Quackery gives birth to nothing; but gives death to all. Balochistan's present need is not heroics but healing, not nostrums by which Balochs vainly hope they may get more time to waste. In February, 2005, the US Intelligence Council predicted that Pakistan would be driven by political instability in the next decade and alleged that there was a possibility of Pakistan nuclear assets might be stolen by the Islamist extremists. This mischievous report was posted on CIA's website with a detailed chapter on Pakistan. The council's reports are supposedly updated every 5 years. One assessment in the report was that by the year 2015, there could be political instability in Pakistan with the possibility of a civil war. Instead of taking a firm stand against such CIA slanders, Musharraf's foreign office spokesman, Masood Khan just described these assessments as highly speculative and implored that a responsible institution like the CIA should not have put them on its website. At the same time, instead of protesting to Washington, he criticised the Indian media for propagating the report that had described Pakistan as a "failed state." The spokesman forgot that Indian media couldn't control the CIA. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contra wise, no amount of force can control a freeman, a man whose mind is free. Not the rack, not the fission bombs, not anything; you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is to kill him. Balochistan is being pushed into a conflict, virtually a civil war, which would ultimately push it to a breaking point in accordance with Washington's plan for ultimate hegemony in South and Central Asia. It is now well established that both Washington and London are trying to Balkanise Pakistan into three zones; a new map is being proposed by the US Armed Forces Journal, which shows that only Sindh and Punjab would remain as Pakistan, while NWFP and Balochistan separating to constitute greater Afghanistan and greater Balochistan with Iranian Balochistan amalgamated with it. This would directly involve Iran in the conflict and would open a door for US-Israel to destabilise Iran. The Obama administration is increasingly treating its growing intervention in Pakistan as another counterinsurgency war for which it is demanding the same kind of extraordinary military powers that Bush had used in Afghanistan and Iraq. And this was the message delivered by Pentagon officials to Capitol Hill over the last few days, along with increasingly calamitous warnings that without immediate and unconditional US military funding, the Pakistan government could collapse. Recently, Defence Secretary Gates warned Congress that unless it quickly approved some 400 million dollars requested by Pentagon for a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, the Pakistan army would run out of funding within weeks for its operations against insurgents in NWFP and other areas of the country. The proposed $400 million in military aid for Pakistan is part of the $83.5 billion supplementary funding grant requested by Obama, the bulk of which would go to pay for the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaking before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Gates said that the Pentagon was requesting full control of the military aid be vested with General Petraeus, the chief of the US military's Central Command. He claimed that Pentagon needed "this unique authority for the unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan for dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires wartime and peacetime capabilities." Some members of the Congress have balked at the demand that echoes the heavy-handed tactics of the Bush administration in demanding immediate passage of military funding for Iraq and Afghanistan with no strings attached. The Washington Post pointed out: "Lawmakers in the House and Senate have voiced concerns about creating the new Pakistan military funding stream through the Pentagon." Traditionally, such military aid flows through the State Department and is subjected to Foreign Assistance Act restrictions. The $400 million is part of a $3 billion, five-year aid package that would see another $700 million in military assistance go to Pakistan in fiscal year 2010. This aid programme envisions a major expansion of US training of Pakistani security forces, further than the 70 US special operations troops that Islamabad had quietly allowed to train the Frontier Corps (FC) and Pakistani special forces units. Part of the plan envisages the training of officers and troops outside Pakistan. In addition, Washington would provide extensive new military hardware, including helicopters, night-vision goggles and small arms. Under the US law, the State Department is supposed to oversee military aid programmes and ensure that they are carried out in accordance with the US foreign policy and legal restrictions on such aid. An exception is made when the US is at war; the grounds claimed by Bush in side-stepping these restrictions in implementing similar programmes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Washington Post quoted Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell as saying that the use of similar arguments in Pakistan involved "walking a pretty fine line." He continued: "This is not a war zone for the US troops. But given the urgency of the situation, we need similar authorities in order to help Pakistan train and equip its troops for counterinsurgency operations." General Petraeus made the same point more forcefully in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee in which he warned of a potential government collapse in Pakistan. He claimed that the so-called US progress in Afghanistan and Iraq had been achieved because these funds were readily available and commanders had been able to rapidly adjust to the changing ground conditions. He said that it is the same free hand we needed in Pakistan, "where a growing insurgency threatens the country's very existence that has a direct and deadly impact on US and the coalition forces operating in Afghanistan." This very well explains the determination of Pentagon, the State Department and the White House to ensure military aid flows through the military and not byway of normal State Department channels that are subject to the Foreign Assistance Act. Among the Act's restrictions is a prohibition on granting military aid to a country whose duly elected head of government was deposed by decree or military coup. The Act's restrictions were not followed by Bush in his eight years stint, and are not being followed by the Obama administration in 2009. The apparent aim seems to be the same; asserting US hegemony over the strategically vital oil rich regions of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, and Pakistani province of Balochistan that is the linchpin for the accomplishment of this sinister mission. Balochistan with its immense resources would also provide an economically viable energy corridor from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the port of Gwadar, away from the clutches of the Russian bear. At the same time, it would remove a strong Pakistan as an obstacle to India, so that it might act as a true counterweight to China. Dr Abdul Hayee Baloch, leader of the National Party expressed the Baloch anger when in March 2009, he said: "When the country was being ruled by a military dictator, any so-called parliamentary committee couldn't possibly play any positive role to resolve the Balochistan enigma....The people of Balochistan would not let Gwadar to become part of Karachi. They would not accept any mega project in the name of development and progress, and would not, at any cost, let the land mafia from any other province grab lands in Gwadar." The question is; would Russia and China take it lying down? What about Islamabad? Would it keep on fighting with the Pathans and the Balochs till we fall apart? It is high time for Nawaz Sharif to call for a "long march" to restore the rights of the people of Balochistan and bring the abettor military dictator to book for the blatant murder of Nawab Akbar Bugti. The writer is a former inspector general of Police