If the news is correct that the US administration has been able to pressurise Pervez Musharraf to allow American troops to train/advise Pakistani soldiers, then this development could create more headaches for the beleagured Pakistan President. Or, will it?

Further, it would erode Musharraf’s credibility (of whatever is left) because he recently roared that if the US troops ever entered Pakistani territory it would be considered as “invasion of my country”. Moreover, dissent is also emerging within the strong Pakistani army establishment.

Now let’s read the latest news: “The commander of U.S. forces in Central Asia, Admiral William J. Fallon, has launched planning for more extensive use of U.S. troops to train Pakistani armed forces, a senior defense official said Wednesday,” reports Robert Burns of AP from Washington.

But who is the enemy?

Before we proceed further here is another breathtaking revelation…Pervez Musharraf said in Paris on Tuesday that “the Afghan-based fundamentalist Islamic group Taliban is a bigger problem for the stability of Pakistan than the al-Qaeda terrorist network.” He suggested that Osama bin Laden’s network had been decimated.

“Al-Qaeda’s presence in Pakistan has been so reduced, Musharraf said, that ‘it doesn’t matter much that Osama has not been captured’.”

I may sound alarmist but the recent reports, including the Musharraf speech in Paris, seem to confirm my worst fears that the bogey of al-Qaeda was raised/maintained in the same manner as the WMD charges against Saddam Hussein. And now even Musharraf has let the cat out of the bag… More of this later…

Back to the AP story from Washington: “Fallon’s intent is to develop new approaches to help Pakistan, with a time horizon stretching to 2015, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the order has not been made public.

“Fallon was in Pakistan this week meeting with senior Pakistani military officials. In an interview last week during a conference with Middle Eastern defense chiefs in Florida, Fallon said Pakistan is taking a more welcoming view of U.S. suggestions for using American troops to train and advise its own forces in the fight against anti-government extremists.

Will ‘anti-government extremists’ include both militants and opposition parties/ leaders in Pakistan…? How would the US administration counter the argument that this is yet another step to prop up Musharraf regime or make further inroads into the army set-up? Will this step not further incense/alienate the democratic forces within Pakistan? How can outgoing President Bush plan the Pakistan military strategy “until 2015″?

There are so many difficult questions and questions. But very few answers. And to top it all, President Bush and his administration has almost a year to keep Pakistan, and the rest of the world, on tenterhooks!!!

Let’s return to President Musharraf’s Paris speech where he says that al-Quaida is not a threat any more!!! It is Taliban…What? Hey we recently heard that US President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

“Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.” More here…

I wonder if anyone is compiling the truths and untruths emerging from the Musharraf regime??? Let us see who among the two buddies outdoes whom…!!! An interesting match…but for the pain and agony their actions are causing to such a large number of people in the world.

While on the one hand Musharraf says that “Osama bin Laden’s network had been decimated”, on the other the Pakistan president noted that al-Qaeda was still active in terrorist activities in Pakistan, such as the December 27 assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. “They are small in number but they have resources,” he said. The CIA has said that Bhutto’s killing was probably directed by Baitullah Mehsud, a Pakistani militant with ties to al-Qaeda.

If we go by what Musharraf says then what are NATO troops doing in Afghanistan if there is no al-Qaida threat? …Or the US troops in Iraq? There is a possibility that because of the continued presence/excesses of the foreign troops, the resistance movements comprising local citizens (probably with no ideological background) have multiplied to “throw the invaders or occupation forces out”.

Now Musharraf’s mentor in the White House too is reconciled to the fact that the war-on-terror unleashed to capture Osama bin Laden would go on without much bothering to trap the ’star culprit’. The Fox News says that “capturing Usama bin Laden has been one of President Bush’s top priorities during his time in office, but the president now seems to doubt the Al Qaeda mastermind will be found before his term ends next January.” Also look here…

If one tries to extricate the ‘truth’ from the so-called ‘web of lies’ now being unravelled, what conclusion can be reached? Is the cry of al-Qaeda raised to divert attention from alarming developments/crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that primarily continue because of the myopic/dangerous policies of the Bush and Musharraf administrations?

Please judge for yourself about the web of lies woven by the high and mighty of the US administration about Saddam Hussein and his alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): President Bush made 232 of such statements; the then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made 244. Also, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld (109), White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (109), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (85), then-National security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (56) and Vice President Cheney (38).

“The researchers also point out the ‘cumulative effect’ of these statements, which was ‘massive’ because the media coverage created ‘an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical.’ And, ‘… much of this media coverage provided additional, ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq. The ‘ground truth’ of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly.”

To the utter shame/disgrace of the media and blogosphere, very few checked the veracity of the statements coming out of the White House. So the media, in a way, became complicit in spreading the web of lies worldwide. And that is why it has no face/guts to campaign for the punishment of the guilty persons…for they are guilty themselves!!!