The ongoing joint session of the Parliament has generated an unsavoury controversy regarding its meaningfulness and the intentions behind conducting this seemingly counter-productive exercise. Apparently, an effort has been made by the ruling clique to put the cart before the horse. Instead of first making a presentation on the rationale and the objectives of the ongoing war on terror to the legislators, the military was asked to explain the general manner in which the war was being conducted with specific input about the relative success or otherwise of various operations. That being it, the presenter, rightly so, was not able to respond to a host of piercing enquiries from the elected representatives who were primarily interested to understand the motives prompting the ruling hierarchy to launch such a vast operation and claim the war as 'Pakistan's war'. Widespread scepticism was reported from a vast array of legislators from across the political spectrum to put its stamp of approval on the government's plea that Pakistan was not fighting a war on behalf of others. In view of the stiff opposition to its effort to rush with securing a carte blanche approval from the joint session of the Parliament, the government was forced to resort to making a more political presentation outlining the factors that may have contributed to launching the operation. The exercise is continuing and, by all indications that have filtered out, the general mood of the electorate is not overtly responsive to conceding to the government's wish by acknowledging the need for conducting the war in the manner it is being conducted. The joint session of the Parliament should also be viewed in the light of a couple of other relevant developments: the US elections scheduled for early November and the pressing need for the government in Pakistan to assert its writ. By precipitating the outlandish manner in which the former dictator Musharraf extended unquestioned support to all US initiatives in this region, even going to the extent of providing unlimited logistical support and provision of bases for conducting operations deep inside Afghan territory, the current ruling concoction has moved swiftly to erasing its democratic legitimacy in just over six months of being in power. The tone and tenor of statements of Mr Zardari during his recent visit to the US are enough proof of the government's unholy intentions of not only continuing with the former dictator's sell-out policies, but even adding its own distinctive flavour to a complete and overwhelming capitulation before the US onslaught in its bid to secure a firm foothold in this part of the world. For any government to be able to assert its writ, it is vital that its policies are generally reflective of the aspirations of its people. That not being so, it would be a predominantly futile exercise to expect that the legislators sitting in the Parliament as representatives of the will of the people would be so blind as to extend their approval to a distinctly divisive policy. Confronted with this nightmarish prospect, the government is trying every trick in its bag to secure the elusive approval from the ongoing session of the Parliament. Collusion, coercion, and compromise - just about everything is on offer to ensure a face-saving exit from this exercise. The growing concern among the US electorate about their government's involvement in numerous internecine conflicts around the world, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, has aggravated considerably in the context of the economic blow that has been recently administered requiring an expensive injection of $700 billion for immediate relief. This has already started showing in practically all pre-poll appraisals as Democrat Barack Obama has built a healthy double-digit lead over his competitor Republican John McCain. Notwithstanding the election hype and rhetoric, the growing divergence of perception with regard to conducting the war on terror amongst the two claimants of the US presidency, would only concretise well after the new administration has settled down in a post-election America. For Pakistan to have aligned itself so outlandishly with the Republican fixation of continuing to increase the scope and intensity of the conflicts in the region, and having conceded to all demands in this context going to the extent of broadening the theatre of conflict including pitting its forces against its own people, it would be nothing short of a miracle to adjust to the shift in the event of an expected democratic victory. Instead of having put all its cards on the table, Pakistan should have resorted to a more pragmatic policy pending the result of the US election. Thereafter, and having first secured its own national interests, Pakistan could have devised a sustaining anti-terror policy as well as the nature of its cooperation with the US and other actors engaged in the so-called war on terror. On both counts, Pakistan has already positioned itself in a compromising state. Having gone so far as to make tall claims of owning the war on terror as 'Pakistan's war', it would be swimming against the tide to expect that a reversal, or even a slight shift of policy, post US election, would sink in well with the proponents of the war irrespective of who wins. Instead, it would be perceived as an expression of a declining commitment meaning that, either way, Pakistan would be securely lodged in a no-win position. One is, therefore, constrained to ask as to what were the compulsions that prompted Pakistan to plunge headlong into a deepening quagmire without first having thought out an exit strategy? In view of the lack of transparency of the government's policies with regard to dealing with the former dictator and the absence of effort in making public the commitments that he may have made to the US as a partner in the war on terror, defence of its own position becomes extremely untenable, even suspect. The principal requirement is to come clean on the issue as it is causing untold bloodshed in the country with the prospect of severe economic fallout looming large. The manner in which the ongoing joint session of the Parliament is being conducted belies any such intention. In fact, it is a voluble testament to the government's desire to continue conducting its affairs in a non-transparent manner to the mounting agony of its people. There is no issue regarding the heinousness of the terrorist attacks. There is no issue with regard to the national resolve to confront the menace. The issue concerns only the manner in which the war on terror is being fought. The outlandish approach of subservience to the US dictate has only dented the public support. No wonder, therefore, that instead of being seen as a 'war on terror', it is being increasingly viewed as a 'war of terror' The writer is a media and political consultant based in Islamabad E-mail: raoofhasan@hotmail.com