The year 2010 will be crucial for Pakistan. The kind of turmoil and disruption that has happened in 2009 is perhaps the worst in the country's history, even surpassing the turbulent times witnessed during the East Pakistan crisis back in the late 1960's.

Pakistan is like a broken ship stuck in the high waters. Worst of all, this ship is rudderless, completely at the mercy of a few mercenaries who have the possession of the life-saving equipment that they use for their own survival.

This torture and terror cannot go on for ever. There always is an end to anarchy. One foresees a stampede situation taking place in the near future. We might soon see the 're-making' of Pakistan.

Our real problem is brutal wave of terrorism occurring on daily basis in our settled areas.Terrorists are taking our lives and our weak government is killing us through her poor management in which our rights of common citizen are taking away from us.
No power, no gas, no jobs and high level corruption are our all time threats.Supreme court decisions are understandable to only small community of Pakistan and it would produce affects of good governance in coming years.But our real problems are our food shortages to majority of population and huge displacement of people due to war activities in our northern borders.
So as long as we would be stick to war on terror,no year will bring change in our prevailing conditions.

Before 1980s Pakistan was remembered as liberal and moderate state and hardly anyone heard the wave of extremism as we are seeing now a days.
Who made ISI corrupt by sending dollars in sacs?
Who controlled the training camps by supplying them free arms, military training and drug channels in this era on our northern borders.
The people who are declared corrupt and suspicious are always kept in good books of US and always occupy crucial seats in state affairs.
Terrorism is surely secured by ISI but all is fabricated in CIA offices and ISI just play the role of obeying orders.
This war on terror is not imposed by ISI intelligence but under US pressure of serious threats and by bribing our weak leaders.
War on terror was requirement of west and for bringing destruction in Muslim countries.This has badly divided our opinion as a nation even our resilient army circle are showing rebellion attitude toward its imposition in complicated areas of Pakistan.
So we know all the criminal history of ISI and our corrupt leadership but see carefully who always stand behind them. This is important to know as to get into real conclusion of destruction of our culture, peace and infrastructure.

Militaristic orientation is definitely a problem is Pakistan. However, even so, it is not the root of radicalism. The root of radicalism -- right or wrong -- is the presence of US in the region. This is inflammatory, whether that is rational or not to the --largely illiterate -- people.

In a bigger sense if the USA was not so addicted to oil that it supported repressive regimes -- including Pakistani ones -- in the region the people would have an easier go of things.

We support tyrants in Suadi, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, not to mention the out-and-out Zionazi war criminal regime in Israel.

Is it a surprise there is Anti-Americanism? Why is there rampant Anti-Americanism in the middle east? Many reasons, but we have to admit our fault: our bad policies, as even the Defense Science Board has admitted (see below).

Some of AQ's causes are legitimate even if their means to achieve them are WRONG.

Our flawed foreign policy engenders anti-Americanism.

We have indirectly killed >1 million muslim civilians in Iraq and Af/Pak. Why did this not make news on NYT or WaPo?

The US-led war on terrorism has left in its wake a far more unstable world than existed on that momentous day in 2001: Rather than diminishing, the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates has grown, engulfing new regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe and creating fear among peoples from Australia to Zanzibar. The US invasions of two Muslim countries have so far failed to contain either the original organization or the threat that now comes from its copycats in British or French cities who have been mobilized through the Internet. The al Qaeda leader is still at large, despite the largest manhunt in history.

Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, a hundred thousand Western troops, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback. The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people—they failed to take advantage of it.

Pakistan has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown. In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year.

In 2009, American power lies shattered, US credibility lies in ruins. Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.

Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all.

This is what the US government’s Defense Science Board has to say on the situation

“American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.”

====

Our messing around overseas (witness our clear involvement with the terrorist murder of 5 Iranian revolutionary guards recently) causes blowback terrorism. It does not matter whether or not AQ has any safe havens or not or whether Hezbollah is rearming— regular people — heck, even US army officers, it appears — can become radicalized by the sheer extent of our injustice abroad.

