THE sequence of suicide bombings has perturbed Pakistan. It smashed to smithereens the fragile sense of optimism that had prevailed and, in fact, raised questions about the country's future as it highlights the unwelcome realization that the world's only nuclear-armed Muslim state is now faced with a new and growing threat from a resurgent Al-Qaeda and its Taleban allies. It is definitely a very perplexing situation. A governing coalition of the winning opposition parties has just been formed, and the future of President Pervez Musharraf is the talk of the town. And in this situation, the growing threat of a new and resurgent suicide bombing campaign is really worrisome. It suddenly started when the army has allegedly entered into a ‘secret' cease-fire agreement with key militants. Analysts sadly predict that the campaign of serial suicide bombings would go on after a short lull. Figures released by the Pakistani Ministry of Interior show that more than one suicide bomb attack a week averaged in Pakistan in 2007. The number of people killed in terrorist attacks doubled to 2,116 last year, and over 500 people have died in terrorist attacks and violence in the country since the beginning of this year. The extremist radicals and pro-Taleban militias are increasingly targeting Pakistan's security forces. This situation has left Pakistanis uncertain and insecure about who is attacking them and why. Although many allude to President Musharraf as a main reason for the troubles, this is not entirely true. I refuse to place the full blame on Musharraf's regime for the suicide attacks, simply because now, after the elections, the state of affairs is different, and the onus of governance is not really in the court of any specific power. Now, instead, everybody is sharing the command. And as we see now, the wave of suicide bombings comes after a quiet period. There was a pause, and no suicide bombers struck during the elections. This shows that these suicide bombings are not an act of retaliation against the army's operations, or the terrorists would not have broken their bombing attacks during the time of the election. That means the militants want to send a message of alarm to the new government. According to analysts, the ceasefire can be another reason of those suicide attacks. Although the army denies it, media reports pointed out that it has declared a cease-fire with militants in the tribal agencies of North and South Waziristan, including with Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taleban. If history is anything to go by, cease-fires were contentious, but they always did really hold. Yet the attacks might be an indication of cracks in Baitullah Mehsud's command over the Pakistani Taleban. Maybe some of his allies wanted to show that when he gives the order for a cease-fire, not everyone is going to follow it. So, in this case, it seems that there is a lack of unity in command within the Taleban. However, while it came into view that the cease-fire was holding in North and South Waziristan, the suicide attacks happened elsewhere, which exposes the sheer fallacy of the cease-fire option. Pakistan has been procrastinating in reacting to the increasing influence of militants in the remote tribal areas bordering Afghanistan since 9/11. The US has been reluctant to interfere, at least openly. But now, this shifting wall has been broken up since terrorists killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and now they are striking more violently and in more places in Pakistan. Therefore, for the first time, the US is putting public pressure on Pakistan by asking its leaders to let the US help fight terrorists inside the country. The US is becoming ever more vocal because of the activities in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) which is now the leading threat to the stability in the region and even the world. The recent series of suicide bombings attributed to militants from FATA was evidence that they could strike at the heart of Pakistan itself. In FATA, America cannot do the fighting, but it can use its influence to ensure that Pakistan fights more tactfully. For its part, Pakistan has shown signs of dealing with its militants more decisively. The US has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in mostly military aid since 9/11, with the aim of securing the nuclear-armed country against Al-Qaeda. Now, it is offering to deploy troops to train Pakistani forces or take part in joint operations against the extremists. Admiral Michael Mullen, the top US military official, came to Pakistan to discuss regional security. Now a new offer has been given by the US to control Pakistan's tribal belt and for both countries to step up efforts to address the militant haven tied to global terror. Analysts say the understanding was that once the Taleban and Al-Qaeda were thus contained, it would create space for democracy to assert itself in the country under the new government, and Musharraf could walk into the sunset. Under Kiani's initiative, militants would have been restricted to isolated areas on the border areas and, apart from token attacks against them by the Pakistani military, would have been allowed to get on with their business. Hence, the militants are also concerned now. The militants exploited the opportunity handed to them by the peaking political crisis to step up their suicide attacks, in which the armed forces were the prime target. There is little doubt that the military is being targeted by well-known elements coming from South Waziristan. They kidnapped well over 200 Pakistani troops last year. Unfortunately, because of the protracted confrontations between the political parties and the establishment in Islamabad, this fact has been repeatedly distorted so that blame is lobbed at the government instead of the real terrorists themselves. The opposition parties that won the February 18 parliamentary elections declared earlier that they are moderate and pro-American. It is said that the US could gain a vital and new ally by working with them. However, with the Bush administration's continued backing of President Pervez Musharraf, it might be tempting to assume that the real reason of the spate in suicide attacks could be meant to put pressure on the incoming Pakistani government. Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N came to a decision through the “PPP-PML-N summit declaration of Murree” to work jointly to form governments at the center and in Punjab. They would decide in Parliament about the future role of Pakistan as an ally in the US-led war on terror. Particularly, PPP has taken the strongest stance against terrorism. By their latest out, militants could be sending a signal that they have the power to strike anywhere at any time, and that the government will have to talk to them on their own terms. Pakistan is faced with widespread anger at pro-American policies. There is a possibility of more tension in the future if there was greater inclination in the war on terror toward the US. One can only pity the people who will form the new government, because the challenges they will have to face are many and very difficult to solve. The formation of a coalition government is a good indication, but it is also important that they do not balk at the main task to root out the militants' base. Still, both PPP and PML-N have a different logic when it comes to Pakistan's role in war on terror. The new government cannot bring suicide bombings under control on its own. It has to come under one agenda, by consensus, with all political elements getting involved. Over and above that, all political parties should tackle this issue for the benefit of the country, not their own. Earlier, the issue of militants was only considered as a military problem, at a time when there was a need to take political and economic steps as well. Long-standing and publicly approved strategies to deal with terrorism must be put in place, along with a clear and improved foreign policy. Tough decisions should be taken where necessary. It is good that the new governing coalition is agreed on dialogue methods, but it should be done wisely whenever it was needed. Concerns over how the new government will tackle extremism come as experts call for ‘use tact when apt.' What is needed is support for the operations now under way to methodically confront and crush the real terrorists in the tribal areas. __
