These troops will be sent to Afghanistan. Barack Obama will shift his emphasis from Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. We can already see troubles brewing as the American government places more pressure on Pakistan to target Islamic militants in its border regions with Afghanistan. America has opened a can of worms. What could be the consequences of creating more instability in Pakistan which is already a part of the nuclear club? This may well prove to be an expensive gamble for the new Obama administration.

The story has already unfolded along the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The province of Bajaur, an area of hills and valleys along the border to the north, has seen intense fighting between Islamic militants and the Pakistani army. More than 200,000 civilians have fled and are now scattered in camps or living with relatives across the province. The Pakistani army has pushed the militants back to positions that will be cut off when the winter snows arrive. The weather and a force of American and Afghan national army across the frontier will mean that these militants are boxed in.

This is only part of the story. Bajaur is merely one tribal region along the frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Khyber Pass to the south of Bajaur is a mountain pass that links Pakistan and Afghanistan. It has played an important historic role as a trade route and strategic military location. The sound of British infantry and cavalry echoing along the steep ravines and valleys has now been replaced by the sounds of trundling NATO convoys delivering supplies to Western forces in Afghanistan. Only recently, such a convoy was hijacked by militants encamped in the tribal regions.

However, the notion that every bearded man living in the tribal regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan wields an AK47 in his right hand and an old beaten copy of the Koran in his left with a loathing for the West and all it represents, may well be a myth. This can be seen through the activity of local tribesman who have formed Lashkars. These are traditional armed tribal militias that deal with specific problems, to force the militants out of their areas. After all, the presence of Islamic militants in these regions invite the National Army of Pakistan and the cavalry in the form of US air strikes. The locals merely want to live a peaceful life, and the presence of Islamic militants may well be the cause for their disturbance.

Still, this is no walk in park. The American government since 2001 has sent almost $7 billion to the Pakistani military. The militants mean business and are armed to the teeth with a potent ideological belief. Dug into a complex network of tunnels and bunkers, the Pakistani military faces a tough and enduring enemy. This war will certainly not be over by Christmas.

Shahbaz Sharif's recent official trip to China to encourage Chinese government to invest in different sectors in Punjab was met with enthusiasm and a possible venture in the future which will see a Chines-Punjab ties. Punjab government is keen on the Chinese investors to invest in irrigation, power generation from coal, construction of small clams, dairy development, industries, agriculture and health.

Pakistan could benefit more from genuine leaders who have the country's best interests at heart and are not power hungry, but hungry to serve the nation and give it the best they can. Perhaps political leaders should aspire from men like Mustafa Kamal and Shahbaz Sharif.

A release of energy in the crust of the Earth causes seismic waves which result in an earthquake. Scientists use an instrument known as a seismograph to record earthquakes. An earthquake over magnitude 7 causes the worst damage while one under magnitude 3 is almost unnoticeable. Quakes manifest severe shaking and can even split the ground.

A village elder in Sohi, Pakistan, said that mass graves were being dug there because the number of deaths were too high for individual graves. Injured people flooded hospitals in the tow of Kawas and Quetta, the capital of the province. Rescue teams are trying erect tents for upwards of 3,000 people made homeless by the quake. Over 2,000 houses were destroyed.

The earthquake struck ten miles below the Earth's surface at 5:10 a.m. local time. Seismic upheavals are common in Pakistan with a 7.6 hitting Kashmir in October, 2005. That time, 80,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were left homeless. More than 30,000 were killed in 1935 by a magnitude 7.5 earthquake.

I don't say that the statement made by him eradicated terrorism or reduced the sufferings of those who already suffered but still it should be a great moment of happiness not only for me but for each and every true Indian who was waiting for this initiative to be taken by any powerful leader. Till now, there was the lack of solution because there was none who could accept the truth and if ever accepted the expression lay far behind. Pakistan has been operating terrorists on the head of India (Jammu and Kashmir) for a long time in the name of militancy but none from Pakistan ever accepted this fact which made the roots of terrorism stronger.

But, for the first time in Indo-Pak history a top Pakistani leader agreed with India's stand and revealed the truth which has cursed Indians for decades over decades. And the fact cannot be denied that a person who himself becomes the victim can better understand the pain of others. He reflected this when said “They (terrorists) killed the mother of my children so it's very personal for me.” Not only this, he also denied the assumption of most of the population of the two nations as being enemies to each other when he said” India has never been a threat to Pakistan”. I, personally thank you, Mr. Zardari for at least taking the initiative and dare to utter the truth and I am sure that your powerful words will also be accompanied by truthful actions as well.

A lot of Hindus and Muslims both from Pakistan and India have migrated to America. In a country far from their own homes and far different from their own cultures, both the communities crave for a homely feeling. SALAAM NAMASTE extends its voice and tries to blend the communities giving them a homely flavor. The station says that its goal is to bring the highest quality of Indian and Pakistani and other sub continental music to immigrants who miss home.

Programs played in this radio station range from bollywood tunes, Punjabi songs and classic hindi ballads to talk shows on small business and women's rights, and prayers from the mosque and temple. Both Indian and Pakistani jockeys work at the station that caters to the south Asian community in north Texas.

Hats off to the people who take such initiatives and my heart prays if Hindus and Muslims could ever themselves make such efforts to come together. If every Hindu could extend his hand for a Muslim and every Muslim could embrace a Hindu then ninety nine percent of the tensions which burns both the nations and hurts both the communities would be automatically pacified.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

She did not spout out the definition of the Bush doctrine as Charlie and many liberals preach, but she demonstrated strength and conviction. The way the world is today with evil nations and terrorists bent on destroying Americans, her answer is much better than knowing the definition of a liberal concept.

Americans better wake up and realize how vulnerable we are to attacks. There is this liberal idea that talking to our enemies who hate America is the answer to secure our freedom. Listen, this is very naïve. I have been in battles and in war, and to think you can sooth the enemy is foolish. Sarah Palin may not be the typical politician who can be pushed to a certain agenda, but she is real and seems to have the courage to push back where ever necessary. Many may not remember the President Carter's days in office. He was weak when standing up against our enemies and consequently, America lost a lot of credibility throughout the world and we were a nation of embarrassment.

The term “Bush Doctrine” is no more than a liberal media spin. Liberals immerse themselves with such liberal jargon, but others may not pay much attention to such liberal categorization of policy or intentions. I am quite educated and even I may have had to think about Charlie Gibson's snobbish question as he peered down at Sarah Palin with his glasses hanging on the tip of his nose as if he was such an intelligent Journalist “interrogating” a little ole housewife. At least she engaged her mind before her mouth before answering. Just because she didn't glibly spout out the “desired” answer to such a question, does not mean she is unintelligent and unaware of the crucial events of the day. In fact, I think she should be given credit for asking questions, that's what unpretentious people do.

One of the biggest problems with government today is that we are being governed by rich and often elitist politicians who are self absorbed and will do anything to keep their position in government. The president is one person. Yes, he/she has the veto power and influence, but congress also has the veto power and a great deal of influence. I thought our government was “by the people, for the people,” not “by the rich, elitist, for the common people.” Most people in our country are not privileged to be rich and Washington groomed and/or polished.

Sarah Palin may not be the ordinary “yes” politician, but at this time, she desires to help change government to the values upon which it was founded. I think she should be applauded for standing her ground and not bending to the whims of those who disagree with her; liberals and “follow the crowd” bunch are trying so hard to trash her. Her courage to be a real American and willing to fight for decency and security is refreshing and honorable.

The Question

During her interview with Charles Gibson on Thursday (Sept. 11) evening Sarah Palin was asked the following question:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

And here is a nice technique for all of you debaters out there. Try to get the person asking you the question to tell you what the heck they're talking about when it's something you should already know. Here is her response:

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

Perfect. Good job, Sarah! Get the guy asking you the question to tell you what the Bush Doctrine is, because, by now, it's pretty obvious that you don't have a clue. So, Charlie, being the consummate professional, gives her another shot at it.

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

Now, wait for it. Here it comes. It's a simple three word answer that should warm the cockles of every American voter.

PALIN: His world view.

Great. She doesn't know. Wonderful. The woman running to be the Vice-President of the United States of America doesn't know the single most important piece of policy to come out of the Administration. Well, we should give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she just didn't understand the question.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

Good job, Charlie. Way to throw her the softball. She can probably answer it now that you helped her along.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Oops, guess not. What in the hell was THAT? You've got to give her credit though; she did hit all the high points. Terror, terrorists, President Bush is just trying to protect us, mistakes made and of course, democracy, new leadership and America. Of course, she didn't answer the question, because she doesn't have a clue. That's okay, Charlie is going to bail her out.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Oh! You mean THAT Bush Doctrine! It just keeps getting better and better.

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

Okaaay. But, do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? She STILL doesn't understand the question. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Charlie Gibson, to his credit, tries to help her out some more.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

By this point, you can almost see the McCain political advisors cringing. Somewhere in a smoky hotel room, the McCain campaign wonks are slugging down Straight Shot Expresses (that's a shot made with Bourbon, Coke and Jaegermeister) and praying to God that Bill O'Reilly is right when he says that nobody watches the evening news anymore. It's like Charlie is giving a test to a high school senior in Government class. Here she goes some more, still trying to give a coherent response.