Note I am not justifying what they did. Their means are WRONG. But their cause is, at least partly, just.

We need to stop our addiction to oil and leave the middle east.

Force — even when wielded by the seemingly strong against the nominally weak — continues to be an exceedingly uncertain instrument. The United States’ penchant for projecting power has created as many problems as it has solved. Genuinely decisive outcomes remain rare, costs often far exceed expectations, and unintended and unwelcome consequences are legion.

The pursuit of US military dominance is an illusion, the principal effect of which is to distort strategic judgment by persuading policymakers that they have at hand the means to make short work of history’s complexities. The real need is to wean the United States from its infatuation with military power and come to a more modest appreciation of what force can and cannot do.

We have to come to the painful conclusion that we have created much of the terrorism and anti-Americanism that we are subject to via our terrible foreign policies. It will be difficult to protect us from our (well-earned) blowback without fixing our own foreign policy.

Here is the link to the MIT official who calculates >1000000 dead muslim civilians as a result of our war of choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

So, we also have a (probably dominant) part in radicalizing the people in the region: middle east and asia.

Would that some of our crap-ass politicians would propose to wean us off of oil, as Prof Andrew Bacevich and Thomas Friedman have suggested.

Pakistan army had started its journey as pure secular force which design was made by British rulers.So saying Islamic republic didn't take us toward the way to fanaticism.Your latter half comments is self explanatory of your negation which you did in first paragraph,
Initially these generals in British plating form used key of Islam word to attract the Kashmirs and its political leadership toward them which was the hot cake for them to keep the dominance of military and CIA in our region,
Qadiyani riots were instigated to please the Saudi group and a small group in govt level supported this idea to get more aide from Saudis.Saudi friendship is some kind of our strong weakness as we cant think of leaving our rich and dishonest friends at all costs of lost dignity and that is what we did in qadyini case.Again political tactics were more dominant in this case rather than religious factor.
The mess of religious affairs were artificiality created and got its peak in Zia regime and we have no doubt that CIA was all behind this mess.
Now this set a fire strategy has turned our country as cocktails of different ethnic and religious beliefs where our solutions are only hidden on aggressive army combats on our misguided and frustrated groups.
Army is still in mood of playing pranks with its people and CIA is as such standing firm behind these generals with more deadly solutions for people of Pakistan..

People of Pakistan real problem is brutal wave of terrorism occurring on daily basis in Their settled areas.Terrorists are taking their lives and their weak government is killing them through her poor management in which their rights of common citizen are taking away from them. Greeting, Kayla FM jobs

Pakistan cannot postpone indefinitely the two "crunch" moments: it must decide whether to expand its military operations into the rest of the FATA (above all in to the Waziris) and whether to allow the expansion of US drone operations into northern Balochistan. In this sense the dynamics unfolding in Buner, Dir and Swat - where things are not all going the Pakistan army's way despite its up-beat rhetoric - are simply the overture to the main performance the United States has come to require of the Pakistanis as their contribution to the "AfPak" strategy (see Anatol Lieven, "Pakistan's American problem", 6 May 2009).
This is undoubtedly a difficult period for the Pakistan army and ISI (whose own building felt the effects of the Lahore blast on 27 May). The Taliban's return to strength in Afghanistan, a weakening in Nato's resolve, and the element of desperation in the US "surge" strategy (in the sense that there will be few options if it fails) together have huge implications for the Pakistani army's calculus: the thinking in army headquarters must be that Pakistani objectives in Afghanistan are within reach only if US pressure can be borne, the Afghan Taliban can be protected, and the Pakistan Taliban contained.
In this tight position, the Pakistani army may - just - glimpse open sea. If the humanitarian situation were to deteriorate too severely in the FATA/NWFP, and international pressure for a cessation of the Pakistani assault grew as a result, this could provide a context for Pakistan to argue that it can no longer prosecute the war. This could in turn allowing it to ease the pressure from the US and abandon the commitment to an assault on North and South Waziristan. Regards,
Seo Company