It is a prevalent joke that diplomats are nice people, hired to tell lies abroad, particularly in the countries they serve as Ambassador. It typically fits William B. Milan, who has served as Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh. He is now senior policy scholar at the Woodrow William Centre in Washington, a very prestigious institution. The recent article titled Mixed Signals Again (published in a local English daily on February 4, 2009) he is overly disturbed over the Peace Accord which has been made in Swat to quell the insurgency. Peace is a sacrosanct value, whereas conflicts - insurgency or war are aberrations of human civilisation. Peace has to be achieved in the larger interest of the humanity, particularly when innocent men, women and children are killed for no reason whatsoever. Not to be touched by the atrocities reflects a callous heart and a dehumanised sensibility. By labelling it 'collateral damages', one cannot be absolved of the abhorring crimes, USA's presidents' predilection for war, notwithstanding the nuclear cruelty unleashed on Japan's two well populated cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki has a recurring record of at least invading two countries every year. George Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan twice, besides itching to attack Iran, but lost the courage to do so. He wanted to set a record of invading countries more than any president in the past. Being a formidable power and after the end of Cold War as the lone superpower, no US president has been subjected to accountability for crimes against humanity. The greater the power, greater is the immunity for gruesome acts of cruelty - Guatanamo Bay and Abu Gharib and other prisons are eloquent testimonies. The cruelty being committed on 'suspects' are no less or even perhaps more than what happened at the concentration camps established by the Nazis. Radicalism and extremist acts of violence are characteristic features of both the authoritarian countries as well as the so-called democratic ones. USA's use of deadly weapons through aerial attacks is indeed unprecedented. When you attack a country, without any credible reason, what should one expect from those who cannot reconcile to the fact why are they being killed? The feelings are typical of what Shakespeare said: "As flies to wanton boys, we are to gods, who kills us for their sport." The British tales of killing aboriginals in New Guinea is heart rendering as if they were not human beings. The Red Indians have been exterminated the same way in USA. What is intended to convey is that 'radicalism' creates counter-radicalism by the aggrieved and who do not possess state-of-art-weapon to avenge the pounding of bombs, which turns mountains into rubbles and rubbles into dust. The Iraqis were intensely puzzled what crimes they had committed against USA that they were subjected to such a ruthless aggression? What was grossly unethical was that a lie was concocted as a state policy to cover unwarranted crime. Radicalism is a natural concomitant of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan or when US drones are persistently being used to bomb and kill mostly the innocent ones in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Why extremism or radicalism thrives has been deliberately lost sight of. An introspection and deep understanding is needed to explain why Al-Qaeda came into being, which has now assumed international dimensions due to thoughtless War On Terror. Who created Al-Qaeda? It was USA, which after enjoying the ouster of its vital adversary - former Soviet Union - from Afghanistan, the fruits of freedom were denied to them. The Geneva Accord was a planned strategy to keep Afghanistan destabilised, with warlords fighting among themselves. Al-Qaeda leader - Osama bin Laden, was a hot favourite of CIA during the Afghan war against the Soviets. Thereafter, he was discarded and even Saudi Arabia, declined to accept him as its citizen, where he was born and brought up. A gross injustice was done to him. The Resistance initiated by Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was joined by Taliban to free their country from foreign occupation and their interest is totally confined to Afghanistan. If peace is delivered to them, they will relinquish their resistance, as they don't nourish any desire of terrorism in USA. Al-Qaeda is a different story. They have no territory of their own, but they have the whole world, as their abode. Their massive pressure in Afghanistan or Pakistan's tribal areas is a myth. They are out to avenge the tyranny against the Palestinians and redeem the land that belonged to them which Israel has usurped and not even cared to abide by the resolutions of United Nations - which has become a redundant institution, as it is totally being controlled by the superpower. United Nations has failed to achieve the objectives for which it came into being which was to remove the scourge of war and ensure that every nation enjoys its freedom. The War of Resistance prevails in Iraq, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, besides Kashmir, which is the worst victim of India's obduracy and its pathological urge to build an empire to be equated with the global powers. The idea to highlight is that the cure of radicalism is deliverance of justice and not to usurp the autonomy and dignity of any country. As far as the inhabitants of FATA, Swat or other tribal areas are concerned they are unhappy with Pakistan, because they are being killed at the behest of Americans. Their resistant and anger is against USA and its policies. Moreover, the contention that the tribal areas are the haven for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban elements from Afghanistan is patently wrong and overly exaggerated. The trouble mongers are a mix of opportunists, some of them being bought by heavy bribes to serve as agent saboteurs. They are the main mischief mongers. The recent assault on cricket and attempt to kill the Sri Lankan players is a deliberate act to malign Pakistan and deprive it of hosting foreign teams. The resurgence of Islamic parties in the tribal belt is mainly due to the Afghan War. If today there is peace in Afghanistan, it can safely be predicted that the region would become free of strifes and conflicts. Palestinians must get real justice, and the US president should pick up courage to force the Zionist Jewish lobby to return them their lands, they have occupied and implement the 'two governments' proposal. Peace deals are the imperatives of the time. If these have failed in the past, as in Swat or elsewhere in Pakistan's tribal belt, one should look for the "spoilers" of peace and not condemn the peace process itself. Milan's contention that 'deals' are Faustian bargains, is a typical assumption of those who wish Pakistan a kind of disability and resurgence of radicalism so that a justification is made that in view of such a large scale of chaos in the country, its strategic weapons are in the risk of being taken over by the extremist elements. No Sir, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are much safer than any country, India, Israel or for that matter even USA. Pakistan's political history abundantly testifies that it has always adhered to a moderate liberal ethos and in no elections the radical Islamic parties have been able to get more than five to ten percent votes. Radicalism is not due to the inclusion of objective Resolution of 1949. It is patently wrong to assume as Milan points out that this Resolution was included in the constitution just as a ruse to pacify the Islamists. It was congruent to the Two Nation Theory, and the genesis of the creation of Pakistan. It was only to affirm that no laws would be promulgated which are repugnant to the Quranic injunctions and the sayings of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon Him). Radicalism is not at all a function of the objective resolution; rather it is only due to the betrayal of those freedom fighters, who had joined their brethren in ousting the Red Army from the soils of Afghanistan. The end of cold war had given a great opportunity to USA to establish its leadership over the world, through a paradigm of justice and cooperation, which is very arduously being followed by China. The use of military power 'to take control of Iraq's oil and of the Central Asian states', via Afghanistan, was a blatant blunder that George Bush committed. Milan apparently appears to be the camp follower of the Republican Party. He therefore 'abhors peace efforts in Swat'. One would rather wish that peace is established not only in the tribal areas, but also in Afghanistan through dialogue. Induction of more forces would not result in eliminating the Taliban. It would be a futile venture. Establishment of trust is the basic requirement for the reason that USA is the most hated nation not only in Afghanistan or tribal areas of Pakistan, but in the whole country as such. The Afghans would never reconcile to defeat, and will achieve a hat-trick of defeating the British, the former Soviet Union and now the US-NATO coalition. Obama's main venture should be to rebuild the bruised image of USA. Commitment to 'change' must reflect a new paradigm of peace rather than be a shadow of the most hated president - George Bush. The article is a rejoinder to William B. Milan The writer is a political analyst E-mail: