Lately, there has been a spate of articles in the English press urging the government to take resolute military action against the so-called militants in the tribal region. In almost all the cases, it is assumed that the tribesmen are responsible for initiating the hostilities. There is a misreading of history involved at many levels. It was not the tribesmen but Pakistan's military dictator who imposed the war. Writing in the Washington Times on 7th April 2006, even the CIA insider, Michael Scheuer, admits: "Pakistan, for example, had no enemies in the Taliban or Al Qaeda until (the Pakistani leader) made them such at our behest. Likewise, there could have been no better Afghan government for Pakistan than the Taliban regime, and yet (the Pakistani leader) helped America destroy it and replace it with the Karzai regime, a government that has allowed an enormous increase in the Indian presence in Afghanistan". To date, Pakistan has had more soldiers killed and wounded than the US-led coalition in Afghanistan. More dangerously, the offensives are stoking the fires of a potential civil war between Islamabad and the Pakhtun tribes that dominate much of the Pakistani side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. This situation is most opportune for Pakistan's enemies, the Karzai regime and India, to fuel Pakhtun irredentism. The insurgency in Afghanistan is against the continued foreign occupation of the country. Its spillover into Pakistan was predictable and should have been anticipated. Western pressure for military action by Pakistan is understandable. It is for us to decide if it is wise policy to put the safety and security of the entire nation at risk to facilitate the dubious aims of some foreign power. -K. HUSSAN ZIA, Lahore, via e-mail, July 10.