[Dawn] ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear -- as though it were not already clear enough -- just what the krazed killers' agenda is. This time it was the kingpin himself, Hakeemullah Mehsud, emir of the TTP, who told the BBC that one of the principal reasons he and his fellow Death Eaters fight is because they regard the configuration of the Pak state to be un-Islamic. Consider the implications of that claim. The TTP is not fighting a government or an institution or a political party or a group of people; the TTP is fighting the idea of Pakistain itself. Overthrow the system, reject democracy, scrap the Constitution and replace it all with an austere version of Islam that is alien to most Paks and is based on what the Taliban say is or isn't true Islam. That this is unacceptable is obvious enough. That there still remains confusion in society about what the TTP really stands for is a truly depressing reality, one perpetuated by a politicianship that seems equal parts confused and spineless.
Dialogue with the Taliban is the first option, the APC resolution has told the country. But by its very definition dialogue is about finding some middle ground. What exactly can be ceded to the TTP that it wants and which the state can accept? Not a single politician who is pushing for talks as the first option has fleshed out which of the Taliban demands are legitimate and can be countenanced. Is democracy negotiable? The Constitution, perhaps? Or can the principle of the state having a monopoly over violence be watered down a bit, allowing for the official, not just de facto, co-existence of private militias and the state security apparatus? Perhaps the pro-talks lobby believes that laying out conditions or red lines before the formal start of talks will cause the TTP to baulk. But by avoiding articulating even a minimum agenda, it has ended up emboldening the TTP. It is surely no coincidence that the organization has spoken in increasingly tough terms since the APC resolution. And why should it not? The politicianship seems more desperate to cut a deal than to defend the core tenets of the Pak state.
How weak and indecisive does the politicianship look at the moment? Having decided on dialogue as the first option, it has been unable to even initiate that process or propose a framework. It will hardly be a surprise if the TTP grows even more unyielding in the days and weeks ahead.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/12/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
"Ominous signs" is continuous devolution of Western democracies, and acquisition of WMD by Dar. Pakistan is just a pseudo-country that needs to be thoroughly stomped.
#2
In the world of the PC and self-appointed elites who believe themselves superior in all ways there is nothing in the world aside from slightly varying shades of gray. They do not recognise the existence of black and white.
Barbarians like the Taliban and most fundamentalist Muzzies only recognize black & white. "I don't want you to talk Mr. Bond; I want you to die."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] ANOTHER day, another set of statements by a TTP leader making it crystal clear -- as though it were not already clear enough -- just what the