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

There you go. Finally, we get to the point. Apparently she does agree with the Bush Doctrine. Maybe. I'm not sure. Did she answer the question? I think so. I don't think Charlie is sure, so he wants to give her an example and see how she does. Go on, Charlie, serve up the softball.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

Now, if I had equated myself with a lipstick wearing pit-bull I would have answered the question this way: “Hell yes!!!”. Which is what Senator Obama has said. Well, I might be paraphrasing a bit. But, here is Senator Palin's response. You know, from that highly experienced executive.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

What? Did she even say anything? Microsoft Word doesn't think so. It describes the above as a “fragment” and it tells me to “please consider revising”. Apparently, Charlie doesn't get it either.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

You can see the wheels turning in her head and hear the gulping of yet another round of Straight Talk Expresses by the McCain campaign. Wazira where now? She doesn't know where that is. You can see it in her eyes. So, she comes back with this.

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

And there you have it.  Sarah Palin: Clueless.  

*Interview excerpts taken from:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=1

The committee formed on a complaint submitted by Syed Javed Hussain Shah, a member of the body NCH, to the national health ministry. Dr Azam Saleem, the joint-secretary of the ministry of health, heads the team. The other two members are deputy secretary Jamil Ahmed and deputy director-general Dr Tahir Sajjad of the ministry. A big question arise why not the head of the federal public health office elected by ruling political party.

Actually in the cabinet I must say there is no one who's profile can be submitted to the parliament for the Health Ministry and here after 61 years of freedom still the cabinet is made on political bases only and not according to the past experience or portfolio. Nor there is no constitution rule in the above Islamic Republic but not a symbol of democracy to get approval of any preacher by parliament lower house or upper house of Senate.

The irregularities will remain in all cases until the head of the department would have a great knowledge or experience of the required. This is also a big caution to our education system specially. In addition, your qualified professionals who wish to migrate to western world have to pass an examination of ILETS to confirm their English standard.

The Pakistanis have inherently been sympathetic to the Taliban and have been reluctant to fight them all along. Hardly surprising that, since the Taliban were a creation of the Pakistani intelligence agency (the ISI). Its quite well known that a lot of retired Pakistani and other military personnel were captured during the fight to drive the Taliban out - post 9/11.  They were obviously in cahoots with the Taliban and were providing the Taliban logistical and military advice, along with all of the military hardware necessary in fighting the Northern Alliance.  The Pakistani military had in fact actively encouraged its military officers to train the Taliban and provide them assistance and arms.  The goal of the Pakistani Army was to expand its sphere of influence, to include Afghanistan, but also beyond its borders.  Afghanistan was looked upon as territory that could give the Pakistanis strategic depth vis-a-vis its enemy India.  Indeed, the Pakistanis found an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban quite convenient in its fight with India over Kashmir.  Terrorist camps funded by the ISI and supported by Al-Qaeda sprang up all over Afghanistan and men trained there started finding their way to Indian-Administered Kashmir.  The Pakistanis would love to have that situation return and its no secret that they'd love to see the NATO/American troops withdraw, so that they can continue their Taliban experiment.

The United States and the West took its eyes off Afghanistan post the Soviet withdrawal.  Once the Soviet Union was forced to head back from Afghanistan, they thought the problem was over.  However, what was forgotten was that the millions and billions of dollars and weapons given to Pakistan remained unaccounted for and no effort was made to trace or keep track of it.  Indeed, the only goal was to drive the Soviets out.  A familiar pattern seems to be emerging now.  We have billions of dollars being provided to Pakistan in the form of "assistance" to fight the War on Terror and to compensate Pakistan.  However, there is no mechanism to ensure that such "assistance" is proportionate or warranted or getting the desired results.  We have helicopter gunships and F16s being provided to Pakistan to fight the Taliban, which probably would end up being used by Pakistan in a war with India (its traditional enemy).  One wonders about the logic behind the sale of F16s to Pakistan.  Are we arming them to fight India - rather than the Taliban.  Its highly unlikely that they would use F16s to bomb their own territory.  One hopes that past mistakes are noted and are not repeated.  Funds provided to Pakistan needs to be conditional on performance of the Pakistanis in cracking down on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan.

The goals of the Pakistanis are at odds with the goals of the West and the US.  They seek to engineer instability in Afghanistan and would do everything in their power to see that the Afghans don't become self-sufficient and independent.  An independent Afghanistan is not thought to be in the best interest of the Pakistani State.  Although we term them as an "ally," they are in fact not allies.  They don't have any shared sense of goals and objectives with the West.  Indeed, a section of their military and intelligence personnel have become radical islamists and are not trusted by the West.

Whatever America and NATO choose to do, they'd be best served to remember the enormous consequences of taking the eye of the ball - post the Soviet withdrawal.  That costly mistake enabled the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies to create and develop the Taliban and cause havoc, not only in Afghanistan but ultimately in the United States itself.  The stability of Afghanistan is vital, and ensuring peace in Afghanistan should be a far greater priority than in Iraq.  America can't afford ignoring the Pakistanis and their infamous intelligence agency.  The Pakistanis need to know constantly that they are being watched and evaluated.