AfPak: Josh Wingrove going Globeite?/A true Globeite

One has been generally impressed with the pretty straight reporting of the Globe and Mail's new man in the 'stan. Now however he seems to be catching the paper's stinkin' agenda. His story today:

Top Taliban’s arrest an ominous signal
Recent detentions of moderates in Pakistan push Taliban further from conciliation, analysts fear

The NY Times story:

Pakistani Reports Capture of Taliban Leader

In another blow to the Taliban senior leadership, Pakistani authorities have captured Mullah Abdul Kabir, a member of the group’s inner circle and a leading military commander against American forces in eastern Afghanistan, according to a Pakistani intelligence official...

Yet again the paper's editorial writers and the "news" staff are at sixes and sevens. As Norman Spector puts it after listing the Globe story above:

...

--Two papers in one!

According to plan - Globe and Mail

the combination of this offensive and Pakistan's capture of some of Mullah Omar's lieutenants have made this a good month in Afghanistan...

Then there's ace Globeite reporter, columnist, whatever Doug Saunders--a letter sent to the paper and not published:

Pakistan, the Taliban, and Kashmir‏

Doug Saunders is rather confused about the geography of Pakistan and its dispute over Kashmir with India. He writes (Let's refocus: Kashmir, not Kabul, Feb. 20) that Pakistan, with CIA help, "captured the Taliban's second-ranking Afghan leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in northern Pakistan." In fact Mullah Baradar was captured in Karachi, the country's largest city and seaport (as reported by the Globe's Paul Koring on Feb. 17), in southern Pakistan far away from the frontier area with Afghanistan that is the Taliban's stronghold.

Mr. Saunders also writes this about Kashmir: "For India, resolution is worth a loss of face. For Pakistan, it never will be." Hardly. India will accept no resolution of the dispute that lessens the sovereignty it claims over the part of Kashmir it now holds--the largest. Such a resolution on the other hand is the only type acceptable to Pakistan, but would involve a loss of face no Indian government could endure. It is moreover simply inaccurate to claim, as Mr. Saunders does, that "The two nuclear powers came very close to resolving their Kashmir conflict in 2008." Broad talks on several matters, including Kashmir, may have been making some minor progress; there were no signs of a breakthrough on the key Kashmir question.

The essence of the dispute is that Pakistan does not accept the legitimacy of the accession of the Muslim-majority Indian princely state of Kashmir to India, rather than Pakistan, upon the two countries' independence in 1947. Whatever one may think of the merits of each country's case, it is noteworthy that India refuses to accept that a plebiscite be held in Kashmir on the territory's status--as called for by the UN Security Council in 1948.

References:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259951000.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/2.stm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm