US into another war with uncertain objectives and the very real prospect of being trapped in another quagmire. The US case against the Bashar al-Assad regime rests on dubious foundations, and even the most well disposed of observers towards Washington remain unconvinced by the flaky evidence presented by Washington. Obama failed to persuade the G20 countries in their summit in Saint Petersburg as well. Meanwhile Bashar al-Assad in an interview with US television has warned of the catastrophic fallout of any such military strikes by the US. Without specifying this, it is obvious that Bashar is warning that the whole region would explode, and arguably the conflagration could spread further abroad. The world, far from becoming a safer place as the Washington hawks argue, would enter a new phase of uncertainty and conflict that then may not easily lend itself to being controlled. As it is, the brutal Syrian civil war has remained confined to the battlefield because the UN-sponsored Geneva peace conference is being ignored by the US, effectively sabotaging efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict. Europe, with the exception of France’s ‘socialist’ President Francois Hollande, remains sceptical, worried, and reluctant to get involved in another war in the Middle East. Russia and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have independently suggested plans to tackle the chemical weapons issue through Damascus surrendering its chemical weapons stockpiles to a UN-led mission that would then oversee their destruction. Syria has indicated its readiness for such a development. However, what is missing from the plan is any method of assessing, investigating and destroying any chemical weapons that may be in the possession of the Syrian opposition. The cast of usual suspects that are gung-ho about bombing Syria includes, apart from the US and France, the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar leading the chorus for military action against the Syrian government. Obama’s struggle, verging on a political and diplomatic quagmire, to convince the American people (through Congress and direct appeals) and the world of the need, importance and necessity of military intervention reflects the suspicion that has arisen about the US and its few backers’ motives. The hangover f previous disastrous military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have hardened these suspicions to the point of disbelief in the claims of Washington and its satraps and the growing conviction that even a so-called ‘limited’ strike would be the prelude to a full blooded intervention to bring about regime change. Military means may have yielded such a result in the three countries named above, but each one subsequently proved a disaster, with the collateral effect of the rise and spread of jihadi terrorism, led ideologically of not practically by al Qaeda. The Syrian opposition includes a conglomerate of al Qaeda-affiliated groups. The irony is that the US is fighting al Qaeda all over the globe, yet willing to turn a blind eye to what the Syrian opposition represents. It is the same shortsighted expedient policy that has led to such disturbing developments post-intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Mr Obama, the world is older and wiser since you and your predecessors in the White House got away with deception in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’. When you argue that not to act would threaten the US’s credibility, it would seem to be in the fitness of things for you first to consider whether such credibility exists. The sensible majority of the world must come together to stay the hands of the aggressors and redouble efforts to find a political and diplomatic solution to the Syrian quagmire before the US gets itself entrapped in this quicksand, in the process seriously destabilising the peace of the world.